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, January 27, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Penny Papke, Planning Technician‎

Steve Dearing, City Traffic Engineer‎

John Staran, City Attorney‎

Gary Wilson, McKenna Associates‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Letters of Correspondence‎

1‎.‎ Emily Ferry, ‎1081‎ E‎. ‎Tienken Road, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48306‎

Letter in reference to increased traffic flow through Stoney ‎

Creek Village‎.‎

2‎.‎ Paul A‎. ‎Corneliussen, ‎451‎ E‎. ‎Nawaka, Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48307‎

Letter in reference to comments on Master Thoroughfare Plan ‎

Update‎.‎

3‎.‎ Mr‎. ‎& Mrs‎. ‎Gerald E‎. ‎O‎’‎Meara, ‎867‎ Augusta Drive, Rochester Hills, Michigan ‎

48309---‎ Letter in reference to the widening of Tienken Road‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1762

Discussion ‎- ‎Proposed PUD ‎(‎Planned Unit Development‎) ‎Ordinance ‎

Amendment‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin indicated that the commission members received a copy of the ‎

revised draft of the Planned Unit Development ‎(‎PUD‎) ‎Ordinance‎. ‎Two ‎

workshop sessions have been held on this ordinance‎. ‎Staff has also met with ‎

the city attorney‎. ‎The document being reviewed this evening is the result of ‎

the review and refinement of the draft document based on the discussion and ‎

the resolutions of the Planning Commission from the two previous workshop ‎

sessions‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also noted that a briefing will be held on the ‎

ordinance draft tomorrow evening with City Council at ‎6‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson then detailed the significant changes to the draft PUD ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson reiterated that at the last workshop the Planning Commission members ‎

favored a two‎-‎phase approval process‎. ‎The new flow chart has been designed to ‎

indicate that a conceptual PUD plan would be presented along with an outline of the ‎

PUD agreement‎. ‎The plan would then go through a preliminary review with Planning ‎

Commission and City Council‎. ‎There would not be any approval resulting out of this ‎

process‎. ‎The major issues of the PUD would then be identified and there would be a ‎

foundation that the applicant would have to show that the plan was feasible and what ‎

the main issues are in order to submit a more detailed plan‎. ‎Once this process is ‎

completed the applicant would then submit for the actual PUD approval, go through ‎

the rezoning process developing the formal PUD agreement with all of the various ‎

conditions of approval‎. ‎They would then seek approval for a plat, site plan or a ‎

condominium site plan‎. ‎The new flow chart also outlines the additional steps in this ‎

process‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Wilson said he has also included the historic districts as eligible for ‎

consideration for a PUD in addition to elderly housing‎. ‎The density bonus has been ‎

removed from the schematic and a lot width or area reduction is being added‎. ‎This ‎

will be similar to the reduction which is allowed in the current open space revision ‎

(‎Section ‎20 ‎of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎). ‎There is also more flexibility then what is ‎

currently offered in the present open space concept as far as meeting the recreation ‎

and open space requirements that could be met off‎-‎site versus on‎-‎site‎. ‎In addition to ‎

this, the four acre minimum would be eliminated‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson also reported that the discussions also determined that the current ‎

administrative engineering guidelines can be modified by the engineer if there are ‎

appropriate alternative standards that are applicable‎. ‎This item has been removed ‎

from the text; it can now be handled administratively‎.‎

In reference to the Woodlands Ordinance, Mr‎. ‎Wilson reported that the amendments ‎

have been removed from the PUD ordinance because they are similar to what is ‎

going to be allowed in the new Tree Conservation ordinance amendments‎.‎

Discussion then ensued on the approval process‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that in the ‎

case of a site plan, the approval process could conclude with Planning Commission ‎

review of the final site plan or in order to expedite the process, the city could allow a ‎

staff review of the final site plan‎. ‎The commission now needs to focus on whether staff ‎

or the Planning Commission should confirm that all conditions have been met after the ‎

rezoning has been secured‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out that this would be similar to a conditional site plan approval ‎

that the Planning Commission has already reviewed with staff assuring that the ‎

conditions of the plan have already been met‎. ‎Staff would just be asking for this same ‎

type of authority with the PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then noted that the language would be changed to indicate that site plan ‎

review and approval would be given by the Planning Commission once all conditions ‎

of the plan are met‎. ‎The process would be as follows‎: ‎public hearing, site plan review ‎

and conditional approval‎. ‎The final approval would then involve only staff review to ‎

make sure that all conditions of the plan have been taken care of‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked for a consensus from the commission members on the ‎

above‎-‎mentioned points‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell asked if minor changes in a plan would be grounds to bring the plan back ‎

to the Planning Commission for an additional approval‎. ‎Who would determine if the ‎

change to the plan was major or minor?‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson remarked that staff would have to determine whether or not the change ‎

was classified as major or minor‎. ‎A major change to the plan would be sent back to ‎

the Planning Commission for approval‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Boswell noted that he doe not have any problem with staff doing the ‎

final review‎. ‎However, what someone might determine as a minor change might be ‎

considered a major change by some of the members of the Planning Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that by the time an applicant gets through the entire process all ‎

of the major issues have already been worked out‎. ‎There is not a lot of room for ‎

changes‎. ‎Most of the conditions are very specific and will be included in the ‎

agreement‎. ‎The majority of the changes which would occur would be minor ‎(‎e‎.‎g‎.‎, the ‎

location of a light pole‎).‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated that if a change is inconsistent with the condition of approval, ‎

the plan would be required to come back to the Planning Commission‎. ‎The concern is ‎

that the Planning Commission normally has the power to approve site plans‎. ‎If a site ‎

plan is reviewed before City Council approves the PUD agreement, there might be a ‎

chance that the PUD agreement may affect a detail on the site plan‎. ‎In order to not ‎

hold up the plan, staff would then just approve the plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser added that if changes to the plan did not change the conditions of ‎

approval, it could mean that there still might be some members of the Planning ‎

Commission that still would like to see the plan because it may change some other ‎

facts that would cause the conditions of approval to be different‎. ‎Is there any ‎

language that could be utilized or added to in the text or the flow chart that would take ‎

care of Mr‎. ‎Boswell‎’‎s concerns‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that the language could be tightened up by stating that ‎“‎the final plan ‎

must comply with all conditions of PUD approval‎.‎” ‎An attempt could also be made to ‎

define what is actually a major or minor change‎. ‎Does the change affect the condition ‎

of approval or does it affect the original conceptual plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser ascertained that there will be some self‎-‎governing the first time the ‎

Planning Staff gives final approval to something because the change was too significant ‎

or major‎. ‎An amendment would then be made to streamline the process‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser ‎

added that he would like to see the language tightened up a bit‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki, agreeing with Mr‎. ‎Kaiser, remarked that when you look over the ‎

ordinance itself, there are so many things that could be questioned, changed or looked ‎

at it is sometimes difficult to follow‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki feels that the Planning Commission ‎

should be made aware of any changes in a plan because any type of change is ‎

important‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki also feels that the language should be tightened up‎. ‎The ‎

Planning Commission should have some say in the matter‎. ‎Basically, a PUD is ‎

contract zoning and if the contract is not written correctly, there may be problems‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked about Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi‎’‎s comments in reference to adding ‎

additional review time to a project‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated that an additional three months could be added to the review ‎

process‎. ‎By the time the approved minutes are received from City Council, staff ‎

reviews the plan and to the point where it is scheduled for the Planning Commission, ‎

you are looking at an additional two to three months‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out that the Planning Commission will actually be ‎

reviewing a final site plan‎. ‎The only concern that staff will have is if City Council adds ‎

new conditions to the site plan‎. ‎If City Council makes any changes to the ‎

recommendations from the Planning Commission, this could come back to the ‎

Planning Commission again‎. ‎If there are no changes, staff should be able to ‎

administratively approve the conditions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser suggested that the last box in the flow chart could be rewritten to indicate ‎

that staff reviews and approves site plan to confirm that all Planning Commission ‎

conditions have been met and no new conditions or major changes have been made or ‎

added‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber agrees with the process; however, he would like the language to indicate ‎

that City staff reviews and approves site plan to confirm that all PC conditions have ‎

been met and remain unchanged‎.‎

Commission members concurred with the suggested changes‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson then discussed the issue of commercial‎-‎mixed use within the PUD ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎In order to be eligible the site must already be zoned in a commercial ‎

category or the parcel must be designated for commercial use by the master plan‎. ‎

There was a feeling in the staff discussions that this may be too restrictive‎. ‎This may ‎

block out options for other types of sites‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser noted that the discussion should focus on if PUD‎’‎s should be allowed with ‎

some commercial activity in a residential district‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell feels that opening the concept up would offer some opportunities that ‎

would not otherwise be available‎. ‎The Planning Commission would have a great deal ‎

of say on whether or not this would happen‎. ‎A perfect example of this is the new ‎

Country Club Village Subdivision; a business could possibly be added to the PUD for ‎

this subdivision‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Boswell does not feel this is risky because the Planning ‎

Commission has a great deal of latitude and power‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser also noted that the involved review process and the latitude of the Planning ‎

Commission can be broad or restrictive depending on the site‎. ‎The commission may ‎

also want to have language indicating that when a PUD is in a residential district the ‎

commercial use may be allowed in only a certain percentage of the total area or in ‎

some ratio to the residential uses‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson noted that the typical ratio for this type of development is about ‎10 ‎

percent‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson also suggested capping the percentage and capping the total ‎

which would be intended for smaller sites which is actually considered an acreage ‎

limitation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi remarked that there is an opportunity in looking at the older parcels in the ‎

city to allow contract zoning and to allow expansion of the existing use‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen, referring to Auburn Road, noted that the key is that the Master Land Use ‎

Plan gives the Planning Commission the latitude‎. ‎You can then plan one lot back from ‎

Auburn and as projects come up you have the latitude to make the individual ‎

determination without the ‎10 ‎percent restriction‎. ‎The Master Land Use Plan could ‎

always be amended‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser noted that he would restrict this approach‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser would like write ‎

something that would give a property owner or developer the incentive to find areas ‎

within the city that would appeal to this concept‎. ‎Does the commission want to ‎

consider commercial uses in a PUD that is currently zoned residential?‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki said that with the commercial improvement district, Auburn Road is not ‎

a good example for the PUD concept‎. ‎You would end up with a jigsaw of intrusion ‎

into residential districts‎. ‎If you are considering individual parcels for a PUD, you will ‎

be cutting into single family residential neighborhoods‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki does not see a ‎

PUD on Auburn Road even though it is an old commercial area with short lots‎. ‎This ‎

has been the main problem with the PUD concept since day one‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki is ‎

not inclined to allow any commercial in a residential PUD in this particular area‎. ‎Every ‎

time a PUD is expanded into a residential neighborhood you are creating an additional ‎

area which is going to have an effect on the abutting residential properties‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero expressed concern about how much control will the commission end ‎

up with without the concept being subjective and perhaps taking on a discriminatory ‎

appearance; everything being unique in mass and use‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson indicated that the PUD allows for a lot of discretion in applying conditions‎. ‎

It is a discretionary approval‎. ‎If the commission finds that it does not meet the ‎

objectives that have been laid out, there is still a lot of discretion in reviewing a ‎

proposed PUD and determining if a site does or does not meet the conditions‎. ‎The ‎

Planning Commission really has the ultimate level of control‎. ‎If the objectives are not ‎

met, eligibility can be denied‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked if it would help if the intent section indicated that commercial uses ‎

shall be discouraged or limited in residential districts‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran said that this may be an appropriate addition to the language‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked for a consensus on opening up the language indicating that ‎

commercial uses are allowed in otherwise residential districts with the Planning ‎

Commission having the latitude in the review process to reign in any developers‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Kaiser would like to consider this type of language‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki concurred, however, the only problem he has is where the language ‎

indicates that PUD‎’‎s are intended for larger sites with significant natural or smaller infill ‎

sites‎. ‎There is no mention of what is the larger site or what is the smaller site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that when PUD‎’‎s were first thought of they were aimed at very large ‎

sites where there were a lot a natural features and you wanted to preserve wetlands ‎

and open space or created parks‎. ‎This is what the concept was developed around‎. ‎

The minimum sized sites were often ‎20 ‎to ‎40 ‎acres and even ‎100 ‎acres‎. ‎In this case, ‎

because of the state of the development of the city and how the PUD was going to be ‎

used, smaller parcels were considered‎. ‎As the technique has evolved, it has evolved ‎

as a redevelopment tool to look at historic sites and has been used in cases where ‎

there are unique land use incompatibilities‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson added that his experience has ‎

been that when you put in a minimum size, it will come back to you‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked about the real value of the language under item #‎2 ‎under Intent‎.‎

Why is this needed? Can the language just indicate that the PUD is intended for sites ‎

with significant natural resources or infill parcels that are surrounded by existing ‎

development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that it is needed to declare that ‎“‎infill‎” ‎development is an eligible issue ‎

that can be looked at‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson could ‎remove the words ‎“‎larger‎” ‎and ‎

“‎smaller‎.‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki noted that when Avon Township developed a PUD, large sites were ‎

addressed ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, ‎300 ‎to ‎500 ‎acres‎) ‎when they were first developing the area‎. ‎Today ‎

the city does not have such large sites‎. ‎The words larger and smaller do not need to ‎

be considered‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki would like to see these words eliminated and make it ‎

part of the discussion in the application process‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell agrees to allowing some sort of commercial use in the residential zoning ‎

and he would also like to see the words larger and smaller removed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen would like to consider commercial as long as it is clear that it is a ‎

completely discretionary decision based on all of the factors that the Planning ‎

Commission may consider‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson ‎will add in the intent section some qualifying language about cases ‎

where the commercial use should be considered in a general context of the ‎

objectives of the city‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber agreed with allowing the option and the possibility of a discretionary ‎

review by the Planning Commission and City Council‎. ‎If commercial uses are allowed ‎

within residentially zoned parcels, then why make the distinction with just commercial‎. ‎

Why not allow more intense residential uses in these parcels as well?‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson added that a transitional use would be allowed within the mixed‎-‎use‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out that it would be desirable not to restrict the ability to put ‎

residential in an area where the underlying zoning is commercial in order to allow for ‎

this transition‎.‎

Members then concurred that there should be some latitude involved in allowing ‎

commercial within residential‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Wilson will work on language allowing this such ‎

as‎..... ‎“‎limit or discourage commercial uses in existing residential‎......‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson inquired about the issue in ‎reference to historic properties‎..‎ ‎it was ‎

suggested that ‎the words ‎“‎old or obsolete properties‎”‎ ‎be substituted‎. ‎This would ‎

be ‎an addition to the intent section under A‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that if the properties are considered ‎“‎old or obsolete‎” ‎this could mean ‎

that a very old subdivision or an entire group of homes in the middle of a subdivision if ‎

they are run down‎... ‎old or obsolete commercial‎... ‎might be better language‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin feels that ‎... ‎old or obsolete structures‎... ‎could be used as language if ‎

you are talking about the Data Reproduction site at Tienken and Rochester Road that ‎

has been recently vacated‎. ‎It is a very large site with a very large parking lot that is ‎

currently zoned I‎-‎1‎.‎

The reason the site was partially vacated is because of the age and the inability to ‎

reretrofit the building for more modern types of uses‎. ‎The language could then ‎

read‎.. ‎the reuse of existing non‎-‎residential structures‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that the next step will be to make all of the final revisions and prepare ‎

another draft of the PUD ordinance‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero also expressed concern ‎about the ability to contribute off site‎ ‎

toward ‎a recreation, cultural or open space improvement instead of an on site ‎

open space area‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson pointed out that the idea is that flexibility would be built into the ‎

amendment so that someone could contribute to a public park or improvement or ‎

something off site instead of restricting the applicant to an on site improvement that ‎

may or may not have a lot of value‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero asked if this would then allow ‎them‎* ‎the applicant more density ‎

perhaps‎ ‎* ‎on the site they are on‎. ‎This would perhaps cause ‎them‎ ‎* ‎the city to ‎

question the maintenance on this type of project‎. ‎If an off site improvement is made, ‎

wouldn‎’‎t this then require additional agreements‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson indicated that this is something that the Planning Commission would have ‎

to approve and it would have to be an acceptable project to the authority such as a ‎

park or a wetland mitigation that is being sponsored‎. ‎It would have to be a project ‎

that was qualified to be approved for an off site contribution‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero suggested that some type of specific language may need to be ‎

developed in order to relate to this issue‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson indicated that ‎he could add additional language to this portion of the ‎

amendment in order to tie this down‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that an example might be the contribution of private property to ‎

the Oakland Land Conservancy which was done by Frankel & Associates‎. ‎In this ‎

instance the property was divided so that technically it was off site‎. ‎However, there ‎

was a contribution of frontage on both sides of the Clinton River and this was then ‎

conveyed by deed and a recordable instrument with the ownership reverting to the city ‎

if the organization was dissolved‎. ‎This offer was made by the developer and an ‎

agreement was entered into and was made part of the approval of the plat‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson suggested that an addition could be made to the language to add ‎

something to indicate that ‎...‎a project that has been designated to be eligible for ‎

off site contributions‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero then asked about the calculation of the tax base on a mixed use PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson said that the tax base is calculated on the assessed value‎. ‎The parcel ‎

would have a tax identification number, the residential portion of the site would be ‎

appraised and then the square footage would be determined on the layered uses and ‎

they would look at the unit value‎. ‎Each component of the PUD is looked at ‎

separately‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero asked about a mechanism that could be used if part of the PUD did not ‎

sell, stood vacant or was predominantly a commercial use with some residential and ‎

they could not sell the residential portion‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson remarked that over time this can become a problem where projects don‎’‎t ‎

develop and this can happen with any type of approval‎. ‎Usually you try to put into the ‎

agreement and into the phasing of the project a phasing requirement‎. ‎The applicant ‎

can then only build the commercial portion when a certain percentage of the residential ‎

portion is completed‎. ‎In cases where a project doesn‎’‎t come into fruition, it can ‎

become a problem administratively because the approval is just sitting‎. ‎You can also ‎

be very specific about the phasing and sequencing requirements in the agreement‎. ‎This ‎

information would be included in the conditions of the PUD agreement up front‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki commented that this was one of the reasons why the PUD was ‎

eliminated years ago because there was mixed commercial with residential apartments, ‎

etc‎. ‎It was discontinued because the development went into more residential and ‎

there was no interest in developing the apartments and the commercial along Tienken ‎

Road near Fairview Farms Subdivision‎. ‎The most successful PUD development ‎

during this time was on Auburn Road‎. ‎There was a problem years ago with the PUD ‎

because you could not get anyone to develop in a mixed commercial area‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber asked about what happens when ‎25 ‎years down the road and someone ‎

develops something as a PUD with mixed use and it outlives its usefulness‎. ‎A ‎

developer then comes in and they want to redevelop the site in a different way ‎

contrary to the existing PUD‎. ‎What is the procedure that they would have to go ‎

through to modify the PUD?‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson stated that they would have to revise the PUD or rezone the parcel to ‎

another category at that time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber then ascertained that they could rezone the underlying classification even ‎

though the PUD is still intact and change the use‎. ‎How can the use be changed if you ‎

have a contract in place‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Wilson remarked that you can‎’‎t permanently bind a future authority but you can ‎

rezone a site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran pointed out that the process would involve amending the agreement‎. ‎The ‎

rezoning that would take place would be a rezoning to affect the PUD designation but ‎

more specifically and appropriately it would be to amend the PUD agreement‎. ‎It ‎

would be very similar to what is done with consent judgments‎. ‎There were a number ‎

of properties in the city that were enmeshed in zoning law suits that were effectively ‎

zoned through a court order of consent judgment and over time a few of them have ‎

come up where there have been changes desired either by the property owner and‎/‎or ‎

the city‎. ‎What the city would be looking at, even though it is not spelled out in the ‎

PUD ordinance, would be that you would have to go back to square one and ‎

someone would have to come and present a plan to the Planning Commission ‎

proposing not only what they are going to do but what changes would be necessary to ‎

the PUD agreement and‎/‎or perhaps the overlay zoning concept‎. ‎It would very similar ‎

to an amended consent judgment process‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran also indicated that it is not ‎

essential to have this written into the PUD agreement but it may beneficial to see if ‎

there is some language that could be put into the document‎. ‎It wouldn‎’‎t hurt to add ‎

another sentence or paragraph referencing any future amendments or modifications‎.‎

Minutes ‎- ‎Special Planning Commission Meeting‎

Tuesday, January ‎27‎, ‎1998‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Staran pointed out that either way the plan would have to come back ‎

through the Planning Commission and the City Council and it would be accepted or ‎

rejected‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran suggested that there could be certain boiler plate language in the ‎

amendment itself‎. ‎For example, language could be included in the ordinance that ‎

could then address how future changes or property owners would go about affecting ‎

the change through an amendment procedure‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran also indicated that the city does not want to get into the business of forcing ‎

developers to complete particular developments‎. ‎A careful review of the process, ‎

careful drafting and approval of any type of PUD agreement would minimize the ‎

possibilities of having empty buildings or partially completed developments within the ‎

City‎.‎

The proposed amendment will be revised and will come back to the Planning ‎

Commission for a public hearing and further review‎.‎

(‎The Commission recessed at ‎8:30‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎and reconvened at ‎8:50‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Discussed

2000-1755

Resolution regarding the Master Transportation Plan ‎1998 ‎Update ‎- ‎Resolution ‎

to City Council regarding the City of Rochester Hills Master Transportation Plan ‎

1998 ‎Update as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan ‎(‎Reference ‎

draft documents previously distributed‎).‎

MOTION ‎by Rosen, supported by Nowicki, ‎RESOLVED, ‎that the Planning ‎

Commission hereby adopts the following resolution to set a new public hearing for the ‎

purposes of the review of modifications to the final draft of the Master Transportation ‎

Plan ‎1998 ‎Update dated ‎November, ‎1997‎ ‎(‎Figure ‎21‎) ‎with the following inclusions ‎

and exclusions‎:‎

Inclusions‎:‎

1‎.‎ Dequindre will be designated as a ‎major arterial ‎(‎four lane boulevard‎) ‎from the ‎

southern city limits to the northern city limits‎.‎

2‎.‎ Avon Road from Rochester Road to Dequindre will also be included as a ‎major ‎

arterial‎ ‎(‎four lane boulevard‎).‎

3‎.‎ Avon Road from Rochester Road west to Livernois will be included as a ‎minor ‎

arterial‎. ‎

4‎.‎ Rochester Road will be included as a six lane residential boulevard or a modified ‎

six lane boulevard conforming to the plans from the City of Troy‎.‎

5‎.‎ Rochester Road will be a six lane residential boulevard from the southern city ‎

limits to Avon Road‎. ‎

6‎.‎ Hamlin Road from Livernois to Rochester Road will be designed as a ‎major ‎

arterial ‎(‎four lane boulevard‎). ‎

Exclusions‎:‎

1‎.‎ Orion Road will not be designated as a‎ major arterial ‎(‎four lane boulevard‎) ‎and ‎

will be included as a ‎minor arterial ‎(‎three lanes or two lanes with major ‎

turning lane provisions either center or side‎).‎

2‎.‎ Tienken Road will not be designated as a ‎major arterial ‎(‎four lane boulevard‎)‎ ‎as ‎

currently shown in Figure ‎21‎ and will be included as a ‎minor arterial ‎(‎three ‎

lanes or two lanes with major turning lane provisions either center or side‎).‎

3‎.‎ Livernois from the end of the four lane residential boulevard north to Tienken will ‎

not be included as a ‎major arterial ‎(‎four lane boulevard‎) ‎but will be included ‎

as a ‎minor arterial ‎(‎three lanes or two lanes with major turning lane ‎

provisions either center or side‎).‎

4‎.‎ Avon Road from Livernois to Rochester Road will be excluded as a ‎major ‎

arterial‎ ‎(‎four lane boulevard‎) ‎but will be included as a ‎minor arterial‎ ‎(‎three ‎

lanes or two lanes with major turning lane provisions either center or side‎). ‎It ‎

should be noted that the proposal being discussed this evening does not ‎

include Livernois from Hamlin to South Boulevard as a ‎major arterial ‎(‎four ‎

lane boulevard ‎) ‎as it did in ‎1989‎ and has been downgraded to a ‎minor ‎

arterial ‎(‎three lanes or two lanes with major turning lane provisions either ‎

center or side‎).‎

5‎.‎ The remaining roads will remain as proposed in ‎Figure ‎21‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin asked for clarification of the Preferred Alternative Scenario ‎(‎Figure ‎

21‎)‎

which shows Rochester Road north of the City of Rochester proposed for a six lane ‎

residential boulevard cross section‎. ‎Is this to be included?‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that at this stage this will not be included‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that since this is currently reflected in the Preferred Alternative, ‎

this may be an additional change‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that he thought this was from the southern city limits of Rochester to ‎

South Boulevard‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin then asked for verification on whether or not the principal arterials ‎

should be eliminated for Rochester Road north of Tienken?‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber pointed out that this is not what is reflected on the Preferred Alternative ‎

Scenario; it is not shown as a principal arterial it is shown as a major arterial‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rosen noted that Mr‎. ‎Gaber is correct‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin said that Rochester Road was not proposed as a six lane boulevard‎. ‎

If it is being proposed as a six lane boulevard, it would then be a principal arterial‎. ‎

The second point is that as a principal arterial, it would be shown in Figure ‎21 ‎as a ‎

principal arterial north of Tienken‎. ‎Should this then be downgraded or is this to ‎

remain the same as the rest of Rochester Road?‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen ascertained that the principal arterial designation meant six lanes, from ‎

South Boulevard to the southern limits of the City of Rochester‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen was never ‎

under the impression that it went north and Figure ‎21 ‎only indicates a major arterial ‎

not a principal arterial‎.‎

The change to Rochester Road is an increase in lane numbers from the original Figure ‎

21 ‎for the area from South Boulevard to the southern city limits of Rochester‎. ‎This ‎

does not include north of the city limits of Rochester‎. ‎This should be a ‎major arterial‎ ‎

as proposed in Figure ‎21‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa expressed his lack of support for listing Hamlin Road as a major arterial ‎

from Livernois to Rochester Road that builds a four lane divided boulevard through a ‎

purely residential area basically cutting off two large subdivisions from each other and ‎

serves no purpose‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Krupa would like to see Hamlin Road designated as a minor ‎

arterial‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell noted that the earlier discussion on the PUD indicates that ‎“‎streets shall ‎

be designed to discourage through traffic while promoting safe and efficient traffic ‎

operations within the site and at the access point‎.‎” ‎If this concept is desirable for a ‎

specific site it should be desirable for the entire city‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Boswell does not feel that in ‎

this case Hamlin should be made into a major arterial between Livernois and ‎

Rochester Road all it does is create an avenue of cut‎-‎through‎. ‎There are some areas ‎

that could be improved; the intersections in front of the school and the addition of a ‎

lane‎. ‎Other than this, Mr‎. ‎Boswell does not see any reason to make this section any ‎

more than a minor arterial‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber pointed out that the reason that Hamlin Road was designated this way was ‎

because of the fact that you would have a traffic pattern all the way down Hamlin ‎

Road and Hamlin Road from Livernois all the way to Adams on the west side will be ‎

four lanes‎. ‎The traffic patterns would be coming down Rochester Road to go west ‎

and this was the intent of including this stretch of Hamlin Road to increase the ‎

continuity so that you don‎’‎t have a bottleneck in this area‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber also noted that this project has already been funded by City Council in ‎

1997 ‎for $‎540‎,‎000‎. ‎City Council has made the decision already to expend monies to ‎

go forward with this particular project‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa pointed out that what has been stated and what City Council has done is ‎

vote to improve Hamlin Road‎. ‎The actual physical design and layout has not even had ‎

any process put to it and they have decided to acquire right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎The way the ‎

plans are currently being designed to widen Hamlin Road to service the commercial ‎

facilities that are on Hamlin Road from Livernois heading east and connecting up to the ‎

tech center merits a boulevard‎. ‎In this section we are talking about a methodology of ‎

how to repair Hamlin Road‎. ‎Three lanes could be put in or the road could just be ‎

adjusted slightly to the south where the footage has already been acquired‎. ‎There has ‎

not been a proposal or a plan or any engineering work done or brought forward on ‎

how this would be laid out‎. ‎The money that has been spent has been along the lines of ‎

land acquisition‎. ‎At this time this area is not designated to be a ‎major arterial‎ in the ‎

current plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing then reported that Hamlin Road from Livernois to Rochester Road is ‎

under contract for design as a four lane boulevard‎. ‎Work has already commenced on ‎

the design for about one third of the project and the city is beginning right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

purchases per the direction of the City Council‎. ‎The city is currently looking at the ‎

possibility of being able to bid and go to construction in ‎1999‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin asked for clarification on whether or not this road segment is being ‎

designed as a four lane residential boulevard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing indicated that the design has been established as a four lane residential ‎

boulevard‎. ‎The City does not have the funding to build it all at once‎. ‎In ‎1999‎, if the ‎

plans are completed in time, half of the boulevard will be built and the balance to ‎

follow as soon as funding can be obtained‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen then noted for the record that the ‎1989 ‎plan, as amended, specified that ‎

this segment of road would be a ‎minor arterial‎ with turning lanes and operational ‎

improvements; not a four lane residential boulevard‎. ‎In this particular case the Master ‎

Transportation has not been adhered to‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser pointed out that the motion on the floor does refer to this area being a four ‎

lane residential boulevard also known as a major arterial‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen acknowledged that the modifications he just presented do indicate this and ‎

based on Mr‎. ‎Krupa‎’‎s comments he was prepared to change this area back to a ‎

minor arterial but now with the understanding that the city has gone ahead Mr‎. ‎Rosen ‎

does not know what his preference is‎. ‎If the motion fails, Mr‎. ‎Rosen would like to ‎

ask for the opportunity to go back and amend this area back to a ‎minor arterial‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero asked if Avon Road from Livernois to Rochester Road should be ‎

classified as ‎minor arterial‎ versus a ‎major arterial‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that this is correct‎. ‎What is significant about the difference between ‎

what is being proposed and what was originally proposed is that Rochester Road is ‎

proposed as a six lane highway‎. ‎This is different than what was studied to some ‎

degree and it follows the scenario that the best thing that can be done for the city is to ‎

get people to the major roads and let these roads be utilized for the heavy traffic‎. ‎In ‎

this case that would be Dequindre ‎(‎north and south‎) ‎to M‎-‎59 ‎(‎east‎/‎west‎) ‎as well as ‎

Avon ‎(‎east‎/‎west‎) ‎to line up with ‎23 ‎Mile Road‎. ‎The route of least resistance being ‎

south on Rochester Road to M‎-‎59 ‎going east and west‎. ‎The difficulty with this issue ‎

is that the area has already been planned and the money is being spent on Hamlin ‎

Road‎. ‎If the Planning Commission does not support this, then this should be ‎

communicated‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero would like to see Avon Road left as a ‎major arterial‎ just up to ‎

Livernois‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out that what you end up with logically is too many choices and if ‎

the route is clear people will take it especially if it is the least resistant‎. ‎That this is the ‎

idea of Rochester ‎(‎north‎/‎south‎) ‎being the major relief valve with Dequindre‎. ‎The ‎

complication surfaces when you encourage traffic on Livernois and it has no where to ‎

go when it arrives further south at Hamlin‎. ‎It is more advantageous if you can get ‎

people on to Rochester Road so that they can get to wherever they want to go ‎

logically‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero noted that because of the improvements on Avon Road between ‎

Livernois and Rochester this really does not impact the residential developments‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero sees this design relieving other areas and providing another corridor for ‎

traffic‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen added that if it was a choice between one or the other, Avon Road would ‎

be the preferred choice of the two‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber, addressing the same point, said that he is not certain that he totally agrees‎. ‎

If you make Avon Road a ‎major arterial ‎east of Rochester Road, then what will ‎

happen when people come westbound on Avon to Rochester Road and they want to ‎

continue going further west or northwest‎. ‎There is no major route to continue going ‎

northwest and that is what this particular stretch of Avon Road would do‎. ‎They ‎

would have to take Rochester Road ‎(‎south‎) ‎to Hamlin to encounter a major arterial to ‎

go west, or they would proceed along a ‎minor arterial‎. ‎This would not only dump ‎

traffic onto Livernois Road but it will also move traffic out to Rochester Road on the ‎

principal arterial to head south‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber is not convinced that this design should be ‎

eliminated from the scenario‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked if the Planning Commission should really worry about people ‎

that are leaving Rochester Hills in the morning and returning at night anymore than ‎

those that are coming from outside the community to travel to get to other places‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber mentioned that there are several concerns‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser added that the designs are trading off where the city is going to let people ‎

move through the city‎. ‎The process at this time is trying to determine where the plan ‎

will allow bottle necking and congestion‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber pointed out that the number one concern on the survey from Oakland ‎

University was traffic congestion‎. ‎Traffic congestion needs to be relieved‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber ‎

understands the discussion‎. ‎However, the meeting tonight is the first step in a long ‎

process to see road improvements completed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber feels the plan provides a broad scenario of options in the city‎. ‎The plan ‎

should not be narrowed down to the extent that this is only possible course to take ‎

from point A to point B‎. ‎The plan needs to give options because the plan will be in ‎

place for many years‎. ‎In the future certain road projects will be completed, underway ‎

or planned for the future‎. ‎There will be a much better opportunity to view the current ‎

situation at this point and time and determine what the current road needs are‎. ‎The ‎

plan should be broad and there should be an opportunity at a later point and time to ‎

make those decisions when there is better information on the traffic patterns and the ‎

current road infrastructure‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen restated that the main logic behind the plan is to provide routes of least ‎

resistance that will get as many people as possible where they need to go‎. ‎It has been ‎

identified that the wave motion is from the northeast to the southwest‎. ‎This includes ‎

the northern and southern directions one way in the morning and one way in the ‎

evening‎. ‎By relieving some of the through traffic it will ease up some of the traffic ‎

concerns already in the area‎.‎

The best service to people from the northeast is to give them a better route than trying ‎

to fight the mile roads‎. ‎If the city simply wanted to provide a series of alternatives to ‎

let someone decide what it they want to do rather than give it some serious thought, ‎

the commission could simply designate all roads as major arterials‎. ‎The job of the ‎

Planning Commission is to use the best judgment to come up with the best plan ‎

available‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen feels that the plan being considered is as close as possible to ‎

what can be achieved‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Krupa stated that most of the traffic is in place and that the city will not be ‎

growing much more‎. ‎Any type of traffic increase will now be coming from outside of ‎

the city limits‎. ‎What has been stated this evening is really a ‎“‎wish list‎” ‎or a future plan ‎

which can be modified later‎. ‎The plan is really a marching order which puts the city ‎

into landlocked areas‎. ‎Since the city council has already taken action against the plan ‎

by looking at some design work, this becomes justification for spending money‎. ‎The ‎

city council has the latitude to ignore the plan in order to look at those other benefits‎. ‎

It would be cautionary to just state the things that are absolutely needed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Nowicki called the question‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ Gaber, Kaiser, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Rosen‎

Nays‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Krupa, Ruggiero ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser explained that the motion for the recommended final draft has passed‎. ‎

The recommended final draft will need to be prepared as to Figure ‎21‎. ‎There will be ‎

another public hearing scheduled in the future‎.‎

Approved

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin updated the Planning Commission on the litigation projects for ‎

Meadowbrook Mall and Spectrum Properties‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin announced that the development reengineering process has started ‎

and will involve Planning, Engineering Services and Building‎. ‎It will be a very formal ‎

and dynamic process and it will cause some delays in the ability to process the current ‎

site plans‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also indicated that the building renovations to the city hall will be ‎

starting soon‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also informed the commission that over the weekend Mr‎. ‎Tim Hartner, ‎

Plan Examiner in the Building Department passed away suddenly last Saturday‎. ‎The ‎

funeral mass is tomorrow at St‎. ‎Mary‎’‎s‎. ‎Heartfelt sympathy goes out to the family‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for Tuesday, February ‎3‎, ‎1998‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the special meeting at ‎9‎:‎55 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎