Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, February 29, 2000

CALL TO ORDER

The Chair called the special meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Greg Hooper, James Rosen, Audrey Ruggiero, Eric ‎

Kaiser, Leah Potere, Christian Ramanauskas and Melinda Hill‎

Present

8 -

Also present Commission‎: ‎Paul Corneliussen‎

Also Present‎: ‎Deborah Millhouse, Acting Director‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

Amy Neary and Rob Kagler, McKEnna Associates‎

John Staran, City Attorney‎

COMMUNICATIONS

NEW BUSINESS

2000-0181

Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎98‎-‎014 ‎- ‎First Church of the Nazarene, a ‎22‎,‎986 ‎

square foot church building on ‎4‎.‎181 ‎acres, located on the south side of Walton, east of ‎

Wimpole, zoned R‎-‎1‎, One Family Residential, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎16‎-‎102‎-‎002‎, First Church of ‎

the Nazarene, applicant‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated ‎

February ‎24‎, ‎2000 ‎has been placed on file and by reference ‎

becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Present were Scott Kaye of Gator Construction; David Koppelman ‎

of KSA Architects; Gary Tipping of SKJ Engineering‎. ‎In the ‎

audience were Pastor Larry Crum and Pam Mc Donough of the First ‎

Church of the Nazarene‎.‎

[ ‎ENTER RUGGIERO ‎- ‎7‎:‎40 ‎pm ‎]‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse summarized the staff report and pointed out that the ‎

applicant requests to develop the site in phases, with the existing ‎

residence to be restored within three years after completion of the ‎

church‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated it would be appropriate to include a ‎

condition regarding the maintaining of the existing arborvitae hedge ‎

and existing deciduous trees‎. ‎The consultant's comments regarding ‎

landscaping have been included in the staff report‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye indicated the applicant had no problem with any of the ‎

proposed conditions‎. ‎Regarding architectural concerns mentioned ‎

in the McKenna Associates letter, Mr‎. ‎Kaye stated that the proposed ‎

building will blend very well with the surroundings and will make a ‎

comfortable transition to the residential zoning district‎. ‎A good mix ‎

and blend of materials has been incorporated for a pleasing ‎

appearance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaye stated that the consultant's suggestions for ‎

revisions to the building elevations will have an impact on the ‎

overall cost, and he could not speak to that‎. ‎

Commissioners discussed and clarified that the intent of the ‎

consultant's suggestion regarding the north, south, and west ‎

elevations of the activity center was to continue the split face block ‎

around the activity center, as on the church, from the base to the ‎

bottom of the windows; then to include brick to the soldier course‎. ‎

The applicant was in agreement with the suggestion‎.‎

Member Hill suggested including relief elements such as medallions ‎

on the south facade of the higher mass on the fellowship hall‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye explained that the asphalt pavement on the east side of the ‎

structure between the landscape island and the building is to ‎

accommodate a drop‎-‎off area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaye was agreeable to relocating ‎

the two handicap parking spaces to the area on the other side of the ‎

building so all handicap parking spaces would have immediate ‎

access to the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Koppelman added they were on the west ‎

side of the building on the first submittal of the plan, and the ‎

suggestion was made to split up the handicap spaces‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse clarified that the Building Department had suggested ‎

placing barrier free spaces near each entrance‎. ‎

Member Corneliussen added that it meets the minimum ‎

requirements for barrier free parking‎. ‎With dual entrances to a ‎

building it is appropriate to split the handicap parking‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye stated that a compactor was considered and it was ‎

determined to not be feasible for the site as a church is a relatively ‎

low use in terms of trash, and no products are sold which would ‎

generate trash‎. ‎The dumpster enclosure will be clarified to be ‎

masonry with wood doors‎. ‎It has been moved from the west to the ‎

east to be more remote from the view of neighbors‎. ‎There may not ‎

be many alternative locations for the dumpster enclosure‎. ‎The ‎

dumpster location does meet the setback requirement‎. ‎It could be ‎

moved farther to the west a few feet, but the radius would have to be ‎

reconfigured to assure access to the dumpster by a truck‎. ‎Severe ‎

grade changes also limit alternate locations of a dumpster ‎

enclosure‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye added that three parking spaces would probably fit ‎

between the west wall of the dumpster area and the west side of the ‎

asphalt area‎. ‎They are currently one space short‎. ‎They could leave ‎

the two handicap spots on the east and add two additional spots on ‎

the west‎.‎

Regarding the buffer modification, it appeared to Member Hooper ‎

that the arborvitae hedge proposed to meet buffer requirements was ‎

on the adjacent Huntington Park property‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse reviewed that the site plan was essentially approved ‎

by City Council based upon a concept plan that included the ‎

existing residence to remain as well as the barn which has since ‎

burned down‎. ‎In November ‎1999 ‎the applicant had inquired if the ‎

existing structures could be removed, and the Planning ‎

Commission determined that would require changing the concept ‎

plan included in the Special Land Use approval by City Council‎. ‎

Member Rosen pointed out that the existing wood barn cannot be ‎

used as screening since the purpose of screening is to screen ‎

buildings per the ordinance‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified that the intent is ‎

to allow the existing wood barn to be located within the ‎25 ‎foot ‎

buffer width, not an inference that the existing wood barn is a ‎

screen‎. ‎The request is to not require a buffer in the location of the ‎

existing wood barn as the purpose of the ordinance cannot be met‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye offered that they are already providing significantly ‎

substantial landscaping‎. ‎

The Chair pointed out that the adjacent property could decide to ‎

remove the hedge on their property, in which case no buffer would ‎

then be provided if a suitable buffer area were not provided on the ‎

subject site by the applicant‎.‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public‎.‎

Christopher Boyle, ‎1692 ‎Black Maple, whose residence is on the ‎

southeast corner of the subject site, stated that the existing ‎

buildings are just trouble; they are totally worthless fire traps, ‎

subject to vagrants and mischief; the foundation and debris from ‎

the fire have become a haven for varmints‎.‎

Penny Burke, ‎159 ‎Nesbit Lane, asked for as many trees as possible ‎

so they do not have to view the church‎. ‎Since they are used to ‎

viewing the vacant lot and a lot of nature and wildlife, perhaps a wall ‎

could be built to the south of the subject property‎.‎

Gordy Burke, ‎159 ‎Nesbit Lane, inquired about the lighting ‎

conditions‎.‎

There were no further comments from the public‎.‎

In response to the public comments, Ms‎. ‎Millhouse explained that a ‎

three foot berm with three foot plantings along the west and south ‎

property lines was a condition of the Special Land Use approval by ‎

City Council‎. ‎The applicant is not requesting a buffer modification ‎

along the west property line or the western portion of the south ‎

property lines, only the eastern portion of the south property line‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye indicated that the foundation of the burned‎-‎out building ‎

would be removed when the site is cleared‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye suggested using existing shrubbery and interspersing it ‎

with additional plantings from the current dumpster location due ‎

north to the northern property line, to create a six foot high ‎

obscuring screen on the east property line‎. ‎Along the south ‎

property line Mr‎. ‎Kaye proposed to follow the contours of the ‎

parking lot to provide a more effective screen than directly on the ‎

property line‎. ‎This would create a more effective screen and meet ‎

the intent of the ordinance as the proposed parking lot is four to five ‎

feet higher than the adjacent properties‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Koppelman added along the west portion of the south property ‎

line there is a natural hedge of trees, with an existing grade three ‎

feet higher than the neighbor's property to the south, which acts as ‎

a natural buffer‎.‎

Member Hill recommended adding more evergreens along the ‎

eastern half of the back of the church as well as redistributing some ‎

of the proposed evergreens to shield the building from view‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye described the proposed lighting‎. ‎Light locations are along ‎

Walton Boulevard and in the center of the parking lot on the west ‎

side of the site‎. ‎There is no light at the rear of the building‎. ‎The ‎

farthest light will be located near the vicinity of the old barn, which ‎

will now be closer as the dumpster is relocated‎. ‎There is a series of ‎

very low‎-‎profile ballard lights which follow the main sidewalk entry‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye suggested that the interested residents be allowed to ‎

study the proposed lighting plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Koppelman added that the ‎

fixtures are not along the south property line, and light will be ‎

directed downward and away from residential properties‎.‎

Item ‎3‎. ‎Site Plan Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Ramanauskas, in the matter of ‎

File No‎. ‎98‎-‎014 ‎(‎First Church of the Nazarene‎)‎, to grant Site Plan ‎

Approval incorporating the findings and conditions in the Staff ‎

Report dated February ‎24‎, ‎2000 ‎as modified, plus additional ‎

conditions, based on plans dated received by the City of Rochester ‎

Hills Planning Department on January ‎14‎, ‎2000‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all ‎

applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎ can be met, ‎

subject to conditions noted below‎.‎

2‎.‎ The applicant has submitted an acceptable Environmental ‎

Impact Statement as required by the ordinance‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed use has been designed so as to be harmonious ‎

with the existing uses in the surrounding area‎.‎

4‎.‎ The applicant is proposing landscaping and the preservation of ‎

existing vegetation to enhance the aesthetic quality of the site ‎

and the neighborhood‎.‎

5‎.‎ The project is served adequately by essential public facilities and ‎

services‎. ‎There is only a single access to the site from Walton ‎

Boulevard‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Incorporation of engineering review comments provided by ‎

Johnson & Anderson, Inc‎. ‎in a future submittal of engineering ‎

plans‎.‎

2‎.‎ Provision of performance and maintenance guarantees in the ‎

amount of ‎$25,069.00‎, as adjusted by the City for the changed ‎

plantings, to ensure the correct installation and maintenance ‎

of landscaping‎. ‎Such guarantees to be provided prior to ‎

issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

3‎.‎ Replacement of tree ‎#443‎ and ‎#432‎ within the Walton Boulevard ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎Type and location to be approved by the ‎

Forestry Department‎. ‎If not able to properly locate ‎

replacement trees within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way, payment into the ‎

City‎=‎s Tree Fund‎. ‎

4‎.‎ Addition of a note indicating protection of tree ‎#431‎, ‎#387‎, ‎#380‎, ‎

and ‎#375‎ located within the Walton Boulevard right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.‎

5‎.‎ On the north, south, and west elevations of the activity center, ‎

the applicant is to continue the split face block, as on the ‎

church, from the base to the bottom of the windows; then ‎

brick to the soldier course‎. ‎The color of the split face block is ‎

to match the proposed EIFS‎.‎

6‎.‎ The south elevation is to include features such as medallions ‎

(‎recessed areas‎) ‎within the masonry to equal or match the ‎

look of the medallions on the north elevation of the sanctuary‎.‎

7‎.‎ Clarify that the dumpster enclosure is to be made of brick ‎

masonry‎.‎

8‎.‎ Dumpster is to be moved twenty feet to the west, causing a ‎

reconfiguration of the parking in a manner approved by staff, ‎

which will include the addition of three new spaces, two of ‎

which are to be handicapped spaces on the west side of the ‎

building‎.‎

9‎.‎ When land improvement begins, the first item of improvement will ‎

be the removal of the foundation and any remains of the barn‎.‎

10‎.‎ Along the eastern property line, adequate plantings are to be ‎

added in a volume and a configuration that satisfies staff to ‎

meet the six foot obscuring intent of the Ordinance‎.‎

11‎.‎ East of center of the south of the building, where the berm is ‎

located, the nineteen plantings which are listed as Forsythia ‎

and Ohio Pioneers be reconfigured and intermixed to include ‎

Forsythia, Hawthorn, and Colorado Spruce, in a manner to be ‎

approved by staff‎. ‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Hill, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, ‎

Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero ‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

MOTION ‎

CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Plans dated received by the Planning Department on ‎

January ‎14‎, ‎2000 ‎- ‎sheets C‎-‎001 ‎through C‎-‎003‎, A‎-‎100‎, A‎-‎100‎A, ‎

A‎-‎101‎, A‎-‎102‎, and E‎-‎501 ‎as prepared by KSA Architects and ‎

Planners; sheet ‎1 ‎of ‎1 ‎as prepared by John Squire Landscape ‎

Architect; Staff Report prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated ‎

February ‎24‎, ‎2000‎; Staff Review prepared by McKenna Associates ‎

dated February ‎24‎, ‎2000‎; letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates ‎

dated January ‎31‎, ‎2000‎; Memo from James Dietrick to Patricia ‎

Goodwin dated November ‎15‎, ‎1999‎; letter from Johnson & ‎

Anderson, Inc‎. ‎dated November ‎10‎, ‎1999‎; Environmental Impact ‎

Statement; City Council Meeting Minutes of July ‎1‎, ‎1998‎; Planning ‎

Commission Meeting Minutes of April ‎28‎, ‎1998‎; Notice of Meeting ‎

regarding Tree Removal Permit; Land Use and Tree Removal Permit ‎

Application‎.)‎

________________________________‎

[ ‎RECESS ‎9‎:‎20 ‎p‎.‎m‎. - ‎9‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

A motion was made by Hooper, seconded by Ramanauskas, that this matter be ‎

Granted‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas and Hill

8 -

2000-0182

Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎98‎-‎014 ‎- ‎First Church of the Nazarene‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Ramanauskas, in the matter of ‎

File No‎. ‎98‎-‎014 ‎(‎First Church of the Nazarene‎)‎, to grant the Tree ‎

Removal Permit incorporating the condition in the Staff Report ‎

dated February ‎24‎, ‎2000‎, and based on plans dated received by the ‎

City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on January ‎14‎, ‎2000‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

Provision of a performance guarantee in the form of a ‎

bond, letter of credit or surety in the amount of ‎

$‎12‎,‎470‎.‎00‎, as adjusted by the City, to ensure the ‎

correct installation of replacement trees‎. ‎Such ‎

guarantee to be provided prior to the issuance of a ‎

Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎ MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

A motion was made by Hooper, seconded by Ramanauskas, that this matter be ‎

Granted‎. ‎The motion carried unanimously‎.‎

2000-0183

Buffer Modifications ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎98‎-‎014 ‎- ‎First Church of the Nazarene‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Buffer Modifications‎

Buffer Modification No‎. ‎1‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Corneliussen, in the matter of File ‎

No‎. ‎98‎-‎014 ‎(‎First Church of the Nazarene‎)‎, that the Planning ‎

Commission approve the Buffer Modification along the east ‎

property line with one finding as modified in the Staff Report dated ‎

February ‎24‎, ‎2000 ‎and one condition, based on plans dated received ‎

by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on January ‎14‎, ‎

2000‎.‎

FINDING‎:‎

The existing wood barn exists and was indicated on the ‎

concept plan considered as part of the special land ‎

use approval by the City Council; otherwise the ‎

purpose of the Ordinance cannot be met‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

The existing deciduous trees along the east property line ‎

be retained and maintained‎. ‎Also that adequate ‎

plantings consistent in an amount and pattern be ‎

approved by staff to satisfy the six ‎(‎6‎) ‎foot ‎

obscuring intent of the Ordinance from the dumpster ‎

north to the northernmost property line along the ‎

east side‎.‎

2.‎ 2‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

MOTION ‎

CARRIED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

Buffer Modification No‎. ‎2‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Hooper, in the matter of File No‎. ‎

98‎-‎014 ‎(‎First Church of the Nazarene‎)‎, that the Planning ‎

Commission approve the Buffer Modification to allow the six foot ‎

opaque screening requirement to be provided outside the buffer ‎

area adjacent to the parking lot along the eastern portion of the ‎

south lot line with the one finding in the Staff Report dated February ‎

24‎, ‎2000 ‎plus a second finding, based on plans dated received by ‎

the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on January ‎14‎, ‎

2000‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Due to the height differential, this will provide more effective ‎

screening‎. ‎This portion of the berm is proposed to be planted ‎

with evergreen trees and ornamental trees‎.‎

2‎.‎ That this arrangement, design, and orientation lends itself to ‎

maximize the opportunity for isolation of negative impacts of ‎

the parking‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎ MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

A motion was made by Hooper, seconded by Rosen, that this matter be ‎

Approved‎. ‎The motion carried unanimously‎.‎

2000-0184

Revised Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎027 ‎- ‎Fox Volkswagen, two new ‎

automobile sales and service buildings totaling ‎18‎,‎892 ‎square feet on ‎5‎.‎09 ‎acres located ‎

at the southeast corner of Rochester Road and Arlington Drive, zoned B‎-‎3‎, Shopping ‎

Center Business, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎14‎-‎351‎-‎060‎, Gerald J‎. ‎Yurk Associates, Inc‎.‎, applicant‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated ‎

February ‎24‎, ‎2000 ‎has been placed on file and by reference ‎

becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Present were Gerald Yurk of Gerald Yurk Associates Architects; ‎

property owner Mr‎. ‎Mike Fox of Fox Volkswagen; Peter Stuhlreyer of ‎

Gerald Yurk Associates Architects; Bob Walton of AES Engineers‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse summarized the staff report by explaining that the ‎

proposed project involves the construction of two new automobile ‎

sales and service buildings, landscaping and other site ‎

improvements, demolition of the existing used car sales building ‎

and the southeast portion of the existing dealership building known ‎

as Fox Toyota‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse added that a revised photometric plan has not been ‎

submitted as recommended, and this is recommended as a ‎

condition of site plan approval‎.‎

Regarding architectural compatibility the Chair noted that the ‎

consultant has recommended incorporating the use of brick or ‎

other high quality masonry materials for wall surfaces with window ‎

trim parapets, etc‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Stuhlreyer responded that they have ‎

conceded to provide the entire north, south and east walls of the ‎

service building with a high quality burnished masonry‎. ‎The front ‎

portion of the building will be mostly glass and metal of a mill ‎

finished aluminum‎. ‎It is difficult to define the exact materials of the ‎

future expansion building at this point‎. ‎They are currently seeking a ‎

high‎-‎end tenant or buyer who will probably have their own ‎

architectural standards‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse added even though the third ‎

building is somewhat speculative, by virtue of the fact that it appears ‎

on the applicant's site plan indicates that it will be built as a part of ‎

the subject project, and that the submitted elevations will be the ‎

elevations expected to be built unless otherwise changed by the ‎

Planning Commission‎.‎

The Chair reviewed that the landscape consultant is recommending, ‎

at a minimum, a six foot high wall or berm with brick face or stone, ‎

and intermittent visual obstruction plantings‎. ‎The Chair pointed out ‎

that the planning consultant has noted that the existing fence along ‎

the eastern property line does not meet the intent of the ordinance ‎

and that no alternatives have been presented to support the ‎

requested buffer modification‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Stuhlreyer pointed out that the plan clearly indicates the ‎

alternative to the required buffer suggested by the applicant‎. ‎They ‎

are asking for a modification to that buffer to beautify the north ‎

property line which is not required to be beautified but will add value ‎

to the community instead of adding a ‎50 ‎foot greenbelt on the ‎

applicant's side of an opaque wall, which clearly would not add to ‎

the privacy of an already fenced‎-‎off and landscaped boundary ‎

between the adjacent residential property and the subject site‎.‎

Member Rosen disclosed that he works for General Motors ‎

Corporation but has nothing to do with the marketing of vehicles or ‎

the dealership assignments or locations or anything of that nature‎. ‎

Based on past performance and his inclinations he is not likely to ‎

treat the subject applicant any better or worse than he would any ‎

other dealership representing any other manufacturer‎. ‎On that ‎

basis he suggested that he could make a very impartial judgment ‎

with respect to the site plan, and if the Planning Commission agreed ‎

he would be happy to continue to serve‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler responded to the comment regarding the buffer on the ‎

east property line with no alternatives presented, he did recognize ‎

that the applicant is proposing some additional landscaping and ‎

beautification along the north property line‎. ‎However, it does not ‎

address the buffer requirement along the east property line‎. ‎Staff ‎

has recommended that the wall be constructed along the east ‎

property line and the IVO requirement be met; and Mr‎. ‎Kagler ‎

concurred with that, based on the topography, existing vegetation ‎

to the east, and the lowness of the subject site relative to the houses ‎

to the east‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yurk responded that they looked at the existing vegetation along ‎

the east property line‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yurk identified two fences, a taller fence ‎

constructed by the adjacent subdivision, and a shorter fence built ‎

on the applicant's property‎. ‎The two fences are very close together ‎

and very tall‎. ‎Anything that the applicant does on their side of the ‎

fence would be an absolute and pure waste of money because the ‎

other fence would screen the view from the residents‎. ‎They are not ‎

trying to avoid meeting the ordinance requirements, but would ‎

rather spend money where landscaping would be much more ‎

advantageous to all the neighbors‎. ‎Member Hooper concurred that ‎

the adjacent houses are substantially higher than the dealership, ‎

but one of the fences is not on the applicant's property and cannot ‎

be used for screening requirements‎. ‎Member Hooper conceded that ‎

all the houses overlook the fence into the dealership parking lot, and ‎

nothing that is planted or built would change that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yurk stated that the grade is the same at the fence line and ‎

climbs on the subdivision side beyond the fence‎.‎

Member Rosen added that a buffer, of any width, would have little ‎

significance in this case‎. ‎However, if the bottoms of a few trees ‎

were as high as the top of the taller fence, they would make some ‎

difference‎.‎

Member Hill agreed with previous speakers and added that ‎15 ‎foot ‎

tall trees would provide some greenery to the homes, particularly as ‎

they grow taller‎. ‎If some of the ‎50 ‎foot buffer width is reduced, ‎

Member Hill would like to see it compensated for in height with a mix ‎

of deciduous and coniferous varieties along the entire length of the ‎

east property line‎. ‎She also encouraged the removal of the chain ‎

link fence and barbed wire‎.‎

The suggestion to plant some tall trees along the entire east ‎

property line was well received by Mr‎. ‎Yurk , to be approved by the ‎

applicant and staff‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yurk was agreeable to removing the barbed wire‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yurk stated ‎

that the chain link fence serves a very important purpose to protect ‎

the inventory from vandals‎. ‎It is a very real problem that the owner ‎

faces‎. ‎The barbed wire is not so critical‎. ‎Member Hill added since ‎

the chain link fence is inside the property line and will be screened ‎

by landscaping, it will not be so visible‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse pointed out a discrepancy between a letter from the ‎

applicant dated January ‎13‎, ‎2000 ‎and the submitted site plan‎. ‎The ‎

letter states that all existing fences will be removed except for the ‎

fence located along the easterly lot line‎. ‎The site plan should ‎

indicate the same‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yurk clarified that the letter refers to the removal of a fence that ‎

crosses the property near the back edge of the existing building‎.‎

Member Hill has looked at other dealerships in the city and they do ‎

not have chain link fencing wrapping the entire property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yurk ‎

responded they are not proposing it all around the property, only in ‎

the back where there is vulnerability‎. ‎The Chair quoted from the ‎

letter dated January ‎13‎, ‎2000‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yurk offered they would be willing to install an opaque wall from ‎

the northernmost portion of the east property line westerly to the ‎

corner of the building in place of the fence‎. ‎From that point the ‎

building provides the security‎. ‎They do need security at the parking ‎

lot line‎. ‎Although they have not had much time to give it a lot of ‎

thought, they would choose something in a concrete or the same ‎

burnished block masonry material used on the building‎. ‎

To Member Rosen that would produce the appearance of a fortress‎. ‎

That is why they offered the landscaping according to Mr‎. ‎Yurk‎.‎

Along Arlington Mr‎. ‎Yurk suggested six foot high decorative metal ‎

fencing, not opaque yet secure, with the addition of low plantings to ‎

the taller trees which would soften the edge of the building and the ‎

fencing‎. ‎They would want something compatible with their future ‎

plans‎. ‎It would be designed to not obstruct the corner clearance ‎

triangle‎.‎

Member Rosen pointed out that there is no ordinance requirement ‎

that the subject fence be there, and therefore the Planning ‎

Commission is a little shaky in trying to cut such a fine edge on it‎. ‎

Discussion returned to the screening between the residential ‎

properties and the subject site‎. ‎It did not make any sense to ‎

Member Hill to have two fences back‎-‎to‎-‎back‎. ‎Considering the ‎

existing elevation, the purposes of the ordinance cannot be met with ‎

a six foot high masonry wall‎. ‎The fence on the adjacent property ‎

could be removed at some point in the future‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran stated it would create the obvious practical problem of ‎

the applicant putting their fate in their neighbor's hands if an ‎

approval were conditioned on the existence of the fence on the ‎

adjacent property‎. ‎It would, however, enable them to take ‎

advantage of the existing fence‎. ‎It would also create an ‎

administrative and enforcement issue potentially‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yurk offered that the homes are relatively new; the dealership ‎

has been there since the ‎1940‎s‎. ‎Member Rosen added that the ‎

developer of the homes was not required to build the fence‎. ‎The ‎

dealership was not required to build one in the ‎1940‎s because it was ‎

not an ordinance requirement at the time‎. ‎Member Rosen would ‎

encourage the others to discover some way in the ordinance to ‎

waive the duplicate fence‎. ‎To construct two fences or walls a ‎

couple feet apart would create another set of problems, including a ‎

place for trash, varmints, and opportunities for vandalism to occur, ‎

which would not meet the ordinance requirements‎.‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Revised Site Plan Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Corneliussen, seconded by Potere, in the matter of File ‎

No‎. ‎99‎-‎027 ‎(‎Fox Volkswagen‎)‎, to grant Revised Site Plan Approval ‎

incorporating the findings and conditions in the Staff Report dated ‎

February ‎24‎, ‎2000‎, plus additional conditions, based on plans dated ‎

received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on ‎

January ‎17‎, ‎2000‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all ‎

applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎ can be met, ‎

subject to conditions noted below‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed development has been designed so as to be ‎

compatible, harmonious, and appropriate in appearance with ‎

the surrounding area‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed development will be adequately served by ‎

essential public facilities and services‎.‎

4‎.‎ The proposed development will not create additional ‎

requirements at public cost for public facilities and services ‎

and will have a positive financial impact on the community by ‎

providing additional tax base to the City‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

Submittal of a revised photometric plan indicating ‎

conformance to exterior lighting requirements‎.‎

Submittal of elevations noting the type of masonry to be ‎

used, as well as proposed color of the bay doors and ‎

all other painted surfaces, including the north, ‎

south, and east elevations to be consistent with the ‎

McKenna Associates recommendation and as stated by ‎

the applicant‎.‎

Addition of a ‎15 ‎foot landscaped buffer along the eastern ‎

property line from the northern side of Lot #‎26 ‎

southerly to the end of the property line‎.‎

Provision of curbing or bumper blocks where parking ‎

spaces abut vehicle storage areas‎.‎

Indication of the topography of the subject site and ‎50 ‎

feet beyond‎.‎

Provision of performance and maintenance guarantees in ‎

the amount of $‎25‎,‎067‎.‎44‎, adjusted as necessary by ‎

the City, to ensure the correct installation of ‎

landscaping‎. ‎Such guarantees to be provided prior to ‎

issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

The applicant show on the plan, consistent with the ‎

buffer modification, a mixture of deciduous and ‎

coniferous trees in the ‎15 ‎foot buffer along the ‎

eastern property line, from the northern part of Lot ‎

#‎26‎, southerly‎. ‎The mixture of trees to be between ‎

the applicant, staff, and the landscape consultant ‎

to satisfy the IVO requirement of the Ordinance‎. ‎

Further, that the applicant install in the same ‎15 ‎

foot buffer, appropriate shrubbery to both ‎

accomplish and to satisfy the intent of the six foot ‎

high opaque visual screen as close to the chain link ‎

fence as possible‎.‎

The applicant remove all barbed wire on site‎.‎

The applicant install six foot high decorative metal ‎

fencing westerly from the eastern property line, in ‎

place of the existing chain link fence, and that the ‎

decorative fencing provide for a gate or entry that ‎

meets all vision requirements‎.‎

The facade of the southernmost proposed building be ‎

approved by the Planning Commission prior to ‎

construction‎.‎

That a monument sign be installed to replace the existing ‎

pole mounted sign as approved by staff‎.‎

Three inch trees be installed in landscaped islands ‎

instead of two inch trees‎.‎

The applicant plant two low planting or shrub landscaping ‎

between each tree along the northern property line ‎

on Arlington‎. ‎

2.‎ 2.‎ 14‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Hill, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, ‎

Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

MOTION ‎

CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Plans dated received by the Planning Department on ‎

January ‎17‎, ‎2000‎, sheets C‎1‎, L‎1‎, L‎2‎, A‎1‎, A‎2‎, and A‎3‎, as prepared by ‎

Gerald J‎. ‎Yurk Associates; Staff Report prepared by Deborah ‎

Millhouse dated February ‎24‎, ‎2000‎; letter from McKenna Associates ‎

dated February ‎8‎, ‎2000‎; letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates ‎

dated February ‎1‎, ‎2000 ‎and revised February ‎24‎, ‎2000‎; memo from ‎

James Dietrick to Patricia Goodwin dated January ‎3‎, ‎2000‎; letters ‎

from Johnson & Anderson dated December ‎28‎, ‎1999 ‎and October ‎

26‎, ‎1999‎; Environmental Impact Statement; Land Use and Tree ‎

Removal Permit Application‎.)‎

A motion was made by Ramanauskas, seconded by Potere, that this matter be ‎

Granted‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas and Hill

8 -

2000-0185

Buffer Modifications ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎027 ‎- ‎Fox Volkswagen‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎

MOTION‎ by Potere, seconded by Hooper, in the matter of File No‎. ‎

99‎-‎027 ‎(‎Fox Volkswagen‎)‎, that the Planning Commission approve ‎

the Buffer Modification to modify and‎/‎or waive the buffer and ‎

screening requirements to permit a buffer width reduction along the ‎

eastern property line from ‎50 ‎feet to ‎23 ‎feet adjacent to Lot #‎27‎; ‎

further reduced to ‎15 ‎feet for the balance of the property until the ‎

southernmost portion of the eastern property line; incorporating ‎

Finding No‎. ‎1 ‎in the Staff Report dated February ‎24‎, ‎2000‎, plus two ‎

conditions, based on plans dated received by the City of Rochester ‎

Hills Planning Department on January ‎17‎, ‎2000‎.‎

FINDING‎:‎

The requested buffer width, along with the proposed ‎

landscaping, should provide an adequate buffer to ‎

the limited number of off‎-‎street parking spaces ‎

located immediately adjacent to the northerly ‎

portion of the easterly property line‎. ‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

That a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees, as ‎

approved and agreed upon by the applicant, staff, ‎

and landscape consultant, be installed to satisfy ‎

the intent of the IVO requirements of the Ordinance‎. ‎

That shrubbery be planted along the eastern property line ‎

to accomplish the six foot opaque screening ‎

requirement and to satisfy the intent of the ‎

Ordinance; planted as close to the existing chain ‎

link fence as possible to guarantee the survival of ‎

the plantings‎. ‎

2.‎ 2‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎ MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

A motion was made by Potere, seconded by Hooper, that this matter be ‎

Approved‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas and Hill

8 -

OLD BUSINESS

2000-0173

Proposed Ordinance Amendment ‎(‎Public Hearing was held ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎00‎) ‎- ‎ORT, ‎

Office‎-‎Research‎-‎Technology‎. ‎To consider an amendment to Section ‎19‎.‎02 ‎of Zoning ‎

Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎of the City of Rochester Hills to allow outdoor swimming pools and ‎

tennis courts accessory to health or exercise clubs in the ORT zoning district, repeal ‎

conflicting ordinances, and prescribe a civil fine for violations‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated January ‎

13‎, ‎2000 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of ‎

the record hereof‎.)‎

The Chair invited comments from those in attendance at the meeting ‎

even though this was not a Public Hearing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser commented that this proposed change is geared toward ‎

one proposal for a development in the community, and does not feel ‎

that the ordinance amendment is appropriate‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper stated that the special approval use is the same as a ‎

conditional use, and feels that every proposed plan which comes ‎

before the Planning Commission could be reviewed to see if it ‎

would apply, and Commission would have the ability to exercise ‎

judgment as to whether or not it is appropriate in that location‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser indicated that when the ORT amendment was approved ‎

by Council, there was nothing in the concept that dealt with ‎

anything outside the structure‎. ‎The current ordinance states ‎

everything must be inside the structure‎. ‎The proposed amendment ‎

change is inconsistent with anything about how ORT was ‎

discussed, conceived, the policies behind it and how it was finally ‎

approved‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen remembers previous ORT discussions where the health ‎

club provisions were intended to allow a fitness center as part of a ‎

complex, owned by the people who occupied the building for their ‎

own people, or the idea someone could join if in a neighboring ‎

building‎. ‎The goal of the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan is to ‎

direct development in certain directions‎. ‎The more obvious solution ‎

is a zoning change‎.‎

MOTION by Ruggiero, seconded by Ramanauskas, to recommend ‎

denial of an amendment to Section ‎19‎.‎02 ‎of Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎

200 ‎to allow outdoor swimming pools and tennis courts accessory ‎

to health or exercise clubs in the ORT zoning district, repeal ‎

conflicting ordinances, and prescribe a civil fine for violations‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Hill, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, ‎

Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎ MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Public Hearing Notice for February ‎15‎, ‎2000‎; Staff Memo ‎

prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated January ‎13‎, ‎2000‎; Letter from ‎

John Staran dated December ‎27‎, ‎1999‎; Proposed Ordinance ‎

Amendment dated ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎99‎.)‎

A motion was made by Ruggiero, seconded by Ramanauskas, that this matter be ‎

Recommended for Denial to the City Council Regular Meeting‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas and Hill

8 -

2000-0175

Proposed Ordinance Amendment ‎- ‎Roadside Stands‎. (‎Public Hearing Only; there will be ‎

no discussion or decision‎). ‎To consider an amendment to Section ‎21‎.‎07 ‎of Zoning ‎

Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎of the City of Rochester Hills to apply in one‎-‎family residential ‎

detached condominium developments the same restrictions on roadside stands and ‎

markets and Christmast tree sales that apply in residential subdivisions, to clarify what ‎

products may be sold in connection with Christmas tree sales, to repeal the requirement ‎

that all produce sold at roadside stands or markets not located within a residential ‎

subdivision or condominium shall be grown on the immediate property or other property ‎

in the city owned by leased by the permit applicant, to repeal conflicting ordinances, and ‎

to prescribe a civil fine for violations‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated February ‎

10‎, ‎2000 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of ‎

the record hereof‎.)‎

The Chair invited comments from those in attendance at the meeting ‎

even though this was not a Public Hearing ‎(‎the Public Hearing was ‎

held ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎00‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Marvin Williams, ‎820 ‎N‎. ‎Adams, came forward and ‎

commented he is the last operating roadside stand in the City‎. ‎He ‎

indicated he supports the proposed amendment because it has ‎

outlived its usefulness as a mandate for selling produce‎. ‎He added ‎

it is unrealistic to expect that there is enough property left in the City ‎

to grow produce‎. ‎With all the development and the shrinking of the ‎

agricultural land, the ordinance is not realistic‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser explained that the ordinance was designed to allow ‎

people with large parcels to be able to sell their own produce, as ‎

opposed to encouraging people to open up roadside stands to sell ‎

goods brought in from all over the state‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser agreed with Mr‎. ‎

Williams that times have changed, but that could mean that there ‎

shouldn't be roadside stands in the City now‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Marvin Williams indicated that the customer base he has ‎

will attest to the fact that there is a need for a roadside stand on ‎

Adams Road‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser commented that he has a general problem with writing a ‎

new law for one entity, because it sets a precedent for Council or ‎

administration to have to address every citizen that comes forward ‎

to have a law of the community changed because it negatively ‎

impacts that individual‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser also recognizes the separation of ‎

powers, and the executive branch of government who chooses to ‎

exercise their discretion in the enforcement of laws‎. ‎If this law is ‎

somehow burdensome to a particular person, it is within the ‎

discretion of the administration to choose not to enforce it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen feels the intent of the original ordinance was to ‎

accommodate the remaining farm‎-‎type activities that existed in the ‎

earlier part of the century, and does not see any evidence that the ‎

ordinance had the intent of promoting commercial operations in ‎

residentially zoned or used property‎. ‎Produce grown on site was ‎

allowed to be sold on site‎. ‎The proposed ordinance amendment ‎

would change the intent to promote commercial operations in ‎

residentially zoned property‎. ‎That change to promotion would be ‎

contrary both to the spirit and to the policies of the Master Land Use ‎

Plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen feels it would also be in direct conflict with the ‎

Zoning Ordinance structure which seeks to separate uses by ‎

zoning‎. ‎The surrounding communities which allow residential ‎

roadside stands, only allows the sale of produce grown on site, ‎

which is fair to the people who grow the produce‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen does ‎

not see a logical basis for the proposed change, and feels there are ‎

many strong reasons not to change the ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell agreed with Mr‎. ‎Rosen‎. ‎Changing laws is supposed to ‎

be for the benefit of the entire community, not for the benefit of one ‎

particular situation‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Potere, to recommend denial of ‎

an amendment to Section ‎21‎.‎07 ‎of Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎to ‎

apply in one‎-‎family residential detached condominium ‎

developments the same restrictions on roadside stands and ‎

markets and Christmas tree sales that apply in residential ‎

subdivisions, to clarify what products may be sold in connection ‎

with Christmas tree sales, to repeal the requirement that all produce ‎

sold at roadside stands or markets not located within a residential ‎

subdivision or condominium shall be grown on the immediate ‎

property or other property in the city owned or leased by the permit ‎

applicant, to repeal conflicting ordinances, and to prescribe a civil ‎

fine for violations‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Hill, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, ‎

Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

MOTION ‎

CARRIED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Potere, ‎Resolved,‎ to ask City ‎

Council to study the need in the City of Rochester Hills for a ‎

seasonal outdoor flower and fresh produce facility, such as a ‎

farmers market so‎-‎called in other communities, in a regional ‎

location, to be sponsored by the City of Rochester Hills or a place ‎

provided for on municipal property‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Hill, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Rosen, ‎

Ramanauskas, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

MOTION ‎

CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated February ‎24‎, ‎

2000‎; Letter from John Staran dated February ‎21‎, ‎2000‎; Excerpts ‎

from Waterford Township Zoning Ordinance, Article XI‎. ‎Transient ‎

Merchants, Sec‎. ‎10‎-‎393‎. ‎Exemptions and Sec‎. ‎10‎-‎387‎. ‎Purpose; Staff ‎

Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated February ‎10‎, ‎2000 ‎

including Chart of Comparisons; Public Hearing Notice; Staff Memo ‎

prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated January ‎26‎, ‎2000‎; Letter from ‎

John Staran dated December ‎9‎, ‎1999‎; Proposed Ordinance ‎

Amendment dated ‎12‎/‎09‎/‎99‎.) ‎

A motion was made by Boswell, seconded by Potere, that this matter be ‎

Recommended for Denial to the City Council Regular Meeting‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas and Hill

8 -

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

March ‎7‎, ‎2000 ‎Regular Meeting‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning ‎

Commission, Chairperson Kaiser adjourned the special meeting at ‎

12‎:‎05 ‎a‎.‎m‎.‎, Wednesday, March ‎1‎, ‎2000 ‎Michigan time‎.‎