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

Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilwoman Lorenzo requested that they suspend Council Rules and add a third Audience Participation. Council Lorenzo also requested that Council reconsider the Harvest Lake area plan. Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the item has to be formally placed on the agenda the Wednesday prior to the meeting. She advised that she spoke with Dennis Watson regarding this matter and he confirmed that there are two options. Councilwoman Lorenzo advised she could request that they amend the Council rules that require the item to be formally placed on the agenda or if they approve the agreement this evening, she could formally place this matter on the next agenda.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether Councilwoman Lorenzo has a reason to add a third Audience Participation and if she knew of anyone who wished to speak during the third Audience Participation? Councilwoman Lorenzo replied she does not know of anyone that wishes to speak during the third Audience Participation.

Mayor McLallen asked whether not acting on Item 6 under Matters for Council Action is Councilwoman Lorenzo’s intent. Councilwoman Lorenzo replied that could be an option. She restated they could postpone Item 6 and she would then request that the matter of the Harvest Lake area plan be reconsidered for the next meeting while at the same time, they would also consider the agreement. She added they could also suspend the Council rule that states the matter must be placed in writing on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. If they choose the second option, Councilwoman Lorenzo advised they could add the item as 6(1) or 6(a) and 6(b) would be the agreement. Councilwoman Lorenzo explained she has some specific issues that she would like to discuss and may possibly propose to modify the area plan so they can reach the agreement.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked for direction from the city’s attorney. He thought Council agreed to the area plan several months ago and he does not think that renegotiating the area plan is appropriate.

Councilman DeRoche has a certain amount of respect for how much time Council spent on this matter and therefore, he does not think it would be appropriate for this Council to review their decisions.

Councilwoman Lorenzo would like the opportunity to reopen this matter for discussion purposes about issues that this Council still has regarding the area plan. Councilwoman Lorenzo is not certain whether this is the appropriate time to do that. Therefore, she will follow the Council rules and put her request in writing as a formal item on the next agenda.

Councilwoman Mutch asked Councilwoman Lorenzo to include an explanation about why she wants to pursue that action. Councilwoman Mutch believes everyone already had the opportunity to comment on this matter and she would like to know if something new has come forward in the interim.

Mayor McLallen advised any Council member has the right to bring a matter forward, but added the other members reserve the right to uphold their original decision.

Mayor McLallen understands there are some issues that need to be clarified, but added Council will abide by their rules tonight.

Councilman Schmid would like to add Audience Participation as a discussion item under Mayor and Council Issues; there was no support to add this item.

CM-98-02-032: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by DeRoche, FAILED: To add a third Audience Participation to the agenda of February 9, 1998

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford will not support this motion. He explained he does not see any point to add a third Audience Participation since Councilwoman Lorenzo already indicated she did not know of anyone who wanted to speak. Mayor ProTem Crawford reminded Council they have already held several meetings that went very well without a third Audience Participation.

Nays: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Schmid

CM-98-02-033: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Agenda as submitted

Nays: None

SPECIAL REPORTS

1. Novi Chamber of Commerce - Economic Cross Roads Report

Lisa Willard advised they have spent the past six months gathering data for a report that was originally issued in 1995 regarding economic development in the City of Novi. Ms. Willard then recognized the contributions of the many people involved in the project. Ms. Willard reported they will present this report to the Novi Planning Commission and at the Economic Summit Saturday, March 14, 1998.

As Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, Bud Scott thanked Council for the opportunity to present their report. He advised that the committee updated the original "Novi at the Crossroads of Development" report issued in August 1995. Mr. Scott advised the report identified a trend toward residential construction out pacing commercial industrial construction and consequently, unbalancing the tax base. Therefore, Mr. Scott advised they feel the implications for Novi’s future are serious. He explained either the city will encourage development of an industrial and commercial tax base or the residents will have to pay higher taxes to provide basic safety services for its citizens.

Jonathan Brateman gave a brief summary of the report and advised copies of the report are available at the Novi Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Brateman reported they have worked proactively with the Planning Commission on ordinances to help create a community with quality development. He suggested that they now look at the process as well as the tools for industrial and commercial development to occur. Mr. Brateman noted when he is talking about industrial, he is talking about high-tech industrial that would be an asset to the community. Mr. Brateman added he would like to help bring commercial and industrial to Novi so the city can have a diversified tax base and maintain its high level of quality of services for the residents.

Mr. Scott added they would like to applaud the efforts the city has made since they published their original report. He explained the changes include a revision of the site plan manual, the creation of the OST zoning, modification of the NCC ordinance, the appointment of an Economic Development Coordinator and the revitalization of the city’s Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Scott stated their goal is to foster a balanced tax base and encourage Economic Development. Therefore, they recommend the city redesign the light industrial zoning district and identify new appropriate light industrial zoning districts, continue to emphasize an OST ordinance and proper placement of that district, streamline the building process, address pathing issues including road improvements on a community wide basis, and continue to simplify and modify the Site Plan Manual and process. Further, Mr. Scott advised that they believe the city needs to empower and designate one individual who can assist developers with Novi’s building process. Mr. Scott believes once they have made these changes, there needs to be a strong joint effort to market these effects to change people’s perception of the building process in Novi. Mr. Scott added they feel these changes are necessary to insure that Novi is an affordable community in which to live in the future.

Councilman Schmid is fearful of creating the image that there is a tax and development problem in Novi because he does not believe the city is in danger.

2. Development Review Guide Book - Rod Arroyo

Mayor McLallen noted Council members received a copy of the Development Review Guide Book in their packets, and are asked to submit suggestions and recommendations to staff.

Mr. Arroyo advised although the document before them is not a replacement for the Site Plan Manual or the Zoning Ordinance; it is intended to be a guide to help make some of the development review processes more understandable. Mr. Arroyo reported there are sections on the Site Plan Review Process, the Special Land Use Process, the Subdivision and Plat Review Process and the Rezoning Process. He then gave a brief summary of the contents of the guide book and the benefits of its use.

PRESENTATIONS

James Rose - Economic Development Corporation

Mayor McLallen read the sentiment on the Resolution and presented the plaque to James Rose in recognition of his outstanding service to the community.

2. Distinguished Budget Award Plaque Presentation to Kim Pittl - Susan Kopinski, 1994 Past President of MMFOA

On behalf of the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada, Susan Kopinski advised the award represents a significant achievement. She explained it indicates that an expert panel of independent budgeting professionals has reviewed and rated Novi’s budget document favorably. She said the award also represents a significant achievement because it is Novi’s first award. Ms. Kopinski advised the award also reflects Kim Pittl and Les Gibson’s commitment as well as their expertise, professionalism and many hours of hard work by staff involved in the budget’s preparation to insure that they meet the highest principles of governmental budgeting. In order to receive the award, Ms. Kopinski reported Kim and Les had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. She explained they designed the guidelines to assess how well the budget document fulfills four major purposes: 1) Budget document should be a policy tool, and list the organization’s programs and fiscal goals at a minimum.; 2) Budget document should present a clear financial plan and list all expenditures and revenue sources for the prior and current year, as well as project the organization’s financial position through the end of the upcoming fiscal year.; 3) Budget document should be a guide for the organization’s operations, and explain the relationship between organizational components and measure the efficiency and effectiveness of each individual component.; and 4) Budget document should serve as a communication medium and provide summary information about the organizations programs, services and finances in a manner suitable for the media and the general public. Ms. Kopinski reported the budget document is reviewed using a comprehensive evaluation check list containing twenty six criteria in each of the four categories described. Further, thirteen of these criteria are mandatory items that any good budget document should contain. She advised any document given a unanimous proficient or better rating on all the criteria will receive the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. She advised this means two of the three reviewers must rate the document proficient or better. Ms. Kopinski reported since the conception of this program in 1984, approximately 650 entities of nearly 4,800 member units of GFOA in the United States in Canada have received this award. Further, in 1997, Ms. Kopinski reported only sixteen entities in Michigan have received this award out of twenty six submissions. Ms. Kopinski added that the GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentations Award Program is the only national awards program in governmental budgeting.

Kim Pittl thanked Les Gibson and her family for their support during the preparation of the budget.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Eda Weddington - 23445 Beck Rd, is before Council as an individual and not as Chair of the Planning Commission. Ms. Weddington has three areas of concern on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Weddington advised the first item is F. She explained as a resident on Beck Road she personally questions the proposal to widen Beck Road to five lanes and Nine Mile to three. Ms. Weddington added she is also concerned about intrusion into the wetland at Nine and Beck Roads because of the wildlife habitat. Ms. Weddington believed that the proposed boardwalk was a compromise, but she now understands that it has been eliminated from the plan and is even more concerned about the possible intrusion into the nearby wetland without mitigation. She also asked that they explore other types of synthetic materials for a boardwalk.

Ms. Weddington advised she has some concerns regarding Item I. Ms. Weddington believes that holding the developer to the bond for the entire development is important and that the city should enforce their ordinances.

The third item Ms. Weddington is concerned about is the proposed use of funding any city initiated action from the Planning Commission’s Emerging Issues Budget as indicated under Item O.

Mike HIlley - 135 Maudlin, asked that Maudlin be included in SAD 149 - Eubank Street Water Main.

Mayor McLallen removed Item I to ask for Council’s permission to abstain from voting on this item on the grounds that as a real estate agent, she represents the owner of this property in another community.

Councilwoman Lorenzo removed Items F, G, and O.

CM-98-02-034: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Consent Agenda as amended:

A. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meetings of January 26, 1998, February 2, 1998 and Special City Council Meeting of January 22, 1998

B. Approval of Ordinance No. 98-112.01 - To revise the requirements for mandatory connection to sanitary disposal system - II Reading & Final Approval

C. Approval of Ordinance No. 98-45.26 - to amend the definition of "Subdivision"- II Reading & Final Approval

D. Adoption of Wetlands Conservation Easement for Corrigan Moving Systems, property located at 45100 Grand River Avenue

E. Approval to purchase one (1) Dump Truck through the Oakland County Joint Purchasing Program for the Parks & Recreation Department in the amount of $30,966

H. Approval of Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project- Project Grant Finance Agreements for GIS/Public Awareness, Stream Bank Stabilization, and Soil Erosion Control Blanket Projects along with Authorizing Resolutions

J. Acceptance of streets and utilities in the Arden Glen Subdivision

K. Adopt Resolution Number 4 and schedule a Public Hearing for March 16, 1998, for SAD 149 - Eubank Street Watermain

L. Schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow the Regular Council Meeting of February 9, 1998 for the purpose of property acquisition

M. Schedule a Special Meeting of City Council to immediately follow the Executive Session of City Council following the Regular Council Meeting of February 9, 1998 for the purpose of employee evaluations and to close the meeting as requested by the City Manager

N. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 510

P. Approval of Ordinance No. 98-28: Beckenham Sewer Extension - I Reading, II Reading & Final Adoption

REMOVALS

F. Approval of Nine Mile/Beck Road Intersection Improvements preliminary design and authorization to proceed to final design and right-of-way/easement acquisition.

G. Approval to abandon pursuit of the Grand River Avenue Sidewalk Project from Town Center to Meadowbrook Road

I. Consideration of Woodlands Protection Ordinance Appeal - Cheltenham Estates Subdivisions

O. Authorize expenditure of $13,900 from account number 101-800.00-900.002 to conduct Map Preparation and title Search(es) for City initiated rezonings

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

B. Adoption of Awarding Resolution

Bob Bendzinski advised they had open bids for the $8.1M General Obligation Unlimited Tax Bonds and added this is the second portion of the $17.1M Street Improvement Bond. Mr. Bendzinski reported there were six bids and the low bid was submitted by A. G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. indicating a net interest cost of 4.563087% over the fifteen year life of the bond issue. Mr. Bendzinski reminded Council the city received an upgrade on their general obligation bond issue from A+ to AA- a year ago. Mr. Bendzinski believes this is an indication of the strength of Novi and consequently, the bond buyers have much faith in the city. Because the GO Bonding Index is currently at 5.11%, Mr. Bendzinski’s recommendation is that Council accept this bid.

Amy Davis of Miller, Canfield advised she is present on behalf of Denny Neiman who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Ms. Davis reported she attended the bond sale, and all the bids received were legal and presented in conformance with the Notice of Sale published by the city requesting bids for the sale of this bond issue. Ms. Davis reported they are delighted that they received such a low bid and because it will provide a savings to Novi’s residents, Ms. Davis would recommend the sale of the bond to A.G. Edwards.

Mayor McLallen noted Council has already adopted the Notice of Sale Resolution in December and therefore, they do not need to act on that recommended action this evening.

CM-98-02-035: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Awarding Resolution for $8.1M General Obligation Unlimited Tax Bond issue to A.G. Edwards and Son, Inc.

Nays: None

B. Adoption of Awarding Resolution

Mr. Bendzinski advised these revenue bonds are supported solely by the city’s water and sewer system. Mr. Bendzinski recommends the sale of these bonds for 5.003813% to A.G. Edwards & Sons.

CM-98-02-036: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Awarding Resolution for $10.0M Water Supply and Sewage Disposal System Revenue Bond issue to A.G. Edwards and Son, Inc.

Nays: None

3. Request for Retroactive Extension of Final Preliminary Plat - Lilley Pond Subdivision property located on South Lake Drive, east of West Road, SP#93-05L

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked Council to look closely at the position of the homes as they pertain to the proximity of the flood plain. Further, she advised there is information in the packet from Dave Bluhm indicating that there will be at least six inches of water flowing in these areas during the hundred year flood. She added Mr. Bluhm also indicated that the larger outlines are building envelopes and the developer has the option of placing the homes anywhere within that building envelope. In other words, if the developer chose to place the structures even closer to the flood plains, he could.

Councilwoman Lorenzo advised she would like to propose two conditions of approval. One would be that the placement of the homes would be as far toward the front lot line as possible within the building envelopes. The second condition would be regarding the type of storm water management used. She explained Mr. Bluhm indicated the only water quality treatment that is being proposed at this time is a gas and oil separator; there is no sedimentation or detention basin. Therefore, the water from this subdivision and its roads will travel straight through the storm sewer, and through the gas and oil separator into the water. She advised the problem with the gas and oil separator is that although it provides removal of the core sediment (oil and grease), it provides little treatment for fine sediments in soluble pollutants. Therefore, she would like this approval to be conditional upon a requirement that best management practices be used to the greatest extent possible and in accordance to what is known as a treatment trained approach. She explained ideally, the water would travel through a sedimentation basin into a grass swale and then filter through several other steps before it actually discharges into the water.

Dave Potter of JCK and Associates explained the water treatment process and advised best management approaches are site specific.

Councilwoman Lorenzo advised she would like to incorporate whatever they agree to be reasonable in addition to the gas and oil separator.

Councilwoman Lorenzo reminded Council about their lengthy discussion at their last meeting regarding at what point would the home buyer become aware of the flood plains and what that would actually mean in reality. Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether the petitioner would be agreeable to providing an affidavit that would be signed prior to each lot being sold that would not only indicate there is a hundred year flood plain on the property, but that there is also a one percent chance in any given year that it can occur more frequently. She added such an affidavit would further advise the purchase that it may be necessary for them to purchase flood insurance, there would be additional costs and they would have to pay for their flood insurance until it was removed from a flood hazard status.

Mayor McLallen understands that is a standard part of the title process.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that also, but it would still mean a home buyer would not become aware of the flood plain until after the home is built because that part of the process generally occurs at closing. Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to be certain that the buyer is fully aware of the implications of purchasing a home in a flood plain and is asking whether the petitioner would be willing to disclose this to the potential home buyer at the time of purchasing the lot.

Bryan Amann, attorney for the petitioner, advised they will inform the buyer at the time of purchasing the lot and they will also agree to use the best management practices in discharging the water. Mr. Amann referred to his letter dated February 3, 1998 and reported the new homeowner will physically look at the lot. Further, they would look at the plot plan and surveys that have the flood plain lines clearly marked on them. Mr. Amann reminded Council that his client would be the first person in line to accept the liability for any flood plain issues.

Councilwoman Lorenzo does not believe her request is unreasonable and that the potential home buyer should know what they are buying into. Further, she believes it should be very specific in terms of what a flood plain means.

Councilman Schmid believes there is some merit to the home buyer in finding out their property is in a flood plain early on.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer requested that the motion include a reference to the petitioner’s representation that he will adhere to best management practices in storm water design and locate homes near the front of the building envelope.

Councilman DeRoche agreed to add those conditions to his motion.

Nays: Lorenzo

Mr. Fried advised the petitioner must supply a legal description of the area in which the sign is going to be posted so it can be a part of the licensing agreement.

David Darkowski of The Selective Companies asked whether Mr. Fried is aware that the location of the sign is in the future roadway of a city dedicated street. Mr. Fried advised he is aware of that.

Nays: None

5. Request for Land Division Application Appeal - Monte Costella Co., Parcels 50-22-23-326-011 & 012, Property located on Trans-X Drive

Mayor McLallen advised the city’s assessor has denied this request because one of the three lots does not have public road frontage and therefore, it does not meet the requirements of the city’s ordinances.

Douglas Hyman advised he is before Council to appeal the city’s assessor’s denial of his client’s lot split request. He explained Trans-X Drive has a cul-de-sac at the end of the road and his client owns all the property on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hyman noted one parcel is land locked and advised they are proposing to create an irrevocable easement that will run with the land. He explained they are in a cul-de-sac area and congestion could be a problem if they had three driveways. Therefore, Mr. Hyman reported they are proposing a joint driveway with access to all three parcels. He believes it makes sense in terms of a development and traffic control perspective.

Councilman Kramer noted there are three drive way proposals and he is uncertain about which one is the actual proposal. Mr. Wilson of Monte Costello asked Council to refer to Page 9 of 11.

Mayor McLallen said the issue is road access and according to the petitioners, they are seeking to serve Parcels A, Y and X with an interesting road arrangement. The Mayor advised the issue before Council is that there is no public road and according to city ordinances if there is no public road, there is no lot.

The Mayor asked if there is any depiction as to how wide the road is and any indication of the type of road surface. Mr. Wilson replied it would just be an access for future development.

Councilman Schmid understands they are making three lots from two. Further, Parcel Y is land locked and they are proposing to put a private driveway from the cul-de-sac to that lot. Mr. Hyman advised Councilman Schmid’s understanding is correct, but added it will be an irrevocable easement that will run with the land as depicted on Page 9.

Councilman Schmid understands they can only access the lot through the driveway; Mr. Hyman agreed.

In response to whether the access will be functional, Mr. Arroyo believes that having another access point in that area would be difficult based upon the fact there is a cul-de-sac bulb and two points of access. Therefore, Mr. Arroyo believes if the applicant is trying to serve that property, shared access would not be a significant problem as long as what is built there now will support the generated truck traffic. Mr. Arroyo added because it is an industrial development, they should have constructed it to handle that type of truck traffic. However, he advised that they could still review that issue when a plan comes in. Further, because it is a light industrial use, there tends to be low trip generation. Mr. Arroyo believes the most significant issue is the heavy truck traffic that may come in and making sure that the road is capable of handling that type of traffic.

Mr. Kriewall advised because they recently constructed the road to industrial standards, it should be capable of handling this type of traffic.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is uncomfortable with this request until she can see how Dales Graphics fits into the plan and further believes an overlay of the proposal over what is currently existing on Parcel X would be helpful. Mr. Hyman advised it would be an extension of one of the existing driveways on Page 11 of 11.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether traffic from Parcel Y would interfere with the use of Parcel X? Mr. Wilson said it would not.

Mr. Arroyo added it appears there would probably be some reconstruction of the access that Parcel X (Dales Graphics) has to the entryway of Parcel A. Mr. Arroyo understands that they would extend the drive, (Page 9) so it would have a slightly different configuration (Page 11). Mr. Arroyo stated it also appears as though the easement runs close to the corner of the parking area for Dales Graphic, but seeing whether the road or drive would actually touch the easement is difficult based upon what is currently before them. Mr. Arroyo believes it will obviously impact the three sites in terms of making some minor modifications to the access. Further, he believes that would have to be reviewed in the site plan process in that they would have to make sure that it meets all the ordinance requirements.

Councilman Schmid understands according to the ordinance that all lots must be on public roads and asked whether there is also a distance factor. Mr. Rogers agreed and advised the lot must have sufficient width to support an industrial building at the street line. He explained if they had a forty foot frontage on a street in an I-1 District with a twenty foot side yard setback, it would not be adequate frontage. He advised they would need sixty or eighty feet of frontage measured at the building setback line on a public right-of-way. Mr. Rogers advised the relief would be to allow the easement to come in and not have that frontage in lieu of dedicating a sixty foot right-of-way back to this property. If they did that for Parcel X, then the side yard setback of twenty feet would be forty feet and there is not enough room to put a sixty foot right-of-way there now.

Councilman Schmid asked what would result if they approve this lot split request. Mr. Rogers replied they will have a building on an I-1 site with a hundred foot setback under the new zoning ordinance for parking and for building adjacent to residentially zoned property. Further, there are woodlands on the south easterly side that would be subject to a woodland permit review. Mr. Rogers added the easement configuration for Parcel X will provide a loop road system around to Parcel A’s easement. Mr. Rogers concurs with Mr. Arroyo’s opinion that the cul-de-sac can only accommodate two curb cuts and a third cut would cause congestion for truck traffic.

Councilman Schmid asked whether there is a way to construct a public road to the lot. Mr. Rogers believes they could possibly construct a sixty foot road, but the existing buildings would have to be forty feet from the sixty foot right-of-way. Mr. Rogers added it could come in off the cul-de-sac and pick up the curb cut at Monte Costella, but it would have to be redesigned anyway under this plan. Mr. Rogers advised that he offered this option as one of his two alternatives, but he does not believe the petitioner’s engineer submitted a plan for that option.

Councilman Schmid asked whether there is any reason that the city would not accept it as a street. Mr. Kriewall believes it could be difficult to plow as a street. He explained if they left it as a driveway, the maintenance would be the responsibility of the builder. Mr. Kriewall added he does not think they would want it as a public street and noted that plowing a cul-de-sac is difficult enough.

Councilman Schmid is concerned about superseding the ordinance. He understands the hardship, but he would recommend that they determine if they could put a public street to this parcel because it would be better for the city, the developer and for the businesses on those parcels.

Mr. Hyman does not agree with Councilman Schmid’s analysis and added he believes this developer has worked closely with the city in the relocation of sewer and storm drainage easements to accommodate the city. Therefore, he thinks their plan is reasonable.

Councilman Schmid asked whether the developer is aware that the city has had many requests for similar lot splits and Council has rejected 99% of these requests. Mr. Hyman replied he understands that.

Councilman Schmid believes a better approach would be for the petitioner to look at the feasibility of constructing a street that would eventually become a city street so they could put the lots into their final form and there would then be no question about the driveways.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Lorenzo does not believe she has enough information to support an approval. Further, she agrees with the earlier comments made by other Council members and supports the exploration of a public road. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes they also need to know whether Parcel Y is buildable from all aspects. Therefore, she would like a more in depth review about how the plan will fit in with the developed Parcel X (Dales Graphics). Councilwoman Lorenzo advised she would support a postponement of this matter if it were offered. However, if a postponement were not offered, she will support the denial.

Councilman Kramer will support the motion because the petitioner did not offer an explanation as to why a public road is not appropriate for the land. Councilman Kramer asked whether there is any particular process implication with regard to denial versus a postponement.

From a legal standpoint, Mr. Hyman would prefer that Council deny it so they can move to the next step.

Mr. Fried said there is a difference between a denial and a postponement. He explained a postponement would mean the matter is still on the table for action.

Mayor McLallen understands that Council members Kramer, Lorenzo and Schmid believe there is not enough information about whether the lot being created is really a viable lot.

Mr. Fried believes they would then want to postpone this matter.

Councilman Kramer would favor changing the motion to make it a postponement.

Councilman Schmid will adjust his motion to a postponement to a date uncertain. He then restated that he is concerned whether the lot is large enough and whether they should have a public road.

Councilwoman Lorenzo supports the amendment to the motion.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what is the length of the cul-de-sac? Mr. Wilson understands the length of Trans-X is somewhere between 800-1000 feet. Mayor ProTem Crawford said this raises another issue in that it would put them in a position for a variance for the cul-de-sac according to the ordinance. He explained if the petitioner proposes an extension of Trans-X with the cul-de-sac somewhere in Parcel Y, they would then have to consider that.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands the petitioner would prefer a denial and asked if they denied the request, what would the next step be. Mayor ProTem Crawford said if the result of a denial would be to go to court, then he would suggest another alternative.

Mr. Hyman is uncertain what the next step would be.

Mr. Fried reminded Council that the motion is for a postponement.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion is to postpone to a date uncertain the request for a Land Division Application Appeal for Monte Costella Co., parcels 50-22-23-326-011 and 012.

Mr. Fried clarified the postponement is until such a time that the applicant feels he has the information requested by Council.

Mayor McLallen believes that was the intent of the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch asked whether an extension of Trans-X has been considered or is another road attaching to Trans-X. Mr. Fried replied the applicant will determine if that is a reasonable solution.

Councilwoman Mutch understands they are creating a piece of straight public roadway that attaches to the circular part of Trans-X is one, but she does not know what is on the Trans-X side of this property. Mr. Hyman believes what Council has proposed is to provide some sort of a public road dedication coming off the bulbous section of the cul-de-sac to service the three parcels somehow.

Councilwoman Mutch stated she is rhetorically asking whether there is any possibility that Trans-X would change. She asked if there are existing buildings on the Trans-X straightaway or is it someone else’s property. Mr. Wilson said the Iron Workers are on the north east portion, the south is vacant and owned by W.F. Miller, Monte Costella owns the next parcel and Dales Graphics own the last parcel. Mr. Wilson said if they put in an extension of a public street, it would destroy all of the landscaping and that is the reason they proposed a permanent joint access among all three parcels since Monte Costella owns all the land. He added it would not make sense to him to destroy all their landscaping.

Councilwoman Mutch said it is highly unlikely for Council to go along with a split unless there is public street access. Mr. Wilson advised that is the purpose of the Permanent Joint Access Agreement.

Mr. Hyman said he understands what Councilwoman Mutch is saying.

Councilwoman Mutch asked whether there is any benefit to straightening out the bulbous part keeping in mind that there is not much Council interest in splitting the lots if there is no public road access? Mr. Hyman advised they are well aware of that.

Nays: None

BREAK - 10:10 p.m. until 10:20 p.m.

6. Request for approval of Harvest Lake of Novi Residential Unit Development Agreement

Mayor McLallen advised this agreement is the next step in the RUD process; the first step was the approval of an area plan in July 1997. Mayor McLallen reported all of the issues discussed in July are incorporated into this document and becomes the governing issue. Further, this RUD requires that the Harvest Lake property be developed into no more than 876 dwelling units and the types of units are specified as part of the agreement. The Mayor added that each of the individual phases must stand on its own merits as the petitioner brings it forward, the city’s attorney developed the agreement and is presented in its entirety, and the area plan and agreement will govern the future land development in what is known as Harvest Lake.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked the city attorney to bring Council up to date in terms of how they arrived at this document. Mr. Fried replied once they approved the area plan, Council instructed the city attorney to have the developer prepare a RUD Development Agreement that incorporates the area plan.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is concerned with the language that states the developer would not be bound to the woodland and wetlands regulations as amended and in effect as each phase would be brought forward as a site plan or plat. She believes that is particularly relevant since the plan is a long term plan and could last as long as twenty years. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes that locking them into a 1998 ordinance would be detrimental to the intent of the woodland and wetland ordinances. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes each submission must stand on its own and should comply with the woodlands and wetlands ordinance as they come forward and are approved.

Further, in terms of the dwelling units, Councilwoman Lorenzo asked what would happen under a woodland or wetland review that the Planning Commission or Council felt there was too much intrusion and the solution would be the removal of some of the units. Mr. Fried said if they properly apply the ordinances they can do it. He explained the number is limited to the extent that it can only be done in accordance with the ordinances.

Councilwoman Lorenzo then understands that the city is not locked into 870 units if by review they find there is too much intrusion and would require the removal of lots. Mr. Fried said if they cannot comply with the ordinance in effect as of today and create 876 units, then they have to reduce the number of units.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked what a development constraint might be and how that might affect the open space under Item 7 in the agreement. Mr. Fried advised he reviewed this issue with Dennis Watson and they recommend that Council consider adding "as found by the city engineers" after "development constraints" on Page 9.

Councilwoman Lorenzo would still like to know what that might be. Mr. Fried said that would mean they might have to align a road in a certain way.

Councilwoman Lorenzo said what other changes may be found by the engineers. Mr. Fried said it would be something found in the infrastructure by the engineers.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands the location of open space might change; Mr. Fried agreed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether they will still include "etc." in the text. Mr. Fried advised they would add the recommended additional language after "etc.".

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the development constraints would be more than just for infrastructure. Mr. Fried said it may and explained he would assume it would be anything that would interfere with the development. Mr. Fried added they thought the engineer would be the best arbiter for this kind of problem.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands it would be the city engineer who would suggest any development constraint, infrastructure or not; Mr. Fried agreed.

Councilman Schmid noted there is a twenty five foot area between the lake and the property except those property owners on the lake and asked for further clarification about the twenty five feet. Mr. Fried recalled that is found in the area plan and he must first review it before commenting on it.

Steve Weiner of Harvest Land referred to Figure 5 on Page 37 of the area plan in which they included a drawing that shows how residences would be developed along the water front. Mr. Weiner reported 33% of the frontage would be allowable beach area in front of the individual residences in the twenty five foot setback. Further, within the twenty five foot set back there would be what they refer to as a waterfront vegetation buffer that is consistent with the ordinance.

Councilman Kramer recalled Council had discussed having a large portion of the development assessable so people could walk around it. Mr. Weiner recalled the collaborative position was that Harvest Land had to show on the area plan that 25% of the total area around the lake had to be public to Harvest Lake residents. Mr. Weiner advised they have proved that in the area plan and added this calculation does not include the forty three one acre lots.

Councilman Kramer said the description in Paragraph III. of the agreement also includes the combined cluster side of the water front and he thought that would be more of a continuous water front. Mr. Weiner replied they limited the amount of beach accessible by those cluster homeowners to a percentage of their total lot in the cluster plan.

Councilman Kramer said the agreement is written in very specific current ordinance language. Consequently, Councilman Kramer understands this means any subsequent changes to the ordinances are not applicable to this RUD. Mr. Fried said changes would not be applicable as the agreement is currently written.

Councilman Kramer asked whether they need an acknowledgment that if the developer wants to amend the area plan, he must come back before Council. Mr. Fried advised that the ordinance provides for amendments to the area plan.

CM-98-02-040: Moved by DeRoche, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED: To approve the Harvest Lake of Novi Residential Unit Development Agreement as recommended by city attorney and with the addition of " . . . etc, as found by the city engineers . . ." made to Page 9, Paragraph 1

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid will not support the motion. He explained this development dramatically changes the Master Plan, and increases density and traffic. Councilman Schmid cautioned Council about a point that Councilwoman Lorenzo raised in that normal plats are completed within three to four years and this project could last as long as twenty years.

Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to amend the main motion. She explained she would like the language to state that all the applicable ordinances in effect at the time that each phase is submitted be applied.

Mr. Fried recommended that Council consider including, "as effective on the date of the approval of the phase."

Councilman DeRoche does not wish to add this amendment to his motion.

CM-98-02-041: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded Kramer, FAILED: To amend the main motion to include language stating each phase or plat will be governed by all woodland, wetland and ordinances in effect on the date of submittal of each phase or plat

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council that one of the strengths of having a RUD Agreement is that it is not just the ordinances, but everything else they are able to negotiate as part of that agreement that gives the standards for the product that Council hopes the developer will deliver. She explained they will set the standards during the RUD Agreement negotiations that the developer will be held to by future Councils and Planning Commissions. She added if the ordinances are not strong during the discussions that lead to the agreement, then she believes the appropriate time to strengthen the city’s position would be during negotiations. Councilwoman Mutch believes if they keep the standard flexible so that it is subject to future changes in the ordinances, she thinks that thinking that those changes will necessarily be more stringent or demanding on the developer is naive. She explained some of the ordinances might change in way that Council would not be comfortable with today, but a future Council might be comfortable with. Councilwoman Mutch believes future Councils would then be in a position of having an agreement that the current Council gave them carte blanche to change. Therefore, Councilwoman Mutch will not support the motion because she believes the agreement represents the results of the negotiations from the city’s perspective.

Councilman DeRoche understands when they enact an ordinance that it becomes effective on the day it is enacted. Mr. Fried advised it is effective on the date of publication unless Council specifically states it is effective immediately. Mr. Fried added there was a second part to Councilwoman Lorenzo’s motion that would lead to some problems with the agreement because he believes it would make the agreement ambiguous. Mr. Fried explained by including that each phase would be governed by the ordinances that are effective on the date the phase is approved would destroy some of the intent of the agreement. Mr. Fried believes it would not cause a problem in terms of applying the woodland and wetland ordinances, but it is his opinion to apply throughout the rest of the agreement would make it ambiguous.

Councilman DeRoche asked whether there would be any recourse for takings if a future ordinance made certain areas of this development unbuildable. Mr. Fried replied it is a large piece of property area and he would not think it would constitute a taking, but he would have to review the ordinance. However, Mr. Fried believes it is possible that a claim could be made for a taking.

Mayor ProTem Crawford concurs with Councilwoman Mutch’s comments about whether an ordinance would be more or less restrictive. He said it could very well be less restrictive and he does not know how they could develop a project of this magnitude without knowing what potential impacts a change in ordinance could have.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the action they take on tonight’s woodland’s ordinance would be applicable to this project? Mr. Fried advised it would not be applicable to this project because the ordinance would not take effect until publication which generally takes seven days.

Upon the attorney’s advice, Councilwoman Lorenzo will strike the second part of her motion.

Mayor McLallen advised the amendment to the motion will now state, "Upon the effective date of the approval of each phase, those woodland and wetland ordinances that are governing at those times will govern those phases." Councilwoman Lorenzo agreed.

Councilman Kramer will continue to support the motion because he believes they continue to learn over time and he would like the latest construction practices to be applied over time.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council part of this agreement is utilization of best practices throughout the development process. Therefore, she believes they already have that commitment. Further, Mayor McLallen does not think learning is unilateral. She explained she does not think the city is the only party learning in the future. Mayor McLallen said this development represents a significant investment in the community by an entity and that entity would want to continue to tailor their product in order to be a viable marketing group in the future. Mayor McLallen is concerned that Council and the community has spent an enormous amount of time on this project and came to the conclusion that the petitioner and the area plan presented a significant achievement. She recalled there were members that did not concur, but reminded Council that is the democratic process and the governing body decided to move forward with the agreement. The Mayor believes to try to go back and redesign everything done in the past would make any deliberative body moribund and hesitant to take a risk on any matter. Mayor McLallen believes the value of an RUD agreement allows the city to take a risk and come to an agreement with a member of the development community to form a partnership and mutually develop a product over time. Mayor McLallen believes those who worked on this agreement have done a wonderful job and therefore, she will not support the amendment.

Nays: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Mutch

Nays: Lorenzo, Schmid

7. Request for Approval of Crime Prevention Grant

Police Chief Doug Shaeffer advised Beth Belter is the Executive Director for The Communities that Care Coalition in Novi. Chief Shaeffer advised this process has involved all social segments in the community (i.e., schools, ministers group, businesses, parent groups, homeowners, etc.) and the coalition’s work has empirically identified substance abuse (not including alcohol or tobacco use) as the most common risk behavior by youths in Novi. He added Novi’s averages are greater than national and regional averages. Chief Shaeffer reported the coalition believes they should focus their efforts on trying to abate these problem behaviors with Novi’s youth. He reported they propose to create after school recreation programs, and teach more social competency skills by extending the DARE program into the eighth grade and high school.

Chief Shaeffer reported the grant application amounts to $375,000 and includes a required matching share of $142,000 that must be provided for by the community. He further reported that only the City of Novi can apply for the grant under the rules enacted by Congress. Chief Shaeffer advised the matching $142,000 share qualifies the city for an additional $232,000 in federal funding as administered through the state. Chief Shaeffer added only half of the $142,000 is made in cash. He explained the remainder of the match is known as "in kind match" (i.e., use of a facility or teachers). Therefore, they estimate the cost to the community will then be approximately $85,000 to provide for an after school recreation program, personnel and equipment.

Chief Shaeffer advised this is a one year grant and if Council chooses to move forward, he reported the matching share increases in subsequent years. He suggested that they consider a combination of cash and in kind matches. Chief Shaeffer advised if Council moves forward, they will hire a program supervisor for the after school program, a couple site supervisors, eight part time aids, and purchase some equipment. However, if they choose not to carry out the grant after one year, Chief Shaeffer advised they will be faced with the problem of what to do with the staff.

Chief Shaeffer advised there are other alternatives. He explained the coalition is applying for a tax exempt status so they can solicit other funding sources to be used as matches for this grant or sources that can stand alone.

Councilman DeRoche is supportive of any effort to reduce adolescent drug use in the community.

Councilman Kramer asked if the personnel would be a part of the Police Department or the Parks and Recreation Department. Chief Shaeffer advised the coalition believes the personnel should work out of the Police Department.

Councilman Kramer suggested that because of the after school activities that perhaps they should attach to it the Parks and Recreation program.

Councilman Kramer asked whether the schools have stepped forward to volunteer their facilities to house the activities. Chief Shaeffer replied the schools have volunteered one school which is all the coalition requested. Further, they will also use the Old Town Hall for after school recreation programs and they have arranged with Soccer Zone to use their facility. Chief Shaeffer advised they are still looking for a site in the north end of the community.

Councilman Kramer asked if there has been any discussion about sharing the $85,000 burden with the other groups? Chief Shaeffer replied that the bulk of the responsibility lies with the city and not the schools.

Councilman Kramer believes they should solicit participation from the other groups because the cost will increase in the subsequent years.

Councilwoman Mutch does not believe the coalition as a group had the opportunity to discuss the administrative logistics of how they will financially account for the people that they will hire. She believes from a supervision point of view that it was most logical that they are under the direct supervision of the Police Department because that is where Ms. Belter is currently working.

Councilwoman Mutch noted that the program has been successful in other communities nationally and has won awards. Councilwoman Mutch believes it might be appropriate to think of the part time people as assigned to the project during the duration of the grant. She added that the training for this program is much different from what is required through Parks and Recreation.

Councilwoman Mutch believes additional help will come and noted Ms. Belter is currently applying for additional grants. Councilwoman Mutch added because the problem is across the entire community that the neighboring school districts should also become involved in the program.

Councilman Schmid agrees the program is a great idea, but he is concerned about the cost of the program to the taxpayers once the grant funds are diminished. Councilman Schmid added he opposes federal programs, and thinks the state and communities should fund and support these programs instead.

Councilman Schmid asked if the cost of the personnel is included in the $85,000? Chief Shaeffer advised it is included in the $272,000.

Councilman Schmid understands that money will be gone next year. Chief Shaeffer replied a portion of it will be gone next year. Ms. Belter added there is a 25% match in the first year, a 33% match in the second year, a 50% match in the third year and the program should be self-sufficient in the fourth year.

Councilman Schmid understands there will be almost a half million dollar commitment by Novi taxpayers in five years to fund this project. Assuming they only have the program for one year, Councilman Schmid asked where will the $85,000 come from.

Mr. Kriewall advised their main concern about this grant was the long range responsibility of the city and that is why he asked Les Gibson to prepare a report that addresses the city’s long range fiscal responsibility. He explained it amounted to approximately one quarter of a mil and added that the entire city only has one mil of unallocated general fund capability. He said they realize it is a major commitment if they go beyond the first year and suggested that they use the first year as a demonstration period. He added they wanted to portray that expenditure to Council because it is a major use of the city’s limited resources. He explained money they may normally use to hire police officers in subsequent years will be spent to fund this program.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked why can’t they assess this separately? Mr. Kriewall replied the city cannot levy additional millage and therefore, this must come out of the remaining capacity within the General Fund.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands they could bring this issue before the voters after the first year; Mr. Kriewall agreed.

Les Gibson advised they will apply a portion of the $86,000 to the current year’s budget and they will need a budget amendment to cover it. He added that the balance must be incorporated into next year’s budget process.

After reading Mr. Gibson’s report, Councilman Schmid understands that the program could go from $86,000 to a full $416,000 plus inflationary costs in one year. Mr. Gibson agreed, but added that he now understands that there will be some phasing. Mr. Gibson explained if they renew the grant next year the city’s share would be increased but not nearly as dramatically as when they hired the six police officers in the COPS Program. He said when they hired the officers, the federal government paid 75% in the first year, 50% in the second, 25% in the third and then the city picked up the entire amount in the fourth year. He explained the staging is not nearly as significant for this program, so they will not have the chance to phase it into the budget process as easily as they did in the hiring of the police officers.

Councilman Schmid understands it would go to some figure less than $416,000 in the second year; Mr. Gibson agreed.

Councilman Schmid asked how many other neighboring communities have joined this process? Chief Shaeffer advised he is only certain about West Bloomfield Township and Farmington Hills, but he would not limit his answer to only those two communities.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is inclined to support this program, but added they should prepare themselves for the second year right now by putting this matter before the voters in November.

If the program works, Councilman DeRoche believes the community would support it. Further, he does not want to wait until the money runs out to take action and believes if it is not working, they should cut the program at that time.

Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council this is only a capsule presentation before them. She explained those involved in this process do recognize the cost and consequently there is considerable incentive for all involved to broaden the base of shared costs and in kind contributions so the city will not be in a position to decide whether they should continue or drop the program. She believes there should be enough progress in the first year that there will be a broader base of financial support and hopefully, the monies spent on corrective activities will shift to preventive activities.

With regard to placing something on the ballot, Councilwoman Mutch believes it is important to become familiar with the effort being made over the next year. She explained they should recognize that it is not necessarily a good idea to ask voters to consider the whole program and ask whether the City of Novi should continue to participate in the Community that Cares Coalition program for "X" amount of dollars. She believes that asking taxpayers to provide a permanent summer recreational facility or program to meet the needs of middle school students might be appropriate. She believes a major part of the problem in Novi is that there are too many children going unsupervised for periods of time where they have few alternatives. She added that she believes a community that has as much to offer as Novi does could be doing a lot more for their children.

Councilman Kramer does not believe the plan before them is complete and therefore, they are not ready to take action. He believes they need to first determine what would happen if the city must foot the entire bill. Councilman Kramer asked the coalition to think through the issues, and submit an implementation and business plan so the city can support the program long term.

Mayor McLallen asked what is the deadline for the grant submission? Ms. Belter replied the grant was due in November. She explained they submitted a preliminary grant based upon Council approving it at a later date. Ms. Belter advised they have received the grant back with a couple of minor amendments, and now they are just waiting for Council support. Ms. Belter reported once the city signs off, the monies will be available within one month to six weeks.

Mr. Kriewall stressed that the city should not have less than a 1 mil spread of additional capacity because the 1 mil spread is an important factor in the city’s bond rating. To continue the program, Mr. Kriewall believes a charter amendment would be appropriate.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked if the money is available to support the program for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 budgets? Mr. Gibson believes they will need approximately $20,000 from the current budget and $86,000 from next years budget. He advised they will have to work it into their $15M General Fund budget and because they do not have all of the numbers yet, saying how they will accomplish that is difficult. He would say it is possible, but added the entire budget process is a matter of priorities and there may be something that may not be done as a result of moving forward with this project.

Councilman Schmid believes the city does a lot for their children and questions whether this is the best program or whether there are there other programs that are better. Chief Shaeffer advised there are other programs and some are being taught in school right now. However, he added there are few if any other programs that have the consistency of training over time as the new DARE program does. Chief Shaeffer added that the after school recreational component is what it is whether they assign it to the Police Department or the Parks and Recreation Department.

Councilman Schmid asked what do they predict the reduction in drug use will be as a result of the program? Chief Shaeffer advised research indicates a 10-15% reduction by those who attended the program compared with those who did not.

Councilman Schmid agrees with Councilman Kramer in that there is not sufficient information and recommends that they postpone this matter until they have submitted a more comprehensive report.

Councilman Schmid asked whether high school students will attend the recreation programs? Ms. Belter replied the recreation program targets fifth through eighth grade who according to their research, were determined to be the most at risk students at this time. Ms. Belter added part of the after school recreation program would include mentoring, parenting programs, and Providence Hospital has agreed to send family practitioners to talk with the students. Ms. Belter advised the program will not just provide recreation; it is a place where they will be working with families. She added that Parks and Recreation, and Novi Youth Assistance will be heavily involved in the program.

Councilman Schmid asked whether parents will help fund this program. Ms. Belter replied they will not charge the families so that all children can attend the program.

Mayor McLallen asked whether they will lose the grant if the application is not completed within the next ten days. Ms. Belter said that is correct.

Mayor McLallen understands if they move forward with the grant, the city would still have the opportunity to decline the funds. Chief Shaeffer agrees they could decline, but believes it would diminish their opportunity for future funds.

CM-98-02-042: Moved by Crawford, Seconded DeRoche, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the submission of the application for Federal Grant

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer would propose to amend the motion by adding that a business plan come forth prior to the city accepting the grant monies.

CM-98-02-043: Moved by Kramer, Seconded Schmid, CARRIED: To amend main motion requesting that the Communities That Care Coalition provide a funding and business plan before the city accepts the Federal Grant monies

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that the grant will be forthcoming within the next few weeks and asked when would the coalition have the opportunity to act upon the request. Chief Shaeffer replied they could make a presentation at the next regular Council meeting.

Councilman Schmid suggested that they also provide information about other programs.

Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council that all the members of the coalition will have to be called together to provide the written information that Council has requested and do the work they would have done after the grant came. Councilwoman Mutch advised the preparation of the grant proposal requires a considerable amount of detail (i.e., what are they going to do with the money, what purpose does it serve, how do they document the need they say exists, etc.), but the specifics asked for tonight are things that are yet to be done by the coalition. Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council that this is an effort to bring together as a community effort all of the programs, individuals, resources, agencies, etc. that are operating independently and that is what the value of the Community That Cares Coalition Program is. She explained although they have the benefit of looking at communities where this program has been underway, each has their own set of resources. Therefore, it is unrealistic to believe the coalition can bring back a business plan because they are still bringing other people into the planning process. Councilwoman Mutch respectfully requested that Council carefully read the proposal. Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council that Ms. Belter stood before them approximately one month ago to explain what she has accomplished over the last year and a half.

Councilman Kramer is looking for a management plan and a funding plan.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked Councilman Kramer to clarify his amendment. He asked if what Councilman Kramer is looking for is what was stated by Councilwoman Mutch, then he believes that the amendment is unrealistic.

Councilman Kramer understands the material Councilwoman Mutch referred to is only the information necessary to apply for the grant. He does not know if it necessarily states how the City of Novi will manage the program or how it will be funded on an ongoing basis. Councilman Kramer restated he believes they should have a plan in mind as businessmen on behalf of the citizens of the City of Novi. Councilman Kramer believes they would be doing everyone a disservice if they view this as only a one year program.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes the funding plan has been suggested several times tonight. He recalled it may be in the city’s hands, other grants or it may be in kind matches.

Councilman Kramer believes the coalition can lay out a plan, recommend an approach or offer alternative approaches for the city.

Mayor McLallen asked whether Councilman Kramer has a specific date in mind as to when he would like the plan to be presented. Councilman Kramer is open and is willing to move forward, but he would like a commitment from the coalition to work it out. He said once they accept the money, he would like to think that they have a six year program and he believes they need to be smart about how they will construct and manage that money.

Councilwoman Lorenzo supports the program, but she has a problem with the funding. She would be more comfortable if this were before them during the budget process because Council would have a clearer picture of the priorities in the upcoming budget year. Councilwoman Lorenzo suggested that they plan for this grant for next year.

Ms. Belter stated they cannot plan for this grant for next year because it will no longer be available if they do not move forward now. She explained once a community declines the grant, a community may not apply again.

Nays: Crawford, Mutch

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked Councilman Kramer to provide Chief Shaeffer with an outline of his request that would specify the information he is looking for in the report. Councilman Kramer advised he will provide his request in writing.

Nays: None

Reverend Harding - thanked Council for their consideration for the Federal Grant application. Reverend Harding believes the program is excellent, but agrees it still needs much work. He further agrees that they should put the money in a proper place and believes Council will have the appropriate information before them in a couple of weeks to make their decision.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

8. Request for adoption of Ordinance No. 97-125.11, the Woodlands Ordinance - II Reading & Final Approval

CM-98-02-044: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Lorenzo, FAILED: To adopt amendments to the Woodlands Ordinance as presented in Dennis Watson’s letter of January 29, 1998 - II Reading & Final Approval with an immediate effective date

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen noted the effect of this motion will be that it will be the governing ordinance for Harvest Lake RUD which was approved earlier this evening. For the record, Mayor McLallen will not support the motion.

Mayor ProTem Crawford has no idea as to how this will affect the Harvest Lake Development and therefore, he believes there is no need to make this effective immediately. Consequently, he will not support the motion.

Nay: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Mutch

CM-98-02-045: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt amendments to the Woodlands Ordinance as presented in Dennis Watson’s letter of January 29, 1998 - II Reading & Final Approval

Nays: None

9. Request for adoption of Ordinance No. 97-162 - To prohibit portable toilets except when used on a construction site, public park or school facility or pursuant to a permit - II Reading & Final Approval

Councilman Schmid asked whether this ordinance is the same form as before. Mr. Fried replied the ordinance now only applies to residential.

Councilman Schmid believes a week is too long for a portable toilet to remain on a residential property. He believes two days is sufficient and that the portable toilet should be removed within one to two days.

Mr. Fried suggested that they change paragraph (3) c. to read, "A permit shall be issued no more than two (2) to a single property within any given year for no more than two (2) days."

Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested they offer a two day permit and two days to remove it. Further, he suggested that they be more specific in regard to paragraph (3) a. He asked for further clarification to the language "such size." Mayor ProTem Crawford then referred to (3) d. and believes the number of portable toilets should not exceed more than one per lot.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that the intent of this ordinance was how to prohibit putting a portable toilets on residential lots and how to give the ordinance officers the mechanism to address the issue.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would like "such size" in (3) a. to specify one hundred (100) people, that they add "for no more than two (2) days to (3) c., that the limit the number of portable toilets in (3) d. to one (1) per lot or parcel and that it does not remain on any property for more than four (4) days under (3) e. Mayor ProTem Crawford further objects to any type of appeal process. He explained if it is left in the ordinance, he questions the purpose of having an ordinance at all. Therefore, he suggests they remove the appeal process and would move that they adopt the ordinance to include these changes.

Councilwoman Mutch asked whether there is another appeal process. Mr. Fried replied the petitioner could take the city to court and declare the ordinance unconstitutional. Councilwoman Mutch noted that a petitioner could still take the city to court whether there is an appeal process in place or not.

CM-98-02-046: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED: To adopt Ordinance No. 97-162 - To prohibit portable toilets except when used on a construction site, public park or school facility or pursuant to a permit as amended - II Reading & Final Approval

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked if the ordinance would consider reconstruction in the same way as they would consider construction. Mr. Fried replied it would include any type of construction.

Nays: McLallen, Kramer

10. Request to schedule a Special City Council Meeting for an Economic Summit on Saturday, March 14, 1998 at 8:00 A.M. until 12:00 Noon

Nays: None

CM-98-02-048: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agreement of Sale and Adoption of Resolution of Offer to Purchase real estate from Thompson Glass Company

Nays: None

12. Request from Cable Access Committee for removal of member

CM-98-02-049: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the request from the Cable Access Committee to remove member Mark Adler pursuant to Cable Access Committee Bylaws

Nays: None

Councilwoman Mutch requested that Council not take any action on the board and commission appointments tonight because Council has not had the opportunity to interview the candidate for the Board of Review. Further, she noted that the ballot is not set up in a way that Council has the option of voting one way or another when candidates are seeking reappointment and there is also an alternate position available (i.e., Construction Board of Appeals and Cable Access Committee). She then asked that they provide suggestions to the Clerk’s office for redesigning the ballot so they can consider all candidates for all vacancies.

Mayor McLallen recommends that they reappoint Andrew Mutch to the Library Board.

Mayor McLallen moved forward to the Board of Review appointment and noted this candidate was unable to interview. Therefore, at this point they will attempt to reschedule this interview because the Board of Review meets in March.

CM-98-02-051: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone Board of Review appointment until Council has the opportunity to interview the candidate

CM-98-02-052: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reappoint Katherine Cosentino and Barbara Greenberg for two of the three year Beautification Commission terms expiring February 27, 2001

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Items listed

on the Consent Agenda which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that Eda Weddington addressed this item during Audience Participation. The Mayor reported the request is to redesign the intersection of Nine Mile and Beck Roads. She explained Beck Road would be redesigned to five lanes and Nine Mile would be redesigned to three lanes to allow turning movements when the proposed traffic light is functioning. Further, there is also a proposal to construct an asphalt sidewalk that would intrude into the wetland. Ms. Weddington would support a boardwalk because it is less intrusive and would ultimately require less maintenance.

Councilwoman Lorenzo shares Ms. Weddington’s concern about the impact to the wetland as a result of the construction of a sidewalk in that location. Further, Councilwoman Lorenzo advised she concerned about the site of mitigation. She reported Mr. Nowicki reported that the conceptual site was in the West Road area. Councilwoman Lorenzo stated she is concerned about the location because the whole purpose of mitigation is to compensate for the loss at the site or in the immediate area. She explained the further they get from the site, the less compensation they have. Councilwoman Lorenzo requested that the engineers explore alternative mitigation sites on site, in close proximity of the site or at least in the same watershed as an alternative to the West Road location.

Mayor McLallen understands that the West Road site is in the same watershed. Councilwoman Lorenzo stated sharing the same watershed would be her last preference.

Mr. Nowicki said they can look at potential alternative sites, but added there is currently two tenths of one acre of wetlands that this project would impact. Mr. Nowicki advised they have applied for a DEQ permit and they have not yet received the permit back. Consequently, Mr. Nowicki advised they are not certain about whether they will require mitigation yet. Mr. Nowicki further advised that they have not proposed a boardwalk in this project. He explained a private developer adjacent to the project has proposed the boardwalk.

Nays: None

Councilwoman Lorenzo is concerned about abandoning this project and asked Mr. Nowicki to comment on this matter.

Mr. Nowicki advised the contractors have to be prequalified by the Michigan Department of Transportation, and because this project is relatively small and the process is long, the city has been unable to attract bidders.

Councilwoman Lorenzo suggested that they request a waiver of the strict applications from MDOT based on the hardship that the city is unable to find contractors and there is a community need to have a sidewalk in this location.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Nowicki believes they will get results from MDOT with this action. Mr. Nowicki replied that the people that the engineers have been working with have been unreceptive and perhaps a resolution from Council may change that. However, Mr. Nowicki added that until this point, MDOT has held fast to their requirements.

Councilwoman Mutch understands there is nothing to be lost and perhaps something to be gained with this action; Mr. Nowicki agreed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they already have the easement. Mr. Nowicki advised the city acquired the easement from the Grand Meadowbrook Group. He added they have also paid what would have been the local share for the construction of the sidewalk across their property.

Because Mayor ProTem Crawford is uncertain whether the resolution would be successful, he believes that eliminating the project would be prudent, return the $3,000 and keep the easement for the future.

Mr. Nowicki advised they have already talked to their contact person, but he has not confirmed whether the city will keep the easement. He added that it would be in their best interest, as well as the city’s to construct the sidewalk for future use.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked who initiated this request. Mr. Nowicki replied it was initiated by the city because the city has been unable to retain a contractor to build the project.

Nays: Crawford, DeRoche

I. Consideration of Woodlands Protection Ordinance Appeal - Cheltenham Estates Subdivisions

Abstain: McLallen

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether Mr. Pargoff factored in the administration of the process and the leverage of the city (actual bonding and tree replacement) in his decision. Mr. Pargoff replied all the trees on the lots that would be impacted by the houses and counted as part of the bonding was a part of the Planning Commission’s approval. He added that Mr. Nanda does not object to the amount of the bonding, but he questions who should pay the bonding.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands the issue is about whether Mr. Nanda posts the bond now or whether individual builders post the bond as lots are sold. Based on that, Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether there is any administrative problem or leverage that city would have if Mr. Nanda were to post the bond over having the individual builders post it. Mr. Pargoff believes it is more flexible if the developer has the planting requirements. However, Mr. Pargoff added it is really of no consequence because the amount is still the same. It is Mr. Pargoff’s opinion that the developer has more flexibility and more area to work with than an individual lot might have. He explained there are approximately twenty five trees per lot and it is difficult to get twenty five new trees on a single lot. He added the builder has approximately ten lots with no trees, so he could spread the trees onto those lots. He further explained that the developer has additional lot areas to replant the trees on site rather than contributing to the city tree fund or finding another location within the city.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether Mr. Nanda could locate the trees on the site prior to selling the lots. Mr. Pargoff advised the city would not be involved in that; it would be an agreement between Mr. Nanda and the individual builders.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked if the proposed location of the trees is made at the time of posting the bond and asked whether Mr. Nanda can do this without actually posting the bond. Mr. Pargoff said that is the time the developer makes the proposal and he is not certain whether the city could hold the individual builders responsible for planting the trees. Mr. Pargoff said it is possible and would be in Mr. Nanda’s sales agreement with the individual builder.

Mr. Fried asked whether Mr. Pargoff is following the ordinance on this matter. Mr. Pargoff replied he is. Mr. Fried’s point is, if they are following the ordinance, then that should be the end of the question.

Therefore, under the advisement of the attorney, Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that they should not grant this appeal. Mr. Fried agreed, unless the petitioner can show some justification under the ordinance that he is entitled to it.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer asked whether this is consistent with the way they apply the woodlands ordinance to other developments. Mr. Pargoff agreed and added they have been asking the Planning Commission at the time of the woodlands approval for this authority and it is appropriate according to the ordinance.

Councilman Kramer understands this will cause a burden to the developer, but added the developer has the means to recover the cost through the lot sales. Councilman Kramer would prefer that this matter be addressed privately rather than through the city.

Councilwoman Mutch asked when do the bonds have to be posted. Mr. Pargoff replied they post them at the time of permit issuance which is at the time grubbing and clearing begins on the site.

Mr. Pargoff said Mr. Nanda’s primary concern is that he has to post the money up front and he thought that having the money posted by the builders would be appropriate. Mr. Pargoff advised that the ordinance allows the builders to post the money, but it is a prorated share by the original developer.

Councilwoman Mutch understands Mr. Nanda is free to work out another arrangement with the builders and require more than the city would; Mr. Pargoff agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch would have appreciated having Mr. Fried’s opinion earlier because she believes it would have saved time.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how many trees are there? Mr. Pargoff replied the $64,000 applies to 220 tree replacements of which 70 would be the alternative proposal; there would be a difference of 150 trees.

Mayor ProTem Crawford noted there is correspondence from Mr. Nowicki stating he had sought some sort of acceptable compromise. Mr. Pargoff advised the compromise was the 70 trees and therefore, would reduce the $64,000.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether they would still adequately protect the city. Mr. Pargoff said the city would be protected because they could go after the individual builders at the time of building permit issuance. Mr. Pargoff added they have done that in the past. However, he noted they began advising against following that procedure to the Planning Commission approximately two years ago because of the difficulty they had with the Mystic Forest development.

Mr. Nanda advised the issue is about who is the person that should be bonded, how much the bond should be and at what point should the bond be made. Mr. Nanda advised that Mr. Nowicki agrees that Mr. Nanda’s proposal is consistent with the goal of the ordinance. Mr. Nanda advised 220 trees would be affected if all of the builders were to damage all of the trees and those trees could be damaged from now until six years from now. Mr. Nanda’s point is that asking him to put forth $64,000 for six years is not fair. Mr. Nanda would propose a compromise that during the development phase perhaps 70 trees may be damaged and he has no problem with posting a bond for those trees. In addition, Mr. Nanda stated he agreed to include a list of trees being affected for each lot as provided by Mr. Pargoff in the subdivision’s covenant and deed restrictions. He explained by doing this, the individual builder cannot pull a permit until he posts a bond.

Mr. Nanda added he believes the $10,000 guarantee for woodland fencing is also unreasonable. Mr. Nanda reported the total cost for fencing was $5,000 and therefore, he does not believe the guarantee should be more than $6,000.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether Mr. Nanda agrees with Mr. Nowicki’s compromise. Mr. Nanda agrees with the compromise. However, he disagrees with the $10,000 fence protection fee.

Councilman DeRoche asked if Mr. Nanda has to post cash. Mr. Pargoff replied this was part of a policy they had in place for approximately a year and a half in that they would have the developer post a cash guarantee for fence maintenance.

Councilman DeRoche asked whether Mr. Nanda can post a bond? Mr. Pargoff said the fence guarantee has to be cash so the city can draw from it. However, he added that the tree replacements can be in a letter of credit.

Mr. Nowicki advised Mr. Nanda had requested an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of his site plan with respect to the woodland’s ordinance. In the approval, they required Mr. Nanda to bond for 220 trees in the amount of $64,054 and Mr. Nanda felt that was unreasonable. Mr. Nowicki advised Mr. Nanda believes he should only guarantee the survival of the trees that are specifically associated with the infrastructure development and not those associated with lot development. On that basis, Mr. Nowicki said they determined that 70 trees would be impacted by infrastructure construction and Mr. Nanda agreed with that determination.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that the city would still be protected as builders develop the lot because they would have to post bonds as they apply for permits. Mr. Nowicki agreed and added that before pulling any building permit, the individual builder would have to post the required financial guarantees for the trees associated with their lot.

According to the ordinance, Councilman Schmid understands they require the developer to post the bond. Mr. Nowicki consulted Mr. Watson and he does not believe it specifically states that the developer will do that.

Councilman Kramer does not see any merit for this particular request for appeal versus any other similar appeal request. Further, he does not have a problem with questioning the policy, but suggested they address changing the policy at another time. Councilman Kramer does not want to grant a variance to their policy unless there are unusual circumstances. Therefore, he will not support an appeal.

Councilwoman Mutch understands they have never had a developer appeal this policy in the past. Mr. Nowicki does not recall, but added it is the developer’s right to appeal it before Council.

Abstain: McLallen

Councilman Kramer requested that they refer the bonding policy for woodlands to the Ordinance Review Committee.

Councilman DeRoche asked that they consider a bonding mechanism in lieu of a letter of credit.

Councilman Kramer advised they will contact Mr. Nanda about any policy changes.

O. Authorize expenditure of $13,900 from account number 101-800.00-900.002 to conduct Map Preparation and title Search(es) for City initiated rezonings

Councilwoman Lorenzo is concerned about authorizing expenditures of a Planning Commission fund without any discussion with the Planning Commission.

Mayor McLallen interjected, she has discussed this matter with the Chair of the Planning Commission. Further, the purpose of this was to determine how much it costs to do title searches, map preparation and determine whether the city wishes to be involved in city initiated rezonings. Mayor McLallen advised when talking with the staff about whether there is any money available, the number came up from there. The Mayor added that the source of the funding should not be a part of this. Further, the cost is actually less than $8,000 as a maximum. Mayor McLallen said although the Planning Commission has the money, she realizes that authorizing the spending of their money is inappropriate for Council.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is also concerned about spending city money on areas where they already know property owners are interested in developing their property as OST. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes the city should only pay for instances where the city would like to rezone and where the property owner is protesting the rezoning.

Councilman Kramer understands this action is not to authorize city rezonings, but to prepare the information so they can apply these to city initiated rezonings as recommended to Council. Councilman Kramer stated because it involves spending money, he would like a verification from the Planning Department that the recommended areas are not ones that a developer is requesting a rezoning.

Councilman Schmid asked where does the money come from? In the past, Mr. Wahl advised it was usually designated ahead of time or as a budget amendment when a specific initiative came forward that was not anticipated during the budget process. He added that the money usually comes from the Planning Commission or Administration.

Councilman Schmid is concerned about the amount of money being spent and the rush to conduct the study for something that may never materialize. He reminded Council that there has been no Council discussion as to what parcels of land will be a part of the OST District.

Mayor McLallen advised one reason they are doing this is to essentially create the letter from JCK and give Council some idea of dollars in particular study areas so as the process moves forward, they will know what they are talking about. She added that the Planning Commission has been directed to study six separate areas of the city and this is the cost figure if the city were to initiate rezonings in those areas.

Mr. Wahl added this would also enable staff to have much of the paperwork completed so that if Council did make any policy decisions regarding city initiated rezonings, they could move forward in a timely fashion.

Councilman Schmid will not support spending money on pieces of land that may or may not be rezoned.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what areas will be eliminated? Mr. Wahl advised they have already eliminated Study Area 5 and 6, and recently learned that they should eliminate Study Area 2a. He added this reduces the cost to approximately $6,500.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there is any way to recover costs if a developer shows an interest in developing an area the city has studied? Mr. Wahl believes the city has a good understanding as to those areas that developers are currently interested in developing as OST.

Councilman Schmid does not understand why they eliminated Study Area 5 because he sees that area as prime area for OST zoning.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked if Study Area 1 includes the Northern Equities property, then why is the city paying $1,800 for their rezoning. Mr. Wahl replied it was not his understanding that it was imminent that the Northern Equities rezoning request would occur within the next several months. Mr. Wahl added that the Northern Equities rezoning did not consider the entire area. He explained it is important to consider the entire area with a city initiated rezoning so they can insure that only what is allowed in the OST ordinance will be developed in that area.

Nays: Lorenzo, Schmid

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilwoman Mutch reported that the Communications Committee held their first meeting and will meet again on February 10, 1998. She added they have had citizen input at their very first meeting.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Mayor McLallen advised there were four basic issues raised by Governor Engler; 1) The Governor wanted to promote the Clean Michigan initiative, 2) In regard to Act 51, the Governor advised that all jurisdictions will remain the same in regard to local roads, 3) MDOT is setting up a hot line number because of the large amount of road construction in the state, and 4) There are currently no changes in revenue sharing for this year.

Mayor McLallen extended Council’s sympathy to Planning Commissioner Bononi’s family in the loss of her father.

MANAGER’S REPORTS

Mr. Kriewall informed Council that the city was fortunate to receive the Rouge River National Wet Water Demonstration Project Grant.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

1. Letter from Ken Nanda to Ed Kriewall, Re: Cheltenham Estates - Appeal to lower cash bond for Woodlands Permit

2. Letter from William A. Gaines to City Council, Re: Traffic signal at 9 Mile & Taft Road

3. Letter from Anthony Nowicki to Jim Goodman, Re: Nine Mile & Taft Road Proposed Intersection Signalization

4. Resolution from the City of Ferndale, Re: County Road Funding

5. Resolution from the City of Ferndale, Re: County of Oakland Contribution to the improvements to the Twelve Town Drain Retention Facility

6. Letter from Bruce Jerome in response to A. Chicorel letter regarding the Eubank Water Main SAD

7. Letter from JCK dated 1/23/98 summarizing the 11 Mile/Beck Intersection Public Informational Meeting of 1/22/98

8. Letter from City of Wixom dated 1/22/98 regarding 1998 Major and Local Roads and Bike Path Program

9. Letter from James Korte to City Council, Re: Terry Morone, Deputy Building Official

10. Letter from James Korte to City Council, Re: 1101 South Hill Complaint

11. Memorandum from Jim Wahl to City Council, Re: Plat Review Process; Planning Commission Briefing

12. Memorandum from Jim Wahl to City Council, Re: OST City Initiated Rezoning; Map Preparation and Title Search Proposal

13. Memorandum from Jim Wahl to City Council, Re: OST Study and Report

14. Report from Planning & Community Development, Re: I-96/12 Mile Road OST Master Plan Initiatives

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 a.m.

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes