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

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Planning Commission

Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

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

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

Yukon

Present

9 -

Quorum Present

Also Present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Boswell welcomed Mr. Nathan Klomp, the newest member of

the Planning Commission, and announced that Mayor Barnett wished to

say a few words before the meeting.

Mayor Barnett explained that he came to the meeting to introduce Mr.

Klomp, who was filling the position of former Commissioner Kathleen

Hardenburg, whom the Mayor declared did a fantastic job for the

Commission. He was very happy that Mr. Klomp had joined the ranks of

“this esteemed body.” He told the story of how he first met Mr. Klomp.

There had been a simulated drowning exercise at Spencer Park one day,

and the Mayor was sitting with the Fire Chief. They had alerted all the

people who had entered the Park via the road about the exercise. There

was an off-duty fire fighter in a lifeboat in the middle of the lake.

Unbeknownst to the lifeguards, and at a certain point during the day, the

gentleman was to fall over and simulate a drowning, and they would film

how quickly the lifeguards rescued the victim. They had not planned on

Mr. Klomp out on a run in the back of the park in red lifeguard shorts, and

he did not know about the training drill. When the gentleman fell over,

they saw Mr. Klomp jump in and attempt to rescue the non-drowning fire

fighter. When they got him to shore, the Mayor thought Mr. Klomp was a

lifeguard, and he told him what a great job he did. Mr. Klomp said he was

just jogging by, and he saw someone in the lake. The Mayor remarked

that Mr. Klomp had been jumping into public service ever since,

including serving on RARA, and the Mayor thought this would be a

perfect place for him to get involved in the community.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2008-0518

September 2, 2008 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

and Yukon

9 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated August 2008

B) Clinton River Connection Local Trip Planning Guide

C) Letter from Charter Township of Shelby, dated 09/09/08 re: Master

Plan

D) Letter from C. Burckhardt, Planner for Oakland County, dated

09/09/08 re: Troy’s Master Plan

E) Letter from C. Burckhardt, dated 09/09/08 re: Troy’s Master Plan

review

NEW BUSINESS

2007-0029

Request for Adoption of the 2008 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update (Public Hearing)

(Reference: Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated October 21, 2008 and

March 2008 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update, submitted by The

Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc., had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Mr. Anzek stated that the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) came to a

conclusion in late spring. At that time, it was his desire to have McKenna

Associates review the MTP to make sure there was nothing in it that

worked against the Master Land Use Plan adopted in February 2007. Mr.

Breuckman reviewed it and offered some considerations for the

consultants, and the draft MTP provided to the Commissioners contained

a few changes to the text. Mr. Anzek introduced the team members: Mr.

Joe Corradino and Mr. Jim Hartman of The Corradino Group of Michigan,

Inc.; Paul Shumejko, the City’s Transportation Engineer; and Steve

Dearing of Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc. He advised that they had

worked closely with a very solid technical team, including Jerry Dettloff

and Neall Schroeder of the Planning Commission. There were also

representatives from City Council, MDOT, the Road Commission, the

City of Troy, Oakland University, the Transportation Improvement

Association and several other Staff members. He had asked Mr.

Shumejko to give a little more detail about the process and the extensive

outreach program. He felt that the fundamental reason the consultants

were selected was because of their extensive outreach and public input

programs. There were numerous meetings held, and he felt it paid off

very well for the City.

Mr. Shumejko expressed that he was pleased to present the final update

to the MTP. The process began in December 2006 with initial meetings

with the technical advisory committee, which was comprised of many

good resources and agencies. During the entire process, there were

several public informational meetings which took place at various

locations - City Hall, the library and several schools. They tried to

provide different venues for the public to be able to look at and comment

about the Plan, and a lot of that information was incorporated into the final

report. He noted that in 1989, the City adopted the first Plan, which was

called the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. It was amended in 1991,

and in 1998 the Plan was updated and renamed. There was one final

amendment in 1999, and typically, the updates occurred every six to

eight years and were coordinated with the Master Land Use Plan update.

Mr. Shumejko continued that the process came to closure in February of

2008 and it received the full support of the Advisory Technical

Committee. There were some additions, subsequently, based on

comments from McKenna Associates. There was a joint Planning

Commission/City Council meeting in March 2008. The main intent of the

meeting was to provide an overview of the plan and to show the preferred

alternative. After the presentation, they would open the floor to comments

and questions. He turned the discussion over to Mr. Hartman.

Mr. Hartman said he was the Project Manager for the Plan update. He

advised that there were 14 meetings along the way, and he thanked the

City Staff for their participation. They wanted the document to be flexible

to be able to change as priorities, budgets and timing also did. He also

advised that they held six public meetings. They introduced the project

and their scope of work at the first meeting. They held four workshops,

which he felt were great exercises. They handed out disposable cameras

to find out what made people proud and what they felt needed improving.

It was critical to make it a plan of the residents. They held visioning

exercises, to find out what people wanted to see in the future in Rochester

Hills. In May of 2007 they began to get into the technical aspects and the

deficiencies, both safety and operational. In July they came back with

some alternatives to address those concerns. They asked people to

evaluate factors such as air quality, congestion, safety or noise. There

were three different groups rating. It was interesting to see that all groups

were not that far off. Safety and moving traffic were the most important

items to the community.

During the overall process, the groups evaluated the alternatives based

on those factors and came up with a preferred Plan, which quantified

right-of-way impacts, looked at the parks and non-motorized facilities and

at how everything related. They tweaked everything and came up with

priorities. They met in April 2008 with the Advisory, Traffic and Safety

Board, Planning Commission and City Council.

Mr. Hartman explained that they used SEMCOG’s transportation demand

model that used demographics to forecast traffic to the year 2035. They

made sure it was right for the area and added network and zone changes

to refine it to reflect what was out there today. They discussed roundabout

designs and how people would cross one, especially on Rochester Road,

and the benefits of roundabouts. The Technical Committee discussed

the deficiencies at the intersections and how the future would be

problematic - they were problematic to some degree today. He

suggested that for both sides of the equation, if they had to get together to

widen something, for example, the City would have to work together to

facilitate it with an amendment. The Technical Committee did not get into

that issue, and he felt it would be something the Zoning Ordinance

Technical Committee might have to tackle.

Mr. Hartman listed context, the pedestrian feel and how the road looked,

and said that they were outside of what they looked at, but he assured

there was a lot of flexibility, and that a lot of detail in the document would

help lead to the right decisions when the time came. It would not be the

perfect solution to all the problems, but they considered it a test that might

work on some of the major roads.

Mr. Hartman indicated that the update was being done because land use

had changed, the transportation network changed - there was a new

Adams Road interchange - and there was new development in the last

10-15 years, all of which they tried to reflect in the update. They focused

on the major roads: The State roads included Auburn, M-59 and

Rochester Road; the County roads included South Boulevard, Adams,

Avon, Livernois, Dequindre, Walton, Tienken and Dutton; the major roads

for Rochester Hills were John R, Old Perch and Brewster, and the rest

were categorized as local roads.

Mr. Hartman noted that Rochester Hills was surrounded by growing

communities - Auburn Hills, Shelby Township, Troy and Oakland

Township. Members from those communities were invited and had

attended some of the Technical Committee meetings. Troy had ideas to

deal with improvements to Dequindre, which were put into the Plan.

When they looked at the future road network, they took into account the

existing and committed projects. Those projects were planned but not

built, and solutions for the transportation deficiencies were shown through

the year 2035. Projects in adjacent communities also had an effect on

Rochester Hills’ traffic and planning. In 2035, deficiencies would continue

to get worse - portions of John R, Dequindre and sections north of the

boulevard on Livernois. He mentioned that SEMCOG had modified their

forecasts. They thought the demographics and growth, especially on the

urban fringe, would be a lot greater than they turned out to be. The

consultants did some sensitivity tests as requested by the Technical

Committee. SEMCOG said that traffic was down another 5%. They put

together 30 different alternatives. They started fixing north/south roads

one at a time, but it was not giving them much relief for the future. They

looked at improving one east/west road. They did not see much relief by

just improving South Boulevard, for example. They started to combine

the alternatives, and it was not until years 2020 to 2030 that they would

start to see a lot of congestion relief. They would need a combination of

north/south, east/west road improvements to help traffic. An idea was

raised about doing all perimeter roads, where they could share in the

costs with other communities. They came up with the top seven

alternatives. He referred to evaluation factors and said they looked at

congestion, better connect links, travel time, air quality, noise, right-of-way

impacts and safety, all of which were largely considered. He went over

various tables in his presentation, and said they calculated impacts and

savings and scored citizen input. He pointed out that those

improvements did not include costs, but they looked at that next. They

wanted the community to come up with the plan that made the most

sense, and costs made a difference in the ranking. Alternative 23

originally had Old Perch in the Plan, but the Technical Committee

thought it made better sense to look at the section of Livernois just north

of Hamlin, so that modification was made. Another was to look at

Dequindre Rd. The City saw a lot of benefit to doing that project, but they

did not think they could push it onto Rochester or Shelby Township. They

needed to talk with those communities before moving forward. The

Technical Committee thought it was a great idea to focus on the section

that could have an effect, and that was the section of Dequindre between

Auburn and Avon. That would provide a lot of relief. The intersections of

Avon and Deqindre and 23 and Dequindre by Yates Cider Mill were

looked at. They suggested realigning Dequindre and putting in a bridge

over the valley behind the Cider Mill. It would be about ten million

dollars, but it would really improve the traffic operations at the

intersection. There would have to be right-of-way purchased, but there

would be an opportunity to improve the flow.

Mr. Hartman said they had been focused on the operational side in

selecting the preferred plans - he claimed that safety and operations went

hand in hand - and they did a detailed crash analysis, looking at

vehicular and non-motorized crashes. There were about seven or eight

intersections that were above average for crashes, and Auburn and

Rochester was top in the County.

Mr. Hartman said they suggested adding a right turn lane at Tienken and

Adams on the westbound, southbound and northbound approach. There

was a lot of cut-thru traffic. The Plan was a solution to fix 2035

deficiencies at Rochester and Auburn Road. They could add dual lefts,

thru lanes and other ideas. They looked at a roundabout for that

intersection, something with a significant safety component. It had issues

with flow and the adjacent intersections and potential pedestrian impacts

and land use impacts. They spent a lot of time on the concept, as well as

on traditional concepts, and even recommended improving the section

north of that intersection by adding a series of roundabouts and putting in

a boulevard section between Auburn and Barclay Circle.

Mr. Dearing added that the roundabouts hit the corners to get the circular

roadway. The traditional way of adding more lanes under signal control

still would have right-of-way impacts that stretched down the road in all

directions for ¼ to ½ mile. They could not add a lot of capacity without

some sort of an impact. They would have to trade off a big hit at the

corners and isolate it to the immediate area of the roundabout. Or there

could be “frontage takes” that stretched down the road 1,000 or 1,500 feet

or more, touching many parcels. There was no such thing as a silver

bullet and no painless way of getting those kinds of improvements made,

and they had to be sensitive to the tradeoffs they would accept.

Mr. Hartman advised that they had asked MDOT to address the

intersections on Rochester Road. There was a potential to get some

safety funding, but a roundabout could eliminate about 40% of all

crashes, and there had been 400 over three years at Rochester and

Auburn.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if they showed actual data or data predicted based

upon the conflict points. Mr. Dearing said it was a study done by the

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It was a study of intersections that

had been under signal control and were rebuilt to be roundabouts. They

were actual intersections converted to roundabouts. Mr. Kaltsounis said

he would be interested in seeing the size of the roundabouts and the

volume of traffic. He thought one might work at Livernois and Hamlin, but

Rochester Road had a lot of potential energy around the circle. He

referred to the one at 18 and Van Dyke, when the plant let out, and said it

was a nightmare. He thought it was too small, and that they needed a

radius that was large enough to support a lot of traffic. He said he had

been in a lot of places that had roundabouts, but it was too small there.

Mr. Dearing said there were different practices about roundabout design.

Small translated into slower speeds. He explained that the key to getting

roundabouts to work was keeping them slow. For a multi-lane

roundabout, no one should enter or go through it at much more than

20-23 miles per hour.

Mr. Yukon wondered about the recommendation for deceleration speed,

and if they had to slow the traffic down on Rochester Road, how far back it

would start if they were looking at a roundabout for the intersection.

Mr. Dearing replied that the normal practice was that the posted speed

limit would not change, but the drivers would be told of the advisory speed

to enter a roundabout. During peak rush hour traffic, there would be some

queuing of vehicles waiting to enter the roundabouts, and that was a

self-enforcing way of getting people slower. With multiple-lane

roundabouts, they would have to worry about pedestrian safety, so they

would want vehicles slower. If there were a back up of 10-15 cars waiting

to enter, that would ensure a slow pace for pedestrians to cross. The

design they used in the Plan was the same one used at Maple and

Farmington roads, except that they had three by two lanes, and the one

for Rochester and Auburn showed three lanes entering, circulating and

existing in all directions. The roundabout at Maple and Farmington had

been built and was operating very well.

Mr. Reece asked how the volume of each interchange compared. Mr.

Dearing advised that Rochester and Auburn had an entering traffic

volume of about 75-80,000 from all directions. The peak would be about

10% of the total, so they would have about 7,500 to 8,000 per hour during

those times. At Maple and Farmington, the peak was about 4,500 to

5,000 per hour. He mentioned that there was a roundabout planned in a

year or so for Orchard Lake Road and Maple, which would have 8,000

cars an hour. Mr. Reece asked where there was a roundabout that

handled the volume of traffic such as that at Rochester and Auburn. Mr.

Dearing said the Northwestern projects would be the largest collection of

the highest volume roundabouts in North America. Mr. Reece clarified

that there was not one yet built where they could test for real data.

Mr. Kaltsounis questioned if there was anything in the plan to address

factors of the roundabout to assess if it was a good idea ten years down

the road. He felt there things they were not sure about. Mr. Dearing said

that it was a Plan that represented a vision of 20 years into the future for

the community. They recognized that there was a certain level of

discomfort associated with roundabouts, but they would have the largest

concentration of high volume roundabouts built in neighboring

communities as examples. They would be the pioneers and Rochester

Hills could benefit from their experiences. Even if the City passed a

Resolution saying it wanted that location to look the roundabout, there

would be MDOT bureaucracy to get through, a wait for funding, and it

would probably be eight to ten years away. Mr. Hartman said that the

County required that roundabouts be looked at for every intersection.

Ms. Brnabic asked if the traditional intersection improvement was the first

plan and the roundabout was the alternate or if they would be equally

considered. Mr. Hartman relayed that there was a safety and an

operational deficiency at the intersection. They did not pick a route

because there were many steps and priorities that would go into a

decision. The City would have to buy the right of way and there really was

no money for that. He believed there were great safety benefits to a

roundabout. Mr. Shumejko said that there had always been a lot of

discussion about putting in a six-lane boulevard on Rochester Road.

With a roundabout, because of the capacity improvement, they would

possibly be afforded the opportunity to not need the six-lane boulevard

and eliminate potential impacts to the right-of-way along the corridor.

They could perhaps get away with only a four-lane boulevard with an

landscaped median. That would increase the safety with conflicts from

direct left turns along Rochester Road in front of the Target mall.

Ms. Brnabic said she would need more information and data to convince

her a roundabout was a good idea at that intersection. She was curious

whether the light at Lowe’s had helped alleviate accidents. She felt that

the lanes they put in at Rochester and Tienken were working very well.

Mr. Shumejko said there had been evidence that there was some delay

there based on recent data by the Road Commission. Mr. Reece agreed

with Ms. Brnabic that there was a significant improvement from what it

was.

Mr. Shumejko referred to Ms. Brnabic’s question about the light at Lowe’s,

and said that because of its close proximity to Auburn Road they did not

add a dedicated left southbound into the Lowe’s site. He mentioned that

MDOT was doing a safety audit and corridor study of Rochester Road,

and they were going to look at the signal and the intersections. Ms.

Brnabic thought that having a light to make a left turn out of Meijer's

made a noticeable difference. She said she was not totally against

roundabouts, but she felt they were somewhat confusing. Mr. Shumejko

said it was just another tool in the toolbox and when they did get around to

doing something, it could be taken under consideration.

Mr. Hartman said that the City had asked the consultants to look at the

non-motorized pathway system. He stated that Rochester Hills had an

“awesome” system. They tried to look for gaps and they looked at

accidents.

Regarding roundabouts, it was suggested that the City needed to

consider that they might need right-of-way, and they should plan to move

away from the intersections and widen the right-of-way.

Mr. Anzek said that the basis for doing a Master Thoroughfare Plan was

to identify future right-of-way needs and future intersection improvements.

The Zoning Ordinance had a provision that setbacks should be

measured from planned, future right-of-ways, which was an example of

how the City worked toward a cooperative arrangement with an applicant.

The adoption of the MTP would set the benchmark for measuring for

future development and redevelopment affected by those intersections.

Mr. Schroeder said they would need a Master Right-of-Way Plan adopted

by the City showing the right-of-way. He said that Big Beaver Road had a

Master Right-of-Way Plan for 30 years and every time developers wanted

to do something, they were shown that Plan. Mr. Anzek agreed, and said

that it would be done with the adoption of the Master Thoroughfare Plan

with the map included.

Mr. Hartman referred to the Crooks Road project, which had been

deferred to 2013 north of the boulevard. They had a lot of discussion

about getting capital to the projects to be able to do the second bridge

and make road improvements up to Hamlin Road. The next priority was

to do the first phase of Dequindre. He summarized that there were some

committed, non-motorized plans, and they identified 18 priority sections,

including those across M-59, to be about $5 million. There was about

$20 million in existing committed projects, the City’s share, which would

include the Crooks Road project. The first phase of Dequindre, including

the bridge and the tie behind the Cider Mill would be $19 million; the rest

of Dequindre would follow. The short-term roadway and intersection fixes

would happen when the City felt it was time to move and start planning. In

total, they had recommended about $87 million of roadway

improvements.

Mr. Anzek said that in the future, some of the identified projects and

problematic intersections would start to show up in the Capital

Improvement Plan. He thought they should get them into the Plan to get

moving. They had met with Shelby Township, and the City of Rochester’s

Master Thoroughfare Plan called for the widening of Dequindre. Shelby

Township was very interested in doing it, but because of the cost, it would

take a very strong, solid, committed effort many years into the future.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at 9:02 p.m. Seeing no

one come forward, he closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. Kaltsounis thanked the team members for the work they did on the

Plan. He thought there was a lot of passion involved, and he thought the

public input was great. He agreed with Mr. Anzek about getting the

projects into the CIP and about looking ahead. He thought that Mr.

Schroder’s idea about the Master Right-of-Way Plan and saving space at

the intersections was a great idea also as they looked to the future. He

moved the following motion:

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, that the Planning

Commission hereby adopts the 2008 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update

for the City of Rochester Hills as presented.

WHEREAS, Act 285 of the Public Acts of 1931 (Municipal

Planning Act, as amended), requires the municipal Planning

Commission to prepare and adopt a Master Plan for the physical

development of the municipality; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rochester Hills Code of Ordinances,

Chapter 2-07 established a City Planning Commission with all the

powers, duties, and functions set forth in the Municipal Planning

Act; and

WHEREAS, the City Transportation Plan is an important element

of the City Master Land Use Plan; and

WHEREAS, the "2008 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update" ("the

Plan") has been prepared by the City's professional staff in

consultation with the transportation consulting firms of The

Corradino Group and Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc. and

transportation agencies involved with the City's road system; and

WHEREAS, the Plan has been developed in consideration of

projected future traffic volumes and traffic demand on the City's

road system which have been derived from extensive information

and data that have been collected and used to make projections of

future growth and development in Rochester Hills; and

WHEREAS, the Plan is further based on established criteria and

policies relative to preserving community character and the natural

environment, and strategies to intercept and divert through-traffic

originating outside the City while accommodating local traffic and

facilitating a reasonable level of service on the City's roadways in

the future; and

WHEREAS, input and comments have been received from many

sources including citizens, the City Council, and other public

agencies and surrounding communities regarding future traffic

projections, transportation issues, goals and objectives, alternative

plans, and priority improvement projects through the year 2035;

and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing in

accordance with the Municipal Planning Act on October 21, 2008

and received public comment; and other public meetings were

held by the Technical Committee for the Master Thoroughfare

Plan on November 13, 2007, July 31, 2007 and March 29, 2007

and public workshops were held throughout the month of May

2007; and

WHEREAS, the general public, the City Administration, and other

public agencies need to know the policies that the Planning

Commission intends to use to guide the development of the City's

transportation system; and

WHEREAS, the Plan provides a comprehensive and well-defined

program for improvement of the City's transportation system to

meet the needs of the community for the foreseeable future.

RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of

Rochester Hills does hereby adopt the 2008 Master Thoroughfare

Plan Update for the City of Rochester Hills, and that the Major

Thoroughfare Plan element of the current Master Land Use Plan is

superseded by the 2008 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the adopted Plan in its final

form shall be attested to and transmitted to the City Council of the

City of Rochester Hills, the Oakland County Register of Deeds, the

Oakland County Planning Commission, the Oakland County Road

Commission and the Michigan Department of Transportation.

Mr. Reece stated that the first phase of the Dequindre road improvement

was $19 million, and it was indicated that the cost to realign Dequindre

was about $10 million. Mr. Anzek said that it would be $10 million for the

bridge over the wetland, and the remainder of Dequindre would be the

other $9 million. Mr. Reece clarified that the $10 million excluded any

costs for right-of-way, which Mr. Hartman confirmed, and he added that it

would not include utility work. Mr. Reece asked if the $9 million would be

for the widening of Dequindre, and Mr. Hartman said it would be for about

three miles south. Mr. Kaltsounis echoed Mr. Kaltsounis’ comments and

said it was a phenomenal plan, however, he was struggling about getting

the best bang for their bucks. He questioned $10 million to build a

bridge, and wondered if there was a fairly significant amount of other

improvements that could be made within the City for $10 million that

would help alleviate congestion other than at one particular intersection.

He said he drove Dequindre quite often from 5 to 7:00 p.m. and he said it

was a little bit of a pain at times, but he felt there were certainly other

intersections that were significantly worse from a convenience standpoint.

He asked if the concept was to off-load traffic from other roads onto

Dequindre to make it more efficient and help alleviate congestion

elsewhere. He asked the desire to spend $10 million on the bridge, and

indicated that he could imagine public outcry if that were to happen.

Mr. Dearing agreed that there were a lot of spot improvements that could

be done for $10 million, but they already identified short and long-term

intersection improvements. He stated that sooner or later, they would

have to work on corridors to move traffic. It turned out that the Dequindre

Road corridor gave several types of benefits that other corridors did not

show. If there were people who liked to keep outsiders out of Rochester

Hills, it was a boundary road where doing something about that would

show a significant benefit. "Picking up" Dequindre and "delivering it"

down to M-59 and the freeway system would help alleviate traffic that

would otherwise avoid the corridor because of the Yates Cider Mill and

come into town on Washington, Tienken and Parkdale. The other

boundary roads did not hold anywhere near the promise that Dequindre

did. Going behind the Cider Mill addressed one of the key problems of

trying to otherwise improve the corridor because the Cider Mill was a

historic property. To try to widen Avon in front of the Cider Mill would pose

a detriment to it and to everything that made it valuable to the community

as a resource. Going behind it would be the only way of avoiding the

environmental issues associated with the property. It was a lot of money,

but because it was a border, the costs would be shared between the Road

Commission for Oakland and Macomb Counties, Rochester Hills and

Shelby Township. Mr. Reece asked if $10 million was not the City’s cost.

Mr. Dearing said it was a project cost. The Rochester Hills’ share would

be five pennies on the dollar, so he felt that there would be a large

community benefit for a relatively modest cost.

Mr. Anzek said that the City’s share would be about $1 million. As a

boundary road, there would also be twice as many legislators seeking

support of the road.

Mr. Hooper also agreed with Mr. Kaltsounis that the consultants and the

team did a great job on the Plan. He recalled that the previous Plan

showed improvements to Adams Road, but the current Plan did not

propose any. The best alternative showed Adams becoming increasingly

congested with no relief proposed for the next 25 years. He asked the

reason for leaving Adams out of the equation of the preferred alternative.

Mr. Dearing said that it was not that they did not see any intrinsic value to

making improvements along the Adams Rd. corridor, but they were

always searching for the least miles of improvements that would generate

the largest incremental benefit. Widening Adams would provide a benefit

to the community, but it was not a “big bang for the buck,” whether it was

measured without dollar figures or if you looked at how much it cost to

widen the roads. It was a valuable improvement, but it was not the best

use of very limited resources. It was all predicated on forecasting for

travel patterns, and a wild card would be if Oakland University decided to

put in a major conference center or use it in some way that would

suddenly generate a lot more traffic.

Mr. Hooper said that outside of costs and speaking politically, they

should ask the residents what they would rather see - Dequindre

improved, that would not service many Rochester Hills residents, or

Adams improved, which services quite a few Rochester Hills residents.

He thought it would be hands down for Adams.

Mr. Dearing remarked that if it were simply a beauty pageant method of

choosing road improvements, the preferred alternative would look quite a

bit different.

Mr. Yukon noted that currently in the middle of Livernois where the

Clinton River Trail passes, there is a pedestrian calming traffic device. In

the unimproved areas of the MTP, he wondered if there were plans to put

in more of those types of devices. He added that in the summertime,

when people on the Trail crossed Livernois, they went around the device

and did not wait on the island, which was a concern.

Mr. Shumejko responded that they did not get into that level of detail with

the pedestrian component. When the devices were installed at Livernois

and Avon, the design was in its infancy. They were designed for the

existing two-lane road configuration with limited space. He reminded that

when Hamlin was widened, there would be a full boulevard. They would

take advantage of it to provide a z-pattern crossing and bike trail across

Hamlin, and it would have a much wider refuge island. The ones they

had now were more intermediate until something more permanent

occurred with the roadway. Mr. Yukon also agreed that it was a very good

Plan.

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

Adopted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

and Yukon

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated that the Master Thoroughfare Plan

Update was adopted unanimously. He thanked the gentleman, and

said that he was also highly impressed with the Plan.

Recess from 9:21 to 9:30 p.m.

DISCUSSION

2007-0489

City File No. 07-011 - A request to discuss proposed future development of two parcels of

land totaling approximately 3.8 acres, located at 1590 and 1608 Walton Blvd., east of

Shagbark, Parcel Nos. 15-09-378-018 and -019, zoned R-2, One Family Residential, John

Gaber, PLC, applicant.

(Chairperson Boswell had changed the order of the Agenda to hear the

Discussion item next).

Present for the applicant was John Scaccia, Walton Boulevard

Associates, L.L.C., 1080 N. Opdyke, Suite 220, Auburn Hills, MI 48326

and John Gaber, Williams, Williams, Rattner and Plunkett, P.C., 300 Old

North Woodward, Birmingham, MI 48009.

Mr. Anzek stated that as the Commissioners might recall, when

Conditional Rezonings were permitted by a new Planning Act, The City's

Ordinance allowed an applicant to request a discussion with the Planning

Commission prior to making a formal request. He deferred to the

applicants, and reminded the Commissioners that it was a discussion

only, not a negotiation.

Mr. Gaber corrected that he was not the applicant, as was stated on the

Agenda. He informed that they wished to give their thoughts about

development of the property and to illicit feedback and suggestions from

the Commissioners. They realized that nothing was mandated; they

wanted to put the property to its best potential use. He pointed out that the

subject site was approximately four-acres comprised of two parcels, which

were east of Shagbark on Walton Boulevard, across the street from

townhomes and west of Abiding Presence Church. The last time Mr.

Scaccia was in front of the Commission, he was considering developing

the property with condos. There were issues with the density, and as a

result of the current market conditions, the project was not feasible, and

he had to look at other alternatives. He was now considering a medical

office use, and they would like input regarding that idea. They believed

the site was ideal for that use; it was close to Crittenton Hospital and near

Medi-Lodge nursing home, and there were other offices and commercial

buildings nearby on Walton. He noted that the property would have to be

rezoned for a medical use. They could ask for a straight rezoning to O-1,

but it might or might not be acceptable to the Commissioners. They did

not really see a detriment to the straight rezoning with the uses in O-1

allowing professional and medical offices, banks and nursery schools.

Cell towers would be allowed, but the Commission might not want that use

in the area. They could put a condition on the rezoning so they could not

put cell towers or any other uses the Commission might find

objectionable. They felt that the reason medical office would work in that

location was because O-1 had limited uses; they were not objectionable

uses; the hours would be basically 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; the setbacks would be

greater than for residential; and there would be a Type B Buffer required

(25-foot width and plantings). If they put up a medical office building, it

would be relegated to a single curb cut, and he reminded that residential

would have many. He noted that it was on a major thoroughfare, which

they believed would be better for a medical office building than for

residential facilities. He recalled that there were neighbors that spoke at

the last meeting who raised certain concerns with the condos they

proposed. He pointed out that there was a lot of greenery in its natural

state, and it would be their intention to preserve the existing buffer as

much as they could, as well as add to it. They would rather put in

greenery instead of a fence or wall. He offered that they would be

amenable to a condition with regard to the buffer to ensure there was

enough screening to satisfy the neighbors. In terms of the dimension of

the site, they could possibly agree to extend the distance of the buffer.

He related that they would put up a one-story medical office building;

however with market conditions, it could be have other professional

offices. He put up a drawing showing a configuration they felt made

sense. They would like to have one, boulevarded entrance in the middle

of the site. The building would be approximately 20,000 square feet, and

there would be ample parking. Mr. Gaber concluded that it was the

direction they would like to move if everything went according to their

plans.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Gaber if he knew the occupancy rate for

medical offices in Rochester Hills currently. Mr. Gaber said that Mr.

Scaccia had done a lot of market research, and he surmised that

Chairperson Boswell was asking the feasibility of filling the building. Mr.

Scaccia said they had talked with some doctors who had expressed an

interest in leasing in that location, as tenants or in partnership. He

thought that half of the building could be leased right away. Chairperson

Boswell remarked that half of the building would be empty. Mr. Gaber

reiterated that they would like it to all be medical office, but they would

probably need some flexibility about what office uses could be in the

building in addition to medical.

Chairperson Boswell recalled that Mr. Gaber served on the Planning

Commission and worked on the 1995 Master Land Use Plan. At that

time, the Commission stated that they would like to see commercial and

office confined to specific intersections. He questioned whether Mr.

Gaber was suggesting that they should fill in Walton.

Mr. Gaber said that there was a childcare center on the property and an

old house next to it, which would not be there long term, so the question

was about how they should redevelop the property. They could put in

condos or single-family residential facing Walton, but he questioned

whether that would make the most sense. There was a progression of

uses along Walton from the east that would suggest that single-family

residential might not be the best use for the property. He said he

understood how the property was zoned and master planned. He

suspected that the two parcels were not specifically scrutinized in the

Master Plan update to see whether they should be converted or whether

the designation should stay the same. Chairperson Boswell advised that

on the south side of Walton, there was property scrutinized as to

intensifying the use a little bit, but it was met with strong opposition from

the neighbors.

Mr. Gaber said that they would be willing to go along with conditions to

ensure that the neighbors would not be impacted.

Mr. Kaltsounis pointed out that a church could go in a residential zoning,

and if a church was put there, it would be similar to what the applicants

were proposing. He noted that there were a lot of churches on Walton.

He suggested that if the applicant came back with a proposal, it would

definitely have to be one story, and he would also like to see the Tree

Ordinance complied with as much as possible. In the new Master Plan,

they planned zoning according to the current density of properties, and he

noted that the density proposed was much lower than it had been with the

condos. He was grappling with those types of factors.

Mr. Delacourt commented that there was extensive discussion during the

Master Plan update about the intersection at Rochdale and Walton

(about which Chairperson Boswell spoke) and about the subject parcels.

Parcels to the east of the applicant’s were developed with the Abiding

Presence Church and some other non-residential development and they

were first identified in the Master Plan as Flex Business Use 1. There

were different alternatives shown at different times, ranging from Flex 1 to

office to residential. As the Tech Committee went forward, there was not

100% agreement about which direction the parcels should take. It was

decided that unless it was 100%, they would leave the parcels as they

were, but they would review individual requests as they came forward and

base decisions on whether the situation was the same or if something had

changed since the Plan was adopted. They also agreed to take a harder

look at the corners during the next update in five years.

Mr. Schroeder said that the difficulty would be that they turned down the

rezoning request to office for the southwest corner of Rochdale and

Walton, and there was a traffic signal there and it was a much busier

intersection. They turned down two parcels at Hamlin and Livernois, at

another major intersection. He thought it would be difficult to grant the

applicant’s request, having not granted the other requests.

Mr. Anzek updated the Commission about some happenings in the

Walton corridor. He noted the Abiding Presence Church, which had

another church to its east and east of that was a medical office building

with a nursing center behind it. The nursing home bought the church to

the west with plans to expand the nursing home. Also, he and Mr. Staran,

the City Attorney, met with Mr. Plourde, who owns the parcel at Rochdale

and Walton, and also with the attorney for the Rochdale homeowner’s

association. Mr. Plourde was trying to put an office on his property, but

the lots were deed restricted. The City’s efforts to master plan it office

were principally sound, but the lobbying effort put forth by the residents

convinced the Commission that it should stay residential. He reminded

that the City did not get involved with deed restrictions, but Staff always

tried to apply best planning practices to sites. He thought there was a

strong chance that the southwest corner of Walton and Rochdale might

come in front of the Commission again for a Conditional Rezoning. He

wanted them to be aware that the Walton corridor was starting to have

some transition.

Mr. Dettloff referred to the current occupancy rate for medical and the

nature of the credit crunch, and he wondered if it would make sense to

pursue a market feasibility study. He indicated that the lenders would

want to see something to help substantiate whether or not they were

making a good loan. He asked Mr. Scaccia if he only had a general

discussion with the doctors. Mr. Scaccia said they could not commit to

anything in writing because they did not have anything to sell. Mr. Dettloff

said he understood, but he suggested that they pursue finding out what

would work in today’s market.

Mr. Gaber said he realized the concerns, and he reminded that Mr.

Scaccia had been very successful with his past endeavors, and that he

always built high quality developments. He commented that the lender

and developer would obviously not put their money into the project unless

it was feasible. A market study was something they could look into, to try

and find additional information to assure the Commission that there was a

use for the building. Mr. Dettloff added that they would not want a void,

and Mr. Gaber said that if Mr. Scaccia was not confident he could lease

the building, he would not put his blood, sweat and tears into it.

Ms. Brnabic agreed with the comments, and she added that although the

City could not honor deed restrictions, she felt that they needed to

consider them for this property and for the residents. She recalled the

deed restrictions they encountered with the residents of Juengel Orchards

on Rochester Road, and said that the residents went to court three times

and won against changing the zoning from residential. She wondered why

the City would not consider that, and she thought they needed to draw a

line somewhere. She agreed it would be impossible to consider every

deed restriction, but with some situations, she felt the City had to. When

the City’s vision was different, she did not think it was logical to spend

dollars in court to try to change something. She emphasized that they

had to use caution.

Mr. Anzek responded that there were standards for planning principles,

and that it was not really wise to put single-family homes on extremely

busy streets. They were seen there, but it was not the best. He related

that the City had not spent any money in court; it was a civil matter

between landowners, and the City did not get in the middle of those

debates. The City proposed that the southwest corner of Rochdale and

Walton be planned office because there was office across the streets to

the east and north and a commercial center to the northeast. It made

more sense from a planning perspective to create a node of business

offices, even though they knew it was deed restricted. The attorney for the

homeowners advised him that they did not have a problem with that, but

they would be concerned about further rezonings to office moving south

on Rochdale. He told the attorney for the homeowners that it was highly

unlikely that would happen because the City did not encourage

commercial going into neighborhoods. He explained that the City did not

ignore deed restrictions - they just did not want to let the “tail wag the dog.”

Ms. Brnabic said she understood that there had been situations where it

might not have seemed practical to have single-family, like Rochester

Road, but she indicated that there was a history with that area and

perhaps they had to think about another vision for those areas. Mr. Anzek

said that where they were aware, they advised prospective applicants

about the deed restrictions and that they needed to resolve that issue first.

He thought it would be a great disservice to the community if they ended

up with a series of single-family homes in Juengel Orchards (on

Rochester Road) with individual curb cuts. They talked about that with the

Master Thoroughfare Plan, and they adopted a variation of residential

that would accommodate access to side roads, which would still go

against the Juengel Orchards deed restrictions. Ms. Brnabic did not

mean that due to a prior decision that she would ever close the door to

another plan, because there was always an exception to the rule, but she

did feel they had consider what had occurred in the past when they were

deciding things. She concluded that she was not sure if she would be for

or against the request at this point.

Mr. Gaber noted that the property was not deed restricted, and that Mr.

Scaccia owned the property. Ms. Brnabic said that the last time, the issue

was the density. Mr. Gaber indicated that they would be allowed more

density on the parcels - about 180,000 square feet - and they were

proposing a 20,000 square-foot building. That would leave a lot of room

for greenery and other amenities on the site to buffer the neighbors.

Mr. Reece thought that some precedent had been set along Walton to

support a facility like Mr. Scaccia proposed. His biggest concern would

be for the second homeowner on Shagbark, and he would be very curious

to see how there could be a 20,000 square-foot building on the site

without significantly affecting that neighbor’s quality of life, for example,

when he used his pool and had to look at a parking lot. Mr. Reece said

he would have to see some fairly significant landscaping and

preservation of trees, particularly in that corner of the property. The

neighbors have had the luxury of trees to help deaden the noise from

traffic along Walton and to provide shading and greenery. He was not

sure that the Site Plan the applicants had shown did justice to the site.

The drawing showed very few trees left, and a 35-foot buffer was not a lot

for those neighbors who had significant investments in their backyards.

He would be very curious to see what type of setbacks and screening

would be proposed. He thought there was precedence with the buildings

adjacent to the east, but he felt they had to be extremely respectful of the

people who had lived there for many years.

Mr. Gaber agreed with those concerns. They wanted to preserve existing

screening and substantially enhance it. They produced a conceptual

plan that did not have much detail, and he said they would certainly look

into the comments. Mr. Reece stated that it had to be single-story. He

thought Mr. Dettloff’s point relative to a market study was important

because of the unprecedented times. They had seen too many

developers come back for Site Plan extensions, a year after sitting in the

same position as Mr. Scaccia, confident they had a market for their

product.

Mr. Delacourt pointed out the economic development strategy of the

MLUP, which talked about office corridors located on M-59 and

Rochester Road. They had also identified medical office locations to

serve an aging population. One of the objectives to accommodate the

long-term demand for medical office, to the degree feasible, was that

such clusters should be located in close proximity to Crittenton and

Beaumont hospitals. The Plan just talked about location, and he felt the

subject site fell reasonably close in that regard.

Mr. Schroeder agreed that the proposed building would be in close

proximity to Crittenton, and he pointed out that Crittenton would be

opening up a Residency program. He pointed out that there were

medical offices at Walton and Rochdale, and that the City was planning

for the long term. He did not believe the economic slump would last more

than a year or so. His main concern was for the residents, and he

recommended that the applicants talk to them after they had a plan.

Regarding the southwest corner of Rochdale and Walton, he felt that the

minute they did something there, someone would approach the City

about doing something with the land west of it. Mr. Schroeder referred to

a new development at the corner of Crooks and South Boulevard and

said that the developer, Mr. Joe Paluzzi, had done a beautiful job. He

suggested that something like that would be great.

Mr. Klomp asked how the homes on the subject parcels were accessed,

and Mr. Gaber said they had individual curb cuts onto Walton. Mr. Klomp

indicated that they were fairly independent of the neighborhood in that

regard. Mr. Gaber suggested that the parcels were like an island because

they were not a part of the surrounding subdivision, and there was a

church next door.

Chairperson Boswell summarized that it was evident that if the applicants

came back with a proposal it should be one-story, and he stressed that

they should leave a lot of trees. He did not believe they could put up a

20,000 square foot building after considering the engineering that would

have to be done. Mr. Gaber agreed that they would have to look closely

at that. Chairperson Boswell said he would have preferred to see condos,

and Mr. Gaber said if they could have built 18 units they would have, but

12 units would not work. Chairperson Boswell stated that it would have

been pretty dense at 18 units. He asked if there were further comments

and hearing none, Mr. Gaber thanked the Commission for their time, and

said they would get to work and address the issues.

2008-0543

Request for recommendation of the Historic Districts Study Committee Report for Frank

Farm, three parcels located on Auburn Road, east of John R, as it relates to the City's

Master Land Use Plan.

Chairperson Boswell stated that there were two Historic Districts Study

Committee (HDSC) Reports regarding property designation that the

Commission was being asked to comment on only as they related to the

Master Land Use Plan.

Mr. Delacourt advised that the reports were similar to others the

Commission had seen in the past. He explained that at the Preliminary

stage, the HDSC held a Public Hearing, and then sent the reports to the

State Historic Preservation Office. State law and the City’s Ordinance

required input from the Planning Commission regarding impacts a

designation might or might not have relating to zoning or Master Land

Use Plan (MLUP) issues. In the past, there had been very little

discussion when reports came forward, and Staff did not see any major

impacts to future land use or zoning issues as the subjects related to the

MLUP. He added that as part of the process, two potential resolutions

were included for consideration.

Ms. Brnabic said she read the Minutes in the packet and called the

Planning Department office to see if the HDSC had met with the

applicants since that meeting. It seemed as if some of the members

wanted to meet with the owners again, but she was told the HDSC had not

met again. She asked if it would be the only review the Commissioners

would have. Mr. Delacourt said that the HDSC met after the Public

Hearings with representatives of both groups. Ms. Brnabic said she was

told that the last meeting was April 2008, and she asked for clarification.

Mr. Delacourt said they met with representatives from Stiles School and

family members of Frank Farm at the October HDSC meeting. Mr. Frank

was not there. Ms. Brnabic said that she knew the question about

designation was eventually going before City Council, but she was

concerned because the residents had valid concerns about their

properties being designated historically. She maintained that it was

different if a property was already designated and someone chose to

purchase it, but if someone had a home and it was not designated but it

was going to be designated, she felt that was different. The City might

designate properties of people who were concerned about it, and to some

extent, she did not feel the City had that right.

Mr. Delacourt advised that the HDSC did not designate property; they

only made a recommendation to Council. The recommendation was

based on the criteria established by the Ordinance, and the question was

not whether they felt something should or should not be designated; it was

a question of whether the property complied. The opinions in the

Minutes regarding the Frank Farm property were not those of the property

owner - he was in support of the designation. He did not come to the

meeting, but he had been on the farm for 80-plus years, and Mr.

Delacourt met with him several times at the farm. It was family members

who were concerned about the designation, but they were not

objectionable. One property owner involved with the Frank Farm was an

absentee landlord that the City was pursuing to do some upkeep, and he

was not opposing the designation. Ms. Brnabic said she did not have that

information, and that was why she called. She reiterated that

representatives from Stiles School had concerns, and she felt that all of

the concerns had to be considered. Mr. Delacourt said they were not

objectionable to the designation, but they had some questions about the

size of the district and the impact. They had not come to a meeting to

make a formal objection. They talked to the HDSC about changing the

size of the district, and ultimately, the HDSC advised that the

recommendation to City Council would stay the same. Ms. Brnabic

agreed it would be City Council that had the final say, and she understood

why the City wanted to protect the sites, but she was not quite sure they

had that right. Mr. Delacourt said that State law was implicit that it was not

a voluntary process, and he added that he was not expressing his

opinion. He advised that from a process standpoint, the City’s Ordinance

mirrored State law. They considered the historic districts much the same

as wetlands. If the historic district added value to the community, much

as the environment did, the development could be regulated, regardless

of the homeowner’s opinion. Ms. Brnabic did not think that necessarily

made it right. She did not really like the direction it was taking for some

people, because the City was not buying the properties and making them

a historical part of the City; they were putting a financial burden on the

homeowners.

Chairperson Boswell said he agreed with Ms. Brnabic; however,

evaluating the designations was not the Commission’s duty. They just

had to comment about whether there were any issues with the Master

Plan and the designations.

Mr. Schroeder said he had the same concern as Ms. Brnabic. In his view,

they were imposing liabilities and costs for properties that were in bad

condition. He asked Mr. Delacourt if Mr. Frank was the owner of

everything. Mr. Delacourt said there were three separate owners. Mr.

Schroeder asked if the other people would inherit the property. Mr.

Delacourt thought that one of the owners was Mr. Frank’s cousin’s

daughter, but he had not talked with her directly.

Mr. Kaltsounis said that one of the buildings was done in 1979, and he

did not think that was very historic. He asked if something else was

contributing to the designation. Mr. Delacourt said that the structure

should hold a certain amount of integrity to help it meet one of the four

criteria of the National Register standard. It might contribute in time,

because additional buildings had a way to add to the integrity of a historic

district over time, but the consultants did not feel that this structure met

the standard. Mr. Kaltsounis asked if the property would be reviewed if

the owners wanted to do something to it. Mr. Delacourt explained that if it

were designated and the owners wanted to do any additions or

modifications, they would be required to appear for a review by the

Historic Districts Committee. It worked very similar to the Wetlands

Ordinance. The City had a set of standards used to determine what

wetlands were important to the City. It did not prohibit development; it just

required an additional level of review and approval for a Permit. Mr.

Kaltsounis asked if the owner of Stiles was in agreement. Mr. Delacourt

said they were very familiar with it. They were concerned about the size of

the district, but he had not received any formal documentation about it

from the school board. Their concerns were outside of the review of the

Study Committee. Mr. Kaltsounis reminded that the Commissioners had

to look at it “according to the book.”

Mr. Kaltsounis stated that there could be an issue if someone wanted to

put a subdivision on the property, noting that there was a lot of property

behind the farmhouse. He recalled the objections the last time several

potentially designated historical properties came forward, and he wished

the Council luck in dealing with the current requests.

Mr. Reece said that he strongly supported Ms. Brnabic’s and Mr.

Boswell’s comments, although it would not be relative to the process. He

agreed that Frank Farm was a fairly significant piece of property, and he

wondered if the City would be saddling the property owners if they

supported the requests and the property was designated. Mr. Schroeder

said he thought so. Mr. Delacourt said it would require an additional level

of review. He pointed out Lorna Stone, which was one of the most dense

developments the City had done. The HDC reviewed the historic house

as part of the proposal, and decided that the surrounding development

did not lessen the integrity, and they approved the additional

development. Mr. Reece said that someone would have to develop

around it essentially, but the difficulty with the Frank property was that

there were multiple buildings on the site. Mr. Delacourt agreed, but he

reminded that there was language in the Master Plan that allowed for land

use and density flexibility for the development of historical properties. He

did not know if “saddle” was a fair term, although he reiterated that there

would be an additional level of review.

Mr. Hooper referred to two developments, City Walk and Lorna Stone,

and said that they each had to have a historic property as justification for

using a PUD, so it was in their best interest to use the historic portion of

the site. He stated that if the subject properties were designated, the HDC

review would be for the exterior of the structures. He asked if the State got

involved if renovations were made to the exterior. Mr. Delacourt said it

would if the owner was requesting tax credits. Mr. Hooper said that if an

owner kept his building historically accurate, but wanted to change the

windows, they could not do so if the windows were not historically accurate.

Mr. Delacourt said that if the windows could be removed and refurbished,

the HDC would ask them to do that. He advised that there had been a lot

of buildings that were approved by the HDC because the applicant had

demonstrated that it was reasonable. Mr. Hooper said that in the motion

the Commission was being asked to vote on it said, “will” or “will not have

an impact with respect to the City’s MLUP.” He thought, in this case, that

it would not because they were both residentially zoned and master

planned properties, and how they voted would not change the zoning.

However, he felt that the next part of the sentence, “will” or “will not have an

impact on any other development related issues,” would absolutely not be

true, because designating the properties would definitely have an impact.

He suggested deleting that last part of the sentence. Mr. Delacourt said it

was just a suggested motion, and the Planning Commission could pass a

motion with which they were comfortable.

Mr. Schroeder questioned whether the designation would still go through

if a property owner objected to it. Mr. Delacourt said that it would if City

Council agreed to designate. Mr. Schroeder agreed with Mr. Hooper

about designation affecting other development related issues, and that

part of the sentence was deleted from the motion.

Ms. Brnabic also agreed with that, and said she realized the Commission

was not being asked whether they agreed with designating the properties,

but she wanted her opinion expressed, and to explain why she had asked

whether the Commission would see the request again.

Mr. Kaltsounis moved the following motion:

Motion by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder,

Resolved, that upon review of the Historic Districts Study Committee

Preliminary Report regarding the proposed designation of Frank Farm

property (identified as 1290 E. Auburn Road, 1304 E. Auburn Road; 1344

E. Auburn Road and 1356 E. Auburn Road), the City of Rochester Hills

Planning Commission has determined that the proposed designation will

not have any impact on the property with respect to the City’s Master Land

Use Plan.

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

Accepted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

and Yukon

9 -

2008-0544

Request for recommendation of the Historic Districts Study Committee Report for Stiles

School, located at the northwest corner of Livernois and South Boulevard, as it relates to

the City's Master Land Use Plan.

Motion by Kaltsounis, seconded by Yukon,

Resolved, that upon review of the Historic Districts Study Committee

Preliminary Report regarding the proposed designation of 3976 S.

Livernois (also known as Stiles School), the City of Rochester Hills

Planning Commission has determined that the proposed designation will

not have any impact on the property with respect to the City’s Master Land

Use Plan.

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motions had passed

unanimously.

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

Accepted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

and Yukon

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motions had passed

unanimously.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Schroeder said that there had been a lot of good press about green

building. He asked when the next session would be. Mr. Anzek said that

Mr. Delacourt had been talking to Professor Goldsmith and Staff would

look into it and get it scheduled. He said he would also plan a

presentation on roundabouts for the Commissioners.

Mr. Schroeder asked Mr. Anzek if he was familiar with the property behind

the Abiding Presence Church. He asked if he knew about the status,

noting there had been lawsuit. Mr. Anzek said he would look into the

status.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting of November

4, 2008 was cancelled due to the elections, and that the next Regular

Meeting was scheduled for November 18, 2008.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission and upon

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:50

p.m., Michigan time.

______________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

______________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary