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, April 18, 1995

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Mayor's Conference Room‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Gene Ferrera‎

Paul Funk‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Patricia Somerville‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Brian McBroom, Planner‎

Tom Dohr, Director, Dept‎. ‎of Public Service‎

Angelene Jones, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1509

April ‎4‎, ‎1995 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Somerville, support by Rosen, to ‎approve‎ the Planning ‎

Commission minutes of April ‎4‎, ‎1995 ‎as submitted‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1510

Request for Revised Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎88‎-‎026 ‎- ‎A‎-‎Autopointe ‎

Collision, located on the east side of Crooks, north of Star Batt, Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎28‎-‎102‎-‎002‎, zoned I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial, Gary Piontkowski, ‎2185 ‎Crooks Rd‎.‎, ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎, Applicant‎

Mr‎. ‎John Cadieux, attorney for the applicant, and Mr‎. ‎Gary Piontkowski, the ‎

applicant, was present‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom pointed to the aerial photo which details two different ‎

portions of the driveway leading to the A‎-‎Autopointe Collision site‎. ‎They ‎

are labeled ‎"‎drive approach‎" ‎and ‎"‎parallel drive‎." ‎He said that Mr‎. ‎

Piontkowski is requesting permission to leave the drive approach and the ‎

parallel drive as they are with the addition of ‎3 ‎inches of asphalt for a total ‎

thickness of ‎5 ‎inches‎. ‎The original approved site plan indicated that both ‎

the drive approach and the parallel drive would be constructed to industrial ‎

drive standards, which would consist of ‎9 ‎inches of deep strength asphalt‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom also pointed out that their discussion should not only be with ‎

respect to the design standards of the driveway, but more appropriately on ‎

the function of that driveway‎. ‎Originally when the site plan was approved, it ‎

was the Planning Commission's intent to have the drive approach and the ‎

parallel drive constructed so as to service both the A‎-‎Autopointe Collision ‎

site and the two adjoining sites to the north and south‎. ‎It is staff's opinion ‎

that construction of the parallel drive to a lesser standard would make it ‎

more difficult for that parallel drive to serve its intended purpose‎. ‎Staff does ‎

not object to the drive approach being constructed of ‎5 ‎inches of asphalt‎. ‎It ‎

does appear that the drive approach portion will be affected by the ‎

widening of Crooks Rd‎. ‎Staff believes that the parallel drive, at this time, ‎

will not be significantly affected by the widening of Crooks Rd‎.‎, therefore ‎

they feel that it would be appropriate to construct it to the industrial drive ‎

standards‎.‎

(‎Staff reports dated ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎95 ‎and ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎95‎, prepared by Mr‎. ‎McBroom, have ‎

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

Member Ferrera asked, more specifically, what they are being asked to ‎

approve this evening‎.‎

The Chair explained that they have an approved site plan that the applicant ‎

can adhere to and move forward on‎. ‎However, he is asking for a revision of ‎

that to relax the requirement of that site plan in terms of the thickness of the ‎

asphalt and the quality of that asphalt drive, both the entry and the parallel ‎

drive‎. ‎He understands that Mr‎. ‎McBroom's position and the city's is that ‎

they're not really opposed to recommending a revision of the previously ‎

approved site plan as to the drive approach because it does appear that ‎

the Crooks Rd‎. ‎widening will impact that and it would end up being ‎

destroyed‎. ‎However, they are not recommending approval of the parallel ‎

drive revision on the site plan because it will not be impacted‎.‎

Member Nowicki asked if the parallel drive is in the public right‎-‎of‎-‎way or is ‎

it in the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of the site plan that was approved‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said it's within what is commonly referred to as ‎"‎the old ‎

Crooks Rd‎. ‎right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎."‎

Member Nowicki said if the Oakland County Road Commission approved ‎

the drive approach as ‎5 ‎inches, then why wouldn't the parallel drive be of ‎

the same standard, since it would likely be torn up if and when Crooks Rd‎. ‎

is widened‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that they don't believe that the parallel drive will be ‎

impacted by the widening of Crooks Rd‎. ‎Secondly, because it won't be ‎

impacted and the purpose of that parallel drive is to service their site and ‎

the two adjoining sites, then it should be constructed to industrial drive ‎

standards‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski said the Oakland County inspector, commenting on the ‎

topography of the site, said there is no way they could make the drop ‎

without disrupting the parallel drive‎. ‎

Member Rosen asked for clarification on what the thickness is of the ‎

asphalt now and what the different sets of standards are and what the steps ‎

are‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom replied that the thickness varies between ‎2‎-‎3 ‎inches of ‎

asphalt currently‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski is requesting permission to increase the ‎

whole portion to a total of ‎5 ‎inches‎. ‎The design standards require ‎9 ‎inches, ‎

which is what is on the approved site plan‎.‎

Member Funk, referencing paragraph ‎3 ‎of Mr‎. ‎McBroom's ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎95 ‎memo, ‎

said that the drive approach and the portion of the parallel drive in the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way were constructed under a permit from the Road Commission of ‎

Oakland County ‎(‎RCOC‎) ‎and if they are constructed with ‎5 ‎inches of ‎

asphalt, the RCOC will accept the work‎. ‎He said if it's impacted due to the ‎

Crooks Rd‎. ‎widening, then it would be the RCOC's issue and risk‎. ‎

Member Somerville said it's not written anywhere that the applicant must ‎

put in ‎8 ‎inches of asphalt‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that is true, however, the overall planning approach is ‎

the development of these three parcels and that they be serviced by one ‎

common drive off of Crooks Rd‎. ‎The only way to do that properly is to ‎

construct it as an industrial drive, which would be ‎9 ‎inches of deep strength ‎

asphalt‎.‎

Member Somerville agreed with Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski that the drive approach is ‎

on a very steep incline and they don't know how far up RCOC will come ‎

when they widen Crooks Rd‎. ‎to four lanes and a boulevard‎. ‎She has a ‎

problem with the fact that the applicant was forced to put a driveway in for ‎

the owner of an abutting property that may never be used‎. ‎

Member Funk asked why the subject parcel and the parcel south wouldn't ‎

have been required to share in the cost of that drive‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that's an option to having a drive constructed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tom Dohr said there were questions at the time these plans were being ‎

developed as to whether or not they wanted multiple access to Crooks Rd‎. ‎

or whether, from a Planning standpoint, they should have a shared access‎. ‎

In terms of who pays, it's generally the developer who wants to have access ‎

at that time‎. ‎He said this is not uncommon and happens just about ‎

wherever you go‎. ‎He pointed out that Austin Drive will someday be ‎

continued to hook up with Devondale‎. ‎They had to meet the requirements ‎

of the city and bring it all the way to the property line even though there is ‎

not a drive access for the last ‎200 ‎feet‎. ‎It's not uncommon to require ‎

consideration for future developments in current development situation‎. ‎In ‎

this case, being in the county's right‎-‎of‎-‎way, there was a requirement for a ‎

private road agreement, which the applicant applied for and received, ‎

along with a permit‎. ‎He recalled that this was a big issue, not only with the ‎

staff and the Planning Commission, but also with the Road Commission of ‎

Oakland County‎. ‎From a planning standpoint, the question was, ‎"‎do you ‎

want to share a driveway and if so, it needs to meet certain standards?‎" ‎If ‎

the applicant is looking for a pavement section that's less than the standard, ‎

at the time the north and south properties were developed, the drive would ‎

have to be brought up to that standard‎. ‎As far as a private road agreement, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said he didn't know what ability the applicant would have to recoup ‎

some of those costs from the abutting properties‎.‎

Member Rosen asked if Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski has the ability to deny access on ‎

his private road to and from the site to the north and‎/‎or to the south‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said he wasn't absolutely sure, but didn't think so because it's ‎

in the public right‎-‎of‎-‎way, although it's privately maintained‎. ‎

Member Nowicki asked if there are other similar situations like this in the ‎

city‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said this is somewhat unique because it is within a public ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.‎

Member Nowicki said by the time Crooks Rd‎. ‎is widened and the ‎

acceleration and deceleration lanes are installed, there won't be much of a ‎

drive approach left‎. ‎He felt that it was questionable as to the proper ‎

location of the drive approach‎. ‎Since there are no proposed plans for the ‎

property to the north and south, the access may have to come in off of the ‎

property to the south and around to the back end to access the property to ‎

the north‎. ‎He thinks the industrial drive should come in through that southern ‎

vacant piece of property and around the back to access the larger parcel to ‎

the north‎. ‎

Member Somerville urged the Planning Commissioners to remember that a ‎

bike path has to be installed‎. ‎The applicant has already been asked to set ‎

aside $‎1‎,‎900‎.‎00 ‎for that‎. ‎That's an additional ‎5 ‎feet along Crooks Rd‎. ‎once ‎

they widen it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cadieux pointed out that the reason they made the request for ‎5 ‎inches ‎

on the parallel drive as well as the approach drive was because Crooks Rd‎. ‎

would be widened which would impact that drive‎. ‎They feel this would be a ‎

waste of money and effort to put ‎9 ‎inches of asphalt when it's going to be ‎

changed with the widening‎. ‎Also, because of the slope and the grade, he ‎

disagrees with the city as far as impacting the industrial driveway‎. ‎He feels ‎

that it will impact it one way or another because of the slope‎. ‎He said if they ‎

put ‎9 ‎inches of asphalt on the parallel service drive, that would obviously ‎

increase the slope higher than it is already‎. ‎Finely, he said they don't have ‎

the kind of graphics to this location that warrants a ‎9‎" ‎type driveway‎. ‎

The Chair said he's bothered by what Member Nowicki raises about the ‎

absence of a Master Plan for the entire area that they are addressing this ‎

evening, as well as it being an unknown; there are two different opinions‎. ‎

He wants to support the city's view that Crooks will not impinge on that ‎

parallel drive, although he said it still seems a little bit up in the air‎. ‎He ‎

doesn't want to require the applicant to make a drive that they can't say is ‎

going to be protected from that construction‎.‎

Member Ruggiero said if the county were to deed the property ‎

(‎right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎) ‎to Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski, what standards would he have to meet on ‎

that road‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said that, as a private drive, he would have to meet the drive ‎

standards for the land use, which would be ‎9 ‎inches of asphalt‎.‎

The Chair referenced Mr‎. ‎McBroom's revised recommendation dated ‎

4‎/‎18‎/‎95 ‎where it indicates that there's some notion that there might be ‎

some consideration for eliminating the requirement for the parallel service ‎

drive‎. ‎He assumed, based on tonight's conversation, that no one here is ‎

advocating that that plan be abandoned‎. ‎The only issue is what standards ‎

will it be built to‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that's correct, however, his understanding is that if the ‎

parallel service drive is intended to service more than one parcel, the ‎

Planning Commission wouldn't have the ability to lessen the industrial drive ‎

standards‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said that is correct‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said the only way the Planning Commission can lessen the ‎

construction standards would be to no longer call this a common access ‎

drive to service all three sites‎.‎

Member Rosen asked if this driveway is indeed a multi‎-‎tenant drive, does ‎

that make it an industrial drive‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said ‎"‎yes,‎" ‎adding that the discretion that the Planning ‎

Commission has is to say that it's a private drive for that parcel or it's a ‎

drive that is going to be a private industrial drive for the mutual benefit of ‎

multiple parcels‎. ‎Once it's decided which way it goes, the standards will fall ‎

into place‎.‎

Member Rosen said that the request really is to un‎-‎designate the private ‎

industrial drive to simply a driveway for that site only‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said, with staff's administrative authority, they have agreed ‎

that the drive approach can be constructed to a lesser standard because it ‎

is clearly going to be impacted by the widening of Crooks Rd‎. ‎It could be ‎

that the Planning Commission does not need to act on the drive approach ‎

portion‎. ‎It is true that this is a two‎-‎part request‎. ‎Because, administratively, ‎

they've already lessened the requirement for the drive approach portion, the ‎

Planning Commission may not even have to act on that portion, but rather ‎

deal exclusively with the parallel drive in terms of whether it's an industrial ‎

drive or just a driveway for this site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr felt that the position of staff is that time is going to take care of the ‎

issue with the construction of the roadway‎. ‎He acknowledged that in the ‎

near term, this will be taken care of and the Planning Commission's wishes ‎

will be resolved through the Crooks Rd‎. ‎construction‎.‎

The Chair said Crooks Rd‎. ‎will be reconstructed to ‎9 ‎inches‎.‎

Member Boswell asked why this is before the Planning Commission if staff ‎

has made the determination that the Crooks Rd‎. ‎widening will impact the ‎

drive approach and that it won't impact the parallel drive‎. ‎He commented ‎

that they really don't know what it will or will not impact‎. ‎He felt that it could ‎

somehow impact the parallel drive‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said based on the preliminary plans that have been shown to ‎

the city, it will not impact the parallel drive, however, the plans haven't been ‎

finalized yet‎. ‎Even at this early stage, it's clear that the drive approach is ‎

going to be affected‎. ‎They don't believe the parallel drive will be impacted ‎

at this time‎. ‎If it's not impacted, then it will be constructed to the proper ‎

standard to serve its intended purpose‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said they are before the Planning Commission because the ‎

proposal that is being made by the applicant deviates from the approved ‎

site plan‎. ‎The site plan is to build a drive that was clearly meant to service ‎

other properties and that's not the desire at this point‎. ‎The position of staff ‎

was, if the applicant didn't want to meet the requirements of the site plan, ‎

they would need to revise it and get a revised approval‎.‎

Member Rosen said they should distinguish between a relatively temporary ‎

situation like a few years for the approach drive versus a permanent ‎

situation for the parallel drive‎.‎

Member Boswell said they don't know what the elevation of Crooks Rd‎. ‎will ‎

be once it's widened‎. ‎That will have a definite impact on whether or not the ‎

parallel drive will be affected‎. ‎He doesn't see any reason to require the ‎

applicant to put down ‎9 ‎inches of asphalt on a road that is going to be ‎

impacted by construction‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said every major road construction in the city in the future may ‎

impact adjacent sites‎.‎

Member Boswell said just because the city has always done it this way ‎

doesn't mean it's right‎.‎

Member Rosen asked about the idea of leaving the minimum amount of ‎

asphalt right now, and if it turns out that it's not effective in the future, then ‎

add the extra asphalt to total the ‎9 ‎inches‎. ‎If it is effective, the Road ‎

Commission is going to pay for it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said the applicant would still have to continue providing sureties to ‎

guarantee the effectiveness‎.‎

Member Rosen said if it turns out that the northern parcel does not have ‎

access to Crooks Rd‎.‎, and it's abandoned and has to have access, that ‎

access is provided through the drive‎. ‎That's the time it should be required ‎

to have ‎9 ‎inches of asphalt and called an industrial drive‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked Mr‎. ‎Dohr if he believes that the RCOC will abandon ‎

the Crooks Rd‎. ‎right‎-‎of‎-‎way, which will affect a parcel such that it has no ‎

access‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said they won't because that's why they required a private road ‎

agreement‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said he does not believe that the RCOC will abandon the ‎

Crooks Rd‎. ‎right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎Further, he believes that the concern of whether or ‎

not the northern property owner has access or not is a moot point‎. ‎There ‎

will always be access for that northerly property one way or another‎. ‎

Whether it's through the property being discussed tonight or through the ‎

existing frontage that the northerly property has on Crooks Rd‎. ‎now‎. ‎The ‎

County will not landlock this property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said that is true‎.‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski why he is here four years later ‎

addressing this problem‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski said he started this project in ‎1985‎. ‎When the site was ‎

built, there were some things that needed to be changed, however, every ‎

time he wanted to do that, it would cost him another ‎6 ‎months going through ‎

the Planning Department and Engineering Department‎. ‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Cadieux if he thought it would be unreasonable, if a ‎

motion was made to approve the revisions to the site plan, to condition the ‎

approval on the applicant showing that he's notified the adjacent property ‎

owner to the north that it has been revised so that, before new asphalt is ‎

poured, the adjacent property owner could enter into some type of ‎

agreement to change the grade up to the ‎9 ‎inches rather than do it twice‎. ‎

This condition might alleviate some of the concerns about landlock‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cadieux said he wouldn't have any objection to that‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said the reason this is before them this evening is ‎

because there's a conceptual change in the site plan‎. ‎When this was ‎

approved four years ago, the obvious intent was that this parallel service ‎

drive was intended to service the north and south property‎. ‎What the ‎

applicant is proposing may not allow that use of that driveway by the ‎

northerly or southerly property owner‎. ‎The question is not whether the ‎

asphalt is ‎5 ‎inches or ‎9 ‎inches, but the concept of the traffic flow for these ‎

properties‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Funk, support by Somerville, to ‎approve the revised site ‎

plan‎ for A‎-‎Autopointe Collision ‎(‎File No‎. ‎88‎-‎026‎) ‎to incorporate recognition ‎

of the drive approach being ‎5 ‎inches at this time and that the parallel drive ‎

be redesignated as necessary with the following findings‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎The Road Commission of Oakland County plans for Crooks Road in this ‎

area have not been finalized‎.‎

2‎.‎The probability that the Road Commission right‎-‎of‎-‎way of land may be ‎

vacated to one or more of the subject parcels in the immediate area‎.‎

3‎.‎That the design of the site continues to be intended for light industrial ‎

development as per the city's adopted Master Land Use Plan‎.‎

4‎.‎The proposed development appears to help achieve the plans, industrial ‎

goals and objectives‎.‎

5‎.‎The design of the site continues to provide for the safe movement of ‎

vehicles and pedestrians to, from and within the site‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎That the applicant notify both the north and south adjacent property ‎

owners within ‎60 ‎days of this approval and provide proof of all ‎

notification to the city Planning Department‎.‎

Member Ferrera said he's concerned about referencing the ‎5 ‎inches of ‎

asphalt‎. ‎If the northerly property owner decides they want to make an ‎

agreement to go to ‎9 ‎inches, then it will have to come before the Planning ‎

Commission again‎. ‎He would rather they just refer to this as an access ‎

drive and not reference the thickness of the asphalt‎. ‎Secondly, he would ‎

like to see another finding added which states that the Planning ‎

Commission finds it appropriate for the purposes of traffic planning within ‎

the general site and that the access drive service both the northerly and ‎

southerly properties adjacent to this site, however, the burden to construct ‎

the access drive to full standards is not appropriate to the single property ‎

owner‎.‎

Member Funk said he believes this is covered in his fifth finding‎.‎

Member Ferrera suggested a finding that states that the revised site plan ‎

continues to allow for future connections to the access road by the ‎

properties to the north and south‎. ‎

Member Funk said he would be willing to withdraw the sub‎-‎phrase out of his ‎

motion which references the ‎5‎" ‎of asphalt‎. ‎He would then add to his finding ‎

#‎2 ‎that the Road Commission has concurred that ‎5‎" ‎of asphalt is ‎

satisfactory‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr suggested that, instead of referencing ‎5 ‎inches in the finding, they ‎

could concur with the findings of the Road Commission of Oakland County‎. ‎

He said he thought there was a document that concurred with that‎.‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Dohr what a drive would be called, if not a service ‎

drive, that would dictate that it be ‎5 ‎inches‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said the only thing that would dictate it would be Oakland County's ‎

requirements because it's in their road right‎-‎of‎-‎way and under their permit‎.‎

The Chair then asked what the city would require if it weren't on their private ‎

property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said they would require it to be a hard surface‎.‎

The Chair repeated the motion as amended‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Funk, support by Somerville, to ‎approve the revised site ‎

plan‎ for A‎-‎Autopointe Collision ‎(‎File No‎. ‎88‎-‎026‎) ‎to incorporate recognition ‎

of the drive approach being ‎5 ‎inches at this time and that the parallel drive ‎

be redesignated as necessary with the following findings‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎The Road Commission of Oakland County plans for Crooks Road in this ‎

area have not been finalized and it is not appropriate to require the ‎

applicant to adhere to the previous requirement given that the work ‎

will be disrupted‎.‎

2‎.‎The probability that the Road Commission right‎-‎of‎-‎way of land may be ‎

vacated to one or more of the subject parcels in the immediate area‎.‎

3‎.‎That the goals of the City of Rochester Hills Master Land Use Plan can be ‎

achieved in keeping with the zoning of this particular parcel and ‎

adjacent parcels‎.‎

4‎.‎The design of the site, as amended, will provide for the safe movement of ‎

vehicles and pedestrians to, from and within the site and adjacent ‎

parcels‎.‎

5‎.‎That the motion is in concurrence with the Road Commission of Oakland ‎

County's evaluation of what is needed for both the approach and ‎

access drive‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎That the applicant notify both the north and south adjacent property ‎

owners within ‎60 ‎days of this approval and provide proof of that ‎

notification to the city Planning Department‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎Boswell, Ferrera, Funk, Kaiser, Nowicki, Rosen, Ruggiero, Somerville‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

EXIT MEMBER FUNK ‎- ‎9:25‎ P‎.‎M‎.‎

Approved

DISCUSSION

2000-1511

Private Road Standards‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said that this topic is very much a planning issue and a lot of what ‎

is decided as a planning issue will reflect directly upon how the community ‎

develops‎. ‎He said, in looking at some of the condominiums and cluster ‎

homes that have developed in the area, we could look at those and say that ‎

in hind sight, the standards that were set for those are less than desirable in ‎

some ways‎. ‎For example, Gilbert & Vennittilli's development off of ‎

Rochdale and the Regal Colony have narrow pavement which restricts ‎

on‎-‎street parking‎. ‎Their setbacks are from the back of the curb and they ‎

generally have ‎25 ‎feet of driveway outside of their garages where they can ‎

park‎. ‎One of the common problems they hear is that people don't have ‎

sufficient parking space in their driveway or on the street for entertaining ‎

guests‎. ‎He said they've had difficulties in some of those areas with turn ‎

arounds where you get to the end of the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac and there is no ability to ‎

turn around without pulling into someone's driveway‎. ‎In those cases, they ‎

have a higher density which compounds the issue‎. ‎They've put in a ‎

standard that is less than appropriate for that density‎. ‎He felt that their ‎

discussion should focus on what is appropriate for not only what the ‎

roadway is going to be, but this community in terms of the developments ‎

that are going to occur as a result of that roadway‎.‎

Member Ferrera said he's felt that the city's requirements for private roads ‎

where someone is trying to split off a lot into two or three parcels are ‎

excessive‎. ‎He referenced a lot split that was approved for Tim Hartner on ‎

Avon Road‎. ‎It was split into two parcels, one of which he built his own home ‎

on‎. ‎He said there was an original house on the front of the property and the ‎

property went back about ‎1000 ‎feet‎. ‎He bought ‎60 ‎feet on Avon Rd‎. ‎to put ‎

his road in, then split the back of the two pieces‎. ‎In order to access his site, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hartner had to build a road which was about ‎800 ‎feet long and it had to ‎

meet Oakland County standards‎. ‎After putting a ‎60‎' wide road in and tear ‎

up that land‎. ‎

Continuing, Member Ferrera said he finds it ironic that the city has such ‎

strict standards for single family homes, but a condominium doesn't have ‎

those standards‎. ‎The standards would require a ‎60‎' road for two homes, ‎

but a condominium complex with ‎400 ‎homes would only require a small ‎

lane‎. ‎Referencing the Kings Cove Condominium Subdivision, he said the ‎

parking problem is the biggest hassle‎. ‎He hopes they can address these ‎

problems and reach some middle ground to balance this out and, at the ‎

same time, deal with what happens when someone wants to split their lot ‎

and build one or two homes‎. ‎He feels that more of these requests will be ‎

coming before the city for lot splits because they are the lots remaining‎. ‎He ‎

asked the Planning Commission to consider if they want to encourage that ‎

kind of development, and, if so, to what degree‎. ‎He personally, would ‎

prefer that it be similar to Oakland Township and Bloomfield Hills ‎

requirements‎.‎

Member Rosen said there was a ZBA case several weeks ago involving a ‎

lot split on a large ‎5‎-‎acre parcel on Rochester Rd‎. ‎north of Tienken‎. ‎The ‎

parcel is connected to Rochester Rd‎. ‎by a ‎63‎' strip of land‎. ‎Because it was ‎

created illegally, staff said the only way they could build on the property is if ‎

they made it conforming by either giving it the proper width where it fronts ‎

Rochester Rd‎. ‎or construct a private road back to it‎. ‎

Continuing, Member Rosen agreed that the road standards for ‎

condominiums should be revised to provide more room than just the ‎

minimum‎. ‎He said it seems silly for one home where there isn't sufficient ‎

frontage on a road to actually qualify as a lot‎. ‎They have to put a private ‎

road back to the point where they now have enough frontage to qualify‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said if someone has a ‎5‎-‎acre parcel with only enough ‎

frontage for one home and they wanted to build a home behind it, does the ‎

Planning Commission want to encourage the splitting of that piece of ‎

property such that they could build one or two more homes behind it‎. ‎

Member Nowicki said the city faced a problem years ago with lot splits in ‎

trying to determine how much leeway could be given based on the zoning ‎

district it was in‎. ‎That created a problem to have access to so much ‎

frontage on the road‎. ‎That's why they developed the road standards, not ‎

realizing that perhaps on the one and two lot splits, or even four, they would ‎

be using up too much of their property to build the road itself‎. ‎When you get ‎

up to ‎10 ‎lot splits, then you have a problem with fire access‎. ‎He agreed that ‎

they do have this problem with the condominiums, from the standpoint of ‎

fire protection, especially Kings Cove Condominiums‎. ‎He felt that ‎

Members Rosen and Ferrera were on the right track towards addressing ‎

some of these small lot splits, which would be readily accessible‎.‎

Member Rosen said that a lot split for ‎12 ‎homes would be too many to be ‎

serviced by one driveway and should come under the Subdivision Control ‎

Act‎. ‎He felt that somewhere around four lots or less would be reasonable‎.‎

Member Ferrera agreed with four because typically, more than that runs ‎

into Subdivision Control Act issues‎. ‎

Member Nowicki said the splitting of a lot into ‎2 ‎or ‎3 ‎parcels is not a ‎

problem if it's a small site‎. ‎However, if it's a large site and they split it into ‎4 ‎

parcels, in the next few years they can split those ‎4 ‎lots again‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said there should be way that an ordinance can be written ‎

that says there will be a limit on the number of homes that can access a ‎

driveway‎. ‎If they wanted to split the lots again in the future then they would ‎

have to go back and redevelop the drive to meet the road standards‎. ‎One ‎

way of doing that is to still require a ‎60‎' easement but not require the type of ‎

improvements that they currently require for a private road‎. ‎That way the ‎

dimension is there in the future to put in a private road‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said his perception of how this all came about is that the private ‎

road issue was designed to reflect the five acre parcel as being split four ‎

ways‎. ‎He felt that this was the basis for the type of standards that the city ‎

developed‎. ‎He agreed that once you get below that, the question comes up ‎

as to whether or not those same requirements still hold true‎. ‎Responding to ‎

Member Ferrera's suggestion that they still require a ‎60‎' easement, he said ‎

if they do that, they will still have to be open to the situations that are not ‎

going to have future lot splits‎. ‎For example, if they only want to allow one ‎

parcel behind an existing house to be split with one drive access going ‎

back to it, perhaps it's not best to require ‎60‎' in that case because the ‎

realization is there that it's probably never going to be split again‎. ‎

EXIT MEMBER FUNK ‎- ‎9:25‎ P‎.‎M‎.‎

Member Ferrera referenced Tim Hartner's site, for example, where he only ‎

had two sites he was splitting, but he had the potential to do more splits and ‎

then, on top of that, the property to the west could have essentially tapped ‎

into that‎. ‎There could have been, over the course of time, eight homes on ‎

that property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said he recalled that Mr‎. ‎Hartner wanted to split the land four ways, ‎

however he didn't want to invest the additional money toward the cost of ‎

doing some of the things that would have been required‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said that had the city had an ordinance that would have ‎

only required him to put a driveway in, would they want to require that he still ‎

have a ‎60‎' easement there so that there could be future splits?‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said he thinks so in that case‎. ‎He said it's clear that the intent of ‎

that property was to have four parcels and likely eight parcels at some ‎

point‎.‎

Member Ferrera suggested that if this is the direction the Planning ‎

Commission wants to take that they direct staff to look at what they feel the ‎

numbers should be based on tonight's discussion and then bring it back to ‎

the Planning Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said it really comes down to what do they want to see in this ‎

community‎. ‎He said they need to consider whether or not they want to see ‎

a panhandled piece with ‎30‎' of frontage and a house directly behind it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said this will open up the ability to split a lot more properties‎. ‎

He said he probably speaks to one person a week who would like to split ‎

the back of their property off but can't or doesn't want to go through the ‎

expense of building a private road‎. ‎He said it's a very effective way of ‎

controlling density‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that the individual property owner suffers so that the ‎

aggregate density benefits‎. ‎He said that particularly the older subdivisions ‎

have lots ranging from one‎-‎half acre to four acres‎. ‎The people with the four ‎

acre lots still only have limited frontage‎. ‎He said he doesn't find anything ‎

objectionable about having one home behind another as long as it meets all ‎

the density requirements‎. ‎What happens is that they only have a drive that ‎

runs along side another house‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said that areas like this are going to have a very limited impact‎. ‎

The areas they will see the most are streets like Shortridge where there are ‎

700‎'‎-‎800‎' deep lots‎. ‎That will change the character of those ‎

neighborhoods‎.‎

The Chair summarized the discussion by stating that they think the ‎

requirements are too much in some applications and they would like to see ‎

some relaxation of the requirements, particularly as it relates to splits up to ‎

2‎-‎4 ‎lots, although they haven't arrived at a number yet‎. ‎Before they do ‎

anything else, he felt that the Planning Department staff needed to study ‎

what the impact will be on the city‎. ‎He felt they should know where in the ‎

city can this be beneficial and where in the city could it have, what for some ‎

might be, disastrous effects‎. ‎Further, that it be noted that the Planning ‎

Commission wants to move forward and create some relief‎.‎

Member Boswell asked if they want to expand that study to include ‎

upgrading condominiums‎.‎

The Chair said yes, that they should study whether, for future condominium ‎

developments, they want to enlarge on those requirements‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that they will get an accurate land use inventory where ‎

they could gather some data to know how many properties could potentially ‎

be affected‎. ‎They can take some samples from different parts of the city ‎

and come up with two or three different alternatives of amending the ‎

ordinance and try and gauge what impact that would have‎. ‎

Regarding condominiums, Mr‎. ‎McBroom sensed that the Planning ‎

Commission wanted to address that separately‎.‎

Member Ferrera said the problem with condominiums is that the parking ‎

requirement is essentially the same as single family homes, but, ‎

realistically, there isn't the ability to park if you have more than two cars in a ‎

family‎. ‎In the Kings Cove Condominiums there is no room at all for visitors ‎

to park‎. ‎He felt that perhaps they should increase the parking space ‎

requirement for condominiums‎. ‎The other possibility is the issue raised by ‎

the Fire Department in the past with regard to driveways‎. ‎This particularly ‎

affects Kings Cove where there is a driveway width that may only be ‎12‎' ‎

that leads into another set of buildings‎. ‎The Fire Department can't ‎

negotiate the turns with the larger trucks‎. ‎Perhaps they also need to look at ‎

the width of the roadways in condominiums‎.‎

The Chair recognized Ms‎. ‎Schulte, who was present for the discussion, and ‎

asked her if she had any comments‎.‎

Melinda Schulte‎ said she came to hear the discussion regarding the road ‎

standards, but said her main concern was, depending on certain areas, that ‎

they not disturb the character or format of some of the roads for the sake of ‎

uniformity‎. ‎She said the northeast area has roads that are not as uniform; ‎

the roads meander, depending on the roads and streams‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Schulte commented on another issue not related to the road standards‎. ‎

There is a residential development planned for the northeast end of town in ‎

the City of Rochester where it abuts Rochester Hills' Historic District and ‎

the realignment of Runyon Rd‎. ‎She said she attended the public hearing ‎

that was held recently at the City of Rochester‎. ‎She said the major concern ‎

of the Rochester Hills' Historic District is that they don't feel the City of ‎

Rochester is taking on as much of the burden as they could because there ‎

is no planned north‎/‎south road from Runyon to Parkedale‎. ‎Even the ‎

Sheldon Rd‎. ‎proposal is west of all of the development‎. ‎They would prefer ‎

some way to ease some of that traffic and share the burden and not throw ‎

everything onto Runyon Rd‎. ‎and Tienken Rd‎. ‎and through the center of the ‎

Historic District‎. ‎The Fire Department has concerns with collector roads ‎

because they don't have a major road to get to those homes north of ‎

Runyon Rd‎. ‎from downtown Rochester except via collector roads or if the ‎

Sheldon Rd‎. ‎extension is all the way up Sheldon, out Tienken Rd‎. ‎and ‎

through the Historic District and back down to access the homes in that ‎

area‎. ‎She asked that the Planning Commission stay in touch with this ‎

situation as much as possible with what is happening out there, even ‎

though it is not their concern directly, but rather indirectly as it affects the ‎

City of Rochester Hills‎.‎

The Chair said they do recognize that it does impact Rochester Hills pretty ‎

directly and it will continue to‎. ‎He said they are going to try and keep a ‎

handle on it‎.‎

Discussed

2000-1512

Proposed Sidewalk Waiver Ordinance Provisions‎

Member Somerville said she noticed that the waiver would only be ‎

available in subdivisions of eight homes or less, but then it says in Section ‎

4‎-‎01‎.‎16‎.‎02 ‎that in no case shall a waiver be granted to any subdivision that ‎

contains nine or more buildable lots‎.‎

It was noted that it is intended to imply that a sidewalk waiver would be ‎

okay for eight homes or less, but nine homes or more would not be okay‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom explained how Ms‎. ‎Goodwin, Margaret Kiernan and himself ‎

arrived at those numbers‎. ‎It seems they've had several subdivisions around ‎

the eight or nine lot mark‎. ‎That's why they decided to use that as a starting ‎

point‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked how the City Council could adopt an ordinance that ‎

sets a limit on what they can waive‎. ‎He thought that City Council had the ‎

right to waive anything‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said if the subdivision didn't qualify for a waiver, they would ‎

still have the option of requesting a variance for hardship‎. ‎This would just ‎

set up a relaxed variance procedure‎. ‎

The Chair said there isn't anything in this section of the ordinance about ‎

having a public hearing by the Planning Commission first‎. ‎If the City ‎

Council sends it back to the Planning Commission saying they want a ‎

public hearing or a clear recommendation, there's no requirement that ‎

addresses that‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said they did it this way because there is no Planning ‎

Commission involvement in a public hearing for variance requests‎. ‎If they ‎

do that for waiving the sidewalk requirement, it probably should be put into ‎

place for requesting a variance as well‎. ‎The question to City Council should ‎

be whether or not they would like the Planning Commission's direction‎.‎

The Chair said perhaps it should be addressed in such a way that states ‎

the Planning Commission will have nothing to say about this waiver, so that ‎

no one does send it back to the Planning Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom felt it would be appropriate, if the Planning Commission feels ‎

this is the reasonable approach to take with this process, to make it part of ‎

the recommendation to City Council‎. ‎

The Chair referenced the findings provisions under the sidewalk waiver, ‎

Subsection ‎3‎, where it states, ‎"‎In determining whether a waiver shall be ‎

granted, City Council shall consider whether the subdivision meets some or ‎

all of the following factors and make findings based thereon‎." ‎He felt that ‎

this was just too lame‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said they didn't talk about that specifically with Ms‎. ‎Kiernan‎. ‎

He felt that her thinking was, because it was a waiver provision, it's ‎

intended to be more flexible‎. ‎Because we don't know all the circumstances ‎

where a waiver might be considered, this was just a way to make it a little ‎

more flexible‎.‎

The Chair suggested that if it's written this way, and City Council denies a ‎

request, it's going to court‎. ‎The way this is written, City Council can ignore ‎

it‎. ‎He suggested language that states ‎"‎there's somehow findings that one ‎

or more of the following conditions and findings made thereon have been ‎

met‎."‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said he had a similar review with some of his staff when they ‎

submitted their comments‎. ‎They looked at it very much the same way, that ‎

the way it's written is really at the whim of whoever's seated at the moment‎. ‎

They felt that there were at least two of these provisions that need to be met ‎

in order for an exemption to be required‎. ‎The other two may be ‎

discretionary‎. ‎If they're in an area where there are no other sidewalks ‎

proposed in existing neighborhoods and there is a small eight‎-‎lot ‎

subdivision, it doesn't make a lot of sense to require sidewalks in a ‎

subdivision for a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac of ‎300‎' when you're a mile away from the ‎

nearest pathway or sidewalk‎. ‎They felt that at least the first two provisions ‎

needed to be met in order for such a waiver to be a viable alternative‎. ‎The ‎

other thing they felt was important was rather than having a limitation set at ‎

a specific number of lots, that it would be more appropriate if it were a ‎

similar situation where a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac was being built where there wouldn't be ‎

a future extension into a future subdivision that would require it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom asked Mr‎. ‎Dohr if he's saying that there could be a case ‎

where there are more than nine lots but still wouldn't make sense to put the ‎

sidewalk in‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said ‎"‎yes,‎" ‎adding that the number of lots seems irrelevant ‎

compared to the situation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom added that an exception might be with ‎20 ‎lots, you're creating ‎

a neighborhood‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr agreed that there is a point, however, there are some situations ‎

where that doesn't necessarily occur at eight or nine lots‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said they talked about that and the concern was trying not to ‎

make it so discretionary and trying to give it some backbone so it's fairly ‎

specific so that everyone who doesn't want sidewalks in their subdivisions ‎

can come and request a waiver‎. ‎It shouldn't be easy to get a waiver ‎

because the overall intent is still to have sidewalks in residential ‎

subdivisions‎. ‎

Member Rosen said if there isn't a limit set, theoretically, Butler Ridge ‎

Subdivision, which doesn't connect to anything, could apply for a waiver‎.‎

Member Ferrera said he would prefer to see a specific number, perhaps a ‎

limit of nine lots‎. ‎

The Chair asked if they would like to use nine lots as the maximum and then ‎

create some other specific situations like for cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacs, etc‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said to keep in mind that someone still has the ability to ‎

request a variance‎. ‎Granted, it's much more difficult to get a variance and ‎

the criteria are totally different‎. ‎But, if there is a truly unique circumstance ‎

and it still doesn't seem to make sense, they can request a variance‎. ‎

Member Rosen said Mr‎. ‎Dohr brought up an interesting point that there may ‎

be certain types of layouts that may also qualify that may or may not meet ‎

the nine lot maximum‎. ‎He said instead of setting the number at eight lots or ‎

fewer, he would almost rather see a lower number but allow for some of ‎

those special situations‎. ‎For example, set the number at six or fewer, or a ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac situation, etc‎. ‎so there are three or four ways into it and then ‎

require that all the criteria be met‎. ‎If all the criteria cannot be met, even if it ‎

meets the limit or the specific situation, then they shouldn't get the waiver‎.‎

Member Rosen asked if this would apply to site condominiums‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said ‎"‎no, that this is just an amendment to the Subdivision ‎

Control Ordinance‎."‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said there probably should be a parallel ordinance for site ‎

condominiums‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that sidewalk provisions are now required in site ‎

condominiums‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said they're trying to figure out at what point do you begin to ‎

have a neighborhood‎. ‎He referenced Gunthar's Run Subdivision as a good ‎

example where there are nine lots on a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac on both sides of the ‎

street‎. ‎There's some benefit to having a sidewalk, but if you put those nine ‎

lots on the same side of the street, it's a little different‎.‎

Member Ferrera recalled that the subdivisions that came before them that ‎

were an issue was Knapps Farms with ‎3‎-‎4 ‎lots and Vitale Farms with ‎4 ‎

lots‎.‎

Member Rosen referenced Section ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎16‎.‎03‎(‎d‎) ‎of the proposed ‎

amendment which reads‎:‎

"‎Whether the proposed residential subdivision abuts undeveloped acreage ‎

property which the City Council reasonably believes may be platted ‎

and developed in the future‎."‎

He said the way this is written would seem to him to be a reason to ‎not‎ ‎

grant a waiver‎. ‎He said there should be a ‎"‎not‎" ‎in there somewhere‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr agreed and commented that it should be rewritten to say‎:‎

"‎The proposed residential subdivision does ‎not‎ abut undeveloped acreage ‎

property which the City Council reasonably believes may be platted ‎

and developed in the future‎."‎

Member Rosen then referenced ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎16‎.‎03‎(‎f‎) ‎and said he wasn't sure what ‎

they were trying to get at‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said, in terms of topographical, the idea was someone could ‎

put in a sidewalk but if developing this subdivision creates some change in ‎

topography where you have the sidewalk ending so it can't easily transition ‎

into the adjoining property, that's a reason to not put the sidewalk in in the ‎

first place‎. ‎Likewise, if you've got eight lots but they're spread out, the ‎

sidewalk requirement would not be feasible‎. ‎

Member Rosen said if the subdivision is in a really nice area, there ought to ‎

be a sidewalk or path, especially if there is some tough terrain‎. ‎

The Chair said it could be incorporated with ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎16‎.‎03‎(‎c‎) ‎where it ‎

addresses compatibility‎.‎

Member Rosen said they could combine ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎16‎.‎03‎(‎f‎) ‎where it addresses ‎

geography and topography with the section on compatibility‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said the intent was to determine how the subject property ‎

relates to the surrounding area‎. ‎An example might be a subdivision which ‎

has physical limitations on constructing a reasonable sidewalk‎.‎

Member Ferrera said the city has standards on the topography of growth‎. ‎If ‎

you can build a road, you can build a sidewalk along side it‎. ‎After thinking it ‎

through, he said that topography could be a problem after all‎.‎

Member Rosen asked how many of the findings in Section ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎16‎.‎03 ‎

would have to be met‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that Findings ‎"‎a‎" ‎and ‎"‎b‎" ‎were very important‎. ‎These ‎

are the issues that come up when variances have been discussed‎. ‎He ‎

suggested that it be written that Findings ‎"‎a‎" ‎and ‎"‎b‎" ‎must be met and then ‎

City Council should consider whether or not it meets the others‎. ‎

The Chair said then, that they could eliminate Findings ‎"‎c‎"‎, ‎"‎d‎"‎, ‎"‎e,‎" ‎and ‎"‎f‎" ‎

and change the language that ‎"‎a‎" ‎and ‎"‎b‎" ‎have to be met, or they could ‎

include ‎"‎a‎" ‎and ‎"‎b‎" ‎in ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎16‎.‎02 ‎Limitation‎ and put other findings as to ‎"‎c‎"‎, ‎

"‎d‎"‎, ‎"‎e‎" ‎and ‎"‎f‎."‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said there is some discretion with Findings ‎"‎a‎" ‎and ‎"‎b‎." ‎He ‎

felt that it was reasonable that a request for a waiver meet those two ‎

findings‎.‎

The Chair suggested then that they eliminate Findings ‎"‎c‎" ‎through ‎"‎f‎"‎, that ‎

findings must be made as to ‎"‎a‎" ‎and ‎"‎b‎." ‎If they don't, then ‎"‎c‎" ‎through ‎"‎f‎" ‎

are moot points anyway‎. ‎They could state that City Council shall also ‎

consider the following, and then list ‎"‎c‎" ‎through ‎"‎f‎." ‎

Lastly, the Chair pointed out that there is an absence of a Planning ‎

Commission role in all of this, however, he is not advocating that they have ‎

a role in it, but he thought it should be addressed at some point so that, in ‎

the future, when they're looking at a waiver, someone doesn't ask, ‎"‎what ‎

does the Planning Commission think about this; let's send it back to them ‎

for their recommendation after a public hearing‎." ‎That wouldn't be fair to ‎

the applicant‎. ‎If they're going to do that, then it should be addressed here ‎

as being part of the process or not part of the process‎.‎

Member Ruggiero asked if this is adopted as written, would it mean that the ‎

applicant will come before the Planning Commission with sidewalks on a ‎

plan which they have to evaluate and approve, but yet then they go to City ‎

Council after the Planning Commission has spent all the time discussing ‎

sidewalks, and get a waiver‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said if this was adopted, someone intending to request a ‎

waiver would not show it on the Tentative Preliminary Plat, then the Planning ‎

Commission makes a recommendation based on an approval of a ‎

sidewalk waiver from City Council‎. ‎If they don't get that approve at the ‎

Tentative Preliminary Plat stage, then when they come back to Planning ‎

Commission for Final Approval of the Preliminary Plat, then they would ‎

show the sidewalks on the plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr asked if the City Council would take the Planning Commission's ‎

recommendation of approval for Tentative Preliminary Plat without the ‎

sidewalks being shown as the Planning Commission's concurrence‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said since they're going to review the Preliminary Plat ‎

anyway, it wouldn't cause them an extra agenda item; it's just an extra item ‎

to discuss with that agenda item‎.‎

The Chair asked what would happen if the Planning Commission ‎

recommended denial of the Tentative Preliminary Plat because sidewalks ‎

were not shown on the plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said it depends on why they would recommend denial‎. ‎If ‎

they're recommending denial because of the sidewalks not being shown, ‎

then that would be a clear message to the City Council‎.‎

The Chair said he thinks, as a defacto matter, the Planning Commission ‎

will have to address this at some point‎. ‎It should be written in the language ‎

that this waiver issue includes the Planning Commission because they're ‎

making the recommendation to City Council concerning it‎.‎

Summarizing the discussion, the Chair said he senses that Findings ‎"‎a‎" ‎

and ‎"‎b‎" ‎become mandatory before there can be a recommendation for a ‎

sidewalk waiver and the ‎"‎c‎" ‎through ‎"‎f‎" ‎become factors to consider upon ‎

which findings must be made, but would not necessarily determine the ‎

outcome‎.‎

EXIT TOM DOHR ‎- ‎10:15‎ P‎.‎M‎.‎

Discussed

2000-1513

Canopy Height Standards‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom distributed a small survey of what other communities require ‎

in terms of canopies‎. ‎He said a lot of the Zoning Ordinances of ‎

communities in Oakland County don't have specific provisions for ‎

canopies‎. ‎The only one for Oakland County is the City of Troy‎. ‎The others ‎

are cities elsewhere in the United States‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom also distributed the proposed requirements for the City of ‎

Rochester Hills‎. ‎He said there is already a front setback from the proposed ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way requirement of ‎10 ‎feet‎. ‎What they would do is add side ‎

setbacks of ‎10 ‎feet on each side and a rear setback of ‎20 ‎feet‎. ‎Currently, ‎

in the side and rear, a canopy has to meet the same setbacks as the main ‎

building, which in B‎-‎5 ‎zoning is fairly tough to meet‎. ‎It basically forces the ‎

canopy to be in front of the building because the sides are usually limited‎. ‎

So, they relaxed the side and rear setback and put an overall limit on it to ‎

make sure the lot isn't completely covered with a canopy‎. ‎They took three ‎

existing service stations from three separate companies and figured out ‎

what their lot coverage is with their current canopy to find out how the ‎40‎% ‎

or ‎50‎% ‎rule would affect sites‎. ‎They determined what the current lot ‎

coverage was by the canopy and also tried to calculate what that lot ‎

coverage would be if they built the canopy out to the maximum setback‎. ‎

They clearly do not want to allow that‎. ‎It seemed to staff that either ‎40‎% ‎or ‎

50‎% ‎would do a good job of allowing all the canopies that are there now ‎

and allowing some of the smaller limited sites to have canopies, while they ‎

are currently not able to‎. ‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that apart from this but related to it, was the ‎

height issue‎. ‎Before, there was general agreement that they would ‎

increase the height to ‎17‎½ ‎feet with a minimum clearance of ‎14‎½ ‎feet‎. ‎

That would be part of the amendment when it's brought back‎. ‎

Member Rosen said that ‎40‎% ‎sounds good to him‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said it's getting to be fairly common to see a little service ‎

station in the middle of the site with pumps in the front and back with a ‎

canopy over the whole thing‎.‎

Member Rosen asked Mr‎. ‎McBroom if they researched anything with ‎

regard to signage on the canopies‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said he didn't feel it was necessary that the sign revisions in ‎

the ordinance cover that‎. ‎He didn't know that they needed to get into ‎

regulating signage specifically on canopies separate than how they ‎

regulate signs for the balance of the site‎. ‎He said it's not a particular ‎

problem with gas stations right now‎. ‎The issue is not putting signs on the ‎

side of the canopy or on the back‎. ‎It's on the front of the canopy and they're ‎

not really changing that‎.‎

Member Rosen recalled ZBA Member Lomaka's comment that requiring ‎

ground‎-‎mounted monument signs, the canopy will be the highest and ‎

service station owners may have a tendency to get everything they can on ‎

the canopy‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom agreed and said with that movement toward the monument ‎

signs, perhaps they would want to limit it‎.‎

Member Rosen suggested that Mr‎. ‎McBroom call some of these service ‎

stations and ask about their fire protection systems at a minimum height of ‎

14‎½ ‎feet‎. ‎He said it's still adequate and they're not running into as much ‎

trouble‎.‎

The Chair said that the City of Sterling Heights' Ordinance says something ‎

along the lines that in any event the canopy shall be of adequate height to ‎

accommodate fire access equipment‎. ‎He said we might want to consider ‎

language like that‎.‎

The was a consensus among the Planning Commission to tell Mr‎. ‎

McBroom to move forward with the ordinance change that reflects the ‎

figures that have been discussed this evening‎.‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no further business to come before the Planning Commission‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair announced that the next meeting date is Tuesday, May ‎2‎, ‎1995 ‎

at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

meeting was adjourned at ‎10‎:‎28 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎