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

Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford (arrived 7:35), Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel (arrived 7:35), Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ed Kriewall, City Attorney David Fried, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE PLAQUES:

J. R. Atiyeh - Board of Review - Absent

Larry Czekaj - Economic Development Corporation - Absent

Joseph Girardot - Historical Commission - Absent

James Grzybowski - HCD Advisory Committee

Miles Hart - Board of Review - Absent

Anne Kohut - Computer Advisory Committee

Donald Miner - Hazardous Chemicals Appeal Board

Robert Sherman - Economic Development Corporation

Glen Bonaventura, Warren Jocz, Karen Leppanen, Jeff Russell

Mayor McLallen believes this is one of the most unique projects and perhaps the first of its magnitude for the City of Novi.

Mr. Staab introduced the members of the committee and reminded Council they came before them in August to kick off the project initially. He reported at that time they were beginning to take donations, set a date to meet with architects and amass community members for their support. He said it is now only eight days before the start of construction and thirteen days before the dedication ceremony. He reported they have raised most of the money and added tickets are still available for those who would like to either help with funding or sponsor a piece of play equipment. Mr. Staab explained their main reason for coming before Council tonight is to ask those who want to help during the construction to call Karen in Parks & Recreation at 347-0400. He added volunteers can work either the build or child care. He explained they need to know when to expect volunteers to coordinate a schedule.

Mr. Bonaventura advised they had the opportunity to work with Lethers & Associates from Ithaca, New York and presented a four minute video presentation from CBS News with Dan Rather. Mr. Bonaventura stated as Council can see from the video, the play structure is going to be an extremely exciting project.

Mr. Bonaventura advised one member joined the committee when she moved to Novi and two weeks after they had already started the project. He reported she was involved in building a play structure in Pennsylvania with Lethers & Associates, and has been an enormous resource in terms of recognizing the flaws. Mr. Bonaventura said when he asked her about volunteers and working together she responded when a community comes together and works on a project like this, they form a bond. She then stated when they see each other after the project is completed, they have something in common. Mr. Bonaventura believes it will be a great project and a lot of fun.

Sara Pope advised it has been a great joy to bring this play structure to the community and thanked each committee member for their hard work. She stated the twelve committee members have made Tim’s dream and the dream of Novi’s children become a reality. She added they have raised the money, the children have designed the play structure and now it is time for everyone to work together to build it. She reported they will build the Tim Pope Memorial Play Structure at Eight Mile and Napier Roads from Wednesday, June 11 through Sunday, June 15 (Father’s Day). She added they will work from sun up until sun down in the style of a community barn raising, and will provide food and child care for the volunteers. She noted all volunteers are welcome.

Mayor McLallen presented Mrs. Pope with a check from her children for the structure.

2. Computer Advisory Committee Update - Vincent Marino

Mr. Marino advised the committee meets every Tuesday and the theme for tonight is that they now need to determine where they need to go next. He then introduced the members.

Mr. Marino reported they began with three computers three years ago and they were islands of information in that everybody was separate. However, over last two and a half years they have installed a network and a software in line. He reported the new system has four LANS: the Police Department, the Fire Department, the City, and Engineering, and added there is Windows based software with Lotus, WordPerfect and E-mail. He noted the City can now interface with JCK and they convinced JCK to install a network so they can communicate with the City. This system permits the electronic transfer of files instead of paper going back and forth.

Mr. Marino advised there are eleven past and present members and they have held more than 130 meetings. Mr. Marino reported combined, the members have more than 250 years of combined experience which means, he could not hire that experience because of the cost.

Mr. Marino reported they have replaced antiquated P.C.’s with state of the art systems throughout every department. They replaced the Data General computer, updated the software for Finance and are now approximately 500% faster. They installed four networks, they loaded Windows, they trained the personnel, they interface with JCK’s LAN network and created a city wide backbone for the future.

Mr. Marino advised there are still some things left to do; one is the Police Department’s DM Data software. He explained there are two phases, and advised they are now on the network and they are loading the data. Another is the Fire Department’s Prober Chief software and they are still waiting for the Window’s base software to be released. The last is the GIS installation and it is currently in progress.

Mr. Marino reported they still need to assess the staffing needs for the information technology ‘s future at the city, they need to technically address the development of the municipal database, they need to technically address the engineering data processing ordinance to conform to a technical capability (i.e., CAD drawings from developers), and integrate the capability of new computer products.

Mr. Marino advised the committee recommends that Council charge them with the responsibility of reviewing and providing appropriate intellectual experience, and cost effective recommendations for information technology projects. Further, they recommend that the committee serve as advisory to the annual computer budget request pertaining to an information technology appropriate for the city. Mr. Marino said information technology is not like a phone system that they can just plug in and walk away; it is something that continues to go on. Therefore, the committee believes they are far from done.

Councilman Schmid asked if they can advise what has been spent and what will be spent. Mr. Marino said he provided those numbers by departments; the GIS is approximately $750,000, the Police Department is $700,000, City Hall is $500,000 and the Fire Department is $55,000.

Councilman Schmid said that amounts to approximately $2M and he believes that is a lot of money. He asked if there is somewhere they can recover some of the money. He believes they should not create a system that is beyond their needs and assumes that is being done.

Mr. Marino replied they are considering this. He added hardware is a minimal cost and most of the remaining cost is now in the software. He suggested one way to recover some of their costs is by increasing the fees some departments (Police) are charging for information to other cities now that their equipment is upgraded. He added they are building a good base and he does not believe they have to continue to spend this amount of money to move forward.

Mayor McLallen stated the committee member’s gift of time to the City is irreplaceable and they truly appreciate it.

Mayor McLallen noted for the record that Mayor ProTem Crawford and Councilman Mitzel arrived.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Debby Orloff-Davidson - advised she is with the Chamber of Commerce at the Botsford Center for Health Improvement. Ms. Orloff-Davidson advised she and Tim O’Neil are before Council to advise that they support the efforts of the City, and added they actively support the play structure. Ms. Orloff-Davidson reported they have collected money at one of their luncheons and a corporate matching fund of $2,500.00 has been developed by the Expo Center staff. She said they are also trying to get enough people to completely fill the construction schedule on the afternoon of Friday, June 13.

Tim O’Neil - added their goal is to be involved with the city, and maintain a link between the business community and the City.

Gwen Markham - 45540 Violet Lane, is before Council to comment on the proposed RUD Ordinance. She advised the new ordinance goes a long way toward encouraging the preservation of open space in Novi, which she believes is very important as they look at future developments. Further, this draft recognizes the importance of preservation of natural features that they would otherwise destroy in many cases. She believes they all know there are portions of Novi that still has undisturbed natural areas and she commends Council’s efforts toward their preservation while still trying to meet the needs of the growing community.

Ms. Markham reviewed Parks & Recreation and noted it had a statistic indicating Novi had a very low number of neighborhood parks when compared with other communities similar in size and demographics. She believes Council can take the opportunity with this ordinance to prevent this from remaining a problem, at least within the yet to be developed subdivisions. She said because this draft includes parcels of 80 acres or larger it would mean developments would be allowed a minimum of 64 homes, but would probably contain a lot more. Further, she believes developments of this size and larger should have neighborhood recreational facilities, and that this draft would grant the developer lot size reductions based upon setting aside open land for active and passive recreation. Ms. Markham asked if they would go one step further and grant lot size reductions based on actual construction of recreational facilities. She added they could specifically encourage tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, and club houses through incentives built into the ordinance. Ms. Markham noted a developer would be able to set aside the land and still gain the benefit of reduced lot sizes as it is currently written. Further, experience in recently completed subdivisions has shown that the development of such areas then becomes the responsibility of the homeowner’s associations. She believes it makes more sense to have such facilities be an integral part of the construction of the subdivision because cost of construction can be shared and they could make the facility compatible with the surrounding homes and subdivision features. She reported this is not a new idea and noted many other communities require the construction of recreational facilities along with construction of large subdivisions at the expense of the developer. She believes everyone can benefit from this approach. She explained the developer can market the recreational facilities as a desirable amenity, the homeowner’s gain recreation within walking distance of their homes and the rest of the taxpayers do not bear the burden of supplying all of the public recreation within the city. Ms. Markham encourages Council to consider the inclusion of such a requirement into this ordinance draft and any future revision of the subdivision ordinance. Further, done properly, this could be a mutually beneficial situation by which the developer’s and the resident’s each gain benefits.

Greg Smith - advised they have been retained by Mr. Lokey to provide engineering services for his project next to Cheltenham Estates. Mr. Smith advised they appeared at the last Council meeting in which Cheltenham’s tentative preliminary plat was approved. He further noted the long history of discussion between Mr. Lokey and Mr. Nanda in terms of cooperating on an entrance, and advised they have not come to an agreement. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Nanda has a stub street located at the back of the project and to the north of Mr. Lokey’s property as required by the city’s ordinance. Mr. Smith reported the concept of Mr. Nanda moving the alignment of that road to one of his lots to the west was considered and they were surprised when Council approved the preliminary plat because that item was not considered. He further advised Mr. Lokey had no right to raise their objections and concerns because they were unable to participate in the discussion. Mr. Smith advised they are present tonight to ask if Council were to consider that item, that they give it careful consideration. Mr. Smith said the current alignment took away approximately two lots from Mr. Lokey and if they were to make an adjustment, there would be no loss of lots for Mr. Nanda and Mr. Lokey would obviously pick up those two lots. Mr. Smith also understand Mr. Nanda has moved forward with his project and Mr. Lokey is willing to work with him in terms of some engineering work that may be necessary to redesign that portion.

LeRoy Asher - 150 W. Jefferson, Suite 2500 - Detroit, stated he is Ken and Jenny Nanda’s attorney. Mr. Asher advised there is currently a request before Council to reconsider the location of the stub street and requested that Council deny the reconsideration of this. He advised that Mr. Nanda has submitted a letter and without dwelling on the subject, this matter was before Council long before they ever considered the other subdivision. He also recalled that it was a matter of considerable discussion on May 12, 1997 and that Mr. Lokey’s attorney had the opportunity to speak during Audience Participation. Further, Mr. Lokey’s attorney and the engineers were available to answer Council’s questions, and at no point during that meeting was the issue of the stub street discussed. Mr. Asher advised they have continued with their plans and have acted in reliance on Council’s action of May 12, 1997. Further, he advised there is a letter in the packet from Mr. Norberg that states the construction drawings are 25% complete. Mr. Asher added Mr. Norberg stated if this were to stop tonight, they would have to receive a new woodland’s permit from the Planning Commission, a new wetland approval, and construction drawings would have to be redone. Mr. Asher reported the cost to Mr. Nanda for this is approximately $7,000. Further, they may potentially have to delay this into the next building season which will also cause a carrying cost to Mr. Nanda. Mr. Asher added that the location of the one lot does not seem consequential, but there is an existing structure on the property that Mr. Nanda would like to use as a construction facility and the location of that lot is better where it is on the current plan than where they propose it to be moved. Mr. Asher reminded Council this is a matter under their rules. He reminded Council there was an affirmative vote and provisions of the vote have been partially carried out. Therefore, he does not believe that asking for reconsideration is appropriate for Mr. Lokey. Mr. Asher respectfully requested that Council deny the request.

Lynn Kocan - 23088 Ennishore Drive, referred to Consent Agenda Item 1 and advised that she believes she said or at least she meant to say on Page 55 in the third paragraph, fifth line from the bottom that the intent of a first reading of an ordinance is in fact to have everything in its final form. She advised the minutes says, "However, she does not believe that she agrees . . ." Ms. Kocan would like those introductory words, "However, she does not believe that" stricken from the record.

Secondly, Ms. Kocan shares the concerns of Doug Gee as stated in his letter in the packet regarding the condition of the athletic facilities. Ms. Kocan believes the consensus is that most people move to Novi because of the schools, and the emphasis and involvement of parents in their children’s lives. She stated Mr. Gee wrote about baseball fields and she will speak about the lack of soccer fields. Ms. Kocan reported Deanne Adaschik advised that there are more than 1,300 children on 94 soccer teams. Further, she reported these children feed the Novi Jaguars premiere soccer association which will have 18 teams ages 10 and over next fall. Ms. Kocan reported the Jaguar’s team is a continuation of the Park’s program and it ultimately feeds the high school teams. She advised there are currently no fields for the Jaguars in Novi and they were told they will only be getting game fields for their games in the new park. Ms. Kocan believes not having adequate facilities for practice and games is unacceptable for a city the size of Novi. She reported there are no additional soccer fields proposed in the 12½ Mile park, but there may be future fields at the proposed middle school facility. However, she reminded Council these fields are three years away from completion. Ms. Kocan believes this should become a priority because parks are a big consideration for residents because Novi is a family oriented community.

Finally, in regard to the RUD Ordinance proposal, Ms. Kocan stated granting additional credits in terms of density she noticed in Section 3 B that they have proposed to grant credits for water courses and bodies of water. Ms. Kocan thought she heard a Council majority on May 15. Further, she believes they agreed to give credit only on the undeveloped portion of the lake frontage and they did not reflect this in the proposal. Mr. Kocan advised that land set aside for active or passive recreational uses were also listed in Section 3 B and she assumes this would not include credit for a school. In addition, Section 1 A states that only "a portion of the dwelling units are conventional one-family dwelling units conforming to the Schedule of Regulations for the underlying zoning district." Ms. Kocan asked if she should assume if they have one such unit, that would constitute a portion and she cannot believe that was the intent of the underlying zoning. She believes in the very least, a minimum percentage of additional conforming units need to be required by this ordinance. Further, while the development by Harvest Land appears appealing, Ms. Kocan believes the proposed RUD Ordinance is actually a way to rezone existing property in the city without an actual rezoning.

Debbie Koder - 1129 East Lake Drive, asked how often will she have to come before Council and ask that the Andris Romain property be cleaned up. She advised they are now approaching the one year mark and asked how much longer do the residents have to live with this garbage. She advised Mr. Kriewall informed her this morning that other than issuing a ticket, there is nothing more that the City can do. Ms. Koder finds that unacceptable and doubts if this were in Council’s neighborhood that they would allow Andris to get away with this. Ms. Koder understands there is a meeting on June 10 for the Beautification Commission and suggested that she should visit that meeting. She asked if they should erect a sign "Welcome to Novi" when traveling southbound on East Lake Drive near this property and asked if this is really the kind of image Novi wants to portray. Ms. Koder is researching other avenues that may lead to some eventual resolution of this problem because she is determined to find a way to get this done and she does not believe there is no longer any excuse.

Mayor McLallen interjected, the Andris violation is in court this Wednesday.

Chuck Young - 50910 W. 9 Mile Road, believes he is like endangered species as a voter. He explained he is caught between political machines which are helping to deteriorate volunteers. He added people are leaving commissions because of the problems. Mr. Young thanked Councilman Kramer for his RUD comments. Further, he repeated his concerns that the ordinances and master plan issues are a public matter. Mr. Young believes he has a solution to the problem with Harvest Land, but since everything has been done in an Executive Session, it is going to have to be done in an Executive Session.

Mayor McLallen interjected for the record, nothing has been done regarding this ordinance or this property in an Executive Session.

Mr. Young is just saying so much is being done in Executive Session, but this should help Mr. Weiner, the City of Novi, Parks & Recreation, the schools and the infrastructure. Mr. Young said there are people, like Jacque Hodges who are willing to take their time. However, there are people who are afraid to volunteer because of the political machine and it is not for the good of the people. He said people will only serve if they know they are helping their community.

Further, Mr. Young believes he is a watchdog. He explained there were seven citizens on the Planning Commission at one time that he could count on to look at the master plan as a whole. He believes they no longer have that. He also referred to Item 14 under Communications and believes this is a major problem that they caused with volunteers. He read, "It is within the City Council’s discretion to determine the amount of additional review it is needed from the consultants and Planning Commission. At minimum, the revised submittal should be evaluated by the consultants." Mr. Young is saying the city has the planners in a position where they are no longer involved.

George Hartman - 6905 Telegraph, #101 - Bloomfield Hills, would like to clarify their request to relocate the stub street in regard to the Lokey property and Cheltenham Estates. He explained they are asking to move the stub street to the west between Lots 19 and 20 and that in no way will it affect the existing barn on Mr. Nanda’s site because the barn is situated on Lots 21 and 22. Further, they have discussed the relocation of the stub street with Mr. Nanda since last February and they were under the impression that if it did not affect his site layout or his lot yield that it was something they would take care of in the plans. He advised they are before Council tonight to have that corrected.

Debbie Carbott - 25490 Birchwoods Drive, is concerned about the credit density in the proposed RUD Ordinance. Ms. Carbott asked Council to consider the increased traffic that will occur with the addition of 300 more homes in that area. Ms. Carbott advocates open space planning, but she does not believe there will be much wildlife left to enjoy it once they construct the proposed homes in addition to the 636 that they already allow.

Steve Weiner - Harvest Land Company, referred to Page 13, paragraph 17 in the current RUD clean version of the draft and noted the city attorney has outlined several major changes that would require a complete resubmittal of the plan which is a lengthy, complicated and expensive process. He recommended Council deem that an increase in lot size or reduction in density of any phase or subphase not be considered a major phase. He explained the reason is simple; the disincentive of going through the process of providing a new complete submittal is substantial. He added if a developer, by virtue of market conditions, pricing, absorption and so forth, is able to develop 90 foot lots where he had proposed detached cluster, it would be a decrease in density. He would like to make the hurdle for something like that lower by calling it a minor change.

Secondly, Mr. Weiner advised they had lengthy discussions with the consultants regarding safety paths and philosophically, their preference was to be more environmentally sensitive by using other materials to deliver a safe, complete effective pedestrian network. Mr. Weiner reported the ordinance before Council allows the elimination of concrete safety paths when necessary to preserve regulated woodlands or wetlands on one side of the street. However, they would like to propose instead of eliminating paths on the other side of the street that they have the opportunity to replace one side of the street with an environmentally sensitive alternative material.

Mr. Weiner referred to Page 8, paragraph B 4 and believes there would be a detrimental impact to existing thoroughfares under this provision. He suggested they add the word "perimeter" before thoroughfare because it provides a more balanced clarification in terms of exposing developers to developer funded road improvement.

Finally, Mr. Weiner noted on Page 41 of the May 15, 1997 minutes that Mayor ProTem Crawford reconsidered his position to support an amendment to the perimeter buffering section. Mr. Weiner recalled Mr. Arroyo provided that amendment in a separate document that they referred to as Number 2, B. To paraphrase, Mr. Weiner advised the amendment allowed within the 330 foot transition area uses including detached single family units meeting the requirements of the RUD and excluding cluster development. Mr. Weiner suggested that was not reflected in the most recent draft perhaps by confusion or oversight and noted it is contradicted in the first sentence at the top of Page 3 where it reads, "development of such a strip shall be restricted to conventional one-family dwellings in complete conformity with the zoning requirements for the adjacent district." Mr. Weiner thinks that the compromise that they agreed to on May 15 was reasonable and fair, and leaving it as it currently reads makes the 330 foot transition zone unworkable.

Georgeann Crist - 25489 Birchwoods Drive, advised she spoke to Council once before about the traffic flow on Wixom Road concerning the proposal of the additional density credit. She is very concerned because she drives to the I-96 interchange daily and advised the traffic at Wixom and Grand River is atrocious at 6:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. She also believes the traffic on Wixom Road has increased dramatically since she moved there and she would like Council to consider that when they decide whether they will allow the additional 300 homes with the density credit. Ms. Crist thanked Councilmen Mitzel and Schmid for trying to persuade Council to look at the density credit issue more closely.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Kriewall requested they add Special Warrant #491 as Item 11.

Mayor ProTem Crawford requested they remove Item 6. Mayor McLallen stated since he requested to add that item, she believes he is the appropriate person to remove it.

CM-97-06-168: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED: To approve the Agenda with the addition of Item 11 for Special Warrant #491 and removal of Item 6 under Matters for Council Action

Nay: Mitzel

CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor McLallen removed the May 15, 1997 minutes for the noted correction.

15. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 490

REMOVALS

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the minutes go back for correction as indicated. Mayor McLallen replied they removed them and they will verify the correction.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Approval of Permanent Entranceway Sign in Right-of-Way, 9 Mile & Havergale Street, Royal Crown No. 6

Mayor McLallen noted there is a recommendation from the attorney and consultants to approve this. She added this matter has to go to ZBA for a height variance for its location and the consultants were in support except for Mr. Jerome’s comment about setback for pedestrian viewing.

Bob Hines stated they are proposing a duplication of the entrance signs at Taft Road and Dunbarton Drive, and noted they can meet the 10 foot setback.

Mr. Kriewall believes the plan looks good and is a typical subdivision entrance sign. He added it mimics what they have constructed throughout the community and it has received a positive recommendation from the city’s consultants.

Councilman Clark asked if the sign will be compatible with other two signs. Mr. Hines replied it would.

Councilman Kramer presumes the applicant agrees with the consultant’s comments regarding the location of the sign and the sidewalk.

Mayor McLallen noted the petitioner is acknowledging that he can accommodate that condition.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the 25 feet is for the corner clearance or are they just moving it from the sidewalk. Mr. Hines replied they meet the corner requirement and the 10 foot setback is from the pedestrian path. Councilman Mitzel noted the letter states as proposed between the height and the location and therefore, it exceeds the corner clearance ordinance. Mr. Hines explained by exceeds, it means it is further back. Councilman Mitzel noted it states the height exceeds the maximum height allowed by the corner clearance and the intent of the ordinance is to maintain a clear unobstructed sight triangle at the intersections, which he believes is a 25 foot triangle. He is not sure when the applicant says he will meet all the setbacks, is he also going to meet all the ordinance setbacks. Mr. Hines replied they will also meet all of the ordinance setbacks.

CM-97-06-170: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve a license agreement for a permanent entranceway sign in the right-of-way for Royal Crown Phase 6 at 9 Mile Road & Havergale Street, subject to the city attorney, consultant and staff comments, approval of necessary variances from ZBA, and receipt of all necessary building permits and meeting setback requirements

2. Approval of Permanent Entranceway Sign in Right-of-Way, Bristol Circle, Bristol Corners West Sub No. 1

CM-97-06-171: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve a license agreement for a permanent entranceway sign in the right-of-way for Bristol Corners West No. 1 on Bristol Circle, subject to the city attorney, consultant and staff comments and approval of necessary variances from ZBA, and receipt of all necessary building permits

Nay: None

Mayor McLallen stated because they had two of these items on the agenda she stated she asked the City Clerk if they can simplify the process. The Mayor reported the response was they can refer this to ordinance review for that determination. However, she added they cannot review this administratively because Council has to grant the license, but noted it could be added to the Consent Agenda. The Mayor said because these licenses seem to come before Council on a regular basis, she asked if there is any interest in referring this to Ordinance Review to see if the process can be streamlined.

CM-97-06-172: Motion by Kramer, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Direct Ordinance Review Committee to review the licensing of permanent entranceway signs in a right-of-way in terms of streamlining the process

Nay: None

3. Approval of Final Plat - Bristol Corners West Sub No. 1

Mayor McLallen advised Council gave tentative approval in January 1996 and final preliminary approval in April 1996. Mayor McLallen noted approval of the final plat would be contingent upon a review by the Fire Marshall.

Mrs. Bartholomew advised the Fire Marshall is in special training and added the letter in the packet is from the original submittal for the preliminary final.

Mr. Kriewall advised there is no change from a preliminary final to a final plat in terms of the Fire Marshall’s review.

Arnold Serlin of The Novi Group advised he took the initiative this morning to meet with Fire Marshall Evans upon his return about the plat and took a copy of the letter directly to Steve Cohen. Mr. Serlin advised he provided the letter to the City Clerk and noted the letter references the "p" number for final engineering, but noted it is actually for final plat.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the attorney typically reviews covenants and restrictions at final plat. Mr. Watson replied they review it at final preliminary plat.

CM-97-06-173: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To grant Final Plat approval for Bristol Corners West Subdivision #1, SP 95-17P subject to city staff and consultants’ recommendations

Nay: Schmid

4. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.566 from RA to OS-1, South of 12 Mile, West of Meadowbrook - John D. Dinan

Mayor advised the request is to change the existing RA zoning to OS-1 and bring it into conformance with the Master Plan. The Mayor noted the request has the consultant’s approval and received a unanimous positive recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Councilman Schmid understands the importance of conformance with the Master Plan but is concerned about causing problems in the future. Councilman Schmid is uncertain about what plans the owner has for these 4.996 acres, but he is concerned if they allow this they could get poor quality overall in a very important section of the City of Novi. He explained historically they have been insistent that they accumulate lands so there is some control over what goes there. He then asked Mr. Rogers to comment on his concerns.

Mr. Rogers shares those concerns. He said the Taubman Group owned many properties on the west side of Meadowbrook. He advised there are both large and small parcels, and there are many environmental assets there. Mr. Rogers noted in his letters he included that at the time future development site plans come in, that they should encourage an internal road system that would include parking lot access into adjacent parcels.

Mr. Rogers reported he believes this is the only parcel this petitioner currently has under his control. However, Mr. Rogers believes he had an acre parcel across the street near the Sinai property that is now the Professional Recruiting Firm site. Mr. Rogers stated he was similarly concerned at that time, but reported it fit the master plan. Further, Sinai developed around it and because they could not purchase that property, it will stay there as it is. Mr. Rogers encourages large parcel development and believes it is possible to construct a good plan on five acres. He also believes they can still have some expandability on adjacent parcels if the homeowners have a desire to sell. Mr. Rogers noted the single parcel to the northwest of this site is a continuing care facility and is zoned RM-1, and he was concerned about how this could integrate with property on Meadowbrook. He further advised just north of the RM-1 is the DMC outpatient facility where they were able to develop a road continuation system between Waltonwoods and DMC out to Twelve Mile Road. Mr. Rogers explained through site plan development, they have achieved a connection of two parcels there and he would like to think they can do it here. He believes to encourage RA development in the shadow of Twelve Oaks Mall is an unrealistic zoning pattern. He asked Council to recall that Trammel Crowe petitioned to have all of the property to the west of Meadowbrook rezoned to OS-1 or OS-2 and that some property owner’s were not ready to leave because they did not want their assessments to escalate.

Mr. Kriewall believes assemblage along Meadowbrook Road between the expressway and Twelve Mile Road for some of the reasons Mr. Rogers mentioned might be difficult. Primarily, they have some substantial homes along that area and to assemble that property would cause developers to expend significant amounts of money. Furthermore, Mr. Kriewall recalls that some of the people living in substantial homes would rather stay there for a period beyond this time to enjoy a single family residence in that area. Consequently, he believes it might be best to zone these parcels one parcel at a time.

Councilman Kramer stated if this comes together in small parcels, he believes that they should indicate a marginal access road along this section. He asked where in the process do they have the opportunity to indicate the desirability of a marginal access road.

Mr. Rogers replied he and Mr. Arroyo have been working with the Implementation Committee on this matte, and added they have been considering this in the NCC District along Grand River Ave. Mr. Rogers believes the Master Plan could designate this Meadowbrook Road alignment for a marginal access road as it does along Grand River. He added there is an OST proposal coming in for two large parcels with RA zoning across the street.

Councilman Kramer understands that, and he is encouraged as the west side of the road is starting to come together. However, they discourage him because absent any other action, they have a buildable small OS-1 area. He believes to support that he would like to discuss having an indication of marginal access roads to tie these together. Further, he would like to have that done before Council considers whether the rezoning is feasible.

Mr. Arroyo believes one thing that comes up when they have discussed marginal access roads is trying to get the regulation in the zoning ordinance to the Master Plan, and making sure they are carrying out the Master Plan. He believes it is important if they are thinking about it, that it becomes a part of the Master Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan.

Mr. Arroyo also pointed out in this area that it may be more appropriate to consider interconnection of properties rather than say "marginal access road". Further, a rear access road might be more important because they could provide for the connection among all these properties that front along Meadowbrook. They could also build a road system that could also serve the property behind them. He suggested if they want to move in that direction, that the study focus more on connection of properties and not necessarily specify that it be a front entry road.

Councilman Kramer asked if that would be a modification to the OS-1 zoning. Mr. Arroyo replied they would need a zoning amendment to address that correctly and they would have to tie it back to Thoroughfare Plan in some way.

Councilman Kramer asked if they should indicate that they must interconnect among properties and not necessarily have independent access to the main road if there are small developments. Mr. Arroyo believes they would have some access to the road, but the question is how much access. He believes that is difficult to say without looking at the overall area in detail. He further believes it is something worthy of consideration. However, tieing it specifically to the one parcel would be difficult.

Councilman Kramer asked if they would address this through the OS-1 zoning requirements. Mr. Arroyo is not certain and believes it has to be included in the zoning ordinance somehow. He believes they should discuss this further with the attorney’s.

Councilman Kramer asked what would the status of this parcel be if they rezoned it tonight and then subsequently changed the zoning requirements. Mr. Arroyo replied if they are changing the specific text requirements, it would apply to all undeveloped properties.

Councilman Kramer suggested they include a request in their motion to approve tonight to refer the OS-1 to the Implementation Committee.

Councilman Schmid asked whether there is any technical or legal approach they can take to require a consolidation of a road system before they continue parcel by parcel rezoning in this area. Mr. Fried replied if he is discussing a marginal road, he believes it has to go before the Planning Commission. He added he has some concerns about requiring marginal roads and reminded Council they have addressed this before; he does not think they can tie that into this property. In response to Councilman Schmid’s question, Council has the option of not rezoning this property.

Councilman Schmid reminded Mr. Fried there were many parcels along Novi Road from Twelve Mile Road to Grand River until such time they accumulated them. Mr. Fried added the reason Council did not rezone that was because many property owners objected to the rezoning.

Councilman Schmid noted there could be as many as eight road cuts into Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Arroyo does not believe there is a high probability that each of those parcels would develop as independent offices. He believes they would see some consolidation once the market is right to support purchasing lots that have developed as single family.

Councilman Schmid asked what would be the ultimate attempt for internal roads. Mr. Arroyo replied that would be to provide for an ability to go from one development to another without going onto the major road system, and to provide connection to the properties on Meadowbrook and the larger pieces near Twelve Oaks Mall.

Councilman Schmid asked if it would not discount the cuts on Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Arroyo believes they would want to limit them through that process and through the city’s current standards on driveway spacing.

Councilman Schmid asked what are they looking in terms of a time table. Mr. Arroyo knows the Implementation Committee has many items on their agenda and suggested that Mr. Cohen might be the appropriate person to respond to that. Mr. Cohen interjected, he believes there are approximately five items on the committee’s agenda.

Councilman Schmid is concerned about this area and that it might not be good development for the City of Novi. He believes there should be some type of an internal road system.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel believes they outline the internal marginal access roads in Master Plan and not the zoning ordinance. Therefore, he believes the Planning Commission’s Master Plan Committee would have to actually draft a master plan amendment to designate a marginal access road. He does not believe the ordinance by zoning discusses marginal access roads. However, he does believe there is a general section in the zoning ordinance that states marginal access roads are to be provided. His second point is, how do the delayed zoning ordinance update work sessions factor into this. He reminded Council they held a public hearing six months ago on the entire zoning ordinance.

He further reminded Council they had a work session three months ago to discuss the entire zoning ordinance and only got halfway through that. Further, as they were going through the zoning ordinance, they were basing their discussion on the fact that there was a public hearing held on the entire ordinance. Now he sees this being sent back to the Implementation Committee and they are further talking about sending Item 8 back to the Implementation Committee, although it is a zoning ordinance issue. However, on the other hand they held a public hearing on the entire zoning ordinance and Council has not yet finished their recommendations. Councilman Mitzel is confused about what they are trying to do. He explained if the public hearing was good for the whole ordinance, then they should not have to send these items to the Implementation Committee and believes Council should address it in a work session. He added if they are sending them back to the Implementation Committee, they should send the whole thing back for the public hearing and restart their work sessions. He asked Mr. Fried to provide some direction about what the correct process should be.

Mr. Fried cannot give direction. He thought when they began their work sessions, they would complete the zoning ordinance redraft, but they have held it up.

Councilman Mitzel understands the RUD has taken a priority and he does not see them finishing the zoning ordinance for quite some time. Councilman Mitzel is not certain whether sending it back to the Planning Commission for implementation is necessary because they have not yet reached that section in their work sessions. Councilman Mitzel suggested that they address this matter in their work sessions for the entire zoning ordinance.

Mayor McLallen noted Councilman Mitzel’s position is not to postpone this matter, but to address it within the Council’s work sessions.

Councilman Kramer stated as a body, Council found it necessary to work on the RUD Ordinance. Now this is before them and addressing this in a timely fashion seems prudent to move this item forward. Philosophically, he believes Councilman Mitzel is correct. However, practically speaking, he does not believe they can address this on a timely basis and added this is only a supplement if it happens to be a zoning ordinance change. Councilman Kramer added he would agree with Mr. Arroyo’s comment that an interconnecting system would also address his concerns. Councilman Kramer concluded by stating in the hope of moving forward, he would support sending it back.

Councilman Mitzel questions the timing for either method. He said if they send it back it has to go before the Implementation Committee and he believes the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing, and then it would come back before Council. He asked if this process would be any faster than if Council were to have a work session for the zoning ordinance.

Councilman Schmid does not care how it is done because he thinks that looking it at is important. Further, he assumes Councilman Mitzel is suggesting that they go back through the entire ordinance. He hopes they can address this expediently in the interest of the petitioner.

Mr. Fried believes they can move it forward both ways and see which body can address it first.

Councilman Clark supports the motion and added he believes sending it to the Implementation Committee is the right tactic. He stated given how much work Council had in recent months, he does not see them addressing this before it can come back from the Implementation Committee in 90 days. Further, it is a serious matter and he is concerned about rezoning these properties parcel by parcel without addressing accessibility of roads.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there are limits on how long they can postpone a rezoning decision. Mr. Fried replied there is no limit.

Mayor McLallen believes this is a difficult situation because it is a significant area of the community that has been set aside in a long held master plan that this would be a showcase office area. However the reality is, they did not put this land together that way and when someone attempted to put it together that way, they were premature and failed. In the mean time, Council’s agenda has been full and they have been unable to study this area. Now the private sector has come forward to try accomplish that in a smaller way because the time is right and it is their right. Mayor McLallen proposed a compromise in that Council has the authority to direct staff and consultants to begin work immediately and return before Council in 90 days with results from a study about improved road alternatives, and coordinated road alternatives in this area. In the mean time, this may enable Council to remove some of the other things from their agenda. The Mayor does not support postponing action on the petitioner’s request because it may be the thing that will move the whole thing forward. Further, she doubts whether the petitioner will have a project up and building in 90 days. She agrees with Councilman Mitzel in that Council has the responsibility to address some of these things as quickly as possible.

Councilman Schmid believes a site plan could come in within 90 days or even tomorrow. He further believes it is a critical area in the city and hopes Council will postpone it. He does support a rezoning, but he believes they should have everything in order first.

Councilwoman Mutch agrees with Mayor McLallen. Further, she does not believe they will really know whether this will develop the way they envision until they begin to see some change in the zoning. Councilwoman Mutch believes this is an opportunity to get some staff, consultant, and property owner’s input in developing a vision for this part of the city. She believes part of the problem with the current property owners may be that they do not know what that kind of rezoning would result in and what the personal benefits would be to them. Councilwoman Mutch agrees Council is obligated to follow up with some of the other comments made and schedule a meeting for the update of the zoning ordinance. She further believes anyone requesting a rezoning at this time deserves an timely response. Councilwoman Mutch would favor the recommendation that staff begin to work on suggestions to be presented to Council. She urged Council to find an available date to continue their discussion on the zoning ordinance and coordinate it with the staff’s presentation on issues they are concerned about.

Nay: McLallen, Crawford, Mitzel, Mutch

With respect to a marginal access road, Mr. Lee Mamola advised there is some topography that falls off dramatically in an area approximately three quarters of the way behind the properties. He noted the fall off with a marginal access road will significantly impact the type of office development that he thinks the city would really like to see there. He believes there are other more creative solutions to tie into the patterns that Mr. Arroyo alluded to and that they are site plan type matters. He further cautioned Council to avoid trying to resolve one or two parcels in a broad brush that would apply to the entire community. Mr. Mamola is more than willing to work with the consultants and noted they are not ready to submit a site plan in the near future.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch believes when Council considers items like this that they do it from a broader discussion such as the zoning ordinance or the Master Plan because it helps them get away from specific projects.

Councilman Schmid is not surprised about the vote. He is not against rezoning this parcel, but he believes that looking at these things down the road is critical for Council and they should not rezone everything that comes before them. He reminded Council they have postponed many zonings and that for good planning they have to sometimes take a step backward to move forward.

Councilman Kramer believes they all favor the rezoning. However, they are dealing with the risk of having a coherent traffic plan for potential small lot development. The risk is, if they move in one direction they can have the requirements in place before moving forward. If they go in the other direction, they are potentially in a race. He suggested if they move in the direction they are currently headed that they follow up with a motion that would give Council a proposal back on the table. He believes they are all headed for the same end point, but the question is what is the best way to get there.

Nay: Clark, Kramer, Schmid

CM-97-06-176: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct Administration to develop possible traffic solutions for interconnecting roads to be discussed at next meeting Council schedules for a zoning ordinance work session

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen agrees with the proposed motion. However, she is concerned that although the current focus is Meadowbrook, there are other interconnection road issues in the city.

Councilman Mitzel thought the focus was smaller office development in OS-1 anywhere within the city and how they would assemble those pieces. In addition, he believes the overall concern is about one to five acre developments and how they will tie together.

Mayor McLallen’s concern is not to let this area move forward without some coordination. She added considering this issue in terms of the entire city is going to take much longer than only focusing on the Meadowbrook OS corridor. Consequently, she believes they should define the parameter of this study.

Councilman Mitzel’s impression is that there is a concern about general development and if they are only talking about a specific area, then the proper place would be to send it back before the Planning Commission’s Master Plan. However, he thought there was further concern about when they have developments besides OS-1 tied with the internal drive system. He believes this is similar to when they had the Freeway Service District at Eight Mile and Haggerty Roads. He thought they were asking how this would interconnect and how will the traffic flow, and believed they could address that within the zoning ordinance issues. He added that there may be no solution within the zoning ordinance, that they are currently at optimal and they should deal with it on an individual site plan basis. He also suggested that Mr. Arroyo could develop some general language that would encourage a connection similar to what they currently have for subdivisions in that, generally they should provide stub streets within so many feet and subdivisions should connect.

Councilwoman Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo to discuss the more general problems regarding the rezoning of smaller parcels in a meaningful way in a short period. Mr. Arroyo thinks given the time frame, it makes more sense to try to concentrate on the general Meadowbrook area, south of Twelve Mile Road and west of Meadowbrook as a way to address the problem. Mr. Arroyo believes in that way they could evaluate the site specific topography and ownership of lots on a short term basis to try to get some direction. He believes a more broad brushed evaluation of the entire city and how they might provide for this type of problem solving on a larger scale should be addressed conceptually as part of the Thoroughfare Plan update. He added they could address the zoning ordinance afterward. Because this is something that will require more thought, Mr. Arroyo asked if Council refers this to staff and consultants, would they give them some latitude.

Councilwoman Mutch believes Mr. Arroyo already articulated some of the problems that the city would face in this area. Therefore, it seems to her that they would have the same problems in other areas. Councilwoman Mutch has the impression that there are general problems that Mr. Arroyo could address and say, these are the kinds of situations they should avoid and these are some of the solutions or planning practices used in some places. She believes they could then look at a specific area and review the things that make that area different from other areas in the city.

Mr. Arroyo believes there could be a general report outlining some various alternatives to addressing the problem. However, he would have a concern about looking at all the areas along major roadways in the city where they have this potential and then try to address how they will solve that. He reiterated that is something they should address with the Thoroughfare Plan update.

Councilwoman Mutch stated Mr. Arroyo’s comment is one kind of suggestion she would expect to come from his report.

Councilman Kramer noted there are eleven parcels in this area so they have the potential of eleven developments with eleven curb cuts, none of which they could deny although they would ask that they interconnect between the property. Councilman Kramer believes a marginal access road is a thoroughfare plan, but when they talk about interconnectivity or rear access points, he hoped there was a mechanism that would preclude independent access to the main road although they would individually develop it in a planned OS-1 area. He believes in one case it is a master plan issue and in another case it is an ordinance issue. If it is an ordinance issue, he believes they have to look at other places. If it is a master plan issue, he believes they can zero in on this area. He thinks the scope of what they do is going to depend on how it can be done.

Councilman Mitzel stated his motion is apparently not what Council is looking for. He asked that they either vote on it to remove it from the floor or allow withdrawal of the motion so he can make another motion.

Mayor ProTem Crawford thought the intent of the motion was to focus on this area because it would take several months to study marginal access roads for the whole city. Although he expects they could get a recommendation about this area within 30 days, the original motion states that it would come back whenever they set a date for the zoning ordinance update. If that is still the motion, then he would amend the motion to have a report on this specific area within 30 days because he thinks they can develop some general guidelines for marginal access roads throughout the city. Mayor ProTem Crawford added that he agrees many of these will be very site specific.

CM-97-06-177: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To amend motion to require that the review specify the site west of Meadowbrook and south of Twelve Mile Road and a report returned to Council within 45 days

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Arroyo to comment on the time frame.

Mr. Arroyo believes if the intent is to come back with alternatives for interconnecting properties and general concepts, they can come back in that time frame. However, he added if they are going to review this area and evaluate the site characteristics for some alternatives, he thinks it will require more than 30 days.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes Mr. Mamola’s offer to provide particulars about this area would be helpful. Mr. Arroyo added there are other property owners that may also have comments.

Mr. Arroyo would prefer to have 60 days to gather the information and provide a plan of action. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if 45 would be sufficient. Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilman Mitzel clarified that the amendment would only amend the time frame and the scope of the area. Mayor ProTem Crawford agreed.

Councilman Mitzel further clarified that the part of the motion that states staff and consultants will bring back information about how to incorporate this into a zoning ordinance is still sustained. Mayor ProTem Crawford would assume it would need to be addressed in the zoning ordinance.

Councilman Mitzel’s point is that the motion originally states "zoning ordinance" and he does not believe that was amended. He said if they delve into other master plan areas, that is the realm of the Planning Commission and he does not think Council would be involved in that other than they could say they want them to review it. However, if they are talking about the zoning ordinance, then he believes that information could still come to Council within 45 days. Mayor ProTem Crawford believes this is the only way they can carry out any recommendation to incorporate it into the zoning ordinance. Councilman Mitzel agreed to the amendment.

Councilman Schmid believes Councilman Mitzel is saying that the motion wants a report back to Council without looking at the remainder of the zoning ordinance.

Councilman Mitzel disagreed and explained the original motion ties this to Council’s zoning ordinance work sessions and the amended motion disconnects it from the zoning ordinance work sessions because it requires that this report to be brought back to Council in 45 days. He added the motion also focused on a specific area.

Mr. Arroyo asked if this would be a general concept plan for this area with some ideas about how they might implement it and they would not necessarily bring back zoning ordinance amendments or more detailed things. He believes they are looking at this area as a whole and should develop some concepts about how they are going address this problem. Then from that point, there may then be many possible directions that Council may take and at that time they will bring them forward to Council their consideration.

Mayor ProTem Crawford noted that they will eventually need some ordinance language.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilman Kramer is concerned about timing. He advised they had an alternative that set aside a block of time to provide an answer and what they have requested is a study with a recommendation at the midpoint. If they have an adequate reply at that point that would permit them to get to whatever mechanism revision is appropriate, they can move it within the next 45 days and will have done the same thing within the 90 days with which they began. He asked if they are looking for the answer in the most expeditious time frame?

Mayor McLallen thinks they all have the main idea of the amended motion, which is to request staff and consultants to bring back information concerning ordinance mechanisms to improve traffic circulation in the specific scope of the Twelve Mile and west side of Meadowbrook Road area within 45 days. She noted that would bring them to Council’s second meeting in July and asked for a vote.

Nay: None

Nay: None

5. Approval of Resort Class C Liquor License Transfer - Maples Country Club, Inc.

Mayor McLallen noted this request will not affect their quota of licenses because it is an existing license. She added there are no further outstanding physical issues with the Fire Marshall.

Lynda Combs, Maples Country Club, Inc., advised she is requesting a liquor license transfer for the club. She reported the restaurant comfortably seats 150 people with midrange prices, an "all you can eat" buffet, and daily dinner specials. She said their club is opened seven days a week from 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and noted they close at 7:00 p.m. on Sundays. She said they currently have a master chef with two cooks and a well-trained bar staff. Ms. Combs believes their restaurant and work-out facility is a convenient place for residents to socialize. She noted they are also open to the public, they offer private memberships and have banquet facilities to accommodate parties. She reported most event’s end by midnight and consequently, they do not create much of a disturbance for the community and added the facility is very well maintained. She reported they also have a golf course with a variety of golf activities. Ms. Combs stated Todd Gerhardt their General Manager is also present.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Fried if he recalled the provisions or restrictions that they required on this building when it was first authorized. Mr. Fried cannot recall the details, but he believes it was an action about the membership’s use facility.

Mr. Gerhardt advised the Maples of Novi Subdivision Homeowner’s Associations uses the club house as their club house and the concern was not to have it become a night club.

Mr. Fried stated that is also his recollection.

Councilman Schmid assumes those provisions are still applicable. Mr. Fried stated they should be applicable.

Mr. Gerhardt advised they are comfortable with those provisions.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what falls under the umbrella of the Maples Country Club. Mr. Gerhardt replied it would include private membership for the health club and added the golf course is a semi-private club.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the golf course, the restaurant, the bar, and the health club are all part of the sole ownership of the Maples Country Club. Mr. Gerhardt replied they are and advised it was originally owned by the construction company that built the Maples of Novi subdivision. Mr. Gerhardt advised the restaurant went up for auction and during the fourteen months they have been there, the members are very happy because they saved the club and the property values in that subdivision. He added they were before the ZBA to have a sign put up to publicize that it is a public restaurant because everyone thought it was private.

Councilwoman Mutch asked when did they purchase the club? Mr. Gerhardt replied they purchased it April 4, 1996.

Councilwoman Mutch clarified that the applicant has owned it since then, but the original owners continued to hold the liquor license.

Nay: None

6. Reconsideration of Approval of Revised Tentative Preliminary Plat - Cheltenham Estates, SP 96-40B for possible amendment to location of internal stub street - Located west of Beck Road between Nine Mile and Ten Mile Roads

Removed by Mayor ProTem Crawford.

BREAK - 10:05 p.m. until 10:20 p.m.

7. Approval of Zoning Ordinance No. 98-18.131 - To revise the standards for (RUD) Residential Unit Development - I Reading

Mayor McLallen advised a memorandum received from Khanh Pham advised that he mistakenly sent a courtesy notice regarding Harvest Land Company and noted they will send out new notices when the specific site comes before Council.

Mayor McLallen advised they made progress at their last meeting and they directed the attorney’s to redraft an ordinance based on their discussion that evening. She said the primary issues were about density and whether they would give density credits for increased quality of development in certain issues. The other major concern was about the 330 foot perimeter buffer in terms of how they could flex it to accommodate adjacent zoning and the particular idiosyncrasies of the individual parcel of land.

Mr. Watson advised they will work from draft that is directly under the letter of May 28; following that is a comparison draft that shows the changes.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council Mr. Weiner raised five points this evening that he felt had merit within the ordinance. She added they also received comments from citizens concerning road conditions in the area and how open space planning will affect them.

Mr. Watson advised the draft is an attempt to reflect the items discussed at Council’s last meeting. Mr. Watson noted he was working from his notes because the minutes were not yet available. He advised Mayor ProTem Crawford raised a question at the last meeting that related to the buffering area. Mr. Watson directed Council’s attention to a crossed out section on Page 3 of the comparison draft under perimeter buffering. He stated this language ensures compatibility with the adjacent zoning in that the Schedule of Regulations applicable to the adjacent of one-family district will be applied to the 330 foot strip of land within the RUD. From his notes, Mr. Watson thought Council was making a distinction between the underlying zoning of the RUD property and the underlying zoning of the adjacent property. However, in review of the actual minutes from the meeting where the discussion is more specific, Mr. Watson realized what Council actually examined was restricting that 330 foot area to detached nonclustered one-family dwelling units meeting the requirements of the RUD standards. Mr. Watson noted Mayor ProTem Crawford changed his position on this matter after a break in the meeting and Council consensus was to restrict the 330 foot area to detached one-family dwellings that comply with the RUD as opposed to dwelling units that are in essence conventional units.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mayor ProTem Crawford changed his vote to suggest they could include condos and attached? Mr. Watson replied they may construct one-family dwelling units that are detached and nonclsutered on smaller lots.

Councilman Mitzel suggested they may want to work from the paper in front of them and if they want to make that change, they could make it as motion to amend that section. That way there will be a formal vote on what actual changes are made from the draft that is on the table for first reading approval.

Mayor McLallen believes Mr. Watson’s point was that Council already changed the buffering issue at the last meeting.

Councilman Mitzel does not believe there was a strong consensus about that.

Councilman Kramer agreed there was no formal vote, but there was a consensus.

Councilman Mitzel is just offering the suggestion that if they took this draft as their working basis tonight, then any change based on this would be accomplished through formal amendments.

Mayor McLallen reiterated the buffering issue was part of the consensus that should have come forward in the attorney’s draft before them tonight.

Councilman Mitzel said he found several other items and advised one was concerning what amount of the lake could be used for credit. He recalled there was a general consensus about only using the portion of the lake or watercourse that is adjacent to a park as credit and noted that they did not include it in the draft.

Mr. Watson did not believe there was a consensus on that point. However if there is, he could easily add that language.

Councilman Clark believes they should give only the undeveloped portion of the lake as credit.

Councilman Kramer indicated he would like to discuss this further.

Mayor McLallen noted this issue is addressed on Page 5 of the comparison draft and suggested that they begin with Page 1.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they are going review the document line by line. He then reminded Council they already reviewed the ordinance in this manner and believes they have a general consensus with a few amendments.

Mayor McLallen replied the purpose of the previous meeting was to review the entire document and tonight’s purpose is to review the consensus changes. Mayor McLallen reminded Mayor ProTem Crawford that they retranslated his position in the minutes and Mr. Watson has indicated where they should include that. Further, Councilman Mitzel has raised another issue where he feels there was an unclear consensus and as part of the document, that can be discussed and clarified.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes it is inappropriate to reargue everyone’s philosophy again at these meetings. He believes the document before them is a consensus document, whether they all agree with everything that is in it or not. However, he will agree there are a few corrections that need to be made and he hopes they will focus on them.

Mayor McLallen added they recommended this document for a first reading which means there is a consensus on the document. She believes this is the appropriate time to raise any remaining issues or refinements, but agrees starting over is inappropriate.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they need a motion to accept the document and then make amendments for the appropriate corrections. Mayor ProTem Crawford believes the consensus was to insert language B, 2 for the flexible buffering.

Mayor McLallen reminded Mayor ProTem Crawford that has already been accepted and Mr. Watson has already advised how they overlooked that in his draft. She added any Council member can make a motion on the draft before them.

Councilwoman Mutch stated if Mr. Watson knew that Council was viewing an item as an error that needed correcting and provided proposed language to strike out language as it is currently written, she believes they would have to address it differently. Mr. Watson interjected, he has prepared the language for the buffering.

Councilwoman Mutch continued by stating the appropriate action would be to make a motion and amend those areas that need further work without rediscussing every point. She believes the only points that may need further discussion are those areas where there was no consensus or where it does not accurately represent the consensus.

CM-97-06-179: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the first reading of Ordinance 98-18.131, the RUD Ordinance draft of May 28, 1997, subject to language modifications on Page 3, H. 2 under Perimeter Buffering proposed by the City Attorney, Planning Consultant, and Petitioner

Mr. Watson referred to Page 3 of the draft and noted they would delete the area stricken out under Perimeter Buffering and would insert the following language: "In order to assure development that is compatible with the zoning of adjacent property, where the RUD abuts a one-family district development of that strip of land 330 feet in depth adjacent to such one-family district shall be restricted to detached nonclustered one-family dwelling units meeting the requirements of the RUD standards or to schools, parks or golf courses. For purposes of this section, the RUD shall not be considered adjacent to properties zoned for one-family use where it is separated from such property by a major thoroughfare. The

City Council, after review and recommendation of the Planning Commission, may vary the 330 foot depth in any one of the following circumstances: . . ." and noted the language continues.

Mayor McLallen reiterated this is a consensus document and there are specific issues that need further Council review.

Councilman Schmid does not recall any votes taken on any part of this ordinance and he does not recall any consensus on many of the issues. He believes there are many items in the ordinance that they should discuss even if he is the only one discussing it. He understands that they would like to move this along and although there may be some hesitancy to do that, they need to discuss it because the citizens have a right to know what this Council is considering as it relates to zoning in the western part of Novi. Further, to suggest that there was a consensus is an absolute error unless he missed some meetings. He added Councilman Mitzel raised many issues about density in which they made no consensus. He is going to go through many parts of the ordinance to point out what he considers to be gross allowances by this city to the developer when they have a piece of land that would support 500-600 homes and increase it to 800-900 homes. He believes this is a major difference that they should discuss from a traffic standpoint and from a lifestyle standpoint.

Mayor McLallen noted for the record, they did ask for Council majority consensus every step of the way during the meeting. Councilman Schmid does not recall that.

In regard to procedure, Councilman Kramer noted they have a motion on the floor and they are discussing the motion, which is discussing the ordinance.

Mayor McLallen noted they have moved and seconded the motion, and therefore it is an active motion.

Councilman Kramer suggested that they continue their discussions. He does not believe it makes a procedural difference whether discussion is before or after the motion.

Mayor McLallen replied when a motion is on the floor under Roberts Rules, they can discuss it. Further, as Councilman Schmid indicated, they need a document that they can give to the public to be read and until Council passes something, they do not have a document to offer.

Councilman Kramer would say they went through the document and believes they came to a general consensus format. He believes they may need to discuss each item somewhat and suggested they move forward.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Mr. Watson specifically read Item B, 2 of the May 12 draft because he believes the question was whether to insert that particular language in place of the underlying zoning. Mr. Watson replied his language is slightly different because B, 2 had some language that did not make sense grammatically. He modified it slightly, but the meaning is the same in that they wanted detached one-family units that were not of a cluster variety and that it complied with the RUD.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said that language is in place instead of the language that talked about underlying zoning. Mr. Watson concurred.

As Councilman Mitzel stated at the last meeting, he does not support the idea of density credit, but he realizes during that discussion there were at least four members who did support it. Consequently, he will not try to amend it by pulling that because he knows there is not support for removing it. Instead he made a motion to amend section 3.B (a) I on Page 5 of the comparison draft or Page 4 on the unmarked draft. He added this portion offers density credits for watercourses and bodies of water as environmental features. Councilman Mitzel stated he would like to add language that states that the areas of the watercourse or bodies of water that they will give credit are the areas adjacent to perimeter parks and going to the center of that body of water. He added he realizes that is only general language and Mr. Watson must refine it further. Councilman Mitzel explained the intent of the language is to provide credit only for the area of the lake that has a park along it and consequently, they would make a pie shape of the lake instead of providing credit for the entire lake. Further, if they had a watercourse, only the part of the watercourse that had a park adjacent to it and to the center of that watercourse would receive credit. He explained they would not just be giving an automatic credit for 500 acres of a lake or 30 acres of a stream just because it is there.

CM-97-06-180: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To amend (Page 5) 3. B. (a) I - by adding language that states: "credits will only be given to the area adjacent to perimeter parks and going to the center of the body of water."

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer believes he already indicated that he views the water as a park with a water surface. He added he supports the language that discusses lakes or ponds "when landscaped maintained and made part of larger open space areas within the RUD." Councilman Kramer believes this language was from the original ordinance, although the perception he has gotten from their discussion is that they need either general or adequate access to the lake. He believes the access should not be less than what it would be for a normal park in a subdivision and recalled it would be a 25% access availability. He also thinks this would then be consistent with open space based in other areas. He reiterated that "landscaped" and "open access" are appropriate requirements.

Councilman Schmid concurs with the motion and referred back to what they should allow as credit for density. He believes lake properties will generate two to three times more than that of the other properties. He further believes this ordinance is written for the developer because everything has an exception or modification. Further, this is not an ordinance that will encourage large lot subdivisions in the western part of Novi. Councilman Schmid believes developers will increase their profits by millions of dollars by allowing the addition of three or four homes. He believes it is not right and it is not right for the City of Novi.

Councilman Mitzel urged Councilman Kramer to consider the fact that the proposed language is very similar to the language he stated he would prefer. He explained the proposed language would state that they will give a credit in those areas adjacent to a park that is very similar to the old language that states, "lakes or ponds when maintained landscaping made part of a larger open space area." The only difference in the proposed language is that it applies an actual measurement by saying this portion of the lake is given credit because they make it part of this accessible open space area to the residents. However, he added the portion of the lake that abuts resident’s yards would not be given credit. He further explained that although they could use the actual water surface, they could not use it in a park setting in the sense that they could not walk around it because of the backyards and that is why he believes they should not offer a credit under those circumstances. Further, there is one major difference between a lake and a park, and that is they could build on those open space areas and they could not build on a lake.

Councilman Kramer is concerned about Councilman Mitzel’s definition of park. He believes the language "landscaped maintained . . ." is more descriptive than just saying "park" around the lake. However, now that Councilman Mitzel has pointed out the language is similar, it changes the vision he originally had.

By "park," Councilman Mitzel means an area abutting a water body that is accessible to all the RUD residents.

Councilman Kramer believes there is some value in keeping the traditional wording if Councilman Mitzel thinks this covers that requirement and he would agree to that.

Mr. Fried believes they must define "park."

Mayor McLallen has some difficulty with this motion because the community has many lakes. She explained the benefit of the open body of water whether it is accessible or merely visible is a benefit to the entire community. Further, there is going to be a cost to maintain the water and park for potential RUD’s and she believes the whole purpose of the ordinance is to give an incentive to have the highest quality of that body of water. She also finds that regulating which portion of the water is public would be difficult. Mayor McLallen believes the intent of the motion is that the lake will be used to some extent by every resident of that community. She said if they want to encourage a water amenity for the greater good of the individual community and the community at large, she believes they need to provide the incentive for that to happen.

Councilwoman Mutch believes there is another aspect of incentives. She explained if they have property that they can otherwise build on and they do not get credit as they do now for a watercourse, she believes the inclination as a developer would be to build on all the buildable land. Therefore, there would be no incentive for setting aside open space that is not water to create the larger park areas. She believes under this proposal there would be an incentive to create a public trail for the residents around the perimeter of the body of water, thereby having public access but not having the kind of open space envisioned for solid land as opposed to water. She explained there is no park in the traditional sense of green space, but there would be a path around a lake and it would be a way for the developer to get density credits under the proposed change. Councilwoman Mutch stated if the developer only gets credit for the entire lake, the only benefit to the community would be a small trail. She reiterated they would not set aside land for park space because that would otherwise be buildable land. On the other hand, if they get credit for the water area, then there is some incentive not to build on land they otherwise would be able to build on because they can develop the land they have a little more densely.

Mr. Fried understood Councilman Mitzel would like them to define what park is and he is sure he did not mean a ten foot path. Councilman Mitzel concurred.

Councilman Mitzel believes Councilwoman Mutch stated the developer would receive credit for the whole body of water if they make it accessible for people to walk around the entire perimeter. He explained that is exactly what he is saying; if they get credit for the whole thing, then everyone should be able to use the whole thing. He believes another point Councilwoman Mutch raised is if they get credit for the lake it will allow them to set aside more land as open space. He does not see how that would work because if they got credit for a 300 acre lake, they would have 240 homes to construct on other land.

Councilwoman Mutch said density credit means they could put more in the otherwise buildable area than they would have otherwise.

Councilman Mitzel’s point is that Councilwoman Mutch’s argument was if they give credit for the lake, it would enable them to set aside more open space. However, he is saying that is not necessarily true because they have to find room to build those houses. Councilwoman Mutch agrees and added they may not be able to take advantage of the full credit for the lake.

Councilman Mitzel’s point in his amendment is to make the area they do get credit for accessible to everyone.

Councilwoman Mutch believes accessibility may be public access to the body of water and if they can take a small boat onto the water, resident’s would then have access to the entire body of water. She agrees they may not be able to pull up to the shore into someone’s backyard, but they would still have the enjoyment of the entire body of water. She added she is concerned about getting credit for the whole lake by constructing only a perimeter ribbon because she does not believe it impedes the marketability of what would otherwise be lake front homes. Councilwoman Mutch also agrees everyone would have access to the water, but she does not believe that is what they had in mind in terms of open space park areas and the incentive would no longer be there to have those larger open space park areas where they might have more active recreational uses.

Councilman Clark is convinced there is no consensus about any one area of the proposed ordinance and secondly, he thinks it is far from being ready for the first reading. In regard to the issue about waterbodies, Councilman Clark thinks they would find if they were only dealing with RA zoning, the property would be more valuable with homes built on the water Councilman Clark disagrees that they should give a density credit for paths around the lake because if someone is willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for lake front property, they view it as their property and enjoy their privacy. He would agree to remove an area up to 25% and only offer a credit for only that portion.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion is to have the attorney’s create specific language relating to a portion of the wetland, lake or watercourse and only provide credit for that which is truly set aside in a defined park situation. Further, by "set aside" they mean in a perpetual, nonbuildable state for recreational purposes. Councilman Mitzel concurred.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is anything specific to that motion that they can add.

Councilman Schmid believes Councilman Mitzel indicated that a lake is entirely different from land because it is unbuildable. He believes Council continues to ask themselves what more can they do for the developer rather than what they can do for the City of Novi. He reminded Council the developer can make a large profit by developing land on a lake with the current zoning. He asked why don’t they look for more ways to reduce traffic and density. Further, he believes a developer will create as much open space without the lake as they will with the lake.

Councilman Kramer does not believe Council is in the business to create high value property for developers. He believes they should provide an amenity for the people that live in the RUD and that making the waterfront available with access through a walkway is in line with what the ordinance has had for the last fifteen years. He does have a problem with the definition of "park" because the vision is they have a lake with public access and the residents are able to use it. He believes it is a water park to him and it is an amenity for the residents. He agrees the lots surrounding the watercourse would be more valuable without public access, but believes they are saying they would like to ensure that there is public access for all the residents.

Councilwoman Mutch believes they should recognize the market is at work. She agrees it is not their job to affect a property’s value, but they do have an obligation to look at how this fits into the City of Novi. Councilwoman Mutch stated if they are extremely concerned about traffic, then they should put a moratorium on building in the city and everyone’s value will increase. However, she knows that is ridiculous and they would not do that. Further, she believes people should recognize that no matter what they might propose, a good developer is going to be more in tune to what the market is demanding. She said if the developer proposes to get lake credit in a way that having a perimeter pathway or perimeter parkway or a separate park achieves, he is stuck with it and better find a way to market it. She does not think they are going to propose something that they do not believe they can sell. She agrees Council might not like to see something like that happen as a change in the neighborhood in which they live. However, people that move into a development purchase what is being offered and if they do not, then they will make changes and the developer will come back before Council. She added it is not their job to design a development and explained Council designs what is good planning for the City of Novi. She agrees with the motion, but she has a different point of view about how to get there. She does not want to see hypothetical developers take advantage of an ordinance that would allow them to do what is basically a ribbon type parkway around a body of water to get the density credits so they can build more densely on the rest of the property and still have the problem of not having enough neighborhood parks.

Councilman Mitzel believes everyone basically agrees on the same point and noted he believes the amendment language states if a developer wants credit for the whole lake, then they must make the whole lake accessible with a park of a certain width as defined by the attorney’s language so that it is not just a narrow strip. Further, if they wish to have lots all the way to the lake, they can have lots and privacy, but the developer would not get credit for that part of the lake. He explained it is up to the developer to determine how much of the lake he wants credit for. Further, if a ribbon is proposed around the lake, Council has the authority to deny it during the RUD site plan process.

Based on these comments, Councilman Clark believes they are headed in the right direction.

Councilman Mitzel restated the motion was to amend the first reading ordinance by adding language after the section that gives credit for watercourses and bodies of water.

Mr. Watson believes Councilman Mitzel wanted to use, "that portion of watercourses and bodies of waters that constitutes areas adjacent to a perimeter park." He further believes Councilman Mitzel wanted the attorney’s to incorporate a method of making that portion or percentage.

Nay: McLallen, Crawford, Mutch

Mayor McLallen believes they have resolved the perimeter buffering and the lake credit. She noted phasing requirements were another issue and she believes that is found further on in the ordinance.

Councilman Schmid referred to Page 1, and added he is raising these questions for discussion and further clarification. Councilman Schmid read, "The RUD Option shall only be considered for parcels containing at least eighty (80) contiguous acres of land under single ownership . . ." Councilman Schmid would prefer a larger amount and understands there is a consensus for 80 acres. He continued on Page 1, "City Council may vary the minimum acreage requirement where application would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty or exceptional undue hardship, provided that such relieve may be granted without impairing the intent and purpose of this section." Councilman Schmid asked if anyone can tell him how many acres can an applicant propose. He further asked if their intent is to allow any size or will they hold to the 80 acres.

Councilman Clark agrees with Councilman Schmid’s concerns and thought initially in their work sessions that they agreed the acreage would be more than 80. Councilman Clark believes everything they are trying to achieve in the first sentence of Item 1, under Residential Unit Development Regulations is given away in the second sentence. Consequently, he would move to eliminate the second sentence beginning with, "The City Council . . ." down to ". . . without impairing the intent and purpose of this section." He added there will be no exceptions made to the 80 acres.

CM-97-06-181: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION FAILED: To eliminate the second sentence under Item 1, Residential Unit Development Regulations, beginning with, "The City Council . . ." through, ". . . without impairing the intent and purpose of the section."

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer believes they are getting too sensitive. He noted there are a number of areas in the ordinance that they ask for some provisions that would allow Council to make some decisions. He reminded Council that they are a thinking, judging, and an assessing body. He said these are the words that Mr. Watson recommended in response to Council’s request to give Council some flexibility if a developer brought forth a 79 acre project. He added this flexibility is only for Council and if they cannot trust themselves, they should not write ordinances. He believes they are taking the intent to an extreme by saying Council would vary this by a large amount and added it would get them away from the inflexibility of the way they write the other ordinances. He said if they cannot agree on the words, he suggested that they try another attempt at the intent. He can live with the 80 acres and believes the previous discussion was whether they should deny someone with 79 acres. He believes the intent is no and this was the attorney’s response. Again, if Council does not like that response, then they should put some bounds on it.

Councilman Schmid does not disagree that there could be a slight percentage of change, but his problem is about the fact they keep saying "us" and reminded Council that "us" changes every two years. He believes they need to look down the road. He further reminded Council other Councils can change these and they should develop ordinances designed to develop Novi into a city projected and envisioned by the Master Plan. He believes if they allow all these exceptions to an already lucrative ordinance from a development standpoint, they will soon lose the entire Master Plan.

Mayor ProTem Crawford concurs with Councilman Kramer. He believes the Planning Commission originally recommended 25 acres and then after discussion, they went to 40 acres. He advised it was a Council consensus that 40 acres was too small and they increased it to 80 acres. Mayor ProTem Crawford thought they needed that consensus to remain flexible in this area and in the other areas of the ordinance if they are going to be able to use and implement the ordinance properly. He believes the proposed language allows for exceptions and Council will determine that as each project comes before them.

Councilman Clark disagreed; he believes the language is too broad and exposes them to legal challenges.

Councilman Schmid would like to make a motion to limit this to no more than some percentage that the attorney can determine. In other words, he is concerned that 20 acre parcels will come in under this ordinance and would suggest that the city should have some large lot subdivisions. He believes the Master Plan will attest to that, but he thinks this ordinance takes that away. Councilman Schmid suggested they use 5%.

Mr. Fried noted that would equate to 76 acres.

CM-97-06-182: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To limit by a variance of no more than 5% of the 80 acres

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch recalled that Mr. Rogers made a good case about why this would be an unlikely option for smaller lots and was one reason they increased the acreage beyond 25 acres. She added when they increased the acreage that it was not to eliminate people as much as it was to recognize that this is not an option that is likely to be used by smaller property owners because of the other restrictions built in terms of buffering and setbacks. She said she is talking about the kinds of things they want to accomplish with an RUD from the city’s point of view and not a developer. She noted there are other options available to developers of smaller pieces of property, but reiterated that the Planning Commission and staff have looked at this for some time, and they were the ones that wanted 25 acres. Councilwoman Mutch believes they are elected to make decisions that are not sometimes black and white, and noted that the ordinances provide for discretionary decisions. She noted they do not have minimum acreage for other options and asked why would they do that here. Further, she believes this would allow the creative development that Mr. Rogers is always advocating because it gives them the ability to say no as much as it gives them the ability to say yes.

Councilman Schmid agrees with Councilwoman Mutch but he noted they removed the 330 foot buffer and replaced with a 6 foot high berm. He added as they go through the ordinance they give something and then take away almost everything that they state.

Councilman Kramer called the question.

Councilman Schmid asked for further clarification about the term "portion" from the city attorney on Page 2, Item A. Mr. Watson replied they have to consider this in relationship to Section 7 (Pages 10-12 on the comparison draft), which gives the additional factors they are going to apply. He then referred to Page 9 on the comparison draft and stated in order to provide some approval discretion, they have added some additional criteria. Mr. Watson stated the five broad areas where the Planning Commission is making a recommendation and Council is examining are the appropriateness of the site, the effects on the community, the need for the proposed use, the care for maintaining the site, and the existence of ascertainable benefits to the city. He further explained on pages 10-12, there is a list of factors Council will look at in evaluating whether they meet those five general standards or not. Among those is Item 10 on Page 12 that states, "whether the proposed reductions in lot sizes and setback areas are the minimum necessary to preserve and create open space to provide for schools, park sites and to ensure compatibility with adjacent neighboring land uses." Mr. Watson reminded Council they previously discussed whether they wanted to include a specific percentage of conventional, a specific percentage that was one zoning district below, or a specific percentage that were two zonings below and it was determined Council wanted broader flexibility. Consequently, this gives Council a general discretion to evaluate whether the whole package of reductions is the minimum necessary to create the benefits that this is supposed to create. He said there is not a specific percentage, because Council did not ask for a specific percentage. Further, they did not draft this for the developer, but drafted it as best they could detect the direction they had gotten from Council.

Councilman Schmid believes this ordinance is saying that a developer could have "one." Mr. Watson stated if the Planning Commission recommended and Council decided that one lot of a conventional size met that criteria for being the minimum necessary to preserve and create open space, then he believes they could have "one.". However, he does not believe this Council or any other Council would permit that.

Councilman Schmid noted most of these will not have schools, although the one coming before them may have one. Mr. Watson asked Council to assume the school is not necessary, so there is no necessity to set land aside. He explained in that instance, they will look at the minimum necessary to preserve and create open space based upon the different criteria they have for open space. He added they would then look at the minimum lot reduction necessary to do that.

Councilman Schmid wondered if Council would consider that the intent of this ordinance is to maintain the underlying zoning as much as practical recognizing the intent of the RUD Ordinance. He suggested that they add language that would suggest and encourage the number of underlying lots being that which is the underlying zoning.

Councilman Kramer believes Councilman Schmid’s language would be sufficient and added that while they are permitting flexibility, they still do not want to disrupt the intent.

Councilman Schmid asked if the attorney could better explain the intent concerning the underlying zoning. He thinks the intent would be to encourage underlying zoning.

Councilman Clark suggested the underlying intent of the RUD will be to require that a majority of dwellings in such development will be detached one-family dwellings consistent with the underlying zoning period.

Mayor McLallen asked if by "consistent," does Councilman Clark mean 150 foot lots in a RA zone.

Councilman Schmid interjected, it could be an R-3 zone.

Councilman Clark replied it has to be consistent with the underlying zoning. He explained in some RA areas it is going to be one acre; if it is something less, it could be a quarter or half acre depending upon what the underlying zoning is.

Councilman Kramer prefers Councilman Schmid’s less specific language and believes it provides good guiding principles.

Councilman Schmid added he believes the language should suggest what number of units should follow the underlying zoning.

Mayor McLallen agrees the intent of this ordinance is to provide incentive to the developer. She added their purpose is to create something that would be lost if they developed under ordinary circumstances and whether they like it or not, ordinary would be the rigid lot zoning. Therefore, the Mayor asked if having the rigid lot zoning serves cross purposes in certain circumstances. Mayor McLallen believes the whole intent was to provide a flexible ordinance at the discretion of Council. She pointed out they do not know what individual plats of land are going to do and reminded Council that they faced this earlier this evening regarding the OS-1 District. She explained a single small piece came before them and Council hesitated to approve the rezoning, because they were concerned about the implications for the larger piece. Now they have things that are going to deal with larger pieces and they cannot decide how to do it. Mayor McLallen believes the issue is they will never know until a single developer comes before them and they have to actually apply the ordinance. Further, the ultimate goal is that they are not going to create any more units in the city in a gross density situation. She noted this ordinance does not permit that. However, it does permit physical density and if they kept the 150 foot lot, they would only get four homes on an acre. However, if they allow flexibility, they could potentially go to 60 houses if they are going to lose the 2% to right-of-way and perimeters. She asked Council if they are willing to create a document that will allow the discretion of the Council to achieve the goals they want which are: quality environment, residential amenities that are not on the tax dollar, and coordinated large areas. She reminded Council no matter what they are willing to give, they will never exceed the stated underlying gross density. However, she agreed they may allow an increase as an incentive based on all the criteria stated by the attorney.

Councilman Schmid agrees with 90% of that statement and added he believes Council agrees with the Master Plan and zoning in those particular areas. However, he is trying to ensure that this ordinance does not build too far, and jeopardize the integrity of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance on the areas they are trying to develop for different types of lifestyles. He believes developers will be able to completely ignore the underlying zoning under A for those who can make a case.

Mayor McLallen disagreed and believes Councilman Schmid wants a more definable definition of "portion." Councilman Schmid interjected, that could just be terminology.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a consensus to want something more definite.

Councilman Clark believes they want the definition of what the intent of the RUD is supposed to be.

Mayor McLallen noted there is not a consensus to direct the attorney to more clearly define the term "portion."

Councilman Schmid is opposed to giving credit for the types of items listed in B-H on Page 2 because he believes it is too lenient. He added the intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance is to have large lot subdivisions and that totally eliminates that or any other zoning.

Councilman Schmid turned to Perimeter Buffering on Page 3 and asked if they can construct anything permitted in an RUD. Mr. Watson disagreed and explained they can only build noncluster.

Councilman Schmid disagrees with this item because he believes it will cause the same problems they are now facing with similar adjacent subdivisions. Councilman Schmid asked if they are going to allow smaller homes and lots next to a RA zoned parcel. Mayor McLallen believes that was the intent.

Councilman Kramer said part of the difficulty is defining whether they are coming in first or second.

Councilman Schmid believes if there is a $1M investment in a home, the owner would not want the type of adjacent development that has smaller homes and lots.

Mayor McLallen reminded Councilman Schmid they reached a consensus and asked him to move forward.

Councilman Clark suggested instead of berms, perhaps they should construct an expensive wall similar to what is constructed in Turnberry.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if a motion to call the question in order? Mr. Watson advised a motion to call the question is a motion to cease debate and would require two third’s vote of Council. He advised in this case, it would be five members.

Councilman Schmid continued by stating he disagrees with the berm substitution for the 330 foot strip.

Councilman Schmid turned to Page 4 and assumes, "However, in no circumstances shall any attached or detached clustered housing dwelling unit in the RUD be located closer than seventy-five feet to any peripheral property line." includes the berm. Mr. Watson agreed.

Councilman Schmid read, "Density shall be measured based upon gross site acreage, excluding identified wetlands or watercourses which are regulated by Parts 301 and 303 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 . . . from Page 5 on the comparison draft and asked if they can include regulated wetlands. Mr. Watson replied they exclude regulated wetlands from the base density.

Councilman Schmid asked if they excluded the regulated wetlands from the density credit. Mr. Watson disagreed and advised that the credits fall under Part B. He added they also do not get the credit for regulated wetlands.

Councilman Schmid read, "An additional credit of 0.8 dwelling units per acre of RUD open space may be granted to the applicant by the City Council, after review of the Planning Commission, provided that such open space is dedicated to the use of the residents of the RUD, as follows: . . " under Item 3. Density B. Councilman Kramer interjected, they already addressed the watercourses and bodies of water. Councilman Schmid moved forward to ii. and advised he does not support a credit for quality wetlands less than two acres in size. However, he understands there is Council consensus to include that item.

Councilman Schmid has trouble with "v. other local important plant and/or animal habitats which are not regulated, which are contiguous to regulated woodlands, regulated wetlands, or wetland and watercourse setback areas, and which meet the following conditions: . . ." Councilman Schmid asked if they have discussed setbacks and wetlands. He asked whether a wetland and a ten or thirty foot setback can be counted as a density credit. Mr. Watson replied the wetland setback, the quality wetland, and the woodlands can be counted, and this last item would allow additional areas that are contiguous to those areas which also provide important habitat areas. Mr. Watson explained this came forward at the last meeting and there was some general language concerning the areas they might also include. He believes Councilman Mitzel suggested that they make it consistent with the preservation option and added that is essentially where that language came from.

Councilman Schmid read, "(c) land set aside for active or passive recreational uses." from page 5 and asked if that land is at the discretion and/or Planning Commission. Mr. Watson interjected, and Council. Councilman Schmid believes this item permits a developer to set aside 50 passive acres and that it can be buildable land. Mr. Watson replied that is conceivable.

Councilman Kramer believes B seems to state they must have "all" that and he thinks they really mean "either/or" any of the following. Mr. Watson replied the intent is that it means all of those, (a) - (d).

Councilman Schmid recommends that they maintain their present requirements under the cluster option in terms of item B under 5. Yard Setbacks on Page 6. He believes this language suggests that they can have even less space between houses than what is currently written in the cluster option. Mr. Watson believes this language was in the last draft and was added one or two drafts ago.

Councilwoman Mutch respectfully asked if they are going to wait until Councilman Schmid has gone through the entire ordinance before any other member will have the opportunity to comment on anything.

Mayor McLallen believes Councilman Schmid is almost finished with his comments.

Councilman Schmid asked for further definition about "significant view" under (6) on Page 9. Mr. Watson replied they do not define it in the ordinance and he believes the intent is if they have a particular attractive vista within the RUD, preservation of that view is something they would want to occur. Mr. Watson noted this is not something they give them credit or density for; it is something they are evaluating to see if they really doing something to make this an attractive development. He added it is part of the overall evaluation of whether it is a good development or a bad development.

Councilman Schmid will not support this motion because there are too many areas that over compensate the developer.

Councilman Clark noted the time is 12:05 a.m. Further, he stated Council has directed the attorney to amend, fine tune or change language for the proposed first reading and he reiterated that he does not believe it is in the proper form for a first reading. He suggested before they move forward to a first reading, that it should come back at their next meeting corrected according tonight’s discussion.

Mayor McLallen advised that is essentially the purpose of a second reading.

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council the last time this came before them they talked about the active recreation area amenities being developed at the time of construction of the facility and asked if they have included it. Mr. Watson was not certain and added that he will review the language.

Councilman Mitzel noted Item (15) states, "the construction improvements within phases and subphases shall be in accordance with the ordinance." He is not certain if that language includes that active recreation areas be constructed during the time of development and asked if a motion is necessary.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a consensus that this is of value to the intent of the ordinance and they would like the language to come forward. Mr. Watson interjected, to verify it is in there.

Mayor McLallen believes there is consensus to have Mr. Watson verify that the language is in the draft.

Councilman Kramer would like to address the three items raised by the developer. He referred to Page 16 and stated the developer suggested that the RUD provide a provision that would allow beneficial revisions without having to go back through the process.

Councilman Clark noted there is further language indicating minor amendments may be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with site plan approval. Councilman Kramer thought it could say "major" or "beneficial" depending upon what they define as major. Mr. Watson believes they would want something to indicate that an increases in lot size or a reduction in density are not major changes.

Councilman Mitzel believes that is already addressed and explained "major" is an increase in lot size or an increase in density. Mr. Watson agreed that was the intent of the language.

Councilman Kramer stated the developer seemed to have a problem with this and asked if they could clarify it further.

Mayor McLallen asked whether there is Council consensus or do they believe it is stated clearly enough.

Councilwoman Mutch thinks this would assume that an increase lot coverage would happen all by itself when it might actually happen in tandem with reduction in density. She asked if they would see that as something major because of an increase in lot coverage or would it be seen as something beneficial because it is a reduction in density. Mr. Watson interjected, lot coverage would not be seen as major. Councilwoman Mutch’s point is that it might happen in a tandem situation.

Mayor McLallen believes they are looking for a threshold where they can address things that are beneficial to the plan without having to start from square one. Councilman Kramer believes the developer’s proposal sounded reasonable.

Councilman Kramer referred to Page 14, 11. and suggested that they can eliminate E on the comparison draft that states safety paths on one side of the street when necessary to preserve regulated woodlands or wetlands. Although he did not hear the total discussion, Councilman Kramer believes the developer was suggesting "or" there are some alternate pathways.

Councilman Mitzel believes that would already be allowed at this point. He explained it is his understanding that they do not have to eliminate it, but they may eliminate it on one side. He believes instead of eliminating it, they could use other another material. He added it states, "they may" be eliminated on one side when necessary to preserve woodlands or wetlands; it does not say "they must" be eliminated. Mr. Watson interjected, they could interpret that to mean they could either include a regular sidewalk in accordance with their design and construction standards or eliminate it, as opposed to "maybe" if they can still preserve woodlands and wetlands with something like a woodchip trail.

Councilman Mitzel believes one side would remain the design and construction concrete, and the other side could vary from that if there are reasons for that.

Councilman Kramer believes they should discuss this further before they bring it back for a second reading.

Councilman Kramer referred to subparagraph (4) on Page 11 of the comparison draft and stated he believes this was an attempt to limit the extent throughout the city to which a developer is responsible for in terms of traffic impact. He further believes the developer was proposing that perimeter roads would be the area of concern. Mr. Watson stated this provision is not saying the developer is responsible for improving roads. He explained this is a factor Council will consider in determining whether they want to have an RUD at all. He asked why would they limit themselves to only considering the impact on perimeter roads. He continued by stating, if compared with a conventional development, the RUD proposal is going to cause an adverse traffic impact that is on a road that does not happen to be a perimeter road and reiterated, Council will want to consider that as a factor for approval.

Councilman Kramer asked if Council would like to discuss this further. He noted it reads, "relative to conventional one-family development on the site, the proposed use will not cause any detrimental impact to existing thoroughfares . . ." Mr. Watson said it is very similar to the language Council uses to consider in other special land uses in Section 2516 of the existing ordinance.

Councilwoman Mutch believes detrimental impact is somewhat subjective, even if it is used elsewhere. She believes it would be less subjective if they linked it to levels of service because that is a standard they could look at and argue against it. Mr. Watson advised overall volumes, capacity, safety travel times, and level of service are things Mr. Arroyo deals with on a regular basis.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if a level of service is all these things combined. Mr. Watson did not believe so.

Mr. Arroyo explained Level of Service deals specifically with either a road segment or an intersection and they use Levels A-F so that it is quantifiable. He further explained things like safety and travel times are different in terms of service, although it is obvious there are some interrelationships.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there is another way of tying it to a standard than saying it is detrimental. Mr. Arroyo believes that would be a decision for Council and the Planning Commission based upon looking at all these various items. He said once they look at the level of service, safety issues, travel time and passing on the roadways they could then decide whether the proposal compared with conventional development is detrimental. He believes they would see some differences between them. He repeated that he believes they need to leave it up to Council and the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they would review another RA development in the same way if it were to be built in the area of an RUD. Mr. Arroyo advised they are specifying language that they are comparing the RUD development with a conventional development, so they would not review conventional one-family development in the same way.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if an RUD development is at a disadvantage regarding other development that may take place around them conventionally because they review them differently. Mr. Arroyo believes the intent is to ensure that by the city granting this option, they are asking that a finding be made that the development is not going to have detrimental impacts in relation to regular conventional development. That would mean if a traffic study was prepared and showed they will have problems in terms of level of service and so forth that they would not have with conventional development, they would have to see if the developer could propose something to resolve the problem. If it then showed that the RUD development is not going to have a significant detrimental impact, that may be one way of mitigating the problem. If they find it is detrimental, Council may not approve it.

Councilwoman Mutch stated it is only a comparison between what would be acceptable conventionally versus what is being proposed. Mr. Arroyo agreed and added that is the same process the city follows for special land use approval. He explained they compare it with principal permitted uses to determine if there is going to be a more detrimental impact to the special land use.

Councilman Kramer is prepared to move forward and is satisfied with the discussion. Further, he believes they have preserved the flexibility that they have given themselves and future Council’s with controls. He thinks the concern expressed is whether it is a wide open flexibility or is it a controlled and guided responsibility.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how far off site would a developer be expected to remedy a detrimental impact. Mr. Arroyo replied it depends upon the development. He explained when they submit a traffic study, the traffic consultant for the applicant will contact his office. They will then discuss the impact of the development as for how far out the analysis should go and how far out the project will impact the road system. He believes it varies depending upon the size of the development and added that a large development could impact several miles.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they would expect that a developer remedy a situation several miles off site with this language. Mr. Fried said the answer is no and the developer would not remedy anything off site. Mr. Fried explained that is the criterion they use to determine whether they would grant that special option. He added a developer may provide the improvements voluntarily, but they cannot make it a requirement.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said this is not really a requirement, but it is something the Planning Commission considers in their determination. Mr. Fried said if the developer states he will remedy off site features, then the Planning Commission can consider that.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they should strike the off site improvements so there is no confusion.

Councilman Clark believes they are trying to create a situation where a developer may say he is willing to mitigate the problem off site and the Planning Commission could make it a special condition of their approval. Mr. Fried agreed and added it must be done voluntarily.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if he is saying that they would not turn them down. Mr. Watson disagreed and explained they can turn them down if there is an unacceptable detrimental impact compared with conventional development

Mayor McLallen restated the motion is to grant approval of the first reading of Ordinance 97-18, the RUD per the discussion and consensus that they achieved this evening.

Nay: Clark, Mitzel, Schmid

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

BREAK - None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

8. Approval to send PD Option Report to Planning Commission for a Public Hearing

CM-97-06-183: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To forward proposed amendments to the PD Option to the Planning Commission for public hearing

Nay: None

Nay: None

10. Schedule an Executive Session to follow the meeting, Re: Pending Litigation and Property Acquisition

11. Approval of Special Warrant No. 491

Councilman Kramer asked if the city is paying for this as opposed to the fund that was set up. Mr. Kriewall replied they are acting as the collection agency for the fund and the money is actually from the pledges.

Nay: None

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION:

1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of May 15, 1997

Councilman Mitzel moved to approve the May 15, 1997 minutes with the correction given during audience participation.

COMMITTEE REPORTS - None

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

For the public’s information, Councilman Kramer advised although they will hold this workshop in the Activities Room, audience participation is welcomed. He explained the Activities Room is provides a more comfortable situation for the work session.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:31 A.M.

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes