Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid (arrived 7:40 p.m.)

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE PLAQUES:

Mayor McLallen advised because many of the Hazardous Chemicals Board of Appeals’ duties were incorporated into the ordinance, they have disbanded the board. The Mayor presented the plaques and read its sentiment.

Skiles Boyd - Hazardous Chemicals Board of Appeals

Gary Myers - Hazardous Chemicals Board of Appeals

Melissa T. Pettijohn - Hazardous Chemicals Board of Appeals

Fred Scott (Absent) - Hazardous Chemicals Board of Appeals

PRESENTATION: Architectural/Design Review Process - Jim Wahl

Mayor McLallen explained as Novi continues to grow, the overall aesthetics of the city become more important. The Mayor explained while several developments have met the city’s regulations, they did not meet the city’s aesthetic goals. Therefore, Mayor McLallen stated they are beginning a process to improve and better articulate an overall aesthetic policy for the City of Novi.

Jim Wahl reminded Council there were questions raised in July about the facade and architectural review process. Mr. Wahl reported they have completed a study and have included how they conduct architectural review in the report prepared by Brandon Rogers, Rod Arroyo, Doug Necci and other design professionals working with the Planning Commission. Mr. Wahl stated they presented the report to the Planning Commission in June, but they have taken no further action. Mr. Wahl added their work continued with staff discussions trying to develop some conclusions or findings from the work they had put together to see whether they would have any specific recommendations. To date, Mr. Wahl reported they have not yet reached a consensus to pursue any particular ordinance amendment or course of action. Mr. Wahl asked for further direction from Council about other things they would like looked at more closely, whom they may confer with and when they would like another report. Mr. Wahl noted they did conclude that they did not feel there was a need to spend any time reviewing residential design and regulations. He explained the city has a similar/dissimilar ordinance and they have not heard any ongoing concerns about that particular aspect of design. Mr. Wahl suggested because they are concentrating their efforts on commercial and industrial buildings that they could first move forward with what they call the Schedule of Regulations for facades. Further, he believes the next course of action should be whether there was a need fundamentally to change the review process involving consultants, staff and the Planning Commission in terms of forming what they know as a Design and Review Board. Mr. Wahl reported review boards are usually in communities with a clearly defined character of architecture. Mr. Wahl concluded by stating that the goal of this study is to ensure the highest quality of design and construction in Novi without adding another layer of bureaucratic review.

Mayor McLallen noted Council may add this under Matters for Council Action this evening. Councilman Schmid recommended that they add this matter as Item 8.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Unidentified Speaker - asked if there were any formal studies conducted for the aquatic facility?

Mayor McLallen replied there were two separate citizen committees and neither committee hired an independent consultant. She advised they studied various facilities in communities within Michigan and nearby states. She added there are probably minutes from the committee meetings that are available at the Clerk’s office.

The speaker reported she will vote no with the information she has received so far.

Mary Muller - advised she represents the committee opposed to the aquatic facility. Ms. Muller advised she listened with great interest to the League of Women Voter’s forum and she would like to state that she agrees with comments made by the Mayor in that there was misinformation about this issue. One area is the representation by Parks and Recreation that this facility is a community pool. Ms. Muller advised she has discussed this matter with Mr. Kriewall and is happy to see that they revised the current flyers to state "aquatic facility" instead of "community pool." Ms. Muller asked if the city believes they are doing the right thing, why are they trying to minimize this and describe it as a community pool. Further, when the second proposal was presented by Mr. Davis she believes he made sure that he pointed out that they reduced the facility in response to the citizen’s concerns. Ms. Muller believes they reduced the project because they realized they could not build the facility because of money and not in response to the citizens. She said there is also misinformation about the facility being over studied. Ms. Muller believes if they do not ask the right questions and they do not gather valid and thorough information on the subject, then it does not mean anything. She stated there are no expert studies and she is glad someone else noticed that. Further, she believes Farmington Hills is doing it the right way because they have conducted traffic studies and feasibility studies. She asked why were there no soil studies conducted. Ms. Muller explained one of the very first things Paddock Pools told a committee member was that they need to conduct a soil boring tests to see if the site will support the facility. Ms. Muller would like to see it done the right way the first time. Further, Ms. Muller personally spoke with the City of Troy and asked them why is there a big jump from $20,000 in the red to $100.00 in the red in their most recent report. Ms. Muller was told the decrease was because of maintenance cuts and shuffling of salaries to a different part of the city’s budget. She explained that does not mean they are doing better, but means they are being creative with their numbers. Ms. Muller objects to Novi’s interpretation of that information. Ms. Muller believes the area of finances was completely neglected and added they still do not know where the money will come from if the facility does not support itself. Ms. Muller believes the voters need to know where that money is coming from before they can decide how they will vote.

Pat Holt - also represents the committee opposed to the aquatic facility and wants to comment on some specific misinformation. First, Ms. Holt advised the question they submitted at the League of Women Voters quoted Dan Davis from the Council Minutes of August 25, 1997 session. Ms. Holt referred to page 33, paragraph 2 and read, "Mr. Davis restated he cannot guarantee that the pool will be a viable facility and they must assess that annually during the budget process. He added that it is very likely that they cannot break even or make money." Further, she recalled Mayor ProTem Crawford stated at the League of Women Voters forum that he did not remember this quotation and only remembered Mr. Davis as saying he could not guarantee the financial stability of the facility. Ms. Holt believes the real misinformation comes from the flyer distributed at the Civic Center, and the television interview with Dan Davis and Lou Martin. Ms. Holt believes now that as election day draws near, Mr. Davis suddenly changes his statement and gives slanted views by stating that he anticipates the facility could well be self-sufficient and there are comparable facilities around the area that are very successful. Ms. Holt believes this is blatant misinformation. Ms. Holt reminded Council it is their group that has provided the information about the financial instability of the Troy facility. Ms. Holt added the pamphlets were offered to the senior citizens at the Senior Pancake Dinner on October 10. She said not only are Mr. Davis’ comments about the financial facility slanted, but the flyer suddenly calls the aquatic facility a community pool and makes no mention that it costs $4.5M. Ms. Holt believes using proper verbiage of this proposal was discussed at the August 25 Council meeting. She referred to page 33, paragraph 5 and Mayor McLallen states she would like the language to be, "clear as possible." Further, page 38, paragraph 6 reads, "Councilman Kramer asked if they want to call it a community swimming pool. Councilwoman Mutch disagreed and explained a swimming pool is a swimming pool and an aquatic facility implies there is more than a pool." Other blatant misinformation given to the seniors was that it would only cost them $29.00 per year or 56¢ per week. Ms. Holt stated this is actually unknown because they do not even know the length of the bond yet. Ms. Holt stated this was slanted information and printed with taxpayer dollars to try to persuade uninformed citizens that the size of this facility is simply a pool and not a 2,000 person capacity as proposed. Although they changed the flyer at their request, Ms. Holt stated misinformation continues to be televised. Ms. Holt submitted a letter on behalf of their committee requesting that this interview be pulled and retaped or until the proper verbiage is used.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor McLallen noted there are three additions to the agenda. They are: Item 8, Give Direction to the Community Development Department regarding Architectural and Facade Review; Item 9, Executives Session Immediately Following Meeting to Discuss Pending Litigation and Property Acquisition; and Item 10, Sign Ordinance Discussion and Direction to the Main Street Project under Matters for Council Action - Part II.

Nays: None

CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

Mayor McLallen removed Item 2, Schedule a Special Meeting of the City Council for 7:30 P.M. in the Council Annex for the Purpose of Appointed Officials Review.

CM-97-10-330: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Consent Agenda as amended:

1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of October 6, 1997 and Special City Council Meeting of October 6, 1997

3. Appoint Mayor McLallen as Voting Delegate and Mayor ProTem Crawford as Alternate Voting Delegate for the NLC Annual Congress of Cities for 1997

4. Approval of Final Pay for Jack Anglin Co. for Community Sports Park Project in the Amount of $124,667.82

5. Approval of Agreement for construction of White Pines Drive

6. Approval of Document Acceptance as follows:

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

Novi/Commerce Sanitary Sewer - N-5300

Sanitary Easement Monkey Wrench Associates Gift

Sanitary Easement Beck Corridor Partners Gift*

Miscellaneous Document

Sanitary Easement Frank & Catharine Stevens Gift

*Subject to Special Conditions

7. Defer Action on the Report on Road Conditions at Walden Woods I until the City Council Meeting of November 24, 1997

8. Extend Sunset and Membership of the Fuerst Property Task Force Committee until September 9, 1999

9. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 502

2. Schedule a Special Meeting of the City Council for 7:30 P.M. in the Council Annex Room Monday, October 27, 1997 for the purpose of Appointed Officials Reviews

PUBLIC HEARING: 1998 Community Development Block Grant Funds

Mayor McLallen reported they handle this grant through the Parks and Recreation Department. She noted it typically affects property predominantly at the northern end of the city and senior services.

Dan Davis reported the Community Development Block Grant Program is a federally funded program administered through Oakland County through fifty participating communities in Oakland County. He explained each year the county with the federal government determines where their target area of utilization of these funds can be spent. He noted this area has typically been the area north of I-96 and northern Novi. Mr. Davis said they also have defined benefit user groups that monies can be utilized for on a city wide basis. Therefore, he explained the budget submitted for 1998 takes those types of criteria for funding into consideration. Mr. Davis reported the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Committee disbursed the $107,413 that is projected to be available for the 1998 funding cycle. Mr. Davis read the proposed allocations from the budget summary.

Hedy Nuriel - Executive Director for HAVEN, stated this is the fifth year they have come before Council which means Novi has funded them four years in a row and she hopes this year will be the same. Ms. Nuriel reported 202 Novi residents had face to face counseling and five used their shelter. In addition to the 202, Ms. Nuriel reported 81 Novi residents called them at their 24-Hour Crisis Line. Ms. Nuriel stated Novi is fifth in using HAVEN in Oakland County. Ms. Nuriel then explained the many services of HAVEN. She reported they have offices in Novi, Rochester, Southfield and Pontiac. Ms. Nuriel added they were one of the few organizations awarded a C.O.P.S. Grant with the Novi Police Department to provide specialized services to the citizens of Novi. She explained Chief Shaeffer appointed John Nelson as the Domestic Violence Officer in Novi. As a result, whenever there was a domestic violence call, HAVEN representatives accompanied Officer Nelson. However, she added this was only a one year grant.

Mr. Davis noted this matter will be back before Council on November 24, 1997 for action.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Request for Approval Quota Class C Liquor License for BD’s Mongolian Barbeque of Novi - Novi Mongo, L.L.C. - Property located in the 200 Building of the Main Street Development

Billy Downs - advised he grew up in Northville and moved to Novi two years ago. Mr. Downs stated he is the founder of BD’s Mongolian Barbeque in the Detroit area and then gave an overview of Mongolian Barbeque. Mr. Downs believes this restaurant is a perfect fit for the Main Street development, and noted that his other restaurants are in and have been successful in downtown locations.

CM-97-10-331: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: A conditional local approval for Quota Class C Liquor License pursuant to Section 3-14(j) of the Novi Code of Ordinances for BD’s Mongolian Barbeque - Novi Mongo, L.L.C.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Downs is the owner of the restaurants? Mr. Downs replied they are the franchisers of the Okemos restaurant, and they own Royal Oak, Ann Arbor, two in Chicago and the one proposed for Novi. Further, they have a conservative growth plan and he believes they will not open any more in this area. However, he added they plan to expand to the east side. Mr. Downs stated they generally hire managers and hope they grow into partners.

Councilman Kramer stated they always challenge liquor license applicants with uniqueness requirements and providing an amenity for the city, and he believes BD’s Mongolian Barbeque meets the essence of what they are looking for.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with Councilman Kramer and added that she believes they have also offered a concept that is unique in Novi..

Nays: None

2. Approval of Ordinance No. 97-18.136-TC-1 Text Amendment to add a Definition of "Department Store" and to revise the standards for Retail Space within the TC-1 Zoning District - II Reading and Final Adoption

Rod Arroyo reported they have made several changes. He explained they have increased the distance between department stores from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet. Mr. Arroyo added they also inserted some language regarding the floor plan and merchandising plan for the individual departments to insure they have defined limits for individual departments. Further, if there were individual departments facing a main road with an individual entrance that there would be some connection between the display windows and the signage so that it had the feeling of several small stores instead of one large massive store. Mr. Arroyo noted that the Town Center Steering Committee reviewed the draft this evening and they also recommend approval.

Councilman Schmid asked if there was a change made on page 2, 97-18 of the ordinance? Mr. Arroyo advised those are the changes he suggested and noted the changes are in paragraph 3.

Councilman Schmid recalled that they removed "internal walls." Mr. Arroyo replied they deleted "internal walls" and "vertical element" from the draft amendment.

Mayor McLallen understands Councilman Schmid is stating that the draft before Council has some corrections based upon changes made by the Town Center Steering Committee this evening. Councilman Schmid agreed and Mr. Arroyo read the amendment as it should read, "the internal design of the department store shall have the appearance of several individual sales areas or departments consistent with the merchandise categories offered by the retailer. The floor plan and merchandise plan shall clearly define individual departments by use of such features as merchandise display units or other similar features that identify the limits of each department. For departments with individual pedestrian entrances, the floor plan or the space directly accessed by the pedestrian entryway shall be consistent with the use or product advertised by the external facade features (e.g., display windows, signs, etc.). On alternate floor plans showing how departments with individual pedestrian entrances could be converted to independent stores shall be provided with the floor plan review package."

Councilman Kramer recalled it stated for a two-story building on Page 1, paragraph 3b.2 that a second floor shall contain at least 40% of the gross usable floor area of a department store. However, it now states retail commercial uses on the second floor shall not exceed 12,000 square feet or 25% of such floor, whichever is lesser on page 3, paragraph 3.b. 6. C. 3. Mr. Arroyo replied that is a separate provision. He explained this is an alternative way of addressing the 7,500 and in this case, the provisions under c are not going to apply to the other department store. Mr. Arroyo further explained the reason it is different is because in reviewing the amendment to add a department store as a possible permitted use within the district, the Town Center Steering Committee and Planning Commission felt the second floor needs to have a significant amount of retail space.

Mr. Fried asked if b is for department stores and is c only for multistory retail stores? Mr. Arroyo replied that is correct and the distinction is that c would not include department stores.

Mayor McLallen asked if the language within c could indicate that it is not applicable to a department store definition. Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilman Kramer believes they also need further clarification in paragraph 5 on page 2. He asked if the not to exceed 20% of the total gross leasable area of the development means the total development of Main Street? Mr. Arroyo replied that language refers to an individual development that comes forward for approval. Mr. Fried added in this case it would be Main Street. Mr. Arroyo explained in the case of Main Street they have approximately 600,000 square feet so they could have no more than 20% of that total for a department store.

Councilman Mitzel understands that the entire second floor of a department store could be retail. Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilman Mitzel asked if there is any instance in the zoning ordinance where they dictate the internal layout of a store. Mr. Arroyo does not believe they would normally find this type of provision and believes the reason it is before them now is because of the unique circumstances of the Town Center District and the desire to maintain the original intent of the district which was to maintain a number of smaller retail stores and not a lot of big boxes.

Councilman Mitzel understands the concern about the exterior, but not the interior. He asked how does this allow flexibility for the store to operate if they wish to shift departments and floor spaces. Mr. Arroyo replied they do not dictate it under the site plan as long as they meet the general criteria which means if they have a department that happens to have an individual entrance, then that entrance needs to relate to the department they entering.

Councilman Mitzel asked if that is how Mr. Fried interprets that language. Mr. Fried replied he has not seen that language yet.

Councilman Mitzel understands the concern about keeping the appearance of smaller stores on the exterior facade. However, he is concerned about adding another layer by dictating what goes on inside the building. Mr. Fried explained the only reason they draft the language in this way is that this is the TC-1 ordinance and involves small retail establishments. He explained this is an exception to it and they do not want the department store exception to dominate the TC district.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the language will lock them into certain layouts? Mr. Fried replied it will not lock them into a layout.

Councilman Mitzel asked if they could provide simpler language. Mr. Fried restated this is the first time he has seen this language.

Councilman Clark suggested that Mr. Fried fine tune the language first.

Councilman Schmid believes they have already resolved Councilman Mitzel’s issue.

CM-97-10-332: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mitzel, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To place TC-1 Text Amendment, Ordinance 97-18, Second Reading as the last item on agenda

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked if Mr. Fried can review the language tonight. Mr. Fried agreed and will have it ready toward the end of the meeting.

Councilman Kramer supports the intent of the text amendment, but he would agree the language needs further review.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would prefer not to postpone this matter and asked if there is a need to make an immediate decision. Mr. Wahl understands the developer has an agreement pending and he does not know if a postponement would affect that agreement. Mr. Wahl added it is his understanding that they have had several renditions that say about the same thing. Therefore, Mr. Wahl asked whether Council can act on this matter tonight after Mr. Fried’s review.

Councilman Schmid has no problem postponing this matter. However, he reminded Council if they choose to postpone they may have as many as four new members on Council and he does not want to take any steps backward.

Nays: None

3. Approval of Ordinance No. 97-124.09 - Amendment to Revise the Requirements for Bicycle Paths and Pedestrian Safety Paths - II Reading and Adoption

Councilman Schmid is totally opposed to this ordinance because of the cost and spending of public money for a cause that they do not need. Councilman Schmid sees no need to have two eight-foot asphalt pathways on both sides of the road. Councilman Schmid also believes this would be a disservice to the community from an aesthetic standpoint. More important, Councilman Schmid advised asphalt has high maintenance costs when compared with concrete. Further, if they must have bike paths, Councilman Schmid would propose five foot paths on one side of the street with pedestrian sidewalks on the other side. Councilman Schmid restated that they should explore the possibility of concrete if they construct bicycle paths.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how paths affected existing residential neighborhoods not in a development or in older developments before this requirement came forward? Mr. Rogers replied they required the present pedestrian safety path plan along major thoroughfares and arterials. Mr. Rogers noted the zoning ordinance defines major thoroughfares as a major arterial (Twelve Mile), arterial (Ten Mile, Grand River or Haggerty) or minor arterial (Nine Mile or Taft). Mr. Rogers advised the existing plan has a sidewalk with a five foot width on one side and an eight foot asphalt pedestrian on the other. Mr. Rogers reported if the property ownership goes to the center line of the right-of-way and they do not have a right-of-way, they have to get an easement of access from the developer. Mr. Rogers noted the developer has traditionally given the easements. Finally, Mr. Rogers advised they cannot require sidewalks for existing projects or for homes between the projects.

Mayor McLallen clarified that this is merely a design and construction standard, and is not a requirement.

Councilman Mitzel understands the ordinance applies to projects or developments that are going through site plan or plat approval by the city. He added it does not apply to existing construction, but if they built something there, it would be up to the city to determine what design would go in front of that area. Further, as with any ordinance, the city has the flexibility to waive design requirements. Councilman Mitzel restated this applies to new development and would be city initiated construction in existing areas of the city, and the decision is ultimately Council’s.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the bicycle path widths will be eight feet except at intersections and further asked if there will be exceptions made? Mr. Rogers replied they can take some discretion in the alignment of a sidewalk or a bike path to avoid a major tree, a culvert, a slope or a pond and he believes this is determined on an individual site plan basis. Mayor ProTem Crawford cannot support the adoption of this amendment because of the potential intrusion.

Councilman Clark shares Mayor ProTem Crawford and Councilman Schmid’s concerns. He restated that the city cannot properly maintain what they currently have and he can count on one hand the number of people who are currently using the paths.

Councilman Kramer suggested that they review the cost chart and reminded Council that the engineers determined that the asphalt paths were a more cost effective solution. Councilman Kramer cited an attractive asphalt path in West Bloomfield as an example. Further, he believes it is up to the voters to decide whether they want to extend the sidewalks and safety paths. In terms of design, Councilman Kramer believes bicycle paths should be located at a minimum of twelve feet from the road surface and should be expanded to include curb and gutter. However, he then noted the unique design around Walled Lake and understands there are different design circumstances that will dictate when a path should be at a different spot. Therefore, Councilman Kramer believes they need to use judgement in the placement of sidewalks as they look at the different areas. Councilman Kramer supports asphalt and while concrete slabs may have a longer life, the continuity of concrete is questionable because users could trip over the joints.

Councilman Mitzel stated the current ordinance allows lesser distances than twelve feet along curbed streets. He further pointed out that some issues raised tonight are not applicable to this ordinance. Councilman Mitzel explained this ordinance applies to new developments and the only change from the existing ordinance is the change from five foot concrete to eight foot asphalt on both sides where a bike path is master planned in a park. Further, he believes the issues about existing residential development should be addressed sensitively, clearly, and be city initiated. In addition, Councilman Mitzel reminded Council the issues concerning costs and material were all thoroughly studied by the Ordinance Review Committee and that they approved the first reading in a 5-0 vote on September 8, 1997.

CM-97-10-333: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED: To approve second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 97-124.09 - Amendment to Design & Construction Standards to revise the requirements for bicycle paths and pedestrian safety paths

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel stated this ordinance was not written by any one person and what came forward is a result of approximately a year and a half of study by the Ordinance Review Committee.

Councilman Schmid stated he sits on the Ordinance Review Committee and advised this matter was not a major topic. Secondly, Councilman Schmid believes Councilman Mitzel is suggesting that they put eight foot bike paths on both sides of the road and therefore, he believes this is a bike path ordinance and not a pedestrian ordinance. Councilman Schmid agrees they brought forward costs for the initial cost of construction and he understands the cost for an eight foot asphalt bike path is the same as a five foot concrete sidewalk. Councilman Schmid asked Council to visualize asphalt paths twenty years from now if they were not maintained properly and deteriorating. Councilman Schmid hopes the voters reject this proposal.

Councilwoman Mutch stated no matter what type of path is constructed, it can be traveled by any one and by any type of non-motorized vehicle.

Mayor McLallen noted this is an amendment for eight foot bicycle paths and as pointed out by various members, bicycles are not the only thing utilizing this surface. Mayor McLallen asked that they consider different terminology for the path in the motion.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes it was referred to as pedestrian paths at one time, meaning they permitted non-motorized vehicles.

Councilman Mitzel believes the term, "pedestrian safety path" was used for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried if they could replace the word bicycle path with pedestrian safety path as part of the second reading.

Mr. Fried believes that is acceptable providing it does not alter the balance of the ordinance. Councilman Mitzel asked if they could proceed if the attorney changed the terminology in the rest of the ordinance so they are consistent.

Councilman Schmid asked if Council is going to pass an ordinance that they do not know what the terminology is going to be? Mr. Fried believes they should leave it as it is and if they want to correct it, they will change it throughout the ordinance after they have adopted it. Mr. Fried added if the name changes, it must come back before Council as an amendment to the ordinance.

Mayor McLallen stated she will strike her comments since the subject under adoption states requirements for bicycle paths and pedestrian safety paths.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if this vote would indicate an intent that these paths will be for both pedestrians and bicyclists? She noted that subdivisions have sidewalks and people either ride their bikes on them or they do not, and nobody questions what kind of paths they are. If necessary, Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Fried can develop language that includes everything except motorized vehicles. Mr. Fried believes that would be prohibitive of the use and would be included in another section of the ordinance.

Councilman Schmid is not concerned whether it states bicycle path or pedestrian path. He understands that people will obviously walk on it. He explained he was trying to clarify why it even said bicycle path because it is a pedestrian path and will include all kinds of different types of transportation. Further, Councilman Schmid stated it is unfortunate that it is on two sides of the street, it is unfortunate that it is eight feet wide and it is unfortunate that it is going to cost the city millions of dollars to maintain for only a small percentage of people. If they must have bicycle paths, Councilman Schmid asked why don’t they put them on one side of the street and construct a five foot path on the other side for walkers.

Councilman Clark stated they have sidewalks in his subdivision, and he has observed that most of the older children play and ride their bicycles in the street.

Nays: Crawford, Clark, Schmid

4. Approval of Ordinance 97-45.25 - Amendment to Require Bicycle Paths Adjacent to Arterial Streets - II Reading and Adoption

CM-97-10-334: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED: To approve second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 97-45.25 - Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance to revise the requirements for bicycle paths and pedestrian safety paths

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid will not support the motion because it perpetuates a problem that already exists.

Councilman Clark agreed with Councilman Schmid and added if they approve this and the pool, there will not be enough money in the budget to support these projects.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that the previous matter was an ordinance and not a ballot issue.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated his previous comments and objections apply to this ordinance as well. Further, although he understands this is not a ballot issue, one deficiency of the ballot issue is that it does not provide for maintenance because it is a bond and not a millage. Mayor ProTem Crawford restated neither this ordinance or the previous ordinance provide for maintenance.

Nays: Crawford, Clark, Schmid

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Lynn Kocan - understands this is the last Council meeting for Councilmen Mitzel and Clark, and commended them for the unimaginable amount of time they have both committed during their terms on the Planning Commission and Council. Ms. Kocan personally thanked them for the time and effort they expended on behalf of the residents of Novi. She added the residents will miss their views on Council because she believes they typically represent residents’ concerns as opposed to the developers’ concerns.

Jim Chen - Evergreen III, expressed his appreciation to Councilmen Mitzel and Clark for their assistance during the development of the Main Street project. Secondly, Mr. Chen is pleased with the prompt reaction from Council, the City Officials and consultants regarding their problems with the sign ordinance in the TC-1 District and the Main Street project. Mr. Chen highlighted comments from his October 20, 1997 letter to Mayor McLallen and City Council.

Peter Paisley - Local Color Brewing Company, advised they will be opening on Main Street East during the first part of December and wanted Council to know how important signage is for them. He explained they are situated in the rear end of Main Street and each building is designed to look a little bit different. Mr. Paisley believes the signage should also look somewhat different and unique. Mr. Paisley reminded Council that they made a significant financial commitment to Novi and he does not want it to be lost because patrons are unable to find their facility. Mr. Paisley thanked Council for their consideration and response to Mr. Chen’s issues regarding the sign ordinance in the TC-1 District.

BREAK - 9:50 until 10:05 p.m.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

5. Appointment to Historical Commission - Results of Balloting

Alan Rothenberg - (7): McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

Lynne Paul - (1): Clark

Kathleen Mutch - (6): McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

6. Request for Approval of Nostalgic - Type Mast Arm Traffic Signal for 13 Mile and Meadowbrook Roads

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council they decided against approving a city wide implementation at their September 22 meeting. He noted much of the discussion focused on how these mast arms would look at smaller scale intersections and he believes the Thirteen Mile and Meadowbrook Road intersection provides a unique case where they could try an installation of this aesthetically pleasing design style. Further, based on this outcome, a future Council could make their decision.

Councilman Schmid asked if Councilman Mitzel is adding another intersection? Councilman Mitzel replied he is proposing to add this intersection as a trial for a small scale intersection as they made a past decision for the corridors that are typically five lane roads.

Councilman Schmid recalled they were going to try this mast arm at Nine Mile and Novi Roads because it is residential and commercial. Councilman Schmid cannot think of any other intersection that is more rural than Meadowbrook and Thirteen Mile Road, and questions whether they should look at the Nine Mile and Novi Road intersection first.

Councilman Mitzel understood that the Nine Mile and Novi Road intersection was for the corridor that was a five lane intersection and Council had a lot of debate about how it would look in a two lane intersection. Councilman Mitzel believes Meadowbrook and Thirteen Mile Road is the best intersection to experiment because it is the only intersection that has a joint freeway and would be less costly. Councilman Mitzel is saying it will cost less for a freeway intersection than it would for a four way intersection. He added it will cost more than a span wire, but he reminded Council they previously had that conversation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would agree to see what it would be like conceptually. However, he is not willing to approve action for installation tonight.

Councilman Kramer asked if they have more time to decide? Mr. Kriewall replied they do not have too much more time because they already authorized a signal to be installed at that intersection. He believes they should make a decision no later than the next meeting.

Councilman Mitzel understands that they scheduled the light to be installed in February and that is why he brought this matter forward. Further, it is a smaller scale freeway intersection and is one where they could see the results sooner.

Councilman Kramer believes it is a good initiative, but he would like to review the costs at the next meeting.

Mayor McLallen believes Thirteen Mile is a very interesting intersection because it is now paved. Further, the Mayor advised it is going to be the outlet for M-5 and this means that this is the first intersection from which people will be entering Novi. Mayor McLallen advised Meadowbrook is the street that has been historically known as a scenic beauty road because of its particular identity. The Mayor believes having something such as these mast arms there would make this intersection distinctive and believes a nostalgic look would suit this particular portion of the city. However, Mayor McLallen also agrees with Councilman Kramer in that she would like to first see the costs and take a closer look at the design. Mayor McLallen also believes they could bring this forward very quickly.

CM-97-10-335: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED: To authorize Administration to bring back a design and cost estimate for Council approval of the nostalgic type mast arm traffic signal system at the Thirteen Mile and Meadowbrook Road intersection by the November 10, 1997 Regular Council meeting

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked that Council decide as quickly as possible once this matter comes back before them.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would like the design to include what is currently there in terms of Edison poles and so forth.

Nays: Schmid

7. Request for Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.569, from R-A, Residential Acreage, to RM-2, High-Density, Mid-Rise, Multiple Family Residential District, and B-2, Community Business District, or any other Appropriate Zoning District. Property located at 13 Mile Road and M-5 Connector

Joseph Galvin is present on behalf Hal Robinson and Jerry Gorsica who are trustees for the estate of Josephine Kovacs. Mr. Galvin reported Josephine Kovacs and her husband owned the property for which they seek rezoning since the late 1940's. Mr. Galvin noted Mrs. Kovacs is in a nursing home and her trustees are charged to do what a reasonably prudent trustee would do to maximize the value of the estate for Mrs. Kovacs’ benefit. According to the minutes, Mr. Galvin reported some Planning Commissioner’s do not believe the Master Plan zoning is appropriate for this one hundred and three acres. Mr. Galvin asked Council if RA, large lot single family is appropriate for this parcel. Mr. Galvin does not think large lot single family is appropriate because of the physical uses around it, the impact of the roadway and all of the physical constraints on the property (woodlands and wetlands). Mr. Galvin asked Council what zoning is appropriate for the property? Mr. Galvin asked Council to approve either the rezoning as requested or rezone the property to an appropriate use other than large lots.

Councilman Clark supports the Planning Commission and Planning Department’s recommendation to deny the request. Councilman Clark believes the request to change the zoning is in direct conflict with the city’s Master Plan. Councilman Clark believes the applicant’s argument is simply that it cannot be used as profitably as they would like. However, he believes the fact remains there is no valid indication they cannot develop it as it is currently master planned.

CM-97-10-336: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny Zoning Map Amendment 18.569 - 13 Mile Road and M-5 Connector from Residential Acreage (R-A) to High-Density, Mid-Rise, Multiple Family Residential District (RM-2) and Community Business District (B-2) or any other appropriate zoning district based on the Planning Commission and Department of Planning and Community Development recommendations

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the Master Plan and Zoning Committee is looking at this general area? She suggested that perhaps there are changed circumstances that may warrant a change of zoning. Mr. Wahl replied there is no committee looking at this particular area. He said Novi 20/20 was intended to look at this part of the community in terms of potential build out for raw land, but he is not certain what the boundary is for that. Mr. Wahl added they will soon begin a review of the Master Plan.

When the Master Plan review begins, Councilwoman Mutch asked if Council would be interested in suggesting that this particular area be included with the potential change in mind. Councilwoman Mutch is not saying that they should suggest a rezoning; she is saying because M-5 has a major impact, they still need to look at this area again to make certain that they should keep the zoning so they are in a stronger position when these requests come before them. Further, Councilwoman Mutch believes if they do not look at this more closely, they will continue to have these kinds of requests.

Mayor McLallen stated the staff has advised that the study of this area will not commence until next year. Mr. Wahl added it will be at least six months before they would have any information applicable to this area and a year from now before they would reach any conclusions.

Councilman Schmid will support the motion and added he agrees with comments made by Councilman Clark.

Councilman Mitzel will support the motion and added that Thirteen Mile and M-5 is an intersection and is not an interchange; the only interchange on M-5 is at Twelve Mile Road.

Nays: None

8. Architectural/Design Review Process

Mayor McLallen advised this is a request from the Planning and Community Development Department to Council to give some direction to their continued efforts to refine the process by which they review buildings. Mayor McLallen noted there has been a suggestion put forward to address this through the facade ordinance which is the only mechanism they are currently using for architectural review. To a further degree, the Mayor added it was suggested that they develop other standards and offer the potential for a board whose function would be to review architectural design within the city. Mayor McLallen reported staff requested that Council provide them some direction.

Councilman Mitzel asked Doug Necci if JCK & Associates followed up on any of Council’s requests during the Zoning Ordinance review process? Mr. Necci replied he was not directly involved in Mr. Rogers and Mr. Arroyo’s report. However, Mr. Necci noted he has some specific recommendations for the facade ordinance. Mr. Necci summarized his findings by first stating that he has been involved in the facade review process from a different perspective and it appeared to him that the way the present ordinance is working is not all bad. He believes a few buildings may have slipped through the cracks and from an architect’s point of view it is easily identifiable about what happened on those buildings. Mr. Necci reported when he conducts his initial review he is first faced with interpreting the facade chart and he only has latitude to enter into other dialogue when an applicant does not comply with that chart. Mr. Necci added that the discussion he has seen for waiver requests with the Planning Commission is successful. Mr. Necci would recommend that they put more specific requirements into the first step (color, massing, architectural principles of design, etc.). He also thinks they could simplify the chart and suggested that they create one, two or three architectural districts based on the amount of visibility instead of by zoning. Mr. Necci stated for the record that he views a review board as a last step for major projects or ones that they are unable to come to agreement on otherwise.

Councilman Mitzel asked if they would outline massing in the same way that Ms. Lemke has the different building types. Mr. Necci believes it provides an excellent framework and is more specific than he would get in the ordinance. Mr. Necci believes a general statement stating a building shall be in context with the surrounding area with respect to massing, height, bulk, site, site arrangement and he added he does not believe there is a need to elaborate with graphics.

Councilman Mitzel believes his position was summarized by Mr. Necci in that they should keep their framework in place. Councilman Mitzel is hesitant to add another review board because he believes it will add another layer of bureaucracy. Councilman Mitzel noted there was a recent case before Council (On the Border Cantina) where they had the opportunity to take advantage of the opportunity Mr. Necci mentioned when the applicant applied for a liquor license. Councilman Mitzel stated a liquor license requires that the architecture must be compatible with the surrounding architecture. Councilman Mitzel reminded Council that requirement is not in the city’s facade ordinance and he believes Mr. Necci summarized it clearly by stating if they could insert similar language within the facade ordinance with some reference to color, massing and so forth, and then examine the facade chart to see if there are any revisions that they should make. Councilman Mitzel believes this language would strengthen the ordinance and then it would be up to the appropriate body to enter into dialogue where applicable.

Councilman Kramer is not certain what the forum should be for architectural review, but he believes recent developments indicate a need for a more rigorous architectural review. Councilman Kramer believes the chart is a good foundation, but it is not sufficient because it lacks a definition for the character of the area. Councilman Kramer recalled there was a series of studies conducted (Urban Design Plan) that attempted to characterize different portions of the city. Councilman Kramer believes they need to provide some objectives and guidelines however they choose to conduct an architectural review. Councilman Kramer further believes the issue of gas stations needs to be addressed in particular. Councilman Kramer added he does not believe they should add to the length of time it takes to review a project and that they should conduct architectural review in parallel with the other review.

Mayor ProTem Crawford agrees with comments made by Mr. Necci and Councilman Mitzel, and he would not favor any level of further review.

Councilman Schmid is unhappy about some major architectural designs from a facade standpoint that have occurred during the last several months. Councilman Schmid cited Best Buy and the 52-1 District Courthouse as examples. Although Councilman Schmid would not like another board, he would like to hold somebody accountable. Councilman Schmid would like to see all brick on every commercial building because they last forever and offers flexible design opportunities. Councilman Schmid blames the people currently sitting in the Council Chamber for permitting those unattractive materials and therefore, he believes these same people should make solid recommendations about what they should allow.

Councilman Clark agrees with Councilman Schmid’s comments. However, he disagrees with his comment that a structure like Best Buy would be permitted in some industrial parks. Councilman Clark does not believe industrial parks would permit that type of structure. Further, he believes the Best Buy building is a disgrace to the community and is surprised that a company would want their logo on that type of structure. He added that he believes Councilman Schmid is correct in that they need to change the facade ordinance and further believes they should change the materials portion as quickly as possible. He believes the longer they put this off, the more open they are for further disasters like the Best Buy facade.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would like to move forward. He agrees there are a few problems and would recommend that they ask Mr. Necci and Mr. Wahl to come forward with the recommendations that Mr. Necci suggested. Further, Mayor ProTem Crawford would like to see a way to include someone with Mr. Necci’s qualifications in the process. Mayor ProTem Crawford does not believe the ordinance needs a major rewrite, but agrees they need a mechanism to trigger more input.

CM-97-10-337: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct staff in the Planning and Community Development Department, consultants and include Doug Necci of JCK & Associates in the review of the Architectural Design Review Process and incorporate appropriate language from Council discussion with a recommendation by a December 1997 Regular Council Meeting

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch was not present when they created the chart and she does not want to take away its importance. However, she believes they often think there are simplistic answers for complex problems. She explained if people conform to the percentages incorporated in the chart and they comply, it does not guarantee there is good design. Further, she noted there can be good designs that they make to comply with the chart and then they are no longer good architectural design. Councilwoman Mutch believes the idea that they can manufacture good design because of a formula is simplistic. Councilwoman Mutch agrees the facade chart needs work and that it also needs to reflect the introduction of other materials in the construction industry that were not used in the past. However, she restated she does not believe they can legislate good design. Further, Councilwoman Mutch does not believe they can fault those who review the projects for failures in the ordinance. Councilman Mutch reminded Council that as Mr. Necci stated, if a project complies he does not get the opportunity to comment. She suggested that they provide the opportunity for more comment on the design as suggested by Councilman Mitzel.

Mr. Wahl believes there is no other aspect of the planning process that has a more subjective element to it. Further, because Mr. Necci has dealt primarily with the technical aspects of the process, he would like to think that his research is pointed to that particular aspect. Mr. Wahl noted as an administrator, he is responsible for how the planning process works from the first step until its conclusion and believes having many opinions involved in this type of decision making is helpful to the process. Mr. Wahl explained the Planning Commission is currently involved during the last stages of the process and he hopes they can become involved earlier. Further, he would also like more input from citizens and nontechnical people.

Mayor McLallen believes Council has given a clear directive to staff and that they are to provide a clear process to address these problems. The Mayor added whether they adopt it is not the question. She explained as an administrator, Mr. Wahl and the three consultants have the opportunity to offer a solution to what they perceive as failures of the system. Mayor McLallen is not looking for citizen input and added they will take this matter to the citizens when that time comes. Mayor McLallen restated they are looking for professional assistance from the administrator and three consultants.

Nays: None

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked if anyone has formally communicated their dissatisfaction to Best Buy and suggested that they communicate with them in a positive way to encourage them to take whatever steps they can to improve upon their structure.

Jim Wahl advised it is his understanding that Don Saven has been in contact with the owners and a meeting is planned.

Councilman Mitzel believes a high level communication may be helpful.

Councilman Kramer concurred and suggested that they should also notify the corporation that this installation is not within the character of Novi.

9. Schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting for the purpose of Pending Litigation and Property Acquisition

CM-97-10-338: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting for the purpose of Pending Litigation and Property Acquisition

Nays: None

10. Sign Ordinance Discussion and Direction for Main Street Project

Jim Wahl advised they have held several meetings, and a report from Mr. Rogers and Mr. Saven is included in the packet. Mr. Wahl noted there are two phases and Mr. Rogers has already addressed the concept of having signage review as a part of the planning process instead of an administrative function of the Building Department. Mr. Wahl added it is his understanding that Building 100 still has signage needs that would need variances even with the drafted amendments because of its positioning in Main Street project. Mr. Wahl added their goal was to have an outline of an appropriate amendment to the sign ordinance so that the ZBA can act on the outstanding variance requests scheduled to come back to them at their next meeting on November 6. Mr. Wahl believes that having any ordinance amendments completed in time for that meeting is impractical, but further believes the board is agreeable to having a framework.

Councilman Schmid believes it is important for Mr. Rogers to present his proposal because there may be some issues they can discuss tonight.

Brandon Rogers highlighted his October 16, 1997 report and noted his recommended changes. Mr. Rogers added this would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance and would add another item to the site plan manual check list. In terms of the Main Street project, Mr. Rogers recommended that they delete the limitation of one-story building and say that each individual business may have a sign whether they are in a one or two-story building. Secondly, he would amend the ordinance to define a business center sign as either a ground pole, a monument sign or a wall sign limited to one. If they want to, Mr. Rogers advised they could require a variance. Further, if they removed the one-story limitation, they could allow one sign for each ground floor tenant or they could provide a directory in the lobby indicating the second floor tenants. Mr. Rogers agrees there is a need to advertise second floor tenancy, but stated they do not want to clutter the building with second story signage. Mr. Rogers does not recommend a change that would allow duplicate wall signage on two facades unless they are located on the corner of two major thoroughfares.

Councilman Schmid understands a single owner can have two signs, but if there are several businesses they cannot. Mr. Rogers agreed.

Councilman Schmid asked if signs that would identify it as "Main Street East" could be considered? Mr. Rogers agreed that might be a possibility, but they should keep in mind that they will have a ground monument sign on Grand River Avenue.

Mr. Rogers continued by stating the sign design is a judgmental decision. He explained the ordinance currently states that the signage must be of a common style and Mr. Chen would like a variety of signs.

Councilman Schmid believes the intent of Main Street is to simulate several different buildings as opposed to a strip mall and therefore, would justify the use of different signs.

Mr. Rogers believes that could be another amendment.

Mr. Rogers continued by addressing projecting signs and advised they already permit modest overhang signs on the right-of-way along Main Street. Mr. Rogers suggested that entry-level directory signs include some definition of the size. Mr. Rogers believes Mr. Chen indicated that there would be some kind of signage at the atrium entryway for the rear tenants on the first floor and for the second floor tenants. Mr. Rogers believes they can remedy many of the problems, but he does not want to cover up a well-designed building with a lot of signage. Mr. Rogers added there is an ad hoc committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow and they hope to have something formulated by the end of the week.

Councilman Mitzel agrees with the comments made about having a variety of sign styles because of the variety of facades. Councilman Mitzel’s goal for Main Street would be that the signage is attractive. He would also agree that a patron could find a business no matter where it is found in the building. Further, Councilman Mitzel believes this is similar to the facade ordinance in that making a table about what they would permit for attractive and effective signage in a neo-traditional downtown setting is difficult. Councilman Mitzel does not have any specific comments about Mr. Rogers’ recommendations, but he would say his general philosophy would be that the signage should be attractive and not overbearing. Mr. Rogers agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they should consider a review of the sign as part of the facade review. Mr. Rogers agreed and noted that is why he would like the signs to come forward during preliminary site plan review when they review conceptual facade and landscape plans.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council one of the recommendations is to bring a sign review into the process.

Councilwoman Mutch stated she is asking whether having them as part of the facade ordinance is reasonable. Mayor McLallen agreed, but added that is going to be a part of the ordinance review revision that they cannot accomplish tonight.

Councilwoman Mutch agrees buildings with street level commercial (i.e., restaurant) are well served by signs that identify their part of the building. However, she is not certain whether she is inclined to support the idea of providing a separate sign for offices occupying a second floor. Councilwoman Mutch would support a directory or lettered glass. Further, she believes the building name could help to identify where any tenant will be. For example, she explained if they permit the Main Street East Building to have a sign on the Grand River and above their main entrance on the west, she believes the tenants and developer will begin to promote the idea of identifying their location as the Main Street East Building in the Main Street area.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked for further definition of "way finding" signs within the complex. Mr. Rogers is not certain what Mr. Chen meant by that term. However, Mr. Rogers does know that patrons will enter an atrium and Mr. Chen suggested that they hang different signs with arrows for direction. Mayor ProTem Crawford thinks that type of signage is appropriate.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what is the process from here in terms of how does this process get implemented by the ZBA who wants some guidance? He asked if more "official" guidance must come from Council or do they advise the ZBA about what they are considering for the immediate problem understanding that they still need to discuss site plan review for the larger picture. Mr. Rogers believes Council must provide a little guidance tonight because he must go before the ZBA before Council meets again. Mr. Rogers noted the next ZBA meeting is scheduled Thursday, November 6, 1997.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated unless someone can point out a flaw in the recommendation, he would concur with most of Mr. Rogers proposed solutions. He added he believes this is a good place to start to solve the immediate problem and added that they may have to change something slightly.

Mr. Rogers noted the immediate problem is going to be solved by variances by the ZBA. Mayor ProTem Crawford added they still must provide guidelines to the ZBA. Mr. Rogers stated the consultants can then work with Mr. Fried’s office to develop a proposed ordinance amendment.

Mr. Wahl advised he was assigned to designate the Town Center Steering Committee as an ad hoc group to help resolve this matter. Mr. Wahl advised the committee was going to appoint an ad hoc group earlier this evening and meet whenever they could get the necessary people together. Mr. Wahl noted there are three Council members on the Town Center Steering Committee and if they are looking for more Council involvement to reduce the amount of variances to a few, he believes they would welcome that. However, if they would like to schedule a separate meeting, he would ask Council to have confidence that those who are working on it will come to the ZBA on November 6 with a well-rounded guideline.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would personally prefer to defer to that committee’s recommendation knowing that there are three Council members on it. Further, he believes they are all in agreement that they must do something for the immediate problem and this would be one way to facilitate this matter between now and the ZBA meeting.

Councilman Schmid believes they are very close to what Mr. Chen will agree to except for the commercial businesses within the building that are not on a ground floor. Councilman Schmid believes Mr. Chen would be satisfied with merely having names of the interior businesses in the front or on one of the windows. Finally, Councilman Schmid said they seem to say more often that the ZBA will resolve the matter and he reminded Council that the ZBA is only supposed to be acting on hardship cases.

Councilman Kramer agrees with Councilman Mitzel’s comments. He explained a downtown is something foreign to Novi and is against their traditional planning values (i.e., setbacks, greenspace, small signs, etc.). Councilman Kramer is not certain whether they need detailed signs, but agrees they must work together for the character of the downtown. Councilman Kramer added he did not find any of the sign examples offensive. Further, he agrees with Councilman Schmid in that Council should set the guidelines in terms of the character they are trying to support and provide direction to the other boards.

Councilman Clark concurs with Councilman Schmid and Mayor ProTem Crawford’s remarks.

Mr. Wahl added they will work closely with Mr. Chen and believes Councilman Mitzel’s point is well taken in that if there were no variances, legislation does not ensure attractiveness.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes that including years on the buildings for Main Street would be appropriate because they typically see them on older downtown buildings.

2. Approval of Ordinance No. 97-18.136-TC-1 Text Amendment to add a Definition of "Department Store" and to revise the standards for Retail Space within the TC-1 Zoning District - II Reading and Final Adoption (Continued)

Mr. Arroyo referred to a separate page 2 that reflect the changes in the draft currently before Council where crossing through items indicate they would be removed and a double underline indicates new sections. Mr. Arroyo noted the rewording of the first change, the minor changes regarding striking internal walls and vertical elements, and a clarification regarding pedestrian entrances. Further, under the recommendation of Mr. Fried and Councilman Mitzel, they clarified about what development means with the phrase, "as shown on an approved site plan."

CM-97-10-339: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve TC-1 Text Amendment, Ordinance 97-18 - Second Reading with the revisions provided

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes "an approved site plan" should read "the approved site plan." Mr. Fried agreed.

Nays: None

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION

2. Schedule a Special Meeting of the City Council for 7:30 P.M. in the Council Annex Room Monday, October 27, 1997 for the purpose of Appointed Officials Reviews

Mayor McLallen reminded Council she is collecting appointed officials reviews. Further, the Mayor reported she was advised that to add any other item to a Special Meeting agenda it has to be on the agenda when they announce the meeting because they cannot amend it at the meeting. Mayor McLallen advised that she asked Mr. Fried to prepare a position for Council regarding guidelines they will follow when they meet in a goal session. She reminded Council they must conduct a goal session early in December, but if they wait, they may delay the meeting. Therefore, she would like to add this item to the Special Meeting Agenda.

Councilman Kramer asked if both of those subjects are appropriate to hold in the Council Annex? Mayor McLallen advised personnel matters may be private, but the goal session will be public.

CM-97-10-340: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add Goal Session Guidelines as Item 1 to October 27, 1997 Special Meeting Agenda

Councilman Mitzel advised the Housing Community Development Committee met last week and the status of the lake property was brought forward at that meeting. Councilman Mitzel explained they could apply funds from the HCD Block Grant to that property, but the committee was hesitant to recommend anything until Council makes some formal determination or takes action on the Lake Property Committee Report which discussed a banquet facility. Councilman Mitzel noted the site has vastly improved since a year ago and people are using it for public open space.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Councilman Clark asked Mr. Kriewall to address the letter in the packet from Jack and Susan Couzens regarding the status of the gypsy moth control. Mr. Kriewall believes Mr. Pargoff provided a status report a couple of weeks ago and he will forward it to Mr. & Mrs. Couzens.

Councilman Kramer would like further clarification of a 2,000 person capacity aquatic facility because he does not believe that is the scope of the facility. Councilman Kramer explained 2,000 people per day using the facility is quite a bit different than the number of people who would actually be there at one time.

Councilman Schmid asked if the statement made during Audience Participation about the literature for the aquatic facility is accurate? Mayor McLallen believes the person was referring to the literature available at the Senior Pancake Dinner sponsored by Parks and Recreation. She understands someone from the opposing viewpoint added their literature to the table.

Councilman Schmid asked if the literature was specifically directed to the seniors? Mayor McLallen does not believe it was.

Mr. Kriewall reported the ice arena is progressing rapidly and they are ahead of schedule at this point.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

PRESENTATIONS:

B. Councilman Mitzel

Mayor McLallen stated she believes Councilmen Clark and Mitzel represent most closely the ideal of a citizen’s public servant. She explained they come prepared to do Council business, have specific insight and integrity and thanked them for their service. Mayor McLallen then read the sentiment on the proclamations.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated he has already privately expressed to both councilmen that he will miss both of them and he appreciates their contribution to Council.

Councilman Kramer believes both councilmen have brought unique characteristics and backgrounds to Council while still working well as a group. Councilman Kramer wished them both continued luck and success outside the Council.

Councilman Schmid stated Councilman Mitzel was a good councilman in that he brought many issues to the table. Further, Councilman Schmid stated he has enjoyed working with Councilman Clark and noted that he also served well on the Planning Commission. Councilman Schmid appreciates the fact that Councilman Clark makes a decision and there is no doubt how he feels. Councilman Schmid believes both councilmen could have easily been reelected had they run and added they will both be missed.

Councilwoman Mutch stated Dick Clark’s standard for treating people was a model for her when she was first appointed to the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Mutch advised she met Rob Mitzel’s parents when they first moved to Novi and as she met the rest of his family, she realized one of the things that makes him who he is, is his family. Councilwoman Mutch complimented Councilman Mitzel’s parents for the fine job they did with all of their sons and added the Mitzel family is an example of what makes Novi a community where everyone would like to live. Further, Councilwoman Mutch is thankful that Councilman Mitzel has had the inclination, gave the time and the temperament to serve the community, and she will miss him.

Mayor McLallen believes this has been one of the most effective and pleasant Council’s and she does not want to see it end. The Mayor believes if future Council’s can respect themselves as individuals as well as this group has, the city will continue to be well served. On behalf of the citizens, the Mayor thanked both councilmen for their service.

COMMUNICATIONS

1. Letter from Mr. Joseph Marcucci to City Council, Re: Late Payment for Taxes

2. Resolution from City Ferndale, Re: Support of legislation to require MDOT to notify local units of government regarding any sale of MDOT property within the corporate limits of the municipality.

3. Letter from City Attorney Fried to City Council, Re: Walden Woods I - Roads

4. Letter from Linda Lemke & Chris Pargoff to City Council, Re: Westmont Village Subdivision No. 2

5. Memorandum from D.P.S. Director Nowicki to City Manager Kriewall, Re: Addington Subdivision Backyard Drainage

6. Letter from Jack and Susan Couzens to City Council, Re: Gypsy Moth Control

7. Willowbrook and Ten Mile Road Traffic Report

8. SCAT System at Twelve Oaks Mall Report

9. Report on Water Hook-up Fees for Richard Bond - Nine Mile Road Water Connection

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes