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, December 2, 1997

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero ‎(‎enter ‎8‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Kennety Snell, Mayor ‎(‎enter ‎9‎:‎47 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Belinda Peters, Financial Administrator‎

Robert Smapan, Treasurer‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ The Chair announced changes in the order of agenda items‎.‎

B‎.‎ 1998‎ CIP In Brief‎

C‎.‎ Ordinance Amendments Nos‎. ‎200-95‎ and ‎200-96‎

________________________‎

[ ‎Enter Snell ‎9:47‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1653

Request for Revised Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎94‎-‎438 ‎- ‎Rochester Hills ‎

Mirror and Glass, located at ‎1156 ‎W‎. ‎Auburn, on the north side of Auburn, west ‎

of Rochester, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎28‎-‎477‎-‎058‎, zoned B‎-‎1‎, Local Business, Rod ‎

Brown and Paul Yearwood, ‎1180 ‎W‎. ‎Auburn Rd‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎, ‎

Applicants‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin informed the Planning Commission that the site plan for the subject site ‎

has been revised‎. ‎It was presented to the commission at the previous meeting on ‎

November ‎18‎, ‎1997‎. ‎Only one issue needs to be discussed, which is the location of ‎

the trash dumpster on the property‎. ‎A chronology of events has been previously ‎

provided to commissioners leading up to the current date‎. ‎It is Ms‎. ‎Goodwin's ‎

understanding that the applicant is here to answer questions regarding why the revised ‎

site plan approval is being requested‎. ‎Staff is asking the Planning Commission to ‎

make a determination‎.‎

Owners Rod Brown and Paul Yearwood were present‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown explained that ‎

the addition to the existing building is basically done‎. ‎The dumpster has been moved ‎

to a location they were told to put it at‎. ‎Engineering Services would not approve the ‎

dumpster location on the adjacent property, which would be Rochester Hills Mirror & ‎

Glass, because Mr‎. ‎Eby stated there was a violation‎. ‎No one has been able to ‎

produce a violation notice, however‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown claimed he was informed by Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin that the dumpster could be located where it is on the revised site plan‎. ‎He ‎

said he was told that Engineering Services did not care what location was approved ‎

by the Planning Commission‎. ‎He believed his engineer, Al Decker, did not deliver the ‎

revised plans in a timely manner to the Planning Department, and that has caused the ‎

problem‎. ‎The whole building was built off the new drawings that were done by the ‎

engineer, and the building permit was issued after the dumpster was located to a ‎

different area than approved on the original site plan‎. ‎They discovered the problem ‎

when they applied for a certificate of occupancy‎. ‎He has letters from both adjacent ‎

neighbors behind the property expressing no objection to the location of the dumpster‎. ‎

As it turns out, there would not be sufficient room for a garbage truck to maneuver ‎

with the dumpster located at the original approved location behind the original ‎

building; and there are overhead wires which would interfere with the operation of a ‎

garbage truck in that area‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi acknowledged that letters were received from the adjacent property ‎

owners indicating an objection to the proposed masonry wall, but nothing was ‎

mentioned specifically about the dumpster‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yearwood stated he faxed the letters ‎

yesterday to Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown stated that the dumpster is currently located at ‎

the northeast corner of the property and meets all the screening requirements‎.‎

The Chair discussed the letters from the adjacent property owners ‎-- ‎Harry‎ ‎

Sawyers‎, ‎2970‎ ‎Corinthia‎, indicating that the dumpster location in the northeast ‎

corner of the property is acceptable to him‎. ‎The neighbors to the west of the ‎

Sawyers, at ‎2981‎ ‎Walsh‎, indicate that they also are happy with the entire project as ‎

built including the dumpster location‎.‎

The Chair recalled the reasons why the commission did not want the dumpster in the ‎

northeast corner of the site in preference to a location close to the building, because it ‎

would be more visible and too close to the adjacent property owner‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yearwood explained at the time of the original site plan approval, they did not ‎

consider the impact of the overhead wires and maneuverability of garbage trucks‎. ‎

These issues did not arise until discussions with the Planning Department when trying ‎

to find an acceptable location for the dumpster without having to come back to the ‎

Planning Commission for approval‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded to the comment about Engineering Services not caring what ‎

the Planning Commission approved‎. ‎The Engineering Services Division pays very ‎

close attention to Planning Commission minutes and strives to comply in the ‎

construction plan review process with all the conditions of approval and all site plan ‎

elements as approved by the Planning Commission‎. ‎To the extent that there are ‎

changes or modifications during the land improvement permit process as required by ‎

either utility locations or other elements that were not known at the time of site plan ‎

review, they have made the Planning Department aware of them and to the extent ‎

possible the Planning Department has addressed them and brought them back to the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎It has been her experience that Engineering Services has never ‎

taken lightly anything that this commission has approved‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified the current situation ‎-- ‎there are two properties under common ‎

ownership‎. ‎One parcel was developed and the other was not‎. ‎Under the current ‎

zoning certain uses could be allowed‎. ‎There has been much controversy between ‎

what the site plan reflects and what the zoning ordinance will allow as permitted land ‎

uses and what was shown on the construction plans based upon the construction code ‎

as allowable uses‎. ‎There was also concern about utility placement improvements that ‎

were not completed on the developed property‎. ‎When this project moved from site ‎

plan to construction plan, there were already discrepancies and problems‎. ‎To the ‎

extent possible everyone, including the applicant, has strived to reconcile them‎. ‎The ‎

dumpster location is the only outstanding issue‎. ‎When the dumpster location was last ‎

discussed with the Planning Commission, there was recognition that other issues were ‎

involved and the Planning Commission stated its preference for the dumpster location ‎

behind the building but also gave staff the latitude to comment on that final location ‎

because the Planning Commission knew there were other concerns‎. ‎The construction ‎

plans approved by Engineering Services show the dumpster behind the original ‎

building in the location approved by the Planning Commission; Engineering Services ‎

did not approve construction plans showing the dumpster at a different location‎. ‎This ‎

is an example of Engineering Services' diligence in complying with approved site plans‎. ‎

The dumpster is now in a different location and staff does not feel comfortable ‎

approving the revised site plan without the Planning Commission's input‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Department has no objection to the dumpster in its current location in the northeast ‎

corner of the site as it is on the property it is intended to serve and it is not an issue for ‎

the adjacent neighbors‎.‎

Member Nowicki pointed out that even though the current adjacent property owners ‎

have no objections, future possible owners might‎. ‎This would appear to be setting a ‎

precedent of putting dumpsters close to someone else's front yard‎. ‎The attendant ‎

noise could also be disruptive‎. ‎These were the Planning Commission's original ‎

concerns with the dumpster located in the northeast corner of the property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out that the dumpster did not need to be moved to meet ‎

minimum parking requirements as there are extra parking spaces on the site‎. ‎He ‎

clarified that the dumpster is not really in the front yard setback as Auburn Road is the ‎

front yard and Corinthia is considered the side yard; the ordinance requirement to ‎

meet two front yard setbacks applies only to zoning districts B‎-‎4 ‎and B‎-‎5 ‎or I‎-‎1‎.‎

The Chair reflected on past requests for approvals of revised site plans because they ‎

were not built according to the approval site plan, and the Planning Commission is ‎

very reluctant to do so‎. ‎He wondered how the subject situation happened‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brown stated it goes back to when they applied for permits after the site plan was ‎

approved‎. ‎Based on alleged conversations with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin the dumpster was ‎

placed in the northeast corner‎. ‎The drawings were redone but delivered to the wrong ‎

department‎. ‎The whole building was built based on those drawings‎. ‎Engineering ‎

Services would not approve the drawings because Mr‎. ‎Eby said that Rochester Hills ‎

Mirror and Glass was in violation stemming from the repaving of the parking lot eight ‎

years ago‎. ‎The Building Department has not been able to produce a copy of the ‎

violation‎. ‎Engineering Services declared the Planning Department's position moot in ‎

light of the violation‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown has requested a copy of the violation through the ‎

Mayor's office and still no one can produce a copy of it‎. ‎The Building Department ‎

came out and inspected the footings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown did not realize there was a problem ‎

until he requested a certificate of occupancy‎. ‎They told them they were going to move ‎

the dumpster, Engineering approved them to get a building permit because they said ‎

they would not put the dumpster in the northeast corner of the other parcel; they ‎

moved it back to its original location‎. ‎

The commission and staff surmised that the violation stemmed from the repaving of the ‎

parking lot without obtaining a permit‎. ‎The Chair added that any violation would no ‎

longer exist because of the statute of limitations‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin referred to the chronology of events that has been provided‎. ‎The ‎

approved site plan and approved construction plans all reflect the dumpster in the ‎

originally approved location behind the building‎. ‎Any approvals issued by the Planning ‎

Department or Engineering Services are always in writing; she never gives verbal ‎

approvals for anything ‎-- ‎particularly if it is in conflict with an approval by the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎Which is why we are here tonight‎. ‎The referenced plans submitted to ‎

Engineering Services were site plans, not construction plans‎. ‎Site plans are not ‎

approved by Engineering Services‎. ‎The approved construction plans show the ‎

dumpster on the property behind the building‎. ‎The first plan Ms‎. ‎Goodwin saw that ‎

showed the dumpster in its current location in the northeast corner of the site was ‎

dated in February‎. ‎She cannot let the record reflect that she gave a verbal approval to ‎

move something when all the plans and records and correspondence reflect an ‎

approval of a plan that the Planning Commission approved‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brown stated he still was not really sure whether these plans went to engineering ‎

and were lost in engineering or what‎. ‎They built the building and the building looks ‎

good‎. ‎He is not educated in all the intricacies of city government, so they did things to ‎

reflect where they could put the dumpster‎. ‎They paid the engineer to redraw the plans ‎

and they thought the plans were submitted to the city properly‎. ‎He had no idea that ‎

the city didn't have approved drawings of these changes until the end‎. ‎He accepted ‎

responsibility for what happened because he is the builder and he is responsible for ‎

this‎. ‎The problem is when someone from the city says they won't give him a building ‎

permit for this reason that they've been trying to get for four years‎. ‎The follow up is ‎

where the problem is‎. ‎His engineer turned out to be not very knowledgeable of city ‎

government either‎. ‎He's just trying to get a certificate of occupancy on the building‎. ‎

The building's built, it looks great, and citizens around it think it looks good‎. ‎People ‎

drive by and tell him they think it looks great‎. ‎He just wants it to be done with but he ‎

wants to make sure everybody's happy‎.‎

The Chair conceded that the building does look great, and the dumpster area does ‎

too, aside from the noise‎. ‎The reason for concern with dumpster areas is that after a ‎

period of time they typically are neglected and become unsightly and messy‎. ‎The ‎

Chair believed the dumpster area on the subject site would continue to look good ‎

because the applicant cares about his property‎.‎

Member Boswell asked where the dumpster could be moved to‎. ‎Is there another ‎

location on the site for the dumpster? Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated the fire code has changed ‎

since the subject site plan was approved‎. ‎Under the previous fire code the dumpster ‎

had to be kept ‎15 ‎feet away from the building; the new fire code requires only a ‎5 ‎foot ‎

distance‎. ‎There is a point on the northwest corner of the addition in the back that ‎

would be an acceptable location for a dumpster‎. ‎It would meet both zoning and fire ‎

code requirements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yearwood thought that location would interfere with the ‎

retention area as stated in Mr‎. ‎Decker's letter dated November ‎17‎, ‎1997‎. ‎He ‎

believed it would be nearly impossible to place the dumpster behind the building unless ‎

the overhead lines were relocated‎. ‎Then there would be the problem with room for a ‎

garbage truck‎.‎

The ownership of the properties was clarified ‎-- ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown owns Rochester Hills ‎

Mirror and Glass and the property at ‎1180 ‎West Auburn; he and Mr‎. ‎Yearwood own ‎

the property next door at ‎1156 ‎West Auburn‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown stated that the parcels are ‎

not combined and will not be because the building at ‎1180 ‎West Auburn was built in ‎

1965 ‎and is nonconforming‎. ‎It would cost too much to bring it into compliance‎. ‎

Member Boswell clarified the options available to the Planning Commission ‎-- ‎

approve the revised site plan with the dumpster in its originally proposed location ‎

which is its current location; move the dumpster to another location‎. ‎

The Chair added that a motion to approve the revised site plan could include a finding ‎

that alternative locations are impractical or disallowed because of overhead wires or ‎

impact to the retention area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi was not convinced that Engineering Services told the applicant the ‎

dumpster could not go in the approved location behind the original building because of ‎

an alleged violation and, therefore, the dumpster had to be placed elsewhere‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yearwood clarified that the dumpster cannot go behind the building at ‎1156 ‎West ‎

Auburn because of loss of retention area; it cannot be on ‎1180 ‎West Auburn because ‎

of the overhead wires‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi would agree with that clarification if the overhead ‎

wires are already in place‎.‎

The consensus of the commission was displeasure with the way this has been done but ‎

it appeared that some things were not done properly by a number of entities‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Krupa, in the matter of File No‎. ‎94‎-‎438 ‎

(‎Rochester Hills Mirror and Glass‎)‎, to ‎approve the Revised Site Plan ‎dated ‎

received October ‎6‎, ‎1997‎, specifically showing the dumpster located in the northeast ‎

corner of the site as originally proposed, with two conditions‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The Planning Department receive confirmation that other alternatives are ‎

precluded and could not meet city ordinance requirements for the retention ‎

area and that overhead wires would have to be moved‎.‎

2‎.‎ The applicant to provide an updated as‎-‎built site plan reflecting all changes being ‎

shown‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Kaiser, Krupa, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Rosen ‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Revised Site Plan prepared by A‎. ‎R‎. ‎Decker & Assoc‎. ‎dated received ‎

October ‎6‎, ‎1997‎; chronology of events; Letter from A‎. ‎R‎. ‎Decker and Associates ‎

dated November ‎17‎, ‎1997‎.)‎

_____________________________________‎

[ ‎Enter Ruggiero ‎8:30‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Approved

2000-1812

Nonconforming Lots Proposed Ordinance Amendment‎: ‎To consider an ‎

amendment to Section ‎21‎.‎02 ‎of Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎of the Citiy of ‎

Rochester Hills to modify the requirements for Nonconforming Lots, ‎

Nonconforming Uses of Land, Nonconforming Structures and Nonconforming ‎

Uses of Structures and Premises‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎24‎, ‎1997 ‎has ‎

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

Mayor Kenneth Snell was present to participate in the discussion‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi summarized the history of the subject ordinance amendment‎. ‎Two staff ‎

members as well as members of the building community served on a committee to try ‎

to revise the nonconforming lots ordinance provision‎. ‎An ordinance amendment was ‎

developed as a result of that effort which was presented for public hearing‎. ‎The ‎

Planning Commission raised some very good questions regarding the intent of the ‎

ordinance amendment and whether the intent was appropriately expressed in the ‎

amendment‎. ‎The committee restudied the proposed amendment and realized that a ‎

basic policy decision would need to be made regarding how to deal with ‎60 ‎foot wide ‎

lots before the ordinance amendment could move forward ‎-- ‎either encourage ‎60 ‎foot ‎

wide lots, allow as minimal as possible, or accept as appropriate in certain areas of the ‎

city‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi reviewed the problem‎: ‎Under the current ordinance if you own a lot less ‎

than ‎80 ‎feet wide, and if it has always been under single and separate ownership, it ‎

can be built on‎. ‎Over time, if parcels are combined and have more than ‎80 ‎feet in ‎

width, you would be required to have an ‎80 ‎foot wide lot in order to build‎. ‎Over the ‎

years at some point there was an amendment to allow ‎60 ‎foot wide lots where it was ‎

consistent with the neighborhood‎. ‎In some cases such as Dodge Auburn Park, ‎

Brooklands, Glidewell, ‎60 ‎foot wide lots in some blocks are typical, whereas ‎80‎- ‎or ‎

40‎-‎foot wide lots are uncommon‎. ‎Over time illegal land divisions have occurred in ‎

instances where people owned ‎120 ‎feet of frontage and sold ‎40 ‎feet of it‎. ‎The city ‎

does not become aware of this until a building permit is applied for, even ‎10‎, ‎20‎, or ‎

30 ‎years after the ‎40 ‎foot section was sold‎. ‎A lot of the illegal land divisions have ‎

actually been built on because the illegal land division does not become apparent ‎

unless a title search is done‎. ‎Staff spends many hours performing title searches on the ‎

subject lot as well as adjacent lots before issuing building permits‎. ‎Many people buy ‎

80 ‎foot wide lots with the intention of building on them only to find out they cannot ‎

because of an illegal land division done many years previously pertaining to an ‎

adjacent lot‎. ‎

The desire of the committee was to achieve a more usable ordinance for city staff as ‎

well as residents and builders‎. ‎The intent of the ordinance amendment is to define ‎

more clearly when you can and cannot build on a ‎60 ‎foot wide lot‎. ‎You would not be ‎

permitted to tear down a house and redivide the parcels to increase the density of the ‎

neighborhood‎. ‎Under the current ordinance that would be possible‎. ‎The amendment ‎

is also attempting to streamline the administrative process‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi presented five options for addressing the nonconforming lots issue‎: ‎

Option One ‎- ‎Do Nothing; Option Two ‎- ‎Amend the Ordinance to Permit Specific ‎

Standards for Dividing or Building on Lots Less Than ‎80 ‎Feet in Width; Option Three ‎

- ‎Changing the Effective Date From February ‎10‎, ‎1962 ‎to a More Recent Year; ‎

Option Four ‎- ‎Discretionary Review Standards Be Adopted for Land Divisions; ‎

Option Five ‎- ‎Develop a Map or Overlay Zone of Properties Which Can Be Split ‎

Into Smaller Lots with Frontages of ‎60 ‎Feet in Width‎. ‎Each option has a different ‎

impact on ‎60 ‎foot wide lots‎. ‎

Option Five would require more work up‎-‎front but reduce the amount of work ‎

required to process individual building permits‎.‎

The Chair asked why it would be the concern of the city if someone buys a lot and ‎

doesn't research it themselves‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded that most people do not have ‎

a detailed knowledge of the ordinance, especially since even an ‎80 ‎foot wide lot may ‎

be unbuildable under certain circumstances‎. ‎A typical lot buyer could learn from the ‎

tax records that a given lot has always been a separate tax parcel; the realtor could tell ‎

you it has always been a separate parcel‎. ‎Not unless someone personally does a title ‎

search; the mortgage search usually does not reveal the problem; it must specifically ‎

be looked for‎. ‎People are usually warned about this by the Building Department‎. ‎The ‎

questions becomes if we are providing good customer service by telling customers it's ‎

their fault‎. ‎There are instances where a vacant ‎80 ‎foot wide lot meets the current ‎

ordinance requirement of ‎9‎,‎600 ‎square feet yet cannot be built on because of an ‎

adjacent ‎40 ‎foot wide lot with a house‎.‎

Mayor Snell stated the driving force behind the proposed ordinance amendment is the ‎

amount of staff time required to research each request, even when everything is ‎

proper‎. ‎Even if ‎9 ‎out of ‎10 ‎requests are right, the same amount of staff work is ‎

required for the ‎9 ‎correct ones‎. ‎The second issue is, when something is wrong the city ‎

then has to deal with the consequences either through redundant staff explanations, ‎

ZBA appeals, and citizen frustration‎. ‎The only recourse for citizens then is to go to ‎

court‎. ‎The end result is many people own property in the city that cannot be sold or ‎

built on‎. ‎He perceived a challenge sometime in the future to denying property rights‎. ‎

What is the basis for denying the right to build when they meet all ordinance ‎

requirements? A question to ask is, ‎"‎how much staff time do we want to spend on ‎

this?‎" ‎No fees are collected for this time, and no costs are recovered‎. ‎His ‎

administration is trying to streamline administrative procedures city‎-‎wide‎. ‎It would ‎

seem more logical to him to write ordinances for the norm and deal with the ‎

occasional exception rather than try to write ordinances for all exceptions‎. ‎

Regardless of which option is selected, considerable staff time will be required to ‎

implement either before, during or after the event‎. ‎Mayor Snell clarified that city staff ‎

does not actually do the title search, but they have to verify that the information is ‎

correct‎.‎

It would strike Member Rosen as fair to allow ‎60 ‎foot wide lots as the absolute ‎

minimum if less than ‎80 ‎foot wide lots are allowed‎. ‎It would be easier to just not ‎

allow anything under ‎80 ‎feet wide, but that might not be fair‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that the proposed ordinance amendment is a standard provision in ‎

adjoining cities‎. ‎Some communities operate on the honor system because it takes too ‎

much work and time to enforce‎. ‎Eventually the problem lots cease to exist anyway‎.‎

Mayor Snell added that a lot of the lots will not remain a problem because people ‎

cannot build the size home they want on a ‎60 ‎foot wide lot‎. ‎The marketplace will ‎

probably drive this problem out of existence eventually‎. ‎The sanitary sewer system ‎

was studied in terms of the possible increased density on ‎60 ‎foot wide lots in some ‎

areas to make sure the sewer system would not be overburdened‎. ‎It appears at least ‎

within the existing vacant lots it would not be a problem presently‎. ‎But then again if it ‎

redevelops, that becomes less of a concern‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that the lot widths established in the ‎1986 ‎master plan are ‎

based on an established density that the plan sets forth as what the community is ‎

intended to have as a buildout capacity‎. ‎Areas of the city were looked at in terms of ‎

existing land uses and existing lot sizes, and from there a zoning scheme was derived ‎

that had dwelling units per acre established by zone‎. ‎A fairness policy is one thing; ‎

however, as a land use policy, the method selected is immaterial as long as the overall ‎

densities of the community as a whole and a specific area are not changed‎.‎

Member Rosen perceived that some lots would ultimately be identified as unbuildable, ‎

and wondered if the city would continue to tax them‎. ‎Mayor Snell did not envision ‎

that‎. ‎Rather, he imagined those property owners seeking variances from the Zoning ‎

Board of Appeals‎.‎

Mayor Snell recommended Option Five as it would give the best ability to fix the ‎

knowledge of which lots should fall within this constriction as opposed to trying to ‎

devise a blanket standard that would apply in every case‎. ‎The only issue with creating ‎

an overlay is the amount of staff time up‎-‎front‎. ‎The GIS system has already prepared ‎

a broad overlay map without doing a title search‎. ‎Only a few hundred lots are ‎

affected, mostly in the older, southern half of the city‎. ‎As the mayor he is willing to try ‎

to find a way to dedicate staff resources or whatever it may take to approach that and ‎

fix the issue rather than having it keep coming back‎. ‎He would take the GIS results, ‎

condense them, and contract out the title search with the results brought back to the ‎

city‎. ‎If the overlay option were selected, he would ask staff to prepare a proposal for ‎

contracting out the title search so that on a specified date a title search would have ‎

been done for the lots that would qualify under the current ordinance‎. ‎Then an ‎

ordinance amendment would be written that would identify only the lots that have this ‎

exemption‎. ‎Then as building permits come through, or other changes in the land ‎

occur, then subsequent ordinance amendments would delete those parcels from the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎This would minimize the number of lots to deal with, the work only has to ‎

be done once, and parcel deletions would occur under the control of the city‎. ‎

The overlay option does not change anything intrinsic or lacking in the current ‎

ordinance; it simply minimizes the amount of time required to administer and enforce ‎

the ordinance requirement for nonconforming lots‎. ‎The overlay option would appear ‎

to eliminate the potential for challenges, and reduce the amount of staff time involved in ‎

administering the ordinance‎. ‎As it stands now, the current ordinance rewards those ‎

people who do not play by the rules and penalizes those that do‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi identified the committee members ‎-- ‎Staff members Jean Farris, Roger ‎

Moore, Doug Walther, Paul Rizzardi, Mayor Ken Snell, Jane Downing; Attorney ‎

John Staran; builders Bill Walls, Art Saarela, Gary McDonald, Donald Swanson‎. ‎

None of the builders attended the latest meeting although they were invited‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated the number of issues annually ranges from four to ten ‎

approximately‎.‎

The Chair commented that the issue of either promoting or discouraging ‎60 ‎foot wide ‎

lots is a serious policy question that requires more information, thought and discussion‎. ‎

He would like some feedback from the attorney regarding the amount of protection ‎

from legal challenges such an ordinance amendment would provide‎.‎

Mayor Snell summarized if the Planning Commission believes that Option Five is ‎

worth pursuing, then he would request staff to prepare the overlay and draft it into an ‎

ordinance amendment and present it for approval as a package‎.‎

Member Ruggiero commented that she would not want to discourage the existing ‎

diversity in affordable housing in the city‎. ‎

There was consensus on ‎requesting‎ the city attorney to evaluate the legal ‎

ramifications of limiting the number of ‎60 ‎foot wide lots in the city and restricting ‎

development on ‎40‎-‎, ‎60‎-‎, ‎70‎-‎, and ‎80 ‎foot wide lots and various land combinations ‎

or land divisions of such lot widths, and gather more information on preparing an ‎

overlay‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎24‎, ‎1997‎.)‎

Discussed

2000-1809

Off‎-‎Street parking Proposed Ordinance Amendment ‎(‎postponed from ‎

November ‎18‎, ‎1997‎): ‎Request to consider an amendment to Section ‎21‎.‎05‎, ‎

Off‎-‎Street Parking Requirements of Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎200 ‎of the City of ‎

Rochester Hills to delete an inconsistency, clarify off‎-‎street parking space ‎

dimensional requirments, repeal inconsistent ordinances, and prescribe a civil ‎

fine for violations‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated October ‎16‎, ‎1997 ‎has been ‎

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

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had nothing further to add to the staff memo‎. ‎The current Section ‎

21‎.‎05‎.‎k‎. ‎is being deleted as this section is in direct conflict with Section ‎21‎.‎12‎.‎h‎. ‎

where the Planning Commission is given the authority to waive or modify screen wall ‎

heights and buffer yard widths‎. ‎Section ‎21‎.‎05‎.‎k‎. ‎gives this authority to the Zoning ‎

Board of Appeals‎. ‎A new Section ‎21‎.‎05‎.‎k‎. ‎is proposed to clarify from where the ‎

width dimension of parking spaces and vehicular maneuvering lanes is measured‎. ‎This ‎

recently occurred with Village Green apartments and was discovered at final site ‎

inspection‎. ‎This provision will clearly represent how parking lots should be laid out‎. ‎

A new Section ‎21‎.‎05‎.‎n‎. ‎will clearly state the minimum separation of fire hydrants from ‎

the edge of curbs‎. ‎The current Section ‎21‎.‎05‎.‎n‎. ‎will be renumbered to ‎21‎.‎05‎.‎o‎. ‎This ‎

currently is a policy of Engineering Services, but it is not clearly written anywhere‎. ‎

The intent of the new section is to prevent vehicles from hitting fire hydrants and to ‎

keep vehicles from blocking access to all sides of the hydrant‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Boswell, to ‎recommend approval‎ of an ‎

amendment to Section ‎21‎.‎05 ‎Off‎-‎Street Parking Requirements of Zoning Ordinance ‎

No‎. ‎200 ‎to delete an inconsistency, clarify off‎-‎street parking space dimensional ‎

requirements, repeal inconsistent ordinances, and prescribe a civil fine for violations‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Kaiser, Krupa, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Rosen, ‎

Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎24‎, ‎1997‎; Letter ‎

from John Staran dated October ‎3‎, ‎1997‎; Proposed Ordinance Amendment dated ‎

10‎/‎3‎/‎97‎.)‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1733

1999 ‎Proposed Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎Presentation‎. ‎Staff ‎

presentation of the ‎1999 ‎Proposed Capital Improvement Plan as a component ‎

of the City's Comprehensivie Plan‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters provided a status update of the subject plan‎. ‎The policy team has met ‎

several times and has taken into consideration all the feedback received from the ‎

Planning Commission, City Council, and staff members regarding the process that was ‎

used for the ‎1998 ‎CIP‎. ‎The process still is not perfect despite the improvements; ‎

however, they believe some good steps have been made in the right direction‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Peters asked for more feedback from Planning Commission members‎. ‎She reviewed ‎

the Process Flow Chart and asked for any recommendations for improving it‎. ‎The ‎

Process Flow Chart does show ample opportunity for public involvement‎. ‎They are ‎

trying to have an outreach process to find out exactly what the public wants‎. ‎An ‎

article was included in the Fall ‎1997 ‎Rochester Hills Quarterly‎.‎

Regarding the Time Line, Ms‎. ‎Peters explained that they have tried to provide more ‎

time for preparation of the CIP process and more time for public involvement‎. ‎She ‎

recalled with last year's ‎1998 ‎CIP, being the very first one, that many people felt the ‎

process was rushed and did not allow enough time for study of the plan or public ‎

input‎. ‎She asked if the ‎1999 ‎Time Line represents something that is realistic to ‎

achieve‎.‎

Members Boswell and Rosen are on the ‎1999 ‎CIP Subcommittee and believed that it ‎

has been fairly well planned‎. ‎They did not anticipate any major delays assuming there ‎

are no major changes at the last minute‎.‎

Member Gaber asked how the public would be involved in the Call for Projects ‎

portion‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Peters responded that the ‎Rochester Hills Quarterly‎ article should ‎

address that as well as their request to all city boards to place this item on their ‎

respective agendas‎. ‎The next ‎Rochester Hills Quarterly‎ publication will include ‎

another calendar showing that there will be opportunity for the public to come forward ‎

with ideas and suggestions‎. ‎A memo stating such will be distributed in time for the ‎

next Planning Commission packet‎. ‎Member Gaber stated since this CIP will be an ‎

update, the time element should be adequate‎.‎

The only portion of the time frame that concerned the Chair is May ‎6 ‎to May ‎20‎. ‎To ‎

make the public hearing and the Planning Commission's response to it meaningful, ‎

draft minutes at the least should be available as well as sufficient time to digest and ‎

respond to any issues brought up at the public hearing‎. ‎He suggested the first meeting ‎

in June ‎1998 ‎for scheduling the adoption of the ‎1999 ‎CIP‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Peters did not expect ‎

that to have an adverse effect on the budget process‎.‎

Member Rosen noted a new category included in this plan is major replacement ‎

equipment within city departments‎. ‎Also, the funding source discussion will be ‎

separated from the prioritization of projects‎. ‎

Neither the Fiscal Team nor the Planning Department has received any public ‎

response to date‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission will be making a call for projects ‎

when it adopts the Transportation Plan Update‎. ‎One of the charges in the ‎

transportation plan will be to identify system improvements based on your analysis, ‎

forecast, and review of existing deficiencies‎.‎

Continuing, Ms‎. ‎Peters explained that modifications have been made to the evaluation ‎

form; they have eliminated any rating for projects that would receive outside funding as ‎

the needs should dictate the projects to be done; they have eliminated community ‎

input from this form but not from the plan‎. ‎The project proposal description form ‎

remains unchanged‎. ‎It is anticipated that all projects should be resubmitted so they ‎

can be evaluated properly‎. ‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Rochester Hills Quarterly‎, Fall ‎1997‎; Memo dated ‎25 ‎November ‎1997 ‎

from Belinda M‎. ‎Peters; Memo dated November ‎24‎, ‎1997 ‎from Belinda M‎. ‎Peters; ‎

Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎Process Flow Chart, Time line for ‎1999 ‎CIP; CIP ‎

Policy, Project & Equipment Application Forms; Capital Improvements Needs ‎

Assessment Form; Capital Improvement Plan‎-‎in‎-‎Brief‎

___________________________________‎

[ ‎Exit Peters, Spaman ‎8:51‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Discussed

2000-1131

Request for Reduction of Rear Yard Setback ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎89‎-‎200 ‎- ‎Petro Gas ‎

Station Addition ‎- ‎two additions to an existing gas station‎/‎convenience ‎

store‎/‎quick oil change facility totaling ‎1‎.‎057 ‎square feet ‎- ‎3010 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester ‎

Rd‎.‎, southwest corner of Rochester Rd‎. ‎and Auburn, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎34‎-‎226‎-‎031‎, ‎

zoned B‎-‎5‎, Automotive Service Business ‎(‎Petro Service‎)‎, Nasser Kaakarli, ‎

Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎24‎, ‎1997 ‎has ‎

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

Mr‎. ‎Ron Chiesa, architect for the project, and Mr‎. ‎Nasser Kaakarli, owner, were ‎

present‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out the unusual request for a rear yard setback‎. ‎The Zoning ‎

Ordinance requires a ‎50 ‎foot rear yard setback but there is discretion in the Zoning ‎

Ordinance that the Planning Commission can reduce that to ‎40 ‎feet‎. ‎It is not a ‎

variance but an approval of a lesser setback‎. ‎The Planning Commission needs to ‎

determine that the request for a reduction would allow for a better development and ‎

will be compatible with adjoining properties‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa stated that the site contains an existing service station and a ‎1‎,‎00 ‎square ‎

foot addition is proposed, of which ‎100 ‎square feet would be used as additional retail ‎

space in the cashier's area and it would extend back to screen the rear entry into the ‎

building for the oil change service bays‎. ‎The owners have elected to renovate the ‎

entire facade‎. ‎The type of business will remain unchanged‎. ‎They are proposing two ‎

additional service bays for a total of four‎.‎

The Chair mentioned the constant flow of cut‎-‎through traffic northbound on Rochester ‎

Road to move westward on Auburn Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chiesa was confident that the ‎

expansion would discourage cut‎-‎through traffic‎.‎

Commissioners reviewed the building elevations‎. ‎Member Gaber had a concern with ‎

the visibility of the south side elevation‎. ‎There appeared to be three or four different ‎

roof lines, giving a very disjointed appearance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chiesa responded that the six foot ‎

extension in back should diminish that effect so that only two different roof lines would ‎

be apparent‎. ‎The higher roof line will hide the rooftop mechanical equipment‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Chiesa indicated it would present some problems to extend the fascia all the way ‎

across the south side because that is the lowest portion of the existing building‎. ‎The ‎

roof is slanted for drainage so it cannot be the same height in the front and back‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa located the handicap parking space in the closest space to the front ‎

entrance and parallel to the building‎. ‎The handicap sign will be placed on the building‎. ‎

Member Nowicki would like to see what the sign will look like and its dimensions‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa stated that drawing will come from the sign company once they enter into ‎

a contract‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi recommended a condition for landscaping in the amount of $‎4‎,‎985‎.‎00‎.‎

Member Rosen referred to page ‎3 ‎of the staff report, reason #‎3 ‎recommending ‎

approval of the rear yard setback to ‎44 ‎feet, the decorative canopy proposed on all ‎

visible faces of the building would address Member Gaber's concerns about differing ‎

roof heights‎. ‎As written, reason #‎3 ‎is not accurate with the proposed elevations and ‎

would tend to detract from possible reasons to grant the reduced rear yard setback‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa responded that architecturally the front facade is usually considered the ‎

prime exposure‎. ‎He believes they have adequately addressed aesthetic concerns‎. ‎To ‎

extend the canopy around the corners would cause structural problems and stress ‎

loads‎. ‎Some of the doors are higher to accommodate recreational vehicles‎. ‎Member ‎

Gaber was not convinced‎.‎

In response to questions by Member Ramanauskas, Mr‎. ‎Chiesa explained that they ‎

minimized variations in roof heights, taking into consideration aesthetics, vehicle sizes, ‎

maneuvering on the site, as well as economics‎. ‎Member Ramanauskas thought cost ‎

efficiencies rather than aesthetics were considered‎. ‎

Several times during the discussion Mr‎. ‎Chiesa compared the subject site to the ‎

adjacent Meadowbrook Dodge and the oil change facility across the street on Auburn ‎

Road regarding aesthetics‎. ‎The Chair pointed out that a great deal of time has been ‎

spent on similar issues at other intersections‎. ‎The intersection of Rochester and ‎

Auburn is an extremely busy one‎. ‎The important point to consider is that the subject ‎

building will be prominent to northbound, southbound, and westbound traffic‎. ‎The ‎

frontage street becomes irrelevant in this case because of the site's prominence‎. ‎More ‎

thought needs to be given to the southern facade to achieve the reduction in the rear ‎

yard setback‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas pointed out that any building built in Michigan is calculated for ‎

snow loads‎. ‎He suggested a continuous band around the canopy to achieve a uniform ‎

roofline‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chiesa stated that would require study‎.‎

Member Boswell was not sure the three‎-‎or‎-‎four‎-‎tiered roofline would be such a ‎

problem ‎-- ‎the building at least would not look like a box as many other undesirable ‎

buildings in the city do‎. ‎Member Gaber thought the canopy would add a finishing ‎

touch and not create a box‎-‎like look‎. ‎The question is would you rather look at a ‎

finished box with a nice canopy, or would you rather have an appearance of multiple ‎

structures placed side‎-‎by‎-‎side and built at different times‎.‎

Member Nowicki pointed out that anything done to that corner will be an ‎

improvement‎. ‎The issue now is just architectural design‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa and Member Rosen discussed the north and south elevations‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chiesa ‎

described the view from the south‎. ‎The same elevation will be maintained over the ‎

two existing bays in the current building, which is a low point where the building ‎

drains‎. ‎The proposed six foot addition will hide some of the view‎. ‎The existing roof is ‎

higher on the north side and slopes to the south side of the building‎. ‎There will be a ‎

parapet wall which is raised up approximately ‎18 ‎inches from the existing height to ‎

hide the equipment and improve the appearance‎. ‎Member Rosen perceived a flat ‎

roof extending from the south edge to the north edge, and then the fascia canopy ‎

behind it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chiesa explained that the roof membrane will be black and will not be ‎

visible, and the slope of the roof will not be visible‎. ‎All that will show is the edge of ‎

the roof‎. ‎Beyond that will be a parapet sticking up a little higher‎. ‎The view from the ‎

back or south side of the building will be the backside of the canopy across the north ‎

side of the building‎. ‎The backside of the canopy will be a straight vertical panel that's ‎

black‎. ‎One foot or two might be visible when traveling northbound on Rochester ‎

Road, but not the entire height‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chiesa compared it to other buildings on which ‎

12 ‎to ‎18 ‎inches of the top of mechanical equipment is visible‎. ‎Member Rosen stated ‎

the Planning Commission spends a lot of time making sure the top of mechanical ‎

equipment is not visible‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chiesa responded that is why they raised up the ‎

building‎. ‎

[ ‎Recess ‎9:30‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎9:40‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Chair suspended discussion regarding the building elevations and asked ‎

commissioners to direct any further discussion to other issues regarding the subject site ‎

that might be problematic‎. ‎He summarized that the handicap parking space has been ‎

resolved, the monument sign has been addressed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa explained that the canopy over the gas pumps will increase in height and ‎

the sides will be straight instead of the current mansard style‎. ‎One pump will be ‎

added to the island on the north side of the building but will not have a canopy over it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa described that the curbcuts will remain unchanged, and the pavement will ‎

be moved back ‎26 ‎feet to slide the parking back to make room for the addition‎. ‎This ‎

allows a small greenbelt between the subject site and the existing car dealership‎. ‎A ‎

couple of bollards will be added at the Auburn Road entrance for additional light‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Chiesa asked for a postponement‎. ‎He will do a rendering of the building from the ‎

northbound perspective on Rochester Road, explore some other alternatives, and ‎

work with staff to make sure they are comfortable with that‎.‎

The Chair ‎declared this item‎ ‎postponed‎ at the applicant's request until the next ‎

regular meeting or as soon as possible‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department on ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎97 ‎and Floor Plans and Elevations received ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎97 ‎prepared by ‎

R‎. ‎A‎. ‎Chiesa Architects; Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎24‎, ‎

1997‎; Letter from Linda Lemke dated November ‎5‎, ‎1997‎; Environmental Impact ‎

Statement dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on July ‎

2‎, ‎1997‎; Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes October ‎13‎, ‎1997‎; Zoning ‎

Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes April ‎22‎, ‎1996‎. )‎

______________________________‎

[ ‎Enter Snell ‎9:47‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Postponed

2000-1132

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎89‎-‎200 ‎- ‎Petro Gas Station Addition‎

Postponed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

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

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next meeting will be a Special ‎

Meeting on December ‎9‎, ‎1997‎. ‎The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for ‎

December ‎16‎, ‎1997‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎11‎:‎22 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎