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, April 15, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular 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, Nicholas Kaltsounis, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and

Emmet Yukon

Present

9 -

Quorum present.

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Julie Jenuwine, Director of Finance

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS/Engineering

Alan Buckenmeyer, Manager of Parks

Jim Bradford, Fire Department Deputy Chief

Dan Casey, Manager of Economic Development

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2008-0153

April 1, 2008 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece,

Schroeder and Yukon

9 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated April 2008

B) Memo from M. Gentry, dated April 15, 2008 re: PC Rep to ZBA

NEW BUSINESS

2008-0152

2009-2014 Capital Improvement Plan Workshop - Presentation of projects

(Reference: Memo from Julie Jenuwine, dated April 9,

2008, and draft CIP document had been placed on file and

by reference became part of the record thereof.)

Ms. Jenuwine began the workshop with a brief statement

about the CIP process. She summarized that the CIP was

developed as a tool to implement the City’s Master Land

Use Plan, and also assisted the City with its long-term

financial planning. The threshold for non-operating budget

projects was $25,000.00 or more, however, Professional

Services had to be $50,000.00 or more. She advised that

the Green Space Land Acquisition had been excluded from

the process, as the committee was doing its own work.

Ms. Jenuwine advised that the 2009 CIP was similar to

those in prior years. The Policy Committee changed

criterion eight of the Needs Assessment Form, which rated

projects based on saving a fixed dollar amount, because

they felt it should be relative to the project cost. It was now

more of a “return on investment” calculation and would

include cost saving measures. It was an effort to allow

projects to get more points. There were 11 total criteria.

She noted that some of the projects were fairly old, and had

not been rated in quite a few years, so they thought it would

be a good exercise and appropriate to re-rate all the 90 or

so projects. The Engineering Department had asked if the

pathways could be submitted and rated by the Pathway

Committee rather than the Policy Team. The Policy Team

decided it would be appropriate, since that Committee

focused on and dedicated time looking at and analyzing the

pathway projects more intimately. It was her understanding

that the Pathway Committee was in the process of rating

the projects and establishing a Needs Assessment Form

that would be very similar to what the CIP Team used. She

hoped that by the end of April they would have the

information accumulated so it could be given to the

Planning Commission. She noted that the Public Hearing

would be May 20 to allow the Pathway Committee enough

time.

Ms. Jenuwine related that there were 19 new projects

proposed, plus they pulled two projects from the "Under

Review Section" (formerly the Companion Section) - the

Dequindre Road and Water Reservoir projects. The 21

projects amounted to a little over twelve million dollars, City

share. The CIP totaled $192,500,000.00, and the City’s

share was around $132,000.00. The water and sewer

projects made up 29% of the costs; local streets were 28%;

major roads were 23%; internal services were 10%;

pathways were 5%; drains were 3%; parks were 1%; and

facilities were 1%. She mentioned that none of the costs

included any borrowing costs. If the City bonded for any of

the projects, such as the water and sewer projects, the

interest costs would have to be added to the total. Ms.

Jenuwine referred to pages 86-88, and said they were a

brief summary of the added projects, the completed projects

and any timeline shifts.

Ms. Jenuwine referred to page 87, projects removed, and

said that some were completed and some were pulled, and

it explained it further. On page 88, the projects with timeline

changes were listed, and they were generally pushed back

because the priorities had changed or the funding was not

available. She noted that the Local Street PQ1 Summary

listed some major roads, such as Drexelgate and

Meadowfield, because the software was not reporting as it

should, but that they would be removed.

The first project discussed was IS-02B, Website Update

Project, (page 57) submitted by MIS in conjunction with

Planning and Development. It related to a proposed

Branding and Communications project. Mr. Anzek advised

that the Website Update was closely tied to the

Communications plan, and that Mr. Casey was working with

MIS to upgrade the web page. They intended to unify the

City’s image and appearance with logos, letterheads and

similar.

Mr. Casey stated that the City had been looking at a

Branding and Communication Plan for a couple of years.

The Mayor formed a Business Council about a year ago,

and some strong recommendations from the group were

that the City needed to do more to market itself to the

community. They needed to present programs and

services available to residents and to the business

community. To do it correctly, they had to look at what the

City had now. They would take a comprehensive

approach, and gather public and stakeholder input, as well

as the City’s input. The project would evaluate the current

business cards, letterhead, cable, etc., and afterwards, they

would decide whether the current brand was effective and

meaningful, and if not, what could be better. They also

currently had competing tag lines within the City, and that

would be evaluated to try to consolidate into one common

theme and brand that the entire City would market. The

project also involved development of a major marketing

piece the City would use for the attraction of residents and

businesses to the community. At the end of the project,

there would be a document for City staff that would identify

the types of fonts they should use in public

communications, and when and where to use the City’s

logo, and things of that nature. They would use faxes and

news releases and business cards all concise in

appearance throughout the organization. The Website

Update was a standalone project, but it would rely upon the

results of the work related to the Communication Plan.

Communities typically redid their websites every four or five

years. On the private side, most businesses redid their

websites every two or three years. It had been about four

years since the City’s website was redeveloped. The City’s

website could also be improved from a technology

standpoint. They could look at doing online permitting in

the Building Department, for example. The current website

was a template-type, and they needed a fresh perspective

to determine what type of system they wanted.

Chairperson Boswell reminded that it was a workshop, and

that the Commissioners should feel free to comment on any

project.

Mr. Dettloff stated that he fully supported the

Communications project, and that marketing a community

was extremely important from an attraction standpoint. He

asked if the City would hire an outside firm or if some things

would be done in house. Mr. Casey said that the proposal

in the CIP assumed that a consultant would be brought in to

manage the Branding and Communications side of the

project. They would do as much internally as they could, in

terms of design and development of the marketing

materials and templates. Mr. Dettloff commented that

unfortunately, a lot of the information/technology became

outdated quickly, and he asked if the project allowed for

updates on an annual basis. Mr. Casey said that it was a

good question, and that the print piece would potentially be

the only part that could be out of date quickly. As long as

they were cautious with how it was developed, he expected

it to last for two or three years, but it would probably have to

be redone after that.

Mr. Hooper agreed with Mr. Dettloff, and said he supported

the project. He thought there would be many returns for the

City for a minimal cost. Chairperson Boswell suggested

that there were a lot of local talents and resources in the

City that they could tap into, and they could potentially be

used for free.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that Mr. Casey said he wanted to

evaluate whether what the City had was good enough. He

remarked that if he even had to ask that question, they

should just change everything and save the money. He

thought changing the website was a step in the right

direction and he would just do it, not ask if they should.

Ms. Jenuwine next referred to IS-04G (page 59), Heart

Monitor Replacement Schedule, and said it was a new

project, although the City had been purchasing heart

monitors. They decided to put it in the CIP to get it on the

schedule as a recurring cost. She emphasized that the CIP

prevented things from falling through the cracks when they

began the budget process.

Deputy Chief Bradford explained that the heart monitors

helped the paramedics monitor heart rhythms and vital

signs, and gave a whole range of diagnostics they could

use on the ambulances. They were required by the State of

Michigan to be in ambulances, and they put the project into

the CIP to be on a replacement schedule. Mr. Schroeder

asked if they needed one for each vehicle, which was

confirmed. Mr. Bradford said they had four, and they would

replace three and add the fourth. It was better to buy them

at the same time. Mr. Schroeder asked how one physically

worked. Mr. Bradford said there were leads for EKGs to

attach to the chest, and the information was transmitted

over a phone from the scene to the hospital. Mr. Schroeder

said they were something the City absolutely needed, and

he stressed that they should be the most up-to-date

available.

Ms. Jenuwine referred to IS-05B (page 59), DPS

Maintenance Facility - Floor Cleaner. Mr. Rousse advised

that the proposal was for purchase of a sweeper for the

interior of the new DPS garage. The existing street

sweeper created too much dust and affected the lighting.

The device was more than a sweeper - it was also a

cleaner. When the building was cleaned after construction,

they rented one. The cleaning feature sprayed detergent,

and they felt it would greatly prolong the life of the floor. Ms.

Hardenburg asked how often they would use it, and Mr.

Rousse said it would be done weekly, maybe more during

the winter. Ms. Hardenburg asked the cost to rent one, and

was told $500 per day. She asked how long it took to use it,

and Mr. Rousse answered about four hours. Mr. Schroeder

asked if it had a vacuum. Mr. Rousse advised that it was a

combination of detergent sprayer for the grease and

something to capture the sand and gravel. Mr. Schroeder

said they should get it as soon as possible for the new floor.

Ms. Hardenburg commented that the information would

have been nice to have earlier when they rated the projects.

She was not aware they were using the street sweeper. Mr.

Hooper asked if the funding for the internal service program

was from the Water and Sewer funds. Ms. Jenuwine

agreed, and said they considered that the building was

owned by the Water and Sewer Fund. Mr. Dettloff asked the

average longevity for a floor cleaner. Mr. Rousse said that

if it were properly maintained, it should last 12-15 years.

Mr. Schroeder clarified that it was diesel powered. Mr.

Yukon asked what type of maintenance was required. Mr.

Rousse said it had a higher maintenance frequency, but the

City was well equipped to provide that.

Ms. Jenuwine said that IS-07B, City-wide Records

Management Implementation, had already begun. There

had been an analysis over the last couple of years, which

was the first phase. Originally, the project was in the CIP for

almost two million dollars, because they did not know what

the results of the analysis would be. It was her

understanding the consultant determined that things were

not too bad, and the City was not in need of much software

to manage the various records. The implementation

included selection of the main document management

platform and installation of a vital statistics management

system module - basically, the births and deaths records at

Clerk’s - to replace the existing, obsolete system from 1997.

The second phase was about $200,000.00 (the first was

$100,000.00), and included the large-scale format plan

imaging system. That would mostly help Building,

Engineering and Planning to record large documents

electronically. Fortunately, the project’s estimation

decreased significantly from its original submission. Mr.

Schroeder asked if it included copying all the documents,

and was told no. Mr. Hooper asked if the funding would

come from the General Fund, and Ms. Jenuwine said that it

ultimately would.

Ms. Jenuwine referred to LS-12 and MR-12 (pages 30 and

24), Local and Major Street Traffic Calming Programs. Mr.

Rousse said that the projects were intended to jump-start

the seed funding for a proposed pilot program. The City

received complaints from residents and a traffic study was

done. That information was taken to the Advisory, Traffic

and Safety Board and a recommendation was made

regarding speed humps for calming traffic. The

Homeowner’s Associations generally did not have the

money to install them, and consequently, the goal of

achieving traffic speed reduction was not reached. The

local road would have a 50-50 match with the Homeowner’s

Association. The major road would be funded 100% by the

City. A number of subdivisions had expressed interest, and

the City felt it could accomplish a great deal with the

devices. They were already in the Arcadia Park and

Powder Horn subs, and they worked quite well. They were

different from speed bumps. The residents would have to

approve them, and if they ever wanted them removed, the

Homeowner’s Association would have to pay for it.

Mr. Schroeder asked if they had problems with the

snowplows. Mr. Rousse said they had to alert the drivers to

let up on the plow pressure. Mr. Schroeder asked if there

was signage to warn them, and Mr. Rousse said there were

street markings and signs. Mr. Schroeder wondered if there

were problems with kids playing on them. Mr. Rousse said

that the design was rather unique, and if someone went

over the local speed, it was a real jarring jolt. Mr. Schroeder

said that in his experience, residents had never wanted to

go along with it.

Ms. Hardenburg asked who was responsible for repairing

them. Mr. Rousse said that the City would be responsible

for any repair or maintenance and painting. Mr. Hooper

said he drove over one in Arcadia, and he said it was more

like a “speed table.” It was about 18 feet and flat on top. He

went over the speed limit about 10 miles per hour to test it,

but he did not feel it did much. Mr. Rousse said they got a

lot of requests for stop signs, but that they did not really

slow people down. They found that an unwarranted stop

sign actually increased the speed. Mr. Schroeder said that

residents usually ignored unwarranted stop signs. Mr.

Hooper asked if the fire trucks had problems with the speed

tables, and according to Mr. Rousse, they apparently did

not. Ms. Hardenburg said they put empty tricycles in

driveways in her neighborhood to slow vehicles. People

started looking for children nearby and slowed down. Mr.

Kaltsounis mentioned that in Novi, they took out speed

bumps after a year because of the fire trucks. Mr. Dettloff

asked if the noise issue was a non-issue where the devices

were currently at, and Mr. Rousse advised that they had not

received any complaints.

Mr. Yukon asked how the devices were installed. Mr.

Rousse said that the asphalt was ground down and they

were built on top of that. It could not be knocked off, but

was an integral part of the road. It was best if it was

installed initially with the asphalt, but there were other

techniques. Mr. Yukon asked what they used for concrete

streets. Mr. Rousse said it was a challenge, and that the

CIP projects were asphalt. Mr. Yukon asked if they had

traffic-related concerns for certain concrete streets, and Mr.

Rousse said that they did, but the largest amount of

complaints came from subdivision homeowners.

Ms. Jenuwine referred to proposed lighting for Crooks,

Hamlin, Livernois, Walton and Adams. Mr. Rousse said

that the CDV had actually approved a street lighting policy.

The most attention for Council was during the Crooks Road

project. At that time, the proposal was for three different

types of street lighting. One was similar to the lighting in

Troy, another had certain lighting for the residential and

another for businesses. Council decided they wanted to

think about it and the policy never got formalized. They

added underground piping for the electrical and irrigation

when they did Crooks. He noted that funding might

become available through the Metro Act, which prompted

the proposals throughout the City. Ms. Hardenburg asked if

the funding helped pay for irrigation also. She asked if

there was enough funding to do both, questioning whether

the City would want a lit area or a green area.

Mr. Rousse stated that the proposal staggered the projects.

It would not use all the funding at once. Ms. Hardenburg

said it would eventually all be in and have to be paid. She

said they had to look down the road and at maintenance,

which was ongoing. She thought that having the

underground in as they redid the roads made sense. She

commented that the Planning Commission talked with

developers about reducing light pollution, but the Advisory

and Traffic Board talked about lighting things up. It was a

contradiction, and she felt they all needed to be on the

same page. Mr. Schroeder agreed it was a problem.

Mr. Hooper agreed with Ms. Hardenburg. He thought they

should first do the irrigation, but he was not sure about the

lighting. Ms. Hardenburg said that if the piping was put in

with the road and in the future something was available,

that was different, but she did not think they should tear up

the roads. Mr. Hooper asked if there were dark

intersections that might create a need for lighting. Mr.

Rousse said that each proposal would be preceded by a

lighting study for the casting of the lights. He noted the

school on Crooks, and said one proposal was to put lights

just at the intersection and on each side of the school. Mr.

Hooper reminded that energy conservation was high on the

list of goals and objectives, and secondly, that there was a

funding issue. He thought green grass would be more

aesthetically pleasing. If they put lights on Crooks, he

could envision complaints from the people living on

Crooks. Hamlin Road, where no one lived, was a different

story. Ms. Hardenburg asked why it would be lit. She

wondered if lighting should even be kept in the CIP

because if it were, eventually Council would have to

entertain it.

Mr. Kaltsounis said he was happy to see it planned for

Crooks Road. He was often asked why the City of

Rochester Hills was so cheap about lighting. When people

came to Rochester Hills, their first impression was of

darkness. He agreed with energy conservation, and would

suggest single pole lighting rather than double. Ms.

Hardenburg said there were some people who did not like

glaring lights. Mr. Reece maintained that they had to

balance the peoples’ needs, but he cautioned about being

contradictory from an energy conservation standpoint.

They would literally be throwing a lot of money down the

drain watering all the nice boulevards. He said there were

other options besides putting down seed and watering it.

Mr. Schroeder added that it was a battle - the residents were

in opposition, and it was a safety feature that should be

given to the drivers. He suggested that they could reduce

the wattage, put in a flat rather than a curved lense, and put

shields in the back, but even with no spillover to the

residential, the people could still see it and argue about it.

He stated that it was a struggle every time, and in the past,

the City of Rochester Hills had always listened to the

residents.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if they had ever looked into drilling a

well in those areas, rather than paying for water from the

City of Detroit. Mr. Schroeder advised that there would be a

lot of maintenance, and it was expensive and there was

really not a payback. The water table dropped with each

development. Mr. Rousse said they evaluated it, but it

would have required a couple of wells and they would have

to be very deep and would be costly. He pointed out that

through proper maintenance, the cost of water could be

reduced. A new lawn required a lot of water, but once it

matured, it only used one inch of water per week,

depending on the conditions.

Ms. Brnabic said that she would personally like to see both.

She was not totally against lights, because they were

necessary for safety. There were certain areas of the

community that were very dark. There was a lot of bad

weather this year, which hampered visibility, and there were

times it was very difficult to see the roads. She would like

to see a plan of where they might go and determine if they

could have lighting and irrigation. Mr. Rousse mentioned

LED lights, and said that there could be something on the

horizon that could greatly reduce the energy costs. He

also pointed out that there were a lot of pathways used, and

that in certain locations it seemed appropriate to add

lighting.

Mr. Schroeder referred to irrigation, and noted that

Somerset Apartments in Troy had a wet detention pond that

they pumped water from for irrigation. If the City had one, it

would work well, although he could not think of one along

Crooks. Mr. Anzek asked if they discussed landscaping for

the boulevards. Mr. Rousse said they planned to have

finished lawn in those areas. He said that Crooks was a

County road, but they left that portion of the maintenance up

to the City. The County did not provide the level of finished

cut mowing the City would like so they assumed the

maintenance.

Mr. Anzek said he was hearing differences of opinion from

the Commissioners as to whether it should be lights or

landscaping. He felt that discussion needed to be held with

Council to firm up a policy before the Commission was

asked to support it in the CIP. He asked if it would be

acceptable to push each of the items back another year

until the discussion. Mr. Rousse agreed it was a good

suggestion, and said it would give them more time to

evaluate.

Mr. Schroeder said they really needed to look at Livernois,

and Ms. Hardenburg agreed it was a mess because all the

trees had died. Ms. Hardenburg said that Mr. Reece

mentioned there were other options, such as stonework or

low ground cover that did not need mowing. Mr. Hooper

said that Council looked at that last year, and the plants had

to be salt-resistant, which ruled most everything out. Mr.

Rousse noted that the Livernois boulevard was narrow and

it got hot in the summer and the conditions for growing

grass were harsh. When the Livernois boulevard was

initially installed, there was approximately $100,000.00

worth of plantings installed. In five years, about 80% had

died. They did not want that to happen again, and the first

solution was to use irrigation.

Mr. Casey noted that Hamlin was proposed for construction

next year, and he asked if it would be appropriate to install

irrigation at that time, or at least the infrastructure for lighting

and irrigation. Mr. Rousse advised that they were doing the

underground infrastructure, and they found it was better to

put the irrigation in after the project was completed. Mr.

Schroeder said he would agree 100%. They had problems

in Troy with State contracts, and the State was very loose

with requirements for landscape and irrigation contractors.

They would buy the cheapest materials, and Big Beaver

was a disaster. Somerset Mall took out the landscaping

and replaced it. They put the conduits in to service the

irrigation after the contract was done. They waited until the

maintenance period for the contractor was over, and it was

a much better job.

Ms. Brnabic asked why it took five years to evaluate

Livernois. The average driver had noticed it sooner, and

she had numerous comments regarding it over the years.

Mr. Rousse said it was initially proposed with irrigation, and

when the bids came in, they decided to take it out and try

another type of ground cover, with wood chips. The idea

was that when the trees grew, they would provide shade

and protect the grass. Unfortunately, the ground was heavy

clay and the trees did not grow and the weeds took over,

even though they treated the weeds.

Mr. Yukon asked if there was a specific criterion that had to

be met when street lighting was installed, such as pole

placement for each area. He asked if they placed the poles

according to where the residents were so there would not

be a problem and how that worked. Mr. Rousse said they

first did a casting study, which gave an idea where the

lights would cast. One proposal was for a cobra light

mounted in the middle of the boulevard with two heads to

light the street. Another alternative was for a single pole at

the intersections. In many cases, the business community

would provide enough lighting so exterior lighting could be

minimized. Mr. Yukon clarified that the study would take

residential areas into consideration. Mr. Anzek asked if the

Michigan lefts counted as intersections, noting that those

areas also needed lighting. Mr. Rousse said that the

primary concern was for pedestrians coming out of the side

streets because on local roads, there were no pathways.

Mr. Schroeder said that with cobra lighting, you could direct

the lighting toward the roads, away from the subdivisions.

Ms. Hardenburg questioned whether they would light the

pathways or the boulevard, and Mr. Schroeder said it would

primarily be for the median. Mr. Rousse reiterated that a

lighting policy was listed on the Council’s goals and

objectives, and he felt that a year’s delay would be

appropriate. Mr. Schroeder said that the materials should

be consistent throughout the City. Ms. Hardenburg added

that they did not necessarily have to be consistent with

Troy, because it was a different community.

Chairperson Boswell moved to the next item, MR-04A,

Walton Rehabilitation (Adams - Livernois). Mr. Rousse said

it would be a joint project with the Road Commission,

because Walton was a County road. There would also be

federal funding, and the City’s contribution would be 10%.

The road seemed to have structural stability, but there were

a number of joint failures. It would not need to be fully

rebuilt, but it needed resurfacing. The scheduling was very

specific for 2011.

The next project was the relocation of Dequindre (Avon - 23

Mile, MR-13A). Mr. Anzek said that through the Master

Thoroughfare analysis, doing something with Dequindre

that improved movement through the Avon and 23 Mile and

Dequindre intersection would solve a lot of problems for

residents of Shelby, Rochester and Rochester Hills.

Macomb was treating 26 Mile like the next Hall Road, and it

would create a better flow on Dequindre, which would take

the burden off Washington and Tienken. It would lessen

the need to widen Tienken. It would be a long-term project,

and they were meeting with Shelby Township the next day.

It was a high ranking project in the Master Thoroughfare

Plan process. Ms. Hardenburg asked what it would do to

Yates Cider Mill.

Mr. Anzek said they would be very careful to miss it. Ms.

Hardenburg asked if the road would be moved, and Mr.

Anzek said it would swing into Macomb a little to miss the

historic building. The project would take a long time, but

with three cities involved, they felt there would be a better

chance for federal funding, and they wanted to get started.

Mr. Schroeder thought it would be hard to get federal

funding because of the cost. It would take ten years or

more to get the project through. Ms. Hardenburg asked why

it was dropped a few years ago, and Mr. Anzek said the

person who put it on there believed that it had a limited

chance of success. The three cities had identified it as a

need, however, and they were trying to get a coordinated

effort going, so they put it back in the CIP. Mr. Schroeder

said that Macomb County had a lot more success than

Oakland County getting funding, and that they were good to

work with.

Mr. Dettloff asked when the project was first put in the plan.

Chairperson Boswell said that it was identified in 1989. Mr.

Reece asked if the cost included acquisition of property,

and was advised that it did not. He asked if the costs

included any type of escalation, noting the project was not

scheduled until 2014. Mr. Schroeder said they were

projected at today’s prices. Mr. Reece said he agreed, in

principal, with the need to align Dequindre, but he felt there

were missing costs, and that the reality of it happening with

the State’s funding issues were slim, and he said he would

like to see the money used elsewhere on roads in the City.

Mr. Anzek said it was not being prioritized highly at the

expense of other projects, but it was one project that would

do the most to relieve by-pass traffic that did not start and

end in Rochester Hills, but went through it. He agreed the

right-of-way costs were not included, but noted the fact that

there were wetlands that would make it more of an

environmental issue. They would have to build two

bridges. Mr. Schroeder said they had to be careful about

improving intersections. There was a grading system for

funding - accidents, volume of traffic - and when they filled

out forms points were issued. If they improved the

intersections and also wanted to improve Dequindre, they

might get zero points and have to pay 100% of the costs.

They had to look at the big picture and not get too carried

away with intersection improvements.

Mr. Buckenmeyer explained PK-11, the Clinton River

Access project. He said it was for a parking lot to the river’s

edge and for a handicap accessible launch. They might

couple it with the Restoration project for the Clinton River. It

would serve as a launch for anyone who wanted to go from

the Rochester Hills site downriver. Mr. Yukon asked what

the operating costs would be. Mr. Buckenmeyer said that

over the life span there would be simple maintenance

because of the hard packed surface and the manufactured

launch. They might have to pull it out in the winter, so there

would be some labor. Mr. Kaltsounis said there was

already a parking area there, and he asked if they wanted to

expand it by 15 spaces. Mr. Buckenmeyer said it was for

the other side of the river (west side of Livernois), where

there were no parking spots. There used to be a house

sitting there. Ms. Hardenburg asked if it was for the

“take-out” for canoes at that spot. Mr. Buckenmeyer said

that the launch would be handicap accessible, but there

was nothing downriver before the dam at Yates to take

canoes out. They were looking upstream in Auburn Hills to

do something similar because there was no place to take

them out with an accessible launch. Ms. Hardenburg said

she wished the information had been given at the policy

meeting. They were told there would be a place to put

canoes in, and that they would be taken out at Yates. They

would not be put in at Yates. Mr. Anzek clarified that when

the project was submitted, they thought it would be ideal to

put it in at Livernois and get canoes out at Yates. Looking

further into that, they found they would have to make it ADA

compliant, which Yates was not, and they might work

something out with Auburn Hills. Livernois would be an

egress point for ADA. Ms. Hardenburg said there would still

have to be ADA compliance for people to get out. Mr.

Anzek agreed that if they did the project, it would. Ms.

Hardenburg asked if this went along with the part of the

Trail that needed to be repaired. Mr. Rousse noted the

project for Trail restoration (SW-08B, Clinton River - Natural

Channel Restoration).

Mr. Anzek brought up the M-59 Corridor Study (PS-14), and

said that the Planning Department came up with three

studies, two of which were added projects - the M-59

Corridor and the Landfill Area Study - and they revamped

the Old Towne Study. That project had been in the CIP, but

it had been stalled in trying to deal with the merchants

along the Auburn Road corridor. The new Economic

Development Assistant, Clarinda Harrison, had suggested

that they not just look at the corridor, but they should look at

how it would impact the Brooklands neighborhood behind

the corridor. They wanted to do a better study for the entire

area, which would be done mostly in-house. He continued

that in conjunction with the Master Plan that was adopted in

February of 2007, there were discussions about the

Regional Employment Center, and how they would promote

and support that area. Mr. Anzek said there was also an

overlay landfill area in the Master Plan, and policies to be

considered. They needed to find out more about the landfill

areas and the environmental impacts, and would do a study

and more research using a consultant.

This matter was Discussed

Mr. Casey discussed the M-59 Corridor Study project next,

noting that during the Master Plan review, they

contemplated doing a corridor study for the Regional

Employment Center down the road. The purpose of the

study was to look at the feasibility of multi-story office along

M-59. There were already a couple of consent judgments

in place that provided for six and eight stories (the Grand

Sakwa and Madison Park properties). There were other

areas within the REC on M-59 where it might make sense

for redevelopment purposes in the future. The

considerations for the study would be to look at existing

land uses, transition of land uses, a market study of office

development, and existing and future development. They

would look at the connectivity of road systems and

pathways, infrastructure capacity, potential redevelopment

areas, and they would continue to evaluate roads like

Leach and Devondale. They would look at design

standards as well. There were existing light industrial and

high tech parks within the REC, but as redevelopment

occurred, they needed to determine how to connect the

parks with those areas, and how they would transition away

from M-59 in terms of height and appearance. Those were

all aspects of the study, and the study area would be from

Auburn north to Hamlin and from Adams east to Crooks.

They would require the services of a consultant to do the

study, which would be funded by the LDFA.

Mr. Yukon asked how long the study would take, and Mr.

Casey advised that it would be five to six months. Mr.

Yukon asked what the next step(s) would be after the study

was completed. Mr. Casey said they would use the

document to market the area for redevelopment, so they

would need to develop marketing materials. He explained

that the LDFA had a master infrastructure plan that was

developed in 1996, which was now out of date. The

corridor study had to occur before doing another

infrastructure plan because the connectivity aspect could

be affected. They were beginning to do the preliminary

engineering for the extension of Austin Ave., which was a

CIP and LDFA project. They would pave Austin to

Devondale, but looking long term at the potential

redevelopment of the mobile home park, they would need

to extend Austin further west.

Mr. Anzek said that McKenna was working on the Regional

Employment Center overlay district for the Zoning

Ordinance update. If the Corridor Study showed something

different, that might change the REC setbacks, height or

other incentives. He stated that there was more to the M-59

Corridor Study than looking at height and placement. He

asked if there were questions about the Landfill Area Study.

Mr. Schroeder asked if it would include all the landfills, and

Mr. Anzek said it would be for the entire City. Mr. Hooper

said he would like to see the revolving fund from brownfield

activities used rather than the General Fund. Mr. Anzek

agreed that if they were collecting money from the

Hamlin-Adams redevelopment, for example, it would be

used to fund the studies. Mr. Anzek said they had identified

13 landfills in Rochester Hills. Mr. Hooper said he

supported the studies, but they would all be in competition

for General Fund dollars. Mr. Anzek said he felt that the

numbers were a little generous, and that a lot would be

done in house. They could begin crafting the skeleton of

the studies and then decide about focusing on the

environmental work.

Mr. Rousse referred to the SCADA System Update, SS-01B,

and said it was a project that became apparent when they

constructed the new DPS garage. They went to relocate the

equipment and the vendor would not touch it. The system

was about six years old, but the vendor said it needed a

new head system. There was a data collection component,

which sent signals. SCADA was an acronym for System

Control and Data Acquisition. It was used to monitor the

activities at the pump stations, lift stations and at the PRV

pits. It had the capability to make adjustments from a

central processing unit. It would also alert Staff to any

failures at the pump stations. No one wanted to move it,

and one vendor said they had to replace the whole thing.

The system was still located in the old DPS garage and

they wanted to move it. There had been money in the

budget for a couple of years to upgrade the system, but they

needed to put in two new servers and update the software.

The original system had a number of patches but they

could not find a vendor to service it now.

Mr. Schroeder said it would be from an Enterprise Fund,

and it was something that was needed. If there was one

problem with a sewer backup, it would be worth it to have.

He said he would not fool around with an old system; he

would get a whole new system. If they tried to mix the old

and new, they would have nothing but problems. Ms.

Hardenburg asked if there was money in the budget for it.

Mr. Rousse said they proposed to submit it as a budget

amendment in the second quarter of 2008.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked the age of the current system, and

was told it was installed in 2000. There were four vendors

that worked on it and it had a lot of patches. They did not

have any backup now, and the new system would be a dual

system, with a primary and a backup should the server fail.

Mr. Kaltsounis remarked that they would see it again in

three years. Mr. Rousse said that the system would be

almost identical to what was used in Detroit.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the update would alleviate the problem

of working with a lot of vendors. Mr. Rousse agreed, and

said that the proposal was for a design, build and

maintenance for three years with the same vendor. They

had to bid it out every three to five years. Ms. Hardenburg

asked if they had any problems with the current system and

if they needed a backup system. Mr. Rousse said they had

been very fortunate that it had not crashed. Ms. Hardenburg

questioned the need for a new system since they had not

had a problem in eight years. Mr. Rousse advised that they

had lost some of the reports because of the patches. The

reports showed when a call came, who responded, the time

it took, and those types of things. They needed reports

about the pump stations also. Ms. Hardenburg asked if he

really saw a need for a backup system, reiterating that there

had not been one for eight years, and Mr. Rousse stressed

that they did. Mr. Schroeder remarked that they had been

living a “charmed life.”

Mr. Rousse referred to the Rewold Drain (Phase D) project,

SW-05D, which was the fourth stage of the project. It started

just east of Rochester Road on Avon and went in a

southeasterly direction to service that area. It was a

continuation of other projects that occurred upstream to

address drainage problems along Avon. Mr. Schroeder

asked if it was a County project on the books. Mr. Rousse

said the other projects were, and they were looking at it for

this stage. He noted that the City’s administrative costs

were higher with a County program. Mr. Schroeder

recommended doing it without the County to keep the costs

down. Mr. Rousse claimed that they ended up fielding the

complaints and design issues anyway.

Mr. Hooper asked if the drain projects were all funded by

the Major Road Fund. Mr. Schroeder said it was only for the

portion of the drainage that went into the drain, which was a

very small percentage. Mr. Hooper asked if was split

between the General Fund and Major Roads. Ms.

Jenuwine explained that that the drain projects historically

seen in the CIP had been expended under the Drain Fund,

which was really money from the General Fund. It was

currently in existence to support the construction projects in

the CIP, but they had not been putting money there for two

or three years. She advised that ultimately, it was General

Fund money. Mr. Hooper asked if SW-03 (Karas Drain

Extension) should be planned for 2009 construction. Mr.

Anzek said that construction was planned for 2009 and

right-of-way was taking place currently. Mr. Hooper said

that it showed construction planned for 2008, but he stated

that it should be for 2009. Ms. Jenuwine said she would

verify the dollars in the budget, but she felt it was a

significant part of the estimated City’s cost, and that the

construction should start in 2008. Mr. Hooper said that the

only portion the City would do this year was the

right-of-way, and he asked if there would be a budget

amendment. Ms. Jenuwine said that if they were not on

track, it would probably be deferred. Mr. Hooper believed

that there would not be a shovel in the ground this year.

Mr. Rousse moved on to the Clinton River Natural Channel

Restoration, and said they hoped to implement the project

following a 319 grant for the planning. He described that

during periods of high flow, the banks of the River eroded

and the River became wider and shallower. The

Restoration Plan would keep the channel deep and the

water cooler for fish. There would be two phases to the

project; the first would be the grant for the channel planning

and designing the repairs. He showed some photos of the

erosion to the River over the last 45 years and the portion of

the Trail that was threatened. The River was about 15 feet

from the edge of the Trail. Phase two would be the

construction for the Channel Restoration. They would

survey the remaining mile of the River and determine how

to maintain the cooler depth for better fish habitat.

Mr. Hooper asked if the project could be paid from the

Pathway Millage. Mr. Rousse said that a portion of the

proposal would come out of that fund. Mr. Hooper asked if

up to 100% of what threatened the Trailway could come

from the Pathway Millage, to which Mr. Rousse agreed.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to an area where the Clinton River

crossed Crooks Road, and said there was water seeping

from the River up through the pavement all winter long. He

asked if there was a potential for failure there. Mr. Rousse

said he would investigate it, because it was the first he had

heard of it. He thought that the elevation of the River was

such that it was unlikely to be River water. There possibly

was a water main, or one of the many springs that seemed

to pop up. Mr. Kaltsounis said it had been that way for over

a year. Mr. Anzek agreed it was always wet in front of

Heritage Oaks. Mr. Kaltsounis said he brought it up

because the shoreline might be eroding there and there

was nothing about a fix for it in the CIP. Mr. Schroeder

added that there were a lot of wetlands in that area.

Mr. Anzek referred to the last new project, the Water Storage

Facility, and asked Mr. Rousse to explain. Mr. Rousse said

it had a long history, which started in 1998. There was an

evaluation of the water distribution system relative to fire

flow rates. At that time, it identified four sections of the City

that did not have the needed flow rate in the water mains

during the peak demands of summer months. The

preferred method to address that was water storage. They

actually had some water shortages in the northwest corner

of the City, and the residents complained they had low or

no water pressure. They found that there was a deficiency

in the line size of the water main. They added a pump

station, which helped somewhat, but because there were

about 2,500 more residents, the problem was not going

away - it was getting worse. They hired a consultant to look

at everything, and they supported the Water Storage

Facility. They looked at peak rates the City paid and came

back with a proposal for savings for purchasing water.

There would be a four to seven-year return on investment

for the facility. It was coupled with the DPS garage and the

bonding was approved by City Council for both. They built

the DPS garage, but put the water storage facility on hold. It

had been brought forward again to try and address the

issue of water supply and for the low flow areas identified.

Mr. Schroeder asked if the Detroit Water Board agreed with

it. Mr. Rousse said they placed some restrictions on the

City. Mr. Schroeder said they looked at it in the 1970’s,

when he worked for the City. They met with Detroit, and

they would not allow Rochester Hills to have any storage.

Mr. Rousse said that at that time, Detroit wanted the

storage, and they built reservoirs in the City. That did not

address the internal size of the water mains. Mr. Schroeder

asked where the Storage Facility would be. Mr. Rousse

said they had identified possible locations: One reservoir

just north of Avon on John R., and one on Tienken just west

of Adams High School. Mr. Schroeder said that would be

closer to the problem. Mr. Schroeder asked if the tank

would be buried, and Mr. Rousse said that the DEQ was

steering them away from that. Mr. Schroeder asked if there

would be a tower, and he was informed that it just had to be

above ground. Mr. Schroeder asked if it could be covered

with trees, and Mr. Rousse said it would be about 45 feet

high and 80 feet wide, and it could be decorated with

concrete pilasters or something similar. He had seen one

with a tennis court on the top, and he had seen pump

stations that looked like homes. Mr. Kaltsounis recalled

that there was one in Royal Oak painted a dark green gloss,

which he thought looked great. Mr. Schroeder noted that

Beverly Hills had a nice one that looked like an old

fashioned barn.

Ms. Brnabic mentioned that she felt it would be very helpful

to have a column with page numbers for each new project

added (page 86). She questioned why the CIP document

was organized the way it was, and thought it would be

helpful to alphabetize it. She was not sure if there was a

purpose to the way it was organized, and Ms. Jenuwine

said that they could certainly change the order. Ms.

Brnabic thanked Staff for the CIP presentation and

explanation.

Mr. Anzek reminded that any subsequent questions should

be directed to him or Ms. Jenuwine. It was important to

adopt the CIP in May because it was critical for the budget

preparation. Mr. Hooper referred to page 25, Adams Road

Traffic Signal, and asked if the Advisory, Traffic and Safety

Board had talked about it. Mr. Anzek said they did not get

into that detail. Mr. Hooper asked about installing a

roundabout at Adams and Butler instead. Mr. Rousse said

that all the environmental assessments would consider

different configurations, and before they got to that phase,

they would look at different designs and evaluate. He

thought that a roundabout was a great solution to traffic

patterns. Drivers got used to them, and they moved traffic

well. He had heard people voice concerns about the

learning process. Ms. Hardenburg said she hoped they

were looking at a new traffic configuration at Drexelgate and

Livernois, because when the roundabout was installed at

Hamlin and Livernois, people would use Drexelgate to get

to their homes, and there was no left turn signal there now.

Ms. Brnabic noted a correction to page 19, which said that

the update to the Master Thoroughfare would be completed

by the end of 2007, rather than 2008.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2008-0190

Request to Confirm the Mayor's reappointment of Deborah Brnabic as Planning

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

March 31, 2009.

Mr. Schroeder moved the following motion:

Motion by Schroeder, seconded by Hardenburg, the

Planning Commission hereby recommends to City Council

that Deborah Brnabic be its representative on the Zoning

Board of Appeals for a one year term to expire March 31,

2009.

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece,

Schroeder and Yukon

9 -

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular

meeting was scheduled for May 6, 2008.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission,

and upon motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the

Regular Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m., Michigan

time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary