Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00

p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, David

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

7 -

Nicholas Kaltsounis and Nathan Klomp

Absent

2 -

Quorum Present

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0228

May 19, 2009 Regular Meeting

A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, that this matter be

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hooper, Reece, Schroeder and Yukon

7 -

Absent

Kaltsounis and Klomp

2 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) New Zoning Map

B) New Zoning Ordinance effective April 27, 2009

C) Final 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Plan

D) Planning & Zoning News dated May 2009

E) Rochester Hills Business Report dated May 2009

There were no further Communications brought forward.

DISCUSSION

2009-0232

Presentation and discussion regarding potential Historic

Resources - Historic Districts Study Committee

Present for the discussion were members of the Historic Districts Study

Committee (HDSC): John Dzuirman, Richard Stamps (Vice

Chairperson), John Hannick, and Jason Thompson (Chairperson).

Mr. Thompson thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to

speak. He explained that the HDSC members wished to share their

mission and purpose as a standing Commission. They also wished to

broadly discuss uses for potential Historic Districts. The idea to come

before the Planning Commission came about as a result of a joint

meeting with City Council, the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) and

the HDSC. During that meeting, members of the Council encouraged the

HDSC to be a little more creative with its purpose and mission and to

bring forward broader proposals for districts that included potential reuses

for historic districts. It was a new calling for the HDSC; they had always

interpreted their mission as very limited in scope. They embraced what

Council had suggested, and he noted that it was something they had

always discussed, but it had never been included in their proposals.

They decided to outreach, and Planning Commission was the first step.

Mr. Dzuirman began a power point presentation, and referred to a part of

the City’s gateway sign, which he pointed out as an historic image. He

mentioned that the sign was on the City’s web page, which he felt was

telling. He thought that the Planning Commission needed to have an

understanding of what the duties of the HDSC were, and what they had to

do legally. There were 70 potential Historic Districts on the list that was

generated by a consultant. As they were coming forward for review, the

Committee felt it was important that they had a general discussion with

the community, and specifically, with the Planning Commission and City

Council. He felt that the sites would have a potential bearing on the

community if, and how, they were developed.

Mr. Dzuirman advised that the HDC was formed in 1978 by Avon

Township. The HDSC came about in 1999 because of State law

changing. They conducted a hearing on June 6, 1978 and they

established the Historic Districts Ordinance. There were 33 districts listed

- 31 noncontiguous and Stony Creek and Winkler Mill, which had not

changed since that time. Mr. Dzuirman continued that one of the

Ordinance requirements was that the HDC must maintain a list of

potential historic districts. In 2002, the HDC initiated a survey of all

existing and potential historic properties, done by Dr. Jane Busch, who

had a long history in historic preservation and had worked for the State

Historic Preservation Office. She surveyed 200 properties on about 800

acres of land. Out of that list came 78 eligible properties. Another

Ordinance requirement was that the HDC must approve all modifications

and changes related to historic resources and districts; they provide

technical and design assistance; they were charged by Ordinance to

safeguard the heritages of the City by preserving historic districts, which

stabilized and improved property values and strengthened the local

economy; and they promote the use of historic districts for the education,

pleasure and welfare of the present and future residents of the City, State

and the nation.

Mr. Dzuirman next discussed the legal responsibilities of the HDSC,

noting that it was not unlike the Planning Commission, which also had

legal requirements to follow. Most people did not realize that the HDSC

had to follow Federal guidelines, which were adopted by the State of

Michigan. He suggested that some members of the Planning

Commission might not agree with what they had to do, but they had to do

it. He noted the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and

said that all building and site decisions for a new building or an addition,

beyond ordinary maintenance, had to follow those Standards. In order to

become an historic resource, something had to comply with the

requirements for listing in the National Register. At one time, they did not

have that requirement. It was more extensive and difficult to become

registered. The standards were adopted by every State Historic

Preservation office in the country and came from the Department of

Interior, National Parks Service. The requirements to be listed were very

stringent. A property was judged by four different criteria, but it could have

one and still be eligible. Those criteria included an historic event on the

site; that an historic person could have lived on the site or have done

something on the site; design and construction, which could be a special

type that was not being done now; and lastly, it might have information

potential, most often an archeological situation on the site. They recently

made a presentation to City Council about a potential historic site called

Frank Farm. There were a lot of archeological items on the site. They

found 12 prehistoric items on the farm, and the members were very

concerned about losing that resource. They faced that situation many

times, and they did not want to lose anything significant. They were still

looking at the situation at Frank Farm with the owner.

Mr. Dzuirman informed that the HDSC consisted of seven members, and

three were also on the HDC. Upon receipt of a request by the HDSC from

any person owning property in the City to establish, modify or eliminate

an Historic District, the HDSC would make a determination that there

were reasonable grounds for such a request, and then investigate it in

accordance with the Ordinance. The study was now done by an outside

consultant, because it was a very detailed and time consuming effort.

Once the HDSC studied a property, a committee report was prepared and

distributed for public comment. The Planning Commission also received

a copy of the report. A public hearing was held and a recommendation

made to City Council, and if City Council accepted the recommendation,

an Ordinance was adopted. He showed a map of the designated Historic

Districts in the City. He thought that the Planning Commission might

have heard about the potential widening of Tienken through the Historic

District. They were very concerned that if it was widened that the district

stayed protected. He offered that they could work with the Road

Commission and the City. He stated that the value of historic properties

was that they told a story of the community; they helped create a

community with unique settings and neighborhoods; they provided a

positive identification and image for the community; they promoted arts

and culture; and they provided economic benefits. He felt that the

economic benefits part was quite interesting. There were historic

rehabilitation tax credits available from the State and Federal

government. The State had been very active in working with the residents

and telling them what was required to get credits. He believed that

designated historic properties retained their value better than

undesignated equivalents, and he stated that tourism was a factor of

historic properties. When people visited places, they usually liked to stop

and see the historic sites, and the City promoted that.

Mr. Dzuirman referred to the Historic Preservation Network, which was

made up of all the Historic Preservation Commissions in Michigan. In

2007, there were Federal and State credits of $902 million, which

amounted to an indirect impact of a little over $1 billion. He referred to

property values, and related that the State did a study and determined

that local historic designation did not decrease property values - just the

opposite happened, and it increased the values much more. He showed

an example of a property in Grand Rapids called Heritage Hill. The

values in the Historic District had appreciated twice as fast as those in

non-designated areas: 1,200% versus a little over 600%. More locally,

they checked with the Rochester Hills Assessing Department, and found

that the historic homes in the district consistently had 25-35% higher

property values than other comparable homes, and he indicated that

there was an economic benefit that was often lost in the exchange.

Mr. Dzuirman stated that the purpose of the meeting was that they needed

the Commission’s help. They wanted input, and they needed to work

together to accomplish things. The City had grown over the last 29 years,

and the population had almost doubled since the early 1980’s. Total

developable, buildable land area in the City was close to 90% capacity.

Historic and potential historic properties were becoming the highest

percentage of remaining parcels available for future development. If they

were going to preserve the history of the community, they needed to

ensure that the remaining historic properties were properly and creatively

reused. He mentioned three recent examples they reviewed along with

the Planning Commission: City Place, Lorna Stone and Rochester

College. They worked together and were able to assist people to develop

the property with a PUD, which created more wealth for the developers.

He recalled that City Place was being built in front of Eddington Farms.

The Farm was built in 1902 and purchased by the Eddy family in 1934.

All the outbuildings and barns were demolished in 1993 so that

Eddington Farms could be built. The big, white, Greek Revival home was

still there, but it had fallen into disrepair, and had not been maintained.

The HDC had been trying to get that corrected, and they agreed to allow

the home to be moved to the south end of the property by Bordine’s to

become a feature at the front of the development. The owners would gain

benefits by incorporating that resource into the development. He referred

to Historic Lorna Stone on Adams. There was an historic home there,

owned by a former chair of the HDC. The home was made of fieldstone,

and it was built in 1824 with a three-foot thick foundation. The people who

were developing the project incorporated the home into their

development, and it seemed to be a win-win for everyone. He noted that

the economy had slowed the project. The last example he gave involved

the Rochester College Master Plan. Originally, the historic property took

up 40 acres, and the area had been used for the President’s house. The

farm began in 1823, and the Potere family purchased it in 1940, and he

indicated that there was quite a bit of history with it.

Mr. Dzuirman pointed out the list of potential properties, and said that the

HDSC would be studying some of them. He also showed the City’s

Master Land Use Plan, and said that some of the properties were

identified for commercial development. He mentioned that all of

Meadowbrook Farms was historic, not just Meadowbrook Hall. There

were about 123 acres there that were part of a national registered historic

site. They suggested designation for Ferry Ct., but it was turned down,

and it was still on the list. Juengel Orchards was on the list. One of the

larger sites was National Twist Drill at Tienken and Rochester Rd. Stiles

School, at Livernois and South Boulevard, was taken to Council and

tabled. The Brooklands Golf Course, which was designed by a famous

architect, was brought up years ago for study. It was turned down, but the

owners of the property restored the building. The HDC also felt that

Bloomer Park’s picnic shelter should be considered. All of the following

buildings were scheduled to be demolished: The John Dodge

farmhouse, the Paint Creek Cider Mill and the Mills building in downtown

Rochester. The John Dodge farmhouse, built in 1910 by Mr. Dodge, was

saved and has been used for a marketing and administrative center. The

owner of the Paint Creek Cider Mill was ready to tear it down not too long

ago, but he offered it to Oakland Township, and they reused it for

government offices. The Mills in downtown Rochester was almost torn

down. It had security fencing and barbwire around it and a lot of

environmental problems. Mr. Roy Rewold bought it and restored it with

Federal and State tax credits, and it was a wonderful addition to

Rochester. He maintained that those properties were wonderful

resources, which could have been gone had someone not taken the

initiative.

Mr. Dzuirman suggested that they needed to discuss adaptive reuse of

properties in the future, along with Planned Unit Development

requirements, overlay zoning, form based codes, and historic tax credits.

Historic properties equaled higher value with arts and culture incentives

and financial marketing. He stated that they must work together to create

options that worked for the community and the developers.

Mr. Thompson clarified that the HDC and the HDSC were two different

bodies, and that the HDSC reported directly to City Council and followed

its directions.

Dr. Stamps recalled that on the new gateway sign into Rochester Hills at

Crooks and South Boulevard, one of the panes was “history.” That

reinforced the idea that as the committee got together and tried to figure

out what represented Rochester Hills, the historic component was part of

it. He remarked that it was not easy to get listed; you had to be good. If

people questioned why a potential list was needed, he responded that

society continued to evolve and change. There might be a famous

person who lived in a house in Rochester Hills who was not famous 20 or

30 years ago. He mentioned Madonna, who used to live in Rochester

Hills, and said that in the future, her former home might be a potential

historic resource. They did not have much rural aspect left and as there

were fewer and fewer historic resources, their value increased. There were

other aspects of history, and they needed to reach out and find out what

records that history and what they could preserve that reminded of "who

we were," which influenced "who we are." The Committee simply wanted

to share some ideas and let the Commission know about the HDSC. A

few years ago, Rochester College had requested that its historic area,

including the barn, house, chicken coop and machine shed, be listed. As

the College grew and developed, its needs changed, and they asked to

be delisted so they could put in a parking lot. The City’s regulations

would not allow that without going through a procedure and rationale for

delisting. In the public hearings, they realized they could come up with

something creative. A PUD was authorized so they could get what they

needed and still protect the historic resource. People can see the farm

when they drive by, and they can see the character. He concluded that

they hoped to be able to work together so that in 50 years, someone

would still have an inkling of where the City was and how it got there.

Ms. Brnabic stated that she had no problem with the concept of

preserving history within the community. She thought it was a good idea,

but she had a problem when the City chose to list a property as historical

without the agreement of the owner. If someone bought a property in the

community and it was designated, the owners were aware of it. They

chose to purchase an historic property, and they knew what went along

with that designation. If someone already owned a property and the

government decided they would like to preserve it and list it without the

owners’ consent, it could cause an economic disadvantage for them. She

had seen it happen over the years, and people had been very upset and

frustrated. They felt that the financial responsibility would present a

hardship. That was the problem she had; she felt a property owner should

have to agree to a designation. If they were all for it, that would be fine.

She realized it was somewhat different, but she could liken it to a taking.

Once someone owned something, she did not think the City had a right to

designate it without consent. She did not believe the Ordinance could

force that, and just because it might be the City’s law, it did not make it

right, in her opinion. It was a major concern to see the City shift a

financial responsibility to property owners who did not have, and did not

choose to have, that responsibility when they purchased the property.

She reiterated that she did not have a problem with designation, and she

felt that what the HDC and HDSC did was wonderful, and she understood

why they wanted to do it. She felt that if the City wanted to preserve

something a property owner felt would cause an economic disadvantage,

that perhaps it was the City’s responsibility to pay for saving history. She

would like to avoid seeing that frustration, and she hoped they knew she

appreciated what the HDSC did, but it was a problem for her to see

something established without the owner’s consent. She added that it did

not have anything to do with a buyer being aware; she felt it crossed the

line about a person’s rights.

Dr. Stamps explained that their responsibilities as a Study Committee

were clear. They just evaluated a property to see if it was historic. If it was

not, they did not present it to the City Council. He thought that Council

agreed with Ms. Brnabic’s points the majority of the time. The HDSC did

not do the designating, they simply made a recommendation. The City

Council was the body that made the decision about whether to designate.

He did not think there were any cases where they forced someone to

accept a designation against their will. They suggested, and there were

citizens who said no thank you, and Council did not designate.

Mr. Dzuirman claimed that property rights were always brought up, and it

seemed as if the City did not have any other Ordinances. There were

requirements for many things people wanted to do in the community, but

it appeared as if everyone felt the HDC was the only board that had

requirements. He said he could not imagine how anyone could say it

would not be an economic advantage to have an historic resource.

People in Stony Creek were allowed to put in a new kitchen or furnace,

and it would be covered by the 25% tax credit. Commercial properties, if

designated, would qualify as well. He reiterated that it was an economic

advantage to be historic, and he added that Mr. Rewold would never have

done his project if he was not going to make money. Mr. Dzuirman

suggested that if they researched it, they would come to the same

conclusion. Not only was a property worth more when someone sold it,

but people were giving away money to take care of it. It was not always

that way, so it might have been more difficult before. People were

realizing that it was an advantage. He thought that most property owners

had a fear of the HDC dictating everything, but he stated that it was

unfounded, and he did not know how to change it. He urged the

Commissioners to consider the economic advantage.

Ms. Brnabic responded that the perception was there, and she agreed

that was how people viewed it. She did not think that City Council should

create a hardship for anyone. Regarding the Historic Ordinance being

the only one, she maintained that people had to abide by all Ordinances

of the City. However, some were set up for the safety, well-being and

integrity of people in the community. They could consider historic

preservation as part of integrity, but there would only be so many

properties required to follow the Historic Ordinance, and she did not think

it was the government’s place to tell people they were obligated to follow it.

She agreed people had used an historical property to their advantage by

incorporating it into a PUD, but it might have been because they would

not have qualified without it. Regarding whether someone wanted to

preserve property, she was not expressing an objection to historical

preservation, she was simply stating that property owners had rights.

Mr. Yukon asked what restrictions were placed on a property after

agreement that it should be designated as historic.

Dr. Stamps gave an example of a house in one of the Historic Districts

that also had a barn. The owners had children and they wanted to put in a

fence. They came before the HDC and showed a couple of options. One

was a chain link fence that was 8-feet tall and another was a shorter one

with some hedges. The HDC told them that the chain link fence would not

be compatible, but that the other would. There was someone with a

traditional farmhouse on Crooks Rd., and when they purchased it they

knew it was on the potential list. They wanted to put an addition on the

back of the house. The drawing showed the farmhouse surrounded by a

u-shaped expansion about seven times larger than the original size. If

someone looked carefully in the middle, the original farm structure could

be seen. The HDC did not allow it, and they met with the owner and

suggested ideas. The addition had to look clearly like an addition, and

the lines had to stay similar. The windows and siding had to stay similar.

If someone lived in a nice, traditional, Greek Revival home and they

wanted to paint it purple, the HDC would probably say it was not

compatible and ask to explore some other color options together.

Mr. Yukon asked whether, after an owner agreed to a designation of his

property, the HDC had the authority to make decisions about his property.

Mr. Dzuirman advised that ordinary maintenance did not apply. If

someone wanted to repair the roof with another and it was basically the

same kind, the HDC would not get involved. He commented that

whenever people wanted to do something, they wanted it to look good. He

was sure that one of the reasons Historic Districts were worth more money

was because they all looked good, and that was because they followed

good design principals. The HDC did not have anything to do with

changing the inside of a building. They only dealt with the exterior, and

primarily, with what people could see from the road. Most additions were

fairly easily approved by the HDC if they were off the back and did not

destroy the original character of a home. An addition was actually

supposed to be differentiated from the old because in 100 years, they

should be able to realize what was original, although he felt that there

should be a relationship. He mentioned that a subdivision association

required certain things of homeowners, which he felt was similar. He

recalled that they had saved people money. In some cases, people

found that the original wood siding was in excellent condition, for

example. There was a home in Stony Creek Village, and the HDC

suggested looking at storm windows, and the owners saved money and

ended up with an energy efficient structure.

Mr. Yukon asked the percentage of owner occupied nominations versus

someone living in the community who approached the HDC and

suggested that a property should be designated.

Dr. Stamps said that the outside consultant came up with 70 new

potentials out of 20,000 structures. Mr. Yukon clarified that the majority

came from a consultant’s recommendation, not from someone coming to

the HDC saying a neighbor’s house should be designated, for example.

Mr. Delacourt advised that when they did the survey, there were close to

180 properties on the potential list. The consultant made a

recommendation about which to study further for possible designation.

The HDSC only ended up with about 30 districts, some of which included

multiple parcels.

Mr. Dzuirman brought up Stiles School on Livernois, and said it was

scheduled to be sold by the Avondale School District. Some parents

approached the HDC to have it declared historic so they could save it.

The developer came before the HDC to get approval to do work, and they

paid for the study on the property. The study showed that it appeared to

be very historic, and the developer decided to drop out of the project. The

parents bought the school, but the direction now was that they maybe did

not want the designation. He agreed that other people had come to them

and asked for something to be designated. They were trying to prevent

the City from becoming a typical American subdivision lacking the quality

they still had in Rochester Hills. They had to decide what type of

community they wanted, and if it was one that retained its historic

character, in his opinion, it was more desirable to live in. That was what

they were up against. It was his experience that it was an advantage,

individually, and to the community for future generations.

Mr. Yukon asked the HDSC’s relationship to the HDC. Mr. Thompson

said that the overlap occurred because three of them sat on the HDC, but

they were technically an independent board that reported directly to City

Council. The HDC was separate. Mr. Dzuirman said that State law said a

community had to have a Study Committee, because they wanted it to be

open to people other than preservationists.

Dr. Stamps mentioned that they used to have more on the potential list.

There were a couple of properties demolished before they could study

them.

Chairperson Boswell referred to the house on Crooks that Dr. Stamps had

discussed, and he asked if it was just on the potential list and not currently

designated. Dr. Stamps said that it was on the list, and the purchaser

knew that.

Mr. Dettloff asked how the HDC handled it when a potential site was

presented and studied, and it met the levels of criteria, factoring in tax

credits and other incentives, but it was clearly cost prohibitive to save it.

Dr. Stamps replied that they presented to City Council that it had historic

value, and they either listed it or not. He referred to the golf course and

that the HDSC thought the clubhouse was unique and should be

preserved, but the owner did not want it preserved. It was not listed, but in

retrospect, after seeing the study, the owner saw it was a gem and saved it

anyway. Mr. Dzuirman said that he had been an architect for over 40

years. In all that time, he knew of only one building he worked on that he

felt would be cheaper to tear down than fix.

Mr. Hooper mentioned that he went on the recent Historic Visioning Walk,

and they looked at a home on Tienken. It was not in good shape, and

could almost be put in a demo by neglect status. He asked the

Committee’s opinion of it currently.

Mr. Dzuirman said that the home went back 10-15 years. The Ordinance

required them to protect those types of properties, but they had to go

through the City to make something happen, and nothing ever got done.

The owners did not do what they were supposed, and it had been a

disaster. A lot of people used demolition by neglect to get rid of a

building. He did not think a neighborhood association would put up with

that. Mr. Hooper said that the home on Crooks had the same issue, and

it was boarded up. He had found that some individual property owners,

for whatever reason they owned a property, did not like the historical

designation so they were not taking care of it. The community as a whole

wanted to maintain the structure but did not want to sink money into it. He

thought that had to be weighed. He questioned how they could preserve a

resource when a homeowner did not want to put money into it or take care

of the property. Mr. Dzuirman said that when the Tienken property came

on the market, there were two lots and it was listed high, and the feeling

was that someone would buy it for the property. The building could have

been moved back and added onto. He indicated that it was a sorry point

for everyone. The City could fix the house and put a lien on the property;

he felt that at least it should be mothballed so it did not deteriorate. He

did not understand why the City could not treat it like any other house in a

subdivision.

Dr. Stamps stated that they wanted to save more than just the

Meadowbrook Halls. They wanted to save a cross section and buildings

that were normal people’s homes. He cautioned that there were very few

1820’s houses in the City. The owners of the house on Tienken were

absentee landlords who fought the designation. When they put the house

up for sale the price was very high, but there were people lining up to buy

it. No one could afford to buy it, and they split the lot. They sold it to

someone who was a foreign immigrant who did not realize it was an

historic property. Dr. Stamps stated that it was a gem, and they hoped

they could save it. Mr. Hooper noted that he looked inside, and he

believed it was almost ready for demolition.

Mr. Hooper said, for example, if a home in his subdivision was in

disrepair and boarded up, the bank would either sell it cheaply or tear it

down, and someone would sink money into it and improve the home. He

suggested that perhaps that should be the case with historic properties. If

they came way down in value, they might become economically feasible

for someone to come in, invest money and bring them back to livable

standards. Mr. Dzuirman believed some neighbors had looked at

purchasing the building because it was so far down in value. He thought

that the people who bought it wanted to be close to the school, but they

had been misinformed. The City should make sure that realtors were

aware of the historic properties. The City records showed it now, but they

did not formerly. The HDC had been working hard to make sure people

were informed and could make the correct decision. Mr. Hooper

commented that it was a labor of love to own an historic home - like

having a hobby or owning an antique car. People put a lot of money into

appreciating their resource and keeping it up in value. He said he was

not against history; he was a member of Henry Ford Museum and

supported saving history, but he was a realist and understood that they

could not save everything. Mr. Dzuirman agreed.

Mr. Hooper noted that Mr. Dzuirman mentioned Tienken Road, and he

wanted to emphasize to everyone on the Planning Commission, the

HDSC and to the public that Tienken would not be widened in the Historic

District. It was two lanes, and it would stay two lanes. There was a lot of

misinformation going around, and people were forming committees and

putting out information that was not accurate. He stressed that nothing

would happen in the Historic District. Regarding the bridge, it would be

two lanes, with two, four-foot shoulders and a pathway for safety. He stated

that it was critical to have a pathway through the Historic District.

Mr. Hooper advised that the Historic Ordinance had been changed

regarding study reports. If a structure on the potential list was to be

considered for a study, it would come to City Council first, and Council

would determine whether they wanted to spend tax dollars on a study,

versus the HDSC making that determination. He also related that the

City had applied to become a Certified Local Government to help aid

Historic District preservation in the community, which he felt was very

important.

Mr. Dzuirman agreed, and said it might provide the City with grants from

the State that they would not be eligible for without the designation. Mr.

Schroeder asked for clarification regarding a Certified Local Government.

Mr. Delacourt explained that it was a State and Federal program. When a

City met a certain set of standards within its Ordinance and processes as

it related to review of existing historic resources and the establishment,

modification or delisting of resources, the State reviewed the Ordinances

and the qualifications of the HDC members. If the standards were met,

the Federal government certified the City. It would allow access to grants

and funds available for public preservation projects. The City could use

the money for the contiguous and non-contiguous districts for public

improvements. The City met all the qualifications and they hoped to hear

about it shortly.

Chairperson Boswell stated that the Planning Commission had always

been concerned about the history of Rochester Hills. He lived in the

newest home he had ever owned, and it was built in 1927. He asked the

Study Committee members if there was anything specific the Planning

Commission had not done or that they would like the Commission to do.

This matter was Discussed

Mr. Dzuirman reiterated that there was less developable property in

the City. The historic properties were being looked at more and

more. They believed there was a way to make it a win-win for

everyone if they worked together. If they could come up with creative

ways to reuse some of the buildings, they would like the opportunity

to work together. They felt it was important to save properties, and

they felt they could do it in a way that everyone benefitted. They

were walking a careful line, and they might be suggesting things that

not everyone agreed with, but he felt that there was a way to save

some of the most historic resources before they were lost. He could

not imagine the community without some of those buildings. He

mentioned the Village of Rochester Hills, and he said it was nice, but

that no one lived there, and it was closed at 9 p.m. Downtown

Rochester had places to eat dinner later. They wanted to be more

than the Village of Rochester Hills, and they needed the

Commissioners’ help to work with developers. If someone came

forward with a delisting, they were just asking for a shot to try to

come up with something that worked for everybody.

2009-0235

Extensions Policy

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated June 12, 2009,

had been placed on file and by reference became part of the record

thereof.)

Mr. Delacourt recapped that over the past few years, the Planning

Commission had seen Extension requests, some recurring, from various

applicants. In the beginning, Staff would come before the Commission

and state that none of the Ordinances or City standards had changed,

and that they did not see a reason not to grant an Extension. The

circumstances had now changed: There was a new Zoning Ordinance,

new Engineering standards and other Ordinance changes. Staff

discussed that there should be a policy in place to evaluate the requests,

and to be able to make a determination if and when a plan would need to

be revised to come into compliance. He noted that the Planning

Commission had discussed the issue also. Staff had several meetings

with other departments and made recommendations for items to be

included in a policy. If applicants applied for an Extension, they would

have to acknowledge in writing that their plans would be re-reviewed at

some point and have to come into compliance if they were not.

Developers were stating that they did not have the money to go through

that process each time to get an Extension. They did not want to have to

meet Engineering standards when they did not even have money to go

forward with the project; however, they would be required to do so prior to

Final Approval.

Mr. Delacourt explained that an applicant would have to demonstrate at

least four things: That they legally represented the owner; that all taxes

were paid; that all escrows were in good standing, and that all required

bonds were still in place or waived. If those items were in place, Staff was

proposing to grant one Extension “freebie.” After the first Extension, the

applicant would be required to send a letter (Staff would come up with the

template) that indicated they understood they were foregoing the review

process, but at the time of approval, the plans would have to be in

compliance with all requirements. He concluded the description of Staff’s

portion of the future policy, and said he would like any input from the

Commissioners.

Mr. Schroeder said that he was very familiar with the process, and he

agreed with what Staff had put together. He suggested language change

from meeting “new” Ordinances to meeting “current” Ordinances.

Mr. Dettloff clarified that an Extension was defined as 12 months. Mr.

Delacourt agreed. Mr. Anzek believed the new Ordinance allowed only

180 days for Staff approval for Site Plans, but he noted that Plats and Site

Condos went right to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dettloff noted that

given unforeseeable conditions, there had been Extension requests of

three or four times, and he asked if the policy would address something

beyond a second Extension.

Mr. Anzek said it was Staff’s intention that if the project was highly

regarded and in good standing, that they would like to keep it alive. If

there was a plan that would not work based on current Ordinances or

standards, Staff could reserve the right to not allow it to come forward until

the plan was updated according to a simple policy. When Grace Parc

came forward with a fourth Extension request, Staff found out the day of

the meeting that it had been foreclosed upon, and the City did not have a

record of that. He added that bringing escrow accounts into good

standing meant bringing them up to zero.

Mr. Yukon asked if the previous applicants who had Extensions granted

would start new with the policy. Mr. Anzek said that he and Mr. Delacourt

discussed whether those applicants would get a free pass or if the

previous Extensions granted would count as the first free pass. They

wished to defer that question to the Planning Commission.

Ms. Brnabic observed that due to economic conditions, they had seen

requests for three or more Extensions. It was understandable, and the

Commission was approving them because the developer might be in a

pinch. However, for those that already had three or more Extensions, she

thought the policy should apply. She did not think it would be really

acceptable for them to get a free pass if they already had been given

several Extensions. She wondered how many properties would be

required to make major revisions due to changes in the Ordinance.

Mr. Anzek responded that it would be difficult to answer without looking

more extensively at the plans, but he felt that about 50% would have

changes. A Final Preliminary Plat had to be consistent with the

Preliminary, and there could be changes from one to the other. He

related that after several Extensions, some projects did fall off. Staff

contacted applicants prior to a project expiring and asked them to submit

a letter requesting an Extension; however, there were some they could not

find. He recalled Saddlebrook Orchards, a ten-unit project off of Auburn,

and said that Staff could not contact them at all, and that the plan had

expired.

Ms. Brnabic did not think they had to be concerned with developments

like those because they took care of themselves. There were enough

applicants going on several Extensions, and she did not think they

should get a free pass. She thought the policy should apply, and noted

that the Planning Commission had been fairly lenient. They understood

the economic turmoil and the situations of the applicants, and they

looked at the requests logically, but she thought too many requests

warranted enforcing the policy.

Mr. Anzek said that the policy could state that anything approved after

July 1, 2007 would be entitled to one free pass. They would have had one

Extension, but not the second. That would give it a point in time. He

maintained that the policy would give Staff the authority to state that the

Planning Commission had a policy that had to be adhered to before a

plan could be brought forward. Ms. Brnabic and Mr. Hooper agreed.

Mr. Delacourt said that because City Council also had a say in plats and

site condos, they would probably ask both boards to recommend and

adopt the policy. Staff would draft something up with the appropriate date,

and he would talk with Mr. Staran, the City Attorney about the process.

Chairperson Boswell asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing

none, he moved to the next Agenda item.

This matter was Discussed

2009-0234

Street Lighting

(Reference: Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated June 12, 2009 had

been placed on file and by reference became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the discussion was Paul Shumejko, the City’s Transportation

Engineer.

Mr. Anzek recalled that during a CIP discussion, Mr. Hooper brought up

the need to have a street lighting policy for the City. It was his opinion that

the Planning Commission would be the best body to put something

together to forward to City Council. They would be utilized because the

Commission dealt with the aesthetics and architectural guidelines for the

community. The Commission could decide appropriate lighting levels

and the appropriate look. He advised that Mr. Paul Davis, the City

Engineer, had requested to get on the June 29th City Council agenda to

get approval for a street lighting plan for the roundabout at Hamlin and

Livernois. Staff would like to get input from the Planning Commission,

but he did not think they were in a position to adopt a policy at the

meeting because there was further information to gather. The

fundamental key was safety, and they had to generate something that

incorporated that for the rights-of-way.

Mr. Shumejko noted that Engineering had worked on street lighting

several years ago. In 2005, Staff, through the Advisory Traffic and Safety

Board, initiated a discussion on a street lighting policy. They received

many requests to install street lighting from subdivision associations,

usually for a crosswalk or school bus stop. The subs that had an

association were a lot more successful at pursuing that because they had

funding available. The challenges Staff faced was for older areas where

subdivisions did not have associations. He gave Jungel Orchards as an

example. They wanted a light by Hamlin Elementary, and he felt it was

probably a worthy cause to have one there, but the City did not have a

policy or funding mechanism. The Traffic Board and former AIS

Committee worked on it and developed a policy in 2006. One avenue for

funding could be Metro Act dollars, and they thought they could set aside

$10-15,000.00 annually, if something met the criteria. The Crooks

Boulevard project was getting underway, and they talked about

boulevards on a larger scale, because mass corridors were the other

component of the street lighting policy. Council deferred the decision at

that time, and Staff put a project in the CIP last year for the illumination of

boulevards.

Mr. Shumejko brought up the new Hamlin Road Boulevard between

Crooks and Livernois. One of the components of that was the roundabout

at Livernois. They had been working with Detroit Edison for the past five

or six months, trying to come up with a decorative-style pole to use as an

alternate to the traditional overhead light. They also worked with the Road

Commission, since they had a say in their intersection, about the

illumination of the roundabout. There was not a set standard in place, but

there were several guidelines. They had incorporated some of the

guidelines and came up with a design. He showed an example of the

pole they were looking at, which was a square, black, fluted pole. The

pole would be used at the approach of each leg of the roundabout. The

lighting would start about 400 feet from the center of the roundabout. The

average footcandle would be 2.3, and they wanted to create uniformity.

Mr. Anzek noted that the employee parking lot for City Hall was 2.0

footcandles. The visitor’s lot was a little brighter, and he wanted to give

them an idea for that range.

Mr. Schumejko advised that the parking lot had white lights, but they

would use high-pressure sodium for the roundabout, which produced a

softer yellow. They proposed a 250-watt illumination. There would be 15

poles for the roundabout; six duals and nine singles. The duals would be

in Hamlin Rd. to the west and one in each of the splitter islands. The

single poles would be alternating, three at each leg. It would cover the

entire exiting and entering lanes of the roundabout. Detroit Edison first

came up with a plan that showed 24 lights, and the City minimized that on

each approach leg. The height of the pole was 22 feet for the fluted part;

the curbed area was another four feet, and the bottom of the lens would be

about 22 feet high from the top of the pavement. He showed prismatic

lenses, which helped keep the light cascading down and the sky pollution

lower. Another key was the pedestrian crossings, and they needed the

illumination to provide lighting in front and back, so there was not a

shadow effect. That was a big issue for the Road Commission. They also

took into consideration where the location of the crossing for pedestrians

would be if the signal was in effect as part of ADA requirements for

roundabouts. They did an analysis regarding shifting the crossing and

providing the proper lighting for the crosswalk.

Mr. Yukon asked what would effect an ADA requirement. Mr. Shumejko

said that the Road Commission’s roundabout at Maple and Drake was

the subject of a lawsuit. The roundabout there did not comply with ADA

standards for pedestrians. Based upon that, the Road Commission

agreed to install the hawk signal for pedestrians. The light would stay

dark until the button was pushed. It would then go into a flashing mode

and then red. Vehicles entering would stop, and the pedestrian would go

on the island, push another button at a crosswalk further away from the

center of the roundabout and then cross. They would also use a strobe

light where the button was pushed. It was not a traditional yellow and red

signal - it would flash. They were going to do a three-year study for that

and provide a recommendation, because it would be one of the first of its

kind for roundabouts in the country. The results would be provided to the

Federal Highway Association, and a recommendation might come out of

it to utilize it or do something completely different. They were taking into

consideration that if the splitter island had to be widened at some point,

that they would be able to accommodate it. It would only apply to

dual-lane roundabouts. They would not have to retrofit the Tienken and

Sheldon and Tienken and Washington roundabouts, because they were

single-lane roundabouts. It would only apply to roundabouts of two or

more lanes.

Mr. Shumejko pointed out the slotted grooves on the pole, which would

allow the City to add clips and hang banners or street signs. They could

utilize yield signs or “keep right” signs on the poles in the splitter islands.

They could have an outlet inside a pole so DPS could plug directly into

one. The estimated cost to incorporate them into the project would be

about $107,000.00. If they used the standard cobra lights, which would

require 26 lights, the cost would be $62,000.00, so the decorative lights

would cost about $45,000.00 more. As he mentioned, Staff had been

working with Detroit Edison for a while because a street lighting policy was

on the table for the entire City, and he wanted to get feedback for the

proposed roundabout lighting. They were ready to jump on it because it

would have to be installed by November. The roundabout would not be

able to be open to traffic without the street lighting in place. Mr. Anzek

asked about LED lighting.

Mr. Shumejko indicated that there had been a host of issues with it. One

was that to get an equivalent illumination at the pavement surface, it

would take more LED lighting. LED loses about 30% of its brightness

from the light to the pavement, and they would have to trade to a higher

wattage LED to have an equivalent to what he was proposing. There were

also three different components to an LED light and three different

manufacturers. The warranty part was difficult, and there were also some

issues with heat. The pole spacing for LED was every 30 feet. In a

parking lot, that would be one for every three spaces. Detroit Edison was

working on it, but the technology was not there yet. He indicated that in

the future, the lights could be retrofitted with LED bulbs.

Mr. Shumejko advised that they paid an annual fee for service contracts

with Detroit Edison. It was for energy usage and a little was for future

maintenance. He explained that the poles would all be break away, and if

one was hit by a vehicle, Detroit Edison would replace it as part of the

contract. It would not be an additional cost. At first, the Road

Commission was hesitant to allow the City to put the poles within the

splitter islands, but by putting them there, it really helped make it look

more aesthetic and also reduced the number of poles.

Mr. Anzek asked if the lights would be paid for by the City but owned by

the Road Commission. Mr. Shumejko stated that the Road Commission

did not own, operate or maintain streetlights. Mr. Anzek asked if there

were other communities that had the same style of lighting. Mr.

Shumejko believed that there was similar lighting in Farmington Hills on

a roundabout, which were kind of hybrids. They took a standard, steel

pole, painted it black and retrofitted it for a decorative top. Detroit Edison

was trying to make the pole he showed a standard, to reduce costs and

have uniformity.

Mr. Anzek referred to the light poles Troy put in the Crooks Boulevard,

which he thought were about 40 feet high. He asked Mr. Shumejko if the

lights were high-pressure sodium or mercury vapor. Mr. Schroeder

agreed the poles were high, but he did not recall the exact height. He

said they were not reused, but were part of the contract. Mr. Shumejko

believed they were high-pressure sodium. Mr. Anzek asked if the City

started with that style, if they would stay with it as they lit other boulevards.

He wondered if the Planning Commissioners could weigh in on the lights

as to whether they were appropriate, but he felt it would be hard to make a

choice without having a few more in front of them.

Mr. Hooper thanked Mr. Shumejko for bringing the example to the

Planning Commission. His goal was to have an overall policy that

encompassed the draft policy done in conjunction with the Advisory

Traffic and Safety Board for citizen requested lighting, as well as a

citywide policy for street lighting. He did not feel they should deal with

private lighting, which was an architect’s purview for choosing lighting on

private property. They should, however, set a standard for public lighting.

He suggested that Detroit Edison had a variety of choices, and he asked

Mr. Shumejko if the Engineering Department had decided upon the one

he brought forward.

Mr. Shumejko explained that the one they were considering provided a

decorative look, and also minimized the number of poles needed. He

showed examples of others. The subject pole was 22 feet high to the

bottom of the lens. If that were dropped, the spacing would have to be

reduced and more poles would be required. Mr. Hooper noted that pole

height had been the topic of debate when applicants came before the

Commission. He asked the final date Engineering needed a decision

from Council to get the ball rolling on lighting the intersection.

Mr. Shumejko felt that the latest would be mid-July. He noted that the

lights were already 80% Federally-funded. Mr. Hooper reiterated that he

definitely wanted to have a policy, and he had believed they would have

plenty of time to develop it. However, the separate issue of lighting the

roundabout was driving a decision. The recommendation made to City

Council could be the one that was used throughout the City as a

guideline, and he did not feel that they could make a decision that

evening based on one example. He said that was the unfortunate thing;

the Planning Commission would not meet again until the third week in

July. Council was meeting June 22 and June 29 and not again until the

middle of July, which would be the date for a decision. He said he would

like to get a recommendation from Planning Commission, rather than

having to decide between various options at the Council level. He agreed

that the Commission would be the appropriate body to make a

recommendation.

Mr. Shumejko said that they had a lot of documentation, and there was a

lot of options for lighting, but the roundabout was unique. Typical

boulevard requirements were not as stringent as those for a roundabout

because of the traffic patterns through it. Mr. Hooper observed that it was

interesting that the Road Commission did not own, operate or pay for the

lights, yet they required them for intersections.

Mr. Shumejko advised that Act 51 dollars did not allow for street lighting,

and the Road Commission viewed it as the community’s request for a

roundabout. Mr. Hooper thought that a standard intersection also had to

be lit, but Mr. Shumejko did not believe so. Mr. Hooper clarified that a

signalized intersection could be dark, but because it was a roundabout, it

had to be lit.

Mr. Anzek suggested that if there was an opportunity, the Planning

Commission could meet in several weeks for a special meeting to review

more information. There was a safety and aesthetic issue, and they

needed a little more time to look at this issue. He felt it was important,

and if they had a majority support for a specific style, it would carry more

weight with City Council. Mr. Hooper thought it would be best if Planning

Commission looked at alternatives and decided the height, illumination,

patterns and long-term view of what the City should look like and make a

recommendation. That would eliminate 90% of the discussion and

potential subjectivity. He strongly encouraged the recommendation of

Planning Commission to City Council for lighting the roundabout, which

he felt was a critical decision.

Chairperson Boswell agreed that they could have a special meeting, but

he wondered how long it would take Engineering to bring forward options

and information and to write something up. Mr. Anzek suggested July 7

would give Staff three weeks to get the information together. Mr. Anzek

thought that they could look at different fixtures for lumens and coverage,

and that they could be designed with different wattages to cover more of a

spread. The Planning Commission had worked hard to make sure there

was not spillage out onto the residential areas. They needed to have a

consistent lighting policy, and he suggested that they could meet with

DTE to work some things out. He also suggested that several Planning

Commission members might attend the meeting.

Mr. Shumejko informed that every revision DTE did had to be submitted

to the Road Commission. Mr. Hooper assumed that whatever DTE had

would readily flow through the Road Commission. Mr. Shumejko agreed,

for the most part. He thought they had gotten past some of the bigger

hurdles by putting them in the splitter islands. They did not want to go

higher than a 250-watt light. Mr. Hooper noted that private development

could not have more than a zero footcandle at a residential property line,

and he thought they would be violating that with the proposed lighting. He

was not saying that was a bad idea, but he wanted a discussion about it so

that it was understood.

Mr. Anzek asked if Mr. Reece and Mr. Dettloff would be available for a

daytime meeting with DTE prior to the special meeting. They had to

decide what they were looking for - if it was an historic look and/or

something timeless and tasteful. That would become an aesthetic

judgment, and they needed to hear from the Planning Commission

whether the style Mr. Shumejko showed appealed to them. Mr. Shumejko

said they discussed with DTE the possibility of adding cutoff lenses, but

that changed the spacing and increased the cost quite a bit.

Mr. Dettloff asked if there were any lights like it in the City currently, noting

that he could not recall any. Mr. Shumejko said that there were some

decorative lights in subdivisions, but they were the acorn style, which were

bright. Mr. Dettloff asked if the lights were similar to those in downtown

Rochester. Mr. Anzek agreed they were. Mr. Anzek asked if there were

options the Commission had not seen, and Mr. Shumejko said there

might be others, but he only had what DTE provided.

Mr. Hooper said he would not be opposed if their sister city had

something they could carry on with. Mr. Reece also thought that they

could look at adjoining communities to make sure thought was put into

having some uniformity. Mr. Shumejko said that the poles in Troy on

Crooks were private and not through Edison. Mr. Reece asked why the

City was going with Edison versus using a private company.

Mr. Shumejko explained that the City wanted to have a uniform provider

of streetlights. There was fear that a private company could go out of

business. There was more reassurance that Edison would be in

business, and that the streetlights would be maintained. Mr. Reece

wondered what cost penalty there was by going with Edison versus private.

Mr. Shumejko said that Edison had a very good program. With

residential lighting, the City paid a fixed cost every year and if anything

was damaged, it was included. Rookery Woods did street lighting several

years ago and they chose another company. They set up an agreement

with the City that said if, for some reason, they stopped paying for

electricity or if they did not want to use them anymore, the City would have

the right to special assess the homeowners for the removal. Although the

electricity costs were a little less, if something got damaged, they would

have to pay $2,500 to $3000 to have someone reset a light.

Mr. Anzek brought up Christian Hills, and recalled that they had

contracted with DTE, but they went through the City for an annual

assessment, and the association got billed to maintain the streetlights.

Their private party was DTE. Mr. Shumejko advised that the City paid

DTE and the association reimbursed the City. He stated that the way

Christian Hills did it was the way it should be. They were assessed, and

the City got revenue. A lot of other subdivisions were supposed to

reimburse the City on a quarterly basis, but a lot of times they were

delinquent. He thought it would be ideal if everything went through

special tax assessments.

Mr. Dettloff asked if that was put into the policy developed with the AIS

committee. Mr. Shumejko said it was discussed. Mr. Anzek thought that

should definitely be in the policy, as something preferred by the City for

subdivisions. The question before them, however, was a policy for the

major arterials, which they had to get together quickly. Mr. Reece added

that he was talking about the competitive part; bidding it out to contractors

versus paying Edison for the fixtures and for installing them. He did not

think Edison would be cheaper than a private contractor. He understood

the ramifications regarding insurance and so forth. He thought the City

could control uniformity, regardless.

Mr. Shumejko noted a situation on Hamlin in a tech park. There were

eight streetlights and some went out. The City contacted Edison to get

them back on, but for whatever reason, they were never built to Edison

specs, so now they had a separate agreement with them and every year

they had to renew the service contract. With private companies, there was

a risk of separate agreements.

Chairperson Boswell said that Mr. Hooper had talked about having a

comprehensive plan before City Council. He asked if they should do the

City streets first, however, if they had to make a decision quickly.

Mr. Hooper said that the only thing they needed right now was what type of

lighting the Planning Commission would recommend for citywide public

lighting. The policy would come later. Chairperson Boswell clarified that

Mr. Hooper did not want the overall policy yet, just the style of lighting for

major roads. Mr. Hooper agreed, and said style, height, lumens,

supporting documentation in a resolution from Planning Commission.

He thought that a policy would be a year-long project, and he said there

was a list of things he would like to see in it. It would take a number of

meetings to develop a comprehensive, overall policy.

Mr. Delacourt indicated that he liked the idea of a fluted pole, especially

for the reduction in signage. In looking at what DTE offered, he wondered

if they would be able to mix and match the pole with different heads, or if

they were a single component. Mr. Shumejko said that the pole he

brought was a standalone, and they could attach variable tops.

Mr. Schroeder stated that lighting should be included in every State

contract because they paid 80%. His experience with Edison was that

they were very expensive and very unreliable. Street lighting was at the

bottom of their priority list, and a city could wait for years to get something

taken care of. Regarding the type of pole, he emphasized that they

should pick a manufacturer that would stay in business, and they should

not get anything exotic, because even if it was a standard manufacturer,

they might not make something in the next few years or keep it in stock.

They could have a pole down for a long time before it got replaced, and

perhaps the City would have to put up a different pole if it became critical.

He suggested that there should be posts on the top and bottom for the

banners, so they did not wave. He also advised that manufacturers

changed colors every few years, and they could end up with posts that did

not match. Mr. Shumejko thought that was why DTE recommended

black. They were also trying to make it their standardized pole for all the

reasons mentioned. Mr. Schroeder also suggested that electrical should

be part of the State contract, and then they could hire a private contractor

to do the maintenance. It would be much more reliable and much less

costly than dealing with Edison. He said that the Road Commission had

one standard color, and if the City wanted something to match, the traffic

signal posts could always be different. The City of Troy paid for them on

Big Beaver and when one got knocked down, the Road Commission put

up their standard post and the City had to pay for the removal of that post

and put in the one they originally had. He again stressed that they

needed to get a standard, reliable manufacturer with a standard, in-stock

item, and that they should not get too exotic.

Ms. Brnabic agreed with Mr. Anzek, and said she did not think she could

make a choice from what they were shown. She wanted to confirm

whether they would have a special meeting.

Chairperson Boswell summarized that they were going to have a special

meeting on July 7, and that anyone that was available during the day was

invited to meet with DTE when that meeting was scheduled prior to July 7.

As long as there was 18 hours to notify the public that there might be a

quorum, they had the opportunity to meet with DTE, and look over what

they had to offer.

Mr. Schroeder said that they would never convince a resident about light

spillage, no matter how many meters, if they could see it. He stated that it

was a losing battle to try to convince residents that light did not spill over.

Mr. Anzek recapped that the task before them was to schedule a meeting

with DTE in the next week or so and discuss everything. Mr. Hooper

advised that if the Commission came up with a recommendation on July

7, he would put it on Council’s July 13 meeting. Mr. Shumejko added that

they would have the design engineer and a salesman from DTE at the

meeting, noting that they had done a lot of roundabouts. Mr. Anzek

reminded that cost was not too strong of a consideration for the Planning

Commission, but they did not want to send something to Council that was

cost-prohibitive, either.

Mr. Shumejko indicated that whatever was chosen for the roundabout

would probably apply to the two Tienken roundabouts. The City had been

getting a lot of requests from Hart Middle School about the illumination at

the crosswalks there. When those roundabouts were built, there was no

street lighting planned at all. They put one at each corner, but they did

not have any design guidelines. Based on their discussions, they would

like to upgrade that one, as well.

Mr. Anzek asked Mr. Delacourt if the Historic Districts Commission would

have to approve the lighting for the roundabout at Tienken and Runyon.

Mr. Delacourt said he would check with the City Attorney, but he thought

that anything within the contiguous boundaries was usually approvable by

that body. Mr. Shumejko reminded that the Washington roundabout was

in the City of Rochester.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Hooper if they had covered everything to

be included in the recommendation. Mr. Hooper reiterated that they

should include style, height, lumens and spacing. Chairperson Boswell

thanked Mr. Shumejko for coming, and reaffirmed that they would see

him shortly at the meeting with DTE.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Anzek gave a brief update on the status of car dealership

closings and repositionings in the City.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Special Meeting was

scheduled for July 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission and upon

motion by Yukon, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:00 p.m.,

Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary