Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Special Planning Commission

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

ROLL CALL

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

Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet

Yukon

Present

9 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Letter from B. Bonkosky, dated January 23, 2009 re: Rezoning R-3 to O-

1

B) Letter from D. Kocenda, dated January 23, 2009 re: Rezoning R-3 to O-

1

C) Email from J. Woliung, dated January 26, 2009 re: Rezoning R-1 to RE

D) Letter from A. Greene, dated January 26, 2009 re: Ajax Materials

E) Email from A. Greene, dated January 27, 2009 re: Ajax Materials

F) Letter from H. Howell, dated January 27, 2009 re: Rezoning R-1 to O-1

G) Letter from Juengel’s Orchards Homeowner’s Assoc., dated January 23,

2009 re: Rezoning from R-1 to O-1

H) Letter from K. Svehar, not dated, re: Rezoning R-1 to O-1

I) Email from F. Hill, dated January 21, 2009 re: Rezoning R-1 to RE

J) Letter from M. Saksa, dated January 18, 2009 re: Rezoning R-1 to O-1

K) Letter from E. Zanotti, dated January 19, 2009 re: Rezoning R-1 to O-1

L) Letter from C. Saksa, dated January 22, 2009 re: Rezoning R-1 to O-1

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2008-0581

Request for Recommendation to Approve Adoption of amended Chapter 138, Zoning, of

the Code of Ordinances of the City of Rochester Hills and the accompanying Zoning Map.

(Memo from James Breuckman, dated January 22, 2009; Zoning

Ordinance prepared by McKenna Associates, Inc., dated January 6,

2009; accompanying Zoning Map; and related correspondence had been

placed on file and by reference became part of the record thereof).

Present for the discussion was James Breuckman, McKenna Associates,

Inc., 235 East Main St., Suite 105, Northville, MI 48167.

Chairperson Boswell announced that it was a Public Hearing, and he

explained the procedure for speaking. He summarized that Staff and Mr.

Breuckman would give a brief synopsis of the changes to the Zoning

Ordinance, and after any questions or comments from the

Commissioners, that he would open the Public Hearing and invite people

to speak. He asked that comments be limited to three to four minutes.

Following the Public Hearing, there would be further discussion by Staff

and the Commissioners. At that point, he would not accept comments

from the public, although he acknowledged that subsequently during the

meeting, a need to hear from the audience might arise.

Mr. Delacourt related that the subject project, a complete evaluation and

re-write of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, had been under review for quite

some time. A Technical Committee, made up of Planning Commission,

City Council, Zoning Board of Appeals and Staff members studied and

made recommendations on the language and processes of the

Ordinance, and based on that, Mr. Breuckman of McKenna Associates

prepared the new Ordinance. The Planning Commission had an

opportunity to review several drafts, and he noted that there had been

another Public Hearing in December. That meeting did not involve the

proposed rezonings, so they would be discussing those, as the Zoning

Map would be adopted along with the Ordinance. He explained that there

were 11 map amendment areas, which were based on recommended

changes to the Ordinance or to the updated Master Plan.

Mr. Delacourt recalled that the Planning Commission had narrowed its

list of concerns from the previous meeting to just a few issues. The

current draft addressed most of those issues, but Staff still needed to

know about the direction for a few items, which he hoped could be

resolved. Mr. Delacourt directed the discussion to Mr. Breuckman, and

said he would discuss the proposed rezonings afterwards.

Mr. Breuckman noted that there were some items they had not decided at

the last meeting, and he pointed out what had been done to address them

and what needed further action. The first item concerned existing

nonconforming residential structures, Section 138-3.105 on page 40.

The Ordinance had been changed to allow the expansion of structures

that were nonconforming with respect to side or rear yard setbacks so that

an addition would match the existing nonconformity. He reworked the

Section, and it now allowed expansions into the setback area that were

equal to the nonconformity or five feet, whichever was greater. If there was

a structure set back three feet from a property line, someone would not be

allowed to match the setback; they would have to start an addition at five

feet back. Also, additions in a setback area could not be taller than 16

feet or one story. He did not think there had been clear direction about

the five-foot minimum, and he wanted the Commissioners to decide.

Mr. Breuckman next discussed that helipads were removed from the use

table. There was a reference added under Outdoor Dining regarding

requiring right-of-way permits. He had revised the wind energy standards

to be a little clearer. There would be tower and roof-mounted systems,

and he tailored the residential and non-residential applications for both

by adding appropriate, specific standards. The maximum height for the

wind energy systems were lower than that permitted for cell towers, and

the setback requirements were greater. He referred to manure

processing facilities, and said that he did not add it to the Ordinance

because he did not think it was appropriate for Rochester Hills. He talked

about front yard solar panels, and said that he added a requirement for

evergreen landscaping as a buffer. He had asked the Commissioners to

think about solar access permits at the last meeting. A permit would allow

a property owner to get an easement or some type of restriction on

neighboring properties to stop them from erecting structures or

landscaping that would block access to a solar panel. The permit would

be based on a hypothetical ten-foot wall at the property line, going up at a

30-degree angle from the wall, at which point the height would be limited.

He admitted that it was very new and sort of “pushing the edge.” They

needed to decide whether to keep it in the Ordinance. The next item was

parking; the new Ordinance required nine-foot wide spaces across the

City. The question was whether they should be ten-feet wide, or ten-feet for

retail only, or nine-feet for employees, or some combination. He referred

to irrigation, and said he added an exemption for LEED compliance

landscaping. All landscaping had to be irrigated, but if someone was

installing landscaping and getting points toward a LEED or equivalent

rating system, the irrigation requirement could be waived.

Mr. Breuckman noted that the I-2, Heavy Industrial, district had been

rolled into the I, Industrial, district, and the distinction between both was

eliminated. In the existing Ordinance, the intent of the I district was to

allow manufacturing and processing of items that were already finished or

semi-finished. The I-2 district permitted processing of raw materials and

also mentioned uses that could have offsite impacts, such as noise,

vibration or smoke. The I district was not supposed to generate those

kinds of impacts. He added a Section (138-4.420) that addressed heavy

industrial uses, which were permitted in the I-2 district currently. That

Section also grandfathered in existing heavy industrial uses, because

there were greater setbacks established for those. They would be

applicable to new operations that wanted to locate in the City. The

grandfathered uses could continue, as long as any nonconformity was not

increased. He felt that struck a balance between protecting the City from

inappropriate locations of new heavy industrial uses, while also allowing

existing businesses to continue and expand within bounds.

Mr. Breuckman said the Commissioners needed to decide about

basically four items; the nonconformity of residential side yards, solar

access permits, parking space width and about the I-2 district.

Mr. Hooper brought up the five-foot minimum required for side yard

setbacks. He presumed that it applied mainly to the Brooklands area,

and it was his opinion that if there was a home that was 40-50 years old

that was built closer than five feet, that the homeowner should be allowed

to extend along that side yard line. He did not think there should be an

artificial five-yard or other minimum for those types of homes, and he felt

they should take it out.

Chairperson Boswell said that the five-foot minimum was something he

had suggested as a compromise, but in thinking about it over the past few

weeks, he agreed with Mr. Hooper. He noted homes in Brooklands, as he

lived in and drove around it quite a bit; in fact, one of his neighbors’

garage was right on Chairperson Boswell’s property line, and the other’s

was about six feet away. He stated that it was not uncommon in the whole

area. If Brooklands was going to be revitalized, he felt that people that

had lived there for 50 years or more and wanted to expand their house

should be able. If the house was three feet off the property line, the

expansion should be allowed along that line. He agreed with Mr. Hooper

that they should eliminate the five-foot requirement, and he felt that it

would offer long-time residents something that would benefit them and the

City.

Ms. Brnabic agreed with both Mr. Hooper and Chairperson Boswell, and

said it would encourage reinvestment in the community. It was not just for

the Brooklands area, but she agreed that the Zoning Board of Appeals

heard most of their cases from the south end of the City. She was not

sure how many, but a lot of homes were built in the 1930s and 1940s, and

there were people who wanted to reinvest in their homes. The current

Ordinance required them to do something substandard and piecemeal

that did not look right. She stated that the City should want to encourage

reinvestment of the older homes, to alleviate deterioration and blight, and

she totally agreed with removing the five-foot requirement.

Mr. Kaltsounis agreed with the comments, and said that the key was the

16-foot, one- story requirement. He noted that his brother-in-law lived in

Birmingham, where there were a lot of older homes, and said there were

two or three-story homes very close to lower homes, which looked rather

ominous. He agreed with allowing an expansion to go along the current

setback, so a home did not look staggered, but he would like it kept at

one-story.

Mr. Schroeder observed that everyone was in agreement, so he felt they

should take the five-foot minimum out and move on, to which Mr. Reece

also agreed.

Mr. Hooper referred to solar access permits, and he asked if the City

would be legislating to the neighbors that they could not plant a tree more

than ten-feet high. Mr. Breuckman said it would allow a property owner,

after a Public Hearing, to request that the restriction be placed. It would

be a mechanism for a property owner so that a neighboring property

owner, in the future, could not do something to block access to the sun.

The height could increase as something moved away from the property

line.

Mr. Delacourt recalled that it was put in the Ordinance at the beginning of

the process, and Staff had discussed it with Mr. Staran. Staff would now

recommend taking it out. He believed that there would be enforcement

issues. They liked the chapter about Sustainable Energy, but they did

not really see a need to require a permit. Mr. Breuckman agreed that it

had been added at the beginning, and throughout the process, he had

asked the Commissioners to take a good look at it. He was fine with

removing it. Mr. Hooper agreed it would be unenforceable, and he did not

think it would be supported by Council.

Chairperson Boswell did not necessarily see where it was forward thinking,

and he did not think the City should be in the business of pitting neighbor

against neighbor. Mr. Breuckman said that it would set the process

whereby the City could arbitrate it, but once it became a deed restriction,

the City would step back. It was not the City’s job to enforce it, but he

agreed that they could take it out. Chairperson Boswell commented that

government at all levels was rather intrusive and getting more so every

day, and he did not see a reason to get on that bandwagon.

Mr. Klomp agreed. He appreciated the effort, and said he understood

where it came from, and that a lot of good Ordinances came about as a

result of that initiation. He did wonder, however, how often the height and

the 30-degree specifics would be an issue with all the tall houses in the

community.

Mr. Hooper referred to parking widths, and said he favored a combined

approach. He thought that nine-foot spaces for employee parking were

fine, but he wished to see ten-foot spaces for public parking. He recalled

that the spaces were changed in the Ordinance a few years ago to ten by

eighteen feet. They modified the standards to try to reduce the amount of

impervious area. He thought nine feet was very narrow for a public spot.

He suggested they could mark some narrower spaces for small cars, but

reiterated that he would like a combined approach.

Mr. Kaltsounis agreed with Mr. Hooper. He wondered how much

employee versus public parking there would be in a retail area. He noted

that for certain businesses trying to move into the City, there was a lack of

parking, and making some spaces nine feet would help. For employees

who came once a day, he thought it would be manageable, but for

in-and-out retail shoppers, nine feet would be an issue.

Mr. Delacourt explained that the idea behind nine-foot spaces was to

further decrease the amount of impervious surface and stormwater

retention and because of re-users of buildings. The original user of a

building might have 30 employees using nine-foot spaces, but Staff

would not know when that user moved. It could be a distraction to a

business owner to have to convert parking from employee to general

spaces, and that would tie Staff’s hands with regard to flexibility. Staff

understood that nine was a little tight, but if the business owner felt it was

too tight, they would be free to propose ten. If the Planning Commission

preferred a combined approach, they could change that prior to going to

Council.

Mr. Hooper thought Mr. Delacourt was referring mainly to an Industrial

district, where the building would be primarily for employee parking with

four or five visitor spaces. The retail areas were more of the issue. Mr.

Kaltsounis said he would be more concerned about big box stores, like

Home Depot, that had 50 employees and the rest retail parking. Mr.

Delacourt said that the intent of the Ordinance was not to make the

dimensional requirements so use-specific, which would allow more

flexibility for reuse. If a manufacturing building was to be converted to an

office building, for example, there would be more generalized standards

to allow that. If the spaces were all nine or all ten feet, Staff would not

have to review a Revised Site Plan. Mr. Hooper offered that the spaces

should all be ten feet, with an option for the developer to use nine feet for

employee parking. Mr. Delacourt said that would not be a problem. Mr.

Breuckman asked if Staff should have the ability to approve it, and Mr.

Hooper agreed that for re-development on a smaller scale, it should be

an administrative approval. Mr. Delacourt asked if it would be limited to

non-commercial uses only, or whether there should be flexibility for retail

as well. Mr. Hooper agreed with both. Mr. Delacourt asked if the spaces

should be signed or painted as employee parking only. Chairperson

Boswell did not think painting would do any good in bad weather. Mr.

Delacourt said he was just trying to figure out how they would differentiate

between employee parking and regular, or if it did not have to be

distinguished. Mr. Hooper said that it would be striped for nine feet, and if

people wanted to park there, they could. Mr. Kaltsounis said it would be

designated on the Site Plan - he did not think a sign was needed - and the

Commissioners would decide if it was reasonable.

Ms. Brnabic agreed with Mr. Hooper that they should stay at ten feet with

nine as an option. Chairperson Boswell asked if nine feet would be just

for employee parking or if someone would have the option of using nine

for the entire parking lot. Mr. Hooper said he envisioned nine feet for

employee parking.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at 8:04 p.m.

Hattie Howell, 122 Regal Ave., Rochester Hills, MI 48307. Ms. Howell

stated that she was opposed to the subject rezoning for the parcels

between Regal and Stark from Residential to Office Business. She had

resided on Regal for almost 13 years. Rezoning to the north of her

neighborhood would sandwich their properties between businesses,

further deteriorating the quality of life and peaceful character of the

neighborhood. Among her concerns were increased noise and an

increase in an already high level of traffic on Rochester Road. Currently,

it was very difficult to make a left turn into Regal or onto Rochester, and

that had not always been the case. She was also concerned about

lighting glare, additional stormwater runoff, because they had a problem

with that now, safety, security, privacy and the lack of visual integrity that a

rezoning to a business district would do, and the potential decrease in

home values, in addition to what had happened because of the economy.

She stated that she wanted the subject property to remain residential, and

she felt that the current zoning was a good balance between business and

residential. As residents, they contributed to the Rochester Hills

community, and she was asking the City to not squeeze her

neighborhood out.

David Kocenda, 95 Stark Rd., Rochester Hills, MI 48307. Mr. Kocenda

said he lived on the street directly to the north of the subject property

discussed by Ms. Howell. He noted that he was the second generation in

the house; his wife grew up in the house, and they subsequently bought it.

They planned to raise their two young children there. His subdivision,

with the inclusion of the lots just south of Stark Rd., were involved in an

intense legal battle in Oakland County Circuit Court. The Regal

development and legal documents were brought before the Planning

Commission to show the stringent aspects of their deed restrictions, which

kept the parcels zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential). The rezoning

would allow someone to come in and aesthetically disturb a perfectly

consistent line of similar type housing. Putting a business designation on

the property would destroy the character of the area. He knew the parcels

were Residential when he bought his property because he did research,

and they bought with those expectations. He noted again that he had two

young children, and he would not like to see any type of office building

behind his home and have them in the backyard. He was a former police

officer, and he had seen situations where homes backed up to

complexes, and he had seen break-ins and an increase in other crimes.

He stated that it was not the right project for the location. The people who

owned the property knew what it was and what it was worth. It would

penalize the people on Regal, and that was incomprehensible to him. To

change the zoning, knowing the residents came to Planning Commission

as a group and argued their point, and knowing that their subdivision

along Rochester Road was currently being developed with homes made

no sense to him. Their property values would significantly suffer. He

encouraged the Commission to take it off the board and say no. He

stated that it was the wrong place, the wrong project and the wrong time.

Richard Yoon, 75 Regal Ave., Rochester Hills, MI 48307. Mr. Yoon

stated that he was also opposing the rezoning for many reasons. He

thought, as Ms. Howell mentioned, that their property values would

decrease greatly. Some of them depended on their second mortgage for

other business and family matters, and if the price of their properties

dropped greatly, they would be negatively affected.

Gordon Haviland, 90 Regal Avenue, Rochester Hills, MI 48307. Mr.

Haviland said that his property was adjacent to the property in question.

He purchased his property in 2002 and researched the location to other

businesses in the area, and that the property to the north was zoned

Residential. He opposed any change to the zoning, and if he had known

it would be changed, he would never have bought property in Rochester

Hills. He agreed with Ms. Howell, and he would be concerned about

privacy rights if there were a business right behind him. There would be a

downturn in the value of his property. The economy was already hitting it

heavily, and that would just destroy it.

Richard Smutek, 139 Regal Ave., Rochester Hills, MI 48307. Mr.

Smutek stated that he was President of the Regal Colony Homeowner’s

Association, and he was speaking for the members on Regal who could

not attend the meeting. He spoke to many of them with regards to their

feelings toward the rezoning. He advised that he lived on the south side

of Regal Ave., so he knew what it was like to have a commercial complex

interfering with his residential use. They were subject to sweepers in the

middle of the night because there were no cars then, and it was

convenient. They were subject to more interference with snow removal

because of the large parking area, and they were even subject to

landscaping being done at odd hours. They were subjected to lighting

into their homes and noise pollution that would not exist if it were used

residentially. He talked about the history of the Regal complexes. The

complex to the south of him was a commercial office condo. The

developer initially wanted to build an extended commercial development,

but the City was opposed and as a result of some negotiation, there was a

compromise, and the developer had to first build the residential portion.

At that time, it was the intent of the City to keep all the area north of

Wabash residential and it was, essentially, from Walgreen's south. He

reiterated that there was currently new construction of residential homes

along Rochester Road. If the subject parcels were to be taken out of

context with what was the original plan of the City and with what had

consistently been developed between Wabash and Walgreen’s, he felt

that it would be inappropriate for several reasons: It would create an

island for the Regal Colony people, surrounding them by commercial;

and it would cause more traffic and difficulty in attempting to enter and

leave the complex. They felt that the representations of the City opposing

the developer’s attempts to make it commercial, when they bought 20

years ago, should be held up with a plan that was consistent with what

existed.

Alan Greene, 39577 Woodward, Suite 300, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304.

Mr. Greene stated that he was present to talk about the proposed rezoning

of the Ajax properties (south of Hamlin and west of Crooks). He had sent

in a letter, and indicated that Ajax had a major, very valuable, ongoing

business operation on the property. Ajax was the largest supplier of

asphalt building materials in southeast Michigan. It was one of the

largest paving contractors in the area. It was unfortunate how the rezoning

came about, because they were not aware of the process for a new Zoning

Ordinance. He said they only got notice of the meeting, and the possible

rezoning of their property, a few weeks ago. The president of the

company was out of town and could not be in attendance. Rezoning the

property to a different classification would create the potential for

nonconforming uses. That was a serious issue for them, particularly with

respect to the value of the business operation, the ability to finance the

operation and the ability to continue to get credit. They had operated in

the City without any violations, and they had not gotten any complaints

that they were aware. In that regard, they were appreciative of the effort

that was done by the consultants to start to craft a method of dealing with

their operation. However, that just occurred last Friday (January 23), and

although he felt it was a good first step, it was done without any

consultation with the owners or discussion about what would work. He had

emailed a quick list of some of the issues that were raised by their plant

operations manager with respect to the Ordinance, and those were the

things they were concerned about. As it stood, they did not know under

the new Ordinance if they would be able if they wanted to expand their

operation. He questioned if that would cause an expansion of a

nonconformity. He wondered if they would have to do all the changes

proposed in the Ordinance, which were onerous to exclude or discourage

new development, and might prevent them from improving their

operations. He mentioned that they were always upgrading their facilities,

and that they had Public Hearings with the MDEQ regarding permits, so

they were very concerned about the impact of the rezoning. He stated

that it was a huge issue for them and their ongoing operation. He

believed that the intent was not to shut them down or drastically impact

the value of their operation, so he just wanted to ask that they defer a

decision about it, and allow them to meet with Staff and go through some

of the issues. If the City was going to adopt a new Ordinance, it should

deal with their ongoing operation and not unintentionally affect them

negatively. He said that they had no opportunity to review it, and that it

came up quite suddenly. They were surprised to see that there was a

rezoning proposed for their property. They knew that the City’s intent was

not to allow further expansion of new heavy industrial operations in the

City, and he felt that could be accommodated while their operations could

be accommodated and maintained. He did not think that the proposed

language would allow that. There were issues, particularly with respect to

application and changes. He wondered, for example, if they tried to

expand the building if they would have to pave the whole 20 acres. Those

types of things needed to be addressed, and he urged the Commission

not to approve it in its present form, and to give them an opportunity to

talk to Staff.

Chairperson Boswell closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 p.m.

Chairperson Boswell said that in going over the proposed zoning

changes, he did not believe the Commissioners needed to discuss the

Residential Estate rezonings, but they obviously had a couple to discuss.

He noted that he was around when Regal was developed, and he

remembered the City saying that there could be offices, but the area to

the north had to be residential, and the offices would be a buffer to

commercial to the south. He tried to remember why the property north of

Regal was shown on the Master Plan as possible Office zoning. It

seemed odd that they would isolate an R-4 property between two Office

zonings, and he asked Mr. Delacourt how that came about.

Mr. Delacourt said he did not recall, as it had been done as part of the

1998 Master Land Use Plan, and he was not with the City then. It was

carried over to the current Plan, but there was no specific reference in the

files. There was a concern about putting in another subdivision on the

parcels because of traffic. He indicated that Staff was not saying it had to

be changed to O-1. It was put forth because it was identified in the Master

Plan. If the Commission was more comfortable leaving it R-3, Staff had

no objections. There were valid arguments for both designations. He

advised that there was no project being proposed for the area, and that

none of the owners had made a formal request, but none had objected.

Mr. Kaltsounis said they discussed Juengel’s Orchards a lot, but for some

reason, the area south of it went by them. He was a little embarrassed

that they had missed it. When he first saw it in the packet, he thought

about compatibility and harmony with the surrounding areas. He shared

Chairperson Boswell’s opinion that they should leave the property as it

was, and they could address it the next time the Master Plan was updated.

Mr. Schroeder said that the property was surrounded by Residential

zoning to the north, south, east and west. The Juengel’s Orchards

situation had been settled as Residential, and he thought this property

should stay Residential.

Mr. Yukon agreed that the property should stay Residential. He weighed

in on all the residents’ concerns. He mentioned that he passed the area

on his way to work and over the last couple of weeks, he tried to envision

Office going in there, and he did not think it would be a good fit. He stated

that he would be against the rezoning at this time.

Mr. Hooper dittoed all the comments, and stated that he did not support

O-1. He would support Mixed Residential, but at this point, he did not feel

there was a reason to go to O-1.

Ms. Brnabic said that since they all agreed, she wondered why they would

wait until the next Master Plan review. She clarified that the Plan could

not be implemented until they updated the Zoning Ordinance, which

would complete the process. She said they had identified an area that

was troubled, and the Commission did not envision it staying O-1, so she

wondered why they would not work with it before the process was totally

completed.

Mr. Delacourt explained that it was not zoned O-1 currently and that it

could stay R-3. It was only identified in the Master Plan, and it was only a

proposed rezoning. It would be a Recommendation to City Council, who

ultimately made the decision. It could be changed on the map prior to

going to Council, and the record would reflect that Recommendation.

Mr. Reece agreed with the Commissioners about keeping it Residential

for the current Plan. Chairperson Boswell recalled that when they started

the Master Plan 14 years ago, there was sentiment on the Planning

Commission that Rochester Road should not be Residential. He thought

this area was kind of overlooked. They all recommended that Juengel’s

Orchards be Office, but they all knew it would not be, and that it would be

Residential. Mr. Delacourt said that there were some very good land

arguments as to why the property should be considered for Office and not

Residential. The residents brought up traffic, noise and safety, but

someone could put in a cul-de-sac with 15 homes with a single access to

Rochester Road. He felt that merited some discussion. The Tech

Committee did discuss the area, and he did not feel it was overlooked. If

an individual request came in for a rezoning to O-1, based on land use

principals regarding traffic, buffering, etc., as opposed to rear yard to rear

yard relationships for residential usage, Staff might recommend Office.

Chairperson Boswell commented that it would be more valid if the

properties were not surrounded on three sides by Residential. He felt that

the Planning Commission would recommend that no rezoning took place

on these properties. Mr. Delacourt suggested that there could be a

Condition that Map Amendment number 11 be removed prior to

consideration by City Council, and Mr. Staran agreed that would be the

best way to deal with it.

Chairperson Boswell moved the discussion to the I-2 district. He stated

that there was considerable concern on the part of Mr. Jacob and Mr.

Greene that they would somehow lose property rights. He asked if there

was a guarantee that nothing would change for them, or whether there

needed to be further discussion.

Mr. Delacourt responded that the uses identified in the previous I-2

district had been included in the current draft as Permitted or Conditional

uses. That would eliminate the concern about a nonconforming use.

There were some dimensional requirements that were different for Mr.

Jacob’s use indentified in the I district than compared with I-2, which he

noted were in Section 4.420. That might or might not make any proposed

future expansion conforming. When a Zoning Ordinance was reviewed, it

was done based on existing businesses or the current situation and what

would be appropriate for the district as a whole across the City. Section G.

clearly grandfathered Mr. Jacob’s business as it existed currently. If they

came forward and requested a change to the approved Site Plan, just as

with any other site that came forward as a legal, nonconforming site, the

Planning Commission would have the opportunity to impose what they

felt was reasonable compliance with current code. It would not be

automatic that Mr. Jacob would have to conform with all of the

requirements. The Planning Commission would be allowed to evaluate

what was being proposed as an addition, and determine what

requirements in the Ordinance were reasonable to the request. Staff felt

there had been adequate protections in the new Ordinance for the heavy

industrial uses, which were done because the City had changed and

evolved over the last 20 years. The existing business was grandfathered

in and allowed to continue to operate unfettered, and it would also allow

the Planning Commission to re-evaluate the use if the applicant came

forward with a requested revision. Staff felt that was a reasonable middle

ground, based on everyone’s concerns. It was a difficult thing to just set

aside, and it would be hard to amend the Ordinance to put I-2 back. He

mentioned that over 350 individual notices about the rezonings were sent,

and he did not think that Staff would recommend that it was the most

appropriate decision to set aside one proposal and negotiate a zoning

district based on one use. He thought it would be difficult to go forward

with the Zoning Ordinance without this issue decided. If they put the I-2

district back in, Mr. Jacob’s use would be a Permitted Use, but it would be

the only I-2 use in the City.

This matter was Discussed

2008-0581

Request for Recommendation to Approve Adoption of amended Chapter 138, Zoning, of

the Code of Ordinances of the City of Rochester Hills and the accompanying Zoning Map.

Mr. Dettloff clarified that the language would allow the applicant, at any

time in the future, an opportunity to consider an expansion, and it would

allow the Planning Commission to come to some type of common ground

to approve it. Mr. Delacourt agreed, noting that it would be similar to other

cases the Planning Commission had considered. There were existing

retail centers that did not conform to the buffer requirements, and the

Commission had evaluated some to see if an addition would require the

need to conform to the current buffer requirements. He reiterated that the

Planning Commission was able to make a determination about what was

reasonable to comply with current code.

Mr. Breuckman referred to Section 4.420 and items in Mr. Greene’s letter.

He felt there were two places he might be able to further clarify things with

the language. It occurred to him that for something like an office or

something part of the heavy industrial use that would not generate higher

impacts, they could specifically exempt those from the dimensional

requirements. They could add something to the grandfather clause

regarding expanding, which had been the intent. Now it read, “Heavy

industrial uses that existed at the date of adoption of this Ordinance may

continue in their present location,” and he suggested that it could say,

“may continue or expand operations in their present location, providing

that any nonconformity of these requirements is not increased.” Another

option would be to add a sentence that read, “The viewing authority would

be allowed to waive any of the above requirements if the specific

characteristics of the use do not and will not negatively impact

neighboring uses.” That would give the Commission the discretion to

deal with the existing uses that might not comply with the new standards

but were not generating negative impacts currently, and they could

continue that way.

Mr. Hooper stated that his employer used to own the Ajax property, and

he participated in a business on the property currently. To avoid any

appearance of a conflict of interest, he recused himself from the

discussion. He hoped that if there was a vote on the Ordinance that the

I-2 recommendation could be removed for a separate vote so he could

participate. Chairperson Boswell advised that he would speak with Mr.

Staran before any voting took place.

Mr. Yukon referred to Item G., and asked if the alternative wording would

allow an expansion as long as there was no nonconformity. Mr.

Breuckman replied that there were dimensional requirements in Section

4.420. For example, there was a minimum site area of ten acres. If there

was a business operating on five acres, Item G. said that even though the

dimensional requirements showed there was not enough land area, the

City would not stop the expanding or continuing use because it was an

existing business in operation at the time of the adoption of the

Ordinance. If there was a new heavy industrial use that wanted to locate in

the City, there would have to be ten acres. The existing dimensional

situation could continue as it existed under Item G., but it could not

expand beyond the five acres. If there was currently a 50-foot setback,

that business would not have go to a 1,500-foot setback. Mr. Yukon

clarified that it would be allowed as long as the expansion stayed within

the requirements.

Mr. Schroeder asked if this had been reviewed with Ajax or Mr. Greene.

Mr. Delacourt said that they were provided a copy of the changes Friday

(January 23) afternoon. Mr. Schroeder asked if Mr. Greene had reviewed

the changes. Chairperson Boswell advised that he had, and he sent an

email to Mr. Anzek, asking that it not be voted on. Mr. Schroeder felt that

since Mr. Jacob was a major property owner with a major concern, that the

City should have his concurrence.

Ms. Brnabic asked if the subject property had an existing nonconformity

with regards to use or dimension. Mr. Delacourt advised that a Site Plan

had not been evaluated in relation. When Staff evaluated the Zoning

Map, it was not done on a parcel-by-parcel basis; it was done by use and

district. As far as nonconformity, he would assume that towards the new

dimensional requirements, it probably related. Mr. Jacob could continue

operating as long as he did not expand the nonconformities. Ms.

Brnabic indicated that was the point. The owner would be grandfathered

in, but with the new changes, a nonconformity had been created, and that

was an issue. The owner could not expand the nonconformities but

usually when someone was grandfathered in, anything that existed was

not considered. Ms. Brnabic thought that if they changed the zoning, that

the use would be nonconforming. Mr. Delacourt clarified that the use

would not be, but there could be dimensional nonconformities.

Mr. Kaltsounis commented that it was a tough one. He asked what would

be considered an existing nonconformity on the property. Mr. Delacourt

asked if he was talking about in relation to the existing or proposed

Ordinance. Mr. Kaltsounis was talking about the proposed. If they could

not expand into nonconforming areas, he questioned if that meant they

could not build out in certain areas. Mr. Delacourt said that there was a

good chance they were nonconforming with the current Ordinance. They

might not currently meet the setbacks of the existing I-2 district. Mr.

Kaltsounis asked if they would not be able to expand towards M-59 or the

east. Mr. Delacourt explained that he was not saying they could or could

not do something. If they proposed to do something, they had to do it

within the requirements of the new Ordinance as defined. Mr. Kaltsounis

asked how that applied to the property if they wanted to expand the

crushing operation, for example. Mr. Delacourt said they would have to

conform to the dimensional requirements. If they were currently

nonconforming, they could not increase it any further. If the current height

of a stockpile was limited to 12 feet and they were at 35, they could

continue the pile, but they could not expand it any higher. If they wanted

to go higher, they would need a Dimensional Variance. They could not

move a 40-foot high pile somewhere else on the site. Mr. Kaltsounis

asked if they would fall under the new requirements for heights, etc., if

they wanted to double the crushing operation. Mr. Delacourt explained

that any new expansion would be reviewed for reasonable compliance

with the Ordinance.

Mr. Kaltsounis agreed that something had to be done with the property as

they went forward. They also needed to consider what was there currently

and how that worked. He recalled that whenever they had hard issues,

they told the developer to talk with their neighbors and to work things out.

He did not know if everyone was on the same page yet. He agreed with

what needed to be changed, but he was also concerned that if they were

not on the same page, that they would have problems down the road. He

thought that perhaps they should forgo making a change until they were.

He suggested that it might become the first amendment to the Zoning

Ordinance.

Mr. Anzek said that obviously, one of the difficulties in trying to define the

use was that it was a moving target. There were stockpiles that went up

and down and were rotated to other sites. It would be difficult for the City to

try to measure the height of piles. The piles eventually were turned into

asphalt and recycled into roadways and other things. To try to measure

them at a point in time was very difficult. He did not think anyone would

like a situation created where the owner was put in a box so he could not

function right. Staff had a lot of debate about it, and it was only brought to

the Commission’s attention after he had received a letter last week from

Mr. Jacob. Staff was not totally in agreement; they questioned whether 12

feet was enough for a pile when buildings were allowed to be 30 feet high.

The new Ordinance required a 100-foot setback, but he did not think there

was a pile onsite that was 100 feet back from a property line. If they left

the pile where it was, it would be fine, but if it were moved, it could be

deemed noncompliant dimensionally.

Mr. Reece asked if Ajax had to come in for a permit every time they

moved a pile. Mr. Anzek said he understood that it was a unique use that

had been required to get an annual permit. For some reason, it was no

longer required. Mr. Reece construed that unless it impacted MDEQ

requirements, they were fairly free to move about the property.

Mr. Kaltsounis stated that he wanted to see the Ordinance pass, and he

was not sure what would happen if they delayed a decision about the I-2

district. Chairperson Boswell pointed out that the problem with delaying

that portion was that it was part of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Klomp thought that the City’s objective was that there should not be

any more heavy industrial uses like Ajax. It seemed inappropriate to him

to tailor the entire process of the Ordinance for one specific use.

However, he felt that a good point had been made about the matter

coming up fairly quickly for Mr. Jacob. The City did its part to

communicate, but he felt that if the owners had seen it coming and known

sooner, that they might have acted more quickly. He felt it was important

to consider the businesses in the City and to try to work with the existing

infrastructure of businesses, and he did not want to rush through it. He

could appreciate that the City wanted to get the entire Ordinance package

passed and to move forward, but he wanted to work with their business,

and he felt it was important for the Commission to do the right thing. If

that meant taking more time, he felt that perhaps it was the appropriate

course of action.

Mr. Breuckman concluded that there were two choices. The difficulty they

were struggling with came from the fact that they did eliminate the I-2

district because there was only one functioning I-2 use in the City, and the

purpose and intent of the district did not match what Rochester Hills had

become. It was a use that was reflective of a different time in the

community’s history. If they eliminated the I-2 district, they would have to

respect the operating characteristics of Ajax, and the fact that the

business had built up equity in the community. They tried to do that with

Item G. They could put the I-2 district back in for one owner, but he

cautioned that was a fairly bad way to do a Zoning Ordinance because

they would not typically want to create a zoning district for one owner. He

suggested that although it might not be the best answer, to put it back in

might be the expedient answer. The other option would be to take a little

time, and get on the same page with the property owner and delay a

decision. They could take a look at Section 138-4.420 and make sure

everyone was more comfortable with the language they put forward. He

thought the intent of Item G. was not to say that the storage piles were in

one place at one time, and that it was the only place they could be. The

intent was that it was the area where things could be stored, and it did not

matter if the pile was in one spot or another. The aerial map showed the

northwest corner of one of the parcels as the place where all the storage

occurred. He thought that the language could be tweaked, and that they

could become comfortable with it, or that they could put the I-2 district

back in the Ordinance.

Mr. Delacourt pointed out that the changes did address the concerns

identified in Mr. Greene’s letter. They were allowed to continue operating,

and any expansion would not automatically be eliminated based on the

changes in the district. Without knowing what the expansions would be,

he was not sure how that would be addressed in the Ordinance. It would

be very difficult to sit down with every property owner each time the

Ordinance was updated, and there was a potential for nonconformance.

He was struggling with what remaining issue for Mr. Greene was not

addressed by the changes proposed for the I district. Mr. Delacourt was

also concerned about a solution that included a zoning district when there

was only one property zoned or master planned that way in the entire City.

If he knew what concerns had not been addressed, Staff could take a look

at them. The Ordinance applied to every industrial site in the City, and

there were a lot. He stated that they would have to include all the

businesses the use could potentially make non-conforming, not just one.

Mr. Yukon indicated that he did not care for option one, which was to put

I-2 back in for one property. He preferred option two. Mr. Dettloff said he

agreed, and he asked Mr. Breuckman to repeat the language that would

be added to Item G., and asked Mr. Staran if he felt that would be a

reasonable conclusion.

Mr. Breuckman said it could read, “Heavy industrial uses that existed at

the date of adoption of this Ordinance may continue or expand operations

in their present location, provided that any noncompliance with these

dimensional requirements is not increased.” They could also add that,

“The Reviewing Authority may waive any of the above dimensional

requirements if the specific characteristics of the use do not, and will not,

negatively impact neighboring uses.”

Mr. Yukon asked the difference between noncompliance and

nonconformity. Mr. Breuckman indicated that there was no real effective

difference. He said it was more about semantics, and noncompliance

would not cast the nonconformity “cloud” over it, which brought more

negative impacts to mind.

Mr. Staran agreed with the word change, explaining that nonconformities

was a term of the zoning field which had a particular connotation.

Noncompliance might be viewed as a little more of a softer term, even

though the practical effect might be the same. He was not sure he could

definitely say whether everything was taken care with the language Mr.

Breuckman suggested. For all the reasons said, they were dealing with a

moving target. Everyone on the Commission, as well as the applicant,

understood what they were trying to do without basically outlawing Ajax’s

reasonable operation. They were talking about adding some

dimensional requirements. He was not concerned about the use, which

he felt could be easily addressed. If they imposed dimensional

requirements that significantly impacted how the use was implemented

on the property, it became semantical. All the owner knew was that he

had a major problem. They did not want to end up in a situation where

every time a pile got moved, or it went up or down, or there were other

variations in the operation over time, they were micromanaging the

operation. He felt the intent was clear and might work, but if the property

owner did not know how it would impact him, Mr. Staran was not in a better

position to say, not knowing the operation or the various nuances. They

were on the right track, but he did not know if they had all the necessary

tweaks on the table.

Mr. Delacourt said that they tried as best they could to consider the

existing operation. It was not their intent that if the pile height went from

35 to 20 feet that they could never go back to 35 feet. They understood

that the piles moved around, and they were not trying to restrict that. The

discussion over which dimensional standards would take effect would

arise when the applicant came forward with a proposed change. At that

time, the Planning Commission could discuss what was reasonable to

apply. Nothing would be retroactively enforced on the operation. There

would be an opportunity, when they came forward with a change, to

re-evaluate the standards that had been put in place. If the Commission

felt those standards were unreasonable, there could be proposed

changes to City Council at that time. Staff was trying to draft something

that allowed the operation to continue unhindered, and allowed the

Planning Commission the opportunity to evaluate and apply reasonable

standards. He could not tell how the proposed Ordinance would limit the

applicant if they wanted to change something, because nothing had been

proposed. It was the best effort to put a set of standards in place based on

what was best for all of the I districts in the City, not just one use.

Mr. Greene asked them to assume that Ajax leased or purchased one of

the adjacent I properties in the future. He asked if that use would be a

Conditional Use in the I district, meaning that they would have to meet all

the dimensional standards in the Ordinance for that particular piece of

property. Mr. Delacourt said that was partially correct. He explained that

the decision as to what dimensional requirements had to be met would be

based on a reasonable discussion with the Planning Commission about

what was being proposed on a Revised Site Plan. The applicant would be

allowed to propose something, and just like any existing

nonconformance, the Commission would have the ability to reasonably

bring a site into compliance with the current Ordinance. The new portion

would have to meet the new dimensional standards, but for the rest of the

operation, it would be up to the Commission to determine what would be

reasonable to enforce at that time.

Mr. Greene mentioned that there were several questions he had about the

Ordinance. When they talked about “an Industrial use existing on the date

of adoption of the Ordinance may continue in its present location

provided that any nonconformity not be increased,” he wondered, for

example, what would happen if an existing part of the facility burned down.

He questioned whether it could be rebuilt. It would not be continuing the

operation, and he felt that was a serious issue. There was the issue about

the Planning Commission having discretion to say yes or no to them if

they wanted to expand their office, but they were not meeting the setback

requirements. He stated that it did not say anything about the Planning

Commission having discretion to allow them to continue. They got a

notice that their property was going to be rezoned. Mr. Jacob called the

City and talked to Mr. Anzek, noting that it came as quite a shock to him.

He asked that the meeting be adjourned, because he would be out of

town, and he was the principal owner. He wrote a letter, and was told on

the phone that his rezoning would be adjourned. He asked Mr. Greene to

work with the City, to try to figure out what they wanted to accomplish. In

the meantime, he found out that his item would not be adjourned, that the

Planning Commission would continue with the rezoning, and that some

changes had been made to the Industrial zoning that might satisfy the

concerns. He received that fax after 5:00 on Friday (January 16) and he

did not believe Mr. Jacob had even seen it. He asked his plant manager

to take a look at the changes, to try to give him some idea of how they

would impact their operation. He asked where the 1,500 feet came in and

what types of nonconformities it would create. He asked how a 12-foot

pile would impact them. He stated that they were serious issues for his

business, but they were not unwilling to sit down and work with the City.

The changes were, however, crafted without any dialogue with them. They

just wanted to protect their business. He did not think there were any

nonconformities currently, and he believed that it would create a

nonconforming situation, whether it was a nonconforming use or

nonconforming dimensions. They were just asking for an opportunity to

have some time to see if things would impact their operation. He was

sure something could be worked out, but he did not understand the rush

to judgment. They all wanted to figure out a way to preserve a business

without causing new heavy industrial businesses in the City. He said he

understood that the City did not want any new ones in the City. He asked

that the Commission defer a decision, and give them an opportunity to

react and give comments to Staff. He thought it could be done very

quickly.

Mr. Schroeder agreed that I-2 should not go back in the Ordinance, but he

thought they had to work with the existing business and resolve the

matter. If it took delaying the process, he offered that it would have to

happen. He suggested that the matter should be settled now rather than

later, and he did not think they could vote without that matter finalized.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to property to the north of Ajax, and said there was

currently a Consent Judgment on those properties that applied to the

parcel to the west. He believed that Ajax was going to put up some

buildings and move operations onto the parcels zoned by Consent. He

asked if the Ordinance would technically allow it if they wanted to move

the crushing operation. Mr. Delacourt said that anything that did not

require a Revised Site Plan would be allowed. Mr. Kaltsounis thought

they wanted to move to the parcel zoned Special Purpose. Mr. Delacourt

stated that a Consent Judgment was different, and it allowed certain

things and changing uses that the Zoning Ordinance did not impact. The

Consent Judgment contemplated the consolidation of the crushing

operation onto the Special Purpose property, whether or not that ever took

place or was implemented. The Zoning Ordinance was written for all the

Industrial properties in the City. To take into account every use and every

operation’s concerns would be a huge task. The recommendation was

being made on what they felt was the best set of requirements going

forward for any new business or redevelopment of the parcels in the

future. At the same time, it would grandfather in the existing operations,

so they could continue as they were. If there was some concern with

moving equipment or changing a pile, it would be evaluated at that time.

Without knowing specifically what was going to happen, it would be

impossible to evaluate every potential situation. The City’s intent was to

allow the scope of any operation to continue as it was. Only for a

proposed change by the applicant would they review the site for

compliance with the current Ordinance. He thought some of the piles

exceeded height restrictions currently, but it had not been an enforcement

issue.

Mr. Breuckman did not feel the matter would be resolved at the meeting,

and he thought it should be brought back. Mr. Kaltounis said he wanted

to pass it, but he also wanted to make it sure it was done right so it was not

handled in a courtroom. He thought the Commission needed more

background on the situation, and that the Ordinance should be brought

back with revisions. The owner of the property was willing to work with the

City, and they did want to protect his property, but they did not want a

misunderstanding that would bring something they did not want later. Mr.

Breuckman stated that it would be expedient thing to put I-2 back in. Mr.

Kaltsounis proposed to put I-2 back in and pass the Ordinance, and they

could address the situation in the near future with a possible revision. Mr.

Breuckman thought another option would be to work it out with the

property owner while there was still impetus. His only fear with putting I-2

back in was that they would lose the urgency, and it would sit there. Mr.

Kaltsounis agreed that they did not know how long it would take.

Mr. Delacourt reminded that it would not be an Approval; it would be a

Recommendation to Council. There could be a Condition about

exploring the issue further prior to review by Council. That would give

them some time, and he noted that the issue had been reflected on the

record. He realized there was talk about rushing things, but he indicated

that the rezoning was noticed ahead of the normal requirements. Ajax

received the same notice as everyone else. Individual properties were

not treated differently - they were all treated the same, and they did not

identify any they thought would be more of an issue than others and

provide them a further heads up. Staff offered an open forum for property

owners to come to the City and have dialogue, and no one came from

Ajax.

Mr. Kaltsounis said he was not saying that Staff did anything wrong, but

he felt it was a situation they were going to have to spend a little more

time on. Mr. Delacourt said it seemed like everyone had a desire to

move it forward, to see if there was any other resolution that could be

agreed to prior to going to Council.

Mr. Staran indicated that he appreciated Mr. Delacourt’s comments and

the desire to keep the process rolling. He had a couple of concerns with

the last proposal - one practical and one legal. As a practical one, he felt

that Council would prefer that the issues be sorted out at the Planning

Commission’s table and not left for them to sort out. The second concern

was a legal one. They were holding a Public Hearing on the substance of

the Ordinance that would be adopted. He thought that if it were left open

and they were making any significant changes, and they potentially were,

and the changes were going to be made after the Public Hearing, that it

would potentially be a defective process. He would not like to leave

something of that magnitude hanging out there, knowing they were being

a little less careful than they normally would be, just for the sake of

moving it along. He recommended that they take the additional time, and

he agreed with Mr. Breuckman that they should try to resolve things while

they had some impetus. There were a couple of ways to handle things.

Putting the I-2 back in was one way to solve it, but in six months there

could still be no resolution. He was confident, based on the conversation,

that it would only take one or two discussions, and they would be ready to

bring it back.

Mr. Dettloff commented that as pleased as he would be to see it resolved,

he understood the issues. He thought it was an excellent document, and

that it would be a great tool for the City. He also thought that taking a little

extra time to do it the right way made total sense. Hopefully, between Mr.

Staran, Staff and Mr. Greene, it would get resolved quickly, and the

language would be fine-tuned, and it could be brought back at the next

meeting. He asked if it would involve holding another Public Hearing.

Mr. Breuckman did not think they had to hold another Public Hearing,

because the purpose of one was to raise issues to be resolved. There

was one issue outstanding with one particular property owner. Mr. Staran

said he agreed, as he observed the path they were going down. If, as a

result of the conversations, they came up with a whole new concept, new

zoning district or a total rewrite, he would say it was too significant, and

they would have to re-notice. He did not anticipate that would happen.

He felt that the Planning Commission would allow anyone who wanted to

speak about the Zoning Ordinance to do so. The public had been

notified already, so he felt they were covered, procedurally, baring any

major changes.

Ms. Brnabic agreed with what had been said. She would not have been

comfortable leaving the I-2 district in, but before they could make a

recommendation for approval, the Commission needed to feel confident

so there was no room for misunderstanding. She felt they needed further

clarity, and she agreed that they should postpone.

Mr. Breuckman said that it was rare for a Commission to recommend

approval on the night of the Public Hearing. He did not think they should

have any hesitation about taking the time needed to do it right.

Mr. Dettloff recalled asking Mr. Anzek in December what he felt would be

a reasonable time period for adoption, and it seemed to fall within what

was represented. Mr. Anzek agreed they talked about getting it to Council

in March. He stated that it was complicated, and if they took a week or two

to work with Mr. Jacob, and to also fix the parking and solar panel issues,

that it would be a good opportunity.

Mr. Reece asked Mr. Greene when Mr. Jacob would be back in town. Mr.

Anzek noted that the information they got from the plant manager was

helpful. Mr. Reece indicated that relative to a sense of timing, he agreed

with Mr. Delacourt that while it might have seemed rushed, he did not

think it was. For such a significant issue, if he were the property owner, he

would have made an attempt to be at the meeting. He also did not want to

see it dragged out, but if there was a sense of urgency on Staff’s behalf,

perhaps they could have another Special meeting next Tuesday. He

asked if the matter could wait until the third Tuesday in February. Mr.

Delacourt advised that there was no urgency as far as timing. There had

been a lot of time spent on it over the last two years. He reiterated that he

was hesitant to make a recommendation based on an individual business

owner and not give everyone subject to the code the same opportunity.

He had no concern about delaying it, meeting with the property owner and

listening to any suggestions he had. He would rather have the Planning

Commission be comfortable than to push it forward.

Mr. Reece asked if the other I-2 property owners were noticed, which Mr.

Delacourt confirmed. Mr. Schroeder asked how many other I-2 owners

there were, and Mr. Delacourt advised that there were very few. Several

were on the Grand Sakwa properties, which were regulated by a Consent

Judgment, and there were a few others.

Mr. Reece noted that Mr. Jacob seemed to be the only one who

expressed concern over the rezoning. He thought they should try to

explain to Mr. Jacob what they wanted to do, and to work out the issues to

try to come to a common understanding. If there was not a significant

time crunch to get it done in a week, and he agreed that it should not be

dragged on, he thought they should move it along as expeditiously as

possible. They needed to find out if Mr. Jacob was going to be gone for

an extended period. Mr. Greene said that Mr. Jacob was on vacation and

would be back in a few weeks, but Mr. Greene said he would be happy to

work with the City.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if they needed a motion to postpone if they were

finished talking about the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Delacourt said they had

focused on the rezonings, and he asked if there were any other issues

regarding the text. He asked the Commissioners to send him any

comments or changes they wished to be brought forward.

Chairperson Boswell suggested a motion to declare that the item would

be brought back on the February 17th meeting, at which time a vote would

be taken.

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Dettloff, that item 2008-0581,

Chapter 138, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Rochester

Hills and the accompanying Zoning Map be postponed until the

Recommendation at the February 17, 2009 Planning Commission

meeting, with the recommended changes as discussed at the January 27,

2009 meeting: Remove reference to a five-foot minimum side yard

setback for nonconforming expansions; remove solar panel access

permit language; keep parking spaces at 10 feet wide, with the

developer’s option for nine-foot spaces for employees; and eliminate map

amendment 11, keeping the parcels Residential.

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

Postponed.

The motion CARRIEDunanimously.

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed

unanimously. He reiterated that there would be another meeting on

February 17, and he urged Mr. Jacob arrange to meet with Staff prior to

then.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

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

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for February 17, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:40

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary