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, June 29, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in ‎

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Greg Hooper‎

Leah Potere‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also prsent‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Planner‎

Kenneth Snell, Mayor‎

Tom Dohr, DPS Director‎

Robert Spaman, Treasurer‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1955

February ‎23‎, ‎1999 ‎Special Study Meeting‎

Special Study Meeting of February ‎23‎, ‎1999 ‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Potere, that the Minutes dated ‎

February ‎23‎, ‎1999 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Letter dated ‎06/22/99‎ from Corey Bordine regarding the Master Land ‎

Use Plan Update‎

B‎.‎ Note from Mrs‎. ‎Louise Dominick, ‎60‎ Windsor, regarding the Master ‎

Land Use Plan Update‎

Letter from Eugene Grams dated June ‎29‎, ‎1999 ‎regarding the Master ‎

Land Use Plan Update‎

C‎.‎ Copy of letter to Mr‎. ‎Dan VanderBroek dated May ‎23‎, ‎1978‎ from Earl ‎

Borden regarding Devondale in the Master Land Use Plan Update ‎

D‎.‎ Printed Master Land Use Plan Update document which is proposed for ‎

adoption‎.‎

2000-1956

Request for Adoption of Resolution to Meet in Closed Session at ‎7‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎

preceding the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July ‎6‎, ‎1999 ‎to discuss ‎

a written attorney‎/‎client privileged communication‎

The Chair pointed out that a resolution to meet in closed session requires a ‎2‎/‎3 ‎

majority vote of the membership‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Hooper, that the Planning Commission meet in ‎

Closed Session with the city attorney at ‎7‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎on July ‎6‎, ‎1999 ‎preceding the ‎

Regular Planning Commission Meeting to discuss a written attorney‎/‎client privileged ‎

communication, and to meet in Open Session following the conclusion of the Closed ‎

Session‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, ‎

Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1953

Request for Approval of the ‎2000 ‎Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎

Present were DPS Director Tom Dohr, and City Treasurer Robert Spaman‎.‎

The Chair reviewed the groups involved in the CIP ‎-- ‎the Policy Team, the Committee ‎

which included Planning Commission members Boswell and Rosen; several study ‎

sessions have been devoted to the project, several draft documents have been ‎

prepared, many discussions have taken place, and a public hearing was held on June ‎

15‎, ‎1999‎. ‎

Since the minutes of the June ‎15‎, ‎1999 ‎meeting were not yet available, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

stated that it would be appropriate to reference in a resolution to adopt the CIP all ‎

changes as modified at the June ‎15‎, ‎1999 ‎meeting‎. ‎

The Planning Commission recommended the following changes to the Year ‎2000 ‎

Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎):‎

·‎ Add ‎"...‎as modified at the June ‎15‎, ‎1999‎ meeting‎."‎

·‎ Add ‎"... ‎is adopted as presented with content, typographical and format changes ‎

as noted in discussion and in writing on June ‎1‎, ‎1999‎ and June ‎15‎, ‎1999‎ and ‎

June ‎29‎, ‎1999‎." ‎

·‎ Incorrect numbers on maps, numbers missing on maps, and inconsistent ‎

descriptions to be corrected as marked in Member Ruggiero's book‎. ‎

[ ‎Enter Mayor Snell at ‎7‎:‎49 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Ruggiero, to approve the Capital Improvement ‎

Plan that has been proposed for ‎2000 ‎through ‎2005‎.‎

The Planning Commission determines that‎:‎

WHEREAS, the Municipal Planning Act, Act ‎285 ‎of Public Acts of ‎1931‎, as ‎

amended, requires the Rochester Hills Planning Commission to annually ‎

accept a Capital Improvement Plan for the benefit of the health, safety and ‎

welfare of the community as those criteria relate to the physical development ‎

of Rochester Hills; and‎

WHEREAS, the Rochester Hills Fiscal Team has consulted with the city ‎

professional staff who carry on the business of planning for and providing for ‎

the present and future needs and desires of the citizens of Rochester Hills; and‎

WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Plan is meant to consider the ‎

immediate and future needs and goals of Rochester Hills, as identified and ‎

adopted by City Council, in light of existing projects and plans and anticipated ‎

resources; and‎

WHEREAS, the CIP is a flexible document, necessarily meant to be changed ‎

each year to project into the six succeeding years, by dropping the expired ‎

year, and changed further as needed to address the practical, financial and ‎

philosophical realities; and‎

WHEREAS, the CIP is a guide and forum to aid the Rochester Hills Mayor's ‎

Office and the Rochester Hills City Council to make decisions regarding the ‎

physical development of the city and determine what, if any, recourse can or ‎

should be available to carry out City Council's decisions; and‎

WHEREAS, the components of the CIP have been subject to a multitude of ‎

public hearings, public review, and constant citizen committee reviews over ‎

the course of several years and a duly noticed full public hearing on June ‎15‎, ‎

1999 ‎and further invitation for public input which was done in writing and ‎

televised format up to June ‎29‎, ‎1999‎; and‎

WHEREAS, the components of the CIP having been arrived at through a ‎

point system using variables that included, among other things, whether the ‎

project has begun; funds committed; sources of funds; prior City Council, ‎

Planning Commission or administrative decision; and‎

WHEREAS, the CIP in great part identifies only projects that have been ‎

previously approved by official acts; and‎

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Capital Improvement ‎

Plan presented for review on June ‎1‎, ‎1999 ‎and as modified at the June ‎15‎, ‎

1999 ‎meeting is adopted as presented with content, typographical and format ‎

changes as noted in discussion and in writing on June ‎1‎, ‎1999‎, June ‎15‎, ‎1999 ‎

and June ‎29‎, ‎1999 ‎with a recommendation that the Mayor of Rochester Hills ‎

and the City Council of Rochester Hills use the CIP to support the adoption of ‎

those projects identified for ‎2000‎, and thereafter in the annual budget decision ‎

process; and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this plan should be published and ‎

attested to according to law‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, ‎

Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

MOTION ‎

CARRIED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

Mayor Snell indicated that City Council will probably get the CIP document some ‎

time next month‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin indicated she will get final copies for the Planning ‎

Commissioners by that time to make sure all the changes have been incorporated‎.‎

The Chair asked Commissioners to consider a follow up resolution along the lines that ‎

in keeping with the City of Rochester Hills commitment to providing and updating an ‎

annual Capital Improvement Plan that the Rochester Hills City Council in junction with ‎

administration develop, adopt and implement a specific and continuing funding ‎

mechanism to achieve the CIP goals‎. ‎Avenues to accomplish this could be a bond ‎

issue or millage to make sure that portions of the CIP can be addressed and to start ‎

dealing with the budget process‎. ‎This would merge the budget process and the CIP ‎

more tightly to make sure the CIP is followed through‎. ‎It would be carrying the ‎

message the next step‎.‎

Member Ruggiero's opinion was that acceptance of the plan accomplishes that‎.‎

Mayor Snell's stated one of the things they have been trying to do through the ‎

budgeting process is to set up an ongoing expectation of how much money might be ‎

considered to be provided for certain services‎. ‎For the last ten years ‎1‎/‎2 ‎mill has been ‎

taken from the general fund and put to major roads, so that each year you could ‎

expect a certain amount of money for roads; it became more of an allocation and less ‎

of a competition for funds‎. ‎It is almost like a dedicated millage in some respects but ‎

not set up as such‎. ‎From the standpoint of competition the CIP will be competing ‎

with a lot of other needs in the city outside the CIP‎. ‎His personal preference is to try ‎

and establish a base line of money each year for different projects‎. ‎Although there are ‎

different funding sources identified in the spreadsheet, many of them compete with ‎

each other and thus require prioritizing‎. ‎He would support the concept proposed by ‎

the Chair‎. ‎

It appeared to Member Gaber to be a good message to send to City Council‎. ‎

However, the proposed language might be too ambiguous‎. ‎He suggested language ‎

more specific‎.‎

Members Potere and Corneliussen agreed with Member Gaber‎. ‎It indicates the ‎

Planning Commission's commitment to the CIP and gives guidance to City Council ‎

without telling them what they should do‎. ‎Anything more specific might be construed ‎

as doing City Council's job‎.‎

Member Rosen stated that some of the items in the CIP are imperative items and ‎

some are ‎"‎wish list‎" ‎items‎. ‎There always has been difficulty prioritizing all the items ‎

based on their necessity‎. ‎That probably should be left up to City Council to ‎

determine‎.‎

Member Boswell stated that the proposed resolution shows a greater commitment on ‎

the Planning Commission's part, but it should not be too much more specific,‎

Member Hooper was not sure what the proposed resolution would accomplish since ‎

the city is already spending a certain amount of money on capital improvements‎.‎

To Member Ramanauskas the proposed resolution would generate concrete action to ‎

assure that things are done‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Potere, seconded by Ramanauskas, ‎

RESOLVED, that in keeping with the City of Rochester Hills commitment to ‎

providing and updating an annual Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎)‎, a ‎

projection of capital spending needs six years into the future, it is ‎

recommended that the Rochester Hills City Council in cooperation with city ‎

administration develop, adopt and implement specific and continuing funding ‎

mechanisms dedicated to bringing about identified CIP goals‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, ‎

Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎2000‎-‎2005 ‎Preview Capital Improvement Plan dated June ‎1‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

2000‎-‎2005 ‎Capital Improvement Project Book prepared for the CIP Policy Team; ‎

2000 ‎Project Synopsis prepared by the Fiscal Team; Capital Improvement Plan ‎

(‎CIP‎) ‎Process Flow Chart prepared by the Fiscal Team; proposed resolution for ‎

adoption‎.)‎

Adopted

2000-1823

Request for Approval of the Proposed Master Land Use Plan Update ‎

The Chair explained that the master plan update process has been ongoing for close to ‎

two years‎. ‎A subcommittee of Planning Commissioners was established to identify ‎

some areas that needed to be focused on in terms of general issues and general ‎

geographical portions of the city‎. ‎A total of ten issues were identified for updating‎. ‎

Then a planning and land use consultant team was engaged and they embarked on a ‎

months‎-‎long survey and inventory of the city to identify vacant areas that might be ‎

susceptible to change‎. ‎City‎-‎wide public workshops were held for members of the ‎

community in which people could identify areas they felt should be considered for ‎

update‎. ‎Specific topics were also identified for discussion at the workshops, such as ‎

Rochester Road Corridor, Adams‎/‎Auburn Road Corridor, Landfills‎. ‎The consultants ‎

then presented the results of the surveys and workshops to the Planning Commission ‎

and began to develop concepts or options of what could be done with those findings‎. ‎

Meetings were then held with specific property owners and adjacent property owners ‎

in all the areas identified in the update document to discuss the various options and ‎

obtain their reactions to them‎. ‎The Chair emphasized that all this information was ‎

analyzed in terms of what is best for the entire community of Rochester Hills rather ‎

than what would benefit an individual property owner or resident‎. ‎A public hearing ‎

was held on May ‎4‎, ‎1999‎, and the information from that public hearing was further ‎

discussed on May ‎25‎, ‎1999‎. ‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public‎.‎

Peter Droulet,‎ an attorney representing ‎Tomassin Electric,‎ ‎2384 ‎

Devondale,‎ on the north end of Devondale, was interested in making the best use of ‎

the property and not losing the value of their property‎. ‎He as well as many other ‎

Devondale residents present see the proposed changes as having a significant impact ‎

on the property values‎. ‎The adoption of the master plan update alone will affect their ‎

ability to plan for the future in terms of expanding operations, building additions to their ‎

properties, and doing things they have been doing for up to ‎30 ‎years‎. ‎It would seem ‎

logical to carry through on the commitments made by the city ‎20 ‎years ago to extend ‎

Austin Drive to Devondale to provide access to Crooks Road‎.‎

The Chair reminded everybody present that the Master Land Use Plan does ‎

not rezone any property‎. ‎The Master Land Use Plan is a projection, a wish ‎

list, a document that proposes uses that are thought to be appropriate for the ‎

City of Rochester Hills for the next ‎15 ‎to ‎20 ‎years‎. ‎Whether or not any ‎

zoning changes occur depends on many factors, such as market changes, ‎

property owners' willingness and‎/‎or desires‎. ‎There would have to be a zoning ‎

change in order to bring about any of the changes in the Master Plan‎. ‎Even at ‎

that, there is no guarantee anything will change‎.‎

Tony Tomassin‎, ‎2384 ‎Devondale‎, the problem with Devondale originated ‎

30 ‎years ago when the city failed to make provisions for the industrial property at the ‎

end of the street‎. ‎As far as ‎20 ‎years ago the city tried to address the issue and never ‎

did it‎. ‎The problem is still commercial traffic on Devondale‎. ‎Changing the Master ‎

Plan will not eliminate traffic on Devondale‎. ‎People who have tried to develop their ‎

industrial property have been denied because of the increased traffic on a residential ‎

road‎. ‎They have been told to wait for the road to go through‎. ‎If the new Master Plan ‎

is passed and someone wants to build, it's possible they will be told they can't because ‎

it doesn't conform to the Master Plan‎. ‎It's a Catch ‎22‎.‎

Pete ,a resident of Juengel Orchards‎ since ‎1960‎. ‎The proposed changes ‎

on Rochester Road, should have considered condos in that area instead of offices‎.‎

Mark Vanderbroek, Devondale,‎ the proposed change from I‎-‎1‎, Light ‎

Industrial to ORT, Office Research Technology is bad because people will not be able ‎

to build on their property because the lots are less than four acres in size‎. ‎He opposes ‎

the four acre provision‎.‎

Letter from ‎Eugene Grams,‎ dated June ‎29‎, ‎1999 ‎incorporated into the ‎

record, expressing concerns with Devondale Road‎.‎

Dan Casey, ‎2222 ‎Devondale‎, owns ‎2‎.‎69 ‎acres of commercial property at ‎

the end of Devondale‎. ‎His notification of this meeting arrived yesterday‎. ‎They ‎

leverage their equipment, building, and land and often homes in order to run their ‎

business‎. ‎If it is changed to a nonconforming site, his livelihood will be threatened‎. ‎He ‎

has been there ‎30 ‎years and has always heard of the road going through, and he ‎

would like it to go through‎.‎

[ ‎Enter Beebe ‎9:00‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Irwin Corliss, ‎85 ‎Boyken,‎ in Juengel Orchards, mentioned traffic safety ‎

concerns with commercial property on Rochester Road instead of residential‎. ‎The ‎

lots are deeded for residential‎.‎

Richard Gatey‎, a resident of Juengels Orchards for ‎4 ‎months, his lot is one ‎

lot off Rochester Road south of Hamlin‎. ‎To change the zoning and consideration of ‎

that change has already impacted the area‎. ‎He asked how the commercial will be ‎

separated from residential‎. ‎

Corey Bordine, ‎1835 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Road,‎ owner of Bordine Nursery and ‎

a resident, is much more comfortable with the designation of Mixed Use in the Master ‎

Plan as long as there is no intent or bias to change, reduce, or minimize the commercial ‎

property they currently own‎. ‎He would request written reassurances that there is no ‎

intent to imply that the commercial zoning can, will, or should be changed in the future‎. ‎

The Chair noted that Dr‎. ‎Beebe has offered a letter to Ms‎. ‎Goodwin in ‎

reference to Bordines stating that the Master Plan in now way, shape or form ‎

is intended to presently or in the future diminish the activities in Bordine's ‎

location‎. ‎A copy of the letter will be provided to Mr‎. ‎Bordine‎.‎

Joanne McDonald, ‎307 ‎Bathurst‎, mentioned the need for a gathering place ‎

for teens in the community which is drug free and supervised‎. ‎Housing for the elderly ‎

is also needed‎.‎

There were no more comments from the public‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe and commissioners responded to the public comments‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe had no ‎

new information regarding condominiums in the Bordine area‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out ‎

that the Master Plan represents long‎-‎term policy guidelines, and zoning is what ‎

controls the use of land‎. ‎

In reference to the Juengel Orchards area, the long‎-‎term plan from the Master Plan is ‎

based on the right‎-‎of‎-‎way required for the future widened Rochester Road‎. ‎The ‎

Master Thoroughfare Plan and the Master Plan describe a right‎-‎of‎-‎way of ‎180 ‎feet, ‎

which in some cases would be taken from both sides and in other cases from either ‎

side‎. ‎That would be an increase in right‎-‎of‎-‎way of ‎30 ‎feet‎. ‎No one knows when that ‎

will occur‎. ‎Rochester Road is a state highway so it could be a long time away‎. ‎The ‎

state already has its budget committed so it won't be in the near future‎. ‎The ‎

consultants did consider the possibility of condominiums; however on balance the ‎

recommended uses would make more sense based on existing uses and traffic‎. ‎

Rochester Road is a very high traffic road and already has more traffic than it was ‎

designed to carry in the subject area‎. ‎Only one block immediately south of Walgreens ‎

on the west side of Rochester road is proposed for change to retail‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe added that the reason for proposing one block of retail uses on the west ‎

side of Rochester Road south of Walgreens was to make it consistent with the retail ‎

use on the opposite side of the street‎. ‎If that is done in an appropriate way and is well ‎

buffered, it can be done without injuring the residential community to the west‎. ‎One ‎

appropriate use in that area would be a day care center‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the gentleman's concerns are well noted regarding the ‎

activity that may be occurring in the marketplace currently with the recognition of this ‎

proposed change in land use‎. ‎There would still be a need to obtain a rezoning to that ‎

zoning classification which is called Professional Office‎. ‎It will be important for the ‎

Planning staff and Planning Commission to consider all of the development standards ‎

in the current office zoning to ensure that there are adequate performance standards ‎

and regulatory tools to encourage the types of professional office that are ‎

contemplated by the plan‎. ‎There is funding in the ‎2000 ‎budget for those types of ‎

rezoning reviews‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin hoped the message would be clear to anyone ‎

considering rezoning property along Rochester Road in the Juengel Orchards area that ‎

one of the prerequisites of any rezoning request will be to demonstrate how a rezoning ‎

would be consistent with the information in the Master Plan and the overall intent for ‎

development‎. ‎

The Chair added that the Juengel Orchards area has been a problem area for years, ‎

not only for the landowners to be able to use their property properly, but to be able to ‎

be marketable‎. ‎It's a problem for the traffic engineer when considering fronting homes ‎

onto Rochester Road‎. ‎It's a problem in the platting process to consider turning lots ‎

one way or the other‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe explained what inspired the process to master plan Devondale from I‎-‎1 ‎to ‎

ORT‎. ‎The workshops and discussions with area property owners revealed that ‎

Devondale has two faces ‎-- ‎residential and light industrial‎. ‎The residential portion ‎

experiences the negative aspects of industrial traffic‎. ‎The question asked was whether ‎

or not it would be appropriate to continue Devondale as residential or as an economic ‎

development generator of ORT use because of its proximity to the freeway‎. ‎If the ‎

desire was for residential, then it should be reinforced with possibly a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac with ‎

a buffer between the southern and northern portions‎. ‎The southern portion would ‎

remain residential and the northern portion would become ORT‎. ‎It was felt that ORT, ‎

Office Research Technology would be more appropriate than I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial in ‎

light of modern business trends‎. ‎Possible links to Crooks Road and M‎-‎59 ‎were also ‎

considered as they were in the ‎1992 ‎update‎. ‎

Regarding comments made about Austin Drive and the city's commitment and intent, ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the current CIP incudes the extension of Austin Drive as a ‎

companion project that the city would invest funding for‎. ‎However, given that the ‎

property that would be required is in private ownership for much of the length, a ‎

partnership between those property owners and the city would be necessary in order ‎

to make those improvements happen‎. ‎Efforts have been made for an SAD in the ‎

area, and there are also wetlands involved‎. ‎The extension of Austin Drive has been ‎

part of the Master Plan since the early ‎1980‎s‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin has not heard from any ‎

business owners interested in joining a partnership for that purpose‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe explained the reason for requiring two‎-‎to‎-‎four acres was to try to optimize ‎

the value of the property by guiding it toward the more modern ORT use‎. ‎The ‎

opportunity is there to attract that kind of business because of the proximity to the ‎

freeway‎. ‎The concern mentioned by a resident regarding a ‎16 ‎acre portion being ‎

developed and leaving smaller portions on the perimeter undeveloped could happen‎. ‎

Since the Master Plan is a general document and sets out a direction, it cannot deal ‎

with site specific issues‎. ‎The consultants have tried to leave flexibility and options ‎

open to property owners‎.‎

The Chair complimented Dr‎. ‎Beebe supremely on an excellent and well‎-‎thought‎-‎out ‎

plan‎. ‎The monies that the city has spent on these efforts is money well spent‎.‎

Commissioners requested the following changes to the draft Master Land Use Plan ‎

Update‎:‎

·‎ An entire page should be devoted to comments regarding Eugene Nowicki‎. ‎His ‎

decades long contributions to the betterment of the community are deserving ‎

on a whole page‎.‎

·‎ The new map on Page ‎72‎ was not part of the April draft‎. ‎Preferred Alternative ‎

Scenario Figure ‎21‎ from the Master Thoroughfare Plan Update should be ‎

included instead‎. ‎

Member Rosen was satisfied that they have considered all the ramifications of their ‎

work and the recommendations‎. ‎In his view they have balanced appropriately the ‎

concerns of all constituents and individually and at a community‎-‎wide level‎. ‎He was ‎

also satisfied that they were doing no significant damage or harm to anyone‎. ‎Member ‎

Rosen was also satisfied that they have done much to minimize the adverse effects of ‎

any changes in land use that have been recommended‎. ‎He was very pleased with the ‎

Master Land Use Plan Update overall and was particularly pleased about the ‎

thorough work done on the Rochester Road corridor in conjunction with the Master ‎

Transportation Plan‎. ‎Now there is a good vision of the reality for the community‎. ‎

He was also pleased that there is a good start on addressing the landfills‎. ‎He still had ‎

some concerns about Mixed Use overlays‎. ‎The Master Land Use Plan Update has ‎

probably created a whole series of opportunities for people and the community to be ‎

better than what we were in the past‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Boswell, to ‎APPROVE‎ the ‎1999 ‎Master Land ‎

Use Plan Update dated June ‎29‎, ‎1999‎.‎

The Planning Commission determines that‎:‎

WHEREAS, notices were duly published of public hearing on elements of the ‎

Master Land Use Plan Update; and‎

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May ‎4‎, ‎1999 ‎at the Municipal ‎

Offices of the City of Rochester Hills at ‎1000 ‎Rochester Hills Drive, Oakland ‎

County, Michigan, on the ‎1999 ‎updated Master Land Use Plan, which ‎

includes text, maps, detailed land use and development policies, existing land ‎

use, population trends, and economic analyses, said plan being on display ‎

before the public hearing in accordance with Act ‎285 ‎of the Public Acts of ‎

1931‎, as amended‎. ‎And, in that further discussion and opportunity to be ‎

heard was had on May ‎25‎, ‎1999 ‎and on June ‎29‎, ‎1999‎; and‎

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of ‎

the City of Rochester Hills on this June ‎29‎, ‎1999 ‎hereby adopts the Master ‎

Land Use Plan Update for the City of Rochester Hills, together with all ‎

subsequent changes made by the Planning Commission up until this moment, ‎

which will be incorporated in the final printed document, and that this takes ‎

into consideration the public hearing, the public comments, the conversations ‎

this evening and the ability to be heard this evening; and‎

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the plan in its final form be adopted, ‎

attested to and transmitted to the City Council of Rochester Hills and the ‎

Oakland County Register of Deeds and the Oakland County Planning ‎

Commission‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, ‎

Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Member Gaber stated that the document is very clear and will help to a greater degree ‎

than the previous Master Plan because the intention and rationale are clear and very ‎

pronounced‎. ‎

Member Gaber reviewed the proposed senior housing facility on the east side of ‎

Rochester Road, which was discussed at the joint meeting with City Council on June ‎

23‎, ‎1999‎. ‎The issue raised was how to deal with the underlying zoning in light of the ‎

fact that the current zoning is R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, and the Master Plan now ‎

shows that part of it is designated for Mixed Use and part is designated for ‎

Residential‎. ‎The concern raised by the applicant was how to request a rezoning that ‎

essentially is inconsistent with the Master Plan Update just adopted‎. ‎They wanted to ‎

be certain that the Planning Commission would not have difficulty doing that, or ‎

possibly changing the designation of the subject parcel so that the entire parcel will be ‎

zoned the same rather than being bifurcated with two separate zoning designations‎. ‎

The Chair's reaction was that the composition of the Planning Commission could ‎

change at any time‎. ‎It would not be appropriate to assume or imply that the Planning ‎

Commission would response in any specific way‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe recommended dealing with the rezoning when it comes before the ‎

commission and make a decision on the Master Plan now‎. ‎If Marriott decided not to ‎

develop the subject parcel for senior housing, under Mixed Use they could develop it ‎

as senior residential, residential, office, retail and hotel‎/‎motel‎. ‎The concept of Mixed ‎

Use is to not fix a use to an area or a site‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe cautioned commissioners to ‎

keep in mind that the Zoning Ordinance has not yet been revised to reflect this‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎

Beebe would separate the Master Plan from the zoning request and the site plan ‎

review‎. ‎Member Hooper added that it would not be appropriate to tailor the Master ‎

Plan for one particular parcel‎. ‎Member Corneliussen agreed with Dr‎. ‎Beebe‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the PUD becomes an overlay text amendment to the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎The overlay supersedes the underlying zoning to the extent that there is a ‎

specific development agreement that is recorded between the city and the developer ‎

of the property‎. ‎In the subject case the property would have a dual land use ‎

designation of Mixed Use and Single Family‎. ‎The Planning Commission and City ‎

Council would be asked to rezone the property to a zoning district ‎-- ‎in this case ‎

Special Purpose ‎-- ‎but it would be pursuant to the PUD‎. ‎None of the other principal ‎

permitted uses in the Special Purpose zoning classification would be allowed to be ‎

developed on the site‎. ‎The reverse would be, if it were all planned for Mixed Use, ‎

there is a much broader array of uses that are contemplated in that designation that ‎

would then open the property to more pressure to allow retail or hotel‎/‎office, etc‎. ‎The ‎

PUD becomes a control mechanism on the land use designation‎.‎

The Chair pointed out that a resolution will be needed to adopt as official documents ‎

the four area reports which should be forwarded to City Council as they have budget ‎

implications‎. ‎The Landfills report has already been adopted‎. ‎The Chair will schedule ‎

this for the next meeting‎.‎

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to compliment the consultants and ‎

staff on a superb job, and the time and work put forth on it is very much appreciated‎.‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Printed Master Land Use Plan Update document; Letter dated ‎06‎/‎22‎/‎99 ‎from ‎

Corey Bordine; Note from Mrs‎. ‎Louise Dominick, ‎60 ‎Windsor; Letter from Eugene ‎

Grams dated June ‎29‎, ‎1999‎; copy of letter to Mr‎. ‎Dan Vanderbroek dated May ‎23‎, ‎

1978 ‎from Earl Borden; Proposed Resolution for Adoption; Planning Commission ‎

Meeting Minutes of May ‎4‎, ‎1999‎.)‎

Adopted

Public Information Meeting Concept‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that staff is seeing a growing need to involve and inform citizens ‎

as early in the development process as possible‎. ‎This will be an important concept as ‎

the Year ‎2000 ‎approaches‎. ‎Residents and citizens often come forward and say they ‎

did not know about a development, the city did not notify them, they only heard about ‎

it yesterday‎. ‎Staff is advancing this approach in response to public need‎. ‎Other ‎

avenues are also being utilized, such as the Internet, a website‎. ‎Some cities list all their ‎

current development proposals under review and have the ability to receive comments ‎

on those proposals‎. ‎The City of Rochester Hills has Internet access now, and Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin would like to be able to supply the same kind of information‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse was presenting this concept to the Planning Commission to see if they ‎

would be interested in something of this nature, and if so, what kind of procedure ‎

would they recommend‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse added that the proposed concept is the result ‎

of a recent brainstorming session‎. ‎The driver for this concept is to involve the public ‎

early on‎. ‎The Planning Department currently holds concept plan meetings with ‎

potential developers to make them aware of some of the issues and requirements they ‎

will need to address‎. ‎One of the comments they consistently tell potential developers ‎

is to communicate with their potential neighbors‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse described the three options that came out of the brainstorming to ‎

determine the optimum time to place the public information meeting in the sequence ‎-- ‎

Option A, a technical review by city staff before the public information meeting ‎

occurs; Option B, a staff review meeting identifying outstanding items to be revised by ‎

the applicant before the public information meeting occurs; Option C, revisions ‎

submitted and reviewed a second time by staff, a letter sent to applicant identifying ‎

outstanding items before the public information meeting occurs‎. ‎The subsequent ‎

Public Information Meeting then could be noticed to residents within ‎300 ‎feet of the ‎

subject parcel, could be an informal set up with the developer providing a short ‎

informal presentation of the project with a question and answer session following, the ‎

Planning Commission could be present to only observe and not participate in the ‎

discussion; no action would be taken by the Planning Commission‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that this is still at the raw concept stage and they are looking for ‎

feedback on whether or not to even proceed with it‎. ‎If it is the opinion of the Planning ‎

Commission that this process would not provide a service, then it will not be pursued‎. ‎

Staff is looking for ways to reduce the cycle time for projects, not eliminate the ‎

process‎. ‎They want to structure the process so that all the substantive issues are ‎

flushed out before staff goes through their intensive review‎. ‎

Members Ruggiero and Hooper wondered to what extent the city could require a ‎

developer to have a public meeting with residents‎. ‎They would imagine that any such ‎

meeting would have to occur after staff has had time to review the plan so that the ‎

most complete presentation could be made to the public, which would fit with Option ‎

C‎. ‎If it doesn't extend the process much, it might be beneficial‎.‎

Member Corneliussen was concerned about possibly setting the Planning Commission ‎

up for double public hearings, which should not be necessary‎. ‎The philosophy is good ‎

and he would support it‎.‎

Member Potere suggested contacting cities that attract high quality developers and ‎

have a system that works well, with the intent to model our procedure after theirs‎. ‎

However, she did agree with Member Corneliussen‎.‎

Member Ruggiero stated that not every development may require a public information ‎

meeting, only the controversial ones‎. ‎Although it is difficult to predict which ones ‎

might be controversial‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin related that the Department of Public Services holds public information ‎

meetings at City Hall on a specific date regarding public works projects‎. ‎It is very ‎

informal and there are no formal recording of comments‎. ‎Staff and agency personnel ‎

are usually available to answer questions‎. ‎This is a federal requirement‎.‎

Continuing, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that the process could be as simple as sending a ‎

letter to residents‎. ‎The city routinely sends agendas to homeowners associations on ‎

record with the city and to anybody who asks to be put on a mailing list‎. ‎It also could ‎

be on the Internet‎. ‎Then again, it could be a two‎-‎edged sword‎. ‎Sometimes people ‎

think they are being notified about something because there must be something wrong ‎

with the development‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas believed if the public is involved too late in the process there is ‎

not sufficient time to consider their concerns‎. ‎Perhaps there could be a monthly ‎

meeting of several current projects to which people could be invited to voice their ‎

opinions and concerns‎. ‎Planning Commission members could or could not attend‎. ‎

The Chair thought the concept in principle was great but only if it can be made ‎

worthwhile‎. ‎Limiting notification to only ‎300 ‎feet will not have much of an impact‎. ‎

The Chair did not think that staff should put themselves as the presiders over the ‎

meetings‎. ‎The Chair cautioned that the public may identify the staff with the ‎

developer‎.‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Public Information Meeting Outline for Proposed Site Plans, Plats, Planned Unit ‎

Developments, Site Condominiums‎)‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business to come before the Planning Commission‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for July ‎6‎, ‎1999‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairperson ‎

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎11‎:‎05 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎