Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

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

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Planning Commission

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

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Nicholas Kaltsounis,

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

Present

8 -

Greg Hooper

Absent

1 -

Quorum present

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0015

December 16, 2008 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated December 2008

B) Letter from Mr. and Mrs. J. Vincent Hellmann, dated January 17, 2009

re: Rezoning to RE, Residential Estate

C) Memo from M. Gentry dated January 20, 2009 regarding changes that

had been made to 12/16/08 Minutes per request by Ms. Brnabic.

NEW BUSINESS

2009-0013

Buffer Modification Request - City File No. 08-008 - Nakkash Office Building, a proposed

5,600 square-foot medical office building and garage with a 3,800 square-foot storage

basement on .82 acres located on the west side of John R, south of Auburn, zoned B-2,

General Business, Parcel No. 15-35-226-023, Dr. Emad Nakkash, applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated January

20, 2009 had been placed on file and by reference became part of the

record thereof.)

Present for the applicant were William Mosher, Apex Engineering, 47745

Van Dyke Ave., Shelby Township, MI 48317; Kevin Brandon, Preview

Architecture + Planning, 512 Madison Ave., Rochester, MI 48307; and

Dr. Emad Nakkash, 888 Brownstown, Troy, MI 48085.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the applicant was planning to build a medical

office building (eye clinic) on a parcel south of Auburn on the west side of

John R, which abutted a Sherwin Williams paint store to the north. The

building would be approximately 5,600 square feet, including an attached

three-car garage. There was an associated basement, and the applicant

agreed to restrict it for storage only and to not turn it into office space in

the future. Mr. Delacourt advised that the lot was rather narrow, but that it

was zoned appropriately for the proposed use. The applicant had been

through several Site Plan reviews, and the parking, retention and

landscaping had been approved; however, he disclosed that there was a

request for Buffer Modifications along the southern property line due to

the size of the lot and the utility lines that had to be relocated. Normally, a

Type B Buffer, with a 25-width, six-foot opaque wall, fence or berm and

20-foot IVO was required. The applicants were working with the City’s

Landscape Architect on the type of plantings that would work. He added

that the project was proposed to be LEED certified, and that there were

some unique features to the site. He concluded that the reviewers

recommended approval or approval with conditions.

Mr. Mosher mentioned that they had spoken with the neighbors to the

south and to the north. The neighbor to the south expressed that he

would like to keep his existing eight-foot fence. The applicants had

proposed a wall to meet the screening requirement, but the neighbor

wished for the fence to remain. Regarding lowering the IVO, they

thought about putting the utility lines underground, but it was very cost

prohibitive. Mr. Mosher advised that they tried to talk with the property

owner to the north, but he was not receptive. They had wanted to show

one entrance/exit to John R, to try and reduce the number of curb cuts,

with complete circulation around both buildings and façade

improvements, but they ran into a dead end with that neighbor. He

recapped that they were requesting the Buffer Modifications because they

could not fit a utilizable building on the parcel without a Modification for

the width and because of the location of the utility lines on the south.

Chairperson Boswell referred to the north property line, and said that a

zero setback was allowed if the building had no windows or openings. He

realized the intent of the Ordinance was that without windows, someone

would not have to look out one onto a wall. He acknowledged that

because the applicant desired LEED certification and light into the

building, that they were proposing windows above the wall, but he

wondered if that would create any kind of a problem to get around or if it

would influence the intent.

Mr. Delacourt advised that Staff discussed it, and by the strictest

definition of the word windows, the glass panels would count. They left

them on the Plan because they did not think the windows would impact

the intent. If they needed to be removed, he would understand.

Chairperson Boswell thought that the intent meant that someone would

not be looking out at a wall. In this instance, the windows were higher than

the building, and someone looking out would see clouds. Mr. Delacourt

said that Staff was comfortable calling them skylights.

Mr. Anzek added that the intent was to not make someone look at a solid

wall, but it was also to not create a perceived escape route in case of a

fire. The skylights would not be considered a fire escape. Chairperson

Boswell asked the Commissioners if they had a concern with it. Mr.

Kaltsounis said he could see the Chair’s point, but he felt the windows

were offset. Chairperson Boswell said that it did not bother him; he just

did not want it in violation of the Ordinance. If they were skylights, he felt

that would work.

Ms. Brnabic brought up the eight-foot wood fence, and recalled that the

neighbors said they would prefer not to have a wall. She had gone to the

site earlier, and noticed that the eight-foot fence went mostly along the

south property line, but at the front, it lowered to five feet. She wondered if

they had asked the neighbor if he would prefer it be eight feet the whole

length to block the new development. Mr. Mosher said there were some

site concerns at that area because of the driveway. He was not exactly

sure what transpired when Dr. Nakkash spoke with the neighbors, but he

suggested that they could ask about the height. Ms. Brnabic suggested

that the fence may have been lowered in the front for aesthetic purposes.

She did not believe that the fence went all the way to the road, and she

wondered if the neighbors felt differently about the five-foot part of the

fence because something was now going to be constructed. Dr. Nakkash

stated that they wanted to keep the fence as it was. Ms. Brnabic

questioned whether they would want the fence raised to eight feet, and

said she would like it if they discussed it again with the neighbors to see

what their desire would be, now that a new development was going to be

there. Mr. Mosher said that Dr. Nakkash showed the neighbors the Site

Plan, and they liked the development, and they realized it was zoned for a

commercial building. Ms. Brnabic said she was not insinuating that they

were against the development; she just wondered if they had discussed

raising the height and with what they were comfortable. She asked the

applicants if they would be willing to put in an eight-foot fence if the

neighbors wanted it. Mr. Mosher asked Dr. Nakkash if he would be willing

to work with the neighbors if it was a Condition of approval, and he agreed

that he would.

Mr. Schroeder asked if the buildings would be abutting or if there would be

a space between them. Mr. Brandon said there would be about 18 inches

between them. Mr. Schroeder did not think that would be enough room to

be able to maintain it and clear the debris that would get in between. He

suggested that there should be enough room for someone to clean, and

he did not think 18-inches was practical.

Chairperson Boswell asked what problems it would cause with the buffer

on the south side if the building were moved two-and-a-half feet. Mr.

Delacourt said it would lessen the buffer width from ten to

seven-and-a-half feet, and that it should not cause any problems with the

plantings. Mr. Brandon said that it would be workable on his end.

Mr. Schroeder asked about the condition of the fence. Mr. Mosher

replied that it was in very good shape. Mr. Schroeder asked if they had

worked anything out with regards to maintenance of the fence. He said he

would not want the neighbor totally responsible for the maintenance if

someone backed into it, for example, and he would like to see shared

responsibility. Mr. Mosher said that could be arranged, because Dr.

Nakkash had a working relationship with the neighbors.

Chairperson Boswell mentioned that if the building was moved

two-and-a-half feet, that the parking would also move, and he asked if that

would interfere with any utility poles. Mr. Brandon said they were currently

working with DTE on moving the poles, so he offered that they would

make the necessary adjustments.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to the scored burnished concrete block and asked

if it was painted or stained. He commented that he really liked the colors.

Mr. Brandon replied that it was a colored aggregate block, and that the

color was inherent in the block. Mr. Kaltsounis complimented the green

shade. He asked about the other panel, and was told it was a cement

fiber, and that the pigment was also in the material. Mr. Kaltsounis asked

if it was stained, which Mr. Brandon denied. Mr. Kaltsounis said he liked

the design, which was different from the typical square block they had

seen. He observed that it was “quite pleasing to the eye.”

Mr. Reece noted that there would be quite a bit of landscaping planted in

front of the wood fence (applicant’s side), and he asked how that would be

maintained over the years when it grew. Mr. Mosher said that Dr.

Nakkash would maintain the landscaping. It was going to be a fairly

significant investment, and he felt Dr. Nakkash would do his part to keep

everything in order. Mr. Reece clarified that the neighbor owned the

fence. He asked Dr. Nakkash if there would be some type of agreement

stating that he would maintain the fence on his side. Dr. Nakkash said

that the family next door was very friendly, and they were happy to hear

there was a clinic coming next door. He did not see a big issue with the

fence. Mr. Reece cautioned that the reality was that in five years or so,

when the fence needed to be painted or repaired, it would be very difficult

without an agreement. Dr. Nakkash said it would be in his best interest to

keep the fence in good shape and aesthetically updated.

Mr. Reece referred to the north elevation, and asked if it would have

single wythe masonry where it was adjacent to the existing building, which

was confirmed. He asked about the exterior finish on the masonry. Mr.

Brandon said it would be normal block where the Sherwin Williams

building was, and they would be able to seal it now that there would be

more room. To the west it would turn into the same block as on the rest of

the building. Mr. Reece said it would not be easy to lay it up in a

three-foot space, and he was struggling with that. He asked if that would

be a fire-rated wall, and Mr. Brandon advised that it would be a one-hour

wall. Mr. Reece asked if the clear story carried a one-hour rating, and Mr.

Brandon responded that the clear story would be past the requirement for

a one-hour wall. Mr. Reece clarified with Mr. Delacourt that the Fire

Department did not have issues with the north elevation. Mr. Delacourt

advised that the Fire Department did not, but he was not sure what would

occur when they submitted for Building Permits. He believed that the

Building Department did more of that type of code review.

Mr. Reece asked how many points they were at for LEED Silver. Mr.

Brandon said 33, with a few maybes. The goal was 35, which was well

within Silver. Mr. Reece asked if the basement would be just storage and

unoccupied, which was confirmed, and he asked if the garage would be

for personal vehicle storage, which was also confirmed. He asked if

vehicles would be left there after hours. Dr. Nakkash stated that the

garage would just be used during business hours.

Mr. Klomp agreed that the garage stood out a little, and he asked if it was

desired because of snow and hot weather. Dr. Nakkash agreed that he

did not like snow on his car.

Mr. Yukon asked what steps would be taken to ensure that the paint store

would not be damaged during construction. Mr. Brandon said that the

Building Department raised that concern, and he stressed that whatever

they had to have in place they would. Mr. Yukon referred to the LEED

goals, where he had read that several features of the project “might” be

incorporated. He asked Mr. Brandon to elaborate on the features he

knew would work for the building and others that might not.

Mr. Brandon explained that the LEED credit ratings were set up in five

different categories. Under Sustainable Sites, they were looking at

stormwater design and quantity and quality control, which had to do with

stormwater management and runoff. There would be a reflective roof to

lower energy consumption and heat the building. There would be

pervious concrete, low wattage exterior lighting, and water efficiency

through the use of special toilets and sinks. Under Energy and

Atmosphere, the fundamental and enhanced commissioning of the

building essentially monitored the construction of the mechanical

systems of the building. Mr. Yukon asked if there would be some features

added as they constructed the building, noting that those were generally

incorporated into a building design before it was built. He said it seemed

as if it might be an “add as you build.” Mr. Brandon stressed that they

definitely had to have an idea of what they would do prior because of the

integrated design and whole building approach. Mr. Yukon asked if it

could end up as a Bronze Certified building. Mr. Brandon clarified that

there was no Bronze; it could be “Certified” or "Silver." He said there was

a possibility they could get Gold in the end, but he would rather shoot for

Silver. Mr. Yukon thought there was a Bronze designation, and he asked

if they had eliminated it. Mr. Brandon was just aware that the first was

called Certified.

Mr. Brandon continued that they would recycle construction waste and

buy regional materials locally. They would use low VOC materials inside,

such as carpets, sealants and paints. Dr. Nakkash noted that his

construction manager was present, and that he was a Certified LEED EP,

and he promised that they would go as green as they could.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that A&A Liquor was the last building in front of

the Planning Commission with a zero setback. He asked Staff if there

had been any concerns or questions that came out of the construction of

that facility. Mr. Delacourt said there had been none as far as he was

aware, but he said he would check with the Building Department. Mr.

Anzek noted that the adjacent property owner routinely visited City Hall,

and she had never mentioned anything.

Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Schroeder moved the following motion,

modifying it to change the buffer width to seven-and-a-half feet on the

south side to accommodate additional space between the subject

building and the building to the north:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Kaltsounis, in the matter of City File

No. 08-008 (Nakkash Medical Office Building), the Planning Commission

grants Buffer Modifications to reduce the buffer width along the southern

property line to 7.5 feet and to allow lower plantings to satisfy the IVO

requirements, based on plans dated received by the Planning and

Development Department on January 13, 2009 with the following four (4)

findings:

Findings:

1. The landscape/screening plan will protect the character of new and

existing residential neighborhoods against negative impacts such

as noise, glare, and light pollution.

2. The utility lines require a reduction in the IVO height for the Type B

Buffer on the southern property line.

3. The buffer width along the southern property line is being reduced to

allow the required traffic/fire lane and building width on the narrow

property.

4. The proposed plan meets the criteria of Section 138-1218 to allow the

Planning Commission to modify or waive the buffer requirements

for the proposed development.

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

Granted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

2009-0014

Site Plan Approval Request - City File No. 08-008 - Nakkash Office Building

Chairperson Boswell indicated that the City’s Landscape Architect did not

locate any regulated trees on site, yet he noted a Condition about

installing Tree Protective Fencing. Mr. Delacourt explained that it was for

off-site trees, which could be impacted by the development, and he

advised that the driplines of offsite trees should be protected during

construction as well.

Mr. Kaltsounis commented that he was looking forward to the

development. He felt it was the first one that was attempting significant

LEED certification, and he appreciated Dr. Nakkash's investment in the

City. He thought the development could really be a stepping stone for the

City in the future, not only because of the design, but because of the way

it would work with the environment. He thanked the applicants for bringing

it forward. Dr. Nakkash agreed that it could be a good example for people

to consider for future buildings in the City. Mr. Kaltsounis moved the

following motion, adding two conditions as discussed:

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File

No. 08-008 (Nakkash Medical Office Building), the Planning Commission

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

and Development Department on January 13, 2009, with the following five

(5) findings and subject to the following eleven (11) conditions.

Findings:

1. The site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all

applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as other

City ordinances, standards and requirements can be met subject

to the conditions noted below.

2. The proposed development will be accessed by ingress to and egress

from John R Road.

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

problems and promote safety.

4. There appears to be a satisfactory and harmonious relationship with

existing contiguous development and adjacent neighborhoods.

5. The proposed development should not have an unreasonably

detrimental nor an injurious effect upon the natural characteristics

and features of the site or those of the surrounding area.

Conditions:

1. The applicant shall obtain a Land Improvement Permit prior to

starting any work on site.

2. All offsite drainage easements, stormwater agreements, drive

approach paving and calculations regarding the underground

detention system must be approved by Engineering Services prior

to Construction Plan Approval, and conditions noted in the letter

from HRC dated December 23, 2008 must be reviewed and

approved by Engineering Services prior to Final Site Plan

Approval

3. Appropriate approvals from the Oakland County Drain

Commissioner must be obtained prior to issuance of a Land

Improvement Permit for this project.

4. Tree protective fencing, as reviewed and approved by the City’s

Landscape Architect, shall be installed prior to issuance of the

Land Improvement Permit.

5. Address conditions of approval from the City’s Landscape

Architect’s memo dated January 14, 2009, including plantings cost

estimate and provision of Performance and Maintenance Bonds to

be determined by the City’s Landscape Architect, prior to Final

Approval by Staff.

6. Address conditions of approval from the Building Department memo

dated December 11, 2008, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

7. Show apex of the corner clearance triangle at the south side of the

intersection of the driveway and the John R right-of-way, prior to

Final Approval by Staff.

8. Address conditions from Oakland County Health Division letter dated

December 3, 2008, prior to Construction Plan Approval.

9. Add a note indicating that the basement will remain storage only and

not be converted into additional office due to parking

requirements, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

10. The building is to be relocated southwards to create a maintenance

access gap of three feet between it and the building to the north.

11. That the developer allows for an eight-foot fence to the south if so

desired by the neighbor at the time of construction.

Mr. Reece expressed that he was still a little concerned about the

constructability of the building on the north side. He asked if the north

wall was a load bearing masonry wall. Mr. Brandon said that was the plan.

Mr. Reece clarified that there would be one continuous trench footing

along the property line, and asked what they planned to do to protect the

existing footings on the building to the north. Mr. Brandon said they

would look at the potential for underpinning if needed. He added that

there were a lot of methods that could be used to protect the existing wall.

He said there might not necessarily be a trench footing; there might have

to be an excavated pad - spread footing. He related that they would pull

the basement back about 12 feet from the wall so they would not have

underpinning problems with the building to the north. He felt it was

something that could be worked out to satisfy the Building Department.

Mr. Reece asked if the clear story would be glazed from the exterior or

interior. Mr. Brandon said the glazing would be on the exterior. Mr.

Reece observed that the height of the existing building to the north was

actually higher than the metal coping. Mr. Brandon agreed, and said it

was for northern light. Mr. Reece said he understood that, but he felt that

the feasibility of constructing the building on the north property line and

getting the hardie board siding up and the clear story in there would be

difficult. Mr. Brandon said that the clear story would be about 10-11 feet

inboard of the block wall. Mr. Reece asked if the building and garage

would be sprinkled, which Mr. Brandon confirmed.

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

Approved.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motions had passed

unanimously. Mr. Delacourt reiterated that the applicants took a lot of

time to work with the property owner to the north, even offering to do some

improvements to that site. Staff was very grateful because it cost them

about a month or two in the process. The owner to the north did not

appear willing to work with the applicants, but Mr. Delacourt stressed that

they had made every effort.

2008-0651

Tree Removal Permit - City File No. 94-426.8 - Rochester College Health and Life

Science Center, a 90,600 square-foot center on 1.5 acres on Avon, east of Livernois,

zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, Parcel No. 15-15-451-008, French Associates,

applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated January

20, 2009 and accompanying Site Plans and correspondence had been

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

Present for the applicant was Paul Corneliussen, French Associates,

1600 Parkdale, Rochester, MI 48307; Dave Hunter, Professional

Engineering Associates, 2430 Rochester Ct., Troy, MI 48083-1872; and

Mark Johnson, Facilities Director, Rochester College, 800 W. Avon Rd.,

Rochester Hills, MI 48307.

Mr. Delacourt advised that Rochester College was proposing an

approximately 90,000 square-foot Health and Life Science Center on

Avon Road, east of the Library on campus. The site was governed by a

Planned Unit Development Agreement, which had been negotiated

several years ago with the College based on the Planning Commission’s

request. The Planning Commission wanted to have some idea of the

future Master Plan for the College. A 40-acre Historic District used to

exist on the campus and, as part of the PUD Agreement, the District was

reduced in size, and the College agreed to keep and maintain the

buildings associated with it and move them at the time of construction of

the new building.

Mr. Delacourt continued that the proposed Center complied with the PUD

and the applicable codes for parking, setbacks and other requirements

related to the site. There were 272 parking spaces proposed, and the Site

Plan showed the total parking requirements for the College. He noted

that there was a Wetland Use Permit (WUP) being requested, which had

been considered extensively through the PUD process and the Site Plan.

The mitigation related to the WUP was not an acre-for-acre creation of

new wetland on site, and the applicants supplied a streambank

stabilization and enhancement plan for portions of the Clinton River that

ran through the campus. He said he was not going to go through the

entire plan, as it was very detailed. The plan had been reviewed by ASTI,

the City’s Wetland Consultant, but before the applicants showed every

detail about the streambank enhancement on the Site Plans, they hoped

to get project approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Mr. Delacourt noted that there would be a pedestrian walkway that circled

the building on the east and north sides that would double as a fire

access. The Fire Department had reviewed the access and the bollard

details and recommended approval, and the Plan had been

recommended for approval by all applicable reviewers as well.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Corneliussen if he had anything to add.

Mr. Corneliussen introduced Mr. Johnson, who spoke about the project

on behalf of the College. Mr. Johnson related that he was filling in for the

Vice President, Clint Pleasant. He explained that the project was initiated

about five years ago, but because of funding, it never came forward. They

now had a partner who had breathed new life into the project, and he

commented that it was extremely dear to their hearts. The College had a

National Championship basketball team, and a student body who was in

desperate need of a Health and Life Sciences Center, classroom space

and a gym. They were very excited about it.

Mr. Yukon asked if there was currently a Health and Life Sciences

program at the College. Mr. Johnson advised that they had an

Interdisciplinary Studies course, partnered with Oakland University, and

they were looking to add Health and Life Sciences in partnership with a

hospital. Mr. Yukon clarified that they needed a new building because

they needed to expand. Mr. Johnson said they were at capacity with

classroom space, and they did not currently have a gym. Mr. Yukon

asked how many classrooms they currently had. Mr. Johnson said they

had about 20, and a lot of those were smaller. Mr. Yukon asked if the

current enrollment projection supported the building, which Mr. Johnson

confirmed. Mr. Yukon questioned how far out the projection was, and Mr.

Johnson was not exactly sure. They had a slight decrease in enrollment,

but he did not know if they had put a number of years to the projection.

Mr. Yukon asked if they would definitely occupy the building rather than

build it and have empty classrooms. Mr. Johnson said they definitely had

enough students. Mr. Yukon asked what the old gym would be used for,

and Mr. Johnson said that they planned to use it as a practice court, as it

currently was. They now played home games at Rochester or Stony

Creek High. Mr. Yukon commented that he felt that what they were doing

with the Clinton River was very important, and he was glad they were

taking it into consideration. He stated that it was a very important natural

resource, not only to the community of Rochester Hills but also to the

surrounding communities.

Mr. Klomp agreed that Rochester College was a true gem for the

community, and he indicated that it was a pleasure to be working with the

College on the project. It seemed to him to be a very good building for

the school and the basketball team, which he realized must have

experienced a lot of difficulty practicing. He expressed that it was

exciting, and that he looked forward to seeing a good team come out of it.

Mr. Dettloff asked the projected timeframe for project start and

completion. Mr. Johnson relayed that they were still in communication

with the partner regarding funding. There had been a fund raising effort

under way since they began, and those were the pacing factors for when

they would actually break ground and complete the project. Mr. Dettloff

clarified that the funding was not all in place, even though it looked

hopeful. Mr. Corneliussen said that it was a huge benchmark in any

project’s development that came close three years ago, but they felt that

this would invigorate the continued fundraising efforts, especially by

illustrating approval for the wetland issues.

Mr. Schroeder referred to drainage on page 6.1, and said it showed a

storm sewer outlet that discharged into retention Basin A. He said he

could not located Basin A, and he asked if that was the wetland area on

the right. Mr. Hunter explained that the stormwater would discharge in two

spots. The next page showed a drainage plan, and he noted that the

additional stormwater from the impervious area would be drained to

Wetland D, which was the pond behind the existing facilities on campus.

There would be additional drainage from the soccer field and baseball

field, and the drain area would be through Wetland B, which was north of

the two fields.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that Rochester College had been in front of the

Planning Commission many times, and at one time, there had been a

question about parking. There was a concern, and he could not quite

remember what it was, but they were considering adding something to the

new Ordinance to address colleges. He asked about the current parking

situation at the beginning of the semester and if people were parking on

the fields.

Mr. Johnson said that two years ago, the College added 99 spaces in two

spots on campus - along the frontage and in the back. Mr. Kaltounis

asked how many spots they would lose to construct the building, and was

told that 115 were proposed to be removed, and that they were adding

272. The parking calculations were on the cover sheet. Mr. Kaltsounis

remembered a parking issue they were trying to work through, but he was

not quite sure about it since it was four or five years ago. Mr. Schroeder

recalled that they needed additional parking, and there was something

about it in the Agreement.

Mr. Kaltsounis noted the last page of the Photometric Plan, and said that

the footcandles were not at zero at the lot line. Mr. Delacourt advised that

the Ordinance required that not more than one footcandle should project

across a residential lot line. The numbers that were higher were not at the

lot line. He maintained that they could be reduced, but he felt that what

was proposed was consistent with the rest of the campus, and he thought

it should be consistent.

Mr. Reece asked Mr. Corneliussen if they had considered adding

pervious surface parking in lieu of traditional asphalt. Mr. Corneliussen

said that would be a great idea. He said they were so early in the project

that those kinds of details had not been worked out. He commented that

the previous presentation was exciting, and that LEED certification was

certainly a worthy cause. He noted that sustainable design was a part of

most design firm projects. There were a lot of great products, and he said

they would be willing to investigate them. Mr. Hunter agreed that they had

used them on certain sites. He cautioned that there were challenges with

the College site, and he could not really commit until they had looked at it

from all angles. Without the sub-face materials being somewhat

pervious, it might be difficult, but he agreed that it was certainly worth

looking at. Mr. Reece mentioned that the price had come down

significantly. Mr. Schroeder pointed out that with poor soils, they would

have to have a 4-6 foot paving section. Mr. Delacourt said that the

applicant had agreed to investigate best practices for stormwater

management as part of their construction plan submittal. They had

already walked the site with the City Engineer, especially as it pertained to

the wetland areas. They had agreed to work with the City to improve those

situations over the entire site.

Mr. Dettloff brought up the partnership with a hospital the applicants

referenced, and he asked if that hospital was Crittenton. Mr. Johnson

said they were in the middle of talks, so he was not personally at liberty to

say. Mr. Dettloff asked if there might be an opportunity for part of the

facility to be used as a teaching facility if the relationship went the way

they anticipated. Mr. Johnson agreed that there definitely could be.

Mr. Kaltsounis said that when he first looked at the elevations, he

wondered how red would red be and how brown would brown be, or how the

bricks would really look. He asked if they brought any samples. Mr.

Corneliussen apologized that he had not. He said that it was pretty

obvious that they were being respectful of the existing campus. Their

goal was to introduce another complimentary brick color. The intent was

not for it to be a stark contrast. It would have a darker tone with a little bit

of red so it had a little pizzazz being on Avon Road. Mr. Kaltsounis

wondered if it was a concern for anyone, and said he was all right with it.

Mr. Corneluissen said they would be happy to review the colors with Staff

if the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate.

Mr. Reece thought the building looked great, but he suggested that it

would be nice to see a color palette.

Mr. Schroeder asked if there was anything to discuss regarding the Tree

Removal, and hearing no further comments, he moved the following

motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File No.

94-426.8 (Rochester College Health and Life Science Center), the

Planning Commission grants a Tree Removal Permit, based on plans

dated received by the Planning and Development Department on

December 4, 2008, with the following two (2) findings and subject to the

following one (1) condition.

Findings:

1. The proposed removal and replacement of regulated trees is in

conformance with the Tree Conservation Ordinance

2. The applicant is proposing to replace 121 regulated trees with 121

tree replacement credits (61 trees) on site, as required by the Tree

Conservation Ordinance.

Condition:

1. Tree protective fencing, as reviewed and approved by the City’s

Landscape

Architect, shall be installed prior to issuance of the Land

Improvement Permit.

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

Granted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

2008-0652

Request for Approval of a Wetland Use Permit - Rochester College Health and Life

Sciences Center

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Kaltsounis, in the matter of City File

No. 94-426.8 (Rochester College Health and Life Sciences Center), the

Planning Commission recommends to City Council a Wetland Use

Permit for 20,000 square-feet of permanent wetland impacts to Wetland B

from the construction of a softball diamond and associated grading in its

northern portion and from the placement of two rip-rap outlet structures in

Wetland B; for 100 square-feet of permanent wetland impacts from the

construction of a rip-rap end section in a storm water ditch beneath Avon

Road and the proposed bike path along Avon Road; for approximately

100 square feet of temporary impacts from the construction of a catch

basin and the placement of 45 lineal feet of storm water pipe associated

with the bike path and for 20 square-feet of temporary impacts from the

tapping of an existing sanitary sewer line north of the existing baseball

diamond, based on plans dated received by the Planning Department on

December 4 2008, with the following six (6) findings and subject to the

following eight (8) conditions.

Findings:

1. The Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance is applicable to

the subject site because it is not included within a site plan or

preliminary subdivision plat which has received final approval prior

to January17, 1990.

2. Of the approximately three acres of City-regulated wetlands on the

project site,

the applicant is proposing to impact approximately .5 acre.

3. The applicant will use best management practices to ensure that

flow and circulation patterns and

chemical and biological characteristics of wetlands are not

impacted and that impacts to the aquatic

environment are minimized.

4. The storm water ditch beneath Avon Road appears to be

hydrologically connected to the Clinton

River, making it City regulated.

5. The temporary wetland impacts associated with the catch basin and

storm sewer appear to be unavoidable.

6. Development of long-term measures planned to enhance and

improve the Clinton River banks, such as vegetating slopes,

stabilizing the banks and cleaning up debris can be considered as

sufficient out-of-kind mitigation for the wetland losses connected

with the development of the Health and Life Science Center.

Conditions:

1. Impacted areas must be shown on revised plans in square footage

and approved by the City’s Wetland Consultant, prior to Final

Approval by Staff.

2. All temporarily impacted areas must be seeded with a seed mix, and

be noted on the revised plans, as approved by the City’s Wetland

Consultant prior to Final Approval by Staff.

3. Note on plans the application of best management practices,

including appropriate plant ground cover, to the soils around

Wetland D and areas as detailed in ASTI’s letter dated January 15,

2009, to minimize soil erosion and avoid poor water quality, prior to

Final Approval by Staff.

4. Submit plan to remedy situation caused by building downspouts

located near and around Wetland D that discharge into the

wetland, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

5. Remove landscaping waste around the area of Wetland B and near

the weir structure and consider replacing the structure because of

its poor condition, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

6. Show plan to stabilize bluff and banks of the Clinton River northeast of

the northern portion of Wetland D, as shown on the Mitigation

Plans and approved by ASTI, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

7. Revise plans to show no wetland impact associated with the sanitary

sewer tap, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

8. Devise long-term measures to enhance and improve the areas along

the banks of the Clinton River, such as vegetating slopes,

stabilizing the banks and cleaning up debris, which can be

considered as sufficient out-of-kind mitigation for the wetland

losses to develop the Health and Life Sciences Center.

Chairperson Boswell asked if they had everything they needed from the

MDEQ. Mr. Hunter reported

that the State granted a Wetland Permit about three years ago, and the

Permit was extended, so they

were still in compliance.

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

Recommended for Approval.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

2008-0650

Site Plan Approval Request - City File No. 94-426.8 - Rochester College Health and Life

Science Center.

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File No.

94-426.8 (Rochester College Health & Life Sciences Center), the

Planning Commission approves the Site Plan, based on plans dated

received by the Planning Department on December 4, 2008 with the

following five (5) findings and subject to the following nine (9) conditions.

Findings:

1. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, other City ordinances,

standards, and requirements can be met.

2. The location and design of driveways providing vehicular ingress to

and egress from the site will promote safety and convenience of

both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site, and on

access and adjoining streets.

3. Automobile parking areas are designed to avoid common traffic

problems and promote safety.

4. There can be a satisfactory and harmonious relationship between the

development on the site and the existing and prospective

development of contiguous land and adjacent neighborhoods.

5. The proposed development will not have an unreasonably

detrimental, nor an injurious effect upon the natural characteristics

and features of the parcel being developed and the larger area of

which the parcel is a part.

Conditions:

1. That all remaining engineering issues, including appropriate permits

and requirements of the

revised Engineering Stormwater Management Standards, be

addressed and approved by the

City’s Engineering Services Department prior to approval of

Construction Plans.

2. Address comments from the Building Department memo dated

December 16, 2008, prior to issuance of Building Permits.

3. Tree protective fencing, as reviewed and approved by the City’s

Landscape Architect, shall be installed prior to issuance of the

Land Improvement Permit.

4. Provide a landscape bond for replacement trees, buffer trees and

landscaping in the amount of $152,062.50, as adjusted if

necessary by the City’s Landscape Architect, prior to issuance of a

Land Improvement Permit for this development.

5. Submit complete irrigation system design documents, as approved by

the City’s Landscape Architect, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

6. That the applicant receives appropriate sanitary sewer and soil

erosion permits from the Oakland County Drain Commissioner

prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit.

7. That the applicant receives a Permit for all work in the right-of-way for

Avon from the Road Commission for Oakland County, prior to

issuance of a Land Improvement Permit.

8. Address comments from the Parks and Forestry memo dated

November 10, 2008, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

9. City Council approval of the Wetland Use Permit, prior to Final

Approval by Staff.

Mr. Reece asked if the existing house would be deconstructed and

reconstructed or just moved. Mr. Corneliussen said it would be placed on

a slab and moved over. Mr. Reece asked if there was a specific reason

for the gravel drive in the new area around the house, and whether it was

to match what was there previously. Mr. Hunter agreed it was to match.

Mr. Reece asked if the house was occupied, and Mr. Johnson explained

that it was used as cold storage. Mr. Reece asked if it would be used for

that same purpose when it was moved, which was confirmed. Mr. Reece

asked if it would have heat. Mr. Corneliussen said that the relocation of

the house was to satisfy the PUD Agreement, but there was no

programmatic need for the house, and he said that the current use would

continue. Mr. Reece asked if the house was on the Historic Districts

Designated list. Mr. Delacourt said that the house was not, but it was part

of the original 40-acre farmstead that was a Designated District. When

the PUD was entered into, Council agreed to reduce the size of the

District if the College agreed to relocate the house onto the

re-established District. Mr. Reece confirmed that they would not be

relocating the house if it had not been in the Agreement. He indicated

that he had not been on the Commission when that was discussed, and

he was questioning the logic behind it. Chairperson Boswell did not

believe that the house was the issue back then, and Mr. Delacourt agreed

that it was the size of the District. The outbuildings contributed as to why

the property met the criteria, although it was possible that people might

not agree with the criteria.

Mr. Klomp asked if the overall historic value of the house was appreciated

or if there was signage to showcase the historical significance so it could

not be easily overlooked. Mr. Johnson said there was not currently

signage. The student body and employees appreciated the barn and the

nostalgia. He mentioned that the bookstore had shirts for sale that said,

“Rochester College - We Have a Barn.” As far as the house was

concerned, they were not necessarily that interested. The President had

lived there, and Mr. Johnson did not believe it was more than 50 or 60

years old.

Mr. Klomp wondered if there was a way to tackle that issue, indicating that

it appeared to be awfully bureaucratic. Mr. Anzek said that at the time the

historic issues were discussed, Rochester College was in the midst of a

very aggressive growth program. There were valid reasons for the

argument, because of the barn and its history. There was some

perceived negligence on the part of the College, and they were after a

decision on the barn. They tried to go through the Historic Districts Study

Committee, but the City did not have the staff capable of dealing with it at

the time. As the Master Plan went forward for the College, both parties

negotiated an Agreement to reduce the Historic District area and to keep

the house and move it when it was necessary. It seemed fair, and

everyone was on board.

Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Boswell re-read the motion

and called for a vote.

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

Approved.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motions had

passed unanimously, and he wished the applicants well with their

funding campaign.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2008-0581

Discussion regarding the Zoning Ordinance/Map Re-write.

(Memo prepared by Mr. Anzek, dated January 20, 2009, Zoning Map

Amendments and associated correspondence were placed on file with the

Planning and Development Department and by reference became part of

the record thereof).

Mr. Anzek noted the 11 area maps showing proposed rezonings as part of

the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map update and adoption process. He

recalled that in December, there was a Public Hearing, but no one was in

the audience. Subsequently, they prepared letters and sent a mass

mailing to all the affected property owners, and it was a very successful

program. He and Mr. Delacourt held a public open forum from 4:30 p.m.

to 6:30 p.m. in the Auditorium before the Planning Commission meeting

to answer any questions. There were about 20 people, and there was a lot

of support across the board for the new Residential Estate district. He

noted that there were some challenges regarding the change to Office on

Rochester Road, north of Wabash, and that the residents to the south had

concerns. He also noted a letter in the packet from Jamie Jacob, who

owned Ajax Materials, asking that consideration of his site be deferred

until he could be at a meeting. Mr. Anzek said that he spoke with Mr.

Jacob several times about his property, which was proposed to be

changed from I-2, Heavy Industrial to I, Industrial, and asked him to send

a letter.

Mr. Anzek referred to map amendment five, and advised that a portion of

Bloomer Park was being rezoned to R-1 to match the rest of the park.

There was an Office designation being proposed on Crooks, north of

Auburn. He explained that there were two parcels currently zoned

Residential between other Office parcels. He advised that Research

Office (RO) had been eliminated as a category because it was the only

parcel in the City that was RO. It was the Fanuc Robotics site, and it was

being proposed for ORT, Office Research Technology. Other parcels

along the Adams Road relocation, which were owned by MDOT, were

being referred to now as ROW, Right-of-Way. Heavy Industrial areas (I-2)

were being changed to I, Industrial, and I-2 was being eliminated. He

reminded that a Public Hearing was scheduled for January 27, for which

he expected a good turnout.

Mr. Schroeder suggested that they try to get more variation for the yellow

(Residential) colors of the Zoning Map. Mr. Anzek said it was hard to do,

and Mr. Schroeder asked about changing the colors altogether. Mr.

Anzek said they were working with MIS, and they were going to create

booklets by section so the colors could be distinguished better. They

would have more, but larger, areas to be able to add the zoning

designations. He recalled that when he started in planning, they did not

have colored zoning maps. They used a combination of hatched patterns

and alpha-numeric designations.

Mr. Schroeder asked what Mr. Jacob’s objection to the rezoning was. Mr.

Anzek said that by moving him to the I - Industrial - category, it would

make his parcels nonconforming. Mr. Jacob said he planned to expand

his office and garage to repair equipment, but the nonconforming status

would prohibit that. Mr. Delacourt advised that Mr. Jacob would be

allowed to operate in perpetuity as he existed, but the use would be

omitted from the Ordinance, and he would not be allowed to expand.

Chairperson Boswell clarified that all Heavy Industrial uses would be

eliminated. Mr. Anzek said it was the only Heavy Industrial use in town,

and Mr. Delacourt advised that the parcels associated with the Sakwa

development and along Adams were zoned I-2 but populated with I-1

uses. The question was whether it was a use the Tech Committee had

wanted to incorporate as a Conditional Use in the new I-district, or whether

it was one they would recommend become nonconforming. It was

decided to not include it in the new Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if there were tax implications for the property owners

by changing the zoning and whether that question had come up. Mr.

Anzek said that it had, and the parcels on Crooks Road, going from

Residential to Office, probably would increase the land value, but

because of Proposal A, the most it could go up would be at the rate of

inflation or 5%, whichever was less. That property owner met with the

City’s Deputy Assessor, who showed what would happen, and the owner

said he preferred Office because the resale value was better. Mr.

Delacourt stated that it was his understanding that there would be no tax

implications for the R-1 to RE owners.

Mr. Anzek advised that the only other opposition he had heard about the

rezonings were from the neighbors to the south of the proposed Office

designation on Rochester Road - in Regal Colony. Regal Office Park

was to the south of that, and it was all under a consent judgment. The

owner of the land had wanted to do Commercial, and the City negotiated

a split of Office and Residential. The City agreed that areas to the north

would be Residential, but the Master Plan supported Office. It was not

part of Juengel’s Orchards, so it was not subject to deed restrictions.

Mr. Kaltsounis remarked that the Regal development was one of the worst

to ever try to make a left turn during busy times of the day. Mr. Anzek

advised that the City had tried to work with the landowner to the south to

get Regal Office Park access onto Wabash, but there were issues.

Mr. Klomp asked if Staff could help him understand the Industrial change,

and if that came about as a result of the Master Plan. Mr. Delacourt said

it was contemplated as part of the Master Plan discussions, but it really

came up during the review of the Zoning Ordinance and the question

about whether a Heavy Industrial district was needed within the City. They

looked at the parcels zoned I-2 and where there were Heavy Industrial

uses, and the Tech Committee wanted the Planning Commission and

City Council to consider eliminating it. The owner of the I-2 parcels was

asking that his use be put back in the Ordinance or that the I-2 district be

put back in. The Ordinance could not go forward until that was decided.

To put that back in later would require amending the Ordinance, so he

would like to see it decided during the Public Hearing process.

Mr. Anzek assured that the City was not in the business of trying to be

heavy handed; they were trying to organize the City. He agreed with Mr.

Delacourt that deferring a decision on the I-2 district would get them in a

quagmire of sequencing for getting the Ordinance adopted. There were

people that were waiting for the Ordinance to be done. He knew that Mr.

Hooper would like to get it in front of Council, because it would take a

minimum of three meetings. Mr. Anzek said he was not sure what they

should do as far as the I-2 district. They noticed it one way, and he was

not sure about what course of action to recommend at this point. Mr.

Delacourt said that if the Planning Commission was not in favor of

creating a nonconforming status for the property owner, the use could be

written as a Conditional Use in the Industrial district, so that it was allowed

to take place at the current location only.

Ms. Brnabic said that she did not recall the Tech Committee meeting

discussion regarding the I-2 district. She wondered if Staff had discussed

it at a meeting without the Committee. She thought they should perhaps

consider a Conditional Use so it was not nonconforming. Mr. Delacourt

recalled that the elimination of the zoning district was a topic of discussion

at an early Tech Committee meeting, not just with Staff. (Meeting notes

showed it was discussed at the March 25, 2008 meeting). It was also in

the first draft of the Ordinance. Mr. Reece said he would support the

option Ms. Brnabic suggested about a Conditional Use.

Chairperson Boswell stated that it would be a big change to put I-2 back in

and have to re-notice for a Public Hearing. Mr. Delacourt said he did not

think it would require a re-notification, but he would check with the City

Attorney. Mr. Anzek said that it was in the current Ordinance, so they

would not be adding or changing it if they kept it, but he thought it would

be best to check with Mr. Staran.

Mr. Reece clarified that the only objection about eliminating I-2 regarded

Mr. Jacob’s plans to improve his property. Mr. Anzek agreed, and

reiterated that it would put it in a nonconforming status. He was not sure

how long he would be in that location, but Mr. Anzek noted that he ran a

successful operation. Mr. Reece asked about the tax implication, and Mr.

Anzek said it should not change. Mr. Delacourt said that if they put it

back in as a Conditional Use in the I-district, they could decide to allow it

under certain conditions. Mr. Anzek questioned if that would open it up for

other areas to have the same operation. Mr. Delacourt informed that they

had to determine if it was something the City wanted to allow to expand on

the site or on, potentially, other sites surrounding it. Depending on how

restrictive the conditions were, it could go onto other Industrial properties

in the City.

Mr. Anzek said they would need to talk it through further. If it was a

Conditional Use in the I-district, it might open up other areas to that

probability. If they added the I-2 district back in, they would be going

against the philosophy that a single user should not have a special

designation. It was also a way of controlling expansion. Staff had

discussed the strategy needed to achieve the objectives of the Master

Land Use Plan, and one of those was to work toward the elimination of the

I-2 district, because it did not quite fit with R&D, high tech and some

assembly uses on Avon Industrial.

Mr. Klomp indicated that he did not recall the language in the Master

Plan, but from personal experience frequenting the Clinton River Trail, it

felt like he was outside of Rochester Hills looking at and hearing the

concrete crushing plant. It seemed out of place to him, and it always had.

Chairperson Boswell reminded that it had been in the City for some time,

and that it was Mr. Jacob’s business.

Mr. Schroeder said he had personally worked with Jamie, and he

cautioned that if the City did not settle it, a judge would. Mr. Delacourt

said that Mr. Staran, the City Attorney, would be at the January 27

meeting to answer any legal questions.

Chairperson Boswell summarized that if they put I-2 back in, it would be

easier, they would not have to re-notice it, and it would be the only I-2 use

in town. That seemed to him to be a relatively simple solution. Mr. Anzek

said that if it went away, it would still be master planned something else,

and the City could effect a rezoning at that point. Chairperson Boswell

agreed that if the operation ever went away, the City could rezone it to

Industrial.

Mr. Delacourt suggested that they should look at the use and not where it

was located. They should decide if the use was appropriate any longer in

the City. Mr. Anzek reminded that if it became a Conditional Use in an

I-district, that there were a lot of I-1 areas in the City. Mr. Delacourt said it

would depend on how restrictive it was. They could control where and how

something like that could operate in the City. If it was the only I-2 use and

the City wanted it to remain, he would be hesitant to put the entire I-2

district back in and only have one allowable use.

Chairperson Boswell stated that what uses were acceptable in the City

was a very subjective topic. The operation was Mr. Jacob’s business, and

he was making money, so as far as Chairperson Boswell was concerned,

it was an acceptable use in the City. Mr. Anzek advised that they would

talk with Mr. Breuckman and Mr. Staran and come up with some options

for the 27th. Mr. Kaltsounis brought up the Tech Committee discussing

I-2, and said he believed that Staff presented it, but he did not think they

made a decision. Mr. Anzek recalled that the Committee talked about the

fact that there was just one location in town, and they thought everyone

was comfortable with the decision. Mr. Kaltsounis said he agreed with Ms.

Brnabic, and said that they probably looked at it quickly and said it looked

good, versus discussing it at length.

Mr. Delacourt showed a map with the parcels in the proposed RE district

that were less than an acre. He advised that there were questions about

rezoning to a district with a minimum lot size of one acre when someone

did not have an acre. He stated that any lot on record at the time of

adoption would be a legal lot and would continue to be. The setbacks in

the R-1 and the RE district were exactly the same. It would technically

make a lot nonconforming, but it would not impact what someone was

allowed to build if they met the setbacks.

Mr. Anzek noted that over 300 letters were mailed to property owners for

the RE district, which was fairly significant. Mr. Klomp asked if it had been

published in tihe paper, and Mr. Delacourt confirmed that both Public

Hearings were noticed.

Ms. Brnabic referred to the question from Mr. Kaltsounis about a zero

setback for the A&A Liquor store. She had heard there was a threat of

litigation or that something actually was filed by the coney island against

A&A because of the way the buildings abutted. She asked if it had been

withdrawn or if the City never got in the middle. Mr. Delacourt said he had

not heard anything about it.

Mr. Anzek said that A&A was involved in a lawsuit at their previous

location north of Auburn. Their lease had been terminated early and he

believed they won. He mentioned that the owner of the coney island had

never brought up any issues to the City about A&A. Ms. Brnabic recalled

that when the Site Plan for A&A was before the Commission, there was

some discussion about the cooler in the back and an extra access door.

If they required the extra door, someone stepping out of it would be on

someone else's property. Mr. Anzek said that they moved the service

and access door to the south side of the building, but it still faced the

parking lot. Ms. Brnabic had heard there was a lawsuit, but she never

followed up on it. Mr. Delacourt remembered that the owners of the coney

island had to shave some of their roof, which projected onto the A&A site.

He guessed that it was not the friendliest relationship at the time, but it

might have been resolved by now.

Mr. Kaltsounis joked that he wanted to salute the flag on the new cell tower

on Adams Road, but there was not a flag there, and that had been a

requirement of Site Plan Approval. He advised that the tower had been

up for several months. Mr. Anzek said he would find out - he was

surprised at how fast the tower had been put up. Mr. Kaltsounis also

asked about the awning at A&A, and Mr. Delacourt replied that he was

waiting to hear from the Building Department about the permit.

Mr. Delacourt asked the Commissioners to contact him if they had any

further questions before the January 27th Public Hearing, at which they

would be possibly making a recommendation about the amended Zoning

Ordinance and Zoning map. Chairperson Boswell stated that he would

really like the Commission to move it forward if they could. Mr. Yukon

asked if Staff would provide the Commissioners with a recommendation

about the I-2 district. Mr. Delacourt said they would provide options. It

had been presented as a removal of the district to the Tech Committee,

and they did identify that the uses would become nonconforming.

Ultimately, it was the Planning Commission that needed to make the

recommendation to City Council - whether they would like to see the

entire district put back in, whether they would like the specific use as a

Conditional use under the new district, or if they should eliminate the

district and create a nonconforming use. Upon the question by Mr.

Yukon, Mr. Delacourt advised that Staff would email some options before

the meeting.

This matter was Discussed

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting was

scheduled as a Special Meeting and Public Hearing on January 27, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commissioners and upon

motion by Brnabic, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:35 p.m.,

Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary