City Council Minutes

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

Absent: None

A. Citizen Comments None

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

Consent agenda as follows:

Approve City Council Minutes:

Regular Meeting of November 1, 2004

Special Meeting of November 8, 2004

Approve Bills List: Checks #40657 to #40779, and #40780 to #40872

Receive Board and Commission Minutes:

Board of Zoning Appeals: 9/1/04

Parks and Recreation Commission: 10/13/04

Planning Commission: 10/5/04, 10/19/04

Receive Departmental Reports:

Fire Department: 8/04

Parks and Recreation: 10/04

2005 City Council Meeting Schedule

In April 2003, City Council granted permission for the Parks and Recreation Department to create an Off Leash Recreation Area (Dog Park) behind the Scout and Recreation Building at 215 W. Cady Street. The project was approved on a temporary basis until December 31, 2004. In May 2004, dog park users approached the City Council with a request to extend the park use beyond the December 31, 2004 deadline. Wing Court residents also attended the meeting to argue against the continued use of the current park location, citing excessive barking and concerns about possible exposure to contamination. During this meeting, City Council requested that discussion of the dog park extension be delayed until fall. The dog park users have since submitted a written request to extend the park use beyond December 31^st. Wing Street residents that requested notification of the dog park extension request were contacted by Staff.

Staff addressed resident concerns raised at the meeting pertaining to excessive barking, urine odors, and possible soil contamination. It was found that dog park users do their best to self-police the park to quiet barking dogs. However, neighbors still report incidents of excessive barking. Staff has found no evidence of potential soil contamination from pet waste. Staff also contacted an environmental company, which stated that ground testing would not prove whether excessive urine odor exists.

The Northville Township Board of Trustees authorized Staff to investigate a potential dog park within the Community Park expansion project, with a budget not to exceed $52,000. While there appears to be an appropriate location of 3 – 5 acres, the area is still under construction from the expansion project and will not be available for restoration until spring. A spring dog park project might allow the site to become available for use by fall 2005. The specific area and project information will be presented to the Township Board at their December 2004 meeting.

Although dog park users wish to maintain a "downtown" dog park location, the current site is not large enough to accommodate the growing number of residents wishing to participate. It was noted that the temporary site has been an excellent trial project, demonstrating the need for recreational opportunities of this nature.

A majority of the citizens present were in support of extending the use of the Cady Street dog park site. The following persons spoke in support of the dog park extension.

Jane Smiley, address not provided Marlene Danol, 217 Linden

Margaret Neenan, 402 Mountainview Joseph Osborne, Veterinarian

Resident, 299 Sherrie Lane Linda Barnes, 21405 Summerside

Brenda Roth, Township Resident Fred Shadko, 47040 Timberlane

Stephanie Ruiter, 433 Dubuar Street Annie Trudeau, 501 W. Cady Street

Anthony Heckemeyer, 630 Potomac Barbara Drouillard, 597 Randolph

Phyllis Heckemeyer, 630 Potomac Karen Magdich, 359 N. Rogers Street

Marcia Bashur, 337 Sherrie Lane

Comments included:

The desire to make temporary dog park a permanent location was voiced as the dog park fills a recreational need; is safe, convenient, within walking distance for most users, a great place to meet people, and has a waiting list of persons interested in obtaining park passes.

Many dog park users patronize downtown businesses. Moving the dog park from this location could hurt the local merchants as dog park users will spend their money where the park is located.

The Dog Park Committee continues to work with Northville Township to develop an additional site. City Council was urged to allow the Cady Street dog park site to remain open even after a Township dog park site is operating.

"Dogs will be dogs" and this includes occasional barking. Dog park users "self-police" the dogs and, generally, most owners do not allow their dogs to bark for an excessive period. Dog park users have gone so far as to take action to silence dogs if the problem is not being addressed by the owner.

Suggestion to allow the Police Department to handle excessive barking problems as opposed to contacting the Parks and Recreation Department.

Suggestion to research if materials exist that could be installed as noise abatement to minimize barking noises.

Comments noting that soil contamination should not be an issue due to the dog park topography and that the earth purifies urine contaminants.

The need for dog park users to be cognizant of neighborhood concerns was reiterated.

Several citizens stated that they frequent the dog park at all times, including the evenings, and have not seen dog fights or excessive barking.

Petitions supporting the continued use of the Dog Park located on Cady Street were submitted.

An excerpt from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association dated 8/1/04, regarding E-Coli from dog feces was referenced and submitted as part of the record. It was noted that the study found that dogs are unlikely to be an important external reservoir of antimicrobial-resistant E coli strains causing infections in humans.

A report titled "The Case for Space - Expanding Recreational Opportunities for Dog Owners and Their Pets," prepared by the School of Policy, Planning and Development/University of Southern California, was referenced and submitted as part of the record. It was noted that studies of dog beaches and human beaches in California found that the bacterial level of dog beaches were the same or lower than the acceptable bacteria level of human beaches.

Two letters, dated March 11, 2003 and March 14, 2003 from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University were referenced and submitted. It was noted that many of the Northville Dog Park rules and guidelines were based on the information provided in the letters. Overall, the letters were in support of the concept of a dog park.

Letters supporting the extension of the dog park were submitted by:

Kathleen Robinson, no address provided Anne Pyett, 19449 Donegal Ct.

Peter and Kathleen Scullen, 894 Andover Unknown resident, no address provided

Barb Wagner, 39593 Eagle Trace Drive Margaret Neenan, 402 Mountainview

Scott Boschert, 723 Grace Street Gary and Peggy Quick, 882 Andover

The following persons spoke in opposition of extending the use of the dog park at this location.

Heidi Bulich, 300 Wing Ct. Brett McGraw, 254 Wing Ct.

Comments and concerns included:

Excessive barking during the evenings and weekends, which was compared to having a "neighbor" with an uncontrolled, barking dog.

Excessive barking not restricted to just one dog; as one stops barking, another will begin. The barking is heard non-stop for about 15 minutes each hour.

Wing Court residents are not being able to allow their dogs to be in their yard as this escalates the dog barking in the dog park.

The large burden to the neighborhood on filing complaints with the Recreation Department, contacting the Police Department to resolve barking issues, and having to "police" the excessive barking and dog fighting incidences. A belief that "self-policing" by all dog park users is not being done.

The need for the City to enforce the ordinance pertaining to "barking."

Strong urine odors wafting into the neighborhood, especially on very warm summer days.

Concerns with possible soil contamination and urine "seepage" near the property lines of the residential property that abuts the dog park and a request to have environmental testing to confirm whether or not the soil is contaminated.

The fact that this is an unusual location and research has shown that most dog parks are located on large 3 -5 acre sites that do not abut residential neighborhoods.

Reiteration that few complaints are actually filed; however, excessive barking and dog fighting is a daily occurrence. Uncertain what to do if persistent problems continue as the "complaint" documentation does not accurately reflect the number of problems.

Concern with the dog park use being extended and having to go through another summer in which on extremely warm days the urine smell would be overwhelming.

Suggestion that the dog park use extension expires prior to summer 2005.

Two letters, dated March 11, 2003 and March 14, 2003, from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University were referenced. It was noted that suggestions, such as the installation of double-fencing, were not done when the dog park originally opened. Additional fencing was only placed after resident raised the concern at the July 6, 2004 City Council meeting.

Both were original supporters of the temporary dog park site. It was voiced that a dog park is a wonderful asset to the community. However, Wing Court residents did not understand the dog park’s impact on the neighborhood until the dog park was in operation. City Council was urged to find an alternate solution and not extend the use of the Cady Street dog park location.

Council Comments / Discussion: Comments and discussion included:

Discussion relative to the number of complaints received pertaining to the dog park and if these are consistent with other events such as SKRUFF, run events, baseball and soccer events. It was countered that this would not be a fair comparison as those are one or two day events and the dog park is an every day event.

Discussion regarding the need for more factual complaint data to support the concerns for the 18 months the park has been in operation, and a review of the six Police complaints received during 2004.

Comments voicing that utilizing the Police Department to patrol the dog park was never envisioned as this would not be a wise use of Police personnel.

Discussion relative "dogs being dogs" and the dog park rules pertaining to controlling barking and keeping it to a reasonable level, recognizing that "reasonable" is subjective.

Question raised on the need for double fencing. It was responded that its purpose is to keep dogs from urinating on the fence and retaining wall that abuts property owners.

Discussion and comments reiterating that the Cady Street dog park was always to be a temporary location and is best suited as a temporary site. The ideal site would not abut a residential neighborhood, would have sufficient space to provide for small and large dog fenced areas. It was also stated that one of difficulties in granting "temporary" permission is that it is often perceived as "permanent."

Realization that the proposed Township site is not as convenient; however, the dogs should have the appropriate park facility. It is believed that the Cady Street site use might decrease once a Township site is operational.

Compliment to the Dog Park Committee and dog park users on a very successful and clean park. On occasion, Councilmembers have visited the park and the dogs seem to be well-behaved.

Discussion recognizing that the neighborhood concerns are valid and that the neighborhood has been restrained in lodging complaints. The need for dog park users to understand that while dogs will be dogs, even five minutes of barking is not acceptable and it is their responsibility to control barking.

Concern that Wing Street residents not being able to allow their dogs to be in the yard (as this escalates the barking in the dog park) is a violation of their rights as property owners.

Comments supporting the research of noise abatement materials and soil testing for possible urine and feces contamination.

As the Dog Park revenues exceeded expenses, it was suggested that the additional funds be used to do soil and environmental testing.

Administration was directed to:

Review new data submitted pertaining to off-leash recreation, pollution risks from feces and urine, and the transmission of E-coli through dog feces and urine.

Investigate issues and work with veterinarians and public health department to compile information to see what testing, if any, is needed to determine if urine and feces pose a contamination or health risk to the abutting property owners, with a report to be submitted to City Council.

Motion Mittman, seconded by Swigart to extend the use of the Northville Dog Park behind the Art House (former Scout and Recreation Building) on a temporary basis through December 2005 and request a mid-year status report from the Dog Park Committee and the Parks and Recreation Department. Motion carried unanimously.

At the November 1, 2004 City Council meeting, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) presented recommendations for modification to the Downtown Parking Management Plan (DPMP). Business owners, building owners, and employees spoke in support and opposition of the recommendations. After considering the comments, the Mayor requested the Parking Committee, established in November 2001, reconvene to consider the DDA recommendations and comments made during the November 1^st meeting. The Mayor also requested additional participation from those present that evening to ensure that their concerns were adequately addressed.

The expanded Parking Committee met on November 9, 2004 to review the recommended changes to the DPMP. Following lengthy discussion, the following changes were recommended:

Orange Dots: The DDA would explore the logistics and cost of a shuttle system to move individuals requiring long-term parking from a remote lot to the downtown area for two hours in the morning and evening. The remote lot could be used by downtown employees and all day shoppers. If a shuttle system is adopted, all orange dots would be removed in Lots #2 and #3.

Parking Enforcement: Second reading and adoption of the amended Parking Ordinance to allow for enforcement of three hour time limited lots.

Residential Parking: The policy on residential parking would be amended to require residents to park in identified spaces in the block where they live.

Council Comments / Discussion:

Discussion ensued relative to the availability of designated residential parking in each block, removal of orange dots possibly affecting residential parking, and residential parking permits.

A discussion took place relative to the parking management recommendations and the Bob Gibbs study, which should help identify parking solutions, including what the downtown can feasibly handle and which solutions the community would likely accept.

It was suggested that the DDA investigate whether additional parking spaces are available in the lower level of the parking deck used by MainCentre. It was responded that most spaces are used by MainCentre residents and very few vacancies exist. However, Singh Management plans to survey the parking patterns to see if additional parking could be provided during the day, as most permit holders use the parking lot in the evening.

Discussion took place regarding offering parking spaces in the lower MainCentre deck to overnight parkers as the lower level provides covered, secure parking. The cost of a MainCentre deck parking permit verses the cost of a City parking permit was discussed.

It was suggested that short-term parking for loading and unloading in Lots #2 and #3 (15 minute loading zones) be considered. This item will be part of the next Parking Committee agenda for discussion and follow up.

Questions were raised relative to the cost of a shuttle system, bus, or trolley rental. Staff will evaluate the cost of this service.

The timetable to remove the orange dots was discussed. Staff would contact downtown businesses and residents, and, weather permitting, actual removal would happen by the end of the week.

A final comment voiced concern that the November 15^th Staff recommendation does not appease the legitimate concerns raised by business owners at the November 1^st City Council meeting.

Donald Samhat, business owner at 115 N. Center Street, stated that a member of his office staff attended the Parking Committee meeting and he was aware of what transpired during that meeting. Samhat voiced concern with the removal of the orange dots in Lot #2 and urged the City Council to retain some of the orange dots for office employee use. He submitted a two-day survey of available parking spots in Lot #2 to support retaining orange dots for office employee parking. Samhat stated his belief that while retaining some orange dots might inconvenience retail customers about one day per week, removing all orange dots would inconvenience office employees at least five days per week.

Motion Swigart, seconded by Mittman to concur with the Parking Committee’s recommendation to the Parking Management Plan as follows:

Removal of all orange dots in Parking Lot #2 and Parking Lot #3.

Initiate second reading and possible adoption of the amendment to the Parking Ordinance allowing for the enforcement of 3-hour time limited lots.

Amend the policy of residential overnight parking to require residents to park in identified spaces in the block where they live.

Direct City Staff to analyze the cost of a remote parking shuttle service for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening.

At the July 6, 2004 meeting, the City Council voted to accept a recommendation from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to enforce the time limits for parking in a lot, not a particular space in the lot. The current ordinance regarding time limit restrictions, 82-131, specifies "parking space" or "parking spaces." An argument could be made that this language does not prohibit the parking of a vehicle in a lot if it has not remained in the same "parking space" for more than the time limit. Additionally, the current ordinance lacks language to deal with parking on private property not posted by signs. A proposed ordinance amendment was drafted to eliminate an uncertainty in the legislative intent of the ordinance. At the November 1, 2004 meeting, City Council introduced for first reading an

ordinance amending Article IV "Standing, Stopping and Parking" of Chapter 82 of the Code of Ordinances.

Following City Attorney review, a revised ordinance amendment was presented to City Council this evening. The proposed modifications include:

Sec. 82-131 (c): Addition of language to prohibit moving of vehicles from parking lot space to space or from on street parking space to space and define "immediate return."

Sec. 82-135: Addition of (e) to ensure that a person could not use Sec. 82-135 to circumvent other City and Zoning ordinances pertaining to parking.

Council Comments/Discussion:

Lengthy discussion ensued regarding Sec. 82-131 (c) and the 30 minute "immediate return" time frame, with the belief that 30 minutes is too long and would penalize persons that leave the lot to go home for lunch or for other legitimate reasons. A suggestion was made that the time limit be reduced to 10 or 15 minutes. It was voiced that the revised "(c)" has become too complicated and needs to be simplified.

Concern was expressed that the Downtown Parking Management Plan (DPMP) has evolved into "micro managing" of the parking lots and parking spaces, proposing an unwise use of Police personnel and DDA funds. The changes to the DPMP have made it more difficult to determine when, where, and how long you can park if you come to the downtown to have lunch or shop. It was voiced that once people experience "parking problems" only then will the City be able to find a permanent solution to address the downtown parking issues.

A discussion took place regarding the DDA’s frustration in trying to find solutions to alleviate the downtown parking problems. The fact that there will not be physical parking deck expansion for at least one to two years, dictates that parking management is the next viable option. The DDA’s efforts in finding alternate parking problem solutions were commended. It was pointed out, however, that parking management and parking programs make the businesses and people less likely to realize there is a significant parking problem that must be addressed through the addition of a parking structure(s).

Staff was directed to modify the proposed ordinance amendment to include the issues addressed during this meeting, revert back to the proposed ordinance amendment language for Sec. 82-131 (c) as introduced for first reading on November 1, 2004, and include in Sec. 82-131 the definition of "immediate return" with the time changed from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. Following City Attorney review, the proposed ordinance amendment shall return to City Council for further consideration.

Mayor Johnson stated that the City Council selected the law firm of Plunkett & Cooney as the new general and prosecution counsel. Mr. Robert Marzano will be designated at the City Attorney. City Council wished retiring City Attorney James Kohl a happy retirement.

Swigart spoke about Plante & Moran’s audit report of the Parks and Recreation Department. He also noted that the Commission’s mid-term Master Plan review found that green projects were a priority.

John Colizzi, 847 W. Main Street, addressed the issue of the Orchard Heights Homeowners Association’s (OHHA) concern with the Our Lady of Victory school expansion. He voiced concern with the Planning Commission granting final site plan approval to a project that has not addressed legitimate concerns, including safety issues, parking issues, traffic issues, and overall impact to the neighborhood. Colizzi stated his disappointment and belief that the City Administration did not back the Planning Commission and that the Court forced this plan on the City. He noted that OHHA continues to actively oppose the expansion and has been in contact with the Archdiocese for assistance. Colizzi urged the City Council to oppose the Church’s expansion effort.

B. Staff Communications None

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne Massa
City Clerk