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, March 24, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

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

Precinct #‎5‎, ‎1551 ‎East Auburn Rd‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser ‎(‎enter ‎8‎:‎07 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎31 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Christopher Doozan, McKenna Associates‎

John Staran, Assistant City Attorney‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Planning & Zoning News, January ‎1998‎

B‎.‎ Letter and Resolution from the City of Troy regarding Agenda Item IV‎.‎B‎. ‎

File No‎. ‎97-006‎

C‎.‎ Proposed revisions to the Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance‎

D‎.‎ Communication from McKenna Associates regarding the Planned Unit ‎

Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance‎

E‎.‎ Minutes from the January ‎27‎, ‎1998‎ Planning Commission Meeting ‎

regarding the Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance‎

F‎.‎ Addendum to staff report regarding Agenda Item IV‎.‎A‎. ‎File No‎. ‎97-004‎

G‎.‎ Synopsis of March ‎18‎, ‎1998‎ City Council meeting‎

H‎.‎ Letter regarding Country Club Village ‎(‎File No‎. ‎97-004‎) ‎from George & ‎

Rosalie Schmidt ‎

I‎.‎ Communication regarding Tree Removal Permit request for File No‎. ‎97-‎

004‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1762

Proposed Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance Amendment ‎(‎Public ‎

Hearing‎) - ‎To consider an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎of the City ‎

of Rochester Hills to establish a Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated March ‎18‎, ‎1998 ‎has ‎

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

Commissioners received at the meeting Draft proposed PUD Ordinance dated March ‎

23‎, ‎1998 ‎and letter from McKenna Associates dated March ‎23‎, ‎1998‎. (‎Said ‎

documents have been placed on file and by reference become part of the record ‎

hereof‎.)‎

‎

The Chair announced that the public hearing would be conducted and then, rather than ‎

give the topic short shrift, discussion of the information gathered from the public ‎

hearing will be postponed until another night due to the lateness of the hour‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

Bob Jenkins, ‎3621 ‎Bendelow,‎ knows nothing about the proposed PUD ‎

Ordinance Amendment, but asked if it provided the ability to have agreements made ‎

between the developer and Planning with less contact with the surrounding neighbors‎. ‎

The Chair and commissioners assured Mr‎. ‎Jenkins that it has absolutely no effect in ‎

that regard; rather, it encourages more contact; and it is designed to enable the ‎

Planning Department and all city staff and boards and commissions to provide ‎

flexibility in the development of the small residual parcels that remain as Rochester ‎

Hills becomes built out‎. ‎

There being no other persons coming forward to speak regarding the proposed ‎

ordinance amendment, the Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

The Chair ‎tabled‎ discussion of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎to ‎

establish a Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated March ‎18‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

draft of proposed PUD Ordinance dated March ‎18‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by McKenna ‎

Associates, Inc‎. ‎including Flow Chart D‎-‎1‎, Diagram D‎-‎1 ‎overlay; Notice of Public ‎

Hearing; commissioners received at the meeting Draft proposed PUD Ordinance ‎

dated March ‎23‎, ‎1998 ‎and letter from McKenna Associates dated March ‎23‎, ‎1998‎.) ‎

Discussed

2000-1847

Request for Conditional land Use Recommendation ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎979‎-‎006 ‎- ‎The ‎

Ritz Banquet Center, a ‎19‎,‎436 ‎square foot banquet center on ‎3‎.‎42 ‎acres, ‎

located at the northeast corner of South Boulevard and John R, Parcel Nos‎. ‎

15‎-‎36‎-‎352‎-‎018 ‎and ‎-‎019‎, zoned O‎-‎1‎, Office Business, Ms‎. ‎Diaa Mecheal, ‎770 ‎

Tremant, Boston, MA ‎02118‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated October ‎13‎, ‎1997 ‎and ‎

Revised March ‎13‎, ‎1998 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of ‎

the record hereof‎.) ‎

Mr‎. ‎Jim Butler of Professional Engineering Associates and Mr‎. ‎Edward Hines, ‎

architect, were present‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had nothing to add to the staff report‎. ‎He brought attention to the letter ‎

from the City of Troy Planning Commission that was distributed at the meeting which ‎

discusses concerns about the impact of the proposed development to citizens in ‎

neighboring Troy‎. (‎Said letter has been placed on file and by reference becomes part ‎

of the record hereof‎.) ‎

The Chair explained that a public hearing is being conducted for the request for ‎

Conditional Land Use Approval even though this item was postponed from the ‎

October ‎21‎, ‎1997 ‎meeting‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

There being no persons coming forward who wished to speak on this matter, the ‎

Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Butler stated he has no problems with anything in the staff report‎. ‎He has ‎

received a copy of the letter from the City of Troy and discussed it on the phone with ‎

the planning director‎. ‎Addressing the landscape screening concerns in the letter Mr‎. ‎

Butler pointed out that they are providing buffering along South Boulevard as best as ‎

they can where the property abuts the City of Troy‎. ‎He explained the traffic ‎

circulation through the proposed site on a displayed graphic‎.‎

The affected houses in Troy are located near the western driveway on South ‎

Boulevard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that slightly more than half of the subject property is opposite ‎

commercial zoning in Troy‎. ‎He estimated approximately ‎300 ‎feet are zoned ‎

commercial, and approximately ‎200 ‎feet are zoned residential in Troy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

noted on the landscape plan that the area immediately across from the residential ‎

zoning in Troy is substantially obscured with landscaping as best as possible‎. ‎On the ‎

western side of the site the landscaping is more scattered‎. ‎The applicant did take into ‎

account the neighboring community and its respective zoning in designing the ‎

landscape plan‎.‎

The Chair asked why the building was not situated farther to the west on the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Butler responded that would place the parking fields in the rear and create a ‎

dysfunctional site‎. ‎They wanted the main part of the building to have the most ‎

exposure‎. ‎They want people to come into the front of the building‎. ‎Turning the ‎

building around ‎180 ‎degrees, as mentioned by the Chair, would place a significant ‎

amount of the parking area and headlights at night in front of the residences in Troy‎. ‎

Further discussion occurred regarding ingress and egress and traffic circulation around ‎

the site, the locations of driveways, the loading zone‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Butler stated there is no ‎

access to the site from M‎-‎59‎; access will be provided from South Boulevard‎. ‎The ‎

proposed location of the loading zone, according to Member Ruggiero, could be ‎

perceived by Troy residents as very prominent, ‎"‎in your face‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hines summarized that they could flip the building ‎180 ‎degrees north‎/‎south and ‎

eliminate the easternmost curbcut off South Boulevard‎. ‎The landscaping would then ‎

be continued along South Boulevard‎. ‎The dumpster location could also be moved to ‎

within five feet of the building, per new ordinance requirements‎. ‎The proposed ‎

number of parking spaces is ‎197‎; the handicap spaces are adequate‎.‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Conditional Land Use Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎(‎The ‎

Ritz Banquet Center‎)‎, to ‎Recommend Approval of a Conditional Land Use ‎as a ‎

banquet hall‎/‎conference center incorporating the five reasons recited in the staff report ‎

dated October ‎13‎, ‎1997 ‎and revised March ‎13‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed banquet hall‎/‎conference center meets the spirit and intent of the ‎

zoning ordinance‎. ‎Furthermore, the proposed use meets all the specific ‎

requirements of the O‎-1‎ zoning district‎.‎

2‎.‎ The building will be designed to be compatible with adjacent properties‎. ‎The ‎

building will have soft colors and be constructed of brick‎. ‎The proposed ‎

building will be similar in bulk, scale, and setback to other buildings in the O‎-1‎ ‎

zoning district in the general vicinity‎.‎

3‎.‎ The property will be served adequately by public facilities‎. ‎The property has ‎

frontage onto two major thoroughfares within the City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎

Also, adequate water and storm sewers exist on‎-‎site‎. ‎Furthermore, the ‎

applicant is proposing to extend the required sanitary sewer to the property‎. ‎

Lastly, the applicant is reserving right‎-‎of‎-‎way beyond the required planned ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way width for John R Road‎.‎

4‎.‎ The use is not expected to be detrimental to other persons or property in the ‎

general vicinity‎. ‎The applicant is proposing landscaping above and beyond the ‎

required landscaping along South Boulevard in areas where residential zoning ‎

exists in the City of Troy‎. ‎

5‎.‎ The proposed use is not expected to create additional public cost for public ‎

facilities or services since the applicant will be extended or improving utilities ‎

and public facilities at the applicant‎’‎s expense‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Member Rosen suggested adding to Finding No‎. ‎4 ‎"‎The applicant has eliminated the ‎

easternmost drive entrance on South Boulevard to avoid direct conflict with the ‎

residences across the street in the City of Troy so there will be only one curbcut on ‎

the southern boundary of the property‎."‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

COMPLETE MOTION AS AMENDED‎:‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Conditional Land Use Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎(‎The ‎

Ritz Banquet Center‎)‎, to ‎Recommend Approval of a Conditional Land Use ‎as a ‎

banquet hall‎/‎conference center incorporating the five reasons recited in the staff report ‎

dated October ‎13‎, ‎1997 ‎and revised March ‎13‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed banquet hall‎/‎conference center meets the spirit and intent of the ‎

zoning ordinance‎. ‎Furthermore, the proposed use meets all the specific ‎

requirements of the O‎-1‎ zoning district‎.‎

2‎.‎ The building will be designed to be compatible with adjacent properties‎. ‎The ‎

building will have soft colors and be constructed of brick‎. ‎The proposed ‎

building will be similar in bulk, scale, and setback to other buildings in the O‎-1‎ ‎

zoning district in the general vicinity‎.‎

3‎.‎ The property will be served adequately by public facilities‎. ‎The property has ‎

frontage onto two major thoroughfares within the City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎

Also, adequate water and storm sewers exist on‎-‎site‎. ‎Furthermore, the ‎

applicant is proposing to extend the required sanitary sewer to the property‎. ‎

Lastly, the applicant is reserving right‎-‎of‎-‎way beyond the required planned ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way width for John R Road‎.‎

4‎.‎ The use is not expected to be detrimental to other persons or property in the ‎

general vicinity‎. ‎The applicant is proposing landscaping above and beyond the ‎

required landscaping along South Boulevard in areas where residential zoning ‎

exists in the City of Troy‎. ‎The applicant has eliminated the easternmost drive ‎

entrance on South Boulevard to avoid direct conflict with the residences ‎

across the street in the City of Troy so there will be only one curbcut on the ‎

southern boundary of the property‎.‎

5‎.‎ The proposed use is not expected to create additional public cost for public ‎

facilities or services since the applicant will be extended or improving utilities ‎

and public facilities at the applicant‎’‎s expense‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1764

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎- ‎The Ritz Banquet Center‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎(‎The ‎

Ritz Banquet Center‎)‎, to ‎grant the Tree Removal Permit‎ with the two conditions in ‎

the staff report and incorporating all findings by staff and consultant‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Provide a performance guarantee in the amount of ‎$3,168.00‎ for the estimated ‎

cost of the replacement trees‎.‎

2‎.‎ The applicant donate ‎$7,128.00‎ to the City‎’‎s Tree Fund to account for ‎36‎ ‎

replacement credits prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Granted

2000-1765

Request for a Buffer Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎- ‎The Ritz Banquet Center‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the buffer modification‎. ‎Along M‎-‎59 ‎there is an easement for ‎

a sanitary sewer and the landscape ordinance prohibits plantings in an easement‎. ‎In ‎

exchange the applicant is offering to preserve the future right‎-‎of‎-‎way which goes way ‎

beyond ‎60 ‎feet at the intersection of John R and South Boulevard where the two ‎

section lines do not line up properly‎. ‎This would be for future alignment purposes‎. ‎As ‎

indicated the same number of trees will be planted elsewhere on the site‎.‎

Item ‎3‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎(‎The ‎

Ritz Banquet Center‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎approve the Type 'D' Buffer ‎

Modification‎ along M‎-‎59 ‎in the location of a sanitary sewer easement citing the three ‎

findings in the staff report, based on plans dated received by the City of Rochester ‎

Hills Planning Department on October ‎2‎, ‎1997 ‎and architectural plans dated received ‎

January ‎31‎, ‎1997‎.)‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ There is a practical difficulty in meeting the literal requirements of the buffering and ‎

screening standards stated within the zoning ordinance due to a preexisting ‎

sanitary sewer easement located in the same area where the buffer is required ‎

to be installed‎.‎

2‎.‎ The sanitary sewer easement precludes the ability to plant trees within the buffer‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant is proposing to plant the same number of trees that is required within ‎

the buffer elsewhere on‎-‎site‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1766

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎- ‎The Ritz Banquet Center‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎006 ‎(‎The ‎

Ritz Banquet Center‎)‎, to ‎grant Site Plan Approval ‎ incorporating the ‎

recommendations and one condition in the staff report plus additional conditions, ‎

based on Site Plan dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department ‎

on January ‎31‎, ‎1997 ‎as modified and indicated in the record tonight indicating the ‎

deletion of the easternmost drive on South Boulevard, along with a commensurate ‎

reduction in the road taper to the resultant lone entry drive on South Boulevard; ‎

additional landscaping to be placed along South Boulevard in the location of the ‎

eliminated drive; premised on City Council approving the Conditional Land Use ‎

Request; and reversing the loading zone‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ If the buffer modification is granted, the site plan indicates that all ordinances can ‎

be met‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed building meets the City‎’‎s architectural guidelines and is compatible ‎

with other buildings in the area‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed parking lot layout is expected to provide safe pedestrian and ‎

vehicular circulation‎.‎

4‎.‎ A minimal increase in traffic is expected to be generated from this use, and John R ‎

and South Boulevards are expected to adequately accommodate any such ‎

increase in traffic‎.‎

5‎.‎ The development is not expected to have any harmful effects on natural features ‎

and characteristics of the site as documented in the applicant's Environmental ‎

Impact Statement‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The sanitary sewer shall be extended by the applicant from the Spalding ‎

DeDecker property to this site as part of the development of this site‎.‎

2‎.‎ The Conditional Land Use shall be approved by City Council‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant shall provide a landscape plan guarantee in the form of a bond, ‎

letter of credit or surety in the amount of ‎$29,076‎ to be adjusted by staff once ‎

the new amount of planting in the area of the eliminated drive is determined‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans dated received October ‎2‎, ‎1997 ‎by the City of Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Department prepared by Professional Engineering Associate and ‎

architectural plans dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department ‎

January ‎31‎, ‎1997 ‎prepared by Heins & Kwapis Architects; Staff Report prepared by ‎

Paul Rizzardi dated October ‎13‎, ‎1997 ‎and Revised March ‎13‎, ‎1998 ‎; letter from City ‎

of Troy Planning Department dated March ‎13‎, ‎1998‎; Environmental Impact ‎

Statement dated January ‎28‎, ‎1996‎; Notice of Public Hearing regarding Conditional ‎

Land Use Approval; Notice of Meeting regarding Tree Removal Permit; Land Use ‎

and Tree Removal Permit Application; Offer to Purchase Real Estate Land Contract; ‎

Planning Commission meeting minutes of December ‎9‎, ‎1997 ‎and November ‎18‎, ‎1997 ‎

and October ‎21‎, ‎1997 ‎and August ‎5‎, ‎1997‎.)‎

Granted

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1841

Request for Approval of the Open Space Plan Option ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎004 ‎- ‎

Country Club Village Subdivision, a ‎266‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎118‎.‎28 ‎acres, located ‎

at the Rochester Golf Course on the south side of Auburn between Bendelow ‎

and Vardon, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎203‎-‎001 ‎and ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎476‎-‎002‎, zoned R‎-‎3‎, One ‎

Family Residential, East Course Limited Partnership, ‎2000 ‎North Woodward ‎

Ave‎.‎, Suite ‎130‎, Bloomfield Hills, Mi ‎48304‎, Applicant‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated March ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎has been placed ‎

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

Present for the applicant was Larry Garon, partner with East Course Limited ‎

Partnership, owners of the property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi said that Mr‎. ‎Garon asked him to distribute one of the letters which he ‎

forwarded to the city which was not listed in Communications‎. ‎He did not have ‎

copies of the letter so he circulated it to commissioners for their review‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi summarized the five requests based on the staff report and reviewed ‎

staff's recommendation for each request‎. ‎Staff recommends approval of the Open ‎

Space Plan‎. ‎According to the Zoning Ordinance the open space must be usable, so ‎

the floodplains and wetlands cannot be used for open space‎. ‎The proposed Open ‎

Space Plan exceeds the minimum required open space‎. ‎In order to use the Open ‎

Space Plan Option the applicant must demonstrate there is no increase in density by ‎

using the smaller lot sizes permitted under the Open Space Plan Option‎. ‎Concept ‎

plans were distributed to commissioners at the meeting which indicate how the subject ‎

property could be developed without using the Open Space Plan Option‎. ‎This ‎

concept plan indicates that there is no increase in density; each unit would have a ‎

buildable area which is outside the floodplain and wetland areas‎. ‎Therefore the plan ‎

does meet the spirit and intent of the Open Space Plan Option of the Subdivision and ‎

Zoning Ordinance requirements‎. ‎In addition passive recreation areas are shown within ‎

the open space areas‎. ‎

Staff is recommending conditional approval of the Tree Removal Permit‎. ‎

There are about ‎1350 ‎trees spread out throughout the site with ‎38‎.‎8 ‎percent ‎

proposed to be saved‎. ‎The applicant has been required to submit a significant amount ‎

of information regarding utilities and grades to get the most accurate picture of which ‎

trees could reasonably be saved‎. ‎The subject plat is probably the most detailed ‎

tentative preliminary plat submitted to the city to date‎. ‎As a condition of plat approval ‎

the applicant has agreed to drop lots at the final preliminary plat stage, or later, to ‎

assure that the minimum required ‎37 ‎percent of trees saved can be met‎. ‎

Staff is recommending conditional approval of the Wetland Use Permit‎. ‎The ‎

small amount of wetlands on the subject property is limited to the banks of the Gibson ‎

and McIntyre Drains‎. ‎The Wetland Use Permit is for three proposed drain crossings ‎

-- ‎two over the Gibson drain, and one over the McIntyre Drain‎. ‎The amount of fill ‎

requested is quite minimal and is just for accommodating the crossings‎. ‎In addition, ‎

the applicant will have to seek a Floodplain Use Permit from City Council with a ‎

recommendation from Engineering Services‎.‎

Staff is recommending conditional approval of the Buffer Modification‎. ‎There ‎

is no room to place the required 'Type D' buffer immediately adjacent to M‎-‎59 ‎due to ‎

the location of existing underground utilities and a ‎100 ‎year floodplain‎. ‎In addition, ‎

only one lot is proposed to abut the freeway‎. ‎Rather than a total waiver the applicant ‎

is asking for a modification with the intent to plant the required number of trees ‎

elsewhere on the site‎.‎

Staff is recommending conditional approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat‎. ‎

This stage of the approval process focuses on the lot layout, orientation, location, and ‎

size of the lots, and road layout including connecting stub streets‎.‎

At this time staff feels that this plat does meet all Subdivision and Zoning ‎

Ordinance requirements‎. ‎They are recommending approval of all five requests ‎

including the findings and conditions in the staff report‎.‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair noted that ‎25 ‎speaker cards have been submitted by persons wishing ‎

to speak regarding the Tentative Preliminary Plat for Country Club Village‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon stated it was enlightening to him to see how thorough the Planning ‎

Commission and City Staff have been‎. ‎It's been a long process and one that ‎

everybody in the city should be proud of‎. ‎It is incumbent upon the city to ensure that ‎

the public trust is preserved and that a development is built in accordance with the ‎

city's requirements and ordinances‎. ‎They have been through four different reviews‎. ‎

They have also worked very hard to meet with the neighbors to understand their ‎

concerns‎. ‎He feels good that many ideas have been incorporated into their plans in ‎

response to residents' comments‎. ‎

*‎create cohesive environment by fronting houses onto interior treet in ccv rather than ‎

bendwlow‎.‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair invited comments from the public even though this was not a public ‎

hearing‎.‎

Don White, ‎485 ‎Nawakwa,‎ was concerned with ingress and egress to the ‎

proposed subdivision‎. ‎It looks like only two entrances have been provided‎. ‎Traffic is ‎

heavy in the area now, and the addition of ‎266 ‎more families will only worsen the ‎

situation‎. ‎There is no safe way to turn left off Nawakwa to go south on Rochester ‎

Road‎. ‎More entrances are needed to handle the traffic‎.‎

Norman Romstad, ‎3065 ‎Bendelow,‎ one of the few residents at the ‎

beginning of Bendelow‎. ‎It appears that he will gain some front yard with the current ‎

road configuration, and he will end up living on a different street‎. ‎He asked who will ‎

be responsible for it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon responded that the ‎430 ‎northern feet of Bendelow would be ‎

vacated, and the applicant would extend the driveways of affected residents at ‎

their expense‎. ‎Letters have been sent to the residents informing them of this‎. ‎

The street will be called Graham Street‎. ‎That property would just become ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way that would be maintained as other city rights‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎In effect, ‎

the right‎-‎of‎-‎way would not change; there will just be more land in the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎It will be landscaped properly after the driveways are extended‎. ‎

It would extend from the west side of Graham to the old east side of ‎

Bendelow‎. ‎This is proposed in the last phase of the development so it will not ‎

happen soon‎.‎

Roligh Whitener, ‎3429 ‎Bendelow,‎ questioned what direction the houses on ‎

the east side of the proposed development will face‎. ‎They are not getting any ‎

cooperation from the city‎. ‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair responded that the current plan indicates that houses will face ‎

away from Bendelow‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon explained the revised buffering proposed ‎

along Bendelow to address possibly unsightly backyards‎. ‎The houses on the ‎

east side of the development is part of an overall neighborhood‎. ‎They would ‎

like the community and the neighbors to respect that they have a specific ‎

development theme and plan that they think will enhance the overall city‎. ‎They ‎

will have covenants and restrictions regarding what can be stored in ‎

backyards to assure nothing is detrimental to the neighbors‎. ‎They will also be ‎

able to control swimming pools, sheds, etc‎. ‎Extremely dense landscaping is ‎

proposed along Bendelow including existing vegetation and many evergreens ‎

which exceeds what is required‎. ‎He feel very comfortable that this addresses ‎

many concerns of the residents‎. ‎Bendelow will not directly be off Auburn; ‎

people going to Bendelow will enter Graham off Auburn‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon pointed ‎

out that the existing residents on Bendelow do not have covenants and ‎

restrictions that they have to comply with so they can do anything they want ‎

with their homes‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon has to be concerned with that in terms of ‎

creating a cohesive environment for the proposed Country Club Village‎. ‎On a ‎

displayed graphic Mr‎. ‎Garon pointed out the boulevarded entrance street, ‎

Hogan, off Auburn Road on the west side, a single entry off Graham from ‎

Auburn Road; an entrance‎/‎exit off Nawakwa, an entrance‎/‎exit off Michelson, ‎

plus a couple stub streets to Bendelow which go to Michelson, and one ‎

potential stub street to the Wildflower Subdivision‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon would prefer ‎

to eliminate the stub street to Wildflower‎.‎

Joseph Ovlasuk, ‎3261 ‎Bendelow,‎ would prefer the cohesive environment ‎

to face the houses onto Bendelow and include the existing houses on Bendelow‎. ‎

Looking at people's backyards is less desirable to viewing a golf course‎. ‎He agreed ‎

with the traffic conditions‎.‎

Darlene Ovlasuk, ‎3261 ‎Bendelow,‎ expressed concern that people will be ‎

able to drive into their backyards off Bendelow‎. ‎At one time a berm was proposed to ‎

prevent that, but she understands that has been eliminated‎. ‎Existing Bendelow ‎

residents would have to bear the entire cost of paving Bendelow in the future with ‎

houses facing away from Bendelow‎. ‎She asked if the elevations of the houses in the ‎

new development will be higher because of the high water table, so they would ‎

actually be looking at a third story‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that no basements will be allowed immediately adjacent to ‎

the floodplain‎. ‎However, nothing precludes the builder from building a ‎

basement and nothing requires them to build houses taller to accommodate the ‎

water table‎. ‎The height limitation is ‎25 ‎feet, and ‎2 ‎stories is the limit‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Garon added that no substantial grading will be done on the site because of ‎

the impact to the large number of existing trees; most grading will be done ‎

around the floodplain to increase its efficiency‎. ‎The houses will be at the same ‎

elevations as bordering houses in Wildflower Subdivision‎. ‎

Michael Celusnak, ‎3471 ‎Vardon, ‎concerned about Ryder, the stub street ‎

that could potentially connect with Vardon, and property issues‎. ‎It appeared that the ‎

connection would have to go through the Wildflower common area or through ‎

residents' yards‎. ‎There are safety issues also with the increased number of families ‎

and traffic‎. ‎Wildflower Subdivision has no sidewalks, so children use the streets for ‎

walking and playing‎. ‎He hopes the applicant would reconsider the plan to eliminate a ‎

stub street onto Vardon‎.‎

‎

[ ‎Enter Kaiser ‎8:07‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Mary Brown, ‎3535 ‎Bendelow,‎ regarding the screening proposed to protect ‎

Bendelow residents from the development's backyards, Mr‎. ‎Garon had assured her ‎

that in their other subdivisions they don't allow fences, pools, hot tubs, trailers parked ‎

in yards, and other things‎. ‎She investigated some of their other developments and ‎

found hot tubs, trailers, fences, playscapes as illustrated in the photographs she ‎

displayed‎. ‎The Bendelow residents are being excluded rather than included by houses ‎

facing away from Bendelow‎. ‎You are asking us to drive through Mr‎. ‎Garon's ‎

subdivision to go out of our homes, but you are asking us to be excluded from ‎

everything else by having the backs of houses face Bendelow‎. ‎She asked if deed ‎

restrictions are always enforced‎. ‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair responded that the city does not enforce deed restrictions; ‎

that is up to the homeowners association‎. ‎Some associations are very strict, ‎

while others are more lax‎.‎

Ev Lefler, ‎391 ‎Daylily Dr‎.‎,‎ treasurer of the homeowners association, ‎

confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Garon that the development would have sidewalks‎. ‎He pointed ‎

out that Wildflower does not have sidewalks in the northern half which already creates ‎

safety problems‎. ‎Vardon residents are opposed to the stub street to eliminate added ‎

safety problems‎. ‎Regarding storm sewers, by agreement some residents are ‎

responsible for storm sewers rather than the city‎. ‎They have a significant number of ‎

flooding problems with a sewer that was originally intended for sump pumps but is ‎

being used for other water‎. ‎He would want to see some screening for the houses on ‎

Vardon and Buttercup Court as some proposed lots are very close‎. ‎Nawakwa has ‎

serious safety problems when making left turns onto Rochester Road‎. ‎Left turns ‎

should be prohibited there‎.‎

Deborah McEachern, ‎3056 ‎Primrose,‎ was concerned with the proposed ‎

Ryder stub street‎. ‎They have cut through traffic in Wildflower now; she doesn‎’‎t want ‎

more traffic‎.‎

Alton J‎. ‎Fields, ‎3650 ‎Vardon,‎ displayed maps showing feed drains to a ‎

drain that goes under M‎-‎59‎, one showing a modification to a drainage pattern that is ‎

causing flooding and backup in Wildflower Subdivision, and current floodplains‎. ‎He ‎

referenced the ‎1992 ‎Master Land Use Plan and the ‎1998 ‎Capital Improvement Plan ‎

and pointed out that the floodplains are decreasing‎. ‎There is currently water runoff ‎

from Pat Moran‎. ‎He perceived that the proposed development would increase the ‎

existing drainage problems‎. ‎The city has made a conscious effort to move water ‎

down to M‎-‎59‎.‎

Bob and Cecelia Carter, ‎796 ‎Michelson,‎ lives next to the pump station ‎

and the floodplain is his major concern‎. ‎There is much flooding‎. ‎His sump pump runs ‎

constantly‎. ‎He is angry that they have to dig so hard to get information‎. ‎Neighbors in ‎

Troy didn't even know about this‎. ‎It might be a public relations problem‎.‎

Bob Jenkins, ‎3621 ‎Bendelow,‎ respectfully disagreed with Mr‎. ‎Garon ‎

regarding how well everyone has worked through this‎. ‎From the onset Bendelow ‎

neighbors had concerns and they have continued‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon knew Bendelow was an ‎

inhabited street when he bought the property‎. ‎The proposed lot configuration ‎

relegates the current Bendelow residents to live in the backyard or alley forever‎. ‎It is ‎

poor urban planning‎. ‎There would be two streets for one row of houses, which adds ‎

additional expense to the current underfunding for roads‎. ‎It sets up current and future ‎

Bendelow homeowners for current and future financial hardships‎. ‎The existing ‎

moratorium on SADs could be lifted at any time‎. ‎He understands that other funding ‎

methods have been discussed‎. ‎The proposed development with houses backed up to ‎

an existing development is totally unprecedented in Rochester Hills‎. ‎The proposed ‎

houses would dwarf the existing homes on Bendelow‎.‎

Peter Donato, ‎3343 ‎Bendelow,‎ concurred with everything Mr‎. ‎Jenkins said‎. ‎

He researched five different areas with new and old subdivisions‎. ‎Four subdivisions ‎

had houses facing each other and they looked very nice‎. ‎He cannot understand why ‎

this is not being done on Bendelow‎. ‎On York Street only four houses back up to ‎

other houses and it doesn‎’‎t look very nice‎. ‎Why should the current residents lose ‎

Bendelow exiting to Auburn Road as it has done for ‎25 ‎years instead of the new ‎

subdivision going to Bendelow? We are losing our street‎.‎

Pat Somerville, ‎47091 ‎Dequindre,‎ has had numerous discussions with Mr‎. ‎

Garon about the subject project‎. ‎He has assured her that the berming along ‎

Bendelow would be opaque‎. ‎She did not believe that has been met and would like to ‎

see more pine trees in the berm as they stay green‎. ‎From her experience on Planning ‎

Commission she knows that a project can start out intending to save ‎37 ‎percent of the ‎

trees and end up falling short of that requirement‎. ‎She would like assurance that the ‎

required tree preservation of ‎37 ‎percent will be exceeded and never go below the ‎

requirement‎.‎

Bob Griffith, ‎3450 ‎Vardon,‎ displayed an aerial map showing his property ‎

next to the subdivision; he has a ‎1‎.‎5 ‎acre lot and is not part of the subdivision‎. ‎He ‎

was told by the city that a feeder street is required by ordinance‎. ‎He owns the ‎

property up to the fence of the golfcourse, and there is not enough room for a ‎25 ‎foot ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎Under eminent domain the city could take his property‎. ‎Why should ‎

he have to give up his tranquility and privacy so that this developer can have a feeder ‎

street and he gets the headlights shining into his house‎. ‎If the feeder street is ‎

necessary, he would suggest moving it into the subdivision where there is an empty ‎

parcel‎.‎

Peter Johnson, ‎3468 ‎Vardon,‎ lives next door to Mr‎. ‎Griffith on a ‎1‎.‎5 ‎acre ‎

lot and concurs with all comments made so far‎. ‎He has concerns with screening and ‎

buffering‎. ‎He would like the fence running along the golfcourse to remain‎. ‎There are ‎

flooding problems now‎. ‎He was concerned with the impact on property values if the ‎

houses do not face Bendelow; it would create an alley atmosphere‎. ‎The proposed lot ‎

sizes would not be consistent with the neighborhood‎. ‎Is flood insurance going to be ‎

necessary?‎

Kathleen Donovan, ‎6653 ‎Emerald Lake Drive, Troy, ‎48098‎,‎ asked if ‎

the proposed subdivision will drain into the Renshaw Ferry Drain, to which Mr‎. ‎Garon ‎

responded yes‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon also informed her that there are ten detention ponds ‎

proposed‎. ‎She also asked whether an impact study was done regarding the flow of ‎

water into Troy ‎.‎

Richard Zanati,‎ engineer with Real Estate Interests East Course Limited ‎

Partnership, addressed floodplain issues and retention basins‎. ‎He described ‎

modifications that are proposed to ensure that the amount of water discharged ‎

is the same as what enters the system‎. ‎He described how they are actually ‎

increasing the drain and retention capacities‎. ‎The amount of discharge will not ‎

be increased into the City of Troy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Zanati responded to questions from ‎

Chris Benson, ‎382 ‎Jonathan Drive‎ and Alton Fields, ‎[‎address on record‎].‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that the tentative preliminary plat stage is ‎

conceptual and addressed lot layout and street layout‎. ‎The developer is not ‎

required to supply drainage information until the next level of review‎.‎

Dan Brown ‎3535 ‎Bendelow,‎ harmony in the neighborhood will exist only ‎

with his development, not with the existing neighbors with homes not fronting on ‎

Bendelow‎.‎

John Przybysz, ‎3120 ‎Primrose,‎ concerned about drainage and Meijer's ‎

planned expansion‎. ‎Wildflower Subdivision is downhill where the water will go‎. ‎

Property values are decreasing now at the expense of encroaching businesses‎. ‎The ‎

proposed subdivision and businesses will not suffer drops in property values ‎-- ‎the ‎

residents will‎.‎

Jerry Nasiadka, ‎553 ‎Buttercup Ct‎.‎,‎ agreed with comments made by Mr‎. ‎

Fields and expressed traffic and safety concerns; he is against the stub street‎.‎

Ronald Nickins, ‎564 ‎Buttercup Ct‎.‎,‎ the closest house to the proposed ‎

subdivision at not more than ‎50 ‎feet from their fence‎. ‎He has not been contacted by ‎

anyone from East Course‎. ‎He wondered if the trees near and intertwined with the ‎

fence would be demolished‎. ‎There are current water problems, and will additional ‎

paving and concrete cause more water problems? The water has to go somewhere‎. ‎

The feeder street should be the developer's problem, not the city's‎. ‎If he put in a ‎

business, the city would not tell his neighbor he has to move‎.‎

Letter received from ‎George & Rosalie Schmidt‎, ‎3436 ‎Vardon Drive,‎ ‎

mentioning concerns with the stub street and safety of children‎.‎

[ ‎Chairperson Kaiser assumed the chair at ‎9:09‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Chair advised members of the audience that the Planning Commission only makes ‎

a recommendation on tentative preliminary plat; City Council will make the final ‎

decision‎. ‎He strongly urged the public to follow the subject issue when it goes before ‎

City Council‎.‎

Member Gaber asked Mr‎. ‎Garon to explain the landscape buffering to the adjacent ‎

properties on Buttercup Court and Vardon as well as along Bendelow‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon introduced Steve Kenziki from MCI, the landscape consultant‎. ‎They ‎

wanted to preserve as much of the existing landscaping as possible‎. ‎By backing ‎

homes to Bendelow instead of fronting them onto Bendelow, they have preserved an ‎

additional ‎28 ‎trees and providing for dense plantings as required by ordinance‎. ‎Since ‎

the ordinance does not allow for planting trees within the dripline of existing trees, ‎

options are limited to filling in gaps within the existing trees‎. ‎In effect they are providing ‎

a wall of trees‎. ‎Instead of looking at a golfcourse residents will be looking at a wall of ‎

trees‎. ‎Some of the proposed trees are on berms, some are not‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon displayed ‎

photographs of examples of ways to provide buffering other than trees‎. ‎The fencing ‎

cannot be removed in places where the vegetation intertwines with the fence‎. ‎It would ‎

make sense to continue the fence‎. ‎They have not made a final determination regarding ‎

the existing fencing‎. ‎They propose to plant an additional ‎86 ‎evergreens beyond the ‎

requirement‎. ‎The amount of the tree and landscape bonds they will be required to ‎

post will give an idea of the quantity of plantings proposed‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas pointed out that the City Traffic Engineer as well as the ‎

Planning Department have recommended that the houses face Bendelow‎. ‎He asked ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon if they ever considered facing the homes to Bendelow, or would there be a ‎

hardship, or would it require the elimination of any lots‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon responded from the onset of the development they made a determination ‎

that they wanted the proposed development to be a cohesive development‎. ‎They ‎

have a plan and a purpose for the development‎. ‎The issue of facing or not facing ‎

homes on Bendelow is an important marketing concept so that it will be a successful ‎

subdivision‎. ‎The development is being planned so that the access of homes to ‎

Bendelow is preserved with a very pleasing backyard and very pleasing landscape ‎

buffer‎. ‎It doesn't make sense from their perspective for one fifth of the homes in the ‎

development to face away from the center of the development‎. ‎They have received ‎

very negative reactions to that, namely because it would change the very focus and ‎

nature of what they are trying to sell‎. ‎The proposed price range is $‎300‎,‎000 ‎to ‎

$‎400‎,‎000 ‎-- ‎much higher than the existing homes on Bendelow ‎-- ‎and is not the same ‎

type of housing or architectural style as the existing houses in the area‎. ‎It would not ‎

blend in with what they are trying to do‎. ‎They have tried to preserve the tranquility of ‎

the neighborhood for the benefit of the residents by not having the houses face ‎

Bendelow‎. ‎Initially the Bendelow residents did not want the houses to face Bendelow ‎

and do not want the street paved‎. ‎The prospect of ‎40 ‎additional curbcuts onto ‎

Bendelow would destroy any tranquility in the area‎. ‎The city requested an additional ‎

access off Auburn Road‎. ‎They reasoned if there was no direct access onto Bendelow ‎

from Auburn Road, only people who had business on Bendelow would turn onto ‎

Bendelow, with which the Traffic Engineer and Planning Staff agreed‎. ‎They submitted ‎

a home frontage study to the city which shows there are precedents in the community ‎

where homes in new subdivisions were not required to face homes on existing streets‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon displayed pictures as examples which show there is not harmony or a ‎

cohesive environment, such as Pine Trace Village at Greenwood and Woodcrest, and ‎

Adams Oaks at York Street and Woodcrest‎. ‎It is better to front the homes toward ‎

the subdivision and have covenants, conditions and restrictions in place‎.‎

It was Member Ramanauskas' opinion that the applicant is alienating the rest of the ‎

residents by facing backyards to Bendelow‎. ‎He sees no hardship to facing homes to ‎

Bendelow except for the monetary value‎. ‎He acknowledged that the Planning ‎

Department did support facing the homes to Bendelow‎. ‎The proposed ‎15 ‎foot buffer ‎

might mitigate the effects somewhat‎. ‎

Continuing with Member Ramanauskas' train of thought, The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi to explain two statements on Page ‎4 ‎of the Staff Report which states in one ‎

paragraph that the Planning Department has no position regarding Bendelow lot ‎

orientation and the Planning Department would prefer that the lots be oriented toward ‎

Bendelow‎. ‎In terms of urban planning and mixed neighborhoods and promoting ‎

interaction, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that they prefer the houses face each other to ‎

achieve a community sense, but staff cannot require the houses to face Bendelow ‎

according to any ordinance requirements‎. ‎Therefore, this item is moving to the ‎

Planning Commission without a direct recommendation from staff‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

agrees with Member Ramanauskas that it is the exception rather than the rule that ‎

houses don't face each other on opposite sides of the street‎. ‎

Turning to Mr‎. ‎Garon, the Chair asked if they have ever prepared an alternative ‎

tentative preliminary plat with the houses facing Bendelow‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon responded that ‎

they looked at the potential but determined it was not feasible based on marketing ‎

sense, and they cannot be required to do so‎. ‎They have prepared alternatives ‎

internally for themselves but he does not have them with him‎. ‎They cannot bend on ‎

this issue based on marketing‎. ‎He thought it would be a mistake for the city to get ‎

involved in the marketing‎. ‎The Chair added it might be a mistake to consider it at all‎. ‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Garon to not bring it up again if it is a mistake and not to rely on ‎

it for a defense‎. ‎The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Garon, if the Planning Commission requested it, ‎

could he provide one of the proposals they had prepared with the houses facing ‎

Bendelow‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon was not willing to entertain the possibility of houses facing ‎

Bendelow as it would render the development unsuccessful, and precedents have ‎

been set in the city, and the residents' concerns can be clearly and adequately ‎

addressed with a landscape buffer‎. ‎Based on the positions relayed to them from the ‎

city, they have felt that they could rely on the Planning Staff's view that if they provided ‎

the ‎15 ‎foot screening and went above and beyond the call of duty to present ‎

landscape buffering, their plan could proceed through the process‎. ‎

Member Corneliussen asked Mr‎. ‎Doozan to comment on good planning policy ‎

regarding double frontage lots and traffic concerns‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Doozan responded that it is good design for lots to face across a street‎. ‎From ‎

what he understands about the Subdivision Control Ordinance so far, it does not seem ‎

to address that‎. ‎Regarding traffic safety the City Engineer will address that‎. ‎It is true ‎

that it doubles the total amount of surface area that Engineering Services and Public ‎

Services will have to take care of‎. ‎He agreed with a lot of what Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi said‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon interjected with that argument suggests that less than a half mile of paved ‎

road frontage would have a detrimental impact on public services‎. ‎It is hard to ‎

imagine that the short proposed Graham Road would have much impact on public ‎

services, but he respects that as an argument‎.‎

It was puzzling to Member Corneliussen that something that is good planning practice ‎

cannot be enforced because it is not part of the ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon reiterated in terms of practicality and harmony, they are proposing a brand ‎

new subdivision on their property; they are proposing homes in the $‎300‎,‎000 ‎to ‎

$‎400‎,‎000 ‎range; there is a difference in terms of harmony between integrating a brand ‎

new subdivision with new housing stock with an older subdivision stock‎. ‎Not that one ‎

is better than the other, but there is a difference in terms of the harmony and in terms ‎

of the marketability and the ability to create a subdivision atmosphere that people will ‎

want to live in‎. ‎It would still be detrimental; and he repeated the reasons stated ‎

earlier‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas asked Mr‎. ‎Doozan to clarify his comment that it was a safety ‎

issue if the houses face each other, because the traffic engineer recommends they face ‎

Bendelow‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon added that Mr‎. ‎Dearing indicated to them that there was an ‎

underlying policy in the community that every road be paved if at all possible, and ‎

fronting the homes on Bendelow would require the developer to share in the paving ‎

cost; safety was never mentioned as an issue of the fronting of the homes‎.‎

Member Gaber stated when you have an extra street and fewer curbcuts, obviously ‎

you'll have less traffic and that increases safety‎. ‎He believed Mr‎. ‎Dearing was ‎

speaking from a broader perspective for what may make more sense for the road ‎

system for Rochester Hills‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon commented that at one time the residents were concerned about ‎40 ‎

curbcuts onto Bendelow for safety concerns and creating a major thoroughfare‎. ‎At ‎

some point they became concerned about the impact of the cost of possible future ‎

paving of Bendelow‎. ‎It was his belief that the city never enforces SADs on unwilling ‎

residents‎. ‎There also may be a funding mechanism which may be in place in the near ‎

future that would provide for paving of roads‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon did not think the paving of ‎

Bendelow was a valid concern‎. ‎It would be detrimental to the existing residents to ‎

have ‎40 ‎curbcuts on the west side of Bendelow‎. ‎Their plan will maintain the quiet ‎

atmosphere on Bendelow‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas stated sometimes the Planning Commission likes to consider ‎

alternatives‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon stated he has done everything in his power to comply with all the ordinance ‎

requirements of the city‎. ‎He has worked very hard to meet with the residents and ‎

listen to their concerns‎. ‎The one concern voiced from the very beginning which they ‎

cannot comply with is the fronting of homes on Bendelow‎.‎

Member Ruggiero discussed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi the alternate plan he mentioned earlier‎. ‎

Her feeling is that the submitted plan is not a good representation of what can be done ‎

under the R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential zoning district, and she is not happy with it at ‎

all‎. ‎Why should she think that the applicant can put in as many homes under the ‎

regular R‎-‎3 ‎zoning requirements than under the open space plan? There is no detail ‎

regarding lot sizes, encroachment in wetlands, floodplains, it shows about ‎5 ‎drain ‎

crossings‎. ‎It looks like a hurried drawing to try to represent an R‎-‎3 ‎zoning, and she's ‎

not buying it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded that is just a concept sketch of how the ‎

property could be developed under R‎-‎3‎; staff did not require the applicant to prepare ‎

a full plat under R‎-‎3‎. ‎The lots do scale out to ‎90 ‎feet wide; the floodplain lines are ‎

shown; reasonable building envelopes are shown for every lot so that they are not ‎

located in the floodplain‎. ‎The applicant submitted one before this one which was ‎

unacceptable to staff because it did show lots in the floodplain‎. ‎This sketch is just to ‎

show that they can get the same density without using the Open Space option‎. ‎The ‎

Planning Department generally supports the idea of the Open Space plan to avoid ‎

having lots within the floodplain or wetland areas‎. ‎Therefore, homeowners can't bring ‎

in fill for personal gardens or accessory structures which may eventually impact the ‎

floodplain or wetlands‎. ‎Generally the Open Space Plan will require less crossings of ‎

wetlands and floodplain‎. ‎That is appealing from an environmental preservation ‎

standpoint‎. ‎Also, most of the trees are located with the floodplain area so they can ‎

save more trees through the Open Space Option‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero would like the applicant to submit an overlay of the Open Space ‎

plan‎. ‎She asked Mr‎. ‎Garon what specific lots he would remove from the plan in ‎

order to increase the percentage of trees saved ‎-- ‎significantly above the present ‎38‎.‎8 ‎

percent‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon stated that they are required to preserve only ‎37 ‎percent when the project ‎

is finished‎. ‎He is interested in preserving as many trees as possible‎. ‎What they said ‎

they would do is before they start the development, they would pick one or two ‎

heavily treed lots and not clear them, to preserve the trees‎. ‎When they're done ‎

developing, if the number of trees falls below the required ‎37 ‎percent, they would not ‎

clear those lots; those lots would remain with trees and no homes would be built on ‎

them‎. ‎They have to hand lay the pathway system any where it is within the dripline of ‎

a tree‎. ‎He is acutely aware of the requirements and the penalties for violating the tree ‎

ordinance‎. ‎They are going to try to be exemplary ‎-- ‎better than anyone else in terms ‎

of replacing trees‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero would appreciate it if the lots could be designated for potential tree ‎

preservation before the development is started‎. ‎The Planning Commission has heard ‎

the same story too many times‎. ‎There are too many old, mature trees on the subject ‎

site that are worthy of saving‎. ‎Many other developments don't have old trees‎. ‎When ‎

we have gotten in this position before, the developer has said to us, realizing there is a ‎

potential problem and that there are people unhappy with that close margin, have ‎

offered up‎-‎front to renumber their lots and remove them to save trees so that the city ‎

does not have to police the tree removal‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon repeated that they have provided a cushion‎. ‎If he had to choose specific ‎

lots right now, Lots ‎53 ‎and ‎52 ‎would be potentials; but he would like more time to be ‎

more meticulous‎.‎

/‎16‎/‎97‎; Land Use and Tree Removal Permit Application; Wetland Use Permit ‎

Application‎.)‎

Postponed

Member Gaber addressed the roads as a City Council member and chairman of the ‎

Road Committee‎. ‎The moratorium on SADs could be lifted at any time‎. ‎He can ‎

understand the concerns about having to pay for an entire street without having ‎

contributions from the houses on both sides of the street, which would be a valid ‎

concern‎. ‎But he could not think of any situation where City Council has imposed an ‎

SAD paving project on an area against the will of the neighborhood residents‎. ‎The ‎

Road Committee is looking at funding mechanisms for the rehabilitation of ‎

deteriorating paved roads in addition to paving gravel roads‎. ‎It is the intent and ‎

policy of the city to encourage the paving of gravel roads‎. ‎They are looking at some ‎

kind of cap on the amount that it would cost residents to pave their roads‎. ‎That was ‎

the intent of the ‎1996 ‎ballot issue that failed‎. ‎Regardless of whether or not the houses ‎

in Country Club Village back up to or front onto a street, if that type of proposal were ‎

to pass, there would be a cap on the amount residents would pay‎. ‎

The Chair confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Garon that he was unwilling to provide any alternatives ‎

that his company considered internally, particularly regarding lot orientation‎. ‎The ‎

Chair wondered if Mr‎. ‎Garon thought the Planning Commission can require him to do ‎

that before they make a recommendation on the Open Space Plan Option‎. ‎The Open ‎

Space Plan Option needs to be decided before any recommendations on tentative ‎

preliminary plat approval‎. ‎The Chair reviewed the compliance criteria for tentative ‎

preliminary plat approval which requires, among other things, whether or not there is a ‎

reasonable street layout and lot orientation‎. ‎Under the Subdivision Open Space Plan ‎

provisions it requires that the proposed plan or development contain a statement with ‎

such graphics that may be available and relevant of the subdivision without an open ‎

space plan and alternative locations and configurations of the open space to ‎

demonstrate that the proposed plan is the most reasonable and best approach for the ‎

subdivision‎. ‎The Chair would understand that provision to mean that Mr‎. ‎Garon ‎

would have to provide them if the Planning Commission wanted to see them‎. ‎The ‎

Chair would like to see some reasonable demonstrations that the submitted plan is the ‎

best approach‎. ‎If the applicant were not to request the Open Space Plan Option, ‎

then this would not be a requirement that the Planning Commission could impose‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon said they are requesting the Open Space Plan Option‎. ‎They have ‎

internally studied the issue and looked at some preliminary sketches; they do not have ‎

detailed plans‎. ‎They felt the submitted plan represents the best layout for the site‎. ‎

They have done a substantial degree of engineering because of the floodplain issues‎. ‎

He did not think alternative plans would appease the residents on Bendelow‎.‎

The Chair interjected that it is not an issue of appeasement; the question is ‎"‎have all ‎

the options been explored‎."‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon said they have looked at it very carefully and there are not many ways to ‎

lay out this site for the number of homes they want to build‎. ‎The density is lower than ‎

what is allowed‎. ‎Based on the Open Space Plan configuration they can put ‎266 ‎lots ‎

on the site and provide reasonable building envelopes‎. ‎They are doing everything they ‎

can to preserve the natural features of the site and preserve as many trees as possible‎. ‎

They are complying with every ordinance requirement‎. ‎This project has been ‎

scrutinized for the last year‎. ‎Why should they have to do substantially more than ‎

anyone else has had to do? The Chair added so far that has not been the case‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas described on the displayed graphic a series of cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacs ‎

along Bendelow similar to what is proposed along the proposed Masters road which ‎

would provide two homes facing the other road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon responded that is not as ‎

appealing from a development standpoint‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Garon that the Environmental Impact ‎

Statement dated January ‎1997 ‎has not been updated to reflect the correct number of ‎

detention basins‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon stated it is undergoing review‎. ‎There may be additional ‎

retention requirement after the date of the Environmental Impact Statement‎.‎

[ ‎Exit Doozan ‎10:25‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

[ ‎Recess ‎10:14‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎10:26‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Chair referenced the memo from Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi dated March ‎23‎, ‎1998 ‎and ‎

attached to Linda Lemke's most recent update dated March ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎Revised March ‎

20‎, ‎1998‎, which was distributed at the meeting‎. ‎The Chair reviewed that the Staff ‎

Report dated March ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎indicated that once Linda Lemke finishes reviewing the ‎

most recent tree preservation plan, staff may recommend additional conditions of ‎

approval‎. ‎The Chair confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi that all the recommended conditions ‎

regarding tree removal are contained in Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi's memo that was distributed at ‎

the meeting‎. ‎

The Chair reflected for the record the interest in saving more trees by eliminating lots ‎

and whether or not that has been agreed to‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon stated they would like to ‎

continue moving forward as they have proposed‎. ‎They think that is in compliance with ‎

all the requirements of the city‎. ‎They intend to be an exemplary development ‎

company in terms of tree replacement provisions‎. ‎He feels very confident by ‎

preserving the two lots discussed earlier from the onset they will be able to comply ‎

with the tree replacement ordinance, whether it is by not developing those lots or by ‎

meeting the requirements and then being able to develop the lots‎. ‎He is not prepared ‎

to eliminate lots today when they are in compliance with the city ordinance ‎

requirements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon acknowledged receipt of Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi's memo based on ‎

Linda Lemke's most recent correspondence and stated he has no problem with the ‎

conditions‎.‎

The Chair clarified Mr‎. ‎Garon's position regarding the fence along the western ‎

property line‎. ‎It is a man‎-‎made fence and is very close to the property line‎. ‎It varies ‎

from side to side and was installed many years ago and many trees are intertwined ‎

with the fence, making it difficult to remove without damaging the trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon's ‎

preference would be to remove the fence and put up a landscaping fence, but the ‎

residents seem to want the fence to remain‎. ‎If removing the fence would jeopardize ‎

trees to be saved, he would not remove the fence‎. ‎If it did not jeopardize trees to be ‎

saved, Mr‎. ‎Garon stated he has no problem keeping the fence because of the ‎

entwined trees‎. ‎If it is important to the residents since the fence is on the property line, ‎

the fence could be part of deed restrictions‎. ‎

The Chair stated that the ordinance requires the Planning Commission to make a ‎

recommendation on the Open Space Plan before doing anything on the tentative ‎

preliminary plat approval‎. ‎If the Open Space Plan is approved, the Chair would ‎

presume that the tentative preliminary plat approval would be conditioned upon City ‎

Council first approving the Open Space Plan‎. ‎His own thoughts go to what are the ‎

best alternatives and what is most reasonable and the best approach for the ‎

subdivision‎. ‎That is one of the criteria that the Planning Commission can require, ‎

including graphics as may be available and relevant to the subdivision without the ‎

Open Space Plan‎. ‎And these don't necessarily have to include different orientations of ‎

the lots‎. ‎Then there are the criteria in the tentative preliminary plat requirements which ‎

does require the Planning Commission to look at whether or not there is a reasonable ‎

street and lot layout and orientation‎. ‎The fact that Mr‎. ‎Garon is shy about sharing ‎

alternative plans with the commission puts them at a disadvantage‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon retorted that they saw the issues and recognized the problems presented ‎

by the alternative plans‎. ‎They would have to reproduce those studies at this point‎. ‎

They evaluated the site very carefully; the Planning staff and consultants evaluated the ‎

site very carefully; they have received the recommendations of the staff and consultant ‎

that they meet all the requirements of the ordinance‎. ‎They have done the open space ‎

plan twice‎. ‎He acknowledged that the Planning Commission has that duty has stated ‎

by the Chair‎. ‎He would hope that he would get some credit for the effort that has ‎

been put into this plan and that they have considered the alternatives‎.‎

The Chair pointed out to Mr‎. ‎Garon that throughout tonight's discussion he has been ‎

just shy of insulting the residents on Bendelow and the staff with comments regarding ‎

the higher prices of the homes in his development and that they will be so different ‎

that they won't fit in, and that we are not giving credit to the consultants and staff‎. ‎In ‎

fact, the Planning Commission does give them credit but they are not morons who ‎

follow blindly‎. ‎Their duty is to look at the proposed development hard, the same as ‎

any other proposed development‎.‎

Member Rosen is bothered by the proposed stub street Ryder‎. ‎It seems to be a real ‎

contortion‎. ‎It would make more sense if Vardon came in at a more reasonable angle, ‎

by turning to the east and was a reasonable match‎. ‎Also, he does not understand the ‎

stub from Everett to Bendelow and Becker in the middle of the ‎"‎hourglass‎." ‎

Regarding the Bendelow right‎-‎of‎-‎way, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi said that the existing right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

for Bendelow is not on the subject property at all‎. ‎They are requiring the developer to ‎

provide ten feet of additional right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎The existing right‎-‎of‎-‎way for Bendelow ‎

abuts the subject property‎. ‎The developer could really not be required to contribute ‎

to the paving of Bendelow since they don‎’‎t own any of it and would receive no benefit ‎

from the paving‎.‎

Member Rosen was in a quandary over deciding the open space issue in the absence ‎

of alternatives, and the pros and cons to both ways of orienting the lots‎. ‎He ‎

acknowledged that the ordinance requires the open space issue to be decided first‎. ‎

He sees real downsides to fronting homes on Bendelow, the biggest being that it ‎

would become a candidate for paving‎. ‎That would fundamentally change the ‎

character of the area, and the intent is to preserve as much of the existing character as ‎

possible‎. ‎He also sees some upsides from the developer's perspective, such as ‎

homogeneity of the development; but then why have the stub streets coming out to ‎

Bendelow? Mr‎. ‎Garon stated they did not want the stub streets; they were required ‎

by the city traffic engineer‎. ‎Stub streets were not part of their initial plan‎. ‎

The Chair would like to see some alternatives, and the ordinance says the Planning ‎

Commission should be considering them‎. ‎He could also see the pluses and minuses ‎

regarding orientation of houses‎. ‎The fact that the developer is proposing ‎70 ‎fewer ‎

houses than would be allowed according to the density provisions of the ordinance ‎

doesn't mean much, considering the topography of the site and the buildable areas ‎

available‎. ‎He was not convinced that the site would allow for many more lots than are ‎

proposed whether the open space plan is used or not, which again is a good reason ‎

for requesting that graphics be demonstrated without using the open space plan‎. ‎The ‎

open space plan has obvious implications for lot layout and orientation‎. ‎

The Chair identified a consensus of the Planning Commission for a desire to see ‎

alternatives as the applicant has not demonstrated that the submitted plan is the best ‎

and the most reasonable street and lot layout and orientation‎. ‎The examples ‎

mentioned by Mr‎. ‎Garon as precedents for lot orientation are so few in number ‎

compared to the total number of homes in the community, and the ordinance requires ‎

alternatives‎. ‎And marketability is not an issue the Planning Commission is to consider‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon asked if that meant that the Planning Commission was not prepared to vote ‎

yea or nay‎

on the open space plan issue‎. ‎The Chair responded he was prepared to vote ‎"‎no‎" ‎if ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon wanted a vote, because he has not demonstrated that he has met the ‎

requirements‎. ‎The Chair believed under the Open Space Plan Option provisions the ‎

applicant is required to provide alternatives, and he has not‎. ‎If the majority vote is ‎

"‎no‎" ‎on the Open Space Plan Option, the other issues would fall by the wayside, and ‎

the Planning Commission would wait to see how City Council would vote on it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Garon expressed concerned about the amount of time already spent on this project ‎

and the number of revisions already made‎. ‎The Chair countered that this is the first ‎

time the Planning Commission has seen it‎.‎

The Chair explained that the alternatives need not be to the same scale or as elaborate ‎

as plans already submitted; sketches, graphics would be acceptable‎. ‎He asked the ‎

applicant to specifically submit alternatives without the open space plan ‎-- ‎reasonable ‎

ones, not just squares thrown on a piece of paper to appease the commissioners‎. ‎

And submit one with lots facing Bendelow‎. ‎Even though the Planning Commission is ‎

well aware of the importance of stub streets to the city traffic engineer, they requested ‎

an alternative without the stub streets‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon apologized for his earlier comments which may have given a negative ‎

impression to the Bendelow residents‎. ‎He will prepare plans showing the fronting of ‎

lots on Bendelow, showing Member Ramanauskas' idea, and without the open space ‎

plan‎. ‎He asked to be scheduled for the next meeting‎.‎

The Chair encouraged Mr‎. ‎Garon to discuss the stub streets with Mr‎. ‎Dearing‎. ‎Even ‎

though the residents don‎’‎t want them, Mr‎. ‎Dearing is doing his job by looking to the ‎

future to join neighborhoods, the ease of emergency access, as well as other issues‎. ‎

The Chair announced that all speakers at tonight's meeting will be notified when this ‎

matter is placed on an agenda‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon invited anyone to contact him regarding the landscaping buffer plan‎.‎

The Chair expressed appreciation for Mr‎. ‎Garon's willingness to allow the Planning ‎

Commission to take a second look at the proposed development even though it ‎

probably will be Mr‎. ‎Garon's tenth or twelfth look, but he thought it would be useful ‎

for the benefit of the entire community‎.‎

In the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎004 ‎(‎Country Club Village‎) ‎The Chair ‎POSTPONED ‎

TO AN UNDETERMINED DATE ‎requests for Open Space Plan Option, Tree ‎

Removal Permit, Wetland Use Permit, Buffer Modification, and Tentative Preliminary ‎

Plat until the applicant presents concept plans demonstrating alternative lot layouts and ‎

orientations, possible elimination of open space areas, and possible elimination of ‎

proposed stub streets‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated March ‎16‎, ‎1998‎; letter from Linda ‎

C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated February ‎27‎, ‎1998‎; letters from J & L Consulting ‎

Services dated ‎29 ‎December ‎1997 ‎with attachments prepared by Midwestern ‎

Consulting and ‎9 ‎March ‎1997 ‎and ‎26 ‎December ‎1996 ‎with attachments and ‎

photographs; letter from Department of Environmental Quality dated November ‎26‎, ‎

1997‎; Environmental Impact Statement dated January ‎1997‎; ‎Correspondence ‎

discussing the fronting of homes on Bendelow‎:‎ ‎Petition signed by ‎48 ‎residents ‎

regarding the fronting of homes on Bendelow; letter from East Course Limited ‎

Partnership dated February ‎11‎, ‎1998‎; memo prepared by Stephen B‎. ‎Dearing dated ‎

February ‎4‎, ‎1998‎; letter from Robert Jenkins to Lawrence R‎. ‎Garon dated January ‎

27‎, ‎1998‎; letter from East Course Limited Partnership to Bendelow Road ‎

Homeowners dated January ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from East Course Limited Partnership ‎

to Bob Jenkins dated January ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from East Course Limited Partnership ‎

to Bob Jenkins dated January ‎9‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from East Course Limited Partnership ‎

to Norman and Doreen Romstad dated January ‎9‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from East Course ‎

Limited Partnership to Elizabeth Hooker dated January ‎9‎, ‎1998‎; List of questions ‎

dated December ‎19‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Country Club Village of Rochester Hills to ‎

Bendelow Homeowners dated December ‎15‎, ‎1997 ‎including Exhibit A, Exhibit B; ‎

letter from City of Rochester Hills Patricia Goodwin to Rochester Golf Course Local ‎

Residents dated August ‎11‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Rochester Golf Course Local Residents ‎

to Patricia Goodwin dated August ‎8‎, ‎1997‎; letter to Lawrence Garon dated June ‎13‎, ‎

1997‎; letter to Paul Rizzardi from Lawrence Garon dated June ‎4‎, ‎1997‎; letter to Peter ‎

R‎. ‎Johnson dated April ‎17‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Peter R‎. ‎Johnson dated ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎97‎; letter ‎

from John B‎. ‎Weaver; letter to Paul Sanders dated March ‎13‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Paul ‎

Sanders dated March ‎10‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Wayne & Mary Brown to Homeowners ‎

of Bendelow Street; letter to Peter S‎. ‎Donato dated March ‎3‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Peter ‎

Donato; Petition signed by ‎29 ‎Bendelow residents concerning the development of a ‎

subdivision on the Rochester Golf Course; letter to Wayne Brown dated February ‎

20‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Wayne Brown dated Feb‎. ‎17‎, ‎1997‎; letter to Mrs‎. ‎R‎. ‎Brown ‎

dated February ‎21‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Mrs‎. ‎L‎. ‎Brown dated ‎2‎-‎15‎-‎97‎; Country Club ‎

Village of Rochester Hills Homes Fronting External Road‎/‎Site Comparisons graphics ‎

and photographs; letter from Lawrence Garon to Robert Griffith; letter from George ‎

W‎. ‎Pace to Stephen Dearing dated January ‎20‎, ‎1998‎; letter from Lawrence Garon to ‎

Robert and Mahlah Griffith with Exhibit A, Exhibit B; ‎Additional correspondence ‎

from‎/‎to residents‎: ‎letter to Bob Jenkins dated January ‎8‎, ‎1998‎; note from Mr‎. ‎& Mrs‎. ‎

G‎. ‎Schmidt dated ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎97‎; letter from Mr‎. ‎& Mrs‎. ‎George Schmidt to Stephen Dearing ‎

dated April ‎6‎, ‎1997‎; letter to Mr‎. ‎& Mrs‎. ‎Leon Coltson dated March ‎11‎, ‎1997‎; ‎

letter from Mr‎. ‎& Mrs‎. ‎Leon Coltson dated March ‎7‎, ‎1997‎; letter to Mr‎. ‎William ‎

McInerney dated February ‎28‎, ‎1997 ‎and from William McInerney dated February ‎

19‎, ‎1997‎; letter to Nancy Jenkins dated February ‎21‎, ‎1997 ‎and from Nancy Jenkins ‎

dated ‎2‎.‎

Postponed

2000-1842

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎004 ‎- ‎Country Club Village‎

Postponed

2000-1843

Request for a Wetland Use Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎004 ‎- ‎Country Club Village‎

Postponed

2000-1844

Request for a Buffer Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎004 ‎- ‎Country Club Village‎

Postponed

2000-1845

Request for Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎004 ‎- ‎

Country Club Village‎

Postponed

2000-1846

Request for a Rezoning Recommendation ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) - ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎010 ‎- ‎

An amendment to Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎to rezone a portion of two parcels ‎

of land totaling ‎5‎.‎47 ‎acres from R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential to B‎-‎2‎, General ‎

Business, located north of M‎-‎59 ‎between Nawakwa and Michelson, Part of ‎

Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎203‎-‎001 ‎and ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎476‎-‎002‎, East Course Limited ‎

Partnership, ‎2000 ‎North Woodward Ave‎.‎, Suite ‎130‎, Bloomfield Hills, MI ‎48304‎, ‎

Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by McKenna Associates, Inc‎. ‎dated March ‎3‎, ‎

1998 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant was Larry Garon of East Course Limited Partnership‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin presented the staff report prepared by McKenna Associates‎. ‎For the ‎

benefit of the audience she explained the rezoning request and summarized the staff ‎

report‎. ‎It is the site of the Rochester Golf Course Clubhouse‎. ‎It is a ‎25‎,‎000 ‎square ‎

foot building which includes a golf cart storage building, parking lot, and practice ‎

green‎. ‎With the proposed development of a new single family home subdivision, the ‎

clubhouse is now on a separately described parcel of land‎. ‎That building was ‎

proposed for demolition; however, the Rochester Hills Historic Districts Commission ‎

has studied the clubhouse and has found it to have historic significance at this point‎. ‎

An application for historic designation is pending before City Council‎. ‎The consultant ‎

and the Planning Department recommend denial of the proposed rezoning because it is ‎

inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding area; it is in direct conflict with the ‎

Master Plan which designates the site for single family residential; the intended ‎

commercial use of the site would allow any permitted commercial use to be ‎

established on the site even though the applicant has indicated their intent to continue ‎

the existing use of the site as a banquet facility in response to the community's desire to ‎

maintain it because of its historic significance‎. ‎Going a step further, because the ‎

Planning Commission in the past has asked staff and the consultant to be fairly clear ‎

and concise in recommendations, they have not included any other options or ‎

alternatives‎. ‎They are prepared to discuss that if it is desired‎. ‎The city attorney has ‎

opined that the site would not qualify as a legal nonconforming use and that there ‎

would have to be some other way of dealing with its current use in order for it to ‎

continue‎. ‎Even though the subject request is for a rezoning, it could lead to other ‎

options in order to allow the use to continue, such as a use variance, or a PUD which ‎

is an option that will be available in the near future‎. ‎A PUD would provide additional ‎

control in that it would allow for a development agreement to be executed which ‎

would tie down a specific use and conditions of operation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon stated this is an example of how they are trying to work with the ‎

community and have flexibility‎. ‎It is pretty clear that they originally wanted to demolish ‎

the building as part of the development of Country Club Village, but they have seen ‎

the interest of the community and the Historic Districts Commission in preserving the ‎

structure for the public's benefit‎. ‎He reviewed the resolution from the previous ‎

meeting of January ‎20‎, ‎1998 ‎at which the Planning Commission found that it would ‎

not have a negative impact on the existing surrounding or proposed new ‎

neighborhood, it would create no problems for traffic circulation and access if ‎

designated an historic site, the structure would not be usable as a homeowners ‎

association clubhouse for the new subdivision nor as a residential facility if designated ‎

an historic resource, but that its uses would include at least restaurant‎/‎banquet facilities ‎

but not necessarily that alone, and further finding that any such uses would require ‎

further lawful action‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon emphasized that the proposed rezoning is contingent ‎

on the site being designated an historic resource‎. ‎He had discussed this with staff and ‎

thought this was the right course of action‎. ‎That's why the recommendation for denial ‎

by the consultant caught him by surprise‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon attempted to allay concerns about the possibility of other permitted uses ‎

being established on the site‎. ‎He stated that the clubhouse is being used very ‎

intensively now‎. ‎Any other use for that building under the B‎-‎2 ‎zoning does not make a ‎

lot of sense‎. ‎When the golf course is gone, the intensity will be less‎. ‎The site is not ‎

accessible from M‎-‎59‎; it will not be able to compete with the retail centers along ‎

Rochester Road‎. ‎It can work as a restaurant‎/‎banquet facility as it has great visibility ‎

from M‎-‎59 ‎and it is not that hard to get to‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon and Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had discussed if the rezoning is recommended for ‎

approval, it would be contingent on the site being designated historic‎. ‎If it is not ‎

historic, then the building will not remain‎. ‎This is a plan that only comes into play if ‎

historic designation is provided to the site‎. ‎They did not want to be in a position ‎

where the land use did not fit‎. ‎If the historic designation created, they wanted to ‎

simultaneously be able to have a land use that would fit‎. ‎This was a way to ‎

accomplish both at the same time‎. ‎So nobody gets stuck with an historic use that can't ‎

be maintained‎.‎

The Chair confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi that a recommendation to approve can go to ‎

Council with conditions, but Council cannot attach conditions to a rezoning‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

John Przybysz, ‎3120 ‎Primrose,‎ is opposed to the rezoning and urged ‎

commissioners to not disregard the consultant's recommendations because the ‎

consultant is the one who basically fought the Mr‎. ‎Kalabat's attempt to establish a ‎

business district along residential‎.‎

Bob and Cecelia Carter, ‎796 ‎Michelson,‎ were not present for the public ‎

hearing‎.‎

Don White, ‎485 ‎Nawakwa,‎ questioned ingress and egress to the structure ‎

with Mr‎. ‎Garon‎. ‎It would appear to be premature until the historic designation is ‎

determined because the site plan for the proposed subdivision would change in that ‎

lots would be removed where the clubhouse sits‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon displayed a graphic of the subject rezoning request showing the ‎

location of the clubhouse‎. ‎He responded there would be an access off ‎

Nawakwa just as there is now‎. ‎There would also be a road off Nawakwa ‎

into the rest of the proposed subdivision‎.‎

Melinda Hill, ‎1481 ‎Mill Race,‎ member of the Historic Districts ‎

Commission, Rochester Avon Historical Society and the Michigan Historic ‎

Preservation Network, explained that the structure is very high quality, one of very ‎

few examples of ‎1920‎s architecture being similar to Meadowbrook and Cranbrook, ‎

and is done by a renowned architect‎. ‎It would be an absolute loss to the community if ‎

it were demolished‎. ‎It would be important to preserve it even if it is not to everyone's ‎

particular taste‎. ‎She believed it was premature to make a determination before the ‎

historic designation is decided and recommended postponing‎. ‎The Historic Districts ‎

Commission has recommended historic designation and it should be before Council ‎

within a month for a decision‎. ‎She would like to see a viable reuse for the site‎.‎

Bob Jenkins, ‎3621 ‎Bendelow,‎ echoed the sentiments of previous speakers, ‎

and supports an alternative use‎. ‎Historic preservation is imperative for this site, but a ‎

decision on the rezoning is premature at this time as a general designation as B‎-‎2 ‎

would make it more open to other alternatives which may not be desirable‎. ‎

Lois Golden, ‎645 ‎Apple Hill Lane,‎ echoed comments made by Melinda ‎

Hill and reiterated the wisdom of postponing a decision on the rezoning until the ‎

historic designation is decided‎.‎

Member Gaber dared to be different‎. ‎He did not agree with the analysis that ‎

a decision should be postponed‎. ‎It is important that City Council look at both ‎

of the issues together as they are interrelated‎. ‎There is precedent for this with ‎

the house at ‎71 ‎N‎. ‎Livernois; the historic designation and request for rezoning ‎

were scheduled for the same meeting‎. ‎He saw no reason to delay a ‎

recommendation‎. ‎It could be conditional, such as recommend rezoning if ‎

designated historic‎. ‎This would move the process along‎. ‎This would focus ‎

more on the substance rather than the procedure‎. ‎The applicant's hands are ‎

tied right now‎. ‎If the site is designated historic and not rezoned, what can the ‎

applicant do with it? ‎

Melinda Hill, address on record,‎ emphasized her opinion that a decision on ‎

the rezoning is premature at this time and reminded commissioners that there are other ‎

avenues available such as a PUD or use variance‎.‎

Lois Golden, address on record,‎ pointed out that a use variance would not ‎

come before City Council or Planning Commission‎.‎

John Przybysz, address on record,‎ does not want to see it rezoned ‎

business because the applicant may change his mind and sell it, and then the ‎

neighborhood could end up with a hamburger place on the site‎. ‎

The Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

Member Gaber responded to Ms‎. ‎Hill's comments by saying that Council certainly is ‎

mature enough to look at this issue on its merits regardless of what the ‎

recommendation of the Planning Commission is‎. ‎Since a precedent has already been ‎

set with ‎71 ‎N‎. ‎Livernois, he does not see a problem with that procedure‎. ‎Member ‎

Boswell agreed with Member Gaber‎.‎

Member Rosen briefly discussed procedures and the issue of spot zoning‎. ‎Member ‎

Nowicki had the same concern‎. ‎He added that B‎-‎2‎, General Business district is ‎

principally intended for access to a major thoroughfare‎. ‎The subject site is far from a ‎

major thoroughfare‎. ‎He pointed out that the submitted application even mentions ‎

"...‎or other uses consistent with B‎-‎2 ‎zoning‎." ‎So the possibility is there for establishing ‎

something else on the site if the restaurant‎/‎banquet facility does not work‎. ‎Once the ‎

zoning is there, all the permitted uses are possibilities‎. ‎He was more inclined to deny ‎

it‎. ‎Member Ramanauskas agreed with Member Nowicki‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon addressed the concerns with spot zoning and other permitted uses‎. ‎If the ‎

restaurant fails, it would fail after they put money into the building to restore and ‎

preserve it‎. ‎If they want to change it to something other than a restaurant, it would ‎

take a tremendous amount of money beyond what would already have been spent on ‎

it‎. ‎Everyone has limited resources‎. ‎The building lends itself to restaurant‎/‎banquet ‎

facilities because of its exposure to the major thoroughfare of M‎-‎59 ‎even though it ‎

does not front on it‎. ‎None of the other principal permitted uses in the B‎-‎2‎, General ‎

Business zoning district would make sense for a building that someone has put a ‎

tremendous amount of money into a retrofit‎. ‎There is a review process also by which ‎

the city can approve or not approve other uses if they wanted to pursue them‎. ‎If the ‎

city feels the building has some benefit for the community, then the land use needs to ‎

be decided so that it is usable‎.‎

The Chair offered some assurance by stating that reality and common sense would ‎

dictate that some permitted uses would not be suitable for the site‎. ‎He reviewed the ‎

consultant's recommendation to deny the rezoning request and addressed the reasons ‎

for the recommendation‎. ‎The fact that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent and ‎

incompatible with the surrounding area and creates a spot zone does not convince him ‎

to not recommend it be rezoned because of the way the applicant is asking the city to ‎

do it ‎-- ‎namely as a conditional recommendation‎. ‎Technically even designating the site ‎

a non‎-‎contiguous historic site could be considered spot zoning‎. ‎The Chair conceded ‎

the fact that the proposed commercial zoning is in direct conflict with the Master Plan ‎

which designates the site for single family; however, realities dictate again because of ‎

the way the request has been made and that other permitted uses would not be ‎

suitable for feasible for the site‎. ‎He agrees with Member Gaber that City Council is ‎

perfectly able to make independent judgment on this matter‎. ‎Regarding the intended ‎

commercial use of the site being questionable from a feasibility standpoint, and it could ‎

potentially convert to lower quality, marginal commercial uses over time to sustain the ‎

facility, and such uses would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood, if ‎

the subject site is not designated historic, everyone knows that it will be demolished ‎

and the area will be platted as part of the proposed Country Club Village Subdivision‎. ‎

He would suspect that the applicant has no incentive to put up something that would ‎

offend their new home buyers‎. ‎

Member Rosen tried to assuage concerns about the possibility of spot zoning and the ‎

issue of incompatibility with the golf course gone‎. ‎When the golf course was ‎

operating, it and the associated clubhouse were legitimate uses in the existing R‎-‎3‎, ‎

One Family Residential zoning‎. ‎The clubhouse was consistent with a restaurant type ‎

facility as an ancillary use and was not incompatible with at least a portion of the ‎

neighborhood because they co‎-‎existed for about ‎60 ‎years‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon offered some ‎

help by explaining that the banquet facility operates all year round with catered events, ‎

parties, receptions even when the golf course is not operating, with a legitimate liquor ‎

license‎. ‎Although it is ancillary to R‎-‎3‎, it has operated as a commercial entity on that ‎

site independent of the golf course‎. ‎Member Rosen added it is more of a B‎-‎2‎, ‎

General Business use, rather than a B‎-‎2‎, General Business zoning, when the golf ‎

course is not operating‎. ‎It is such a unique set of circumstances that it is not ‎

completely incompatible‎.‎

The Chair stated if this is designated an historic site, the Planning Commission can feel ‎

confident that it will be rezoned‎. ‎Making a dual recommendation to Council will ‎

streamline the process‎.‎

Member Corneliussen asked for a clearer picture of the alternative approaches as he ‎

was not comfortable creating a spot zone‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the proposed PUD, ‎

Planned Unit Development concept which may be considered for a future ordinance‎. ‎

The use variance mechanism would require a rezoning to be applied for and ‎

subsequently denied by City Council‎. ‎The issues of use and site plan review would be ‎

determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals‎. ‎The Zoning Board of Appeals can grant ‎

a use variance only when there is no other economic use of the property‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Ruggiero, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎010 ‎

(‎Country Club Village Clubhouse‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend ‎

approval‎ of the request to rezone a portion of two parcels of land totaling ‎5‎.‎47 ‎Acres ‎

from‎ R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential, ‎to‎ B‎-‎2‎, General Business if the property is ‎

designated historic; or that the Planning Commission ‎recommend denial‎ of the ‎

request to rezone a portion of two parcels of land totaling ‎5‎.‎47 ‎Acres ‎from‎ R‎-‎3‎, One ‎

Family Residential, ‎to‎ B‎-‎2‎, General Business if the property is not designated historic‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Member Gaber attempted to alleviate some concerns with spot zoning by pointing out ‎

that there is usually an arbitrariness to true spot zoning, not just the fact that one zoning ‎

district is surrounded by a different one‎. ‎The facts cited by the Chair as well as the ‎

extension of the existing use, there is a rational basis on which to approve the subject ‎

rezoning, which would remove it from the spot zoning classification‎. ‎In addition, spot ‎

zoning is generally bad policy, not illegal, so it can be done if City Council decided to ‎

do it‎.‎

Member Nowicki asked if conditions can be attached to a rezoning‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran ‎

responded when the recommendation comes from the Planning Commission and the ‎

conditions attached to that are based on certain circumstances occurring or not ‎

occurring, it is appropriate‎. ‎In other cases conditions attached would be ‎

inappropriate‎. ‎In fact Mr‎. ‎Staran would recommend the way the motion was made‎.‎

Member Rosen said his fears of spot zoning would be lessened if the record were ‎

fairly extensive regarding tonight's discussion to show that the Planning Commission ‎

did not make a decision in haste‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Kaiser, Krupa, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Corneliussen, Nowicki, Ramanauskas ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by McKenna Associates, Inc‎. ‎dated March ‎3‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Applicant's Statement Indicating Why Change is Requested; Environmental Impact ‎

Statement dated February ‎1998‎; letter from Midwestern Consulting to Larry Garon ‎

dated December ‎3‎, ‎1997 ‎including Trip Generation attachments; Warranty Deed ‎

including Exhibit A dated November ‎12‎, ‎1987‎; Existing Zoning and Site Area Maps; ‎

Notice of Public Hearing; Application to Rezone; Location of So‎-‎called Clubhouse ‎

Parcel‎.)‎

________________________________‎

‎ [ ‎Exit Gaber ‎12:01‎ a‎.‎m‎. ]‎

[ ‎Exit Staran ‎12:03‎ a‎.‎m‎. ]‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2000-1762

Proposed Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance Amendment ‎(‎Public ‎

Hearing‎) - ‎To consider an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎of the City ‎

of Rochester Hills to establish a Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin briefly explained that a new draft has been distributed to ‎

commissioners dated March ‎23‎, ‎1998‎. ‎The cover letter summarizes the ‎

changes that were discussed at the January ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎meeting‎. ‎Attorney Larry ‎

Ternan's comments have been incorporated in the changes‎. ‎The key issues ‎

are in Table B‎-‎1‎, Mixed Use PUD, the language is still somewhat vague and is ‎

being clarified‎. ‎The intent is that if a person has commercial property and is ‎

applying for a mixed use PUD, the commercial property can be developed for ‎

apartments or condos not to exceed the density that would be permitted for ‎

multiple family‎. ‎However, if you do not have multiple family zoning or ‎

commercial, the density cannot be increased‎.‎

On Page ‎4 ‎at the bottom, the language has been clarified regarding on‎-‎site or ‎

off‎-‎site improvements‎. ‎Payments into the tree fund, or bikepaths for example ‎

could be included‎.‎

The last box of the Flow Chart has been amended to clarify what staff's role ‎

will be in reviewing a final site plan and conditions under which plans would ‎

return to the Planning Commission‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that City Council has expressed a desire to be involved ‎

at the optional pre‎-‎application stage so they are not left out of the process ‎

until the last stage‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin will bring this back soon for a final look before it is forwarded ‎

to City Council‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next meeting is a Special ‎

Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March ‎31‎, ‎1998 ‎at the Environmental Education ‎

Center, ‎1115 ‎West Avon Road‎. ‎

The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April ‎7‎, ‎1998 ‎at Precinct #‎5‎, ‎1551 ‎East ‎

Auburn Road‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎12‎:‎38 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎Wednesday, March ‎25‎, ‎1998 ‎

Michigan time‎.‎