COUNCIL CHAMBERS -NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Edward Kriewall, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo

Mayor McLallen read a letter from the Department of Natural Resources, which congratulated the City of Novi on becoming a 1995 Tree City USA and a Tree City USA Growth Award Recipient. She then presented the award to Chris Pargoff.

Mayor McLallen explained the students from Novi Middle School designed a future city. She then read the Proclamation to them and added that their actual city is on display in the Atrium.

Mayor McLallen read a Proclamation to the Novi Lions in observance of White Cane Week. Two members were present to receive the Proclamation.

Councilman Crawford said there was a change in the Warrant Number, Item #8, from 561 to 461.

Sarah Gray of 133 Maudlin indicated she was speaking regarding Item #4. She highlighted her letter and noted support of the Bristol Corners project if the areas in her letter were addressed. In reviewing the packet information, Mr. Rogers’ letter of April 16th the third paragraph, cites the location of the bike safety path on the north side of South Lake and we are questioning how this will tie in with the City safety path on the south side of South Lake east of Bristol Corners and also at Lilley Pond which was formerly known as Arrowhead Estates. She said regarding the Open Space Preservation easement agreement, she presumed wherever Lakewoods Preserve appears, that Bristol Corners would be substituted. She requested Council to give site plan approval as the developer has been great working with the residents and this is a win-win situation.

Ms. Gray also spoke as a private resident and referenced the possibility of Mr. Andris’ desire to construct a cul-de-sac on East Lake Drive and asked that he come forward and make his intents public. She stated that a similar proposal was denied.

Warren Jocz, President of Willowbrook Homeowner’s Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed Willowbrook Farms Subdivision. He said this is the fourth time in front of the Council on this same topic. He noted the following concerns: negative impact on existing residents, the dismantling of Border Hill entryway, use of platted Willowbrook land for an entry.

Harry Avagian, of 1623 W. Lake Drive - L.A.R.A., informed Council of the problems experienced on Walled Lake over the winter. He requested changes in the Ordinances which will help control the problems. He also spoke in support of the Police and Fire Needs Committee recommendations and the Budget process. He asked for a Public Hearing for Citizen input regarding the proposed millage and community needs. He also clarified in a Novi News article, that L.A.R.A. was concerned about the use of snowmobiles on the lake, and they were not concerned about the safe usage of snowmobiles on the lake, in fact we encourage that as a very good recreational activity.

Jo Stipley, Leslie Park Subdivision, referenced articles, copy supplied on Council table, regarding the proposed development at Willowbrook Farms Sub. She asked that Council uphold their former action and deny Singh Development.

Gary Allison, 22001 Garfield Road, informed Council of the water problems he is still experiencing. He questioned the party hired to perform the environmental survey, noting that if the company was hired by Singh, then they may have a conflict of interest. He suggested a neutral party to look into the matter. He said he has lived on Garfield Road for 25 years and the small pond on the northeast corner has done this year what it has always done and it is right back where it should be. He felt if the natural processes were occurring, that pond should be much lower also.

John Avdoulos of 48980 Nine Mile Road, a representative of S.W.A.N., voiced concern at the rate of evaporation. He noted concern with the proposed installation of sewers in the area. He asked for a Moratorium on development for six months to determine the problem. He reminded Council that this is one of the last rural areas left in the City.

Mr. Young spoke regarding the water level problem at Garfield and Nine Mile. He noted he lost a well head and has severe high electric bills as a direct result of the water level. He asked if the City has received any other investigative report other than N.T.H. (Paid by Singh).

Glenn of Joseph Drive, Leslie Park Subdivision, said he is opposed to the development of Willowbrook Farm Subdivision. He noted concerns with public safety and indicated the area has narrow dirt roads and does not have sidewalks. He said this is about their 11th time back here on this matter.

John Walk of the Leslie Park Subdivision noted he does not feel that Brenda Lane or Joseph Drive can handle any additional traffic. He noted there are no sidewalks and he is concerned with chid safety. He is worried about flooding problems and also concerned that Leslie Park will bear the burden of homeowners that will end up living in this subdivision because they will want us to pave our road and get water and sewer.

Roger Bowman, Leslie Park Subdivision, asked Council to remember the children of the area when they make their decision. He also referenced the lack of sidewalks, dirt roads and safety risks. He said the developer keeps coming back bringing the same proposal back with no material changes because all he has to do is get it approved once.

Vicki Watson of Millstream Street indicated all she is asking for is that the developer find another access to the subdivision. She asked that the Council consider safety, additional traffic and flooding when they make their decisions.

Mayor McLallen closed the Audience Participation.

1. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 22, 1996 and Special Meeting of January 22, 1996.

2. Adoption of Ordinance 96-125.10. - Amendment to the Woodlands Ordinance - Natural Gas Transmission Mains - II Reading. - Removed by Councilman

Schmid.

3. Approval of Resolution, Re: Acceptance of the Utility Easement - Section 13, Adjacent to Twelve Mile Road, from MDOT. - Removed by Councilman Schmid.

4. Award bid for Tractor/Loader/Backhoe to AIS Construction in the amount of $53,100.00

5. Approval of Agreement between City and Holtzman & Silverman Realty Company, Re: Use of Shared Information.

6. Approval of Resolution, Re: Waiver of Fine/Property Transfer Affidavit

7. Approval to solicit bids for the 1996-97 Bituminous Paving Program.

8. Approval to enter into the Nine Mile Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Agreement with Robert M. Harris - Removed by Councilwoman Cassis.

9. Approval of the Main Street Construction Inspection Agreement with Beckett & Raeder, Inc.

10. Approval of proposed Motor Carrier Safety Ordinance - I Reading.

11. Approval of the proposed amendment to Section 34-20 of the Novi Code of Ordinances providing for an administrative appeal of assessed late charges on water bills - I Reading.

12. Approval of Resolution, Re: Credit Card Policy.

CM-96-04-139: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Items #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

1. APPROVAL OF REVISED TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT SP95-02C - WILLOWBROOK FARM SUBDIVISION.

Mr. Mike Kahm of Singh Development was present and Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Kahm to address the concerns mentioned tonight - safety of children, how the children are picked up on the school bus routes and how the children can be protected with increased traffic in their community. The second concern was drainage issues. She said this was adjacent to Bishop Creek and what will their 31 lots do to improve drainage conditions in that area, or not improve conditions in that area. The third major concern was a lack of identity in what has been an established community for a long time and how this fits in particularly with traffic concerns in their area.

Mr. Kahm said we were last before you on March 6th to present what we now call Preliminary Plat Scheme C, which is the boulevard entry off of 10 Mile with a center turn lane on Ten Mile Road. He said he would give a brief synopsis of where we have been at least as far as issues are concerned and try to address some of the things that the Mayor mentioned this evening.

Mr. Kahm said we have received positive recommendations from all City Staff and City Consultants, and this particular plan does meet all of the City of Novi Ordinance requirements for Tentative Preliminary Plat approval. He said he would summarize some of the issues that have been discussed previously and have been resolved. He referred to the turning radius matter of the road to the immediate north of the subdivision, that we presented at the March 6th meeting and there were numerous precedents throughout the City where that particular design has been approved. He said technically, we need a waiver for that particular design, but that design has been used numerous times.

Mr. Kahm said regarding the access from adjoining subdivisions, again we demonstrated at the March 6th meeting, that is within the City Ordinance requirements and has been done numerous times in the past. With respect to drainage, the City of Novi’s engineering standards are quite specific and they are no different in this particular case and we are required too maintain agricultural flow from our property in its current state or better and that is true in all subdivisions in the City.

Mr. Kahm said we will be, in this particular case, reducing the agriculture flow from this vacant piece of property onto adjoining properties. He explained the way we are doing that is by putting rear yard catch basins in the backs of the lots that adjoin the properties on all sides and those basins go into a storm system, which goes into a detention basin on site, so we will actually be enhancing the existing drainage situation on the property by capturing and detaining storm water before it goes off of our property.

Mr. Kahm said the other issue raised that has been resolved with the City Attorney was the placement of a road over a platted lot.

Mr. Kahm said in listening to the Council concerns at the last meeting, as well as many residents, we tried to go back and look at the things that we could do and be good neighbors because that is our strong desire. Regarding the traffic safety concern, the entry design has been looked at many times concerning a boulevard entry versus a single road entry. He said in the interest of traffic safety and the design as was presented and developed, a boulevard entry has been determined to be far safer and provides separate egress and ingress. He said there is no comparison between the two and is the reason we are presenting Plan C with the boulevard entry.

Mr. Kahm said the safety of the children obviously is paramount and one of the things we think we offer with this subdivision design and its integration with existing Willowbrook and particularly Border Hill, is that we have sidewalks that will be along both sides of our subdivision road out to Ten Mile Road. As children enter onto our new road from Border Hill, they will be able to walk to Ten Mile Road via a sidewalk and in addition, we took a look at the intersection of our boulevard entry and Ten Mile to see if there was something we could do to enhance the safety, particularly for children waiting for the bus in the morning. He said in their packet they would see a schematic of an entry design that we did.

Mr. Kahm said what we are proposing to do is to add a section of concrete adjoining the sidewalk that runs along Ten Mile Road, where the children can stand and wait for the bus safely, separated from vehicular traffic during school pick-ups and drop-offs.

Mr. Kahm said one of the key components of any subdivision design is the separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and we think the design we are proposing separates the pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and allows the children to get to their bus stop in the safest possible way and does provide them a place to stand waiting for the bus in the morning and dropped off in the afternoon.

Mr. Kahm said another issue was the impact our subdivision has on those who live on Joseph that runs out to Grand River Avenue. We have included the stub connection to Brenda Lane which runs to Joseph and we are obligated by City Ordinance to provide a secondary means of ingress and egress. What we would like to propose to Council this evening, is an emergency break-away at Brenda Lane. He said this breakaway, as unattractive as it might be, is also being used currently in the City of Novi at Briarwood Plaza and Briarwood Condominiums and it separates those two developments..

Mr. Kahm said what we propose this particular break-away to be is temporary and it will be used for emergency access only into our subdivision and all of the residents of Willowbrook Farms will enter and egress at the Ten Mile Road Boulevard. What we would propose is there are adjoining properties both to the east and west of our proposed subdivision and the stub streets on our plan showing those connections.

Mr. Kahm said those properties obviously are going to be developed in the relatively near future so what we would propose to do is when the subdivisions are developed, we will have two additional means of ingress and egress into our subdivision besides the Ten Mile Boulevard.

Mr. Kahm said what we propose to do is to convert that temporary barrier into a permanent one with a landscaped berm, allowing for the sidewalk to come through right at the property line between our subdivision and where Brenda Lane runs east from our subdivision. There are other barriers in the City of Novi that are precedent for this particular concept and not quite as attractive as this, and one is Burton Drive, which has a large timber or guard rail that separates it from the subdivision to the west and we are proposing this to be far more aesthetically pleasing than that, but it creates a permanent barrier between our subdivision and Brenda Lane and Joseph. He indicated no vehicular traffic will ever use this with the exception of emergency vehicles during the temporary period until the adjoining subdivisions are developed.

Mr. Kahm felt that these proposals try to address all of the concerns heard from the local residents, as well as Council Members.

CM-96-04-140: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION FAILED: To deny Revised Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval to SP95-02C Willowbrook Farms Subdivision.

Councilman Schmid said his two biggest concerns have been the use of Brenda Drive and the safety factor of getting out onto Ten Mile Road. He said they are proposing this evening a breakaway at Brenda. He said that certainly solves one problem, but what does it do with the length of the cul-de-sac, although it is not a cul-de-sac. Mr. Rogers indicated it would exceed the 800 foot length that is provided for in the subdivision regulations. He said the need for secondary access is a concern of the Fire Department and we have tried to assure that.

Mr. Rogers said were not Brenda Lane accessible on the one system or another, he would have a hard time recommending this plat. He said he has worked hard with the Earl property which is the Camborne Place connection and Mr. Earl is not ready to subdivide but that would be one solution, and then the alternate secondary access and that would be to the east.

Mr. Rogers said the Camborne Place Subdivision to the east has a stub directly on this same alignment and the Camborne Place Subdivision came in and they accessed Brenda Lane and are accessible today from Brenda Lane.

Mr. Rogers said regarding the Weiss property, about 8 or 9 years ago, he did a study for this whole area to actually bring roads into the Weiss property at the time they were interested in developing it and that would be another solution.

Mr. Rogers said the policy of establishing a barrier is a question the Fire Department and Mr. Arroyo should also comment on, but he would not be in favor of closing it off entirely particularly to emergency vehicles and end up with a cul-de-sac of about 1400 feet plus or minus long.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Arroyo about the entrance they are proposing and the left turn on Ten Mile Road and Mr. Arroyo said he has reviewed the project and the proposal.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Arroyo if there was room in this particular area for two roads, Border Subdivision Road be left as is and this subdivision had its own street. Mr. Arroyo said technically yes, he believed there is room to bring another road down through an existing right-of-way or easement that comes down from this property, however, it would essentially be placed right next to where Border Hill is, which would not be recommended because you would have two roads on top of one another with conflicting movements and you also wouldn’t have the benefit of any of the road improvements to serve.

Councilman Schmid asked wasn’t there at one time a proposal made to have a separate road. Mr. Arroyo said he was not aware of a specific proposal for a separate road to come down to Ten Mile. He indicated when this property was owned by other property owners and was brought before the City, there were some other alternative access proposals, none of which involve an additional road to Ten Mile.

Mr. Arroyo said there was a proposal at one time that there be a cul-de-sac here and the only point of access would be via Brenda and the future extension of Camborne Lane, but to his knowledge there was not another road proposed to Ten Mile Road.

Councilman Schmid said from a safety standpoint, what are his thoughts on this particular configuration. Mr. Arroyo said the plan they have before you this evening, which is Plan C, meets all of the requirements of the Design and Construction requirements for the City of Novi and would also meet the requirements of the Road Commission in terms of improvements within the 10 Mile Road right-of-way.

Mr. Arroyo continued that it provides for the deceleration lane for right turning traffic off of Ten Mile and provides for the center turn lane and the boulevard design would meet their boulevard construction requirements, so it does meet all the requirements.

Councilman Schmid asked from a safety standpoint, if we were not to allow traffic onto Brenda Street and have a 1400 foot cul-de-sac with an emergency entrance from Brenda, what would be his thoughts on that.

Mr. Arroyo replied the primary reason for the maximum cul-de-sac length standard is related to emergency access. You want to not have one road that if blocked off, would put a number of residents in peril if it were blocked off. If you have a secondary point of access to Brenda, whether it be a full access or a breakaway gate, as long as the emergency service personnel are satisfied with it, that satisfies most of the concerns of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Arroyo further stated the cul-de-sac length is also intended to try to minimize the impact on other services, such as police patrolling. For example, if you have a single cul-de-sac road, obviously if the police are going to patrol, they have to go up that roadway then come back down and they double-back on the road, whereas if there is a connection from that road to another, they can continue in one direction and not have to double-back, so there are benefits to other city services by having more than one connection, but certainly the primary reason for reducing the length of the cul-de-sac is for emergency access purposes.

Councilman Schmid said he has driven down there and obviously Border Hill has some points. Mr. Arroyo said roughly it looks like it is about 250 feet as proposed here. Councilman Schmid asked how far would that be from the first house beyond Border Hill and Mr. Arroyo replied on the plan it looks like Lot 68 is the first house on Border Hill which is probably another 150 feet or so from that intersection. Councilman Schmid asked what was Bishop Park on the plan, and Mr. Arroyo explained that was the lot the developer is proposing to acquire and part of it is being used for the right-of-way for this proposed roadway.

Councilman Schmid said to Mr. Watson the legality of purchasing a residential lot for providing an access has been brought up many times.

Mr. Watson indicated they have reviewed that issue a few times and it is permitted. He said there is certainly nothing in our Subdivision Ordinance and nothing we could find in the statute that would preclude that. The other aspect that became an issue was whether there were covenants or restrictions in the existing subdivision that precluded that. He indicated essentially those covenants require that lots be used for residential purposes. He said the case law we found indicates that use of a street for access to other parcels is in effect a residential purpose, so it was their conclusion that it was permitted.

Mr. Watson said to back themselves up, we asked that the developer provide us with a title policy that will cover that issue just in case someone brings in a lawsuit after development of the parcel and the developer said they will do that.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kahm about another concern he has which are the lots that will back up to Border Hill, and based on what he has seen, there is a considerable amount of trees and brush and so on and would this all be gone.

Mr. Kahm explained his intention is to maintain existing grade along our border and to only place storm water catch basins back there to intersect the surface water and take it into our storm system to our detention basin. The existing line of trees and existing vegetation would be kept to the extent possible, understanding that we have to put the storm drain in there. He said the basins will be placed strategically at the rear of the lots to intercept water and the grade of the lots done such that swales will run along the property line and divert water into the catch basins and then take that water to the storm system.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kahm if he were to suggest that because of the uniqueness of the subdivision and uniqueness of Border Hill, would he be amenable to give some form of landscaping such as pine trees primarily and strategically plant them behind the lots on the west side of his sub, in other words, separating Border Hill from his development and that they would be planted in such a way that they would effectively screen the two subdivisions and Mr. Kahm said yes.

Councilman Schmid asked how would that be controlled if that were to happen.

Mr. Watson explained that the consultants would review that when they get the landscaping plan in for the subdivision and would see that the condition is dealt with and it would be a condition of any approval.

Councilman Schmid then concluded that his position is although he is not thrilled with this subdivision, and felt it would be better to wait until the other two subdivisions are made, he wasn’t sure they could get the best of two worlds tonight. He understood the concerns of Border Hill and the new entrance, however, there are some pluses to this, although they wouldn’t be appreciated for several years. He would not support the use of Brenda and would prefer that be made into a breakaway type road until such time as the other two stubs go in and that street be completely closed to any emergency or other kind of traffic. He said with the screening and all the other things talked about previously, he would be in a position to support.

Councilman Crawford asked Mr. Watson as to why this does not constitute a flag lot. Mr. Watson explained we do not have a definition of a flag lot in any of our ordinances and the way we control flag lots, is through the minimum width requirements within the code, and we do that by measuring lot width at the setback line so in effect, a lot that is required to be of a certain width has to be that width. Councilman Crawford asked where is that on this plan.

Mr. Watson stated it wasn’t on this plan. He explained the way that arises is if a parcel of land is being split and the Assessor has to decide whether the split is an approvable split or when a parcel is coming in for a building permit. He said this parcel is not in that situation.

Councilman Crawford thought the intent of our flag lot ordinance was to not allow a very narrow access on a road to open up into a larger parcel of land and that is precisely what he sees here, so why isn’t this a flag lot.

Mr. Watson said because one, we don’t use flag lots and two, his guess is where you measure off of Ten Mile, that width probably met the minimum width standards whenever the parcel was divided. Councilman Crawford asked if you include the present Border Hill as part of that frontage and Mr. Watson said no, but he didn’t know the records of when the parcel was last divided and ended up in this configuration. He said the flag lot situation comes up when someone is trying to split property and it is either approved or disapproved. He could only assume that the history of this parcel was that it was divided and property acquired when the requirement was different or the width of Ten Mile actually met the minimum standards for lot widths.

Councilman Crawford appreciated his explanation but he wasn’t convinced that this is against the intent of what he called a flag lot.

Councilman Crawford also said he didn’t see any plus to the configuration of the Ten Mile entrance, and all he saw was it destroying the integrity of an existing subdivision. He said in the booklet they have, there are 15-20 comparisons of existing subdivisions entering through other subdivisions, but he didn’t think any of them are comparisons such as this. He said this is an old established existing subdivision and there is a new one proposed to use their access. He felt all the comparisons in our notes were fairly new recent subdivisions that are being built within one or two years of each other.

Councilman Crawford said the length of the cul-de-sac with the breakaway gate he felt far exceeds our requirements and even beyond the breakaway gate, it appears that the length is much too long and not in accordance with our ordinances. He noted his main concern is what it does to the integrity of the Border Hill entrance and what it could potentially do, although there seems to be some remedy tonight, which he wasn’t happy with, and also what it would do to Joseph Drive. He indicated he has not been supportive of this project since its conception and since it has been coming to us. He felt it was ahead of its time. He thought eventually it will be developed, but will be developed through the acquisition of other lands and a much more desirable layout.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Watson about the proposed breakaway gate and would that be part of the plat approval tonight and Mr. Watson said if it was Council’s desire that it be something you see up on Brenda Lane, it should be part of the approval and should be a condition that it be part of the improvements.

Councilman Mitzel said to Mr. Arroyo he was looking at trying to compare how this subdivision tieing with Brenda is any different than the situation with Camborne Subdivision tieing in with Brenda. He asked if Mr. Arroyo could tell him the difference and why one would justify a breakaway gate whereas the other one wouldn’t.

Mr. Arroyo explained it was practically a mirror image with the exception of the Border Hill Mill Stream situation because Camborne is across from Willowbrook and goes straight up and it has a Camborne extension to the west of Mr. Earl’s property and then it connects into Brenda Lane. He said they were very similar.

Councilman Mitzel felt breakaway gates were counter-productive from a safety standpoint and the safety reason is for emergency vehicles. He called the Fire Department today to ask them how the gates work, and they mentioned that they don’t drive the trucks through them and they will actually get out and unlock or unbolt the gate open and then if there is a snow bank in the area, they can’t get though.

Councilman Mitzel didn’t feel it was good policy from a safety standpoint and didn’t see how it was any different from the Camborne Place Subdivision tieing into Brenda and if there is a request for a breakaway here, there would be a request for one at the other end. He said as long as the breakaway gate is part of the current plat proposal, he couldn’t support the plat.

Councilman Clark said he had a problem with this project and also concurred with the comments of Councilmen Mitzel and Crawford. He felt we have a plan 95-02C but was basically 95-02A, which has been turned down numerous times with the exception of some minor changes here and there, to hopefully give it some respectability. He had a problem when a parcel comes to us which is essentially a landlocked parcel, which has had numerous trips to Council and Planning Commission to attempt to get this proposed subdivision approved.

Councilman Clark said he was concerned with the loss of community. He said there must also be concern on the part of our legal counsel when he requests as part of any proposal, a title policy of insurance giving us some protection against possible liability. He was also concerned with the length of road that is in excess of 800 feet in terms of traffic considerations discussed, and he was extremely concerned with the proposal to put the catch basins in, which supposedly will take care of some of the water problems. He felt when putting in catch basins across the lots, they would do serious damage to the root structure of the trees and the vegetation that is there, so a good portion will die eventually.

Councilman Clark said in addition, when looking at the area that is called Willowview Park West, a proposed detention basin, it appears to be about 158 feet long on one side and about 285 across the front and about 334 feet across the back, coming up against the road proposed to come in, and he had a concern because our track record unfortunately where water is concerned has not been very good over the last few years and we have many problems.

Councilman Clark said in terms of using a residential lot, it may have been done a long time ago in one or two locations in the City, but he hoped planning has certainly advanced in the last decade over what it was. He felt we would set a dangerous precedent for the future if we allow it here and what would stop it in another subdivision from being ultimately proposed as a road for purposes of access. For all of these reasons, he could not support this subdivision.

Councilwoman Cassis felt there have been good arguments on both sides. She said the developer has tried to work very hard with the City to meet and change some of the issues and address them. She is also concerned with safety and it is with that in mind that she was glad to see some of the improvements. She felt it does improve traffic flow and the boulevard entrance is safer and there is only one curb cut now. She said the addition of a center turn lane certainly does increase the safety factor.

Councilwoman Cassis felt the bus stop being proposed is a very good condition and the sidewalks too are going to separate roads from pedestrian traffic. She stated the addition of a breakaway emergency gate, while it isn’t probably the best of all answers, they have to look at the whole picture here and there is going to be development in this area and the breakaway gate will stop intrusion into those streets that are unpaved. She said the Fire Department doesn’t necessarily always feel that would be the best solution, but at least it is a solution she felt could be utilized and she could approve it as a condition.

Councilwoman Cassis said as development continues, there will be connections and more road systems, which will help alleviate some of the concerns presented. She said a concern that hasn’t been mentioned that night was that new development does in many ways enrich our community in terms of all of our property values, and just ask older subdivisions that have had new development come close to them and there is a benefit. She said the thought that there might be some integrity lost, but this developer will go a long way to try and preserve some of that and in the long run, improve this whole area.

Councilwoman Cassis felt there were a number of conditions to place on this development and she did see it as being different than the ones she looked at in 1992 which she could not in good faith have approved, but this is different, so when she looked at these conditions, she is also pleased that this developer tonight said right on the spot said he would make additional plantings to provide screening. She said she could support this project with all of the changes and conditions.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the landscape area was where he was proposing the breakaway gate and Mr. Kahm said on a temporary basis. He further stated the gate will be there until such time as the adjacent properties either to the east or west are developed, which will provide secondary ingress and egress. At that point, we will change that temporary barrier to a permanent landscaped barrier.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with Councilman Mitzel’s comments on the breakaway gate. She realized he put that gate there to solve a concern, but it seems that safety is still most important. She liked the idea that it would eventually be landscaped if another secondary access develops, but what if it doesn’t develop until after all of those lots are sold and you have moved on to another project. She asked Mr. Watson how would they make sure he does that.

Mr. Watson explained as a part of their Final Plat approval, one of the conditions would be that money would be escrowed to cover redoing that area, both to remove the gate and to provide the landscaping.

Councilwoman Mutch said she was one of the three people who supported this before and she would say that Mr. Kahm has made efforts in this case to go above and beyond the mere compliance to the Ordinance to try and be a good neighbor and to do something positive for the people who haven’t even moved in yet.

Councilwoman Mutch said regarding the comments to wait until there is secondary access, she saw a problem which was if Singh withdraws from this particular project, and let’s say the Earl property is developed, we will have the same problem that Singh has now, which is to develop a secondary access. She then indicated she would be in support of a motion to approve but not of a motion to deny.

Mayor McLallen wanted to correct a mistake stated tonight that this plan has been denied at the Council level. She said this is the fourth time it has been before the Council starting in April of 1995 where it was postponed, it was here August of 1995 where it was postponed, August of 1995 where a deadlock vote was reached and here in March of 1996 where a deadlock vote was reached. She said this plan has never been denied by this Council. She indicated in format A, from the Planning Commission, it initially received a negative recommendation and in format B, it received a positive recommendation and in format C, it received a negative recommendation.

Mayor McLallen indicated her position is an echo of Councilwoman Mutch and Councilman Mitzel. She wasn’t positive with the gate situation but understood why it was there.

Councilman Crawford asked what is a Type III well system. Mr. Kahm said a Type III well is one that can serve a multiple number of homes and it was an approved well by the Michigan Department of Public Health and the well system is proposed until the water moratorium is lifted at which time all the homes would be connected.

Councilman Crawford asked where would the well be placed and Mr. Norberg stated it would be installed on one of the existing lots and that lot would be set aside until such time as the wells are abandoned. He said when the Water Moratorium is lifted, the wells are then abandoned according to the Health Department requirements. He added they serve no more than 14 homes and they are strictly on a temporary basis.

Councilwoman Crawford said four parks are mentioned, some of which are no more than greenspace along the road, and what is the intent of those parks. Mr. Kahm said those would be deeded over to the Subdivision Association. Councilman Crawford said they would be responsible for maintaining the detention basis and Mr. Kahm said yes and in all subdivisions in the City, that is the way it is done.

Councilman Schmid responded to some comments made regarding the breakaway gate. He said he has opposed the breakaway gate because as he stated, Brenda Street is a very narrow gravel road that should not be impacted by additional traffic. He said safety-wise, he didn’t feel it could support any additional traffic and the houses are too close to the road. Because it is gravel, is the reason he can’t support using Brenda and that is why he suggested a breakaway would be an alternative until such time as this area develops.

Councilman Schmid said one could ask why should we develop now. He felt they have some better development today than in the past and people may disagree with the Ten Mile entrance, but he felt that was far superior than it was before. He felt they have a screening concession from the developer this evening. He said regarding the water concerns, if there is a problem with the water, there better not be because the engineers and Mr. Rogers and the attorney would be letting themselves wide open. He said another positive component are the larger lots and most of these are 85-95 feet. He felt it was the best time even though maybe we could delay it another year or two, but it is going to come. He felt it was time and the best alternative and the best solution with the positives stated. He again stated he could not support the breakaway gate because of the traffic that would come on that road.

Vote on CM-96-04-140: Yeas: Clark, Crawford, Mitzel

Nays: McLallen, Cassis, Mutch, Schmid

MOTION TO DENY FAILED 4-3

Councilwoman Mutch asked that the plantings that Councilman Schmid referred to be planted as soon as possible as opposed to at the end of construction. Mr. Kahm said that was fine and there would be a cash bond that the Council and Ordinance requires for landscaping guarantees as part of final.

Councilwoman Cassis said it should include also the title insurance conveyed to the City as well as the bus stop.

Councilman Mitzel clarified that the conditions were: the bus stop, the tree plantings, the title insurance, the breakaway gate and the eyebrow waiver.

2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL LAND USE AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL - AMERITECH - 12 OAKS WATER TOWER.

Mayor McLallen advised Council that this matter had received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission, the planning consultants and the fire department recommended approval and it had been noted that there were ZBA variances required.

CM-96-04-142: Motion by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED: To grant the request for Special Land Use and preliminary site plan approval subject to the applicant ability to receive a positive review from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Councilman Mitzel believed it was a beneficial situation to co-locate these towers on top of an existing water tower preventing another structure within the city. He asked what relief would be available for the applicant to not have to go through all the detailed screening that’s required because part of the land that’s next to the mall parking lot was zoned residential?

Mr. Watson said it was a zoning ordinance requirement and they would have to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. He advised that if they were looking for that relief it should be requested of the council as a part of the Special Land Use.

Councilman Mitzel said the council had not been recommending anything pro or con to the ZBA on issues. He thought council was to approve the plan subject to them obtaining the necessary ZBA issues.

Mr. Watson said the only issues that were going to the ZBA were the deficient antenna setbacks and the question of the zoning itself.

Councilman Mitzel asked if they would have the right to take the other issue to the ZBA concurrently?

Mr. Watson said if council made that apart of the Special Land Use approval.

Mayor McLallen asked if council had the right to grant the waiver now if it was requested?

Mr. Watson said it was his understanding that it was a zoning ordinance requirement that they would need a variance from and that being the case it would be the ZBA that granted it.

Councilman Mitzel said, for clarification, if they wished to pursue that possibility concurrently with the request for the antenna setback and the zoning determination by the BA. council would have to include in the motion permission for them to seek that variance.

Mr. Watson said correct and the reason is the zoning enabling statute indicates that there are limitation on what could be taken to BA. and in particular, say, a denial of special land use approval could not be taken up unless the ordinance specifically required. That is why if they were going to take something that wasn’t inherent in what council was granting in the Special Land Use approval then it should not go there. Therefore, the suggestion that it be made a part of the approval.

CM-96-04-142.1 Motion by Mitzel, seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED; TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION to grant approval contingent upon applicant obtaining necessary variances; also granting applicant approval to seek variance for screenage from the ZBA if so desired.

Councilman Crawford said there had been other requests for the towers and he had asked what the status was of the towers at the DPW building and if they could support more antennas and he had not seen a report on this yet. He asked how many more of these requests might council receive in the city? He thought there was going to be a report forthcoming on that and he had not yet received it. It was a very major concern of Member Crawford and he noted that several surrounding communities had placed moratoriums on the proliferation of these towers. He stated perhaps council would need to take that drastic a measure if every month or so council received a request for one of the towers. There are several variances that needed to be granted in order for this to go in that location. At first glance it makes practical sense to place the antenna on the water tower so there was not another free standing structure but the point is there are many variances. He felt if council granted the Special Land Use in effect council would be giving a positive recommendation, like it or not, to the ZBA. He felt the best way to proceed would be to go to the ZBA. first and see if there was a practical hardship or whatever they grant the variances on and let them make a determination as to whether the variance should be granted or not and then come back to council for Special Land Use.

Member Crawford said the antennas on top of the water tower would be a panel type apparatus and approximately nine feet high. He asked if that was attached to some type of a structure on top and what would the width of the panels be?

Brian Monahan representing Ameritech Cellular, stated there would be three panel antennas, 4 inches thick, one foot wide and mounted on the top of the water tower. He said there was one panel per antenna and this would be three antennas.

Member Crawford asked if Ameritech or any other company in the business contacted the State property people? He said there was hundreds of thousands of acres, probably, of right of way that these towers could be put in along expressways or in islands of expressways. He said he didn’t usually see them in State owned land which would seem to be a better spot than other locations in the city which are off the freeway and supposed to be in Industrial zoning but somewhat closer to Commercial.

Mr. Monahan said yes the State had been contacted and there was a lot of State land available in areas nearby major highways. And no, the State was not interested in, at least any long range plan in that regard. He felt it was really just a reflection of the bureaucratic regulations that they were currently stuck with which unfortunately, like a lot of community zoning ordinances, don’t particularly address the technical requirements of a very rapidly advancing communications system. Mr. Monahan said the other problem with the suggestion as it pertained to this particular site is just a function of how cellular communication works. It worked on a very small power basis and the radio signal from the towers often times doesn’t reach more than a couple of miles. That was reflected well in this particular site location.

Mr. Monahan showed a map of the general area. He explained the lines on the map represented the coverage from existing towers in the Novi area and a gap in coverage.. He pointed out the tower at the Novi Post Office and part of the reason for asking for approval for the site was because the north face of the tower was the busiest panel in the entire Ameritech system. He said there were more phone calls off of that one radio panel than any other in any area where Ameritech did business in the State of Michigan. The flow of cellular communication in the Novi area is absolutely astounding. He said the new coverage covered up the gap and took the load off the Novi tower and helped create a complete pattern of the total Novi area.

Mr. Monahan said Ameritech strives to be creative in terms of its antenna placement and when ever there was an existing tall structure or tower that was where they liked to go. He said in regard to the visual impact of the antennas on top of the tower the FAA did not require that any tower be lit under 200 feet unless for some specific reason, either a local ordinance or it’s too close to a flight path or whatever. He said they had submitted their application and had not received their response as to whether it would be a necessity for raising that existing light to compensate for the additional 8.7 feet of the panels. He didn’t feel it would necessitate additional light.

Mr. Monahan said it was his understanding from the planning commission that what they had voted approval for was an addition to approval of the Special Land Use and the Site Plan approval and that they had suggested approval of a waiver of the green space setback. Therefore, all they would be doing at the ZBA would be requesting the height variance that was required.

Councilman Crawford said he had read there were six or seven major players in the cellular market at this time. He said based on what had been said a tower every couple of miles, ideally, Ameritech alone could have twenty or thirty in the City of Novi and surrounding area. He said multiply that by five or six other firms wanting the same thing, he asked, if they share sites?

Mr. Monahan said they probably would but it was not easy.

Councilman Crawford said it had to become easier.

Mr. Monahan said they attempt to co-locate whenever they could. He said part of the problem was a technical one regarding how the whole system worked. He said they operate on a grid system and the towers already exist and Cellular One did not have a tower in the gap coverage area. Regarding the proliferation issue when he said two to three miles he was referencing this site because it was a narrow site but some towers would reach eight miles.

Councilman Crawford said he wanted to see a report as to what our antennas would provide in the way of a site to these firms and would like data regarding what the potential was for these sites in the City of Novi.

Councilwoman Mutch said the Implementation Committee of the Planning Commission was looking at this.

Brandon Rogers, planning consultant, said he had been working with the Implementation Committee and at the last meeting they recommended approval to both the planning commission and the council of a new cellular antenna ordinance. It’s going to be fine tuned by Dennis Watson who sat in on that meeting. He said he was involved in the review in many different areas of the State and based upon the Telecommunication Act of 1996 there cannot be discrimination. There had to be a serious effort for co-location and he knew of two or three where Ameritech and Cell One had co-located. As a result of the act there were three new suppliers, Sprint, Nextel and MCI. There are five suppliers coming in and AT&T already has a preliminary interest on Catherine just north of Ten Mile. They had not set up their grid yet and were anxious to have a partnership with other suppliers. The fix with Ameritech and Cell One is that they already have existing towers, an investment in place so you have these gaps. He felt that sharing was something they should look at and work for. The ordinance should be in council packets at the next council meeting. He said it was a lengthy ordinance with many conditions.

Councilman Crawford said he wanted to see some of the data he requested in it and what our towers at the DPW facility might facilitate.

Mayor McLallen said the administration could respond to where this is going and how much more it could go.

Councilman Mitzel said the planning commission waived a six foot high berm along the eastern property line but the ordinance still required a six foot high wall or alternative screening between the RC and the Residential zoning. He said the point of the motion was to allow them to get that variance from the ZBA so they would not have to build a wall along the mall parking lot.

Councilman Schmid had many of the concerns of Member Crawford. He asked for an explanation of what this would look like on top of the tower.

Mr. Monahan said the antenna panel would be 8 feet high, 1 foot wide and 4 inches thick and it would be mounted on a pole which would be mounted on the top of the water tower. There would be three separate panels.

Member Schmid asked council if they wanted to see this at the entrance to the city. In addition to this it would be a week and a half before council got a request to go onto the Expo Water Tower. He wondered why the City of Novi had to lower its standards for the sake of Ameritech to put up these kinds of towers on top of a water tower. He said there was a moratorium in Farmington Hills.

Mr. Monahan said in Farmington Hills it’s a special issue. The Federal Communication Bill Mr. Rogers brought up stated that a community cannot say it won’t have towers. There are a number of issues in the act that a city can look at in preservation of the local zoning authority but in terms of absolutely prohibiting and discriminating against cellular carriers that is prohibited. So, there is a very big question as to whether moratoriums are even legal. He said it was not something Ameritech had challenged or sought a ruling on. In communities that have a gap in their coverage they look for the best area that they can to minimize the impact and thought they had done that. Mr. Monahan said with all due respect take issue with the comment that they were asking Novi to reduce their standards to allow them in. He said they were very much consistent with the very high standards that Novi has.

Mr. Monahan said regarding the question of how many more towers would be requested. As the system develops the gaps in coverage get smaller and smaller. Therefore, a lot of the coverage and capacity issues that cellular companies are looking at would be resolved by very unobtrusive antenna configurations that have no need for a tower or great height.

Councilman Schmid said he thought it would be an obtrusive look in this area and would personally rather they built a tower even in the Twelve Oaks area than put it on top of the water tower looking like an after thought. He asked how far his company was from going to outer space?

Mr. Monahan said he didn’t know but when that occurred all of the towers would come down within thirty days per the lease with their landlord.

Councilman Schmid said he would not support this.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the intensity of demand would be so great that they might eventually put up small panels on the sides of a two story building not just as fill in but as a standard structure?

Mr. Monahan said the concept is called the Micro Cell Concept. They only work when there is the larger cell concepts and are really just an issue where there’s too much coverage. They are looking now at Woodward and Eleven Mile, a very highly congested traffic area, and are looking to put a panel antenna on a two story building and the reach of that would go about 1/2 a mile but would alleviate a serious capacity issue. Some of the carriers that would be coming in would not all provide the kind of service that Ameritech provides. Some of them were into personal communications systems called PCS and it is different than what Ameritech is doing. Ameritech is into telephones in your car, we’re mobile. Some of the companies coming in are working on a cellular system and are given a license by the Federal government to be in the same frequency ban but are not providing the same type of all inclusive service that Ameritech does so they didn’t need towers like Ameritech does.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there were other communities that allowed them in other than industrial zoning?

Mr. Monahan said absolutely. More often than not they were allowed in a number of zoning districts, Commercial, Agricultural, Light and Heavy Industrial, all the Manufacturing Districts and in some communities even in Residential Districts. One example is Troy. They allow for limited cellular coverage in residential areas. Those towers are limited in height to 50 or 75 feet and as to landscaping Ameritech does exactly what the community told them to do.

Councilwoman Mutch said council didn’t foresee this happening and so had not adequately addressed it with what we have. If a community could look at the overall residential/industrial pattern and working with representatives of the industry even though they might be competitors that they could come up with some sort of pattern. Some way to look at either city properties or State right of ways where the various industrial and residential fall and develop areas a tower could be located and still meet the needs of the various companies. If there is a tower that exists that would meet the needs then an additional tower would not be created.

Councilman Clark said an application had been submitted to the FAA and should additional lighting be required on the tower Ameritech would obviously have to comply with that. Mr. Monahan said that was correct.

Councilman Clark said this was a small area where the gap existed and there was also some discussion about these two foot panels on the side of two story buildings being a possibility to deal with certain areas of coverage and if that was the case could the panels be put on one of the buildings?

Mr. Monahan said no, because there is not just a gap in capacity but an actual gap in coverage. The micro cell are very directional antennas and go one way, receive and send a signal and are not a full blown cellular antenna tower designed to help traffic flow from one cellular area to another. They are designed to cover a capacity problem in a particularly small limited area.

Councilman Clark asked how many cellular calls each of the panels would accommodate?

John Cole, Radio Frequency Engineer with Ameritech, said cell sites are built for coverage and capacity. This particular one addressed both. The tower at the Post Office is currently covering but not at a service level that Ameritech considered good or a quality service for a portable user. The answer is there are 380 some channels which service hundreds of thousands of customers. One channel equates to one telephone call forward and reverse call. The antennas are made very directional, narrow and horizontal scope and in the vertical scope so as not to create interference to other towers. As the cells are made small they reduce the power therefore reducing the amount of interference they create to other mobils using the same channels other places within the system. With that they can put 19 simultaneous calls on one of the antenna panels until getting to a adhocing situation where they borrow channels from other parts of the system and plug them in. Ameritech is doing this to the site at the Post Office in order to meet the demand for service in the area of 12 Mile Road. This creates interference to other mobils using those channels in other areas of the system and to mobils using the channels in this part of the system. If they don’t do adhocing it’s actually 19 simultaneous conversations per panel. A typical cell have three directional faces each serving 120 degrees. In this case they are proposing to build a northbound face to receive some of the traffic congestion from the cell to the south at the Post Office.

Councilwoman Cassis said if communities have high standards it would promote and motivate the industry to come up with some pretty technologically advanced ways of meeting those standards. She was concerned about proliferations of towers and didn’t want to see them spread into residential areas. She was looking forward to the planning commission’s release of the ordinance regarding this.

Councilman Schmid asked if a tower could be built in and around this particular area that would serve the same purpose?

Mr. Monahan said that was definitely possible.

Councilman Crawford said he would not discriminate against Ameritech but would do the same for anyone that came before council. He was concerned with the proliferation and until council received the ordinance from the planning commission and acted on it and got a handle on how many more of these towers or situations there might be in the city he would vote no on anyone that came before council.

Mr. Monahan said they had already indicated to the planning commission that this was it for Ameritech with respect to any towers that they would need that they believed would need council approval. He said in terms of tower presence this is it. Mr. Monahan said they were not trying to get away with anything by not building a tower. They would have preferred to build one further north because there is more coverage needed north. They tried to be creative and find an existing structure so there wouldn’t be another tower and felt that it was a much more minimal visual impact. He asked that council look at that creativity, their needs and recommend approval.

Mayor McLallen said at this point her vote would be in support. She said technology had far out paced council’s ability to even begin to have thought of where these things were going and how rapidly.

Nays: Crawford, Schmid

Mayor McLallen indicated a representative of the Southeast Shawood Homeowners Association brought up several points that the applicant could respond to. She said one concern was a technical concern of how the safety paths would tie into one another.

Mr. Arnold Surlin, developer, said he had no problems with it being on the south side.

Mayor McLallen stated there was also a future concern of the impact of the North Novi Basin with the water table in his area. Mr. Surlin said he wasn’t familiar with that and he talked to his engineer who did not think from the information he had that it would have any impact on us. He indicated he had no control over that and obviously the level of the water and any revision to that retention area would have to be designed so it doesn’t impact South Lake Road. He said it was indicated it was thought it would be above South Lake Road but he couldn’t imagine that happening but it would be an engineering consideration.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Surlin about Item #5 the question of condo in the agreement. Mr. Surlin felt what happened was when the agreement was prepared, his attorney covered a condition that might have provided for a site condominium as opposed to a standard subdivision platted situation. He said we are not condominiums and that word can be taken out as we are a platted subdivision.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Surlin clarified that it was Bristol Corners Subdivision West, North and South as opposed to No. 1, 2, and 3. Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Watson these are plats and does each one have to be on its own plat and at one time he recalled him saying that each one is supposed to be on its own plat submittal and these show them all on the same pages.

Mr. Watson said there is nothing to preclude them from being submitted together like this, but they should be able to stand on their own if they were to be developed separately.

Mr. Surlin thought the Plat Act requires that any subdivision that is divided by a public thoroughfare such as we are, be a separate plat and that is the reason why you see three separate plats.

Councilman Mitzel said his follow up question is he saw west, north and south on one part of this plat proposal and 1, 2 on the west side and then on the next page, 1 and 2 are reversed and Mr. Surlin indicated that was just a drafting error. Councilman Mitzel asked are we are approving Phase 1 and 2 and Mr. Surlin said it would be Sub #1 of West and Sub #2 of West and his plans at this point would be to make the north part of west the first phase, Sub #1 as shown on the cover sheet. Councilman Mitzel said we are approving four plats then and Mr. Watson said yes.

Councilman Mitzel amended his motion.

CM-96-04-144.1: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: For approval of Final Preliminary Plat of Subdivision #1, Bristol Corners West, Subdivision #2, Bristol Corners West and Bristol corners South and Bristol Corners North, subject to the Consultants’ letters, clarification of the condo language and coordination with the safety path on South Lake Drive.

Mr. Watson indicated the paper will have to be corrected to make it clear.

Mayor McLallen explained building sites do not perk so a septic system is not a valid alternative and in order to make this happen, the Selective Group has proposed to make a commitment to make downstream improvements to the Simmons Sanitary Drain District, install and remove the temporary lift station and provide the design engineering. This request has been reviewed by JCK and received conceptual engineering approval. Existing payback agreements and outstanding issues and concerns have been reviewed and the department feels that this proposal will benefit both sanitary sewer districts. It was stated Bruce Jerome generated this.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Watson if the agreement is a draft agreement and Mr. Watson said yes. Councilman Mitzel asked if Council decided to move forward with this, we would be directing his office to finalize the agreement and Mr. Watson said yes, and the only changes are two suggested changes by Seiber Keast and Mr. Jerome has included them in his letter and neither of those changes are things we have problems with so if Council approves this we will put it in final form and have it executed by the Selective company.

Councilman Mitzel said he had mentioned in his letter about more detail concerning the infrastructure and does that still need to be added or have you resolved that issue. Mr. Watson said what we need is simply a description by JCK to incorporate this and just the details of what that infrastructure is going to be.

Councilman Mitzel said there is a Resolution in the packet and he didn’t know how that tied into the agreement and would that be the Resolution to eventually adopt that agreement and Mr. Watson said yes.

CM-96-04-146: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To direct the City Attorney and City Administration to finalize the draft agreement that is contained in the packet to include the change in language that is proposed by Patrick Keast in his February 20th letter, to include the attachment with the details for the infrastructure needs, and also to include language that clearly denotes that the temporary taps in the lift station shall be abandoned within 90 days or some other appropriate time- frame upon completion of the trunkline sewer which they need, and that the maintenance of that lift station shall be solely funded by Selective Group.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said there was mention in some of the back-up documentation about maintenance of the facility, but he didn’t notice any of that language in the agreement or in the Resolution, and he also had a concern about what temporary meant. He spoke with Mr. Jerome this morning and he mentioned having a time frame as to when it would have to be abandoned and connected to the ultimate solution would be appropriate and that way would guarantee a temporary nature of that tap.

Councilman Mitzel felt after finalizing all that information, he believed it would be appropriate to have it come back to Council for final approval.

Councilwoman Cassis asked the intent of the proposal. She said from the sewer master plan, she noticed that it was the intent of the proposed sewer plan, which has not been ratified, that Greenwood Oaks, would be sewered at some point from the Simmons District. She noted that we now have the report that our consulting engineers had done back in early 1994 regarding sewer capacity for the western section of the city, west of Beck and they assured us that we had adequate capacity.

Councilwoman Cassis asked why is it being considered to transfer capacity and what is the effect on the Lannys Road District and getting to Simmons. She asked what is the need here.

Mr. Jerome explained right now there are lots in Greenwood Oaks Subdivision #3 and 4 which are developable but because of the lack of development in the area, the sewer trunkline that is part of the ultimate Lanny Sewer District design has not been extended and the developer has been waiting for almost two years now and has looked at different alternatives.

Mr. Jerome explained what they are proposing is a transfer of taps from the Lannys District, which Greenwood Oaks is master planned to be in, into the Simmons District which is to the east, but the reason for the request is without sanitary sewer, they can’t continue to develop that project.

Councilwoman Cassis said you mention in certain development in the service area, that all of that is zoned for residential development and she asked what is uncertain about west of Beck Road. Mr. Jerome said the timing of the development, the extension of the utilities are normally development driven and because the property is in between the Greenwood Oaks project and the existing sewer, they have not developed and that is the uncertainty. He said we don’t know when that development will take place and it is not cost-effective for the developer of Greenwood Oaks at this time to extend the sewer the entire length at their cost.

Councilwoman Cassis asked how many lots in these two unfinished subs cannot perk and how many taps do they need. Mr. Jerome indicated they are asking for 60. Councilwoman Cassis asked if we have had any studies or any data provided that they need the 60 taps and Mr. Jerome said no he hasn’t received one nor has he asked for it. He said it was much more economical for them to develop that project with a septic system than it is to go through the financial contributions that they are proposing, so he took them at their word.

Mr. Pat Keast of Seiber Keast, representing the Selective Group, indicated there have been extensive studies done on each of the individual lots attempting to perk them with the Health Department. He said there are two isolated lots within the 60 that looked like they had a marginal, but acceptable perk, and that option was explored to create a community septic for the 60 lots in those areas, but it turned out it was not a large enough area to service that, nor cost effective.

Mr. Keast said one of the items that he might point out was that in addition to the 60 lots needing sewer service, we looked at the Simmons Drain, and we found that there was a section of the Simmons Drain downstream of Novi Road that is between Novi Road and the railroad, and when the Simmons District is ultimately developed, that would be undersized and would not have the capacity to service the existing district and it was not large enough and it was not at that capacity right now. He said but what we saw was an opportunity to do two things which were to alleviate that capacity problem and also create room for our 60 taps. We found we could go so far as to create room for an additional 126 taps with basically the replacement of a 15" line along Ten Mile. He said they saw this as a win-win situation and it would provide taps for the Greenwood Oaks parcel and also alleviate this capacity problem.

Councilwoman Cassis said we do not have the data on those lots that will not perk nor has it been asked for and she would like to see that. She didn’t think it was anywhere near 60 lots and was maybe in the neighborhood of 17-18 lots that might not perk. She also felt they would be incurring quite a cost to undertake this type of approach. She said they have assurance as a Council from the engineering study that there is capacity in the system unless that has been some changes.

Mr. Kriewall indicated that the JCK report really deals with the ultimate capacity of the entire system. He said the problem that Selective is up against in terms of the replacing or paralleling the Ten Mile sewers, is there is just a section of sewer that is not large enough to take the flows from the Greenwood Oaks Subdivision so they are just going to replace a small piece of sewer that is undersized, but the ultimate system does have enough capacity for ultimate development of the community and that is what the report talks about.

Councilwoman Cassis said she believed the sewer plan back in 1993 distinctly showed that it would link up with the Simmons District. She said the only reason she questioned it, is there is the potential for development in this area, and there is a corner at the southwest corner that is 24 acres, that has never been included in a plat for residential zoning, although it is residentially zoned and now we are hearing for the first time we need more taps to service this whole area, and that is of concern.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Watson if they approve this, could we restrict those taps to residential development alone. Mr. Watson felt that they could. He said right now that property is all zoned residential and presumedly it will stay residential so it could be an academic issue. He said should there be a rezoning, you are running a sewer line past the particular parcel.

Mr. Kriewall said it was academic because the vacant piece of property that everyone is concerned about already has sewer capacity under the Simmons Drain and it was designed that way initially when the Simmons Drain was built.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Keast, in the development which Selective controls at this time, Greenwoods Oaks, how many lots are undeveloped, and Mr. Keast said 60 total. She said you are requesting 60 taps for 60 already approved platted lots and Mr. Keast said yes they are approved under Tentative Preliminary Plat. Mayor McLallen said but these taps that Selective is requesting or the rearrangement of this system that you are requesting, is merely to serve the land currently under control of Selective, which is the Greenwood Oaks Tentative Plat, which is 60 single family houses.

Councilman Schmid asked if they were going to tap into Lannys sewer capacity and Mr. Kriewall said they are actually going to tap into Simmons which comes all the way down from the C & O Tracks, and it services Yorkshire, Briarwood, and goes all the way to Ten Mile and Beck Road.

Mr. Kriewall explained there was a small red line that crosses Beck Road just north of Ten Mile Road, and that is already part of the original Simmons Sanitary District plan, so the vacant parcel that was formerly owned by Max Sheldon already has sanitary sewer capacity. He said above that is the future Master Plan for Lannys road service to the Greenwood Oaks area and eventually it will go into Lannys.

Councilman Schmid asked where are they going to tap into the Simmons today. Mr. Keast explained a temporary lift station will be located right at Cider Mill and Beck Road and the tap into the existing sewer would be right at the driveway of the Briarwood Pointe Shopping Center. Mr. Kriewall said you are really going to lift that whole district back into the Simmons Drive temporarily. Mr. Keast further explained 30 of it will go in by gravity and 30 will go through a forced main. Councilman Schmid asked where do they tap into Simmons and Mr. Kriewall said probably right at Ten Mile and Beck.

Mr. Kriewall said someone has to explain exactly what is going to happen with the Lannys sewer and eventually that will get built either by the Bosco property or someone else. Councilman Schmid said how far does Lannys go now and Mr. Kriewall said it only goes down to 11 Mile right now. Councilman Schmid said eventually then that would have served this area if it had been built and Mr. Kriewall said yes.

Mr. Kriewall said when it is built, they will abandon the lift station and Councilman Schmid said they will abandon the 30 taps, and Mr. Keast said yes and give them back to the other district.

Councilman Schmid said they don’t need the 30 if they don’t ever built those houses, and Mr. Kriewall said they need 60 taps altogether as he understood. Councilman Schmid asked what if they don’t use them, and Mr. Kriewall said they are already planned for and they will need all of them. Councilman Schmid said somewhere Simmons has already been absorbed and Mr. Kriewall said it is master planned to take that vacant corner/Sheldon Corner. Councilman Schmid asked about the 30 taps that they are getting. Mr. Kriewall said the building of the larger sewer between Novi Road and the C & O tracks will allow those extra taps to go in without shortchanging anyone else that is planned to go into that district.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kriewall, from his standpoint, does this make sense or should we insist on Lannys sewer to be put in. Mr. Kriewall felt this makes sense because either the Bosco property or the other property to the west of Bosco, will build that sewer and he is going to have to get it down there anyway.

Councilman Schmid asked could we make this a Special Assessment District and build the sewer, and Mr. Kriewall felt it wouldn’t make sense and he would rather the developer just build it themselves and they are proposing to do that and they are going to pay for it in cash and do it. He added that JCK has reviewed it and they do support it.

Mr. Kriewall said JCK was never really happy with the prospect of building sanitary sewer south down Beck Road from 11 Mile south because of the known poor soils in those areas. He said there is peat around the Bosco Pond and Mr. Kapelczak has always advised us that maybe service shouldn’t come from that area and it might come from a point to the west off of that other sewer arm, so there are many options and ways of getting to this particular situation. He felt JCK would prefer that eventual service might come from a point to the west of Beck Road, so they don’t have to construct along this area with all the peat. He asked if that was correct and Mr. Kapelczak said yes.

Mr. Kriewall said this plan really works to support JCK’s position and they really didn’t like that particular extension of the sanitary sewer south down Beck Road from Eleven Mile Road. Councilman Schmid said this would create a pumping station, which they say is going to be temporary and that should be removed somehow, and Mr. Kriewall said yes and they would pay for the installation of it and they would pay for abandonment of it.

Councilman Schmid asked where were they suggesting the sewer to go then if it doesn’t go to Lannys, and Mr. Kriewall pointed out a red line that comes down west of Beck Road, and heads to the south and heads to Wixom Road, and when they develop the Bosco property, they would be required to leave a spur off of that particular line and pick up another line so we can abandon the lift station.

Councilwoman Cassis said we are deviating from the sanitary sewer plan with this request to go into the Lannys Road District and learning that the corner of 24 acres that is left out of residential development at Ten Mile and Beck and is going to be serviced by the Simmons District which was also originally to service Greenwood Oaks. She asked does it necessitate that we have to find another way of getting taps to all of this property to free up taps in the neighborhood of about 126 taps that Mr. Keast has indicated to us. Councilwoman Cassis said she would like the back-up data on how many of the lots will not perk.

Councilwoman Cassis said we need to know this in good conscious before we go ahead because there are ramifications of extending the sewer and adding capacity. She said right now there are some uncertainties. She wondered if this matter should be tabled.

Mayor McLallen said the Council should focus on the request which is by a platted subdivision for transfer of taps for that subdivision and it was 60 taps for 60 lots.

Councilwoman Mutch said if this is transferred, that means there will be 60 lots in a subdivision that is already under development that will now be able to be developed. She asked where they are being transferred from, is it just in general out of the district, or is it for specific lots that now will not be developed or they are serviced some other way.

Mr. Kriewall said you are actually gaining capacity in the Ten Mile Sewer, which allows you to take more than the planned limits of the Simmons Drain into that sewer, so you are not really losing anything and you are gaining capacity in that whole Ten Mile Road sewer all the way from the C & O tracks out to Beck Road. He said you are gaining capacity so you can take the additional 60 lots into that district.

Councilman Mitzel then said his motion was basically as this was finalized, it would still come back to Council and he believed it would be appropriate for the attorney to review Councilwoman Cassis’ inquiry as to whether or not it could be restricted within the Agreement and that could come back concurrently with the finalized

version and with the option to either have it in there or not have it in there, depending upon Mr. Watson’s review. He said Council would still have a chance to see that information and then finalize for approval.

Councilwoman Cassis appreciated Mr. Mitzel supporting the idea of the attorney coming back with that information and it would certainly be something that she would like to see, but she could not in good conscious tonight without that information, see why they are bringing and extending and expanding capacity for two phases of the subdivision and we don’t even know how much they use. She said it is bringing together a larger capacity for the Simmons Sewer District and she has to ask, what are all these additional taps needed for beyond supposedly the 60.

Mayor McLallen said to Mr. Keast there appears to be two different numbers floating around and what is the actual request of taps that Greenwood Oaks is asking for, and Mr. Keast said 60 taps. Councilwoman Cassis said but he indicated he would be oversizing it and would be creating an additional 126 taps, whether or not he uses them and she asked why and for what needs.

Mr. Keast explained when we are there and when we are doing the work to replace the sewer, that alleviates the problem downstream to Novi Road, then when you look at the entire district, you are creating a benefit. He said what we pointed out was not only do we create enough room for the 60 taps, we are doing extra work to create room for 126 more. We looked at the rest of the sewer line all the way out to Beck Road to find the next restriction and the next one was located somewhere around Roma Ridge, but at that point, we couldn’t add any more to the district, so we are just giving you the numbers of what becomes available doing this construction.

Mr. Keast continued we are not asking for those taps, and we are just saying those are a side benefit and the City can use those taps or not use taps at their discretion, but that is not what we are trying to create. He stated we are just trying to create the 60 taps and we think the development is a positive thing for the City but most of all, Selective at their entire expense, is alleviating an existing restriction in the Simmons Sanitary Drain.

Mayor McLallen said at this point Councilwoman Cassis has stated her position and Councilman Mitzel has offered a solution to this and the Administration and staff will answer the questions, and all of this will be brought back if the motion meets approval. Mr. Kriewall indicated they can bring that information back when the final agreements come back.

Nay: Cassis

CM-96-04-147: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To approve Item #1 and #2 on our cover sheet, which is adopting the resolution and also authorizing City Administration to enter into discussions concerning the public water system.

Councilwoman Cassis said she noted in the report from the Department of Public Health that they felt it might be unclear how long this water system is intended to operate, especially in light of the fact that the Moratorium on using Detroit water could be lifted later this year. She said it seems rather strange to go to this kind of an approach when water should be at hand within the near future.

Councilwoman Cassis said also JCK has indicated that they have several concerns with this type of approval with the Vistas and they are enumerated in their memorandum of February 28th to us. She wondered if there could be some comment.

Mayor McLallen said what Councilman Mitzel has proposed is that we adopt the Resolution and also the authorization for further discussion. She said perhaps you would like to add in there that the fruits of this discussion be brought back to Council. She felt the information you are looking for is going to come forward under Step II of Councilman Mitzel’s motion.

Councilwoman Cassis felt it would be more appropriate to have that at hand rather than approving, then waiting for it to come forward, but she understood the intent of the motion.

Councilman Schmid said he assumed that with this agreement once water is available, they will tap into it. Mr. Kapelczak said it was his understanding that they are putting in all the pipes and lanes and they will hook up when the water is available. Councilman Schmid asked if that would be a requirement or not and Mr. Watson said part of the agreement was the City can make it a requirement.

Councilman Schmid said he was familiar with some water systems throughout the City that are privately owned, whereby the water quality may be safe, but it is terrible from a rust and mineral standpoint. He asked if there was any provision that can be put in the agreement that this water has to meet certain standards as far as softness, etc.

Mr. Watson said to the extent that they need additional agreements from us, that can be negotiated and can be made a part of it. Councilman Schmid said that might require putting in a water treatment of some type prior to getting out to the homeowners.

Mayor McLallen said many private residents are getting built on wells and the City requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance is that all infrastructure for future City water supply be in place and when the water supply is available, the wells will be abandoned except for exterior watering purposes and she presumed that same Ordinance covers the Vistas. She understood Council’s concerns and we want to ensure that future water quality is something positive.

Mayor McLallen said from what is presented here, it appears what is being asked of us is a formality to disown any obligation. Councilwoman Cassis said the attorney mentioned that there are going to be issues that will come up as part of the second phase of all of this and she is uncomfortable where they are going with all of this and the issues outstanding that have not been resolved.

Mr. Jerome responded by saying the resolution is a standard resolution for the Springs Apartments along Pontiac Trail, who entered into this resolution which was adopted by City Council. He indicated it was a requirement of the Michigan Department of Public Health before they will issue the permit to install the private well system. He said in his cover action memo, the issues of retirement of the system, how long the private well system would be on line, is one of the things that he is proposing be brought back to Council in the form of a legal agreement between the City and the development.

Mr. Jerome said regarding the issue of water quality, he has some concern because if you require them to put in treatment, then they are getting into a substantial expense and they may want to defray the time that they come back and connect into our system. He said all they are asking for tonight is a standard resolution that would enable them to get a permit to install the well system. The have a permit for test wells and they have approval but to go further, they need a resolution from the City that basically says that the City of Novi has no interest in owning or operating the private system. It is a standard request that has been done for the Senior House on West Road and the Springs Apartments.

Councilman Crawford asked if at some point in time, this system would become a public system and if water were available, would they then abandon the well and the infrastructure would then become the City’s and Mr. Kriewall said yes it would be part of the Detroit system.

Councilman Crawford asked what was in place to ensure that the system meets our standards five years from now. He said what he is getting at, it goes further than just a simple fact that we don’t want to own it at the present time. Mr. Kriewall indicated they would have to install it to our standards and Councilman Crawford asked how would they maintain it and that also goes to what Mr. Jerome just said about the additional expense of some type of a treatment system because he knows the water has a lot of minerals and iron. He felt if it was untreated going through that infrastructure, it would damage it at some point.

Mayor McLallen said those issues are what Part II of this motion includes. She said it includes the information to come back, the ownership, the design and construction standards, those protections that Council is looking for and that is what the motion is doing. She said all of this will come back to this Council before it is functional, before it is even constructed.

Mr. Jerome indicated that Act 399, the State Safe Water Act, requires that the owner of a public water supply system would have to bond, have a financial guarantee for this system, and they would also have to have certified license operators of the system and they are proposing operators who will operate the system and then also the Department of Public Health, who require routine samples and testing of water.

Mr. Jerome said they have two options, and if they develop within the City and they are proposing to connect to City water, they have to design and construct the water mains to City standards and that is what they are proposing to do. They also can run a parallel system if they chose to, and they could use plastic pipe in their private system, and when they want to come to the City and connect to our system, they would have to upgrade it and bring it to City standards at that time, but they are proposing to do it at this time and it was all part of the engineering review process and they have to submit to the City and through the City of Detroit and the State Health Department for construction permits for the water system and that is what they are doing.

Councilman Crawford said one of his concerns is not the construction of it, but he was concerned with the maintenance of it because at some point down the line, it could be in not good repair because of the type of water that is going through the system unless it was treated ahead of time.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Watson if she was correct in her understanding of what was on the table. She said Step One is the adoption of the resolution and that enables them to proceed to Step Two which is the gathering and negotiation of all items listed in Step Two. Mr. Watson said that was correct. She said all of that will come back to this body for further discussion and approval or disapproval and Mr. Watson said correct.

Nay: Cassis

Mayor restated the motion: (Step1) To adopt the attached Resolution and (Step 2) to authorize the City, the engineers and the City Attorney to begin discussions on this water agreement with Hughes and bring it back to Council.

CM-96-04-148: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Warrant 461 as signed.

Councilman Mitzel stated on the original warrant, Item 126 and Item 156 are voided which is a total of $20,830. Mr. Kriewall said they shouldn’t be included then. Councilman Mitzel indicated the new amount would be then $330,857.66.

Mayor McLallen asked the Administration to please notify the department that is preparing the Warrant, that if the original has crossed out items, back-up information should be provided.

CM-96-04-149: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow meeting regarding pending litigation and property acquisition.

Councilman Mitzel said at our Consultant Review Committee Meeting today, Mr. Klaver spoke with him about the meeting and he would not be able to attend because he wouldn’t be back from class until 7:30 which is when our other meeting starts. Mr. Klaver felt he would rather have a full Council and suggested possibly the Monday before our meeting or during the first half hour of our Budget meeting which is Monday at 7:00.

Mayor McLallen said alternatives offered were prior to Monday’s meeting at 6:30 PM or maybe the first half hour of our meeting which would cut into our budget time.

CM-96-04-150: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session at 6:30 PM Monday, April 29, 1996 for Union Negotiations.

Warren Jocz discussed Willowbrook Farms Subdivision. He said several Council members have accurately pointed out that there have been a lot of corrections to this proposal. He said the problem was this is supposed to be the same proposal that both the Planning Commission reviewed and gave negative recommendation and Council reviewed several months ago which came to a 3-3 split. He said several of the key items that were brought forth and the changes to that proposal since the last time it was reviewed by this body were enough to change the opinions of this board.

Mr. Jocz said he thought he understood the process, and when changes are made to a plan, he thought it went back in front of the Planning Commission. He said a lot of work was spent by this group of individuals to work with the developer to getting an acceptable design which puts both the Planning Commission at a disadvantage because they don’t get to review it, as well as the residents who opposed it. He said the residents have only 3 minutes to try to get their opinions across on a major issue like this where the developer has an unlimited time to state their case.

Mr. Jocz would like a clearer understanding of the process and what is allowed to be changed without going back before the Commission. Mr. Jocz said the correction to the Minutes was that it was very specifically pointed out to us that we are in error for saying Willowbrook had been rejected by this Council. It was rejected in August of last year and it was in front of the Council three times last year. He said the first time it came, the meeting was canceled due to an unfortunate incident and then we had a six-member Council and it was a 3-3 tie and then it came back in August and at that time the City Attorney said Council had to make a ruling and it was voted 4-2 to reject the idea, therefore, it went back to the Planning Commission.

Mayor McLallen closed the Audience Participation.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Mitzel indicated the Consultant Review Committee met and a report should be forthcoming soon to Council.

Councilwoman Mutch indicated Ordinance Review Committee met and there was nothing dramatic that happened and was very routine and accomplished a lot.

Mayor McLallen indicated at the Chamber of Commerce Luncheon last week, the Beautification Commission auctioned of fa street sign for the street that is west of this building. The funds were raised for the funding of the Beautification Committee activities, and the sign was purchased by Vic’s Market and Mr. Blair Bowman of the Expo Center, and they each pledged $750 for a total of $1500 and they very generously named the street Wildcat Drive.

Mayor McLallen said the Chamber also donated $100 for trees. She said there is a process for memorial or special occasion trees that can be purchased through the Beautification Commission and that money will be continually used to further that Commission’s needs.

Councilman Crawford indicated Community Club will have their first organizational meeting tomorrow at 7:00 PM.

Mr. Kriewall indicated that he and Mr. Klaver met with two consulting firms last week to investigate the possibility of having someone come forward and augment the Citizen’s Committee in terms of doing some detail analysis of police response times and those kinds of data. Proposals are being put together and we should have a recommendation back to Council at their next regular meeting.

Councilman Mitzel said Item #7 on our Consent Agenda that we approved was to solicit bids for the Bituminous Paving Program. He said East Lake and South Lake safety paths were excluded from that due to some problems with utility poles and locations. He was looking for assurance from the Administration under what time-lines those problems would be resolved and the paths constructed because he believed Council has made many commitments to many residents that those paths would be constructed this calendar year and he would like a report back.

Councilman Crawford commented on the Metro-Cell situation at Novi Road and Ten Mile Road and they have four days to comply with what they stated they would comply with and it essentially looks the same as it has for the past six months, so he assumed the staff would stay on top of it.

Mr. Watson advised that for future road work, we have been acquiring property in the area of 13 Mile and Meadowbrook. One or two meetings ago, Council approved a draft of an agreement with the Sandstone/Vistas people to acquire property that we are attempting to get from them, with an alternative allowing them to construct a certain road. Because of the details of that agreement, including both construction provisions and real estate transaction provisions, there are a lot of details to it that are being reviewed and a new draft of that will be coming back to Council at the next meeting.

Mayor McLallen said she understood he has completed a draft that has been sent to the Homeowners Association regarding the Solicitation Ordinance and they expect that to come through Council in the next few meetings, and Mr. Watson said it would depend upon how soon we get comments back.

Councilman Schmid said he pulled this item as he was curious as to what the intent was. He read the Ordinance and read the memo and he understood that they make claim that wooded materials would do damage to the gas lines. He asked what prompted this.

Mr. Watson explained it was prompted by the fact that they were doing some trimming in an area where there was a main and were told that they couldn’t do that and reported back to the Forester and to his office that it was going to cause him problems with maintaining the mains and because of that, the issue was brought before the Ordinance Review Committee. It has been back and forth between the committee for about a half year going through drafts. He said there were concerns related to lightning strikes and then apparently they inspect these by means of overhead flying and observing changes in vegetation and other methods. He said with the trees, it is difficult in conducting that method of inspection.

Councilman Schmid said he also understood what telephone companies and electrical companies do to trees and so forth. He asked if this was a law and Mr. Watson explained it was a practical method of addressing their concerns.

Councilman Schmid felt they can come in and virtually do whatever they want. He said unless the Ordinance Review Committee can give some insight as to the dire need for this ordinance all of a sudden, there is a tremendous amount of easements that would be greatly scarred by this ordinance.

Mr. Kriewall said it came about because we have a major transmission main that goes north and west, west of West Oaks between the expressway and Twelve Mile, and this main was put in back in the 60's and over time, the vegetation started growing over the top of the swath that was cut for maintenance, and it was junk vegetation, and we started enforcing the ordinance and they went through the roof. He said from a safety perspective, it was demonstrated there was a threat caused by vegetation growing back over these transmission mains.

Mr. Kriewall said it wouldn’t affect residential areas as it was major, major transmission mains. He said we decided in the case of transmission mains, that they ought to be allowed to maintain a clear path over the main. Councilman Schmid felt they can still cut whatever they want to cut within that right-of-way

Councilwoman Mutch said the property owner has 14 days notification from the utility, and what can the property owner do in that 14 days as far as the City goes and is there any review or appeal, and Mr. Watson said no.

Nay: Schmid

Councilman Schmid indicated the matter has been resolved so he would make a motion.

8. APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO THE NINE MILE ROAD SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT M. HARRIS - Pulled by Councilwoman Cassis.

Councilwoman Cassis explained this was an important issue that they wouldn’t want to necessarily pass on without any comment. She said a particular developer by the name of Robert Harris has a request of the City that he is willing to pay to investigate the potential for sanitary sewer west of Beck Road in the area of Nine Mile Road. He is willing to fund the entire project, in fact, the amount that has been tentatively decided upon from preliminary to final design is in the neighborhood of $64,500 so that is quite a study.

Councilwoman Cassis asked where was his property and Mr. Kriewall said it was on the east side of Napier Road just south of Nine Mile Road and is the property that the City of Novi had under option two or three years ago as part of a recreation land purchase. We eventually passed on that particular purchase because we could not get a perk and Mr. Harris acquired the property sometime after that.

Councilman Schmid said if they would recall, it was not perkable because of the use and not that it wouldn’t perk for single family use, but it was not perkable because you were putting in a major facility for sports activity.

Councilwoman Cassis said that is the western section of town and the integrity of the Master Plan in this area is for residential zoning. She said the plan was for west of Beck Road in general, especially going all the way to Napier Road, there would not be extensions of sewer. Moreover what she wanted to question really was the concern she had about whether we have, as a City Council, looked at the potential ramifications before we go ahead with a developer contracting with the City for our engineers to do work, and that in some ways might imply after we are done, a certain City interest if our own engineers design it.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if Administration would like to comment. She said there were issues of extending and should we go forward to consider extending sewer all the way to Napier Road in light of the present Master Plan and the density that was in the Master Plan and also the fact that Mr. Harris has indicated that he wanted specifically asked that we remove a particular part of the agreement, which was the following: "Please remove the last sentence from paragraph five, I understand and am willing to acknowledge that this City is not agreeing to rezone his property simply because sanitary sewer infrastructure may be installed subsequent to the execution of the proposed agreement. If however I seek to have the property rezoned, I believe that the cost of development including the cost of installation of sanitary sewer infrastructure are legitimate factors to be considered in such a determination, and I do not wish to be foreclosed from raising this issue if it should become necessary."

Councilwoman Cassis said Council has not to her acknowledge, discussed a philosophy about the Master Plan and the integrity of the Master Plan and the density of the western portion of the City in light of this type of a request, which does impact it to some unknown degree.

Councilwoman Cassis said the City has been planning all along for a certain density build-out in this area and she felt they need to talk about it.

Councilman Mitzel said he shared many of the concerns that Councilwoman Cassis does and at some point, Council needs to sit down really and study what we want to do with the Sewer Master Plan and where we are going with it..

Councilman Mitzel said he has been able to read through the agreement in more detail since he spoke with Councilwoman Cassis and he sees now that Phase I of this agreement will provide us the information we need for that discussion. He said Phase I says that the preliminary investigation will develop time-lines, and study which lines are suitable for sewer or septic, what kind of septic can be in the area, the cost of septic, the cost of maintenance of pumping stations and sewer, reliabilities of new septic technologies, and reliabilities of pumping stations. It would be a lot of the information we would really need to be able to sit down and make a productive discussion of over the Master Plan.

Councilman Mitzel said then in the agreement, it states that at the end of Phase I, no other work will be conducted unless both Mr. Harris and the City Council agree to go to the next step, which is actually getting into the design. At that point, we will have a chance to get information that will be productive in the discussion and depending upon the outcome of that discussion, we could say no we are not interested in any more design work for sewer up there or yes it makes sense and proceed to Phase II and then at Phase II, there is another safeguard that says before Final Design, both Mr. Harris and the City Council shall agree.

Councilman Mitzel felt given that language of the agreement, he felt it would be prudent for us to proceed and that way we get the report back and actually it may take a whole meeting for us to be able to have a productive conversation on what the data means and what the implications are on our Master Plan for sewer and what we want to do with that. Until we get that, it will be harder to have that productive conversation.

CM-96-05-153: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED: To approve the Nine Mile Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Agreement.

Mr. Kriewall said that is how we got to this point and Council had wanted this information earlier and we referred it to our engineers and they came back and said you are talking about a substantial study that is going to cost $16,000-$18,000. He said Mr. Nowicki brought it back to Council and said, if we are going to do this, at least let us get the developer to pay for it and that is what he is willing to do.

Councilman Schmid said we got to this point because Administration has for some time pushed to examine sewer capcity in the western part of the City. He said history has some advantages and disadvantages, but he has been around long enough and has talked with Mr. Kapelczak numerous times and also Mr. Kriewall, as well as others, that absolutely no sewage is to go west of Beck Road because there were no pumping stations and that is one of the reasons why this land was designated for the density. Also the fact that it is in order that we can maintain that density because we probably can’t have sewer capacity or shouldn’t have it there west of Beck Road and that is why the density is what it is and that is one acre lots with the possibility of septic.

Councilman Schmid noted that Mr. Nowicki has come back and said the developer has indicated that 90-95% of the land doesn’t perk and that is not accurate and you can’t tell me that 90-95% of the land will not perk, especially with the new facilities that they have and the septic systems they have.

Councilman Schmid said he didn’t mind doing the study, but his fear was he could answer every one of those questions today and he could go down and do a Phase I and give you the answers we will get back. He said the motivation of this project is to open it up with sewer and to change the zoning in that area from the density it is today. He would assure the Council that Mr. Harris is not wanting to put in a sewer to put in acre lots and he would guarantee that and he will be back here and the report will show that you can’t possibly put in the sewer with the density you have there now and the cost would be prohibitive.

Councilman Schmid said he had a lot of faith in Mr. Kapelczak but he wanted to be assured that he goes into this study with an open mind and with a determination as to what these questions are.

Councilwoman Cassis felt they would want to know on what hard data are we basing the fact that 90-95% of the property does not perk and if it is for residential property one acre lots, we would want to know that.

Councilwoman Cassis said she understood if they want to go ahead with this as a preliminary first step, but she would remind Council that preliminary first-steps sometimes have a life of their own and they really can result in a long term agenda. She said but Councilman Schmid has made some good points too about density and Mr. Harris has said very clearly that he might not want to limit himself to the Master Plan zoning for this community and the property he now owns.

Councilwoman Cassis said she would like to see the studies behind this and we have recently had a dewatering report that came to the City and that report, plus some of the comments that were raised that evening, indicated that development of any kind certainly does have an impact on ground water and hydrology.

Councilwoman Cassis said the first phase is a little more than $16,000 and she could see if this is a public interest, what are the public interests of pursuing an initial preliminary investigation as Councilman Mitzel has pointed out in order to start a dialogue about questions regarded to density and bringing sewer to the western portion of our City which has not been considered in our sewer service map. If there is a public good here, why not have the City fund it out of the Water and Sewer Fund, which is a very healthy fund. They could then have it at arm’s length from any developer who might have interest,

Councilwoman Cassis would respectfully submit that the City take $16,000 out of its Water and Sewer Fund and do it itself.

Mayor McLallen commented on Councilwoman Cassis’ issue and we need this information and there are so many open questions on the property, and this has nothing to do with Mr. Harris and Councilwoman Cassis’ comments does lead us down a path and as she pointed out we use our water and sewer funds for lots of other issues so she agreed with Councilwoman Cassis and would like that information.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Watson if this was an amendment to the motion, it basically would nullify the agreement and we would proceed with Phase I on our own and Mr. Watson replied that was correct.

Councilwoman Cassis stated she would make it an amendment to the motion.

Councilwoman Cassis also mentioned if a study should come back and start a dialogue to bring sewer out all the way to the west edge of the City of Novi and is going to be very costly, if it is going to be done privately, she would suggest that we have in the past used revenue bonds from the water and sewer department and then w e could hold fast to the zoning that we have in place.

There being no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 AM.

_____________________________ ________________________________

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by Sharon Hendrian & Charlene McLean