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, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:30

p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Nathan Klomp, David

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

7 -

Greg Hooper and Nicholas Kaltsounis

Absent

2 -

Quorum Present

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

John Staran, City Attorney

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0070

January 20, 2009 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Hooper and Kaltsounis

2 -

2009-0071

January 27, 2009 Special Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Hooper and Kaltsounis

2 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated January 2009

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2008-0581

Request for Recommendation to Approve Adoption of

amended Chapter 138, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of

the City of Rochester Hills and the accompanying Zoning

Map.

(Reference: Memo with revised Zoning Ordinance pages dated February

12, 2009 and Zoning Ordinance dated January 6, 2009 prepared by

McKenna Associates, Inc., had been placed on file and by reference

became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the discussion was Jim Breuckman, McKenna Associates,

Inc. 235 E. Main, Suite 105, Northville, MI 48167.

Mr. Delacourt recapped that the Planning Commission had discussed

the Zoning Ordinance several times over the last few months. At the

previous meeting, they talked about some issues that remained, for which

Staff got valuable feedback from the Commissioners. He noted the

memo in the packet from Mr. Breuckman, which outlined some minor

language changes they felt addressed those remaining issues. They had

also discussed proposed rezonings and associated map amendments.

There was one proposed rezoning about which the Commissioners asked

Staff to work with the property owner, to make sure the language in the

Ordinance ensured that they were comfortable their operation (Ajax

Materials) would be able to continue and expand without undue

regulations. He noted that Mr. Greene, a representative of the property

owner, was present, and that he had worked with Staff.

Mr. Delacourt advised that after the packet was sent, he had exchanged

emails with Mr. Greene, and there were a few modifications to the

language. He said that he would talk about it in short order, but first, he

asked if there were any questions about the changes outside of the

rezoning for the Ajax parcels (from I-2, Heavy Industrial to I, Industrial).

Chairperson Boswell said he was comfortable with what was in the packet,

but he asked if anyone else had a question.

Ms. Brnabic recalled the discussion about keeping the parking spaces at

10 feet wide with an exception for employee parking. She thought they

discussed a dimension of nine feet for that, but she did not see it written.

Mr. Breuckman agreed that the language did not spell it out, and Mr.

Delacourt said they would add “a minimum of nine feet.”

Ms. Brnabic referred to expansions with second story additions, a

sentence that had been added to Nonconformities under Section

138-3.104 B and read: “Second story additions are permitted only when

they comply with the setback requirements of the zoning district.” She

said that they discussed that nonconforming structures could expand

along the setback line if they went no higher than 16 feet. She asked if it

was written that there could be two stories as long as any other setback

requirements of the district were met, or if it meant that someone building

along a three-foot setback that was nonconforming could not go to two

stories. She thought it needed clarification, because it only referred to

meeting the setback requirements.

Mr. Breuckman said that the presumption was that if a building met the

minimum setbacks of a zoning district it could go to two stories. The

expansion of one-family dwellings limited expansions to be no taller than

16 feet, or one-story, for expansions that did not comply with the setback

requirements. He had added it to the Ordinance after the last meeting

because Mr. Colling, the ZBA Chair, (who had been in attendance) asked

him to for clarification. He felt that the sentence Ms. Brnabic referred to

was somewhat redundant, because they were talking about one-story

additions in the setback area complying with existing nonconformities.

He did not think the sentence was necessary, and he did not really feel it

clarified or confused the issue.

Ms. Brnabic said it was a little confusing to her. They were talking about

16 feet, and then it talked about a second story being possible. Mr.

Delacourt said that for a second story, the building would have to meet

the setback requirements of the district. Something would be allowed to

expand within a required setback if the building existed as lawfully

nonconforming, but it could only go to 16-feet high, and the building could

not go any closer to the property line.

Ms. Brnabic thought that the ZBA Chair had a concern that it was being

limited to 16 feet and one story, but she read that anyone else that had

the proper setback could have the option to do a second story. Mr.

Delacourt said that one-story applied to the nonconforming area; it did not

apply to something within the allowable building envelope. It would only

apply if a building projected into the setback.

Chairperson Boswell reiterated that it would not apply to a conforming

structure, so he asked why it would be in the section about nonconforming

structures. He agreed that Mr. Colling’s request notwithstanding, it was a

redundancy, and he did not feel it was needed in that section. Mr.

Breuckman said he would gladly take it out. Chairperson Boswell stated

that B.3. covered it, and they were talking about nonconforming, not

conforming, structures.

Mr. Klomp agreed, and said that it stood out under Nonconformities and

did not follow the topic. Mr. Delacourt concluded that it would be taken out

prior to review by City Council. Chairperson Boswell asked if there were

any further comments before they discussed the I-2 rezoning, and

hearing none, called on Mr. Breuckman to explain the language change

for heavy industrial uses.

Mr. Breuckman said that there were some slight changes from what was in

the packet. Item C. used to be one paragraph, and it was separated into

two. He added wording to the headings for clarity, but the change for

existing heavy industrial uses came mostly in the review process. The

language was not really clear about what was permitted by right and what

required a Conditional Land Use Approval. Item 4., The Review Process,

was new. It dealt with activities that required Administrative or Sketch

Plan Review, which were shown on Table 1 on page 17. Any activities

that triggered those reviews would be permitted by right, and the reviews

would be done by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission.

Also, he put the setback requirements into a separate paragraph. It used

to be part of Item 1. and now it was Item 2. None of the regulations were

changed, so what was in the packet was still “the” regulations.

Mr. Klomp asked if they were going to try to move to a rezoning to I,

Industrial, which was confirmed. He asked if they were recrafting the

language so Ajax would become a nonconformity adhering to the I-2, or if

there was another explanation as to how it related to the big picture. Mr.

Delacourt said that the existing parcels were zoned I-2, the use was

permitted within the I-2 district, and no Conditional Land Use was

involved. The Schedule of Regulations in the current Ordinance set the

dimensional requirements. When the new Ordinance was first discussed,

they considered eliminating I-2 and all the uses, making the Ajax use

nonconforming. That meant it could continue operating, but it could not

expand. The Planning Commission made it clear that it was not the

direction they wanted it to go. They wanted language that made the use

conforming. They also discussed what dimensional nonconformities

would exist as far as setbacks or issues with future expansions, and they

talked about that with the property owner. Everyone finally decided that

the use would become a Conditional Use within the I district. It would

require a Site Plan review for certain expansions and an additional

discretionary review by the Planning Commission and City Council. He

stated that there would be no nonconforming use status. The rest of the

changes were to clarify the dimensional requirements, and it was decided

to put in the setback standards from the previous I-2 district. The

approval process identified specifically what would be required for an

expansion. If it required a Sketch Plan, there would not be a Conditional

Land Use required. If it were a big expansion, they would need the full

Conditional Land Use process. It appeared that they had worked through

all the possibilities and what would be required at the different steps.

Mr. Breuckman added that the applicant would be allowed to modify how

the use operated within reasonable limits, which would only require a

Sketch Plan. It gave the applicant some flexibility to continue and

improve the use.

Mr. Klomp asked if the interested parties - Mr. Green included - were

satisfied. Mr. Greene came to the mike and thanked the Commissioners

for the opportunity to work with Staff and Mr. Breuckman. He commented

that he would probably have drafted the language a little differently, but he

had forwarded Staff some comments, and he felt the language accurately

reflected the concept that had been described to him. The language

included that the use was not nonconforming, and it could continue as a

matter of right. There were some standards they had to live by and if they

changed something materially, they would have to go through a

Conditional Land Use process. He added that they were not looking to

avoid regulations, and they did not have any objections to them. He

hoped there would not be a battle later on, and he did not really think

there would be, and he felt everyone would work in good faith. They were

appreciative of the City’s willingness to do that for them.

Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Schroeder moved the following motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Dettloff, that the Rochester Hills

Planning Commission hereby recommends to City Council approval of

an Ordinance to repeal existing Chapter 138, Zoning and adoption of a

new Chapter 138, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, prepared by

McKenna Associates, Inc., dated January 6, 2009, and adoption of the

revised Zoning Map, dated January 12, 2009 both prepared in

accordance with the City’s updated Master Plan and as discussed at the

December 16, 2008 and January 27, 2009 Public Hearings and the

February 17, 2009 Regular Planning Commission meeting, subject to the

following condition:

Condition:

1. That the proposed revisions to Sections 138-3.104, Nonconforming

Structures, 138-4.420, Heavy Industrial Uses, 138-10.402, Solar

Access Permit, and 138-11.302, Parking Layout, as

recommended at the January 27, 2009 Public Hearing, be

incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance prior to review by City

Council.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Staran if they had to remove the sentence

discussed under Nonconformities. Mr. Staran thought it was duly noted in

the course of the discussion, and he did not think it needed to be added

to the motion. Ms. Brnabic asked if the nine-foot dimension for parking

should be added or if it was also duly noted, which Mr. Staran confirmed.

Mr. Staran advised that the change would be made before it was

presented to City Council.

Mr. Delacourt brought up the Fanuc Robotics parcel, which was proposed

to be rezoned ORT, Office Research Technology from RO, Research

Office. He advised that it was the only parcel in the City zoned RO. The

Tech Committee agreed that it should be rezoned to correspond with the

rest of the ORT parcels in the area. He noted that there would be lesser

setbacks than allowed in the RO district. Staff spoke with the owners of

Fanuc and they had no concerns. They were only concerned that the use

be allowed. He wondered if any additional discussion was necessary by

the Planning Commission. Mr. Anzek mentioned that he received a

phone call from an abutting resident who asked if ORT permitted the

bearing of toxic waste on the property. He told him that it absolutely did

not, and the neighbor was fine. Mr. Delacourt advised that there were

stiffer requirements for setbacks in the RO that were not required in ORT,

but he reminded that the site was built out. There had been no

complaints about the use, and they felt that ORT worked just as well as

RO.

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

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Hooper and Kaltsounis

2 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed

unanimously. He thanked Mr. Greene for his patience and help. He

thanked Mr. Breuckman, Mr. Delacourt and the Technical Committee.

Mr. Delacourt thanked Ms. Brnabic, who was on the Technical

Committee. He noted that she had spent an enormous amount of time

on the Ordinance through the whole process, and he thought she was one

of the few that had read it entirely. He reminded that she looked at it from

the Planning Commission’s and Zoning Board of Appeals’ standpoint.

Mr. Reece asked if the Ajax property was in compliance with the

Ordinance requirements. Mr. Anzek said they were slightly not in

compliance with some matters. It had been brought to the owner’s

attention, and there was a pledge on their part to have it resolved by June.

There was a requirement about fencing the entire site, but Mr. Anzek

stated that the site had never been fenced, with the exception of the street

frontage off of Avon Industrial. There was no fencing along the Trail

border, but the City would like that to happen if and when they did expand.

Mr. Reece asked if they were required to have screen walls around all the

piles. Mr. Anzek advised that the existing Ordinance required it for

outdoor storage, but he indicated that it was a unique site. There had

been Variances granted since the early 1970s, and it had been difficult to

pin down exactly what they were supposed to be doing. There had been

some offsite encroachment of some of the piles, and the owners were

going to remove those. They were also going to conduct a survey to

determine the property lines, and the City would work with them to catch

up with the Ordinance.

Mr. Reece said that it seemed almost impractical to have fences around

the storage piles because they would not be able to get to them. Mr.

Anzek added that an eight-foot fence around a 40-foot pile was rather

ineffective. The new standards were written to protect the City to make

sure there was not another use like it somewhere else in the City. Mr.

Reece noted that it could be seen pretty predominately from M-59 in the

wintertime, and that he had not seen screening around the piles.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2009-0072

Recommendation of Planning Commission Representative to

the Zoning Board of Appeals for a one-year term to expire

March 31, 2010.

Chairperson Boswell read the agenda item, and noted that the Planning

Commission Representative had been Ms. Brnabic for the last couple of

years. Mr. Schroeder asked if anyone else was interested in being on the

Zoning Board of Appeals, and hearing no one, he moved the following

motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, the Planning Commission

of the City of Rochester Hills hereby recommends to City Council that

Deborah Brnabic shall serve as its representative on the Zoning Board of

Appeals for a one-year term to expire March 31, 2010.

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Hooper and Kaltsounis

2 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed

unanimously.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commission that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for March 17, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

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

adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:05 p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary