Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, April 6, 1993

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

Scot Beaton‎

William Boswell‎

Gene Ferrera‎

Jeff Hauswirth‎

Engene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

George Sadowski‎

Patricia Somerville‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Angelene Jones, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1406

February ‎16‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, support by Beaton, to approve the minutes of February ‎

16‎, ‎1993‎, as amended‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved as Amended

2000-1407

March ‎2‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Beaton, support by Rosen, to approve the minutes of March ‎2‎, ‎

1993‎, as amended‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved as Amended

COMMUNICATIONS

A packet from Philip Dondero containing information compiled by the ‎

Oakland County Department of Community and Economic Development‎. ‎

Letter from Linda Lemke concerning the Blue Heron Ridge revised ‎

landscaping and screening review‎.‎

March, ‎1993 ‎issue of‎ Planning & Zoning News‎.‎

Copy of a draft resolution to be forwarded to City Council concerning the ‎

joint resolution that was adopted by the Rochester and Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Commissions regarding Sheldon Road‎. ‎An outline for the study ‎

with the two sub‎-‎committees is also included‎

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1408

Request for an Extension of Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎90‎-‎231 ‎- ‎Crooks ‎

Crossing East Site Condominiums, an ‎8‎-‎unit development located on the south ‎

side of Alsdorf, west of Crooks, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎32‎-‎426‎-‎015 ‎& ‎017‎, zoned R‎-‎4‎, ‎

One Family Residential, Richard Rosen, ‎2108 ‎Cumberland, Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48307‎, Applicant‎

Present was Mr‎. ‎Richard Rosen‎.‎

Member Rosen stated that, despite having the same last name, he was not ‎

related to the applicant‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin presented her staff report dated April ‎1‎, ‎1993‎. ‎She noted that ‎

the site plan was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on ‎

September ‎18‎, ‎1990 ‎and an extension of approval was granted September ‎

17‎, ‎1991 ‎(‎minutes have been placed on file and by reference become part ‎

of the record hereof‎). ‎She noted that there have been no amendments to ‎

Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎since ‎1991 ‎that would have any impact on the ‎

proposed development of eight condominium home sites‎. ‎Therefore, staff ‎

has no objections to an extension of a conditional approval of the Tree ‎

Removal Permit and site plan for one year ‎(‎from the date of the last ‎

extension‎) ‎to September ‎18‎, ‎1993‎. ‎The condition for the Tree Removal ‎

Permit requires that a tree replacement security be posted in the amount of ‎

$‎1‎,‎950‎. ‎The two conditions of approval of the site plan should be clearly ‎

depicted on the site plan prior to construction permits being issued‎. ‎The ‎

applicant has not yet submitted revised plans to indicate the provision of ‎

sidewalks along the Alsdorf frontage‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Richard Rosen pointed out that their development was interrupted by ‎

the Leuder's Drain project‎. ‎He did say that the county had been extremely ‎

helpful with his project‎. ‎He added that he allowed them to use a portion of ‎

his property to store materials temporarily‎. ‎The county is going to extend ‎

the drains along Alsdorf Street all the way through in a westerly direction‎. ‎

They are just about ready to move out of there and he is ready to begin ‎

construction‎.‎

DISCUSSION‎:‎

Member Ferrera expressed concern as to the two parcels that exist ‎

between the subject parcels, but that are not owned by the applicant‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen explained that there is an unplatted parcel with two separate ‎

sidwell numbers that are currently owned by P & D Homes‎. ‎He felt that, ‎

aesthetically, the project would blend in very well and the lot sizes are ‎

almost equal in dimension to the proposed unit sites‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked if the Planning Commission is approving the ‎

applicant's two parcels, and not the parcel in the middle‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin replied that this is correct‎. ‎She noted that there are two legal ‎

descriptions on the site plan ‎-- ‎the west parcel ‎(.‎044 ‎acres‎) ‎and the east ‎

parcel ‎(‎1‎.‎43 ‎acres‎). ‎

Member Ferrera expressed concern that the parcel in between would be ‎

two future home sites that is not a part of Crooks Crossing‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin commented that this is the way the Planning Commission ‎

approved it in ‎1990‎. ‎She said it would be similar to a plat where there is ‎

excepted parcels that are not part of the legal description of the property ‎

that's being proposed for development‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that this is true, however, they normally don't have all ‎

the development occurring in that excepted parcel‎. ‎In this case, he noted ‎

that storm water utilities and sanitary service are going into the excepted ‎

parcel‎. ‎

Member Somerville commented that Mr‎. ‎Rosen has no control over the ‎

parcels in between his properties since he does not own them‎.‎

Member Nowicki believed that these two lots could be developed as single ‎

family within the R‎-‎4 ‎zoning with the same setbacks‎. ‎The only difference is ‎

that the condominium lots would be under the condominium association‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that the owner of the parcels in between his property would ‎

gain benefit of the sewer system as well as the rear swale on the property ‎

for the on‎-‎site drainage‎.‎

Member Sadowski said that, as a condominium development, it does not ‎

have to be a contiguous piece because the commons are maintained by ‎

the association and it isn't germane to the development‎. ‎He didn't have a ‎

problem with their request, although he agreed that it was inconvenient not ‎

to have contiguous properties‎.‎

The Chair asked the applicant if there was a reason why they waited until ‎

now to request the extension‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen replied that he submitted a letter in September, ‎1992 ‎requesting ‎

an extension‎. ‎He assumed that, because he hadn't heard from the Planning ‎

Department, that it was a mere formality that it went through‎. ‎Then he was ‎

surprised a few months later to receive a phone call from the Planning ‎

Department requesting that he come in and file for an extension of site plan ‎

approval‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that the last time he received the extension, he sat through ‎

the meeting and was never called upon‎. ‎Because of that, he didn't expect ‎

this request for extension to involve so much discussion and questioning‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that Mr‎. ‎Rosen's letter requesting the extension is ‎

dated September ‎11‎, ‎1992 ‎and was to be scheduled for the October ‎6‎, ‎

1992 ‎meeting‎. ‎However, due to some staff changes in the Planning ‎

Department, it was inadvertently never scheduled on that agenda‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin said that when she discovered this, she contacted Mr‎. ‎Rosen and ‎

advised him that this matter would have to go before the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎She noted that staff is still recommending an extension ‎

through the original date of the site plan approval ‎(‎to September, ‎1993‎). ‎

The Chair asked how many times an applicant gets an extension‎. ‎He ‎

wondered if there is an opinion that's ever been rendered in that regard‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that the City Attorney's opinion is that as long as there ‎

have been no ordinance changes to affect or impact on the site plan, and if ‎

it's the same site plan that was originally approved, and in compliance with ‎

the Zoning Ordinance at the time of approval, then it would be a matter of ‎

simply extending that site plan approval‎.‎

The Chair mentioned that Section ‎1816‎.‎9 ‎of the Zoning Ordinance says that ‎

the approval shall be effective for one year‎. ‎Later, it says ‎"‎an‎ extension,‎" ‎

which could be read to mean ‎"‎one‎ extension‎." ‎He agreed with Member ‎

Beaton's comment that it puts everything in limbo for quite a period of time‎. ‎

He wondered if someone who allowed a site plan approval to lapse for ‎

three years could request an extension‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin replied, ‎"‎no,‎" ‎and explained that the policy of the Planning ‎

Department has been that as long as the applicant has applied for an ‎

extension within the one year period, they would schedule it for the first ‎

available Planning Commission meeting‎. ‎She said sometimes those dates ‎

don't correlate exactly, so they have allowed, as long as that application is ‎

made within the one year period, this to be something that could be ‎

approved‎. ‎If the site plan approval lapses for a year, then the Planning ‎

Commission would consider either a new site plan or a revised site plan‎.‎

Member Nowicki questioned the requirement for a tree replacement ‎

security amount of $‎1‎,‎950‎.‎00 ‎as well as the size of the trees, whether or not ‎

the new survey should be made, since some trees may have grown into a ‎

larger category‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that they received an opinion from Ms‎. ‎Linda Lemke, the ‎

Woodlands and Landscape Consultant‎. ‎She has indicated prior that she ‎

did not feel that there would be significant tree growth within a one or two ‎

year period of time to cause a significant increase in tree growth‎.‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Rosen why he would want to develop his project, ‎

knowing that someone else could build something between his ‎

development that is completely different‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that he has tried to acquire those parcels and it's possible ‎

that it may happen in the future‎. ‎He felt that once the project is completed, ‎

the area will definitely take on a new charm‎. ‎He commented that they will ‎

be providing sidewalks on Alsdorf and they will continue across these two ‎

separate parcels‎. ‎This will aid youngsters who walk to the nearby Deerfield ‎

Elementary School because they won't have to walk on a muddy, unpaved ‎

road‎. ‎

Member Ferrera expressed concern that Mr‎. ‎Rosen would take a risk in ‎

developing his project into something really nice, then supply these other ‎

parcels with utilities and sidewalks, not knowing how some other residential ‎

development which may not look as nice, could affect his already existing ‎

development‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated that the economics dictate otherwise because a land ‎

owner wouldn't put up a ‎1000 ‎sq‎. ‎ft‎. ‎home because the land value would be ‎

too high‎. ‎He didn't feel that this would be a problem at all and that ‎

economics dictates that a nicer home will be built there‎.‎

Member Nowicki suggested tabling this matter until the next meeting when ‎

the minutes from previous Planning Commission meetings could be ‎

provided so that the new members of the Planning Commission have an ‎

opportunity to review the previous discussions‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that since this is an extension of a previous approval, ‎

this is really a non‎-‎issue and therefore, not necessary to table the ‎

discussion‎. ‎He asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin if, when site plans are presented for ‎

approval, does the Planning Commission get an opportunity to review the ‎

conditions that are placed on the properties in terms of the homes ‎

developed, as well as the sizes and features of the homes‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that, with a plat, the building use and restrictions ‎

documents are not typically presented to the Planning Commission‎. ‎Those ‎

are provided to the City Council at the time the final plat is presented‎. ‎Even ‎

then, the Council doesn't have any power to authorize or enforce those ‎

restrictions, but rather are able only to review and make suggestions‎. ‎The ‎

Declaration of Restrictions, the Covenants and the Master Deed is not part ‎

of the ordinance for site plan approval, at this time‎. ‎She noted that there is ‎

an amendment, which will be a new chapter in the Code, that will address ‎

site condominiums, and there are some new provisions in that ordinance ‎

which require the Master Deed to be presented‎. ‎

Member Ferrera stated that most condominium owners have some level of ‎

expectation that there's going to be some uniformity or consistency within ‎

their site condominium‎. ‎He said that he's come to the conclusion over the ‎

past few months that the type of development that's coming to Rochester ‎

Hills, whether it be residential or commercial, is extremely poor‎. ‎He felt that ‎

the Planning Commission should start taking a look at aesthetic issues that ‎

are occurring in this community and attempt to write ordinances that tries to ‎

develop certain levels of aesthetic values that go beyond what they're ‎

seeing now‎. ‎He said it's time they look at how pedestrians and vehicles ‎

interact in a particular development and what type of amenities in terms of ‎

lighting and architectural features are occurring on those particular sites‎. ‎

He said he would feel more comfortable if the Planning Commission was ‎

looking at this project as two separate projects‎.‎

Council representative Beaton asked Mr‎. ‎Rosen if he planned to tear down ‎

the existing house on the property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen replied, ‎"‎no‎." ‎Mr‎. ‎Beaton ‎

then asked if the rest of the home sites would look like the existing house‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen explained that the existing home is a ‎1‎,‎500 ‎sq‎. ‎ft‎. ‎brick ranch ‎

and is one of the nicer homes in that area and that the new homes would ‎

blend in nicely‎. ‎

Member Beaton said that with this site plan, as approved, the house is in ‎

violation of front and rear yard setbacks and will create a non‎-‎conforming ‎

use once the other units are built‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that they have accommodated every recommendation ‎

requested by each department‎. ‎At no time was this ever considered to be ‎

a major concern‎.‎

Member Beaton asked Mr‎. ‎Rosen if he planned to pave Alsdorf Street‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that there was some talk that this area may be considered ‎

as a special assessment district and the entire area would be due for ‎

paving at some point in the future‎. ‎When asked if he was willing to ‎

contribute to that special assessment district, he replied that if this happens ‎

he would have no choice‎. ‎He added that it would make the homes more ‎

valuable‎. ‎

Member Beaton asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin if it was typical, in the past, to ‎

approve this many homesites without requiring the developer to pave the ‎

street‎. ‎He also wondered if each of these homesites would be considered ‎

a separate SAD or would the entire association be considered an SAD‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that we always ask but we have no ordinance ‎

requirement for paving existing gravel roads‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that she ‎

would have to check with the Assessor's Office and DPS to find out how the ‎

SAD would apply‎.‎

Member Nowicki said that he's not comfortable leaving the existing house ‎

and garage on the lot because there wouldn't be any uniformity‎. ‎He ‎

wondered what control the Condominium Act might have on the existing ‎

house‎. ‎He noted that under this Act, all the surrounding property falls under ‎

common ownership‎. ‎He had some doubts as to whether or not the ‎

Planning Commission approved the condominium development with an ‎

understanding that this house and garage would remain‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the term ‎"‎condominium‎" ‎relates to ownership and ‎

not particularly land use‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Somerville, support by Nowicki, to table the request for ‎

extension of site plan approval for File No‎. ‎90‎-‎231 ‎(‎Crooks Crossing East‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated that he felt that he was not being dealt with fairly‎. ‎He said ‎

if the county had not come in with the Leuder's Drain project, there would be ‎

houses up already‎. ‎He said that he's done everything the city wants him to ‎

do‎. ‎He said he has a timetable to meet to get the project underway‎. ‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Rosen if there was a reason why he had not yet ‎

submitted a revised site plan pursuant to prior requirements‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that he had been advised by his engineers to wait until the ‎

county was done with the drain project‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎Beaton, Ferrera, Hauswirth, Nowicki, Rosen, Sadowski, Somerville, ‎

Kaiser ‎

Nays‎:‎Boswell‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin understood that she was to research whether or not ‎

participation in a Special Assessment District would involve the individual ‎

unit site and their owners or the homeowners association‎. ‎Also, the ‎

question of whether or not the nonconformance that would be created if the ‎

site condominium plan were approved would be a violation of site plan ‎

approval‎. ‎Also, that the minutes from the September, ‎1990 ‎meeting be ‎

provided‎. ‎

Member Ferrera asked Mr‎. ‎Rosen if a new lot was being created in, what is ‎

now, the front yard of the existing house‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated that this is ‎

correct‎. ‎

Council representative Beaton was concerned about that and requested ‎

more detail as to how that is going to work‎.‎

Member Ferrera requested that staff supply the plans that were submitted ‎

to the city in ‎1990‎. (‎These were available at the meeting‎: ‎Reference site ‎

plan dated August ‎24‎, ‎1990‎).‎

Member Nowicki requested that some reference be made that the site plan ‎

notes that all unit sites can meet all the requirements of the R‎-‎4 ‎zoning‎. ‎He ‎

pointed out that this existing house will definitely ‎not‎ meet those ‎

requirements‎. ‎He said that it does not state anywhere on the blueprint that ‎

the house will remain and become part of the condominium development, ‎

nor does it say that it will be removed, however, it does say on the blueprint ‎

that unit sites will meet the R‎-‎4 ‎requirements for setbacks‎.‎

The Chair mentioned to Mr‎. ‎Rosen that he would like to see the revised ‎

plans that are referenced when this item comes back to the Planning ‎

Commission‎.‎

Tabled

2000-1409

Request for Final Preliminary Plat Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎92‎-‎319 ‎- ‎Blue Heron Ridge ‎

Subdivision, a ‎225‎-‎lot sub on ‎110‎.‎83 ‎acres located west of Adams and south of ‎

Quail Ridge Subdivision, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎19‎-‎300‎-‎002‎, zoned R‎-‎2‎, One Family ‎

Residential, Frankel Associates, ‎2301 ‎W‎. ‎Big Beaver Rd‎.‎, Suite ‎900‎, Troy, MI ‎

48084‎, Applicant‎

In attendance representing the applicant were, Donald Westphal, Project ‎

Landscape Architect and Mark Erickson, attorney for the applicant‎.‎

Member Rosen disclosed that Mark Erickson is a friend and neighbor‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin summarized her staff report dated March ‎30‎, ‎1993‎. ‎

Highlights of the report indicated that the subject subdivision will utilize the ‎

open‎-‎space option allowed by ordinance which permits lot size reduction ‎

up to ‎25 ‎percent as long as an equivalent amount of land is set aside as ‎

open space for the residents of the subdivision‎. ‎Selected open‎-‎space ‎

areas shown on the plat preserved the most environmentally sensitive ‎

areas of the property which would lessen any negative impact on these ‎

areas‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the subject plat reflects a most unusual and unique ‎

subdivision with very challenging and desirable features from a ‎

development standpoint‎. ‎One of the unique features is a ‎17‎-‎acre strip of ‎

land along the Clinton River which is not included in the legal description of ‎

either subject subdivision or the Butler Ridge Subdivision proposed for the ‎

north side of the Clinton River‎. ‎It is the applicant's intent to dedicate this ‎

land for conservation purposes to the Oakland Land Conservancy of the ‎

Oakland Park Foundation‎. ‎Furthermore, the developer of this land does not ‎

propose to develop lots which extend to the middle of the Clinton River‎.‎

Continuing, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reported that all final preliminary plat technical ‎

information has been provided by the applicant as required under the ‎

Subdivision Control Ordinance‎. ‎The subdivision will be developed in two ‎

phases; Phase I will consist of Lots ‎1‎-‎107 ‎and Phase II of Lots ‎108‎-‎225‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin advised that City Council placed conditions on the tentative ‎

preliminary plat approval‎. ‎These conditions have been addressed by both ‎

city staff and the developer, and the conclusions are listed under each ‎

condition as shown on Pages ‎3 ‎and ‎4 ‎of the report‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin advised also that the Wetlands Use Permit, the Tree Removal ‎

Permit and the Open‎-‎space plans have all previously been approved‎. (‎The ‎

staff report dated March ‎30‎, ‎1993 ‎has been placed on file and by reference ‎

becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

DISCUSSION‎:‎

Mr‎. ‎Westphal addressed the question of Condition #‎6 ‎which requires ‎

re‎-‎numbering of lots on the final preliminary drawing‎. ‎He explained that a ‎

numbering discrepancy occurred because their engineers ‎(‎MCS‎) ‎used a ‎

numbering system taken from the landscape drawings‎. ‎The discrepancy ‎

has been corrected, he said, and the lot numbers on the final preliminary ‎

plat will be the same as those shown on the landscape and engineering ‎

plans‎. ‎

With regard to Condition #‎1‎, regarding sidewalk construction, Member ‎

Ferrera stated he assumes the sidewalks will be installed by each builder ‎

at the time of home construction, however, he asked when will the portion of ‎

sidewalk be constructed which will be located at the small access point, ‎

near the northwest portion of this site, along Heron Ridge Drive, and which ‎

leads to the commons area? Mr‎. ‎Westphal replied that the sidewalk ‎

leading to the commons area will be constructed at the same time as the ‎

roads are constructed‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked if the wetland area along Greenspring Drive is ‎

MDNR‎-‎regulated as well as city‎-‎regulated‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin replied it is also ‎

MDNR regulated since it is more than ‎5 ‎acres‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked why the sidewalk along the west side of ‎

Greenspring Lane will be terminated at the end of the driveway at Lot ‎60 ‎as ‎

noted on the staff report, Page ‎3‎, instead of running the entire width of the ‎

lot‎. ‎He commented that he finds it discouraging that wetlands would take ‎

precedence over sidewalks in this case ‎(‎Lot ‎60‎)‎, when he feels that ‎

pedestrian safety is at stake here‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that the ‎

development of this entire subdivision has been a labor of balancing one ‎

issue with another‎. ‎She said that she does not believe that pedestrian ‎

safety is being compromised in this case because sidewalk is being ‎

constructed on the opposite side of the street ‎(‎east side‎) ‎which will provide ‎

the continuity necessary for pedestrian travel and safety‎. ‎Member Ferrera ‎

said he is still disappointed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Westphal added that the MDNR Wetland Use Permit required for this ‎

particular wetland area under discussion ‎(‎Lot ‎60‎) ‎is a ‎"‎minor permit‎" ‎

because only a small amount of fill is necessary and no mitigation is ‎

required in this area ‎(‎Lot ‎60‎).‎

Member Beaton said he also wished that sidewalk could be constructed ‎

without interruption on the west side of Greenspring Lane at Lot ‎60‎, even ‎

though he is aware that the developer is not required by ordinance to ‎

construct any sidewalk at all‎. ‎He suggested that something like an elevated ‎

bridge‎-‎like surface could be constructed over the wetland area there‎.‎

Continuing, Member Ferrera commented on the desirable aesthetics and ‎

amenities of the subject development, but said it still appears to him that ‎

the subdivision is just a bunch of lots and streets which abut Quail Ridge ‎

Subdivision‎. ‎He asked how this subdivision can be turned into a ‎

"‎community?‎" ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal said that, as previously stated by Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin, the development of the subdivision has utilized a great deal of ‎

fervent balancing, and they have worked very closely with the city wetlands ‎

and landscape consultants to produce Blue Heron Ridge‎. ‎He said that he ‎

believes that the subdivision does denote a sense of identity of its own and ‎

will not become a ‎"‎Quail Ridge II & III‎." ‎He said that the existing Quail ‎

Ridge Subdivision already has its own sense of ‎"‎community‎" ‎and the ‎

proposed Blue Heron Ridge Subdivision will also have its own special ‎

sense of neighborhood identity‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that what he really means is should the Planning ‎

Commission be looking at ‎(‎and having input into‎) ‎the home construction ‎

itself‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal replied that the market place determines the aesthetics ‎

of the house itself and home architectural construction is really part of the ‎

free enterprise system‎. ‎He noted that the style of home construction and ‎

accompanying landscaping can be dictated with condominium projects, but ‎

not with single‎-‎family dwellings‎.‎

The Chair asked that comments be limited to issues which relate to areas ‎

of the ‎final‎ preliminary plat, which would be issues which do not agree with ‎

the previously approved ‎tentative‎ preliminary plat‎.‎

Member Nowicki expressed concern about jurisdiction of the open space ‎

for this project‎. ‎He said that, in the past, in the approval process of ‎

subdivisions, pathways were promised along the open space areas for the ‎

use of all residents, however, that, in fact, never occurred‎. ‎What has ‎

occurred, he said, is that property owners who abut open space, take it ‎

over and start to consider the open space area as part of their own ‎

backyard‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal replied that is precisely why the area from Quail ‎

Ridge Park to the westerly boundary line of Blue Heron Ridge Subdivision, ‎

along the Clinton River, is being deeded to the Oakland Land Conservancy ‎

- ‎so that the river bank will be available to all‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Erickson noted, however, that one area where residents will not be ‎

encouraged to pass through will be the highly environmentally sensitive ‎

area ‎(‎the rookery‎) ‎along the river which will belong to the Oakland Land ‎

Conservancy‎. ‎The rookery will be posted ‎"‎private property‎" ‎to protect that ‎

area from abuse‎. ‎He said he believes that the rookery will add interest to ‎

the subdivision and increase its sense of ‎"‎community‎."‎

Member Rosen expressed concern that the berms shown on Pages ‎3 ‎and ‎

5 ‎of the landscape plan appear to be smaller than what he recalls from the ‎

originally approved drawings‎. ‎He said the affected lots are Lots ‎15‎, ‎16 ‎& ‎

17‎, Lots ‎107 ‎& ‎108‎, and then again at Lots ‎13‎, ‎14‎, ‎128 ‎and ‎129‎, all ‎

bordering Hamlin Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal stated there are storm sewers and ‎

catch basins involved along this area of the landscape plan, particularly ‎

Lots ‎15 ‎through ‎18‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Erickson stated that on the tentative preliminary ‎

plat, the berming line is confusing because some of the property that the ‎

developer actually currently owns is in the ultimate right‎-‎of‎-‎way of the ‎

proposed Hamlin Road expansion, therefore, it may have appeared wider ‎

on the tentative preliminary plat when it actually is not wider‎. ‎Member ‎

Rosen said he thinks that the berm lines were somewhat misleading on the ‎

tentative preliminary plat then‎. ‎He asked if any lots directly abut the ‎

proposed Hamlin Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal replied ‎"‎yes,‎" ‎on the west side of the ‎

entrance to the subdivision‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal said, however, that he would be ‎

most willing to add more berming to the lots in question‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Erickson said ‎

it is their intention to create a continuous berm except in those areas where ‎

it would need to be contoured down for drainage purposes‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal ‎

said that the berming will be on the property owner's lot and pointed out ‎

that, by way of comparison, the same situation exists with Quail Ridge lots ‎

along Hamlin Road which abut the Hamlin Road right‎-‎of‎-‎way line also‎.‎

Member Beaton said that if he were the developer of this site, he would ‎

eliminate Lots ‎111‎, ‎112‎, ‎113‎, ‎114 ‎and rearrange the retention pond‎. ‎Then ‎

he would place in the upland area where the lots were, a neighborhood ‎

gazebo and tennis courts‎.‎

The Chair again requested that discussion be limited to those topics which ‎

differ from the approved tentative preliminary plat‎. ‎Member Beaton said he ‎

will probably address these types of topics at the City Council level‎.‎

Member Beaton asked where are the islands which should be shown in the ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacs‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal explained that islands are shown on the ‎

construction drawings and they will most assuredly be constructed‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, supported by Somerville, in the matter of File No‎. ‎

92‎-‎319 ‎that the Final Preliminary Plat for ‎BLUE HERON RIDGE ‎

SUBDIVISION be recommended for approval‎ to City Council‎. ‎The ‎

findings and conditions as contained in the March ‎30‎, ‎1993 ‎staff report and ‎

consistent with tonight's comments shall be included as follows‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎The preliminary plat drawing meets or can meet all applicable ‎

requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Control ‎

Ordinance‎.‎

2‎.‎Adequate utilities are currently available to properly service the proposed ‎

development‎. ‎

3‎.‎The preliminary plat represents a reasonable and acceptable ‎

comprehensive plan for developing the property‎.‎

4‎.‎The subdivision has been designed such that traffic movement is safe ‎

and efficient‎. ‎Also, all lots will have access to interior local streets‎. ‎

Direct ‎(‎driveway‎) ‎access to major thoroughfares will be prohibited‎.‎

5‎.‎The development has been designed to be harmonious with the natural ‎

environment‎. ‎Natural amenities have been preserved as much as ‎

possible and will be utilized as assets‎.‎

6‎.‎The development will help the city realize the city's adopted Master Land ‎

Use Plan, which indicates that this area is planned for single family ‎

residential land use‎.‎

7‎.‎The developer has voluntarily agreed to install sidewalks in the ‎

subdivision‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎Sidewalks on both sides of Greenspring Lane and Foxwood Drive will be ‎

constructed in conjunction with standards set forth by Engineering ‎

Services, Department of Public Services, City of Rochester Hills‎.‎

The staff reviewed the concept of providing sidewalks on both sides of ‎

Greenspring and Foxwood Drive in conjunction with standards set ‎

forth by Engineering Services‎. ‎It is recommended that the east ‎

side of Greenspring include sidewalk up through the first ‎

intersection of streets in Quail Ridge‎.‎

On the west side of Greenspring, sidewalk should terminate at the end of ‎

the driveway at Lot ‎60‎.‎

2‎.‎The method for preservation of the ‎"‎orphaned‎" ‎approximately ‎17‎-‎acre ‎

parcel of land located immediately north of this plat shall be ‎

determined and agreed to by the property owner and the city prior to ‎

the final approval of any portion of this plat‎.‎

The developer was urged to dedicate the landlocked property to either the ‎

homeowner's association, MDNR, or some other legal entity who ‎

could be responsible for the property‎. (‎The Subdivision Control ‎

Act requires that all lots within the plat have frontage on a public ‎

street‎.) ‎As this acreage is not part of this plat, nor the proposed ‎

Butler Ridge Subdivision, a disposition of the land is needed‎.‎

The applicant has contacted the Oakland Land Conservancy of the ‎

Oakland Park Foundation and is actively working toward a transfer ‎

of title‎. ‎The final deed is expected to be recorded prior to approval ‎

of the final plat‎.‎

3‎.‎Detailed landscape plans and revised tree survey‎/‎removal plans shall be ‎

submitted with the final preliminary plat for further review and ‎

approval, to include details for entrance beautification and signage‎.‎

The applicant has submitted a detailed landscape plan which includes ‎

the entrance and boulevard at Greenspring, the wetland mitigation ‎

area on the east side of Greenspring, and the Hamlin‎/‎Adams ‎

Road frontage from the western property limits to the eastern ‎

property limits‎.‎

A ‎13‎'‎6‎" ‎monument wall is proposed for the subdivision entrance‎. ‎Linda ‎

Lemke has reviewed the submitted plan and her comments are ‎

attached with this report‎. ‎

4‎.‎That Dr‎. ‎Jaworski, along with the city's Wetland Enforcement Officer, be ‎

authorized to inspect the installation of the siltation fences and ‎

erosion controls, and to ensure that the conditions of the Wetland ‎

Use Permit are met‎. ‎The applicant should be required to notify the ‎

city prior to the commencement of construction so that inspections ‎

can be arranged‎.‎

5‎.‎That a final revised landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by ‎

the Planning Staff prior to commencement of construction and all ‎

berms shall be clearly delineated on the drawings‎.‎

6‎.‎That a revised final preliminary plat drawing shall be submitted and ‎

approved by the Planning Staff per Engineering Staff's comments ‎

concerning re‎-‎numbering of lots‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎Boswell, Ferrera, Hauswirth, Nowicki, Rosen, Sadowski, Somerville, ‎

Beaton, Kaiser‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Preliminary Plat dated received March ‎10‎, ‎1993‎, as prepared by Don ‎

Westphal and MCS Associates, Inc‎.‎, Sheets ‎1‎-‎7 ‎and Landscape Plan ‎

dated Received March ‎10‎, ‎1993‎, Sheets ‎1‎-‎8‎, prepared by Great Oaks ‎

Landscaping Associates, Inc‎.)‎

Member Rosen suggested that one way the ‎"‎sense of community‎" ‎might be ‎

enhanced would be to instigate a homeowner's association as early in the ‎

development stage as possible‎.‎

The question of what color the brick will be on the entrance wall was asked‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Westphal said he does not know at this time what the color will be, but ‎

will provide that information when this matter is considered by City Council‎.‎

Several members expressed appreciation to the representatives of this ‎

project for voluntarily installing sidewalks in the subdivision‎.‎

_________________________________‎

RECESS ‎9:50‎ - ‎9:58‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1410

Discussion regarding proposed Ordinance Amendment to Section ‎1807 ‎of ‎

Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎to allow cellular communication facilities in any ‎

zoning district subject to restrictions‎

In attendance representing the applicants were Mr‎. ‎Richard Riley for ‎

Ameritech and Mr‎. ‎Jonathan Crane for Cellular One‎. ‎Also present was Mr‎. ‎

Steve Wells from Cross & Wrock who will be representing Ameritech in the ‎

future‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin presented the staff report dated March ‎31‎, ‎1993 ‎(‎Staff report ‎

has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record ‎

hereof‎.)‎

At the regular Planning Commission meeting of October ‎27‎, ‎1992‎, the ‎

Planning Commission held a study session to discuss cellular telephone ‎

facilities and its related technology, as well as where cellular ‎

communication towers should be located in the community‎. ‎At that ‎

meeting, there was a presentation by Mr‎. ‎Riley and Mr‎. ‎Crane, and the ‎

Planning Commission considered updating the development requirements ‎

for commercial communication towers and allowing greater flexibility in ‎

citing cellular communication towers in the community‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission advised the applicants to develop a draft ordinance ‎

amendment that could be scheduled for a public hearing and a ‎

recommendation to City Council in the future‎.‎

Subsequently, Mr‎. ‎Richard Riley, on behalf of Ameritech Mobile ‎

Communications, submitted a draft ordinance on February ‎10‎, ‎1993‎. ‎

Copies of the draft were distributed to city staff and the city attorney's office ‎

for review and comment‎. ‎The draft ordinance, along with the city attorney's ‎

comments and those of staff, are provided for the Commission's ‎

deliberation of this matter‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that the overall consideration is to determine if ‎

Section ‎1807 ‎is the appropriate place for these provisions in the Zoning ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎She noted that Section ‎1807 ‎is designed to set a ‎

special‎/‎conditional land use process to handle uses that do not generally fit ‎

into a particular land use category‎. ‎Other uses found in ‎1807 ‎are churches, ‎

libraries, road side stands, utilities and utility related buildings, etc‎. ‎Each ‎

specific use, in addition to any special conditions that may be set by the ‎

Planning Commission and City Council, often carries required conditions ‎

that must be met unless a variance or waiver is granted ‎(‎by the ZBA‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Riley explained that his intent in providing a draft ordinance is to serve ‎

as a springboard for discussion‎. ‎He anticipates an exchange of ideas and ‎

a greater refinement that what he has proposed‎. ‎He was interested in ‎

hearing from the Planning Commission that they recognize the need for this ‎

type of communication system and that there is some appreciation for its ‎

uniqueness‎. ‎He pointed out that they are not the same as a commercial ‎

communication tower or facility, nor a radio or TV station antenna‎. ‎There ‎

are far greater implications in structure to a cellular telephone network‎. ‎He ‎

feels that this uniqueness warrants special consideration‎. ‎He also wanted ‎

to discuss the importance of this communication system and how it has ‎

revolutionized much of our lives today‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Steve Wells stated that he is the local zoning attorney for Ameritech ‎

Mobile Communications ‎(‎Mr‎. ‎Richard Riley is the regional zoning attorney ‎

for Ameritech‎). ‎He said that he will be handling any presentations before ‎

the Planning Commission in the future‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Jonathan Crane, representing the Detroit Cellular Telephone Company ‎

(‎Cellular One‎) ‎noted several sites that they have looked at in the city and ‎

gave a brief explanation of some of the projects they are currently ‎

interested in‎. ‎He said that he would have liked to have had some input in ‎

helping draft the ordinance language‎.‎

The Chair commented that our City Council is the body which writes the ‎

ordinances and passes them‎. ‎He recalled that the invitation was that ‎

anyone who wished to, could prepare proposed ordinances that they would ‎

like to see reviewed by the Planning Commission‎. ‎He said that this ‎

included both applicants from Ameritech and Cellular One‎. ‎Having said ‎

that, he suggested that the Planning Commissioners identify those areas ‎

they would like to see discussed and put them on the table so they can get ‎

this proposed ordinance ready for a public hearing‎. ‎He felt that the ‎

Planning Commission should come away this evening with at least some ‎

knowledge on how they want to allow cellular towers in Rochester Hills, in ‎

the numbers and degrees that's been described to them by the materials ‎

supplied by the applicants‎.‎

DISCUSSION‎:‎

The Chair felt that they should resolve the question of whether or not they ‎

want to designate cellular communication towers as ‎"‎essential services‎." ‎

He said they need to specify how much flexibility they want in the ordinance, ‎

as well as how many zoning districts they want to allow these in‎. ‎He ‎

commented that he has no basis upon which to dispute the claims that have ‎

been made by Ameritech and Cellular One, that the number that will be ‎

needed in the near future is accurate‎. ‎He wondered if any of the ‎

commissioners had any comments on that notion‎.‎

Member Hauswirth said that he believes that cellular phone uses are going ‎

to increase and will be commonplace‎. ‎He felt that the applicant's numbers ‎

were based on future projections‎. ‎He believed that they would only put up ‎

as many towers as they think will handle their customers‎. ‎He was in favor of ‎

the idea of allowing an expanded number‎.‎

Member Rosen believed that there is a distinction between the number of ‎

phones and the number of minutes of phone usage‎. ‎Addressing the ‎

question of whether or not cellular communication facilities should be ‎

considered ‎"‎essential services,‎" ‎he felt that it's clearly more essential than ‎

commercial communication towers, but he wasn't sure it's to the point of ‎

essential services, primarily because of the flexibility in location that they ‎

may have‎. ‎His understanding of the grid system was that, as you put more ‎

grids in, you handle fewer on each antenna at any given time‎. ‎

Member Sadowski said that he is a strong supporter of the cellular ‎

communication system‎. ‎He doesn't feel that there are enough cellular ‎

communication facilities around and added that this is critical in his line of ‎

business‎. ‎He said that it's a tremendous inconvenience when you're on a ‎

business phone call and the phone clicks off because the cellular system in ‎

that area isn't strong enough‎. ‎He stated that the consequences of not ‎

having proper communications in this world is disastrous‎. ‎He believes that ‎

the city's zoning practices should be much more permissive, with the ‎

exclusion of the residential areas‎. ‎

Council representative Beaton informed the Planning Commission that at ‎

tomorrow's City Council meeting, they will be considering the purchase of ‎

another $‎22‎,‎500 ‎(‎$‎750‎.‎00 ‎each‎) ‎worth of portable radios for the city ‎

departments‎. ‎He felt that if there was a good grid cellular phone system in ‎

our community that there wouldn't be any need to keep coming back to City ‎

Council requesting portable radios because cellular communication ‎

between the various city departments as they travel throughout the city ‎

would be possible‎.‎

After polling the commissioners as to their personal experience with cellular ‎

phone services, the Chair noted that people are using their mobile phones ‎

to call land line phones, which he feels is an essential service, by the ‎

definition in the city's zoning ordinance‎. ‎

Member Sadowski suggested that the Planning Commission be very ‎

flexible in determining the location of these facilities and yet be very firm on ‎

the aesthetics of the site‎. ‎

Member Ferrera agreed that there was a need to look at where these ‎

facilities are placed in the community in terms of allowing some greater ‎

flexibility‎. ‎He didn't see this use as an essential service in the same way as ‎

Detroit Edison provides electricity and the city provides police and fire ‎

protection‎. ‎

The Chair noted that not all uses that fall under the category of essential ‎

services are ‎100‎% ‎essential‎.‎

Council representative Beaton said if the city allows telephone poles as an ‎

essential service, then in all fairness to the cellular marketplace, he felt that ‎

they should be allowed to put up their towers‎.‎

Member Rosen said that in the case of cellular phones, unfortunately, it has ‎

been decreed that there shall be two systems‎. ‎They are not considered ‎

public utilities, but rather competitive enterprises‎. ‎One of the down sides is ‎

that you end up with two complete systems‎. ‎One of the benefits of a public ‎

utility is that you have one and it's regulated by an entire different set of ‎

criteria as to what it can and can't do, etc‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Riley commented that the reason there's a definition in the ordinance for ‎

"‎essential services‎" ‎is because there is a recognition that these services ‎

are needed everywhere‎. ‎He felt that there was an awareness that we need ‎

this particular communication system‎. ‎He didn't feel it was important ‎

whether or not they were considered an essential service‎. ‎He felt, more ‎

importantly, that the flexibility should be there‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth said that he was in favor of considering cellular facilities ‎

as an essential service‎.‎

Member Sadowski wondered if any success had been made in trying to ‎

combine cellular sites where both companies would use the same towers‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Riley said that they know they can both locate on a building or a tower if ‎

it's owned by a third party‎. ‎He said that in some of their jurisdictions, they ‎

have actually co‎-‎located on either one of the other's tower structures‎. ‎He ‎

said that this sets off many concerns at the corporate level because of ‎

certain anti‎-‎trust doctrines that come into play‎.‎

The Chair said that the flexibility and the manner in which the applicants ‎

would like the Planning Commission to adapt to the growing need, is ‎

addressed in part, by whether this ends up being defined as ‎"‎essential ‎

service‎" ‎or becomes defined as ‎"‎ancillary use‎" ‎or ‎"‎principle use‎." ‎

Regarding the flexibility versus the number of districts, Member Rosen ‎

asked the applicant if they had thought about whether they preferred to have ‎

more flexibility within a narrower number of districts or less flexibility, more ‎

restrictive, but in a wider number of districts‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Crane said he preferred the greater diversity of districts‎. ‎He said that ‎

they would love to have the possibility of being able to locate in a residential ‎

neighborhood‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Riley said that he agrees that the greater diversity would be his ‎

preference also‎.‎

Council representative Beaton said that if the Planning Commission goes ‎

in the direction to allow them in any zoning district and they set it up as a ‎

conditional use that has to go before the City Council, he felt that they were ‎

asking for a complete nightmare to the issue‎. ‎He hoped that the Planning ‎

Commission could resolve this issue by requiring the tower to meet ‎

conditions in whatever residential or non‎-‎residential districts that they want ‎

it to meet and require site plan approval‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked the applicants how many towers would need to be ‎

erected in Rochester Hills over the next ‎5 ‎years‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Riley replied that they estimated ‎5 ‎or ‎6 ‎towers for Ameritech‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Crane ‎

stated that they estimated ‎3 ‎for Cellular One‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Riley said that as this technology goes forward, the actual equipment ‎

and the height of the towers is going to come down‎. ‎

The Chair asked the applicants if they had ever reviewed an ordinance that ‎

allowed this particular item, that also had written into their ordinance that if ‎

the use was abandoned that it was removed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Riley said that many of their sites are obtained through the conditional ‎

use process‎. ‎He said that he had not seen it as a matter of an ordinance, ‎

but had seen it as a conditional use‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Crane said that he has never seen anything like that written into the text ‎

of the ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Steve Wells commented that he has seen such provisions in the City of ‎

Detroit's zoning ordinance, as well as Farmington Hills‎.‎

The Chair expressed some concern that at some point in the future, our city ‎

may be left with obsolete towers‎. ‎He would like the language drafted in ‎

such a way that would make sure that these towers are removed once they ‎

do become obsolete‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Bob Brown‎, Senior Engineer for Ameritech Mobile Communications, ‎

stated that his only concern is that the allowable use always be concerned ‎

with telecommunications of some sort‎. ‎While they may not be transmitting ‎

analog in five years, they would still need the towers for communications or ‎

some type of technology‎. ‎As soon as it's not needed for ‎

telecommunications, then it could be removed‎.‎

The Chair asked the commissioners if there was a consensus that there ‎

were districts where they definitely do not want cellular communication ‎

facilities located or districts that they only want them in‎. ‎

Member Rosen felt that cellular facilities in industrial districts could remain ‎

the same, permitted by right‎. ‎He suggested that they be allowed as ‎

conditional uses up through B‎-‎2‎, Special Purpose, Research Office and ‎

Office‎-‎Research‎-‎Technology‎.‎

Council representative Beaton was concerned that no matter where you ‎

place these towers in this city, they are going to be seen‎. ‎Since they're ‎

going to be seen, he felt that the ordinance should be drafted in such a way ‎

that they would be allowed in any district with conditions‎.‎

Member Boswell said that if it's in a residential district, then the Planning ‎

Commission should put certain restrictions on it that are advantageous to ‎

the city‎. ‎He agreed with Member Beaton that they should be allowed ‎

anywhere‎.‎

The Chair concurred with Members Beaton and Boswell that they should be ‎

allowed in any district, but added that they should just restrict how they will ‎

be allowed in a particular district‎. ‎Also, that all alternatives be explored and ‎

if they can put it on a building instead of building a tower that they do that‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that there are only certain instances where staff would ‎

approve a permitted use‎. ‎For example, if it were an addition or ‎

modification to an existing structure‎. ‎If it had required conditions and was ‎

part of a zoning district, it would require site plan approval by the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎She explained that if the commissioners want this approval ‎

done on the administrative level, with approvals by the Planning ‎

Commission only, then it would have to become a permitted use in each ‎

zoning district, which would then only require site plan approval by the ‎

Planning Commission‎.‎

Member Rosen asked if this would imply a uniform set of conditions across ‎

all zoning districts equally or would it imply some sort of tiered required ‎

conditions‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that the required conditions for each zoning district can ‎

all be the same or they can be different‎.‎

Councilmember Beaton felt that communication towers should be allowed ‎

in all zoning districts and should meet the same set of conditions for all ‎

districts‎. ‎He said that if the tower is ‎110 ‎feet tall, then there should be a ‎

110 ‎foot setback all the way around it no matter what is in that area‎.‎

Member Boswell commented that if the same restrictions are placed, ‎

regardless of the zoning district, then most of the towers would end up in ‎

residential districts‎. ‎The reason is because there isn't anywhere in the ‎

business district where they could place it and have ‎110‎' all around it‎. ‎He ‎

believed that the only thing they could do would be to purchase ‎3 ‎or ‎4 ‎lots in ‎

a residential district and build it in the center and have the open area ‎

around it‎.‎

Councilmember Beaton suggested that they then double the standards in ‎

the residential districts‎.‎

The Chair said that they could have the restrictions be the same in all ‎

zoning districts, but add an additional restriction to residential districts to ‎

say they can be allowed only if there's no alternative in an industrial or ‎

business district‎. ‎

The Chair summarized the discussion by listing the areas that need to be ‎

addressed as the language is revised and brought back for public hearing‎. ‎

He said they are looking for something more flexible, probably go toward all ‎

districts, but with the restrictions along the lines that Members Beaton and ‎

Boswell suggested, with the main point of making residential the last ‎

option‎. ‎The main consensus of the commissioners was to allow this as a ‎

principle permitted use‎.‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that she prepared a synopsis of the joint meeting with ‎

the Rochester Planning Commission and the Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎Before them, this evening, is a copy of a resolution of ‎

concurrence for City Council, prepared by Jim Schmidt‎. ‎She noted that this ‎

will be going forward to City Council tomorrow evening‎. ‎

The Chair commented that the resolution appears to be a fair summary of ‎

what was discussed at the meeting‎. ‎Further, he stated that he would ‎

endorse that this be presented for City Council's approval tomorrow ‎

evening‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the commissioners have before them, the policy ‎

issues prepared by Steve Dearing‎. ‎She said that this is a general outline ‎

for discussion by the subcommittee and is presented this evening for the ‎

commissioner's review‎. ‎

a‎)‎Selection of sub‎-‎committee to study the proposed Sheldon Road ‎

collector with City of Rochester Planning Commission‎

Members Ferrera and Boswell volunteered to represent the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎Councilmember Raschke was nominated to represent the ‎

City Council‎. ‎It was understood that city staff including the Planning ‎

Department would also be involved with this committee‎.‎

b‎)‎Selection of ‎1993‎-‎94 ‎Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary‎

MOTION‎ by Somerville, support by Nowicki, to nominate Member Kaiser ‎

as Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the ‎1993‎-‎94 ‎term‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Abstain‎:‎Kaiser‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, support by Sadowski, to nominate Member Rosen as ‎

Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the ‎1993‎-‎94 ‎term‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Abstain‎:‎Rosen‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, support by Somerville, to nominate Patricia Goodwin ‎

as Planning Commission Secretary‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

________________________________‎

Member Somerville asked about a ‎"‎For Sale‎" ‎sign she noticed on a ‎7‎-‎acre ‎

parcel of commercial land just east of the Meijers parking lot on Auburn Rd‎. ‎

She didn't recall that this ‎7 ‎acres was listed in the commercial land count ‎

during the study of the Master Land Use Plan‎.‎

Member Nowicki recalled that Meijers originally planned to have a gas ‎

station on that property, but the Planning Commission told them they ‎

wouldn't go along with it‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that this is Meijer's retention pond, berm and buffer‎. ‎

He said that his understanding was that this was not a separately defined ‎

piece of property‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin announced that due to changes in the Wetlands Ordinance, ‎

staff will be investigating an inventory of all of the wetlands in the city‎. ‎

Member Somerville suggested that the Planning Department begin looking ‎

at getting a sidewalk ordinance‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that an ordinance has already been drafted‎. ‎Since it is a ‎

code ordinance, it would not come to the Planning Commission for a public ‎

hearing‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Sadowski, support by Nowicki, to request that a copy of the ‎

proposed sidewalk ordinance be sent to City Council President Buller, for ‎

agenda consideration in the immediate future‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

April ‎20‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

meeting was adjourned at ‎12‎:‎07 ‎a‎.‎m‎.‎