Mr. Rizzardi displayed a colored site plan to explain the design features of the |
|
proposed development. He explained the difference between a site condominium |
|
and a plat. In the City of Rochester Hills a site condominium plan must meet the same |
|
requirements as a platted subdivision with the exception that the Planning Commission |
|
and approve or deny a site condominium plan rather than City Council. The applicant |
|
presented a concept plan to the Planning Commission two years ago demonstrating |
|
how they intended to preserve the natural features of the subject site as well as how to |
|
front lots onto Adams Road. The plan submitted this evening is consistent with that |
|
concept plan. As a result of the concept plan discussion a shared access drive parallel |
|
to Adams Road was included to eliminate direct access to Adams Road and eliminate |
|
any type of road crossing of the primary water features on the property. The primary |
|
feature on the subject site is the Dutton Drain which has a regulated 100 year |
|
floodplain with it. The drain flows along the northern property line and moves due |
|
south through the site. All wetlands on the subject site are regulated by the city and |
|
the State of Michigan and are shown in blue. The area in green is the 100 year |
|
floodplain. The intent of the subject plan was to not impede the main portion of the |
|
drainage course so that the highest quality portion of the wetlands associated with the |
|
drainage course will remain untouched. The applicant is proposing access to the |
|
subject development through the existing subdivision and keep 7 lots fronting onto |
|
Adams Road.. A small area of wetland fill is requested for Lots 19, 17 and 16; one is |
|
for unit fill and the other two are for the driveway access, having minimal impact to the |
|
wetland hydrology. Two homesites are within the 100 year floodplain, and the |
|
applicant will need to obtain a floodplain use permit for them which will be reviewed |
|
by Engineering Services and approved by City Council. |
|
Continuing, Mr. Rizzardi explained that a natural features setback modification is also |
|
required in connection with the wetlands impact. In some areas the 25 foot required |
|
buffer will need to be modified to allow for driveway access. In exchange for the |
|
wetlands and floodplain fills the applicant is proposing two mitigation areas which will |
|
make the floodplain deeper and expand the wetlands to store same quantity of storm |
|
water. These quantities will also be reviewed further by Engineering Services but are |
|
explained this evening as part of the concept of the plan. If City Council ultimately |
|
denied the floodplain use permit, the plan would have to be revised in order for the |
|
applicant to proceed. Under the city's floodplain use permit requirements preliminary |
|
approval of the plan is required first before the floodplains will be reviewed. |
|