City Council Minutes

(back to Archive Overview)

City of Northville
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
December 5, 2005                *as amended 12/19/05

Mayor Johnson 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.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Mayor Christopher Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem Carolann Ayers, Councilmembers James Allen, Michele Fecht, and Thomas Swigart

Absent: None

Also Present: City Manager Gary Word, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Nicolette Bateson, Director of Public Works James Gallogly, Parks and Recreation Director Traci Sincock, City Clerk Dianne Massa, Housing Commissioner Sue Ellen Hooper, Planning Commissioner Jay Wendt, Reporters from the Northville Record and the Northville Journal, and twenty-nine citizens.

PRESENTATIONS:

A. Citizen Comments

Michael McClish, 647 Thayer, presented the City Council with his "Application for Service on a Board or Commission" dated December 5, 2005. McClish stated his belief that he has not been considered for an appointment to the Planning Commission because of comments from a City Council member, which implied that he could not be unbiased while serving on this Commission.

McClish stated he has a personal copy of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. His time spent researching the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan has led him to believe that other than the Planning Commissioners, he is the applicant with the most knowledge of the ordinances. Should he be appointed to the Planning Commission, McClish promised to bring the dedication of time and effort he is known for, along with complete honesty, integrity, and impartiality. He requested another interview.

Ayers stated that she was one of the two Selection Committee members that conducted McClish’s early 2003 interview. This interview was held after the first time Our Lady of Victory had been before the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), and prior to the special land use application submitted in December 2003.

Ayers stated that during the interview, McClish was asked that if Our Lady of Victory Church were to come before the Planning Commission again, would he feel that he could look at it with an absolutely unbiased spirit and attitude. Ayers clearly remembered McClish responding that he felt he would be able to serve on another commission, perhaps BZA, because he was not sure he would be able to look at another petition fairly. Ayers noted that City Council seeks applicants that can view cases in totality and she appreciated McClish’s honesty during that interview because he realized at that time, he could not serve on the Planning Commission with an absolute unbiased spirit.

McClish replied that he did not recall his response in that way. He stated also believed that his interview was after the Planning Commission and BZA had made their decision on OLV’s new 2003/2004 special land use and site plan 1996-1997 application. McClish also stated he still believed he could be fair with respect to Our Lady of Victory. (Amended 12/19/05 as shown with strikethrough and italics)

Presentation from Solstice Group, Inc.

Alan Whitehead presented a check donating a portion of the proceeds of the 2005 Solstice Run to the Parks and Recreation Department. He expressed appreciation for the City’s support and urged the Mayor and City Council to participate in the 2006 Solstice Run event.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA / CONSENT AGENDA:

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

Consent agenda as follows:

Approve City Council Minutes:

Regular Meeting of November 14, 2005
Special Meeting of November 16, 2005
Regular Meeting of November 21, 2005

Approve Bills List: Checks #46682 to #46765 and #46766 to #46829

Receive Board and Commission Minutes:

Youth Assistance: 10/11/05

Receive Departmental Reports:

Youth Assistance: 11/05

Board and Commission Appointments: None

Request from the Northville Chamber of Commerce to Hold the 2005 Candlelight Walk on December 9, 2005

Motion carried unanimously.

PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Request to Extend Use of Cady Street Dog Park

In April 2003, the City Council approved the temporary use of the area behind the Art House (formerly the Scout and Recreation Building), 215 W. Cady Street, for use as an Off Leash Recreation Area (Dog Park). On November 15, 2004, the City Council authorized extending the use of the Dog Park on a temporary basis through December 31, 2005.

During the November 15, 2004 City Council meeting, residents of Wing Court voiced concern with extending the dog park at this location, citing concerns with excessive barking and possible exposure to contamination from pet waste. In response to resident concerns, dog park users self-police the park, reminding users to quiet dogs that bark excessively. Self-policing is not infallible and the Parks and Recreation Department receives periodic barking complaints from the Wing Ct. neighborhood.

Staff continues to find no evidence of contamination from pet waste. The park is supplied with solid pet waste removal bags and park users clean up after their dogs. The site has no areas of dead grass that might indicate heavy urine deposits. In January 2005, Staff requested the Wayne County Department of Environment – Water Quality Division investigate the park for potential contamination. To date, the DEQ has not responded.

The park has been in operation since May 2003 and 200 household and 30 multiple dog passes were sold in 2005 to City and Township residents. Residents from neighboring communities continue to express interest in joining and are placed on a waiting list. The Dog Park revenues from passes continue to exceed the operating expenses. The involvement of the park users is important to the success of this park. The park users meet monthly to conduct education sessions for future users, meet with Staff on maintenance and operation issues, and assist with day-to-day operations as the Parks and Recreation Department does not supervise the park during its operating hours.

The Township Board of Trustees approved a 3½ acre dog park in the Northville Community Park expansion area. The new park was constructed and seeded in the fall of 2005 and a successful spring 2006 growing season might allow the park to open in the summer of 2006. This site is larger than the Cady Street site and can accommodate more users than the current park. Dog Park users wish to maintain use of both parks as the Cady Street site is a downtown location that accommodates residents who walk their dogs to the park or enjoy a smaller, intimate environment. The Dog Park users wish to work with Recreation staff to develop operating standards for the Cady Street site that compliment the Community park site, such as a small breed park.

At their request, Wing Street and Wing Court residents were notified of the December 5, 2005 City Council meeting and the proposed request to extend use of the Cady Street Dog Park.

City Council received and filed a letter from David and Janet VanderLugt and family, 254 Wing Court, in support of the extending the use of the Cady Street Dog Park.

City Council received and filed a letter from David Hay, 262 Wing Court, opposing the extension of the Cady Street Dog Park.

Additional information received included the "Cady Street Dog Park Rules," Frequently Asked Questions pertaining to Dog Parks, and 2005 Cady Street Dog Park membership brochure.

Council Comments and Discussion: Questions and comments included:

• A question was raised relative to the reason for a one-year extension request through December 2006, when it is likely the Community Park site will open in 2006. It was responded that dog park users wish to retain the Cady Street Park as a secondary site. Also, revenue from user fees fund the operating expenses. Should the spring not produce a successful growing season, the Community Park Dog Park would not open in 2006. There was concern that park users might not purchase a year pass if there was limited dog park access (i.e. a six to eight month park) during 2006.
• A question was raised relative to the possibility of transferring Cady Street Dog Park user permits to Community Park. It was responded that passes could be transferred; however, continued operation of both parks, if approved, would require establishing an "add on" fee to allow users access to both parks and generate funds to offset operating expenses.
• Additional comments in support of extending the temporary use of this site at this time, with the need for more information on how both parks might co-exist before the Cady Street Park could be considered as a permanent site.
• A question was raised on the percent of park users that have small breed dogs. It was responded the Recreation Department would need to work with the users’ group to determine that number.
• It was suggested that the park area behind the former Ford Valve Plant be considered as an alternate to the Cady Street Dog Park site. It was responded that the City does not own the property adjacent to this area of the park. This prompted discussion regarding the physical capability of accommodating a dog park on this site, the accessibility of the location, and the challenge for park users to not use private property in order to gain access to the park.
• It was reiterated that the Cady Street site has always been designated as a temporary site.

A majority of persons 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.

Comments included:

• The desire to make the temporary site a permanent location, perhaps as a small breed dog park, was voiced as the park fulfils a recreational need, is within walking distance for most users, and provides a place to meet people and make friends. It was noted there is a waiting list of persons interested in obtaining park passes.
• The Cady Street location allows users to patronize the downtown businesses and attend concerts and other downtown events. Not allowing this park to continue as a secondary location might hurt local merchants as dog park users will spend their money where the park is located.
• The belief that the Cady Street site was once vacant land that is now used by over 200 residents.
• Comments noting that soil contamination should not be an issue due to the dog park topography. Parks and Recreation employees monitor the site on a daily basis and have not noticed a urine odor. Users believe there is no soil contamination or health concerns as dog park users and their dogs would be the first to get sick if such a contamination existed. Dogs do not urinate near the back fence, which is the fence closet to the Wing Court residents.
• Comments noting that studies and tests of dog beaches and human beaches located in California found that the bacterial level of dog beaches were the same or lower than the acceptable bacteria level of human beaches.
• It was stated that dogs "bark." Dog park users "self-police" the dogs and do not allow the dogs to bark for an excessive period or fight. If a dog continues to bark or fight, the dog owner and the dog leave the park. Park users have witnessed barking which comes from dogs in the surrounding neighborhoods and not from dogs in the park.

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

Comments included:

• Comment countering that prior to its dog park designation, the area behind the Art House was not an unused piece of land, but rather a field used by the children of Northville as a play area.
• Residents on Wing Court support the concept of a dog park and many were early financial contributors, not knowing that the dog park would be located in a field adjacent to their neighborhood.
• Wing Court residents are subject to excessive barking and dog fights during the evenings and weekends. Few complaints are actually filed and "complaint" documentation does not accurately reflect the number of problems. It was voiced that the right of Wing Court residents to have a peaceful neighborhood and quiet enjoyment of their property is not a consideration of the dog park users.
• It was suggested the City review the 2003 information from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University and other health professionals. The information was gathered by the neighborhood to assist the City in assuring that the park was environmentally safe.
• The strong urine smell at 254 and 262 Wing Court raises continued concern with possible soil contamination and urine seepage near the property lines of the residential property abutting the dog park.
• The belief that the City has not made an effort to obtain a health study to address contamination and environmental concerns. The neighborhood requested the City seek professional reassurance (i.e. contracting with an independent environmental consultant) to determine whether the park is environmentally safe and free of contaminants.
• Concern expressed that the City would consider a small breed, permanent use at this location as this site has always been designated as a temporary site until a permanent site was secured. There is a permanent site at Community Park and the Wing Street/Court residents object to any type of permanent dog park at the Cady Street site.

Additional Council Comments and Discussion:

• It was noted that City Council did review the suggestions and documentation provided by the Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine, and that most, if not all of the suggestions (such as required inoculations and buffer fencing) were incorporated.
• Before the Cady Park site can be considered for long-term use, more data is needed on how the Community Park and Cady Street dog park sites will interact. Until that data is received and analyzed, the Cady Street site should remain a temporary use.
• It was suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department be contacted to come out and immediately investigate when residents smell urine odors.
• The willingness of the dog park users to correct deficiencies and be "good neighbors" was reiterated.
• Comments noting that use of alternate sites such as Fish Hatchery Park, First Street Park, and the area behind the former Ford Valve Plant were considered. The existing park was suggested as it was believed that this site least impacted the neighborhoods.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Swigart to extend the temporary use of the Cady Street Dog Park behind the Art House, 215 W. Cady Street (Scout and Recreation Building) through December 31, 2006. Yes: Ayers, Swigart, Allen, Johnson. No: Fecht. Motion carried.

Staff was directed to provide the City Council with a mid-year status report and soil sample report.

RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

A. Proposed Text Amendments / Overbuilding / Second Reading

On November 21, 2005, City Council introduced for first reading, the proposed overbuilding text amendments to the City of Northville Zoning Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission.

The proposed text amendments include:

• Modification to Section 26.02 Definitions, adding new definitions and graphic illustrations to assist in the regulation of building height.
• Modifications to Section 15.01 Schedule of Regulations pertaining to maximum building height and minimum yard setbacks.
• Addition of new footnote #20 (pertaining to setback regulations for single family homes having a finished attic or other habitable space above a second floor) in Section 15.02 of the Schedule of Regulations.
• Addition of Sections 18.19 pertaining to Finished Attics, 18.20 pertaining to Foundation Wall, and 18.21 pertaining to Grading and Drainage.

Council Comments and Discussion: Concern was expressed that people will try to circumvent the amendments, prompting brief discussion on grade and plane, the delicate balance of regulating people’s use of their property, and differing perceptions of "mass." It was noted that this ordinance amendment is the first step in strengthening the overbuilding regulations and while the changes should overall help, it is possible the ordinance might need additional review and modification.

Motion Ayers, seconded by Allen to waive second reading and adopt the proposed "Overbuilding Text Amendments" to the Northville Zoning Ordinance as presented, with an effective date within ten days upon publication. Motion carried unanimously.

COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Mayor and Council Communications

Johnson commented on the water test recently conducted in the City and asked the Director of Public Works to provide an update. The DPW Director’s noted that:

• The City conducts an annual water sampling test for lead contamination as required by the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act of 1976. The test involves a sampling of five residences within the community. The number of residences tested is determined by the City’s population. The samplings are taken by the resident in the morning after the water has set all night.
• A positive test is a read of lead action levels above 15 parts per billion. A positive read occurred at a residence in Abbey Knoll. The other four residence samplings came back with a negative read.
• The Detroit Water and Sewer Department also conducts lead contamination testing. DWSD samplings were negative, which indicates the lead found is not from the "water source." It was noted that the primary source for lead contamination is in residences. The different methods that lead can contaminate water were explained. They included lead contamination through older faucets, lead plumbing, and lead services.
• State requirements provide that the City send a Public Service Announcement to all residences and businesses within the City. The announcement states that recent results of tests of the water system in Northville have indicated that some homes in the City may exceed the Federal government’s limit for lead. Included is information on lead levels, health effects of lead, steps to take in the home to reduce expose to lead in drinking water, and local laboratories that have been certified by EPA for testing water quality. The City is also required to notify five local broadcast stations and four newspapers.

Questions and discussion ensued pertaining to residence contamination sources and the state’s specific testing requirements. It was noted that additional samplings at this residence will be performed in the near future.

Allen noted that the Planning Commission meeting is December 6th. The Planning Commission will begin the phase two in-depth review of the zoning ordinance as it pertains to special land use and site plan applications.

B. Staff Communications None

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

Adjournment: 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________
Dianne Massa, CMC
City Clerk