Mayor Pro Tem Landry called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Csordas, absent-excused, Mayor Pro Tem Landry, Council Members Capello, Gatt, Lorenzo, Nagy, Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, Assistant City Manager

Craig Klaver, Chief Operating Officer

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Randy Auler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry

Barb McBeth, Director of Planning

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Member Lorenzo added, under Special Reports, Response to Planning Commission request to pursue Michigan Natural Resources Grant Application for the purchase of property known as Village Wood Lake Condo. Also, under Mayor and Council Issues, she added Item #3 Request for an update of the purposed library expansion plans and Walker Challenge Fund Raiser.

Member Nagy added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #4 Meadowbrook Lake Dredging.

Member Paul added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #5 Carlton Properties, Shannon Development.

Member Capello added, under Departmental Reports, Item #3 Update on 10 Mile and Novi Road.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #6, Don Saven’s designation as Outstanding Building Official for 2005.

PRESENTATIONS - None

Member Lorenzo stated that at the June 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting a motion was made, that in the matter of the request of William Roskelly for Village Wood Lake Condominiums, to recommend to City Council that they aggressively pursue a grant from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Trust Fund to turn the property into parkland. She said the vote of the Planning Commission was unanimous.

Member Lorenzo noted when she heard about this she immediately began to inquire about the process and found that it would not be possible. This information was what Mr. Auler found out from a representative of McKenna and Associates, who does the City’s grants. It would take five to six months to prepare an application for this grant and it is due in six weeks. There are other complications and obstacles that would also be faced and one would be that the City does not have the funds to purchase parkland at the present time. The grant allows the property owner to donate 25% of the fair market value of the property. However, the fair market value has to be determined and it would cost the City between $8,000 and $10,000 to hire an appraiser. It is a very competitive grant and grant process as the property might not meet the criteria the Department of Natural Resources is looking for. Member Lorenzo thought it would be an extremely slim chance the City would receive the grant. She thanked Mr. Roskelly, who was open to the suggestion of a purchase, and indicated he would be willing to wait until the City heard back on the grant application. Unfortunately, there is not enough time to apply for the grant.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked the administration to comment on this grant. Mr. Pearson said the parcel is on the east side of Meadowbrook Road. The proposal received approval for the preliminary site plan from the Planning Commission on June 8^th for a 15 acre parcel, ten units and the approval included a conservation easement, which would cover about 7 acres.

Mr. Auler advised Council that the grant application would be a 75%/25% match. Novi’s match would be 25% and the deadline is August 1^st. He said after speaking with the Department of Natural Resources and reviewing the grant application booklet, the priorities are for public outdoor recreation uses and to protect environmentally sensitive land with endangered species or habitats. Property that is isolated and not adjacent to property currently under public ownership in most cases is not eligible. They strongly encourage properties that are adjacent to current public property for the expansion of outdoor public recreation opportunities. Some of the grant application requirements and why it takes so long is that there has to be 2 or 3 appraisals of the property, evaluation of fair market value, environmental assessments, land surveys, legal documents and a willing seller.

Mr. Auler said McKenna and Associates indicated the application could take 5 or 6 months to process. Some of the challenges would be an isolated parcel and the Parks

Commission has not had their focus on neighborhood parks, primarily because there is a high investment in neighborhood parks for maintenance and man power, they serve a much smaller population, and ties up and further stretched resources. Mr. Auler said his initial thought on a recommendation would be a conservation easement

with the goal to preserve environmentally sensitive wetlands and woodland areas. A conservation easement would not further stretch resources, and he wasn’t sure this

project would rate high enough in the competitive process for a successful grant application.

Ms. McBeth stated she had nothing to add but would be happy to answer questions regarding what the Planning Commissions actions were on June 8^th.

Member Nagy was disappointed that applying for this grant would not be feasible. It was her understanding that when applying for a grant the City would be reimbursed for the appraisals. She said a neighborhood park was mentioned and asked why it couldn’t be a park for that area; her condo association has a park, which is private and the association is responsible for the maintenance of the park, not the City. She thought that the people who proposed the idea of getting a grant had the best interests of the City and neighborhood at heart and asked why a private park couldn’t be proposed.

Mr. Auler said private entities are not eligible to submit for the grant application so it would have to be the City or a public body. In terms of if it was public property, and maintained by a private or semi private organization, it would be a philosophical or policy discussion. Member Nagy thought Mr. Auler misunderstood her question and restated it. If you believe that we would not be able to apply for this grant in the time available and the likelihood of not getting the grant is high, why can’t the developer be asked to take that 7 acres and make it into their own private park. Mr. Auler said that would be a Planning Commission or Council discussion. Member Nagy thought the idea of the grant was wonderful and her idea would at least save the land. She suggested this might be a way out if a grant is something the City can’t pursue.

Mr. Auler said it might have been set aside by the developer as part of the project and then turned over to the homeowner’s association. Member Nagy said no, it was designated as a park when it was built. Mr. Auler asked if it was always planned to be a park and Member Nagy said yes. Member Nagy asked if it could be made a park maintained by the association, and the cost would not be that high. So can’t we ask the developer to make a private park to preserve the land? Member Nagy asked Ms. McBeth if it could be discussed with the developer.

Ms. McBeth responded it could be discussed. Ms. McBeth displayed a map and explained the parcel to Council. She said there would ten houses on the south side of the cul-de-sac, there is a watercourse, and the 6.73 acres being discussed was in the northern part. That area is contained within the floodplain, and the high land the developer is proposing consists of where the road is being proposed and where the homes are proposed on the north side of the detention basin lake. Member Nagy said then the land being discussed would not be feasible for a park. Ms. McBeth

said it is currently a floodplain and she didn’t know if it could be used off and on as park land. Member Nagy asked if the developer intended to leave the 7 acres as is and Ms.

McBeth said yes. The Planning Commission made it a condition of the approval that the area would be retained in a conservation easement and would never be developed. Member Nagy asked what the answer was from the engineer at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the floodplain affecting the building of this area. Ms. McBeth said the area being proposed is the high land. They do need to look again at the floodplain map, which is due to come out with some revisions, and they will take some field measurements to make sure the road and homes are not in the floodplain. Member Nagy asked if the dredging of Village Oak Lake affected this. Ms. McBeth said the engineer had discussed that extensively, and apparently the water level in the lake has fallen since they started dredging the lake across the street. There was discussion about the water levels and whether the soil borings needed to be taken when the lake was filled or not. The outcome was the engineers were going to evaluate the current soil borings as well as the soil borings of 16 years ago when Mr. Roselly first purchased the property.

Member Paul said there was a conservation easement in question approximately a year ago, and there are three subdivisions in the square mile of Nine, Ten, Beck and Taft that purchased the land for past taxes owed. The group of people asked that the conservation easement has a 100 year, no development attached to it. She would like to do the same, because she would hate to see the water change in the floodplain area and the land developed in a different fashion at a later time. Member Paul wanted it to say that the 7 acres would be in a conservation easement and not to be developed for 100 years and have the same language that was developed previously. It became a problem later on for the people that lived there. She wanted to have that same language in this conservation easement.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the Planning Commission has asked for Council’s response to their request for a grant. It does not appear we would qualify and it would cost significant dollars to do so, and we won’t make the application deadline. He thought that it was not worth spending the money on something there was not much chance of getting and the deadline could not be met. He said apparently the developers have offered a conservation easement and he thought Member Paul’s comments were well taken, and if the property can be protected in a conservation easement that would be his preference.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said it was his understanding that a site plan had already been approved and that a conservation easement had been offered. He asked Ms. McBeth if that was a part of the site plan. Ms. McBeth responded it was. He asked Mr. Schultz if Council had the ability to discuss the terms of the conservation easement since it has been approved, or is it just a notion of a conservation easement that has been approved and it is for Council to work out the details with the developer. Mr. Schultz said he was not at the Planning Commission meeting but his understanding is that the

conservation easement was discussed. He said they have a document that typically is an easement in perpetuity. Mr. Schultz said they would be happy to take Member Paul’s comments into consideration. He was not sure, but thought what Member Paul was referring to was when the City conveyed back some land to an association. He said they would consider her comments, but it is a long term process. He preferred that the motion of Council not relate specifically to the terms of the conservation easement, which will have to be worked out with the developer and the City with those comments in mind. He requested the motion be a response to the Planning Commission that under all these circumstances we can’t apply for the grant, but would do everything possible administratively to pursue a conservation easement.

Member Nagy said it seems Mr. Roskelly is amenable to a lot of the suggestions made in planning as well as in conservation with a Council member. She thought that she, as a resident, and residents in that area would be much more amenable if instead of "in perpetuity" to put a finite on it. She understood what Mr. Schultz was saying, but thought this could be worked out with Mr. Roskelly.

Mr. Schultz noted he was not disagreeing with the 100 years. He was commenting on the procedural issue of the Council making a motion about the language of that easement as a formal action. He said they have the direction and would like to keep the Planning Commission and the site plan separate from Council. Mr. Schultz said they will work out the conservation easement with the additional comments of the Council and make it as concrete a document as possible.

Member Nagy asked if the motion could be changed to use the words "we strongly urge" and Mr. Schultz agreed. The seconder of the motion also agreed.

Member Paul called a point of clarification referring to the Westmont Village Subdivision, and said it was very difficult for people abutting woodlands to have it change. If this is a small token and their requirements can be met it won’t be as difficult for them to have their backyard ripped up when it has been there for a long time. If we have a very amenable developer and the ability to add that to our conservation easement, she would strongly urge to have that placed. She said she has the conservation easement agreement she referred to so Mr. Schultz could get the language for the residents.

Member Lorenzo asked if the motion included what Mr. Schultz said about not being able to follow through with the application because of the circumstances sited. She would like to make sure that the Planning Commission gets a full response from the Council. She requested Ms. McBeth forward the response to the Planning Commission, public and the neighborhood so they are not left hanging.

Member Nagy amended the motion to state that a formal written response would be given to the Planning Commission and the public indicating the reasons stated.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked that the motion be read by the Clerk.

Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk stated the motion.

To strongly urge that the conservation easement will not be developed for 100 years with the same language used in the Westmont Subdivision Conservation Easement and that a formal written response be sent to the Planning Commission to make them aware that Council will not be pursuing the grant application for the reasons stated by Mr. Auler.

Member Capello asked if title to the property, once the development is approved, would stay with the association and not the developer. Mr. Schultz said it would stay with the association and there would be conservation language in the master deed as well. Member Capello said that the conservation easement runs to the benefit of the City. Mr. Schultz agreed. Member Capello thought they were beating a dead horse, because it would be the residents across the street that would be selling the property to another developer to develop it as something, as opposed to a park. Mr. Schultz said with the City’s approval. Member Capello asked which is the longest period of time, in perpetuity or 100 years. Mr. Schultz said perpetuity is as it stands but he understood the sentiment.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry believed the seconder of the motion approved the changes. Member Paul agreed.

Mr. Klaver said during discussion regarding the Main Street Downtown Development Authority Council indicated they would be willing to have a special meeting. He said after discussion with Mayor Csordas it appeared that August 1^st would be the proposed date. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said this is for the Council to discuss Main Street DDA with no presentation.

Member Paul thought that this meeting should be limited to one hour as are the joint meetings with the library and Parks and Recreation Commission. The DDA has been discussed three times and she would like to stay with Mayor Csordas’ recommendation that special meetings are one hour long. Member Gatt concurred with Member Paul.

Member Lorenzo thought the reason for the meeting was to give the opportunity to Triangle Development and their representatives to bring forth the information regarding

the DDA. To not involve them in this meeting makes this meeting moot because she thought their input to the discussion was imperative.

Member Capello noted it was his understanding that they appeared in front of Council and Council Members had different opinions of DDA’s. He thought administration had been asked to come back to Council with input from the Main Street staff and educate Council on DDA’s in general, not site or project specific. He said August 1^st was fine with him.

Mr. Pearson thought that the point was to give the applicant who had a long presentation ready, the opportunity to weigh in. He said that Triangle has a number of experts on the field and Council might be better off to let them do the presentation on DDA’s.

Member Nagy agreed with Mr. Pearson and the point of the meeting was for them to educate Council on DDA’s.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said it appeared that Council was to allow the applicant to make some comments on DDA’s. His personal opinion was that this had become a hot button issue and he would hate to cut an issue like this off at an hour. If the applicant wants to come in, then let’s give them one more day. They have spent a lot of time and money putting this together and Council should hear them out. Mayor Pro Tem Landry felt the meeting should be scheduled for August 1^st at 7:00 P.M., invite them to offer their presentation and administration should provide Council with whatever additional educational materials they have.

Member Paul appreciated the spirit of the discussion but she knew that that library is a hot issue and Council gave them one hour. She said when a developer is very zealous sometime time can overrun and she thought they should be limited to one hour of presentation. If questions bring it over one hour so be it. She didn’t want it to be a three hour DDA discussion by the developer. They should limit their discussion to one hour or less and then allow for Council questions.

Member Nagy asked for clarification regarding whether decisions regarding the DDA would be made that evening. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said it would be for discussion only.

1. Chattman Drive (Neighborhood Repaving) - Rob Hayes

Mr. Pearson said at the last Council meeting the discussion of Chattman Drive and how the resurfacing would be approached as part of our asphalt program came up. Since then better cost estimates from the design engineers have been received. He asked Mr. Hayes to go through some of the background for the Council and the public.

Mr. Hayes said the engineering consultant P.E.A., Professional Engineering Associates, looked at the cost of full reconstruction. That being removal of the existing pavement, excavating 8 inches of the silty, sandy soil that is underlying the pavement, adding 8 inches of crushed limestone and then 4 inches of asphalt pavement. He said that would not change the edge of pavement elevations for the repaved road. The P.E.A. came up with an estimate of approximately $232,000, which is twice as much as their original estimate. The original estimate was about $118,000 to do the rehab versus reconstruction. Mr. Hayes said finances were discussed with Ms. Smith-Roy and it was determined that there was sufficient funding available in our overall program for this years asphalt program to accommodate this project as a full reconstruct. He said since this project is out for bid, they would have the P.E.A. revise the design and submit an addendum to our bidders that describes the full reconstruction process. Then bids will be received as scheduled on June 30^th and consideration of award will be brought to Council on July 11^th. He said they were still looking at doing this project after completion of the dredging job as well as the bridge reconstruction on Meadowbrook Road with the completion in early September.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if Mr. Hayes was looking for some action from Council tonight. Mr. Hayes said it would be helpful if consensus from Council could be given as to the direction outlined tonight for full reconstruction.

Member Nagy asked if Mr. Hayes had seen Chattman Drive and he responded "several times". She said the residents were not amenable to the idea of having construction and then reconstruction again and she believed they had a valid point that it could wait until next year. Member Nagy was also concerned about the bridge and that would not be included in the re-asphalting of Chattman. Mr. Hayes said the decking would be resurfaced. She asked if Mr. Hayes felt this was a must do project. Mr. Hayes said it could be postponed but the consensus that he received, based on the recent homeowner’s association meeting, was that the residents were fine with doing it this summer. Member Nagy said she received e-mails requesting it be delayed until next year. Mr. Hayes said people talk to different people and it was in the context before of doing it at the same time the bridge was closed. He thought the bigger picture was do you want to resurface Chattman Drive, which was identified in the PASER analysis. He said the other subdivision streets have some of the same failure problems but sticking to the PASER, Chattman was identified this year. He couldn’t promise how it would hold up as they have seen streets come out of winter with dramatic failures. This is an asphalt job and once it is started you don’t close off access, and there are no curing problems like with concrete. Mr. Hayes said it could be done whenever they want, but the contractor is mobilized and ready to go and this could be done pretty quickly. Member Nagy asked if he was worried about starting it in July when it would be very hot.

Mr. Hayes said construction would start after completion of the bridge, so it would be the latter half of August. Member Nagy asked if it could be done after the kids go back to school and Mr. Hayes said it would be done in early September. He said regarding the heat, they will use high strength asphalt that is a lot more resilient to deflections or tracking that might be seen with lesser quality asphalt.

Member Gatt asked about the driveway approaches and if a final decision had been made regarding residents who have brick pavers or special materials. Mr. Hayes said there shouldn’t be any disruption to driveway approaches. There might be occasional damage from the equipment, and if that’s the case they would replace it with material in kind. Member Gatt asked if the easement would be ripped out and Mr. Hayes said it would be done from edge of pavement to edge of pavement.

Member Paul said then they would not go in 6 to 8 feet to the driveways. Mr. Hayes said no, and the edge of pavement elevation would essentially be the same. He said a crown would still be added to the middle of the road to allow good drainage and that would be negligible. She asked if they are going by last years PASER analysis. Mr. Hayes said yes, as the basis for this project. Member Paul said she drove that area and Ennishore was far worse than Chattman. She was concerned with the accuracy of the PASER analysis because there have been other problems with it in the past. She suggested postponing this and having a public hearing for those residents, because she felt they had not had a real opportunity to have any control in their own neighborhood. At the last meeting at least six residents asked that the project be delayed. She asked if that was legally correct.

Mr. Schultz said Council could invite the public to speak to them and establish it as a public hearing and notice it as such. It was his understanding that there have been a number of public informational meetings, mailings to people in the area, an opportunity to meet here, and have exactly that kind of discussion; although not with Council present. It is probably more of a policy question than a legal question, if that is how you want to proceed before accepting the proposal and spending money from the budget, then it is Council’s determination. It is not an obligation but is a part of Council’s meeting process.

Mr. Hayes said Chattman Drive is being bid as an alternate so it may or may not be awarded depending on what Council desires.

Member Lorenzo wasn’t sure a public hearing was needed. She would prefer to send the residents a questionnaire and have them answer by mail or e-mail. She didn’t see the point in asking 27 people to come to another meeting, they have been

inconvenienced as it is. Member Lorenzo said before the project is postponed, she would need to see at least the majority of those homeowners wanting to postpone it. It should not be postponed because two or three people want to postpone it. She felt that all 27 people would not attend a public hearing.

Member Lorenzo requested a friendly amendment to the motion that the administration send the residents a questionnaire regarding whether they want to postpone or not, and let them know that the City is looking for a majority opinion on whether to proceed or not. Member Nagy, seconder of the motion, agreed.

Mr. Hayes expressed concern over what precedent that would set for other projects in the future. He asked if they should go around each time and ask a vote and public consensus on projects. Member Lorenzo thought this was different given the circumstances of these residents with the bridge, and the fact that the engineering was not done the way everything else was being done. She thought this was a unique situation. She suggested that during public meetings residents should be asked to fill out a form on what they think so that Council would have some information from them.

Member Gatt said this is a big subdivision and it is not just Chattman that will be affected. Chattman is the main drive in but there are three roads that go off of Chattman and everybody in the subdivision is going to be affected. If the Chattman residents are going to be polled, he felt the whole subdivision should be polled and then the majority would rule. Member Lorenzo had no problem with that.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if he understood it correctly that Council already approved resurfacing of Chattman Dr. Then for some reason, came the notion if we are going to resurface it, let’s do it really good and tear the whole thing up and build it from the foundation up. The question before Council now is do we build it from the foundation up or just do a resurface job.

Mr. Hayes responded that was correct but with the difference being that the original design called for raising the road 4 to 6 inches, that created some approach problems and some residents complained. Mr. Hayes said but now that we are doing it from the foundation up, it eliminates that problem. This job has already been tentatively scheduled, and now brought to the table again to discuss whether to postpone it or not because residents feel they have been inconvenienced enough. He noted the irony that people knock our door down to repave streets and now someone doesn’t want their street repaved.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry commented that if Council is considering getting input from the residents, will it be just the residents on Chattman or residents three streets over who come in and complains and Council decides not to do it. He felt there should be some sort of criteria over who we want to hear from. What majority of consensus are we looking for?

Mr. Pearson said there is consensus to do the full reconstruction not just the seams. Then the next question for the residents is the timing as it has not been the typical design process, so he understood their concerns. Mr. Pearson said they have some experience doing the SAD’s and the balloting. A distinct, discreet bid alternate for

Chattman Drive will be before Council on July 11^th. He said between now and then the mailing could be done to determine whether the residents would rather have this done for 2 or 3 weeks in September or 2 to 3 weeks next spring.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if the maker of the motion would agree to the friendly amendment of a mailer instead of a public meeting. His inquiry was who they would be mailed to. The request of the friendly amendment is to mail only to Chattman Drive residents; does the maker of the motion accept that. Member Paul accepted the amendment.

Mr. Schultz commented that he understood the concept of seeking input from the majority of the residents, but he assumed and wanted to be sure that Council was reserving the right to decide on their own and not just taking a vote of 27 people and following that regardless.

Member Nagy said she assumed that was implied. She thought it could be made simple. Residents were here and talked about it, and e-mail was received when the other bid were received regarding the partial resurfacing. She said send it out to 27 people with a response deadline and Council would still make the ultimate decision. Member Nagy thought there should be two questions, do you want it done in August or September or in the Spring of 2006, and that’s all.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the concensus is to bid it out and completely redo the whole thing. We are now taking a vote on whether the Council wishes to send a request for feedback.

Mr. Klaver said Council was given a response this evening from the Road Commission received Friday, saying they had studied a number of different options going through a computer model. They don’t believe that they can improve upon the performance of the intersection given the limitations of the lanes and the other configurations.

Member Paul said last year construction was done in this area and this intersection is not working. She asked Mr. Hayes how much money the taxpayers spent on the improvement. She requested information regarding this in the off week packet. The Ten Mile/Novi Road intersection has taken two years and now there is no ability to make left hand turns. Member Paul noted she is very disappointed that this whole corridor is not working, and didn’t understand what the Road Commission was doing.

Mr. Hayes said the problem at Ten Mile and Novi Road and Novi Road and Grand River is too much traffic for too little pavement and that is being fixed. It is the same situation at the Haggerty/Eight Mile intersection and the I-275 exchange. Oakland County

mentioned in their letter that they could make adjustments of signal time and that might help a bit. However, lanes need to be added to really fix it. Member Paul noted that was done last year and it is disappointing that after going through construction it is still not right. Mr. Hayes said they kind of shifted the problem, because they added the new signal at the end of the south bound I-275 ramp and that helped fix that. Unfortunately, most of that traffic wants to turn left or south bound on Haggerty, which cuts off the west bound traffic, which then backs up the north bound I-275 off ramp. It is a cascade affect. Member Paul thanked Mr. Hayes for looking into this.

Member Nagy said she uses that area all the time and totally agreed with Mr. Hayes.

Member Capello asked that someone from administration explain what is going on as this is a County road and Novi has no jurisdiction over it to begin with. Mr. Hayes said they received a note from the Road Commission of Oakland County last week, and they were very appreciative of the improvements that are going on at Novi and Ten Mile. However, the next stage of the construction, which is the south west corner, and the final stage, requires that the pavement be ripped out and traffic shifted. They said that the Ten Mile traffic will not have the dedicated turn lane everyone is used to and traffic will stack up. The project is supposed to be done by July 15^th and the shift is supposed to happen in the next day or so. He advised that detour routes would be Beck Road and Grand River and Novi Road and this is the last bid the community will be suffering through.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked who was responsible for getting signs out so people would know before they get to the intersection. Mr. Hayes said the City could do supplemental signs but not on County roads. If there are detours or something on other streets, we will put signs on the City streets.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if there could be a sign at Nine Mile Road saying "No Left Turn at Novi Road". Mr. Hayes said yes.

Mr. Pearson said the Road Commission bid the project to run two construction seasons. They got a late start because of R.O.W. acquisition problems and design. They bid it starting June 2004 and had it staged out so there would be construction this year. Their news releases and communications to him through August said it was going to be a one construction deal. He said that caught them by surprise but then they said it was the way they always bid it. He said there are reasons for that, they got in trouble on Grand River Avenue between the City limits and Beck and were not able to complete it in a year and paid significant penalties. So, they played it financially conservative in terms of phasing it out over two construction seasons.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Mr. Pearson when the construction started in that intersection. Mr. Pearson said it was in June or July of 2004.

Mr. Klaver thought the advance signage was an excellent concept and they would pursue that aggressively with the Road Commission. If necessary, they would also look at supplementing their signage.

Terence K. Jolly, 39555 Orchard Hill Place, referred to Item #3, a proposal by Schafer Development Company. He said he is involved because he is an attorney and assisted the seven owners of that property, which was about 28 acres. Mr. Schafer came to him and made a proposal and Mr. Jolly counter proposed and there is now a real estate transaction pending subject to this rezoning. He thought the rezoning would be a win win for the City of Novi. They changed the zoning of that area, which has been significantly changed by Island Lake, Providence Hospital and the retail to the north of it. Mr. Jolly said on that property now is a longstanding, excellent tenant called Profile Steel and they make screws, bolts, nuts, etc. Profile Steel has been there forever and have been a great tenant, but they see the encroaching real estate development and costs going up and have agreed with Mr. Schafer to move, based on Mr. Schafer moving them, if they receive the rezoning. Mr. Jolly said he was asking on behalf of seven longstanding property owners in the City of Novi that they allow the rezoning of the property tonight.

Dick Stopinski, 233 Bernstadt, said he was before Council 8 or 10 weeks ago with a problem. He waited the appropriate time to get a response. He got a hold of the City Manager last month and received a quick e-mail stating "the ditch is done; we’ll have to agree to disagree". Mr. Stopinski stated he disagreed thoroughly. Mr. Stopinski read a statement into the record.

"My problem started about June of last year when the City put in a new drain at Lake Shore Park. At the very start I was worried about the drain being too high and causing my property to flood out. I voiced my concerns but no one listened. I went through the chain of command and still no one would listen. I came before Council. I brought pictures to show my yard flooding and the new ditch was dry between my yard and the new drain. I gave this body a list of people who could swear on a stack of Bibles that the old ditch worked for the past 25 years and again no one would listen. I wonder if most of the Council even looked at the packet that I

put together. I know your busy and I understand that. At the very start of this project, no one on site would even listen to any of the residents. They seemed to have the attitude that they are the City, we are right and you are wrong. They also had the mistaken hardheaded attitude and belief that the water in the parking lot at Lake Shore Park always went to the south to Shawood. Never happened until now. There are three residents bordering the ditch and they have 114 years of living there. No one was even asked for their opinion. My next door neighbor who was the longest sitting Council person in Novi at 18 years, no one asked her. Why was she not asked? My packet to Council also informed them that you have people working for the DPW today that dug the original ditch back in 1974 or 1975. It has worked all these years, I wonder why. You sent people to do a project that in my opinion was poorly engineered. I even wonder if there was an engineering study done on it. They came out there, they did not know the lay of the land, so the information you received was, at best, a guess on some parts and some of the information, in my opinion, was less than truthful. If a citizen cannot come before Council with a problem and get justice where can they go. I asked some, not all, members of Council to come out and see for themselves what was going on. Some came out. Thank you, ladies. Some did not answer my e-mail. Some chose to stay out

of it claiming it would violate the Open Meetings Act. I don’t understand why. Would the answers have been different if I’d said the Novi News was out there with a camera? I’m very, very disappointed in this Council. The ditch worked for 30 some years. When you got through with it my yard floods out and nobody seems to care. I’m sorry, if this is progress, it’s not progress.

Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft Road, expressed his surprise and extreme disappointment that the City Council took action on the proposal not to apply for a grant to protect the property just east of Meadowbrook Road this evening, and without taking any public input before proceeding. There are members of the public and residents directly affected who are here to speak and present their views and the residents views to this Council, and their voice hasn’t been heard this evening. He believed the Council acted hastily and made a decision without all the facts and information that would have helped them make that decision. He said he was going to highlight some key points he thought were relevant and that should have been considered. The residents want to see the entire parcel protected, not just the wetlands. If they were only interested in protecting the wetlands they would have walked away from the Planning Commission meeting satisfied with the outcome, because that’s what happened. They want to see the entire area protected. The developer, Mr. Roskelly, is willing to sell the entire site to the City, not just the wetlands. He is also willing to donate a portion of the site that would help cover the City’s cost share, local match for the grant. Most developers don’t give us the time of day, and we have a developer who is willing to work with us to protect the property and we are ignoring him. A critical point this evening was a discussion of the time line. The Parks Director indicated that the time line to complete a grant application is 5 to 6 months. Mr. Mutch said he would like Council to take note that last year they applied for a grant through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program that uses the exact same application form, has the exact same criteria and the exact same time line as the proposal put up tonight. That proposal came before Council March 1^st to actually go to the grant writer to write the grant. Council had a public hearing on March 15^th and submitted the grant by the deadline of April 1^st. So, Council is telling the residents that last year it could be done in less than 4 weeks with the exact same application and process but now 6 weeks out, sorry can’t consider it, and using the same grant writers who are telling you now that it takes 5 to 6 months. He said he contacted these grants and they said 6 weeks is a tight time line but it can be done. Last year Council committed $42,000 to that grant for an $80,000 grant. Here we are looking at something that might be worth upward of a half million or million dollars and an appraisal is not even being considered, which is all that really needs to be done at this point. The appraisal costs would be reimbursed from the grant. Finally, there was some discussion of criteria. This grant application is not going to meet every criteria, but there are twelve different criteria, and we would meet some of those and score well. To summarize, he asked Council to listen to the residents who are going to speak tonight, and consider the residents they are speaking for, and reconsider this motion with the new information he brought forward.

Jennifer Huggins, 23131 Heatherbrae Way, spoke regarding previous speakers comments. She showed Council a map of her area and said the section being talked about is Section 25, which is very heavily built up. There are a lot of residents in this area who are concerned that this last little chunk of open field is going to disappear. A lot of neighbors come there to walk their dogs and for the wildlife. She was representing residents of Village Oaks, Willowbrook Estate and Meadowbrook Lake. During the past weekend they circulated a petition and received 226 signatures of people opposed to building on this lot.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked her to leave her petition with the City Clerk.

Ms. Huggins said at the last meeting a lot of residents spoke against the development of this property at all. The issue isn’t the little triangular portion north of the river because there isn’t any access to that, it is the whole area. It was agreed unanimously by the Planning Commission to pursue this grant application, the developer is willing to consider selling the property, and she learned that the City of Southfield received a grant for the purchase of 16 acres. She wished that with an August 1^st deadline that Council would at least try. It is a very important natural part of their community used for hiking, fishing, etc. She said she was familiar with the Master Plan and knew it was one of the City’s goals to preserve the remaining areas of wetlands, because once gone, it is gone forever.

LuAnne Kozma, 23837 W. LeBost, said the petition language was specifically for supporting the Council to pursue the grant and asked that Council look into the opportunity presented. Ms. Kozma spoke to two Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund board members, one former member and one current. The former member informed her that this situation with this particular piece of land, Mr. Roskelly, and the plan that is already approved is exactly the kind of situation that this grant program and August deadline is all about. It is supposed to be for communities who find themselves with an opportunity that is dropping in their lap, that was not anticipated and that is why there is a secondary deadline of August 1^st instead of April 1^st. In fact, Southfield got their grant going in on the August 1^st deadline. A lot of cities get these grants and Novi should be going for them. The little Village of Oxford gets it and Farmington has received seven. Ms. Kozma said the grant program has been in operation since 1976 as a result of a mitigation idea that came up in the 1970’s in exchange for oil and gas drilling up north in the Pidgeon River country. The gas and oil royalty money is set aside in a special fund for this. It is taking the wealth of oil and turning it into wealth of land, and it is only for cities, county governments and the DNR to apply for. Citizen groups can not do it, and that is why they are asking Council to do it.

Catherine Kakaley has lived in Novi for 32 years and her main concern is the fragility of the land. She said they have discussed this with the Planning Commission and that’s why they approved this plan. If Mr. Roskelly builds in that area it will have an impact on all of us.

People in Willowbrook brought pictures where they were inundated with three feet of water and even had a row boat. Their foundations have been ruined because they are on the wetland woodland plateau, and they are affected every time there is a huge runoff of rain or snow. She would appreciate it if Council would consider this grant and apply for it as it is not going to cost us anything, and if we get it it is going to be good for all of the people. This is a high population density, a fragile piece of land and the Planning Commission said they were going to watch every tree they cut down. Maybe one or two is all they need in Willowbrook to be inundated again. She was also concerned with the children of Village Oaks because they have no sidewalks and have to walk on the streets or on the boulevards, and it is very dangerous. We are going to be bringing in big land moving machines to make the foundations for the houses. She went through that for 32 years because they built over 500 homes in Village Oaks and she didn’t want another generation of children facing the fears that these mothers have because of cement machines, lumber trucks, etc. She thanked Council for their new roads but said the equipment will tear them up. Ms. Kakaley said Council had someone talking about traffic plans who said every home would make ten trips or 10 houses 100 trips. On a $400,000 home there will be 3 or 4 people living in that house, and there will be making 300 or 400 people making trips in an already crowded subdivision. We have a

school, 500 homes, deliveries, visitors, children walking on the street and it is a bad move. So, if Mr. Roskelly would consider this, she would like the property to be bought and belong to all the people that use it. She thanked Council for their consideration and asked them to apply for the grant.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. June 6, 2005 – Regular meeting

B. Enter into Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of June 20, 2005 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing collective bargaining agreement.

C. Approval of request for an Outdoor Gathering Permit from the Michigan 50’s Festival Committee, to be held at Fountain Walk of Novi on July 13-16, 2005, subject to final walk through inspection by the Building and Fire Departments.

D. Approval of request for a Fireworks Permit from the Michigan 50’s Festival Committee, to be held on Friday, July 15, 2005 at Fountain Walk of Novi (rain date set for Saturday, July 16, 2005).

E. Approval of License Agreement with Greenwood Oaks No. 3 and 4 Homeowners Association for the installation of a decorative street lamp within the boulevard island in the right-of-way of Cider Mill Boulevard, west of Beck Road.

F. Approval of License Agreement with Singh of Willowbrook IV, LLC for the placement of a subdivision entry ground sign within the boulevard island of the right-of-way of Amanda Lane, north of Ten Mile Road.

G. Approval of Resolution to Amend the Articles of Incorporation of the Novi Building Authority, to change the Commissioner position held by the Chief Operating Officer to the Assistant City Manager position.

H. Approval to authorize Fifth Third Bank to issue a $74,200 Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as required per the terms of wetland permit #05-63-0023-P issued for the Singh Trail Project.

I. Approval to apply for the 2005 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Program from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to

provide declining shared funding for (1) Fire Protection Officer for a minimum of five years.

J. Approval of Resolution to authorize Budget Amendment #2005-11.

K. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 699

Mayor Pro Tem Landry noted the applicant is submitting a handout, which Council is now receiving.

Gerald Odom of Gallo Companies said they have been attempting to build a high tech auto wash facility in Novi for a year and a half. They started with a site on Eight Mile and Haggerty. In a year and a half they have appeared before four bodies in the City, have two wins, two losses, one rejected project, and one project hanging in the balance tonight. Mr. Odom hoped that Council would honor their work and investment in the community by approving their rezoning request for this site.

Mr. Odom explained that they have an L shaped site on Haggerty Road and 14 Mile Road. It is currently zoned OST and in August 2004 they requested that the entire property be rezoned to B-3. The staff came out with a recommendation that was quite negative and a lot of time was spent addressing each issue that they felt was appropriate in the staff recommendation. In fact, they even designed a new building and tried to be as empathic as they could with the situation of the OST zoning that runs from 14 Mile down to 13 Mile and westerly to the M-5. Mr. Odom said their site represented a very small piece of property, 125 feet by 250 feet on Haggerty Road. As part of their addressing of staff concerns regarding the use of the property

they amended their zoning petition to limit the zoning just to that area they would use for the auto wash. The balance of the L shape would be left in the OST designation shielding properties to the west. They know that the 125 feet by 250 feet depth is extremely ample to design a facility that would meet all the requirements of site plan approval. They anticipated getting site plan approval on this facility with no variances. By contrast, the OST has such severe limitations on front, rear and side yards that if following the ordinance on the OST a building of their configuration, which is the only logical type of building, could only have a width of 25 feet. It would be a very long narrow building because OST requires 50 foot side setbacks on both sides.

The other consideration he thought appropriate was that they designed a building they felt was beautiful and it would be a very high tech facility. The construction is of brick, siding, and windows, and for all practical purposes it might have a negative impact on them. When completed and landscaped, sitting on a hill facing south, unless you get right up to it or see a

sign that might be on Haggerty Road it will look like a beautiful office building similar to the AAA building on the south side 12 Mile west of Halsted Road.

Mr. Odom said a question came up about the location. They considered a transitional use, it is a service business and not a retail business. They are very aware of the fact that Council is very concerned about these small straight pieces, such as 7-11’s, party stores, etc. that are scattered all over the City. This certainly is not that use, and they understand the empathy of the planning staff saying that once the property is rezoned it could be used for anything contained in the zoning ordinance. He said they tried to rectify that by writing out their commitment under the new 579 State Statute guaranteeing the construction of this particular building. They also offered to restrict the property in exactly the same way, and to record restrictions against the property so that nothing could be developed on it except the building being proposed. Those offers, even though no resolution was taken on the offers, are still on the table, they would still commit to them and make that commitment to Council in any way Council felt appropriate.

Lastly, Mr. Odom said this site bordered an existing service station on the south west corner of Haggerty and 14 Mile Road. It is completely developed; surrounding the entire area with major retail shopping that has been in existence for a long time. It is at the extreme north east corner of the community, in fact, if crossing the street in any direction you could be in three different cities. He said they are right at the corner. This is a transitional type of building and use that they want to build next to a gas station. He asked that Council consider whether it is better to have an office building next to a gas station or would it be better to have office buildings going south next to a transitional use like the one being proposed. All the vehicle movement is shielded by the building on the north side between the gas station and the building. They felt everything had been accomplished that is good for their site, protective for the zoning around it and would be a tremendous asset for the community. The structure and the value of this business is going to be in the range of $1 ¾ million for the building and the business.

Ms. McBeth showed where the property is located and stated it was the parcel identified in the public hearing notice and was the original request of the applicant to rezone the entire parcel from OST to B-3. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial of the rezoning request to B-3 to the City Council. Council went along with the staff recommendation, which

was also to recommend denial of the request. Ms. McBeth said they looked at a number of factors one of which was that the entire area was rezoned in the late 1990’s to OST as part of the overall area that was planned for the high tech research and development area. This would be carving out a little piece of that but would still possibly impact the development of the property to the south. She said the Planning Department and the Planning Commission did see an application, in the last couple years, for North Novi Medical, and there was a second phase of that proposed. The Planning Department feels the request would further limit development of the property to the south. The Master Plan for Land Use also recommends this property for office uses, and that was from the previous Master Plan for Land Use as well as for the update.

Member Lorenzo stated she would not support the rezoning. The City’s financial position is such that we need to maintain the diversity of our particular uses. As noted by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission this was a conscious decision some years ago, and continues to be supported to diversity this area to high tech use. In our opinion and in studies that have been conducted this would yield higher property taxes with less demand on City

services. She thought this would be fragmenting the larger area of OST. Also, Member Lorenzo noted she was not supportive of all the B-3 uses that could go in. As the Planning Commission stated, there are no guarantees that the project proposed tonight would be the project that would be built on the property. Unfortunately, the type of zoning commitment they are making is not within our purview to consider due to the legislative measures that have recently taken place. However, Mr. Odom is certainly welcome to further pursue the application for a Planned Rezoning Overlay Ordinance procedure if he desires.

Member Paul pointed out that six members of the Planning Commission unanimously denied this proposal. Since there is a portion they are going to develop that is very high density, she would not support this item and agreed with the motion. She appreciated the time and effort this developer has made but unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for Council to take on another B-3. She was not in support of other B-3’s in the City and would remain consistent.

Member Paul asked why Planning Commission Members Gutman and Lipski didn’t vote on this project, the minutes said they were excused. Ms. McBeth said the absent was left out of the minutes, but they were absent-excused that evening. Member Paul thought they were excused because of a conflict and asked that the minutes reflect absent in the future.

Member Gatt thanked the developer and said they gave a wonderful presentation and the building is beautiful, but he could not support the project for all the reasons stated.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would support the motion. He thought it was a beautiful building and appreciated that. He also appreciated their willingness to split zone the piece, but was not in favor of split zoning single parcels. B-3 didn’t concern him but he was very concerned with the Master Plan. There was a comment made that this would be at the perimeter of the City, and while that might be true, it is still Novi and the Master Plan applies at the perimeter just as it applies anywhere else in Novi.

Member Gatt said Council voted on an issue earlier today about sending a letter regarding the grant and he asked Mr. Schultz if it would be out of order to reconsider that motion tonight if a

Council Member made a motion to do so. Mr. Schultz said it was an unanimous vote so any one who voted for it could make a motion at an appropriate time and it could be done tonight.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said a motion would have to be made to amend the agenda to add the item, and propose in the motion where to put it on the agenda.

Member Capello said he saw the rezoning sign on Taft Road but did not see one on Eleven Mile Road and it seems that one of the two parcels abuts Eleven Mile Road. He asked if a proposed rezoning should be placed on Eleven Mile Road on the second parcel.

Mr. Schultz deferred to Ms. McBeth. Ms. McBeth said she believed that was correct that one sign would be required per street frontage somewhere in the vicinity of the middle part of the parcel. She said Member Capello is correct that there are two parcels involved, and the property is on the corner of two streets. Mr. Schultz, said while having the hearing he would get a copy of the site plan manual and look at the rules to see if they comply. Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if there was some question that two signs are not required. Ms. McBeth said she would like to confirm that. He then asked if two signs are required are we confident that two signs are not posted. Ms. McBeth said she was not confident of that either.

Ms. McBeth said she knew that the signs are required to be posted for the public hearing, which was some time ago, she has not confirmed whether the signs are there now or had been posted and removed. He asked that she find that out in the next few minutes. She said she would. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said Council would wait before taking any action on this matter until Ms. McBeth brings back the necessary information.

Mike Fellows, Mozart Homes Company, advised Council that he didn’t have a separate presentation to make but would answer question if Council had any.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry told Mr. Fellows that the matter of notice is a Constitutional matter and not a matter for him to waive, because it is a matter of notice to the public. It is something that must absolutely be complied with and if it was not complied with this will have to be postponed until it is.

Mr. Fellows thought there were two signs at one point. The rezoning was initiated by a different applicant about 8 to 10 months ago.

Mr. Pearson apologized for any confusion on this and suggested that Council might want to move along to another agenda item. Ms. McBeth is checking the records and she wouldn’t have the advantage of weighing in on some of these things. It might be appropriate to get the answer to this before going to far on this one.

Member Capello suggested moving to 4.5 now

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said Member Capello’s suggestion to move to another issue was made because the representative of the administration, Ms. McBeth, would not be present to address this matter. However, the next issue is also something that would require Ms. McBeth’s presence. He asked Mr. Schultz what was the appropriate way to do this. Mr. Schultz said if tabled it can be brought back in the same meeting.

4.5 Michigan Natural Resources Grant Application for the purchase of property

Member Gatt said after listening to the testimony of the residents tonight, it occurred to him the Council might have acted a little hastily earlier. He believed that it would be prudent, wise and in the best interest of our citizens if we applied for the grant. He thought Novi had something other cities did not in friends like Senator Cassis and Speaker of the House DeRoche. He asked that their aid be enlisted in acquiring the grant. Member Gatt said he lived behind that property until a few months ago, and knew what the residents spoke of regarding wildlife and the pristine conditions. It would be a shame if those 10 or 12 homes were allowed to be built there. He also wanted the address the residents that the law is the law and Council could only

do what they could do. Member Gatt said Mr. Mutch reminded Council that not too many months ago they applied for a grant in a very quick fashion and didn’t see why it shouldn’t be done now.

Mr. Schultz called a point of order that the motion should be reconsidered first and then followed by the substantive motion that was made.

Member Lorenzo noted she was the first one this evening to say that it was not practical to proceed. She appreciated the spirit in which it was being presented, but also appreciated the information received from the staff and State today. She had spoken to the coordinator for the grant and it is not as easy as one might think it is; even if Council approved going forward with this, it would not be seen on an agenda. It would have to go to McKenna and Associates, who are the people who would write the grant, and we would need to get a bid on what it would cost to prepare it. Then it would come back to Council on July 11^th for Council to approve the preparation of the grant by McKenna and Associates. This could cost between $2,500 and $3,000 and then they would only have 3 weeks to prepare the grant. She was not sure that it was feasible at all.

Secondly, Member Lorenzo said the way the State works is they are only going to pay 75% of the fair market value of the property. So the fair market value would need to be established. When she spoke to Mr. Roskelly this morning, he said he wouldn’t be able to commit to donating 25% of the fair market value until he knew what the fair market value was, and he needed to discuss this with his partners regarding whether it would be enough money for the parcel, and if they would be willing to donate the 25%. She gave Mr. Roskelly a lot of credit for being so patient and willing to look into this. It will cost $8,000 to $10,000 to get an appraisal. The State requires at least two appraisals and she didn’t know if Mr. Mutch could confirm that the State would reimburse the City. She said the language on the Internet says "it may" be able to do that. She thought there were a lot of monetary open questions to this.

Member Lorenzo stated so there is a grant application to be written in three weeks, and a property owner and a City that needs to know what the fair market value of the property is. Then Mr. Roskelly has to discuss this with his partners to see if they would be willing to pay 25%, and that is not even speaking to all the criteria in the application that needs to be met in order to qualify for this grant. She would be interested in getting documentation from McKenna and Associates as to how long it would take them to write a grant, and a firm cost of how expensive it would be. She would have no problem doing this but she didn’t want to give any

false hope that this is doable. She said she is a practical person and understood the financial situation the City is in, and said the City could not afford even 25% to purchase this property. The City also could not afford to throw $10,000 or $15,000 at something that has a slim chance of success. She said she would throw it back to the residents. If there are that many people who want to purchase this property, perhaps the residents could come up with the $10,000 for the appraisal and the $2,500 or $3,000 for the grant application. As long as the City and the taxpayers don’t have any burden or commitment she had no problem going further with this. She would not commit today, to spending that kind of money on something that might not come to fruition as there are too many other priorities such as park maintenance, snow plowing, roads, police and fire, etc. She would vote in favor of reconsideration.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the item is back on the table for reconsideration and for Council discussion and/or motion. Member Nagy made a motion to direct the administration to pursue the grant writing regarding this parcel and that it should be done on a timely basis, which was amended to:

Member Gatt suggested the motion be amended to require the grant writers to complete the grant within three weeks. Also, to direct the City Manager and his staff to enlist the aid of Senator Cassis and Speaker of the House Craig DeRoche.

Member Capello thought Member Lorenzo made a lot of very good points. He said he acted hastily but had misunderstood. He thought the grant was only going to be for the area

across the river, with it being owned by the new homeowners, and with a preservation easement on it, he saw no reason for the City to pursue the grant to purchase it. He understands now, that they want to use the grant to acquire the entire parcel. Member

Capello thought the grant could be written in time if pressure is put on them, but the question is are we going to spend the money for the appraisal and the grant. That decision needs to be made tonight. He didn’t think they could go to the general population of residents and ask

them to contribute $25,000 of tax money. The developer is not going to give all of his property away for 75% of fair market value, which is much less money than he would make if he developed it. He said he is willing to pursue this, but residents have to understand they can’t come back to Council and ask for the 25% of the money and don’t be surprised if the developer’s price is in excess of $100,000. Residents should start thinking of what to do to bridge that gap, and should understand that if the grant is successful it will still be a City park.

He said he would support the motion.

Member Paul noted she appreciated Member Lorenzo’s work on this issue and her concerns regarding the fiscal analysis. In the same token she had been in this same situation, where 23

residents jointly purchased property and donated it to the City. It is not impossible, but you really need some people to walk your neighborhood and get that petition out and seek money. Some people will say no, but you have 500 residences. Please pursue that because she believed there is a possibility to do this.

Member Paul thanked Mr. Mutch for his homework on this because it has helped her understand a little more about this grant process. She asked Mr. Auler if this same application had been filled out for any other grant in this City. Mr. Auler responded not during his time with the City, but it was his understanding that it was submitted before and the City was not successful. He said it was a 50-50 matching grant with a different process. It was the same paperwork but the appraisal process, land surveys, legal documentations all have to be completed and submitted with the application. She asked if there was something that needed to be added to the motion about the timing of a public hearing.

Mr. Schultz said he didn’t know that it needed to be in the motion. He thought that the motion directs the administration to make its best efforts to make the grant application. He thought

that was enough and covered any legal responsibility. She asked if the public hearing would be here before Council or the Planning Commission.

Member Paul noted that the City has a tax assessor who has appraised other pieces of property, and thought this was something he could do or perhaps he could be the second appraiser.

Mr. Schultz said we are going to have to look into the State’s requirements as to what kind of appraisals they will accept. He could tell Council from experience, for all these properties up and down Grand River and Twelve Mile, that these people are all busy. If the State requires an MAI appraiser, we are going to have a real tough time meeting that requirement no matter how much effort from the administration, and the same thing with regard to public notice requirements, etc. Mr. Schultz thought they would have to take the Council’s clear direction and put together what is possible and hope it complies with those deadlines and with the Council’s requirements.

Mr. Klaver said an evaluation by the City Assessor would not meet the criteria. They had looked at that before and he could give Council an opinion, but it would be just that.

Member Paul said she wanted to give it the college try to be successful in this grant.

Member Nagy stated she appreciated her colleague’s comments. One thing about the State of Michigan is that you can talk to a lot of people in the same department and get different answers. She gave credit to Mr. Mutch and his colleagues for their research. She believed other cities have gotten grants like this. It is a lot of pressure on the City, the consultants and the appraisals will be most difficult. However, if we don’t try we don’t know. It didn’t have to be used as a park, but it would be there to be used by residents as it has been. She would like to try to get the grant also.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated he would not support the motion. He didn’t mind giving the good old college try to anything and the time constraints didn’t both him. What bothered him was the fact that the administration said the chance of winning this is slim. He said it would cost between $10,000 and $20,000, and asked why they would want to spend that

money when chances are so slim. Also, in order for this to become a reality, Mr. Roskelly would have to agree to accept 75% of the fair market value. We can spend $20,000 on this and make the deadline and if Mr. Roskelly says no, it is all for naught. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said if Mr. Roskelly comes before Council or sends something in writing that he would accept 75%, then Mayor Pro Tem Landry would support the motion and spend the $10,000 to $20,000. Mr. Roskelly knows what the fair market value is, he is in the business. Without that commitment from him he would not support spending the money to do this.

Member Lorenzo said Mr. Roskelly told her that he looked at possibly $1 million for the property, or more. She said he didn’t have a good feel on a fair market value, which might be what he feels he can get out of the property now. However, it is not necessarily what an appraiser would appraise the property for. Member Lorenzo said if his partners agreed, he might be able to donate 25% of the fair market value if he got at least a million out of the fair market value. However, until he knows that, he can’t make that commitment. She thought Mayor Pro Tem Landry was on the right track requesting something concrete from Mr. Roskelly. She felt the residents needed to know that this year Council spent $800,000 more

than was taken in in revenues, and that is a big deal. She would not support making any monetary commitment.

Member Lorenzo asked if the motion was to ask the staff to come back with information from McKenna regarding cost, and what they feel they can do or is this actually to spend money. If the answer is to spend money, she would not support it.

Mr. Schultz said if the answer is to direct McKenna or the grant writer tonight to do this, then there is the issue of appropriating money, which takes a 5 to 2 vote minimum requirement. If the motion is to have the administration pursue the grant, and bring back to the Council a discussion of what it would take, bring it on July 11^th. It would require five votes to authorize any expenditure that needs to be made for appraisers, etc. to award a contract to McKenna. However, if the direction is just to put it all together for Council in a packet for the next meeting four votes are required.

Mr. Pearson suggested they make their best effort as staff, to get some more information, do some legwork, and get it out to Council as soon as possible. He said they would make a special packet, put it in writing and give Council the whole context of other plans, and being a high priority, if Council decides to pursue this anybody can ask for a special meeting and direct the next steps.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if the motion was to appropriate dollars or to get more information.

Member Nagy said her motion was to direct the administration and our consultants to pursue the grant, which involves, obviously, money.

Member Capello offered a friendly amendment to the motion to just direct administration to come back to Council with some more information so they can act, because you’re not going to get your five votes tonight, so let’s at least take some action to get it moving forward.

Member Nagy asked for clarification on what Council would get information back on. Mr. Klaver said information from McKenna on what the cost of the grant would be and what time frame appraisers would need for this property and possibly a quote.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would like our Assessor to give Mr. Roskelly his opinion of what the fair market value of the property is. Then maybe Council could hear from Mr. Roskelly, because if he commits to take 75%, he would vote to go forward.

Member Nagy said she understood that 5 votes were needed for the money and she understood that they needed to talk with Mr. Roskelly, and McKenna needed to be contacted. However, there is such a thing as expediting a matter and she was hoping by directing the administration to pursue this it would be expediting the matter. However, by directing them to pursue this matter does not necessarily mean spending money, and if in fact, everything is pursued and the answer is no, before spending a dime can’t they just get back to Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if the maker of the motion would accept a friendly amendment or not. Member Nagy said she would accept the amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Ms. Cornelius, City Clerk, to restate the motion.

Member Nagy’s first motion was to instruct the administration to pursue the grant writing regarding this parcel on a timely basis.

There was a friendly amendment by Member Gatt to direct the grant writers to write this in three weeks and to direct the City Manager’s office to enlist the aid of Senator Cassis and Speaker of the House DeRoche.

Motion was again amended by Member Capello and accepted by Member Nagy, to direct the administration to come back to Council with information regarding this matter.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said then the motion is to address the administration to get back to Council by the next meeting or in an off week packet, as soon as possible, on what it

would take cost wise and more information for the City to pursue directing the administration to pursue the grant.

Member Paul thought Council needed to say there were three parts to the information being required. 1) The assessors cost for the required MAI, 2) For this developer to hear our Tax Assessors appraisal and 3) give Council the information back on whether that would be

acceptable and 4) What the cost of McKenna’s grant is going to be. Member Nagy asked if there could be a special meeting next Monday, June 27^th because this is extremely important and our timeline is very significant. She offered a friendly amendment to have a Special Council Meeting, Monday, June 27^th, to go over the information. The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment.

Member Lorenzo thought Council needed the information first and then go from there. If the information is favorable, then the Mayor or any two members of the Council could call a meeting. She would not support anything that spends tax dollars without information from the

State on whether Novi would be considered for this grant, and knowing Mr. Roskelly is going to do this.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the seconder did not accept the last amendment about the mandatory meeting June 27^th, so currently the motion does not include that. We can discuss it, vote on it or someone could make another motion. Member Nagy asked if she could amend her own motion to include that the information is out by Friday. Mr. Schultz said she can amend the motion if the seconder approves that.

Member Lorenzo preferred to vote on this motion. If Council wants to vote on a second motion to have a meeting on Monday, then do so.

Member Nagy thought Council should have the information first before knowing they were going to have a meeting. She said it only requires 18 hours, if we did it Friday morning.

She didn’t think a Monday meeting was necessary.

Member Gatt asked Mr. Klaver if this information could be given to Council by next Monday? Mr. Klaver thought it could. Member Gatt supported the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry reopened this discussion stating that Council had questioned whether there was a requirement that there be two signs posted for the rezoning, one on Taft and one on Eleven Mile. They also questioned how many signs were posted.

Ms. McBeth stated they confirmed that one sign is required per street frontage, somewhere near the middle of the property on each of those sides. Also confirmed, was the sign on the east side of the property was erected and up. She said it was a part of their process for review of these things that they go to the site on several occasions, and a day or so before the public hearing before the Planning Commission. She wasn’t sure with100% accuracy, that the sign was up before the public hearing and she was hoping to get word from the original applicant that he did install the sign. Ms. McBeth noted she recalled talking to him about installing the signs.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked when that information would be available. Ms. McBeth said Mr. Fellows is on the phone trying to get that information now. He asked Mr. Schultz if Council had to be 100 % sure that they totally complied.

Mr. Schultz stated that the Site Plan Manual is adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance and it has a provision that addresses signage. It does require both signs posted 15 days before the Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission held its hearing and made its recommendation and no one objected to the signage. He thought the Planning Commission action is complete and legal and should be treated by this Council as a complete action in the absence of any objection. This is a legislative decision by the City Council. He thought if Council wanted to proceed and hear this as a legislative action they could. If it turns out, as it probably will based on the Planning Departments process, that sometime after the Planning Commission hearing but before this hearing, that sign came down, if Council wants confirmation that it’s put back up and it is up in advance of Council’s decision, it is a legitimate action on the part of Council as well. He thought the discussion would lie with this Council. There was no objection at the Planning Commission proceeding, and he didn’t want the possibility of anyone that Council undermined that Planning Commission act, which is already

done and complete. He did not recommend going back and holding an entire public hearing before the Planning Commission. If Council wants, out of concern for the process, to make sure the signs are up while they are making their legislative decision they have that authority, but are not required to do that.

Member Paul stated she would like to proceed forward since the Planning Commission did not have any objections to the signs.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Mr. Schultz if it would be appropriate to call for a motion on whether to proceed. Mr. Schultz thought that motion should be called.

Mr. Fellows stated he spoke with the owner of the property on the corner of 11 Mile and Taft. He said they have split the parcel and are selling the remainder to them and they do remember a second sign. Mr. Fellows also spoke to the broker who represented the previous applicant, and he also remembered there being a second sign.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry noted Council was ready to consider the matter.

Ms. McBeth showed an aerial photo of the property. She said the property is irregular in shape with woodlands and wetlands. The applicant is requesting rezoning from RA to R-1 and the Planning Commission recommended in favor of the rezoning request. They recommended the rezoning to R-1 because it was in conformance with the residential density that is recommended on the Master Plan for Land Use. It is also consistent with some of the development, in terms of density, that would be located to the south and west of this property on the other side of 11 Mile Road. Additionally, the requested R-1 zoning would allow the applicant to consider the possibility of a single family cluster option on the property at a future point, which is not allowed with the R-A zoning. However, it might be appropriate on this site seeing that it is covered by medium density woodlands and it appears that there is a stream along the north part of the property. Ms. McBeth said they asked the City’s woodland consultant, Larry DeBrincat, to be present should there be questions about the woodlands on the property.

Member Lorenzo noted she would not support this rezoning. However, if this was a Planned Rezoning Overlay application she would be willing to consider it. She said she saw no benefit

to the City of adding at least an additional ten homes to an area that only allows nine homes now. Member Lorenzo stressed the financial situation and demand that single family puts on the City. At least with a Planned Rezoning Overlay Ordinance, it would outline a process where the applicant needs to show the benefit to the citizens of Novi in order to increase the number of homes in an area.

Member Capello noted he agreed with Member Lorenzo, and saw no reason or basis to double the density. It can be developed as R-A and it is a nice parcel. If they came to Council with a development option he would certainly look at it, because there might be some benefit to the community to double the density in the area.

Member Paul said Mr. Fellows had done a really nice job with two other developments and she was appreciative of that. She asked if he would be willing to do a project with the Planned Rezoning Overlay attached to it so it could be looked at in terms of the comments of the previous two speakers.

Mr. Fellows said probably, but he wasn’t sure what that meant so before he agreed, he would need to find that out. He said the proposed development that they would bring to the City is a cluster development, which preserves a significant amount of the trees and wetlands that are in the western portion of the property. He said that regarding the doubling of the density, there is a total proposal of 19 units and felt that doubling 9 or 11 to 20 is not a humongous thing to ask. Mr. Fellows noted it is consistent with the Master Plan and the surrounding parcels and is considerably less dense then what they are doing down the road on Taft. If the question of would we propose some kind of Planned Rezoning Overlay application and that means please rezone this and here’s the project we’d like to do, we can do that, because you will see the same project anyway. He didn’t know what the procedure would be but if it added more time he would rather not go that route. Mr. Fellows said he would rather commit to Council now, that they are going to bring in a site cluster development with 19 units on it and go this route, in the interest of saving some time.

Member Paul asked Mr. Schultz if Council could ask for a Planned Rezoning Overlay at this time with the understanding of that and Mr. Fellows’ comments. Mr. Schultz said the ordinance permits it to be invoked at anytime and it would bring him back a few steps in the process. He would have to submit a proposal and a plan to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and the recommendation would come back to the City Council, but a hearing would have to be held on an actual plan at the Planning Commission. Member Paul asked how much time. Mr. Schultz explained it would go back to the Planning Commission, would have to get on an agenda, be noticed for 15 days in advance in the paper and public notices. If the Planning Commission heard that and made a recommendation it could come to the next available Council agenda after that. Mr. Schultz estimated it could take 4 to 6 weeks to come back to Council.

Ms. McBeth said their typical review time frame, if things are put in the order that they come in, is about 5 weeks. They can turn it around more quickly but that might put some other things out of order and out of the process. She was not sure that Mr. Fellows had a plan prepared at this point but they could discuss that with him.

Member Paul asked Mr. Fellows if he had a plan and he responded they had a preliminary plan. Mr. Fellows said, with all due respect to Mr. Schultz and Ms. McBeth, there is no way he

could get this turned around and back before the Planning Commission in a month. A drawing has to be done, and plans have to be submitted. To get the plans considered and reviewed before being able to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda would probably be two months. To go from there and get placement on the Council agenda would probably be three months. He said they do have a plan and would be happy to share it with Council, but would rather proceed tonight.

Member Paul stated there were a lot of natural features in the area and she was concerned about that. If kept at R-A and the cluster option, he could still get a large amount of homes. It would be almost to an R-1 density and not have as many roads or units but would have less sewer, less water lines, etc., which would be less cost. Mr. Fellows said the cluster option is not permitted in the R-A zoning. The first available use of cluster is when the property is zoned R-1. She asked if it stayed R-A would they be removing more natural features. Ms. McBeth said she would have to see a plan to confirm that but yes, with the R-A the single family cluster option would not be available. She said there are other options but they are all limited, and most developers prefer the single family cluster option.

Member Paul noted that she understood that the Master Plan zoned with R-1 and said she was in a quandary because if our Master Plan says this is zoned R-1 and we have all R-A along the front until we hit another development, like Asbury Park, that is zoned R-1. She said she was really at a conflict. Member Paul noted she appreciated the ability to save the natural features so she was thinking that R-1 is a good idea but wanted to hear from Council.

Member Nagy said because of the configuration of the land there is a part that fronts on 11 Mile Road and on either side all those houses are R-A. She said under R-A there was open space and preservation option. She commented she was not for increasing density in this area. It is a two lane road and there is enough as it is, and she was not happy with the density in Asbury Park either. Member Nagy said on either side of it is all R-A. She said in the Planning Commission minutes there were questions of the woodlands being approved and various things. Therefore, she didn’t think this would be a clear cut item that would proceed and be passed. Member Nagy wanted the density reduced as we keep adding in density all over the City and she personally thought the Master Plan should have been amended.

Member Capello said there would be a delay through the rezoning portion because additional plans would have to be submitted. However, he believed that time would be made up going through the site plan approval process because once given the rezoning you are 75% there. In the long run he didn’t think this would be delayed and that Mr. Fellows would just have to give more information up front. He said with the site plan process it would come back to Council for review and then the Planning Commission pretty much just crosses the "T’s" and dots the "I’s" for what Council approved in the rezoning process.

Mr. Fellows appreciated Member Capello’s comments but disagreed because the delays in getting site plans approved, especially smaller ones, doesn’t happen because the Planning Commission makes comments and then they have to go back and resubmit. So the benefits suggested, while real, aren’t going to get us very far in this case. The delays in time come from trying to get on a Planning Commission agenda and getting plans reviewed and approved, because they are very busy. Mr. Fellows reiterated his request that it is Master Planned for that use, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request, staff recommended approval of the request and 19 units would not be a burden on the

roads. A cluster development would save the greatest portion of the site where the trees are concentrated. The site is heavily treed but the wetlands and the heaviest concentration of trees are all in the north west portion of the site, which would be preserved with this plan. He said they are ready to submit this plan tomorrow or the next day.

Member Capello asked Mr. Fellows to pass his plan around and he did.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said this rezoning was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and the staff. The biggest objection tonight is density, however this requested R-1 is in conformance with the density recommended in the current and updated version of the Master Plan. So the density the applicant is asking for is in conformance with the Master Plan. He did not see how density could be a reason to turn the plan down. Council might not like it but the Master Plan is a document that Council has to live with, we don’t get to overrule the Master Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would support approval of this rezoning because it is in conformance with the Master Plan.

Member Lorenzo asked why the applicant was never made aware of the Planned Rezoning Overlay and given the option of going through that process. Ms. McBeth said the original applicant, Felix Valbuena, initially requested something that was in conformance with the Master Plan. So, he was advised that the rezoning was a recommendation from the Planning Commission, and to move on to City Council for approval. Mr. Fellows picked up the property or the option in the last few weeks and it did not come up as an item to discuss with him.

Member Lorenzo said this might need to be a Council policy or directive. She would appreciate it if each and every rezoning application that comes in is given a list of their options on the property, and why each of them might be beneficial. Member Lorenzo thought the property looked to be about 90% wooded and there is a preservation option specifically for areas like this. It would be beneficial not only to the applicant, but to the City to thoroughly

explain each of the options to the applicant as soon as they come in with a rezoning application. She said on many of these sites Council is seeing the same thing. She wanted to see this become the norm where the staff sits with the applicants and goes over the various options and why they might be good for the City and the applicant. She was disappointed that this applicant is totally unaware of Planned Rezoning. Part of the problem is density and part of the problem is that she would like to see how this would benefit the City, and what he is going to do with the property as opposed to just allowing 10 more lots on the property. She would only support this if it came to Council as a Planned Rezoning Overlay. To give this a density change on the Master Plan is an error in judgment given the situations in the City. The Council does have, in certain circumstances, the right and the ability to defer from the Master Plan at those times.

Member Paul said we have rezoned properties and then the actual property owner has sold it and then our actual problem with preservation of natural features with the new owner is not made. So that is why the Planned Rezoning Overlay is so important and she was disappointed that Mr. Fellows didn’t have that option. Member Paul concurred with Member Lorenzo regarding reviewing with applicants all the options. She wanted to look at this with a PRO, because if we rezone it and something happens and that property is sold Council would not be able to preserve the natural feature. She hoped Mr. Fellows would consider a PRO.

Mr. Fellows responded that it was his responsibility to know what his options were, and it was not City staff’s fault. Mr. Fellows said if the property remains R-A, whether it is him or someone else, has by right the option of developing it into one acre lots. There would be fewer of them but the size of the lots that becomes necessary would require substantially more clearing of the site then the R-1 zoning with this cluster plan. Mr. Fellows said they do not intend to sell the property, they intend to develop it just like the product down the street on Taft Road. Finally, Mr. Fellows said Members Gatt and Nagy were not present when Mayor Pro

Tem Landry made his comments about the Master Plan, and he wanted to be sure they had the benefit of his comments, and they responded that they did.

Mr. Fellows asked if the tabling was to an uncertain date or to two weeks from tonight. He was told it was up to him. Mr. Fellows said he would like to come back as soon as possible. Mr. Fellows said he would have a conversation with staff and come up with an application very quickly. Mr. Fellows expressed concern about not being educated on a PRO.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said it means he has to go to the Planning Commission and Member Capello is suggesting that rather than deny this tonight that Mr. Fellows could talk to administration. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said Mr. Fellows could come back very quickly, and say he didn’t want to go PRO and wanted Council’s vote on his rezoning.

Mr. Fellows said if he makes that decision, could he come back with the exact same request in two weeks. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would not need to do anything except to ask to be

put on the agenda. Mr. Fellows asked if the agenda was full and Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would ask the Mayor to make every effort to get him on the agenda, if that is his request.

Member Capello amended his motion to add that this be put on the July 11^th agenda and asked Mr. Fellows if he wanted to be pulled from the agenda to notify the administration. The seconder accepted the amendment.

Member Paul asked if it would be possible to have this presented to Council on July 11^th with a PRO option. Ms. McBeth believed the next step would be to review the plans and present them to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and then have it returned to the Council.

Council recessed at 9:52 P.M.

Council reconvened at 10:07 P.M.

Matt Quinn was present representing Carl Wizinsky and wife, Marsha Boynton, and Steve Schafer was also present. Mr. Quinn said this is 37.75 acres of land and the Wizinsky’s own the front 11.77 acres and Profile Steel owns the driveway area and the rear 25.9 acres. Immediately, to the north is the Target store in the Novi Promenade, to

the south is a City park, an oil well complex and then the middle school complex. To the east is the Providence Hospital complex and to the west is Island Lakes.

Mr. Quinn said currently the property in the front is zoned R-1, the rear and Profile Steel area is zoned I-2. He said they worked with the Planning Commission to develop a master plan for this site and the adopted Master Plan did show, and agreed that this would be Master Planned Single Family Residential with a density of 4.8 units per acre, which complies with the R-T zoning. Mr. Quinn noted there was an opinion letter from the attorney stating that the R-T zoning is a Single Family Residential zoning classification, and that is why they are asking for the R-T zoning.

Mr. Quinn said Profile Steel, which is a heavy industrial user, has a lot of outside storage. The Profile Steel building is a half enclosed half open building where they do some metal fabricating, cutting and storing of steel cables. The Planning Commission felt this was an important project to rezone because of the proximity to the school. He showed an outdoor storage area that he said was not very safe. Mr. Quinn noted with Providence Hospital coming in with its ring road immediately to the east this development would tie in a pedestrian orientation to the ring road or a safety entrance or possibly an automobile access.

Mr. Quinn stated the staff has a positive recommendation for rezoning to R-T, and the Planning Commission voted very favorably to recommend the rezoning to R-T because it complies with the Master Plan. However, the underlying reasons are that the R-T zoning is a transitional zoning district. It will transition from the Target store and the Novi Promenade to the south, it will protect the community park and the schools, and it is compatible with Catholic Central High School and Island Lake across the street. It is also in discussion with the Providence Hospital representatives and they are looking at the project very favorably and are looking at duplex type units that will be $300,000 and up. They believe that as Providence Hospital expands some of the workers will be able to use this site and walk to work. He said it would be a development of seniors or young couples, either single or married, who would be able to afford this type of unit. They anticipate that it would be constructed by Toll Brothers and they have a need to have this project fit in with what is across the street, as they like to support their property values. This development will add significant tax base to the City, and he expected it would require very little City services. There was a petition at the Planning Commission from 19 residents, who live directly across the street in the Island Lake Villas that showed they like the idea of the duplex area and did not want to see the commercial extended any further to the south. Mr. Quinn said they were all in favor of getting rid of the industrial user.

Mr. Quinn said this is an opportunity for Profile Steel. They have another site to go to and need to make a decision shortly whether to expand on this site. It means that the out of place I-2 use would be surrounded by residential and school uses, and it is almost spot zoning by itself to leave this one isolated piece of I-2 in this location. He said they would look for Council’s favorable rezoning from R-1 and I-2 to R-T.

Ms. McBeth showed Council the current Master Plan for Land Use designations. The Planning Department recommended in favor of the rezoning request to R-T because it was in conformance with the Master Plan, which shows Single Family with a density of

4.8 units per acre. The Planning Department felt the proposed use with town homes would provide a positive transition between the wildlife woods park to the south and the Target store to the north. The applicant indicated that they intended to preserve the historic house on the property much like occurred at Trillium Village at Nine Mile and Haggerty. They also recommended in favor of the rezoning request as well.

Member Nagy asked how many acres Mr. Wizinsky’s property was. Ms. McBeth said it is 11.77 acres. Member Nagy asked what it is currently zoned and Ms. McBeth replied it is zoned R-1. She asked what would happen if Mr. Wizinsky sold his property, and how many units per acre would there be. Ms. McBeth said it would be 1.65 units per acre with a possible 18 units as currently zoned. She asked what R-T meant. Ms. McBeth said in the R-T District single family homes or two family attached homes can be built on single lots. Member Nagy agreed that this would be a nice transition but was concerned about the density, and asked if there was a way to reduce the density.

Mr. Schafer said under the ordinance it is required to do a parallel plan and that would be our next step. In looking at our parallel plan and the units we want to construct we aren’t going to be able to reach the 4.8 unit per acre density. He said they were looking at doing the same units that are over in Island Lake except some of those are four plexes. These will be 2,700 sq. ft. duplexes and the envelope sizes would be much

larger so we are not going to be able to accomplish the maximum density. In order to do two family attached they would need to have the R-T zoning. This is going to be a very up scale type development. Mr. Wizinsky has been there a long time, and a lot has changed around his property. He said when talking with Mr. Wizinsky and his wife he told them they would use a lot of the extra dirt from the berm from Profile and redo their berm to provide better screening and landscaping for them. Their home is about 86 years old and will remain on at least a two acre parcel of that property. It will be larger than what the R-1 would provide for so they would not skinny that lot down. Their agreement with Mr. Wizinsky is that he has to have at least two acres left. Mr. Schafer noted density was not driving this. He said Toll Brothers only has about five of their units left. They will all have main floor master bedrooms but will have an office loft in the upper levels.

Member Nagy said she was not opposed to this but was concerned about density, and thought the traffic would add about 1,000 cars versus 600. She wanted to hear the opinions of the rest of Council.

Member Lorenzo stated she didn’t see the need for increasing the density in the zoning classification to provide transitional zoning. When she looks around the City and sees what is being built and the amount of dollars invested, she realizes that if you build it

people will come. She thought that this could be utilized as R-1 with proper berming. She didn’t think they had demonstrated that they couldn’t build on the R-1 single family lots portion of this. They are asking Council to go three zoning classifications and higher than our highest density, which is R-4 zoning. Member Lorenzo said this applicant is not showing any benefit to the City by doing this and asked why Council would want to do that. She said if they had shown Council a PRO that would provide the opportunity to show the City what the benefit would be to go to a higher zoning classification. She also had a problem with taking almost 38 acres of non residential tax base and turning it into high density residential tax base. She said that is exactly the

opposite of where the City needs to go to preserve its future if we are going to remain the sixth lowest tax rate in the area, and still provide the City services to current and future residents at the level we do now. She commented she downloaded information off the Internet from the Mackinaw Center of Policy Research, which talked about the Scio Township study in Washtenaw County. It is basically a widely know study of the costs of community services in Michigan. The conclusion was that commercial and industrial land has the largest positive fiscal impact for that township. For every dollar raised in revenue the township spent only 26 cents. As in comparison to residential which was for every dollar raised 49 cents was spent, and it didn’t take into consideration educational costs because we pay separately to our school districts. This is not a bargain for us and is exactly counter to what the City’s business plan should continue to be, which is to increase the non-residential tax base in the City of Novi. She is concerned about winding up as a City that can’t pay for itself, and we have the fiscal analysis that gives us the information. She questioned the judgment of the Planning Commission in this case but they were without the benefit of the fiscal impact analysis when they adopted the Master Plan on December 1, 2004. She felt it was justification for not just saying it is in the Master Plan now and we have to automatically go with that. If this and future Councils do not start considering the zoning implications of what is being done, we are going to find ourselves not being able to afford this City or having to

go to the taxpayers and asking them to raise taxes or cutting back on City services. She would not support the rezoning. She said if he said he wanted to change that R-1 to Commercial she would be in favor of it, and that is unusual for her. Member Lorenzo said when the promenade went in and the area turned from Light Industrial to Commercial, what’s 11 more acres. She thought it might serve the public as a neighborhood area for a commercial shopping center. She didn’t think this was the right plan for the City. She felt that every time this is done the City is digging itself deeper and deeper into a hole. A police officer is needed for every 1,000 residents, and there aren’t enough police officers as it is, same for the fire personnel. This is the wrong plan, wrong time and wrong area and she would not support it in any way.

Member Paul said she was looking for a PRO. She appreciated the tax base for I-2 and how that whole corridor has changed. She looks at the whole area as mainly residential and the I-2 doesn’t fit. Member Paul said she was not in favor of more commercial. She could not approve the density but would like to see what they could offer with a PRO. Most importantly, she looks at the density of Island Lake and the Toll Brothers site on the east side of Wixom Road and Catholic Central coming in. Those are all very intense traffic usage. There is a fire station on Ten Mile east of Wixom Road and if more density is allowed she didn’t know how they would go through the traffic when Catholic Central is dropping off and picking up, or football game traffic, etc. at the

school. She would not support this project but appreciated their trying to conform with the residential community but not R-T. She hoped they would come back with lower density and other options.

Member Capello noted he could not support the rezoning. He stated that Profile Steel has been a very good resident of the City and he thought their facility was clean, not offensive and tucked away where it does not affect any of the businesses around it. It doesn’t have a bad affect on the Providence site, it has some industrial properties to the north, and Target. Member Capello said Council has been told that if they remain in

Novi they are going to expand. It doesn’t make any sense to say that Novi has a good tax base that is going to expand, so let’s move it out to bring in some multiple residential

units. He said the piece zoned R-1 next to Target, is a problematic piece. Council has been hearing for years from Mr. Wizinsky, it is unbearable to live by Target, and Mr. Wizinsky asked that the ordinance be changed and several times it was. Now he says, it’s unbearable for me but let’s put a whole lot more people right next to Target too; all of a sudden since he is going to make some money, Target’s not quite as unbearable as it was a year ago. Member Capello thought this could be developed as R-1 and consistent with the Toll Brothers properties across the street. He didn’t buy the fact that to put multiple residential between Target and the City Park and next to Providence and Light Industrial would be a buffer. He thought the Planning Commission could have found a much better buffer use than the R-T zoning. For all those reasons, Member Capello said he could support either of the rezonings being requested.

Member Gatt stated he was troubled by the same things as previous Council members. He could support it because it does comply with the Master Plan, but he was also perplexed as to why Council would vote to have an entity like Profile Steel, a big taxpayer, leave the City instead of expanding.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval, and the big reason is density. He said he could understand their viewpoint that Council needs to look at not increasing density. However, he didn’t understand that when the Master Plan says it expects this area of the City to build out at this density, then on what basis is it turned down. The Master Plan is the City of Novi telling the world how Council expects the City to build out, and it is saying it will build out at 4.8 units per acre. This applicant is doing exactly what the City has told them to do, develop this at 4.8 units an acre, so on what basis does Council say no. It doesn’t make sense. If there is some unique aspect to the parcel, in his opinion, that is when the Master Plan is deviated from but that is not the case here. It is not the business of City Council to tell the Planning Commission they are wrong.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said Council is not bound by the Master Plan, it is a guide but without some unique reason, he could not see deviating from it. He thought this would be a transition between Target and the other areas, and it would be compatible with Catholic Central and Island Lake. The traffic report concludes there is no reason to deny this and engineering has no reason for denial. The development of Target immediately adjacent has created all kinds of difficulties; Council has sat here for years and listened to them. Providence Hospital is coming to the east, Catholic Central to the west, and this would be an opportunity to develop this property knowing that those developments are coming. The land could be balanced and changes made with

significant berming, there could be clusters and all kinds of things could be done knowing that those very large uses are adjacent to the property. He said he could see Providence Hospital employees and other people who work in the area purchasing the duplexes. This would allow development of the area consistent with the development around it, and it is consistent with the Master Plan, so he would approve this.

Member Paul said when Council discussed the Master Plan a year ago, one of the areas that she disagreed with the Planning Commission on was this parcel. We have Cadillac Asphalt to Catholic Central North and it was zoned initially Light Industrial. Just

because a judge said that Target and commercial could go in there, so be it, but Council does not have to keep compounding the problem. She thought the traffic study was

premature. Catholic Central is not open yet and in September Council might have another feel for what’s in that area. She would like to look at this in another light. Member Capello made a comment about going to R-T and a PRO. Member Paul said any time there is a rezoning she looks at a PRO and that is how she would support it. She was not looking for R-T under any circumstances, and she hoped that Council could come to a conclusion for this site. She would not support it, because a year ago Master Plan and Zoning looked at this with a lot of empathy for a very good resident. She understood that, and told Mr. Wizinsky that she felt badly, and that is why they brought forward all the issues with Target and all the dumping that went into the wetlands, etc. She noted she informed one of the owners of the property that she would not support the density for that reason. It is not to go against the Master Plan but she never intended to agree with this portion, and that is why she wanted it to come back to the City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked that reasons for denial be stated in the motion. Member Lorenzo added to the motion, the following reasons for denial. The applicant did not demonstrate that the property could not be developed as currently zoned, the Master Plan adoption did not have the benefit of the Fiscal Analysis nor did it take into account the Fiscal Analysis submitted to the City Council on December 7, 2004, and the

applicant has not shown the City any clear benefit of changing the zoning classification.

Member Paul commented that the traffic study is premature for evaluation since Catholic Central is not present. She would like this in the motion if Member Lorenzo was amenable. Member Lorenzo didn’t think the traffic study had any relevance, at this point. They might have to supply that for a PRO but when rezoning, Council does not look at site plans or traffic, but they do look at land use and its implications.

Absent: Csordas

Matt Quinn was present representing Gary Wood, owner of Hummer, and Scott Riddle the Project Manager and both were present. They were present to request additional signage on the Hummer dealership. He showed Council, on the overhead, the existing signage and explained the elements of the sign, and commented that it is the standard sign of Hummer nationwide. He said they have found that the City Council did such a tremendous job designing this building not to look like a dealership, that the people looking for it don’t know it is a dealership either.

Mr. Quinn said they have landscaped with walls and shrubbery in the parking lot and the cars can’t be seen traveling 45 M.P.H. west on Grand River. The driveway is way to the east near the City wetland area, and is not identified at all. It is not lit at night and they were wondering what would happen during the winter months when it is dark at 4:45 P.M. People are getting up to the intersection, and looking back and realizing they passed the dealership. Then they have to turn on Meadowbrook and turn in the other driveway, which creates traffic problems along the west bound Grand River corridor, and something needs to be done. Also, on the Meadowbrook driveway, going south the Hummer dealership can’t be seen at all. The exit of Soccer Zone is a low point, then your’re going up the hill and the entrance to the Hummer dealership is right on top of the hill and the dealership can’t be seen until your on top of the hill. Again, people are missing that driveway.

Mr. Quinn said they are proposing a national design Hummer sign to be used at both those entrances. The sign is 5 foot tall, the letters are 10 inches high by almost 9 feet in length. The upper sign is 2 feet by 7 feet. They would like one placed on the west side of the Grand River driveway, and one on the north side of the Meadowbrook driveway. They will alert the public to where the entrances are. Mr. Wood said people have driven through the entire complex and he didn’t think they were doing it on purpose, but because they think it is a street.

The third sign is for the service entrance because people are having a hard time finding the service bay. They are looking for the same type of sign to go above the service door that just says "Service".

Mr. Quinn said they have a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, TCO, coming up in August. He said what needed to be done was minor. The demo track is not quite finished, the bench

on Grand River has been moved east of the building closer to the natural areas, the landscapers have recently replaced 40 dead trees on the site, and they have to do a little more. They will be building the seeding pod, cementing it, putting in the bench and landscaping around it. Those are the two things that need to be done to finalize occupancy, and it is almost finished. This is not just a request for more signage; there is a real reason for these signs to be in these three places. He asked Council to amend the planned SDO to allow the placement of the three additional signs.

Member Nagy said this happened because they didn’t build the original concept plan. However, she agreed with Mr. Quinn and the applicant. It is a variance from the sign

ordinance, but where the service sign would go doesn’t do anything but face the parking lot, and she didn’t see how it would intrude. She said the driveway on Meadowbrook sloped around and if they used the requested square footage it would rise up so it could be seen. She had no problem with this.

Member Gatt said he was familiar with the sign ordinances as he sat on the Zoning Board of Appeals. He thought Mr. Quinn had done a masterful job in portraying to Council the need for the variance, he would support the motion.

Member Lorenzo commented she had no problem with the service sign or with the two additional signs. Her concern was the size, 2 feet by 5 feet by 7 feet, of the signs. She asked if they could be any smaller.

Mr. Quinn said the size of the sign is related to the speed of the traffic going by. Imagine going 45 or 50 miles an hour and having to make an instantaneous decision to turn. Also, some of the people buying the Hummers are now in little, low cars and are not sitting up high.

Member Lorenzo said she understood that they might not know where the entrance is, but they would have to be able to identify that it is a Hummer dealership and start to slow down. She wouldn’t support it because of the size.

Member Capello said Mr. Quinn made a good argument for the signs, but a 7 foot sign is not a sign to direct someone into your driveway. It is an advertisement and he couldn’t justify giving four signs for one building. He said other businesses on Grand River would come in and ask for the same thing while pointing to Hummer. It is obvious, even without one sign on the building, that it is a Hummer dealership. If anyone doesn’t need, a sign it is this dealership.

Mr. Quinn said these are not signs to identify the business; they are signs to identify the entrance ways. Member Capello said a 7 foot by 5 foot sign is not a driveway identification sign. Mr. Quinn said there are requirements from General Motors, and this is the General Motors Hummer sign package and we have to request that. If not, then they have to go back to General Motors national, negotiate and find out what they would allow that is different than this. He said that is why the demo track is being built, because it is a requirement of the Hummer franchise.

Member Capello said he didn’t like the base of the sign, which had an industrial steel grid look to it. It should have some type of brick base to be consistent with the building and the façade required in the Gateway District. He asked if they really needed a 14

foot service sign for people flying through the parking lot. Mr. Quinn said no, it just fits over both of the doors and the size is the standard service signage for a Hummer dealership.

Mr. Pearson said the applicant has said these were not advertising signs; they are directional signs. The fact is that the standard for directional signage is two square feet. He said Marty Feldman had many requests from the Main Street businesses and Local Color, for additional signage for their exposure. He also clarified the points of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, as it is not the information the City has. He said they have heard frequently that these minor issues would be corrected. The Council has been very good and supportive about it, but it is important to live up to their obligations. He suggested that Council might want to make it conditional that no signs go up before the TCO is taken care of. Mr. Pearson said administration would appreciate some help in emphasizing this.

Member Paul noted she has been a stickler on TCO’s and appreciated Mr. Pearson’s comments. She said she was very much in favor of getting the TCO requirements for Target, and would not do anything different for this dealership. We have a PRO to protect us. If there are things that need to be done by August 13^th she would appreciate it if they would have them done. Member Paul commented that they are in the building and benefiting from our community, and the rezoning and everything that has been done for them, and asked that they please complete the TCO by August 13^th. They said they would. Secondly, she would not approve that size sign and asked that they come back with another proposal. Member Paul would not support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he thought they satisfied the Special Development Option but needed to make the signs smaller.

Member Capello said he didn’t know how they would handle this with General Motors.

Member Capello asked if they wanted specific direction for sizes to go to General Motors with, or just do it again themselves.

Mr. Gary Wood, owner of Hummer, said they would approach GM. The signs that Council saw was what happened when they went to GM for the two entrance signs. Mr. Wood said as you come down Meadowbrook, there is no signage and people miss us. On the Grand River side, the speed of cars was a problem, so they submitted their problem to GM to develop what was needed, which is what you are seeing in these signs. If they don’t meet Council’s satisfaction he understood that. Member Capello

asked if they wanted to take the ordinance back to GM and see what they could come up with.

Mr. Wood asked if the two entrance signs were on a brick foundation with a Hummer on top, would that be more satisfactory. Member Capello said it would help, but it is still the size that is a problem. Mr. Woods said they would be back with more than 2 foot, because from either direction the draw isn’t the building. It is not necessarily the cars or what is behind the wall. The eye draws to the building, and by the time you figure out what to do, you are past the entrances. Mr. Wood said, regarding the service sign, it would be there to direct people to the service department. It is large and could be smaller, but it is the same size and type that is on the two Hummer sides, and it seems congruent to go with that, and it faces the back of the building. Member Capello said the service doesn’t really bother him because it does face the back.

Mr. Wood asked for a vote on the service and they would be happy to table the entrance signs.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the motion is to table the entire matter until they satisfy the TCO requirements, and then to come back for Council to consider an approval of everything.

Member Paul said she supported the tabling of this item, and preferred they have two very small service signs on the back instead of a 14 foot sign, as she would not support that. She asked that they finish the TCO, come back to Council and she would be looking for them to follow the ordinance. If Marty Feldman has a sign that is 6 by 2 instead of 2 by 7 we are going to be looking for that.

Member Capello asked to be recused as he worked on this Council before being elected to Council.

Member Paul said when Council gives a partial approval for something will there be any problem with cost overruns, such as when we do engineering design and engineering construction. Will there be any hidden costs by giving half the bid out for this portion of it.

Mr. Hayes responded that they are well within their budget with the pre-cast beams estimated at $120,000 and the low bid came in at $88,000. Our current construction estimate came in at about $350,000, which brings it to about $430,000 and the budget is $600,000.

Member Paul asked the name of the engineering firm that would oversee this project. Mr. Hays said Fishbeck, Thompson and Carr and they will do the design and the construction services.

Member Nagy asked if the Haggerty Regional Detention Basin was really needed and if there were any other options.

Mr. Hayes said this has been on the Storm Water Master Plan since 1983 and on the Capitol Improvement Program for several years. The reason for the project is to address flooding downstream of this location, and by doing so we will mitigate any future flooding, because we are providing storage capacity at the Haggerty detention location. There are site plans that have been approved, one being the Regency Development, with the understanding that they will permanently connect to our system and discharge to this detention basin.

Member Nagy thought the MDEQ turned this down and now we are going to have this remediation. She asked if there would be any other surprises. Mr. Hayes responded they initially thought they could have a much less stringent cleanup criterion. This is a storm water basin and they thought the Ground Water Surface Water Interface Criteria would be applicable, which is much less stringent than what they are being held to. They are holding us to the industrial direct contact, which means anyone, specifically an industrial or construction worker, can’t come in contact with that soil. So that cleanup criteria are half, it is 35,000 as opposed to 70,000 parts per billion, that’s why our estimate ended up at the higher end of the range given previously.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said she could not support the motion. This project was attractive when it was $500,000 and we were getting $250,000 back from the Rouge Program office. It is no longer attractive. She thought before spending $611,000 and another $65,000 for almost $700,000 coming out of our Drain Fund that Council should look at alternatives. She thought one alternative was to construct the three basins without the fourth, and she would like Council to have discussions with MDEQ. Because the cleanup and the due care that we are being required to do for this project is because it is going to discharge into water, and it is industrial direct contact. She didn’t think it had been explored that there would be less requirements if we didn’t do anything on the property, just cap it. Do deed restrictions say that nothing would be done with the property?

Mr. Hayes said there has been excavation and there is a stock pile of contaminated soil that can’t be put back in the hole, and we are obligated to deal with it. Member Lorenzo said that soil is one thing, but before excavating any more lets talk to them and see what the options

are. She said $300,000 has been spent on this project to date, but to spend almost $700,000 more would make it a $1.2 million project. It wasn’t too long ago that Council received a Storm Water Master Plan and there were a number of initiatives that we were looking to do there.

This is a huge chunk of change and she didn’t think it was cost efficient for the City to do this, and she would not support the motion.

Mr. Hayes said unfortunately in order to do that, because this falls under Part 201 of the State Law, we would have to do a remedial action plan because it is considered an environmental facility. He noted that was a long drawn out process, a consultant would have to be hired to do the detailed plan before entering into negotiations with MDEQ. If we go that route, we will open a whole new can of worms. Member Lorenzo said then the motion would be to explore the alternatives and the costs for such a study. She was sure it wouldn’t cost $700,000. She was looking to stop the bleeding in all the cases, and asked that in the future all the alternatives are looked at before coming back to Council. If an alternative is to abandon the project and do what Mr. Hayes is saying, then lets get a cost estimate and what the steps are.

Member Gatt asked Mr. Hayes if it had ever been determined how the contaminated soil got there. Mr. Hayes said no, but previously it was owned by MDOT and is adjacent to I-96. There was a two track leading to this particular area of the site and it could have been illegal dumping at one time. Member Gatt said MDOT has an ironclad contract saying that we bought the property as is. He suggested using the resources we have in Lansing. He felt no contract is ironclad and if there is any question that MDOT knew about this or even caused this he thought that every avenue at our disposal should be explored to get help from the State to remedy this. The maker and the seconded of the motion agreed to amend the motion.

Member Paul said to take a million plus dollars out of the drain revenue would deplete a lot of the money in that source. She asked if when Sand Stone was present and we had some contamination on that site was it all in one clump like this was. Mr. Klaver said no. She found it very interesting that if Sand Stone and it was wide spread throughout the property that we have one small part and this ironclad waiver from MDOT saying that they have no responsibility. The property was purchased for a little over $12,500 and here we are with a million plus dollars that we are going to expend on it. She would support the postponing of this but would not spend this kind of money if there are any other alternatives. If we have to have this fourth basin, can we do it somewhere on that site, and if a new basin is less costly to build in place of this can this one be capped and soil gotten rid of.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Kapelczak if he thought the Haggerty basin was needed and asked if he had any opinion or guidance to offer. Mr. Kapelczak said this basin has been planned and developments have occurred that are looking at this basin being on line at this time. He didn’t know if in depth calculations have been done regarding leaving part of this out and still having

enough room to take care of those developments that are on line. He said there is still a large amount of dirt that has been excavated and has to be removed and he thought Mr. Hayes had a good idea on the cost of the dirt that is there now. Mr. Hayes said 75% of the total volume has been excavated and it wasn’t until the operator neared the bottom of the excavation that

he noticed the smell. She asked what the options were. Mr. Kapelczak said that material has to be removed and that is the biggest part of the cost and it’s the MDEQ that said it has to go

into the right class of landfill. She asked why soil samplings weren’t done in conjunction with the construction work. Mr. Hayes said there was no indication of environmental problems until the bottom of the excavation was exposed. She said she would support the motion.

Member Capello asked if this was something that didn’t need to be done until Council decided what else they were going to do.

Mr. Shultz said he was correct. This is driven on the volume of soil that has to be removed.

Member Paul stated that the Landon Group has purchased a statue and they are donating it to the City. Providence Hospital said they would do the landscaping and the landscape architecture around the statue and Dixie Marble on Grand River has donated a limestone base. The statue is 4 by 3 and the actual pediment will be between 18 and 24 inches high. It will be approximately a total of 6 feet high. Anthony Concrete has asked if they could donate the stamped concrete and a sidewalk to go around the base and Simchek will donate irrigation

and there will be no cost to the City. The proposal for this statue will be coming to Council at the end of August or early September. Member Paul was sharing the information because a decision had to be made of where it would be placed. The project needed to be started and

the landscape architect had to know where it would be located. She met with Mr. Helwig and Mr. Klaver on Friday.

Mr. Klaver said the area would be in front of the handicap parking on the east side of the building in a space about 40 by 20 or 25 feet deep. It is the most active entrance, there is space and, has the most visibility and would accommodate the plans for the statute.

Member Paul said they had talked about other locations such as Fire Station 1 on Grand River. However, it is not an area where you could sit and is more of a drive by area. Secondly, Fire Station 4 was discussed but it is in a remote area and there were some concerns about vandalism as there were about Community Sports Park. Mr. Helwig really discouraged that area and felt there were not a lot of visitors at Fire Station 1 to appreciate this. He felt there were more visitors at the Civic Center and the southern door of the building is the most used. She was hopeful that she could get Council consensus of the location so they could move forward with the landscape architect and a formal plan could be submitted.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if anyone considered the parcel of land owned by the City on the north east corner of Novi Road and Grand River. Member Paul didn’t believe so because there has been talk about selling that. He said the City has been approached about selling it but no decision has been made and he felt that would be a visible site. Member Paul said the main areas looked at were the ones mentioned. She agreed that Novi Road and Grand River is a very visible area and very attractive but to put in all this time with the possibility that it might be sold was a concern to her. They were also looking for an area where people could sit, read the plaque and enjoy this location because of the importance of 9-11 to our entire country.

Member Nagy commended Member Paul for the work she had done. She assumed this was a dedication to the firefighters. It is a dedication to Chief Lenaghan. She thought the Civic Center location was very good. This is an honor for the City and says a lot about Member Paul as a person and wanting to dedicate this to our Fire Chief after his number of years of service. It is greatly appreciated by her as a Council person and as a resident of Novi.

Member Capello also thought Member Paul had done a great job and this would be a great asset to the City. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Landry’s idea of locating the statute at the north east corner of Novi Road and Grand River. Member Capello said he would be opposed to selling that property but looking at that area we don’t need that large of an area to put the statute. We might be able to work something out with that developer to do all the landscaping and additional work together with other contributors, and end up with something that would be a focal point of one of our four corners in town. He said he wouldn‘t eliminate that possibility until it comes to Council on July 11^th when Council will decide what they are doing with that piece of property.

Member Paul suggested that administration look at both areas and come back with an analysis of what would be best. She didn’t want to go too far in to this because she wanted the actual design to come forward because our goal was for 9-11. Unfortunately, Catholic Central is having an open house event on 9-11 so they decided to move this to 9-17. We were hoping it

would go along with Fall for Novi. She appreciated their comments but wanted it to be an area where one can actually sit and enjoy and the most visited area in the City are our parks and City Hall.

Member Gatt commended Member Paul for her work. It is beautiful and a tribute to a pretty good guy. He would like to see and thought it would be appropriate to have the statue at City Hall.

Member Lorenzo said great job. Member Paul commented she wasn’t looking for the thanks and appreciated everyone’s comments but she really wanted everyone to thank the Chief. He has put in a lot of years and a lot of hard work into our City, and that was the purpose of it.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry noted there is consensus of Council to investigate and come back with some figures on both the City Hall site and the Grand River and Novi Road site.

Member Paul commented she was excited to say there are 62 youth applicants for a very small amount of positions. There are 13 positions for the Youth Council and 4 for boards and commissions. She shared that Providence Hospital would be doing their health study and they are looking to do a Health Youth Council for the City of Novi and whoever would be interested, out of the 62 applicants, they agreed to have them be a part of their Health Council for Youth. Their goals are to have the youth go into some of the elementary schools and propose some healthy eating habits, drug and alcohol awareness but with the focus on exercise. They would implement it from our Coalition that Cares and have them be active with the police department in our DARE program. They want this to be a City project because they are looking for grant money and what better way to be successful than to engage our youth. As a parent, I can tell you that my kids would listen to high schoolers long before they would listen to me. She was looking to also look at the issues of bulimia and anorexia and this is an area they have expertise in. Providence Hospital wants our youth to be a part of educating our community. Member Paul asked the administration to look into what group out of the 62 would be interested in looking at that as an option. Maybe this would fine tune our numbers between

boards and commissions, Youth Council and the Health Council. These applicants have put a lot of time into their essays and she would be supporting hearing each individual. She said hopefully Council will be able to ask them where placement and their interests are, and move forward so this can be up and running by the end of August or September.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if it would be her recommendation to ask administration to see whether any of the 62 applicants would be interested in applying for the Providence Hospital Board and submit the results to Council for the July 11^th Council meeting. Member Paul agreed and there was Council consensus. Member Paul asked that Council come back with their calendars and dates.

Member Lorenzo said it has been three months since the Council heard from the Library Board, and she thought it was time to receive an update. She also wanted feedback regarding the Library Board meeting minutes for March, April and May because they are not on their web

site. She wanted to ask Brenda Evans and President Richard Smith if they could provide information to the Council within a couple of weeks. Member Lorenzo commented it was about the beginning of May that the school district decided that it was not in their best interest to

swap the land. She wanted to know if the Library has formally confirmed that they are staying where they are, whether or not there is a firm design plan to show to perspective donors, if any fund raising is being planned around the design in terms of meeting their objectives and goals. Also, any funds spent to date with regard to this project.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Hayes if everything was going well. Mr. Hayes said the contractor has re-dewatered the lake so the excavation area is now accessible, and he has resumed production. She asked why the berm failed. Mr. Hayes said there was a deluge weekend before last and he got more water than what was anticipated and several pumps failed.

Member Paul said Council received a June 10^th letter, and the Carlton Properties, Shannon Development, had a consent judgment and only wanted to pay $35,000 when the court said unconditional payment of $57,094 was expected. She wanted to say thank you to the City Attorney for the letter, and make sure that is exactly what is collected. There are no uncertain circumstances that this is even discussible. This is how much we are owed and we need it.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry wanted to bring it to the attention of the community that Don Saven, Director of the Building Department, has been named for the year 2005 the regions outstanding building official. It certainly is a testament to Mr. Saven, to his entire department and the administration. For one of Novi’s own to be named the outstanding official is really something special, and Mr. Saven deserves all of our accolades, as does his department and the entire administration should be honored by this.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said this entire Council would be sorely remiss if we did not note that after 23 years as an employee of the City of Novi and after 34 years in public service our Chief Operating Officer Craig Klaver is retiring. He told Mr. Klaver that it has been a pleasure to work with him, the entire City owes him a debt of gratitude. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said Mr. Klaver has worked very hard for this City, from literally in charge of the group that built this building and he said Mr. Klaver should be very proud, hoped that Mr. Klaver would take with him fond memories into his retirement. He thanked Mr. Klaver for guiding the Council.

Member Paul said she had learned from Mr. Klaver that under the steps in the atrium is a time capsule of when the actual building was built. She said when he left the City would lose a wealth of history and appreciated all his years of service.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said Council would adjourn to Executive Session.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:43 P.M.

______________________________ ___________________________

Lou Csordas, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

______________________________ Date approved: July 11, 2005

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean