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, February 23, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Special Study Meeting to ordere at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Eugene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

Quorum present‎

Also present; Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Penny Papke, Planning Technician‎

Katherine Beebe, Katherine Beebe & Associates‎

Barry Murray, JJR, Inc‎.‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1937

November ‎24‎, ‎1998 ‎Special Study Session‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, supported by Krupa, that the Minutes dated ‎

November ‎24‎, ‎1998‎, be accepted as submitted‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Nowicki, Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ December, ‎1998‎ issue of PLANNING & ZONING NEWS‎.‎

B‎.‎ Article on the Three Myths of Growth‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1823

Master Land Use Plan Update ‎- ‎Review Recommendations for Auburn‎/‎Adams ‎

Area‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser noted for the record that the Planning Commission has been in the ‎

process of looking at the current Master Land Use Plan for the last ‎18 ‎months ‎

with the goal of deciding what if any, updating it needs‎. ‎The study session is ‎

basically informational and no decisions will be made this evening by the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎

Recommendations for Auburn‎/‎Adams Area‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe and Mr‎. ‎Barry Murray then discussed the recommendations for the ‎

Auburn‎/‎Adams area‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe added that the draft report being presented this evening on this area has its ‎

own set of findings and recommendations related to the Auburn‎/‎Adams area‎. ‎Any ‎

formal action with the report will take place after the approval of the Master Land ‎

Use Plan‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe said that the Auburn‎/‎Adams area is bordered on the north by M‎-‎59‎, on the ‎

south by Auburn Road, on the east by Crooks and on the west by Adams‎. ‎In order ‎

to address the large number of issues in this area it has been divided into seven sub ‎

areas‎.‎

Area One‎

Area one is in the northeast section of the community and is an area that feeds off the ‎

north end of Devondale‎. ‎This area comprises ‎32 ‎acres and it has existing wetland ‎

which makes the proposed linkage coming in from Crooks difficult‎. ‎The linkage ‎

through the light industrial would allow for the redevelopment of business park use‎. ‎

Issues include the lack of a linkage to Crooks Road and the businesses that are ‎

located in the area currently are serviced principally by Devondale Road so there is a ‎

lot of truck traffic that comes through the residential community and travels north into ‎

the business area‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe noted that this is one of the better areas for new business development and ‎

it is hard to realize this potential given the existing circulation system‎. ‎Within the ‎

recommendations and next steps within this report it will be recommended that the city ‎

go ahead and create this linkage which would provide the road infrastructure that is ‎

necessary in order to open the area up for higher business development‎. ‎Crooks ‎

Road is going to be widened and will increase the attractiveness of the area for ‎

business locations‎.‎

The recommended alternative for this area is the approach of looking at these ‎

business development areas within the current master plan as light industrial ‎

designation, ORT designation and the mixed‎-‎use nonresidential designation‎. ‎A ‎

recommendation will be made to put all of these together in one type of master plan ‎

district or use which provides for similar light industrial, office and technology uses‎. ‎

Another recommendation is for a minimum parcel size of four acres lots‎. ‎This is an ‎

approach that is adopted from infill residential development which provides for a ‎

minimum parcel size‎. ‎This approach could then be applied to the larger areas that ‎

could be in business use‎. ‎The master plan would then provide for a policy that would ‎

encourage reuse for business development purposes only if there were larger acreage ‎

lots‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe indicated that for the Auburn‎/‎Adams area a number of the current issues in ‎

terms of land use are the result of this area being an older part of the community and ‎

the original plat laying out smaller lots with residential uses‎. ‎Over time with this ‎

development of this part of the county in business use along the I‎-‎75 ‎corridor there is ‎

competition between the freeway visible uses between Auburn Hills and Rochester ‎

Hills as attractive areas for new business development and the older plats and the ‎

older development areas which are residential on smaller lots orienting to the mile ‎

roads‎. ‎There are two whole systems clashing which is also evident in the southern ‎

portion of Rochester Hills from Old Towne all the way across Auburn Road‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe then noted that it may be useful to look at the tax base impacts‎. ‎If the ‎

Crooks connector was made and minimum lot sizes were put in, you could begin to ‎

develop policies to see a larger business location and a higher level of tax base on the ‎

business side‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber asked about the split into four parcels instead of looking for a single user‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe explained that a minimum of four parcels lets you go either way‎. ‎The ‎

important concept is that the area is viewed as a large business use‎. ‎One parcel may ‎

unduly restrict the area‎. ‎The road issue is really critical‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked if this alternative was adopted, would a road be depicted on the ‎

Master Land Use Plan‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe said that this would not be the case, it can be done in the report and a ‎

recommendation would made‎. ‎This would be then passed along to City Council‎. ‎The ‎

1992 ‎plan provided for this linkage but it was left to the private market to create it‎. ‎

The current report suggests that this is something that the city should do‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that right now the city has a major road plan that depicts the ‎

major road network and the master plan‎. ‎In earlier master plans you did have a ‎

section that addressed collector roads throughout the community‎. ‎Right now there is ‎

no policy plan for collectors and either where they make sense they are included in the ‎

master plan update or they are provided for in some other policy document‎. ‎There ‎

needs to be a policy document on collector roads for the city‎. ‎The road being ‎

discussed has been in several master plans‎. ‎The problem is that in ‎1989 ‎collector ‎

roads were dropped out of the transportation plan‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin feels that this is an ‎

important connection that is part of an overall land use strategy for this area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser added that if someone was looking for an opportunity area, depicting the ‎

road would be appropriate‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe suggested that this could be incorporated in the section that talks about ‎

land use‎. ‎What bothers Dr‎. ‎Beebe is that the update has not dealt with any roads‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe will look into this matter‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell does not understand the issue of the four acre parcels‎. ‎How do you ‎

indicate that the parcels in this area must be a minimum of four acres?‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe said that this would first be included in the policies of the master plan but ‎

the actual instituting of the policy would come through an amendment to the zoning ‎

ordinance and it would be done for the zoned district as a way of describing reuse of ‎

existing parcels‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin explained that minimum acreage is a part of the current zoning‎. ‎

Research‎/‎Office zoning requires a minimum of ‎40 ‎acres, B‎-‎3 ‎requires a minimum of ‎5 ‎

acres and ‎400 ‎feet of frontage‎. ‎

Area Two‎

Area two covers south Auburn Road to the first of two residential communities and ‎

includes Harvey, Devondale, Midvale and Grant streets‎. ‎The area contains ‎80 ‎

existing residential homes and about ten vacant lots‎. ‎The meetings with the community ‎

pointed out a conflict between the residential use and the light industrial use to the ‎

north‎. ‎A second issue is the Auburn Road frontage being in commercial use and the ‎

concern that some pieces of this frontage do not present a good image and were not ‎

supportive of the residential behind it‎.‎

An additional issue that was raised is if it is advantageous to possibly link the four ‎

streets on the northern portion so that there is an internal loop road system for the ‎

neighborhood‎. ‎This would enable the creation of a buffer north to Area One and ‎

would create in Area Two more of a self‎-‎contained area separate from the ‎

industrial‎/‎residential community‎. ‎

Also included in this area is a parcel that fronts on Crooks Road that is in residential ‎

use north of the retail and north of the office section‎. ‎In the current plan, this area is ‎

also designated Research Office consistent with the ‎1992 ‎plan‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe indicated that the plan alternative which was considered, primarily focused ‎

on whether or not there should be continued commercial use on the Auburn Road ‎

frontage‎. ‎The recommendation made is that the area be retained in the residential use, ‎

and a loop road be created which would link the local streets on the north side and ‎

provide for some traffic within the neighborhood‎. ‎This also raises an issue for this ‎

portion of the city and in other parts of the Auburn Road frontage on how difficult it is ‎

to get in and out of the area, to get on to Auburn or to turn from Auburn into the ‎

community because of the traffic and the line of vision for making turns‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe also noted that the frontage properties are converted over time into ‎

residential use and by flipping the residential lots that are on Auburn frontage to the ‎

side streets‎. ‎This area contains large stretches of residential use on Auburn which is ‎

supportive of the uses in the rear of the area‎. ‎The commercial uses should be focused ‎

at the corners of Crooks and Adams and over time the residential use would be ‎

minimized on the residential fronts‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber asked if it is really conceivable to think that people would build houses in ‎

the areas right on Auburn Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber doesn‎’‎t see anyone building houses in ‎

this area because Auburn Road is just going to become more congested with traffic ‎

and MDOT does not have any plans for this area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber does not see this ‎

recommendation as being realistic‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe indicated that some people may acquire the property over time and will ‎

turn it into a green use‎. ‎It is possible because this has happened in other parts of the ‎

community‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Murray added that this recommendation was coupled with turning the lots to face ‎

the side streets‎. ‎There would be a side lot on the main drive which is very common ‎

throughout the region‎. ‎As an infill housing component, this actually is an opportunity in ‎

some cases for people to get into a neighborhood because the lots are not as premium ‎

as the interior lots and they might not otherwise be able to build‎. ‎As the community ‎

continues to buildout, there won‎’‎t be a lot of other opportunities and this is when these ‎

parcels will become valuable‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber also ascertained that it is a great concept to have a connector road at the ‎

north end of the streets, however, this will never happen unless an SAD is put in place‎. ‎

With all of the other capital needs in the city, this will be very low on the priority list in ‎

terms of funding‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe indicated that she understands this, but it is still important to discuss this as ‎

a policy issue and over time could be implemented‎. ‎It is part of an approach that ‎

basically indicates that a stronger decision should be made about whether the area ‎

should be residential or business development‎. ‎In order to make a better residential ‎

community the area needs to be buffered and separated from the light industrial area ‎

and in order to accomplish this you can‎’‎t have the long bowling alley type lots; it is still ‎

better to connect the lots‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber agreed that from a planning standpoint this makes sense, however, from a ‎

practical standpoint it probably won‎’‎t happen‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell added that the funds won‎’‎t be in place unless the residents take care of ‎

the issue‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Boswell also indicated that he is currently looking for a house and there ‎

are certain things he is looking for and in looking at several houses on Auburn Road ‎

that still doesn‎’‎t mean that people are going to look at this as a place to not build a ‎

home‎. ‎The idea is that what the commission would like to see not what is going to ‎

happen‎. ‎There are several places currently on Auburn Road which Mr‎. ‎Boswell is ‎

looking at because the costs are lower and the issues of M‎-‎59‎, and the traffic on ‎

Auburn Road become secondary‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser ascertained that ten years ago he would of leaned towards Mr‎. ‎Gaber‎’‎s ‎

view that houses wouldn‎’‎t be built in this location‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser no longer adopts this ‎

view for Rochester Hills‎. ‎If people want to live in Rochester Hills they will build ‎

homes very close to high traffic areas along Auburn and South Boulevard and at ‎

Crooks and Hamlin almost on top of the right‎-‎of‎-‎ways‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that this is one more option for senior citizens who need to be ‎

close to strip shopping centers, neighborhood amenities, golf courses, etc‎. ‎

Area Three‎

Area Three is known as the Leach Road area‎. ‎It comprises about ‎35 ‎acres of ‎

mixed‎-‎use‎. ‎It has long been planned for industrial use and it has been going through a ‎

long and painful transition from the residential use to the industrial use‎. ‎In the sessions ‎

with the property owners in the area there were residential representatives from the ‎

residential community on Leach Road that talked about how they still wanted to keep ‎

this area residential and how difficult it was to live in the midst of an area making a ‎

transition to light industrial‎. ‎There is a funding problem and leaving the area to ‎

private market forces not just in Rochester Hills but also in other communities‎. ‎When ‎

you have older parcels and you have to put them together to create a new use, it is ‎

very difficult to depend on the private market to do that yet there are not any ‎

resources for the public side to take care of these situations and the area becomes ‎

paralyzed‎.‎

Continuing, Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that the businesses in this area are much smaller ‎

and the area needs improved infrastructure and the potential for linking this to the ‎

corporate center to the west and making one loop road around the area should be ‎

realized‎. ‎In the recommended alternative the same policies have been affirmed that ‎

were in the ‎1992 ‎master plan except the infill policy recommendation has been added‎. ‎

The commission may want to look at implementing a minimum lot size on Leach Road ‎

which may help to speed up the transition and may make the change less painful‎. ‎

What happens is that until an investor has enough parcels to come in for the minimum ‎

parcel size, the area has to stay in the existing use‎. ‎Other than reaffirming the need ‎

for the link road the result that could be achieved would be about ‎300‎,‎000 ‎square feet ‎

of light industrial, research and development type of business which would be good for ‎

the tax base‎. ‎While the area stays in reuse with the small industrial users you are ‎

seeing little shops and landscape businesses go into the older structures you are not ‎

getting the kind of tax base that is envisioned for this section of the city‎. ‎It will take the ‎

larger parcels to achieve a larger tax base‎. ‎If there could be a financing mechanism to ‎

boost this concept, it would be helpful‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber asked about the required lot frontage for a two acre parcel and the ability ‎

to control where the two acre parcels will go‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that there are about ‎64 ‎structures in the area which would ‎

result in approximately ‎13 ‎parcels‎. ‎It would make quite a difference and those are ‎

smaller then what is in the adjacent parks which are two, three and four acre sites‎. ‎In ‎

order to achieve this you have to see the policy through from the current report ‎

recommendation to the land use plan to zoning‎. ‎It is the same process which was ‎

involved with the residential PUD that took quite a bit of research, wording and legal ‎

review‎. ‎Other communities do have infill policies that require minimum parcel sizes‎. ‎

You can also design the ordinance indicating that anyone that comes in for this change ‎

must do it in a way that it links to the other parcels, that it provides for further ‎

parceling in the future to be a minimum of two acres so that there are buffers to ‎

adjoining areas‎.‎

The infill ordinances that have been reviewed for residential use have about eight or ‎

ten different requirements and it works a lot like a PUD where you review the plan ‎

and apply standards‎. ‎The most difficult issue on this type of proposal is the minimum ‎

lot size‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that in Figure ‎9 ‎of the proposal, other alternatives may need to ‎

be explored for the road layout in case some of the actual connections might not be ‎

able to be made exactly where they are shown‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Murray added that the issues about easements between the buildings and the ‎

grades in this area have been discussed‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe indicated that there would be another written policy and an illustrative plan ‎

that shows how it might look with the final layout and location being done when the ‎

plan comes through‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero then asked if an assumption can be made that developers can come in ‎

and assemble parcels in order to achieve this goal and is there a chance that this area ‎

would become run down because people could not improve the businesses that are ‎

currently located in the area‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe said that the developers would have to come in and assemble the parcels ‎

and this section would not become any more run down then the area currently is‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎

Beebe noted that the slides which were presented indicated that the area was in pretty ‎

poor shape‎. ‎Implementation of the assemblage of parcels would make the area more ‎

attractive‎.‎

Area Four‎

Area Four contains the south side of Auburn Road; this leg of Auburn was added in ‎

order to deal with the north and south side together in terms of the retail use‎. ‎This ‎

section is currently three blocks long and it is in mixed‎-‎use‎. ‎The first block that is ‎

closest to Adams has a church, two businesses and a gas station in addition to an alley ‎

that runs to the south and dips around into the residential properties and goes out to ‎

Crooks Road‎. ‎The second block contains three vacant parcels and five residential ‎

parcels‎. ‎The third block contains a vacant parcel, three residential parcels and three ‎

parcels that are in two retail uses‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that after looking at this area, the south side of Auburn Road ‎

contains all residential use‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe would like to see the frontage properties for the ‎

second two blocks converted through the master plan policies to residential use by ‎

flipping the lots in a way that they access directly to the side streets‎. ‎The center block ‎

is currently in residential use and the third block that would affect the two local ‎

businesses currently in the area‎. ‎The first block would encompass increased parcel ‎

sizes, keeping the retail on the corner and taking the parcel on Adams immediately ‎

south of the gas station with conversion to a retail use so that there is a dogleg shape ‎

which makes for a better parcel size for more modern retail‎. ‎This in turn will ‎

strengthen the first block for retail and will convert blocks two and three to residential ‎

use for the frontage‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber noted that one of the issues in previous discussions that was raised was the ‎

possibility of moving to more modern commercial for this area‎. ‎in in order to ‎

accomplish the depths of the lots would have to be increased to make this concept ‎

feasible‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe said that this would be accomplished by adding the L‎-‎shaped parcel on the ‎

south side‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber then inquired about not doing the same thing for the next two blocks ‎

instead of converting this area to residential do something similar with the first block ‎

and continuing the commercial‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that the first block is on the intersection so it is a more highly ‎

trafficked corner‎. ‎It makes more sense for this area to be in commercial use‎. ‎In ‎

addition to this, the alleyways which already exist in this area provide for this kind of a ‎

parceling‎. ‎The idea behind this is that the retail at the corner gets fixed up and then at ‎

the first street this would stop and move to residential use along the frontage‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber indicated that essentially it makes more sense because of the configuration ‎

of the one block but not the other two‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe said that this is correct‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber ‎

pointed out that you could really go either way obviously, because the other two areas ‎

are mixed commercial‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe indicated that in the long run you want to fix healthy retail nodes at the ‎

corners and that the frontage in between those nodes would then convert to the less ‎

intense residential use‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber then suggested the idea of paralleling the increase of depth to the north like ‎

the south‎.‎

Area Five‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe then discussed Area Five‎. ‎Area Five is probably the most difficult area ‎

that the team has had to deal with‎. ‎It is also a difficult area to discuss in terms of land ‎

use‎. ‎One of the issues city‎-‎wide is the need to increase the business tax base‎. ‎When ‎

you look at the entire City of Rochester Hills and the freeway system, the planned ‎

road widenings and the existing newer uses, this residential community which includes ‎

York, Avalon and St‎. ‎Clair, is one that if it was starting in a green field would be a ‎

light industrial area‎. ‎What the city has in the community is approximately ‎34 ‎residential ‎

units that are chiefly owner‎-‎occupied, a few properties that are vacant and a real ‎

commitment on part of the residents that are there to retain the residential‎. ‎If in master ‎

plan terms you should look over time to the future and say this area should become a ‎

different use from the current residential and move to a business use or if it should be ‎

reenforced as the existing residential over time and retained as a residential ‎

community‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe feels it is important to make a decision about this as part of the report being ‎

discussed and the Master Land Use Plan Update process‎. ‎One of the concerns that ‎

was voiced at the workshop sessions with the property owners from the area was that ‎

they did not want to become another Leach Road area‎. ‎When you look at the painful ‎

transition of Leach Road over time, it has been difficult for the development ‎

community, the city, the property owners to achieve the long range plans for Leach ‎

Road that were initiated in the ‎1980‎'s‎. ‎It is one thing to put it into the master plan and ‎

another thing to get it there‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe added that another thing to keep in mind as ‎

the issues are looked at is timing and the ability to update five years from now‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe recommended that Area Five be retained as a residential community and ‎

that it is an important part of the update process‎. ‎This issue warrants discussion by ‎

the commission his evening‎. ‎The retail use on the north side would be converted for ‎

the two blocks that parallel the area‎. ‎It is recommended that the south side be ‎

residential‎. ‎The first block will remain in retail use‎. ‎It has also been recommended ‎

that the frontage along Adams be planned for office development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber asked if the depth of the retail parcel on the corner is going to be kept‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe indicated that the parcel is going to be left as it is‎. ‎You could add the one ‎

vacant lot north of the site and allow for a closing of the alley to expand it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber then asked if it is really feasible to redevelop this area into some type of ‎

modern commercial, like the south block‎. ‎It seems like the same argument would ‎

apply both north and south‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe added that it is hard to be consistent; she would rather see that property go ‎

toward the business use in order to utilize the large parcel and using the frontage on ‎

Adams‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber mentioned that it was indicated earlier that the corners are the idea place ‎

for the modern commercial development‎. ‎So, as opposed to having the Coney Island ‎

you could develop some type of more modern, larger commercial to better serve the ‎

needs of the area then if you had a possible expansion to the north‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe said that this could be done and that she will look into it‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe has ‎

really been focused on making the strip a comfortable area for the office use and it ‎

may make sense to put these together‎. ‎This concept would also incorporate the alley‎.‎

In regard to the other issues and the whole concept of the area retaining the ‎

residential versus going to business use, Mr‎. ‎Gaber thinks this make sense and gets ‎

back to the implementation issue; you don‎’‎t look at just the ideal scenario and the end ‎

product you also have to take into account the planning and the implementation and ‎

what is being done in this case‎. ‎The city does not want a scenario like Leach Road‎. ‎

The commission must consider the implementation issues and this causes the ‎

consultant to recommend that the area should maintain the residential character that it ‎

currently has‎. ‎To a certain extent implementation issues must be considered you can‎’‎t ‎

look at the area as a static plan without considering how the plan will be implemented‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber also brought up the issue of the lots along Auburn Road that are currently ‎

commercial and converting these lots to residential is going to be extremely difficult‎. ‎

Who is going to want to take a hit to rezone a property from commercial to ‎

residential‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell, agreeing with Mr‎. ‎Gaber, said that the commercial use on this corner ‎

should be a little deeper then it is to match the other side of the street and to give the ‎

opportunity for some type of a quality development in the future development‎. ‎This ‎

area is very cohesive and interesting neighborhood‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Boswell would like to see the ‎

city some how help this area to stay residential and not give into any pressures for ‎

change‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked for an explanation on achieving consistency of this area with the ‎

area to the south‎. ‎What does the recommended plan propose and what is Mr‎. ‎Gaber ‎

and Mr‎. ‎Boswell advocating?‎

Mr‎. ‎Murray ascertained that the lot on the south side and south of the frontage lots are ‎

being added to the retail area and similarly the vacant lot on the north side on Adams ‎

Road is being added to the frontage on Auburn‎. ‎In both cases, this would increase ‎

the dimension along the Adams frontage to make larger lots where more modern ‎

commercial could be developed‎. ‎This has been a major concern on a number of lots ‎

around the city‎. ‎There is not enough depth for modern commercial to replace the ‎

commercial that is in the area today‎. ‎On the residential lots, over time these would be ‎

turned to face the side streets so that people would not be using Auburn Road from ‎

Avalon to St‎. ‎Clair and from St‎. ‎Clair to York‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser said that he is not sure if Figure ‎11 ‎depicts this‎. ‎It appears that a ‎

recommendation is already being made that the corner lot be increased‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that the north side was not being increased‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber said that Figure ‎11 ‎is not a really good diagram of the area‎. ‎It does not ‎

really account for this corner and this may be the problem‎. ‎The diagram only depicts ‎

the desire to have office along Adams Road‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Murray added that the commercial on both sides is actually in Figure ‎10 ‎on Page ‎

15 ‎of the plan‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe will make sure that the diagrams are clearer in the final plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Murray also noted that Figure ‎11 ‎is really just the residential area north of the ‎

properties and Figure ‎10 ‎picks up the commercial frontage on both sides‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe also added that the scheme may also apply to the two lots north of Adams ‎

to really make it a comparable‎. ‎A determination needs to be made on the actual size ‎

of the lots in order to make the plan work‎.‎

In order to be supportive of the residential community, Dr‎. ‎Beebe noted that the ‎

streets need to be paved and it would be nice to include some other type of amenities ‎

(‎like sidewalks‎) ‎which would increase the value of the properties‎.‎

AREAS ‎6 ‎& ‎7‎

These areas are north of the railroad tracks, between the railroad tracks and M‎-‎59‎. ‎

This area includes the opportunity for new business development and this section also ‎

encompasses an older, existing industrial park and vacant property north of M‎-‎59‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that Area ‎6 ‎has been laid out as an infill ORT, Light Industrial, ‎

Research and a development type park with conversion of the Adams frontage to ‎

ORT use‎. ‎This would allow for consistent use along Adams and would add about ‎

85‎,‎000 ‎square feet of new development‎.‎

Area ‎7‎, totaling ‎78 ‎acres, encompassing the wetland and new connector really ‎

reduces the northern portion of Area ‎7 ‎in half and diminishes the buildable area‎. ‎

There is opportunity in this section for future business development and reaffirms what ‎

was presented in the ‎1992 ‎plan that this ‎78 ‎acres be used for modern business ‎

development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked if the plan which has recently been submitted is consistent with the ‎

current proposal‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe indicated that the use is consistent with the proposed plan‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe also pointed out that the last page of the plan identifies the estimated taxes ‎

that will net out as an increase throughout the area‎. ‎

For the record, Mr‎. ‎Kaiser, added that additional revenues will be generated, ‎

however, more city services will be used‎. ‎The net may not actually be significant‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber also added that the figures also do not take into account the city‎’‎s ‎

investment to get to this point‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe noted that if you were to look into the concept of the connector road, this ‎

might help the commission look at whether the cost of the connector road is worth it ‎

and if it could be paid for in two or three years‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber commented that the plan refers back to Figure ‎6 ‎several times within the ‎

report and indicated that this is where the numbers need to be located for the different ‎

areas and clearly delineated‎. ‎It would also be nice if the street names could be added‎. ‎

On Page ‎11‎, fourth line down, the mobile home community should read ‎“‎Chateau ‎

Avon Estates Mobile Home Community‎”‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber also feels that the information regarding taxes and the maps for Area ‎4 ‎

and Area ‎5 ‎is confusing‎. ‎On Page ‎5‎, the date on the road construction by MDOT ‎

should be verified‎.‎

In reference to the Grand Trunk Railroad issue, Dr‎. ‎Beebe reported that the three ‎

property owners are going through the protesting process‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber added that this ‎

area has been approved for vacation by the Federal Government‎. ‎The property ‎

owners adjacent to the railroad do not really have any type of rights to prevent this ‎

from happening‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin reported that there are existing agreements that give the property ‎

owners some authority ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, Letica‎)‎, until the agreements expire‎. ‎The property ‎

owners can protest and offer comments but essentially the question is who has the ‎

money to acquire the right‎-‎of‎-‎way that is now being vacated by the railroad‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser said that the plan will now be reworked by the consultant and revisited by ‎

the Planning Commission in the public hearings at which comments will be received ‎

and at this time there will also be additional discussion by the Planning Commission‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked for comments from the audience‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schmidt of ‎2760 ‎Leach Road‎, asked about the meetings which took place with ‎

the neighbors on Leach Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schmidt said that he was not invited to any of the ‎

meetings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schmidt also noted that in ‎1992 ‎a meeting was held and Leach Road ‎

was discussed‎. ‎At this time someone tried to condemn some of the properties and ‎

now the same thing is occurring in ‎1999‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Guntar Grevens who resides at ‎227 ‎West Auburn, ‎has heard discussions ‎

that MDOT is planning on selling Auburn Road back to the city‎. ‎They are also ‎

discussing the idea of expanding and improving Auburn Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Grevens is ‎

concerned that if this happens after the planning decisions are made then this may ‎

preclude any property owner on Auburn Road from being addressed into a better use‎. ‎

If in fact Auburn Road is expanded in any way, it will have a negative impact on any ‎

residential property in this area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Grevens also did notice that there are some ‎

potential rezoning changes planned on Auburn Road east of Livernois which have ‎

been presented to the city and have not been addressed at the meeting this evening‎. ‎

Comments have also been made tonight that the residential market in Rochester Hills ‎

is so strong that the parcels on the main roads can be kept residential‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Grevens ‎

disagrees with this because there are numerous instances of vacant parcels on Auburn ‎

Road today that people have been trying to develop into residential and they simply ‎

cannot sell the parcels‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Mark VanderBroek of ‎2538 ‎Devondale, ‎in reference to Area ‎1 ‎and the Light ‎

Industrial parcel on the north end, indicated that there are only two lots in this entire ‎

area that are more than four acres; one parcel is ‎6 ‎acres and one parcel is ‎10 ‎acres ‎

both owned by the same person‎. ‎What will happen if this individual will not sell any of ‎

this property; will all of the other lots in this area be useless if someone can‎’‎t build on ‎

anything less than four acres?‎

Mr‎. ‎William McLean of ‎2771 ‎Leach Road‎, reported that he has been trying to sell ‎

his property for a while now and cash out and get his landscaping business out of this ‎

area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎McLean suggested just paving the road and connecting it to Waterview ‎

Drive‎. ‎Thompson‎-‎Brown just wrote in the paper a few weeks ago that they have ‎

international customers coming in all of the time and that they want a ‎22‎,‎000 ‎to ‎

25‎,‎000 ‎square foot building‎.‎

Discussed

Currently, on Waterview there are buildings that back up to the north side of the big ‎

pond and they would fit on a two lot parcel on Leach Road‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Rosemary GoForth of Leach Road, ‎inquired about the exact location for the ‎

connector road for Area ‎7‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Murray indicated that the connection between Leach ‎

Road and Area ‎7 ‎will come across into Adams and will not connect into Auburn ‎

Road‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked the Planning Consultant and Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin to review all of the ‎

issues, questions and concerns that were raised this evening‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin offering a clarification about Leach Road, reported that there is no plan ‎

to change the zoning even under the proposed land use; it is still intended that the ‎

zoning remain Light Industrial which is the current zoning‎. ‎

‎

In reference to MDOT turning Auburn Road over to the city, MDOT currently has ‎

jurisdiction of Auburn Road from boundary to boundary through the city, however, ‎

the city has no plan to receive Auburn Road‎. ‎MDOT has offered it but they have not ‎

offered to make any improvements‎. ‎The city‎’‎s position has been that unless MDOT is ‎

willing to make improvements to the proposed ‎120 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way, they would not ‎

be interested in assuming responsibility for maintaining Auburn Road‎. ‎

In regards to rezoning, the only application recently submitted for Auburn Road, East ‎

of Livernois, was a conditional land use request for the St‎. ‎Paul‎’‎s Church which is ‎

now moving to City Council‎.‎

The LDFA meets on March ‎4‎, ‎1999‎, to take up the design contracts for the paving of ‎

Leach Road‎. ‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

A‎.‎ Mr‎. ‎Gaber explained the intent and purpose of the Strategic Planning ‎

process which has recently been implemented by the city‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber ‎

encouraged attendance at the kick‎-‎off meetings which will be soliciting ‎

the input of ideas for the future of the city‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for Tuesday, March ‎2‎, ‎1999‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission, ‎

Chairperson Kaiser adjourned the Special meeting at ‎9‎:‎13 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan ‎

time‎.‎