City Council Minutes

Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:30 p.m. in the Northville City Hall Council Chambers, 215 West Main Street, Northville, Michigan.

Present: Mayor Christopher Johnson, Mayor ProTem Carolann Ayers, Councilmembers Kevin Hartshorne, Jerome Mittman, and Thomas Swigart.

Absent: None.

A. Citizen Comments None.

The Arts Commission continues its endeavor to place art pieces throughout the Northville community. Commissioner Naigus presented models of the five sculptures submitted for consideration. As the first sculpture is planned for the bandshell area, each sculpture is of a "music" theme, ranging from 6 – 9 feet in height. He further outlined the selection process and continued fund-raising efforts. The final selection should be made by July 17, 2001.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Mittman to approve the agenda and consent agenda as presented. Consent agenda as follows:

City Council Minutes:

Regular Meeting of June 18, 2001

Approve Bills List: Checks #22086 - #22309

Receive Board and Commission Minutes:

Beautification Commission: 5/8/01

Planning Commission: 6/5/01

Youth Assistance: 5/8/01

Receive Departmental Reports:

Downtown Development Authority: 5/01

Police Department: 3/01, 4/01

Youth Assistance: 5/01

Board of Zoning Appeals: Reappointment of Jim Bress, Rolland Stapleton

Independence Day Parade Request

MML Annual Meeting / Northville Official Representatives

Request to Close City Parking Lot / First Presbyterian Church

Proclamation / July as Northville Recreation and Parks Month

Resolution Supporting Protection of Johnson Creek

On May 7, 2001 the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Notice of Adoption and Intent to Enforce the Michigan Building, Michigan Mechanical, and Michigan Plumbing Codes in the City of Northville. This notice indicated the City’s intent to locally administer and enforce the State Codes. The current language in the Code of Ordinances refers to the BOCA Codes and requires modification to reference the Michigan Codes. The amendments also modify various sections of Article III, Electrical Code, which were inadvertently excluded during the amendment process in August 2000. The Ordinance Amendments were introduced for first reading on June 18, 2001.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Hartshorne to waive second reading and adopt the amendments to the City of Northville Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14, Building and Building Regulations, effective on July 31, 2001 to coincide with the effective date of the State Codes. Motion carried unanimously.

For nearly three years, Cambridge Development Company has worked to develop a portion of south Cady Street into a mixed-use development complex called Cambridge Place. The proposed project is being reviewed under the Planned Unit Development ordinance. On June 5, 2001, following public comments, the Planning Commission returned the PUD application to the applicant with suggested improvements and comments. At their special meeting on June 26, 2001 the Planning Commission granted preliminary approval to the proposed project with the following findings:

Adequate documentation supporting the height of the proposed structure has been demonstrated and that the video and sections be made available for Council review.

Sufficient parking is available through the purchase of parking credits and based on the parking survey conducted by the applicant.

The applicant has demonstrated architectural design quality and compatibility with the City.

The applicant will provide public benefit by providing pedestrian linkage with the Town Square, Public Plaza, and the opportunity to incorporate Cady streetscape design on the south side of Cady.

Key issues addressed during the review process included 1) Height, Scale, and Mass; 2) Parking; 3) Vehicular Circulation; 4) Public Amenities/Plaza; and 5) Architectural Quality. Article 20, Section 20.07c of the Planned Unit Development ordinance requires review of the project in conjunction with Planning Commission comments, and City Council action.

Council Comments/Discussion: Lengthy discussion focused on building height, parapet height, parking and parking credits, building mass, and the proposed greenbelt. Key points included:

Concern expressed relative to the building height and mass in comparison to other downtown

buildings. From the south, the building appears to block out and overpower the downtown area. It was argued that the building height is comparable to other buildings within the downtown, with approximately 75% of the first level being actually underground. It was noted that it is difficult to picture this building on a site that is currently vacant.

Concern expressed relative to parking, parking credits, and on-street parking. The parking needs of a building this size may create a potential problem for businesses to the west of the development. It was stated that Cady Street should not be used for both a loading zone and on-street parking. It was argued that the goal is to make the downtown walkable and convenient, and this development should encourage people to park and walk.

A question as to whether it was feasible to remove one or two floors from the building in order to lower the height. It was argued that this particular project was chosen because it offered two commercial floors as well as three floors of owner-occupied residential units.

The fact that the PUD ordinance allows for compromise within each project. The proposed development is a high-quality project that provides for both commercial use and owner-occupied residential within the downtown. Overall, it is essential to create amenities that encourage people to frequent the downtown. The building’s height and mass are part of the compromise as allowed under the ordinance and will set the standard for future Cady Street developments. It was noted the building’s mass offers the character of three individual buildings, making this project unique.

The following persons addressed the City Council:

Jim Willis, Century 21 Town and Country at CadyCentre, stated he has shown the concept drawings to real estate customers, receiving a positive response.

Craig Halseth, 464 Welch, expressed concern that the proposed building height may diminish the view of the other rooftops within the downtown. However, he was pleased to see a beautiful building being built on Cady Street.

Mary Ellen Patterson Hollis, 114 Walnut, expressed concern that this building would be overshadowed should the racetrack property be developed with buildings at the same height as Cambridge Place.

Barbara Watry, 280 S. Center Street, questioned whether the developer would walk away from the project if the building height were reduced.

Jeff Jepico, Owner of Little Italy, stated he was not concerned with the building height and mass. Further, he did not feel a building of this height and mass would discourage people from coming into the downtown. He viewed this project as a positive to the downtown and the community as a whole.

Motion Hartshorne to grant Preliminary PUD approval of the proposed Cambridge Place mixed-use development, provided that the developer reduce the building size by one story, and refer the project back to the Planning Commission for final approval. Motion died for lack of support.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Swigart to grant Preliminary PUD approval of the proposed Cambridge Place mixed-use development, subject to the developer continuing to address the following conditions:

Height, Scale and Mass: To be architecturally mitigated to address concerns identified by the Planning Commission.

Parking: While the project will provide most of its parking onsite, negotiations should continue relative to what components will be included in the total parking formula applied to this development. Staff should review the parking requirements to assure that the final determination of required parking credits, currently estimated at 53 – 66 credits, is adequate.

Vehicular Circulation: Issues to include additional input from City staff. Further, the proposed traffic study should include Center Street, Cady Street, and Mary Alexander Court.

Public Amenities/Plaza: Offered by the developer for community benefit, will include a fountain and a pedestrian link to the core downtown area to the north of the complex.

Architectural Quality: Pending additional review and input from the Historic District Commission, the developer is encouraged to create a unique building compatible with the architecture within the downtown.

On June 20, 2001 the City received bids for the following improvement programs:

Detroit Concrete Products Corporation $30,000.00

Maged Contracting Inc. $14,980.00

Metropolitan Asphalt Paving Company $27,126.00

S&J Asphalt Paving $41,050.00

Michigan Joint Sealing $13,053.60

S&J Asphalt Paving Company $10,760.00

McCarthy Construction Company $14,300.00

Hartwell Cement Company $11,700.00

Sufficient funds have been included in the FY 2002 budget, with project bids falling below the budgeted amount.

Council Comments/Discussion: Council requested the DPW Director contact Wayne County regarding crack sealing on Main Street.

Motion Mittman, seconded by Ayers to award the following contracts:

Permanent Utility Cut Repair Program: Maged Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $14,980.00

Joint and Crack Sealing Program: S&J Asphalt Paving Company in the amount of $10,760.00

Sidewalk Replacement Program: Hartwell Cement Company in the amount of $11,700.00

Further, the DPW Director is authorized to negotiate the unit price with each contractor, not to exceed the budgeted amount, in order to include additional projects in each program. Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Johnson reminded everyone to attend the Independence Day parade on July 4^th. He noted that the fireworks display was canceled due to several factors, which included sponsorship, location, and liability issues.

Mittman requested the DDA review the bandshell area and adjacent parking next to the Kitchen Witch to determine the feasibility of permanently closing the area in order to expand the bandshell park area. It was suggested this item be included in the upcoming parking study.

Swigart requested that the practice of placing "no parking 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m." signs in the parking area near the bandshell, during the Friday Clock Concerts, be reinstated.

Word stated that Staff would present a report to the City Council to clarify the scope of the proposed traffic study.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne Massa

City Clerk