Morrison v. City of East Lansing, Docket No. 234361.
| Citation | 660 N.W.2d 395,255 Mich. App. 505 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 234361. |
| Parties | Kenneth MORRISON, Susan Burke, Nicole Ellefson, Kenneth Frank, Jacqueline Campbell, Kenneth Carlisle, Charles Pearl, Stephen Elliston, Angela Elliston, Philip Wickersham, Mary Wickersham, David Stowe, Linda White, Mark Kielhorn, Margot Kielhorn, Rochelle Whitepigeon, Linda Fletcher, and Citizens to Keep Hannah Green, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF EAST LANSING and East Lansing City Council, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Lasky Fifarek & Hogan P.C. (by John R. Fifarek), Lansing, for the plaintiffs.
McGinty, Jakubiak & Hitch, P.C. (by Thomas M. Yeadon and Dennis E. McGinty), East Lansing, for the defendants.
Before: NEFF, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and O'CONNELL, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's order granting plaintiffs costs and attorney fees, but dismissing all other claims under MCR 2.116(A) () and MCR 2.116(C)(10) (). Defendants cross-appeal the grant of costs and attorney fees, challenging the trial court's determination that they violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA), M.C.L. § 15.261 et seq. We affirm.
This case arises from circumstances surrounding the efforts to convert the former Hannah school building and property in East Lansing to a community center.1 Defendant city purchased the Hannah school building and property from the East Lansing School District. Defendant city council appointed a committee to make recommendations concerning the development of the community center. The individual plaintiffs, who live near the community center, and plaintiff Citizens to Keep Hannah Green, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that the named plaintiffs and Jim and Marion Anderson created, opposed the approved site plan for the community center because of concerns of traffic on a neighborhood street. Specifically, plaintiffs objected to the inclusion of parking at the northwest corner of the site with direct access to Forest Avenue.
In a November 6, 1998, memorandum, the city's director of planning and community development asked the city manager to discuss with the city council the creation of an advisory committee to assist in the selection of architects, designers, and professional service organizations and to advise the council on programmatic needs and other issues to be decided in the planning process for the community-center project. The city manager complied with this request at the city council's November 10, 1998, work session,2 which was held in compliance with the OMA. Thereafter, at its December 1, 1998, regular meeting, which was held in compliance with the OMA, the city council, by resolution, appointed the Hannah Building Committee (HBC) and approved the steering committee that the HBC selected.
According to the council's liaison to the HBC, who also chaired the HBC and its steering committee, the HBC's implicit duties were to advise the council after conducting research and interviews and obtaining public input on the project design. Specifically, the HBC was expected to interview and recommend architects and construction managers; work with the community and the architect to develop a site plan, including parking location, and recommend the plan to the council; determine tenancy guidelines and criteria; and oversee design of the building's interior.
Between December 1998 and January 2000, the HBC held at least nineteen meetings. Of these nineteen meetings, minutes were taken only for some, including the December 9, 1998, and January 6 and April 26, 1999, meetings,3 and three of the meetings were "noticed" to the public,4 including those held on September 29, October 20, and December 9, 1999. Approximately one hundred people attended each noticed meeting, but no one from the public attended the meetings that were not noticed.
Between January 1999 and April 2000, the steering committee held nineteen meetings, twice at local businesses, but none of which was publicly noticed, recorded, or reported in minutes. During its meetings, the steering committee created the request for proposals, developed evaluation criteria for the architect and construction manager, and critiqued potential site plans. Jim Anderson attended one of those meetings.5 However, Anderson was asked to leave the December 21, 1999, meeting because the steering committee decided to exclude the public because financial matters might be discussed.
The HBC collected proposals from architects, narrowed the pool of candidates, interviewed several, and recommended one architect to the city council; the council then decided, at a public meeting, to hire that architect. Likewise, the HBC utilized this same process with regard to a construction manager, and the council accepted the HBC's recommendation at a public meeting. A design firm recommended northwest parking to serve the auditorium. The architect prepared a site plan "for purposes of discussion" by August 18, 1999.
At the September 29, 1999, HBC meeting, one or more preliminary site-plan drawings were presented for public comment, but these plans differed in unspecified ways from the August 18, 1999, plan. Plaintiffs were aware of the September meeting and most attended and expressed their concerns about the presence of parking at the north end and traffic in the neighborhood. The city council did not receive any official report or summary of the public comments.
Sometime before the next noticed meeting, the HBC and its steering committee debated and narrowed the potential site plans. At the October 20, 1999, meeting, the HBC presented four alternative site plans, including two plans with northwest parking and access to Forest Avenue. Again, many plaintiffs expressed their concerns regarding traffic and parking, and again there was no report submitted to the city council.
Between the October and December 1999 noticed meetings, the HBC and the steering committee each met three times. The HBC narrowed the potential site plans to one plan, which included parking at the northwest corner of the site and access to Forest Avenue. The HBC directed the architect to prepare a preliminary site plan using that design. At the December 9, 1999, publicly noticed meeting, the HBC presented that plan, the public discussed other concepts including an alternative plan with no parking to the north and no access to Forest Avenue that Citizens to Keep Hannah Green offered, and the HBC debated and then decided to recommend the preliminary site plan to the city council. Plaintiffs again expressed their concerns at the meeting, no official report was made to the city council, and the meetings were not videotaped or audiotaped.
On December 14, 1999, at a city council work session that was held in compliance with the OMA, the HBC presented one site plan that it recommended. At that meeting, many plaintiffs who attended expressed their concerns regarding parking and traffic in the neighborhood, and those plaintiffs asked the council to consider a site-plan concept that they had prepared. The council decided to forward the HBC's recommendation to the zoning board of appeals for consideration of a requested variance and to the city's planning commission for review and recommendation.
On February 9, 2000, and on March 8, 2000, the planning commission held public hearings in compliance with the OMA, and plaintiffs raised the same concerns at both meetings. The commission recommended the site plan, subject to certain conditions, by a vote of four to three. During the later meeting, concerns were raised regarding whether the Forest Avenue access complied with East Lansing Ordinance § 5.147A(4)(d)(iii), which prohibits vehicular access to minor residential streets if adequate alternative access is available, including access for emergency vehicles. The planning and zoning administrator explained that the ordinance was one of several standards that the city must consider; he said the city also had to consider access to the building, convenience, and traffic distribution.
On March 21, 2000, the city council held its own public hearing, in compliance with the OMA. After hearing comments from the public, including plaintiffs, and discussing the recommended plan extensively themselves, the council members voted three to two to adopt the site plan with some modifications. The modifications included providing access to the northern parking area from the main drive, with automatic gates to limit that access, and making the Forest Avenue drive an exit only.
In April 2000, plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, alleging statutory nuisance, violation of a city zoning ordinance, violation of the OMA, and unlawful delegation of authority, and requesting the trial court to exercise superintending control. Plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary disposition, which the trial court generally denied, but granted in favor of defendants to the extent that it ordered that "the development and use of the Hannah Building Center is a governmental function and, therefore, the City of East Lansing in the development of the Hannah Building Center is immune from its Zoning Code, in particular the Plan of Development Requirements contained in the City of East Lansing Code of Ordinances, Section 5.147A."6
The parties agreed to a stipulation of facts and submitted the claims regarding the OMA and delegation of authority to the trial court for a decision pursuant to MCR 2.116(A). On April 16, 2001, the trial court held that defendants violated the OMA, but declined to invalidate the city council's decision or to enjoin implementation of the plan, concluding that "the rights of the public were not impaired because of the subsequent meetings held in compliance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglers of Ausable v. Dept. of Environmental Quality
...the trial court clerk any deposition transcript that was read into evidence, as required by MCL 600.2549. Morrison v. East Lansing, 255 Mich.App. 505, 522, 660 N.W.2d 395 (2003). Consequently, the RJA did not permit an award for any transcript costs, including Although Merit Energy also cha......
-
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs.
...572, 697 N.W.2d 529 (2005) ; Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal, 258 Mich.App. 78, 669 N.W.2d 862 (2003) ; Morrison v. East Lansing, 255 Mich.App. 505, 660 N.W.2d 395 (2003) ; Kitchen v. Ferndale City Council, 253 Mich.App. 115, 127, 654 N.W.2d 918 (2002) ; Nicholas v. Meridian Charter Twp. B......
-
Davis v. City of Detroit Fin. Review Team
......309218, 309250, 309482. Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted May 3, 2012, at Lansing. Decided May 21, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. . [821 N.W.2d 898] Andrew A. Paterson, ... body—appoints the financial review team, takes this case out of the realm of cases like Morrison v. East Lansing, 122 in which this Court held that an advisory committee appointed by the city ......
-
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs.
...572, 697 N.W.2d 529 (2005), Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal, 258 Mich.App. 78, 669 N.W.2d 862 (2003), Morrison v. East Lansing, 255 Mich.App. 505, 660 N.W.2d 395 (2003), Nicholas v. Meridian Charter Twp. Bd., 239 Mich.App. 525, 609 N.W.2d 574 (2000), Manning v. East Tawas, 234 Mich.App. 24......