CITY OF SOUTH LYON

CITY OF SOUTH LYON

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

May 14, 2007

Mayor Doyle called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Mayor Doyle those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

PRESENT: Mayor Doyle

Council Members: Dryer, Kivell, Kopkowski, Maida, Morelli and Wedell

City Manager Cook

Attorney Lee

City Clerk/Treasurer Zemke

Department Heads: Collins, Martin & Renwick

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

It was noted that there was a typographical error on page 2. It was further noted that Council Member Maida’s vote was not included in the Roll Call Vote on Page 8.

CM 5-1-07- APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 23, 2007

Motion by Dryer, supported by Kivell

To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 23, 2007 as amended

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVAL OF MONTHLY BILLS:

Council Member Maida questioned the multiple payments to the Chamber of Commerce. It was stated that it was for payment for the Chamber Banquet at a cost of $40 per person. The bills came in at various times.

Councilman Wedell asked if the repair to the police vehicle was as a result of an accident. Chief Collins stated that these were routine repairs such as stone chips and scratches.

Councilman Wedell asked if the bill from Air Source One was for the new equipment that the Fire Department received. Superintendent Martin stated that the new equipment has not been received as of yet. Chief Collins stated that Air Source is our regular supplier that services their air equipment.

The question was asked regarding the purchase of a new notebook computer. City Manager Cook stated that we will check into it and get back with Council.

Councilman Wedell stated that there are four items listed for repairs to the vactor truck and asked if that was due to one incident or is it a number of repairs. Superintendent Renwick stated that this was for several different repairs that were required. Councilman Wedell asked if the equipment is in decent condition or is it going to require several repairs per month. Superintendent Renwick stated that right now we have one other repair that will need to be made and then we will be in good shape.

Councilman Wedell questioned the $4,000 DEQ Phase II regulations. Attorney Lee stated that this would be for our 5-year permit. Superintendent Renwick stated that this was actually for our mid-year report, which is separate from the Wastewater. Superintendent Martin stated that we have not yet started anything for the MPDES permit.

Councilman Kivell questioned the payment for promotional supplies. Superintendent Martin stated that as part of our Wellhead Protection Program, he budgets approximately $15,000 per year for promotional material with approximately 80% refunded back as long as we buy promotional or education products. These are the water bottles that we hand out at Pumpkinfest, etc. as well as other items.

CM 5-2-07- APPROVAL OF MONTHLY BILLS

Motion by Kivell, supported by Dryer

To approve the monthly bills as presented

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

It was stated that the agenda did not include Council Comments and Adjournment. City Manager Cook stated that it had already been revised and posted corrected.

CM 5-3-07 – APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Wedell, supported by Morelli

To approve the agenda as presented

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CITIZENS SUGGESTIONS:

Mr. Richard Zechinni of 516 E. Lake Street stated that he would like to know of any updates since the last meeting regarding the T-Mobile tower. City Manager Cook stated that SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) is reviewing it. They had a crane out on site, and it will probably be another 30 days before we get a response. Discussion was held on who brought the crane out. City Manager Cook stated that we were not advised that it was being brought it. Mr. Zechinni asked who is overseeing that process. City Manager Cook stated that because SHPO is re-reviewing it, we were not aware of the process.

Mr. Zechinni asked if the final site plan has been reviewed. City Manager Cook stated that nothing will be done until probably July.

Mr. Zechinni stated that given the fact that the City is not benefiting from the tower, did anyone look at the sites available on Griswold. He asked if there is a way to open up dialogue for that to happen.

City Manager Cook stated that contact had been made to the Schools and T-Mobile has indicated that they are too far away. Mr. Zechinni stated that there is another site closer to Ten Mile, which is owned by A & R. City Manager Cook stated that it is privately owned and we do not have any control over that and it is outside of town. T-Mobile has indicated that they are not interested in servicing outside the corporate limits of the City. We cannot direct them to private property.

Mr. Zechinni stated that at the last meeting, it was discussed putting some responsibility on T-Mobile for possibly building a new water tower, but it was never explored. Council Member Kopkowski stated that she made the statement, but it is not realistic. Mr. Zechinni stated that in his research, OSHA and The National Association of Tower Erectors are trying to work on those very issues to meet demands and to work with the providers so that cities are not having a burden. This is not an outlandish request. In his research he has found where situations like this have occurred. Attorney Lee stated that the difference between a new water tower and a communications tower is 5-10 times the cost and there is no way to mandate that.

Discussion was held on the current water tower. The question was asked if we have looked at improvements to the ladder on the current water tower. Discussion was held on the liability issue. City Manager Cook stated that once the cable comes down, we run into OSHA problems and possible violation and fine to either us or them.

Council Member Kopkowski stated that her understanding is that T-Mobile is looking for ½ mile radius of the downtown area. She stated that the DPW yard is within that area. City Manager Cook stated that this is a CLEMIS tower and T-Mobile does not know if the tower is strong enough or high enough for the equipment, but they are taking a look at it. Council Member Kopkowski asked if the area is big enough to take down what is there and put up something new. City Manager Cook stated that this is a CLEMIS tower and we have an agreement with Oakland County for that tower. Council Member Kopkowski asked if there is room for an additional tower on that property. City Manager Cook stated that we have two towers there now. If they cannot use what is there, that is not an option, and they have already rejected it once. Mayor Doyle discussed the residents in the area. He stated that there are already two towers and if we propose something new, we would just be replacing the people who are here tonight with the residents in that area.

Council Member Kopkowski asked if T-Mobile brought the crane out or did SHPO. City Manager Cook stated that it was authorized by SHPO. They are the ones that took the pictures. T-Mobile may have brought it out and paid for it, but SHPO is the one dealing with it. He stated that it would have been nice if they told us it was coming, but we were informed after the fact.

Mr. Zechinni stated that part of his concern is that a lot of these things are driven by T-Mobile that we seem to have no control over. City Manager Cook stated that they have to give us the information, and we have a Planning Commission process that they have to go through. Mr. Zechinni stated that he still contends that there are certain things that we hold rights to. Mayor Doyle stated that although they understand their position, this is not a Council issue. This is a zoning and planning issue. Mr. Zechinni stated that at the last meeting, it was stated that the boards are made up of non-professional individuals, which requires all of us to work collectively. If T-Mobile comes in and “steam rolls” over us, that is where we take objection. He stated that he will provide his research to Council. Mayor Doyle stated that we have a great deal of faith in our Boards and Commissions. We will do whatever is within our rights under the law.

Discussion was held on trying to come up with a better solution rather than this site. Councilman Kivell stated that ultimately, it is their decision. Discussion was held on getting the residents contact information for T-Mobile. Discussion was held on the information available at City Hall.

Mr. Zechinni further stated that the critical part for him is that we are taking their word that their engineers have come and have determined the “dead zone” and this is the exact spot that they need a tower. He stated that he knows that other cities have actually had independent engineers that have come out with a clear definitive answer.

Mr. Tim Geiman of 616 E. Lake Street read a statement in opposition to the T-Mobile tower proposal at 201 S. Mill Street (see attached statement as part of these minutes).

Councilman Dryer asked if there is an independent verification of T-Mobile’s dead-zone areas that people can access. He further asked who confirms that T-Mobile’s area is truly correct. Mr. Jesse VanDeCreek of HRC stated that the City is not armed or obligated to perform that; it is truly an FCC issue. It is an FCC license. The airwaves are not owned or engineered by the City. If Council wants to enter that arena, that would be your decision, but you are not obligated to, and your engineering professionals would not advise you to. It is an FCC issue, not a local issue. Councilman Dryer stated then going to the FCC would be one way to verify if the information is correct. Mr. VanDeCreek stated that the FCC information and approvals received to date would be in the City’s files.

City Attorney Lee stated that an illegal issue has not been raised to date relative to either attacking the validity of the materials submitted to the FCC or that the FCC has made an error. If that was the case, it would have to be raised to an arbitration panel of the FCC, not here. If we were to hire an independent engineering firm that comes to say that the T-Mobile is wrong, they have coverage, they do not need coverage, we could not decide that we were right and they were wrong. We would have to go to the FCC and have a hearing to establish that T-Mobile has submitted inaccurate engineering data. Attorney Lee stated that when determining these zones, they hire the equivalent of an electronic surveyor who develops testing data that is submitted to the FCC.

Discussion was held on the information available for public review and copies at City Hall as well as contact information. Mr. Geiman stated that he feels that the City has an obligation to follow up on these issues. He stated that he will do it if necessary, but he does question whether he is the person to do it. It was stated that it is not typically the City’s job to question the FCC.

Mr. Geiman stated that the real issue is the best regional solution. That is the key to finding out whether this tower is really needed in this City and he is not seeing any evidence to that. He stated that they are trying to understand the process, but are they supposed to do it. They have done more than they should have and they question if they are the right ones to do it or is it the City’s responsibility. Mr. Geiman stated that everyone involved needs to be educated. There is a lot of information out there and he does not see how much has been considered so far.

Attorney Lee stated that there seems to be an idea that some regional cooperation can solve this and there is not. He stated that there are overlapping circles throughout the State of Michigan. If they want to put the center in your community, you cannot say that you want it elsewhere. We are obligated to provide the spot that they say the need coverage. We do not have the right to change all the overlapping throughout the State to convenience us. Those circles were determined 15-20 years ago and they are not going to change. Mr. Geiman stated that he thinks that there has always been recognition in the industry that there will be holes in coverage, and that is what he is questioning. Is this a move to get perfect coverage or adequate coverage? Attorney Lee stated that this is a determination that the FCC makes and has precluded us from getting into the discussion. The 1996 Telecommunication Act says that it is of no concern to cities. There is no concern greater to a City than health concerns, and we have been cut out of that issue entirely. We could be found in contempt and pay large fines if we turn them down alleging health issues. Councilman Kivell added that there is no way that they are going to allow us to determine their qualitative assessment of coverage. Mr. Geiman stated again that the real question is who did the coverage map and is it an independent view.

Attorney Lee stated that years ago, the FCC made them set up coverage circles from towers and started the process to force them to co-locate and we have followed that and have been successful until today. If we had space on our tower and could do it without OSHA violation, there would be no question. He would insist that they put it on the tower and he would win that. The fact is we cannot get it on the tower because it would be an OSHA violation. An OSHA violation could put the City at risk for great damages. If one of our employees were to be injured, our workman’s comp would not cover them and we would be responsible for gross negligence and we could be at risk for millions of dollars.

Mr. Geiman stated that when he says a regional issue, he does not mean the State of Michigan but rather South Lyon and Lyon Township area, and they are asking that if it really needs to be located within City limits. Attorney Lee stated that if there were any way that we could force this into Lyon Township, he would. Mayor Doyle stated that the fact is you would be shifting the burden over into someone else’s backyard.

Mayor Doyle stated that Council has no standing on this issue. Mr. Geiman stated that at the last meeting, it was indicated that Council appoints those members of the commissions. Mayor Doyle stated that anyone here could serve on those boards. He cannot fault any decisions that have been made because they went through and made that decision. You may not like that decision. As far as procedure, Council has no standing on this issue. We are not going to take on something that would get us in trouble financially. It is not just about these residents, Council needs to consider the community at large. Mr. Geiman stated that they have talked with people throughout the community. Most people are upset about the beautiful park. Mayor Doyle stated that as far as zoning, it is in the right place. Short of something happening with SHPO, that is probably where it is going to go. Nobody wants you to give up; stay informed.

Attorney Lee stated that the time to get these issues addressed, particularly coverage issues, is when T-Mobile comes before the Planning Commission. Ask the questions and put them on the spot there. If you start getting inconsistent answers or dodging the issues, then you might uncover something.

Mr. Ron Chapiewski of 699 Lafayette and Keith Nothnagel of 429 Dorothy Street were present regarding the ordinance amendment that had been before Council at their last meeting. Mr. Chapiewski stated that this directly relates to something they are involved with. The amendment did not pass. The amendment was for State licensed adult foster care that provides residential services for six or fewer. He stated that 699 Lafayette is a private residence that is on property that is zoned mobile home. There has been a lot of dilemma as far as how they can do what they are attempting to do, which is to open a male sobriety home which offers a place to go after detox to try to get their lives back together. In January they started working with the City. They attempted to get a permit and were told that it was not a permit issue but rather a zoning issue. They came in for a rezoning and were told that it was not a zoning issue but a verbage amendment that needs to change. The amendment did not take into consideration what they were asking for. This not a mobile home that is in an area zoned mobile home. Councilman Kivell stated that Council did understand that it was a free-standing home. Mr. Chapiewski stated that in reading the amendment it specifies that they are asking a mobile home to be able to do what they are doing. The amendment also specifies rehabilitation treatment and for the aged, which is not what they are doing. Mr. Chapiewski stated that they have received a non-profit TLC license. They also received a State license for the home.

Attorney Lee stated that the amendment attempted to create a special permit situation within the Mobile Home Park district. We do not want to fashion language for a specific issue, but rather a class of facilities, which they would be one.

City Manager Cook stated that based on what they are requesting being that Council rejected it, if Council wished to re-consider, a motion would have to be made to place it on a future agenda.

Discussion was held on the State licenses. Attorney Lee stated that the language indicated that whether they were licensed or not, they would still need to meet the State requirements.

Discussion was held on the proposed sobriety program.

Mayor Doyle asked if Mr. Chapiewski purchased the building knowing the current requirements and what the process was. Mr. Chapiewski stated that he did not know the requirements. He stated that a newspaper article came out about this in December, which included a lot of mis-quotes. It drew attention when it stated that they would have 10 people living there. They are proposing housing for five men. He stated that he was in City Hall several times, but did not mention what they were going to do. Two weeks prior to them opening the home, they called the City and were told that if they did not have 7 or more people, there is no permit required. The felt they were fully within their rights. He contacted all of the surrounding businesses and churches and have statements from all of them in support. At no time was he told that they were in violation.

Discussion was held on reconsideration of the amendment. Councilman Wedell stated that if they have a motion to reconsider it needs to be at the same meeting in which the original vote was taken or the next legislative meeting thereafter, which is today. The motion needs to be made today and it has to be made by a Council Member of the prevailing side.

Councilman Kivell stated that one of the factors that resulted in the No vote was the physical aspects will not accommodate what they want to accomplish. Mayor Doyle stated that in order to discuss this further, it should be placed on the agenda.

CM 5-4-07 – AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA

Motion by Kivell, supported by Dryer

To amend the agenda by adding Old Business #5 discussion of the Amendment to

Mobile Home District – Section 102-263 – subsection 7 – State Licensed Adult Facility

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED (2- opposed)

Attorney Lee stated that a motion for reconsideration can be made during that discussion if someone chooses to do so.

OLD BUSINESS:

1. Bids – Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study – Phase I – Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. - $32,650.50

Mr. Jesse VanDeCreek of HRC stated that before Council is a recommendation to award the Phase I of the Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study. He stated that they opened bids for the project on April 10^th. Twelve contractors took out plans for the project, and we received eight bids back. The low bidder was Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. in the amount of $32,625.50.

Councilman Kivell stated that his only concern is that Inland Waters has been sold a couple of times recently. He stated that he is not sure the last reference and is sure they will do fine, but they are not the same company they have been historically. Superintendent Martin stated that they did do some work for us on the Treatment Plant during construction. Mr. VanDeCreek stated that we have performance standards written based on City standards and they will need to comply or they will not be compensated.

Council Member Maida questioned the change in recommendation as it relates to the $91,300. Mr. VanDeCreek stated that their original recommendation was that the budget of $91,00 be maintained to account for unknown conditions, project overruns due to blockages found, etc., but the fact is that the bid came in approximately $30,000 lower than expected so they are suggesting that you stick with the $60,000.

Councilman Dryer questioned the proposed $60,000 how much is budgeted in the proposed budget. City Manager Cook stated that the full amount is in this year’s budget. As we discussed in the budget workshop, we are taking a conservative approach. There are no funds budgeted for next year. If we decide to go further with it based on the results that they receive, we will come back and amend the budget accordingly.

CM 5-5-07 – APPROVAL OF LOW BID – SANITYAR SEWER EVALUATION

Motion by Kivell, supported by Morelli

To award the low bid in the amount of $32,625.50 to Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. for the

Sanitary Sewer Evaluation – Phase I

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2. 2007 West Nile Virus Reimbursement Request – Oakland County - $3,659.20 – Resolution approval

City Manager Cook stated that this is a continuation of the County program that we have been involved with over the last 3-4 years. We need to approve the resolution so that we can request reimbursement once we purchase the tablets for the treatment of the drains, etc.

CM 5-6-07 - OAKLAND COUNTY WEST NILE VIRUS FUND PROGRAM REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT

Motion by Morelli, supported by Maida

WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Oakland County Executive, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners has established a West Nile Virus Fund Program to assist Oakland County cities, villages and townships in addressing mosquito control activities; and

WHEREAS, Oakland County’s West Nile Virus Fund Program authorizes Oakland County cities, villages and townships to apply for reimbursement of eligible expenses incurred in connection with personal mosquito protection measures/activity, mosquito habitat eradication, mosquito larviciding or focused adult mosquito insecticide spraying in designated community green areas; and

WHEREAS, the City of South Lyon, Oakland County, Michigan supports and authorizes the 2007 expenditure and application submittal for reimbursement of expenses in connection with mosquito control activities eligible for reimbursement under Oakland County’s West Nile Virus Fund Program.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this City Council authorizes and directs it City Manager, as agent for the City of South Lyon, in the manner and to the extent provided under Oakland County Board of Commissioners, to request reimbursement of eligible mosquito control activity under Oakland County’s West Nile Virus Fund Program

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

3. Memorial Day Parade – May 28, 2007

Chief Collins stated that the VFW is requesting the usual route. The only change from prior years is that they would like to start staging at 8 a.m. and start the parade at 9 a.m. instead of 10 a.m. He stated that he is recommending approval.

CM 5-7-07 – APPROVAL OF PARADE ROUTE – MEMORIAL DAY PARADE

Motion by Dryer, supported by Kopkowski

Resolved That Julie Zemke, City Clerk/Treasurer is hereby authorized make application to the Road Commission for Oakland County on behalf of the City of South Lyon in the County of Oakland, Michigan for the necessary permits to conduct the South Lyon Memorial Day Parade on Monday, May 28, 2007 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and the related road closures:

· Warren Street, Second Street to Ten Mile

· Ten Mile from Warren to Reynold Sweet Parkway

· Reynold Sweet Parkway from Ten Mile to Stryker

· Stryker Street from Reynold Sweet to the South Lyon Cemetery

And that the City of South Lyon in the County of Oakland, Michigan will faithfully fulfill all permit requirements, and shall save harmless, indemnify, defend and represent the Board against any and all claims for bodily injury or property damage, or any other claim arising out of or related to operations authorized by such permits as issued.

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

4. Appointments – Mayor Doyle

Mayor Doyle stated Councilman Kivell has recommended Frank Leimbach of 335 W. Lake Street to the opening on the Planning Commission. Frank has been a Planner for the City of Ypsilanti and has been a Planner with Brandon & Associates in Grosse Pointe. He further described his background.

CM 5-8-07 – APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Motion by Doyle, supported by Kivell

To appoint Mr. Frank Leimbach of 335 W. Lake Street to the vacancy on the Planning Commission

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor Doyle stated that before Council is a list of individuals for appointment to the Compensation Commission. In an election year we need to appoint a body for a period of no more than five years. He reviewed the backgrounds of Jim Dinsmore, Phil Weipert, Jim Culbertson, Bill Murray and Jeff Kilarski.

Discussion was held on the staggered terms. The question was asked how the Chairperson would be appointed. It was stated that they will elect a chair from amongst themselves.

CM 5-9-07 – APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Motion by Doyle, supported by Wedell

To appoint the following to terms on the Compensation Commission

Jim Dinsmore to a term of 5 years

Phil Weipert to a term of 4 years

Jim Culbertson to a term of 3 years

Bill Murray to a term of 2 years

Jeff Kilarski to a term of 1 year

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor Doyle stated that there are two vacancies on Parks and Recreation and he will be making those appointments in the near future.

City Clerk/Treasurer Zemke stated that we do need clarification of the ZBA term that was done at the last meeting. We do need to know which term Keith Bradley was appointed to. Attorney Lee stated that the statute states that the person will continue to serve until such time as a replacement is appointed. Mayor Doyle stated that he has reached out to both of the individuals that are going to be replaced and have not heard from either. Attorney Lee stated that you have to designate the term you have appointed the individual to.

CM 5-10-07 – ZBA APPOINTMENT

Motion by Doyle, supported by Dryer

To appoint Keith Bradley to the Zoning Board of Appeals to replace Jane Schimpf

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

5. Discussion – Zoning Ordinance Amendment

Attorney Lee stated that someone who was in the majority needs to make a motion to reconsider before discussing it.

CM 5-11-07 – RECONSIDERATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Motion by Kopkowski, supported by Maida

To reconsider the Zoning Ordinance amendment to Mobile Home District – Section 102-263 –

subsection 7 – State Licensed Adult Facility

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED (1 opposed)

Attorney Lee stated that in discussing this amendment, you are not dealing with this applicant at all. You are talking about an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow a special use permit to be granted to property that is located in the Mobile Home District. He stated that it was voted down at the last meeting, the next step would be a motion to approve a first reading and that would be voted up or down. You could also make a motion to table it.

Council Member Kopkowski asked Mr. Chapiewski if he is fully aware of what the State regulations are for the type of facility. Mr. Chapiewski stated that they do have those in writing. He stated that this is not a medicated controlled atmosphere, it is not a rehabilitation center, it is a residency. They are putting a roof over their head and teaching them how to live a life of sobriety. Council Member Kopkowski stated that it would be very difficult to bring that building up to State regulations. Mr. Chapiewski stated that the home will be inspected somewhere down the road. He further described the house and what they are trying to do. Councilman Kivell stated that the decision that they are going to be making is going to be based on what activities that could take place on that property, not necessarily this proposal.

Councilman Wedell asked the current use of the home. Mr. Chapiewski stated that it used to be a daycare facility, but now he is living in the home. Discussion was held on the improvements they have done to the home.

Councilman Morelli discussed the process for approval, if this is passed. Attorney Lee stated that they would have to make application under this section.

Councilman Dryer stated that he was in favor of this amendment originally, in great part because it is very restrictive and they would have to ask for that special use. If it is a good program, then it would get support.

Councilman Morelli asked if we do allow this type of use in this zoning district, could someone put a facility that fits into the category in a double-wide trailer in the park. Attorney Lee stated that is why all of the subsections are included in the proposed language. They would have to meet State requirements, which have specific square footage per person, etc., and the criteria would preclude that from happening. You could put in a manufactured home in a trailer park if all of the other requirements were met.

Councilman Kivell stated that he would like to table this discussion to have an opportunity to go back through the documents and get some clarity rather than trying to make a quick discussion tonight.

CM 5-12-07 – TABLE CONSIDERATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Motion by Kivell, supported by Kopkowski

To table reconsideration the Zoning Ordinance amendment to Mobile Home District –

Section 102-263 – subsection 7 – State Licensed Adult Facility until the next meeting

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED (1 Opposed)

Mayor Doyle stated that the next meeting is May 29^th because of the holiday.

Mr. Chapiewski asked if Council would like to see their license at that meeting. Attorney Lee stated that the license issue would go before the Planning Commission assuming the amendment passes.

Councilman Wedell stated that he is all for recovery, but he is not convinced it is as well thought out as it needs to be so he would suggest that they bring everything they have that would assist this body in making that decision.

Mayor Doyle stated that he is not in favor of talking about this anymore because his perception is that they made the investment without doing any homework and now they are playing “catch-up” to try and get everything right. He stated that is not our concern.

City Manager Cook stated that if there is any information Mr. Chapiewski would like Council to review, he would suggest that he get that information to him by Wednesday before the meeting to allow Council the chance to review it rather than presenting it at the meeting.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Rezoning Request – 440 N. Lafayette RM-1 to B-3

Mr. Gene Carol, Architect representing the property owner Gary Marken stated that Mr. Marken has owned this site for the past five years and it is becoming increasingly difficult to operate the facility as a residential use as it is currently zoned. It is surrounded by business uses B-3 to the north and industrial across the street and the railroad tracks immediately to south. Mr. Marken would like to be able to operate as a commercial sales office for building products, windows and doors. They are proposing a B-3 use and he is proposing to remodel the existing home leaving it in a residential type character, but able to provide accessibility and openness within the facility.

Council Member Kopkowski asked if they have provided any plans. Mr. Carol stated that they did provide plans to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission indicated at their last hearing that they would like to see a B-1 use rather than B-3. The B-3 will allow more height to a future accessory building that Mr. Marken would like to have in the future to store his materials. At the current time he does not provide any storage at this site. In the future he would like to provide more product and sales and be able to show customers their options. In addition, the 10 additional feet will allow them to provide an opportunity to keep the residential style.

The question was asked if B-3 allows outdoor storage. Councilman Morelli stated that B-3 is the least restrictive business district that we have. At the Planning Commission meeting, it was brought up that the B-1 would lend itself better for this site. He stated that we are changing the zoning, not for this applicant’s proposal, but in general. We could change the zoning, this applicant could sell his property and someone could come in and open a gas station for example. What he wants to do with the property is irrelevant at this point. Councilman Morelli further explained the differences between the B-1 and B-3 zonings.

Councilman Kivell stated that in the B-1 zoning, the argument about the roof type, etc. could be used in order to obtain a variance from the ZBA. Mr. Carol stated that they think that a B-3 zoning is consistent with the growth of the town and it has B-1 and B-3 zoning surrounding it. The outside storage is something that could be handled with a variance and could be a question in any of the business zoning districts. They think that it is consistent with the Master Plan.

Attorney Lee stated that what is before City Council is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to deny the request for B-3. Council has no ability to do anything other than vote it up or down. If the applicant wishes B-1 as a compromise, he would have to make that request of Council. If he were to make that request, Council could grant it. Absence a request for B-1, Council is obligated to vote to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission or vote to overrule them.

Ms. Pam Weipert of 135 N. Warren and Chairperson of the Planning Commission stated that the Planning Commission unanimously agrees that it should be business and it is zoned business on the Master Plan. In keeping with the downtown character, they felt that B-1 would be appropriate. What they are proposing to do is to keep the house as it is and build an accessory structure, which can be accomplished in the B-1 zoning. She stated that you cannot zone just for the proposal, but rather what you think it should be. She explained the uses permitted in the B-3 zoning such as automobile showroom, laundry and dry cleaning establishments, bowling alley, etc. She stated that they felt that these were not appropriate uses that close to downtown. The Zoning ordinance states that the B-3 zoning is intended for uses incompatible with pedestrian movement in the community business district and central business district. She discussed the difference in setbacks between the districts.

Councilman Kivell asked if the property to the east is residential. City Manager Cook stated that the use is residential, but it is zoned multiple.

Mr. Carol stated that they have asked for B-3 zoning. If this Council wishes to zone it B-1 instead, they would accept that. Attorney Lee stated that the applicant would have to ask to amend the proposal and request B-1. Mr. Carol stated that they would like to ask for an amended proposal for consideration of the B-1 use.

CM 5-13-07 – AMENDMNT TO THE ZONING MAP

Motion by Kivell, supported by Kopkowski

To amend the zoning map to rezone the property at 440 N. Lafayette from RM-1 to B-1

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED (1opposed)

2. Proposal to place moratorium on building permits and fees and modification of the sign ordinance

Councilman Dryer stated that he has discussed this issue both with Mike Jakubowski of the Building Department and Tamara Ward of the Chamber of Commerce. He is proposing to put a moratorium on building permit fees for a period of three months. The purpose is to give residents and businesses a boost and help in improving their properties. Also, he would like to temporarily modify the sign ordinance during the streetscape project to allow more temporary signs and extend a temporary sign from a 30 day period to 90 day period.

Council Member Maida asked what type of income would the City be losing. Councilman Dryer stated that the budget shows that we expect to receive $75,000 in building inspection fees, and this would only be for three months.