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

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00

p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, Nicholas Kaltsounis, Nathan

Klomp, David Reece and C. Neall Schroeder

Present

7 -

Deborah Brnabic and Emmet Yukon

Absent

2 -

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0309

July 7, 2009 Special Meeting

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

Approved as Amended. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Dettloff, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece and Schroeder

7 -

Absent

Brnabic and Yukon

2 -

Correction to Minutes:

Page 14, 1st paragraph, add: "Mr. Schroeder asked Mr. Miller if DTE

amortized their system, and he replied that they did, for 20 years."

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News (2) dated July and August 2009

B) Ordinance 532 adopting the new Zoning Ordinance and Map

C) Shelby Township PC Open House for August 19, 2009 re: MLUP

D) Photometric Plan and Lighting Details for Oakmont/Boulevard Hills

Mr. Anzek mentioned that he planned to attend the meeting at Shelby

Township August 19, 2009.

NEW BUSINESS

2009-0230

Request for Tree Removal Permit - City File No. 09-002 -

Oakmont/Boulevard Hills, a proposed 149,500 square-foot

senior congregate care facility and a 65,700 square-foot

assisted living center on 12.8 acres located on South

Boulevard, east of Adams, zoned SP, Special Purpose,

Parcel No. 15-31-326-032, Pomkal Rochester LLC,

applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated August 14,

2009, and Site Plans for Oakmont, prepared by Progressive Associates,

Inc. had been placed on file and by reference became part of the record

thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Daniel Tosch, Progressive Associates, Inc.,

838 West Long Lake Road, Suite 25, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302.

Notice was given by Chairperson Boswell that anyone that wished to

speak on this Agenda item should fill out a card and bring it to the

Secretary. He asked Mr. Delacourt if the applicant was requesting Final

Approval with conditions. Mr. Delacourt agreed, and clarified that it was

possible, if the Planning Commission chose, to provide Final Approval

with conditions to be addressed by Staff. If the Planning Commission

would rather, a Preliminary Approval could be granted and the applicant

would make changes and come back before them for a verification that

nothing had changed. Staff felt the plans were close enough for a Final,

and although there were quite a few conditions, he did not feel they would

have a significant impact on the design of the facility. There would not be

movement of the buildings or changes to the parking or lighting, for

example.

Chairperson Boswell stated that the only condition that really bothered

him regarded the landscaping. There was quite a lot outstanding that was

still requested in the letter from the City’s Landscape Architect, and there

was no mention of an escrow account. He did not believe that was typical.

Mr. Delacourt agreed there were more items in the memo than the

Planning Commission was used to seeing at this point; however, until

those were finalized, they could not determine an escrow amount. He

reminded that the bond amounts often changed after an Engineering

review. He emphasized that an escrow would certainly be required for

performance and maintenance bonds. There was enough space to

provide the appropriate number of buffer trees and tree credits. There

were issues with the type of trees, and island trees were not provided, but

the Landscape Architect assured him that there should be no problem

meeting the requirements. As mentioned, if the Planning Commission

was not comfortable, they could treat it as a Preliminary, and the applicant

could come back for Final Approval. He assured that Staff was not

concerned that the issues would not be addressed.

Mr. Delacourt summarized that the project was for the final build out of the

site, the first portion of which was approved in the early 1980’s. The

applicant was proposing a three-story, 149,000 square-foot senior

congregate facility with 120 units and a one-story 66,000 square-foot

memory care building with 64 units. The parcel was 12 acres, and the site

was zoned and master planned appropriately for the proposed use. The

applicant was seeking a Tree Removal Permit and Site Plan Approval in

conformance with the Ordinances. All reviewers had approved or

approved with conditions. He noted that the photometric plan did not

make it into the packet (copies had been provided at the meeting and

had been placed on file). He said that it was hard to read, but it was in

conformance with the City’s new lighting Ordinance. The poles were 20

feet or less; all the footcandles were within or below the requirements; and

no light would project across the lot lines to the adjacent residential

properties.

Mr. Tosch introduced himself, and said that he was representing the

developer, who could not attend due to unexpected surgery. He advised

that the proposal was part of the existing nursing center, formerly known

as Peachwood, which was now called the Boulevard Health Center.

Oakmont/Boulevard Hills would be a continuum of care for senior

citizens. The intent was to utilize the existing boundary road around the

entire perimeter of the site and the existing boulevard entrance. The

parking on the perimeter of the site was staying the same, and there was

existing site lighting on the perimeter.

Mr. Tosch explained that they wanted to develop a combination of units

for senior citizens. The three-story building was for independent living,

with full facilities within the apartments, including kitchens, baths, washers

and dryers. There were many amenities within the structure for the

residents’ use. He listed a library, computer room, parlor, TV lounge,

dining room with full service kitchen, card room, resident storage on each

floor, activity room, beauty and barber salons, physical therapy, exercise

room, doctor’s clinic, pharmacy, prayer room and a full service cinema.

There would be 84 one-bedroom, one-bath units of 738 square feet; 12

one-bedroom with den, bath-and-a-half units at 985 square feet; and 24

two-bedroom, two-bath units at 1,050 square feet. The one-story building

was for assisted living and would be a licensed home for the aged. There

would be 64 units; 37 assisted living and 27 for memory care use. Each

studio would be 414 square feet and the one-bedroom units were

approximately 586 square feet. The facility also had a library, lounge,

parlor, beauty salon, sun rooms, dining room, physical therapy, activities

room, prayer room and a café.

Mr. Tosch advised that they met with the Fire Department, and there was

a concern about a secondary access. The site was landlocked on the

east, north and west. They were required to add a secondary means of

access at the eastern corner of the site, adjacent to the existing retention

pond. It would be for emergency access only. Unfortunately, by adding

that, some of the trees had to be eliminated, but they would be replaced.

He noted that the pond had to be increased to meet the City’s new

requirements for stormwater detention.

In response to the question about landscaping, Mr. Tosch said that

because of the new Ordinance, they were trying to get a handle on what

had to be removed and replaced. They had the count correct now, and

had no problems meeting the requirements for the replacement. It was

also clear what they had to do for the parking lot islands.

Mr. Tosch showed the frontal elevation of the three-story building, noting

that each building would have a drive-under and a front porch. Also, each

apartment in the three-story would have a private balcony on the second

and third floors and patio on the first floor. He showed a sample board of

the building materials, and said that the brick would be complementary to

the existing nursing center. The shingles would be the same color, and

the shutters would be a dark green. He asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Schroeder questioned whether the developer was doing anything to

make the building comply with the LEED program. Mr. Tosch advised

that both buildings would utilize the “green communities,” which was one

step below the LEED program, for the HVAC, insulation, types of

materials and paint. He added that they would recycle all building

materials during construction.

Mr. Kaltsounis stated that his biggest concern was the height of the

three-story building. It would be about 35 feet to the midpoint of the roof,

and about 40-44 feet to the top. He questioned its compatibility with the

surroundings. Mr. Tosch responded that they were complying with the

City Ordinances for height. Mr. Kaltsounis said that the Ordinance

allowed the Commission to review a project for compatibility with

surrounding areas. He said he would be interested to hear what the other

Commissioners and the residents thought, but he was concerned about

having a three-story building so close to the houses. The people bought

their homes without knowing that a very large building was planned

behind them. Mr. Tosch offered that they drew the buildings so as to

break up the facades. There were recesses and undulation on the

building. There were not a lot of straight walls; there would be gables and

hip roof treatments to break up the height. The east and west wings had a

roof break to reduce the scale of the building as much as possible. Mr.

Kaltsounis noted that the corner of the building would be 165 feet from the

property line, and he was bothered by that. If he was a neighbor and had

to look at it and had people peering into his house from the second and

third floors, he wondered how that would be harmonious and compatible.

He asked if a couple of units could be removed from the corner so there

would be two floors that stepped up to three.

Mr. Tosch responded that they used the hip roof on the end to try to

mitigate the height. The ends of the building would be offset quite a bit.

Mr. Kaltsounis said he understood, but he claimed that the grade was

already three or four feet above the neighbors’ grades. Mr. Tosch said

that the elevation would be gone, and they would be coming down

basically to the curb line. The building had to be accessible, so they

could have ramping. There could not be extreme heights to the

stairways. Mr. Kaltsounis reiterated that the neighbors would be at a lower

grade, and there would be a large building in back.

Mr. Dettloff asked if POMKAL owned or operated any other facilities in the

area. Mr. Tosch said that one of the owners also owned the existing

nursing center. They also owned and operated a facility in Sterling

Heights. Another of the developers owned senior congregate facilities

called Oakmont - he recalled one in Sterling Heights and one in

Northville - which showed experience. Mr. Dettloff asked if Fifth Third

Bank was still involved, but Mr. Tosch was not aware. Mr. Dettloff asked

why the second phase was prevented from moving forward for so long.

Mr. Tosch said it was a combination of things. They wanted to get the

right product and the right mix on the site. Mr. Dettloff asked if all bank

financing was secure, and Mr. Tosch advised that it was in process, and

they were working with a number of different types of lenders.

Mr. Schroeder asked if the developer planned to proceed if approved.

Mr. Tosch did not believe the owners had a commitment for financing, but

they were working on a number of different avenues. They had to keep

moving the development ahead in the approval stages to get financing

and get the construction documents done. Mr. Schroeder said he would

be concerned if they took all the trees down, and then it sat for a few years.

Mr. Tosch said that the intent was that by the first of next year, they would

be ready for construction. Mr. Schroeder clarified that they would not

begin tree removal until they had contracts or started the whole project.

Mr. Tosch's response was that they would try to do it one building at a

time.

Chairperson Boswell opened the public comments at 7:34 p.m., noting

that he would not put a time limitation on any speaker.

Richard Rogers, 3874 Greenwood Ave., Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Mr. Rogers stated that he lived on the northwest border of the proposed

site in lot nine. He was not sure where that was in relation to the

three-story building, and he asked if that could be pointed out, which Mr.

Tosch did. Mr. Rogers said he had no idea that a three-story building was

contemplated, and he said he would take it back to the neighbors and see

if they wanted to seek any legal advice. He noted that there was a berm

along the back of all of the properties, which was four to six feet high with

large trees. He asked from where the 63 trees would disappear, and if

that would give them an unobstructed view of the three-story building.

Mr. Tosch stated that none of the trees along the property line would be

removed, except by South Boulevard, where the emergency access

would go. Those would be replaced. He also noted that all construction

would take place west of the existing driveway, and they would not disturb

anything on the east side of it, except to plant trees.

Anthony Shira, 39836 Greenwood Ave., Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Mr. Shira said that he was unit one. He thanked Mr. Kaltsounis for

bringing up the issue of three stories. He said that one of the redeemable

characteristics of unit one was being able to look outside the second story

window and see a retention pond and greenery for half a mile. He asked

how much higher the three-story building would be than the homes.

Chairperson Boswell responded that to the midline of the roof, it was 36

feet, seven inches. He asked how tall Mr. Shira’ house was. Mr. Shira

thought about 25 feet. Chairperson Boswell concluded that if the grade

was the same, it would be about 10 feet higher. Mr. Shira said he had

seen buildings at grades below the adjacent homes. He stated if that

were the case, that three stories would not be so imposing. He asked

about increasing the size of the retention pond and about the new

emergency access, noting that his yard ended right next to it.

Chairperson Boswell explained that there would be an emergency road

between Mr. Shira’s property line and the retention pond.

Mr. Delacourt pointed out that the emergency drive would be gated, and

only used by the Fire Department if they could not get through the main

entrance. The Fire Code required two access points in case one was

blocked. He did not believe it would be paved, and only the Fire

Department would have a key to open the gate. Mr. Shira asked if they

would put in some trees. Mr. Tosch said they would maintain a landscape

area of 20 feet between the property line and the new access. Mr. Shira

asked the purpose of increasing the size of the pond, and Mr. Tosch

reiterated that they had to meet the City’s new Engineering standards for

stormwater detention.

Mr. Delacourt added that the City’s Landscape Ordinance required

minimum buffer widths and tree plantings for developments abutting

single-family properties. There would have to be a six-foot opaque

screen or visual obstruction. They would keep the existing vegetation,

and the applicant would have to supplement the gaps with new trees or

shrubs. He offered to walk anyone that wished to stop by the Planning

Department through the requirements. Regarding the stormwater

detention, he advised that for new impervious surface, such as asphalt or

buildings that prevented water from recharging into the ground, the

applicant was required to increase the pond so it would control the water

and release it at the same rate as it currently was absorbed into the

ground. Mr. Shira asked if they considered swapping the buildings, so

the three-story building was further back. Chairperson Boswell

commented that it would then be closer to Mr. Rogers.

Don Wolcott, 3460 Warwick, Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Mr. Wolcott

said that he had been a resident of Pine Trace for about 10 years. There

were a number of people in Pine Trace that had a family member in the

nursing home who felt highly about the services they received. He knew

there was a strong concern about moving the trees, and he said it was

great to hear that they would replace them. He was hearing concerns

about a three-story building, and he was not sure what it would look like.

He noted that they had a strong board in Pine Trace to keep things up to

code. He said it would be interesting to see what the development would

mean in terms of all the concerns they had raised.

William Charron, 3916 Greenwood, Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Mr.

Charron stated that he lived in lot six, and he shared the same concerns

about the height. They had a clearing in their yard, and they would now

see a three-story structure towering down on their lot. He was not so sure

that would be a pleasant site. He was also not sure what was driving three

stories; he suggested that it was perhaps the economics. He advocated

that a two-story building would probably look much nicer, architecturally,

with the surrounding area. He mentioned the assisted living buildings on

Adams (Rochester American House), and said they stuck out and

towered in a residential area. He would rather see one-story, but he felt

that consideration should be given to two-stories. He thought it would fit in

better with the suite of buildings, and he thought that three stories would

affect his property negatively.

Chairperson Boswell closed the Public Comments and asked Mr.

Delacourt if he knew the difference in elevation between the subject

property and Lorna Stone (a proposed development at Adams and South

Boulevard). Mr. Delacourt said it would be similar along Adams in height.

He noted that the only time an applicant could go to 40 feet in the Special

Purpose district was when they met the minimum 100-foot distance from

the residential properties. Single-family developments were allowed to go

to 35 feet with a 35-foot rear yard setback. He acknowledged that the

proposed buildings were more massive, but that was why they were

required to be set further back. If they reduced the building to two stories,

it would be allowed to be closer to the rear yards, which might be a

different concern.

Mr. Dettloff wondered, after hearing some of the concerns of the

neighbors, if the developer had met with any adjacent property owners.

Mr. Tosch said he did not believe so. They were aware there would be

some concern about the access drive because they would have to disturb

vegetation, but he stressed that they had no alternative. Mr. Dettloff

indicated that the Commissioners liked to see some type of dialogue,

prior to coming before them, to help alleviate some of the concerns. He

did not want to delay things, but he wanted it to be a win-win situation.

Mr. Tosch replied that they looked at a couple of design alternatives, and

they felt that the building placement was an advantage.

Mr. Klomp stated that the number one concern of the residents was

seeing the structure - it was not the noise. For a Special Purpose district

project, in this location, he did not think there could be a better use of the

property. His grandmother lived in a similar development, which was

peaceful and quiet at night, and there was not a lot of traffic during the

day. He thought the residents wanted to know what would be done to try to

mitigate or eliminate the visual of the facility. He wondered what the

applicant could tell everyone so there was some sense of trust that the

residents would not be looking out of their windows at a big building.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt to explain the buffering and

what would be going between the building and the neighbors to the east.

Mr. Delacourt indicated that he could not say the neighbors would never

see the building. It would be visible, but the City required an extensive

amount of landscaping at significant heights. Evergreen trees had to be

6-14 feet in height in a continuous manner. That would do a lot year

round to help screen the building. The buffer width was 50 feet, and the

building would be 165 feet away. He did not have a visual for what the

neighbors would see, and he suggested that perhaps that would be

something the applicant could provide. He advised that what the

applicant was proposing exceeded the minimum requirements for

landscaping, tree replacement and setbacks.

Mr. Schroeder said it would be very easy to develop a cross section from

the corner of the building to the property line, showing the berm and trees

and the height of the building. That would be worth many words if the

residents could see that to scale, and it would help alleviate a lot of the

concerns. He requested that the applicant prepare the cross section for

the neighbors.

Mr. Rogers came to the podium again and asked if there was a

compatibility Ordinance in Rochester Hills. Mr. Delacourt said it was

mentioned that one of the factors a Planning Commissioner could

consider in evaluating a project was compatibility and how something fit

in with its surroundings. It was not an Ordinance, however. Mr. Rogers

said he was not an expert, and he had not seen the Ordinance, but it

struck him that facially, the three stories were incompatible. It would be

like building a house in the center of the Beaumont Hospital complex.

He stated that it would clearly change the whole character of the

neighborhood, and he intended to pursue it further.

Mr. Shira asked if the decision by the Fire Department was final regarding

placement of the emergency road, and he asked if it could be pushed

further west. Mr. Delacourt answered that it was final and they would not

move it, because it barely met the requirements of the Fire Code as it

was. It took some time and effort to get it approved, and he did not

believe the Fire Department would be willing to compromise any further.

That was probably the largest issue resolved over the last few months of

review. Mr. Shira asked if they were reluctant to put it where they did. Mr.

Delacourt said they felt it met the Code, but it was as flexible as they

could go. He reiterated that the only time it would be used would be if the

main entrance were blocked during an emergency situation.

Mr. Klomp asked if the emergency road was required because of the

number of residents expected in the complex. Mr. Delacourt agreed, and

said it was also because of the type of facility.

Mr. Hooper suggested that they add a condition that the gated

emergency drive be grass blocks, so visually it would look like grass. Mr.

Tosch said they proposed that, but the Fire Department preferred that it

be paved so it could be maintained through all seasons. The grass

blocks would be difficult to plow. Mr. Hooper indicated that it had been

done in other places in the community. He clarified that it would be the

responsibility of the property owner to plow the gravel drive during the

winter.

Mr. Hooper noted that there had been an extensive discussion about

screening. He confirmed that none of the existing trees within 50 feet of

the eastern property line would be disturbed. He noted that the Ordinance

required the addition of eight ornamental trees and 15 evergreen trees to

the eastern property line, as well as the addition of shrubs, to provide the

20-foot IVO. Mr. Schroeder asked Mr. Tosch to show the landscape plan

on the big screen. Mr. Hooper pointed out the existing trees to remain

and the new plantings. Regarding the height, he summarized that most of

the homes in Pine Trace were two-story homes at about 27 or 28 feet to

the midpoint of the roof. If there was a walkout basement, they would be

35 feet high, the same as the proposal. The building was proposed to be

165 feet away at the closest point, so with 35-foot rear yard setbacks, the

homes would be at least 200 feet away. He acknowledged that it would be

a new senior housing development for the area, but with the additional

buffering he thought it would be acceptable. The site was zoned Special

Purpose well before the homes were built in Pine Trace, and it had always

been proposed for senior housing. He thought the development would be

harmonious and compatible with the area because that was what it was

zoned and designed for a long time ago. He did not think they would get

a better neighbor. The development would be quiet and unobtrusive,

compared with single-family homes. There would be significantly less of

an impact as far as noise. If there were a motion, he would suggest a

condition: Landscape bond to be posted in an amount determined by

Staff, to ensure completion of landscape improvements and a two-year

warranty.

Mr. Kaltsounis said he was still going back and forth about how he would

vote for the development. If the neighbors had known what was coming

and everyone was happy about it and there was common ground, it would

have been better. He thought that Mr. Hooper had some valid points, but

at 35-40 feet high as close as it was to the houses, he was still concerned

and would vote no or recommend tabling the matter until all the i’s were

dotted and t’s crossed. It could perhaps come back at the next meeting

with a situation everyone was happy with.

Chairperson Boswell noted that the property had been zoned Special

Purpose for a long time, and he asked Staff what Special Purpose zoning

entailed.

Mr. Anzek offered some thoughts about the compatibility issue, relating

that the Ordinance allowed senior housing as a principal, Permitted Use,

not a Conditional Use. A Conditional Use triggered the harmonious,

compatible consideration as a discretionary decision for which the

Planning Commission could make a recommendation. If the applicant

met the standards of the Ordinance, Site Plan Approval was expected

and required by State law. Because this was a Permitted Use, there was

not a lot of discretionary opportunity. The applicant demonstrated that the

standards could be met, and the setback was even further than required.

Mr. Schroeder asked if the applicant could go out and remove trees right

away if the Tree Removal Permit was granted. Mr. Delacourt stated that

they could not remove trees without a Land Improvement Permit, which

required Construction Plan Approval, tree fencing and inspection at the

minimum. Mr. Schroeder asked if the Commission could ask that the

perimeter trees be planted right away. Mr. Delacourt said the

Commission could request it, but the applicant would have to agree to it

because the Ordinance did not require it. Mr. Schroeder was aware of

that, but he felt it would help the residents, because when the trees were

first planted, they would not be as full. They would take two or three years

to grow, so the sooner they were planted, the better. He felt it would be

wise for the developer to do that.

Chairperson Boswell summarized the two requests: Tree Removal

Permit and Site Plan Approval. He asked if anyone wished to make a

motion, and no one spoke out. Mr. Delacourt said that if a motion was

made for Final Approval, then the Tree Removal Permit would be

necessary; however, if the motion was for Preliminary Approval, the Tree

Removal Permit could be set aside until it was time for Final. He

cautioned that if it was a Preliminary Approval, it would still approve the

height. If the intent was to investigate a lower height, a Preliminary

Approval should not be given. He wanted the Commissioners to

understand the new process.

Chairperson Boswell summarized the options: The Commission could or

could not approve the Tree Removal Permit; they could approve a

Preliminary or Final Site Plan or they could table and ask the applicant to

come back with specific requests.

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, in the matter of City File

No. 09-002 (Oakmont/Boulevard Hills Senior Housing), the Planning

Commission hereby postpones the requests for a Tree Removal Permit

and Site Plan Approval, and requests that the applicant meets with the

neighbors, before coming back before the Commission, to discuss the

height of the three-story building and provide cross sections showing the

three-story building and screening for the neighboring homes; and the

applicant is requested to plant perimeter trees first upon issuance of a

Land Improvement Permit.

Mr. Hooper asked Mr. Tosch if he agreed to the requests. Mr. Tosch said

they would not have a problem and could commit to those. Mr. Anzek

said that Staff would make sure the plantings were done at the appropriate

time of the year to survive.

Mr. Dettloff asked Mr. Tosch how quickly he thought it would take to make

those requests happen. Mr. Tosch responded that they would like to

adjust the landscaping plan to be fully compliant with the requirements,

so there would be no contingencies. He suggested that they could

perhaps meet with the Homeowner’s Association, and they would like to

do everything prior to next month’s meeting so they could get on the next

agenda. He thought they could get the first two items within a week, and if

they could meet with the neighbors, he hoped to get a consensus from

them also.

Mr. Delacourt said that even if the Planning Commission had approved

the project, there were a lot of outstanding issues. It would still require

one or two technical reviews before Staff could verify the conditions. The

Site Plan could be much cleaner when it came back next time. Overall, it

should not cause additional delays for the applicant and they should be

on the same timeframe.

Mr. Dettloff asked the planned groundbreaking. Mr. Tosch believed that

by the time they got the Construction documents finalized, it would

probably be springtime.

Chairperson Boswell reread the motion and called for a vote.

This matter was Postponed

Aye

Boswell, Dettloff, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece and Schroeder

7 -

Absent

Brnabic and Yukon

2 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed.

2009-0231

Request for Site Plan Approval - City File No. 09-002 -

Oakmont/Boulevard Hills senior living facilities.

This matter was Postponed

DISCUSSION

2009-0274

Discuss revisions to City Place PUD, City File No. 02-027,

located on the east side of Rochester Road, north of Hamlin,

zoned PUD (B-2, General Business) and approved by City

Council in May 2004, Bruce Michael, Ojibway Development,

applicant.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated August 14, 2009

and proposed amendments and Site Plan, prepared by Bruce Michael of

Ojibway Development Partners, LLC had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Bruce Michael, Ojibway Development

Partners, LLC, 6631 Emerald Lake Drive, Troy, MI 48085, Mark Drane,

Rogvoy Architects, 30800 Telegraph Road, Bingham Farms, MI 48025

and Bill Gilbert, G&V Investments, 2565 S. Rochester Rd., Rochester

Hills, MI 48307.

Mr. Delacourt advised that Staff had many conversations with the

applicant over the last several years. In 2003, the City worked with the

applicant on a mixed-use, dense PUD development north of the

Bordine’s site (City Place). The project approved was for office,

residential - townhouses, condos - and seven live-work, four-story,

commercial buildings along Rochester Rd. There was a standalone Fifth

Third Bank developed as part of phase one, which was constructed. The

City went through many processes with the development, from rezoning

the underlying parcels to B-2, to rezoning to PUD to approving the Site

Plans. The need to rezone the underlying zoning at the time was the

impetus for the City to change its PUD Ordinance so that was no longer

required.

Mr. Delacourt continued that Mr. Gilbert appeared before the Planning

Commission subsequently to discuss a revised development option,

which did not go through. Since that time, Staff had been talking with Mr.

Gilbert about re-valuating the PUD to provide him flexibility going forward

in this marketplace. They discussed the elevations, utilities, building

footprints and other things in the original PUD and about replacing them

with flexible standards to help market the site, while protecting the City to

still get a high-quality development. Staff was not sure, without

re-negotiating the PUD, how to accomplish that.

Mr. Delacourt recalled that since the original approval, the Master Plan

and Zoning Ordinance had been updated to include flexible use districts.

Those districts allowed properties to have mixed uses with certain design

guidelines and standards, but they did not require the detailed drawings a

PUD did. They would like input about moving the development forward

based on a revised PUD, using the flex use one standards for portions of

the site. The applicant would also like some of the flexibility of the PUD

that would not be allowed under the flex use districts. He noted that there

was a retail development proposed for the southwest corner of the site that

the applicants would like to develop under the flex two standards. He

summarized that 90% of the site would be tied to the flex one with any

negotiated, additional protections or flexibilities, and a small portion of

the site would be tied to flex use 2 with the same negotiated protections.

Staff had discussed this to the point where they felt it was a valid plan to

bring forward. They felt it met the goals of the applicant to be able to

re-market the site, whether in total or in phases, and developed under the

flex districts, it would reflect a high quality development for the City. They

felt that the best vehicle to use would be a revised PUD.

Mr. Anzek added some history about the site, particularly for the

Commissioners who were not on at the time the process was approved. In

1996 or so, the subject property, the Bordine’s property and the land to

the north (Cavalier Office Building) were all identified in the Master Land

Use Plan for mixed-use developments. It was that basis that supported

the City Place PUD and the redevelopment of Bordine’s. He felt that

mixed-use for this corridor still applied. He believed that the key to

successfully planning the area was to look at it holistically. They should

not look at just the corner or one of the other pieces. Staff had always

talked about making sure there would be access to and from all the

remaining parcels. They would not want to do something that would

hinder the rest of the site, and they needed to look at this as a whole, even

though it could be developed gradually. Mr. Gilbert’s previous plans were

very exciting, but the buyers did not happen for him. He aggressively

marketed the site, but nothing came to fruition.

Mr. Drane discussed the previous project, and said that it seemed like a

good idea at the time. It was a very high quality development, but it was

not very flexible. It went to market in 2004, but no one took hold of it, and

then the market declined. Since then, the City had developed a form

based zoning district with flexible business districts. The idea was to

create districts that were not so compartmentalized. Previously, the PUD

spelled out where everything went. He agreed that they would like to

develop something more flexible that would work for everyone, using the

PUD and the flex districts.

Mr. Kaltsounis stated that the PUD was based on the historic home on the

site. He asked what was going on with the house.

Mr. Michael said that the house was still there and still not occupied, and

they had to come up with a solution for the house. The original PUD

showed the house being moved to the south end of the site.

Mr. Gilbert did not believe the PUD was predicated around the house - it

was just there. Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that the PUD was based on certain

criteria. Mr. Gilbert agreed it was a part of it, and they had to deal with the

Historic Districts Commission, but he did not believe the motivation was

centered around the house. Mr. Anzek clarified that the PUD was the tool

to accommodate a mixed-use development.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that in 2003, the applicant showed pictures from

one end of the room to the other to show what the development would look

like, and he saw a world class development that he would not mind in his

City. A few years later, another applicant came before the Commission

with a proposed apartment complex that was significantly vinyl-claded. It

went from one end of the spectrum to the other, and it was not accepted

very well. He understood that the economy was bad, and that they might

have to meet in the middle, but he would like to see a world class

development again. Regarding utilizing a rezoning to flex districts, he

said he would be happy to see that done because they worked hard on

the flexible business areas, and he would like to see them put to good

use. He thought it would be a very good development, and he did not

have a problem with flex two for the corner, or any issues with the

proposal.

Mr. Delacourt said that for the previous PUD, there were negotiations over

what every elevation would look like, where the streets would go, etc., and

revising it would allow it to be reworked with flexibility, and allow those

issues to be put off until the individual Site Plans came in. It could be

one Site Plan for the entire site or individual plans submitted in

conformance with the flex districts. The controls afforded the Planning

Commission, including design, architecture, materials and other things,

would be evaluated at the time of the individual Site Plan review.

Chairperson Boswell referred to the plan Mr. Michael had submitted,

which showed a cross section of a road parallel to Rochester. He asked if

that would be the location of the road. Mr. Michael said it was a general

route; the intention was to provide an internal access road that would

connect the entire property and to provide an access point into Bordine’s.

Mr. Delacourt advised that Staff would request that the PUD Agreement

indicate a located access road, as approved by the Planning

Commission.

Mr. Reece asked what kind of feedback they got from the market, in good

times, as to why the initial proposal did not work.

Mr. Gilbert expressed that there was no one more disappointed than him.

They spent years putting it together and negotiating it and tens of

thousands of dollars in drawings, booklets and engineering. They tried to

market the vision they had, which was supported by the City. One of the

main problems was that a credible buyer would have to buy the entire 24

acres because it was so specific. The plans showed what could go where,

and it was overwhelming. The mixed-use was a problem for financing.

The maintenance was hard to work out for residential above retail or

office. It became too confusing, and they found that because there were

single-family, multiple-family, office and commercial builders, and they

had predetermined the design for them, that it did not work. They tried to

market it for years. There were people that wanted to do things in

Rochester Hills. 60,000 cars went by that site a day, but people were

looking for two to four acres to do something, so he could not even

discuss it. The new districts were a blessing. They had been talking

regularly with Planning about how they could move the project forward

and market the property. With the flex districts, it would be perfect, and

good for them and good for the City. He did not see how anyone in the

neighborhood, and they had met countless times with the neighbors,

could not agree to a development that was less dense and less in height.

They were willing to give that up to get flexibility, which they did not have

now. He added that they had been doing business in Rochester Hills for

over 30 years, and they always had architectural control over everything

they developed.

Mr. Michael stated that Detroit was not Chicago. Mixed-use buildings

were done in Chicago with impunity everywhere, and they were

successful. A lot of developers had multiple capabilities, but Detroit had

never really been that way, except in some downtown areas like Royal

Oak or Birmingham. Most developers did not have expertise in all the

different land uses as needed for the mixed-use buildings. They did one

type of development, but there were not many people in the market who

had done mixed- use developments. They did not live as intensely as

they did in Chicago or New York. With the new proposal, they would still

have all the uses, but they would be able to pull them apart in separate

buildings, which would allow different developers to get involved.

Mr. Dettloff agreed that it would be the perfect tool to allow the project to

move forward. He mentioned that he recently attended an event where he

heard glimmers of hope. Mr. Gilbert said that the way the market was

going, it would be a lot easier for him, when things did turn, to get a builder

to put his toes in the water and buy a four-acre parcel behind a bank, for

example, than to try to market 20-plus acres.

Mr. Dettloff asked Mr. Gilbert if he had any potential prospects surfacing

that showed a strong interest in the proposed uses. Mr. Gilbert said that

Mr. Michael had an option on some of the property. A little while ago he

talked to a plastic surgeon who wanted to build a place to do surgery, and

it would be perfect as part of the project. There was a lot of vacant office in

the City, but it was tired space. People liked new and exciting and

up-to-date designs to work in. He believed that what they had to offer,

almost a half a mile of frontage, was tremendous exposure, and it was

very valuable. It was midway between two hospitals and a-mile-and-a-half

from downtown Rochester. Mr. Michael’s client wanted to move forward,

and getting feedback was the first step, and then they would work on a

document that addressed the concerns to satisfy the City. They were

actually asking for less rather than more.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the financing end was secure. Mr. Michael said that

the group he represented was very strong, and they could just write a

check. They had interested end users, which really drove financing more

than anything in today’s market. Mr. Dettloff agreed that it sounded very

positive.

Mr. Hooper said that he supported the overall concept and using the

flexible use districts, but he remarked that the devil was always in the

details. He recalled that the PUD was used because it offered the

opportunity to bring in the mixed-uses. The adaptive use of the historic

home and reduced curb cuts were used as the criteria to use the PUD

and the overlay for the property. Going forward, he wondered if they really

needed to use a PUD.

Mr. Gilbert said there was one area that needed relief. In the PUD, they

proposed a minimum number of units of up to 300, so it was very dense.

They had relief in several areas to get that, such as setback and buffer

requirements from the wetlands. They would reduce the density and

volume of the buildings, but still keep the relief for other areas. If there

was a meeting of the minds and they had an outline, they would let the

lawyers put the details together.

Mr. Delacourt indicated that it would be simpler to use the PUD. There

was an underlying B-2 zoning with a flex business two overlay over the

entire site. That was put in place to support the PUD. They did not want

to have to amend the City’s Master Land Use Plan and go through the

rezoning process. If the Planning Commission was willing to look at this

option, Staff felt it was the simplest way to do things. The PUD could be

written to acknowledge the changes, and it would be the most

straightforward.

Mr. Hooper said that he was all for reducing the four stories, and he felt it

was positive for all the reasons heard. He thought that they would hear

comments about being overbuilt and already at capacity, but it would be

new and exciting stock. He mentioned that his dentist moved to the

second floor of the Boulevard Shoppes because it was less expensive

and a better building. Mr. Gilbert agreed that people liked new. He

recently met someone who wanted to buy a new house in Rochester Hills,

even though there were many deals on homes. There were not many new

developments in town, except perhaps Country Club Village, but he said

that would change, and there would be a market again. They were

encouraged because Mr. Michael sought them out. They agreed to try to

work through the process to get a project. Mr. Hooper added that he

hoped they kept the architectural treatments like the Fifth Third Bank had

- brick and limestone - which he felt was a very positive look. Mr. Gilbert

agreed that it did come out great, but he said they probably went a little

overboard with the first building of the development, with all the detail, and

by trying to hit a market when everyone was saying it was way over the top.

Mr. Michael said that they had already established the architectural style

for the corridor, and they would take a key from the Fifth Third Bank

building.

Mr. Anzek reminded that there would be protections in a PUD. They had

played devil’s advocate, and they knew if they used the FB overlay, the

applicant could start splitting the property and there could be demands for

curb cuts. Staff felt that a PUD would be the best way to ensure that there

were minimal curb cuts. There would be other questions, but he felt that

the PUD protected and provided better flexibility. Mr. Gilbert added that

they also discussed the possibility of getting a traffic light to line up with

the street across Rochester, which he felt made sense. Mr. Anzek said

that it was a moving target with MDOT, but Sandalwood was the only

location they would approve a signal.

Mr. Schroeder said that he had liked the idea of the

residential/commercial uses as a buffer, but it did not work. They had to

go with the flow and get something that did work. They should get

direction and proceed with the process, because a lot of detail had to be

worked out, and it would not be worked out at the meeting. He agreed with

the proposal.

Chairperson Boswell agreed with Mr. Schroeder, and he asked the

applicants if they had gotten everything they needed from the

Commissioners.

Mr. Delacourt said that Staff had, and they would begin discussing it and

including the residents. He was aware that there would be issues -

Historic District issues, the flex two commercial, for example. Based on

the input, he heard that the process was one they should move forward.

He concluded that they would start to work out the details and provide

drafts for the Commission to review.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2009-0318

Present planning projects for Rochester Hills: Mark

Sandberg, resident and 3rd-year Landscape Architect

student at Ball State University:

1. Connecting Oakland University and downtown Rochester

2. Establishing a Regional Transit System

3. Creating sustainable entertainment for younger

generations

The presenter was resident and third-year Ball State University Student

Mark Sandberg, 760 Stanford Circle, Rochester Hills, MI 48309. The

proposals had been placed on file and by reference became part of the

record thereof.

Mr. Anzek advised that Mr. Sandberg contacted his office requesting to

be on the Planning Commission’s agenda to get input and feedback on

several proposals he was required to do for school. He explained that Mr.

Sandberg, a resident, was a student in Landscape Architecture at Ball

State University in Indiana. As part of his curriculum, Mr. Sandberg will

be traveling to Europe to study various cities to see how they function as a

sense of place. It is a very aggressive itinerary, and he will visit about 40

cities over four months all over the world. He explained that Mr.

Sandberg wished to get some feedback and guidance from the

Commission on the three scenarios proposed, and he was wondering if

there were any other proposals the Commissioners might suggest. He

would like to use the Commission as a sounding board during the

projects.

Mr. Sandberg noted that his trip would start in Spain and go to other

Mediterranean destinations and head to Egypt, Dubai, South Asian

countries, through Russia and the Baltic States and end in northern

Europe. He noted that the project related to a student’s hometown, and

starting in April, he would be working on a project to improve his City,

using knowledge gathered on the trip. He referred to copies of his

proposals, and related that Mr. Anzek had suggested another project.

The first proposal was to connect Oakland University and downtown

Rochester. He said that growing up in Rochester Hills, there was a

definite distinction between those two areas, and he thought it would be

appropriate to connect the two, both for students and for community

members. It could be a presence of OU in downtown or a bus line or

pedestrian or bike path between the two. He stated that everything was

very preliminary, and he was asking for interest from the Commissioners

or community members about which would be the best proposal.

Mr. Sandberg referred to alternative two, which would create a downtown

destination for youth, realizing that the City of Rochester was the

downtown for Rochester Hills. As a teenager, it was not necessarily

somewhere he wanted to go for social activities. There were appropriate

places for people over the age of 21, but other than restaurants, there was

not something for the 12 to20-age group. They had to leave the City to

do many things. He was not sure what type of use; perhaps a mixed use,

an art house or some type of athletic forum.

Mr. Sandberg advised that alternative three regarded regional transit or

transit-oriented development in the sense of a bus system, walkability,

biking or light rail systems. He mentioned the 15-mile transit in

Birmingham and Troy. He attended a seminar and there was a map of

hubs and Rochester Hills was not included. He said that was upsetting

because the City had a lot to offer. He thought that needed to be looked

at on a local and regional scale, and he believed it would improve the

City greatly.

The final project Mr. Sandberg brought up was for Old Towne, a place he

referred to as “sort of a forgotten shopping area,” that Mr. Anzek had

mentioned as a potential project. There were a lot of residents nestled in

the area, and he thought it was an interesting prospect. He had almost

forgotten it was part of the City. He asked the Commission for any

questions or comments on the proposals or whether there was something

else he should look at as he started studying for the tour.

Mr. Klomp said he was excited to hear about the projects, and he

appreciated Mr. Sandberg coming forward and spending time with the

Commissioners in his hometown. He believed that this type of approach

was certainly needed in the City. The Commissioners looked at mass

transit when they were updating the Master Plan, but it was not a

component of it. He noted that he traveled for work to places such as

Chicago and Toronto, and he loved their mass transit. People did not

have to worry about parking, and they could easily go from place to place.

In theory, he could visualize that for his hometown so people could shoot

downtown on a nice day. The fundamental difference was the population

density between cities, which had to be considered. They had discussed

a rail that would zip from downtown Rochester to Auburn and one from

downtown Rochester to Oakland University. He lived at John R and

Auburn, but thinking practically, if he and his wife wanted to go downtown,

they would have to walk a mile to get to the transportation. Everyone

would have to walk a great distance to get to that rail. That was the

difficulty with urban sprawl - people had to get in a car or on a bike. He

indicated that he did not want to sound negative, and he thought they

should stay on it and look at types of mass transit. Another thing to

consider was the businesses. For the line from Oakland University to

downtown Rochester, they had to consider the Village of Rochester Hills

as a stop-off point. He could see people heading downtown, jumping on

some kind of system to go to the Village to eat and coming back or vice

versa. It could solve the problem of drinking and driving by providing an

alternative. They needed to think outside the box. He mentioned Seattle

and Portland which got funding and got light rail moving. It would be great

if they could ride to Royal Oak, then downtown for a ballgame and come

back. He thought it would be very important for the State and for

Rochester Hills to help keep the youth. He appreciated the ideas and

would welcome anything Mr. Sandberg might bring back to help the City

along. He expressed that the Commissioners were open, and they

wanted to hear ideas.

Mr. Sandberg noted that part of his inspiration for the OU/Rochester

connection came from Muncie, Indiana, where Ball State was located. It

was similar to Rochester Hills, other than the fact that Muncie was a farm

town hub. It had the same population; the only difference was that Ball

State was less of a commuter school than OU. There was a bus line that

ran 18 hours a day that took people downtown. He thought that downtown

Rochester had more to offer than Muncie, with regards to the night life

and entertainment.

Mr. Reece said that he hit on a key point - Oakland was still a commuter

school. He went to Lawrence Tech, which was the same. He thought that

the second alternative, creating a downtown destination for youth, had a

lot of merit. It would keep people in town. He commented that Royal Oak

was a great place, but if there was an opportunity for kids to have an area

like that in Rochester Hills, he thought that would be a great concept to

work on. It would keep the money in the City and help businesses thrive.

Light rail was nice, but he would be shocked to see it ever get off the

ground because this was an automobile-driven community and people

were too comfortable driving everywhere. He had been to Europe, and it

was a completely different mindset and culture. He wished Mr. Sandberg

much success and offered his assistance with anything he might need.

Mr. Dettloff agreed that they were great ideas. He liked the Old Towne

suggestion, and said that he would like to hear some ideas related to that

area. It was a prime area for re-development. He mentioned the

OU/downtown Rochester scenario, and said he knew the downtown

Rochester development people. They did a lot of great marketing efforts

with a lot of outreach. They had a trolley in downtown Rochester that

circulated among the local businesses, but he added that having a

University in your backyard was a pretty key asset. The idea of the youth

center was always big. He had worked for the City of Royal Oak, and to

him, the more diversity in the community the better. He supported

youth-orientated venues, and he thought it was key. The kids having an

opportunity to spend money in their own communities would translate to

staying in the City in the future. He liked the idea of light rail, but they

were way behind the eight ball with that. He said that hopefully,

something would happen at some point. The Old Towne area intrigued

him the most because he was more of a downtown person, and he would

be curious to hear Mr. Sandberg’s ideas. As was mentioned, the

Planning Commission could be a great sounding board, and Mr. Dettloff

commended him for bringing the ideas forward. It made him feel better to

see someone of Mr. Sandberg’s generation stepping up to the plate, and

he wished him luck.

Mr. Schroeder stated that they had been trying to get some type of transit

for the area for years, but there had been a lot of resistance. They did not

have a pocket of work and a pocket of residents. It was too expensive to

start out with a rail system. He suggested taking baby steps. There

should be some connection between OU and Rochester and some

internal bus. He suggested that Mr. Sandberg start small. Regarding

Troy’s train station, when Grand Sakwa bought the property, there was an

arrangement to reserve an area of the parking lot next to Birmingham

along side the tracks, but there was no interest. When the Federal

stimulus money came they were looking for a project like that and there

was a plan. They did not have to buy property or deal with the

communities. There had to be something in place when something

struck, and it had to start out small. Mass transit was not going to happen

until gasoline became too expensive. They could not build themselves

out of traffic, and they had reached the limit of what they could do with

roads. However, there was too much resistance and it was too costly to

expire roads. The time had come to find other alternatives, starting with

these types of projects.

Mr. Delacourt asked Mr. Sandberg if he had come across SEMCOG’s

regional transportation plan, which he had not. Mr. Delacourt explained

that SEMCOG was the regional metropolitan planning organization, and if

he was going to pursue the transit option, Mr. Delacourt suggested taking

a look at that plan. There was a light rail option and some spur bus routes

off of that. Mr. Sandberg said he had looked at the SmartBus, which

stopped at Squirrel and Hamlin. Mr. Delacourt thought that if the City had

something that grew out of the spurs, it would be good. Regional

transportation was well documented in southeast Michigan, and

possibilities from it swayed back and forth.

Mr. Kaltsounis said that Mr. Schroeder probably knew best how to drive a

development through regional government because of the road work he

had done with different cities. He agreed that having a plan with phases

was a good idea. He indicated that he would like to see a plan that tied in

with the rest of the City. He had been to cities around the world, and he

liked using the subway systems. He believed that Detroit had not been

developed because there was no mass transit. The Super Bowl and other

events showed that if they had something going from the suburbs to

Detroit, people would use it. He noted that they were starting a light rail

system from the State Fair to downtown Detroit. He recalled that in

Toronto, where there was a subway, there was massive development. A

system that tied in Rochester, Old Towne and Oakland University would

be good. They had to think of Rochester Hills, but also outside of it to

make better use of a system for everybody. He thought that eventually,

they would have a hub in Troy, and they had to figure out how to get from

Troy to all the other areas.

Mr. Dettloff suggested that Mr. Sandberg check out Old Towne in

Lansing. It was a “cool” little hub of restaurants and independent retailers.

They had done a good job, and not that long ago it was a pretty tired area

of the community. They also did a good job of promoting it.

Mr. Hooper thanked Mr. Anzek for the out of the box thinking and for

bringing a student-resident’s ideas forward. He encouraged Mr.

Sandberg to keep in touch when he was on his tour. He said he would like

to see something done with Old Towne, if possible, noting that Mr.

Sandberg would have a fresh set of eyes. He would see things from all

over the world, and maybe determine how to make Old Towne viable. He

suggested that he look at things like on-street and off-street parking,

different business mixes, streetscapes, etc., although he did not want to

influence his work. He thought it would be great to look at something

different that worked in another area of the world.

Mr. Dettloff asked Mr. Sandberg if he had met with Christy Travarrow from

the Rochester DDA, which he had not, and Mr. Dettloff suggested that he

call her office. He reiterated that there was a lot of outreach from the

downtown to the University, which he felt made a lot of sense, and that

Christy would be a great person to talk to. Mr. Anzek verified that Ms.

Travorrow was a powerhouse, and she had done a lot for the downtown

merchants. She understood the interplay, and if he was going to look at

Old Towne, she would be a tremendous resource because she made

things work.

Mr. Hooper commented that her story was a perfect example. She had

seen the lagniappe and brought it back to Rochester, and it had taken off.

Mr. Anzek added that she was at Disney World and saw how it was used,

and she came back and made it happen here. It had generated a lot of

money for merchants in Rochester each season. Mr. Anzek agreed with

Mr. Hooper, and urged Mr. Sandberg not to let limitations bias his

thinking for doing something beyond the norm. The Commission was

very supportive, and he could bounce ideas off of them.

Chairperson Boswell remarked that they were counting on him to

revitalize Old Towne. Mr. Schroeder suggested that he should also

consider the environment. Getting the cars off the road, green roofs,

protecting the waters - all improved the environment, and all should be

worked into the big picture. Mr. Sandberg said that his professor had

already pushed them to see what kind of LEED specs they could put in

the projects. He would be going with about 20 other architecture students

and 15 landscape architect students working together, and that was

definitely a main focus.

Mr. Sandberg asked if anyone had another project, other than what he

had covered. His proposals were almost interconnected so he would

have one giant project. If there was a fifth element, that would be good.

Mr. Kaltsounis stated that Old Towne was the biggest thing they needed

help with in many different ways, to get that portion of Auburn Road going.

Mr. Sandberg said he would be responsible for contributing to a web site

with pictures, writing and even plans, if anyone wished to see his notes on

the trip.

This matter was Discussed

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Special Meeting was

scheduled for September 22, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission, and upon

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:55

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

______________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary