REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2005 AT 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS-NOVI CIVIC CENTER-45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.

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

ALSO PRESENT: Richard Helwig, City Manager

Clay Pearson, Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Randy Auler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry

Benny McCusker, Director of the Department of Public Services

Barbara McBeth, Director of the Planning Department

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Member Paul moved #2 on Mayor and Council, Village Oaks 14.7 acres – Mr. Roskelly Property to Department Reports. Mr. Helwig has agreed to discuss this item.

Member Nagy moved, in Mayor and Council Issues, #1 to #2 and added as #1 Motion to reconsider denial on June 20, 2005 of Zoning Text Amendment 18.647 from Schafer Development to rezone property located east of Wixom Road and south of Grand River Avenue from I-2, General Industrial, and R-1, Single-Family Residential, to RT, Two-Family Residential. The subject property is 37.75 acres.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Schultz if this could be done. Mr. Schultz said Member Nagy’s motion is to add the reconsideration as an agenda item. If that passes as part of this amended agenda, a number of things would need to happen and could be done at that time.

Member Paul added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #3. Remaining 2000 Road Bond Projects and #4 Nine Mile Road water main from Kensington to Roberts Road.

Mayor Csordas, regarding Matters for Action Part II, Item #7, Appointments to Boards and Commissions, removed the appointment to the Planning Commission until a full Council was present.

Mr. Helwig commented that this is the stage that the water main assessment roll has been provided and tonight is the opportunity for Council to receive public input and to decide if Council wishes to take action on this or go forward to poll the residents.

Steve Gossard, 44915 Galway Dr. noted he spoke at the last Council meeting saying Council’s representative of this issue had made a misrepresentation. However, he failed to mention that this representative told the residents that the City Council had already decided they would not allow SAD’s to go down. That was his comment and Council’s determination was that the City would have too much money into it, so once they got started they were going to finish. It bothered him that no one took offense about being misrepresented. The representative said it was also set up to be an 800 foot loop, by his definition. The vote at 800 feet was 7 against and 6 for. Amazingly, what is being presented to Council today is a 600 foot loop, which was originally represented as being a minimum of 800 feet. So, we have two critical misrepresentations, and Mr. Gossard hoped Council would find out why they were presented that way so he is protected, because he is one of the negative votes. Secondly, in looking at the budgetary designs there is $15,000 for sod and that’s 15,000 feet of sod. He said if it’s a 600 foot project why is there three times that much in sod and asked for an explanation. He wanted to know if he was being represented at all or is this a done deal. Mr. Gossard realized they have other recourses under Michigan Law, one of them being Dixon Road versus Novi in 1986 that says, "it becomes the resident’s responsibility to prove to Council that this is not an addition to the property that would increase it in value." He thought that would be very simple to do because there has been one house with water in Connemara that started for sale at $299,000 and sold for $266,000, which was the appraised value before the water came in. He asked Council for assurance that misrepresentation by City staff is not something that is common place or something Council would accept as a good representation.

Mayor Csordas commented that City Council has the prerogative of continuing the process or not. Typically, this Council takes a poll at certain steps of the project, and looks at the majority of the people in favor or opposed. Then Council looks at other factors and then moves forward or stops.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Helwig to have someone contact Mr. Gossard to talk about the misrepresentation. Mayor Csordas didn’t think it was appropriate to talk about any types of alleged misrepresentation.

Mr. Helwig said when the comment was made he asked Mr. Hayes to review the matter, and Mr. Hayes was satisfied with what Mr. Coburn said. There is nothing that locks in the City Council until they take a vote. Mayor Csordas suggested Mr. Hayes call Mr. Gossard tomorrow to settle his concerns.

Ray McVeigh, 21639 Connemara, said he and his wife have lived in Connemara Hills for 20 years with well water. They were very anxious to see City water come into the project and are one of the pro votes. He said regardless of misrepresentations that were made the cost is the cost, and they are in favor of doing it. Mr. McVeigh said they trust that the City and its Engineering Department will oversee the project and its installation, and will be frugal holding the contractor to what is necessary to get it done and no more.

Mitchell Ober, 21739 Rathlone Dr. commented he was not one of the immediately affected parties as he lived one street over but he would be opposed to this. Mr. Ober

didn’t see any benefit to people on the loop or off the loop. He has seen people who were being assessed for an SAD for water while selling their homes, and when the SAD is disclosed the selling price of the home goes down by that much because the purchaser will be party to that SAD. He said the water has been tested around him and it is of very high quality and there are no problems. He saw this as government putting forth a project to spur business or something but for no real added value to those being charged. He commented it might help to distribute the cost of water to other residents of Novi, but he didn’t see that as a valid reason to go forward.

Mayor Csordas responded that this is not a City initiated project. Special Assessment Districts are never initiated by the City. The City is responding to a petition that was brought forward by the residents.

CITY MANAGER

Mr. Helwig said he was seeking formal direction in the form of a motion as to the location of the placement of the 911 Memorial. Staff was strongly recommending, for pedestrian viewing, the peaceful setting of the southern entrance to the Civic Center on the east side be designated. In order to have this go forward and be done well for the Fall for Novi dedication weekend, they were asking for formal direction on placement of the memorial.

Member Paul said after much discussion with Mr. Helwig they decided that Fire Station #4 and Fire Station #1 would not be a good option. There was concern that Fire Station #4 was too remote and that there might be damage or vandalism, such as was done to Community Sports Park. Fire Station #1 would not be a good spot because people don’t stop and visit there. However, they are constantly in and out of City Hall.

Member Nagy commented she agreed with this placement. She thought most residents would visit City Hall eventually and it would be highly visible. The other locations were not conducive to pedestrian traffic or for pedestrians to linger.

DEPARTMENTAL

Mr. Helwig said this is the week of the 50’s Festival and asked Mr. McCusker to report on the preparations and all the work that is being done.

Mr. McCusker said the fences went up today, the water is installed, the circus arrived this afternoon, the carnival is being set up and he thought this would be the best 50’s Festival the City has had in a long time. A lot of people are expected to come through and Mr. McCusker said they were out there all morning to make sure everything is in the right place. Mayor Csordas said it is a lot of hard work and a great project. He thanked Mr. McCusker and his staff for their hard work.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry echoed the comments of Mr. McCusker and stated that a great deal of cooperation has gone into this by Fountain Walk. They have been wonderful participants in this and Fountain Walk management has been supportive in allowing us to use the majority of their southern parking lot. They have been a wonderful community participant and wonderful neighbors.

Member Nagy asked if a banner would be displayed on the overpass. Mr. McCusker said the State didn’t want banners on the overpass. However, there are banners along the freeway and as you come off the freeway, and there is a lot of signage to and from Fountain Walk. It isn’t as big as we wanted but they are very, very visible from the freeway at 70 MPH.

Mr. Helwig said City Council provided direction on a very challenging citizen initiative, and there’s been lots of communication since the last meeting. Mr. Auler is hard at work on the grant and is meeting with Andrew Mutch tomorrow morning to collaborate further on the grant application. There are key pieces of information missing such as the amount to apply for on July 25^th, and he hoped everything would be ready that evening for Council consideration. Tonight, on the Consent Agenda, Council will set the dates for two public hearings. There will be a public hearing on the proposed amendment, which is yet to be discussed by the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission to their Master Plan that would endorse an initiative like this. Secondly, there will be a public hearing on the grant application itself. Both hearings are intended to be held on July 25^th. The citizens have retained, under Friends of Novi Parks, a State Certified Appraiser who is appraising the Roskelly property. Mr. Helwig said Council members have been very active in trying to enhance this application. Council has received a commitment letter from Mr. Claudio Rossi, who owns the parcel across Meadowbrook Road from this property that was a part of the Orchard Hills West rezoning, and is now under a State Conservation Easement. Council has seen the value Mr. Rossi placed on the property approaching $13,000 an acre. He noted information from the State had been distributed to Council, and Mr. Mutch and others have been working on that. This information says if the Roskelly and Rossi’s parcels are considered in a formal resolution by City Council to be managed as one park, they may be considered as one

entity for the sake of this application. This would enhance the points that would be attributed to this application. It doesn’t mean we’ll compete successfully, but we will be positioned better and that’s important. In that regard, the value of that land must be further appraised, there’s more work to be done and presumably, unless there is different direction funded by the citizens, that appraisal is subject to the rights that are now in place under the State Conservation Easement. Mr. Helwig said tonight on the Consent Agenda, Council has approval of the local Conservation Easement, which is the second layer and a condition of the rezoning. So that work would need to be done and that value can be used as in kind toward the 25% and anything over the 25% is to the good. There still must be a minimum appraisal of $900,000 on the Roskelly property, which would provide Mr. Roskelly with the $900,000 he wants, unless he further amends that. Presumably, on the 25^th communication will be received from Mr. Roskelly as to whether he is willing to sell or not. Mr. Helwig said they would go full speed and once the direction is set we are here to prevail. This made him think of the Beck Road I-96 interchange when this community mustard everything possible to turn that around, it is being built and will be done this fall. He said everyone is seeking to accomplish this goal so Council has something worthwhile to consider at the July 25^th Council meeting, which just keeps us in the game. There are two appraisals that the City must retain sometime this fall since this is over $500,000. So, there is a lot more work to be done before any recommendations are made to the legislature in December.

Mr. Auler commented that if a donation of property came forward and Council considered it, they could not close on or accept the property. Council could accept the commitment that the landowner would donate the property, but couldn’t close on or pursue any additional work until the project is recommended by the State Board on December 7^th, and until a project agreement is in place with the State. Otherwise, the donation of property would not count towards the match. He asked Council to keep this in mind when considering this now and in the future.

Member Paul thanked Mr. Auler, Mr. Helwig and Mr. Lemmon for their work on this project. She said Westmont Village had a Conservation Easement attached to it and it was 29.65 acres. The developer, Mr. Richard Lewiston, completed his development and then dissolved his limited liability corporation. The taxes were not paid on the 29 acres for approximately three years, and the 23 residents who abutted the property came together and contributed approximately $12,000. She noted she wanted to share her experience as she was one of the residents who paid.

Member Paul said they preserved the land and donated it to the City as City parkland, and they tweaked a little of the Conservation Easement because there was a vague area. It was very successful, and we have almost 30 acres that the City didn’t have to pay any fee on. It is the only natural resource in that square mile from Nine to Ten Mile Road and Beck to Taft Road. She said her property and Mayor Pro Tem Landry’s abuts this property and she understood the resident’s feelings regarding the destruction, dirt, mud, trucks, safety issues, etc. Member Paul thought this could be good win-win situation. She noted she approached Mr. Rossi from Mirage Development because the previous owner was Richard Lewiston, the same exact plat and landowner as was Westmont Village. Therefore, she had a lot of knowledge about the Orchard Hills West property. When she met with him and his controller they both spoke of this land really having a Conservation Easement on it, and didn’t know how this could be done. They

said it was of no use to them because they had built out as far as they could. In that agreement they said they would commit to donating the land if the grant goes through. If it does not go through they will assume that land again and discuss what they will do at that time. This is a commitment letter and that’s all, but what she was looking at is the natural resources on these 36 acres are far exceeding the 15 acres in Village Oaks. The point system is astronomical and they are contiguous by water body. Council received a letter from Linda Heckstrom today saying this can definitely be incorporated as one body. So now we have 50 acres, not just 15. The similar area in Southfield closest to this and approved was 16 acres. A third of that property was developable just like the 15 acres we are speaking of, and was assessed at $1.7 million and they were successful in getting that grant. The tax appraiser hired by residents is the same one who appraised this property, and he understands the process. He agreed to do it for the residents for $2,900 and do it in a time frame. He a well known person in this area and we are very fortunate to have sought this man’s professional expertise with his experience from Southfield.

Member Paul said when she talked with Mr. Rossi he said the land could be anywhere from $10,000 to $15,000. We had the assumption it was $10,000 but he thought $15,000. She went back and found her Westmont Village property information and the 29.65 acres was $10,890 per acre, and that was landlocked. Mr. Rossi’s and Mr. Roskelly’s property both have developable land, so her understanding is that it will be more valuable and both parcels have water access. There are some differences, and she thought they could take the documented information done in 2002-2003 from Westmont and know that the $3,000 per acre that is attached to Mr. Roskelly’s was probably appraised on the low side, since we have previous experience with conservation easements tagged on it. She noted that to go along with that, this will just say $11,000 per acre. This was done in 2002-2003, and her understanding was that the property would have gone up in value with a road attached to it.

Member Paul commented she shared with Mr. Helwig that the north and south side of Malott Drive has developable land and it will be appraised higher. The purpose of trying to bring this parcel, in regards to points system, is that it would be higher and the whole value of the land as one would be higher. When she spoke with Mr. Roskelly about that he was interested, surprised and didn’t understand how it all came to be. However, Mr. Rossi’s said he wouldn’t share any information until he had the letter of intent. She said Mr. Rossi had to check with his lawyers, controller and the tax appraiser. Mr. Rossi can’t give Council an absolute definite of what his land is worth, because 36 of the acres he has valued are encompassed in the 60 acres that are being developed. So they just gave an estimate of $13,000.

Member Paul thought the developable land on Malott Drive would be appraised higher as well as Mr. Roskelly’s. She wanted to share this information as soon as possible; therefore it was delivered in the Thursday Council packets.

Member Paul said if the property is $13,000 per acre, there is 36.15 acres and would be $469,950. At $10,000 it would be $361,500 and at$11,000 like Westmont was, it would be $397,650 and at $15,000 it will be $542,250. Wherever this number comes in it is validated already, because of Westmont Village and that was landlocked and this isn’t.

Member Paul said Mr. Roskelly was holding off all of his permits to wait and see what happens. This is a luxury Council doesn’t normally have but Mr. Rossi saw that this could be a very promising situation. When business, residents, staff and Council work together they can really make something happen. She wanted to thank both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Roskelly. She noted she was very hopeful this would be successful, and appreciated the residents hiring an appraiser and appreciated all their work.

Member Lorenzo said she was perplexed when she received the letter because there wasn’t any explanation as to how Council was suppose to take it and what they were supposed to do with it. She appreciated the in depth information this evening but it would have been more helpful at the time, because she does have some concerns.

Member Lorenzo said setting an assessed value is different than fair market value. She thought Member Paul was looking at the assessed value in terms of taxation versus what fair market value might be. Fair market value has to do with what someone will pay for the property not what our tax assessor assesses it at.

The difference between Mr. Roskelly’s piece and Mr. Rossi’s piece is that the Roskelly piece is at one end of the spectrum and the Mirage piece at the other. The Roskelly piece is ten unencumbered lots that have all the approvals and are ready to go today, and he knows he can get $90,000 plus a lot. The Mirage property is in a State Conservation Easement that states that there is no public access and no land alterations can be made. An assessor is going to look at that, so there is no developable land there. In order for there to be developable land the State and the property owner would have to agree to amend the Conservation Easement. She noted she had never heard of this happening because obviously the MDEQ and the DNR are organizations that want to preserve natural resources not see them destroyed. She thought this would add points to our application but her concern was that there was no appraisal on this property. The Mirage development opinion is just an opinion, while it might have been based on discussions with appraisers they know. However, it is still an opinion.

Member Lorenzo’s second concern is the Mirage letter states "that it is further understood that the current restrictions and easements will continue for a period of time no less than 100 years." This means that the current State restrictions would continue on this property, which means there is no public access and no land alterations. An appraiser is going to look at the property and say they don’t think this property is worth anything, except possibly to the residents that abut it. To the market it might be virtually worthless.

Member Lorenzo noted in order for the Mirage property to be included in the grant application, Council will have to direct the administration to do that tonight because August 1^st is the deadline. The only way she would support doing this without an appraisal on the Mirage piece is by making it subject to a condition that the City will not accept or incur any costs associated with the grant application. If the grant is awarded but the 75% of the fair market value of the Mirage parcel does not meet the City’s 25% match, in accordance with Mr. Roskelly’s expectation of cash compensation, then the residents shall be responsible for providing the cash necessary to complete the acquisition or the grant will not be accepted. This condition will also be made part of the City Council resolution as required to complete the grant application.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry thought Member Lorenzo was correct and if the Rossi property enhances the application then go for it. He didn’t know how it would improve our position given the fact that it is encumbered by a DEQ Conservation Easement and nothing can be done with the property. If the purpose of the grant is to preserve property, 36 acres is already preserved forever in a conservation easement. So why do we need a grant to preserve property that is already preserved. However, if the people think this will enhance our chances then let’s do it as long as it doesn’t cost the City any money. He said, for the record, his property does not abut the Westmont Village conservation property. His neighbor abuts it but his does not.

Member Nagy stated she would not support this motion and felt strongly that the residents have met and gone above and beyond what she thought some people would be capable of doing in such a short period of time. She said they have found an appraiser and paid for an appraisal. In regards to tying this property together Ms. Heckstrom, Grants, Contracts and Customer Assistance Department of Natural

Resources, stated "I can state that we will consider the two parcels, specifically the Mirage and Roskelly parcels to be considered one location for the purpose of submitting a single grant application for their acquisition. This determination is based on the requirement that the City and the State of application that the two parcels, if funding assistance is provided, etc. will be designated and managed as a single park." Member Nagy commented that is the key, single park. She spoke to Mr. Roskelly herself and

found him to be very generous and said "go ahead and see if you can apply for the grant and I’m going to wait on the planning process." So the residents hired a state qualified DNR approved appraiser and now this parcel will be considered as one. Therefore, a portion of this parcel is totally usable. She didn’t think an appraisal was needed on that parcel to apply for that application. Member Nagy commented that some people said a conservation easement has never been done at the last meeting. She said property has been donated to the City. Since 2003 properties donated, all with conservation easements, were the Jacobson property south east Bristol Corners was 16.49 acres, Westmont Village was 29.65 acres, Preservation subdivision was 45 acres, and Links of Novi was 75 acres. After extensive conversation with Mr. Lemmon about the taxes on these two parcels, she didn’t think the ultimate conclusion was that the City

was really not losing anything either way, because presently the Roskelly property only, to the City and not school or county taxes, etc, receives approximately $1,400 per year. Member Nagy said in regard to the 36.15 acres, this sort of parcel will eventually be taken off the tax rolls because it is a severe encumbrance to the landowner as well as the City. She said the City was receiving about $2,000 a year for the parcel. The benefit to the City is beyond money. The foremost benefit is that this is the Middle Rouge and in the Middle Rouge Water Shed streams like Bishop and Ingersol Creeks come together and flow through this property. When there is a lot of development there is severe impact on the natural habitat because of the paved surfaces. The land can be a natural state as a forest, field, wetlands, etc. and this ultimately helps filter out pollutants, stabilizes the river banks, is good for shading and cooling and provides habitat for fish and wildlife. This would be a benefit to the south east region of the City and to the Middle Rouge Water Shed. Member Nagy said residents pay taxes, it’s put into funds, and disseminated. She felt it was totally unreasonable for Council to make a motion expecting residents, who have never been identified, to pay any percentage whatsoever with regard to this application and was referring to the 25%. According to Ms. Heckstrom this donation of land is an in kind contribution for the 25%. If Council is going to start getting this petty, she was sure that people in condominium associations that have private roads, and pay for snowplowing, salting, street repair, repair of catch basins, etc. would like a gigantic refund on their tax dollars. This would benefit many things without asking citizens to do anything beyond what they have already done and beyond their generosity. These people have worked to collect the money and have put a financial burden on themselves, and to try to equate it to other things that have happened in the City is absolutely bazaar. She would not support a motion of any kind that would ask citizens to pay out any more than these people have already done. This is a benefit to everyone in the long run.

Member Paul offered a friendly amendment to put the two properties together since the 25% is already in there. Member Lorenzo said the 25% is not in there. She said she didn’t have a lot of faith in $469,000 plus without an appraisal. Member Lorenzo was

willing to go forward without an appraisal but stated the City had to protect itself, because someone will have to pay the difference.

Member Paul understood the amendment was being denied and asked that the approved motion of the last meeting be restated. Ms. Cornelius stated the motion from the minutes of the June 27^th meeting: "To approve to authorize staff to prepare and submit a grant application to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for funding to

acquire 14.97 acres, the Roskelly property, east of Meadowbrook Road between Nine and Ten Mile Roads for the purpose of preserving existing natural open space for passive public recreation with a residential area. Also, the residents would come forward with Mr. Roskelly and the appraisal and show as part of the application where the 25% is coming from so there is no cost to the City for the 25% contribution."

Member Paul said that is what she was referring to; the 25% is already in there in a previous motion. If we can talk about adding these two properties together she would be able to support the motion. As stated now she would not support it

.

Member Lorenzo said the donation is to combine the application and to include the Mirage parcel, and when that happens another motion will be needed to direct the staff to incorporate that in all of the documentation in the application. If that is not done it will come back on the July 25^th, and all Council will be voting on is the Roskelly parcel without the Mirage parcel in there. She noted she was supporting this to move the application forward, because if nothing is done tonight all would come forward on the 25^th is the information for Roskelly. The only way she could support this, without an appraisal, is to do it in this manner. She said her motion stands.

Mr. Helwig thought this would turn, almost totally, on the appraisal of the Roskelly property. He thought the local match would come from anything above the $900,000 and anything that comes from the Claudio Rossi Mirage parcel will be gravy, and the fact it can be considered in the application. Then the mission is to have a willing seller by the 25^th and we have to write a grant, which means we have to have met that $900,000 threshold. If what Member Paul said about the comparable land in Southfield is true, he was encouraged because we need at least $1.2 million on that appraisal. Mr. Helwig said they do need authorization tonight to include the Mirage property in the grant application for Council to review on the July 25^th.

Cindy Gronachan, 21668 Garfield, wanted to discuss dewatering. She said Maybury Estates started their second project off of Eight Mile, which backs up to the 106 acre wetland project on Garfield. On June 30^th they started dewatering and none of the residents were notified. During the first phase the residents were made aware of it. It was a light dewatering project that lasted a couple of weeks, and Ayers Lewis gave her the information, they stopped, and there was no problem. This dewatering project is not going so well. It started one day and they stopped it because it was flooding the dam at Maybury Park. There are 20 well taps in the subdivision and the residents are concerned. She didn’t want to criticize the Engineering Department but she wanted to wake up the City. Twenty years ago when the City dewatered there weren’t the homes there that are there now, and there was no need to worry about 48 wells. She attended a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting carrying bottles of brown water the last time they dewatered at Nine Mile and Beck. She was told by JCK that evaporation caused it. She didn’t want to go down that road again. Ms. Gronachan said she had spoke with Mr. Hayes and he gave them some information and the map and they stopped the dewatering. Here’s the problem, they don’t know where to go with the water so they are talking about going north where the protected wetlands, are and that is how she got involved.

The other problem is we still have all these wells, and in a letter to one of the residents from Mr. Hayes he referred to Deer Run. She said people forget that there are 20 houses on Garfield Road and we are closer to Maybury Estates than Deer Run. Deer Run is 2,200 feet away and Garfield Road is 1,000 feet away. Her neighbors are 500 feet closer, there are four houses in front of them and then there’s another house in the back that backs up to this

project. They need to watch the dewatering project to the west. Ms. Gronachan talked with Mr. Hayes today and asked if a geological study could be done on where the aquifers are, to know where it’s being dewatered and what kind of damage could be done. In the past, they were told that wells went out at Nine Mile and Garfield and it is documented. JCK said it was evaporation, but when in front of Council they said they thought it was dewatering.

Ms. Gronachan requested that the Garfield Road residents be properly notified of any and all dewatering projects going on. She would like to know where the dewatering now is going to go, and would like the City to incorporate a geological study for any and all dewatering projects to the west of Beck from now on. There are a lot of subdivisions and they are not against building but do want to protect what’s there, and they don’t want the growth to have a negative impact.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Helwig to follow up on Ms. Gronachan’s concerns.

Pam Capper, 26055 Island Lake Drive, President of the North Bay Woods Condo Association, commented she wanted to thank Council and lend her support of Council re-evaluating the request to rezone the parcel on Wixom Road near the Island Lake Development.

Becky Staab, 41887 Cherry Hill Road, said she and her husband have owned two homes on Cherry Hill Road. When Meadowbrook Commons was built and the preliminary plans were approved the driveway from Meadowbrook Commons was onto Meadowbrook. There was a secondary driveway onto Cherry Hill, which was to be for emergency use only and would be gated as many are throughout the City. However, by the time Meadowbrook Commons was -built that secondary driveway became a driveway open at all times. Ms. Staab commented to the Planning Commission recently that many of the senior citizens come out onto Cherry Hill

and do not go directly out onto Meadowbrook. Originally this was to put no more traffic on Cherry Hill, and it actually has increased the traffic. Ms. Staab said Item #8 on the Council Agenda is to reconstruct Meadowbrook Road between Grand River and Cherry Hill. Including signalization at Cherry Hill, this says to residents that traffic is going to stop at Ten Mile, at Cherry Hill and again at Grand River. She thought it was redundant and would make it harder for residents who live on Cherry Hill and in Meadowbrook Glens to get out. She said two other exits from Cherry Hill go through the subdivision and end up coming out on Ten Mile either from Kings Pointe or from Hampton Hill. It will not take long before 480 drivers figure out that the back way on to Cherry Hill has a light and you can get out a lot faster. This will put a lot of traffic on Cherry Hill and she asked Council to reconsider Item #8, and not award the contract. No one on Cherry Hill received notification this was to be an agenda item. Ms. Staab thought Meadowbrook Glens residents deserve to have a say in whether or not there is another signal along there.

Member Paul removed Item G.

Member Nagy removed Item E.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. June 20, 2005 – Regular meeting

2. June 27, 2005 – Special meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of July 11, 2005 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation.

C. Acceptance of Utilities and Easements at Pinnacle North and South (including water easement for $1 to provide public water and fire suppression to the Department of Public Works facilities on Delwal Drive) from Ted Minasian.

D. Approval of new Massage Business License for Tricho Salon & Spa, located in Twelve Oaks Mall, 27194 Novi Road, A-103, subject to final inspections by the Building and Fire Departments and compliance of all applicable building and fire codes.

F. Approval to Apply for and Accept The Buffer Zone Protection Plan (BZPP) Grant from the State of Michigan, Homeland Security Section, a pass through grant with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

H. Approval to set a Public Hearing date on July 25, 2005 regarding the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Grant Application.

I. Approval to set a Public Hearing date on July 25, 2005 regarding the proposed amendments to the adopted Community Recreation Plan 2003-2008.

J. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrants No. 700A and 700B

Mayor Csordas believed the rules required that on the Wednesday prior to the next meeting after the motion or the item failed, one of the prevailing members has to bring this forward. All that is being done is Council is suspending that rule to waive the writing requirement.

Member Lorenzo thought the purpose of the rule was so that Council would be aware of and have information in their packets on anything being reconsidered. Since Council didn’t have anything, she felt at a loss to consider this tonight. If the reconsideration happens and it is to put this on an agenda for another meeting that’s one thing, but she would not be able to agree to reconsider this tonight without any other information.

Member Nagy said her intent was to provide information and her second motion would be the actual rezoning, provide information and talk with the developer. Member Lorenzo asked if she was looking to make another decision tonight without any information in the packet. Member Nagy said no, Council already had information in their packets. Member Lorenzo said Council didn’t have a chance to re-review it or bring it information this evening because they didn’t know it was going to be on the agenda.

Mayor Csordas thought everyone was fairly clear on this and Member Nagy thought the vote should be taken.

Mayor Csordas said Council had seven letters regarding this and the only one he had in front of him was a letter in favor from Father Richard Elmer of Catholic Central. He asked Ms. Cornelius to read the names of the people opposed to the reconsideration.

Maryann Cornelius, City Clerk, advised Council that she had received an e-mail and forwarded it on to Council members. Opposed to the reconsideration of the rezoning were Mark Carlson, Colleen Kohls, Robert Lunsford, Maureen Shupny, Carleen Lunsford and Karen Carlson. Deborah Marine was in favor of the reconsideration of the rezoning.

Mayor Csordas commented listing the names for and against achieves the goal rather than reading all the long messages into the record. He thought that might not be appropriate.

Mayor Csordas asked if a majority of the elected or a majority of the present was needed.

Mr. Schultz said it would take four votes to suspend the rules.

Mayor Csordas asked how many votes are required on this issue. Mr. Schultz said on this item it would be a simple of those present, which would be three votes.

Absent: Capello, Gatt

Member Nagy asked Mr. Schultz for clarification. She asked if she could ask Mr. Schafer some questions. Mr. Schultz said, with the previous two motions, Council has put the item back on the table for substantive consideration, so it is the Council’s pleasure how to proceed.

Member Nagy commented she had talked with Mr. Schafer and had looked at items Council had objection to during the first meeting. She looked at the Master Plan and at various items she and Mr. Schafer had discussed. One of the changes they discussed was the actual plan itself and she thought the zoning would allow for 188 units.

Member Nagy said on June 20, 2005 Mr. Schafer and Mr. Quinn discussed site plan number one. Member Nagy and Mr. Schafer discussed the possibility of reducing density. She stated Mr. Schafer reconfigured the roads and she asked Mr. Schafer to describe the differences.

Mr. Schafer said they contemplated rezoning to RT, a higher density than what they are proposing. The ordinance requires that a parallel plan be done with the envelope of the unit being proposed and then the set backs per City code, which these do. The parallel plan with this type of unit would yield 188 units. He said they took the wetland areas into account but the unit proposed would be an upscale, main floor master type ranch style with possibly two bedrooms up. It would cater toward empty nesters and would be reduced to 172 units. He said they are looking to include the Wizinsky parcel, which would include the 85 year old home that is approaching historic designation at 100 years. It will be left alone; the property will remain as it is and will not be split or redeveloped any further. It will be part of the overall scheme of the density that he is requesting.

Mr. Schafer said he and Member Nagy talked about there being some hesitation that Council wouldn’t get to look at this again, and he agreed to move it into a PRO. Council would have an opportunity to look at it, make sure it is well landscaped, and they had done the things they assured Council of. There are conditions he would like on that, but wanted to bring forward a plan that everyone would be comfortable with.

Mr. Schafer said the taxes were a big issue and understood that the City was having a dilemma with taxes. Mayor Csordas advised Mr. Schafer that this City did not have a dilemma with taxes and operated with a 14% surplus. Mr. Schafer advised Council that this development would yield about $366,000 to the City in new taxes. Currently it is yielding about $15,200 a year with the current industrial use and with the personal property tax taken in as well for their equipment, which was confirmed today with the Deputy Assessor. He thought from a tax revenue standpoint and burdens, fire and safety is definitely a concern, but thought this development would be a positive from a revenue standpoint.

Member Nagy said they also discussed in this parallel plan that Providence is east of this property and they will have a road that goes out to Grand River. She suggested a

breakaway gate or road and stated it would be very well landscaped. She said Providence is putting in trail systems and Mr. Schafer was talking about going all the way around and connecting into that trail system. The portion of wetland area to the north has to be retained. In the second site plan there is much more green area even in between the buildings that face the fairway.

Mr. Schafer described the wet basin and said it will be a part of the detention system. He pointed out an area where there is an easement that is the detention for Profile and drainage that comes from the north. This will be the additional required detention and they envision fountains in there with a spectacular entry way. That is where the storm will be managed. Member Nagy said sewer and water are all in place and Mr. Schafer agreed. She thought these things Mr. Schafer suggested and is willing to commit to, and looking at the Master Plan with the three schools, etc. she has reconsidered her view of this item.

Mr. Schultz advised a clerical error had been made, and it should be an RT designation and not R-2. He said the actual rezoning would not occur until the PRO came to the Council. So rather than starting the motion out "approve the rezoning with a PRO application" it would be appropriate to replace that with "refer it to the Planning Commission to consider an application for a PRO to come back within 90 days from the application date."

Member Nagy changed the motion to state what Mr. Schultz suggested and the seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Paul asked Ms. McBeth, for the record, what the recommendation was from the staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. McBeth said the Planning Department made a favorable recommendation for the RT zoning as did the Planning Commission. Member Paul asked what the maximum number of homes on this site would be.

Ms. Mc Beth replied that it was difficult to tell because determinations needed to be made about the wetlands on the site. She thought the report indicated a maximum of 171 might be possible, but would probably be limited further by the wetland determination. Member Paul asked her what the Master Plan stated for that area. Ms. Mc Beth said it recommended single family residential with a density not to exceed 4.8 units per acre, which is consistent with the RT zoning.

Member Paul commented it is hard for her to support this because she has been against density all along. This area is mainly residential because of Island Lake going in, three schools and the residential to the southern portion. She didn’t like to add that kind of density there but with Target being at the corner, she didn’t know what else could be proposed there. She would be in support of the motion because she didn’t want to see the same thing happen that happened at Target. The Master Plan had it zoned according to what was going in there and we lost that lawsuit and she thought it would be the same situation now. She would support the motion for that factor alone. When Council asked that the Master Plan return to them, it didn’t happen and now this is what we have. She would support the Master Plan and the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he supported it last time. It is consistent with the Master Plan and staff, the administration and the Planning Commission recommended it, so he would support the motion.

Member Lorenzo stated she would not support the motion. She was glad that the applicant would move forward with a PRO because that is the appropriate venue for the rest of the Council to consider this. She thought presenting a site plan this evening is contrary to the Council’s usual arrangement in terms of a straight rezoning application, which this is. Obviously, if this is a land use decision, they can come back with any site plan that fits this application in the future. She could not support this tonight for the same reason as before, and she believed that R-1 single family homes can be put in even next to Target. There are a lot of developments she would not have thought would have sold for the amount they have. For example, the subdivision across from Wisne, the railroad tracks and Timberlane, and if people are going to pay that kind of money there, they will pay it at the Target location. When River Bridge went in next to the railroad tracks, she was surprised these locations yielded from the market more favorably than she ever imagined that people would pay, but they are.

Member Lorenzo felt the applicant didn’t demonstrate the property could not be used as currently zoned, and the Master Plan didn’t have the benefit of taking into account the fiscal analysis that was done after the Master Plan was adopted. Therefore, she didn’t see that issue on the Master Plan as viable. She commented the Industrial use in that location could have expanded and provided more tax dollars without using City services. It would be a better position for the City in terms of residential versus non-residential tax base. She would not support the motion.

Mayor Csordas echoed Mayor Pro Tem Landry’s comments and stated he would support the motion. He appreciated Council considering this motion and hopefully moving forward with this because he didn’t want a consent judgment.

Mike Fellows of Mozart Homes commented that they had a contract to purchase the property.

He said they were before Council a couple of weeks ago asking for a rezoning on this property.

The property is consistent with the City’s updated Master Plan and the Planning Commission

and staff has recommended approval of this rezoning. At the last meeting it was suggested that Mr. Fellows have the opportunity to review the possibility of proposing it as a PRO. He said the City staff was very helpful, but after considering it Mr. Fellows and his people decided they did not want to proceed under the PRO. He wrote a letter to Mr. Pearson last week and assumed Council was familiar with it. He commented he would like to bring their request back as it was with two additions.

Mr. Fellows showed Council an aerial photograph of the property and the zoning district classifications of the property around it. There is a considerable amount of density around the

property in addition to Industrial, two family and Commercial zoning within a very short distance. This proposal is very consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. There is a small pocket that is R-A, but doubted it would remain R-A for very long. He said the City has a Master Plan for these kinds of requests, and he felt this was a very reasonable one. Mr. Fellows said he knew the City has a plan for filling in some of the sidewalks along Eleven Mile Road from Taft to Wixom Road. If the property is rezoned, Mr. Fellows offered as part of their proposed site plan to pay for the installation of about 600 feet of that sidewalk that is on Eleven Mile Road right of way along the school property from the east side of its driveway to the neighboring property to the east.

Mayor Csordas asked if he was offering to pay for sidewalks on property other than his. Mr. Fellows said yes, on the schools property along Eleven Mile Road in front of the three soccer fields. Mayor Csordas said Council would need explicit dimensions on where that would be. Mr. Fellows said that would be provided.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said there had been a lot of discussion on this at the Council table a couple of weeks ago. He supported this because the request from R-A to R-1 is in conformance to the Master Plan, the density being proposed is also in conformance, the Planning Commission and City staff recommends approval and he saw no reason to deny this.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Mr. Schultz if the motion could include the acceptance of the gracious offer made by Mr. Fellows. Mr. Schultz said yes, however, a qualification, if it is made a part of the motion and a formal action by the Council, then we are starting to go down the road towards conditional rezoning, and that is a big policy decision to make. He thought since

the developer is on record the motion could refer to that concept as significant to the Council, but if made formally part of the motion, we have put the nose under the tent. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said then it is not part of the motion. However, should this motion pass the Council he would be very pleased to see the applicant carry through with his suggestion.

Member Lorenzo commented she would not support the motion for all the reasons she would not support it the last time it was before Council.

Member Paul commented she appreciated what the developer brought forward and the same thing happened with the previous site plan that Council had. Legal Counsel suggested that Council look at this site because it is zoned appropriately accordingly to the Master Plan. Mr. Fellows is not asking for anything more than what has already been proposed, and the Planning Commission has approved it. Council did not have the privilege to have the Master Plan returned when some of the areas were Master Planned and changed. We have the same situation before Council as the last rezoning. In this circumstance, it is a checkered path in that area and there are other R-1 densities such as Asbury Park, IO-2, OS-2, R-A, R-2. She wanted to make sure that they are sensitive to the natural features in that area. Member Paul asked Mr. Fellows to share with Council the site plan brought forward at the last meeting.

Mr. Fellows said the site plan proposed hasn’t changed. It is a cluster development of 19 units. The north western part of the property has a significant amount of wetlands and mature trees, and the whole northern part of the property is heavily wooded. He said with a cluster option not available in the R-A but is in the R-1 zoning, there is the opportunity to preserve a greater part then could be preserved under a straight R-A proposed layout. If it is not rezoned and someone comes in and proposes the large lots required in R-A, the property could be cleared almost to the property lines. Mr. Fellows said with their site plan they are not proposing to do that; with the cluster option about 53% of the site would be saved, and significantly the western most portion, which is the biggest concentration of wetlands and woodlands.

Member Paul asked if there would be a sidewalk along Taft Road on their portion of the property. Mr. Fellows said there would be. Member Paul said there is not a lot of development there and asked if what is there would be incorporated in this parcel. Mr. Fellows said no, those are separate parcels. She asked if their north border was south of those two properties. Mr. Fellows said the property is a rectangle with its northeast corner cut out with the frontage on Taft Road. So the western part of the property does abut the property with the shed and big barn on it, the eastern end of it has a little corner cut out and it abuts a single house that fronts on Taft Road. Mr. Fellows thought they had 300 feet of frontage on Taft Road and they will be putting a sidewalk along there. He didn’t think the City had any other right of way north or south of this property on Taft Road where a sidewalk could be placed. Mr. Helwig motioned that there was not.

Member Paul commented she appreciated his offer of the sidewalk where the three soccer fields are. She asked Mr. Schultz if a second motion was needed to accept the donation of the sidewalks, and that Mr. Fellows would work with the City for that sidewalk by the Novi Middle School soccer fields.

Mr. Schultz said consistent with the answer to Mayor Pro Tem Landry’s question, if that is done formally, even if not attached to the motion on the floor; he was concerned that Council had done the same affective thing as conditionally rezoning that property. He said Council can do that as it is a policy decision. His suggestion was to wait and not use the conditional rezoning process. This requires the old fashion trust that has always been required of a Council and a property owner before that new statute. If Council attaches that as a formal action it might be considered as using that new statute. Then we might have this discussion later on when the next proponent might want to know why Council isn’t going to use it for them. The second motion is not needed and it is not our recommendation but he thought the proponent had it on record and he assumed the applicant would follow through.

Member Paul asked when the sidewalk would be put in. Mr. Fellows said he didn’t know but thought it would be in 2006. She stated she would support the motion.

Kevin Coles was present representing Norman and Glen Akarakcian who are also present to answer any questions Council might have. Mr. Coles summarized their proposal as good planning and said the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend this rezoning to Council. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee also recommended this unanimously to the Planning Commission as property to be rezoned. He said while the staff noted in their reports that this request is inconsistent with the density patterns of the Master Plan it is consistent with the residential land use and the residential use is consistent with the Master Plan. He noted on page 112 of the Master Plan where it deals with community projections and how the Master Plan for this area and the City was formulated it states that "higher residential density is located adjacent to commercial in transitional areas." This parcel is directly adjacent to the frontage of Twelve Mile Road which is Master Planned and zoned OS-1and under development for OS-1. It is directly impacted by that commercial land use. It is for that reason that this property good planning makes it higher density residential not the R-1 classification. The engineer’s report makes it clear that there is plenty of sewer and water capacity for this parcel. It is across the street from the Liberty Park development which is developing at about 13 units per acre. Just east of it is the RM-1 area of Carlton Forest and Society Hill and those reasons together make this transitional parcel more appropriate for an R-4 development.

Mr. Coles stated that Norman and Glen Akarakcian are custom home builders and will build custom homes on this parcel. They have owned most of the parcel for a number of years. They have watched things change around them for the last five years, since they were last before Council. They want to make this parcel the best they can develop for the City of Novi. As an R-1 parcel it could qualify for some special development option such as cluster. It could if it met the criteria, which it doesn’t. It doesn’t have the type of features that are required in the City for a cluster development or any of the other particularly special developments. This parcel is a simple parcel layout whether as R-1 or R-4. It will have a road, a cul-de-sac and

lots around both. The Akarakcian’s intend to respect the existing features of this parcel which are relatively sparse. There are some nice Oak trees along Dixon Road that they are working to protect, but the balance of the parcel does not have any natural features that are regulated under City ordinance.

Mr. Coles said the difference here in density is the nine units that is a practical matter, because they have to put a road in, they will have lots of affectively the same depth whether R-1 or R-4. The lot width might change but the lot depths will be approximately the same. Under R-1 as it is currently zoned they could put in about nine homes and under the R-4 they could put in about 14. It is their perception and the affirmation of the Planning Commission that R-4 is a better zoning category for this. It might not be the perfect category but it is better for the transition as you go north from the Office along Twelve Mile Road.

Member Lorenzo said in terms of protecting the potential residents on this new piece, how would they be better protected whether it is R-4 lots or R-1 lots. She thought that with R-1 lots, which are deeper, the homes would be further away from the Office then it would be in R-4. Mr. Coles said they would not be substantially any deeper because there is going to be a road and lots on either side. The difference would be the lot width that is permitted in each category

and that’s why it is that odd layout of the site. It was noted in the staff report that theoretically 20 homes could be put in but as a practical matter you won’t be able to, because this is a rectangular shaped parcel. It is not a large piece where there would be room to maneuver a road. The difference between R-1 and R-4 is that there will be more homes along this OS zoning, more rooftops and your Master Plan supports that on page 122.

Member Lorenzo said if there is no difference between R-4 or R-1 homes and they are both going to abut the office complex how does R-4 protect those residents more than if they were R-1 lots. Mr. Coles said it is because there is more space between the half acre lot homes in R-1 then in the R-4. She said she saw them more protected by having larger lots. They have bigger yards and area and the house is probably going to be able to sit in a different location than an R-4. Member Lorenzo said she was not buying into that argument of protection. She didn’t see any protection to the residents and didn’t see it making a difference to the residents; in fact she saw more of an intrusion for them towards the Office complex.

Mr. Coles said on page 112 of the Master Plan, under Single Family Residential, it says that "the recommended density or number of dwelling units per acre varies throughout the City. Higher density residential land use is designated in areas that transition to commercial zoning." This Office is commercial zoning. Member Lorenzo understood what he was saying from a planning standpoint that may have been written in the Master Plan. She said he came forward and said protection for the residents. Mr. Coles said if he said protection he was talking about the parcel that would be a transitional parcel to the north that needs a buffer area. The development of this parcel itself, under the R-4 category, buffers the land to the north from the Office to the south. It is a transitional piece.

Member Lorenzo said she didn’t see it and thought that half acre lots would buffer the north parcel more than R-4 lots would. Member Lorenzo said she supported this rezoning when it came before Council several years ago and wanted it from one acre lots to half acre lots. She thought they were generous at the time and felt Mr. Coles should have accepted that, but you always have the option of asking for more. She would not support more for all the reasons she

had not supported other rezonings, because she saw no benefit to the City or future residents. In this situation the Master Plan is not in Mr. Coles favor.

Mr. Coles thought the Master Plan supported this directly. It says 1.65 for this piece but because of the statement on page 112, this parcel was overlooked. The Master Plan in affect was amended when six members of the Planning Commission voted in favor of this rezoning, because under the State Planning Act six members of the Planning Commission control the Master Plan of the City.

Member Lorenzo said she was going to be consistent and there is no showing that this property can not be marketed and developed as half acre lots. Unless that documented information is presented to Council she would not be willing to consider any change in zoning to this parcel.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated he would support the motion because the rezoning is not consistent with the Master Plan, it is not recommended by the staff and this property was recently rezoned from R-A to R-1in 2000.

Member Paul agreed with the previous two speakers. She thought they were pushing an R-1 with double the density. She would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would support this motion, but was troubled by the suggestion that there is an initial SAD proposed that doesn’t gain the residential support, and then it just keeps shrinking until you get to an area that does gain support from the residents. He asked for comments on this.

Mr. Helwig said in his experience this is exactly what happens most of the time. It is a significant undertaking on the part of any resident and depending on the setting or geology, it gets very site specific. Many times what might be a 40 lot entity starts out with as simple as five lots. People have very differing views when it comes to public versus private utilities. This is very common.

Mayor Csordas said this is a resident initiated issue and not initiated by the City.

Matt Quinn was present and representing the Novi Town Center Developers. He said they had been working on this documentation with the City Attorney and they are about 95% in agreement. There are some minor things but nothing major that the Council has to deal with. He said they are proposing to buy the point three tenths of an acre for $100,000 and will be incorporated into the Novi Town Center, and is already covered by the Novi Town Center zoning ordinance. It will allow them to continue the redevelopment of the Center. There will be two structures built adjacent to the corner area along with two other new buildings that are a part of the development. He said they are excited to get this underway. If the resolution is approved this evening, the minor changes to the agreements will be made and they will start their due diligence doing the environmental. Since this used to be a gas station site that was subject to clean up and MDEQ approval, they will spend about $20,000 just to do the environmental work on the corner. They will then move to their title due diligence and then to a closing.

Mr. Quinn commented that they agreed there will be no curb cuts and acknowledged it will have to be serviced from interior to our development and thought that was only fair. They looked forward to giving the City a nice corner. The Town Center is on its way back and the four buildings being added into the Town Center right on Grand River and Novi Road will add additional excitement to downtown Novi.

Mayor Csordas thought the property had already gotten a clean bill of health regarding the environmental situation. Mr. Schultz said they had included a brief chronology in their letter and a separate chronology from the Planning Department and as a former gas station site it went through an extensive clean up and monitoring period. The hope is that while Town Center will do its due diligence hopefully it won’t find anything, and if it does, a determination will have to be made whether to go forward.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Schultz if he was more comfortable now than he was initially with the documentation and the offer. Mr. Schultz said they had revised the documents but this was the first time he had heard there might be more changes. We include in the resolution kind of a typical final review by the City Attorney, but he assumed these were not substantive things that he would hear about tomorrow.

Member Nagy commented that she had read everything provided to Council and didn’t see why Council couldn’t stand to gain by the sale of this property. She wanted to be sure that Mr. Quinn would not be making any more changes.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would second the motion if the maker of the motion would accept a friendly amendment that there will be no curb cuts from the property to either Grand River or Novi Road. Member Nagy accepted the amendment.

Member Paul asked if there is any cost the City incurred to get rid of all the environmental problems from the gas station previously. Mr. Schultz said the clean up was done by Amoco and the City did pay a consultant fee of $10,000, as outlined in the letter, that

assisted in getting all of that done before it ultimately did not go through. Member Nagy

said when this was brought forward she wanted to look at when the City purchased this property. She would have liked that included but it doesn’t look like something that Council would be successful on. It said "while the City purchased this property for a total outlay of $110,000 the size of the parcel has been reduced by the transfer of the rights." She asked if that was why the cost has been reduced. Mr. Schultz said the offer came from Town Center and he thought Council is reacting as a policy decision if $100,000 acceptable. That is not intended to be logic or an argument, it’s just that is the offer and it is a smaller parcel. Member Nagy asked what the size of the parcel was when the City bought it. Mr. Schultz said slightly over a half an acre. It is just the areas along the two main roads that have been taken out of the final legal description. Member Nagy said then it was taken off for the widening of Grand River and Novi Road. Mr. Schultz said yes. Member Nagy said $100,000 was a little less than what she would accept. She had no problem selling this land if we have some green space in front of it because it is a buffer for that area. The land was purchased for $110,000, plus we had a $10,000 fee for the consultant and that was what she was looking to cover. She said she is looking for another $20,000 for Council to look at this. Also, the cost of property in Novi hasn’t gone down and we paid $110,000 so she wanted a little more money for that to cover all of the City costs. Grand River would have been widened regardless and all that does is help this property and doesn’t hurt them in any way. Member Paul said she would not support the motion for that reason, although, she would like to acquire the money and sell this property. She felt they could do better.

Mayor Csordas said, for clarity, they paid $100,000 for the property and $10,000 for the consultant so it is a total of $110,000. Member Nagy agreed to the $110,000.

Member Lorenzo agree with Member Paul. She was willing to sell the property but the offer was not enough. She thought the City needed to make something on their investment and we are not, and in fact are losing money. She said she was willing to say $150,000.

Mr. Helwig said on June 6^th they were told this could be placed on the next agenda. The documents were not ready for June 20^th so they proceeded in good faith with these folks. It is a policy decision but this is all gravy for us. This land was not going anywhere. They are going to keep it green on the corner and the widening of the highway helps the City more than it helps the Town Center. He was concerned about the good faith element that was projected to these people and he would hate to end on this note tonight given the direction Council has provided. He said he is normally a stickler with Mr. Quinn, but they have documented the validity of the $100,000 and we have been asked that by Council members and have supported that. He asked for Council’s serious consideration of this as far as how we do business. This is one of the few disposals of City property since he has been with the City, and one that he never thought would be disposed of with a willing buyer.

Mr. Quinn commented that if there is a show of good faith, Jim Clear who is the Manager from Madison Marquette, is willing to go the other $10,000 to cover that. So, we can officially go to $110,000 to purchase this evening. There is a lot of timing going on here; people looking at possible leases for future buildings. He said they could go back to easements from the City, if Council would like, but no one else could use this parcel but Town Center. It is not

viable to any one; it’ll just remain green unless the Town Center and the City can work it out. Mr. Quinn said he is working for a very conservative insurance company owner and these

people are tough to deal with. They would like to see this happen and he was happy that Mr. Clear had the authorization to cover the City’s expense at $110,000.

Mayor Csordas thanked Mr. Quinn for his comments and for the additional $10,000. He commented he would like to build on Mr. Helwig’s comments. He remembered that Council did ask them to go forward with the $100,000 amount and he didn’t want to change the game at the end. He asked Council to accept the $110,000 and to remember that as a business proposal we did set City administration in the direction of $100,000 and that is what they were thinking all the way. He did not want to change that at the end of the road.

Member Nagy said she agreed. Mr. Quinn is correct. No one else can use this property but the Town Center as there is no access except through Town Center. Secondly, while we have this property, we are paying for the maintenance in time and material. She thought this would be good for the City.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry requested a friendly amendment to the motion to change the dollar amount to $110,000. Member Nagy accepted.

Member Paul agreed that they were told to go forward with the $100,000 but she said she also told staff that she wanted all of the City’s expenses covered. So now she is more comfortable but still felt more accrued in regard to the cost of the land. She said she appreciates that there is green space saved and the City’s costs are covered. She would support the motion.

Member Lorenzo said she would be reluctantly agreeable to the $110,000 but asked that the applicant pay the attorney fees for the transfer and land acquisition costs. She said if they were willing to do that and if, in the final agreement, we have all of the stipulations that they are

agreeing to as far as keeping the space green, not encroaching, no curb cuts and they pay attorney’s fees in addition to the $110,000 she will vote in favor of this.

Mayor Csordas asked what the attorney fees would be. Mr. Schultz said it is hard to guess. It has been the several weeks and he thought possibly $2,500 to $3,500 as a ball park. This entailed drafting a couple of agreements and a fair amount of back and forth.

Member Lorenzo commented it is in the applicant’s court. Mr. Quinn made a counter proposal that if the City paid their own attorney fees they would buy the title insurance. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the title insurance is usually a base fee and then so much per thousand on top. He said he just did a closing on a million dollar piece of property and thought the title insurance was about $8,000. Mr. Quinn said he would guess it would be about $600 or so. He said there is another reason for that because there was a difference of opinion on what title company to use. So we will pay the title insurance and use First American Title. The problem with Member Lorenzo’s comment about an unknown limitation on the amount of green space that we have to leave is something that is too unknown for a client in New York to understand. We know there will be some green left there but it would be impossible to say today how much encroachment the two buildings would have.

Member Lorenzo said Council was told minimal encroachment and that there would be some green space left. Mr. Quinn said there will be an encroachment and there will be green space

left. He remarked that he didn’t know where the "minimal" came from. If it’s a foot encroachment or a 20 foot encroachment he had no idea.

Member Lorenzo said then that is not going to be a deal breaker. She said what the encroachment is going to be is what it is going to be. She thought there was going to be minimal encroachment and green space, and if that is not the case we are selling the property and once sold they can do what they will with it, but that was the representation that was made. She noted she was more concerned about the dollars and $600 versus $3,500 doesn’t meet her expectations. She said she is looking to be made whole in this transaction.

Mr. Quinn said the City is not going to lose money because we are going to have two brand new buildings that are going to bring the City tax dollars forever. Member Lorenzo said she understood that. Mr. Quinn said that is what they are looking at and they are willing to cover the title insurance with First American Title and will amend the agreement to that. She asked about the transfer taxes. Mr. Quinn said there aren’t any transfer taxes because this is a municipality. Member Lorenzo stated they would have to pay the attorney fees or she could not support the motion, but if they paid the attorney fees she would support it.

Member Nagy commented, with all due respect to Member Lorenzo, she thought it would be difficult for her to support attorney fees when in fact, Mr. Schultz didn’t know what that amount would be. Mr. Quinn stated that they would pay attorney fees not to exceed $3,500.

The friendly amendment was accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion.

Brian Hughes of North Equities Group was present to ask for the approval of the request for advanced funding for installation of the traffic signal. The amendment would actually ask them to put all the money up forward and then in the next following calendar year the City would reimburse them for their proportionate share. Likewise the Road Commission of Oakland County would pay their share, and then Northern Equities Group would pay the difference. The reason for this is there’s significant development in the area and they are running into a problem of significant backups on Twelve Mile, and likewise if exiting from Cabot Drive onto Twelve Mile. This happens at given points during the day and it is very dangerous. So for the safety of the tenants, the Northern Equities Group is asking that this request to be approved. Mr. Hughes noted he sent a letter to the Mayor in January 2005 with a number of petitions from the tenants expressing their concern regarding the backups and safety. In 2004 a traffic study was done, and out of the five warrants three of them recommended a traffic light be installed there. Mr. Hughes thought this was in the planning for the next fiscal year for Novi

and the Road Commission. However, they are requesting that this be installed this year because of the safety factors. Statistics from 2000 and 2004 say the traffic quote on Cabot Drive increased 90%, and it is now somewhere around 4,000 vehicles a day that travel Cabot Drive. This creates a significant impact on Twelve Mile and there is a bank branch being built west of Cabot Drive, and it has also been recommended that a traffic light would help traffic entering the bank. They are between Cabot Drive and M-5.

Mr. Helwig commented this is in the City Master Signalization Plan. The Road Commission had planned to install it a year later than what is being requested. There would still be a sharing of cost. He said what would happen now is we would get the private sector to come in and upfront all of it and only ask us to reimburse a third, which is $41,000 to $50,000 depending on actual costs.

Mayor Csordas said it would have been our obligation in next year’s budget anyway. Mr. Helwig said it has been carried in the CIP as $200,000, our funds. The Road Commission has apparently signed on to this and an agreement would have to be developed if Council authorizes this. Mayor Csordas noted it appeared this intersection meets the warrants of signalization. Mr. Helwig said the Road Commission said that and it would have to be in the agreement.

Mayor Csordas question the second paragraph in the executive summary that says "Northern Equities is one third of the cost in a future budget year". He said that would be in the next budget year. Mr. Helwig said it would be in the City’s 2006-2007 fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006. He said they would not be amending this year’s budget to do this. We were going to carry it at $200,000 in that year, so it is coming down to the $41,000 to $50,000 in that same year.

Member Paul noted she had a hard time with the Road Commission’s timing of lights. To put another one here is a concern. She would support the motion because it saves the City a lot of money, but she really wants Council to get involved in the timing of lights. She is going to have a meeting with the Road Commission, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Helwig this week specifically about timing of lights. She asked that Council look into the timing of lights.

Member Nagy asked how many votes this required and Mr. Schultz said four votes.

Mr. Helwig said this motion is authorization to develop the agreement.

Council recessed at 9:37 P.M.

Council reconvened at 9:59 P.M.

7. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.

Maryanne Cornelius stated the Council appointments are as follows:

Beautification Commission Leslie Weirmeir 03-01-2008

Parks, Recreation & Forestry (2) Karen Zyczynski 06-30-2008

Marie Enright 06-30-2008

Public Access Promotion Commission Art Cervi 01-01-2007

Zoning Board of Appeals Linda Krieger 01-01-2006

Member Nagy said she was in favor of the re-asphalt. However, she thought one of the residents who came forward had raised some very valid points. There is very little room to travel when turning right at Meadowbrook and Grand River to Cherry Hill. She asked Mr. Hayes if there were any studies regarding this. Mr. Hayes said there was a traffic study conducted and it did meet the three warrants that are the most prominent within the manual used to gage whether certain warrants are necessary. She asked him to explain. Mr. Hayes said a traffic study was conducted, and the three most prominent warrants used to determine whether a signal is necessary or not were met. There were sufficient traffic counts to satisfy those requirements. Member Nagy asked what the three warrants were. Mr. Hayes replied he didn’t know specifically what they were. Typically they are the peak volumes at rush hour morning and evening, the gap spacing in vehicles over a length of time and whether there are sufficient gaps for vehicles to enter. Member Nagy said she wasn’t sure this was a safe thing to do. She noted she had been in this situation when she turned south on to Meadowbrook from east bound Grand River and there are a couple cars stopped in front of her. She thought that was dangerous. She would support the reconstruction of Meadowbrook between Grand River and Cherry Hill but not the signalization.

Mr. Helwig advised Council that this was initiated by the Meadowbrook Glens Homeowner’s Association. He said it probably predated some of the members of Council. There was a letter request that came in on both Cherry Hill and Hampton Hill on Ten Mile. It was a couple of years ago and Mr. Arroyo did the traffic study. Mr. Helwig said Hampton Hill did not meet warrants and Cherry Hill did. This has been carried in the Capitol Improvements Plan and was to go forward last year. However, the work on Meadowbrook was split to just do north of Grand River to Twelve Mile because of all the other work going on in the City. We finally got to this in the CIP Council adopted for this fiscal year. Mr. Helwig said they feel a strong obligation to the neighborhood to go through on this particularly when the traffic study substantiated it. He said the other one has been pulled back, which is in the CIP as well.

Member Nagy said her lay opinion was to do this at the senior entranceway off of Meadowbrook because that is where a lot of the backup is. She felt because of use it would make sense to put it in the middle versus towards one end.

Mr. Hayes commented that by putting a signal at Cherry Hill that will produce an adequate number of gaps to allow access and egress from the Senior Center. Member Nagy believed the distance is too short when turning to go south on Meadowbrook from Grand River.

Member Lorenzo asked what the distance was and if he could equate that to something Council would be familiar with. Mr. Hayes said it was about a quarter mile. She asked what the distance was from Taft Road to the light at the City Hall.

Mr. Helwig thought it was a third of a mile and what we are speaking of is a little less.

Member Lorenzo asked the distance between the City Hall light and Churchhill Crossing. Mr. Helwig said about a quarter mile. Member Lorenzo said she would support this motion because this came from residents.

Member Paul concurred with Member Nagy. She said she had used this road and any time at high traffic times on Meadowbrook it is difficult, no matter which way you are turning. She didn’t see a light helping that close to Grand River and with her problems on light timing she would not support another light. Member Paul said she could not change this because there is information other people have that she doesn’t. She would not approve the signalization but would approve everything else in the contract. Last year, when the road work was done on Meadowbrook, they did an extremely great job on timing. She thought it was two and a half to three weeks that it was shut down.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he would support the traffic light because it was resident generated, a traffic study was done and the engineers looked at this and indicated that three warrants warranted the light being there. He felt if the people hired to investigate this to tell Council there should be a light there, it is not up to him to tell them no. They are the engineers and this has been on our CIP for several years, and he thought that it wasn’t up to him to decide it is too short.

Mayor Csordas thought too many traffic signals are being put up, and rather than keeping traffic flowing it is bottling it up. However, he does respect Mr. Hayes’ professional opinion of this study. He asked if a flashing yellow north and south and a flashing red east and west makes any sense. Mr. Hayes said it would be an improvement but what we are looking at are safe left hand turns from Meadowbrook onto Cherry Hill and from Cherry Hill onto Meadowbrook, and that would be best accomplished with a signal and paving improvements.

Mayor Csordas noted he still believed that the traffic was being choked up with too many signals. However, because he respected the opinion of the engineers he would support the signal.

Mr. Schultz said his understanding is that the amount is budgeted so this is not an appropriation and there isn’t a five vote limitation. The majority of the Council can award the contract.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if this was done a year or two ago where the railroad crosses Nine Mile? Mr. Helwig said Ten Mile was done. Also, a bike path was done that included some CSX work. Mr. Hayes said not as a part of that project but because they were working in CXS’s right of way they had to get a preliminary engineering agreement.

Member Paul asked if there would be any signalization with this in the Nine Mile area. Mr. Helwig said no. She said she would support the motion.

Mr. Helwig said part of the rationale for the award recommendation to Council is to do their best to complete this on or about the same time that the Beck Road Interchange at I-96 is opening, so there won’t be a blockage further south when that interchange opens. This should be in the beginning of December.

Member Paul thanked the administration for asking the school district to support putting their portion in. She was happy they were going down towards Connemara because residents had e-mailed Council and asked that this go to Sierra because there are children that go to Parkview Elementary.

Member Lorenzo said it was very nice to see the fruits of their labor from the budget process at work here and moving forward.

Member Paul asked what Bob Perani’s Sport Shop has grossed in their sales because the lease agreement says the City would receive 5% of sales in excess of $300,000. Ms. Smith-Roy said they have not reached that level of sales and that is one of the reasons they did not renew the contract with the City. It is hopeful that Summit will reach that by their second or third year, but it was not anticipated they would reach that level of sales in the first year.

She asked Ms. Smith-Roy if she was comfortable with the agreement and she said she was.

Member Nagy withdrew her request to speak about this item.

Member Paul said she knew this was needed and she was very much in support of this signal but the lights on Novi Road are not timed right. She was concerned with bottlenecking this area, because when people come off the highway they can’t get through Novi Road and Grand

River because there is a train and the traffic is backed up.

Member Nagy suggested that Scott Olson talk with the Road Commission because he seems to have the signalization down pat.

Nays: None

Mayor Csordas said the date for the Youth Council Interviews should be set and asked for Council input.

Mr. Helwig thought it might be good to wait until the students are back in school to make sure they are available. Mayor Csordas asked how many applicants there were and Mr. Helwig said 62. Mayor Csordas asked if Council wanted to interview everybody.

Member Lorenzo said Member Capello suggested breaking it down to 21 candidates and reviewing those applications. Mayor Csordas asked how they would do that. He said there are 62 energetic young folks that would like an opportunity to interview. He commented he was willing to interview all 62 and Member Nagy agreed.

Member Landry thought Member Gatt was in favor of interviewing everybody. Member Gatt had said if these students are serious enough to submit an application Council should be serious about interviewing them.

Mayor Csordas agreed but said if we spend 15 minutes with each applicant it might take us into the winter break.

Member Paul said 15 minutes was not needed for each student as they are young and are not going to do a long dissertation. Council members could each ask one question and spend 10 minutes with each student. Council gives all adults an opportunity to interview, and she thought the purpose of doing this was to give everyone the opportunity to gain from the experience of being interviewed. She said Council couldn’t have known 62 people were going to apply, but we had an agreement that they would fill out the essay and the application and would be interviewed. We have a zealous group and a lot of really great young people in this community. She said that’s wonderful and wanted everyone to have the opportunity to be interviewed. Member

Gatt shared the same idea with her. Member Paul suggested doing this in an evening and a Saturday after school starts.

Mayor Csordas suggested having the students give a five minute presentation on why they would like to be involved. Some students might have a hard time filling five minutes because they are nervous, but even if they fill one minute it would make their case. He said the time limit is very efficient and what impressed him with the time limit is that, over the last couple years, Council has seen very succinct and excellent presentations from members of Audience Participation. He asked what Council thought.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said, if there were no questions and the students were allowed to do a five minute presentation, that would be 12 an hour and would take five hours. This could be done in a day. He liked the idea of including everyone. Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked that Council be provided with the essays. Then, give the students five uninterrupted minutes and no Council questions.

Member Nagy commented she liked the idea but wanted to reduce the five minutes to three because five minutes is a lot to fill. When an essay has been submitted, what will they say that’s new. She asked how it was handled in Troy.

Member Paul said they had a typical application process like they do for adults, but they never had 62 applicants. She thought it was reasonable to give direction that goes out through Maryanne Cornelius to all the youth to specifically ask why they are a candidate, and what their first, second and third preferences are. Also, Council should come up with two questions for them tonight and they could answer them in their presentation. She thought three minutes or less was probably enough time, but at least the opportunity for five minutes is there in case the Mayor has a question. Or perhaps Council members could rotate and one question from the Council table would be asked per student and Council could see how they respond.

Member Nagy agreed with Member Paul but thought three different days would be better because it would help the students to work the interviews into their schedules.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry commented he liked the idea of Council members rotating and the idea of preset questions. He suggested that Council members, in the next couple of weeks, submit and agree on three questions so their answers could be compared, and everyone would be answering the same three questions.

Member Paul said there is a little confusion from the Providence people about what we are going to do with the Novi Youth Health Council. When she talked with Rob Casalou, President of Providence Hospital, her understanding was that he was ready to move the study forward and was looking for some help from whatever students would want to participate. Member Paul said a letter was going to be sent asking for direction of what their priorities are. Now, we have four Boards and Commissions, the Youth Council and the Novi Health Council. When Ms. Cornelius spoke with Lou Martin, he thought the Youth Health Council would be in place in 2008 when the hospital opened. She felt Council needed to get specification from Mr. Casalou before a letter is sent,

because she would like to use all 62 applicants in some way. If not, we have to look at this from a different perspective and send a letter out with two dates and three questions we would like the students to answer. She said Ms. Cornelius had commented about the number of phone calls from parents asking about interview dates and what they are to talk about. They are confused and direction would be helpful for them and for our staff.

Mayor Csordas asked Ms. Cornelius to send a letter including the three minute time limit and that they don’t have to use it all for their presentation. Council will ask them one question, don’t be offended by the buzzer, etc.

Mayor Csordas asked Ms. Cornelius what she would like Council to do.

Ms. Cornelius responded that there have been numerous calls to the Clerk’s office from parents and students asking for a specific date so they can plan. She was concerned that a date had not been set.

After Council discussion regarding meeting dates, there was consensus to schedule two special Council meetings for the Youth Council interviews. Council would have the first meeting on Saturday, September 10^th at 9:00 A.M. and the second meeting on Thursday evening, September 15^th at 7:00 P.M. Ms. Cornelius asked if Council would like her to split the group up with the majority on Saturday and the remainder on September 15^th. Mayor Csordas said yes, and five minutes each.

Member Paul said there are three areas where we are going to do signalization. These locations are Fourteen Mile and Novi Road, Fourteen Mile and Welch Road and Eight Mile and Beck Road. Member Paul commented that all she was looking for is some support from neighboring communities so we don’t have to bear all the costs of the intersection improvements. Other cities abut these lights and she asked if they could share the cost of the signalization.

Member Paul asked if the URS fees are over the appropriated amount and if there are any hidden hours or fees. She said Mr. Hayes had spoke at a previous meeting about URS having a lot of hidden costs and asked him to explain the fees of URS, the appropriated amount spent so far and any hidden hours.

Mr. Hayes responded that URS didn’t have hidden costs. They had fee proposals that were extremely low so they had costs that weren’t stated. He might have come across as a little too blunt with URS, but they were conspicuously obvious because they were low bidders. So we were able to tear apart their proposal and find out how they compared to others and they seemed a little short in hours in certain tasks. On this project they had a good proposal, good fee proposal and a good technical proposal. They have done as promised in their proposal as far as a good design. Mr. Hayes felt confident they are on track.

Member Paul commented that a chip and seal application would be done along with installation of a new gravel base. Mr. Hayes said yes, because there isn’t one now. Member Paul asked if this was going to have no realignment plan, for the record. Mr. Hayes said she was correct.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at

10:40 P.M.

____________________________ ___________________________

Lou Csordas, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

____________________________ Date approved: July 25, 2005

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean