| PUD had been removed at the request of G&V Investments, formerly |
|
| known as G&V Development. It was the Board’s understanding that the |
|
| site would revert back to what it was originally zoned, which was R-4, |
|
| One-Family Residential. The only Site Plan that had gone forward was |
|
| for mixed residential, which was pulled in 2009 due to the poor economy. |
|
| She pointed out that Fifth Third Bank was to the north of Eddington Blvd., |
|
| and north of that was a professional medical building fresh out of |
|
| bankruptcy and foreclosure. Across the street from the bank were |
|
| condos; behind the bank was the Eddington Woods subdivision; and east |
|
| and southeast of Eddington Blvd. were 305 Eddington Farms homes. |
|
| Directly south of the G&V property was a house and Bordine’s Nursery |
|
| and west of Eddington Blvd., there were homes all the way to Livernois. |
|
| Ms. McGoldrick indicated that zoning practices were formal. The |
|
| Planning Commission had its own rules, which she stated should not be |
|
| unduly influenced by City Council. The PUD had already been started |
|
| with the development of the Fifth Third Bank, and she questioned how the |
|
| bank would be zoned. She said that she had always questioned the |
|
| Boulevard entrance by the bank being under high tension power lines. |
|
| That was supposed to be one of the accesses to the PUD development. |
|
| She stated that the bottom line was that the focus should be on safety for |
|
| every driver on Rochester Rd., and also for the quality of life for people |
|
| who lived there, not to increase the value of the landowners’ property. She |
|
| hoped that would be the focus as the zoning of the property moved |
|
|
| Lisa Winarski, 194 Bedlington, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Ms. |
|
| Winarski stated that she also lived in Eddington Farms, and that she was |
|
| the President of the Homeowner’s Association. She was not sure if the |
|
| Commissioners had time to read a letter from their Attorney (it had not |
|
| been received by the Planning Department for this meeting), which stated |
|
| their legal standing with the project. She remarked that abandoning the |
|
| PUD was a double-edged sword. She did not believe that the developer |
|
| could use B-2 zoning if the PUD was abandoned, because the property |
|
| was originally zoned R-4, and the property would revert back to that |
|
| original zoning. She indicated that G&V would not be developing the |
|
| property; they were the landowners and would sell it outright. She |
|
| questioned if it was the right time and the right person. She referred to |
|
| Avon Country Market, which recently went to City Council to request |
|
| amendment of a Consent Judgment. The original owner did not try to get |
|
| it rezoned, so she wondered why the City would entertain allowing G&V to |
|
| rezone its property to B-2. She felt that the matter should be discussed |
|
| with a potential new owner or developer, not by G&V. It seemed to her that |
|
| G&V wanted to keep the B-2 zoning to increase the value of the property. |
|
| She commented that it could not be both ways. The PUD said that it |
|
