Mayor Pro Tem Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M..

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen (Present-arrived at 8:10 P.M.), Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Edward Kriewall, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Director of Public Services Tony Nowicki, Deputy City Clerk Nancy Reutter

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Ed Kriewall would like to add as Item 9, To Schedule a Special Council Meeting for Monday, May 20, 1996. Mayor Pro Tem Crawford advised they can just replace Item 1 with that because Item 1 will be deleted.

PROCLAMATIONS:

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford read the Proclamation on behalf of the Mayor proclaiming May 12 through May 18, 1996 as Preservation Week.

A representative accepted the proclamation on behalf of Preservation Novi and thanked the Council for their recognition of the importance for historic preservation. He further advised Preservation Novi is ready to assist the City in any way it can to help preserve some of the few properties that are left which represent the City’s history. He also encouraged the Council to continue their path to acquire the Fuerst property on the corner of Taft and Ten Mile Roads so that it can be renovated.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

CONSENT AGENDA

Member Cassis asked to remove Item 4 from the Consent Agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approval of Amendatory Agreement No. 1 with Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Inc. For Novi Road Construction Engineering.

2. Adopt Resolutions, Re:

Type of Document Executed by: Compensation

Novi Road Water Main By-Pass-N-5003-01

Temporary Construction Easement Deka Associates $1,130.00

Temporary Construction Easement Michaele Wargo * $ 300.00 Beachwalk Apartments - N-4371

Water Main Easement Lakeview Estates $ 200.00

3. Approval of MDOT contract No. 96-5100 and authorizing Resolution for the Novi Road Improvements Project.

5. Award of 1995-1996 Bituminous Paving Program to the low bidder Waterland Trucking Inc. In the amount of $473,648.09.

CM-96-05-175: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To accept Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 on the Consent Agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING

1996-97 Budget

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford prefaced discussion by stating they removed Item 1 for the adoption of the resolution for the budget, but they will still conduct the Public Hearing. He further stated they will not close it at the end of the Public Hearing, but they will continue it until the next meeting on Monday and they expect to adopt the resolution at that time.

Ed Kriewall said the reason for proposing that the Public Hearing be continued to next Monday night is that at the last budget study meeting held by Council last Thursday, they directed the Administration to reduce the revenue side of the budget by one-quarter mil. Mr. Kriewall said the Administration is currently in the process of revising the budget downward to reflect a reduction in the revenue by one-quarter mil and the budget alternation has caused them to ask that the Public Hearing be continued until next Monday.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford closed the Public Hearing and will accept a motion to continue it until the meeting scheduled for Monday, May 20, 1996.

CM-96-05-176: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To continue the Public Hearing on the 1996-97 Budget until the Monday, May 20, 1996 meeting.

Nay: None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I

1. Scheduling of a meeting for May 20, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. for the continuation of the Public Hearing and Budget Resolution.

Mr. Dale Mantay advised he has submitted plans to construct an in ground swimming pool ten feet from his house. In order to do this, Mr. Mantay advised he must encroach three to five feet on an easement that belongs to AT&T and Detroit Edison. Mr. Mantay noted he has received letters of approval from both utilities.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Kapelczak of JCK & Associates if he is familiar with the request? Mr. Kapelczak replied he is not and he does not see a review from JCK in the packet. Mr. Kapelczak believes it is strictly an Edison easement, although the Building Department may have reviewed it.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Morrone if he thinks there is any potential for concern about altering the drainage pattern? Mr. Terry Morrone, Building Department replied although the pool is not sitting in a drainage easement, the applicant would need a Minor Land Improvement Permit to secure that the drainage is going to function in the way it is originally designed. Mr. Morrone added the spoils of the excavation will add to the area around the pool and it would have to be regulated.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if he felt it could be accomplished with a plan that the applicant could submit? Mr. Morrone replied a plan could be submitted and reviewed by the consulting engineers. Mr. Morrone added another option would be to remove the fills or the spoil from the lot. Councilwoman Cassis asked if that would be submitted to the Building Department and then reviewed by the engineers? Mr. Morrone replied that was correct and if a variance is granted, it would come back to the Building Department for a Minor Land Improvement Permit and a review by the consulting engineers.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Mantay if he is comfortable with that arrangement? Mr. Mantay replied this is the first he has heard of it and he has some questions. He advised he has already submitted his plans and he thought something like this would have been brought to his attention before he came before Council so he could have already addressed it. Councilwoman Cassis said this is something she found missing in the submission and asked the applicant if he would like more time to resubmit his application? The applicant replied he would, but reminded the Council he is encroaching only on the first three feet of the first utility easements.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford cut off the discussion and asked that they finish with Council discussion.

Councilman Clark assumed the proposed pool has not been before the ZBA. Mr. Morrone replied there is no need for it to go before the ZBA because it only encroaches the utility easement and not on the required side or rear yard.

Councilman Schmid thinks what they are saying is that there will be a lot of excess dirt as a result of constructing the pool and if it remains on the property, it may alter the drainage of the entire area. Councilman Schmid thinks the question is that the applicant will have to come before the Building Department about whether he will haul the dirt away or keep it there. He further stated if the applicant chooses to keep it there, he must show that it will not disrupt the drainage on either side or in back. Councilman Schmid agrees the applicant should have been advised before, but suggested this was just a miscommunication. Mr. Morrone advised he spoke with Mrs. Mantay at length about the drainage.

If Council desires to approve this item, Mr. Kriewall recommends a motion approving the variance contingent upon a demonstration of adequate drainage across the rear of the property.

Mr. Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney explained after last week’s meeting he got a copy of the minutes excerpt of the discussion about this matter. To Mr. Watson, the most difficult issue was the question as to whether this was going to impact groups like the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or school band activities. Mr. Watson explained the current ordinance contains a specific exception for all civic, charitable, philanthropic, religious, educational, or athletic type groups.

Mr. Watson advised he added two drafts to the Council packet stating that one would retain the exception and the other would remove it. Mr. Watson explained the reason it was removed from the initial draft was because it was a question of whether the new requirement for a minor group use permit was going to be comprehensive or not.

Mr. Watson said what this boils down to is a judgement by Council as to whether that requirement is a hardship for those types of charitable groups. If Council does not think it is a hardship, then it would make sense to just require that across the board. If Council has a concern about that for local groups, then the other draft which retains the charitable exception would allow them to test the minor group permit provision for a period of time.

Mr. Watson advised the whole reason the minor group permit was included was out of concern about people dropping children off and leaving them unattended which could put the children in danger. Mr. Watson advised the Police Department had information and excerpts from calls they had received indicating it is a real concern. However, the records do not include how many of the incidents pertain to charitable groups versus noncharitable groups. It may be the bulk is noncharitable and if Council retains the exception that will take care of the majority of the problem. However, Mr. Watson added they do not know that for sure based upon the information they have. In short, Mr. Watson thinks if Council has a concern about it being a hardship for charitable type groups, then there is another draft which retains the exception and would allow them to move forward on that basis.

Councilwoman Mutch added Mr. Watson faxed the same draft information to the Novi School Superintendent’s office and asked if they thought any of the school groups would have any problems with this? As Councilwoman Mutch understands it, there has been no input and assumes there will be no objections.

CM-96-05-179: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To adopt the May 13, 1996 version of the proposed amendment to Sections 26-2, 26-3, and 26-9 of the Novi Code of Ordinances revising regulation of solicitation and peddling within the City - I & II Reading.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Cassis asked if the May 13, 1996 draft requires fingerprinting or photographing of the person who is applying for the permit. Mr. Watson replied it does require fingerprints and a photograph of the applicant and it is located in the current ordinance. Mr. Watson further advised the May 13, 1996 draft includes the exception for charitable, civic, philanthropic, and educational groups. Mr. Watson said this would include the Girl Scouts, bands, athletic clubs, and minors in those types of activities will be exempt from the permit requirement.

Councilwoman Cassis said she does not find any reference to photographing or fingerprinting of the individual requesting the application in the May 13, 1996 draft. Mr. Watson referred to the bottom of Page 3, Part 4 of the draft which states, "the City Clerk will direct the applicant to the Novi Police Department for the taking of a photograph of the applicant and for the taking of the applicant’s fingerprints." On this basis, Councilwoman Cassis feels that it is enough for the applicant to provide their name and address. Councilwoman Cassis said it is not appropriate to fingerprint people who come into the City just for purposes of conducting some solicitation. Therefore, she is not comfortable with that particular part of the ordinance and will not support the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the purpose would be served by just requiring an applicant to provide a drivers license with a photograph and legal address? Mr. Watson thinks the purpose has always been to make sure they have a good identification of the applicant. Mr. Watson said providing a drivers license is not as intrusive or as complete a method of doing that. On the other hand, Mr. Watson stated drivers licenses are used to identify people for a lot of purposes, including check cashing, using a credit card, or many other purposes.

Councilwoman Mutch advised a drivers license must be shown to rent a room in the Civic Center, but it does not address a situation where there are children who have been dropped off and someone wants to take those children into their custody. If someone has been dropped off and picked up by the Police Department because they have been left too long, someone has to claim that child. Councilwoman Mutch said a fingerprint identification is an added measure of security in that situation. Mr. Watson said in that situation, the person picking up the child may or may not be the applicant. Mr. Watson said they have made a provision for minors asking for the numbers of the parents and guardians for Minor Group Permits and he is sure the police have methods for identifying people.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if a drivers license, as part of the application, would be sufficient? Mr. Watson replied it would. Councilwoman Mutch suggested that they consider that particular change.

Councilman Schmid had some reservations about fingerprinting and photographing, but after thinking about it, he doesn’t see anything wrong with it. Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Watson if he knows who the American Futuring Company is? Mr. Watson replied he does not.

An unidentified speaker advised America’s Future is an organization which sponsors young children going door to door to sell candy. Councilman Schmid asked who gets the benefit? The speaker replied it is a split between the company and the child. Councilman Schmid said it would be a good idea to fingerprint and photograph in these instances so the City can identify who is behind the fundraising.

Councilman Clark does not have any problem with this, especially when it protects the children.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the current language in Section 26.2b ends after the statement of athletic purpose? Councilman Mitzel further asked if the May 6, 1996 version would require a permit except when the minor is either with an adult or as part of a minor group permit? Mr. Watson replied he was correct. Councilman Mitzel said the May 13, 1996 version indicates the permit will require the group to be a civic, charitable, etc. group when the minor is accompanied either by an adult or under the group permit. Mr. Watson said it should be "or" when a minor is accompanied by an adult. Councilman Mitzel said his version says "when." Mr. Watson said it is a typographical error, but the ordinance itself includes it.

Councilman Mitzel asked if Part 4 is the current section of the ordinance that refers to fingerprinting and photographing? Mr. Watson replied it is. Councilman Mitzel asked if the current section applies only to adult groups and now they are revising it to also apply to minor group permits for the adult applying for that permit? Mr. Watson replied he is correct. Councilman Mitzel agrees with Councilwoman Mutch about using driver licenses because it would provide a photo identification and added it doesn’t necessarily have to be a drivers license. Mr. Watson agreed that it could be a drivers license or some other photographic identification. Councilman Mitzel asked if the language is appropriate and would the police have enough ability to enforce that ordinance? Mr. Watson would word it to read that a drivers license, a state identification card, or other satisfactory photographic identification would be acceptable.

Councilman Mitzel moved to amend Part 4, Number 3 and strike the current language proposed and replace it with, "the applicant shall provide to the Novi Police Department photographic identification or language that the City Attorney would find appropriate for that."

CM-96-05-180: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Cassis, MOTION CARRIED: To amend Part 4, Number 3 and strike the current language proposed and replace it with, "the applicant shall provide to the Novi Police Department photographic identification or language that the City Attorney would find appropriate for that."

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford asked if that would be in lieu of a photograph and fingerprinting? He further asked if they did not have either one of those, could the applicant then be photographed and fingerprinted? Mr. Watson replied it could be an option for the applicant.

Councilwoman Cassis advised she would then remove her second to the motion because she is uncomfortable with any photographing or fingerprinting. Councilman Mitzel replied it would be the applicant’s choice if they opted not to provide the other identification. Councilwoman Cassis said they could choose it, although if they didn’t comply with that section of the ordinance, they would not get the permit. Councilwoman Cassis questions why this kind of ordinance is needed. She assumes part of it is to be able to provide some responsibility in leaving children behind so that some responsible adult could be contacted. Councilwoman Cassis added if they do not comply with some kind of photo identification or license, perhaps they should not get the permit.

Councilman Clark stated because the address on a drivers license is not always accurate, it will not guarantee what the Council is trying to accomplish.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford advised the Council has an amendment with support and if it is changed, there is no support and asked where they stand? Mayor Pro Tem Crawford further advised the supported amendment is as it is originally stated which was to provide either a Michigan drivers license or another acceptable form of photo identification that does not include the option of being fingerprinted and photographed.

Nay: Clark, Schmid

Nay: Schmid

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford informed the Mayor that the Council has just concluded Item 3, under MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I

4. Acceptance of Wetland Easement Grant and Agreement - Novi Place

Mayor McLallen advised this is an OS-1 development located at the corner of Eight Mile and Haggerty Roads that is now before the Council for mitigation. Mayor McLallen added the mitigation is to be performed within six months and has been presented by the City Attorney.

Mr. Watson advised the purpose is to provide an easement so the City will have a right to go onto the property if they need to perform the wetland work with the posted money. Mr. Watson advised this request is different in that the applicant requested a possibility of using another site for the wetland’s mitigation and this allows them to do that assuming they can get such a site approved by the people who approved the wetlands permit. In any event, Mr. Watson said it has to take place within six months. Mr. Watson explained the wetland either has to be created on the current site or has to be created on some alternative property that has been approved.

CM-96-05-181: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To accept Wetland Easement Grant and Agreement - Novi Place.

Nay: None

5. Approval of Revised Preliminary Site Plan and Revised Phasing Plan Approval - Vic’s Quality Fruit Market & Sports Tavern, SP 94-02N.

Mayor McLallen advised Vic’s is located in the Main Street, TC-1 zoning area and it includes a 45,000 square foot, two-story tavern retail building on three of the eleven acres within the site. Mayor McLallen said this request has been approved by all consultants and the Fire Department, subject to the conditions of their respective letters. In addition, Mayor McLallen advised the Town Center Steering Committee has also reviewed this, the Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council with a 9-0 vote, and the Community Development Department also recommends approval.

Bob Schron, engineer for James Chen explained Mr. Chen was supposed to attend tonight’s meeting and he can only assume that he had a personal emergency. Mr. Schron said he will be available for any questions tonight.

CM-96-05-182: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: For the approval of the revised preliminary site plan and revised phasing plan approval for Vic’s Quality Fruit Market & Sports Tavern, SP 94-02N.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked if the change in the packet is a result of some recent amendments made to the Town Center Ordinance? Councilman Mitzel recalled the ordinance was recently amended so both floors can have retail. Mr. Watson said Councilman Mitzel is correct about the amendment, but he does not know if he is correct about what this plan does. Councilman Mitzel said it also looks like the use would be the micro brewery, which was also another recent amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Watson does not know when the micro brewery amendment was adopted. Councilman Mitzel said he believes they are from the minutes at the end of February, but he thinks they did a first and second reading. Councilman Mitzel said some of the memos from the Planning Department seemed to indicate that it was only a first reading. Mr. Watson replied he wasn’t at that meeting so he isn’t sure. Councilman Mitzel asked if that use would be subject to whether that amendment was adopted. Mr. Watson replied he was correct.

Nay: None

6. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.548 - from TC, B-3, I-1 and I-2 to TC-1 SE & SW corners Grand River Avenue and Novi Road

Mayor McLallen advised this is a City initiated rezoning of properties in the SE and SW corners of Novi Road and Grand River Avenue from Town Center District (TC), General Business (B-3), Light Industrial (I-1) and General Industrial (I-2) to be changed to Town Center - 1 (TC-1) or any other appropriate district.

Councilwoman Cassis respectfully requests to abstain from discussing and voting on this matter because she and her husband own certain properties which are located within this request for rezoning.

CM-96-05-183: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To permit Councilwoman Cassis to abstain because of interest in this area.

Abstained: Cassis

Councilman Mitzel asked if the protest letters represent enough of the property to require five votes? Mr. Watson explained it boils down to whether it is 20% of the area or not and he needs a sidwell map to make that computation.

Mayor McLallen asked if Council would like to continue this item after Mr. Watson has made the appropriate computations?

CM-96-05-184: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To continue this matter until a map can be given to the attorney and he can compute the correct acreage.

Abstained: Cassis

Mayor McLallen advised the members of the audience that Council has received a letter which indicates a number of landowners in the area are opposed to this rezoning. Mayor McLallen explained if a certain percentage are opposed, then the rezoning cannot go forward without five votes as opposed to four. Mayor McLallen advised they will move Item 6 to the end of the agenda.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Rose Button - 43089 Grand River Avenue, Novi Gardens, Lots 1 & 2, advised she did not have time to send a protest letter and would like to add a no vote for her two sidwell numbers.

An unidentified speaker advised he has a zoning map and he believes the protest exceeds 20%.

Steve Stone - 25806 Novi Road, advised he owns the Aladdin Building and feels the

zoning boards actions were devious to include the cemetery with the other areas so that a larger group of protesters is needed to meet the 20% requirement. Mr. Stone would like to keep his current zoning and he feels if he is forced to change to TC-1, it will limit and restrict his abilities for the future. Mr. Stone feels Americans should have unbounded opportunities and a TC-1 designation for his property limits that. Since Mr. Stone’s access is on Novi Road, he asked why should he have to comply and limit his future possibilities? Mr. Stone purchased his property with the intention of having free use under the current zoning ordinances. He is also concerned about how it will affect his taxes.

Mr. Stone would also like to comment on the photo identification and fingerprinting issue. He stated if the Council’s purpose is to protect the children, he would think they would do everything they could to accomplish that. Mr. Stone said the more information they have on someone, the more Council can protect and serve those that have elected them.

Mr. Sam Poota - 43025 Grand River Avenue advised he would like the zoning to remain as it is for the three lots he has owned in Novi Gardens since 1977.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Poota if his name and properties are included on the letter? Mr. Poota replied they were.

Michael J. Teno - owner of Aladdin Aluminum, asked what is going to happen to his business after he has been there 19½ years as a business operator if this property is rezoned? The reason Mr. Teno went into a partnership was because of the current zoning.

Mayor McLallen advised Mr. Teno he is included in the grandfather clause and he may continue his business as long as he pleases. Mr. Teno replied that is all he needed to know.

Mayor McLallen closed the Audience Participation and advised Council will take a ten minute break.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that Member Cassis has been abstained from this discussion and from voting on this matter because of her personal interest in the area. Mayor McLallen asked if there is any further discussion or comment on the proposed rezoning?

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said the difference between this rezoning and the last time it was presented is that it seems like they’re recommending a grandfathering clause for those sites which have received preliminary site plan approval. Councilman Mitzel asked if this is something Council can do? Councilman Mitzel added he also saw notes which required the site to have already broken ground as opposed to just having site plan approval.

Mr. Watson replied normally there is a vested interest when ground is broken under a valid permit and the suggestion was made to modify that. In addition, Mr. Watson stated there is another difference because there was a portion of property which was added from the last time it came before Council.

Mr. Rogers advised the KMH property was added which is just south of Main Street and is coterminous with the Main Street boundary. Mr. Rogers stated it travels to Novi Road, down to Trans-X, then it stair fashions around back to Main Street which includes a small piece of I-1 property and the rest is zoned I-2. Mr. Rogers said the other properties that would be proposed for rezoning to TC-1 starting at the southwest quadrant would be the entire area on the west side of Novi Road, down to the railroad, back up to the depot site at the corner of Grand River Avenue and then back down Grand River Avenue. Mr. Rogers reported there has been and there continues to be a recommendation for light industrial. Mr. Rogers advised the third group of properties, which is everything up to the Kinko building, is presently zoned TC. The other group would be properties along the south side of Grand River and wrapping around, traveling southerly on the east side of Grand River down to the KMH property. Mr. Rogers said this includes the Aladdin property and another industrial property that is presently zoned B-3. Mr. Rogers advised this has been before Council earlier without the KMH property and he thinks the purpose of including KMH is to provide for expansion for parking, pursuant to the ordinance for the Main Street development.

Mr. Rogers thinks the gerrymandered boundaries in the southeast quadrant can be remedied by a uniform zoning policy. One reason some of the smaller property owners are concerned about the rezoning is because being a small store on a small site, they may not be able to go to two stories. Mr. Rogers added if they stay at one story under TC-1, the maximum footprint for given retail building use is 7,500 square feet. Mr. Rogers explained the only way two people can combine their properties and build a 10,000 square foot retail store would be to have a second floor of retail per the new amended ordinance for office or multiple family apartments.

Mr. Rogers said if Council does not act on this issue tonight, the resident’s concerns could be addressed and brought back at a later date.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the area that was approved as a preliminary site plan is included within the protest area? Mayor McLallen asked if he was referring to Mr. Keros’ property?

Mr. Rogers replied it would be Mr. Keros’ Novi Grand project and it takes up approximately 40% of the southwest quadrant. Mr. Rogers advised the project has received preliminary site plan approval and is currently in for final site plan approval. Mr. Rogers said if the rezoning moves forward on TC-1, any project that has received preliminary site plan approval would be grandfathered in.

Councilman Mitzel said apparently that must not have been sufficient because there are still protest letters for that project. In fact, it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Rogers for a brief explanation as to the purpose of the zoning and indicate what was added to this zoning that was not on the previous zoning before this Council? Mr. Rogers replied the only thing that was added was the KMH property south of Main Street. Mr. Rogers advised this property is presently zoned I-2 on Trans-X and Novi Road, with a small portion of I-1.

Councilman Schmid reported the rest of it was previously before Council and did not pass at that time. Although Councilman Schmid has read the lengthy Planning Commission minutes about this matter, he asked Mr. Rogers to give his reasoning for recommending this City initiated rezoning.

Mr. Rogers replied the planning concept has been that south of Grand River there would be a Main Street environment. This concept would not just be located in the southeast quadrant, but Main Street would extend up Grand River also in the southwest quadrant. Mr. Rogers added there may also be an opportunity to construct a river walk in the southwest quadrant, which is being considered in the Novi Grand project. In Mr. Rogers’ opinion, the TC-1 is superior in this area to the TC District because he believes it gives more flexibility and development opportunity for a property owner. Mr. Rogers further stated it permits on street parking to be counted toward parking requirement and it also permits shared parking analysis just like the Sports Tavern and micro brewery case.

Mr. Rogers stated it also has the same height limitations and the same permitted uses as TC, but there are two things it allows that TC does not. Mr. Rogers said they had talked about the intimacy of a small shop environment which was desired along Main Street by limiting first floor retail to 7,500 square feet and there is no such cap in the TC District. Secondly, to avoid having large areas of off street parking in front of the retail stores, the maximum depth for parking is 137 feet, which allows with the green belt buffer, the right of way set off a single aisle for two rows of parking. Mr. Rogers said the intent was to put the parking in the back and not have large parking lots in front. Mr. Rogers advised Vic’s Market does have a large parking lot in front and had to go through the waiver process, but the Sports Tavern does not have that problem. Mr. Rogers said the districts have the same kind of uses, but they have a size limitation so they don’t get a "big box" in the southeast or southwest quadrants. Mr. Rogers said there are also certain required amenities along Main Street and a developer in a TC-1 District has to meet all the amenity packages, the set backs, and the extra landscaping requirements that are not as specific in the TC District.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Rogers is talking about TC and TC-1, but he is talking about B-3. Councilman Schmid said there are some parcels zoned B-3 which are not zoned TC or TC-1. Mr. Rogers replied he was correct and those parcels are located on Novi Road just north of the KMH property. Mr. Rogers said those properties could be used for a car wash, a gas station, open air sales, or things that would be inimicable to the pedestrian, downtown feeling of Main Street. Mr. Rogers said because the cemetery is historic it can be zoned anything. The reason it was included in the rezoning was to get a uniform boundary and because there was no apparent reason for keeping it as B-3.

Councilman Schmid asked if the cemetery could be zoned as something else? Mr. Rogers said there is not a separate classification in this ordinance, although he has written a cemetery ordinance. Mr. Rogers advised Oakland Hills is zoned R-4 and this cemetery could be zoned residential if they want to put a cap on it. Councilman Schmid said he is trying to clarify that the cemetery was not put there for the purpose of trying to increase the 20% protest requirements.

Mr. Watson advised under the statute, city owned property is not considered for that calculation.

Councilman Clark stated as he understood Mr. Rogers’ comments there was some concern that the smaller parcels would be limited to 7,500 square feet. Councilman Clark asked if two parcels were combined, what could they conceivably be talking about in terms of square footage? Mr. Rogers replied he is not sure what the boundaries are, but the two uses could be combined into a single building providing any single use doesn’t exceed 7,500 square feet. Mr. Rogers does not interpret the TC ordinance to allow a single 15,000 square foot tenant, unless it was a text amendment.

Councilman Mitzel said he will make the motion because at the September meeting Council decided for those areas that were under protest that there would not be a rezoning. Apparently, there is some interest in some of these areas to be rezoned to TC-1, especially some of the City owned property which has been incorporated into the Main Street project.

Mayor McLallen stated Councilman Mitzel has moved to support the zoning for those parcels that were not involved in tonight’s protest and his recommendation is not to suggest a rezoning.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Watson could identify those that were not protesting because one person already stated they had not submitted a letter and they were protesting the rezoning. Mr. Watson replied he does not have a listing by parcel identification numbers or by owner. Councilwoman Mutch stated she just wants to be certain those individuals are included.

Councilman Schmid said he will not support the motion because he believes it is imperative that the City proceeds with its plan to develop the Town Center Main Street type concept and this rezoning is important for that. He then asked Councilman Mitzel to clarify his reason for making the motion.

Councilman Mitzel said he supported the original rezoning in September, but he believes once it has been decided and especially for the people that protest it, it is only fair to stop trying to continually initiate another rezoning. He added that he was surprised to see another City initiated rezoning after a decision on the rezoning had been made previously. Councilman Mitzel said it seems as though there are some areas that are willing and want to be a part of the TC-1, but get lumped in with the areas that don’t want to.

Councilman Schmid asked Councilman Mitzel if he understood that all the other properties are grandfathered in? Councilman Mitzel replied that he understands that.

Councilman Clark does not support this motion, although he appreciates the concern that some of the property owners have. Councilman Clark said if they would look at the overall plan, where the concept originated, and where the entire area was ten or twelve years ago, he thinks the City has made amazing progress. In addition, some of the effects of that progress is that it has enhanced and increased the values of the properties in that area which he assumes will continue. Again, Councilman Clark appreciates the concern, but if it is going to work, they have to follow through on the whole thing or it will not achieve what they want it to achieve, which is to enhance the entire area.

Councilwoman Mutch said if Councilman Mitzel’s illustrations of the affected areas are accurate, the property owners who were not protesting owned the small lots on Novi Road (Lots 38, 39 40, 41, 42) and around the corner. Councilwoman Mutch said this rezoning would bring the TC zoning out to Novi Road and would help clean up the zoning. Councilwoman Mutch suggested that the Council begins with this rezoning so they can move in the direction they want to go. Then if there is further support, they can add to it, rather than throw out the entire motion.

Councilman Schmid said Councilman Mitzel’s motion would eliminate the land to the west of Novi Road and south of Grand River and this is an extremely important part of this rezoning if they are to continue with the ring road concept and the downtown Main Street project. Councilman Schmid reminded Council that every rezoning that has come before them have had protests and he believes every one of those people who owned property benefited from rezoning. Councilman Schmid is confident these property owners will also be better off with this zoning than with the current zoning. Councilman Schmid believes this is an opportunity to put some of the properties together and proceed with the development of the area. Councilman Schmid asked Council to reconsider or defeat this motion.

Mayor McLallen stated she is not in favor of the motion because she believes while it is difficult and takes a vision, the City will never accomplish the vision if they don’t believe in it. Mayor McLallen believes their vision for downtown is on the brink of actually becoming a reality. Mayor McLallen added those businesses that are actually functioning in that area can continue to function as they are and as the rest of Main Street is developed, they have a choice to stay or to develop their property in a manner harmonious with Main Street. In a sense, that puts these property owners in a positive position.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion is to adopt Zoning Map Amendment 18.548 only for those properties that do not protest the rezoning.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if this vote requires a four-member majority? Mayor McLallen replied it requires five. Councilwoman Mutch asked even if they are only rezoning those that are not protesting? Mayor McLallen advised there is a protest on the table. Mr. Watson added there is another requirement in the statute that deals with properties bordering being rezoned and it appears that requirement is met as well.

Abstained: Cassis

CM-96-05-186: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION FAILED: To adopt Zoning Map Amendment 18.548 as presented.

Mr. Watson asked if the motion includes the provision recommended by the Planning Commission to grandfather those properties that have received preliminary site plan approval. Mr. Schmid replied it does.

Abstained: Cassis

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART II

7. Claims and Accounts - Warrant Number 463

CM-96-05-187: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Warrant Number 463.

8. Approval of Excess Main Street Property Proposed Conveyance to Evergreen III

Mayor McLallen reported this item is being brought back with the attorney’s and the City assessor’s comments. Mayor McLallen stated this is to approve the conveyance of a ten foot wide piece of property, less than 2,000 square feet on the south side of Main Street and east of Novi Road to Evergreen III. In addition, there is a letter of recommendation from the City Attorney, a letter from Mr. Arroyo, and a letter from the City’s Finance Director saying there is no advantage to the City in possibly selling this small configuration to the public. Mayor McLallen further advised the Community Development Department also recommends approval in order to achieve better coordination of traffic provisions and private development projects along Main Street.

CM-96-05-188: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To approve proposed conveyance to Evergreen III as presented.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel is not going to support this motion for the reasons he stated last week. He believes it is in the best interest of the City to maintain this property until such time that it can be incorporated with the property immediately to its south so the City can then help that property be integrated into the Main Street development. Councilman Mitzel said with the City putting in a privately owned ten foot strip between another property and a city/public right of way, it basically blocks access to the public road by this other property. Councilman Mitzel thinks in the long run, the City would benefit more by having this integrated in with the development as opposed to it being excluded by a privately owned ten foot strip.

Nay: Mitzel

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

COMMITTEE REPORTS - None

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES - None

CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS

Ed Kriewall gave an update on the acquisition of the Levy property which is a joint purchase by the Novi School District and the City of Novi. Mr. Kriewall advised he discussed this matter today with Jim Koster, Assistant Superintendent who hoped to resolve any outstanding environmental issues on the site some time this week.

Mayor McLallen asked if the City can expect a deed in June? Mr. Kriewall replied he hoped so.

Councilman Schmid asked if there is a plan to landscape the northeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Novi Road because it looks terrible? Mr. Kriewall believes it just received final site plan approval and asked Mr. Rogers to comment.

Mr. Rogers reported there is an approved site plan and landscape plan which accommodates some of the existing plant materials and offers a brick gabled roof shelter building with a paved driveway from Novi Road. Mr. Rogers is not certain as to why they have not proceeded because they received their approval approximately five months ago.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Kriewall to contact the landowner for a construction schedule.

ATTORNEYS’ REPORTS - None

CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor McLallen stated Councilwoman Cassis pulled Item 4 from the Consent Agenda.

4. Award of 1995-1995 Concrete Paving Program to the low bidder, Six-S, Inc. In the amount of $423,244.50.

Councilwoman Cassis stated she pulled this item because it is heartening to find a contract that comes in at a very good rate. In this situation, Councilwoman Cassis reported there is a differential between the first and the second bidder of more than $100,000. Councilwoman Cassis asked if the DPW Director feels confident that this could be constructed as the price tag indicates so that she could move for acceptance?

Tony Nowicki replied the firm Six-S, Inc. is the low bidder and they have worked in the community before. Mr. Nowicki added the engineers have reviewed their qualifications, as well as their past performances, and found no reason why they shouldn’t be awarded this project.

CM-96-05-189: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To award the 1995-1995 Concrete Paving Program to Six-S, Inc. In the amount of $423, 244.50.

For the benefit of the viewing audience, Mayor McLallen advised included in this award is the improvement of the deteriorated pavement in Meadowbrook Glens, spot repairs along Cranbrook Drive and Chase Farms, concrete repair at Fire Stations 1 and 3, construction of a concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile from Jamestown Green westerly to the Civic Center traffic signal, and as an alternative, Meadowbrook Glens sidewalk repairs and the construction of a sidewalk along Haggerty Road to the Amoco Station.

Nay: None

COMMUNICATIONS

1. Letter from Fried, Watson & Bugbee to Steve Cohen, Re: Telecommunication Antennas

Councilwoman Cassis advised she would like to comment about the communication from the City Attorney to Steve Cohen in the Planning Department regarding telecommunication antennas. Councilwoman Cassis asked if Council could have more information surrounding this matter because they sent it back to Planning suggesting that Council was not in favor of a proliferation of towers. Councilwoman Cassis is concerned because she now sees the ordinance coming back that goes beyond I-1 and I-2 into OS-1, OS-2, OSC, B-3, RC, and TC Districts.

In addition, Councilwoman Cassis advised there is some language that indicates in I-1 and I-2 Districts there are other uses like outdoor theaters, putting courses, water recreation, amusement rides and she does not know how consistent this is. Councilwoman Cassis further advised she will provide an article from the Detroit News which indicates that I-1 and I-2 in metro Detroit is getting scarce.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a consensus from Council to support Councilwoman Cassis’ position that they request further information on the apparent conflicting progress of either the proliferation or the non-proliferation of communication antennas?

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford reminded Council that it is not just Councilwoman Cassis’ request, it was a request of Council on more than one occasion to get feedback from the rest of the administration about the potential for more towers and how the City might utilize the current towers.

Councilman Mitzel said "Telecommunication Antenna" is going to be pulled out of "Other Uses Permitted" and have their own section which would leave the "Recreational Uses" in that section so that is why it is all a part of that amendment. Councilman Mitzel advised it already in the current ordinance and he would advocate that it shouldn’t just be temporary uses because the City has to provide some place in the community for those type of uses also. In addition, he thinks Council needs the information that they requested.

Because Councilwoman Mutch has seen this before with Planning Commission information, she thinks this matter is going from the Implementation Committee to the Planning Commission at their next meeting.

Mr. Watson advised the Implementation Committee had finished its recommendations at the Planning Commission’s last meeting and the they directed the staff to set it for Public Hearing at the next available date. Mr. Watson said it would not be the next meeting, but it would be at future meeting.

Councilwoman Cassis reiterated her hope for the Planning Commission and the Council to sit down for some productive dialogue soon so they are both moving in similar directions. In addition, she stated Member Crawford was correct in that this is a Council concern and she just brought it forward.

Mayor McLallen asked members of staff and administration to forward those concerns on tower proliferation because it is becoming a very sensitive issue.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M..

Mayor Deputy City Clerk