| In responding to the notice requirements for the Tree Removal and Wetland Use |
|
| Permits, Mr. Rizzardi explained that the city did meet its obligations under the |
|
| ordinances to notify property owners. According to the records in the file, notices |
|
| regarding the referenced permits were sent by the City of Rochester Hills Planning |
|
| Department to approximately 45 homeowners within 300 feet of the subject property |
|
| on October 9, 1998. A list of the people who were noticed is available for public |
|
| reading. The city also receives back those notices that are declared undeliverable by |
|
| the U.S. Postal Service, but none were received regarding the subject requests. Also, |
|
| notices were published in the Rochester Clarion-Eccentric. |
|
| The Chair clarified that the "Plans" referenced by speakers are not the same as the |
|
| "Schemes A, B, C and D" described by Ms. Platell this evening. There also has been |
|
| reference made to "Options A, B, C and D". Mr. Graef described the origin of the |
|
| Options for the record. The neighbors came up with several different proposals |
|
| showing different designs. They selected two of those -- Plan B and Plan C. Plan B |
|
| shows 8 buildable lots, all facing Shortridge and mirroring those directly across the |
|
| street. The lots would measure 88 feet in width by 612 feet in depth, preserving the |
|
| wetlands and trees on both the east and north sides of the property. No roads would |
|
| need to be constructed because all buildable lots would have water and sewer |
|
| hookups. The developer would save over $300,000 with this plan. The proposed |
|
| site plan under discussion this evening represents over a million dollars in costs before |
|
| any homes are built. The residents' second choice, Plan C, would have a maximum |
|
| density, that the residents feel is acceptable, of 13 homes, with 5 homes facing |
|
| Shortridge, one cul-de-sac street of less than 600 feet, tree preservation and wetlands |
|
| conservation. The lots would measure approximately 97 feet by 200 feet, with 3 on |
|
| one side of the regulation size road and 2 lots and the retention pond on the other side. |
|
| Neither of the two proposals prepared by the residents would require a modification |
|
| to the natural features setback; no wetland use permit would be required; tree |
|
| preservation is accomplished in both proposals. Mr. Graef was skeptical of the |
|
| applicant's ability to maintain the required 37 percent of tree preservation with a |
|
| development of 27 homes. |
|
| Mr. Gizoni explained the detention pond is placed in its proposed location because the |
|
| site slopes to the southeast and that corner is the lowest spot on the site. This location |
|
| will allow the water to continue flowing in its natural course. They did not explore any |
|
| other alternative locations on the site because the proposed location appeared to be |
|
| the most natural. Other locations might present problems with the grade or require a |
|
| deeper storm sewer. Mr. Lawson added that screening has been added around the |
|
| detention pond and he does not feel the location is a detriment. The intermittent |
|
| stream in the northwestern corner of the subject parcel creates the wetlands on the site |
|
| and eventually flows into the Crake Drain. |
|
