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, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Special Planning Commission

Meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Nicholas

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

Present

8 -

Greg Hooper

Absent

1 -

Quorum present.

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director, Planning and Economic Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2010-0303

July 13, 2010 Special Meeting

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

Approved as Presented. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

2010-0308

July 20, 2010 Special 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, Hetrick, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

There were no Communications brought forward.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2009-0274

Request for Recommendation of Approval of the Revised

PUD for City Place, City File No. 02-027, located on the east

side of Rochester Road, north of Hamlin, zoned PUD (B-2,

General Business) and approved by City Council in May

2004. G&V, applicant

(Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated July 23, 2010 and revised

PUD, prepared by Attorney John Gaber dated July 20, 2010 had been

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

Present for the applicant was William Gilbert, G&V Investments, 2565 S.

Rochester Rd., Rochester Hills, MI 48307.

Chairperson Boswell noted the packet information: A revised PUD for

City Place; letter from John Gaber, applicant’s Attorney, explaining the

changes in the Agreement; letter from City Attorney John Staran, which

stated that he had reviewed the Agreement; letters from residents Tony

DeShaw and Melinda Hill; and a map from resident Scot Beaton, all of

which were placed on file and became part of the record.

Ms. Brnabic indicated that it looked as if they had reached a somewhat

feasible Agreement. She pointed out that Mr. Gilbert had made

appropriate changes, but there were still some unknowns she was not

completely crazy about. She felt they had all come together decently,

and she believed that the Planning Commission had made every effort to

review the request and renegotiate the PUD Agreement without bias. She

had pointed out that due to the applicant’s lack of ability to market the

plan and due to current economic conditions, that they had worked to

reach the best possible resolution regarding the PUD. She was, however,

disappointed with several things that occurred during the process. She

recalled that she sat on the Commission when the original Agreement

was approved. Although the renovation of the historical house was not

the only consideration of the approval, it was a strong consideration, and

it was used to the applicant’s advantage. She was more than

disappointed, not only as a Planning Commissioner but as a resident of

the community, that the house was allowed to deteriorate. During the

process, she heard a lot of hypotheticals. For example, if Mr. Gilbert had

purchased the property and just let it sit, the City would not have anything

to say about whether he chose to develop the property or not. She

claimed that might be true, but Mr. Gilbert did not do that. If Mr. Gilbert

had a regular Site Plan Approval and chose not to develop it, the City

would not have anything to say about it, but he did not do that either. If

Mr. Gilbert applied for a Rezoning, he said he could have developed

each parcel at will, five to ten years apart if he wished. Maybe he did not

consider that a very likely option, so he did not do that. If the bank had

not been developed, Mr. Gilbert might not be sitting before them,

because he could have chosen to let the PUD expire. Once the

construction commenced on the bank, the PUD became an active

Agreement. There were also undertones about litigation, even though he

would not want anyone to think legal action was being threatened. She

felt the City worked in good faith in approving the original PUD and that

Mr. Gilbert could not honor it, which she found fairly amazing. At this

point, she sincerely hoped that if the Planning Commission

recommended approval and City Council approved the new PUD that it

all worked out.

Mr. Hetrick stated that based on the letter from Mr. Staran, which

supported the language and provided adequate protection for Rochester

Hills, and the Agreement, which provided things for the residents, in terms

of improving the green belt, reducing the density considerably, and

supporting traffic signals, although not in the applicant’s control, he felt

the Agreement would help the residents. In addition, the completion time

was reduced, as a way of making sure the project moved forward. From

these perspectives, he was very happy with how the PUD turned out, and

he felt they should move forward.

Mr. Yukon commented that one thing the Planning Commission strived

for was a desirable balance between a developer’s request and the needs

and desires of the community. In looking over the proposed PUD, he felt

that there was not a desirable balance for both. The original PUD

provided for more complimentary housing types, fewer curb cuts, less

traffic congestion and less retail. If Mr. Gilbert was having a problem

marketing 35,000 square feet of retail and commercial with the original

PUD, Mr. Yukon wondered how he would market 75,000 square feet of

retail and office. At this point, he was not comfortable recommending the

PUD for approval.

Mr. Kaltsounis questioned whether he would be comfortable with just

having 50,000 square feet of shopping or whether homes and offices

would be better. If they put in retail along Rochester Road and did not

build homes there might be a nicer buffer, but he was unsure about the

amount of retail and asked Mr. Gilbert his thoughts.

Mr. Gilbert responded that the uses and zones they were asking for were

all “up to” and they were asking for flexibility. In the front, there could be

office, condos or retail. He knew that giving him flexibility gave some

people a little heartburn, because in the other plan they knew what was

going where. On the other hand, they believed they were offering

tradeoffs with density, setbacks, height, etc. The original Agreement said

that they had to build a minimum of 250 residential units and up to 300+,

in addition to the other uses. He did not know where the idea that

commercial was a four letter word came from, because in many

communities, it was an advantage to have things within walking distance.

People paid a premium in Birmingham and other areas to have that type

of lifestyle, where places were convenient and people did not have to go

onto busy roads and fight traffic to go to neighborhood conveniences. He

did not understand the negative perception. If done properly, with the

right mix, he thought it could be a plus. If there was no market for 50,000

of retail, then it would be office and residential or all residential. There

was flexibility in the PUD to do any of it. He had heard repeatedly that

there was no market for commercial, and he stated that if there was not,

there would not be anything built. He emphasized that they were not spec

builders of commercial. In answer to Ms. Brnabic, he said they had never

threatened any legal action with the City. He did say that if they could not

negotiate something that one option would be to Rezone. If that did not

work, the only other option would be a legal recourse, but they had never

done that in 35 years. They worked with Staff, and there was a major

difference between the two Agreements in the amount of right-of-way. The

original Agreement called for them to dedicate 75 feet from the center of

the road. That was changed to dedicate from the section line, and they

agreed to easements if Rochester Road were to ever get a boulevard. He

added that it was worth millions.

Mr. Dettloff clarified that the Commission was charged with coming up

with some sort of reasonable solution to allow a project that would

generate tax base down the road. No one knew what the market would

bear. He thought that the turnaround would take a lot longer than anyone

anticipated. Regarding whether the site would support 50,000 square feet

of retail in the near future, he would bet no. However, they were asked to

allow the project to go forward, and he believed it created a less dense

situation, and that it had checks and balances that protected the interests

of the City and the developer. He offered that Mr. Gilbert had a track

record of 35 years in the business, which said a lot. Mr. Gilbert did not

come forward having never done a project in Rochester Hills, and he felt

Mr. Gilbert’s reputation was very good. He was comfortable with the

revisions, and his only disappointment was the house. He would have

loved to see it stay. He had asked Mr. Gilbert at the last meeting if there

was any reconsideration, given City Council’s action, and he had said no,

but Mr. Dettloff encouraged that if there was a way to save the house, he

would greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Gilbert explained that there were reasons for the delisting, which were

based on the facts. He understood the emotion, because the house was

a landmark. The historic value was not what it was presented to be. Last

night after Council, they talked with a resident who had a strong interest in

the house who thought she might be able to raise funds to buy and move

the house. He stated that her group would not have to buy it; it would be

free. Mr. Gilbert said they had no plans to immediately demolish the

house. He gave his contact info, and if they could raise money and find a

suitable site, he would donate the house and contribute to the move.

They thought they could restore it for a lot less money than what he was

quoted, and he could wait until the end of the year.

Chairperson Boswell opened the floor to public comments at 7:29 p.m.

Anil Patel, 1566 Farnborough Dr., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr. Patel

said that he was present at the previous meeting when everyone

explained their concerns. With all the flexibility provided the applicant, he

felt that the development could potentially be a majority of retail and

commercial. Since the Agreement was being revised, he felt some

conditions could be added so that if there was a certain amount of retail,

the rest should be homes, to maintain the integrity of the original.

Regarding the decision, he said he hoped they would consider history

and the good of the many.

Susan Deshaw, 1638 Farnborough, Rochester Hills, Mi 48307. Mr.

Deshaw wanted to make sure a letter her husband had sent was part of

the record, which was confirmed.

Hector Urteaga, 1578 Farnborough Dr., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr.

Urteaga remarked that he was a victim of Eddington Farms. He said that

there had been emotions flying with the project. He was not opposed to

projects, but in this case, he was opposed to a project that did not give a

balance to the community and that put their future in jeopardy. His main

concerns were safety and density. If a decision had not been made, he

would ask the Commission to think again and look for a well balanced

project. Many decisions were made based on opinions that it was a good

idea for business, but they were forgetting about the people and the

future. The historic house had been losing value and interest, and in the

same way the community would lose value. He asked how many people

were leaving the City because they were not happy with the decisions

being made. He thought that maybe he might be one. He reiterated his

concerns, and called on them to reconsider this “important decision.” He

hoped the Commission would represent their interests, and he asked

them to please consider the facts.

Mr. Scot Beaton, 655 Bolinger St., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr.

Beaton agreed that Mr. Gilbert had built a lot of great stuff in town, and

said he had known him for 25 years. Mr. Beaton noted that he studied a

lot of architecture and urban planning in college. He wanted the

Commission to be comfortable with the fact that if they granted Mr. Gilbert

50,000 square feet of retail, four 12,500 square foot, one-story strip mall

buildings could be built. That was the flexibility he would have if the PUD

was approved. They could argue whether there was a market or not, but

he assured that there was a great market for it. He noted the brand new

strip mall on Rochester Rd. just south of South Boulevard, which, he

pointed out, was all leased. He believed that to build 50,000 square feet

of retail would only cost $5 million, which he claimed Mr. Gilbert had.

Within a year, he could easily put up strip malls all along the frontage of

Rochester Road, and he was not comfortable with that. Mr. Gilbert

originally asked for 15,000 square feet, and Mr. Beaton felt they should

hold him to that. He felt that retail was a dirty word. Directly across the

street was single-family residential, not commercial. The signs would

light up everyone’s second floor window all winter long if the PUD was

granted. He asked that the Commissioners continued to revisit the issue.

He said he could make the same plea to the City Council members, but

that City Council members based decisions a lot on emotion and not the

facts. In a court of law, they would not listen to a Council member; they

would listen to the Planning Commission’s decision. If there was

litigation, it would be very easy for Mr. Gilbert to win anything based on the

Planning Commission’s decision. He thanked the Commission, but

added that he really wanted them to address the 50,000, the 25,000 and

the 360,000 square-foot numbers.

Chairperson Boswell noted that both Mr. Deshaw and Mr. Urteaga

mentioned loss of property values. He had been on the Commission for

many years and many projects had come before them. One person

could bring an expert to say that his property values would go down and

another person’s expert could say they would go up. He stated that

certainly, the Commission was concerned about property values, and

they would not do something they thought would decrease property

values in the City. Regarding the density, overall it was much less than in

the original PUD. However, he agreed that there was a possibility for a lot

more commercial. He wondered if the Commissioners were comfortable

with that or not.

Mr. Reece said that Mr. Dettloff summed up his feelings well. The

density was the biggest issue for him, and also whether attempting to do

the right thing by revising the PUD was in the best interest of the citizens

and Mr. Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert had a long standing track record within the

City and had done a great job. What had been glossed over was that it

was a much less dense proposal than what potentially could be built

under the original PUD. People did not seem to want to talk about that,

and he felt that was a little unfair from the standpoint that what was being

proposed was significantly less dense than what could be built if they

chose not to accept the PUD. He mentioned that he was a licensed

architect, and that he studied planning in college, and in his professional

opinion, commercial belonged on Rochester Road. It was not a dirty

word. It was a viable part of the community to keep it moving forward.

Taxes continued to decline, and without tax revenue generated from the

commercial and office developments in the City, the City services would

be dramatically reduced. Done correctly and with good aesthetics and

planning, it was the right place for it. He thought the Commission had

done more than an admirable job over the years in terms of keeping the

architectural aesthetics of the community at a high level. He felt they

could continue to have similar types of development with similar types of

oversight for the residents. That being said, he did think 50,000 square

feet of commercial was a bit much. He would be a lot more comfortable if

there was a swap between the commercial and office - if there was 25,000

square feet of office and 25,000 square feet of commercial it would be

better, in his opinion. Otherwise, he felt there had been great

compromise on Mr. Gilbert’s behalf, and he felt it was a much better PUD

Agreement than the original in terms of the residents. It was funny that

most people did not come and speak out against development unless it

was in their backyards. Unless something directly affected individuals,

they did not care what happened down the street. He said he was very

disappointed that the house was allowed to get to the state it was in today,

but the brutal reality was that there might be less than 1% of the people

that would be willing to fund moving the house. In the grand scheme,

someone might stand up and say it should be kept in its place, but when it

affected people’s pocketbooks, they were not willing to do something. He

would be much more interested in supporting the Revised PUD if they

could come to a better consensus on the commercial versus the retail.

Two years ago, no one would have thought the market would be where it

is. Mr. Beaton had referenced the development in Troy, and Mr. Reece

said he could guarantee that it was planned and funded before the market

crashed. They were in unprecedented times and to be able to prophesize

what would happen in two or five years would be amazing. He remarked

that the Commissioners had tried to not sell their souls. If they voted right

now, he would not have a clue how the vote would go. The

Commissioners did not talk about their votes to each other. A decision

had not been made, and there had been no clandestine meetings with the

developer. He concluded that he would be much happier with a reduction

in the commercial.

Mr. Yukon agreed with Commissioner Reece. He asked Mr. Gilbert if he

would be inclined to change the amount of commercial.

Mr. Gilbert maintained that they had been in the process a long time.

They had made compromises, and he was not prepared to just flip the

square footages. They put a lot of time, effort and money into the

process, and countless hours with Staff and many hours with the Planning

Commission to develop and fine tune the Agreement. They would like to

move forward with what they proposed.

Mr. Yukon said he appreciated the compromises, but he was concerned

about the vacancy rates that existed in the area. He did not want to see

vacant commercial property on Rochester. Rd. Mr. Gilbert responded

that he did not think Mr. Yukon would want to see any vacant condos or

office buildings, either. He reminded that there was no way he would

develop four buildings on Rochester Rd. and let them sit. He thought it

would be difficult if they put up one building and it was empty and

someone came in with a second site plan for next door. He stated that

would not happen. He noted that he had driven by residential projects

that were abandoned. He assured that they were responsible developers,

and they would not build a bunch of spec buildings and wait until they

were full. When residential was strong, it was worth as much or more than

commercial. He felt there were plenty of safeguards in the PUD.

Mr. Yukon asked Mr. Gilbert what studies he did to help him make

decisions about what to build. Mr. Gilbert replied that if they had an

approved plan, they would begin contacting builders in the area that were

strong. They might contact the hospitals about medical offices and

retailers that had a relationship with national tenants that might find

appeal in Rochester Hills.

Mr. Yukon asked if a site plan could come back with a 25,000 square feet

of commercial and 25,000 square feet of office.

Mr. Delacourt cautioned that they were discussing it as if there was a

25,000 cap on office. That was not how the Agreement was structured.

There was a cap on retail of 50,000 square feet. The other uses were

controlled by the FB-1 zoning district, which did not have a 25,000 square

foot cap. The balance of the site, or the entire site, could be developed

exclusively under the FB-1 which would allow a combination of office and

residential. The normal parameters would be in play at that point as far

as density - setbacks, parking, landscaping, wetlands, tree conservation -

and once those were taken care of, the rest of the site could be developed

as approved by the Commission with office and residential. In Section E,

the Agreement talked about the three hypothetical maximum scenarios,

which the Planning Commission asked to see. That showed the

Commissioners that the plan was less dense than the previous. The

paragraph below that specifically said the FB-1 zoning district controlled

densities. They could end up with 50,000 square feet of retail and

additional office. It could be all office and no retail. The only absolute

hard cap was the 50,000 square foot of retail, because it was not normally

associated with FB-1.

Mr. Yukon asked if the Commission could work with the developer at site

plan review to determine what the square footages would be.

Mr. Delacourt said that would be controlled by the applicable

requirements - how much parking was necessary, what the tree

conservation ordinance required, if there were regulated wetlands, natural

features setback, if applicable, setbacks and landscaping - which would

determine the buildable envelope, and then they would work backwards

from there on the square footage. They would design a building based on

the zoning ordinance. They did not want to put in an artificial cap on

office or residential since those seemed to be the desired land uses. He

hoped there would be a balanced presence on Rochester Rd. Staff was

comfortable that no matter what was built, it would be compatible with

other uses on the site.

Mr. Yukon wanted clarification whether the Commission could work with

the developer to determine together what the square footage could be. If

Mr. Gilbert came forward with x amount for office and x amount for

commercial, and the Commissioners thought the square footage was too

high, he asked if they could work with him.

Mr. Reece reminded that there would be multiple opportunities for site

plan review, so it would not come before the Commission one time. Each

building would have to stand on its own merit and have to meet all

applicable ordinances. The Commission would have control over each

as it was developed. He said his preference would be to see a more

blended approach, and with all the other concessions made by the

applicant, that would be the “nirvana.”

Mr. Gilbert said that one of the things they heard was that no one wanted

to see vacant, and he said he did not want that either. He believed that

there was a lot less chance of vacant retail when something was

developed and approved the way he was proposing. He did not think that

12,500 square feet was a large building. The risk of a lot of vacant

spaces would be minimized because they would not do 50,000 square

feet in a long strip center. The way it was planned, with smaller pods, it

might work out to everyone’s benefit. He compared a larger retail building

to condos where the two end units sold right away and the middle units

were left. They would not build a big retail just because they had a good

anchor at either end and not be able to fill in the middle space. He felt

that the concept they were proposing would minimize that.

Mr. Reece said that relative to the process that Mr. Gilbert described, and

coming from both a design and commercial building background, he was

spot on. The process was correct. Many of his corporate clients were

retail clients and they were not doing any speculative building. They did

not have the cash, and the banks were not giving cash if someone did not

have a business plan in place that could support it. The retail and

commercial market was significantly different. The strongest market in

the area for many years until 2008 was the health care market.

Beaumont Hospital in Troy and Royal Oak and St. Joe’s Hospital in

Pontiac lost billions of dollars and left things undeveloped in the

strongest market segment in the commercial building industry. It still

remained that way - there was barely a heartbeat in the health care

market. He pointed out that the markets were several years away from

coming back and if they did not, whether commercial was liked or not,

there would be a lot bigger problems in the community.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that seven years ago, when Mr. Gilbert was in front

of the Commission, they approved a development that included four

stories along Rochester Rd. He recalled looking at site lines and how

people would see the buildings. There were three to four-story homes in

the back that tapered off to trees. The applicant could build that today.

Having that background, when he looked through some of the details of

the proposed PUD, he felt there were definitely benefits. He had to make

a decision as to whether 50,000 square feet of commercial was

something he wanted to see every time he passed by the development

on Rochester Rd. However, he also looked at the rest of the development

and saw things that might benefit the residents and the City, and he felt

they were at a point to see how the vote would go. He moved the following

motion:

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Hetrick, that in the matter of City

File No. 02-027 (City Place PUD), the Planning Commission

recommends that City Council approves the Revised PUD for City Place,

dated received July 20, 2010.

Mr. Hetrick observed that the interesting thing about the discussions over

the last several weeks was that they centered on how the Commissioners

should manage risk. He thought it was a great thing they were doing,

because they were plowing new ground. What had been done in the past

in terms of coming in with a site plan ready to go did not exist today. The

idea of speculative building did not exist today. The Commission, and

the City, had to determine how to manage the risk associated with

providing an opportunity for the builder to build a business case and bring

it forward and allow the Commission to move it forward from a site plan

review perspective. They still would have opportunity from a risk

mitigation standpoint going forward. In his view, what they had done with

the PUD to minimize the risk associated with bad development was

almost as good as they could possibly do. The 50,000 square feet of

retail might be the biggest issue, although clearly, if there was no market,

it would not get built. From the standpoint of managing the risk for the

residents’ issues, he felt they had put provisions in place to do so. They

managed the risk for the City to avoid litigation issues. All of those

reasons were why he felt it was right to move forward.

Mr. Schroeder concurred with his predecessors. They would have a

development they had great control over. It would not be as maximized

as it could be without the new Agreement. There would be a development

surrounded by residential, but there would be quality buildings. Market

studies would bring people that had businesses that would work, and the

businesses would service the residents. He lived in a sub that had a

nearby shopping center, and he did not have to leave it to go to the

drugstore or to get some food, and he thought that was great. There

would be controls over drive-thrus and bars and hours, and he felt that it

was the best of all worlds. The City had to have a balance of commercial,

industrial and residential, and Rochester Hills was out of balance. For the

tax base, it did not have as much residential to commercial as it should.

With his experience in Troy, he found that it was not a problem having a

shopping center on the fringe of a sub, and that sub only had a concrete

wall. There would be a 50-foot berm and trees with this PUD. They might

find residential, in the long run, to be more irritating than commercial. He

did not think everyone’s fears were warranted. The market would control

the development, and there would be commercial services for the

subdivision.

Chairperson Boswell summed up that Mr. Gilbert came before the

Commission several months ago, and everyone realized that what was in

place was not going to happen. He was encouraged that what they had

was the best they could hope for. He recalled that 35 years ago, he and

his fiancée drove up Rochester Road, fell in love with the area and

decided it was where they would raise their kids. One of the fond

memories they had was of the house. He understood that no one of great

note lived there, and he understood that it was not built in an historic

fashion, but the house held a lot of memories for a lot of people in the

City. He was quite pleased six years ago to hear it was being saved, but

he was wrong - it was not being saved. That was a great disappointment,

and he held Mr. Gilbert accountable because he was the one given the

responsibility by the City to preserve the house, and it did not happen.

Chairperson Boswell reread the motion and called for a vote.

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

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting. The motion

CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

7 -

Nay

Yukon

1 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion passed 7-1, with

one absence.

NEW BUSINESS

2008-0302

Recommendation of Extension of the Final Site Condominium Plan - Pine

Woods Site Condominiums, a proposed 29-unit development on 9.6 acres,

located south of Auburn, west of M-59, zoned R-4, One Family Residential,

Parcel Nos. 15-34-101-012 & -013, L&R Homes, applicant

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated July 23, 2010

and Approved Final Plan had been placed on file and by reference

became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant were Larry and Vito Randazzo, L&R Homes,

2490 Walton Blvd., Suite 103, Rochester Hills, MI 48309.

Mr. Vito Randazzo stated that they were present to request an Extension

of the Final Plan for Pine Woods Site Condominiums. He said that

nothing had changed from the previous approval, and they were

requesting an Extension based on the current economic conditions.

Mr. Delacourt summarized that Pine Woods was a 29-unit site

condominium development located on the south side of Auburn, east of

Livernois. The applicant received Final Plan Approval in 2008. They

had submitted the required Extensions Policy letter indicating they

understood that if changes were necessary due to any ordinances or

engineering standards, that they would be responsible for bringing the

Final Plan into conformance. Staff recommended approval of the

Extension.

Mr. Schroeder thought it was obvious that the applicants were victims of

the current financial situation, and he moved the following motion:

MOTION by Schroeder,, seconded by Kaltsounis, in the matter of City

File No. 05-005 (Pine Woods Site Condominiums), the Planning

Commission recommends that City Council approves an Extension of

the Final Plan until July 14, 2011.

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

recommended for approval.

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed

unanimously.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Anzek encouraged anyone who had not been through the

Hamlin/Livernois roundabout to take a look at the lightpoles. The

Commissioners had approved them previously, and he felt that their

opinions about the lights would help drive the street lighting policy. The

roundabout was scheduled to completely open in about three weeks.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the August meeting was

cancelled due to the Primary Elections, and that the next Regular Meeting

was scheduled for September 7, 2010.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:33

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary