Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, November 18, 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, Greg Hooper, Nathan

Klomp, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

7 -

Nicholas Kaltsounis and David Reece

Absent

2 -

Quorum Present

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2008-0580

October 21, 2008 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, Hooper, Klomp, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Reece

2 -

COMMUNICATIONS

PRESENTATION

2008-0582

Roundabouts - Presentation by Stephen Dearing of Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc.,

34935 Schoolcraft Rd., Livonia, MI 48150.

Mr. Paul Shumejko, the City’s Transportation Engineer and Mr. Dearing’s

successor at the City, was also present.

Mr. Dearing advised that he was the Manager of Traffic Engineering

Services for OHM. Prior to that, he was the City’s Traffic Engineer for ten

years. He also did a stint at the National Safety Council as a Traffic

Safety Specialist.

Mr. Dearing summarized that he would discuss why roundabouts were

good tools for mobility and reducing congestion; some of the

opportunities in terms of aesthetics, to try to make them fit into the

community; and the Northwestern connector project in West Bloomfield

and Farmington Hills. He mentioned that when it was completed, it would

represent the largest concentration of three-lane roundabouts in North

America.

Mr. Dearing stated that roundabouts were a form of a circular intersection,

which had been around since the dawn of time. They came in all shapes

and sizes; they formed pre-eminent focal points for some communities,

such as Paris, or they could be tiny and fit into neighborhoods. There

were some problems with larger circular intersections because vehicles

weaved in like they did on freeways, and in reality that did not work. By

the mid-1950’s, circular intersections fell out of favor all over the world,

and companies made a lot of money tearing them out. A lot were

converted to traditional signalized intersections. In the old way, people

using roundabouts would yield to the vehicle on the right, meaning that

anyone already in the roundabout had to yield to entering traffic. If people

were always letting traffic in and not accommodating the people that were

already in and letting them out, traffic got locked up. Folks in England

wondered why they did not work, so they put a lot of money into it and

figured it out. They had to change the rules of the road - they could not

always let traffic in and not accommodate the traffic already circulating.

Instead, entering vehicles had to yield to those circulating, and that

unlocked a lot of the problems with the old traffic circles. He showed a

picture of a traditional roundabout, which had a central island and splitter

islands on all approaches to help channelize the traffic. Vehicles were

told where they had to yield, and the pedestrians were accommodated.

Pedestrians were away from the entry point, and they would typically be

one or two cars back from the yield line. He indicated that the modern

roundabout worked very well.

Mr. Dearing next showed examples from the United States of how

versatile roundabouts could be. They could be different shapes and

could accommodate a lot of different situations. He showed one in

Okemos, Michigan, which was tied with Rochester Hills for having the first

roundabouts in Michigan. He showed one built into the side of a

mountain, with over a ten-foot drop in elevation. They could be used in

rural areas where there were no curbs. They could be dragged off center

to avoid high value property. They could be used on divided roads. He

noted that the number of entrance and exit lanes did not have to be

equal. He commented that the reason roundabouts were very valuable

was because they got at the root cause of a lot of pain and suffering in the

U.S. There were still over 40,000 people killed each year, which was 800

per week. That equated to a couple of airliners crashing a week, which

would cause a huge outcry if it happened. Even though intersections

represented a tiny fraction of the total road network, they still accounted

for over 25% of all crashes on the entire system. He advised that almost

half of all the injuries happened at intersections, and that a quarter of all

fatalities happened at the intersections. He maintained that doing

something to fix the intersections did a lot to help the community, the

region and the State.

Mr. Dearing recalled the many times while working at the City that people

said if he would only put in a signal at a certain area, that it would be safer.

Everyone believed that a traffic signal was a safety device, but he said

that was not true. A traffic signal was a control device, which could be a

detriment to a community. He showed a video clip of an intersection

accident, in which someone ran a red light and hit a pedestrian. He

stated that the fundamental problem with intersections was that people

ran red lights. He explained that safety was a function of risk, and that risk

was a function of exposure to conflicts. There was a lot of different ways

accidents were caused at intersections because a lot of cars crossed the

paths of other cars. A roundabout would simplify things by greatly

reducing the number of conflict points. The splitter islands were a safe

haven for pedestrians. A pedestrian no longer had to cross three or five

lanes of pavement without a place they could recoup, rest and judge

whether it was safe to continue. If the roundabout was done correctly,

traffic should enter slowly, circulate slowly and leave slowly. They try to

make sure there are not large speed differentials, regardless of the path.

He indicated that the smaller the roundabout the better, to be able to

control speeds.

Mr. Dearing related that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did a

study of intersections that had been reconstructed as roundabouts, and

they showed stunning reductions in crashes and injuries. The

Transportation Research Board did a study more recently, with many

additional roundabouts, and the numbers were almost identical. There

was a 40% reduction in total crashes; 76% in injuries; and close to 90% in

fatalities. He reiterated that splitter islands were a safe haven, and that

they lessened the time someone was exposed to traffic in an intersection.

A standard five-lane road had 60 feet of pavement, and that was a long

time to be hanging out there. The splitter island meant that the time

exposed to traffic was shorter. He noted that pedestrian safety was very

important because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was

driving a lot of the discussion about it.

Mr. Dearing showed a video made by Paul Smith, a local radio newsman,

which talked about and explained how to use roundabouts using

drawings. The video included roundabouts from the immediate area,

including those in Rochester Hills. Mr. Smith concluded that the

information by the Road Commission for Oakland County could be

obtained on the internet.

Mr. Dearing next talked about congestion at intersections. When it was

severe, people tended to wonder how many cycles of green it would take

to get through a light. The nice thing about roundabouts was that they

processed a lot of traffic, sometimes at higher thru-put rates than a signal

was capable. He did a case study for Hamlin and Livernois, where a

roundabout is to be installed in 2009. The City planned to put in a

boulevard on Hamlin from Crooks to Livernois. To get the intersection to

work properly, they would need a crossover on the east side of the

intersection to handle the east to west u-turn, and they would have to

boulevard a 1/4 mile stretch of Livernois north and south of the

intersection to get in those crossovers. They originally envisioned a

signal-controlled intersection and the adjacent crossovers would all be

signalized, so that would be five signals in total. They would have needed

66 parcels of land, and the total project cost, including the boulevard,

would be $19.5 million. That included the design, right-of-way and

construction costs. The project had been identified years ago, but there

were funding delays. Costs kept escalating, and property owners wanted

more for right-of-way, so they decided to look at it again and they

wondered if a roundabout would work. They found out that they would not

need to involve 66 parcels of land; they would only need 46. Even though

they had to re-engineer the intersection because the boulevard design

was done, the savings went down about $2 million for everything.

Mr. Yukon asked Mr. Shumejko how traffic would be routed during

construction. Mr. Schumejko advised that there would be several

different phases. Because they had to build the boulevard in halves, for a

while it would be two-way traffic, and they would build a temporary road on

the south side while they constructed the north half of the boulevard.

There would be a period where Hamlin would have to be one way. The

final phase would be to build the roundabout. When that happened,

Hamlin would actually be closed, and there would just be north-south

Livernois usage. The roundabout would shorten about a month off the

construction time, and they would not have to use temporary staged

signals.

Mr. Dearing noted that the intersection did not work well during the peak

evening hours, and there were long delays. If they did nothing with the

traffic growth, it would get a lot worse. The roundabout would give better

operations, lower delays, there would be fewer parcels disrupted and it

would lower the cost, which, he felt, was a classic win-win. He said,

however, that it was not a silver bullet. Roundabouts were just a tool to be

used in the right locations for the right reasons. They worked best if there

were safety problems, and the traffic on the two roads had relatively

balanced flows. They could be used in local roads and collector roads.

They worked at the section of two arterial roads, such as Hamlin and

Livernois, which had the same traffic loads. They should not be at a

location where an arterial intersects with a local street for obvious reasons

of imbalance.

Mr. Dearing indicated that roundabouts would be more expensive to build

but cost much less to operate. He showed a roundabout in North

Carolina that used to be a five-lane intersection that went to a one-lane

roundabout, and freed up space for parking and other amenities for the

downtown business area. They did not need as much pavement to store

vehicles while waiting for their green signal phase.

Mr. Dearing showed a schematic of the roundabout areas in Farmington

Hills. The Road Commission subsequently found that building a six-lane

boulevard on Orchard Lake Road was no longer financially prudent.

They had counted on getting a lot of right-of-way donated, and there were

no business owners willing to do that it in today’s climate. He had been

told that the roundabouts, however, had cut anywhere from ten to twenty

minutes off the commute. Mr. Klomp said he could attest to that, as he

traveled that route, and he agreed that it was much better.

Mr. Dearing had done another case study for the City’s new Master

Thoroughfare Plan, which looked at the intersection of Auburn and

Rochester roads. The traditional way to solve the traffic problems there

would be to throw a lot of pavement at it. He had heard that people liked

the improvement at Tienken and Rochester, and he said they could “put

that on steroids” and that would be what was needed at Auburn and

Rochester. They would need one more thru lane in all directions, and

eastbound could probably use a dual right to go south to the freeway.

The pedestrian would have to cross eight or nine lanes of pavement. If

traffic were off peak, pedestrians would probably drive how long cars

waited for the green. He felt that boulevards could do wonders, and they

looked at a six-lane boulevard along Rochester Road, and it was also

suggested that a three-lane roundabout connecting to five-lane roads

might work. They took the image from the Northwestern connector project

along Maple Road and put it over Rochester and Auburn. If it was the

design solution the City and State wanted to closely look at, they would

have to decide if they wanted to buy all four corners of the intersection or if

they should drag it off center, where it would be a total take from one or two

corners. He discussed having a four-lane boulevard with a 35-foot

median with a series of roundabouts along Rochester Rd. north of

Auburn. All of the driveways would become right-in, right-out, and that

would make it a significantly safer road by eliminating left turn conflicts.

Mr. Anzek asked how close curb cuts to businesses on corners could get

before they started to interfere with the flow of a roundabout. He asked if

any standards had been published. Mr. Dearing said that nothing had

been published, but that the rules of thumb were starting to develop. He

had mentioned that they wanted a pedestrian crossing to be one or two

car lengths from the yield line. They would also want to get a driveway at

least two car lengths from the ped crossing. If there was a driveway that

close, they should extend the splitter island so the driveway was a right-in,

right-out only.

Mr. Anzek thought that the corner businesses might have to be right-in,

right-out only because of the splitters. Mr. Dearing said there could still

be driveways relatively close to a roundabout, but if they were particularly

close to the pedestrian crossing, they would have to be restricted. Mr.

Anzek said that he hoped that someone on the site would have enough

maneuverability to exit the same side they came in, which would allow

them to get into the roundabout and make a choice. Mr. Dearing

indicated that corner parcels would want to have driveways on the

approach and departure side of a roundabout. That would give the most

flexibility in terms of maneuvering. He commented that once people

started using roundabouts, that they would start using them in a more

inventive manner.

Mr. Dearing noted that Rochester Hills had six roundabouts - two in

Country Club Village, one at Firewood and Raintree; one at Falcon and

Coachwood; at Tienken and Sheldon and at Tienken/Washington/

Runyon. He pronounced that no other city had that. Mr. Dettloff asked if

there was an example of a poorly designed roundabout. He had always

heard things about the one at 18 ½ and Van Dyke. Mr. Dearing noted

that it was a composite - east-west was two lanes and north-south was

three lanes. It was actually a test bed for MDOT because they were

continually modifying it. A month ago, they changed all the pavement

markings and prior to that, they changed many of the signs. They rebuilt

the center island to lift it and put in landscaping. They were talking about

other changes, so it was hard to point at it and say it was a poor design

because it kept changing. It was, however, working so well that in less

than a year, it was carrying more traffic than they thought would be carried

in 30 years. It was carrying so much that traffic on 18 and 19 Mile had

gone down because people preferred to use 18 ½ Mile. There were more

fender benders, but no injuries. He remarked that in terms of casualties

and safety, it was a resounding success. It was hardest for truckers to

learn to use it, but they were finally learing.

Mr. Yukon noted that the markings for a three-lane roundabout started

almost as the cars were entering the roundabout. He asked if there would

be markings further back, which he thought would be much less

confusing. Mr. Dearing said that at 18 ½ Mile, there were no lane

markings particularly far back. When they built the roundabouts for the

Northwestern area, the markings would be much further away. There

would be much more traffic than at 18 ½ Mile. Their thought was that they

had to train the drivers well, and they would add lane assignment signs

directly overhead. They did not think they would be needed forever, but

they would help train the drivers.

Mr. Schroeder noted that Northwestern came in right above the 14 Mile

roundabout, and he asked how that worked, traffic-wise. Mr. Dearing said

it was challenging to design. Northwestern Hwy. intersected with Orchard

Lake Rd., and it would be under signal control. 14 Mile Rd. went straight

across Northwestern. It would be interrupted, and the east leg would be

made to curve to the south and tee in. Instead of one intersection with a

high skew, they would turn it into two intersections. If people were

westbound on 14 Mile and they wanted to continue westbound, they would

drive by the middle school, the road would curve to the left and they would

come into a tee intersection with Northwestern and have to turn right and

get into a left-turn pocket to left turn back onto 14 Mile, go through the

roundabout and keep going. The 14 Mile intersections would be

signalized; Northwestern and Orchard Lake would be signalized; and

Orchard and 14 Mile would still be a roundabout. They figured out how

much pavement would be needed for the roundabout and all the

approaches, and how to time the signals that close to a roundabout and

still make everything work.

Ms. Brnabic asked what was recently changed at the roundabout at 18 ½

Mile, and Mr. Dearing said that most recently, it was the pavement

markings. Ms. Brnabic said she asked her son about it because he

traveled through it five days a week, and it was his opinion that the biggest

problem was getting in the proper lane. People tended to swerve in front

of each other. It depended on the day - some days things went smoothly,

and other days it looked like mass confusion. She felt it was a good idea

that they were experimenting with it.

Mr. Hooper asked if there was a maximum peak hour or the time

roundabouts max out. Mr. Dearing said that there were a handful of

roundabouts in England that were handling about 9,000 vehicles an hour.

At 14 Mile and Orchard Lake, with three lanes in and three lanes out, the

roundabout was designed to handle 8,000 an hour. That was supposed to

represent traffic flows to the year 2025. Since then, they had learned that

the economy was still poor and SEMCOG had revised the growth forecast

for the region to show that there was a loss of population and jobs, and

they did not think the roundabout would get that kind of traffic within the

next 30 or 40 years. Mr. Hooper said that the biggest complaint he heard

about Hamlin and Livernois was that if it was successful but Livernois and

Hamlin backed up, the traffic would fill the roundabout and it would come

to a gridlock. No one would go anywhere because the capacity going

north and east was not there, and traffic would still be backed up at Avon

and Livernois Mr. Dearing clarified that Mr. Hooper meant that the

Hamlin and Livernois intersection would be great, but they would just be

moving the problem. Mr. Dearing stated that they could do several

roundabouts for the cost of widening one mile of a two-lane road to five

lanes. Mr. Shumejko added that the signal timings would change at the

other intersections upstream and downstream.

Mr. Schroeder asked what would happen if they overbuilt a roundabout

with too many lanes. He felt that could create problems. Mr. Dearing

said that was what the Road Commission was finding out. They were

thinking about putting in a bituminous curb and hiding some of the

pavement and taking it to two lanes.

Mr. Klomp commented that roundabouts were more efficient, they cost

less, they were safer, and it seemed that the City should be putting them

in at every intersection. He asked why they were not doing more

intersections as roundabouts. Mr. Dearing expressed that a lot of people

were afraid of change. The first one done in Rochester Hills was on the

border of the Historic District and also involved the City of Rochester.

There was opposition to the roundabout, but afterwards, people said it was

a good thing. Everywhere it was surveyed, there was an overwhelming

percentage of public opposition to a roundabout that usually translated

into overwhelming support after they were built and operating for a year.

Mr. Klomp thought that if someone zipped through the intersection at

Hamlin and Livernois and got stuck at the next intersection, that they

would wish it was a roundabout. Mr. Dearing noted that in New York State,

the State DOT recently adopted a policy that said any location that

otherwise met the warrants for the installation of a traffic signal had to be

looked at as a roundabout first. They had to justify why a roundabout

would not work before they could put in a signal. The Maryland DOT had

been a pioneer in using roundabouts in rural areas with high-speed state

highways. There was a national roundabout conference in Kansas City.

Kansas and Missouri were very proud that they became focal points for

roundabouts and even published a hard cover book. He stated that it was

amazing how everyone was vying for roundabouts and trying to have the

prettiest aesthetics. He suggested that they could be dressed up and

used as gateways to the community.

Mr. Delacourt had heard of a subdivision that was converting all the 4-way

stops to smaller roundabouts. At first there was enormous opposition

from the neighbors, so they were put in on a temporary basis using paver

blocks. They were such a success that they were made permanent. A lot

of the neighborhoods agreed to SADs to have them put in an entire

subdivision. Mr. Dearing agreed they worked very well as a

traffic-calming feature in a neighborhood setting.

Mr. Anzek referred to the roundabout at Tienken and Runyon. He asked

the basis for improving that intersection - for example, if it had a high

accident rate. Mr. Dearing explained that there was development going

in, and they had to decide about the roads’ priorities, and they had to

come up with an intersection they did not have to throw away when

Washington got paved. A roundabout did not care which road had a

higher functionality as long as the traffic was relatively balanced, so it

made a lot of sense.

Ms. Brnabic referred to Rochester south of Auburn, and said there were

two lights, including one by Lowe’s. She felt that was a real plus for the

area, but she noted that the traffic backed up to South Boulevard because

of M-59. She asked if a roundabout for safety was the main issue,

because there were certain circumstances in that area that would remain.

Mr. Dearing said that before Tienken and Rochester was improved, the

roundabout at Sheldon was put in. It was not uncommon for traffic at the

intersection to back up through the roundabout. In spite of that, the

roundabout worked pretty well. Drivers could see the backups and they

tried to stay out of the roundabouts long enough to make sure other

people could circulate. As soon as it was green at Rochester and they

could start clearing, the roundabout did its job well to get the traffic

cleared out. He agreed that a roundabout could gridlock, but it unclogged

very quickly. A roundabout at Auburn and Rochester made a lot of sense

because it was one of the highest crash locations in the City and County,

and it was on the Federal Highway watch list as a safety problem for

Michigan. It had a lot of congestion and long backups, and a roundabout

would go a long way in resolving those issues. There would still be

intermediate signalized intersections like at the Lowe’s driveway. It would

not be the end of the world if traffic signals got mistimed and traffic at the

Lowe’s driveway backed up into the roundabout because it would unclog

very quickly. In a traditional signalized setting of a grid network, gridlock

would propagate. Roundabouts facilitated that because of how fast they

could process traffic through them. Ms. Brnabic said that it seemed that

simple measures could be taken to eliminate confusion.

Mr. Dearing said there was another kind of delay called “incident driven

delay.” That included the time it took to clear crashes off the road quickly.

He had driven through the roundabout at 18 ½ Mile while policemen were

there dealing with an accident, and the roundabout still worked. That was

not seen at a signalized intersection. He stressed that he could not say

enough about having a roundabout at Auburn and Rochester. There was

a fatality every other year, and roundabouts did a remarkable job dealing

with severe collisions.

Mr. Klomp asked if there were any studies that looked at intersections with

regard to people traveling them on a regular basis versus people using

them infrequently. He drove the roundabouts on Maple and noticed that

for the first couple of months, people were stopping and going in the

wrong lanes, but after awhile, they started to figure it out.

Mr. Dearing said that Mr. Klomp had described the learning curve. There

had been a few studies looking at the learning curve for roundabouts. It

was faster and a more positive experience when it was a commuter route,

and the same people used it day in and day out. Another thing that came

up was that one-lane roundabouts came across as far more intuitive to

drivers than two or three-lane roundabouts. Quite a number of areas in

the U.S. were starting to use roundabouts that were recreational-driven. A

lot of the ski areas in Colorado had one-lane roundabouts, and they

found that the tourists were getting around them pretty well. Florida had a

lot of one-lanes, and they seemed to be very driver-friendly.

Mr. Schroeder asked Mr. Dearing if the County or State had plans for

roundabouts in areas other than he had discussed. Mr. Dearing said

there was a long list. In the spring, construction would start at M-53 at 26

Mile for a roundabout at the freeway interchange. Marquette would have

one. There would be a couple in Commerce Township. Macomb County

was talking about several locations. It was hard to get the funding, though.

There was a funding source called CEMAQ - Congestion, Mitigation and

Air Quality. In the past, CEMAQ paid for things like adding transit service

(buying busses). CEMAQ money could be used for upgrading and

optimizing signals or adding turn lanes. Recently, SEMCOG agreed to

use CEMAQ money to pay for 100% of a roundabout for the City of Ann

Arbor . He remarked that the competition, of course, was fierce. He

concluded that the Feds were starting to recognize the value of

roundabouts and the improvement to air quality.

This matter was Discussed

DISCUSSION

2008-0581

Zoning Ordinance Re-write: Continue discussion regarding draft, if needed.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated November 18,

2008, and draft Zoning Ordinance, dated June 10, 2008, prepared by

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

became part of the record thereof.)

Mr. Anzek noted that the Technical Committee had been working on the

re-write for some time. It was about 95% complete, but they found that the

Articles regarding form-based zoning and the Regional Employment

Center (REC) were complicated and cumbersome to apply. He asked a

local design firm to test various sites using the form-base, and it did not

work. They were still trying to simplify it, but they wanted to move forward

because there were people who were waiting to build in the community

and the codes were not in place. They wanted to bring the Zoning

Ordinance forward, but they thought that the REC should be done after

they completed an M-59 corridor study, which was scheduled for next

year. That would help them define space, height, bulk and other

arrangements. They wanted the form-base completed for the Rochester

Road corridor in case some projects such as Bordine’s came forward. He

thought that the new Ordinance was considerably different than what the

Commissioners were used to. They would go over some of the changes,

continue the discussion at the next meeting, and have a Public Hearing

on December 16th.

Mr. Delacourt summarized that the Ordinance had been reviewed

throughout by the Technical Committee, which was made up of City

Council, Planning Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals members,

staff and McKenna Associates, Inc. He stated that 80% of the Ordinance

did what it always had. The major changes were the new districts,

including the Estate Zoning districts for parcels over an acre. There were

new Flexible Business districts, but that Article was still being discussed,

as Mr. Anzek mentioned. The biggest process changes dealt with the

Site Plan review. It formalized the approval and allowed for a two-step

approval. Someone could still go through a one-step approval if they

wanted to do complete plans up front.

Mr. Anzek recalled that there were requests by applicants to go in front of

the Planning Commission to discuss projects prior to going through the

high cost of doing extensive engineering. They wanted to know that there

would be support for their project, and applicants would be able to come

in front of the Commission with a conceptual plan. He had heard from

several Commissioners that they felt they could do a better job if they

could have seen the project more at the beginning. It was difficult to

suggest changes when so much of the work was completed. This process

would give the opportunity to raise questions about buffering, movement

on the site or other issues.

Mr. Delacourt continued that the site plan review process defined what

was allowed in an administrative approval and incorporated a sketch plan

approval for minor modifications. It included a table showing what was

required for each process. He referred to Article 4, Chapter 3, and said

that uses were no longer identified in each zoning district, but were put

into one table. There was a chapter for exterior lighting added. There was

a chapter on sustainable energy. The parking section was revamped to

more easily allow redevelopment of parcels, anticipated for the industrial

and office districts. There were standards for banked parking included,

and tables and percentages for shared parking. Landscaping had been

updated. The REC would not be brought forward yet, but they would

modify the PUD section to include a clause about using PUDs to meet

the goals and objectives of the REC as identified in the Master Plan. He

advised that there had been flexibility written into the Light Industrial

district as it related to front yard setbacks. He asked that the

Commissioners send him any suggestions in writing so he would have it

well in advance of the Public Hearing. He added that along with the

re-write to the Ordinance, there would be zoning map amendments. Staff

was evaluating what properties might have zoning changes, and the map

would be adopted along with the Zoning Ordinance. He did not feel the

map would be ready by the Public Hearing in December, however.

Mr. Anzek said it was obvious that if something was currently zoned

commercial and the Master Plan called for it to be office and they

rezoned it office, that it would create a nonconforming, pre-existing

situation. They were trying to sort that out. He and Mr. Delacourt met with

Mr. Staran, and had a very good discussion about Michigan’s law and

what would happen if a parcel were down-zoned. He asked if it would be a

taking if someone enjoyed commercial zoning and the parcel became

residential or office, and Mr. Staran assured that under Michigan law it

was not. A person just had to be entitled to reasonable use of the

property. In Florida, it was the opposite. If a parcel was zoned, it was

vested, and a city could be sued for taking. There were some sites he felt

the City should initiate a rezoning. Someone might complain, but if they

did not have any plans, they did not have a vested right. He mentioned

the asphalt plant on Avon Industrial Drive. It was the only I-2, Heavy

Industrial activity in the City. The new Zoning Ordinance eliminated I-2

and just had a district called Industrial. He asked if that should be

rezoned, because if they left it as I-2, there was no I-2 basis to do

anything. That was something they were also sorting out.

Mr. Schroeder asked if green building was being incorporated. Mr.

Delacourt said that the LEED program was more of a building code. The

Master Plan had language that asked developers to consider the LEED

program and green building. There were sections in the Ordinance that

talked about utilization, but there was nothing that required it.

Mr. Schroeder asked if they were going to incorporate a Master

Right-of-Way Plan. Mr. Anzek said it would be done as part of the Master

Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Schroeder said that the Commission had

modified buffer requirements and allowed an applicant to put in a green

wall. The applicants were told that if it became necessary, they might

have to put in a regular wall in the future, but there was not a formal

process for that in the Ordinance. Mr. Delacourt believed that the new

landscaping section defined the buffering requirements with more

flexibility, but he said he would look at it again.

Mr. Schroeder referred to sidewalks and bikepaths, which had been

waived for an applicant until they were needed in the future. He thought

that should be formally covered or the City would never get them.

Ms. Brnabic asked if the zoning map would be adopted after the

Ordinance. Mr. Delacourt said they had to go hand in hand. He

indicated that there might have to be multiple Public Hearings for

different components, but he was sure that the Ordinance could be not

adopted without the map. Ms. Brnabic recalled that there were some

residential areas rezoned; for example off of Livernois, they went from an

R-4 to an R-3. Mr. Delacourt said that the Master Plan did not change the

designation - it identified the density within certain neighborhoods. Staff

was not proposing to rezone whole neighborhoods because of the

non-conformance it would cause for the existing homeowners. Mr. Anzek

said that the only whole residential areas they were looking at were R-1

areas going to Estate. Mr. Delacourt said that Ms. Brnabic was talking

about the area around Hazelton, where the parcels were zoned R-4 but

the existing parcel sizes were more like a half-acre or three-quarters of an

acre. Ms. Brnabic said that they discussed doing that to protect the

integrity of the area because they saw what was being built. It might have

been zoned R-4, but it was not built based upon that zoning. She asked

what purpose it would serve to keep it zoned R-3 on the Master Plan and

R-4 in the Zoning Ordinance. She did not believe there was a developer

who would volunteer to build according to the Master Plan. Mr. Delacourt

said that the Master Plan did not recommend R-3 or R-4; it said that the

existing area was developed at three or four units per acre. Those

identifications were not recommended zoning districts. There was some

concern about redeveloping those areas as R-4, but the Master Plan did

not recommend rezoning those areas to R-3. Ms. Brnabic said that there

had been many discussions over the years about the fact that the areas

probably should have been rezoned to coincide with how they were

developed. Mr. Anzek suggested that at the next meeting, they could

discuss it further.

Mr. Dettloff asked about Mr. Breuckman’s comment about the Ordinance

being user-friendly. He wondered if Mr. Breuckman was referring to the

language changes so that if someone came in to do a project it painted a

clearer picture and if some of the gray areas had been left out.

Mr. Anzek said that the City had wrestled with the current Zoning

Ordinance for a long time. The Code Enforcement officers and the

Building Department also had. Unfortunately, to make something

clearer, it took more words, and the document was much thicker. He felt

that there was much less legalese, and it was more in layman’s terms. He

thought it would be easier to apply. He said he had been involved with

about 12 Zoning Ordinances in his career, and if history had any lessons,

they would be back in six to nine months with revisions because of

something they did not anticipate.

Mr. Hooper asked if there could be a chart showing what activity required

a Public Hearing. He asked about eliminating side yards for people

redeveloping in Olde Towne (C-1, Commercial Improvement district). Mr.

Delacourt said that B-2 (what was used to redevelop C-1) already allowed

zero interior side yard setbacks. Mr. Hooper wondered if it could be

loosened up somewhat to help the redevelopment of Olde Towne. He

asked if they could add language for protecting the natural features

setback area, such as requiring a rock wall (physical boundary). Mr.

Anzek agreed that those worked better than other boundaries they had

used. Mr. Hooper noticed that parking space widths went to nine feet.

They had already dropped it to 10 by 18 feet and now it was 9 by 18. Mr.

Anzek believed they were focusing that size for employee intensive areas

in the industrial areas. They were running into problems when the

manufacturing parks changed to R&D, and they thought it might work in

those areas. They would still keep visitor spaces at 10 by 18. Mr. Hooper

did not see a separate category, and only saw 9 by 18 spaces as the

standard. He suggested that they might need another table. He noted

that the Commission encouraged the use of green buffering, and he went

over the table in the Ordinance, but he did not really see that, and he

asked if Ms. Dinkins (City’s Landscape Architect) had come up with the

description for buffering. Mr. Delacourt said it was Ms. Dinkins and Mr.

Breuckman. Mr. Hooper said he would like something in the Ordinance

to make buffering easier to interpret.

Mr. Dettloff asked when Mr. Anzek would anticipate the Ordinance being

adopted. Mr. Anzek thought there would have to be several meetings with

Council also, and he hoped it would be late February or early March.

This matter was Discussed

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 Regular Meeting was

scheduled for December 2, 2008.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Mr. Schroeder, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:50

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary