Mayor Landry called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis, Mutch-absent excused, *Nagy, Paul

Member Nagy arrived at 7:02 P.M.

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, Interim City Manger

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Benny McCusker, Director of the Department of Public Works

Randy Auler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry

Barbara Mc Beth, Director of Planning

Sheryl Walsh, Community Relations Manager

Mayor Pro Tem Capello added Item #3, under Mayor and Council Issues, Establishing and Adopting City Policies and #4, Setbacks at Major Intersections and in Residential Districts Along Major Thoroughfares.

Member Paul added Item #5, Parking Ordinance, #6 Bio Retention Basins, under Mayor and Council Issues.

Member Nagy added Item #7, City Hall Signage, #8, Farmer’s Market, under Mayor and Council Issues.

Mayor Landry added Item #9, Consideration of Dates for Youth Council and other Youth Interviews, under Mayor and Council Issues.

Mayor Landry presented Mr. McCusker, Director of the Department of Public Works, with a proclamation proclaiming the week of May 21, 2006 National Public Works Week. Mayor Landry said Novi’s Department of Public Works was second to none, the dedication of the employees was evident everyday with what goes on in the City, and how the City was able to meet the needs of all residents and those passing through.

Mayor Landry asked Mr. McCusker to pass on congratulations to every member of the department throughout the City.

Mayor Landry presented the proclamation to Beth Belter. Ms. Belter said this had been a county wide campaign for three years, and Novi had always been a part of this. She said their intent was not to get a lot of people in trouble but to bring about awareness that their kids are using alcohol very heavily. Ms. Belter said it was unfortunate to say that many parents had hosted the parties and adults in the community had provided the alcohol for those parties. The intent of this was to let parents know that even if they were under the impression that if it was their child and in their home it was legal to provide substances to their child, it was not. Their intent was to delay any kind of first time use they could, because for every year a child’s first time use of alcohol was delayed there was a 14% greater chance they would never become addicted. Ms. Belter said they were working very hard to keep kids in this community safe and healthy, and hoped the community would support them.

Bob Steeh, Novi Schools, thanked the Mayor and Council, the Police and the schools for working together to keep kids safe. He commented he appreciated their support for the Community that Cares Coalition.

Mayor Landry, Beth Belter and Bob Steeh signed the proclamation. It would be on display in the Civic Center Atrium until the end of June for residents to sign as a show of their support.

Member Paul said she was a member of the Consultant Review Committee and had not had an update of any consultants whose term might be expiring. She asked for that information to be put in Council packets to see if there needed to be a meeting for that committee.

Mr. Pearson asked for two items under Departmental Reports, first being that today was the kick off of the Census initiative. He said Maryanne Cornelius was leading that on behalf of the City and asked that she update the Council. The second item was a report from Mr. Auler on the Memorial Day Parade.

Ms. Cornelius, City Clerk, said today was the opening day for the mid-decade Census. The purpose of the Census was so the City of Novi would be able to certify the City’s population count to the Secretary of State’s office. The goal was to show the City’s population had increased by at least 10% since the Census of 2000, at which time the population was 47,386. She explained that when an enumerator came to a resident’s door they would present their photo ID badge, tell them they were doing a mid-decade Census, and ask for the first and last name of every adult and child that lived in the home. She said no other personal information would be gathered. If not home when the enumerator arrived, they would leave a call back form in a plastic bag on the door handle. The resident should fill the form out, return it to the door handle, and the enumerator would come back and collect it. It could also be mailed back or dropped off at City Hall. The main phone number that would be used was 735-5630 or call the City Clerk’s office at 347-0456. Ms. Cornelius urged residents to remember one thing; in order for the Census to be successful we are counting on you!

Mayor Landry said the City was investing a considerable amount of money in the Census, and were banking on the fact they would beat the 2000 Census by 10%. If they did, there was a chance the City could get significant additional dollars from the State of Michigan. So, when an enumerator showed up at the door, they would not be selling anything, this was for the City. Mayor Landry said this is serious business, and he would appreciate everyone’s participation and respect for the program.

Mr. Pearson said Monday the City would take part in commemorations around the country as part of Memorial Day. He noted there was a program established for Monday morning, and he hoped the community would join in. Mr. Auler said Monday, May 29^th would be the annual Memorial Day Parade and ceremony to honor those veterans who served and those who had fallen in honor of our country. The parade would start at Karim Boulevard and go west on Ten Mile Road ending at the Civic Center, which was the same route it had been taking for the last couple of years. He said it would be the largest parade ever with 45 entrants at this point, and it would begin at 10 A.M. sharp. It should arrive at City Hall about 10:45 A.M., and the ceremony would take place at that time. Mr. Auler invited members of the community to come out and participate.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. May 6, 2006 – Special Meeting

2. May 8, 2006 – Regular Meeting

3. May 11, 2006 – Special Meeting

B. Approval to extend the Hair Salon contract for Meadowbrook Commons (1st) renewal with Debra Bye on the same terms, conditions, and pricing.

C. Approval of request for an Outdoor Gathering Permit from Wade Shows, Inc., to hold a carnival at Rock Financial Showplace, May 31^st through June 4, 2006, subject to all final inspections.

D. Approval of Personal Property Assessment Services Contract with Oakland County Department of Equalization for Tax years 2007 and 2008.

E. Acceptance of a Conservation Easement for Novi Corporate Campus, located on the north side of Twelve Mile Road, east of West Park Drive.

F. Approval of request to renew the Arcade License for Chuck E Cheese’s, located at 44275 Twelve Mile Road, with 53 machines.

G. Approval of request to renew the Arcade License for The Post Bar, located at 42875 Grand River, Suite 104, with 8 machines.

H. Approval of the final pay estimate to South Hill Construction Company for the West Park Drive Booster Station project in the amount of $24,251.00.

I. Acceptance of additional water main and sanitary sewer easements for the Infinity Medical site located at 28455 Haggerty Road.

J. Approval to award a contract to Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc. for a capacity needs study of the Walled Lake/Novi, Commerce and North Huron Valley/Rouge Valley sewage districts for a not-to-exceed fee of $9,500.

K. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Easement and Storm Drainage Facility Maintenance Easement Agreement for the Nadlan 8, LLC/Amson-Dembs Lot #8, in the Beck North Corporate Park.

L. Approval to Purchase a HP Designjet 5500 Plotter from Reprographics One Inc., for the Public Works Department Water Division in the amount of $7,140.00.

M. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 721

Mayor Landry thanked Mr. Nona for cooperating with the City by moving this item from the last Council agenda.

John Jackson, McKenna and Associates, was present representing Mr. Nona, the applicant. Mr. Jackson thanked the City for the response they had received. He said they got a lot of help through the various committees, and the Planning Commission, and had worked very closely with staff on the text amendments.

Mr. Jackson wanted to talk to Council about a couple of changes to the Novi City Zoning Ordinance for the TC District including building height, the way the number of units are calculated based on mixed use buildings versus mixed use development, and how to incorporate some flexibility in terms of the configuration of the units.

Mr. Jackson provided a Power Point presentation to let Council know they were continuing to move forward, and were making progress on the site plan for their project. He said it was continually evolving and they were looking forward to their pre-application meeting May 23^rd with staff.

The first item they were requesting to change was the building height. The existing ordinance allowed up to 65 feet and five stories. He said they were asking for 78 feet and five stories with one additional provision that would allow an additional floor for parking. He said all their reasons for this request would help contribute to the vitality and the vibrancy of the Town Center that the City was trying to create by adding critical mass and building mass into the Town Center to create that Town Center environment.

He said the first reason was that in traditional downtowns the buildings simply have a higher first floor level, and the reason was to create interest and activity at sidewalk level. He said transparency and interaction between what went on in the building, and what was happening on the street was what they wanted to create. So they had asked for additional height to allow for the higher first floor level. He showed an example of one of the buildings they had developed a preliminary sketch for in the development. The more glass on the first floor the more interaction and vibrancy there would be in the area.

Mr. Jackson said one of the issues regarding this was the fear of creating the canyon affect. He showed illustrations showing pretty well founded urban design principals. That was, if the buildings were too high relative to the pedestrian environment or street there would be a canyon affect. He explained that the second illustration was the opposite and was seen much more frequently in a suburban environment. There are no buildings defining the pedestrian environment and as a result people felt isolated, and don’t feel comfortable walking on sidewalks as they feel they are out in the open. He said the building height they proposed, allowing the higher first floors as well as additional building articulation at the roof level would create a range of comfort for pedestrians to feel like they were in a place as opposed to out on the street. When the buildings created this range of definition people felt more comfortable, safer and like they were in a place. The proposed height they requested was well within that comfort range.

Mr. Jackson showed photo imaging to Council to show what one of the proposed buildings might look like in context with one of the existing buildings in the development. He said although they were adding height, the actual height over what was there was not striking or incompatible in any way. He said when in the development, they would rarely be able to take in this view as it was typically seen on paper. It would not be perceived in person on the street. He showed a computer rendering of what might be perceived walking on the street. He showed a comparative image staff requested, to show what it would look like in context to a local landmark, the water tower.

The other reason they had the provision in the height request to allow first floor parking was to try to balance the physical impacts of large expanses of parking lots, as this tended to separate buildings, and made the pedestrian environment less inviting.

He said they were proposing one floor of the building be dedicated parking, which would create a building that was technically six stories with one level of parking. It would still be within the maximum of 78 feet, and the only use would be parking. It wouldn’t increase the density, number of units, or the square footage.

Mr. Jackson said the City calculated the number of rooms permitted in two different ways. One based on the building itself, and the other was based on a mixed use building. In a mixed use building there would be one room for every 800 sq. ft. They were proposing that Council apply the ratio for a mixed use building to the entire site of mixed use development. Then the number of rooms would be based on one room for every 800 sq. ft. of the site area in order to determine the maximum number of units. The effect of the change was that the density wouldn’t necessarily increase, and was still within the overall project density limits, which was a maximum number of units based on dwelling units per acre. However, he said they might get a little closer to that maximum number of dwelling units per acre based on this proposed change without exceeding it. Finally, they thought it would be easier for staff to administer when they were looking at floor plans, because it would be less convoluted and more straight forward. He said the minimum size of the units had come up at previous Planning Commission meetings, committee meetings, and with staff. Early on, the City didn’t want small units because of the potential for overcrowding. So, they proposed to increase the size of the units to avoid overcrowding. The unintended consequence of that, pointed out by staff, was if the minimum size was too large they wouldn’t be available to young families or empty nesters that were looking for a certain price point. Therefore, they were presenting a second alternative tonight. They increased the minimum size of the units but not to the extent they proposed originally. He said the current minimum size for an efficiency unit was 400 sq. ft., and they were proposing their smallest unit would be 700 sq. ft. He said for one bedroom the minimum would be 800 sq. ft. and four bedrooms would be a minimum of 1,300 sq. ft. He said if they submitted an 800 sq. ft. unit, Council could be assured there would never be any more than one bedroom in that unit.

Mr. Jackson commented that the City had a percentage requirement that a development couldn’t have any more than 5% efficiencies or more than 50% one bedroom units, which was to insure there was a proper mix of units. They were proposing, as opposed to limiting a number of efficiencies and one bedrooms, that the 5% and 50% factor apply to the size of the unit. In other words, a development that came in couldn’t have any more than 5% of the units 700 sq. ft., and couldn’t have more than 50% of the units 800 sq. ft. or smaller. So, the size of the units would be limited versus the interior layout of the units. Mr. Jackson said the maximum units allowed now were 454, and they were proposing that they wouldn’t exceed 20.05 units per acre based on their proposed alternative calculation method. They would keep the same maximum number of rooms. He said now if using the 800 factor on a mixed use development it would be 1,089, and they are committing that under any of their proposed scenarios, they wouldn’t exceed that number of rooms in the development.

He said it was important to them, and to the City, to have some flexibility in terms of how these units were arranged. They were proposing that they might have two or three alternative layouts for each of those sizes of units, and the market would dictate which of those units would apply. They thought that was important because they had seen that the demographics change. He said the buildings were significant investments, and for them to stand the test of time there had to be the ability for the units to evolve and change. They might have a 900 sq. ft. unit and that might allow up to two bedrooms. So a young family might want two bedrooms, but as things change an empty nester might want only one bedroom so the change, the mix, and the way that change was arranged would evolve over time. They were asking for that flexibility to be included.

Mr. Jackson said some of the benefits would be a decreased burden on staff trying to make all these calculations and factoring three different factors to determine density into the equation. This would be a simpler approach. He said one question was would the removal of the total room count create after market density increases. He said because they had included and maintained the maximum room count they didn’t think it would add to the changes after market. He said under the current ordinance there could still be that after market change. So, they didn’t think that would contribute to the issue of enforcement and maintaining the controls that the City currently had.

He said staff mentioned, in the staff report, that the room count was a traditional method for regulating density and the mix of units. The fact was in Town Center or downtown environments it was not the way density was calculated. It was calculated more often than not on how many parking spaces were provided. In most cases there were no density standards, and they could say they were going to have a five story building and they had to be able to park it at a certain ratio; that determined how many units could be in there, and the minimum unit size. Mr. Jackson said the room counts and dwelling units per acre were definitely not traditional methods for determining density in a downtown environment.

Mr. Jackson said affordability was something they wanted to be aware of, and they weren’t pricing certain growing segments of the population out of the market.

Mr. Pearson explained there were three basic categories of changes proposed by the applicant. This had been before the Planning Commission for a public hearing, and had a recommendation by the Planning Commission and the staff. He said for the building height and the way the density was calculated both staff and the Planning Commission recommend consideration of the changes. He said their recommendation, regarding the room counts, came down to staff pointing out how it was done with ordinances on the books now. He thought they had made a case regarding the evolving market and how things were changing. It was a question of flexibility and came down to a policy discussion by the Council. He said their background and recommendations were based on the current ordinances and how that was set out.

Barb McBeth agreed these were all important policy decisions for Council, and was glad it had gotten to the point of getting feedback from Council. She explained that Mr. Jackson did a good job explaining the building height issue, but there were some stipulations that would come with the additional building height for up to 78 feet instead of the current required 65 feet. The additional height would only be allowed in mixed use buildings. There would be a minimum frontage on the street for the taller building of 150 feet, and the buildings would need to maintain the limitation of five stories. Also, if there was parking within and underneath the building, they would be allowed an additional story to accommodate that. Seventy eight feet would be the absolute maximum height for the building, and rooftop equipment or additional architectural features would exceed that height. She said on March 8^th the Planning Commission supported this request. The mixed use density calculations were discussed and that related to a provision for a different density calculation depending on whether a development was a mixed use development or a mixed use building. She said for a development proposing only residential uses each room within that development required 1,200 sq. ft. of site area, and for a mixed use building the ordinance currently allowed a density to be increased so that 800 sq. ft. of land was required for each room counted. The applicant asked that mixed use development be allowed the greater density calculations. This would allow those calculations to be based on the entire site, and not dividing the site into smaller pieces. The Planning Department suggested that if the ordinance was going to be amended in this regard, that the definition included and applied in the Gateway East Ordinance, also be applied to this and be added to the ordinance. It required, for a mixed use development that each use had to comprise at least 10% of either the net site area or the total gross floor area of the buildings, and that would give a true mixed use development. The Planning Commission supported that amendment again during the March 8^th Public Hearing. The minimum unit size was discussed by Mr. Jackson, and there was an initial request to substantially increase the minimum unit size. Then the applicant requested that that be reduced. The request tonight was that the minimum unit size for an efficiency unit be increased from 400 to 700 sq. ft., and for a one bedroom from 500 to 900 sq. ft. at a minimum. The Planning Commission was just presented with that information at the meeting, and had no time to look at it carefully, so they didn’t offer a recommendation. However, the Planning Department continued to support it. The big issue they had contention with the applicant on related to the minimum unit size. The amendment requested by Triangle was referred to as the room count equivalency, instead of providing detailed floor plans at the time of preliminary site plan they would be able to see which floor plan was in each building at each location, and count up the rooms that the ordinance regulated. Instead, the applicant proposed white boxes to define areas within the floor plan that showed 1,300 sq. ft. or 900 sq. ft., and called one of those equivalent one, two or three bedroom units. The applicant was proposing that to allow flexibility in the sale of these units, and the Planning Department supported that, but it would be a major policy shift from the

way the ordinance had been enforced in the past. The floor plans are the best tool for the Planning Department to confirm, for the Planning Commission and City Council, that the density standards of the ordinance had been met. It was an important measure of density to count up those rooms to see if there was a certain amount of land area for each of those rooms. The floor plans allowed the Planning Department to confirm, for the Planning Commission and the City Council, that the mix of units would meet the ordinance requirements. There’s a maximum of 5% efficiencies and 50% one bedroom units, and that was a good way to check and confirm that. The floor plans also allowed the Planning Department to assure the Planning Commission and City Council that the minimum parking standards were met. The best time to verify this information was at preliminary site plan and that was why the Planning Department would recommend that the ordinance remain consistent with how it had been in the past. They also talked with the Building Department and Mr. Saven about this, and they indicated they needed to review those floor plans as well at the time the building permits were issued.

Ms. McBeth said the Planning Department was suggesting that the ordinance remain as is on this issue, but would like to hear Council’s direction on that. There were two additional modifications suggested by the applicant at this point. One was to eliminate entirely the reference to room counts, which she didn’t think the Planning Department could support. She said a final request was brought about last week regarding whether the taller buildings needed to be located on a public dedicated R.O.W. The applicant was proposing to change the language to allow the taller buildings on either a private road built to public standards or a public road.

Member Paul asked to see a zoning map where this would apply, because she thought it would just be the downtown area but now it looked like it was TC and TC-1.

Ms. McBeth responded that most of the change related to the TC-1 District, but might also apply to the Town Center District in some cases. She said it was mostly the area south of Grand River and East of Novi Road, and a small section south of Grand River and west of Novi Road where the TC-1 Districts are located. Ms. McBeth showed Member Paul the area on the Zoning Map. She said any further development or re-development in the TC-1 District would also be subject to this modification. Some of the modifications related to TC, but they were primarily talking about TC-1 at this point.

Mr. Jackson stated the height request was limited to the TC-1 District, so these provisions would not apply to the TC or Town Center Districts.

Member Paul asked what about the south east corner. Ms. McBeth replied the south east corner of Grand River and Novi Road was all zoned TC-1. Member Paul asked about the north east corner where the Town Center was. Ms. McBeth said that was just TC and none of these provisions would apply to that corner. Member Paul said excluding the downtown area and TC-1, what were the current height requirements for the rest of the City. Ms. McBeth responded there was a memo in Council’s packets that outlined the various heights throughout the City. Member Paul said there were various limitations either based on the overall height or the number of stories provided. She thought the map illustrated that the area described as TC allowed one of the tallest heights anywhere in the City at 65 feet. Some areas allow additional height such as Providence for the bed tower facility and the Expo Center on Grand River would be allowed to have a hotel exceeding 100 feet in height. It was among the area that allowed the tallest buildings currently. Member Paul said on August 22, 2005 Council agreed to 75 feet, so the extra three feet would allow for the apartment town house area to have a higher ceiling in the first floor only. Ms. McBeth said yes, as they understood it from the provided drawings, the first floor height would be increased the most. She thought they were also asking for an increased floor to floor height for the residential units above it or if there was an office use above the first floor that would need the additional height as well. Member Paul asked if the parking structure had to be in there also. Ms. McBeth responded they had not seen the detailed floor plans for the parking structure. She understood the parking structure would be partially recessed and below grade. The Planning Department had some concerns that it would be adequately screened so if walking down the street the cars wouldn’t be visible. Member Paul asked where the parking would be located.

Mr. Jackson said there were two responses; one was what the ordinance allowed, and what they were proposing. The ordinance would allow first floor parking, and five levels of residential above, which was consistent with what they were proposing on the residential buildings. The other buildings would have first floor commercial, office or other non-residential uses. Member Paul asked how the parking would be screened. Mr. Jackson said there would be a variety of architectural treatments, and their goal was to make the first floor, where the parking was emulate the bays of a commercial façade. There would be about three feet of masonry along the bottom to create the screen wall, and additional railings and metal work to help screen it. There would also be residential lobbies at that level also, which would provide access from the street level. Member Paul asked if there was another site similar to this project built with the parking half below ground and half above ground nearby.

Mr. Dave Nona, Triangle Development, answered they hadn’t done any buildings other than Gateway, which had parking on the first floor. He said some buildings would have parking on the first floor and five stories of residential above. There are also mixed use buildings, and the first floor would be retail with parking completely below ground. He said they were also proposing a parking deck, in a separate building, to accommodate the additional parking needs. Member Paul asked Ms. McBeth if there was a way to say the maximum was so many rooms in the whole building. Then they could choose which ones would have two or three rooms, etc., and that could be done through the Planning and Building Departments. It would be a comparable way to look at this; they would have the flexibility, but the maximum was X for the whole unit. Ms. McBeth said they would appreciate knowing the total number of rooms for each proposed building. She suggested it would be much simpler to administer the ordinance, and it would be much simpler for them to identify, on their plans, their best estimate of what would be provided for each of those spaces. Then as they come in, it could be easily evaluated if they submitted room counts of what was permitted in the building. She said if it was an efficiency with two rooms, and someone wanted three rooms, would that be sufficient. Ms. McBeth said that would be helpful information but they would like to see their best estimate of the floor plans. She said typically the Building Department would take in the building permits as they come in. However, the Planning Department would like to review things before the plans go to the Building Department. Then they could confirm against the floor plans as they actually come in. Member Paul asked if they could give her two examples such as an efficiency with a three room versus a two room, and then a building total amount permitted; then flexibility could be done. Ms. McBeth said that was another excellent idea, and the Planning Department would encourage flexibility to be able to say it would either be this unit or that unit in that particular space. Member Paul said she was comfortable with this as a First Reading. She asked the applicant if he could live within the confines of saying how many rooms per building, and what types of units they would be. These were the three ways they could make these different white boxes. Mr. Jackson said he could and it was what they were proposing.

Mr. Nona said basically that was what they were asking for the entire site, and they would not exceed the allowed number of units. He said per building they could only estimate but the average would come out about the same. They were proposing average room count would be 2.7 room counts per unit, and thought the average per building would come very close to that. However, they would still like to have some flexibility as a building might come at 2.9 and another at 2.5.

Member Paul stated she could live with their total count for all the buildings being 400, and in Building A they proposed approximately 150, Building B would be 250, and they might have to shift between the buildings within 10 rooms. She was not looking for a huge jump, and asked if he could live with a solid number and an estimation per building. Ms. McBeth thought that was a reasonable number. If they had those floor plans submitted initially, with their best estimate on what was included; they could do the calculations for the density, room count, and parking, and still maintain some flexibility for an alternate floor plan as long as it was within a certain percentage of rooms for each building.

District. First Reading, subject to the applicant providing a total

count for all the buildings they proposed and an estimation per

Member Margolis asked what the major concern was in terms of the City moving forward, the planning for the City, and not necessarily how this would be administrated internally. She said from the documents she had seen, she was not getting a picture of what the problem was if it was left as room equivalency. Ms. McBeth said the answer to that was not particularly related to this developer or development, but with other developers that had to do with room counts. The room counts help to insure that there’s adequate open space for the people that live within the multiple family developments, and planners disagree whether it’s a typical need to provide enough open space for the residents of these developments. She said in her experience, it had been a typical standard provided based on a number of rooms. The number of rooms was based on the number of people expected to live in the units, and the more people the more open space would be desirable for those residents. Member Margolis was still confused that what they were suggesting was that the square footage in the unit would then have an equivalent to a number of rooms. She didn’t understand why that was not feasible compared to rooms. The City wasn’t saying they could have any number, but that X number of square feet would be equivalent to three rooms versus somebody packing four rooms into that space and counting as four rooms. She thought both ways regulate in terms of density, and both regulate in terms of the kinds of open spaces needed; it’s just a different way of calculating. She asked what she was missing. Ms. McBeth said it was the way the ordinance had been traditionally implemented in Novi for the last number of years, and not just in this district but in other districts. She said it was a policy question for City Council. Should they start treating this development different from this point or was the old system used by other developers correct and appropriate. She said Member Margolis was correct, and that the units they are proposing were sizable efficiency loft or studio units. Staff had discussed this and the people that come in might be young people who want a studio or efficiency, then they have a family, and want more walls in for privacy. They could carve up that 1,300 sq. ft. into more rooms and bring more people, and add to the density more than Council had originally expected. Member Margolis said couldn’t she do that with her four bedroom home. Ms. Mc Beth said yes, for a single family development, but for a multiple family the density calculations were different. Member Margolis said it looked like a wonderful development, she had no problem with the height restriction, and thought it really added to that area. She had no problem with the original language regarding the room equivalency. As someone who would become part of the demographic, she said they had looked at loft apartments, and knew there was a tendency to large open spaces, which her demographic liked. She commented the room equivalency gave that kind of control. She thought that as developments and trends change, Council had to be open to looking at things in a different way. She had no problem with it as originally stated.

Member Gatt concurred with Member Margolis and supported the developer. It would be a policy decision whether to treat this developer differently. He thought it behooved them to treat them differently; there were no other developers lining up to spend the money that Mr. Nona’s was going to spend for that vacant land. He had no problem with the proposal as submitted, and would move forward to pass it as soon as possible.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he would support the First Reading but thought it needed more work. He had no problem with the residential or retail density. He was concerned that there wasn’t enough retail being developed for what Council, and the existing retail tenants envisioned to be the continuation of Main Street. He knew they had inherited what had come to them but they did purchase the property and understood what the concept was. Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought they anticipated more retail than just retail shops directly down Main Street itself. He didn’t mind the height of the building at 78 feet or five stories. He felt they had to remember this was backing up to the south to an industrial area that would be redeveloped, and backing up to the railroad tracks. He said within four years or so there would be a bridge built over the railroad tracks, and he thought it would dwarf five story buildings. He wouldn’t mind a higher density in that area. However, he wouldn’t be willing to give the five stories without some concessions back in return. If they wanted to put two stories of parking in the building, he would give additional stories to do that. If adding a floor of retail and a couple floors of office, he would still give the four or five stories of residential the developer wanted on top of that, if they wanted to develop it more into that kind of a concept instead of just having individual residential buildings. He feared it would be developed as Main Street had gotten developed. There’s one area of residential, which wasn’t a part of the downtown as Council envisioned, and there was no interaction. He understood they would try to create that downtown affect more with the lofts, but he thought they needed a lot more work on the ordinance to get it to where he wanted it to go. He commented, in regard to the room count, that this was a downtown area and open space was not needed. People would move there because they don’t want a big park in their backyard. This was not in a low income area where 15 people would live in there, and walls would be put up to make sure they each had their own room. Mayor Pro Tem Capello offered to talk with them about this.

Mr. Nona stated they had a significant amount of square footage of retail, medical and office. He said the commercial square footage in all the buildings was close to 240,000 sq. ft. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said there had been new plans since he and Mr. Nona spoke. Mr. Nona said because of that there wasn’t enough room for surface parking, and a deck would be provided for that. He said that stretch of Main Street and some of the side streets would have all retail and commercial on the first floor. Mayor Pro Tem Capello noted he would like to see the new plans next week.

Member Nagy explained she wasn’t opposed to the building height. She said it might be time to change the ordinance, and suggested the Planning Commission have an Implementation Committee do a thorough study of them. She was concerned about the number of people who would have parking spaces. If each unit was allotted a certain parking space, and there were more people in a unit than designated parking, where would those people park. She thought Member Paul had a good compromise for this. Member Nagy didn’t want to see any parking from the street. She thought what they were bringing to Novi was very interesting, would appeal to a lot of people, and would draw more people into Novi. She agreed with Ms. McBeth that if not calculated correctly, there wouldn’t be enough parking for the residents. She liked their ideas, but felt the design looked like a warehouse, and she hoped it would be a little more interesting than this. She supported their idea, the height, and the motion.

Mayor Landry commented he was anxious for the project to go in. He had no problems with the height or the general density calculations. However, he was concerned with the white box issue, and would look at it before the Second Reading. He was confident a compromise could be reached to allow them the flexibility to market the building, and allow Council the ability to calculate the ultimate overall density in parking. He said Member Paul had a good idea, which would allow flexibility among buildings while still maintaining the City’s overall control over the density issue.

Michael Zambricki, General Counsel for Art Van Furniture, was present to answer any questions Council might have. He said they were not certain as to the way it was first developed. They thought there was a special assessment district that created the driveway in the early eighties. There had been low utilization of that road. In 1999 they purchased the property contiguous to the Art Van Furniture property, and Karevich Drive ran through the middle of it. He said it was not usable in its current form. They were requesting that Karevich Drive be vacated, which would give a better appearance to the total development, and would allow them to construct a Drexel Heritage Store adjacent to the Art Van Furniture Store.

Mr. Pearson said Council had received background information. The road had marginal public benefit regarding traffic flow, and at that tight intersection it might create additional confusion, and conflicts with the way it was lined up. Mr. Pearson said they tried to outline the public benefits of the road access, versus any open space, versus responsibilities or advantages of the applicant developing that as they had planned.

Mayor Landry asked if Council action was to approve the introduction of the resolution, with a public hearing, and a formal vote of Council at a later time to vacate the street. Tonight’s vote would not vacate the street. Mr. Pearson said he was correct, it was a multiple step process, and they would be adopting the resolution to set the public hearing. This and the next item was the same process. Mayor Landry said if the majority was not in favor of vacating the street; tonight would be the time to not even approve the resolution.

Member Paul said she looked over the request and thought the improvements the applicant and staff had made were helpful. She asked how much pavement would be removed on Karevich Drive.

Ms. McBeth said some of the pavement would not be removed on the parcel that would hold the Drexel Heritage building, but all of the area along the frontage of Novi Road would be removed and landscaping would be installed.

Mr. Zambricki said it would just be the connections to West Oaks Drive that would remain, and the middle entire portion would be reconstructed. Member Paul thought the land banking of the additional 70 parking spaces was a great idea, and didn’t think there would be any problems meeting the parking requirements. She asked with the new property line approximately 80 feet from the center line of Novi Road, and with the road commission’s comments, was everyone comfortable with how it was being set with 38 feet. Mr. Zambricki said they were. To maintain the front 30 feet as private property, she asked the City Attorney if there would be an agreement, and would a legal letter be ready to be described at the public hearing.

Mr. Pearson said it would be a fail safe, and they didn’t think it would be necessary. He said Art Van had been kind enough to give that up. He said they would rather not own it, and take it off the rolls if necessary. However, since Art Van made the offer, the City Attorney could draft language that the City would have prerogatives if there were some unforeseen road improvement, and if necessary their offer could be taken advantage of. Member Paul asked if the Assessing Department would have a problem with the two sites being combined as one. Ms. McBeth said that would be preferred because there would be a setback issue if the two parcels were not combined. Member Paul asked what if there was a sale, at a later time, would this be split without any difficulty. Ms. McBeth said to split it again might raise the same setback issue, and it would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Member Paul commented that was her only hesitation, but if Ms. McBeth and legal counsel was comfortable, she would go with their recommendations. She said the offer of $50,000 paid to the City of Novi was a very generous offer. She would like to see that $50,000 put into the Municipal Road Fund since it would come from vacating a road. She asked when the improvements would be done.

Mr. Zambricki said he didn’t know because the store had not yet been designed. They were looking at this as the first step of the process. He said the road improvements would be done within a couple months after the final approval was done. He said typically the time frame was about three to four months for approvals to go through the City’s process, and after architectural approval was given it would probably be about six months depending on the time of the year. She asked if they would put the sidewalk in on the front end when doing the vacating of the road, and whether it would be asphalt or concrete and how wide. Mr. Zambricki didn’t recall where the sidewalk was but would look into it.

Mr. Pearson said the Master Plan and the Design and Construction Standards would dictate that. He thought the Novi Road corridor required eight foot concrete on both sides. Mr. Pearson said he would double check the requirements.

Member Gatt said he would not support the motion. He said Patricia Karevich was a former Mayor of Novi, and a dedicated servant to this City. Karevich Drive was named for her and in her honor. He said until there were plans to move Karevich Drive somewhere else, he could not support the motion.

Member Margolis stated she would support the motion, and thought it offered the opportunity to improve that area in terms of landscaping, and the costs to keep up that unused section of roadway, and traffic concerns, it made sense to vacate the road at this point. She would support Member Gatt’s initiative to have something else named, after Patricia Karevich. If she were a member of the family, she would want that to happen. She asked staff to look at that.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he wouldn’t approve it until he saw extensive landscaping along the roadway, particularly where the new parking lot would be. He wanted to see a little more than what was presented tonight before vacating the property. Mr. Zambricki said he would be happy to do that.

Mayor Landry stated he would support the motion. However, he wanted to make it very clear that a municipality had to be very careful when vacating public roads. It had to be done only in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare or for the general betterment of the community. He said he would approve vacating this piece of property to create more green space between the existing Art Van and Novi Road. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Capello and would like to see more landscaping, and was confident they would see it the next time they met. As a sitting Mayor, he would like to protect the field, so to speak, so he would like to see another road named after a former Mayor. He was sure the City could attempt to do that at some point in time, and for the benefit of the former Mayor. He said he would support the vacation to let the proposal go forward, and if there was additional landscaping, he could foresee supporting this in the best interests of the City, in the future.

Mr. Schultz, City Attorney, said when it came back, the idea was to have the public hearing, and the determination whether to vacate in the public interest first. Then a conveyance transaction of some sort would be worked out with Mr. Zambricki. It would include some of the conditions, the increased landscaping, etc. that they would take note of and put together in a document.

Member Paul said Rink Management Services was less expensive and asked why Suburban was chosen as they are $28,000 more per year.

Mr. Pearson said it was their track record, known quantity, and experience in this market. While the other firm had experience around the country, a number of those are at mall type settings, and not this kind of multi purpose athletic facility. He said it was a recommendation to go with a firm that had delivered on a financial break even plus for the facility, which took a lot of hard work to get to that point. He said while the fee was lower with the other firm, it was their recommendation to continue with Suburban.

Member Paul said Rink Management Services manage twenty ice arenas throughout the United States; seven are facilities in municipal ice arenas. She asked if any of those were separate stand alone facilities. Mr. Pearson said those seven were, but the other 13 were in malls. He said they were working on getting a contract in Lincoln Park, Michigan, but to his knowledge, none of them were equivalent to this market place.

Mr. Auler said Suburban had a proven track record with the City, and was knowledgeable of the market. Rink Management Services were based out of Virginia and had no Michigan facilities, except the one they are starting in Lincoln Park. Mr. Auler noted they were not as familiar with the market as Suburban. He said given the history of the rink, the competitiveness of the market, and the economy, it was very important to have someone who knew our market, had established relationships with our customers, and would continue to build on that relationship. He thought they would make that $20,000 difference up over the course of the contract.

Member Paul said over the course of the contract the last few years, the City had not made a $28,000 in profit any year. Mr. Auler said the key component of this contract was that in the existing contract there was an incentive clause based on gross amount of sales. So, if they hit the incentive by $1.00 Suburban got the total amount of the incentive package. However, the new proposal would be based on 25% of net income. So that would reduce the amount of incentive dollars to Suburban, and still provide an incentive performance for Suburban and the City, which would benefit the City. Member Paul asked how much it would bring in because she wanted to justify the $28,000 expenditure. She said Council just paid $695,000 to pay down the debt, and now it would be $28,000 more per year for Suburban. She said Mr. Auler had to give her numbers.

Mr. Auler said he would ask Ms. Smith-Roy, but he believed they would make that up as well, because of the importance of knowing the customer base, being able to bring them into the facility and keep them there, versus an unknown entity who was not familiar with Novi’s market. He said there are a number of rinks in close proximity to our arena and it was a very competitive market place now, with the economy. He thought it was really important to keep customer relationships established with the arena.

Mr. Pearson said they took it very seriously when they recommended a vendor that was not the lowest cost. In order to make Member Paul’s $28,000 assumption apples to apples, she would have to assume that any new operator would generate the same revenue and expenditures. The assumption that needed to be made was that anyone else coming in new would be able to generate that same revenue stream from rentals, facilities, and all the other things. Mr. Pearson said that was not automatic and had to be worked at. He said they have a better confidence level that Suburban would generate that revenue plus, but they couldn’t make that assumption about the other people.

Member Paul stated she was looking to save money. She was not completely convinced that a management company that had 20 ice arenas would not be able to bring something new to the table, and possibly make it even more competitive. She would not support the motion. She said the amount of money spent on the ice arena was a lot, and she felt that $30,000 worth of savings for four years was significant.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he was concerned too. He said he skated at Suburban twice a week instead of Novi because of the time periods. They also had to consider if they terminated Suburban they would be Novi’s major competition. Whoever, was brought in, the City could lose that $30,000 difference just by competing with Suburban, and the relationships they established with our rink. They might go to Suburban because they have open ice. He didn’t feel it was time to make the change.

Member Margolis asked if she understood correctly that the new incentives were now based on revenue versus profit. Mr. Auler said it would be based on growth in the net income. He noted that the base fee was the same as what was being paid now, it’s covering the cost of the arena, and there was no increase other than the 4% annually. Member Margolis said she also had concerns when she saw this, and had some hesitations, but the reality was that the ice arena was paying its own way now, and that had been under Suburban’s management. She said prior to Suburban taking over the arena was running at a loss, and she was not willing to take a chance on another company, at this point. She said she would trust the relationship built with them, and that their work would continue on the same path. She would support the motion.

Member Gatt commended Suburban Management and their staff for making the ice arena profitable. He was glad they weren’t losing money. On the other hand it was providing a good service for a lot of community residents and if it did lose money, the City was not in business to make money. The City was in business to protect the citizens and provide services. He said it was never discussed whether money was being made on baseball fields. The ice arena cost a lot of money to operate, and was in the black now. As long as it stayed that way that’s terrific, but if it dipped under a little bit it was still proving a good service, and that’s why he would support the motion.

Member Nagy thought it was great to provide our residents with service and facilities that they could use. However, at some point they had to realize that the majority of residents don’t use the ice arena. There are people coming from other communities using the ice arena too; the ice rink was not solely for Novi. She believed Member Paul had a good point. Council just forgave the ice arena debt, and was now going to pay $28,000 more, and that didn’t sound fiscally responsible, nor was it part of the "lean and mean" budget everyone talked about. She wasn’t sure how Suburban versus Rink Management worked regarding the relationships. She assumed the relationships were with their customers. Mr. Auler said Suburban had established relationships that brought people into the Novi Arena. For example, the facility had one of the top learn to skate programs in the country, an adult hockey program had been started that had really expanded and brought a lot of people and revenue to the facility, and the facility was self funding under Suburban’s leadership, and that of City staff. She asked if Suburban had plans to raise any of the rates. Mr. Auler said the rates were evaluated annually and were competitive in the marketplace. He said they were in the middle in terms of ice time and their user groups had been involved in that process, and they communicated that annually with them; there was no rate increase for the current year. Member Nagy said she was having a problem with this because she voted against forgiving the debt. She didn’t want to see the facility fail but she didn’t want to pay $28,000 more. She asked if that amount could be renegotiated. Mr. Auler said they had negotiated extensively, and that was how they came to the net increase for incentive instead of a gross incentive rate. He thought if Suburban was not used, it would be very difficult for the rink during the first year of operation, and they would lose relationships with customers they had worked hard to establish. He said an example of that would be the adult hockey program could be moved to a competitor’s rink. He said that program brought in significant revenue, which in turn, helped keep the ice rates lower for the youth program. Member Nagy asked which would be the most likely ice arena customers would go to. Mr. Auler said there are many rinks around that are looking for customers because it’s a very competitive marketplace. Compuware was trying to get new customers, and that was one of the reasons the facility worked with Northville High School to meet their need for locker rooms, so they wouldn’t relocate to another facility. She asked if there was a future plan to use the facility for something beside hockey. Mr. Auler said they use it for the Learn to Skate Program, figure skating, open skate, public skate and adult hockey; the facility was an ice arena and they utilized it for that. Mr. Auler said they don’t take the ice surface off because it had a sand base, and if used for other purposes they would have to put in a different surface at additional capital cost. Mr. Auler commented they were successful with their summer programming and bringing in groups, which lends itself to keeping the rates during prime time season lower. All of these were strengths Suburban brought to the table. It was kind of a part of the business strategy to keep competitive in the marketplace, to be able to cover the operation of the rink, and be self funding.

Mayor Landry noted he also looked at the dollars, and it was a significant difference. However, anything that went out to bid they had to look at more than the dollars, because that was only part of it. They had to look behind the dollars at who was doing the bidding, and how they proposed to perform the service. For an engineering contract, Council had to look at who the company was, who the personnel was, how they proposed to fill their contract, and how many hours and personnel would be allocated. Mayor Landry said even if the same company put in a bid, at different times of the year it might not be acceptable, even if it’s low, depending on how they proposed to do the job. He didn’t think this was any different. The City puts out for bids, Suburban, who had been doing the job answers. Then someone else comes in with a low bid, and Council had to determine if they were qualified, and how they proposed to do the job. In this instance, knowing the Michigan market and the arena market was very important. He said Suburban turned the ice arena around. They work very hard at those summer programs, selling the boards advertising, subleasing out the pro shop, and they have banged their head against the wall to get the rink out of the red. He said that kind of knowledge of the market was worth more than $28,000. At this point, the ice arena had been such a bone of contention; he didn’t want to do anything to upset it. It’s operating in the black, and the last thing Council needed to do now was tinker with it. Mayor Landry said Suburban even came down and renegotiated the base year. So this bid did some good because they decreased their price. He asked Council for their support.

Member Paul said she had discussed the revenue from the cell towers on the ice arena property with Ms. Smith-Roy. She asked if she understood correctly that the revenue went into a savings account for the ice arena. Ms. Smith-Roy said it was recorded as revenue to the ice arena. However, it was not eligible for the incentive bonus they receive. Member Paul asked how much the ice arena cell towers brought in. Ms. Smith-Roy replied for the normal costs it was about $30,000 a year, and this year they would receive an additional $25,000 for the contract they negotiated. At the beginning of the initial contract with Sprint a lump sum was also received. Member Paul asked if that money helped the ice arena stay in the black or was it in an account for ice arena equipment. Ms. Smith-Roy said they used any excess cash proceeds to reduce the amount borrowed from the General Fund, and that had been reduced by about $100,000 since 2001. Included in that was the revenue from the cell tower. She said moving forward, it was their position that the facility was self sustaining, and any cash from the cell tower or ice revenues, in excess of the expenditures, would be set aside for capital improvements and major repairs from now forward. Ms. Smith-Roy said they believed it could be done with Suburban, and that the facility would be independent from here forward.

Member Paul said in about ten years a chiller would be needed and asked what the cost would be. Ms. Smith-Roy said about $35,000 to $50,000 for a compressor. She asked if a chiller was more expensive. Mr. Auler said a chiller was the air conditioning unit at the Civic Center. He said they run compressors at the rink, which create the ice surface. Member Paul asked if the life span of the compressors was about 10 years, and Mr. Auler agreed. She asked how old they were now, and Ms. Smith-Roy replied about seven years old. Member Paul said in three years they might need to purchase a compressor, and asked if there was just one. Mr. Auler said there was more than one, but they could get less time or a longer time out of them. He said at another ice arena the compressor lasted 15 years. Member Paul said she would not support the motion, and perhaps a postponement would be better. She asked the administration to advise her of the costs of some of the equipment, provide a number for cell tower revenue, and monies brought in through rink programs, and compare those numbers with or without the cell towers. At this time, she would not support the motion.

Member Margolis commended City staff for seeking out this resource. She said they had talked about economic development, and this would be a huge boon for the City. It would be at no cost and the example provided looked wonderful. She said this public/private partnership would give them a chance to really market the City to businesses with the cooperation of local businesses. She thanked Ms. Walsh and the City staff for their work on this.

Mayor Landry offered dates for Council discussion on this item. He suggested Tuesday, May 30^th or Thursday, June 1.

Member Nagy asked what they would discuss. Mayor Landry said it would be the first time they would publicly discuss the candidates. He intended to open it up to Council for discussion on how they wanted to proceed. However, at any time, a member could make a motion, and if sufficient numbers were garnered, the decision would be made.

Member Nagy said it seemed to her that public interviews were usually conducted more than once. She thought they had a lot of good candidates, and would like to do a second interview to come up with two top candidates; then interview those people. She was not comfortable with making a decision right a way based on one interview.

Mayor Landry responded that if that was what the majority of Council wanted to do, then that was what they would do.

Member Nagy said on those dates there wouldn’t be a full Council to make the decision as Member Mutch would not be present. She and Member Mutch had discussed second interviews. She was not comfortable with this.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said June 1^st was good for him.

Member Paul said either date was fine with her. She thought Member Nagy’s comment was a good one. She suggested Council pick the top three candidates, and then chose the two top candidates. Then do a second interview, and then have a discussion.

Mayor Landry said all of this could be discussed at the meeting they were setting now. Mayor Landry said he would also contact Member Mutch to confirm one of the dates, and he would then get back with Council in the weekly packet.

Member Margolis said either date would work for her. Mayor Landry asked if the dates would work for everybody.

Mayor Capello said he was flying back to town on May 30^th and didn’t think he would be back by 7 P.M.

Mayor Landry said then June 1^st would be the first date and offered Thursday, June 8^th as a backup date. Council agreed on June 1^st and June 8^th as a backup. He would contact Member Mutch and ask Ms. Gronlund-Fox to notify Council, in a packet, what the date would be. The meeting would begin at 7 P.m.

Landry

Mayor Landry commented that at budget time, he had some informal discussions with Member Mutch about Mayor Landry’s personal feeling that every time Council came to a budget session they talked about sidewalks. He said that was a wonderful thing, however, when residents ask when a section would be done, he didn’t have an answer because there didn’t seem to be a master plan for sidewalks. At budget time, a lot of side walks are discussed, then Council gets a hold of them, and they all get changed. Then people ask why they were changed and he had no answers. He suspected it was the same for other Council members. Mayor Landry said he would like to see a priority system for the entire City for sidewalks. He talked with Mr. Pearson who advised him that there was currently an environmental committee of the Planning Commission that was working on a pathway/greenway study. He said Council received it but it was not complete because they were in the process of doing this. He asked who was on the committee. Mr. Pearson said Planning Commission members Wroebel, Lipski and Meyer. Mayor Landry asked if there was any administration on the committee, and Mr. Pearson replied Mark Spencer, Staff Planner.

Mayor Landry said he would like to see a committee that had a Council representative or two, someone from staff, and someone from the Planning Commission. He would like some public input whether by way of public membership on the committee or holding study sessions similar to the Planning Commission Master Plan Study, where they look at the City section by section.

For example, he suggested having a study session for sidewalks north of the freeway; send notices out to all those subdivision associations to attend the session. Then take another area and do the same. He suggested appointing someone from Council to this committee, and have the members of Council join the committee, and see where they are at. Then have the committees report back to Council on their plans. He said the committee member from Council would report back during Committee Reports. As this committee progresses, and reports are given, Council could let them know whether they like where they’re going or not.

Member Paul thought the idea was very good, and taking a quadrant of the City was also a good idea. She said involving the homeowner associations was an excellent idea. She noted she was on the Environmental Committee, and they looked at the Greenways Plan and there are funds available through the Greenways Plans. There were also grants available through municipalities that join with schools; so there are a few areas to be looked at in that regard. She thought having a Council representative on the committee would be very helpful, and it would be helpful to have someone on the committee from the CIP Committee. Member Paul said she would like to participate and represent Council. She said she was still on the CIP Committee.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello agreed with Mayor Landry’s suggestion, and thought Council would need two people on the committee. He nominated Members Mutch and Paul to sit on the committee.

Member Margolis said she would support both appointments to the committee. She commented that until the Council decided what the major reasons for sidewalks and green ways were, how would they determine what the priorities were. Some were access to schools and parks, population density, etc. Council needed to have a discussion because until they did, they would be changing whatever plan came from the committee based on their own interpretation of what that vision was. She thought the major issues and priorities would be recreation and access to scenic areas. Until Council set that, all of this weighing of priorities won’t amount to a plan that could go on long term. She felt that Council had to set a policy direction for the committee.

Member Nagy thought they had to consider that the City wasn’t built all at the same time, and every subdivision didn’t have sidewalks, and basically the big thing was to connect as well as to connect to other cities. She supported the Mayor’s idea and would look forward to the committee reports.

Mayor Landry said he would call for a voice vote. He commented that whenever coming into a committee that already existed, the tendency was to hear that they had all ready looked at that or a lot of time had been spent on that. He suggested Member Paul inform the committee that the City Council was seriously looking at the issue, and really wanted the right result at the end. He said if they had to redo some things then so be it; otherwise they would come up with a plan that Council would not adopt. So, with the addition of two Council members, it would require them to cover ground they already had but it would be well worth while because every one at the Council table wanted something that would be unanimously adopted by Council.

Member Paul said Member Margolis’ suggestion was very accurate. She said they all had different ideas about what this would be. Recreation ideas are number one, and her whole thought was safe pathways to get off the highway, second was schools and then the park system. Those were her first three priorities. She said when Mr. Groebe came forward his main objective was to get to City Hall, Library and the parks; everyone would have different ideas. She suggested that Council might have a policy idea, but their policy discussion couldn’t be completed until they had the public input. She said they might have a general discussion that she and Member Mutch could share with the Environmental Committee, and in all fairness that would change. The other thing that would change was every time a segment of sidewalk was put in, and a developer comes in it would change the priorities, because then there might just be a 50 or a 100 foot segment that was left. Although, all those ideas are good she felt they had to be open to see where the priorities would be for the community. She thought the idea of having an open dialogue was a good one.

Member Margolis said in looking this over it occurred to her that the Parks and Recreation Commission was not involved in this process, and she thought it would be a good idea to have someone involved from the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Mr. Pearson said they had suggested that Council encourage that kind of participation and asked Council to make them a part of that invitation.

Mayor Landry suggested that the committee consisted of the existing members, which included a member of the administration, Planning Commission, Council members Mutch and Paul, and a representative from the Parks, Recreation and Forestry division. There was Council consensus.

Mayor Landry asked Mr. Pearson to inform the committee of this decision, and encourage them to communicate with Members Mutch and Paul.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said there was a memo in Council packets regarding establishing City policy. In reading through that, he understood that an applicant/developer who was unhappy with the policy could appeal to City Council. He thought Council might want to know

about the adoption of policies before they are adopted. He asked the administration and department heads, if they were creating policy, they might want to run it by City Council to see if they want a policy in that area, and if there was Council direction as to where the policy should go.

Mr. Pearson said point well taken. In this particular instance, with storm water and detention, it was a topic that had come up in the development community. In the absence of specific guidance in the ordinance it behooved them to put down on paper how they saw them implementing the rule. Point taken again, in terms of something that would probably cross and affect a number of developments. He said he should have advised Council of a gap in the ordinance that was not addressed, but in the absence of that they felt they were not planning on allowing those kinds of storm water structures, generally, except under these circumstances. He said obviously, Council was free to have administration look at the ordinance, make changes so that it would be generally applicable. This was something they wanted to get out there, every body knew what the score was, and what the rules were, and how they were doing it. Mr. Pearson apologized if they got ahead of themselves in not bringing it out earlier.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he was not being critical by any means. It said policy, and it was more informational. He gave Mr. Pearson credit for sending out informational materials so they have an idea where the City was going with these things. He said in the future Council should think about policy, and then give some direction.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said four years ago they had asked the Planning Department to come back to Council regarding an ordinance addressing setbacks. Mayor Landry suggested setting a date Council wanted a response from the Planning Department.

Ms. McBeth said the Planning Commission worked very hard on that for quite some time, and puzzled over what was required and requested. They looked at several different options and did present a memo to City Council. The Planning Commission would ask Ms. McBeth if there was any response from Council, and whether they liked items 1 through 4 or any of the items in particular. She thought they had come back with a presentation and were directed to do more work on it. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if it could be before Council by September. Ms. McBeth said they were working with the City Attorney on it and would continue to do that. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said that was the hang up. They agreed to have it to Council by September.

Member Paul commented that she recently had a discussion with Mr. Pearson about the Kroger development on Beck and Grand River. One of the things they both commented on was how many parking spaces were not utilized. She said Council also had a discussion at the Council table about theTaubman Company coming forward, and the reduced parking requirements in other cities. She said Novi was number one in the State of Michigan regarding how many parking spaces were required, and not in the least in the most. She wanted to reverse that. She wanted to be on the land banking situation so there could be more green space. She said to have a parking lot that had run off was so costly. Several million dollars was just spent dredging Village Lake and we had Meadowbrook Lake and Dunbarton Pines. She said the combination of that as the sludge ran off and had no where to go, it ran very quickly, pulled the stream with it, and it sits in our beds and had to be removed. She was looking at how the City could do little bits along the way to possibly move this along. She

wanted to send this to the Planning Commission, and was looking to Ms. McBeth to come back in four months. She said they would be happy to look at that, make recommendations, talk with the Planning Commission about it, and bring it back as quickly as possible. Member Paul asked if she thought September was a fair time frame, and Ms. McBeth said it was. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if she was talking about just retail. Member Paul replied retail, commercial and OST. He said he understood that the offices were probably below what was really needed. He said the office was fine and asked that they just look at the retail commercial. Member Paul agreed.

Member Paul commented that she was just learning about bio retention basins, and several cities around Michigan had instituted them. She said the purpose of it was to retain the storm water, and what was happening in the parking lots was there was salt and heat in the summer. So, when it ran off it produced allergies, and lots of problems in the streams and lakes. She said in some areas they have a five to ten foot peat bog depending on the size of the parking lot, which depended on the size of the bio retention basin. Member Paul said this was aiding the redevelopment areas such as Farmer Jack. She said they had a very large parking lot, and a large portion of it was not used, and if they wanted to change that they could if they did some bio retention basins. Farmer Jack’s had no ability to put in a detention basin. She said it would also be helpful where it’s landlocked. Also, with the development coming forward there were many wetlands and riddled uplands; so with all of those land constraints this might be helpful. She wanted to look to department heads and administration, and ask if they would look into the neighboring cities and come back to Council with some type of bio retention information/rain garden. She said the main purpose of it was to detain the storm water, and see if there would be a plant species in a bio retention basin that could be utilized. She said Council could re-look at some of the areas that need enhancements such as the Ten Mile and Meadowbrook Road area. She asked Mr. Pearson and Ms. McBeth if it would take very long to come back to Council in an off week packet, so Council could look at it and set discussions and meeting dates. Mr. Pearson said if it was the will of the Council in terms of information about choices, etc. they could develop those options. They would ask the engineers to lead that research, and given the time of year, he asked for consideration on the time frame. He said if Council would like information on how it would be applicable to our situation, build out, existing developments, etc. it might take a little more time, possibly 60 to 90 days plus would be helpful. She said 90 days was fine if they could give Council the information, and look at how Council could implement some of those. She said she was looking at above ground bio retention basins and possibly looking at the ordinance as a whole of what would be best. She wanted the ability to help development and green space, and keep the environment sound.

Mayor Landry commented he didn’t have a problem with that for information, and thought it might be a wonderful subject for goal setting when Council addressed that in August or September. He said general information, as Mr. Pearson described it, would be fine with him.

Member Nagy thought it should be general information first so everyone could read about it.

Mr. Pearson said the scope was bio retention and those kinds of things, and not the storm water as a whole ordinance. Council agreed. Member Paul said maybe they could look at the ordinance as a whole when they were finished. She said to look at ordinances of other cities, and how they exist would be helpful.

Member Nagy commented that one of the City Manager candidates mentioned there was no sign on the building saying City Hall. She said every city around Novi had such signage, and she felt that Novi should also. She asked that they look into appropriating funds for that purpose.

Mr. Pearson said about ninety days ago, he had the same impression coming in. He said Council had been very supportive of a number of facility improvements, and one of those was improving the aluminum skin for the entry ways. He said they had already gotten a quote for doing that but wanted to get the skin redone first so they weren’t going over something they had just put signage on. She asked if they were going to put it facing Ten Mile. Mr. Pearson said yes, on both sides of the building, and they would lay it out for Council like they did with the Grand River/Market Street signage.

Member Nagy said this had been one of Council’s goals discussed in 2004, nothing had been done about it, and no information had been brought forward. She said during that goal setting, this was one of the things she brought forward from residents. She said they said there was a lot of open space around the Fuerst Farm and asked why they didn’t have a Farmer’s Market. She said it would generate income, and every City around Novi had one. It could be done one day a week with parking at the Library or the barn. She said she would like to see some ideas, methods of doing it, and some costs.

Mayor Landry asked Mr. Pearson if he had sufficient information, and he replied he would be happy to add to what was provided.

Mayor Landry asked Ms. Cornelius if there was anything in the packet providing dates. Ms. Cornelius said there was and the date was June 12^th. Mayor Landry asked for another date because of the large turn out. Ms. Walsh, Community Relations Manager, said last year there were 64 candidates. She didn’t anticipate there would be that many again, and said they had about 10 Youth Council members who were graduating seniors. Nine of them had expressed interest in remaining on the Youth Council again next year. This could be done with re-submission of an application provided they had good attendance and participated. The applications had been sent to Catholic Central, Novi High School, Walled Lake, Northville and South Lyon Schools to let their counselors know that Novi would be looking for applicants to join the Youth Council and Boards and Commissions.

Mayor Landry asked if the timing of this was crucial. Ms. Walsh said she thought it was because last year they interviewed in August and September with the first meeting in October, which was late in the fall. Ms. Walsh said students had expressed an interest in continuing meeting throughout the summer. She said being able to interview now, and have Council appoint would give time for the new members to get acclimated to the Council before school began. Mayor Landry asked when she would like to see the interviews held. She said she would like to do it in June before families go on vacation.

Mayor Landry said Council was meeting on June 12^th for interviews. She suggested using the dates that would be used for the City Manager, June 1^st or June 8^th. Mayor Landry said that was fine with him. Ms. Walsh said that would give her enough time.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the kids that wanted to stay on would just submit an application and stay on. Ms. Walsh agreed. He said this was a City committee like any other committee, and the committee members were not allowed to tell Council if they were staying on or when their terms ended. They had to come back to Council like every other adult in the City, that was how they were being treated, and they had to act the same way. They need to submit and interview like everyone else. He said it would make sense to stagger the interviews.

Member Paul agreed, and thought one of the reasons the last interviews were so successful was because Ms. Walsh put it out in the newsletter. Secondly, Ms. Walsh went to Novi High School, and asked if that could be done again at any of the five schools. Ms. Walsh said absolutely, and she would, at Council’s pleasure, ask a serving member of the Youth Council to join her at those meetings at the schools. Member Paul said it would be nice to have more of a group representative from all the schools. Ms. Walsh said if they were going to interview that magnitude again they might need another date additionally to June 1^st or the 8^th.

Mayor Landry said when the Youth Council was created Council decided they would have one year terms. He said his understanding was that the present members had requested that Council make it two year terms. Ms. Walsh said it was in their by-laws that it was a one year term. They had voted to amend their by-laws, and they could do that by Council’s resolution by a two thirds majority vote, to have two year terms. Mayor Landry asked if the change in their by-laws had to be approved by Council. Ms. Walsh said that was never stated. Mayor Landry asked if that meant that, to carry on the theme of Mayor Pro Tem Capello, they could just decide they were staying on the committee another year. Ms. Walsh said she would like to think not, but it sounded like that. Mayor Landry said he would like to think not also. He was not opposed to it but he was going to suggest that they might be able to short circuit this if City Council were to make a decision now or at some other time that they would accept that amendment, then all those who were on the Youth Council could stay another year. Therefore, Council could interview for all the open spots there were. If the pleasure of Council was no, then all those people would have to come back for interviews. Ms. Walsh said they could discuss it at the next Youth Council meeting, and come back to Council with their proposed changes, what their by-law changes were, etc. and have them submit it to Council in writing, and then Council could adopt that. Mayor Landry asked if there was enough time. Ms. Walsh said the next meeting was June 5^th, and if Council interviewed on June 8^th, she felt they could do that. Mayor Landry asked if that was Council’s pleasure and they agreed.

Member Nagy didn’t think it was a bad idea to serve two years. She said she would like to see it staggered like a regular board. She would also like to make sure that the other schools were solicited. Ms. Walsh agreed.

Mayor Landry commented he was anxious to see how the Youth Council proposed Council stagger the terms, and whose term gets staggered.

Member Paul said there were nine people who wanted to stay. If they had missed more than one meeting, as Council set, they should not be allowed to just automatically be put back on unless there was some formal excuse received. Ms. Walsh said most students had been very diligent in responding when they were not going to be in attendance for whatever reason such as another commitment at school, a health issue, etc. The students themselves have been the best judge of that and very critical of each other and have let each other know when they had missed a meeting. She said it was never an issue that she had to garner with the students. They had brought up the attendance policy several times at different meetings. Member Paul said there are also boards and commission with two members sitting on each, and Council had to be fair. Mayor Landry agreed, and said he would like to see what the Youth Council suggested, and what their comments were. He felt that what ever was done for one had to be done for the other. Mayor Landry said let’s deal with the Council and let the other fall in line.

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

9:33 P.M.

_________________________________ __________________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_________________________________ Date approved: June 5, 2006

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean