Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:36 PM.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Council Members Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo

Mrs. Cornelius reminded Council it was noted in the last joint Historical Commission and Council meeting to plan an additional brainstorming session. This was added as Item 11 under Matters for Council Action Part II.

The following items were added under Mayor and Council Issues:

Item #2 Coordinated Planning Bill – Northville Twp. Invitation meeting - Member Bononi

Item #3 Status of Baseline Environmental Assessment MDEQ – Livonia - Re: Jaguar –

Member Bononi

Item #4 Soil Erosion Policy Administrative Citation Tools – Member Kramer

Mr. Maurice said this is a component of the Stormwater General Permit used to locate illicit discharges and connections into the storm drain system that should go somewhere else. The next phase of the Stormwater Permit is the Sub-watershed Management Plan and a Pollution Prevention Initiative. The Sub-watershed Management Plan is an outline of the goals, objectives, and problems faced in the Rouge River Watershed that resulted in pollution. Eventually they would be pulling things from the Pollution Prevention Initiative for the community of Novi. Tonight the Sub-watershed Management Plan would be discussed and Council would be given a broad overview of things to be pulled out to implement at the City level.

Karen Shaw presented an outline on Rouge River Middle 1 Sub-watershed Plan. The Rouge River Watershed was between the Huron River Watershed, Clinton River Watershed, Raisin River Watershed and southeast Michigan. Novi is part of the Huron River and Rouge River

Watersheds with 70% of the City in the Rouge River Watershed. The Middle 1 is a subset of the larger watershed and included Oakland, Wayne and Washtenaw counties and 13 communities.

In 1972 the Clean Water Act was adopted and in 1989 the Remedial Action Plans were created. In 1992 the EPA became involved, the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project was created, and in 1996 the Rouge River communities were named in a Federal lawsuit to restore the Rouge River. They are pro-actively involved in that case and are cleaning up the Rouge River. In 1997 they started working as Sub-watershed Advisory Groups and broke down into 7 groups called (SWAGS). In 1999 all of those groups and their communities got Certificates of Coverage under the Michigan Voluntary General Stormwater Permit and there had been Federal funding to deal with some of the financial burdens that come with stormwater management. In 2002 the US EPA is going to begin regulating National Discharge Elimination System Phase II which would deal with all the non-point source pollution and would be regulated in 2002. The EPA, because of the Michigan Voluntary General Stormwater Permit, has agreed we are in compliance with Phase II regulations.

Ms. Shaw said the basic components to the General Storm Water Permit are to eliminate illicit discharges, educate the public, develop a sub-watershed plan, and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Initiative. First, they reviewed the available scientific data, and then made decisions and prioritized some of the problems in the watershed. They developed a sub-watershed action plan and from this they would develop pollution prevention initiatives and a plan for monitoring progress toward their goals of restoring the river. Novi is in the headwaters of the Huron and Rouge Rivers and there is a lot of opportunity for protection.

Ms. Shaw said the key problems were the flow needed to be controlled, non-point source pollution needed to be prevented, aesthetics improved, and uses of the river and the habitat protected and restored to natural systems.

Ms. Shaw said their vision was to have people see and enjoy the river as a community amenity and protect those natural resources. Their goals included reduce flow variability, reduce nutrient loading, reduce soil erosion and sedimentation, protect and mitigate the loss of natural features and increase opportunities for passive and active recreational uses. They also want to increase the water quality and biological monitoring, increase public understanding of their role, integrate all of these practices into planning, establish financial arrangements and increase enforceability and accountability for stormwater management in every community. They have the challenge of stabilizing stream banks, vegetate riparian areas, nutrient and fertilizer reduction, cleaning of streets, improve treatment and detention systems on development sites, sewer system and septic maintenance and improving fish, wildlife and aquatic insect habitat. Financial resources include the Rouge Program Office, Clean Michigan Initiative, and Michigan Natural Resource Trust Fund for Recreational Opportunities. Often partnerships such as watersheds and sub-watersheds have good eligibility for these kinds of grants.

Throughout the next few months they would be asking the public, SWAG and Council to look at these plan documents. In May of 2001the plan will be submitted to MDEQ for comments and throughout the fall and winter they would be working on Stormwater Pollution Prevention Initiatives, which is the community’s specific action plan with tasks, cost estimates, parties responsible, etc. The web site for more information is www.rougeriver.com.

Member DeRoche noted he had information from the annual meeting of SEMCOG he would make available to Council.

Mayor Clark read the Proclamation and proclaimed the week of April 15 through April 22, 2001 as Days of Remembrance. The proclamation was in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and in honor of the survivors as well as the rescuers and liberators.

Mr. Fisher reported on the drainage issues of the Miron property. He noted an understanding had been reached with the Mirons and the City has a substantial portion

of the money to install a 42 inch line that the City engineer believed would solve the drainage issue in this location.

City engineer believed would solve the drainage issue in that location. There was also an understanding with the Mirons with regard to execution of the easement. It had been reported to Mr. Fisher by the Mirons’ counsel that we are in conceptual agreement and he was waiting to receive from them a signed copy of a letter and then move to the execution of the easement to put this behind us.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked why a drainage easement wasn’t contemplated when the Mirons applied for a building permit? Mr. Fisher speculated that this property was not part of a flood plain, and at that point in time, the City might not have been able to make the prediction that it would flood. Mr. Fisher did not believe this was a situation where the City had a liability. He knew that the Building Department went to great lengths to avoid these kinds of situations and obviously this is one the procedures didn’t pick up. She felt Council needed to find out why and asked for answers to her questions.

Member Csordas said it was determined the City was not at fault and the decision was made by reviewing records of the process from the beginning until now. Why, if all the processes were followed are the rest of the taxpayers being forced to pay for this remedy? He asked what this cost? Mr. Fisher thought the total cost was about $40,000 with $20,000 being paid by the adjoining private property owner and the other $20,000 being paid by the taxpayers. Member Csordas did not follow the logic of paying for this when the City was not at fault nor did he follow the logic of why every time it rained the DPW was present to assist the property owner to get the water off that property. Why is this going to cost $40,000? Mr. Fisher said the private property owner and adjoining property owner was paying $20,000 and we have applied for and received a grant that would pay for a substantial amount if not the entire balance of the monies. Monies are being expended for one individual property owner and the only answer he had was that it was an ongoing problem and was crying out for a solution that the property owner could not do on his own so the City decided to help that property owner.

Mr. Nowicki noted the overall project was about $86,000. A grant was applied for through the Michigan State Police and Federal Emergency Management Agency for hazard mitigation on that project. A pre-application had been sent in and they had been approved at the first step. The next step would be a detailed cost benefit analysis to be provided to the police and once submitted the City would hear in early summer whether the grant would be awarded. He had been told that the State Police were looking favorably on this project. Member Csordas asked why the taxpayers should pay one cent for an issue that was not a City issue? Mr. Helwig said this drain encroached on the Miron property but basically went under the road providing drainage elsewhere. This is a desirable improvement in any event. Mr. Nowicki said it is a pre-existing drain and the developer was committed to pay for the installation of a 21-inch pipe. The City increased it to a 42-inch pipe to bring it up to a 100-year flood elevation. The City would be contributing the same as they would contribute in any other upsizing situation to bring it up to 100-year flood elevation. It is done on road projects and many other storm drain projects that they want to make sure the 100-year flows are conveyed through the system.

Member Csordas took no issue with that and felt it was a function that the City should be responsible for. He said it was not a flood plane and if the home had been built one foot

higher, which could have been a part of their due diligence, this never would have been an issue. He asked that this be checked out. Why would the City pay for all those trees and what do trees have to do with this?

Mr. Fisher said it was part of the reclamation because when the City went onto their property an existing berm would be disturbed and trees would be taken out. Member Csordas thought this was wrong and did not see any reason the taxpayers should bear the burden of this. He had no problem with the infrastructure improvement but to make pretty after that. He felt the City and taxpayers were being punished for something that was through no fault of their own.

Jim Korte, Shawood Lake, commented on the first two items on Matters for Council Action Part I, which was the ROW Licensing Agreement with Anthony Kruvelis and ROW Licensing Agreement with James and Lori Sutton.

Mr. Korte spoke regarding the Maudlin/LeMay property. He felt the fire hydrant should not have been placed where it was and should be moved and the boulders had to go. All parking problems on the east side of Austin could be remedied but not on the west side because they are on the side of a hill. Austin now has the only "No On Street Parking" signs at the north end and it solved the problem.

The Sutton berm encumbrances Mr. Korte at 2022 and 2026 Austin and when the water main went in, the graded road width lessened. Mr. Korte’s property was at 15 and he felt that 15 feet opposite 2022 Austin was unacceptable to back out of the driveway. There is a brick wall about 5 feet in the City road right-of-way, and he had no problem with the wall but did with the 3 feet in front of the wall. There are two homes north of him that were in the road more than he was. Down by 2293/2295, one house is in the City right of way by 20 feet. If we allow the 5-foot encroachment we are back to the status quo and double parking. He asked Council to get rid of the 5 feet and let the man have what had always existed and it would solve the problems.

James Sutton resides at 2270 Crown and owns the property at 2027 Austin. Mr. Sutton thought it was the property Mr. Korte alluded to regarding the five feet. He said what Mr. Korte was talking about regarding feet made no sense according to staked property markers. He said the grass and brick wall had existed there for quite some time and had about 3 feet of the ROW. He said what was done did not protrude into the road and was more uniform and consistent with the topography of the lot and the land. Mr. Sutton went to the Building Department before landscaping to ask what he needed and was told he needed nothing. He felt the property markers would be more accurate than Mr. Korte. The berm did not impede anything, improved the area, and was not a danger to anyone and he asked Council to consider issuing him the license agreement.

Nader Haddeed 29725 Lilley Trail Drive, represented the Lilley Pond Homeowners Association and spoke about the development proposed for North Haven Woods. He said

even though they would like a larger back yard and felt more trees should have been removed the builder, before and after development, was adamant that trees and wetlands could not be tampered with. He said the developer still drove through and looked out for the subdivision, in regard to tree removal and wetland tampering, even though it had been turned over to the association. He felt special consideration should be made for the developer and the builder as he had exercised and shown his commitment to the protection of the wetlands and the trees.

Debbie Bundoff, Novi and 12 Mile Road, stated last June she asked Council and Mr. Helwig about a permit she had heard about with regard to the 12 Mile Road expansion. She found out earlier this year the permit had been denied in June 2000. She found out in March the permit had been approved by the DEQ and she wanted to know what the square footage was and the location approved for the fill in regard to the 12-Mile project. She stated the DEQ couldn’t give her this information.

To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

1. Approve Minutes of:

1. March 15, 2001, Joint meeting with Historical Commission
2. March 19, 2001, Regular meeting

1. Award bid for Parks & Recreation Brochure to Kimcraft, the low bidder, in the annual estimated amount of $32,000.
2. Approval to purchase Replacement Portable Sanitary Sewer Flow Meters from Marsh McBirney, in the amount of $35,950.
3. Approval to purchase Confined Space Equipment from Apollo Fire Equipment, a sole source vendor, in the amount of $7,210.
4. Approval to purchase Gas Monitors from Argus Supply Company, the low proposal, in the amount of $4,125.66.
5. Approve request for renewal of Massage Business License for Visions Salon, 22002 Novi Road.
6. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No.594

1. Consideration of Right-of-Way Licensing Agreement with Anthony Kruvelis, 132 Maudlin, for landscape boulders.

Member Csordas felt that every house on the street had encroached the roadway. He thought the applicant was being singled out because there were other houses on that street that had encroached the ROW. He noted four houses north of this property there are two railroad ties stacked on top of each other and back filled with dirt and a lawn planted which was farther out

 

 

than the boulders. Directly across the street there is a mailbox in the ROW with broken concrete piled up three feet high. In another place there are five boulders bigger than the applicants boulders almost sitting on the road. We have liability on every single lot on that street and possibly the entire subdivision area. He asked why this applicant was being singled out and discriminated against when no one else complied? He felt signing an agreement would open the City up for liability.

CM-01-04-080 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

To deny the licensing agreement and to proceed with an

investigation with regard to all the impediments in the ROW and

make a recommendation as to how to deal with them.

DISCUSSION

Member Bononi asked if Council added to the motion "don’t require this applicant do anything else", what situation would that put the City in with regard to the other impediments or encroachments in the ROW should there be a legal claim with regard to any or all of them?

Mr. Fisher said based upon the record the City was on notice of this issue and the potentially dangerous situation on this and other properties in the area. He thought, at minimum, if Council did not enter into the agreement it would be worthwhile to do some analysis with a report back to Council regarding what type of danger did exist and then devise an action plan that would alleviate the danger.

Member Bononi said then we would entertain a motion to deny the licensing agreement and to proceed with an investigation with regard to all the impediments in the ROW and make a recommendation as to how to deal with them. Member Csordas agreed.

Mayor Clark asked if the Risk Management Group should be doing this? Mr. Fisher said yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo agreed with Member Csordas and asked if Council did require the impediments to be removed would they ask the homeowner to repair any damages done to what was technically City property? She suggested that if we are not allowing these impediments then perhaps a policy was needed that said if someone ran over their lawn the City would repair the ROW. Mr. Fisher thought it was important to distinguish between various types of encroachments and was sure the Risk Manager would feel the same way. There could be various types of demarcation that would designate the beginning and end of the traveled portion of the roadway that would not result in something that was inherently dangerous to travel on the road. Boulders are obviously inherently dangerous to life and property. There are other methods of demarcation that might not have the same impact.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo stated she would support the motion.

Member DeRoche agreed with the motion and previous Members and felt it was an appropriate way to handle it. He felt that residents might not want the road put where the road was supposed to be.

 

 

 

Member Kramer thought that the citizens of the area could help. For example, if the residents do not wish to become active in discussion of this perhaps a street committee would be interested. We should try to work with the residents and find out what they want their

community to be and if the road meanders a little and they are happy with that then perhaps that is where the road should be. He thought perhaps the neighborhood coordinator could be of some help to see whether they wanted to establish a character for their subdivision or street that would be supported by their residents and would be reasonable. It would be better that the residents do this rather than have it done by ordinance which would apply to the City and would not be applicable.

Roll call vote on CM-01-04-080 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche,

Kramer, Clark

Nays: None

2. Consideration of Right-of-Way Licensing Agreement with James D. and Lori A. Sutton, 2027 Austin, for landscape berm.

CM-01-04-081 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To deny the licensing agreement and direct the

Administration not to take action to property owners James D and

Lori A. Sutton as it pertained to the existing landscaping berm

and that administration not make any directive to change the

property owners berming until a citywide policy is done.

DISCUSSION

Mayor Clark assumed that the matter would then come back to Council. Member DeRoche said no. Mayor Clark was concerned that if Council Members changed they would not want the homeowner left with the impression that the City was not going to do anything and then another Council would feel that this should have been taken care of long ago and would impose something.

Member DeRoche agreed Mayor Clark had a valid point. He removed the wording that said "until" etc. and added "not to make any directive to change the property owners berming until a City wide policy is done." Member Csordas accepted the change in the motion.

Member Kramer did not think a citywide policy would be uniformly equitable to all the neighborhoods in the Walled Lake area. He would rather it be targeted at neighborhoods in the north area and would not support the motion for that reason.

Member DeRoche said the motion removed that consideration from this particular project so future City Councils could take initiative on this if they chose to but it would not come back to this Council for a citywide process anymore.

Mayor Clark explained the motion and Member Kramer now agreed.

Member Bononi said the initial authority to make the decision with regard to matters like these was with the Building Department. That was not to say that any citizen who disagreed with that opinion could not bring forward another opinion or ask for another recourse. However, not

to have a consistent point of view on how we address these questions with the Building

Department was doing a disservice to all of us in trying to get a method to address these

requests consistently and that would be her goal. She discussed this with Mr. Helwig and asked if the Building Department could pursue that.

Roll call vote on CM-01-04-081 Yeas: Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer,

Clark, Lorenzo

Nays: None

3. Approval of Twelve Mile Road Improvement-Supplemental Construction Agreement with PLC (Special Assessment District No. 155).

Mr. Fisher said this item and Items 4 and 5 relate to SAD 155 and the Twelve Mile Road and other roadway improvement project. It all arises out of negotiation and agreement entered into some time ago for those road improvements particularly on Twelve Mile Road west of Novi Road, including the Novi Road and Twelve Mile Road intersection and for a short distance on Twelve Mile Road east of Novi Road.

He and the administration had been meeting with PLC, the other contracting party and the developer of the Fountain Park Project that is paying for these road improvements. Also, the Twelve Mile Road Gap Project has come onto the scene and picked up on the east end of the project and continued east. These two projects would have to be coordinated where they intercept.

Also, further cost detail had become available and various regulations from governmental entities have been modified resulting in some additional costs in the project. He thought it would be prudent to try to amend the agreement to do two things:

1. To assure that if there are cost overruns on this project that we have the ability to get the

project completed and have some assurance that to the extent that there is an overrun beyond the current SAD they would have the ability to impose a supplemental SAD relative to construction. They would like to achieve this through this amendment.

2. To coordinate, between the Twelve Mile Gap Project and this Twelve Mile Road

improvement generally. The coordination really got into the intersecting area. The RCOC

would be bidding the Twelve Mile Road Gap Project and there might be an advantage cost wise and coordination wise if the RCOC could also bid segments of the Twelve Mile Road SAD 155 project, particularly the intersection and the portion to the east where the two projects come together. This would be a possibility and the contractor PLC was fully on

board with the idea of saving money and coordination. All of this is interwoven with the notion that we want to get this project done this year.

They have a conceptual understanding with PLC, each day the project is not resolved, for purposes of this agreement, and wetland mitigation agreement, it lessened the chances of it being done this year.

Mr. Fisher asked Council to approve the agreement with the understanding they needed to finalize negotiations and the administration would have the authority to button down non-

material aspects of the agreement in terms of language, dates, etc. but not dollar amounts or responsibilities so it could be moved forward as quickly as possible.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she would not support this agreement. She was concerned about coordinating two road projects. She asked what happened if PLC wanted to go to bid with the Gap and the Gap got embroiled in ROW acquisitions and that part of the project got

delayed? If PLC agreed to this it had to be clear that if there were such delays we would not be at burden for that. She was not sure of the viability of the project in these economic times.

She asked if the cost overruns were not in the SAD agreement who would be obligated for them?

Mr. Fisher said PLC would be responsible. However, there had been a contract for some time that contemplated this road project being done at a fixed cost to the City and that fixed cost was used as the basis for issuing the bonds. She said if the project failed and PLC defaulted it would be the responsibility of the City because the bonds pledged the full faith and credit of the City. Mr. Fisher said absolutely as in the case with other SAD’s. In that instance we would assess the property and pay the bonds as they come due. We have that right up to the $10,626,574 and could make an argument we could do that beyond that amount. He wanted to make it clearer and that was his objective.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo reiterated any cost overruns are the responsibility of PLC and the City is responsible full faith and credit only up to $18.4 million and anything beyond that is PLC. Mr. Fisher said correct. She said in this First Amendment F that "now it would become part of the SAD "which she felt would make it again a part of the full faith and credit of the City beyond $18.4 million.

Mr. Fisher said it could if bonds were issued for that purpose. He stated there is a limit built into this arrangement with a proviso for a supplemental SAD or bonds could be issued to the extent that we were not assured that the value of the property didn’t sustain the SAD. She asked if the property would have to be sold? He said it was conceivable but thought the county would pay and the property would be sold. When there is a delinquent SAD the debt went on the delinquent tax roll and the property is sold by the county for taxes.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it said "such additional amounts shall be assessed" and asked if it wouldn’t be better to say "may"? Mr. Fisher said they negotiated on that word and putting yourself in the position of the contractor for a moment they want to make sure they can complete and have the ability to have all the money available to them. They were very strong on this point. She said she was strong on the word "may" and she did not see a cap on this. Mr. Fisher said the cap was the value of the property and as the property improved the value would go up. He said the first tenant has a move in date in October or November and he would be surprised if any additional monies would be needed on the project before that. She asked if we knew the financial status of PLC? Mr. Fisher said no and that was one of the major points of this. We are making no reliance upon their financial stability as an entity. We

have to assume that if this goes south they would be financially responsible and that is why we are attempting to obtain the security of the land.

Member Bononi asked why the Twelve Mile Road Gap was being included with regard to SAD 155 when he said the only reason it was being included at all was reference by coordination?

Mr. Fisher said the only way this could work out was if the RCOC bid projects separately they would have to define the limits for each of those projects so it could be defined how much money, in the project, was allocated to each portion of it. Then when the RCOC went out for

bids on segments of the project the bids would be compared to how much was allocated for each segment of the project and they would determine which way would be the most favorable financially.

Member Bononi asked why we would presume the county would be the winning bidder on this job? Mr. Fisher said it is anticipated this will happen and it will be bid as a unit cost project and bidding it in that manner might result in some savings particularly if a common contractor does the whole thing.

Member Bononi, referring to Mr. Fisher’s letter of March 29, 2001, asked if he knew the dollar amount of the cost overruns? Mr. Fisher said, with the exception of requirements that might be imposed by the State, it would appear from reports that it is $1.5 million to $2 million.

Mr. Helwig said there was a contingency amount of $627,000, which had not been tapped yet. PLC was nervous because they heard rumblings from the State regarding additional requirements for the additional lane for the I-96 off ramp. In terms of all the other categories right now there are no overruns and the acquisitions came in under budget and they have not tapped the contingency account.

Member Bononi, again referring to the 3^rd paragraph and last sentence of the letter, asked who was paying interest on the money the City is fronting? Mr. Fisher said PLC at the SAD rate of just under 5%.

Member Bononi moved onto the First Amendment to the Supplemental Specification Introductory Recitation, A. and asked why the information wasn’t shown and who the engineer was. Mr. Fisher said the engineers are Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout and some of these items are new regulations or requirements imposed upon us such as certain drainage basins in the area of $150,000 a piece, road commission traffic lighting improvements and wetland mitigation that was not anticipated.

Member Bononi, on page 2 Item #1, asked what approvals were needed by the State of Michigan? Mr. Fisher said the State approvals included three items that is the MDOT requirement that related to an on ramp for the freeway that they are redoing.

Member Bononi, page 2 Item #4, pertaining to discretionary component, asked if there was a fee maximum in the event it was brought to Council? Mr. Fisher said if they did any change order in excess of 10% under the City’s standing change order policy it would have to come

before Council. There are two requirements, if the change order contemplates a change in the scope of the project or an inaggregate increase of 10% then it would come back to Council otherwise, it would go to the Director of Public Services.

Member Bononi asked, regarding First Amendment F and G was it up to the City to determine whether or not the value regarding the total assessment of the property was there. Do we have a written document that the value of the property is there? Mr. Fisher said some analysis was made when the contract was entered into that satisfied the issue of whether or not there was sufficient value for the bond that was issued. If additional monies need to be drawn they

would have to make the decision whether or not to front the monies and an independent analysis would have to be done at that time.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if Ms. Bundoff received her information. Mr. Fisher was not sure. She said if Ms. Bundoff was not included in this process she was extremely disappointed. This was on her property and we are making application to MDEQ and filling in

wetlands on her property and we don’t even give the courtesy of notifying and showing exactly what is going on here?

Mr. Nowicki said the filling of the wetland would occur on the property that the City was contemplating purchasing and currently discussing with Ms. Bundoff. The wetland being filled would take place in ROW after it was purchased. She said right now it is Ms. Bundoff’s property and we have taken application to MDEQ on a piece of property the City does not own and haven’t been giving this property owner all of the information pertaining to her property. Mr. Nowicki said Ms. Bundoff had copies of the permits, she received a notice from the MDEQ and he has had numerous discussions with Ms. Bundoff as well as with the engineer and Ms. Bundoff. He talked to her this evening, he heard of it today, and he made arrangements to discuss with her some of these issues tomorrow. Mr. Nowicki said Ms. Bundoff had received copies of the plans, maps, and has had meetings with the engineer who prepared the plans. Mr. Nowicki, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Schultz had sat in on those meetings.

Mayor Clark stated it was not the function to grill Mr. Nowicki here tonight. He said Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo’s point was well taken and Mr. Nowicki had shared with Ms. Bundoff everything he had received from MDEQ, had meetings with her and the attorneys and he felt they had done everything that a reasonably prudent person could do. When information was received

It was shared with Ms. Bundoff and that would continue. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo still felt that a map should have been prepared for Ms. Bundoff showing in detail how much of her property would be filled.

Mr. Helwig said Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Fisher have spent hours with Ms. Bundoff. Ms. Bundoff is trying to maximize the amount of money she would receive from this acquisition. He was just as concerned that she did not phone after the hours spent with our agents trying to consummate this beyond fairness for her property and that she made a public issue of this tonight, when in fact every document is a public document. It is a policy of this staff to not only release all public documents but to also deal with our citizenry with dignity. He had witnessed that both Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Fisher had done that. The dynamic going on here is trying to maximize the value of land that the City needed to proceed with the public improvement that would benefit everyone in this community. Ms. Bundoff could have called and he felt it was her obligation after all the hours and evenings upon evenings that had been spent with this property owner.

Member DeRoche thanked Mr. Helwig for his comments and fairness to our employees. He thanked Mr. Nowicki for being diligent.

Member Bononi asked Mr. Nowicki if he was satisfied that the price appropriated for this mitigation was reasonable and equitable? Mr. Nowicki believed it was. In fact the dollar amount originally estimated wetland mitigation came in considerably less. Member Bononi asked who would review the sufficiency of the mitigation project designed by JCK? Mr. Nowicki said the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality would act on behalf of the MDEQ to permit the activity. She said we have no City reviewer? Mr. Nowicki said staff would review it to the best of their ability. No independent would review it. Member Bononi said MDEQ was requiring a fee for failure to thrive. She asked if the City would require a performance bond to be held for a minimum of two years to make sure that any and all other considerations with regard to this mitigated wetlands failure to thrive would be insured and not passed onto the taxpayers? Mr. Nowicki could not recall the exact dollar amount of the performance bond but it was part of their discussions with Ramco-Gershenson

early on, and they would pay for five years of monitoring for that wetland environment as well as be required to mitigate any damages or failure to thrive. She did not see that language in this document and requested to see it and the dollar amount of the performance bond. She was disappointed with regard to the City using its resources to benefit a private developer when we might want to consider projects we want to do and use City owned land as mitigation bank.

To approve the Resolution accepting the Warranty Deed for property

James Sutton, wanted to comment on his application for a licensing agreement. He stated that he felt the City Administration totally undermined everybody he came in contact with. JCK came out and said they didn’t understand why they were doing this. He talked with Mr. Morrone for a half-hour to determine what he needed and Mr. Morrone told him he didn’t need anything. Also, the DPW field people who came out stated they didn’t see what was wrong and didn’t understand what was going on.

Mr. Sutton stated he called Mr. Pearson and asked why these people were being undermined and why these employees were not allowed to do their job. He also asked him why the City Management was pressuring them to get an answer on it. He asked why other complaints regarding Mr. Korte weren’t addressed and was told they were put on the back burner. Mr. Sutton claimed he was told it wasn’t his business how the City was run. Mr. Sutton had requested to talk with Mr. Helwig and had made calls to him but had not been acknowledged. He didn’t know what the City Manager knew about all these things but felt he undermined the decisions and views of all these other employees involved in this case. He thought something should be implemented with fairness about who gets what regarding the ROW.

Mr. Sutton attended a meeting on January 22, 2001 and asked a series of questions. When he was finished nothing was said and Council moved on to other business. Later in the meeting Mr. Sutton received a generic answer. Mr. Sutton then commented that it was a serious situation and had nothing to do with this "neighborhood dispute" but was the way the City had been treating him and Mr. Korte.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Sutton to confine his discussion to his own property. The purpose tonight was to make sure that they create a policy that would be fair and equitable to every citizen and that no one would be singled out for preferential or disparate treatment.

Mr. Sutton said he felt he had been hammered for one little thing and nothing had been done to Mr. Korte. He showed pictures to Council. He said they were not looking at an inner-City ghetto but at Mr. Korte’s property and what his neighborhood had to look at. He said the City had a file on all these properties. He filed a complaint in January and nothing had been done. Mr. Sutton stated Mr. Korte had been a violator for 27 years, and every single building inspector he spoke with has a history with Mr. Korte and still nothing’s been done. He felt it was discriminatory practice to allow Mr. Korte’s properties to be in violation. It is known that the City is aware of this. The house these tenants are in, for more than 6 months and has multiple violations. It states not to be occupied and no certificate of occupancy issued until corrections are made. Nothing has been corrected and nothing’s been done.

Mayor Clark assured Mr. Sutton that when the neighborhood survey came back everyone would be treated equally. Mr. Sutton said he was not talking about the survey. Mayor Clark said the purpose of the survey was to give Council a grasp of the problems on all the properties.

Mr. Sutton said that did not answer the question of why he was being hammered for one violation in one year and it was a fact that Mr. Korte’s file contained unresolved violations. He said it had to be dealt with because it was discriminatory.

Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer

Mr. Fisher advised Council this had been pending for a while and they had analyzed this for the purpose of ascertaining whether all the necessary requirements had been met for dedication and acceptance. There was some discussion during the course of this

development that there was adequate title work and we would be getting good title with the warranty deed. They had not been able to find the written documentation that supported that so he asked that the approval of this be subject to his verification of title. The motion maker agreed, as did the seconder.

Member Cassis asked if the residents of the subdivision would be notified that the roads would be accepted? He said there was a subdivision a while ago where the roads were accepted but the final layer to finish the road surface had not been put down and the developer was gone. Mr. Fisher said they were not given any other notice than it was recorded with the Register of Deeds. Member Cassis was concerned and felt the residents should be asked if they are satisfied with everything that had been done there.

Mr. Fisher said that could be done. There is a maintenance bond that went along with this and had been posted to insure that the roads would be in good condition for a period of time. When everyone purchased their property it was under the assumption that the roads would be public. This action is accepting them into the City’s jurisdiction.

He said Member Cassis’ point was to make it a maintenance for two years from the date of acceptance of this bond and make sure there is an adequate inspection made to be sure the roads are in good shape. Member Cassis said he would like both done.

Member Kramer said he wouldn’t mind accepting this subject to soliciting comment from the residents within 30 days.

Member Csordas asked if this had ever been done before? Mr. Fisher said it was not a customary procedure. Member Csordas asked what the logic was for doing it now? Member Kramer said they live there and know the roads. Member Csordas couldn’t believe this was being considered and it made no sense to him.

Mayor Clark understood what Member Csordas was saying but was also aware of the problem of the developer leaving before the roads are done and he felt the best way to avoid that was to have the maintenance bond in place and that an adequate inspection is done before acceptance.

Member Kramer thought if there wasn’t a rush to a decision it seemed a reasonable step to take.

Gene Richardson, developer of Homestead Site Condominiums, was present and wanted to comment on the type of policy required on submission for acceptance. He had no complaints from homeowners. The roads had been inspected and there had

been no problems. Regarding the title policy, he had several discussions with JCK, they talked to the City attorney, and it was never defined what type of title instrument they wanted to insure the final resolution of the project. He talked with numerous title companies and they did not know what he was talking about and had no idea how to insure the property. They tried several different processes. One was the initial parcel that he purchased which had title work associated with it. Since then the parcel had been separated into three separate parcels, which became single family homes, separate ownership, a day care center separate ownership, and the balance was the site condominium project. Each of the lots had been developed and people are living in homes on these lots now. The difficulty doing a title policy with so many different uses

and different encumbrances was that each one of the parties had to sign off as well as their primary lenders before it could become valid. He didn’t know what kind of instrument was needed at this point because he never had an exact description. He asked for direction.

Mayor Clark asked him to have his attorney contact Mr. Fisher to work this out.

Kramer, Clark

There was Council consensus to hold a joint meeting with EDC on April 30^th from 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM and requested EDC be asked for an agenda.

Brian Amann was present on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Amann advised Council of the changes made since the December 4^th Council meeting.

There was concern over the flow of the storm water and how it would impact the current flow

if it would be unregulated, undirected, and going through yards and into the lake. He said working with staff and review and approval of our consultants this project would in a 10 year storm event, catch at least 75% of the current uncaught flow and would direct it into their system where it would then be cleaned before being discharged into Walled Lake. This same system in a 100-year event would catch at least 67% of that flow. What is currently flowing there now would be 67% caught, managed, held and then released as designed. A portion of the flow would continue to go into the wetland area to help continue the quality of that wetland to exist.

Regarding Lot 21 and their request for a variance from the wetland ordinance requirement was a question whether or not the wetland would have to be mitigated on that lot. It is Ms. Kay’s recommendation and our desire is instead of mitigating it and compromising the quality of the wetland they would like a variance to let it stay the way it is.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said regarding the wetland on Lot 21 it appeared that in order to have a backyard there would be encroachment into the buffer. Mr. Hurth said the backyard would be the buffer itself. They would provide language in the covenants and restrictions to put everyone on clear notice of the existence of the wetlands and flood plains for everyone’s protection.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said the main purpose of the buffer or wetland setback was to protect the wetland from pollution and given this would be someone’s lawn she was concerned with the use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides. She asked if they would be willing to further restrict on this Lot the use of any inorganic matter? Mr. Hurth said he would talk to his client and they would look at it. It was also a bigger issue of trying to enforce it. It would be to

everyone’s best interest to be sure there were enforceable and understanding mechanisms. He said they would not mind adding language to that effect.

Member DeRoche said it was good to see that the consultants said the drainage issue was under control. If the woodlands and wetlands variances were approved then there would no longer be an issue as far as compliance with our ordinances during Council’s consideration of preliminary and subsequent plans. Mr. Fisher said to the extent that Council granted the variance on those particular lots only that would be correct. Mr. Hurth said they would have to proceed with detailed engineering to show that not only did they comply with the conceptual plan but could demonstrate through detailed engineering that they would be able to do that as well. If for some reason they found out they were wrong about it and there was a capacity issue then they would have to pull out a lot and deal with it that way.

Member DeRoche said it appeared to him that the woodland and wetland permits were being sought to increase the number of lots. Mr. Amann said the woodland and wetland permit issues are primarily driven through work with consultants to preserve the quality areas. He said they were not maximizing the lots. Under the zoning they could have gone for 80-foot lots and are instead going for 80 to 95 foot lots. It worked out to less density than they could have seen on this property with the restrictions of the roads. Member DeRoche said if the woodlands and wetlands ordinances were kept in place it would be likely that they would have to find a more creative approach to their planning. Mr. Amann said with the wetland issue it was not that they couldn’t use the lot, it was simply that they would have to mitigate the wetland and compromise the integrity and value of it. The lot would still be there but there would be some filling of the wetland. It was based on conversation with City consultants and they reviewed it to determine it was a higher quality wetland than they thought and was in the interest of the community as well as ours to not go into the wetland and mitigate.

Mr. Hurth said they were not asking for a variance from the woodlands ordinance; they were just asking for the woodlands permit. We are asking for a variance for Lot 21 to allow the wetland to be on the lot and if they didn’t get the variance they would apply for the wetlands permit to fill that portion of the lot and then mitigate it.

Member DeRoche was unsatisfied with their preliminary plan so he would not vote to remove those things because he would rather have them in place.

There was Council consensus to offer a joint meeting to the Historical Commission for May 14^th from 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM.

1. Korean War Veterans Recognition Day Resolution of Support – Mayor Clark

CM-01-04-089 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Cassis; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Resolution of Support for

Korean War Veterans Recognition Day.

Vote on CM-01-04-089 Yeas: Clark, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas,

DeRoche, Kramer

2. Coordinated Planning Bill – Northville Twp. Invitation meeting - Member Bononi

Member Bononi reported that Novi was represented at this event along with herself by Members Kramer, Cassis, Lorenzo and three Planning Commissioners. They discussed the Coordinated Planning Bill with regard to the provision for additional emphasis on capital improvement planning and the Bill went into detail on what capital planning should consist of and communications with our neighbors, particularly those that would be impacted by our development.

However, she and others had concerns regarding this Bill and the ultimate affect on several different outcomes. Member Bononi said if Council did not agree with this Bill it would affect our State and Federal pass through funding and in seven years our zoning authority would disappear.

most recent version of the Bill because Council was being asked for their input at the last minute. There was also information in Council packets.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo concurred with Member Bononi. She felt, if after reading this Bill, Council agreed a Resolution of Opposition should be sent to the House of Representatives as

the Bill progresses. She felt this was a mandate from the State and would not enhance our home rule.

Member Kramer felt a group or City posture would be a more powerful input. He thought periodic work sessions among Council and consultants to review the status of the Bill and come to consensus would be more powerful a voice to the author of the Bill.

Mayor Clark thought this had Big Government written all over it and needed to be stopped.

Member DeRoche thought our State Representative was very powerful and influential and thought commentary from our Representative would be from both sides of the issue and was important to hear.

Member Cassis thought this Bill started with the Planners Association, MSPO, and was not initiated by a legislator in Lansing. All these comments should be sent to Representative Bircholz. Administration could draft a resolution at the appropriate time.

Member Bononi noted communication had been received about final site plan approval. She was concerned about the Environmental Phase I and II studies. She was concerned about the

permitting process and the fact that since Council waived the Mining Permit, the Jaguar consulting team found that both soil and water are contaminated exceeding residential cleanup. She felt the Council had not received all the information they were entitled to see in order to make their best decision. She was concerned that the consultants for this project recommended that a baseline environmental assessment be submitted to MDEQ and she did not have any copies or information from MDEQ with their comments on this project. She called MDEQ and had not heard or seen anything yet. Member Bononi felt Council and residents should have access to information concerning the removal of wastes from landfills whether licensed or not and any risks or impacts as a result of the removal. She asked Council if in the future they want to look at an ordinance regarding information to be provided to Council such as land use history or any Environmental Phase I and II reports that had been given as a result of property transfers. She wanted to fill the gap in information, wanted the documentation from Jaguar in regard to what had been done there, any impacts regarding water run off, and whether there would be any monitoring on this site. She wanted this submitted before final site plan approval.

Member Kramer noted final site plan approval was the responsibility of the Planning Commission. He said they had done core samples on the property and they indicated that there was no problem. The contamination surfaced as they went to remove the dirt and it had been handled as Member Bononi indicated. He felt the process was out of Council’s hands but Council could ask for a report on how the materials were handled. Member Bononi stated this information was not represented properly.

Member Kramer referred to a letter from Mr. Saven looking at requirements for sanitation retention etc., for soil erosion under construction and had indicated they were looking at

options for administrative citation tools for non-compliance. Member Kramer recommended that Ordinance Review get the information from Mr. Saven to add to the ordinances. He also requested the status on rental property inspections that was sent to Ordinance Review last fall.

Mayor Clark said a new National Code was coming in this year that would impact what was done locally and so they were waiting for it to be implemented before going on.

1. Letter from Jonathan R. Crane on behalf of Verizon Wireless Re: Gateway District.

2. Letter from Adrianne Riedel Re: Public Improvements – Sidewalk on Ten Mile.

3. Letter from Tony Kruvelis Re: Landscape Boulders
4. Letter from Dan Weiss, Novi Ten Associates Re: Amendment to Use Restriction Agreement-Novi Ice Arena Property.
5. Letter from Jim Korte Re: 2027 Austin (f/k/a 170 Erma).

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:16 AM.

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ___________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: April 16, 2001