CALL TO ORDER Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M.

ROLL CALL Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer (arrived 8:50 P.M.) Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT City Manager Ed Kriewall, City Attorney David Fried, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE PLAQUE:

Kelly Vela - Community Clubs Board of Trustees

Ms. Vela was unable to be present for the presentation.

PRESENTATION

City Calendar Award

Lou Martin advised the 1997 Novi City Calendar received a gold award from the Gallery of Superb Printing through The Detroit Club of Printing House Craftsmen. He explained the calendar was submitted for a statewide rating by the company that printed it.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

James Korte - Shawood Lake, asked that Council set the Erma Street closure on their agenda for action because the ninety days are over on July 15. He believes because the closure has worked, that they are ready to proceed with the closure. Secondly, Mr. Korte referred to Item 21 on the Consent Agenda and stated as ex-chair of the Walled Lake Sector Study Implementation Committee he cannot believe they have removed the bike and safety paths again. He asked how can the city find $100,000 to unnecessarily clean up the landing property that will include two bike paths leading nowhere? Mr. Korte noted there is also a bike path that leads from Twelve Oaks to the new Novi Road and dead ends at the old Novi Road. Mr. Korte asked when are they going to connect the paths? He then reminded Council that Dan Davis promised the residents that money for paths was already set aside for East Lake Drive. Mr. Korte is tired of being lied to and asked if the city is not going to construct the paths, then confess that they are not going to do it. Mr. Korte believes after eight years of appropriating HCD funds, that the funds should actually go to the area that qualifies for them.

Mayor McLallen interjected, for the record the HCD funds that are allocated to the north end are only spent in the north end.

Debbie Meyers-Fagan - East Lake Drive, knows the engineering and surveys for the bike and safety paths have been completed. Further, she advised she had to sign a document stating she would permit the city to remove some of her bushes if necessary. She is very disappointed because they have been waiting a long time for the paths. She also understood that the city allocated the money for the East Lake paths during the Walled Lake Sector Committee meetings. Ms. Meyers-Fagan believes it is unfair that this item is on the Consent Agenda instead of under Matters for Discussion.

Bud Scott - Steelcrete Company and representing the Novi Chamber of Commerce, stated July is a busy month for the Novi Chamber. He explained they are involved in the Blues Festival, the 50's Festival and their regular membership luncheon. Mr. Scott advised their luncheon membership meeting is Tuesday, July 15 and advised they will be focusing on the road situation in Novi. He further advised the International Blues Festival at the Novi Expo Center is a new event and will begin Friday, July 18 through Sunday, July 20. He added the Chamber will be operating the beer tent and they could use additional volunteers. Finally, the 50's Festival begins Wednesday, July 23 through Sunday, July, 27. He noted the Novi Chamber is a contributing sponsor to the festival and they will operate the beer tent Friday, July 25. Mr. Scott reported the festival has pledged part of their profit to help fund the construction of a community band shell on Main Street.

Mayor McLallen added that the House Appropriation’s Committee is meeting this week. The Mayor reported she has spoken with Representative Cassis who advised the Beck Road funds are still before them, and she is very appreciative of the community’s support through their calls and faxes. Mayor McLallen advised Novi Road, Grand River and possibly Beck Road will change status. She explained that Grand River will become a state trunk line in the proposed changes and added that the Chamber’s membership luncheon might be most informative.

Mark Adams - East Lake Drive, stated he also served on the Walled Lake Sector Study Committee and reported the origins of the paths were not just for aesthetic or biking reasons. He explained they originally proposed the paths from a safety standpoint. He added a survey was conducted by the Sector Study and the residents overwhelming supported the paths. Mr. Adams also believes the completion of these paths is key to tieing the lake’s area together. He then encouraged Council to produce additional funding to make this project a reality. Mr. Adams knows many different funding mechanisms have been used for bike paths besides HCD funds. He listed road bond funds, mid-decade census funds, and federal funds as some alternatives.

Sue Soborowski - 1407 East Lake Drive, stated she was also a member of the Walled Lake Sector Study and involved in the initial survey for the bike paths. Because Ms. Soborowski is concerned about the safety issues, she would hate to see this project deleted and believes there needs to be some kind of compromise. She advised originally they were looking to construct paths along South Lake and East Lake Drives, and noted they are still incomplete. Further, she advised the original plans did not include the area along what used to be the amusement park and that is where the path exists today. She reminded Council that Oakland County initiated these types of paths in 1990 with "use it or lose it" grants. She reported those funds were actually used for paths near Hickory Woods and down Decker Road to Thirteen Mile to Woods of Novi, and were subsequently bulldozed when they constructed the Decker Road extension.

Kent Paul - 613 South Lake Drive, President of L.A.R.A., stated his main concern about the bike paths is how a long outstanding issue like this can just be deleted without any forewarning to the organizations that represent the large section of population in that area. He understands there may be no legal obligation by the city, but it seems there should be some sort of courtesy notification.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, SES President, asked for more notice on behalf of SES. She advised she just received her agenda today and that they cannot rely on cable television. She believes the city owes this to them because they are the ones that originally initiated the path concept. Ms. Gray asked that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed early in the meeting. If they cannot discuss it early in the meeting, she asked Council to postpone it. Ms. Gray also understands that there is $1.4M already invested in this program. She reminded Council their area is the reason the city gets the HCD funds and disagreed that these funds are only used in the north end. She reported those funds are used all over the city for many reasons. She said the money was used for emergency repairs and noted that they reallocated part of this money to purchase some property that is now the Sports Park at Eight Mile and Napier Roads. Ms. Gray believes the city owes it to them at least to construct the safety path on the hill at the park. Ms. Gray stated she has a Freedom of Information request for a full accounting of what has been spent on this project. Ms. Gray stated they have too much money invested just to let the project dissolve.

Ms. Gray advised she demanded an environmental impact statement for the landing at the May 5 Council meeting. She advised that the Mayor instructed the city attorney to contact her and she has not yet been contacted. She understands that the DEQ informed them that they do not need to perform this study or provide permits on the city property. However, she thinks it does not relieve the city of the responsibility of responding to a resident’s request whether that resident is representing him or herself, or a group of people. Ms. Gray demanded an environmental impact statement on behalf of SES about what they are proposing for the golf course property. She further asked the city to try to communicate better.

Dan Love - 1533 East Lake Drive, asked why the paths are not going to be constructed this year. Mr. Love believes the paths have been promised to them for a long time. He further believes they need them because he has watched the pedestrians and joggers struggle on the shoulder. Mr. Love asked if the Erma Street vacation is on tonight’s agenda.

Mr. Kriewall advised he believes they are going to schedule the Erma Street vacation for the July 21 Regular City Council meeting.

Mrs. Bartholomew added the correspondence sent addresses the parking lot plan and was a notification about a small meeting between Mr. Nowicki and the owner’s of the market.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor McLallen noted there was a request to add Scheduling of an Executive Session for Monday, July 21, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. for the purpose of Union Negotiations and Property Acquisitions as Item 6 A.

Mayor McLallen advised she would like to add Discussion of the Olde Orchard issues under Mayor and Council Issues as Item 2.

Councilwoman Mutch asked that they also add Discussion about the Sidewalk Program under Mayor and Council Issues as Item 3.

Councilman Schmid questioned the appearance of Harvest Lake on the agenda. He stated he read the June 16 minutes and he is unclear as to Council’s action. He explained it was his understanding that if the agreements were signed by Harvest Lake, that this matter could go back before the Planning Commission. However, he will wait until they get to that item on the agenda to discuss it further.

Councilman Schmid asked why was Harvest Lake moved further down on the agenda? Mayor McLallen advised she moved it down out of courtesy to the other applicants and noted it was not a request by Harvest Lake.

Councilwoman Mutch asked to remove Item 21 from the Consent Agenda and set it as Item 6 B under Matters for Council Action - Part I

CM-97-07-215: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended

CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

Mayor McLallen noted they removed Item 21 under Approval of Agenda.

The Mayor advised Item 23, The Request to Schedule a Public Hearing can be listed on the Consent Agenda if Council’s vote is unanimous. However, she noted they did not include a public hearing date for this item and advised the date is July 21, 1997 at 7:30 P.M.

Mayor McLallen advised they should show the description on the warrant for the Mayor’s Exchange Day dinner as Country Epicure instead of Maisano’s.

Councilman Clark requested that they remove Item 7.

Councilman Schmid requested that they remove Items 15 and 22.

CM-97-07-216: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda as amended

1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meetings of June 16, 1997, Special Council Meeting of June 23, 1997 and Work Study Meeting of June 23, 1997

2. Approval of Ordinance 97-92.08 - To require that a vehicle, driven or moved upon a highway display a current registration plat - II Reading

3. Approval of Ordinance 97-18 - Site Plan Review - Ordinance Revision - II Reading

4. Approval of Ordinance 97-45 - Water Moratorium - to revise the requirements for subdivision water supply - II Reading

5. Approval of Ordinance 97-124.08 - Amendments to the Design & Construction Standards - Ordinance Revision - I Reading

6. Approval of Ordinance 97-149.04 - to revise requirements for Liquor License Applications - I Reading

8. Acceptance of Improvements for Bradford of Novi Subdivision No. 3

9. Acceptance of Improvements for Royal Crown Estates Subdivision No. 5

10. Acceptance of Improvements for Royal Crown Estates Subdivision No. 6

11. Acceptance of Improvements for Sun Valley Subdivision

12. Adopt Resolution, Re: Authorization to Mr. Jerome to make application for a Parade Permit - 1997 Michigan 50's Festival Car Cruise on Sunday, July 27, 1997 from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM

13. Adopt Resolution, Re: Authorization to Mr. Jerome to make application for a Parade Permit - Novi High School Homecoming Parade on Saturday, September 27, 1997 from 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon

14. Approval of Document Acceptance as follows:

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

East & South Lake Drive Sidewalk Project

Sidewalk Easement Clarence Twork $ 700.00

Miscellaneous

Drainage Easement Hany & Vivian Demitry Gift

Grading Permits

Taft Road Extension - N-5416-06 Anthony & Lisa Deptula 100.00

Taft Road Extension - N-5416-06 Charles & Evelyn McAnelly 698.50

Taft Road Extension - N-5416-06 Martin & Barbara DeBol 698.50

Novi Commerce Sewer - N-5300 Novi-Beck Associates 100.00

Novi Commerce Sewer - N-5300 Thomas & Regina Farida 100.00

16 Approval of Discharge of Mortgage - William Titus - 44475 Grand River Ave.

17. Approval of a License Agreement for a Fence within Right-of-Way - 1730 Paramount

18. Approval of a License Agreement for a Fence within Right-of-Way - 1740 Paramount

19. Approve Request for Public Fireworks Display Permit - 12 Oaks Mall, July 26, 1997

20. Approval of MDOT Third Party Agreement No. ND 95-1016 Amendatory Agreement No. 1 and Authorizing Resolution

23. Schedule a Public Hearing for consideration of possible vacation of a portion of Elm Court for Monday, July 21, 1997 at 7:30 PM

24. Approval of extension of Senior Citizen Housing Implementation Committee

25. Award Cleanup of Liverance Property to Maged Contracting Co. in the amount of $2,367.00

26. Approval of Budget Amendment No. 98-2 in the amount $2,000 - Seat Belt Program 50's Festival

27. Approval of Budget Amendment No. 98-3 in the amount $5,000 - F.I.A. Program

28. Approval of Budget Amendment No. 98-4 in the amount $10,000 - Oakland County Substance Abuse Grant

29. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 494

30. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 495

Nay: None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Approval of Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan - TeleTech Novi - Cellular Antenna and Equipment Enclosure - SP 97-20 - Property located north of Eleven Mile Road east of Delwal Drive

Mayor McLallen advised this is a request to place a cellular antenna on an existing tower at the city’s DPW site at Eleven Mile Road and Delwal Drive. The Mayor reported Oakland County actually owns the tower.

Brian Grimme of Sprint PCS advised they have already secured an interest in the tower, and they are requesting a special use permit and site plan approval. Mr. Grimme advised Sprint PCS is headquartered in Kansas City and is a relatively new company to metro Detroit. He reported they have a local office located in Southfield. He noted the company is a limited partnership and consists of four separate companies. Mr. Grimme reported they will be offering a wireless all digital phone service and they offer this service coast to coast. He advised the product requires a tower network to operate and their first choice to fill those needs is through co-location. Mr. Grimme is pleased to report that the site before Council is a co-location proposal. He advised the existing tower is a 400 foot tall self-supporting lattice structure and is located in a light industrial zoned district. He further advised it is owned by Oakland County and managed by TeleTech. He reported the tower is shielded on three sides by 50 foot trees and the fourth side faces the city’s garage. Mr. Grimme reported they want to locate their antenna’s at 150 feet and they will be placing cabinets inside the existing 60 by 60 foot fenced compound area. He added it is gated and they will use a 10 by 15 foot area.

Mayor McLallen added the applicant has a recommendation from the Planning Commission for special land use approval. She further advised the plan does not require traffic approval and that planning, engineering and fire have given conditional approval as outlined in their letters.

Mayor McLallen asked whether the city or county will receive any kind of compensation from the applicant for the use of the space in the existing building. Mr. Grimme replied he is not certain what the arrangements are between the City of Novi and Oakland County. However, he would imagine there is a long term lease in place, but he does not have that information.

Mr. Klaver interjected, Council directed staff to renegotiate the agreement with Oakland County one and a half years ago. He reported they currently have a commitment that is retroactive back to April 1997 in which the city will agree to share revenues. He advised the city will get 15% of whatever the county is collecting. He anticipates that they will bring this before Council within the next few months.

2. Approval of State Licensing of a Micro Brewery - Local Color Brewing Company - Property located south of Grand River and east of Market Street

Mayor McLallen reported this property is located south of Grand River Avenue and east of Market Street in what is known as the Main Street area. She advised the brewery is located in Building 100 situated east of Vic’s Market and will have a 250 seat capacity.

John Carlin reported he is appearing on behalf of Local Color Brewing Company, L.L.C. He reported Peter Paisley is 99% owner and his brother Charles owns 1%. Further, Mr. Paisley is a native of Michigan and currently resides in Ann Arbor. Mr. Paisley is the owner of Arlington Properties, a development construction company that has been doing business since 1994. He added they have been developing commercial properties in Ann Arbor, Royal Oak and Novi. Before that, Mr. Paisley was a sales manager and responsible for a several million dollar sales program. Mr. Carlin advised this is a request for a micro brewery license with an outdoor sales permit. He explained it will first be a restaurant, but they will manufacture their own beer on the premises visible to their customers. He noted they will not sell any alcoholic beverages other than their own and their beer will be permitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms. Mr. Carlin advised that the license is not a Class C license, but it is instead known as a Micro Brewers license. Mr. Carlin reported Mr. Paisley is also a college graduate, he has extensive business experience as an owner of his own company, and he has spent considerable time developing this brewery company. Mr. Carlin reported a brewery is different in that they have to hire experienced licensed master brewers who are often trained in Europe. Mr. Carlin noted that they have hired experienced restaurant management people to assist him in this operation. Mr. Carlin advised that Mr. Paisley has invested a substantial amount of his personal funds and has arranged for substantial bank financing which amounts to a total of nearly $4M. Mr. Carlin noted the brewery is going into an area zoned for this type of use and is located to the southern portion of Vic’s market known as the Main Street South Building. Further, he advised there will be no adverse impact on neighbors and the infrastructure is already there or planned. Mr. Carlin added as for uniqueness, there are only three other micro breweries in the area and he does not believe it will conflict with any of the other types of uses. As for permanency, Mr. Carlin reported that Mr. Paisley is not only making a financial investment into the brewery company, but he has also invested in the real estate portion of the Town Center District. Mr. Carlin reported the 17,000 square foot building will seat 250 people and noted there is an outdoor service area that will seat an additional 50 people. Further, the barrel capacity will not exceed what they permit under the rules and regulations of the Liquor Commission, and they anticipate brewing approximately 20,000 barrels annually. He added the beer can be sold in bottles or cans for off premise consumption as well as consumed on the premises. He reported there will be approximately 250 employees and they will occupy both stories of the building.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Carlin to explain further what they mean by their request for a "conditional local approval." Mr. Carlin believes that means they will be subject to final inspection and that Council must send a resolution to the Liquor Commission approving the application. Further, the Police Department’s recommendation would be subject to any final inspection to determine that the building has been completed and meets city requirements for a certificate of occupancy from the state.

Councilman Schmid noted that the applicant’s management experience in the alcohol and liquor business is listed as "none" in the letter. However, he also noted that the applicant’s general business management experience is also blank. Mr. Carlin replied he believes that was an oversight because the applicant does have considerable management experience. However, he does not personally have any experience in the restaurant operation, but added many people are successful in this industry without experience. Further, he reminded Council that Mr. Paisley has hired several experienced people to assist him with this endeavor.

Councilman Schmid asked if they normally have an architectural review of the interior for these types of projects. Mr. Rogers does not recall whether the interior floor plan came before Council. However, he does know that they reviewed the site plan, the parking, the landscaping, and the facades as part of Phase II a couple of years ago. He recalled they brought it before Council because it was greater than five acres in the Town Center District. He further recalled reviewing the floor plan to make certain that the seating arrangement and the number of parking spaces met the city’s ordinances.

Mr. Carlin advised they did submit a smaller floor plan with their application.

Councilman Schmid recalled the plan was before Council about parking issues. Mr. Rogers noted the parking for the entire Main Street East Building complies on the Phase II site. Mr. Rogers added that Vic’s Market is on the Phase I site and stands on its own in terms of parking.

Councilman Schmid understands that they will distribute beer from this facility in barrels and bottles. Mr. Carlin replied according to the license, the applicant will be permitted to sell by barrel or by bottle for off premise consumption. Further, he advised most micro breweries prefer to hire distributors for local distribution.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Paisley has a business relationship with Mr. Chin or someone else associated with Mr. Chin. Mr. Carlin believes Mr. Paisley has become an investor with Mr. Chin in development of the building beyond his investment in the restaurant.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how else has Mr. Paisley contributed to the community other than his contribution to the economy. Mr. Carlin replied he has known Mr. Paisley’s father for some time and he advised the family has a charitable foundation. Mr. Carlin reported the Paisley’s are very active in the communities in which they work and own their businesses.

Mayor ProTem Crawford noted they did not include documentation for the 1% owner. Mr. Carlin replied by definition a limited liability company needs two people. Therefore, they set this up to give his brother a 1% ownership. He explained the brother does not have any management responsibilities or investment, but it enables them to use the L.L.C. status. Further, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission’s rules and regulations do not require any investigation or information on anybody that owns less than 10%. He noted they have supplied his name, address, date of birth and other information to the city, to the Liquor Commission and to the federal government.

Mr. Frey noted his cover letter states all additional information is on file.

Councilwoman Mutch does not see any reference to the letters that Mr. Carlin stated were letters of reference. She asked if they only send those letters to the Police Department. Mr. Frey replied they do not require those letters for his submittal to the Liquor Commission.

CM-97-07-218: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED: To approve the request for conditional local approval for State-issued licensing to operate a micro brewery pursuant to Sections 3-12, 3-13, 3-14 of the Novi Code of Ordinances, and Sections 201 and 1601 of the Novi Zoning Ordinance to Local Color Brewing Company

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Carlin asked if a conditional approval suggests that Council will submit the resolution to the Michigan Liquor Control.

Councilwoman Mutch replied her motion begins with what is the request of the applicant as prepared by the Planning Department. She believes they asked about the terminology of conditional local approval earlier and she assumes that is what the applicant is asking for.

Mr. Carlin stated conditional approval will be contingent upon obtaining building permits and any necessary permits, licenses or additional building permits within six months from the date of the conditional approval. He advised when they first applied, this package was still in the working stages and they had not gotten as far as they have today. He explained they have permits, are currently under construction and they are now beyond the conditional approval. Mr. Carlin advised they are asking for the final approval as required under Section M of the ordinance. Mr. Carlin asked Council to recall when a restaurant comes before them, they often come in with no plans and that is when Council gives a conditional approval. The applicant would then go back to the staff for site plan approval and building permits. After that, Mr. Carlin explained the applicant comes back before Council for a final approval and it then goes forward to Lansing. Mr. Carlin believes they applied for this approximately one year ago and they have now progressed past the conditional approval stage. Mr. Carlin asked Council to forward the resolution to Lansing so they can open in September.

Councilwoman Mutch believes it is not just a matter of removing the word "conditional" and she believes Mr. Carlin looking for something other than the sections listed in the motion. Mr. Carlin replied all of the sections stay the same. However, subsection M asserts, upon completion of the building and prior conditional approval, then Council will send the resolution to the Liquor Control Commission for approval. Mr. Carlin believes if Council provides conditional approval, it is his understanding that they must come back before Council one more time for final approval. Mr. Carlin is trying to avoid having to come back to let Council know that they have all of their permits and are ready for final approval. He explained they had all of their permits for months and there is nothing left to change.

Mr. Frey stated conditional approval means they must meet all the requirements of the ordinance for this particular license. If they meet them, Mr. Frey would then send the resolution to the state. He stated all they need now is local approval through Council. He explained if Council provides approval, then the resolution will be forwarded to the State of Michigan.

Mayor McLallen believes this action is similar to their motions to approve contingently upon all the requirements in the consultant’s letters. Mr. Watson agreed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the applicant must return to Council. Mayor McLallen replied if they meet all of the conditions they would not. Mr. Watson agreed and added that one condition for this applicant is completion of the building.

Mayor McLallen advised the motion is appropriate as stated.

Councilman Schmid asked if the applicant has provided all the materials as required by the ordinance. Mr. Frey replied everything is in order.

Councilman Schmid noted there was a memo in the packet that suggested that there is a neutral recommendation by the Police Department.

Councilman Mitzel will not support the motion because he does not see a micro brewery as creating the atmosphere that they were trying to establish in the Town Center and in this community.

Nay: Mitzel

Councilman Kramer arrived at 8:50 PM

3. Approve Fire Department Union Contract

For the benefit of the public, Mr. Klaver advised this matter has come before Council approximately a half dozen times over the last few months. He reported pursuant to Council’s instruction, they submitted this for union ratification and they have approved it. He explained with Council’s adoption, it would then become binding. Mr. Klaver added Council established two major goals at the beginning of negotiations. He reported one was the elimination of the longevity for new hires as they have done with the other union contracts. He advised the agreement does accomplish that although it does not occur until the fourth year of the contract. Another goal was to attempt to establish some long term agreements. Mr. Klaver feels they were successful with both of those goals and therefore, he would recommend Council approval.

CM-97-07-219: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Fire Fighters 1996-2000 Contract

Nay: None

4. Approve Revised AMOCO Property Purchase Agreement

Mayor McLallen stated this is an ongoing issue within the community and noted the property is located at the north east corner of Grand River and Novi Road. She explained the property housed an AMOCO station at one time and for the past several years it has been in environmental remediation. She reported the remediation has now reached a closure stage and the city had the opportunity to be the first to purchase this property. Mayor McLallen advised the original purchase price was $250,000. However, through negotiation the AMOCO Corporation has agreed to reduce the price to $100,000.

Mr. Kriewall added the price reduction has been offered in a letter from AMOCO and he is recommending that Council take advantage of their offer. However, in looking at the environmental issues surrounding the site, Mr. Kriewall reported there are some recent memos from the DEQ that indicate that there might be a lingering problem and noted the city attorney has discussed this matter with the city’s environmental consultants. Mr. Kriewall thinks if they accomplish a change in price in the present agreement, that it is essentially a reapproval of the same agreement. Mr. Kriewall explained that city can then move ahead with the property and acquire it at some point in time for the reduced price. Mr. Kriewall recommended that Council approve this agreement.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked what parcel are they actually purchasing. Mr. Kriewall replied they are purchasing 0.3761 acres. He noted the other right-of-way has already been reserved in a prior agreement for the construction of gas stations at Twelve Mile and Novi Roads, and Twelve Mile and Haggerty Roads.

Councilman Mitzel noted the parcel is being purchased from road funds and asked what is the purpose. Mr. Kriewall is confident that the property might be subject to further intrusion by the city when they improve Grand River and Novi Road. Therefore, they believe it is a wise purchase of property from a right-of-way standpoint.

Councilman Mitzel stated he has asked and still has not found out what the future right-of-way requirements are at that intersection and what the existing right-of-way is. Councilman Mitzel is concerned about spending $100,000 out of the road fund for property they may not need for right-of-way or road purposes. Mr. Kriewall’s recommendation to the city is to acquire the property because if they should not need it for right-of-way, the residual value is probably considerably higher than this and there is other commercial interest in the property. Therefore, he believes it is a very good investment for the city.

Councilman Mitzel asked what is the city’s intentions for using the property between now and any road improvements. Mr. Kriewall replied they would maintain it as a mowed park. He noted the city is currently taking care of it because maintaining the property is difficult for AMOCO. He added they have received many complaints from nearby businesses if they do not maintain it.

Councilman Mitzel does not support this purchase and does not agree with the overriding need to spend this money from the road fund at this time. He added this is especially true considering the concerns raised by the north end residents tonight about the incomplete bike path project. He believes they would be spending $100,000 for property they do not have any immediate use for and for property in which they may never use. He believes they should continue to mow it and let AMOCO retain the environmental liability for it.

Councilman Clark noted they are not spending any money now; this is just the approval of the change in the agreement. He explained they would not have a proposed purchase agreement before them until they address all of the environmental concerns.

Councilman Kramer stated that was also his point. He explained this agreement gives the city the first right of refusal to purchase the property when the environmental issues are satisfied.

Councilman Schmid believes this parcel will be the showcase for the City of Novi. He explained it will be a park in the middle of town and will benefit citizens for years to come. Councilman Schmid believes that preserving this critical piece of land is important and they should not construct another gas station on this site.

Mayor McLallen noted the agreement states the city will have one year after the receipt of the letter from the DEQ advising that they have accomplished all corrective action.

5. Acceptance of Gift of Property from Holtzman-Silverman Company

Mayor McLallen reported this property is the 18.67 acres immediately north of the Holy Family Church on the westerly side of Meadowbrook Road between Ten Mile Road and Grand River Avenue. The Mayor explained this property is critical to the city’s senior housing project.

Mr. Kriewall believes the city is very fortunate to receive this gift from the Holtzman-Silverman Company. Mr. Kriewall advised in their search for a senior citizen site it was suggested that they approach Holtzman-Silverman to negotiate a favorable acquisition of the property and instead, Holtzman-Silverman gifted it to the community. Mr. Kriewall reported the city had to conduct an extensive environmental investigation to satisfy their needs as for buildability and whether they could proceed from an environmental standpoint. Mr. Kriewall advised all these issues were reviewed by JCK & Associates and an environmentalist to the satisfaction of the city’s attorney. Mr. Kriewall is pleased to present the final agreement to Council that would acknowledge the gift of the property. Mr. Kriewall thanked Holtzman-Silverman for their generosity.

Councilman Kramer asked if they would like to indicate a time table for the public’s information. Mr. Kriewall replied the city has a Senior Housing Implementation Committee and a Building Authority that were specifically put into place to move this project forward. Mr. Kriewall estimated that a site plan and design of the project would probably take six to nine months. He believes construction would take approximately one year and it would be reasonable to expect senior housing in approximately two years.

Councilman Kramer asked if the city has met with neighboring residents. Mr. Kriewall replied they have met with the president of the Meadowbrook Glens Homeowner’s Association last week and with Father Budde of the Holy Family Church who are very enthusiastic about the possibility of having senior housing in their neighborhood.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch advised the president of the Meadowbrook Glens Homeowner’s Association met with adjoining property owners and with the other members of the homeowner’s association board. After the meeting he advised her that he appreciated the cooperation of the city in providing information. He added that when he talked to the residents one on one, they were very accepting of the idea of senior housing. Councilwoman Mutch added that she has been a resident in Meadowbrook Glens since 1971 and she cannot emphasize enough how well the city explored the environmental concerns. She stated the residents are fully aware that there was a land fill in the area and she advised there have been no particular health hazards identified. Councilwoman Mutch advised she would be the last person to live in a contaminated neighborhood, let alone invite taxpayers to pay for a senior citizen building in such an area.

Speaking for the Senior Citizen Housing Implementation Committee, Mr. Klaver expressed their appreciation for Council’s action on the Consent Agenda that extended their involvement in senior housing in Novi.

6. Schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting for the purpose of Attorney’s Opinion and Property Acquisition

Councilman Mitzel noted at their last zoning ordinance update work session they had discussed July 21 as a possible date to wrap up their review.

Mayor McLallen asked if they know whether the agenda is lengthy for that meeting. Mrs. Bartholomew was told the Planning Commission has a number of items and she is uncertain about the nature of those items.

CM-97-07-223: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Council Work Session for Monday, July 21, 1997 at 6:30 P.M. for the purpose of finalizing the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and schedule an Executive Session for Monday, July 21, 1997 immediately following the Regular Meeting for the purpose of Union Negotiation and Property Acquisition

6.B. Approval of Bid Award for the 1996-97 Bituminous Paving Improvements Program to the low bidder, Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., in the amount of $1,420,244.15 with the Director of Public Services being authorized to administratively issue a Change Order deleting the East Lake/South Lake Drive Pathway Project

Mayor McLallen advised Item 21 on the Consent Agenda has been placed under Matters for Council Action. The Mayor advised the issue is about the removal of the projected East Lake and South Lake sidewalk projects. Mayor McLallen advised Mr. Davis recommended that the city either rebid or reschedule the project due to the high bids.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Davis meant the bids were out of line when he stated they were too high or were they too high compared with how much money they have available to spend.

Mr. Nowicki believes they could be a little bit of both. He explained Mr. Davis has approximately $140,000 in HCD funds available and the bids for both pathways came in at approximately $473,551, which is a substantial difference. Mr. Nowicki also believes that some costs associated with that pathway project are high as the bidders put their numbers together. He explained that type of project is labor intensive because they cannot use a paving machine.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a short fall of approximately $350,000 based upon the money the city set aside for this project. Mr. Nowicki agreed.

Mayor McLallen asked if there are other sources of funding that are readily available to the city to pick up that difference. The Mayor believes getting those pathways in place have been a long term commitment.

Mr. Nowicki believes the Finance Director would have a better understanding about whether other funds are available.

Mr. Kriewall suggested that they could come back with that information at Council’s next meeting. However, it seems to him as though they are paying an inordinate amount of money for this improvement even if they try to fund it at that level. He believes it might be more prudent to try to rebid the project and recruit some sidewalk contractors or people that specialize in that kind of work. Mr. Kriewall believes the initial intent was to couple it with a paving contractor’s bid wherein they could take advantage of his bid and his work. However, Mr. Kriewall believes they might find that sidewalk contractors are a separate breed and in that case, they may need to recruit other contractors. Mr. Kriewall repeated his recommendation that they attempt to rebid the project before they try to fund it.

Mayor McLallen believes this needs to be clarified. She explained this action was not because of lack of support by Council or Administration for this project, but that it was the bidding process that brought forward a projected cost overrun of 200%.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Kriewall is suggesting that they separate the pathways and approve the rest of this for the recommended bidder. Mr. Kriewall agreed and reiterated he believes they must recruit people that specialize in this type of business.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the HCD funds are available for the road or are they limited to only the pathway improvements. Mr. Nowicki replied they are dedicated only to the pathway.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they are on any kind of schedule where they have to commit to the use of those funds. Mr. Kriewall replied the county normally prods the Parks & Recreation Department to move the funds, but historically the city could continue the banking of these funds for two or three years. He does not believe there will be a problem because the bids came in at such a high price. He added they would have to plea their case, but reiterated that the county normally allows them to carry the funds over.

Councilwoman Mutch hoped they might separate the two and rebid the safety paths. In addition, she would like them to look at the remaining HCD money and agree that they will use those funds only for that project. She stated if it takes them time to obtain a reasonable price, she believes it would be worth it because nobody benefits if they pay three times what they would normally pay just to get it done because people want it now.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked why are the bids so unreasonably high and further asked if the road portion is also high. Mr. Kriewall replied the road portion was over by only 7%.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the path is attached to the road. Mr. Nowicki replied the path is attached to the road.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they attach it, then why can’t the machine pour additional asphalt for the path. Mr. Nowicki explained there are drainage issues, shoulder work, and other things that perhaps Mr. Potter from JCK can more clearly explain. Mr. Nowicki believes all the bidders have sent a message that they really do not want to do this project.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they would get a better price if they bid it separately. Mr. Kriewall believes there are smaller asphalt contractors that would specialize in bike trails or sidewalks that are not bidding on this project because the city coupled it with a road way project.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they have reprogrammed any of the bike path funds. Mr. Kriewall replied the county permits them to carry over other HCD funds that were not expended.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands there is a limit. Mr. Kriewall reported they have been saving some monies for this project and he believes they may have a three year accumulation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Mr. Kriewall believes the county will understand their predicament. Mr. Kriewall believes they still have time to complete the project this year. He added they can bid it within a week or two and it will not require a public hearing.

Councilman Schmid understands that this is part of East Lake Drive and South Lake Drive improvements. Mr. Nowicki agreed and added it is also part of the Bituminous Paving Improvements Program.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Nowicki to clarify the type of pathway. Mr. Nowicki replied he was not involved in the design of the pathway. He advised it was coordinated by the Parks & Recreation Department and believes Mr. Potter from JCK can further explain the design details.

Dave Potter of JCK reported the proposed path is five feet wide and is constructed of bituminous asphalt. He advised they would cut the existing road a foot away from the existing edge and put six feet back in.

Councilman Schmid asked if this would extend the road another five feet. Mr. Potter concurred.

Councilman Schmid finds it hard to believe they can get a cheaper bid by bidding it separately. He asked if they could have the total project rebid with some additional provisions to prevent the bidders from gouging. Mr. Nowicki believes they calculated the roadway improvement portion of the project to be approximately 7% over the engineer’s estimate; the last concrete paving program they had was 10% over. Consequently, Mr. Nowicki does not believe the road portion is too high.

Councilman Schmid assumes they are recommending that Council accept the bid. Mr. Nowicki agreed and he advised there is a series of subdivisions in need of roadway repairs, and they would like to maintain the progress of that schedule.

Councilman Schmid asked if there would be any advantage to rebid the entire project because he does not believe they will get a separate bid that will be cheaper. Mr. Nowicki replied they bid this early in the summer and late spring. He believes if they bid it now while all the contractors have already booked their projects for the remainder of the year, the prices would most likely be higher.

Councilman Kramer asked if they would get a better price if the season happened to be extended this year. Mr. Nowicki replied that plants typically close down November 15 and most contractors have booked through that date. Consequently, he does not think a contractor would gamble on weather.

Councilman Kramer asked if Mr. Nowicki is recommending that they try to get a lower bid. Mr. Nowicki is not recommending that. Mr. Nowicki believes the prices for the bike path are higher than what they should be and he believes they should delay the project.

Councilman Mitzel has been looking forward to the completion of the bike paths. However, because of the way the bids came in, he believes there is no option for Council to approve spending the $473,000 for those paths.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there is any problem in separating that bid. Mr. Nowicki replied they packaged it as one program and he believes the contract indicates that the city has the right to delete any portion of it. Mr. Watson agreed they can delete any item from the contract. He added when they do that, the deletion in cost is based on the unit prices for what they delete so that the rest of the contract remains the same.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there is a way to keep this price in reserve although it might be extremely high. He explained what if they rebid the project and they come in higher, then this may be the best price. Mr. Nowicki replied they wrote the recommendation so that the award for the entire program is in the amount of $1,420,244.15 and that the Departments of Public Services has the ability to issue a change order to delete sections of the paving program. Mr. Nowicki stated they do not have to delete those sections until the new bids come in.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the bidder would have a problem with this. Mr. Watson stated there is no problem with this.

Mayor McLallen stated based on the May 7, 1997 letter, the JCK estimates of what this project would cost were almost exact. She advised they estimated the CIP for Turtle Creek at $278,000 and the low bid came in at $284,000. Further, the Orchard Hills projected cost in May before JCK bid it was $281,00 and it came in at $314,000. Finally, Willowbrook came in almost exactly on the numbers. However, JCK projected that the safety path would be $225,000 and the bid came in at $450,000. Since JCK was in line with everything else, the Mayor believes they should rebid that portion.

Councilwoman Mutch hopes they would not move forward without first notifying Council. Mr. Nowicki replied they will rebid that portion first and advise Council accordingly.

Nay: None

CM-97-07-225: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize Administration to solicit bids for South Lake Drive and East Lake Drive safety paths with a report about other alternatives including how long HCD funds can be carried over, whether it would be more economical to have the paths in place at the same time East Lake and South Lake are resurfaced, and determine the timing for the paths

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

7. Approval of Revised RUD Application - Harvest Lake of Novi SP 97-06B - Property located north of Ten Mile Road east of Napier Road:

Mayor McLallen reported they expect this project to contain 875 dwelling units on 887 acres of RA and R-1 zoned land. Further, within the submittal there are staff and consultant’s letters recommending approval subject to a list of conditions in their review letters. The Mayor advised the Planning Commission held a public hearing in April 1997 and sent a positive recommendation to Council subject to a number of their concerns.

Councilman Schmid questioned the appearance of this item on the agenda and asked why it is not before the Planning Commission instead. He then referred to pages 33-37 of the June 16, 1997 minutes. Councilman Schmid recalled there was discussion about whether they would sign the agreement. He believes they agreed to include the school property and park for additional home sites. If they signed that, Councilman Schmid does not believe they came to a firm agreement about how they would proceed with this application.

Mayor McLallen believes the majority of Council agreed the actual RUD application pursuant to the new ordinance would stay at this body.

Councilman Mitzel stated the motion to return the application to the Planning Commission failed, but he believes the concern was about delaying it due to the school property purchase.

Councilman Schmid believes the conversation turned to whether or not they should sign the agreement. Then, they had a meeting later which the city gave them five days to sign the agreement and it still was not signed.

Mayor McLallen advised all of those matters are back before them tonight.

Councilman Schmid believes they should clarify whether this matter should go back before the Planning Commission to review it under the new ordinance. Councilman Schmid asked what is the status of the property agreements.

Mayor McLallen understands that the school board has supported the agreements.

Councilman Schmid stated if they act on those items tonight, there would be no reason that this matter should not go back before the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Mutch referred to Page 33 of the June 16 minutes and noted a motion failed to return the Harvest Lake RUD application to the Planning Commission for further consideration under the newly adopted RUD ordinance criteria. She believes that is where the Mayor came to the conclusion that since the motion failed, the majority of Council agreed that the application would not need further review by the Planning Commission.

Councilman Schmid agreed. However, as he further read the minutes, he believes that sending the application back to the Planning Commission may be appropriate.

Councilman Mitzel believes three members supported sending this application back to the Planning Commission and four did not. However, of the four that did not, there were some undertones that the reason some of them did not support it was because of the concern over the school property. He believes Councilman Schmid’s question is if they have resolved the school property issue, is it appropriate to send it back for the proper full review of the Planning Commission. Councilman Mitzel believes this would really depend upon whether the Mayor, Councilwoman Mutch or Councilman Kramer changed their opinion.

Mayor McLallen has not changed her opinion. She explained the ultimate authority for this project is Council and added nothing has changed substantially. She reminded Council the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that they also approved an agenda that has these three items on it.

Councilman Schmid agreed and added he was going to make a motion earlier. However, he is only trying to get what is proper in terms of the impact this ordinance will have on the City of Novi. Councilman Schmid read the Planning Commission minutes and he reported there were at least four members who felt this matter should come back before them. Councilman Schmid believes this application should go back before the Planning Commission.

CM-97-07-226: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED: To refer RUD application back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, and return it to the City Council upon completion of their review

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the motion is proper when the exact motion already failed.

Mr. Watson advised Council can always remake the motion. He explained it is essentially a motion to postpone until the Planning Commission can review the application.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said this is a motion to send the application back to the Planning Commission and he reminded Council that this same motion failed on June 16. Consequently, Mayor ProTem Crawford will not support the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch believes Councilman Schmid’s motion emphasized that he just wanted to follow proper procedure. She stated by raising the question, she would like to have the question definitively answered. However, it seems to her that Mr. Watson already stated this was an option and therefore, she does not see it as improper.

Mr. Watson advised the motion on the table is not out of order. Further, the question about whether they have to send it back to Planning Commission is a Council option. He explained they may send it back to the Planning Commission, but they do not have to. He added when the Planning Commission conducted the Public Hearing and they gave it a positive recommendation, that was subject to changes being made in the ordinance. Mr. Watson reminded Council the Planning Commission anticipated that the ordinance was going to be amended. Mr. Watson stated it is up to Council whether they are satisfied with that review and recommendation or whether they want to send it back.

Councilwoman Mutch thinks noting City Council will not look at every detail of this project is important as it moves forward. She explained they are dealing with an area plan and the applicant has to go through the normal review process as the project progresses. Councilwoman Mutch stated it is not as if they are saying that the applicant does not have to meet any further Planning Commission approval. She added the nature of an RUD allows for a negotiated, contractual type arrangement that is not available to developers or to Council on other types of projects. She explained an RUD gives Council certain latitude that they would not have otherwise. Further, she reiterated when the Planning Commission first reviewed this project it was well known to them that the RUD was going to be modified. Consequently, the Planning Commission forwarded not only their recommendations, but also the work done by a subcommittee and all of that was considered by Council. She added Council did not agree with every Planning Commission recommendation and they also did not accept every proposed change. However, that does not mean Council did not come up with something equally valid. She went on to state that Council put a lot of work into the RUD ordinance and discussed it in great detail. Furthermore, the RUD and the ramifications of this particular project were well within their consciousness during their review. Consequently, Councilwoman Mutch believes that Council may be more aware than the Planning Commission as to the impact of all the changes they made to the RUD ordinance. Councilwoman Mutch supports sending this application back before the Planning Commission for this reason.

Councilman Schmid’s point was not whether or not it has to go back to Planning Commission. His point was that there was no clear indication after reading the minutes that Council had requested that this matter be put on an agenda. In fact, there was a clear inference made that if they signed the agreements that perhaps it should go back before the Planning Commission. Councilman Schmid’s total comments deal with the minutes and that he does not believe there was a clear understanding about this matter.

Councilman Kramer is comfortable about moving forward. However, since the land purchase is moving along, he believes that extending the courtesy to the Planning Commission is reasonable and therefore, he would support the motion. Councilman Kramer believes this action would bring the Planning Commission current with the ordinance, refamiliarize them with the plan, and permit them to add their perspective and recommendations to the total process. He understands that it is not required and that it is not a matter of improper or proper. He believes they have left the Planning Commission out of the process although they are a part of the total process. Therefore, he believes they should pause and he does not believe they would cause any significant delays by extending the Planning Commission this courtesy. He then asked what the process and procedure would be if they referred it to the Planning Commission. He asked if they require another public hearing, and if the review letters and materials in the packet would be sufficient for the Planning Commission to review.

Mr. Watson replied it would be placed on a Planning Commission agenda and since a public hearing was already conducted, an additional public hearing would be unnecessary.

Councilman Kramer asked if it were placed on their next agenda would it be feasible that it would come back before Council immediately after that. Mr. Watson is not certain if they could place it on their next agenda.

Councilman Kramer asked if there is any other major process involved prior to putting it on the agenda. Mr. Watson believes there is no other process and it is his understanding that the Planning Commission’s chairperson sets their agenda.

Councilman Kramer believes Council should extend this courtesy and he would support that as a matter of procedure. However, he hopes that this could be done expeditiously.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion and noted she is vehemently opposed to sending it back to the Planning Commission because an RUD is a negotiated contract with Council. The Mayor reminded Council that the Planning Commission does not negotiate the contract. Further, although both the Planning Commission and Council have been exchanging ideas pursuant to this, the substance of the area plan has never changed. She said they are considering the area plan and that is the sole responsibility of Council. She stated if there were recommendations coming forward from the Planning Commission that were seriously affecting the area plan, she would agree there would be a need for a further review by them. However, at this point all the area plan does is set in motion the opportunity for the Planning Commission to get their hands on it to conduct the necessary detailed reviews. She reminded Council that if they do not give the Planning Commission recommendations of what they expect out of this plan, then they will still be at the same point they were in April. She explained at this point there is nothing in the plan that was not there in April. She believes they need to get from that point to the details of Phases 1 and 2. She further believes Council needs to show leadership and say this project is either good or bad for the community. If it is good for the community, the Mayor believes they should then send it back to the appropriate body to do all of the detailed reviews they will never get to if they cannot get past the RUD area plan.

Councilman Clark agrees with Councilman Schmid’s and the Mayor’s concerns. However, he also realizes they are talking about a project of approximately 1,000 acres and because it is one of the biggest projects Novi has ever seen, it will have a tremendous impact on the future of the community. He believes they should do it right even if it takes additional time. Councilman Clark does not believe they will delay the process if it goes back before the Planning Commission.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes the real question on June 16 was whether they have changed this ordinance significantly enough to send it back to the Planning Commission. He advised the consensus at that meeting was that they have not. Mayor ProTem Crawford reminded Council that the Planning Commission has already reviewed this under the old ordinance, they held a public hearing, and obtained citizen input on the very same area plan that is currently before Council. Further, he reminded Council that the Planning Commission will have ample opportunity to pick apart the details after Council approves the area plan. Mayor ProTem Crawford reiterated he does not believe Council has changed the ordinance enough to send it back to the Planning Commission for another review of the same plan.

Councilman Schmid stated an ordinance goes with that plan and that ordinance has several changes that the Planning Commission never talked about. Councilman Schmid asked how can the Planning Commission review a plan when they do not know what the ordinance is? Councilman Schmid is not trying to delay the project. However, he believes in the best interest of the Planning Commission and of the city that the plan should get another review of the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Mutch believes there were comments made that the Planning Commission has been following this matter and that they would come to the conclusion that this is of enough significance to the city that they should be as expeditious with this as possible. She is certain they will be prompt if it comes back before them. However, it seems to her that the message they have been getting from the Planning Commission is that perhaps Council has been sending too much to them. Consequently, she would not be quite so optimistic. She reminded Council it has been said that when Council sends something to the Planning Commission that they would like adequate time to review it on their terms. Further, as it has been pointed out, Council changed the RUD and she emphasized that Council based their changes after they reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the input from the public hearings, direct input from the public, and subcommittee work. In addition, Councilwoman Mutch believes the Planning Commission must become familiar with the new RUD Ordinance and in the course of their work, they do become familiar with ordinances. However, she would say that reviewing the RUD Ordinance except in preparation for this specific project when it gets to them is not going to be one of their top priorities because it is unlikely that it is going to be used any time in the near future except for this project. Further, Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council the Planning Commission has two new members who are going to be learning the processes. Therefore, Councilwoman Mutch believes that sending this back to the Planning Commission is unreasonable and unnecessary. She does not believe the Planning Commission can review this application on the terms that they have said they like to review things and therefore, she does not see it coming back soon if it goes back to them. Councilwoman Mutch also agrees with Mayor McLallen’s comments regarding leadership.

Mr. Kohls, attorney for the applicant, clarified that the agreement for the transfer of the school park parcel is not in a final form as it relates to the title. Since they last met, Mr. Kohls reported the developers have worked with the school to make modifications to finalize the non-title language of this agreement. Moreover, the developer has allowed the school license to go onto the property and begin preconstruction activities. More important, Mr. Kohls reiterated Paragraphs 1 a and 1 b of the agreement, the title and gas leases, are still a matter of uncertainty. Mr. Kohls spoke directly with the title company in the last ten days. He advised the title company verbally advised him that they have resolved the matter to their satisfaction, but they have not yet produced a written commitment. Mr. Kohls believes there are no title issues and the title company will agree with that so that the city can then waive its title objections. However, the language with respect to title is not in a condition he would recommend that his client should sign.

Because of Mr. Kohl’s statement, Councilman Clark believes it may be even more reason that they should give this application additional judicious time. Councilman Clark noted its placement on the agenda and added if the property purchase agreements are not in a posture to move forward, then Council would be derelict in their duty to approve the RUD application. Finally, he also noted there was a fax communication received from John Foley residing at 24930 Delmont Drive who sums it up by asking Council to look beyond the development of the lake by making certain that the entire development is economically sound. Councilman Clark believes further review by the Planning Commission would be in the best interest of the city given the comments made tonight and given the size of the project because they will only have one opportunity to do this right.

Councilman Clark stated because of Council’s action on the last item and Mr. Kohl’s clarification about the title, he asked that the next two agenda items be carried over.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they could give these approvals contingent upon receiving a clear title. Mr. Watson advised Paragraph 2 of the agreement provides that as evidence of title, the seller shall furnish the city a commitment for title insurance showing a marketable title on the seller as soon as possible. He further advised the transaction would not close until they have that title commitment.

Understanding that, Councilman Clark withdrew his proposal.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they can approve the agreements tonight with that condition. Mr. Watson advised they could approve the agreements. However, Mr. Kohls indicated he is going to advise his client not to sign this agreement based upon some other provisions dealing with some oil and gas rights. Mr. Watson stated Council can approve it, but the developer’s concerns regarding those provisions may be resolved prior to Council’s next meeting.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes that would mean that the city’s part is done and it would be up to other parties to complete their part. Mr. Watson agreed and added if the other parties cannot complete their part, he believes they will communicate that back.

8. Approval of Offer to Purchase Property Agreement - Novi Community School District, property located east of Wixom Road and north of Eleven Mile Road

CM-97-07-227: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Offer to Purchase Property Agreement between the Novi Community School District, property located east of Wixom Road and north of Eleven Mile Road

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch noted although the city is extending an offer to purchase property, anyone selling the city property is not under any obligation to accept their offer.

Councilman Schmid would like the attorney to go on record recommending that it is proper for the city to sign this agreement with the provisions that are still outstanding in terms of the title and gas rights. Mr. Watson agreed and added that the title issue is contingent upon that commitment being provided.

9. Approval of Offer to Purchase Property and Development Agreement between the City of Novi, Novi Community School District and Delta Trucking Company, property located east of Wixom Road and north of Eleven Mile Road

CM-97-07-228: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED: To approve the Offer to Purchase Property and Development Agreement between the City of Novi, Novi Community School District and Delta Trucking Company, property located east of Wixom Road and north of Eleven Mile Road

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel will not support the motion because he does not believe that providing density credits for land the city is purchasing with clear title for a park and school use is appropriate.

Councilman Schmid agreed with Councilman Mitzel.

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION

7. Approval of Resolution, Re: Extension of Current Cable Franchise Agreement with Time Warner Cable of Oakland to February 28, 1998

Councilman Clark’s concern is that they have already granted Time Warner one extension through the end of August and now they are asking for another one. Councilman Clark said there was an article in the paper in another Time Warner community that they went from 68 channels to almost 100 at no extra cost and lowered the monthly cost for cable service in a five year contract. Councilman Clark believes if they can do that in another community, it seems odd that it is going to take another six months to negotiate an agreement here. He has no problem granting another two month extension beyond the August date, but he believes if they are serious about doing business in this community, they should be ready to negotiate a contract. If they are not serious, Councilman Clark suggested that the city should invite Ameritech into the community.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not disagree with some of Councilman Clark’s concerns. He then asked Caren Collins to explain the process they have gone through and why they are asking for this extension. Mayor ProTem Crawford advised it is not Time Warner that is causing the delay, but it is a mutual negotiating process that is taking longer than they anticipated.

Caren Collins reported they are currently in a negotiation process and that the renewal process began three years ago. She advised they have conducted numerous ascertainment studies, organized focus groups, and so forth. However, they only began the actual negotiation process this year. She added they have also found that it is a lengthier process and more cumbersome than they originally anticipated. However, they believe it is in the best interest of all three cities in the commission to meet and to discuss those areas that are important to the residents and to the cities. She added it is also their desire to do it in a manner that is not rushed or detrimental to the residents and cities. She reminded Council that this is a process that involves three cities, many attorneys and consultants, and they have been negotiating diligently. She advised in their last round of negotiations they found there were numerous areas that they needed to go back and consult with their attorneys and consultants to the point of bringing in another outside consultant so that they could gain additional information to come up with a contract that is in the best interest of the residents.

Councilman Schmid is also frustrated with the time it is taking to negotiate the contract. He asked what are they actually negotiating that is causing the delay. Ms. Collins advised there are approximately 80 pages of issues and advised there are several benefits that the city received in the initial contract that are important for Time Warner to receive to move forward such as community access, public educational and governmental access, I-net concerns, and concerns about determining the city’s authority of its rights-of-way. She further explained there is also a lot of input from the FCC, from state government, and from national government in terms of the changes in the Telecommunications Act, and advised throughout the three year renewal process they have had to review several drafts of the contract simply based on changes in regulation in law.

Councilman Schmid understands they cannot negotiate subscriber rates. Ms. Collins replied that item is not negotiated.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked Ms. Collins to explain the pass through costs. He stated what can be passed on to the consumers that they do not want passed on is a big issue. Ms. Collins explained this is part of the issue that the federal regulation has changed. She stated the current cable act permits cable operators to pass costs through to subscribers that originally they did not pass through. She said if there is a benefit to the city a cable operator might say that they might pass through that cost to the cable subscriber, and that area is of great concern to the commission and the negotiating team.

Councilman Schmid asked how long will it take to resolve this issue. Ms. Collins replied they are asking for an additional six months. She explained they feel having this time to negotiate is important because of the logistics of bringing all these people together. Beyond that, they also have three city councils to present this information to. Consequently, they feel it is in their best interest to do it the right way.

Councilman Schmid believes this is costing a lot of money. Ms. Collins said cost was also one of their concerns.

Councilman Clark asked if they have had any direct contact with Ameritech to invite them to come forward and he suggested competition might improve negotiations. Ms. Collins advised they made contact with Ameritech and they made a presentation to SWOCC. Further, Ameritech has a copy of an original draft of their franchise agreement and ordinance. Consequently, Ameritech is well aware of the process and SWOCC is very interested in inviting competition to the three cities.

Mayor McLallen added she and Ms. Collins personally spoke with Ameritech more than two years ago.

Councilman Schmid understands if Ameritech came forward, they could not do anything for six months. Mayor ProTem Crawford disagreed and advised that is a separate issue. He explained the resolution just keeps the contract in effect and has no bearing on whether a competitor can come in or not.

Councilman Schmid asked where is the $4,080.00 coming from? Mr. Kriewall replied this expenditure is for an easement directly across from the ice arena roadway. He explained they have had to do considerable work in the Montessori School’s parking lot to make certain the alignment is proper with the proposed roadway and traffic signal. Mr. Kriewall reported because this is a permanent highway and utility easement, the funds are coming from the road funds and mid-decade census funds.

Councilman Schmid advised Council has discussed this matter in various Executive Sessions and he advised they made a settlement of $375,000 if they approve this Consent Agenda item this evening. Councilman Schmid asked the city’s attorney briefly to explain the lawsuit for the benefit of the public.

Mr. Watson reported the lawsuit arose out of a contract to create the boulevard on Twelve Mile Road near the M-5 Connector. He explained the lawsuit arose because the contract could not proceed in a timely fashion once the construction was otherwise ready to move forward. He believes some may recall that there were a number of separate jobs simultaneously. He reported there was a portion of the Twelve Mile Boulevard being done by the city, MDOT was doing another portion to the east, and MDOT was also working on the M-5 Connector. Mr. Watson advised they had hoped to coordinate all of those jobs and make them more efficient. However, there were a number of Edison poles that were in the way of the city job. He stated they believed as the time period for the contract to proceed was approaching, that those poles were about to be removed by Edison. However, it turned out there was a very lengthy delay. Mr. Watson reported there was a contract that Edison sought signature on of which they did not get a returned copy. Further, Edison did not inform anyone that they were waiting for that copy and they did not proceed with the work. Because of that delay, it significantly increased the costs to the contractor and a lawsuit resulted.

Councilman Schmid asked where will the monies come from. Mr. Kriewall replied the funds will come from the road bond monies that funded the construction of the project.

Councilman Schmid believes it is a good settlement for an unfortunate situation.

COMMITTEE REPORTS - None

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Councilman Mitzel reported he included a written report in the packet concerning the work group that he and Councilman Schmid met with regarding mast arms.

2. Complaints of Olde Orchard Communications and Complaints

Mayor McLallen asked Administration for a status report regarding this matter. Mr. Kriewall advised tickets were issued and noted that they actually issued the tickets before the date on the letter. However, he then added that it might take as much as sixty days before they get a court ruling.

Mayor McLallen believes this matter was essentially a business operating without a permit in violation of the zoning.

3. Sidewalk Program

Councilwoman Mutch reported the Ordinance Review Committee examined sidewalks and the Committee recommended that she and Councilman Mitzel meet with Mr. Nowicki. She advised they have met and were directed to review the existing pathways, where they might make logical connections, and the issues relative to that. Councilwoman Mutch asked Council to direct Administration to prepare a cost estimate for constructing foot concrete safety paths on both sides of certain roads as part of a connection program by the July 21 meeting . She explained the paths would be constructed where logical connections could make a difference and the report should include prudent alternatives including a pedestrian bridge over I-96.

Councilman Mitzel added the point is to get these numbers back this month so they can talk about it within the next month or in case they need to make any decisions about a bond issue. Further, as they explore alternatives such as areas where there is already an existing five foot sidewalk except for 500 feet, they could then say it would make sense to fill that gap with a five foot sidewalk.

Councilman Schmid asked if they resolved the issue of concrete versus asphalt sidewalks. Councilman Mitzel replied that issue has been before the Ordinance Review Committee for eighteen months. Councilman Schmid believes it is important to address that issue.

Councilman Schmid believes they should also understand that although sidewalks are enjoyable to have, they can be a nuisance too. He recently read in the newspaper where havoc is being raised in some communities because of the several thousands of dollars charged to homeowners for maintenance repairs. Councilman Schmid believes this raises the more important issue of maintenance and what is the city’s intent for these sidewalks during the winter months because snow removal would require major equipment and expense. He also believes the paths would require sweeping during other times of the year.

Mayor McLallen noted this issue has spent eighteen months in the committee because they keep looking at that issue.

Councilman Mitzel understands they must address maintenance. However, because they cannot bond for maintenance they have to address it separately.

Councilman Schmid suggested that they obtain maintenance costs at some point.

Councilman Mitzel would also say they have the same maintenance problem with roads. Councilman Schmid agreed.

Mayor McLallen advised there was a consensus of Council to direct Administration to bring back a cost estimate for constructing foot concrete safety paths on both sides of certain roads as part of a connection program for the July 21 Regular Council meeting.

4. Flag Ordinance

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Ordinance Review had an opportunity to review the Flag Ordinance at their last meeting. He recalled he asked that they prioritize it and suggested that they get ordinances from other communities through the Michigan Municipal League or National League of Cities.

Mayor McLallen advised it is at the top of their agenda and is a continuing topic.

5. Procedural Matter

Mayor McLallen advised she would like to raise a procedural matter. She explained they had approximately thirty people in the audience in regard to a certain issue. She noted Council received their packet last Thursday night and asked if Council finds that they are going to question whether something ought to be on the agenda, she would appreciate input from the Council prior to an approved agenda so that as a courtesy, they could notify those people that they could do something else with their evening.

Councilwoman Mutch added it was her understanding that this particular agenda would have been considerably longer and that other issues were deferred to another meeting.

Mayor McLallen replied no development issues were delayed. She noted the only item delayed was a road report for Meadowbrook Road at the request of Councilman Kramer because he knew he was going to be late.

Councilman Mitzel stated the Mayor’s made a good point and was well taken. Councilman Mitzel stated it was not an easy decision to refer the RUD application back to the Planning Commission for further review under the new ordinance, but he believes it was proper.

Mr. Kriewall believes they were fortunate to avoid the recent storm. He reported there were only some power lines down and traffic signals out of service for a short period.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

14. Memorandum from Don Saven to City Council, Re: George Davis Letter of June 25, 1997 - Olde Orchard Condominium Concerns

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Andrew Mutch believes Council needs to discuss the impact of the RUD development and the RUD itself in terms of the property to the west in Lyon Township before it comes back before them. Mr. Mutch advised Levy owns a significant amount of property across Napier Road at some point it will be developed. Mr. Mutch believes the development of those parcels will have an impact on the city of Novi in terms of roads and in terms of those residents using Novi’s parks. He believes the city needs to look seriously at whether those properties should become a part of the city in the future. Mr. Mutch advised there is industrial property to the north along Wixom Road that they are currently petitioning for annexation into Wixom because Wixom is willing to offer water and sewer to those properties. Mr. Mutch noted this will provide an additional tax base for Wixom. Mr. Mutch believes if Novi is going to suffer the impacts of development, they should at least offset that impact with road dollars. He believes they need to address it now because as they extend water and sewer utilities and if they plan to extend them into Lyon Township, they need to address it at this stage.

Mr. Mutch questioned the Meadowbrook Road report that has come forward. He would like to see them address turning Meadowbrook from the I-96 overpass north to Twelve Mile Road into a boulevard cross section. He explained communities like Farmington Hills, Auburn Hills, and Rochester Hills have landscaped boulevards in their office and technology areas that set an attractive image and address access questions because there are no center turn lanes causing left turn conflicts. He believes boulevards present a more attractive presence. Further, if they are considering marginal access roads, the right-of-way questions do not become a problem because if they must have right-of-way for a marginal access road, they must have right-of-way for a boulevard. He added it does not have to be a Twelve Mile style boulevard and may be more similar to what is in the Town Center. He believes this is something they should examine.

Mr. Rogers advised he resides in Grosse Point Farms and reported they lost most of their community park, most of their playscape and five people during the recent storm. He added they lost major trees throughout the city and consequently, they have applied for federal aid.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a mechanism to donate a tree from Novi to Grosse Point Farms. Mr. Kriewall will check that.

Councilman Kramer suggested that they draft a resolution to encourage other cities do the same.

Mayor McLallen advised there was a Council consensus to support Councilman Kramer’s suggestion. Mr. Kriewall believes the city attorney must review that matter.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M.

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes