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, September 7, 1993

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

Gene Ferrara‎

Jeff Hauswirth ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎36 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

George Sadowski‎

Patricia Somerville‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Scot Beaton, City Council Rep‎.‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Brian McBroom, Planner‎

Angelene Jones, Recording Secretary‎

‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1433

July ‎20‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Somerville, support by Rosen, to approve the minutes of July ‎

20‎, ‎1993 ‎as submitted‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎Beaton, Hauswirth ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

2000-1434

August ‎3‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

Page ‎8‎, third paragraph, last sentence, add the word ‎"‎not‎" ‎to the sentence ‎

so that it reads, ‎"...‎you can still have up to ‎12 ‎additional children that are ‎not‎ ‎

part of the family‎."‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, support by Rosen, to approve the minutes of August ‎

3‎, ‎1993 ‎as amended‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎Beaton, Hauswirth ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved as Amended

COMMUNICATIONS

1‎)‎August, ‎1993 ‎issue of‎ Planning & Zoning News‎.‎

2‎)‎Revised Administrative Guidelines for Architectural Review‎.‎

3‎)‎Memo from Mayor Ireland regarding review and survey of capped landfill ‎

sites‎.‎

4‎)‎Copy of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎-‎60 ‎(‎Rezoning of the northerly portion of ‎

two parcels proposed for the Northbrooke Subdivision‎).‎

5‎)‎Letter dated September ‎1‎, ‎1993 ‎from Paul and Janet Nawrocki ‎

concerning the topic of the daycare provider amendment‎.‎

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1435

Request for Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎353 ‎- ‎King Centre West Office ‎

Building, a ‎23‎,‎858 ‎square‎-‎foot, multi‎-‎tenant office building proposed for the north ‎

side of Barclay Circle, east of Hampton Circle, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎26‎-‎327‎-‎001‎, ‎

-‎002‎, ‎-‎003 ‎and ‎15‎-‎26‎-‎302‎-‎002‎, zoned O‎-‎1‎, Office Business, K‎. ‎Y‎. ‎Development ‎

Company, ‎305 ‎Barclay Circle, Suite ‎1000‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎, Applicant‎

Janet Drobnich, Property Manager for K‎.‎Y‎. ‎Development, and Bob Brand, ‎

Landscape Architect, were present‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that the firm he works for, Frank Rewold & Son, has ‎

had some contact with the developer of this project‎. ‎It is his understanding ‎

that his firm is pursuing further involvement on this project, therefore, he ‎

requested that he be able to abstain from the discussion and vote on this ‎

matter‎.‎

The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if they had any ‎

opposition to Member Ferrera's request and there was none‎. ‎Therefore, ‎

Member Ferrera was excused from the discussion and vote‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom presented a summary of his staff report dated August ‎25‎, ‎

1993‎. (‎Report has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of ‎

the record hereof‎.)‎

He noted that a ‎23‎,‎858 ‎square foot, multi‎-‎tenant office building is proposed ‎

to be located on ‎2‎.‎09 ‎acres of land‎. ‎The site is composed of four lots within ‎

"‎Hampton Office Park Subdivision No‎. ‎2‎." ‎The adjacent sites to the east ‎

and west contain developed office buildings‎. ‎Directly to the north is a ‎

parking lot and car ports for the Woodside Apartments‎.‎

Because the site abuts RM‎-‎1 ‎zoning to the north, a Type ‎"‎B‎" ‎buffer is ‎

required along the north property line‎. ‎A Type ‎"‎B‎" ‎buffer consists of a ‎25 ‎

foot wide greenbelt, a six foot high solid screen and a ‎20 ‎foot high ‎

intermittent visual obstruction‎. ‎The applicant is requesting a partial waiver ‎

of the buffer requirement‎.‎

Of the ‎23‎,‎858 ‎square feet of floor space, ‎7‎,‎308 ‎square feet is to be ‎

occupied by an accounting firm‎. ‎The balance of the building is unleased‎.‎

With regard to traffic impact, Mr‎. ‎McBroom said he expects this to be ‎

minimal‎. ‎He noted that the applicant was asked to connect the two drives ‎

in the back of the building‎. ‎He said they were able to connect the drive to ‎

the east, which is another building owned by the applicant‎. ‎The owners of ‎

the building to the west ‎(‎the Lancaster Office Building‎) ‎refused to allow the ‎

driveway to be connected‎. ‎

Regarding ordinance compliance, all requirements have been met except ‎

for the buffer requirement along the north property line‎. ‎Because of the size ‎

of the building, ‎95 ‎parking spaces are required and ‎98 ‎have been ‎

provided‎. ‎Therefore, the parking proposed along the north property line is ‎

necessary to meet ordinance requirements‎.‎

Although a Type ‎"‎B‎" ‎buffer has not been provided, the applicant has ‎

proposed an alternate plan‎. ‎The alternate plan is similar to an alternate ‎

plan for the Burlington Office Building that was approved by the Planning ‎

Commission in March of ‎1992‎. ‎

If the Planning Commission grants the buffer waiver, the Planning ‎

Department recommends approval of the site plan for the proposed King ‎

Centre West Office Building‎. ‎Four findings and one condition have been ‎

cited in the staff report in support of this recommendation‎.‎

DISCUSSION‎:‎

Ms‎. ‎Drobnich provided photographs of the site for the commissioners to ‎

view‎. ‎They are requesting that the concrete fencing be the same as what ‎

exists at the King Centre and Lancaster Center‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, support by Hauswirth, to approve the Tree Removal ‎

Permit for King Centre ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎353‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎Beaton ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Granted

2000-1436

Request for a Type B Waiver ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎353 ‎- ‎King Centre West Office ‎

Building‎

Member Rosen asked the applicant if the wall is brick faced on both sides‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand replied ‎"‎yes‎."‎

Member Rosen then asked the applicant if they were asking for the same ‎

consideration that Burlington Office Building had in stepping up their wall ‎

height from ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎to ‎6‎' tall‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked the applicant what distance was ‎

necessary to step the wall from ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎to ‎6‎'‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand replied that their intention is to maintain the ‎6‎' height across the ‎

entire length of the property‎.‎

Member Rosen asked Mr‎. ‎McBroom if the wall was ‎6‎' at each end of the ‎

adjoining property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom replied that the adjoining properties are both ‎4‎½‎' walls‎. ‎The ‎

applicants are proposing to make their wall ‎6‎' all the way across as ‎

opposed to stepping it up‎. ‎In Burlington's case, they requested permission ‎

to step it up to blend in better‎. ‎He commented that he didn't feel it would ‎

make much difference either way‎.‎

It was noted that the two walls that will be connected are poured concrete ‎

on both sides and will blend in as one continuous wall‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brand said that ‎

they could step the wall down if the Planning Commission so desires, ‎

however they hadn't intended to‎. ‎

There was discussion about how far from the end of the wall it would begin ‎

to step down, and how much distance between steps if there were to be ‎

more than one step‎. ‎Member Hauswirth felt that it would be less noticeable ‎

if the wall were left all one height ‎(‎preferably ‎4‎'‎6‎")‎, and additional ‎

landscaping added at the end of the wall‎. ‎Members Sadowski and Boswell ‎

also preferred one continuous height of wall at a height of ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎as opposed ‎

to stepping the wall up to ‎6‎'‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom was asked what he thought would look appropriate‎. ‎He ‎

replied that if you ultimately want the wall to blend in, the way to do that ‎

would be to leave it matching the height of the walls on either side, which is ‎

4‎'‎6‎". ‎

Member Rosen said that the ordinance requires a ‎6‎' wall and a ‎25‎' ‎

greenbelt‎. ‎He said the question before them is, ‎"‎Do we waive the ‎

greenbelt because of the parking and square footage requirement and ‎

allow a small waiver for the ends of the wall to match the ‎4‎'‎6‎?‎"‎

He pointed out that to change the wall to ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎would be more than is being ‎

requested‎. ‎He agreed that, aesthetically, it would look better at ‎4‎'‎6‎". ‎

However, granting a ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎wall is a larger qualitative alternate than what's ‎

been granted in the past‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Drobnich commented that a carport exists on the other side of the wall, ‎

so there wouldn't be anyone looking directly at the wall‎.‎

Member Rosen pointed out that if you are in one of the second story ‎

apartments looking out across the parking lot, a ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎versus a ‎6‎' wall will ‎

make a big difference‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that one reason the Planning Commission may want to ‎

leave the wall at ‎6‎' is that the Planning Commission may not require other ‎

buildings, if they came in for other types of modifications, to increase their ‎

height from ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎to ‎6‎'‎. ‎

Member Nowicki wondered if it would violate the ordinance if the Planning ‎

Commission granted a waiver for a ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎wall as opposed to a ‎6‎' wall‎. ‎He ‎

also wondered if this was something that should go before the Zoning ‎

Board of Appeals‎.‎

The Chair quoted a portion of the Zoning Ordinance, under Modification of ‎

Screening and Buffer Zone Requirements, where it says that the Planning ‎

Commission shall determine the screening width and type of buffer zone ‎

needed to insure compatibility based on the following‎: ‎

1‎.‎Development is compatible with and sensitive to the immediate ‎

environment of the site and neighborhood relative to ‎

architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, identified ‎

historical character, disposition and orientation of buildings ‎

on the lot and visual integrity‎. ‎

This section provides for modification or a reduction in the foregoing ‎

requirements on a determination that the following apply‎:‎

a‎)‎The purpose of the subsection cannot be met, and‎

b‎)‎Compliance with the requirements would impose a practical difficulty on ‎

the applicant or would create safety hazards to ‎

pedestrians or motorists‎.‎

Member Nowicki commented that subsection ‎(‎a‎) ‎would not apply because ‎

the requirements ‎can‎ be met‎.‎

The Chair commented that this could be arguable because if the applicant ‎

cannot meet the requirement that says it is compatible and sensitive to the ‎

immediate environment, then subsection ‎(‎a‎) ‎would apply‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom pointed out that it might be a reasonable criteria to determine ‎

whether or not any good purpose would be served by applying the ‎

requirements as they're written‎. ‎The competing concerns are aesthetics ‎

versus screening‎. ‎In this case, aesthetics might dictate leaving the wall at ‎

4‎'‎6‎". ‎Another concern might be providing the ultimate amount of screening ‎

at ‎6‎' all the way across, and perhaps compromising by stepping the wall ‎

down at some point‎.‎

Member Rosen stated that a ‎6‎' wall is required‎. ‎He understands that it is ‎

within the Planning Commission's prerogative to make it blend aesthetically ‎

with adjoining walls‎. ‎He didn't feel it was within their prerogative to allow ‎

the wall to be reduced to ‎4‎'‎6‎" ‎without a reason, especially without the ‎25‎' ‎

greenbelt‎. ‎

The Chair commented that a big concern of the Planning Commission is ‎

aesthetics and how to meet that concern in relation to other dictates of the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎

Member Rosen expressed concern that the second floor apartments would ‎

look over the ‎6‎' wall and see the top half or more of the office building ‎

without the full amount of landscaping‎. ‎This is what the buffer requirement ‎

is intended to minimize‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that the primary reason the buffer requirements were ‎

developed were to shield residential areas from shopping centers, ‎

particularly the back of the building where they are not ‎"‎dressed up‎." ‎He ‎

commented that KY Development's proposed building really does not have ‎

a ‎"‎back‎." ‎Each of the four sides would be a legitimate entrance to the ‎

building‎. ‎This may be another reason why a full buffer may not serve any ‎

useful purpose‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth said he doesn't feel that there's any aesthetic gain by ‎

eliminating the buffer, even though there may not be an equal buffer on ‎

either side‎. ‎He said that the purpose of the buffer is clear and agreed that ‎

Member Rosen has a valid point‎. ‎He doesn't see the logic in waiving the ‎

buffer‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand said that the apartments are set back ‎150‎' or more from the wall‎. ‎

He said there is no real benefit of the buffer to the residential because they ‎

will not see it‎. ‎The wall will block their view of any buffer required‎. ‎He ‎

suggested an alternate plan that would increase the three landscaped ‎

islands to five with two additional trees in each island‎. ‎Two full trees will ‎

have far more impact on the view than any low shrubbery that would be ‎

planted‎.‎

Member Hauswirth said that he isn't convinced yet that there's any logic in ‎

waiving the buffer just because the setback of the apartment complex is ‎

what it is‎. ‎

Member Nowicki said that if the waiver is not granted, the only option the ‎

applicant has is to make a smaller building so they can comply with the ‎

parking‎. ‎He didn't feel that two additional islands with four more trees ‎

would provide much buffering any more than what they presently have‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand disagreed and said, first of all, that he didn't ask for a reduction ‎

on the size of the wall‎. ‎He said they are more than happy to put a ‎6‎' wall up‎. ‎

He asked Mr‎. ‎McBroom what size plants would be required in order to ‎

comply with the greenbelt‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom explained that the requirement calls for a row of trees such ‎

that within two years of planting there would be no gaps wider than ‎10 ‎feet ‎

between any two trees and the mature height of those trees would be ‎20 ‎

feet‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand said that he can comply with that by doing what he's suggesting‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth didn't understand why the Planning Commission would ‎

waive the buffer when reducing the size of the building will cure it‎. ‎

Member Somerville liked the idea of an additional large shade tree in the ‎

islands, plus three additional islands to help obscure the view from the ‎

apartments‎. ‎She said that she is usually not in favor of waiving or modifying ‎

buffers, however, in this particular case, she thought this would be the best ‎

way to go, because the trees are what the apartment residents would be ‎

looking at‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand asked if a waiver would still be necessary if they added the ‎

additional islands and trees‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom replied that they would still need the waiver‎.‎

Member Nowicki pointed out that the shade trees only provide shade ‎

during the summer when they have leaves‎. ‎

Member Sadowski said that he has no objections to modifying the buffer ‎

under those conditions, however, even with a ‎25‎' buffer all the way across, ‎

the trees will still loose their leaves in the winter, leaving gaps in the ‎

screening‎. ‎He didn't feel that this would create any hardship for the ‎

apartment residents‎.‎

Member Rosen said that normally there is a mix of deciduous trees and ‎

evergreen trees so there is a reasonable coverage most of the year‎. ‎He ‎

said he doesn't think a full ‎25‎' buffer behind the building is necessary, ‎

however, there does need to be some serious landscaping on the north ‎

side of the building if there is a waiver or partial waiver of the greenbelt so ‎

that it blocks the view of the building fairly well‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand asked if it would resolve the issue if the narrowest corner of the ‎

parking lot was used as a planting area‎.‎

Member Rosen replied that he would be willing to substitute the required ‎

25‎' buffer with ‎20‎' minimum across the north side‎. ‎That would be from the ‎

sidewalk to the building and there would be some very large trees planted ‎

in that triangular area to make up for a greenbelt with the ‎40‎% ‎obscuring ‎

vegetation‎. ‎That would include the three trees already shown on the plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand asked more specifically what kind of trees would be acceptable‎.‎

Member Rosen explained that the zoning ordinance has a long list of trees ‎

that would be acceptable‎. ‎He mentioned that some of the trees on this list ‎

would include pine, maple,‎

evergreen, etc‎.‎

Member Boswell said he has no problem with them taking out more parking ‎

spaces, putting a couple more islands in the back and adding more trees, ‎

that this would be screened well‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom said that if three islands are added along the north property ‎

line, this would provide the required screening in terms of the intermittent ‎

visual obstruction‎. ‎Therefore, the only issue remaining would be the ‎

distance between the building and the residential property ‎(‎setback‎). ‎He ‎

noted that the Burlington Office Bldg‎. ‎is set back further from the residential ‎

property than this particular building is‎. ‎The issue is, ‎"‎should they push the ‎

building further away from the residential zoning?‎" ‎If that's the case, the ‎

only way to do that is to make the building smaller‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth suggested they look at a situation where they would ‎

slant the parking spaces instead of having the parking aisles going directly ‎

perpendicular to the building‎. ‎By doing so, it would create more shielding ‎

area in the islands‎. ‎This way, they could get ‎12‎-‎16 ‎trees in those islands‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McBroom replied that the only problem he sees is that by angling the ‎

spaces, you force the driveway to be a one‎-‎way drive‎. ‎The adjacent ‎

driveway to the east is a two‎-‎way drive‎. ‎This might cause some problems‎. ‎

He understood that it would provide a lot more screening by angling the ‎

spaces‎.‎

Member Hauswirth said that this would be worth looking at if they could ‎

increase that much screening‎.‎

Member Rosen said that, although Member Hauswirth's suggestion sounds ‎

good, when you angle the spaces at ‎45 ‎degrees, you lose ‎41‎% ‎of the width ‎

because the width has to be ‎14‎' to make a ‎10‎' wide space‎. ‎You would lose ‎

40‎% ‎of the parking if it's ‎45 ‎degree parking; you lose ‎30‎% ‎of the parking if ‎

it's ‎60 ‎degree parking‎. ‎He commented that they would end up worse off ‎

than they already are‎. ‎

Member Sadowski asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin why the site plan was before the ‎

Planning Commission reflecting a ‎2‎½‎' landscape area, which is clearly not ‎

consistent with the ordinance‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin replied that when this project was before the Planning ‎

Commission in November, ‎1992‎, it was a concept plan only‎. ‎The applicant ‎

expressed an intent to request the modification and staff directed them to ‎

the Planning Commission to get their input as to what they might be ‎

considering in light of such a request‎. ‎As a concept plan, it did not have ‎

any dimensions; it strictly showed a preliminary layout‎. ‎That was a pre‎-‎site ‎

plan presentation at that time‎. ‎She said if the Planning Commission is not ‎

convinced that what is shown meets those standards for the granting of a ‎

reduction or waiver, then the options would be for the applicant to revise the ‎

plan to reflect the required screening or the applicant can prepare another ‎

alternate screening plan or the plan can be left on the table as is‎. ‎However, ‎

because it does not conform to the ordinance and no waiver has been ‎

granted, there would have to be a denial because the Zoning Ordinance ‎

requirements would not have been met‎.‎

Member Sadowski said he doesn't feel comfortable approving this ‎

modification of screening requirement‎. ‎He was concerned that approving a ‎

reduction in the screening would be setting a precedent without proving any ‎

true hardship‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand said that they are not trying to get away with anything‎. ‎In fact, he ‎

stated that they are doing more than what's adjacent on either property‎. ‎

They're trying to blend in and conform with the neighboring properties‎. ‎

Member Nowicki commented that the relocation of the trash receptacle ‎

would be closer to the apartments and in the buffer zone as well‎. ‎He said ‎

that there would now be two trash receptacles facing the apartments‎. ‎He ‎

noted that it was expressed once before that the trash receptacles not be ‎

up against the wall‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand asked the Planning Commission what impact and what benefit ‎

does this Board derive from providing the full buffer width other than ‎

increasing the number of trees within the buffer‎...‎and what benefit is there to ‎

the community‎. ‎He felt that the changes suggested by the Planning ‎

Commission seemed to be an arbitrary thing which would have no resulting ‎

real benefit‎.‎

The Chair explained that if the building were smaller, they wouldn't have to ‎

ask for a waiver of any kind‎. ‎Approving the request for a modification might ‎

create a precedent that will be difficult to live with in the future‎. ‎Obviously, ‎

any more trees, landscaping, and buffer create more screen for the ‎

residents so that the office building doesn't have to be seen by them‎.‎

Member Nowicki added that the Planning Commission is trying to correct ‎

some of the mistakes that were made in the past‎. ‎That's why the ordinance ‎

was changed and why changes continue to be made, because there have ‎

been complaints and questions raised on these issues‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, support by Sadowski, in the matter of File No‎. ‎93‎-‎353‎, ‎

King Office Centre, that the Planning Commission ‎deny the request‎ to ‎

waive the Type B Buffer, based on the following findings‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎The Type B Buffer requires an opaque screen height of at least ‎6‎', an ‎

intermittent visual obstruction height of at least ‎20‎' measured from ‎

the ground and a buffer width of at least ‎25‎'‎. ‎The plan, as submitted, ‎

does not meet either the intermittent visual obstruction requirement ‎

or the buffer width requirement‎.‎

2‎.‎The alternate plan submitted does not fulfill the requirement of Section ‎

1812‎.‎8‎(‎a,b‎) (‎Modification of Screening and Buffer Zone ‎

Requirement‎) ‎or Section ‎1812‎.‎17‎. ‎

3‎.‎The applicant has not satisfied the requirement of Section ‎1812‎.‎17‎(‎d‎)‎, ‎

that the requirements would impose a practical difficulty on the ‎

applicant or would create safety hazards to pedestrians or motorists‎.‎

4‎.‎The purposes of the subsection ‎can‎ be met‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎Hauswirth, Nowicki, Rosen, Sadowski, Somerville‎

Nays‎:‎Boswell, Kaiser‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand asked for clarification on Member Rosen's motion‎.‎

Member Rosen explained to Mr‎. ‎Brand that if they were able to make a ‎

showing that they could not meet the ordinance or that it imposes a ‎

practical difficulty, then Sec‎. ‎1812‎.‎17‎(‎d‎) ‎would apply‎. ‎He added that it ‎

doesn't matter to him if a full ‎20‎' buffer is provided, so long as it provides ‎

the intermittent visual obstruction according to the ordinance‎. ‎He ‎

expressed concern that Mr‎. ‎Brand is proposing less greenbelt, less ‎

landscaped area between the building and the parking lot and fewer trees ‎

along the parking lot wall‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Brand explained that, in terms of scope for coverage, his suggestion ‎

has a much greater impact‎.‎

The Chair urged Mr‎. ‎Brand to meet with the Planning Department about this ‎

topic‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth explained that he likes to see some sort of buffer ‎

containing sufficient vegetation to create a screen‎. ‎He, too, commented ‎

that he's not firm on the requirement of a ‎25‎' buffer‎. ‎

Member Boswell pointed out to Mr‎. ‎Brand that there are some problems ‎

with the location of the trash receptacle as well as the lights that he may ‎

want to address when he revises his plan‎.‎

Member Nowicki said that they are concerned about the size of the building ‎

versus the size of the site‎. ‎He said that the building could be reduced to ‎

come up with a better compromise with the buffer zone‎. ‎What they have is ‎

the maximum size of building based on what they're asking for, including no ‎

buffer zone‎. ‎

Denied

2000-1437

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎353 ‎- ‎King Centre West Office ‎

Building‎

Postponed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2000-1438

Discuss Administrative Guidelines for Architectural Review‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin commented that she sent a copy of Gerald Luedtke's memo ‎

to Larry Ternan, which sets forth the changes in the sign ordinance that ‎

were discussed at the meeting of August ‎10‎, ‎1993‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission synopsis of the August ‎10‎, ‎1993 ‎meeting was distributed ‎

amongst the commissioners‎. ‎The synopsis outlines the five changes that ‎

were discussed at the meeting‎. ‎She noted that the next step would be for ‎

the city attorney's office to prepare a draft ordinance for consideration by ‎

the Planning Commission‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that Mr‎. ‎Ternan's thoughts regarding the ‎

architectural review guidelines was that he was uncomfortable with the idea ‎

that staff would be expecting the Building Department to refer all building ‎

permits to the Planning Commission for architectural review‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

said that she doesn't believe that this was the Planning Commission's intent ‎

and she expressed that to Mr‎. ‎Ternan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Ternan felt that some ‎

clarification was needed that this is intended strictly as a guidebook and is ‎

not cast in the form of an ordinance‎. ‎It would not be a basis for denial‎. ‎He ‎

understands the need for this as a tool for the staff to work with applicants ‎

and to know or have some consensus between the staff and Planning ‎

Commission as well as the development community about what is ‎

desireable in the eyes of the Planning Commission with respect to ‎

aesthetics‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that one of the changes made in the guidebook was ‎

adding a requirement for pre‎-‎submission conferences‎. ‎She recalled that ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan was uncomfortable with fees, stating that it would not be ‎

appropriate to require fees or to ask City Council to require fees until there ‎

is some confidence that they are moving toward an ordinance‎.‎

Member Rosen asked if there would be another printing of the revised ‎

architectural guidelines‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin replied, ‎"‎yes‎." ‎It would have the ‎

additional language that's been explained and would include the deletions ‎

and clarification where necessary throughout the document‎.‎

Member Hauswirth asked why the single family residential development ‎

was excluded from the architectural review guidelines‎.‎

Member Ferrera replied that it was because there are so many single ‎

family homes built in the community, it would have been extremely costly to ‎

apply these guidelines to single family homes‎.‎

Member Hauswirth expressed concern that the city couldn't come up with ‎

some kind of protection or control mechanism so that someone isn't able to ‎

put up something, no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is to them, that so ‎

blatantly doesn't fit‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that not all non‎-‎residential construction would be ‎

subject to these guidelines; only those developments which would require a ‎

site plan are affected‎. ‎

Member Boswell said that he is glad to hear that this isn't going to have the ‎

impact of an ordinance‎. ‎He said that he doesn't like getting into a position ‎

where he either has to vote one way to sustain the ordinance or vote ‎

another way, which is something which he believes is probably right‎. ‎He ‎

said that he is philosophically ‎180 ‎degrees opposite ‎any‎ architectural ‎

review‎. ‎He said it looks like one more step where the good of all of the ‎

people supersedes an individual property owner's right‎. ‎He said it seems ‎

like the city is heading more and more toward social zoning or something ‎

like that‎. ‎He said it seems like this would continually infringe on people's ‎

rights‎. ‎He said that they're basing this on the fact that the public welfare is ‎

somehow infringed upon if someone builds a building that most of them do ‎

not like‎. ‎He stated that in this case, Frank Lloyd Wright might not be able to ‎

come into this town and build a building because it looks strange or it ‎

doesn't fit in with what the Planning Commission thinks a building should ‎

look like‎. ‎He said that he doesn't understand where the Planning ‎

Commission gets the idea that they are wiser or know what's better than ‎

any individual architect‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth said that he didn't feel it was an issue of wisdom‎. ‎He ‎

said that when it comes down to size and materials, a house that looms ‎

over all other parts of the neighborhood just seems to bother him, no matter ‎

what it looks like‎. ‎

Member Nowicki pointed out on page nine, Figure ‎4‎, that he didn't care for ‎

the way it was written‎. ‎He felt that it might sound better if the second and ‎

third sentence on page ‎9‎, Figure ‎4 ‎be changed to read‎: "‎The gas station ‎

above is designed in a modified colonial Williamsburg design and the car ‎

wash below is of a contemporary design‎." ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that from staff's perspective, when a developer presents ‎

a project, they are faced with working with that developer for months and ‎

perhaps a year before that project comes before the Planning Commission‎. ‎

Throughout that time, staff tries to work through all sorts of unspoken ‎

administrative cues and all sorts of standing philosophies within the city ‎

about what is good design‎. ‎She said if staff doesn't have any consensus ‎

about what the Planning Commission believes is important in terms of ‎

scale, bulk, height, rhythm, etc‎.‎, it's very difficult for the staff to negotiate ‎

design and site plan issues between Engineering, Public Service, Fire, ‎

Assessing, etc‎. ‎and then get to the table to find that staff's requests of the ‎

developer do not correlate with those of the Planning Commission‎. ‎She ‎

said it's difficult to retain quality developers if the staff is telling them one ‎

thing and the Planning Commission tells them something entirely different‎. ‎

She said that staff recognizes that those situations are going to happen, but ‎

if staff has a tool that the Planning Commission has already agreed ‎

contains, in general, some of the things they want to see in a development ‎

in terms of elevations and facades, then it will be a clearer negotiation‎. ‎

Member Rosen said that he agrees with Member Boswell, quite frankly‎. ‎He ‎

continued by stating that, ‎"‎yet, at the same time, what they're trying to do is ‎

prevent some real horror stories‎." "‎If having some guidelines like this will ‎

enable us to not come up with as many Sound Warehouses or Rallies ‎

Hamburger Restaurants‎...‎or something where they know, going in, that it ‎

may be their corporate logo and style, but they're going to have a lot of ‎

trouble‎. ‎That's good for the city‎." ‎He thought back to a recently approved ‎

site plan that went through the entire site plan process in several months‎. ‎

He said if you do it right and do it well, you can get done quickly‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reminded the commissioners that these are just guidelines‎. ‎It ‎

does not have the strength and force of an ordinance‎.‎

Member Sadowski said that these guidelines will at least give people an ‎

idea of what the Planning Commission has in mind‎. ‎It gives the Planning ‎

Department something to show to those going through the site plan ‎

process‎. ‎It will get them thinking on the right track‎. ‎He commented that he ‎

would absolutely ‎deny‎ voting an ordinance on it‎. ‎

Member Ferrera pointed out on page ‎3 ‎that the paragraph was unclear ‎

where it speaks of projects having ‎"‎no aesthetic impact‎" ‎and those having ‎

"‎minor aesthetic impact‎." ‎It doesn't seem to blend in with the wording on ‎

the chart‎. ‎He felt that the language could be more consistent‎. ‎He said that ‎

there was some confusion between what the first paragraph was trying to ‎

say and the actual steps for the decision making process‎.‎

The Chair said that if they don't have the guidelines appear like they have ‎

some purpose in the administrative process, then they might as well forget ‎

about it‎. ‎He said if they gut the guidelines to the tune of what Mr‎. ‎Ternan ‎

seems to suggest, then his vote would be to scrap it‎. ‎He said the Planning ‎

Commission voted, as a body, to make this a priority and if they're going to ‎

gut it to be just a nice little book that someone wrote, then he would say, ‎

"‎don't bother, because it will telegraph to developers that we really don't ‎

know what we're doing or that we don't have a vision or a view in mind‎." ‎He ‎

said that he shares the concerns that Member Boswell articulated, but said ‎

that this gives them a way to deal with the things, which on a twice a month ‎

basis, they do deal with‎. ‎He said that they do address these things and ‎

now they will have something that people can see ahead of time and have ‎

some thoughts about where the Planning Commission is coming from‎. ‎

The Chair then stated that he agrees with the commissioners that they are ‎

not ready to make this an ordinance, but he did think, if at all, they were ‎

ready to make it, by resolution, a part of the administrative review process ‎

when it comes to developing property in Rochester Hills‎.‎

The commissioners agreed that these guidelines would give property ‎

owners a tool to look at ahead of time so they know where the Planning ‎

Commission is coming from‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin suggested deleting the section with regard to fees‎. ‎She ‎

indicated that we charge for incoming site plans and those fees would ‎

already be available if we were to send it out for consultant review, if ‎

appropriate‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, support by Somerville, to adopt into the administrative ‎

intake process for development in the City of Rochester Hills, a document ‎

entitled ‎"‎Administrative Guidelines for Architectural Review‎"‎, directing, ‎

before final publication and printing, that page ‎3 ‎be modified to show ‎

uniformity in the language of the text as compared to the chart, that page ‎9 ‎

be amended to read ‎"...‎modified colonial Williamsburg design,‎" ‎and to ‎

eliminate the requirement for additional fees to accomplish the architectural ‎

review process‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎Hauswirth, Nowicki, Rosen, Sadowski, Somerville, Ferrera, Kaiser‎

Nays‎:‎Boswell‎

Absent‎:‎Beaton‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, support by Boswell, to forward the document entitled ‎

"‎Administrative Guidelines for Architectural Review demonstrate the ‎

Planning Commission's desire to standardize the review process for ‎

development in the city, and inviting the City Council's concurrence‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Absent‎:‎Beaton ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

ANY FURTHER BUSINESS‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin announced that the MSPO Annual Conference is scheduled ‎

for October ‎14‎-‎16‎, ‎1993 ‎at the Amway Grand Hotel in Grand Rapids, MI‎. ‎

She asked if anyone was interested in attending to let the Planning ‎

Department know before September ‎14‎, ‎1993 ‎so that reservations could ‎

be made‎.‎

Member Ferrera indicated that he would not be in attendance at the ‎

September ‎21‎, ‎1993 ‎meeting‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin informed the Planning Commission that it has been ‎

determined that the wetland for Adams Oaks Subdivision is now ‎not ‎

regulated‎. ‎Singh Development hired Brooks Williamson, another wetlands ‎

expert, who confirmed that the off‎-‎site pond on Mr‎. ‎Crawford's property is ‎

not ‎1 ‎acre, therefore, it is ‎not‎ then regulated by DNR‎. ‎Further, the ‎

connection to the wetland on Singh's property is no longer under the DNR's ‎

jurisdiction, and is now no longer of a size that would be regulated by ‎

Rochester Hills‎. ‎Now, the plans have been revised again to ‎not‎ reflect the ‎

wetland buffer‎. ‎However, the pipe is still shown and Singh Development is ‎

respecting the pipe connection to the wetland‎. ‎They are pursuing a ‎

payback agreement with the Drain Commission to build part of the Chester ‎

Drain to handle the off‎-‎site drainage that's coming to the site, which is ‎

roughly ‎24 ‎acres, and the additional storm drainage that would be created ‎

by their project‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the ORT development plan was approved by City ‎

Council and has asked staff and the city attorney to pursue establishing a ‎

local development finance ‎(‎LDFA‎) ‎district‎. ‎City Council accepted for first ‎

reading all of the rezonings, with the exception of the Chet Rent‎-‎All property‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin referenced a memo dated August ‎26‎, ‎1993 ‎from the mayor ‎

requesting the Planning Commission to review and survey the capped ‎

landfill sites in Rochester Hills to determine if a special zoning classification ‎

should be created to allow for more types of recreational uses on those ‎

sites than are currently allowed‎.‎

It was determined that the Planning Commission would like a list put ‎

together of these sites and a special study session scheduled to decide if ‎

special zoning classifications should be created‎.‎

Approved

NEXT MEETING DATE

September ‎21‎, ‎1993 ‎Regular Meeting‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

meeting was adjourned at ‎10‎:‎31 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎