Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M.

ROLL CALL Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT City Manager Ed Kriewall, City Attorney Dennis Watson, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE PLAQUE

John Schuster - Construction Board of Appeals

Mayor McLallen advised they must delay the presentation because Mr. Schuster will be late.

PRESENTATION

Proclamation, Re: 50's Festival Ten Year Celebration

Mayor McLallen advised Jane Thomas is present on behalf of the Novi 50's Festival.

Mayor McLallen read the sentiment on the proclamation.

Jane Thomas advised they look forward to seeing everyone at the festival and noted they added something new this year. She explained Thursday is Novi Homecoming Night and all Novi residents will get two for one admittance with proper identification.

James Korte - Shawood Lake, advised he continues to support the Erma Street closing and presented a map showing further neighborhood support. He explained the pink depicts those in favor of the closing, red signifies those who wish to stop the vehicular traffic, and green is for those who wish to allow the vehicular traffic. Mr. Korte advised in the last 90 days he has spoken with residents in his area as they walk through. He advised there are now more who favor the closing and several greens that have turned pink. Mr. Korte advised there was earlier confusion that there would not be a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Korte advised during the 90 days there has been no access traffic in the subdivision and although he agrees it would be nicer if they could keep the street open, it cannot be left open. Mr. Korte believes the closing has worked. Further, to Mr. Korte’s knowledge there have been no complaints according to Mr. Nowicki regarding the closing. Mr. Korte asked Council to vacate the major portions of Erma Street and provide a pedestrian walkway.

Tim Mitts - 22125 Garfield, advised he lives next to the property under Item 3 of the agenda and he is looking forward to having a neighbor on that property. He understands there have been exceptions made for other people, especially developers who have taken advantage of the city. Therefore, he believes they should permit an individual to build a house if they own a small lot.

Roger Jacob - 3935 Lakefront Street, stated he is a neighbor of Mr. Korte and further advised he owns the vacant property on Novi Road next to the Lakeside Market. Mr. Jacob often hears Mr. Korte tell Council what everybody else is thinking. Mr. Jacob would prefer that these people put their opinions in writing or speak directly to Council rather than through Mr. Korte. Although Mr. Jacob respects Mr. Korte’s personal agenda, he has his own agenda as well. Mr. Jacob favored the Erma Street closing at the last meeting. However, he did not totally understand how it was going to be closed and now that he can see how it will be closed, he is totally against the closure. He stated the city recently rezoned his property against his wishes and against the recommendation of the ZBA. Mr. Jacob can accept that, but a partial closure of Erma Street will isolate his property. He explained if the road is going to be closed or vacated, he believes they should totally vacate it. Further, he does not believe they should give the property to the store owner for parking. He reported the trucks are currently driving onto and over the berms that they constructed on their property to keep them off. He believes they are only accommodating truck traffic with this closure. He does not understand why this is such an issue now that they have decreased the traffic on Novi Road significantly when it was not an issue in the past. He asked Council to keep Erma open or close and vacate it totally.

George Jacob - 3935 Lakefront Street, advised he is a part owner of the same parcel that his son just spoke about for approximately twelve years. Mr. Jacob reported they have had nothing but trouble because of the party store’s truck traffic. Mr. Jacob added he has spoken to Council and has written letters about the situation of this parcel. He has also spoken with Mr. Saven, Mr. Nowicki, Mr. Jerome and the Police Department about the trucks. Mr. Jacob cannot stay there twelve hours a day to fight with every driver. He wished Council had the opportunity to see some of the traffic for themselves. He believes it is a safety concern because a truck could hit someone. Mr. Jacob would agree to vacating the entire street, but does not agree they should vacate only a portion of it.

Glenn Davis - 1988 Austin, believes the closing was one of the best things that ever happened to Erma Street. He explained the traffic has decreased by at least 95% and he can now count the traffic on his two hands on a Saturday afternoon. Mr. Davis has not heard of any hardships to justify reopening the street. Mr. Davis drives a truck and he would not turn around on a berm because it is against the law. Therefore, he believes the truck traffic should be policed. Further, there should be some type of routing for the trucks for deliveries so that they can stay off the vacated street. Mr. Davis would like to keep the street closed and that Council may want to consider also closing the street at Charlotte and South Lake to solve the truck problem.

Tony Yazbeck - 2014 Austin, supports the Erma Street closing. He explained although he has only lived in the area for three years, the traffic has decreased since the closing. He advised the traffic that traveled to the store to get liquor during the summer is gone.

Bill Halvangis - 2020 Austin, supports the closing of Erma Street. Mr. Halvangis advised he is approximately 60 yards away from the intersection. Further, he is a teacher by career and therefore, spends more time at home during the summer and has observed a dramatic change in traffic flow.

Jim Grant - represents his daughter, Janet Grant, who is the majority owner of the Lakeview Market. Mr. Grant came tonight to get an understanding of who is for and who is against the closing. He said some of the store owners would like to leave the road open because it is more convenient. However, he believes it is reasonable and wise to keep the road closed as proposed. Mr. Grant suggested the only other solution might be to prohibit truck traffic from going beyond the point where the road is going to be closed.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, as President of SES reminded Council that they came before them a long time ago when this issue originally began and that noted they did not initiate this closure. However, she advised they do support those residents. Ms. Gray uses this area all the time because the store is convenient. She also used travel west on Erma Street, up Austin and across Charlotte, and is one of the few exceptions that obeys traffic laws. She understands what the bulk of the traffic was like in that area and she knows what the traffic is like now. She is finding that the people who live north of Erma to Charlotte favor closing the road because they endure the brunt of that commercial traffic. Ms. Gray does not know of any way to stop commercial traffic on a residential street other than with enforcement and historically, that does not work. Ms. Gray believes the closure is working and added now is the time to do something. Further, she reminded Council they sought the support of all four adjacent property owners when this issue originally came before them. Ms. Gray advised the original intent of those who wanted the street closed was for total vacation and three of the four property owners who stand to gain additional property were in support. The one who was against it is now saying he does not like the way they are proposing it and she does not blame him. She asked Council to do the very best they can do for the area.

Secondly, Ms. Gray reminded Council she asked them to reduce the speed limit on the stretch of Old Novi Road from New Novi Road to Thirteen Mile Road. She stated when she asked Mr. Nowicki about this matter, he advised that the Road Commission lost the request. She believes the city should still pursue this because it is a residential area.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilman Clark recalled Item 7., Harvest Lake of Novi required a great deal of time at their last meeting. He reminded Council they agreed to send it back to the Planning Commission and specifically requested them to act on it as expeditiously as possible. It is Councilman Clark’s understanding that the Planning Commission is holding a special meeting on July 22, 1997 and therefore, he questions its appearance on tonight’s agenda.

Mayor McLallen advised the reason this matter is on the agenda is because of a direct request pursuant to Council’s rules that any member can ask to reconsider a motion.

Councilman Clark understands that. However, he explained since they compiled tonight’s agenda, Council now knows that the Planning Commission is holding a one item special meeting so that Council can then address it at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

Mayor McLallen advised Councilman Kramer brought forward this reconsideration.

Councilman Schmid believes if they plan to hear the merits of Harvest Lake that it should appear on a one item agenda because considering it with a full agenda would be difficult. Further, Councilman Clark has already pointed out that the Planning Commission is holding a special meeting and he believes it would only be an 8-10 day delay before Council could hold a special meeting about this issue. Councilman Schmid questions the wisdom of including this item when they know the Planning Commission is meeting and they also now know the only reason they have not signed the contracts is because of the title problem. He asked if the maker of the request has any second thoughts.

Councilman Kramer replied he has given this matter much thought and explained the city’s process standards require that a request for reconsideration be submitted by the Wednesday before the scheduled Monday meeting. He noted he had to submit his reconsideration before the Planning Commission meeting and before he would know the resulting actions of that meeting. Councilman Kramer is very interested in moving forward with this issue, but he believed that extending the courtesy to the Planning Commission to request their review and comment was appropriate. Unfortunately, the subject was not on their July 16 agenda, but they did take action by scheduling a special session July 22. He added the Planning Commission responded to Council’s request and he believes it is only proper to allow them to follow through understanding that the potential majority of the Planning Commission desires merely to send it back to Council.

Since Council’s last meeting, Councilman Kramer believes there has been no good faith effort made by the developer to sign the contract so that the school can begin construction. Councilman Kramer repeated he is anxious to move forward from the present state of gridlock to end the waste of public resources because of this long process. Councilman Kramer recommended that Council schedule a special meeting at the earliest opportunity after Tuesday to move this matter forward. He believes if they cannot get together by next Monday, he would support acting on this matter tonight.

Councilman Mitzel would like to amend the agenda by adding, To Schedule a Special Meeting for Monday, July 28, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. for Harvest Lake of Novi, RUD Application.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the intent of the motion is to schedule a special meeting or is it to schedule a special meeting next Monday. Mayor McLallen believes it was to schedule a special meeting next Monday. Councilman Mitzel concurred. Mayor McLallen explained it is an agenda item and it will be the first item for discussion.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if this will only be discussion about Council’s availability and willingness to meet in a special session on that specific date. Mayor McLallen agreed.

Nay: None

PUBLIC HEARING

Vacation of a Portion of Elm Court

David Cornwell, advised he is a Farmington resident and is the purchaser of Lots 8-12 and a portion of Lots 30-32 in Walled Lake Shores Subdivision which is an old plat on the south side of Walled Lake and South Lake Drive. Mr. Cornwell is present with Henry Baldridge, the current title holder. Mr. Cornwell believes Council has already received a two page engineering report on the property that shows the current condition of the property as well as his proposed use. Mr. Cornwell is before Council as part of approximately the culmination of ten months worth of meetings with virtually every department in the city that has input into this type of project. Mr. Cornwell has met with the city’s engineering consultants, the planning consultants and many others to try to incorporate all of their input into the drawings that are currently before Council.

Mr. Cornwell explained his request is to vacate the portion of Elm Court between the lagoon joining Shawood and Walled Lakes, and an unplatted acreage parcel on the west. Mr. Cornwell advised there is a strip of Elm Court bounded by those two properties that exists only on paper and it is that portion of the road that he would like Council’s consideration for vacating. Mr. Cornwell is requesting the vacation because he is proposing to construct two new homes on the property that would have access to the lots by means of a portion of Lot 30 which connects the buildable sites to South Lake Drive. Mr. Cornwell is proposing the Elm Court vacation to provide access to the property by means of that deeded parcel that Mr. Baldridge owns in which he is proposing to purchase. Mr. Cornwell believes his request is reasonable because the street existed on paper only and was never constructed. Secondly, it really begins at no place and goes to no where. Mr. Cornwell stated if it were accessible on the east, Elm Court is hardly a road and is more of a one lane path that is inaccessible a good portion of the year. On the west, Mr. Cornwell advised the road would dead end into a three acre parcel and it does not continue at that point. He said if they developed the property, he believes that extending the road would be impossible because it dead ends into an extensive wetland area. Mr. Cornwell stated the right-of-way they are asking to vacate is substandard and is only 25 feet wide. He advised it would not permit the construction of a standard road and would not permit any better access by means of a driveway which is what they are proposing to do on their property on South Lake. Most important, Mr. Cornwell advised they would require a bridge over the lagoon if they attempted to build Elm Court. He noted the construction of a bridge would have catastrophic impact on the house on Lot 14. He explained the house is 3 feet from the right-of-way and given the elevation of a bridge over Elm Court, it would be at the top of the doorwall elevation of the house and have traffic within 3 feet of the doorwall.

Mayor McLallen advised Mr. Cornwell that he is discussing site plan issues and asked if he has any further information for consideration about the vacation.

Mr. Cornwell concluded by stating it is their request to substitute the use of the driveway shown on the drawing instead of building Elm Court. Further, it is his intention to build two substantial homes and he would occupy one of them. He believes the plan before Council would be a distinct improvement to the neighborhood and will add a tax base to the city.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a representative from the city with any further information about the vacation. Mr. Kriewall advised the city’s engineers provided a report and they may want to address the vacation from an engineering standpoint.

Joe Kapelczak, JCK and Associates, has no comments at this time.

Mr. Watson advised one requirement in the Subdivision Control Act is that whenever they vacate a street within 25 meters of a body of water or the general course of the stream, that it can only be done through the additional requirement of an order from the Circuit Court. If Council approves this vacation, he will provide the language that needs to be part of the resolution.

James Korte - is speaking on this matter as past chair of the Walled Lake Sector Study Implementation Committee. Mr. Korte advised they list his letter under Communications which includes some of the many problems created by the vacating of Elm Court. Mr. Korte disagrees with Mr. Cornwell’s comments about the devastation that would result from the construction of a bridge. Mr. Korte believes devastation of filling the land to create a building site is far more encompassing than building a bridge. Mr. Korte spoke with Elm Court resident Helen Pembroke and she remembers fishing on a bridge there 70 years ago. Mr. Korte stated if they were to vacate, all of the plot plan structure as it now exists will dissolve. He added they are now in a 1998 building situation and they have the only access to Walled Lake in a flag lot already. He believes there is no way they can build a road for two houses in that entry area. Mr. Korte stated Sue Tepatti of JCK wrote the present owner a letter advising him that he has already encompassed the 25 foot barrier between the environment and the lawn several years ago. Mr. Korte stated this is an environmentally sensitive area and the road vacation will open them up to keyholing. Mr. Korte reminded Council they have established the Lake Front Protection ordinances for the north end. He said there is a real problem because there is a one house minimum and he is not certain how they would construct only one. Mr. Korte advised Terry Morrone stated that the developer plans to petition the state to fill the wetland on Shawood Lake to create the building site. Mr. Korte advised he will put up a fight and further believes this request is premature. He believes they should review the developer’s exact proposal. Mr. Korte advised he mentioned Mr. Pascucci’s situation in his letter who could not build two houses on four acres and he does not believe Mr. Cornwell’s request fits today’s standard. He asked Council to decide carefully and further asked that deny the request for vacation.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, believes the request is premature. Ms. Gray stated if the only access to the property is the small area off South Lake Drive, then there is a problem. She understands the developer plans to live in one house and asked what are his plans for the other. Ms. Gray noted there is a keyhole ordinance and they have a flag lot situation in that area. Ms. Gray thought if there was continuous ownership of adjacent properties, it reverted to a single lot. She agrees it would be a lovely area to develop, but she also thinks they need to be careful.

Judy Thompson - 327 South Lake Drive, advised her property fronts the property where they want to build and understands that the developer wants to construct a 22 foot entrance along the side of their home. Ms. Thompson does not think 22 feet is adequate for two homes. Further, most of the properties behind her are wetland and when they built their home they had to lay eleven 45 foot pilings. Because half of this will be in wetlands, Ms. Thompson does not understand the reason for vacating the road. Ms. Thompson added they were advised that they are required to remove five of their large pine trees if the developer constructs a road. Furthermore, Ms. Thompson advised they have been maintaining most of the property in the back for the last 35 years.

Christine Czarnecki - advised she lives on Lots 13, 14 and 26. Ms. Czarnecki stated she opposes the construction of a road 5 feet away from her house and she does not believe there is enough room for two houses. Ms. Czarnecki advised they have maintained the property behind them for 20 years and she would hate to see the area developed.

CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

Councilman Clark removed Item 13., Award of the Meadowbrook Road Water and Sanitary Extension Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Man-Con, Inc., in the amount of $1,364,763.00 and authorization of the Finance Director to transfer woodlands permit fees totaling $51,300.00 from the construction account to the tree planting account, all contingent upon delivery and acceptance of all right-of-way/easements required and review of all documents by the City Attorney.

Mrs. Bartholomew advised they need to add Property Acquisition under Item 3., Schedule an Executive Session for 6:30 P.M. Monday, August 4, 1997 for Union Negotiations.

Councilman Schmid removed Item 19., Approval of SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) Annual Membership Dues in the amount of $5,110.

CM-97-07-233: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Items 13 and 19, and the addition of Property Acquisition under Item 3:

1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meetings of July 7, 1997

2. Schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Matters for Council Action Part II, Item 11 of the Regular Meeting for the purpose of Property Acquisition and Pending Litigation

3. Schedule an Executive Session for 6:30 P.M. Monday, August 4, 1997 for the purpose of Union Negotiations & Property Acquisition

4. Schedule a Special Joint Meeting of the Novi City Council and the Planning Commission for Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 7:30 P.M.

5. Approval of Ordinance 97-124.08 - Amendments to the Design & Construction Standards - Ordinance Revision - II Reading

6. Approval of Revised Fee Resolution and Ordinance 97-149.04 - An ordinance to revise the requirements for Liquor License Applications - II Reading

7. Approval of Referral to Ordinance Review Committee - Planning Commission recommendation, Re: Wetlands/Watercourse Ordinance Amendments

8. Approval of Budget Amendment No. 98-5 in the amount $11,000 - Novi Youth Assistance

9. Approval of contract between HAVEN Inc. and City of Novi

10. Approval of agreement between Oakland Livingston Human Services Agency and City of Novi

11. Approval of Resolution, Re: MERS Fire Protection Officers Retirement

12. Approval of Document Acceptance as follows:

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

Taft Road Extension

Drainage Easement Donald Thorpe $ 5,615.00

Meadowbrook Road Sanitary Sewer - N-5730

Temporary Construction Easement MSU Board of Trustees Gift*

Sanitary Sewer Easement MSU Board of Trustees Gift

Meadowbrook Road Water Main - N-5731

Water Main Easement MSU Board of Trustees Gift

Temporary Construction Easement Josif & Irene Arpasi 100.00

Temporary Construction Easement Ernest & Elizabeth Morris 100.00

Temporary Construction Easement Walled Lake Cons. Schools Gift

Water Sewer Easement Walled Lake Cons. Schools Gift

Temporary Construction Easement Thomas & Lisa O’Neil 100.00

* = Subject to special conditions as set forth on attached Exhibit "B"

14. Approval of the Authorizing Resolution and the Amended and Restated Wayne County-Oakland County Construction, Finance, and Service Agreement for the North Huron Valley/Rouge Valley Waste Water Control System

15. Approval of MDOT Contract No. 97-5255 and Authorizing Resolution for the widening of Haggerty Road from Orchard Hill Place and Eight Mile Road

16. Approval of Judgement on Acceptance of Mediation Evaluation - Chateau Estates

17. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 495

18. Approval of Michigan Municipal League Annual Membership Dues in the amount of $7,552

CM-97-07-234: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED: To schedule a Special Meeting on Monday, July 28, 1997 at 7:30 P.M. to discuss the Harvest Lake of Novi RUD proposal as a single item agenda in the Council Chambers

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Before voting, Councilman Kramer would like to verify that all of the members are available for that date. If everyone is not available, Councilman Kramer suggested that they consider another date.

Councilman Schmid believes he is available.

Councilman Clark is available.

Mayor ProTem Crawford advised he may have a conflict.

Councilwoman Mutch can be available, but it would be at some expense to her family and therefore, would prefer another date.

Mayor McLallen will be out of town from Tuesday, July 29 through August 5.

Councilman Kramer can be available any day between today and July 28.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the intent is to hold a special meeting despite Planning Commission action.

That is why Councilman Clark would like to see what action the Planning Commission takes first.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what would happen if the Planning Commission does not take any action; would Council still hold a special meeting.

Councilman Schmid asked how critical is this matter to the developer. Mayor McLallen replied it is critical to the schools.

Councilman Schmid is uncertain whether they will ever sign that contract if they do not resolve the title problem. Mayor McLallen advised only the school and the city signed the contracts; the developer will not sign them until there is a decision on the RUD.

Councilman Schmid thought the school was not signing the agreement because of the title problems and did not realize that the developer was holding up the contract. He understood that the schools did not choose to move forward.

Councilman Kramer advised that the school will not do any construction work on the site until they resolve the issue.

Jim Koster advised that the Board of Education signed the agreement. However, the Board of Education ceased construction last Monday following a communication from the developer to the school district that they could begin construction on the building part of the site before receiving title. However, the Board of Education decided they should wait until they get a clear title before they begin construction. Mr. Koster further explained if Council approved the RUD, the school board would determine and advise him if construction could begin on the site prior to the title.

Councilman Schmid asked if they are not proceeding with construction because of the title or because of the RUD. Mr. Koster replied the RUD has nothing to do with the school board’s position. Mr. Koster explained they will begin construction when they have title to the land. It is Mr. Koster’s understanding if Council approves Harvest Lake’s plan, then the developer will sign the two-way agreement and they can proceed with title.

Councilman Mitzel stated the last communication from the city attorney advised the issue was solely that the developer cannot guarantee clear title and he asked if that changed. Mr. Watson advised they had not resolved the title issue as of 4:30 P.M. today; the title company is still working on the title issue.

Councilman Mitzel is at a loss about how approving an RUD contract will clear up a title matter. If the issue is truly about the title, then he believes they should hold their special meeting after the Planning Commission’s meeting to give them an opportunity to resolve the title issue. Mr. Watson believes it is a question of timing and added it is possible that the title could be cleared up in the next day or so.

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council the title was not clear a year and a half ago when they had the first contract before them.

It was Councilman Schmid’s understanding that the only reason they held up this contract was because of a title issue. He would like to meet next Monday, but believes another extension of a few days would not hurt.

Mr. Koster advised as of 4:50 p.m. today, the school’s attorney spoke with the title company who assured him that they resolved the title issue.

Councilman Clark believes the only way all parties concerned will know they have resolved the title issue is if they receive a Commitment for Title from the title company. Councilman Clark reminded everyone they do not have that document and therefore, he does not see a need to rush.

Councilman Kramer does not agree they are rushing this matter; he believes it is a matter of moving forward. He would like Council to find a date to schedule a special meeting.

Councilwoman Mutch expressed her willingness to cut short an out of state family trip to attend Monday’s meeting. She added she would rather discuss this when it was first on the agenda.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the intent of the meeting is to approve, disapprove, or modify an area plan despite the action of the Planning Commission tomorrow night. Councilman Kramer advised that is his intent.

Councilman Clark believes their intent is to attempt to move this matter forward.

1. Approval of Vacation of a Portion of Elm Court

Mayor McLallen reported they held a public hearing and noted four residents spoke during the hearing. Mayor McLallen asked if staff has any further comments on this matter.

Mr. Kriewall advised based on the proposal and the difficulty in reaching the sites, and after reviewing the engineer’s documentation, he would recommend vacating the street.

Councilman Schmid would like further information because he does not see any sense in vacating something if it is not going to be usable. Based upon what he has heard tonight, he understands they are creating a flag lot situation and other problems with the property.

Mayor McLallen advised that the only person who spoke in favor of the vacation is someone that wishes to develop the land. She reminded Council the question before them is whether to vacate this land. Mayor McLallen added because the land is within 25 feet of a waterway, it needs Circuit Court approval and that the road bed exists merely on an early twentieth century plat that really only encompasses a grassy field. Mayor McLallen looked for site this afternoon. She reported that it comes from Shawood Lake into a very vegetated area and there is no road.

Mayor McLallen asked what parameters should Council consider pursuant to the vacation without considering any development issues. Mr. Watson replied they need to consider whether they want to give up that area from ever being a road.

Mayor McLallen asked if by vacating it and becoming a public right-of-way, does it give public frontage to Lots 8, 9 and 10 and therefore, makes them unbuildable because they take away a public frontage. Mr. Watson replied under their present condition, those lots do not currently have public frontages and therefore, the vacation action would not deprive them of that. Mr. Watson added there is a consequence to them if they want to have houses on those lots because of the fact that they are not going to have direct frontage on South Lake Drive. Consequently, they must go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Kriewall stated whether the developer gets relief from the ZBA is a separate issue. He advised they own both sides of the street, except the rear of Lots 13 and 14 for which the resident of those lots would gain rear yard property. He explained they are really just going to assemble those lots that they already own. He believes it does not really matter from a vacation standpoint and that vacating it is the right thing to do.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kriewall why he is recommending vacation. Mr. Kriewall believes the property is unusable unless they vacate that street.

Councilman Schmid asked if they built a road to the west, could they construct a subdivision? Mr. Kriewall believes that area is an extension of the wetland behind the city park and that the wetland covers the entire area.

Councilman Schmid asked if the land to the west is privately owned. Mr. Kriewall replied it is and it is not buildable.

Councilman Schmid is reluctant to create something that might never happen. He believes if they approve the vacation, he is not certain whether the individual will have access to his land because of the other problems.

Councilman Clark shares Councilman Schmid’s concerns. He is concerned about this as to whether they can ever build on it and they would be setting an adverse precedent.

Councilman Mitzel stated if this were to be vacated, half the road would go to each side and attached to the adjacent lot. Consequently, Lots 13 and 14 would gain 12-½ feet and the remainder of the road would attach to Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 that are under common ownership. Further, it appears as though the west part of Lot 30 is under the same ownership. Mr. Kriewall and Mr. Watson agreed.

Councilman Mitzel asked if all that would be considered as one sidwell and lot. Mr. Watson replied he is not certain that it would be considered one sidwell, but they might treat it as a lot of record and added there is a provision in the ordinance for lots of records.

Councilman Mitzel recalled there was provision that stated if the lots were smaller than a certain size with adjacent ownership that they must be consolidated into one lot of record. Mr. Watson agreed and believed the width is 60 feet.

Councilman Mitzel believes in essence they would vacate the road and create one larger parcel under one ownership, and add onto the ownership of Lots 13, 14 and 26. Mr. Watson agreed.

Councilman Mitzel stated there would therefore be no guarantee that they could build upon or split the lot. Mr. Watson replied they would have to apply for the split and for building purposes, go to before the ZBA.

Mayor ProTem Crawford can see no reason not to vacate. However, after visiting the site, he noted there is no indication that anything there is buildable. He explained the area is heavily wooded and has wetlands in many areas. Further, they are small lots and the access is totally unacceptable in terms of emergency service. He added that the lot appears to violate just about every ordinance they have about flag lots, lot sizes, access, and turnarounds. Mayor ProTem Crawford stated if they choose to vacate it, he noted Council’s intent is not to suggest that the area is buildable.

Councilman Kramer views this action as creating a hardship for the landowner to present a case on why he needs remedy to create single or double illegal flaglots. Councilman Kramer does not like the original layout of the plat, but he does not know if there is a better answer. Councilman Kramer believes vacating the street would be adding to the problem and forcing a solution they do not want.

CM-97-07-235: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, FAILED: To deny request to vacate Elm Court as described in the attached resolution, located in Walled Lake Shores Subdivision

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked what is minimum width needed for access to a lot. Mr. Watson replied under R-4 it is 80 feet wide. However, there is a provision that allows preexisting lots of a substandard width to be developed even if they do not have that width. Therefore, they can develop it if it is an old lot. Mr. Watson added they measure the lot width at the setback distance from the road on which it fronts. Consequently, they probably do not meet the 80 feet and for it to be developed, it would fall under the lots of record provision as opposed to any minimum width requirement.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there are any minimum requirements because she believes 22 feet is minimal. Mr. Watson reiterated there is a minimum width requirement, but there is an exception for existing lots that were platted years ago. However, whether they can physically construct a house and otherwise comply with the setback requirements, and have a sufficient building envelope is another question. He believes these cases frequently come before the ZBA for setback issues.

Councilwoman Mutch does not have a problem with the assemblage of lots, but she does not see any reason to do this if they are creating a situation that does not have any practical benefit because of that action. Further, to send the applicant to Circuit Court and incur that expense to complete the process with the expectation there is going to be some kind of variance is misleading. Mr. Watson disagreed and stated several members have stressed that there is no guarantee that any of the other approvals are going to be forthcoming. He added that is the risk the developer will knowingly take.

Councilman Schmid would support vacation if it did some good. However, he would prefer to deny the vacation because of the cost involved if they send it to Circuit Court. Mr. Watson noted that the burden of court costs would be given to the applicant.

Councilman Schmid reiterated he will not support the vacation at this time because he is not certain whether they should develop the area for only one house.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the applicant submitted a site plan. Mr. Cornwell replied he has submitted plans to the city to develop the lot and he believes they should be before Council tonight. He explained he has retained a consulting engineer who incorporated a wetland survey, a topographical survey, a boundary survey, and various other information based upon the recommendation of the city’s various departments. Mr. Cornwell does not believe he is misrepresenting when all of those experts have said that it is feasible to develop the property for two residences. Further, as difficult as the site appears because of the vegetation, he advised they are not going about this without direction. He explained they have spent a great deal of money to have the property engineered and brought back repeatedly to various city departments. Consequently, they also believe they have a reasonable plan for moving forward and he regrets that Council members do not have a copy of the plan before them.

Councilman Mitzel said it appears that Lots 11 and 12 have frontage through the western part of Lot 30 to South Lake Drive. He believes vacating would just consolidate the rear portion with the front portion of the property and does not allow for more than one lot because Mr. Watson advised that would then form one lot of record. Councilman Mitzel believes if there was a request to build more than one lot there, they would have to request a lot split or a waiver. Councilman Mitzel believes this action is only consolidating that action and if the developer can build only one home, it will then have a larger lot. Consequently, Councilman Mitzel will oppose the motion to deny the request although he has not reviewed the issue of how many houses could fit there, whether the flag lot should be split or the other site plan issues that would have to be dealt with later.

Mayor McLallen will not support motion because she not only does she concur with Councilman Mitzel’s comments, it also clears up an issue of something that does not really exist except for on paper.

Mayor McLallen asked the city’s staff to provide drawings in the future so Council can more clearly visualize these types of matters.

Nay: McLallen, Crawford, Mitzel, Mutch

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they require a majority vote of 5 for vacation or is a majority vote of 5 only required to buy and sell property.

Mr. Watson replied they require a majority vote of 5 for both matters.

2. Approval of Vacation of a Portion of Erma Street

Mr. Kriewall advised the resolution to this point does not address the retaining of a pedestrian walkway easement. Therefore, if Council considers the partial vacation, they should change the language to provide for a pedestrian walkway easement.

Mayor McLallen advised there is a public utility and drainage easement and asked if they can all be the concurrent same easement or should they be separate. Mr. Watson replied they might be. He explained under this language the easement for public utility and drainage purposes is simply across the entire street area. Mr. Watson said it would therefore give them the option of putting it wherever they wanted. Mr. Kriewall agreed.

Mr. Watson further explained they should modify that statement to be "that the City of Novi hereby further reserves an easement in vacated Erma Street for public utility, drainage and sidewalk purposes."

Councilman Mitzel asked if he is recommending that the city retain the entire 50 feet for pedestrian easement. Mr. Watson agreed and added they should do this if they want to retain the option of putting the sidewalk wherever they want to put it.

Councilman Mitzel is concerned that if they split the 25 feet between the adjacent lots that it would be an encumbrance to improve that area.

Councilman Mitzel advised that the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 12 foot wide easement for pedestrian walkways. Councilman Mitzel asked if they could vacate Erma Street in a way that they vacate all but 12 feet. Mr. Watson said they could vacate it except for that easement or specify that the easement is within that particular area. However to do that, they must know where that area is.

Councilman Mitzel asked if having an easement for the walkway is better or just actually retain the ownership from a city standpoint. Mr. Watson replied for the purpose of a sidewalk it does not make a difference. However, if they retained actual ownership, Mr. Watson advised it would be off the tax rolls.

Councilman Mitzel asked if there is further comment from the city’s staff about a full or partial closure of Erma Street. Mr. Kriewall advised they support the partial vacation recognizing that there is an existing parking and/or access problem with the market. He recommends that they leave that portion of the street open and advised they have discussed putting a t-turnaround on the Novi Road side of the fence or barricade.

Councilman Mitzel asked if there still is a proposal for the t-turnaround. Mr. Kriewall replied there is.

Councilwoman Mutch stated the original comments from area residents included concerns that there would be additional pedestrian traffic on Old Novi Road and added there were particular concerns about children. Councilwoman Mutch asked if they had observed any reasons for those concerns during the temporary closure. Mr. Nowicki recalled there were some concerns with respect to a potential increase of pedestrian traffic using Old Novi Road. Mr. Nowicki advised they raised those questions because of a proposal to close the entire portion of Erma Street and also close it to pedestrian foot travel. Mr. Nowicki said because they now included a pedestrian walkway with no obstruction, there should be no reason for pedestrians to use Old Novi Road.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if he is saying that the pedestrian access created by the city has not added to and may have lessened pedestrian traffic that might otherwise have been on Old Novi Road. Mr. Nowicki replied during his tours of the area, he has not noticed many pedestrians and therefore, he cannot comment whether the pedestrian traffic has increased or decreased.

Councilman Kramer believes there are three significant open items that he would like to see addressed. One is the design of the road and he believes they need a plan that will identify the adjacent property owner’s property from the road. He would also like to see what type of material they will use for a permanent closure because he does not think a chain link fence is what they want there. Finally, Councilman Kramer would like a commitment from the store’s owner that they will improve the rear parking.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked Mr. Jerome to clarify his recommendation for total closure of Erma Street. Mr. Jerome took this position because the design of the t-turnaround as proposed creates a construction problem. Mr. Jerome explained there is an Edison guide wire and a large tree to the north. To the south, Mr. Jerome advised there is a portion of property that they would have to acquire from Mr. Jacob to build the turnaround. Mr. Jerome believes if they do not close the entire street, they must redesign the turnaround.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the closure of the entire street would facilitate improving the parking problems. Mr. Jerome replied it would give the store an additional 5 feet.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there is room for access around the store past the tree and guide wire. Mr. Jerome advised that the store owner had a site plan a few years ago with improvements to the property. He explained staying to the east could accomplish access for a circular drive pattern between the tree and the building.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if that would eliminate the difficulty caused by the Edison guide wire. Mr. Jerome advised the guide wire is west of the tree.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how much property would they have to purchase to make an appropriate t-turnaround. Mr. Jerome replied they need an additional 4 feet to construct the plan designed for the south side.

Councilman Clark moved to adopt a resolution for the entire vacation of Erma Street subject to the comments made this evening relative to public easements and a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Kriewall advised Council cannot make that motion. Mr. Watson added they have already advertised and submitted a resolution for a partial closure.

Councilman Clark corrected his motion by stating he will move for the vacation of Erma Street as proposed in the resolution with the understanding that it provide for the public easements and for a pedestrian access.

Mr. Watson asked if the easement would provide for a pedestrian sidewalk as well. Councilman Clark agreed.

Mayor McLallen advised the motion dies for lack of support.

Councilman Schmid stated since this has been on the agenda, the only information they have about whether the closure worked is from of the homeowners. He noted they received a brief statement from the Police Department indicating they had seen no additional traffic and parking has improved. Councilman Schmid thought they would have gotten something back about the pedestrian traffic on Novi Road. Having said that, Councilman Schmid also has a problem that there are no plans before them tonight. He recalled seeing a plan about the t-turnaround that he believes to be a safety factor if they construct a pedestrian walkway. Councilman Schmid believes they should vacate the street. However, he is not certain that they should concern themselves about a t-turnaround or any other types of activity in the store’s parking lot because that should be the owner’s concern. However, he would still like further explanation about the adjacent property owner’s concerns.

Councilwoman Mutch stated although the request is primarily from the residents in the area on the north end of Austin, she noted the store owner still benefits by gaining property if they vacate all the way to Novi Road. However, if they partially vacate Erma, the they gain no property, but the people on Austin will gain property. Mr. Watson agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch is concerned about the turnaround and the safety factor. However, she also agrees with Councilman Schmid and wonders why they are spending so much time on that issue. She stated if they are going to create a benefit for a property owner, are they in a position to ask for something in return such as improved truck access to the site to improve what they perceive to be a potential safety problem. Mr. Watson does not think they can condition the vacation upon a new site plan being submitted by the store owner. However, he supposes they could postpone action and that Council may grant action upon the submittal of a site plan.

Councilwoman Mutch is concerned about what the adjacent property owner said about the adverse truck situation resulting from a partial vacation. She believes a partial vacation will create a dangerous situation that was not there originally. Mr. Watson is not certain because he has not been to the site, but he would agree that it may be a difficulty.

Councilwoman Mutch stated there is nothing they can require, but they could postpone this matter until Mr. Arroyo could comment on what might improve the traffic situation. Mr. Watson agreed that is another possibility.

Councilman Mitzel believes part of the difficulty is that many Council members were expecting more of a formal report back about how the temporary closing worked. However, he believes there is really no consideration of reopening the road to through traffic. Therefore, they will keep it closed and now what they should address is how they are going to deal with the part that will stay open. He believes as a first step that they should support Councilman Clark’s motion to vacate the part they have already advertised, and retain the easement and barricades as they are. Then, they can address the other issues raised this evening at another time because they do not really impact the western part of the road because they have already said they are closing that portion.

Councilman Mitzel did not originally support the motion because he thought they should address the entire street. However, he then realized the hearing was only for a partial closing. Councilman Mitzel reported the February 24 agenda lists a public hearing for the vacation of Erma Street requesting the approval of a resolution for vacating from a point at the northeast corner of Lot 68 west to Austin Drive. Therefore, Councilman Mitzel would support the motion as a starting point since they cannot address the entire portion this evening.

CM-97-07-237: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mitzel, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Resolution vacating Erma Street between Novi Road and Austin Drive within the Shawood Walled Lake Heights Subdivision and subject to reservation of an easement in vacated Erma Street for public utility purposes and a pedestrian right-of-way

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the motion should include that they would schedule a public hearing for the potential vacation for the balance of Erma Street and that staff would come back with plans for a t-turnaround. Councilman Mitzel advised that would be a separate motion, but that is his intent because he believes they need to know where they would construct a pedestrian sidewalk.

Mayor ProTem Crawford added he would support the partial vacation if they continue to exploring the total vacation with all of the other issues considered.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they decided they were going to construct a sidewalk for the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Watson replied they actually stated they would retain an easement for the purposes of a pedestrian right-of-way. Mayor ProTem Crawford clarified by stating the motion does not mean they will construct a paved pathway.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes they need to schedule a public hearing for the possible vacation of the rest of Erma Street. He would also like to see a staff report about some of Mr. Jerome’s concerns regarding acquiring additional property, the t-turnaround, and how the tree, and the Edison poles and the guide wires affect the turnaround plan.

CM-97-07-238: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To prepare a resolution to advertise the vacation of the easterly portion of Erma Street on August 11, 1997 to schedule a public hearing on August 25, 1997 and direct staff to prepare more detailed support information addressing turnaround concerns

Councilman Mitzel asked if they need to provide a date to Mr. Nowicki. Mr. Kriewall advised that they need to first introduce a resolution at another meeting and they can then set a public hearing at that time.

Mrs. Bartholomew advised that they can introduce the resolution on August 4 with a public hearing being scheduled for the following meeting.

Councilman Kramer and Mayor ProTem Crawford would like the store owner to provide information regarding the store’s parking situation.

Mayor McLallen noted they have only scheduled an Executive Session on August 4 and asked if that is considered to be a Council meeting. Mrs. Bartholomew advised the next regularly scheduled meetings are actually scheduled for August 11 and 25.

Nays: None

Mayor McLallen added since they are giving up public property and they are still retaining certain rights, she believes they should provide something better than a chain link fence.

Mr. Kriewall advised they planned to construct a berm or something with logs; the fence was only for the temporary closing.

Councilman Mitzel noted most of Iva Street is still gravel and has a curb cut after its closure. Mayor McLallen agreed that is an outstanding issue when they vacate streets and asked how can they make them not look like streets after the closure. Mr. Kriewall will look into that matter.

3. Approval of Appeal of June 18, 1997 Planning Commission Decision to deny Wetland Permit - SP 97-18 - Timothy and Deborah Wagner - Property located west of Garfield between Eight Mile and Nine Mile Roads

Deborah Wagner advised she and her husband are before Council to receive an approval to build a home on a parcel of property in which they purchased on a land contract in May 1989. Mrs. Wagner advised they did not initially pursue the project because they were recently married and they wanted to pay off the property before building. Mrs. Wagner added they have received the proper permits to build on the site from the State of Michigan and Oakland County. In getting the appropriate permits, Mrs. Wagner advised they have willingly worked with the DNR, the Oakland County Health Division, the City of Novi Forester, and JCK and Associates. Mrs. Wagner reported they have cooperated by making many changes to their original plans which now meet with mutual satisfaction. Further, they have received letters from Detroit Edison and Ameritech stating that it is possible to provide service. Mrs. Wagner added they have already secured the bond necessary for the woodland permit after having worked with Mr. Pargoff and noted the main reason they purchased the property was because of its natural beauty within a tree setting. Consequently, they are striving to maintain its natural setting. Further, they had a soil boring test done to insure that the soil could hold the size of the house they wanted to build. The test showed that they needed to remove the surface peat where the house is to be built and replace it with an appropriate soil. Mrs. Wagner advised there appears to be no other problems with the building area and they would limit any changes to the soil strictly to the location of the home. To the best of their knowledge, Mrs. Wagner advised all other issues regarding their submitted plans have met with approval. Mrs. Wagner advised they are proposing to build a house that is aesthetically pleasing and correlates with all other preexisting homes in the area. The location is zoned RA and according to the Master Plan for Land Use, they have labeled Section 31 as residential. Further, to the south there are several existing homes as well as a small sub called Deer Run. Detroit Edison owns all the property to the west and north and they constructed towers along this area. Because of the towers, Mrs. Wagner believes future development in this direction is not foreseeable. In addition, Mrs. Wagner advised they have already proven to be reliable taxpayers, they have become actively involved in the community and they have the support of their future neighbors. Further, her husband grew up in the Novi area and he wishes to raise his three children in the same community. Mrs. Wagner advised they have invested eight years and money in the property with the goal of making this their permanent home. She stated when they originally purchased the property, they were led to believe that they could develop this site for their home and now other housing alternatives are no longer viable due to the investment expended on this location.

Paul Bond, the Wagner’s attorney, advised he had the opportunity to speak with Sue Tepatti and her very well reasoned letter is a part of the packet. He advised Council is faced with two options; Council can either give a direct denial or send it back to the Planning Commission with an opportunity to work with Ms. Tepatti to modify the present application to fit more in line with some of her suggestions. Mr. Bond advised the Planning Commission reviewed a request for a 17,000 square foot fill. However, the ordinance allows for what they consider a minor project which is 10,000 square feet or less of fill for a single residence. Mr. Bond advised the DEQ and the Oakland County Health Department approved the plan. Further, the city’s planner and wetland expert have suggested that there are modifications that they can make. He explained they are looking for action that would permit the Wagners to work with Ms. Tepatti to bring the project more in line with what the ordinance calls for under a single family residence. Mr. Bond advised they purchased the property in 1989 and the purpose for hiring him was to assess whether there is a takings issue. Mr. Bond added although the city had a wetland’s ordinance at that time, it was amended in 1991 and some of the provisions are affecting this particular project. Mr. Bond reiterated they are asking to allow the petitioners to work with the city’s experts and permit them to go back before the Planning Commission with a proposal they think is more in line with what the city would like.

Sue Tepatti, of JCK and Associates, advised they reviewed the wetland permit for this project. Ms. Tepatti believes this is the first all wetland lot that has come before the Planning Commission and subsequently Council for review although they have reviewed minor permits in the past with lots involving upland areas. Ms. Tepatti advised the parcel is approximately 8.1 acres and is completely forested wetland. Further, the wetland continues offsite to the west and north into the Edison corridor and beyond. Ms. Tepatti advised the proposed home will impact approximately 17,000 square feet of wetland which is about almost 0.4 acres. She explained approximately half of the lot is proposed to be filled or impacted due to the construction of the home. Ms. Tepatti stated even if there are revisions made to the plan, the matter may still may become a Planning Commission or Council issue because there is a limit of 10,000 square feet of impact for a minor wetland permit and it also has to be less than 300 cubic yards. Ms. Tepatti is not certain that this application would still be able make the 300 cubic yard designation because of the amount of peat they are required to remove and then backfill with sand. Therefore, it may still be a Planning Commission matter even if they can reduce the impacts to the square footage of the wetland.

Ms. Tepatti displayed a copy of the plot plan that shows the amount of the wetland and the home location. Ms. Tepatti advised there is also some difficulty with the site regarding the septic field. Further, she reported they have listed some potential alternatives in their letter which have not yet been pursued that they feel should be addressed by the applicant before their office will recommend approval of the wetland permit. Ms. Tepatti advised that may involve researching the septic field location further with the county or to look at the setback from Garfield Road. She believes it is currently 60 feet and it may only be required to be 30 feet. Ms. Tepatti advised there are a few other similar issues that they are typically required to address.

Ms. Tepatti reported there is also a significant amount of area around the front of the home that appears to be proposed for lawn and typically the permits they have seen which may involve some wetland fill restrict disturbances around the home to 10-15 feet from the house. Consequently, Ms. Tepatti advised some homes in the past virtually have no front or rear yard. Ms. Tepatti advised this plan requires a septic field, so if a permit was approved the septic fields would serve as a backyard because they basically have to remain in a lawn state. Therefore, they felt there were some reductions that could still be made to the plan.

There were also some concerns about setting a precedent involving a lot that is all wetland and allowing a building to be placed on that. Ms. Tepatti advised the wetland’s ordinance addressing subdivisions does not allow platting of lots within wetland areas; they would have to remain in a commons area. Therefore, they do not typically see this type of situation of having to review wetland fill to get buildable area. Ms. Tepatti advised their office has recommended that the permit be reviewed for alternatives prior to any recommendation of approval.

Councilman Clark asked where is all the water going to drain since the entire site is under water and assuming that a substantial amount of peat is removed and sand is used for backfill in the building envelope. Ms. Tepatti understands that the area is a seasonally ponded area. She explained the area dries out as far as surface water, but it is ponded throughout the winter and most of the spring. She advised their engineers conducted a land improvement review and they are going to recommend approval of the land improvement permit for grading. Ms. Tepatti cannot speak for them directly, but she is certain that they reviewed that issue because the parcels to the north and west experience the standing water, and she does not believe they feel this would have a significant impact on the drainage.

Councilman Clark asked if they are asking for more time to look at alternatives. Ms. Tepatti replied they are and explained during the Planning Commission discussion there was concern that this lot may not be buildable even if they reduced the impacts. However, that would be a Commission or Council decision. Ms. Tepatti reiterated they have not recommended approval of the plan as it currently exists because one of the criteria in the ordinance is that alternatives must be pursued.

Councilman Clark advised there was a comment made about this being a taking issue and he believes the record should be clear that the wetland’s ordinance may have changed since the purchase of the property. In addition, the record should also reflect that there was no existing plan at that point. While he is sympathetic to the petitioner, Councilman Clark advised when they purchased this property they knew that the entire site was under water and there might be a building problem. Councilman Clark has no problem offering the petitioner additional time to look at alternatives, but believes Council is in no position to grant their request tonight. Councilman Clark moved to deny the request and send it back so that the plan can be reworked; Mayor ProTem Crawford seconded the motion.

CM-97-07-239: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, WITHDRAWN: To deny approval of appeal of June 18, 1997 Planning Commission decision to deny Wetland Permit - SP 97-18 - Timothy and Deborah Wagner - Property located west of Garfield between Eight Mile and Nine Mile Roads the request and send it back to be reworked

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Watson advised there are two possible Council actions. He explained they could deny it without prejudice or they could postpone it to allow them to go through the process and then come back before Council. However, if the choice is to deny it without prejudice he would ask that the motion explicitly state that it is without prejudice to the applicant resubmitting with a plan that reduces the encroachment into the regulated wetland.

Councilman Mitzel noted if the request is denied, they have to go back to the beginning of the process by resubmitting fees, hold another public hearing and so forth. Councilman Mitzel asked if a postponement would permit the applicant to explore the other alternatives without having to start over. Mr. Watson agreed and added when Council considers an appeal of a wetland’s permit action by the Planning Commission, in addition to granting the appeal, they have an option of attaching conditions to it. If Council postpones it, the applicant can attempt to address the issues and if they reach some resolution, they can bring the request back to Council for an approval with those conditions.

Councilman Clark withdrew the prior motion and moved to postpone.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes that is what they meant to say. He asked postponement permits the petitioner to work out differences with the Planning Commission or do they have to work with the consultants and come back before Council. Mr. Watson replied Council can direct the applicant to go back to the Planning Commission. He explained Council is simply postponing action to allow the applicant to attempt to come up with a plan that reduces the encroachment and noted they would bring that back before Council.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes the applicant requested to go back before the Planning Commission to see if they could address some of their issues and get a different recommendation from them.

Councilman Kramer believes a postponement will still accomplish that. Mr. Watson agreed.

CM-97-07-240: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone to a date uncertain the request made by Timothy and Deborah Wagner, SP 97-18, to appeal the June 18, 1997 decision of the Planning Commission to deny said Wetland Permit application by allowing the petitioner an opportunity to resubmit a plan without prejudice by going back before the Planning Commission to explore alternatives

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the applicant can work with the Planning staff and the consultants without having to go back before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Bond thought they were following city procedure. He explained they would like to work with Ms. Tepatti and offer a plan that Council can determine to be a good idea or not.

Councilwoman Mutch is willing to vote for something that will postpone a decision and allow them to see what is possible, but she is concerned that even after that it may still not work out. Councilwoman Mutch believes a postponement is sufficient because it will give the applicant the opportunity to determine whether it is worth coming back before Council.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes there is the potential of going back before the Planning Commission and getting it resolved there so that the applicant will not have to come back before Council,

Mayor McLallen believes because the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision and Council is basing their decision on that appeal, the applicant can come back before Council. The Mayor explained until this motion passes, the decision is with Council without going back to the other body. She further believes Councilwoman Mutch is saying this matter could be resolved administratively to meet the ordinances and Ms. Tepatti can come back before Council with a recommendation.

Councilman Clark believes his motion is sufficient and added that they may not see the matter again because the petitioner may elect to go before the Planning Commission. He noted Council is postponing action on the appeal and the applicant may also decide that they want to come back before Council after working with the city’s consultants.

Councilman Kramer asked if the wetland is continuous throughout the Edison corridor. Ms. Tepatti believes it is and advised the area has been mapped as continuing to the west and to the north. She added that the wetland also travels south to the Deer Run parcel.

Councilman Kramer asked how would Ms. Tepatti characterize the homes built to the south. Ms. Tepatti replied the only home to the south that received a wetland permit was two doors down because they had an island in the middle of the parcel that was considered upland.

Councilman Kramer asked if the other homes to the south were built without filling wetlands. Ms. Tepatti agreed.

Councilman Kramer asked if this is the last buildable lot next to the easement. Ms. Tepatti believes it is.

Councilman Schmid asked if it is feasible that this project will meet the woodland and wetland’s ordinance. Ms. Tepatti believes it may be feasible, but it is difficult for her to make that determination at this point.

Councilman Schmid asked if this is a RA, 1 acre lot subdivision. Mr. Rogers replied that the lot does not meet the 1 acre minimum.

Mayor McLallen believes the frontage on Garfield is 154 feet and meets the ordinance.

Mayor McLallen understands that the applicant has a DEQ and septic permit which are good for two years. She noted one is expiring this fall and asked if they foresee any change because if they do not resolve this issue, they must have the property reperked.

Mrs. Wagner understands the DEQ permit expires in December. Ms. Tepatti noted that the permit extends for one year.

Nays: None

4. Approval of Appeal of July 2, 1997 Planning Commission Decision to deny Revised Woodland Permit - SP 96-22B - Settler’s Creek Subdivision - Property located east of Clark Street between 11 Mile Road and 10 Mile Road

Cliff Seiber advised they were before the Planning Commission on July 2, 1997 for action on their woodland’s permit and they are now before Council in accordance with the ordinance to appeal that decision. Mr. Seiber advised their appeal is based on the "no back yard" classification and he advised they have found there is no reference in the ordinance to such a classification. He reported the only place they have found a "no backyard" classification is in Mr. Pargoff and Ms. Lemkes’ letters. Mr. Seiber also asked that their request be given the same consideration as any other subdivision that Council has approved with regulated woodlands in the backyards. Mr. Seiber sited Greenwood Oaks, Beckenham and Mystic Forest as examples.

Secondly, Mr. Seiber advised they are appealing the tree counts on the lots. He advised Mr. Pargoff has indicated that he is requiring the posting of a bond of financial security for all the trees on all the lots. Mr. Seiber advised that they find no reference in the ordinance to provide for this and added there has been several subdivisions recently approved where the requirement for posting of financial guarantees for all the trees on all the lots was not provided for. In addition, Mr. Seiber advised that the ordinance requires mitigation or replacement trees. Mr. Seiber reported they are proposing the removal of 102 trees 8 inches and larger. In order to comply with the ordinance, Mr. Seiber advised they are providing 145 replacement trees. However, contrary to the ordinance, he stated Ms. Lemke is requiring an additional 165.

Mr. Seiber is requesting that this project be treated similar to other projects and that they would only be required to provide replacement trees in accordance with the ordinance. Finally, they are appealing the denial of the woodland’s permit by the Planning Commission and are asking Council to grant its issuance.

Mayor ProTem Crawford is confused about the process and asked how can they approve or deny an appeal for a woodland’s permit on a site plan that does not exist. Mr. Watson replied approval would be contingent upon the applicant getting preliminary plat approval.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how can they make a decision on a woodland’s permit for a site plan that they have not approved and have actually denied. Mr. Watson replied they can make a decision on the woodland’s permit and advised the petitioner is asking Council to consider the woodland’s permit and make a determination as to whether they meet the ordinance criteria or not.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how do they know that when the petitioner does not have an approved site plan. Mr. Watson replied they base woodland’s approval on what the woodland’s ordinance calls for. He explained any approval is contingent upon a site plan or a plat being approved. Mr. Watson added whenever they have a site plan or plat with woodlands or wetlands that necessitate a permit approval and the bodies act on them independently.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the action is separate from an approved site plan. Mr. Watson replied it is separate, but contingent upon an approved site plan that also permits that activity.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if woodland and wetland applications have to relate to some type of a site plan. He explained if they had a totally different site plan, it would be a different woodland or wetland’s application. Mr. Watson agreed and explained that is why an approval would be contingent upon such a site plan being approved. In other words, Mr. Watson stated before they could remove trees for purposes of building that plat, they must also have that approval.

Councilman Schmid asked why is this developer before Council. He reminded Council the plat has been denied by them and asked how can they appeal a woodland’s permit if they do not have a site plan. Mr. Watson replied the petitioner always has the opportunity to come back with a new site plan application. Mr. Watson explained when they submitted their application for the original plat, the applicant had a woodland’s permit application as a part of that. Mr. Watson further explained that was originally postponed by the Planning Commission and then openly denied by them and the applicant is appealing that action.

Councilman Schmid reiterated since that plat was denied, any woodland’s permit request would not relate to that plat. Mr. Watson advised the applicant would like the opportunity to have Council consider an appeal of the woodland’s action taken by the Planning Commission which if Council took action on would give him the opportunity to try to submit a new plan. Mr. Watson assumes the applicant is trying to resolve each question one by one.

Councilman Mitzel believes Mr. Watson is saying they can judge that proposal on solely the issue before them tonight and added it can still be unacceptable to Council for a normal subdivision plat and the wetland criteria. He further believes they are just supposed to look at it in view of how it impacts the woods. Mr. Watson agreed.

Councilman Mitzel believes those at the table are saying that even if they grant the request, it really does not have anything to build upon because the other issues were unacceptable and the applicant would have to modify the plat. Mr. Watson agreed.

Councilman Mitzel asked if Mr. Watson had any response to the specific appeal points that were raised. Mr. Watson replied the applicant has an issue with the "no backyard" classification and agreed they are not going to find that phrase in the ordinances. He advised that term refers to a section of the ordinance that allows the body granting or acting on a woodland’s permit to impose conditions upon the permit.

Councilman Mitzel asked if that would include a preservation easement or conditions that they must maintain the backyard in its natural state. Mr. Watson agreed and added that is one of the things Mr. Pargoff is suggesting.

Councilman Mitzel asked if that has been done in other subdivisions. Mr. Watson agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch believes this request is no different from an applicant who submitted a woodland’s permit and it came up first. Mr. Watson agreed and noted the case previously before Council is an example. He explained the DEQ issued a wetland’s permit and the county has issued a permit for a septic field, but those permits are useless until the applicant can get through the rest of the steps and this case is no different. Mr. Watson advised if they approve the request, it is contingent upon the applicant getting through the rest of the steps.

Councilwoman Mutch said they might not think about this in the same way if they had not rejected the site plan and the woodland’s permit had been brought forward first. Mr. Watson agreed and noted procedurally, that was always a possibility. He explained the Planning Commission might have denied the woodland’s permit at the same time they made a recommendation to Council about the plat. However, it did not happen in that order for this application.

Councilman Clark understands that this is a matter for Council’s discretion to either grant or deny the appeal. Mr. Watson agreed.

CM-97-07-241: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED: To deny request by petitioner without prejudice to appeal the July 2, 1997 decision of the Planning Commission to deny revised Woodland Permit for Settler’s Creek Subdivision, SP 96-22B and grant the petitioner the opportunity to resubmit their request

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch agrees with the motion’s intent, but it seems that they should be looking at whether the applicant can meet the requirements for the permit. She believes if they can meet the requirements, she believes they should grant the request. However, if there is sufficient reason to deny on the merits of the permit application, then they should deny the request at this time. Since there is no other motion, Councilwoman Mutch will reluctantly support this motion.

Mayor McLallen noted Mr. Seiber does not find a requirement in the ordinance for a financial guarantee for all trees counted and a requirement for an extra amount of trees. Mr. Watson advised the ordinance requires the filing of a cash bond or irrevocable letter of credit as determined necessary by the city to insure compliance with the approved use permit if a permit is granted for the trees on the lot being counted. Mr. Watson added when the consultants make a recommendation, they are trying to make a recommendation on the amount of money that it will take. He explained they are essentially looking at what trees they believe are at risk by the activities proposed on the site.

Mr. Watson suggested that Mr. Pargoff comment on why the particular number of trees were asked to be bonded for and whether that is different from what he would recommend for other subdivisions. Mr. Pargoff advised they do not feel the building envelopes indicated on the plans are going to be an accurate depiction of what is going to happen in the field. Mr. Pargoff explained many times trees are lost at the rear of the lot because the envelope is pushed back due to setback requirements. Mr. Pargoff advised that is why they believe the developer is responsible for those individual lots as a whole. Further, the fees are transferable to the individual builders and fees can be transferred to the individual builder on an individual lot basis at the time of building permit.

Mr. Watson said the second issue was the question of relocation or replacement trees. Mr. Watson advised Section 37-8 of the ordinance has a specific formula for the requirement of replacement trees and Mr. Pargoff suggested that the number of replacement trees requested is not in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Watson asked Mr. Pargoff to comment. Mr. Pargoff asked if that was a provision requested by Ms. Lemke or is it on the whole lots. Mr. Watson believes the representation made by Mr. Seiber is that Ms. Lemke asked for an additional 165 replacement trees and that is contingent if a wetland mitigation plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Watson understands that the wetland mitigation plan is approved by the Planning Commission and that the mitigation is going to remove an additional woodland area. Mr. Pargoff agreed and explained those are the trees Ms. Lemke was asking for in her letter. However, in discussions with Ms. Lemke’s representative Mr. Olson, they have decided that the applicant would not incur additional bonding for the replacement trees. Further, they would look at the number of trees being removed for replacement and keep count of the removals, but not require additional bonding to assure their replanting other than what was going to be requested on an entire subdivision basis.

Councilman Kramer asked if it is customary to require replacement of trees in the mitigation area. Mr. Pargoff said replacement is required if they do not survive the mitigation process.

Nays: McLallen

Award for Mr. John Schuster - Construction Board of Appeals

Mayor McLallen read the sentiment on the resolution for outstanding community service as demonstrated by John Schuster.

Mr. Schuster has been a Novi resident for approximately 20 years and he has seen the community grow around him. He advised they are now moving to a condominium on a golf course at Oak Pointe only because they were unable to find the same kind of community in Novi. Although Mr. Schuster has enjoyed living in and serving the community, there is one attitude that he has come across that disturbs him and that is the perception of "us versus them." Mr. Schuster does not believe it is "us versus them," but rather believes it is "we" trying to do something together. Mr. Schuster said the city is the elected officials, as well as the residents and he would like to see that attitude changed.

Matt Quinn, attorney for the applicant, is before Council because his client wants to do business in Novi, is willing to spend an excess of $400,000 to improve a center that currently has a vacancy rate problem, and wants to bring something totally unique to the city. Mr. Quinn advised Mr. Zaya is the sole owner of Breaktime Billiards Bar & Grill, Inc. and he currently has an agreement to purchase a Resort Class C liquor license. This also means that this license will not come from the city’s quota. Mr. Quinn advised Mr. Zaya proposes this project for the Beck Village Plaza on Beck Road, south of Pontiac Trail. Further, the project is going to utilize four vacant store fronts and will consist of 10,000 square feet. It will have 120 seats for restaurant use with approximately 26 pool tables, 6 dart boards and several video machines. Mr. Quinn noted one third of the entire space will be used for restaurant purposes. Mr. Quinn advised this project is unique within the City of Novi and will provide an opportunity to have a place for recreation and dining in northwest Novi. Mr. Quinn further advised it will serve as an economic catalyst to the Beck Village Plaza and noted there will still be 6 vacant store fronts. Mr. Quinn advised that they expect to see other businesses coming to this center once this restaurant/billiard parlor is constructed. He also believes they will see other centers to the north get additional business, and that this restaurant will service the businesses and residents in the area. Mr. Quinn added this is a win-win situation for the city and that the applicant is taking all of the risk. Mr. Quinn stated they are anticipating Council’s approval of the resolution before them.

Councilman Mitzel asked how does this application differ from what was before them a couple months ago. Mayor McLallen replied the prior application was a request for one of the city’s licenses.

Councilman Mitzel asked if everything else in the proposal is the same physically. Mr. Quinn replied the only difference is that the applicant is spending tens of thousands of dollars for the purchase of a resort license.

Mayor McLallen added it is the same applicant and the same site. She explained the difference is that the applicant previously requested and did not receive one of the city’s quota licenses and now they have purchased a license that Council has to approve the transfer of.

Mr. Quinn noted the menu has also been upgraded.

Mayor McLallen advised the packet is complete from Mr. Frey’s office and the police, fire and building departments have affirmatively signed off.

Councilman Schmid advised the original application was primarily turned down because Council did not believe it met the standards for one of their present liquor licenses. As a result of that request, Councilman Schmid stated he visited the commercial facility and was disappointed in the condition of the building. He was particularly disappointed with the parking lot. He is concerned about this area of Novi because he believes it does not give the impression of a quality shopping center. Councilman Schmid asked if there is anything they can do to assure him that the outside area would be brought up to standard.

Mr. Zaya advised they have contracted a company who is currently working on the landscaping. He noted the sprinkler system needed repair and will be fixed tomorrow. He advised there is not much repair needed in the structure of the parking lot, but there are a few patches and one man hole needs repair. He noted they have received quotes for these repairs. However, Mr. Zaya added he disagrees with the assessment that the building does not meet the city’s standards.

Councilman Schmid believes the center met the requirements when it was originally built. However since then, he believes it was not maintained as well as it could be although he understands the center had difficult times. Councilman Schmid is also concerned because this area had problems in the past and although he supports a billiard establishment, he believes it should be of quality. In order to do that, Councilman Schmid believes the exterior has to reflect the same quality as the interior.

Councilman Schmid asked if the applicant is committed to cleaning up the landscaping and parking lot. Mr. Zaya agreed and added that he would like to assure Council that the establishment will cater to adults and not teenagers past 8:00 p.m.

Councilman Schmid asked if there is any way to assure that the landscaping and the parking lot will be brought up to the same standards that were required when the building was originally constructed. Mr. Watson believes one of the conditions when a liquor license is granted is that they complete building improvements to receive their certificate of occupancy. Mr. Watson suggested that they add the condition that when the inspection is done, the property be reviewed for compliance with the approved site plan and added there may be some things that need to be improved with that plan.

CM-97-07-242: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED: To approve the request for local approval to transfer ownership and location of an existing Resort Class C liquor license from Port Huron, MI to Breaktime Billiards, Inc. 30770-30850 Beck Road, Novi, MI pursuant to Article II, Section 3-12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Novi Alcoholic Liquor Ordinance contingent upon site plan compliance; particularly landscaping, parking lot and other issues noted during discussion

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Clark understands that final site plan would be reviewed and those conditions would have to be met before a certificate of occupancy would be granted. Mr. Watson advised in conjunction with building permit reviews, there should also be an inspection to make sure that the site complies with the approved site plan, particularly in relationship to the landscaping and parking lot before they sign off on the certificate of occupancy.

Councilwoman Mutch recalled there were two tenants for this center when this matter first came before them and in the information they have there was reference made to efforts to secure other tenants. Mr. Quinn advised there was a letter from a realtor who previously listed this center and that was provided for historical information to inform Council that they have unsuccessfully attempted to get an anchor in the center.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Breaktime Billiards is considered to be that anchor. Mr. Quinn replied it would.

Councilwoman Mutch recalled the second tenant was a massage parlor and she had a problem with that particular combination. Further, the presentation of the billiard establishment was somewhat different in that it was presented as a family restaurant. She noted it is now more focused in terms of an adult market and she believes that market exists in that area.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what other tenants are proposed. Mr. Quinn replied once they have the billiards and restaurant there, then the market is open and they may see anything that is permitted in that zoning district.

Councilwoman Mutch does not hope to see a massage parlor. Mr. Quinn does not believe they will see that there.

Mayor McLallen stated Mr. Quinn advised that the petitioner does not require an approval of the dance permit.

Councilman Mitzel asked if this also means that Port Huron also has to take action on this matter. Mr. Kriewall replied Port Huron does not have to take action.

Nays: Mitzel

6. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.567 from RA and I-1 Districts to OST District or any other appropriate zoning district - Property located south of Grand River Avenue, west of Taft Road

Mayor McLallen advised the Planning Commission sent a positive recommendation on a 3-1 vote and 1 abstention. Further, Mr. Rogers does not recommend approval because the request is not in conformance with the master plan on the rear portion of the property.

Matt Quinn advised he is appearing before Council on behalf of Kim-Bob, Inc. Mr. Quinn reported the property is located south of Grand River Avenue and next to Gatsby’s on the west. Mr. Quinn advised Kim-Bob, Inc. owns a little more than 10 acres of property and they are asking for a rezoning of just over 4.2 acres. Mr. Quinn noted the front of this property is already zoned I-1 and the rear portion is zoned RA, with a little strip of I-1 that they are also asking to be rezoned to OST. Historically, Mr. Quinn explained everything to the north is zoned and master planned I-1, and everything to the south is zoned and master planned RA from the line in the sand drawn on the master plan. Mr. Quinn advised this is the only parcel under single ownership that was affected by this line. In other words, all the other properties line up along this line except for this parcel. He explained they took 6 acres of this commonly owned parcel and zoned it industrial, and then zoned 4 acres residential. Mr. Quinn advised now the developer wants to construct an industrial condominium/industrial complex off Grand River Avenue with a private drive placing 4 buildings on the I-1 property and then adding another building on the rear, making this OST to permit office high-tech. Consequently, this would make this one common development of an office condominium and industrial park. Mr. Quinn advised if they develop the rear part as residential, they could fit two homes and the only access is through the industrial park. Even if they made a public roadway to get back there, it exceeds the city’s cul-de-sac length because it is approximately 820 feet deep and the ordinance requires no more than 800 feet deep. Additionally, the ordinance suggests that access to residential should not be made through an industrial park. Mr. Quinn added the industrial would not take up significantly more of the wetlands and woodlands than the two residential areas would.

Mr. Quinn believes the question is can this isolated residentially zoned parcel be developed in any other manner to the surrounding area other than through this industrial park. In order to understand that the answer to that is no, Mr. Quinn explained they have to look at the wetlands and woodland’s map. He reported to the north is industrial, to the west is the Andes Court Subdivision which is zoned R-2, and at the end of their cul-de-sac there are buildings so that access is not available on Andes Court. He further explained that the rest of Andes is wetland and to the south is a nursery that owns a rectangular piece of property that is contingent to all of the south. Further, there is a business close to Taft Road and there is nothing built to the rear because there is a heavy combination of wetlands and woodlands. Consequently, the east cannot help them develop the property as residential, the south cannot because they would have to traverse through the woodlands and wetlands, and the homes to the west are on the southern half of these parcels and they preserve naturally all the northern portions of their property. Further, to the west they would also have to traverse through the substantial woodland and wetland in order to have any cohesive development with the residential.

Mr. Quinn said they are requesting OST zoning with the northern development because there isn’t any other way that they can see to develop the property. They believe it is totally isolated and useless zoned as RA, and the only way to develop this parcel is to develop it with an I-1 park to the north. They believe OST is appropriate because one of the purposes of the intent of the OST is to provide a buffer to surrounding residential property. Mr. Quinn believes the OST requires a minimum of 100 feet when it buffers a residential area and this plan has more than 100 feet in all directions to the boundary lines. One of the reasons the building is shown forward on the plan is because of the surrounding woodlands and wetlands. He noted they can still move it further forward if necessary. In addition, to the east at the end of the Andes Court property there is an area contracted for a detention pond and the Gatsby’s property has a contractual right to run their drainage to that natural pond.

Mr. Quinn advised moving the building forward as much as possible is one of the reasons for the 10 foot encroachment. He explained there is a 10 foot strip of I-1 that they are also requesting to be zoned OST where the sewer easement runs through. They think that the OST will serve as a good buffer and added Council passed the OST ordinance in December to allow that type of use. Mr. Quinn believes the project makes sense because the alternative to leave it as it is makes no sense. The consultants are not in favor of the plan because they say if the imaginary line is changed to include this parcel, that somehow it is going to affect development in the entire area. The consultant’s further believe that someone else is going to want OST or industrial zoning.

Mr. Quinn then asked Council to look at all of the wetland and woodland to the west. He noted the boundary line to the west is set because the zoning line equals their boundary line and would have no reason to go any further. For all these reasons, Mr. Quinn believes the decision for this request is easy and asked for their approval.

Councilman Schmid asked who are owners of the property? Mr. Quinn replied Kim Capello is a co-owner with Bob Langdon Jr. and Bob Langdon Sr. Mr. Quinn noted that Mr. Capello excused himself when this matter came before the Planning Commission and the subcommittee that he is a member of.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Rogers to comment on how this land can be developed residentially. Mr. Rogers believes a roadway can cross the wetland, but he does not know whether it is financially feasible. Mr. Rogers noted the line that Mr. Quinn referred to as a line in the sand has been on the zoning map since at least 1984. Mr. Rogers advised he had great concern looking at the conceptual plan because it appears that a large percentage of the site is in wetlands, woodlands, or wet-woodlands and leaves very little property outside of those regulated areas. Mr. Rogers estimated approximately 75% would be intruded on. Further, the applicant has a substantial site to the north to provide return on his investment and therefore, Mr. Rogers concluded that there is no compelling reason for the rezoning. Mr. Rogers added there has been no detailed study that a roadway might not be extended. He understands Andes Hills has a cul-de-sac and he believes the buildings Mr. Quinn referred to were under construction the last time he reviewed the area. Mr. Rogers agreed there is no possibility for a road extension. Mr. Rogers reminded Council the Andes Hills’ property was rezoned R-2 to permit a cluster development and over half of the site is in a wetland configuration. Mr. Rogers stated he would not like to see a roadway leading to two homes running through an industrial park. He believes a publicly dedicated right-of-way could be designed in which case the buildings might have to be set off further because of setback requirements. Mr. Rogers has not measured the length of the cul-de-sac and whether it is more than 800 feet.

Mr. Rogers respects the Planning Commission’s vote to recommend approval. He said the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and others agreed that even though it is a split parcel, it was suitable to rezone the area as OST. However, Mr. Rogers asked if it would set a precedent and noted there are other requests pending to rezone RA property south of the industrial frontage currently in the city. Mr. Rogers believes for the amount of land that would be developable without getting substantial mitigation on wetlands and woodlands, that it did not seem to have merit to break the pattern. Mr. Rogers understands some Planning Commissioner’s changed their opinion after the Master Plan and Zoning Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Rogers respects their decision and respects the fact that Mr. Capello did not participate in any of the discussions or decisions.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Rogers to show where a road could be brought into the project. Mr. Rogers has not conducted a design study, but noted there is a nursery on Taft Road and the only access possible would be off Taft Road along the south edge of the regulated wetlands.

Councilman Schmid understands that those wetlands could be combined with the other property and therefore, a roadway could be put in and is contrary to what they have been told. Mr. Rogers agreed. However, he added they would have to cross wetlands which would require DEQ and city approval.

Councilman Schmid asked when was this last master planned? Mr.Rogers replied it was master planned in 1993 and is currently being reviewed to be formally updated next year.

Councilwoman Mutch asked is there any effort to relate the lines to the real world when they draw the lines between industrial and RA in the master plan. Mr. Rogers replied there is and added they have come a long way in appreciating the location of wetlands and woodlands since 1993.

After considering Mr. Quinn’s comments, Councilwoman Mutch asked if they would draw the line in the same way. Mr. Rogers stated before he would recommend that, he would like to complete their land use plan update analyzes. He explained ordinarily, interim amendments go to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and there is also a special study for split parcels along Grand River that the committee asked for. Mr. Rogers believes the committee’s April 30 minutes reflect all the decisions they made. Mr. Rogers advised in this case, the consensus of the committee, Mr. Arroyo and himself was to leave the line where it was. In fairness, he noted Ms. Lemke stated it would be difficult to construct a roadway and agrees it may not be feasible for two home sites. He would suggest if they went to an R-2, they might get 5 home sites at that location. Mr. Rogers believes Councilwoman Mutch has raised a good point and they will reevaluate it. He said even if they rezone it tonight to OST, that will not stop them from looking at adjacent properties. Mr. Rogers hopes a rezoning would not set a precedent for other industrial and OST rezonings for the backyards of the homes on Eleven Mile Road.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Rogers agrees with the reasoning that OST is a better buffer for the existing residential properties that connect to Eleven Mile Road. Mr. Rogers believes it is better than I-1 even though they have stringent requirements for buffering in the I-1 District next to residential. Mr. Rogers added he is satisfied about the request to rezone the small strip of I-1 because he was of the impression that they wanted to move the OST boundary so they would have contiguity of the I-1 District with Andes Hills. Mr. Rogers noted that the applicant admits the site is crowded and they will likely shift the building to the north. However, Mr. Rogers said there is still only 25% of the property that is usable and he wants to maintain the integrity of the woodland and wetland ordinances.

Councilman Clark appreciates what the petitioner is trying to do. However, he is also concerned and concurs with Mr. Rogers that they would be setting a dangerous precedent to have this type of incursion into a residential area. He said there is nothing stopping the petitioner from putting the four buildings into the area that is already zoned I-1 and the only thing he would be precluded from doing is extending the fifth building into an area that is zoned RA.

CM-97-07-243: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, FAILED: To deny Zoning Map Amendment 18.567, request to rezone property from RA and I-1 Districts to OST District or any other appropriate zoning district based on the Planning Consultant’s recommendation

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer will not support motion because he is pleased to see proposed development in I-1 areas to begin growth in the industrial tax base. Further, the addendum to the site plan is isolated from the surrounding areas and the impact of OST is portrayed as less intrusive to residential areas. Further, the building envelope will be in the northerly section. Councilman Kramer added it has already been noted that this is a rezoning and a site plan should not be considered.

Councilman Schmid will support the motion because they are going against the master plan, and the area can and should be developed residentially. Councilman Schmid does not believe commercial should be extended into a residential area and agrees it will set a dangerous precedent. Although Councilman Schmid believes it is an excellent plan and that it is reasonable for the developer to want to maximize his profits, Council should stick to the master plan where it is appropriate.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if comments or concerns were raised by adjacent property owners. Mr. Quinn replied there were no comments for or against the project.

Mr. Quinn responded to Mr. Rogers’ comment about access through the nursery property and cul-de-sac by advising that the cul-de-sac is well over one quarter of a mile which would never be permitted. He then added there is no way to construct ring roads.

Kim Capello believes Andes Hills and Gatsby’s are pleased with the development because the development will bring water and sewer under and across the road to help develop that side of Grand River. Mr. Capello believes the development will also help to alleviate the use of the detention basin in the back.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked Mr. Rogers to speak further as to why they would set a precedent with this rezoning. Mr. Rogers replied there would not be requests for this immediate area, but there is a pending application to change some frontage on Beck Road that is residentially zoned.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if that area is as unique as this particular residential parcel seems to be. Mr. Rogers agreed this request is unique because it is a small parcel that is obviously impacted. However, Mr. Rogers suggested an alternative would be to possibly consider the developable property which is also limited in size.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they overlay the woodlands and wetlands, and parcel owners when the Planning Commission revises the master plan. He explained Council is never confronted with the uniqueness of a parcel until they have a project before them. Mayor ProTem Crawford also understands they must uphold the integrity of the master plan, but he does not think this rezoning will jeopardize the integrity of the master plan in that area. Mr. Rogers replied he merely stated that was his opinion and reiterated that he respected the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He said the line can be through a given ownership parcel and noted they do not treat ownership parcels in a generalized master plan. However, He noted they are better equipped in the current master plan update to do the overlays’ for woodlands and wetlands. Mr. Rogers added if a roadway were brought into this property, that a secondary access for emergency vehicles could be provided through the industrial park with a breakaway gate. Mr. Rogers would like the opportunity to debate that issue at another time.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how did the 1993 master plan deal with the OST zoning classification. Mr. Rogers advised the OST is a new classification and was adopted in December 1996.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there is any way that the city can implement a new zoning classification without changing the existing zoning to the new zoning. Mr. Rogers said they can make rezonings without first amending the master plan.

Counciwoman Mutch stated her point is when the City Council creates a new zoning classification the only way that will be implemented is if somebody’s property which is currently zoned something else is changed. Mr. Rogers agreed they would have to petition for it.

Councilwoman Mutch continued by stating when Council adopted the new OST ordinance and arguments were made for the creation of a new zoning district, reasons were given and intents laid out for what some of those reasons are to encourage certain types of development, to provide certain buffers and so forth. Councilwoman Mutch added the only way they can have OST anywhere in the city is if property gets rezoned to that. Mr. Rogers agreed.

With that in mind, Councilwoman Mutch believes the comments made by some members of Council reasoning that they will see petitions for rezonings is not necessarily an adverse request. Mr. Rogers agreed. However, he believed the intent was to provide the OST district in areas master planned as office use. He asked Council to recall that they had certain areas shown as PD-4 on the master plan and those areas are seriously being considered, as is elsewhere in the city, for OST. He added that they are of a larger size and are more developable. Mr. Rogers further advised that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee is studying an initiative to move some of these forward as city initiatives.

Councilwoman Mutch believes when they adopt a city initiated new zoning classification, that the city has certain locations in mind where they want to see certain types of development occur. Mr. Rogers agreed.

However, the market place being what it is, Councilwoman Mutch advised individual property owners may also see the value of the zoning classification and envision it in smaller areas than what the city had in mind. Mr. Rogers agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch raised this question because of comments made by other members that this might set up some kind of domino effect and they will have additional rezoning requests. However, it seems to Councilwoman Mutch that unless the city gets involved, that is the only way they will get OST development. She noted they have already said by creating the OST classification that they want to encourage that type of development.

In Mr. Rogers’ opinion, the OST is a great district classification. However, he questions the site in the request currently before them.

Councilman Schmid stated his major concern is about rezoning in master planned residentially zoned areas. Although he realizes they will get requests for rezoning in other types of zoning areas, Councilman Schmid believes they will rarely get such a request for residentially zoned areas.

Councilman Clark concurs with Councilman Schmid’s comment. He understands they want to encourage OST zoning, but the intent was never proposed that this zoning would be encouraged by going into residential areas.

Mayor McLallen will not support the motion and added she believes they should set a precedent on Grand River. The Mayor explained this land should be an example of Novi’s premiere property and if someone is willing to take a risk by bringing a proposal forward, she will support it. She reminded Council that the city has unsuccessfully spent 11 years trying city initiated proposals. Further, Mayor McLallen does not believe the risk is overwhelming and she is convinced that this particular 4 acres is not going to change the image of the entire city. Mayor McLallen believes it may be an initiative to encourage further development in what ought to be an exceptional part of the city.

Nays: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch

CM-97-07-244: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED: To approve Zoning Map Amendment 18.567, request to rezone property from RA and I-1 Districts to OST District or any other appropriate zoning district

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel supports the motion although he believes Councilmen Schmid and Clark raised many good arguments concerning preserving the integrity of the residentially zoned areas. However, he cannot foresee that being a desirable residential area because of its location between the wetland and the light industrial park. Further, Councilman Mitzel believes the wetland area forms a natural barrier to the large residential acreage to the south, and suggested to the Planning Commission that they consider using some of the natural features as barriers between residential and nonresidential in the Grand River corridor. He also noted that the actual zoning boundary follows the wetland boundary at the southwest corner of Novi Road between office and residential.

Nays: Clark, Schmid

A. Reconsideration of CM-97-07-226 - "Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED: To refer RUD application back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, and return it to the City Council upon completion of their review."

B. If the above action is reconsidered and is approved and a motion is made not to send the petitioner’s project to the planning commission, then consideration of the application will be had

Matter moved to Special Meeting scheduled for Monday, July 28, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers

Due to the time, Councilman Schmid recommended that Council adjourn.

Mayor McLallen asked what items must be addressed by Council this evening. Mr. Kriewall replied it is not critical to address Items 8-11. However, he advised Items 12-13 must be addressed and Consent Agenda Item 13 must be acted on.

Councilman Mitzel advised they must also correct the Executive Session from August 4 to August 11. Mr. Kriewall agreed.

Mary Muller - 45460 Addington Lane, is interested in finding out what the revised plans and new proposal consisted of for the aquatic facility. Ms. Muller advised that Dan Davis gave her a copy of a memo dated today which reports nothing is quite completed at this time. Ms. Muller stated it sounds to her as though nothing has changed. Ms. Muller recalled standing in the Council Chambers two years ago when it was full of residents who voiced their opposition to the location of the aquatic facility at the Power Park site. The fact that she is before Council two years later concerns her because it tells her that those who are in authority do not really care about what the residents had to say at that time.

Besides the resident’s personal concerns, another concern is showing up again in the second proposal that was dated over a year ago and that is the proposed three sites. One site is the Novi tree farm, now known as North Novi Park; another is the north east corner of Eleven Mile and Wixom Road which has obviously been eliminated; and the third is the Power Park site. Ms. Muller advised both proposals dismissed the Power Park and North Novi Park sites without discussion. Ms. Muller believes North Novi Park would be a good alternative site in light of the residential opposition at the Power Park site. Further, both proposals indicated that the location at Power Park was for the good of the residents even though the residents stated they do not want it there. She also believes alternative sites have not really been considered. Ms. Muller reported they are looking at a difference of 7 acres at Power Park versus 600 acres at North Novi Park. Ms. Muller believes the North Novi Park makes more sense to her because it is already designated as a recreational area. Further, it is also located in a commercial area that is not densely populated so they should not get the same opposition they are getting for Power Park.

Ms. Muller is also concerned about funding. She believes people are tired of having their tax bill increased. Further, the fact that the voters rejected the school bond for playgrounds indicates to her that residents will not support extraneous items that do not matter.

In addition, Ms. Muller reminded Council about the possible competition from the West Bloomfield Sports Club and asked what effect is that facility going to have on the city’s aquatic facility. She further asked what effect will the year round sports club facility have when the aquatic facility is only going to be open three months of the year. She asked who will bear the cost of that mistake.

Ms. Muller believes the committee and Mr. Davis have done a lot of work, and she would hate to see them waste further time and energy on the proposal for the Power Park site to only have it turned down. She also believes it would be a wasted effort to include this item on the November ballot.

Mayor McLallen noted this matter will be a decision of the community at large. Further, the question for Council in the next month is to deal as clearly as possible with getting the information out and structuring the ballot language so that it is clear about what the residents are voting about.

Ruth Elrod - 23945 Devonshire, has also followed the aquatic facility issue very closely and she agrees that the North Novi Park location was never discussed. Ms. Elrod advised her neighborhood was very vocal from early on that if this is going to be at Power Park, they would have a problem with it in its present form. Ms. Elrod appreciates Mr. Davis’ efforts, but nothing has really changed about this aquatic facility with the exception that the wave pool has been eliminated. Ms. Elrod believes this type of facility should be in more of a commercial area and further believes people would travel to use the facility. Ms. Elrod added she understands that the Oakland County Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended an aquatic facility in the parkland north of the Wixom Ford plant and believes the city should investigate that because it will impact a facility in Novi. Ms. Elrod advised she will continue to follow this issue because she is concerned about the many different things that this kind of development would bring into their neighborhoods.

Mayor McLallen added Council will continue to address this matter through the month of August.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

Mayor McLallen advised the below Items 8-11 were held over until the Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, August 11, 1997:

Councilman Clark removed this item because they are spending the taxpayer’s money and they are asked to waive irregularities in the bid. Councilman Clark does not think this is advisable and added that the bid was not recommended by the engineers.

Mr. Watson believes the request on the agenda is to not waive the irregularity. Councilman Clark stated that is what he is saying and he would move to postpone this item until the irregularities in this bid are rectified.

Mr. Watson explained the irregularity is on the part of a different bidder who was not awarded the contract.

Councilman Clark stated he has the impression there was an irregularity on the part of the bidder because of the way it was written.

Mayor McLallen advised a bidder protested because he filed incorrectly.

Councilman Schmid understands one bidder bid $100,000 less and the engineers recommended that the city not accept that low bid because of the gross discrepancies. Councilman Schmid added it was unclear to him about what that discrepancy was and it seemed to him that it was just a signature missing on a particular form. He questions whether they should spend $80,000 because somebody forgot to include a signature or because there is a minor discrepancy in the bid. Further, the attorney has said Council can use this bid if they wish and he believes Mr. Nowicki did not offer a recommendation. Councilman Schmid wondered why the engineers would not adjust the bid if it would save the city $70,000 or $80,000.

Dave Potter of JCK and Associates advised when they opened the bids they viewed the one bid that was not read as incomplete because there were two items missing. One was they did not submit the required Qualifications and Experience Statement. Secondly, they did not acknowledge Addendum 3. Mr. Potter explained when they advertise a project for bids, if there are changes that occur on the plans after the contractors have picked up the plans, they issue an addendum. For example, they could have received some additional information on a permit requirement that would have required a different size of pipe for perhaps a different location due to an easement condition. Mr. Potter advised they issue an addendum to reflect those changes that could affect their price and in this case they had a total of three addendums, and they failed to acknowledge Addendum 3. Mr. Potter advised Addendum 3 reflected some additional tree removal and the requirement to supply a $50,000 cash bond or a letter of credit for tree removal.

Councilman Schmid questions the common sense of doing this although there may be a very good reason. Councilman Schmid asked if they ever waived something that is relatively minor for a bid. Mr. Potter replied the company in question is D’Agostini & Sons and had their bid been acknowledged and ready, the bid as read would have been low. However, they did not know at the time whether they would have included the cost for Addendum 3.

Councilwoman Mutch does not agree this is a minor issue. Further, because this bidder has conducted work for the city in the past, she believes they should know what the process is.

Mr. Potter added that they also hold a mandatory pre-bid meeting to clarify what they expect to see in the bid.

Councilman Schmid stated he miscalculated and there is a $147,000 difference. Although Councilman Schmid respects the engineer’s decision, it seems to him that it was a minor error. However, if the city has a precedent that they never waive this type of error, then he would suppose it makes sense. Councilman Schmid suggested they should look at it more closely if they can save $147,000 because of a minor error. Although Mr. Nowicki did not say it, he got the impression from him that he would go either way on this. However, he added he could be wrong.

Councilman Clark asked if there would be anything precluding them from rejecting this award and request that this matter be rebid. Mr. Watson replied that is one option. However, they must go through the entire bid process again and it could be costly.

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council that this is to serve the new Walled Lake Elementary School and noted they are under a deadline. He reminded Council they have been very concerned about how they have been treating the Novi School District at Eleven Mile and Wixom, and this issue is now concerning the Walled Lake School District.

Councilman Clark also recalled that not too long ago when t’s and i’s were not crossed or dotted and it cost the city a lot of money. Consequently, he is not in favor of lightly dismissing $150,000 of the taxpayer’s money.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid believes this was a very minor oversight and asked Mr. Kapelczak if he recommends that they go with the second bidder instead of rebidding the project. Joe Kapelczak of JCK and Associates advised if he did anything, he would do exactly what Mr. Watson recommended. He explained he would not accept the second bid and when something is not correct in those bids, they do not open that bid. He also believes that is fair to the contractor. Further, if they stray from that practice, he believes that is when they will begin to have more controversy and litigation. He reiterated that he would follow Mr. Watson’s advice to rebid the project and not accept a bid that did not qualify.

Councilman Schmid asked if they have ever done this and then rebid the project because the low bid came in so low that it might be possible to do the project at a lower cost. Mr. Kapelczak believes it has only been done one other time.

Councilman Schmid will not support the motion and will support the recommendation of the engineers. However, he is surprised that they would not rebid this project because of the $147,000 cost.

For the record, Mayor McLallen asked what were the two bids. Mayor McLallen asked if the Man-Con, Inc. Bid for $1,364,763 and the bid for D’Agostini $1,217,074. Mr. Kapelczak agreed.

Mayor McLallen asked what is the cost of rebidding. Mr. Kapelczak advised the advertising is approximately $500 and mailing is $2,000. They should advertise at a minimum of 2-3 weeks and the entire process would take approximately 4-6 weeks.

Nay: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

Councilman Mitzel asked what is the time frame of the contract. Mr. Kriewall replied they are anxious to get this project in place to service the Walled Lake School currently under construction. However, the Walled Lake School District did have an agreement with the developers of Vistas to provide utility service to the area. Consequently, it is not as though they are to blame for having to deliver this project in a compact time frame. Mr. Kriewall stated given that background, he is comfortable in rebidding the project.

Councilman Kramer asked if the project can tolerate another 4-6 weeks. Mr. Kriewall replied the school may have to pump their sewage 4-6 weeks longer, but they were planning on that anyway.

Councilman Mitzel was referring to the time frame between accepting the responsive bid or the second bid. Mr. Kriewall believes there are some legal questions involved with that because they will run into some problems with which bidder gets the job at that point and he would not recommend that. He suggested that they should either take the engineer’s initial recommendation or rebid the project.

Councilwoman Mutch is confident that Vistas will live up to their commitment. Mr. Kriewall disagreed and advised that the Vistas backed out of their commitment to provide water and sewer to the schools; that is why the city had to get involved and bid this project.

Councilman Kramer asked for further clarification about the implications of taking the time to rebid. Mr. Kriewall advised the delay is only an additional 4-6 weeks of having to pump their sewage and operate on a temporary well. Mr. Kapelczak added it would cost the school approximately $250 per day to pump the sewage.

If they rebid this project, Mayor ProTem Crawford stated they not only delay it, but they may also get a higher price.

CM-97-07-247: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, FAILED: To award the Meadowbrook Road Water and Sanitary Extension Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Man-Con, Inc., in the amount of $1,364,763.00 and authorization of the Finance Director to transfer woodlands permit fees totaling $51,300.00 from the construction account to the tree planting account, all contingent upon delivery and acceptance of all right-of-way/easements required and review of all documents by the City Attorneys as presented

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said the attorney’s letter explicitly states "the bid materials provided to the city may waive irregularities and therefore award the contract in the best interest of the city. " and he assumes that is an accurate statement. Mr. Watson advised the statement is accurate.

Nay: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Schmid

CM-97-07-248: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED: To deny the award for the Meadowbrook Road Water and Sanitary Extension Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Man-Con, Inc., in the amount of $1,364,763.00 and authorization of the Finance Director to transfer woodlands permit fees totaling $51,300.00 from the construction account to the tree planting account, all contingent upon delivery and acceptance of all right-of-way/easements required and review of all documents by the City Attorneys and rebid this matter

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch will support the motion to move this matter forward.

Mayor ProTem Crawford reminded Council that this action will not guarantee a lower price. He also believes this is a question of procedure and integrity that this bid was not submitted properly and past procedure has been to reject it to save themselves from compromise. He believes if they give this person a second chance, they are setting themselves up for undesirable consequences.

Councilman Schmid does not disagree with Mayor ProTem Crawford and believes this is not a process that should be used to any extent. The only reason Councilman Schmid raised the question is because of the dollar differences and what appeared to him to be a minor discrepancy as to why the bid was not accepted. He would also guarantee there are other instances where they have rebid projects they thought were too high when they believed they could get it done for less. However in this case, Councilman Schmid is not certain whether this may now go for more than what the bid before them is and this bothers him somewhat.

Based on the attorney’s statement that he did not believe they were compromising themselves by waiving irregularities, Mayor McLallen advised they can accept the other bid. Therefore, the Mayor cannot support the motion based on that advice.

Councilman Schmid has never been a supporter of SEMCOG because he does not believe in regional government. However, there has been more and more indication in recent months that some cities are pulling out of SEMCOG because they feel that it is a disservice. He is not suggesting that they discuss this tonight, but he will not support this expenditure because he does not believe SEMCOG is acting in the best interest of the city. However, Councilman Schmid recognizes that they do offer positive things and this is only his personal opinion.

Councilwoman Mutch believes it would be useful to have input from SEMCOG about how useful they find planning information on an annual basis because they are basically a planning organization. She has also observed when communities have been actively involved in SEMCOG, they seem to get a lot out of it. Further, she believes it would be beneficial for the county commissioner to become involved with this organization.

Councilman Mitzel advised it is critical that they discuss Items 1 and 2 under Mayor and Council Issues at their next meeting because they both have implications on the ballot.

ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION - 12:15 A.M.

EXECUTIVE SESSION - Property Acquisition & Pending Litigation

RECONVENE TO REGULAR MEETING - 12:41 A.M.

12. Approval of Revised Ice Arena Property Purchase Agreement

Mr. Kriewall reported the only change is that Mr. Weiss extended the footings installation from December 1, 1997 to June 1, 1998. He explained there is a buy back provision and they want to provide ample protection.

CM-97-07-250: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Revised Ice Arena Property Purchase Agreement

13. Authorization to make payment at Closing of Property Purchase - Ice Arena

Mr. Kriewall advised this is authorization to draft a payment for the closing amount on the ice arena purchase which is scheduled to take place sometime this week. However, because the attorney’s have not developed a closing statement, he advised the approximate amount of the payoff is $232,000. He added they must also pro-rate the taxes.

CM-97-07-251: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize the City Administration to make payment at Closing of Property Purchase - Ice Arena

Nays: None

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 A.M.

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes