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, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Boswell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Greg

Hooper, David Reece and C. Neall Schroeder

Present

7 -

Nicholas Kaltsounis and Emmet Yukon

Absent

2 -

Quorum Present

Also Present: Ed Anzek, Planning Director

Sandi DiSipio, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2010-0055

December 15, 2009 Regular Meeting

A motion was made by Brnabic, seconded by Hetrick, that this matter be

Approved as Presented. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Yukon

2 -

COMMUNICATIONS

Planning & Zoning News, December 2009 and January 2010

NEW BUSINESS

2007-0018

Revised Site Plan Approval - City File No. 07-009.2 - Karmanos/Crittenton Cancer

Center, a proposed 8,188 square foot addition to the approved building off Star-Batt

north of M59, Parcel No. 15-28-151-006, Crittenton Hospital Medical Center, applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Ed Anzek, dated February 2, 2010 had been

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

Present for the applicant were Brian Gorzynski, Director of Design, Barton Malow, Guy

Taylor, Project Manager, Barton Malow, 26500 American Dr., Southfield, MI 48034,

and Monte Oberlee, Crittenton Hospital Medical Center, 1101 W. University Dr.,

Rochester Hills, MI 48307.

Mr. Anzek explained the Karmanos/Crittenton Cancer Center facility has been under

construction for a little over a year. Approximately eight months ago the City was

notified that Crittenton was in discussions with a noted oncologist who wanted to locate

his practice at the facility or somewhere in the vicinity. Crittenton was successful in

negotiating the details for this practice and proposed addition. The revised proposal is

for construction of an approximate 8,200 square-foot addition along the southwest

corner of the existing facility, keeping in line with the unique design for the original

cancer center. The same materials, i.e., stonework, colors, windows and roof pitch are

proposed for the addition. The plans have been reviewed and approved by the

Engineering and Fire Departments. The Building Department has recommended

conditional approval based on corrections being made and additional information

provided prior to the issuance of the building permit. The original site plan for the

treatment center was approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2007, and a

revised site plan was approved by the Commission on May 20, 2008 increasing the

facility from 25,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. During the May 2008 meeting,

the Commission heard some discussion about the potential for an expansion at a future

point. Mr. Anzek noted that the applicant has provided detailed renderings and

elevations of the proposed structure, and asked if they had anything to add.

Mr. Gorzynski summarized the color renderings, floor plans and the elevation sheets that

were provided to the Commission for review. The plans reflect the required setbacks

that the structure falls within as well as the footprint for the addition. Mr. Gorzynski

reiterated that Barton Malow has taken great care in the aesthetics to make this building

look very much a part of the original facility and not an add-on or something less

expensive that would detract from the success of the original center. Some of the

specific plantings for the original building will need to be relocated, as shown in the

revised site plan. Patients to the new addition will enter through the hallway in the

original building into a waiting room. There is an ambulance back-up area that is

basically a curb cut onto the sidewalk. It is anticipated this area might be used three or

four times a year. Mr. Gorzynski asked if there were any questions.

Chairperson Boswell asked the Commissioners if they had questions or comments.

Mr. Reese asked if the ambulance back-up area is more for patients coming in or

leaving the premises. Mr. Gorzynski believes it would be more for patients who may

have difficulty during treatment to assist them in leaving the premises. Mr. Reese then

questioned if a canopy covering this area is necessary for these patients. Mr. Oberlee

explained that since the structure is classified as “business occupancy”, a canopy is not

necessary.

Ms. Brnabic asked for verification that the proposed building meets all the required

setbacks. It was confirmed all setbacks have been met.

Mr. Hooper asked if the site’s buildable footprint was maxed out as far as any future

expansion. Mr. Anzek responded that it’s close to being maxed out as a stand-alone

development, but if shared parking arrangements with the Concord Inn or Eastside

Mario’s could be realized, there may be an opportunity to increase square footage.

There may also be a chance to add vertically in the future.

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Dettloff, in the matter of City File No. 07-009.2

(Crittenton/Karmanos Cancer Treatment Center Expansion), the Planning Commission

approves the Revised Site Plan, based on plans dated received by the Planning

Department on January 28, 2010, with the following findings and subject to the following

conditions.

Findings:

1. The revised site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all applicable

requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as other City ordinances,

standards, and requirements, can be met subject to the conditions noted below.

2. The proposed improvement will promote safety and convenience of vehicular

traffic both within the site and on the adjoining street. Walkways have been

incorporated to promote safety and convenience of pedestrian traffic and

access to adjoining services.

3. Off-street parking areas have been designed to avoid common traffic problems

and promote safety.

4. The proposed improvements should have a satisfactory and harmonious

relationship with the development on-site as well as existing development in the

adjacent vicinity.

5. The proposed development will not have an unreasonably detrimental nor an

injurious effect upon the natural characteristics and features of the site or those

of the surrounding area.

6. The improvements will allow Crittenton Hospital to expand the cancer treatment

services it provides to the region.

7. This increase in square footage/medical office activities use will not result in any

burden on public services.

Conditions:

1. Address comments from Building Department’s memo dated January 14, 2010,

prior to Building Plan approval.

2. Address Engineering changes in revised Engineering Construction Drawings

prior to an amended Land Improvement Permit being issued.

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

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Yukon

2 -

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2009-0393

Conditional Rezoning Recommendation Request (Public Hearing) - City File No.

04-013, located at the northeast corner of Hamlin and Livernois, Parcel Nos.

15-22-351-001, -002, from R-3 One Family Residential to O-1 Office Business;

Signature Associates, applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated February 2, 2010 had

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

Chairperson Boswell commented this item entails a public hearing. He further explained

that by law, the primary task of a Planning Commission is to develop a Master Land

Use Plan for their Community outlining what the City should look like in five, ten, fifteen

years and so on. This City’s most recent Plan was a few years ago. Sometimes

applicants request a rezoning against what the Master Plan dictates. Chairperson

Boswell stated that this Commission does not take these situations lightly and has studied

this piece of property for some time.

Mr. Anzek indicated he is present for Mr. Delacourt tonight and summarized what has

evolved to this point. The applicants came before the Commission to discuss the

possibility of pursuing an office use on the subject two parcels, the corner being vacant

and a single family home is located on the parcel to the north. Surrounding the parcels

are two churches, an industrial district to the west, a vacant parcel to the south with a

single family home immediately to the east, and to the southwest there is a vacant parcel

with residences further south. In past meetings, the Commission brought up several

issues and concerns with this request, and through meetings with staff, the applicant has

been informed they must demonstrate why single family is not a viable use for this

corner. The possibility of a conditional rezoning was discussed in a previous meeting by

this Board. Mr. Anzek commented that the right to conditionally rezone was put into

Michigan State Law about four years ago. Basically, this is a rezoning subject to

specific conditions. The Planning Commission can accept the conditions the applicant

offers as protection to ensure that uses which might not be welcomed, would not be

permitted on the site. Conditional rezonings can not be used as variance tool to waive

from required setbacks or development standards. The applicant has provided

information in their rezoning application detailing how they propose to condition this site

based on concerns brought up in previous Commission meetings. Development

aesthetics will be dealt with through the site plan process. Should the rezoning be

supported by the Planning Commission, it would be a recommendation to City Council.

If approved by Council, the City would then pursue a development agreement where the

conditions would be put into a legal document to be recorded.

Present for the applicant were Craig Chappell and Cathy Wilson, Signature Associates,

One Towne Square, Suite #1200, Southfield, MI 48076.

Mr. Chappell indicated Chileshe Mulenga represented Signature Associates in previous

discussions before the Commission, but is no longer with the company. Mr. Chappell

commented that the conditional rezoning application solidly addresses the conditions

brought up by the Commission during the October and December meetings. The

applicant has agreed to conditions relative to building size and height, maintaining 30% of

regulated trees on site, replacing any trees that will be removed, and right-of-way

requirements as determined by the City. Also, the applicant has agreed to additional

conditions limiting what will be proposed or permitted on the site per comments made at

the December meeting. Mr. Chappell said that as part of the rezoning request, he cited

a number of issues warranting consideration by the Commission; i.e., the shift in the real

estate market, the dropping value of housing stock, the new proposed use would have a

higher SEV and potentially generate greater tax revenue for the City, the developments

occurring in and around the City, particularly Oakland University and Crittenton, lend

themselves to potential additional office/medical use, the impact of the round-about and

intersection improvements, and that the proposed use is complimentary to adjacent uses.

Mr. Chappell feels these are some of the reasons the Commission should consider the

conditional rezoning request. He then displayed an aerial map of the property and

explained the two subject parcels and surrounding uses. Mr. Chappell asked if there

were any questions.

Commissioner Brnabic asked for clarification of the property size, as the acreage is not

consistent when referred to in previous minutes and staff reports. The rezoning

application estimates the property as 2.5 acres, while the current staff report states 4.2

acres, and the 2005 minutes indicated the property was 4.7 acres, not including the

right-of-way. Ms. Brnabic stated the Commission should have the exact property size

before making a recommendation to Council.

Ms. Wilson replied it is her understanding the two parcels total between 3-1/2 to 4 acres,

but will confirm the exact property size based on their surveys for the Commission.

Commissioner Hetrick commented that at the last meeting, specific conditions were

discussed about what the building would look like, but are not listed in the rezoning

application. Mr. Anzek explained that aesthetics will be reviewed during the site plan

process and not as part of the rezoning. The applicant’s first condition offers to

relinquish full site plan approval to the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Boswell opened the public comments at 7:35 p.m.

Shirley Metzler, 1311 New Life Lane, Rochester Hills MI 48309 - Ms. Metzler

asked what has changed on the subject corner that would lead the Commission to

possibly consider this request when previous proposals have been denied. She

commented that three of four corners of the subject intersection were still master

planned for residential and all corners have identical problems, i.e., traffic, industrial

zoning, truck routes, etc. Ms. Metzler suggested that in the next Master Plan update, all

zoning along the Livernois and Hamlin Road corridor be considered so that spot zoning

does not occur on the northeast corner. She also asked what would happen if one of the

churches sold their residentially zoned property.

Richard Robinson, 875 W. Hamlin Rd., Rochester Hills MI 48307 - Mr.

Robinson commented he does not see any advantage to the residents in the area to have

the subject property rezoned. He is concerned that rezoning the subject property would

be spot rezoning, and is afraid that doing so would open the opportunity to do the same

on the four City-owned parcels abutting Livernois Rd just west of his property/house.

Mr. Robinson said he would rather leave things the way they are unless the applicant

presents something more agreeable to his (and other residents’) liking.

Dan Jones, 1396 Christian Hills Dr., Rochester Hills MI 48307 - Mr. Jones

asked if the City owned the both the southeast and southwest corner of Hamlin and

Livernois. He also commented that the round-about does create a problem. Mr. Jones

then asked if the City allows the rezoning of the northeast corner, will that set a

precedent and bring more pressure to rezone the other two residential corners to office

use. He commented there are many office buildings in the City that have vacant space

for rent, but can understand both sides of the situation.

Chairperson Boswell closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.

Mr. Anzek responded to questions brought up during public comments. If the churches

were sold, the property is zoned single family, and it would be a single family

development the City would expect to be proposed. There is no rationale or legal

precedence that just because something on a corner is not single family, that it gives the

automatic right to rezone property adjacent to it. The property to the north and east of

the churches is also zoned single family residential and contains active neighborhoods.

In the case of the corner parcel, there are two active churches to the north and east,

and one single family house on the south. Mr. Anzek cautioned the Commission not to

base decisions on “what if” scenarios for next door properties. These will be dealt with

should they ever come forward. As far as the possibility of the property abutting

Livernois next to Mr. Robinson being rezoned to office, Mr. Anzek indicated these

parcels are only 170 feet deep. When the required front and rear yard setbacks, buffer

requirements and fire access around the building are applied to this property, there

would only be room for a 20-30 foot wide building. However, a smaller scale single use

office may fit, but can’t be guaranteed. Another question asked was what has changed

since the previous rezoning request, to which Mr. Anzek responded the round-about has

been the primary issue as it makes the property less conducive to single family

development on the corner. The City purchased the parcels on the southeast and

southwest corners in order to gain the additional right-of-way as the owners of those

properties would not negotiate a minimal sale, thereby requiring the City to purchase the

entire parcel. The home on the southwest corner is not an historic district by City

standards, and does not need to be moved as the round-about design takes less room

than the previously proposed four-lane boulevard.

Chairperson Boswell commented that the property has been studied several times over

the years by the Commission, but has remained residential. Currently it is planned

residential with a mixed residential overlay. Chairperson Boswell asked the applicant

why he feels office zoning would be better for the property.

Mr. Chappell explained that the primary reason driving the rezoning request is that this

residential property is located directly on the corner facing the round-about . The

property has never been developed as residential and is even less likely to be developed

as residential in the future because of the intersection. The applicant feels office zoning

would be a good transitional use between the adjacent properties and would greatly

enhance the aesthetics of the corner. Mr. Chappell stated the applicant has addressed

all of the concerns of the Commission and residents, incorporating them into the rezoning

application.

Chairperson Boswell noted there are a lot of offices in the City, some vacant, and asked

why this development would be viable when other properties may not be.

Ms. Wilson indicated that proximity to the proposed office would be very convenient for

Crittenton Hospital and/or Oakland University’s use. It is anticipated that the need for

office use will continue to increase, given the growth of the medical school and

Crittenton Hospital. Ms. Wilson mentioned that the Crittenton facility on Crooks has not

been open that long, and has already proposed two expansions to the original structure.

The applicant sees a future need for office much sooner than any residential expansion

given the economy.

Relative to O-1 zoning, Commissioner Hooper asked if restaurants and/or fast food

chains would be allowed. Mr. Anzek replied no. Commissioner Hooper commented

that if this corner was a great site for residential, a home would have been built a long

time ago, but no one wants to build a house there. He also agrees with some of the

previous comments about vacant office space, but added this office space is usually

older and ready for redevelopment. People are moving from the tired/old office space

into the new buildings. The attraction now is the new Class-A office buildings; this is

what will attract new clients and tenants.

Commissioner Detttloff stated he agrees with Mr. Hooper’s comments, the current

vacant office spaces are in the older office buildings, and feels this is a prime corner for

a Class-A office structure that would boost economic development in the City.

Mr. Anzek concurred by offering that staff deals daily with individuals looking for office

space. These people are not looking to rent space in the older, obsolete buildings, but

are looking for modern office space suitable to meet today’s medical demands.

Commissioner Reese stated he agreed with most of the comments, but is bothered by

the uncertainty of the acreage. He feels the Commission should know the exact

acreage prior to making a recommendation on the matter.

Mr. Chappell apologized for not having an exact size. He also indicated that there has

been some right-of-way purchased in the southwest portion of the property. Mr.

Chappell then offered to postpone asking for a recommendation tonight and will bring

defined exact acreage to the next meeting. Mr. Chappell asked if there were any other

concerns the Commission needed answers to.

Commissioner Schroeder commented he would like clarification of the right-of-way that

was acquired.

Chairperson Boswell indicated this rezoning request has been postponed until the

applicant can provide exact acreage and the right-of-way delineation.

This matter was Postponed

DISCUSSION

2010-0057

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments

Mr. Anzek stated that last summer the Building Department proposed a change to the

zoning ordinance that would require front yards be sodded or rendered safe from erosion

if construction ceases on a home. Any change to the zoning ordinance requires a public

hearing before the Planning Commission. Since the adoption of the new zoning

ordinance, a few housekeeping changes have also been identified. Mr. Anzek explained

the proposed amendments do not change the intent of the ordinance. Included in the

packet is a summary of the housekeeping changes, the Manufactured Housing standards

mandated by the State (which we must adopt in the ordinance, but are not responsible

for implementation), the front yard landscaping proposed ordinance and a list of

definitions relative to senior housing that need clarification. Mr. Anzek asked the

Commissioners to review the information and advise if they find any other issues

needing clarification and/or amendment. Mr. Anzek asked if there were any questions.

A suggestion was made to include commercial property in the front yard landscaping

ordinance. Commissioner Hooper commented if this ordinance is needed at all, the

six-month timeframe needs to be changed.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Appointment of two PC Representatives to the CIP Policy Team for 2010: Mr. Anzek

stated there was not a reason to hold the initial January CIP meeting, and right now the

call is out for new projects. The Commission needs to appoint two representatives to

the Policy Team. Commissioners Schroeder and Yukon served last year.

Commissioner Schroeder indicated he is interested in serving again, and Commissioner

Yukon was suggested to fill the other opening if interested. By unanimous affirmation,

Messrs. Schroeder and Yukon were appointed to the CIP Policy Team for 2010.

Mr. Anzek then mentioned the water reservoir issues as discussed recently by Council.

The reserves could help out with the sometimes low pressure in the certain sections of

the city. The DPS Department went out for bids on engineering consultants to assist in

an analysis of the city, and made a presentation to Council who accepted the report and

deferred it back to the Water and Sewer Technical Review Committee. Mr. Anzek is

providing this information to the Commission as a heads-up on what locations the City is

reviewing as possible sites and the fact that site plan approval will be required by this

Board should Council decide to move forward with the project. Possible locations

include Nowicki Park on Adams Road, a City-owned 10-acre parcel on Tienken Road

just west of Adams High School, and a parcel on John R between Avon and Bloomer

Road. Commissioner Hooper added it would cost approximately $17 million to build two

reservoirs, saving $2-4 million a year in water rates and realizing the payback between

five and nine years out.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded Commissioners that the next regular meeting is scheduled for

March 2, 2010.

ADJOURNMENT

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

adjourned the regular meeting at 8:50 p.m.

___________________________

William Boswell, Chairperson

________________________________

Sandi DiSipio, Recording Secretary