CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members

Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Edward Kriewall, City Attorney David Fried,

Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Deputy City Clerk

Nancy Reutter

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor McLallen stated a note was received from the City Attorney and the Planning Department that Item I Under Matters for Council Action Part I for Greenwood Oaks Subdivision was pulled from this agenda. The Attorney had ruled they could not split phase the project on a preliminary plat. The applicant must resubmit for a revised tentative Preliminary Plan.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Greetings from Senator Bullard - Senator Bullard was not present.

2. Michigan 50's Festival Board Presentations

Bob McCann advised the Council on the Michigan 50's Festival activities and invited Council and residents to attend. Mr. McCann said the Festival Committee hoped to build a Band Shell on Main Street with Festival proceeds.

PROCLAMATIONS

Mayor McLallen proclaimed the week of July 22nd as Michigan 50's Festival week in the City of Novi.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. and Mrs. Crawford of Twelve Mile Road, were present to urge Council to reevaluate their

vote on the Taft Road Project and felt it was not the appropriate place to put it. Mrs. Crawford said she was not notified about this project. She asked Council to work on an Ordinance that would protect the residents and would state that a person in Novi who was to have a major highway built through their property or adjacent property must be notified.

Debbie Bundoff, Novi/Twelve Mile Road area, said it was a shame the way the citizens of Novi were treated when something was happening around their property. She felt that the City owed its residents the courtesy of a phone call or letter. She thought it was great, however, that after six years of complaining her water was flowing.

Ms. Bundoff was also concerned about Item #2, Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.542/

Society Hill Apartments SP 95-44D. According to her calculations this is a low density and she felt it should be approved.

Debbie Myers Fagan, East Lake Dr., asked where the two feet of gravel would be on the bike path and if it was on the plans. She asked for clarification and said there were a lot of people who would have a real problem with putting gravel in their front yards and taking 7 feet instead of 3, 4, or 5.

UNANIMOUSLY; To approve Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

1. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant Number 468

2. Approval of Minutes of Special City Council Meeting of March 16, 1996, March 25,

1996, April 10, 1996 and April 15, 1996.

3. Interlocal Agreement for cooperative Purchasing through RRRASOC Removed by

Councilman Mitzel

4. Approval of proposed amendment to Ordinance 96-28.33 To add Subdivision xx to

Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 34 of the Novi Code of Ordinances to provide a tap

fee for certain connections to the SAD 141C Sanitary Sewer - I & II Reading

5. Approval of Final Pay Estimate No. 22 and Final Balance Change Order No. 4 for the

Twelve Mile Road Improvements Project - Haggerty to Meadowbrook.

6. Approval of Proposed Agreement between the City of Novi and Singh Development

Company, Ltd., for Main Street Village Off-Site Drainage Improvements.

7. Rescind Award to American Silkscreen and Approval to rebid T-shirt contract.

8. Adopt Resolutions, Re:

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

1995-96 Bituminous Paving Improvements-N-3711-02

Grading Permit Broadmoor LLC Gift

Eleven Mile Road Paving-N-2886-05

Grading Permit Gary Lamb Gift

9. Appointment of Les Gibson as Delegate and Kathy Smith-Roy as Alternate - MERS

Annual Meeting.

10. Approval of Resolution, Re: Validity of Contracts signed by the Mayor and City Clerk.

Removed by Councilman Schmid

11. Approval of promotion of a Police Officer to a Sergeant’s position. Removed by

Joseph Galvin, representing Mr. Henry Sasson, said Mr. Sasson was asking City Council to rezone approximately 22 acres of land which he owned. After rezoning the land Mr. Sasson asked that the City Council imposed upon that rezoned property together with approximately 11 acres he owned to the north the PD-1 Option as set forth in the Master Plan. In addition, they would like to talk about the Preliminary Site Plan they had presented for approval and an application for a wetland permit.

Mr. Galvin said there were reasons they were asking for approval. Mr. Sasson is known by the City Council by virtue of the River Oaks Apartment project which he owns and operates in Novi. The first is its quality. He felt it was of critical importance to the City Council in evaluating this request to understand the quality, the physical and the economic quality of the product the City would receive.

Secondly, this request is and had been consistent with the Master Land Use Plan for Land Development for the past ten years. He felt it was important that Council take the request in the context of its history. History showed that from the inception of his relationship to the property Mr. Sasson had worked and cooperated with the City in its development. Mr. Joseph presented a brief outline of the history of the property.

Mr. Joseph said each of the City Consultants save for Ms. Lemke and Mr. Pargoff had recommended approval of the rezoning, the PD-1 Option, the Plan and the Wetlands.

Thirdly, Ms. Lemke’s report said that some of the units or a building had to be deleted. This cannot be done because the quality of the project would suffer. He said a sewer line had been installed and is physically sized for the development in accordance with the City Master Plan. The Special Assessments had been paid for the sewer assessed at that rate. The City had taxed the property and Mr. Sasson paid on the property based on the notion that it was available for development under the PD-1 Option. Everyone had relied upon the fact that the property would be rezoned for Multiple Use under the PD-1 Option.

Mr. Joseph said Novi would get a quality project from a person they knew, it would be in accordance with the Master Plan and in accordance with the principles that both the City and Mr. Sasson had relied upon over the last ten years. This is the basis on which the SAD was created and the basis on which Mr. Sasson bought the property after talking to the representatives of the City. It is also the basis on which the City taxed the property.

Mr. Joseph said this was a project that is superior to the two which were previously approved, a project which would have a minimal impact on the property and a project which the City could be proud of.

Mayor McLallen said Council packets included letters from City Staff in the positive with a number of conditions in each instance for each of these. The woodland issue was not a Council issue it was a Planning Commission issue. The Planning Commission sent this project forward with a negative recommendation.

Mayor McLallen asked that a member of staff comment on Mrs. Bundoff’s question regarding the density issue.

Brandon Rogers said he could not follow Mrs. Bundoff’s comments on computing density. He said there was no worksheet on it. He said in an RM-1 District there were certain maximum limits of efficiency units and one bedroom units. He recalled it was 5% efficiency and 20% one bedroom. In RM-2 he thought there was more liberality and there could be a higher percentage of efficiency but it could not exceed 33% of one bedroom. The rest being two bedrooms.

He said the plan before Council was two, three and four bedroom units in the three and four story configuration. Mr. Rogers said density was computed by a room count. In order to get the number of rooms in a PD-1 Option the gross area of the site is taken and divided by 700. This will give the number of eligible room units. There is another schedule in the Ordinance after the Schedule of Regulation that has a cap on the maximum density. In a PD-1 RM-1 the cap of an RM-2 would be used which was roughly 21 units per acre. Regulated wetlands/woodlands are counted in the gross area. This plan has over 8 units per acre which is below the 21 units that could be permitted. Mr. Rogers said if it was rezoned to RM-1 and the Master Plan showed it as PD-1 they could come in with a new site plan. He thought when the rezoning was acted on Council would also be acting on the PD-1 and the Preliminary Site Plan. That locks it in to that particular Site Plan. Mr. Rogers would leave this to Mr. Fried for a legal interpretation so they couldn’t walk away from 8 units per gross acre and come in with 21 units per acre.

Councilman Schmid said the PD-1 Option was an option and not a guarantee or a zoning. It is an option that the City might decide to use if the project warranted it. He asked Mr. Rogers if this property could be developed Single Family one acre lots?

Mr. Rogers said yes.

Councilman Schmid asked why Mr. Rogers thought the PD-1 Option was amiable to this piece of land if it is zoned to an RM designation?

Mr. Rogers said first off, it could be developed as a straight RM-1 project but would be limited to a two story configuration. The buildings would be spread out and it would be limited to about 7.3 units per gross acre. He said a PD-1 was an option it was not mandatory. Mr. Rogers said an option was a right that was granted by Council after the Planning Commission recommendation.

There is no guarantee that it will happen. He said a PD-1 Option encourages buildings greater than a two story height. The footprint of the building is less on the ground. However, as the density is increased to 21 units cap in a PD-1 the dwelling units are tripled which would triple the amount of off street parking. The parking if its spread out can have as much impact on sensitive lands as buildings that are spread out. Mr. Rogers said there was still a requirement of two spaces for every one/two bedroom apartment and 2 1/2 spaces for every three or greater bedroom units. There is no parking off the main road leading through the project and that is a feature that’s desirable. They have an internal access aisle system that takes up more space and also a lot of blacktop on the property by going to a PD-1. They’re only increasing the PD-1 from 7.3 to 8.4 and it’s a modest increase but it did give them more flexibility to go vertical. The Master Plan of 1980, 87 and 93 envisioned this going, because of its central location, near the commercial core of the City, to a higher density.

Mr. Rogers said it was his opinion that this could work with the modest increase in density. His conditions in his report alluded to the concerns of the woodland permit.

Councilman Schmid asked if the envelope would be more under the RM-1 or the PD-1?

Mr. Rogers said a straight RM-1 development would have two story buildings instead of what they are showing as four 1/2 stories including the loft. The parking would be less because there would be 7.3 units per acre instead of 8.8. The applicant has said that he needed 8.8 or 8.4 units per acre to make the project viable. He said he could not live with a 7.3.

Councilman Schmid asked if 7.3 units per acre in RM-1 was the maximum?

Mr. Rogers said it was.

Councilman Schmid asked if the Centrum was prior to the Woodland Ordinance?

Mr. Rogers said Ms. Lemke would answer that.

Councilman Schmid said the Centrum development would never go in the City today.

Mr. Rogers said absolutely not. Centrum was a company out of East Lansing that wanted to build Senior Citizen Housing and Ms. Lemke would say it would be a near cleaning out of prime woodlands.

Councilman Schmid said under the RM-1 the maximum of 7.3 if they came in with a RM development could they get 7.3 or would they have to settle for 5.2?

Mr. Rogers said 87% of the site is regulated prime woodlands. Either one, the straight RM-1 or the RM-1/PD-1 would have an impact on the woodlands. If they went with the straight RM-1 with 7.3 units per acre verses the 8 something they proposed they would require 10% less area in parking. That would be less impact because all their parking was either in attached or detached carports or surface parking. None of their parking is underneath the building.

Councilman Schmid asked if the actual space used for buildings, driveways and roads would be less or more?

Mr. Rogers said it could be less under the PD-1.

Councilman Schmid asked why couldn’t they have the same quality with a relatively minor difference in the number of apartments. The developer would protest that the quality couldn’t be there under the RM-1 Zoning. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. Rogers said River Oaks West is probably the finest apartment project in the City. They went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and got approval for a three story configuration on certain buildings just like Saddle Creek did. They stayed within the 35 foot maximum height limit to the mid point of the gable roof. He said a three story Society Hill could be the same quality as a four story but it would require a ZBA review.

Councilman Schmid said his concern was the density this would cause in a highly congested area. He asked if it wouldn’t be better to have single family, 22 homes instead of 301. He asked what that land around this was zoned and what impact would the development have on the undeveloped land.

Mr. Rogers said the subject property included Centrum, one parcel to the west and down to Mrs. Bundoff’s property, the Tree Farm property and single family residential along 12 1/2 and Dixon a large parcel development. However, the PD-1 Option went over to the rear of the lots fronting on Dixon down to and including the top part of Mrs. Bundoff property. Of that property the Sasson property is nearly half of it. There are other property owners who had expressed an interest in the PD-1 particularly the Highland Development Group along Twelve Mile.

Councilman Schmid said then Mr. Rogers was suggesting that if the Council allowed the zoning and the option he was expecting tomorrow they would be coming down Twelve Mile Road with similar zoning, density and problems.

Mr. Rogers said the Highland Development Company Group on Twelve Mile did come in and the Council denied a petition for RM-2 without the PD-1 two months. They overlapped into the proposed Single Family District and they were taking the office frontage that is Master Planned for office use.

Councilman Schmid asked if the property to the west could be held to RA?

Mr. Rogers thought it could be done because it was on the Master Plan.

Councilman Schmid asked if a half million dollar house could be built next to the apartment?

Mr. Rogers said there were substantial wetlands on the west edge of the property but it was possible. He said he would defend the integrity of the Master Plan and felt Council would also.

Mr. Rogers said he recommended the development with conditions.

Councilman Schmid asked Ms. Lemke to explain the areas of concern she has?

Ms. Lemke said she had concerns with the whole woodlands. The woodlands are 87% high quality and the saving of approximately 18 acres now of the 32.26 acres. Ms. Lemke felt it was pretty much all high quality. Her concerns were in connecting with the wooded wetland area and connecting with the northern portion of the site, the Centrum, portion with what is remaining in the southern portion.

Councilman Schmid asked how Ms. Lemke proposed the land be developed?

Ms. Lemke said it was a hard site to propose development because it is all high quality woodland and is connected to one of the two core reserve areas that had been identified as part of the wild life Master Plan and Habitat Plan for the City. The less intrusion the better usually with either very large lot sizes greater than an acre or better. The larger sizes there are the more you can preserve. Five to Ten acres preserves more of the natural systems than the one acre.

Councilman Schmid asked if Ms. Lemke had any recommendations about this particular proposal.

Ms. Lemke said in her letter she had listed several alternatives. The alternatives range from a small alternative such as moving the maintenance building out of the woodlands, looking at the parking, not using the garages, looking into underground parking, reducing the size of the footprints of the building. A large alternative would be reducing the number of units and buildings. The developer, throughout the whole process consistently came back with alternatives that have saved more areas of woodland on each submittal.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Arroyo how he proposed to handle the traffic and if the intersection or area could handle the traffic?

Mr. Arroyo said that question was addressed in the traffic study that was submitted by the applicant. Novi Road is operating with a very poor level of service being only two lanes wide. It is in the process now of beginning to be widened between 12 and 12 1/2 Mile which should be completed later on this year or early next year. That should address one of the problems. However, the intersection of 12 Mile and Novi Road because of all the turning movements would still have a level of service problems and will be operating at an unacceptable level of service. The study indicated two potential solutions to that. The short term would be to add a south bound right turn lane and a left bound right turn lane. The long term improvement would be the boulevarding of 12 Mile Road which is currently in the design phase now and would hopefully continue through the process and come to a construction level within a few years. Once either one of those improvements was in place then the 12 Mile/Novi Road intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service.

Mr. Arroyo said once Novi Road was widened to five lanes the road itself would be able to handle the additional traffic.

Councilman Schmid said this was an excellent project and felt the PD-1 Option was working on this site. Density and traffic were major concerns and he felt Single Family would be much better. He was also concerned with the impact on the surrounding land down the road. He asked the Mayor if she was aware if there was a need for five or four votes this evening?

Mr. Fried said he had not seen any legal descriptions that come within the 100 feet adjacent to the subject property so he didn’t believe there were proper objections made to it and the protest he’d seen didn’t contain legal descriptions.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Clark said this project could be developed as Single Family Residential.

Mr. Rogers said yes.

Councilman Clark asked if this project were to proceed as proposed would we be removing what amounts to 50% of the woodland? Mr. Rogers said yes.

Councilman Clark said Mr. Arroyo had indicated that Novi Road was functioning at an unacceptable level of service. Is that correct? Mr. Arroyo said that was correct.

Councilman Clark said improvements were going in between 12 and 12 1/2 Mile in terms of widening Novi Road which should alleviate some of the problems. Mr. Arroyo said that was correct. As presently proposed the improvements were only at Novi Road between 12 and 12 1/2 Mile Roads, correct?

Mr. Arroyo said that’s correct and then you already have the Decker Road Extension to the north.

Councilman Clark said assume that a quarter to half of that traffic at some time during the day in and out trips is going to come out onto Novi Road and proceed south bound and cross Grand River. Are we not going to compound the problems on Novi Road between Grand River and Ten Mile Road which is certainly not yet at the stage of where it’s going to be widened?

Mr. Arroyo said yes, but he didn’t think it would be any where near that percentage. He thought that a majority of the traffic destined to the south from the development would likely be either to the retail areas or to the freeway. Going south of Grand River, Mr. Arroyo thought it would be less then 10%.

Councilman Clark said if those people are shopping for groceries at either Farmer Jack’s on Ten Mile Road or at the shopping center market in Northville.

Mr. Arroyo said there was a shopping center market at 14 and Haggerty and some people might proceed north.

Councilwoman Cassis asked how could this area be compared to the amount of environmental intrusion with Sandstone Vistas which is across the street?

Mr. Rogers said there was intrusion in Phase I which was recognized when the Council approved the area plan but the no load road concept preserved some of that woodlands which the applicant agreed to do.

Ms. Lemke said there was quite a bit of woodland on Sand Stone but it was not all high quality. She said this would take out more high quality woodlands then Sand Stone did.

Councilwoman Cassis asked how much of the current property Council was looking at tonight could be saved and not saved. She said Ms. Lemke said about 50% which is considerable. Think of a private property in any community where you are saving half of the area for environmental features. How many replacement trees have you looked at to balance what is being removed?

Ms. Lemke said she wasn’t sure if they had actually looked at a number yet. She said they were saying they were taking out 1,030 regulated trees and she thought that was low. Ms. Lemke said replacement was based on an incremental basis not one to one. She said there were 1,740 replacement trees required but that was very low and it should be double that.

Councilwoman Cassis said then there’s a mechanism within the Ordinance what is removed will be replaced.

Ms. Lemke said that is true as far as tree size goes but as far as a woodland/wildlife habitat which is what the Ordinance addresses that would not be replaced by replacing smaller trees.

Councilwoman Cassis said the habitat is to some degree removed.

Ms. Lemke said the habitat value on this site would be drastically impacted especially since the way the Site Plan is now there is no real connection between the north and south properties and the wooded wetland. The Wildlife Habitat Master Plan identifies a core reserve area to the north going to the northwest and coming down into the site from the west. She said that connection would be totally disturbed.

Councilwoman Cassis said so there’s still room within the Site Plan even though this one has intensity associated with it there might be some way of revisiting the Site Plan itself. Some of the buildings Ms. Lemke mentioned particularly the maintenance building and the detached garage that might be re-looked in terms of some of this habitat.

Ms. Lemke said that would affect the habitat minimally. The reduction of buildings is the only way to provide the kind of corridor area that was needed. Minor things like the removal of the maintenance building, the garages, putting a wildlife culvert underneath the road are the smaller things that could increase the wildlife movement throughout the area. They had also talked to the applicant about not having a connection between the north and south portions of the site.

The habitat quality, still because of the reduction of trees that are 80 to 100 years old, those would be gone and they would be replaced with smaller trees that would take 80 to 100 years before you would get the same effect back from the trees. The habitat value would probably never come back.

Councilwoman Cassis asked where the wildlife go in the habitat?

Ms. Lemke said they were in the core reserve area which is 350 acres. They would still come out of the core reserve area and then there are linkages throughout the City that wildlife use. So any that would be in this area would move back up into the core reserve area. The amount of area to travel, look for food and have breeding areas would be limited for the larger mammals. For the smaller mammals it would be less of an impact but certainly a living impact. They would have to relocate.

Councilwoman Cassis there is closeness to other park area to the north and west isn’t there?

Ms. Lemke said the Tree Farm is part of the core reserve area. It is definitely part of the core reserve area not limited to the Tree Farm.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if it was correct that Ms. Lemke indicated if this were to develop as RA Zoned area one acre sites doing such would have a high intrusion to the natural resources? Therefore, the concept behind adopting a PUD or higher density is that there is a smaller footprint and less intrusion into the natural resources.

Ms. Lemke said that was the basic design philosophy behind the PUD.

Councilwoman Cassis said this is private property and it would be wonderful if there was a person who wanted to buy this whole thing for a master type estate with one or two properties. That is quite unrealistic given todays times and the area in which it is located.

Councilwoman Cassis said she would like to divide the question because within it there are a number of issues.

Mayor McLallen said the current motion is for all three issues at one time.

Councilwoman Cassis said she would like to know how, according to parliamentary procedure, Council might look at dividing the issue.

Mr. Fried said a motion could be made to divide the question and it had to be seconded.

Mr. Joseph said Mr. Sasson would like to address the Council.

Mayor McLallen said Council would take that under advisement.

Mayor McLallen advised Councilwoman Cassis that during the Council’s deliberations they do not speak to applicants.

Councilwoman Cassis said what strikes her about the proposal was that we have something here in Novi that all of us at one time or another has supported whole heartedly and that is the Master Plan. The reason behind the Master Plan is it gives every one an opportunity to come into the City, look at the long range plan and make some large investments. There’s a fairness issue here too and it has to do with the fact that there always was a PD-1 Option available on it. Also, the Special Assessment District for sewer was paid for over the long haul as well as taxes. She thought there was an ability to work out some compromises on what is a high quality project and according to the Master Plan is located in the right place.

Councilwoman Cassis stated some would say why not stick to one acre zoning? She said Council had not done that with the Vistas or Sand Stone and she had problems with those developments and did not vote for them. There were people who did vote for them and felt that that was a good project that did make its own intrusions into the land.

Councilwoman Cassis said the traffic issue is fortunately a mute point because of the improvements to this entire area.

Councilwoman Cassis said she goes back to the consistency of the Master Plan so when she respectfully asked that this Council consider dividing the question she did so with the idea that Council would then be following a Master Plan. Member Cassis said her division would have to do with looking at the PD-Option separately, the RM-1 Rezoning consistent with the Master Plan separately and then look at the Preliminary Site Plan which she felt needed more work and more compromise. She said the developer had tried consistently to come back and work with the City which certainly was an advantage that we all commend.

divide the question into four segments 1) separate vote on the PD-1 Option 2) separate vote on the RA to RM-1 Rezoning 3) separate vote on the Preliminary Site Plan and 4) separate vote on the Wetland Permit.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel thought there was only three segments. He believed PD-1 was not a vote of the Council. He thought all the Council was considering was rezoning and if the rezoning was granted within an area that PD-1 was allowed then that rezoning has that option.

Mr. Fried said the PD Option is laid on the Master Plan as a function of the Master Plan adoption by the Planning Commission. The Council didn’t make that decision. It’s on the map and has been for a number of years. He suggested that Council consider as the first segment of their voting the rezoning to RM-1 of the 22 acres. It is not now RM-1. Then the Site Plan is tied back into the PD-1 and it’s almost intregally part and parcel and Council has to approve the exercising of the PD-1 Option and Council also had to review the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Fried said if Council approved all of those things it would then go back to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Review and the Final Site Plan would come back to Council. If Council were to approve the rezoning and the notice was published in the paper and it became effective and then Council did not approve the PD-1 Option it would throw out the Site Plan. However, if Council approved the PD-1 Option concept tied intimately in with the Site Plan that committed Council to approving the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Fried said there were two actions not three.

Councilman Mitzel said first Council had to deal with the rezoning and then discuss PD-1 or Site Plan issues.

Mr. Fried said there are three questions and the Wetland Permit. 1) rezoning 2) PD Option

3) Site Plan and the 4) is the Wetlands Permit.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Fried was saying it was inappropriate to comment on the merits of voting on that particular motion?

Mr. Fried said it was not debatable. When there’s a motion to divide the question and it has been seconded it is not a debatable question.

Councilwoman Mutch said then it is not appropriate to comment.

Mr. Fried said correct.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford concurred with Member Cassis’ closing comments. He asked Mr. Rogers to comment on Mr. Galvin’s recollection of history as far as when this was Master Planned, when it was reaffirmed as a Master Plan, some of the history of the sewer connections and comment on taxes paid. Also on the working with the City over the years and the requests that have been made by the City and what the developers had done to comply with those requests.

Mr. Rogers said the 1980 Master Plan had Section 10, which included this property, a mixture of PD-3, PD-1, PD2 classifications. There was another plan to have PD-3, PD-2 and a little PD-1 in this whole area. That was cut back in 1987 and 1988 to just the PD-1 in the lower quarter section of Section 10 as it is today and some of the frontage along Twelve Mile which was the Beckwith Evans site and some other areas which were zoned B-3 and proposed for Commercial and were all put into an Office District.

Councilman Crawford asked how long it had been zoned RM-1?

Mr. Rogers said there was only one piece of RM-1 property on the map and it’s about 12 acres or so.

Councilman Crawford asked how long it had been Master Planned RM-1?

Mr. Rogers said since about 1988.

Councilman Crawford asked when it was reconfirmed?

Mr. Rogers said it was reconfirmed in the 1993 Master Plan.

Councilman Crawford said then as late as three years ago it was determined by staff and the Planning Commission that that area ought to be RM-1. Is that correct?

Mr. Rogers said Master Planned for RM-1 or Multiple Family with PD-1 overlay on it.

Councilman Crawford asked if any of the concerns that have been brought up tonight and previously about traffic, density and woodlands, were considered when it was reconfirmed to be RM-1?

Mr. Rogers said there was no Site Plan to see the impact.

Councilman Crawford asked if he needed a Site Plan when he knew it was 87% or extensive woodlands? If there was concern of decimating the woodlands with RM-1 why wasn’t that addressed when it was reconfirmed as RM-1?

Mr. Rogers said if it had stayed Single Family the woodlands could have been decimated also. The idea was if we went for higher density that maybe the footprint would be less and maybe the development would be at the south half or third of the property which was a concept that was considered by the applicant.

Councilman Crawford asked the history of the sewer lead and why was it there and how big is it?

Mr. Kriewall said there were memos to City Council from Bruce Jerome indicating that when the SAD was developed for this area there was sizing considerations based on the proposed zoning which at the time was Multiple.

Councilman Crawford asked if he was talking about the proposed zoning or the Master Plan in the area.

Mr. Kriewall said the Master Plan.

Councilman Crawford said so when the sewer was brought in it was brought in based on what was Master Planned.

Mr. Kriewall said that was correct and that was how they normally design public improvements.

Councilman Crawford said there’s a history behind not just this project but that Master Planned area of the City and its been reconfirmed as late as 1993 and there’s a history much beyond that as far as working with the City, complying with the City, bringing in sewers, paying taxes on what was Master Planned and what was expected to be done someday. He thought it was a high quality project and there are things that still need to be worked out on the project as Member Cassis said. He said Ms. Lemke had concerns and certainly the developer is offered many, many alternatives. Member Crawford felt there was always one more alternative that could be done until it gets to the final alternative of not putting any buildings on the site at all. He said access to 12 1/2 Mile had to be worked out and hopefully something can be worked out with the maintenance building. He thought Council needed to look at the Master Plan as it is a substantial guide for the City but it is not cast in concrete. However, we can’t have it both ways. If there is a project or a zoning that Council doesn’t like they can’t say the Master Plan calls for a certain zoning therefore, the Council rejects your project. On the other hand, Council can’t say there’s something wrong with that Master Plan. We don’t like what was Master Planned.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with Member Cassis on the development of this particular site as Single Family Residential, large lot acreage Single Family Residential in particular. If someone was going to do that they have had every signal from this City that that’s what is wanted in this community. She said the PD-1 Option as it is written did not provide the City a lot of benefits. She thought if the PD-1 Option was going to be kept over the long haul for future projects that might come in Council needed to send a clear message to the Planning Commission as they review the Master Plan that this is something Council thought should be addressed.

Councilwoman Mutch said in the mean time we have a developer who has come in with the expectation that while this is an option it is an option for the City Council as to whether they offer it or not. The fact is the people are led to believe that it is an option available to them provided they come in with a proposal that appears to meet the requirements of the City and sets the same goals that Council sets in establishing that option in the first place.

Councilwoman Mutch said in this case PD-1 encourages creative design, to minimize the impact on the property and the infrastructure. The density obviously would have the same impact on the infrastructure whether it’s spread out over the site or it went vertical. When it did go vertical, it minimized the impact on the natural environment. However, there is mitigation built in. When trees are removed they are replaced on more than a one to one ratio in those instances where the trees are of considerable size. She thought that mitigation did help offset the loss of those trees but we also need to keep in mind that the natural environment is not static and that there would be changes over time because eventually that 100 year old tree will be lost and hopefully it’s in an environment where other trees are coming up. She said mitigation creates new habitats so while it affects the existing habitat, mitigation creates new habitats.

Councilwoman Mutch said one of the values of the Master Plan is that it is also a document that changes too and it is designed to change to meet changing needs. Member Mutch concurred with Member Crawford’s comments that the opportunity to change the Master Plan was there as recently as three years ago in terms of this zoning and option. It was still deemed the best use of the property in this area.

Councilwoman Mutch said regarding the roads if they have been Master Planned to conform to the rest of the Master Plan in terms of land use then she had no reason to doubt Mr. Arroyo when he said the roads would handle the increased volume and still provide an acceptable level of service provided everything that the Master Plan for Roads called for was in place. Until that point is reached we might have some difficulty but the goal for those road improvements is in sight.

Councilwoman Mutch said she could support the rezoning primarily because it brings us into conformance with the Master Plan and this plan does show respect for the site.

Councilman Mitzel said he viewed the Master Plan as a guide adopted by the Planning Commission as a road map to be intelligently followed not blindly followed. It is up to the Council to implement it through legislation such as rezoning. He felt the reason it was left as is in 1993 because at that point the Master Plan readoption focus was on State zoning in the south west part of Novi. There was a lot of attention on adjusted lot size at the time and a lot of energies were being directed elsewhere. When an entire City is re-adopted at once areas do get overlooked. This Council recently has asked the Planning Commission to look at another area along Novi Road that is vacant now but Master Planned for B-3 closer to Walled Lake and saying do we really want that.

Councilman Mitzel said he would like to see the organization that was responsible for adoption of this Master Plan recommend 6-1 or 7-1 that this Master Plan not be implemented. If they were to reevaluate it today it would be different.

Councilman Mitzel said he seconded the motion and would support the motion based on his feeling that rezoning of multiples in this area was not appropriate. It is a rezoning and land use issue. Member Mitzel did have concern that the area that’s Master Planned for RA along Dixon Road would be very difficult to maintain with high density multiples all the way back up to it.

Councilman Mitzel said he would support the motion to deny the rezoning and also the Planning Commission recommended that the rezoning be denied.

Mayor McLallen stated she would not support the motion pretty much for what Members Cassis, Mutch and Crawford had already stated. She said there had to be a guide line and Council had to deal with reality. She said if there was a mechanism to acquire this, if the State allowed transfer of development rights something else could possibly be offered to the developer. She said that wasn’t reality. The reality is there is a developer on the doorstep who has a commitment to the property that he had been led to believe by the Ordinances and Reviews that he had some hope of getting through. She said this is not a Final Plan it is a Preliminary Plan and a lot of issues have been raised and further reviews would clarify some of those issues. Mayor McLallen said she was not in support of the motion.

Councilman Schmid said the reality was that this part of the City is overburdened. When this was Master Planned there wasn’t a Vista or a Maples.or the extensive development that is going down in that area. When looking at a City we have to look at it 50 or 100 years from now and how it is going to be developed. He said if you over density like you are doing with this development you will pay for it many, many years down the road. The point is it is not good for the City and the Master Plan could suggest that we should stick by it from here on out by all the Council Members.

Councilman Clark said a comment was made that on the Master Plan this had been tentatively proposed and zoned for what Council was dealing with tonight. He wanted to point out that 2/3 of the area that comprises this project has been on the Master Plan for a long period of time as RA zoning and not RM-1 zoning. He pointed out that the mere fact that one pays taxes on a piece of property did not mean that that property would always stay in one particular zoning classification or the fact that taxes are paid is a guarantee that you will be able to develop it in a particular fashion at some point in the future. Also the comment that water and sewer had been brought to the project. He noticed in the packet that there was a comment that there are certain areas in the City that are still waiting for City water, that are on wells and yet we are putting City water into this development with high density. He said there was no problem with the quality of the project because he had seen Mr. Sasson’s track record. He felt this would lead to bumper to bumper traffic on Novi Road. Member Clark said he did have some problems with the project and could not remember when the last time was that we had a project where the Planning Commission said no, the Planning and Community Development Department said no, the City Forester said no, Ms. Lemke said no and Council is in a rush to say yes.

Councilwoman Mutch said the fact that sewer lines are there now whether activated or not and if someone else is waiting in another part of the City for water whether this project was built or not had no impact on how quickly they get water. Also, she felt that if a survey were done of those people who currently live north of 12 1/2 Mile she didn’t think those people would go to Farmer Jack at Ten and Meadowbrook and certainly fewer would venture to Northville when there is something at Haggerty and 14 Mile Roads or Pontiac Trail and Beck Road.

No McLallen, Crawford, Cassis, Mutch

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel referenced Code of Ordinances 2406.3, Section A, said "The Planning Commission may recommend approval of request for rezoning only after the Commission finds:" and there are five conditions listed. Later in Section B it stated that "The Council may act on the Planning Commission’s recommendation provided it finds that those five conditions are met and further that the intent is met." Member Mitzel said the Planning Commission did not make those findings and made a negative recommendation. First, can the Council act without the Planning Commission making those findings?

Mr. Fried said the Council could act without the Planning Commission making those finding provided the Council made those findings.

Secondly, did it take a vote of five from the City Council since it was a negative recommendation by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fried said simple majority.

Councilman Mitzel said there were five conditions that the City Council had to find that the rezoning meets. The conditions were "1) That the parcel of land requested for rezoning lie substantially within the area depicted on the City’s Master Plan for Land Use Map for development under a PD Option. 2) The PD Option permitted in the District being requested closely corresponds with the area depicted on the Master Plan for Land Use Map intended for development under the PD Option. 3) The request to rezone is being made with the intent of developing under the PD Option permitted in the district. 4) The area being requested for rezoning is immediately adjacent to like or similar zoning so as not to create unrelated penetrations of non-residential districts in residentially zoned areas. 5) The area being requested for rezoning is either fully served by public utilities including water and sanitary sewer or will be fully served to the extension of such public utilities to the site at the time of development. Councils opinion that the development carries out the intent of the section as well as the overall intent of the ordinance." Member Mitzel said the action on the Site Plan did not take place until further review by the Planning Commission because it stated "Upon rezoning of the land by the City Council thus effectuating the PD Option the Preliminary Site Plan which accompanied the rezoning shall there after be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation."

Mr. Fried said that’s correct.

Councilman Mitzel said tonight the Council does not take action on approving the Preliminary Site Plan, correct?

Mr. Fried said no, that will be sent back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.

Councilman Mitzel said then the motion would have to be modified because the motion included granting the Preliminary Site Plan and the Wetlands Permits.

Mr. Fried said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if it would be necessary to modify the motion to eliminate approval of Preliminary Site Plan?

Mr. Fried said he would recommend it. The motion could state that the Preliminary Site Plan be sent back to the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if that would extend to the Wetlands Permit as well?

Mr. Fried said no, that would be dealt with separately.

Councilwoman Mutch said considering Member Mitzel had just raised the five conditions and the conformity to intent for the option as outlined in the Ordinance should that be addressed?

Mr. Fried said no, the discussion of the Council at the Council table clearly outlined that it was in conformity with those five conditions set forth in the Ordinance.

Councilwoman Mutch said if she were making the motion over again she would have addressed the location, close correspondence to the PD-1, the intent to develop not to just get a rezoning, the immediate adjacency of similar properties and the fact that it is fully served by utilities as well as conforming to the intent.

Councilwoman Mutch would modify the main motion eliminating the Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Councilman Crawford said he might concur if further clarification were given on the status of the Preliminary Site Plan. The Planning Commission has already reviewed it and gave Council a negative recommendation. What other recommendation would they have on this Site Plan?

Mr. Fried said it would go back for their review and they might make the same recommendation. That didn’t mean Council had to follow it.

Councilman Crawford said the point is they already made that recommendation.

Mr. Fried said but the Ordinance called for it.

Councilman Crawford asked Mr. Fried to read that part of the Ordinance again.

Mr. Fried complied with Member Crawford’s request.

Councilman Crawford asked then even though the Planning Commission had reviewed it after Council approved, if it is approved, RM-1/PD Option even if its been reviewed it has to go back?

Mr. Fried asked Mr. Rogers if that was the proper procedure?

Mr. Rogers said it is a case where the land is not properly zoned and it seemed a little redundant to have to go back twice to the Planning Commission because Council will see the Preliminary Site Plan again. It could be that some of the concerns that Council had expressed in the minutes tonight would be taken into consideration in a slightly revised Preliminary Site Plan. He could not speak for the Commission.

Councilman Crawford said if this plan goes back the Planning Commission could then look at this Site Plan and modify it and make recommendations back to Council.

Mr. Fried said they could take another look at it but when you’re acting on the zoning you are doing it with full intent to allow the applicant to exercise the PD-1 Option based upon the intent of the Site Plan.

Councilman Mitzel said their review might be slightly more directed and objective once a zoning is in place so the recommendation might be slightly different.

Councilman Clark asked Member Mitzel to read #4 again?

Councilman Mitzel read #4 again.

Councilman Clark said 2/3 of the property for the proposed rezoning is now zoned RA. He asked Mr. Rogers if it would be fair to say a good portion of the property on the west side of Novi Road surrounding the site is zoned RA.

Mr. Rogers said it would.

Councilman Clark said Council could find that 1, 2, 3 and 5 have been met and but certainly

not #4.

Councilman Crawford thought it said the intrusion of non-residential into residential. RM-1 is residential. He assumed the intent of that statement would be so that the Commercial or Industrial was not intruding into Residential.

Councilman Schmid said he was not aware of the Ordinance Member Mitzel stated and was not comfortable with Mr. Fried’s off the cuff opinion and would like a follow up memo from him after he had reviewed it with a planner.

CM-96-07-246: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark; MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED; To grant approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.542 for the rezoning from RA to RM-1, the adoption of the PD-1 Option on that property and the approval of the Wetland Permit.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked is it possible under the Ordinance cited this could have come to Council for rezoning without a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission?

Mr. Fried said no, a Site Plan has to accompany a rezoning.

Councilman Crawford asked if there was potential that the Preliminary Site Plan would be modified in such a way that the Wetlands approval would have to be modified?

Mr. Rogers said yes, quite likely they will revisit the Wetland Permit issue because the Planning Commission hasn’t acted on that. It would have to be looked at again if there are changes in the road system, etc.

Councilman Crawford asked if it would be modified or should Council postpone the item until a Preliminary Site Plan was seen.

Mr. Rogers thought Council would base their judgment on the Wetlands Permit based upon an acceptable Site Plan.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with the motion.

Mayor McLallen said she would not support the motion because the wetlands are the wetlands and they have been delineated. How the further Site Plan would affect the wetlands is really a Site Plan issue and not a wetlands issue.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Cassis felt the issue of Preliminary Site Plan and a double duty of it should be looked at and addressed in terms of review and re-review and the expenses that are uncounted in terms of the overall development.

No Clark, Mitzel, Schmid

Mayor McLallen said it had been most difficult and embarrassing for staff and Council to sit here this evening and figure out who’s on first. This is a very significant project and yet when Council got down to a vote they were not clear on a procedure. There ought to be a greater understanding of procedure as Member Cassis pointed out. She said while a Site Plan did need to be considered tonight obviously on close reading of the Ordinance Council had no authority to vote on that Site Plan and it created some procedural difficulties.

Councilman Clark requested a notation in the packets referencing that section of the ordinance

needed.

Councilwoman Mutch wanted the Planning Commission to know that in no way were any of the comments of Council meant to sway, direct or influence them because Council did not know that it would return to the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Cassis asked what the proper mechanism would be to return this to the Planning Department and Administration and returning it to Ordinance Review as a process.

Mayor McLallen suggested that Council recommend that the Administration and the Department come back with a procedural report.

Councilman Mitzel said it should go to the Planning Commission Implementation because we sent this whole PD-1 Option back on March 4th to review this entire option.

PROPOSED POLICE & FIRE BOND LANGUAGE

Mr. Klaver, Assistant City Manager, said there were specific areas Council had questions on and Administration was prepared to address them this evening in addition to the Police and Fire Chiefs. Mr. Klaver reminded Council that both of the proposals were a part of the Bond Proposal and what had been deleted were several issues that were either dealt with in the budget process or for example the computer program that is being proposed will be addressed by the Computer Committee. Perhaps, the most important point of clarification is like all bond proposals it’s most appropriate to address these capitol needs through a bond proposal predominately due to the reduction of millage that has been seen with proposals. The amount of millage necessary to retire a Bond Proposal has dropped off significantly and therefore the new residents moving into the community help support that. This is one of the best advantages of bonding for a project of this type. This was decided on early in the Committee’s deliberations and because what is submitted to the voters is strictly the amount of the bond. There is nothing before Council tonight that includes the amount of millage estimated to retire that. This is obviously a critical issue and has been discussed with the bonding advisers and they indicated a half mil would be more than sufficient to retire this level of debt.

Mr. Klaver asked Chief Lenaghan to address the proposal to build a new Fire Station. Mr. Klaver said they were for both the renovation and expansion of the Police Department and the new Fire Station #4.

Chief Lenaghan stated before Council was a revision from the 1978 Master Plan. In 1978 an evaluation of Fire Protection for the City of Novi was made using a Planning Guide put out by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It took into consideration a number of issues other than the more routine things. It involved an analysis of the individual community and its fire protection needs and based on that a program was developed for fire protection in the community. Chief Lenaghan said most of the local community Fire Departments handle a range of things not just responding to fires but emergency medical services, hazardous materials, emergency management, code enforcement, site plan, etc.

Chief Lenaghan said the projected population was 80,000 in 1978 and is now about 65,000 and it could drop depending on the changes in the community. Another consideration in making any type of evaluation are the barriers in the community itself. These barriers are east and west I-96, Walled Lake and the Wixom/Ten Mile area which has swamp land, and areas like Eleven Mile which doesn’t go all the way through because of the gravel pits. Consequently, these created problems in terms of response districts and irregular boundary. The boundaries, due to annexation, have changed as well.

Chief Lenaghan said the next thing to look at is the road system and routing.. There are a lot of roads that do not run all the way through and many of them are two lanes and there’s the dead end of Eleven Mile and Thirteen Mile did not go through. He said because of the changes in the boundaries and Sections Novi Road was now the primary north/south fire route or emergency response route.

Chief Lenaghan spoke about the type of developments. He said this has also changed since 1978. The zoning is different in terms of lot size and density and also had to be considered.

Chief Lenaghan addressed potential or risk management or analysis of what is in the community. He was able to address this in a community like Novi because it is new and fire protection can be built into the buildings themselves through sprinkler and automatic alarm systems. The homes in the City have smoke detectors which is a first line of defense.

The next area to look at was the railroad which splits the City north/southeast and is only crossed by the Grand River bridge. The rest are signalized crossings and could create a delay in fire and/ or medical emergency response.

Chief Lenaghan said regarding fire protection they had looked at five stations. The major goal was to locate a station no more than three miles from any point in the City. The configuration brought to Council at that time and had since been incorporated into the City’s Master Plan showed a five station configuration. It took into account the barriers of the railroads, expressways and fire management areas. This was one reason the Station 4 area was looked at.

A lot of the west side of the City has changed. It is large lot residential and the density that’s projected won’t be as high as other areas and it will have less commercial development. He said they operated a paid on call organization and staffing a fifth station with paid on call people would be difficult. There are a number of vacancies and are in a recruiting drive.

Chief Lenaghan said another major consideration was the cost of a five station configuration. He thought with changes in the road system, zoning as it is and if the projected zoning for that area would remain primarily residential a proposal like this for discussion and consideration would be appropriate.

Chief Lenaghan said eliminating the fifth station and relocating the fourth station to a more centralized location would be called the Western Fire Management Area about 8 square miles.

Mayor McLallen stated if the Bond Proposal passed that would necessitate a change in the Master Plan.

Chief Lenaghan said the first item addressed would have to be how Council felt about making a change in the Master Plan.

Councilwoman Cassis said Chief Lenaghan had made a very good logical position and point for changing the outline of the stations to four Fire Management Areas in a growing community.

Councilman Mitzel asked what action Chief Lenaghan was looking for tonight?

Mayor McLallen stated the agenda item was merely the language within the bond issue. The Chief wanted Council to be aware that if Council supported this it changed the previously accepted Master Plan and the designated fire locations.

Councilman Mitzel asked if Council was expected to adopt the plan tonight?

Mayor McLallen said no. We’re expected to be aware and the implication that this language has on it. She said Item #3 which is before Council is a request to approve the language for the November 5th ballot for Police type quarters and Fire Station Bond Proposals. The Chief realized that things had changed and what his recommending would be a land acquisition under this position was different from what was on the books now.

Chief Lenaghan said the property was bought some time ago at Nine Mile and Beck and he thought the voters ought to know these things. However, there is a question whether it is necessary. There’s been a lot of concern regarding operating costs. The Master Plan called for a five station operation and we are projecting four which would be cost saving, there would be less engines and cost saving there as well. He said the system operated with one station supporting another and there would be two stations responding. The system would still work as it was intended but would operate from four locations rather than five.

Councilman Schmid said as he understood it Council was going to recommend that they put on the ballot a proposal for $2,225,000 to authorize bonds in an amount not to exceed that amount. To acquire, construct and furnish new equipment to the new Fire Station. He said it was important that this was discussed.

Councilman Schmid asked if the Chief had 10 acres where Station #4 is on Beck Rd would he still have this plan? He asked if the plan was partly to expand and make a large station for the training center?

Chief Lenaghan said the training center would probably be in the area of the DPW site. He said they considered Station #4 as a training center but it is adjacent to residential property. He said he discussed it briefly with the City Manager and there is a site off the expressway and currently owned City property just past the DPW site that would be a better location.

Councilman Schmid said then there would be two facilities built one at the DPW site and one in the Ten Mile /Wixom Road area. He asked how big #4 would be?

Chief Lenaghan said there would be two new facilities. He said they had preliminary estimates on it but nothing had been finalized.

Councilman Schmid asked why they wanted $2,225,000?

Chief Lenaghan said it was for the station, land acquisition and the training center.

Councilman Schmid said there is no break down on what those are costing.

Mr. Klaver said a report was handed out tonight that was given to Council on July 1st prepared by Lee Mammola and it gives a detailed break down of what’s included in the facility.

Councilman Schmid asked if there was a design to put up a training center at the DPW back then, was there?

Mr. Klaver said the original proposal was a combined facility but was based on the fact that it might be two separate facilities. The difference being it would not have a land acquisition because if it wasn’t built as a combination to the newly proposed Station #4 the DPW land would be available. The cost of construction would have been virtually the same. The budget estimate always anticipated the possibility of breaking that out as a separate facility.

Councilman Schmid said if building two separate buildings at two different sites is going to cost a lot more money than if building one site larger.

Mr. Klaver said proposing that this be on City property there’s no property acquisition.

Chief Lenaghan said these were quite preliminary. They took square footage construction cost figures that Mr. Mammola supplied and if there is approval to go ahead then we can work with these figures.

Councilman Schmid said then it could be $2 million dollars or a million five?

Chief Lenaghan said possibly yes.

Councilman Schmid said then you definitely want to move the station regardless.

Chief Lenaghan said he would make that proposal.

Councilman Schmid thought a training center would be with the new station.

Chief Lenaghan said they did consider that originally but with the residential nature of the area it didn’t seem to work.

Councilman Crawford said it was discussed at budget time and he was under the impression that there was going to be a training station at the new Station #4 because they would lose the one at Station #1 and the old Station #4 was not conducive to it. He thought Council might want to have discussion regarding the DPW site and there’s nothing in the Resolution about building a training facility. He thought if they were talking about a separate site with separate construction then may be it ought to be in the Resolution.

Chief Lenaghan said a training facility would probably be 2 to 3 stories but as far as the actual pad and paving around it it’s not a regular constructed or finished building. It’s a structure with floors with fire escape system or sprinkler system. It’s basic construction not finished work. The paving is all that would be needed for site preparation and there would have to be a classroom facility.

Councilman Crawford said he assumed there would be some meeting room, bathroom facilities, training facility and that had to be around $200,000 to $300,000. He thought it ought to be in the Resolution.

Mr. Klaver said this was originally on the Agenda on the 1st for discussion purposes only without any action requested. Unfortunately, when the packet was put together this time they were asked to bring these issues back. In the meantime, they had talked to the bonding attorney regarding this and wanted to get a head start and did some of these samples which the City Clerk included. Mr. Klaver said this did not have to be adopted and if Council looked at the information of the bond more as backup information. Council had asked that it be brought back for additional discussion and questions. This is additional discussion to respond to issues made from the last meeting.

Mayor McLallen said Council had until August 27th to clarify the language for the bond. So, tonights discussion could be preliminary and the vote on the actual language at the first or second meeting of August.

Mr. Klaver said the actual action requested on the first agenda was Council’s authorization for Dennis Neiman to proceed with preparation of the paper work.

Mayor McLallen said Council needed open ended discussion so that language could be changed and Council could be more comfortable with what would actually be incorporated in the figures.

Councilwoman Mutch was concerned that if the Council was saying that they had been persuaded by the Committee and the Chief that a training facility was necessary it didn’t matter where it was. She said that was not as significant as the fact that training facility be included. She asked if the dollar amount would cover all the needs of the Fire Department for a Fire Station and all that that included and whatever was needed for a training facility whether a part of the facility or separate.

Chief Lenaghan said the dollar amount did cover both of those contingencies.

Councilman Mutch wanted to see the training facility address in the language in such a way it could be either a joint facility with the Fire Station or a separate facility.

Mayor McLallen said the language was very specific in Mr. Neiman’s presentation on the last page. The language says specifically "for the purpose of paying the cost of acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping a new fire station together with the purchase of a site thereof site improvements, appurtments and attachments thereto." She said Mr. Mammola’s proposal and the way he came to the two million dollar costs there are actually improvements to the existing fire station to the tune of about a million dollars. Is the bond to rehab and make improvements on existing stations as well as the acquisition and cost of new ones or is the two million wholly directed at the acquisition of a training station and single facility?

Mr. Mammola said the present facility, Stations 2 and 3, were all removed and that only Station 4 and the Training Facility were being addressed.

Mayor McLallen said on Page 4 of Mr. Mammola’s statement of October 24, 1995 the Novi Fire Department Cost Study proposed Fire Station #4 and Training Center. Page 2 has total construction costs for these two facilities at $1.5 Million. Improvements to Stations 1, 2,and 3 were on Page 7 and the cost was $162,000 and assorted fees, furnishings and land acquisition projected at $100,000 an acre made the entire package a little over two million dollars.

Mayor McLallen said the question is are we dealing with the figures for the entire Fire Building and Maintenance Program or are we dealing with only a single new site and a training facility?

Mr. Klaver said his understanding was Page 3 of that report just included Station #4 and the Training Center.

Mayor McLallen said whatever is taken to the voters had better address everything the voters would be paying for, nothing more and nothing less.

Councilman Mitzel had no problem with going to a four station deliveries but he was not convinced that the City needed to spend the money at this point to relocate a Fire Station. He felt there were other needs that the City faced like the Road Bond Issue, Police Station renovation and the swimming pool group. To spend an extra million or more dollars to relocate and build a Fire Station to replace a perfectly useful building he was not convinced that it was worth while at this point. He understood some of the Chiefs reasonings but he looked at the Station where it is located in proximity to a large number of homes. Granted, it’s more remote to a few sites in the southwest part of the City but he thought the number of sites and the time distance to each of those multitude of sites he didn’t see the great benefit or driving need to spend the City’s resources to relocate a station.

Chief Lenaghan said this is a proposal to change the Master Plan. The discussion tonight, change, presentation that was made, and when the Committee made the report to the Council probably incorporated it. He thought when they did the other Master Plan and looked at a document that would probably be around for ten years the time table on this is up to Council. As far as the planning part of it goes if Council were to make a change like this, looking at the development of the City that this would be an area before it got to developed, that we try to move into an area at that time or we end up like Fire Station #2 that’s 20 feet from somebody’s house because in order to keep it in that area it was difficult finding enough land. If you look at the information that was provided most of the sites our current Fire Stations are on 100 feet by 265

feet and are fairly small sites.

Councilman Mitzel said he could accept a four station plan but was not convinced that Beck and Eleven Mile would not function for the fourth area. Therefore, he couldn’t support asking the voters for a million or two million dollars to build a new Fire Station to replace one that is useful.

Councilman Schmid thought the Chief wanted a new station for two reasons. To go to the fourth station but also to include a Training Center on a bigger piece of property than Station #4 is on and therefore would serve two purposes. It would be a better station, better situated and it would provide the space he was looking for. He concurred somewhat with Member Mitzel in suggesting that from where your moving from and to he was wondering if it was cost effective to throw away a station that maybe could be expanded.

Chief Lenaghan said when that was discussed it was agreed that that station had to be expanded.

Councilman Schmid said he thought there was sufficient land to expand.

Chief Lenaghan said they had two lots there because they purchased the site behind.

Councilman Schmid said he could buy the station but didn’t know if he could buy the Training Center because of the demands on the City at this time. Maybe the Training Center could be put in and expand the present station for a dollar amount that would last the next 10 years.

Councilwoman Cassis thought the Administration wanted this to be a discussion tonight and then to be able to come back and provide the necessary paper work.

CM-96-07-248: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; To direct the Administration to define the language in the ballot proposal and substantiate it and bring it back to Council by the first meeting in August.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Klaver said the math confirmed the totals summarized for Station #4 and the Training Center do not include the estimates for Station #1. He said that would be clarified next time and did not need to be included. The ultimate decision on whether or not the Training Center is included in the station or is a separate facility might depend upon land acquisition. Mr. Klaver said regarding Taft Road that was not site specific and property would have to be located and based on the size of the property and its adjacency to its existing or proposed residential development might play a factor in determining whether or not it is possible. This was originally proposed and reviewed by the Committee as a joint station/training facility but that might be dictated by where that building is placed. He said they were trying to deal with a concept without having a specific site.

Councilwoman Mutch thought Member Mitzel had made a good point in regards to having an existing facility and a new one was going to be built it would be helpful to have some good rationalization and numbers to support the suggestion to move out of one building into another.

Councilman Clark stated he concurred with the concerns that Members Schmid and Mitzel had. However, he wanted to see the paper work, etc. He felt a Training Center was needed and that a separate Training Center made sense.

Councilman Mitzel said he would support the motion to bring information back.

VOTE ON CM-96-07-248: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Klaver said the Police & Fire Bond were all in one.

Mayor McLallen stated the Police Bond was also for $2.5 Million to pay the cost of constructing, furnishing, equipping, additions and alterations to the existing Police Headquarters and they have been delineated.

NOVI FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFFING

Mayor McLallen said during the budget sessions approximately $100,000 was put into the Contingency Funds regarding the hiring of three additional entry level Fire Department employees.

Chief Lenaghan said the original proposal had been for eight personnel. He was attempting to put two persons on each of the eight first line vehicles on the day shift, 6 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday. He said this would not provide two person staffing. Chief Lenaghan said they were operating eight vehicles with about 12 people and it makes it difficult to cover the additional time off for vacations, etc. He said between 1990 and 1995 the incident rate for the Fire Department had increased by 39% and the day time staffing level is the same as it was in 1990.

Chief Lenaghan said the day time staffing are the Novi Fire Department. There are a few paid on call people around and they continue to utilize part time people and auxiliary staff as well but when looking at staffing for all four stations it gets pretty tight.

Councilman Crawford assumed a motion was needed to remove funds from Contingency.

CM-96-07-249: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED; That the budget be amended to withdraw $99,192.00 from the Contingency Fund to provide sufficient funds to hire three additional Fire Protection Officers for the Fire Department for the remainder of this fiscal year.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said this is a motion for a budget amendment then. Member Crawford said the money had already been put in Contingency.

Mr. Fried said the funds were put into Contingency but were not appropriated for any use. He said a budget amendment was needed.

Councilman Mitzel said a dollar amount had to be provided.

Mr. Kriewall said to use the $99,192.00 figure and if there was anything left over it would be returned to the Contingency Fund or the General Fund.

Mr. Fried said the figure $99,192.00 could be used and the remainder of that money would be put back into the Contingency Fund or Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year.

Councilman Schmid stated he was opposed to hiring additional firemen. He felt that paid on call part time fire departments were very effective, safe and efficient. He was concerned that Council would develop a City that they could not afford. He said if Council would talk to any City Official they would recommend staying away from a full time fire department because of the expense. He said he would not vote for it.

No Mitzel, Schmid

Mayor McLallen said she called Mayor Stein in Troy, she has a copy of the Troy budget. She said the entire cost of what Member Schmid portrays as a volunteer Fire Department is in excess of $4 million.

Councilman Schmid asked if they were full time firemen?

Mayor McLallen said they were not. She said she was at the Fire Station receiving some donations of medical equipment from Providence Hospital and the Stations alarms went off and there was one person in the Station to answer it. This was for a roll over semi on Beck Road that had environmental impacts and they had to wait while someone else came to the Station. The Chief was about to get on the truck when a volunteer finally showed up and the Station went out. At that time the Chief was the only person in that Station and she did not think by any stretch of the imagination that was extravagant service to our citizens. She felt they would be appalled to know how tight these Stations are run on certain days. It is only going to take one incident where we are unable to serve our people that this is going to be very significant.

REQUEST BY COMMUNITY CLUBS OF NOVI FOR APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION TO ICE ARENA DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

Mayor McLallen said this was before Council at the request of Community Clubs because originally the Council was part of the tri party agreement between Community Clubs and the developer concerning the management. There are two issues that the Club would like the Council to support and address and these involve negotiations that they had enacted with Community Clubs and they were asking Council’s concurrence on those issues.

Robert Shaw, Community Clubs of Novi, said the contracts had been reviewed and they had talked with Dennis Watson. They’ve also met with Dennis Neiman and Amy Davis with Miller Canfield on bond issues, Lewis Orcut with First of Michigan on the private bond issues and a representative from Rudolph Whitley who they anticipate getting the contract.

Mr. Shaw said to bring us to the contract issues there was the tri party development agreement that was negotiated by Council and approved last January. That was a site specific development agreement so they had to modify the contract because the site was still unknown.

Mr. Shaw said the most critical item of business was to have Council as the signer of the tri party Development Agreement agree to the changes that have been brought forth. He advised Council that they had received the June 25th draft in their packet which had the deletions stricken and the additions added in.

Mr. Shaw said the second part was the Management Contract. The Management Contract between Center Ice and Community Clubs is a two party agreement and they had made a number of revisions to it. Council was not a party to the contract but Mr. Shaw wanted to keep Council informed because they had negotiated the contract on behalf of Community Clubs. He said no agreement had been reached and they considered bringing it back to Council for further insight. However, Mr. Shaw felt if Council wanted to say of the Management Contract do what you will and keep us informed he felt that would be a satisfactory solution.

Councilwoman Cassis stated her concern was that this get back on track and that the Twelve Mile site be looked at again. She asked Mr. Shaw to convey this to Community Clubs. She also asked what kind of time table they were on in terms of when an up and running facility could be expected in Novi.

Mr. Shaw said the original schedule was laid out that everything would be in place and all the agreements were signed including land lease by August 1st. He said this would not be met because there is no site and they had not gone through the planning process on the site yet. He said there is another excellent site that had been brought up that the City currently owns that could serve better than the Twelve Mile site. He felt it would come before Council in an Executive Session or a Public Hearing. He said the longer it was delayed they lost their construction schedule.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said we have had a site since June, 1994. When this originally came forward in the proposal it was specified in that location. He thought there was a site and that language was already there. He thought the other amendments should be allowed but that site reference should be kept and ask Community Clubs and Center Ice to proceed with the site that’s been provided.

Councilman Crawford asked if there was a conflict since he was a member of Council and a member of the Community Club?

Mr. Fried didn’t think there was a conflict.

Councilman Crawford said he would vote against the motion. He said by deleting the Twelve Mile Road site did not preclude it from being the Twelve Mile Road site but it did open up several other options and he wanted to look into those. He said time is of essence and Community Clubs would like to be in operation by next September to get into the ice season and hockey season. He said there was still time to complete that schedule by September of 97 and there is time to evaluate a couple of other sites that are available probably within the next 30 days or so if Council could act on it.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that the meeting was to end at 11:30 PM unless a motion was made.

Mr. Kriewall said the Twelve Mile Road site was not the quickest site to build upon because of lack of utilities on that site. He said they were looking at alternative sites that had utilities on them and felt they would be able to move quicker with an alternative site.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with Mayor ProTem Crawford regarding taking the specific site out of the contract. She suggested that Council should come up with a date by which Council would make a decision and move forward on that particular site whether it is the same site or another. She suggested August 12th.

Mr. Shaw said a decision by August 12th would certainly help them.

No McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Schmid

Councilman Crawford advised Council that the Community Clubs would make the final determination on the Management Contract. It is a document between Community Clubs and Center Ice and Community Clubs would keep the Council informed. There was consensus of Council Members to allow Community Clubs to continue.

Mayor McLallen asked Member Mutch for a time specific extension of the meeting.

Councilwoman Mutch thought there were a couple of things to be accomplished but asked for consensus on what Council would be willing to drop from what remained.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked to postpone #6, Sidewalks and Safety Paths, until the next meeting.

There was consensus from Council to move Item #6 to Matters for Council Action - Part I to the August 12th agenda because of it’s significance and the time Council wanted to give it.

SCHEDULE A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING FOR JULY 22, 1996, at 7:30 PM - PROPOSED ROAD BOND PROGRAM

CM-96-07-255: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; To schedule a Special Meeting of the City Council for Monday, July 22, 1996 at 7:30 PM to discuss the Proposed Road Bond.

CM-96-07-256: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; To schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow this Regular City Council Meeting to discuss Pending Litigation and Property Acquisition.

Debbie Bundoff, read to Council from Appendix A in the Zoning Ordinance regarding Planned Development Options.

COMMUNITY AQUATIC PROPOSAL

Mayor McLallen had requested that this item be put on the Agenda but it can be moved over.

She asked how many proposals can we go to the taxpayers with? Decisions that were to be made within a certain time frame had not been made and the time frame had elapsed. Mayor McLallen stated Council did owe the citizens a response. Was this also going to be on the November ballot? If not, what are we going to do about it. She asked Administration to bring Council up to date on what the options are with the Aquatic Proposal at the August 12th meeting.

Councilwoman Mutch said SEMCOG unveiled it’s web site. Mr. Mutch got on the Internet and printed out what came up on the screen when the site was accessed. She showed Council what each screen looked like page by page and you can ask that it be printed. She said it provided in a graphic way the information that SEMCOG had on each community.

Councilman Mitzel said a mid year evaluation was missed and asked if two other members of the Manager’s Review Committee could meet Monday, July 22, 1996 to check the status of the Clerk’s and Manager’s goals and objectives and make a quick report to Council.

Councilwoman Cassis suggested that a policy of notification similar to the Crawford’s request when they spoke regarding notification be brought back to Council. She thought it should be a policy as opposed to an Ordinance and asked Mr. Kriewall to bring it back to Council at the next Regular Council Meeting.

MANAGERS’S REPORTS

Mr. Kriewall said he wanted to comment on the Bundoff drain concern. Mr. Nowicki had informed him that there was actually a burial made in the cemetery on the outlet side of that drain that had plugged the down stream outlet to the drain that drains her property for several years. Mr. Kriewall said it was discovered as part of the road construction on Novi Road.

Mr. Klaver updated the Council and general public on the status of the Cooper Wybrant Study of the Police Department manpower needs. He reported that their estimated completion is 4 to 6 weeks which would be mid to late August. They had completed the initial review of all the fiscal information we provided, there had been several meetings and are now moving into the phase where they will be interviewing additional personnel.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING THROUGH RRRASOC

Councilman Mitzel asked if Mr. Fried had reviewed this. Mr. Fried said he had and it was proper.

Mr. Fried said Mr. Nowicki received a call from the Michigan Department of Transportation saying that they would not enter into contracts with the City unless the Resolution authorizing the City to enter into contract contain a portion which required the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the contracts. Mr. Fried said for 20 years they had assumed as part of the Charter that the Mayor and City Clerk could sign contracts. In order to resolve this problem they had prepared a Resolution regarding this. The Resolution does not authorize the Mayor or the Clerk to enter any contract unless it is authorized by the City Council.

APPROVAL OF PROMOTION OF A POLICE OFFICE TO A SERGEANT’S POSITION.

Councilman Crawford removed this Item to ask Council if they felt there was sufficient information to pass it as presented or did they want more discussion on the duties, potential etc., on the Citizen Review Board. Council might want to delete that portion from the recommendation.

Councilwoman Mutch said all this did was update the position and at such time as there is a Citizen Review Board then this would be part of his duties.

Mr. Kriewall said it was just a recommendation that the Police Chief had made in conjunction with the elevation of this position to Sergeant but filling this position did not mean there would be a Citizen Review Board.

CM-96-07-259: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; To approve the recommendation of the promotion of Police Officer to Sergeant with the removal of all references to the Citizen Review Board.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if this was an existing job description and Council is promoting someone into that position or is this defining what this particular Officer will be assigned to do?

Mr. Klaver said many of those duties have been one currently with a Sergeant who had been taken out of road patrol to address some of those functions. Some of them are things we have not been able to do but would like to. The Review Board is something that is new and the background investigations and some of the other duties are some things that one of Sergeant’s has been currently performing.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.

Mayor Deputy City Clerk

Date approved: August 12, 1996