Category: Oath of Office

Introduction:

Links to the video recording and the council packet are at the bottom of this post. Please note any errors or omissions in the comments. Anything noted in brackets was inserted by Clarkston Sunshine.

Agenda Item #1, Call to Order (video time mark 0:00:03):

Sue Wylie said okay, it’s seven o’clock. So, I’m calling the meeting to order.

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (video time mark 0:00:09):

Wylie said if everybody would please rise, we’ll say the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge said.)

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #3, Oath of Office (video time mark 0:00:30)

Wylie said the third item on our agenda is, yeah, oh yeah, it is. Oath of office is swearing in, oh, swearing in of at least two of the three. Laura Rodgers and Gary Casey, Ted Quienberry’s not here. And Angie’s [Guillen city clerk] not, who’s gonna do the swearing? (To Jonathan Smith, city manager), Wylie said can you do the swearing? Okay. (Smith walked up to council table.) Wylie said so, Smith’s gonna swear them in.

Smith said yes, we do this first so that you can vote on anything. So, Casey and Rodgers, Quisenberry I’ll have to do another day, but Casey and Rodgers,  if you would stand up. I’ll read this and you can read it after me.

(Oath administered to Casey and Rodgers.)

Smith said okay, I’ll have you sign these and then I’ll collect them.

Wylie said okay. Welcome back to city council.

Forte said Casey’s first time around.

Agenda Item #4, Roll Call (video time mark 0:02:09):

Wylie said okay, Item #4 is roll call when Casey’s done. When Smith is ready, then you can do the roll call.

Sue Wylie, Laura Rodgers, Al Avery, Gary Casey, and Amanda Forte were present.

Jones and Quisenberry were absent.

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #5, Approval of Agenda – Motion (video time mark 0:02:29):

Wylie said Item #5 is approval of the agenda and I need a motion to approve of the agenda as it’s presented.

Motion by Avery; second Casey.

Wylie said any discussion from council members.

No discussion.

Wylie said any comments or questions from the public.

No comments.

The motion to approve the agenda was passed by unanimous voice vote

Wylie said and we are approved. The agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #6, Public Comments (video time mark 0:02:54):

[Though public comments can sometimes irritate the city council, there is value to both the council and the public in hearing them. While they can’t eliminate public comments entirely without violating the Open Meetings Act, your city council has occasionally decided not to acknowledge public comments during a city council meeting unless the person submitting the comments also appears at the meeting (in-person or electronically) to personally read them. In the past, members of the public have been cut off for exceeding the city council’s arbitrary three-minute time limit (it’s arbitrary because no time limits are required by the Open Meetings Act).

If your public comments were submitted to the council but not read, or if you tried to make public comments but your comments were cut short, please email them to clarkstonsunshine@gmail.com and I will include them in my informal meeting summaries either under public comments or under the specific agenda item that you want to speak to.]

Wylie said Item #6 is public comments.

(Wylie read the rules for public comments.)

Wylie said would anybody like to make a public comment. Nobody’s here. We did get a letter from Chet [Pardee, resident]. Casey said of course we did. Wylie said I thought I printed it off, but it never showed up on the printer. Does anybody want, it’s not actually very long. I don’t know if I can get, did anybody print it up or bring it? Smith said I’ve got it. Wylie said you’ve got it? I can read if you want, but somehow I don’t have it. It’s mostly just some questions. (To Smith), he’s had most of the questions, I think, are dedicated to Smith. So, it’s more of a letter.

Chet Pardee comments:

Jonathan, based on your city manager’s report for tonight’s meeting, I have some questions and comments.

I recall the discussion with the representative of the engineering firm when discussing the firm’s estimate for repaving Church Street. He said our cost to his firm would be $145,000 if the village was awarded the grant of $117,000. I also recall your comment that it was not clear from where the funds would come, even though we would be signing a commitment that we had the funds/knew where the funds were. The current budget includes $170,000 for repaving both West Miller and Church Street. I recall from previous discussions that an estimate has been received for $178,000 for repaving West Miller. This was prior to the Oakland County involvement. The need to provide for the same water level for upper and lower Mill Ponds, raising the sidewalk and perhaps widening the street for safety. Could you clarify the timing noted as 2026 in your report and from where the funds would come? Thank you, Chet Pardee.

Wylie said and it’s up to you if you want to address any of these things.

Smith said well, I’ll comment on a couple of things. One, I’m not sure where the $178,000 came from for Miller Road. Possibly that was at one time when we were considering replacing a culvert under the road. I’ve since been told there’s really nothing wrong with the culvert. And so, I think we would just primarily focus on the road paving and possibly a raised sidewalk. So that work would not be $178,000. Probably closer to $100, $110, something in that range.

Smith said secondly, you’re saying where will the funds come from. I just spoke with Greg [Coté, treasurer] this afternoon that between our parking fund, which is allocated for roads and sidewalks and parking lots, which has $165,000 in that right now, and our local road fund has another $141,000. So, we have over $300,000, about $305,000 available for roads. We didn’t do any paving in 2025 as you know, so that leaves us in very good shape with the grant that we got that’s gonna save us a lot of money. $117,000 to do Church Street. That might go up as high as $125, but I don’t see it going over our share of $125. I’ve got $300 in the bank, $125 to do Church Street. That still leaves, what, $200 and some thousand dollars to do, more than enough to do Miller Road. So, I’m not concerned about it. We’ve got to get a lot more details before I’ll talk more specifics, but I feel that we’re in very good shape as far as road funding.

Wylie said and I think you addressed some of this at the last meeting when you announced that we had the grant. Smith said yes.

Wylie said anybody have any questions or comments on, actually, does anybody else have public comments.

No comments.

Agenda Item #7 – FYI: (video time mark 0:07:06):

Okay, item seven is FYI. It says TBD, there’s nothing. I don’t have anything.  (To Smith), Wylie said did you have anything else? Smith said no, I didn’t.

Agenda Item #8 – City Manager’s Report (video time mark 0:07:11):

• • November 10, 2025 City Manager Report (page 3/25 of the council packet)
  • 2025 PASER [Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating] Report (page 4/25 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #8 is city manager’s report, which is included in the packet. (To Smith), Wylie said if you have anything else you want to go over, you can do that.

Smith said just to recap a couple of these. So, the Miller Road opening, probably the most popular question of the day, is when will Miller Road reopen? And what I’ve said is we are synchronizing the reopening of Miller and Bluegrass with the township on the same day. So, the township used the Oakland County Road Commission to install their barricades, so they will have the Oakland County Road Commission remove the barricades, and they’re getting a date from them as to when they can do that work. Our DPW [Department of Public Works] guys installed our blockade, so we would take those down the same day. So whatever road commission date we’re given for removing the Bluegrass barricades, we would match and do the same on Miller. The thought is that if we open one or the other, but it could make either road just overwhelmed with traffic. So, we thought, let’s open them both the same day. And so, I’m working with Chuck Phyle and Jennifer Speagle to get that date, and we’ll coordinate that reopening.

Smith said sanitary sewer maintenance work. This has been a question about how can we get our sewers brought up to speed. I’m working with Pipeline Management Company, the company that the township uses for their sewer maintenance. They’re surveying and there’s camera work as well as some of the maintenance work. So, I’m working right now on getting estimates for the priority five and priority four, the two top priorities. There were a couple of questions on some of the roads that were on the report. We’re getting those removed and getting things updated. So, I don’t have firm numbers to give you tonight, but we are working on that. And my feeling is we could immediately start with the funds we have on hand, separate from the road funds I was just talking about. We have funds that we could address the priority fives immediately. We could do that this winter. It can be done during the winter. And then even some of the priority fours. So maybe we pick the fives and some of the fours that we think are the higher priority of the priority four and then get those addressed immediately. And then we would have to come up with a plan for the rest of the priority fours. So that’s the initial take on that.

Smith said one correction that I want to make to council is in the last council meeting, I stated, we talked at length about it actually, is the, when should the camera inspection be done? Every five years or ten years? We pulled out the contract, and the contract does in fact say it’s every ten years. So, I want to correct that and apologize to the township for stating that it was five years. It’s actually ten years with the option of doing it as frequently as every two to five years. But from a legal standpoint, from a contractual standpoint, it only has to be done every ten years. So, they are on track with meeting that obligation. So that’s just something I want to make clear that it’s not as a result of surveying work being late.

Smtih said and then lastly, we did receive our PASER [Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating] rating. If you recall, we got a grant from SEMCOG [Southeast Michigan Council of Governments] last summer and they did updated PASER ratings. So, this chart on the next page shows the twos, which is my focus. So, this third column from the right is the latest rating. That’s the 2025 rating and you see some twos on here primarily East Church and East Washington, which we know about. As I said, we’re planning to do, redo East Church this summer, this coming summer. Miller Road, also a two, not surprisingly, we’ll have to do that this summer. And then these other two, Overlook and Washington would be, would be next. You can see that both of those degraded, actually several of them have degraded over the last four years since this was done in 2018. 2022, excuse me. So, we do have some catching up to do, but I think with the plan we have and with the grant we just got, I think we’re in good shape to get a lot of this work done if not in 2026, then in 2027. So that’s the latest PASER, or I know it’s questioned do we have a PASER rating? Because that is how we prioritize our road work.

Wylie said thank you. Questions or comments for the city manager from council members.

Avery said yeah, my only comment is on the Miller Road. I mean, we have kind of a different setup than they do at what – Wylie said oh, Bluegrass – Avery said Bluegrass, yeah. I mean, they’ve got it completely shut off. I feel like ours is a little more haphazard, that we’ve got one cement barrier there and we’ve got some signs. And the other side, you know, coming off heading west on Miller, there’s nothing there. So, I mean, I can appreciate that, yes, we want to kind of sync it up if we can, but it seems like we should just get our stuff out of there. I mean, other than Holcomb, since the highway’s been open, it’s 100% better. I mean, there aren’t semis coming down. There’s no ton of traffic. So, I don’t know that it’s going to change having Miller completely free of the barriers. I don’t know that it’s going to increase traffic there anyways, right? Because we’re not getting, I haven’t seen any semis. Obviously, Rob’s [last name not given] not here to tell me that they are coming down there. I don’t think they are, but it just seems like, let’s just get our stuff out of there. They don’t seem to be in a big hurry at the road commission. We know how they operate. It can take some time. And I just feel like it is a little, to me, it’s a little bit dangerous the way it’s set up. So, it seems like we should just get our stuff out of there.

Rodgers said have they given you any indication of how long that’s going to be? Smith said no, I’ll follow up with Speagle and find out what the latest estimate is. But I was hoping it would be this week. So, if that’s the case, then I’ll wait. If it sounds like it’s going to be a couple weeks yet, then maybe we may need to do what you’re saying now. Avery said yeah, I mean, because the road’s going to get icy, and it’s going to get snowy. Someone’s going to turn that corner, and you’re going to hit the barrier, whatever. It just doesn’t seem, I’m not sure why it’s there at this point. Smtih said yeah. Okay.

Forte said are we going to get an update on the meeting with the township supervisor and their attorney. Because that was the Monday after, right? Or last meeting? Smith said let’s see. We did have a meeting with the Independence Township Supervisor and their attorney. Gerry [Fisher, Clarkston attorney] and I were there. I think it was a constructive meeting. I think we have made some good progress. We have some plans that we’re putting in place.

Smith said so, focusing on the sewer, which is why it was in my city management report, is high on the priority list. Forte said okay. Smith said so, that was one of the things that we said we would focus on, is helping get all of our, doing whatever we can to get all of our sewer lines up to speed. A lot of our discussion on that day was focused on what can we do to get the sewers repaired. Other things were discussed, but I don’t think we’re ready to talk about those just yet. Forte said okay. Smith said but it was a constructive meeting. Forte said okay, that’s good. Smith said yup.

Wylie said anybody else on council?

No comments.

Wylie said anybody in public, questions or comments for the city manager.

Wylie recognized Cara Catallo for a comment.

Catallo said I just, and maybe this should have been more of a public comment, but I was just gonna make a suggestion that since we were talking about roads, the potential of putting a pedestrian crossing sign up near the new stop signs at Holcomb, at Washington, just because for some reason in the past week, we’ve like, I’ve heard of two near misses. I like, I watched one, it was terrifying. I’ve just, and I feel like the driver just maybe wasn’t paying enough attention and maybe just having that little reminder that there could be pedestrians would be useful. I know that, you know, signs also can be cluttered, but it was just a recommendation. I think Smith mentioned that once the traffic’s better, that they’ll give the increased sort of stop that are at Washington and Buffalo too, so that, that might help. But I just, I thought I’d recommend it in the event there’s any way to add that just to remind people that there are pedestrians crossing sometimes. Wylie said you’re saying paint lines? The crosswalk lines? Catallo said no, no, just like a sign that says like, pedestrian crossing, it has – Wylie said oh, okay.

Wylie said anybody else in the public have questions or comments.

No comments.

Agenda Item #9 – Oakland County Sheriff’s Report for October (video time mark 0:16:56):

• • October 2025 Cumulative Monthly Report (page 5/25 of the council packet)

Wylie said okay, then we will move on to Item #9 is Oakland County Sheriff’s Report for October, and it is included in the packet. Questions or, we don’t have anybody here tonight. Questions or comments from the council?

(To Smtih), Wylie said you have something to say about it? Maybe you’ve heard something?

Smiths said no, only, I’ll only add that last month, which is, we just discovered today, as a matter of fact, that in the spreadsheet that was given to us, the total column was inaccurate. So, this is corrected now, so from last month to this month, you see a big jump, if you have excellent memory, which I’m sure you all do. In 2025, we had a much smaller number. Wylie said okay. Smith said but now this is correct, it’s reflecting, it was just an algorithm mistake.

Wylie said okay, anybody from council, from the public?

An unidentified woman [later identified as Maggie Menzies] said can someone explain, on the traffic, September and October, that’s a huge jump in the citation report, what might be going on there? Wylie said we have police patrols, sheriff patrols, because of all the traffic going through town. Maggie Menzies said but it jumped from 15 to 38. Wylie said we had a lot of, we had a lot more traffic and a lot more sheriff patrols. Avery said well, we made it a point at one of the meetings that if you could increase. Maggie Menzies said between, ah, gotcha, gotcha. Avery said yeah, try to get rid of some of these people on Miller that shouldn’t be there.

Smith said and we find that this varies quite a bit depending on sheriff availability. So even throughout the year, you see some swings up and down. July was an anomaly because they were writing tickets on Miller Road, but you do see swings up and down really throughout the year. And a lot of it just comes down to how much time they have available to drive around. Wylie said thank you.

Wylie said anybody else in the public.

No comments.

Agenda Item #10 – Consent Agenda (video time mark 0:19:00):

• • 10-13-2025 Final Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 6/25 of the council packet)
  • 10-27-2025 Draft Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 9/25 of the council packet)
  • 11-10-2025 Treasurer’s Report (page 11/25 of the council packet)
  • 11-06-2025 Check Disbursement Report, 10-01-2025 – 10-31-2025 (page 12/25 of the council packet)

Wylie said moving on to Item #10, which is the consent agenda. Okay, that’s the final minutes of the October 13, 2025, regular meeting; draft minutes of the October 27 regular meeting; and treasurer’s report from November 10.

Motion by Forte; second Rodgers.

Wylie said any discussion or questions from council.

No comments.

Wylie said questions or counsel from the public.

No comments.

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

Wylie said and the consent agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #11, Unfinished Business (video time mark 0:19:38):

Wylie said Item #11 is unfinished business. There’s none.

Agenda Item #12, New Business:

Item #12a – Resolution: Redeployment of Funds Obtained from Liquidating Unused DPW Equipment (video time mark 0:19:41):

• • Resolution – Redeployment of Funds Obtained from Liquidating Unused DPW Equipment (page 21/25 of the council packet)
  • Example Photo, Four-wheel Drive Utility Cart/Vehicle (page 21/25 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #12A, there’s a Resolution, Redeployment of Funds Obtained from Liquidating Unused DPW Equipment.

(Wylie read the resolution.)

Wylie said and I believe this is the replace, the things, the items that were sold.

(Wylie continued to read from the resolution.)

Wylie said and I’ll need to have somebody resolve and then support this resolution.

Motion by Avery; second Forte.

Wylie said and any discussion or comments from council members.

No comments.

(To Smith), Wylie said and perhaps you wanted to say to add anything. It sounds like it’s pretty clear. Smith said it’s pretty, I think self-explanatory. These carts can be, they can go out on major roads. They can go up to 35, 40 miles an hour. But they’re four-wheel drive. And rather than taking the large dump truck out just to, if they’re gonna, say, cut down a tree in the park or something, they just need to get some chainsaws and some other equipment. Rather than drive the truck to the back of the park, they could just use this. It can also be outfitted with a snowplow blade. And you can do pretty much any angle of the sidewalk. So, it’s beneficial that way with the angling capability. And you can, there’s a whole host of accessories you can buy for these, either to pull behind it or what have you. So, a lot of utility. We’re taking some equipment that was not being used, was just sitting out there for years, literally, with no use, and we turned it into cash. But we’d like to redeploy that same amount of cash right back into the DPW where the money came from. And this would be a huge efficiency gain for the staff.

(To Forte), Wylie said okay, go ahead.

Forte said in East Lansing, they have these and four wheelers to do the sidewalks. Could we look into maybe what that would look like in terms of man hours to have, like, maybe our staff do sidewalks on, like, freak occurrences, just in terms of, like – Wylie said you’re talking about residential sidewalks? Forte said yeah, because we don’t have a ton of space in the city, and I think residents would really appreciate it if that were to be possible.

Wylie said so that’s something to look at in the future, probably. Forte said yeah. Wylie said if the council can talk about it. Smith said we have looked at it from prior, but that was a few years ago, and frankly, the winters have gotten lighter now. I’ll say that and we’ll have a horrible winter this year, but they’ve been actually lighter, and it hasn’t been much of an issue, so they might have the time to do that. In the past proposal, we actually looked into hiring a third DPW worker just to focus on this. But having the right equipment such as this would be way more efficient than somebody walking with a walk-behind snowblower. We did the math, and that would take pretty much eight to ten hours. Forte said well, for sure, yeah. Smith said but a drive-behind would be a lot easier. I think you can even get heaters for the insides of these. Forte said that was my next question, because if we were going to use it for something that would be of value to all residents, then it could justify doing something like a plow and heating. I think if we’re only using it on occasion, then it might not be worth it, but if we were to offer it as a service, I definitely think at least a lot of our, like, older residents would (unintelligible). Smith said sure. It does come up periodically, so it is something that we can look into, and having some equipment like this would be, even if we had to get maybe a little stronger one if we’re doing this on a regular basis, or some kind of brush instead of a blade, we could investigate the different options.

Wylie recognized Casey for a comment.

(To Smith), Casey said do you have a machine in mind to buy? Or are we going to find one after this meeting? Smith said we’re going to find one after this meeting. What I was looking for in this vote was authorization to let Jimi [Turner, DPW supervisor] take the $7,285 or less, if he can, and purchase one on the used market. The used market, if you’ve done anything on Facebook or other used market venues, you know that they move quickly, and they disappear quickly, so what I wanted to be able to tell Turner is, here’s the cash, we haven’t deposited it in the account, it’s all in cash, what we got in, what’s going to go out, so if we have authorization, then he can move on this quickly. So, we haven’t picked one out, he says he has two or three he’s keeping an eye on, but we haven’t actually picked one yet. But it’d be similar to this, it’s a four-wheel drive cart with a box in the back, and it says, I’m not sure if it’ll have doors, but it’ll definitely have a windshield and a roof, but the doors can always be added, and heaters can always be added, there’s a ton of accessories you can get for these things.

Wylie said anybody else on council questions or comments.

No comments.

Wylie said in the public?

Wylie recognized an unidentified man [later identified as Alex Menzies] for a comment.

Alex Menzies said we’ve got one of those on the farm, we use the heck out of it. Wylie said okay. Forte said great idea. Wylie said this one’s awesome. Forte said my dad has one, and my daughter always points at it and says, grandpa’s truck. Yeah, but I would say the heat is you gotta get it – Smith said yeah – (continuing), Forte said because you’ll end up using it a ton in the winter.

Wylie said anybody else in the public.

No comments.

Wylie said okay, we need a roll call, we had Forte, Avery, yeah. So, we need a roll call vote.

Forte, Rodgers, Wylie, Casey, and Avery voted yes.

Wylie said and the resolution is adopted. We’ve got Jones and Quisenberry absent. Thank you.

Item #12b – Motion: 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule (video time mark 0:27:19):

• • Motion – 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule (page 23/25 of the council packet)
  • Proposed 2026 Council Meeting Dates (page 24/25 of the council packet)

Wylie said next item is, we have a motion, 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule, and it’s a motion.

(Wylie read the motion.)

Wylie said and I need a motion and a second from council members.

Motion by Rodgers; second Casey.

Wylie said questions or comments from council.

No comments.

Wylie said questions or comments from the public.

No comments.

Wylie said we, this is a motion, so all in favor say aye.

Motion to adopt the 2026 city council meeting schedule was adopted by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the motion is adopted.

Item #12c – Motion: Planning Commission Projects (video time mark 0:28:03):

• • Motion – Planning Commission Projects (pave 25/25 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #12C is a motion, Planning Commission Projects. Derek Werner [Planning Commission chair], I assume that’s why you were here. Am I right? Werner said well, I, Smith said you’d be discussing these, so. Wylie said okay, well let me, we’ve got the city’s, so we have a motion, planning commission projects.

(Wylie read the motion.)

Wylie said so, I would need a motion and a second, and then we can have any discussion.

Motion by Forte; second Rodgers.

Wylie said now we can have discussion. Is there any questions or comments from council members?

Wylie recognized Forte for a comment.

Forte said yeah, I kind of want to talk about each of these like separately, if that’s all right. (To Werner), Wylie said okay, did you want to say anything first? (To Werner), Forte said yeah. Werner said well, I guess, I don’t know where. Wylie said Werner is the chairman of the planning commission.

Werner said so, for the master plan, as you may or may not be aware, the quote from Carlisle [Carlisle/Wortman, the city’s contract planner] came back way over what we budgeted to do the master plan. So, I know Smith was looking at getting another bid, some kind of bid from McKenna. from the county. So that’s where that sort of stands. You know, as I understand it, we have to have a legal, legally recognized planner to certify for a master plan. Wylie said oh, certify, but they don’t have to – Werner said they don’t do the work. Wylie said okay. Werner said but the work that they quoted on was a lot of it. It isn’t just proofreading and making text changes. It’s updating demographics, updating the maps. Those are things that we don’t have access to, at least I don’t have access to the software to update maps. I don’t have demographic access. That’s something that they have databases for. Wylie said okay. Werner said I don’t know how much of it has changed, but it’s been seven years, I think, and needs to be updated in order to get it certified as being a current master plan. So, we need some kind of help from the planner.

Wylie said well, wasn’t it like $30,000? Werner said $25,000. Wylie said $25,000, that’s crazy. There was a $5,000 community survey if we wanted to do that, which I don’t think we would need. It’s just, and a lot of it, you know, they broke it into chunks. So, there was about $7,500 just on getting it, you know, certified through the local, through Oakland County. We’ve got to notify Independence Township, Springfield, and Waterford, in the neighboring communities. If that’s somebody mailing a letter, I think those are things that we can do. It’s the data piece that we don’t have access to that feeds some of it. Now, if we can go through with, I don’t know if we want to go back to Carlisle and say we want to do this, this, and this, or if we want to get McKenna and see if they come in and say, yeah, we can do it for five. Because I know that some of the other stuff that Carlisle has quoted, we say it’s been higher than normal. So that’s sort of where that piece stands. So, we just need to know what direction do you want us to go? Do we go back to Carlisle and say, you need to trim this by a significant amount, or do we need to quote another plan? Wylie said all right.

Avery said yeah, I think getting another quote is the way to go here. Because it’s been pretty consistent with what Carlisle/Wortman have done here in the last couple years. That stuff that they have is our stuff. We paid for it. So, it should be portable over to whoever we choose to. Casey said that’s good. Werner said yeah, this is almost a quote to create a brand-new master plan, which is not what we asked for. This is a review and an update to the model of the state guidelines.

Wylie said we need to keep in mind that you guys are volunteers. This is not your job to collect the data, to do all this stuff, and you have lives. Werner said I don’t know where to collect it. Wylie said yeah, yeah. But I mean, also to take all that time and do it. I know sometimes the planning commission, people can do it, but they might be retired or anything. Werner said we can wordsmith it if we find a section that doesn’t apply anymore. That’s the stuff that we can do. But that’s not what was in the proposal. Wylie said okay. Werner said the proposal was more of the data piece of it, and then the publication part, which, again, I think we can potentially do that on our own. That’s just simply buying an address. But we didn’t really go there because the other pieces were so high. We wanted to see if we could get the whole thing done for a significantly less amount, maybe that’s the route we’d be able to go to the next step.

Werner said and the accessory dwelling unit [ADU]. So, this is one, and it’s right now, the way we sort of interpret the ordinance is they’re not allowed. I think that Independence Township recently approved one with either not understanding our ordinance or a different interpretation of it. So, either we need to either revise the ordinance to make it clear that these are not allowed, or does council want us to make these allowed, in which case we revise the ordinance and now make them legal within the community. For right now, it’s either ambiguous as to whether approved or not. So that’s why we want to get some clarification.

Avery said but they’re not. I mean, Fisher told us that if it’s not, if there isn’t a section approving them, then they’re not allowed. It’s very cut and dry. Why did Township screw that up? I don’t know. I mean, maybe they just operate in a different system, but Fisher was very clear that unless it’s called out in the ordinance, then they’re not allowed. My concern is that if we start fashioning some sort of ordinance that says that they’re not allowed, then somebody’s going to find wiggle room somewhere to try to chew it.

Rodgers said that was his concern too, right? I mean, that’s what he said too, that by starting to specify, you start to get muddy water – Avery said yeah – (continuing), Rodgers said and there’s ways to find around that verbiage. So, he said that because we don’t say they’re allowed, that means that they’re not allowed.

Avery said yeah, I guess maybe we asked Fisher to just to take it, give us a two-paragraph blurb on the next meeting or something to just say, hey, this is how I feel about it. Like, I don’t think you guys need it. Or maybe he says, yeah, maybe these days, because they’re becoming so common that we do need them. And then if he says that, then that’s what he says – Werner said well that’s – (continuing), Avery said throw it back at you, yeah – (continuing), Werner said what we wanted to come before you was that if you want us to go to Carlisle and revise the ordinance to allow them, I don’t know if it’s a housing type that we want. I know it’s sort of, they get, first of all, there’s these mother-in-law suites, but it’s a slippery slope when you start allowing all this development, because now you have some unregulated rental potentially happening in the community. So, I’m just looking for some clarification on that.

Forte said I think you’re right that we should get in writing from – (interrupting Forte), Avery said yeah, have Fisher give us an opinion as to whether or not he thinks we need to have something no more. Rodgers said because I think our general feel when we talked about this before was that we didn’t want to have maybe ADUs because of that slippery slope where, you know, five families were living in one area or something like that. So, I think when we talked about it, what was that, like six months ago? It wasn’t that long ago. Avery said no, a couple months, yeah. Rodgers said maybe summertime that we agreed that we did not want them. And that’s when he said like, then by not saying anything, they’re not allowed. But yeah, we probably should have him say something.

Smith said I’ll reach out to Fisher and talk to him about this. My sense was in going to some of the MML [Michigan Municipal League] conferences that this was such a tidal wave of interest in these is coming forward that you almost need some, you know, some very carefully crafted wording in your ordinances that says what you can and can’t do. It’s almost like you’re better regulating it, specifically saying this is what is allowed, this is what is not allowed. Because the legal challenges are coming. And it’s very much like short term rentals did a few years ago. So, I’ll talk to Fisher and find out what his thought is on that. And we’ll go from there, so.

Werner said well, the third one was the Waldon and Main property. I haven’t seen anything from them recently. They had a couple proposals in the last couple of years. (To Smith), Werner said I think you said they sent something to you to change that or request a change in the density? Smith said well, this topic came up in our finance meetings that were recently convened to talk about possible revenue improvement opportunities. And Waldon and Main, if it fully developed, could bring in anywhere from, estimated anywhere from $50 to $80 to $90,000 a year in tax revenue if that was fully developed. So, we actually spoke with the owner about the possibility of why hasn’t this, well, first of all, why hasn’t this been developed already? And so, we got some feedback from her on that. And then, okay, what would it take to get it developed? It’s not like we’re looking to put in a major Costco there or something on that corner. We’re just looking for some residential units. And we’d stay within the needs of the community, but we think if we possibly looked at a density change, slightly higher than what’s allowed now, 22 units, is what density will allow in that multifamily parcel. If we could get to 30 density, 30 units, that, the feedback from her was that I think that would make a difference. But there are a lot of variables at play in that. My thought was the planning commission needs to be involved in this because, well, it’d be part of our master plan update. Do we want to include a density change for that specific property? So, I just wanted the planning commission, my thought, including that on the list here, was I thought the planning commission should be involved in this right from the get-go. And we can talk about your concerns, the planning commission concerns, about any kind of density change there and see if we can find a middle ground that will work for everybody. For the current property owner, for the developers, for the city planning commission and council, of course, would have to approve anything, any changes that we make.

Avery said didn’t we, jog my memory, but I thought we increased it already over there once. Smith said under the current future use plan, it shows a potential multifamily and the RPDD [Residential Planned Development District] solution that Ben Carlisle has said can work there with, what is it, two, two-and-a-half units per acre or something like that. I don’t remember the exact formula. You can get to 16 and then with a bonus of providing some community benefit, like a little pocket park of some sort, maybe, or some parking, things like that, community benefit, you might be able to get from 16 up to 22. But 22 is the max we could see you could get to. You assume that they would do all that, they’d do the pocket park or whatever and achieve that bonus.

Alex Menzies said I think that’s still contingent on getting a lot surveyed to take into account the wetlands. So, I don’t think the wetlands are taken into account when we’re coming up with that number. Smith said that is true. Alex Menzies said so when you look at the lot size and say, this is the lot size, this is what the density should be, you gotta minus out what the wetlands are, that’s not buildable. So we really don’t know what that is because we haven’t gotten to that point in the stage of development.

Avery said yeah, I just always felt like they weren’t serious. I mean, they went through the expense to draw up these plans, but they were grandiose for that little piece of property. And when we said, that seems like too much, and then they would just go, okay, no, I’ll see you in a couple of years and maybe we’ll come back with something else. So, I feel like if they’re serious proposals, then we’re, I think we’d be in a mood to at least consider it. But it seems like we’re just kind of bidding against ourselves right now, right?

Avery said we told them a couple of years – (interrupting Avery), Rodgers said I think they always said that they, from what I can remember, it just wasn’t worth their while, kind of, without it being a bigger, more dense, like no one’s willing to have what fits in that lot. They don’t, for whatever reason, and I don’t know anything about this, but as far as business goes with building these things. But from what I remember from the last one that I sat through was that if they didn’t get more, then it wouldn’t be worth their while to do it. So, I don’t understand that. I don’t understand how that can possibly be. I don’t know that we need 60 drivers every morning on that corner. That’s a disaster in the morning anyhow. I think that there’s a lot of reasons why, not only the wetlands, but, you know. Avery said yeah, we had concerns about, and then what they were proposing didn’t really fit with what. Rodgers said right, right. So, nobody’s ever brought us one that fits into what fits there and looks like what belongs there. So that’s, you know, that’s, I don’t think anybody wants something that doesn’t fit our district.

Avery said right. Yeah, I’m not happy with the fact that we’ve got an empty lot there that’s been sitting there for years and years and years. Rodgers said right, right, right. Avery said I’d like to see something there, but we have to be reasonable about it.

Werner said we also need to take into account what impact on the road it’s gonna be. You know, you put your turn lane, and now the lot’s even smaller because you’ve got to move the sidewalk over. So, there’s a lot of variables that are really up in the air at the moment. And do we get something?

Wylie said well, the fact remains, though, we still, we would like to get this tax revenue. And I think we probably need to take a step to say, we’re gonna start looking at this, and isn’t it still sole residential in the master plan? Smith said it is currently, yes. Wylie said one, we’ve gone from five lots to one lot, is what my recollection is. So, I think we need to take a step and say, we’re willing to look at this, we’re willing to make some changes. And the reason they’re saying they can’t do anything is they can’t make enough profit. I mean, that’s what it all comes down to. Rodgers said right, right, right. Wylie said they can’t make enough money. And it’s not just one person, it’s been a number of different companies, and they’re looking at the pushback in the community, and they don’t wanna go a step further. And everything I’ve heard, including the last people, was we are willing to, they don’t seem to care about the exterior. They’ll do whatever the City of Clarkston wants them to do, or the Historic District Commission wants them to do. They are saying, this is the structure we want, you help us come up with an exterior that’s gonna suit the community. So, I don’t think that ultimately, we can quash anything that we don’t like in the city of the historic district.

Werner said the master plan has it being rezoned to mixed use residential. So, it would allow for more residential. But it’s still residential, it’s not commercial. Avery said yeah, I remember when that came out, I wondered how did that get in there? Because it was never approved that we were gonna turn it into a mixed use. It was always residential, and it’s never been moved out of that. So, I found that a little odd, but we’re still here.

(To the audience), Wylie said we’re still in council, we’ll get you guys in there in a few minutes.

Wylie said but I do think that I would like to see the planning commission look at it, and see what other options there are, because, you know, we can’t sit, it’s been 30 years since it’s been sitting vacant. Well, forever, other than I think (unintelligible) been there a long time though, so it needs to be developed. We need to start getting some tax money on it. Rodgers said we don’t have the money.

Avery said yeah, part of that, I think, is, because, I mean, the piece of property itself isn’t a very conducive to the development. Wylie said it’s part of it, yeah, between the wetlands and the river stream. Avery said the stream line, yeah. Forte said (unintelligible) across from Buffalo. I think there’s a storm drain there, which would be expensive to move.

Werner said yeah. We can look at various other options.

Wylie said that’s me. I mean, we’re all gonna want to. Forte said I think the only next, like, if you look at what the options are for development, like, our categories are multi-family, residential, village commercial, public park, and single family, so the only thing that we could switch it to is village commercial. That passed what our future usage is currently, right? Werner said well, or mixed family, but again, mixed family does not include, and I think there’s a mention of retail. Retail takes in the village commercial. Forte said yeah. Werner said like, we’ll be at downtown with shops underneath and residents up above on the second floor. Forte said and they, like, we don’t have to put the cart before the horse. Like, we don’t have to, as council or planning commission, change it in the master plan. A developer can always come and ask to have it rezoned.

Wylie said so the owner met with us, and she says that the city has a reputation of being hard to deal with, and developers said, we’re not doing it because you can’t work with them. So, I would like to see that image change, saying, we are willing to work with you. Forte said well, I know, but – Wylie said what can we do to do that? Avery said practically speaking, we don’t really have much to develop. Forte said yeah. Avery said that literally is the only lot, not literally, there’s, what, two or three open lots that would, and that’s something that would be developed, the rest of them are all residential. So, I don’t know. I know they think we’re hard to work with because we’ve battled in the past with that group. So, I understand.

Wylie said well, I don’t think she’s saying it, maybe she is saying it personally, but I think she’s saying it. This is what she hears from her people, potential developers, apartment builders, condo builders. I think that’s what she’s, I assume they’re reaching out. I don’t know. Well, she says now she’s done. She’s done. If it stays empty, she doesn’t care. Avery said okay. Forte said so, it’s a non-issue. Avery said well, we don’t have to consider it. Wylie said yeah. Well, because we could use the money. Avery said well, I understand. Wylie said we could use the money. Avery said I’m asking us to double, I think originally it was, what, 48 units. I think when they first – Smith said oh, it was higher than that. Avery said but it was, yeah, some big thing. And then we went back and we kind of massaged the, what we could fit in there. And that’s when they had, you know, we can do a public service type thing and you can add more units. And that was a good amount.

Forte said and we’ve got to ask the question, like, if we would do this for like a single-family residence, like if they came to us and were like, can you change all the rules for me? Because financially I want to make more money on my house. Would we do it for them? So, like, I think like sometimes ethically, we’ve got to be careful where we start moving away from what’s been in our master plan for a long time unless there is a community-wide need or want, as opposed to a single person who would benefit financially from this change. You know what I mean?

Wylie said I understand, but I think the community, the tax money, which then, I don’t know, but I hear people say there’s a shortage of condominium apartments already in the city. Forte said in our master plan, it says a missing middle, which is why it’s a future use of this, the future use is the – (interrupting Forte), Rodgers said maybe we need to find – (to Forte), Wylie said oh, I’m sorry, finish what you were saying. Forte said so the, no, like you were saying, it’s the future is residential mixed use. Wylie said and middle means economic middle, or? Forte said no, so that includes, like duplexes, four-plexes, townhomes. Wylie said okay, multiple. Forte said so, it’s six to eight dwelling units per acre. So that’s like where it’s not single family residential. It’s not something huge.

(To Rodgers), Wylie said you were gonna say something? Rodgers said no, I’m good.

Wylie said anybody else on council.

Wylie recognized Casey for a comment.

Casey said how big is the parcel? Forte said 2.28 acres. Casey said 2.8. Forte said 2.28. Case said 2.2. Forte said yeah, so at the high end. Casey said is anybody considering just allowing two houses to be built in there. Wylie said well, it was originally zoned for five, it’s five residential lots. Avery said right, I think once they joined together, they showed up and built apart. Wylie said they joined together. I think they tried to sell it that way. I don’t think they got anywhere for a long time.

Rodgers said I think that the developers wanna make more money on it than just the 22 units. That to them, they don’t feel like it’s fiscally right for them. So, I think we just have to find a developer that does, that is okay with what you would make on 20 units versus having to double that, or 48 units or whatever the original thing was. And I think that’s probably part of the problem, and that’s just my opinion.

Wylie said anybody else on council.

No comments.

Wylie said anybody in the public. Ma’am, you said you’d raise your hand. Maggie Menzies said I think it’s been answered, so I was gonna ask your definition of mixed. I understand residential, and I understand commercial. And what percentage would be mixed? So, I wanted a little more discussion of definition of mixed. Werner said so, that’d be like apartment, condo, townhome, any of those things. Maggie Menzies said so not mixed commercial, mixed residential. Werner said mixed residential, not mixed commercial. Maggie Menzies said like stores on the bottom and condos on the top. Werner said correct. That’s the current use, or the future use, but right now it’s residential. So mixed residential would be different types of still residential, not like downtown where you have the, it’s not a coffee shop anymore, but you have the shops underneath and apartments above. Maggie Menzies said but if we go in the direction of mixed, that would be – Werner said if it became – Maggie Menzies said businesses on the bottom and condos on the top. Werner said we don’t have that ordinance. The only ordinance that we have that has that type of structure is business commercial. So, we either need to create a new one that had some kind of mixed commercial or something of that nature. But right now we don’t have that ordinance within, or zoning within our ordinance. Maggie Menzies said right now. Werner said right now. Maggie Menzies said correct.

Wylie said anybody else in the public have questions or comments.

So, Alex Menzies, Maggie Menzies, we live at 36 Waldon, so we’re neatly adjacent to the wetlands, swamp, lot. A lot of concerns with traffic that was brought up. Y’all welcome to come over for coffee between 6:30 and 7:30 and watch the school buses go by and all the cars back up. It’s pretty intense. It’s much better now that the highway’s open. But that would be the major concern is you’re gonna change the character of that area of Clarkston because it has to be a turning lane. There’s gonna be so much more traffic and it has to be on Waldon because M15 is a state road and if they could build an ingress or egress there, it’d be dangerous anyway. But just a lot of concerns on turning that. I mean, private property, people should be able to develop their property, but it needs to be done correctly to maintain the character of the community. And somebody brought up, I think it was you, ma’am, the shortage of the middle ground. There’s a big monstrosity at the end of Waldon next to Meyer, lots going in there. So there, I would be hard-pressed to think there’s a housing shortage. Forte said no – (interrupting Forte), Wylie said they’re in Independence Township. We’re the city. Alex Menzies said sure, yeah, but I mean. Wylie said there is a differentiation. Alex Menzies said sure, Clarkston schools, though, it’s, you know – Wylie said but we are our own government. We’re not the same government as Independence Township. Alex Menzies said yes, I understand. But there is housing a mile away.

Forte said when I said that, I just wanna clarify that. I meant that, like, this housing type is classified as the middle. So, I’m not saying that. I mean, we do have apartments in Clarkston. Like, there’s some across the street. Alex Menzies said sure. Forte said and I live on Buffalo, so I feel those exact same. Alex Menzies said yeah, concerned. Forte said yeah, yeah, and I have a little one, so I’m really nervous about traffic. Alex Menzies said yup. Forte said so, I totally agree with you. It’s a very complicated lot. I think that’s why it hasn’t been developed. Alex Menzies said it is. Forte said if the person who owned this property was giving it away for free, it would be developed. They definitely want a certain market value – Alex Menzies said yup – (continuing), Forte said and they have a right to do so. But I don’t know how much we should be bending over backwards for every single, you know what I mean? I just, I don’t know. Alex Menzies said I agree. Forte said there’s a balancing act. Alex Menzies said sure. Forte said I don’t know.

Alex Menzies said I agree with your comment that the cart before the horse. If I owned the property, I would be coming to you folks and saying I would like to have the zoning changed – Smith said she has – (continuing), Alex Menzies said if not, then I would request it formally, go through the process twice, having council change it in advance so that they can build, if that makes sense. I’m not sure how the process works, but I think as a property owner, I would have to ask formally, I’d like to change it to mixed. Forte said yeah (unintelligible).

Avery said probably my reflection was when they came, and they gave the presentation as what they saw this property being, it was a lot of units. I mean, it was way more than, so that was part of the problem, right? I mean, say they’re asking us to go from here all the way to here. And I don’t know that anybody was ever comfortable with adding that many units that they wanted in that type of density there, just for the reasons you talked about. Yeah. I mean, it’s an increase in traffic in and out and all that.

Forte said and correct me if I’m wrong, like the next step for our master plan would be like, we would make all these updates and then we would have a community engagement forum because you have to do that legally. And so if we were to change the zoning of this, that would be something where the community could come in, say we did exactly what Deanna [Olsen, property owner] wants and we changed it to village commercial, which is exactly what Main Street is, and then the community could come in, residents could come in and say, no, we don’t want this. And we could keep it as is. As what the future usage is, or as it is currently now. So, I mean, there’s options. It doesn’t have to be like, we make this decision and don’t take any community input because that’s actually part of the master planning process.

Wylie said I don’t know that she wants village commercial. We shouldn’t put words in her mouth. Forte said no, I’m just saying we’ll get to the max, you know, of what’s possible. Wylie said gotcha. Forte said you know what I mean?

Wylie said anybody else in the public. Wylie recognized Alex Menzies for an additional comment.

Alex Menzies said sparked my memory. So, the Village of Clarkson ends at that stream. Will the residents that live on Laurelton be invited? Maggie Menzies said in our backyard? Alex Menzies said in the backyard. Forte said yeah, you do a public notice. Alex Menzies said so they would be invited to that? Forte said so, anyone can come to those meetings. Alex Menzies said okay, okay. Because they’re impacted as well, but they’re Independence Township folks. Okay.

Wylie said anybody else in public still want to comment on this?

Wylie said so we have, I mean – Forte said I know. Wylie said so, we, I think everything’s going different directions. Forte said yeah. Wylie said maybe we should look at each one of these individually. Forte said yeah. Wylie said so we’ve got, I think we’re going to go, let’s, okay, let’s, so we already had a motion from Forte and seconded by Rodgers to take this motion, which is looking at the updates of the city’s master plan, possible new ordinance on ADUs and possible zoning density change for vacant Waldon and Main. This is all for planning commission to look at these things. How about we separate them out? Do we have to change our motion?

Avery said I don’t. Wylie asked for Fisher and said oh, he’s not here. Avery said yeah, I don’t think – Wylie said well, okay, let me ask, since you guys made the motion, is it okay if we separate them out? Forte said absolutely, yeah. Wylie said okay, all right. We’re going to separate them out (unintelligible). (To Casey), if you’re looking at me like – Casey said I think you would need a new motion. Wylie said you need a motion. Okay, let’s do it. Avery said make a motion to divide them. Casey said that one would have to be withdrawn. Wylie said okay, okay, so who has to withdraw it? Forte said the first. Wylie said the people who made the motion. Forte said yeah, I’ll withdraw the motion. Wylie said okay, you made the motion. Okay. Casey said the one who made the motion. Wylie said Forte made the motion. Forte said so, I withdraw it. Wylie said you withdraw it.

Wylie said okay. Do we have to vote? No, we don’t have to vote on that. Okay, so do you want to make a new motion? Forte said yeah, so I’ll make a new motion then to go by these step-by-step. Wylie said okay, so you want to make a motion to have the, authorizing the planning commission to proceed with work on update the city’s master plan, period. Forte said well, and should it just be that we’re getting additional quotes? Wylie said you want to say including additional quotes? Smith said I think it has to also look into other possibilities, and Werner was referring to kind of breaking it up. So maybe there are things that we do and things that they either cut a lot of work in or McKenna do. Can we break it up and bring the cost down?

Avery said well, I think, yeah. I think if we, because it says the city’s planning commission is considering the following three projects. So, if we tell them to, yes, because we have to update the city master plan. So, if we make a motion to have the planning commission begin preparations to update the city’s master plan, I think that’s just general enough. Wylie said I think so. Avery said yeah, that’s based on what we’ve done so far. Casey said by itself and we can leave the other two. Wylie said and then we can talk separately.

(To Forte), Wylie said are you willing to go with what he said, which was prepare to update the city’s master plan? And I need a second on that motion. Second, Rodgers.

Wylie said okay, so that is step one. So, let’s take care of that one, and then we’ll look at the other two. Forte said great.

Wylie said does anybody have any, on council, any comments or questions. I’m just authorizing the planning commission to proceed with the preparation to update the city’s master plan.

No comments.

Wylie said public.

No comments.

Motion to authorize the planning commission to proceed with the preparation to update the city’s master plan was approved by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said then we are authorizing the planning commission to proceed with the preparation to update the city’s master plan. We got that part done.

Wylie said okay, so step two would be a motion about a possible new ordinance for accessory dwelling units. How do we want to handle that? Avery said I was going to say, I would move to table that pending an opinion from Fisher. Wylie said oh, okay, great. Forte said I agree. Wylie said okay, okay. So we’re going to table.

Wylie said does anybody have any alternate views?

No comments.

Wylie said okay, table number two.

Wylie said then number three would be authorize planning commission to proceed with, where’d it go? A possible zoning density change for the vacant Waldon and Main property. Avery said my opinion is that we table that also until we have something more definitive to proceed on that along those lines.

Casey said I agree. Avery said I’m just one. Forte said I think that’ll come up through the master planning process. Wylie said that’s probably true. Forte said you know, so, I think – (interrupting Forte and addressing Rodgers), Wylie said any opinion. Rodgers said I’d table it. Wylie, said table it, table it, table it.

Werner said the zoning part will come up. Wylie said I’m sorry? Werner said the zoning part would come up with the master plan rewrite. Wylie said okay. Werner said but not the density necessarily. Wylie said okay. Well, density was kind of handled by zoning. Werne said correct.

Wylie said okay. All in favor of tabling number three. (Murmuring of affirmation.) Wylie said okay, we’re going to table it.

(To Werner), Wylie said do you guys have what you need? Werner and Forte said yeah. Forte said that was great.

(To Smith), Wylie said do you have what you needed? Smith said yep. Wylie said okay.

Wylie said thank you guys for your good work. All of you.

Agenda Item #13, Adjourn Meeting (video time mark 1:01:03):

Wylie said and we are at item, is there anything else we need handled for this meeting?

No comments.

Wylie said Item #13 is adjourn the meeting. I need a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Motion by Rodgers; second Forte.

Motion to adjourn the meeting passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said I was aiming for eight o’clock. So close. Well, Apple doesn’t say eight o’clock.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording here
  • 11-10-2025 city council packet