Category: COVID-19

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.

Meeting:

[The recording was not turned on until after public comments began.]

Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark – none):

[The recording was not turned on until after public comments began.]

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark – none):

[The recording was not turned on until after public comments began.]

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark – none):

[The recording was not turned on until after public comments began. Inferring from subsequent roll call votes, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Jason Kniesc, and Sue Wylie were present at the start of the meeting. Gary Casey and Joe Luginski were absent. Joe Luginski joined the meeting during agenda item 10a and called in from Clarkston, Michigan.]

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark – none):

[The recording was not turned on until after public comments began.]

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:00:03):

[The recording began while Michigan Senator Rosemary Bayer was speaking.]

Senator Bayer discussed the COVID vaccine distribution. The focus is on people 65 and older based on CDC recommendations. Eighty percent of the deaths have occurred in that age group. There are many ways to get a vaccine – Oakland County, your hospital provider, Meijer, and drug stores. The most predictable way, though not the fastest way, is to register on the County’s website and you will get a vaccine when your turn comes up. The website address is oaklandcountyvaccine.com, and the telephone number is 800/848-5533. You can try all of the other avenues as well.

Senator Bayer said that they are still helping a lot of people with unemployment issues, and they are looking forward to another stimulus. If you need help with that or anything else, you can call her office number at 517/373-2417.

Haven thanked Senator Bayer for coming. We’ve all had various experiences with the vaccine. The vaccine has been released for people 65 and older, but the oldest of that demographic – people over 80 – are having the most difficulty receiving a vaccine because they may not be able to use the technology to sign up. He appreciates the 800 number. Senator Bayer said that she wanted people to know that there was a path for them. If you use the number, they will call you back when your appointment is coming up, they will set up your next appointment while you are there, and they will remind you of that second shot appointment.

Kniesc asked Senator Bayer about the recent lottery winner in Novi. That should be a huge cash windfall for Michigan, and he wondered how that would be used. Senator Bayer said that all lottery money is required to go into the school aid fund. Kniesc wanted to know where the taxes that the winner will have to  pay will go. Senator Bayer said she believes that money will also go into the school aid fund, but it may also be under income taxes in which case some would go into the school aid fund but most would go into the general fund.

Senator Bayer said she’s on the appropriation and education committees and the transportation subcommittees.

City Manager Smith read a public comment from David Delasko. He was having difficulty with his landlord not removing the snow from the sidewalks and not doing a good job on maintenance at 35 Madison Court. Smith said he would reach out to the property owner at the number the city has on file and see what can be done to improve the situation.

Smith read a public comment from Chet Pardee:

• • Thanks to Smith, Clerk Speagle, Treasurer Greg Coté and anyone else who was responsible for changing the format of the financial disbursements report to a portrait format that is more easily readable.
  • The city’s website continues to include information in the financial transparency section that is five years old. Why doesn’t the most recent budget presentation from the May 2020 hearing, the most current audit report from December 2020, and the city’s most recent Capital Improvement Plan appear in the financial transparency section of the website?
  • Having these financial documents readily available would be helpful to council members and citizens in understanding the city’s proposed 2021-2022 budget. This new budget will be challenging due to the Bisio v Clarkston damages, the cost of repaving N. Holcomb being greater than budgeted, unbudgeted costs for stormwater system repairs on East Washington, and no paid parking revenue.
  • Pardee was encouraged that the city manager is currently restraining expenses, but infrastructure repairs are necessary to keep the costs from growing.
  • Pardee attached a copy of the city’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan for council’s reference. The current budget includes $244,000, but the 2021-2022 budget will not be able to include the full $261,000 or even a portion of it without significantly underspending the current budget or violating the fund balance policy.
  • The finance committee will review adding 2026-2027 to the city’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan.

Smith said Pardee was right about the financial reports section of the website, and he will take personal responsibility to make sure that the corrections are made to bring things up to date. There is another section of the financial portion of the website that picks up information from County reporting, but it is also out of date.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:12:12; 0:55:16):

• • Samples from Oakland County’s “Beat It Face It” Campaign – 3” x 5” sticker; 9.5” x 9.5” floor sticker (for social distancing); 11” x 17” poster (page 3/30 of the council packet)

Speagle said that the city received stickers and posters for local businesses, and she included images of them in the packet. She has approximately 200 little window stickers, 800 of the floor stickers for social distancing, and 100 of the 11” x 17” posters. Smith said that this was an advertising campaign designed to push the County’s new theme of “Face It, Beat It” to encourage people to beat the pandemic by putting on a face mask. While our first priority is to give the material to businesses within the city, we are happy to share them with any business since we have a lot of them.

Speagle said that the office is closed next Monday on President’s Day. The tax deadline is the 14^th, and Coté confirmed that. Since the office is closed on the 15^th, anything that the city receives in the mailbox by Tuesday morning is not late. Speagle corrected the tax due date later in the meeting to add that that year’s tax payments are due by the end of the day on Tuesday, 2/16, so any payment made up to 5:00 on the 16^th will not be late. Since 2/28 is on a Sunday, the city can take a late tax payment up to 3/1. All late tax payments from 3/2 onward go to the County.

Agenda Item #7, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:15:33; page 6/30 of the council packet):

Haven noted that the speed signs are on, but we won’t see a report until later from CJ with regard to how effective they are. He was glad to see that they were operational.

Agenda Item #8, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda As Presented (Video time mark 0:16:10)

• • 01/11/2021 Final Minutes (page 7/30 of the council packet)
  • 01/25/2021 Draft Minutes (page 9/30 of the council packet)
  • 02/08/2021 Treasurer’s Report (page 11/30 of the council packet)
  • Check Disbursement Report from 01/01/2021-01/31/2021 (page 12/30 of the council packet)
  • Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., invoices for January 2021 (page 15/30 of the council packet)

Speagle noted that she made a minor change to the 01/11/2021 final minutes. She updated them to say that everyone had called in from Clarkston, Michigan.

Kniesc noted that Chat Pardee’s name was spelled incorrectly in Item #5 on the 01/25/2021 minutes.

The consent agenda was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #9, Old Business

Item 9a, Discussion: Short Term Rental (Video time mark 0:18:26)

• • Planning Commission Request to Council to Reopen and Reconsider Short-Term Rental (STR), Action – February 1, 2021 (page 18/30 of the council packet)

Rich Little, Planning Commission Chair, was on the call to discuss short-term rentals. The options are regulate, ban, or something else.

Little said the Planning Commission started looking at this issue 14-15 months ago. They originally asked for direction in 2019 and were told to bring regulations to the council, which they did. There was a discussion about banning them completely. That was tabled because there was work going on in the Michigan Supreme Court and in Lansing and it appeared that local control of short-term rental decisions might be taken away. That was settled in mid-summer. Local control is still an option and they believe that there is still a reason to look at this. People have been calling Smith and asking about the city’s position on Airbnbs, whether they can buy homes in the city and make them into full-time Airbnbs, and others just want to rent a house.

Little said that City Attorney Tom Ryan said that we don’t have language in our particular ordinance that forbids Airbnbs because our ordinance was drafted in 1992 and they weren’t around then. We don’t allow them, but there are some operating and there is pressure to start more. It seems prudent and wise to have our position stated in an ordinance. The Planning Commission is happy to help no matter what direction the council wants to take, whether it’s banning, regulating, or doing nothing, but the Planning Commission believes that there should be language that protects the city from whatever may come up in the future.

Haven said that this was a discussion item, and they would need a 2/3 majority of those present to move it to an action item or a resolution.

Ryan said that a change to the agenda needs to be unanimous. The Reaume case that was decided this summer held that Airbnbs were not allowed in that municipality’s R1 zone, which was the best single family highest use in the town. One of the issues that we have in Clarkston is that because of our size, we don’t have the number of zoning districts that other communities have. We are mostly single family residential, so under the Reaume case, we could prohibit Airbnbs if we wanted to. You could also decide not to ban them entirely and allow them in RM (residential multiple) or VC (village commercial) districts. The issue is whether the council wants to allow them in single family residential areas, and if not, do they want to put them somewhere else if they feel they are appropriate for the city.

Haven said they should have a discussion with council input first and then receive input from people in the community.

Bonser disclosed that he has a property that he rents out as a short-term rental. He wanted to know if this was a conflict of interest, and if so, would he have to abstain from voting and be prohibited from discussing the issue as a council person.

Ryan said that if Bonser had a financial interest, he should ask the council to vote on recusal. If he is recused, he could comment as a member of the public. There was additional discussion regarding whether the recusal decision needed to be immediately considered, and the council members decided that it should be. Ryan suggested the language for the recusal motion, saying that we appreciate the disclosure, that the council believes that Bonser has a conflict of interest, that the council is moving to recuse him relative to this short-term rental item, and that Bosner would not vote.

Wylie made the recusal motion that was approved unanimously by Haven, Avery, Kniesc, and Wylie. The discussion continued.

Kniesc said that he would prefer to regulate rather than ban short-term rentals.

Avery said he was in favor of banning short-term rentals. This is a barn door that will be hard to close once opened, we already have people operating illegally, and we aren’t enforcing it. If we take action to expressly prohibit them, we need a mechanism to enforce it. He would feel differently if Clarkston were a tourist town like Traverse City or Glenn Arbor, but we are a bedroom community where people are entitled to come back home after work to quiet neighborhoods. This gives people a chance to make some extra money but buying houses to use as short-term rentals makes him uncomfortable.

Wylie said she’s gone back and forth on the issue but now agrees with banning short-term rentals. The issue for her was whether she would want her neighbors on either side to have an Airbnb. Even though she’s more spread out from her neighbors than other areas are, she would not like people coming and going that she doesn’t know. If she ever decides to sell her home, she doesn’t want to deal with the issue of having an Airbnb next door that might affect the willingness of someone to buy her home. She thought about the grandfathering issue, but she agrees with Avery that regulation will be difficult. We are a small town with a small staff, and they have enough on their plates without worrying about regulating Airbnbs.

Haven also agreed with banning short-term rentals. We have a great community, and he understands why people would do this, but it creates the problems that have been discussed. Haven is sensitive to our small city and our ability to manage this. If we say we are open to this, we will get a lot of activity and are opening a Pandora’s box. We are a half mile square in size, and people can do this regionally in the township, which would allow people to come to Clarkston without physically being in our ½ square mile.

Avery also thought that we should think about having a long-term rental provision in our ordinances. We don’t have anything now, and we should consider regulating rental properties to make sure they have smoke detectors, etc. Haven agreed and recalled that when he first ran for office and visited homes through the village, he had a list of people who owned the property but found that there were a lot of renters, even on Middle Lake. We need to look at making sure that things are done properly.

Frank Schoebel had a question for Ryan. He said that there are 6-8 or more existing Airbnbs. He wanted to know how we deal with them if we ban rentals and whether there would be a legal fight ahead if we did that. Do the regulations that we have written realistically prohibit more Airbnbs from coming into existence due to our size constraints and the parameters we’ve placed on new developments? His concern was getting into another legal battle over the existing Airbnbs, and if we go forward, how do we monitor them. It comes down to enforcement.

Ryan said that if council wishes to prohibit Airbnbs, then a zoning ordinance would be enacted. There would probably be an amortizing time for any existing use to be extinguished within a certain timeframe. The second thing would be following up to make sure the regulation is complied with.

Haven asked if there is anything in the Michigan Supreme Court case that would speak to already existing uses. Ryan said that there was, and it is not allowed. The court upheld the town’s determination that they aren’t allowed in R1 districts. You can’t grandfather something that isn’t allowed initially. It can be extinguished if that’s what the council wants to do to deal with this use.

Haven noted that Little has asked for direction and wondered how they should proceed. Should they send it back with a document that says they want to proceed to ban if that’s what they are going to do? Little said that he would prefer that the council vote now or at a future meeting. If the council decides to ban, the Planning Commission would write the language. The Planning Commission prepared regulations at one time and they didn’t fly, so they would prefer that the council vote on the matter and they will come up with the right ordinance after that.

Ryan said that right now, they are at three in favor of banning and one in favor of regulation. Since neither Luginski nor Casey were present for this discussion, he thought the matter should be put on the agenda in two weeks as a motion or action item. They didn’t have the votes and it’s not on the agenda for that tonight. All council members should be here because it’s a big decision for everyone and we should make it known.

Haven asked if the council could just direct Smith to put it on the agenda for two weeks from now, and Ryan said that they needed to move to table the action item for the next meeting on the 22^nd.

[Joe Luginski joined the meeting.]

Luginski apologized for being late. He had a busines call that he had to take.

Haven asked Luginski if he felt ready to comment on the issue. There is a 3:1 consensus in favor of banning short-term rentals. He asked if Luginski wanted to comment now or two weeks from now?

Luginski said he thinks he’s in favor of that as well but needs to understand the issue a little better. Haven said that the information in the packet will provide the history and he should feel free to talk to Little. Luginski said he was aware of the background because he was part of the Planning Commission when the issue came up.

Avery didn’t understand why we needed a motion on a discussion item, and Ryan said it was necessary to make it an action item.

Kniesc said he had some thoughts about regulation to think about. First, we get a lot of blowback about not being progressive enough or open to change. This is an easy issue to get progressive on. We don’t have to be like everyone else, but we could get in line with a society that is expecting these options. Second, he’s worried about Schoebel’s concern about legal landmines down the road. Third, we could write the regulation in a way so that someone would have a vested interest in the community. For example, maybe we could require that someone be a resident of the Village for five years before they can do this, rather than letting someone from the outside buy a home and immediately turn it into a rental. There may be some legal issues there, but these are some thoughts that could go into a regulation.

Bonser noted that the council was allowed to speak but the discussion wasn’t opened up to the public and it’s now an action item in two weeks. He wanted the opportunity to say something as a member of the public:

• • What is a short-term rental? Is it less than a month? Little said that an Airbnb can be a day, two days, a weekend, a week, a month, or longer. The regulations that the Planning Commission originally proposed said a minimum of two nights. Right now, we don’t have an ordinance, so we don’t have anything that defines what a short-term rental is.
  • Airbnb is just a platform. Just because someone advertises on Airbnb doesn’t make it a short-term rental. One month or one-year rentals are considered long-term. You should define a short-term rental. Little said that was Avery’s point. Bonser asked if it was covered under some other ordinance, and Little didn’t think so.
  • Bonser talked about his personal experience. There aren’t many options for rentals in this area, even with regard to motels. What he is getting are people coming to see their family. He had some tenants that were emissaries from Uganda that came back to visit their family and they wanted something big enough for their family but separate from the family that they were visiting. The next tenants were a young couple transitioning from Oregon to Detroit and one of them had a job at General Motors. Bonser said that we are finding these kinds of renters coming in. Avery mentioned that we are not a tourist destination, but Bonser said that people do want to come to Clarkston and when they do, they walk to downtown and spend money in restaurants and shops.
  • Airbnb charges a tax, and Bonser isn’t sure where that money goes. Perhaps we could discuss those resources to help us to regulate short-term rentals.
  • You can make this work with smart regulation. He agreed with Kniesc; we have Airbnb now, but what will be the next thing? Will we ban Uber and Door Dash because of too much traffic? We should stay ahead as technology changes, and this is an opportunity for us to take advantage of it. We could make sure that people have a vested interest, and maybe we could allow 10% of the village to have rentals which would be eight or less. That’s the way it’s been for a while, though illegal and unintentional, and it won’t create hard feelings.

Wylie said that she’d received a comment from Jane Jones on Overlook who’d unsuccessfully tried to send an email. Since we are moving the discussion back for two weeks, Wylie said that she will ask Jones to try sending her comments again during the next two weeks.

Little said that in 2019-2020, they had some good-sized public meetings at the Clarkston United Methodist Church. They received a lot of input from citizens and Airbnb operators. The feedback was split, a little more negative than positive. If we go forward with an ordinance, we will have more public hearings.

The motion to table the discussion for two weeks passed unanimously; Bonser abstained.

Item 9b, Discussion: Paid Parking (Video time mark 0:57:35)

Haven said that the council decided to wait until we had restaurant openings. Smith will give an overview and discuss options.

Smith said that we last talked about this in December. We haven’t had paid parking since March or April of 2020. In December, the council decided to extend the suspension on paid parking until February 15^th. It’s February 8^th, and the expiration will occur before the next meeting. The council has to decide whether they want to further extend the suspension.

This is a discussion item rather than a motion and council can decide whether or not they want to turn it into a motion. Smith previously proposed tying paid parking in with any decision from the Michigan Department of Health to reopen restaurants, but there is no requirement to do that. Council can just decide what it wants to do about the suspension.

Smith said that paid parking has come up in the finance committee. The loss of revenue is impacting our general operations. The lack of income for almost a year’s time that paid parking has been suspended is approximately $70-$85,000. This money has been the city’s primary tool for paving and repair of roads, sidewalks, and parking lots. The lack of revenue means that the city will be struggling to do any road paving next year or this summer or next. He wanted the council to have the facts when determining whether to extend the suspension or not.

Haven asked if paid parking would begin on the 15^th if the council took no action. Smith said that is the way that it is structured now. It wasn’t his intention to steer the council in one direction or the other by not putting a motion on the agenda.

Bonser said we should allow people to pay. Restaurants are starting to open, people are more than happy to pay to help out and pay $5 to come in and eat at a good restaurant in the village. We should let the extension expire and open up the parking meters.

Wylie though that it was a moot point. There is only 25% restaurant occupancy and they are operating on reduced hours. There aren’t that many people still coming downtown to eat. As much as she loves getting the money from paid parking, she doesn’t think that people would view paying it as helping out. We should extend the suspension of paid parking.

Avery agreed with Wylie. The issue was discussed in the finance committee. They thought it should be restarted when restaurants were opened at 50% but charging for parking when the restaurants are at 25% capacity is punishing people for coming to town. People have a lot of options. He understands the financial ramifications and dependency on these funds was always going to be a problem once we started receiving them. He can appreciate the need to get funds back into the city’s coffers, but if we turned it on, he wasn’t sure how much it will bring in. We don’t have a parking enforcement person, and he didn’t think it would pay to bring a person in to enforce parking when only a quarter of the lot is full. He’s not sure that it solves any problem by turning it back on.

Bonser said that it won’t hurt and it won’t discourage anyone. If people don’t want to park in the paid lot, they can park somewhere else.

Smith said that with a 25% capacity restriction, his casual observation is that street parking is filled but there isn’t enough to require people to park in the paid lot even though it’s free right now. The current demand seems to be filled with street parking.

Haven would like to continue to suspend paid parking. It’s early, and we are sensitive to where we are especially with the fragility of the businesses. We can hope for nice weather soon, and we can almost consider this from week to week. There is no urgency to it, the revenue isn’t there, and maybe it sends the wrong signal.

Avery agreed with Haven. He suggested a motion to extend the suspension of paid parking for another 45 days to April 1^st. He doesn’t expect the restaurants to open up to 50% capacity any time soon.

Wylie asked Ryan if they needed to vote on turning this discussion item into an action item. Ryan said yes, and it needed to be unanimous.

Bonser asked if the motion doesn’t pass unanimously and it doesn’t become an action item, would that mean that they would revisit this on the 15^th or that paid parking would start again. Haven said that paid parking would open up again, and Smith agreed that paid parking would start on the 16^th if no council action is taken. Wylie said that if they didn’t vote on it tonight, the suspension would expire before the next meeting. Kniesc said we could have a quick council meeting before then.

Kniesc asked Eric Lines (of Union Joints) for input. Lines thought that Haven said it best, that it’s fragile now. Wylie said that 25% is not a lot, and Lines agreed. If paid parking returns, it will make the city look like it is “trying to bleed” people who are coming to town. People have a lot of options and anything you put in their way is going to make them move to the next spot. We have only had people in the restaurant for a week now, spent 77 days without anyone in the restaurants, and it’s been over 300 days since they were able to fill their restaurant. The industry has endured many headwinds this past year and Lines believed that bringing paid parking back is just another one thrown at the restaurants and the other downtown businesses that they just don’t need right now.

The vote to move the discussion item to an action item was unanimous.

Avery suggested a resolution that extended the moratorium until April 1^st. Ryan suggested that they set the expiration for one day after a council meeting in April so that council can decide at that point. Speagle suggested that the council use April 12^th. Ryan suggested 12 a.m. on April 12^th.

The resolution passed unanimously.

Lines thanked the council.

Agenda Item #10, New Business

Item 10a, Discussion: RPDD Recommendation, Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) Ordinance Review and Recommended Amendments (Video time mark 1:15:37):

• • 02/03/2021 Letter from Richard K. and Ben Carlisle, Carlisle Wortman, Subject: “Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) Ordinance Review and Recommended Amendments” (page 22/30 of the council packet)

Haven asked Little to describe the issue so that it could be discussed.

Little said that while working on several Master Plan items last fall, the Planning Commission identified all of the vacant parcels in the city to see which of them could be built out to improve our revenue and meet the demands of people who wanted to do development. Smith has been working with the Planning Commission to get the zoning maps updated. They dusted off old ordinances to decide where we could and couldn’t build. At that time, at least two developers came into the city to talk with Smith about possible developments in the city. Little said that the discussion pertains to a lot of different things, but he would use the proposed development at Waldon and Main as an example.

Little introduced Ben Carlisle, whom he described as a talented planner who has worked with the Planning Commission since last summer. They want to tell the council what they are trying to accomplish, and if the council agrees, they will draft ordinance language to support their ideas.

Carlisle asked how much detail the council wanted. Haven said that there has already been activity at Waldon and Main, but he wasn’t certain what other properties the Planning Commission was exploring. Little said that Waldon and Main is a good example, and they aren’t prepared to talk about any others. As everyone knows, there was a public meeting with the Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission (HDC) about a possible development for 65 apartments at the corner of Waldon and Main. They left that meeting with concerns about density and architectural style. They agreed that they should encourage tastefully done development that blends in and is the right fit for a historical community.

Carlisle said that even though the Waldon and Main applicant proposed a much higher density than they were willing to support, what could be done with the underlying zoning wasn’t what we were trying to achieve with the parcel, particularly as it aligned with the Master Plan. This prompted them to take a look at the Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) ordinance. Our RPDD ordinance is very restrictive with little flexibility, so there is no incentive for an applicant to use that tool. The Planning Commission nailed down three important items to consider moving forward:

1. 1. Our current RPDD only allows for residential use, and we may want to encourage a mixed use on the outskirts with some residential, commercial, and office use. The Planning Commission wants the primary use to be residential, so they are suggesting no more than 10% of non-residential use for something like a small yoga studio or office.
   2. Increasing the allowable height. Right now, the RPDD is capped at 2.5 stories and 35 feet. This may be limiting, so they are proposing changing this to 3 stories and 40 feet maximum height because certain architectural styles may lend themselves to more height.
   3. They spent the most time discussing allowable density. Right now, the RPDD is capped to the existing underlying zoning designation. Using Waldon and Main as an example, this is a two-acre site that is zoned single family. This means that the site is limited to only 5 units through the existing RPDD process. This is not economically feasible or consistent with what the Master Plan calls for, which is mixed use residential with a target range of 6-8 units per acre or 15-20 units, which is greater than 5 units. To incentivize use, they would allow for up to a 25% increase in allowable density which would bring the number up to 9-10 units per acre.

This proposal just rewrites an existing ordinance. They surveyed communities with similar densities in southeastern Michigan, and an underlying density of 8-12 units per acre with a height of up to 3 stories is fairly standard for the periphery. The increases in height or density are purely discretionary and based on reviews by the Planning Commission and council. Carlisle always counsels that the relief requested by the applicant should be commensurate with the benefit achieved by the development in terms of historical preservation, environmental protection, or some other thing that would be desired by the village.

Luginski noted that while it’s subject to approval by the Planning Commission and council, the HDC has to be involved because we can’t just grant a 3-story building without their approval. Little said that changes to the ordinance involve only the Planning Commission and council, but the HDC was with them when they met with the developer for Waldon and Main. No one is trying to bypass the HDC. Little said that the changes that they are proposing would allow for 20-22 units at Waldon and Main, which is a long way from where the developer started. They want to encourage tasteful development in the village for revenue and demand.

Haven was confused about the density issue, and Little clarified that it was 6-8 units that could be increased by 25% on a discretionary basis. Little preferred condos, but there could be higher end apartments where the rent was $2,000-$2,500 per month in a tasteful setting. Haven said that this was probably out of the range that the developer was interested in. Little said that they haven’t come back, but he expects more discussions and things aren’t done. It’s a challenge, but this sits in a historic village across from historic homes, so we want it to be the right mass and scale.

Haven asked if the HDC has responded to this, and Little said not on the particular numbers. The HDC has its own criteria for approval. Haven noted that the property had no history so the history starts today, but the density issue is something that the HDC should weigh in on. Little believed that density and those sorts of things are for the Planning Commission, while architectural style is for the HDC, and these two things don’t cross. Carlisle thought Haven was correct and they aren’t trying to usurp the authority of the HDC. Each commission has its own standards.

There is a lengthy community process that allows for what is planned under the Master Plan. Other than the 25% density bonus, the allowable density is consistent with the plan in the area. Perhaps Ryan will want to tell him to be quiet, but the underlying zoning for 5 single family units is inconsistent with the future land use plan. This is only trying to achieve the density that the Master Plan calls for.

Little said that Jim Meloche (HDC Chair) has been involved in more than one discussion and they are in pretty good agreement. Haven agreed that everyone should be in the room. From the standpoint of the developer, we are saying this far and no further, and we will see if there are people who want to consider that restraint.

Carlisle said that even if this developer walks away, you will have the issue with the next one. It’s better not to play whack-a-mole and to get ahead of this. The HDC Chair has been included in this project and this process.

Ryan thought it was an excellent effort, and he is very familiar with these types of ordinances. The fact that our ordinance is restricted to residential is very limiting to anyone who might want to provide a quality development. We can have flexible standards so that a developer can make economic decisions regarding what kind of product to bring in. There is no question that the exterior would have to be approved by the HDC so that it’s compatible with the area. The city should move forward not just for the Waldon and Main property but for any other property that could take advantage of mixed use and flexibility.

Little would be happy to go back to Meloche to discuss this document again, but he thinks that Meloche will tell him that the document is the business of the Planning Commission. The HDC didn’t like the developer’s plan for a modern farmhouse look at Waldon and Main and it needed to be completely revamped. Little wanted the council to say yes to this sort of change, and then the Planning Commission will bring some language to the council. If the council wants to go forward at that point, then it requires public hearings. This will be a two-to-three-month process with more than one occasion for the council and the HDC to weigh in.

Haven is sensitive to the Planning Commission’s desire to get some clarity from the council. If he were to characterize the largest buildable project remaining in the village, he would say that we are describing the creation of a new neighborhood, providing the maximum skeletal requirements for a builder to make it work.

Avery was part of the call and didn’t get a sense that they were trying to create a new neighborhood. They wanted a four-to-five-foot building with 60 units. This could be a very good piece of property for condos. It’s zoned residential and Avery gets the sense from Carlisle that we should have this in place for future developers rather than letting them come to us and having to tailor the ordinance to the proposal.

Carlisle said he was on board with Avery’s second point initially, to let the developers come to us, but the problem is that our RPDD is so inflexible that we can’t get away from the 5 units to even allow them to suggest anything different. That’s why they are recommending amending the document to allow discussions to start.

Avery said that he heard what Carlisle is saying, but he was hesitant to build on that corner. He would love to see 5-6 houses. He was taken aback by the size and scope of the proposed project. We have to make a decision as a city what we want the corner to look like. We will have to rezone it and put it in some sort of development posture.

Little said our ordinance is 304 pages long and was written in 1992. It needs updating in a lot of areas and this is the first example. There are ordinances today with more flexibility, that are capable of being searched, and that have hyperlinks to find things. They are looking at the ordinance books and have found things that are contradictory and punitive. This is one of the things that they want to clean up.

Avery said we are a residential town and wondered if there are any plans to change the ordinances relating to commercial property? Little said that it could be anything – fences, parking lots, lighting, etc. They have ideas about how to streamline the ordinance book so that an average person can read it.

Avery noted that what is being proposed is for the whole city. Little said we don’t have a lot of room to expand, but this is probably our best example. We had a developer who proposed something at the corner of West Washington and Holcomb, but to be honest, there aren’t very many places to build. Avery said that concerned him because it’s near his home and right next door to Kniesc. Little said that changes don’t open a flood gate; they are discretionary and allow for the right time, right place, and right developer to do the right thing.

Haven wanted to know if anyone objected to giving the HDC and Planning Commission approval to go ahead. It needs to be done, it’s a great pilot project, and we should move forward trying to define our future rather than letting it happen or having developers come to us. We need to define the parameters.

Avery said that the HDC and Planning Commission have different purposes. This comes down to the Planning Commission and council deciding how we want the ordinance to look and the HDC has no say in that. Haven said that the HDC cares not only about structures but also the environment and compatibility with what we already have. Luginski agreed. The HDC considers the surrounding neighborhood, so density issues fall into that. If there are three, four, and five-story buildings, that changes the streetscape. They should be part of the conversation.

Ryan said that HDC is going to be involved because this is in a historic district. They are just trying to update the ordinance to give us the capability to meet our Master Plan and to be in the 21^st century. We aren’t talking about a 65-unit development; just a 20-22 maximum development depending on what it looks like. The first offer is never accepted, but this gives the developer a chance to come up with something creative that will enhance the owners and the village. The HDC should be involved with what the ordinance says, but we are trying to put the bones on something that will give someone the ability to come in and offer up a quality development. Haven and Luginski agreed.

Little wanted a motion from council that asks the Planning Commission to move forward and write ordinance language that supports these points to bring back for review and to start the public hearing process.

Ryan said that the agenda needed to be modified because this was originally a discussion item.

Motion to amend the agenda passed unanimously.

Motion that the Planning Commission should move forward as requested passed unanimously.

Little thanked Carlisle for attending.

Item 10b, Resolution: Oakland/Macomb Interceptor Repair Reimbursement (Video time mark 1:57:25)

• • “Resolution – Reimbursement for Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Repair Cost” (page 28/30 of the council packet)
  • 02/03/2021 Letter from Rana M. Emmons, PSLZ [Clarkston’s auditor], Subject: “Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Improvements” (page 29/30 of the council packet)

Haven asked Smith for our options. Smith said that there are two components to the resolution.

This involves the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor that has been discussed. There is a massive drain in the 8-mile range between 7 and 8 Mile Road in Detroit. If you flush your toilet in Oakland county, the water goes to the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor. We all use it and we all must share in the pain and cost of repair.

The total repair bill is $84 million. That has been divided up, and Clarkston’s share is $98,000. We approved a $98,000 payment to Independence Township in November because Independence Township paid both their share and ours to the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA).

The $98,000 was paid out of the sewer fund. This left less than $60,000 in the sewer fund, which is barely sufficient to cover the ups and downs of payments that come and go out. $60,000 is not a lot of money and there is no rainy-day fund if there is a break in the sewer.

This issue has been discussed with the finance committee, and we need to replenish the $98,000 to the sewer fund. There are two components that are being considered today.

1. 1. The decision to replenish the $98,000 to the sewer fund. This will be paid based on residential equivalent units (REU).
   2. The decision regarding how we should bill for this – either though the sewer billing or through a Special Assessment District (SAD).

Rana Emmons, our city auditor, said that writing a SAD for the entire city is not how a SAD is typically used. It is costly because it would require work from the city engineer, attorney, and includes a determination regarding who will get billed and how much. It would add more cost for the residents.

Smith talked with the finance committee, and they believe that the best solution is to bill residents directly. There is a $98,921 bill that we owe, we would divide that by the 557 REUs, leaving a charge for each REU of $170.60. This would be paid in four quarterly installments through the sewer billing system, starting with the May billing cycle.

Luginski asked if people could pay the whole $170.60 at once if they wanted to. Smith said people could do that and it would show up as a credit on their bill.

Luginski suggested that resolution was too soft. It says “we accept the recommendation.” We should just say that we are directing the city manager to notify the public and bill them utilizing the city’s sewer billing system to recoup the money. This gives you a firm direction. A public hearing is not needed here. Smith said he could make the change.

Haven asked Ryan about going through a formal public hearing process. Ryan said it wasn’t necessary. This is a legitimate infrastructure charge on the sewer system, and we should look at water and sewer rates every year. The council could adopt a water and sewer budget and charges like this could be included in those budget issues. Haven asked if this presented any Headlee issues, and Ryan said it did not because it was a user issue.

Smith said that the current billing rate of $117.42 that we have been billing for several years is right around the break-even point for the costs that we have to pay the GLWA if you include the staff time to create the bills and send them out as well as postage. We may even be losing money, and this needs to be revisited. We aren’t trying to overcharge but we can’t undercharge. Ryan said that we have to consider depreciation of the pipes in the ground that need to be replaced at some point and building in a little cushion for catastrophic events that could occur in the future.

Bonser asked if we would have $160,000 in the sewer fund once we recoup the money. Smith said that was correct, and we should revisit quarterly costs and perhaps raise them to $120. That would allow us to slowly build up and increase the balance so that if a sewer failed, we will have money to pay for it.

Haven read the resolution with suggested changes and asked if council agreed, that council directs the city manager to notify the public, utilize the city sewer billing system to recoup $177.60 from each REU with four payments of $44.60, to pay the city’s $98,921.06 portion of the Oakland Macomb Interceptor repair costs starting with the May 2021 billing cycle.

Wylie said that there have been some concerns about handling things this way because it eliminates the public hearings. Perhaps we should have some sort of public hearing because we are spending our residents’ money. Smith said it would need to be virtual. He would call it a public input session rather than a public hearing. We could take the residents through the math and allow them to voice complaints or concerns. Haven said we could add one step to the process.

Wylie wasn’t advocating it because the issue has been in the open, in the minutes, and people can watch the meeting. She didn’t want people to think we were trying to sneak something through.

Luginski said they aren’t trying to sneak anything through, they’ve been open, he agreed with Ryan that it’s a cost of doing business, it came to us, and we have no choice but to pay the bill. Luginski was not opposed to a public hearing but wasn’t sure it was necessary.

Avery didn’t know what the purpose of a public hearing would be because we have to pay the bill; it’s a maintenance cost that we didn’t create. Unless someone wants to make a donation, it serves no purpose. We’ve talked about this at 5 or 6 meetings, so people know where the number came from. Wylie said she agrees but wanted to know what others thought.

Kniesc said as a member of the public, he would be frustrated after such a meeting.

Ryan said these matters have been discussed. Everyone knows that there is a $98,000 bill out there, this is a different way of paying it that speeds things up and saves us money. The bottom line is the same – we have to pay the $177 where it’s by a special assessment or a sewer bill.

Wylie agreed with everyone. It’s been made clear.

The resolution without a public hearing passed unanimously.

Luginski had a few quick comments and was sorry that he missed the beginning of the meeting. He thanked Smith for the speed signs and has seen cars hitting their brakes.

Luginski wanted to know where we were on face-to-face meetings and understands that the County has advised their boards and commissions that they will be back to face-to-face meetings on April 1^st. He asked Ryan if he’d heard anything. Ryan said that the in-person ban expires on March 31^st. They are doing this in 90-day tranches. It looks like we will be back to in-person meetings on April 1^st unless the law and science changes. Luginski said he just wanted to confirm that what he’d heard was accurate.

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 2:20:06)

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording – http://216.11.46.126/VOD/3363-Village-of-the-City-of-C-v1/vod.mp4
  • 20210208 – City Council packet
  • COVOC Capital Improvement Plan 052620 Public Hearing