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, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Planning Commission

Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, David

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

7 -

Greg Hooper and Nicholas Kaltsounis

Absent

2 -

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Economic Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2010-0240

May 4, 2010 Regular Meeting

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

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

Aye

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

7 -

Absent

Hooper and Kaltsounis

2 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News (3) dated May, June & July 2010

B) 2011-2016 CIP

C) Ordinance 164 (Rezoning Northwest Corner Hamlin and

Livernois to O-1)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2009-0274

Public Hearing: Request for Recommendation of Approval of

the Revised PUD for City Place, 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. G&V, applicant

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated July 2,

2010 and Revised City Place PUD, prepared by Attorney John Gaber,

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

thereof.)

Present for the applicant were William Gilbert, G&V Investments, 2565 S.

Rochester Rd., Rochester Hills, MI 48307; John Gaber, Williams,

Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, 380 N. Old Woodward, Birmingham, MI

48009 and Mark Abanatha, Alexander V. Bogaerts & Associates, 2445

Franklin, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302.

Mr. Gaber presented modifications to the City Place PUD, which he noted

was approved by City Council in 2004. He advised that in exchange for

reduced building height and density, the applicants wished to obtain more

flexibility in terms of building location, type and design and greater

potential for commercial along Rochester Road. They met with City

Council in March to discuss the concept; they met with the Eddington

Farms Subdivision residents on March 23, and they were in front of the

Planning Commission on April 20 to discuss the project informally. With

the exception of the Sycamores and Meadowfield homes on the west side

of Rochester Road, the area of Rochester Road from Hamlin to Avon was

mainly commercial uses. The proposed site and the Bordine’s site had

been master planned mixed-use since at least the 1998 Master Plan to

serve as a transition between Rochester Road and the residential units.

Mr. Gaber continued that City Place was approved as a dense,

high-quality architectural development, but there was little flexibility.

Originally, the PUD was used because there was no mixed-use

classification in the Zoning Ordinance. The underlying zoning was

changed to B-2 to facilitate all the uses in the approved PUD. The

property owners attempted to develop it over the last five or six years, but

the only thing developed was a Fifth Third Bank. They aggressively

marketed the site with very little luck. They spent a lot of money on

design and marketing to create a vision supported by the City in 2004,

but there were problems with the plan. One problem was that the

development was so specific that it required one developer for the whole

parcel. Although small developers would buy a portion of the site to build

something on it, it was inconsistent with the PUD. Financing was a

difficult dilemma because of the mixed buildings and type of uses. They

found that there was not a market for live/work in Rochester Hills.

Mr. Gaber recalled that in 2007, the City added to its planning model in

the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Form based zoning was put in

the Master Plan, which regarded flexible districts. The intent was to allow

mixed-use development with form based controls over the entire project.

The purpose was to have consistency of design throughout a zone

regarding the dimensional features, the architecture and the aesthetics.

G&V initiated discussions with the Planning Department because the

PUD project was not going anywhere. They came up with a revised PUD,

which they still felt was the right approach and remained consistent with

the Master Plan. The reason they were asking for the revised PUD

without having a project was because they needed greater flexibility for

future mixed-use development. They would like to be ready when the

market turned. When developers had various options, they looked for

something that had a quick approval process and some certainty. If they

used the existing PUD, it would not be likely that one or both of those

would be realized. Developers were often not willing to invest in sites that

required such extensive approvals. They were not asking the City to relax

its standards - the future development would be subject to the City’s

normal approvals.

Mr. Gaber pointed out highlights of the revisions. He referred to the text,

and his first point was that the new PUD would restate the original PUD.

Any development remained subject to Site Plan Approval or Conditional

Land Use Approval, if applicable. The FB-1 zoning overlay district

standards would apply throughout the development, with minor

exceptions. He mentioned the permitted uses, which were residential,

retail, office and restaurant uses, and said that they limited the square

footage for each.

Mr. Gaber advised that there would be no bars in the development, but

restaurants that served drinks would be allowed, if they stayed under 35%

of sales. He discussed square footages, and said that they came up with

three scenarios. They could have 500k square feet if it were developed

exclusively as multi-family, which was still below the 710k square feet in

the current PUD. The second proposed 50k retail/restaurant, 25k office

and 360k for multi-family residential units. Thirdly, they would limit the

office to 350k, which was less than half of what was originally approved.

He advised that residential buildings would be located no closer than 50

feet from the boundary of the Eddington Farms Subdivision; office

buildings could be located no closer than 100 feet from the boundary;

and retail/restaurant buildings could be located no closer than 200 feet.

Regarding height between 50 and 100 feet away, there could only be

two-story buildings. Over 100 feet away, there could be three-story

buildings, and the commercial buildings on Rochester Road could be

three stories. The buildings would be harmonious and compatible in

style and quality with the Fifth Third Bank. The homes would be

compatible, with masonry and brick. He added that they would like to

retain the five-foot natural features setback modification.

Mr. Gaber noted that landscaping would be determined as part of site

plan approval. They agreed to maintain what was in the original PUD - an

enhanced planting mix of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs.

They agreed that whatever was under control of the Eddington Farms

homeowner’s association in the boulevard would stay that way. He

mentioned a concern about the right-of-way for Rochester Road. They

wished to recognize the 75-foot right-of-way from the centerline of

Rochester Road. It was contrary to the City’s Master Transportation Plan,

which called for 180 feet, but 150 feet would allow for development of a

six-lane divided highway with a boulevard. They would apply for a curb

cut on the south side of the property, subject to MDOT’s approval. There

would be cross access through the site from Eddington Blvd. to the

Bordine’s property so people were not traversing Rochester Road to

come in and out of the property. That would be developed as site plans

came forward. Regarding the historic district, if it was not eliminated by

City Council, the house would be controlled by the Historic Districts

Commission, but they would request the ability to relocate it. If it were

eliminated, they would not be required to maintain the house. Signage

would be controlled by the City’s Sign Ordinance.

The next issue was about how much time the applicant would have to

develop the site and what would happen if they did not. The Agreement

stated that the development could be done in phases, and the applicant

could submit one or more site plans over time. The first site plan would

have to be submitted within five years of the date of the signed

Agreement, which could be subject to extensions by City Council for good

cause shown. If that did not happen, the City could issue an

abandonment notice and proceed in accordance with procedures stated.

In the event the project was not substantially completed within 20 years

from the date of the Agreement (he explained that 20 years was put in

because the applicant did not know what the market would be), the City

could issue a notice and initiate a Rezoning for the land not developed. If

the applicant objected to that, there could be an appearance in front of

City Council to show they were acting in good faith. If the City believed

the applicant failed to show that, it could initiate action in Circuit Court for

declaratory relief and Rezone the land. He had discussed it with Mr.

Staran, the City Attorney.

Mr. Gaber discussed minor modifications, which were added to give Staff

flexibility and authority. If Staff felt the modifications were major, they

would be brought before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Gaber addressed the Staff Report, which listed conditions attached to

the motion. He mentioned that the PUD should be revised to indicate the

hours of operation for any establishment serving alcohol should be

limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., but they would like it to be until 12:00

p.m. He said that a Conditional Land Use was required for any

establishment serving alcohol, but the applicant would rather not include

that because he felt there were enough protections in the Agreement

given the 35% threshold and hour restrictions. City Council would also

have approval over the liquor licenses for the site, and Planning

Commission would have to approve the site plan. If there were concerns

with lighting or noise, they could be addressed at that time. There were

conditions that the development would conform to the City’s Master

Transportation Plan for proposed right-of-way, and that land would be

dedicated to the City at the time of site plan approval. The applicant

wished to decline those because they would like to retain the existing

75-foot right-of-way approved in the original PUD.

Mr. Gaber referred to changing language in the PUD to provide that it was

clear that the B-2 zoning was put in the plan to facilitate the existing PUD

and that B-2 did not at any time represent the City’s future desired land

uses or zoning requirements of the subject site. They would agree to that,

but requested the wording “absent the PUD” added at the end, because

some of the uses in B-2 could be used in the PUD.

Chairperson Boswell asked the applicants to elaborate on the

landscaping for the berms. Mr. Abanatha explained that originally, they

looked at the existing residents on the western edge of the sub and how

their homes related. They tried to evaluate how to best buffer them, and

they proposed enhancing the berm and raising the grade. They would

strategically locate the trees along the berm edge to get the best buffer.

They would stay with that plan, and use enhanced materials.

Mr. Delacourt referred to the conditions regarding the right-of-way, and

said that he talked with the City Engineer about it. The current Master

Transportation Plan (MTP) called for a 180-foot right-of-way for Rochester

Road, and he said that any site plan would have to conform to the MTP in

place of that time, which was different from the original PUD. It came up

at the last moment, and the applicant was not aware of it, but it was an

attempt to meet in the middle. Regarding CLUs for restaurants, Chapter

8 for flex business districts required restaurants to have a CLU approval,

and that was why the condition was added. He brought up the

landscaping and asked for clarification about the 50-foot screening and

buffering zone along the subdivision.

Gilbert said that 50 feet was the setback, and Mr. Gaber added that the

plantings would be in the setback. Mr. Delacourt wanted to make sure

there would be no parking or building within the 50 feet because the

setback did not limit parking lots and other improvements, and the

landscape plan showed a 50-foot width for landscaping. He wanted to

know if they were talking about a 50-foot setback and a 50-foot screen, or

if they were talking about overlapping, different dimensions for both. It

was decided to add language to the PUD to clarify that the minimum

requirements would be enhanced and might encroach into the setback.

Mr. Gaber noted that regarding the Rochester Road right-of-way, they

developed the site to allow a 200-foot protection from any commercial

buildings, which was predicated on having a 75-foot right-of-way with

parking up to the edge. If they were squeezed on the road side, it would

not make the project feasible, as there would be not enough buildable

area. Mr. Gilbert asked the difference between the 75 feet the City agreed

to in the first PUD - and he agreed to give right-of-way to the City - and

what they might do in the future. Rochester Road was a State road, and

MDOT did not have any improvements planned along there. Troy

widened Rochester Road and everything that was on the wish list (6-lane

boulevard with green space and a pathway) was done within 150 feet and

there were easements for utilities. It cost them $8 million to acquire

right-of-way, and he was giving it free. He asked Mr. Delacourt what would

change on the frontage if they brought a site plan forward.

Mr. Delacourt said that the first Agreement was based on a specific set of

site plans and City Council might agree that 75-feet would work for what

was being given up on the east side. He worked with the City Engineer,

who wanted the Agreement to include the 180-feet as shown in the MTP.

When the first PUD was approved, there was discussion about whether

the 180 feet would stay in the Plan, and the City recently updated the Plan

and reaffirmed it.

Mr. Gilbert said he understood wanting free right-of-way, but he thought it

was a little “over the top.” Because of the cost, MDOT was not going to do

anything with Rochester Road, and he felt that because everything could

be done in 150 feet that it should stay in the Agreement as originally

approved. Mr. Delacourt agreed that MDOT recognized 150 feet for

Rochester Road, and that it was the City that recognized 180 feet.

Mr. Schroeder agreed that six lanes, a median, bikepath and green

space could be put in 150 feet, but they could not get Detroit Edison,

cable for t.v.’s or phone lines in, so they would have to obtain easements.

They would also need a decel lane at the intersection or an easement for

a fire hydrant.

Mr. Delacourt said that Staff would be fine if the PUD acknowledged that

appropriate easements would be granted at the time of road construction.

Mr. Schroeder suggested that they would also need grading easements,

which might mean having to take out part of the parking lot. It bothered

him that the PUD said parking could go up to the right-of-way line. Mr.

Gilbert said it was misconstrued that it would be to the property line, which

would be in the roadway. Mr. Gaber said it would go to the right-of-way

line, which was in the prior PUD. Mr. Schroeder said that would be a

problem because there were requirements, such as a berm, and they

would have to have space for the utilities. If the paving were right to the

right-of-way line, it would be difficult, and he felt that it had to be clarified.

Mr. Gilbert said they did not have a plan to present, but he assumed that

a lot of the easements were in parking lots in Troy. He hoped the lines

would be underground, so he did not see why they could not be under a

parking lot. He reminded that a lot of homes had utilities running under

the driveways. Mr. Schroeder asked if there was a setback requirement

from the road. Mr. Delacourt advised that normally, it was ten feet from

the right-of-way before the start of a parking lot.

Mr. Yukon observed that the existing PUD showed much less square

footage for retail than what was being proposed. Given the current state of

retail and even for the future, he wondered why the retail was being

increased.

Mr. Gaber said they were trying to maintain flexibility. They did not know

what the market would do in future years, and that was why they put in a

long timeframe for development. Mr. Gilbert was giving up density,

height, and setbacks as a tradeoff to get more commercial along

Rochester Road. It did not mean it necessarily would be developed that

way. If someone had a great office proposal, it could be all office. In the

original PUD, there was 35,000 square feet of office and retail combined,

with a maximum of 15,000 for retail, and they were asking for 50,000 for

commercial. Mr. Gilbert stated that there was no market for anything, and

the residents did not want to see anything, so nothing would be built this

year or probably next year. Mr. Yukon said he was asking because

having mostly commercial appeared to be the preference, and he asked

if that was correct. Mr. Gilbert said that he had no preference, and

reiterated that the market drove everything.

Mr. Yukon indicated that he did not read anything about what would

happen if they built one thing and then stopped. He asked what the City

could do so that the property was not left in disarray. Mr. Delacourt said

that all the requirements of an approved site plan would be in place.

Mr. Yukon felt that the house on the site was very important, whether it was

an historic district or not. It was a gateway to the City, and he hoped that

Mr. Gilbert would take every step possible to save it. Even if it were

eliminated as a historic district, he hoped Mr. Gilbert would try to keep it in

good shape.

Ms. Brnabic said that she had some concerns about the timeframe

proposed in the PUD. She referenced page 11B, and stated that the

Commissioners were well aware of the economic climate and market

circumstances. She questioned having five years to submit a site plan,

more time to begin construction and then being allowed to request

extensions. It concerned her that site plans could be submitted for any

portion of the project, and she was worried about getting a piecemeal

development. She thought the wording was vague, and she felt that

having 20 years to substantially complete the project was a very long

time. She understood the economy, but felt the timeframe was

unreasonable. She maintained that any other project would not be given

that long and if a plan were submitted in five years, she would want to see

a projection for the balance of the development.

Mr. Gilbert said they could talk about the timeframes and try to get more

comfortable with them, but he stated that he did not know. If a property

was Rezoned, there was no requirement that the owner had to do

something within a timeframe. The process had been one they tried to

work without specifically Rezoning to commercial, multi-family or office

and to work within a negotiated PUD. The flex zoning gave restrictions

and guidance on how things were done. They had every incentive in the

world to develop it as quickly as possible. He did not have a problem with

trying to tighten it up, but there was no way he could predict things, and

that was why they were trying to get some flexibility with which everyone

was comfortable. They did not have a site plan, although he wished he

did for the whole site.

Ms. Brnabic indicated that it was a different circumstance than if Mr.

Gilbert just owned property and decided he did not want to build, and it

could sit there. They were trying to work together to get a decently

relevant plan that might fit the City’s vision and Mr. Gilbert’s vision, but

she wanted to see it tightened up a bit. She realized that Mr. Gilbert did

not have a plan, but once he submitted one, she felt it should be

completed in a timely fashion.

Mr. Gilbert said he understood the point, but he did not know how to get

there because he did not see anything in the near future. Everything was

market and finance driven, and no one would spec build something and

abandon it. He remarked that if it did just sit there, they would just have to

keep cutting the weeds.

Chairperson Boswell acknowledged that it was a new concept and

somewhat difficult for the Commissioners to get their heads around.

Generally speaking, an applicant would come in with a plan with the PUD.

They were trying to deal with an economic situation and no one knew what

would happen. He felt that Ms. Brnabic was questioning having one

medical office built, for example, in five years and having it being the only

thing sitting there.

Mr. Delacourt explained that it was exactly the intent of the PUD. The

project could be done in phases, but each would be required to be

compatible and follow the guidelines in the PUD. It was designed to

prevent piecemeal development and as each site plan developed, it

would have to be seamless and compatible with the others.

Ms. Brnabic commented that she was having a hard time with that vision

and the fact that construction could start and stop and start and stop. The

design of the buildings might be nice, but it would still be piecemeal and

take a very long time.

Mr. Delacourt said that the revised PUD process was more individually

site planned based than the current PUD, but it would be less piecemeal

than the normal Rezoning and Site Plan process.

Ms. Brnabic maintained that there was generally a projected timeframe

for projects done in phases, and if it was not met, the applicant would be

back before the Commission to explain. She did not expect the PUD to

be done in five years, but she felt it could look unsightly if it took 20 years.

Mr. Gilbert said he understood, and he thought that no matter how it was

worded, they would be faced with a dilemma. If it was 60% done in 10

years and they had two pieces left, he felt that the Commission would

extend the project because there was not much else they could do. He

was trying to take a realistic approach and be conservative. He hoped it

was all done in ten years. The dates were arbitrary, but looking at the

situation today, there was a lot they did not anticipate. They were willing to

work with the City to tighten up some of the parameters if necessary.

Mr. Dettloff supported Ms. Brnabic and Mr. Yukon, and he noted that Mr.

Gilbert wanted to see a shorter timeframe. He encouraged that, since the

original PUD called for ten years, there was no reason why the proposal

could not hold to the same terms. He pointed out that there were

inconsistencies with the acreage - the PUD Agreement, Staff Report and

another document showed different numbers. He asked the correct

number, and Mr. Gilbert said he would find out.

The power went out at this time at City Hall (approximately 8:56 p.m.) and

Chairperson Boswell called a five-minute recess.

When the meeting resumed, Chairperson Boswell stated that since there

was no way of knowing whether the recorder was working and because

there was no ventilation in the auditorium, he would open the Public

Hearing and ask for a motion to table it. He opened the Public Hearing at

9:05 p.m.

MOTION by Hetrick, second by Schroeder, that the Rochester Hills

Planning Commission hereby tables the Public Hearing until the next

available meeting, due to the power outage.

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

Tabled. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

7 -

Absent

Hooper and Kaltsounis

2 -

Chairperson Boswell announced that the Public Hearing would be taken

up at the July 13th meeting if the process was approved by the City

Attorney, and he apologized to the audience and Commissioners.

Mr. Anzek asked people to leave their names and emails in case the

meeting had to be re-advertised.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no further business to come before the Planning Commission.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Special Meeting

would be July 13, 2010, as determined.

ADJOURNMENT

Due to the power outage, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:08

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary