COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W TEN MILE ROAD

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Cassis,

Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

Councilmen Mitzel and Clark arrived at 7:50 P.M.

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Edward F. Kriewall, City Attorney David Fried, Director of Public Services Tony Nowicki, City Forester Chris Pargoff, Deputy City Clerk Nancy Reutter

Mayor McLallen had two additions to the agenda. Senator Bullard was added to the agenda under Introductions and under Council and Mayor Issues Mayor McLallen stated she would make comments concerning the Ice Arena.

Mr. Kriewall, added Property Acquisition to Item #10 Matters for Council Action II, during the Executive Session that would follow the regular meeting.

CM-96-08-287: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Cassis, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; To approve the agenda as amended.

Mayor McLallen introduced Senator Bullard and presented him with a present for the birth of his daughter. Senator Bullard thanked Council and stated he had moved from the Capitol to Senator Honigman’s old office. Senator Bullard introduced Barb Clancy his district representative. He stated there would be a series of Town Hall Meetings in his Senate District which has 14 communities including Farmington Hills the largest city in Oakland County and Novi which is the fastest growing community in Oakland County. The Town Hall Meeting for Novi and the City of Northville will be on Thursday, September 26th in the Novi Council Chambers. Senator Bullard said at that time he would ask the citizens for their ideas on road funding. He said there would, likely, be a road funding package after the November election which would likely include a gas tax increase.

Mayor McLallen stated that the Council would be in Mackinaw Island for the Michigan

Municipal League that Thursday and Kathy Mutch would stand in for Council Members.

SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICER - Michael Mancini

Chief Schaeffer introduced Police Officer Michael Mancini and requested he be sworn in. Officer Mancini was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Nancy Reutter.

Jim Wahl introduced Larry Frey, Planning Aide, Mr. Kriewall introduced Ken Cheyne, Deputy Assessor and Jim Geiermann, Commercial/Industrial Appraiser.

Mayor McLallen offered a Resolution of Appreciation to Jacque Hodges for service as a member of the Planning Commission.

Larry Frey, Community Development Dept presented Novi 20/20 - Focus on the Future.

Mr. Frey advised Council an outline of Novi’s approach to the visioning process was included in their packets and hoped Council had perused it.

Mr. Frey stated a Steering Committee had been developed for the process and outlined what they wanted to accomplish over the next 18 months. Mr. Frey asked for questions.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Frey to explain what visioning was and what kind of steps would be taken.

Mr. Frey said visioning was a positive process undertaken by communities across the country. A long range approach is taken to see what the community was looking for and they would attempt to come up with a vision of what the community wanted.

Mr. Frey thought it is easier to explain what visioning isn’t than what it is. Futuring or Visioning is only positive and not a negative process. It’s not a gimmick and hundreds of communities across the country have created identity and a sense of direction with visioning and also because of the futuring process and the way it brings the community together. Mr. Frey said it was not a forum for heated debate. Instead, it’s a way of bringing the community together to an open exchange of ideas. It is not a process where major decisions in policy are created. Instead it will provide a guide and a reference for those responsible for making those decisions as they take the community into the year 2020.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Frey was planning to use the Cable Access Channel to alert the public to the opportunities to participate.

Mr. Frey stated he and Lou Martin would be discussing that option and would consider all avenues for public participation to make it easier for those who could not attend.

Councilman Schmid said this was in the budget and was surprised it was on the agenda. It was never approved by Council other then the total budget was approved. He didn’t think the process was approved and thought there was discussion on whether or not to spend $30,000. Councilman Schmid’s concern was they would go through a lot of rhetoric, spend $30,000 and wind up with a nice book that meant nothing. He thought additional discussion was needed.

Councilwoman Cassis said Mr. Frey indicated that he would be soliciting invitations to community leaders, civic and business organizations. She asked would members of the school community be invited.

Mr. Frey said they would be invited as well as anyone else outside of the community that had an effect on Novi.

Councilman Crawford asked what time table was on the phases? When would it start and how long would it take to get through, at least, Phase III?

Mr. Frey said he was currently working on the time table and has developed a four phase process over a period of about 21 months. He wanted to start in September and create the public awareness packets, the working materials and take it into November. Then create the Vision Statement and Futuring Panel in December, which is tentative, and that would bring us into Phase II by January.

PUBLIC HEARING

George Norberg, Seiber, Keast and Associates, was present representing the owner of the property. He said the property was located just east of Taft and south of Grand River. The part they are proposing their fill is an area that had already been filled or in the process of being filled right now as part of Leavenworth Construction and there is also a water quality basin. The construction that was done as part of the Leavenworth Creek was to fill the area one to two feet in order to alleviate it above the hundred year storage elevation for the Leavenworth Basin. That work was in the process and might be completed.

Mr. Norberg said they proposed to continue that fill approximately three to four and in some areas five feet in order to bring the area up and a little closer to level with the existing buildings so that it can be utilized for parking space and additional buildings. The fill material would be a clean, compactable material within the proposed pavement or building areas.

Mr. Norberg said the Soil Erosion Permit had been issued for the project in April, 1996.

Mayor McLallen asked if there was any other purpose for the fill than raising it.

Mr. Norberg said no. He applied for Land Improvement Permit and at that time found that a Landfill Permit was needed because it was in excess of 10,000 cubic yards. He anticipated that the total yardage was approximately 15,000.

Mayor McLallen asked if the purpose was to alleviate some of this areas flooding.

Mr. Norberg said yes.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

No comments were made from the members of the public.

The Public Hearing was closed at 8:05 P.M. and it was stated this item would be addressed as Item #1 of Matters for Council Action Part I.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mayor McLallen said the Council had received many letters from the residents of Orchard Hills and the Meadowbrook Homeowners Association and stated their first choice was to not do it at all but if a choice had to be made, it was for a temporary and distinctly contained and controlled road. They were concerned about the location of the road, drainage patterns. There were questions regarding the wetlands/woodlands ordinances and why this would be allowed, traffic concerns, dust control, etc. Mayor McLallen requested that if there was anything that was not in these letters or if she left out anything, she would like to hear from someone about issues not addressed. She asked matters not discussed be presented so Council could get to a decision.

Pauline Berry, 41710 Tamara, Orchard Hills Sub, introduced some of the children of the subdivision and expressed concern over their safety.

Mary Baum, 41911 Aspen, presented pictures of the water run off next to her house and was concerned about the apparent mis-communication between the developer and the schools. Ms. Baum requested that Council postpone the Preliminary Plat Approval until the developer and the school board had further discussion.

Jacque Hodges, represented the Briarwood Village Homeowners Association North and South with a request that Council accept their request for dedication of their streets and storm water sewers. The other concern was the easement and the residents were asked to sign a petition and that they understood that the right of way would be considered the 60 foot.

Mayor McLallen asked the City Manager to follow up on this issue and let the Council know in September the status of this.

President of the Homeowners Association, asked that Council consider the point that was made by Mary Baum regarding the developer and the school district needing to get back together. Council was given photos of their streets so they could see the current state of disrepair. There was concern over the actual width of the streets and the width the plans show, concern over drainage and asked Council to consider evaluating the current drainage plan to determine if the roads were adequate.

A resident, advised Council of communication from Dorothy Steinberger who was home bound and concerned about the traffic pattern at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook. His concern was that there were many people in the subdivision that were home bound and could not attend this meeting and were not represented.

Bradley Nelson, 41821 Aspen, read his letter to Council regarding the safety of his family, drainage and appropriately engineered sidewalks.

Elaine Lang, 41733 Borchart, had concerns regarding run off problems and potential flooding for the residents of Orchard Hills Subdivision. She gave Council photos of these problems.

Tony Nastasi, 41940 Quince, expressed concerns about traffic problems in front of his home and requested another entrance and exit out of the school.

Colin McQueen, 41842 Borchart, expressed concern over the potholes, one of which is 3 foot by 20 inches on the corner of Borchart and Silverly Lane. He asked the Council and the developers for some kind of restriction on the movement of construction traffic through the subdivision during weekends and during the hours the school buses are picking up and dropping off.

Steve Barnes, 41841 Aspen, was concerned with the traffic and the ecological impact on the wetlands and the safety of their children.

Tony Marroni, 41626 Chatman Dr., was concerned with flooding problems in Meadowbrook Lake. He requested a video he brought be shown and Council agreed.

Mayor McLallen stated the Council would have to decide on a policy to cover this situation as there wasn’t one presently. The video was reviewed by Lou Martin.

Councilman Clark stated he would like to see the video.

Councilwoman Cassis stated she would like to see the video if it would add some visual impact. She felt it would be useful.

Lisa Barton, 41635 Chatman, stated that at the corner of Chatman and Meadowbrook Road someone fell into the water up to the knee. She said water drains are everywhere.

Fred Beyea, 23615 Silvery Lane, was concerned that his house was on the southeast corner from the proposed development which was down hill from his wooded backyard, the street and his neighbor to the north. He was concerned with the storm drainage ditch behind his house and how it over floods during heavy rains and the debris that clogs the pipe.

Edward Walicki, 41825 Borchart, stated his concerns about drainage.

Mayor McLallen stated this wasn’t a Public Hearing and it was Audience Participation regarding next participant.

Laura Lorenzo, was present representing the Planning Commission and stated the Planning Commission had unanimously granted Society Hill a Woodlands Permit subject to deletion of buildings 7, 8, 10 and the relocation of the maintenance buildings. She explained what the deletion of the buildings would mean to the project. She stated that Society Hill objected to the deletion of buildings and had appealed. Ms. Lorenzo requested that Council deny the appeal.

Andrew Mutch, thought the discussion of the issue needed to be framed. He felt for the Council to suggest to destroy prime trees and woodlands was unacceptable. He asked if there could be access along the west edge of the school property in conjunction with the apartments. He asked Council not to use a haul as their excuse, or solution because it was not.

1. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 471

2. Approval of minutes of Special Meeting of March 28, 1996, Regular Meeting of May 6, 1996, Special Meetings of May 9, 1996, Regular Meeting of May 13, 1996, Special Meeting of May 10, 1996, and Regular Meetings of June 3 and June 17, 1996.

3. Ordinance No. 96-44.08 - Approval of proposed amendment of Section 7-32 of the Novi Code of Ordinances to eliminate confusion between Sec. PM-304 of the Property Maintenance Code and Chapter 21, Art. II which provides for the clearing of weeds considered to be a common nuisance - II Reading

4. Ordinance No. 96-152.01 - Approval of proposed amendment of Novi Ordinance Section 1-13 of the Novi Code of Ordinances to require that more tenant information be provided by owner - II Reading

5. Receive Resignation of Jacque Hodges from the Planning Commission effective

August 31, 1996

6. Approval of Revised City of Novi Department of Public Services Municipal Engineering Policy to include property notification, input and public informational meetings. Removed by Councilwoman Cassis

7. Approval to solicit construction bids for the Bassett Drain Maintenance and Clean

Out Project

8. Approval of MDOT Contract No. 96-0327 and Authorizing Resolution - Novi

Road Improvements 12-12 1/2 Mile Road

9. Approval of Resolution to request a Parade Permit for Saturday, October 12, 1996 - Novi High School Homecoming Parade.

10. Approval of Letters of Agreement with South Lyon, Lyon Township and Wixom -

Dispatch Services/Dispatch Manager.

11. Budget Amendment 97-05 - Rollover items from 95-96 Budget

12. Approval of Main Street Streetscape Amenities Regular Pay Estimate No. 2 -

Removed by Councilman Clark

13. Approval of Request for Street Name Change - Old Novi Road to Brickscape

Drive - Removed by Councilman Mitzel

14. Approval to solicit construction bids for the Beck Road/Pontiac Trail Sanitary

Sewer Extension - SAD 141C

15. Approval of Resolution authorizing the employment of JCK & Associates for the

preparation of plans associated with Police communications equipment shelter

on DPW property as follows:

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to contract for the preparation of plans for the construction of a police communications equipment building on property owned by the City;

WHEREAS, the City desires to employ its consulting engineers, JCK and Associates, Inc., for the preparation of such plans;

WHEREAS, JCK & Associates, Inc., is also employed to perform plan review functions as a part of the site plan review process;

WHEREAS, Section 6 of the City of Novi Standards of Conduct for Officers, Employees and Consultants provides as follows:

6. Except as otherwise provided by State law, a public officer, employee or consultant shall not engage in or accept employment or render services for a private or public interest when that employment or service is compatible or in conflict with the discharge of the officer, employee or consultant’s official duties or when that employment may tend to impair his or her independence of judgement or action in the performance of official duties.

WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the preparation of the plans will not be incompatible or in conflict with the discharge of JCK and Associates, Inc.’s plan review duties, because each service requires JCK and Associates, Inc., to insure that the plans comply in all respects with applicable statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Novi City Council approves the utilization of JCK and Associates, Inc., for the preparation of the plans for the above-referenced project.

16. Approval of resolutions appointing Brandon Rogers & Associates as Municipal

Planning and Birchler Arroyo Associates as Municipal Traffic and Planning Consultant for the City as follows, and approval of Resolution establishing various revised development review fees (attached to original Minutes).

WHEREAS, Section 11-7 of the Novi Code of Ordinances authorizes engineering inspections for infrastructure and site improvements and the payment of fees for such inspections, and

WHEREAS, Sections 2516.5 and 3008 of Ordinance No. 8418, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, authorize the setting of review fees for site plans, rezonings and special land use reviews, including landscape planting inspections, facade reviews, and transportation impact reviews; and

WHEREAS, Section 12-172(a)(2) of the Novi Code of Ordinances authorizes the setting of review fees for wetland and watercourse permit applications; and

WHEREAS, Section 37-28(a)(2) of the Novi Code of Ordinances authorizes the setting of review fees for woodland permit applications; and

WHEREAS, the Novi City Council has determined that the following listed fee amounts are appropriate for the purposes listed:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the listed fee amounts on the following pages are hereby established for the purposes listed.

17. Ordinance No. 96-22.03 - An amendment to clarify the definition of "inoperable motor vehicle" - I Reading - Removed by Councilman Mitzel

18. Approval of Resolution - City of Novi Investment Policy (attached to original minutes)

APPROVAL OF MINING AND FILLING PERMIT - AMCORP/PETE PHEIL, LOT 2, ASSESSOR’S PLAT NO. 1

Councilwoman Cassis asked if everything was in order, if this would create drainage problems and who Amcorp was and what did they do?

Mr. Fried said it was in order.

Joe Kapelczak replied that they manufactured heavy equipment.

Councilwoman Mutch wanted to involve the school district to give them the opportunity to have an active roll. She felt that the school district should take responsibility for a situation that they had helped to create in regard to having only one access to the school. She also wanted to see the drainage issues explored.

in November until alternative routes, traffic and drainage issues can be addressed.

Councilwoman Cassis thought there was an opportunity to work with the developer and that the developer was willing to look at the project and bring solutions forward. She had spoke with Mr. Koster, Assistant Superintendent, and the developer did approach the school district approximately 13 or 14 months ago and they did look at a solution to provide a secondary access. The school district wanted to be cooperative in every way and they were favorable to a temporary construction access being built. The general feeling that day was they would wait to hear from the developer to see if some of these conditions could be met. They did seem to agree to hire an adult to serve as a crossing guard. The developer was not heard from again and there was no reaching out to the school district since the postponement. She felt residents of the community should be involved in some kind of A committee to be a representative from the Homeowners organization as well as a member of the City or planning organization and meet with the developer and the school district to get this back on track.

Councilwoman Cassis said normally drainage and flooding issues are addressed later in the process but she hoped, in this instance, that the engineer would be involved in the committee because of the drainage problems that already exist. She wanted to see this come back within two months.

CM-96-08-291: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED; To AMEND the original motion to create an Ad Hoc Committee of homeowners association, school, developer, JCK and City staff to address alternative routes, traffic and drainage issues to be brought back to the Council by the first meeting in November.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid indicated the developer stated in a prior meeting that they had contacted the school board and there was absolutely no chance for the road to go where Councilwoman Cassis suggested. He felt the Planning Department should have been on top of this many, many months ago. He said there was nothing in the packet saying the school board was amenable to this so he concurred Council should look further into this. He felt Council has spent too much time on this project and it should have been resolved a long time ago.

The developer for this project explained the two plans for the access road. He restated information already presented involving the road and the wetlands. He passed out the two alternative plans for temporary and permanent access roads to Council.

Mr. Lewiston said he had met with Mr. Koster and the school district expected to be paid for a road equal to the amount he wouldn’t be paying for an access road from Meadowbrook, replacement of tennis courts, play equipment and a guard for the children. He said there was a problem with thinking the school district will be cooperative.

Councilwoman Cassis said she wanted something that would allow children access to the school site and hoped it would be maintained in any discussion.

Mayor McLallen stated the developer had agreed to that.

Mayor McLallen asked Councilwoman Cassis if she wanted the word committee still in the motion. Councilwoman Cassis said she did.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion:

To postpone the main motion to a date not later than the first meeting in November so the Community Development Staff and an Ad Hoc Committee composed of members of the school administration, homeowners association and the developer can explore solutions to the issues of traffic, safety, drainage and alternative routes.

COUNCILMAN MITZEL THOUGHT TECHNICALLY IT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO COUNCILWOMAN’S MUTCH’S MOTION TO POSTPONE.

Councilwoman Mutch said if Council was approving a committee she would not vote for that. She was prepared to make a motion if it failed to direct staff to put together the kind of discussion she and Mr. Schmid had talked about. She stated that input was available as she just described at length.

Councilman Schmid stated he could not support the motion as a committee and thought there had to be input from professional people and the homeowners. He did support the concept.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford stated Council, regardless of what they call the committee, wanted the staff, citizens, developer and whoever else needed to be involved to get the school district to get together and come up with some recommendations. He said he would support it and didn’t care what it was called.

NAYS: Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

Mayor McLallen stated the main motion was to postpone this issue until not later than the first meeting in November.

Councilman Mitzel requested the City Attorney to rule whether that committee had to follow the Open Meetings Act.

Mr. Fried said they would check it out.

Mayor McLallen said the main motion was to postpone to a meeting not later than the first one in November.

VOTE ON CM-96-08-290: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (MAIN MOTION)

Joseph Galvin, applicant, requested Council to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to approve the Preliminary Site Plan for the development. Secondly to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the wetlands permit and third, to delete from the woodlands permit which the Planning Commission approved, the condition that buildings 7, 8 and 10 and the maintenance building be removed from the project.

Mr. Galvin said if the project is approved with the buildings, the City would receive a development that is high quality and consistent with the plan for development in this area for more than 18 years, and consistent with the expectations of the property owner.

Mr. Galvin said if the Council chose not to delete the condition then the Council would be guaranteeing the financial infeasibility of the project. He said the current land cost, $4,500,000, for a 301 unit project comes out to about $14,900 per unit. By deleting approximately 90 units from the project, the conditions would require the cost to be driven up above $22,000 without distributing over the remaining units the costs of the infrastructure to sustain those units.

Mr. Galvin stated the issue is properly joined with the conditions of the permit. The conditions of the permit said Planning Commission thought it was an appropriate development, they liked the project and the way the project was designed but believed under the Woodlands Ordinance that more buildings needed to be deleted.

Mr. Galvin said it was originally proposed with 14 buildings. Two of the buildings went to the road right of way and two more were taken out as the project was redesigned. The net result is what was before Council tonight and the project had been pared down to its bare economic minimum and there was nothing left to give. He said more than 50% of the woodlands on the property are to be preserved in their natural state and are the highest quality woodlands on the property. He said they met the ordinance requirements and would meet them without deleting the buildings and if the buildings are deleted the ordinance purposes are not met.

Mr. Galvin asked Council to take the recommendation of the Planning Commission as to the inherent desirability of this project on this property. He also asked that the reasonable expectation over the last 12 years of Mr. Solomon’s dealings with the property be met.

Linda Lemke, Woodlands Consultant, said the removal of the three buildings would save more of the upland woodlands which is the concern of the Planning Commission. The removal of the three buildings, maintenance building and parking would add an additional 3.5 acres to the upland/woodland preservation number. It would also create more of a corridor area through the center of the site that would connect with the tree farm property to the north.

Councilman Mitzel said directly north would not be the tree farm property and he thought it was privately owned RA land. He wanted to know what it connected to on the north and west.

Ms. Lemke said it connected to the north and west through the vacant parcel and the stub street.

Councilwoman Cassis stated at the July 15th meeting she asked which of the buildings would she suggest needed relocation. It was indicated that it was the maintenance building and the detached garage and is that correct.

Ms. Lemke said no it was not. She had indicated three or four buildings, the maintenance building, 10, 7, 8 and 3.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if she emphasized in particular because of the habitat, the detached garage and the maintenance building?

Ms. Lemke said the maintenance building was emphasized because it was another mechanism of looking for other alternatives and to look at different parking arrangements. Then, the final resolution of looking for more alternatives that save more of the upland woodlands would be the removal of buildings.

Councilman Schmid asked Ms. Lemke to go over the advantages or disadvantages of removing 7, 8, 10 and the maintenance building and where the corridor was at. Ms. Lemke repeated the information offered earlier. It was asked if it fit within the Woodlands Ordinance.

Ms. Lemke said it did fit within the Woodlands Ordinance and restated her thoughts on the project.

Councilman Mitzel said he did not support the zoning of this project but it is rezoned and an allowable use PD-1, RM-1 and had to be balanced with the requirements of the Woodlands Ordinance. He asked if one or two of the buildings were removed to provide for more of the concerns that the Planning Commission had, and in exchange increase a story on the remainder of the buildings to regain units, then the unit count would remain the same but the footprint into the woodlands would be reduced.

Mr. Galvin did not have an answer to that question, but would ask Mr. Paws, project designer, if that would work to achieve both goals.

Mr. Paws advised Council that various alternative had been looked at. The buildings as currently designed include three levels of units. A walk out level, when built into a hill side, a ground level, second and third floor units which have a loft. Some units have five stories at the back of the building, four in some units when it’s not a down hill situation. Three floors of units is usually accepted as the maximum that a tenant or owner would be willing to climb stairs. To ask people to walk up to a fourth floor is not feasible in terms of the market unless there are elevators and that would make it a totally different kind of building.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford asked if there was any possibility of pursuing what Mr. Mitzel offered about enlarging the footprint of some of those other buildings that might not intrude into any sensitive areas and Mr. Paws replied no.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what the possibilities were if the parking area was reduced because there was parking, at the lower or ground level, attached to the building.

Mr. Paws said it would be the same problem because if the tenants were living on the third floor, they would still be climbing up stairs to the third floor.

Councilman Clark asked Mr. Fried about the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as to the removal of those buildings as a condition of the grant for the Woodlands Permit in light of Mr. Galvin’s comments.

Mr. Fried said Mr. Clark’s question assumed that Mr. Galvin was correct in everything that Mr. Galvin placed on the record. Mr. Clark said he was not making that assumption.

Mr. Fried stated the ordinance provided that they could impose such conditions on the matter on the proposed activity as are necessary to insure that intent of this Chapter is carried out. The activity for use will be conducted in such a matter that would cause the least possible damage in regard as granting this permit. He said the question is can they impose a condition that would require the applicant to remove structures. He supposed they could say they would not grant the permit without because it is imposing putting buildings in an area that would defeat the purpose of the Woodlands Ordinance without putting that condition on it. This is just a method of doing that without redoing it.

Councilman Clark indicated his concerns concurred with Mr. Mitzel. He stated he did not support this initially for the same reasons. However, the property was rezoned and was now in compliance with the ordinance. He understood that it was not feasible for the petitioner economically from their perspective. Mr. Clark said as a practical matter, he didn’t see any other viable alternative and they had moved several buildings already.

Mr. Clark said he asked Mr. Rogers the last time this was before Council, if the project proposed would remove 50% of the woodlands, and he indicated that was correct. Mr. Galvin indicated with the reconfiguration they had done, they would save more than 50%. He asked Ms. Lemke what the increase was from the 50% last time.

Ms. Lemke said there was approximately 32.26 acres of regulated woodlands on the site and now there are approximately 18 acres being saved and that included wooded wetlands of approximately 12.62 and 5.5 acres that are upland woodlands.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Fried what the response was to Mr. Clark.

Mr. Fried said assuming Mr. Galvin is correct and the project is not economically feasible because of the removal of these buildings, then there might be a violation of the Woodlands Permit.

Councilman Schmid said for Council to make a decision based on Mr. Galvin, there should be an independent evaluation of where that project could go with less buildings.

Mr. Fried said that was not the only point Mr. Galvin was making and felt that he had made additional points and said he would not address his comments.

Councilman Schmid was concerned whether Council would be legally in a problem and thought the answer was no assuming that Mr. Galvin was not right in all of his comments.

Mr. Fried said that’s correct.

Councilman Schmid concurred with Councilmen Mitzel and Clark. He opposed the project and felt that it should have been developed RA.

Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION WITHDRAWN; To approve the Preliminary Plat and the Wetland Permit as presented with all the conditions imposed on by Consultants’ letters.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what was required in reference to sidewalks. Are they required on both sides of the roadways through the project. She said there was a whole section where there didn’t appear to be any pedestrian access other than the street.

Mr. Fried said not entirely but it did have to have some kind of pedestrian system and it did have some sidewalks on the plan.

Mr. Rogers said there was a requirement in the footnote of RM-1 and RM-2 developments that there be sidewalks that have some access to the public.

Mayor McLallen asked if the plan did or did not meet the City Ordinance requirements for sidewalks.

Mr. Rogers said in his review, he must have concluded that it did, but he would have to look at the plan in front of him to verify that.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how the residents get from one building to the next in the western section of the plan.

Mr. Leighton said there would be walkways along the front of every building.

Mr. Rogers said perhaps the detail could be shown on the Final Site Plan.

Councilwoman Mutch said if this issue could be addressed, she had no problem with it.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the motion included the conditions of the Woodlands Permit as approved by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fried said no it was separate.

Councilman Mitzel said the site plan was recommended on those conditions of the Woodlands Permit. He asked if Council was voting on a site plan with seven units or with ten units.

Mr. Fried concurred with what Mr. Mitzel said and thought Council should take up the appeal on the Woodlands Permit first.

Mayor ProTem Crawford withdrew his motion if the Woodlands Permit needed to be addressed first.

Mayor McLallen said the plan in front of Council was the request for all of the buildings.

Mr. Fried said that was correct.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Crawford’s motion to approve that plan would override the woodlands situation.

CM-96-08-292: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Cassis, MOTION CARRIED; To grant the appeal that was requested and remove the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on the Woodlands Permit.

Councilwoman Cassis said in order to meet the intent of the project and the intent of the previous motion which was to move forward and grant Preliminary Plat with all of the conditions suggested by Consultants’ appeal of the Woodlands Permit, it would have to be made at this point.

Mayor McLallen said Mrs. Cassis was in agreement, unless someone brought up something unusual, to entertain the relief.

Councilwoman Cassis said she was willing to entertain the relief.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Ms. Lemke said the conditions imposed in the recommendation from the Planning Commission exceeded what she was recommending.

Ms. Lemke said exceeded by recommending specific buildings although she had been asked if she had to pick the buildings, which buildings would it be. She said she didn’t know if she could ever approve the project because of the high quality of the woodlands and that the extent of removal of buildings, and the removing the lots in her opinion, would have to be so high it would be difficult for her to approve them.

Ms. Lemke said what she meant by "exceeded" was that they specifically said buildings. If she had to write a recommendation for approval or an approval letter, she would probably had said she could not recommend approval even with the three buildings out of that because of the sensitive nature of the high quality woodlands. Ms. Lemke said the three buildings coming out was a better alternative to date than had been presented because it took out more of the building and parking areas and it preserved the high quality woodlands on the site.

Councilwoman Mutch stated she would support some relief as requested.

Councilman Mitzel asked Ms. Lemke which buildings would be removed if she had to rank them in order of importance to be removed.

Ms. Lemke said building 10 would be number one, 8 would be number 2, and 7 would be number 3.

Councilman Mitzel stated he would be willing to support some relief because he was not certain there weren’t alternatives that would accomplish the developer’s goal and the goal of the Woodlands Ordinance. In past instances, Council had allowed or advocated variances concerning setback or building length to accommodate the environmental ordinances of woodlands and wetlands. These buildings are at maximum 180 that probably could be exceeded, but would require the ZBA, but the conditions are balanced by the high quality woodland preservation. If, for instance, building number 10 was eliminated, maybe number 9 could be reconfigured into an "L" shape and they could still have units up in the area and still preserve more of the woods.

Councilman Mitzel said he did not want to redesign the project at the table tonight, but was not convinced the units couldn’t be kept about the same and keep the quality of the project about the same, but yet still preserve more of the woodlands especially in the areas of 8 and 10. He would not support the motion and would like more effort on how to preserve more woodlands and the quality of the project. Possibly, the City would have to be flexible and allow buildings that were longer than 180 feet or slightly less setback along some of the roads. The developer was asked if he would be willing to explore that.

Mr. Galvin said the problem was that this layout had been shaken every which way but loose, so the answer would have to be no, and it is a question of inability as opposed to the lack of willingness to try.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said there had been an extensive history to this project and it had been pared down many times. He stated he concurred with the developer and felt it was about as far as it could go to be economically feasible and did save some extensive woodlands and didn’t block the corridor for habitat. He felt the project should be approved.

CM-96-08-293: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To grant Preliminary Plat and the Wetlands Permit pursuant to all the Consultants requirements and comments.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said there was one other condition that the Planning Commission had placed concerning directional vehicle access off 12 1/2 Mile Road. He asked if that condition was included in the motion.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said if it was as presented tonight, yes.

Mr. Galvin said there was a condition added that he work to find a solution and since it was originally proposed without access, they would be willing to work with the City to find a solution.

Councilman Mitzel stated he would not support this because of the break away barrier between the two subdivisions.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated he would also vote against it because he had not liked anything about the project since it’s beginning.

Mr. Robert Carson was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Carson explained the parcel dimensions and presented a schematic of an integrated plan with the development of the two separate parcels which comprised the 50.6 acres. The schematic showed the woodlands and wetlands on the property and the road connecting the two areas which went across the rear of the school district property and there were approximately 36 sites on the property. The property in question is at 13 Mile and Meadowbrook and it includes the property along 13 Mile Road and the property south of the school. It is currently zoned RA and the request is to have it zoned the least dense alternative from that, R-1.

Councilwoman Cassis stated Mr. Rogers indicated that under the Preservation Option which could be used to apply to this property, conforming development could result under RA District standards.

UNANIMOUSLY; That Zoning Map Amendment No. 18.556 - Request from Hughlan Development Company to rezone 50.62 acres from R-A to R-1 District or any other appropriate zoning district be denied.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if it was rezoned R-1, would it qualify for other options that could make it even more dense than R-1.

Mr. Rogers explained a significant portion are regulated wetlands and those are not credits under the Preservation Option. Theoretically, disregarding State, Federal and City regulated wetlands, there would be 20% of the site in upland woodlands, setback areas and wetlands, meadows in preservation and perpetuity, and they could then reduce the lot sizes in areas under the R-A from 43,560 down to about 34,000 or 35,000 square feet, but it may be a 17% reduction and we don’t know for sure but you can reduce it.

Mr. Rogers said if you had it zoned R-1, yes, they would be eligible under the Preservation Option, however, the maximum reduction isn’t 20% and it is 17% because that is the ceiling of the R-2 District zoning, but if you did find there were eligible PCP credits of up to 17%, you could reduce the half acre size in an R-1 District of 21,790 square feet down to 18,000 square feet.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford asked if there has been anything in his opinion presented to either the Planning Commission or Council, to support the fact that it cannot be developed R-A.

Mr. Rogers said there was a question that it would be expensive to bring in the infrastructure. He said there was discussion by Commissioner Hoadley of the applicant, who had brought up the fact that to bring in the cost of infrastructure, it wouldn’t work on R-A development density. Mr. Rogers said it was discussed that sewers are coming up already planned and partially financed for the Vistas of Novi project so there would be a tie-in from that sewer and it would be relatively proximate. Mr. Rogers said his recommendation was based on consistency, past decisions of the Council, Mr. Nation’s property, the split going on immediately to the east and the subdivisions to the east, and to the south and along Meadowbrook Road. He said it has been zoned and master planned R-A for several years.

Councilman Mitzel said as he understood Mayor Pro Tem Crawford’s question, it had been if it was zoned R-1, could any other option other than preservation be used and he believed Cluster would then be allowed if 50% of the site was woodlands or wetlands, whereas Cluster is not allowed in R-A.

Councilwoman Cassis said we have had a long relationship with these developers and she felt they are showing that they are developing the Vistas under a PUD and that is going to be going forward and it is going to be successful from a standpoint of financial investment into this whole project.

Councilwoman Cassis said she has watched this whole section go from 1985 onward and there have been some conflicts over time with these particular developers and have sued the City and they at one point thought they would relocate the Methodist Church but then they reneged on that. She said so along with that and with the fact that we are trying to follow some consistency with our Master Plan, that is why she made the motion to not support a rezoning to R-1, which could result in an even further intensity and density increase with using the Cluster Option.

Councilman Mitzel said he would support the motion because he believed it was basically following the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Master Plan, but not because of the past relationship with the developer, which he is not even considering in his deliberation.

Councilman Schmid said he supported the motion based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the Planner’s and it was Master Planned R-A and it should remain R-A and be built R-A and there is no need to rezone it.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with Councilman Mitzel. She felt on the merits of the request and the resulting recommendations from Mr. Rogers and the Planning Commission, she would support the motion.

Councilman Crawford said he would concur with Councilwoman Mutch and Councilman Mitzel.

Mayor McLallen said she would support the motion, but tonight has shown us that we really need to make some serious decisions about our land use ordinances. She commented the plan is completely irrelevant and you are asking for a rezoning and frankly, any particular plan is completely irrelevant to a rezoning because you can go away tomorrow but we have rezoned the land. She said she is opposed to doing that.

Mayor McLallen said but what you have pointed out rather clearly is that you have 50 acres and you are only asking to build 34 houses and many other developers around the City have come to that same situation and they do not want to exceed the density of R-A but the Ordinance itself is so inflexible as it is written, that you have no other options.

Mayor McLallen said you don’t want to maximize the density and you would like to just achieve the density that is put on our maps that is used as a predication of our build-out in our community, which is .8 units per acre, but most of our R-A land will not support .8 units per acre. She believed at some time, we are going to have to cross that bridge and decide what is the true density of R-A because she didn’t think it was .8 units.

Councilman Schmid said he totally disagreed with what Mayor McLallen just stated. He said our land can be developed R-A and they don’t have to put a house on the whole acre of land and they can put a house on a very small piece of the land and they can have woodlands and wetlands and trees and everything else within the one acre lots, so their zoning is accurate and correct and they can develop R-A.

Councilman Schmid said we keep talking about downsizing and so forth, and then in the next breath, we talk about the density of our community and the roads you can’t get by on now. He stated R-A is a legitimate zoning and they can develop most lands even if it is wetlands on one acre lots, fully recognizing some of the area would have woodlands and wetlands on the one acre and there is nothing wrong with that and it has been going on for well over 300 years.

Mayor McLallen said there is a motion to deny the request for the rezoning and she asked for a vote.

VOTE ON CM-96-08-295: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Lanciault said he admired Council’s tenacity and they have put in a lot of time here on behalf of the City. He said he didn’t agree with Council and probably he and Councilman Schmid didn’t agree on anything. He also indicated that Councilwoman Cassis wasn’t correct when saying we reneged on something with the Church. He stated the Historical Society came to us with a proposal of providing the building with a certain amount of dollars and it was going to be put on the site and certain things were going to happen but didn’t happen, and the dollars represented were not available to us and the building was full of asbestos and there were a whole series of problems that were not disclosed to us initially. He said they spent a great deal of time and money with planners and architects to make it happen but it could not happen and we did not renege on anything.

Mr. Lanciault said regarding the piece of property we asked to be rezoned, he didn’t know what the answer is, but we are not trying to maximize the density and there are ways that people can pull tricks, but if we can get it approved subject to the site plan with a maximum of 36 lots, we would be very happy with that.

Mr. Lanciault said Council would recall, Councilman Pope had asked for the Vistas of Novi to find a way to consolidate the school districts so that project would not be divided between the Walled Lake Schools and the Novi Schools and we did what we could and met with both school districts and the school districts agreed and we ended up with Walled Lake Schools for the Vistas of Novi.

Mr. Lanciault explained Walled lake Schools was also put in a difficult position because they did not have a facility to accommodate the growing demand of the area. He said they spent some money and bought some land which was 77 acres so that the City or the Walled Lake School District could find a site to build another school so they bought that land from us and we carried the inventory until they got the approval to buy it and then they could put a school there. Mr. Lanciault said the school would then satisfy the needs of the Vistas of Novi and some other things they had in the area. He said that is the reason why they bought that dirt. He said they did it to get the school in there to accomplish the Council’s objective through Councilman Pope and that is why we have this land and have this predicament.

Mr. Lanciault remarked had we known early on that we needed two means of ingress and egress off of Meadowbrook Road, we might not have sold the school what we did and now we have to go back to them after the fact as a result of Mr. Rogers’ recommendation, to give us an access out to Thirteen Mile Road because we are stuck with the remaining land with a cul-de-sac requirement of 800 feet.

Mr. Lanciault indicated we have been going around in circles trying to accomplish this, and we are not trying to put multi-family in anyone’s backyard and we are just trying to come out of this fair and square.

Chuck Young of 50910 W. Nine Mile indicated one of the reasons he came here tonight was for Item #8 because their group has come up with some ideas that we thought we could help out with the City on that particular project. He also wanted to address the need of one acre lots again. He said he keeps hearing about the 80-20 plan and there is going to be a huge demand for large lots in this area and anyone in realty will be able to sell these lots and there would be million dollar houses going up in the next ten years.

Mr. Young said what is happening in this area is unbelievable. He also said there is going to be a problem on the corner of Eight Mile and Beck and the Zayti property is probably going to go into litigation and it was purchased by the Franco Group. He said there are many problems with that particular parcel of land. He also added he would like to work with the City on the Aquatic situation.

Mayor McLallen closed the Audience Participation.

Mayor McLallen explained back in March this Committee did an excellent job and gave us their recommendations concerning the Aquatic Facilities and they roughly came up with the fact that seven acres would be needed and they identified two prime sites, Power Park and the Eleven Mile school site, soon to be hopefully the joint City and School site and they identified that this project would cost roughly 4.5 million dollars. In the meantime, the City has pursued several other options hoping that perhaps we would not have to go to the voters for an Aquatic Facility. She said there were some development initiatives we would have brought forward, but they are no longer on the horizon, so in order to put this issue before our voters, we would like to hear some final input from the Committee and then the Council will have a discussion.

Mr. Dave Sheeran indicated he was the Chairperson of the Committee and he appreciated the action being taken right now. He felt their proposal was clear. He said one of the things they found during their study with the public hearings was there was definitely a need and a strong desire for this type of facility in Novi.

Mr. Sheeran referred them to the conclusions of a report which talked about placing this issue on the Ballot and the work required to select the site for this. He said there were two sites that we came down to and there were some concerns with both sites that he felt needed to be addressed and he believed Parks & Recreation and Finance and City Administration will be working on those issues.

Donna Bavarskas discussed one of the more recent News editions, and said there were two very contrasting yet equally relevant issues which could be said to have a connection to the need for a community pool. First, it has been written how Novi is growing, and people want to live here because of the reputation of the schools, however, when you look at what the City has to offer children besides good schools, we see a certain need and a community pool would move toward filling that need. She said a pool can do part of the job schools can’t which is to bring children and families together.

Ms. Bavarskas indicated she read several brief articles about youths having some minor conflicts which ended up with some legal intervention, and she believed this could be due in part to the lack of recreation for kids to enjoy and participate in, which is constructive rather than destructive activity. She said the children of Novi are good children and we need to provide them the opportunity to socialize with other friends and community members in a positive manner and a pool could serve the City of Novi well in this regard.

Ms. Bavarskas stated this Council has received petitions expressing the desire for an outdoor pool facility and the Parks & Recreation Department sent out and then tallied surveys, which indicated a strong desire for a pool facility and they have also received a steady flow of calls about such a facility. She said two Aquatic facility committees have served this Council and reported on the strong demand for a pool and finally, over a dozen meetings, all of which were opened to the public as well as two formal public hearings, have been held and at all of these, residents were strongly in favor of a pool facility.

Ms. Bavarskas strongly urged this Council to take immediate action moving toward the direction which would put before the voters a bond request to construct the pool with a target date of opening no later than the beginning of Summer of 1998, and choose as a site the Powers Park location, which all the research has shown would most efficiently serve a major portion of the City. She said if this site is not possible, then choose the already owned property at the Eleven Mile and Wixom Road site.

Gwen Markham of 45540 Violet Lane said most of the points have been covered so she wouldn’t belabor them. She said the citizens have told us that they want us to get on with this project, so to her, the question of should they put an advisory question on the ballot is meaningless and would serve to only delay the construction of a pool by at least six more months to do that, so if it is not possible at this time now to get the referendum on the November ballot, she would suggest that they go forward with the 4.5 million dollar referendum.

Ms. Markham believed the residents of Novi have told us that they want a facility but in all fairness, we should define it and put it out there for them to vote on and she agreed 100% with Ms. Bavarskas that we should take a strong look at the Powers Parks site for the main reason that within a one mile radius of Powers Park, are over 20 subdivisions either currently in place or planned and that means that all of those residents and families of those subdivisions will be able to either walk or ride their bikes to this community facility, which she felt was important.

Rick Ragsdale said he has been a resident of Novi for two years and lived in the Jamestown Green Subdivision. He said he was also a member of the Aquatic Study Committee. He said we have an excellent Parks & Recreation Department and when they have the resources and the funds, they have put together some of the finest recreation programs for both our children and our adults in this area and it is probably one of the best recreation departments in the immediate region. He felt the one lacking item is an Aquatic Facility and this was quite apparent to him when he came from another town that had a good Aquatic Facility. He said they didn’t quite have the recreation department that Novi has, but they did have the Aquatic Facility.

Mr. Ragsdale urged that Council basically finish what it started and it was at your direction that we did this study and you have our recommendations and you have seen the alternatives approach to it going with the private enterprise and now he only asked that Council complete what we started.

Mayor McLallen said the issue before Council was where do they go from here and her question to the City Attorney would be that our understanding was that all ballot language be done but we don’t have a dollar amount available and we have a recommendation, but typically that gets sent to our Bonding Attorneys. Mr. Fried indicated that the language is important.

Mayor McLallen asked if we can put a simple statement on there, and Mr. Fried replied it would not be binding unless they put it in the Bonding Resolution, which needs to be done by their Bonding Attorneys. He would not recommend that Council do that tonight.

Mayor McLallen asked the date of the next election to be held and Mr. Fried said we can give you an answer by the next meeting if there is a primary and Mayor McLallen asked then the only other way this could go before the voters in a format that would allow them to tax themselves, would be to call a special election on this one issue.

Mr. Fried said you could prepare the Resolution and see if there are other issues that might come up that might necessitate an election and then have it on that. Mayor McLallen said the Committee has stated clearly and they have heard also from members of the community, sooner than later so we can build by 1998. Mr. Fried said they just couldn’t do it that night.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford said typically there is a school election in June, and he realized that they are different entities, but could a special election be held at the very same time as a potential school election, therefore reducing some of the costs and moving up the date and is that a possibility. He asked couldn’t we conduct one at the same time.

Ms. Reutter indicated the school voting precincts are different than ours. Mayor Pro Tem Crawford said it would be a no then and Ms. Reutter said it has never been done.

Councilman Mitzel said he felt they have dropped the ball on this one and we have had it for five months but our agendas have been so full it never got in and in hindsight, it would have been nice to have the language prepared even for tonight’s discussion, then we could have acted on it if there had been a consensus.

Councilman Mitzel said there had been two weeks since our last meeting to prepare the language and unfortunately he didn’t think of requesting that and no one else had either. At this point he would recommend that the Bonding Attorney prepare the language and have it available at the City Clerk’s Office, so if an election does come up, we can pull it off the shelf, vote on the bonding language and have it ready for that election. If not, the worse case is it wouldn’t be voted on until next November when there is the City election in November of 1997.

CM-96-08-296: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To ask the Bonding Attorney to prepare the appropriate language for submittal to the City Clerk’s Office.

Councilwoman Mutch said when you say to prepare the language, is that the dollar amount and the location or just the dollar amount or is it asking the voters to in fact fund it and we are not talking about an advisory question now.

Mr. Fried said when the Resolution is prepared, they would leave the dollar amount open until the Council decides on the amount and then that can be inserted at the last minute along with the election date.

Councilwoman Mutch asked are we talking about just the dollar amount and not the location, and Councilman Mitzel said typically we don’t have the location. Mr. Fried said it will include a general statement as to the purpose of the Bonding Resolution and the amount of the bond.

Councilwoman Mutch commented there was some question earlier whether or not we would put it as an advisory question on the November ballot and she said members of the Committee addressed that, and she agreed with what was said at the podium, that if you are going to ask the voters to do something, then ask them to approve it, and if they don’t like it, then they are going to vote no on paying for it.

Councilwoman Mutch said her concern is that we don’t necessarily tack it on to the next available election because the Committee has done the research and identified the type of facility for which there is a need and they have documented that demand. She said we hear all the time people are calling when is this going to be built, so there is support in the community for it.

Councilwoman Mutch indicated she supported it and she felt it would be a great amenity for this community and she felt it is one that the community asked for in the right way, under the right circumstances and the right timing and it is a ballot issue that she is willing to go out there and campaign for.

Councilwoman Mutch felt it was not wise to stick this on the November ballot just to get it out there because there are all the other things that have been mentioned. She said both Walled Lake Schools and Northville Schools are looking at major bond requests and Novi has gone through millions of dollars in building that was approved not all that long ago. She didn’t feel the timing was good for it, particularly in November when people are standing out there in the snow and we are asking them to approve a swimming pool.

Councilwoman Mutch felt they don’t necessarily want to tack it on to the next available election because we don’t know for sure when that will be. She felt they may have to seriously consider a special election. She felt the timing has to be better than this November and she didn’t know when, but she felt they should go with asking people if they are willing to pay for it because that is really what we want to know.

Mayor McLallen explained at this point, the motion did not include putting this on November, it just is to get a definition for the language.

Councilman Clark indicated he agreed with comments made by Councilwoman Mutch and if they are trying to generate a taxpayer backlash, this would be a way to do it and to put it on the November ballot would be a serious mistake. Also, a comment was made that we have about 20 subdivisions in the immediate area that would serve that and he knows that the proposal talked about a facility at capacity that would provide services to 2,000 people on a hot summer day, and he couldn’t believe 2,000 people on a hot summer day are going to be taking a bicycle ride or walking to this pool, which means cars and cars means traffic.

Councilman Clark felt they need to bear in mind that a number of the subdivisions in the area of Powers Park, one of the two sites suggested, are in the Northville School District. He said in addition to the bonding proposals that we are talking about being on the ballot, we also should bear in mind that Northville is talking in October about the possibility of a 60 million dollar bond issue for schools, which will be paid by those taxpayers living in the City of Novi who are in the Northville School District.

Councilman Clark felt it would be great to provide everything for everyone so we could have all of the things that we want, but one thing that causes him concern are the facilities that were looked at. He said we are providing a capacity for 500 more people than Troy has, and their goal is to break even, in other words, they are not breaking even and Southfield passed up the opportunity for a pool and the voters said no. He said Westerville, Ohio talks about the fact that the facility has both recreational and a lap swimming pool and is similar in concept to our proposed design, but it doesn’t say what the actual features are such as lengths, depths, etc., and they have an $80,000 surplus.

Councilman Clark indicated the facility in Hillsdale, Illinois is close to covering expenses, not including debt services so on this list we have one that isn’t built, two of which are not breaking even and one that is not exactly turning a tremendous profit, which concerns him greatly because we have enough obligations in terms of indebtedness that the taxpayers are responsible for right now.

Councilman Clark stated also the additional time will give them the opportunity to finalize the information that we need so we are sure of what we are doing, and he felt they were overly optimistic in terms of what we think this is going to generate in looking at what Troy has been doing and what they are charging and what we think this will generate.

Councilwoman Mutch commented there was another Parks & Recreation project or proposal that has been hotly debated here and it revolved around the issue of whether it paid for itself or generated a profit, and she remembered someone at the Council saying why these things had to generate a profit. She felt it is nice if they break even and wonderful if they generate a profit, but there are certain services that are provided through Parks & Recreation. She said we buy parkland and we make that accessible to the public and the City pays for the maintenance of the parkland but we don’t buy it for the intent of making a profit. She felt some things are amenities that are provided and we all enjoy them and the citizens vote to tax themselves in order to have that.

Councilwoman Mutch commented when you have projects that require taxpayer’s approval for funding, such as this one, we are not doing anything to them and we are all taxpayers and voters, and the voters themselves decide whether to tax themselves and we carry that out and we provide the information via the work of Committees and Consultants, etc., and we go out there and sell it and educate people as to what we are going to do. She said the voters allow us to tax them this amount and they hold us accountable to keeping that proposal.

Councilwoman Mutch felt if the community is willing to take on that obligation, that is something we should respect and if they don’t, they will let us know.

Councilwoman Cassis remarked one of the things in all of this that we have learned is the pent-up desire for recreational opportunities in this City and she has heard the great need for recreation and the desirability of it, so she would say to move forward with some bonding language that would be appropriate, and it then indicates to the community at large, that we have listened to the public and to reports from the committee.

Councilwoman Cassis also felt they need to look at the accessibility of pools in this entire area especially with the potential for a new middle school being built at Eleven Mile and Wixom and what kind of a swimming pool operation they intend to be bringing in and what is also available through Northville.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if a report as to the soil borings has been finalized relative to the two sites and the Mayor responded that was an issue not on this motion and they would get back to it.

Councilwoman Cassis said she was in agreement to put this before the public and allow them to decide.

Mr. Adams explained today they started filling in the lot next door to him and changing the grade levels in their whole yard and he didn’t know what this is going to do, but it changes everything now. He felt the problem is still going to be there and its natural flow has been stopped downstream from where he is at and he didn’t know what the answer is. He was hoping the City would take some steps or do something. He said within two or three years, a new home was added and the lot grade elevation on that home and lot was changed when they built it and there was a septic system and an engineered field put in along side of that, and those two things have just created a burden of not allowing the water to flow the way it naturally did before. He said he was upstream from it and losing trees and his yard, etc., over it.

Mayor McLallen said what is before Council is the first resolution and the process creates a Special Assessment District on his property. Mr. Adams said he would like to find out what it is and what the costs are and get it resolved.

Mr. Kriewall indicated he has been out to the site with the DPW Director and Building Official and we have made a fairly thorough investigation of this entire area. There are some historical drainage problems that have been there a long time and in the older subdivision, that drainage comes from surrounding lots and it falls downhill into their backyards and their backyards really pick up the entire neighborhood in terms of drainage.

Mr. Kriewall said then to compound the problem, Oakland County Health Department Sanitation Division, approved within the neighborhood, a raised septic tank repair facility, which changed all of the grading in the neighborhood and there have been some other alterations caused by, for example, a new home being constructed also downstream that has affected the drainage somewhat, so it is a combination of problems that can only be resolved by an engineering analysis of the area.

Mr. Kriewall said subsequently, there was the installation of a storm sewer to pick up the backyard drainage, but it is an area-wide concern in this particular area, and really from our perspective, Mr. Adams needs to go to Resolution 1 so our engineers can go out and make an analysis of the entire problem and then move towards the resolution, and to do nothing would be the wrong thing to do at this point in time. He said they need to pass Resolution No. 1 and analyze the scope of the problem and work towards a solution and he felt they were headed in the right direction.

Mayor McLallen said it was her understanding this is a district of one and Mr. Kriewall explained it would probably be several lots in an area. Mayor McLallen said Mr. Adams is the only party named in this request and they have a reference to two other parties and usually it names all parties covered and she didn’t want to begin something that is going to obligate a single citizen if it is an area-wide problem.

Mr. Nowicki indicated that resolution basically says to address flooding problems associated with 24630 Taft Road as documented and basically that would look at the entire area that contributes to his flooding problem. He felt they were pretty well set with this verbiage right here.

Mayor McLallen said but if this requires more than this landowner in the participation of the special assessment district and he is a minority, what happens if the majority landowners don’t accept the special assessment district.

Mr. Fried explained the Council can create a special assessment district and the only thing the landowners could legally object to is the amount of their assessment, but the Council can go ahead and special assess for the area and they don’t have to complete it. He felt what the City Manager is saying is that Resolution 1 would give them a chance to investigate the fact that the Council doesn’t need a landowner to come before the Council to propose a special assessment district.

Councilwoman Mutch said the address in here only defines the area where the specific problem has been already identified and it does not define a potential special assessment district and it was stated that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said normally in a special assessment district, you get a petition and a number of people want something to be done. He said here we have one person and what if the engineering report says you need a storm water sewer and it is going to cost $28,000, and they are going to special assess the homeowners there without their desire to be special assessed. He felt that will be a problem.

Mr. Fried explained legally you can do that, and he wasn’t saying politically you are going to do that and Councilman Schmid said politically or otherwise, it is the wrong approach, and they should authorize the engineers and Mr. Kriewall to look into it and come back with a suggestion as to the problem.

Mr. Kriewall said you would still have to do a Resolution 1 anyway so really you are backing up and having to waste some time. He said you can do Resolution 1 and get it to the first public hearing with preliminary costs and you will find out right away from the public. He said the problem is when you get these back yard drainage problems affecting the neighborhood, it ends up where the neighbors are really not talking to each other because of the problems, and so the City needs to become a part of this solution and it may turn out that no one will want the special assessment.

Mr. Kriewall said they may not go ahead with it, but he felt they need to analyze it from the perspective of being a potential SAD and we can always back off from that and it is really the same process and Resolution 1 just sends the engineers out to develop a solution to the area and devise the scope of the districts, so we can tell how many lots would be participating in the district so really it was the same situation.

CM-96-08-298: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Resolution No. 1 for Special Assessment District on Taft Road as follows:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Novi has been presented with a request for drainage improvements associated with flooding problems at 24630 Taft Road as documented by information presented to Council by the requestor.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. The City Manager is hereby directed to cause to be prepared a report which shall include preliminary plans, profiles, specifications and estimates of cost, an estimate of the life of the improvement, a description of the assessment district, recommendations as to what portion of the cost of the project must be borne by the Special Assessment District and the portion, if any, to be borne by the City at-large, and such other pertinent information as will permit the Council to decide the cost, extent and necessity of the improvement proposed and what part or proportion thereof should be paid by special assessments upon the property especially benefitted and what part, i f any, should be paid by the City at large.

2. When the aforesaid report is completed, the City Manager shall file the same with the City Clerk for presentation to the Council.

3. All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.

APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DECLARATION OF WATER SUPPLY EMERGENCY TEMPORARILY BANNING ALL OUTDOOR USES OF WATER AND REQUESTING VOLUNTARY CONSUMPTION BY ALL USERS OF THE NOVI WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM UNTIL THE 36 INCH NOVI ROAD WATER MAIN IS RETURNED TO SERVICE

Mayor McLallen said there were a number of issues the last time this was presented.

Councilman Mitzel said it seems like the State Water Department agreed that you can monitor the situation with the pressure and then if needed, call the water emergency and Mr. Nowicki said they want the Water Emergency declared right now until we monitor the system’s pressure to assure that we can deliver the water that the community needs at this time. He said we have a system-wide pressure monitoring system prepared to go and that should be installed in the very near future and we will be up and running and collect some data prior to making a change.

Councilman Mitzel asked does the resolution need to mention the fact that the water department will allow outdoor water use if approved by the City. Mr. Nowicki indicated they could so modify the resolution at that time. Councilman Mitzel said it looked like the language was the same as the last time and Mr. Nowicki said it was.

Councilman Mitzel said one of the concerns was that the resolution was basically banning it for the entire period.

WHEREAS, the City of Novi in conjunction with the Road Commission for Oakland County and the Michigan Department of Transportation is improving Novi Road from Twelve Mile Road to approximately 600 feet north of Twelve-and-a-Half Mile Road; and,

WHEREAS, an integral component of the project is the reconstruction of the 36 inch Novi Road water main which will require such main to be taken out of service for a period of three to six weeks commencing on or about September 3, 1996; and,

WHEREAS, A 24-inch water main bypass is being constructed to provide limited, temporary water service to the community until such time as the 36-inch water main is returned to service; and,

WHEREAS, a condition of the Michigan Department of Public Health Permit No. W960399, as stated in the permit, is that " ... during the time the subject bypass is in service, the City of Novi will enforce their sprinkling ordinance so that no outside water use would be allowed. Also, no water taps are to be permitted to the water main approved in this permit until the water main extension moratorium is lifted" and,

WHEREAS, Section 34-24 of the Novi Code empowers the Superintendent of Public Works to declare a water supply emergency "... on the basis of drought conditions, depletion of water supply, reduction in water pressure or other reasons that there is a threat of loss of water supply to the community..."

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council of the City of Novi hereby support the declaration of a Water Supply Emergency by the Superintendent of Public Works and call upon all users of the Novi water supply system to comply with the temporary ban on outdoor uses of water and to voluntarily reduce indoor water consumption until such time as the 36-inch Novi Road water main is returned to service.

Mayor McLallen said if this resolution is passed is there an immediate effect, and Mr. Nowicki said no, there would be notices going out to every water user and right now it is tentatively scheduled for September 3rd.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how long did Mr. Nowicki anticipate it would be from the time you actually announce the ban to gather enough data to determine whether or not you can relax the ban. Mr. Nowicki said when we originally discussed the issue with the contractor, he had indicated three weeks and we went to six.

CM-96-08-300: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Resolution for offer of purchase of real estate.

Andrew Mutch indicated he was in support of an Aquatic Facility in the community and it was a great proposal but he had several concerns. When we look at our Parks Development Program and our Capital Improvements Program, the money we need to develop Eleven Mile and Wixom Road and the tree farm property, is several million dollars and all of a sudden, we are talking about pushing those out of the way, and not developing those properties and pushing the Aquatic Facility in front and that concerns him.

Mr. Mutch said four and a half million dollars could develop all those properties and then some, and in addition, we have pretty much just completed our park bond purchase which was 10 million dollars and he thought all those acquisitions were great acquisitions, but the truth is we didn’t spend any of that money on park land east of Novi Road, located in an area from Haggerty Road to Novi Road and from Eight Mile to Portsmouth, which is 12 square miles and where the majority of the City’s population lives. He said the land in that area is much more expensive, but what good are parks if they are not convenient to the public they need to serve. He said when looking at Orchard hills West property tonight, if we had the money available, maybe we could give matching grants to the state as they often times are willing to help communities to purchase property if this money is available and now there is none.

Mr. Mutch said it seems our priorities for park development should be to develop our existing parks and look at maybe a millage for future land acquisitions such as in the communities of Ann Arbor and West Bloomfield where they have dedicated millages for land acquisition.

Chuck Young felt the Aquatic Facility would be a good thing for the community from a good will point of view, particularly after what happened with Mr. Shaw and so on and how that was presented and how he was put in a very tough position. We in the Swan Organization are in support of anything that would be beneficial to the community. In fact, they would be working on this program because we have some time and it is something that will not happen fast and it is very possible there could be some private money raised for it and we will talk to some of their people who are architects and we will be working with Mr. Davis and so on, and it would not happen overnight.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Mitzel indicated that the Manager Review Committee met a few weeks ago and will meet in early September to prepare the report to Council.

Mayor McLallen indicated there was a meeting of the Tri-County Mayors with Senator Abraham last Thursday basically to take input from the local communities as to what the major issues in the national legislature would be. She said the issues that he wanted our input on are transportation issues, the Rouge Basin, telecommunications and also the apparent demise of the Amtrak funding which affected the tri-county area.

Mayor McLallen said Senator Abraham also requested that we make accommodations for him to have a Town Hall meeting here, and his staff will be getting together to arrange that sometime later in the fall.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Pargoff if overall, would it be cheaper to implement a program where we could utilize the trees that we have or to go out and buy nursery stock and Mr. Pargoff replied it would be far cheaper to buy nursery stock.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Pargoff about having a water system to maintain the trees and he said he would like to have trees along Twelve Mile Road in the median and could they survive without an artificial watering system for the first couple of years and Mr. Pargoff felt they could but it would depend on the weather over the period of the year, but they could build that into a contract.

Mayor Mutch said it was midnight and she asked did the Council wish to extend the meeting.

Mayor McLallen said she just wanted to apprise the Council members that there is a meeting of the Ice Arena and the Community Clubs Committee on Thursday night and they have a number of issues and they want direction and input from Council and it would be at 7:30 and Council was invited.

At this point, Councilman Crawford brought up Council’s meeting adjournment time which we are now over again by four minutes and we haven’t moved to continue the meeting and that needs to be addressed. He wasn’t in favor of that policy initially for this very reason because every half hour, we have to move to extend the meeting.

Councilman Crawford felt they were trying to move the meeting as fast as they can and sometimes Agendas are long so that needs to be addressed and his recommendation would be to change that policy back to what it was and start the meetings at 7:30 and then end them whenever they end.

Councilman Crawford asked Council just how they might do that and he didn’t want to open up the whole Council policy, but maybe that one issue and maybe it is best to put it on as an Agenda item at a future meeting for discussion and action just to revise the policy.

CM-96-08-303: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED: To place Council Adjournment Time on the Agenda for the second meeting in September for discussion and action.

FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT - LOCAL RIGHT-OF-WAY AUTHORITY

Mr. Fried recommended at this time that Council should authorize him to allow the City to be submitted in the petition.

Councilwoman Cassis respectfully requested that property owners receive notification and input solicitation from those whom rights-of-way and/or permanent easements would be required. She said it starts at the Conceptual Stage and then should be reiterated under Final Design, so if it was acceptable, she would make a motion.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried how this policy would affect the entire purpose and use of Executive Sessions for property negotiations. Mr. Fried indicated he would take a hard look at that.

Councilman Mitzel said he would support the motion, but would ask for reconsideration pending the Attorney’s report.

Councilman Clark indicated he spoke with Mr. Kapelczak who clarified his concerns so he would make a motion.

Councilman Mitzel said he didn’t support changing the street to the name of a commercial enterprise and it was nothing against their operation. He would also ask the City Administration to check into the storage of the material in the right-of-way. He said glancing down the street, it looks like they are using the entire road and right-of-way for storage of mulch, etc., and he felt it should be looked into.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch said she agreed with Councilman Mitzel and the way that operation is taking place and the way the property owner is using the public street, it is as if it is a private drive, but it is still a public street and our support of this only gives him more encouragement to misuse public property.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford concurred and didn’t support changing the name and he felt Old Novi Road is sufficient and it described exactly what it is and it doesn’t need to be changed to Brickscape Drive.

ORDINANCE NO. 96-22.03 - AN AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLE" - I READING

Councilman Mitzel said he had a question for Mr. Fried. He asked the definition of STATE and we have a lot of visitors from Ontario to the Mall and does STATE include a province and also include Indian Native American license plates issued. He said basically what you are doing is changing inoperable motor vehicle to anything that doesn’t have a current registration plate from Michigan or another state. Mr. Fried indicated he would change the language to cover that.

CM-96-08-308: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Ordinance No. 96-2203 an amendment to clarify the definition of "inoperable motor vehicle" - I Reading, WITH CHANGE OF LANGUAGE of "CURRENT REGISTRATION FROM ANOTHER STATE" to something broader that would cover Native Indian or Canadian registration.

There being no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M.

Mayor City Clerk

Date approved: September 23, 1996

Transcribed by Charlene McLean and Sharon Hendrian