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, October 20, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

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

p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

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

Kaltsounis, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

8 -

Nathan Klomp

Absent

1 -

Quorum Present

Also present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning and Development

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0390

August 18, 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, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Klomp

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated September 2009

B) Strategic Planning Process 2009 Report from RCOC

C) Letter from C. Burckhardt, Oakland County re: Orion Twp. MLUP

D) Orion Township Master Plan CD

E) Clinton River Watershed Council Brochures and Information (3)

PRESENTATION

2009-0391

The Importance of Quality Stormwater Management in the

Planning Process - Anne Vaara, Clinton River Watershed

Council Executive Director, presenter

Mr. Delacourt advised that several months ago, Staff approached the

CRWC, knowing they did presentations to groups in the watershed area

about the importance of stormwater runoff maintenance, the impact to the

watershed, and how the planning process affected it. The City had

recently updated its Engineering Standards, the Master Land Use Plan

(MLUP) and the Zoning Ordinance, all of which now had components of

stormwater maintenance. In connection with the updates, Staff asked the

CRWC to do a presentation. He thanked Ms. Vaara, noting that it had

been difficult trying to schedule the presentation for previous meetings,

and they had been very patient.

Ms. Vaara related that it was an honor to be asked, and they appreciated

the opportunity to come before the Commission. The CRWC did a lot of

presentations; by the end of the year they will have done a little over 100.

They included stormwater management issues, the things that could be

done to protect water quality, and the watershed story. She had taken a

variety of presentations and put them together and intertwined the

planning component. She advised that she was the Executive Director of

the CRWC, but her background was in planning. As an Environmental

Planner and Wetland Ecologist, she had an extensive background in the

Site Plan Review process and integrating environmental components.

She started out in ecology and then went into planning. When she was

the Environmental Director at West Bloomfield Township, there were

things she did not like about the planning process, and she wanted to

integrate the environmental approach. She felt that Rochester Hills had

done a good job with that, and there were quite a few communities in

Oakland and Macomb that had integrated the stormwater management

process into the planning process.

Ms. Vaara showed an image of the Great Lakes and talked about the

amount of fresh water in Michigan that people appreciated more every

day. They heard stories about the Governor in New Mexico who thought it

would be a good idea to pipe Michigan’s water down that way. Since then,

the Great Lakes Compact was formed, and the State now had water rights,

as did seven other states to protect their water. She informed that

Michigan had 1/5 of the world’s fresh water supply, and it had the most to

lose and to gain from protecting it. She added that there was 41% of

coastline along the Great Lakes.

Ms. Vaara advised that a watershed was a basin, a low area that drained

from the high points to the lowest body of water, which could be a wetland,

river, lake or stream. She showed the watershed Rochester Hills is in,

and mentioned that it drained from Springfield Township 81 miles down to

Lake St. Clair. It covered 760 square miles, and there were 1.5 million

people living in the watershed. It was the most populated watershed in the

State. There were 63 communities in the watershed, and nine in the St.

Clair drainage district. Of those 72 communities, 55 were member

communities, including Rochester Hills.

Ms. Vaara stated that the mission of the CRWC was to “protect, enhance

and celebrate the Clinton River, its watershed and Lake St. Clair.” She

recalled that 40 years ago, the Clinton River was in trouble, and it was the

most polluted river in the State of Michigan. No one would swim or spend

any time in it, and its fish could not be eaten. The CRWC was started in

the 1970’s, about the same time as the Clean Water Act came about. It

started with a small group of citizens taking on the Army Corp. of

Engineers on the east side in Macomb. The Army wanted to channelize

the River and the citizens emphasized that they wanted to keep the

system naturalized for water quality, aesthetics and flood control, and they

won. It did not become a channel; it was now a very natural system and

very navigable. The eight miles from Lake St. Clair back up the River

was very nice, with marinas and people living nicely along there.

Ms. Vaara next showed some headlines from through the years about the

improvements that were made. People learned not to dump refrigerators

and cars into the River. It was celebrated with special days like Clinton

Cleanup River Day. She showed the impact out of the fishery. They

have a day celebrating steelhead by Yates Cider Mill, and she showed

pictures of some of the larger fish. She showed a lake sturgeon caught

from the River, which was a special species. It was put back into the

River, and the picture was sent to the DNR, and it was estimated to be

10-30 years old. The moral of her story was that the River was now clean

enough so the sturgeon made its way up to spawn.

Ms. Vaara was enthused that people could now paddle down the River.

She mentioned the first Paddle Palooza that went from Auburn Hills to

Rochester Hills. Rochester Hills was an active participant, and she

recalled that the Mayor had paddled it with his brother. The goal was to

eventually have lakes to the Lake and hopefully, people would be able to

paddle the whole system someday. There were other projects, including

River Day and Clinton Cleanup, which allowed them to have these

events.

Ms. Vaara informed that the Council was always looking for ways to

protect the resources from a planning point of view. The Council was

involved in education and stewardship. There was a stream monitoring

program done by students from four middle schools, and she was proud

to say that there were hundreds of Rochester Hills students that

graduated from the program every year. The “Adopt a Stream Program”

was an adult monitoring program, similar to the one for students. Both

programs sampled twice a year, and the date was used by the State of

Michigan for gauging water quality using vertebrates or aquatic insects.

They really wanted to inspire a new generation. She also talked about

watershed management and what could be done from a planning point of

view.

The CRWC gets involved in Site Plan review and Permit reviews, if

asked. They provide technical assistance to communities, citizens and

elected and appointed officials. They also assisted communities with the

Federal Stormwater Permit, of which Rochester Hills was a participating

member. The three components used to do that were watershed

planning, stormwater management and the educational opportunities.

Ms. Vaara showed a picture of the topography of the watershed. It was not

flat - there was a 500-foot drop from the headwaters down to Lake St. Clair.

There were a lot of hills in Rochester Hills. Because the urbanization had

slowed, it was a good time to get involved and understand the planning

process, even from a citizen point of view. There was a lull in

development currently, and it was a great opportunity to revise ordinances

or update policies and integrate some environmental policies. Most

communities did not want to look like urbanized areas and wanted to

maintain and use their natural resources for many years.

Ms. Vaara talked about the history of water quality, noting the

contaminated sediments and industrial runoff back in the 1950’s, 1960’s

and 1970’s. That problem was still in the Clinton River, and they were

trying to remediate that. It was a slow process and took a lot of testing.

They hoped to have gotten to most of the sources of the contaminant, but

there was always some leakage. The superfund sites and landfills have

helped resolve those issues. Flooding was a terrible water quality

problem.

Ms. Vaara noted that there had been a dramatic reduction in combined

sewer systems, and there had been a dramatic reduction in sources of

industry discharges and successes from all the hard work. She

mentioned stormwater pollution and how to deal with it. She said that Mr.

Delacourt had talked about integrating policies in the Site Plan Review

process, showing that Rochester Hills was ahead of the ballgame

compared with a lot of other communities that had not caught up. She

showed photographs of flooded areas, and mentioned the flood of May

2004, where there were back to back 500-year storms and five inches of

rain in a couple of hours and really severe flooding.

Ms. Vaara brought up stormwater and where it went. There were basins all

over the place, but the stormwater was seldom treated the way it should.

A lot of times they did well, but they could always do better. A lot of

people raked leaves and clippings and washed cars without recognizing

where the stormwater went. It went into a pipe and into an open body of

water. She showed a series of the way water traveled and showed

pollutants - animal waste, fertilizer, salts, pesticides - that went into the

catch basin and into the drain and eventually to an open body of water.

Stormwater was linked to water quality and quantity problems, and they

were very serious to try to solve, especially when dealing with

redevelopment issues and deciding what to do with the stormwater. She

showed a graph of a reduction of sewer overflows from the 1960’s

projected to 2012. It showed an 80% reduction and the sophisticated

engineering that had been enjoyed over the last 15-20 years. She

showed an illustration about ways to do things better and cautioned to not

just wash things down the drain.

Ms. Vaara reiterated that the point of being before the Commission was to

talk about some of the issues of dealing with stormwater management

and that it should be integrated into the Site Plan Review process. One of

the most important things was to deal with it at the very beginning. She

had seen a lot of communities wait until the end when they could not find

a good place for the stormwater basin. Rochester Hills’ standards

included having a low impact, best management practices approach to

Site Plan Review. She referred to a manual put together by SEMCOG

the previous year, which was a low impact development manual for the

State of Michigan, and it contained many best management practices for

various situations. She offered that it was available to anyone interested,

and that it was very helpful. The processes from the manual could be

used for new or redevelopment sites, large or small sites. The CRWC

always encouraged that a long-term maintenance plan be built into the

plans. In five or six years, at the end of the process, there could be new

best management practices. They were dealing with the issues of

retrofitting basins and trying to make sure the stormwater on site was

taken care of before it was released.

Ms. Vaara talked about some projects done in neighboring communities,

and showed one bordering Oakland Township and Lake Orion Township.

The CRWC partnered with the Road Commission and HRC Engineering,

as well as several community volunteers, as part of a conservation

project. She showed the bank of the Paint Creek in that area, which had

been bio-engineered and constructed using seed and rolled, live plants

that sprouted. The sprouts and erosion control blankets grew over the

winter and completed one growing season, and they virtually eliminated

any erosion runoff into the Paint Creek. She stated that it was a very

successful project. She showed some examples of green roof

technology, which was also used on carports on another city. She showed

some vegetated bio swales that were used for stormwater management.

Instead of using a typical curb and gutter, a community chose to have the

water run off the road and into the bioswales, in the middle of the

neighborhood. Bioswales are aesthetically pleasing and also save a lot

of money in the long run in construction costs, because they do not have

to deal with infrastructure.

Ms. Vaara referred to Rochester Hills’ Steep Slope Ordinance, Tree

Conservation Ordinance and new Engineering Standards and said it was

very important to have complete cooperation between disciplines -

Planning, Engineering and Building all talking to each other to make sure

the process was coordinated.

Ms. Vaara concluded that the CRWC had seven staff members with

disciplines in education and stewardship. They relied on memberships

from individuals, businesses, local government and grant money. That

was how they existed and how they remained in business for 38 years.

She ended saying that it was about “fresh water.”

Mr. Delacourt pointed out that it was clear to see why they built stormwater

management into the Zoning Ordinance and other documents. The

Planning Commission had seen more tools being implemented in Site

Plans - rain gardens and bioswales, for example. When Staff asked the

Planning Commission about moving things around on a site to

incorporate above ground detention basins as opposed to underground,

having the perspective of the CRWC was important to remember.

Mr. Schroeder asked if the cities and the DEQ had resolved the SWPPI

(“swiftee”) disagreement yet.

Ms. Vaara said that she was not sure. It was still being reviewed, as far as

she knew. She added that the public education part of the new permitting

process had not changed, and according to the DEQ, it would not change.

Those requirements were still in place, which was essential. They were

discussing changes in rules and regulations for the elicit discharge and

elimination plans, stormwater pollution prevention plan and so on.

Mr. Kaltsounis commented that there were no glaciers or mountains with

snow feeding the rivers, so he wondered how the Clinton River was fed

naturally, other than stormwater.

Ms. Vaara responded that groundwater recharge was certainly a part of it,

as was rainwater. The area was lake controlled, so in the spring and fall

the River was a little deeper and more flashy. The best time to kayak

would be in the spring. There were very low flows in the summertime, and

that was due to some of the lake controls that were upstream. In the

summer, the stream suffered because there was not enough precipitation,

although the past summer was better and good for the environment

because there was more rain. The temperature increased and flow

decreased causing the River to suffer in the summer. They were

concerned about that for the Paint Creek, because it was the only cold

water fishery in southeast Michigan and was recognized by the DNR as

such. That was constantly being monitored for flow and temperature.

Hearing no further comments, Chairperson Boswell thanked Ms. Vaara

for her presentation. Ms. Vaara thanked Rochester Hills for supporting

the CRWC.

This matter was Discussed

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2007-0324

Request for Recommendation of an Extension of the Tentative Preliminary Plat

Until May 17, 2010 - Rochester Meadows, a 47-lot subdivision development on

approximately 22 acres, located east of Rochester Road and south of Avon,

zoned R-3, One Family Residential, Rochester Meadows LLC, applicant.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated October 16,

2009 had been placed on file and by reference became part of the record

thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Joe Check, representing Rochester

Meadows LLC., Shelby Township, MI 48317.

Mr. Check summarized that the request was for an Extension of the

original approval of the Preliminary Plat, until May 17, 2010, for

Rochester Meadows Subdivision. He stated that they were finalizing the

engineering plans; they had obtained Sanitary Sewer, Water and Drain

Permits; and they were putting the finishing touches on the Final

Preliminary Plat.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt if he anticipated any major

changes to the upcoming Plat.

Mr. Delacourt did not believe that there would be major changes. He

noted that the City’s Engineering Standards had changed since the

Preliminary Plat was designed. Staff would have brought the matter

forward sooner, but they wanted to have an Extensions Policy in place

first, whereby an applicant would be required to bring a Plat into

conformance with the new requirements prior to getting an Extension. It

was decided that an applicant would be required to provide a letter

indicating that they understood there was a change to the standards.

Prior to the matter going forward for any additional steps, the applicant

would have to bring the Plat in for a revised review. The letter for

Rochester Meadows was submitted, the Extensions Policy was finalized,

and the applicant understood the requirements. Mr. Delacourt added that

there would probably be some changes, but not major ones, and the

applicant might be required to come back in the future with a revised Plat.

Mr. Schroeder moved the following motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File No.

99-011 (Rochester Meadows Subdivision), the Planning Commission

recommends a one-year Approval of an Extension of the Tentative

Preliminary Plat until May 17, 2010.

Mr. Dettloff asked Mr. Check what he saw out in the marketplace. Mr.

Check said that it was still a very difficult market, but they were confident

enough to get the plans approved and the underground work in, and he

felt the market would come around in the next year or so. They were

prepared to finish the subdivision, and they wanted to do so in 2010. Mr.

Dettloff concurred that it was encouraging.

Chairperson Boswell called for a voice vote.

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

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting. The motion

CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Klomp

1 -

DISCUSSION

2009-0393

Discuss proposal for northeast corner of Hamlin and

Livernois; Signature Associates.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated October 16,

2009 had been placed on file and by reference became part of the record

thereof.)

Present for the applicant were Chileshe Mulenga and Kathy Wilson,

Associates, Signature Advisory Services, One Towne Square, #1200,

Southfield, MI 48076 and Brian Iseler, 1921 S. Livernois, Rochester Hills,

MI 48307-3369, owner of one of the parcels under discussion.

Mr. Delacourt recalled that several years ago, the Planning

Commissioners looked at a request for a Rezoning to O-1 (Office) for the

subject parcels, which was not supported by the Master Land Use Plan,

and recommended denial. The matter did not progress further. Recently,

Staff was approached with a request to again discuss the potential for O-1

zoning. He summarized that there had been changes to the economy, a

change to the intersection at Hamlin and Livernois, and that the City had

updated its Master Plan. Staff and the applicant felt there was merit to

re-evaluate the matter, and the applicant wanted to get input from the

Planning Commission. The applicants represented both property

owners, and they were considering a Rezoning to O-1 from single-family

residential. They submitted a basic Site Plan, although they did not have

a user, to see if the parcels could be reasonably developed under the O-1

district. There would obviously have to be some issues worked out and a

complete set of plans submitted.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt to explain what the Master Plan

showed for the parcels.

Mr. Delacourt replied that the Master Plan identified the parcels to be

Single-Family Residential with a Mixed-Residential overlay, which would

allow flexibility in the type of residential, including senior living and would

allow several other uses.

Chairperson Boswell noted that the parcels were bordered on the north

and east by churches. Mr. Delacourt added that one of the parcels was

currently developed with a single-family residence and the one directly on

the corner was vacant.

Mr. Mulenga reviewed that they were proposing a change in zoning from

R-3 to O-1. The Site Plan showed a maximum allowable building, if used

as O-1, of about 28,000 square feet at three stories high. It would require

248 parking spaces. They overlaid the proposed roundabout at the

corner of Hamlin and Livernois to show the impact on the property and

intersection. He asked Mr. Iseler to speak about the roundabout’s impact

to his residential property.

Mr. Iseler noted that he lived just north of Hamlin on Livernois, and when

the light turned red, he could now at least make a left turn. When the

roundabout was added, he said there would be a constant flow of traffic,

and it would be impossible for him to get out. He said he was not looking

forward to the roundabout.

Mr. Mulenga proposed two means of ingress and egress for the site,

which were pushed back as far as possible from the roundabout. That

was due to the merging issues that would be attributable down both

Hamlin and Livernois. If it stayed as a residential use, it would be a major

issue to get in and out of the site. The traffic in the area would be

increased with the roundabout. They felt that by changing the use, it

would compliment some of the adjacent uses that were business-oriented

and in close proximity to the corner. They felt a business use would be

more appropriate for the corner. There had been a market shift nationally

and locally, and the housing market had been dramatically changed.

Housing was projected to drop by 15-25% by 2011. A business use

would have a higher impact as far as the tax rolls, and they felt the use

would also be synergistic with regards to some of the local institutions -

Crittenton Hospital and Oakland University, for example. He asked if any

Commissioners had feedback.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt about the present occupancy

rate for office in Rochester Hills. Mr. Delacourt said it was somewhat

high, but overall it was about 8.5% for office and light industrial, which was

much better than most communities (Oakland County average at the time

was 14%).

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled when the matter was before them previously, and

said the proposal was for a one or two-story office building and a day care

center. It did not go over well at the time. He remembered that the corner

was brought up in the Master Plan review meetings, and they discussed it

at length. They went back and forth about what should be on the

corner(s), and what it should look like. They ended up with the

Mixed-Residential overlay, where there could be fewer curb cuts and

houses could be attached, to try to accommodate the challenges of the

corner. He observed that if there was a residential development, 37% of

the trees would have to be saved, but an office building would give the

corner a completely different look. There was a potential to lose most of

the trees, replacing them with pavement and underground retention and a

three-story building, and that really concerned him. With all the work that

went into the Master Plan, he did not think the corner was right for an

office building, although he felt that the south corner might be different.

Three stories was pushing it, and he did not think it would be compatible

with the environment, and it would stick out like a sore thumb.

Mr. Schroeder wished to echo those sentiments. He noted that the Site

Plan showed the property going into the Livernois right-of-way. He asked

if the City had not acquired the right-of-way. Mr. Mulenga advised that a

small amount had been acquired for the right-of-way.

Mr. Schroeder stated that a three-story building was not acceptable for the

site. He did not think it was the right site for commercial. He noted that

no detention was shown on the Plan. The applicant had commented that

traffic would increase due to the roundabout, but Mr. Schroeder assured

that a roundabout did not increase traffic. It might change the character,

but it did not increase traffic. He stated that the driveway onto Hamlin

Road would definitely be a right-turn only, which the applicant had no

control over. The southwest corner would be a concern; they had the

same situation. They had the same situation on the southeast corner, but

he believed the City now owned that property. He did not think the site

was proper for a Rezoning and a three-story building.

Mr. Mulenga offered that the Site Plan was only conceptual. It described

the maximum allowed, and he stated that in no way, shape or form was it

final or what would be built. Mr. Schroeder acknowledged that.

Ms. Brnabic asked the applicants if they were the same group that was

before the Commission in 2005. Ms. Wilson agreed that she was with the

former applicant, Talon Group, but said they went out of business. They

still owned the property, and Signature was representing them and acting

as consultant for the project.

Ms. Brnabic agreed that three stories was too much for the location. At

the previous Rezoning request, the applicants approached it two different

ways - a straight Rezoning and a Conditional Rezoning. They were

waiting for the update to the Master Plan, which had now occurred. It was

left Single-Family Residential with an option for Mixed-Residential. She

did not have a different view than she had previously, especially

regarding three stories. They had discussed office and a day care mix.

She did not think she could go along with O-1 as proposed.

Mr. Reece agreed with most of the sentiments expressed. He said that

Mr. Kaltsounis had a good point about the number of trees that would be

cut down for an office development. The three stories would be a deal

killer, and he felt it was completely inappropriate for the site. He would

also be concerned about the other corners and whether it would open it up

to other Rezoning requests. If there was a creative approach to the site for

an office use, he would be more inclined to consider it. He tended to

agree that residential on that corner would be problematic. He did not

think there would be too many people who wanted to build a single-family

residence on that corner, particularly with the roundabout. It was his

opinion that if the applicants came up with a more creative approach, it

would be more palatable. If they came back with something that allowed

an office use that still blended in with the character of the neighborhood

that was not three-story, he would be more open to it.

Mr. Dettloff agreed with Mr. Reece’s thoughts. He would be open-minded

to a Rezoning because of the roundabout issue and the glut of housing in

the marketplace. If the applicants came up with something creative, that

was not three-story, he would be more open to hearing about it. From an

economic development standpoint, something there would be better than

nothing to support the City’s tax base, but he would like to see something

a little better than what was proposed.

Ms. Brnabic asked if the house that was currently on the parcel was

occupied, and Mr. Iseler confirmed that he was the owner and that he

lived there. Ms. Brnabic said that she was not totally shutting the door to

something else. As far as residential, she realized it was not moving now,

but as a long-time member of the community, she had seen homes built

on busy roads all over. It was surprising, but it happened. She could not

be sure a home would not eventually be built on the parcel, but she stated

that she could keep an open mind regarding something else. She would

not want to see a three-story development, and she shared the concerns

about losing trees.

Mr. Hooper recalled that when the matter came before them previously,

he felt then that single family would not be appropriate for the corner. He

noted that there were spirited discussions about the corner during the

Master Land Use Plan meetings that ended with Mixed-Residential, but

he was not sure that would work, either. He agreed that three stories would

be totally out of character, but if they would come back with a proposal for

Conditional Rezoning with office with a smaller footprint that retained the

character of the area and the vegetation and trees to a certain degree, he

would be willing to look at it. He commented that the devil would be in the

details and how it was presented. He added that the site was bordered by

two churches that would not be going away, and that presented an

opportunity. He thought Mr. Reece’s comments were well founded, and

that something creative could be an asset to the community.

Mr. Dettloff said that whatever the applicants came back with, he would

like a market research included. Statistics that showed what the market

would bear currently and in the future. He felt that it would be beneficial to

have that, as opposed to just putting up a building and waiting for it to be

leased.

Ms. Wilson said that the owners would not speculate on a building.

Giving it time to get through the process and to figure out who the

potential users were, they were anticipating that the market would turn. As

for what the market was today, that was difficult to know. She knew the

applicants had spent a lot of money on the property over the years on

plans, engineering especially, and she wanted to get a better idea of what

they were looking for as far as something creative.

Mr. Delacourt said that Staff discussed Conditional Rezoning. They

realized that the applicants did not have a user and to come up with a Site

Plan and elevations they felt would be compatible would be difficult prior

to a Rezoning. The Planning Commission had considered Conditional

Rezonings in the past that had conditions that limited the height of

buildings and required the elevations to be approved by the Commission

and so on. That would be a way to do it and not adopt a Site Plan that

would come back differently. It could give some assurance that the things

the Commission were most concerned about would be protected. He

thought a Conditional Rezoning with conditions would be the best

suggestion based on the conversation they just had.

Chairperson Boswell summarized that it was fairly obvious the

Commissioners would be pretty open. They all seemed to agree that

residential for the corner at this time was pretty iffy. There were churches

on two sides. It was open for something, and they were not going to close

the door. A Conditional Rezoning seemed to be a good answer. As far

as creative, they did not want to see asphalt, three stories, and a block

building, to save some character of the corner, because it was a nice,

well-treed corner that was up a little higher. He felt that the

Commissioners would be open to hearing what the applicants had to say

about a plan other than maximums and three stories.

Mr. Mulenga said that their task for the meeting was to describe in

general the footprint and not go into details about green space and

landscaping. The comments were well taken and they would do what they

had to do.

Ms. Brnabic asked if the applicants were going to propose Conditional

Rezoning that they first came back before the Commission to have a

discussion about the conditions proposed. If they just came before the

Commission for a Rezoning with conditions, there would only be the

option to approve or deny. They would not have the discretion to

re-discuss everything or suggest anything. If the Commission agreed

with 11 out of 12 conditions, they would be put in a position. If they had a

discussion first, they could go over everything, which she felt would be a

better option.

Ms. Wilson asked if the City had utilized Conditional Rezoning

previously, which was confirmed.

Chairperson Boswell asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak,

and no one came forward.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for November 17, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:10

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary