Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Special Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in

the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

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

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

Present

8 -

Nicholas Kaltsounis

Absent

1 -

Quorum Present

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

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning and Economic

Development

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

Keith Sawdon, Finance Director

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2010-0169

March 2, 2010 Regular Meeting

Upon motion by Schroeder, second by Yukon, the Minutes dated March 2, 2010

were unanimously approved.

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Reece, Schroeder and Yukon

8 -

Absent

Kaltsounis

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News (2) dated March 2010 and April 2010

B) 1st Quarter 2010 Rochester Hills Business Report

There were no further Communications brought forward.

Chairperson Boswell noted that there were many people who wished to speak

about the City Place PUD, and he changed the order of the agenda to

accommodate the residents in attendance.

NEW BUSINESS

2009-0274

Discuss revisions to City Place PUD, City File No. 02-027,

located on the east side of Rochester Road, north of Hamlin,

zoned PUD (B-2, General Business) and approved by City

Council in May 2004. G&V, applicant

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated April 16, 2010;

and letter and draft PUD dated April 16, 2010 from John Gaber, Williams,

Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C., 380 North Old Woodward Ave., Suite

300, Birmingham, MI 48009 had been placed on file in the Planning and

Economic Development Department and by reference became part of

the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant were John Gaber (see above); William Gilbert,

G&V Investments, 2565 S. Rochester Rd., Rochester Hills, MI 48307;

and Mark Abanatha, Alex V. Bogaerts & Associates, P.C. 2445 Franklin

Road, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302.

Mr. Gaber thanked the Commissioners, and stated that they were in front

of the Commission to discuss modifications they were proposing to the

existing PUD. Those included reduced building heights and density in

exchange for greater flexibility, in terms of building location, building type

and designs. They would like to trade uses; commercial versus potential

residential and office. They met with City Council on March 1 to discuss

the revisions, and a Council member asked them to meet with the

neighbors. They held an informational meeting on March 23, which was

very well attended and as a result, they made a few revisions.

Mr. Gaber noted that except for the Sycamores and the condos across

Rochester Road, everything in the area was commercial along Rochester

Road. Their site, along with the Bordine’s site to the south, had been

master planned for mixed-use development since about 1999. The

rationale was that the City preferred a transition between the

neighborhood and the crowded, high-speed Rochester Road. The 2004

PUD came about because Mr. Gilbert wanted to find something of a

mixed-use nature that would be marketable in this location. After much

discussion and planning, they came up with a live/work concept with

four-story buildings with commercial on the ground level and residential

above that. The PUD was very high quality and it was very dense, but it

locked in the architectural style and building sizes and footprints. Mr.

Gilbert did not have much flexibility with what he could put on the site. At

that time, everyone thought the concept would work, but they tried to

market the site and found that was not the case. The PUD was the tool

used, because there was no particular zoning classification that allowed

for residential and commercial in the same building. The underlying

property was rezoned to B-2, to support the PUD. In 2009, the new Zoning

Ordinance had a Flexible Business, B-2, overlay imposed over the site to

support the underlying PUD.

Mr. Gaber reiterated that they tried to market the property with no avail in

a good market and in today’s poor market. They were told that the

development was so specific that it required one developer for the entire

project, and it could not be split. It was also difficult to finance mixed-use

buildings. G&V had opportunities for smaller developments, but not for

the entire site. The City adopted form based zoning with its recent Zoning

Ordinance update. The intent was to allow mixed-use development with

form based controls over the entire development to have a consistent

design throughout a project. He advised that Mr. Gilbert had met with the

Planning Department many times trying to decide what to do with the site

since it could not be sold. They still believed the PUD was the right tool

for the project, but they would like to revise it to do away with the locked-in

buildings and have something with more flexibility. That would give Mr.

Gilbert the right, in the future, to come to the City and go through the Site

Plan Approval process. They were not trying to shortcut the process, but

it would put Mr. Gilbert in a good position when the market turned to be

ready to market and develop the property.

Mr. Gaber referred to the house on the property, and said that they had

filed a request with City Council to eliminate the historic district status.

That was pending in front of City Council. There was a preliminary report

that recommended delisting by the Historic Districts Study Committee

(HDSC), but they still had work to do before issuing the final report in the

next couple of months. If the historic district remained, they would like the

ability to keep the house where it was or relocate it to the southwestern

portion of the site, as proposed in the original PUD.

Mr. Gaber indicated that they felt the new proposal protected the

neighbors. He showed a drawing of the setback lines, and said that no

residential building could be closer than 50 feet from the existing

subdivision property line. If there were any residential developments built

within the 50-100 setback area, they could only be two stories high.

Between 100 and 150 feet, if there was residential, it could go up to three

stories. It would be potentially developable for two-story office use also.

Between 150 and 200 feet, they would be allowed three-story office.

Commercial would be 200 feet away from the neighborhood.

Mr. Gaber had provided a comparison chart, which showed what was in

the existing PUD and what they were proposing to change. They were not

proposing any changes to the zoning, but they would apply the FB-1 and

FB-2 standards to the development. Previously, there was up to 35,000

square feet of office and bank use allowed in the PUD and 15,000 square

feet of retail and restaurant use, and not more than 35,000 square feet of

all those uses combined. It allowed a minimum of 250 and a maximum

of 305 residential units, and allowed a total density of over 710,000

square feet. They were proposing to increase the commercial to 50,000

square feet on Rochester Road. There would not be large buildings or

big boxes. If they came forward with a building larger than 12,500 square

feet, it would require Conditional Land Use approval from City Council.

Mr. Gaber noted that residential and office uses were permitted in FB-1

zoning. They had been asked how much of each they were proposing,

but he said it was impossible to answer that unless they knew how much of

each the market would allow. He reiterated that no commercial buildings

would be within 200 feet of the east property line. The residents were

concerned about drive-thru fast food restaurants, and they put in the PUD

that there would not be any drive-thru fast food restaurants. They would

like to be able to put in a financial institution or if there was a new concept

that came forward, they would like the ability to be able to at least look at

it. It would require Conditional Land Use approval. The residential

building heights would be limited to two stories within 100 feet west of

Eddington Farms and three stories elsewhere. Office buildings would be

limited to two stories within 150 feet west of Eddington Farms and three

stories elsewhere. They agreed that the landscaping buffer on the east

property line would be controlled by the FB-1 standards and be the same

as approved with the original PUD. They were asking for a five-foot

natural features setback for the wetland buffer, which was a modification in

the original PUD. The Rochester Rd. right-of-way was shown as 75 feet

from the centerline of the road, and parking would be permitted to the

edge of the right-of-way. The architectural features would be controlled by

FB-1 standards. The styles and quality of materials of all the buildings on

Rochester Rd. would be compatible with the Fifth Third Bank.

Mr. Gaber noted that there had been a concern about alcohol being

served in certain establishments and the neighbors did not want a bar or

tavern behind their houses. They agreed with that concern, but they

would like to preserve the right to have some of the restaurants serve

alcohol. Mr. Gaber concluded that they were trying to maintain flexibility

to have the ability for a compatible, mixed-use development. It might be

designed in phases over time, and by putting the FB-1 parameters on the

development, it would be consistent throughout. He asked for input for

the draft, which would supersede the existing Agreement.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt to explain what a PUD was and

why it was being used.

Mr. Delacourt stated that a PUD was a Planned Unit Development. It was

an optional overlay zoning district allowed by Ordinance, which could be

utilized at the discretion of City Council for many reasons. In this

instance, it was being discussed because it was previously used and

approved for the site. A PUD Agreement allowed the City to work with the

developer or property owner on property that might be difficult or

transitional pieces. The subject property was identified in the 1998

Master Land Use Plan as mixed-use, and the applicant requested

utilizing the PUD as a way to implement that. A PUD allowed flexibility

from the strict dimensional standards or other requirements of the zoning

districts in place. Things such as setbacks, building heights and other

items could be negotiated. If approved by City Council, the Agreement

was then recorded and would run with the land. The original PUD was

approved in 2004 and was the guiding document for future development

of the site.

Chairperson Boswell said that in 2004, there was a specific Site Plan with

the PUD, but the proposal was considerably more wide open. They did

not know what would go where; they just knew where things could not go.

He asked if that was correct.

Mr. Delacourt agreed. For the previous PUD, the City did not have a

zoning district that reflected the type of mixed-use development that was

being proposed. Since that time, the City had adopted several

mixed-use zoning districts, and the applicant was asking that the FB-1

Ordinance be allowed to guide the dimensional and architectural

standards for future development. It would require much less to be

submitted at first, but it would also require the full review and approval

process for any Site Plans.

Chairperson Boswell clarified that Mr. Gilbert was not going to develop

any part of the land without a full-fledged Site Plan coming before the

Planning Commission for review. Mr. Delacourt said that was absolutely

correct, and it would work much the same as a conventional zoning district

would.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Comments at 7:37 p.m. and

outlined the process for speaking.

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

had sent a copy of a flyer he had distributed prior to the final draft of the

PUD proposal, which was on file in the Planning and Economic

Development Department. Mr. Beaton thanked the Commissioners for

their time, and noted that he had been a member of City Council for nine

years in the 1990’s and was President for two. He studied Urban Planning

in college and said that he really enjoyed it. In 2004, he thought that the

live/work concept of the PUD was “pretty cool.” He appreciated the fact

that Mr. Gilbert had always brought a little creativity to the City, and he

had designed some wonderful neighborhoods. Mr. Beaton thought that

one of the reasons the original PUD was brought before City Council was

to preserve an historic house, and because the State had plans to make

Rochester Road a six-lane boulevard, which could handle the traffic of

such an intense use. He thanked Mr. Gaber for bringing back a less

dense development, recognizing that Rochester Road would not be

widened, because the State was flat broke. He read the new PUD and he

thanked Mr. Gilbert for listening to the residents. He wished they would

have invited more people from Winchester Village, because he thought

they would be just as affected by the development as the Eddington

Farms people. He did not see any interest in increasing the commercial

from 15,000 to 50,000 square feet. That was a lot of commercial, and his

concern was that it was not in keeping with Mr. Earl Borden’s (former

Mayor) idea to try to keep commercial at the corners in Rochester Hills,

and not have any kind of continuous commercial strip development. The

lights would shine into Winchester Village. He said he appreciated the

fact that Mr. Gilbert did not want to build drive-thru restaurants. He

thought the chic, drive-thru coffee places were great, but if they were

allowed, it would bring in a lot of traffic in and out, and he did not think the

area was designed to handle the traffic. He would like to see no drive-thru

restaurants, not just fast food. Regarding the sale of liquor, he noticed

that it had been addressed, but a restaurant would still be allowed to serve

alcohol as 50% of its gross sales. He stated that a restaurant that served

50% alcohol was a bar. He would like to see language in the PUD

Agreement that stated strongly that there would be no alcohol, no party

stores, no bars, no taverns, etc. He thought Big Boy was a great place to

go, and they did not serve any alcohol. He did not see anything about

“no apartment buildings.” He thought it should be clear that they did not

want rentals. The only buffering that should be allowed between the

single-family residential and the commercial or office should be some

kind of condo unit and not rental units, which he felt brought a different

type of clientele. He felt there was still room for negotiation. If Mr. Gilbert

was willing to bring back a plan that was 100% residential, he would like

the City build a new boulevard entranceway for Mr. Gilbert that lined up

with Drexelgate. Public safety was an important issue, and he thought

that if they got the streets aligned, they could get a light from the State.

He would very much like to see the City share in the cost; he did not think

they needed to penalize developers by making them do things twice.

There was plenty of room for a 50-foot park, which would still be controlled

by Eddington Farms along the frontage of Rochester Road. There was

plenty of room for pine trees and to create a beautiful berm and bring

green space to the area that would match the residential on the other

side. He stated that he would like to see the house saved. He

understood Mr. Gilbert’s concerns, and the house was supposedly in bad

shape, but it could be gutted and it could be turned into a terrific office

building. It could have a lobby, which had pictures of the farm that used

to be there. It could be a great project, and he felt that the City could

actually help with that. He stated to Mr. Gilbert that it was not about

money all the time, especially when people got older. He asked if Mr.

Gilbert wanted to leave Rochester Hills a line of strip malls or if he wanted

to take responsibility and restore the house, which could be there for

another 300 years. It would have Mr. Gilbert’s name on it, because he

had the money to protect the home. He thought they should be generous

in the wetland mitigation; there had been a lot of conversation about

whether it was wetland or a drain. He would like the City to look at other

financial incentives, such as building inspections or the cost of plan

reviews, to give to Mr. Gilbert if he would give the City a residential

development. He felt Mr. Gilbert was entitled to make a profit, but what he

saw before him was greed.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, Rochester Hills, MI 48306 Ms. Hill

commented that it was interesting what could happen in a few short years.

It took approximately three years before the PUD was approved and they

spent less than two to get to the point they were at. In 2002, Mr. Gilbert

came before the Planning Commission, and said that, “It does not do any

good to have empty spaces in this town,” referring to office. “Numbers

indicated for retail are to be a ceiling,” referring to the 15,000 square feet

of proposed retail. “Not a strong market for office. Would not spec an

office building of any size right now.” Ms. Hill asked what had changed.

Mr. Gilbert said, “There are many other uses for this home. There are

many uses that this home could be retrofitted for and still keep its

integrity,” referring to the historic home at 1585 S. Rochester Rd. Ms. Hill

advised that in 2003, Mr. Galvin, Mr. Gilbert’s attorney, stood before the

Planning Commission and indicated that “the property was ripe for a PUD

because it met all the criteria: It would provide for mixed-use, it would

reduce traffic, and it would promote preservation.” In July 2002, the

Planning Commission passed a Resolution recommending a PUD to

City Council. In March 2004, Mr. Boswell and Mr. Hooper presented a

motion recommending that City Council approve the proposed PUD. It

was passed unanimously; however, there had been a great deal of

discussion and concern regarding density, the Rochester Road

right-of-way and what would happen if the PUD did not occur. Ms. Hill

asked again what had changed. She asked why the Planning Director

was proposing that new office should be put into the community when

there was a lot of empty office. They seemed to be recommending the

same philosophy to City Council. She asked why the City needed more

retail, stating that there was already more than was needed. She asked

how the zoning could be changed when it was zoned PUD. She

questioned whether a process was provided under the existing PUD that

would allow the City to make the recommended changes and to change

the underlying zoning. She asked where the common sense was. She

questioned whether a PUD was really necessary with the new flex zoning.

She did not think this was a good idea. The proposal would allow more

retail, more restaurant, more drive-thrus, bars and offices than were

originally approved. Only six years ago, the Planning Commission said

that those things should be kept at a minimum. She indicated that it

might make sense to Mr. Gilbert, but she asked about the existing, empty

office spaces. It was mentioned in 2002, and she felt it still held true

today, that it did not do any good to add empty spaces in this town. Only

six years later, the City was to be planning for the long term future, and

she asked them to think about whether it really made sense. She

understood the problems, but it was only six years later. Perhaps they

needed more time, as opposed to a complete change of the PUD and the

underlying zoning. She thought they needed to think about whether they

needed another strip mall or some of the things being increased in the

proposal.

Darrell Dove, 58 Sandalwood Ct., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr. Dove

stated that he was a real estate broker and he lived in the Sycamores. He

remarked that he liked Mr. Gilbert, and said that he built his house, which

was a great house that backed to the common area. He kept hearing the

word flexibility, and it sounded to him like someone was looking for a

blank slate. They wanted things to be flexible without defining that term.

People in Eddington Farms were going to lose 20% of the value of their

homes. The people that backed to commercial, even though there were

setbacks of 50 and 100 feet, would have asphalt or concrete behind them

for a driveway or parking. There would be no building, but there would be

a parking lot. People that backed to a commercial parking lot could “kiss”

the value of their house goodbye. There would be more traffic, but there

was no mention of traffic lights. They would also lose property values in

Sycamores because of the traffic. He urged the Commission to only

approve condos for the site. He did not want to see tattoo parlors, cigar

stores or video stores. With the Outback Steakhouse, the traffic in the

evening was atrocious. He urged the Commission to restrict the proposal

to residential to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and to protect

the property values. At 12,500 square feet for commercial, it would be

difficult to sell or lease and it would sit there vacant. Commercial was

imploding, and it would continue to implode. In three years, it would be

the same as residential with foreclosures. He thought that there would be

vacant, for sale signs and that the buildings would be sitting there forever.

Gary Dolinshek, 34 Sandalwood Ct., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr.

Dolinshek said that he heard no plans to address the negative impact the

development would have on the Sycamores neighborhood, and he did

not see any benefit to the City at this location.

Lorraine McGoldrick, 708 Essex Dr., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Ms.

McGoldrick noted that she had participated with the process the last time

the PUD was done, and she learned a lot about the process. The process

was concerning because of the fast track of the designation of the house.

She understood they wanted to skim over that at the meeting. Her

number one concern was safety. She lived in Eddington, in the back on a

cul-de-sac, and she usually missed getting flyers. There was one

sidewalk and the increased traffic cutting through her sub needed to have

a plan, because there were a lot of young children, and they needed to be

safe. She never went out the front of the sub because it was too difficult to

get onto Rochester Rd. She had two drivers in her house who could not

go out that way. She hardly ever turned left into her sub from Rochester

Rd. because the traffic was too dangerous. She understood that MDOT

would not add another light on Rochester Rd. in that area. It was looked

at when the Cavalier Office building went in, which remained pretty empty,

and she said they were having trouble filling that building. She

questioned the practicality of needing the proposed development, and

indicated that it was a very difficult piece of property. She showed an

Oakland County map of historical sites and noted that Rochester Hills

had a historical district. There was a representation of a demolished site,

and she said she would not like to see the white house shown the same

way. It was part of the City’s economic development, and someone

cherished it. They should try to save it and to continue to use it in a

sensible project that would benefit everyone involved. A traffic study was

done at the time of the first PUD, but it was never released into public

record, and she said that she did not have a chance to look at it. She

would like to see it made public and not hidden behind the process. She

understood the applicants were directed not to present it, although they

were willing.

Kim Barno, 891 River Bend Dr., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Ms. Barno

believed that Mr. Gilbert firmly had a right to make a profit on the property,

but she asked at what cost to the community. Firstly, she predicted higher

traffic volumes, and secondly, lower residential property values

surrounding the development. The increased occupancy requested by

the revised PUD would generate more traffic on Rochester Rd. and

Eddington Blvd., which they now called “suicide boulevard.” She stated

that people should not be fooled; traffic flow in and out of City Place would

not only affect Rochester Road, but also Eddington Blvd. and the

adjoining neighborhoods. There were five accesses from John R and

Avon to City Place, making the whole subdivision a thoroughfare. She

referred to serving alcohol, and said that any establishment that served

liquor would have patrons exiting into 50 mile per hour traffic, and would

drive through neighborhoods with young children. She felt that City Place

would help in lowering property values, and that it would only be fair that

people in the surrounding neighborhoods should be compensated for the

loss of home values. The HDSC had not even completed all its research.

City Council recently granted them an additional 60 days to finish their

report. She asked why the City could not wait to hear what the report said.

She pointed out that it was not atypical for developers to get what they

wanted at the expense of the residents, therefore, she hoped the Planning

Commission did not play into “What Bill Gilbert wants, Bill Gilbert gets.”

Carol Donovan, 1394 Spring Wood Lane, Rochester Hills, MI 48307

Ms. Donovan indicated that Attorney Gaber painted a pretty picture of

City Place, with trees and berms and everything else. She said it

sounded nice, but the reality was that if what Bill Gilbert was asking was

not so outrageous, it would almost be laughable. “Here you have a man

who had the privilege of owning a beautiful piece of Rochester history,

and by his own negligence, let that wonderful white house literally fall into

ruins and is now asking the City to have the house delisted and

demolished.” It would be another piece of the City’s history gone. She

reiterated that Mr. Gilbert wanted the City to revise the existing PUD so

that retail and commercial properties could be built along Rochester

Road. She stated that it was a self serving request by Mr. Gilbert, and that

it was not in the best interest of the Citizens or the City. She felt that the

City did not need another strip mall, especially on Rochester Road, and

that the residents did not want another strip mall. There was enough of

that now, and she remarked that unless someone wore blinders driving

around the City, they would see vacant storefront upon vacant storefront.

Many had been empty for some time now. There was also plenty of

commercial space available. She maintained that the ambience of the

City had changed much over the last 14 years. It had lost so much of its

charm and character. What used to be a really amazing and unique City

was not so much anymore. She had not seen one person at any public

meeting that was in favor of Mr. Gilbert’s PUD revision. She indicated

that she had nothing against Mr. Gilbert personally; she did not even

know him, but she felt that what he was asking was wrong and selfish and

a slap in the face to all of them. She hoped that the Commission would

decline this “ludicrous” demand, and tell Mr. Gilbert that the City was fine

the way it was. If not, it was just another reason to start adding Rochester

Hills to the map as another nameless, faceless, cookie-cutter town.

Vince Dabish, 1530 Colony, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr. Dabish

said that he hardly ever attended these meetings. He lived in Winchester

Village, and there was so much traffic already trying to turn out of his

subdivision. People coming out of Eddington Farms were trying go south

as he was trying to go north, and it was terrible. He was an adult, but he

would hate to see teenagers trying to get out. The City was planning to

put in something else that would cause more congestion, more chaos

and possibly future blight. It was stated previously that commercial would

be the next wave to take a hit, and he claimed that everyone should know

it. He stated that there were enough boarded up buildings already. He

referred to the old Papa Joe’s, and said that no one had done anything

with it yet. There were bars, such as Hamlin Pub and Tapper’s, and they

were going to put in another liquor establishment, which would just cause

more competition and cause buildings to close and bring more blight. He

stated Rochester Road had enough building, and he asked when it would

stop. Everyone at the meeting was against the development, and he

wondered why they had to show up because the people on the

Commission were puppets and did what Mr. Gilbert wanted anyhow. He

urged that the Commissioners listen to their constituents.

Chairperson Boswell stopped him, and pointed out that everyone on the

Commission lived in Rochester Hills. They all cared about the City. They

made decisions based on what they felt was best for the City, and he

stated that they were not puppets. He concluded Mr. Dabish’s comments.

Greg Domka, 891 River Bend, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr. Domka

said that he realized Mr. Gilbert was a businessman and as such, he

deserved a good return on his investment. He did need to improve the

marketability of the PUD. The people realized that there was a current

PUD he could build. Unless the citizens could urge him to go with

residential, there would be some form of change. He said he wished Mr.

Gilbert luck in the current economy. He knew Mr. Gilbert was planning to

be ready when there was an economic turnaround, but Mr. Domka said he

was not sure the turnaround would happen any time soon. He recalled

being in college in Flint in 1979, and that the unemployment rate in Flint

was 25%. Detroit also had a rate of 25%. Flint’s economy was based on

the automotive industry. Metro Detroit was more diversified, but the

unofficial unemployment rate in Rochester Hills was now 20%. It was

2010, and Flint had not recovered in 30 years. If metro Detroit took half

that long, it would be 2025, which was consistent with what some of the

financial analysts he followed had said. They were seeing increased

vacancy rates in local commercial and multi-family real estate

developments. Mr. Gilbert had said that he planned to have a lessee in

place prior to development. Mr. Domka felt that was smart, and that it

might minimize the risk of vacant buildings on Rochester Road, but there

were small and large chain stores going bankrupt, so a lessee here today

might not be here in a month. He offered that the current credit market

was precarious, to say the least. They were experiencing nation-wide

residential rate and prime mortgage defaults. As someone earlier said,

the fuse is lit on the commercial real estate bomb, which was expected to

be larger than the prime rate mortgage failures. The failures would only

be magnified in the region. These were economic issues that would put

great pressure on any commercial or residential development in the area.

He turned to Mr. Gilbert and said he wished him success, but he asked

the cost to the community of the revised PUD. With Mr. Gilbert’s

development, they would not profit; they would lose, in the form of

degradation to their lifestyle and the impact to their home values. The

residents surrounding the revised City Place would suffer from declining

home values in an already down home market. The historical house on

the property had served as a gateway to the community for over 100

years. Thousands of residents passed it everyday, reminding them of the

character of the community and why they lived here. He said he did not

know all the facts, but he heard that as a condition of the original PUD, the

house was to be maintained in good form. Now it was to be delisted from

being a historical landmark so the developer could tear it down. Mr.

Domka said he would implore both the Planning Commission and City

Council to keep the house in place. Even if the HDSC determined that

the house was of no value, it did add significant value to the character of

the community. The residents came to the meeting to share their

thoughts and feelings about the issue, and he said he wanted to make

some predictions. He said they would come true if the people did not get

involved with the process and make their voices heard. Support was also

needed at the next HDSC meeting next month, when they would be

forced to vote up or down on the historic home. His predictions: “The

Planning Commission would approve most or all of Mr. Gilbert’s requests

to revise the current PUD. The HDSC would recommend keeping the

house as a historical artifact, and a couple of months after that, the City

Council will vote to reverse the Study Committee’s decision in favor of Mr.

Gilbert’s plan to tear down the house. The City Council will vote in favor of

the Planning Commission’s recommendations and Mr. Gilbert’s revisions

to the current PUD. He remarked that he was not Nostradamus, but that

the residents could keep the predictions from coming true if they got

involved in the process.

Martha Black, 2408 Jackson Dr., Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Ms. Black

thanked the Commission for listening. She thought that the entire flavor

of the meeting had been genuine, and she believed the Commissioners

were taking all the comments to heart. She said she was taking notes, and

she had brought the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting in

2004. There were so many comments, such as it was a win-win situation

and it was a wonderful thing, but they were now looking at tweaking it. She

moved here in 2004, and she would like to go back and redo her

negotiations with the builder. She would like to renegotiate the taxes she

has to pay the Federal government. She said she was sure many

developers in the area would like to renegotiate with the City on different

issues. Everyone would like to renegotiate something.

As a businessman, she believed Mr. Gilbert has had other people enter

into agreements that he agreed to and maybe they came back and

wanted to renegotiate. She wondered if he would agree to that or if he

said that was what they agreed to and they would stick to it. In a business

sense, she questioned why they had to renegotiate after they agreed on

something. The Council rep who represented the area, who was not

present, spoke last week at the City Council meeting, and he said there

were rules, and that rules had to be followed. She believed that if

someone on Council thought that, then it should apply to all situations. It

was a heated, personal argument for the residents. She thought that the

proposal did not just have to be black and white or a business decision

only. They were all present as residents and merchants, and they were

each other’s keeper, and they needed to protect each other and do what

was in the best interest of the community. It was suspect to her that it was

only business. She thought they were better than that. She new it was

probably a ridiculous request, but she had said to Mr. Gilbert at the

informational meeting that he should donate the property, which she felt

had been a thorn in his side for years. She thought he probably regretted

even purchasing the property. She thought there were tax credits, and

that he could donate the property to the City and keep the home. It would

be a beautiful place for residents to go, and it would be something

everyone would be proud of and keep the Rochester Hills they knew.

Instead of fighting to maintain it, they did not need to change the area into

something no one wanted. They did not want more commercial and

retail. She stated that she was sure they would do what was right.

Lisa Winarski, 194 Bedlington, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Ms.

Winarski advised that she was on the Board of Eddington Farms

Homeowner’s Association. She wanted to point out that the meeting they

had on March 21 was an informal meeting and it came about because

one of the City Council members had requested that Mr. Gilbert contact

the owners in Eddington Farms. She stated that it was not a discussion or

a “let’s come to some kind of terms or concessions” meeting; it was not up

for negotiation at all. When Mr. Gaber represented that the neighbors

were there, it was not a friendly meeting, and no one agreed to anything.

They had invited Mr. Klomp to the Board meeting, and they had a list of

things they thought would be agreeable to both the developer and

Eddington Farms. Mr. Gilbert modified the setbacks and that was it -

nothing else was addressed. His compromise was very minimal and very

worthless, according to her. One of their concerns was regarding the bus

stops at the front entrance at Eddington, Farnborough and down the

street. Rochester schools would not move the bus stops. They were in

the process of trying to make the boulevard safer by putting in more

sidewalks and speedbumps, because the children were at risk. Their

efforts would be lost with the traffic flow that would come from the

development. There had been some deaths that occurred at the

entranceway. Another concern was that in the existing PUD there would

be drive-thrus only for financial institutions, and she said there was no

reason to change that, and she felt it needed to be outlined definitively to

allow existing financial places only. Another concern was about liquor. It

stated that it would be for places getting 50% of revenue from liquor, but

that could be manipulated to benefit a restaurant. As of May 1st,

restaurants and bars could stay open until 4:00 a.m. She stated that she

did not want that in her backyard. Mr. Gaber had said that the residential

portion would be residential, but he kept mentioning office space. The

office space needed to be defined as it was in the first PUD with a

minimum. The office building north of the Fifth Third Bank was currently

in foreclosure because of lack of rentals, which showed where office space

was in Rochester Hills. They were concerned with keeping the Eddington

Farms subdivision identity on the Boulevard, but they would have no

guarantee that would be kept. The square footage of what was in the

existing PUD compared with what was proposed was astronomical, and

she asked that they take the neighborhood into consideration and keep it

intact. She asked why someone would want to live there and back up to

the development and have something happen to the children or animals.

Safety was the biggest concern, along with the amount of square footage

for commercial and keeping the commercial along Rochester Road and

no where else. She felt those were fair, considering what they went

through with the first PUD. She felt that City Council took nothing the

subdivision had to offer into perspective, and she hoped they would work

with the City.

Verlinda Wallace, 1299 Pembroke, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Ms.

Wallace said that she had been living in Eddington Farms for three years.

Even in the short time that her family had lived there, things had begun to

change. They understood that Mr. Gilbert wanted to make a profit on his

property, but she agreed with everyone that it would be at the expense of

the community. She heard the word flexible, but she said that someone

should not just be handed a blank slate to be filled in. She understood

they wanted to cut through red tape and cut out some preliminary things

before they came up with the plan. They understood that the plan would

still come before City Council and the Planning Commission, but they

needed more information before that happened. There were still some

unknowns, and she stated that they should not conduct business that way.

She said that the residents were looking to the Planning Commission to

look out for them, and they hoped they would.

Susan Deshaw, 1638 Farnborough, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Ms.

Deshaw said that her home backed up to the property. Her concerns were

the same as everyone’s - the traffic and serious accidents that could

happen and have happened. She was concerned about her declining

home value. She agreed that the flexibility the developer was asking for

sounded like they wanted a blank check. She appreciated the hard work

that went into it, but she asked that the flexibility be restricted so there

were no restaurants serving alcohol. She also would prefer that there

were no buildings over two stories, and she would really prefer residential

only and no apartments. She asked them to please keep the historic

house, which she felt was a part of Rochester Hills.

Deanna Hilbert, 3234 Quail Ridge, Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Ms.

Hilbert mentioned that she did not live anywhere near the subject area.

She noted that Troy had preserved a historical home on 16 Mile, and she

felt it was wonderful that someone took the initiative and worked to keep

that piece of history. She stated that they did not build homes like the

white house any more, and it would be sad to see it go. She brought up

that the commercial would be doubled, and that was not a win for the

citizens. There was much empty retail and office in the City. So much of

Troy’s tax base was from office and retail, and they were in serious

trouble. It would not save Rochester Hills to add more retail. She hoped

that the Commission would consider that. She mentioned that she did

not see anything on the City’s website about the meeting. She felt it was

another example of the City not telling the residents what was happening

in the community. People had lived there a long time, and she thought

the City might get more interest in the property if people were informed.

She tried to find an agenda, and she acknowledged that perhaps she was

not looking in the right place, but it was not easy to find. (For the record,

the Agenda was posted to the City’s web site at least two weeks before the

meeting).

Laura Andres, 1581 Colony Dr., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Ms.

Andres advised that she lived in Winchester Village. She said that she

could appreciate Mr. Gilbert’s position, because she represented her

companies in trying to buy properties and investing in land. She

understood that the owner wanted to make money, but she also looked at

the business situation in Rochester, with empty buildings and traffic

problems, and she did not think he would make a profit on it now. She

suggested that there might be alternatives, such as the City buying more

green space. As a resident, she recalled coming here in 1994 and

seeing the beautiful house. It was all lit up with Christmas lights at night,

and she loved it. She thought it would be a great place for something like

a Whitney restaurant or something else. The City of Rochester Hills had

been called the City of Trees, and it was one of the top 100 places to live

in America. She was concerned because they mowed down all the trees

by her property. There was also Sunoco coming through with a gas line,

and they were taking everything out, including full grown trees. Regarding

the Fifth Third Bank, there was a lot of light pollution, and it was slowly

taking away the character of the City. Looking at supply and demand,

there was way too much supply of commercial real estate, and they

needed to add something they did not have. That would become a

win-win, not only for the residents and the value of their homes, but for the

owner. She said she was shocked to find out that the property was not

zoned residential. She agreed with the idea of the City doing something

to realign the roads. It was very dangerous, and the development would

create more traffic. She concluded that she did appreciate the owner’s

position.

Scott Armstrong, 625 Lexington Dr., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr.

Armstrong said that he was the Vice President of the Eddington Board.

He had been at many City meetings, and it seemed like it was the same

song played over and over. The residents walked up and said to another

board the same thing they already knew because they lived in the City.

They said the same things to Mr. Gilbert. They looked at the lovely home

that was put in Mr. Gilbert’s keeping that was basically falling apart. If a

homeowner did that, they would be fined because they did not keep up

the property. He asked what made sense for Rochester Hills. One of the

things that drew him to the City was the fact that it was a lovely City with a

lot to offer, and people did not have to go far to get anything. He

wondered what more they needed brought into the City that was not

already here. There were some of the top restaurants in the area; they

had more than enough places to get alcohol; they had McDonald’s and

Burger King, and they had all of the other fast food franchises. What they

did not have were a lot of places kids could go or a nice park area that

was accessible. They had a lot of traffic on Rochester Road. Between

Hamlin and Avon, they were told it was not possible to have a light

because of the distances from Hamlin to Eddington and Eddington to

Avon. They were going to put in City Place, which would create a lot more

traffic coming into the area. They already saw traffic backed up to

downtown Rochester in the evening. Coming out of Eddington was very

dangerous. He said that they did not need to lecture the Commissioners

about what was already vacant; they knew that because they lived here.

He said he was in the mortgage industry, and his bank was saying it would

be two years before residential bottomed out. It would be five years before

the equity in properties started rebuilding. He asked how City Place

would benefit the City. They did not need another eyesore. There was a

PUD put in place in 2004 and in six years, all they had gotten was Fifth

Third Bank. With the economy down and everything that had happened,

Mr. Gilbert wanted flexibility to be able to put in whatever he wanted, and

no one was being told what would go in there. He found that amazing as a

business person. He reiterated that the constituents came up and told

the boards the same thing - they did not want it - but he would like to see

the elected officials actually listen to what the people said. He asked

them to protect the City and the residents. They had lost values in their

properties, and they would lose more value if the development occurred.

Eddington Farms would become a thoroughfare. Their kids were already

putting up with an unsafe traffic environment, and now they would have a

thoroughfare between Rochester Road and Avon and Rochester Road

and John R. People would look for alternative routes to stay off of

Rochester with so much traffic. He asked the Commission to take a look

at what Mr. Gilbert wanted to put into place and ask if it would make sense

for the City.

Paul Miller, 1021 Harding Ave., Rochester Hills, MI 48307 Mr. Miller

said that 40 years ago, there was a mass, people-driven movement

across the country. Millions of people turned out to say that all growth was

not good; bigger was not better; and newer was not necessarily more

desirable. He commented that growth was not always necessarily

desirable. The City recently did a survey, and one of the things they

found was that residents were extremely pleased with the City

government. Another thing they found out was that the number one item

the residents most disliked was traffic congestion. They were talking

about increasing traffic congestion on one of the most dangerous

stretches of road between two of the most dangerous intersections in the

area. They were being asked to give sort of a carte blanche, in terms of

having no plans or drawings or specific leases drawn up. He reminded

that not that long ago, the Planning Commission and City Council

entered into an agreement with a developer at Adams and M-59 and they

thought they would get something really “cool.” They agreed to a

somewhat open-ended situation with some options. The option that came

up was the least desirable one that anyone would have wanted. That was

exactly the type of situation they were setting themselves up for again. It

was green space to the residents and community that was valuable,

especially in a development that precluded residential. When the

original PUD came through, he was a little skeptical, but it seemed new

and sustainable. People could live and walk to work. He felt that was

where the future was. The endless suburbs and dense commercial zones

had not proven to be very efficient or desirable. People could say it was

market driven, but he commented that illegal drug use was also, and they

would not want to encourage that. People could say that Mr. Gilbert

owned the property and had property rights, and that he had a right to

develop it the way he wanted, especially since if he was told he could not,

he would sue the City. They all knew the City’s history with lawsuits and

developers. He asked the Commissioners not to just think about the

future, but to think about the clear and concrete benefits to the residents

of the community to whom they owed their allegiance, and to whom the

elected officials owed their jobs. They were given the privilege,

responsibility and authority to make decisions and take the credit and the

blame for what they ended up with. He said he hoped the Commissioners

would say that they did not have enough information, and that there did

not seem to be an urgent need, and that they should sit back and take

more time to think about it and collect additional feedback from the

residents.

Chairperson Boswell closed the Public Comments at 8:51 p.m. He said

that an overwhelming theme heard was that the PUD had gone from a

maximum of 35k square- foot for commercial and office to 50k of

commercial. There was a minimum at one time for residential, but there

was no minimum now, and they could put in nothing but commercial and

office - maybe a house or two. He asked Mr. Gaber why it was a good

idea to add more and more commercial.

Mr. Gaber explained that they were asking for a trade off in terms of land

uses. They were not looking at going from 710,000 square feet of mostly

residential to something that was 710,000 square feet of mostly

commercial and office. A lot of the concessions being made from the first

PUD resulted in less density, by reducing building heights and complying

with the FB-1 standards to have greater setbacks and more open space.

They were asking to reduce density as a trade-off for more flexibility to

add some commercial or office in addition to the residential. Mr. Gilbert

really did not know what he would do. A lot of people said there would be

50k of commercial, but that was not the case. They did not know now, but

they were asking for the ability to build up to that much. They did not

know what the market held. Perhaps commercial would not be in

demand; maybe office would continue to be dead for a long time.

Medical office was a great potential use for the site, with the new medical

school at Oakland University. The intent was for the area to develop

more of the medical office arena.

Mr. Gilbert said that they heard from the speakers there was no market for

this or that, and he assured that if there was no market, it would not be

built. He had been in business a long time, and there would be no money

for projects that were not viable. They thought they had a really great

plan, but it did not work. They spent three years designing it and getting it

approved. There was only two ways to go about developing the project

that would work. One was through a revised PUD that gave them some

flexibility because they were hamstrung. If someone came today and

said they would like to buy the four acres north of Eddington Blvd. and

had a plan, it would take at least a year before the City would give them

an answer, and no one would wait a year to maybe get a no. He stated

that the flexibility was not a blank check. There would be restrictions

about what could go where, and the amount of density, the height, the

bulk, and the area were all less, except the area along Rochester Road

where they were asking for an “up to” amount. If there was no market,

however, there would be nothing. It might end up that if residential came

back strong, it might be all condominium. It could be a plan similar to

what was in the original plan along Rochester Road - the live/work

concept. They had 27 acres, but they could not do anything because of

the strict architectural plans and site plans. They tried it through a great

market, a fair market and a bad market, and they could not sell it. The

other alternative would be to apply for rezoning for a certain part as

commercial, a certain part as office and a part as multi-family. They felt

the revised PUD was a better process for the City and for the residents. It

sounded to him that many of the residents were not aware there was an

approved plan that was very dense - four stories and three-and-a-half

stories backing up to the residential. The City put a minimum of 250

units and a maximum of over 300, in addition to the office and retail along

Rochester Road. They felt that they had made some inroads. If they did

an office building on Rochester Road, there would not be pavement up to

the property line. That was misinformation. They felt they made

compromises for the people that immediately backed up to the project. It

would have less of an impact than what was previously approved. He

reiterated that he could not predetermine a site plan because of the

market. They had owned the property since 1986, and they had about ten

years into the PUD, which did not work. He said that the whole world was

being renegotiated, and that he had renegotiated leases and with

builders, who were not doing anything now.

Chairperson Boswell brought up the drive-thrus, and said it was great that

there would not be any fast food drive-thrus, but there could be coffee

houses. He observed that Tim Horton’s was turning more into a fast food

place because they were always offering something new. He agreed with

the residents that it would cause more of a traffic hazard than be

something worthwhile. He noted that he drove by the property in the

mornings (going north), and if someone tried to come out of Eddington,

he agreed that it was difficult. If someone was coming from Oakland

Township and they wanted to stop and get a coffee, that quick drive-thru

would not be so quick in the morning when they tried to get back onto

Rochester Road and go south. It seemed like a bad location for a coffee

house to him.

Mr. Gaber pointed out that there would be traffic concerns regardless of

what was developed. If 710,000 square feet of building space was

developed, there would be traffic, and there was no way of getting around

the traffic. He could not say exactly how the traffic would pan out without a

study, and they did not know how the square footage would be allocated.

The City had determined that Rochester Road would be its primary

commercial corridor. It was congested, but it could accommodate traffic

better than any other road in the City. He said he was not downplaying it,

but if there were 300 residential units, it would be much more difficult to

get out in the morning. He said he could make an argument that if there

was some retail or office, it would spread traffic over the course of the day

rather than have it only at rush hour.

Mr. Gaber said that Chairperson Boswell made a good point about Tim

Horton’s. He did not think Mr. Gilbert thought about that when he put the

proposal together. He was thinking more about a Starbuck’s. They did

not know what the future would hold for drive-thrus, but they did not want to

foreclose the opportunity altogether. They could work with the language

to prevent objectionable uses.

Chairperson Boswell agreed they would not know exactly what the traffic

implications would be until they knew what would go on the site, if

anything. Mr. Gaber said that the City would require cross access, and

they would want that also, from Eddington Blvd. to the Bordine’s site.

They were not sure how the roads would be constructed yet. They might

consider another curb cut across from Sandalwood, which might allow a

traffic signal.

Chairperson Boswell asked Staff about the signal at Yorktowne and

Meadowbrook and if it was not put in because the warrants were not met.

Mr. Anzek said that was correct, but the City continued to ask for that

signal from MDOT.

Chairperson Boswell asked the applicants if they had any comments

regarding alcohol, reminding that a lot of people were against it.

Mr. Gilbert said that was unknown, but they would be willing to work on the

language. He felt that they had been pretty good in over 30 years

developing, and they were not interested in selling space for a bar. They

did not want to foreclose on the possibility that within the development

area on Rochester Road, that a nice restaurant could have beer and wine.

It was not their intention to open a club or sports bar or sell to someone

who would. He thought the language could protect the residents, and he

reminded that it would be a Conditional Land Use Approval.

Chairperson Boswell asked the Commissioners if there were further

comments.

Mr. Hetrick asked if it was possible to use just the Flexible Business 1

(FB-1) zoning as the overriding zoning and not even use a PUD. Mr.

Delacourt said it would be possible, but it would have to be done through

a Master Land Use Plan update and amendment to the City’s zoning

map. Mr. Hetrick asked if they could have conditions attached to the

FB-1. Mr. Delacourt said that if they rezoned the property, Conditions

would have to be offered by the applicant. If they wanted more

protections, he felt that a revision to the PUD would be easier, and it

would identify FB-1 as the controlling ordinance with Conditions. It would

be shorter and would accomplish the same thing. Mr. Hetrick clarified

that from the City’s perspective and the citizens’ perspective, the PUD was

a safer and more appropriate document. Mr. Delacourt added that if the

Planning Commission’s, the City Council’s and the applicant’s wishes

were to just utilize an existing, defined Zoning Ordinance and there was

not a negotiated PUD in place, he would agree that an update to the

Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate. Mr. Hetrick

noted that many people suggested the need for a light because of the

traffic, and he wondered if that could be approached. He would want his

family to be safe, and to the extent that was possible from a PUD

standpoint and the City would agree, he thought it would be good for the

City and for the area. Mr. Hetrick said that regarding alcohol, he did not

think the 50% mentioned in the document was enforceable, but it

sounded like the applicants were willing to make adjustments.

Mr. Gilbert said they could probably figure out the percentage by

surveying restaurants that might be acceptable. He agreed a light

anywhere on Rochester would help traffic, and they supported that and

would lobby for it.

Mr. Yukon referred to page 3, L1, of the PUD Agreement and read: “Allow

the more restrictive FB-1 zoning classification to control the development

of the land instead of the existing FB-2 overlay.” On page 4, 1, it read:

“The parties acknowledge and agree that this agreement amends and

restates the Original City Place PUD, which is superseded in the entirety

by this agreement… and that the land remains zoned B-2 with an FB-2

overlay and the PUD overlay as amended by this agreement.” He asked

if that should be FB-1.

Mr. Delacourt explained that the Agreement would not change the Master

Land Use Plan designation or what the Zoning Ordinance said. It would

supersede it by putting the FB-1 requirements in place instead of the

others. In 2004, the PUD Ordinance required the underlying zoning to be

changed to adopt a PUD with anything other than single-family in it. It

had been changed since that time. The PUD identified what Zoning

Ordinances were in place and then in another section identified which

Zoning Ordinance would be the controlling regulation, except for what was

in the document. It was never the intent of the City that the site would be

developed as all B-2 or FB-2 and the document should acknowledge that.

Mr. Gaber said they would be amenable to working with the City Attorney

to develop whatever language he was comfortable. He pointed out

section two and said it was the operative provision.

Mr. Yukon asked what type of traffic control measure they would use for

the cross access at Eddington, such as stop signs or a light. Mr. Gaber

said it was premature at this point to be able to tell, but he did not believe

there would be a traffic signal. Mr. Anzek said it would be determined by

the City’s Traffic Engineer. Mr. Schroeder said it could be a private road,

and the City would not have control of signing. Mr. Gaber agreed it

probably would be a private road, but they would not have any problems

working with the City’s recommendations. Mr. Delacourt said the City’s

engineering standards required that all private roads be built to public

road standards, and the applicants would not know what would be required

yet as far as traffic control devices.

Mr. Reece reiterated that there already was a PUD in place, and he

advised that the Planning Commission could choose to do nothing and

leave the existing PUD in place. That current PUD allowed up to 305 new

residents in the development. He thought it was important for everyone to

recognize that potentially, there could be three times the amount of

residential structure in the development. The previous PUD would

significantly impact traffic more than the new proposal. As a former renter

in the City, he resented the comments and implications that renters were

not qualified citizens and that someone would not want to live next door to

them. He thought that was a disgusting comment. He asked if the

existing PUD addressed alcohol use, noting that it allowed for

restaurants. Mr. Delacourt said that it defined the spaces in which

commercial establishments could go, but it did not have prohibitions on

alcohol. Mr. Reece clarified that a Tom’s Oyster Bar could have been

developed within the existing PUD, and alcohol could have been

provided if they had a liquor license.

Mr. Reece said there was a lot of commenting about the house. He

indicated that it would be left up to the HDSC to determine the status of

the house. The comments about the house troubled him because there

were a lot of points made that the house had fallen into disrepair. He

asked the last time someone occupied the house.

Mr. Gilbert replied that it was seven years or so. When it was rented, the

maintenance exceeded the income. The heat bills were so high they

could not keep a tenant. The historic house was definitely part of the

PUD Agreement, but the historic house was not the reason they had a

mixed-use project approved. It had already been master planned for

mixed-use, and it just happened that the house was there and had to be a

part of the PUD. Mr. Reece said his bigger concern was that the house

had fallen into disrepair, and that he had not done anything with it, and

therefore it would be an easier target to allow the Study Committee to

delist it. He thought Mr. Gilbert should address the residents about it.

When it was placed in his charge, the expectation was that he should take

care of it in a fashion supporting the structure that it was.

Mr. Gilbert said that at one time, there was a developer, Robertson

Brothers, who wanted to do a condo development on the site. They were

going to try to make the house a community center. Once the market fell

apart and the financing was not there, they disappeared. They had also

worked with two parties about possibly buying the house. They talked

about giving the house to one couple, who did not really want to live on

Rochester Road. They talked about paying to move it, but it was not

feasible. They looked into readaptive use, but there was no economical

or viable use for the house. They did get notice from the City about a

couple of items they took care of and they secured the house. It had

been vandalized, and someone turned the water on and took the copper.

They had a $5,000.00 water bill with no one living there. There was mold,

and it had probably been moldy for years. They kept it secure, but it was

an attractive nuisance.

Mr. Reece asked the long term plans for the house if it maintained its

status as a historic district. Mr. Gilbert said they would try to find someone

with a lot of money who would put $750,000 into it and live there.

Chairperson Boswell asked if a traffic study was done in 2004, and if so,

what happened to it. Mr. Gilbert said it was submitted with their plan. Mr.

Delacourt advised that it was in the Planning Department files and

available for review. It was one of the first things required with the

application, and was a matter of public record.

Chairperson Boswell said that in the current PUD there was a section

asking for the natural features setback to be modified to five feet. In the

Comparison Chart, it described a wetland buffer of five feet for the current

PUD, but he did not see anything about a wetland buffer or natural

features setback in the proposed PUD. Mr. Gilbert said they were asking

for the same as was approved. Mr. Gaber thought they were talking about

the same thing - natural features setback and wetland buffer. It was in

Exhibit C of the original PUD; they were asking for a modification of 20

feet. They gave up most of the modifications of the first PUD. The only

two they maintained were the wetland buffer and the 75-foot right of way for

Rochester Rd.

Mr. Hooper agreed with reducing the density of the development. He had

read the conditions and suggested that they should keep the existing

PUD language for the drive-thrus: Drive-thru facilities permitted for banks

and financial institutions only. He did not think it would be viable to put in

a coffee shop. Under land use density, he suggested that they put some

maximums for office and residential or total square footage maximums.

He was sure they would develop less than the maximums. He thought

they could look at the setbacks and come up with something, and it would

be significantly less than 710,000 square feet that was currently allowed to

be developed.

He felt it would eliminate some of the uncertainty people felt about

changing from what was currently allowed to a modified PUD. The

majority of the changes were wins, in his view, for the community.

There was reduced density, reduced height, fewer buildings and more

green space. He had voted or the previous approval because he

liked the work/live concept, and he hoped it would have worked and

looked forward to it, but the market dictated more than Planning

Commission’s or City Council’s desires for the community.

Mr. Gilbert felt they could address the liquor issue with the

restaurants, and he offered that they could give up drive-thru

restaurants completely. He felt that was the biggest concern, and

they might have a problem identifying fast food, so they would just go

with none. Chairperson Boswell clarified that it would only allow

drive-thrus for financial institutions.

Mr. Gaber offered that they were trying to do something that worked.

He knew that people who lived next to it would like to see it remain

as it was. They recognized that, and they were trying to lessen the

impact as much as possible. There would obviously be more impact

than there was now, but there would be less than under the original

PUD. They would talk with Staff further, and provide a formal

presentation to the Commission for the PUD amendment process in

the near future.

2010-0167

2011-2016 Capital Improvement Plan Workshop -

Presentation of Projects

(Reference: Memo prepared by Keith Sawdon, dated April 15, 2010 and

draft 2011-2016 CIP had been placed on file in the Planning and

Economic Development Department and by reference became part of

the record thereof.)

Mr. Anzek recalled that it was the City’s 13th year preparing a CIP, and it

had served the City well as a planning document. The CIP organized the

projects sequentially; for example, they would not want to pave a road and

then dig it up to do a watermain. The CIP has helped the City understand

its infrastructure conditions and maintenance and replacement needs.

Mr. Anzek advised that they received only 25% of new projects normally

brought forward. There were 12 new projects, and he asked Mr. Sawdon

to go over their impact.

Mr. Sawdon stated that the City’s share of the 12 projects represented

$3.1 million, for a total of $92.7 million (City share) of all projects. There

were 29 projects removed from the CIP, totaling $5.8 million. Of the 29,

18 were completed; 10 were reclassified as “Under Review,” and one

project was deleted. Those items were on page 97 with a brief

description.

Mr. Anzek noted that it was the first time a project had been sponsored by

a citizen, who was at the meeting to present his case. Mr. Anzek referred

to page 96, Projects Added, and went over each new project: Parking Lot

Drainage Improvements at Fire Station #1: Every time there was a storm

the collapsed basin caused a flooded parking lot in front of the main drive

for the fire personnel; ADA Compliance Implementation, a Federal

Government mandate to bring things up to code; Concrete Apron

Replacement at Fire Station #4; Firefighter Turnout Gear Replacement -

for equipment worn into a building fire. The equipment had a life

expectancy which had been reached. This was a reccurring expense, and

they debated whether it should be in the CIP, but decided to put it in so it

was on the radar screen for budgeting. Next was the Hillview Street

project brought forward by Mr. Roy Juhl, a citizen.

Mr. Juhl showed some photos taken on April 6 of his flooded lawn after a

15-minute rain, which happened three to four times a year. He mentioned

that he had lived in the house for 35 years. He and his neighbor installed

a 10” plastic plate going from the catch basin to an area between their

properties to keep the water from their lawns. It had helped to some

degree, but it was not an overall solution to the problem. There was no

place for the water to go except on his lawn. There was sediment and

debris from the street, violating the environmental codes of the City. He

showed where the street was depressed, and said there was no ditching or

culverts. The street was over 60 years old and was probably put in without

any engineering. It had not been improved since then, other than adding

some gravel and doing some grading, which had not helped much.

During the wintertime, it became very slippery, and it was difficult to get

out of the sub. They definitely felt that something had to be done, and he

was appealing to the “board” to do something. He had the support of all

the neighbors in a signed petition.

Mr. Anzek said that Staff determined that they should reshape the crown

of the road and add soil. Mr. Schroeder asked what the outlet was, noting

that there was more water than what the pipe could handle. Mr. Anzek

said it was eastward, and he confirmed that there was no drain. Mr.

Schroeder suggested it might be a Drain Commission project, and Mr.

Anzek said he would look into it.

Mr. Anzek next discussed Avon Road Rehabilitation, a Road

Commission project to overlay from Crooks to Livernois. The City’s

share would be 10% or about $175,000.00. Number seven was Research

Drive, an industrial street that had crumbling concrete. A few years ago

they did some slab replacement, but they believed there would be total

replacement necessary. It was scheduled for 2013. Falcon, Firewood

and Regency Drive Rehabilitations were total rehab projects. The

Grinder Pump Replacement Program was part of a routine replacement

program. It was ongoing, and rather than take it out of the CIP, they

wanted to leave it in so people were aware of the expense in the Sewer

Budget. Mr. Anzek concluded with the Clinton River/Yates Riverbank

Stabilization project, which was a private project. There was some

accelerated erosion in the Yates area, and the City would do some work

and then seek grants.

Mr. Hooper referred to MR-04A, Walton Blvd. Rehabilitation, noting it was

a proposed Tri-Party funded project, and he asked the status.

Mr. Sawdon informed that he did not have an update, but said he would

be happy to get one. Mr. Schroeder had a copy of the current Road

Commission plan, and Walton was not shown for this year’s projects. Mr.

Hooper suggested that it be moved to Projects Under Review.

Mr. Hooper noted MR-13B, Dequindre Road Reconstruction, Auburn to

South Boulevard, and said he thought it was moving forward next year

with the Road Commission, but the CIP showed it for 2014-2018.

Mr. Hooper noted WS-02B, Hamlin Road Water Main Replacement and

asked if the engineering was done. He wished to confirm that the water

main was outside of the limits of the roundabout.

Mr. Hooper referred to PK-04D, Spencer Park: Splash Pad, and

suggested that it should be put into Projects Pending because he did not

see it happening in the near future. He did not think it should be in the

CIP with a dollar amount.

Mr. Hooper said that in the Projects Removed, MR-42D was going to be

done in 2011, and he felt it should be in the CIP. Mr. Anzek said there

was note that it was anticipated to be completed and it was funded. Mr.

Hooper agreed it was funded, but he said it would not be built this year. It

would be built in 2011 - after M-59 was finished. He recommended

putting it back in the Plan. He asked about SS-02A, Sanitary Sewer

Evaluation, and why it was being deleted.

Mr. Sawdon said it was originally going to be done through a contract, but

the Engineering Department determined that they could do it just as

efficiently in house. It would be funded through operations; that was why it

was moved to deleted status.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Comments at 10:22 p.m.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, Rochester Hills, MI 48306 Ms. Hill stated

that she was part of the CIP team from its inception, and she believed it

was an excellent planning and budgeting tool. She had come before

them for the past three years because she hoped that some of her

comments helped to make it a more useful tool. The projects that were

being moved to the Projects Pending section were described on pages

65 through 73. On page 97 there was a list of projects and the reasons

why they were not included. It stated that projects had been moved from

the Projects Pending section and moved to the Under Review section, but

there was no Under Review section. She felt the terminology should be

consistent. She had suggested in the past several years that there

should be a section at the end of each category or a stand alone category

that was called “Ongoing Programs.” On page 3, CIP Policy, No. 2, it

stated that a capital improvement project was defined as, “Any

nonrecurring rehabilitation of all or part of a building, its grounds, a facility

or equipment, provided that the cost was $25k or more, and the

improvement will have a useful life of three years or more.” Over the last

several years, there had been programs added to “Ongoing Programs.”

SS-15, Grinder Pump Replacement Program, was added this year. That

program, along with SS-01B, SCADA System Maintenance Program,

both carried a qualifier: “Although this is not a capital project, it is

included in the CIP in order to plan for major expenditures.” She felt that

was useful, but there were now a dozen of those projects scattered

throughout the CIP. They all added up to an annual proposed cost of

over $14 million. It was helpful to know, but she felt they should be listed

at the end of each of the appropriate categories or in a section by

themselves called Ongoing Programs. The City could then use it, from a

planning and budgeting perspective, in a much better way. They could

be recognized immediately, and they could understand the costs

proposed and the funding needed each year. Under the Internal Services

Support Program, the estimated City cost and City share percentages

were shown, but she felt it would be helpful to know the estimated annual

cost. She questioned why FA-07, Citywide Photo Copier Replacement

Schedule for 2012 for $12,500 per year fell under Facilities rather than

Internal Service Support Program/Services, which all appeared to be

ongoing programs.

Ms. Hill brought up stormwater management, and questioned what was

happening regarding drainage in the northeast portion of the City, for both

the Fedora and Stony Creek Drains. They had now been placed in the

Projects Pending section. She said that Mill Race had a problem similar

to Mr. Juhl’s. Mill Race was a private road, and all the stormwater

drainage was coming off of Washington and being dumped on it because

it was the low spot. Water sat in many residents’ yards like lakes, and it

was eroding their road. She said she was disappointed to see large

Chapter 20 drain projects in Projects Pending. She stated that the City

did not seem to be addressing some of these items, and that other

portions of the City were worked on, but the whole northeast segment of

the City was not being dealt with. Washington Road was proposed to be

paved, and she wondered where the water would go when they put in

storm drains.

Ms. Hill referred to PW-08C, Tienken Road Pathway: Historic District

(Mill Stream Village - Van Hoosen) and said it was not shown because it

was to be completed this year. However, PW-08E, Tienken Road

Pathway: Historic District (Van Hoosen Road to Washington Road), was

slated for 2012 to 2013. PW-08C from Millstream was not going to be

completed all the way to Van Hoosen; it would only go to just east of the

new bridge planned. A segment of PW-08C was being completely left out

of the CIP. There had been discussion at the Historic District

Commission meetings about possible placement of this segment,

whether it would drop down into the parking lot at the Van Hoosen Farm,

or go along the side of the Red House, but there was nothing definitive.

Staff had indicated that this segment would be completed when funding

was available and scheduled through regular channels. She felt that this

segment should be completed under PW-08C and not be deleted from

the CIP. The completion of this segment would finish the project while

addressing safety concerns. Allowing users to reach Van Hoosen where

there is low traffic would provide a safe route for walkers or riders to

connect with the roundabout/sidewalks at the east end of Stony Creek

Village or to the pathway to Stony Pointe. She thought it was a problem

that needed to be looked at. She reiterated that they should leave in

PW-08C and redefine what was left to be completed.

Ms. Hill questioned why FA-10, Energy Efficiency Analysis was not under

Professional Services.

Ms. Hill concluded that it would be nice to know the actual end costs, as

well as associated ongoing costs (if any), for various capital projects that

are listed each year as completed, to see how well they fell in line with the

estimates provided in the CIP. She felt it would help with the big picture,

to show how they were doing with capital improvement expenditures in the

City.

Chairperson Boswell closed the public comments. When reviewing the

CIP document, he had read the sentence Ms. Hill was referring to about

projects being included in the CIP even though they were not capital

projects, and said she was right. He commented that there was a

statement about what the CIP was for; however, Staff added other things

because they wanted to.

Mr. Schroeder asked the latest status for the Crooks Road/M-59

interchange. Mr. Anzek said they thought it was ready to go next year, but

then money got deferred. They were still trying to be in a good position

when the second round of stimulus money came through. Mr. Schroder

asked about Crooks from Star Batt to Hamlin. Mr. Anzek said they were

going to improve it, but they put it on hold because they had money for

the Crooks Rd. interchange, which would have taken care of it. Now there

was a question about getting tri-party money. Mr. Schroeder did not think

there would be any more tri-party money.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2009-0160

Election of Officers (Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and

Secretary) for a one-year term to expire the first meeting in

April 2011.

Upon motion by Schroeder, second by Dettloff, William Boswell was

unanimously re-elected to the position of Chairperson; Deborah Brnabic

was re-elected Vice Chairperson; and the Planning and Economic

Development Department was re-elected as Secretary for a one-year

term to expire the first meeting in April 2011.

This matter was Approved

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Meeting was scheduled

for May 4, 2010.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Mr. Yukon, the Chair adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:35 p.m.

_______________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_______________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary