Category: Rain Garden

Posted on

August 9, 2021, City Council Meeting

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

The sound quality was unacceptably awful again. 😒

Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:00:02):

The meeting was called to order by Eric Haven.

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

Pledge said.

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

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, and Joe Luginski were present. Jason Kniesc and Sue Wylie were absent.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:41):

Motion to approve the agenda as presented by Avery; second by Casey.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:01:13):

Chet Pardee:

    • Should there not be some council discussion of infrastructure maintenance spending priorities now that it is clear that an additional $48,000 will be available for sidewalk, street, and parking lot repairs in the current budget year due to American Rescue Plan funds? This will quadruple the $16,000 currently budgeted for street and sidewalk repair.
    • The owners of 104 North Main (corner of Robertson Court) have identified the uneven sidewalk section with a trash can, and the trash can has now been replaced with orange cones so that people will be alerted with the orange cones. Should other village homeowners be doing the same for sidewalk repair consideration by marking uneven sidewalk sections?
    • The budget was approved on 6/28/21. No repair proposals have come before council for approval.  This year’s construction season will be concluded with winter coming. It does not appear that any infrastructure maintenance projects are “shovel ready.” The HDC [Historic District Commission] has not discussed any fencing design proposal for the rear of city hall. I question whether that fencing, or city hall furniture, should be spent in the current budget year based on the small amount of funds in the current budget.
    • The current capital project budget totals $55,000. Pardee looked at what’s in the budget for Depot Park and city hall, and it’s $39,000, versus $23,000 for streets and sidewalks, which includes $7,400 for trees and signs (so it’s really $16,000 for streets and sidewalks).
    • It is clear there are insufficient funds for infrastructure maintenance.  With the recent success of auctioning city signs, Pardee suggested auctioning naming rights for Depot Park.  Contributing traditionalists could bid to keep the Depot Park name while commercial image opportunities for Union Joints, Washington Management, and others might provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city, thereby not requiring increased paid parking and providing the potential to extend the park to Miller Road.

Haven said that Pardee was referring to the $48,000, which is half of the $90,000 that we will get over a two-year period. Smith alluded to it expanding last time with an additional $6,000.

Haven said that they were very interesting proposals and he thanked Pardee for putting it in writing in advance of city council meetings.

An unidentified woman wearing a mask made a mostly unintelligible comment about speed signs. The middle of town and Holcomb benefits from those speed signs. She wanted the council to pay attention to the south side of town for safety and speed issues on southbound Main Street. Haven said that this may be related to our discussion a little later on speed.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:05:26)

Haven had a couple of items. He wanted to thank people on the voluntary (unintelligible). He is always eager and enjoys on Friday morning to see them help us weed the west bank. We have two rain gardens now, one on each side of the path. It was an enjoyable experience for everyone who really wanted to be there, and we learned a lot. The Clinton River Watershed Council helped us and educated us on what was a weed, what was a native plant, and what’s a domestic plant.

The other announcement is on Tuesday, August 17th, Haven is coming here at 10:00 a.m. The library will receive the Michigan Nursery and Community Landscape Beautification Award. This is an award for the Clarkston Farm and Garden Club. They will receive their award for designing, planning, and maintaining the District Library garden. We really appreciate the work. These people work very, very hard on our Main Street as well with all the planters; that doesn’t happen by default. Haven wanted to thank the Clarkston Farm and Garden Club for all the work that they do there as well.

No one else had any other For Your Information items.

Agenda Item #7, Sheriff Report for June 2021 (Video time mark 0:06:52; page 3/48):

Lieutenant Hill was not present.

Haven said that it’s interesting that the calls for service at the end of July, seven months of the year, are creeping up on the total of what we had for 2020. It seems like there is a lot of activity. Avery said that there wasn’t much activity in 2020. Haven said that people were staying home in the house and so on, but anyway, it’s noteworthy. It’s there for the record for anyone who is interested in looking at it. Lieutenant Hill is here from time to time. City Manager Jonathan Smith said Lietenant Hill was not on the phone.

Pardee asked if there was a significant increase in citations for traffic (unintelligible). Haven asked if there has been any change in emphasis for Lieutenant Hill, maybe in correspondence with what the Planning Commission (PC) has been doing relative to speed studies or have we left it (unintelligible) for now. Smith said that he thought it was just discussion during these council meetings that was good information and feedback for Lieutenant Hill. Smith thinks he’s taken it to heart, and he’s increased patrols. We see them out on the road more. Beyond that, Smith had nothing specific. Haven said so there’s been no (unintelligible) that you’ve given him. Haven said Pardee made a good catch.

Anne (no last name) said that they spent several days parked on Miller and Glenburnie. She saw people blowing through the stop signs several times. There were also sheriffs parked at Holcomb and Miller for several days. This has been within the last three weeks. That might be part of your increase in citations. Smith said that those two intersections have been locations where we have experienced people completely running through the red stop signs, which is of course extremely dangerous for pedestrians thinking that they are going to stop, and they just ignore it altogether. Smith said that Anne had a good point, and they are trying to jump on that. Haven noted that Anne must drive through the north end of town, and she said every day.

No other questions or comments.

Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:9:43; page 4/48 of the council packet):

Haven said the report was in the packet. It’s good to see the rain garden now. (Unintelligible.)

Smith said he wanted to comment on a couple of things. Stacey Kingsbury, our new code enforcement officer, is starting and we expect there to be some pushback. Things that we haven’t been doing in quite a few years will now be starting up and there will be no doubt some objection to the level of scrutiny that Stacey will be bringing now. Our plan is to phase into this kind of gradually. Stacey will be writing warnings, and we’ll see how the next step of writing a citation goes. If people are not reacting at all, then Smith thinks we have no choice but to issue a citation. If they’re reacting, but slowly, then we’ll cut them some slack. It is something that we want to phase into and get to the point where Stacey is all caught up. In our drive around last week, she identified quite a few things, things that Smith wasn’t even seeing because he’s seen them so many times. He didn’t notice, but she was pointing them out, most notably boats and RVs. Those are two areas where people are in violation if they are storing boats and RVs long-term, those will be areas that Stacey will be pointing out. It will start with just a warning with a request to have it resolved in two weeks. If no action, then a citation. Smith will keep the council posted on how that goes.

Smith said that the other thing that’s not on the list is that he does want to comment with Tom’s [Ryan, city attorney] and Jennifer’s [Speagle, city clerk] help, we have concluded that the proposal that we announced in the last city council meeting – to put on the November ballot a petition to make medical marihuana approved if the voters vote to approve that in the November election – did not have sufficient signatures to put that on the November ballot. We double checked all the signatures, removed the invalid signatures, and confirmed that they did not have sufficient signatures. So that will not be on the November ballot as we talked about in the last meeting, and Smith wanted to correct that.

Avery said he hadn’t seen the ballot proposal, but isn’t medical marihuana already legal? What exactly were they planning to establish here in town? Smith said it was to dispense it in one of the five categories – dispensing, retailing, wholesaling, warehousing, and delivering. There were five or six different categories. Avery said that there was an automatic opt out, and we had to opt in if we wanted medical marihuana. Smith said that was correct; we never opted in so effectively, we opted out. Perhaps Ryan knows, were they asking for a dispensing license, or were they asking broadly for any type of . . . Ryan interjected and said they were asking for a City of the Village of Clarkston Medical Marihuana Department. Haven asked if it would change the charter, and Ryan said that was correct.

Luginski asked if we would notify them, and Smith said yes, Ryan did. Ryan said that he just got a call today, and they want to see, relative to this disqualification, and we will provide that to them tomorrow. Ryan is going to sit with Speagle tonight and organize it a little bit more. They were notified last week. Ryan said he appreciated Speagle’s work on it.

Pardee asked if the ordinance enforcement officer understands the concern that Pardee brought at North Main that started two years ago? The HDC [Historic District Commission] said that was construction [demolition?] by neglect. An unknown person said it’s blight. Smith said absolutely, they stopped at both houses. He’s been in communication with both property owners. They’re being cooperative, but it’s just moving at a very slow pace. She is aware of that situation. Pardee said that two weeks doesn’t give them time to do much. Smith said if someone is painting their house, we know it’s going to take longer than two weeks.

Luginski said that it’s awesome that she’s on board, but Luginski hasn’t met her. Is there any chance that she could come to a meeting? Smith said absolutely. Smith wanted her to get her feet wet. Last week was just kind of an orientation meeting. Tomorrow will be her first day on the job patrolling the city. She will be here every Tuesday. We know we have a budget that we have to stay within. Smith thinks that it will be a little bit front-loaded with a lot of catch-up work and taking some time to get familiar with all the residents. She’s familiar with all the ordinances, so we don’t have to pay her wages just to learn the ordinances; she already knows those. It will take a little bit of time. To Luginski’s point, it will be a good idea to bring her to the next council meeting and Smith will follow up on that.

Speagle asked Smith if he wanted to mention that Comcast was coming to install the phones in the morning so there might be a small window where our phones will be out. Speagle said that if and when she knows when that will be, she will put a ticker tape across the top of the website. It shouldn’t be long. Haven said it’s a good point because we’ve experienced difficulties in the last year that we are working to correct and he knows that Speagle has been working on this for a while. Haven asked what Speagle’s hope for correction was – are we buying a whole new system? Smith said that it’s a whole new system and it dovetails with Comcast and all of their services. The previous system did not dovetail in with Comcast at all, and it really didn’t dovetail in with anybody. It was just a system that was purchased and plugged in so some of the services didn’t work. Most recently, the voice mail stopped working and we couldn’t get access to, remove, or listen and remove old voicemail, so our voicemail boxes filled up and then we couldn’t accept any new voicemails. This will correct that. Something that we are very passionate about trying to find a solution for is the number of calls that come into the city. You’d be amazed, and Speagle was just sharing some data with him regarding the number of calls that do not belong to the city. We get quite a number of calls for Independence Township business that don’t belong here or people who have lived here thirty years and say that they live in Clarkston. We tell them that their mailing address is Clarkston, but they don’t live in the city. They insist that they live on Snow Apple and are in Clarkston. We educate them and they get angry with us. That’s problem number one.

Problem number two is we get a lot of calls for police. They think we are a police department, and apparently there is some truth to this. If you Google Clarkston Police, it doesn’t give you the Sheriff, it gives you our number here. Speagle has worked with Google, but Google is very big, and she’s tried to correct that. If you put in Clarkston Police and it shows the Village of Clarkston website right off the bat, so that’s the first place they call. Speagle has worked with Comcast and Google to try to get that changed; it’s not going to work. They just won’t do it. And the problem is that you can tell that some of the calls we get are actual emergencies, and they’re talking and talking and talking, and we’re trying to cut in without being rude and say hold on, you need the police.

Smith said that the key is that this system will have, like you have experienced a thousand times, you call in and it gives you an introductory comment, and through that introductory comment, we’re still working on the wording of it, it effectively tries to screen out calls that don’t belong to us. And then, once you are past that, it will say if you want to speak to the Clerk, press one, etc., and that will filter out some of the noise. The phone just rings constantly. Mondays are really bad days, and Smith doesn’t mean bad in terms of we don’t want to help our residents, he means bad because we get a lot of calls that don’t belong here, and it wastes time. So, the thought is that this new system will help all that.

Smith also wanted to comment on the cost. He didn’t tell them the exact cost and doesn’t have the exact number in front of him, but it is well under $500, a one-time cost, so that’s why it didn’t come to council, that’s why he didn’t get three bids. Someone asked why he didn’t get three bids on this, and Smith said that it was under $500, within his control, something we needed, and he just did it. Speagle said that it’s Comcast and we already have their system. The phones that we have now are Avaya, and she has called and talked to Avaya numerous times. We have never had a contract with them, which tells her that these phones were just purchased, plugged in, and that was it. There is nothing that they will do or can do for us, and they are outdated. So, when she called Comcast, they said it would be minimal and these are new phones, state of the art, updated. Speagle did a lazy summary over a little over two weeks to tally how many calls we get per day for Independence Township, Police, Other – which could be Springfield Township – and it turned out that 74% of the calls are not ours. That’s a lot of time spent out of all of our days answering phone calls that don’t have anything to do with us here.

Haven thanked Speagle for all that she’s doing and knows that it’s been frustrating for her.

No other questions or comments on the city manager’s report.

Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:22:10):

    • 07-12-2021 Final Minutes (page 5/48 of the council packet)
    • 07-26-2021 Draft Minutes (page 7/48 of the council packet)
    • 08-09-2021 Treasurer’s Report for City Council Meeting (page 9/48 of the council packet)
    • 08-04-2021 Check Disbursement Report from 07-01-2021 to 07-31-2021 (page 10/48 of the council packet)
    • Thomas J. Ryan, PC, July invoices (page 12/48 of the council packet)
    • 07-30-2021 – Ray Wiegand’s Nursery, tree and planting invoice (page 15/48 of the council packet)

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda. For those who don’t know what that is, it is a compilation of our final minutes from two meetings ago, the draft minutes from last meeting, and also the treasurer’s report. Council can pull anything out of that compilation and address it individually or we can approve it lock, stock, and barrel, which is what the consent agenda is about. So that’s the nature of that.

Haven said he would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented to us.

Avery made the motion to accept the consent agenda as presented; Luginski second.

Haven asked if there was any discussion or anything anyone wanted to pull out of it.

Pardee said that MML [Michigan Municipal League] insurance is on the list of checks, and Pardee knows that in the past we’ve been shocked by what’s happened with Errors and Omissions. Pardee is wondering if the Errors and Omissions insurance that we renewed in July is within the budget. Smith said it was and it’s less than $8,000. Smith said as you recall, we went on the conservative side and budgeted 8% because our insurance is going up like crazy, and they all came in with actual costs under budget. We’ll have excess funds in our insurance accounts this year. Workmen’s compensation is still pending. Smith doesn’t think he’s seen the actual invoice because we have to do this whole payroll assessment.

Pardee asked about the Wiegand’s Nursery item, in part driven by the two (unintelligible) on South Main and he’s wondering are those replacements part of what we are paying the $1,700 for? Smith said all of the $1,741 is for replacement of dead city trees. There’s one in the park, and there are two on North Holcomb that are in the city that just died of natural causes. The tree committee identified these as diseased and needing replacement. Pardee said that we have a five-year warranty – is there some cash that is coming back to us based on the death occurring within the five-year warranty period? Smith doesn’t know the status of that. Pardee said that the fine print says that what you get back is the purchase price.

Pardee asked if the council salaries were for last year, and Smith said that they were. Smith said we do a detailed analysis regarding who attended what meetings, and other than the mayor who receives a flat rate, the rest of them are all variable by meeting.

Pardee noted that HRC’s [Hubbell, Roth & Clark] invoices were not included in this packet, but the checks were written on the 28th of July. Pardee said you have to read the fine print of the description to understand why the invoices from HRC weren’t here. Pardee noted that the charges were for grant writing and engineering services. That’s just a reminder that the public is helped by seeing the invoices for things.

Pardee said that there were some parking expenses, and it looks like you may have (unintelligible). Pardee was just wondering, as we pay those, what fund do they come out of? We have our operating budget fund separate from the parking fund. Smith said that they come directly out of the parking fund; they do not come out of our operating fund budgets. That would be true as well as the hourly wage for the parking enforcement officer. T2 is the manufacturer of the kiosk. We paid for the kiosk in cash, but we do have a monthly software fee that we pay. It’s minimal. Passport is another company that does the online payment capabilities, and we pay a small fee for them too. All three of those – hourly rate, Passport, and T2 – all of them come directly out of the parking fund and don’t hit our administrative.

Pardee said that must mean that there is some little amount left in the parking fund, even though we’ve suspended parking. Smith said that even though we’ve suspended parking, we kept it at around $2,000, and as he recalls, we didn’t want to drain it right down to zero. We have parking revenue coming in now to the tune of about $1,000-$1,200 per week.

No additional questions or comments.

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

Agenda Item #10, Old Business

Item 10a – Discussion: M15 Speed Data Update (Video time mark 0:28:53)

Haven said that the PC is here with bells on tonight with three items on the agenda.

They’ve been taking data for a long time now, and CJ [Savik] wanted to provide a status report. [Note: Savik’s presentation was not included in the council packet.]

Savik said that this is a briefer presentation, but it addresses some specific questions that have come up at council about how far above the speed limit drivers were going when they were speeding. We identified that people did tend to speed, especially at the southbound side by the expressway, but that data didn’t show us by how much.

She presented categories referred to as “speed bins.” She had a 26–30-mile speed bin and an average speed bin. By the southbound side, the peak of the average speed from June 7th to June 13th was 31-35 miles per hour, meaning that the average when people hit that speed sign is above 30 miles per hour, but we see it drop off pretty significantly after 40 miles per hour. We don’t see a lot of people being speed demons past the sign, but we do see a lot of people hovering right at the upper edge, just over that sign.

The next graph looks at the peak speed. If you’re slowing down right in front of the sign, it has different speeds and shows as you slow down. This looks at the peak speed and that one peaks a little higher in the 36-40 mile per hour speed bin, which suggests people are slowing down if their average speed is lower than their peak speed, but it still does suggest that people are, as we’ve seen before, speeding by that sign – but not by any large amount.

Haven asked if she’s saying that the signs are taking data constantly and can record more than one data collection point for each vehicle. Savik agreed.

The next graph is from the northbound sign, the one right after the intersection in town, and we see that on the average speed, people are hitting that sign at 21-25 miles per hour mostly. This one has the sharper drop-off after that, and the peak speed shows a similar trend. The peak is up over 26-30 miles per hour, but this one tends to be below that speed limit. Savik said that she knows that we’ve discussed that there are environmental factors about that sign where people would tend to go slower, rather than the one at the southbound sign where people are coming off the expressway.

The next chart looks at Monday, June 7th, on a weekday. The speed bins on the southbound Main Street sign peaks around 31-35 miles per hour, similar to what we saw on the weekly trend. People are tending to speed by a little bit.

The final graph is from a weekend date, Saturday June 11th and also during that week, and we see that one peaked at the same position, 31-35 miles an hour. That seems to be, based on the graphs that Savik has seen, pretty much where most people are driving at when they hit that southbound sign.

Haven thanked Savik and noted she’s been looking at the data for about six months now. Savik agreed and said she’s been regularly presenting data to the PC now for about six months.

Haven asked if Savik has any generalizations yet about what Savik has seen over that six-month period or if she had indications of what might be tweaked, nuanced, and so on. Savik said that people are speeding a little bit, but they do slow down to be around 30, especially in the period where we have our huge signs. [Unintelligible] end up lower, and as she mentioned earlier, there are environmental factors where it’s the light, closer together where you are not pulling off the expressway, you have to hit both lights green to be going pretty quickly through there, so she would be curious if the sign were ever moved if we would see something similar on the southbound sign where we tend to see people tending to go just above it rather than just below it. But the generalization is that the signs have helped, people are going closer to 30, even if they are just a little bit above, and we aren’t seeing people en masse going crazy fast most of the time.

Luginski agrees with what she’s saying. The northbound sign is right after the light, people are stopped and just starting to accelerate, and they see that. He would be curious what the sign would show if it were 2-300 yards down the road. He lives about 2-300 yards down the road, and he knows they are picking up speed as they come through.

Haven asked if MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] had prescribed where these signs were going to be. Smith said that was correct. Haven said if we are learning some things and relocation might be a benefit, would they be open to relocation? Rich Little [PC Chair] said that we can certainly have a discussion but at this point in time, he is planning to have them come to a September/October council meeting and explain our other project that we are working on which is much bigger planning and simulation work for Main Street. So get those questions ready because it will be a good time to ask them.

Luginski said we should look at that for the same reason that we just moved the sign on Holcomb. We could move the northbound sign further north.

[Ambient background noise made the sound quality worse at this point.]

Smith said in theory, you would take that sign and (unintelligible). The beauty of having a battery-operated sign is that we can move it. Now the post was rather involved, and MDOT was particular about how that post would be installed. We could replicate that and put a sign either further north on northbound Main Street or we could put it on southbound Main Street without any electrical work. It would be just putting in the right base, and then we could pick up the whole thing. This is essentially what we just did on south Holcomb.

Luginski said his concern is that if we eliminate something totally on northbound, north of Washington, then we are defeating the purpose. He’s not saying there shouldn’t be a sign south of town, but if you move that sign to the south end, by the time you get to Washington, they’ll forget all about that. That’s his concern. If we’re going to do it, it might be worth it to get additional signs for the southbound but not eliminating the one on Holcomb.

Anne said that if you are going to move it, when it first turns to 30 or 35, you know those cars are going faster than that. No study has been done on the traffic speed at the south end of town. These studies appear to show that it helps. Help us, please.

Avery said that it seems like what she’s saying is that the environmental factors for northbound are really the reason why people are not speeding. They are most likely stopped when they are coming from town which generally slows them down, and then you hit the light, so that means that you’re coming from a dead stop. If you’re coming from southbound, the speed down the hill, and if the light is green and you are coming from Clarkston Road, you just keep on going. Do we need a sign there so close to the light? Is it really going to make any difference?

Luginski said that by the time they get close to his house, that 30 mile per hour speed limit sign has already gone out of their mind and they are starting to gear up to get to the highway and beyond. Luginski didn’t doubt the numbers, but 2-3-400 yards down the road, as they get closer to 75 and they know they are getting to that area, they start picking it up. He thinks we should have something on southbound, but he would like to see that sign moved to in front of Curt’s [Catallo’s] building or just south of that to see what the numbers are, because he guarantees they are a lot higher than they are when they first take off from Washington.

Haven said that leads him to a question about the October presentation with MDOT. Have they at all been privy to the data, all of the six months of work that you guys have put into this thing, so that they can come prepared to think about maybe strategic changes or something? Little said that they have.

Haven asked if they’ve made a response, and Little said he thought they would have to explain a little bit more. It’s a little bit different. What they are working on is simulation and about what changes you make in total to Main Street to change the whole [unintelligible] attitude of the street. Little has spoken before about bump outs, raised crosswalks, flashing crosswalk signs, bike paths on each side, widening the downtown street sidewalks to make more room for pedestrians, to squeeze the traffic so they slow down, all of it designed to divert trucks around the city because they would be discouraged. Little said that we have shared that data, and you will see a lot of what the simulation project is working on.

Haven said as he understood it, that’s SEMCOG [Southeast Michigan Council of Governments] software. Little said it is, but it’s [unintelligible] SEMCOG and MDOT together. Haven said we are all trying to achieve the same thing, and that is a general reduction.

Little said that they would check with them about moving or adding signs. Haven said that would be great. Little said that would be part of the presentation. Little thought that was more operational, and he said that he would talk with Smith about it. Smith said it was traffic calming.

[Unidentified person] asked Little if part of the study was going to be consideration that all of Main Street has residential homes on the north and south. Little said that it was part of it, but the other issue is that this is a national trunk line. Little said what they are trying to do is move traffic, and sometimes, we are at odds with maybe what they want to do. Our plan all along has been if we can come into it with a study and a plan of what we want to do, it’s harder for people to pick off things. If we have a complete streets plan, then everyone works towards the same goal. That’s what we’re trying to do. It’s not easy. Unidentified person said she appreciated what Little was trying to do, but it would be wonderful if it could help all of Main Street.

Little said that as an example, the next time Main Street is repaved, probably four or five years from now, the paving, design, and curbing takes place within that plan as opposed to rolling through and resurfacing everything, putting up a couple of stop signs, and away they go. Avery said that we wouldn’t pay for this. Pardee asked if it was in MDOT’s five-year plan. Smith doesn’t know about MDOT, but it’s not in our five-year plan.

Pardee asked if the data helps Lieutenant Hill at all in terms of when and where he needs to be enforcing. Haven didn’t know the answer to that question. Pointing to the chart, Pardee asked if the data provided enforcement opportunities. Savik said that they aren’t by time; it’s the entire day’s data. She brought charts to the previous city council meeting that looked over a timeframe. These are looking specifically over speed ranges based on questions from the prior graphs.

Frank Schoebel said that the volume of traffic really dictates the speeding on Main Street. During rush hour, there’s very little speeding, but at 1:00 a.m. in the morning, you can have someone barreling through there at 60 miles per hour. That’s all in the data. We have that – is the sheriff going to sit there from 2:00-4:00 am?

Haven said that Savik has given us a tremendous amount of data. He appreciates that she’s included SEMCOG and MDOT together. We set up this discussion talking to them through one of our congresswomen about whether we can try something on Main Street. But you took it and made it more mature and sophisticated by getting the organizations engaged with us, so it’s not just sort of a superficial discussion about repaving Main Street. You’re trying to get serious with them and help them understand we’re serious by changing our environment here. That’s the complete streets idea. Haven said he loved what Savik is doing.

Little said that Clarkston is their pilot program. Haven said that’s wonderful. We won’t be a pilot for long.

Cara Catallo said she had a tiny recommendation. Since this is going to be part of our history book, so to speak, to clarify that it’s North Main Street and not just call it Main Street, because it’s technically North Main Street. Savik thanked Catallo for the clarification.

Haven said that he hoped that Savik enjoyed her engagement with us, and she said that she had, it’s been a wonderful opportunity. Looking at the data and getting her hands dirty has been fantastic. Haven asked if she would continue. Savik said that she won’t be as active next semester. She’s figuring out her calendar and looking at between semesters, which would be December and January. While she’s at school, she won’t be able to get back to get our data, so unfortunately, she thinks that she will at most have to take a hiatus from being as actively involved as she has been. Haven wanted to know that she is appreciated, and he thanked her very much.

Item 10b – First Read Short-Term Rental (Video time mark 0:46:03)

    • Planning Commission Recommendation to Council – First Reading – Short-Term Rental (STR) Definitions and Regulations (page 17/48 of the council packet)
    • 07-13-2021 – Memo from Benjamin Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman, Subject: Short Term Rentals (page 21/48 of the council packet)

Have said this is the second item for the PC and it’s the first read of the short-term rental ordinance. Haven asked if Little wanted to preface it, and Little agreed.

Little:

Little said that it’s ironic – he was walking to the office today around 2:00, the phone rang, and it was someone asking if they could buy a house in Clarkston and turn it into an Airbnb. Little said that we’ve been at this for almost a couple of years, and we’re getting close to what we are going to do.

Little said that the document in the council packet includes the memo from Carlisle/Wortman, the changes that will be made to the ordinance, the additions to the ordinance, and it shows the actual language. Back in the May timeframe, the council sent the PC away to develop some regulations. They’ve come back twice with draft regulations. Both times council agreed and wanted the PC to keep going and provide council with the language. That’s the detailed part and the part that cost a little bit of money.

Little said that they wrote the language, and they had a public hearing as part of the process. At the public hearing, they learned some things. One of those is the first item in the memo, which is the definition of a short-term rental. They made a change to that definition based on the public hearing data that came back to them, and they changed it to twenty-eight days or less. To explain this, if you restrict Airbnbs or short-term rentals to village commercial, which is what council voted to do, the definition in village commercial is twenty-eight days or less, which then includes all these regulations on short-term rentals. Twenty-nine days or more would be long-term. Conversely, in the residential areas where we are going to restrict and basically ban short-term rentals, twenty-nine days or longer would be allowed because that’s not by definition a short-term rental. In that regard, these regulations wouldn’t apply. The people that have short-term rentals in residential have told them that they have had some longer-term contracts with people; twenty-nine days or more would not restrict that and they could keep doing it.

We’ve covered the village commercial. Any advertisement would have to have the registration number in it. It has to be registered with the city. We have safety inspections once a year so when someone renews their registration for a short-term rental, they would have to have a safety inspection. Registrations can be canceled or revoked if people do not adhere to regulations, if they advertise without the registration number or if they stay longer than they should. It’s a two-night minimum and a ninety-day total for the year. The reason that there is a ninety-day total for the year is because we don’t want someone to buy a place and turn it into a full-time Airbnb. If we restrict it to ninety days, which means you have two days here, five days here, seven days here, adding up finally to ninety, then they are going to have to occupy it the rest of the time.

Finally, there’s a sunset clause that says that people who are operating in residential today for short-term rentals have one year to phase that out because they may have renters signed up. Maybe they were here this year and they want the same thing next year or whatever.

Those are the salient points of the short-term rental regulations. They are not very complicated, and Little thinks they are pretty straightforward. We’re at the point of first read, then we’ll have a second read, and you guys decide what you want to do, yes or no, up or down, however council wants to do it.

Haven said it’s been very interesting to watch Little as he ran through all of this. You looked at a variety of communities and they all do different things and probably didn’t help a whole lot, and you had Carlisle/Wortman assist. That twenty-eight-day pivot point seems to be a stroke of genius to Haven. It really accommodates, it gets us away from the weekend warrior kind of thing, but at the same time, it gives deference to the long-term renters. Haven appreciated the work. Little described to Haven why thirty-days was a little problematic and why twenty-eight days is better. Little said that he didn’t really see that at first, but people have long-term rentals, renting the house to somebody a year. That person is there because they are having a house built, or they’re saving money to buy a house, whatever the reasons. So, you rent a house in Clarkston for a year. In that year, the renter isn’t quite ready to move, the house isn’t done, or they don’t have the money saved, so they ask for a month to month, thirty days at a time. At one point, we had sixty days, and we would have been at odds with those kinds of people. Little never saw that issue and learned something from the public hearing.

Haven asked if there was any other discussion on this because this is what this is about. A read is to discuss, and we’ll get ready for what we’ll vote on next meeting.

Casey said that he had a concern about the sixty-day limitation. If someone is renting for less than twenty-eight days, they can do it twice, and that’s it? Little said he may have misspoken. In the village commercial, that’s the place where you can have short-term rentals. A short-term rental is defined as twenty-eight days or less, so you could rent in village commercial for seven days, nine days, or twenty-eight days, and you could do that up to ninety days in that same unit. You could come back again for another twenty-eight days, and back again for another twenty-eight days. But once that unit has rented for a total for anyone that comes in there for ninety days, that’s it for the year. In residential, you can’t rent for twenty-eight days or less because that is defined as a short-term rental, and we aren’t going to allow that in residential. There, you can rent for twenty-nine days or more and there’s no rule around it. It could be twenty-nine, a year, whatever it turns out to be, because we don’t have a program for long-term rentals. The sixty days is no longer part of it, though it was at one time. We changed from sixty days to twenty-nine. Haven said that you mentioned that in here.

Casey thought that the ninety-day limitation was difficult. If they’re here for twenty-eight days, that’s a significant chunk of time. [Unintelligible.] This whole thing is assuming the worst. [Unintelligible.] Casey didn’t understand why we have the ninety-day limitation. Little said that we did that because we are trying to prevent someone from buying a place in village commercial and make it a full-time Airbnb. The idea is that if you limit it to some number of days, and we picked ninety because it’s forty-five, two-day weekends, but by picking ninety, that’s not going to happen. They’re not going to occupy for the rest of the time, and that was the thinking.

Avery wanted to know how many village commercial buildings there are that could turn into an Airbnb. A flower shop, and then they turn it back into something that’s already built [unintelligible]. Turning a commercial building into a residential building, he guessed that’s where we would run into problems.

Little said what happened is that you guys decided to limit it to village commercial in order to not ban it completely but to not have it in residential areas. We didn’t throw everybody out, but we limited it. Avery said that the reason that we did that is because he believed that the supreme court said that you can’t do that in a commercial setting, but you can restrict it in residential. Ryan said you can’t have exclusionary zoning.

Little asked Casey if that made sense, and he said that it did. Casey said that he appreciates the work that has been done here. He thought we were being too restrictive. Little said that when we originally got into this, he gave the example of someone calling and asking if they can buy a home and turn it into a full-time Airbnb, and we say no. If they ask for the ordinance that shows that, we don’t have it. But because we don’t have ordinance language, it’s prohibited. Then they say we already have Airbnbs, did they get special dispensation? And we say no, they just did it. Then they want to know why they can’t just do it. So, the whole idea here, when we came in, we said look, you can make a choice. You can regulate them, you can have them 2,000 feet apart, you can ban them or do whatever you want, but you should have some ordinance language that addresses it, defines it, has some safety involved with it, and people understand what it is so that we don’t wind up in court over something that’s nuanced or not clear. That was our whole intent. Haven said it could even be based on size.

Pardee wanted to know if this harmed or encouraged short-term rentals. Little said it depends on how long they rent for. Pardee wanted to know if anyone was renting longer than ninety days. Luginski didn’t think we had any short-term rentals in village commercial.

Item 10c – First Read Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) (Video time mark 0:58:15)

    • Planning Commission Recommendation to Council – First Reading – Align the Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) Ordinance Language with the Master Plan (page 25/48 of the council packet)
    • 02-03-2021 – Memo from Richard and Ben Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman, Subject: Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) Ordinance Review and Recommended Amendments (page 27/48 of the council packet)
    • Article VIII, RPDD, Residential Planned Development District, marked up copy (page 33/48 of the council packet)

Haven said that this was the first read of the Residential Planned Development District (RPDD). There’s more than one property around town that this would apply to. He asked Little to present.

Little:

Little said that the idea for an RPDD is to align the zoning ordinance to the Master Plan. We’ve been through this several times. We developed and council approved a Master Plan in February 2019. In that Master Plan, we said that the density for residential mixed use was six to eight units per acre. But today, in our ordinance, the density for RPDD is 2.7 units per acre. So, they don’t match up. Our idea here was to make those compatible and understood.

The example used was Waldon and Main. The PC feels that there’s a good reason to develop undeveloped places in the Village. We’ve talked about that for two, three, four years now. Whether it’s that lot, or lots on Holcomb, or a lot on Pinehurst. In making that match, it enables something to happen.

One of the things they changed was the language for 10% commercial. What we said was if there was a development of some number of square feet, 10% of it could be commercial, but that would be up to the PC and the council to approve. The council has final approval for everything in terms of these developments. That has been controversial. It’s been both misunderstood and disliked.

Luginski said it was discussed quite a bit at the last meeting, and someone, he thought Schoebel, said he wouldn’t (unintelligible). He asked Little to help him understand the 10%. If we were to take that out, that gives them 0% in commercial. Little said yes, and tonight, you can say as council, let’s take that out. If the PC tried to take it out, we would have to have another public hearing, but Little thought that council they could take that out and asked Ryan for clarification. Haven asked Ryan if we took it out, would it still count as a first reading or would it have to go back to the PC? (Ryan’s response was unintelligible.) Luginski asked if it would take a supermajority. (Ryan’s response was unintelligible.) Luginski said that we could do that.

Avery said that if he understood the 10%, it wasn’t a given. Little said that is correct. Avery said it was just a bargaining chip for the council or the PC if someone came to us and said hey, we want to do this development, (unintelligible), and we could horse trade and say well, we could give you that 10% commercial, but in exchange, we want X, Y, and Z. Little said that was correct. Avery said it was something in the public’s interest, like repaving Depot Street for us, or whatever, but that was the idea behind it. So, if we take that language out, we’re not giving any kind of – Luginski interrupted and said right, but that makes it a lot cleaner. Avery said it makes it cleaner, but if it’s something we don’t like anyway – Luginski interrupted and said that he thinks that whenever you give a little, it’s a slippery slope, and it leads to longer, dragged out meetings, discussions, appeals, you name it, and so if we say there’s no, it’s no. Luginski said he was just throwing that out there for discussion. If it’s 0% commercial, then it’s done, we don’t have to worry about it, there’s no discussion, there’s no debate, there’s no coming back, and it protects the residential nature of the (unintelligible). Avery said it also stops us essentially from at least hearing proposals where we could give that 10% commercial and do something – Lugninski interrupted and said that he’s sat in this chair for eleven years and heard a lot of those, they don’t go anywhere. Avery said he’s not saying that we’d get one, he’s just saying (unintelligible).

(Casey made a comment that was unintelligible, and Haven agreed with it.)

Little said that it also goes along with the six to eight units per acre we added plus 25% for the right proposals, high quality, horse trading, wherever it turns out to be. The PC can say well, this needs to be an exceptional reason that we can give a 25% bump in density, but then you again as the council have the right to say we don’t see it. That’s another tool that’s used quite a bit, and that’s why we put that in there.

Ryan said that he wanted to say on the 10% issue, he thought that Ben [Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman] had said that the new modern thinking about planning, with new modernism and new overheads and whatnot, that you try to go back and try to mix some uses if you can and if it makes sense. Not to overlook or overwhelm a residential area, but if it makes sense to put some nonresidential, like a coffee shop in something, if it makes sense to do that. At least have the option to. It may not make sense in a project that comes to you, but the more forward-thinking planning is to use that kind of philosophy, that mixed use, true mixed use. Little said that you live and work all in the same place. (Little’s next comment was unintelligible.)

Clerk Jennifer Speagle noted that Steve McLean was on GoToMeeting, and he’s was asking how this would affect the Millpond Inn. Little said that the Millpond Inn has a separate ordinance, so in this particular case, it doesn’t affect them. Smith added as long as they continue to operate as a bed and breakfast. Little said that is a little bit of an issue too; that’s something for the ordinance person. Smith agreed.

Little said that there’s also a clause in there about approving standards, so that we get higher quality work, and there’s about six or seven clauses just to streamline the process. A lot of our ordinances need to be modernized.

Little said that two-and-a-half stories is the limit today; we went to three stories. The feeling was in certain, very limited cases, that might be valuable. If you’re building on a hill somewhere, you might want to park underneath and have the two stories above you where you can see it. There are some places in the Village where that would be pretty valuable. Personally, Little couldn’t see a three-story building out in the middle of everything, but in the right topography, he thought it could be of some value.

Haven asked if there was any discussion and called on Anne (no last name given).

Anne said that she had two points. The three-and-half stories, there is only one place where there’s a hill. She sees no legitimate, rational basis for three-and-a-half stories. Little said it was three stories. Anne said that she stands corrected, but she doesn’t understand the rationale for that and doesn’t see that there is any rationale for it. Her other concern was the mixed use, and she also didn’t see any rationale for that. Forward thinking and planning. What’s more important, preserving the nature of the residential district that these RPDDs would be part of or entertaining more proposals for development? She believes that maintaining the nature of the residential district is more important and asked council to remove the 10% from the proposal.

Little asked if there were any comments of feedback. Haven asked if we wanted to make a change, now would be the time to do it on the first reading. Haven asked if there was any sentiment on those three items – 10% commercial, 25% expansion number for density, or the three-story. Haven asked if anyone would like to see anything removed.

Luginski said that he thinks the 10% commercial should be taken away. He thinks it protects the residential area and residential property, it makes it better, and it makes it cleaner. Luginski believed that opens up a can of worms. No one is going to say that they are going to pave an entire street for us; that’s never going to happen. It opens up more issues. We should just keep it residential. That’s his thinking.

Haven asked about procedures. Do we need to make a motion about agreement among us? Ryan said that’s all part of the first reading. You can do it now, or you can do it next week, whatever you want to do.

Haven said that Luginski could make a motion if he wanted to. Luginski said he would make a motion to strike the 10% commercial out; Avery second.

Haven asked if there was any discussion. Bonser asked if we had a proposal, and they wanted the 10%. Haven said it’s still at our discretion; it’s a bargaining chip. Bonser said he wasn’t sure why we would take that out; it limits our options.

Casey agreed with Bonser. We need to have the flexibility to consider 10% commercial use. We don’t have to allow it. Casey acknowledged that Luginski was concerned, but if the ordinance is well-drafted, and we approach it in a business-like and fair manner, we can say no. Anyone can sue us, but we defend it based on (unintelligible).

Haven said that the ordinance gives us the right to make those decisions, the language is built in without making us vulnerable to suit, because that’s our prerogative, right? Does it bother you? (Question appeared to be directed to Ryan; no intelligible response).

Casey said that he didn’t think we should limit the ability to consider what might be a viable option.

Luginski said he understands the argument and doesn’t totally disagree with it, but the slippery slope that he’s talking about is we have a historic residential community, and this has been a battle we’ve had. He’s only lived here twelve years and has been at this table for almost eleven of those twelve. This is a continuous battle we’ve had and is probably not going to go away. The more that we leave doors cracked open to break into that, more of an issue is created. Mixing residential and commercial has always been . . . just like we had a few years ago with the Sutherland building. That was like the last border of the frontier, and you may not remember. In Luginski’s line of business, they write scopes of work. The more you let things happen that aren’t part of your original scope, the more things can start to degradate. That’s just the way he looks at this. Luginski thinks if we make it clean, this is residential, this is commercial, simple as that, we’re not going to argue about it, we’re not going to debate it, this is what it is. That’s his argument.

Cara Catallo had a comment. Haven invited her to the podium to help them hear her. Catallo refused and said they should just try to listen harder. Catallo asked about an overlay district that would increase the opportunity to do such a thing as adding commercial at a property. In her mind, this increases the likelihood of spot zoning, which is something that communities fight, like this 10% aspect. Catallo agreed with Luginski that it’s a slippery slope. She asked if she wanted to give 10% of her property, then could that be an Airbnb? Because couldn’t you just say if you’re village commercial, you could have an Airbnb because it certainly seems like that could increase that aspect. Catallo feels very strongly that it’s a residential neighborhood, and it should be a residential neighborhood. It seems like it’s taking away from the neighborhood if you suddenly spot zone that particular lot – or any. Catallo was curious what’s going to happen down at the other end of Waldon, what that’s going to do to the traffic going by her house? So, the idea that now there’s going to potentially be a large development at the end of her street makes her think that there’s going to be even more cars going by. It’s something that makes her feel flustered because she lives in that neighborhood as much as Anne does – she’s literally in the neighborhood. Catallo is a block away and it affects her traffic. She would prefer not to have that 10%, and she thought that there are other ways around it if he’s that desperate, but she doesn’t know why there needs to be some sort of a bargaining chip with a great plan. That’s just her $.02 and she asked the council to familiarize themselves with overlay districts.

Anne asked what more consideration? If you think about 10% commercial, if you look at the other smaller parcels that are vacant, the one on Holcomb for instance. So, someone could technically come in and put in whatever the density allowed on that piece of property, the permit could be residential, and it could be commercial. Maybe it doesn’t seem as absurd to other people as it does to her for Waldon and Main but think of the parcel on North Main Street that’s open, or the one on Holcomb that’s open. This would allow somebody to propose including commercial as part of that development if they were to get that rezoned as part of this RPDD. It’s absurd for considering commercial as part of this smaller parcel, and it should also be considered inappropriate for another parcel that’s in a residential district. Haven asked if Anne was saying potentially village commercial in a residential area, and Anne said right. Haven said it was this whole creep thing. Anne agreed.

Ryan said that this was not the death knell of the city. The standard is that it has to be minimum one acre lot. So, we’re talking about smaller properties anywhere in a residential area unless somebody can assemble an acre, then OK, but otherwise, if they don’t have an acre, they can’t get this consideration. No one is trying to open up the neighborhoods to wreck and ruin. It’s basically for a larger land mass that can be assembled efficiently, or already assembled, to provide something of a character that is of benefit to the community number one, and number two provides innovation in design and use. That’s all. It has to be an acre minimum. We’re not talking about going to the city line and trying to apply for – Anne interrupted and said unless you own consecutive city lots. Ryan said you can assemble a lot, and he’d already said that. Haven said it’s a lot of lots in an acre. Luginski mentioned West Washington and his house, which is a 5,000 square foot house on North Main on an acre. He could turn 500 into commercial, or he could ask for it. He didn’t say he could do it, but he could ask for it. Ryan agreed. Luginski said that not everyone has that kind of size or lot, but you could put a nice little coffee shop into 500 square feet or whatever. Little said he mentioned an office.

Haven said that there was a motion on the floor.

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

Motion to strike the 10% allowable commercial provision failed.

Haven asked about the other two considerations, three stories or the 25% factor on density. Little said three stories could be based on topical (unintelligible). There aren’t very many. Anne said there’s one.

Little said he didn’t think that the council would want to give the 25% up. He believed that what you get out of that is quality, you get a much higher quality development. (The remainder of the comments were unintelligible.)

Haven wanted to understand that better. We’ve talked about condos versus rentals. Condos can have common walls in them. That’s problematic, as opposed to site condos which can have a little bit of green space in between them. It would look more like individual homes. Just East and West Court. That looks like a community. It gets you away from what looks like a multiple, a bigger building with all common walls. 2,000 square feet with common walls are nicer because they have more capacity, more density allowance. (Little discussed a specific neighborhood, but his comments were unintelligible.)

Casey didn’t have an issue with (unintelligible). (Haven’s response was also unintelligible.)

Casey said if we don’t make a motion, it stays as is. Haven said exactly, and it goes to a second reading. Casey’s additional comments were unintelligible.

Ryan said in these types of ordinances, typically, these types of carrots are included for a developer to see if we can upgrade what’s being proposed to make it worth their while, to spend a little more money on finishes or amenities or grade space or whatever. You don’t have to accept it, you have the discretion, but it’s a reach to get them to do a better job with a better project. Why wouldn’t you want to try to get that?

Haven said he thought we’re done. He thanked Little for his time.

Agenda Item #11, New Business

Item 11a – Motion: Acceptance of Jason Kniesc 08-05-2021 Resignation (Video time mark 1:22:45)

    • 08-05-2021, Jason Kniesc resignation letter, effective immediately (page 48/48 of the council packet)

Haven said that the last thing on the agenda was to accept Kneisc’s resignation. Sadly, we do that, but understanding it’s a move for his family. He’s relocating out of state, and we wish him the best. Casey asked where he was moving, and Haven said to North Carolina, and they’ve lived there before. They own the territory and have a plan. We will miss Kniesc and appreciate his service to us.

As the charter reads, we need to make a nomination to replace him. It can’t happen before fourteen days from when he resigned, which was the 5th, but it can’t happen longer than thirty days after he resigned, so we’re in that window right now. Between now and next meeting would be the logical timeframe to make a nomination. Haven has a nomination ready to make and was waiting for the person to put together his letter with a description of his desire to do so. Anyone on council can make a nomination. Here we are. We only have two weeks. We have to fill the position under the charter. Ryan agreed.

Luginski asked about putting it on the website to advertise if people are interested. Someone who may not hear this meeting but would know about it if they go to the website. Luginski said he thought we have to do that. Smith asked if Luginski was talking about the website or advertising in the paper. Luginski thought that advertising on the website was public notification. Speagle said at this point, if we were going to advertise in the newspaper, it wouldn’t be in until next week. Speagle said she would do it on the website, but if council wants to put it in the paper, it wouldn’t come out until next Wednesday or Thursday and they would only have a few days. Luginski thought putting it on the website was sufficient.

Haven saw it as more of a sponsorship from council members. It wasn’t someone coming and saying hey, I want to be on council. One of the council members has to represent that person to council, to bring that nomination forward.

Speagle said that any resident could come up to a council member and ask to be sponsored. Luginski said that there isn’t a line at the door, but if someone secretly wants to do this, maybe they could call.

Ryan said that they had this on as a motion. The charter just says acceptance by the city clerk, which was done on the 5th.

Haven said that he would move to accept Kniesc’s resignation; second by Avery.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

Bonser asked how it worked for the election coming up in November. If someone were appointed, would they have time to be on the ballot, to circulate a petition? Speagle (and unidentified others) said that they would have to be a write-in, if they wanted to, or they could just fill out the rest of Kniesc’s term which is until this year’s election.

Luginski asked Speagle for the write-in deadline date, and Speagle advised that it is October 22nd. Luginski said that’s basically two weeks before the election. Haven noted that it could be turned in any time before that, and Speagle agreed.

Bonser asked if we were voting to accept the resignation, and Haven said he could vote not to accept it. Bonser didn’t know how you could not accept it.

Motion to accept Kniesc’s resignation passed by voice vote with Bonser dissenting (in a jovial way). Motion carried.

Agenda Item #12, Adjourn (Video time mark 0:39:29):

Motion to adjourn by Luginski; second by Avery.

No discussion.

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Resources: