July 23, 2020, Special City Council Meeting (held virtually)

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.

Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:00:01):

Haven called the meeting to order.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:03):

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:25):

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, Jason Kniesc, and Sue Wylie were present. Joe Luginski was absent. Haven said that Luginski asked to be excused tonight.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:54):

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:01:47):

No public comments.

Public comments closed.

Agenda Item #6, Discussion: PC Recommendation for Closure of East Church Street; Recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council regarding expanding seasonal dining into East Church Street – August through October 2020 (Video time mark 0:02:15):

• • Planning Commission Recommendation of E. Church Closure (page 2/9 of the council packet)
  • Artist rendering (page 4/9 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a discussion about the Planning Commission recommendation that the city council adopt a resolution prepared by City Attorney Tom Ryan to close East Church from Main Street to Honcho’s alley and allow Union Joints to expand outdoor dining into Church Street through October 2020. That recommendation comes with nine conditions included in the five-page resolution that Ryan prepared.

Haven wanted to clarify that this was not an exclusive act being taken by city council because of a singular business but, as will become very clear as people access the resolution online – and Haven encouraged people to read it – this opens the door widely for other businesses to do the same thing. The city’s request to various businesses was responded to by Honcho first. They paved the way and enabled us to put these provisions in place making it possible for others to follow. The ground rules are laid out in detail. Haven suggested if people didn’t know how to access the material online that they should just Google “City of Clarkston Michigan” and use the word “agenda” which will take them right to the city council agenda for this evening. Haven encouraged everyone to open the packet because it contains the detailed information.

Wylie heard both the presentation and discussion at the last city council meeting and at the Planning Commission, and she wanted to bring up a few things that were not mentioned at the last council meeting. With regard to restrooms, they were told that patrons would be using the restrooms in Honcho. People asked where the power would come from, and they are going to string power lines on the pavement. The Union Joints people were there and could correct her if she’s wrong, but she thought that the power lines would be put under rubber mats so people won’t trip over them. Water would be supplied. She asked them why they didn’t use the Union parking lot, and it’s because it’s something to make sure that the Honcho employees have jobs. If it were at the Union, it would be for Union employees, and maybe Union employees aren’t in such dire straits. They also brought up stringing small lights.

Wylie wanted to reiterate what Haven said. Since May or June, a number of people in the city have been reaching out to many of the businesses in Clarkston and asking what we can do. Since June, they’ve been talking to the restaurants, and they’ve all had the opportunity to express what they want to do. The Fed is starting to look at this. Wylie thought that all the restaurants are struggling to take care of so many changes, keeping the business open, keeping the employees employed, and working to make money, so they are all a little bit overwhelmed and are trying to do the best they can.

Haven wanted to echo Wylie’s comments. He had a good conversation with Peter from the Old Village Café, and he had some good ideas about what he could do. Haven wanted people to understand this isn’t singular in its application.

Bonser said that Section 3 of the recommendations referenced striping handicapped spots at the entrance of Church Street. He wanted to know if those are going to be out by Church Street and whether they are going to be temporary or permanent. Rich Little [Planning Commission Chair] said that there are currently two handicapped spots toward the back of Honcho, and we didn’t want to lose those. Once the trailer is placed at the end of Church, parallel with Main Street and with some concrete barriers put there for safety purposes, there’s an opportunity there to reinstall two handicapped spots. The Planning Commission didn’t think that they could be completely out on M15; they tried that in front of the Mason Hall and it was problematic. These would be parallel. Just about every parking spot on Main, across from where Church Street is today, is set back two to three feet. This would provide good handicap access for people and would not diminish the ones we have today that we are going to temporarily close for two-and-a-half to three months. Bonser thanked Little for the answer and said that he thought that the Planning Commission was doing a good job. Haven agreed. He thought it was a good question because the diagram that they were given really didn’t show that, and the resolution that they are going to consider requires that the diagram reflect what is actually going to take place. That’s an alteration that will need to be made as we get closer to approval. Haven said that the normal position of parking, if it continued across the opening of Church Street, would be parallel parking. He thought there would be angular parking against the back of the building. The handicapped space referred to is consistent with existent parking. Little agreed; you wouldn’t want to back out onto Main Street.

Haven said the detail and clarity is wonderful. He thanked Ryan for doing a great job articulating not only the provisions but also answering questions in his presentation.

There were no public comments.

Agenda Item #7, Resolution: Temporary Closure of East Church Street (Video time mark 0:12:01):

• • Resolution for Temporary Closing of E. Church Street (page 5/9 of the council packet)

This is consideration of the resolution to temporarily close Church Street. This is a five-page document prepared by Ryan who did a wonderful job. Haven wanted to have a discussion on the resolution and asked that everyone refer to the page number or paragraph as they are asking questions to help navigate the document.

Wylie thought that the driving force for all of this is for safety, so people can eat outside. Most people feel safer eating outside rather than inside, and a secondary thing is not just for Honcho employees but employees for all the restaurants. We really want to see them get back to work earning a living.

Haven thought that was a good comment. He benefited from reading through Ryan’s presentation. This is a win-win for everyone – for the employees’ safety and concern because of the distancing, a win for the customers, and the businesses can have expanded capacity in this time and prosper their businesses. A multifaceted win for everyone.

Ryan wanted to reiterate that while Honcho was the driving force behind this, it really provides for the whole city. It’s a resolution for temporary COVID19 outside dining standards. The resolution goes through the history of where we are in this pandemic and the executive order 2020-100 dated early in June when the Governor allowed bars and restaurants to open at 50% capacity. Wylie and City Manager Jonathan Smith talked about ways to enhance outdoor seating with social distancing for the city and its establishments, so it morphs into what is really a guideline. Any dining establishment in the city can follow these regulations. It’s an administrative decision made by city administration with the planner, so anyone who wants to expand outdoor seating can do so. Specifically, as to Honcho, the Planning Commission made recommendations based on their presentation. While the general provisions apply to everybody, the relief given relative to East Church is only temporary. It’s really a win-win for any establishment in the city that wants to increase their outside seating during these times. That’s how the resolution is structured and why it’s structured that way. It does provide specific relief to the first applicant, Honcho, but any other establishment in the city can come into the administration, follow the regulations, and apply for enhanced outdoor seating.

Haven thanked Ryan for the clarity. He was really edified by reading the nuances of what Ryan wrote because it becomes a roadmap for businesses to prosper here. It’s really a creative document and he thanked Ryan for that.

Haven asked about page 2, #5 – Ryan said that the food and drink establishments must comply with all applicable laws relating to litter, noise, and other livability matters, and in addition, no amplified music is permitted. Haven wanted to know what the definition of that was because there might be some desirability to have low volume ambience music as an undertone for dining. If you put a record on a Victrola and put the needle down, you only get a scratching sound with no music if there is no speaker. Some amplification is required to hear music at all, so Haven wanted some clarification regarding the term “amplified.” Is it considered low decibel or low volume, would that be permissible or verboten according to this language? Ryan thinks that it is such that it won’t bother adjoining properties. Haven said that’s fair if that’s what you want. Ryan said that we don’t have decibel meters in the city, so it’s a reasonable person standard. Hopefully, the people will be solicitous of the neighbors. Haven agreed.

Casey said that Rudy’s has speakers outside and they play music or the baseball games during the season. That seems acceptable to everyone so there is a sort of precedent. Haven thought that was a good point.

Casey said that when Curt Catallo made his presentation, he talked about two issues and the closing of the street was one of them. The second issue was a social area that would include Main Street from the river down to Waldon Road where people could walk around with a drink. What’s the status of that? Ryan said that’s a social district issue that will be reviewed as recommended by the Planning Commission. It’s a city-wide effort that will have to be investigated and does not include this situation.

Ryan said that this is establishment-specific only for those establishments that want to try to take advantage of the relaxed outdoor seating standards. [Referring to a social district], Little said that they conferred in Monday’s special Planning Commission meeting and have prepared a recommendation whenever Smith is ready to take a look at it. It’s a little longer term, it’s going to take some research, and it’s a brand-new law. They aren’t aware of any other cities that have done this yet so there is no template or history to fall back on. It will take some investigation and probably talking to every business to see if they would participate and how they feel about it. They just need more time to sort it out and ask council if they want the Planning Commission to do that.

Haven said that the resolution being considered tonight relates to spatial considerations and universality within the commercial area downtown. The other social district thing is more about universality of alcohol logistics around a broadened area outside of the establishment where the alcohol was purchased.

Haven asked if there are other considerations in the social district other than the alcohol consideration. Ryan said that there are guidelines that we have to go through to move this forward relative to our restaurants, and they felt it was prudent to do this first and then get into the social district guidelines and qualifications, hopefully for next season. Haven said he understood; he just thought that alcohol was driving the second consideration. There may be other provisions; he just doesn’t know. Little said the idea is to allow people to get outside again, with alcohol of course, but you would not be inside a restaurant or at a bar. You would be outside mingling in the open air, so it did result from the COVID environment. It deserves a lot of discussion, and as Ryan said, it will probably be spring if we decide to do it. Haven said that the legislature anticipated this because it’s out to 2025-2026 so it gives merchants some time to respond and not be under the gun like we are this summer. Little agreed.

Smith wanted Haven to be aware that Lieutenant Hill was on the line if there were any questions about access to the area by the Sheriff. Lieutenant Hill apologized for being late, but Haven said he was on time.

Haven asked about the concrete barriers being part of the provisions for these types of installations, not only for the East Church location but wherever else they are needed to protect the diners inside the enclosure. He asked if Lieutenant Hill could speak about the construction map, not to take away the décor, but to provide for the safety and functionality of the barricades that would be required for the enclosures around the city.

Lieutenant Hill said he didn’t know what they were called, but they are the same type of cement barriers that require a forklift to move and are the same as those used on the freeway to create a barrier wall between two different lanes of traffic. They don’t have to be touching or bolted to the ground, but if there were four feet between the barriers, it would allow people to go in but would keep a vehicle out. If you think about a two-way area in that spot there at Washington and Main Street, depending on the length, you are looking at four or five of them across the lane. He was concerned that there be some sort of signage or reflective paint or material on them after they are put in place so a car would see it and wouldn’t hit the barrier. This would protect the citizens and the public who are using the roadway area as an eating area or designated area to be in. Haven didn’t understand the spacing part and thought that was interesting.

Haven asked Smith if he was comfortable with the specifications of the barriers and didn’t know who the owner or mover of them would be. Smith said he would look at renting them.

Curt Catallo said that they reached out to State Barricades Incorporated about renting the barricades. They promised the city that all of the expenses would be shouldered by Union Joints. The only expense that they see the city shouldering is the administrative cost and the time of the council who was kind enough to convene a special meeting; they appreciate that. At this point, they understand the purpose of the barriers and agree. Catallo liked the barricades and will deploy two trailers to bookend the area that will also be a substantial barrier just past the concrete. Lieutenant Hill and Catallo both discussed being in areas recently where people were congregating and there was little protection for them because either a bike rack or cones were used.

Wylie asked if Catallo would ensure that there is something reflective on the concrete barriers. Catallo said he would, and since it’s an expense to make it reflective, they would probably brand it at the same time. They would apply for signage permits before doing that, but they could kill two birds with one stone.

Haven said in comparison to some of the penetrable separators that were referred to – cones and bike racks – Clarkston is iconic in the right way. We not only do it right for ourselves but are a good example for others.

Smith wanted Haven to be aware that even though Fire Marshal Bruce Harbin from the Independence Township Fire Department couldn’t be on the phone tonight, he is supportive of the initiative, thinks it’s a great idea, and doesn’t see any concerns from a fire support effort. There is access to East Church via Buffalo, Washington, Waldon, and in other ways. Marshal Harbin did agree with Lieutenant Hill about the need for safety barricades for diners, but there were no concerns in terms of fire protection. Haven said that it was good to hear that the trucks can access Honcho as well as any other dwellings or businesses along East Church and beyond the enclosed area.

Smith said he spoke with “some” of the homeowners on East Church individually, and Catallo has as well, and there were no concerns from any of the homeowners. Even the newest homeowner, right behind Honcho, was very supportive of the initiative, completely understands it, and there have been “no complaints whatsoever in terms of the residents of Clarkston.” Haven thought that was wonderful.

There were no public comments.

Haven read the last paragraph of the resolution for clarity.

Resolution for temporary closing of E. Church Street passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8, Adjourn (Video time mark 0:35:20):

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording – http://216.11.46.126/VOD/3211-ClarkstonCity-7-23-2020-v1/vod.mp4
  • 20200723 – City Council packet