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 Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem Carolann Ayers, Councilmembers Kevin Hartshorne and Thomas Swigart

Absent: Councilmember Jerome Mittman (excused)

A. Citizen Comments None

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

Approve City Council Minutes:

Regular Meeting of January 6, 2003

Approve Bills List: Checks #30266 to #30403 and #30404 to #30507

Board of Zoning Appeals: 11/6/02, 12/4/02

Downtown Development Authority: 12/10/02

Historic District Commission: 12/18/02

Parks and Recreation: 12/11/02

Planning Commission: 12/17/02

Senior Citizens Advisory Council: 12/12/02

Receive Departmental Reports:

Fire Department: 11/02

Parks and Recreation: 12/02

Housing Commission: Robert Buckhave (appointment)

2003 "Welcome to Northville" Signs

Proclamation / Grand Seniors Birthday Celebration

2003 Homecoming Parade Request / Northville High School

Request to Canvass / Clean Water Action

Request to Schedule Public Hearing / Proposed Uses of FY2003 Wayne County CDBG Funds

On December 2, 2002, the City Council requested that a public hearing be scheduled in order to receive public input on a proposed temporary off-leash recreation area (dog park), to be located on city-owned property behind the Senior Center. The proposed OLRA project is consistent with the Parks and Recreation "pay for play" philosophy, where participants provide a fee to cover the operating cost of an activity. It is proposed that the Parks and Recreation Department would collect fees, issues passes, and establish the use database. Ongoing site maintenance would be performed by the Department of Public Works or the Parks and Recreation Department. An anonymous donor has committed the start up funds to develop the Phase I site.

Prior to the public hearing, the Dog Park Committee gave a brief presentation, which included a short video offering an overview of various dog parks located throughout the country.

David Hay, 262 Wing Court, stated he supported the concept of a dog park in the community, but was not in support of a dog park located next to a residential area. He cited concern with noise, odor, and the small size of the proposed area. He concluded by stating that neighborhood children use the current open space behind the Senior Center as a recreational area, and felt that there was property located in the Township that would be more appropriate for a dog park.

Mark Trudeau, 501 W. Cady, stated that he has lived in the area for over five years and has not seen evidence of the open space behind the Senior Center being used as a recreational area by neighborhood children. He supports the concept of a dog park and the proposed temporary location.

Anna Hay, 262 Wing Court, stated that she lives behind the Senior Center and sees children playing in this area everyday.

Marlene Danol, 217 Linden, stated that there is limited space available in the City for a dog park and felt the temporary site should be considered. She felt that part of the charm of this location was its convenience. She concluded by stating that the dog park would be a wonderful way for senior citizens to socialize with animals, especially those seniors that can no longer have a pet of their own.

The Parks and Recreation Director reviewed the proposed dog park rules, which were presented to the Recreation Commission at a previous meeting. It was noted that the proposed site would be of a temporary use, proposed operating hours would be from dawn to dusk, access would be through a card-swipe mechanism, annual or daily passes would require proof of up-to-date vaccinations and possession of a current dog license, dogs must be accompanied by their owner, owners would be required to clean up after their dog, children under the age of twelve must be accompanied by an adult, and violators would have their privileges revoked.

Terrence Burgoyne, 510 Butler, was opposed to both the temporary site and the proposed permanent site as these sites are located near residential areas. Concerns included noise levels, number of dogs, and length of park hours. He concluded his comments by stating that dog parks are not typically located near residential areas.

Sonia Swigart, 628 W. Main Street, stated that the only site being proposed tonight was the temporary site behind the Senior Center and that discussion pertaining to other sites, at this time, was premature.

Doug Moak, 464 Butler, stated he felt that additional information was needed before a decision could be made on the proposed temporary site. He questioned the length of time the temporary site would operate as a dog park.

The Council noted that a specific "end date" had not been discussed. The Post Office has explored the possibility of expanding their operations, with the current concept being a retail operation in the City and other expansion occurring in the Township. Since September 2001 and with the national economic slowdown, all post office expansion projects are now on hold. With the uncertainty of the Post Office expansion, there would be no guarantee as to how long the temporary site could remain a dog park. However, if the proposed temporary site is approved, it is the Council’s desire to allow enough time for a fair trial run to see if the concept of a permanent dog park site is feasible.

The Parks and Recreation Director noted that an anonymous donor has offered funding to develop the temporary site and the funds generated from the temporary site would be used to fund a future permanent site. A larger permanent site location is being pursued.

David Hay, 262 Wing Court, stated his objection to approving the temporary site without the consideration of an "end date". Further comments again focused on odor, noise, loss of green vegetation due to dog urine, and a final comment urging the Council to consider an alternate location adjacent to current parks located within the Township.

Linda Dzwiglaski, 521 W. Main Street, stated that she has been going to dog parks for several years. In her experience, dog parks located near a residential area, such as the dog park in Mt. Clemens, do not pose any problems. She noted that in Calgary, dog parks are a requirement when a new subdivision is developed. Further comments noted that dog parks are great for socialization and significant research indicates dog parks provide a great benefit to the community. She concluded by stating that the rules established for any dog park must reflect its location.

Glen Bott, 435 Welch, stated that the Recreation Commission has endorsed dog parks in its master plan, the temporary site would be self-supporting, and he supported the temporary site.

Resident, 20765 W. Chigwidden, supports the concept of a dog park. Dogs are kind and gentle and a dog park is a wonderful opportunity for members of the community to socialize and meet people with similar interests. She did not feel that the dog park would have all dogs using it at the same time.

Council Comments / Discussion: Discussion took place regarding the proposed temporary location and whether locating a temporary or permanent dog park near a residential area was appropriate. Materials relative to establishing a dog park in the community, as found on the website www.dogpark.com, were reviewed. Items discussed included location, parking, the advantages and disadvantages of large and small sites, noise, environmental assessments, possible health concerns, soil erosion, liability and risk, possible overuse, and neighborhood friendly sites. Photos and maps of several dog parks located through the tri-county area were reviewed.

Comments included:

Laura Gilani, Township Resident, stated that she frequents the downtown and supports the concept of a dog park in the City. She does not support a dog park located in a county park as this option removes local control of the dog park and its rules.

The Dog Park Committee members stated that they would do their best to ensure that residents living near the temporary site are not inconvenienced. Dog Park users would have their passes revoked if they continued to violate park rules.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Swigart to concur with the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission and approve the use of the area located behind the Senior Center as a temporary off leash recreation area, for a period of 18 months to commence from the park opening date, as outlined in the Dog Park Committee proposal. Further, the multiple dog park rules shall be presented to, and be reviewed by the City Council, prior to the opening of the dog park. Yes: Ayers, Swigart, Johnson. No. Hartshorne. Motion carried.

The City received a request from the Northville Community Foundation to utilize City streets and public rights-of-way for the annual Independence Day Parade, as well as a contribution of $4,000 for use in supporting the parade. In the past, the City has donated up to $3,000 for the Independence Day celebration, which included an amount allocated for fireworks. For the past two years, fireworks were not held in Northville; as such, the full contribution was not made. Recognizing the cost to hold and conduct a quality parade requires substantial resources and the fact that the possibility of fireworks remains remote, it is suggested that a contribution of $3,000 be made to the Northville Community Foundation to be used toward the Independence Day Parade.

Council Comments / Discussion: Council reiterated their desire to review the annual reports.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Hartshorne, to contribute $3,000 to the Northville Community Foundation to be used toward the 2003 Independence Day Parade. Further, the Northville Community Foundation shall provide an annual written report to the City Council outlining how the funds were used; said report to be submitted within 60 days following the parade. Motion carried unanimously.

As a part of the Eight Mile Bike Path partnership between the City of Northville and the Northville Public Schools, the City agreed to maintain the asphalt pathway, including snow removal, and the School District agreed to perform lawn maintenance adjacent to the path along District property. Though most of this path is on the Eight Mile Road public right-of-way, a portion of the path is School District property. As such, an easement agreement with the Northville Public Schools would give the City perpetual rights and commit the City to place, repair and maintain the asphalt path. The Northville Public School Board of Education has agreed to this easement.

Council Comments / Discussion: Council noted that the combined efforts of the School District and City staff have made this wonderful project a reality.

Motion Hartshorne, seconded by Swigart to adopt resolution 03-01 authorizing the Director of Public Works to sign an easement agreement with the Northville Public Schools to place and maintain a bicycle path along Eight Mile Road on Northville Public School District Property. Motion carried unanimously.

Since the implementation of the Downtown Parking Management Plan, the Parking Committee has continued to monitor parking, reviewed the impact of the parking management program, and considered various citizen parking concerns. Based upon the committee’s review, Traffic Control Orders 03-01, 03-02, and 03-03 are proposed. The TCO’s would address concerns relative to the lack of use of the two-hour spaces in the lower deck of Lot #1, address concerns with the three-hour restriction in the upper level of Lot #1, address overnight parking for CBD residents, and eliminate Saturday enforcement in certain areas. Addressing the concerns of Northville Watch and Clock relative to the lack of close, short-term parking for Dunlap businesses does not require a change in the traffic control order as the wording allows some adjustment in the placement of "orange dot" spaces.

Council Comments / Discussion: A comment noted the fact that even though there is signage at the entrance of the various parking lots, parking has become more confusing to those people who do not utilize downtown parking on a daily basis.

Representatives from Singh Development addressed the City Council relative to parking restrictions on the Cady Deck. Concern was expressed with the Parking Management Plan, in the feeling that it discriminates against office workers and favors retail. It was felt that the City is denying CadyCentre tenants use of the Cady Street deck. Further, the restrictions have decreased the value of CadyCentre, as there no longer is unrestricted, adjacent parking next to CadyCentre. Singh concluded with a request that the City return the Cady Deck to its previous use of a small amount of limited parking and the remainder of the parking be unrestricted and open to everyone.

An attorney representing Century 21 Town and Country addressed the City Council relative to Cady Deck parking. He stated that Century 21 was a benefit to the City and the downtown and that unrestricted parking on the upper deck is necessary to Century 21 operations. Further comments noted that Century 21 was not contacted prior to parking use changes, Singh Development assisted in funding the Cady Deck construction, and concern that parking was now restricted in several areas. The attorney concluded by stating the it was Century 21 Town and Country’s feeling that the only resolution to this matter might be through legal action.

The Council noted that it was unfortunate that people choose to resolve differences through legal action. It was clarified that parking was reviewed as "long and short term" parking, as opposed to "office worker and retail" parking. Further, City of Northville taxpayers, of whom 80% are residential, made the largest financial contribution toward the construction of the Cady Deck. It was noted that the Parking Committee has met on several occasions to address the concerns of Century 21 and other downtown businesses. As a result, seventeen additional spaces were being added to the Cady Deck and further adjustments were made to address the concerns of other businesses. Adjustments to the Downtown Parking Management Plan are made in order to benefit the overall downtown community. Final comments suggested installing parking meters, exploring the possibility of charging a parking deck user fee, and the fact that many unrestricted parking spaces are available in the card-activated lot near MainCentre.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Swigart to accept the recommendations of the Parking Committee and approve the following Traffic Control Orders:

• TCO 03-01: Parking, Downtown Parking Deck, Lot #1
• TCO 03-02: Parking, City Lot #2
• TCO 03-03: Parking, City Lot #3

On February 4, 2002, City Council approved the PUD request and revised PUD agreement by Cambridge Development. The Zoning Ordinance requires that Cambridge Development begin construction prior to February 4, 2003. However, in discussions with City staff, the President of Cambridge Development indicated his desire to pre-sell 50% of the residential units in the project prior to beginning project construction. Unfortunately, the national economic slowdown over the past year has made sales slower than expected. Cambridge Development is optimistic that the project will proceed and is requesting additional time to market and sell the residential units before closing on the property and beginning construction. Since the property sale has been delayed from the original purchase and development agreement terms, Cambridge Development has agreed to pay an additional fee to the City based on the interest the City would have earned on the $600,000 purchase price. This fee would continue to accrue.

Motion Swigart, seconded by Ayers to approve the request by Cambridge Development for a one-year extension to the final PUD approval and approved site plan granted to Cambridge Place on February 4, 2002. Yes: Ayers, Swigart, Johnson. No. Hartshorne. Motion carried.

On December 2, 2002, the City Council scheduled a special meeting on January 27, 2003 to determine goals, objectives, and priorities for the next fiscal year budget. Due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts, it is suggested that the Fiscal Year 2003-04 goals, objectives, and priorities meeting be rescheduled for 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 18, 2003.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Swigart to schedule the Fiscal Year 2003-04 goals, objectives, and priorities meeting for Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Motion carried unanimously.

Swigart noted that Wayne County might be willing to come out, at no fee to the City, to review and inventory the parcels of unused, open space land to locate natural features of interest and value. He questioned whether there was an interest in obtaining this information. It was the Council’s desire to accept the County’s offer if the inventory could be completed within a reasonable timeframe (i.e. 3 months).

Hartshorne noted that, on the weekend, he had a difficult time in obtaining a street map while searching for dog parks in the City of Royal Oak. In order to better serve visitors to the community, it was suggested that street maps be made available for sale at the Police Department for after hour and weekend visitors to the community.

B. Staff Communications None

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne Massa
City Clerk