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 22, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Special Study meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎35 ‎

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

Wlliam Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

Audrery Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Christian Ramanauskas‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Penny Papke, Planning Technician‎

Katherin Beebe, katherine Beebe & Associates‎

Kofi Boone, JJR, Inc‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1823

Master Land Use Plan Update ‎- ‎Discuss Residual Area Recommendations‎: ‎

South side of Auburn ‎(‎Area east of Livernois frontage to west of Norton Lawn‎)‎; ‎

Livernois and Hamlin; North side of Hamlin, West of Crestline; Michelson ‎(‎south ‎

of M‎-‎59‎)‎

Chairperson Kaiser reviewed the history and the purpose of the meeting with the ‎

commission and the public‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser welcomed everyone to the meeting ‎

and conveyed the Planning Commission‎’‎s appreciation for everyone‎’‎s interest in the ‎

update on the Master Land Use Plan‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser indicated that the meeting this evening will involve discussion on ‎

the Master Land Use Plan update‎. ‎The process began in June of ‎1997‎. ‎In June, a ‎

subcommittee was developed to study‎ possible‎ changes to the Master Land Use Plan‎. ‎

The Master Land Use Plan which exists with the City of Rochester Hills, when the ‎

commission is done, may stay exactly as it is today‎. ‎There is no mandate that changes ‎

must be made, the process is simply being studied‎. ‎

Continuing, Chairperson Kaiser described the Master Land Use Plan as a wish list or ‎

a living document for land use‎. ‎There is nothing mandated about the Master Land ‎

Use Plan; it is a guide based on land studies, public input and information from the ‎

consultants on how the city may develop the land in the next ‎20 ‎years‎.‎

A ‎15 ‎to ‎20 ‎year target date is used as a time line‎. ‎In addition to this, because the city ‎

is coming to the end of potential new development, the plan is being looked at for the ‎

next five years in order to make sure that everything is on or is not on track‎. ‎The ‎

basic policy of the Master Land Use Plan which was completed five years ago, was to ‎

decrease the amount of commercial acreage in the City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎This was ‎

successfully done‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser then indicated that zoning is an entirely different issue then master ‎

planning‎. ‎Zoning is something that the City Council approves, however, the Planning ‎

Commission participates in this process by making recommendations to City ‎

Council‎. ‎The meeting this evening has nothing to do with zoning‎. ‎The meeting tonight ‎

will encompass discussion on future land use for the next ‎20 ‎years‎.‎

In June of ‎1997 ‎a study was prepared in order to identify the principal areas that ‎

should be reviewed, not changed‎. ‎In January of ‎1998 ‎the city engaged a consultant; ‎

that being Katherine Beebe & Associates‎. ‎The consultant, who is a professional in ‎

their field, studies the city in great depth based on experience working throughout ‎

Michigan and elsewhere‎. ‎The consultant then comes back to the city with options and ‎

alternatives once the study is completed‎. ‎The Planning Department then participates ‎

with the consultant and the Planning Commission from a city viewpoint to present their ‎

perspectives‎.‎

In the spring and summer of ‎1998 ‎the city then commenced with the workshop ‎

sessions which were held at the Older Persons Commission‎. ‎The workshops were ‎

advertised in the newspaper and on Channel ‎55‎. ‎At this time, the ten opportunity ‎

areas were identified for specific issues and concerns and anyone who wanted to ‎

come was invited ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, public, Planning Commission, Planning Consultant, Planning ‎

Department‎).‎

Chairperson Kaiser pointed out that when the workshop process ended, the local ‎

meetings and reviews commenced‎. ‎These meetings are based on certain geographical ‎

areas in the city where the consultant or the Planning Department or individual ‎

commissioner‎’‎s felt that should be looked at due the fact that at some time in the ‎

future someone may want to develop the land‎. ‎The options in the opportunity areas ‎

were then identified‎. ‎The local meetings and reviews will be continued until ‎

mid‎-‎October‎. ‎After the local meetings are held, the Planning Commission then has a ‎

study meeting so that the consultant can come back and review the findings from the ‎

local meetings, prior studies, the current Master Land Use Plan and any other issues ‎

that are at hand and they will then review the best alternatives for the next ‎20 ‎years‎. ‎

This draft of the Master Land Use Plan update is tentatively scheduled to be ‎

presented sometime in February of ‎1999‎. ‎The two public hearings to approve the ‎

Master Land Use Plan will then be held in March of ‎1999 ‎and this is where public ‎

participation will occur‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser then discussed the information that was on the flyer that was ‎

distributed to the members of the community‎. ‎The information which was presented ‎

on the flyer was not accurate‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser pointed out that once the Master ‎

Land Use Plan is changed then the zoning ordinance map will be changed and it will all ‎

become binding‎. ‎The changes do not become binding until this process is followed‎. ‎If ‎

the Master Land Use Plan is changed at all, it does not follow that the zoning map will ‎

change‎. ‎The City Council, and only City Council, can change the zoning of a parcel‎. ‎

In reference to the statement about eminent domain on the flyer, Chairperson Kaiser ‎

noted that this was written in the flyer to worry people about losing their property‎. ‎

Any issues on right‎-‎of‎-‎ways based on the Master Land Use Plan will be planned for‎. ‎

The issue of right‎-‎of‎-‎ways can be discussed at the Planning Commission level and will ‎

eventually be addressed by City Council; this will not take away a residents house or ‎

land‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser also remarked that it is not the function of the Planning ‎

Commission to rezone parcels for additional tax dollars‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser pointed out that Ms‎. ‎Beebe will present her options for the ‎

identified areas, the alternatives for these areas will be reviewed and the Planning ‎

Commission will then discuss the different alternatives that Ms‎. ‎Beebe proposes which ‎

are available‎. ‎The public hearings and the public participation will occur as the local ‎

meetings continue and when the public hearings are held in the spring‎. ‎There will be ‎

no public comment this evening‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser then had dialogue back and forth ‎

regarding the Planning Commission‎’‎s policy on public input at the meeting‎.‎

(‎The commission then recessed at ‎7:55‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎and reconvened at ‎8:10‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe reported that tonight the commission will be discussing the second set of ‎

four opportunity areas‎. ‎The areas for discussion at this study include the following‎: ‎

South side of Auburn ‎(‎Area east of Livernois frontage to‎

west of Norton Lawn‎)‎

Livernois and Hamlin‎

North side of Hamlin, West of Crestline‎

Michelson ‎(‎South of M‎-‎59‎)‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that she will be reviewing the findings which came out of the meetings ‎

with the residents on the affected areas and the alternatives that were discussed‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Beebe then detailed the opportunity areas‎.‎

South side of Auburn ‎(‎Area east of Livernois and Frontage to west of Norton ‎

Lawn‎)‎

Existing uses‎: ‎On the southeast corner of Auburn and Livernois, automotive ‎

service commercial‎. ‎The Islamic Center is located on property midway east on the ‎

Auburn frontage, with a large parcel area owned but not currently in use‎. ‎The balance ‎

of the area is single‎-‎family or vacant‎. ‎The single‎-‎family properties are relatively large, ‎

deep lots‎. ‎This area is bisected by the M‎-‎59 ‎freeway with parcels having ‎

freeway‎-‎visible frontage and direct access to Auburn Road‎. ‎On the north side of ‎

Auburn and west of M‎-‎59‎, the community is RM‎-‎1‎, multi‎-‎family residential‎.‎

1992 ‎Master Plan‎:‎ ‎The two corner lots on Auburn at Livernois are master planned ‎

for automotive service and the two lots directly east are commercial‎. ‎The balance of ‎

the parcels are single‎-‎family The area north of Auburn and west of M‎-‎59 ‎is master ‎

planned at the corner for automotive service and commercial uses with the balance in ‎

multi‎- ‎family residential‎.‎

Current Zoning‎:‎ ‎The two corner lots are zoned Automotive Service Business and ‎

the two lots east on Auburn are zoned B‎-‎2‎, General Business‎. ‎The balance of the ‎

parcels are zoned R‎-‎4‎, single‎-‎family residential‎. ‎Minimum lot size is ‎9‎,‎600 ‎square feet ‎

with a width of ‎80 ‎feet‎. ‎Minimum floor area is ‎912 ‎square feet with a ‎30 ‎percent lot ‎

coverage‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎1‎: ‎Research Office for the approximately ‎41 ‎acre area‎. ‎This ‎

would take advantage of the freeway exposure and access to Auburn Road‎. ‎

Recognizing there are wetlands near the freeway, this plan uses these areas to create a ‎

park like environment along the freeway‎. ‎Approximately ‎455‎,‎000 ‎square feet of ‎

office space would be created‎.‎

This scenario leaves the Islamic Center facilities in place, but replaces residential ‎

properties over time with office uses‎. ‎Vacant property owned by the Islamic Center, ‎

but not currently used by them is shown as office use‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎2‎: ‎Multi‎-‎family residential is shown at ‎8 ‎to ‎10 ‎units per acre, ‎

similar to the density on the north side of Auburn Road‎. ‎This would provide a ‎

circulation system providing access to the rear and central portions of the properties‎. ‎

Under this alternative, approximately ‎300 ‎units of two‎-‎story, multi‎-‎family housing ‎

would be created‎.‎

This alternative leaves the Islamic Center facilities in place but replaces single‎-‎family ‎

residential properties with the higher density multi‎-‎family residential‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎3‎: ‎Leave the area as it currently stands; single‎-‎family homes ‎

with a ‎90 ‎foot frontage and a lot size of ‎9‎,‎600 ‎square feet‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted, in reference to the third approach, that a developer could purchase ‎

the ‎15 ‎parcels in this area and assemble them into a single‎-‎family subdivision‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki also pointed out that the B‎-‎5 ‎and B‎-‎2 ‎business zoning and uses should ‎

also be taken into account for this portion of the city‎. ‎It should not be forgotten‎.‎

In reference to the work session on this area, which was held on August ‎26‎, ‎1998‎, ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe indicated that the session was well attended by representatives from the ‎

residential community; many have lived in this area for a long time‎. ‎No one was ‎

present from the Islamic Center‎. ‎The residents expressed concern about the changes ‎

which have occurred as a result of the land acquisitions by the Islamic Center and this ‎

use expanding in addition to possible increases in property taxes‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe reported that it was generally stated that the residents would like to keep ‎

things as they are‎. ‎The existing policies do not really protect the existing conditions‎. ‎

The residents are not in favor of any changes because they equate changes in master ‎

plan policy occurring right outside of their windows‎. ‎The first concern of the residents ‎

was the issue of the institutional use expanding and faced with this, the other ‎

alternatives became more attractive to them‎. ‎The first desire would be to leave things ‎

as they are but experience has shown that any further incursion of the church use ‎

would favor the office or multi‎-‎family uses‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe feels that this issue needs to be ‎

addressed in the master plan‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe also pointed out that the current policies do permit the dividing up of ‎

existing larger parcels into smaller lots‎. ‎The ‎1992 ‎master plan is silent on this issue‎. ‎A ‎

second issue also deals with the concern about the automatic right of church use to ‎

come into single‎-‎family residential areas‎. ‎It is a neighborhood use and serves the ‎

neighborhood; however, what has happened in the community is that you have a ‎

church use coming in which serves a much larger community‎. ‎The use now also offers ‎

not only a worship center but a community center and school or educational facilities‎. ‎

The city then is faced with a policy that is really formed around the ‎“‎neighborhood ‎

church‎” ‎concept and what is really being approved are facilities for larger space users‎. ‎

The single‎-‎family residential community then finds this type of planning unattractive‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked if the city currently has any type of special land use designation for a ‎

religious facility‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe indicated that the city does not have anything of this type‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe has seen other communities designate specific areas for institutional use ‎

which would include churches as a use or they designate areas for just churches‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Rosen added that this may be something that the city may want to consider‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that the zoning ordinance is structured in such a way that ‎

many types of non‎-‎residential uses are permitted within the residential zoning category ‎

(‎e‎.‎g, parks, golf courses, churches‎) ‎are allowed in any district as a special or ‎

conditional land use‎. ‎Based on this philosophy, it was intended that these uses would ‎

be customary to a neighborhood and they would also be situated in way to be ‎

compatible and harmonious with the locality‎. ‎This is a policy issue and is something ‎

that could be called a ‎“‎parking lot‎” ‎issue which may need to be dealt with‎. ‎As it ‎

stands now, all churches in Rochester Hills are allowed in single‎-‎family zoning‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa, in reference to alternatives ‎1 ‎and ‎2‎, inquired about entrances being ‎

developed along Auburn or Livernois‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that the entrances will come in ‎

along Rochester Road‎. ‎The traffic would go north along Auburn Road and out to ‎

Rochester Road‎. ‎The impact analysis for infrastructure and traffic have not been ‎

completed‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe indicated that the reason for looking at this as a study alternative is that the ‎

area being discussed plus the area on Auburn closer to Adams Road are the only two ‎

areas in the city where there is potential for additional office development‎. ‎In addition ‎

to this, consideration is being made for any areas where the business tax base can be ‎

increased‎. ‎The Planning Commission must then develop a policy if the city wants ‎

and‎/‎or needs more office development and where it could be located‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked if there is anything unusual about the topography or the land layout ‎

that lends itself to any of the alternatives being considered this evening‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boone noted that based on current mapping and site visitation, the majority if not ‎

all of the wetlands, including a proposed drain which connects one of the retention ‎

areas associated with the Islamic Center, will be preserved under all of the ‎

alternatives‎. ‎In terms of the topography and the woodlands, the significant impact ‎

would be parking and the difference between the needs of the parking for office or ‎

housing‎. ‎There is no significant topography on the site; there are only mature trees and ‎

wetlands‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that most of the parcels cut out by M‎-‎59 ‎on the south side are ‎

in the wetlands area and the north side is relatively undeveloped‎. ‎What really sets the ‎

area apart is the location not the topography or any conditions that are intrinsic to the ‎

site‎. ‎The area is also a section where you have existing single‎-‎family homes and lots ‎

with nice mature trees and a very quiet environment‎. ‎The area being discussed is ‎

really a community wide issue area; policies should be considered in the long‎-‎range ‎

planning which will provide for increases in the tax base over time‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe also ‎

suggested that one of the residual parcels on Rochester Road could be master planned ‎

for the location of a small professional office because of the depth of the parcel‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber questioned whether or not the Planning Commission could adopt a policy ‎

that would encourage the development of larger parcels to single‎-‎family as opposed to ‎

piecemealing the smaller parcels and is this something that could be legally enforced‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that the simplest way to maintain the larger lots with the single‎-‎family ‎

homes is to accomplish this with zoning‎. ‎The minimum lot size could be made much ‎

larger‎. ‎This is the most expedient way to accomplish this and could be addressed with ‎

the Master Land Use Plan‎. ‎In the subdivision ordinance you could also enact a PUD ‎

and this would further strengthen the ability in the review process to ask for plans that ‎

would cover the larger area, provide for linkages or for a sharing of open space‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe noted that this is not a guarantee if you still have the fall back of the zoning‎. ‎

A PUD overlay for the areas that have the larger lots would allow for a policy ‎

statement and illustrations of how property would look if it were developed under a ‎

PUD approach versus taking the two lots and driving a single road with a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac ‎

at the end with ‎80 ‎foot lots‎. ‎A PUD ‎(‎Planned Unit Development‎) ‎is where a plan has ‎

been submitted for a larger area and the city has the right to review the plan for ‎

performance specifications in terms of density, open space, linkages, image and other ‎

issues‎. ‎A PUD is usually put in place so that when there is a larger area some portions ‎

of the site can be developed in a more dense area then others in order to create open ‎

space to balance the density‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki noted that this would involve the assembling of parcels to come up with ‎

a large piece of area which could be developed and planned as a PUD‎. ‎

‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa asked if there is any way that the existing business zoning in the corners ‎

can be developed as some type of other business zoning instead of having to plan the ‎

entire area as office development and still have a small increase in the business zoning‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa is concerned about having Auburn Road as the main ingress‎/‎egress for the ‎

corner‎. ‎Can the corner be better utilized for business use?‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that this is an option that can be pursued‎. ‎You can deal with the ‎

Auburn frontage and you don‎’‎t go as deep and‎/‎or you don‎’‎t look at Livernois south of ‎

the commercial corner frontage, however, you will still have the large lots which are ‎

susceptible to subdividing for residential use‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser then inquired if there is a way in the master land use process to ‎

direct this specific process before the area is developed any further‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe indicated that there is a way to do this and the issue is that if you have a ‎

PUD in place and someone comes to develop ‎15 ‎percent of the area, the parcel can ‎

be developed as it stands or they may develop the site as a PUD‎. ‎If this amount of ‎

property is not designed as a PUD, it really makes it difficult to do anything‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Beebe also noted that the PUD describes uses‎. ‎There are some areas where you ‎

might want a PUD approach but only residential use‎. ‎The master plan policy could ‎

also describe several different types of alternatives for the PUD ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, residential or ‎

business amenities‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested that the area east of the Mosque could possibly be master ‎

planned with a mixture of office and residential uses‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe indicated that this mixed use is possible and it is also possible to do a split ‎

east of M‎-‎59 ‎for residential use‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boone indicated that the opportunities which exist in this area indicate an ‎

abundance of very unique natural features and wetlands‎. ‎State of the art ‎

developments are incorporating these types of features to create a sense of place and ‎

unique identity‎. ‎The points regarding future traffic impact and blending the western ‎

edge of the area will allow for more of a residential character‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that there will also be impacts on schools and public services‎. ‎

These issues were covered in the alternative studies which were done in ‎1992‎. ‎Some ‎

uses will have a greater impact on the school system and some will have a greater ‎

impact on public service ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, adding to the local road system, one use versus another, ‎

etc‎.).‎

Chairperson Kaiser ascertained that he has a problem with the ability to move and ‎

drive around in the area ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, Hazelton Subdivision‎). ‎The Planning Commission felt ‎

that the parcel was not even suited for a ‎35 ‎lot subdivision‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

would have difficulty looking at the area tonight for some of the uses which have been ‎

discussed without a solid plan on how the area can be developed‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe added that the area would be looked at as an attractive marketable ‎

location as long as there is sufficient parking for employees‎. ‎On the side of the ‎

developer there would be less concern regarding the burden of increased traffic‎.‎

Livernois and Hamlin‎

Existing uses‎:‎ ‎Single‎-‎family residential and vacant property in larger lot sizes‎.‎

1992 ‎Master Plan‎:‎ ‎Single‎-‎family residential use‎.‎

Current Zoning‎:‎ ‎The property is currently zoned R‎-‎3 ‎single‎-‎family residential‎. ‎

Minimum floor area is ‎1‎,‎200 ‎square feet with ‎30 ‎percent lot coverage‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎1‎: ‎Single‎-‎family residential subdivision of ‎90 ‎lots on the east ‎

side of Livernois‎. ‎30 ‎additional lots would be created on the west side, if the existing ‎

standards were applied‎. ‎East and west side together would total ‎120 ‎homes‎.‎

The corner is a residential amenity where open space use could also be considered‎. ‎

A buffer area of ‎50 ‎feet is incorporated along the east and west edges adjacent to ‎

existing residential areas‎. ‎The plan provides for links to adjacent neighborhoods‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎2‎:‎ ‎This alternative provides for cluster housing ‎(‎four ‎

townhouses in a cluster‎) ‎on the ‎36‎.‎2 ‎acres, resulting in a total of ‎148 ‎units‎. ‎There is ‎

capacity for thirty‎-‎six of these units on the west side of Livernois and ‎112 ‎units on the ‎

east side‎. ‎The large lot area on the west side of Livernois was included for ‎

information purposes, the initial area of focus is the east side of Livernois‎.‎

‎

This alternative shows a ‎50 ‎foot setback‎/‎buffer area adjacent to existing residential ‎

and the potential for links to adjacent neighborhoods‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎3‎: ‎This alternative illustrates the application of the ‎90 ‎foot lot ‎

areas in a PUD approach which calls for a neighborhood park area and additional ‎

green space‎. ‎The additional open space requirements maintain the existing lot sizes, ‎

but would reduce the total number of allowable lots from the ‎120 ‎shown in alternative ‎

one to ‎95‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that if the developer was not convinced to combine and ‎

incorporate the existing private Rochelle Park Drive into Covington No‎. ‎3 ‎there would ‎

have been lots in this area with double frontage‎. ‎This negotiation took place at the ‎

staff level, however, in other areas of the city this has not been as successful‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber said that it appears that it would be helpful to have some type of ‎

comprehensive policy in the master plan‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin stated that this would be considered as an infill development policy ‎

which some of the older communities have as they face issues of working with residual ‎

parcels once the larger pieces have been subdivided‎. ‎The policy also maintains the ‎

current resemblance of the neighborhood and the current traffic patterns‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber noted that he would like to see a combination of alternatives ‎1 ‎and ‎3‎. ‎

Alternative ‎3 ‎would incorporate a lot of houses facing and fronting Livernois that are ‎

not really part of the subdivision areas‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe noted that the plan would capture the concept of shared open space and ‎

an overall reduction in the number of units that would be allowed‎. ‎The requirement ‎

for setback and buffering would be redefined with a residential amenity‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out that the long bowling alley lots in this area of the city allow for ‎

a sufficient amount of unused land area‎. ‎Over time, the owners would be under ‎

pressure by a developer to be assembled in group of two to ten for future proposed ‎

developments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen then asked if a viability study has been completed on this ‎

area‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that the larger lots could be put together, however, they would be of a ‎

lower density in the area south of Auburn‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe reported that the residential community was well represented during the ‎

work sessions on these areas‎. ‎The residents did not like the cluster housing ‎

alternative‎. ‎The reasons given were as follows‎: ‎an undesirable increase in population, ‎

the ‎“‎problems‎” ‎that are attendant to higher density housing and the desire to see no ‎

changes in the existing conditions‎. ‎In addition to this, the residents do not want the ‎

existing larger lots broken up‎. ‎In summary, they want no changes‎. ‎There was also ‎

concern in reference to the widening of the road south of Hamlin and increased taxes ‎

and that the city is planning a rezoning‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe also reported that one of the main concerns is whether or not the east and ‎

west side of Livernois should be reviewed‎. ‎The west side was added when some of ‎

the participants pointed out the long lots‎. ‎A second area for policy direction is ‎

whether the higher density cluster housing is desirable and the issue of linkages to ‎

existing neighborhoods‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe also reported that the sanitary sewer, traffic and ‎

other infrastructure concerns have not been fully evaluated for this area‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe ‎

also detailed the figures for the increased tax base‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked about the concern from the participants on the issue of the ‎

increased or decreased tax base‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that it comes up in each of the areas because the issues in each area ‎

need to be consistent‎. ‎The tax base impact is addressed because it is part of the ‎

current template‎. ‎There are some limited areas where alternative policies would ‎

provide for increasing the business tax base and these tend to become community ‎

wide planning issues‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe also noted that the reuse and recycling of older properties was listed as ‎

No‎. ‎6 ‎in issue areas‎. ‎As the cost of land increases, the areas become attractive for ‎

demolition or rebuilding projects‎. ‎There is also concern about maintaining the ‎

residential character along major roads‎. ‎Senior housing was not considered for this ‎

area although the cluster alternative is the same type of footprint as independent senior ‎

housing‎. ‎

On the corner of Hamlin and Livernois, Mr‎. ‎Krupa remarked that the last working ‎

plan which was put in place for the development had a continuation for boulevarding ‎

going up and down Livernois; this would make the corner very unattractive for any ‎

business‎. ‎There would also be difficulties in trying to get traffic out on to Livernois‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that another issue is that the State Preservation Officer has ‎

targeted the house on the southwest corner for historical impact‎. ‎This may cause a ‎

shifting of the road one way or the other‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that the policies may have to be addressed before the issues ‎

are resolved‎. ‎These transitions would be provided for and the possibility of the house ‎

being redesignated as a historical structure‎.‎

North side of Hamlin, West of Crestline‎

Existing uses‎:‎ ‎Single‎-‎family homes on larger lots, two churches and vacant property‎. ‎

Several of the homes on Hamlin are identified as representative of early twentieth ‎

century farm homes‎.‎

1992 ‎Master Plan‎:‎ ‎Single‎-‎family residential use‎.‎

Current Zoning‎:‎ ‎The property is currently zoned R‎-‎3‎, single‎-‎family residential‎. ‎

Minimum lot size is ‎12‎,‎000 ‎square feet with a ‎90 ‎foot width‎. ‎Minimum floor area is ‎

1‎,‎200 ‎square feet with ‎30 ‎percent lot coverage‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎1‎: ‎This alternative provides for cluster units with townhouse ‎

density‎. ‎The proposed option consists of ‎150 ‎units on ‎30 ‎acres‎. ‎The cluster PUD ‎

encompasses the retention of the existing single‎-‎family homes on Hamlin with the rear ‎

portions of the large lots in townhouse type development‎. ‎A ‎50 ‎foot setback buffer ‎

separates the existing homes from the new development area‎. ‎At the northeastern ‎

corner of Hamlin and Livernois a residential amenity or open space will be provided ‎

for‎. ‎The existing church will remain on Hamlin and the church on Livernois is shown ‎

as residential usage to illustrate the alternative of residential development on the church ‎

property‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎2‎: ‎Alternative ‎2 ‎uses the same land area as ‎1‎, protecting the ‎

existing single‎-‎family homes on Hamlin‎. ‎Under this alternative, residential uses are not ‎

shown for either church property‎. ‎This plan encompasses a total of ‎50 ‎units on ‎90 ‎

and ‎100 ‎foot lots, using the existing Master Plan and zoning ordinance standards‎. ‎This ‎

concept also shows a ‎50 ‎foot setback‎/‎buffer to the existing neighborhood and the use ‎

of the Hamlin‎/‎Livernois corner as a residential amenity‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎3‎: ‎This approach shows the area developed under the ‎

existing Master Plan and zoning ordinance without the protection of the existing home ‎

on the Hamlin frontage‎. ‎The plan shows the two church properties in their present ‎

use‎.‎

The meetings on this area were well represented by the residents‎. ‎There was no ‎

participation from the two churches‎. ‎The discussion focused on the cluster alternative; ‎

the residents did not like it‎. ‎The major reason being their desire to maintain the quality ‎

of the area‎’‎s existing character‎. ‎They were very concerned that there was a plan to ‎

break‎-‎up the existing lots‎. ‎The residents also noted that there is a market for the ‎

larger lots and the existing homes on the Hamlin frontage for retention as large lot use‎.‎

The residents also expressed concern that the master plan update is a zoning process ‎

or the first step toward zoning changes‎.‎

The ‎12‎,‎000 ‎square foot lot alternatives with ‎90 ‎foot lots were also reviewed, but not ‎

illustrated‎. ‎When they were described, the participants stated that they did not want ‎

to see the existing lots made smaller‎. ‎They also did not see the advantage of a PUD ‎

approach over the type of plan submitted earlier this year for review‎. ‎This plan ‎

subdivided an existing five acre area into ‎90 ‎foot lots‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe then reviewed the issues relevant to this area of the city‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe noted that the first issue is to determine whether cluster density housing is ‎

desirable‎. ‎Cluster density housing allows for maximum utilization of the land area, ‎

however, it is does not support the adjacent single‎-‎family uses currently in the area‎.‎

The second issue of concern is the retention of the existing structures on the north side ‎

of Hamlin‎. ‎If it is determined that these areas should be protected, the policy would ‎

be described in the master plan‎. ‎One approach would be to protect the homes by ‎

designating a district which leaves the rear portions of the lots for future development‎. ‎

An additional approach would be to increase the minimum lot size significantly with a ‎

zoning ordinance change that would be preceded by a master plan policy‎.‎

The third issue is if the area would benefit from a PUD approach, while remaining ‎

single‎-‎family‎. ‎The PUD approach would allow the city to seek a sharing of land area ‎

for parcel access, open space and buffer‎/‎setbacks where two or more lots are put ‎

together for a subdivision into ‎90 ‎foot lots‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that this area has storm water retention issues which need to ‎

be explored further‎. ‎Initial surveys indicate no wetland considerations, however, this ‎

will be revised before the final recommendations are made‎. ‎The only alternative ‎

offering a significant tax base impact is the cluster option‎. ‎The residential property tax ‎

base would be increased by approximately ‎100 ‎units‎.‎

In reference to traffic issues, Ms‎. ‎Beebe noted that the Master Thoroughfare Plan calls ‎

for the improvement of Hamlin Road as a four lane residential boulevard‎. ‎This would ‎

have some impact on the frontage along Hamlin Road‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Ms‎. ‎Beebe to specifically contact the churches in writing ‎

that are involved in this portion of the master plan update in order to give them an ‎

opportunity to respond‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe noted that the churches were included in the ‎

notice procedure and she will contact the churches again‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted that in light of the existing master plan, there has been a lot of ‎

discussion about the transition from a more intense use to less intense use and from ‎

commercial to some type of cluster development‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out that the ‎

cluster alternative is between two single‎-‎family parcels and normally this is not ‎

something that the city looks at a lot‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that this was included as an option to understand what type of ‎

capacity that the city would be looking at‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe is of the opinion that the cluster ‎

concept is not as attractive in this area as it would be on some other properties‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen also questioned the splitting of the five parcels on the east side‎.‎

Discussed

Ms‎. ‎Beebe remarked that the splitting of these parcels was an effort to try to protect ‎

the larger home frontage on Hamlin‎. ‎The only way to leave the use in this area would ‎

be to increase the minimum lot sizes‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that the Planning Commission recognizes that over the last six ‎

months most of the subdivisions which have been reviewed involve existing ‎

neighborhoods and an assemblage of parcels‎. ‎In addition to this a portion of the south ‎

end of the city recently received the Chester drain project ‎(‎storm sewers‎) ‎which has ‎

escalated development in this portion of the city‎. ‎The city has seen the assemblage of ‎

parcels throughout the entire city‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also reported that the city has seen ‎

two plats for the property at Crestline and Hamlin‎. ‎The properties have been ‎

optioned‎. ‎The city‎’‎s struggle is to try to preserve the character of the existing ‎

neighborhoods‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen inquired if it would make any difference if a smaller subdivision was ‎

developed for the area around Crestline?‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that this would not make any difference; it is still a policy issue of ‎

whether the entire area is approached as a PUD which retains the church areas and ‎

the single‎-‎family frontage‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe also indicated that you could have a site plan ‎

under the same set of policies that comes in directly off Crestline‎. ‎The issue areas are ‎

really cluster versus single‎-‎family and should the existing frontages be protected some ‎

way and the concept of the PUD approach‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe then asked for the recommendations in reference to cluster development ‎

versus single‎-‎family for this opportunity area‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa remarked that the cluster development does not fit into this area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen mentioned that there are a series of homes on this stretch of Hamlin and is ‎

the proposed plan really making a value judgment about this opportunity area‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that a value judgment is being made about the homes on the frontage‎. ‎

This area has an environmental quality to the larger community; the homes do ‎

represent a historic corridor‎. ‎In an attempt to recognize this through the PUD ‎

approach, there can be a performance requirement that these single‎-‎family homes ‎

should be respected and the PUD development should occur to the rear rather than ‎

on the frontage‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out that what this really means is that you are telling someone that ‎

they can‎’‎t sell their house‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe added that it is like the alternative of looking at larger lot sizes‎. ‎The PUD ‎

would apply to the entire area‎. ‎It would stipulate that within the PUD area a certain ‎

portion of the area will respect the maintenance of the older single‎-‎family homes‎. ‎Is ‎

this something that the commission would like to do‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe is trying to respond ‎

to the concern that this area should somehow be maintained in order to provide an ‎

economic benefit from the rear portion of the area‎. ‎The policy should be designed to ‎

protect the frontage on Hamlin‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser added that there are other ways to do this rather then just ‎

developing a cluster development‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe indicated that there are different configurations which could be considered‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boone pointed out that in terms of preserving the character along Hamlin Road, it ‎

is not a matter of just preserving someone‎’‎s front yard and the house, it is a matter of ‎

moving the line closer to the center of the property‎. ‎The cut was made ‎400 ‎feet from ‎

Hamlin which is the remaining footage‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that the existing policies allow for the development of ‎90 ‎foot ‎

lots in this area and the lots could be divided up‎. ‎The question of a PUD approach ‎

versus existing single‎-‎family is the same in this area as it is in the other areas‎. ‎If the ‎

PUD approach provided for linkages in the larger areas this would provide for less ‎

development then the current policies‎. ‎The next question is within the PUD should ‎

there be a performance specification indicating that ‎400 ‎feet of frontage is not ‎

developable‎. ‎This would just be left as a large single‎-‎family lot; the PUD approach ‎

would only be applied to the balance of the area and not to the ‎400 ‎foot frontage‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beebe also noted that a discussion was also held on alternative policies in the ‎

master plan for specific types of areas‎. ‎If more than one parcel was acquired, the ‎

alternative policy would be designed with a PUD approach‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa asked about the impact on the master plan if the homes were to be ‎

considered for historic designation‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that as the ordinance is currently written, it refers to not only ‎

structures but resources‎. ‎Typically, a structure includes ‎100 ‎feet around the structure ‎

as being part of the designation for a structure‎. ‎However, if there is some aspect of ‎

the property beyond the ‎100 ‎feet that the Historic District Commission believes is also ‎

significant, then it is possible that more than that could be included in the legal ‎

description‎. ‎The ordinance requires the structure and ‎100 ‎feet‎.‎

(‎The commission recessed at ‎10:19‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎and reconvened at ‎10:25‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Michelson ‎(‎South of M‎-‎59‎)‎

Existing uses‎:‎ ‎Single‎-‎family residential on large lots‎. ‎There are twelve existing ‎

single‎-‎family units in the area‎.‎

1992 ‎Master Plan‎:‎ ‎Single‎-‎family residential‎.‎

Current Zoning‎:‎ ‎Parcels are zoned R‎-‎4 ‎single‎-‎family residential‎. ‎Minimum lot size is ‎

9‎,‎600 ‎square feet with a minimum width of ‎80 ‎feet‎. ‎Minimum floor area is ‎912 ‎square ‎

feet with ‎30 ‎percent lot coverage‎.‎

Alternative Approach ‎1‎: ‎Cluster housing approach on ‎7‎.‎2 ‎acres which could ‎

accommodate approximately ‎44 ‎units‎. ‎The site depth is accessed from Michelson ‎

with a ‎50 ‎foot front yard, setback buffer from Michelson and from the rear lot lines‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe reported that only one property owner attended the work session‎. ‎Two ‎

additional property owners contacted her by telephone‎. ‎During the review it became ‎

clear that this area was included because of the larger lot sizes and that the longer lots ‎

buffer the existing residences from M‎-‎59‎. ‎The proximity of the rear portion of the lots ‎

to M‎-‎59 ‎make the rear portion of this area unattractive for any additional residential ‎

development‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe also remarked that the Michelson properties are in an unusual location ‎

being adjacent to M‎-‎59‎. ‎The cluster alternative plans for ‎44 ‎units, however, it is ‎

highly unlikely that these single‎-‎family parcels will be susceptible to any future changes‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser inquired about marketing the area for office development‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe does not feel that this would be suitable because of the adjacent homes on ‎

the south side of Michelson‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen added that at some point discussion will take place in reference to the ‎

interchange at M‎-‎59‎. ‎If Rochester develops six lanes and if M‎-‎59 ‎is developed into ‎

six lanes, this may change the area completely‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe reported that the tip of the area may come up on the analysis of the ‎

Rochester Road corridor because there is single‎-‎family parcel use on a parcel zoned ‎

business‎. ‎Complexities will then occur when Rochester Road is converted into a ‎

boulevard and an interchange‎. ‎This is a different issue than capturing the rear portions ‎

of the single‎-‎family residential lots‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser said that it has already been established that M‎-‎59 ‎is going to be ‎

a six lane boulevard or maybe even eight lanes‎. ‎The City of Troy has gone ahead and ‎

planned this expansion up to South Boulevard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted that the Planning Commission has yet to look at the Rochester Road ‎

corridor as part of the Master Land Use Plan which ties in with the Transportation ‎

Plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen also mentioned that one item that jumps out at him is the policy ‎

alternatives which are available in order to deal with the bowling alley style lots and ‎

development‎. ‎It appears that the different ranges in the alternatives may have to be ‎

worked through in order to focus in on which pieces make sense and which ones ‎

don‎’‎t make sense‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe also indicated that each area has its own characteristics; it may not be as ‎

simple as having only one policy to cover everything‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser said that there may be some policy considerations that need to be ‎

addressed that will cover all of the proposed alternatives within the entire plan‎. ‎As the ‎

process continues into next March, Chairperson Kaiser feels that discussions need to ‎

be held in reference to providing more money for government to operate‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe ascertained that this issue needs to be discussed‎. ‎When you are looking at ‎

a community in its current stage of development and the opportunities for business ‎

related development that remains, you need to look at then deal with it‎. ‎It is a ‎

community‎-‎wide issue‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser added that if the presumption is correct, that government needs ‎

more money than it currently has available to operate or to maintain the level of ‎

services that the residents have become used to, then it becomes a decision on how to ‎

generate the money‎. ‎In this instance, Ms‎. ‎Beebe has asked the commission to ‎

address that question‎. ‎You can get more tax money to operate in several different ‎

ways‎. ‎The commission cannot decide to get the money by raising taxes or by adding ‎

new taxes‎. ‎

‎

Ms‎. ‎Beebe said that she is asking the commission to discuss this possibility‎. ‎It doesn‎’‎t ‎

mean that the proper direction of the city might not be to increase taxes on all of the ‎

existing properties; there are other ways to get revenue‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin mentioned that one of the concerns expressed at the City Council ‎

meeting last week, as the Director‎’‎s were being questioned, were concerns about the ‎

indirect policy issues created by the city‎’‎s current Master Land Use Plan‎.‎

One question raised was on the issue of litigation; how does land use and development ‎

issues relate to litigation costs‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that the strategic planning ‎

process is going to converge with the Master Land Use Plan process because some of ‎

the policy issues are going to be on the table within these groups‎. ‎The City Council ‎

encourages the Planning Commission to be a part of some of these groups‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎

Goodwin also pointed out that there are larger fiscal impact questions that may be ‎

brought up‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser agreed that there are some real classic issues and several of them ‎

have been brought up tonight‎. ‎There is also the issue of elected board members not ‎

wanting to raise taxes because this is the first thing that an opponent would put on their ‎

election campaign the next time around‎. ‎If it is a reality or a presumption that the city ‎

needs more money, the elected officials could lean toward not voting for anything that ‎

creates or raises taxes‎. ‎The elected officials would then allow for a master plan with ‎

more commercial or business use which would result in some serious tradeoffs‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen, referencing the tax issue, agreed with Chairperson Kaiser‎. ‎The ‎

commission really needs to study this issue‎. ‎There is the first level of additional ‎

commercial or business use, then there is the second level involving how well the ‎

neighborhoods survive and what type of infrastructure will be needed to develop the ‎

neighborhoods and the third level is the long‎-‎term viability of the community‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser pointed out that the community has indicated that they do not ‎

want any additional tax increases; the residents like their areas just like they are‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser then thanked the audience for their attendance at the meeting‎. ‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin reminded the commission that if they are planning to attend the MSPO ‎

conference, they should let her know as soon as possible‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser indicated that the next regular meeting is on October ‎6‎, ‎1998‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the special meeting at ‎10‎:‎45 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎