MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1995 AT 8:00 PM EDT

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 TEN MILE ROAD

The meeting was called to order at 8:05 pm by Mayor McLallen

Council pledged allegiance to the flag.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen (present), Mayor Pro Tem Crawford (present),

Council Members Cassis (present), Clark (present), Mitzel (present),

Mutch (present) and Schmid (present)

ALSO PRESENT: Edward Kriewall - City Manager

Dennis Watson - City Attorney

Brandon Rogers - City Planning Consultant

Tonni Bartholomew - City Clerk

2. Presentation of Appreciation Plaques - Joseph Toth

Mayor McLallen said the first item on the agenda this evening was to have been the presentation of plaques to former Council Members Mason and Toth. Unfortunately, neither one of them has been able to be with us this evening. County Commissioner Kay Schmid was also present tonight to make a presentation to them. Mayor McLallen said Kay if you’d just like to step up. People that serve on this Council are incredibly dedicated to their community. We all represent various backgrounds and various points of view. It’s a very intense and exciting form of public service and anyone who has served as long as these two people have very much deserve the thanks of the community.

Kay Schmid said I also wanted to present proclamations to both Carol and to Joe because I know they have been here a long time and have worked hard. I know how hard it is and how much time it takes to serve your community and I know you do it because you love Novi and because you want it to grow and be a successful City. So, rather than read the proclamations tonight, I will leave them with the City and hopefully you will get them to Carol and Joe with your proclamations.

Mayor McLallen said just for the audience at home these were the plaques that were to be presented to Councilman Toth and Councilwoman Mason. It reads: "As honored for the number of years of service, 8 years and 9 months of dedication and service to the City of Novi as a member of the City Council. The City of Novi recognizes for extra effort in serving the Novi City Council through his years of service and this is presented at the Regular City Council Meeting of December 4, 1995." We will get them to those members and continue to thank them for all of their years of effort.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a note from the City Clerk, Tonni Bartholomew, to us saying that the clerks’ office is still receiving applications for Boards and Commissions. In addition, there are a number of Board Members who have not responded to the inquiry. Tonni is recommending that we continue to advertise and hold another interview session before appointments are made. So, I would request that we remove that item which was Item #1.

Councilman Crawford said there was another request from the petitioner that Broadmoor Park be removed from the agenda. Is that the way I read this?

Mr. Kriewall said yes, we recommend that Item #3 be removed.

Councilman Crawford said Item #3.

Councilman Mitzel said with regards to Item #3 I’d say that we could proceed on it and if there were questions then it could be postponed until the next meeting but if there were no questions and it was acceptable to everyone then there would be no reason to postpone that action.

Mayor McLallen said we might actually give them a Christmas present early.

Councilman Mitzel asked, may I suggest that we go that route instead?

Councilman Crawford said it’s OK with me. Under the Consent Agenda, approval of minutes, I think that should be special meeting instead of regular meeting. That’s what the minutes indicate that it was a special meeting with Parks and Rec.

Mayor McLallen asked, any other additions or corrections to the agenda as presented?

Councilman Mitzel said there was also a memo in our packet from City Clerk stating that a motion to waive Council Rules should be made prior to the approval of the agenda for Item #2. I guess I’d like a little bit of clarification on that.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Watson would you speak to that?

Mr. Watson said I’ve had the chance to review your own Council rule that deals with the particular question and the reason that there was going to have to be a waiver for rules was because a motion for reconsideration once it’s more than one meeting removed has to be by request in writing. However, in this case the initial motion that was going to be made when that item came up for action was going to be a motion to rescind your prior action. Under your rules the motion to rescind can be made at any time at any regular or special meeting of the Council provided it’s been formally placed on the agenda for consideration and is in order. That is the case, it has been formally placed on your agenda. So, it would appear that rather than a waiver of the rules what it would take is a motion to rescind at that time.

Councilman Mitzel asked, would the agenda item then have to list that it was to rescind previous action? What it says right now is just Local Class C Liquor License Application, Port Papadapalis. It doesn’t mention that the action requested is to rescind the previous action.

Mr. Watson said I don’t think it would because your rules actually state that the matter has been formally placed on the agenda and it doesn’t indicate the rescindation itself.

Councilman Mitzel said OK.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the agenda be approved as amended.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Dave Sharon, 43551 Forest Dr., Co-Chairperson of the Aquatic Facilities Study Committee, said we have a public hearing tomorrow night at 7 PM in this building on the Parks and Rec. Side and I would encourage all citizens of the City of Novi who have an interest a swimming pool or aquatic facility to please come to the meeting tomorrow at 7 o’clock and give us your opinions and tell us what you would like to see or don’t want to see. We are gathering input. We have not formed any opinion and really need citizens input and this is a great opportunity for the citizens of the City of Novi to come and tell us what they want and have a chance to shape the future of the City of Novi in regards to aquatic facilities.

Ginger Barrons, 24425 Glenda, said I haven’t been on TV enough lately so I thought I’d come see you. During the recent campaign process there were a lot of comments in the Novi News, I’m not going to follow up on them, but I think everyone’s in agreement that there were some campaign tactics that were maybe not as desirable as we would have liked them to be. I kind of share that view but I’m not here to talk about that tonight. Tonight I’m here to talk about my disappointment in a recent Council action and I want to make it clear that my comments do not reflect my opinion on the individual now seated in the position I’m going to talk about. I believe that the election had some very close numbers in regards to Council people that were elected and I think the citizens gave you a very clear idea of who they trusted and would support for City Council because those numbers were so close. This Council had an opportunity to place someone on the Council in a vacancy and I’m disappointed that Michael Meyers, who is a very gracious man, somebody that has a lot of integrity and would have served our City well was not placed there. But more than anything, I was disappointed that not one descending vote happened to bring this issue so that it could be publicly discussed so that I could understand why it is that Council decided not to listen to the voters in that recent election and chose a man who so closely came in on the election. That really disappointed me. If you were going to disagree with the voters, it would be nice if you would tell us why. If I could have predicted this kind of outcome and lack of support from City Council back in November there were a few votes that I would have changed and I had to come here tonight and let you know that. I was really disappointed. I think the voters gave you a clear choice and you disregarded it.

LaReta Roder read her letter into the record. "Good Evening my name is LaReta Roder. Two weeks ago I requested that this council direct the city person(s) responsible to respond to my questions regarding the demand for a copy of my Federal 1040. To date I am still waiting for those answers. Although it doesn’t appear under communications on the agenda, I am aware that a memo was written by Craig Klaver to you and copied to my husband. That’s strange since he has never appeared here nor asked for anything.

This memo to you answers only one of my questions, whether or not Blue Cross requires the City of Novi to collect this information. They don’t. Since they don’t, I asked that the person responsible document to me in writing, with appropriate back up materials, their method for either proving or disproving that the adulterated copy of a copy was a true copy of a copy. No answered.

The memo does raise other interesting questions. Mr. Klaver says that they checked with other cities. . . and communities that require copies of employees’ tax forms and he says that they are legally within their right to do so. I want a list of those cities and documentation of the laws you think allow you to obtain confidential information even the FBI has to request permission from a judge to obtain.

He further states that it is illogical for me to be concerned over social security numbers since they have already given them out to Blue Cross supposedly to maintain my benefits. Take your Social Security card out and look at it. Along the bottom in large, bold blue letters it says and I quote "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." Blue Cross does not meet either criteria. Does Mr. Klaver wish me to believe that I should disregard the directives of the Federal Government because a private company asked for confidential information? Blue Cross has indeed sent me numerous letters over the years requesting this number, all of which I have circular filed. Anyone can ask; it doesn’t mean you have to comply. That’s why my benefits were never terminated. They are not entitled to it just as you aren’t. Yet, you somehow obtained it and without my knowledge or permission and in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 gave it out to a private company. Further, you expect me to believe with this demonstration of irresponsibility that you will keep all information on my 1040 confidential. I don’t think so.

He goes on to say that the only information confidential on tax forms are the dollar amounts. That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard. If true, the IRS would send you copies of our originals with dollar amounts deleted. Don’t hold your breath. He also says that naming a person responsible for collecting the forms constitutes authorship. Pardon me? He concludes by advising my husband to file a grievance if he doesn’t like it. Excuse me but why are you advising him to take this action? I asked for the information. I am a resident of Novi; am directly affected by this action; am a covered beneficiary, not chattel but deserving of a direct reply.

I expect this council to take immediate action regarding this matter. It should as deeply concern you as it does me. Not only should I be provided the information, but you must as the top policy making body send a message to your administration that extorting information and disseminating that information from employees and their families in direct violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 will not be tolerated.

Paul Dillion said I’m an attorney representing New Bangcock Restaurant and would like to address the action Item #2 regarding the Local Class C Liquor License Application for Port Papadapalis. I do have a question however, that was created by the initial comments that were made regarding what is the proposed action for today. It’s my understanding in reading the minutes from November 6th that and other documentation that there is an application for a conditional approval of a liquor license. It’s also my understanding from reading the minutes that motion was denied or put over and now I’m not sure whether or not the motion or the action item is to rescind that decision or to again consider the request for a conditional application. I think the answer to that is going to allow me to focus my questions and be as brief as I can.

Mayor McLallen said you will have three minutes but my understanding of what the attorney informed this Council is that they can rescind the previous and begin to discuss the application again.

Mr. Dillion said the application for conditional approval.

Mayor McLallen said yes, the request will be considered.

Mr. Dillion said then I’d like to start my comments by citing the Ordinance No. 91-149, Section 314, Subparagraph J, indicates that a request for consideration or allows for a conditional approval of the liquor license. That section goes on to say that once an applicant who has been asked to proceed by presenting a more detailed and complete approval has sufficiently completed its plans and obtained site plan approval and other necessary approvals they may then request consideration by the Council of a conditional approval. In reviewing the minutes from the November 6th meeting it appeared to me that Mr. Fried had indicated that approval was final Site Plan approval. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I represent New Bangcock Restaurant as this Council may know has also applied for this liquor license and it appears that this is the last liquor license under the quota for the City of Novi. We are not asking this Council to get involved in favoritism or preferring one applicant over another. Rather what we are asking is that this City Council follow its ordinance and by my reading of the ordinance what the ordinance requires is someone to cross the finish line first. That is to meet all the required approvals, to have their site plan approved, to have their operation in a way that meets the requirements of the ordinance. The New Bangcock Restaurant has been a Tai restaurant operating in the City of Novi for approximately three years. We are going through the process of the liquor license application, we have an existing business in Novi, we made the decision to invest in the City of Novi a long time ago and we are ready and now desiring this liquor license be issued and we are following the rules. We ask no favoritism but merely that the ordinance be implemented as it was drafted and as it’s been interpreted by this Council.

Mayor McLallen said you have approached your three minutes.

Mr. Dillion said I would point out that there’s a reason that we ask people to cross the finish line before granting this liquor license and that is the exact case in point. As I understand the applicant, who’s on the Action Item today applied for Site Plan approval quite some time ago, 1991, . . .

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Dillion that was your three minutes.

Mr. Dillion continued, to grant this conditional approval could go on indefinitely and that is exactly what this ordinance is intended to prevent. I do have one question I’d like to leave the Council with. There was a comment in the minutes from November 6th indicating from Mr. Carlan that they have saved several of their Class C licenses for other use. I don’t think it would be proper to deny a proper applicant, an existing business, a liquor license particularly if someone has one that they could use but decided they want this one instead.

Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin, said I am also speaking tonight on Item #2. Since you are going to decide whether you’re going to readdress this issue and vote to rescind your original vote, which was to deny based on your ordinance I’m going to bring up a couple of points. Mrs. Hamilton went through on November 6th and I helped her over the weekend we had gone through and we had addressed Mr. Andris’ application. Of the 20 criteria we presumed that he has met five that deal with his financial and moral character which we can’t presume to address. The fifteen that he didn’t meet was basically a photocopy of the resort license, complete with the typographical errors from previous and 1994. Number one, I would think that this City would have the right to expect a new updated application. Presumably, since that application has not been updated he would still not meet those fifteen criteria with were outlined on November 6th. They should be in your minutes. I would hope they are. Number two, if Mr. Andris does not get a Class C liquor license tonight because he still does not meet the criteria of having final site plan approval and if another business does get that last liquor license then he has two options. We will be having a mid decade census, I understand, in the spring and we will probably be getting more licenses at which point Mr. Andris probably would reapply. If he doesn’t want to wait and the City does give away the last license then he can always go back to the State for his resort license. The point is, you were elected to uphold the ordinances of the City and if an applicant for any part of any part of the City does not meet our ordinance or the criteria then you cannot disregard your oaths of office and be in violation of our own ordinance.

Ruth Hamilton, 1245 E. Lake Drive, said I’m here too on No. 2, Matters for Council Action, Port Papadapalis. Let me first tell you I was absolutely amazed when I received my agenda on Friday and here we go again. On November 6th, as you all know, Mr. Andris was in front of you asking for the last liquor license in the City of Novi. At that time, you specifically and clearly told him reapply when and if you receive final site plan approval per our City Ordinance. Now he’s asking you to violate that ordinance again and give him the last liquor license contingent upon him obtaining final site plan approval and contingent upon him actually building this project. He now says he cannot build unless you give him that license and that his restaurant depends on him getting a liquor license from this City. In reviewing his letter I find it extraordinary that there appears to have been an implication of a promise of giving him this last license. I was here ladies and gentleman, I’m sure you are aware of that, I spoke on this specific issue. I did not hear the Council say anything that would lead anyone to believe a promise of any kind was given to this man. The fact is action was postponed until he receives final site plan approval as called for by our City Ordinance. When a business applies for a liquor license they take a chance that we even have a license to give. I’m also aware that New Bangcock has applied for a license. This is a business that’s been in business since early 1993 and is in Novi and yes, they are unique. I was always taught that competition was healthy but apparently Mr. Andris can’t handle the heat. Now he’s coming before you and asking you to change the rules. Quite frankly, I think it’s time that Mr. Andris either fish or cut bait. He’s going to build, going to build, going to build we’ve heard this since 1982. So let the man build. I need to correct a potential misconception we don’t care whether he builds his restaurant or not we do however, question why he wants to put it there but it’s his money not mine. Let him go for it. Mr. Andris states in his letter that the Council’s action on November 6th was unprecedented. In fact for the Council, tonight, to deviate from our established process would set a dangerous precedent. Let’s be realistic you can’t put the cart before the horse, you can’t collect $200 before you pass go and in this City you must have final site plan approval in order to be awarded a liquor license. I urge you again tonight as you did on November 6th to deny Mr. Andris’ request until he is in compliance with all our ordinances. That’s what the rules are. One final note . . .

Mayor McLallen said you’ve hit your three minutes.

Mrs. Hamilton said I’m going to finish excuse me. One final note, you’ll recall this room was packed on November 6th. Most of the people who spoke in support of Mr. Andris obtaining our last license do not live in the affected area. The immediate area is East Lake Drive and adjacent neighborhoods and I would respectfully request that you pay attention to those residents.

Mayor McLallen said I would like to remind all speakers that you have three minutes and I will ask you to stop speaking at the end of three minutes.

Ruth Ann Jirasek, representing the City of Novi Homeowners Association said I am here upon their request. November 6th the first reading of the solicitation ordinances were before you and I had asked two things of you. First that we were notified prior to the second reading and second that we had time to review the changes. I did receive notification that we were on the agenda and we have had time to review the proposed changes from the City Attorneys office. Although, there are numerous things after review we find that the proposed changes are either non existent or they are not recognizable as we submitted to the Ordinance Review Committee in approximately February of 1995. The court alternatives as cited by the City Attorneys office suggest alternatives. They are weak at best. Numerous residents have applied these suggestions and find that the suggestions are not deterrents for zealous solicitors. The court suggests that residents are not a captive audience. Secondly, they suggest that there be placed no solicitation signs either in the front door or the front windows of the home. These do not deter solicitors either. Their third suggestion from the court was that the residents indicate a lack of interest and close the door. That’s what the court is telling us that we can do in order to deter the solicitors. We have had 14 changes that we would like to be brought before this Council and I would like to pass those out now for your review and I ask also that there be no judgement made tonight on the second reading. Maybe these changes that CNHA originally would like to have done would be incorporated into a first and second reading. I would also like to have the opportunity to speak to the City Attorney’s office in regard to this matter prior to this coming to you again.

Mayor McLallen said thank you and you can give them to the City Clerk.

Larry Christoff, 23880 Forest Park Dr., said yes, I do not live on the lake side area but the lake side association seems to feel that a restaurant is in order regarding Mr. Andris’ proposed restaurant. There’s no question that a first class restaurant will benefit not only the City of Novi but its residents. It appears to me, at this stage, that some of the opposition comes not from common sense but from selfish interest and you are asked to deny this liquor license on a lot of little technicalities. Some people may be objecting because they feel they will get unduecompetition to their existing business. Others may feel that their vested interest whether in vending machines or otherwise may suffer. Mr. Andris has met all the requirements. The site has been approved for a restaurant. I feel that a liquor license is in order.

Norman Paul, 1349 East Lake Dr., said I am in favor of the restaurant and it getting its liquor license.

James Korte, South Eastern Shawood Homeowners Association, agenda point 4, lot split. I would respectfully ask to speak at that point in time. I have a quickie map that I would like to pass to you now, if I may speak at that time I just think it would make better sense in conjunction with what’s going on.

Mayor McLallen said we will reserve you time to speak on Item #4 and you may give those to the clerk.

Paulette Broadback, 46050 West Road, said this is my first time speaking before the Council so I’m a little shaky. I live within one mile of Walled Lake. I have no access to the lake. I have no view of it. I’m not a swimmer and I don’t frequent the beach. I do dine out frequently though and I wish to speak in support of a quality restaurant or a potential future quality restaurant that I would like to see located on the lake. I’m a regular customer of the Tai restaurant and will continue to be one. However, my preference would be that the liquor license go to a lake side restaurant. Great food and a lake view need a good drink.

Mr. Korte said you got some of my paperwork that doesn’t make sense. It’s City paperwork I have copies. I apologize. It shouldn’t be that way. May I finish my three minutes or is that not applicable?

Mayor McLallen said you were going to speak on Item #4.

Mr. Korte said yes but I would like to speak the rest of my three minutes upon the issue.

Mayor McLallen said upon Item #4 or something else?

Mr. Korte said that’s SES I would now like to speak as James E. Korte Austin. I have called the Police Chief seven times. He refuses to answer my phone calls. I have talked with City Manager. City Manager has tried to intervene. I do understand that today, and I was not in, Lynn tried to call and there’s no reason to speak with me. There is a reason to speak with me. There was an investigation upon me personally; an officer came to my door, got me out of a sick bed and said there was. I would like to speak with the Police Chief on this issue. The issue happens to be where I get my information and I find that most interesting. At this point in time, we have point two Andris Romaine asking for liquor license again. Obviously, someone told him that New Bangcock had asked for one. Now, I hope there’s going to be a police investigation of who told Mr. Andris this public information because that’s exactly why the police are at my door, public information. Very possibly the leak they’re looking for is the leak at upper City Management that’s leaking out this other public information. Now I think you understand the joke and farce involved. I would like to speak with the Police Chief. After seven calls I am a tax payer. I think, and it has always been to his convenience that we would set up a meeting. I want the meeting to his convenience. I shouldn’t have to beg as a taxpayer. Final comment, the Andris Romaine situation, no one has ever denied the man the existence of his commercial business. We have been held hostage since 1986 what’s the rush. I think the New Bangcock Restaurant has a legitimate concern. They would like to petition you as City Council and I think you have to listen to that petition.

John Nelson, President of the Novi Police Officers Association, said we would like to offer our congratulations, I know we’re a few weeks late, to the Mayor and Councilman Schmid for successfully retaining their seat at Council and welcome new Councilpersons Cassis, Mutch and Clark to Council. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Councilpersons Mason and Toth for their long term service to this community and it is only through continued participation with individuals such as yourself and them that our City government can continue to be responsive to the concerns of our residents.

The Novi Police Officers Association has three main missions. We act as an individual advocate for the employee, we act within the political arena advocating law enforcement legislation at a State and local level but the most important function is to be involved as a community wide organization and participate within this community. We are currently having our yearly fund raiser. We are selling tickets to a country western show which will take place at the Novi High School January 28th. The recording artist at this concert will be Connie Smith. We use the funds which we raise at this yearly fund raiser in a number of City activities and with a number of City organizations. Just to list a few are Novi Youth Baseball, Novi Merchant Baseball, Woman’s Softball, Novi Parks and Rec., Michigan Special Olympics, Tollgate Farms, Novi Youth Assistance, and Novi DARE. We purchase vests for each new officer as they get hired and we purchase weight training and physical exercise equipment for the Police Department. We would like to cordially invite each one of you Councilpersons to attend at the concert and we will have the tickets in an upcoming Council packet.

Mayor McLallen said thank you Mr. Nelson and we look forward to working with you and your organization.

Patricia Hughes, 1241 East Lake Dr., said I understand that Mr. Andris, and I wish him well I really wish him well and good luck with his restaurant I really do. The only thing I’m going, and I’ve been involved in politics down in Florida and in my other neighborhoods, and I’ve never seemed to sense the evidence of this, a semblance of collusion of something. I can’t understand how these things can be switched around unless there’s something that I don’t know and I don’t know very much. I thought it was determined the last time that it was to wait until he had final approval. If he gets it God bless him but now I’m wondering there’s so much rescinding this and rescinding that I happen to live on East Lake Drive. I have not been happy for the restaurant because of the extra traffic that I know it will bring but so be it. I don’t want anyone telling me how to use my lake front therefore, I can’t tell him how to use his property and God bless him for that. I’m wondering also about the access, or whatever you call, the widening of the road to go in and out and the extra traffic that it’s going to bring. Is that going to be done behind closed doors or rescinding or whatever it is? Are we going to be told at a future date that that’s already done the plans are, don’t we have a voice anymore? Can’t we ask anything is what I’m, do we have a right to ask or find out whether Mr. Kriewall gives the OK or the Council or the Mayor or I’m just left and I’ve never dealt with City politics like this before in my life. I can’t understand it.

Dennis Dickstein and I’d just like to verify on the Number 4 issue, the lot split on Shawood, that I would be able to speak at the time it’s presented. I’m not quite sure of the agenda and how it works but I see people are confirming that.

Mayor McLallen asked, are you the petitioner?

Mr. Dickstein said I’m working for the petitioner, yes.

Mayor McLallen said the petitioner would have a chance to speak but if you would like to reserve extra time for yourself that’s agreeable.

Mr. Dickstein said I would like to speak at that time.

Victor Muscat, long time resident of the City of Novi since 1941, said on the northern end of Walled Lake or Novi I should say nothing has been happening since the old amusement parks been there. I’m a frequent diner out and trying to get up to the City on the other side of Twelve Mile Road by the time I leave it’s almost breakfast time. So, something happening on the northern end of the City would be welcomed as far as I can see. I would really recommend the license being given to Ted Andris.

Tom Fry said I’m a Novi resident and quite active. I’m here to speak in favor of the immediate granting of Novi’s only unallocated Class C license to Port Papadapolis. I was here about four weeks ago and at that time, to speak in favor of it, and at that time the Council delayed approval until final site plan approval was granted. However, it was clear to me in my mind it was the Council’s intent to earmark that license until a final site plan was granted. This has been such an ongoing thing, through Ted I’ve followed this thing for months and months, years. It’s in the short stroke stages and I think everybody here knows it is. It’s going to be a wonderful development. It’s going to add an awful lot to the area. It’s going to add a real unique dining facility to Novi. I can tell you from my experience in mortgage banking it’s awful difficult to seek financing when you have a restaurant and no liquor license in hand. It would really hamper ongoing development and I think under the circumstances it would be a miscarriage of justice to deny the issuance of the last remaining in hand license to Port Papadapolis. I thank you for your consideration.

Darrell Lumbard said I was here, also, four weeks ago at the last bringing up of Port Papadapolis and the last liquor license that’s available. Sitting and listening to everything and I’ve only been in the community for a little over a year now and I really enjoy the community and do a lot of entertaining and stuff like that with friends and family both that come in from out of town. I’m speaking on behalf and in support of Mr. Andris being granted the last liquor license. One thing as I sat and listened to some of the people talking I just question, you know, they bring up the fact that all of a sudden now maybe he’s trying to push things along but I also question with it being the last liquor license out comes New Bangcock and their looking to get their hands on it as well. I just raise that question I have no answer for it but I’d like to at least voice my support for Mr. Andris and that the last liquor license be granted to him.

Debbi Bundoff, Section 10, said I would like to request that I be allotted three minutes time after the petitioner on Item #2 if that is possible.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of October 9, 1995

2. Approval of Revision to Administrative Personnel Policy

3. Approval to Draft an Agreement for Off-Site Drainage Improvements - Main Street

Village Project

4. Approval of the Agreement between the City of Novi and Holtzman and Silverman Realty Company for embankment stabilization and ditch enclosure along Meadowbrook

adjacent to the former Munn Landfill.

5. Ordinance 95-100.17 - Amendment - Amend Subsection 28-8(14), to Permit

illuminated window signs which convey whether an establishment is open for business -

II Reading -

6. Ordinance 95-40.03 - Amendment - Amend the regulation of Peddling and soliciting

within the City of Novi - II Reading

7. Approval of Traffic control Order 95-95 - East bound Park Ridge Road to Yield at

Kings Pointe Drive

8. Approval of Traffic control Order 95-95 - East bound Ridge Road east to Yield at

Kings Pointe Drive

9. Approval of Traffic Control Order 95-95 - Prohibit left turns from the Elias Bros.

Driveways onto Fonda Street

Councilman Crawford said I’d like to remove Item #5 and #6 please.

Councilman Mitzel said I’d like to remove Item #9.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 be approved.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I

1. Board and Commission Appointments - Removed

2. Local Class C Liquor License Application - Port Papadapolis

Mayor McLallen said before we enter into that I would ask the City Attorney, Mr. Watson, based on the conversations heard this evening to clarify the perimeters under which the Council can address this issue.

Mr. Watson said sure, the applicant has requested you to place this matter back on your agenda. Procedurally the method would be by motion to rescind. If that’s approved by the City Council then the matter would be back before you. As you’ll recall from the last time this was before you one of the issues was whether the liquor licensing provisions in your Code of Ordinances requires a final site plan approval. The section in question refers to having site plan approval and based upon the fact that the next step in the procedure would be to get building permits issued and the rest of the construction process. It’s our conclusion that when it talks about a site plan it means the entire site plan process including final site plan approval. So what, in essence, the applicant is asking you for is a variance from that particular requirement. Now, you have a general variance provision within your Code of Ordinances that deals with that sort of situation and it’s Section 1-12, Subpart C of your Code which allows the Council to grant a variance from regulatory provisions of this Code when all of the following conditions are satisfied. Then it lists three things: 1) a literal application of the substantative requirement would result in exceptional practical difficulty to the applicant. Mr. Andris is contending that the need to have the final site plan prior to consideration of this would cause him an exceptional practical difficulty. 2) The alternative proposed by the applicant will be adequate for the intended use and shall not substantially deviate from the performance that would be obtained by strict enforcement of the standards. 3) Public health, safety and welfare. In essence what he’s asking for is that you give him a variance based on those standards from the final site plan requirement and then consider his application under those conditions.

Mayor McLallen said so before the request can be considered there has to be a motion to rescind the previous.

Mr. Watson said that’s correct.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Council rescind the previous action on this matter of the meeting of November 6th.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch said just a question. By supporting this with a yes vote it would allow us to discuss it. It has the potential for moving forward but not necessarily, is that correct?

Mayor McLallen said right. All the support of the current motion which is on the table does is permit the Council to consider the request.

Yes (6) No (1-Mitzel) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said at this time the Council can consider the request for a Class C liquor license application as presented by the petitioner Port Papadapolis. Does the Council have any request of the petitioner for further information that is not in the packet?

Councilman Schmid said I certainly want to hear his reasons not withstanding a letter we may have received.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Andris would you please come forward and state your case for the request at this time.

Mr. Andris said the basis of this is a request that the Council hear the background first of what transpired at the last meeting and a little bit of history before that too because there are three new Council people here today and I think I can be brief.

This is an application that commenced in February of 1995, February 6th of 1995, and at that time the application was for a Class C 12 month resort license to be allowed by this Council to go to the State to obtain a Class C 12 month resort license. In that application on February 6, 1995 the Council approved the application and it did go to the State for State review and to obtain a 12 month Class C liquor license. What happened then is it was heard on April 12, 1995 in the Committee of the State Liquor Control Board. Coincidentally at that time, sometimes I think it’s just my luck, the Commission had a new director and they adopted a brand new policy which affected all 12 month resort applicants. That policy was, I imagine some of you have become familiar with that policy through your governmental experience, that if the City or governmental body from whence the applicant was coming had any liquor licenses remaining then they were not allowed to be considered for a 12 month resort license. After that we got a denial based on that and we were returned to the City. That’s when we came forth on November 6th asking for the remaining liquor license here which is a quota license. We indicated to the City that this has been an ongoing project which has been over a number of years since we in fact had initially wanted to put it on the water and there was great deal of delay in that and it was finally given up. After a number of years we came to the point of going ahead and putting it on the area which was approved and had been approved for many decades, way before we bought the property, as a commercial location. So, that was where we started in February of 95, then we got the response from the State in April of 95, then we came before this Council for the remaining license which was on November 6, 1995. So at that time, Councilperson Mitzel had indicated, this is my impression of what occurred, that it was a requirement under the ordinance that you not only have preliminary site plan approval but also a permanent, final site plan approval. We acknowledged whatever the decision was whether we had any experience to know whether, in our opinion, it was right or wrong we had no opinion and we proceeded to go ahead on it. Here’s where the little twist comes in.

We contacted our architect, we contacted our engineer and asked them how quickly we can get everything together because there’s a risk here possibly that this might go to somebody else and then I’m in never never land again where anything can happen as it already happened to me earlier that year when we went to the State and a new director had been appointed with a new policy. The fastest they could get it done, I was advised, was two months. So I was quite concerned and called the Planning Department and said do I stand at any risk or is this more or less like an implication that this license is mine if I go through the thousands of dollars and the two months effort to get this license or is it going to be a futile exercise when it’s given to somebody else perhaps. They had really no answer and I’d asked them well would you tell me what happens in cases like this in your previous experience? They then did a check, I don’t know how thorough it was but they came back and said to their knowledge it was unprecedented they couldn’t find an example where the final site plan was required in a building situation where you weren’t already an existing building. So without debating it too much with them I asked them some questions which they couldn’t give me immediate answers on and they referred me then to the City Attorney.

So I did contact the City Attorney and then I asked them what’s the procedure here so that I don’t have to take this kind of risk? Then he advised me of this procedure. That I’d have to contact the Council again and more or less present the whole case again and ask for your consideration under the circumstances and then I saw that was the only thing I could do. I looked up this Section 1, 12-C which seems to fit the situation. I don’t think the City would really intend for me to go through thousands of dollars in expense without having some idea that the type of plan, in other words the architecture, the layout and all of the minute details you have to come up with in a final site plan, would go to waste if I couldn’t get a liquor license because I’d have to, perhaps, change the whole thing if the liquor license wasn’t available because that layout, that architecture, was based upon the type of dining that would virtually necessitate a liquor license. In other words leisurely dining not fast food, not quick turnover but something where your going to have something relaxing to drink with your meal and look out a window and spend some time there.

My whole plan would be different if I couldn’t have a liquor license and I couldn’t see the futility of spending two months and thousands of dollars of getting that. So I definitely see a hardship, at least I feel it, and in the other vein it’s really not going to cause a difference because I still have to comply and be approved for a final site plan approval. So as to anyone concerned I’m meeting the same requirements, I’m not going to create any difference and I’m not going to affect the public welfare, good will or anything else any different from then if I did all of the final site plan work first.

So, I’m here before you under this Section 1, 12-C and asking you that if there’s any reflection in the fact that back in February we were approved to go to the State and in my understanding of what happened last time I got the impression that if I did qualify for the final site plan we’d be approved and there would be a license still remaining. Then I feel it would be most appropriate for me to do as I understand the proper procedure would be to ask for that consideration at this time so that I know just what type of a development I should be aiming for there.

In terms of that type of development I know you’ve heard a lot of people and it’s been years that we’ve been at this and I think there’s a great deal of support. There are a few people, in my estimation, that have different thoughts and I think that perhaps they might have some of their own special desires involved but in any event, be that as it may, I’d appreciate the blessing

of even a couple opponents. I would just say this that we’ve presented in the past various plans for waterfront property. The mile road between 13 and 14 on East Lake Drive we had 37 petitioners sign, 37 residents, which we’ve submitted to this Council on prior occasions. I have copies of those which I located from past hearings. It’s a very high number of the immediate residents but more importantly, I think, the most important resident in this whole thing is my next door resident and that’s Dave Clark. He has, and it’s in your packet, a letter indicating his strong support to this and he came to a number of meetings and I’d imposed on people who support this to come and there’s just so many times you can take him away, he works nights, his letters in there and he says he would support it. LARA is an organization to which I went and they were to a measure debating and disagreeing with me on the lake front but I’ve attached in your packet their final front page response to this that indicates that in finality they would welcome me on the location where I’m located. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce has indicated this would be an asset to the City and we have given you that in prior packets and I’ve included it again in this packet. I don’t have anything really against Bangcock or any other restaurant. I think it’s good to have a good reputation of variety of foods. It would be a fine thing. I don’t want to be also diminished in my contribution to this community financially. I’ve been there for 15 years if anybody would like to check the tax rolls I’ve spent in taxes well over $150,000 I’ve paid to this community and haven’t really needed much service. It’s not like I’m a fly by night. I’ve been a member of the organizations in this community for a number of years and any time anybody wants to reach me I’m in the phone book and I can be reached. So I think I’ve kind of paid some dues and I do think it would be a real nice development and I certainly appreciate everybody who has given me some support and even some of the enemies for their community interest. I thank you for your consideration and hope that you will consider it favorably and allow me to proceed with a lot less risk then I’d be afraid to proceed with now with this development instead of something different.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Schmid you had the floor.

Councilman Mitzel said Ms. Bundoff had requested . . .

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Schmid had the floor and I wanted to see if he had anything further for Mr. Andris.

Councilman Schmid said I see it as a two prong conditional if we would conditionally grant the license. Number one if we choose to grant the license conditionally. Number two if Mr. Andris has met the requirements of the ordinance notwithstanding the 1-12. I’m talking about many of the other requirements of this ordinance that this Council sometimes doesn’t like to talk about. I’m talking about cost estimates for the building, site plan information, estimate of number of employees, information of individuals expected to manage the operation, information about any entertainment and so on. The facade, landscaping and some of those things and Madam Mayor we do have in the packet a great deal of that information such as menus’ and so forth, site plan. I know we have it here but is it your intent to rely on that and not discuss this at all?

Mayor McLallen said at this point the Council’s just asking for further information and the Council can ask whatever further questions they have. The information is presented to us, the staff is available for questioning and it’s the Council’s pleasure. At this point you had asked to talk to Mr. Andris and Ms. Bundoff has reserved the right to make a comment.

Councilman Schmid said, Mr. Andris in the information you’ve provided did you give us a cost estimate of this facility that you plan.

Mr. Andris said yes, I have.

Councilman Schmid said what is that?

Mr. Andris said it’s $1.3 Million.

Councilman Schmid said $1.3 Million? Where will this site be located, the building?

Mr. Andris said the site would be located as it’s set forth on the preliminary site plan approved . . .

Councilman Schmid said I know where it’s at because I have the paperwork here but if you could just explain for the TV audience and the audience that are here very simply where’s it at.

Mr. Andris said OK, it is on the east side of East Lake Drive and it is between the most northerly house which is Dave Clark’s house, and the establishment known as Frigates Inn and it would face the water and it would have parking in the back. We did have elevations that last time we were here but we never got to it and my architect couldn’t come this evening but the elevations are in your packet and I think perhaps they have been displayed at a couple other instances. They haven’t changed much In terms of the styling of it. It has a great deal of window area and it’s going to have sort of an atrium affect where there will be a raised floor still well within all of the requirements that are required for the standard ordinances no variances and all of those requirements are met. Of course, if there are any other more detailed requirements they would be met by the time of the final site plan.

Councilman Schmid said do you have a number of employees?

Mr. Andris said the number of employees would probably be around 50 spanning the whole week. I mean not all at one time but you know there would be a variance depending on how busy the hours are and they would be spanned out. There would be perhaps 10, 12, 15 on an average.

Councilman Schmid said I have no other questions of Mr. Andris I may have some of Mr. Rogers.

Mayor McLallen said at this time Ms. Bundoff had requested to be able to comment on this project.

Ms. Bundoff said yes I did ask to reserve this time but I would like my time to be given to New Bangcock.

Mayor McLallen said that’s not what you requested you asked . . .

Ms. Bundoff said I asked to reserve my . .

Paul Dillion, attorney for New Bangcock, said the issue from New Bangcock’s standpoint, and perhaps this is new to the discussion of the ongoing saga of the development of this proposed site, but the issue with respect to New Bangcock was put by a proponent of the proposed development that this license should be ear marked. That is, that my clients’ rights to apply for this license are not the same as somebody else’s for some reason. The proponent has talked about risk and what he is asking for as I understand it is for this Council to tell him whether or not there is going to be a license ear marked and he can avoid the risk that he hasn’t not taken yet by this Council saying it’s the first one to cross the finish line. It’s the first one to meet the requirements of the ordinance that this City had made the decision to put into place. Whoever meets those requirements can then apply for a license and it can be granted. We are asking for a variance from that for one applicant but not for another and I ask the Council to give serious consideration to the property rights of my client having made this application in the proper way and the damage and the risk that my client’s already taken for three years in order to establish a business, to make sure that they could handle the business and then go and ask for the liquor license. My client has done everything according to the book and there’s no reason that I can understand why someone that has not taken this risk that they’re concerned about should now have a license ear marked for them. Why can’t my client have that ear marked for them? Also, I had asked this Council to inquire about the availability of other licenses as the comment from the earlier minutes had indicated that’s still an open issue that might be useful for the Council.

Mayor McLallen said members of Council before the Council at this time is a request for a liquor license. A motion is available.

Mr. Kriewall said I just wanted to comment that the variance requested in terms of the

application of the ordinance, I believe, is justified in that our ordinance appears to be quite onerous in terms of having to move toward your final stages of your project development before consideration is given. I would think that would be more practical for Council to consider the issue once a preliminary site plan is granted because the Planning Commission at that point in time has actually technically signed off on the project in terms of concept. When you get into final site plan approval you’re actually dealing with the mechanicals of civil engineering, architectural design and development, stress and design capabilities of the specific building, drainage questions etc. Those are really mechanical items that can be resolved from an engineering standpoint and usually once a project has received preliminary site plan approval it’s really considered to be a valid project at that point in time. I would concur, I think, to require someone to go through the final development of their final site plan before they know their going to be issued a license is a little bit too onerous and as I’ve indicated to Council we have recommended the issuance of his license.

Councilman Clark said in terms of New Bangcock, I understand, there is an application pending from them as well. Is that correct and do we know the date that application was filed in terms of comparing it to Mr. Andris’ application?

Mr. Kriewall said maybe Steve can answer that.

Mr. Cohen said the Port Papadapolis application was submitted on October 10th. The New Bangcock petition was submitted on November 15th.

Councilman Clark said do we know when the State denied Mr. Andris’ request approximately when?

Mr. Cohen said the State denied Mr. Andris’ request on April 12th.

Councilman Clark said was there any action taken by Mr. Andris between April 12th and the time that he came back before the Council with reference to getting the license and was requested to have the final site plan approved?

Mr. Cohen said he didn’t necessarily work on his liquor license. He revised his preliminary site plan and brought his preliminary site plan back in, I believe, in late August and once he had a complete preliminary site plan with facades, elevations, landscaping, until he had a complete proposal he was going to go before your body.

Mr. Kriewall said the attorney representing New Bangcock has implied that the issuance of a license is more of a race and that is not the case at all. The issuance of Class C licenses is primarily geared to issuing a license to someone being considered above all other applicants. So in other words your judgement in terms of granting that license is more to the substance of the project than it is to how people finish in terms of timing or whether they exist today or exist tomorrow or they existed for 5 years in this community. Some of the same arguments could be made for many restaurants that we have in this community. Leon’s, Honey Tree or any other restaurant, you know, they have been here along time too but Council’s consideration is more geared to issuing a license above all others in terms of the consideration.

Councilwoman Mutch said there were a couple of things said during the audience participation part that once they’re said they sort of hang in the air and unless they’re either confirmed or refuted they stick in the mind as fact. So there was one thing I’d like to ask Mr. Andris. I hate to bring him all the way back down. When you were describing the contact that you had with the Planning Department and asking them to research what the practice had been in the past I understood you to say, or by your statement to be in fact confirming, that there were no promises or representations made by the City either by the Planning Department or any members of this Council or any members of the Administrative staff. Is that correct?

Mr. Andris said I think maybe your question is more sophisticated than I would gather. It was like a simple, I had to wait I was informed which I had no idea how long it took for final site plan. I was informed suddenly that there was a two month delay and I called the Planning Commission. To be honest I didn’t say by the way am I confirmed now, am I getting it, are you telling me this is . .

Councilwoman Mutch said no, no, no, no, no. Wait. Let’s not make it more complicated than my question. There were statements made during audience participation that would appear to imply that promises might have been made to you by members of the staff that this license, in fact I think by the attorney representing New Bancock as well, that some how this was a license set aside for you before you actually, indeed, had it approved. You confirmed in your statement that is not the case. No representations like that were made to you were they?

Mr. Andris said absolutely no representations were made by any staff members and at this stage of my life I’d know better then to even rely on a staff member. The representations were all made right by Council during a hearing. I may have misunderstood but I did kind of have the impression, naive as it may have been, as I got to this two month obstacle I had the impression that it was like, you know, we’ve approved you once before and now you’re here but we’ve found that we’re not sure about the meaning of site plan in our ordinance to be honest with you. It seemed like it was a new discovery by Council Member Mitzel. I could be wrong on that. That was it.

Councilwoman Mutch said let me interrupt you then just to separate the two things. On the one hand no body promised you within the department or administratively or individual Council Members outside of this meeting, no body promised you anything. Correct?

Mr. Andris said absolutely not.

Councilwoman Mutch said OK good. Secondly, your understanding of the November 6th meeting was that no members of Council at that time, I shouldn’t say no members, a majority of the Council had no particular objection to your proceeding.

Mr. Andris said that was my impression that it was like they were giving me the green light and I didn’t really see a problem at that time but . . .

Councilwoman Mutch said of course, that is different than promising approval.

Mr. Andris said it is, it is, but I really didn’t think there was going to be a problem because I thought I was going to run back, get this final site plan done in a week or two, I never had one before, and they said two months if you’re lucky. I said there could be a problem and that’s when I started acting on it.

Councilwoman Mutch said what I understood Steve Cohen to say and Mr. Andris when he spoke earlier, I don’t know if this is all previous requests or the ones that you researched, anyway, were for facilities that were already built. Is that correct?

Mr. Cohen said we had researched to find out whether or not applicants had received liquor license before they had their TCO’s and it was determined that every applicant that we had found, I think there was 12, had received liquor license before their TCO. As far as the question on preliminary site plan it’s never really been issued according to my director, from my research. Usually if you have a complete site plan, facades, elevations, landscaping, there usually isn’t a problem. One plan that we found just for preliminary site plan we found that Cookers Bar and Grill was approved by your body for a resort license with a preliminary site plan. It originally went before you for a Class C license, you denied it and told them to go get a resort license. So that’s one example of you granting that waiver. The ordinance is very tough and it’s not easy to read and we’re currently working to clarify these issues.

Councilwoman Mutch said so your saying, the Cookers license for example, while it was a State granted license, is that right . . .

Mr. Cohen said yes.

Councilwoman Mutch said it was done based on preliminary site plan approval by the City of Novi Planning Commission.

Mr. Cohen said exactly.

Councilwoman Mutch said so the State didn’t require a final site plan approval.

Mr. Cohen said no it did not.

Councilwoman Mutch said nor have we on others.

Mr. Cohen said my understanding is it’s never been an issue.

Councilwoman Mutch said I think I would tend to agree with Mr. Kriewall’s comments that if you’re moving into an existing facility or you’ve been in operation for some time and then you make your request it’s a whole different situation then if you are starting with a vacant lot and constructing a building. If the practice has been preliminary site plan is enough to move forward it would appear, unless somebody can show me otherwise, that we’re making an exception in holding Mr. Andris to a higher standard than we have held other people. We might want to do that I don’t know but it seems to me that that’s the exception.

Additionally comments were made that if this is not approved that there would be a mid decade census coming which would result most probably in additional Class C licenses for the City and that Mr. Andris might be encouraged to pursue one of those. I would say that if New Bangcock as well as other restaurants applied after the application that Mr. Andris submitted would be in that same situation. They would be just as eligible for consideration for the mid decade census licenses but at the same time it probably for them if they’re not as far along as this one has come. So the only question that I would have left is what if Mr. Watson could explain to us briefly the difference between the type of facility that would qualify for Class C license that would not qualify for a resort license. In other words are there certain kinds of facilities that the only license you’re likely to get is a locally granted license as opposed to the resort or State license?

Mr. Watson said yes, there’s a whole series and I don’t have the criteria before me but there’s a whole separate set of criteria for resort application and they’re based upon encouraging economic development throughout the State so they’re geared to a whole different set of criteria. The key thing that’s happened in this case is that the State no longer grants those in a particular community unless you’re out of Class C licenses. It used to be that they would grant them simply if a Class C license had been denied to the facility when it applied in the locality.

Councilwoman Mutch said so if a restaurant, for example, a facility that might be your local mom and pop type, small in size and small in operation, would be less likely to qualify for the State license.

Mr. Watson said most likely and I don’t know the dollar amount but my recollection is that there is a certain dollar value of investment into the community that’s one of the criteria, one of the thresholds.

Councilman Schmid said Madam Mayor I’m trying to figure out where we’re at on this right now. Is there a motion we have to pass first?

Mayor McLallen said there is not a motion but the chair will entertain a motion at any time.

Councilman Schmid said there’s nothing on the table?

Mayor McLallen said there is a request for approval of a Class C license but there has been no motion made.

Councilman Schmid said OK Madam Mayor I’m going to make a motion.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To grant a conditional Class C license to Port Papadapolis based on the following criteria: 1) Mr. Andris did come before this Council and requested to go before to get a resort license. I’ve sat on this Council for a number of years and I can never remember, obviously it’s the first time it’s happened at least I believe it is, he did go, the Council did approve that request, he did go for a license and a new rule was made in the meantime whereby they said, this was an administrative rule, I think, not a legislative rule by the State, that you had to use up all your licenses before they would issue any more resort licenses. That was the first time that I ever recall that happening. So Mr. Andris, I think, was put in a unique position. Then he came back and presented his case with all the criteria that is in our ordinance as to the uniqueness and difference of this restaurant size, number of employees and so forth that fit the criteria that this City established many years ago as to the type of licenses we would grant, Class C licenses, we would grant to petitioners who came before us. This restaurant is unique based on what I see here and it better be that way because this is a conditional license. So based on that I think he’s met the criteria of the hardship, I think he’s met the criteria of the uniqueness of the restaurant. He was before, I have some empathy for the Bangcock application, however that came and I certainly don’t know why it came at the time it did, November 15, 1995, but certainly after a lot of discussion and advertisement about the fact that Mr. Andris’ was in for the last license in the City. I don’t think that probably had anything to do with it but never the less it was after Mr. Andris made the request for a resort license and also after he had made a request for a Class C license, the one remaining. Based on those criteria I made the motion to grant the conditional license.

Mayor McLallen said there’s been a motion made by Member Schmid and supported by Councilman Crawford. Is there any further discussion by Members of Council?

Councilman Crawford said clarification of the motion you said conditional I am assuming that relates to our discussion of conditional on site plan approval and such otherwise a license would not be issued.

Councilman Schmid said right.

Councilman Crawford said do we need to ask the attorney to help us formulate that into the motion to be a little more specific.

Mr. Watson said conditional not only on the granting of final site plan but the rest of the items listed under Ordinance Section 3.14 Subpart K which includes the obtaining of building permits, any other necessary permits, licenses within a period of 6 months and then the construction of new buildings and alterations shall commence 6 months after the date of the conditional approval with completion no more than one year after the issuance of the relevant building permit.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Watson at this point would the proper motion be to give conditional approval to a Class C Resort License for Port Papadapolis the conditions being the obtaining of final site plan approval and the meeting of all conditions set out in Section 3.14K?

Mr. Watson said that’s correct.

Mayor McLallen said is everyone clear on the motion? It was made by Member Schmid and supported by Member Crawford.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Clark said first of all I’d ask Council Member Schmid if he would accept an amendment to his motion. I realize based on what Mr. Watson said that there are a number of requirements that the applicant would have 6 months to comply with but there’s been a great deal of discussion concerning the final site plan. It was a condition previously. Would you be willing to accept the condition with respect to the final site plan? Mr. Andris has said he has talked to his architects and it would take him at least 60 days I would certainly have no objection to 90 days but to bring some finality to this so that we know that there is a final site plan there. The only thing remaining are whatever other licenses or permits that would need to be pulled to get this project underway.

Mayor McLallen said let me understand you Mr. Clark your amendment to the main motion is to insert final site plan approval be obtained within 90 days and then following that allow the window for the conforming to the requests that the requirements of 3.14K?

Councilman Clark said that’s right you’d have the other three months which would take him to the 6 month limit.

Mayor McLallen asked does that meet the requirements Mr. Watson?

Mr. Watson said if you want to add a limit to the final site plan approval that’s your prerogative to do that. The ordinance simply sets time limits for building permits and commencing construction.

Mayor McLallen said so you want to just insure an adequate window to obtain final site plan.

Councilman Clark said that’s correct and that way we know that it’s finally done and it’s been obtained. If the license is certainly conditional on meeting all these conditions and requirements then we should have, certainly at that point in time, some certainty that Mr. Andris is going to proceed with this project. I say that only because in looking at the history of the project, and I know there has been some allegation of hardship, but I think perhaps some of it’s been kind of self imposed because there was a running discourse as to what side of the road this project was going to be on, was initially approved in 91 and then in 92 the revised preliminary was approved. Then there was a one year extension, then a one year extension, then a one year extension and of course if the plan would have proceeded long before this certainly the Council wouldn’t be sitting here this evening addressing this issue and neither would Mr. Andris and probably the cost of building the same site would be less then $1.3 Million.

Mayor McLallen asked if this was a friendly amendment or a request?

Councilman Clark said it was a friendly amendment. I would certainly feel more comfortable if I had that clarified and that provisions inserted.

Mayor McLallan said all right. You are proposing an amendment. Is there support for the amendment? Mr. Crawford?

Councilman Crawford said no he would not support it and he really wanted to discuss it before supporting it.

Councilman Mitzel said I’ll support it.

Mayor McLallen said the amendment has been made by Mr. Clark and supported by Mr. Mitzel.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said I concur with some of your concerns but in all practicality if the intent of the motion or the motion to amend was to present to the Planning Commission within 90 days I could concur with that based on Mr. Andris statement of two months to get something together. But for approval I don’t know what process the Planning Commission has to go through or what their agendas going to present to them or what problems may arise and putting that stipulation on it in 90 days might be a little difficult to comply with and it may be back before us again because the 90 days are up and there’s some technicality that extends beyond that. So, that’s why as the amendment is stated I would not support it. If the intent or the actual amendment is to present to the Planning Commission for final approval within 90 days, not necessarily getting it, but presenting it then I could concur.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Watson is it correct that if a City grants one of its liquor licenses, in this case one remaining one that we have which for the purposes for the public to understand it worth in excess of $50,000 and it would be a granting by the City that would then not have to be bought on the open market it’s granted to them by virtue of the City’s liquor license quota. Once that is done does the Commission then look at any criteria or regulatory factors that a Council might put on that conditioned, so to speak, approval?

Mr. Watson said if I understand your question it’s will the Commission abide by those conditions?

Councilwoman Cassis said yes.

Mr. Watson said they will abide by these conditions.

Councilwoman Cassis said in the ordinance.

Mr. Watson said that’s right. Essentially, well in this one also since it’s essentially completion of the facility.

Councilwoman Cassis said I had a second question. If for some reason the property were to be sold either before construction or some period of time during construction does the license go with it or could it be transferred to a new owner, does it have to stay with the person who was granted it?

Mr. Watson said if they desired to transfer it to a new owner they would have to come back and go through the procedures for transfer of a license.

Councilwoman Cassis said they would, so would it revert back to the City or just, no, it would just be the transfer itself that would come back.

Mr. Watson said it would revert back. My understanding is that it’s put in escrow but it could not be taken out of the City. It might be used elsewhere in the City but if it were to be transferred to another facility or to another user it would have to come back here.

Councilwoman Cassis said for approval of that transfer?

Mr. Watson said right.

Councilwoman Cassis said another question had to do with Cookers if you could refresh my memory. Was that a City granted Class C license to them or did we permit them to seek a license through the State on the Open Market.

Mr. Kriewall said Steve do you recall what that was. I think that was a State license.

Mr. Cohen said Cookers was a resort license that the City Council recommended for approval and it went to the State and I believe received approval.

Councilwoman Cassis said but that was not a City, one of our quota.

Mr. Cohen said no.

Councilwoman Cassis said no it was not?

Mr. Cohen said no.

Mayor McLallen said there is a motion to amend the main motion on the floor is there any further comment on that motion. The Amendment to the main motion was to put a time frame in for the obtaining of the final site plan approval and that time frame was 90 days. Is there any further discussion on that amendment?

Councilman Schmid said I think it would probably be a good idea to push it along. I have some concerns as Mr. Crawford did that this matter could get through the Planning Commission in 60 or 80 days and due to scheduling and so forth could not necessarily be approved. So, I have some problem with that technicality that could throw it back.

Councilman Clark said in light of Mr. Crawford’s comments and concerns I would have no problem. The final site plan would be prepared and completed and presented to the Planning Commission within the 90 days as I’ve indicated. They’ll have to put it on their agenda and deal with it appropriately because then we know in any event that everything that has to be done by Mr. Andris with reference to this license would have to be done within that 6 months anyway. At least we know that in 90 days the final site plan is ready to go, it’s been presented to the Planning Commission for action. Then to get it on their agenda and to take appropriate action on it.

Mayor McLallen said so you are restating the amendment to say that it must be presented to the Planning Commission within 90 days?

Councilman Clark said yes.

Mayor McLallen said is that acceptable?

Councilman Mitzel said that would be acceptable.

Mayor McLallen said I’m asking you is that acceptable to your second.

Councilman Mitzel said no.

Councilman Crawford said I’ll second that amendment.

Mayor McLallen said we still have to deal with the first amendment.

Councilman Crawford said if he withdraws his second . . .

Mayor McLallen said he didn’t withdraw it he just didn’t agree to the amendment.

Councilman Crawford said then let’s call the question on the amendment.

Mayor McLallen said the question’s been called on the first amendment which was to have final site plan approval obtained in 90 days.

Yes (2-Mitzel, Cassis) No (5) MOTION DEFEATED

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That an amendment be made to the main motion that the final site plan be completed and presented to the Planning Commission within 90 days for their action.

Mayor McLallen said the amendment to the main motion now states as Mr. Clark and Mr. Crawford have put before us that the final site plan be completed and presented to the Planning Commission 90 days hence.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if anyone in the Planning Department foresee any difficulty

in it being presented within 90 days providing it’s to the Planning Department for review?

Mr. Cohen said typically with the final site plan it takes longer to get it in front of a board. It’s possible within 90 days but it’ll be tight. You have to keep in mind also that the Planning Commission Agenda is very heavy and the Chair and our Department work to keep a steady agenda. We’d hate to be put in the position where we would have to push this item off because the agendas to heavy and then miss the 90 day deadline. Perhaps it would be more flexible to make it 4 or 5 months but it does have to go back to the Planning Commission.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Cohen you are saying that you do anticipate some difficulty for this to be on the agenda the first or second meeting in March?

Mr. Cohen said what I’m saying is, typically with a final site plan, very seldom is a final site plan approved the first time it comes in.

Mayor McLallen said I don’t think the motion speaks to approving it it just says getting it there.

Mr. Cohen said OK, I believe it can get there in 90 days whether or not it will be approvable we’ll see.

Mayor McLallen said the motion, as I understand it, is getting it in completed form in 90 days.

Mr. Clark said, right, so to the Planning Commission can place it on their agenda. The reason I used the 90 days perimeter was because Mr. Andris said, and I’m certainly relying in good faith on what he said and I’m sure he’s serious about that, that his architects told him that if they get to work right now it’ll take them 60 days. That’s why I added the extra 30 on there.

Councilwoman Mutch said I don’t have any difficulty with the concept. What I have difficulty with is the wording. From what you’re saying now I understand that you are saying it’s OK to get it there within 90 days. If it doesn’t make it on that agenda that’s because of what Steve’s just told us. That’s not as much of a concern to you. You want it presented to the department. When you said in your motion, you wanted it presented within 90 days that says to me that it must be before the Planning Commission for consideration by that body. The only way it’s going to get there is if it’s on the agenda which is why I asked.

Councilman Clark said presented meaning they have to have the final site plan done and submitted to the Planning Department so that they can place it on the Commissions agenda. In other words, everything that they have to do will have been done before 90 days is up, they’ll have presented everything to the Planning Department and request that they place it on the next available agenda of the Planning Commission. Certainly, I’m assuming that Mr. Andris is going to want to get it done as soon as he can because he now knows that should he get approval everything has to be done within the next 6 months anyway. So I don’t see him dragging his feet, certainly.

Councilwoman Mutch said again I don’t have any difficulty understanding that concept but I don’t think that’s what the motion says. Submitting might be a better word then "being presented." Presented, like I said, very clearly says to me that it has to be before the Planning Commission for consideration if not approval at least consideration. So, I would suggest that the motion might better read submitted for Planning Commission consideration. Meaning it’s submitted to the Department and it’s their problem to get it on the agenda.

Councilman Clark said I don’t have a problem with that.

Councilwoman Mutch said that way Mr. Andris has done all that he can do and if there are other factors involved in getting it on that agenda beyond his control then he’s not held hostage to that.

Councilman Clark said sure. I understand what you’re saying and I have no problem if you want to modify the language. I don’t think there’s really a problem between presented and consideration because he has to present and only the Commission can consider.

Mayor McLallen said at this time is the amendment to the main motion the requirement that the petitioners submit all information required for final site plan to the Planning Department within 90 days?

Councilman Crawford said that was the intent of his second. That’s the way I understood it. In other words we’re putting the burden on Mr. Andris to do what he needs to do. If the Planning Department or the Commission has to reschedule it’s not the petitioner’s fault.

Mayor McLallen said everyone is clear on the amendment motion. Any further discussion on the amendment motion.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said the main motion now is to give conditional approval of a Class C license to Port Papadapolis conditioned upon the petitioner having all items necessary for final site plan approval submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days and then proceeding to accomplish all of the requirements of Ordinance Section 3.14 K in the appropriate time frame.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said may I ask the City Attorney a question?

Mayor McLallen said please.

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Watson, does the Council also need to make part of its motion or a separate motion that it specifically finds those three criteria in, I believe they said, Section one of the ordinance for a waiver have been met?

Mr. Watson said what it reads is the Council can grant a variance, it’s really not a waiver, grant a variance when all of the following conditions are satisfied. It doesn’t require you to make specific findings as to each of those. I would presume that as a part of granting this that you are granting approval of that variance.

Councilman Mitzel said I have a couple of concerns with this. I don’t support the main motion because I believe that our Ordinance does state final site plan, doesn’t state final site plan but site plan our attorney said it’s final site plan. True in the past maybe the Council has not followed our ordinance and quite honestly, I’m embarrassed that it took me almost two years to find that that was the way the ordinance was read. I should of, you know, I wish I would have been able to find that out sooner because I think part of the problem is that the Council hasn’t followed the ordinance. I don’t think that means, at this point, well we haven’t followed it in the past now we shouldn’t follow it now. I think now that we know what the ordinance states what we’re supposed to do with the ordinance I think we should follow it. The other issue is whether or not a license will be available. The whole discussion revolved, earlier, around the fact that the State wouldn’t grant the resort license because there was one more license available. So if this other license does go away to whomever, whenever, there’s now no license available so the State will now consider resort licenses. Either way, it’s either going to be resort or the City granted one. I just think that we should follow the ordinance that we have and especially that we now know the correct interpretation of it wasn’t a new rule that was made up. It wasn’t anything that I tried to bring up at the last minute but as we go along with this job we learn our ordinances and procedures more every time. It was just at that point that I think we all learned what our ordinance stated by Mr. Fried’s interpretation. I think that’s the correct way to go and I won’t support the main motion.

Councilman Crawford said clarification on some time frames. The six months that it spoke to in the ordinance and a few other things about shovel and ground and all that stuff I assume that starts after the final site plan has been approved because, I see you shaking your head already but, because that when the license would be issued. We’ve given a conditional approval, I assume, starting when the final site plan is approved.

Mr. Watson said you are giving a conditional approval today and the ordinance reads that you have to get the rest of those permits within 6 months of the date of the conditional approval.

Councilman Crawford said well then let me ask this then what if it doesn’t get scheduled for 5 months from now on to the Planning Commission and it’s drawn on beyond the six months from now? That would again present a problem that’s why I would . .

Mr. Watson said sure. The ordinance has a provision to deal with that and indicates further that "extensions for completion of construction or alteration may be granted by the City Council for good cause. So they can come back to you and ask for an extension if they ran into problems and can demonstrate to you that they really did run into these problems.

Councilman Crawford said I would certainly like to see the record reflect that we would certainly consider a delay in the process through the Planning Department and/or the Commission decision and extenuating circumstance that we would look to extend that beyond the six months if it got that far.

Councilwoman Cassis said I’m sure this is going to be a very fine, unique kind of Greek restaurant. I certainly do wish them well and hope that this does finally get out of the planning stage into something concrete and actually gets built. There’s been a long rocky road associated with this project over time and I have a number of concerns with it. Some of them have been mentioned. One, of course, is the fact that they first gained site plan approval of a preliminary nature back in January of 1991. That is almost 5 years ago and of course, in that interim the petitioner has sued the City, has had a lawsuit at least against the City on a zoning matter relative to where the restaurant would be placed. So that’s a rather A-typical situation when they then come in a request one of our remaining liquor licenses. To my memory no one, previously, has ever sued the City prior to asking for a liquor license. They do not meet the requirements of a final site plan approval and as for a variance or a waiver from our ordinances, again, I would be much more favorable to the petitioner if they were ready to go and they are not at all ready to go. There has been some discussion here at the table if they can meet the requirement of at least bringing in a final site plan within 90 days and when they’d get on the Planning Commission docket and then if there’s fine tuning or problems how much longer that might take. Meanwhile, they have secured a liquor license. The delay here, I don’t see a clear end at the light of the tunnel, if you will, where there are other projects that may have been equally good taxpaying neighbors to the City and they are not going to have an opportunity to come before us and have us compare their business with another potential restaurant that as of yet is not up and going. So I have some problems with that. Of course, I know there are recourses because we’ve seen them as with the Cooker restaurant and other restaurants that have come in. They have to go through a process of being turned down by the City for our Class C license and then they are free to proceed to the State and acquire on their own at their own purchase and expense a resort license and that has been done. It has already been made mention that there is an upcoming census and if at that time this project was ready and going, an entity that we could count on, and the owner who is petitioning us was ready to go forward and had every intent to do that, and it was built or very close to being built, I think then the readiness issue would be answered and we could see that another license that we would have could be considered for this project. Right now I’m concerned about a fairness issue. I’m concerned about precedence setting issues and waivers and variances from our ordinances. There are recourses and I certainly wish this project well but I agree with Mr. Mitzel on this. I think it’s premature to offer the one remaining Class C license to this project. It’s not ready, it hasn’t been ready, there’s been law suits, it’s a problem and I’d like to see it all cleared up before in good conscience, as one Council Member, I could grant them that remaining license.

Councilman Mitzel said one quick question. May I ask the City Attorney?

Mayor McLallen said yes.

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Watson if his motion passes as of tonight will the last remaining liquor license in the City of Novi be granted?

Mr. Watson said it will once the conditions of approval are complied with. In other words, the State isn’t going to issue that license.

Councilman Mitzel said no not issue but granted.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Councilman Mitzel said so at that point anyone wishing for resort Class C could come before Council and have access to the State and the State would consider that the last license has been granted.

Mr. Watson said I believe that they could. Now the State may hold up action on that resort license until actual issuance of the final Class C unless you know differently. Mr. Kriewall has a comment.

Mr. Kriewall said that’s not likely. I think the intent of the State is to see that the City Council has issued or intends to issue the last liquor license at which time the State would start issuing the resort licenses.

Mayor McLallen said the motion reads to grant approval of the Class C license for Port Papadapolis conditioned upon final site plan, all items required for final site plan approval being submitted to the planning department within the maximum of 90 days and all items necessary to comply with Section 3.14 K, the ordinance to be met in a timely fashion.

Yes (5) No (2-Cassis, Mitzel) MOTION CARRIED

3. Request for Final Plat Approval - Broadmoor Park Subdivision - SP92-21L

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Cassis

That Broadmoor Park Subdivision Final Plat, SP 92-21L, be approved subject to the consultants and staff letters.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Watson said I would ask that you add two conditions to the approval. First, that it be conditioned on our offices review of the title work for the final plat. Secondly, upon our offices approval of some revisions to their covenants and restrictions that we have requested. It was those two items that had caused them to ask that it be withdrawn. They apparently didn’t realize that it was going to be on the agenda and hadn’t submitted those things to us yet. If it would be subject to those two items being taken care of.

Councilman Mitzel said if you allow it, it can be incorporated into the motion. I think that it’s also subdivision #1. Correct?

Councilman Schmid said I have no problem moving ahead on this however I do think it’s a mistake to go ahead with this without the petitioner being here. There’s several items here involving the tree plantings and so forth which I’m not sure the petitioner agrees with. Our forester has made several different changes and the petitioner may or may not agree with some of those changes. I have no problem with it as presented, however, I think it’s unfair and impractical to present this this evening in the event that the petitioner comes back and says wait a minute I asked for this thing to be delayed because I wasn’t here. Although Mr. Mitzel, I think, has his thoughts in the right mind. He wants to move this along. If it passes fine but I think it’s a mistake to do this in the future. There’s many things the petitioner may not like about the comments made by our consultants so I think it’s a mistake to do this and I think it could be a waste of time. So I won’t support it only for that reason and not that I have any problem with the project. It’s one of the nice R-1 projects we’ve had. I just think it’s a poor approach. The petitioner asked for a delay and this Council decided not to give them a delay. Mr. Mitzel with good conscience wants to move it along. However, he’s quite a stickler for most ordinances and now he’s jumping over the . . .

Councilman Crawford said just to concur with Bob we typically honored those requests and I don’t know the exact reason for the request for the delay. Perhaps it may be more beneficial to us whatever the petitioner has to present. I don’t know but we’ve typically honored those requests and I think I’ll do that tonight also. I think we should not discuss this any further and wait until the petitioners here.

Mayor McLallen asked, Ms. Bartholomew was there any response to that specific information as to why they requested the delay other than what Mr. Watson said that his office needs to review to items.

Ms. Bartholomew said no, that’s all that I have.

Mayor McLallen said they have seen all the other letters and have nothing further to add?

Ms. Bartholomew said as far as I’m aware, yes.

Councilman Mitzel said as far as I know the motion wasn’t violating any ordinance. At the beginning of the meeting I stated that if there were no questions or concerns then I figured we could move forward on it. Seeing there’s some strong objections from members of Council I’ll move . .

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That this item be postponed to the next meeting, December 11, 1995.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED

Councilman Mitzel said that motion to approve will still be on the table December 11th.

Mayor McLallen said correct.

Walled Lake Heights.

Mr. Dickson said it would be requested that the 7 1/2 feet that currently exists on the northerly portion of Lot #109 be granted as an addition to Lot #108. This is an unusual request in the sense that we’re not trying to take one large piece of property and make it into two building sites. What we’re trying to do is make a valid lot that has a separate sidwell number that is a building site and add area to it from an adjoining lot while not making an adjoining lot need any variances. There is an existing house at 125 which currently has over 17 feet of side yard to Lot #108. There is an existing house at Lot # 107 or 121 Austin Dr. which as you can see from the site plan is built right on the lot line. For a new home to be built on Lot #108 meeting all of the requirements it would visually be a negative to the community and also it would not have the frontage of the particular house. The front elevation would have to be quite narrow to meet the requirements. Taking away 7 1/2 feet from Lot #109 and adding it to Lot # 108 would allow the home to have a broader appearance, be more beneficial to the community, have a greater appeal to the community and be more consistent with the neighbor. So because of the fact that we are not asking to split one lot, one piece of parcel into two lots needing a variance what we are doing is simply adding area to that site and also because of the problem with the existing home at 121 Austin Dr. I would respectfully request that the Council grant the lot split of Lot #109 to allow us to ad 7 1/2 feet to Lot #108 maintaining the home at Lot #109 and Lot #

110 consistent with all the ordinances with no variances needed. I’d be happy to answer any questions that the Council Members have.

Mayor McLallen asked, members of Council any comments or questions? We do have letters in the packet from the Assessor denying the original split based on the lack of frontage. We have a letter dated November 29th from the City Attorneys stating that the split is acceptable with one condition. They ask for a title commitment.

Mr. Dickson said the commitment was delivered to the City.

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Korte had reserved time.

Mayor McLallen said I have Mr. Korte noted.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the Lot split be approved based on the attorney . . .

Mayor McLallen said before we get to a motion Mr. Korte did ask reserve time.

Councilman Crawford said we can still make a motion and second it.

Mayor McLallen said well, we usually take care of all questions before we get to a motion.

James Korte, SE Shawood Homeowners Association, said if you drag up my funny colored map that I gave you it’s a blow up of the area. Now, if we’re talking making the area better as you look at the color blotches and the squares that shows you ownership of specific houses and lots. Now, the property just to the north which is the one that touches really the lot line or at least shows touching that’s the Zena Payton property. That was the property that got deferments and all of that and the last lovely thing that Tim Pope did in that whole situation was to update that piece of property. She has 120 foot frontage and if you go next to it he has a 160 foot frontage. There’s no one in that specific area that has less then 80 feet. Now if you go over on Austin that backs to Novi there are some long narrow lots there. Now truly they are only 40 feet but they end up being 275 and 300 feet deep. So if your talking bettering the area, you’re not. Now the property in question is the one outlined in black with red polka dots. If you can find out what’s going on. That has always been one piece of property. Twenty six years ago it was the Miller property and they had to go to the ZBA for special dispensation to build on a piece of property that half of it is business and half of it is residential. I think before anybody divides anything one has got to solve the problem of what do you do with residential at the back end and business at the front end. Now, I don’t know the specific depth of this but I’m presuming it’s 120. It’s no more than 140 because we just arc there. So when I talked to the real estate today they said that they’d like to build a house. Now, lets talk desirability they’re adding seven feet to a forty foot lot that’s barely buildable. With 47 they’re still not going to have a building unit of any thing without the ZBA. Now the ZBA does allow things on originally deeded property. This one will no longer be originally deeded. Now, I was led to believe about 4:30 pm that they would like to take the existing white house that’s sitting there and do something with it in the commercial and business aspect. So, we have less than an 80 foot frontage and we’re taking a building for commercial usage that has business and residential zoning. I think you understand none of this can happen until somehow somebody decides is this piece of property going to be business or is this piece going to be residential. SES, the homeowners, have no problem with it all being residential nor do we have a problem with it all being business. If they can find the business, or plan to put business on that whole hunk, we have no problem taking the 40 foot of residential, which I think is #108, and incorporating that into a nice plan. What they’re asking to do is to build a house on a 47 foot lot take less than an 80 foot and the existing building with no parking, no nothing and turning it into business and leaving the business at the corner. Now, I would hope and we have always hoped that this piece of property that was always one unit owned by the Millers and then owned by Dr. Lucas for, I’m guessing, ten years would be one usage of whatever. So, as I say it is not in the best interest to break that piece of property the way it’s broken and if you look at my map you’ll see that everyone else is larger there. If we could think of taking, and I will say to you the red polka dot, and doing one thing, any thing, we would be more than willing to help an owner either adjust to residential or adjust to business and get a decent issue. If you’re looking at resale, and I know resale is not necessarily things and monies are not necessarily things you get into, a 40 foot lot is undesirable. A 47 foot lot is still just as undesirable if you have it next to B-3. Whatever we do I think we have to do it with one piece and maybe before we even know it’s one piece we have to know what the zoning is because the zoning is most peculiar. How many lots have you seen that are rezoned, shall I say, on a diagonal? I mean there not even, I mean no body follows lot lines there and it’s practically a mess but this mess started in 1920 and unfortunately is still with us today.

Councilman Crawford said this property is residential? Who can answer that? I assume it’s residential. Maybe I’m making some wrong assumptions here that the request was to add seven and a half feet so someone could build a house there. Isn’t that the question before us? I don’t know what all this commercial we’re talking about . . .

Mayor McLallen said according to Mr. Rogers letter of November 28th a small portion of Lot #109 is zoned B-3.

Councilman Crawford said but those three lots are residential in character, right?

Maybe that corner, which is unbuildable, is commercial?

Mr. Rogers said you may recall about three years ago I recommended that all this B-3 be rezoned R-4 as a City initiated rezoning as well as the corner across to the south of Pleasant Cove

where that garage is. Upon protest from certain property owners that did not go forward at the Council level. I prepared a number of little maps here because I didn’t know where we were talking about either but the map the petitioner submitted I drew a line through it and you will see that part of the house, indeed, is on B-3 property which is General Business District and the rear 3/4 of the house on 110 is on what is R-4 zoned property. This strip of 7 1/2 feet you’ll see up at Austin that little triangle where the number 76 is. That is, in my opinion, pretty close to being what is B-3 but the bulk of the 7 1/2 foot strip and really all of Lot #108 is R-4 and is in my opinion developable.

Mayor McLallen said I believe the concern and the question is is anything developable under the B-3.

Mr. Rogers said is any or can any?

Mayor McLallen said can anything on this proposed process be developed under B-3.

Mr. Rogers said on Lots 108. 109 and 110?

Mayor McLallen said yes.

Mr. Rogers said I would not recommend intrusion into the residential neighborhood of a B-3 use on these three lots.

Mayor McLallen said OK. That was Mr. Crawford’s question and Mr. Crawford has the floor.

Councilman Crawford said I missed it on this other map here, this B-3. So, a part of Lot 108 and a good portion of 109 is B-3.

Mr. Rogers said no, none of 108.

Councilman Crawford said excuse me, on this map it looks like part of 108 is B-3.

Mr. Rogers so no, no it really isn’t part of 109 and 110, forget the piece that’s being swapped. The existing 109 and 110 do have the front yards B-3.

Councilman Crawford asked, there’s part of that house in B-3?

Mr. Rogers said yes it is.

Councilman Crawford said it looks like it is.

Mr. Rogers said I’m assuming that this shaded area is the footprint that the applicant submitted. It is sort of diagrammatic on the plan here and I’m not positive.

Mayor McLallen said but again the concern, Mr. Rogers, is even though the zoning is there is there any circumstance that would permit a B-3 operation to take place on this parcel.

Mr. Rogers said well no. You couldn’t develop on the bulk of these properties, 110, 109, B-3, because the bulk of those properties is zoned residential.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the 7 1/2 feet from Lot #109 be added to Lot #108.

Councilman Crawford said conditioned upon what Mr. Watson asked. I forgot what that was.

Mr. Watson said the item I had asked for was being provided the title commitment. We were provided that and it was satisfactory.

Councilman Crawford said Oh were you OK. The intent of that was to build a house on that lot, right? You can’t put commercial on it because it’s not commercial.

Mr. Dickson said that is correct, to build a residential single family home on Lot #108 and with the Council’s approval the additional 7 1/2 feet from Lot #109 not to build any commercial. It will be a single family home. We have no problem if part of the approval, if you so grant it, that it be used for a single family home.

Councilman Crawford said it can’t be used for anything other than that because that’s what it’s zoned.

Mayor McLallen said there is a motion to grant the request for lot split and recombination. Is there support?

Councilman Schmid said I will support it for discussion however, I do have some discussion. Mr. Rogers will you come back to the podium please and it’s because it’s evening and the moon’s out that I’m having a problem I’m sure.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Rogers, more for my sake in elementary terms, show me on the map where the commercial is. What maps are you looking at?

Mr. Rogers said it’s the map that has the building footprints on it. Look at the one attached to my report.

Councilman Schmid said this one here?

Mr. Rogers said yes, now tilt the map this way and then north is up. All maps should have north up.

Councilman Schmid said north is up.

Mr. Rogers said and you see a dotted line and up at the top of the map you see it says R-4 and R-3.

Councilman Schmid said yes, I got it.

Mr. Rogers said so the line comes down and you see it goes through a number 76 and that’s approximately a 100 foot depth of commercial property on the west side of Novi Road.

Councilman Schmid said 100 foot at the longest length, I assume.

Mr. Rogers said yes, the depth off of the right of way of Novi Road.

Councilman Schmid said all right. Now, the questions been asked twice or three times can a commercial development be built on this parcel, on B-3?

Mr. Rogers asked on Lot 108?

Councilman Schmid said no, on the commercial.

Mr. Rogers said on that small triangular area at the front of Lots 109 and 110 you couldn’t put a commercial use there you don’t have enough set back.

Councilman Schmid said can you or can you not put a piece of commercial development there? That’s . . .

Mr. Rogers said on the B-3 property?

Councilman Schmid said yes.

Mr. Rogers said no it’s too small.

Councilman Schmid said then why is it zoned R-4.

Mr. Rogers said I recommended that sir, but the Council didn’t go along with me.

Mayor McLallen said he tried but we didn’t go for it.

Councilman Schmid said why didn’t we go for it?

Mayor McLallen said protest from adjoining neighbors I presume.

Mr. Rogers said there was opposition from the neighborhood. It’s an anomaly, that boundary. This plat was platted back in the 1920's.

Councilman Schmid said to clarify something else that was said this evening as of today, tonight, there could be a house built on #108 prior to any action by this Council.

Mr. Rogers said yes, it’s a substandard lot and it would come in . . .

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Rogers you’re sounding more and more like an attorney.

Councilman Schmid said a simple question. Before we take any action tonight you could build a house on #108? Yes or No?

Mr. Rogers said I think that’s a legal question.

Mr. Watson said you could not build a house on #108. What this goes back to is currently in your zoning ordinance in the R-4 District you have 80 foot standard for lots and obviously this whole area was plotted before you had 80 foot standards. What your ordinance provides though is a provision that refers to non-conforming lots or lots of record and it says that wherever you have a lot that’s existing you can build on it. You can build a house on it. The catch is that if you have common ownership of lots that are adjoining each other they’re treated as one lot when they’re in single ownership. The ordinance then goes on and says but you can still divide it as long as you don’t break them up any smaller than 60 feet in width or 6000 sq. ft. In area. Because they have these three lots together they couldn’t break 108 apart and comply with that 60 foot width requirement. So, because of that they couldn’t take 108 separately and build a house that’s why they have to get approval for the split.

Mr. Rogers said the 60 foot width is the deficiency they do have 6000 sq. ft.

Councilman Schmid said they have 60 ft. On 109.

Mr. Rogers said no they don’t.

Councilman Schmid said what did you say Mr. Rogers?

Mr. Rogers said 108 does not have 60 ft. width. It has 42 at the back and 41 at the front and the depth is about 136-137 feet.

Councilman Schmid said OK. So, technically then they cannot build on 108 tonight until we make a decision.

Mr. Rogers said that’s correct. There would have to be a waiver. Isn’t that correct Mr. Watson?

Mr. Watson said you’d have to have the split granted by the Council.

Councilman Schmid said but the ordinance specifies that that has to be 60 foot wide before, if both lots on either side have one ownership.

Mr. Watson said that’s correct.

Councilman Schmid said it’s not quite as clear as initially . . .

Mr. Watson said it’s because of that provision that it’s before you.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Rogers I think you’re recommending this? Are you?

Mr. Rogers said I’m recommending this action to approve this transfer of part of one lot to another lot.

Councilman Schmid asked why, and I’m just asking, why would you recommend making a lot that doesn’t meet the ordinance? The ordinance is clear and one of the intents, I think years ago, was to try to enhance this area by making wider lots and part of the reason for making that ordinance if you owned land on both sides you couldn’t, and now it’s coming back, you couldn’t bring in another lot in the middle of it. You had to use the other two lots to just make the lots wider.

Mr. Rogers said these several lots become a parcel and that’s what I tried to say in my report. To build on 108 alone with that house on 107 that actually abuts the property line I wouldn’t recommend that. The only way I could see a home being built would be to adjust as applicant proposed the 7 1/2 ft. which can be spared from the home on 109 and 110. Other wise it’s a piece of land that just can’t be used. The decision rests with the Council and I recommended it.

Councilman Schmid said somebody can buy 108 and put in a big house on 108 and 107 if they wanted to.

Mr. Rogers said and tear it down, yes. They could redevelop . . .

Councilman Schmid said it happens all the time.

Mr. Rogers said it could, sir.

Councilman Schmid said it happens all the time in every part of the City and every part of the world that they buy 2 - 3 lots and put in a big house.

Mr. Rogers said that’s correct.

Councilman Schmid said what I’m concerned about and I certainly have no problem with the petitioner, believe me, but I’m concerned that the ordinance is clear. Are both sides owned by the same owner?

Mr. Watson said no. They own three. They own from 108 on down, 108, 109 and 110.

Councilman Schmid said so they don’t own 107.

Mr. Watson said no.

Councilman Schmid said in your provision tell me again then what you just said. I thought you said that from the legal to split the lot if you didn’t come up with 60 foot.

Mr. Watson said correct. If they don’t come up with the 60 foot they have to come . .

Councilman Schmid said even if they’re only on the one side they can’t split that lot. So, they could use both lots, they could build another house whatever. I mean they could extend their house or whatever.

Mr. Watson said that’s right.

Councilman Schmid said but they can’t . . . So they own both parcels?

Mr. Watson said all three.

Councilman Schmid said all I’m suggesting to the Council is that the ordinance is clear. It was designed to try to enhance that area as it’s been suggested this evening and I think the Council should look at this carefully. This is one chance we have of enhancing this area, continuing to enhance the area and I think it should be looked at very seriously as the ordinance suggests and that was the reason for the ordinance.

Councilman Clark asked Mr. Watson am I correct that it has to be 60 ft. wide or 6000 sq. ft.?

Mr. Watson said it has to satisfy both.

Councilman Mitzel said my question to Mr. Watson, if I may, you seem to be focusing on Parcel A which is Lot 108 plus 7 1/2 feet of Lot 109 which is going to be close to 50 feet but it’ll be in the 40's wide and so therefore, won’t meet the 60 foot rule. What are the implications of the fact that the remainder of Lot 109 and 110 combined are also now going to be less then 80 feet. Does that make them a noncomforming lot for future ZBA any time something has to be done?

Mr. Watson said no. The reason being that they still comply with the lot of record provision. They’re over 6000 and they’re over 60.

Councilman Mitzel said so even though they’ve been split off they’d still be . . .

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mayor McLallen said there is a motion on the floor to grant the request for approval of the lot split and lot recombination of Lots 110 and 108 in Shawood Walled Lake Heights.

Councilwoman Mutch said there was some reference to when you have adjoining lots.

Mr. Watson said 108, 109 and 110 had always been under separate ownership. Somebody could come in and ask for a building permit for any one of them and even though it was less then 60 feet, even though it was less then 6000 feet they could make an application for that. Once you have substandard lots like that in common ownership they are treated as a single lot for purposes of that and then the ordinance directs you to that 60 foot, 6000 sq. feet criteria.

Councilwoman Mutch said OK. So, then once, we’re looking at those three lots and saying that if somebody wanted to build on any one of those three obviously the lots that already have houses they could tear them down and build a new house, or add on or expand or whatever the restrictions are. But in any case they could have three different building sites because they’re . .

Mr. Watson said had they not been in . . .

Councilwoman Mutch said had they not been and the same holds true say if 111, 112 and 113 all the way down are owned by the same . . .

Mr. Watson said right. In fact, there are actually some additional criteria for B-3 parcels so those may have other problems.

Councilwoman Mutch said so if this split were approved are there any things related to that that you haven’t mentioned that we should consider in terms of the future splitting of the remaining property that’s under single ownership.

Mr. Watson said I don’t think there’s anyway to evaluate that unless somebody comes in with a proposal for the use of those.

Councilwoman Mutch said I don’t know how accurate this is but it appears that everything right down to Novi Road, all along Novi Road to 115 is all single ownership. So, I guess what I’m saying is even though we have all these platted lots if we do a lot split this entire piece then is split into two parcels.

Mr. Watson said the only thing that’s before you is splitting off that portion of 109, adding it to 108. Everything to the south, 111 on down, is on it’s own in terms of seeking a building permit or whatever problems that they may have in trying to do something with those.

Councilwoman Mutch said but if they are all under common ownership they can’t build on those individual lots unless they meet current standards?

Mr. Watson said assuming they came in for residential use they would not necessarily have to comply with the 80 foot standard. They could come in under the 60 foot/6000 sq. ft. Now, whether you could divide it and get more than one or more than two I have no idea just by looking at this on paper.

Councilwoman Mutch said I thought you just said if they’re under common ownership they can’t do that. They can’t build according to the platted configuration.

Mr. Watson said your question was whether it all had to be used as a single parcel?

Councilwoman Mutch said yes.

Mr. Watson said that’s really a different question. I’m not saying that would allow them to use it lot by lot. What I’m saying is that they could take a larger parcel and divide it up provided they met the 60 foot in width and 6000 sq. ft. in area which may not correspond to what those existing lot lines are. In fact, most likely does not.

Mayor McLallen said there is a motion on the floor to grant approval to the request for the lot split and the lot recombination.

Councilwoman Cassis said if I understand correctly the purpose of this lot split is to obtain just under 8 feet to be provided to another lot to enhance Lot 108 and therefore make it buildable. Will it meet the standard of a buildable lot with that 7.7, approximately, feet?

Mr. Watson said I will leave that answer to either Mr. Rogers or Mr. Dickstein, who is making the application. I assume that if they come into the Building Department for a building permit they are going to have to meet the set back requirements.

Councilwoman Cassis said no, my question really related to will they then have the 60 feet they need? Front footage?

Mr. Watson said no they would not have it.

Councilwoman Cassis said so will they then need a variance, another variance?

Mr. Rogers said not necessarily. In the R-4 District you have to have two side yards totaling 25 feet and one being not less then 10 feet. So if we’re looking here at, let’s say, a 50 foot, 49 foot whatever wide lot and you take off 25 feet the width of the house would be 25 feet. However, in my report I commented in the last sentence that 2502.2 requires compliance with those set backs unless, and the ordinance calls this out, the ZBA grants a variance on a side yard set back for a purposed new building. You could put a house with a 25 foot front, a 15 foot side yard and a 10 foot side yard that’s possible. It would be a narrow house rather than a house across the front of a lot like the home on 109 and 110.

Councilwoman Cassis said Mr. Dickstein you are representing Ralph Manuel and you are a representative of that firm and therefore, I assume you are representing the property owner.

Mr. Dickstein said that is correct who are here this evening.

Councilwoman Cassis said and you’ve indicated your intent is to build a single family home.

Mr. Dickstein said that is correct.

Councilwoman Cassis asked, do you have a client at this point for a single family home or is it speculative?

Mr. Dickstein said we have a tentative sale on the property pending the outcome of this Council’s action.

Councilwoman Cassis said so your intent is to sell the piece of property and then . . .

Mr. Dickstein said it is sold subject to the decision . . .

Councilwoman Cassis said the outcome of this decision. I understand and that individual is intending to build a single family home?

Mr. Dickstein said yes.

Councilwoman Cassis asked, is that individual here tonight?

Mr. Dickstein said yes.

Councilwoman Cassis asked, may I speak to him a minute, please?

Mr. Dickstein said her, yes.

Councilwoman Cassis said her. Councilwoman Cassis said good evening. As a matter of record could you please give us your name?

Carol Monskot said I am Carol Monskot, Project Manager for Timely Construction.

Councilwoman Cassis said and you are intending to buy this property depending on the outcome tonight of the lot split?

Ms. Monskot said that’s correct.

Councilwoman Cassis said are you building a home?

Ms. Monskot said yes.

Councilwoman Cassis said for yourself?

Ms. Monskot said for the company, yes.

Councilwoman Cassis said for a company?

Ms. Monskot said for the company yes.

Councilwoman Cassis said what company might that be? Could you . . .

Ms. Monskot said Timely Construction.

Councilwoman Cassis asked is this a spec home?

Ms. Monskot said yes it is.

Councilwoman Cassis said thank you very much I appreciate that.

Councilman Schmid said Madame Mayor I don’t want to belabor this nor do I want to repeat myself but I want the Council to fully understand, once again, that there was an ordinance that was developed many years ago that tried to make the area that we’re talking about conforming to the lot sizes of 60 foot minimum. If a lot is owned by one person then they cannot split it to make two 40's. Now if this lot Mayor McLallen said Councilman Crawford? I’m sorry, Councilman Schmid.

Councilman Schmid said you know your confusing us.

Mayor McLallen said I know, it’s like move back over. Councilman Crawford?

Councilman Schmid said he’s heavier then I am, he’s younger.

Councilman Crawford was owned by one individual, 108, he could come in and build a house on it. 109 he could build a house on it if it was owned by two different people. However, if we endorse this we ‘re saying forget the ordinance, we’re going to allow 40 foot lots and we’re going to allow people to build on them. Now, I think it was a good ordinance and the intent was if you own the land, use the land, let’s try to get this area to minimums of 60 feet. In this particular case, and I certainly have again nothing against the petitioners, but it’s really going to be used as resale so from a hardship stand point it’s certainly not a hardship. Even if you want to talk about a hardship this is not a hardship discussion. The ordinance is clear there shouldn’t be a split, there should be no houses on that and they should leave it wide so that they can maintain the integrity of the area.

Mayor McLallen said there is a motion on the floor is there any further comment or discussion on the motion? The motion is to grant the approval of the lot split and lot combination for Lots 108 and 110.

Yes (0) No (7) MOTION DEFEATED UNANIMOUSLY

5. Request for Special Land Use Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval for

a Proposed Cellular Telephone Antenna and Equipment Enclosure, SP-46A -

Mayor McLallen said the Planning Commission made a positive recommendation to the City Council for this Special Land Use on November the 15th and the consultants are recommending. There is a requirement for a ZBA variance for deficiency of set back of the tower and that hearing is scheduled for January of 1996.

Douglas Webber, Attorney for Detroit Cellular Telephone Co., said we have really spelled out the jest of our project and I know it has been a long evening already tonight so I’ll keep my comments brief and to the point. We did receive unanimous approval of our Special Land Use and our Preliminary Site Plan approval at the Planning Commission in November. It was conditioned upon us obtaining the necessary variance from the zoning board which as you indicated we are scheduled for on, I believe, January 4th. Another requirement of that was to obtain a letter from the adjoining railroad, which we are locating next to, of their approval which was presented to the Planning Commission at that meeting. Also, we have met that requirement. This site is located in a highly industrial area along Grand River and is one of two, that I am aware of, that we have in the City already. One that we have, you might be familiar with, is over around the Novi Town Center area where all those other towers are located and this one would be about a mile and a half or a mile and a quarter away from that one strictly to add additional capacity to our service as we are required by our FCC license to provide a high level of service to our customers. Since this area has become quite congested and has a high level of cellular telephone usage it has become necessary to put this which will be 120 foot antenna along this site with the equipment shelter which will be covered with a brick veneer surface. I have a photo here of what one of our typical sites looks like and the only difference from this one is this one has our typical precast masonry surface. The difference is this shelter will have a brick veneer surface on it. So that will be the main difference in this one.

Councilman Clark said for the record and for anyone who is watching the height of that tower is?

Mr. Webber said pardon me?

Mayor McLallen said 120 feet.

Mr. Webber said how high will it be? It will be 120. I’m sorry.

Councilman Crawford said is that 120 that you showed us.

Mr. Webber said this particular one I’m not sure how tall this one is but the one we’re proposing, as I said, is 120. Our towers range anywhere from 70 foot up to 170 foot. The area where this is located, the geography, the topography of the area requires that we have to have 120 feet at this site. So, the pole itself will be 120 foot tall. The photo I showed you the best guess I can give you looking at that one is probably in the range of 100 foot to 120 foot.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That the request for Special Land Use approval and Preliminary Site Plan approval be granted for the proposed Cellular telephone antenna and equipment enclosure being SP95-46A subject to the conditions and recommendations from the consultants that are contained in the documents that we received this evening.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Kriewall said if you were to locate a cellular tower anywhere in the City of Novi this is probably the most obvious site that you would select. Next to railroad tracks, next to an old bridge that’s ready to fall down, next to a frame shop, next to the Expo Center, next to the water tower, next to all of that stuff so we support the location.

Councilman Schmid said number one the bridge will be rebuilt, the building where it’s next to will probably not be there ten years from now and it’s clearly against the ordinance again and again Mr. Rogers highly recommends it. The fact remains, Mr. Rogers, this is a project that has to go before the ZBA for them to have the possibility of putting it here not only because it’s to close to the railroad tracks, based on the tracks problem, also to close to the building, based on our ordinance. Is that accurate?

Mr. Rogers said I have interpreted the set back to be from the property lines. There have been towers permitted in the past that are close to a building but the property lines do meet the set back requirement.

Councilman Schmid asked why do we have an ordinance that says it has to be, I think it’s, the height of the pole away from the building at least or more.

Mr. Rogers said that’s the way the ordinance is written.

Councilman Schmid said why don’t we throw the ordinances out?

Mr. Rogers said no, the tower would never fall over flat. It would collapse into what I’ve been told about a 40% collapse ratio to the height of the building. The main reason for the set back is to not fall on let’s say someone else’s building or property. The distance to the north to the nearest structure is 100 or 200 feet away. I was concerned about the railroad having any impedance if it were to collapse on the track and we did obtain that letter from the CXS railway. This is an issue that is merely being referred to the ZBA as the only body that could, you might say, waive the requirement. There’s no other place on the site, I suggested putting the tower up closer to the building itself, Harold’s Frame Shop and they preferred not to do that. They need this for the service area that they are required to serve. There are limited areas in this area where it can be 120 feet distance from surrounding property lines. It’s a service area requirement. They are in an I-1 District which is the district they’re allowed to be in. There’s no rezoning but the ordinance requires special land use approval by the Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Councilman Schmid said frankly with a recommendation to the ZBA that they’ve got . . .

Mr. Rogers said I believe that’s true if the Council treating this as a Special Land Use did not grant Special Land Use deferring with Mr. Watson I don’t think they have access to the ZBA.

Councilman Schmid said tell me why do you think the ordinance is written the way it is.

Mr. Rogers said merely, back a number of years ago, to protect a tower falling on some one’s car or home or another place of business. A safety factor that’s the reason. Some ordinances require 150% set back from the pole and other ordinances don’t have a set back requirement to speak of.

Councilman Schmid said I’m talking about the City of Novi.

Mr. Rogers said it’s 100 feet and it’s been that way for at least 15 years. I can’t recall any recent variances. I know up at J. Kelly on Grand River, that was an Ameritech tower I believe, they may have had a set back waiver.

Councilman Schmid said this property is being leased by the framed shop?

Mr. Rogers said that’s my understanding.

Councilman Schmid said let’s suppose for a minute that the frame shop was sold next week would they have to accept this tower behind them?

Mr. Webber said yes our lease would carry with the successors and interest to the property. That’s how we negotiate our lease agreements. If I might touch on an issue you raised with Mr. Rogers about if there’s a fear of the tower falling over, these towers are designed not so they fall over flat they simply buckle in an area approximately a third of the way up so that they would just collapse slightly like that. Of course, then at that time it would be replaced. They’re designed to withstand wind speeds of well over 100 miles. To our knowledge, and what our manufacturers of our tower has warranted to us, there’s never been a failure of one of our towers. They’ve had these set up in Florida that have withstood hurricanes Hugo and Andrew so the concerns that this would fall over that really has not been a problem in the past.

Councilman Schmid said I’m concerned it would fall over but if it’s not a problem then we should probably change the ordinance. We’ve got an ordinance that doesn’t mean anything and I’m getting tired of coming in here, this is me personally speaking, and our consultants recommending items that go totally against the ordinances when they’re suppose to be backing, I think, what the ordinance is saying and asking the ZBA for a variance.

Mr. Rogers said I think, if I can comment Councilman Schmid, the ordinance it’s difficult to apply all the standards uniformly for many different size parcels and many different needs of business like the cellular phone. I think in the ordinance the State requires that a relief valve be provided in the ZBA. The decision is yours. It seems to me to be an area that’s needed for this particular function.

Councilman Schmid said I understand.

Councilman Crawford asked did you say you had a site that was a mile and half away?

Mr. Webber said yes there’s an area, I don’t know the roads exactly to tell you what intersection, there’s an area that would be south of the Novi Town Center where there are a number of lattice type towers that you see sitting in that area. One of those is ours and my best guess is that’s about a mile and a half or a mile and a quarter away from this site.

Councilman Crawford asked why can’t that site be used, refurbished . . .

Mr. Webber said well no, that site is still fully operational. What happens with these sites a particular cellular antenna can only handle approximately 50 calls per minute. With the rapid increase in usage of cellular telephone communication certain sites get inundated with calls at particularly rush hour times peak periods. This particular site is one of those. As you are well aware this is a rapidly growing area, it’s an area that has a very high usage of cellular telephones. As I indicated, part of the requirement with our FCC license is that we have to provide a certain level of service to our customers. When the lines are busy, when they are at their capacity people can’t get through, you hear the rapid busy signals and it impinges our ability to provide that high quality service. So, as I indicated, the purpose of this antenna is to be able to increase the capacity that we can provide so that more people can access the cellular service in this area.

Councilman Crawford said I can understand and appreciate that. Why can’t another antenna be added to the existing tower?

Mr. Webber said that tower has the capacity on it that we can put on it at this time.

Councilman Crawford asked there’s no physical room to place another antenna on there. I mean, we are talking about two different things. The tower supports the antenna, correct?

Mr. Webber said right.

Councilman Crawford asked why can’t we put another antenna on the existing tower?

Mr. Webber said that would not solve our problem.

Councilman Crawford asked why?

Mr. Webber said because of the location of that tower.

Councilman Crawford said a mile and a half away?

Mr. Webber said right.

Councilman Crawford asked does that mean in the future every mile and a half or two miles we will be asked for antennas.

Mr. Webber said no necessarily. It depends really on the traffic in that area and the usage in that area.

Councilman Crawford said I guess I’m not convinced of that. It seems to me that another antenna, if there’s physical room, could be placed on existing towers that we have. I would not want to see a piliferation of towers all over the town just because you need it to extend service when you could put another antenna on a tower.

Mr. Webber said well, what happens is because they have to be at certain heights they literally look at each other. As you go from cell to cell and the capacity generate the further you get away from the antenna obviously the weaker the signal.

Councilman Crawford asked how big is an antenna?

Mr. Webber said they’re anywhere from four feet tall to 15 feet tall.

Councilman Crawford said and you couldn’t put those type of antennas on the existing tower.

Mr. Webber said I’m not aware exactly what model antenna we have on that existing tower at this time.

Councilwoman Mutch said the limitation is not necessarily the fact of how many antennas you can put on a single tower as I understand it, and tell me if I’m wrong, but the actual demand, the area of demand for the reception. You’re saying that the demand for cellular service

is expanding not only within that one and a half mile radius area but extending beyond the capability of any antenna on that tower no matter how many antenna there are.

Mr. Webber said exactly, yes.

Councilwoman Mutch said thank you. I understand that.

Councilman Mitzel asked this is subject to the ZBA correct?

Mayor McLallen said subject to the ZBA.

Councilman Crawford said just a clarification based on what Kathy just asked and what I asked. Using the logic you’re using there that we need another antenna in a one mile linear distance from the existing one if demand continues to increase are we going to need antennas every mile? You said no to that but that . . .

Mr. Webber said I guess in theory if the demand were to increase that’s a possibility. We have no way of knowing that at this point. We just know what our demand is right now and our inability based on customer complaints and that sort of thing. People are dropping calls at this time and as I said this is what our demand dictates at this time. I know that technology is changing to a digital format where perhaps antennas will be able to hand more calls somewhere down the road. When that’s coming in, I don’t know but this is what our system can hold at this particular time and this is what the demand dictates we need at this particular time.

Councilwoman Mutch said if for instance the demand was at capacity level for an antenna

and the use was such that it followed, let’s just say, maybe everybody was using their cellular phone in their car and so the demand was following the expressway then you would have to continue to build these following a certain interval.

Mr. Webber said I can’t say that’s not a possibility.

Councilwoman Mutch said I’m being real hypothetical. On the other hand if you had a concentration of business locations and the demand was increasing within a, let’s just say it was a one and a half or two mile radius area, and the demand was increasing there beyond the capacity of a single antenna you could still add additional antennas within a single location in that broader area to meet that demand.

Mr. Webber said I’m not sure I . . .

Councilwoman Mutch asked is it technically possible or do the antenna interfere with each other or the volume of calls interfere with each other?

Mr. Webber said no, basically what our technology is the old radio bands is what we are on. There’s two FCC licenses for cellular technology in this area. Cellular One has one and Ameritech has one. The way that those are allocated that they cannot interfere with each other. We’re on two separate frequencies from each other and we would not interfere with each other. I think you question is would our antennas interfere with our own service. To my knowledge that’s not possible.

Councilwoman Mutch said OK so if the users were in a concentrated area you might be able to add additional antennas to a single tower location and meet the demand but if that demand were to not only grow but be distributed beyond that area then you will need antennas located . . .

Mr. Webber said our demand is growing outward is what is happening. Perhaps, I think maybe this is what Mr. Crawford was talking about previously, our towers typically can handle nine to twelve antennas. How many are on the existing one I’m not sure? I’m not aware of all the details on that particular tower but it is not a practice that we’ve been able to add additional antennas. As I’ve said, our capacity on a given antenna is nine to twelve antennas; the rectangular antennas themselves. I’m sure this particular one has the maximum number of antennas it can hold at this time.

Councilwoman Mutch said but whatever the capacity it can only meet the demand within a certain geographic area.

Mr. Webber said that’s right.

Councilman Crawford said in one breath you said you weren’t sure about the antennas on that tower and then you said you were sure and that’s my point. I understand that’s a function of the amount of antennas and the distance they are apart and my point is putting another antenna only a mile from this one does not solve the distance problem. It’s a function, you’re saying, of usage and you haven’t convinced me that the present tower will not support more antennas. I don’t think you know that answer.

Mr. Webber said we have certain levels of height at what we can put our antennas. We can’t put our antennas, and I’m not an engineer so I can’t give you all the frequency details, but I’m guessing. I said I’m sure but I should probably clarify given the concentration of demand we have in this area the existing tower in my best guess would have the maximum number of antenna which would probably be twelve antennas in this case. We’re at our peak capacity at that site. During peak hours we have many dropped calls. What happens with cellular technology is when a cell is at full capacity it skips to the next available cell so in this case with another antenna a mile and a half away it would pick up a persons call and transfer it to that next antenna or next cell to pick up their call. At this time there’s nothing else in the area for someone else’s call to skip to that provides that high quality service we need. This would facilitate our ability to be able to do that and be able to continue our service.

Councilman Crawford said I understand. I guess I need to be convinced that the existing tower will or will not support additional antennas. That would solve your problem if that was the case and I just would not like to see a piliferation of towers throughout the City based on the logic you’re giving us that could be every mile or two. That would be unacceptable so until you can convince me that tower that exists will not support more antennas I won’t be in favor of adding another antenna.

Yes (5) No (2-Crawford, Schmid) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said I would like to recommend to the City Council based on the discussion here tonight that perhaps the Council send the issue of Cellular Towers to Implementation for contemporizing. Apparently this ordinance was written some time ago. I know that between the two companies that have FCC licenses in this community this is not the first and definitely will not be the last. There is a proliferation of this and apparently from our perspective we need to understand the technology and we need to understand our ability to regulate locally that technology. So I would like to ask the Council that we send this to ordinance review.

Councilman Crawford said along with that request maybe from Mr. Nowicki’s department we could get some kind of an indication of what some of these existing towers will support and if they are at full capacity with antennas.

Councilman Mitzel said I think it goes to the Planning Commission instead of Ordinance Review because it’s a zoning ordinance.

Mayor McLallen said obviously there’s a need for both bodies to have education on this subject. The proper place is that the Implementation Committee of the Planning Commission be directed to review this ordinance. Mr. Crawford is asking Mr. Nowicki, on behalf of the Council, is there consensus to request further information of current standards from Mr. Nowicki and is there consensus to send the entire our request that the Planning Commission send this to their Implementation Committee.

Mr. Webber said I would just like to offer this. If we can provide any information to any City department in your review of your ordinances and that sort of thing we’d be more than happy to do so.

Councilwoman Mutch said I was going to say that I think getting information will be helpful but what we might do if we want to sort of jump start ourselves on this, thank you by the way for improving my technical knowledge which is next to zero slightly improved here, besides the information from Tony if we send it to Implementation as they get the information that they then discuss if we could be copied on what they find to be most informative or useful just so we’re a little bit more up to speed when this comes up in other areas.

Mayor McLallen said administration please note.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

James Korte said thank you for the not lot split. I think you should drive through the area if you should and look. The three houses in that area are substandard. Somebody may say in the hell are you bothering. What you have done is you have upheld the integrity. To stick another one in there no matter how lovely it is does not solve our problems. You have done one thing, as they say does solve the problems and I would hope you understand when we come on these it may sound foolish especially to the other end. When you look at these odd subdivision lots and all those ridiculous parcels I think you have to understand how we’re trying to put it together and this time you did and for that thank you. Have the best of holidays and hopefully a non-fighting New Year.

Partnership and Land Associates of Novi - Thirteen Mile Road improvements.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the Resolutions and Good Faith Offers to Purchase property from Hughlan

Meadowbrook Partnership and Land Associates for Thirteen Mile Road Improvements be

approved.

First Resolution

WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan,

necessitate improvement of Thirteen Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road in the vicinity

of the intersection of Thirteen Mile and Meadowbrook Roads in the City of Novi; and

WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said improvement have been prepared; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that said improvement is necessary for the use and

benefit of the public; and

WHEREAS, in order to construct said improvement, it is necessary that the City acquire

easement rights in certain real estate as described in the original minutes;

A. An easement for all public highway and utility purposes in, over, upon and through

the premises described in the original minutes situated in the City of Novi, Oakland

County, State of Michigan.

B. A temporary construction easement including the right to move men and equipment

On and through, the right to store materials and excavated dirt and the right to remove vegetation and alter the underlying land, in over, upon and through the

premises described in the original minutes situated in the City of Novi, Oakland

County, State of Michigan hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Novi to

offer to purchase the subject property from the owners of such property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City is hereby

authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a good faith offer to purchase, a copy

of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1", calling for the payment of Nineteen

Thousand One Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($19,100.00) for the subject property. The

above amount has been established as just compensation for the acquisition of the property, based upon an appraisal of the property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after the execution of the good faith offer to

purchase by the Mayor, the good faith offer to purchase shall be submitted to the

owners of the property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of resolutions

insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this Resolution be and the same

hereby are rescinded.

Second Resolution

WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan,

necessitate improvement of Thirteen Mile Road near Meadowbrook Road in the

City of Novi; and

WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said improvement have been prepared; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that said improvement is necessary for the use and

benefit of the public; and

WHEREAS, in order to construct said improvement, it is necessary that the City acquire

fee simple title to and easements rights in certain real estate described as follows:

A. Fee simple interest in certain a parcel of land as described in the original minutes.

B. A temporary construction easement including the right to move men and

equipment on and through, the right to store materials and excavated dirt and

the right to remove vegetation and alter the underlying land, in over, upon and

through the premises described in the original minutes.

C. An easement for constructing, operating, maintaining and repairing a drainage

system, in, over, upon and through the premises described in the original minutes

hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Novi to offer

to purchase the subject property from the owners of such property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City is hereby

authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a good faith offer to purchase, a copy of

which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1", calling for the payment of Six Thousand Eight

Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($6,800.00) for the subject property. The above amount

has been established as just compensation for the acquisition of the property; based

upon an appraisal of the property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after the execution of the good faith offer to

purchase by the Mayor, the good faith offer to purchase shall be submitted to the owners

of the property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as

they conflict with the provisions of this Resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.

Third Resolution

WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan,

necessitate improvement of Thirteen Mile Road near Meadowbrook Road in the City of

Novi; and

WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said improvement have been prepared; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that said improvement is necessary for the use and

benefit of the public; and

WHEREAS, in order to construct said improvement, it is necessary that the City acquire

fee simple title to and easement rights in certain real estate as described as follows:

A. Fee simple interest in certain a parcel of land as described in the original minutes.

B. A temporary construction easement including the right to move men and

equipment on and through, the right to store materials excavated dirt and the

right to remove vegetation and alter the underlying land, in over, upon and

through the premises as described in the original minutes hereinafter referred to

As the "subject property"; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interest of the City of Novi to

offer to purchase the subject property from the owners of such property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City is hereby

authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a good faith offer to purchase, a copy of

which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1", calling for the payment of Five Thousand Five

Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) for the subject property. The above amount

has been established as just compensation for the acquisition of the property, based upon

an appraisal of the property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after the execution of the good faith offer to

purchase by the Mayor, the good faith offer to purchase shall be submitted to the

owners of the property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as

they conflict with the provisions of this Resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Mutch) MOTION CARRIED

Property Acquisition.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the previously scheduled executive session be amended to add property

acquisition.

Councilman Mitzel said at the last meeting we approved a session immediately following this one.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Mutch) MOTION CARRIED

8. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 452

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Claims and Accounts Warrant No. 452 be approved.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Peter Wolford said I don’t know if you remember me but I was here the last time when you had the sign ordinance.

Mayor McLallen said yes, you own one of the pizza facilities in town. Good evening.

Mr. Wolford said we provided the City Attorney with the information on the size of the sign and everything like that and I know it’s probably going to come up for discussion later on and I just thought if you had any other questions about the sign we’re here if you need any more information on it.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Mitzel said the Consultant Review Committee will be meeting next Monday evening prior to our City Council meeting to start on the task of updating the retainers. Also, as a member who was not able to attend the National League of Cities Conference I would appreciate it if any of you had any information that you think is useful if you could forward me some of it.

Mayor McLallen said we have lots of stuff if we can get it unpacked.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES - None

MANAGER’S REPORTS

Mr. Kriewall said just two or three brief items. Tony Nowicki has been working with CAD solutions on some of our upcoming computer needs. They’ve been talking about the possibility of discussing electronic packets for City Council which would require everybody to have a lap top and we could do this whole packet thing electronically. The staff thought it would be a good idea if CAD solutions actually talked to individual Council Members just to get your feelings on looking into this kind of a approach to doing what we do. So they will be calling you and share your thoughts with them.

Mr. Kriewall said property purchase status on the joint school district/city site on Eleven and Wixom Road. I’ve met with our City Attorneys who have in turn met with the attorneys for the Levy Company and they are drafting some tentative language that would resolve the outstanding issues on this property purchase. I talked to Lou Bugbee earlier today. He indicated that we should probably have something in the next council packet that would wrap that up, at least the language.

Mr. Kriewall said a report came today from Phil Merasco who manages Twelve Oaks Mall and he’s indicated that the traffic has been moving very well throughout the shopping season and apparently the installation of the electronic turn signal actuators that have been in operation for some time are continuing to work quite well. They have not reached total capacity yet on the week ends in terms of parking and they attribute it to being able to move the cars fairly effectively in and out of the shopping center. He’s also reported that apparently M-5 has had a positive impact in moving traffic to and from the shopping center.

Councilman Mitzel asked in conjunction with that Eleven/Wixom Parkland will the City Administration be prepared to bring back the Fuerst property next meeting. I believe at our November 13th meeting we set that as the date to finalize that.

Mr. Kriewall said yes, I think that’s going to be ready too.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

Councilman Mitzel said I just wish to say thanks for getting the answers to my questions concerning the administration sections of the Charter.

Councilwoman Cassis said yes, I forgot under business, it went so quickly that I didn’t have a chance, I wanted to raise my hand. I know the hours late but I wanted to let all of us know and the people in the City know that a very dear, dedicated, long standing member of our community passed away on Saturday, Mr. Russ Button. He touched our lives in a variety of ways not only as a Councilman in the City early on but also as a gentleman who helped fashion the Charter that we rely on and take an oath to support. So he did pass away, our feelings and condolences and sentiments are with the family and just to let everyone know that visitation is at O’Brien’s. It’s being handled through O’Brien Funeral Chapel and the funeral is on Wednesday. For more information I’m sure they could contact either the City or O’Briens.

business - II Reading - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBSECTION 28-8(14) OF

THE NOVI CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO PERMIT ILLUMINATED WINDOW

SIGNS WHICH CONVEY WHETHER AN ESTABLISHMENT IS OPEN FOR

BUSINESS.

Councilman Crawford said I still have concern on this OPEN sign. The addition to the ordinance does not address solely an OPEN sign. His concern was once we allowed a sign that said OPEN that someone would come to us with the argument that you allow a sign that says OPEN why not a sign that says BEER or a sign that says VIDEO or something else. I saw nothing in this ordinance to prohibit that from happening. If I’m incorrect lead me in the right direction.

Mr. Watson said the ordinance as drafted would prohibit that beer sign and some other sign. As to whether somebody would come before Council and say why don’t you change the ordinance to allow something else, well, somebody might always come before you and ask you to change the ordinance.

Councilman Crawford said I can understand that. Why wouldn’t we anticipate that and have something in this language and in this revision of the ordinance that would prohibit that from happening making it exclusive to an OPEN sign and nothing else is permitted?

Mr. Watson said it is exclusive to an OPEN sign.

Councilman Crawford said well I don’t read it that way and that’s why I said if I’m wrong correct me. It says "a sign to indicate whether an establishment is open or closed." Why couldn’t someone have a Closed sign?

Mr. Watson said well sure they could have a sign that says open or closed.

Councilman Crawford said I expressed on several occasions that I did not want to see closed signs and I think some other members expressed that or concurred to that and this ordinance does not prohibit that.

Mr. Watson said if that’s the case and that’s Council’s wish the ordinance can be modified in that fashion. I certainly didn’t gather that from the Hanging Fire or the portion of the minutes that I saw that the Council wanted only to have a sign that said OPEN as opposed to a sign that said OPEN or CLOSED.

Councilman Crawford said it was the comments made that we didn’t want to see CLOSED signs all over the City and there were other comments. That’s my concern and I’d like to hear if anyone has any other discussion on this ordinance. I would be, in general, supportive of this ordinance if it was restricted to some of my comments.

Councilwoman Mutch said just with regard to that about whether it should OPEN only or you could also have a CLOSED sign. I wasn’t here when you discussed that earlier but it seems to me if you don’t allow for a sign that can also say CLOSED the effect is the same as no sign at all. If you see what I mean. If there’s nothing to indicate whether it’s open or closed it’s the same as no sign. You know it may say OPEN but when it’s turned off it’s the same as no sign if it doesn’t say CLOSED.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That the II Reading of Ordinance 95-100.17 be approved. An ordinance to amend

Subsection 28-8(14) of the Novi Code of Ordinances, to permit illuminated window signs

which convey whether an establishment is open for business.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said I concur with what Ms. Mutch said concerning allowing OPEN and/or CLOSED on the same sign and the City Attorney did follow our directive to put in a size limitation which is now in the ordinance. I think with those safeguards it will be a positive step.

Councilman Schmid said I concur with Mr. Crawford. So in other words the Council wants a sign that says either OPEN or CLOSED all the time. There will always be a neon sign in those shops, though they could be OPEN or CLOSED, there will always be a sign there in neon. I agree with Mr. Crawford. If it’s OPEN, Kathy I don’t think this is too difficult, if it’s got OPEN on there it means it’s open. If it doesn’t have OPEN it’s probably closed.

Councilwoman Mutch said or there’s no sign.

Councilman Schmid said the other area, and it’s probably something that’s been here and the newspaper has trouble with this sign ordinance. I understand that they keep talking about it and we do have the newspaper here this evening. Refresh my memory if you can about the size of the sign. If this says not to exceed 36 inches in any dimension. It could be 36 inches wide and that may be OK and I don’t have great aversions on OPEN and CLOSED signs because several businesses have convinced me that when they sit in certain locations they have a tough time seeing them. But, 36 inches, and I want Council to recognize this, is three of these sheets wide. It’s wider than that podium up there by quite a bit and that is approximately 36 inches maybe not exactly. I have never seen an OPEN and CLOSED sign I don’t think that big even in Taylor where they have all kinds of signs and in all the sign cities. Even in Las Vegas I don’t think they have OPEN and CLOSED signs that big so I’m wondering why, Mr. Watson perhaps you wrote up the ordinance you probably have some input, perhaps you can tell me why.

Mr. Watson said among the things we were asked by Council to do was to put dimensional limits on it and in doing that to get some input as to whether there was some standard sign that people could buy that was readily available. In the information that we found, the information that was provided to us that there is such a sign, it’s readily available and that’s the approximate dimensions is 33 by 11 inches. So that’s Council’s concern was you didn’t want the dimensions to go beyond what you would need for such a readily available sign.

Councilman Schmid said I really don’t know I didn’t research it and asked that’s a common size of a CLOSED or OPEN sign, 36 inches wide?

Mr. Watson said yes, well it’s 33 by 11 inches.

Councilman Schmid said it says 36.

Mr. Watson said well, 36.

Councilman Schmid said the passing of that is what the information that you found.

Mr. Watson said the information that we found was a sign that was approximately 33 by 11.

Councilman Schmid said I have some concern with the width of the sign. I concur with Mr. Crawford. It’s not a big, big deal I suspect and as Mr. Mitzel said this would be a positive effect on the City I don’t agree with that.

Councilman Crawford said again my comments on the CLOSED sign. It was discussed several times at this table about CLOSED signs in addition to OPEN signs. My comments were very clear the last time that I would not support it if the ordinance allowed for a sign that said CLOSED. I think it is sufficient to have an OPEN sign. If the sign is not illuminated they are probably closed. There was not an argument presented by the business people that they needed a CLOSED sign. They were concerned that they were off the road or in a spot that was difficult to tell as you were driving by and they needed an OPEN sign to let people know they were open. I don’t think they need a CLOSED sign and if it’s passed as a CLOSED sign and I hope it’s not, I will make an amendment to that in a moment, will that allow for a 3 1/2 half square foot OPEN sign and a 3 1/2 square foot CLOSED sign? Why not? It doesn’t indicate that at all. I can’t imagine an overlapping sign that would be OPEN and CLOSED that you would flip one set of neon tubes and flip the other one off.

Mr. Watson said no, they’re allowed to have a window sign which sole function is to indicate whether or not the establishment is OPEN or CLOSED.

Councilman Crawford said so they can have one sign.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Councilman Crawford said if they want to tell people they’re CLOSED and not tell people they’re OPEN they could choose to do that which would be some what ridiculous in my opinion and adds credence to the fact that there should only be an OPEN sign allowed.

Mr. Watson said whichever way they want to communicate that message within that size perimeter.

Councilman Crawford asked does this say that? I don’t see that.

Mr. Watson said sure it says "the sole function is to indicate whether or not the business establishment is OPEN or CLOSED.

Councilman Schmid said I suspect with Neon you could probably do a lot of different things or switch a switch and it would say OPEN and the CLOSED portion of that neon wouldn’t light up and then you switch another switch . . .

Councilman Crawford said my comment before was I did not want to see CLOSED signs. I don’t want to drive around the City at night when businesses are closed and see CLOSED signs. I don’t think it’s attractive. I’m not convinced OPEN signs are attractive but I understand the needs of some of the businesses to indicate to potential customers that they’re open and I’m willing to go along with that.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the main motion be amended to permit only OPEN signs and not to allow

CLOSED signs.

Yes (3) No (4-McLallen, Cassis, AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Mitzel, Mutch)

VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION

Mayor McLallen said the main motion is to accept Ordinance 95-100.17, Illuminated Window Signs, as presented.

Councilman Crawford said, excuse me, I can see where this is going. I’m disappointed that it’s going in that direction. My concern all along has been that we are about to open the flood gates and I think in passing this ordinance the way it is with the allowing of perhaps CLOSED signs with some of the restrictions on square feet and dimensions and by not being more specific that this is the only neon sign allowed not a sign for beer or wine or other types of signs like that I think we’re opening the flood gates and I think we’re making a mistake. I would of been supportive to only an OPEN sign if it had been more restrictive.

Councilman Clark said I would join in the comments by Councilman Crawford and Councilman Schmid. I think we are opening the flood gates. We fought long and hard on the Planning Commission to avoid these exact type of situations on many of the large projects that come into this community. Once you open the door you’ll never get it closed and we’ll start the proliferation of visual pollution up and down our thoroughfares that you see in so many other communities where they have so many signs that after a while you can’t tell whether they’re open or close, whether they’re on or off because you’re blinded by the glare of all the signs. I think this would be a terrible mistake for us to make. I can remember when the General Cinema came in the Town Center and they insisted no one would be able to find them if they didn’t have a huge marquee out on Grand River. Most of the time you’ll find the General Cinema is packed and often times they have more people there than over at the movies at Twelve Oaks. We told them we were not going to allow the type of marquee that you see on Ford Road down in Dearborn and people found a way to pick up the paper and read it and find out where the theaters are. This is the same thing. If someone is that interested in finding out whether a business is OPEN or CLOSED and if they’re driving by fast on the highway it makes no sense to me. Obviously they don’t have a burning desire to, maybe, go in in the first place. If they really do they’re going to slow down, perhaps pull into the parking lot, and they will find out. If they’re regular customers in a short period of time they’re going to know what the regular business hours are anyway. I think this would be a terrible mistake for us to make and I agree with Councilmen Crawford and Schmid and once we open the flood gates we’ll never get the door closed.

Councilman Schmid said I was opposed to the total sign. Although I certainly can understand the businessmen who are caught in some corners and so forth probably could use something such as an OPEN sign. I would think, I would hope at least that Council those who are supportative of this, would at least give further consideration as to what is the use of a CLOSED sign. I don’t think many businesses are going to buy the sign, number one, because I don’t think there’s that many people that need it as Mr. Clark said because most people know when their stores are open and when they are closed. If you think about it why do you need a sign lighting up the City at night that says we’re closed? Every argument that has come before this Council from citizens, businessmen I’m not so sure, businessmen too that I have heard, although I didn’t sit on the Sign Ordinance Committee but I proposed it, they were concerned about they wanted the people to know going by fast in our crowed streets that the business was open. Well, if they don’t see a sign then they’ll maybe assume it isn’t open if they got a sign. I just don’t see why you need a CLOSED sign at night indicating by golly we’re closed. I think it would be a mistake and I don’t know if other things will come after it to proliferate the City but that’s certainly a potential. A nice OPEN sign I can buy. Don’t like it but I can buy it but to have a 36 inch CLOSED sign that’s a big sign. I’ve never seen one that big and I question our good attorney’s information. I don’t question you got that information I question if it isn’t a much smaller sign that we need. Well, think about it and vote your conscience but I just wonder why you would want this.

Councilwoman Mutch said well when I make my comments earlier I’d like to make it clear I wasn’t advocating that it say OPEN or that it say CLOSED or anything else but the wording that was proposed was that it be the decision of the business owner I suppose to be able to indicate whether they were OPEN or CLOSED. Now, we’re assuming that it’s either turning an OPEN sign on or off or the alternative having a sign that says O P E N or C L O S E D when in fact I think most businesses would agree with the comments that Mr. Clark, Mr. Schmid and Mr. Crawford made with regard to labeling a business as closed. They probably would avoid that for the same reasons that you’d rather not see CLOSED signs all over the City. My only intention there is to support the flexibility of the business owner deciding how they choose to indicate by way of a sign that we have limited in size and placement in some regard that they have the ability the flexibility to go whichever way they want.

Councilman Schmid said I understand.

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a motion on the floor to approve in support of Ordinance 95-100.17 an amendment to Subsection 28-8(14) which is to permit illuminated window signs which convey whether the establishment is open for business.

Councilwoman Mutch said roll call vote please.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

No Crawford Yes Cassis MOTION CARRIED

Clark Mitzel

Schmid Mutch

McLallen

Soliciting within the City of Novi - II Reading - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND

SECTIONS 26-2 AND 26-3, AND SUBSECTION 26-4(3) OF THE NOVI CODE

OF ORDINANCES, TO AMEND THE REGULATION OF PEDDLING AND

SOLICITING WITHIN THE CITY OF NOVI.

Councilman Crawford said at the first reading of that ordinance I believe we asked that the concerns of the homeowners group be discussed with that group before anything came back to us. Apparently that was not the case from what I heard tonight they only found out about it Friday or Saturday that it was even on the agenda and their concerns, on a list we have, were not discussed. I think there’s some legitimate concerns in here that I would like to see incorporated in that ordinance; at least a discussion amongst us before we go and approve the second reading. Some of those are hours and some of them are days and permit times and I think that, and I respect the attorney’s opinion, but I think we’ve got a right to set some limits and times in our own City and if a peddler or solicitor doesn’t like it I guess they can challenge us on it. Until that time I think we need to set what we think is appropriate and I think some of the hours that the homeowners group has suggested in one instance is appropriate. That may be a little bit flexible and open for discussion but I think that 9 AM to 9 PM is rather liberal. I would prefer to see something perhaps 9 AM to 6 PM, my personal opinion, and that’s open for discussion. That eliminates solicitation during dinner hours and such. Certainly it would eliminate solicitation in most cases during darkness and would keep it pretty much to the daylight hours if you had it 9AM to 5 PM, 9 AM to 6 PM or whatever. So, those are some of the concerns I have and before we pass the II Reading of this I would like to see those discussed with that group and certainly amongst ourselves.

Mayor McLallen asked would you like to move this over to another meeting?

Councilman Crawford said well I’d be happy to unless there’s other discussion on it. I don’t know if a motion is in order to have that scenario happen. It was requested before and apparently didn’t happen with some dialogue between that group of representatives and our attorney’s before it came to us. So if we needed a motion then I would move . . .

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That dialogue takes place and that this list is considered and discussed amongst ourselves if it’s not incorporated in the amendment before we approve a II Reading.

Councilman Crawford said I don’t know if we need a time on that or what would be a good time to bring it back.

Mayor McLallen asked Mrs. Bartholomew can we put this as a discussion item on the next agenda and have the representatives of the Homeowners Association come in and take part of that dialogue?

Councilman Crawford said bearing in mind we have the holidays to contend with.

Mayor McLallen said our next meeting is next Monday.

Mr. Watson said your next agenda is one week from tonight.

Councilman Crawford said that may be too soon to have that dialogue with that group.

Mr. Watson said why don’t you make it the next meeting after that.

Councilman Crawford said the first meeting in January?

Mr. Watson said that is to bring it back for Council discussion and then it should be discussed by our office with the homeowners in the interim.

Councilman Crawford said that’s what I would like. I would like your office to discuss it with the homeowners and see if you can come up with something different and a recommendation to us and have it as an Action Item for us instead of on the Consent Agenda. That’s the essence of my motion for the first meeting in January whatever date that is.

Mayor McLallen said the first meeting in January? You want to take the second because of the holidays here.

Councilman Crawford said that’s fine.

Councilman Mitzel said many of these issues have been thoroughly discussed at Ordinance Review Committee and by Mr. Watson’s office. I think they have already answered many of these in opinion letters not only in our packet but we’ve received at the table tonight. So, I guess they can go through the exercise of letting them talk to Mr. Watson but I don’t think it’s probably necessary to spend an hour or two at our next meeting discussing this whole list because I believe our committee structure and our City Attorney office have already discussed many of these and researched many of these issues already.

Mayor McLallen asked if there was consensus of Council . . .

Councilman Crawford said I made a motion didn’t I? I thought I did.

Councilman Mitzel asked what was the motion:

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Crawford was motioning that we direct the City Attorney to discuss the proposed ordinance with the Homeowner’s Association to review their proposal this evening. Kind of address the issues that you’ve talked, you know, how to get a consensus on this and then bring it back at our second January meeting for action by this Council.

Councilman Crawford said an Action Item not on the Consent Agenda.

Councilwoman Mutch said a question for Mr. Watson then or Mr. Kriewall for that matter. Has anything been sent to the Homeowner’s Association as an organization that is any different than what we’ve had or even what has been sent to Council in terms of background on why certain things are not included even though they’ve been raised before or why they can’t be included or why . . .

Mr. Watson said no, other then the information that’s been provided to Council.

Councilwoman Mutch said but has that been sent directly to them as well?

Mr. Watson said I don’t think the item that was in your administrative packet was. I assume that it was not.

Councilwoman Mutch said OK because I’m thinking that everybody has a problem of meetings not only us but Mr. Watson and the members of the Board of the Homeowner’s Association. I would think that a first step might be to send them whatever we might have in response to what the list that was given to us tonight because I suspect there are some things that they might like we can’t do. Mr. Watson’s probably already provided the background on why that can’t be done.

Mr. Watson said I think the first step is going to be a phone call and the next step after that is going to be getting them a list of reasons and the background behind those reasons. They might have additional ideas beyond that.

Councilwoman Mutch said I’m just thinking of streamlining the meeting by if you can tell them what legally you already know from what you’ve done they can’t do that’s on this list then let them know now rather than get into a meeting, have a lot of people who come in with the expectation that there are certain things that they have every right to demand and then find out after lengthy heated discussion they can’t. That’s less acceptable to people. I think so make it easy on yourself.

Mayor McLallen said at this point there is a motion to direct the City Attorney to further meet with the homeowner’s association, clarify these issues based on discussion and information that has come to the Council and to come back with this as an Action Item at our second meeting in January.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Bros. Driveways on to Fonda Street.

Councilman Mitzel said I just pulled this because I had a concern that this may make sense most of the time when there’s traffic but there’s many hours of the day that restaurants running and to make everyone turn right and go around that entire loop just to get back out to Novi Road seems a little unreasonable. So I was wondering if maybe we could have the administration put in some sort of hours. In other words, no left turns during the time that there’s traffic would allow someone to cut across to that turn around and get out onto Novi Road there during the evening let’s say 9:30 - 10:00 o’clock, 11:00 o’clock when there’s no traffic. I go to that restaurant fairly often and know that in the evening like that there’s no traffic at all and to make everyone go all the way around the whole culdesac that’s there at the Expo Center I think is kind of unreasonable. That’s why I pulled it I thought maybe we could just look at putting in some hours there or something a little bit different to allow some reasonable alternative.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the administration be directed to re-look at Traffic Control Order 95-96

and the inclusion of hours.

Yes (7) (0) MOTION CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McLallen adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.

Mayor City Clerk

Date approved: