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, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, David A. Reece, C. Neall

Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Planning Commission

Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, Nicholas

Kaltsounis, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

8 -

Quorum Present

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2008-0445

August 19, 2008 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hardenburg

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated August 2008

Chairperson Boswell stated that the next item was a Public Hearing and if

anyone wished to speak, there were cards to be filled out and brought to

the Secretary.

NEW BUSINESS

2008-0414

Request for Conditional Land Use Approval - Chapman's Mill Outdoor Seating, for the sale

and service of food and beverages outdoors at an existing restaurant formerly known as

Taco Loco, part of Crooks Corner retail center, 2086 Crooks Rd., south of Hamlin, zoned

B-3, Shopping Center Business, Parcel No. 15-29-228-004, Tom Moss & Associates,

applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Ed Anzek, dated

September 2, 2008 and Site Plan and review comments

had been placed on file and by reference became part of

the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Thomas Moss, Tom Moss &

Associates, 1893 Birchwood Dr., Troy, MI 48083-2211.

Mr. Anzek advised that Mr. Moss first came to the Planning

Department about six weeks ago representing Chapman’s

Mill, and requested to add outdoor seating to the restaurant

formerly known as Taco Loco on Crooks south of Hamlin.

Mr. Anzek indicated that outdoor seating had been

supported by the City, for the most part, as long as it was

approved by the Fire Department. Mr. Moss identified the

opportunity to continue the pathway along the front of the

parking lot to provide linkage to the Clinton River Trail. Mr.

Anzek felt that the proposal was innovative and exciting for

several reasons, and he noted that the second generation

of the nearly completed Master Thoroughfare Plan involved

the linkage of pathways. The proposed plan was shown to

the Friends of the Clinton River Trail, and there was

enthusiasm, because that was the type of pursuit they were

trying to support. He advised that Staff recommended

approval of the outdoor seating plan, and he noted that the

Liquor Control Commission required a fenced in area for

the service of alcohol outdoors with their approval. There

was a fire lane around the sidewalk surrounding the patio,

as required by the Fire Department. He added that the

applicants were providing bike racks, benches and a

drinking fountain for people using the Trail, and that he

would be happy to answer any questions.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Moss if he had anything

further to add. Mr. Moss indicated that they were anxious to

get started. The pending items for the new owners to take

over the restaurant were the approval by the Planning

Commission and City Council of the Conditional Land Use.

He advised that there would be seating for 28 people, and

he showed a photo of the wrought iron fencing and stone

pillars. There would be two overhead glass doors,

approximately nine by ten, leading out of the east elevation

of the restaurant to the patio area. They proposed stamped

concrete over the patio surface, which would be level with

the floor of the restaurant. There would be decorative

lighting. They met with the Fire Department regarding the

requirements for a minimum 25-foot fire lane access

between the parking and the sidewalk. They would

eliminate seven parking spaces on the east end of the

center, but the owner of the complex had paved the back

area to allow more than sufficient parking. He concluded

that there would be a gate out of the patio for emergency

access.

Mr. Dettloff stated that the Commissioners were certainly

happy to see the proposal, and that they encouraged those

types of activities in the community. Since it was already

September, he wondered if they would start construction

this year.

Mr. Moss answered that they would not be able to do the

patio area this year. He mentioned that the entire retail

center was going to be refaced, but they would be

restricted, weather-wise. As he mentioned, the closing of

the deal between the present owner and the new owner was

dependent upon approval of the outdoor seating, so he did

not feel it would be at all possible to do anything this year.

Mr. Dettloff referred to maintenance of the patio, and asked

if there would be a defined maintenance plan to powerwash

or otherwise clean it. He would be concerned about it

becoming an eyesore if it were not maintained properly. He

asked if there would be a joint effort between the restaurant

owners and the plaza owners, or if it would be solely up to

the restaurant owners.

Mr. Moss advised that it had already been discussed.

There would be a joint venture regarding the cost of the bike

path, and they knew it was important to the City. They also

discussed the upkeep of the patio, and that it would be

taken care of, and he felt that the restaurant owner would be

more inclined to make sure it was done if the landlord did

not do it, although he did not think that would be the case.

Mr. Dettloff wished him good luck.

Mr. Yukon asked what the months of operation would be,

and Mr. Moss said it would be summertime, and he noted

the Condition in the packet requiring it from April 15th until

October 31st. Mr. Yukon asked if he would describe the

fencing. Mr. Moss stated that they had not really gotten into

the final details, but he believed it would have pointed tops

so people could not hop over it. It had to be a minimum of

four feet, six inches high, and there would be stone pillars

for decorative accents.

Mr. Yukon noted that there appeared to be a gradual

decline of the slope to the Trail and he asked if the grade

was changing. Mr. Anzek said it would, and that Mr.

Hartman of the Parks Department looked at it, and he was

aware there might be something constructed to get across

the swale. He assured that they would make it work.

Mr. Moss supplemented that the incline to the west was

steeper, so they turned the path to the east, and there was a

very gradual incline, so the bikers should have no trouble.

The only structural item they would need underneath would

be a culvert for drainage.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked what happened to Taco Loco. Mr.

Moss said they were leaving, but he was not sure for where.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked about the new owners and if they

were from the area, and Mr. Moss clarified that they were

brand new. Mr. Kaltsounis asked if he could assume that

the center’s updating would be handled administratively,

which Mr. Anzek confirmed. Mr. Kaltsounis commented

that the proposed seating area was the best one he had

seen in the City. He liked the design, and he was glad to

see what the center was doing to keep up with the times.

Mr. Schroeder thought that the patio and update would

greatly improve the look of the center and the appearance

of the area. He thought it was terrific to have the connection

to the Trail. He asked if there would be a sign at the Trail

notifying users of the restaurant, which Mr. Moss confirmed.

Mr. Anzek said there were some issues involving the DNR

grant, but Mr. Hartman felt he had some solutions, and Mr.

Moss was supportive that the users of the Trail would know

there was a place to go.

Mr. Reece asked if the landscaping area and decorative

benches and lightposts were being handled

administratively as part of the façade renovation project.

Mr. Anzek agreed that they would be, because there were

no landscaping requirements for the outdoor seating area.

Staff was concerned about perimeter buffers and

landscaping, and he advised that there were no buffers

required.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at 7:48

p.m. Seeing no one come forward, he closed the Public

Hearing. He noted that the Commissioners had received

an email from Mr. Dan Kiefer, of the Friends of the Clinton

River Trail, in support of the project, which he advised

would be made part of the record.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if, in the future, the applicant would be

coming back for an expansion of the outdoor seating area

or if there were limits to the site. Mr. Moss replied that they

did not really have any thoughts about it at the present time.

They hoped it would be a huge success, and they would

have to come back before the Commission if they wanted

to expand. Mr. Kaltsounis moved the following motion:

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, in the

matter of City File No. 75-341, the Planning Commission

Recommends City Council Approve the Conditional Land

Use for outdoor sales and service of food for Chapman’s

Mill, located at Crooks Corner on Crooks Rd., south of

Hamlin, zoned B-3, Shopping Center Business, Parcel No.

15-29-228-004, based on the site plan dated received by

the Planning Department on July 25, 2008 with the

following six (6) findings and subject to the following two (2)

conditions:

Findings:

1. The subject seating area will be surrounded by a railing

and sidewalk adjacent

to the driveway, and does not appear that it will be

detrimental, hazardous, or

disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses,

persons, property or the public

welfare.

2. The existing development does promote the intent and

purpose of this chapter.

3. The subject site has been designed so as to be

compatible, harmonious and

appropriate in appearance with the existing or planned

character of the general

vicinity, adjacent uses of land, the natural

environment, the capacity of public

services and facilities affected by the land use, and the

community as a whole.

4. The subject site is served adequately by essential public

facilities and

services, such as highways, streets, police and fire

protection, drainageways,

refuse disposal, and the persons or agencies

responsible for the establishment

of the land use or activity shall be able to provide

adequately any such service.

5. The subject site does not create additional requirements

at public cost for

public facilities and services that will be detrimental to

the economic welfare of

the community.

6. The subject site will be connected to the Clinton River

Trail by a pathway and signage as a destination

option.

Conditions:

1. Address comments in the Building Department memo

dated August 8, 2008, prior to Building Plan Approval.

2. Dates of operation shall be from April 15 to October 31st.

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

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hardenburg

1 -

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2007-0776

Revised Conditional Land Use Recommendation (Postponed from July 29, 2008 Special

Meeting) - City File No. 89-153.8 - Crittenton Hospital Medical Center Parking Structure,

a new 479-space, four-story parking deck expansion proposed for the east side of the

existing parking deck located south of the hospital near University and Livernois, zoned

SP, Special Purpose, part of Parcel No. 15-15-101-003, Crittenton Hospital Medical

Center, applicant.

(Reference: Revised Staff Report prepared by Ed Anzek,

dated September 2, 2008 and Revised Site Plans had been

placed on file and by reference became part of the record

thereof.)

Present for the applicant were Richard Whedon, Albert

Khan Associates, Inc., Albert Khan Building, 7430 Second

Ave., Detroit, MI 48202-2798 and Monte Oberlee, Crittenton

Hospital Medical Center, 1101 W. University Dr., Rochester

Hills, MI 48307.

Mr. Whedon recapped the discussion of the July 29, 2008

meeting for the benefit of those who were unable to attend.

He put up a drawing and pointed out the proposed addition

to the east side of the existing structure for approximately

475 cars. It would actually be for a net of 265 cars, because

they were building over an existing parking lot. He added

that the new deck would mirror the existing deck. They

were sensitive to the residents, and they proposed a solid

wall on the eastern end, so lights would not project into the

residential area. He showed photos of the surrounding

area, existing deck and vegetation at the property line,

which, he noted, had been taken on a Sunday.

Mr. Whedon said they listened to concerns expressed by

the residents, and they revisited the entire design of the

deck. He pointed out that the new Site Plan did not look

much different, but he stated that there were major

differences. They moved the surface level entrance for the

first level from the far-east end of the north elevation 60 feet

west to make it further away from the residents. They

addressed landscaping and improved the berm. There

would be 37 trees (he previously noted 55, which was

incorrect), and he advised that the new proposal included

over 200 pieces of vegetation for the berm and as part of

the new scheme for the structure. The east road around the

deck was there at the request of the Fire Department, and

the traffic would be limited to emergency vehicles. They

would close it off with curbing or breakaway bollards. The

main access road would still go through the deck. He

stated that the primary changes were to the elevation.

There had been a major concern about the deck’s height,

so the top two levels were cut back a bay. The overall wall

height at the east end was cut in half. In addition, the wall

height at the east end would be 7 feet high so people could

not look down into the neighbors’ yards. Regarding the end

elevation, instead of all brick, he advised that there would

be grillage work to grow ivy. They took off a lot of brick on

the upper levels and made it precast, because of the

concern about a solid brick wall. They believed that would

soften the look of the building quite a bit, and that by adding

greenery, it would increase the density of the foliage

tremendously at the property line. He went over the interior

changes. They eliminated ramping on the east end of the

new deck, and put it further from the residents. That would

also reduce noise levels. There would be enhanced

circulation, eliminating confusion about how to navigate

around the deck. He put up a drawing representing the

various grades in relation to the residential area. He added

that the greenery would go on both sides of the berm, and

he clarified that the trellis would go on the east wall. They

believed that the new design would significantly reduce the

impact of the east wall.

Mr. Yukon asked if the height of the east side was down to

25 feet from 45 feet, which was confirmed. He recalled that

the Commission had asked the applicants to make contact

with the residents to talk about the proposal. He asked the

applicants to explain what discussions took place.

Mr. Oberlee replied that when they withdrew the plan, they

met the next day and scrapped everything because they

needed to address concerns raised. It took a complete

redesign, and they re-engineered everything. They worked

for 2 1/2 weeks, and the only option he had at the time was

to go door to door and talk to the residents. He gave them

his business card and showed sketches, and he talked

about in which direction they were moving. That was what

they had time to do, and there was no time to hold a group

discussion.

Mr. Yukon asked Mr. Oberlee to put up a picture of the

existing garage with the light pole. Mr. Yukon asked the

distance from that light pole to the property line, and was

told 60 feet. Mr. Yukon asked if they had done any parking

calculations for the proposed east tower, or if they

envisioned how much more parking would be needed for

the tower. Mr. Whedon said they were done, but he did not

have them with him. He explained that the tower would be

primarily for patients, and the first two levels would be for

services. There would be the correct amount of parking to

support the medical office building and the new tower with

the deck. Mr. Yukon asked Mr. Anzek if it was general

practice to put in the parking before the structure if it was

master planned but not built.

Mr. Anzek responded that it was not really common

practice, because people typically would not absorb that

expense up front. In this case, there was a need, and they

had to provide the parking. It was Crittenton’s staging plan.

Mr. Yukon clarified that it was up to the applicant. Mr.

Oberlee agreed that some of the current parking would be

lost to staging. Mr. Yukon asked why pictures were taken

on a Sunday, when there was little activity. Mr. Oberlee

said that the pictures were taken to show the existing

vegetation along the berm.

Mr. Yukon mentioned that maintenance of the berms and a

lack of trees had been raised as concerns previously. He

noted the planned vegetation for the side of the deck and

asked if he could assume that they would maintain it. Mr.

Oberlee assured that they would.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Comments at 8:09

p.m.

Ann Peterson, 233 N. Alice, Rochester, MI 48307 Ms.

Peterson passed around her camera phone to the

Commissioners, and suggested that they needed to look at

the picture, which showed the density of her property from

her bedroom window. She said that she was extremely

disappointed, upset and disturbed, and that thinking about

the deck was detrimental to her health. Her home would be

in the center of the parking structure. She had done a lot of

research related to the well being of the citizens on Alice St.

and the parking structure. There were six homes that would

be directly affected that were worth approximately $1.25

million. She believed that the property values would

definitely decrease, and/or the homes would remain

non-saleable, for many reasons - the loss of light, the

building shadowing, air quality, negative property values,

having a structure in the backyard, noise, 24/7 operation,

privacy and more. She referred to the Tall Structure Act of

1959, which “promoted the safety, welfare and protection of

persons and property in the air and on the ground by

regulating the height, location and visual and oral

identification characteristics of certain structures.” As an

adjacent homeowner, she thought that the parking structure

would apply. She stated that home ownership came with a

bundle of rights, and the first was the right to quiet, peaceful

enjoyment of the property, no matter where someone lived.

She felt it was her right to continually fight for that. She said

she had read through a lot of Ordinances for the City of

Rochester and Rochester Hills and took a lot of notes. The

City of Rochester’s zoning map showed that the section that

abutted the neighbors was zoned Vehicular Parking, which

was surface parking, and it had been zoned that way for

years. It was not zoned for a structure. She stated that the

berm was not fairly dense and that it had not been

maintained. She did not care what was put on the wall; if it

were that close to the property line, nothing would grow.

She talked about the sun’s shadowing effect at various

times of the day. She mentioned talking about a

Conditional Land Use at the last meeting and read a

Finding from the proposed motion: “The proposed

development should not be detrimental, hazardous or

disturbing to existing or future neighboring land uses,

persons, property, or the public welfare.” She indicated that

there had not been a reasonable explanation as to why the

structure had to be so close. She said also that nothing had

been mentioned about the 24/7 usage of the deck, for which

there were restrictions in Rochester and Rochester Hills

about limiting the times. She talked about the line that

divided Crittenton into two cities and the line which was

used for taxes, and she wondered about Crittenton paying

taxes. She believed that the Ordinance prohibited the

building next to a residential area unless it was as far away

as four times its height, but she did not know if that applied

to a parking structure. She stated that the height restriction

for a parking structure in the Special Purpose district was

30 feet, and noted that the structure was proposed for 45

feet. Whether it was cut back or not or redesigned, it still

had not been moved away from the neighborhood. The

screening on the building would be shadowed. She stated

that it was very overwhelming to keep fighting for her house

at a time when people were fighting to keep jobs. She felt

that there were a lot of issues that needed to be addressed

before the project went further, because currently the land

was not zoned for a building structure on the City of

Rochester side. If there was a discrepancy between the

description of a building and a parking structure, she felt it

should be revised to take the neighborhood into

consideration. Great Oaks had the same problem when the

Boulevard Shoppes were going in, but the developer took a

lot of things into consideration and they kept the building

away from the residents. She stated that she would

continue fighting and if anyone attempted to build, she

would get an injunction and go to court. She did not want to

spend the rest of her mornings waking up to the picture on

her phone.

Jan Power, 238 N. Alice, Rochester, MI 48307 Ms. Power

thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak, and

stated that she owned rental property on North Alice. She

currently lived in Rochester Hills, but lived on Alice for 16

years. She said she had grave concerns, both on a

personal and on a business leveI. She felt that the parking

structure would truly negatively impact the quality of life for

the reasons Ms. Peterson mentioned - 24/7 activity, lights,

noise, etc. She was also very concerned, in the current

economic times, and felt the City did not need to do

anything that would further devalue properties in both cities.

From a business standpoint, she wanted to know whether

there really was a need. There was a Certificate of Need in

place for Crittenton regarding whether more beds were

needed. That had not been applied for or approved. The

hospital was not at 100% capacity currently, and it seemed

to her that there was not a need for a parking structure. She

felt it was the wrong time and place to put the parking

structure, and she thought that there must be some

alternatives that would not impact neighbors, and that they

should keep the quality of life as it was on Alice St. Her

parents used to visit and sit on the front porch and say nice

things about the quiet, little “backwater.” Her dad loved to

sit there because it was so peaceful, but the proposal would

definitely change that. She thanked the Commissioners for

serving.

Steve Ciraulo, 245 N. Alice, Rochester, MI 48307 Mr.

Ciraulo said he was not sure how the comment section

worked. If he asked questions, he said he would not get

answers. Chairperson Boswell explained that he should

address his questions to the Chair, and that he would get

answers at the end of the Public Comments. Mr. Ciraulo

said that at the July 29th meeting, there were several

Commission members that asked the applicants to hold a

town hall meeting. He asked what happened to that

meeting. He pointed out the property line that divided

Rochester and Rochester Hills, and he asked who would

give the Permits. He asked how many years it would be

under construction. He reiterated that there had been no

maintenance on the berm since he had lived there, and he

had lived there a long time. He asked how the applicants

would maintain the ivy when they could not maintain the

berm. He indicated that each day it was very upsetting to

the people on Alice, and that he totally objected to the

project. He felt there were other alternatives.

Thomas Crowe, 1046 Willow Grove Ct., Rochester, MI

48307 Mr. Crowe noted that he was a resident of Hidden

Hills in Rochester, which was located south of the hospital.

His purpose for being at the meeting was because of cross

boundary issues, and other things that arose from the

expansion of the medical office building. He asked about

the impact to the retention pond and the drainage system

put in place with the expansion. He asked about water

runoff from the parking structure and what would happen.

He stated that currently, the drainage ran directly behind his

building through the City of Rochester and past McGregor.

He asked about forecasted growth with regards to the

expansion of the medical office building and the

percentage of growth impact to Crittenton to warrant a new

parking structure. It appeared to him that there was

adequate parking for the facility today. The proposed tower

was not being constructed, so he thought that the request

for a new deck was premature. The entrance to the hospital

was from two access points - Livernois and University. He

said he brought that point up at the meeting when the

medical office building went through review and approval.

He asked if there had been a traffic study to show the

percentage increase for the south entrance from Livernois,

which was also the emergency entrance. That access was

adjacent to many homes in Willow Grove, as well as to the

clubhouse and pool. He was not sure about the occupancy

rate for the medical office building, or whether they were at

100%, but if not, he reiterated that the proposal was

premature. He indicated that he was not speaking on

behalf of the rest of the Hidden Hills residents; he was

speaking as a resident of Rochester regarding his concerns

about the expansion. There was one area not addressed,

and that was expansion of parking to include a deck in the

area south of the medical office building, which was now

surface parking. He asked the long-range forecast for that

area, and if they would end up with parking structures

surrounding the hospital.

Chairperson Boswell closed the Public Comments and

asked the applicants what happened to the town hall

meeting. Mr. Oberlee explained that they did not have time

to do it and come up with new deck plans. Chairperson

Boswell asked Mr. Oberlee if he had dropped off business

cards to the people who just spoke, and he said that he

had. Chairperson Boswell noted the question about

building permits, and he asked which city would be

responsible. Mr. Anzek answered that having a structure

straddle a corporate boundary between two cities was not a

unique situation. FANUC Robotics was split between

Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills; Borg Warner on Hamlin

was split between Rochester Hills and Auburn Hills also.

There was an understanding between the two cities as to

which would take the lead on the development of the

buildings. When he met with Crittenton, it was his decision

that Rochester would determine the portion that sat in

Rochester, so the applicants went to Rochester first. They

were given preliminary approval of the design a little over a

year ago. It took a year to come to Rochester Hills because

the applicants were completing their Master Plan, as

requested by the Commission. Mr. Whedon had been

working on that for some time. Mr. Anzek pointed out that

when the parking deck was originally built, it was stated

then that it was half of their proposed parking expansion.

Mr. Anzek deferred to Rochester for their portion, but

Rochester Hills would take care of the portion up to the

corporate boundary, which would be relatively seamless.

He was advised by Mr. Staran that the project went to the

property line, not to the tax parcel line. The corporate

boundary in this case would function as a tax parcel line,

not a parcel line. The City of Rochester Hills would meet

with Rochester, assuming the deck was approved, and

decide who would take the lead on building inspections.

There could not be two cities interpreting the Building Code.

He spoke with Mr. Ciraulo last week and told him that the

City of Rochester would approve the portion that was in

Rochester.

Mr. Anzek referred to the height of the building and said that

in applying Rochester Hills’ standards, with the building

scaled back, it would meet the requirements for a four-story

deck in the SP district. There was a 50-foot setback, and for

any story over two, the building had to be back an

additional 20 feet. The footprint of the building was already

60 feet away, and going an additional two stories would

require an additional 30 feet back. It was more than 90 feet

back at the stepped-up portion. He noted that the Fire

Department asked for the road around the deck, and

Crittenton decided to keep it to emergency traffic only and

to put a road through the deck. He spoke about the

stormwater issue raised, and said there would be no

increase in stormwater because it was already impervious

surface. Rochester had added a detention basin, and

Rochester Hills was not involved with that. Regarding the

number of years for construction, he deferred to Mr.

Oberlee. He said he had visited the site recently, and he

did not find it to be unsightly or littered. There was

construction equipment stacked in the parking lot, but he

did not think it was unkempt.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Oberlee about occupancy

and the need for more beds. Mr. Oberlee clarified that they

were not looking to add beds with the addition of the tower.

They were going to convert the number of rooms they had

to private rooms, which was where health care was going.

The need for the parking deck stemmed from the fact that

when they built the patient tower, they could not do it

without having some significant staging. It would become

more paramount to have the parking ahead of time. They

could not take away a significant amount of parking, build a

building and then create parking. They had to do what

made sense.

Mr. Oberlee advised that the parking deck was anticipated

to take 12-14 months to construct. He was not yet sure how

long the patient tower would take.

Chairperson Boswell asked about the traffic study. Mr.

Whedon indicated that a traffic study was not done for the

deck, and according to Staff, one was not required.

Mr. Kaltsounis apologized that he was not at the last

meeting. He wondered if the Fire Department would

consider a driveway consisting of grass and grates so it

would not look like a road. Mr. Anzek said it would not work

if the Fire Department had to use outriggers. He added that

they did ask for the minimum width. Mr. Kaltsounis asked if

the Fire Department had determined if outriggers would

actually reach the area where it stepped back. Mr. Anzek

said they could reach the upper decks from the north or

south of the building. Mr. Oberlee noted that he had asked

the Fire Department if they could use the type of road Mr.

Kaltsounis had suggested, and they were emphatic that it

had to be asphalt because of their heavy equipment.

Mr. Kaltsounis noted a jog in the intersection north of the

deck, and Mr. Oberlee explained that when the new tower

went it, the road would move over. Mr. Anzek said that the

City’s Traffic Engineer looked at that area, and the jog

would be insignificant to motorists. There was a four-way

stop and the traffic north of the eastern portion would be

two-way, which would accommodate people getting out of

the surface parking lot. Mr. Whedon pointed out the Master

Plan, which he said was valid, and advised that the detail

around the deck would change.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked Mr. Whedon to explain the

landscaping proposed for the eastern wall, noting that he

thought the landscape plan was insufficient. Mr. Whedon

apologized that the Landscape Architect was not in

attendance, but he said he would try to answer. Mr.

Kaltsounis said he wanted to make sure they got it right.

He indicated that the vines were a nice idea in the

summertime, but in the winter they would die. Mr. Oberlee

did not believe that was necessarily true; he said they were

putting in winter creeper vines, and others that would retain

their leaves. They would also plant annuals for a few years

until the vines caught up. Mr. Kaltsounis asked what they

were doing to address the berm.

Mr. Oberlee said that the residents were correct, and that

the berm had gotten very thin. The tops of the trees looked

solid, but they were originally planted close together

because they were on a berm. As they had grown taller, the

bottom branches had died and broken off. The intention

would be to plant trees and shrubs in the lower area to infill

without taking down the tall trees.

Mr. Kaltsounis mentioned the town hall meeting. He said

that for a lot of subdivisions that came before the

Commission, the developers had met with the neighbors

beforehand to get their ideas, and they worked out a lot of

problems in advance, even avoiding lawsuits. He was

disappointed the applicants did not have a town hall

meeting. Mr. Oberlee said they had to have something to

present to the neighbors, and it took them two-and-a-half

weeks to get to that point.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked what type of trees they were

proposing to obscure the view of the deck. Mr. Whedon

noted the list of plantings and where they would go.

Ms. Peterson came to the microphone and said she did not

mean any disrespect, but she cautioned that if the

Commissioners had not been out to see the property,

deciding which trees would go where would not be

justifiable to the residents because of the property they

planned to put the trees on. It was not a berm like the ones

in every subdivision. Some of the trees were dead. The

pines had bugs, and the bugs also killed the ground around

the trees. There was not a six-foot berm, and there was not

enough space to put in the type of trees they were

discussing. It sounded good, but she said she still did not

want to look at a row of trees. The spot before the parking

had to be seen before they made a decision, and she

reiterated that they had to walk the property first. She asked

them to please look at the property from both sides.

Chairperson Boswell said he could essentially guarantee

that the Commissioners had been out to the property, and

he had also been down Alice Street.

Mr. Anzek reminded that the landscaping area was in the

City of Rochester. If it were in the City of Rochester Hills,

the minimum requirement would be a Type B Buffer - a

25-foot width with a berm, fence or wall and a 20-foot IVO

(deciduous trees planted every 25 feet). The applicants

were trying to create a green wall, and they exceeded the

City’s minimum requirements. The City’s Landscape

Architect would not approve of plantings under trees that

would not grow.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked what would happen to the trees that

were dying. Mr. Oberlee said they would be left there until

they needed to be taken down because they were big and

they still had considerable greenery. He stressed that they

would do a lot of work there. Mr. Kaltsounis reiterated that a

town hall meeting would go a long way to resolve some of

the issues and concerns.

Mr. Kaltsounis mentioned that when the applicants came

before the Commission in 2002, one of the conditions of

approval was to put a black surface on the top level of the

deck to keep the hue of light minimized. He stated that the

top was not black. He also brought up that there were

30-40 swimming pool lights that circled the parking

structure. He did not see them on the plans. Those lights

did not direct light downward - they shined all over and

gave off a large hue of light.

Mr. Oberlee believed the “swimming pool” lights were put in

to keep lights off of high poles. Mr. Kaltsounis said that the

swimming pool lights emitted light in all directions. Mr.

Oberlee said he would look at it. Mr. Whedon said he went

to the parking structure after the July 29 meeting, and he

was not sure about the reference to swimming pool lights.

He acknowledged that there were a couple of lights by the

east elevation that were not part of the plan, but they had

been disconnected. Mr. Kaltsounis said the photometric

plan showed eight and nine footcandles across the wall of

the deck. He thought the standard was less than two. Mr.

Anzek said the City had used two as a standard, and that

standard was also used at City Hall. It had to be zero at a

residential property line. He agreed that Mr. Kaltsounis had

asked for a non-reflective coating for the top deck, and he

could not explain why it was not done.

Mr. Kaltsounis said he did not think he could approve the

plan with nine’s against the wall. Mr. Whedon said that the

Ordinance required zero footcandles at the property line

and that was what they showed. Mr. Kaltsounis said that

the residents were all concerned about lighting. Mr.

Whedon said that the nine footcandles at the perimeter

walls were due to lights that were located behind the panels

that would shine down onto the deck. Mr. Kaltsounis said

that the lights he saw did not do that. Mr. Whedon said they

did not have enough spread to put light outside the deck,

but he said they could reduce the lighting level on the deck.

Mr. Kaltsounis said they had to fix the current lights so they

were shining in the right direction, and they had to make the

top level black. Mr. Anzek suggested that they could do a

study and see if that part was a problem. He thought the

black might not be necessary if the wattage was lowered.

Mr. Oberlee agreed they might need a study, and Mr.

Kaltsounis said he would like to see a comparison of the

lighting of the lower floors and the upper deck. The lower

floors appeared to have much less substantial lighting.

Ms. Brnabic asked if any resident had requested whether

the Rochester Planning Commission or City Council would

revisit the matter. She understood that both cities had to

review the project and that it fell under both cities’

Ordinances, but she indicated that everything they had

heard was coming from Rochester residents. She said she

understood the hospital was under a timeframe, but a major

issue the Commission was uncomfortable with was the lack

of communication with the neighbors. She questioned the

need for a bigger parking deck if there was not a date that

the tower would be built. The applicants stated that they

had a timeframe, and she acknowledged that they did go

door to door, but she wanted to know the urgency if they did

not have a projected date for the tower.

Mr. Oberlee said he had been asked how long it would take

to build the tower, and he was not sure about that. He said

that he hoped things went well, because the CEO of

Crittenton was starting to talk with community leaders about

beginning construction a year from now. It was a very

expensive venture, and there were a lot of “ifs.” They

needed adequate parking on the site so they could do it.

Ms. Brnabic said she understood that, and that they made

an effort to resolve several concerns, although they needed

further discussion about the berm. She hoped they were

really listening to the present concerns, because they did

not have the town hall meeting, which should have

included members from the Rochester Planning

Commission and City Council as well as residents. She

stated that Rochester had the final approval and at this

point, to ask the Commission to approve it before

Rochester had a chance to review it again did not make

sense. She added that Rochester should review the

Minutes from both meetings.

Mr. Anzek responded that the City of Rochester Planning

Commission was meeting the next night. When they met a

year ago, they gave a preliminary approval. He noted that

he spoke with Mr. Oberlee the day after the July 29th

meeting, and they looked at the draft Minutes. Several

Commissioners encouraged the applicant to meet with the

neighbors, but only Mr. Hooper suggested a town hall

meeting. There was not a directive to have a town hall

meeting, just a strong suggestion to meet with the

neighbors. He advised that he would attend the meeting

the next night to represent the Commissioners’ concerns

and opinions. His recommendation would be that

Rochester Hills approve the plans subject to the City of

Rochester’s final approval. The City’s responsibility really

just went up to the corporate boundary. The landscaping

resolution was a Rochester decision. It was the chicken

and egg sort of thing - they might want to wait for Rochester

Hills to approve and vice versa, but someone had to go

first.

Ms. Brnabic was glad Mr. Oberlee had talked with people or

left his card. Mr. Oberlee said he had some very nice

conversations with people, and they invited him into their

yards to see the berm. He was committed to fixing any

problems. He said it would be tough to get a group of

people to mitigate when it had been made clear that it was

not a question of what the berm looked like, it was that they

did not want the deck. It felt like he had a more intimate

conversation with people about it than he would have been

able at an emotionally charged town hall meeting.

Ms. Brnabic thought Rochester should make the final

decision and work on any outstanding issues, but she said

that was somewhat frustrating. She could understand the

residents’ concerns about the height, and she was happy to

see that they took it down a couple of levels, but if they

wanted to see the deck 100 feet back, she was not sure it

would matter because it had to comply with Rochester’s

Ordinances. She felt that the City of Rochester would use

discretion. Mr. Anzek agreed, and said that the only thing

Rochester Hills drove as far as Site Plan mandates was the

fire access lane, because the City had primary fire

response and responsibility to the hospital.

Ms. Brnabic acknowledged that the applicants had put

some work into the project, but she felt that there were still

things to be improved, and she expressed that it was now in

Rochester’s hands. She was concerned about what the

residents’ had expressed, and she realized that not

everything could be solved, but as a resident of Rochester

Hills and member of the Planning Commission, she said

she could relate to them. Mr. Anzek said that the

Commission respected citizen input regardless of where

they lived. Ms. Brnabic stated that she was not trying to

shift responsibility, but the residents had shared concerns

at two meetings. She concluded that it was in Rochester’s

hands, and she hoped they considered everything that had

been said.

Mr. Anzek asked what else should be changed, other than

the lighting, up to the corporate boundary. They had spent

most of the night discussing landscaping, the stepping, and

the eastern wall, which were all Rochester’s decisions. He

asked if the Commission would consider a motion to

approve, subject to the City of Rochester’s approval. Ms.

Brnabic said that if it were the first meeting, she would have

said no. However, the applicants made changes, and the

Commission expressed everything else they had concerns

about, and it was now up to Rochester, and up to Crittenton

to continue being a good neighbor.

Mr. Yukon said it was his impression that the issues

discussed with the residents regarded maintenance, not

structure issues. They talked about the berm and the dead

trees, but he did not hear what the residents had to say

about the structure itself. He said he would feel more

comfortable if Rochester made their determination,

because a large portion of the structure was on their

property. There were not many concerns with the portion in

Rochester Hills. He said he understood the concept, but he

did not feel he could support the requests for a Conditional

Land Use Recommendation and Site Plan Approval.

2007-0776

Revised Conditional Land Use Recommendation (Postponed from July 29, 2008 Special

Meeting) - City File No. 89-153.8 - Crittenton Hospital Medical Center Parking Structure,

a new 479-space, four-story parking deck expansion proposed for the east side of the

existing parking deck located south of the hospital near University and Livernois, zoned

SP, Special Purpose, part of Parcel No. 15-15-101-003, Crittenton Hospital Medical

Center, applicant.

Mr. Kaltsounis agreed with Ms. Brnabic, and he indicated

that one of the harsh realities of the job was that they had to

go “by the book” to the corporate boundary line. There was

the issue of the fire lane and the lighting, which addressed

the Rochester Hills side of the equation. There was also a

Rochester side of the equation, and a lot of what they did

with the Site Plan was on the Rochester side. He reiterated

that it would still be a good idea for the developers to have

a group meeting because it worked to get everyone on the

same page. He asked about a condition on the

Conditional Land Use motion.

Mr. Anzek explained the process, and suggested that not

knowing what Rochester would do, they might withhold the

CLU going forward to City Council until Rochester approved

the Site Plan. If there were significant changes to the Site

Plan, it would be brought back to the Planning

Commission; if not, it would go to Council.

Mr. Kaltsounis agreed, and said that the Commission was

not skating the issue; they were going by the book for the

City’s jurisdiction up to the corporate boundary. He moved

the following motion:

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, in the

matter of City File No. 89-153.8 (Crittenton Hospital Medical

Center Parking Deck), the Planning Commission

recommends to City Council approval of a Revised

Conditional Land Use, based on plans dated received by

the Planning Department on August 27, 2008, with the

following seven (7) findings and subject to the following one

(1) condition.

Findings:

1. The proposed parking structure expansion and other

necessary site improvements meet or exceed the

standards of the Zoning Ordinance.

2. The existing and expanded use will promote the intent

and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, by meeting the

criteria of Section 138-1306.

3. The proposed development has been designed and is

proposed to be constructed, operated, maintained,

and managed so as to be compatible, harmonious,

and appropriate in appearance with the existing and

planned character of the general vicinity, adjacent

uses of land, and the capacity of public services and

facilities affected by the land use.

4. The proposal should have a positive impact on the

community by improving the site for patient care and

access.

5. The proposed development is served adequately by

essential public facilities and services, such as

highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage

ways, and refuse disposal.

6. The proposed development should not be detrimental,

hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future

neighboring land uses, persons, property, or the

public welfare.

7. The proposal will not create additional requirements at

public cost for public facilities and services that will be

detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.

Condition:

1. That City Council withhold approval of the Conditional

Land Use until after the Site Plan is approved by the

City of Rochester.

Mr. Schroeder summarized that the Commission had

discussed the matter, and the applicant met all the criteria

for the City of Rochester Hills and did what the Commission

had requested. They acted upon the request for the City of

Rochester’s properties, but the Commission could not

control that. He supported the motion to approve it in

Rochester Hills so it did not keep bouncing back and forth

between cities. He felt it was the proper way to go.

Mr. Hooper recalled that seven years ago, when the original

parking garage came forward, it was the Planning

Commission that encouraged Crittenton to go from three to

four stories as it related to the long term. He understood

what Mr. Oberlee said about doing future expansion. They

would lose surface parking for contractors, and they would

need some place to park to maintain the viability of the

hospital while it was under construction. The need was

definitely there, and Crittenton would not spend ten million

dollars just because it was a nice thing to do. There had to

be a compelling business case to spend that kind of

money, and the plan was well thought out. The applicants

obviously listened to all the issues, and they revised the

plans based on Rochester Hills’ Ordinances that really did

not apply to Rochester. He felt they had gone to task and

made appropriate changes. He brought up communicating

with the neighbors, and said there were two ways to do it -

invite residents to the hospital or go door to door - and

Mr.Oberlee chose to meet residents individually. Mr.

Hooper felt that both ways were fine, as long as the effort

and contact were made. Mr. Oberlee left a card, and if

people wanted to contact him, they could. He made an

effort to share the plans and gain input and to address

concerns. Mr. Hooper said he looked forward to a

resolution.

Prior to his vote, Mr. Yukon was given clarification that the

Rochester residents would have an opportunity to address

any concerns with their own governing body.

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

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hardenburg

1 -

2008-0384

Revised Site Plan Approval - City File No. 89-153.8 - Critttenton Hospital Medical Center

Parking Structure

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, in the

matter of City File No. 89-153.8 (Crittenton Hospital Medical

Center Parking Deck), the Planning Commission approves

the Revised Site Plan, based on plans dated received by

the Planning Department on August 27, 2008, with the

following six (6) findings and subject to the following eleven

(11) conditions.

Findings:

1. The Revised Site Plan and supporting documents

demonstrate that all applicable requirements of the

Zoning Ordinance, as well as other City ordinances,

standards, and requirements, can be met subject to

the conditions noted below.

2. The proposed parking deck will have a drive that

passes through it, and the fire lane on the eastern side

is for emergency vehicles only, thereby reducing

traffic flow nearest to the residences.

3. The parking structure has been designed to avoid

common traffic problems and promote safety and

convenience for vehicular traffic within the site.

4. Because of the design and landscaping, the proposed

improvements should have a satisfactory and

harmonious relationship with the development on-site

as well as existing development in the adjacent

vicinity.

5. The proposed development will not have an

unreasonably detrimental or an injurious effect upon

the natural characteristics and features of the site.

6. The improvements will allow Crittenton Hospital

Medical Center to expand the valuable service it

provides to the community.

Conditions:

1. City Council approval of the Revised Conditional

Land Use.

2. Provision of a note on Sheet Number C1 (Site Plan)

stating whether the deck will be equipped with a Class

I standpipe system or required fire hydrants, and that

the locations shall be approved by the Fire

Department, and any further comments from the Fire

Department after review of the revised plans dated

August 27, 2008 must be addressed, prior to Final

Approval by Staff.

3. Plans shall show the Registered Landscape

Architect’s name, address, State registration and

phone numbers on the plans prior to Final Approval

by Staff.

4. Tree protective fencing must be installed, inspected

and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect prior

to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit.

5. Provision of a performance and maintenance

guarantee in an amount to be determined by the City,

to ensure the correct installation and maintenance of

the proposed landscaping. Such guarantees to be

provided by the applicant prior to issuance of a Land

Improvement Permit.

6. Address comments from the Building Department memo

dated February 5, 2008, and any further comments

after review of the revised plans dated August 27,

2008, prior to issuance of Building Permits.

7. Add a note to the plans stating that should any well

casing be discovered during demolition, it will be

evaluated by the Oakland County Health Division and

properly abandoned and documented.

8. Approval of the plans by the City of Rochester Planning

Commission and/or City Council.

9. That an updated photometric study for the upper floor of

the current structure be provided to determine whether

non-reflective coating is necessary for both parking

structures, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

10. Per the Planning Commission meeting of April 16,

2002, the top surface of the entire structure (new and

existing decks) shall be of non-reflective coating if the

photometric study shows the existing structure still

emanates too much light after reduction of average

lighting levels as stated in Condition 11.

11. The Photometric Plan shall show that the average

light level over the top surface of the decks shall be

no more than two footcandles, and no lights shall

project upward, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

Regarding Condition 10, Mr. Reece said that from a weight

standpoint, it was not a common practice to have a paving

machine on top of a deck. They could use an asphalt

sealer, and there were also non-reflective traffic coatings.

Mr. Schroeder did not feel asphalt sealer was a good idea,

to which Mr. Reece agreed. The previous request requiring

a black surface for the deck for Condition 10 was changed

to non-reflective coating.

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

Approved.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hardenburg

1 -

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Commissioners were given the final draft copy of the

Master Thoroughfare Plan to review before the Public

Hearing in October. Mr. Anzek advised that Staff had

asked McKenna Associates to read through the Plan to

make sure it did not conflict with the Master Land Use Plan

in any way. McKenna made a few comments and the

Engineering consultants, Corradino and OHM, made some

changes to the Plan. He noted that the changes were

highlighted in yellow, and he asked the Commissioners to

become familiar with them to get ready for the formal

adoption in a month or so.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for September 16, 2008.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:00

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary