August 23, 2021 City Council Meeting

Note: links to the video recording and the council packet can be found at the bottom of this post. Please note any errors or omissions in the comments. Anything noted between brackets was inserted by Clarkston Sunshine.

[The sound quality was unacceptably awful once again. 😒]

Agenda item #1, Call to Order

The meeting was not formally called to order.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:05):

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:22):

Haven, Bonser, Casey, Luginski, and Wylie were present. Avery was absent.

Haven said he hadn’t heard from Avery and asked Smith if he knew if Avery was on the way; Smith said he did not.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:46):

Motion to approve the consent agenda as presented by Wylie; second [unintelligible]

Haven said that he wanted to change the agenda. Haven said that he likes to do this so that people don’t have to stay forever. He wanted to move Agenda Item 11, which was a motion to seat a new council person replacing Jason Kniesc to Agenda Item 6b, doing it right after recognition of Kniesc.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the consent agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:01:38):

Chet Pardee:

Thank you to Evelyn [Bihl] and Greg [Coté] for the bold type face now being used in the month ending financial report. This change and the format change significantly improve its readability.

The following numbers communicate the concerns of the City’s Friends of Roads and Sidewalks:

• • • Four dead trees were not replaced in the just completed tree replacement but are very visible in the special grates on South Main. Will the five-year warranty be used? The dead trees certainly provide a contrast to the beautiful flowers in planters courtesy of the Clarkston Farm & Garden Club.
    • Nine manhole covers on North Holcomb act as speed bumps (possibly damaging vehicle suspensions) and noise irritants after the city spent almost a $1,000 for special collars intended to make them level. Why has the city not asked the paving company to provide what was paid for?
    • Twelve-inch drop-off at the edge of the east sidewalk over the bridge on North Main extending for five sidewalk sections to 42 North Main creates a risk for pedestrians and bicycle riders. Something special is required to stop the extensive erosion. Jimi Turner [DPW] likely has the solution beyond orange cones.
    • Nine sections of sidewalk sections covered with mud, gravel and a lot of sand on Miller Road adjacent to Lower Mill Pond is causing pedestrians to walk in the roadway to avoid the mess. Can the city remove the mud after rains until the forty-five broken sections of sidewalk are replaced when Miller Road is raised and resurfaced?
    • Two recently paved roads still have exposed sides which will shorten the life of the road. Both Miller Road and North Holcomb already show damage where the road surface is six to ten inches above the right of way. Does HRC [Hubbell, Roth & Clark] have a solution less exquisite that the Rogers’ white marble chips? NO PARKING signs could be used to reduce some of the damage.
    • 154, 164, 174 and 180 North Main have sidewalk sections covered in mud. The city’s ordinance is clear about snow removal responsibility. How about mud where the safety risk is similar?

Wylie said that Pardee mentioned the Friends of Streets and Sidewalks – is that an official committee? Pardee said that he was the chair. Wylie asked how many members were on it, and Pardee said volunteers. The usual suspects. Haven asked if it was an unofficial committee and whether Pardee represented them, and Pardee said yes. Pardee said he was sure they would continue to be heard, and Haven said he was sure they would.

Bonser said that Pardee brought up sidewalks at the last meeting. He was wondering what the process is to repair a broken sidewalk. Is there a complaint process or is it put into the budget for the future? Some of the issues could be a dangerous issue or potential problem. Smith said that the process is that there is an inventory of all the broken or heaved slabs so that we’re not spending money just in one area. We walk the entire city and do an inventory of those slabs that need attention. The plan was to do that inventory last week. Until we had budget money (unintelligible) but not much. Smith said that he was going to walk around and determine where the highest priority slabs were and backfill into the amount of money that we have and then just draw the line and say that’s all that will be done. Smith said that he will talk tonight in his city manager’s report about some paver walks on Main Street that are quickly escalating right to the top of the list in terms of slip and fall or trip and fall risk.

Luginski asked if they were the ones that he’d talked to Smith about, and Smith said yes, they’ve been watching them for a while, for over a year, and they are getting a lot worse. They are the ones by HealthQuest and (unintelligible). We have to make a decision regarding how we are going to spend our $8,000 in sidewalk money. Smith said that he’s working with HRC right now to determine what our options are with regard to those entranceways, those driveways (unintelligible). Replacing the individual bricks is not going to be efficient; there are hundreds if not thousands that are deteriorating. Smith said that we would talk about that more in the city manager’s report.

Haven asked if there were any other public comments.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #6

Item 6a: Recognitions – CJ Savik and Jason Kniesc (Video time mark 0:07:43)

Haven said that we have a couple of recognitions which are very valuable to us. First, he wanted to read something about Caitlin [CJ Savik], our summer intern from the Planning Commission (PC). We are going to present her with a plaque as a token of our appreciation in a minute and Haven wanted everyone to hear what was on the plaque. Haven read from a letter:

Dear Caitlin, on behalf of Clarkston City Council administrative staff, and all our residents, please accept this letter of recognition and our sincere thanks for all of your efforts this year as part of our Main Street study crew. Your in-depth analysis and interpretations of the data collected from Your Speed signs and your formal presentation to city council were extremely helpful to us as we evaluate the many alternatives for controlling vehicle speeds in our small village. I remember clearly being impressed by your insightful article for the Congress for the New Urbanism in mid-2020 when we met about looking at your own hometown for urban planning suggestions and inspiration. I hope the lessons learned from our speed study will also be in assistance to you in your education and budding career. Thank you again for everything you have done during your all too short summer internship. You’re extremely appreciated.

Haven asked everyone to give Caitlin a round of applause. Smith took a photo of Haven and Caitlin. Caitlin said thank you for the plaque, and Haven thanked her for all she’d done. Little shook Caitlin’s hand.

Haven said that the next recognition was for Kniesc, but he wasn’t sure if Kniesc was here. Kniesc was present on call in.

Haven said he wanted to read their recognition of Kniesc as well. Haven asked if Kniesc could hear, and he said he could. Haven said he would try and read slowly, but Kniesc would get it in writing anyway.

Dear Jason, your recent, unexpected resignation came as a surprise and caused us to reflect on your years of service to our community. Your tenure on city council began with the November 2015 election. You were then re-elected in 2017 and 2019, clearly demonstrating your fellow citizens’ appreciation of your service. Your calculated insight and penetrating questions often helped fellow council members make wise decisions on issues very important to our city. You will be missed, Jason, especially your precision timing. You routinely slipped into your seat exactly as the clock struck 7:00 p.m. after getting your young twins in bed. But you were never late, and we always set our watches on your arrival. On behalf of the rest of city council, the city staff, and all of the residents of Clarkston, thank you for your years of service in the community. We extend our sincerest best wishes to you, Shauna, and your wonderful family as you relocate to North Carolina.

Haven said they had a plaque for Kniesc that they will get to him commemorating his service and said thank you. (Applause.) Haven said that they even have Kniesc’s name tag from his seat on the dais that he can have for memories.

Kniesc thanked everyone and said that he would be back in a couple of weeks, and Haven said that they would look forward to seeing him then.

Item 6b: Resolution: Council Seat Nomination (Video time mark 0:11:49) [Original Agenda Item #11 was reordered to Agenda Item 6b during the approval of Item #4 (consent agenda).]

• • Bruce Fuller, Letter of Interest in Filling City Council Seat (page 4/91 of the council packet)
  • Christopher Moore, Letter of Interest in Filling City Council Seat (page 5/91 of the council packet)

Haven said that the next item on the agenda was For Your Information (FYI); he was reminded that the agenda had been modified.

Haven said that he wanted to move the nominations that were Agenda Item #11 to this location so they can decide on Kniesc’s replacement. There are two candidates for this position. Chris Moore is a candidate and also Bruce Fuller. Haven said that they were glad that both were in attendance, and he thanked them for coming. It was good to see more than one person wanting to be on council, which is really a good thing.

Haven said that we have to make a decision, and he asked Ryan [Tom Ryan, city attorney] arbitrarily, if they went in alphabetical order as a way to do this, would that be appropriate? Obviously, if the first person does not get a majority vote, is that how we look at it? Ryan said that both names need to be placed in nomination, they don’t need to be seconded, and then you take a vote, and the first person who gets four votes is elected. Haven said that we’ll go in alphabetical order, put Bruce Fuller’s name in nomination, and then Chris Moore’s, together, or one at a time. (Ryan nodded.) Haven said OK, both are in nomination, and we have to take a vote on one at a time. Ryan said that was correct.

Luginski asked Ryan if it was four, or a majority? Ryan said it was four. Luginski pointed out that they only have five people. Ryan said that it was still four. Haven asked if it’s a majority of those present, is what you’re saying. Luginski said that would be three; that’s why he asked. Ryan said that he thought that the charter said that the city can’t be bound for less than four votes. Normally, it might be a simple majority, but he thought because of the charter, and this is an important decision, it needs to be – (interrupting Ryan), Luginski said that’s why he asked, they’ve done this in the past, and it’s always been four, but that’s when that’s been a majority of people, so with only five, that’s why he asked. (Ryan and Luginski were talking at the same time; Ryan’s comments were unintelligible.)

Haven said that we would do it one at a time. He said he would have Bruce stand first since he’s the first one by alphabetical order if we do it that way. Haven asked if they should do a roll call, and Ryan nodded. Haven said OK, then we will do a roll call.

Wylie said that they should offer the opportunity for either Fuller or Moore to say something. They’ve given the council something in writing. She didn’t want to put them on the spot. Moore is shaking his head no, and Fuller is (unintelligible). Moore said that he could talk all day long. Fuller said that he’s known Moore since he was fifteen years old, and regardless of who is selected, Fuller said that he thought he was capable, and he certainly knows that Moore is capable. He’s always demonstrated a fine character. A few times they were around the house, it was a pleasure to have him there. He was very surprised years later that when he went to the doctor, and there was Moore. It’s really great to have Moore in our community, very great to have him interested in advancing Clarkston village, and his wife is here tonight (unintelligible), so regardless of what you choose, Fuller didn’t think in choosing they could make a mistake either way. Fuller said that it’s really a privilege to have his name alongside of Moore’s.

Fuller said that he’s lived here a long time, on Clarkston Road. He really enjoys the community and plans to live here for many years to come as long as he can continue to navigate the ten little stairs on his 1870s home. Haven said that he’s known Fuller for thirty years. Fuller said that they’ve been neighbors for over thirty years. Haven said he’s watched Fuller, he’s retired from his education career, and he’s still willing to serve and give back, so thank you.

Haven said that they would take a roll call vote. Ryan interjected and said that he thought they had six people there tonight. Ryan wanted to take a look at the charter. He asked if Haven would do the FYI stuff first and let him look at the charter for a minute. Ryan thought he was correct, but he asked if they would give him a minute. Haven agreed.

[Returned to this item at time mark 0:17:50]

Haven asked if there’s a resolution up for our charter. Ryan said that he looked at the charter and it’s the majority of the remaining members of council. So, there are six remaining members, even though there is only five here tonight, and a majority of six is four, so he stands by his original comment of four votes, and that’s the reason why.

Haven said that our vote is for Fuller first, and we’ll see if he gets four, and if not, then we’ll move on to Moore.

Wylie asked if anyone wanted to do a discussion on either of those choices, either within council or the public. Haven said we could do that.

Bonser said he wanted to ask both candidates what they thought they would bring to the council, maybe they could talk a little bit about it. Bonser said that he’d talked with Moore a little bit.

Moore said that he’d talked with a couple of council members. One of the main things that he does in the hospital is process reconstruction, processes for patient care and management, that type of thing. Half of his job is administrative; half of it is clinical work. What he brings is people management and actual process structuring. One of the main reasons he’s here is the process for the landscape design and construction at his house. He could tell them that process was very tough, going through with the Commission and which ordinance has precedence over which. There are three different ordinances overseeing their property, which one comes first? Coming into a construction project new was difficult, and one of the things that he’s really good at is restructuring processes. Managing large groups of people – he oversees hundreds of medical students in his hospital every single year, he redeveloped an entire physician leadership development program for them, and he does specifically behavioral assessments on emotional intelligence testing, conflicts management assessments and teaching, and he’s been doing it for years and years. He developed that program five years ago. He was officially trained in it about seven years ago. He’s been doing this for a long time, and it’s something that he’s really good at. Haven said that he could put the council through emotional intelligence testing.

Haven asked if Fuller wanted to speak again. Fuller said that he’s not in the historic district, so he’s never tried to navigate that before. He’s had discussions with neighbors on the ordinances, and he knows that there is an issue in trying to deal with the ordinances because there is a lot of pressure on the community to exploit for profit, actually. He doesn’t deny that people are entitled to make a profit (unintelligible) and he’s not trying to say that we should have zero growth, but he thinks that it should be the kind of growth that continues to maintain Clarkston as the type of community that we all moved to, the type of community that we want to live in and raise our children. It’s been really special for them to live here. It’s a lot of the little things, like when their children could safely ride their bicycles uptown when they were little and they knew just about every neighbor along the way, that people were extremely friendly, and it had a small town feel to it. Like Moore, Fuller has worked with a lot of people. He was an administrator of a school district. He’s hired a lot of people, worked with a lot of people, and helped a lot of peoples’ careers. He didn’t know if he had any type of impact on anyone’s career, but he’s worked with a lot of people, developed programs to improve outcomes for students, and he thinks that translates well in terms of having a lot of involvement in, for example, playground development. He did a lot of research on playground development. Understanding that aspect of the community is something that he could (unintelligible). He has to admit that his background is not getting involved so much in politics and getting involved in controlling what happens in the community, but he really thinks that the community is at a crossroads, and to maintain Clarkston as the type of community that we all want to enjoy and continue to (unintelligible). That’s certainly what he wants to be a part of.

Haven said that he guessed that Fuller has dealt with the public for years, right? In his education and administration? Fuller said right, of course. Haven said that people would get a little upset with Fuller. Fuller said people would express concerns and he always looked at the principal’s job as middle management. He had to answer to higher authorities, school boards, superintendents, but also he was offering a service. He had a responsibility to provide responsive service to the community, the parents, and every special interest group within that community.

Haven asked if there were any other questions for the two applicants.

Bonser said that they are just basically filling out – Haven interjected and said the remainder of the term.

Bonser wondered what is the future after that. Did they just kind of want to get their feet wet, or do they want to keep going with this, or – Haven interjected and asked if they were willing to keep going.

Fuller asked if Moore wanted to go first. Moore said his initial thought was that he would get in, get his feet wet, see what the processes are like. He’s read through all of the ordinances, about 350 pages, along with all the other forms. He’s not doing that for fun. Haven said it wasn’t that much fun. Moore said that he would like to continue on.

Haven asked if Fuller would like to continue on, and he said he thinks so. In conversations with Haven, and conversations with other neighbors such as Rich and so forth, he’s now much more aware of what the needs are in this community, what pressures are coming into our community, and in this next election, he was hoping to run as a write-in candidate.

Haven said it was encouraging to see people wanting to serve. He asked if there were any other comments or questions for the candidates.

Wylie said that she’s know Fuller slightly over the years, mostly from Fuller and his wife walking around. They’d always talk a lot about Hamtramck schools and Schwartz Creek, but she didn’t realize that Fuller was interested in being involved in the community until she saw him in the meeting this week. She was aware of Moore for probably a couple of months and that was one of the reasons that she was interested in putting his name forward, a little bit longer term involvement of expressed interest. Wylie said that her support of Moore is nothing against Fuller.

Haven asked if Casey or Luginski had comments, and they did not. Haven said that he guessed we were ready for a roll call. He asked Jennifer Speagle to take a roll call, and they are voting on Fuller first.

For Bruce Fuller:

Haven, Casey, and Luginski voted yes; Wylie and Bonser voted no. Haven thought that was four. Ryan said no, it was three, so it doesn’t pass.

Haven said they would move on to the next candidate, Chris Moore.

For Chris Moore:

Bonser and Wylie voted yes; Casey, Haven, and Luginski voted no.

Ryan said that there was no appointment seated. They have thirty days. Ryan asked when the next meeting was, and someone said that it was more than thirty days. Ryan said that they will have to schedule a special meeting for everybody when the remaining six can be there. Speagle said that the next meeting is September 14^th. Ryan asked for the date that Kniesc resigned, and Haven said August 5^th. Haven said that we are in the window. Luginski said that the next meeting isn’t until September 13^th. Ryan said that someone will have to figure out a date when they should call a special meeting, it could be the 1^st or 2^nd of September, because the 6^th is Labor Day and we have until the 6^th, the thirtieth day. They should call a special meeting for either the 1^st or the 2^nd. Ryan said that his recommendation is to call a special meeting the 1^st or 2^nd of September. Haven said that’s a Wednesday or a Thursday. Wylie said that they are going to run into a problem again of only getting five people here possibly because she may not be here. Luginski said he wouldn’t be there on the 2^nd. He can be there on Wednesday, but not Thursday. Wylie said that she could probably be available on the 30^th if they did it as early as possible. Haven wanted to know if that was outside the window. Ryan said a week from today, and Wylie said yes. Wylie said she will still be in town. Haven asked about Monday. Wylie said yes, if they could do it around 6:00 in the evening.

Ryan suggested that they send out dates offline. Haven asked Speagle if she could do that for a full council to see when they could put a special meeting together. Wylie said it would be six to get the vote to change unless someone changes their mind. Haven agreed. Luginski said that they need Avery. Wylie said that they need Avery and everyone else.

Agenda Item #7, FYI

Item 7a: CIDL Best in Library Public Reception (Video time mark 0:16:03)

• • Clarkston Independence District Library Celebration (page 10/91 of the council packet)

Haven said we are extremely proud of our library. They’ve won a contest, the best library in the Detroit area. The reception honoring this, and Haven said he appreciates Julie Meredith, our librarian and her team, next Monday on August 30^th, there will be recognition and a public reception at the library from 4:00 to 6:00. Haven encouraged everyone to attend that.

Item 7b: Labor Day Fair and Classic Car Show (Video time mark 0:16:31)

• • Labor Day Fair and Classic Car Show flyer (page 11/91 of the council packet)

Haven said that our Labor Day Fair and Classic Car Show, you see from the insert, a flyer in your packet, will be on Monday, September 6^th, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Item 7c: Lake Improvement Board Meeting, Mill Pond (Video time mark 0:16:51)

• • Notice of Meeting of the Lake Improvement Board for Clarkston Mill Ponds (page 12/91 of the council packet)

Haven said that our Lake Improvement Board, this is the Mill Pond board, will have its public meeting. They do this on an annual basis, a business meeting. That will take place on September 14^th at 6:00 p.m. and that’s at Independence Township Hall over on Waldon.

Haven said that those are the three FYI.

Clerk Jennifer Speagle said that there’s one other thing that came up this weekend, the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 7^th, has been cancelled. Haven said OK, so no Planning Commission meeting for this month, is that right? Speagle said that’s correct. Rich Little [Planning Commission Chair] said that they may have a special meeting. He wasn’t sure, but for right now, September is cancelled. Haven said that we have summer-itis going on; Little said that people are going in seventeen different directions for Labor Day weekend. Haven said so take a month off.

[They returned to Item 6b.]

Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:29:17; page 13/91 of the council packet):

Haven noted that the city manager’s report was in the packet and asked if anyone had any questions or comments.

Haven said that the report was so good that no one had any comments.

Smith said that he wanted to talk about the aprons. Smith noted that that they started to talk about this when discussing sidewalks. If they’re not familiar with what’s happened, there were some paver aprons that were installed during the Main Street repaving back in 2001. Those pavers have broken down. They looked great to start with, and they still look nice due to some variation in the landscape and the roadway, but they’ve broken up. They haven’t held up very well due to truck traffic. So, these pavers have cracked and broken and it’s Smith’s suspicion that all of the rain that we’ve had lately has washed out the holes because all of a sudden, there are holes everywhere in these pavers. There are seven of these entranceways to parking lots up and down Main Street between Waldon and north of Washington. There are seven entranceways that have these, they are getting really bad, and it’s just a matter of time before somebody trips and falls in one of these. Smith thinks that they need to take some action on this, even if it takes some time. Smith spoke with Hubbell, Roth & Clark this Wednesday about our options for repairing this as economically as possible. At this point, it’s become very quickly an issue of concern, and he wanted to make council aware of it. Smith hopes to bring a full recommendation to the next council meeting.

Haven wanted to know how you protect people, what are the safety aspects of this thing, do you partition some of the areas off? Smith said we could. Luginski interjected and said it would be hard to do because they’re in the driveway going (unintelligible) HealthQuest, it’s in the driveway going right up, so cars wouldn’t be able to get around it. Smith said if you just let cars in but not pedestrians, there’s no way not to walk on this space, especially at HealthQuest. Smith said it’s going to be a challenge. We could get some fine gravel sand and sweep it into these holes. That might help a little bit only until the next heavy rainstorm when it gets washed out.

Smith said he will talk with Hubbell, Roth & Clark (HRC) on Wednesday and hopes to have some answers. Smith thought that the most important thing was that we need to recognize this as a problem and take actions as quickly we can to show that we are trying to resolve our problem. Not to just show; we have to come up with a solution.

Haven asked about putting signs up, and Smith said that we could put some signs up as well that say “watch your step.” Smith believes that there are a number of sidewalks in the city that have problems, heaved slabs and whatnot that could be trip hazards, but to Smith, given the number of people that are walking across those aprons, that far outweighs any other risk that we have in the city, and Smith thinks that they need to be our highest priority.

Pardee said that he feels that the greatest risk is in the sidewalk area, and the aprons extend in both directions beyond that. Maybe there is a way to just do that which is the highest risk. Pardee also thought that maybe HRC can suggest a short-term/long-term. Smith said that was the thought. Pardee said that maybe there is a blacktop that can get done until we have more money. Pardee thinks that we will run right by our costs in putting a driveway here if we try concrete on all seven of those aprons. Smith said that was very possible. Haven said we sure won’t engineer it here, but we need help from HRC.

Haven asked if Smith wanted to comment on anything else or just take questions. Smith had no further comments and said he could take questions.

Haven had a thought about trees. In the past, we take them out when they are damaged and we can only put so many back in because of the budget we have at the moment, but trees are on easements. People could put in trees with guidance, and we may want to have the tree committee advise them regarding what type of tree, but they could be put in as a charitable contribution because the city is a charity, and they could get a write-off putting trees in. It would really help our community if individuals would take it upon themselves to put a tree in the easement. Haven wondered if that would catch on with people, and he wanted to encourage people to do that.

Pardee was focusing on removing the trees, and the eyesore goes away. The trees that are dead on Main Street. You have a hole in the middle of that steel grate that is certainly not the eyesore that the three dead trees are. Haven said there were no plans for that to change.

Smith said that there is some work going on there. There were some new volunteers joining the tree committee and the young woman is doing landscaping architectural design as Smith understands it. So, as she gets involved, Smith thinks that we will see some inventories, where she’s proposing a spreadsheet that would inventory all of the easement trees, and where there aren’t trees, there could be trees. Smith hopes some good news will come out of that and it will give us a plan to march to on an annual basis and we can start setting (unintelligible).

No other comments.

Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:36:23):

• • 07-26-2021, Final Minutes (page 14/91 of the council packet)
  • 08-09-2021, Draft Minutes (page 16/91 of the council packet)
  • 08-23-2021, Treasurer Report (page 18/91 of the council packet)
  • 08-18-2021, Revenue and Expenditure Report, Period Ending 07-31-2021 (page 19/91 of the council packet)
  • 07-01-2021, I.T. Right invoice (page 26/91 of the council packet)
  • 08-05-2021, Howard & Howard invoice (page 28/91 of the council packet)

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented to them.

Luginski moved to accept the consent agenda as presented; Casey second.

Haven said that the consent agenda is a compilation of minutes from the last two meetings, final minutes for what was a draft prior for July 26^th, and draft minutes for August 9^th and the treasurer’s report. Those are the things that are in there, and any council member can extract something if they would like to talk about it separately or they can approve it as a whole. Haven said that they have a motion to accept and a second and asked if there were any discussion.

No comments from council.

Haven said all in favor should say aye. Pardee raised his hand and said as Haven might expect, he has a question.

Pardee said there’s another invoice from Howard & Howard, who was the attorney for the city’s Bisio efforts. Pardee thought we were done in March or April, so he was wondering what this invoice is about. Smith said that shortly after the lawsuit was wrapped up, Susan Bisio submitted a rather extensive FOIA request. It was very involved in all the things that were necessary to pull this together, and because of the lawsuit that they had just completed, Smith made the decision that he needed to consult with Mark Peyser [Howard & Howard attorney]. Smith established an emergency budget of $1,000 to consult with Mark Peyser. The bill that is in the packet that was for five hundred and some dollars is representative of the work that Peyser did helping us with the FOIA. Pardee asked if we’ve finished with the FOIA request, and Smith said that we haven’t; it’s still ongoing. There have been more questions. We submitted a payment authorization. As you know, a FOIA request has a cost to it. So we worked through what Evelyn [Bihl] and Jennifer [Speagle] did, a very extensive review of all the costs involved in pulling together all of the FOIA documents Ms. Bisio was requesting. It was a sizeable amount of time, a sizable effort on the city’s part to do all this work. So, when we submitted the cost estimate to Mrs. Bisio for her approval for payment, that just sparked more questions, so we’re kind of at a little bit of a standstill for now. Pardee asked if this would be the last invoice, and Smith said he’s trying to not utilize Peyser unless absolutely necessary.

Pardee said he feels very positive about the format and readability of the financial report by Bihl and Coté. The fact that what’s in here is the first month also makes the numbers jump out. It’s not like we’re looking at year-to-date in terms of three months. Things jump out, particularly red numbers.

One thing that jumps out is that Pardee sees computer support on the treasurer’s side, and it looks like we spent $2,170 out of a $3,500 budget. Pardee wondered what that was for and did that come before council for approval. That appears to be separate from the I.T. Right invoice. Smith said that Coté has his own computer support for the BS&A system. That’s what this charge is for, the BS&A software. A lot of Oakland County is on BS&A. This is our annual bill. Smith believes that is the only bill that we will receive this year. There will be other computer support work that Coté, the Treasurer, will need throughout the year, but this is the only one that is for the BS&A system. Granted, it’s a big bill, but it’s just a one-time bill starting July 1. You’ll see one from I.T. Right as well. (Unintelligible comment from Pardee.)

Pardee said that it looks like our insurance costs with MML (Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool) came in perhaps above what we budgeted in a couple of areas. They talked previously about the Errors and Omissions being aligned with the budget amount, and Pardee thought the answer was yes. The data says otherwise, no, and it also indicates that because E & O [Errors and Omissions] has its own department. If you follow the rules, it would mean amending the budget for that. Smith said that the E & O insurance is $86 over the budgeted amount. Pardee agreed. Smith said that Equipment Rental was $14 over the budgeted amount. But the other three – Property, Open Spaces, and General Liability – were significantly under, so in total our insurance bill was $1,200 under budget. (Pardee made additional comments, but they were unintelligible.)

Pardee said that we have six computers on I.T. Right. (Interrupting Pardee), Haven said that Pardee should get with Jonathan separately on this level of minutia and so on, did he understand? They certainly want Pardee to have all of his questions answered, and if Pardee put them in a list, Haven thought that Smith would be happy to answer Pardee’s questions that way. (Unitelligible) our meeting. Thanks for understanding.

Haven said that there is a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda.

Bonser asked Smith about parking revenue, but the question itself was unintelligible. Smith said that it is something they’d lost track of after being off for so long, but it’s something that they will restart before the next meeting. (Bonser made an additional comment, but it was unintelligible.) Smith said that we are making about $1,000 per week, just on parking fees, not ticket fees. They’ve been up since July. Smith said he didn’t know the exact date, but he thought that they have about five or six thousand dollars in the account. Haven said that the projection looks pretty healthy then for a year (remaining comments were unintelligible). Smith said it slows down in the month of (unintelligible).

Haven asked if there were any other questions or comments about the consent agenda. Haven asked Pardee if he understood, and Haven said that he appreciated it. Pardee thanked Haven.

Haven said that this is simply a voice vote (unintelligible).

Motion to accept the consent agenda as presented passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #10, Old Business

Item 10a – Motion: Depot Duck Food Dispenser (Video time mark 0:44:26)

• • Motion – Depot Park Duck Food Dispenser (page 29/91 of the council packet)

Haven said that there was a proposal made a few weeks ago, and he wasn’t there, for the duck food dispenser. That went to the Friends of Depot Park for their consideration. Haven said that there is a proposal before them now as a result of their feedback.

(Haven read from a document.) The Friends of Depot Park Committee met on August 17^th and after discussion voted to recommend to council that the duck feeder be denied over concerns about encouraging the feeding of wild animals and the possibility of attracting geese. The committee recommended that instead of a feeder, a permanent sign be installed asking visitors not to feed the ducks.

Haven said that’s the approach. They are trying to prevent any feeding from going on there at all.

Haven said that there is a motion and asked if they needed a roll call. Haven said that there was no money to spend on this. Ryan said that it was in the style of a motion so it would be a roll call. Haven said that’s what he thought. Haven asked someone to make a motion.

Wylie made a motion to install a permanent “please do not feed the ducks” sign in Depot Park; second Luginski.

No discussion.

Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

Item 10b – Resolution/Second Read: Short-Term Rental (Video time mark 0:45:55)

• • Ordinance to Amend the City of the Village of Clarkston Zoning Ordinance, As Amended, to Address and Regulate Short-Terms [sic] Rentals Within the City (page 33/91 of the council packet)
  • 07-13-2021 Memorandum from Benjamin R. Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman, Subject: Short-Term Rentals (page 36/91 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is now a resolution, the second read on short-term rentals. There is a resolution to be made here in terms of the ordinance. Haven said that he would start by entertaining some motion to accept or reject. They needed to vote on this one this time. A motion to accept or approve the ordinance.

Luginski said he would move to accept or approve the ordinance; second by Wylie.

Haven asked if there was any discussion regarding short-term rental.

Bonser said that obviously, he’s recused himself from the vote because he is a short-term rental owner, but overall, he thinks that this ordinance is too onerous. For one thing, they put short-term rentals in the Village Commercial. They always ask in each meeting where can there be one, and it sounds like maybe there is one place that could have a short-term rental. So, in effect, the council has banned short-term rentals in Clarkston. It just seems like they’ve had so many problems with long-term rentals in the village, an issue that they had over the winter, so Bonser wanted to know why they were focused on regulating the short-term rentals. Bonser said that there are three short-term rental properties, successful properties that are super hosts according to Airbnb, and Bonser has rented to mostly to family members of the community. Bonser doesn’t think that they need this. They don’t have a problem right now. Bonser doesn’t agree with it at all.

Bonser said that the other thing is this, they do have a short-term rental property in the Village Commercial, they’re restricting the full number of nights they can rent to ninety days or ninety nights, and Bonser is not really sure how that came to be. Bonser said that he knows that there was talk that ninety nights would be, basically, if you rented all of the weekends. There are fifty-two weeks in a year, so if you times it by two, that’s a hundred nights. It doesn’t even cover if you rent it all weekend. If you had a thirty-day rental, which Bonser often gets in July and August when people from down south want to be up here where it’s nice to spend time with family, and you’re using up sixty of the days right there. Bonser thinks that number should be moved up to either unlimited or to one hundred and eighty at least. That’s a better cap.

Bonser said as far as the registration, it talks about permanent fees, but there is no fee number anywhere, so when will that fee come out, and what will that fee be. That’s a question that he has about the ordinance; it was just a matter of fee in principle. Haven said that he didn’t think that they had established a fee allowance. Little said that they’d talked about fee amounts, but they wouldn’t put it in the ordinance because it could change. Little thought it would be a city administration (unintelligible). Haven said that makes sense. Bonser asked if it would be $1,000? $100? Little said that they were talking about $400 or $500, but they haven’t set that, they’ve not done it yet. Little said $300, $400, $500, they weren’t sure, so they haven’t set that yet – (interrupting Little), Haven said it’s a regulation thing. (Interrupting Haven), Little said that it’s an administrative thing so it would probably come back to city council as part of the discussion. Haven said if you have regulations, you have regulation costs, basically. Little said just to pay for things like safety inspections. Haven agreed.

Bonser asked Little to explain the ninety days; he knows that the committee came up with that number. Little said that one of the things that they’ve always been concerned about is a commercial real estate person coming in, buying property, and turning it into a full-time Airbnb. This discourages that. If it’s someone who lives in an apartment and wants to rent it periodically to somebody, that’s one thing. But to have commercial people come in and say full-time Airbnb, which honestly, they’ve had calls in the last two or three weeks about, so the reason Little thinks that they are going through this whole regulation thing, in spite of everything, is to clarify where Clarkston is on this so we can decide whether we can have them or not have them and be clear about it. Because right now, there’s nothing in our ordinance about short-term rentals (phone ringing, unintelligible).

Bonser asked why it wasn’t a hundred and eighty days? It wouldn’t be a full-time rental then. Ninety days is only a quarter of a year. Little said it was forty-five, two-day weekends. They had a lot of discussion about that, and people were comfortable with that number (unintelligible). Ryan said again, this is only for short-term rentals, which to Bonser’s point is twenty-eight days or less. A thirty-day lease is not a short-term rental, and that’s not applicable, so Bonser can rent thirty days at a crack if he wants to. Ryan said that they just came up with twenty-eight days to try and be fair. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it’s twenty-eight days or less is a short-term rental. Little said that Bonser could rent his property twenty-nine or more days, and Ryan agreed. Bonser said it wouldn’t apply to them because they are not in Village Commercial. Ryan said no, if it’s over a twenty-eight-day lease, then Bonser could still do it. Little agreed.

Bonser said that they can’t be a short-term rental because they are not in the Village Commercial. Little said that was correct, but Bonser could rent for twenty-nine days or more as a long-term rental on Bonser’s property. Bonser asked if a property is designated as a short-term rental, and it rents for more than thirty days, isn’t it still a short-term rental? Ryan and Little said no. Bonser said that particular rent isn’t, but that property is still a short-term rental. Ryan and Little said that they didn’t understand. Haven said (unintelligible) about labeling. Bonser said in the ordinance, if you advertise your property on Airbnb as a short-term rental, you have to have the city’s assigned permit registration number on it. Ryan said that would be a different advertisement on Airbnb, because short-term rental in the city is only in Village Commercial and twenty-eight days or less, so if you are outside of Village Commercial and want to rent your property for over twenty-eight days, you can still do that on Airbnb or whatever. You’re not a short-term rental under their scenario. Bonser agreed. Ryan said he didn’t know what they called it in the rental world out there, but at least in our town, you’re not a short-term rental.

Bonser said that what he is saying is if you have a short-term rental in Village Commercial, you rent for thirty days, and you’re labeled a short-term rental, those thirty days – (interrupting Bonser), Ryan said twenty-eight days or less.

Ben Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman, asked if he could speak. Carlisle said that Carlisle/Wortman assisted the village in creation of this policy and ordinance language. When they started the discussion, one of the first things that they had to establish was that the term “rental” was not even in the ordinance. They had to establish what rental meant. They defined short-term rental, and they started out at sixty-five days, and it whittled down to twenty-eight days. So, if you rent out a property for twenty-eight days or less, you fall under the short-term rental ordinance. However, if you rent out a property for twenty-nine days or more, you’re not under the regulations. That being said, if you’re Village Commercial property, you go through the process, you get approval to do your short-term, you’re deemed a short-term rental. That does not preclude you from also renting your property as a long-term rental, or twenty-nine or more days. That rental of twenty-nine or more days does not count against the ninety-day proscription. Essentially what would happen is, if you have forty-five, two-day rentals, that would be the ninety days that you could rent out your property. The remainder period for each time would be twenty-nine days or more. Carlisle asked if that clarified Bonser’s concern, and he said yes, but he doesn’t see that in writing. Carlisle said being a long-term rental wouldn’t go against the short-term rental provision. Bonser said OK, so a short-term rental in the Village Commercial can also be a long-term rental. Carlisle said collectively, anything short-term or less cannot add up to more than ninety days, so twenty-seven times four or whatever that number is for twenty-seven-day rentals, but if you go twenty-nine days or above for a rental, that doesn’t count against that ninety-day reduction.

Haven asked Bonser if that helped (unintelligible). Bonser said that it does, but – (interrupting Bonser), Haven said that the property is still available for the people you’d like to rent to (unintelligible) – (interrupting Haven), Bonser said as long as it’s twenty-eight days or more. Haven agreed and said that’s what Bonser was before, right? Bonser said that they were a hybrid, their minimum was three nights, they didn’t want anyone there less than three nights, and they had up to thirty days. Bonser said that they lose the flexibility of, when they had short-term rentals, when you get in there and fix things as needed, you can do that for long-term rentals, but you really sometimes put the tenant out if you have to do a major fix or something that, you lose that flexibility. And you also can’t have families, communities that just want to come in for a short-term just to visit family for a wedding, or a funeral, or a graduation party, or something like that. They’re not going to commit for thirty days for that, so they get pushed out to the Comfort Inn, they get pushed out of the village. If they get pushed out of the village, then they’re not going to bring business into the village necessarily. It’s harder for them. In the village, they can just walk to town, grab something to eat at one of the restaurants, and whatever.

Haven asked if Bonser understood the tension with neighborhoods, all residential appeal of this village, and the importance of that – (interrupting Haven), Bonser said that he thinks it’s a problem that doesn’t exist. We’ve got other problems, and Bonser knows that this is something that they are trying to get ahead of, but as he said, they are trying to fix a problem that is not there. Haven said he appreciated Bonser’s comments.

Haven asked if there were any other comments before they vote.

Christopher Moore said that the need does exist for these types of rentals. The Comfort Inn has been at 100% capacity basically since it opened. He knows this because his friend, the best man at his wedding, he’s one of the primary investors there. He lives in Ohio, but he invests here because he grew up here, but they’ve been at near 100% capacity since it opened. Haven said he would characterize this thing relative to the village itself. This is a highly residential community. You look at our Master Plan, we’re 53% residential (Haven noted that he was estimating), people who love their neighborhoods. They want them to remain quiet neighborhoods, and that’s the reason for the emphasis here. Again, the PC has bent over backwards to try to make this so that it’s not a burden on the three or more that are there that could have people in for twenty-eight days or more, so there’s been an attempt to try to remedy this situation, given the spirit of the community who like quiet neighborhoods. And we’re only one-half square mile. We don’t need to put commercial establishments in one-half square mile; there’s plenty of other territory to do it. Haven said he thinks that the spirit is that we are trying to find a happy medium. They worked hard at this.

Bonser said initially, they came up with a proposal that was more of a compromise, and that was shot down by council. Initially, when this was brought to the council a couple of years ago, they came up with a proposal for potentially grandfathering these units there already or allowing them within a couple thousand feet. Bonser said he knows that there are communities that have done that, like Holland for instance, and they were successful in doing that. Bonser doesn’t understand why the council shot down that first proposal. He thinks this is driven by council, not the PC, and he doesn’t agree with it being on council.

Haven asked if there was any additional discussion.

No additional discussion.

Ryan said it needed to be a roll call vote.

Haven said a yes vote would be for the ordinance to be approved; a no vote would be for it to not be approved.

Haven, Luginski, and Wylie voted yes. Casey said he reluctantly voted no because he thinks the ordinance is too restrictive. Bonser was recused.

Haven said that the motion carries.

Item 10c – Resolution/Second Read: Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) (Video time mark 1:00:39)

• • Ordinance to Amend the City of the Village of Clarkston Zoning Ordinance No. 129 to Amend Article VII – RPDD, Residential Planned Development District (page 40/91 of the council packet)
  • 02-03-2021 Memorandum from Richard and Ben Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman, Subject: Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) Ordinance Review and Recommended Amendments (page 55/91 of the council packet)
  • Article VIII, RPDD, Residential Planned Development District, marked-up copy (page 61/91 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is the second reading for this as well, which means that they will vote on this tonight. It’s a resolution and a roll call vote.

Haven said that he wanted to say that since the last meeting where they had the first reading, he has done some soul searching and had some concerns, in the same kind of spirit, we try to protect the constituency, and you can see this reflected on council, the constituency of our residential community that is concerned. It is not that we don’t want development, we want the right kind of development, and finding those terms is difficult sometimes. Haven said that he wanted to make a motion relative to this one that they approve the ordinance as it’s come to them with the exception of the 10% commercial feature that’s in it, that they remove that from it. So, approval with removal of the 10% commercial aspect; all other aspects of this ordinance would be approved under Haven’s motion. Haven wasn’t certain if he could garner a second.

Ryan said he was looking at the minutes from the last meeting. A motion to reconsider has to be made at the next meeting of the body, which is tonight, and it can be made by someone who voted in the majority of the motion that passed. So, the motion that passed at the last meeting was to allow the 10% commercial to be in, and Haven voted in favor of leaving it in, and it was a 3-2 vote. So, Haven could make a motion if he wanted to reconsider first of all, taking the 10% out, and someone has to second that, and then it would be voted on, and then they could reconsider and make a motion, or someone could make a motion, to take the 10% out of the ordinance at the second reading tonight. If that passed, then the ordinance would then follow without the 10%. That’s how it has to go. Haven asked if it was a two-step process, and Ryan said it is. Haven said the first step is – (interrupting Haven) Ryan said that Haven could move to reconsider the 10% commercial.

Haven said that he would move to reconsider the 10% commercial; second Luginski.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

Bonser said he didn’t understand Haven’s change of heart. The last time that they talked about this at council, they have the final say anyway on a final proposal, so they’re using the 10% as a carrot. Haven said an incentive. Bonser said as an incentive for projects to come forward. Haven supported that last time; Haven agreed.

Haven said it was a good question. Haven doesn’t think he’s ever seen a list of all of the potential properties in this town that this could apply to. Properties that he understands are an acre or more; Ryan said that was correct – or can be assembled. Haven said a combination, and we have certainly more than what (unintelligible), and maybe even more than the parking lot in the center of the village. We have other properties that are more than an acre. When you begin talking about properties, again in a residential area, there’s a sensitivity certainly among our citizenry and our constituency, of commercial aspect entering a residential area, the neighborhoods, if you will. That became Haven’s concern as well on further reflection, and that’s why he moved for reconsideration, and that’s what Ryan is asking him to do. Ryan agreed. That’s Haven’s answer to the question. There are more properties involved than just those two.

Bonser said that the council still has the final say. Haven said they are voting on this tonight. Wylie said that Bonser meant in the future. Haven said that developments get brought to the PC and then to the council, for sure, but he thinks they are setting the ground rules broadly, the umbrella, with this ordinance. That’s the reason for having it, setting the ground rules for application.

Casey said that the council has the discretion to consider each application on its merits, and Haven agreed.

Luginski said that argument does not hold with him. He’s been here long enough to see that once you start that slippery slope, you give people the ability to think that they can do that, they will come, and we will be in lawsuits, which we already have been, and it will continue that way and say “well, you have this in the ordinance,” and then if you deny it, so let’s not even go down that path. Let’s protect the residential nature of this community the way it is, the way it’s meant to be, and the way it’s always been and not even begin to give that door an opening. Luginski doesn’t see the benefit of that at all.

Haven said that writing it into a law a provision that allows that sort of creep, it’s commercial creep into neighborhoods, and that’s his reason for changing his mind on this. He hopes everyone will consider that. It’s a crack in the door, and we don’t need cracks in the door in a residential community. We can hold our own in our half-square mile with 53% or whatever it is of residential. It’s our bedroom community, and Haven said that he thinks that’s what their constituency wants, and he thinks they would be disappointed in a council that would crack open the door for commercial in residential. Haven (unintelligible) have a problem with commercial in the areas they’ve talked about at Waldon and Main or the other center where there are large properties that in his view could be very beneficial for condominiums for people who own homes in this town when they come of an age where they would like to live in the village in their latter years and purchase a condominium. He thought apartments are out and deferred to Little regarding the language, but there’s an aversion to apartments in that sense of temporary, the ownership, he believes, but given that, he thinks that there’s more than just these two properties. There are others that are desirable properties that could request rezoning and this RPDD option, and given that commercial element to it, we could have commercial occupying space in residential neighborhoods. Main Street. If the council wants to crack open that door, it’s precedent setting for sure. This is not a subtlety. It’s very important that we realize what’s going on here.

Casey said with all due respect, he didn’t think it was precedent-setting. Haven said they are writing it into a law, and Casey understands law. Casey said that they would have the discretion, and he understands the slippery slope (unintelligible). Haven said it happens. Casey said that he thinks that they need to preserve their options, and they can consider, if it ever happens, consider on the merits and make good faith decisions that could be defended (unintelligible).

Haven directed his comment toward Carlisle and Little and asked if once the ordinance was in place, it becomes the standard or the law and it’s not a matter of lawsuits. He thinks that once a municipality declares its decision relative to, and it becomes an ordinance, it’s law, right? So, you don’t sue against the law. It’s the law of the community.

Carlisle said that this is an ordinance, and an ordinance is in fact a regulation. Both sides are making different points of the same argument or the same provision. One side, Mr. Casey’s argument, is that you want to allow yourself some flexibility or discretion, and that’s what the intent of the 10% is. In his opinion, there probably are some properties that may be worthwhile for consideration of the 10% nonresidential uses as part of the RPDD. There are some that are not, and that’s what Carlisle is hearing, the other ones, that the ordinance would open the door to allow that.

Carlisle wanted to get back to a point that was raised earlier that the council does have full discretion to say yes or no. The point of the slippery slope is just because it’s in the ordinance, do you have to approve it. What they intentionally did here was to beef up their standards under which they review these projects and he wanted to read two that are really – (interrupting Carlisle) Haven said if he could streamline it, and he’s not sure what the term beefing up means. Carlisle said define and strengthen it, to allow them – (interrupting Carlisle) Haven said you did streamline it, right, so it could be more readily (interrupting Haven), Carlisle said if you hear the read, he thinks that they’re strong, the process if that makes sense, and there are two you would apply – (interrupting Carlsle) Haven asked what stronger means.

Carlisle asked if he could read the two (unintelligible) case that you’re arguing (unintelligible). The first is that the proposal has to be consistent with the Master Plan. Carlisle said that he thinks they could argue that if there’s a nonresidential use that is trying to be located in a residential neighborhood as part of the RPDD, they could strongly argue that it’s not consistent in (unintelligible). That’s made very clear (unintelligible), that this is residential versus nonresidential property. The second standard is the use or proposal has a beneficial effect in terms of public health, safety, welfare, convenience and not present an adverse impact on the use of properties. That’s another strong thing they have to deal with some of the discretionary decisions. Carlisle said that he understands that there is a concern about slippery slope and opening the door into allowing nonresidential into residential properties. That being said, Carlisle said that he thought that there are strong enough standards here that would allow them to defend an action if they did decide to not allow it based on (unintelligible). Every community gets sued (unintelligible). The question is whether it’s valid or not. Carlisle is not here to defend them; they have their own counsel to defend them. There are cases where it would make sense, and there are cases where they could strongly argue why it does not make sense. Carlisle thinks that there is enough strength in the standards that (unintelligible) option.

Haven asked if they made decisions based upon the ordinance, the way it comes out here, 10% or no 10% commercial, let’s say it’s not 10%, there’s no 10% provision for commercial in the ordinance, then for the council to rule on any development project that comes to them, council and the PC, there would be no grounds for suit because they are acting consistent with the ordinance that they have in place, correct? Carlisle said that if they take out the 10%, then they are not allowing commercial uses in any RPDD project. Haven agreed. Carlisle said even if they think it’s worthwhile for a particular property, they will have to go through the variance process or they can’t do their project. Haven said exactly. Carlisle said that takes out that provision; it just takes it off the table. Haven said that the variance is still there, the ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] is still there as an option. Ryan said that it’s going to be a use variance, because it’s not allowed, and with a use variance, you have to show there’s no economical use for the property other than – (interrupting Ryan) Carlisle said it’s a much higher barrier for approval. Ryan said that’s not going to fly, it’s not going to get a use variance, no way. Unnecessary hardship, it’s got to be (unintelligible), and it’s got to show that there’s no other use for the property, it’s not economical unless you grant this use because the property as zoned is not economically useful.

Haven said that is the strength of the ordinance, right? It holds. There is no variance way around it. He thought that’s what Ryan was telling him. Ryan said that if the 10% is not in the ordinance that’s adopted tonight, they can’t ask for a use variance because it’s not practical.

Carlisle said to Haven’s point, if you took out the 10%, it would basically eliminate any future use of non-residential. Haven said that’s what he’s saying. Carlisle said that’s really a policy question for the council. Haven agreed. Carlisle said that there are arguments on both sides of it. He thought the PC started at 25% and whittled it down to 10% and that’s where they landed on it, and really it’s up to the council. Haven agreed.

Luginski said that he understands that the council has the final say if the 10% were kept in there. That’s fine as long as you have a pro-residential council that is fighting for what this city is, which is (unintelligible), the historic nature, the residential nature of it. But we’ve all seen and been here long enough, that there are developers would love to come in here and change that. And all you need is a couple of changes on council that are more pro-development, and the next time this comes up or it happens, that 10% will be granted. That’s the additional crack in the door that you’ve allowed if this goes through. It’s not who’s sitting at the table today, and he knows there’s no guarantee. Luginski can’t guarantee that twenty years from today that could happen, but he’s been sitting at this table for almost twelve years now and he’s seen it happen more and more with developers who want to come in here and do things in our city, and we’ve been able to fend it off, but if we open the door, and we have a chink in the armor, all it takes is a couple of changes on council to have that pro-development lean, and then there it is. The opening is there.

Luginski said that the other question he has, and he didn’t know if it was for the PC and Carlisle, there are really only a couple of properties that it makes sense at to have this 10% in his mind, because again, his house would qualify. Whether it was approved or not is another story, but his house on Main Street is big enough, and the lot is big enough, that he could have a 500 square foot coffee shop or whatever if council were to approve. In his mind, there’s only a couple of properties that it probably makes sense that this 10% is there, and they’ve said from the beginning that they aren’t talking about Waldon and Main, but they are talking about Waldon and Main. C’mon, let’s be realistic, at the end of the day, that’s what they’re talking about, so why can’t they do it by saying these couple of properties that it does make sense, let that be 10% but nothing else. Is there a reason that we can’t do that, because Carlisle even said that there are a couple of properties that makes sense and the rest don’t.

Carlisle said he doesn’t know if he has an opinion. He hadn’t thought about that before and is thinking out loud a little bit. He thinks there’s a way to do it, but what they would have to do is to uniquely identify some of those. Luginski agreed. Carlisle said that it would have to be through some sort of floating mechanism. What we are doing now though is changing the language for a zoning ordinance where the districts aren’t mapped yet. Does that make sense? These would come in and be mapped as the zoning applies to it. So, they’d have to in the future identify those properties they think would be appropriate for 10% and which ones they don’t, and he’s not sure, they could go through that exercise, but he’s not sure that they could come up with a consensus on that because they aren’t mapped districts and they are pulling properties out that they think may (unintelligible) in the future. Little mentioned the Master Plan, and Carlisle said yes, they’d have to update the Master Plan. Haven agreed that would change. Carlisle said that it’s a long way of saying that he thought it could be done, but he’s not sure how clean it would be or how efficient it would be. Luginski agreed.

Haven said that vagary has kind of hovered over this whole discussion. What other properties apply? We’ve never gotten an answer to that, ever. Everyone thinks Waldon and Main is the poster child for the thing, but it’s not the only one, and that’s his concern at this juncture. We have a residential community here (unintelligible) and that’s what he thinks he would interpret council’s role as that role, protect our residential community.

Cara Catallo asked to speak. Haven asked her to come to the podium. Catallo asked if there are ways that it could be accomplished where you don’t change the ordinance this way. Catallo doesn’t see why we would lessen our zoning laws to accommodate the hypothetical. For her, it’s just too chancy of our (unintelligible), and to Mr. Casey’s point, she’s not to (unintelligible) to tie anybody’s hands so that they can’t accomplish something, but there are processes in place where they could then do, she’s under the impression that maybe an overlay district or something, or get a variance so that they can accomplish (unintelligible) if somebody does want to say that Waldon and Main could get the 10% issued. But for her, it’s such a dangerous mechanism to incorporate into our residential neighborhoods. There is a neighborhood there. Each (unintelligible) is residential because there’s a neighborhood, and you’re looking at four or five houses across the street that are in a residential neighborhood. She thinks by adding this little element, and she remembers at one point that Mr. Carlisle said that they threw this in here, they’re not going to die on this point, but it seems to her like it’s just a little too dangerous to include it as an incentive when it’s a lovely community and she doesn’t know why we need to throw this sort of chancy incentive to lure someone here. There’s a lot that could be built on, they could have condos or apartments or houses, but she thinks that adding the commercial element is just a little too much. She feels bad that she doesn’t know which lots are more than an acre, really. (Interrupting Catallo) Haven said we don’t know. Catallo said she also doesn’t know who owns adjacent lots to make it an acre. She started thinking about Middle Lake and those beautiful, expansive lawns that go down to the lake (unintelligible) there would be plenty to put something in. So, in her mind, it’s just a little too chancy to (unintelligible), but if we’re not going to, or if we’re taking such care to eliminate Airbnbs but throwing this in is like sort of questionable hypothetical. To her, and she hates to speak in public, which is why she sounds this way, but it’s worth it for her to come forward and say that she wishes that this weren’t part of it.

Haven said that the difficulty is always projecting, and he sat there last time and was trying to project this thing. He talked to Waldon and Main, and he can imagine a coffee shop or a dress shop and sixteen or twenty units and that not being an issue in that sort of reduction or percentage of the net concentration. But look at Luginski’s lot on Main Street and take 10% of that and make it commercial? That’s a whole different discussion. That’s his reason and his concern for the residential neighborhoods. If we introduce this into the residential neighborhoods.

Casey said that as it’s been pointed out, there are provisions in the ordinance that we can rely on in Luginski’s example. He’s in the middle of a residential (unintelligible) historic district in a historic house. Casey didn’t think there is any way in hell that we would approve that, and he thinks that the way that the ordinance is structured that they would be on solid ground. Luginski said that the only thing that he would say is that if that’s true, then why even have it? Where would we approve it? The other lots that are big enough, and he doesn’t know them all, but it would be nice to know, truly, which ones they are. He could guess off the top of his head, but he hasn’t gone out there to survey them to know. They’re all in the middle of residential areas, they’re all in the middle of residential areas, historic district or not. They’re all in the middle, or down side streets to Catallo’s point, the ones in Middle Lake on the lake, these are all in the middle of neighborhoods, and there has been an effort in this town for years, we had someone walk around a few years ago trying to dissolve the city, right, because they wanted to do that. We’ve had developers who would love to do nothing more than buy North Main and develop it, and make us look, with all due respect, nothing against Lake Orion, but like Lake Orion down on Lapeer Road. We’ve had that discussion in this meeting numerous times over the last decade, those exact examples. So that is there, that is there, it’s not going away, and to your point, on council today, Luginski didn’t think we have that problem. But they can’t predict what’s going to happen. They’re here to preserve, protect the city, and the residential area, and the historic district for generations, not only today, tomorrow, twenty years, fifty years from now. That’s their job. And that’s why Luginski thinks this 10% makes no sense. Casey said that was very interesting.

Haven asked if there was any further discussion. There’s a motion and a second to reconsider the 10%. Wylie asked Haven to remind them again how they are to vote? Yes means to reconsider, and no we do not? Haven agreed.

Haven and Luginski voted yes; Bonser, Casey, and Wylie voted no.

Haven said so they won’t consider dropping the 10%. So, then the issue becomes approval of the – (interrupting Haven), Ryan said the second reading, that’s correct. Haven said approval of the second reading.

Haven asked if there was any other motion on any other aspect of that ordinance.

Catallo said that she was just curious why an overlay district wouldn’t accomplish the same thing and then not need to have this ordinance (unintelligible). That’s the one part, it seems as though we are bending over backwards to accommodate a somewhat hypothetical investor and development opportunities that they have when it (unintelligible). She doesn’t know why an overlay district wouldn’t accomplish sort of the same thing without so many chances involved. Haven said that’s a technical question that he doesn’t know the answer to – (interrupting Haven), Catallo said that she thought Mr. Carlisle could maybe address that, and she also has been a little bit curious if Mr. Carlisle, if developers or investors are also clients of Mr. Carlisle, because she’s just curious on sort of an ethical level, it seems like that’s something that should be out in the open – (interrupting Catallo), Haven said he is our contract city planner. Catallo said that she understands that, but she also (interrupting Catallo), Carlisle said she made that distinction.

Carlisle said that Carlisle/Wortman is an urban planning consulting firm. They’ve been in business for over forty-five years. They’ve worked for eighty communities in the state. They don’t do any private work, they only work for municipalities. Catallo said OK. Carlisle said (unintelligible) that’s one thing that they do pride themselves on, separation of public and private, and so ethics is their highest standard that they uphold.

Haven said that the question is about overlay districts. What is it? Carlisle said an overlay district can be a map or a non-map district, and basically what it is, is it puts additional, it’s a very technical zoning complex thing to do, but basically what it does is it puts additional zoning restrictions above the underlying zoning district that applies. What you could do in theory is if you think that there are certain properties that are applicable to the 10% and want to safeguard yourself and have ones that are outside the 10% could still apply for this. You could potentially create two overlay districts, one overlay district that allows the 10% (unintelligible), and one overlay district that would (unintelligible) of the village or certain portions that this ordinance would apply. Again, it gets back to the (unintelligible) that Carlisle gave them earlier, it would take additional study, additional consideration, and additional going back to the Master Plan and he’s not sure, but they may come back and start arguing over (unintelligible). Having a robust discussion about what the districts would (unintelligible) above that district is. Essentially, if you now do it with an overlay, you actually have to map that overlay. To do that, you pick properties that are in and properties that are out, so it’s a much more restrictive process, and you would actually have to go through property by property to see what should be in and what should be out. As written now because it’s unmapped, you don’t have to do it at this point, you do it on a case-by-case basis as a developer comes in. Carlisle said he hopes he answered Haven’s question.

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept the ordinance as presented to them.

Motion by Casey; second Wylie.

No additional discussion.

Haven, Bonser, Casey, and Wylie voted yes. Luginski voted no.

RPDD ordinance passed as presented.

Item 10d – Resolution: Depot Park Gazebo Painting (Video time mark 1:28:12)

• • Resolution – Depot Park Gazebo Painting (page 76/91 of the council packet)
  • Estimate, Ioco Painting Services, LLC (page 77/91 of the council packet)

Haven asked Smith to explain this. He said we approved $4,000 before and wanted to know if we skipped something. (There was a brief discussion between Wylie and Haven regarding whether 10d or 11 was next.)

Haven said that there was an approval of $4,000 to repair and make the gazebo as good as we can on a limited budget. According to this breakdown that Smith has provided to them, they’ve spent $660 on paint and lumber so far. We have a remainder of $3333.34 that we could use for painting the gazebo, but we need $4,000 because of the bid, so we are short $666, the difference, correct? Smith said that was correct. Haven said that this is a resolution to approve another $666 to get the gazebo painted professionally. We went through all kinds of difficulty getting a painter, and Haven said that Smith found the one that painted city hall. Smith said that’s the only one that he was able to get a quote from. Haven said they’d tried, and Haven tried three, and they all turned us down.

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept the resolution to resolve $666.

Wylie made the motion for the resolution; Bonser second.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

Casey said it was a no brainer.

Haven, Luginski, Wylie, Bonser, and Casey voted yes.

Resolution passed.

Agenda Item #11, New Business [Was Original Agenda Item #12 and reordered during the approval of Item #4 (consent agenda).]

Item 11a – Motion: PC Modification of Ordinance, Planning Commission Site Plan Review (Video time mark 1:31:05)

• • Motion – Planning Commission Site Plan Review Ordinance Change Recommendation (page 78/91 of the council packet)
  • Ordinance to Amend the City of the Village of Clarkston Zoning Ordinance No. 129, Zoning Ordinance to Amend Section 17.02 Entitled Uses Requiring Site Plan Review (page 79/91 of the council packet)

Haven said they were going to flip the page and go to 12a. This is a motion for a PC modification of the ordinance, and he asked Little to explain.

Little said that in 2018, early 2019, when they approved the Master Plan, one of their goals in the Master Plan was to build out as many properties as they could. So, at that point in time, they decided that the PC should be inserted into the ordinance to allow them to look at all projects because they expected a fair amount of work coming up. For one reason or another, COVID and all kinds of other things, it didn’t take place like they thought. They also found themselves crosswise with the HDC [Historic District Commission] sometimes, because if you look at who approves what, the Building Department, which is Carlisle/Wortman, Craig Strong, approves things like building codes and standards and looks at how people are building out their projects and that sort of thing. The PC looks at ordinances and building codes and other things. The HDC has guidelines, and those guidelines come from the Secretary of the Interior and other places, and some of these things look like they are in conflict with some of these other things. As Moore said earlier, sometimes it perilous to get through this process. Little said that they had a meeting the other day where they were looking at the process, and that’s actually the picture on the board. They were trying to figure out how they could streamline their approval process so that it’s understandable to the community, easy to get through, sometimes, and at least people would know I’m going Step A, Step B, that sort of thing. During that process, Bill Basinger asked which one of you changed that ordinance three years ago and do you really want to do that? They talked about that a little bit, and ten minutes later, Little said he thought that Basinger was right, they should probably change it back close to the way it was.

Little said that what the PC was asking the council to do was to ask the PC to go investigate this. They are not asking the council to change the ordinance tonight, they are not asking the council to vote on a certain way to do it, they are asking the council to give the PC a question about how they could change the ordinance to streamline the process.

Little said he wanted to take two seconds and show the council and give them an idea of what he means. Pointing to the board, Little said that if this was it, and he wasn’t asking council to approve it. What it says up here is I’m coming in to build a garage or coming in to do something in my house. It would come here to Smith and Strong in the Building Department, and they’d say, let me sit down with this resident and go through it and help them understand which path they are going to take because regardless when you are looking at a flow chart, sometimes you have no idea whether it makes any sense or not. So, they would help them with oh, you’re doing this kind of thing, your going to need to change this and that.

The first question is whether are there dimensional issues here or variances. So, if they want to do a setback, closer to the street, (unintelligible), any number of other things that look different than our ordinances, if that was a request to do that, then it would go to the ZBA. If it’s not a request for a variance, then it comes down here and it says is this in the historic district? If it’s in the historic district, it goes to HDC. If it’s not in the historic district, it comes to the PC. And through work with these two groups [pointed to the HDC and the PC], through site plans and that sort of thing, it comes out the bottom and Strong takes them through all the code checks and everything as the project goes forward. Today, it goes through both of these [pointed to the HDC and the PC] no matter what, so we get ourselves crosswise sometimes and make it harder for residents to figure out what they are doing.

Little said that what they were asking the council to do was to ask them to look at it and they will go research it, look at what other communities do and how we can make this better, come back with a finished outflow chart, change the ordinance, and they should all be better off.

Haven said that the other part that he liked about this is that it drives the spending of money to the bottom of the chart. People don’t have to spend money on drawings and that kind of thing. It can be on a napkin or an envelope at the beginning, right, bring in conceptual, in other words, and then spend money after all of the approvals are in place, that’s the benefit. Little said that they will have a chance to look at graphs, they will have a chance to look at a draft ordinance, there will be a couple of readings, and they know how this thing goes (unintelligible).

Wylie said she would make the motion [to ask the PC to streamline the site plan review process]; second Luginski.

No additional discussion.

Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

An unidentified person asked if that was another no brainer.

Item 11b – Resolution: Depot Park Pathway Paving Bid (Video time mark 1:36:10)

• • Resolution – Depot Park Pathway Paving (page 82/91 of the council packet)
  • Bid comparison summary, Depot Park Pathway Paving (page 84/91 of the council packet)
  • Bid, Ottman’s Advance Asphalt (page 85/91 of the council packet)
  • Bid, HD Sealcoating & Paving LLC (page 86/91 of the council packet)
  • A & N Asphalt, Inc. (page 90/91 of the council packet)

Haven said this can be a breath of fresh air in this community, since COVID, all this time of not (unintelligible) frustrated in not being able to do some new things and we see our way clear to do this pretty quickly. Haven asked Tom Lowrie [Friends of Depot Park] if he would present.

Lowrie introduced himself, said he was from the Friends of Depot Park [FoDP], and provided his address. Lowrie said that he put together a spec sheet that might be odd. Haven referenced a handout. Lowrie said that there were a few different contractors but more important is the drawing here [no drawing was provided in the packet] that he has color coordinated on the site plan. The red parts indicate underground sleeves. We have a large, fourteen-foot culvert because the rain garden has been damaged over a period of time. That has to be replaced, and then he has eight different spots where a four-inch sleeve would go for future irrigation or electrical or just access underneath the new asphalt. Haven asked if it’s a way to cross the path? Lowrie said that’s correct, without having to saw or cut. It’s for the future. It’s cheap to put it in.

Then they have three different types of asphalt application, the main one being the yellow area, and that would be all brand new. Most of it’s going to go around the existing playground and then connect to the bridge, and then connect from the other side of the bridge to the gazebo. You can see that coming down. So that will be all brand new. They will excavate down eight inches, put in four inches of low gravel, and then cap it with another three and a half inches of asphalt.

The pink area, from the gazebo to the sidewalk, is just an inch and a half recap only. So really, it’s under maintenance, but while they were getting these bids, he thought it would be easier to have them address that as well. It gets a lot of use.

There were three areas that have the roots sticking up. (Unintelligible). A lot of this could be redone, but Lowrie didn’t think it was in the budget. The three worst areas, and he didn’t know if the paint was still out there, there is white spray paint that shows the lines, but where the orange is, those areas will be completely torn up and then redone because there are roots popping up or what have you.

Lowrie said that they have three bids and he misplaced one. We have one from HD Sealcoating, Ottman’s Advance, and said that council may have the other one [A & N Asphalt]. Lawrie said that they went from $22,865 by Ottman, $27,400 [by HD Sealcoating], and then A & N Asphalt is over $35,000.

Lowrie said that as far as the money, he knows that the FoDP has the majority of it, but he’s not running that end of it. He doesn’t know if they have enough in the coffer for the whole thing, but again, part of this is maintenance.

Haven said (unintelligible) come up with the money. Lowrie agreed. Haven said that the $21,000 is in the FoDP. This is charitable money that was given during the campaign. They decided to bail on the grant because they really didn’t have enough cash to float all of the provisions that the grant required of us. That left us with cash, and this pathway reconstruction is consistent with what we told the donors, that we were going to do pathways, so it’s very much in keeping with that. We need more than that though, so we are adding from the budgeted amount for the park. Haven said he didn’t know what the total was, but he asked Smith if it was for repairs, maintenance, and so on.

Smith said that was correct. Assuming that we accept the Ottman bid for $22,865, and what is listed here in the resolution is that we add a 5% contingency, so 5% on top of the $22,800 brings you to just over $24,000, $24,008. So, the proposal here is to utilize $21,000 from the charitable account and the remaining $3,000 from the operational account, which will get you a total of the needed $24,000. That would accomplish everything that Lowrie just put out there.

Haven said that it drains the account for the FoDP basically, but it drains it and gets something built. Lowrie said it drains it in a positive way, getting the gazebo painted this year and getting that in would be a great feather in our cap.

Lowrie said that one other thing that he wanted to mention that this does not include is any of the repair to the lawn along the edges that they have to get redone. They talked about DPW [Department of Public Works] or whatever putting topsoil and seed and what have you. There will be damage. How much? Lowrie doesn’t have a crystal ball. Haven said volunteers raising shovels. Lowrie said that’s easy to work on.

Haven said that they’ve got it down to a point to where the FoDP has to start fund raising again for extra amenities. That’s OK (unintelligible). To accomplish something like this, the thing that Haven really liked about this was that (asking Smith to put the photo back on screen), on the bottom of that, you see the top yellow comes off the path and kind of goes around along the Mill race, between the Mill race and the playground. The bottom yellow that goes horizontally across and connects with the bridge gives us our first real traversable cross-park pathway, and that’s going to be really desirable. And then off that pathway can be some really nice things, like special events, like Art in the Park and other things, it becomes a real nice roadway for a lot of things to happen. The other thing that Haven likes about all of this is it’s all ADA compliant, so our special needs community and so on will be able to penetrate and use our park in ways that they have not been able to do so before. So, this is really accomplishing the objectives of the grant program considerably.

Ken Ermer pointed to the chart and referenced an area, the big (unintelligible) is mothers and fathers to get with a stroller to the other side of the playground because this is all mulch and it’s difficult. The real selling point now is like Haven said the handicapped, and now even with a wheelchair you can get over here to the other side of the playground. Haven said that they are now connecting the path (crosstalk) all the way to the gazebo – (interrupting Haven) Ermer said he was just talking about the little area that he identified, it’s wheelchair accessible. They’ve always been thinking about that, it would be great to have a rubber pad there, that would be astronomical to construct. Haven said underneath the playscape. Ermer said that it just makes the playground more accessible to wheelchairs and mothers and fathers with strollers.

Haven (to Smith) – if you think we have a lot of people in the park now, get ready. Smith agreed.

Smith said that he wanted to make sure that it is clear that this new pathway is six feet wide versus the existing one that is ten feet. They said it’s a roadway, but it’s mainly for pedestrians only. Haven agreed; it wasn’t for cars.

Wylie made the resolution; Luginski second.

Haven asked if there was any discussion and asked Casey if he would say it’s a no brainer one more time. Wylie wanted to thank them for using colors because it makes it easy for her to follow and she appreciates whoever did it. Wylie said that they mentioned that they have the money, and it doesn’t do any good to have the money sitting in the bank. They can use it for something that the city can use and this is a good use.

Smith said that this was a use that was proposed in the original DNR grant for pathways, accessibility, so they are utilizing the funds in the same way that they promised they would use them (unintelligible) so any of our donors who said they would donate to the DNR grant, this is essentially accomplishing much of the same thing. Haven added without the grant complications.

Bonser said that it said that the park would be closed during construction. Do they know when they will get to it? Will it affect the Taste of Clarkston or any other events? Lowrie said no, it will be at the end of the season because afterwards, it’s going to be torn up and weather what have you. All the seeding will not take place until spring and is to be determined. It would be nice to get on their schedule sooner than later.

Haven wanted to know when the last event is and whether it could be done before the snow flies. Smith said he didn’t know about weddings. Art in the Village is the last big event. The Taste is up in town, but Art in the Village is the 18^th and 19^th of September, maybe after that, and Speagle will have to tell us, there may be a wedding or two.

Haven asked how long it would be closed. Lowrie said a few days. Haven said a few days, so it’s not like a prolonged period.

Pardee asked if what we are doing compliments the future ADA compliance of the gazebo? Smith said yes, it does. Lowrie asked Pardee to repeat, and Pardee said that he just wanted to make sure that what we are doing compliments making the gazebo ADA compliant in the future. Smith said to get to it. Haven said we are getting to it right now. (Cross talk.) Lowrie said we still don’t have a ramp. Pardee said it doesn’t get in the way of a ramp, and Smith agreed. Haven said we would bring it down if we could, so we don’t need a ramp.

Casey, Luginski, Bonser, Haven, and Wylie voted yes. Haven said he happily voted yes.

Motion carried.

Agenda Item #12, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:47:45): [Was Original Agenda Item #13 and reordered during the approval of Item #4 (consent agenda).]

Motion to adjourn by unanimous voice vote.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording:
    http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3538?channel=2
  • 08-23-2021 City Council packet