Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Kathleen Hardenburg, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis,

David A. Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Special Planning Commission Meeting

to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Kathleen Hardenburg,

Greg Hooper, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

7 -

Nicholas Kaltsounis and David Reece

Absent

2 -

Quorum Present

Also present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2008-0387

June 17, 2008 Regular Meeting

A motion was made by Yukon, seconded by Schroeder, that this matter be

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Reece

2 -

Chairperson Boswell explained the procedure for the Public Hearings, and

asked that cards from the back of the Auditorium be filled out if anyone

wished to speak.

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning news dated June 2008

B) Charter Township of Shelby letter dated July 7, 2008 re: Auburn

Streetscape

C) Letter and CD from Oakland County Planning dated July 16, 2008 re:

Troy Master Plan

D) Cancellation Notice for August 5, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

E) PC Minutes from April 2002 and October 2001 re: Crittenton Building

Plans

F) Letter from Walter and Allison Murphy dated July 29, 2008 re: Crittenton

Deck Expansion

NEW BUSINESS

2007-0776

Revised Conditional Land Use Recommendation (Public Hearing) - City File No. 89-153.8

- Crittenton Hospital Medical Center Parking Structure, a new 479-space, four-story

parking deck proposed for the east side of the existing parking deck located behind the

hospital near University and Livernois, zoned SP, Special Purpose, part of Parcel No.

15-15-101-003, Crittenton Hospital Medical Center, applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Ed Anzek, dated July 29, 2008 and

accompanying site plans had been placed on file and by reference

became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant were Monte Oberlee, Administrator, Crittenton

Hospital Medical Center, 1101 W. University, Rochester, MI 48307 and

Richard Whedon, Senior Project Manager, Albert Khan Associates, Inc.,

Albert Kahn Building, 7430 Second Ave., Detroit, MI 48202-2798.

Mr. Whedon advised that the proposal was to expand the existing parking

structure and add approximately 476 parking spaces. They would net

about 273 more, due to the fact that they were going over the top of an

existing parking lot on the site. The new structure would be identical to

the existing structure in character and finishes, and it would be four stories

tall. Access-ways would be the existing structure entrances and exits.

Wishing to be sensitive to the neighbors, they decided that the east

elevation would be solid brick and pre-cast, so no lights would shine

through. They also created a main route through the new structure rather

than around the east side. This would allow the traffic to be further away

from the neighbors. There would be a fire access lane on the east as

required by the Fire Department. He further advised that the plans had

been reviewed extensively by the Engineering and Fire Departments, and

they complied with all requirements. He noted that in August 2007 they

went before the City of Rochester’s Planning Commission to review the

plans. At that meeting, they gave unanimous approval for the expansion

with no objections. Rochester deferred to the City of Rochester Hills, and

once that process was finished, the project would have to go back to

Rochester for a review of any comments and changes made by

Rochester Hills. He referred to a photo of the expansion, and said they

would be adding two additional towers, one with an elevator. One tower on

the southeast corner would be primarily an exit staircase. He pointed out

that the new deck was in anticipation of the new bed tower, as shown on

the hospital’s overall Master Plan (on file). As part of the expansion, they

would be moving the salt shed, which was a dilapidated structure that

housed the salt for the winter. It would be relocated further to the

southwest, adjacent to the retention pond. He stated that they would not

be impacting any woodlands or wetlands. He showed photos of the

current structure, and said that the proposed north elevation of the new

structure would have a series of openings, and the façade would match

the new structure identically. Likewise, the south elevation would be the

same. The west elevation would tie into the existing structure. He pointed

out the east elevation, which would face the residential area in Rochester,

and reiterated that it would be solid brick. There would also be a solid

area in the middle of the south side, which would be for snow dumping

from the top deck. He showed photos of the lightpoles on the top of the

existing structure, and said the new ones would match. He indicated that

they were very sensitive to the light levels shining onto the neighbors, and

he noted that there would be zero footcandles at the property lines, and

that the fixtures would reduce the amount of glare. He concluded that the

area to the east was highly vegetated, with mature trees, and that any

holes in the existing vegetation would be filled as part of the additional

landscaping installed.

Mr. Delacourt summarized that the applicant was requesting a Revised

Site Plan Approval for the new parking deck and a Recommendation of

Approval to City Council regarding a Revised Conditional Land Use. He

advised that the Site Plan had been reviewed by all applicable internal

and external departments, and that it met all the City’s Ordinance

requirements.

Ms. Brnabic asked if it was safe to assume that the general public would

be using the new parking structure, which Mr. Whedon confirmed. Ms.

Brnabic said she was curious as to why they were not adding handicap

spaces in the proposed structure.

Mr. Whedon explained that when they first designed the structure, they

planned to add handicap spaces; however, after a review with the City, it

was recommended that they take those spaces and move them to the

existing deck. Until the expansion was completed, with a connecting link

to the tower, the most convenient and accessible route for handicap was

through the existing deck.

Ms. Brnabic noted that she had reviewed prior Minutes regarding the first

deck, and she wondered if there were still handicap spaces only on the

first and third floors. Mr. Oberlee explained that they were on all levels.

They put more on the level to the bridge, because that was where a lot of

folks parked that came for cardio rehab and similar services. They added

more handicap spaces than on the original design, and in fact, added

handicap parking to all the lots at the hospital, including the main lot in

front.

Ms. Brnabic asked if there would be signage to direct people to the deck

with handicap parking. She questioned how people would know where to

park if they were not aware it was only in one deck. Mr. Whedon agreed

that was a very valid point. He relayed that they had not finalized signage

yet, but he felt it would be very easy to direct people to the handicap

parking. He noted that the primary access to the hospital was off the third

level of the existing deck. He advised that when they took out the

designation for the handicap spaces in the new deck, they left the spaces

the same size. If they wanted to add handicap spaces to the new deck, it

would just be a matter of putting a symbol on the spaces without having to

re-stripe anything. There was anticipation that when the tower expansion

was completed, that they would need additional handicap spaces, and

they would be added then.

Ms. Brnabic said that made her feel a little more secure. Mr. Oberlee

said that the handicap signs in the current deck were very clearly marked,

and he agreed that they could point them out in the new deck. Ms.

Brnabic confirmed that if they felt there was a demand for handicap

parking in the new structure that it would be added, which Mr. Oberlee

maintained was absolutely true. He added that his wife was handicapped,

which made him very sensitive to the issue.

Mr. Dettloff observed that a concern from the residents regarding lights

and noise was raised, which the hospital seemed to be addressing, but he

wondered if he could presume that they had actually met with the

neighbors to gather their input.

Mr. Whedon said that in 2002, when the original deck was before the

Commission, he had presented. He recalled the sensitivity of the light

issue at that time, and he had been working with Crittenton since then.

When they designed the new facility, they took that into consideration,

and that was primarily why they made the east wall solid and put the main

drive through the deck. It would be more efficient for the drive to go

around it, but it was changed because of the neighbors. A lot of what they

did was built on prior discussions with the neighbors. Mr. Dettloff clarified

that they addressed concerns from a number of years back, but that there

had not been any recent interaction with the surrounding neighbors. Mr.

Oberlee added that at the hearings in the City of Rochester, there was no

one in attendance.

Ms. Hardenburg asked the applicants why they needed additional

parking. Mr. Oberlee said they actually suffered with a lack of parking last

winter. The snow caused lost parking and they were hurting for parking.

The more significant reason was the potential for a new tower in the

reasonable future, and the deck was the first step in the process. Ms.

Hardenburg said that when the photo was shown from the top of the

existing deck, the parking lot to the east was empty. Mr. Whedon said the

photo was taken on a Sunday afternoon, but Ms. Hardenburg thought that

would be a busy time. Mr. Whedon said it was not, because the

employees were not as plentiful. Mr. Oberlee added that many of the

outpatient ancillary services were not open then. Ms. Hardenburg

suggested that more people could be visiting patients in the hospital that

day. Ms. Hardenburg asked if the reason they needed more parking was

for snowy days. Mr. Oberlee responded that they would be expanding the

cardiac program and as the programs got more intense, patients had

more people accompany them and therefore there were more cars. Ms.

Hardenburg asked if they were trying to maintain all of the specialties of

Crittenton at the one campus or if they were looking at other areas to

expand.

Mr. Oberlee said they were always looking to expand in other

communities, but the effort for expansion so far had been more on the

diagnostic side, with x-ray centers and blood draw stations. When it came

to the larger things, they would still be on Crittenton’s campus. He noted

that one of the things changing in health care was the need for private

rooms. When they created the joint center in the west tower, they went

from rooms for 44 semi-private beds to 20 private rooms. It was

becoming the standard to have private rooms for patients, and they

needed more square footage to add private rooms.

Ms. Hardenburg wondered why they would need more parking if they had

fewer beds. Mr. Oberlee said that they had to by definition, because it

had to do with the processes and size of the building. Ms. Hardenburg

asked if the property was large enough for them to do everything they

wanted. Mr. Oberlee verified that it was for the things shown on the Master

Plan, and he stated that the parking deck was a key piece of the puzzle.

Chairperson Boswell asked if the oncology radiation would be going to

the new building off of M-59, which was confirmed. He asked what would

happen with that area. Mr. Oberlee said it had not been designed yet, but

he thought that the overall intent would be to have a fixed MRI, rather than

one that pulled up to the dock as it currently did. It would still be used for

diagnostic reasons.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at 7:59 p.m. He asked

the speakers to direct any comments to the Chair, and he stated that they

would be addressed by the applicants and Planning Commission after

the Public Hearing.

Allison Murphy, 241 N. Alice, Rochester, MI 48307. Ms. Murphy had

submitted a letter to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. She

advised that she and her husband were homeowners in the City of

Rochester, and that their home abutted the property of the proposed

expansion. She read her letter into the record, which is on file with the

City, as follows:

Comment/Question 1: “The Hospital’s intent was to expand the parking

structure within 60 feet of their backyard. After making a preliminary

review of the documents displayed at the Rochester Hills City Hall, they

have the following comments, questions and requests of the Rochester

Hills Planning Commission. Does the current site accommodate all of

the Crittenton Hospital’s long range planning needs?” (She thanked them

for addressing some of them). “Crittenton Hospital performs a very

valuable service to the Rochester community. We do not wish to

diminish or restrict their efforts to provide the highest quality of care and

services available, but the desire to compete with large regional hospitals

in volume and specialties is not realistic or sustainable. Our concern is

that Crittenton may desire to provide regional hospital type services at its

current location, but the site and its accessibility may not support their

long-term vision.”

Question 2 (included data from the State of Michigan regarding a

Certificate of Need, which compared Crittenton, Troy Beaumont and St.

Joseph Mercy - Pontiac): “Has the Planning Commission made any

attempt to evaluate the need and utilization for this proposed expansion?

The State of Michigan has a Certificate of Need program that all hospitals

within the State must abide by. The Commission monitors and controls

services, utilization and capital expenditures of hospitals. The proposed

parking deck expansion would not require a State comparative review but

a new patient tower would. If a parking deck expansion is justified only by

the proposed patient tower expansion, then the sequence for approvals

and construction is not justified without approval of a patient bed

expansion by the State. The Oakland Press reported that the hospital is

currently having difficulty meeting patient quotas in some of the

expanded service departments such as their cardiac and stroke center.

The original vision for Crittenton Hospital when it relocated from Detroit in

1967 was to be a community hospital, which allowed it to be located in

close proximity to residential neighborhoods. We are concerned that

Crittenton Hospital may be master planning on the concept of “build it

and they will come” philosophy. Because the property is zoned “Special

Purpose” in an otherwise residential zoning, the Planning Commission

needs to evaluate the utilization, over building, and potential for

abandonment of the property due to under utilization.”

Question 3: “Has the Commission evaluated the effect this expansion

would have on the residential neighbors? There will be considerable

adverse impact to the residents on North Alice. The proposed parking

deck expansion indicates an elevation height of 48 feet. The proposed

height does not take into consideration a drop in grade from the west end

of the existing parking deck to the east property line. The existing parking

deck first floor is almost 10 feet higher than its original grade. An

expansion of the existing first floor elevation to the east would elevate the

first floor 15 to 20 feet above the residential property line, making the

deck 60 to 80 feet higher than the existing residential properties. A

parking structure at the proposed elevations will adversely impact the

value of the homes and the quality of living on North Alice. A building of

this size will tower over these existing homes. A towering parking

structure would obstruct light and ventilation as well as be a visual mass

without any architectural form. It is just a brick wall. Any future

construction height restriction along the east residential property line

should take ventilation and light into consideration. The first floor of any

parking deck expansion should be at least one level lower than the

existing. This could also reduce the overall height of the structure. We

propose the east façade should also take on a residential type texture

and form (refer to the City of Royal Oak parking deck or Bon Secours

Hospital in Grosse Pointe, which went lower into the ground with their

parking structures so they would not tower over the residential

community).”

Question 4: “Has the Commission evaluated the effect of site lighting on

the residential neighbors? We notice that the east wall of the proposed

parking deck is to be solid. This shows that the hospital is aware of the

light that is reflected from the existing parking deck interior lighting and

car headlights. This, along with the proposed lighting level of (1)

footcandle along the service drive without adequate setbacks, screenings

and berms, would continue to be objectionable. The reflected light from

the surface lights and interior parking structure lights would continue to

create a glow all night.”

Question 5: “Has the Commission evaluated the existing and proposed

effect of noise pollution on the residential neighbors? We notice that the

east wall of the proposed parking deck is to be solid. This shows that the

hospital is aware of the noise that generated from the existing parking

deck via vehicle engines, midnight car alarms and loud conversations

that echo through the concrete parking deck. The solid east wall will help

diminish the noise but the noise will still be reflected through the north

and south openings. Landscaping is not effective in controlling noise,

only materials with mass. The proposed roadway around the addition that

is indicated as 30 feet from the residential lot lines is unacceptable. The

drive lanes need to be out of the setback.”

Question 6: “Will this development impact the existing and future

neighboring land uses? This parking deck expansion as proposed would

greatly impact the current and future value of the single-family residences

along their east property line. A future expansion of the hospital, if

allowed to be constructed to the same height as the existing, would tower

over the residences casting a shadow on the residences. The hospital

needs to consider expansion to the west, along Livernois, to avoid the

residential neighborhoods. The cost of commercial land vs. the overall

cost of a new patient tower is very low and not overly restrictive. A

Livernois exposure would help with the hospital community exposure and

desire to become a regional healthcare facility.”

Question 7: “Does the City of Rochester and Rochester Hills require the

same site plan minimums as the City of Troy (Troy Beaumont) where the

site abuts single family residential?” Two of the City’s current Zoning

Ordinances, and the City of Troy’s Zoning Ordinances regarding setbacks

and screening requirements were listed. She read two sections from The

City of Troy (D): “The minimum distance of any main or accessory

building or structure from any boundary property line or street shall be two

hundred (200) feet. Building height in excess of two (2) stories may be

permitted. For each story above two (2) stories, the minimum yard

distance shall be increased by twenty (20) feet. A minimum depth of one

hundred (100) feet of such required yards, adjacent to boundary property

lines, shall be kept free of off-street parking.” She continued with (E):

“Any required yard abutting residentially developed property or potentially

developable residential property, as described, shall contain within the

first fifty (50) feet of said yard, a five (5) foot high earth berm. The top of

the berm shall be landscaped with a minimum of a double row, ten (10)

feet apart, of upright coniferous evergreens (pine or spruce species, as

acceptable to the Department of Parks and Recreation), five (5) to six (6)

feet in height, twenty (20) feet on center, staggered ten (10) feet on

center.”

The next paragraph was read: “We believe that the existing buffer should

be in compliance with your sections as well as these; they are not. The

existing and any proposed expansions must include an increased buffer

dimension, a permanent brick masonry wall and landscaping

improvements.”

Question/Comment 8: “Typical parking requirements for a general

hospital is (3) parking spaces for each patient bed. Crittenton’s 270 beds

would require 810 spaces plus spaces for the ancillary buildings. The

hospital proposes an additional 479 parking spaces to the existing

spaces. What is the total number of parking spaces currently provided?

Will this parking expansion accommodate future building expansions?”

Question/Comment 9: “Most jurisdictions require a minimum green

area/open space and a maximum percent of lot area covered by all

buildings for this type of development. What are the City minimums and

maximums, and what has the hospital proposed for this site?”

Question 10: “Was an independent Traffic Study provided to or obtained

by the City? If so, what are the findings and recommendations? Are

additional onsite and offsite traffic control measures required?” She

concluded by thanking the Commission for their consideration of the

questions and concerns, and said they could feel free to contact her or

her husband.

Ann Peterson, 233 N. Alice, Rochester, MI 48307 Ms. Peterson related

that they were present because they were not invited to the meeting that

took place August 6, 2007 (in Rochester). She brought that up to the

Rochester City Council the night before, and they came out to look at

their properties and hoped to be back in touch with Crittenton and

Rochester to find out why they were not notified. She stated that there

were a lot of discrepancies in what was taking place with the proposal.

She noted that she had gone to Crittenton the day before between 2:00

and 2:30 p.m. and there were over 100 empty parking spaces in the

existing structure. She described that there was permitted parking on the

bottom level for the general public; there were 19 handicap spaces not

fully utilized; the employee parking on the third level was not fully utilized;

and the top level was not fully utilized. At 5:00 before the meeting, she

said she found many empty spaces in the structure as well as on the

ground. She stated that they had lived in their house for ten years, and

they had not complained about what Crittenton had or had not done to

help protect the citizens that lived there. They spent six years fighting the

flooding of their properties, and many homes had sustained a lot of

damage during that time. A retaining pond was finally put in, but before

that process, no one had paid attention to the residents’ needs. Currently,

the lighting went full force into their homes all the time. She indicated that

they did not call the City all the time to complain - they knew it was a

business, and they knew that when they moved in. However, they did not

expect to have their entire backyards to be over-towered with another

structure that was only 60 feet from their property lines. That property line

also included a 15-foot berm, which had not been maintained in the past

six years. She insisted that Crittenton did not pick up the trash or the

dead pine needles, and she recalled a fire from a cigarette about three

years ago from the parking lot. She criticized the fact that there were

many issues with their properties that were not being addressed. Their

property values had already diminished because of the economy, and

she was fearful that they could not sell their homes with a big brick wall in

the back. She continued that they very seldom got a nice breeze

because they were on a lower elevation than the hospital, which occurred

mostly because they lost about a foot of ground from flooding over six

years. She stated that they were at a total disadvantage. The rendering

did not show anything about an additional 20 feet being added to the

center, and the structure would be right next to the berm. There was only

a little roadway between the proposed structure and the properties, where

there currently was parking. On the lot where they proposed to put the

structure, there were 15 cars per row and over ten rows. The employees

parked there mainly, and the lot was not filled. On weekends there were

not as many people at the hospital, and the parking lot was not being

utilized, but she did not feel that would account for the way they would

suffer. She pointed out that the noise and trash were bad, and that a lot of

things needed to be addressed. The applicants said that there was

currently a dense berm of evergreens, but she corrected that there was

not. Nothing had been addressed about replacing the trees or open

areas. She indicated that there were three different pages that showed

three different numbers of parking spaces proposed. She realized they

might vary, but it started with 425, then she saw 455 then 479. She read

number four of the general requirements for a Conditional Land Use: “It

will not be detrimental, hazardous or disturbing to existing or future

neighboring land uses, persons, property, or the public welfare.” In

various reports and letters it stated: “The proposed development should

not be detrimental, hazardous or disturbing to existing or future

neighbors” and “The proposed development will not have an

unreasonably detrimental or injurious effect on existing or future

neighbors.” She did not think that anyone knew what the proposal would

do to the homes or the neighborhood. She did not think it was fair to start

the project and think that no one cared because no one went to the

Rochester meeting. She stressed that they would have been at that

meeting had they known about it, to make sure nothing would have gotten

this far without their input. She did not believe that the size of the parking

deck was realistic for the size of the area, and she felt that it would cause

undue grief to the property owners and detrimental property values. The

air quality from the exhaust fumes interfered with their health and

well-being. There was not enough cross breeze to help, and she

indicated that she did not want to breathe them in her backyard. The

applicants said the berm was dense, but she said she could see all the

way through the current landscape and they could hear conversations in

the parking lot. They did not complain about that - it had always been that

way. They could hear doctors being announced over the intercom. There

were a lot of things they lived with, but there were some things they could

not live with any longer. She stated that the impact on the existing and

future neighbors would be huge. She read that, "The project should not

compromise current and or future neighboring uses, persons, property or

public welfare." She said that the proposed design was the same as the

existing parking structure, except that it would tower over their homes. Mr.

Whedon had said that they previously received approval, but she said

that they did not. It was a preliminary approval, based on the applicants

going back to Rochester with the lighting and landscaping issues. She

noted that the Ordinance stated that for this sized structure, abutting a

residential property, there should be a wall. She noted that they put one

behind the condos to the south and added a nice berm. She talked about

providing shielding for the neighbors, and she stated that someone

needed to look at their properties to see that there was not an extremely

dense berm. It was said at the Rochester meeting that they would plant

55 trees. She did not feel the trees would be able to breathe because of

the big brick wall that would overpower and overshadow their properties.

They would not have sunlight. She did not think anyone could realize

what a big tower of brick would be like until it was put up. She said she

would like it if the Commissioners could come and look at her property,

as the Rochester Council did. She indicated that they had a new City

Council who actually cared about the City of Rochester, and that the deck

was preliminary approved before the election last year. She ended by

saying that she hoped the Commission would help address their

concerns.

Steve Ciraulo, 245 N. Alice, Rochester, MI 48307 Mr. Ciraulo thought

that the ladies before him covered it pretty well. He said that they

objected to having a 60-foot wall 60 feet from their homes, and he did not

think anyone else would like to live with something like that. He did not

think many of the neighbors were aware of it, and he thought they should

get together, meet with the City of Rochester and start all over.

Jeremy Brown, 221 North Alice, Rochester, MI 48307 Mr. Brown said

that he was at the meeting in 2002 at Rochester Hills for the first deck. He

thought that it was more of a presentation of what they were going to put in,

and they did address some of the residents' concerns such as lighting.

He invited the Commissioners to come to his house and stand in his

bedroom where there were two main lights from the deck that shined right

in to his bedroom. He had to put up two sets of sheets to keep the lights

out. The City of Rochester had recently contacted the hospital three

separate times, and those letters had gone unanswered. At the back of

his property there were no trees, only bushes. The City recently went in to

fix the flooding issue and tore out a bunch of tall Lilacs and replaced

them with 2 ½ foot bushes. He remarked that he had a beautiful view of

the structure currently. He stated that there had been no involvement with

the hospital and the local residents. If the applicants wanted to meet with

the residents, he offered that they were ready, and that they were

neighbors.

Kim Klein, 245 N. Alice, Rochester, MI 48307 Ms. Klein stated that she

had lived in her home at the corner of Alice and Third for 25 years where

she had raised her kids. She used to work for Crittenton, and she

proclaimed that the proposal was astounding to her. She commented

that she sat on her deck all the time, and her view was the Crittenton

Hospital parking lot. There were a few little shrubs along the property line,

but they were not taken care of and some were dead. They did not

complain, and she heard the overcom daily, and they lived with it. If she

sat on her deck and had to look at a brick wall, she would wonder who

would ever buy her house if she needed to sell it. She stated that no one

would want to live like that and look at a big brick wall. She said that she

knew a lot about the hospital, and she felt that the parking was

unnecessary and unwarranted. She agreed they should re-think it.

Mr. Ciraulo asked if they knew the percentage of parking used now, and

Chairperson Boswell responded that they did not have that information.

Mr. Ciraulo reiterated that there was a parking lot behind their house now,

and he was not sure how many spaces it had, but he said he could

guarantee that it was not even 20% full on any given day. He did not see

a reason for a parking structure. He asked what the new structure would

do to University Drive. He maintained that it was already terrible from 3-6

p.m. every day. There would be one exit onto University and one out the

back onto Livernois, and he did not see how it would be a good idea.

Chairperson Boswell closed the Public Hearing at 8:27 p.m.

Chairperson Boswell said that the Commissioners were aware of plans for

future expansion with the tower, but he recalled the comment about

whether that was putting the cart before the horse. If the hospital did not

need the parking, he questioned why they were building a deck now.

Mr. Whedon said he had been working with the hospital since 2001,

visiting almost on a weekly basis. He acknowledged that there were times

when the deck was not full, but there were times when he could not find a

place to park. He also acknowledged that there were empty surface lot

spaces. What had not been realized was the impact the medical office

building would have when completed in a very short time. That would

generate additional cars onto the site, and he assumed it was addressed

when the site was approved. He reiterated that the expansion would net

an additional 293 spaces, because the first level of the deck was an

existing parking lot. He said he could appreciate the concerns of the

residents regarding the height, but he corrected that it would actually be

45 feet tall. The towers would be up to 58 feet tall, and the closest one

would be about 100 feet away. If the concern was about the design of the

east wall, he said he was sure it could be looked at to improve the

appearance. Regarding the density of the trees, he acknowledged that

there were some holes, but he advised that there was a landscaping plan

that proposed to fill them.

Chairperson Boswell asked when the second medical office building was

approved, and Mr. Delacourt replied that it was July 2007. Chairperson

Boswell remembered that at the time, it was indicated that there would be

enough parking. Mr. Oberlee said that at the time, they were questioned

about when they were going to add onto the parking deck. Mr. Anzek then

asked him for a copy of the Master Plan, which showed the overall plans

for their campus and what the parking needs would be, which they

provided.

Chairperson Boswell referred to the notification to the neighbors, and

clarified that it involved the City of Rochester. He brought up the several

complaints about the area not being maintained properly. Mr. Oberlee

advised that he would look into that.

Chairperson Boswell said a question came up about whether a traffic

study was done. He did not believe one was required. Mr. Whedon

agreed one was not done, and Mr. Delacourt added that Staff did not

usually require one for additional parking, and that expansions to a

facility would generate a study.

This matter was Withdrawn

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt if the deck would meet the

City’s setback and buffer requirements if it were being built completely

inside the City of Rochester Hills. Mr. Delacourt said it did, and met at

least two of the buffer requirements. The property line was in Rochester,

so he was not sure of their requirements. If the existing berm were six

feet, it would meet the opaque requirements. Chairperson Boswell said

there was a one-way fire lane around the building and he asked if that was

conventional. Mr. Delacourt said that any structure would have to be

farther than 25 feet away from the property line. Chairperson Boswell

asked about the height requirement for the deck. Mr. Delacourt said that

the height requirement was 30 feet in a Special Purpose district and

footnote (i) allowed the Planning Commission and City Council to

increase that as long as the setback was increased in accordance. If the

building was 48 feet tall, then the setback had to be at least 48 feet.

Ms. Hardenburg stressed that she was very disappointed, explaining that

one important thing the Commission asked from developers was that they

meet with the neighbors, which should have been done a long time ago.

She stated that it seemed that Crittenton had a reoccurring problem

maintaining their property. The Commission heard it last year when the

medical office building came forward. The residents on the south side

complained about how trashy the back of the building looked. She said

that it was very shameful. She recalled that when the medical office

building was before the Commission, she had specifically asked about

parking, and was assured there were plenty of parking spaces. There was

a lot of parking that was not being utilized, and she stated that it was not

true when the applicants said there was not going to be enough and that

they were going to provide another parking structure. She reiterated that

she was very disappointed.

Mr. Schroeder said that a question about drainage was raised, and he

clarified that the drain for Rochester was newly built. Mr. Oberlee said it

was on land they gave to the City of Rochester to fix the drainage problem

along the street. Mr. Schroeder asked if Crittenton or the City of

Rochester did the work. Mr. Oberlee advised that they paid for 70% of the

project. Mr. Schroeder surmised that they provided a solution to the

drainage problem, to which Mr. Oberlee agreed and added that a lot of

money was paid.

Ms. Brnabic clarified that the flooding problem had been resolved. She

said she agreed with Ms. Hardenburg, and she was also disappointed she

had heard that the berm was not being maintained, that there was trash

everywhere, and that there were lights shining in peoples’ bedrooms. She

mentioned it in light of the fact that people had taken the time to notify the

hospital about it. As good neighbors, she avowed that everyone should

be working together for the best resolutions, even if someone did not get

everything they asked. She generally did not have a problem with

parking being added to a facility, and she hoped to see the hospital and

patients adequately served, but she could understand the neighbors’

concerns about a towering structure and their other issues raised. She

had enough of a concern that she would not feel comfortable moving

forward with the project currently. She would rather see the matter tabled

until the groups got together and further questions were answered. She

could also understand planning for the future, but it was questionable at

this point. She hoped the applicants would take steps to resolve all the

concerns before the matter moved forward.

Mr. Oberlee indicated that it was the first time that they had heard about

problems. He wished to clarify the statement he made about adding a

parking deck. He meant to say that right after the last hearing, Mr. Anzek

asked him for a Master Plan and to show what they planned to do for

parking, including doing something about the parking structure. If he did

not mention it at the meeting, he apologized, but they did get asked by

the City to provide information about a parking deck. He expressed that

the new deck had been designed with good intent. Regarding light

shining, they had taken care of it with the new design. When the City of

Rochester called them about light shining into homes, they made

adjustments to the lights. Weeks later, he got another call and a picture

from Rochester saying they were still getting complaints. He found that

the light shining into the homes was actually on a light pole - it was not

part of the deck. They disconnected the light within two days, so it showed

that they were trying. Regarding the back corner of the parking lot looking

poorly, he agreed that it did, and he said that construction from the tower

and the new additions were staged out of that lot, and it was falling apart.

The hospital did not want to put a lot of money in something in that bad of

shape when they were planning a parking deck there. He asked the

Commission to take a look at the entire site before judging the back

corner, because he felt it looked very nice.

Ms. Hardenburg remarked that it did not take much to keep the trash

picked up. Mr. Oberlee advised that they had someone out there on a

regular basis picking up trash. He recognized that there might have been

spots they missed, and he said he would certainly take the hit. He

believed that it looked “pretty darn good” and much better than a few

years ago. Ms. Hardenburg said they also talked about the salt shed a

year ago, which was supposed to be addressed.

Mr. Oberlee asked why Crittenton or any other organization would come

before the Commission with a request to put ten million dollars into their

facility if they did not feel they had a need. He urged that it was a reality.

Chairperson Boswell asked if there were spots where the six-foot berm

was not six feet high. Mr. Oberlee said they would check it out and if it

were not tall enough, they would be willing to make it so.

Mr. Dettloff said that one of the concerns of the residents was that they

would have to look at a brick wall. The applicants had agreed that they

would take that into consideration and perhaps do a different design, and

he asked if they could comment about how it could be modified.

Mr. Whedon proposed that they could work with the residents and see

what they wanted. Mr. Dettloff declared that would be a great idea, and he

reiterated that the Commission always encouraged that. Mr. Whedon

suggested that they could make it look like the side of a house. Mr.

Dettloff said that communication would be very valuable, because at the

end of the day, it all boiled down to the relationship. Mr. Whedon was

curious about what happened with Rochester and the communication. He

wanted to assure the residents that if the issues had been brought forward

earlier, they would have been addressed. He had worked with Crittenton

since the new administration came in, and he knew they had the

community at heart. He stated that it was the best organization he had

worked with in his entire career as an architect. Mr. Dettloff thanked

Crittenton for their support and involvement in the community, and said

that none of the Commissioners were there to oppose any future plans

because health care was an important component in society today. They

would just like to see some improved communication that would

ultimately help the process, not hinder it.

Mr. Schroeder said it was interesting to note that Troy Beaumont just went

through the same thing Crittenton was going through. There were times

when their parking lot looked as if it were not being utilized. They entered

into an agreement with the City of Troy to use the park next door for their

overflow parking for their employees and for an access to that park from

the hospital and from South Boulevard. They were expanding also, and

the situation was very similar.

Ms. Brnabic asked the applicants if they would be willing to postpone until

they could meet with the neighbors. She said she did not have a problem

with Crittenton trying to service their needs, but she maintained that the

neighboring community had to be considered also. She said she had too

much doubt with everything she had heard, and she would like to see

some resolutions. She was uncomfortable at this point, and she wondered

if they would be willing to meet with the neighbors and come back with

steps that they could do.

Mr. Whedon referred to Sheet C-500, which showed a construction

sequence that indicated they would start in March 2008. Obviously, the

project had been postponed, but the new schedule showed a little bit of

float time. They could not complete the project in the winter. If they

started in August 2008, they planned to finish in July 2009, so they had a

couple of months before they would conclude that it was or was not going

to be built in 2008. He assured that if the directive of the Commission

was to meet with the neighbors, that was what they would do.

Chairperson Boswell said that the Rochester City Council planned to look

at the property. He had read the Minutes from the Rochester Planning

Commission meeting of August 2007, and the residents did not have any

idea that meeting took place until recently. He observed that the City of

Rochester might want to look at things again. Mr. Oberlee said he had

the same thoughts. Mr. Whedon confirmed that they got a preliminary

approval from Rochester, and he understood that it would become an

approval based on what happened with Rochester Hills. He apologized if

he said it was fully approved.

Ms. Brnabic asked how much time they would need to accomplish things

if it were postponed. Mr. Whedon said they would need to come back as

soon as possible. They had to plan for inclement weather also. If they

got through the process with Rochester Hills, he reminded that they still

had to go before the City of Rochester. The Administration had changed

quite a bit, so he indicated that it might not be as simple as it sounded.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt what was planned for the next

few meetings. Mr. Delacourt said there were a few things, but he thought

that the hospital could be fit in the schedule as soon as the issues were

resolved. Mr. Delacourt suggested that a special meeting could be

scheduled if necessary, since September 2 was right after the holiday and

the August 19 meeting was probably a little too soon.

Mr. Hooper encouraged Crittenton to do what was discussed, such as

holding a town hall meeting with the neighbors. He would like the

neighbors to focus not on the fact of the deck’s height, but on the

mitigating factors such as height of the berm, the landscaping, and

solutions for light and noise pollution. He hoped for a good outcome for

those issues. He said he looked forward to seeing the applicants before

them again.

The applicant requested to withdraw, so a motion to postpone was not

necessary.

This matter was Withdrawn

2008-0360

Request for Tree Removal Permit- City File No. 01-020.2 - Goddard School, a proposed

10,336 square-foot early childhood learning center on 1.46 acres located north of Avon,

west of Rochester Road (north side of Lifetime Fitness' access drive), zoned B-2, General

Business, Parcel No. 15-15-476-021, Marty Ginzinger, applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated July

29, 2008 and accompanying site plans had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Bill Mosher and Nathan Robinson,

Apex Engineering Group, 47745 Van Dyke Ave., Shelby Township, MI

48317 and Marty Ginzinger, 400 Antoinette, Rochester Hills, MI

48309, applicant.

Mr. Delacourt advised that the applicant was requesting approval to

construct an approximately 10,000 square-foot Goddard School on

an existing, vacant, B-2 zoned parcel. He noted that the parcel was

located north of Avon, west of Rochester Road, off of the Lifetime

Fitness access drive. He indicated that the request was relatively

straightforward; there was enough parking provided, and the setbacks

and buffers met all the applicable Ordinances. The project had been

reviewed by all internal and external departments, and the applicant

had addressed any issues raised. The requirement for a Tree

Removal Permit had been met - all regulated trees removed would be

replaced with tree credits. He noted that there was a small Natural

Features Setback Modification being requested, which was indicated

on the Site Plans. He concluded that all departments had

recommended approval or approval with conditions.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Ginzinger if he had anything to add.

Mr. Ginzinger advised that they had been working on the project for

about six months. They had gotten a lot of “thumbs up” from

everyone, and he was hoping to get one from the Commission.

Chairperson Boswell clarified that the Natural Features Setback

Modification would be temporary, and Mr. Delacourt confirmed that it

would be restored with native seed mix. Mr. Delacourt explained that

the retention pond on the Lifetime Fitness property had been sized

appropriately to be able to handle detention from the subject project,

and that was why a pond was not indicated on the plans.

Mr. Hooper welcomed the applicants to the community. He indicated

that the only issue he saw was traffic - making a left turn onto

Rochester Road - and he remarked that currently, people were taking

their life into their hands when they tried to turn left. He reminded

that there would be an additional 350 car trips potentially making left

turns, and said he presumed that the applicant had given thought to

that when they purchased the property. He asked if it had been

purchased or if it was a land contract. Mr. Ginzinger said there was

an offer, and they would close after the approval process. Mr.

Hooper clarified that it was a pre-school, reiterating that he was a

little concerned about young families making left turns onto

Rochester. He did not see an issue with right turns, but he did not

think a light at that location was too feasible in the near horizon. He

asked if people would be discouraged from going through Lifetime’s

parking lot onto Avon Road. Mr. Ginzinger said it would depend

which way people were going.

Chairperson Boswell said that even a right turn onto Rochester would

be difficult because a McDonald’s was right there. Mr. Delacourt

agreed that the traffic was the biggest issue Staff had. They

approached some of the other businesses in the area, but there was

no real response regarding closing driveways on Rochester Road and

rerouting them. The use of the school was very attractive for the B-2

zoning as opposed to some of the other uses that would be allowed in

a retail district. He thought that most of the traffic would be during

peak hours, and a light would be a good idea, but there was no

success with that. Chairperson Boswell commented that the only

way they might get a light was if there were a few accidents. Mr.

Delacourt said that hopefully in the future, they might be able to close

some of the curb cuts of the existing, larger businesses. He recalled

that was similar to what was done with Lowe’s and some of the

businesses in that area.

Mr. Schroeder asked if there was a problem going through Lifetime

Fitness. Mr. Mosher said he did not believe there really was a

problem. Lifetime had been contacted in that regard, and it would be

more of a secondary access for emergency vehicles. He noted that

he lived north of Rochester and he made lefts out onto Rochester

from Lifetime, but his wife refused to do so, and went from Avon to

Livernois to Tienken to avoid that turn. He agreed it would help if

everyone got together to recreate the entrance, but it was not

currently workable. Mr. Robinson added that the drive to Avon was

not really a direct route; people had to go around the building, and

there were several curves and speedbumps. He felt that a

combination of those items would make people go directly to

Rochester Road.

Mr. Delacourt said that going to Avon would probably be the most

desirable route, and he would encourage the school to let parents

know that if they had problems making the turn that they could go

that other way. Mr. Mosher said that they did a preliminary study,

and found that about 70% of the people would be turning right in the

morning. The evening was when there would be more left turns.

They found that most of the draw would be from people living in

Rochester and north. Mr. Schroeder said that people were very

innovative, and if they needed to find a way, they would.

Mr. Dettloff noted that the application referenced that the operation

would be open year round, and he asked if it would be from Monday

through Friday, which was confirmed. He asked if there were other

Goddard Schools. Mr. Ginzinger advised that there was one on

Silverbell, one in Shelby, one in West Bloomfield, Canton, Oxford and

one in Macomb Township. Mr. Dettloff asked if it was a franchise,

which was confirmed by Mr. Ginzinger, who also said that there were

250 around the country. Mr. Dettloff wished the applicants good luck.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing for a Tree Removal

Permit at 9:09 p.m. Seeing no one come forward, he closed the

Public Hearing.

Ms. Hardenburg referred to the Tree Removal Permit and asked the

applicants if they were ready to start construction. Mr. Ginzinger

said they had applied for Permits. She explained that she asked

because development was slow, and in the past, when the

Commission had granted Tree Removal Permits, applicants leveled

their property and then it sat cleared. She wondered if the applicant

was really going to go forward. Mr. Robinson said that Mr. Ginzinger

always called him asking if the engineering plans were done, so he

was definitely ready.

Mr. Yukon asked if there was a waiting list for the school. Mr.

Ginzinger said they could not put a sign up until they owned the

property.

Mr. Dettloff asked when they would be open if they applied for

Building Permits immediately. Mr. Ginzinger said he was hoping to

be ready after the holidays, and it depended on the weather, but he

planned for early 2009.

Mr. Schroeder said he hoped the applicants would put a snow fence

up to protect the areas of encroachment, and he moved the following

motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Brnabic, in the matter of City

File No. 01-020.2 (Goddard School), the Planning Commission grants

a Tree Removal Permit, based on plans dated received by the

Planning and Development Department on July 15, 2008, with the

following two (2) findings and subject to the following one (1)

condition:

Findings:

1. The proposed removal and replacement of regulated trees is in

conformance with the Tree Conservation Ordinance.

2. The applicant is proposing to replace 109 regulated trees with 109

tree replacement credits, as required by the Tree Conservation

Ordinance.

Condition:

1. Tree protective fencing, as reviewed and approved by the

City’s Landscape Architect, shall be installed prior to issuance

of the Land Improvement Permit.

A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded by Brnabic, that this matter be

Granted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Reece

2 -

2008-0394

Natural Features Setback Modification - City File No. 01-020.2 - Goddard School

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Hardenburg, in the matter of City

File No. 01-020.2 (Goddard School), the Planning Commission grants a

Natural Features Setback Modification for approximately five lineal feet of

a temporary Natural Features Setback impact that will result from grading

activities onsite, based on plans dated received by the Department of

Planning and Development on July 15, 2008, with the following one (1)

finding and subject to the following one (1) condition.

Finding:

1. A temporary Natural Features Setback Modification is needed for

grading on the site.

Condition:

1. As finalization of the note on the plan, the impacted area must be

restored with the same or equivalent soils and seeded with a mix

approved by the City, prior to issuance of a Certificate of

Occupancy.

A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded by Hardenburg, that this matter be

Granted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Reece

2 -

2008-0382

Site Plan Approval Request - City File No. 01-020.2 - Goddard School

MOTION by Yukon, seconded by Schroeder, in the matter of City

File No. 01-020.2 (Goddard School), the Planning Commission

approves the Site Plan, based on plans dated received by the

Planning and Development Department on July 15, 2008, with the

following five (5) findings and subject to the following seven (7)

conditions.

Findings:

1. The site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all

applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as

other City ordinances, standards and requirements can be met

subject to the conditions noted below.

2. The proposed development will be accessed by ingress to and

egress from the Lifetime Fitness (current owner) access drive.

3. Off-street parking areas have been designed to avoid common

traffic problems and promote safety.

4. There appears to be a satisfactory and harmonious relationship

with existing contiguous development and adjacent

neighborhoods.

5. The proposed development should not have an unreasonably

detrimental nor an injurious effect upon the natural

characteristics and features of the site or those of the

surrounding area.

Conditions:

1. The applicant shall obtain a Land Improvement Permit prior to

starting any work on site.

1. Any outstanding construction plan details, including the

bioswale and stormwater quality pretreatment device, must be

reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department, prior to

Construction Plan Approval.

2. Appropriate approvals from the Oakland County Drain

Commissioner must be obtained prior to issuance of a Land

Improvement Permit for this project.

3. A performance guarantee in the amount of $48,414.00, as

adjusted if necessary by the City’s Landscape Architect, shall

be provided to ensure the proper installation of replacement

trees and other landscaping. Such guarantee to be provided by

the applicant prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit.

5. Submit redesigned Irrigation Plan and correct irrigation details, as

noted in the Planning and Development memo dated July 22,

2008, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

6. Lightpoles shall be no higher than 15 feet and be timed to turn off

at 10 p.m.

7. Address comments in memo from Building Department, dated

July 22, 2008, prior to issuance of a Building Permit.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Ginzinger if he had seen the

conditions, which he had.

A motion was made by Yukon, seconded by Schroeder, that this matter be

Approved.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Reece

2 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motions had

passed unanimously.

Mr. Dettloff said that given the fact that it was a franchise, he

wondered if the number of schools were limited in the metro Detroit

area. He indicated that there could be a concern about saturation.

Mr. Ginzinger said the owners would guarantee an area, and they

tried to stay around a certain number for each school, and they were

pretty close to being at the peak. He advised that some states were

full. Mr. Dettloff said that would ultimately help, and Mr. Ginzinger

agreed that there was some competition.

Mr. Delacourt related that they applicants had been involved early on

with another site in the City, but it did not work out. They stuck with

the City, but the current site was not their first choice. Although it

looked simple, it was not the easiest site to develop and Goddard put

restrictions on the applicants. Because of their engineers, it went

through in two reviews, and Staff was glad they stayed in the City.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Hardenburg asked if anyone knew what was going to go in the

soon-to-be vacated Whole Foods. Mr. Delacourt had not heard or

seen anything. Ms. Hardenburg asked about the Fresh Market. Mr.

Delacourt had not heard that anything else was going in there. Ms.

Hardenburg asked if anything was going on with the Big Boy on

Livernois, noting that had been talk about a Taco Bell locating there.

Mr. Delacourt said he had not heard further if there were any new

negotiations or if they had decided to go forward. Mr. Schroeder

noted that the Big Boy in Troy was still vacant.

Ms. Hardenburg asked if there was anything new coming to the City.

Mr. Delacourt said that there was a new restaurant coming to the

Taco Loco at Crooks and M-59. The owner wanted to upgrade the

facility. Mr. Delacourt said that the owners of the North Hill center at

Tienken and Rochester Road discussed doing upgrades to the

facades. There was some outdoor seating coming forward, and small

landscaping improvements, so there was a pick-up in people willing

to put money into their properties.

Ms. Hardenburg recalled that Hawthorne Plaza was supposed to

upgrade and add on to the facility, but nothing happened after the

Commission approved the Site Plan. Mr. Delacourt said that they got

into some issues during the engineering review with underground

retention and the location. When they did the soil borings, they found

they might have rework the location. The City approached them

about keeping an open basin in the back and coming up with a design

for underground that could be approved, if necessary. They also

discussed banking some of the parking, and if it became a problem,

they would go to underground, but until such time, they could keep

the basin. Even though there was parking in the back, no one would

use it, and there was more benefit to an open basin. It was still being

looked at, and it might have to come before the Commission again.

Ms. Hardenburg heard something about a department store, but Mr.

Delacourt advised that there were no plans submitted. Ms.

Hardenburg asked about Madison Park, and Mr. Delacourt said he

had not heard a single thing, and he assumed it was because of the

economy.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for August 19, 2008.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commissioners, the Chair

adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:30 p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary