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 27, 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

Eugene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Paul Krupa‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Sandi DiSipio, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1897

July ‎21‎, ‎1998 ‎Regular Meeting‎

Correction to Minutes‎: ‎Page ‎12‎, ‎3‎rd Paragraph‎

Change‎:‎ when‎

To‎:‎ went‎

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

21‎, ‎1998 ‎be accepted as corrected‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Krupa, Ramanauskas ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved as Amended

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Flyer ‎"‎Building a Constituency for Growth Management‎" ‎conference ‎

hosted by ‎Orion Area Chamber of Commerce, November ‎5‎, ‎

1998‎.‎

B‎.‎ Powerhouse package‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

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

The Chair reminded the audience that this project was reviewed in depth at the ‎

October ‎6‎, ‎1998 ‎meeting‎. ‎The request tonight is for Tentative Preliminary Plat ‎

Approval, which will eventually be decided by City Council, not solely by the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎There were issues that caused the developer, the Planning Commission ‎

and members of adjacent neighborhoods to look at other alternatives to try to avoid ‎

certain kinds of impacts in the community‎. ‎At the previous meeting, the applicant ‎

voluntarily agreed to eliminate the northeast portion of this property from any ‎

possibility of development, and made changes to the proposed tentative preliminary ‎

plat‎. ‎The Chair confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi that the Planning Commission is not being ‎

asked to act in terms of any dispositions on these requests tonight, but rather to review ‎

the proposed Alternative B and give the applicant some guidance toward the ‎

Commission's disposition of this alternate proposal‎. ‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated October ‎21‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

nothing to add to the staff report, but indicated he spoke with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin about ‎

what actions the Planning Commission could take tonight‎. ‎Alternative A could be ‎

approved or denied tonight‎. ‎Since most of the issues are known, the Commission ‎

could also recommend conditional approval of Alternate B, with Engineering and the ‎

landscape consultant working out the final details, or request the applicant to return ‎

with a full set of plans for this alternate‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser disagrees with making a decision on Alternate B tonight‎. ‎The ‎

memo dated October ‎21‎, ‎1998 ‎written by Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicates the Commission can ‎

only approve or conditionally approve Alternative A at this time‎. ‎The Chair does not ‎

encourage any action on Alternate B tonight‎.‎

Present for the applicant was Bill Gilbert of G&V Properties, and Jim Jones of MCS ‎

Engineering‎. ‎Chris Guthrie of Brooks Williamson Consultants was also in the ‎

audience‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert felt that the Planning Commission could act on Alternate B tonight, as the ‎

message from the prior meeting was that he was to return with alternative plans which ‎

did not impact the wetlands and kept the fill to a minimum‎. ‎The applicant would ‎

appreciate taking action on this plan tonight‎. ‎The new plan accomplishes this, as there ‎

is almost no fill on the lots within the proposed subdivision‎. ‎The fill is in the street ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎There is no road crossing proposed on the new plan, which maintains ‎

the integrity of the wetlands as one large uninterrupted area‎. ‎The applicant met with ‎

City staff, Dr‎. ‎Jaworski, the wetland consultant, and his own consultant and engineer, ‎

and feels this plan, based on the environmental and wetland issues, is far superior than ‎

anything submitted in the past‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert displayed two large sketches on foam ‎

board of Alternatives A and B for the audience and Board‎. ‎He explained that the ‎

excepted parcel in the northeast portion of the development would be considered a ‎

conservation easement or an open space owned by the subdivision association‎. ‎The ‎

wetland fill in Alternate B is ‎25‎% ‎less than the previous plan, and the wetland impact is ‎

1‎/‎3 ‎of an acre less than Alternate A‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chris Guthrie explained the differences ‎

between Alternate A & B‎. ‎On the original plan, Norcross Drive comes out to Hamlin ‎

Road‎. ‎The problem with this plan was the amount of wetland impacted‎. ‎Alternate B ‎

decreases the total wetland impact from ‎.‎913 ‎to ‎.‎679 ‎by eliminating the road crossing‎. ‎

The State had originally permitted the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac‎. ‎

The Chair asked if there would still be a request for a modification of the natural ‎

features setback‎.‎

The applicant indicated a modification will be requested‎.‎

The Chair inquired if a preliminary evaluation of the difference in the trees had been ‎

completed‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Jones indicated that the area where some of the lots are shifted to the upland area ‎

on Alternate B does not contain any regulated trees‎. ‎By eliminating the road crossway ‎

into the existing subdivision, quite a few regulated trees will be preserved‎. ‎The net ‎

impact is an increase in the preservation of trees‎. ‎

The Chairperson declared the public hearing open, calling for proponents and‎/‎or ‎

opponents who wished to speak‎.‎

A telephone call was received ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎98 ‎from ‎Michelle Postiff, ‎946 ‎

Maidstone‎, favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

A telephone call was received ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎98 ‎from ‎Cynthia Anderson, ‎981 ‎

Norcross‎, favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

A telephone call was received ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎98 ‎from ‎Laura Wahla, ‎861 ‎Norcross‎, ‎

favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

A telephone call was received ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎98 ‎from ‎Gary Klinger, ‎965 ‎Norcross‎, ‎

favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

A telephone call was received ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎98 ‎from ‎Debbie Halsey, ‎2163 ‎

Wentworth‎, favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

A telephone call was received ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎98 ‎from ‎Carolyn Lang, ‎2230 ‎

Wentworth‎, favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

A telephone call was received ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎98 ‎from ‎Monica Lilla, ‎2219 ‎

Wentworth‎, favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

A letter dated ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎98 ‎was received by fax from ‎Glen Williamson‎, ‎2065 ‎

Wentworth,‎ favoring the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac alternative‎.‎

David Anderson, ‎873 ‎Norcross‎, is opposed to Alternate A because of the ‎

through traffic, but if he must make a decision, prefers Alternate B‎. ‎

Clarke Harris, ‎2211 ‎London Bridge, Regency Park Condo's‎, indicated ‎

that he has not seen the proposed Alternate B plan presented tonight, and is ‎

disappointed that no one in his subdivision was given a copy of the new plan‎. ‎He is ‎

also upset because the number of lots has been increased by two, and that the ‎

developer proposes lots all along the borderline of Regency Park Condo's‎. ‎

Chairman Kaiser explained that the Commission does not supply copies of ‎

plans to the ‎

neighbors‎. ‎A ‎

copy of the ‎

proposal was ‎

included in the ‎

packet‎. ‎This ‎

is a meeting to ‎

discuss the ‎

alternate plans ‎

designed by ‎

the developer‎. ‎

Patricia Gardner, ‎2213 ‎London Bridge‎, Regency Park Condo's, does not ‎

care for Alternate A, and did not know about Alternate B‎. ‎The proposed lots are ‎

directly behind her back yard‎. ‎She explained when she bought her condo, she was ‎

told the land behind her was all wetland and nothing would be built there‎. ‎She is ‎

completely against the proposal‎. ‎She noted most of the audience lives on Norcross ‎

and has copies of the new plan, and do not live in Regency Park Condo's, because no ‎

one from the condos was aware of this alternate‎.‎

The Chairperson explained that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, ‎

this item was rescheduled for tonight to review the developer's alternate plans‎.‎

George Mesrey, ‎852 ‎Norcross‎, commented that most of his neighbors feel ‎

that Alternate B is better‎. ‎The City's consultant has said that the DNR would not ‎

likely approve Alternate A because of the wetlands issue, and the fact that there is a ‎

better alternative for less displacement of the wetlands‎. ‎Alternate B is better for the ‎

builder because there are more lots‎. ‎The wetland preservation is better in Alternate B, ‎

and most importantly, this alternate would not allow cut through traffic‎. ‎He strongly ‎

recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Alternate B‎.‎

David Hanson, ‎973 ‎Norcross‎, said he just found about the meeting tonight, ‎

and that he has a concern with cut through traffic‎. ‎Children have to walk to school in ‎

this area, and he suggested the builder consider a pathway to Hampton Circle through ‎

Regency‎. ‎

The Chair said this is not possible, because this is private property‎. ‎

Steve Wren, ‎897 ‎Norcross‎, agrees with previous statements about the ‎

traffic‎.‎

Tony Spanke, ‎2194 ‎Wentworth‎, noted that Alternate B is new, and feels ‎

that the neighbors were not aware of this new plan, and that this is insufficient time for ‎

those impacted to make a decision regarding this option‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Spanke is against both ‎

proposals‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser commented the Board has found that neighbors adjacent to every ‎

new development do not want the project next to them‎. ‎The Board is confronted with ‎

this problem all the time‎. ‎The issue is, does the project fall within city ordinances, is it ‎

reasonably harmonious with the surrounding development and future development, ‎

and that property owners have rights to do what they want on their property‎. ‎The ‎

Chair said when the Board revisits a topic, there will be new and different people from ‎

the first meeting in attendance at the second meeting who will indicate this is the first ‎

time they've heard about the proposed plan‎. ‎This is common as information passes ‎

through a neighborhood and more people attend meetings and feel they have not had ‎

sufficient time to study the plans‎. ‎This is not a reason by itself that the Commission ‎

can't move forward‎. ‎

The Chair suggested the Board discuss Alternate B in relation to issues brought up at ‎

the previous meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out some implications of Alternate B‎. ‎Subdivision ordinance ‎

requires block length not to exceed ‎600 ‎feet, or else it requires a waiver‎. ‎In Alternate ‎

B, block length exceeds ‎600 ‎feet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi and the Traffic Engineer looked at ‎

developing a boulevard for the first ‎200 ‎feet, so the block length after this would meet ‎

the ‎600 ‎foot requirement‎. ‎This would still require a block length waiver‎. ‎The ‎

applicant might also need a sidewalk waiver‎. ‎The City consultant and the developer's ‎

consultant both indicated that the MDEQ does not usually grant wetlands fill permits ‎

for sidewalks, so the area which is being filled for the road adjacent to the wetlands ‎

might need a sidewalk waiver‎. ‎

The Chair asked how the boulevard alleviates the need for the block length issue‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the boulevard would allow two points of access and ‎

minimizes the section where there is only a single access‎. ‎In the case of an emergency, ‎

the boulevard would allow a vehicle to pass with having the protection of the ‎

boulevard itself‎. ‎Another aspect which is unique to this site, is that the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac is ‎

only single loaded, so the density on the boulevard is less, which is typical for the ‎

block length waivers‎. ‎The boulevard is a means to help reduce the limited access in ‎

and out of the property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi then pointed out that the sidewalk waiver requirements apply to ‎

subdivisions of no more than nine lots, and the sidewalk cannot be connected to other ‎

sidewalk areas‎. ‎The applicant would have to apply for a waiver of the section which ‎

states only nine lots, and then request the sidewalk waiver after that‎. ‎City Council has ‎

given these waivers for subdivisions of more than nine lots, but the Planning ‎

Commission has not recommended approval‎. ‎

Member Gaber indicated the applicant would not need a waiver in this case, but a ‎

variance, which is based on hardship factors‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert does not feel there will be a problem putting sidewalks on all the lot ‎

frontages; it is only a problem in the area where there are no lots‎. ‎Sidewalks would ‎

be provided contiguously for the residents in front of their houses‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted the issue which was bothering almost everyone last time ‎

was the road that went through and it's impact on the amount of wetlands, and the fact ‎

that it bifurcated the wetlands, leaving the possibility that the northern wetland portion ‎

may not be fed properly and dry up some day‎. ‎Alternate B reduces the wetland ‎

impact by ‎.‎3‎/‎acre and adds two lots‎. ‎The Chair asked if this was sufficient in terms of ‎

the issues outlined last time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert said one of the issues previously brought up was the filling of wetlands for ‎

lots‎. ‎Another issue included the road crossing‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert designed an alternate ‎

which develops the uplands, but preserves wetlands‎. ‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi which departments have reviewed Alternate B‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi replied that this alternate was reviewed by the Planning Department, the ‎

Traffic Engineer, and the Wetlands Consultant‎. ‎This plan was not reviewed by ‎

Engineering Services or the Tree Consultant because the trees are confined to the ‎

wetlands on this site‎. ‎The Traffic Engineer sees the connector road as a better design ‎

because of dual access for public safety and service‎. ‎To help mitigate this situation, ‎

the boulevard access was suggested‎. ‎

Member Nowicki visited the site and agreed that most of the trees are contained in the ‎

wetland area, and that Alternate B contains improvements over the previous plan‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki would like to review this alternate further‎.‎

Member Ruggiero asked the applicant if the existing berm will remain in place‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Jones explained the berm is half on the Regency parcel and half on the applicant's ‎

property‎. ‎A retaining wall will be built on the applicant's portion of the berm, or the ‎

drain tile will be moved farther into the lots, in order to preserve the back side of the ‎

berm‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero referred to a letter written by Dr‎. ‎Jaworski which indicates in order ‎

to aid the impact of losing the open space in the southwest area, funds will be ‎

provided for tree screens and other landscape initiatives, and asked what the ‎

applicant's plans are‎.‎

The applicant pointed out he placed two calls to the Regency Condominium ‎

Association in order to explain his proposal, but the calls were not returned‎. ‎Using ‎

Alternate B, Mr‎. ‎Gilbert is prepared to provide a screen, following the same formula ‎

that the City would require ‎(‎a tree every ‎20 ‎feet‎) ‎in the southwest area‎. ‎He proposes ‎

to accomplish this by a contribution to the condominium association for screening ‎

purposes between the two projects as they see fit‎. ‎The applicant is willing to make ‎

this a condition of approval‎.‎

Member Ruggiero then asked if there is any significant flow from the north or drains ‎

moving into the wetlands‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Jones commented that there are outside ditches, and what the wetland consultant ‎

wants the applicant to do is direct a lot of the rear yard storm drainage into the ‎

wetland to replenish it‎. ‎With Alternate B, there is a different concept as the wetlands ‎

are not split in two‎. ‎The southern portion of the wetlands which were to be cut off in ‎

Alternate A, will now be fed by the northern portion of the wetland, so the concern is ‎

not as great‎. ‎The rear yard drainage from lots ‎107 ‎through ‎109 ‎could be discharged ‎

into the south end of the wetlands‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero noted that the natural feature setback is in the front yard of some of ‎

the lots, and asked how driveways and ingress and egress to these lots will be ‎

accommodated‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded that the natural features setback would disappear by filling the ‎

wetlands, so the setback would be moved to where the edge of the wetlands fill‎. ‎Staff ‎

would recommend the applicant use curb and gutter to redirect water from directly ‎

flowing into the wetland‎. ‎This water must be put into the storm sewer, so there is no ‎

runoff in the road‎. ‎The applicant would still need a natural features setback waiver for ‎

the portion of the road across the street from lots ‎100 ‎through ‎108‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero asked if the applicant has had an opportunity to speak to the ‎

neighbors since the last meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert indicated he placed a call to the president and vice president of Regency ‎

Park, left voice mail for both individuals, but did not receive a return call‎. ‎

Member Gaber feels it is disingenuous for the consultants to be saying that given the ‎

fact that Alternate B now exists, it is unlikely that the MDEQ would approve ‎

Alternative A‎. ‎The Board knew that an alternate such as B existed before with less ‎

fill‎. ‎Member Gaber finds it hard to believe that for them to previously suggest that ‎

Alternative A could be approved by the MDEQ and now to say that it can‎’‎t‎. ‎The ‎

Master Plan Update promotes creating joined neighborhoods versus disjoined to ‎

create more of a community feeling and provide better access and circulation, in ‎

addition to the safety issues about having two means of access‎. ‎Alternate B is ‎

inconsistent and in opposition to what the Master Plan promotes‎. ‎Member Gaber has ‎

mixed feelings because in an ideal situation, you would like there to be as little wetland ‎

fill as possible from an environmental standpoint, yet the other policies in the City are ‎

contrary to that, which tends to lead Member Gaber to favor Alternate A‎. ‎

Member Boswell indicated that Alternate B was never publicly presented and now ‎

that it is on the table, the Board should be looking it‎. ‎That is why the wetland ‎

consultants will approve this plan and not Alternate A‎. ‎The previous plan which was ‎

similar to Alternate B still proposed a crossing over the wetland‎. ‎While it is a policy of ‎

the City to promote joined neighborhoods, it is also a policy to do as little intrusion of ‎

wetlands as possible‎. ‎Member Boswell does not ever remember a time when the ‎

Board has allowed the filling of wetlands for lots‎. ‎We are obligated by the State to ‎

allow filling of wetlands for roads in order to get to uplands‎. ‎Member Boswell major's ‎

concern is with the block length, but is inclined to favor Alternate B‎. ‎

The Chairperson indicated he agrees with both Members Gaber and Boswell‎’‎s ‎

comments in part, and also feels the boulevard being considered two points of access ‎

is ludicrous‎. ‎While a connecting road will create a potential for cut‎-‎through traffic, the ‎

driving safety issue of having dual access is extremely important‎. ‎This alternate plan ‎

creates a requirement for the Board to set priorities; do we preserve the wetland area ‎

at the expense of eliminating the ability for access to these lots from two directions‎. ‎

Alternate B divides a few lots from the rest of the plat and also prevents ‎17 ‎lots on the ‎

west side and ‎5 ‎lots on the eastern side from having any access other than Hamlin ‎

Road‎. ‎The Chair would like to read the Traffic Engineer‎’‎s memo that states that this ‎

option is the better proposal‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated the Traffic Engineer‎’‎s preference is for the Norcross ‎

connection‎.‎

Member Ruggiero would like to research and see how many other locations in the ‎

City allow one access route‎. ‎

Chairman Kaiser indicated the applicant wants and deserves some direction on which ‎

proposal to pursue, but feels the City should notify all adjacent homeowners to allow ‎

them time to review Alternate B‎. ‎

Member Rosen asked if the original plan for Easthampton included the road going ‎

around the southwest corner‎. ‎

The applicant explained that the original plan for the entire Easthampton included these ‎

lots, and the road was proposed to be stubbed for future development‎. ‎This was ‎

strongly discouraged, and an eyebrow was suggested so the wetland would not be ‎

crossed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert did not pursue the north end of the originally proposed ‎

subdivision at that time because he did not want to hold up the entire development to ‎

get approval for that section‎. ‎

Member Rosen noted the applicant made a conscious decision not to pursue the ‎

northern portion of the subdivision which would have to be done at a later time, and ‎

later the applicant came forward with Alternate A, which had ‎.‎9‎/‎acre wetland fill‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert recalled the previous meeting where the wetland issue was prevalent‎. ‎

That is why the alternate plan was developed with the wetland area being contiguous, ‎

rather than split‎. ‎If the issue is about wetlands, than Alternate B is better‎. ‎If the issue ‎

is not wetlands, then a modified Plan B could be developed with the connection‎. ‎This ‎

option would lose more trees and more wetland, but would have the connection‎. ‎

The Chair suggested Alternate C could be a bridge over the wetlands, Alternate D ‎

could be a crossing of Plans A&B, eliminate lots ‎112 ‎and ‎113 ‎to obtain a crossing, ‎

but connect to the road and still go down to the west and south‎. ‎

Member Corneliussen never heard at the last meeting that the connection was a ‎

neighborhood desire, but that they liked the separation‎. ‎With this input and the ‎

aesthetic of the wetlands, it is clear that the message was to come up with a different ‎

option to please all parties‎. ‎The applicant has done a good job of completing this‎. ‎

Member Corneliussen understands the condominium development‎’‎s concern with the ‎

screening on the west side, and feels the applicant should have some opportunity for ‎

further discussions with this development to allow them to have some input on the ‎

screening‎. ‎Member Corneliussen likes the direction presented in Alternate B‎. ‎

. ‎

Member Rosen is trying to balance the option‎. ‎Alternate B is better for the wetland, ‎

does not have fill for lots, and contains a number of lots that are isolated, while ‎

Alternate A has a second point of access‎. ‎The bridge is less advantageous for ‎

wetlands as it includes fill for houses, which is a difficult situation‎. ‎The second access ‎

is important‎. ‎Member Rosen did not like the original plan which filled a lot of ‎

wetlands any more than that aspect of Alternate A‎. ‎

The applicant feels that one side does not want a connection, and the other side does ‎

not want development‎. ‎There is no way to talk to two groups who have opposing ‎

views‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert understands everyone‎’‎s concerns, and has offered to address ‎

these concerns‎. ‎It seems that safety concerns are the issue, and maybe not the ‎

wetlands‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested the connector street does not have to be in line with the other ‎

road‎. ‎This would not encourage cut‎-‎through traffic, but would allow a second access‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert stated he has to line up the street with the other street because it is a ‎

requirement of the City‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi said the connection could be in the area of lot ‎110‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert indicated this is his ‎5‎th plan, and to come up with another plan is not ‎

reasonable, when there is a reasonable plan on the table‎. ‎He would like Alternate B ‎

approved with a connection‎. ‎This will not make the condominium association happy, ‎

but will satisfy the safety concern‎. ‎He understands if the connector is approved he will ‎

lose lots, but wants the approval‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert would like to leave tonight with ‎

direction on what is desired, and come back with a plan that will not involve numerous ‎

conditions‎. ‎

The Chair indicated this is a reasonable request, but it doesn‎’‎t make it a mandate‎. ‎It is ‎

the Planning Commission and the Council‎’‎s job to address and identify how ‎

neighborhoods can work‎. ‎The parcels left to develop in the City are difficult and few, ‎

and create problems, and are therefore harder to develop‎. ‎There is the possibility that ‎

no plan is going to meet the criteria of the ordinance or the traffic concerns‎. ‎The Chair ‎

asked how many here feel that the Board can and should resolve these issues tonight‎. ‎

No response‎. ‎The Chair then asked two members of the audience who are not a part ‎

of the condo association, to agree to talk with the applicant tonight and take the ‎

responsibility to arrange a meeting with the principals of the condominium association ‎

and Mr‎. ‎Gilbert‎. ‎Both individuals agreed to do this‎. ‎At the last meeting the sole issue ‎

was the wetlands, the dual access was not discussed in any depth‎. ‎This is now a ‎

principal issue that needs to be resolved‎. ‎The Chairperson asked anyone in the ‎

audience who would like to be notified of the next meeting to fill out a speaker card ‎

and provide it to City Staff‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gregg Gibbons, ‎860 ‎Norcross‎, came up from the audience and stated ‎

when he bought his house he was told there was not going to be a connection‎. ‎If a ‎

breaker‎-‎bar connection is made for emergency vehicles, he doesn‎’‎t have a problem, ‎

but to have a dual access just because that is the rule, considering the number of ‎

children this is dangerous and he is opposed‎. ‎He does not see how this became a ‎

major issue‎.‎

Member Rosen suggested that Mr‎. ‎Gilbert talk to the homeowners in Easthampton as ‎

well as the association for Regency Park‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert is disappointed there were not more Easthampton residents in attendance ‎

tonight‎. ‎He also commented that he can‎’‎t make the decision on the connection versus ‎

no connection, because those issues are decided at Planning Commission, Council and ‎

with staff‎. ‎

Member Rosen indicated that the applicant is in the position where he can decide, ‎

based on what he thinks he can sell to his neighbors and to the Planning Commission, ‎

what proposal he can pursue‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert expressed he has done that, and still does not know what proposal to ‎

pursue‎. ‎

The Chairperson indicated that the applicant must make all efforts to meet with the ‎

condominium association and Easthampton and forward their feedback to the Board ‎

on these issues‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert said he left messages with the condo association and sent a letter to every ‎

resident in Easthampton regarding this meeting‎. ‎

Member Kaiser said he meant that the applicant should have met with these neighbors ‎

before tonight‎’‎s meeting‎. ‎

The applicant said that the consensus of some of the Easthampton residents was that ‎

they would not support a connection‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert said he would be happy to meet ‎

with the residents, but he can‎’‎t make someone place a return call or make them meet ‎

with him‎.‎

The Chairperson stated that our ordinance allows the Board to ask for other concepts ‎

that could be considered, and the applicant has responded to this‎. ‎The Board is still in ‎

the process of considering this option, and realizes the applicant is frustrated‎. ‎But at ‎

this point, neither side is at end point‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero asked the applicant if he were to start this process all over again, ‎

what would be his preference‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert indicated that the original plan with the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and no connection ‎

including the wetland fill permit which is now expired, would have been his choice‎. ‎

The Traffic Engineer and the wetland consultant did not support this plan‎. ‎The ‎

connection was wanted, so this was proposed in Alternate A‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero commented that the applicant is being very accommodating and ‎

patient with his plan for not disturbing the berm that is on his property and providing ‎

additional plantings and working with the condominium association, while this ‎

association feels he is intruding on their yards‎. ‎Until she sat on the Traffic Board she ‎

felt that connecting neighborhoods was a great idea, until she realized the cut‎-‎through ‎

traffic problems‎. ‎There is a greater problem with traffic than with getting emergency ‎

vehicles through‎. ‎Member Ruggiero personally favors Alternate B and that a meeting ‎

with the neighbors will resolve most of the problems‎.‎

Member Rosen favors the original plan, then Alternate B and Alternate A in that ‎

order‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated that the problem with the original plan was that the wetland ‎

impact was underestimated by ‎.‎7‎/‎acres‎. ‎

Member Rosen said that the original plan has few of the drawbacks and with possible ‎

adjustments, the original plan is worth looking at again‎. ‎

Member Nowicki indicated that after all this discussion, he favors Alternate B‎.‎

The Chairperson indicated that given the issues that have been discussed, wetlands ‎

versus access, the balance is to the original plan‎. ‎Member Kaiser suggested that the ‎

applicant meet with both the Regency Condominium Association and Easthampton ‎

residents to hear their concerns about the alternate plans‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert commented that the original plan, which was permitted, probably would ‎

unfortunately, not get permitted today‎. ‎The problem was that he was proposing to ‎

leave about a ‎20 ‎foot area in the back yards as wetlands, which was in conflict with ‎

what the City would accept‎. ‎The applicant feels he is caught between the City ‎

ordinances and the MDEQ‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gilbert expressed that he will be happy to meet with ‎

all residents who are interested in reviewing all of the options, and then come back to ‎

the Commission with a consensus‎. ‎The applicant asked if that is what the Planning ‎

Commission is looking for‎.‎

The Chair noted that a consensus would eliminate one issue which must be resolved, ‎

but cannot say if a consensus would drive the Board‎’‎s ultimate decision‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert commented that this would not get him back to the Commission with a ‎

preliminary plat to put on the table‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested that after the applicant talks to everyone, he is to come ‎

up with a plan that he feels is the best for all concerned‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gilbert stated he wants to cooperate‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated October ‎21‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Preliminary Plat Sheets prepared by MCS Associates and dated received by the City ‎

of Rochester Hills Planning Department October ‎22‎, ‎1998‎.)‎

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

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 ‎

Meeting scheduled for November ‎10‎, ‎1998 ‎(‎the return of Short Ridge and Butler ‎

Ridge‎). ‎The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November ‎17‎, ‎1998‎. (‎rezoning for ‎

71 ‎N‎. ‎Livernois, site plans for Powerhouse, St‎. ‎Marks Church‎)‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎9‎:‎55 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎