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, September 30, 1997

CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairperson James Rosen called the Special Meeting to order at ‎

7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Vice Chairperson James Rosen‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Gerald Robbins‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎John Gaber‎

Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Penny Papke, Planning Technician‎

Gary Wilson, McKenna Associates‎

Larry Ternan, City Attorney‎

‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1794

September ‎2‎, ‎1997 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION ‎by Boswell, supported by Nowicki, that the minutes dated ‎

September ‎2‎, ‎1997 ‎be accepted as submitted‎.‎

Ayes‎: ‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Gaber, Kaiser, Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Agenda for Local Development Finance Authority‎.‎

B‎.‎ City of Rochester Hills new street map‎.‎

(‎Enter Member Ramanauskas at ‎7:37‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

PRESENTATION

2000-1795

Presentation ‎(‎For discussion purposes only‎) - ‎Mr‎. ‎Stanley Frankel ‎- ‎Revised ‎

Site Plan for Butler Ridge Residential Development, Section ‎19‎

Present for the applicant were Mr‎. ‎Stanley Frankel and Mr‎. ‎Mark ‎

Greenstone, Frankel Associates‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin reported that Mr‎. ‎Frankel and his associates met with the ‎

Mayor and staff earlier in the year and discussed the property at the western ‎

boundary of the city on the north side of Butler Road‎. ‎This property ‎

previously received approval for a tentative preliminary plat which involved ‎

approximately ‎160 ‎lots on ‎116 ‎acres‎. ‎The plat has now expired and the ‎

applicant proposes a totally new revision to the plat‎.‎

Continuing, Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also pointed out that because the proposal does involve ‎

some different design features then what the ordinance currently provides, staff felt it ‎

would be a good idea to ask the property owner‎/‎developer to make a presentation to ‎

the Planning Commission briefly outlining what is proposed for the site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Stanley Frankel of Frankel Associates then presented his proposal for the Butler ‎

Ridge residential development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel indicated that the new design will maintain all of the natural features and ‎

this site has many; the river which covers two sides of the site, the land conservancy ‎

and the trees and woods‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel also pointed out that an agreement has been ‎

made with the city that Frankel Development will pave Butler Road and rebuild the ‎

bridge‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel indicated that the design being proposed will encompass ‎131 ‎sites on ‎

116 ‎acres‎. ‎The smallest size home site is a little over ‎30‎,‎000 ‎square feet with the ‎

average lot size being one quarter of an acre‎. ‎The idea of the plan is to create its‎’ ‎own ‎

community with a gated ingress and egress‎. ‎The lots are laid out in such a way that ‎

none of the driveways come out to the main road; everyone has their own little ‎

community with a combination of four to eight sites‎. ‎The starting prices of the houses ‎

will begin at $‎600‎,‎000 ‎to $‎700‎,‎000‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel then detailed the advantages of this development to the community‎. ‎The ‎

project is a site condominium development, the houses and driveways will be set back ‎

in their own community which will give the development privacy and a uniqueness in ‎

itself‎. ‎The streets will be owned by the homeowners association and they will have full ‎

responsibility for the maintenance and care of the road, landscaping, internal lights, etc‎. ‎

Because of the lack of density the development will have less demand than normal on ‎

the community for service, there will be a larger tax base for the community and less ‎

impact on the school systems and on traffic‎. ‎The proposal will also allow the ‎

developer to do something for the parcel that the developer may never have a chance ‎

to do‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel then detailed the aesthetic qualities of the development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki then inquired about Squirrel Road being opened through the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Nowicki is concerned about another barricade being erected‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel said that the issue of open and closed roads is an issue between the ‎

municipalities not for the developer‎. ‎No traffic studies have been prepared for the site ‎

because the bridge is out‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki also noted that if the road is opened there would be another east‎/‎west ‎

traffic corridor down Butler Road road to Squirrel Road‎. ‎If the bridge is constructed, ‎

there would also be a possibility that there would be an additional east‎/‎west ‎

thoroughfare‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki then suggested that perhaps the city could give up Butler ‎

Road and allow this thoroughfare to become part of the condominium development‎. ‎

This would then eliminate the possibility of Butler Road being opened up to Squirrel‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin added that negotiations on Butler Road have always been separate ‎

and distinct from the development of this property‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin ascertained that ‎

there are not enough facts available to discuss this issue this evening‎. ‎The subject ‎

plans for Butler Road have been developed, designed, agreed to and negotiated under ‎

a separate project‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he would be willing to look into this situation‎. ‎If the city cannot ‎

sell the road, the vacating of the road would then be given to the adjoining land ‎

owners‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen mentioned that an alternative way to think about Butler Road is the egress ‎

(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, fire, safety‎). ‎If the west side of Butler is abandoned, there will only be a single ‎

access point for a fairly large development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel noted that this is why consideration was made for a break‎-‎away barrier‎. ‎

If there was an accident at the bridge, the only way to obtain egress and ingress is by ‎

going west‎. ‎It is the preference of the developer that the only individuals that travel ‎

Butler Road would be the residents‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Frankel remarked that this is a development that cannot be designed ‎

under the current Subdivision Control Ordinance‎. ‎The developer desires to create a ‎

total ambiance for the community with this development by installing separate roads, ‎

signage, gas lights, landscape plantings, fire lanes with the streets and separate cut outs ‎

for each individual community within the development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen inquired whether the issues really deal with the Subdivision Control ‎

Ordinance or engineering standards‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel said that one issue really leads to the other‎. ‎After a meeting with staff, the ‎

site was reengineered to see if the utilities could be taken off the road and put ‎

somewhere else‎. ‎It was then determined that this could be done, however, it would ‎

be very expensive and the utilities are then located where no one wants them‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin added that the utilities for water and sewer are regulated by the state ‎

and they would have to be dedicated to the public for maintenance‎. ‎There could not ‎

be a private water system because of established safety and public health reasons‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen also noted that even though the roads may not be dedicated to the city, the ‎

water, sanitary and storm must be dedicated to the city‎. ‎The city then has engineering ‎

standards control over what is put in above them‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that if requests are made for changes in the engineering ‎

standards, the City Council must adopt an alternative set of design standards and the ‎

Engineering Department would have to make some recommendation as to the viability ‎

of the new standards‎. ‎It would take legislative action by waiving the requirements for ‎

this specific property or a change would have to be made in the ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen then asked how a PUD would benefit the development which is being ‎

discussed this evening‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that it appears that a PUD would not be beneficial for this ‎

development‎. ‎If there are engineering design issues that need to be modified or a ‎

different set established as an alternative, this would have to be established as part of ‎

the regulatory ordinances that would be applicable to any property‎. ‎Engineering is not ‎

supportive of waiving or modifying any of the existing design standards‎. ‎Engineering ‎

believes that the design standards are in place for a specific purpose and intent‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel, in reference to the open space requirement, only deals with smaller ‎

parcels‎. ‎The density in this development has been reduced by a large proportion and ‎

there is no credit for the open space areas‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel would also like to eliminate ‎

the sidewalks in this development because of the price of the homes‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested that functional equivalency could be considered as opposed to ‎

the precise following of the plan‎. ‎This is what the plan really doesn‎’‎t have‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that the PUD would ask for waivers from City Council in ‎

conjunction with a specific project or plan‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel added that a PUD ordinance by itself allows a community in each specific ‎

individual case to do something different and the projects are not precedent setting ‎

because the features are not the same‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell pointed out that in granting waivers to specific developers the city could ‎

be setting themselves up for future problems‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson indicated that legally the PUD authorizing legislation allows the ‎

municipalities to modify the use of land to include permitted uses, lot size, setback, ‎

height and required facilities‎. ‎Complimentary relationships can also be encouraged ‎

between zoning regulations and other regulations which affect land development‎. ‎

Legally, within the PUD alternate standards could be adopted for the merits of a ‎

project‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan pointed out that state law pertains to the PUD standards within the‎

zoning ordinance‎. ‎If the engineering standards are not in the zoning ordinance then ‎

this would not apply‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Ternan suggested that you could draft discretionary ‎

standards that might allow flexibility‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin then pointed out that the purpose of the presentation is to review the ‎

entire concept‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin believes that the PUD is a good approach, however, ‎

she has concerns about modifying the engineering standards‎. ‎Even though the ‎

standards could modified, the development process could change over time‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎

Goodwin indicated that she would like some general indication on what the Planning ‎

Commission would like the staff to do in order to facilitate or accommodate the ‎

project which is being discussed this evening‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that balance must be reached with the current ordinances while still ‎

meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance and are there alternatives available for ‎

conformance‎. ‎What are the areas that don‎’‎t conform and what will it take to change ‎

the nonconforming regions‎.‎

Continuing, Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin remarked that if the Planning Commission understands that ‎

the design standards are a major issue, then that has to built in as something that the ‎

City Council can look at in the context of the site plan‎. ‎If the Planning Commission is ‎

supportive of this concept, the PUD is the vehicle and it may need additional changes ‎

that it still does not contain‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan indicated that if it is the expression of the commission to go forward with ‎

the concept of the PUD, then it will be necessary to list exactly what doesn‎’‎t conform ‎

to engineering development standards‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa noted that when a PUD is written you don‎’‎t want to make someone do ‎

something that has been designed as a lower standard‎. ‎The policy that is developed ‎

should allow a safe development for the community but it also should make it possible ‎

for developments to be built in the community under the PUD concept‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel suggested perhaps every development could have their own separate ‎

PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson explained that in some communities PUD‎’‎s are very general; separate ‎

ordinances are written for each project‎. ‎Rochester Hills is looking at writing a general ‎

ordinance with separate stipulations‎. ‎The uses and requirements can then be modified ‎

within the PUD‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell then asked about the purpose of any zoning at all why not just have a ‎

PUD community‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that the down side is that when you get into this type of planning the ‎

other ordinances begin to affect the development in relation to the PUD‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked that the concept of the PUD be moved up one more level to ‎

research what it is that has to change or how it has to change to allow the PUD to ‎

happen‎. ‎If the issues are surmountable what are they‎. ‎If the issues are ‎

insurmountable, what do you do and how would the concerns fit into the PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen indicated that staff now needs to explore what is causing the problems ‎

(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, the ordinance, standards, etc‎.) ‎and how of all these issues fit together and ‎

whether or not the PUD will help the situation‎. ‎

(‎The Planning Commission recessed at ‎8:50‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎and reconvened at ‎8:55‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Discussed

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1762

Discussion ‎- ‎Proposed PUD ‎(‎Planned Unit Development‎) ‎Ordinance ‎

Amendment‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the PUD is really a two‎-‎step approach‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson will ‎

present an overview on the essential parts of the PUD Ordinance and then Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi will illustrate what the trends are and the location of parcels that might ‎

potentially benefit or take advantage a PUD designation that would be of benefit to the ‎

city‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson reported that back in July of this year the concept of the PUD was initially ‎

discussed with the Planning Commission‎. ‎The commission made a decision whether ‎

or not a PUD should be considered and at this time the commission was basically just ‎

discussing a PUD just for residential uses‎.‎

During this discussion it was determined that the general consensus was to take a look ‎

at a PUD that would be designed for both residential, mixed‎-‎use projects and all ‎

commercial projects‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson then reviewed the intent of a PUD which is to ‎

achieve both public and private benefits for the community‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that the proposed PUD would encompass three types of ‎

development‎. ‎Residential which would be parcels that are zoned one family ‎

residential, the permitted uses or modifications would be only for the design or ‎

dimensional standards and perhaps a small density bonus of ten percent‎. ‎A density ‎

bonus has been added for an incentive for someone who is not looking for the type of ‎

dimensional or design standards modifications that Mr‎. ‎Frankel is looking for‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that the mixed‎-‎use PUD will allow one family ‎

detached or attached units and commercial uses within the business and office ‎

categories‎. ‎The option of assisted or extended care for the elderly has also been ‎

included in this category which is a use that is increasing‎. ‎This detached use would ‎

only be permitted if the underlying zoning was permitted and the commercial use for ‎

elderly housing would only be permitted if the site was designated by the master plan ‎

for that use‎. ‎There would also be an allowance for modifications to the dimensional ‎

standards‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson also noted that in the commercial PUD the same set of commercial and ‎

elderly uses and the same standards would remain in place‎. ‎These would be ‎

permitted only if the site is designated for commercial use by the master plan and there ‎

would also be modifications to the dimensional standards‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson recommended that the PUD be designed as an overlay zoning‎. ‎It is a ‎

rezoning of the property but the underlying zoning designation would be retained on ‎

the map‎. ‎The City Council would approve the overlay and the site plan‎. ‎The site plan ‎

would then be attached to the ordinance and this would govern the types of uses, the ‎

improvements that are required to the site, the phasing and any other terms or ‎

conditions that are agreed to by the developer‎.‎

The approval process would consist of a one phase process so that the developer ‎

would not have to come back to the Planning Commission a second time‎. ‎There is an ‎

optional step up front that if the developer wants to come in for general feedback, they ‎

could bring in a conceptual plan for discussion by the Planning Commission‎. ‎If the ‎

feedback was positive, the applicant could then submit for the PUD rezoning and site ‎

plan approval consecutively‎. ‎The Planning Commission would then make a ‎

recommendation and the City Council would approve or deny the PUD rezoning‎. ‎

There would not be an approved site plan conditioned on an approved PUD rezoning‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that with a PUD agreement the draft agreement comes forward ‎

with a plan that is presented to Planning Commission and City Council‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson also indicated that the PUD agreement is a separate ordinance that is ‎

adopted for each project‎. ‎When the mixed use option was first considered, there was ‎

some concern about permitting all of the uses for a particular zoning; the agreements ‎

can actually set forth the principal permitted uses within the PUD‎. ‎In approving a ‎

mixed use you do not have to open the PUD to all commercial uses permitted in a ‎

district‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson also noted that the other issue which should be revisited is the way the ‎

PUD has been set up for the reviewing authority‎. ‎There has been some questioning on ‎

this issue and whether or not this could be done legally‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson indicated that on page ‎4‎, a provision has been included to establish within ‎

the tree ordinance that you can only count for tree preservation those trees that are ‎

outside of the building envelope‎. ‎This would allow the applicant to establish a more ‎

restrictive envelope so that trees could be counted that would be within the normal or ‎

standards setback toward the preservation requirement‎. ‎The PUD would define its‎’ ‎

own building envelope and this could be more restrictive than the standard envelope ‎

for that district‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin suggested putting an option in the tree ordinance to take care of any ‎

problems that may occur within the building envelopes‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson then detailed the open space option for the PUD ordinance whereby the ‎

lot size can be reduced with an equivalent area put into open space‎. ‎It was ‎

determined that instead of having to dedicate that amount of open space on the site, ‎

someone could exercise the open space option and instead dedicate an equivalent ‎

amount of open space or an equivalent amount of value to the development to some ‎

other recreational, cultural or civic project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell asked about the difference between this and reducing the lot size to save ‎

trees‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that this would be a provision that is within the zoning ordinance and ‎

it could be modified by the PUD‎. ‎The ordinance also has the standard conditions for ‎

approval and some of the guidelines that would be used in drafting the PUD ‎

agreement which deals with changes and amendments to the PUD‎. ‎There is also in ‎

the text a provision for appeals and violations‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson suggested that the commission may want to discuss whether there should ‎

be a density bonus, how the approval process flows ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, two step or single step ‎

process‎) ‎and to what extent the PUD would relate to other ordinances and the ‎

engineering and design standards of the city‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi then detailed the existing land use inventory map for the commissioners‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi reported that PUD‎’‎s will more than likely become a trend of the future‎. ‎

There are currently two qualifying criterias for a PUD; very large parcels ‎(‎Butler Ridge ‎

and parcels in Section ‎1‎) ‎and parcels which have environmental problems associated ‎

with them such as a wetland or a floodplain through the middle of the parcel‎. ‎The ‎

residual parcels included ‎(‎single family and vacant parcels‎) ‎of at least ‎80‎,‎000 ‎square ‎

feet in area and are included mainly in the south part of the city‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that in reference to the mixed use PUD, basically ‎

staff is looking at where there is a potential for a future master planned commercial ‎

area or a cluster or multi‎-‎family type of development‎. ‎For the redevelopment of ‎

existing commercial properties the standards could be modified to help with the ‎

development of these properties ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, Rochester Motor Lodge‎). ‎In terms of ‎

redevelopment for existing commercial properties which are already master planned ‎

commercial and zoned commercial, the PUD is a very good to use on a case‎-‎by‎-‎case ‎

basis in order to obtain the highest development for the city‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen then inquired about designating PUD areas on a master plan‎. ‎

Staff indicated that the area could be ‎“‎blobbed‎” ‎however, the master plan is far more ‎

detailed in designating a land use classification for every property than a lot of other ‎

communities‎. ‎Most communities just show general boundaries for land use categories‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson noted that you can create a land use category called mixed‎-‎use or define ‎

an area as an overlay area on the plan where PUD would be encouraged‎. ‎This can be ‎

addressed in the plan‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin asked the commissioners to address the three questions which have ‎

been raised‎. ‎First, should the clarification of the ultimate zoning classification be ‎

applied to the parcel and depicted on the zoning map once a PUD agreement has ‎

been adopted by the City Council‎. ‎The way the PUD ordinance has been structured, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson is recommending an approach that essentially establishes a zoning ‎

ordinance for each specific PUD‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that he prefers the overlay approach because to him a PUD is a ‎

rezoning it is a change of use and should be treated like a rezoning‎. ‎You can just ‎

designate and show the parcel on the zoning map as PUD‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson prefers the ‎

overlay because a lot of times the PUD never gets built‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki suggested the idea of putting as asterisk on the parcel and adding a note ‎

on the bottom of the zoning map itself‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated that he likes the idea of using the overlay zoning‎. ‎However, for ‎

housekeeping purposes he would like to see the underlying zoning consistent with the ‎

use‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan pointed out that if the underlying zoning is not the desired zoning, then the ‎

process would be to change the underlying zoning and carry out a rezoning to the ‎

PUD classification‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson added that the zoning of the site would be zoned with the mixed use PUD ‎

overlay and the uses would be defined in the PUD ordinance‎. ‎The underlying zoning ‎

is not rezoned‎. ‎By changing the underlying zoning to commercial, if the developer ‎

abandons or violates the PUD then he has commercial zoning‎. ‎The PUD actually ‎

opens the door in terms of uses‎. ‎To permit a commercial use there is no need to ‎

change the zoning classification‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan ascertained that single family PUD is the only PUD that would have to be ‎

consistent with the underlying zoning‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin then asked for discussion on the benefits of the PUD to the community ‎

and whether bonuses or credits should be offered to developers that are not already ‎

available‎. ‎Is there something that the city needs to offer property owners as an ‎

incentive to embrace the PUD concept‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki said that the PUD is available if they desire to have this type of an ‎

option‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki does not support the concept of offering bonuses to the ‎

developers‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi would like to see a bonus structured like the current open space option‎. ‎

The lot size could be reduced by ten percent in exchange for ten percent of open ‎

space‎. ‎

This will allow for the preservation of flood plains and wood stands in an open space ‎

area which cannot be preserved under the current space option‎. ‎You are exchanging ‎

a wood stand or sensitive feature of the parcel for smaller lots‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that it would be a general reduction in lot area of ten to fifteen ‎

percent or whatever the open space option would allow‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that the open space open option allows a reduction of twenty to ‎

twenty‎-‎five percent‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi also suggested that in exchange for the same open space back on the ‎

property, open space may be donated off‎-‎site‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also noted that the transfer of development rights is something that ‎

planners in Michigan have been trying to bundle into use statutes, however, it is not ‎

enabled‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen, concurring with Mr‎. ‎Nowicki, said that the city already has open space ‎

for residential; an additional bonus is not really needed‎. ‎There are large parcels and ‎

they won‎’‎t really be that difficult to develop‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen would like to see an ‎

additional bonus being used similarly for the smaller parcels without a net density ‎

difference‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that a lot of the lots are extending over the wetlands and into ‎

the trees‎. ‎The city would like to stop at the lot line before you get into the trees and ‎

wetlands‎. ‎This would be a trade‎-‎off to provide better environmental protection‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked about this concept being applied to mixed‎-‎use or commercial ‎

properties‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated density is not needed on these types of parcels‎. ‎There is ‎

currently no minimum required open space or green space requirement in Rochester ‎

Hills‎. ‎The applicant only needs to meet the buffer, parking and fire code requirements‎. ‎

The PUD allows an applicant to go through only one process to receive all of their ‎

answers in terms of use and bulk requirements‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen also expressed his concern about how the concept of the PUD will allow ‎

changes to the engineering standards‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that changes in the engineering standards were not an option in the ‎

commercial or mixed use categories‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan suggested researching design standards in other communities that currently ‎

have PUD‎’‎s‎. ‎Engineering Services may be more comfortable with this concept if they ‎

can compare engineering standards with other communities‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki added that if the increased density is not compatible with the surrounding ‎

zoning you haven‎’‎t really gained anything‎. ‎You offer the bonus and then you take it ‎

away because it will not be compatible with the surrounding zoning‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan reported that one of the downfalls of the PUD in Avon Township was the ‎

densities and the license to change things‎. ‎This is one of the reasons why it was ‎

repealed fifteen or twenty years ago‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan pointed out that during this time the PUD was used for very, very large ‎

parcels‎. ‎One of the motivating factors today is to use the PUD for parcels that are ‎

difficult to develop‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen added that based on what he has heard tonight, he is not really sure that ‎

the process is streamlined‎. ‎It may be desirable to treat the project like a zoning and a ‎

site plan‎. ‎The approval then is like a rezoning and you work out most of the details ‎

and pieces prior to approving the plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell would like to see the entire PUD brought forth as a package‎. ‎If the City ‎

Council has any problem with the package, the PUD will then be returned back to the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎If the plan is brought forward in two steps, the process may ‎

take a lot longer to approve‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that a small project proceeds through the entire rezoning process ‎

it takes approximately ‎120 ‎days just to get through the site plan review process‎. ‎

After this, the land improvement permit and the construction plan process begins‎. ‎

One of the items that administration and City Council is working on is how to improve ‎

the development permit process and how to inform the developer about the ‎

expectations of the community‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell ascertained that one of the benefits of a PUD is that it is basically ‎

contract zoning‎. ‎An applicant is really coming before the city with a contract and the ‎

Planning Commission really just sends the entire contract on to City Council for their ‎

approval or denial‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa observed that even if a site plan goes to City Council the internal ‎

processes of the city make the final plan end up being modified‎. ‎Having a two step ‎

process will not really change anything because the finished package will require ‎

additional revisions‎. ‎Unless the processes are changed, the process will not be ‎

improved it will only become more complicated‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin then suggested that perhaps the concept plan could become a ‎

submission requirement‎. ‎Also, if the applicant is willing to come in with detailed ‎

engineering and construction plans, then the one step approach may be an additional ‎

option‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out that you can get through City Council with less detail than a full ‎

site plan but given the experience you could work out most of those issues‎. ‎The ‎

detail work is taken care of further down the line‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki indicated that the city currently has fifteen percent of vacant land which ‎

is about ‎300 ‎acres‎. ‎How many vacant parcels does the city really have where the ‎

PUD could really be utilized‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that the residual residential parcels encompass an additional ‎1‎,‎800‎

acres‎. ‎These are the pieces which are difficult to develop such as Covington #‎3‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that McKenna Associates works with a lot of communities ‎

that are currently at build out‎. ‎The opportunities for redevelopment are really quite ‎

large‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson feels that the city really has some great opportunities with the ‎

current stage of development and the quality and caliber of builders which the city is ‎

currently attracting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson indicated that he could make the one step process as an option of the ‎

PUD and he could then set the plan up as a two step process‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan pointed out that this type of set up may have two different appointing ‎

bodies; City Council and Planning Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson will now work on developing the completed language for the PUD ‎

ordinance‎.‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There were no items under Any Other Business this evening‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for October ‎7‎, ‎1997‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Chairperson adjourned the Special Meeting at ‎10‎:‎22 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎, Michigan time‎.‎