Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

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

p.m. in the Council Conference Room.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Nicholas Kaltsounis,

Nathan Klomp, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

8 -

Greg Hooper

Absent

1 -

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0257

June 16, 2009 Regular Meeting

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

as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated June 2009

B) Clinton River Review 2009 at Oakland Univ. Announcement

There were no further Communications brought forward.

Mr. Hooper entered at 7:07 p.m.

ROLL CALL

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

Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet

Yukon

Present

9 -

NEW BUSINESS

2009-0271

Request for Recommendation of an Extensions Policy for

Site Plans, Subdivision Plats and Site Condo Plan

developments.

(Reference: Memo dated July 2, 2009 and Extensions Policy, dated July

1, 2009 prepared by Derek Delacourt, had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Mr. Delacourt noted that the Planning Commission spoke at the last

meeting regarding having a formalized Extensions Policy based on the

number and type of Extension requests over the past few years. Some

projects were on the third or fourth review. Staff and the Planning

Commission thought it was important to draft a Policy to guide them in

reviewing the Extensions - something simple to use and fairly easy on the

applicants, but something that also protected the City and kept approved

projects in good standing. Staff drafted a Policy, and he felt it

represented what the Planning Commission had discussed. He noted

that the Policy had been reviewed and approved by Mr. Staran, the City

Attorney. Mr. Delacourt also mentioned the motion in the packet to

recommend the Policy for City Council adoption.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked about projects in foreclosure. He asked if they

should consider those.

Mr. Anzek said that Grace Parc was a good example of a property which

had been foreclosed. He spoke with the bank personnel, and they

authorized Mr. Mancini, the applicant, to proceed on their behalf, because

they wanted to keep the project alive. He got that in writing and confirmed

it verbally. He reminded that a policy was a guideline; it was not law.

There would always be some mitigating circumstances. Someone might

not be able to bring an escrow up to date currently, but if they liked the

project, the Planning Commission could still recommend an Extension.

Mr. Kaltsounis brought up PUDs. Mr. Anzek said that PUDs were done

on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Delacourt agreed, and said they had

requirements for expiration that the City Attorney and Council had to go

through to end a contract. He did not feel the Policy would apply to

PUDs, since they each had separate contracts.

Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Schroeder moved the following motion:

Motion by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, that the Rochester Hills

Planning Commission hereby recommends that City Council adopt the

Extensions Policy for Approved Site Plans, Subdivision Plats and Site

Condo developments dated July 1, 2009, based on discussion at the

June 16, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting and presented for

consideration at the July l7, 2009 Special Planning Commission

Meeting.

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

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

and Yukon

9 -

2009-0272

Request for Recommendation regarding street lighting for the

roundabout at Hamlin and Livernois.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated July 2, 2009 had

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

Present for the discussion was Paul Shumejko, City’s Transportation

Engineer; Marc Matich, Traffic Engineer; and Timothy C. Miller, DTE

Account Representative.

Chairperson Boswell reminded that the request was very specific to the

roundabout. He clarified that he was not implying it might not have

influence down the road when they did the entire City lighting policy,

especially for other roundabouts. They were looking at the

Hamlin/Livernois roundabout only, and whatever they chose, it could

have influence on further discussions, but it did not mean that they would

be chosing a particular pole and lighting system for other places.

Mr. Anzek stated that by way of history, Mr. Hooper, as President of

Council, had asked the Planning Commission to take on consideration of

development of a citywide street lighting policy. Mr. Hooper felt that the

Planning Commissioners should weigh in because they dealt with the

aesthetics of the community, lights on private property and how things

aligned in the City. Since the first CIP discussion in May, there had been

a hurried request for a decision for the Hamlin/Livernois roundabout ,

which would soon be under construction and could not open without the

lighting in place. They had to decide the spacing and style of lighting.

Staff worked with DTE to get some options, and they had a meeting with

representatives in June at City Hall. DTE brought samples of the

teardrop lighting and black fluted pole, and they talked about the

advantages and disadvantages. DTE was asked to bring back some

other alternatives for consideration at the Special Meeting. Concerns

raised included height, smooth pole versus textured pole, the ability of a

textured pole to have banners and street signs, long term maintenance,

strength of the pole, number of poles and spray of light from the

luminaires.

DTE brought four options, including pricing. Mr. Anzek advised that cost

was not the driver for the Planning Commission - it was aesthetics - but

price would influence things. One issue discussed was safety and people

moving through dark and bright spots in the roundabout, which depended

on the spacing of the lights. Mr. Anzek pointed out the options for the

lights, which were the teardrop, the two mongoose options and the

standard cobrahead. The footcandles were of concern, and they were

listed for each option and ranged from 2.2 to 2.8. The Commission was

also concerned about the number of poles. With the cobrahead, they

would need 26 poles. The ratio was critical, which told of the patterns of

going from bright to dark. The higher the ratio, the worse it was. The

second option, Mongoose #2, went from 12.0 to 1 ratio, which was not

good. The rest were fairly similar, but Staff did not believe the #2 was

acceptable.

Mr. Reece asked if there was an industry standard for the ratio. Mr. Miller

said that there were 46 different standards, depending on the design. DTE

would send the results to OHM, and they gave opinions about them and

determined what should be used. DTE tried to keep things under a 3 to 1

ratio.

Mr. Anzek noted the number of poles needed for each option. The

Mongoose option 2A would require 18 poles. The group was given a

photo of option 2 and 2A (Mongoose) and the standard cobrahead. Mr.

Anzek said that he had a chance to see the teardrop lights while on

vacation in Ohio. He said they were fine and somewhat ornate. The

question was which would be the appropriate fixture for the roundabout.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked why there was such a large difference in the

average minimum ratio for lights that were very similar looking (the two

Mongoose options). Mr. Miller said it was because of the additional three

lights between option one and two, which dramatically affected the

numbers.

Mr. Delacourt noted that there was not a photometric provided for option

two because no one felt OHM would approve that configuration. The

group agreed to eliminate option two. Mr. Matich said that it was shown

for comparison; they could not get the same lighting out of that Mongoose

option.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if the cost included finishing, such as painting. Mr.

Miller confirmed that the estimates were for everything in the ground. Mr.

Kaltsounis asked if the pole was painted or powder coated, and Mr. Miller

said it was painted at the factory. Mr. Schroeder asked if it included

conduit wiring and cables, and Mr. Miller confirmed it would be the

finished product as seen in the field.

Mr. Dettloff clarified that the cost was the total cost, not the City’s cost. He

asked if the City would be responsible for 20% of the total. Mr. Anzek said

that had yet to be determined. The City believed the State would pay a

certain amount, but they might have to pay for better lighting or 20% of

the better lighting. He referred to lighting standards, and said that the

Road Commission required lighting, but they would not set standards.

MDOT was paying for it, but they would not set standards. Someone had

to determine the safety factor, so it fell back to OHM, as the design

engineers, to sign off. He referred them to the photometrics that had

been included.

Mr. Matich reminded that the height of the poles would be to the top of the

fixture. The lower the height, the more poles required.

Mr. Reece asked how close the poles would be to the curb, and Mr. Miller

advised that they would be five feet away. Mr. Shumejko said it would be

between the pathway and the back of curb. Normally, they tried to

maintain a three-foot clearance with the pathways. There would be four

located in the splitter islands and three on the boulevard on Hamlin west

of Livernois. If they went with option 2A, they would get one additional

light on each approach leg. There would be dual lights in the boulevard.

Mr. Reece asked if any of the options would be on concrete bases or if

they would be on grade. Mr. Miller advised that they would be on

concrete foundations but on breakaways also. Mr. Reece asked how far

above finished grade the base would be. Mr. Matich said it would be no

more than six inches. Mr. Reece considered that the bases would be

covered with snow in the winter, and he had mentioned earlier that a

benefit of the cobra pole was that the base would be higher and more

protected from the elements.

Mr. Matich responded that the cobrahead was a non-breakaway, and it

was more for parking lots. Mr. Schroeder asked if there was a standard

bolt pattern for all of the lights. Mr. Miller said that each pole had its own.

Mr. Schroeder asked if the pole had to be replaced, if they would use

another pole or if the foundation would have to be replaced. He asked if

the bolt pattern would fit other poles. Mr. Miller was not sure. Each

manufacturer had a bolt pattern for the foundation that was poured. Mr.

Schroeder said that if the pole was not available, they would have to

replace the foundation. Mr. Miller said it would not be an issue. He

stated that DTE had been in business for a long time, and their goal was

to work with the City. They would own and maintain the lights, and they

would not put something up that the City would not be comfortable using.

Mr. Matich referred to a standard agreement he had provided. It showed

rates and other items, but he said it was not cast in stone. The contract

could be modified. Mr. Miller agreed, and said it was not uncommon for a

contract to be reviewed by both legal departments.

Mr. Hooper asked about an option without Edison’s maintenance

agreement. Mr. Miller said that for that option, the City would own and

maintain everything and get energy only. The cost would be the same for

the product. Mr. Hooper clarified that if they took option one, there would

be an additional cost. Mr. Miller said he did not look at it from an energy

only perspective, because that was not how the City did things. The pole

selection was the topic, and if they wanted to get into the lighting

business, it would be a different scenario. He would have to come up with

other cost estimates.

Mr. Anzek asked what would happen if the City wanted to end the contract

in three years. Mr. Matich said the City would be committed for the first

three years, and then they could go on a month-by-month payment. Mr.

Miller advised that when Edison put something in the field, it was an

asset, and it had a long-cycle cost and depreciation. With three years

into a contract, they would not have their “asset” paid. If the City wanted

out, it would be costly. Mr. Schroeder asked how long they amortized

something, and Mr. Miller said it was about 20 years. He talked about

lighting expenses for an individual light.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to the red finish on the mongoose pole. He felt

that if the poles were finished with something other than galvanized steel,

that it would go along way, even if they used something basic. He thought

that something painted a glossy black would give something different to

the intersection, and it might be all they needed, because there was

commercial around it. He did not think they needed something too

dressy for that particular intersection. Mr. Miller said that everyone had

different input about lighting. They used black because it looked good,

and it worked well, and it was easy to stock and inventory. It also did not

stand out so much.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if the cobrahead came in black, and Mr. Miller said

he had not seen any. Mr. Delacourt pointed out that they would have to

go from 18 to 26 poles if they went with the cobrahead. Mr. Kaltsounis

said it was very standard, and if the City had to paint it, they could. The

City could maintain it. Mr. Miller said that with option one DTE would do

that - the City would not have to touch them. Mr. Shumejko added that

the City did not have the resources to fix them. Mr. Matich said to also

consider that they they could not hang banners or signs on the cobra

poles.

Chairperson Boswell brought up that when someone drove into

Rochester, they could see a hodgepodge of lights, and they had banners

hanging from standard poles. Mr. Matich believed those poles were

designed for the banners.

Ms. Brnabic asked how long it took for Edison to respond when a pole

went down or a light burned out. Mr. Miller stated that their response time

this year had dramatically improved because everything was done on

line. Mr. Matich advised that they were obligated to respond within 14

days, but it was usually within seven. Ms. Brnabic felt that was a long

time. Mr. Matich assured that if it were a hazardous condition, and the

wires were connected, that they would come out right away.

Mr. Klomp clarified that the Commissioners' goal was to talk about the

kind of lights they liked, and that it had nothing to do with the arrangement

between the City and DTE. Mr. Anzek agreed, and said that City Council

would be looking for a recommendation from the Commission about the

appearance of the lights. Mr. Delacourt added that if the City wanted to

evaluate its lighting for the entire City, it should be done when the citywide

policy was being investigated.

Chairperson Boswell reiterated that the topic they were discussing was

only about what they would like to see on the roundabout. Council had to

make a decision in order for it to open. Mr. Matich said that because the

project was Federally funded, when they took the application, Detroit

Edison was approved under the “force” account. The force account work

was something approved through MDOT when they did not directly bid an

item. It was a sole source, and all the other lighting had been the same

avenue with Detroit Edison. MDOT signed off on it as part of the release

of the entire Federal grant money, so they were locked in with Detroit

Edison.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the galvanized pole (cobrahead) was a standard stock

item, which Mr. Miller confirmed. Mr. Dettloff asked if the black pole was

becoming a standard stock item. He recalled that at the meeting a few

weeks ago, Mr. Schroeder had a concern that the black pole would not be

a stock item. Mr. Miller said that there were many standards in poles. If

someone went to ten cities, there would be ten different standards. He

tried to come in with a pole that was stronger, sensible and more flexible.

They were putting the pole in at 26 Mile and M-53, because MDOT saw

the idea behind it and how they were doing things in terms of a standard.

A traditional cobrahead came in fiberglass, which was the cheapest way to

go, but he did not feel that was what the City wanted. Over time, the paint

might fail. He said he could come back with any solution they wanted.

He indicated that he was not trying to be evasive; there were a lot of

different poles and ways to do things. They tried to come up with

something that would give uniformity and flexibility, with the break away

option, because it was for a roundabout. He felt it was a great alternative.

He said he could research options for the cobrahead.

Mr. Reece asked if the cobrahead pole was available with two lights,

suggesting that they could reduce the number of poles. Mr. Miller said

that they looked at it, but the light patterns were different. The group

looked at the lighting patterns for the two options. Mr. Reece asked if

option 3 did not allow the banners, and Mr. Miller said he would look into

it.

Mr. Hooper asked if the 120 volt power was typical on all the poles and if

they could plug into the light, which Mr. Miller confirmed. He asked if that

was part of the price, which Mr. Miller also confirmed. Mr. Hooper clarified

that it would apply to the teardrop, the mongoose and the cobrahead. Mr.

Miller said he had never seen a g.f.i. on a cobrahead, but that did not

mean they could not engineer one.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to paint finishes failing, and he asked what would

happen if they got the extruded aluminum pole and the paint finish failed.

Mr. Miller said they would come out and paint it. Mr. Kaltsounis asked if

that would be the same for galvanized. Mr. Miller said it would not cost

the City anything, and they would take care of it. Mr. Kaltsounis asked if

they used a regular cobrahead with a painted finish, if that would fall under

the same thing. Mr. Miller was not sure he could find a cobrahead in

black.

Mr. Anzek asked how the pole held up to salt. Mr. Miller said that the pole

had been out about two years, and salt had not been an issue. He said

they would not want to maintain things and spend a lot of money. Their

goal was to put things up and not have to come back and fix them all the

time. He noted that every issue they have had was handled by their

supplier Halophane, and they only used premier manufacturers.

Mr. Schroeder asked if there was a manufacturer’s warranty on all the

poles, which Mr. Miller confirmed. Mr. Schroeder cautioned that the City

would be paying maintenance when there was already a warranty. Mr.

Miller explained that DTE would handle the maintenance.

Mr. Klomp asked if fewer lights meant less energy. Mr. Miller agreed

more lights would be more energy. They further discussed the pros and

cons of sodium lighting, mercury and LED lighting. LED lighting was still

problematic and had not evolved, and it did not work well in colder states.

Mr. Anzek thought the next step was to choose between the light heads. It

boiled down to whether the Commissioners wanted the cobrahead, with

more poles and energy use, versus the teardrop or the mongoose.

Chairperson Boswell stated that there were several Commissioners that

were concerned the fluted pole would not be around long. The standard

galvanized pole had been around forever. Mr. Delacourt commented that

it was a new pole at one time, too. Chairperson Boswell agreed, but he

said that some were worried DTE would not be able to get the proposed

pole because the manufacturer stopped making it.

Mr. Miller suggested that they could stop making the cobrahead.

Chairperson Boswell said that would have to be the Commission’s

consideration if chosen. He said that he liked the fluted pole because it

cut down on signage. They would not have to have a sign next to it on a

pole. If they wanted to decorate circles, they would be able with that pole.

Mr. Dettloff agreed, and said that the proposed pole, long term, had more

flexibility for the City to do different things. They could put various lighting

heads on the pole. Mr. Miller said that once they got the pole

established, the arm on the teardrop and the mongoose were the same.

They might want the teardrop in another section of the City.

Chairperson Boswell said that if the pole were chosen and the cobrahead

was the lamp people wanted, he wondered if that combination would work.

Mr. Miller said he would have to check to make sure the fitting and pole

were the same. Mr. Yukon remembered asking that question previously,

and he recalled that at the time, Mr. Miller did not believe it was possible.

Mr. Delacourt noted that the cobrahead fixture was similar to the

mongoose fixture. It appeared that the cobrahead would be much less

efficient, however, because they would need many more light fixtures.

Chairperson Boswell agreed and said if people wanted the cobrahead,

there would still be 26 poles. Mr. Matich added that the annual

maintenance costs would be higher.

Mr. Klomp said that he liked the teardrop, and he knew they were not

supposed to factor in the cost that much, but he felt that the mongoose

was not viable if they wanted to save money. Ultimately, his decision

would be one or two.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if there would be any ramifications about what they

told developers they could do with parking lots if they chose the teardrop.

He wondered if a developer could force the City to allow that if they chose

the teardrop for Livernois. Mr. Delacourt reminded that going with the

lower, more efficient poles would be much more in keeping with what they

already required of applicants. He would be concerned about choosing

the other options, which would be the opposite of what they now requested

from developers.

Mr. Reece asked if they could get the black pole with the mongoose,

which was confirmed, and he asked if they could get the cobrahead with

the black pole. Mr. Miller said he had to get that answer.

Mr. Yukon asked why they were not eliminating option 2A, and Mr.

Delacourt said it was because the average to minimum ratio was

approvable by OHM. Mr. Klomp said he was talking about 2A to option

one; less poles with option one; less lights, better light ratio. For the

savings, he felt option one was a more attractive light. Option 2A did not

seem as sensible.

Ms. Brnabic said she was more comfortable that they were just deciding

about the roundabout, and that they would continue with the rest of the

circumstances later. Hearing all of the conversation, she was leaning

more towards the teardrop for the roundabout. She still thought there were

open-ended questions, because they had been put in somewhat of a

sudden situation. Chairperson Boswell agreed, but stated that it had to be

decided. Ms. Brnabic said she was comfortable because of the way

Chairperson Boswell started the meeting - that the discussion would be

about the roundabout only, and that there would be further discussion

about citywide lighting later. Chairperson Boswell said he was not saying

there could not be ramifications, especially for other circles. They could

be very similar, but their decision did not have any influence on anything

other than roundabouts. He could think of many places in Rochester

Hills where the pole and teardrop would not look very good. Ms. Brnabic

agreed, because it would present a historical look for Rochester Hills,

which was not how it looked everywhere.

Mr. Hooper asked if the lights would provide adequate lighting for

pedestrian crossings in all places. He asked if it would take care of the

proposed hawk lighting. Mr. Mattich said they could not implement the

hawk signal into the lighting design, and they did not know how the two

would be accommodated at the same time. They did not anticipate the

pole locations for hawk signals. Mr. Shumejko showed locations for the

hawk signals if they were to go into effect. He pointed out the

photometrics. Mr. Hooper asked if they would have to move the poles a

little bit to accommodate the system. Mr. Mattich asked if he was

wondering if they could use the street light poles for the hawk signals, to

which Mr. Hooper agreed, and Mr. Shumejko said he believed that the

answer was yes.

Mr. Hooper said that the City’s motto was “historic, distinctive,

progressive,” and he pointed out that comments were made about the

pole being historic and the mongoose style being progressive.

Chairperson Boswell asked if any Commissioners had an objection to

recommending the black, fluted pole. Mr. Reece said he could not

support it, and Mr. Schroeder felt it was “overkill.” He said there was a big

difference between street lighting and walkway lighting, and they were

lighting a roadway. It was his opinion that the pole was too decorative for

lighting roadways. Mr. Reece asked them to think about the

Livernois/Hamlin intersection. It was not a walking path and there were

not a lot of people walking west of Livernois - it was more of an industrial

area. If they wanted to portray that type of image for Rochester Hills in a

downtown area, he felt that would be fine. However, he did not care for it,

and he did not think it was the style the City was trying to portray. He felt it

would be great in an historic area in the future, but he did not think it was

progressive. He thought they should be careful. It was an extruded pole

with a lamp on the end, and the reason the photometrics were so different

was because the centerline from the cobra pole to the light was

dramatically different from the centerline of the other head. It cast a

brighter spot. He stated that they were comparing apples to oranges from

a photometric standpoint.

Mr. Kaltsounis questioned what the final product would look like, noting

that they could only see the light without the pole. Mr. Delacourt said that

the pole would be the same as option one. There was a representation of

it which was not exact, but it was close (he referred to the picture of a red

pole and light which had been passed out). Mr. Shumejko said that the

cobra would be 28 feet, six-inches to the top. The bottom of the teardrop

lens would be 23 feet high. Mr. Reece asked if the cobra would be five

feet back, and Mr. Delacourt advised that all three options would be five

feet from back of curb.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if there was a problem with creep. Mr. Miller said

they chose the pole because it was much stronger than those in the past.

Chairperson Boswell stated that the majority of the Commissioners liked

the fluted pole. He took a straw vote, which was seven to two for that pole.

He reiterated that their decision would have an influence on other

roundabouts in the City. He indicated that he liked the pole because it

gave the City a chance to put up fewer poles and no signposts. Mr.

Reece said he would like to see the cobra pole, and he could not believe

they could not put banners on it for $66,000.00. Mr. Delacourt said they

still needed metal street signage, not just a cloth banner, and he felt that

was where the difference occurred.

Chairperson Boswell asked the Commissioners about the light. Mr.

Klomp said they were talking about mongoose or teardrop and for less

than $1,000 each, they would need less poles with the teardrop, less

lights, better coverage, and he thought it was more attractive. Mr.

Kaltsounis liked the mongoose head. Mr. Dettloff said that for this

particular area, he would support the mongoose. He thought it would look

appropriate there, and that the teardrop would be fine for other areas.

Chairperson Boswell commented that his vote would be for the teardrop.

Mr. Schroeder noted that there would be more lights, but he felt that the

mongoose would look better. Mr. Hooper agreed with having fewer poles,

and he went with the teardrop. Ms. Brnabic said that it she would support

the teardrop, but that it would not be a major issue if they went for the

mongoose. Mr. Reece chose the mongoose.

Chairperson Boswell summarized that the vote was 5-4 for the mongoose.

Mr. Reece asked if there were options for the base, noting that they had

shown a pole with the clamshell base. Mr. Delacourt thought they could

find a base that was less ornate; he realized the Planning Commission

wanted to keep the pole as simple as possible while allowing flexibility.

Mr. Anzek suggested that the light looked more ornate when it was two

feet away from them, but he reminded that people would be driving by at

20 miles per hour and it would be up high. He thought that the flexibility

the pole offered gave the City an advantage in terms of hanging street

signs or decorative banners to promote the City. He thought the pole

would not be that noticeable driving by, five feet off the sidewalk. He also

reminded that the heads could be changed, but that would affect the

spacing of the poles. He thought they could compensate for the spray if

they changed lights with lenses and wattage. Mr. Hooper clarified that the

cobrahead pole was galvanized.

The members discussed the bases, and it was confirmed that they did not

have to go with the clamshell base. Mr. Klomp hoped that they were not

inventing something really different with the combination they were

proposing.

Chairperson Boswell stated that it was the opinion of the Commission that

the pole would be black, have little decoration at the base, and use the

mongoose head. He chose to take a formal vote, and Mr. Kaltsounis

moved the following motion:

Motion by Kaltsounis, seconded by Dettloff, the Rochester Hills Planning

Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve street

lighting as presented at the July 7 Special Planning Commission

meeting: Mongoose - Option #2A, a flexible use, black, fluted pole with

the ability for banners and street signs, with a mongoose luminaire, and

elimination of the clamshell base.

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

and Yukon

9 -

Chairperson Boswell reminded that the task over the next year would be

to study the other lighting issues that were raised. Mr. Schroeder asked if

there would be a policy established for the location of street lights. He

stated that they should establish a uniform lighting fixture; otherwise, they

would have an eclectic system in the City. Mr. Hooper said they would

work on an overall policy of how people would apply for

lights,reimbursement, type, etc. Mr. Schroeder said he was referring to

lighting the main streets, not subdivisions. He said they should take

advantage of road contracts, and see how they could get things paid. He

asked Mr. Miller if DTE amortized their system, and he replied that they

did, for 20 years. Mr. Hooper added that they should determine if they

wanted lighting at major intersections, major crosswalks, schools zones,

or safety paths only. Mr. Schroeder said they definitely should have it for

major intersections. Chairperson Boswell concluded that those were the

topics they would be discussing, and that Mr. Hooper had asked them to

have those discussions because it needed to be done.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Kaltsounis asked about Dayco/Mark 1V and if they left the City. Mr.

Anzek advised that Magna Electronics had moved into Dayco's previous

facility, and that Dayco left.

Mr. Davis expressed that Staff was trying to gauge what involvement they

should have regarding the street lighting policy. He asked if there was

something they could provide and the associated timeframe. He

wondered if the Planning Commission wanted them to draft a policy and

present it at the next meeting or the subsequent meeting. They could

work with Edison and come back with some options. They had focused

on the roundabout, but they had to discuss various corridors and what

type of lighting schematics they wanted for those. He noted that they had

four or five projects in the CIP specific to street lighting - the Adams and

Crooks corridors and Hamlin Road, for example.

Mr. Anzek stated that no one had a standard. He indicated that Staff had

to research things such as lumens, height, spacing and what type of

fixtures it would take to meet safety factors. They had to discuss the level

of brightness wanted for the City.

Mr. Davis said that other cities had come up with streetscape lighting for

all their business districts, which was not necessarily the same for other

areas of their cities. Along Auburn Road in the C-1 district, the City might

want something more decorative. He was looking for some direction as to

what the Commission would like them to bring back.

Mr. Delacourt suggested that the Planning Staff would have to get

together with the Engineering Staff and come back to the Commission

with a list of questions for which they needed direction. The Commission

could provide input on things they considered important, which would

guide Staff and help with what they eventually provided.

Mr. Kaltsounis commented that if the State required a certain amount of

power, he would expect Staff to give the Commission a decision on the

most efficient way to do things using the least amount of poles. Mr.

Shumejko noted that there were national guidelines. Mr. Kaltsounis said

Staff could recommend that they needed one pole every 40 feet if they

used a certain head, for example. The Commission would then decide

the aesthetics for the places they wanted lighting.

Mr. Davis said that as he listened to the conversation, it seemed that the

Commission liked the decorative style for one area but were adamantly

opposed to it for other areas.

Mr. Anzek agreed that Staff needed to do more research. The

Commission might want decorative poles in the Brooklands, but there

might be areas where they did not want the poles to show at all. They

needed to look at the Master Land Use Plan and come back with a

rationale for the way things could be done, and then get direction from the

Commission.

Mr. Hooper stated that they needed a policy in place, and then City

Council could decide whether or not to spend the money or find out that

people did not want it put in and make a decision. If the homework was

done and out of the way, it would avoid differences of opinion.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if they would be making a street lighting Master

Plan. Mr. Delacourt did not think they would choose something for every

intersection, but perhaps provide a range of options that would be

acceptable. He felt it would be an enormous task to go intersection by

intersection. Most policies identified the goals a City wanted to achieve,

whether it was safety, rural character or something else, and then they

could have a range of options as far as pole height, lumens and things

like that.

Mr. Davis said they would make the attempt to provide some basic

information. They could identify what they currently had and go from

there. Mr. Anzek suggested that the Commissioners started viewing the

lighting in the City at night and determine what was acceptable or not.

Mr. Delacourt asked if the policy would be written by the full Planning

Commission at regularly scheduled meetings or if they wanted to form a

committee with several Commissioners, Staff and perhaps a Council

member. He felt it would slow the process down if they did it at the

meetings, and that a committee could provide recommendations at the

meetings. Mr. Davis agreed, noting there were other issues involved,

such as retaining walls, fences, and other things incorporated into road

projects. They could add those types of items to the policy.

The members generally felt a subcommittee was a good idea, and it was

suggested to add someone from the Traffic, Safety and Advisory Board.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair advised that the July 21, 2009 Regular Meeting had been

cancelled and that the next Regular Meeting was scheduled for August 18,

2009.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Special meeting at 8:47

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary