Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, July 29, 1997

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Special Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎34 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in ‎

Room #‎110 ‎at the City Municipal Building‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Gerald Robbins‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Eugene Nowicki‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Penny Papke, Planning Technician‎

Michele Goldstein, Planning Intern‎

Gary Wilson, Planning Consultant, McKenna Associates‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1761

June ‎3‎, ‎1997 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION ‎by Krupa, supported by Ruggiero, ‎RESOLVED, ‎that the minutes of the ‎

Regular Meeting of June ‎3‎, ‎1997‎, be accepted as corrected‎.‎

Correction‎: ‎Page ‎15‎, bottom of page, first line of motion, replace ‎“‎Motion to‎” ‎with ‎

“‎Motion by‎.‎”‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Nowicki ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved as Amended

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ A copy of a letter from Curtis and Tanya Richie regarding a new mobile ‎

communication tower in reference to City File ‎#97-024‎.‎

B‎.‎ A copy of a commentary concerning mobile communication towers‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1737

Tree Conservation Ordinance Amendment Update‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin began by stating that staff has been working on revisions to the Tree ‎

Ordinance to make the ordinance less cumbersome and to propose a more effective ‎

plan for preserving the remaining woodlands in the city‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also ‎

referenced a map indicating all of the remaining vacant parcels in the city of at least ‎

80‎,‎000 ‎square feet‎. ‎This map was distributed to all Board members‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that there is still a need to preserve natural features especially, ‎

when combined with other significant features such as, wetlands, watercourse ‎

boundaries and wildlife habitats‎. ‎Many of these areas have already been identified in ‎

the natural features inventory section of ‎1992 ‎Master Plan‎. ‎In this plan, ‎12 ‎areas were ‎

identified that had significant features based upon a study that was done by the ‎

County, field visits and other sources of information‎. ‎

The presentation tonight includes a review of the basic amendments and goes hand in ‎

hand with the PUD ordinance option with the larger concept being to bring the Tree ‎

Preservation Ordinance into a context of open space and flexible requirements so that ‎

development will be allowed on the buildable portions of a site‎. ‎This will allow for ‎

preservation of woodlands and will move away from the tree‎-‎for‎-‎tree preservation ‎

replacement concept‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin then reviewed the recommendations of Ms‎. ‎Lemke and Mr‎. ‎Olson in ‎

response to some of the issues which were raised at the previous meeting‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎

Goodwin also pointed out that there is a separate committee that has been working on ‎

the concerns raised by acreage parcel owners regarding the impacts of the ordinance ‎

provisions on these parcels‎. ‎It was also noted that Mr‎. ‎Mike Hartner, Director of ‎

Parks & Forestry, has the responsibility for authorizing tree permits that are not ‎

approved in conjunction with a site plan or a plat‎. ‎Any property owner that owns an ‎

acreage parcel and wants to improve the property for a home site must apply for a ‎

permit under these provisions from the Director of Parks & Forestry‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that these issues are intended to be incorporated in the ‎

current ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran is currently in the process of preparing the language for ‎

these changes‎. ‎Once the amendment is ready to go forward, if those provisions are ‎

prepared in advance of what is currently being proposed this evening, that those ‎

changes will proceed immediately‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber inquired about the four issues stated in the memo provided in this evenings ‎

agenda packet which were identified as possible amendment changes to the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎Which, if any, of the issues will be implemented in Mr‎. ‎Staran‎’‎s draft of ‎

the ordinance‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin explained that main key issue is how the ordinance is requiring single ‎

family residential acreage parcels to meet the requirements for the tree‎-‎for‎-‎tree ‎

replacement‎. ‎In the event a homeowner wants to take down a certain number of trees ‎

they can do this with a permit, however, they would be assessed on a tree‎-‎by‎-‎tree ‎

basis the same as a developer‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber then noted that in other words instead of a focus of exempting these types ‎

of parcels from the regulations of the ordinance it would be more toward allowing ‎

additional flexibility through administrative action, making variances easier and looking ‎

at situations on a case‎-‎by‎-‎case basis‎.‎

Special Planning Commission Meeting‎

Tuesday, July ‎29‎, ‎1997‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that this would be one of the options and that this would ‎

be the easiest to do‎. ‎It is Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin‎’‎s sense that City Council wanted something ‎

to come back to them fairly quickly because there are currently two issues on the ‎

table‎. ‎If a different direction is needed, this needs to be conveyed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber said that he is not certain that City Council really specified a certain ‎

direction‎. ‎However, Mr‎. ‎Gaber does remember at a meeting a few months ago that ‎

the City Council did put various options on the table and briefly mentioned them‎. ‎The ‎

options were not really discussed‎. ‎The two main suggestions were to exempt such ‎

parcels and to look at doing something with the current tree preservation envelopes ‎

which would allow the building of a house with an exemption from the tree ‎

conservation ordinance‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin remarked that if this is an acceptable concept, this could be ‎

incorporated for acreage parcels as well‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber said that he has a problem with knowing which types of suggestions would ‎

be easier to implement into the ordinance‎. ‎The City Council is at a loss without this ‎

type of guidance in terms of what way to go‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that the four alternatives in the memorandum are the items ‎

that staff has discussed so far‎. ‎There appears to be some concern that if you are ‎

going to relieve one group entirely of the responsibility to provide for replacement, a ‎

legal question may arise‎. ‎This would then require Mr‎. ‎Staran‎’‎s guidance‎. ‎Instead of ‎

relieving acreage parcels of their responsibility to provide for replacement, staff would ‎

be looking for some other flexibility and‎/‎or modification of the building envelope‎. ‎In ‎

other words, how the building envelope is defined by setback regardless of the size of ‎

the property seems to be one of the larger problems‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber then verified that the direction for the amendment for the ordinance would ‎

encompass Item #‎3‎--- ‎Expand language in the current ordinance allowing ‎

administrative approval and discretion to be exercised in dealing with ‎

exemptions, variances, and waivers under the ordinance; particularly in respect ‎

to the smaller parcel and owner‎-‎occupied residential developments‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that as far as she knows this would be correct unless there is a ‎

different concept coming forward that Mr‎. ‎Staran needs to know about‎. ‎The Board ‎

may also be able to incorporate into the discussion this evening the idea of including ‎

preservation envelopes into the design of the ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked for comments from the residents that were in attendance‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Cheryl Collins of ‎3335 ‎Crooks Road, Rochester Hills, Michigan ‎inquired ‎

about the $‎80‎,‎000 ‎that is currently in the tree fund account‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Collins wonders how ‎

this money is going to be spent‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser remarked that the Planning Commission does not spend the money or ‎

make decisions about how the money is spent‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that she does not have any answers on where the interest is ‎

going‎. ‎The funds are in a separate account‎. ‎Whether it is an interest bearing account ‎

or whether those funds go back into the general fund and if the interest funds are ‎

accrued and added to the principal is something that must be determined‎.‎

After talking to the financial team, Mr‎. ‎Gaber reported that the money does stay within ‎

the tree fund and the interest keeps accumulating‎. ‎The money is also invested as part ‎

of the City‎’‎s investment portfolio‎. ‎A policy decision is then made by City Council on ‎

how to use the money‎. ‎The City Council has not made a decision yet because the ‎

advice that has been received from administration is to wait right now because of all of ‎

the current projects, the capital improvement plan and strategic planning‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser pointed out that in the last Master Land Use Plan you will find a section on ‎

continuous greenways throughout the City‎. ‎The Planning Consultant and the Planning ‎

Commission adopted this concept‎. ‎At some point you can begin in the City of ‎

Rochester Hills and travel throughout the whole City in green areas which are a ‎

combination of parks and pedestrian and bike pathways‎. ‎If trees are planted, the ‎

money would then come out of this fund‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Collins understands that the purpose of the tree fund is to collect money to plant ‎

new trees in the city for the loss of trees that were cut down‎. ‎However, it is evident ‎

that nothing has been done‎. ‎There isn‎’‎t even a plan or a suggestion in place as to ‎

when this money will be used‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Collins questions how much longer is this going to ‎

go on‎. ‎Is it going to go on for another ten years‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser remarked that this information will be communicated by Mr‎. ‎Gaber to the ‎

City Council‎. ‎As part of the effort to modify the Tree Ordinance, some of this ‎

information should be reviewed‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Collins also requested information on the applications which are prepared by the ‎

City in order to receive the designation of ‎“‎Tree City USA‎.‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser suggested that this request be submitted formally in writing and the City ‎

will comply with a written request in the allotted time period‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gregory Kurn‎, who resides at ‎1582 ‎Auburn, Rochester Hills, Michigan‎, ‎

remarked that he is one of the two acreage concerns that are involved in the changes ‎

being considered to the Tree Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kurn encouraged the commission to ‎

consider his specific case‎. ‎The Kurn‎’‎s purchased a two acre parcel that was very ‎

overgrown‎. ‎One acre was cleared for a house, a driveway and a front and back yard‎.‎

Continuing Mr‎. ‎Kurn stated that ‎85 ‎trees were removed and out of ‎85 ‎trees ‎45 ‎trees ‎

were cut down‎. ‎In addition, due to the excavation, the swales that were required by ‎

the Building Department required excavation in the tree line for the remaining trees‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Lee deemed these tree as removals‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kurn also indicated that he did appear ‎

before the City Council in order to obtain a variance from the Tree Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Kurn ended up paying $‎12‎,‎000 ‎to $‎13‎,‎000 ‎into the City‎’‎s tree fund which is a ‎

considerable large amount of money‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kurn also pleaded a hardship and City ‎

Council found that his case was not considered a hardship‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kurn encouraged the Planning Commission to analyze the Tree Conservation ‎

Ordinance in a way that allows residents a wider latitude in order to provide a living ‎

environment in an area that probably would of never been developed‎. ‎A developer ‎

must maintain ‎37 ‎percent of the trees on a ten acre parcel and is given some latitude ‎

for their building envelopes and the developer can actually recoup their money‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked Mr‎. ‎Kurn to explain why the City should consider making an ‎

exemption for the home owner that wants to put up a single family home‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kurn noted that the basic premise written in the Tree Conservation Ordinance is ‎

to inhibit mass clearing of property by the developers‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kurn asked that the ‎

Planning Commission understand the financial concerns associated with the ‎

implementation of the Tree Conservation Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kurn basically took a ‎

wooded lot, created a park setting for a home and increased the tax base for the City‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kurn said that he spoke to Mr‎. ‎Buller and Mr‎. ‎Buller indicated to him that the ‎

ordinance was not written for property owners like himself‎. ‎The ordinance was ‎

primarily written to control massive residential construction in the City of Rochester ‎

Hills‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Buller did not guarantee Mr‎. ‎Kurn absolution from the ordinance, however, ‎

he told Mr‎. ‎Kurn to proceed and was given the impression that this issue would be ‎

resolved‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kurn added that if someone is building a home on two acres perhaps ‎

an agreement could possibly be made not to develop a certain portion of the site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out that there is some logic in making room for a house on a single ‎

family parcel‎. ‎The ability to have a house on a parcel is a property right‎. ‎The difficulty ‎

is the opposite end of a legitimate straight forward property owner that wants to build ‎

a house, leave as many trees as they can and then live in the house‎. ‎The other extreme ‎

is parcel owners who cut down trees all of the time and don‎’‎t say a word to anyone‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen added that it would be beneficial to try and find a way to take care of each ‎

of these situations in order to prevent the intended destruction of trees‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that part of the reason that the City is currently reviewing the ‎

Tree Preservation Plan option because of current situations‎. ‎The City now has the ‎

tools to do a more in depth inventory of woodlands using GIS‎. ‎If the woodlands on a ‎

two acre parcel are part of an entire woodland system that extends over several ‎

parcels, the homeowner may not see much relief‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin agrees that a person ‎

should be allowed some building envelope or buildable area that should be defined for ‎

which there is no penalty‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Bill Collins‎, who resides at ‎3335 ‎Crooks Road, Rochester Hills, Michigan‎ ‎

inquired about restrictions for transplanting unregulated trees in lieu of planting ‎

replacement trees‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the City currently retains a landscape and tree consultant ‎

that make the call on these issues‎. ‎If the developer proposes transplanting as a part of ‎

their tree replacement plan, they will evaluate the survivability of those trees to make ‎

sure that they are of a size where they can be transplanted and survivability can ‎

reasonably be assured‎. ‎A guarantee is also posted for a period of one year‎. ‎The plan ‎

also must allow for trees that are acceptable per the ordinance as tree credits‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Collins asked if consideration could be given to placing a ‎

conservation easement or deed restrictions on land that could potentially be developed ‎

with some form of mitigation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser replied that it is not uncommon for the City to do something like this‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Collins also suggested that anything that can be done to move from a tree‎-‎for‎-‎tree ‎

ordinance into a woodland ordinance would be a very positive change‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Collins ‎

would like to see more of a balance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Collins also asked for a clearer definition on ‎

the term ‎“‎contiguous woodland‎” ‎and ‎“‎the most amount of high quality trees‎.‎”‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that the vision is to have the specific standards contained in ‎

another area‎. ‎An open space option as defined in the schedule of regulations or part ‎

of some other overlay could pull down this feature once the qualifying conditions are ‎

met‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Collins also asked about tree planting on residential properties so that the ‎

homeowners can take advantage of this program‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said there is a separate street‎/‎tree ordinance which developers use ‎

when they are platting land‎. ‎They are required to provide street trees for each lot in ‎

the city and they are planted within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way easement‎. ‎If there are situations ‎

where the developer cannot replace all of the required trees on site, the option for the ‎

developer would then be the tree fund‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also reported that the Pine Trace Homeowners Association recently ‎

put on the table a proposal that the trees can be planted on the individual lots on the ‎

private property‎. ‎However, the problem with this is that the developer is not willing to ‎

plant on private property and assume the liability‎. ‎If the parties all agree, the City ‎

does not have a problem with this type of set up‎. ‎No options have been made at this ‎

time to replace the concept of the tree‎-‎for‎-‎tree replacement costs‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Collins suggested the possibility of a tree credit being given back to the owner of ‎

the parcel in the event that the tree never dies‎. ‎One year after the certificate of ‎

occupancy is issued a certified tree count would be provided to the city‎. ‎At this time, ‎

any of the trees that Mr‎. ‎Lee has indicated that would die, did die, then the owner ‎

would pay the tree and‎/‎or trees at this time‎. ‎The current ordinance penalizes residents ‎

for trees that haven‎’‎t even died yet‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Collins stated that she feels that the lack of tree enforcement at the Burger King ‎

site on Crooks Road is rather interesting‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Collins would like to find out exactly ‎

what occurred on this site‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that tree violation notices and enforcement has been pursued ‎

in accordance with the ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser said that the Planning Commission will be revisiting the Burger King very ‎

soon and this will be one of the topics of discussion‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas inquired about the percentage or ratio of trees which really do ‎

survive‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that the staff has analyzed this question and the preservation ratios ‎

varies from project to project‎. ‎However, there is a bond collected to ensure the ‎

completion of the tree replacement plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen referring to Ms‎. ‎Downing‎’‎s memorandum of June ‎25‎, ‎1997‎, indicated that ‎

Item #‎4 ‎is the most difficult‎. ‎Item #‎3 ‎which refers to ‎“‎administrative approval and ‎

discretion‎” ‎is an administrative nightmare‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen also feels that increasing the ‎

minimum percentage of trees that would be regulated has some merit but it must be ‎

recognized that there is a minimal number of trees that must be removed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen ‎

would also like to see a more explicit way of returning money that is not used back to ‎

the property owner‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested that a smaller bond level could also be ‎

proposed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber indicated that conceptually he agrees with the concept of the tree ‎

preservation envelope and looking at options and the ability to preserve stands of ‎

trees in lieu of an absolute percentage‎. ‎This type of plan will benefit the city in the long ‎

run‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin added that if there was a PUD pre‎-‎application project in place, staff ‎

would have reviewed concept plan with qualifying criteria‎. ‎The ultimate approval ‎

would be special approval from either the Planning Commission or City Council‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber also feels that single family built homes on parcels larger than one acre ‎

should not be excluded from complying with the tree ordinance‎. ‎The issue is whether ‎

or not the ordinance is fair and equitable to have them fully subjected to the penalties ‎

and restrictions of the tree ordinance‎. ‎There should be some type of relief or flexibility ‎

granted in certain situations by going to some type of envelope allowing the individual ‎

to be exempted from tree replacement when trees are removed‎. ‎When building a ‎

house and a driveway, but to make them responsible for all of the other trees on their ‎

property‎. ‎The City would allow them to build their structure but it would be insured ‎

that the purpose of the tree ordinance is to prevent clear‎-‎cutting and cutting and to ‎

maintain as many trees as possible; still preserved within the two acre setting‎. ‎This ‎

would also eliminate a lot of the administrative problems‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell brought up the concept of applying the ordinance specifically to those ‎

developments with two or more residential units and‎/‎or three or more residential units ‎

on one parcel‎. ‎This would allow the owners on these parcels to be exempt from ‎

compliance with the tree ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Boswell also indicated that he has never ‎

liked the minimum preservation rate of ‎37 ‎percent‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen ascertained that there are really two separate situations; the trees in a ‎

conventional residential subdivision situation when the developer really wants to save ‎

the trees on the property line in the back or in the open space areas and trees on an ‎

acreage parcel when a property owner wants to construct a single home and ‎

driveway‎. ‎At this point, a plan must really be developed to go around normal ‎

situations when it is warranted and to provide an incentive ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, perhaps a ‎50 ‎percent ‎

preservation rate‎).‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin remarked that this would place a burden on the ordinance and how it ‎

is set up‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin is concerned about what effect this would have on smaller ‎

residential developments ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, Dee‎’‎s Subdivision and Michelson Meadows‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out that in some situations the tree preservation envelope may ‎

help in these special types of cases‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that she will continue to work with John Staran on the new ‎

language‎. ‎The new language will then be presented to the Planning Commission at a ‎

later date‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the following changes should be made on the tree ordinance ‎

document which was included in the Board member‎’‎s packet this evening‎:‎

- ‎Page ‎3‎, under Tree Preservation Envelope‎--- ‎it should be noted that‎

“‎The buildable area shall ‎“‎include‎” ‎not ‎“‎exclude‎” ‎.........‎

-‎Page ‎3‎, it should also be noted that the tree preservation envelope should not ‎

apply to a typical ‎10‎,‎000 ‎square foot lot‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero also mentioned that when the city reaches buildout there will be ‎

redevelopment‎. ‎As the city redevelops the older areas, what will happen at this time‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Ruggiero would like to see some very specific examples on this issue‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that the older platted subdivisions are exempt from the ‎

Tree Ordinance‎. ‎For example, Christian Hills has some large R‎-‎1 ‎lots with large ‎

ranches‎. ‎However, there is currently no likelihood that the parcels will be replatted‎.‎

(‎The Board recessed at ‎9:20‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎and reconvened at ‎9:32‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Discussed

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1762

Proposed PUD ‎(‎Planned Unit Development‎) ‎Ordinance Amendment‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin reminded the Board that almost a year ago a joint session took place ‎

with Mark Wyckoff who presented information on rezonings‎. ‎At this time, Mr‎. ‎

Wyckoff mentioned PUD‎’‎s ‎(‎Planned Unit Developments‎) ‎as a tool that can be used ‎

to deal with development for larger and‎/‎or smaller parcels which was supported by ‎

the Planning Commission and the City Council in conjunction with the update of the ‎

Master Land Use Plan‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin believes that the time is right to consider a PUD ordinance in order to ‎

provide a flexible planning tool that allows specific proposals to be permitted in a ‎

residential class by modifying the existing standards in exchange for specific public ‎

benefits that would not otherwise be feasible under the current ordinance‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎

Goodwin then detailed the background information on the PUD‎’‎s from surrounding ‎

communities ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, Farmington Hills, Novi, Southfield, Ann Arbor, East Lansing, ‎

Canton Township, Ypsilanti and several out‎-‎of‎-‎state communities‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Gary Wilson, Planning Consultant, then gave the Planning Commission an ‎

overview on the concepts behind a PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that PUD‎’‎s are a very common zoning approach and uses for ‎

this type of development over time have been modified‎. ‎PUD‎’‎s allow flexibility not ‎

only to the developer; they also allow the City to achieve creativeness and special ‎

public benefits that would not otherwise be possible under conventional zoning‎. ‎

Conventional zoning restrictions are often too strict to achieve special benefits or to ‎

develop unique sites‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Wilson noted that one of the key features is that a PUD is actually an ‎

overlay zoning of the property not just a site plan approval that must be approved by ‎

the City Council‎. ‎There is also a written agreement and a plan which are both tied to ‎

the rezoning‎. ‎State law allows contract zoning if it is done as a PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson also stressed that the City really has an upper hand with a PUD, if it is ‎

done properly‎. ‎The City has the discretionary control to grant or deny PUD zoning ‎

requests‎. ‎The agreement and the plan must be mutually acceptable to both the City ‎

and the developer‎. ‎PUD‎’‎s are most often used as a cluster technique, much like the ‎

open space zoning and can be taken a step further to modify other restrictions such as ‎

increasing or decreasing setbacks, preserving open spaces and trees, improving ‎

common areas and parks, designing special road and landscaping and integrating ‎

mixed‎-‎use for commercial and residential projects‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson then reviewed the revised draft of the PUD ordinance‎. ‎The concept ‎

being considered for use is a residential planned unit development where residential ‎

developments would only be allowed in the overlay zone‎. ‎The PUD would overlay ‎

the underlying zoning‎. ‎

The underlying zoning would then be used as a guide and the PUD would set up ‎

specific guidelines and parameters‎. ‎The site would then go through a qualification ‎

process and the Planning Commission would then set up the standards within the ‎

ordinance and not just any parcel would be eligible‎. ‎Usually, some type of significant ‎

natural feature is required to be preserved‎. ‎

The PUD ordinance is designed to specify the other regulations and how they would ‎

apply to PUD or how the residential PUD would allow the City to modify the ‎

restrictions of the following ordinances‎:‎

*‎Schedule of Regulations governing setbacks, lot area and lot width‎. ‎Section ‎

20‎, Part A‎: ‎Residential Districts‎.‎

*‎Road and subdivision standards of Chapter ‎4‎-‎01 ‎of the Subdivision Control‎

Ordinance and Chapter ‎4‎-‎16‎, One‎-‎Family Residential Detached ‎

Condominium‎.‎

*‎Engineering and design standards used by the City Engineer‎.‎

*‎A density bonus may also be allowed as an incentive to use the residential‎

PUD‎.‎

*‎Modifications to the Tree Preservation Plan‎.‎

In reference to the standards in the ordinance, Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that the PUD‎

must provide special public benefits that cannot be achieved under the regulations of ‎

the underlying district alone‎. ‎In addition to this, the PUD must not have an ‎

unacceptable or adverse effect on public utilities, circulation system, surrounding ‎

properties or the environment‎. ‎The PUD must also preserve significant natural and ‎

historical features and‎/‎or significant groupings or stands of woodlands and provide ‎

safe, convenient, uncongested and well‎-‎defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson also noted that a unique feature of the approval process is that the ‎

Planning Commission recommends and City Council approves the PUD‎. ‎The ‎

applicant then goes on to the applicable site plan review process‎. ‎When the PUD is ‎

finally approved, there is a written agreement or contract which sets forth the ‎

conditions of approval, conveyance of the open space, the program and financing for ‎

maintaining the common areas and any special assurances to preserve the natural ‎

areas‎. ‎The ‎

written agreement must also be recorded as a deed restriction against the proper‎-‎

ty‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson then asked for comments from the Planning Commission members‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi inquired about the PUD option versus the existing options of lot ‎

averaging and open space‎. ‎What would the PUD offer Rochester Hills that the open ‎

space option and lot averaging option cannot‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson stated that the PUD could offer an averaging technique where you could ‎

allow a greater maximum reduction in lot sizes and widths‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin reported that the staff has met with Frankel Associates on the Butler ‎

Ridge property‎. ‎There was a previous plat submitted on this site‎. ‎The plat ‎

contemplates about ‎140 ‎homes in R‎-‎2 ‎zoning on ‎116 ‎acres‎. ‎The concept that is now ‎

being considered encompasses a very different type of layout with private streets, ‎

interior streets that would cluster site condominiums off of a system of private ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacs‎. ‎The proposed plan would require a significant modification of the current ‎

zoning and engineering standards‎. ‎This option could be very useful in creating a ‎

unique residential development‎.‎

Special Planning Commission Meeting‎

Tuesday, July ‎29‎, ‎1997‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked about the reasoning involved in just looking at residential type ‎

developments‎. ‎What about residential development with other land uses?‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas would like to see the PUD ordinance opened up to both residential ‎

and commercial type projects‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked if there are any other projects on the residential side that might be ‎

considered under this new ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser indicated that the proposed Summit Condos development may be a good ‎

candidate for this ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi also noted that the proposed County Club Village would also be a good ‎

participant for this type of concept under a PUD ordinance due to the fact that the ‎

property is a figure eight and it is difficult to get a road system through the parcel and ‎

yet it consistently meets the requirements in the open space plan‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin suggested that there are a number of projects that are potential ‎

candidates ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, ‎71 ‎N‎. ‎Livernois, the vacant parcel on Walton, properties on ‎

Rochester Road, the Wishkovich parcel, Wabash and Rochester Road and the area ‎

near Cloverport and Childress as future PUD sites‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that personally he prefers the mixed use concept due to the fact that ‎

this allows for more options for more diverse types of developments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson also ‎

noted that the Board could develop a residential PUD in addition to a separate mixed ‎

use PUD‎. ‎Both options could be considered and the Board could begin with a ‎

residential PUD and later develop a mixed use PUD with the appropriate standards ‎

written in‎. ‎The mixed use PUD would also give the developer a variety of options to ‎

work with‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson remarked that a PUD also allows for limiting the amount of commercial ‎

type developments within a community‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero inquired about the Planning Commission actually reviewing a site plan ‎

prior to approval of a PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson indicated that the applicant would have to present a site plan in ‎

conjunction with the approval of the proposed PUD‎. ‎State law does require review ‎

of a conceptual site plan‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin asked for verification on whether or not a PUD is classified as a ‎

rezoning or a special approval‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that a PUD can be called a special approval‎. ‎This would require ‎

only one hearing‎. ‎However, he feels that this is very confusing‎. ‎The overlay would ‎

supersede the zoning map and a note would be inserted on the map indicating that the ‎

parcel is a PUD which distinguishes the parcel separately‎. ‎The PUD can also be ‎

submitted as a one stage or two stage process‎. ‎The two stage process usually works ‎

better for a larger project where a conceptual approval is desired at the beginning of ‎

the project and where you don‎’‎t know all of the issues and details‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser indicated that with a PUD the Planning Commission will need to deal with ‎

a lot of the specifics‎. ‎In the initial review a lot more information will be required‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that there is a provision for a pre‎-‎application meeting which could ‎

take care of any and all additional concerns‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin would like to see a site ‎

plan with a PUD rezoning request first in addition to an option for a pre‎-‎application ‎

meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then proposed that an ordinance also be written for mixed use PUD and ‎

the Planning Commission will then have the ability to indicate whether they only desire ‎

a residential PUD or both‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen commented that he is not in favor of a density bonus‎. ‎The PUD really ‎

should be utilized to better develop viable properties‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi said that the end result of a mixed use PUD is that you would be getting ‎

an RM‎-‎1 ‎zoning classification with a B‎-‎2 ‎zoning classification‎. ‎The map would no ‎

longer have the PUD overlay zoning‎. ‎You are actually putting two zoning ‎

classifications on one parcel unless you are providing some type of other incentive for ‎

redevelopment‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber then expressed his concern about a mixed use PUD actually changing the ‎

character on the way the City has been developed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber feels that mixed use ‎

would be beneficial on the main roads‎. ‎There is really no mixed use in the residential ‎

areas‎. ‎Mixed use in residential areas would be inconsistent with what has been done ‎

over the past years‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser remarked that this is where the Planning Commission would have to ‎

control the decision making process‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that the PUD is a tool that the City can use for future market ‎

and development opportunities‎. ‎Potential parcels should be identified in the upcoming ‎

Master Land Use Plan study‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson also noted that it could also be clarified that commercial options are only ‎

available on major thoroughfares‎.‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin asked the Planning Commission for guidance on the review of the ‎

Transportation Plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dearing‎’‎s staff has completed the traffic counts on Livernois ‎

and Walton‎. ‎Average daily counts have been calculated on all of the east‎/‎west ‎

corridors along Livernois and at Walton they have calculated daily average counts on ‎

all of the north‎/‎south routes‎. ‎This information has now been sent to BRW‎. ‎

The Fast‎-‎Trac has been counting some intersections but not all of them‎. ‎The data ‎

from Fast‎-‎Trac will not be available prior to October‎. ‎With the ‎1997 ‎July counts the ‎

City would have a mid‎-‎point, a check of the model data for ‎2020‎; the ‎1990 ‎base ‎

year, the ‎2020 ‎model and a check from ‎1997‎. ‎This information could be brought ‎

forward and this could be checked to determine that the traffic counts are within a ‎

linear range between ‎1990 ‎and the projected counts for ‎2020‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin asked the Planning Commission if she should proceed to quantify the ‎

1997 ‎traffic count information that the City has collected at this point in order to return ‎

to the Board with another report‎.‎

Board members concurred that Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin can proceed with quantifying the ‎1997 ‎

traffic count information‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin updated the Board on the landscape improvements at Winchester ‎

Mall‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin visited and walked the entire site today‎. ‎The landscaping is ‎

being put in today and the delays which occurred were the result of problems with the ‎

irrigation system‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin has also inspected the berm behind Building J‎. ‎The ‎

area will be sodded within the next two weeks and all of the landscaping ‎

improvements will be completed by the end of August‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked for approval of the following resolution‎:‎

MOTION ‎by, Boswell, supported by Krupa, requesting that Mayor Kenneth D‎. ‎

Snell convey to the City Attorney the Planning Commission‎’‎s request for the City‎’‎s ‎

attorney legal opinion as to a listing of situations or events that call for the ‎

implementation of Michigan compiled law, Section ‎125‎.‎42‎. ‎This section requires a ‎

Planning Commission public hearing whenever the City Council wishes to rescind a ‎

prior decision to open, widen or extend any street avenue, etc‎. ‎Why was the vacating ‎

of Walnut Brook subdivisions‎’‎s street, especially, Alsdorf into Rockhaven did not call ‎

for the implementation of that section, including how that event is distinguishable from ‎

the above listing of triggering events‎.‎

Discussion‎:‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber stated that this is something that the attorney looked at when the attorney ‎

gave his opinion on whether it was proper to vacate the subject streets‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber ‎

does not understand why this issue needs to be addressed again‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser pointed out that the first part of the resolution is for a complete listing of all ‎

of the events‎. ‎While Mr‎. ‎Ternan‎’‎s opinion was never formally conveyed to the ‎

Planning Commission, the ideas that were conveyed to Mr‎. ‎Kaiser and other members ‎

of the Planning Commission were pretty vague as to what the section really meant‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser also knows that Mr‎. ‎Ternan did receive an opinion from another city ‎

attorney on that section indicating that this is directly applicable to the vacation of ‎

those streets‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser feels that the Planning Commission should have a complete ‎

listing of all of the events that would trigger that section‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Kaiser, Krupa, Ramanauskas, Robbins, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Gaber‎

Absent‎:‎ Nowicki ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen reported that the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the use variances on the ‎

property at Nawaka and the use variance for Lone Star Steak House‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also indicated that the City is preparing for the law suit on Meadow ‎

Brook‎. ‎The case is on the court docket for trial in February of ‎1998‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the developer for Hazelwood Subdivision has requested to ‎

appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals to appeal the denial of the plat by City ‎

Council‎. ‎The City has advised the developer‎’‎s attorney, Mr‎. ‎Galvin, on the advice of ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan, that the City does not believe that the ZBA is the appropriate form to ‎

appeal the denial of a plat approval by City Council‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin is still awaiting a ‎

response‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for August ‎5‎, ‎1997‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the Special Meeting at ‎11‎:‎08 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎, Michigan time‎.‎