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, September 21, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Greg Hooper‎

Leah Potere‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Director‎

Rob Kagler, McKenna Associates‎

Stephen Dearing, Traffic Engineer‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1970

July ‎20‎, ‎1999 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Boswell, that the Minutes dated July ‎20‎, ‎

1999 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Rochester First Church of the Nazarene Memorandum ‎(‎included in the ‎

packet‎) ‎to be discussed later in the evening‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1737

Tree Conservation Ordinance Amendment Update‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎15‎, ‎

1999 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Present was Robert Kagler of McKenna Associates‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that the city has been working on the subject amendment for ‎

some time‎. ‎Chapter ‎4‎-‎12 ‎essentially regulates every tree ‎6 ‎inches in diameter and ‎

above on any properties unplatted prior to ‎1988‎. ‎The city is required to review any ‎

properties that come forward for plat approval under the standards of Chapter ‎4‎-‎12‎. ‎

The city has now had more than ten years of regulation under those ordinance ‎

provisions, and there have been many instances of difficulties in terms of enforcement ‎

and general administration of approved site plans‎. ‎When construction begins, there ‎

frequently are violations and a whole plethora of resulting issues‎. ‎The proposed ‎

ordinance amendment is perceived as an option to Chapter ‎4‎-‎12 ‎and is patterned ‎

after the existing Open Space Plan Option in Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎. ‎The Open ‎

Space Plan Option allows for a reduction in lot width and area for lots when there is a ‎

minimum of four acres of land set aside for open space‎. ‎This open space area would ‎

then become essentially dedicated to a part of the plat that can never be built on‎. ‎The ‎

proposed amendment would provide similar incentives to a developer by allowing the ‎

preservation of stands of trees and transferring the density to an upland portion of the ‎

property that lies outside of the wooded area‎. ‎Currently developers must try to ‎

configure lots within woodlands‎. ‎No greater net density would be permitted than ‎

under the current standards‎. ‎The proposed amendment would offer flexibility, ‎

clustering of units, and would minimize and facilitate the ultimate enforcement of the ‎

ordinance since it would not be on a tree‎-‎for‎-‎tree basis‎. ‎Significant woodland areas ‎

could be set aside which would include regulated trees and the understory‎. ‎The ‎

current tree ordinance regulates the tree itself but not the understory‎. ‎The proposed ‎

amendment would offer the opportunity to leave a portion of the property undisturbed ‎

and encumbered on the title by a conservation easement, and would allow for ‎

development to occur as it would on the balance of the property‎. ‎If there are changes ‎

or modifications desired by the Planning Commission, the proposed amendment can ‎

be revised further; or we could proceed with the scheduling of a public hearing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler explained that the proposed ordinance amendment is a revision of the ‎

draft brought before the Planning Commission several months ago‎. ‎It has been ‎

revised in several areas‎. ‎The previous draft had waived the minimum tree preservation ‎

percentage; that has been restored in this latest revision‎. ‎Some provisions have been ‎

added regarding limited access, paths, maintenance, dedications, restrictions, and ‎

other limitations‎. ‎The proposed ordinance amendment is structured to be almost ‎

identical to the current Open Space Plan Option requirements in Article ‎20 ‎of Zoning ‎

Ordinance ‎200‎. ‎The only differences are reducing rear yards to not less than ‎25 ‎feet ‎

when they border on land dedicated or include land otherwise restricted for tree ‎

preservation, and provided that lot widths shall be not less than ‎50 ‎feet when the width ‎

includes the drip line of any tree intended to be preserved‎. ‎Nearly all the other ‎

modifications to lot sizes, widths and area are as they exist in the Open Space Plan ‎

Option‎. ‎The Open Space Plan Option provides that for each square foot of land ‎

gained through lot size reduction, an equal amount of land in open space must be ‎

provided‎. ‎For the purposes of tree preservation a provision was included that the ‎

minimum tree preservation area would be two acres or ‎10 ‎percent of the gross area of ‎

the development, whichever is larger‎. ‎The area is smaller than that dedicated for open ‎

space because a tree preservation area is not intended for access‎. ‎Two types of ‎

eligible areas have been identified, a woodland area with no disturbance to any ‎

vegetation from the ground up, and an area surrounding regulated trees‎. ‎There is also ‎

a provision stating that the area must include the driplines of the trees‎. ‎A number of ‎

minimum requirements have been set forth for developments, such as dedication or ‎

restriction by means of a conservation easement; encouragement, but not a ‎

requirement, for contiguity; minimum area; location and space; phasing; a separate tree ‎

plan; limitations on grading; access to tree preservation areas‎. ‎A developer could use ‎

the subject option along with the Open Space Plan Option concurrently, but not with ‎

the lot averaging option‎. ‎The subject option could also be used alone without the ‎

Open Space Plan Option‎. ‎One other difference from the earlier draft is that tree ‎

preservation areas are to be left in their natural state and not graded at all‎. ‎Another ‎

difference is providing possible access to tree preservation areas for residents of lots ‎

not bordering tree preservation areas‎. ‎It would not be meant for these areas to be set ‎

aside for general access by residents‎.‎

The Chair reviewed that the Planning Commission is currently the approving body for ‎

tree removal permits and site condominiums, and City Council is the approving body ‎

for subdivisions and PUDs‎. ‎The Chair questioned why City Council would be ‎

included in the proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler responded that it relates ‎

to the Open Space Plan Option which City Council currently approves after Planning ‎

Commission review and recommendation‎. ‎

The proposed provision would assist in meeting the requirements of the tree ordinance ‎

for site condominium developments as well‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the site ‎

condominium ordinance as currently structured has posed some difficult administrative ‎

issues in that the final preliminary and tentative preliminary plans are approved by the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎However, there are other agreements, such as easements, that ‎

encumber the city which are addressed by City Council‎. ‎The final plat stage is ‎

typically the time for executing agreements for open space, detention pond ‎

maintenance, and sanitary sewer easements which require City Council approval‎. ‎The ‎

proposed ordinance amendment is structured as presented because it is patterned ‎

after the Open Space Plan Option provisions‎. ‎There is nothing precluding establishing ‎

a separate plan, which could be presented at the time of tentative approval, as a way ‎

of securing the Planning Commission's approval; but the actual agreement to reduce ‎

lot sizes could be a separate final step‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin also pointed out that no ‎

detached site condominium development in the city has requested the Open Space ‎

Plan Option‎. ‎Also, the subject option cannot be selected by a developer if the trees ‎

in an existing stand of trees or on two acres of woodlands do not reach ‎37 ‎percent‎. ‎

The proposed amendment may help a developer reach ‎37 ‎percent and then make up ‎

the difference in tree replacements‎. ‎

The Chair perceived a situation where the Planning Commission could approve a site ‎

condominium plan and City Council could in essence veto that approval by ‎

disapproving the tree preservation option selected‎. ‎

The Chair also clarified that the proposed ordinance amendment is an option to the ‎

Tree Conservation Ordinance‎. ‎The balance of the ordinance would still need to be ‎

met‎. ‎The proposed ordinance amendment would not waive the ‎37 ‎percent ‎

preservation requirement‎. ‎It would merely provide a tool for developers to meet the ‎

requirement for ‎37 ‎percent tree preservation‎. ‎The Chair urged that language be ‎

clarified in the proposed ordinance amendment to emphasize that requirement‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler clarified that the proposed ordinance amendment provides a modification ‎

from the lot size provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; it does not provide modification ‎

to any of the provisions of the Tree Ordinance‎. ‎By modifying the lot size provisions of ‎

the Zoning Ordinance it is meant to enable developers to meet all the requirements‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the focus of the proposed ordinance amendment is not on ‎

the ‎37 ‎percent; it is a redevelopment tool, or a residual development tool, that offers ‎

an option to tree‎-‎for‎-‎tree regulation that sometimes works to destroy woodland ‎

stands‎. ‎When a developer is focused on preserving ‎37 ‎percent, he may end up ‎

destroying significant tree stands or portions thereof‎. ‎The proposed amendment ‎

removes the emphasis from preserving every cottonwood, locust, or other lesser ‎

quality trees just because they measure more than ‎6 ‎inches in diameter breast height‎. ‎

This option is discretionary; it is not an entitlement‎. ‎The developer still would have to ‎

present a tree preservation plan‎. ‎The woodland consultant would determine whether ‎

or not trees would have to be tagged and surveyed‎. ‎The proposed amendment ‎

recognizes that all treed areas of properties are not created equal‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero asked how the proposed ordinance amendment would address ‎

stands of trees smaller than two acres‎. ‎Smaller areas of trees are just as valuable to ‎

smaller developments and adjacent property owners as larger developments‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero would want to protect smaller stands of trees, too; which may ‎

become a bigger issue with redevelopment as people assemble parcels of land‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Kagler responded that the proposed ordinance amendment would not preclude ‎

several smaller stands of trees throughout a larger development from being preserved ‎

provided the total was over two acres‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler stated if the concern is with ‎

redevelopment or residual parcels, a minimum percentage could be required instead ‎

of a minimum acreage cap‎. ‎It would have to be determined what size area would be ‎

too small to be a tree preservation area‎. ‎

The Chair reasoned that the proposed ordinance amendment is focused on parcels of ‎

a minimum of ‎20 ‎acres because the minimum required to be set aside for woodstands ‎

would always be two acres‎. ‎Ten percent of a ten‎-‎acre parcel would be only one ‎

acre‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out under the current ordinance requirements, the minimum ‎

preservation percentage of ‎37 ‎percent only has to be met as a percentage; it does not ‎

dictate where or how‎. ‎It is not required to save any particular tree‎. ‎Also, the current ‎

ordinance says that trees in the building envelope have to be counted as removals‎. ‎In ‎

giving some flexibility in terms of lot width and area, and setting aside some woodland ‎

area, the proposed amendment may allow for greater preservation on a lot because ‎

the lots would be smaller and the building envelope would still be driven by the ‎

setback‎. ‎The purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment is to allow some ‎

flexibility because there have been problems with counting trees in building envelopes‎. ‎

The Chair believed the proposed ordinance amendment would achieve the desired ‎

flexibility with more difficult parcels even retaining the ‎37 ‎percent‎. ‎

‎

Member Gaber wondered why a developer would choose the Open Space Plan ‎

Option if the proposed ordinance amendment were adopted‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

responded that the Open Space Plan Option is not used much anymore‎. ‎The last ‎

development to use it was Rookery Woods‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin and Mr‎. ‎Kagler discussed the concept of requiring a woodlands survey ‎

to determine eligible areas of tree preservation, similar to the current wetlands ‎

determination required by the city‎. ‎With such, the woodlands boundaries could be ‎

established before a preliminary plat or plan is presented to the Planning Commission‎. ‎

Trees would still need to be tagged and surveyed, but not all the trees on an entire ‎

parcel‎. ‎If the purpose is to determine the areas within which regulated trees are ‎

located, there might not be a need to survey all the trees on a site‎. ‎It would still have ‎

to be determined who would be the approving body, the Planning Commission or City ‎

Council‎.‎

Member Hooper did not think the proposed option would be used if driplines of trees ‎

were included in the requirements as well as the ‎37 ‎percent preservation‎. ‎It would not ‎

be possible to build a house underneath the dripline of a tree‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler stated that the current tree ordinance is cumbersome now‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission would need to decide if the proposed ordinance amendment would be ‎

less cumbersome‎. ‎The need to identify each individual tree would be eliminated by ‎

identifying tree areas and their boundaries‎. ‎If this were done at the outset and ‎

provided to the developer, it could be a tool to use at the start of a development ‎

rather than having the developer prepare a plan at the same time trying to identify ‎

trees, and then finding out it does not meet the eligibility requirements under the option‎.‎

To Member Gaber it appeared to be a trade off ‎-- ‎either ‎37 ‎percent or the proposed ‎

option‎. ‎To Members Ruggiero, Corneliussen and Potere it appeared that the ‎

proposed option conflicts with the ‎37 ‎percent preservation‎. ‎The focus should be tree ‎

preservation without trading lot size‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reminded commissioners that the city attorney has not yet reviewed the ‎

proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎She also suggested running some scenarios on a ‎

typical piece of property to see what the effect of the proposed tree option would be ‎

versus preserving ‎37 ‎percent of the trees‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler offered to enhance the language regarding noncontiguous areas and trees ‎

in excessive grades, to be more specific‎. ‎Including the driplines of trees would make it ‎

easier to reach the ten percent minimum area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell suggested language along the lines of meeting the intent of the ‎

requirement to preserve ‎37 ‎percent of the trees‎. ‎This could be similar to a buffer ‎

modification or waiver which the Planning Commission frequently finds substantially ‎

meets the intent of the ordinance‎. ‎Treating it as a waiver would provide substantially ‎

more flexibility and discretion and would provide for more negotiation to arrive at a ‎

mutually agreeable solution‎. ‎

Member Ramanauskas thought that a more creative approach to allow more flexibility ‎

would be beneficial as it may achieve the preservation of better quality trees rather ‎

than merely a specific quantity‎. ‎He would anticipate that close to ‎37 ‎percent would ‎

still be achieved‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that, if the proposed ordinance amendment had been in effect ‎

at the time that Shortridge Estates was approved, the result would probably have been ‎

the same‎. ‎The tree areas would have been defined at the beginning, and the city would ‎

have encouraged the developer to leave the tree areas open and undisturbed‎. ‎It ‎

would be valuable to study Shortridge Estates as one of the scenarios‎.‎

The Chair affirmed the consensus of the Planning Commission that it was appropriate ‎

to keep the approvals for tree removal with the Planning Commission to avoid ‎

complications‎.‎

Several commissioners identified inconsistencies between preserving tree preservation ‎

areas and providing access to those areas; preserving the understory and providing a ‎

woodchip path on top of the understory‎.‎

Member Corneliussen suggested scheduling a tree preservation workshop conducted ‎

by Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎16‎, ‎1999‎; Staff ‎

Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎15‎, ‎1999‎; Letter from ‎

McKenna Associates, Inc‎. ‎dated September ‎7‎, ‎1999‎; City of Rochester Hills, ‎

Michigan Zoning Ordinance Section ‎20‎.‎01‎, paragraph c Tree Preservation Plan ‎

Option dated September ‎7‎, ‎1999 ‎prepared by McKenna Associates, Inc‎.‎; Planning ‎

Commission Meeting Minutes dated March ‎2‎, ‎1999‎; Special Planning Commission ‎

Meeting Minutes of July ‎29‎, ‎1997‎; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May ‎20‎, ‎

1997‎.)‎

________________________________‎

[ ‎RECESS ‎9‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. - ‎9‎:‎38 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Discussed

DISCUSSION

2000-1971

Rochester Road Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Width‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎15‎, ‎

1999 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Present was Stephen Dearing, City Traffic Engineer‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that the Rochester Road Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Width is the first step ‎

in implementing the Master Land Use Plan Update which was adopted on June ‎29‎, ‎

1999‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing discussed how he considers the subject item a housekeeping matter for ‎

the Planning Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dearing reviewed the inconsistencies regarding the ‎

recommendations for Rochester Road in the Master Transportation Plan and the ‎

Master Land Use Plan‎. ‎The Transportation Plan recommended a ‎6‎-‎lane boulevard, ‎

but the right‎-‎of‎-‎way established for Rochester Road was not adequate to support that ‎

cross‎-‎section‎. ‎It is on record now that the Planning Commission wants to keep the ‎

6‎-‎lane boulevard as the preferred cross‎-‎section for Rochester Road between South ‎

Boulevard and the southern boundary of the City of Rochester‎. ‎The discrepancy has ‎

been resolved by a recommendation that the Master Transportation Plan be amended ‎

and the Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Plan be modified to show ‎180 ‎feet‎. ‎The corridor study ‎

that was performed by the consultant contained a recommendation that the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way not be strictly centered on the survey section lines that describe the ‎

square miles within the city, because to do so and have a perfectly symmetrical ‎

widening on both sides of the survey line would result in adverse impacts to structures ‎

and other disruptions to both commercial and residential properties‎. ‎That ‎

recommendation was accepted by the Planning Commission so that the right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

width would meander through the corridor to try to minimize the impacts to individual ‎

properties‎. ‎Now the details need to be defined and the right‎-‎of‎-‎way for each ‎

individual parcel needs to be identified‎. ‎Included in members' packets was a ‎

Rochester Road Corridor Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Plan, Table C‎-‎1 ‎prepared by ‎

Stephen Dearing‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that the next step would be to scheduled a public hearing to ‎

amend the Master Transportation Plan to adopt a new right‎-‎of‎-‎way map, and to ‎

adopt the changes to each individual property as an appendix‎. ‎All property owners ‎

along the corridor would need to be notified‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin informed everyone that an aerial view of Rochester Road encompassed ‎

by the subject amendment is available in the Planning Department‎. ‎It will also be ‎

available at the public hearing‎. ‎It will show both alternatives ‎-- ‎a symmetrical widening ‎

along both sides of Rochester Road as well as one that meanders‎.‎

Member Corneliussen suggested adding a column showing the existing right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing described how the city cannot intend to carry a ‎6‎-‎lane boulevard up to ‎

the bridge on Rochester Road leading into downtown Rochester‎. ‎North of Avon ‎

Road, the table shows the amount of right‎-‎of‎-‎way needed to transition from a ‎6‎-‎lane ‎

boulevard down to the existing ‎5‎-‎lane road‎. ‎It turns out that the road can be merged ‎

back into the existing pavement by the time one reaches Arlington‎. ‎Then from ‎

Arlington down to the city limits it could stay the existing Master Plan of ‎150 ‎feet‎. ‎

Perhaps the table should cover all the way to the southern city limit of the City of ‎

Rochester‎. ‎An explanation could be added for the benefit of the public that the ‎

purpose was to transition the roadway down to meet the bridge as stated in the ‎

corridor study‎. ‎According to current geometric standards, it takes ‎600 ‎feet to merge ‎

one lane into another lane‎. ‎From the other direction, two lanes can be ‎"‎shot‎-‎gunned‎" ‎

into three lanes very quickly‎.‎

Member Rosen pointed out that business names on the table would be helpful for ‎

people to locate properties, but street addresses rather than names should be used for ‎

residential properties for privacy reasons‎. ‎Most residential property owners cannot ‎

identify their property by Sidwell number‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎15‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

Rochester Road Corridor Master Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Plan, Table C‎-‎1‎; Figure C‎-‎1‎, Master ‎

Right‎-‎of‎-‎Way Plan from Master Thoroughfare Plan Update dated September ‎14‎, ‎

1999‎.)‎

________________________________‎

[ ‎Exit Dearing ‎10‎:‎05 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Chair announced that the First Church of the Nazarene subject will be discussed ‎

next in light of the fact that representatives of the church are present in the audience‎.‎

Discussed

2000-1973

Parking in Required Side Yard Ordinance Amendment‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎16‎, ‎1999 ‎

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

Present was Robert Kagler of McKenna Associates‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse explained the proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎The current ordinance ‎

does not allow off‎-‎street parking in a required side yard in the O‎-‎1‎, Office Business ‎

district, or in any of the business districts, or SP, Special Purpose district‎. ‎Within the ‎

last several weeks the Planning Department has received three site plans or concept ‎

plans indicating parking in the required side yard‎. ‎In reviewing the ordinance, staff ‎

found it curious that parking would be allowed in the front yard but not in the side ‎

yard‎. ‎Staff believed that it might be appropriate to allow off‎-‎street parking in a ‎

portion of a required side yard as well as the front yard in light of the fact that the ‎

majority of the vacant O‎-‎1‎, Office Business parcels are small‎. ‎Side yards of Interior ‎

lots that face non‎-‎residential are the focus of the proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎A ‎

buffer would still be required; parking could be placed all the way up to the buffer with ‎

the proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler clarified that the word ‎"‎unobstructed‎" ‎in the proposed ordinance ‎

amendment would mean an area within which no structures, driveways, parking, signs, ‎

or other such uses or structures may be located unless specifically permitted in the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎Existing screening and buffer requirements would not be affected by the ‎

proposed amendment, and would supersede any provision for parking‎. ‎The setback ‎

requirements would remain the same‎. ‎It is just the degree of parking that would be ‎

permitted within the setback that the proposed amendment addresses‎. ‎The proposed ‎

amendment would not permit a buffer area to be reduced in order to allow parking, ‎

unless a buffer modification were granted‎. ‎The proposed amendment only modifies ‎

the existing Paragraph ‎21‎.‎04‎.(‎j‎) ‎to allow off‎-‎street parking in a required side yard as ‎

well as a required front yard‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the problem does not affect office zoning abutting ‎

residential; it affects office abutting office similar to the northwest corner of Rochester ‎

Road and Wabash abutting Regal Office Colony‎. ‎When a ‎30‎-‎foot setback is required ‎

on such small sites in Juengel Orchards, and no parking is permitted in the ‎30‎-‎foot ‎

setback where one parcel abuts another office parcel, it virtually precludes ‎

development because there will not be sufficient room to meet the parking standards ‎

for the property‎. ‎This is another instance of a residual parcel‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin also ‎

point out when Rochester Road goes to a ‎180‎-‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way, some sites will be ‎

hard‎-‎pressed to meet the parking standards for ‎10‎x‎20 ‎parking stalls in the required ‎

quantity and layout as well as storm water detention without some relief‎. ‎It may be ‎

difficult to develop or redevelop the remaining parcels, particularly on Rochester ‎

Road‎. ‎

The Planning Commission suggested adding language to the proposed Paragraph ‎8 ‎

"‎where the O‎-‎1‎, Office Business district does not directly abut residential ‎

zoning‎:".‎

The Chair confirmed with staff that the city attorney would be reviewing the proposed ‎

ordinance amendment prior to the public hearing‎. ‎The proposed ordinance ‎

amendment as modified can be prepared for public hearing without returning to the ‎

Planning Commission for review‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎16‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

excerpt from Section ‎21‎.‎04 ‎of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎: ‎Off‎-‎Street Parking ‎

Requirements; excerpt from Footnotes to Schedule of Regulations of Zoning ‎

Ordinance ‎200‎: ‎pages ‎20‎-‎104‎, ‎20‎-‎108‎, ‎20‎-‎110‎; page ‎19‎-‎105‎.)‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2000-1972

File No‎. ‎98‎-‎014 ‎- ‎First Church of the Nazarene, located at ‎1705 ‎Walton Blvd‎.‎, ‎

west of Livernois, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎16‎-‎102‎-‎002‎, zoned R‎-‎1‎, One Family ‎

Residential‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎16‎, ‎1999 ‎

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

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse summarized that the applicant has requested to proceed through the ‎

site plan review process while the Historic Districts Commission studies the ‎

significance of the site in regard to historic designation‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse reviewed that ‎

the special land use was granted conditioned upon the site plan being consistent with ‎

the concept plan and concept architectural drawings‎. ‎The concept plan included the ‎

existing house, garage and barn‎. ‎A site plan received January ‎19‎, ‎199 ‎and two ‎

subsequent plans indicated that the house and wood barn, previously identified as the ‎

garage, were to remain‎. ‎The structure identified as the barn on the concept plan has ‎

apparently burned down‎. ‎However, a revised site plan received July ‎12‎, ‎1999 ‎

indicated that both the existing house and all outbuildings, including the barn, were to ‎

be removed‎. ‎The applicant's proposal to remove the existing residence and ‎

outbuildings has triggered a study by the Historic Districts Commission‎. ‎While ‎

awaiting this determination, the applicant wishes to proceed with the site plan approval ‎

process‎. ‎Staff believes that the Special Land Use approval is unaffected by the ‎

removal of the existing structures, particularly since the use subject to Special Land ‎

Use consideration was the church, and since the proposed site plan is not dependent ‎

upon the existing structures to function as a church‎. ‎If the Planning Commission or ‎

City Council are in agreement, staff will continue the site plan review process‎.‎

Present were Scott Kaye of Gator Construction, the builder of the project; and Pam ‎

McDonough, church board member‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaye explained that the church purchased the property not because of the ‎

structures that were on it but because they thought it would be an ideal location for a ‎

new church‎. ‎The church had planned to utilize the barn as a center for youth activities‎. ‎

The barn burned down around June or July‎. ‎It has now been determined that the ‎

other structures are not feasible as storage facilities, for which they had originally ‎

intended to use them‎. ‎They are not large enough to be used for any community ‎

activity purpose, and do not have the proper floor loading or zoning for that use‎. ‎They ‎

would like to remove the structures because of their current condition‎. ‎A decision is ‎

expected from the Historic Districts Commission on November ‎11‎, ‎1999‎. ‎At this ‎

point they would like to proceed with site plan approval based on the fact that they ‎

will be removing the structures if the Historic Districts Commission approves it‎. ‎The ‎

proposed church building could be constructed with or without the structures on the ‎

site‎. ‎Nothing else on the site plan has been changed except the removal of the ‎

structures‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎McDonough added that the chicken coop has burned at the back, the house is ‎

deteriorated on the inside, and the outside appearance is very bad‎. ‎It has no heating ‎

or plumbing‎. ‎The barn burned because it was set on fire‎. ‎The integrity of the buildings ‎

is such that it would be too costly to bring them up to code; it would be cheaper to ‎

tear them down‎. ‎They thought originally that the existing house could be used as a ‎

parsonage, but it is too costly‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse added that the proposed removal of the buildings is an issue now ‎

because that is not consistent with the concept plan, which was a condition of the ‎

special land use approval‎. ‎

Regarding the Historic Districts Commission involvement, Ms‎. ‎Millhouse explained ‎

that it has been discovered that the house on the subject site was found on a list of ‎

potential historic sites‎. ‎In order to be designated an historic structure or site, the ‎

Historic Districts Commission must perform a study and then make a ‎

recommendation‎. ‎The applicant does not want to interfere with that process; the ‎

applicant has merely asked if they can continue with the site plan approval process, ‎

based on submitted site plans showing the structures on the site, while the historic ‎

study is conducted‎. ‎The consensus of the Planning Commission was yes‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse noted that, between the first three submittals of site plans, the parking ‎

lot configuration differs slightly depending on whether the buildings exist or are ‎

removed‎. ‎The site plans showing the buildings on the site show a portion of the ‎

parking lot servicing the existing house‎. ‎It does not impact the proposed church in any ‎

way‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin and Ms‎. ‎Millhouse discussed the requirement for possible variances for ‎

either the house or barn‎. ‎The house would be permitted as an ancillary use as a ‎

parsonage or a church office without any variances, and the applicant has been so ‎

notified in writing‎. ‎The wood barn would require setback variances to allow it to stay‎. ‎

And the variances would have to be obtained prior to site plan approval‎.‎

Member Gaber recommended that the applicant submit a request for a revised special ‎

land use approval as soon as possible while proceeding with site plan approval‎. ‎A ‎

condition can be attached that the special land use approval be modified‎. ‎Then ‎

variances would not be necessary‎.‎

Both the Chair and Ms‎. ‎Millhouse identified the three options available to the ‎

applicant‎: ‎1‎) ‎Continue with the site plan approval process showing the structures in ‎

conformance with the concept plan; ‎2‎) ‎Continue with the site plan approval process in ‎

addition to applying for variances; ‎3‎) ‎Apply for a revised special land use approval ‎

from the Planning Commission and City Council‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse said that staff will wait for word from the applicant regarding his choice ‎

of option‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎16‎, ‎1999‎.)‎

A‎.‎ Ms‎. ‎Goodwin distributed copies of the Project Status Report‎. ‎

Discussed

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for October ‎5‎, ‎1999‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎11‎:‎17 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎