City Council

CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012 IN CITY HALL Mayor Richard J. Notte called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Notte led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and Walter C. Blessed, City Clerk, gave the Invocation. Council Members present at roll call: Deanna Koski, Richard J. Notte, Joseph V. Romano, Maria G. Schmidt, Paul Smith, Michael C. Taylor, Barbara A. Ziarko. Also Present: Mark D. Vanderpool, City Manager; Jeffrey Bahorski, City Attorney; Walter C. Blessed, City Clerk; Madeline L. Ranella, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Smith removed Consent Agenda Items C, D and E to become Consideration Items 7, 8 and 9 respectively. Moved by Koski, seconded by Romano, to approve the Agenda as amended. Yes: All. The motion carried. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER Mr. Vanderpool reported beginning July 1, homeowners can use their checking or savings accounts to pay their property taxes online using the City website: www.sterling- heights.net. This new service is free and is a convenient way to instantly pay property taxes without having to come to City Hall. Residents will be able to print out a paid receipt, as well as receive an email confirming that the City received their payment. Mr. Vanderpool reported the Police Chief would begin holding evening hours on August 6 and continuing on the 1st Monday of each month. Chief Reese will open doors to the public during the evening hours of 6-8 pm to take requests for service, answer questions and discuss issues of importance from the community. Mr. Vanderpool reported the Sterling Heights Police Department joins law enforcement agencies across the country in hosting the 29th annual National Night Out on Tuesday, August 7 at 6:30 – 9 pm at the Police Department. This event will include demonstration of public safety equipment and displays from the police and fire departments. This one- Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 2 night event is free and promotes public safety and a sense of community between the police and residents. Mr. Vanderpool reported as a result of the 2010 census, political redistricting and precinct boundaries have been changed within the City and therefore new voter cards are being mailed. Voters should pay attention to their precinct number and polling location, as many voters will be voting at a new polling location for the August 7, 2012 primary Election and the November 6, 2012 General Election. Mr. Vanderpool reported this year’s Sterlingfest would take place on Thursday, July 26, Friday, July 27 and Saturday, July 28, 2012 from 10 am to 11 pm each day. Music, food, children’s entertainment, a midway, carnival games and arts and crafts highlight the three-day festival. Some of the finest entertainers in southeast Michigan are based right here in Sterling Heights. The Sterlingfest Concert Series in Dodge Park opens on Thursday at 7 pm with Gone by Sunset, followed by the annual balloon launch and an 8 pm performance by Mega 80’s. On Friday, The Shy will perform at 7 pm followed by a performance by Toppermost (Beatles tribute). On Saturday, Greatest Hits Live (Styx/Journey tribute) will perform on the Dodge Park main stage following opening act, Kaleido. A short public announcement broadcast was shown at this time. ORDINANCE ADOPTION 1. Moved by Romano, seconded by Ziarko, BE IT ORDAINED, to adopt the ordinance amending Articles 22 and 25 of Zoning Ordinance No. 278 to create the Commercial Redevelopment Planned Unit Development Option and establish procedures and standards of review for approval, Case No. Z-1120. CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS COUNTY OF MACOMB, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 278-SS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE 22 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 22.06 TO PROVIDE A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OPTION; TO AMEND THE TITLE OF ARTICLE 25 AND AMEND SECTION 25.01 TO AUTHORIZE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY USE APPROVALS OTHER THAN SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVALS; TO AMEND ARTICLE 25 TO ADD SECTION 25.04 TO AUTHORIZE OTHER DISCRETIONARY USE APPROVALS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION; AND TO MAKE ANY OTHER TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 3 ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 278 (ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 13, 1989, AS AMENDED). Section 1. Article 22 of Zoning Ordinance No. 278 shall be amended to add Section 22.06 of the Zoning Ordinance which shall read as follows: SECTION 22.06 COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OPTION A. Intent 1. The intent of the Commercial Redevelopment Planned Unit Development Option (“CRPUD Option”) is to provide a renovation/redevelopment option for eligible commercial establishments and shopping centers in C-1 Local Convenience Business, C-2 Planned Comparison, or C-3 General Business Districts that will provide more flexible, streamlined standards and procedures to encourage upgrading, beautification and revitalization of the commercial establishment or shopping centers. 2. The CRPUD Option is intended to provide opportunities for renovation, enhancement, beautification, reoccupancy and revitalization of vacant, underdeveloped, or underutilized commercial establishments or shopping centers which were developed many years ago when the needs, land uses, and applicable regulations were substantially different than they are presently. Land use regulations applicable to such uses have changed in order to reflect changing needs and economic realities. 3. The Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Sterling Heights are desirous of having such commercial establishments or shopping centers be renovated, redeveloped, and reoccupied with vibrant uses which provide economic vitality to the commercial establishment or shopping center, other tenants, City residents, and the community at large. 4. Therefore, in the interest of promoting productive use of such properties, as contemplated in the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Act 110 of 2006, as amended, MCL 125.3201 et seq., this section is intended to authorize renovation, redevelopment, beautification, reoccupancy and revitalization of commercial establishments or shopping centers which qualify under the qualification standards of this section. B. Recommendation of Plan Review Committee of Eligibility for Redevelopment or Enhancement of Commercial Establishment or Shopping Center Under the Commercial Redevelopment Planned Unit Development Option 1. In order for a commercial establishment or shopping center to be considered for approval to redevelop or enhance a commercial establishment or shopping center under the CRPUD Option, the owner or developer of the commercial establishment or shopping center must informally meet with a Plan Review Committee comprised of the City Development Director, City Planner, City Engineer, Economic Development Manager, any other City Manager designee and Business Development Manager to discuss the applicant’s intentions with respect to renovating, enhancing, beautifying, reoccupying the building or tenant spaces, and otherwise revitalizing the commercial establishment or shopping center. There shall be no fee for this initial preliminary conference. The owner or developer shall furnish the Plan Review Committee with pre-preliminary conceptual site plan which shows the intended redevelopment and reoccupancy changes intended to be made under the CRPUD Option. In determining whether the proposed redevelopment or reoccupancy of the commercial establishment or shopping center will be recommended to the Planning Commission for proceeding under the CRPUD Option, the applicant and the Plan Review Committee shall consider the following criteria: a. The size of the commercial establishment or shopping center parcel shall be 25 acres or less and the age and general condition of the shopping center (priority given to shopping centers over 20 years of age) Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 4 b. The current zoning of the commercial establishment or shopping center and the extent to which it complies with current standards of the Zoning Ordinance, City Code, and other regulatory provisions relating to exterior design, ingress and egress, pedestrian accessibility, signage and landscaping c. The current occupancy level, tenant mix, and economic viability of the commercial establishment or shopping center d. Any physical site characteristics or other restrictions limiting the ability of the commercial establishment or shopping center to comply with the current standards of the Zoning Ordinance, City Code, and other regulatory provisions e. The proposed improvements and renovations and new uses proposed to be added to the commercial establishment or shopping center under the CRPUD Option and the extent, if any, that the proposed renovations and changes in occupancy in the commercial establishment or shopping center will bring the commercial establishment or shopping center into greater conformance with the Master Land Use Plan, Zoning Ordinance and benefit the city at large f. The extent, if any, to which the enhancement and redevelopment of the commercial establishment or shopping center incorporates unique uses and design elements which will promote the long-term viability of the commercial establishment or shopping center, using either the special land use or other discretionary land use approval provisions of Article 25, the planned unit development options of Section 22.03 which shall be available, or the CRPUD provisions of Section 22.05. g. The extent to which the design elements from the Simplified Traditional architectural style as set forth in Article 26 and Section 31.01 will be incorporated into the enhancement or redevelopment of the commercial establishment or shopping center. h. The overall benefit of the proposed renovations and changes in occupancy in the commercial establishment or shopping center upon the public healthy, safety and welfare of the community. 2. After the owner or developer meets with the Plan Review Committee, the Plan Review Committee shall review the pre-preliminary conceptual site plan, correspondence, narratives, sketches, or other materials submitted to determine the extent that it meets the criteria and intent of the CRPUD Option based upon the criteria set forth in section B 1 above. If the Plan Review Committee determines that the shopping center should be eligible for redevelopment and/or reoccupancy under the CRPUD Option based upon such criteria, the Plan Review Committee shall notify the applicant and the Office of Planning in writing of its recommendation. 3. If the Plan Review Committee determines that the commercial establishment or shopping center should not be eligible for redevelopment and/or reoccupancy based upon the CRPUD Option criteria above, the Plan Review Committee shall advise the applicant in writing as to the reasons for such recommendation. An adverse recommendation from the Plan Review Committee shall not preclude the owner or developer from requesting qualification from the Planning Commission to redevelop the commercial establishment or shopping center under the CRPUD Option. 4. An owner or developer of a commercial establishment or shopping center which intends to enhance or redevelop the commercial establishment or shopping center, or reoccupy the commercial establishment or shopping center with new uses under the CRPUD Option shall comply with the recommendations of the Plan Review Committee with respect to improvements. C. General Requirements for CRPUD Option; Approving Authority; Qualification Under CRPUD Options Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 5 1. The Planning Commission shall be the approving authority with respect to (a) qualification under the CRPUD Option and (b) approval of a preliminary site plan for redevelopment or reoccupancy of a commercial establishment or shopping center under the CRPUD Option. 2. After the owner or developer of a commercial establishment or shopping center meets with the Plan Review Committee and obtains a recommendation regarding redevelopment and/or reoccupancy under the CRPUD Option, the owner or developer shall proceed with obtaining review and qualification by the Planning Commission of the commercial establishment or shopping center under the CRPUD Option and approval of a preliminary site plan. The Planning Commission may approve the CRPUD in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section after a public hearing held by the Planning Commission subject to the following: a. The Planning Commission shall not approve qualification of a commercial establishment or shopping center for redevelopment or reoccupancy under the CRPUD Option unless it finds that the following have been satisfied (unless inapplicable) by a simple majority of the members of the Planning Commission. b. That all applicable provisions of this section have been met or modified by the Planning Commission. Insofar as any provision of this section shall be in conflict with the provisions of any other section of this code, the provisions of this section shall apply to the lands embraced within a CRPUD area. c. That adequate areas have been provided for all utilities, walkways, recreational areas, parking areas and other open spaces, and areas to be used by the public or by residents of the community. 3. The plan provides for an efficient, aesthetic, and desirable use of the open areas and the plan is in keeping with the physical character of the city and the area surrounding the development. 4. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to hear and consider comments relating to the CRPUD proposal. 5. Upon finding that the conditions outlined above have been satisfactorily met, and following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall approve the CRPUD with any reasonable conditions. 6. Once an area has been included within a plan for a CRPUD that has been approved by the Planning Commission, no development may take place in such area nor may any use thereof be made except in accordance with a Planning Commission approved amendment. D. Specific CRPUD Qualification 1. CRPUDs may be permitted in the C-1 Local Business District, C-2 Planned Comparison and C-3 General Business Districts only. 2. The commercial establishment or shopping center proposed to be redeveloped or reoccupied under the CRPUD shall consist of contiguous land. 3. The proposed development must be in basic accord with the intent of the CRPUD Option. 4. All uses permitted as principal uses permitted, or special approval land uses and accessory uses permitted in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Districts, mixed uses as provided in subparagraph 5 below and other discretionary land uses as authorized by Section 25.04 of the Zoning Ordinances. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 6 5. A CRPUD may include complementary multiple family residential uses allowed in the RM-1 and RM-2 Multiple Family Residential Districts as determined by the Planning Commission. a. The use of creative development concepts including mixed uses should be used to create commercial nodes and gateways and facilitate renovation of existing retail centers as opposed to creating strip commercial centers along major thoroughfares. b. If a CRPUD includes multiple family residential uses, the housing types may be clustered to preserve common open space, in a design not feasible under the underlying zoning district regulations. The CRPUD may provide a complementary variety of housing types and/or a complementary mixed-use plan of residential and/or non-residential uses that is harmonious with adjacent development. c. Setback and other dimensional requirements of uses proposed to be developed shall be used as guidelines for reviewing a proposed mixed-use CRPUD. 6. Any uses listed as special approval land uses shall be required to comply with specific conditions relating to such uses, unless modified by the Planning Commission. 7. Elderly housing may be permitted in a mixed-use or CRPUD. The permitted dwelling unit density of the elderly housing component shall be evaluated based upon the type of elderly housing proposed (i.e. independent, assisted, etc.), the conditions of the site, anticipated traffic impacts, and character of surrounding uses and the neighborhood. E. Design and layout conditions The Planning Commission shall apply all applicable standards for approval contained in city ordinances related to land use and any adopted development guidelines and the design standards set forth below. 1. Where a planned or proposed major, secondary, or collector thoroughfare is included partially or wholly within the project area of a CRPUD, such portion of the roadway shall be provided as a public right-of-way with the width standards as stated in the master road plan for the right-of-way. The alignment of the roadway shall be in general conformance to the proposed alignment as shown on the master plan. 2. In order to provide an orderly transition of density, where the project being proposed for use as a CRPUD immediately abuts a residential district, (not including districts separated by a major thoroughfare), the City may require that the area immediately abutting the district shall be developed with a like development or landscaped open space. 3. Site design standards should include frontage beautification, buffering devices, landscaping, walkway linkages, controlled vehicular access, and attractive signage. 4. All yards, height, bulk, minimum floor area, and lot coverage requirements for the uses proposed shall apply unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission as part of the approved development plan. F. Submittal procedures and conditions. Three distinct steps are required to develop a parcel of land or site under the CRPUD Option: (i) meeting with the Plan Review Committee, (ii) obtaining approval of the CRPUD Qualification and preliminary site plan from the Planning Commission and (iii) obtaining final site plan from the Office of Planning. Any person owning or controlling land may make application to the Planning Commission for consideration of a CRPUD. In order to adequately review the preliminary site plan, the applicant shall be required to submit the following materials to the Planning Commission. The proposed CRPUD preliminary site plan concept plan shall contain at least the following: 1. Application form and required fee. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 7 2. A narrative indicating the period of time within which it is contemplated the project will be completed. 3. A site plan with four-sided elevations showing a layout of the uses and structures in the CRPUD and their locations including: a. Zoning of the property, and of the boundaries of each area if there is more than one zoning. b. Layout of proposed land uses, acreage allotted to each use, density of multiple family residential areas, and by underlying zoning district, and generalized building footprints; c. Roads, parking areas, drives, driveways, and pedestrian paths; d. Building setbacks and spacing; e. General location and type of landscaping proposed; f. Any significant woodlands that will be preserved; g. Identification of each phase, if a multi-phase development is proposed. 4. Any additional graphics or written materials reasonably requested by the Planning Commission to assist in determining the impacts of the proposed site plan, including, but not limited to, economic or market studies; impact on public primary and secondary schools and utilities; traffic impacts; impact on significant natural, historical, and architectural features and drainage; impact on the general area and adjacent property; and estimated construction costs. G. Site plan review. Upon approval of the CRPUD preliminary site plan by the Planning Commission, final site plan review and approval are required in accordance with Article 26 Site Plan Review Requirements and Procedures prior to the issuance of building or zoning compliance permits. Site plans submitted for final site plan approval shall also contain the following: 1. Structural outline (building envelope) of all structures proposed on the site; 2. Architectural renderings of building facade elevations, typical floor plans and topography shall be drawn at a two-foot contour interval. Elevation drawing shall be drawn to scale. Where more than one type of structure or design is intended, the sample elevation and corresponding floor plans of each type shall be submitted; 3. A plan identifying the areas to be dedicated as open space and recreational use showing access, location and any improvements. To assure the permanence of the open space and its continued maintenance, the developer shall provide a proposed open space agreement for review and approval by the City Attorney. The open space agreement must be in a form satisfactory to the city and shall include the following: a. The proposed manner of holding title to any preserved open space; b. The proposed manner of payment of taxes; c. The proposed method of regulating the use of open space; d. The proposed method of maintenance of the open space area and the financing thereof; Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 8 e. Any other facts relating to the legal or practical problems of ownership and maintenance of the open space; 4. The location of access drives, streets, off-street parking areas, and sidewalks; 5. A landscape plan showing location, extent and type of plantings and screening in accordance with the environmental provisions of Article 24. The owner or developer must receive final site plan approval for the proposed development within 12 months of approval of the preliminary site plan, obtain a building permit within 18 months of preliminary site plan approval, and complete development of the CRPUD within 30 months of preliminary site plan approval. This time limitation may be extended by the Planning Commission in response to a request from the owner. H. Regulatory flexibility. 1. The Planning Commission may modify by a simple majority of the members of the Planning Commission present the current standards within the Zoning Ordinance for CRPUD including, but not limited to use, density, intensity, setbacks, building heights, parking, design standards, and landscape standards provided the modification is found to improve the quality of the development above and beyond what could be developed under the conventional zoning above, or results in a higher level of public benefit, and to achieve the purpose of this article. 2. The use of creative development concepts including mixed uses should be used to create commercial nodes and gateways and facilitate renovation of existing commercial establishments and retail centers as opposed to creating strip commercial centers along major thoroughfares. 3. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have no authority with respect to CRPUD Option developments. 4. The Plan Review Committee and Planning Commission shall use any applicable standards for approval contained in city ordinances related to land use and any adopted development guidelines. Section 2. The title to Article 25 of Zoning Ordinance No. 278 shall be amended to read as follows: Article 25. Special Land Use And Other Discretionary Land Use Approvals Section 3. Article 25, Section 25.01 Paragraph A shall be amended to add subparagraph 5 which shall read as follows: 5. A discretionary land use in the C-1 (Local Convenience Business), C-2 (Planned Comparison Business), or C-3 (General Business) District in accordance with the provisions of Section 25.04 as authorized by Section 504(1) the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, MCL 125.3504(1). Section 4. Article 25 of Zoning Ordinance No. 278 shall be amended to add Section 25.04 which shall read as follows: SECTION 25.04 OTHER DISCRETIONARY USE APPROVALS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION A. The Planning Commission may approve any lawful use of land or building offering retail goods or services not otherwise specifically permitted as a permitted use or special approval land use or specifically prohibited under the Zoning Ordinance which is of a nature or on a scale which could possibly create a nuisance or have an adverse impact on adjacent uses,  Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 9 other uses in the vicinity, or the community-at-large if located in the C-1 (Local Convenience Business), C-2 (Planned Comparison Business), or C-3 (General Business) District provided the Planning Commission determines that (1) the proposed use of land or building otherwise complies with the regulations of the applicable zoning district, and (2) that the general discretionary standards of Section 25.02 have been met. B. The standards and procedures applicable to Special Approval Land Uses as set forth in Section 25.02 and Section 25.03 of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to consideration and approval of a discretionary land use authorized by Section 25.04. Paragraph A. Section 5. The first sentence of Paragraph B of Article 26.02 shall be amended to read as follows: The Planning Commission shall be responsible for preliminary site plan review and approval for all multiple family projects, all industrial, commercial and office developments when such property abuts any one family residential district, and all CRPUD Option projects unless the proposed project or development has been previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a special approval land use. Section 6. All other provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 278 not amended in this amendment shall remain in full force and effect. Section 7. This amendment shall become effective seven days after publication of this amendment or a notice of adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sterling Heights on the 3rd day of July, 2012, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sterling Heights on the 17th day of July, 2012. WALTER C. BLESSED, City Clerk INTRODUCED: 07/03/12 ADOPTED: 07/17/12 PUBLISHED: 07/22/12 EFFECTIVE: 07/29/12 Councilman Smith stated this is a very complicated 25-page document. He stated if this passes, the City Council is giving the Planning Commission authority to rezone property in C-1, C-2 and C-3 districts without going through the City Council. He further stated with a city of this size and so little construction, he doesn’t see the need to streamline procedures. He is opposed to the ordinance amendment. Roll call vote on motion to adopt the ordinance: Yes: Romano, Ziarko, Koski, Notte, Schmidt, Taylor. No: Smith. The motion carried. 2. Moved by Schmidt, seconded by Notte, BE IT ORDAINED, to adopt a map amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 278 to conventionally rezone property on the south side of Hall  Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 10 Road, between Hayes Road and Windwood Drive in Section 1 from RM-2 (Multiple Family Low Rise District) to C-3 (General Business District), Case No. Z-1122. CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS COUNTY OF MACOMB, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 278-172 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MAP OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN. THE CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS ORDAINS: Section 1. That the following parcel of land located in the City of Sterling Heights, Macomb County, Michigan, and described as follows: Land situated in the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb, State of Michigan, described as follows: A parcel of land, part of the Northeast ¼ of Section 1, Town 2 North, Range 12 East, City of Sterling Heights, Macomb County, Michigan, described as follows: From the North ¼ corner of Section 1, Town 2 North, Range 12 East, thence North 87 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds East, 1097.21 feet along the North line of said Section, being the centerline of Hall Road (M-59); thence South 02 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East, 60.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 02 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East, 190.00 feet; thence North 87 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds East, 570.09 feet; thence North 02 degrees 38 minutes 46 seconds West, 190.00 feet; thence along the South right-of-way of Hall Road (M-59), 60.00 feet ½ right-of-way South 87 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West, 569.96 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to any and all easements and rights of way of record or otherwise. Parcel Identification No. Parcel 10-01-200-026 Commonly known as: 14860 Hall Road Common Description: South side of Hall Road between Windwood Drive and Hayes Road in Section 1, Z-1122 be rezoned from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Low Rise) to C-3 (General Business) in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Sterling Heights and that the Zoning Map be amended accordingly. Section 2. All other provisions of the text and map of the Sterling Heights Zoning Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. This amendment shall become effective seven days after publication of this amendment or a notice of adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sterling Heights on the 3rd day of July, 2012, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sterling Heights on the 17th day of July, 2012. WALTER C. BLESSED, City Clerk INTRODUCED: 07/03/12 ADOPTED: 07/17/12 PUBLISHED: 07/22/12 EFFECTIVE: 07/29/12 Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 11 Yes: All. The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA 3. Moved by Koski, seconded by Romano, RESOLVED, to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended: A. To approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 3, 2012, as presented. B. To approve payment of the bills as presented: General Fund - $480,938.69, Water & Sewer Fund - $1,015,867.66, Other Funds - $561,298.49, Total Checks - $2,058,104.84. C. Moved to Consideration Item 7. D. Moved to Consideration Item 8. E. Moved to Consideration Item 9. F. RESOLVED, to award the contract for the 2012 Sidewalk Replacement Program, City Project #12-230, to Rotondo Construction Corp., 20771 Randall St., Farmington Hills, MI 48336 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract on behalf of the City. and RESOLVED, to adopt the resolution as required by §48.6(E) of the City Code for those properties included within the project area. RESOLUTION Resolution made and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Sterling Heights, Macomb County, Michigan, held at the City Offices on the 17th day of July, 2012. Members Present: Koski, Romano, Notte, Schmidt, Smith, Taylor, Ziarko. Members Absent: None. The following preamble and resolution was offered by Member Koski and supported by Member Romano: WHEREAS, the City of Sterling Heights desires to provide for the construction, reconstruction, or repair of public sidewalks at those locations identified on the attached “Exhibit A” in accordance with the current City of Sterling Heights “Sidewalk Policy” if such improvements are not completed by the property owners within the time frame specified by the City Council, Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 12 WHEREAS, Section 48.6(E) of the “Street, Sidewalks, and Rights-of-Way Ordinance” allows the City to require such improvements and invoice the cost of such improvements to the property owners if such improvements are not completed by the property owners within thirty (30) days of notification. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved: 1. The Council of the City of Sterling Heights resolves to require the owners of lots and premises identified on “Exhibit A” to construct, reconstruct, or repair sidewalks adjacent to or abutting upon such lots and premises. 2. City Council directs the City Engineer to cause a notice of same to be sent by first class mail to all owners of lots affected as determined from the tax rolls of the City, to the owner or owners of the lots and premises, in front of or adjacent to which the sidewalk is to be constructed, reconstructed or repaired, requiring such owner or owners to construct, reconstruct or repair in accordance with City specifications, such sidewalk as is required by this resolution, within forty-five (45) days of the date of the notice. 3. The notice shall also state that if any owner shall fail to comply with such order within the specified time, then the City shall construct, reconstruct, or repair such sidewalk and charge the expense thereof to the premises and the owner thereof together with an administrative charge not to exceed the amount established by ordinance to cover administrative, bidding, engineering, and collection expenses. AYES: Koski, Romano, Notte, Schmidt, Smith, Taylor, Ziarko. NAYS: None. ABSTAINED: None. ABSENT: None. Resolution declared and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above Resolution is a true and correct copy of a Resolution entered in the Minutes of the Sterling Heights City Council, held at a meeting of said Council on the 17th day of July, 2012. WALTER C. BLESSED, City Clerk Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 13 G. RESOLVED, to award the bid for Gainsley Drive Asphalt Paving, Lori Drive to 19 Mile Road, City Project #12-231, to Asphalt Specialists, Inc., 1780 Highwood, Pontiac, MI 48340 in the amount of $128,743.00, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract on behalf of the City, and authorize a budget amendment to use $149,342.00 of Local Road Fund Balance reserves within account #22700700- 988231. H. RESOLVED, to receive the lawsuit, Shawn M. Kronner v. City of Sterling Heights, 41A District Court Case No. S-12-3010-GZ. Yes: All. The motion carried. CONSIDERATION 4. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Notte, RESOLVED, to ask the applicant, 7 Star Inc., 2209 Eighteen Mile Road, to proceed with the submitted plans so that a more detailed and complete proposal may be heard by the council at a later date; provided however, that this action by the council shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the application or the general details of the proposal. Councilman Taylor stated he went with the two-step process because there was additional information submitted and he wanted the Council to have time to review it. He pointed out the Police Department had no objections to the transfer. Mayor Notte reported the State Liquor Control Commission changed the way liquor license transfers are processed. The City no longer has any say on liquor license transfers; we only have a say on dance-entertainment permits. Mayor Notte stated under New Business, he would like to entertain a motion for a resolution to be sent to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and the Governor expressing the City’s dismay with the new law. Councilman Romano questioned the petitioner, Mr. Steve Dickow, as to whether he has a liquor license at this time. Mr. Dickow responded he does have a liquor license in his name that he is transferring from his bowling alley in Warren to this location on 18 Mile Road in Sterling Heights. He further stated they plan to open the hall by August 1st if they get approved. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 14 Councilwoman Schmidt questioned whether this would be an actual restaurant or a banquet facility. Mr. Dickow responded it is a restaurant that would open from 11 am to 2 am. Councilwoman Schmidt questioned the type of dance and entertainment planned. Mr. Dickow responded it would be strictly for private parties. Yes: All. The motion carried. 5. Mr. Mike Lombardi spoke in support of Councilman Taylor’s amendment concerning presentations by City Council members. He stated he is looking at the question in terms of the office of City Manager and the office of City Council. He doesn’t believe the City Manager should have the exclusive right to allow or disallow a presentation and stated that makes the City Council subject to the City Manager. He is opposed to the unnecessary concentration of power on any one individual, especially one that is non- elected. There was a motion on the floor from the June 5, 2012 meeting: Moved by Taylor, seconded by Smith, RESOLVED, to amend the motion on the floor to limit visual aids to charts, graphs and pictures in digital form, without any video or audio, with the information provided to the City Manager by noon of the business day preceding the City Council meeting, and allowing the City Manager to exclude the material off the agenda only with an opinion by the City Attorney that it would open the City to liability. Councilman Taylor stated it is important to give City Council members the opportunity to display some sort of visual aid while they are making a presentation and he doesn’t believe the privilege would be abused. In order to streamline procedures, the City Manager should only have the ability to reject the picture, slide or graph if the City Attorney feels it would open the City up to liability. Councilman Smith supports Councilman Taylor’s amendment because it is a step in the right direction, but it still does not get us where we need to be. He stated the argument that the information presented by a City Council member could open the City to liability is true of anyone else who speaks at a meeting. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 15 Councilman Romano spoke against the amendment on the floor and stated he is not comfortable in doing this because the information would be out there and the Council would have to do damage control. Councilwoman Koski questioned how the City Manager prepares the agendas and where the Council might make a presentation under any of the headings on the agenda. Mr. Vanderpool responded in the current process when a City Council member has information they want the rest of the City Council to consider they bring that information to him and he reviews it to determine whether it is applicable to an agenda item and then he supplies that information to the City Council as a blue sheet attachment. Mr. Vanderpool added all items go through signoff and review by the City Attorney, City Manager and the City Clerk. Councilwoman Koski pointed out if a City Council member wanted an agenda item they could request it at a meeting. She asked Councilman Taylor to explain an instance where a City Council member would be bringing forth information like this. Councilman Taylor stated he is talking about items already on the agenda and if a City Council member had additional information or pictures to present on a particular item it might be very useful for this Council in their decision. Councilwoman Schmidt stated she is comfortable with the blue sheet procedure we have been using in the past. She believes City Council members could debate an issue without using pictures or graphs. Councilwoman Schmidt stated it is the City Manager’s job and charge to bring information to the City Council so a solid decision could be made. She will not support the motion on the floor. Councilwoman Ziarko stated she is not resistant to change when it comes to making changes, but the change that is made must be better than what we already have in place. She doesn’t see that in this particular amendment to the Governing Body Rules of Procedure; she sees more of a dividing factor rather than a unifying factor. Councilwoman Ziarko pointed out the City Manager is paid to run the City and the City Council monitors that but they could not be experts in every aspect of what goes on in the City. She is in favor of the present procedure and will not support the motion on the floor. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 16 Mayor Notte agrees with the present procedure as well. He believes this suggested change could put the City Council members in competition with one another. Roll call vote on motion on the floor: Yes: Taylor, Smith. No: Schmidt, Ziarko, Koski, Notte, Romano. The motion FAILED. The main motion was back on the floor from the June 5, 2012 meeting: Moved by Romano, seconded by Taylor, RESOLVED, to approve an amendment to Rule No. 7 of the City of Sterling Heights Governing Body Rules of Procedure to establish a procedure for Council members to supplement materials relating to agenda items. Councilman Romano withdrew his motion. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Smith, RESOLVED, to approve an amendment to Rule No. 7 of the City of Sterling Heights Governing Body Rules of Procedure to establish a procedure for Council members to supplement materials relating to agenda items. Councilman Taylor pointed out they are not trying to change the form of government we have and each City Council member has the ability to make presentations. He doesn’t believe every member of the City Council would be making a visual presentation. Councilman Taylor pointed out this is not taking away anything from the City Manager’s office, it is just enhancing the resident’s right to be heard and the City Council’s ability to make the best decision for the residents. He hopes the City Council members would give it one last consideration on a trial basis and see what happens. Councilman Smith stated the primary time when this comes into play is during the budget process when we have lengthy chart and graph presentations by the City Manager, Finance & Budget Director and other department directors. The City Council members should be able to present other verifiable data. Councilwoman Ziarko pointed out a statement made by Councilman Taylor that he doesn’t plan on using any graphs or charts and the majority of Council probably would not. She stated the City Council could not make a change for one person. She is concerned because it would only be personal information that would be presented. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 17 Mayor Notte stated he feels the same way he did on the amendment. He also believes six members on the City Council would not use this and one member might abuse it. He believes the issue is covered well the way we do it now. Roll call vote on motion: Yes: Taylor, Smith. No: Ziarko, Koski, Notte, Romano, Schmidt. The motion FAILED. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Smith, RESOLVED, to direct City Administration to proceed with the preparation of an amendment to the Governing Body Rules of Procedure to provide for the nomination and evaluation of appointees to the Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Board of Ordinance Appeals, Board of Review, Police and Fire Pension Board and General Employees Retirement System Board for consideration at the August 21, 2012 regular meeting. Councilman Taylor stated this has been a project of his for about eighteen months now. He feels one of the most important decisions that Council members make is to appoint a board or commission member. He is interested in implementing a new process in which the City Council could have more openness and more information related to the candidates. Councilman Taylor pointed out certain boards and commissions have more authority than others and that is why these six boards are included. He stated in order to give residents and City Council members a better review process, he wants to see a two- step process where a City Council member can nominate someone at one meeting and at the next City Council meeting, Council would receive the report from the board liaison. He doesn’t want to harass the nominees; he just wants to make sure we get the right person on the boards. Councilman Smith concurs with Councilman Taylor’s position. He stated the appointed members of our City government are subordinate to City Council and need to be reviewed by City Council. Councilwoman Koski believes the present process is addressing Councilman Taylor’s comments because the liaisons to the different boards and commissions give input back Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 18 to the City Council. Although she respects the input from the board liaisons and Administration, the appointments are in the hands of the City Council. Councilwoman Schmidt echoes Councilwoman Koski’s sentiments. The City Council takes the input from the liaisons, but the final decision rests with the City Council. She took exception to a comment made by Councilman Smith when he stated the boards and commissions are subordinate to this body. It is not City Council’s responsibility to instruct anyone on any board or commission on how they should vote or feel about an issue that comes before the board or commission. She sees the boards and commissions as part of the City Council’s team. She doesn’t see any need for a change if the City Council members do their homework on each of the candidates. Councilwoman Ziarko stated she gets a lot of her information from the application the person submits and from the liaisons that provide information to the City Council. She has no problem with the present process. Councilman Romano read the questions asked on the application for a board or commission appointment. He has no problem contacting the appointees by phone before he appoints them. The process we presently use is excellent and working well. Mayor Notte pointed out we are talking about six particular boards that really are six of the most important boards. He inquired of Mr. Bahorski since we generally reappoint every June and with this two-step process with the six boards it would be less cumbersome if we had these six boards at a separate meeting. Mr. Bahorski stated that would be a possibility. We could do the nomination process at one meeting and report back and do all appointments at a second meeting. Mayor Notte pointed out the City Council would not be voting on any change tonight; the only action would be to direct Administration to prepare the change for the August 21, 2012 meeting. He stated this amendment could be tweaked to everyone’s benefit. He will support the motion on the floor. Councilman Taylor suggested if City Council members are uncomfortable with liaisons making recommendations, he would be in favor of not using liaison information at all. Roll call vote on motion: Yes: Taylor, Smith, Koski, Notte. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 19 No: Ziarko, Romano, Schmidt. The motion carried. 6. Moved by Romano, seconded by Schmidt, RESOLVED, to appoint Paul Palmeri to the Citizens Advisory Committee-Community Development Block Grant to a term ending 6/30/13, subject to the appointee meeting the qualifications set forth in Charter §4.03 and taking the oath of office within two weeks. Yes: All. The motion carried. Moved by Schmidt, seconded by Ziarko, RESOLVED, to appoint John Connor and Frank DiMaria to the Historical Commission to a term ending 6/30/15, subject to the appointees meeting the qualifications set forth in Charter §4.03 and taking the oath of office within two weeks. Yes: All. The motion carried. Moved by Ziarko, seconded by Schmidt, RESOLVED, to appoint Peter Mattera to the Housing Commission to a term ending 12/31/15, subject to the appointee meeting the qualifications set forth in Charter §4.03 and taking the oath of office within two weeks. Yes: All. The motion carried. 7. Item C from the Consent Agenda: Moved by Schmidt, seconded by Notte, RESOLVED, to set a public hearing on August 8, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. regarding the application by A.G. Simpson (USA) Inc./Coplas, Inc. for an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate at 6640 Sterling Drive South. Councilman Smith spoke in opposition to the process at every step and stated he doesn’t want to discuss the tax abatements. He did a great deal of research on this company and expressed his dissatisfaction with their refusal to provide financial data, while expecting the City to give them a tax abatement. He recommended this item not be considered any further. Councilman Taylor expressed his concern with the reputation of the City of Sterling Heights if we refused to approve tax abatements that are allowed by state law. Councilwoman Ziarko pointed out the City Council doesn’t make up the rules; we get guidelines from the state. We are only voting tonight to set a public hearing and she Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 20 wants the residents to witness the public hearing and listen to what the City Council would be voting on. Vote on motion: Yes: Schmidt, Notte, Romano, Taylor, Ziarko, Koski. No: Smith. The motion carried. 8. Item D from the Consent Agenda: Moved by Romano, seconded by Taylor, RESOLVED, to set a public hearing on August 8, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. regarding the application by A.G. Simpson (USA) Inc./Coplas, Inc. for an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate at 6690 – 6710 Sterling Drive North. Vote on motion: Yes: Romano, Taylor, Ziarko, Koski, Notte, Schmidt. No: Smith. The motion carried. 9. Item E from the Consent Agenda: Moved by Romano, seconded by Schmidt, RESOLVED, to set a public hearing on August 8, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. regarding the application by A.G. Simpson (6700) Inc./A.G. Simpson (USA) Inc./Coplas, Inc. for an Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate at 6700 18½ Mile Road. Councilman Romano agrees with Councilman Taylor and doesn’t want to become a City that businesses and corporations run away from. He asked Mr. Vanderpool to explain the percentage of taxes paid by the businesses. He stated the City looks at businesses like BAE, General Dynamics and Chrysler as a benefit to the City and we have to keep a good relationship with these businesses. Councilman Smith explained the existence of this company in 2001 and the changes that occurred over the years. He recommended the City Council vote no on this item. Vote on motion: Yes: Romano, Schmidt, Taylor, Ziarko, Koski, Notte. No: Smith. The motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 21 Mr. Adam Vanderleun, President of the Emergency Dispatchers Union – Clarified their union would work to bargain in good faith. Mr. Jeffrey Norgrove – Fireworks ordinance. Ms. Denise Paulauskas of Roslyn Drive – Fireworks. REPORTS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATION AND CITY COUNCIL There were no reports at this time. NEW BUSINESS 1. Councilman Romano requested Administration prepare a resolution for the next meeting for the repeal of the Michigan Fireworks Safety Act 256 of 2011. He personally believes the City Council should increase fees while waiting for the repeal of this Act. He challenged the Administration or legal department to find out whether the City Council could request a sign posted in the establishments that sell fireworks saying the fireworks are illegal except for these particular dates. 2. Councilwoman Ziarko agrees with Councilman Romano. She stated she has been getting complaints from churches reporting people shooting off fireworks on private property. She requested a listing on the City’s website of all the state representatives that voted in favor of this bill so residents would know who voted for it. Councilwoman Ziarko requested Administration contact Waste Management and see whether they noticed an increase in the trash load following the Fourth of July holiday. 3. Councilwoman Schmidt supports the resolution requested by Councilman Romano. She stated the City Council needs to take charge and see what could be done. It is not only the legislators, but also our Governor that signed this bill. 4. Councilwoman Koski requested that the resolution be placed on the website along with the fireworks ordinance information. 5. Councilman Smith stated the state law gives 30 days where we cannot do anything about the discharge of fireworks, but on the remaining days there is no reason why we cannot crack down and put a stop to it. He supports Councilman Romano’s request for a resolution, stating the City needs to do our part to get the law repealed. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 Page 22 6. Mayor Notte requested Administration prepare a resolution to the State Liquor Control Commission and the Governor’s Office on how they want the cities to deal with liquor license transfers. Also in that resolution he wants to see that the State Legislators who make the laws that affect communities let the communities have some input on these laws. ADJOURN Moved by Ziarko, seconded by Taylor, to adjourn the meeting. Yes: All. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. WALTER C. BLESSED, City Clerk