Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, June 3, 1997

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Gerald Robbins‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Alan Buckenmeyer, Park Operations Manager‎

Linda Blackerby, Financial Analyst‎

Jim Dietrick, City Engineer‎

Thomas Dohr, Director of Public Services‎

Alisa Healy, City Information Coordinator‎

Kevin Krajewski, PC Systems Specialist‎

Cindy Moy, Executive Assistant‎/‎Graphics‎

Belinda Peters, Financial Administrator‎

Bob Spaman, Treasurer‎

Bob Srogi, Facilities Operations Manager‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1738

April ‎15‎, ‎1997 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Rosen, that the Minutes dated April ‎15‎, ‎

1997 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Revised pages for the Capital Improvement Plan‎.‎

B‎.‎ Letter dated May ‎30‎, ‎1997‎ from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates regarding ‎

Agenda Item VI‎.‎C‎.‎

C‎.‎ Letter dated ‎6-03-97‎ from Roy A‎. ‎Gray and Sandra T‎. ‎Kinoshita ‎

regarding Agenda Item VI‎.‎C‎.‎

D‎.‎ Draft Minutes from City Council Meeting of May ‎7‎, ‎1997‎ regarding ‎

Agenda Item VI‎.‎B‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1733

Public Hearing‎: ‎Capital Improvement Plan as a component of the City's ‎

Comprehensive Plan‎

Note‎: ‎The draft document is available for review in the Planning Department, ‎

the Mayor's office and the Rochester Hills Public Library‎

The Chair pointed out for the benefit of persons in the audience that the Planning ‎

Commission has had several discussions regarding the Capital Improvement Plan, ‎

including an extensive study meeting at which city staff members presented a very ‎

extensive review of the Capital Improvement Plan‎. ‎Suggested changes have been ‎

incorporated into the plan‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters began by stating that the proposed Capital Improvement Plan is the city‎’‎s ‎

first‎. ‎The city has not had the time or resources to devote to this project in the past ‎

but has always wanted to do it‎. ‎The legal force for implementation of a CIP is the ‎

Michigan Municipal Planning Act ‎285 ‎which requires that a CIP be created‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters explained that the purpose of the Capital Improvement Plan is to establish ‎

priorities and identify alternatives for projects‎. ‎The Capital Improvement Plan ‎

promotes long term planning by integrating city‎-‎wide thinking into a single document ‎

which then can be incorporated into the city‎’‎s comprehensive plan containing the ‎

Master Land Use Plan, the Storm Water Management Plan, the Local Development ‎

Finance Authority, the Master Transportation Plan, the Master Recreation Plan, City ‎

Council policies, administrative policies, and the City‎’‎s Mission Statement‎. ‎Although ‎

the CIP is a six year plan, it will be decided each year‎.‎

Advantages to the community of a Capital Improvement Plan are, as a dynamic ‎

document, it shows the ‎"‎big picture‎" ‎of all the city‎’‎s infrastructure needs‎. ‎The Capital ‎

Improvement Plan supports strategic planning efforts and is a way of involving the ‎

community in planning for the future of the city‎. ‎It enables the planning and spending ‎

of public funds to be evaluated in a fair and equitable manner‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters summarized the Capital Improvement Plan Team organization‎. ‎The ‎

Capital Improvement Plan Policy Team established the policy, developed project ‎

ratings and weighting criteria, rated and weighed project applications, reviewed ‎

funding options and presented the six‎-‎year recommendation to the Administrative ‎

Team‎. ‎The Administrative Team reviewed the recommendations and developed a ‎

consensus for the projects to be brought forward, and brought its recommendation to ‎

the Planning Commission Workshop‎. ‎The Project Team compiled and reviewed ‎

inventories, reviewed projects that are currently funded, developed the project ‎

application forms, prepared project applications, and served as support staff to ‎

departments as needed‎. ‎The Public Relations Team prepared press releases, ‎

information packets and the draft document‎. ‎The Planning Commission‎’‎s task is to ‎

review the Administrative Team‎’‎s recommendation and conduct a public hearing, ‎

consider a resolution approving the Capital Improvement Plan and adopt a resolution ‎

requesting that City Council incorporate funding for the first year projects into the ‎

1998 ‎budget‎. ‎City Council will incorporate the first year of the Capital Improvement ‎

Plan into the ‎1998 ‎budget‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Blackerby elaborated that the Capital Improvement Plan is a six year plan, with ‎

the first year of ‎1998 ‎to be funded by City Council as part of the budget process‎. ‎

Each year thereafter the Capital Improvement Plan will be presented to City Council ‎

for funding‎. ‎Being dynamic, the Capital Improvement Plan projects and priorities ‎

could change year to year as well as the funding‎. ‎The Planning Commission will be ‎

asked to adopt a Capital Improvement Plan annually‎. ‎The CIP is the link between the ‎

budgeting process and the planning process‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr described how the document was developed and the criteria used for ‎

including projects in the plan‎. ‎A ‎"‎call for projects‎" ‎went out to all departments and the ‎

project team complied the submitted lists‎. ‎Types of projects included were major ‎

non‎-‎recurring construction projects related to drainage, pathways, local roads, parks, ‎

recreation, as well as existing facility rehabilitations, professional services, and ‎

planning‎/‎feasibility‎/‎engineering studies necessary to implement any of the projects‎. ‎

Also included were any equipment purchases exceeding $‎20‎,‎000 ‎and land ‎

acquisitions for public purposes‎. ‎The policy team then evaluated and ranked them ‎

according to criteria such as contribution to public health safety welfare; need to ‎

comply with federal or state regulations; compliance with accepted or adopted ‎

policies or master plans; remediation of a deficiency in the community; availability of ‎

outside funding; upgrade existing facilities to bring up to code‎. ‎The longer the service ‎

life of the project, the higher rating that project received‎. ‎Also considered were the ‎

annual impact on operating and maintenance costs as well as costs if the project were ‎

not implemented; whether it serves an individual, neighborhood, a large section of the ‎

city, the city as a whole, or has regional impact; how the department submitting the ‎

project determined its priority; and how much input the community had‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dohr ‎

reiterated that the CIP is subject to change; it is not all encompassing‎. ‎Some projects ‎

were not included in this initial CIP because of contracts already in place for their ‎

completion‎. ‎Projects seemed to fall into two distinct categories ‎-- ‎projects with ‎

dedicated sources of funding, and those that had to compete for funding‎. ‎To no one‎’‎s ‎

surprise it became apparent that our needs far exceed the resources available‎. ‎Adding ‎

to the difficulty in ranking projects was the realization that our needs far exceed the ‎

resources available and often caused projects with a high priority in terms of need to ‎

be delayed because of lack of available funding‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr reviewed each group of project categories as contained in the ‎1997 ‎Capital ‎

Improvement Plan Draft Document dated May ‎23‎, ‎1997‎, and referred to the ‎

spreadsheets in the Appendix which show the timing for moving those projects ‎

forward‎. ‎Drain projects have a dedicated source of funding; therefore ranking them ‎

was not difficult‎. ‎Pathway projects also have dedicated sources of funding and were ‎

drawn from the adopted Master Pathway Plan‎. ‎Specific criteria applied for their ‎

ranking included existing school routes and pedestrian safety‎. ‎Major roads, identified ‎

in the Master Thoroughfare Plan, have multiple dedicated sources of funding‎. ‎Local ‎

roads projects do not have dedicated sources of funding but have been identified as ‎

needs‎. ‎Parks and facilities projects, including a family aquatic center proposed to be ‎

funded through fees and private revenues, are considered unfunded because bond ‎

sales would be required‎. ‎Most of the rehabilitation projects are listed as unfunded ‎

with the intent that City Council would earmark funds for their implementation‎. ‎There ‎

are no dedicated sources of funding for parks; they compete with other projects for ‎

general fund dollars‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr added that the CIP is a way to manage our resources in the best way ‎

possible‎. ‎Council obviously has discretion in funding or not funding projects‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Dohr confirmed that the Planning Commission can approve the CIP as presented and ‎

City Council can deny adoption of any portion of it because of lack of funding or for ‎

any other reason‎. ‎Some projects are not shown in the CIP because they are already ‎

committed or have contracts in place for their completion‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

Jocil Rogus, ‎200 ‎W‎. ‎Avon at the Rochester Hills Tennis and Swim ‎

Club, ‎believed the aquatic center would be funded with revenue bonds, and ‎

wondered what would happen when the revenue is not enough to pay for the project‎. ‎

The projected costs appear to be conservative‎. ‎If it is opened up to neighboring ‎

communities, the impact on traffic, roads, and property values because of noise should ‎

be considered‎. ‎Residents have repeatedly voted down tax increases for important ‎

things like schools; would they support an aquatic center‎. ‎ ‎

Peter Coyl, ‎674 ‎McGill Dr‎.‎,‎ expressed concerns with the widening of ‎

Adams Road‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr responded that funding is now available for the design work‎.‎

Seth Hawes, ‎1698 ‎West Ridge,‎ expressed concerns with the widening of ‎

Adams Road and the attendant traffic problems in the vicinity of Adams High School‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr responded that the segment of Adams Road between Avon and ‎

Powderhorn was selected because it was identified in the BRW transportation ‎

study as a need of the city, and it meets the criteria established by the Oakland ‎

County Task Force and SEMCOG‎. ‎

Marie Lea, ‎212 ‎Shagbark, owner of The Rec Room,‎ concerned about ‎

the plan competing with private businesses in the city, such as the proposed aquatic ‎

center‎. ‎

Jamie Dolmage, ‎3695 ‎Hazelton,‎ suggested giving a higher priority to gravel ‎

road updates as her street will not last much longer‎. ‎She suggested finishing the Crake ‎

Drain before beginning new projects‎. ‎

Jim and Judy Wenzel, ‎1612 ‎N‎. ‎Bretton Dr‎.‎,‎ concerned about SADs and ‎

natural features being lost to major road expansions‎. ‎They don‎’‎t think the city ‎

should be concerned about moving people through the community to other cities ‎-- ‎

"‎Let them go around‎."‎

Pat Roberts, ‎3035 ‎Quail Ridge,‎ confirmed with the Chair that the Planning ‎

Commission did not participate in the prioritizing or identification of projects, but did ‎

discuss them in a workshop‎. ‎She questioned the funding for paving the Thelma ‎

Spencer parking lot and suggested the money could be better spent on recreation ‎

facilities for children and adults‎. ‎She believes the Planning Commission needs to do ‎

the planning of the city‎’‎s future needs and identifying where the needs are rather than ‎

just accepting what is presented to them‎.‎

Lauren Shepherd, ‎624 ‎Sorbonne Dr‎.‎,‎ asked for a synopsis of the CIP ‎

Workshop‎. ‎The document appears to be an administratively driven document‎. ‎She ‎

believes the draft document is being driven by the budget process for ‎1998‎. ‎She did ‎

not believe enough time has been spent informing residents of the details of the CIP‎. ‎

The CIP should be generated by the residents rather than being provided to them by ‎

the administration‎. ‎She recommended parking lots in parks be left unpaved‎. ‎Funds ‎

should be spent on maintaining what we already have and for maintaining local roads ‎

rather than widening major roads‎. ‎

The Chair clarified that the administration of any municipality is duty bound to ‎

be a directing force, with elected officials and executive and legislative ‎

portions forming the checks and balances‎. ‎The Chair commended the current ‎

administration for taking a leadership role in forming for the first time in the ‎

city‎’‎s history a proposed CIP‎. ‎City Council has known since the end of last ‎

year that the city administration was compiling this CIP‎. ‎Ample opportunity ‎

for public input has been made available via agendas published on the local ‎

cable channel as well as other places as part of the normal noticing process of ‎

the city‎. ‎The administration cannot implement anything without a majority of ‎

City Council, the elected officials, approving it‎.‎

The Chair stated at the CIP Workshop presentations were made by the ‎

various committees, the documents in the back of the draft document were ‎

reviewed, and discussion took place about the items‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission recommended some changes which have been incorporated into ‎

the draft document‎. ‎No changes were made by the Planning Commission in ‎

the prioritizing of projects‎.‎

The Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

Member Rosen commented that the CIP is somewhat analogous to the Master Land ‎

Use Plan in that the Planning Commission will put its ‎"‎stamp of approval‎" ‎on it‎. ‎He ‎

wondered why two equal projects would be rated differently based on the funding ‎

available‎. ‎If they are equal, one may be done because we can get money; but that ‎

doesn‎’‎t mean it should be rated differently‎. ‎They should have equal ratings; it‎’‎s the ‎

ability to accomplish them that may be different‎. ‎Some projects, particularly major ‎

road projects that are funded by outside sources, may be high priorities according to ‎

other agencies but may not be in the community‎’‎s best interest‎.‎

The Chair responded that by definition the funding is a part of the prioritizing‎.‎

Robbins stated that a call for projects should be opened up to the Planning ‎

Commission as well as the community‎. ‎He wondered what would happen if the CIP ‎

were not updated or approved, or if the Master Thoroughfare Plan update were not ‎

approved‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Peters replied that approval of the CIP is not the final step and does ‎

not negate anything in the Master Thoroughfare Plan ‎-- ‎or vice‎-‎versa‎. ‎A lot of ‎

projects in the Master Thoroughfare Plan for example cannot go forward without ‎

additional approvals by outside agencies‎.‎

[ ‎Exit Srogi ‎9‎:‎10 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The speakers confirmed with Member Ruggiero that no projects can be implemented ‎

without City Council action ‎-- ‎even if no city dollars are expended on the projects, ‎

such as Veterans Memorial Pointe Park‎. ‎She wondered whether the public really ‎

understands the scope and importance of the CIP‎. ‎Earlier public input may be ‎

advisable, perhaps with additional press coverage, articles in the Rochester Hills ‎

Quarterly publication‎. ‎Along with Members Rosen and Robbins she was also ‎

concerned about the timing of the Master Thoroughfare Plan update with the adoption ‎

of the CIP‎. ‎

Ramanauskas asked who makes the decisions about where the money is spent‎. ‎He ‎

felt this decision was being rushed‎. ‎Residents in different parts of the city, as well as ‎

on different streets, have different concerns‎. ‎They often like to think in terms of ‎

public funds being spent to improve their own neighborhood‎. ‎The community should ‎

be better informed via articles in the Rochester Hills Quarterly in the form of a survey ‎

to find out where people would like to see their money spent‎.‎

Member Gaber explained the annual budget process by City Council‎. ‎The annual ‎

budgeting process starts around March with a series of all‎-‎day workshops in ‎

conjunction with the administration‎. ‎The first workshop is to identify policies and ‎

priorities to be implemented and funded through the budget‎. ‎The administration takes ‎

this information and processes it‎. ‎The second workshop is presentations by the ‎

department directors to identify their priorities in terms of the policies and priorities ‎

established at the first workshop and how they affect their particular departments‎. ‎

Administration then takes this information and prepares a draft budget document‎. ‎The ‎

third workshop reviews the draft budget and makes any adjustments‎. ‎In August, ‎

pursuant to the Charter, the Mayor proposes the budget to City Council and it is ‎

adopted by the end of September‎. ‎The CIP will be a great resource because it ‎

compiles into one document and prioritizes all the other plans‎. ‎It‎’‎s easy to look at one ‎

segment such as pathways and prioritize those projects; it‎’‎s difficult when you have to ‎

consider all projects, pathways, local roads and major roads and recreation to ‎

allocate monies‎. ‎The CIP will help distill all projects into a single picture‎. ‎It is a tool ‎

that will enable Council to make budget decisions more effectively‎. ‎It‎’‎s easy to ‎

identify projects; it‎’‎s more difficult to prioritize them from a cost effectiveness ‎

standpoint and a desirability standpoint in order for City Council to implement them in ‎

the budget‎. ‎Member Gaber suggested looking at the CIP as a component of a ‎

strategic planning process‎. ‎Strategic planning would involve bringing the community ‎

together with City Council to let them know what they want their city to look like in ‎

the future, in terms of infrastructure, services, and other less tangible amenities‎. ‎The ‎

CIP then becomes a tool to help Council allocate resources on a year‎-‎to‎-‎year basis to ‎

bring the strategic plan to fruition‎. ‎The CIP is not a substitute for a strategic plan; it‎’‎s ‎

a component of it‎.‎

The Chair did not feel rushed into a decision‎. ‎Any resolution made tonight would ‎

require six affirmative votes for approval‎. ‎The CIP takes what has already been ‎

adopted through other documents, such as the existing Master Land Use Plan, Major ‎

Thoroughfare Plan, Master Recreation Plan, and other projects identified as needs ‎

and desires and prioritizes them and attempts to establish timing for their ‎

implementation‎. ‎If it changes for whatever reason, or if funding changes, then the CIP ‎

is intended to be flexible enough to be able to adjust to those changes‎. ‎

[ ‎Recess ‎9‎:‎58 ‎p‎.‎m‎. - ‎10‎:‎09 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

[ ‎Exit Buckenmeyer, Krajewski, Moy ‎- ‎9‎:‎58 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Member Rosen suggested a chart be displayed at City Hall that diagrams the CIP and ‎

shows how it progresses into the annual budget‎. ‎It also should show all the individual ‎

plans ‎-- ‎land use, water and sewer, pathway, recreation, etc‎.-- ‎and how they feed into ‎

the CIP‎. ‎This might help the public realize where the opportunities are for public ‎

input‎. ‎

Regarding funding, Member Rosen stated it is always important to avoid positive or ‎

negative feedback loops that are not understood‎. ‎Funding affecting the prioritization ‎

of projects is an important aspect‎. ‎Prioritizing on the basis of funding also highlights ‎

where the need for funding is‎. ‎He also thought it important to be cautious about ‎

allowing outside influences to set our priorities based on the money they want to give ‎

us‎. ‎If the Planning Commission does its job right this year, they won‎’‎t have to change ‎

the CIP very much next year‎.‎

Member Robbins felt uncomfortable about making a decision in the short time frame ‎

he had to examine the document‎. ‎A lot of information has been presented to the ‎

commission and there has not been time to digest all of it‎. ‎He has not even read all the ‎

component plans but has now requested copies of them‎.‎

Member Nowicki reminded commissioners that revisiting the CIP annually is ‎

mandatory, unlike the transportation or recreation plan or master plan‎. ‎He also ‎

pointed out that some projects have been prioritized because of ordinance ‎

requirements, such as the paving of parking lots in city parks, whereas in the past they ‎

may not have received much attention‎. ‎The CIP provides a visual representation of ‎

the city‎’‎s needs from one corner to the other, and the programming of foreseeable ‎

needs to better insure that projects are beneficial to the community as a whole and not ‎

to special interest groups‎. ‎There are going to be special interest groups attached to ‎

any city project, so it‎’‎s important to look at it from the standpoint of what is good for ‎

the community, and to look ahead‎.‎

Member Krupa pointed out that one element of strategic planning is that once funds ‎

are committed and‎/‎or spent on a project it becomes difficult down the road to change ‎

the priority of that project because of the money already spent‎. ‎He has not had ‎

enough time to study the document sufficiently to determine whether or not it is truly ‎

just a ‎"‎wish list‎". ‎

Member Ruggiero stated the CIP draft document is a starting point; commissioners ‎

don‎’‎t necessarily have to agree with everything in the plan‎. ‎Commissioners can ‎

address specific parts of the plan as private citizens to express their personal interests ‎

at the appropriate times throughout the budgeting process‎.‎

The Motion included in the packet distributed to the commissioners is stated in its ‎

entirety‎:‎

ROCHESTER HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION‎

MOTION by ________________, seconded by ________________,‎

WHEREAS, the Municipal Planning Act, Act ‎285 ‎of the Public Acts of ‎1931‎, as ‎

amended, requires municipal Planning Commissions to adopt a Capital Improvement ‎

Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎for the physical development of the municipality; and‎

WHEREAS, the City of Rochester Hills Planning Commission was established by ‎

Chapter ‎2‎-‎07 ‎of the Rochester Hills Code of Ordinances with all the powers, duties ‎

and functions set forth in the Municipal Planning Act; and‎

WHEREAS, a six‎-‎year CIP has been prepared by the Rochester Hills Fiscal Team in ‎

consultation with the city‎’‎s professional staff who administer programs for the ‎

development and maintenance of the public structures and improvements included in ‎

the CIP; and‎

WHEREAS, the CIP considers immediate and projected needs of the city, as ‎

identified in Major City Goals adopted by the Rochester Hills City Council and ‎

existing, adopted city plans for land use and infrastructure improvements and ‎

maintenance; and‎

WHEREAS, the projects identified in the CIP for the years ‎1998 ‎through ‎2003‎, ‎

inclusive, have been evaluated and prioritized based upon an impartial rating system; ‎

and‎

WHEREAS, the CIP is a comprehensive, well‎-‎defined program for developing and ‎

improving the city‎’‎s infrastructure for the foreseeable future; and‎

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June ‎3‎, ‎1997 ‎for the ‎

purposes of presenting the CIP to the public and receiving public comment on the ‎

CIP; and‎

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes the CIP is necessary to support the ‎

development and improvement of the city‎’‎s infrastructure;‎

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Commission does hereby adopt the Capital Improvement Plan for the City of ‎

Rochester Hills for the years ‎1998 ‎through ‎2003‎; and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the adopted Capital Improvement Plan in its ‎

final form shall be attested to and transmitted to the Rochester Hills City Council, the ‎

Oakland County Register of Deeds, and the Oakland County Planning Commission; ‎

and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends ‎

that the Mayor of Rochester Hills incorporate the ‎1998 ‎CIP projects in the ‎1998 ‎

Budget Plan to be submitted to the City Council in August, ‎1997‎; and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends ‎

that the Rochester Hills City Council approve the ‎1998 ‎CIP projects at the time of ‎

approval of the ‎1998 ‎Budget for the City of Rochester Hills‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎

Nays‎:‎

Absent‎:‎

_______________________‎

CERTIFICATE‎

I, Eric Kaiser, Chairman of the City of Rochester Hills Planning Commission, and I, ‎

Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin, Secretary of the City of Rochester Hills Planning Commission, ‎

do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution ‎

adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof held on Tuesday, ‎

June ‎3‎, ‎1997‎.‎

________________________‎ ___________________________‎

ERIC KAISER, Chairman‎ PATRICIA A‎. ‎GOODWIN, Secretary‎

Planning Commission‎ Planning Commission‎

City of Rochester Hills‎ City of Rochester Hills‎

‎

* * * * * *‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Nowicki, to ‎adopt‎ the ‎1998 ‎CIP as stated in the ‎

pre‎-‎printed resolution included in the packet with the following changes‎: ‎

Paragraph ‎5 ‎to read ‎"‎WHEREAS, the projects identified in the CIP for the ‎

years ‎1998 ‎through ‎2003‎, inclusive, have been evaluated and prioritized ‎

based upon ‎an impartial ‎ a rating system; and‎"‎

Paragraph ‎9 ‎to read ‎"‎NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Commission does hereby adopt the Capital ‎

Improvement Plan ‎except those projects directly related to the Master ‎

Thoroughfare Plan which begin construction in the year ‎2000 ‎or ‎

later, specifically MR‎3‎, MR‎5‎, and MR‎6‎,‎ for the City of Rochester Hills ‎

for the years ‎1998 ‎through ‎2003‎; and‎"‎

‎

COMPLETE MOTION AS PROPOSED BY ROSEN‎:‎

WHEREAS, the Municipal Planning Act, Act ‎285 ‎of the Public Acts of ‎1931‎, as ‎

amended, requires municipal Planning Commissions to adopt a Capital Improvement ‎

Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎for the physical development of the municipality; and‎

WHEREAS, the City of Rochester Hills Planning Commission was established by ‎

Chapter ‎2‎-‎07 ‎of the Rochester Hills Code of Ordinances with all the powers, duties ‎

and functions set forth in the Municipal Planning Act; and‎

WHEREAS, a six‎-‎year CIP has been prepared by the Rochester Hills Fiscal Team in ‎

consultation with the city‎’‎s professional staff who administer programs for the ‎

development and maintenance of the public structures and improvements included in ‎

the CIP; and‎

WHEREAS, the CIP considers immediate and projected needs of the city, as ‎

identified in Major City Goals adopted by the Rochester Hills City Council and ‎

existing, adopted city plans for land use and infrastructure improvements and ‎

maintenance; and‎

WHEREAS, the projects identified in the CIP for the years ‎1998 ‎through ‎2003‎, ‎

inclusive, have been evaluated and prioritized based upon a rating system; and‎

WHEREAS, the CIP is a comprehensive, well‎-‎defined program for developing and ‎

improving the city‎’‎s infrastructure for the foreseeable future; and‎

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June ‎3‎, ‎1997 ‎for the ‎

purposes of presenting the CIP to the public and receiving public comment on the ‎

CIP; and‎

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes the CIP is necessary to support the ‎

development and improvement of the city‎’‎s infrastructure;‎

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Commission does hereby adopt the Capital Improvement Plan except those projects ‎

directly related to the Master Thoroughfare Plan which begin construction in the year ‎

2000 ‎or later, specifically MR‎3‎, MR‎5‎, and MR‎6‎, for the City of Rochester Hills for ‎

the years ‎1998 ‎through ‎2003‎; and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the adopted Capital Improvement Plan in its ‎

final form shall be attested to and transmitted to the Rochester Hills City Council, the ‎

Oakland County Register of Deeds, and the Oakland County Planning Commission; ‎

and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends ‎

that the Mayor of Rochester Hills incorporate the ‎1998 ‎CIP projects in the ‎1998 ‎

Budget Plan to be submitted to the City Council in August, ‎1997‎; and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends ‎

that the Rochester Hills City Council approve the ‎1998 ‎CIP projects at the time of ‎

approval of the ‎1998 ‎Budget for the City of Rochester Hills‎.‎

Discussion on the Motion‎:‎

Peters explained the impact of the recommended changes on the resolution‎. ‎The city ‎

is already obligated for the Adams Road funds as there is a signed agreement for the ‎

design phase‎. ‎City Council has already made a three‎-‎year obligation for Tienken ‎

Road‎.‎

For Member Gaber‎’‎s benefit Member Rosen explained the proposed changes‎. ‎

Recent discussions with BRW regarding the Transportation Plan update revolved ‎

around calibrating the model for the year ‎2000 ‎and beyond, and concern that a ‎

reasonable level of comfort with its accuracy was questionable‎. ‎Member Rosen was ‎

not comfortable with the realization that the next transportation plan could be ‎

significantly different than the last one‎. ‎The choice of the year ‎2000 ‎allows room for ‎

projects which already have funds committed‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Kaiser, Nowicki, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Krupa, Ramanauskas, Robbins ‎MOTION FAILED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Nowicki, to ‎adopt‎ the ‎1998 ‎CIP with the ‎

pre‎-‎printed resolution in the packet as printed with no changes‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Kaiser, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Krupa, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Robbins, Rosen ‎MOTION FAILED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

MOTION‎ by Robbins, seconded by Ramanauskas, that the Planning Commission ‎

table‎ adoption of the ‎1998 ‎Capital Improvement Plan until the next Regular Meeting ‎

on June ‎17‎, ‎1997 ‎to allow time for more study and more citizen input‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Gaber, Krupa, Ramanauskas, Robbins, Rosen‎

Nays‎:‎ Boswell, Kaiser, Nowicki, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

Ramanauskas suggested additional notice be sent to the public to give people another ‎

opportunity to have input into the CIP, perhaps in the form of a questionnaire; or ‎

perhaps the administration would accept letters from citizens regarding the CIP‎. ‎The ‎

Chair urged commissioners to canvass their own neighborhoods to seek additional ‎

public input‎. ‎The tabled date of June ‎17‎, ‎1997 ‎will be for further discussion by the ‎

Planning Commission; there will be no further public hearing so it can be scheduled ‎

last on the agenda‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Healy informed the commission that she would be in touch with members of the ‎

local press tomorrow‎.‎

Member Robbins said he has confirmed with staff that the June ‎17‎, ‎1997 ‎meeting ‎

already has a full agenda‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Robbins, that the Planning Commission schedule a Special Meeting of ‎

the Planning Commission for Tuesday, June ‎10‎, ‎1997 ‎at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎with the agenda to ‎

be prepared by staff‎. ‎MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters informed the commissioners that the CIP staff would be happy and ‎

available to answer commissioners‎’ ‎questions‎.‎

[ ‎Exit Blackerby, Dietrick, Dohr, Healy, Peters, Spaman ‎11‎:‎22 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎City of Rochester Hills, Michigan ‎1997 ‎Capital Improvement Plan Draft ‎

Document dated May ‎23‎, ‎1997‎)‎

2000-1650

Request for an Extension of Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎047 ‎- ‎M & N ‎

Plastics, a ‎55‎,‎685 ‎square‎-‎foot industrial building on ‎4‎.‎8 ‎acres, located north of ‎

Hamlin, west of Livernois, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎21‎-‎476‎-‎031 ‎and ‎-‎044‎, zoned I‎-‎1‎, Light ‎

Industrial, James Bronersky, President, M&N Plastics, ‎6450 ‎Dobry Drive, ‎

Sterling Heights, MI ‎48314‎-‎1429‎, Applicant‎

Reference‎: ‎Staff Memorandum prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎6‎, ‎1997 ‎has ‎

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

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi informed the commission that the president of M&N Plastics informed ‎

him today that he could not attend the meeting‎. ‎He still would like the matter decided ‎

tonight if possible‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had nothing to add to the Staff Report‎. ‎The only outstanding item is the ‎

recording of the cross‎-‎access easements‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Krupa, in the matter of File No‎. ‎95‎-‎047 ‎

(‎M&N Plastics‎)‎, to ‎grant an Extension of Site Plan Approval‎ until June ‎18‎, ‎1998 ‎

as previously approved‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The wetlands boundaries on the subject parcel have been accurately plotted on ‎

the site plan‎. ‎In addition, the ‎25-‎foot wide natural features setback has also ‎

been accurately plotted on the site plan‎.‎

2‎.‎ The site contains ‎0.20‎ acres of wetlands with ‎0.19‎ acres located within the lower ‎

Karas Drain‎. ‎Because the wetlands within the lower Karas Drain are not ‎

regulated by the City of Rochester Hills, only ‎0.01‎ acres of regulated wetlands ‎

are affected‎.‎

3‎.‎ The lower Karas Drain, which has a ‎60-‎foot wide easement, is a city drain, but ‎

not a designated county drain‎. ‎Because it is a city drain, the wetlands within ‎

the drain are not subject to regulation by the City of Rochester Hills per ‎

Ordinance No‎. ‎355‎. ‎However, the wetlands within the drain are regulated by ‎

MDEQ per Part ‎303‎ - ‎Wetlands Protection, P‎.‎A‎. ‎451‎.‎

4‎.‎ The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has issued a wetlands permit ‎

(‎#96-10-0194‎) ‎to lm & N Plastics for both the lower Karas Drain and the ‎

0.01‎ acres of city regulated wetlands‎.‎

5‎.‎ The applicant did explore alternatives‎. ‎The applicant has originally proposed ‎

enclosing the entire lower Karas Drain‎.‎

6‎.‎ The impact to the wetlands, in the opinion of J & L Consulting Services, appears ‎

to be within the established criteria of the city‎’‎s Wetlands and Watercourse ‎

Protection Ordinance ‎(‎Codified Ordinance ‎#355‎).‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The site is to be developed in accordance with the approved site plan and per the ‎

conditions contained in the MDEQ permit ‎(‎Permit ‎#96-10-0194‎).‎

2‎.‎ Erosion control measures must be in place prior to mass grading of the site as well ‎

as in regard to the placement of the three culverts in the lower Karas Drain‎. ‎

These measures must include a temporary sediment trap at the northern end of ‎

lower Karas Drain where exit flow leaves the site‎. ‎In addition, the ‎200‎ feet of ‎

the drain that is not to be enclosed is to remain in a natural condition with a ‎

natural vegetation cover‎.‎

3‎.‎ Wetland monitoring is to be required during the actual installation of the three drain ‎

crossings‎. ‎As part of this monitoring, a construction report is to be submitted ‎

to the City of Rochester Hills, including photographs of the lower Karas ‎

Drain‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Granted

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1598

Request for Revised Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat ‎

Recommendation ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎364 ‎- ‎Dee's Subdivision, a ‎5‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎

1‎.‎85 ‎acres, located north of Auburn, east of Adams, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎30‎-‎376‎-‎018‎, ‎

zoned R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential, Dan Brown, ‎3565 ‎Bendelow, Rochester ‎

Hills, MI ‎48307‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated May ‎27‎, ‎1997 ‎has been ‎

placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained why a revised tentative preliminary plat was required‎. ‎City ‎

Council approved the tentative preliminary plat with a condition that a cross‎-‎access ‎

easement be obtained with the adjacent Rochester Hills Corporate Center owner, ‎

Magnum Industrial, in order to accommodate storm water runoff from the proposed ‎

subdivision‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown was not able to obtain that easement, so an alternate method ‎

for achieving storm water detention has been proposed, using front yard swales‎. ‎

Existing overland runoff currently being handled by the Rochester Hills Corporate ‎

Center doesn‎’‎t require specific easements because the park was designed to ‎

accommodate that inflow‎. ‎Therefore the condition imposed by City Council is no ‎

longer applicable‎.‎

Member Ruggiero referenced the Planning Commission minutes of March ‎15‎, ‎1994‎, ‎

Page ‎4‎, where the cross access agreement was discussed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown explained the ‎

reason for not obtaining the cross access agreement was that the industrial park ‎

wanted a maintenance agreement with the buyers of the houses whereby they would ‎

share the cost‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Brown felt that would doom the project to failure because very ‎

few home buyers would agree to maintain a storm sewer in conjunction with an ‎

industrial site‎.‎

1‎. ‎Revised Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Robbins, in the matter of File No‎. ‎93‎-‎364 ‎

(‎Dee‎’‎s Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend approval of the ‎

Revised Tentative Preliminary Plat‎ by deleting the condition requiring an easement ‎

to install a storm drainage system to change the manner in which storm water will be ‎

handled off‎-‎site‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed subdivision plat drawings contain all the information required by the ‎

State of Michigan Subdivision Control Act of ‎1967‎, the City of Rochester ‎

Hills Subdivision Control Ordinance, and the City‎’‎s Zoning Ordinance No‎. ‎

200‎.‎

2‎.‎ A design concept sketch, Environmental Impact Statement, topography and slope ‎

gradient sketch, soil sketch, drainage pattern sketch and tree survey have ‎

been provided‎.‎

3‎.‎ Municipal water and septic service are available to serve the development‎.‎

4‎.‎ A reasonable lot layout and orientation are shown on the plat‎.‎

5‎.‎ The plat appears to meet the policies of the adopted Master Land Use Plan ‎

pertaining to single family development in the city‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ Sidewalks should be shown on the Final Preliminary Plat unless a waiver is ‎

granted by the City Council pursuant to a formal application for waiver by the ‎

proprietor of the plat‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1739

Request for a Waiver from the Sidewalk Ordinance ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎364 ‎- ‎Dee's ‎

Subdivision‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Ruggiero, in the matter of File No‎. ‎93‎-‎364 ‎

(‎Dee‎’‎s Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend approval of a ‎

Waiver from the Sidewalk Ordinance,‎ based on the three findings in the Staff ‎

Report dated May ‎27‎, ‎1997‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The final preliminary plat indicates that only five lots are proposed‎.‎

2‎.‎ There is no sidewalk located at either the northern terminus or southern terminus ‎

of the required sidewalk‎.‎

3‎.‎ The York Street frontage south of the subject site is developed‎. ‎The property ‎

immediately to the south contains existing homes‎. ‎Below that is the Michigan ‎

Humane Society property‎. ‎Since the property is developed and sidewalks are ‎

only constructed during platting of the land, it is not expected that a sidewalk ‎

would ever be constructed to connect with Dee‎’‎s Subdivision‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2006-0463

Final Approval of the Preliminary Plat Recommendation ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎93‎-‎364‎, Dee's ‎

Subdivision, a ‎5‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎1‎.‎85 ‎acres, located north of Auburn and east of ‎

Adams, end of York St‎.‎, zoned R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎30‎-‎376‎-‎018‎, ‎

Dan Brown, applicant‎. ‎PC approved TRP on ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎94‎; PC rec‎. ‎approval of TPP on ‎

3‎/‎15‎/‎94‎; CC granted TPP on ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎94‎. ‎5 ‎lots on ‎1‎.‎95 ‎acres zoned R‎-‎3‎, Section ‎30‎.‎, North ‎

of Auburn, end of York St‎.‎, ‎15‎-‎30‎-‎376‎-‎018‎, Ext‎. ‎of TPP to ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎97 ‎on ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎96‎

MOTION‎ by Robbins, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎93‎-‎364 ‎

(‎Dee‎’‎s Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend approval of the ‎

Final Preliminary Plat‎ incorporating the three findings and one condition in the Staff ‎

Report dated May ‎27‎, ‎1997‎, based on plans dated received February ‎18‎, ‎1997‎. ‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant has taken the necessary measures to address the conditions of the ‎

preliminary plat approval granted by City Council on January ‎5‎, ‎1994‎. ‎Where ‎

the applicant was unable to obtain the necessary storm drainage easements, ‎

the applicant has successfully re‎-‎engineered the site so that such easements ‎

are not necessary‎.‎

2‎.‎ If the sidewalk waiver is granted, the submitted plans meet all the requirements of ‎

the Subdivision Control Ordinance for Final Approval of the Preliminary Plat‎.‎

3‎.‎ All applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Control ‎

Ordinance, and Subdivision Control Act and other applicable ordinances can ‎

be met as demonstrated in the plat drawings referenced below‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ That the applicant indicate sidewalks on the Final Preliminary Plat, if City Council ‎

does not grant the Sidewalk Waiver‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Plans prepared by Oakwood Engineering and dated received by the City ‎

of Rochester Hills Planning Department February ‎18‎, ‎1997‎; Staff Report dated May ‎

27‎, ‎1997 ‎prepared by Paul Rizzardi; letters from Linda Lemke & Associates dated ‎

March ‎3‎, ‎1997 ‎and January ‎3‎, ‎1997‎; Planning Commission Meeting minutes of ‎

February ‎6‎, ‎1996 ‎and March ‎15‎, ‎1994‎; City Council Meeting minutes of May ‎18‎, ‎

1994‎.)‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1597

Request for Final Approval of the Preliminary Plat Recommendation ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎

93‎-‎374 ‎- ‎Michelson Meadows Subdivision, a ‎7‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎4‎.‎3 ‎acres, ‎

located at the southwest corner of John R and Michelson, Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎35‎-‎476‎-‎009‎, zoned R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential, Dan Brown, ‎3565 ‎

Bendelow, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated May ‎27‎, ‎1997 ‎has been ‎

placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out on May ‎7‎, ‎1997 ‎City Council granted a variance from the ‎

Tree Conservation Ordinance for the Michelson Meadows proposed subdivision due ‎

to the city‎’‎s removal of additional trees for water main installation‎. ‎This has bearing on ‎

the subject requests in terms of a possible reconfiguring of the lot layout due to the ‎

additional tree removal‎. ‎If that becomes necessary, the applicant would need to return ‎

for revised plat approvals‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the granting of the variance by ‎

City Council has enabled the applicant to meet the ‎37 ‎percent tree preservation ‎

requirement of the Tree Conservation Ordinance‎. ‎City Council identified unique ‎

circumstances for the proposed subdivision by virtue of the fact that the city required ‎

the removal of additional trees in order to complete a storm sewer connection from ‎

the rear of the parcel to the front‎.‎

1‎. ‎Extension of Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Robbins, in the matter of File No‎. ‎93‎-‎374 ‎

(‎Michelson Meadows‎) ‎that the Planning Commission ‎recommend Approval of an ‎

Extension of Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat‎ until February ‎6‎, ‎1998‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

2‎. ‎Final Approval of the Preliminary Plat‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎93‎-‎374 ‎

(‎Michelson Meadows‎) ‎that the Planning Commission ‎recommend Final Approval of ‎

the Preliminary Plat‎ citing the three findings in the Staff Report dated May ‎27‎, ‎

1997 ‎plus one condition‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant has taken the necessary measures to address the conditions of the ‎

preliminary plat approval granted by City Council on May ‎18‎, ‎1994‎.‎

2‎.‎ All applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Control ‎

Ordinance, and Subdivision Control Act and other applicable ordinances can ‎

be met as demonstrated in the plat drawings referenced below‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed Final Preliminary Plat is in close agreement with the Tentatively ‎

Approved Preliminary Plat‎. ‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ That the applicant comply with the variance from the Tree Conservation ‎

Ordinance granted ‎

by City Council on May ‎7‎, ‎1997‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Plans prepared by Oakwood Engineering and dated received by the ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department February ‎18‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Linda Lemke & ‎

Associates dated March ‎27‎, ‎1997‎; City Council Draft Minutes of May ‎07‎, ‎1997‎; City ‎

Council Minutes of March ‎27‎, ‎1996 ‎and June ‎15‎, ‎1994‎; Planning Commission ‎

Minutes of February ‎6‎, ‎1996 ‎and April ‎5‎, ‎1994‎.) ‎

_____________________________‎

[ ‎Recess ‎11‎:‎33 ‎p‎.‎m‎. - ‎11‎:‎39 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1740

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎008 ‎- ‎Covington Place No‎. ‎3 ‎

Subdivision, a ‎39‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎18‎.‎6 ‎acres, located on the west side of ‎

Livernois, north of M‎-‎59‎, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎28‎-‎200‎-‎0‎-‎20‎, ‎-‎021‎, ‎-‎026‎, zoned R‎-‎3‎, ‎

One Family Residential, Millenium Development, ‎580 ‎East Long Lake, ‎

Bloomfield Hills, MI ‎48304‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated May ‎29‎, ‎1997 ‎has been ‎

placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Present were Paul Funk of PSF Services, Dennis Shaya of Millenium Development, ‎

Tad Krear of Land Design Studio, and Al Bayer of Nowak & Fraus‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had nothing further to add to the staff report‎.‎

The Chair noted the letter dated May ‎30‎, ‎1997 ‎from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates; ‎

and a letter faxed to the city dated today from the current owners of ‎2550 ‎Livernois, ‎

Roy A‎. ‎Gray, Jr‎. ‎and Sandra T‎. ‎Kinoshita, claiming a lack of timely notification of this ‎

agenda item and requesting a delay in any formal vote or acceptance of the proposals‎. ‎

The property at ‎2550 ‎Livernois would be surrounded on three sides by the proposed ‎

development‎. ‎After examining the file maintained by city staff, the Chair was well ‎

satisfied that notices for this item were mailed in time to meet legal requirements‎. ‎The ‎

Chair also noted that the writers of the letter had more than adequate time to meet ‎

with the developers of the proposed development to discuss mutual concerns‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Funk displayed two renderings of the site and briefly mentioned the previous ‎

approval granted for this site which has been abandoned‎. ‎The ownership of the ‎

subject property has since changed, and additional land has become available‎. ‎The ‎

new owner of ‎2550 ‎Livernois, referenced above, has not indicated an interest in ‎

selling‎. ‎However, some surveying activity has been observed in the area‎. ‎He ‎

described the key elements of the proposed plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Funk has allayed the concerns ‎

of many neighbors about disturbing the wetlands and removing trees behind those ‎

neighbors‎’ ‎homes‎. ‎Deterioration of the access drive, Rochelle Park Drive, is serious, ‎

and it would be imperative to construct the new relocated access drive as soon as ‎

possible‎. ‎Although it is currently a private road, it is planned to become public and be ‎

maintained by the city‎.‎

A copy of Linda Lemke‎’‎s letter dated May ‎30‎, ‎1997 ‎will be forwarded to Mr‎. ‎Funk‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Funk indicated willingness to comply with all conditions in the Staff Report and ‎

the Tree Conservation Ordinance‎. ‎All possible attempts will be made to preserve a ‎

specimen ‎21 ‎inch hickory tree on the site despite the requirements of the Tree ‎

Conservation Ordinance‎. ‎

The Chair stated for the record that there would be no implied approvals regarding the ‎

excepted parcel at the far southeast corner of the property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Funk answered questions regarding variations in lot configurations and a possible ‎

pathway up to the excepted parcel‎. ‎

Commissioners complimented Mr‎. ‎Funk on the quality and organization of his ‎

presentation‎.‎

1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎008 ‎

(‎Covington Place No‎. ‎3 ‎Subdivision‎)‎, to ‎grant the Tree Removal Permit ‎

referencing Linda Lemke‎’‎s letter dated May ‎30‎, ‎1997‎, and the one condition in the ‎

Staff Report dated May ‎29‎, ‎1997‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant shall provide a tree replacement plan guarantee in the form of a ‎

bond, letter of credit or surety in the amount of ‎$32,425.00‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Granted

2000-1741

Request for a Buffer Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎008 ‎- ‎Covington Place No‎. ‎3 ‎

Subdivision‎

The Chair asked if Mr‎. ‎Funk is agreeable to a condition of the buffer modification that ‎

a permit from MDOT to construct a buffer within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way must first be ‎

granted‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Funk was agreeable to such a condition‎. ‎

2‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎

MOTION‎ to‎ by Robbins, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎008 ‎

(‎Covington Place No‎. ‎3 ‎Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎approve the ‎

Buffer Modification‎ with the findings and condition in the Staff Report dated May ‎

29‎, ‎1997‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The Zoning Ordinance requires a Type ‎‘‎D‎’ ‎buffer along all properties abutting M‎-‎

59‎. ‎The applicant is proposing to meet this requirement adjacent to the ‎

proposed residential properties in the subdivision‎.‎

2‎.‎ The only area that will not have screening on‎-‎site is the area adjacent to the ‎

proposed public road‎. ‎There are several other examples of public ‎

rights‎-‎of‎-‎way abutting M‎-59‎ in Rochester Hills such as Nawakwa, Michelson, ‎

Hazelton, and Norton Lawn‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant is proposing to provide screening in the MDOT right‎-‎of‎-‎way that ‎

exceeds the minimum screening requirements of Type ‎‘‎D‎’‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ That the applicant must be granted a permit from the Michigan Department of ‎

Transportation ‎(‎MDOT‎) ‎to construct the required landscape screening and ‎

other buffer requirements within MDOT‎’‎s right‎-‎of‎-‎way for M‎-59‎. ‎A copy of ‎

this permit shall be forwarded to the Planning Department‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1742

Request for Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat Recommendation ‎- ‎File ‎

No‎. ‎97‎-‎008 ‎- ‎Covington Place No‎. ‎3 ‎Subdivision‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Robbins, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎008 ‎

(‎Covington Place No‎.‎3 ‎Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend ‎

approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat‎ incorporating the five findings in the ‎

Staff Report dated May ‎29‎, ‎1997‎, based on the plans dated received May ‎16‎, ‎1997 ‎

by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department, and including a landscape bond‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ All applicable Ordinances and Code provisions can be met‎.‎

2‎.‎ Adequate public utilities are available for use in the proposed development‎.‎

3‎.‎ The subdivision will provide an effective link to the existing development to both ‎

the west, north, and east‎. ‎In addition, the applicant has demonstrated that the ‎

remaining excepted land is of a useable size to be developed‎.‎

4‎.‎ The preliminary plat indicates a reasonable street and lot layout‎. ‎The street layout ‎

takes into account the existing Rochelle Park Drive and stub streets to the ‎

north‎.‎

5‎.‎ An Environmental Impact Statement and plan have been incorporated into the ‎

design and layout of the plat proposal showing no substantially harmful effects‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant shall provide a landscape plan guarantee in the form of a bond, ‎

letter of credit or surety in the amount of ‎$7,425.00‎ because of the buffer ‎

modification involved‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Preliminary Plat sheets prepared by Nowak & Fraus dated received by ‎

the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on May l‎6‎, ‎1997‎; letter dated May ‎

30‎, ‎1997 ‎from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates; Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi ‎

dated May ‎29‎, ‎1997‎; Environmental Impact Statement dated May ‎23‎, ‎1997‎.)‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2000-1732

Status of Transportation Plan Update ‎

The forecasting model was briefly discussed‎. ‎Member Robbins ‎

indicated that he has learned that the current Fast‎-‎Trac system can do ‎

extremely accurate traffic counts‎. ‎The original Fast‎-‎Trac system ‎

installed in Troy was designed to only operate traffic signals; the ‎

system installed in Rochester Hills has traffic counting capabilities‎.‎

The Chair questioned the reliability of traffic counts during the ‎

summertime when traffic volumes are traditionally low, and thought ‎

such information would not be very useful‎.‎

Member Rosen expressed concern that BRW‎’‎s baseline for a traffic ‎

count would be the year ‎1990‎, and it‎’‎s already ‎1997‎.‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi to inform Ms‎. ‎Goodwin that the ‎

commission would like to proceed with the traffic volume update, ‎

waiting until Mr‎. ‎Robbins‎’ ‎findings from Fast‎-‎Trac are available rather ‎

than utilizing summer interns, possibly moving this action to the fall‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi will pass the commission‎’‎s concerns on to Ms‎. ‎Goodwin‎.‎

B‎.‎ Appointment of Planning Commission Representative to ‎

Pedestrian Pathway Committee‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Robbins, that ‎Mr‎. ‎Eric Kaiser ‎

be re‎-‎appointed as the Planning Commission Representative to ‎

the Pedestrian Pathway Committee‎.‎ ‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

C‎.‎ Appointment of Planning Commission Representative to the ‎

Hamlin Road Task Force‎

Mr‎. ‎Paul Krupa‎ volunteered to be the Planning Commission ‎

Representative to the Hamlin Road Task Force‎.‎

Discussed

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next meeting will be a Special ‎

Mobile Workshop on Saturday, June ‎14‎, ‎1997 ‎to tour historic sites in the City‎. ‎The ‎

next Regular Meeting is scheduled for June ‎17‎, ‎1997‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎12‎:‎33 ‎a‎..‎m‎.‎, Wednesday, June ‎6‎, ‎1997 ‎

Michigan time‎.‎