City Council Minutes

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

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

Absent: Mayor Christopher Johnson (excused)

Citizen Comments None

Senior Alliance Overview (As Mr. Brown was delayed, this item was taken up after Petitions, Requests, and Communications 6A – Relief from Sidewalk Placement Requirement at 20240 Clement Road)

Senior Alliance Interim Executive Director Bob Brown discussed the relationship between the City of Northville and The Senior Alliance 1-C Area Agency. Topics discussed included Senior Alliance services to the community, Meals on Wheels, holiday meals/congregate meals, senior center staffing, and respite care.

Council Comments and Discussion: A question was raised pertaining to services provided to the Oakland County portion of the City.

Consent Agenda Item 4Q "Call for Public Hearing / Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Adjustments" was moved to New Business 9D

"Beal Street Bridge / MDOT Local Bridge Program" was added to the agenda as New Business 9E

Motion Mittman, seconded by Swigart to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.

Consent agenda as follows:

Approve City Council Minutes:

Regular Meeting of May 16, 2005

Approve Bills List: Checks #43616 to #43750, #43751 to #43838, and #43839 to #43896

Receive Board and Commission Minutes:

Arts Commission: 4/13/05

Board of Zoning Appeals: 4/6/05, 5/4/05

Downtown Development Authority: 4/19/05, 4/28/05

Historic District Commission: 3/16/05, 4/20/05

Housing Commission: 4/13/05

Planning Commission: 4/5/05, 4/19/05, 5/3/05

Senior Advisory Council: 2/17/05

Youth Assistance: 4/26/05

Receive Departmental Reports:

Fire Department: 3/05

Police Department: 4/05

Youth Assistance: 5/05

Board and Commission Appointments: None

Extension of Bid for Parks and Recreation Catalog Printing

Street Closure Request / Linden Street / June 4, 2005

Intergovernmental Agreement with Wayne County / 2005 Griswold Road Resurfacing Project

Request to Solicit / International Order of Alhambra

Oakland County West Nile Virus Fund Expense Reimbursement Request

Purchase of Lighted "No Turn on Red" Sign for Eight Mile and Novi Road

Participation in the Traffic Crash Report Processing System Through the Traffic Improvement

Association of Oakland County

Street Closure Request / Art in the Sun / June 18-19, 2005

Street Closure Request / Grandview Avenue / June 18, 2005

Street Closure Request / Linden Avenue / July 4, 2005

Proclamation / Norman Kubitskey Day / June 12, 2005

The City received a request from the property owner at 20240 Clement Road to waive the City’s sidewalk placement policy for new construction. Although the property is located in the City, the segment of road the project fronts is under the jurisdiction of the Wayne County Department of Public Services. The road is a gravel surface with ditches and no sidewalk. The neighborhood prefers the rural style road and it is not likely the road would be improved beyond a gravel road. Installing sidewalk at this property would be one property away from existing city sidewalk and one lot away from the City limits. The placement of sidewalk at 20240 Clement might require extra cost to facilitate proper roadside drainage; however, City staff does not consider the placement to be unduly hazardous or impractical and recommended a denial of the sidewalk waiver request.

Robert Clark, property owner, stated the area where the sidewalk would be placed is near a ditch, which could cause problems with water run-off. He did not see the need for the sidewalk as the road is gravel with ditches, and the new sidewalk would not connect to existing sidewalk. Clark compared this property to others in the City without sidewalk.

Ed Funke, builder for Robert Clark, stated that sidewalk installation at this property would require the installation of a culvert. Further, the road is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County, which requires full engineering for a culvert installation. Wayne County has indicated they will not guarantee engineering approval at this site, making it possible that the Clarks could spend funds for engineering, yet not receive approval from Wayne County to move forward with the sidewalk installation.

A question was raised pertaining to the difficulty of installing sidewalk on streets without curb or gutter.

Comments supporting the need to remain consistent with City policy requiring sidewalk for new construction.

Discussion relative to sidewalk installation relief granted to similar properties on Grace Street and in the Northville Estates subdivision.

Comments acknowledging that property owners in other areas of the City were relieved from installing a sidewalk, conditioned upon the property owner contributing to the sidewalk fund for the cost of future sidewalk installation at that property.

Comments recognizing that sidewalk installation at this location would be more costly than sidewalk installation on an improved street with curb and gutter.

Questions pertaining to pedestrian traffic in the area and Northville Township’s sidewalk policy.

Although the timing of any road improvements is unknown, it was felt that future road improvement in this area, however remote, was possible. It was acknowledged that if the road were improved, sidewalk would be installed to fill gaps and connect the area to other existing City sidewalk. A compromise was suggested, which would relieve the property owner from the sidewalk installation. The relief would be conditioned upon their contribution to the sidewalk fund in the amount estimated to install sidewalks at this property as if the road were already improved (paved, with curb and gutter). The property owner could obtain three estimates or use an estimate which could be provided through the City’s current sidewalk contractor.

Motion Mittman, seconded by Hartshorne to grant an exception for the 20240 Clement Road sidewalk placement as requested by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Clark, with the condition the property owner contribute to the sidewalk fund, an amount equivalent to the cost to install sidewalk at this property assuming that curb and gutter were already in place. Motion carried unanimously.

The Northville District Library requested use of the open space to the east of the library to hold an outdoor concert and presentation. The outdoor concert is part of the Teen Summer Reading Program, and would be held on Monday, July 25, 2005 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. City staff reviewed and concurred with the request, noting the following:

The event is in the early evening, which should not impact nearby residences for a significant period of time.

Families would be encouraged to attend together as this is an all ages event; however, this is the library’s first outdoor concert and the estimated attendance is unknown.

Attendees would be discouraged from parking in the City Hall lower level parking lot, so as to keep the lot available for Police Department business.

Electricity would be obtained from the library building; the library would coordinate trash clean up with the Department of Public Works; and a certificate of insurance for $1,000,000 general liability, naming the City as an additional insured, would be provided.

Suzanne Schimanski-Gross, Teen Services Librarian, was available for questions.

Council Comments and Discussion: Questions and comments included:

The open space is a good location for this event.

A request to convey to the band to cooperate in maintaining a reasonable sound level.

Suggestion to consider using the City Hall lower level parking lot for the sound stage location, and work with the Parks and Recreation Director as a resource for assistance in obtaining a sound stage.

Suggestion to work with the Parks and Recreation Director to arrange possible use of the Senior Community Center gym as a secondary location in case of rain.

Motion Hartshorne, seconded by Swigart to approve the Northville District Library’s request to use the open space east of the library building for an outdoor concert, as part of the Teen Summer Reading Program, on Monday, July 25, 2005, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and further, that the library provide the City with a certificate of insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 general liability, naming the City as an additional insured, no later than July 5, 2005, and that the Library contact the City Manager and Department of Public Works for an event update and to arrange site clean up. Motion carried unanimously.

In 1997, the Northville City Council adopted and enacted a revised Code of Ordinances. During the revision process, specific fees, fines, and penalties were removed from the Code, with language stating that the fees, fines, and penalties would be set by City Council resolution. In reviewing proposed revisions to the fee schedule, it was found that Chapter 18 Businesses, Article II Licenses and Permits, Section 18-51, which addresses the late fee penalty for failure to renew a business license, was not consistent with the policy of setting fees, fines, and penalties by City Council resolution.

At it regular meeting on May 16, 2005, the Northville City Council introduced for first reading, an amendment to Chapter 18 Businesses, Article II Licenses and Permits, Section 18-51 of the Code of Ordinances.

Motion Swigart, seconded by Hartshorne to waive second reading and adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 Businesses, Article II Licenses and Permits, Section 18-51 of the Code of Ordinances, which would amend the ordinance to provide for the late business renewal penalty to be established by resolution of the City Council. The ordinance amendment would become effective within 10 days upon publication. Motion carried unanimously.

During the past year, the Planning Commission has worked on modifications to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. On May 17, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance changes, with no public comment received. Changes to the ordinance include:

A number of new definitions, text adjustments, and new application submission requirements.

Specific exclusion of City/Department of Public Works tree maintenance and tree removal within the right of way.

Removes minor permit review by the Building Official, placing all permit review under the purview of the Planning Commission.

Requires more effort by the developer in determining the number of trees to be removed. Damaged trees or illegally removed trees would be repaired or replaced using a sliding replacement scale, along with penalties and civil fines.

Provides for a varying fee schedule for the cost of replacement trees, via City Council resolution.

Replacement requirements for non-landmark trees according to a sliding scale.

Allows Planning Commission to consider the planting of under-story shrubs at an established ratio to required tree replacement, if an applicant cannot mitigate all replacement trees on site.

Allows the Planning Commission to consider off-site mitigation or contribution to City’s Environmental Trust Fund if the applicant cannot feasibly provide on-site mitigation.

Applicant is required to provide a cash deposit, certified check, or surety bond, as established by the Building Official, as a performance guarantee in advance of any work.

Except for landmark trees, the proposed changes are directed primarily at developers and do not apply to lots less than 15,000 square feet.

The City’s Planning Consultant prepared an analysis of the changes. Based on the review and a test application using three recent site plans, the changes, with the exception of the cost fees and penalties, are not that significant and are in line with neighboring tree preservation requirements.

Council Comments and Discussion: General and specific comments included:

A question was raised pertaining to the requirement to replace dead trees. It was responded that dead trees require replacement only if the death was due to the development. Trees would be inspected to determine if the tree was dead and if a removal permit was required.

Questions and concern rose relative to the homeowner’s application fee to appear before the Planning Commission for removal of a landmark tree. It was responded that the cost would be the same or similar to that in obtaining a permit.

Comments relative to Section 3.4 Petition Requirements (page 4) pertained to the requirement of Planning Commission review of all tree permits, including that of landmark trees on single parcels. It was voiced that Planning Commission review for site plans was appropriate; however, review of landmark trees on an individual’s property could be handled administratively.

It was responded that it appeared the Planning Commission believed that past developers violated the ordinance. The ordinance amendment as written requires Planning Commission review of all tree removals and force developers to mitigate on site as opposed to contributing to the tree fund. However, City staff has found that this is typically not the case and developers have mitigated on site.

Discussion of Section 6.2 Environmental Trust Fund (page 13) pertained to the feasibility and practicality of mitigation on any site. It was argued that mitigation is feasible on almost any site; however, mitigation might not be practical. It was felt the current text was too restrictive and it was suggested the word "feasible" be replaced with the word "practical."

Additional comments included questions on alternate locations for trees that could not be mitigated on site. It was responded that trees could be placed on the right-of-way, parks, or other areas considered deficient of trees.

Discussion of Section 6.3 Replacement Tree Standards (d) and (e) (page 14) suggested a text adjustment to the proposed ordinance requiring replacement trees to be of varied species, as approved by the Building Department. This would ensure that a developer selects a quality tree that is appropriate for the site.

Comments pertaining to Section 5.6 Damage to Plantings (page 11) noted that the text "trees greater than 20.1 inches caliper…" should be corrected to state "trees greater than 20 inches caliper…"

Suggested revisions to Section 6.1 included:

Comments pertaining to page 1 of the Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance Application Fee Schedule Resolution, suggested:

It was voiced that the proposed fee schedule includes significant increases, which warrant further

discussion prior to adopting the application fee resolution.

Additional discussion pertained to the Planning Consultant analysis of the changes, including a test application using three recent site plans. It was requested that the Planning Consultant also prepare a test application using the Our Lady of Victory site plan.

It was suggested that addition comments relative to the proposed ordinance amendment and application fee resolution be forwarded to the City Manager. City Council deferred action until such time that the Planning Consultant or Planning Commission members could be present for questions and discussion.

At its regular meeting on May 16, 2005, the City Council accepted the creation of an "RFP Review Committee" to evaluate proposals received regarding the downtown strategic plan. The group would study the received proposals and recommend up to four firms to interview. Following brief deliberations, the City Council suggested that two additional committee members be added to this group, asking interested persons to submit a resume or background information. Resumes and/or background information were submitted by:

Lee Dow, 46700 Pickford, Northville, Michigan

Stephanie C. Flynn, 940 Grace Street, Northville, Michigan

Lisa Malpede, 618 Fairbrook, Northville, Michigan

Geri Markley, 4193 Newberry Street, Wayne, Michigan

Sandi Nielsen, 1457 Ranier Blvd., Canton, Michigan

Larry R. Parks, 632 N. Center Street, Northville, Michigan

Council Comments and Discussion: A question was raised pertaining to the proposal review process. It was envisioned that proposal copies would be sent to each review committee member along with review criteria. Each committee member would perform an independent review. The committee would meet one time with the City Manager to review findings and recommend three or four candidates for an interview with the City Council.

It was felt the review process as described could accommodate an expansion of the committee to eleven members, which could include all six applicants. There was reservation in expanding the committee beyond two members, and further reservation that applicants from outside the Northville community were too far removed to be effective to the RFP review process. It was countered that each applicant, regardless of their geographic location, offered vision, a variety of credentials, and a unique skill set of benefit the City.

Motion Swigart, seconded by Hartshorne to accept and appoint all six applicants (as listed above) to serve as members of the "RFP Review Committee" to evaluate proposals received regarding the downtown strategic plan. Yes: Swigart, Hartshorne, Ayers. No: Mittman. Motion carried.

At its regular meeting on May 16, 2005, City Council authorized the distribution of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit professional consulting services for the development of a comprehensive downtown strategic plan. As part of this process, the City Council would interview the top three to four firms recommended by the "RFP Review Committee." It was suggested the City Council call a special meeting for the proposed consultant interviews.

Motion Swigart, seconded by Hartshorne to call a special meeting on June 20, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. to interview three to four strategic planning consultant candidates. Motion carried unanimously.

Mittman noted that he would not be available until the afternoon.

The City received a grant from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division) for an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Tree mitigation program. The original application requested a $10,000 grant with a $10,000 local match. Due to the large response for grant funds, Northville’s grant request was reduced to $8,750. To obtain the grant, the State expects the City to maintain its $10,000 local match. It is anticipated that approximately 80 trees would be planted throughout the City, using a mixture of tree species. City Council designated part of the 2005 Public Improvement Funds for "contingency/grant match" and it was suggested the $10,000 local match come from this fund.

Council Comments and Discussion: Brief discussion pertained to the local match and the use of DPW labor as part of that match.

Motion Swigart, seconded by Mittman to accept the Emerald Ash Borer Tree Planting Grant from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and authorize the use of up to $10,000 from the Public Improvement Fund for the City’s local match. Motion carried unanimously.

Historically, the City Council has held a public hearing when proposed water and sewer rate adjustments are being considered. Due to an error in the rate structure included in the Council packet, a corrected rate structure was presented to the City Council this evening.

Motion Hartshorne, seconded by Swigart to schedule a public hearing on Monday, June 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the Northville City Hall Council Chambers, to hear public comment on the following rates, with a proposed effective date of July 1 2005.

Water: $4.51/unit
Sewer: $3.91/unit
Sewer (Dual Meter) $1.72/unit
Service Charge: $5.59 bi-monthly

As part of the effort to address the needs of the City’s major and local street systems, in 1997 the City Council authorized City staff to apply for critical bridge funding through the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for the Beal Street Bridge.

The City was notified that it must submit a new application in order to continue to be considered for this funding. The new application would include an effort to demonstrate the real need in the community for this bridge replacement. The estimated cost for the Beal Street Bridge is $500,000. It is possible the City could receive as much as 95% of the bridge replacement construction costs. Approval of the application by City Council and MDOT does not automatically approve the project for construction. Should the City receive funding approval, sufficient time would remain to give Northville Downs, the Beal Town Neighborhood, and City Administration time to reach consensus on how and if the bridge should be replaced. Upon reaching consensus, receipt of grant funds and approval of final design by MDOT, the Council would consider approval of this project for construction via a standard construction contract with MDOT.

Council Comments and Discussion: The importance of reaching consensus with Northville Downs and the Beal Town Neighborhood on how and if the bridge should be replaced was reiterated.

Motion Mittman, seconded by Hartshorne to approve a resolution supporting an application to the Michigan Department of Transportation for state and federal bridge funding for the Beal Street Bridge replacement project. Motion carried unanimously.

Mittman raised questions pertaining to the commencement of the Griswold Street resurfacing project. He also noted that arrangements were made to obtain a leader car for the Independence Day Parade. Additional comments pertained to the need to clarify the assignments from the Downtown Gibbs Study. It was suggested City staff compile a list of projects that could be accomplished now and what projects should be delayed.

B. Staff Communications

Word stated that Captain Kubitskey’s retirement party is Friday, June 10^th.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne Massa
City Clerk