Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic‎

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

David A‎. ‎Reece, C‎. ‎Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon‎

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

CALL TO ORDER

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

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

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

Hooper, Nicholas Kaltsounis, David Reece, C‎. ‎Neall Schroeder and Emmet ‎

Yukon‎

Present

9 -

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Economic Development‎

James Breuckman, Manager of Planning‎

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2012-0219

May ‎29‎, ‎2012 ‎Special Joint Planning Commission and City Council Meeting‎

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

Approved as Amended‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

2012-0226

June ‎5‎, ‎2012 ‎Regular Planning Commission Meeting‎

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

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

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎)‎ Planning & Zoning News dated May ‎2012‎

B‎)‎ Letter from Charlotte Burckhardt, dated ‎6/12/12‎ re‎: ‎Auburn Hills ‎

Master Plan‎

C‎) ‎Letter from Friends of the Clinton River Trail soliciting donations for ‎

2012‎

Chairperson Boswell announced for the members of the audience that if ‎

anyone wished to speak on an agenda item, there were cards to be filled ‎

out and handed in to the Secretary‎. ‎He noted that there was one Public ‎

Hearing, but advised that the Commissioners would entertain discussion on ‎

any agenda topic‎.‎

NEW BUSINESS

2008-0302

Request for Recommendation of an Extension of the Final Site Condominium ‎

Plan until July ‎14‎, ‎2013 ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎05‎-‎005 ‎- ‎Pine Woods Site ‎

Condominiums, a proposed ‎29‎-‎unit development on ‎9‎.‎6 ‎acres, located south of ‎

Auburn, east of Livernois, zoned R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, Parcel Nos‎. ‎

15‎-‎34‎-‎101‎-‎073 ‎to ‎-‎075‎, L&R Homes, Applicant‎

(‎Reference Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated June ‎22‎, ‎2012 ‎and Final ‎

Site Condominium Plan had been placed on file and by reference ‎

became part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant were Vito and Lorenzo Randazzo, L&R Homes, ‎

Inc‎.‎, ‎2490 ‎Walton Blvd‎.‎, Suite ‎103‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Vito Randazzo stated that they were present to request an Extension ‎

of the Final Site Condominium Plan for Pine Woods until July ‎14‎, ‎2013‎. ‎

He explained that it was due to economic conditions, and they wished to ‎

hold on and extend the approval‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek advised that the applicants were current with taxes and the ‎

escrow account‎. ‎They were requesting another Extension and waiting for ‎

a stronger economy, although there were good signs of the housing ‎

market returning‎. ‎He added that Staff had no issues with the request‎.‎

Hearing no further discussion and noting that the Commissioners had ‎

discussed the matter several times, Mr‎. ‎Schroeder moved the following, ‎

seconded by Mr‎. ‎Yukon‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File No‎. ‎

05‎-‎005 ‎(‎Pine Woods Site Condominiums‎)‎, the Planning Commission ‎

recommends that City Council approves an Extension of the Final Plan ‎

until July ‎14‎, ‎2013‎.‎

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting,‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

‎

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed ‎

unanimously, and he wished the applicants good luck‎.‎

2007-0383

Natural Features Setback Modifications ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎06‎-‎012‎.‎2 ‎- ‎

Somerset Pines, a proposed ‎41‎-‎unit residential development on ‎19‎.‎2 ‎

acres, located on South Boulevard, between Adams and Crooks, zoned ‎

R‎-‎4‎, One‎-‎Family Residential, parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎32‎-‎300‎-‎007‎, ‎-‎008‎, ‎-‎009‎, and ‎

-‎010‎, MV Somerset Properties, LLC, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by James Breuckman, dated June ‎22‎, ‎

2012 ‎and Preliminary Site Condominium Plan had been placed on file ‎

and by reference became part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant were Jeff Rizzo, Fenn & Associates, Inc‎.‎, ‎13399 ‎

W‎. ‎Star Drive, Shelby Township, MI ‎48315‎; Mark Gesuale, Wolverine ‎

Building Co‎.‎, ‎21872 23 ‎Mile Rd‎.‎, Macomb, MI ‎48042 ‎and Vito ‎

Pampalona, MV Somerset Properties, LLC, ‎850 ‎W‎. ‎University, Suite D, ‎

Rochester, MI ‎48307‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek started the discussion, and noted that the Planning ‎

Commission might have remembered the development as Lorna on the ‎

Green‎. ‎It was immediately west of Walnut Brook Estates, and was first ‎

submitted to the City in ‎2006‎. ‎The first plan that was submitted and ‎

reviewed for that development was a single‎-‎family layout with two ‎

entrances onto South Boulevard‎. ‎In the initial approval, the Planning ‎

Commission asked that a redesign be considered that would preserve the ‎

trees on South Boulevard to try to maintain the secluded nature of the ‎

site‎. ‎The applicant agreed to go back to the drawing board, and they ‎

worked on a series of single and duplex units and came back with a ‎

discussion for a PUD proposal with a boulevard entrance‎. ‎It was fairly well ‎

received, but never voted upon‎. ‎The economy was hit, and no activity ‎

continued on the project‎. ‎The previous developer allowed the land to ‎

return to the bank, and the applicants subsequently picked up the ‎

property and reactivated the project‎. ‎In meetings with Staff, the ‎

single‎-‎family concept was discussed, because the applicants preferred it ‎

for their market‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek explained that he just wanted to give a little ‎

history before turning it over to Mr‎. ‎Breuckman‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that technically, the plans were compliant with the ‎

requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Site Condo Ordinance‎. ‎The ‎

applicants were using the lot averaging option, so the minimum lot area ‎

was ‎8‎,‎640 ‎square feet‎. ‎In terms of specific review considerations, ‎

Engineering had recommended approval, and the site was exempt from ‎

the Tree Conservation Ordinance because it was platted in ‎1955‎. ‎There ‎

were a number of regulated trees on site, and while no replacement trees ‎

were required, the applicant was proposing to provide some, consistent ‎

with the number of trees proposed in ‎2007‎. ‎There were a few landscape ‎

comments ‎- ‎cost estimates, bonds and payment into the tree fund‎. ‎The ‎

Natural Features Modification they were requesting was consistent with ‎

the request on the prior iteration‎. ‎The City's Environmental Consultant ‎

recommended that the natural features could be modified for lots ‎22‎, ‎23 ‎

and ‎24‎, because the impacted Wetland B was not a high quality wetland‎. ‎

There was a requirement for some silt fencing along the natural features ‎

setback line, and there would be a conservation easement provided for ‎

the wetland areas‎. ‎The Master Deed and Exhibit B documents would ‎

have to be provided prior to Final submittal‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman stated that the most significant outstanding item regarded ‎

the Fire Department review‎. ‎There was a standard in the Fire Code that ‎

required a separation of entrances when there was a single point of ‎

access‎. ‎The applicants used the boulevard concept, with two accesses‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman indicated that it was something that would have to be ‎

worked out with the Fire Department, in terms of what the final layout ‎

would be‎. ‎The reason Staff was bringing it forward was because ‎

addressing Fire‎’‎s comments would really only impact the area along ‎

South Boulevard‎. ‎Lots could be shifted around to maintain the vast ‎

majority of the overall site layout‎. ‎He felt that it was a detail that could be ‎

worked out between now and when it went to Council or between now and ‎

Final Approval‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman added that Staff was recommending a ‎

Recommendation of Approval, and there were motions in the Staff Report ‎

for consideration‎. ‎He said he would be happy to answer any questions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Fenn said that they had been working closely with Mr‎. ‎Breuckman and ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek on the layout, and they felt they had something they were all ‎

happy with‎. ‎He also said he would be happy to answer any questions‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell said that it appeared that if they put in a separate ‎

entryway that they might lose a lot‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that they could ‎

still maintain ‎41 ‎lots‎. ‎He was not sure if there would be two lots in between ‎

the two legs, but there was room on the site to accommodate a shifting of ‎

lot lines‎. ‎Chairperson Boswell asked Mr‎. ‎Breuckman what the Fire ‎

Department would accept‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that Staff did not exactly ‎

know yet‎. ‎He presumed they would accept a loop road‎. ‎The question was ‎

whether they could modify the boulevard layout to maintain the entrance‎. ‎

They still needed to work that out with the Fire Department‎. ‎One of the ‎

challenges was that the Fire Department had been very busy with the ‎

Festival of the Hills and the fires around town, and it had been hard to ‎

coordinate with them‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Pampalona added that one of the main reasons why they went to the ‎

boulevard was because there was a considerable amount of ‎50‎-‎60 ‎

year‎-‎old pines on the front of the development that they wanted to save‎. ‎

They felt that the natural features of the development would only increase ‎

its value‎. ‎The traffic department was not too happy with two entrances ‎

because of what it would do to the line of sight for the decel lanes‎. ‎He felt ‎

that the development would really sell, and they really wanted to keep the ‎

trees‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell remembered that when the project was before them ‎

before, the trees were a big concern of the Planning Commission as well‎. ‎

He added that safety was also a big concern‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked if the homes would all be ranches‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Pampalona ‎

advised that there would be a mix between split levels, colonials and very ‎

few ranches‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked the price range‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Pampalona said it ‎

would be between $‎379‎,‎000 ‎to $‎400‎,‎000‎, depending on the amenities‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked if he felt that was realistic in this economy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Pampalona stated that he felt it was very realistic‎. ‎They were going to sell ‎

the lots to a developer, but they decided to develop and keep them‎. ‎

There were five or six builders in the area that had a waiting list of people ‎

who wanted to build homes‎. ‎They felt that it would be about a year out ‎

until they finished a model‎. ‎By that time, they were confident they would ‎

sell out in ‎18 ‎to ‎24 ‎months‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic indicated that she would be ‎

concerned if there were more than a ‎2‎-‎4 ‎year buildout because if the lots ‎

did not sell due to the prices being unrealistic in this economy, the ‎

development could become unsightly and scattered‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Pampalona mentioned a similar development that was of a lower ‎

scale off of John R, which developed and sold out within ‎4‎-‎5 ‎months‎. ‎The ‎

price point was $‎330‎,‎000‎, and he felt that the quality of their homes would ‎

be way ahead of that development‎. ‎They were not looking to go in and ‎

put in tract homes‎. ‎They were going to do custom homes that were ‎

affordable for people that could not afford Birmingham but liked ‎

Rochester Hills and did not mind Avondale Schools‎. ‎That was their ‎

market‎. ‎He personally felt that their development would look way better ‎

than the one off of John R, and that was their only current competition‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder said that he did not have a clear understanding about the ‎

Fire Department‎’‎s problem with the boulevard‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that ‎

they did not have specific comments for the geometry of the boulevard‎. ‎

Their requirement came from the Fire Code‎. ‎It read that they had to ‎

measure from the corner of the property to the other corner on the ‎

diagonal, and in this case it was about ‎1‎,‎500 ‎feet, and divide it by two‎. ‎The ‎

Fire Code said there should be two accesses separated by at least half of ‎

the maximum diagonal, or ‎750 ‎feet‎. ‎Because of the requirement, the Fire ‎

Department was saying there had to be a loop road‎. ‎However, the loop ‎

road would only be separated by ‎250‎-‎300 ‎feet, so the applicants could not ‎

meet the requirement‎. ‎They had to come to an equitable solution ‎- ‎

perhaps a wider boulevard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Pampalona said that they were willing to widen the boulevard‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell recalled that they ran into that issue off of Hazelton‎. ‎

There was a boulevard put in and the Fire Department eventually ‎

approved it, which Chairperson Boswell did not quite understand because ‎

one fallen tree would cut across both roads‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek added that it ‎

applied to Butler Ridge also‎. ‎It was a single entrance development with ‎

160 ‎homes, although it had a little wider entrance‎. ‎He thought that it was ‎

always the Fire Department‎’‎s solution to support a boulevard‎. ‎In this ‎

case, they wanted to push it further apart‎. ‎From a planning perspective, ‎

his personal preference was a boulevard entrance, for tree preservation ‎

and to create exclusiveness to the development‎. ‎He referred to Walnut ‎

Brook to the east‎. ‎There was a guard house entrance with a boulevard, ‎

and they had million dollar homes‎. ‎He felt that a boulevard was ample for ‎

41 ‎units, and there were several developments in the City where a ‎

boulevard was satisfactory‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked if the Road Commission had reviewd the plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Pampalona said that the Road Commission had reviewed the plan, and ‎

he believed it was approved‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder stated that he did not ‎

understand the Fire Department's requirement‎. ‎He believed that the ‎

Road Commission would probably not approve the two entrances‎. ‎Their ‎

goal was to limit access to major roads‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper noted that the previously approved development had a ‎

boulevard with ‎24‎-‎foot wide streets with a ‎15‎-‎foot island‎. ‎The proposal ‎

had ‎22‎-‎foot wide streets separated by a ‎19‎-‎foot island‎. ‎If it was issue of ‎

asphalt to concrete they could simply increase it, but if the issue was that ‎

they needed more separation between the two roads, he was not sure how ‎

they would get over that hurdle‎. ‎There was a previously approved plan ‎

with a boulevard‎. ‎He questioned whether there was a code change ‎

between that approval and the proposal on the same piece of property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek indicated that they did a quick review on the internet, and it ‎

appeared that it was the same code that went back to at least ‎2000 ‎and ‎

probably ‎1997‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper thought that with two entrances, if someone ‎

pulled out of the eastern entrance and made a right hand turn and there ‎

was someone ‎200 ‎feet away making a left hand turn, it would encourage ‎

head‎-‎on collisions on South Boulevard‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek agreed that conflict ‎

would be created, and it would also add two decel lanes and a very long ‎

bypass lane on the south side The economics were important to make ‎

things work, but he noted that this would virtually double the cost for offsite ‎

improvements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder remarked that economics aside, two ‎

closely spaced entrances with the loop road layout would be a traffic ‎

disaster‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Fenn advised that they did make a modification to the boulevard ‎

upon the request of the City‎. ‎They widened the island from ‎15 ‎feet to ‎19 ‎

feet, and they were willing to make the road wider if necessary‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper explained that he was just trying to understand the problem the ‎

Fire Department was having‎. ‎The first development was approved with ‎

24‎-‎foot wide roads and a ‎15‎-‎foot island‎. ‎He indicated that he had no ‎

issues with the development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek pointed out that in working through the development, the ‎

applicants had done some pretty innovative things from an ‎

environmental standpoint with the bio‎-‎swales being used as the rear yard ‎

drainage systems and the forebay pond to be used as a sedimentation ‎

device before it went into the retention‎. ‎Because they added those things, ‎

they had actually gone from ‎47 ‎to ‎41 ‎lots from the original approval‎. ‎

They had given that up for the environmental aspects, and he thought ‎

they were being very respective of that‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at ‎7‎:‎25 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Seeing no ‎

one come forward, he closed the Public Hearing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis recalled the history from before and the subject of the Fire ‎

Department and boulevards‎. ‎It was talked about quite a bit back then‎. ‎He ‎

felt that the density of the development was harmonious with the ‎

development to the north and similar to where he lived, and he moved the ‎

following motion, seconded by Mr‎. ‎Hetrick‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Kaltsounis, seconded by Hetrick, in the matter of City File ‎

No‎. ‎06‎-‎012‎.‎2‎(‎Somerset Pines Site Condominium‎)‎, the Planning ‎

Commission ‎grants natural features setback modifications‎ for ‎212 ‎

lineal feet of direct and permanent impacts as a result of a proposed rain ‎

garden‎/‎infiltration trench at the rear of lots ‎22‎, ‎23‎, and ‎24‎, and for ‎50 ‎

linear feet of direct and permanent impacts as a result of the construction ‎

of the storm water energy dissipater, with the following two ‎(‎2‎) ‎findings and ‎

subject to the following one ‎(‎1‎) ‎condition‎:‎

Findings‎

1‎.‎ The wetland associated with the natural features setback area at the ‎

rear of lots ‎22-24‎ is of low quality‎.‎

2‎.‎ The construction of the storm water energy dissipater qualifies for an ‎

exemption to the natural features setback according to the City‎’‎s ‎

wetland consultant‎.‎

Conditions‎

1‎.‎ Provide silt fencing along the natural features setback line on lots ‎14‎ ‎

and ‎15‎ and between wetland B and the infiltration trench on lots ‎22-‎

24‎.‎

Approved

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion carried ‎

unanimously‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder stated that he would strongly recommend the boulevard ‎

because the alternative, with divided entrances, would result in double ‎

curb cuts with extra decel, excel and passing lanes, which would create ‎

traffic conflicts‎. ‎The ordinance rule made no sense to him, although he ‎

acknowledged that it was not part of their discussion‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Boswell remembered that they had that discussion once before, and they ‎

ended up with a boulevard, and he agreed with Mr‎. ‎Schroeder‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Schroeder said that he would keep the boulevard, and he reiterated that ‎

the alternative would be a disaster‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Pampalona stated that the boulevard was not set in stone; they were ‎

willing to work with the Fire Department and the Planning Commission to ‎

make it a win‎-‎win for everyone‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder stressed that it should be a ‎

boulevard‎. ‎He noted Great Oaks West‎. ‎There was a problem with the ‎

connecting road, and the City tried to do something the residents ‎

opposed‎. ‎At the first snowstorm, a resident got stuck‎. ‎If there had been a ‎

fire, the fire trucks could not have gotten in‎. ‎He believed that a boulevard ‎

was the best solution‎.‎

2012-0208

Request for Recommendation of a Preliminary Site Condominium Plan ‎- ‎City ‎

File No‎. ‎06‎-‎012‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Somerset Pines, a proposed ‎41‎-‎unit residential development ‎

on ‎19‎.‎2 ‎acres, located on South Boulevard, between Adams and Crooks, zoned ‎

R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎32‎-‎300‎-‎007‎, ‎-‎008‎, ‎-‎009 ‎and ‎-‎010‎, ‎

MV Somerset Properties, LLC, Applicant‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he could see where the development would fit in ‎

with the surrounding developments, and he felt that it was nicer than what ‎

they had before, and he moved the following motion, seconded by Mr‎. ‎

Yukon‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Kaltsounis, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File ‎

No‎. ‎06‎-‎012‎.‎2 ‎(‎Somerset Pines Site Condominium‎)‎, the Planning ‎

Commission ‎recommends that City Council approve ‎the ‎preliminary ‎

one‎-‎family residential detached condominium plan‎ based on plans ‎

dated received by the Planning Department on June ‎11‎, ‎2012‎, with the ‎

following four ‎(‎4‎) ‎findings and subject to the following eight ‎(‎8‎) ‎conditions‎.‎

Findings‎

1‎.‎ Upon compliance with the following conditions, the proposed ‎

condominium plan meets all applicable requirements of the ‎

Zoning Ordinance and One‎-‎Family Residential Detached ‎

Condominium Ordinance‎.‎

2‎.‎ Adequate utilities are available to properly serve the proposed ‎

development‎.‎

3‎.‎ The preliminary plan represents a reasonable street layout‎.‎

4‎.‎ The Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the development ‎

will have no substantially harmful effects on the environment‎.‎

Conditions‎

1‎.‎ Provide all off‎-‎site easements and agreements for approval by the ‎

City prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

2‎.‎ Inspection and approval of tree protection and silt fencing by the City ‎

prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

3‎.‎ Provide landscape cost estimates for landscaping, replacement trees, ‎

and irrigation on the landscape plans‎.‎

4‎.‎ Payment of ‎$8,200‎ into the tree fund for street trees prior to ‎

issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

5‎.‎ Submit a landscape bond in an amount equal to the cost estimate for ‎

landscaping, replacement trees, and irrigation prior to issuance of ‎

a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

6‎.‎ Filing of conservation easements for all wetland, infiltration trench, ‎

and natural features setback areas prior to the issuance of a Land ‎

Improvement Permit‎.‎

7‎.‎ Approval of all required permits and approvals from outside agencies‎.‎

8‎.‎ Compliance with the Engineering and Fire Department memos dated ‎

June ‎18‎, ‎2012‎ and June ‎20‎, ‎2012‎ respectively‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked if the Fire issue would be ironed out before the matter ‎

went to City Council‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that he did not know, but he ‎

assured that it would be worked out before a Final Plan was brought ‎

forward‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic felt that it would be a good idea to have it worked out ‎

before going to City Council‎. ‎She believed that it eventually would be, but ‎

she was a little uncomfortable that she was approving something that she ‎

knew would go to Council not knowing if it would be ironed out‎. ‎She ‎

recommended that they try to work it out before then‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Pampalona ‎

agreed that they would work it out before they went to Council, because ‎

they would not move forward with the project as it was‎. ‎They would have to ‎

start over with the Engineering and go back to the original two entrance ‎

layout and bring it back before the Planning Commission‎. ‎They would do ‎

their best to have it done before then‎. ‎If it took longer, they would shelve ‎

the project and wait until the next Council meeting‎. ‎He stressed that they ‎

definitely wanted to have it ironed out before they went to City Council, ‎

because it would do them no good to go there without a remedy‎.‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

Chairperson Boswell said that the motion carried unanimously, and he ‎

wished the applicants good luck‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Pampalona thanked the ‎

Commissioners, and said that they were also open to any suggestions to ‎

remedy the boulevard‎.‎

DISCUSSION

2011-0444

Discuss PUD development option ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎05‎-‎042‎.‎2 ‎- ‎two parcels on ‎

Dequindre, south of Washington, zoned RE, Residential Estate, Parcel Nos‎. ‎

15‎-‎01‎-‎277‎-‎015 ‎and ‎15‎-‎01‎-‎278‎-‎006‎, Vito Terracciano, Applicant ‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated June ‎22‎, ‎2012 ‎and ‎

PUD Layout had been placed on file and by reference became part of the ‎

record thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant was Brian Szliter, Arteva Homes, ‎1668 ‎

Telegraph Rd‎.‎, Suite L‎150‎, Bloomfield Hills, MI ‎48302‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek believed that everyone was familiar with the subject two‎-‎parcel, ‎

7‎.‎3 ‎acre site‎. ‎Several months ago, Staff brought it to the Planning ‎

Commission to consider a Recommendation to Rezone the land back to ‎

R‎-‎1‎, as it was zoned in ‎2009‎, to match the property to the north‎. ‎After a ‎

couple of meetings and discussion, the Planning Commission ‎

Recommended Approval‎. ‎It went to Council, and it was approved for First ‎

Reading, but it was not approved for Second Reading, based on a protest ‎

petition filed by an adjacent property owner‎. ‎It would have taken a super ‎

majority for passage, and the matter failed‎. ‎The property was still zoned ‎

R‎-‎E, Residential Estate‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek advised that since that time, he and Mr‎. ‎Breuckman had met ‎

with the potential developer, Mr‎. ‎Vito Terracciano, of Arteva Homes‎. ‎He ‎

was interested in determining what he could do with the parcels, and the ‎

zoning would allow seven units‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Terracciano pointed out in their initial ‎

meeting that he really liked the healthy, large trees throughout the ‎

property‎. ‎He talked to them about how to keep it rural and scenic‎. ‎It was ‎

suggested that he consider a Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎)‎, which ‎

would alleviate the rigid siting of lots and setbacks and would allow more ‎

flexibility in design‎. ‎Staff felt that he needed to do further evaluation on ‎

the merits of having two ponds‎. ‎One was large and was shared by several ‎

property owners and the other, in the northeast portion, was rather small‎. ‎

Regarding a PUD, it would be at the City‎’‎s discretion as to whether that ‎

tool should be used as a means to promote flexible development‎. ‎Staff ‎

suggested that he present before the Planning Commission and seek ‎

input before he went to the expense of preparing plans and surveys‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek related that he learned today that Mr‎. ‎Terracciano could not make ‎

the meeting, but his partner, Brian Szliter was present‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Szliter stated that since the parcels were ‎7‎.‎3 ‎acres, they proposed the ‎

PUD tool, to incorporate seven homesites within the development‎. ‎Most ‎

important to them was maintaining most of the natural elements of the ‎

site‎. ‎Along the south edge of the property, it was extensively wooded with ‎

mature trees‎. ‎Also, along Dequindre Road, there were lots of mature ‎

trees‎. ‎There was an extensive pine stand separating the property owners ‎

of Winkler Mill Estates to the north from the site‎. ‎In earlier discussions, ‎

there were some neighbors that were concerned about a stand of white ‎

pines along the west, and they wanted them maintained‎. ‎Given the new ‎

layout, they could successfully and substantially save a number of those ‎

trees‎. ‎Under Residential Estate zoning, they would not necessarily have ‎

to put in all the storm drain infrastructure, and in the previous proposal, ‎

Little Winkler, the rear yard catch basins in the lots to the south and north ‎

would have required cutting down a majority of the trees there to add a ‎

detention basin‎. ‎He had brought a couple of photos, showing a view ‎

looking south towards the pond‎. ‎Aside from the surrounding trees on the ‎

perimeter of the property, there were some large trees that existed interior ‎

as well‎. ‎Their plan was to work with the Engineer to site the building ‎

envelopes so as to maintain as many of the large trees on the property as ‎

possible‎. ‎He showed the view looking north at the stand of pines and one ‎

with a view to the east‎. ‎The trees were in the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of Dequindre, so ‎

the hope would be to maintain the natural vegetation barrier for the ‎

development‎. ‎There was also a large stand of spruce and white pines ‎

that were located in the interior portion of the property, and the intent ‎

would be to maintain as many of those as well‎. ‎The premise of the project ‎

would be to keep the development rural as designated by the Residential ‎

Estate zoning, using bio detention areas to handle storm water, instead of ‎

an underground storm sewer system‎. ‎The bio‎-‎detention areas would be ‎

planted with native vegetation, and they would work with the Engineer to ‎

make sure that the specifications were met‎. ‎They would set homesites ‎

within the natural vegetation and features of the site, which he felt would ‎

be in keeping with the intent of Residential Estate‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked about the building footprints and what the ‎

square‎-‎footage would be‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter said that they anticipated the market ‎

demand would be for two‎-‎story colonials, as opposed to a sprawling ‎

ranch‎. ‎They anticipated between ‎3‎,‎500 ‎to ‎4‎,‎000 ‎square feet, and the ‎

footprint of the first level or the size of the basement would be ‎2‎,‎000 ‎

square feet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroder pointed out that what was depicted on the ‎

proposed plan was a much larger building envelope, almost ‎8‎,‎000 ‎square ‎

feet, so it was deceiving as to how the homes would look‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter ‎

agreed, and said that the envelopes were depicted as a large area to fit ‎

something in‎. ‎Something could be turned or oriented to take maximum ‎

views into account‎. ‎He said that he appreciated Mr‎. ‎Schroeder‎’‎s ‎

clarification‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman thought that a fairly important element of the proposal ‎

was the fact that the potential for using a PUD process would allow the ‎

applicant not to have to put in the standard ‎27‎-‎foot wide road, curb and ‎

gutter and underground utilities‎. ‎The access road currently was ‎20 ‎feet ‎

wide‎. ‎There would be a much lighter imprint on the land, along with bio ‎

swales and eliminating the need for detention ponds‎. ‎He thought that the ‎

road cross section was a very important part of the whole rural package‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yukon asked what type of maintenance would be involved with the ‎

bio‎-‎detention area‎. ‎He assumed someone would have to go in and ‎

dredge the area every couple of years‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter responded that it would ‎

not be a standing water feature‎. ‎His understanding was that there would ‎

be the use of natural and native vegetation, and it would be a lower area, ‎

but there would not be standing water‎. ‎There would be things like river ‎

birch and other types of plants that could live with ‎“‎wet feet‎” ‎so to speak ‎

and absorb and detain the water and slowly let it steep into the ground‎. ‎

Eventually it would probably make its way to the pond at the south‎. ‎It ‎

would not be like a detention pond that filled up periodically with storm ‎

water runoff‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yukon asked if Mr‎. ‎Szliter was aware yet of the ‎

percentage of trees they would save‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter did not have a ‎

percentage‎. ‎The plan was recently laid out, but with the location of the ‎

trees indicated, they had the ability and flexibility to move building ‎

envelopes and move the roadways to try to maximize how many trees ‎

they could save‎. ‎There were some trees that were in decay and were not ‎

worth saving, but there were some really nice, mature oaks and maples ‎

that would be great to keep‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yukon indicated that he hoped they ‎

could do that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece asked about the structure of the agreement to allow access to ‎

Dequindre for the two landlocked parcels to the west‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that he had been told that access had to be provided to ‎

those two lots‎. ‎He did not know if there were any specific metes and ‎

bounds description as to where the easement had to occur‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Szliter agreed that was correct ‎- ‎based on a title review, there was no ‎

specific metes and bounds legal description of an easement, but an ‎

easement did need to be granted‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece thought that what was presented was a very good first start‎. ‎He ‎

suspected that the two people on the parcels to the west might have an ‎

issue with the relocation of the access road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter said that it was ‎

currently maintained as a gravel driveway‎. ‎It was the applicants‎’ ‎intention ‎

to pave the road‎. ‎They did not want to have a gravel driveway between ‎

homes‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece was referring to having the road go around the ‎

perimeter, and he clarified that they would not be using the loop road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Szliter agreed that was shown on the plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece asked if the ‎

perimeter road would be gravel‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter said that the loop road would ‎

be paved; whatever the homeowners decided to do with the easement ‎

given was up to them‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece said he felt that the PUD would work to the City‎’‎s benefit, to ‎

allow the applicants to have the maximum use of their lots and still allow ‎

maintenance of the natural features of the property‎. ‎The applicants had a ‎

right to develop it, and they would certainly be within the intent of the ‎

Zoning Ordinance, but he felt that the nut would be the access road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Szliter said that they were open to discussion about that‎. ‎By providing the ‎

easement as it was, they maintained Dequindre Rd‎. ‎addresses‎. ‎They ‎

had not even brought the issue up with the neighbors yet because they ‎

did not know what kind of reception they were going to get from the ‎

Commissioners‎. ‎They would be open to granting them an easement to ‎

the loop road, as long as they agreed to pave their driveway, so they did ‎

not have a gravel driveway between neighbors‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece asked if he ‎

meant potentially extending the access off of the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter ‎

said that was correct, but the homeowners would be required to install a ‎

paved driveway‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece asked if the applicants would potentially be in ‎

favor of something like that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter agreed, but he was not sure if the ‎

homeowners wanted to keep their addresses on Dequindre‎. ‎He assumed ‎

that if the easement was extended from the loop road that the ‎

homeowners would have to have address reassignments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece ‎

thought that might be even more palatable‎. ‎He asked Mr‎. ‎Anzek if there ‎

were any Ordinance restrictions on having the access drive along the ‎

perimeter of the property, as it was currently depicted‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated that he did not know of anything offhand that was in the ‎

Ordinance that would prohibit it‎. ‎He thought there were better solutions, ‎

and that whatever saved the most trees would be the preferred solution‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece said that if the property owner was willing to allow access off the ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac, he felt that would be the best solution‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter agreed, but ‎

said that they would have to discuss it with the neighbors to make sure ‎

that they understood it would be their responsibility to pave it‎. ‎He ‎

reiterated that they did not want to have a gravel road through the ‎

property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece asked if the detention pond on the northeast corner would go ‎

away, which Mr‎. ‎Szliter confirmed‎. ‎He added that they would fill it‎. ‎It was ‎

not very deep, and he did not believe it was that great of a natural water ‎

feature‎. ‎He reiterated that the Engineer just laid out the proposal, and ‎

they could explore changing the shape of the road, perhaps making it ‎

more of a P‎-‎shape and maintaining the pond‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reese said that ‎

personally, he felt that they had put some ingenuity into the plan in trying ‎

to find a solution that worked‎. ‎He said that for discussion purposes, he ‎

felt it was a good start‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that in looking at the proposed development, it ‎

brought to mind all the other similar type developments left in the City‎. ‎At ‎

the joint meeting a couple of weeks ago, they stated that the City was ‎

about ‎96‎% ‎built out‎. ‎Whatever they did for small properties such as the ‎

proposed could set a precedent‎. ‎In a formal review of the subject ‎

development, he would ask how it could set a precedent for the next time ‎

a developer came before them and wanted to do the same thing ‎- ‎special ‎

requests, a loop road, etc‎. ‎He recalled a development off of Washington ‎

a few years ago that proposed a loop road, which was how he saw the ‎

driveway‎. ‎He did not want something to come back to haunt them in the ‎

future‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek reminded that the use of a PUD was solely at the City‎’‎s ‎

discretion as to whether they wanted to use that tool as a means to ‎

accomplish a certain objective‎. ‎They were at the very beginning of the ‎

discussion‎. ‎It also had to go before Council for their support regarding ‎

use of a PUD for development‎. ‎The applicant was present to see if it was ‎

a viable tool to achieve their desired results‎. ‎Their desired results were to ‎

have a more rural look and not put a ‎35‎-‎foot wide cement cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac down ‎

the middle, making it a public street; they wanted to keep it private‎. ‎It ‎

would be privately held by the seven homeowners and possibly the two ‎

adjacent to the west, as an exclusive community‎. ‎There were a couple of ‎

others in town, and he was not concerned about setting a precedent ‎

because it could be a good thing‎. ‎If others would match and equal this ‎

type of development, he felt it would be worth supporting them‎. ‎He ‎

acknowledged that there might be some concerns, but it was solely at the ‎

City‎’‎s discretion to use a PUD‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he understood, but he indicated that if a PUD was ‎

used for a property such as this, he thought that everyone would be lining ‎

up tomorrow with requests to use one to get leniencies‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek said ‎

that the leniencies in the subject PUD would only be to push the footprints ‎

around to save the trees and other environmental features‎. ‎If they went ‎

with a straight seven‎-‎unit development, they probably would have to lose ‎

80‎% ‎of the large trees‎. ‎The first plan that expired had that setup, with ten ‎

units, a road down the center and a big retention basin on the south end‎. ‎

In his opinion, it was not very exciting, and he did not think it did justice to ‎

the property and the trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he could have a lot of ‎

fun on the loop road, and he could drive down and zip around it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek said that as discussed at the joint meeting, they were looking for ‎

ways to keep people from zipping around, such as using calming devices ‎

to keep the speeds down‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Szliter said that the intent would be for the road to be private‎. ‎There ‎

would be a landscaped wall and gated access to the homesites‎. ‎It would ‎

not be a free for all for kids on motorcycles‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that even ‎

with bio‎-‎detention, he really was not feeling the loop or ‎“‎lollipop‎” ‎road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Szliter asked if he meant from an aesthetic standpoint‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis ‎

said that the design of the loop road bothered him, and he would like to ‎

see different solutions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked if there were utilities that went back to the two homes ‎

to the west ‎- ‎water and sewer‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter said that he was not sure‎. ‎There ‎

was a water main to tap off of and the sanitary sewer was underneath ‎

Dequindre Rd‎. ‎and tied into a Shelby Township sanitary sewer‎. ‎He knew ‎

that the homes to the north were on septic, but he was not sure about ‎

water‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder said that it had always been his policy as a former ‎

City Engineer to require that developers extended water and sewer, and ‎

he would advise that they did it to the homes in the back‎. ‎He indicated ‎

that a road down the side did not make sense to him‎. ‎He would not want ‎

to be plowing that‎. ‎Putting it where it was proposed made sense, and it ‎

also made sense for the water and sewer‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter said that he could ‎

not remember what was initially planned for the previous ‎10‎-‎unit ‎

development, but it made sense to him, too‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman pointed out that the benefit of the layout with the ‎

bio‎-‎detention was that it introduced a lot of green in the middle of the loop ‎

road‎. ‎If they did a simple cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac, it would require a ‎96‎-‎foot radius for ‎

fire truck turnaround‎. ‎The radius would be almost as big as the loop road‎. ‎

With a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac, they would have to pave the entire middle of the ‎

detention area‎. ‎They would end up with a road functionally similar without ‎

any green or natural feature preservation‎. ‎He thought that was something ‎

they should not lose sight of‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis acknowledged that, but he wondered if they would be ‎

willing to accept bigger projects that came in with the same type of roads‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that perhaps they would for something in the rural ‎

estate district, which had one unit per acre‎. ‎They were not allowing it for ‎8 ‎

or ‎9‎,‎000 ‎square‎-‎foot lots‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis commented that they could get ‎

a very well rewarded PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick summarized that a PUD was a contract‎. ‎They would add ‎

certain clauses and stipulations about what the property would look like ‎

and what the development criteria would be, etc‎. ‎It was specific to the ‎

development‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek agreed‎. ‎He added that if, in the future, there ‎

were any proposed changes, it would have to go back through the ‎

process, and the contract would have to be amended‎. ‎They needed to ‎

think about a homeowner putting in a pool, so they had to make sure the ‎

building envelopes could accommodate that type of future growth‎. ‎If ‎

someone wanted to come in and build another home, they could not do it‎. ‎

If someone wanted to knock one down and build somewhere else, they ‎

might not be able to do it‎. ‎It depended on how the PUD was written‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick considered that a PUD would be something that helped the ‎

Commission from the standpoint of other properties trying to do the same ‎

thing somewhere else‎. ‎There would be a document for this property only, ‎

which would not have much sway on any other properties‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek ‎

agreed, and said that the document would be recorded, and it would be ‎

binding for this development only‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hetrick pointed out that tree ‎

preservation and other criteria were the type of stipulations that could go ‎

into the PUD document‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell called Mr‎. ‎White, who had turned in a card, forward ‎

to speak‎.‎

Robert White, ‎56187 ‎Dequindre, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48306‎ ‎Mr‎. ‎White ‎

advised that his home was to the west of the subject site‎. ‎He said that the ‎

Commissioners might remember that they were at a meeting a few ‎

months ago speaking in opposition to the Rezoning to R‎-‎1‎, primarily ‎

because they wanted to preserve the natural open space and feel of the ‎

R‎-‎E zoning, which they appreciated when they bought their house less ‎

than a year ago‎. ‎He thanked everyone for letting them in on the process ‎

at this stage, and he felt that it was a good start to working together‎. ‎They ‎

wanted to learn more about the PUD process‎. ‎They were not opposed to ‎

creative solutions to make sure the rural nature and open feel were ‎

maintained‎. ‎That had been their main objective all along‎. ‎They had ‎

always been willing to work with the developer to come to a solution that ‎

everyone could be happy with‎. ‎They did have a septic and well water, and ‎

he believed his neighbors were on it also‎. ‎Regarding the driveway ‎

easement, he was not sure if the applicants had done a title search on his ‎

property, but he believed that there was a specific easement on his title ‎

where the existing driveway was‎. ‎He had not spoken to his neighbors, but ‎

he thought they would agree that it would be o‎.‎k‎. ‎to connect to the loop ‎

road‎. ‎He did not think the easement could just move without their ‎

permission‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rob Link, ‎1956 ‎Carter, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48306‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Link said ‎

that he lived just north of the proposed site‎. ‎He appreciated the ‎

opportunity to speak‎. ‎He was concerned about water drainage‎. ‎If ‎

someone walked through the land, it was very squishy and wet‎. ‎One ‎

owner was going to build a house there, and they dug two to three holes to ‎

look for septic fields‎. ‎Those were filled with water now‎. ‎They needed to ‎

figure out some place to drain the water‎. ‎It was very important to him ‎

because all of their water spilled into the pond in the north when it rained‎. ‎

He added that he would not like a driveway going around the perimeter, ‎

and he thought that something through the middle would make more ‎

sense‎. ‎He asked if the applicants could pay their taxes, and he also said ‎

he would have to put in a call to have their lawn mowed‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell informed that the easement, the drainage, and all of ‎

those things would work themselves out‎. ‎The easement would be looked ‎

into, and the drainage had to meet the City‎’‎s standards, no matter what‎. ‎

Regarding a PUD, it was a Planned Unit Development, and it was a way ‎

of trying to be creative‎. ‎Certain standards would have to be met, such as ‎

the R‎-‎E zoning, and in so doing, what the applicants had proposed was to ‎

save trees‎. ‎If it were built as a regular R‎-‎E, seven‎-‎unit subdivision, most ‎

of the trees would be gone‎. ‎As to the road around the perimeter, he ‎

stated that he would not want that in his backyard, either‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szliter noted ‎

it was just for discussion, and they were completely open‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell stated that if they went forward, he would advise ‎

them to talk to all of the neighbors‎. ‎If they came back and they had not ‎

done that, the Commission probably would not entertain a discussion‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Szliter said that he understood‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek thanked the Commission‎. ‎When someone wanted to do ‎

something unique or complex, Staff liked to get them in front of the ‎

Commission for guidance and input‎. ‎The next step would be to refine the ‎

design and locate the trees to be preserved; begin to properly place ‎

building envelopes; and to work on the detention systems‎. ‎They would ‎

need to come back in front of the Commission for a formal resolution ‎

supporting the PUD concept, and then go in front of Council to also get ‎

support for use of the PUD process‎.‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis brought up that there would be older developments being ‎

regurgitated, and during the rewrite of the Master Land Use Plan, he ‎

wondered what they could do to change the Tree Ordinance so it applied ‎

to existing, platted developments‎. ‎He noted that there were parcels that ‎

had been there over ‎50 ‎years, such as those in Somerset Pines, where ‎

trees had grown a lot that he felt should be preserved‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek thought that was a good point, and it was worth considering‎. ‎In ‎

continuous discussions with Gerry Lee of the Forestry Department, he ‎

was advised that it was more important to keep stands of trees than to ‎

keep a percentage of trees‎. ‎That was something they had discussed, but ‎

never put in an Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis was not sure how it should be ‎

worked out, but they would have a lot of those coming forward‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek ‎

said that he was not sure want they would redevelop in terms of ‎

residential‎. ‎Homes lasted ‎80‎-‎100 ‎years, and most had been built since ‎

1960‎, but he agreed that they could take the matter up‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis ‎

referred to Somerset Pines, which was vacant and platted in the ‎1950‎’‎s, ‎

and he said that the developer could take all the trees if he wanted‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek agreed, but he noted that they would be keeping a percentage ‎

because of the wetlands to the north‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he would ‎

just like to have that tool in their toolbox‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek suggested that was ‎

the beauty of a PUD‎. ‎They could cluster units to keep stands of trees‎. ‎

The mixed‎-‎residential overlay was intended to be more creative in the ‎

siting of homes to preserve the environment‎. ‎He stated that the trees on ‎

the Little Winkler site were impressive, and it was worth pushing homes ‎

around to keep them‎. ‎He agreed they would take it up during the re‎-‎write‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Boswell reminded Commissioners that the next Regular ‎

Meeting was scheduled for July ‎17‎, ‎2012‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission and ‎

upon motion by Kaltsounis, seconded by Hetrick, Chairperson Boswell ‎

adjourned the Regular Meeting at ‎8‎:‎11 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎, Michigan time‎.‎

_____________________________ ________________________‎

William F‎. ‎Boswell, Chairperson Maureen Gentry‎

Rochester Hills Planning Commission Recording Secretary‎