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