Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, October 6, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Christian Ramanauskas‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1886

June ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Krupa, seconded by Nowicki, that the Minutes dated June ‎16‎, ‎

1998 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Letter dated September ‎16‎, ‎1998‎ to City Clerk from James A‎. ‎Williams ‎

requesting to appeal to City Council the Planning Commission's denial ‎

of site plan approval for Meadowbrook Village Mall Farmer Jack ‎

Expansion ‎(‎File No‎. ‎91-299‎).‎

B‎.‎ Letters from residents regarding Agenda Item VI‎.‎A‎.‎Easthampton ‎

Subdivision No‎. ‎2‎ to be discussed when this item comes up‎.‎

C‎.‎ Charter Township of Shelby Revised Notice of Public Hearing‎

D‎.‎ Summer ‎1998‎ issue of Planning Oakland‎

E‎.‎ SEMCOG Regional Update‎

F‎.‎ SEMScope‎

G‎.‎ Zoning Ordinance Supplement No‎. ‎5‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1858

Request for Conditional Land Use Recommendation ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) - ‎File No‎. ‎

95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Waltonwood North, a ‎97‎,‎080 ‎square‎-‎foot senior citizen continuum ‎

care facility oon ‎5‎.‎296 ‎acres, located on the west side of Rochester Rd‎.‎, south ‎

of Tienken, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎10‎-‎226‎-‎019 ‎and ‎-‎020‎, zoned SP, Special Purpose, ‎

Singh Development Company, ‎7125 ‎Orchard Lake Rd‎.‎, Suite ‎200‎, West ‎

Bloomfield, MI ‎48325‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Addendum dated September ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎to Staff Report dated June ‎9‎, ‎

1998 ‎prepared by Paul Rizzardi has been placed on file and by reference becomes ‎

part of the record hereof‎.) ‎

Messrs‎. ‎Dave Zaitchik and Michael Kahm of Singh Development Company were ‎

present‎. ‎They displayed a site plan and rendering of the proposed development‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Kahm explained they were before the Planning Commission on June ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎seeking ‎

a Conditional Land Use Approval for the proposed assisted living facility‎. ‎At that time ‎

several concerns were raised by the commission as well as several neighbors ‎

regarding the proposed designs‎. ‎They have amended the site plan to address all those ‎

concerns‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm stated that Singh Development Company is the current owner ‎

of the subject property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi described the location of the subject site and explained the request‎. ‎

Proposed is a ‎105 ‎bed senior assisted living care facility located on the west side of ‎

Rochester Road just north of the City of Rochester limits‎. ‎North Lane is to the south ‎

of the proposed site‎. ‎The subject project is permitted under the current zoning of SP, ‎

Special Purpose; however, it requires conditional land use approval by City Council ‎

that the proposed use is appropriate for the subject site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi described the ‎

other requests for a Tree Removal Permit, Buffer Modification, and Site Plan ‎

Approval‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm briefly summarized what has been changed based on the concerns voiced ‎

at the previous meeting‎. ‎The original site plan included a fire access from North Lane ‎

along the south side of the building‎. ‎They have changed that to an emergency access ‎

road along the south side of the property with no access to North Lane until it ‎

intersects at Rochester Road‎. ‎So the residents on North Lane will not be impacted at ‎

all‎. ‎The eastern end of the emergency access road where it intersects with North ‎

Lane will be chained to prohibit normal traffic‎. ‎An improved buffer between the ‎

proposed building and the single family residence to the south has been provided in the ‎

form of an extended ‎6 ‎foot masonry wall along the entire frontage of the single family ‎

home which meets Type B screening requirements‎. ‎Also a Type C buffer is being ‎

provided for the multifamily buildings to the south of the subject property‎. ‎The ‎

proposed cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac at the southwest corner of the site will be moved farther north ‎

approximately ‎10 ‎feet to provide for a wider greenbelt buffer along the south property ‎

line‎. ‎The dumpster and enclosure have been moved to the northwest corner of the site ‎

adjacent to the commercial property to the north of the subject site ‎-- ‎as far away as ‎

realistically possible from any residences‎. ‎A covered canopy entry has been added to ‎

the main entry on the north side of the building to provide for pick‎-‎ups and drop‎-‎offs ‎

of residents, and the driveway has been reconfigured to a drive‎-‎by‎. ‎A preservation ‎

easement is proposed along the west property line as part of the request for a buffer ‎

modification; this addresses requests by the residents to the west to keep the buffer as ‎

natural and as wide as possible‎. ‎The sidewalk at the southwest corner of the site has ‎

been relocated a bit south along the south property line where it meets the existing ‎

grade, meets handicap requirements for slope, and ties in to the existing sidewalk ‎

system on the residential street to the west of the subject site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm expanded on the efforts made to increase the buffer‎. ‎About a year ago ‎

they met several times with the neighbors within ‎300 ‎feet of the subject property and ‎

solicited input from them‎. ‎One of the principal concerns of the neighbors was a desire ‎

to keep an existing natural buffer between their homes and the proposed building and ‎

keep it as natural as possible‎. ‎This is what dictated the placement of the building and ‎

the road and their attempts to keep the buffer area as natural as possible‎. ‎The ‎

landscape plan shows that they are supplementing the area with additional evergreen ‎

plantings to enhance the buffer because it will be necessary to cut through the buffer ‎

for utility connections to the west‎. ‎Additional meetings have been held since the last ‎

meeting in June, and they have spoken with Mr‎. ‎Knapp a couple times since then and ‎

supplied him with a copy of the entire site plan package‎. ‎After Mr‎. ‎Kahm sent Mr‎. ‎

Knapp the plan, he did not get any questions back from him after that‎.‎

The Chair accepted public comments‎.‎

Ramona Hepfner, ‎1404 ‎N‎. ‎Main,‎ was not in favor of the subject building in ‎

the proposed location because it is too large for the site‎. ‎She dreads the thought of ‎

this great big building going up on the subject site‎. ‎It is shoehorning‎. ‎She was ‎

concerned about increased traffic, unsavory employees hanging around the ‎

neighborhood after their late shift end‎.‎

C‎. ‎A‎. ‎Hicks, ‎160 ‎Winry Dr‎.‎,‎ neither the tree preservation plan nor any of ‎

the other revised plans show replacement of the trees needing removal for the ‎

proposed ‎8 ‎inch water main to the west, specifically through his property‎. ‎He has four ‎

trees in his front yard, one being a ‎65 ‎foot tall blue spruce which will not survive the ‎

construction of the new water main‎. ‎A significant portion of the drip line of the tree ‎

extends over the proposed water main‎. ‎The dumpster has been moved to within ‎90 ‎

feet of his bedroom window, barbecue grill and backyard patio‎. ‎The proposed ‎

orientation of the dumpster will require multiple ‎3‎-‎point turns by refuse trucks and will ‎

increase the noise, smoke, and debris‎. ‎He submitted a petition at the previous meeting ‎

signed by ‎123 ‎residents who opposed the tree removal permit‎. ‎The response to that ‎

appears to be increasing the number of trees removed‎. ‎He also feels it is shoehorning ‎

as the size of the facility has not been decreased‎. ‎There will be an increase in noise ‎

from emergency vehicles responding to the site‎. ‎No contact has been made with him, ‎

and his property is the only one that directly abuts the subject site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm has not ‎

talked to any Rochester Hills residents in the last ‎18 ‎months‎. ‎He urged the ‎

commission to look a little deeper into the proposed development to make sure the ‎

city was approving the right plan, and to make sure the developer sticks to the plan ‎

that is ultimately approved‎.‎

There were no further comments from the public‎.‎

In response to citizens' questions, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi outlined for the audience the various ‎

uses and densities and number of buildings that could be established under the current ‎

zoning ordinance if the subject property were not developed as proposed‎. ‎The ‎

subject property is zoned SP, Special Purpose, under which the only uses not ‎

requiring City Council approval are a park and a cellular communications tower‎. ‎Uses ‎

that could be established on the subject property, considering its size, include ‎

hospitals, stadium‎/‎concert hall, community headquarters, local theater group building, ‎

fraternity or sorority, approximately ‎16 ‎single family homes, different varieties of senior ‎

housing with up to ‎282 ‎units‎. ‎To compare, ‎105 ‎beds are proposed for the subject ‎

use‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm added that the greatest number of employees on the site would be ‎

during the day shift from ‎8‎:‎00 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎4‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎at ‎15 ‎to ‎20‎. ‎The afternoon shift from ‎

4‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎to Midnight would be somewhat less‎. ‎The night shift, from Midnight to ‎8‎:‎00 ‎

a‎.‎m‎.‎, would be minimal staff‎. ‎They screen their employees very carefully and check ‎

their backgrounds‎. ‎For the most part when people are done with their work they ‎

want to go home‎. ‎Of the five other facilities that they operate in the Detroit ‎

metropolitan area, none have the problems anticipated by the resident‎. ‎The smoking ‎

area would be located near the service entry at the southwest end of the property, and ‎

approximately ‎100 ‎feet from residential properties‎.‎

Regarding Mr‎. ‎Hicks' tree, Mr‎. ‎Kahm indicated they do not show that tree on their ‎

plans, so Mr‎. ‎Hicks may have a valid point‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that orange snow ‎

fencing will be required to be placed at the drip line of the tree, and an inspector will ‎

verify the location of the snow fencing before any work is started‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

advised Mr‎. ‎Hicks to make sure the tree is flagged when the orange snow fencing ‎

goes up and to notify him personally if the orange fencing is removed at any time‎. ‎

Siltation fencing will also be installed around the perimeter of the site to assure that no ‎

off‎-‎site trees are impacted‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hicks located a total of four trees on his property in ‎

the vicinity of the proposed water main on the displayed map‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm offered an ‎

alternative for the blue spruce on Mr‎. ‎Hicks' property ‎-- ‎to bore underneath the tree ‎

to avoid a trench for the utilities‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm did not have enough detail at this time to ‎

make a final evaluation of the impact to his trees, but was willing to study the situation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm was willing to add Mr‎. ‎Hicks' four trees to the guarantee plan‎. ‎It also ‎

might be possible to reroute the utilities‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm confirmed that he had not ‎

personally contacted Mr‎. ‎Hicks‎. ‎Most of the residents' concerns centered around the ‎

desire to keep the buffer intact along the western property line‎. ‎Individual trees have ‎

never been addressed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm was willing to address the trees as he stated ‎

earlier‎. ‎They moved the compacted dumpster location at the request of the residents‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm confirmed Mr‎. ‎Hicks' statement that the number of trees to be removed ‎

has increased, not decreased‎. ‎The installation of the emergency access lane along the ‎

south side of the property ‎-- ‎rather than using North Lane for emergency access ‎-- ‎

necessitated the removal of additional trees‎. ‎Most of the trees, although large, are ‎

fairly old and not in especially good condition‎. ‎They are on the downhill side of their ‎

life cycles‎. ‎Fallen large limbs frequently need to be removed‎.‎

The Chair reminded commissioners that conditional land use approval is a ‎

recommendation that the Planning Commission makes to City Council and should be ‎

included as a condition of site plan approval‎. ‎The Chair added that a conditional land ‎

use approval may be premised on a particular site plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Zaitchik stated the relocation of the sidewalk going to Pine Street did not cause ‎

the removal of additional trees‎. ‎The sidewalk was moved and given a meandering ‎

configuration because of the grade differences to the north, and they wanted to ‎

maintain the buffer for the residents to the west‎. ‎Some additional landscaping has been ‎

included as well to maintain the same site characteristics‎. ‎They have already included ‎

the sidewalk around the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac at staff's request to meet the sidewalk at the ‎

building, as shown on the reduced plans previously distributed to commissioners‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Zaitchik clarified that the three recommended changes in the addendum dated ‎

September ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎have already been made regarding a sidewalk connection, taller ‎

shrubs, and two additional shade trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi clarified that the plan under ‎

consideration is dated received July ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎as modified in the reductions revised ‎

September ‎8‎, ‎1998 ‎and received September ‎21‎, ‎1998‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi recommended ‎

leaving in the conditions in the addendum to the staff report in any motion to approve ‎

because it is easier to review the large plans dated received July ‎27‎, ‎1998‎. ‎City ‎

Council will receive copies of the reductions dated received September ‎21‎, ‎1998 ‎and ‎

will understand that those changes have already been incorporated into the plan‎.‎

Regarding the sidewalk Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi clarified that the Planning Department was ‎

initially concerned about the sidewalk and the need for removing additional trees‎. ‎

Basically, the applicant is proposing to remove part of the thick brush‎. ‎The plan ‎

shows that four trees are proposed to be removed in the location of the sidewalk‎. ‎In ‎

looking at the previous plans, the four trees would have been removed anyway for the ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac originally proposed‎. ‎Those trees were already proposed to be removed to ‎

accommodate the grading of the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac‎. ‎In looking at the screening potential, by ‎

moving the sidewalk down there is no direct view from Pine Street into the site ‎

anymore‎. ‎Where the gap occurred from the water main extension, taller viburnums ‎

will be planted‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm explained that it will not be possible to walk completely around the ‎

proposed building using the sidewalk ‎-- ‎only on three sides‎. ‎They thought it was best ‎

to not encourage pedestrians in the area of emergency vehicles‎. ‎The purpose of the ‎

internal courtyards is to provide secured outdoor areas for residents‎. ‎Since the facility ‎

is designed for assisted living, they do not perceive residents walking around the ‎

building for exercise‎.‎

The Chair suggested moving the landscape island at the northwesternmost portion of ‎

the plan to the south, and move the dumpster farther to the east, and there would still ‎

be adequate access to the dumpster although some parking spaces might be lost‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi pointed out that there is a water main coming from the adjacent shopping ‎

center which would preclude locating the dumpster enclosure over the water main‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm proposed a masonry wall at ‎7 ‎feet to enclose the compactor and plant ‎12 ‎

foot evergreens in back of the enclosure to create basically a solid wall of screening‎. ‎

Evergreens would be a sound buffer as well as a visual buffer‎. ‎

To Member Nowicki it did not appear that the current dumpster location would allow ‎

a truck to directly access the dumpster because of the parking space on the west side‎. ‎

A truck would have to approach the enclosure at an angle‎. ‎Member Corneliussen ‎

suggested rotating the dumpster to face east so that the gates would be directed away ‎

from the residents on Winry Drive, and the screening would be fully in back of the ‎

dumpster enclosure, and would still be oriented the same way yet would provide ‎

direct access from the drive lane on the north side of the development‎. ‎To do that ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm responded they could just rotate it ‎90 ‎degrees and put it in the adjacent ‎

parking space immediately to the south‎. ‎The dumpster enclosure would then be one ‎

parking space width's closer to the westerly property line, but the gates could face ‎

east‎. ‎The noise generating elements could be directed away from the adjacent ‎

residents‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hicks indicated that would be acceptable to him‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm explained that the proposed handicap parking is based on Michigan barrier ‎

free design requirements‎. ‎Member Nowicki pondered if the provided handicap ‎

parking should exceed the minimums‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm pointed out that most of the ‎

residents will not drive‎. ‎The parking spaces will be used by staff and visitors‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi pointed out the ‎3 ‎handicap parking spaces are required; ‎5 ‎are being ‎

provided‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kahm was agreeable to showing on a site plan a designated crosswalk ‎

from the handicap parking spots on the north side of the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added ‎

there is a State code requirement that a barrier free accessible route must be ‎

designated through striping in the parking area‎.‎

The Chair has basically supported the proposed use for the subject site since the first ‎

zoning request was submitted because it ultimately is less intrusive in the surrounding ‎

neighborhood than ‎16 ‎houses would be‎. ‎On the other hand, the Chair questioned ‎

whether the proposed building needs to be as large as proposed‎. ‎

Member Rosen has opposed the proposed use because of the large physical size of ‎

the building and the concept‎. ‎Once beyond that, the goal should be to make it as ‎

good as possible because the site does have potential from the proposed use‎. ‎Upon ‎

closer scrutiny Member Rosen believed the proposed building will appear larger than ‎

it actually will be‎. ‎The development will have the appearance of a house, or several ‎

houses attached together‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm explained that there actually will be two gates at either end of the fire lane ‎

along the south side of the site to discourage people from using the fire lane as an exit ‎

from the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that the gates can be locked with a Knox box‎. ‎

Regarding a photometric plan Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that Staff doesn't generally ask ‎

for a lighting plan unless the developer is requesting an excessive number of poles at ‎

excessive heights or high wattage fixtures‎. ‎The applicant is proposing two ‎17 ‎foot tall ‎

poles with ‎400 ‎watts‎. ‎The lights would be screened to not shine on adjacent ‎

properties‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎

(‎Waltonwood North‎)‎, to ‎recommend approval‎ ‎of a request for Conditional Land ‎

Use‎ for a ‎105‎-‎bed senior citizen assisted care facility, premised on the approvals of ‎

the site plan, buffer modification, and tree removal permit, incorporating the findings in ‎

the Addendum dated September ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎to the Staff Report dated June ‎9‎, ‎1998‎, ‎

and based on plans dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed senior living facility seems to promote the purpose and intent of the ‎

zoning ordinance based on the submitted concept plan‎. ‎The concept plan ‎

indicates that the site can be designed in a manner to meet the spirit and intent ‎

of the Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, City's Architectural Guidelines, and ‎

City Engineering standards‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed building has been designed to complement the adjacent residential ‎

neighborhoods and is expected to act as an effective transition from residential ‎

uses to the south and west to commercial uses to the north‎. ‎The use itself is ‎

residential in nature and is expected to be compatible with the adjacent ‎

residential properties‎.‎

3‎.‎ Sufficient capacities of public facilities currently exist to service the proposed use‎. ‎

Additional public facilities at public cost will not be necessary‎.‎

4‎.‎ It is not believed that the proposed senior living facility will negatively impact the ‎

surrounding properties‎. ‎The use and enjoyment of neighboring homes will not ‎

be diminished due to the proposed landscaping and buffering, and building ‎

design of the proposed building‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

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

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plan prepared by Seibert, Keast & Associates and Building Plans ‎

prepared by Fusco Shaffer & Pappas, Inc‎. ‎dated received July ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎by the City ‎

of Rochester Hills Planning Department; September ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎Waltonwood North ‎

Addendum to Staff Report dated June ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by Paul Rizzardi; Staff ‎

Report dated June ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by Paul Rizzardi; City Council Meeting Minutes ‎

of March ‎5‎, ‎1997 ‎and February ‎26‎, ‎1997‎; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of ‎

June ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎and December ‎17‎, ‎1996‎; Landscape Cost Estimate dated May ‎5‎, ‎

1998‎; Letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated April ‎15‎, ‎1998‎; Memo from ‎

Eric A‎. ‎Olson to Paul Rizzardi dated March ‎16‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Dave Zaitchik ‎

dated July ‎24‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Dave Zaitchik dated March ‎25‎, ‎1998‎; Legal ‎

Description Tree Conservation Easements, Exhibit 'B'; Conditional Land Use ‎

Approval Request Notice of Public Hearing; Tree Removal Permit Request Notice of ‎

Meeting; Letter from Jonathan R‎. ‎Crane dated June ‎5‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Mr‎. ‎and ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Roger Knapp dated October ‎3‎, ‎1997‎.)‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1859

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Waltonwood North‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎

(‎Waltonwood North‎)‎, to ‎grant the Tree Removal Permit ‎incorporating the ‎

condition in the Addendum dated September ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎to the Staff Report dated June ‎

9‎, ‎1998‎, plus two other conditions‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Provide a performance guarantee in the form of a bond, cash, or letter of credit in ‎

the amount in the amount to be verified by staff to ensure the planting of the ‎

required replacement trees‎. ‎

2‎.‎ That the request for a Conditional Land Use is recommended for approval by the ‎

Planning Commission and eventually approved by City Council‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant provide a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years from ‎

issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the four ‎(‎4‎) ‎trees on the ‎

adjacent property to the west owned by Mr‎. ‎Hicks in case the trees fail as a ‎

result of construction, in an amount to cover inch‎-‎for‎-‎inch replacement‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

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

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1860

Request for Buffer Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Waltonwood North‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Corneliussen, in the matter of File No‎. ‎

95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎(‎Waltonwood North‎)‎, to ‎approve a Buffer Modification‎ based on the ‎

three findings and one condition in the Addendum dated September ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎to the ‎

Staff Report dated June ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎plus two additional conditions, and based on plans ‎

dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎as modified by the reduction dated September ‎21‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The construction of a six‎-‎foot high opaque screen will impact and cause the ‎

removal of the existing natural features along the western property line and in ‎

effect reduce the screening that will be in place‎.‎

2‎.‎ There is sufficient natural vegetation which offers screening consistent with the ‎

six‎-‎foot opaque screening requirement‎.‎

3‎.‎ The greatest setback from the property line to the building exists on the site from ‎

the western property line‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant shall retain the existing natural wooded area as depicted on the ‎

proposed site plan‎. ‎The remaining trees shall be placed into a Tree ‎

Conservation Easement‎.‎

2‎.‎ That the request for a Conditional Land Use is recommended for approval by the ‎

Planning Commission and eventually approved by City Council‎.‎

3‎.‎ The dumpster be enclosed by a minimum ‎7-‎foot high masonry wall and at least ‎

three ‎(‎3‎) ‎12-‎foot evergreens be added to the western side of the dumpster ‎

enclosure‎. ‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

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

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1861

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Waltonwood North‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎95‎-‎046‎.‎2 ‎

(‎Waltonwood North‎)‎, to ‎grant Site Plan Approval‎ based on the findings and ‎

conditions in the Addendum dated September ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎to the Staff Report dated ‎

June ‎9‎, ‎1998‎, and based on plans dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎as modified by reductions ‎

dated September ‎21‎, ‎1998‎..‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

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

2‎.‎ The location of the driveways is designed to provide safe vehicular ingress and ‎

egress‎. ‎In order to mitigate safety hazards associated with left turns from ‎

Rochester Road, the applicant is proposing to widen Rochester Road to ‎

extend a center left turn lane‎.‎

3‎.‎ The internal circulation system has been designed to minimize conflicts between ‎

vehicular and pedestrian traffic‎. ‎The applicant is also proposing to provide ‎

desired pedestrian connections to the subdivision to the west and the shopping ‎

center to the north‎.‎

4‎.‎ By retaining the existing brush along the western property line and incorporating a ‎

building design which exceeds the City's architectural review guidelines, the ‎

development is expected to provide a harmonious relationship with existing ‎

and proposed developments in the area‎.‎

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

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

Impact Statement‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Provide a sidewalk connection from the sidewalk coming from Pine Street to the ‎

sidewalk connecting to the building‎.‎

2‎.‎ Place taller shrubs along the western property line in the gap created by the storm ‎

sewer connection‎.‎

3‎.‎ Provide two additional shade trees along the southern property line‎.‎

4‎.‎ Provide a performance and maintenance guarantee in the form of a bond, cash, or ‎

letter of credit in the amount to be verified by Staff to ensure the planting and ‎

survival of the proposed landscaping‎.‎

5‎.‎ The applicant, in conjunction with Staff and Mr‎. ‎Hicks, either reroute or design an ‎

alternate method of construction of the water main so as to minimize the ‎

potential for damage to the trees on Mr‎. ‎Hicks' property adjacent to the west ‎

of the subject site; with a note to that effect be added to the site plan‎.‎

6‎.‎ That the dumpster be turned ninety degrees and also moved to the northernmost ‎

parking space along the western property line‎.‎

7‎.‎ That a crosswalk be painted from the northernmost handicapped parking places ‎

to the main entrance of the proposed building‎.‎

2‎.‎ That the request for a Conditional Land Use is recommended for approval by the ‎

Planning Commission and eventually approved by City Council‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

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

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1887

Proposed ordinance Amendment ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) - ‎Automatic Variance ‎

Extensions; to consider an amendment to Section ‎24‎.‎06 ‎of Zoning Ordinance ‎

No‎. ‎200 ‎to prevent variances from expiring after one year when a site plan has ‎

been approved, repeal conflicting ordinances and prescribe a penalty for ‎

violations‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated August ‎12‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

For the benefit of the audience Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi defined a variance and explained what the ‎

proposed automatic variance extension would accomplish‎. ‎Under the current ‎

ordinance variances expire after one year unless some action has taken place to ‎

activate the variance‎. ‎Several recent projects such as D&H QuickLube and Signature ‎

Office Building have required two or three appearances before the Zoning Board of ‎

Appeals in order to extend previously granted variances for an additional year‎. ‎This is ‎

a needless step that utilizes precious staff resources, the time of the Zoning Board of ‎

Appeals, and the applicant's time and money‎. ‎The necessary protections from any ‎

new ordinance change that may have a bearing on whether a variance should be ‎

extended or not are already in place through annual extensions of the site plan‎. ‎The ‎

proposed amendment is intended to ease the administration of site plans that are in ‎

process‎. ‎The proposed language states that, when a site plan approval is extended, ‎

any applicable variances would automatically be extended as well‎. ‎The proposed ‎

ordinance amendment has been presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and no ‎

objections were voiced‎. ‎The City Attorney has also reviewed the proposed ‎

ordinance amendment and had no concerns with it‎. ‎The Building Department has also ‎

had the opportunity to review this amendment, and they have no objection to the ‎

proposed changes‎.‎

As a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Member Rosen clarified that the key ‎

point to remember is that a variance expires after one year unless a building permit has ‎

been granted‎. ‎Activity must at least begin within one year but does not have to be ‎

completed in order to keep a granted variance in force‎. ‎The proposed extension ‎

would not normally apply to an isolated single family residence; it would apply more ‎

typically to commercial sites or complicated subdivisions‎. ‎Once a site plan is ‎

approved, subsequent ordinance changes have no effect on variances granted‎. ‎He ‎

confirmed that the Zoning Board of Appeals had no resistance to the proposed ‎

amendment‎.‎

The Chair clarified that the language proposed to be added to the ordinance just ‎

creates another way to extend a variance‎. ‎The only changes in wording are the ‎

addition of ‎"‎or site plan approval‎"‎ ‎and ‎"‎or approved site plan‎"‎ ‎in four places‎. ‎

Nothing is being deleted from the ordinance‎. ‎City Council will make the final decision ‎

on whether or not to amend the ordinance‎. ‎The Planning Commission's role is to hold ‎

the public hearing and gather any information on whether or not there should be a ‎

change‎. ‎The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

No persons coming forward to speak in favor of or opposed to the proposed ‎

ordinance amendment to prevent variances from expiring after one year when a site ‎

plan has been approved, the Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Rosen, to ‎recommend approval‎ of an ‎

amendment to Section ‎24‎.‎06 ‎of Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎as printed to prevent ‎

variances from expiring after one year when a site plan has been approved, repeal ‎

conflicting ordinances and prescribe a penalty for violations‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated August ‎12‎, ‎1998‎; Proposed ‎

Ordinance No‎. ‎200‎-‎___, Section ‎24‎.‎06 ‎dated ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎98‎; Memo from Paul Rizzardi to ‎

Patricia Goodwin, Bill Dinnan dated July ‎8‎, ‎1998‎; Notice of Public Hearing published ‎

September ‎20‎, ‎1998‎.)‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1888

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎94‎-‎440‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Easthampton ‎

Subdivision No‎. ‎2‎, a ‎20‎-‎lot single family residential subdivision on ‎14 ‎acres, ‎

located on the south side of Hamlin, west of John R, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎26‎-‎226‎-‎002‎, ‎

zoned R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, Mr‎. ‎William Gilbert, G & V Properties, LLC, ‎

2565 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Rd‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎, Applicant‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated September ‎30‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi summarized the proposed project consisting of ‎20 ‎lots at the northwest ‎

corner of the existing Easthampton Subdivision No‎. ‎1‎. ‎The proposal includes a road ‎

extension of Norcross Drive from Easthampton No‎. ‎1 ‎into the proposed ‎

development‎. ‎The developer originally proposed ‎21 ‎lots with only a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and ‎

no access into Easthampton No‎. ‎1‎. ‎Staff felt that a connection from Norcross Drive ‎

would provide for better traffic and pedestrian access and promote greater ‎

neighborhood continuity‎. ‎The wetlands impact would be increased slightly, but in the ‎

process staff felt a better design is accomplished‎. ‎The most difficult part of the subject ‎

development is the wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert, Mr‎. ‎Williamson of Brooks and Williamson, ‎

and Dr‎. ‎Jaworski have reviewed the subject plan quite extensively, and staff is ‎

recommending conditional approval of the Wetland Use Permit for several reasons‎. ‎

The downside of the subject plan is that several houses are proposed to be built on ‎

wetlands fill area, specifically a part of Lot ‎109 ‎and the majority of Lots ‎110 ‎and ‎111‎. ‎

The Planning Department does not generally support that practice; however, it was felt ‎

to be a benefit to concentrating the development in one area of the site while ‎

preserving the remainder of the site‎. ‎The area at the southeast corner of the subject ‎

site will not be touched‎. ‎There is significant upland area within the southeast corner of ‎

the property‎. ‎The impact to the existing neighborhood to the west will not significantly ‎

change with the filling in of the wetlands‎. ‎The developer is willing to forego ‎

development of the southeast portion of the site and designate it as open space so it ‎

can never be developed and will become a preservation area‎. ‎Staff has taken steps to ‎

ensure that the quality of the wetlands will be preserved‎. ‎They tried to preserve the ‎

hydrology of the wetlands so that the same amount of water currently flowing in the ‎

area will remain‎. ‎The developer has provided for storm water management to allow ‎

water from the rear of Lots ‎100‎, ‎101‎, ‎102 ‎and ‎103 ‎to drain into the wetlands rather ‎

than be captured into the storm system‎. ‎They are trying to preserve the quality of the ‎

wetlands and maintain the water system flowing from both sides of the wetland‎. ‎The ‎

original wetland proposal provided for a swale close to Easthampton No‎. ‎1‎. ‎Staff felt ‎

a culvert connection between the two wetland areas would be better for the wetland ‎

hydrology and would permit the little critters on the site to move freely from one ‎

wetland area to the other‎. ‎There are significant upland areas that will never be ‎

developed, and the applicant is forfeiting developable areas in order to obtain ‎

approval‎. ‎To achieve a better design staff is recommending some conditions to the ‎

wetland use permit, one of which the applicant opposes which is eliminating Lot ‎109‎. ‎

Staff is also recommending that Lots ‎96 ‎through ‎100 ‎be made narrower and the ‎

culvert crossing be adjusted slightly to the northwest to provide more separation at the ‎

wetlands crossing‎. ‎Most of the regulated trees are in the wetland areas‎. ‎The ‎

applicant is proposing to save ‎88 ‎percent of the trees on the site, which is significantly ‎

higher than most recent submitted plats‎.‎

Present for the applicant was developer Bill Gilbert of G & V Properties; wetland ‎

consultant Brooks Williamson of Brooks Williamson and Associates; civil engineer Jim ‎

Jones of MCS Associates‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert displayed graphics of the proposed site‎. ‎The submitted plan is not the first ‎

plan or something they put together last week‎. ‎It is actually their fourth plan and the ‎

second one that has formally been submitted to city staff‎. ‎They have another plan ‎

showing a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and development of the uplands area which Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

described as an open space‎. ‎The parcel size is ‎14 ‎acres and they are proposing to ‎

develop less than half of that into residential lots‎. ‎More than fifty percent of the ‎

development will be open space, and roughly fifty to sixty percent of the open space is ‎

wetlands‎. ‎They felt they could live with the proposed plan and road connection if they ‎

can achieve the desired density which is below the maximum allowed‎. ‎They would ‎

like to keep the dimension of Lot ‎96 ‎as proposed because it abuts Hamlin Road and ‎

have no problem reducing the size of the other lots‎. ‎They are opposed to dropping ‎

Lot ‎109 ‎because they need the density‎. ‎They will be doing some extensive mitigation ‎

of wetlands as well‎. ‎This is the minimum density they can consider without considering ‎

an alternate plan and development of the uplands area‎.‎

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

was not a Public Hearing‎.‎

The Chair noted the following letters already received and included in ‎

commissioners' packets‎. ‎All correspondence received will be forwarded to City ‎

Council‎. ‎

Letter dated August ‎12‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎H‎.‎W‎. ‎Boschen, ‎2199 ‎London Bridge ‎

Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎11‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎John DeRonghe, ‎2146 ‎London Bridge ‎

Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎10‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Roberta Chapman, ‎2169 ‎London ‎

Bridge Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Victor T‎. ‎Czebatol, ‎2218 ‎London ‎

Bridge Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎7‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Robert Sughroue, ‎2138 ‎London Bridge ‎

Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎6‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Gerald A‎. ‎and June J‎. ‎Volpe, ‎2130 ‎

London Bridge Drive,‎ in opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎5‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎George L‎. ‎and Carol A‎. ‎Kenyon, ‎2198 ‎

London Bridge Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the proposed development‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎4‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Mrs‎. ‎Alice Cosellian Castro, ‎2200 ‎

London Bridge Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the proposed development‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎2‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Mary L‎. ‎Burke, ‎2144 ‎London Bridge ‎

Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the proposed development and the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated July ‎31‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Mary Benfield, ‎2133 ‎London Bridge,‎ in ‎

opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated July ‎30‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Kathleen A‎. ‎Audette, ‎219 ‎London Bridge ‎

Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the proposed development‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎3‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎John and Anna Fix, ‎2163 ‎London ‎

Bridge Dr‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the proposed development‎.‎

Letter dated July ‎31‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Carol Peterson, ‎2189 ‎London Bridge ‎

Drive,‎ in opposition to the proposed development‎.‎

Letter dated July ‎30‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Jacquelyn C‎. ‎Jenkins, ‎2207 ‎London ‎

Bridge,‎ in opposition to the proposed development‎.‎

Letter dated July ‎20‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Bennett & Patricia Gardner, ‎2213 ‎

London Bridge‎.‎ ‎in opposition to the proposed development‎.‎

Letter undated from ‎Lucille Long, ‎2142 ‎London Bridge‎, in opposition to ‎

the proposed development‎.‎

Letter dated July ‎29‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Nancy McIntyre, ‎2191 ‎London Bridge ‎

Drive‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter dated August ‎24‎, ‎1998 ‎from Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin, Director, Planning, Zoning ‎

& Development Services to letter writers mentioned above as a response to said ‎

letters and included in commissioners' packets‎.‎

Additional letters received tonight and distributed to commissioners‎:‎

Letter dated September ‎20‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Patricia M‎. ‎Gardner, ‎2213 ‎London ‎

Bridge Drive‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Letter with attachments dated September ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Gerald A‎. ‎and ‎

June J‎. ‎Volpe, ‎2130 ‎London Bridge Drive‎.‎,‎ in opposition to the Wetland ‎

Use Permit‎.‎

The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposed development‎:‎

Deanna Hoisington, ‎2191 ‎Wentworth, ‎stated she was also misled by real ‎

estate people in thinking additional homes would not be built in the subject ‎

area‎. ‎She urged preserving the existing wildlife and a large tree on Hamlin ‎

Road‎. ‎

Kathleen Audette, ‎2197 ‎London Bridge, ‎stated the city told her wetlands ‎

could never be built on‎.‎

Guy Famolare, ‎2273 ‎London Bridge, ‎stated that regulations should be ‎

enforced and developers should not be allowed to remove all trees‎. ‎A ‎

previous tree removal permit has taken away their privacy‎. ‎He wants the ‎

trees preserved‎.‎

June Famolare, ‎2273 ‎London Bridge,‎ there is a lack of respect for private ‎

property by residents of Easthampton No‎. ‎1‎. ‎They enjoy the existing wildlife‎. ‎

Jacqueline Jenkins, ‎2207 ‎London Bridge, ‎strongly opposed to any more ‎

new homes in the area‎. ‎She urged maintaining the integrity of the wetlands, ‎

vegetation, trees, and wildlife‎.‎

Clarke Harris, ‎2211 ‎London Bridge,‎ opposed to building new homes on ‎

top of existing wetlands‎.‎

Victor Czebatol, ‎2218 ‎London Bridge, ‎didn't think it was right to allow the ‎

developer to expand because he knew wetlands were on the property when ‎

he bought the land‎.‎

Stella DeRonghe, ‎2146 ‎London Bridge, ‎agrees with all previous ‎

comments‎.‎

Robert Janes, ‎2247 ‎London Bridge, #‎36‎, ‎agrees with all previous ‎

comments, and stated that Norcross should not be extended across the ‎

wetlands; the wetlands should be preserved‎. ‎He urged the developer to ‎

reconsider his original plan of ‎1995 ‎which avoided the wetlands‎.‎

There were no more comments by the public‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's role in ‎

designating wetlands and their dual role in allowing the permitting of the use of ‎

wetlands for projects such as the proposed development‎. ‎The DEQ regulates ‎

wetlands of at least five acres in size or smaller wetlands if they are located within ‎500 ‎

feet of a watercourse‎. ‎The DEQ has its own permitting requirements aside from the ‎

City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎The city regulates wetlands of two acres in size or within ‎500 ‎

feet of a watercourse‎. ‎The applicant has received a wetland use permit from the DEQ ‎

for an earlier design‎. ‎They will need to request another permit from the DEQ for the ‎

subject design‎. ‎

To the Chair there appeared to be a theme through the letters to the effect that ‎

homeowners or home purchasers were assured by someone in the city that the ‎

wetlands would never be built on or some feature next to someone's house would ‎

never change‎. ‎People don't always follow up with the city on information supplied by ‎

realtors which can be inaccurate‎. ‎It's unfortunate that there is no recourse for such ‎

misinformation‎. ‎

The applicant and staff responded to the questions and comments by the public‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Gilbert stated that the subject area was addressed extensively at Planning Commission ‎

as well as City Council public hearings during the approval of Phase I of Easthampton‎. ‎

At that time they showed the southernmost street that parallels the Hampton Pines ‎

development stubbing into the wetland area in the southwest quadrant‎. ‎It met all the ‎

ordinance requirements, but they were encouraged to install an eyebrow and change ‎

the street layout, which eliminated the current proposed Lots ‎105‎, ‎106‎, and ‎107‎, to ‎

provide flexibility and another access to the subject property along with knowing they ‎

could come in off Hamlin‎. ‎There are no proposed lots adjacent to the two projects ‎

impacted directly by the subject development ‎-- ‎Regency Park Condominiums and ‎

Hampton Pines, as well as Easthampton No‎. ‎I‎. ‎There is very little taking of wetlands ‎

as they are proposing mitigating more wetlands than currently exist on the subject site‎. ‎

The proposed Lots ‎96 ‎through ‎103‎, adjacent to Regency Park, basically have no ‎

wetlands on them at all‎. ‎The wetland permit from MDEQ for their original plan was ‎

for slightly less fill than what is being proposed this evening‎. ‎The property was ‎

purchased as a whole; they are merely developing it in two phases‎. ‎The proposed ‎

development would be considered a very, very low density project in the city‎. ‎There ‎

is also a berm between the subject property and the adjacent Regency Park property ‎

which was installed by the latter's developer years ago‎. ‎Even though they have every ‎

right to grade the existing berm down, they have no intentions to do so‎. ‎They plan to ‎

do everything they can to preserve the berm‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Williamson described the wetland issue‎. ‎He displayed drawings showing the ‎

differences between the original plan and the proposed plan‎. ‎The original plan ‎

contained a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac extending off the southwest allowing for development adjacent ‎

to the existing units‎. ‎The preferred plan, the real desire, without the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac, ‎

connects the road to Norcross, containing a preservation easement and creating ‎

additional wetlands to bring in additional animals‎. ‎The proposed wetland fill would be ‎

0‎.‎9 ‎acres‎. ‎In a previous wetland permit application to the MDEQ, a permit was ‎

issued for a previous plan for ‎0‎.‎75 ‎acres of wetland fill‎. ‎The city and the wetland ‎

consultant requested that the road be connected, which Mr‎. ‎Gilbert had not originally ‎

proposed‎. ‎The city does require that the lots be filled and usable to their boundaries‎. ‎

If they could leave off a strip approximately ‎30 ‎or ‎40 ‎feet at the rear of the properties, ‎

they could reduce the amount of fill required to the original ‎0‎.‎75 ‎acres‎. ‎That would be ‎

close to the original permit issued by the MDEQ‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Williamson understood that the ‎

MDEQ permit was in no way binding on the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎They have tried to keep it physically as close as possible to the original ‎

permit issued by the MDEQ‎. ‎They will be going back to the MDEQ to get that ‎

approved‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Williamson stated the other intent of the proposed plan is to take ‎

some of the rear yard drainage that would normally be put into pipes put in the ground ‎

run off in the storm system and bring that to the south end in the area of proposed ‎

Lots ‎102 ‎and ‎103 ‎-- ‎take that water and drop it into a mitigation area, which is a very ‎

shallow pond with little to no water in it‎. ‎The intent would be to develop an area at ‎

least ‎0‎.‎7 ‎to ‎0‎.‎9 ‎acres that would allow for additional animal use in the area and which ‎

would remain in an untouched condition‎. ‎As discussed with Engineering Services and ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski, water normally piped off‎-‎site through a storm system, they would take ‎

that same system, considered the rear yard drains along the property line, take the ‎

water that that system would normally pick up and drop it into the mitigation area to ‎

provide the water to provide a viable wetland‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert added that the reason for showing both plans was to demonstrate that ‎

they looked at four different alternatives and have displayed two of them‎. ‎Their ‎

preferred plan contains ‎20 ‎lots, not ‎25 ‎lots, which would maintain a ‎6 ‎acre block ‎

untouched, with no possibility for future development, as well as another ‎1‎.‎5 ‎acre ‎

block to remain untouched‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the tree removal regulations‎. ‎Under the city's Tree ‎

Conservation Ordinance, any tree measuring ‎6 ‎inches in width at a point about ‎4 ‎feet ‎

above the ground is considered regulated‎. ‎In order to remove that tree, the developer ‎

is responsible for replacing that tree with a Replacement Credit equal to a ‎2 ‎inch tree ‎

or ‎2 ‎Replacement Credits if a larger diameter tree is used such as a ‎3 ‎inch tree‎. ‎So ‎

the city can expect a minimum of ‎22 ‎three‎-‎inch trees in the subject case to be put ‎

back on the property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the ordinance allows residential development at a density ‎

of ‎3‎.‎4 ‎units per acre‎. ‎If all ‎14 ‎acres of the subject site were uplands, with no ‎

wetlands, the developer would be allowed to put ‎47 ‎units on the site‎. ‎However, ‎

wetlands are removed from the density calculation‎. ‎So the developer could ‎

reasonably put ‎25 ‎units on the remaining upland area, approximately ‎7‎.‎5 ‎acres, if the ‎

wetlands were configured in a manner that would allow that‎. ‎The developer is ‎

proposing ‎20 ‎units‎. ‎The confusion can be explained that the original wetland use ‎

permit from the MDEQ was for a ‎15 ‎lot development with a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac instead of a ‎

road crossing, plus ‎5 ‎lots in the existing Easthampton No‎. ‎1‎. ‎The original proposal did ‎

contain ‎20 ‎lots‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that a natural features setback is an area of ‎

basically greenspace where no development or grading occurs which exists between ‎

the boundaries of the wetlands and to the point where the nearest development would ‎

occur‎. ‎The idea behind that is to allow the water to purify itself before it goes into the ‎

wetlands‎. ‎It allows most of the sediments such as sand, grass, to drop out before ‎

entering the wetlands; it is designed to preserve the wetlands‎. ‎The developer is ‎

requesting to reduce the required ‎25 ‎foot setback along the drainage connection along ‎

the wetlands in order to put homes in that area, and also to redirect water runoff from ‎

gutters away from the wetlands as well‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Jones attempted to identify the location of the large tree on Hamlin Road ‎

mentioned by Ms‎. ‎Hoisington‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Jones explained instead of doing a full tree survey which would have required ‎

cutting through vegetation, they counted the trees in a ‎100 ‎foot sampling in one area ‎

and expanded that based on the area calculations for the wetlands‎. ‎That is expected ‎

to give an accurate representation of the number of trees in the wetland area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi thought the single tree in question might be the stand‎-‎alone tree in the upland ‎

area, perhaps Tree No‎. ‎741 ‎or ‎740 ‎on the tree survey, on Lot ‎112‎, which is identified ‎

for removal‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert thought the tree might be on the excepted parcel and would ‎

not be planned to be removed‎. ‎The only tree near Hamlin that is showing up as a ‎

removal tree is an ‎8 ‎inch elm, and Mr‎. ‎Gilbert did not think that was the tree‎. ‎The tree ‎

in question probably is not proposed to be removed, or it is not on the subject parcel‎. ‎

All the trees on the area to be developed have been surveyed and identified‎.‎

The Chair thought it was interesting that one of the speakers stated that we don‎’‎t need ‎

more houses in Rochester Hills‎. ‎Some people are arguing that we need more business ‎

and industry in the city to add to the tax base‎. ‎And others are saying we need more ‎

houses because we are a residential community‎. ‎As usual classic conflicts have been ‎

identified, and it is up to a combination of applicants, city staff, Planning ‎

Commissioners, and citizens to try to resolve those conflicts‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the State of Michigan has the Gomer‎-‎Anderson Wetlands ‎

Protection Act, which is administered by the Michigan Department of Environmental ‎

Quality, formerly called the Michigan Department of Natural Resources‎. ‎Michigan is ‎

known to have very strict wetlands regulation and probably has been a forerunner ‎

within the United States for wetlands regulations‎. ‎Albeit, the regulations say a permit ‎

is required, reasonable activity is required in order to develop the wetlands, and there ‎

are criteria that are reviewed, the equivalent to that in the City of Rochester Hills is the ‎

Planning Department which reviews environmental permits as well as the Planning ‎

Commission and City Council who make the decisions on wetland use permits ‎

according to the guidelines set forth in the city's ordinance, which is designed to be ‎

consistent with the State's wetlands regulations‎. ‎There is no federal body that has ‎

jurisdiction over wetlands‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert addressed two comments ‎-- ‎the perception that they had stopped ‎

development with Easthampton No‎. ‎1 ‎and were not going to do more, and why this ‎

time, if they get to do it, they really mean it, particularly related to Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's ‎

comments and a comment by a citizen indicating that there may be some potential for ‎

some portion of the wetlands to dry up enough so that in the future it may not be ‎

wetlands anymore‎. ‎Even though Easthampton Subdivision No‎. ‎2 ‎is not an Open ‎

Space subdivision, Mr‎. ‎Gilbert explained that the ‎5‎.‎8 ‎acres of open space shown on ‎

the plat will be included in the plat as open space so the subdivision will own the open ‎

space‎. ‎The plat will be recorded with the open spaces and will inure forever to the ‎

benefit of the residents of the subject development‎. ‎Actually, it will inure more to the ‎

benefit of the two adjacent condominium projects, Hampton Pines and Regency Park, ‎

than to either Easthampton No‎. ‎1 ‎or No‎. ‎2 ‎because of the proximity of the lots ‎

adjacent to the open space‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Williams added that the final plat will also record all ‎

the easements over the lots and the open spaces‎. ‎As part of the final plat they will be ‎

dedicating a conservation easement over the wetland area, which is a requirement of ‎

the City of Rochester Hills as well as the MDEQ‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Williams explained why that was not the case before, at least when there was ‎

some perception that the wetlands were already protected‎. ‎The subject parcel was ‎

not in the boundary of the plat for Easthampton Subdivision No‎. ‎1‎; the subject parcel ‎

was an excepted parcel that was not included‎. ‎So the plat for Easthampton No‎. ‎1 ‎

was recorded without the subject parcel included in the description‎. ‎Whereas, the ‎

proposed open space is within the boundary of Easthampton No‎. ‎2‎, and when the plat ‎

is recorded, whatever is shown on the plat will be final‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert discussed the excepted parcel contained in the proposed plat for ‎

Easthampton No‎. ‎2 ‎located in the northeast portion of the subject site, which the ‎

applicant owns, and whose future use is unknown at this time‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert's guess ‎

was that there would not be any wetland fill in it, there possibly may be one building ‎

site in the upland portion under a land division‎. ‎The wetland area adjacent to the ‎

south of the proposed excepted parcel will be landlocked if Easthampton No‎. ‎2 ‎is ‎

developed as proposed; there would be no way to get a public road to it in order to ‎

develop it; it will be part of the plat for Easthampton No‎. ‎2 ‎and will be an open space ‎

area‎. ‎The excepted parcel will not be part of the plat for Easthampton No‎. ‎2‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Gilbert identified the excepted line and described the excepted parcel area as ‎

approximately ‎166 ‎feet by ‎375 ‎feet in area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert pointed out the area in the southwest portion of the subject site identified ‎

in Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's report as possibly being impacted by the use of the wetland and ‎

could theoretically dry up, and to which the applicant is proposing to divert water to ‎

prevent that from happening‎. ‎The applicant is proposing a culvert connection between ‎

the two wetland areas by reducing the size of the proposed lots on the western ‎

boundary‎. ‎The connection would be widened, and Lot No‎. ‎103 ‎would be reduced ‎

and not have as much fill‎. ‎A culvert is the only way to connect the two wetland areas ‎

for a road‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski concurred with the concept of diverting some of the storm ‎

water to the southern wetland area to maintain the integrity of the wetlands‎. ‎

Approximately ‎50 ‎percent of the acreage of the subject parcel would be open space‎.‎

Member Rosen clarified with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi that the map included in the notice of ‎

meeting to the public did not identify the wetland area accurately ‎-- ‎the map identified ‎

the area of the subject site‎.‎

The Chair's concern was that the proposed excepted parcel and adjacent landlocked ‎

portion might someday become less of a wetland and somebody someday might want ‎

to develop it‎. ‎He perceived a similar situation occurring whereby future residents of ‎

Lots ‎115‎, ‎114 ‎and ‎113 ‎might come to the city and say they thought the wetlands ‎

would never be built on‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert offered some comfort to the city by suggesting a ‎

condition of approval to the tentative preliminary plat that a conservation easement on ‎

the wetland portion of the excepted parcel as well as the adjacent potentially ‎

landlocked portion be granted to the MDEQ, in the form of a park in perpetuity‎. ‎That ‎

easement would be a legal binding agreement with the MDEQ and would require that ‎

wetland to remain in an intact, undisturbed condition in perpetuity‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert would ‎

also be willing to deed it to the city if that was the desire to take the ownership away ‎

from themselves‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added the simplest way would be to change the legal ‎

description to exclude the wetland area in the excepted parcel and the potentially ‎

landlocked portion adjacent to the south‎.‎

For Member Rosen's benefit Mr‎. ‎Gilbert explained that the subject plan was the ‎

product of staff input, a desire on the part of the city to have a road connection‎. ‎The ‎

first two concepts the applicant submitted to the city about a year ago did not connect ‎

Easthampton No‎. ‎2 ‎with Easthampton No‎. ‎1 ‎-- ‎definitely since ‎1995 ‎when ‎

Easthampton No‎. ‎1 ‎was approved‎. ‎Member Rosen referred to the Planning ‎

Commission Minutes of January ‎3‎, ‎1995‎, Page ‎11 ‎where ‎The Planning Commission ‎

has made it clear in tonight's record that a wetland crossing is the least ‎

desirable alternative for the platting of the excepted portion of the property‎, ‎

noting that the subject site was the excepted portion of the property referred to in ‎

1995‎. ‎Member Rosen and Mr‎. ‎Gilbert recalled that the subject site was the topic of ‎

much discussion and numerous concepts in ‎1995‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert described one ‎

concept plan for Easthampton No‎. ‎2 ‎containing ‎20‎+ ‎lots without any of them being in ‎

wetlands, except for a very small crossing for the road, but that would place the ‎

majority of the lots adjacent to existing homes‎. ‎Through four or five approaches, even ‎

though it disrupts the wetlands, they have overall come up with a win‎/‎win plan in that ‎

they are proposing to preserve more than ‎50 ‎percent of the subject property, make ‎

the road connection desired by the city, and ensuring the integrity of the wetlands‎. ‎

The plan submitted a year ago was based on discussions from ‎1995 ‎utilizing a ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac instead of a road crossing over the wetlands‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi discussed the wetland use permit granted by the MDEQ on August ‎29‎, ‎

1996 ‎mentioned earlier in the meeting for the placement of approximately ‎2‎,‎400 ‎cubic ‎

yards of material within ‎0‎.‎7 ‎acres of wetlands for the construction of a portion of a ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and four building lots, with mitigation to create a ‎25 ‎foot wide swale ‎

around the fill area‎. ‎It was the city's opinion that the subject plan with a road crossing ‎

was a better design, with about the same amount of wetlands impact and providing for ‎

more mitigation, and also considering the amount of area that the applicant is willing to ‎

relinquish development on‎. ‎The upland area of the property would permit about ‎20 ‎

to ‎25 ‎lots, and the developable area would be farther to the interior of the property‎. ‎

The city weighed the options of providing no crossing‎. ‎The city's real preference was ‎

to cut the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac off and have a ‎6 ‎lot development, but the applicant clearly was ‎

unwilling to do so‎. ‎The city looked at what was reasonable for what the property ‎

could yield, and what is reasonable for the applicant's property rights, and what would ‎

be approved through other agencies‎. ‎The impact to the wetlands is minimized with a ‎

crossing rather than a complete wetlands fill‎. ‎

Member Rosen remembered spending a great deal of time in January ‎1995 ‎discussing ‎

plans for the future and the excepted parcels and how they all tied together and to ‎

consider everything in context‎. ‎He thought the record was clear from the January ‎

1995 ‎minutes regarding the Planning Commission's desire‎. ‎Member Rosen was ‎

disturbed about the potential landlocked parcel and could foresee many problems in ‎

the future with it‎. ‎What bothered him was that a landlocked parcel could be sold to ‎

someone who then says to the city that they have development rights‎. ‎The city has ‎

been in the position before where they have been required to do gyrations in order to ‎

provide access to a landlocked parcel bought by someone unaware from a person ‎

who did not reveal the limited development potential of that landlocked parcel‎. ‎The ‎

amount of proposed wetland fill is not excessive and is not a problem to him‎. ‎

Member Rosen had serious difficulty accepting the proposed plan as a viable ‎

approach and not subterfuge‎. ‎

Member Rosen proposed an acceptable alternative of ‎5 ‎to ‎7 ‎lots with a small ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac with just enough of a wetland encroachment to complete a turnaround with ‎

no wetland crossing‎. ‎

The Chair interjected that his intention is to end the meeting by ‎11‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎unless there ‎

is a likelihood of finality to any or all of the issues under discussion this evening‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the basis of staff‎’‎s recommendation‎. ‎The proposal for the ‎

same number of lots which the developer originally proposed is looking at wetland fill ‎

for about the same amount of area‎. ‎Under the original application the city would have ‎

required the applicant to boost the amount of fill from ‎0‎.‎75 ‎acres to ‎0‎.‎9 ‎acres because ‎

the city wants all the rear yards to be filled in‎. ‎The city does not want wetlands on a ‎

72 ‎foot by ‎120 ‎foot lot because homeowners will eventually disturb them anyway‎. ‎

The road crossing will promote a better connection between the two subdivisions with ‎

pedestrian connections in both as well as vehicular access through both‎. ‎It would be ‎

creating a community‎. ‎The wetland connection is better through a culvert rather than ‎

trying to pull the water completely out of the wetlands or divert it for roughly ‎300 ‎feet ‎

through a swale and back into the wetlands‎. ‎The proposal is for a pipe in the ‎

wetlands to keep the wetlands as contiguous as possible‎. ‎They originally suggested to ‎

the developer to cut back the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and eliminate at least ‎6 ‎lots, but the ‎

developer was not amenable to that‎. ‎There is a reasonable claim to develop the ‎

upland area in the southwest portion of the site which is to be preserved ‎. ‎The city ‎

would be hard pressed to deny access to that piece of land by not granting a wetland ‎

use permit‎. ‎Generally, access to upland areas is considered an unavoidable wetlands ‎

impact‎. ‎Under wetlands review applications gaining access to upland area, if there is a ‎

reasonable building site with sufficient depth for lots, impact to wetlands for access is ‎

generally considered unavoidable‎. ‎The city weighed the options and wanted to keep ‎

the best one‎. ‎They favored wetlands impact in a confined area and development in a ‎

confined area without stretching it out‎. ‎The city looked at the mitigation requirements ‎

in a smaller portion which includes a culvert, some fencing, as well as a storm water ‎

drain in the rear yards to preserve the hydrology of the wetlands‎. ‎If there is going to ‎

be wetlands impact, the city's main focus is on preserving the hydrology within the ‎

wetlands itself‎. ‎If the city had its druthers, they would have a ‎6 ‎or ‎8 ‎lot development ‎

on the subject site‎. ‎Actually, the city would prefer that the subject site remain open ‎

space, but it does not have the authority to do that either‎. ‎Staff reviewed the minutes ‎

from ‎1995‎, but they have to look beyond that‎. ‎Once the current information had been ‎

submitted to the city, it had to be considered‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi recommended eliminating ‎

Lot ‎109 ‎from the plat‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi reviewed Dr‎. ‎Jaworski‎’‎s recommendations‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski is ‎

recommending a closer review of the mitigation proposed and a lot be dropped, ‎

presumably Lot ‎109‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski states that the alternative of a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac is not the ‎

best alternative for the subject property‎. ‎Also, splitting the wetlands without a ‎

connection and without mitigation was not recommended‎. ‎The applicant has not yet ‎

contacted the MDEQ regarding mitigation‎. ‎Mitigation is a requirement of the MDEQ ‎

permit‎. ‎The MDEQ has already approved a wetland use permit for the subject site, ‎

so the city is not expecting that agency to withdraw its approval‎. ‎Under the city's ‎

wetland use permit guidelines the applicant cannot be required to get an MDEQ ‎

permit before the city's wetland use permit‎. ‎The Chair requested more information ‎

regarding wetland mitigation in order to determine that the proposed plan is an ‎

appropriate alternative‎. ‎The Planning Commission can require the applicant to show ‎

that there are no reasonable alternatives‎. ‎The Chair was not convinced that all the ‎

reasonable alternatives have been explored yet‎.‎

Member Krupa pointed out that the MDEQ wetland use permit expired December ‎

31‎, ‎1997‎, so the applicant will need to reapply after the city's wetland use permit is ‎

approved‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that the proposed plan is substantially the same as what ‎

the MDEQ issued its permit for‎. ‎The proposed plan has been under review for about ‎

2 ‎years by the city, during which time the MDEQ permit expired‎. ‎

Postponed

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert stated that they have looked at many concepts and many alternatives that ‎

the Planning Commission has not seen because they cannot present choices to the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎One plan must be chosen for submission to the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎If it is the desire of the commission, they can come back with a plan ‎

showing no wetland fill, or a minimal amount of fill, and including a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac‎. ‎They ‎

felt the proposed plan was the best plan for the community and the surrounding ‎

residents in the existing Easthampton No‎. ‎1 ‎and keep the integrity of the open space; it ‎

impacts the surrounding residents the least‎. ‎But if the issue is only keeping wetland fill ‎

to a minimum, they can do that and still achieve their required density‎. ‎But that would ‎

require homes to be placed adjacent to existing homes, and he has traveled that road ‎

before and knows the politics of that‎. ‎They are also weighing the alternatives and are ‎

not inclined to just let the land go‎. ‎Even doing nothing with the land is not a perfect ‎

plan‎.‎

The commission reviewed the dates of the various versions submitted and the ‎

differences in the plans‎.‎

Member Gaber found the reasoning in the staff report rather persuasive‎. ‎The main ‎

concern of the residents appeared to be the development of lots that would be ‎

immediately adjacent to their properties‎. ‎Regardless of what scenario is selected, ‎

most of the development will still occur around the perimeter of the subject site ‎

because of the location of the wetlands‎. ‎Member Gaber would support the proposal ‎

but would want to make sure they are remediating the wetlands at least on a ‎

one‎-‎for‎-‎one basis in the southwestern portion of the site to assure there is no net ‎

wetlands loss throughout the proposed development‎. ‎Member Gaber also agreed ‎

with the suggestion to reduce the size of the excepted parcel to incorporate it within ‎

the subject plat‎. ‎It appeared to make the most sense and be the easiest way to handle ‎

the excepted parcel as well as alleviate any concerns that it may dry up and be ‎

developed in the future‎. ‎

The Chair clarified with Mr‎. ‎Gilbert that the original plan with the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac, for ‎

which the applicant received a wetland use permit from the MDEQ, was scrubbed ‎

because the city wanted a road crossing‎. ‎The Chair referenced Ms‎. ‎Goodwin's ‎

comments in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January ‎3‎, ‎1995‎, page ‎10‎: ‎

There are several alternative ways that the unplatted portion could be ‎

developed in the future‎. ‎From a long term planning standpoint, the option that ‎

would cause the least amount of disruption to the wetlands is a separate access ‎

from Hamlin Rd‎. ‎Staff believes that the plat, as presented, meets all zoning ‎

ordinance requirements‎....‎The Planning Commission has made it clear in ‎

tonight's record that a wetland crossing is the least desirable alternative for the ‎

platting of the excepted portion of the property‎.‎ [‎Ed‎. ‎note‎: ‎the excepted portion of ‎

the property referenced in the quote is the proposed development under discussion ‎

known as Easthampton No‎. ‎2‎.] ‎The Chair was puzzled that what was unacceptable in ‎

1995 ‎now appears to be the most preferred‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert did not want to suggest that Mr‎. ‎Dearing was not right in his preference ‎

for a road crossing‎. ‎Their original plan did have a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and held the integrity of ‎

the open space area‎. ‎The trade‎-‎off was leaving a large area of wetlands undisturbed ‎

versus wetlands meandering behind many houses throughout the subject site‎. ‎The ‎

chances of keeping undisturbed wetlands intact forever are pretty good; wetlands in ‎

people's backyards are likely to disappear over time‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert indicated that the ‎

MDEQ probably would not have a problem renewing their wetland permit if it were ‎

not substantially different‎. ‎It was Mr‎. ‎Gilbert's opinion that the proposed plan, with a ‎

road crossing, in the long run would probably maintain the integrity of the wetlands on ‎

a longer term basis‎. ‎There is a way they could minimally impact the wetlands, but he ‎

did not believe it would be politically viable ‎-- ‎which would be to develop the upland ‎

area by placing homes immediately adjacent to existing residences‎. ‎From his ‎

experience he knows there would be a public outcry‎. ‎It's a delicate balancing act‎. ‎

According to the wetlands ordinance, the Chair added that the mandate is to consider ‎

reasonably prudent alternatives‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Williamson pointed out that Section ‎9 ‎of the ‎

State wetland law addresses balancing which allows the reviewing parties to balance ‎

public interest, public concern, and public safety and welfare versus the wetland laws; ‎

it doesn't say that wetland development must be precluded or preempted‎.‎

The Chair asked that the applicant submit alternative concept plans and a more ‎

concise report from Dr‎. ‎Jaworski‎.‎

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

Wetland Use Permit, Natural Features Setback Modification, and Tentative ‎

Approval of the Preliminary Plat‎ for File No‎. ‎94‎-‎440‎.‎2 ‎(‎Easthampton Subdivision ‎

No‎. ‎2‎).‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated September ‎30‎, ‎1998‎; letter ‎

from J & L Consulting Services dated ‎28 ‎September ‎1998‎; State of Michigan ‎

Department of Environmental Quality Permit, Permit No‎. ‎96‎-‎10‎-‎0735 ‎with ‎

attachments; letter from Christopher Kunkle of Brooks Williamson dated September ‎

10‎, ‎1998 ‎with attachments; letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated ‎

September ‎25‎, ‎1998‎; letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Environmental Impact Statement dated November ‎15‎, ‎1996‎; Minutes of City Council ‎

Meeting of July ‎26‎, ‎1995‎; Minutes of City Council Meeting of January ‎25‎, ‎1995‎; ‎

Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January ‎3‎, ‎1995‎; Land Use and Tree ‎

Removal Permit Application; Notice of Meeting regarding Tree Removal Permit and ‎

Wetland Use Permit; Letter from H‎.‎W‎. ‎Boschen dated August ‎12‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from ‎

John DeRonghe dated August ‎11‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Roberta Chapman dated ‎

August ‎10‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Victor T‎. ‎Czebatol dated August ‎9‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from ‎

Robert Sughroue dated August ‎7‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Gerald A‎. ‎and June J‎. ‎Volpe ‎

dated August ‎6‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from George L‎. ‎and Carol A‎. ‎Kenyon dated August ‎5‎, ‎

1998‎; Letter from Mrs‎. ‎Alice Cosellian Castro dated August ‎4‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from ‎

Mary L‎. ‎Burke dated August ‎2‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Mary Benfield dated July ‎31‎, ‎

1998‎; Letter from Kathleen A‎. ‎Audette dated July ‎30‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from John and ‎

Anna Fix dated August ‎3‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Carol Peterson dated July ‎31‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Letter from Jacquelyn C‎. ‎Jenkins dated July ‎30‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Bennett & Patricia ‎

Gardner dated July ‎20‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Lucille Long undated; Letter from Nancy J‎. ‎

McIntyre dated July ‎29‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated August ‎24‎, ‎

1998‎, typical response letter to residents; Letters distributed at the meeting from ‎

Patricia M‎. ‎Gardner dated September ‎20‎, ‎1998‎; Gerald A‎. ‎& June J‎. ‎Volpe dated ‎

September ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎and August ‎6‎, ‎1998 ‎with attachments‎.)‎

Postponed

2000-1889

Request for a Wetland Use Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎94‎-‎440‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Easthampton ‎

Subdivision No‎. ‎2‎

Postponed

2000-1890

Request for a Natural Features Setback Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎94‎-‎440‎.‎2 ‎- ‎

Easthampton Subdivision No‎. ‎2‎

Postponed

2000-1891

Request for Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎94‎-‎440‎.‎2 ‎- ‎

Easthampton Subdivision No‎. ‎2‎

Postponed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Member Krupa informed the Chair that he would be absent from the October ‎13‎, ‎

1998 ‎special study meeting‎.‎

There was no other business to come before the Planning Commission‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next meeting is a SPECIAL ‎

Study Meeting scheduled for October ‎13‎, ‎1998‎. ‎The next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for October ‎20‎, ‎1998‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at Midnight Michigan time‎.‎