Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, June 1, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in ‎

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Greg Hooper‎

Leah Potere ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎33 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎45 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Director, Planning‎

Kenneth Snell, Mayor‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1952

May ‎18‎, ‎1999 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Ramanauskas, seconded by Corneliussen, that the Minutes ‎

dated May ‎18‎, ‎1999 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Potere, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Planning & Zoning News, May ‎1999‎

B‎.‎ Notice of SPECIAL Planning Commission Meeting on June ‎29‎, ‎1999‎

DISCUSSION

2000-1953

2000 ‎Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎Preview‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎2000‎-‎2005 ‎Capital Improvement Plan Preview dated June ‎1‎, ‎1999 ‎prepared by ‎

the City of Rochester Hills Fiscal Team, and ‎2000‎-‎2005 ‎Capital Improvement Project ‎

Book dated May ‎1999 ‎prepared for the City of Rochester Hills CIP Policy Team ‎

have been placed on file and by reference become part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that the subject presentation is intended as a very informal ‎

discussion meeting‎. ‎She acknowledged the presence of Mayor Snell who was present ‎

to provide the Fiscal Team's overview‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reviewed that Municipal ‎

Planning Act ‎285 ‎discusses the capital improvement plan as a further implementation ‎

tool associated with the master plan or comprehensive plan and is one of the duties of ‎

the Planning Commission‎. ‎The City has not had a formal capital improvement plan ‎

until the last three years; the first plan was adopted in ‎1998‎. ‎Rochester Hills has been ‎

a city since ‎1985‎, so it is a fairly significant document for the city‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin gave an overview of changes since the ‎1999 ‎CIP and gave an update ‎

of projects scheduled for completion in ‎1999 ‎-- ‎Adams‎/‎Dutton traffic signal, Auburn ‎

Technology Drive traffic signal, Dequindre‎/‎Hamlin traffic signal, Brewster Road ‎

rehabilitation, Drexelgate rehabilitation, Barclay‎/‎Hampton control beacon, type‎-‎deco ‎

character generator, feasibility study for remaining parcels, supervisory control and ‎

data acquisition ‎(‎SCADA‎)‎, Bassett‎-‎Smith watermain replacement, Martin Farms ‎

watermain replacement, and building needs assessment study‎. ‎All major and local ‎

road projects under way are continuing in ‎1999‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin acknowledged ‎

Planning Commission Subcommittee Members Rosen and Boswell as members of the ‎

policy team‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin described the CIP Project Book which includes all the ‎

individual project submittal application forms as well as the evaluation criteria used by ‎

the city departments in their choice of projects to submit‎. ‎These sheets were used to ‎

create the spreadsheet database found in the Preview book‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

distributed the ‎1999‎-‎2004 ‎CIP Review sheet listing ‎1999 ‎CIP projects completed; ‎

projects under review from the ‎1999 ‎CIP; project changes from the ‎1999 ‎CIP; start ‎

dates postponed during the ‎1999 ‎budget process by Council, Administration and ‎

Y‎2‎K; and projects withdrawn from the CIP‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin drew attention to the GIS map in the front of the Preview book which ‎

quantifies all projects contained in the book‎. ‎The map includes local road projects, ‎

major road projects, park projects, and drain projects‎. ‎The only projects not on the ‎

map are internal service projects‎.‎

[ ‎Enter Ruggiero ‎7:45‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Mayor Snell explained that several capital projects that had been originally set in the ‎

CIP for ‎2001 ‎were pulled forward into ‎1999 ‎funding by City Council‎. ‎Two of those ‎

projects were bringing water into the City Cemetery, and the Bloomer Park Stone ‎

Shelter building upgrade‎. ‎The stone shelter is not being fully funded in ‎1999‎, so it will ‎

appear in subsequent years‎. ‎Mayor Snell informed the commissioners that Oakland ‎

University is considering a conference center with a hotel, a performing arts center, ‎

and an ice arena‎. ‎Even though the City of Rochester is also building an ice arena, there ‎

may still be a call for one in Rochester Hills‎. ‎The ice arena in Rochester will have ‎3 ‎

sheet capability‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the city's recreation plan will be up for ‎

review next year‎. ‎If it is of interest to the Planning Commission, Mayor Snell stated ‎

that the ability to update the recreation plan will depend somewhat on the priorities ‎

and funding‎. ‎City Council has conducted initial discussions but it has not yet been ‎

discussed in detail, nor has it been decided that it will be in the ‎2000 ‎budget‎. ‎If the ‎

Planning Commission believes it should be supported, that may be a position the ‎

Planning Commission would like to take‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out the overall formatting of the book for the benefit of new ‎

Planning Commission members‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin distributed Enhancements to the ‎

Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year ‎2000‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained the ‎

continuity between the Master Land Use Plan, the Master Transportation Plan, and ‎

the CIP‎. ‎Putting the plan together crosses department lines and gives staff an ‎

awareness of what other departments are doing‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin suggested that ‎

commissioners review the recommended listing of policies and goals‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

drew attention to the Policy Team Recommendations sheet in the Preview Book, ‎

located three sheets in front of the spreadsheet‎. ‎Mayor Snell added an intangible goal ‎

reinforced with the Mayor's Exchange with Sterling Heights is a trust factor when ‎

residents can see that there is actually a plan for something to be done‎. ‎Although any ‎

specific project may not happen this year, residents will know that it is on the list to be ‎

done in a certain time frame‎. ‎Sterling Heights has found that, by diligently following ‎

their CIP document, they are able to demonstrate to people that a project is in the ‎

pipeline and that it will be completed‎. ‎People are more likely to become more patient ‎

to wait their turn‎. ‎The Mayor believed the city is building that trust and it will become ‎

apparent in succeeding years‎. ‎The Chair added that trust is also accomplished ‎

between the Planning Commission and city administration‎.‎

For the benefit of the new Planning Commission members the Chair explained how to ‎

read the CIP spreadsheets and how to reference a project in the text‎. ‎The Chair ‎

explained that the timing of some of the projects has been determined as long ago as ‎

10 ‎years because of funding availability and funding requirements‎. ‎The timetable for ‎

some projects is determined by preexisting factors and long before projects reach the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎The Chair referenced project MR‎-‎06 ‎on the spreadsheet and ‎

its cross‎-‎reference on Page ‎15‎. ‎Information displayed includes the total cost, the ‎

city's share of the cost by percentage, the city cost in dollars, and an indication that the ‎

project is a tri‎-‎party funding by Road Commission for Oakland County, Oakland ‎

County Board of Commissioners, and the City‎. ‎The Chair emphasized that the ‎

Planning Commission does not have to accept everything in the CIP‎.‎

Mayor Snell explained that, if all of the listed projects were to be funded to the levels ‎

shown, and if all of the listed projects were to be done, the city's cost would be ‎

$‎18‎,‎200‎,‎000‎, with an additional $‎26‎,‎310‎,‎000 ‎from other sources‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin directed commissioners' attention to the Support and Role Identification ‎

page which describes the members and roles of the Project Team, Administrative ‎

Team, and the Public Relations Team‎. ‎The Policy Team reviews the policy, develops ‎

the project rating and weighting criteria, rates and weights project applications, ‎

reviews funding options and presents the six‎-‎year recommendation to the ‎

Administrative Team‎. ‎The Administrative Team reviews the Policy Team ‎

recommendation and develops a consensus for the projects to be brought forward in ‎

the six‎-‎year CIP, brings its recommendation forward to the Planning Commission ‎

Workshop and presents the CIP at the Planning Commission Public Hearing‎. ‎The ‎

Public Relations Team prepares press releases, information packets, and the draft and ‎

final Capital Improvement Plan document‎. ‎The Planning Commission's role is to work ‎

with the Policy Team during the plan development, conduct workshops, review the ‎

Administrative Team's recommendation, receive public input, conduct public hearings, ‎

adopt the plan, and request City Council to incorporate funding for the first year ‎

projects into the Budget Plan‎. ‎The City Council incorporates the first year of the plan ‎

into the Budget Plan as part of the annual budget process in accordance with the City ‎

Charter and state law‎. ‎Residents are encouraged to participate in plan development ‎

by working with the various Boards and Commissions, at the Planning Commission ‎

workshops, the Planning Commission public hearings and at City Council's budget ‎

workshops and public hearings‎. ‎As always, communication is open between the ‎

residents, Council representatives, Planning Commission representatives and staff‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that while the adopted plan may call for $‎18 ‎million, City ‎

Council must factor in the capital projects with all the other funding needs for the city, ‎

and really has a tough job deciding what will and will not be funded‎.‎

Continuing, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out the important Process Flow Chart‎. ‎One of the ‎

key considerations of the Planning Commission was how public participation would ‎

flow into the CIP process‎. ‎Public participation is overriding both at the front end as ‎

well as at the level where plans are submitted for approval and adoption‎. ‎Public ‎

participation ideally comes in through all the policy documents such as the Master ‎

Land Use Plan, Master Transportation Plan, Master Recreation Plan, Local Road ‎

Improvement Plan, Pathway Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, the Local ‎

Development Finance Authority Plan, and the Water and Sewer Master Plan‎. ‎There ‎

is room for public participation within each of these plans‎. ‎These translate into actual ‎

projects‎. ‎One of the key evaluation criteria is whether or not a project is consistent ‎

with one of these plans‎. ‎If a project is not in one of these plans, it receives ‎20 ‎fewer ‎

points ‎-- ‎with the exception of internal service projects which are evaluated differently‎.‎

Member Rosen discussed the Needs Assessment Form‎. ‎Projects are categorized into ‎

various project groups such as MR, Major Roads; LR, Local Roads; PK, Parks‎. ‎It is ‎

difficult to compare ratings across these categories‎. ‎For example, a Major Road ‎

project rated ‎100 ‎would not directly compare with a Parks project rated ‎101‎. ‎There ‎

is a difference that is not quantifiable‎. ‎Referring back to the Process Flow Chart, ‎

Member Rosen explained that the easiest way to explain this to the public is to ‎

recognize that the CIP is a compilation of projects that can be done‎. ‎The Policy ‎

Documents are what we wish to do; the Projects are what staff wants to do; and then ‎

City Council funds what will actually happen‎. ‎A change from last year's CIP was to ‎

include a way of tracking the progress of projects so they aren't forgotten or lost in ‎

succeeding years‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained the process used by the project submitter utilizing sample ‎

forms in the CIP book‎. ‎The project submitter completed Form ‎1 ‎(‎Individual Project ‎

Proposal Description‎)‎, ‎

Form ‎2 ‎(‎Project Summary‎)‎, and Form ‎3 ‎(‎Equipment‎) ‎which were then used as the ‎

basis for the Needs Assessment Form‎. ‎The project submitter also ranked the ‎

projects‎.‎

Member Rosen explained the rating process from the Needs Assessment Form‎. ‎After ‎

projects were submitted by each city department, each policy team member rated the ‎

projects themselves using the Score Range‎. ‎The Score Range was then multiplied by ‎

the Weight to arrive at the Total Points‎. ‎Member Rosen traced several projects ‎

through the process to illustrate the rating system‎. ‎Ratings are ongoing once ‎

established, absent some emergency or unexpected contingency or change in ‎

circumstance‎. ‎

Member Gaber stated that part of the purpose of the CIP document is to create some ‎

type of standard or plan which is to be followed and implemented year in and year ‎

out‎. ‎Certainly priorities can change from year to year‎. ‎But if Council had the ‎

opportunity to just ‎"‎cherry‎-‎pick‎" ‎projects and decide to fund only certain projects, ‎

then the document would lose credibility as a plan‎. ‎You need some consistency from ‎

year to year‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin read the Policy Team Recommendation‎. ‎It is recognized that several ‎

projects are components of strategic planning, and they should be postponed ‎

one year until the visioning program is complete and the community has come ‎

together to set the direction for the future‎. ‎It has been established by the Mayor ‎

that the year ‎2000 ‎will be a ‎"‎time for completion‎" ‎for the many projects ‎

currently under way‎. ‎Based on these premises, the following proposal is ‎

recommended‎: ‎The need for local road improvement is recognized and ‎

reconciling the gap between need and lack of funding source must be moved to ‎

the forefront; All major road projects that are currently under way should ‎

continue until they are concluded; All internal service projects to improve ‎

customer service should continue; Priority projects with available funding ‎

should be advanced‎."‎

Mayor Snell explained in the previous two years the Administrative Team ‎-- ‎consisting ‎

of Assistant to the Mayor, Financial Administrator and the Mayor ‎-- ‎had presented a ‎

recommendation to the Planning Commission of what it believed the CIP needed to ‎

contain as projects for each of the given years‎. ‎Based on their experience to date, the ‎

Administrative Team this year is not formally recommending projects as needing to be ‎

funded in the years presented‎. ‎The reason is that the Administrative Team is also the ‎

management Budget Team and will make the final decision on what will be placed in ‎

the proposed budget to City Council‎. ‎The Administrative Team did not want to send ‎

a mixed message to City Council by recommending projects to the Planning ‎

Commission for certain years and then telling City Council something different‎. ‎

Instead, the Administrative Team is sending an endorsement of proposed policies ‎

recommended by the Policy Team‎. ‎In the actual budget documentation to City ‎

Council will be the final recommendation on actual projects for funding‎. ‎Some of ‎

those may not be based on the same criteria in the CIP, but that is part of the process‎. ‎

The CIP is not an inflexible document; the CIP is a planning document‎. ‎

Mayor Snell clarified that project MR‎-‎04 ‎on Page ‎15 ‎reflects only a two‎-‎lane ‎

boulevard, even though the Major Thoroughfare Plan describes Hamlin Road from ‎

Livernois to Rochester Road as a four‎-‎lane boulevard‎.‎

The Chair advised the Planning Commissioners to be prepared for a full discussion of ‎

the CIP at the Public Hearing scheduled for June ‎15‎, ‎1999‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reviewed how the dollar amounts are set for the projects on the ‎

spreadsheets‎. ‎A project cost is based on a variety of elements‎. ‎A road project, for ‎

example, would involve preliminary engineering, right‎-‎of‎-‎way acquisition, actual ‎

construction, all of which are required to be done in a certain sequence‎. ‎Each activity ‎

is costed out and spread over the amount of time required for its completion‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin tracked Project MR‎-‎01‎, Crooks Road ‎(‎Auburn to Hamlin‎) ‎and pointed out ‎

that the cost to date of $‎1‎.‎1 ‎million reflects engineering and administrative costs since ‎

no construction has occurred and no rights‎-‎of‎-‎way have been acquired yet‎. ‎For ‎

projects that have no set schedule and no identified funding source, such as Project ‎

PK‎-‎01‎A, Bloomer Park Stone Shelter, Mayor Snell explained that the cost to date ‎

includes initial professional services to prepare the documents and blueprints‎. ‎The ‎

balance of the costs reflect an estimate of what the project should cost over two ‎

years‎. ‎Sometimes the dollars are arbitrary because no definite plans exist yet‎. ‎

Mayor Snell added that in the past the city has budgeted on dollars, not on resources, ‎

and has not thought in terms of multi‎-‎year projects‎. ‎The CIP is really the first public ‎

presentation for the benefit of the residents as well as the Planning Commission and ‎

City Council and staff of what it really takes to accomplish a project that sounds ‎

simple‎. ‎It should reduce the frustration endured by city staff as a result of not realizing ‎

why a certain project was not completed in a year‎’‎s time and not having adequate ‎

staff to tackle additional projects‎. ‎City staff is in the process of project budgeting and ‎

action planning of all documents to get a better sense of what it takes to complete a ‎

project‎. ‎One of the things included as part of the Year ‎2000 ‎budget discussions is to ‎

present an allocation of staff resources so that an overexpectation of available ‎

resources can be avoided‎. ‎Compared to other cities Rochester Hills is significantly ‎

understaffed, and people need to recognize the limitations on our abilities to perform ‎

projects‎. ‎In the past a project was budgeted only for a given year, and often there ‎

was no guarantee that there would be funding available to finish a project‎. ‎They are ‎

beginning to look at the total cost of a project and encumber that and carry it forward ‎

from year to year‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that all the projects in the proposed Master Land Use Plan ‎

Update will be included in the ‎2001 ‎CIP‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that another aspect of cost is operating and maintenance‎. ‎The ‎

Transportation Plan discusses four‎-‎lane boulevards as the preference for major roads, ‎

and the cost of creating a landscaped boulevard that can be maintained with irrigation ‎

needs to be incorporated into the cost estimate‎. ‎Irrigation has not been included in the ‎

cost estimates‎.‎

Member Gaber, noticed a primary change in the format of the spreadsheet over last ‎

year and found the change cumbersome and more difficult to use‎. ‎Last year‎’‎s format ‎

provided more information and was much more readable‎. ‎There appear to be more ‎

categories this year and more items‎. ‎The Chair generally agreed‎. ‎Member Gaber ‎

would like to see how much of an allocated funding source is available and how much ‎

needs to be supplemented from the general fund or some other place‎. ‎

Mayor Snell and commissioners discussed whether projects should be listed in the ‎

CIP even though no funding source has been identified, whether there is uncertainty on ‎

the part of some individuals about whether or not a project should be considered, or ‎

whether a project should be included when the funding source disappears‎. ‎If these ‎

uncertain projects were included in the CIP, they could be tracked and would not ‎

have to be rethought of in the future‎. ‎If there is no timetable identified for a specific ‎

project, perhaps it should not be included in the CIP, such as the community ‎

recreation center‎. ‎However, the purpose of the CIP is to track such projects‎.‎

Member Hooper understood correctly that the Capital Improvement Project Book ‎

prepared for the CIP Policy Team and dated May ‎1999 ‎does not go with the CIP ‎

when it is adopted‎. ‎It was prepared for information purposes‎.‎

Member Hooper and Mayor Snell discussed aspects of Local Roads funding and the ‎

fact that it is not as structured as the Major Roads category‎. ‎Mayor Snell explained ‎

that the $‎6‎.‎6 ‎million shown on the spreadsheet for the Local Road Improvement Plan ‎

represents the estimated amount needed each year to implement the plan‎. ‎City ‎

Council has not made any decisions regarding the amount of money that will be ‎

dedicated to local roads‎. ‎Major roads are funded from a couple sources by ‎

deliberate policy decisions‎. ‎As local roads are, major roads are also funded from the ‎

gas and weight tax but to a significantly higher amount than local roads‎. ‎A half‎-‎mill has ‎

been dedicated by Council‎’‎s budgeting policy for major roads each year, so there is ‎

an additional amount of money for major roads‎. ‎There is not an equivalent existing tax ‎

levy, other than gas and weight tax, for local roads‎. ‎Over the next five years of the ‎

proposed CIP the total for local roads is $‎50 ‎million ‎-- ‎about $‎6‎.‎5 ‎million each year‎. ‎

The priorities for local roads change as roads change in their need for attention‎. ‎That ‎

has been a problem when residents have wanted a guarantee that their local road ‎

would be done in a given year and it could not be accomplished because other roads ‎

had deteriorated faster‎. ‎With the Local Road Improvement Plan City Council has ‎

attempted to identify those roads that need to be done, those that need maintenance, ‎

and gravel roads that need paving‎.‎

Member Gaber added that it is not feasible or possible to identify now specific local ‎

roads that will be done in the next five years because the deterioration rate changes‎. ‎

The city would not want to appear inflexible or unresponsive to citizens‎’ ‎needs by ‎

locking in certain local roads‎. ‎The difference with major roads is that major roads ‎

have dedicated funding and time constraints‎. ‎Without knowing what the condition of ‎

roads will be in five years, it is difficult to make a determination of how much money ‎

will be allocated‎. ‎There are too many variables‎.‎

Another complication that Mayor Snell explained was often water and sewer projects ‎

not even in the CIP are combined with road projects in a given subdivision because it ‎

is easier and less costly to tear up a road only once, and this can cause delays for ‎

roads in other subdivisions‎. ‎Often citizens do not realize this cost savings because it ‎

does not show up in their pockets, but it is beneficial to the city as a whole‎. ‎Mayor ‎

Snell emphasized that the CIP Policy Team is open to other ideas on ways to present ‎

this information‎. ‎

On the Local Road Projects page, Mayor Snell explained that the Legend for LR‎-‎1 ‎

Rehabilitation ‎(‎Multi‎-‎year Project‎) ‎means those are all the roads in subdivisions that ‎

have no box number associated with them‎. ‎Rehabilitation means total reconstruction ‎

of a road and does not include overlays‎. ‎Overlays are not shown as they are ‎

considered maintenance‎. ‎

The following changes were recommended to be made to the ‎2000‎-‎2005 ‎Capital ‎

Improvement Plan‎:‎

·‎ Policy Team Recommendation page‎: ‎Remove the word ‎"‎spreadsheet‎".‎

·‎ The Capital Improvement Plan Support and Role Identification Pages‎: ‎Under the ‎

Planning Commission‎’‎s role and City Council‎’‎s role modify the language ‎

“‎...‎the Administrative Team‎’‎s recommendation‎...‎” ‎and ‎“‎...‎incorporates ‎

the first year of the plan into the Budget Plan‎...‎” ‎in light of the Mayor‎’‎s ‎

comments‎.‎

·‎ Page ‎15‎, project MR‎-04‎ should read ‎“‎a two‎-‎lane boulevard‎”‎.‎

·‎ Condense ‎“‎Fleet‎” ‎to one line‎.‎

·‎ Fit everything on one spreadsheet, if possible‎.‎

·‎ Identify the amount of an allocated funding source and the amount needed to be ‎

supplemented from another source‎.‎

·‎ Reduce the ‎“‎Project Area‎” ‎column to a caption only at the top of each section ‎

rather than repeating it for each project‎.‎

·‎ Identify what happened to Companion Projects‎.‎

·‎ Page ‎22‎, Local Road Projects, Legend‎: ‎Red and purple colors are difficult to ‎

distinguish‎. ‎

·‎ Page ‎23‎ under LR‎-01‎ list streets or subdivisions or neighborhoods‎. ‎Show LR‎-03‎ ‎

Gravel Road Upgrades in the text and spreadsheet‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎2000‎-‎2005 ‎Capital Improvement Plan Preview dated June ‎1‎, ‎1999 ‎prepared by ‎

the City of Rochester Hills Fiscal Team, and ‎2000‎-‎2005 ‎Capital Improvement Project ‎

Book dated May ‎1999 ‎prepared for the City of Rochester Hills CIP Policy Team; ‎

1999‎-‎2004 ‎CIP Review dated ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎99‎; Enhancements to Capital Improvement ‎

Program Fiscal Year ‎2000‎.)‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Hamlin Road Reconstruction‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that City Council has established some standing committees, ‎

one of which is Community Development Viability‎. ‎The idea is that the subcommittees ‎

would take up substantive policy issues in committee and forward recommendations ‎

to City Council‎. ‎John Gaber, Melinda Hill, Susan deCaussin, Patricia Goodwin, Tom ‎

Dohr and Bill Dinnan comprise the committee‎. ‎One of the issues before the ‎

committee was Hamlin Road construction between Livernois and Rochester Road‎. ‎

The Transportation Plan calls for a four‎-‎lane residential boulevard, and residents are ‎

not in favor of that‎. ‎Council has funded the reconstruction, and the project is now ‎

pending subject to a recommendation from the Community Development Viability ‎

Committee on whether it should proceed, be modified, or abandoned‎. ‎A question ‎

came up regarding the continued advisability or preference for a four‎-‎lane residential ‎

boulevard treatment‎. ‎The question that has been raised is whether or not the issue ‎

should be brought back to the Planning Commission to consider whether that ‎

cross‎-‎section concept should be modified and‎/‎or whether or not four‎-‎lane boulevards ‎

are the preferred alternative for addressing traffic congestion on major roads‎. ‎Some ‎

of the members of the committee would like the benefit of input from the Planning ‎

Commission, not to reopen the plan, but to consider two things‎: ‎Why was a four‎-‎lane ‎

residential boulevard the preferred alternative, and are there reasons why the Planning ‎

Commission might consider amending that across‎-‎the‎-‎board to three lanes or an ‎

intersection improvement only? Jim Dietrick will be looking at various financing ‎

alternatives‎. ‎The second issue is if, in fact, Council makes a determination that they ‎

want to reduce the right‎-‎of‎-‎way width, how then do we address the system ‎

deficiency? ‎

The Chair responded that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time, meetings, ‎

thought and argument on east‎/‎west methods of crossing the city and providing for ‎

others to cross the city‎. ‎The city paid a lot of money for a Master Transportation Plan ‎

Update consultant‎. ‎Public Hearings were held on the Transportation Plan and there ‎

was a great deal of public input‎. ‎The Chair would not encourage revisiting an issue ‎

that has been beaten to death just because a couple hundred residents are making a ‎

lot of noise now because it‎’‎s their ox that is being gored ‎-- ‎and at the expense of all ‎

the other residents of Rochester Hills‎. ‎The Planning Commission does not have the ‎

time to revisit this issue‎. ‎If Council continues a deficiency in Hamlin Road, or creates ‎

one through its determinations about budgeting or right‎-‎of‎-‎way, then the Planning ‎

Commission would have to deal with it‎. ‎

Member Rosen had a hard time worrying about it for the next five or ten years ‎

because a four‎-‎lane boulevard will not happen overnight‎. ‎If other higher priority roads ‎

are done, it will make a significant improvement in traffic congestion‎. ‎The one lane for ‎

one mile of Hamlin Road in question does not warrant a panic at this time‎. ‎The city ‎

has already decided to accept a certain level of congestion in order to maintain its ‎

character‎.‎

Member Gaber commented that City Council could pass a resolution asking the ‎

Planning Commission to reconsider this issue‎.‎

Member Ruggiero thought it silly to revisit the issue‎. ‎If City Council wants to change ‎

the plan, that would be up to them‎. ‎

The Chair added that the Planning Commission cannot pretend that they do not know ‎

what is driving this issue‎. ‎There is a very small contingent of citizens that is very vocal, ‎

very organized, and very active‎. ‎The Transportation Plan was written and approved ‎

for the entire community ‎-- ‎and as a community among other communities ‎-- ‎not just ‎

for the residents on Hamlin Road‎.‎

Member Rosen added that City Council can change the effect of the Master ‎

Transportation Plan by their funding actions and decisions, and it‎’‎s entirely within their ‎

prerogative to do so‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that one thing that makes the city‎’‎s plans very defensible in ‎

court is that there is continuity and consistency between them‎. ‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for June ‎15‎, ‎1999‎. ‎Members Gaber and Ramanauskas announced they ‎

would be absent from the June ‎15‎, ‎1999 ‎meeting‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎10‎:‎19 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎