Rochester Hills Legistar System

Committee members discussed Street Lighting Policy it was noted that the

City does not have a clearly defined procedure for processing street

lighting requests.

Mr. Rousse stated that he would like to formalize a policy or provide a

procedure for street lighting requests.

Committee members agreed that Mr. Rousse should develop a Street

Lighting Policy.

Mr. Rousse stated that he would draft and present Street Lighting Policy

before the Financial Services Committee and the Traffic Safety and

Advisory Board before submitting it to Council for final approval.

Roger Rousse, DPS Director, presented the Proposed Street Lighting

Policy Changes noting the following:

* Original proposed policy recommended approval of street lighting

requests by City Council.

Ms. Hill requested she would like the proposed policy to state that

approval would come from the Advisory Traffic Safety Board and

Engineering and not City Council. She further requested she would also

like included in the Street Lighting Policy instructions for SAD process

clarified with a procedure and a time table for implementing an SAD for

Street Lighting.

Mr. Rousse reiterated that the City does not have a Street Lighting Policy

and that a number of street lighting requests have come forward. He

further stated that when a request comes in, there is a guideline but there

is no formal policy. When considering these requests, the City looks at

adjoining lighting, the need for lighting, school locations and if its a

common benefit to all the City; the request is evaluated and considered for

City funding.

Mr. Edward Anzek, Director of Planning Commission, stated that typically

many communities fund their lighting through Public Safety Fund or Police

Fund and are considered more of a crime prevention safety issue. He

further stated that any lighting to improve school safety should be paid for

by the schools.

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS, discussed the proposed Street Lighting

Policy noting the following:

* The Policy will address prioritizing street lighting issues based on health,

safety and welfare of the community.

* The Policy will help the City avoid incurring costs for new street lights

that do not benefit the public.

* The City has the responsibility for street lighting whether its out of

necessity or for decorative reasons due to their placement in the

right-of-ways.

* The City incurs liability if subdivisions do not maintain street lights due to

their placement in the right-of-way. City would then decide whether to

maintain them or remove them.

* The first draft copy suggested the following three (3) tier approval

process:

* Engineering Department

* Advisory Traffic Safety Board

* City Council

Melinda Hill, resident, suggested omitting individual City Council approval

due to City Council approval at budget process.

Mr. Rosen agreed that the Advisory Traffic Safety Board should not have

final approval because that Board is not a policy decision maker; he further

stated that Engineering should have the final approval.

Mr. Rousse in response to questions indicated that street lighting is an

ongoing cost for energy and maintenance.

* Street lighting policy has flexibility built in. The lights are taxed; the City

collects and issues payment to DTE or DTE could bill directly

Mr. Rousse indicated he will make revisions to the Policy as requested by

the Committee and bring it forward for recommendation and for approval

by City Council.

Committee discussed Conservation Easements noting the following:

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS, presented the following:

* Planning Commission has and continues to require developers to put in

Conservation Easements.

* Planning Commission requires developers to mark the Conservation

Easements.

* Planning Commission's intent was not to create something for the City to

maintain, but to create a conservation area that residents stay out of and

leave it in its natural state.

* Conservation Easements are set-up to maintain native grasses, plants

and trees.

* Consequently, there has never been something in place to maintain the

Conservation Easements.

* City found out about the Conservation Easement encroachment last fall

where the developer made a "field adjustment" on installation of a pool.

When the resident tried to sell their home, the survey indicated

encroachment.

* Preliminary survey shows there are maybe 100 or more of Conservation

Easement encroachments.

* DPS is looking for direction on how or whether to go ahead and start

maintaining Conservation Easements.

* First step is obtaining an inventory of the encroachments

* Second step is to obtain City Attorney's opinion.

Mr. Barnett requested Mr. Rousse obtain additional information for May

Committee meeting.

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS, presented to the Committee information

regarding Conservation Easement encroachments noting the following:

* City's current Conservation Easement inventory totals forty seven (47).

* Further research is needed to locate and document all Conservation

Easements.

* Encroachments range from small buildings, soil replacement, mowed

grass, planted trees, sandboxes to large encroachments such as a

swimming pool.

* The question is who responsible for enforcing the Conservation

Easements.

Committee discussed the possibility of creating or amending part of the

Ordinance to obtain enforcement authority.

Mr. Funk stated that if the Conservation Easement has been encroached

upon and is deeded to be left alone, then the City is responsible to

enforce.

Mr. Rousse explained that Ownership of a Conservation Easement is

initially owned by the Developer. Once the subdivision is established, the

ownership of the Conservation Easement is transferred to the

Homeowners Association.

Committee member mentioned Conservation Easements should be

recorded on the Deed.

Member Duistermars suggested that there be a way to designate the

property line so residents know where their property ends.

Mr. Rousse indicated he would need staff and equipment to do boundary

surveys to identify these locations.

Consensus of Committee is to have the Administration continue to

research this issue and place it on a future meeting agenda.

Mr. Rousse, DPS Director, provided an overview of the Conservation

Easements noting the following:

* The question that has not been answered is who has the responsibility

in maintaining Conservation Easements?

* A recommendation was made to inventory and map out all conservation

easements.

* Inventory would require an enormous amount of manpower hours in

identifying property corners, identifying encroachments into conservation

easements and obtaining a boundary survey.

* Encroachments can occur through cutting the lawn, planting shrubs and

placing permanent structures.

* A suggestion was made to contact the Oakland Land Conservancy and

create a partnership with them asking if they would be interested in helping

the City with an inventory.

Mr. Rousse stated that he would contact the Oakland Land Conservancy

and report back.

* A complicating factor is a prescriptive easement which means if a

resident has been maintaining an easement for a certain period of time,

the law provides opportunity for them to acquire that land.

* The cost of the City doing nothing allows the homeowner to obtain the

prescriptive easement.

Mr. Barnett questioned whether or not the current conservation map is

accurate enough to warrant sending letters to residents.

Mr. Rousse stated that the map is old and that they would have to do

another map and/or actual on site observation. Mr. Rousse continued his

overview noting that the Planning Commission establishes conservation

easements for preservation of existing habitat when a developer submits a

plat.

* There are multiple types of easements:

* Tree Preservation

* Natural Feature Setback

* Land Conservation

* To prioritize these easements, an inventory must be done.

Roger Rousse presented an update on Conservation Easements noting

the following:

* Oakland Land Conservancy has been contacted and are scheduled to

meet with the Mr. Rousse in September to discuss how they handle

encroachments on right-of-ways and perhaps form a partnership with the

City.

* Currently our GIS system can determine property lines to within

approximately three (3) feet.

* Gross encroachments can be determined using the GIS system.

* Determining a small encroachment would require a boundary survey.

* Oakland County has aerial views.

Mr. Rousse stated that once encroachment information is obtained the

City would need to determine what to do. He noted that would cost the

City legal fees due to corresponding legal costs with boundary surveys.

Mr. Rousse mentioned and defined a Prescriptive Easement is when a

homeowner defends or maintains a piece of property and can become

owner of that property.

Mr. Barnett stated that he would look forward to an update at next months

Committee meeting.

Roger Rousse, DPS Director, discussed Conservation Easements

encroachments noting the following:

* Handout shows a detailed cost estimate for Committee review.

* Oakland Land Conservancy gave a presentation to the City.

* City is questioning who enforces encroachments and are they worth

maintaining.

* First step is to do a City Wide inventory of Conservation Easements.

Mr. Rousse suggested initial funding would come through the Facilities

Department Land Management Division and if the City decides to defend

Conservation Easements, the funding would come from the Building

Department Ordinance Enforcement.

* It was suggested to notify residents in writing.

* City runs the risk of losing Conservation Easements and/or can incur the

risk of liability.

* Encroachments are not just Conservation Easements, its City owned

park land, such as, one resident in Riverbend Park who placed an

irrigation system on City owned land.

* Encroachments range from more permanent structures such as sheds,

pools and swing sets to simply mowing and planting.

* It was suggested that the City do a phase in approach by subdivisions.

* It was suggested to prioritize Conservation Easements based on the

level of importance, such as, steep slope setbacks protecting rivers vs.

vegetative buffers.

* Committee member mentioned that when a property is on the market for

sale, that the City has an opportunity to go in and see if there is an

encroachment.

Chairperson Barnett suggested formulating a City Council Policy that

states the City's goal is to bring all of these Conservation Easements back

into compliance.

Ed Anzek, Planning Commission Director, suggested placing a notice of

new policy on channel 55/10 and in the Hills Herald.

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS, led the discussion regarding

Conservation Easements noting the following:

* Currently the City does not have a formal policy to enforce Conservation

Easements.

* The big challenge is to justify how Sewer, Water, Roads or Drains is

financially responsible for enforcing Conservation Easements.

* Conservation Easements have been conveyed to a number of

organizations, such as, MDEQ, Oakland Land Conservancy, Homeowner

Associations who have not taken on the enforcement responsibility.

* A suggestion was made to hire a summer intern to begin to inventory

Conservation Easements.

Types of Easements:

* Natural features to protect trees, shrubs and grass

* Steep Slopes to protect river

* Tree Preservation

* A suggestion was made to establish a Conservation Easement appeal

process and appeal board noting the following criteria used to evaluate

appeals:

* Penalties for violating Conservation Easements.

* Restoration of Conservation Easements.

* Funding for maintenance activities

* Identifying Boundaries of Conservation Easements

* Begin public education program

* Annual review of Conservation Easements

Committee members discussed a Steep Slope conservation easement on

the Clinton River which is being challenged by a homeowner who would

like to remove some trees, place a walkway to the river and put in a

swimming pool. When the City informed the resident that he cannot

violate the conservation easement, the resident is now stating that the

trees are causing a drainage problem and mold in his house.

Committee member inquired whether the City would or can demand

restitution for violating preservation areas and further stated that violations

underscore the need for a formal policy.

It was noted that under the Current Tree Conservation Ordinance, the fine

is $25 per inch and that the homeowner would readily pay that fine.

Chairperson Barnett recommended Conservation Easement be moved to

a City Council Workshop due to the volume of questions and concerns.

Ed Anzek, Director of Planning Commission, suggested that discussion

continue at the Planning Commission level to determine how these

Conservation Easements began, the original intent of a Conservation

Easement and also to obtain Planning Commission members thoughts on

enforcing and preserving Conservation Easements.

Consensus of CDV Committee to have further discussion at the Planning

Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 7, 2006.

Chairperson Barnett stated he will be present at the Planning Commission

meeting and also reiterated the need to "fast track" this agenda item.

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS, discussed the handout "Land Trust

Alliance" which deals with procedures that are available regarding

Conservation Easements should the City choose to adopt them noting the

following:

* Some of things the City can do to raise awareness of Conservation

Easements are as follows:

* When land changes ownership, the easement is identified on the

deed and the City sends Land Trust Alliance notification that there is a

Conservation Easement.

* Determine maintenance management before City acquisition takes

place.

* In house, the City can raise the awareness of Conservation

Easements.

* Consensus of the Planning Commission is for the City to acquire

Conservation Easements due to them being valuable assets to the

community, such as wetland preservation, tree preservation or native

grass preservation.

* It was stated that there are multiple jurisdictions in place, in some cases

the City does have ownership and in others its an easement across

property.

* Largest portion of the easements are wetlands.

* Developers and/or homeowners associations are assessed a cost to

maintain Conservation Easements.

* Some subdivisions own the property and the City might have an overlay

of Conservation Easement on top of the ownership.

* In some cases homeowner has ownership of the property and there is a

Conservation Easement which the City has negotiated property rights to

that states it is a protected area.

* Originally Conservation Easements were made as part of the site plan

and showed ownership; whether it was property owned or separately

owned, it was identified.

* Currently Conservation Easements do not show on the GIS tracking

system.

Mr. Rousse suggested the City perform a complete inventory of

Conservation Easements. He further stated that the engineering

department is spread out between sewer, water, drains and roads and that

he cannot justify adding Conservation Easement enforcement.

Chairperson Barnett, directed Mr. Rousse to move forward with the

inventory with the understanding that it is a multi-year program.

Board members discussed Conservation Easements located throughout

the City noting the following:

* It is estimated that there are approximately 200 Conservation

Easements in Rochester Hills with roughly one-half of them having been

encroached upon.

* There is a wide variety of Conservation Easements:

* Natural Features

* Tree Preservation

* Steep Slope

* Wetlands

* Woodlands

* Originally the developers worked with the Planning Commission and

recorded the Conservation Easements on the plat, however, there is not a

database that compiles them. As a result a manual mapping of them

needs to be done by reviewing a ten (10) year history of Planning

Commission documents.

* Some of the Conservation Easements are conveyed to the City, MDEQ,

the Oakland Land Conservancy or simple ownership and others are

easements over an existing property.

Mr. Rousse stated that the City's plan is to raise awareness of the

Conservation Easements with the first step being an inventory of the

Conservation Easements. He further stated that this would be a proposed

multi-year program funded through the Capital Improvement Project and

administered through the Facilities Department costing an estimated

$300,000.00.

* An alternate proposal would be to hire a summer intern to begin the

baseline inventory process to determine a "photo in time" of what kinds of

Conservation Easements exist. Also a management plan would need to

be developed which would prioritize the preservation of the Conservation

Easements to include an annual review, posting signage indicating the

boundaries and initiating a communication program with the residents.

* Enforcement action would be the responsibility of the Ordinance

Department.

Ed Anzek, Planning Commission Director, presented an update on

Conservation Easements noting the following:

* City has addressed an encroachment onto a Conservation Easement by

sending letters to all the homeowners who have encroached.

* City is working with Dan Kiefer on an educational program explaining the

advantages of keeping these areas in conservation and how Conservation

Easements regenerate, serve and provides to the community.

* DPS is developing maps on where all Conservation Easements are

located.

* City will pursue the "penalty approach" and place builders and

developers on notice who may be misrepresenting these buildable sites.

Mr. Anzek noted that Stuart Frankel, Developer, was required and

complied to post Conservation Easement signs every 100 feet identifying

the Conservation Easement; residents removed the signs.

James Rosen stated that this is an excellent approach as a "first step" to

solving the encroachment problem.

Mr. Rousse, DPW Director, discussed his submission of a Capital

Improvement Plan projects for residential sump pump discharge drain

issues noting the following:

* Projected costs are $1.9 million with an estimate of 83,000 feet of pipe.

* It is anticipated that these projects will correct problems several

residents have with their sump pumps discharging into their front yard

and/or the road areas.

* When discussing the CIP projects, the issue of the City's Storm Water

Policy was also discussed, this policy states individual homeowner's are

responsible for their own drainage. Therefore, CIP project violates the

Storm Water Policy.

* One problem was corrected, the project cost the City approximately

$30,000 because it was causing a public safety issue with ice covering the

road.

* Other problem areas have been identified as public safety issues.

Mr. Barnett questioned whether or not it was the City's responsibility to go

beyond winter maintenance in keeping the road safe and passable. He

further stated that the City charges the homeowner for fallen tree service.

Mr. Rousse stated that that charge is for machinery and manpower.

Mr. Anzek briefly reviewed the history of the Gateway Plan as presented

at a previous Council Work Session Meeting.

Mr. Barnett praised the project and moved the motion in the packet.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Lee Zendel, 1575 Dutton Road, stated that the project was placed in

the CIP for one million dollars ($1,000,000); however, he requested more

detailed specifics of the funding before "this becomes City policy."

Mr. Anzek explained that the one million dollar ($1,000,000) budget was

estimated before the program was implemented. It is now estimated that

the true budget will be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

COUNCIL DISCUSSION:

Ms. Holder was "glad to hear we have private funding."

Ms. Hill noted she was "extremely pleased to see this come before us for

approval."

Ed Anzek, Planning Commission Director, discussed the Gateway Plan

noting the following:

* Donald Westfall, Lombardo, has SPEC drawings and has pledged to

place City Gateway signs at (3) three various locations throughout the

City. He further stated that by using his own subcontractors he could

reduce the cost to (1/3) one third.

* City will obtain permits from the Oakland County Road Commission who

has already given approval of such permits.

Mr. Anzek provided a history of the Gateway Plan noting the following:

* A Committee was established and 1000 survey responses found that

the residents viewed the Rochester Hills community as Historic, Distinctive

and Progressive with attention on Housing, Parks, Education and

Museum.

* Four (4) panels will be represented separately; green for Parks, Historic

theme for Historic districts - all will show a meandering band which

represents the Clinton River and Pathways which run through the

community.

* Gateway signs will have a larger width at certain locations or be more

vertical where the City has narrow right-of-ways.

* City is pursuing Corporate sponsorship and will offer a panel of

limestone rock for engraving of the Corporate name without detracting

from the Gateway Sign itself.

Jim Duistermars stated that the whole idea behind the Gateway Plan is to

establish the City's own identity, set Rochester Hills apart from

neighboring communities.