Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01-26-1981 SpecialPage 27 MINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING January 26. 1981 A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was ca'led to order by -Mayer Davenport at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Center at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard on January 26, 1981. PRESENT: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Hoyt, Neils, Schneider and Threinen, City Manager Willis, Assistant Manager Boyles, Park Director Blank, Engineer Moore, Planner Tremere, and Attorney Lefler. ABSENT: None, MINUTES MOTION was made by Councilmember Hoyt, to approve the minutes of meeting as submitted. Motion carried, five ayes. Neils, seconded by Councilmember the January 19, 1981 regular Council MI NUT ES COUNCIL JANUARY Item 4 REGULAR MEETING 19, 1981 Engineer Moore reported that all construction work on public PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT improvement projects in the City has basically been shut ,town PROJECTS STATUS REPOR for winter weather except for the Pike Lake interceptor sewer. Item 5 Mayor Davenport rommented on the great number of projects whose tual accepted dates are carrying over to 1981 for clean up, and Council discussed the possibility of using the liquidated damages provision when the timing of improvement nr^,;ec:ts delays the developers in the City. Engineer Moore stated if we take advantage of liquidated damages iL may affect the next bids that come in. Councilmember Th roinen suggested since penalties are not satisfactory, the City shnuld take into consideration a contractor's h1story of tardy completion when bids are con- sidered in the future. Mayor Davenport questioned Park Director Blank about the expected completion of the community playfields. Councilmember Neils com- mented the Council expected the playfields to be completed in the 1980 construction season, but tl,-,y were not, completed late in December and temporary warming houses were put up to accommodate residents. Park Director Blank reported on the progress of the work in the community playfields including plans for seeding and sodding. Eniineer Moore reviewed 1981 improvement projects briefly and responded to Council's q«estions. Gene Holderness, president of Plymouth Development Council, PRESENTATION OF reviewed the issues of mutual concern between developers and CONCERNS BY PLYMOUTH the City as presented in the City Manager's -iremorandum dated DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL January 23. 1981. Item 6 27- Special Council Meeting January 26, 1981 Page 28 Mayor Davenport summarized the list of developers' cl;ncerns stating CONCERNS OF items 1-3 deal with development reviiew procedures and improved com- DEVELOPMENT rtti n'.criior„ between petitioners and staff' and Planning Commission members; 9-1G relate to Item 6 V,..: timely completion of public im- provement projects; 11-13 deal with the philosophy of cost -benefit; and 14-1' deal with the effects of inflation and with overall City goals and plans. Mayor Davenport asl:ed Maria Vasilio,j, Planning Commission Chair, to participate in the discus ion. Manager Willis explained how the staff Development Review Corm.,ittee is structured and how staff can address the fir;c 5 concerns. Council- ii7pmber Neils recommended that some record be made of the Development Review l.ommi ttee .^eet i ngs ref 1 Pcti :tg items that have beer, approve:' and issues that are not in accordai-sce w4th the Code. Councilmember Thrainen suggested a checklist of items could serve as a record of the meeting, Councilmember Threinen objected to adding any more administrative detail to the planning process, and agreed to 3 checklist deal ng only ii, -Ah generalities. Councilmember Hoyt agreed it is importa.t. to have a record of what poillts of agreement and disagreement result fro -n the meetings. Mayor Davenport concurred that some type of informal orandum listing Issues dealt with during the Development Review Con+mitt,..e meetings Should be recorded. The Mayor suggested initiating the procedure and working w'ch it uriti 1 it becomei, an effective device. It was the ::onsensus of the :,ounci 1 tha} some type of informal memorandum shol.ld he kept. of the meetings. Larry Laukka, developer, s`.ated the Development Review Coq mittee offers the developer an opportunity to discuss pla is with staff', without a structured meeting, and eliminates much discussion at the rlanning Commission and Council level. Mr. Laukka discussed the proposed time frame for preparing Planning Commission and Counci' agendas so that the petitioner's supplementary report may be incquded in the agenda PAO:Ke}s. Mayor Davenport commented regarding new material that, unl eis i t w,s addr,isseci in the Planning Commi ssi oil staff report, it should not he i nc' uded in tre sirppl e;;ientary statement to C ;unci 1. Manao er Wi11is and P1an;er Tremere stated that staff reports to the Planning Comgission and Council should be available 'o petitioners on the Wednesday before the meeting by March 1. Manager Willis stated concerns about dis- tribution of minutes pri,)r to adoption by the Commissioners or Council. It was the consensus that minutes could ne available to petitioners prior to official approval but they wolild be r1drked as preliminary drafts. Mr. Holderness explained that some developers seek an opportunity to respond to staff reports and need two days to submit a written statement which can be distributed to the Commission or Council with their agendas. Council discussed the policy for returning phone calls and agreed staff should make every effort to return phone calls within one-half day. 28- PLYII COU Special Council Meeting January 26, 1981 Page 29 Council discussed policy for returning phone calls and agreed staff should return phone calls within one-half day. Gene Holderness requested that a study be done of the existing trail system in Plymouth to determine what has been the effect of the trails on the pro- perty on which they are located, on abuses by motorized vehicles, and on the usage pattern that has developed. Mr. Holderness stated the Development Council felt, in some instances, trails have had the effect of ..evaluing pro- perty and contributing to a loss of privacy. They felt the public does not Uke where the trails are being placed, and a study of the psychological effects and usage patterns of trails in the City would be useful. Mr. Holderness suggested the study should include data collection. including questionnaires which would gather the opinions of residents in the City. Mayor Davenport expressed concern about ending up with segments of trails that don't go anywhere. He pr000sed the trail study should have a view towards looping or closing segments of trails, prioritizing which trails should be completed in the future so that there are completed areas and neighborhoods of trails. Betty Threinen, PRAC Commissioner, stated PRAC is looking for a consultant to review the City's Park Plan, including tip;, ,:rail system. Council continued to discuss the segmentation of the trails in the City. Councilmember Threinen stated if the trail system is incomplete, it is because the City is not fully developed. The City is interested in making the trails usable now, but the Development Council has more interest in the placement of trails. Councilmember Hoyt stated when the park survey was done in 1918 it was discovered the most used parks in the City were those connected to the trail system. Gene Holderness asked that a survey be completed to collect data on the use and placement of trails in the City and the Development Council will support such an undertaking financially. Councilmember Neils observes the different;e between reviewing plans and design criteria, and polling people as to desirability of trails. Council reviewed some of the items relating to communications with staff and asked the Planning Staff to notify petitioners of the date that the Council will consider their requests. Planner Tremere agreed that a flow chart of work in progress would be helpful to staff, but the deadlines must be based on the knowledge that the petition is fully in Aer when it is submitted. The Development Review Committee will identify to the developer what is needed to complete the petition and will present com- plete applications to the Planning Commission generally 30 days after its subir'tta% Gene 'Holderness requested that developers be permitted the option of moving their petition forward for Planning Commission or Counci' review without completing every requirement of the staff if all the basic ordi. nance requirements ,ire met. Mayor Davenport stated the risk of submitting an incomplete petition is deferral or denial. Mr. Holderness stated the developers are willing to take this risk in cases where long delays in getting the petition to the Planning Commission or Council result in making a project economically unfeasible. 29- Special Council Meeting January 26, 1991 Page 30 Maria Vasiliou stated if the checklist of basic requirements is completed, it is not improper for a petitioiier to cove to the Planning Commission if the pending issues are design -related or are matters of policy interpreta- tion. She stated that incomplete applications should not be processed, and the Commission's Open Forum should nQ he used by developers for informal review of development plans. Mayor Davenport asked Mr. Holdernes:; to agree on an outside date to move a petition forward to the Planning Commission or Council after its sub.. mission. Mr. Holdirness agreed a period of 30 days to 90 days was rea- sonable, dependinv c -,n the complexity of the application. Council agreed the staff's acceptoice of the fee with the complete application constitutes the formal submission date of E petition. Councilmember Neils stated staff should assure that requirements for com- plete applications are clearly defined, and that developers should assure their applications are complete. He stated that the improved review pro- cess including communication with the petitioner should resolve the per- ceived problems. Ile stated concerns that new mat.•ial should not be sub- mitted to the Commission or Council without approwriete review by staff or the Commission. He stated petitions should nct be indefinitely deferred by petitioners, and staff should periodically clean ou:- the files by processing such items for disposition. Peter Pflaum, developer, stated it would be helpful '.f the City was able to enforce completion dates on public improvement projects. Mr. Laukka stated he feels the longest delays have been experienced in getting plans through to the bidding stage rather than in the construction of: public improvements. Attorney Lefler agreed there have been delays in the past in the preliminary stages of public improvement projects in preparing final plans and specifications and acs tiring easements. Mr. 4elderness commented he felt the goals of the City's consulting engineers have nor been in harmony with the developers or contractors working on public 4mprovement projects. Mayor Davenport stated thi review of bonding requirements requested in Item 13 of the developer's Summary of Concerns is being prepared by staff and will be sent to the Dalelopment Council when it is completed. The Mayor commented regarding 1 -.ens 14, 15, aid 16 that the City's Goals, 1jec.i Yes and Criteria ana the RPI;D Ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Connnission and Court i1 at future study sessions. Mr. Ilolderness stated their purpose is for legitimate consideration to he given to their concerns in light of the changes in the economy in the past year, Mayor Davenport suggested it might be helpful to arrange a seminar on housing trends in the 80's at which these items of concern can he discussed. Council recessed fv-ow 9:45 to 10:0C p.m. 30- Special Courcil Meeting January 26,. !981 Page 31 Gene Holderness reviewed the Development Council's philosoptj of who should bear cine cost of public impop ovements, stating costs for oversizing of sewers or requirements for thoroughfare or collector streets to serve the overall City rather than individual ncighhorhoods should bee borne bar the City rather than the developers. Mr. Holderness stated when a major area is undeveloped the land is not valuable winout collector streets. He suggested it might be more equitable to create a new developmeat dis- trict, when that area is developed, to provide central systems and streets for the area. Celincilmember Schneider rep] -;ed this wou)d be possible only in areas that are completely undeieloped; it is impassible to establish 1 development district in a patchwork pattern in an area that is partially developed. Councilmember Neils stated it has been the ,philosophy of the City Council that development should pay its ow- way. Peter Pflaum stated he felt future residents of the City hive to assume a disproportionate burden of improvement costs by adding costs )f providing central systems and collector streets to new construction. Mr. Pflaum felt costs for providing these improvements are usually assigned to developers of new projects because it is easier and quicker. Since these costs are passed along to the buyers of new homes in the City, a certain class of citizens are being discriminated against. Mayor Davenport questioned if new residents do not bear the costs of new development in the City, shoull residents in place bear these costs? Councilmember Threinen stated he felt the developers in the City are equally guilty of discrioinating against 3 certain class of buyers by building homes in Plymnuth only for a certain market and not considering the needs of the general public or the entire society. Marie Vasiliou stated that, just as the City Should expect and require full performance ane+ quality from its consultants, :o, too, should developers require their consultants to perform fully. Councilmember Threinen agree) that the high consultant costs to the developer were not necessarily re- flective of the quality of the submittals to the City. Mayor Davenport stated he hoped to see the actions proposed during the prior discussion implemented, and he asked the Develooment Council to keep the Council advised of progress being made in communication with the staff, the Pianning Conmission and the Council. Councilmember Schneider requested the Development Council to submit an erosion control polio to the Council for review before the spring construction season. MOTION was made by Councilmember Schneider, seconded by Council - member Hoyt, to adopt RESOLUTION N0, 81-76, A RESOLUTION RATIFYING SURETY AND BLANKET BONDS FOR CI1'Y EMPLOYEES FOR 1981 AS PROPOSED. MOTION TO AMEND was made by Mayor Davenport, seconded by Council - member Hoyt, to by substituting the Following amounts as recommended by the Auditors: City Manager Finance Director Assistant Finance Director Assessor City Clerk General Bond covering all City employees 31. 100,000 100,000 100,000 500 500 5,000 RESOLUTION N0, 81-76 RWIFYING SURETY BLANKET BONDS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES Item 7 Special Council Meeting January 25, 1981 Page 32 lotion to amend carried, five ayes. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 81-76, as amended, carried on a Roll Call vote, five ayes. MOTION was made by Councilmember Threinen, seconded by Council - member Hoyt, to refer the draft of the revised Park Dedication Policy to the Park and Recreation Advisory Convnicelon for review. Motion carried, five ayes. Mayor Davenport requested staff to send a copy of the draft Park Dedication Policy to the Development Council for their information. MOTION was made by Councilmember Schneider, seconded by Council - member Hoyt, to appoint Michael Stulberg to the Planning Commis- sion for a three-year term exr,iring January 31, 1984. Motion carried, four ayes. Councilmember Threinen voted nay. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. 32- int errkk y PARK DEDICATION POLICY REVIEW Item 8 APPOINTMENT TO Pl. iNN I NG COMMISSION Item 10 i