|
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1995 AT 8:00 PM EST COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 WEST TEN MILE ROAD
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 PM with Mayor McLallen presiding.
Council pledged allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Crawford (present), Mason (present), Mitzel (present), Pope (present), Schmid (present), Toth (present), and Mayor McLallen (present)
Present (7) Absent (0)
-ooo-
ALSO PRESENT: Craig Klaver - Assistant City Manager Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant David Fried - City Attorney Rod Arroyo - Traffic Consultant Jim Wahl - Director of Community Development Linda Lemke - Landscape Consultant Greg Capote - Staff Planner Community Development Geraldine Stipp - City Clerk
-ooo-
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor McLallen added Item #13 a Resolution in support of the SEMCOG amendments concerning road improvements within the City of Novi specifically 12 1/2 Mile and Beck Road.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Crawford Seconded by Councilman Mitzel
That the agenda be approved as amended.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
PRESENTATIONS
Mayor McLallen stated that it was a pleasure to thank people who have taken time out of their busy lives to contribute to the further success and development of a quality community. She passed letters of commendation and resolutions of commendation to members of both the Natural Resources Design Plan Implementation Committee and the District Court Committee.
Mayor McLallen said that both of these committees spent enormous amounts of time, energy and talent to bring to our community further information on natural resources and in the case of the District Court the actual court facility. She said Novi is truly blessed because our citizens, in unusually large wonderful numbers, constantly come forward and give of their creativity and the hours that they don't have and their families graciously let them sacrifice these hours. Mayor McLallen, on behalf of the community, thanked the individuals for the time they gave during the previous year.
1. Resolution of Commendation - Natural Resources Design Plan Implementation Committee - Members of the Committee were: Jack Lewis-Parks and Recreation, David Bluhm - JCK, Linda Lemke-Landscape Consultant, Walter Jenkin-Architect, Chris Pargoff-City Forester, David Walsh, Jim Wahl-Community Development, Robert Shaw Jr. and Glen Bonaventura. Mayor McLallen said that the staff was supported by City staff member Gerrie Hubbs and Councilman Mitzel.
Mayor McLallen said these people spend an enormous amount of creativity and physical labor bringing forward a plan for natural resources recognition in the community. She said part of this labor was the actual creation of a woodland walkway.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Novi wish to express on behalf of the City their appreciation in recognition of outstanding service to the community; and
WHEREAS, this citizen has at all times furthered those ideals that contribute to a better community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council, being the duly elected voice of the people of Novi expresses the City's appreciation and recognition for this distinguished citizen's service as a member of The Natural Resources Design Implementation Committee, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented on January 9, 1995 as a lasting expression of the City's gratitude and appreciation for this contribution to the betterment of the City of Novi, Michigan.
2. Resolution of Commendation - District Court Committee Members of the Committee were: Kay Schmid-County Commissioner, Ernest Aruffo, Craig Klaver-Assistant City Manager, Ed Kriewall-City Manager, Councilman Mitzel, Former Mayor Matt Quinn, David Ruhle, Doug Shaeffer-Police Chief, Frank Brock and Mike Cervenak-Providence Hospital and Council Members Pope and Schmid.
WHEREAS, Oakland County determined that there was a need to construct a new court facility to handle the increased burden on the existing court, and
WHEREAS, there was a significant amount of political maneuvering, lobbying and promotion surrounding the issue of the legalities of where the court should be located, and
WHEREAS, the Novi City Council decided that it would be in the best interest of the City to be involved in the process of supporting Novi as the legal and logical site for the court, and to appoint a District court Citizens Support Committee to act on the City's behalf, and
WHEREAS, the Committee researched this project, finding appropriate sites available, and facts to support the move including accessibility from all surrounding communities, as well as Novi representing approximately 25% of the cases filed in the 52-1 District Court - more than 147% more than any other agency, and generating more than 36% of the total court funds from fines, and
WHEREAS, the dedicated Committee worked diligently with the City Administration and the County Commissioner to foster, promote and generally support the processes to secure the 52-1 District Court within Novi, and
WHEREAS, after months of hard work and determination, the District Court Citizens Support Committee was successful as they attended the ground breaking ceremony for the new courthouse of the 1st Division of the 52nd District Court on June 15, 1994.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Novi hereby commend the District Court Citizens Support Committee for their hard work in bringing the new courthouse to Novi on the north side of Grand River, west of Beck Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Novi City Council applauds the volunteer efforts of the Committee as all of Novi anxiously awaits the new Courthouse opening in March of 1995.
Mayor McLallen said these people gave a lot of hours, energy, and phone calls and on Law Day, May 1st, we will be able to visit the fruits of their labor. She said the 52nd District Court will be in their new house ready for visitors on Law Day.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Harry Avagian said the Lakes Area Association appreciated the Public Hearing on Taft Road December 5th. He said the afterglow of that experience was a very positive one. He had a number of L.A.R.A. members indicate that they felt they had a successful experience in communicating their concerns to City Council relative to Taft Road and the proposed extension.
Mr. Avagian said he assumed that the administration had directed those individuals to go back to the drawing board and come up with a number of alternatives in compliance with some of the concerns expressed on December 5th.
Mr. Avagian stated they were looking forward to the additional Public Hearing that they were promised perhaps sometime in February. He extended their appreciation and asked that the public hearing be scheduled and that the Association as well as others living in the lakes area be made aware of the date. He said there was one concern expressed to him regarding the ice shanties on Walled Lake and Shawood Lake. He asked if the ice shanty ordinance was being enforced and if not was it because of a recent Michigan State Supreme Court ruling relative to ordinances of that type. He asked that the City Attorney come back with an opinion by January 23rd relative to whether or not the existing ice shanty ordinance can be enforced and whether or not it is being enforced and if so by whom.
Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin, agreed with Mr. Avagian and asked if the current ordinance was withdrawn because of the Supreme Court ruling do we then revert to the original ordinance. She asked if the original ordinance is used, who would enforce it?
Ms. Gray stated that she had passed out to Council a 4 page commentary on Consent Agenda Item #10, Resolution - Proposed Vacation of Ivy Leaf Walkway. She said she expected that this item would be pulled from the Consent Agenda for later discussion as she had to leave. She requested that comments be deferred for discussion and she asked that her 3 minutes be given and added to Mr. Korte's who is familiar with the situation.
Ms. Gray commented on Item #6, Matters for Council Action, regarding the survey for Street Speeds. She felt it was throwing good money after bad as everyone speeds and she asked if we couldn't use the money better.
Warren Jocz regarding the Street Speed Survey. He said three months ago he came in front of City Council to ask how Ten Mile Road was selected for a five lane widening proposal. He had assumed that there was a City wide survey traffic study that highlighted Ten Mile as being a major contributor to the traffic problem. He said he was informed that there had not been a major survey done of traffic volumes and that the selection of Ten Mile Road was based on the Novi Master Plan documentation. He said that he has done a lot of research and found out that a lot of the data in the Master Plan that supports and selects these roads are grossly inaccurate. He consulted SEMCOG and for instance the numbers that are used to justify widening Ten Mile Road to five lanes assume that in the year 2010 there will be 38,000 cars a day. He said SEMCOG is predicting for the year 2015 only 21,000 cars on any given day and that is only 3,000 more cars a day than currently. He thought, instead of understanding the speeds along these roads, that we needed to understand the traffic conditions along these roads before a lot of money is spent on widening Ten Mile. He said Ten Mile is the first step according to the Master Plan of widening major roads to five lanes. He said according to the Master Plan Nine Mile, Ten Mile, Grand River, 12 Mile, 13 Mile, 14 Mile, Beck Rd. and Novi Road are all slated to be five lane roads. He thought that if this was truly necessary, given current information we have now, money is tight and Oakland County has asked for support of gas tax increases because we can't maintain our existing roads. He recommended that if a Street Speed Survey is needed that a traffic volume survey be done also.
Tony Metz, 202 Linhart, shared his concerns about the proposed Vista's of Novi. He asked the Council to discuss the following issues before voting on this issue tonight. He was concerned about the buffer area between the existing subdivisions and the proposed Phase II site. He said part of it is set at 50 feet, another is actually 40 feet. He said where the actual church site is it looks like it may set inside the 40 foot buffer. He asked if it was possible to have a consistent buffer throughout the whole area and he asked if 40 feet was enough buffer to keep the same quality of life they have in their subdivision. He said the area is wooded but not densely and wondered if the developers could be asked to add some trees to have a thicker buffer area.
Mr. Metz said there was an area next to the church site for a cemetery and he wondered why there was a cemetery there when less than a mile down the road there is a cemetery at 12 Mile and Novi Road.
Mr. Metz said he wondered what the plans are for the church site in relationship to the rest of the project. He said there is also a large parking lot for the church site and he realized it was being moved from a different location and didn't know if there was a congregation for the church. He asked if the parking lot had to be that big.
Mr. Metz asked that the developers be cautious regarding the environmental impact on the birds and wildlife in the area so that the quality of life remains what the people in the subdivision have grown accustomed to.
Glen Bonaventura thanked the Council for his first award received tonight for his work on the Natural Resources Design Plan Implementation Committee.
Glen Bonaventura, 47126 Cider Mill, said he was on the Planning Commission and tonight he was representing the Planning Commission so, he said I guess, I am representing the group. He said specifically he was representing the Planning Commission to discuss the no load road for the Vistas project. He said he had three areas of concerns regarding the Vistas and one is the no load road, the another is the area surrounding the existing subdivision at the northwest corner which was previously commented on by the gentleman before him and number three would be the consultant review fees.
Mr. Bonaventura said concerning the no load road, and if you want to take notes and grab a pencil this is fine too, the PUD Ordinance states "that the proposed development shall create a minimum disturbance to the natural features and land forms." He said it is also mentioned in the ordinance that the Planning Commission can recommend to Council that natural amenities and wildlife habitats be preserved and that Council can enforce such preservation. He said the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to preserve the wooded area around the extension of Sandstone Drive as determined by the City Forester. He said this area should be shown as a no load road and be developed with no housing units on this road. Mr. Bonaventura said it was the Planning Commission's intent to preserve the entire area of woodlands with the only exception being the Sandstone Drive extension. He said he believed on the plans there is a 70 foot wide area being considered as a no load area. He said he just wanted to make clear what the intent of the Planning Commission was.
Mr. Bonaventura said concerning the area surrounding the existing subdivision at the northwest corner:
1. The church site: we must provide more of a buffer for the existing subdivision through the preservation of the woodlands that exist there.
2. The Mock Cemetery: If nothing is to be built in this area why clear the land for the sake of a developers theme. He said this would help to add a buffer to the existing subdivision. Mr. Bonaventura said, once again, hitting on the point of the buffer for the existing subdivision.
3. Phase II, the West Village Sites: There is an alley included within the 40 foot buffer on the east side of the existing subdivision and this alley should be removed. He said Phase II must offer a substantial natural buffer along the existing subdivision. He said these two developments are different in character and the natural screening seems appropriate.
Mr. Bonaventura said regarding the consultant review fees he asked that Council be sure all fees have been paid for all reviews as per City Ordinance. He said he could not find recent receipts when he was reviewing the Vistas file.
Mayor McLallen asked if Mr. Bonaventura was presenting a position of the entire Planning Commission?
Mr. Bonaventura said for the no load road that was the Planning Commission's position and the rest is his. He apologized for not making that clear.
He said, finally, his top five facts about the project and he used the Master Plan as a basis for his calculations:
1. This project represents a 9.3% increase in the city's population.
2. A 10.5% increase in single family homes
3. What he called real density is 7.25 Homes per acre
4. This projects density is over 7 times greater than what the current zoning allows.
5. The City Attorney has offered his opinion that the commercial area cannot be used in calculating density as it is now.
Mr. Bonaventura asked that the Council postpone this project until all the matters are resolved.
James Korte, Shawood Lake, said possibly at the end of the meeting if necessary he would like to bring out some new things found out over the weekend regarding Ivy Leaf Walkway.
Mr. Korte said, regarding Sandstone Vista's, every time it is up he says he wants his water back into Shawood Lake and it is getting better. He said it isn't what it should be but please allow the Vista's over this newest hurdle and then allow them to get over the next one. He thought there were few developers who would have dealt with Sector Study, Lakes area residents and all of the concerns of Howells Walled Lake Subdivision. He said it is a fine project and the new urbanism is wonderful.
Mr. Korte said a year and a half ago he was ticketed out front and the parking ticket was dismissed because it should not have been given to him. He said today he received another parking ticket. He said there is no Traffic Control Order written on this property and therefore the ticket he received today and the several given to cars behind him are not valid; the City will eat those tickets. He said they will not stand up in a court of law. Mr. Korte asked who was running the ship and why this was not taken care of a year and a half ago when it happened the first time? Mr. Korte asked that the City Manager solve this problem.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Storm Sewer Oversizing Credit Request - Addington No. 1 - in the amount of $28,575.00 2. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 10th and December 12th 3. Resolutions - Acceptance of Easements 13 Mile Improvements Highway Easement - Timothy Fifer/Caren Collins - $2,150.00
WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan, necessitate the improvement of Thirteen Mile Road in the City of Novi; and
WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said improvement have been prepared by the City Engineers; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that said improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the public; and
WHEREAS, in order to construct said improvement, it is necessary that the City acquire a Highway Easement over the parcel described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, premises situated in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan
WHEREAS, Council has previously approved the Option to Purchase; however, the closing was not able to take place due to a pending mortgage, therefore, JCK & Associates opted to utilize a Highway Easement to facilitate the construction of the road and future utilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City purchase said easement, a copy of Highway Easement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", for the sum of two Thousand One Hundred Fifty and no/100-----Dollars ($2,150.00), the amount established as just compensation for the acquisition of the property, based upon an appraisal of the property in accordance with the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, MCL 213.51, et. seq.
Vics Quality Market Sanitary Sewer Easement - Evergreen III - Gift
WHEREAS, Evergreen III, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, is the Owner of Certain real property located in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, as described in a Sanitary Sewer Easement attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to voluntarily convey (said property; the rights set forth in said easement) to the City of Novi for public purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that said conveyance is in the publics interest and benefit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute delivery of Sanitary Sewer Easement attached hereto.
Water Main Easement - Evergreen III - Gift
WHEREAS, Evergreen III, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, is the Owner of certain real property located in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, as described in a water Main Easement attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to voluntarily convey (said property; the rights set forth in said easement) to the City of Novi for public purposes; and
WHEREAS the City has determined that said conveyance is in the publics interest and benefit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute delivery of the Water Main Easement attached hereto.
Driveway Grading Permits 39475 13 Mile - 12-200-007 - Roberts 41414 13 Mile - 02-400-005 - Fifer/Collins 29420 Meadowbrook - 12-101-002 - Heidelberg
4. Revised Resolution - Water Tap Transfer Policy (Confirmation of Action taken 12/12/94)
WHEREAS, the Michigan Department of Public Health has placed a water moratorium upon several western Oakland and Wayne County communities, including the City of Novi; and
WHEREAS, the water moratorium is expected to continue for an indefinite period of time; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Department of Public Health has advised communities that certain transference of theoretical design capacities and actual water use reductions are allowable to provide released capacity in other parts of the community; and
WHEREAS, certain water uses within the City of Novi continue to experience service reductions during peak demand periods; and
WHEREAS, the City of Novi is desirous of maintaining the integrity of the City's water distribution system along with protecting the health, safety and welfare of current Novi water users; and
WHEREAS, transference of theoretical design capacity may be made within subdivisions and additions to subdivisions and within site condominiums without adverse impact upon the integrity of the City's water distribution system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Novi City Council herein prohibits the transference of theoretical water system design capacities for the duration of the water moratorium imposed by the Michigan Department of Public Health, except in those instances where the transfer is: (1) within a subdivision or within a subdivision and contiguous, consecutively-numbered additions to the subdivision; or (2) within a site condominium or within contiguous site condominiums under common development. Transfers within such subdivisions and subdivision additions or within site condominium(s) may be permitted where the Director of Public Services, or his designee, determines that the transfer will not result in or exacerbate service reductions or otherwise adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of system users.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this resolution be, and the same hereby are, rescinded.
5. Resolution - Master Planning for Tree Farm Site
6. Authorization for the Oakland County Drain Commissioners Office to demolish the Nine Mile Sewage Retention Reservoir 7. Approval to purchase four patrol cars through Oakland County Joint Purchasing in the amount of $64,827.32 8. Approval of first renewal of window washing contract with Total Building Services 9. Resolution - Proposed Vacation of Hilcrest Drive 10. Resolution - Proposed Vacation of Ivy Leaf Walkway
Councilwoman Mason pulled Items #9 and #10.
Councilman Mitzel pulled the 11-10-94 Minutes, Item #2 and #5.
Councilman Schmid pulled Item #4.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Crawford Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and the Minutes of December 12, 1994 be approved.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I
Mayor McLallen asked the Council for the privilege of abstaining from Item #1 discussion as she is the selling agent for the property.
Mayor Pro-Tem Crawford called for the motion.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That the Mayor be allowed to abstain from Item #1, discussion on waiver of fees for Creek Crossing Development.
Yes (6) No (0) Abstain (1-McLallen) Motion carried
1. Request from Progressive Development to discuss fees for Creek Crossing Development
Mark Freedman, Progressive Development, stated that he was at the meeting to ask for a point of clarification. He said the wetlands ordinance in its present form was changed and amended. He said this project had been in the stages of pre-development for some time and by the time a deal was negotiated with the land owner and they got something into the City it was April of 1994. Mr. Freedman said at that time the "old" wetlands ordinance was in effect.
Mr. Freedman said as background the Creek Crossing Condominium is a proposed 26 unit site condominium development that would provide affordable housing to the area where 11 Mile Road dead-ends at Clark Street. He stated that they had approvals from the Planning Commission for this development and are about a day or two away from final engineering from JCK.
Mr. Freedman said he is here tonight regarding the wetlands ordinance amendment. He said there are unique circumstances that had forced him to come to Council. He said when they submitted their development plan, prior to doing so, they had their wetlands consultant, Jeff King of King Environmental, do a site walk. He said the balance of the site was clean but there was a pocket so Mr. King came on site to do a detailed analysis. Mr. King said that this was not a wetland because there was no clear or established connection, it was less than an acre in size and was basically the residue of a farmers tracks. Mr. Freedman said taking that into consideration they flagged off the potential area and called Sue Tepatti of JCK and the DNR and made an appointment for them to walk the site to see if they concurred with their findings. He said soil borings were also done in the area adjacent to the wetland to make sure there was no hydrologic connection sub surface that they couldn't see from a cursory walk. The soil borings were conclusive there was a clay liner. He said the DNR and Ms. Tepatti both walked with Mr. King in April and both agreed that the site did not contain a regulated wetland or a wetland of any value. Mr. Freedman asked for those findings in writing and within two days of the walk a letter was received from the DNR stating exactly what they found. He said they made the same request of Ms. Tepatti and received nothing. He said Ms. Tepatti requested a plan and they were not ready at the time but did get Mr. Kings potential wetland area shown on a plan and submitted that within two days of her request. Mr. Freedman said they also submitted a copy of the DNR's letter; they faxed it to her and also called her. He said nothing was received from Ms. Tepatti until June, 1994, after the ordinance was changed, asking them for $1,092.00 and telling them that their wetland that wasn't regulated prior to this amendment was now regulated.
Mr. Freedman said what was baffling to him was the agency that had come under fire in recent years, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, for being unresponsive responded in two days with a letter stating exactly what they found the day of the wetlands walk. Mr. Freedman said knowing that the State amended their wetlands policy over a year ago it still gave Novi free jurisdiction to regulate wetlands smaller than 2 acres. He said if we are going to play by the rules as developers he would assume that the City would play by the rules that were in effect at the time we performed the walk and submitted the plan. He said at the time there was no fee requested because in the past if there was no wetland on site there was no fee to determine if there was a wetland. He said if Ms. Tepatti wanted to bill him for the time she spent on site they would be glad to pay that. He stated there was no fee at the time and her verbal findings to both the wetlands consultant and to the DNR and to Mr. Freedman on the phone was that the wetlands were not regulatable; but to submit a plan.
Mr. Freedman was asking City Council to tell him why something that was not a wetland in April, 1994 suddenly became a wetland in June, 1994 when he had done everything that he was supposed to do. He said they waited to do the wetlands walk in April so that it could be conclusive. He said they did their homework and he felt that they did it in a forthright manner; without accusing anybody of not doing what they were supposed to do, he is left footing the bill and going through a process that is now new. He said he really needed Council to give him an answer or to direct someone to give him an answer as to why it took 3 1/2 to 4 months to send him a response which is going to cost him money, additional time and effort, dealing with something that was not worth dealing with back in April.
Councilman Mitzel said that when the wetlands ordinance was amended it was changed to provide a provision to allow the City to regulate or permit wetlands less than 2 acres in size. He said his understanding was that unless it met one of the 10 criteria listed in there then it wasn't regulated. He said he was confused by how Council is doing the process now and asked Mr. Fried to explain why a permit review fee is going to be required for everything instead of just those that meet the criteria that are under 2 acres.
Mr. Fried said it is because of the manner in which the ordinance is drawn. He said it is drawn in similar pattern as the State Statute. He said the ordinance provides the determination as to whether the 2 acre wetlands come within the provision of the ordinance and are to be regulated by the ordinance when an application is filed under the Wetlands Use Permit. He said when that application is filed then the criteria that is set forth in the ordinance and the statue is then applied. He said that the determination is not made until an application is filed and the fee is determined when the application is filed.
Mr. Fried said what Councilman Mitzel is, in fact, saying is that you should determine whether there is the criteria set up within the ordinance and the statue should be applied before the application is filed. Mr. Fried said that it cannot be done because the application had to be filed and then reviewed by the wetlands people, then it goes before the Planning Commission and certain findings have to be made if they want to control that 2 acre wetland area.
Councilman Mitzel said this was an unforeseen side effect of this ordinance. He did not realize that Council would end up having everyone go through a full submittal for every single wetland that was under two acres. He said his understanding of the prior process was that if it was under two acres then they didn't have to apply. He said now a side effect of the revised ordinance to comply with the State regulations was to require permits, fees and application reviews for every single wetland in town.
Mr. Fried said his statement was somewhat incorrect. He said the State Statute doesn't require 2 acre wetlands to be regulated. Mr. Fried said State Statue said if you regulate 2 acre wetlands then it must be done according to the State Statute.
Councilman Mitzel said that as long as Council wishes to regulate under 2 acres and provide for the possible permit for those high quality wetlands that meet one of those 10 criteria we are going to have to have applications and review. He said the only out that Council could provide would possibly be a waiver of review fees for anything under 2 acres.
Mr. Fried said that was one of the ways it could be done but there are other ways it could be done. He said we have not reviewed all the ways that Council could put in the ordinance to avoid the consequences that Council is facing tonight. He said if Council desires he would research the matter and come back with methods of avoiding this problem. He said currently because of the ordinance and the statue that is where we are at and he had great sympathy for Mr. Freedman.
Councilman Mitzel said he would appreciate seeing ways that this side effect of the ordinance could be remedied.
Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Freedman if the review in April, 1994 was at his request. She said he had already started working towards a development and as part of it Mr. Freedman had to call the consulting engineer to come in and look at the wetlands.
Councilwoman Mason said he had not gone for wetlands permit but he had started the process of identifying woodland/wetland for his project. Mr. Freedman said that was correct.
Mr. Freedman said he hired Jeff King, who in his mind is an expert. He said Mr. King didn't think it was a wetland and Ms. Tepatti and the DNR were contacted to say whether it was or wasn't a wetland. He said if it was a wetland they would have approached it differently but the findings were that it wasn't a wetland that the DNR was going to regulate and Ms. Tepatti said it was not a regulated wetland.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That the fees as presented be waived and that the City Attorney be directed to review the ordinance and bring back a change that would allow for fees to be offset for anything below 2 acres that the City wishes to regulate.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Pope said that in light of the State Statute passing, it was clearly the intent of the legislature that the acreage below 2 would be at the discretion of the City. He said the burden had changed from the developer proving to the City that it was something of environmental quality and must be preserved. He said the burden was changed to the City proving that it was something of environmental protection so that the City could protect it. He said he didn't believe that if the City wishes to protect under two acres that it should require a developer to pay a fee for the City to make its findings that the land be protected. He thought it was correct that this Council has made a policy decision we want to protect environmentally sensitive wetlands below 2 acres but he did not think it proper to put the financial regulatory burden on the developer in doing that.
Councilman Schmid said in other words you want the City to pay the $1,092.00. He said the citizens of Novi would be paying a bill which this developer would have paid if we kept the ordinance as it is today. He said now you want to turn this around and have the City pay for the cost, which the City would have to pay, because it would still have to be inspected. Councilman Schmid asked if that was accurate.
Mr. Fried said yes it would have to be inspected.
Councilman Schmid said that he wasn't sure that Council wanted to pick up this expense. He said maybe the whole ordinance should be looked at if we want to start paying for wetlands we want to save instead of the developer paying. He felt that the whole ordinance should be looked at to determine if the citizens should be paying for this.
Councilman Pope said there was no environmentally sensitive wetland on Mr. Freedman's property, there is nothing in the paperwork saying it is environmentally sensitive. He said under the previous ordinance JCK would have walked that site and there would have been no fee charged as part of their overall retainer and their overall right to have a monopoly on doing the city's environmental review work. He said they did that as part of their fee and it was Councilman Pope's belief that should continue because unless there is a site located as an environmentally sensitive wetland there should not be a fee paid by the developer or by the City.
Councilman Schmid said that he thought there was a wetland on this property that was not controlled by the previous ordinance but would be controlled today. He said there is some wetland there.
Mr. Freedman said it was not a wetland according to our wetlands consultant, the DNR, the City or State regulations.
Councilman Schmid said assuming it was wetlands to be saved there would be a charge unless there is a deal with JCK that they do it for nothing or as part of their retainer fee. He said his only point is that we don't put onto the City or the citizens the cost for developers on an ordinance that clearly they should be paying for if they are going to build on this land.
Mayor Pro-Tem Crawford said his understanding after reading the documentation was that it was a wetland, however, under 2 acres and not under the regulations. He said in Mr. Freedman's presentation it sounded like he said that the samples taken did not qualify it as a wetland. He asked which is accurate is it a wetland under 2 acres or is it not a wetland at all.
Mr. Freedman said he was not being facetious but that was something that Council would have to tell him. He said the DNR was writing it off and Ms. Tepatti was writing it off as a non-regulatable wetland of a quality of not worth regulating.
Mayor Pro-Tem Crawford asked if it had all the properties of a wetland.
Mr. Freedman said it had some species but nothing conclusive and that was why they brought the city and the DNR in because there were some species and it was questionable. He said that was why they asked Ms. Tepatti and the DNR to make the call and their call was it was not regulatable.
Councilwoman Mason said that unregulated wetlands are part of the retainer for the consultanting engineer and it should cost no one anything. She said so for this, because we rewrote the ordinance, to cost Mr. Freedman $1,092.00 is ludicrous. She said no one should have to pay because on April 21, 1994 a representative from JCK came out there, under our retainer, and said this was not a wetland. She asked how could Council charge Mr. Freedman $1,092.00 because we changed our ordinance. She very strongly felt that the fee should be waived and that Council should come up with a better way to do this.
Mr. Fried explained the situation again. He said Mr. Freedman inquired of JCK prior to the adoption of the amendment of the ordinance regulating wetlands under two acres. He said when he made his inquiry there was no ordinance in effect regulating wetlands under two acres. Mr. Freedman then went ahead and assumed that area would not be regulated. He said after that inspection was made Council passed an ordinance regulating less than two acres of wetlands. He said the question comes up when you are regulating less than two acres of wetlands are you going to preserve that or not. He said the ordinance and the statute sets up certain criteria which has to be met if you are going to preserve it. He said until that determination is made as to whether you are going to preserve it or not the wetlands are still there and the question of whether it should be preserved or not is up to the Council and not up to JCK or whoever.
Mr. Fried said Councilman Pope was saying that if you are not going to preserve the wetlands then there is no reason why the developer should pay for it. He said if you are going to preserve the wetlands then their fee should be attached to it. He said Councilman Pope is asking Council to amend the ordinance to that effect.
Mr. Fried said in nine out of ten instances a walk through on the site by JCK would determine whether the matter should even have great consideration by the Council. He said normally, in the past, there had been no charge for that. He said it will have to be presented to JCK and they would have to make a determination as to what they are going to approach the Council with in that regard. Mr. Fried said he could get back to Council with something that answers that whole thing but the problem Council will have to deal with is JCK.
Councilman Schmid asked Councilman Pope if assuming they say it is a wetland that the developer will pay for the acre or whatever.
Councilman Pope said his argument was if a wetland does not meet the environmentally sensitive criteria that allows the City to regulate a wetland under 2 acres, then there is no reason for the developer to pay any fee to have that review done. Why would we, under the new ordinance, charge a fee to walk the Fretter Site when there is no wetland at all? He said if you had a piece of land with only a 1 acre piece of wetland that JCK determined to be environmentally sensitive, would it be right to put that regulatory burden on the developer when it is the city's intention to regulate that wetland. Councilman Pope said Mr. Fried stated his position correctly. He said when they find nothing that is environmentally sensitive there is no reason to charge a fee.
Councilman Schmid felt that the developer should be charged just like he is charged for putting in sidewalks, sewers, etc.
Mr. Kapelczak, JCK & Associates, said in Ms. Tepatti's mind it was a wetland but it was a low grade wetland and under two acres. He said, regarding the fees as part of our retainer services, there is nothing in our retainer that deals with wetlands. He said wetlands, as we were asked to visit sites, were always paid for by developers. He said if the Building Department said there was a violation of a wetland and asked Ms. Tepatti to go out and look that would fall under the retainer.
Councilwoman Mason said when Sue Tepatti went on that property April 21st it was not considered a wetland, there was no revision to our ordinance and therefore that fell under our retainer.
Mr. Kapelczak said that the only way Ms. Tepatti should have gone out there was if Don Saven sent her out because of a violation.
Councilwoman Mason said Ms. Tepatti reviewed the project on April 21st with Jeff King and the DNR at the request of the developer.
Mr. Kapelczak said if she would have reviewed it then he guaranteed that they probably would have made them post a fee.
Councilwoman Mason felt that the fee should be waived because when Ms. Tepatti came out April 21st, prior to the ordinance change, there was no fee charged to Mr. Freedman.
Mr. Freedman said it was in writing that Ms. Tepatti said that under the old ordinance the wetland would not have been regulated.
Mr. Kapelczak said obviously those questions with the new ordinance have not been worked out between JCK and the City of Novi as yet.
Mayor Pro-Tem Crawford said that was precisely what Councilman Pope's motion addresses. He recalled the motion: to grant a waiver in this particular case and bring back some recommendation on how Council might address this in the future.
Councilman Schmid said if this is proven to be by our ordinance a wetland then who will pay the bill. He asked if he would like to amend the motion to state that.
Councilman Pope amended his motion to read:
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That the motion be amended to read that the City shall waive this fee when Ms. Tepatti confirms with the City that this is not an environmentally sensitive wetland and request direction from the City Attorney to review this on the future issues.
Yes (6) No (0) Abstain (1-McLallen) Motion carried
Mayor McLallen assumed the chair.
2. Final Plat Approval - Westmont Village - #1
Richard Lewiston stated they were seeking Final Plat Approval of Westmont Village Subdivision #1. He said the subdivision consisted of 61 lots and approximately 27 acres. He said the Final Plat as presented conforms precisely to the tentative plat which was approved 10/5/92. He said since that time they have secured all of the necessary permits for the development of the property and installed substantially all of the required utilities including the underground utilities. Mr. Lewiston said they also have the street pavements and site grading for the property. He said they had secured the approval of the Department of Health for the water supply to the property and have posted with the community letters of credit to assure unto the community the completion of those items of work which are generally deferred in connection with subdivisions. He said they have paid to the city all of the inspection fees required by the city in connection with the installation of the utilities. Also paid to the City was the storm water detention tap fee of $31,000 set by JCK and Associates.
Mayor McLallen stated that this was for Final Plat in Section 28. She said there is a letter dated January 5th from Fried and Levitt noting that the actual 2 year limit on the Plat Approval expired in October and if the Council is in support of the Final Plat a provision needs to be added waiving the 2 year period. Councilman Toth asked the City Administration if the two year limitation expired on the 6th of October and there are letters dated December why was this process through the City and what checks and balances do we have to make sure that this does not happen in the future. He said he had a letter dated December 6th from JCK, December 9th from Birchler-Arroyo Associates and a memo dated December 6th from JCK and another dated November 28th from JCK. He said these are all well after the expiration date of the 6th of October and he wondered why this was before Council with no recommendation and no disclosure or information from the City Administration as to how this was bounced around. He asked who was handling this and why was it handled so badly. Councilman Toth said he was not sure if the petitioner, property owner or developer was aware of this but he should be made aware of this and he should be made aware of it well in advance of the information getting to this stage.
Councilman Toth said a full written report should be back to Council by the next meeting explaining why this happened, how is this going to be corrected and what the policy will be to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future. He said there is nothing in here but letters from the consultants; there is nothing from the administration, the planning department or anything to explain this.
Mayor McLallen asked if it was consensus of Council to have the Administration directed to bring that back at our next meeting.
Gerry Stipp stated when this letter was submitted to go forward with the Final Plat on the subdivision she did inform the developer that the Final Preliminary had expired. Mrs. Stipp said the developer said that he would look into it and that he did not agree that it had expired since they had practically completed the subdivision. She said she did not see it as a big problem. She said she talked with Mr. Fried's office about it and Mr. Fried's office commented in the letter how it could be handled. She said she did not see it as a major mistake. She said she would be glad to write a report if Council would like.
Mayor McLallen asked the Council if there was consensus that the Council would like information on how the the developers are notified of expirations of plats so that we don't have these time lags?
Councilman Mitzel said that he would like the administration to come forward with the process that states how they will notify in advance so the applicant can get their application for extension before the time expires.
Mayor McLallen said there was consensus on Council to direct Administration to send forward the process by which the applicants are notified. She said the issue before Council is the Final Plat Approval for Westmont Subdivision with the provision that either the expiration of the Preliminary Plat is extended or that requirement be waived by this Council.
Councilwoman Mason thanked Mr. Lewiston and said that everything that comes before Council should come in this condition and as complete. She said he presents a beautiful case to Council every time he comes in.
It was then,
Moved by Councilwoman Mason Seconded by Councilman Toth
That the Final Plat for Westmont Village Subdivision No. l be approved and that the requirement for approval within two years be waived.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Schmid said he to is concerned and wondering why the Planning Department did not submit a letter as to what their recommendation was. He said we have ordinances that say this must be submitted within two years and if it is not submitted then within 30 days we have to notify them. He said that he would vote for this motion but he felt the City should get on procedure and when the ordinances are not met they are dealt with.
Councilman Pope said he agreed partially with Councilman Schmid comments only that when we have an ordinance and it is not met he won't vote yes he will vote no. He said he did not agree with this subdivision to begin with and if they haven't met the ordinance then Council should vote no. He said he will not vote yes he will vote no.
Councilman Mitzel said he would support the waiver in this case since the developer was not notified prior to the expiration date and especially with the knowledge that the Administration would be coming forward with the procedure to guarantee notice in advance in the future.
Councilman Schmid said developers are sound businessmen they hire a lot of people to do their homework and he didn't think that the City of Novi had to put calendars on their problems. He said they know full well what the ordinances say and they know they have to get the plats in within two years and Councilman Schmid did not think the Administration should have to remind them of when things had to be done. He felt it was their responsibility, that's what they get paid for and that's what they make their living at.
Yes (6) No (1-Pope) Motion carried
Mr. Fried said the ordinance does provide that the applicant can go ahead while his Final Plat is pending and complete construction of the Plat although the Final Plat had not been approved. Mr. Fried recommended a change in the ordinance that provides that if the applicant is proceeding on the plat while the final plat is pending that this would constitute a waiver or compliance of that two year period.
Mayor McLallen said the Ordinance Review Committee is meeting January 24th. Mr. Fried said it would be before the Ordinance Review Committee.
3. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.532 - TC to TC-1 - George Keros - Request to bring property on the south side of Grand River east of Novi Road into conformance with the Master Plan from the TC designation to TC-1.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.532 - POSSIBLE REZONING FROM TOWN CENTER (TC) TO TOWN CENTER-ONE DISTRICT (TC-1) OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT.
Matt Niles, Architect, stated that the request pertains to a parcel in Section 23 fronting Grand River east of Novi Road. He said it was a small piece of property currently zoned TC and due to the size and shape of the property it would be advantageous to have the property rezoned to TC-1. He said this would offer more flexibility in yard setbacks and building setbacks. He was requesting that the zoning be changed from TC to TC-1 which fits in with the overall City Master Plan for the Town Center Development. Mr. Niles said the property in this area is already zoned TC-1. He said it was their intent to work with and cooperate with the City's Town Center Master Plan.
Councilman Toth directed his question to Mr. Rogers, Planning Consultant. Councilman Toth said this came before the last Town Center Committee Meeting and one of the problems was the fact that when we have adjoining City property why did the City not join in with the applicant and have the City property also rezoned to Town Center TC-1.
Mr. Rogers said that it was his hope that when Mr. Chen came in for Main Street that the entire southeast quadrant be rezoned by developer initiative and if needed by City initiative. He said it was decided to go by developer initiative so that each petition would stand on its own. He said Mr. Chen came in and the Main Street rezoning went through. Mr. Rogers said then the petition was received from Mr. Keros for just his property which is 1.65 acres. Mr. Rogers said he totally agreed that it should be included and he would be willing to push for city initiated rezoning for the balance of the Grand River and Novi Roads frontage. He was concerned about how the smaller parcels would fit. Mr. Rogers said he could not give a reason why the City property wasn't included except that it was a decision of the Planning Commission and he thought the Administration had to take each petition as it came. Mr. Rogers said the whole area south of Grand River should be TC-1 and also the area west of Novi Road south of Grand River.
Councilman Toth said if Council wants the entire southeastern quadrant TC-1 should the Planning Commission contact the property owners and see if they would all support that?
Mr. Rogers said he thought that we should and that this could be a good venture initiative and he felt that we would get good reception. He said the TC-1 District has some attraction but whether they are interested in this on the frontage he did not know. He said he would like to have some direction and he would convey this to the Planning Department and he thought they should step forward.
Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Rogers to outline the merits of going TC-1 as opposed to TC and what is the driving force between TC-1 as opposed to TC which already exists.
Mr. Rogers said there were three key areas in the TC-1 as was adopted by the Council. He said it limited the size of a retail business to 7,500 square feet unless there is a second or third story development. He said under the TC zoning you could come in with a 20,000 square foot one story development. He said that this would create more Main Street type developments small store fronts rather than large retail structures.
Mr. Rogers said the second advantage is that it precludes, without a variance from the ZBA, large parking lots in front of the buildings. He said it is limited to a certain depth off of Grand River and Novi Road.
Mr. Rogers said the third benefit would be the zero lot line for side yard setback. He said that would create more of a continuous commercial development than having the requirement of a 10 or 20 foot side yard that might not be useable. He said the uses permitted are the same retail, multiple family and office but it is the design standards. He said it also speaks, in the TC-1 District, to shared parking which might be some common parking facility to serve a number of businesses whereas the TC District required that the developer provide their own parking on site. He said there are also some considerable design standards, amenities and streetscape requirements in the TC-1 District that are called out in quite a bit of specificity.
Councilman Schmid said his concern was spot zoning although eventually this would all be TC-1. He asked if this would open up a development that could infringe on the existing zoning next door, behind, in front, etc. where there are zero lot lines. He thought this should all go at once or we are going to have types of buildings and requirements different than what's already there.
Mr. Rogers said if we zoned it all TC-1 tonight we would still have multiple ownerships and there would be some like Novi Auto Parts and Tireman who would stay in their own building and have their own side yards. He said there was not an approval for the Keros property. Mr. Rogers said a number had been shown that did not meet the ordinance. He said that he had talked to the architect about his concerns and told them he would not be inclined to support any variances. He said he would not call it spot zoning he would call it zoning in conformance with the Master Plan.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Toth Seconded by Councilman Schmid
Resolved that Zoning Map Amendment 18.532 being an amendment to the Zoning Map of Zoning Ordinance 84.18 as amended be adopted.
DISCUSSION
Councilwoman Mason said if you look at Mr. Marcus' letter he is very concerned that the greenbelt is put in there as required because it was not put in on the other side when the parking lot and building went in. She said it creates a problem for the other business.
Yes (6) No (1-Pope) Motion carried
4. Approval of Revised PUD Area Plan for the Vistas of Novi and Approval of Revised PUD Agreement
Mayor McLallen explained this was a long standing project with the city and this would be the second evolution of this project formerly known as Sandstone. She said the redesign was what has brought them here tonight. The new name was The Vistas and it comprised approximately 296 acres in the northeast quadrant of the city that would eventually have 1,193 housing units constructed in 14 phases. She said the breakdown of housing units would be 193 multiples, 250 live/work units, 375 single family houses on 50 ft. frontage, 187 houses on 60 ft. frontage, and 188 houses on 70 ft. frontage. There would also be 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial property within the project.
Ronald Hughes, representing The Vistas and Hughlan Development Co., said they were before Council tonight for final approval of the revised area plan and revised PUD contract. He distributed their response to the questions and concerns expressed by the consultants' letters which were included in Council's packet.
Mayor McLallen asked if the requests could be combined in a single motion - approval of the area plan and approval of the agreement. David Fried said it should be two separate motions.
Councilman Pope said Council had already approved the area plan, and Mr. Fried asked if there were further revisions and Mr. Hughes said there were not. Councilman Pope said they had approved the area plan previously contingent on the contract. He said that didn't mean they couldn't make changes to the area plan if they wanted to but he thought the proper motion they were looking for tonight was to approve the contract. The City Attorney said that was correct, and Mayor McLallen clarified that the area plan was part of the contract.
Mayor McLallen said the goal of this discussion tonight was when this agreement was finalized, every component of this group - Council, staff, consultants, developer - would have a clear direction and understanding of what was expected.
Mr. Hughes said there were about ten issues brought up by the City's consultants they would address.
1. "no load road"
Mr. Hughes said when they submitted the new revised area plan, they suggested that two lots for a total of 50 lineal feet be preserved on each side of the road for this preservation area and for the wildlife culvert. He said after the approval, in discussions with city consultants they increased that amount of footage to 70 feet because they felt some of the recommendations for 100% "no load" were not appropriate and were unreasonable and detrimental to the project. He said in order to have a resolution of this issue, they were asking for Council approval of setting aside 150 lineal feet on each side of the road for a no-build area which represented a 300% increase from their understanding back in July.
Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Hughes to clarify what the Planning Commission suggested. Mr. Hughes said the Planning Commission did not specifically recommend an entire "no load" area through that vicinity. Councilman Schmid asked what they did recommend and Mr. Hughes said they would have to refer to the minutes.
2. Reconsideration of Planning Dept. approval of landscape plans
Mr. Hughes said they were in agreement with Mr. Watson's recommendations in paragraphs 1 and 2.
3. Substitution of the "one to one" tree replacement ratio as adopted language in the 7-18-94 Council minutes with provisions of the newly adopted woodland ordinance.
Mr. Hughes said a one to one ratio was adopted on 7-18-94 which was very consistent with the Planning Commission's original recommendation pursuant to Ord. 93-125.07. He said it was very apparent that this ordinance specifically referred to a one to one replacement ratio; there was no recommendation from the Planning Commission to change the replacements in accordance with amended or newly adopted ordinances. Therefore, a one to one ratio should remain the same based on the Planning Commission's recommendation and the City Council's approval on July 18, 1994.
4. Clarification of Area Plan test that the 10% maximum variation in housing types refers to number of permitted dwelling units allowed within any particular housing type category.
Mr. Hughes said they felt that was clearly defined in the PUD agreement.
5. Addition of setback and buffer areas along Novi Road, Decker Road and south edge of revised area plan
Mr. Hughes said setbacks as required in Sec. 2700 have been satisfied with the existing area plan and building setbacks within the individual lots. He said all buildings within phases 3, 5, 6, and 9 may be built up to the right of way for Decker Road in order to achieve the urban character as originally intended for the revised area plan approved by the Council in July. The setback required for Novi Road and the south property line has been satisfied for the preservation areas on the current revised area plan.
6. Inclusion of proposed Church site in a numbered sequential phase.
Mr. Hughes said the Church has been assigned phase 2A; it shall be an independent phase which will not cause the delay of other phases if not completed in a timely manner. He said in any event, the church would be completed prior to phase 8.
7. Consideration of a variance related to the position of Market Street within the road right-of-way east of the village center.
Mr. Hughes said they concur and ask City Council to grant the variance as suggested by the city's consultants.
8. Tree spacing according to size of trees; additional contributions from the developer to the street tree maintenance fund for proposed public rights-of-way.
Mr. Hughes said these requests were not consistent with instructions from the Planning Commission or City Council as part of the conditional approval granted on July 18, 1994.
9. Dedication of streets and alleys.
Mr. Hughes said paragraph 10 of the PUD Agreement should state that the City would accept streets and alleys for dedication if they have been constructed to City standards.
10. Council Waivers of setbacks required under Section 2700; (a) requires 50 foot transition strip between commercial and residential areas, and (b) require a minimum distance of 150' between any residential building and non-residential building.
Mr. Hughes said these requirements can be waived by the City Council under Section 2700, and they were requesting a waiver of these two requirements in order to make the project technically consistent with the revised area plan submitted tonight.
He said the PUD agreement as submitted by Dennis Watson should clarify relative to the City's first right of refusal for space in the village center (paragraph 9 of the PUD agreement). The type of building must be identified as a library/police substation and should be separate from square footage proposed for the village center.
Mr. Hughes said additional clarifications that should be made tonight were:
- the first right of refusal shall be for lease or purchase - there should be a time frame for the City's preliminary first right of refusal of 60 days with finalization of the contract within 60 days thereafter for a total of 120 days - the building and/or space required by the City shall be located either in phase 6 or 9 - the amount of space required by the City should not be deducted from the 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial space proposed in the revised area plan - parking requirements also should not be deducted from the 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial.
Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Wahl if the Planning Department had any further comments other than packet or response to the ten items Mr. Hughes just brought forward. Mr. Wahl said he did not but responded that over the past several months they have expended considerable effort in working through the approvals and comments of City Council at the original approval stage; he noted there were several items that required further clarification.
Councilman Schmid said he asked only because this was brought up in Audience Participation but there was some indication that there were no fees charged by the City or the consultants for this revised plan. He asked if that were accurate and Mr. Wahl said that was the way it was handled because essentially this wasn't a review - it was just clarification or finalization of documents that were previously approved. Councilman Schmid asked if there weren't considerable changes in the original after Council's action in July, and Mr. Wahl said there were recommendations made by Council in July and they were working to accomplish those recommendations -they weren't essentially reviewing a new area plan.
Councilman Schmid asked if it was normal not to charge fees when Council sent back a plan that had to be changed, and Mr. Wahl said he wasn't sure they had any other projects that have proceeded quite like this one. Councilman Schmid asked if it was his decision not to charge fees, and Mr. Wahl said it was his responsibility and his decision not to charge fees. Councilman Schmid asked if Brandon Rogers agreed with that, and Mr. Wahl said he couldn't remember exactly the conversation but he didn't know that there was any debate. Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Rogers put in any time in reviewing the changed plan and Mr. Wahl said he did. Councilman Schmid asked if he should be paid for that under his contract, and Mr. Wahl said under his retainer, that would be covered. Councilman Schmid said it was not his understanding that this should be covered under a retainer fee when a plan was revised. He said all he was concerned with was that they get treated just like anyone else.
Councilman Toth asked if that Planning Commissioner was acting under the direction of the Commission to bring this up. Mr. Wahl said to his knowledge the Planning Commission did not delegate responsibility to anyone to present any opinions; commissioners appearing before them would be acting on their own as citizens and Commissioners.
Councilman Schmid said he didn't think the gentleman was talking about this issue but about the no load area. Councilman Toth said when he brought up the question of the consultant review fees, he represented himself as being a Planning Commissioner.
Mayor McLallen said she asked Mr. Bonaventura who he was representing and he said with the exception of the issue of no load, he was speaking on his own behalf.
Councilman Toth said he felt they were owed an explanation by the City Manager as to what the policy was from an Administrative standpoint and he would prefer that to be in writing at the next council meeting.
Mayor McLallen asked if there were any other issues from Council related to the PUD agreement for Mr. Wahl or the consultants.
Councilman Mitzel said he compared the new book to the one received in July and he had three pages of questions. He said it might be called micro-managing but a PUD allowed Council to enter into a specific, very detailed contract to guarantee the development and he felt it was Council's responsibility to make sure all the i's were dotted and they understood what they were getting.
David Fried commented that he appreciated what Mr. Mitzel did; he said he did an excellent job in reviewing this contract and presenting questions that raised some concern to him and probably to other members as well.
Councilman Mitzel's first question was: Did the legal description in the development agreement match that shown on the revised area plan sheet No. 1; he commented that they seemed to be slightly different.
Mr. Fried said they were in different forms but they covered the same property and the legal descriptions were accurate for both.
Mr. Mitzel said the revised area plan general Vistas PUD notes on sheet No. 1, note No. 3 stated that, "There shall be no collector roads within The Vistas." He said Market Street was proposed as 36 ft. in pavement through the residential area and he believed the city standards for residential collector road was 36 ft. of pavement. He asked what was meant by the note.
Mr. Fried said he thought the note must be changed to say, "except for Market Street" which would be a collector street.
Mr. Hughes said they disagreed with; even though they were building the road to a 36 ft. width standard, that did not necessarily mean it was a collector road and they did not want it labelled accordingly. He said there were different requirements under a collector road, such as curb cuts, etc., that would violate the integrity of their plan. He pointed out the area involved and said they were purposely and voluntarily increasing the width of the road but they were not calling it a collector road.
Mr. Fried asked Mr. Arroyo to comment on whether it was a collector road.
Mr. Arroyo said when the applicant first came before them, they stated they did not want any collector roads within this development and the reason was in keeping with the design concept. He said they wanted to provide a number of local streets whereby you could provide access to the external road network, not have one major road that carried the bulk of the traffic. He said he raised a question early on about Market Street because it was a little different from the other roads as it had commercial as part of the component and it also was an east-west road that had some continuance. He said in looking at that road and how it was going to function, it didn't easily fall into one classification. Mr. Arroyo said it was a local street in that it served local traffic but it might have some sub-collector function, however, he felt it could be argued that it was not a true collector road like other collector roads might be in a subdivision. He said it was right on the borderline and it could be difficult to make a call like this.
Mr. Arroyo said in looking at this road and how it was going to function, it was his opinion it would carry a slightly higher volume than some of the other local roads within the development. He said the applicant had expressed a desire that there be on-street parking provided and that it be there on a regular basis and they didn't want to have the situation occur where that might be restricted because that was in keeping with the design. He said the cross section of the roadway was discussed in detail and it was agreed that within the commercial area, the cross section would equal what they had in the TC-1 District for Main Street which essentially was a 45 ft. road cross section with on-street parking on both sides and two through lanes. He said then the discussion came up with how to deal with that particular area; the applicant felt on-street parking was critical, however, it was not necessarily a requirement to have parking on both sides of the street.
Mr. Arroyo said from his perspective, he wanted to make sure it would flow in a reasonable fashion and that they could address the concerns of the City. He said the result was that the cross section for the roadway that was outside the commercial area for Market Street was recommended to be 36 ft. He said it was different than what would be found in a typical collector road in that there would be two through lanes permanently dedicated plus one eight ft. wide area for on-street parking on one side of the road only. He said on-street parking would be permanently prohibited on the other side so, in effect, this was a road cross section they would not find anywhere else in the City. He said it was intended to accomplish the specific objective to allow on-street parking on at least one side but also have two through lanes at all times. He said if this were a typical subdivision street, a local street with 60 ft. right of way and 28 ft. back to back, with standard allowed parking on both sides there wouldn't be two through lanes and you would have to yield. However, on Market Street they felt that would be inappropriate.
Mr. Arroyo said they also didn't feel it was appropriate to have a typical 36 ft. cross section wide open and allowing parking on both sides in some cases and maybe no parking in other cases. He said that was the compromise and the unusual cross section that they developed in addressing the concerns of the applicant and the City.
Councilman Mitzel said growing up in a typical subdivision, he knew the wide pavement did increase speeds within the subdivisions. He said when he saw 36 ft., it looked and sounded like a collector road that would have all the problems that other collector roads in subdivisions had. He noted the parking approach was different and asked if because of that approach, they were saying they had to shift the road within the right of way.
Mr. Arroyo said that was correct; it was to maintain parking on one side only because the concern was if there was on-street parking on one side of the street, then the pedestrians on the sidewalk were protected from through traffic by either an 8' wide lane or a car parked there providing some protection. He said if they wanted to maintain the same type of separation between the road and the sidewalk that a typical street would have on the other side of the road, a 36 ft. pavement along the center line of the right of way would not maintain that; the road would be very close to the sidewalk. He said by shifting the road off the center line, they could maintain the same ten or twelve feet of separation between a sidewalk and a roadway that they had in any other residential area.
David Fried said the note then wouldn't be changed, however, the total agreement would be subject to the discussion at this Council table. He said that would be clarified by this discussion.
Councilman Mitzel said the general note #6 mentioned the 21,000 sq. ft. of live/work town homes and the commercial phases overall would not exceed 100,000 sq. ft. but did not include the 21,000 sq. ft. of commercial designated in the live/work town homes. He said his question was did that now legally bind this live/work commercial to a maximum to 21,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Hughes said they believed that note was in error and should be deleted because the minutes reflected that the live/work town houses were excluded in the calculation of 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial. David Fried said that was his understanding, too.
Councilman Pope said he believed the note was correct - that it should say 100,000 sq. ft. He said he was correct that the 21,000 sq. ft. would not impose on the 100,000 but he thought it was in the best interests of Council that they had a cap on the live/work town homes. He said if the developer has put forth the 21,000 sq. ft. figure, it appeared that was what they were looking at; he said he was not saying that 21,000 should be part of the 100,000 but it should be locked in as his question was leading Council to believe.
David Fried said he thought Council should decide that question now.
Councilman Mitzel said it was on the document in front of them and if they accepted it, then it was in. Mr. Fried said if it was on the document, it could be left on if Council agreed it should be a 21,000 sq. ft. cap. He said there should be some action by Council since the developer did not agree with that.
The Mayor suggested since Councilman Mitzel was the first to speak, that any motion be made later.
Councilman Schmid asked if the 21,000 sq. ft. of additional commercial had been figured into the parking. Brandon Rogers said at the time of preliminary site plan when that particular element would come in, he usually made a judgement decision whether to take the commercial and work out the parking requirements and then take the residential and add the two since it was a split use or to go 50-50.
Councilman Schmid asked if the town homes were limited to a certain size store, and Mr. Rogers said no. Councilman Schmid said so there could be a 21,000 sq. ft. store and Councilman Pope pointed out that you had to live there, too, and that would be a pretty big town house.
Mr. Rogers said in terms of parking, he would consider it commercial based upon the floor space in that particular town house; he added, however, there were very little building or parking outlines on the general area plan. Councilman Schmid said additional parking could dramatically change the site plan, and Brandon Rogers said it may but they haven't done any measurement of parking and none of it was shown on the area plan. He said he would take that under advisement.
David Lanciault said he felt if they read the note a little more carefully it said that the commercial space designations for phases 3, 4, 5 and 6 were estimates only and subject to change as each phase was developed; the overall commercial space for phases 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall not exceed 100,000 sq. ft and do not include the commercial space designated in phase 9. He said in order to achieve the balance of a streetscape on either side of the commercial area, there was some commercial space in phase 9 and it was spelled out in this note so it wouldn't be overlooked and the City knew what they were doing. He said it was not a cap or a maximum; it was just pointing out that there would be 21,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in that area so they would see shops on both sides of Market Street. He said these would be live/work town homes and the note was there so there would be no misunderstanding.
Councilman Schmid asked if that was the only area where there would be live/work homes and Mr. Lanciault said he thought they would see more live/work as it got to the little radial town center; he clarified that all the live/work was in phase 9 and phase 7.
Councilman Pope said he supported the live/work town home concept but he needed justification on some kind of a cap; he recognized that they were potentially dramatically increasing the commercial. He said he didn't necessarily have a problem with a little bit of the increase because of the nature of the commercial but he didn't know what these areas could potentially put in in terms of the number of live/work homes. He said Mr. Lanciault said some would be in phase 7 and he asked if all of phase 7 could turn into live/work too, dramatically increasing the commercial.
Brandon Rogers said on the phasing plan he had, live/work town homes were limited to phase 9 and phase 7 called for town homes. Councilman Pope asked if this plan was approved the way it was right now and they came in with phase 7, could they build live/work town homes? Brandon Rogers said his opinion was no; it was not designated on the area plan.
Councilman Pope asked if they were aware of the total area in a phase like 9 and what the potential build out was of that site. Mr. Rogers said they had no site plan to make that judgement, however, note 6 said the overall commercial space for phases 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall not exceed 100,000 sq. ft. and that did not include the 21,000 sq. ft. of live/work town homes.
Councilman Pope said he felt the majority of Council agreed that the 100,000 sq. ft. was the cap on commercial, that there would be some live/work town homes that would not be included in that. His point was he would like to see a reasonable figure capped within phase 9 of what the live/work square footage was. Mr. Rogers said he couldn't give him another number tonight and he couldn't tell him that 21,000 sq. ft. would work; he noted that phase 9 was a large area of 30 or 40 acres that probably could accommodate that much square footage on the first floor.
Mayor McLallen noted that the plan said that within this area there were up to 250 live/work potentials. Brandon Rogers said some of the phase was just town homes and others were like/work town homes the way he saw it. He said in phase 7, it was strictly town homes and if you read phase 9 literally, it was live/work town homes. Mr. Rogers said Mr. Arroyo called out that in phase 9 where the live/work town homes were, there would be 120 max. and then the other 130 were in phase 7.
Councilman Pope said also within that same note for commercial space under phase 7, there was nothing listed. Mr. Rogers said there would be no commercial as he read the plan in phase 7.
Councilman Pope asked why the developer was saying what was listed was in error and he wouldn't support the caps since that was what was proposed to Council.
Mr. Lanciault said they did not understand that there was a cap; the 21,000 sq. ft. designated in phase 9 they feel was an error and should be deleted. He said there was not a cap intended in the live/work town houses and if the city was now suggesting to change and impose a cap.... he said the original proposal listed 250 live/work townhouse dwellings that would have the availability to have commercial in their dwellings. Mr. Lanciault directed them to page 8 of the booklet.
Councilwoman Mason said on the plan, it said phase 9 was live/work town homes; it showed 18 acres, 120 town houses and 70 multi-family. She asked where the multi-family was that didn't show up on the plan, and Mr. Lanciault said it was above the commercial shops. She asked if they meant there would be apartments and more than one family over each shop.
Mr. Hughes said they have always represented that above the commercial, there would be 193 units in two stories in the village center - probably rental, in addition to the town homes. Mr. Hughes clarified that the three story town homes would be attached at the sides with individual front and back doors, like brownstones, and there would be 193 two story multi-family units on top of the commercial in the village center.
Councilwoman Mason said that meant there would be 53 in phase 6 in the village center, 70 in phase 7 in the town homes and 70 in the live/work.
Mr. Hughes said they tried to define that 193 multiple family units could be placed in the village center in phases 6 and 7 above or stand alone.
Councilwoman Mason pointed out that there was a discrepancy between the plan and the book in terms of what would be built in phase 7 - the plan showed town homes only with no multi-family or commercial or live/work. She said a town home was a condominium that was free standing and you owned the ground below, the air above, and you didn't have your business there. She said her concern was that the commercial was being spread out in more places than it ever was when they first started with this project. She commented that the plan said one thing and the land use said another. Mr. Hughes said the commercial was only in phases 6 and 7 and on the south side of Market Street which encompassed phase 9.
Mayor McLallen asked if the issue was that the commercial was not shown or that she didn't care to have it there at all, and Councilwoman Mason said the issue was that it was not shown and she didn't know what they really wanted to do. She asked the developer whether he wanted live/work throughout because her understanding of this project was that there would be distinct areas that would be live/work or neighborhoods or townhouses; she said she has stayed with this project because the developer had indicated certain areas for definite uses - not spreading things all the way through the project because then it would not be what she thought it would be.
Mr. Hughes said they concurred with what Councilwoman Mason said; in phase 7 there would be live/work town homes and if there was some multiple family in phase 7, there would be no multiple family with commercial below. Councilwoman Mason clarified that then there would just be apartments or town homes with no commercial and Mr. Hughes said that was right except the live/work town homes. Councilwoman Mason noted then they were right back into commercial with live/work town homes.
Mr. Hughes said they didn't feel the live/work was a commercial; it was a hybrid between a work at home, home occupation, and a commercial.
Councilwoman Mason said she wouldn't be for putting live/work in an area where a young family might have small children next door; she suggested keeping commercial all in one phase - like phase 9 which would encourage people who wanted a small gallery or a tailor shop and could use the smaller apartments upstairs.
Mr. Hughes said they have always intended that the live/work town homes be allowed in phase 7 although they may be segregated according to blocks with some blocks not allowing it. He said they didn't intend the straight commercial to be in phase 7.
Councilman Pope said in tab 3, Hughlan Development provided a very detailed description of the type of live/work requirements and they were making that as an agreement in the contract - they were saying these were the things they were anticipating and this was the kind of regulation. He noted that would be part of the contract.
Mr. Hughes said also that would be reviewed at site plan level; if they showed a row of live/work town homes in an area that the planning commission felt was inappropriate.... Councilman Pope asked if they would be willing to show council at this point some concept of where those would be located within the phases so they understood which specific streets they would be located on. He said in phase 7, Mr. Gibbs said it could possibly be facing Market Street so they already had it in mind to segregate most of these live/work town homes anyway.
Mr. Lanciault said most likely they would be on Market Street in the westerly side of phase 7. Councilman Pope asked if as part of this contract he would be willing to dedicate, looking ahead to phase 7, where they were anticipating that live/work town homes would be located so council would see there was a segregation - it wouldn't be every other home.
Councilman Pope referred to tab 3 describing size, form and design of live/work town homes and questioned Mr. Rogers' inability to provide figures requested. Mr. Rogers noted that if every first floor was figured at 1,000 sq. ft. and there were 250 units, it would amount to more than 21,000 sq. ft. so he wasn't certain that every town home was going to have a live/work arrangement or maybe the full 1,000 sq. ft. wouldn't be used for commercial purposes. He noted that this was only narrative and they didn't have any site plans or floor plans but it gave a measure for parking.
Councilman Schmid commented that in reading very carefully, it appeared there could be up to 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial - the first and second floor - in these live/work town houses. He noted that could double the amount of commercial in the original agreement. He said this was supposed to be a residential area and they were building it into a massive commercial development which would compete with every other business in the city. He said this would be an attraction for commercial if they were going to allow another 30,000 or 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial in these town houses.
Brandon Rogers said he looked at the figure of 21,000 sq. ft. of commercial and it didn't disturb him assuming it would be spread among the 250 units, and Councilman Schmid said that made sense then if it was around phase 9 where it was indicated on the map.
Mr. Gibbs said they could give council a specific site plan but they could outline conditions for the live/work in phase 7 and where they would be allowed. He said it was their intent that the live/work town homes in phase 7 be located along the relatively busier streets - Market Street and two north-south streets that flanked the east and west sides and intersected on 13 Mile. He said they could say that it would only be located on the busier streets and not on the relatively quieter streets and they could put a percentage lid in there. He said for their own code, they were planning to put a lid of no more than two-thirds of these to be allowed.
Councilman Pope commented that it was going to be a long night on this project, and Mayor McLallen noted this wasn't the last they would see of the project; each of these fourteen phases would come back with detail as final site plans before they would be approved. Councilman Pope said but the contract was binding on both the developer and the city so they couldn't just let things work out in the details of that.
Councilman Pope said after going through the disaster of the relationship with the developer in The Maples, these things had to be ironed out in this contract - they couldn't wait for site plans. Councilman Pope said personally he found in the live/work that the professional and semi-professional uses were less offensive than the expansion of commercial on two floors throughout the complex. He said if there was any compromise on this potential, what he would like to see was that the commercial be restricted to a defined busy location, but internally there could still be the professional or semi-professional uses because he did not see them as proliferation of commercial. He said those were more of an office use and he would offer as a compromise they might be able to restrict some of the commercial toward the busier locations and allow professional in other locations.
Councilman Schmid questioned Mr. Gibbs about his inability to tell them how many they wanted or had to have, and Mr. Gibbs said he could not tell them where they would go - he couldn't give them a site plan - but he could tell them how many they expected to have which was no more than two-thirds. He said he couldn't tell them exactly how they would be designed because they haven't completed detailed site planning. Councilman Schmid felt the two-thirds was something they had just come up with tonight and commented that although he didn't support the 21,000 sq. ft. of commercial area originally, he thought it was all in one phase, and he did not agree with allowing it to spread over into other phases. He said that Mr. Rogers still hadn't addressed the parking and he couldn't imagine where they would park cars that would come to these businesses on the narrow streets with buildings at almost zero lot lines. He said he was amazed they were talking 250 homes that could potentially come out to 250,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Gibbs said this was what they have been saying for over seven months; this was what was approved in July and all they have done is provide restrictions and additional detail on the live/work town homes pursuant to council's request. He said they added that restaurants and cafes were not allowed so it was a very restrictive use.
Councilman Schmid asked if at that time the number of live/work town houses were in the text and on the map, and Mr. Gibbs said it hasn't changed.
Councilman Schmid said then Mr. Pope assumed even at that time that they were going to potentially have 250 homes with commercial in them. Councilman Pope said he realized there were 250 live/work town homes; he said he didn't know if he realized they were going to be two story potential commercial. He said he knew that the first floor could be used for commercial and knew they were going to be owner occupied and these were not commercial sites that were necessarily going to be rented out.
Councilman Schmid said he hoped council looked at this very carefully and understood what they were allowing this developer to do with regards to commercial development in a residential area. He said he didn't think the residents in the north end realized either that this would be allowing upwards of 250,000 sq. ft. plus a major commercial center. He urged council to reconsider; he said he did not think that was the intent that night.
Mr. Lanciault asked if they had reached a resolution on this issue? He said in their prospectus they have not changed a thing in the revised area plan through all the submittals to consultants and the planning commission. He said to suggest that it was different tonight was an error.
Councilman Mitzel said council had never had the details they have tonight. Mr. Lanciault agreed; he said in all of the minutes, the live/work town houses were excluded from the commercial and they have gone further now to show council exactly how restrictive the live/work town houses must be.
Councilman Mitzel said in the development agreement, the term Sandstone Community Association was used; he asked if that was the same as The Vistas Homeowners Association which is referred to in the revised area plan.
David Fried said he understood the developer was going to change the name from Sandstone to The Vistas Homeowners Association so it will be the same.
Councilman Mitzel said on page 7 of the revised area plan, it mentions gas stations - plural; he said he believed there was only one so that needed to be changed.
Councilman Mitzel said on page 12 alleys are mentioned; he said the developer presented tonight that they wished the city to accept the alleys and it has never been presented before that the city accept and maintain the alleys. He said he had a concern over that and wanted to point out that it was not specified in the revised area plan here though it was mentioned in the material that the developer presented tonight. He said he would prefer to see the alleys remain private and maintained by the association.
Mr. Lanciault said they have always had it in the booklet and they were merely clarifying that if they build the alleys pursuant to the city's standards the same as the streets, they may be dedicated.
David Fried noted that didn't mean the city would accept them; they may be dedicated. Councilman Mitzel asked if that meant the city had no obligation to accept the alleys or maintain them with the current language in the contract, and Mr. Fried said that was correct.
Councilman Schmid asked why, and David Fried said if the council wanted to accept them, they could but they were not obligated to accept them. Councilman Schmid asked if they were obligated to accept the streets, and Mr. Fried said no. He said the streets could remain private or if they were dedicated and the city accepted them, then they became public streets.
Councilman Mitzel said on page 13, Market Street is mentioned as being 45' wide and the previous version said 46'. He said it was a minor change and he didn't know if that mattered to the traffic consultant; Rod Arroyo responded off mike.
Councilman Mitzel said there was a section deleted from the old book which would be on the new page 18, Traffic section. He said there was a paragraph previously in that section that stated, "Meadowbrook Road is recognized by the development team as a natural beauty road and will maintain its character through a carefully designed and planted 50' minimum buffer." Mr. Mitzel said this section has been deleted in the new version and he didn't understand why because that was not part of the approval or discussion at the council table.
Councilman Toth noted they showed a 50' buffer on the drawings.
Mr. Gibbs said they were still maintaining the 50' buffer but it was their understanding that City Council did not dedicate that as a Natural Beauty Road. Mr. Mitzel pointed out that the paragraph said "the development team" and not anything about the city.
Councilman Mitzel asked the city attorney about the deletion, and Mr. Fried said the plans called for a 50' buffer; whether it was called a Natural Beauty Road or not was immaterial.
Councilman Mitzel said on page 19 under Police Protection, it said, "..an increase of five can be expected in the annual number of police responses." He said there were no units and asked if this was 5% or 500 or 5 calls, etc; Mr. Lanciault said it was 5%.
Councilman Mitzel read from page 23, "Status of Single Ownership or Control..." He asked if there was still that single ownership or control considering phase 1 was now being sold off. David Fried said the balance of it is under one control, the Hughlan Development Company, and that was the owner responsible for the balance of it, not the part that is phased off. He said council should ask the developers if they had a certain understanding about the part that has been sold off and what that understanding is.
Councilman Mitzel said his question was if the city attorney was satisfied with that section in light of the ordinance requirements, and Mr. Fried said yes.
Councilman Mitzel said that the traffic analysis and recommendations sections have been totally dropped from the revised area plan. He asked why that has been excluded, and David Fried said it was not required to be a part of the plan. He said it was required to be submitted in considering the plan.
Councilman Mitzel said in July they had a motion to approve the revised area plan as presented subject to the final agreement which they were working on tonight and that area plan included this book. He said he was concerned whether that was something that should have been included. David Fried said if the council considered that traffic plan as a part of this area plan, it should be put back into the area plan; he asked if council considered it a part and Council members Mitzel and Mason said they did.
Councilman Schmid said a better question was who took it out and who authorized it staying out. He asked if anyone looked at this plan other than the developer - did Mr. Rogers or Mr. Wahl. David Fried said that was a very good question - has anybody reviewed this plan to see whether it conformed with the prior plan and he hasn't heard any response to that.
James Wahl said the plan was reviewed by the traffic consultant and he would defer to Mr. Arroyo in terms of answering why the information was not in the document.
Councilman Mitzel asked if anyone actually compared page to page prior to this coming to council and Mayor McLallen said did any in-house staff take the two books and compare them as Mr. Mitzel has. Mr. Wahl said the department did not go through it page by page; they did have several meetings, however, where they went over the documents with the various consultants and reviewed in that fashion.
Mayor McLallen said the issue here was this council was being asked to approve a planned unit development agreement and item 1 of that agreement stated that at the time of the approved area plan based on July 18, 1994, that plan was the plan they were agreeing on. She said what Mr. Mitzel was pointing out was that the plan on the table was not the same plan in certain areas as the one from July 18th. She asked if anyone would like to explain to council why those two were not the same; she said Mr. Hughes did bring up a list of ten specific items that he wanted changed but even those ten were not the same ten that Mr. Mitzel was discussing.
David Fried said he could not ask them to sign this contract unless he knew that the plan was the same as that discussed by the council previously.
Mayor McLallen said based on the discussion tonight, she thought the appropriate question and perhaps motion should bear on that question.
Councilman Pope said he believed this item should be postponed to a special meeting to allow for Mr. Mitzel's questions to be properly answered and any other questions that a council member would like to either read into the record tonight or submit in writing to the Planning Department and they would ask the city attorney and the developer to work on those questions.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope, Seconded by Councilman Mitzel,
That Approval of Revised PUD Area Plan for the Vistas of Novi & Approval of Revised PUD Agreement be postponed to an Special Meeting with no other items on the agenda when this item is ready.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Lanciault said he would like to respond to the question; he said they took it out because it wasn't required in this submission. He said they submitted originally a lot of data and a lot of things supporting the requests of the consultants but in areas where it wasn't a specific requirement of this revised plan, they deleted that. He said this book would end up getting recorded by the County.
Mayor McLallen commented that was the problem - which book was the one to be recorded, and Mr. Lanciault said the book they had tonight. The Mayor said the book tonight was not the one that was approved in July and that was the dilemma tonight; until these books said what everyone expected them to say, council could take no action and that was the direction of Mr. Pope's motion. She said the point was to get the book to say what everyone was in concurrence they should say and to answer the questions brought up tonight; their duty is to approve one of the books but both bodies were saying that one book said some of what they wanted and the other book said what they approved.
Mr. Lanciault asked if the traffic issue was germane to the approval, and Mayor McLallen said that was an issue that would have to be settled before they came to a conclusion.
Councilman Mitzel said he brought up traffic improvements because they were mentioned in the first book and he thought who funded those was important just who maintained Market Street, etc.; they were points of discussion. He said he would support the motion because it seemed that this item was not ready yet.
Councilman Pope said hopefully the developer has seen the direction of this and some kind of compromise on live/work homes can be thought of before they come to this; he said in fairness, he had asked at the last meeting that they prepare this live/work town home use code and they did that which he appreciated but unfortunately, it raised more questions so hopefully they could work out a compromise. He said he would be submitting a list of questions that he had tonight to the Planning Department to work on just as Mr. Mitzel has done and while it was not a requirement, it certainly would be helpful to the process if council was able to do that also.
Councilwoman Mason said she would like to see on the plan Land Use Summary by phase; she said she did not see live/work town homes. She asked if live/work town homes would have a deed restriction that required that the owner live upstairs to be able to have the business downstairs, and Mr. Lanciault said owner or employee. She said then someone could buy it and it could become a rental up and down; she asked if there was a possibility of considering that deed restriction and Mr. Lanciault said they would consider it.
Mayor McLallen called for a vote on the motion to postpone.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously
Mayor McLallen asked for any other comments council members had and requested that they also put them in writing so they could be addressed.
Councilman Schmid said he did not go through the document as closely as Mr. Mitzel did because he assumed that every time something came before council that staff had gone over the documents, they were accurate and they had a recommendation for them. He said it was not the business of council to go through all the documents they had and try to cover the areas that the city hired people to cover. He said he was not going to start going over all documents but he would start insisting that the staff do it or he will start looking for other alternatives.
Councilman Schmid said he would be talking to council members and working to dramatically reduce the increase of almost double the commercial - 2/3 of 250 town houses in subdivisions. He said he hoped the developer would go back and try to come up with some compromise.
Councilman Schmid said he thought they could be very restrictive in a PUD as to what the council and the developer agreed with. More importantly, he said to Mr. Rogers and the Planning Department that when this came back he would like to see on a separate memo or in the plan where the necessary parking would be for people visiting these commercial areas within residential and he would like clarification in writing from the traffic consultant why this was good for the city. He commented that the consultant mentioned it was good for the developer and a compromise for the city.
Councilman Schmid said in general, he wanted a complete report back that allowed council to face these issues even though they may not come up right now but down the road; he wanted to know how they would park all the cars, move the traffic through these subdivisions, etc.
Councilman Mitzel said he realized the book from July and the one tonight were going to be different because the one tonight did incorporate certain changes council had asked for, but when the book came forward for approval, it needed to somehow list all the changes, whether they were added or deleted, from July. That way they would know for sure what was in the book they were going to approve and then make it part of the motion to incorporate or exclude those changes.
Mr. Lanciault said that timing was of the essence and they would appreciate a special meeting being scheduled as early as possible. He also asked that council give direction to the consultants and to the developer of any questions they wanted them to respond to well in advance of the meeting. He commented that they received Mr. Mitzel's questions 24 hours before the meeting but they felt they could respond sufficiently to all of his questions tonight but unfortunately that was being deferred tonight. He asked that they set a timetable so all the consultants and the developer and council could respond with sufficient time to comply with Mr. Mitzel's request to show the additions and deletions and to be very clear in that there would be no new issues to be discussed on that evening.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
James Korte, Shawood Lake, asked to be allowed to speak at the time of discussion on Ivy Leaf Walkway. He said he would keep his comments direct, short and to the point.
David Lanciault asked if there was a sequence of events that take place that they would know in advance in order to facilitate this special meeting, i.e. the no load road issue. He asked how it would get resolved other than the next meeting so that we can have a document that is appropriate to record and sign?
Mr. Fried said this was one of the key points to this problem. He said if Council could resolve that problem tonight he thought something could be ready for Council in regard to the other problems raised. He said it was an issue that would not change regardless of how many times it was discussed.
Mayor McLallen said a request has been made of the Council in their discussion of Item #4 to address this issue and give direction to the petitioner on what may be the acceptable language for this.
Councilman Pope said he would like to resolve that issue for the petitioner however Councilman Mitzel had a lot of issues and the developer has not only that issue but 10 issues. He said there can't be a clean document unless there is an answer to the 10 issues.
Mr. Lanciault asked if there was a forum that we could do this in advance and possibly find some sort of consensus. He said he would like to come prepared next time. He said he knew Councilman Mitzel worked hard to make his list and we just got it this morning. He said if there was a little time in advance Councilman Mitzel's list could be done, the language could be drafted in a format that ought to be acceptable and maybe a discussion over a couple of issues. He said he did not want to load up the next agenda with 20 different issues. Mr. Lanciault asked if there was a format that Council could suggest to expedite that process?
Councilwoman Mason said we are in audience participation and are not supposed to be discussing this back and forth.
Mayor McLallen stated she asked the Council's indulgence on the advise of the attorney to give Mr. Lanciault direction and was now asking Council Members if they had any. She asked Councilwoman Mason if she had a statement regarding this.
Councilwoman Mason asked if Council was setting Roberts Rules of Order aside. Mayor McLallen stated Council had the right to amend. Councilwoman Mason asked if Council voted to do that. Mayor McLallen said we did not.
Mayor McLallen asked if the Council was willing to give Mr. Lanciault any direction or shall Council move on with the agenda? Mayor McLallen asked if there was a motion of Council?
Councilman Crawford said he thought Council should see if there were any other members of the audience that wish to participate and if there were to hear them and then back step to this issue. He felt this was a valid issue but probably not under audience participation.
Councilman Schmid said that he wanted to see the Planning Commission minutes as he thought they had a different view then what was told this evening.
Councilman Pope said if we go to this issue, the forester has his hand up, Ms. Lemke wants to address this issue and we will debate this issue for another half hour. He said it was 11:30 PM and we have a lot of items on the agenda and we did move to postpone. He said he understood the urgency of the developer but in his opinion there is no reason to get into this one because there are 10 others that are just as important.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That the previous motion to postpone stand.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried Previous motion stands
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART II
5. Ordinance 95-45.19 - Revise Street Tree Requirements - First Reading -
Councilman Pope asked why they we want to move to the City doing all the tree planting?
Mr. Pargoff said that we do not do any of the planting ourselves as a city. He said all of the programs had been sub-contracted out to private enterprise. He said we have not done any programs with City employees and he proposed that we did not do that and that we continue to sub-contract with private enterprise.
Councilwoman Mason asked why the City was doing the sub-contracting to plant the trees when the developer can get a sub-contractor to plant the trees. She said we are still in control of the species.
Mr. Pargoff said it was their contention that they could provide better species and right now they have the choice. He said what they are doing is saying that we can manage the program easier by giving them the choice.
Councilwoman Mason asked why we would think that.
Mr. Pargoff said because we have the where with all and the knowledge to get the job done. He said what's happening is we are getting more and more developers turning over the planting to us anyway.
Councilwoman Mason said it is no longer a choice for the developer if this passes.
Mr. Pargoff said that was correct.
Councilwoman Mason said she disagreed with that.
Councilman Toth said he was in favor of this because it did provide the City with some level of control as to the type of species, the arrangement and so forth. He said this did take it off the developer but it was a lot easier for him to pay for it and have it handled by the City.
Councilwoman Mason said the issue is that it has nothing to do with species it has to do with control. She said it had to do with controlling other people and their money and she was not for it. She said up to this point we have a forester who checks everything and he doesn't have to be in charge of getting the sub-contractor too. She said this is another thing that made her think that we throw business to people that we know here in the City instead of allowing developers to pick their own sub-contractors. She felt we were not in control of controlling peoples dollars and where they spend them. She said we are in control of telling them how to put them in and that we will check to see that they are done right.
Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Pargoff what the implications would be if that clause allowing the option to the developer to plant would be left in? He asked if he would still have the control of species?
Mr. Pargoff said the only way they would have the control of species would be if they were given control at the time of planting. He said according to the way the ordinance was written in the old version they were required to have that at preliminary plan and they were getting 4 or 5 species per planting.
Councilman Mitzel said in the proposed ordinance that it seemed the species controls were in there now and reviewed by Mr. Pargoff.
Mr. Pargoff said that option would be maintained if they have private streets.
Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried if until the City Council accepts the streets they are technically private?
Mr. Fried said that was correct.
Councilman Mitzel said which Council does not do until after street trees are planted, side walks are in and the roads are all set.
Mr. Fried said at that time they become City property.
Councilman Mitzel said then when we want the street trees planted it is technically private property.
Mr. Fried said it is technically private property except that it is under the subdivision control ordinance which says when they have completed they will then dedicate it to the City and the City will either accept it or reject it.
Councilman Mitzel said that he understood when he was on the Planning Commission and this was in the Implementation Committee and the Ordinance Review Committee; the reason why the choice was still given for the private roads was that we could not require someone to have the street planting be arranged by the City on private property. He wanted to clarify whether roads that will be public roads which are not yet accepted would fall in the same category.
Mr. Fried said it was the area between private road and public road. He said it is a road that the contractor or the developer agree would be dedicateed to the City.
Councilman Mitzel said in the proposal there is a section on page 5 of the struck through shaded version that adds that the developers must pay an amount per tree for tree maintenance as set by Council. He asked if that was legal or acceptable to require a new developer to pay into a tree fund that no other one up to now had ever paid in and that money won't be used exclusively for their development but for the whole City.
Mr. Fried said that was reasonable and legal.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Toth Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That the first reading of Ordinance 95-45.19, Street Tree Requirements be approved.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Pope said he would be voting against this because of some of the questions he asked. He asked that this Item not be placed on the Consent Agenda next time due to the fact that we will also have a resolution for fees that we have not seen yet.
Mayor McLallen stated that she still had problems with Section D on Page 4 where it says "Planting by Department of Public Services - the developer shall have street trees planted by the Department of Public Services at a cost to the developer, etc." She said this does not say you are administering a sub-contract it says you are planting. She said her concern is staff and time. She asked if this was the most economical or is the privatization with just the administration on our side.
Mayor McLallen said this document says you are planting trees physically with the Department of Public Services and essentially what you are doing is administering a contract for someone else to plant the trees. She asked if the verbiage really said that?
Mr. Fried said that was correct. He said it says the Department would plant the trees but the Department can contract out its work-it does not have to do it by City employees.
Mr. Fried asked if she was asking if the City should perform this service by contracting it out or should the developer do it. He said he thought they had to go back to the reason Mr. Pargoff said he wanted it in there. He said to assume for a moment you don't put this in here and you come back and say the developer can plant the trees and he has to plant a species that is in the ordinance. He said then you have five or six developers that are planting all the same species; so how do you get diversity within the City. He asked how do you then tie the developer in saying to him "you have to use a different species than the other developer used." He asked if that would be put in the ordinance.
Councilman Mitzel said subject to City Forester's review it could be added.
Mr. Fried said then you will give discretion then to the Forester to select the species. He asked if that was what Council wanted to do and if so that could be put into the ordinance.
Mayor McLallen said if Mr. Pargoff, by this, is administering sub-contractors is that the most cost effective way to do it or is it more cost effective and more controlled to say these are the trees you can plant. You can plant this one every 5 feet, that one every 10 feet and have it done privately. She asked what the advantage was to have Mr. Pargoff's department do it. She said obviously there is a fee paid to the City for this service but it is also a matter of staffing. She asked if it was more cost effective to have Mr. Pargoff oversee it or is it more cost effective to have Mr. Pargoff manage specific contracts?
Mr. Pargoff said he thought it was the same situation. He said they are doing the oversight and managing the contracts. He said managing the contracts was a very cost effective way because of the fact that they go to competitive bidding. He said he has been surprised at the cost of the competitive bids that they are getting. He said having us do the planting they are able to specify at the time that the contractor is going in there and he knows what species he has to obtain. He said if all we have is the list he thought it would be more time consuming trying to make the developers put in specific trees on specific streets than it would be for them to go in and indicate which ones we wanted to do.
Councilman Crawford said if someone picked up this document and wondered who plants street trees in the City they would look at this and it would say "planting by the Department of Public Services" in big bold print. He said the next partial sentence is "the developer shall have street trees planted by the Department of Public Services." He said he did not disagree with what you say about your control over what kind of trees go in and who might do it but this paragraph does not address that. He said if what you just said is what you want to accomplish this is not clearly doing that. He said that needs to be changed.
Councilman Crawford said looking at this, it says the City plants the trees; not sub-contracts them, not determines what goes in and what doesn't. He said he agreed with all that and felt Mr. Pargoff should have that authority.
Mr. Pargoff asked if the phrase Administer the planting of the trees, or under the direction of, or something like that.
Mr. Fried said he thought if it were changed to "under the direction of" that would satisfy.
Mayor McLallen asked Councilman Toth if he wanted to make an amendment to the motion.
Councilman Toth said this was only the first reading and it typically comes back with these comments taken into consideration and changed. He said there was a question about collector roads and that would be changed in the second reading also.
Mr. Fried suggested the Council read the prior ordinance under Subsection D-what the requirements of the developer was under former Subsection D when he had to pay for site plan review of trees, the cost of that and then come back if that was not agreeable. He felt that was more costly to the developer than the new proposal.
Councilwoman Mason asked if she was to understand that Council won't have anymore site plan cost for review because Mr. Pargoff would be doing it and he will be placing them where he wants them.
Mr. Pargoff said that was correct.
Councilwoman Mason said then we would drop that review.
Mr. Pargoff said the initial review fee would be there but there would be no subsequent review fees. He said if they presented a plan with species that were totally acceptable so there would not be any subsequent review fees.
Councilman Mitzel said he is now thinking about keeping the option of letting the developer plant if he would like to. He felt that the language could be put in that Mr. Pargoff would select the trees and he would have control of the species.
Mr. Pargoff said if they objected to the species or that they couldn't find them; they would blame the City for not being able to find the species.
Councilman Mitzel said if they can't find them they would have to come to council for some sort of variance.
Mr. Pargoff said if we are in control of the species it is a situation where if we take out the contract then we are requiring them to plant the species. He said if the developer takes out the contract it would be a constant argument that we are requiring species that they cannot find.
Councilman Schmid said he agreed with the ordinance with some minor revisions of the language to clarify it. He said he thought that this was an important ordinance for consistency and Mr. Pargoff just told Council what happens and there is a lot of hassle. He said he felt it was probably cheaper for the developer, its consistency, its ease of handling and he thought it was an excellent tool for the City that we have some consistency. He said if it was going to be a huge additional cost he would agree but it is not a hugh cost and maybe even cheaper in the long run. He said that this was a good ordinance and he would like to see it passed.
Yes (5) No (2-Mason, Pope) Motion carried
6. Consideration for Bids for Street Speed Survey
Tony Nowicki, Department of Public Services, said Council had the results of the Request for Proposals for a Street Speed Survey. He said on August 22, 1994 Council directed his department to develop an RFP in which to seek a comprehensive review of our City's major thoroughfares under City jurisdiction. He said subsequently on September 26th they had provided Council with a copy of that RFP and it was reviewed and Council ultimately authorized his department to solicit proposals from various design and engineering firms to review our City.
Mr. Nowicki said there were four firms that submitted proposals. He said they evaluated each proposal based generally on the qualifications based selection and process and they were ranked. He said it was a team consisting of Haim Schlick the Construction Coordinator, Bruce Jerome the DPW Superintendent, Rod Arroyo the Traffic Consultant and Mr. Nowicki.
Mr. Nowicki said all the proposals were numerically scored, rated one through 4 and then they were evaluated with respect to fee. He said subsequently they made a recommendation that the #2 firm of Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout, be awarded this project should Council wish to pursue it.
Councilman Mitzel said at the beginning of the meeting a resident spoke about getting information concerning traffic conditions. He said it was his understanding that this study would include some traffic condition data collection and asked Mr. Nowicki to elaborate on that.
Mr. Nowicki said that it would include traffic data collection on the roads under the jurisdiction of the City of Novi. He thought the resident was referring to Ten Mile Road and had questioned data collected for our Master Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Nowicki could not comment on this as he had not yet evaluated it. He said this would provide information that would eventually update that data as well as be an effective tool in law enforcement. He said he had contacted the police department and discussed the issues with them and they felt it would be an effective tool to help them in their law enforcement efforts with respect to speeds.
Councilman Mitzel asked if this is just for the City of Novi?
Mr. Nowicki said it was. He said they had contacted the Road Commission for Oakland County and they did not have any funding to participate in this. He said they had indicated that should we decide to pursue this program they would attempt to conduct a joint review of roads within their jurisdiction and we would try to cooperatively put together several reports that would address all of the major streets within the City.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Mitzel
That the Request for Proposal be awarded to Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Ltd.
Motion died for lack of support.
Councilman Toth said this was supposed to be $5,000.00 last time he saw it.
Mr. Nowicki said he had copies of the Council minutes from the various dates that this issue was discussed. He said the only dollar figure that was identified was a dollar figure that Councilman Schmid had indicated that the project would cost at least $10,000.00.
Councilman Toth said he looked at all the material supplied to him and Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout had no experience at all in running Speed Surveys according to the list that was supplied. He said they had some engineering work but there is no street speed surveys that they had run. He said he did not see anyone on the list that he normally runs into when Council does traffic studies. He said Rod Arroyo did not bid on this project and no one else he was familiar with had shown up on the list and he is surprised because they have all the experience in collecting this traffic data.
Mr. Nowicki said they were all given the opportunity to bid on this. He said it was published in the Michigan Contractor Builder and it is widely read by all the various design consultants. Mr. Nowicki asked Councilman Toth if he had had the opportunity to read the December 14, 1994 letter from Jim Valente who provided some clarifications on the qualifications of himself as well as the project engineer?
Councilman Toth said he had gone through all of this material in his packet and he did not think the City should spend this kind of money on a speed study. He felt that there was enough information based on the transportation plan we have, based on the build out of the City and the information that our traffic consultants have. He felt that all this material could be assembled and put forth to this Council and he felt that could be done either under the retainer or in addition to the retainer by our two traffic consultants. Councilman Toth said he did not think it was a wise expenditure of taxpayer money to spend $13,500.00 to end up giving that information over to this engineering firm and then have it come back to Council in the form of a report. He said he could not support this project.
Mr. Nowicki asked that Council direct his staff if they would like them to revisit this issue in another manner. He asked that they recall that the RFP was prepared under the direction of the City Council. He said the City Council did receive the RFP prior to the solicitation of these proposals.
Councilman Pope said listening very clearly to what Mr. Nowicki is telling Council; this Council on a 4-3 vote directed this department to go ahead with this proposal. He said Council directed the Director of the Department on a 4-3 vote with full knowledge that it would take 5 votes to fund this project. He said in the future, if this project goes down tonight without the 5 votes to fund it, Councilman Pope said he would obviously urge the Council not to put staff consultants through hoops unless the 5 votes are there to approve the expenditure that is before them. He said he assumed that they thought it would be just like the Main Street Project where we didn't have the 5 votes but eventually the 5 votes came. He said that may happen tonight but it certainly would be awkward if Council decided that we are now not going to back this. He said he opposed and there were two others that opposed this from the beginning. Councilman Pope said if this did not pass he would not direct any of his criticism towards the Department or its Director, who clearly followed the Council direction. He said he would encourage Council to consider their actions before they approve something that needs 5 votes on a 4-3 and then allow that to continue.
Councilman Pope said he will oppose this because he did not think it necessary and he thought it would only add further dilemmas in the City and raise a lot of different concerns as changes may or may not be proposed in the streets. He would also oppose it because of the dollars and because of the general nature of the changes the speed limit would have in the community.
Councilman Crawford said assuming we went ahead with this proposal and we got a recommendation and reported back on what various speed limits ought to be in the city; he said then lets suppose there is a room full of people here saying that they did not think the limit should be raised on a certain road or whatever. He said then let's suppose that an accident occurs on that road. He asked if we were in jeopardy of not following the recommendation of a supposed expert that we contracted with?
Mr. Fried said that would probably be an issue raised at trial, that the road was not designed for that speed.
Councilman Crawford said if we go ahead with this project and we get a recommendation back he would encourage Council to accept the recommendation and not micro-manage here at the Council table about raising or lowering speed limits on individual recommendations based on who might be out in the audience. He said we may leave ourselves open to that consequence.
Councilman Schmid said there was a motion made with no second and this is a dead issue.
Councilman Mitzel said it was mentioned that 5 votes would be needed and he thought, in the memo from Mr. Nowicki, it mentioned it would be charged against the road program which he thought was already appropriated money and would only require 4 votes.
Mr. Fried said if the money had been appropriated for this then only four votes were needed.
Mr. Nowicki said the money was appropriated as the 6 year road program but there was not a specific line item in there that was identified as street speed survey.
Councilman Mitzel said he recalled from last year that as long as it was in the program it did not have to be a line item.
Mr. Nowicki said that it was not in the program. He said this was appropriately chargeable to the expenditures that are appropriately chargeable to that fund but it is not included nor is it reflected in any of the programs that have been prepared.
Councilman Mitzel said the issue recalled was the East Lake Drive re-route which wasn't in the program either but which stated by the City Attorney would only need a 4 vote because the road program already had a certain amount of funds set aside for that year.
Mr. Fried said we would have to get administration to tell us if this was included within that road program. He said if administration tells Council it is included then only the 4 votes are needed. He said if it is not included then 5 votes are needed.
No further action was taken
7. Appointment of an Alternate to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Housing and Community Development Committee
Applicants for the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Jill Baty - received 4 votes Frank D. Brennan - Received 3 votes
Applicant for Housing and Community Development Committee:
James Grzybowski - received 4 votes
Councilman Mitzel said they had interviewed for the Beautification Committee and currently it exists on the books for 15 members. He said it did not look like they would get 15 members plus that is fairly large. He said the Ordinance Review Committee is meeting in two weeks. Councilman Mitzel asked if Council would entertain referring to that committee and ordinance to reduce the number of members.
8. Schedule Executive Session for Monday, January 23rd at 7:00 PM to discuss Property acquisition for roads, parks and drains
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That an Executive Session be scheduled for Monday, January 23rd at 7:00 PM to discuss property acquisition for roads, parks and drains.
ROLL CALL Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
9. Ordinance 95.15.02 - To require the owner or person in control of private premises to maintain the exterior or premises free of appliances, fixtures and household furnishings. First reading
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That Ordinance 95.15.02 - AN ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 16- 68 TO THE NOVI CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OR PERSON IN CONTROL OF PRIVATE PREMISES TO MAINTAIN THE EXTERIOR OR PREMISES FREE OF APPLIANCES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REFRIGERATORS, FREEZERS AND STOVES, HOUSEHOLD FIXTURES AND FURNISHINGS; first reading be approved.
Mr. Fried said there was a correction to make on Sub Part A. He said third sentence should read "of such premises free of appliances, including but not limited to refrigerators, freezers and stoves, household fixtures and furnishings, etc.
Councilman Pope responded so noted for his motion.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
10. Ordinance 95-114.06 - Remove regulations of fishing shanties within the City First reading
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Toth
That Ordinance 95-114.06 AN ORDINANCE TO DELETE ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 36 OF THE NOVI CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO REMOVE REGULATIONS OF FISHING SHANTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF NOVI, First reading be approved.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
11. Ordinance 95-45.20 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBPART 4.06E2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 77-45, AS AMENDED, THE CITY OF NOVI SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, TO AMEND THE PROCEDURE FOR PERMITTING FRONT YARD UTILITIES WITHIN PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS - First reading
Councilman Schmid said for reasons he had stated more than once he would not support this ordinance.
Councilman Pope said he would not support this ordinance for the same reasons as Councilman Schmid.
Councilwoman Mason said she had not heard his reasons.
Councilman Pope said this was a discretion that should remain with council.
Councilman Schmid said that it is an important ordinance and one that should be enforced but he was not sure the administration had the same interest in enforcing these types of ordinances as Council does.
It was then,
Moved by Councilwoman Mason Seconded by Councilman Crawford
That Ordinance 95-45.20 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBPART 4.06E2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 77-45, AS AMENDED, THE CITY OF NOVI SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, TO AMEND THE PROCEDURE FOR PERMITTING FRONT YARD UTILITIES WITHIN PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS, First reading be approved.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Schmid pointed out that almost every time this comes before City Council there has been changes in the administrations recommendations because of the woodland/wetlands that were included that should not have been. He said he hoped Council would think of this carefully. He said this should be something that comes to Council because the administration has proven that they are not capable of handling this in the spirit it was written many years ago.
Councilman Mitzel said that he would support this and commented that the last one that came up the City Administration did bring in an innovative idea which was to run the wires in the front and that way it would not damage woodlands or wetlands but would still go into the back for the transformer box which was the aesthetics issue. He said that seemed like it would work in several cases if not all the cases.
Councilman Schmid advised Councilman Mitzel that the ordinance clearly stated that the utilities go in the rear yard. He said that includes the buried cable and the transformers that are on top of the ground. He said if there are some cases where the better alternative is that it is in the front yard that may be a provision. He said the cable is going in the rear yard where they belong so that if they have to be dug up they aren't digging up the whole subdivision. Councilman Schmid said Administration may have come up with an innovative approach but it is not consistent with the ordinance.
Councilwoman Mason said there are a lot of subdivisions in Novi with front utilities and it does not bother anybody that lives in them. She felt it was once again Council members ideas of how people should run their life.
Yes (4) No (3-Schmid, Pope, Toth) Motion carried
12. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 428 in the amount of $791,296.03
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Crawford
That Claims and Accounts, Warrant No. 428 in the amount of $791,296.03 be approved.
Yes (6) No (1-Toth) Motion carried
13. Resolution in support of the SEMCOG amendments concerning road improvements within the City of Novi specifically 12 Mile and Beck Road.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That the following SEMCOG resolution regarding Beck Road and the Transportation Improvement Plan be approved.
WHEREAS, the Transportation Improvement Program is listing of federally and non-federally funded major road and transit service improvements proposed by various communities, road agencies, transit agencies, and the Michigan Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments is soliciting comments on amendments to the Fiscal Year 1995-1997 Transportation Improvement Program; and,
WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the FY 1995-1997 T.I.P. include safety improvements to I-96 at Beck and Twelve Mile Roads, the widening of Novi Road between Twelve Mile Road and Twelve-and-a-Half Mile road, and construction of M-5 (Haggerty Connector) from Twelve Mile Road to a point south of Maple; and
WHEREAS, these area roadway improvements are necessary to maintaining and enhancing the social, economic, and environmental well-being of Novi residents and western Oakland County in general.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council of the City of Novi support the Amendments to the Fiscal Year 1995-1997 Transportation Improvements Program and call upon the southeast Michigan Council of Governments to approve said Amendments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council of the City of Novi, out of concern for the health, safety, and welfare of the motorists traversing I-96/Beck Road/Twelve Mile Road Interchange hereby urge the southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the Michigan Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Road Commission for Oakland County, and all area local units of government to increase their efforts and cooperatively work to expedite the process required to bring the complete I-96/Beck Road Interchange to construction as soon as possible.
(Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
James Korte, Shawood Lake, spoke regarding Ivy Leaf Walkway. He said he didn't think anyone had a problem here or in the subdivision with vacation of Ivy Leaf Walkway. He said the debris was the point in question. He said Council would like some kind of guarantee that it would be removed. He talked with Don Saven and he had, in writing from Mr. Bidwell, that he would allow passage over his property. He said Mr. Pearse, 123 Maudlin, was going to clean up the debris. Mr. Korte said the debris is on Mr. Fisher's property and he owns the small piece of acreage. He said if Mr. Fisher decides that he doesn't want anyone on his property then we have a problem. Mr. Korte said when the City forces Mr. Fisher to clean up the debris and the 10 foot walkway has been vacated he will get woodland/wetlands permits and get a barge and travel 200 feet to remove the debris that is possibly 5 to 10 feet off of the walkway. He said if this happens then we have to force him to replace the wetland and to replace everything that he destroyed. He said that is ridiculous.
Mr. Korte read comments of Sarah Gray:
"I fully agree with Fried and Watson; postpone this matter until such a time the debris and junk have been removed from the Fisher property. Then vacate the walk unconditionally; another four or five months is not going to make a difference to anyone. It will, however, enable the removal of the junk and debris originally complained ..,etc.
Mr. Korte said Mr. Bidwell has been in control of the property since 1976 and he does not have a very good track record. He said Mr. Fisher has been in control of his property for a number of years and it has been a constant fight at both ends of his property. He has not been a particularly willing participant. He asked that Council postpone the vacation until the debris is cleaned up and then deed it over.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman Crawford reminded Council of the packet and the Cable meeting Thursday, January 12th at the Cable Commission offices on Research Drive in Farmington.
Councilman Mitzel reminded the Council that Tuesday, January 10th is the Computer Committee Meeting, Capitol Improvements Committee Meeting and the Furst Property Committee Meeting at 5, 6 and 7 PM.
Mayor McLallen said Thursday, January 12th is SEMCOG's introduction meeting and Ordinance Review is meeting on January 24th.
MANAGER'S REPORT
Mr. Kriewall was absent because of illness.
ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
Mr. Fried stated that Councilman Mitzel had requested him to review the Oakland County Act 641 Plan as amended in regard to the question as to where proposed sanitary landfills can be sited. He said they have reviewed it and written a letter to Council. He said this was important because if we don't change the name of our Agricultural Residential Use they may site landfills within those districts. He has asked the Administration to review the criteria within the Act to make certain that there are no areas in the City that can be sited for sanitary landfills. He said if there are areas that can meet the other criteria then we will ask Council to change the zoning ordinance to do away with the designation Agricultural Residential Use because it might cause a problem for us in siting landfills under this new Act 641.
CONSENT AGENDA
2. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 10th and December 12th
Councilman Mitzel pulled Item #2 because of misspelling of Ms. Tepatti in the minutes of November 10th; corrections have been made.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Mitzel Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That the Minutes of the Regular meetings of November 10th and December 12th be approved as amended.
Yes (6) No (1-Pope) Motion carried
4. Revised Resolution - Water Tap Transfer Policy (Confirmation of Action taken 12/12/94)
Councilman Schmid pulled Item #4 because he could not support this because he doesn't believe the Administration had handled this properly in the past and did not feel they would in the future.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Crawford Seconded by Councilman Toth
That the Revised Resolution for Water Tap Transfer Policy be approved.
Yes (6) No (1-Schmid) Motion carried
5. Resolution - Master Planning for Tree Farm Site
WHEREAS, the citizens of Novi approved a 9.9 Million dollar Recreation Bond issue in January of 1993, and
WHEREAS, the City of Novi has acquired over 500 acres of new parkland for the long-term benefit of our community, and
WHEREAS, over 400 acres of this property was assembled in north-central Novi as a large contiguous park site, and
WHEREAS, this property will be a major component of the entire City of Novi Park System and great care and foresight should be of the utmost importance in determining what recreational uses will be planned for this area.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Novi City Council directs the Novi Parks and Recreation Commission to begin the Master Planning process for this property, and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Parks and Recreation Commission will consider all possible recreational uses for the property by conducting public hearings, and soliciting citizen input.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Parks and Recreation Committee report to the Council within Ten (10) months.
Councilman Mitzel thought it was a good resolution but wanted to add a section to put a performance standard in saying that they should have the Master Plan completed and report back to Council within ten months.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Mitzel Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That the Resolution for Master Planning for Tree Farm Site be approved with the addition to report back within 10 months to City Council.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Toth asked why 10 months and not 6 months?
Councilman Mitzel said because it was before the end of the year and he thought it would give them enough time.
Councilman Pope said he would move to delete the final sentence in the Resolution that says "The Parks and Recreation Commission will also consider the long range operational needs of the Department of Parks and Recreation based upon the recommended use for the park property."
Councilman Mitzel said he would accept that in his motion.
Councilman Pope said that he felt the sentence should be deleted because he thought they should look at the use of the property period. He said the long range operational needs are funding questions that should be part of the overall Master Planning of Parks and Recreation and of the Council. He did not think that this individual parcel of land should be decided for the long range operational or financial needs because that would lead us to use a for profit facility on this location rather than another use.
Councilman Crawford disagreed and asked what would be wrong with in the fact finding of a Master Plan for that piece of property some type of revenue producing facility.
Councilman Pope said when we went out to the residents we told them we wanted to buy soccer fields and baseball fields and asked them to approve this mileage. He said we did not ask for this kind of language for the Master Planning of the Eight Mile and Napier Site nor did we ask for this type of language when we approved the Master Plan for the first site or the Rotary Park site. He felt that it was consistent if you want to look at the long range financial needs of the department, which are crucial for the Council to do, he thought it should be done outside of the specific use of property. He did not want to provide direction to the Parks and Recreation Department that they should do something different with this park than they did with others.
Councilman Schmid thought it was a legitimate approach to planning this piece of parcel. He said it is no secret that there are plans, somewhere down the line, to look at this parcel for a community golf course for citizens of the City of Novi where golf would be affordable.
Mayor McLallen thought that had been one of the difficulties in the planning of the parks and recreation is that the operation of and the ability to deliver the land into a usable form for the people has not been given the consideration. She said she would not support the motion as stated because she thought that was a valid point.
Councilman Pope asked if they could separate it and vote on the amendment if Councilman Mitzel would support separating it and the second, Councilwoman Mason would support it.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Mitzel Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That the sentence in the Resolution in the last paragraph which reads "The Parks and Recreation Commission will also consider the long range operational needs of the Department of Parks and Recreations based upon the recommended use for the park property" be deleted.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Crawford asked if this amendment passed was it giving direction to the Parks and Recreation Commission not to consider that parcel of land for any other use. He restated his question; by excluding it from this resolution is the implied message or the message that the Commission gets that if four members of this Council do not want that sentence included that pertains to that park is that then going to be this Council's direction to them?
Councilman Toth said that is not a requirement to submit within ten months.
Councilman Crawford said he thought the message was clear and was not a good message to give the Parks and Recreation Commission. If four members of this Council vote to take this out for the reasons stated at this table tonight that is a message to the Parks and Recreation Commission. He does not agree with that message.
Councilwoman Mason said she agreed with Councilman Pope. She said we have not put this in any other resolution or done this for any other parks and shouldn't change it for this. She said we were safe because the Resolution said "Further be it resolved, that the Parks and Recreation Commission will consider all possible recreational uses for the property by conducting public hearings, and soliciting citizen input" and that is the important part. She said the Parks and Recreation Commission really can't consider the long range operational needs. She thought that the Council had to, the budget had to do that and we had to look and see how we are going to develop this land that we bought and didn't put in the bond to develop it.
Councilman Mitzel said he was supporting this because he didn't feel it was necessary to specifically point out that this had to be done for this particular piece of land. He said if they still wish to do it that is fine; we are not saying don't do it. He said we are just saying that we are not giving specific direction to make this an important section of the Master Planning. Councilman Pope said Councilman Crawford's question is an appropriate question, and his intent in removing this is that he believed that the Parks and Recreation Commission should make a decision on the Master Planning of this site based on what the recreational needs are and what the commitment to the residents were on what was going to be used. He felt that the decision should be made based on the City's recreational needs and not the City's financing needs.
Councilman Schmid said it amuses him when individuals suggest that the bonding was for a specific ballfield and soccer field. He said the issue is whether or not they should be making any long range plans. He felt as long as they are going through the motions why not bring back a total plan considering all the proposals.
Councilman Crawford said his comments were not directed at specifically a golf course. He said it is also a potential property for an Ice Arena or a pool. He felt that it was entirely appropriate to include this sentence in this resolution. He said when we say the Parks and Recreation Departments operating needs, not just for that park but for the whole department, they might look at that park as a place for some revenue producing facility. He thought it was appropriate to put this sentence in this resolution for this park; not necessarily for other parks. He said other parks may not have been conducive for revenue producing facilities. He thought this park was and they ought to look at it in their Master Planning. Councilman Crawford thought it was inappropriate to take that sentence out and not give them that direction.
Mayor McLallen called for the vote on the amendment.
Yes (4) No (3-McLallen, Toth, Motion carried Crawford
Mayor McLallen called for the vote on the main motion.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Schmid asked for an explanation from Councilman Pope or Mitzel of what they are going to Master Plan this parcel for if it isn't for future use. Councilman Pope said it was for future use. He said they would follow the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and solicit citizens input and public hearings.
Councilman Crawford said that by the adoption of what is remaining of this resolution it will by no means send the message to the Commission that they are not to consider revenue producing facilities on that site. Is that the intent now of the motion?
Councilman Mitzel said the intent of his motion was that they should look at all possible uses but not to focus on revenue producing issues.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
9. Resolution - Proposed Vacation of Hilcrest Drive
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Novi has determined that it is necessary for the health, welfare and safety of the people of the City of Novi to vacate that portion of Hilcrest Road, within the Meadowbrook View Estates Subdivision, a subdivision within the south 1/2 of Section 36, T.1N., R.8E., City of Novi, as recorded in Liber 46 of Plats, Page 26, Oakland County Records.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that portion of Hilcrest Road, within the Meadowbrook View Estates Subdivision, a subdivision within the south 1/2 of Section 36, T.1N., R.8E., City of Novi, as recorded in Liber 46 of Plats, Page 26, Oakland County Records be, and the same hereby is, vacated from said plat.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall record this resolution with the Register of Deeds for the County of Oakland and a copy shall be sent to the State Treasurer.
Councilwoman Mason pulled Item #9 because she would not vote for it because she believed that it should be the secondary exit with a breakaway gate. She felt that Council was not looking at the health, safety and welfare of 19 people for a few people on Cambridge Drive.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Toth
That the Resolution for the vacation of Hilcrest Drive be approved.
Yes (6) No (1-Mason) Motion carried
10. Resolution - Proposed Vacation of Ivy Leaf Walkway.
Councilwoman Mason pulled Item #10 because she would not vote for this vacation at this time. She thought Council should wait until the problems that were discussed by Mrs. Gray and Mr. Korte and what has been brought up in the last couple of weeks were taken care of. She said there is a 10 foot easement right now in there that we can go in and have the debris taken off and then vacate it. It was then,
Moved by Councilman Crawford Seconded by Councilman Mason
That Council postpone a decision on the Resolution for the Proposed Vacation of Ivy Leaf Walkway until the first meeting in June or sooner if the matter is resolved.
Discussion:
Councilman Mitzel asked if it could be sooner if the clean up takes place sooner?
Councilman Crawford said it could be but based on what Council has heard tonight it probably doesn't matter anyway.
Councilman Mitzel said he would rather see that the date would be at which time they perform the clean up.
Councilman Crawford said that the motion can state sooner if the matter is resolved.
Councilman Mitzel said that was per the City Attorney's recommendation.
Councilman Schmid asked if the motion said no later than June?
Councilman Crawford said that was correct.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter from SEMCOG Re: Annual Orientation, January 12th 1-4 PM 2. Notice from Detroit Water & Sewerage Dept. of Public Hearing on FY 95-96 Rates 3. Letter from Steve Myers Re: Long Council Meetings
4. Notice from SEMCOG Re: Public Comment period - amendments to FY 95-97 Transportation Improvement Program 5. Letter from John Kuenzel, Arnold Konczal, Jay Lodwick, Dave Schroeder and Tom Van Horn Re: Andover Pointe No. 1 6. Letter from Novi Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee Re: Taft Road extension 7. Letter from Fried, Watson & Bugbee Re: Oakland County Act 641 Plan
Councilman Schmid commented on Mr. Bowman's letter about action by Council regarding action by the Mayor and City Manager. He said he had no problem with the Mayor and City Manager performing at those functions. He thought it was a little unusual for the Chamber to write that letter and thought it was even more unusual for Mr. Bowman to be the author.
Councilman Pope said he did not believe that that letter accurately reflected the business community nor the Chamber's view and he found it very curious that the Chamber would weigh in on an issue like this several months after the issue was raised.
Councilman Schmid said he would even go as far as to say that he was not so sure somebody wasn't encouraging the Chamber to make statements that probably they shouldn't be doing.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 AM.
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
Date Approved:
|