Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

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

Greg Hooper ‎(‎enter ‎8‎:‎12 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Melinda Hill‎

Leah Potere‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero ‎(‎enterr ‎7‎:‎39 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Director‎

Stephen Dearing, Traffic Engineer‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ The Chair welcomed Melinda Hill as the City Council Representative to ‎

the Planning Commission‎.‎

B‎.‎ Revised Planning Commission roster‎

C‎.‎ Flyer received by staff regarding Agenda Items III‎.‎A and V‎.‎A‎.‎

D‎.‎ The Chair received further information regarding Great Oaks Country ‎

Club which will be discussed during that item‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1755

Proposed Amendment to the Master Transportation Plan Update ‎(‎Public ‎

Hearing‎) - ‎To consider an amendment to the Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Map of the ‎

City of Rochester Hills Master Transportation Plan Update to revise Figure C‎-‎1‎, ‎

Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Plan to change the future right‎-‎of‎-‎way for Rochester Road ‎

from ‎150 ‎feet to ‎180 ‎feet from South Boulevard north to the City limit at Arlington ‎

Drive, and to add Appendix C‎-‎1 ‎to list the right‎-‎of‎-‎way dimensions of the ‎

corresponding parcels within the affected area of Rochester Road‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated December ‎1‎, ‎1999 ‎

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

The Chair informed those present that the City of Troy is fairly far along in their ‎

commitment to widening Rochester Road up to their northern boundary at South ‎

Boulevard‎. ‎The Chair explained in ‎1997 ‎an update to the City of Rochester Hills ‎

Master Transportation Plan was undertaken with a consultant‎. ‎During that process ‎

several public hearings were held‎. ‎The Planning Commission and the administration ‎

studied major, connector, and arterial roads, and ultimately came up with the update ‎

that was adopted‎. ‎During the discussions the Planning Commission considered ‎

increasing the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of Rochester Road‎. ‎The Chair clarified that increasing a ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way does not mean that the widening of a road is imminent, but rather it puts ‎

the city, property owners, the State and Federal government on notice that the road is ‎

available to be included to a width of ‎180 ‎feet‎. ‎It allows property owners, sellers or ‎

purchasers, to plan for the future‎. ‎The road cannot ultimately be widened without the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way being established‎. ‎In ‎1997 ‎when the Master Transportation Plan was ‎

being updated, the Planning Commission considered whether or not to increase the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way for Rochester Road‎. ‎There was a fair amount of encouragement to do ‎

so at the time, but the Planning Commission chose not to address the right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

issue at that time because in the following year the Planning Commission would ‎

embark on an update to the Master Land Use Plan‎. ‎They would be studying ‎

Rochester Road as well as other corridors in the city in terms of actual land uses‎.‎

[ ‎ENTER RUGGIERO, ‎7‎:‎39 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Continuing, the Chair explained during the course of the Master Land Use Plan ‎

Update ‎

a separate study of Rochester Road was commissioned, particularly whether or not ‎

the right‎-‎of‎-‎way should be increased to ‎180 ‎feet from ‎150 ‎feet‎. ‎The consultant, in ‎

conjunction with the City Traffic Engineer and city staff, determined whether it should ‎

be widened and, if so, in what manner ‎-- ‎take ‎90 ‎feet in each direction from the ‎

middle of the road, or should the center of the ‎180 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way meander back ‎

and forth to accommodate the existing land uses along the corridor‎. ‎The Master Land ‎

Use Plan Update process was also subjected to at least four public hearings ‎

culminating in a decision to widen the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of Rochester Road so that owners, ‎

users, federal authorities, state authorities, as well as city residents, taxpayers would ‎

have it in mind should development occur‎. ‎The widening of the right‎-‎of‎-‎way was ‎

approved in the Master Land Use Plan‎. ‎Now what is needed is for the Master ‎

Transportation Plan to be brought into sync with the Master Land Use Plan‎. ‎The ‎

mission tonight is to conduct a public hearing concerning the issue, knowing all of the ‎

history‎.‎

In response to a flyer that was distributed to the community by an unknown party, the ‎

Chair provided accurate information refuting some of the misinformation in the flyer‎. ‎

In response to comments on the flyer, the Chair emphasized that neither Mayor ‎

Somerville nor City Traffic Engineer Stephen Dearing had anything to do with setting ‎

tonight's agenda‎. ‎In response to another comment on the flyer, the Chair clarified that ‎

this item, and the Letica Drive extension, were not scheduled during the holiday ‎

season to fool anyone or to hide anything‎. ‎The Chair clarified that he was approached ‎

by two citizens of the community to address the issue of the extension of Letica Drive, ‎

and the chair agreed to place it on an agenda‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

Ed Baron, ‎3310 ‎Greenspring,‎ in light of Ms‎. ‎Goodwin's imminent departure from ‎

the city as Director of Planning thanked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin for her dedication to the ‎

community, and stated that the city is losing a tremendous resource‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron asked ‎

if the character of Downtown Rochester would be destroyed, and would parking have ‎

to be eliminated on Rochester Road to accommodate the traffic flow, as in the City of ‎

Berkley‎. ‎In that city it changed the character of the downtown area, and created the ‎

feeling of just passing through‎. ‎The reason why there are vacant properties on ‎

Rochester Road is because of the amount of traffic‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron was concerned that ‎

Rochester Road would become another Telegraph Road‎. ‎

Brenda Savage, ‎1715 ‎Northumberland Dr‎.‎,‎ agreed with the previous speaker's ‎

comments and urged the commission to consider the character of the community and ‎

the possible destruction of the quality of life as well as the impact on property values‎. ‎

It would be wrong to consider this just because other communities are doing this; ‎

progress cannot be stopped‎. ‎It would create cut‎-‎through traffic in neighborhoods‎.‎

Kelly Esman, ‎26 ‎Regal,‎ was in favor of the proposal‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Esman was tired of all ‎

the traffic and gridlock‎. ‎Making the road more adequate will not stop the increase in ‎

traffic‎. ‎A shared center left turn lane is dangerous; a boulevard design will be safer, ‎

and crashes will be reduced‎. ‎Property values will increase because it will be easier for ‎

older drivers to get onto the road, and it will be possible to get around the city‎.‎

There being no other persons coming forward to speak, the Chair ‎closed the public ‎

hearing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing responded to the public comments‎. ‎From a planning perspective it ‎

makes eminent sense to increase the planned right‎-‎of‎-‎way as it basically helps to ‎

preserve options for the community both now and into the future‎. ‎The heaviest traffic ‎

flow on Rochester Road exists closest to the M‎-‎59 ‎freeway‎. ‎And traffic volumes ‎

remain heavy as traffic moves northward but then do, in fact, decrease‎. ‎That is one of ‎

the reasons why the city is not recommending a six lane boulevard up to the City of ‎

Rochester's doorstep and downtown‎. ‎It was the intent of the Thoroughfare Plan, and ‎

was validated within the context of the Master Land Use Plan, that the boulevard ‎

would end slightly north of Avon Road‎. ‎Then the road would dissipate to the existing ‎

five lane road prior to the bridge leading into Downtown Rochester‎. ‎Another point for ‎

Planning Commissioners to keep in mind, remembering that we want to keep options ‎

open, is recognizing that the community has a keen interest in promoting safety‎. ‎

Rochester Road is perennially in the Top Five for greatest number of crashes, and the ‎

number of crashes is slightly increasing over time‎. ‎Rochester Road is also a high crash ‎

location for Oakland County and for the entire Southeast Michigan region‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Dearing urged some sort of improvement along this corridor that will have a ‎

measurable impact on improving safety for the community‎. ‎Widening the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way would have no material impact on travel‎. ‎If the pavement were actually ‎

widened, traffic would be attracted off the parallel north‎/‎south routes to Rochester ‎

Road‎. ‎A decision was made in the past to have Rochester Road as the main ‎

north‎/‎south road and widened to five lanes to take pressure off other roads‎. ‎

Improvements on John R and Livernois could be avoided by improving Rochester ‎

Road‎. ‎It would be a way of satisfying the existing travel demands, anticipating future ‎

travel demands, and doing it in a way that concentrates those improvements on what is ‎

considered a commercial corridor to the benefit and security of other parallel roads ‎

which are predominately residential‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that Rochester Road, from a land use perspective, does ‎

have most of the major commercial land uses in the city‎. ‎It is a major state trunk line, ‎

and the only state trunk line other than the freeway that collects traffic throughout the ‎

community‎. ‎As such, the Planning Commission and Master Plan consultant wrestled ‎

with options for meandering the road in a way to take advantage of vacant parcels and ‎

minimize disruptions to developed parcels‎. ‎The table in the packet shows that the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way width differs by parcel, which is a conscious attempt to recognize existing ‎

developments‎. ‎The widening of the right‎-‎of‎-‎way would have the greatest impact on ‎

parking areas and only in very few instances would impact existing buildings‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing explained that the first page of Table C‎-‎1 ‎shows the existing right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

and the balance is proposed right‎-‎of‎-‎way, showing how many feet would come from ‎

the east side and how many feet from the west side of Rochester Road‎. ‎The request ‎

to the Planning Commission is to consider amending the Master Thoroughfare Plan by ‎

including the ‎7‎-‎page Rochester Road Corridor Master Right‎-‎Of‎-‎Way Plan Table C‎-‎1 ‎

in the Master Thoroughfare Plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing confirmed for Member Potere that state, national, and international ‎

studies of roadways all show that boulevards are safer than undivided roadways‎. ‎

Based on US national standards, even with increased traffic loadings on a ‎

boulevarded Rochester Road, the community could expect crashes to drop by ‎40 ‎

percent to ‎60 ‎percent below current figures‎. ‎

Member Rosen liked to look at the big picture and strongly believed it is more ‎

important to do the right thing than the wrong thing even if done correctly‎. ‎Member ‎

Rosen was never enthralled with the idea of a classic six lane road which would ‎

become another Telegraph and do irreparable damage to the community‎. ‎Increasing ‎

the right‎-‎of‎-‎way for Rochester Road would make it possible to do the right thing if we ‎

choose to do so in the future, and to do it in the right way‎. ‎This is a rare opportunity ‎

to address traffic, safety, and property concerns as well as prepare for redevelopment ‎

along Rochester Road in a way that has potential to improve the community‎.‎

[ ‎ENTER HOOPER, ‎8‎:‎12 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Chair pointed out that a vote of approval would require six affirmative votes ‎

because this is a component of the Master Plan‎.‎

Commissioners suggested the following changes to be included in Table C‎-‎1‎, the ‎

proposed amendment to the Master Thoroughfare Plan‎. ‎Include a header on all pages ‎

of the table to identify the columns; use street addresses or Sidwell numbers instead of ‎

residents' names to identify properties, thereby addressing privacy concerns; clarify ‎

that the right‎-‎of‎-‎way widening applies from South Boulevard northerly to Arlington ‎

Drive‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Ruggiero, to ‎approve‎ an amendment to the ‎

Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Map of the City of Rochester Hills Master Transportation Plan ‎

Update, to revise Figure C‎-‎1‎, Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Plan to change the future ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way for Rochester Road from ‎150 ‎feet to ‎180 ‎feet from South Boulevard ‎

northerly to Arlington Drive, and to add Appendix C‎-‎1 ‎to list the right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

dimensions of the corresponding parcels within the affected area of Rochester Road‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, Rosen, ‎

Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Hill ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated December ‎1‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

Rochester Road Corridor Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Plan Table C‎-‎1‎; Master ‎

Thoroughfare Plan Update Figure C‎-‎1 ‎Rev‎. ‎October ‎27‎, ‎1999‎; Notice of Public ‎

Hearing Amendment to the Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Map of the Master Transportation ‎

Plan Update; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September ‎21‎, ‎1999‎.)‎

___________________________‎

[ ‎EXIT DEARING, ‎8‎:‎25 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Approved

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1985

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎031 ‎- ‎Great Oaks Country ‎

Club, a ‎3‎,‎727 ‎square‎-‎foot addition to the clubhouse; tennis court relocation, and ‎

parking lot expansion, located north of Walton, west of Great Oaks Boulevard, ‎

Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎10‎-‎101‎-‎087‎, zoned R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential, David P‎. ‎Grake, ‎

General Manager, Great Oaks Country Club, ‎777 ‎Great Oaks Boulevard, ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Michele Goldstein dated November ‎29‎, ‎1999 ‎

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

Present were Dave Kjelstrom, architect; David Grake, general manager of Great ‎

Oaks Country Club; Bob Walton of AES Engineers; various representatives of the ‎

club‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin summarized pertinent descriptions of the project as contained in the ‎

staff report‎. ‎The applicant proposes to add some small additions to the clubhouse, ‎

relocate the existing tennis courts currently along Great Oaks Boulevard to the east of ‎

the clubhouse facility, remove some of the existing parking lot, and add landscaping ‎

and screening improvements‎. ‎There are regulated trees on the subject site, nine of ‎

which are proposed to be removed and replaced‎. ‎The proposed additions to the ‎

clubhouse total ‎3‎,‎727 ‎square feet, with a usable square footage of ‎1‎,‎050 ‎square feet‎. ‎

Also proposed is a covered driveway to the clubhouse entrance; ‎202 ‎square feet of ‎

addition to the west side of the clubhouse facing the golf course; a two‎-‎story addition ‎

to the west of the clubhouse facing the golf course which is ‎690 ‎square feet on the first ‎

floor and ‎590 ‎square feet on the second floor; a two‎-‎story addition to the southwest ‎

corner of the clubhouse with ‎400 ‎square feet on the first floor and ‎830 ‎square feet on ‎

the second floor; a new ‎35 ‎x ‎20 ‎tennis building for a total of ‎700 ‎square feet; and a ‎

315 ‎square foot addition to the existing poolhouse‎. ‎The proposed changes are ‎

contained within the area of the existing parking lot, tennis courts, and clubhouse‎. ‎The ‎

existing tennis courts are proposed to be relocated to the west side of the southern ‎

portion of the site adjacent to the existing clubhouse‎. ‎In the area of the current tennis ‎

court location the club is proposing to add a total of ‎104 ‎parking spaces north of the ‎

existing parking area along Great Oaks Boulevard with five other new spaces added ‎

adjacent to the clubhouse‎. ‎The total number of parking spaces required based on the ‎

additional square footage for the clubhouse would be ‎312‎, and the total spaces ‎

provided is ‎312‎. ‎A portion of the subject site lies within the City of Rochester‎. ‎

However, most of the improvements and most of the site are located within the City of ‎

Rochester Hills‎. ‎The municipal boundary runs along Great Oaks Boulevard‎. ‎A ‎

Planning Commission meeting was held in Rochester regarding the portion of the site ‎

that lies within its municipal boundaries‎. ‎Concerns from that meeting were regarding ‎

screen fencing materials, originally proposed to be vinyl but now changed to cedar‎. ‎

The Rochester Planning Commission took no action pending the actions of the ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Commission‎.‎

Regarding off‎-‎street parking screening requirements, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin summarized that ‎

the standards of Section ‎21‎.‎05 ‎are applicable, requiring a continuous obscuring ‎

screening when property is adjacent to residential zoning districts‎. ‎The proposed ‎

parking along great Oaks Boulevard is across the street from single family residential ‎

in the City of Rochester‎. ‎The proposal does include a six foot high cedar board on ‎

board style fence that meets the requirements of the ordinance‎. ‎A ‎20 ‎foot high ‎

intermittent visual obstruction height is provided as well as a ‎25 ‎foot buffer width to ‎

provide screening of headlights and noise‎. ‎The approval of the fence location outside ‎

the buffer zone is requested and recommended for approval by the City of Rochester ‎

Hills landscape consultant‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kjelstrom displayed a rendering of the subject site and described the proposed ‎

improvements‎. ‎There is an existing berm along Great Oaks Boulevard consisting of ‎

several tall pine trees and extensive landscaping‎. ‎The intent is to preserve the ‎

landscaping and berm as well as providing a new fence and additional landscaping to ‎

screen the fence‎. ‎The pool and adjacent parking area are currently screened by an ‎

eight‎-‎foot fence to be retained‎. ‎The reason for moving the tennis courts is to move ‎

them closer to the locker room areas and snack bar in the existing poolhouse, and to ‎

make it easier for parents to supervise and chauffeur their children‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Grake ‎

confirmed that safety issues were the reason for moving the tennis courts as well as a ‎

desire to create a cohesive arrangement for activities‎. ‎Moving the tennis courts would ‎

eliminate the horseshoe shaped drive which has been the scene of several accidents ‎

involving children‎.‎

‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public‎.‎

The following letters included in commissioners' packets are entered into the ‎

record‎. ‎The Chair noted that the majority of the letters speak not against the ‎

proposed changes but rather that certain considerations be given to the ‎

existing adjacent residents The Chair explained that Planning Commissioners ‎

cannot place themselves in individuals' homes and make a decision from that ‎

perspective; Planning Commissioners must consider the entire community in ‎

making their decision‎:‎

Michael T‎. ‎McTigue, Fairwood Villas Condominium Association,‎ ‎

September ‎3‎, ‎1999‎

Thomas and Barbara Murphy, ‎836 ‎Great Oaks,‎ October ‎14‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

October ‎9‎, ‎1999‎

Tom Murphy, ‎836 ‎Great Oaks,‎ dated received October ‎25‎, ‎1999‎,‎

Carla Brisbois‎-‎Gribbs, ‎1060 ‎Hemlock,‎ October ‎28‎, ‎1999‎, ‎

Beth Watson, ‎929 ‎Hemlock,‎ November ‎5‎, ‎1999‎,‎

Mark and Patty Kanaras, ‎1003 ‎Hemlock,‎ November ‎6‎, ‎1999‎,‎

Michael and Naomi Behrmann, ‎1080 ‎Great Oaks Blvd‎.‎,‎ November ‎6‎, ‎

1999‎;‎

Diane and Kevin Goethals, ‎1034 ‎Great Oaks Blvd‎.‎, Rochester,‎ ‎

November ‎7‎, ‎1999‎

Clarence and Lucy Strand, ‎980 ‎Great Oaks Blvd‎.‎, Rochester,‎ ‎

November ‎8‎, ‎1999‎

Renate Kaupp, ‎87 ‎Aspen, Rochester,‎ November ‎8‎, ‎1999 ‎

Scott and Jacqueline Siegel, ‎864 ‎Aspen Court, Rochester,‎ November ‎8‎, ‎

1999‎

Mark VanPoppelen, ‎872 ‎Aspen Dr‎.‎, Rochester,‎ November ‎8‎, ‎1999‎

Della and Joe Grubb, ‎1063 ‎Hemlock Drive, Rochester,‎ November ‎9‎, ‎

1999‎

Vince and Victoria Carter, ‎852 ‎Aspen Ct‎.‎, Rochester,‎ November ‎10‎, ‎

1999‎

Peter and Nancy Schneider, ‎1049 ‎Great Oaks Blvd‎.‎, ‎received ‎

November ‎10‎, ‎1999‎

James K‎. ‎Thompson, Jr‎.‎, ‎814 ‎Aspen, Rochester,‎ dated November ‎11‎, ‎

1999‎

Robert C‎. ‎And Joan M‎. ‎Paterson, ‎985 ‎Hemlock Dr‎.‎, Rochester,‎ ‎

November ‎12‎, ‎1999‎

Rick and Leah Herbert, ‎880 ‎Great Oaks Blvd‎.‎, Rochester,‎ November ‎

12‎, ‎1999‎

Frank and Bonnie Lahde, ‎966 ‎Hemlock, Rochester,‎ November ‎13‎, ‎

1999‎

William and Sheila Lyle, ‎925 ‎Aspen Drive, Rochester,‎ received ‎

November ‎15‎, ‎1999‎

Great Oaks Homeowners Association Board of Directors, ‎815 ‎Aspen, ‎

Rochester,‎ dated November ‎22‎, ‎1999‎

Herbert and Sandra Taube, ‎820 ‎Aspen, Rochester,‎ November ‎29‎, ‎1999‎

The following persons spoke regarding Great Oaks Country Club additions‎:‎

Wendy Dessy, ‎816 ‎Great Oaks‎, lives directly across the street from the ‎

existing tennis courts and would prefer a brick fence to a cedar fence to shield ‎

residents from the noise generated by the increased parking area‎. ‎She did not want to ‎

see the vacant lot used for parking‎.‎

Denise Wright, ‎864 ‎Great Oaks Blvd‎.‎, stated that tennis courts are much ‎

easier on the eyes and ears than a parking lot and voiced the same concerns already ‎

mentioned‎..‎

Thomas Murphy, ‎836 ‎Great Oaks‎, lives the closest to the proposed ‎

parking area and asked for the most appropriate and attractive screening‎.‎

Jeff Cuthbertson, ‎1002 ‎Hemlock Dr‎.‎, urged that attention be given to the ‎

impact that a decision will have on the relationship between the two communities‎.‎

Jeffrey Groen, ‎1554 ‎Scenic Hollow, Rochester Hills‎, supported the ‎

proposed changes and did not see where there had been ‎“‎callous disregard‎” ‎for the ‎

community as stated in one of the letters‎.‎

Carla Brisbois‎-‎Gribbs, ‎1060 ‎Hemlock‎, stated that the club has not ‎

considered any comments made by the Great Oaks East community except to change ‎

the fence to cedar and urged that the applicant be required to insure greater ‎

compatibility with the character of the existing neighborhood‎. ‎Specific ‎

recommendations included a staggered row of significantly sized evergreens to ‎

ultimately achieve a solid green wall in front of a brick fence; quickly growing and full ‎

evergreens such as spruce planted ‎6 ‎or ‎8 ‎feet on center with a significant berm; ‎

shoebox type lights no more than ‎16 ‎feet in height; the elevation of the parking lot be ‎

no higher than the lowest elevation that currently exists‎.‎

Betsy Jagosz, ‎1111 ‎Hemlock‎, representative of the board of directors of ‎

the Great Oaks Homeowners Association, asked that adequate screening for noise ‎

and lights be provided for the activities that sometimes don't end until ‎2 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎A ‎

masonry wall would be more appropriate than cedar‎. ‎She asked that the impact on ‎

the residential neighborhood be minimized to the greatest extent‎.‎

There were no more comments from the public‎.‎

The Chair noted that a determination needs to be made whether an amendment to the ‎

Conditional Land Use request recommended for approval by the Planning ‎

Commission on November ‎8‎, ‎1988 ‎is required‎. ‎The Chair reviewed that a site plan is ‎

usually submitted with a request for a conditional land use, and it was unclear to the ‎

Chair if the subject site plan is the same site plan approved with the conditional land ‎

use request from ‎1988‎. ‎The Chair would also like to know if there were conditions ‎

attached to that conditional land use request‎. ‎The Chair believed the original ‎

conditional land use approval was granted in early ‎1980 ‎or ‎1981‎. ‎The Chair ‎

described the subject request as a change of the view to the residential neighbors with ‎

the majority of the parking area being placed closer to those neighbors‎. ‎Member ‎

Ruggiero ‎

concurred and added that clearly the use of that portion of the subject site would be ‎

changed, from a tennis court to a parking lot‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kjelstrom described that the proposed tennis courts would extend to the north ‎

approximately ‎20 ‎feet, the length of one parking space, beyond the existing footprint ‎

of the tennis court, and the screen fence would be placed at that point‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kjelstrom ‎

pointed out the locations of the first tennis court, second tennis court, and the third ‎

tennis court; the proposed paved area will extend ‎20 ‎additional feet‎. ‎The existing ‎

tennis court surface will not be extended to the east‎. ‎The only proposed expansion ‎

will be to the north‎.‎

Tom Finerty, ‎member of Great Oaks Country Club, took issue with the ‎

Chair's suggestion of requiring a revised conditional land use‎. ‎The proposed change is ‎

relatively minor‎. ‎In ‎1988 ‎City Council granted conditional land use approval for the ‎

tennis court and parking‎. ‎All they are proposing now is moving one to the other‎. ‎In ‎

1988 ‎residents spoke in opposition to the placement of the tennis courts in their ‎

current location because they did not want the noise and bother of tennis courts‎. ‎The ‎

residents were not happy with tennis courts in ‎1988‎, and they are not happy now with ‎

parking in the area of the tennis courts‎. ‎They are willing to work with the citizens of ‎

Rochester in any way they can to make the proposed project work for them, but they ‎

have to make the proposed change in order to get the required number of parking ‎

spaces to please the City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎

Ed Cicero, ‎the construction manager for the project, stated that they have ‎

made every design change possible in order to avoid requesting any variances‎. ‎It is ‎

important for them to work within the confines of the ordinance requirements which ‎

they believe protect the interests of the residents‎. ‎The proposed cedar fence is ‎

designed to blend with the architecture with the building‎. ‎There is very little masonry ‎

on the existing buildings‎. ‎The existing three foot high berm along Great Oaks ‎

Boulevard will remain‎. ‎In accordance with the ordinance the fence is placed behind ‎

the berm so the only part of the fence that will be visible from cars will be the top three ‎

feet‎. ‎The bottom part of the fence will be shielded by the berm which is currently ‎

landscaped‎. ‎An extensive landscape plan has been prepared to in‎-‎fill the areas and to ‎

enhance the existing landscaping to further conceal the fence‎. ‎He wanted the residents ‎

to be aware that their concerns have been taken into consideration‎. ‎Masonry was ‎

considered, but they felt that masonry would not be compatible with the existing ‎

character and architecture of the facility‎.‎

A masonry fence would add between $‎90‎,‎000 ‎and $‎100‎,‎000 ‎to the project, which is ‎

rather cost prohibitive, especially when one considers the proposed shielding of the ‎

proposed fence‎.‎

Regarding lighting, Mr‎. ‎Cicero stated that a photometric study has been submitted to ‎

the Planning and Engineering Departments that shows the light levels at the boundaries ‎

of the property and the parking area‎. ‎It has been designed very diligently with the ‎

concerns of the residents in mind to avoid bright lights reflecting off the golf course ‎

property, They are required to meet certain light levels by ordinance‎. ‎The existing ‎

lighting may not meet the current ordinance requirements since they were installed ‎

before there was a lighting ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cicero clarified that there is no vacant lot; they are merely proposing to put ‎

parking where the tennis courts currently exist‎. ‎As they expand the parking area ‎

north, they are not using any vacant lot‎. ‎They already own the area for the proposed ‎

parking, and it is not a separate parcel‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Grake added that none of the proposed changes will impact the timing of any ‎

activities at the golf course‎.‎

John Curstin, ‎president of Great Oaks Country Club, related that the club ‎

has been in existence since ‎1971‎. ‎They are trying to improve the club and continue to ‎

be an asset to the community‎. ‎The evening activities are minimal except for occasional ‎

special events ‎-- ‎generally two or three times a year‎. ‎There are not continual activities ‎

during the week until ‎1 ‎o'clock or ‎2 ‎o'clock in the morning‎. ‎The latest weekday hours ‎

are ‎10‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎

It would seem reasonable to Member Hooper to drop the grade one foot to ‎

one‎-‎and‎-‎one‎-‎half feet in the middle third of the proposed parking lot, which would be ‎

consistent with the elevation of the existing northernmost tennis court‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Walton ‎

responded that the elevation could be lowered somewhat in the subject area, but it ‎

would take substantial redesign‎. ‎They also are limited in that they must meet the ‎

minimum grades for drainage and handicap access along the existing road and in the ‎

clubhouse area‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin described the location of the wall and berm‎. ‎The wall is required at the ‎

golf course property line; the ‎25‎-‎foot buffer width extends from the property line into ‎

the subject property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Walton added that the berm is partially in the right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎

To address the applicant's economic considerations Member Hooper suggested a ‎3 ‎

foot masonry wall on top of the ‎3 ‎foot berm, which would equal a ‎6 ‎foot opaque ‎

screen‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kjelstrom stated they were trying to maintain continuity between the City ‎

of Rochester and the City of Rochester Hills ordinances regarding the height, even ‎

though there are differences in heights and setback requirements‎. ‎They did not think it ‎

would look good to drop the height at the city line where it runs across the corner of ‎

the parking lot‎.‎

Regarding erecting a tent over the proposed parking lot, Mr‎. ‎Grake explained that ‎

there are no current plans to erect a tent‎. ‎They usually have one large tent twice a ‎

year‎. ‎They would not be able to use a tent in the area usually used for an eating area ‎

during a swim meet; they would use the tennis court area instead‎. ‎They have not ‎

discussed the use of a tent in any great detail yet‎. ‎It probably would be placed in the ‎

larger, center lot‎. ‎Putting a tent in the area of the existing tennis courts would mean it ‎

would be the farthest away from the kitchen area‎. ‎They would rather have the food ‎

closer to the tent‎.‎

Addressing late hours, Mr‎. ‎Grake stated that the top portion of the parking lot is ‎

currently valet parking‎. ‎That has always been valet parking, and it will continue to be ‎

valet parking‎. ‎They envision the north portion of the new parking lot to be valet ‎

parking, with the southern part of the top lot for member parking which is mainly for ‎

golfers who normally leave around ‎4‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎or ‎5‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Throughout the summer ‎

most of the time the club shuts down around ‎11‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Perhaps ‎10 ‎to ‎15 ‎times a ‎

year there may be late parties, particularly around the holidays‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kjelstrom stated that they gave a large landscape plan to the board president of ‎

the homeowners association‎. ‎He displayed a landscape plan for discussion during the ‎

meeting‎. ‎The Chair called a recess to allow residents time to review the displayed ‎

landscape plan‎.‎

[ ‎Recess ‎9‎:‎39 ‎p‎.‎m‎. - ‎9‎:‎47 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell stated that he favored an amended conditional land use in terms of a ‎

nuisance as stated in Section ‎4‎.‎01 ‎of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added ‎

that the standards for a conditional land use as recited in Section ‎23‎.‎17 ‎list all of the ‎

criteria for conditional use approval, which are very similar to the standards listed in ‎

Section ‎21‎.‎16‎, discretionary decisions by the Planning Commission for site plan ‎

approval‎. ‎The current parking area was part of the original site plan that was ‎

approved pursuant to the conditional land use‎. ‎A conditional land use runs with the ‎

property, and the site plan runs with the conditional land use ‎. ‎The existing parking lot ‎

was placed in its specific location based on the potential nuisance or impact to the ‎

neighbors‎. ‎It would be a discretionary call for the Planning Commission, and the ‎

proposed use as tennis courts is a change from the parking lot use which was part of ‎

the conditional land use approval‎. ‎It could be considered a substantial enough change ‎

to require an amended conditional land use approval‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse made a brief observation‎. ‎It seemed to her that the reason a site plan is ‎

concurrent with a conditional land use is because all conditional land uses have ‎

discretionary standards established with them; and without the ability to view a site ‎

plan, the Planning Commission would not have the necessary tools to make subjection ‎

considerations‎. ‎It was not clear to Ms‎. ‎Millhouse whether the original conditional land ‎

use was for the overall use as a golf course or the specific uses within the development ‎

plan‎.‎

The Chair could not recall any conditional land uses granted during his tenure on the ‎

Planning Commission that did not have an attendant site plan‎. ‎He recalled that ‎

discussions included issues such as traffic circulation, impact on the neighbors, the ‎

location of parking lots and access drives, the size and location of a building before a ‎

recommendation to City Council was formed regarding a conditional land use‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cicero explained that since ‎1971 ‎the subject property has gone through numerous ‎

revisions‎. ‎In the early ‎1970‎s when the original conditional use was granted, there was ‎

an original clubhouse which was located generally in the area of the existing pool; the ‎

pool was located about where the front door of the clubhouse is; the tennis courts ‎

were farther back from the property line‎. ‎Since that time there have been a number of ‎

changes to the property, all within the ordinances in effect at the specific time the ‎

changes were made and all within the confines of the original conditional land use‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Cicero did not believe the proposed changes reflect anything different than what has ‎

been approved in the past‎. ‎The Chair countered that the ‎1988 ‎revisions were ‎

subjected to a new conditional land use approval, based on the minutes‎. ‎The ‎

proposed changes are substantial enough to be subjected to the same scrutiny‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Cicero pointed out that the three conditions placed on the conditional land use ‎

recommendation in ‎1988 ‎related only to swimming pool hours, public address system, ‎

and the extension of a wall, not the locations of any facilities‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cicero briefed commissioners on what occurred during the break‎. ‎He stated that ‎

he explained to the residents that there are a number of existing large deciduous trees ‎

that will partially shield the fence‎. ‎Most of the additional planting is behind those trees ‎

and extends to the south and around the radius of the parking lot‎. ‎It appeared on the ‎

submitted landscape plan that the closest residential home to the south of the subject ‎

site is ‎100 ‎feet away from the property line‎. ‎All the proposed plantings are pine trees, ‎

most of which are ‎10 ‎feet in height at planting, and the berm shields the bottom three ‎

feet of the fence so planting a ‎10‎-‎foot tree even at the base of the berm will still be ‎

taller than the fence at its initial planting‎. ‎They feel that ‎95 ‎percent of the fence will ‎

eventually be shielded as the trees grow, and ‎75 ‎percent to ‎80 ‎percent of the fence ‎

will be shielded at initial planting‎. ‎There will not be massive views of the fence at any ‎

point during the year with the proposed plantings‎. ‎The trees that are proposed to be ‎

removed are related to the parking lot and are being replaced within landscaped ‎

parking lot islands to meet ordinance requirements‎. ‎

Given the reputation of the club, Member Ruggiero felt strongly that this really speaks ‎

to a masonry wall‎. ‎She would disagree that anything less would be appropriate‎. ‎A ‎

masonry wall would enhance the club in the community as well as regionally, and this ‎

represents an opportunity to begin enclosing the subject property with something ‎

stately‎. ‎The existing entrance along Great Oaks Boulevard is beautiful, and that look ‎

could be expanded into the site‎. ‎The brick pillars at the subdivision entrance lend ‎

themselves to a masonry treatment‎. ‎Member Ruggiero urged the applicant to rethink ‎

that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kjelstrom stated the reason for developing the additional parking is because the ‎

City of Rochester Hills requires more parking for the proposed building additions‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cicero added that another issue is the thought of moving the tennis courts to the ‎

proposed location to enhance the operation of the club‎. ‎It is not currently convenient ‎

to service the tennis courts in their present location‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kjelstrom pointed out on the ‎

displayed rendering alternative locations considered for parking and their limitations, ‎

including access for fire equipment, encroaching on setbacks, and major grade ‎

differences‎. ‎

Member Ramanauskas stated if the parking on the northerly part of the proposed site ‎

plan remains, he would still like to see the elevation dropped two to three feet for less ‎

visual impact‎. ‎There would be plenty of drainage, and it would help lower the height ‎

of the light poles to lessen the impact on neighbors‎. ‎The handicap parking spaces ‎

would not be impacted by such‎. ‎A lower elevation would also help to shield noise ‎

from cars‎. ‎Member Ramanauskas also supported the concept of a masonry wall ‎

instead of a cedar fence as it would blend better with the surrounding area and ‎

landscaping and would require less maintenance‎.‎

Member Rosen reviewed Section ‎4‎.‎01 ‎of the ordinance regarding the obligation of the ‎

Planning Commission to ensure that the parking areas do not become a nuisance to ‎

the surrounding area‎. ‎He thought an amended conditional land use was required with ‎

a substantial increase in the amount of landscaping and screening‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cicero stated that the applicant will agree to construct a masonry wall and will ‎

meet with the surrounding homeowners to discuss appropriate landscaping‎.‎

The Chair asked for a motion to approve the subject site plan; no such motion was ‎

put forward‎. ‎The Chair then asked for a motion to disapprove the subject site plan; ‎

no such motion was put forward‎.‎

The Chair ‎postponed‎ further action and discussion until a public hearing can be held ‎

regarding a revised conditional land use request, and the applicant has an opportunity ‎

to develop design standards for a masonry wall and discuss landscaping with the ‎

surrounding neighbors‎.‎

The Chair reviewed the items already discussed that should be addressed on a revised ‎

site plan ‎-- ‎lowering the parking lot, developing design standards for a masonry wall, ‎

revising the plan to show ‎10 ‎foot tall evergreens‎.‎

The Chair announced that all persons who spoke at tonight's meeting will be informed ‎

when this item is scheduled on a future agenda‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse informed the applicant that a revised site plan would need to be ‎

submitted to the city before the conditional land use request can be noticed for public ‎

hearing‎.‎

The Chair requested that staff search city files and microfilm records for the original ‎

approval of the Conditional Land Use Request in ‎1971‎, if possible‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Plans dated revised October ‎26‎, ‎1999 ‎prepared by AES Engineers and ‎

Surveyors, Inc‎. ‎and architectural plans dated revised October ‎18‎, ‎1999 ‎prepared by ‎

Larson, Kramer, Kjelstrom and Associates, dated received November ‎1‎, ‎1999 ‎by ‎

the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department; Staff report prepared by Michele ‎

Goldstein dated November ‎29‎, ‎1999‎; Notice of Meeting dated December ‎7‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

Letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated November ‎9‎, ‎1999‎; Letter from J & ‎

L Consulting Services dated ‎23 ‎August ‎1999‎; Unapproved Draft Copy of Rochester ‎

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of September ‎1‎, ‎1999‎; Site ‎

Plan‎/‎Subdivision Plat Application Form; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of ‎

February ‎20‎, ‎1996 ‎and November ‎8‎, ‎1988 ‎and September ‎23‎, ‎1986‎.)‎

Postponed

2000-1986

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎031 ‎- ‎Great Oaks Country Club ‎

Addition‎

Postponed

2000-1987

Request for Approval of Building Length in Excess of ‎300 ‎feet ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎86‎-‎685 ‎- ‎

Hi‎-‎Tech Mold and Engineering, an ‎18‎,‎781 ‎square‎-‎foot addition to a ‎50‎,‎222 ‎

existing industrial building for office space, mezzanine and shpo area, located at ‎

the northeast corner of Northfield Drive and Commerce Drive, Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎28‎-‎376‎-‎005 ‎and ‎-‎025‎, zoned I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial, Michael J‎. ‎Damman, A‎. ‎J‎. ‎

Damman Co‎.‎, ‎1180 ‎East Big Beaver, Troy, MI ‎48083‎-‎1934‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated December ‎2‎, ‎1999 ‎

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

Messrs‎. ‎Michael Damman with A‎. ‎J‎. ‎Damman Company; Robert Shulte, vice ‎

president general manager of Hi‎-‎Tech Mold and Engineering were present‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse summarized the project‎. ‎Proposed is an ‎18‎,‎781 ‎square foot addition ‎

to an existing industrial building located in the Northfield Industrial Park‎. ‎The addition ‎

is proposed to be located along the southern side of the existing ‎50‎,‎222 ‎square foot ‎

building‎. ‎A small amount of additional parking is required‎. ‎Because the existing ‎

parking lot is proposed to be removed so that the addition can be built, the applicant ‎

is in the process of purchasing the adjacent property to the south to relocate a portion ‎

of the existing parking lot as well as the additional required parking‎. ‎There are ‎

currently four access points to Commerce Drive, and the submitted revised site plan ‎

would eliminate one of them‎. ‎The existing access point to Northfield Drive will remain ‎

during construction but will be removed and landscaped consistent with the berming ‎

and landscaping along the remainder of the frontage‎. ‎The applicant is proposing to ‎

maintain most of the existing landscaping and supplement that with three plantings near ‎

the corner of the site and four plantings in the new parking lot at a proposed cost of ‎

$‎1‎,‎980‎. ‎The city's landscape consultant recommends approval of the landscape plan‎. ‎

The applicant is proposing to increase the length of the building from ‎210 ‎feet to ‎307 ‎

feet‎. ‎There are currently seven buildings within the industrial park that exceed ‎300 ‎

feet in length‎. ‎It is staff's opinion that the proposed building length would still be ‎

compatible with the existing buildings within the industrial park‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse explained a couple outstanding issues‎. ‎The Assessing Department ‎

recommends a parcel combination, and Engineering Services recommends site plan ‎

approval provided that the one engineering comment noted in the staff review be ‎

incorporated on future construction plans‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse pointed out that a portion of the off‎-‎street parking area is proposed to ‎

be located on Lot ‎17 ‎immediately east of the subject site, and there is an existing ‎

driveway between the subject site and Lot ‎17‎. ‎Even though both sites are under the ‎

same ownership, a parking and driveway cross‎-‎access agreement is required and has ‎

been submitted for review by the city‎. ‎Staff recommends approval of the building ‎

length in excess of ‎300 ‎feet‎. ‎Staff also recommends conditional approval of the ‎

revised site plan for the reasons noted in the staff report and subject to the conditions ‎

listed in the staff report‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Damman commented that the staff review was a pretty thorough explanation of ‎

the issues‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Damman added that the building will be architecturally compatible ‎

with the other buildings in the industrial park‎. ‎A fire wall will be required per BOCA ‎

between the existing building and the proposed addition‎. ‎Both offices and warehouses ‎

will be fire suppressed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Damman explained that they have a total of four buildings ‎

connected by a common parking lot‎. ‎The proposed addition to what they call Plant ‎

One on Commerce Drive would eliminate the existing A‎-‎frame building on the corner ‎

and replace it with a parking lot as well as a building‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse described that Lots ‎21‎, ‎20‎, and ‎14 ‎are under a separate Sidwell ‎

number; the remainder of the site is under a different Sidwell number‎. ‎The proposed ‎

combination is to combine the two Sidwells into one‎. ‎The proposed combination ‎

would not include Lot ‎17‎. ‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Building Length in Excess of ‎300 ‎Feet‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Hooper, in the matter of File No‎. ‎85‎-‎685 ‎

(‎Hi‎-‎Tech Mold and Engineering‎)‎, to ‎approve the Building Length in Excess of ‎

300 ‎Feet ‎based on the findings in the staff report dated December ‎2‎, ‎1999‎, based on ‎

plans dated received November ‎10‎, ‎1999‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Building in excess of three hundred feet are already in existence in the Northfield ‎

Industrial Park, notably a building ‎390‎ feet in length located within ‎400‎ feet of ‎

the subject site, and a building ‎330‎ feet in length located approximately ‎600‎ ‎

feet from the site‎.‎

2‎.‎ Buildings in excess of three hundred feet are characteristic of many industrial ‎

buildings within the City of Rochester Hills‎.‎

3‎.‎ The Fire Department has approved the revised site plan relative to fire protection ‎

issues‎.‎

4‎.‎ The applicant has designed the addition to be consistent in design with the existing ‎

building‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1988

Request for Revised Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎86‎-‎685 ‎- ‎Hi‎-‎Tech Mold and ‎

Engineering‎

Mr‎. ‎Damman added that they have complied with the city's requirements for on‎-‎site ‎

stormwater detention to slow down the flow of water with restrictive covers‎. ‎

Member Corneliussen cautioned that up to ‎12 ‎parking spaces may not be available for ‎

employee parking in the event of a heavy rainfall‎. ‎Member Corneliussen added when ‎

storing water in the parking lot area, sometimes below‎-‎ground storage in the pipes is ‎

an alternative when maintenance is not an issue‎. ‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Revised Site Plan Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Corneliussen, seconded by Potere, in the matter of File No‎. ‎86‎-‎685 ‎

(‎Hi‎-‎Tech Mold and Engineering‎)‎, to ‎grant Revised Site Plan Approval ‎ ‎

incorporating the findings and conditions in the staff report dated December ‎2‎, ‎1999‎, ‎

based on plans dated received November ‎10‎, ‎1999‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all requirements of ‎

Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎ can be met, subject to the conditions noted below‎.‎

2‎.‎ The site plan is providing safe ingress and egress from the property and is ‎

eliminating two existing access points‎.‎

3‎.‎ The project is served adequately by essential public facilities and services‎.‎

4‎.‎ The industrial building expansion is proposed to be consistent and compatible with ‎

other industrial buildings within the Northfield Industrial Park‎.‎

5‎.‎ The expansion will have a positive financial impact on the community by providing ‎

additional tax base to the city‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Provision of a performance and maintenance guarantee in the amount of ‎$1,980‎ ‎

prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit to ensure the proper planting ‎

and survival of the proposed landscape materials‎.‎

2‎.‎ Combination of parcels prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

3‎.‎ Incorporation of the above referenced engineering review comment on the future ‎

submittal of construction plans‎.‎

4‎.‎ Submittal of a fully executed parking and driveway Easement Agreement ‎

approved by the City prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans Sheets ‎1 ‎of ‎3‎, ‎2 ‎of ‎3‎, and ‎3 ‎of ‎3 ‎prepared by Nowak & Fraus ‎

dated received November ‎10‎, ‎1999 ‎by the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department; Sheets ‎1 ‎of ‎3‎, ‎2 ‎of ‎3‎, and ‎3 ‎of ‎3 ‎as prepared by George J‎. ‎Hartman ‎

Architects, P‎.‎C‎.‎; Drawing No‎. ‎L‎-‎1 ‎revised September ‎3‎, ‎1999 ‎as prepared by A‎. ‎J‎. ‎

Damman Co‎.‎; Staff report prepared by Deborah A‎. ‎Millhouse dated December ‎2‎, ‎

1999‎; Letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated September ‎28‎, ‎1999 ‎and ‎

revised October ‎1‎, ‎1999‎; Memo from Deborah Millhouse to John Staran dated ‎

September ‎29‎, ‎1999‎; Easement Agreement dated received September ‎3‎, ‎1999 ‎by the ‎

City of Rochester Hills Planning Department; Tree Conservation Ordinance ‎"‎No ‎

Affected Regulated Trees‎" ‎Affidavit; Site Plan‎/‎Subdivision Plat Application‎.)‎

DISCUSSION

2000-1989

Extension of Letica Road to Tienken Road‎

The Chair explained that the subject item is before the Planning Commission at the ‎

request of members of the general communities of Rochester and Rochester Hills to ‎

assure that the city is aware of the topic and the issue‎. ‎The Chair stated that no action ‎

is required of the Planning Commission this evening; the purpose of the meeting is ‎

informational‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin described the subject area on an overhead‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin described ‎

how Second Avenue in the City of Rochester turns into Letica Road which then ‎

currently ends at Romeo‎. ‎The concept is that Second Avenue provides a secondary ‎

means of traveling northbound from Rochester Road‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reviewed ‎

previous joint meetings between the City of Rochester Hills and the City of Rochester ‎

regarding options for the ultimate alignment of Sheldon Road‎. ‎The result of those ‎

discussions was that the preferred location for the alignment of Sheldon Road would ‎

be on the east side of the Van Hoosen Jones Stoney Creek Cemetery‎. ‎After Second ‎

Avenue turns into Letica Road it deadends at a vacant property owned by Grand ‎

Sakwa, who is developing a number of parcels in the City of Rochester along Runyon‎. ‎

In the very near future more than ‎1‎,‎300 ‎new homes, including ‎300 ‎in the Clear Creek ‎

Subdivision, will be built in the area‎. ‎Grand Sakwa is interested in doing a planned ‎

residential development in the City of Rochester in the vicinity of the end of Letica ‎

Road with a portion extending into Rochester Hills‎. ‎Two possible conceptual ‎

alternatives have already been approved by the City of Rochester for the subject area‎. ‎

One alternative shows an extension of Letica Road ending in a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac within the ‎

proposed development‎. ‎The other alternative shows an extension of Letica to ‎

Tienken Road‎. ‎The City of Rochester has told the developer that they can proceed ‎

with either alternative, but they must seek the approval of the City of Rochester Hills ‎

on one or the other‎. ‎However, if they decide to cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac Letica within the ‎

development, then Rochester would pave Romeo‎. ‎This would increase the traffic ‎

pressure on the Historic District because there would be a definite need for a ‎

north‎/‎south bypass‎. ‎If Letica is not available from Tienken for that, then the only other ‎

logical choices are either Romeo or a Washington‎-‎Runyon‎-‎Romeo route‎. ‎The portion ‎

of the subject property that would be within the City of Rochester Hills is in the ‎

Stoney Creek Historic District and is designated an historic resource even though ‎

there are no buildings on the site‎. ‎The density allowed in the City of Rochester is ‎

greater than the density allowed in Rochester Hills‎. ‎The site is steeply sloped, and any ‎

proposed alignment would require the removal of a significant amount of dirt‎. ‎

Environmental features which come into play include the Tree Conservation ‎

Ordinance, woodland cover, and the creek‎. ‎A plat was approved for the proposed ‎

Stoney Point North for the subject site in the late ‎1980‎s but it never materialized‎. ‎

Nothing official has been submitted to the City of Rochester Hills regarding the Grand ‎

Sakwa development that would trigger a review by the Planning Commission‎. ‎Grand ‎

Sakwa has only asked Rochester Hills for a staff review of the two alternatives, which ‎

staff has provided‎. ‎The extension of Letica Road is not in the CIP; it is not currently ‎

budgeted; there is no policy in place‎. ‎If Letica is extended, the City of Rochester ‎

would vacate and abandon Romeo‎. ‎

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

was not a Public Hearing‎.‎

David Tripp, ‎960 ‎E‎. ‎Tienken,‎ the ‎"‎Black & White Cow‎"‎, urged that Letica Road ‎

be extended as quickly as possible; residents need as many ways as possible to get ‎

around the city‎. ‎If Letica is not extended to Tienken, the bypass route will go through ‎

the Historic District‎. ‎Tienken Road already bisects the Historic District in one ‎

direction; bisecting the District in the other direction would endanger the historic asset‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tripp believed that Rochester has really been trying very hard to get this ‎

approved in a way that will benefit both communities‎. ‎

Roger Knapp, ‎1083 ‎Churchill Cir‎.‎, Rochester,‎ stressed the importance of ‎

extending Letica‎. ‎ ‎Since it is the developer's preference to make Letica a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Knapp perceived that Rochester Hills should show preference for pursuing the ‎

extension‎. ‎The developer is ready to proceed with his development, and Rochester is ‎

anxious for the development to be completed‎. ‎The developer is far beyond the ‎

deadline presented by the City of Rochester; Mr‎. ‎Knapp recommended some action ‎

occur within the next ‎45 ‎days‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that Grand Sakwa was asked to provide data ‎

regarding the rights‎-‎of‎-‎way so the city could do cost estimates, and they ‎

refused‎. ‎Neither have they submitted any plans‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin did not ‎

understand the perception that the City of Rochester Hills was not being ‎

cooperative‎. ‎Rochester Hills would be expected to obtain the right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

and build a ‎400 ‎foot portion of the road in the City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Knapp ‎stated that his understanding of discussions and meetings at the City of ‎

Rochester is that if it's not going to get done now, the City of Rochester is not willing ‎

to just deadend Letica‎. ‎The City of Rochester needs a commitment from the City of ‎

Rochester Hills that the preference is to extend the road‎. ‎

The Chair wondered why, if the City of Rochester believes the best solution is ‎

to extend Letica, they don't tell the developer they would not be allowed to ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac the road; they should plan for the road to be extended; and if they ‎

can't find a way to do it, the project would not get approved‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Knapp‎ added that it might be because, if they allow them to cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac it, they ‎

can ask them to pave the road down to the stop sign through the rest of Romeo Road ‎

as part of his development‎.‎

Member Hill stated she sat on the sister city committee for ‎

Rochester‎/‎Rochester Hills and recalled the last discussion they had regarding ‎

this issue was that Grand Sakwa was originally interested in paving the whole ‎

road but because there are density issues and tree issues, they wanted either ‎

some compensation from us to allow for those issues or the city would have to ‎

foot that bill‎. ‎It was left at the point where Rochester wanted to go back to ‎

their Planning Commission to make sure that their members were still in favor ‎

of having the Letica Drive extension continue out‎. ‎If so, then further ‎

discussion would ensue from the Rochester Hills side to bring the issue to City ‎

Council and find funding for it‎. ‎She was surprised to hear that the City of ‎

Rochester did not want to stand behind their Planning Commission's desire to ‎

see this happen, because they wanted to look at some of those issues and ‎

make sure that the community of Rochester still wanted this to happen and ‎

that it would be appropriate for their traffic flow, understanding that it would ‎

increase traffic in their city‎. ‎

Jim Everlove, ‎991 ‎Runyon Road,‎ related that Rochester Council said to Grand ‎

Sakwa at their meeting two weeks ago that they want the connector road‎. ‎They ‎

wanted Grand Sakwa to go back to the City of Rochester Hills and get a commitment ‎

to do it‎. ‎If Grand Sakwa was not able to get that within ‎60 ‎days, then the City of ‎

Rochester would have no choice but to give Grand Sakwa the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and then ‎

pave Romeo Road‎. ‎This was supposed to be resolved in May ‎1999‎. ‎The developer ‎

wants to develop his property‎. ‎

There were no further comments from the public‎.‎

The Chair presumed that the City of Rochester's ordinances regarding the ‎

development of plats were similar to those of Rochester Hills‎. ‎Although a developer ‎

has certain property rights, he does not necessarily have the right to set all the ‎

standards for that development‎. ‎The Chair could not imagine a body saying that ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacing Letica was an intelligent way to deal with traffic in the subject area‎. ‎It's ‎

a discretionary call‎. ‎The Chair did not perceive an extension of Letica Drive ‎

happening unless there were some economic cooperation between both cities and ‎

Grand Sakwa‎. ‎

Member Potere stated that the traffic explosion in the subject area has been absolutely ‎

incredible‎. ‎There is now a real safety hazard in the area on school mornings; and ‎

when the new high school is completed, it will be even worse‎. ‎Tienken Road is a ‎

two‎-‎lane road; there is a fire station on the road; it is a real disaster‎. ‎As much as she ‎

does not want any more cars in the area, if Letica is not extended, the roads will not ‎

be able to handle the traffic generated by the new high school at the intersection of ‎

Rochester Road and Tienken‎. ‎In addition, Member Potere asked what would be the ‎

rationale for allowing this traffic to be dumped into the Historic District, in light of the ‎

city's emphasis on historic preservation‎.‎

Member Ruggiero wondered what Grand Sakwa's plan would be for developing the ‎

400‎-‎foot portion of the road in the City of Rochester Hills if the road were to go ‎

through‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that Grand Sakwa has not submitted any plans‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tripp added that he was sure the developer had his own best interests in mind‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tripp's best solution would be that the two cities get together and agree on what ‎

is in the best interests of the two cities, and then communicating that to the developer ‎

so they can develop plans accordingly‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that Grand Sakwa is proposing to pave the remainder of ‎

Romeo Road‎. ‎The difference in cost between paving the remainder of Romeo Road ‎

and constructing the ‎400‎-‎foot portion of the road is significant because of the cutting ‎

of the hill‎. ‎The developer has already calculated that information which is not being ‎

shared with the city‎. ‎It seemed that there may be some playing of both ends to the ‎

middle as the developer tries to minimize his expenses‎. ‎It is significantly more costly to ‎

acquire rights‎-‎of‎-‎way, cut the hill down, and engineer and pave the road as opposed ‎

to simply paving Romeo Road‎. ‎Another benefit to the developer to cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacing the ‎

road is that he could increase the density of his development‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Potere, seconded by Ruggiero,‎

RESOLVED‎, that the Planning Commission encourages the city ‎

administration of the City of Rochester Hills, including the Mayor along with ‎

City Council, to make their best efforts within the next ‎45 ‎days to enter into a ‎

planning and financial agreement with all entities, including the City of ‎

Rochester and the developer, Grand Sakwa, for the appropriate extension of ‎

Letica Road to Tienken Road‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that discussions are going on and the Mayor planned to contact ‎

Grand Sakwa today‎. ‎There was an agreement that once the Mayor met with Grand ‎

Sakwa, the cities of Rochester and Rochester Hills would meet jointly‎. ‎The project is ‎

in progress and the Mayor is looking for a solution‎.‎

Approved

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

B‎.‎ The Gatewood Property on Avon Road‎

(‎Reference Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated December ‎1‎, ‎1999 ‎

has been placed on file and by reference becomes a part of the record thereof‎.)‎

The Chair stated that no substantive discussion would take place tonight‎. ‎The subject ‎

issue is a very complicated issue‎. ‎It appeared to the Chair that the best approach ‎

would be to put something concrete before the appropriate body, whether the ZBA ‎

for a variance or the Planning Commission for a rezoning‎. ‎The Chair suggested that ‎

staff advise the property owner of such courses of action‎. ‎

Islamic Mosque ‎(‎File No‎. ‎79‎-‎951‎)‎

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to allow staff to determine the ‎

alternate brick treatment that would be appropriate in keeping with the site plan ‎

approval granted on April ‎15‎, ‎1997‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for December ‎21‎, ‎1999‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎11‎:‎55 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎