Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, May 19, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairperson James Rosen called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎

7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎at Precinct #‎5‎, ‎1551 ‎East Auburn Rd‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Vice Chairperson James Rosen‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎40 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Penny Papke, Planning Technician‎

Kenneth Snell, Mayor‎

Larry Ternan, City Attorney‎

Belinda Peters, Financial Administrator‎

Thomas Dohr, Director, Engineering Services‎

Phillip McKenna, President, McKenna Associates‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1853

March ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎Regular Meeting‎

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

March ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎be accepted as presented‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

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

Approved

2000-1854

March ‎31‎, ‎1998 ‎Special Meeting‎

MOTION ‎by Nowicki, supported by Corneliussen, ‎RESOLVED‎, that the minutes ‎

dated March ‎31‎, ‎1998 ‎be accepted as presented‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

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

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Ordinance No‎. ‎200-100‎

B‎.‎ Ordinance No‎. ‎200-101‎

C‎.‎ Planning & Zoning News‎, Vol ‎16‎, No‎. ‎5‎, March, ‎1998‎

D‎.‎ Letter from Mr‎. ‎Chuck Slattery, ‎3030‎ Palm‎-‎Aire Drive, Rochester Hills, ‎

Michigan ‎48309‎ -- ‎RE‎: ‎Transportation Plan dated May ‎11‎, ‎1998‎.‎

E‎.‎ Draft Copy of the CIP Plan‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1733

Presentation of the proposed ‎1999 ‎Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎pursuant to ‎

State of Michigan Municipal Planning Act ‎285 ‎(‎Public Hearing‎)‎

Mayor Kenneth D‎. ‎Snell, Ms‎. ‎Belinda Peters, Financial Administrator and Mr‎. ‎

Thomas J‎. ‎Dohr, Director of Public Service were present to discuss the overview of ‎

the ‎1999 ‎Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎).‎

Mayor Snell stated that this is the second CIP that the city has undertaken‎. ‎The plan ‎

is being presented to the Planning Commission in accordance with state law; ‎

Municipal Planning Act of Michigan ‎(‎Act ‎285‎). ‎This law requires that a home rule city ‎

create a CIP and up until last year the City of Rochester Hills had not been pursuing ‎

this legislation requirement‎. ‎The document being presented this evening represents ‎

significant improvements over last year both in presentation and visual appeal‎.‎

Mayor Snell added that the role of the Planning Commission is to review the proposed ‎

CIP and to eventually adopt the plan‎. ‎The Planning Commission is not responsible for ‎

having to undertake the funding requirements of the CIP, but rather to consider the ‎

plan on its own merits in terms of the needs of the community and what is best for the ‎

long term health and future of the community‎. ‎

The goal of the CIP is to make sure that all of the city‎’‎s plans are brought together into ‎

one document‎. ‎This one document will then provide a synergistic relationship so that ‎

everything the city talks about in a variety of planning modes ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, land use, recreation, ‎

roads, etc‎.) ‎will come together under one banner‎. ‎Mayor Snell stated that the CIP ‎

being presented represents a good overall plan for the city and it was recommended ‎

that the plan be adopted this evening‎. ‎Mayor Snell also asked the commission to ‎

keep mind that the CIP will serve as a good foundation this year for the city‎’‎s strategic ‎

planning effort which will commence in September through the guidance and ‎

leadership of the City Council, participation from the Administration, the citizens, ‎

board and commissions and other interested people‎. ‎Mayor Snell encouraged the ‎

Planning Commission‎’‎s participation in this effort‎.‎

(‎Enter Mr‎. ‎Krupa at ‎7:40‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters then detailed the ‎1999 ‎CIP‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Peters pointed out that there have been ‎

a lot of visual changes that have been made not only to the document but also to the ‎

CIP‎-‎In‎-‎Brief‎. ‎In addition to this, a story board has also been designed for the CIP ‎

which can be used at different sites and locations to keep the public better informed ‎

about future planning projects for the city‎. ‎The new plan incorporates the concerns ‎

from last years plans and expansion of the Policy Team which now includes two ‎

members of the Planning Commission and a member of the City Council‎. ‎The Project ‎

Team has also been expanded‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Peter also pointed out that a process flow chart ‎

has been developed and this is now included in the document, the CIP‎-‎In‎-‎Brief and ‎

the story board‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters added that the document still has a few short comings and it is the intention ‎

of the team to address these issues in the plan for the year ‎2000‎. ‎Some of the ‎

additions being considered for the next document include water and sewer projects ‎

and all of the major road needs and a glossary of terms‎. ‎All of the different master ‎

plans that are incorporated into the tool are constantly changing and being updated‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters also noted that the ‎1999 ‎CIP includes a section on companion projects‎. ‎

This section displays the continuity of the different projects‎. ‎Verbiage changes have ‎

also been incorporated from prior workshops with the Planning Commission in order ‎

to make some of the descriptions on the projects clearer‎. ‎The spreadsheet also ‎

contains clarifications on some of the funding information‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters added that one of the tools used for the success of the document is how ‎

much the document is used‎. ‎It has been noticed in the last year that this document is ‎

used a lot by the management staff and the City Council members which shows that ‎

this is a very useful tool‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr then reviewed the following project areas within the CIP‎:‎

Drains‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr stated that the drainage projects are anticipated to be constructed through ‎

the county‎’‎s Chapter ‎20 ‎drain program‎. ‎The city does have a dedicated source of ‎

funding mechanism for these projects‎. ‎Included in the proposed plan are the Gabler ‎

drain extension, the Karas drain extension and two phases of the Rewold drain ‎

extension are anticipated in ‎1999‎.‎

Pathways‎

Pathways also have a dedicated source of funding through the city‎’‎s pathway millage ‎

and all of the projects that are identified in the CIP are anticipated to be initiated or ‎

will continue through ‎1999‎. ‎Major Roads is not all inclusive in terms of the city‎’‎s ‎

needs; in this presentation the plan targets road projects that have some type of ‎

funding and are recognized in the SEMCOG TIP or they are identified as a priority by ‎

the city and are at this point underway or funding is planned for a future date‎. ‎Local ‎

Roads changes include rehabilitation and in terms of cost is considered a major need‎. ‎

Funding for gravel road upgrades is identified as a need, however, funding currently is ‎

not envisioned at this time‎.‎

Parks & Recreation‎/‎City‎-‎Owned Facilities‎

Parks & Recreation has many projects some of which are anticipated to move ‎

forward in the next year or two‎. ‎Many of these projects are also identified as longer ‎

term needs which do not have identified funding at this time‎. ‎The City‎-‎Owned ‎

Facilities include the city‎’‎s building grounds and equipment to carry out the ‎

responsibilities within municipal services; many needs have been identified and only a ‎

portion of these projects have identified or anticipated funding‎.‎

Professional Services‎/‎Internal Service Support‎

Projects have been identified, funded and put into place‎. ‎These projects now need to ‎

be carried forward‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr stated that the Policy Team has recommended and identified several ‎

projects which they believe should move forward in ‎1999 ‎and many projects have ‎

been identified which should be moved out many years into the future‎. ‎Based on the ‎

premises listed below the following proposal is recommended for the Capital ‎

Improvement Plan from ‎1999‎-‎2004‎:‎

* ‎Major Road projects that are currently underway should continue‎.‎

* ‎All internal service projects should continue to improve customer service‎.‎

* ‎All funded, independent projects ‎(‎those that do not compete with each other‎

should advance‎.‎

* ‎The plan to address local roads should be advanced in accordance with the ‎

Local‎

Road Improvements Policy that sets forth guidelines for the design and ‎

construction‎.‎

* ‎Projects advanced should be funded in ‎1999‎, until they are concluded‎.‎

Mayor Snell then restated that the CIP is a snapshot; it is not meant to be a fixed point ‎

for the entire future but rather it is what is seen as being necessary based on ‎

information which is available today‎. ‎These projects will change as funding sources ‎

are identified to be different, as the needs of the community change, as issues arise that ‎

are not anticipated or if issues are eliminated‎. ‎It is important for the community and ‎

the Planning Commission to keep in mind that based on the information that is ‎

currently available, this is the best that the city can do‎. ‎The CIP serves as a guide to ‎

move forward; it should also be a document that the city should not be afraid to ‎

review and consider making changes to‎.‎

Vice Chairperson Rosen then ‎declared the public hearing open‎, calling for ‎

proponents and‎/‎or opponents who wished to speak‎.‎

There being none, Vice Chairperson Rosen ‎declared the public hearing closed‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Rosen explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to flush out ‎

the final draft plan for the CIP that will be voted on in the future‎. ‎Discussion then ‎

ensued on the subject plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber inquired about the lines and arrows going from ‎1999 ‎to the Year ‎2000 ‎and ‎

why the road project for Crooks Road from Auburn to South Boulevard is not in the ‎

spreadsheet or in Companion Projects‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters said that the lines and arrows mean that the project writer requested the ‎

project to move forth in ‎1999‎. ‎However, after the project was reviewed and ‎

evaluated it was deemed for future years‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr, in reference to the question on the road project, indicated that the status at ‎

this point is that funding for design has been identified but no work has begun‎. ‎A ‎

corridor study is the only item that has been completed at this time and the city is just ‎

about to embark on some of these issues‎. ‎One of the shortcomings which has been ‎

identified in the CIP presentation is the major road projects that have not been ‎

identified as a need and because they have not moved forward they are not currently ‎

included‎. ‎It is anticipated that submittals will be completed in the fall for inclusion in ‎

the CIP for the year ‎2000‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki indicated that he would like to see this particular project as a higher ‎

priority in the plan‎. ‎This one mile segment could be left dangling for years‎. ‎

Mayor Snell pointed out that it has been determined in a meeting with the Road ‎

Commission on April ‎28‎, that it is necessary for them to begin contracting a lot of the ‎

design work so that the projects can be moved along so that they do not sit around for ‎

years‎. ‎The city plans to be pushing the section along Auburn very strongly as soon as ‎

there is a call for projects‎. ‎Mayor Snell agrees that this section of road should be ‎

taken care of as soon as possible‎. ‎The top projects are Crooks Road from Hamlin ‎

down to Square Lake, the bridge over M‎-‎59‎, Hamlin between Crooks and Livernois ‎

and Adams Road‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber also inquired about road projects for the Sheldon‎/‎Tienken area‎.‎

Mayor Snell stated that on April ‎22‎, the City Council just identified this area as a ‎

major project‎. ‎The city is unsure whether this can be funded or what the timing will ‎

be‎. ‎Right now it would be unfair to present this project area as part of the CIP at this ‎

time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen ascertained that he is in support of Mr‎. ‎Gaber‎’‎s concerns‎. ‎There is not ‎

enough of a picture to really understand what is really going on‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen finds this ‎

bothersome‎. ‎It appears that an isolated section of Adams is being completed before ‎

Crooks is completed which gives a very misleading opinion‎. ‎Would it be helpful as ‎

part of the CIP process if the Planning Commission indicated that it would be a good ‎

idea to increase the priority of the project‎.‎

Mayor Snell indicated that any support from the city‎’‎s boards and commissions or ‎

from the community will help in maintaining current efforts‎. ‎The Planning Commission ‎

was encouraged to support on record any type of priorities‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission could give an indication where it would like to see inclusions made in the ‎

CIP for the year ‎2000‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked how the community will deal with conflict from the administration‎.‎

Mayor Snell stated that the administration can ask the Planning Commission to revisit ‎

and revise the plan based on additional information, data or funding being identified‎.‎

If the funding was all city funding or non federal aid funding the City Council could roll ‎

the project into the budget‎. ‎There should be a strong enough piece of information to ‎

support the plan being modified‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen expressed concern over the Family Aquatic Center for ‎1999 ‎at ‎12 ‎million ‎

without a location‎. ‎Is it appropriate to have this listed in the fund for ‎1999 ‎or is this ‎

really a project for the year ‎2000‎. ‎

Mayor Snell indicated that ‎1999 ‎may be premature for any expenditures of significant ‎

dollars or a project‎. ‎Mayor Snell asked that this item not be taken out of the plan ‎

because it may move along faster if it is left in the plan‎. ‎The location of the aquatic ‎

center if it is built, will have an impact on the cost of the project‎. ‎The sites being ‎

considered are the Riverbend Park on Hamlin Road, Bloomer Park and Borden Park‎. ‎

Based on preliminary information from the consultants, the most expensive land on ‎

which to build such a center is the Riverbend Park‎. ‎The cost of the project will ‎

include land development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber added that one of the objectives of the investigation was to move projects ‎

forward so that they could be subject to the strategic planning process‎. ‎The Aquatic ‎

Center would then fall into the same category just like the Ice Arena‎. ‎Unless there is ‎

information that hasn‎’‎t been revealed, it would be in the same category‎.‎

Mayor Snell also noted that the Aquatic Center is not meant to be funded from any ‎

revenues within the city other than the selling of bonds‎. ‎The primary impact on city ‎

operations would be the allocation of manpower resources‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber said that he would look at the ratings and the category in terms of trying to ‎

make a determination as to what should be funded as part of the budget for a ‎

particular year and what shouldn‎’‎t‎. ‎There seems to be much more flexibility in funding ‎

the areas of this project through different years‎.‎

Mayor Snell indicated that the primary issues in the Parks portion would be dealing ‎

with major maintenance, repair or rehabilitation projects‎. ‎From the quality of life ‎

concept and the fact that from the government‎’‎s requirement to provide a variety of ‎

services to the community, it is important from a philosophical base to make sure that ‎

the city is keeping on the list some portion or projects that are going to the softer ‎

areas‎. ‎Mayor Snell does not want to send the message that the city should not ‎

provide any funding because once something is taken away it is very hard to restore‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber inquired about the category of capital maintenance where there is a foot ‎

note to the CIP‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber would like to know what the intent is for this area of the ‎

plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr said that the intent in putting this in the original CIP last year was to ‎

recognize that as projects are brought forward and the infrastructures are put into ‎

place, there is going to be ongoing costs to maintain them‎. ‎It was recognized that this ‎

was an important message that needed to be included in the CIP‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted that this item will be reviewed for adoption by the Planning ‎

Commission on June ‎2‎, ‎1998‎.‎

Discussed

2000-1762

Request for Recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed ‎

amendment to Zoning Ordinance ‎200 ‎to add new provisions for Planned Unit ‎

Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎in the City ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that this topic was discussed by the Planning Commission about a ‎

month ago and at this time the matter was tabled due to lack of time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Phil McKenna reported that a new PUD District was proposed, a public hearing ‎

took place and the documentation has been reviewed by staff and the city attorney‎.‎

The proposal is fairly cautious and will provide a lot of protection for the city and will ‎

serve the city well in meeting the objectives in developing the remainder of the city in ‎

the most creative way possible‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen then asked the Planning Commissioner‎’‎s for any additional comments or ‎

concerns‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber indicated that it will difficult to see any concerns until the ordinance begins ‎

to be used and responses are received from the development community‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi reported that there are some cases which are interested in possibly ‎

pursuing this if the concept was available‎. ‎They range from Country Club Village to ‎

redevelopment of the Walgreens because of the rezoning problems‎. ‎There is some ‎

interest in the community and it will provide a better way to redevelopment difficult ‎

parcels in order to get a concept through City Council and a possible agreement of ‎

what kind of rights they are getting and what the city will be looking at as well‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber expressed concern about the document providing sufficient flexibility to ‎

allow the PUD to be a workable and usable ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that the main advantages involve the commercial planned unit ‎

development and mixed‎-‎use planned development‎. ‎This will allow some type of ‎

redevelopment depending upon how the master plan update is used for the vacant ‎

pieces on Rochester Road‎. ‎It is really an implementation tool for the master plan‎. ‎

The residential planned unit development can be implemented for changes in the Tree ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎Smaller open spaces can be reserved to protect woodlands rather than ‎

trying to tear up the woodlands to meet the tree ordinance requirements‎. ‎The ‎

residential character of the development will not change‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out that besides the residential properties on Rochester Road, ‎

could the PUD be implemented, if a major six lane thoroughfare on Rochester Road is ‎

considered‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the best part of the PUD is that the city can start ‎

negotiating right‎-‎of‎-‎way reservation as part of the development‎. ‎The city can also ‎

look at cross access issues along major thoroughfares which cannot be done as easily ‎

today‎. ‎If the developer wants a zoning change, the issues of right‎-‎of‎-‎way and cross ‎

access between properties can then be reviewed‎. ‎In the long term this may be more ‎

cohesive with a six lane boulevard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McKenna indicated again that the plan is very cautious and in his judgment the ‎

PUD is a fairly complicated procedure for an applicant to go through‎. ‎It is ‎

appropriate that the city be cautious and let the system evolve until staff is confident ‎

enough to further streamline the ordinance if it is needed sometime in the future‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

McKenna feels that the concept of the ordinance is good‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi noted that at this time the ordinance does not permit any commercial uses ‎

in residential zoning‎. ‎It addition to this, it does not specifically address non‎-‎contiguous ‎

historic districts for possible redevelopment under either attached units or commercial ‎

development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that there are a number of other ordinances in other communities that ‎

have more flexibility‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Ternan also pointed out that one change that was made ‎

since the last document was to clarify that a property owner may request the rezoning ‎

in concert with the request for the PUD‎. ‎This will give the ordinance a lot more ‎

flexibility‎. ‎Rezoning would take place for the PUD overlay and the new zoning at the ‎

same time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen feels that this will open up opportunities for serious discussion in order to ‎

arrive at a good plan‎. ‎This cautious approach makes good sense‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki is not favorable toward a PUD ordinance but he will go along with the ‎

current proposal‎. ‎There are a lot of issues which must be looked and the success of ‎

the ordinance depends on how well the plan is administered from the standpoint of ‎

administration and all of the other departments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki also pointed out that ‎

there are not that many vacant parcels that this concept could be applied to‎. ‎When ‎

the city was originally a township, the PUD was more favorable for this concept‎. ‎

Today the city is talking about redevelopment and Mr‎. ‎Nowicki still questions where ‎

the PUD‎’‎s will be located‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki has not seen any plan or any locations for ‎

PUD‎’‎s which could be considered within the city‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan, agreeing with Mr‎. ‎Nowicki, also indicated that the difficult parcels will be ‎

not be solved by implementing a PUD‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Ternan cited the case on the Spectrum ‎

Properties which is just south of the Pat Moran dealership‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber asked about the timeline and the plan moving through the development ‎

process‎. ‎How much time and how many steps will this new ordinance add to the ‎

current development process?‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi said that in terms of timing for a site plan, you would be looking at a ‎

minimum of an additional review through the City Council and optional initial concept ‎

plan meetings‎. ‎This ordinance will require a public hearing with the Planning ‎

Commission, a City Council rezoning for the PUD overlay, a second reading at City ‎

Council and a final plan which comes back to staff or possibly the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎The process would be extended an additional three months‎. ‎It be more ‎

in terms of timing but there will also be less risk involved‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen added that he is a bit skeptical; the Rochester Road corridor, Auburn ‎

Road and Crooks Road concern him‎. ‎There may be more opportunity in these areas ‎

that is not be recognized‎. ‎The PUD‎’‎s will actually be spot zonings‎.‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki commented on the brochure which he recently received from ‎

Meadowbrook‎. ‎There is no mention of Rochester Hills on the brochure and they cite ‎

local township ordinances‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki has contacted Mr‎. ‎Dan Houser at the Palace ‎

in reference to this matter‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June ‎2‎, ‎1998‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Vice ‎

Chairperson adjourned the regular meeting at ‎8‎:‎45 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎