Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, May 13, 1997

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Special Study Session to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki ‎(‎enter ‎9‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Gerald Robbins‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Penny Papke, Planning Technician‎

Kenneth Snell, Mayor‎

Thomas Dohr, Director of Public Services‎

Linda Blackerby, Financial Analyst‎

Belinda Peters, Financial Administrator‎

COMMUNICATIONS

There were no communications this evening‎.‎

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1733

Capital Improvement Plan Discussion‎

Mayor Snell indicated that the purpose of the study session this evening is to define for ‎

the Board the purpose of the plan, what it is, why it is needed and the role of the ‎

Planning Commission in the Capital Improvement Program process‎.‎

Mayor Snell noted that the purpose of the Capital Improvement Plan is to provide a ‎

plan that identifies all of the public works in the City‎’‎s Master Plans; which ‎

encompasses the Master Land Use Plan, Recreation Plan, Major Thoroughfare Plan, ‎

Pathway Plan, Water and Sewer Plan, Chapter ‎20 ‎and other Storm Water ‎

Improvements Plan, Local Development Finance Authority, state law requirements ‎

upon the City, policies that have been established and set by City Council and policies ‎

that have been established and set by the Administration‎. ‎

The Capital Improvement Plan will coordinate the plans and the improvements with ‎

the financial needs of the City as well as the capability of the City to finance the ‎

programs‎. ‎The Capital Improvement Plan will also allow the City to prioritize the ‎

improvements and leads to presenting the overall plan for the City‎. ‎The Plan is ‎

essentially a six‎-‎year financial report‎. ‎The priorities are going to be based upon the ‎

best needs of the community and the capability to finance the needs‎. ‎The plan is also ‎

designed to allow for flexibility; projects can be brought forward, added, deleted or ‎

delayed‎. ‎The first year is designed as a recommendation from the Planning ‎

Commission to the City Council for inclusion into the subsequent fiscal year budget‎. ‎

The plan is needed so that the City is in compliance with state law‎. ‎The plan will also ‎

provide an orderly continuity towards the construction and replacement of capital ‎

facilities and equipment‎. ‎The document will also give the City the ability to plan not ‎

only for the financing and cost efficiencies but also to minimize destruction to the ‎

community‎. ‎It is also the supporting piece of a strategic planning process for the ‎

Capital Improvement Plan which will help the City address liveability and sustain ‎

ability concerns which are part of the overall mission statement that the City is ‎

pursuing‎. ‎The Capital Improvement Plan will also help to enhance the financial ratings ‎

and the planning of the finances for the City in the years to come‎. ‎The document will ‎

also allow the City to look the future rather than reacting to things that may come up ‎

and is especially important when reviewing grant opportunities that may be received ‎

from other organizations‎. ‎The document also gives the City a realistic evaluation of the ‎

future‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin then discussed the role of the Planning Commission‎. ‎The role of the ‎

Planning Commission is indicated in the Michigan Municipal Planning Act ‎285 ‎of ‎

1931‎, as amended‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin then detailed Section ‎125‎.‎39‎, Section ‎9‎, which ‎

spells out the specifics of the Planning Commission‎’‎s role in the capital improvement ‎

planning process‎. ‎The primary function of the Planning Commission is to develop ‎

consistency between the policy plans from the Planning Commission as well as those ‎

of other boards and commissions‎. ‎To date, the Planning Commission has adopted ‎

separate components of the Comprehensive Plan‎. ‎Historically, the Planning ‎

Commission in Rochester Hills has adopted a Master Land Use Plan, Recreation Plan ‎

and in ‎1989 ‎a separate component that being the Transportation Plan which is ‎

adopted separately‎. ‎The Capital Improvement Plan is an extension of those plans ‎

which then breaks out those improvements from the policy documents and ranks them ‎

in order‎. ‎

Continuing, Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin noted that traditionally the Planning Commission has ‎

concerned itself with regulatory procedures of the review of site plan applications, ‎

zoning and land use applications and forwarding their recommendations onto City ‎

Council‎. ‎In this instance, the Planning Commission is in a role that is more long‎-‎range ‎

and more substantive in nature, in order to address planning issues as they relate to ‎

capital improvement‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin also noted that improvements not within the program prior to adoption ‎

of the CIP must be approved by the Planning Commission‎. ‎The recommendation can ‎

only then be overridden by a two‎-‎thirds majority of City Council and is an indication ‎

of the power and magnitude of the CIP planning process for the Planning ‎

Commissioners‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin suggested that the Board members read and review ‎

Chapter ‎1 ‎which was attached to their package explaining the role of the Planning ‎

Commission as Planners, Policy Makers and Spenders‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Blackerby discussed the CIP process‎. ‎Several teams were formed to start the ‎

CIP process early on‎. ‎In the beginning the objective of the Policy Team was to define ‎

the policy, address financing and the rating of projects‎. ‎The next team was the ‎

Project Team which worked on the project application, rating forms and the policy as ‎

well as writing the individual projects‎. ‎The two teams worked very closely together in ‎

the beginning to fine tune the process and to develop a policy that would meet the ‎

needs of everyone and to refine the application process to make sure that the process ‎

was sound‎. ‎After the projects were compiled, the Policy Team then rated and ‎

weighted each project, spreadsheets were compiled, discussion took place on ‎

available financing options and then recommendations were presented to the ‎

Administrative Team‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Blackerby then detailed the specific projects listed in the ‎

plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dohr reviewed the actual policy which was adopted by the Policy Team and the ‎

development process‎. ‎The intent of the CIP and the goal is to identify all of the major ‎

non‎-‎recurring improvements or expenditures that the City will be making long‎-‎term in ‎

an effort to bring forth policy and planning for the future‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dohr then reviewed the ‎

list of projects listed in the plan and answered Board members questions regarding the ‎

established benchmarks, deficiencies, identification of funding, ongoing costs, the ‎

prioritization of the projects and specific recommendations‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked for an explanation on how strategic planning and CIP is ‎

related but exclusive from one another‎.‎

Mayor Snell explained that strategic planning is the concept where you involve the ‎

community in helping to decide what are the real things that the community should ‎

provide whether it is a community center, certain housing standards, recreational ‎

opportunities or infrastructure for roads‎. ‎The process helps the City to decide what ‎

big goals the community should be working on in order to prioritize a lot of the ideas ‎

that come forward‎. ‎The strategic plan is the basic goal and the capital improvement ‎

plan establishes or implements the actions of the goals‎. ‎Each plan then feedbacks ‎

through the other‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Blackerby reviewed an outline of the draft document and responded to Board ‎

members questions regarding the public hearing notice, time line, project funding, ‎

future projects, ranking of the projects, and the role of the administration‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Robbins then asked about projects which are considered high priority and have ‎

not been identified in the plan‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Peters noted that this is where when these issues come to life‎. ‎The administration ‎

will have to take them into consideration and evaluate them and look at a budget ‎

amendment in order to incorporate the project into the budget‎. ‎The CIP will be ‎

coming forth for approval on an annual basis‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Ruggiero asked about the paving projects in the various parts of the City that ‎

were addressed prior to the road millage and were delayed‎.‎

Mayor Snell said that the paving projects were not delayed‎. ‎The projects now fall ‎

into the general category under local roads, paving and SAD‎. ‎A lot of these projects ‎

are also in the six million‎-‎dollar local road rehabilitation project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber pointed out that he is still confused about the issue of funding‎. ‎A lot of the ‎

improvements already have funds in the budget such as the pathways, major roads,‎

drains, etc‎. ‎

Mayor Snell indicated that for projects without a source of funding, the idea that is ‎

being recommended is to try and provide at least some amount of continuing funding ‎

to put into a CIP in order to make sure that the dollars are being allocated correctly‎. ‎

Part of the journal fund levy is then dedicated to move into a public improvements ‎

fund on the annual budgetary process so that funds are then distributed within the CIP‎. ‎

It is one way to provide an ongoing amount of funding for projects that may never ‎

have a dedicated source of funding on their own‎. ‎

Mayor Snell also noted for the record that if the Planning Commission were to adopt ‎

what is being presented, part of that adoption would be a recommendation to the City ‎

Council to fund both funded and non‎-‎funded columns in the ‎1998 ‎budget‎. ‎City ‎

Council would then be required to appropriate the sufficient dollars‎. ‎However, City ‎

Council can choose to deny this request‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser explained that the Planning Commission will receive the plan document ten ‎

days before the meeting on June ‎3‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser suggested that if anyone has questions ‎

regarding the draft document they should contact Ms‎. ‎Blackerby‎.‎

Mayor Snell feels that the concept of the CIP is very viable, dynamic and improvable‎. ‎

The CIP brings all of the planning efforts full circle and then defines the funding issues‎. ‎

The plan will always be revisited‎. ‎The plan will also helps the City save for future ‎

needs‎. ‎The money never gets lost in the budget‎. ‎

Continuing, Mayor Snell indicated that the plan is good support of a prudent fiscal ‎

policy and very prudent budgeting practices for the City and will put the City in ‎

compliance with state law‎. ‎The public hearing for the CIP will take place on June ‎3‎.‎

(‎Enter Member Nowicki at ‎9:00‎ p‎.‎m‎.)*‎

(‎The Board recessed at ‎9:05‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎and reconvened at ‎9:18‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

(‎Exit Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin at ‎9:06‎ p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Discussed

2000-1410

Cellular Tower Ordinance Discussion‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi presented the draft document on the proposed amendment to the ‎

Cellular Telephone Towers ‎(‎now called Wireless Telecommunication Towers‎) ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi then asked for feedback on the subject document‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Robbins noted that under Section ‎21‎.‎22‎.‎b, last sentence, the word ‎“‎feet‎” ‎should ‎

be inserted after ‎(‎185‎). ‎Mr‎. ‎Robbins also asked if the amendment will still allow the ‎

Planning Commission to reduce the setback requirements‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated that he and John Staran discussed reducing the setback for ‎

collocated towers‎. ‎However, John Staran felt that this was not a good way to ‎

approach this issue‎. ‎In logic, as you get more providers the setback should increase‎. ‎

Under the Telecommunications Act you cannot treat one carrier differently from the ‎

other in terms of the setback requirements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi noted that it appears that the ‎

surrounding communities use the district requirements‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser remarked that he is very supportive of cellular towers, however, he is ‎

uncomfortable with using the district requirements for the setback‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser would ‎

like to see the setback outside of the ‎“‎fall zone‎.‎”‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi indicated that the setback requirements will restrict collocating and ‎

towers‎. ‎There could be a situation where you would not have the flexibility because of ‎

the location of the site‎. ‎Setbacks can only be modified by the ZBA‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

also pointed out that the setbacks are for monopoles not antennas‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

indicated that he will verify that the amendment exemptions are in the setback ‎

requirements for non‎-‎residential structures‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser said that he is still uncomfortable with the setback requirements that have ‎

been discussed this evening‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser believes that the residential requirement will ‎

take care of itself‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser is concerned about the one individual or the crew ‎

working at night if it is an industrial building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser does not want to do ‎

something where one person could possibly get injured especially, if it is not ‎

necessary‎. ‎After a year or so, if the requests become overwhelming and too many ‎

residents start complaining, the Planning Commission can then review the ordinance ‎

again‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked how objectionable the applicant‎’‎s would be to ‎

one‎-‎half of the height‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi remarked that the trade‎-‎off that they really enjoy is the fact that they are ‎

not required to obtain approval from City Council‎. ‎They would much rather stay ‎

away from the political scene and this encourages the applicants to look for sites ‎

much more carefully‎. ‎By allowing half of the height and being a principal permitted ‎

use, it appears to be a trade‎-‎off that the companies are willing to take‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser added that if the City makes an error and one person suffers from the ‎

matter down the road, the Board has made a terrible mistake‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber asked why the risk is actually greater than normal‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser indicated that the risk is greater because theoretically, the towers fold in ‎

two‎. ‎This is why half the height is recommended‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gaber noted that if you were concerned about personal harm, then you would be ‎

concerned about the tower on the site and where the monopole is located‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser remarked that the property owner is assuming the risk‎. ‎They are leasing ‎

the property for the use of tower‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi also pointed out that the property owner is receiving $‎1‎,‎000 ‎to $‎2‎,‎000 ‎a ‎

month to assume this type of a risk‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen said that a determination really needs to be made on whether or not the ‎

Board feels comfortable about towers falling down‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser remarked that theoretically with the information that has been given, the ‎

towers do fall in half and the tower could hit something before it falls down to the ‎

base‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell noted that the possibility of a tower falling over are actually very slim‎.‎

‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser indicated that he has considered this, however, he is still uncomfortable ‎

with the issue‎. ‎As Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi has pointed out, the City is creating an idea situation ‎

where the tower companies will not be complaining‎. ‎If they have a site that is not a ‎

self‎-‎created problem, they can appear in front of the ZBA‎.‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that if the setbacks are reduced and towers are ‎

allowed more readily on more properties, the cellular companies may find it easier not ‎

to collocate as well‎. ‎By allowing more sites, the companies would be less likely to ‎

work with one another to go on a tower that is being designed for two users‎. ‎This will ‎

force the users to consider collocation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser then asked if all of the incentives have been addressed that have been ‎

suggested by the carriers‎. ‎Have enough incentives been created to collocate?‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi remarked that the biggest incentive for collocation is the process that is ‎

currently in place‎. ‎At this point, the cellular company is only required to obtain a ‎

permit from the Building Department‎. ‎They do not have to obtain a Land Use Permit ‎

from Engineering‎. ‎This really expedites the site plan review process‎. ‎A second set of ‎

antennas can be erected in two months‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi also pointed out that he requires ‎

applicants that are applying for new monopoles to send letters by certified mail asking ‎

other companies about towers that may be nearby and that can be used for ‎

collocation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Robbins asked about incentives for towers that are smaller than ‎130 ‎feet‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi noted that in most cases staff would like to see taller towers in the ‎

industrial areas to accommodate collocation‎. ‎Rochester Hills is also unique in the fact ‎

that it has rolling terrain and a lot of trees‎. ‎Some of the trees in the area are ‎80 ‎to ‎85 ‎

feet in height‎. ‎In the residential areas staff desires to see the towers at the lowest ‎

height possible‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser asked about the additional language in reference to ‎“‎the tower shall be ‎

constructed for and available for collocation‎.‎” ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi said that he will incorporate this comment into the amendment‎. ‎He will ‎

then have the new document reviewed by Mayor Snell and by Mr‎. ‎Staran so that the ‎

final document can be prepared for the public hearing‎. ‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mrs‎. ‎Goodwin asked Board members to set a specific date for the tour of the Historic ‎

District‎. ‎Board members concurred that the tour should take place on Saturday, June ‎

14‎, ‎1997‎, from ‎8 ‎to ‎10 ‎a‎.‎m‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The next Regular Meeting will take place on Tuesday, May ‎20‎, ‎1997‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the study session at ‎9‎:‎55 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎