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

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:30

p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

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

Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet

Yukon

Present

9 -

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0147

February 17, 2009 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Abstain

Reece

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Letter from First State Bank, dated April 21, 2009 re: Grace Parc

B) Planning & Zoning News (2) dated February and March, 2009

NEW BUSINESS

2007-0221

Request for Recommendation of an additional Extension of the Tentative

Preliminary Plat, until April 20, 2010, for Grace Parc, a 16-lot subdivision located

north of South Boulevard between Livernois and Rochester Roads, zoned R-4,

Grace Street Development, applicant.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated April 17,

2009 had been placed on file and by reference became part

of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Franco Mancini, Grace Street

Development, 47858 Van Dyke, Suite 410, Shelby

Township, MI 48317.

Mr. Mancini introduced himself as the applicant present on

behalf of Grace Street Development and First State Bank,

24300 Little Mack, St. Clair Shores, MI 48080.

Mr. Anzek advised that the request was for a fourth

Extension of the Tentative Preliminary Plat. It was brought

to his attention late in the day that the property was

foreclosed upon in October 2008. Staff was not aware of

that, and he contacted Mr. Mancini immediately, and it was

confirmed. Mr. Mancini told him that the bank permitted

him to go forward with the approval process, and to keep it

active so they would be in a good position when the

recession ended. Another issue was the new engineering

standards adopted last year, of which Mr. Mancini was

aware. The Engineering Department looked at the plans,

and it appeared that the standards would affect the

development’s layout. It was suggested by Mr. Paul Davis,

the City Engineer, that if the applicant completed the

construction plan documents prior to getting Final

Preliminary Plat approval, the Planning Commission would

be able to review the (possibly revised) Plat after the

engineering standards were applied.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Anzek if he had called First

State Bank. Mr. Anzek said he only received the fax very

late in the day, and he did not have a chance to discuss it

with the bank or the City Attorney. He indicated that from

his experience, it was not unusual for a bank to want a

project to stay active to try to recover its investment.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Mancini if he had anything

to add, and he responded that Mr. Anzek was correct. They

were in a “workout” process with the bank.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the request was coming from the bank

via Mr. Mancini, which was confirmed. He asked if the

Extension would be granted to the bank. Mr. Anzek said he

had not been able to confirm that. Mr. Dettloff said that he

hoped things would settle down during the course of the

year, and that Mr. Mancini would get the property back and

be able to move forward. He asked Mr. Mancini if he knew

who would be getting the Extension, and he replied that

technically, he would be, but that he was also representing

the bank. Mr. Dettloff asked what was being seen out there,

and if there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Mancini

said it was still pretty gloomy, but they were seeing

progress and a stabilization of foreclosures, and he advised

that he had numerous projects on hold. The banks had

halted a lot of the financing, and that had put developers in

a precarious situation. They were looking at new

partnerships as well.

Mr. Kaltsounis indicated that they were not really clear

about the ownership of the property, based upon the

foreclosure. He recommended that the matter be

postponed until the City Attorney could be contacted. He

was concerned that they were not prepared for a different

realm.

Chairperson Boswell agreed. He would not have a problem

granting an Extension, but since it was just made known, he

would like to give Staff time to speak with the bank and the

City Attorney.

Mr. Anzek added that there would be no problem with

regards to the timeframe. Mr. Mancini had requested the

Extension in time, and in previous situations, Mr. Staran

had advised that the clock stopped running at that point. If

there were additional inquiries Staff needed to do, there

would not be a concern regarding the timeframe. It would

not impede Mr. Mancini or the process; it would just delay

the approval or denial. He said he would like to have a

discussion with Mr. Staran to see if all that was needed was

a letter from the bank authorizing Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Mancini agreed it was short notice, and said that he did

not really relish driving a long way to get a formal letter. He

suggested that it could be made a Condition of approval, to

give Mr. Anzek time to confer with the bank and to save him

a few extra trips, but he said it was not a problem.

Mr. Anzek noted that the Ordinance stated that the owner of

the property had to submit the request. Mr. Kaltsounis

moved the following motion:

Motion by Kaltsounis, seconded by Yukon, that in the

matter of City File No. 04-011 (Grace Parc Subdivision), the

Planning Commission postpones the request for an

Extension until such time that Staff has had an appropriate

discussion with the owner of the property (First State Bank)

and the City Attorney.

Chairperson Boswell had received one card, and he called

the speaker forward for public comment.

Vickie Bellinger, 430 Grace Ave., Rochester Hills, MI

48309. Ms. Bellinger thanked the City for sending a notice

of the meeting. She advised that she was a resident that

abutted the proposed development. She questioned

whether the Extension was being requested by the City or

by Mr. Mancini or the bank, which now owned the property.

She believed that it was through her husband that the City

was made aware the property was owned by the bank. She

thought it was confusing that Mr. Mancini was speaking for

them. She said that the Grace Parc plan was one that the

residents and the developer agreed to after multiple

meetings. She thought it was a good exercise, and it was a

compromise from what the developer had originally

planned, to a plan that was more acceptable to the

residents, and she appreciated that effort. She was not

convinced it was the best plan; there were other plans, but

the developer did not want to take the time to make them

work. It would have required cooperation between two

developers, which was not always easy. She commented

that the development was done in a hurry, but it did not

result in a ground breaking. Now that the property had

reverted to the bank, she said that she would expect they

were looking at a new developer or new alliance. She

would prefer to see other ideas given consideration. She

would vote for a plan that the residents were interested in,

and where there would be more winners. She did not see

any benefit to the residents to approve a fourth Extension

with the change in circumstances. If it had not changed

hands, they would not have much to say. It would help the

bank with marketing, but she felt the interest of the

residents should also be considered, particularly since it

had taken years. She said that she came to the meeting to

share her thoughts, but said it would be helpful to hear from

those who previously worked on the compromise, i.e., a

group of the neighbors, and she would appreciate it if the

matter could be deferred, which she then agreed had

happened. If Grace Parc were going forward, the residents’

input would be worthy of consideration. She was endorsing

what the Commission had done, and she would be

interested in what the other residents thought about a fourth

Extension.

Chairperson Boswell closed the public comments and

recapped that in the intervening years, there had been

some changes to the City’s engineering standards, which

would have to be met. That meant that there could be

some fairly significant changes to the plat.

Mr. Anzek agreed, and said that the Engineer thought there

would be significant changes. Chairperson Boswell

suggested that would give the neighbors another

opportunity to look at things and bring forth suggestions.

Mr. Anzek said that the notices went out to people who

spoke at the previous meetings or put their name on the

mailing list, and each time the matter came up, those

people would be notified.

Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Boswell read

the motion and called for a vote.

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

Postponed.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Abstain

Reece

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion

had passed unanimously.

2009-0146

2010 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan Workshop -

Presentation of Projects

Mr. Anzek recapped that a workshop was conducted each

year in April to present the new CIP projects, and that it was

the 12th year the City had prepared a CIP. The project

sponsors were asked to represent their projects, and he

noted that Mr. Rousse of Engineering Services was present.

Mr. Anzek stated that the CIP process was very important,

and that it had served the City considerably. The Policy

team identified all wants, needs, potential wear-outs, and

things that needed repairing. There were policies in the

document that identified the dollar amounts for capital

improvement projects. The Policy Team, consisting of two

Planning Commissioners, one City Council member and

four Staff members, met initially in January. The Team

revisited the policies, determined the grading factors, and

looked at the return on investment and other factors. They

put out a call for projects - on the web and throughout the

City - but none were submitted from the outside. He noted

that last year, numerous projects had been completed. He

introduced Keith Sawdon, the City’s new Finance Director,

who had previously worked for the City from 1986 to 1994

before going to the County.

Mr. Anzek referred to page 92, Projects Added, and briefed

the Commissioners on each. (The 2010-2015 CIP draft

was placed on file, and by reference became a part of the

record thereof). He went down the list: SW-02B, Hamlin

Court Drainage Improvements, which was for a gravel road

needing work east of Livernois; SW-03B, Karas Creek Bank

Stabilization, was being done in conjunction with the

Hamlin Road improvements; SW-06B, Bendelow Road

Ditching, was for improvements to another gravel road on

the east side of the road (west side had been done during

construction of Country Club Village); SW-09B, Storm Water

BMP Retrofit - the City wanted to lead by example and

perform best management practices City-wide to reduce

surface runoff and water pollution. It was part of the policy

of going “green.” Next was PW-08E, Tienken Pathway:

Historic District (Van Hoosen-Washington) - there were

ongoing discussions regarding the Tienken Road corridor

and upcoming meetings about improvements to that

corridor. MR-03B, LDFA Concrete & Asphalt Rehab

Program: Funds were captured via tax increment financing

and the monies would be used for roads within the LDFA

district. MR-05E, Adams Road Rehab (South Boulevard to

Auburn Rd.): An overlay with drainage improvements.

MR-05F, Adams Boulevard Irrigation: It would be for a

portion of the newly realigned Adams from north of Walmart

to north of Hamlin where it tapered back to two lanes.

MR-05G, Adams Road at Tienken Road Intersection

Improvements, no detail given; MR-21, East Nawakwa

Road Rehab - from the southern entrance into Country Club

Village westward toward Rochester Rd. MR-24C, Brewster

Road Right-Turn Lane Extension at Walton Boulevard:

They would extend the right turn lane further northward,

allowing more cars to stack for a right turn westbound onto

Walton. MR-27, Major Road Bridge Rehab Program: The

City owns four bridges and this was a program to do a

bi-annual inspection and repairs as necessary. MR-31D,

John R Road at Hamlin Road Traffic Signal Upgrade: The

signal was scheduled to be changed from a cross section

to a box-span. MR-40B, Tienken Road Bridge

Replacement at Stoney Creek: The project was getting a

lot of attention, and there have been questions about what

would be done to Tienken, how wide the bridge would be

and how it would affect the Historic District. WS-25B, South

Boulevard Water Main Replacement and WS-42A, M-59

Water Main Replacement were self explanatory, and he

advised that the second was being done with the

anticipated widening of M-59. SS-01B, SCADA System

Enhancement: He explained that SCADA was the City’s

water control system that the mains were remotely tied to,

and it alerted Staff if there was a water main break or other

problems. SS-30, Sanitary Sewer Easement Machine:

This would allow crews to get into tighter areas to do

repairs. SS-31, Small Vactor System was pretty much the

same thing; a smaller machine to do repairs in between

homes, for example. FA-01G, City Hall LED Light Upgrade:

The City conducted an audit of energy usage, and it

showed that if the lights were changed to LEDs, much less

electricity would be used. FA-02E, Communication Center

Phones Upgrade - it was for a fire station. FA04-B, Old DPS

Garage Conversion to Cold Storage Facility: A partial

knockdown and cleanout of the old building to be used for

storage. FA-04C, Salt Storage Facility Upgrade - also at the

DPS facility. FA-04D, DPS Fuel Dispenser Replacement

(self-explanatory); FA-10, Energy Efficiency Analysis: To

find the best way to implement practices determined from

the energy audit; PS-14B, LDFA Master Infrastructure Plan:

It was submitted by Planning and Development. After the

LDFA was established, there was a Master Plan prepared

in 1996, which identified what infrastructure needed to be

redone and when. The LDFA was primarily established to

generate funds for the Adams Rd. project. The City was

now obligated to spend the monies in support of the LDFA

capture area to hopefully attract and keep businesses.

They needed to come up with a second generation Master

Plan for that area. Lastly, IS-11, City-wide Two-Way Radio

Changeover: Replacement of outdated radio equipment to

comply with new Federal mandates.

Mr. Anzek concluded the introduction of new projects, and

reminded that it was critical that the CIP be approved in

May, so Mr. Sawdon could then prepare documents for the

Mayor. The budget had to be presented to City Council in

early August.

Ms. Brnabic referred to the John R/Hamlin Rd. traffic signal,

and asked if was being done because it was mandatory

due to ADA requirements or if the City just felt it was a

needed upgrade. Mr. Rousse said that John R was a

City-owned road, and that was why the City’s share was

100%. The box band had dual lights over each lane, the

upgrade would improve visibility, and they would install

LED lights and upgrade the whole intersection. Ms. Brnabic

wondered if the expense was necessary in light of the

economy. Mr. Rousse said that it was not mandatory; it

was suggested based on traffic conditions to improve the

intersection. Ms. Brnabic asked if there had been traffic

problems, noting that she travelled the area quite a bit and

she had not personally noticed any. Mr. Rousse explained

that signals did wear out from time to time and when they

repaired this one, they would like to upgrade it to the box

band type. It was part of the Best Management Practices of

traffic control using the latest technology. Ms. Brnabic said

she understood that, but she questioned the expense at this

place and time in the economy, and that was why she had

asked if it was mandatory.

Mr. Schroeder referred to WS-42A, and noted that they

planned an eight-inch watermain under M-59. He

maintained that the minimum size for a watermain under

any public roadway should be 12-inches. It did not make

sense to him to replace a line under M-59 with an eight-inch

line, when the difference in cost was nominal. The labor

would not be any different, and he strongly recommended

that it be changed to a 12-inch because in the future, if they

needed more, they would not have it. Mr. Rousse agreed it

could be accomplished.

Mr. Dettloff asked if, other than the M-59 project, any other

projects would potentially qualify for the stimulus funding.

Mr. Rousse said that all the energy projects would qualify if

they were submitted in a timely manner and with enough

detail. They were in the process of compiling the Rebuild

Michigan, a free program where an analyst looks at the

consumption of energy in the City’s buildings and makes

some recommendations, such as installing LED lighting

and modifying the temperature policy. The application was

due in June, and they were compiling the cost information

for all the buildings and planned to submit it.

Mr. Anzek noted that when the first stimulus package was

made available, it was for highways and roads. The State

asked for projects, and the City worked closely with

Congressman Peters’ office and submitted about $450

million in projects. There was about $57 billion in projects

submitted for the initial funding throughout the State. The

City tried to get money for local roads, drain improvements

or anything they could, but local roads were discounted

right off the top. The widening of M-59 was identified by

MDOT and would begin this year. They also were trying to

get money for the Crooks Road interchange, and the City

has been working with Troy and Rochester in a concerted

effort to lobby for funds. He stressed that it was important

be positioned for the second wave of stimulus money.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the money first went through the State,

which Mr. Anzek confirmed. Mr. Dettloff clarified that the

money secured for Tienken Road was not in jeopardy of

going away. Mr. Anzek agreed, and he added that the City

was also a recipient of $305,000.00 for 2009 for specialized

radar control signs for high traffic areas.

Mr. Schroeder asked if they knew the status of the Crooks

Road/M-59 interchange and what type it would be. Mr.

Anzek advised that MDOT had directed the Road

Commission to complete the design development for the

interchange. They looked at a dual span, four-lane concept

in 2003, but there were a lot of things on the table. They

had discussed the exit ramps becoming roundabouts. If

they did a single, five-lane span, they would have to close

Crooks, which could impact the businesses on either side.

Mr. Rousse stated that the bridge had to be replaced, and

they hoped it would be done in conjunction with the M-59

widening. They did not know if it would be a two or four

lane or double span. Mr. Schroeder commented that

something had to be done with Crooks in that area, and Mr.

Rousse offered that they had plans for some work from Star

Batt to Hamlin this year.

Mr. Hooper said that at a recent meeting with the Road

Commission, he learned that they were not aware of what

MDOT’s desires were, but Mr. Davis (City Engineer) shared

it with them. Mr. Hooper felt there was a willingness to do

something, but the Road Commission was out of money.

They want the City to fund right-of-way acquisitions and

make improvements, so there will be a significant

budgetary impact if they proceed.

Mr. Hooper referred to the Karas Creek Bank Stabilization,

and said it was discussed quite a bit last year, and they

questioned whether it should be funded out of pathways or

drains. The budget had a $370,000.00 project in it this

year, and he was certain the Karas repair had been covered

and funded in the project. He asked if something had

changed.

Mr. Rousse advised that it was a new project. They did a

survey of Hamlin Road, and it was identified that the banks

could be washed in when they rerouted the creek. He

asked Mr. Hooper if he was referring to the Clinton River

Bank Stabilization project. Mr. Hooper said that SW-03B

had been funded for $370,000.00 for this year. He recalled

that how it would be funded was discussed during the

August budget talks. He wondered if it was the same thing

and whether it was already in the current budget. Mr. Anzek

said he would get with Roger Moore and check the status

and look at last year’s funding.

Mr. Hooper brought up SW-08B, Clinton River: Natural

Channel Restoration, and he said it showed restoration

scheduled to begin in 2009. It was not in the budget, so he

wondered if it was an error. Mr. Rousse said that the grant

application did not go through, so it would not happen. One

project in conjunction with it was the stabilization of the

bank near the bridge by the Trail. That was one of the

things they had hoped to accomplish with the above

project, but they were not successful with the grant

application. They were going to resubmit and, hopefully, be

successful. He agreed that the year should be updated

appropriately.

Mr. Hooper referred to PW-08E, Tienken Road Pathway:

Historic District (Van Hoosen Road - Washington Road).

He said that Chairperson Boswell might concur, and he

recalled that when they approved Mill Stream Village, the

Site Plan showed a pathway. He remembered Mr. Kaiser

saying that they were not going to put the pathway in at that

time, because there was no way to get across the bridge.

Mr. Hooper thought they might have collected money from

Grand Sakwa to fund the pathway. Mr. Anzek also thought

there was money put into an escrow. Mr. Hooper asked

him to verify that - to see if there would be some added

funding. Mr. Anzek recalled that they built the pathway up

to Letica Road, but east of Letica, to the Historic Village, the

pathway was not built. They were forced to use the south

side of Tienken because the first house on the east side of

Stoney Creek was so close to the road. Mr. Hooper thought

it was more of the fact that there was no way to get across

the bridge, and Mr. Kaiser specifically said they would not

put in the pathway. It was his opinion that the City could not

try to force a developer sometime in the future - who could

be long gone - to make it happen, so they required monies

for the fund. He was not sure how the process exactly went.

Mr. Anzek said he would check to see if funds were put into

an escrow account.

Mr. Hooper brought up the street lighting projects. They

discussed having a policy regarding street lighting, but City

Council did not have one yet. He thought that before they

started doing all those projects, that a policy should be

referenced in the CIP.

Mr. Rousse advised that the projects came up when the

plan for the road was in place. At that time, they had

identified a number of different types of lighting, including a

casting plan for the residential and business areas. Mr.

Davis had put together some cost estimates for it. He

agreed that the City did not currently have a street lighting

policy for local or major roads. Mr. Hooper asked

Chairperson Boswell to put the policy discussion on a

future Planning Commission agenda so they could study

and provide a recommendation to City Council regarding

City-wide street lighting for major and local roads.

Mr. Hooper referred to MR-13A, Dequindre Road

Realignment, and said that in the meeting with the Road

Commission (which had taken place the day before),

mention was made that the number two priority for City

funding was improving Dequindre from Hamlin to Auburn

Road. Mr. Rousse said that each time local transportation

bills were appropriated, the local representative got to add

“high-priority” projects to the bill. Congressman Peters sent

out a request for projects, and Staff gave Mayor Barnett a

couple of options. One was to extend Dequindre from

Auburn to Hamlin. The Road Commission had already

submitted from Square Lake to Auburn, and the City asked

to extend that. Mayor Barnett had not fully submitted his

request yet, and he was considering other options. Mr.

Hooper thought it should be a CIP project if it was a number

two priority. Mr. Rousse said that it was in the

Transportation Approval Plan, and the Road Commission

submitted the projects in segments. He did not think the

Mayor sent anything out about his priority. He was

considering Avon from Livernois to Rochester and Hamlin

from Rochester to John R, and Mr. Rousse did not think he

had made a decision.

Mr. Anzek agreed it should be a CIP project. MR-13A

referred to improving Dequindre from Avon southward,

which was identified in the recent Master Thoroughfare

Plan as one that would get the best bang for the buck in

terms of alleviating traffic. If traffic was diverted down

Dequindre to M-59, it would take traffic off of Tienken. The

City had started discussions with Shelby Township,

Rochester and the people who owned Yates Cider Mill

about trying to work it out. Mr. Hooper asked if they should

create MR-13C, which was agreed upon.

Mr. Hooper referenced SS-30, Sanitary Sewer Easement

Machine, and asked if it was a miniature version of a vactor

truck. Mr. Rousse said they submitted it because of

something they discovered near the Clinton River. In order

to get to a problem in River Bend Park, they had to build a

road. They were able to access it from the south, but north

of it the sewer went through the residents’ backyards. They

would have to have cleared a very large area for the vactor

truck. The Easement Machine was a small track machine

with a power flusher on it, and it would expend the hose

without removing any landscaping. It would give better

access to remote areas without heavy equipment.

Mr. Hooper next mentioned PS-09A, Olde Town District:

Redevelopment Study. He said that when he got on the

Planning Commission 12 years ago, they had an Olde

Town study done, and he asked what was wrong with that

one. Mr. Anzek said that it could not unify people into a

common theme or desire. They were proposing to do most

of the new Study in house, but they would need some help

with graphics. They hoped to begin this year with public

meetings to try to find a vision. There were many

compound issues with the Auburn corridor, and the plan

that was done in 1998 fell a little short. It was an illustrative

concept of what could be done with street furniture -

hardware, benches, plantings, etc. It did not look at how to

deal with MDOT to get rid of continuous curb cuts and look

for parking behind the structures in a way that would not

adversely impact the residential areas. They did not think

the project could be done successfully just working with the

business owners. Council would decide whether or not to

fund the project.

Mr. Hooper referred to the LDFA Master Infrastructure Plan,

and said he supported it, but he wondered why the City’s

Asset Management System (AMS) could not be used for it.

Mr. Anzek thought it would be a contributor, but the AMS

could not look at the roadway systems and determine if one

could be extended somewhere and determine if that would

spur development. AMS would give them the age and

inventory of pipes that could be built into a replacement

schedule for LDFA monies.

Mr. Hooper asked about the Landfill Planning Area Study.

Mr. Anzek said that the M-59 Corridor Study was identified

in the previous year to be funded by the LDFA, and the

Landfill Planning Area Study was being proposed to put the

Corridor Study and the LDFA Infrastructure Plan together.

Mr. Hooper asked if anyone had been hired for the LDFA

Plan, noting that it was in this year’s budget for $50,000.00,

and Mr. Anzek informed him that the City had not sent it out

for bids yet.

Mr. Anzek noted that Mr. Delacourt was taking the lead on

the Landfill Planning Area Study. He had put together a

work program, and they would like to do it mostly in house

with some support from ASTI for the environmental

analysis. The $60,000.00 cost was over a two-year period.

Mr. Hooper commented that he really liked the information

in the CIP about the Local Road Program. When they first

started it, there was one sentence. Now there were maps,

pqi ratings and road conditions, and the City was really

transparent about doing things. He asked if there was a

way they could show an overall rating of the City - how

much they (prudently) spent and how much the road ratings

improved.

Mr. Rousse responded that they could do that, but he did

not think Mr. Hooper would be satisfied. All the concrete

work they did last year was less than one mile, and the City

had 225 miles of paved roads. They improved ratings

using asphalt, but for concrete, they did not really improve

the total road segment because they did not do enough of

it. Mr. Hooper commented that facts were facts and they

told a story, and people should know that $3 million only

does x amount, for example. Mr. Anzek thought it was a

good idea to show what the average pqi was and what the

City had been spending on roads. Mr. Rousse agreed that

it could be added.

Mr. Hooper said he was very pleased they had a CIP, and

he agreed that it had been a great tool. Mr. Anzek thought it

got better and better every year.

Mr. Kaltsounis wondered if there was a way to show when

they recouped money from energy conservation. Mr. Anzek

said that in 2008, the Mayor called for 25% reduction in

energy costs in two years. Mr. Rousse started readjusting

thermostats and systems throughout City Hall, and lights

were set to go off by a timer - things like that - and they

saved 18% in energy costs. That was equal to one month’s

savings on all buildings. The group talked further about

LED lights and return on investment.

Mr. Reece congratulated the Team on the Plan. He stated

that if there was one good thing with the current economy, it

was that professional services fees were way down. He

suggested that they might want to take advantage of it while

people were trying to keep their staff busy. Relative to the

construction costs, the professional estimators in his office

could not keep up with the rate the projects were dropping.

They were seeing unprecedented lows in projects. He

realized that the City was in a crunch also, but anything

they could do now to take advantage of a recession, they

should strongly think about doing, because they would get

significantly more bang for the buck in the next year or two.

He remarked that it was amazing how much project costs

had dropped from three or four years ago.

Mr. Reece revisited the Sanitary Sewer Easement Machine

project and asked how often it would be used. Mr. Rousse

said it would get an increasing amount of use because the

City was transitioning from a construction mode to a

maintenance mode. There were a lot of sewers that had

been constructed in remote areas that had not received

attention. They did the best they could with the current

equipment, but there were some areas of the City that had

not been touched in 15-20 years. Mr. Reece clarified that

part of it was for preventative maintenance for the future.

Mr. Reece referred to MR-27, Major Road Bridge Rehab

Program. He said that the King's Cove Drive over the Paint

Creek was not more than five or seven years old. Mr.

Anzek said it was in good shape, but the project was for an

ongoing inspection program. Mr. Reece asked if it was just

an inspection or if they were already experiencing problems

with the bridge. Mr. Rousse said that there had been some

problems. It was mandatory that they inspected the bridge

every two years as a preventative maintenance issue.

They look for scouring underneath the water level, and they

had to get in the water to see that. They had not budgeted

for it in the past. It was put in the CIP because they knew

the costs would come up. There had been problems with

expansion and contraction of the bridge and some early

corrosion.

Ms. Brnabic referred to the Olde Town District Study and

asked if it was a budget request. Mr. Anzek said it was just

being submitted as a CIP project. It would be submitted as

part of his department’s budget, and the Mayor would

decide whether he wanted it as part of his budget. In the

meantime, Staff was trying to determine what they could do

in house, and he was preparing a work program for the

Study. The dollar amount might get significantly reduced if

they did much of the work.

Ms. Brnabic hoped it was a plan to move forward, whether it

was done in house or in combination. She also questioned

the study done 11 years ago, noting that there were

problems with the concept. Many months ago she talked

with Dan Casey, the City’s Manager of Economic

Development, and she was aware of the growth potential

and that current conditions played a financial factor. She

realized there were many factors involved, but she felt that

they needed to open the closet door and not just talk about

it. It had been dormant for a long time, and she felt that they

needed to get it to a workable, viable plan. It needed to

become active and living, and they were not close to

implementation. A plan had always been sitting there, and

everyone asked what to do with Olde Town, but that was as

far as it ever went.

Mr. Anzek said that it was a challenging part of the City, and

he had to annually advise Council about it. In 2001, they

started to meet with some of the property owners and

showed them plans, but they could not get any

cohesiveness. They were going in different directions. Mr.

Delacourt met with some of the property owners and asked

them how well they knew their neighbors. From Mr.

Anzek's experience, if they did not have the owners

organized with a common vision, the whole thing would be

a waste of time. There had been three different plans and

all failed for the same reason - the people were not

organized. He wanted to get them together and to

understand their wants and needs. It was going to be his

personal challenge this year.

Ms. Brnabic agreed that they needed to move forward with

organization. She saw that as the problem back in 1990. If

they came up with a plan that did not get implemented, it

would be time and money wasted. Mr. Anzek said that

when he came to the City in 2000, there was $75,000.00 in

the budget to do a more specific study from the 1998 plan

and to take it to the next level. There was $475,000.00 in

the CIP. When they started working with the residents, they

could never get them on the same page. He had

recommended to Mayor Somerville that they not go forward

until the folks were organized.

Chairperson Boswell had received one card and he called

the speaker forward.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, Rochester Hills, MI 48306

Regarding the discussion about the Millstream pathway on

Tienken, Ms. Hill clarified that it went eastward from

Tienken to their detention pond, but it ended right in front of

a pole and dropped off into the pond. She recalled that

there might be some money in the escrow. She mentioned

pending projects, WS-14B and SS-14B, water and sanitary

sewer extension for Mead, Mill Race and Carter, and

pointed out that she came last year to speak about them as

well. She was concerned because they had been in the

CIP since its origination 12 years ago, but they were

removed and put into “Pending Projects.” That happened

primarily because of a lack of funds. There was a project

for water and sewer extension down Washington Rd. from

the Runyon/Washington roundabout to Dequindre, but they

lopped off Carter and Mill Race due to money. The goal

that had been stated each year for the sewer and water plan

was to extend the system to the remainder of the City. The

City started installing sewer and water 50 years ago, when

it was Avon Township, and they were not completed yet.

She felt that those projects should be put back in the body

of the CIP rather than in Pending Projects. It appeared that

there was less focus on Pending Projects from a planning

and budgeting standpoint. She understood that dollars and

cents were tough. They were having trouble keeping up

with the budgets they had, and they were trying to do

replacements already when they had not even completed

the system for the whole City. She did not think they had

conversations about alternative ways to handle the projects;

that was why she would rather see them in the main body of

the CIP. Even if they did not have the funding, she stated

that it should still be in the CIP, in the way that Crooks Road

lighting was in it even though there was no policy.

Ms. Hill suggested that the above project should be

appropriately described. It described the extension for

Mead Rd. between Sheldon and Washington, but it was

really Mead from Sheldon to Winkler Mill and Winkler Mill

from Mead to Washington. It talked about Dequindre at

Mead, and they did not even meet. She was not sure what

portion was missing, but she would like to see it corrected,

and she would like to see it in the main body of the CIP.

She thought it would be a good idea to have a map of the

water and sewer system, showing where in the City it had

been completed in one color, and showing the areas that

were not completed in another. That would give the viewer

an idea of was out there, even if the projects were still listed

as “Pending.”

Ms. Hill referred to MR-40B, Tienken Rd. Bridge over

Stoney Creek. She believed that some people had never

heard about this because there had been no public

discussion about it at a City Council or Planning

Commission meeting. It was the first time it had shown up

in the CIP. There have been other Tienken Rd. corridor

projects, but this one was new. She said that unfortunately,

it was her understanding that it was for a very base model

bridge that met all the safety criteria for the size of the

bridge. The concern was the actual size and scale, and

that the look and feel would not be compatible with a

nationally registered historic district. She felt they needed a

better product. She would not want to see the same thing

that was dropped in over the Paint Creek River. She

noticed a lot of other communities doing nice, creative

things along the sides of their bridges that enhanced the

look. She did not think they did a good job at Paint Creek.

She realized it cost money, and when she saw they would

be paying 5% (43,750.00) she had a concern. The

estimated cost of the project was $2.3 million. 10% of that

would be $230,000.00, so she wondered how 5% was only

$43,750.00. She knew the costs would be higher if they

tried to do anything more compatible with the area. She

would not like to see the Planning Commission approve a

document with those estimated dollar figures. When the

CIP goes to Council they think they have to budget a certain

amount to build it next year, but there had not been any

discussion. She hoped they were concerned also.

Ms. Hill talked about one last item, which was about

improving Tienken Rd. from Livernois to Sheldon. In the

description it showed that they City had an earmark of

$10.8 million. She pointed out that about $750,000.00 of

that money was used for the Paint Creek bridge. She

believed all that was left was about $6.8 million because

other agencies got some of those funds. The roadwork was

to cost $14 million. If there was only $6.8, she was not sure

where the rest of the money would come from.

Mr. Hill mentioned that the CIP used to show the estimated

project costs in the descriptions of the projects, not just on

the spreadsheet. It did show the estimated City share, but it

now people had to flip back to the spreadsheet to find the

real project total. She thought it would be helpful to see both

in the description area. She agreed that the CIP was very

helpful, but she stated that it had grown over the years, and

one thing indicated was that dollars were harder and harder

to come by. The Planning Commission and the City

Council had to determine how they were going to deal with

that fact. She reiterated that she was concerned about not

ever having sewer and water coming to the northeast corner

of the City.

Chairperson Boswell asked if there were further comments.

He indicated that there were some dollar questions raised

by Ms. Hill to address. Mr. Anzek replied that they had

taken notes, and that they would provide a comprehensive

memo in response prior to the Public Hearing in May. If

there were any other questions or comments, he asked that

they be forwarded as soon as possible.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Hooper if he wanted

MR-13C added this year (Dequindre Rd. improvements

from Auburn to Hamlin). Mr. Hooper said it would not be

done this year, but it should be listed as a project in the CIP,

as should others on the wish list.

Mr. Anzek noted that the energy-based projects were not

listed in the CIP, and they were going after stimulus money

for those. Mr. Hooper said they should be in the CIP,

because if someone wanted funding for a project but it was

not in the CIP, it would be difficult. Mr. Anzek said they

should make a provision to identify energy or various

projects, and as others came along, he suggested that the

Plan would have to come back to the Planning

Commission for amendments.

Ms. Brnabic indicated that she liked the organizational

change, noting that it was much easier to go through the

document to find things. She thanked everyone who had

worked on it and agreed that they did a great job.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Election of Officers:

Mr. Kaltsounis felt that the current slate of Officers should

be kept on the Planning Commission and the following

motion was made: Upon motion by Kaltsounis, seconded

by Yukon, Chairperson Boswell was unanimously

re-elected as Chairperson; Deborah Brnabic was

unanimously re-elected as Vice Chairperson; and Maureen

Gentry of the Planning and Development Department was

unanimously re-elected as Secretary, all for a one-year

term to expire the first meeting in April 2010.

Meeting Start Time:

Mr. Anzek advised that this matter would be brought up with

all the Boards and Commissions that worked with Planning

and Development. He further advised that City Council

recently voted to start their meetings at 7:00 p.m.

According to the By-laws, the Planning Commission can

set a time for their meetings each year, and Staff wanted to

see if there was interest in moving the time to 7:00 p.m.

from 7:30 p.m. City Council considered the ability of

applicants and residents to get to the meeting by that time.

Chairperson Boswell said that he personally had no

problem with 7:00 p.m., and Mr. Schroeder said he was all

for it. Ms. Brnabic thought that any earlier might pose a

problem with traffic. Mr. Hooper added that he was all for

7:00, but 6:30 would be difficult. Mr. Anzek said he would

look at the By-laws to see if they had to be amended, and a

formal motion would be made at the next meeting.

FURTHER BUSINESS:

Mr. Anzek advised that City Council had adopted the new

Zoning Ordinance the previous evening, and he thought

they were generally pleased with it.

Mr. Anzek brought up Extensions, and the fact that there

was a fourth one requested, and said it was becoming

difficult. He suggested that they have a policy discussion

about it. He did not have a problem with Extensions, as

long as the development met the law. Grace Parc was a

little trickier because it did not meet the Engineering

standards. The question of ownership and foreclosure also

came up. He wondered how the Planning Commission felt

about continually granting Extensions. He thought they

could be doing it for a few more years for developments

approved over the last three or four years, and he

suggested that they think about it and add it to the next

meeting.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked how short the line of applicants was.

Mr. Anzek responded that Staff had some very positive

meetings, but the number one problem was credit from the

banks. There had been a lot of developers interested in

doing things in the City. As bad as the economy was,

Rochester Hills had one of the lowest unemployment rates

in Oakland County. There was still competition in the

marketplace, and he mentioned several places that were

doing well, such as The Boulevard Shoppes. He stated that

the car industry was causing businesses to merge and

divide, which was creating new demands for space. It was

not great, of course, and the City did not have much land

left. Projects were turning to redevelopment.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked about the gas station on Rochester at

M-59 closing. Mr. Anzek was not aware of it, but he said

that the owners had brought in several concepts over the

last couple of years that did not work because of the

abutting residential.

Mr. Dettloff said that he did not have a problem working with

developers on Extensions, but had the foreclosure not been

discovered, they would have looked foolish granting one.

He thanked Mr. Anzek for the information, but said he

thought it should have come from Mr. Mancini. If

developers were up front, he maintained that the

Commissioners would work with them, but Mr. Mancini

made the situation uncomfortable. Mr. Anzek said that he

should not have to judge the scruples of applicants, but

because of one situation, Staff would now have to start

checking ownership of properties when they went for

Extensions. He believed that Mr. Mancini was obligated to

report the foreclosure. Mr. Reece said that the applicant

lost some credibility when he said he did not want to drive a

little ways to get a formal letter from the bank.

Mr. Reece asked how many plans or plats were out there.

Mr. Anzek said there were about eight. Some had dropped,

like Saddlebrook Orchards. Mr. Anzek said he would put

some guidelines together regarding Extensions for the next

meeting.

Mr. Klomp said he watched a Council meeting about a

month ago, where they announced that M-59 would be

improved with stimulus money and he was pleased at how

well the City handled it. Mr. Anzek agreed, and noted that if

MDOT had funded the project, the City would have been on

the hook for $6 million. The City was now in a position to

take the $6 million and perhaps use it as leverage for the

Crooks Rd. interchange or another project.

Mr. Schroeder reminded that the Commission held one

session about LEED building, but they had two to go. Mr.

Anzek said he would look into it. Mr. Anzek mentioned that

the new Meijer’s would be a LEED qualified building.

Meijer’s embraced LEED principals a few years ago, and it

had a tremendous return on investment. They now build all

LEED qualified buildings, although they did not necessarily

pay the fee to become certified. Mr. Reece said that all

projects should try to at least become certified, because it

was not costly.

Mr. Schroeder noted that Rochester Hills was mentioned on

a television program as the best city to live in the State. Mr.

Anzek added that Relocate America voted Rochester Hills

as one of the top 100 cities to live. It helped the City with

marketing and attracting jobs.

The members ended with a conversation about the new

trash hauling and recycling system in the City, with which

they seemed satisfied.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for May 19, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission, and upon

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:45

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary