| 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. |
|
