REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI  
 MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2002 AT 7:30 PM
NOVI CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.

ROLL CALL Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi-arrived late, Council Members Capello, Csordas, DeRoche, Landry, Lorenzo-absent/excused

ALSO PRESENT: Richard Helwig, City Manager

Clay Pearson, Assistant City Manager

Craig Klaver, Chief Operating Officer

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney

David Evancoe, Director of Planning

Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director

Dave Maurice, GIS/Environmental Services Manager

Nancy McClain, City Engineer

Member DeRoche submitted his resignation and said farewell as he leaves for the State Legislature. Member DeRoche stated he began with the 2020 vision statement for the City of Novi. He thanked voters for electing him to local government in 1997 and again in 1999 and in November 2002 to the State Legislature. He spoke about the transformation of Novi with changes to consultants and administration. Member DeRoche noted he was proud of implementation for competition for contracts. He thought this was the best Council he had served on especially from a debating perspective. Member DeRoche noted he was impressed with Members Landry and Capello and felt they had exceeded expectations. He said he was ready for the job in Lansing and would fill the shoes of Nancy Cassis as much as he could. He noted he has been involved in local government for 6 years and in State government for 12 years and was comfortable taking on this new job; his staff is in place and ready to serve the community. The challenges have been extraordinary and he felt the hard lessons learned in Novi would help him become a more effective legislator during a turbulent time in Lansing.

Mayor Clark expressed gratitude on behalf of the Council and the community for his public service and commitment to the City of Novi and for what he would do as our Representative in Lansing.

Mayor Clark recognized Nancy Cassis a former Council member who went on to Lansing and more than ably represented Novi in the State Legislature and in January would continue to represent our interests as State Senator.

Senator Cassis said it is a truth that the best training ground for public service is the local community. It is where negotiation, working together, consensus and decision making skills are learned. She said it was very special to come before Council and honor one of Novi’s own, Craig DeRoche, on his successful selection as our next State Representative from Novi. His commitment, dedication and service to this community has been commendable and we are all proud of his achievements, we know his vision and what he would bring to the State Legislature and we are fortunate to have him join the State Legislature. She presented him with a tribute.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi arrived at 7:47 p.m.

Mayor Clark reported on the Consultant Review Committee stating they have made great progress and by early January they would have a recommendation for Council relative to who should be considered for awarding of a contract for engineering services.

Mayor Clark presented a Police Recognition award to Louis Golematis and Lindsey Latka from Lazy Lizard who went out of their way to take a proactive position and do what needed to be done when a crime occurred. We have an outstanding community and it is due to people like Louis Golematis and Lindsey Latka who are willing to step forward and do the right thing.

Chief Shaeffer stated the Police Department has an aggressive awards program and a component of that is recognizing citizens in the community who have contributed significantly to the solution of a crime or to the apprehension of dangerous criminals. On November 12, 2002, a woman came into Bank One and presented a note to the teller telling her to fill her bag with all her large bills or she would shoot her and the customers. The teller complied and the robber fled. Mr. Golematis was in the bank at the time, he waited for police and told them what he knew and returned to his place of business at the Lazy Lizard Cantina. He began telling other employees what happened including Ms. Latka who was sitting at the bar. She noticed a woman at the bar who became very nervous and asked that a taxi be called quickly. Mr. Golematis felt she looked like the bank robber, she fled and Ms. Latka followed her and saw that she went to the Red Hot and Blue restaurant and Ms. Latka returned to the Lazy Lizard. Mr. Golematis and Ms. Latka went together and found the robber at the Red Hot and Blue restaurant. They contacted police at Bank One and told them of her whereabouts. They arrested her and arrested three other bank robbers plus the ringleader and solved 7 other bank robberies in the metropolitan area. Mayor Clark presented a Certificate of Merit to Mr. Golematis and Ms. Latka.

Mr. Maurice updated Council on the various work completed, excavation, sampling and project management and work to be done. A work plan was submitted to the MDEQ at the beginning of the remediation process that defined what was to be done. There has also been demolition and removal of a barn and debris. Thirteen sites had debris. They delineated pesticide hot spots and investigated the non-orchard site located along Novi south of 13 Mile Road. As part of the Consent Judgment there was some property that the City could consider taking ownership of, through the process data has been gathered and analysis done and it should come before Council soon from the Parks and Recreation Commission. The borrow area, the area of excavation that was not part of the orchard site that need remediation, soils analysis was done and samples taken to make sure soils were within safe levels. They insured that they could maintain the water quality through the process and that there wasn’t a problem with the water quality prior to actually getting the remediation process underway.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said Council didn’t have the Phase I or Phase II report for the two potential properties of acquisition and asked if it was available and Mr. Maurice said he would be sure she received a copy. Mr. Maurice said approximately 70,000 cubic yards had been excavated with 1,150 samples taken. A GIS map was displayed showing the excavated areas that were divided into 6 work areas. The first round of excavation was removal of 42,000 cubic yards of soil and from that there were "clean areas" that didn’t need further excavation. The second round was excavation of 20,000 yards of soil; the "clean areas" became larger. Round three was an estimate of 7,000 yards and Round four was estimated at 1,000 cubic yards. Round three and four would be cross-sectioned by JCK to determine exactly how much material has been removed. 80% was determined clean by Hydrologic and Sandstones consultant. Round 4 was completed last week on December 13^th. Mr. Maurice displayed visuals and explained the budget and actual expenses. He gave cost estimate for excavation and sampling for Rounds 3 & 4, $165,650 for both. Still to be completed is the analysis for all post Round 4 samples, overlay analysis of soils layers, the final hotspots excavation and cross section for Rounds 3 and 4 excavation areas for material removal verification, prepare and submit closure report to MDEQ.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how much the City originally budgeted to complete remediation. Mr. Maurice said budgeted amounts for remediation are $65,000 for legal services, $1,210,000 for excavation, $85,000 for environmental services for hydrologic and $162,000 for JCK. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said according to page 3, that total to date, November 30^th is $1,524,571 with a remaining $4,429 not paid. Mr. Maurice said that was correct. She said the cost estimates for excavation and sampling November 30^th through December 16^th are unpaid with $142,050. Also, for the record, estimated cost for round four excavation sampling is $24,300 for a rough total of $1,070,100. She asked if they could complete the job for $264,900. Mr. Maurice wasn’t sure, as there was further excavation. Her point was this is what was left and she was concerned that it was not a lot of money considering what was being done. She would appreciate more frequent financial reports that he and the consultants feel are necessary to do the job.

Member Landry asked about the City support number. The P. O. amount $117,000 in the budgeted column and he asked if it was for overtime? Mr. Maurice said it’s DPW and Parks and Recreation staff for various tasks that didn’t fall under what our consultants and contractors were contracted to do. Member Landry asked if they were paid extra. Mr. Auler said some overtime occurred but he wasn’t aware of what the number was but the majority of the work they did was during regularly scheduled hours. Member Landry said when he is looking at these numbers trying to figure out how many extra dollars it took the City to pay for this project, he didn’t consider those extra dollars the City would have paid because those are employees doing their jobs. Had they not done, this they would have been doing some other job. When looking at the bottom line numbers he was coming up with a budget of $1,412,000 and the actual paid at $1,375,254, which would leave a net of $36,746. The data shows a net of $4,429. Mr. Auler said he was copying this from what he received from Finance that talked about the Judgment Trust Fund budget and actual. He thought these were questions that he couldn’t answer.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi remembered distinctly with regard to the estimates that Mr. Helwig was seeking to include employee hours from the beginning because he thought that was the wisest use of financial resources. To suggest that because it’s inside hours it’s any different, it still comes out of the City budget. She asked Mr. Helwig if the usage of these hours had met his original plan or if they are overages.

Mr. Helwig stated it’s a combination of costs. There are in-kind City employee services and demolition costs, which our employees did not do and there are some contracted costs under the label of City support. He said Wednesday would begin Round 5 and there are about 10% of the 200 samples still showing hot spots that have to be removed. We are almost done and our objective is to wrap it up this month. We’re into the $435,000 even though we are doing no remediation in the 20 acres. We have exceeded what we allotted for the 75 acres based on the estimates last March. It is very close and we should be able to cover the clean up for the 75 acres by using the funds allocated by the 20 acres. Mr. Helwig said we have an obligation to get this site fully cleaned, unrestricted residential use by July 24, 2003. There is a grace period but they want to meet and beat that due date.

2. Update on Haverhill Wetland Issues

Mr. Helwig said he and Mr. Pearson met with Commerce Twp. Supervisor, Mr. Zoner. Their engineers, Giffels and Webster, gave them an update and an important meeting was held with MDEQ last Tuesday.

Mr. Pearson said this is the Haverhill Subdivision immediately south of 14 Mile west of M-5. The issue is wetland area drainage coming from Commerce Township and backing up in the wetland causing problems for the adjoining Haverhill neighborhood. He met with Jim Ervin along with Mr. McCusker and Mr. Printz regarding this area. Mr. Pearson said they looked at the situation again and saw some of the tree die back. Mr. Printz made an assessment of that. Our plan is to provide additional screening in the spring along 14 Mile. They would look at other areas in the spring that might have been impacted by high water levels. The engineers for Commerce Township, Giffels and Webster met with MDEQ last week and MDEQ was semi receptive to the plan that was

put forth. There are issues with the culverts causing the backups. MDEQ was concerned about how this all would get sequenced because there is a farm property to the east, which has been sold and looks like it will be part of a development proposal. They are going to propose removal of the drainage structures in order for the water to get through. The culverts should be removed because they were placed without permits. Once the plan is submitted, the City would obtain a copy.

Mayor Clark asked that this come back every 30 days as an update for Council.

Member Csordas noted that in an e-mail from Mr. Pearson to Mr. Helwig on December 12^th, Mr. Pearson said Mr. Printz had inspected and found that although there were some trees with problems, he didn’t believe the water level was the reason. A report was to follow and he asked Mr. Pearson to expand on that. Mr. Pearson said the issue is that a number of the trees that are dead are Elms and it could have been as a result of Dutch Elm disease as opposed to high water level. There are, however, cottonwoods and it was inconclusive if the water caused their damage or not.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was glad that someone had ownership of this problem. She was concerned about whether or not we had a registered landscape architect assess the tree growth tree die out in this area. Mr. Pearson said Mr. Printz is a registered/certified arborist forester but not a registered landscape architect. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi disagreed with that. She thought this was an important enough situation with regard to not only present impact, but also past and future impacts that a professional registered landscape architect should be evaluating this site because there are a lot of adjacency issued involved. She asked if there were engineering and wetlands representatives at the meeting with MDEQ. Mr. Pearson said there was not. It was a Commerce and Giffels meeting with MDEQ. She was also concerned with the second paragraph where it talked about MDEQ being concerned about the Commerce/Giffels Webster proposal and in parentheses it says, which we support. She wanted to say that with regard to the sketches that she had seen, she would have a lot of grave reservations about the wholesale stream dredging that is being proposed. If we are to support something, then we need complete information and also professional engineering and wetland expertise before supporting it. She has a lot of real reservations after having seen a sketch of what is proposed because she thought it was very significant. She asked about planting or screening at the front of this and asked if it was intended to screen the situation? Mr. Pearson stated it would be a public right-of-way improvement that provided some screening and noise barrier. She suggested that until this matter is resolved amicably, between Commerce Township and the City of Novi, that we expend no funds to do that. She thought it could be included in part of an agreement and hoped it would be brought forward.

Mr. Pearson introduced Peter Albertson from Nordstrom Samson Associates, who displayed a power point presentation. Mr. Albertson said the curb, sidewalks, slab at the back of the building which is primarily for circulation of the trucks is complete, access road is complete, landscaping is 75% complete, detention basin outlet is complete,

building exterior masonry is 90% complete, roofing is 90% complete and the windows are in fabrication. The building will be enclosed by the end of December, HVAC units are ready to be set on the roof and the training area slab is complete. The company quarter’s slab is placed and the apparatus room slab will be placed by the end of the month. Interior masonry work, ductwork and power are in progress. Mr. Albertson showed slides of the progress being made. They are now going through the preparation of Change Order No. 1 for consideration of the City Council in January. Furniture and equipment award is in process by the City and the work should be complete by March and they anticipate completion by April 15, 2003 with occupancy by May 2003.

Mr. Helwig noted bids were received by the State last Friday. Five bidders responded with active bids and the low bidder was Dan’s Excavating Inc. with a bid nearly 4% below the engineer’s estimate. Ms. McClain was very familiar with this company and had seen them doing a lot of work in the metro area. It should be awarded soon. On January 10, 2003, the bids will be open for Grand River improvements from east of Beck Rd. to the bridge. Mayor Clark extended thanks to Senator Cassis for her efforts as a State Representative in making sure that this project stayed on track.

Member Csordas was concerned about a $6 million project to Dan’s Excavating. Mr. Helwig said he had the same reaction and went to Ms. McClain who assured him that this firm has accomplished major projects in the metro area. She was familiar with their work and delighted to see them appear on the low bid.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how the administrative level qualifies the bidders? Do we do more than ask in house about potential bidders, and do we look into performance records? Mr. Helwig stated they do that. This bid process is totally the State of Michigan’s bid process for this project and they are managing it. She asked if they do this? Mr. Helwig said they do.

Mr. Helwig stated it could be closed from March until November on Grand River as the bridge is replaced and it would be difficult. There will be access maintained in the portion from the bridge west to Beck Rd.

Senator Elect Nancy Cassis brought 3 accomplishments to Council’s attention. An issue was brought to her attention by City attorney Stephanie Simon dealing with an issue of Federal standards for poverty guidelines. It was a mis-reference in the Michigan Property Tax Act, and they worked successfully to add correct language to SB914 and it has passed the house. This is important because these guidelines are used for a baseline for municipalities to provide property tax exemptions. Fixing the reference will help local units of government as to whether the exemptions are correct. She thanked Ms. Simon and Mr. Fisher noted he would advise her that this is going forward.

She noted that she sponsored with Laura Toy of Detroit two bills to place in statute an Amber Alert program that has been voluntary up until now. This program is a system of very quickly working with our local police, State police and our broadcasters to get out the message immediately if a child is abducted or kidnapped. She thanked Chief Shaeffer for allowing Assistant Police Chief Al Rasmussen and Sgt. Molloy to testify before the committee. They made a difference and these two bills are now going to the Governor for his signature.

Senator Elect Cassis said the most historic of all was is what happened last Friday. That was the Certificate of Need Reform. She thanked Mayor Clark for testifying in Lansing before the Health Policy Committee. Working with the people at Providence and incorporating it with the Detroit Medical Center and Henry Ford they were successful, with Mayor Clark’s help, to add language to a Senate Bill that would transfer 35% of existing beds, 200 beds, into the Providence Park facility. This is a legacy for this community. How wonderful it will be for Novi to have its own hospital and physicians. She urged the citizens, Mayor and Council members to contact the Governor to sign the bill into law before December 31^st. She thanked everyone in the community for their support over the years and assured them they will have her support.

Member Csordas spoke with Mr. Casalou, President of Providence, today and he stated this was a major accomplishment because three major health systems were involved all with their own needs and desires. Member DeRoche stated that when someone checks in at Providence Park they must be transferred by ambulance to the main hospital in Southfield. This is a big deal for the City to have a hospital in the City. Mayor Clark commented he was very happy to see this taking place for the community.

Mark McManus said he and his wife own 27 acres in Section 27. He addressed his comments to item #2 regarding the acquisition of 15 acres of land behind the City for the school and secondly the Dunbarton Detention Basin project. Mr. McManus distributed paperwork to the Council. He said because of the inadequate detention of water upstream, the Miller Creek floods his property every time it rains. The previous owners, in 1990, put a claim into the City for $300,000 in damages to the property, which he now owns. It was turned over to an insurance company, they were offered $75,000 and that family refused. Those damages to the property still exist. Administration has been very cooperative but there is no progress in mitigating the problem. Mr. McManus said he also had the confluence of Thornton Creek and the Miller Creek on his property, which accounts for one mile of riverbanks running through his property. Because of the slowness of the City he had to spend over $160,000 repairing the Thornton Creek bank so it wouldn’t take out his driveway. He asked Council to resolve this problem. Ayers Lewis finished the Dunbarton Detention Basin Study and it recommended a solution to the downstream water problem on this property but it was to be funded through a grant. The study has not been sent out to bid and he asked Council to look at it and send it to bid and put this solution in place. There is an inverse condemnation problem happening here. As the flooding occurs on his property the City over the years has continued to expand what they consider the flood plains on his property and that is taking away the value. He said he needed this fixed. Regarding the school property, he hoped the Council would not sell the property to the school, that they would lease it so they could control the water runoff into the Miller Creek, as his property has become a collection basin. Mayor Clark asked for a follow up report by the first meeting in January.

Resident, said his backyard would be directly on this new recreational facility. He recommended that the plan be rejected. The sole reason they bought the home was with the idea that it was a beautiful area off their backyard. He said it was disgusting to think of it going from a large park to a recreational facility 20 yards from his backyard. He asked what had to be done to protect some of the parklands? He asked for consideration for the children and the people that live there that like it in the natural state and how that will impact people that live there every day.

Jim Oliver, Dunbarton Pines Homeowner Association President, stated he couldn’t speak for all the homeowners association because some residents along the northern border of the subdivision are very concerned about this development of the wooded area behind their homes. He thought the environmental impact should be key in the thoughts and processes in developing this property.

Pat Holt, 45409 Addington Lane, stated the 14.72 acres has been very near and dear to her since 1974. She spoke about the proposed aquatic facility some years back and her fight against that. After that she decided to become proactive and she urged members of the previous Council to form a task force and she served on it. She wanted to speak to the spirit of that task force and what City, school district and library officials accomplished sitting down together and deciding to get some configurative plans and play with the land to find what is the best for the City. Her biggest concern now is what the spirit of the task force she served on was and that was a spirit of cooperation and trust between the City and the school district. She stated the high school has been there since residents bought their property so if they had problems with the high school, they shouldn’t have bought the property. She said she had complete faith in the school district and thought residents needed to go back to the basic idea of why people buy in the City of Novi. It is because of the schools and she felt the City and school district couldn’t be separated. She felt the recommendation the task force put forth was a good one. To put the ball fields there, there was no discussion of money being exchanged and no discussion about selling the land. She felt this was the best usage of the land, as the school district needed this land. She felt that the day that the City and school district couldn’t work together and get along and agree on something with a gentleman’s handshake would be a sad day in this City. She asked that Council move forward, as this is by far the best use of this land she had seen come before the Council.

Jingbo Xie, 45256 Roundview, stated this was the first time he knew of this situation. He had problems with this plan. The driveway/service way is so close to his backyard. Secondly, he was concerned about lighting and noise on the fields. He asked if there would be restricted focused light, what about the service drive and will there be access for the physically challenged? He asked for Council consideration of his concerns.

Teiichi Atsuya, 45284 Roundview, said he, too, lives right behind the proposed area and shares the concern of the previous speakers. He was concerned about security and privacy issues because the woods aren’t that thick and about noise. He said he would appreciate it if there was a way to mitigate privacy or noise issues and he would like the opportunity to be actively involved in the plan.

John Pope 45138 Roundview, felt this would negatively impact his property. His concerns were that this would reduce his property values, his privacy would be dramatically impacted, and he questioned why he was seeing this plan for the first time tonight. He asked, If possible, that the proposal be as minimal as possible and that the road be further from the back of these properties. He also questioned the utilization of the 7 ballparks.

John Barryman stated he is a neighbor of the proposed development. It was important to his family to have this natural area next to their home when they purchased it and the atmosphere drew them to live in Novi. He didn’t doubt the need to grow the high school but asked if there was another option available since there is so little green area left in Novi? He was curious about lighting of the fields and wondered if they are planned for nighttime use, as this would be a big concern to him. He was also concerned about the long-term control of the property and asked if the fields would be available for the public when not in use by the schools or the City?

Wayne Hogan stated that he wanted to let Council know he can’t get Providence Hospital to be compliant with the ADA. The furthest east door handicap spaces are landlocked with no curb cuts and he has asked for 2 years for curb cuts, painted parking spaces and proper signage. They did comply with most things but the front entrance has a crack 5 inches wide and 3 inches deep that can cause a wheelchair to be caught or someone could get caught and fall and it is not the only one; there are several. Mr. Hogan said most handicap spaces have 10-inch curbs. On the far north, there are spaces. Mayor Clark assured Mr. Hogan he will speak with the President of the hospital. Mr. Hogan also noted he couldn’t get into the Civic Center because the snow in the north side parking lot was 21 inches high at the ramp. He said it was difficult to attend the Main Street event, as there were very few parking spaces that are handicapped. There isn’t one handicapped space between Market Street and Novi Road and anyone who wanted to go into those facilities would have to be unloaded on the street. Main Street has no sidewalk for anyone with a mobility issue to use. There are trees and flower boxes at the end of the curb cuts. The Eaton center on Novi and 10 Mile has no handicap parking signs at all and there are no ramps and no way to get from the asphalt onto the sidewalks. He said he spoke with Mayor Clark and Mayor Pro Tem Bononi and others and we are going to look at doing things from the planning stages. These issues are monumental and retrofitting these things are going to be expensive and we are just starting to empower ourselves to be able to take part in the amenities of Novi. Mr. Hogan said on Main Street on the north side of the center where the parking lot is, there’s a ramp from the parking lot to the next parking lot and it is a curb cut with a ramp that goes to the edge of the property and down six stairs. There is no caution sign.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated Mr. Hogan attended the Storm Water Management Watershed Stewardship meeting and his interest was to look into storm water runoff issues and how it affected parking spots and snow removal. The committee explained to Mr. Hogan that their purview was not these specific issues. She assured Mr. Hogan she would follow up on the issue and spoke with Mr. Arroyo, Traffic Consultant, who assured her that from the planning perspective, the City’s plan review process is in full compliance with the ADA. However, we could all take a further look at how not only the ADA from the traffic engineer’s perspective and construction compliance issues could be looked at. She didn’t get the opportunity to speak with Mr. Helwig and Mr. Pearson after speaking with Mr. Arroyo. The comments were received but the area of purview of Storm Water Committee is very limited in that regard.

Michael Gavigne, Roundview resident, stated he purchased his property because of what he thought was the great wisdom of the foresight of this City that the natural area would be maintained while the City developed around it. This site could be used for educational

purposes to understand about wetlands and how the environment would be disturbed if we don’t continue to use and leave wetlands and natural lands alone.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi removed Item C.

A. Approve Minutes of:

December 2, 2002 – Regular meeting

December 9, 2002 – Special Interview meeting

B. Schedule Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of December 16, 2002 in the Council annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation with City Attorney and for the purpose of discussing written material exempt from disclosure under State Law.

D. Approval of Balancing Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $231.00 and Final Pay Estimate, with Warren Contractors, Inc. for the Ten Mile Road Pedestrian Path.

E. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 639

Council recessed at 9:41 p.m.

Council reconvened at 9:58 p.m.

Member Landry noted $137,000 had been included in the budget and this would cost $112,000 so there would be a $24,900 savings.

Mayor Clark clarified that the amount of land has decreased and that it is being leased for 50 years, not sold. The original proposal to the City involved 49 acres. He said the Novi School District is nationally recognized for the quality of education and Novi High School is one of the top 100 high schools in the U.S. If the school district had charged the City and recreation department for school facilities used on an annual basis the Council would be looking for another $200,000 to spend each year. This proposal is the sum and substance of the effort by joint committee of school officials, library board members, citizens and City administration. One proposal was to build a second high school and if that happened, we all would be paying substantially more in taxes. There are practical and cost benefit implications to this proposal and he thought it was a win-win situation for the entire community.

Mr. Helwig noted City staff including Mr. Fisher, Mr. Auler, Mr. Evancoe and himself had three productive meetings with Dr. Lippe and school representatives. The agreement has been reduced from 99 years to 50 years and remains a leased acreage proposal. Council members had suggested that just the land needed be pursued. Therefore 14.72 acres will be leased as opposed to the 49 plus acres that was before Council earlier. Also an easement entrance to the area from the north crossing the wetlands has been accomplished. It is a 30-foot easement and the length of the boardwalk has been extended by the schools to lessen any impact in crossing it. The wetland area has been avoided and is one of the things to be validated as site plans go forward. The medium woodlands are slightly impacted. They have moved the service maintenance drive as far north as they can and the school has agreed to do tree replacement as additional buffer to the south that would buffer the Dunbarton Pines neighborhood. The schedule has been moved to November as opposed to May. It is emphasized that in terms of storm water regulations, they must comply with wetlands and woodlands permits. The school district will maintain the property and the City will perform minor maintenance when they utilize it. It is estimated that the value of services the City receives is approximately $200,000 annually and the approximate $32,000 that we are paying is related to the use of school building personnel, janitorial and building attendant staff, when they would not normally be in the buildings for school related purposes. Mr. Helwig said the cost benefit there is extraordinary and the City remains very indebted to the Novi Community Schools for the use of their facilities. It was also documented and verified with Mr. Auler that the Novi School District is the only school district that permits the City the use of their facility.

district to the City of Novi for the lease of that land. Also, on

page 5, paragraph 5, Between woodlands and the word "and"

add "lighting".

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there were a few additions with regard to any lease proposal agreement that would be made that she wanted to see included. She didn’t know if it was because they were not considered but perhaps Mr. Helwig or Mr. Fisher could let her know that. She asked:

1) Did the Architectural Engineering Firm of Fanning Howie Associates produce the set

of runoff detention calculations for a 100 year storm event included in this package.

She was advised they did.

2) Referring to Mr. Auler’s memo, page 2, she suggested the following questions be

answered: a) Is night lighting proposed

b) Can we insert in the agreement that that lighting specification would meet the existing City lighting ordinance.

Mr. Helwig stated the school intended to require lighting on the boardwalk to the north of the fields because 90 plus % of the traffic of people would cross that boardwalk. They plan to take alternate bids for lighting of softball field only. Alternate means they would include the option for bidders to bid on that and when they look at the responsiveness of the bids and the cost, if there are still dollars remaining to be allocated, they have the option of including lighting for the softball field. It isn’t a given, but it may appear at the end if their funds go far enough to include it. The lights will operate in the same way as the lights throughout the remainder of Power Park. Mr. Auler said the latest those lights are on is 10:15 p.m. and that provision is included in the agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there is not a provision that they will operate until 10:15 pm it is just saying in the same manner. Mr. Helwig agreed. Mr. Fisher said it’s according to rules applicable to City parks. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that leaves open the possibility for change. Mr. Fisher said by the City. She asked for a further provision included that the existent lighting on the boardwalk or proposed lighting will meet City standards? Mr. Helwig said he was sure it could be done and it wouldn’t be an issue. She said if so she would be satisfied.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi referred to page 3 of the lease agreement, which concerned that there would be a preliminary plan approval by City Council and that the final plan would be approved by administrative review in house. She had no problem with this if it is run before Council first and the reason she was concerned was exactly what happened this evening. She said a lease agreement required no notification to the abutting property owners. Mr. Fisher said there would not be. She felt it was important from the standpoint of quality of life issues and the concerns that the neighbors have that they be notified and by way of presenting this matter at the Council level in conjunction with the administrative agreement, whatever form that takes, it is very important that homeowners directly affected by it should be notified in some manner so they can hear the proposal and have the opportunity to address it. She asked if that could be worked into the agreement? Mr. Fisher said certainly.

She was also concerned about the manner in which the language in the lease agreement refers to the approval of woodland, wetland, storm water and lighting issues that refers to specific compliance with City standards prior to the administrative approval of the plan. This is the opportunity where all of these documents could be brought forth in a Council issue and shared with the public. She wanted that added to the agreement. Mr. Fisher asked if she was referring to changes from the plans that have now been submitted? She said amended plans because at that point, although the administration would be reviewing in house, none of the changes would be evident to anyone who lives in the area.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked for a general explanation of the proposed enhancements to storm water system. Ms. McClain has reviewed the conceptual plan and in concept, their drainage is appropriate; she had not seen a final design plan or the full calculations. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was talking about concerns of abutting property owners and also the property owner downstream. We are talking basically about the majority of this runoff going to a basin and the rest of it flowing by way of sheet flow. Ms. McClain agreed and said the sheet flow would be overland off of a grassed area.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if the street would be built to City standards or are we talking about curb and gutter? Ms. McClain said they did not show curb and gutter and she and Mr. Auler had discussed whether or not to have curb and gutter because of their concern about people pulling off the side and breaking that down. They would look into it further. She had not seen a full cross section of that at this point but she would recommend it if she sees a concern about water getting out to Taft.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented regarding, page 9, impartial third party, regarding deadlocks of the dispute resolution panel and that she was looking for "a professional person" rather than "impartial third party". Mr. Fisher said at the last meeting they did discuss using the dispute resolution group. Mr. Fisher said that group is not set up to handle this type of dispute and based on the discussion the procedure that was added would allow the two sides to formulate the best dispute resolution process that might apply to a particular dispute but then there’s a default procedure provided in the event there was no agreement. She asked who could this person be? Mr. Fisher replied that it depended on what the dispute involved. If it were a dispute regarding storm water we would want a storm water expert involved. She said if it said "impartial third party relevant to the subject at dispute" she would be satisfied with that. Regarding the storm water issues, language issues and the matters being brought before Council and compliance with wetland, woodlands and lighting requirements were added to the agreement, she would support it.

Member Landry spoke to abutting property owners saying he believed this was the best option and a win/win situation and he was happy to support it.

Member Capello would accept an amendment on page 5, paragraph 5, that he believed would address most of Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s concerns regarding compliance with the wetlands/woodlands in the storm water ordinances. Between woodlands and the word "and" add "lighting". He saw no need to bring this back to Council for final review, as he thought they were far enough along with the plans and administration had worked so well with the school system that they should finish it up. He didn’t want to bring it back to Council unless there is a major change in the plans. So, he would make that one change to his motion, if acceptable, with the understanding that Council would agree to sign this tonight.

Mayor Clark thought this would be a win/win situation and spoke about the formerly proposed aquatic facility with a water park. He stated that even though every municipal water facility was a money loser, it still had to be fought tooth and nail. He said experience has taught him that we have a school district willing to work cooperatively with City administration and the school district keeps its word and the trust has always been there. He felt the school district has every intention to comply with all ordinances. Mayor Clark stated he would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated she had no disagreement about the relationship between the City and the school district. Her comments were about land use issues. She believed the interests of the people who abut this project need to be included in the public notification process. The agreement must be balanced for all residents. With regard to looking at woodlands, wetlands, storm water and lighting issues as though they are specifically represented in this agreement, she said they are all not specifically mentioned in the agreement and they should be. She would forego that but was not willing to forego notification to residents in case the plans change. If a notification to the public by way of, at least, communication to Council is not part of the agreement she would not support it. She asked if it would be difficult to include in the agreement tonight at the table. Mr. Fisher said it would not be difficult. She asked Council to consider the residents.

Mayor Clark noted that Council was always mindful of the interests of the residents and has fought many long hard battles to protect interests of the residents of this City.

Mayor Clark noted this matter came to Council from the Planning Commission who reviewed the proposed RUD amendments on October 16^th of this year. They voted to send a positive recommendation on the proposed RUD amendment except for the request to allow attached cluster homes in the southeast corner of the site along Ten Mile Road. The Planning Commission indicated that the cluster housing did not meet the intent of the RUD Ordinance and it was not compatible with the adjacent land use.

The Planning Commission recommendation was subject to a number of conditions, which were listed in the documentation to Council.

Member DeRoche asked Kevin Sullivan, Land Development Manager for Toll Brothers, what Council should be aware of that remains an issue. Mr. Sullivan said the cluster development along 10 Mile remained an issue. They were single-family homes and they’re proposing to change them to cluster homes.

Member DeRoche asked if there were other items with respect to the nature path, buffering, etc. Mr. Sullivan said there were two issues; the condos and they reconfigured the roads for better access to the pathways and the lots. The Planning Commission gave a favorable recommendation. The only one they didn’t give a favorable recommendation was in the southeast corner of the site.

Member DeRoche said he understood why the Planning Commission did give, in the end, a favorable recommendation and he believed it was positive for the community with the proposal that would come back with changes to the RUD.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked about the phasing plan? Mr. Sullivan said they were working on the phasing plan now and would incorporate it. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted Council had to see it before approval. Mr. Evancoe stated the re-phasing having to do with page 6 of the project is a separate item scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in the near future. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated it is a part of the RUD agreement and without knowing what the phasing of this proposal is leaves Council at a disadvantage from knowing the intention of the applicant. She pointed out that on Page 5 of Mr. Arroyo’s report, are the particular findings that the Planning Commission made in order to come to their conclusion and she had no problem with an additional parcel being added onto the original RUD. However, she did have a problem with allowing the cluster homes in the southeast corner. She didn’t believe that land use was compatible with adjacent land use and the original RUD doesn’t allow for cluster housing.

Member Csordas felt the cluster homes were consistent with the intention of the entire project. He felt this project was a huge benefit to the City and a great application for

that land. He referred to Page 2 of the motion packet and history, it spoke of a buffer and he asked Mr. Evancoe where that was? Mr. Evancoe said it was a part of the additional five acres. Normally a 330-foot buffer would be required and what is proposed is more in the area of about 75 feet between the proposed units and the parcel that is part of the RUD. Member Csordas asked what was on the parcel and Mr. Evancoe said there was a home on it that fronts Wixom Rd. Member Csordas asked what was west of that and was told it was a farm with a petting zoo. He said he didn’t see any usage back there so he didn’t agree with that recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Regarding bullet 2, Member Csordas asked if the City grants a 330 foot buffer modification, additional landscape screening is required behind the units, what do you have planned there now? Mr. Sullivan stated dense woods are there now. Member Csordas didn’t think there were any additional landscape screening requirements there. Member Csordas referred to the revisions to the cluster units in area 3D to three groups of four. He asked what it went from and where it was going? Mr. Sullivan stated there were 4 groups of three and it was changed to 3 groups of 4. They brought the villas closer together and moved the project closer to the front. Member Csordas asked about the center turn lane at Wixom Road and Delmont Drive? Mr. Sullivan said it was the same as recommended by their traffic consultant. Next bullet said pedestrian connections and Member Csordas asked about these? Mr. Sullivan said they were already in.

Member Csordas asked if bullet #1 was included in the project? Mr. Evancoe said they already have the parcel. Mr. Evancoe said it is the 5-acre parcel that has the proposed 3 groups of 4 attached units. Member Csordas felt everything but bullet #2 was approved and it was consistent with the RUD intent and that it would be another excellent development for the City.

Member Capello disagreed with the recommendation regarding cluster housing in the southeast corner. The church is going directly to the west and to the east is vacant property and 10 Mile Road to the south. He felt the City was lacking in housing for first homebuyers and empty nesters. Mr. Sullivan said the units have won a National award for their design and are the only ones being built in the U.S. right now. There were 126 units and about 30 units are left. The price range was $290,000 to $312,000 for the proposed cluster or condos. He felt cluster housing was needed. Member Capello asked what they were approved for regarding total density? Mr. Sullivan said they contracted for 876 units on the site and with what we are proposing tonight with the change, by redoing the roads, they are enlarging the lots. In order to do that they need to pick up additional units elsewhere. What’s before Council is roughly 762 units on this property as it sits. They are looking to cap out with what they have which is 100 less than what was contracted for in the RUD. Member Capello asked if the 876 included the extra five acres? Mr. Sullivan said it did not. Member Capello said it should be the 876 plus what they could be allowed. Mr. Sullivan agreed. Member Capello asked if he was willing to cap density? Mr. Sullivan said they had discussions with Mr. Fisher

regarding that trying to work out compatible language that wouldn’t totally restrict them if they have the opportunity to pick up additional parcels around them.

Member Capello agreed with every part of the motion except for not approving the cluster housing, as he felt there was a real need for that in Novi, it was a great location and they were agreeing to come in some 100 units under the density they have been approved for.

Member Landry noted he had no problem with the five-acre parcel along Wixom Rd. or the revisions to the street layout in Phases 4 and 5 but is opposed to the multi family because he didn’t think it belonged on Ten Mile.

Member DeRoche asked if there was a large demand for that type of housing in that area? Mr. Evancoe felt the developer could better answer that. Member DeRoche asked where that type development would go if not approved in Novi? Mr. Evancoe said it could go anywhere that type of housing is permitted. Member DeRoche asked if it was more likely to go to Farmington Hills or Lyon Township? Mr. Evancoe said Farmington Hills but there was more land available in Lyon Township but it is not all served by public utilities. Mr. Evancoe felt it would go where sewer and water was available and at this time he felt it would be closer to the City of South Lyon than Napier Road. Member DeRoche felt it would likely go west. He thought the request was reasonable.

Member Capello asked what the set back was on the clusters off of Ten Mile Road?

Mary Jukary, Land Planner with Smith Group JJR in Ann Arbor, was present and had been working with Toll Brothers on this project. Ms. Jukary said after considering the Planning Commission comments they looked at an alternative that shortens the length of the proposed cul-de-sac and doubles the required setback from 75 feet off of the Ten Mile Road ROW to 150 feet. That gave them an increased area for additional screening and berming to hide the units along Ten Mile. The berm would be 6 to10 feet above the grade of Ten Mile and the condos are set lower because of the way that we are grading the area and the lower grade in general so the berm would be any where from 10 to14 feet higher than first floor elevations of the units. She said if they add 16 foot evergreens, the rooftops would barely be visible along Ten Mile Road with the increased setback, berm height and conifer screening in that area. Member Capello thought it would be more attractive off of Ten Mile Rd. with the additional set back and berm than it would be with the single-family homes. He said he would support Member DeRoche’s motion.

Mayor Clark asked if he was including in the amendment to the main motion the provisions just discussed about the berm and the addition of another 75 feet in terms of set back to make it 150? Member DeRoche said he was. Member Csordas noted he liked that this eliminated another curb cut on Ten Mile Road. The cul-de-sac eliminates that and the stub street to the west and it also eliminates the entrance to Ten Mile.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented that if Council was truly interested in upholding our own ordinances, this is RUD and R is for rural. She stated if Council made this concession without any demonstrated valid reason, then all of the ordinances should be examined. This use is not compatible. If talking about a rationale that we want to put this here because we have an abutting church use, look all over town because there are churches in single family neighborhoods because they are an acceptable use in single family zones. Once compromised, are we adding an infinite number of parcels piece meal and ending up with something that no one ever contemplated from the standpoint of the overall conceptual approval of this RUD. If going in this direction, we must be very aware of what we are doing because in this particular case we have met the enemy and they are us. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi would not support multi use in an RUD.

Absent: Lorenzo

Nays: None

To approve Zoning Map Amendment 18.605, request from

Member Landry commented he could not support this rezoning as it is not consistent with the Master Plan and it gives up OST property.

Member Capello said he was originally opposed to this when valuable OST property was being taken on Meadowbrook Road. When that piece was taken out, what was left was the piece that abuts the small lake area across from the existing Enclave apartment buildings. He thought given the poor soil conditions he didn’t think there’d ever be OST construction on the piece they are proposing to rezone now. He said he appreciated Singh Development; they have been very good to the City, very true to their work and have created a nice high quality product for the City. He was more inclined to do something for them that he might not do for another developer that didn’t have the same track record that Singh had in the City and that is why he would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she would not support the motion. For a developer to take an option on a property fully understanding that there are soil bearing limitations is a risk one takes and from that standpoint there are other options with regard to building on caissons and other structural amendments that are done every day. So, that is no hardship in her view. We are also talking about mid-rise multiple family, which she did not feel was a compatible use in that area. This doesn’t benefit the City and will cost the City and she believed the developer has options.

Member Csordas referred to the big booklet, page 6 under Benefits of Proposed Uptown Park Rezoning and he was concerned with the quantity of apartments in the City and the revenue generated from them. He felt apartments and multiple units required more City services from police and fire than any other district and are a higher use than OST. On the same page under Benefits of Proposed Uptown Park Rezoning says that the Uptown Park multi family development created a higher tax base and a more positive financial impact than the alternative zoning development. He asked if they were referring to the current OST? Mr. Carson, representing Singh, said yes. Member Csordas said on page 7 analysis, asked if personal property was included in an OST development. Mr. Carson said personal property would be shared at the same basis that real estate taxes would be shared. They are not wholly paid to the City and do not remain at the City. Another important thing to realize with respect to the benefit in tax base to the City is that the date must be projected of when tax revenues would be received. The market studies that they have done show that there is an over abundance of OST zoned property in the City. This property has strong traits for residential development being away Meadowbrook Road, depressed by way of height from Meadowbrook Road and therefore not easily visible from the road, bad soil conditions that you would not normally build a footprint for an OST building. Also, with the lake amenity, which is more conducive to residential, means the residential product would be up and built within the next couple of years and fully leased or converted to condos because these are luxury units that already have their master deeds in place. He said they didn’t believe that OST would be developed for 10, 15 or 20 years at this place, if ever. So, what you would take is an income stream to the City, which would be non-existent for a large number of years as OST, wishing will not make it so and receipts can’t be counted which would not exist for many years. The lost revenue will never be made up that you would be receiving with this type of multiple units around this amenity base. Once you’ve gone three to five years without that kind of receipt as against receipts for multiple, that spread would never be made up. He said they think because of this income stream out of this type of multiple would equal or exceed what would have been gotten out of OST. The reality of OST is that there is so much competing product, raw land, in this area and other areas that this particular site is not going to be developed for the foreseeable future as OST. He understood that the City believed that OST was something to be protected because it believes it is a low service demander and a high-income generator by way of tax base. The problem is that over 50% of office zoned property is vacant in the City and there is vacant OST property that is already developed and there is more desirable OST along major thoroughfares, which is vacant land for development. Mr. Carson said they had provided the City with information from various brokers and planners that show that this product is not going to be absorbed in this area. They’ve also given the City, soil conditions on the property; this property has soil remnants from the development of the mall. He said they were not saying they weren’t aware of the soil conditions or that Singh doesn’t know how to develop. Singh is the largest developer creating the biggest tax development in the City. They’ve developed product all over the City and has always produced and delivered a credible product. The market condition is that if the City wants to hold on to the OST zoning for this property, it will lay fallow. So there would be no tax generation and no revenue for the foreseeable future based upon OST.

Member Csordas agreed that OST might not be the appropriate zoning because OST is on both sides of Meadowbrook Road and this property lies behind the property on the west side of that zoning. If the intent of that zoning is to create visibility to a thoroughfare, it is not going to happen. He agreed with 98% of what Mr. Carson said. The City has over abundance of RM-1/RM-2 zoning and he thought the proliferation of apartments is out of balance. Mr. Carson asked Council to allow him to show the vision they have for this property around this lake. It is not like the other apartments.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said if they are talking about any kind of visuals that are going to propose what this development is going to look like, she believed it exceeded the proper boundaries of zoning map amendment and so she would protest the inclusion.

Mayor Clark commented he understood Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s point but thought a full record should be developed and allowed the video.

Mr. Carson displayed a windows media program and stated they would base it on the amenities of the lake. This development could be a "for sale" condominium unit. All the developments that are done with a view to renting are done with a view to being condominiums and have master deeds and paper work done initially. This is a high-end community with garages and basements and great amenity packages and is ready to generate substantial taxes almost immediately.

Member Csordas asked Chief Shaeffer his opinion regarding police and fire services on this type of unit. Chief Shaeffer said high-density locations tend to demand more services. Residents tend to have greater numbers of calls for services than a light industry complex might have. Mr. Carson asked if there was information related to Main Street and the services they have needed as compared to OST. Chief Shaeffer said the information was available. Member Csordas asked how many units there would be and the reply was 201 units. Member Csordas asked if that was the number used for the traffic study and Mr. Carson said yes. Member Csordas asked if he was saying that if developed as OST to its maximum the traffic count would be less. Mr. Carson said it would be less of a burden because of the way it is dispersed during the day as the peak demand times are evened out. They’ve also provided the concept of having a connector that would go through around up both to 12 Mile and over to Meadowbrook, which would disperse the traffic pattern that you would not have in an OST.

Member Csordas stated he struggled with OST as he felt the demand for services was higher in apartments and he understood the soil conditions and that Mr. Singh was very capable of dealing with them. Mr. Carson said the OST is a different issue for the City because once the City is charged with the knowledge of maintaining a district when they know that development is not forthcoming, it deprives the developer of the ability to utilize the property over time. They felt this would be a positive for the City. Member Csordas asked if he thought the existing soil conditions would be a challenge? Mr. Carson said because the pads are smaller for the buildings and more accommodating and can be moved around to be built in the area respecting the wetlands and special features, that could not be done with a big pad building. Market conditions don’t show that OST is available and soil conditions won’t allow any other type development of a big pad building.

Member Csordas believed it was consistent with what is already there and eking its way around the pond. Mr. Carson stated when the property was designated as OST, this particular piece was highlighted as high density residential uses.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked for a ballpark occupancy figure for apartments in the City. Mr. Evancoe said they were occupied fairly well and he didn’t think there were a lot of vacancies and he would provide those figures. She felt that was an important figure to have and took exception to the comment that we are losing tax revenue, as open space pays for itself. That is an established economic fact. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Fisher if this developer was currently part of an assessment appeal for any of the properties that they own or develop and have the tax liability for in the City? Mr. Fisher said not that he was aware of on this property but he thought Mr. Singh has some tax appeals on other properties. She asked if they were significant appeals? Mr. Fisher believed so. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated when they are advising Council on what the City is losing, in fact open space pays for itself. She said there is no designation that she knew of that said that land could not be used as OST and while we are waiting for it to be used as OST or some other land use that is more beneficial to the financial benefit of the City, it is paying for itself. She would be interested in knowing what degree the property assessments are being challenged or appealed and to what degree.

Mayor Clark stated this isn’t about whether Singh is a good or bad developer and he supported nearly all of their developments as a Planning Commissioner. He stated there’s no guarantee when property is bought that the zoning can be changed when it is designated for something else. He said he was having a problem because it is zoned OST and Council fought to get OST in Novi and it is coming on line. Also, an argument can be made regarding bad soil conditions and it would never be developed as OST but talk to Mr. Taubman of Twelve Oaks Mall because they took over a million cubic yards of peat out but there is a mall there today. It can be done as large footprint buildings could be put on pylons if need be or there could be development of smaller OST buildings in that area. There had been mention of the fact that there would be no visibility for OST but he noted there are many offices along Northwestern Hwy. that no matter how far off the road, they are they do very well. If we were talking about a condominium development where there is individual ownership and people would be there for the long haul, it might be easier to digest the concept as the need for condominiums. It might be an ideal location for the young professional couples or the empty nesters. Mr. Carson said they would commit to "for sale" condos.

Mr. Fisher stated there’s concern about existing classification and if this motion doesn’t pass that would effectively be a denial of the zoning. He wondered, in light of the concerns expressed on the existing zoning, whether we would be further ahead sending this back to Planning Commission and zoning committee to see if there is some middle ground for this property in light of the statement relative to condominium as opposed to a department development and in light of concern about the existing zoning. Mr. Fisher suggested the possibly a development agreement.

Member DeRoche asked why a commitment for condominiums couldn’t be run through Council to see if it persuades a vote? Mayor Clark asked if he would withdraw his motion and Member DeRoche agreed.

Member Capello thought they were going nowhere fast. Mayor Clark thought progress was being made, as the petitioner was willing to commit to a condominium as opposed to a rental development. He thought everyone would be well served to let the Planning Commission look at it in that light.

Member DeRoche said he understood what was being talked about but didn’t understand how going through the zoning committee and Planning Commission would add value to the Council.

Member Capello said he didn’t know if there was any zoning designation that distinguished between type of ownership and he didn’t think the offer would get them anywhere.

Mr. Fisher thought if it was going through the Planning Commission they might bring it forward with a recommendation of a development agreement that would solidify the ownership and the quality of the development.

Mr. Carson suggested it be approved on the condition that we enter into a development agreement within 30 to 45 days, which would make the approval effective on that condition. He would be happy to meet with Mr. Fisher to work on a development agreement to solidify the issue of the form of ownership and the fact that it would be a condominium for sale. Then the approval could be tonight, they’d have direction and it would have its own sunset provision if it didn’t work.

Mr. Carson asked if the concept would be that, assuming that the development agreement was found to be acceptable, the vote today would be effectively rezoned. The development agreement is what would come back to the Council and if it is not acceptable then it is unwound. Is that correct?

Mr. Fisher said that before the rezoning is effective the ordinance had to be published and he suggested that the motion of the Council would be that it not be published until the Council approves the development agreement. Member DeRoche included this in his motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the designation of condominium ownership was irrelevant to her with regard to this argument. If anyone is proposing that by virtue of that designation our concerns go away, hers don’t, and if by virtue of a development proposal they get even better, this is worse. We are talking about our original concerns not being addressed by throwing a bone of saying these units are going to be owned. She asked what had changed and what was different? Nothing has changed with regard to the land use issue and that is what this is. She would not support the motion.

Mr. Evancoe asked if Council could give clarity to what role the Planning Commission would play in the next steps here because they have looked at the master plan and determined they did not wish to change that master plan and it was on that basis they recommended the zoning not be approved. They have taken that action so would Council want them to have a role in reviewing the development agreement or would it come directly back to Council? Mayor Clark said it would come back to Council.

Mayor Clark asked Council Members to vote their ballots for Item 9, Appointments to Boards and Commissions.

plants and also providing replacement planting as required by

Mayor Clark asked if the motion was to incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of the 58 lots? Mr. Guidobono said yes, all the changes Council approved at the last meeting have been made. Three lots were eliminated and the stub street connection has been made.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said on Mr. Fisher’s letter dated December 9^th he referred to several items that had not been included and should be confirmed. She asked if those points of information had been included in this agreement? Mr. Fisher had talked about number of acres and area expressed as percentage of open space was missing. Mr. Fisher said the points were included in the agreement but were points he didn’t have confirmation on from the engineer or staff. She asked if the percentages were correct? Mr. Evancoe said they appeared to be correct. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said Mr. Fisher was suggesting that they were not correct. Mayor Clark said Mr. Fisher was saying that when he wrote the letter he did not have confirmation. Mr. Fisher agreed. Mr. Evancoe said the developer provided the figures to Mr. Fisher and they are correct.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said regarding page 6, 4^th paragraph, said "developer shall plan" plan should have read plant. Also missing, with regard to a detention basin being planted with native material is, "it is our tradition to require a two year monitoring program to assure the establishment of those plants and also providing replacement planting as required by the City Wetlands Consultant". Mayor Clark asked Mr. Guidobono if that was a problem and he said it was not.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Fisher, with regard to the sanitary sewer system, section 15 on page 8, mid paragraph the language says "in the event Maybury is not developed in a timely manner, Developer shall have the responsibility to propose and secure approval" why the language was in the document when that language was not in the water section and asked if the paragraph could survive without it? Mr. Fisher said the contemplation is to rely on Maybury but we don’t know what the timing, etc. is for Maybury. This provides a roadmap of what is contemplated to happen but a fall back or a default in the event the Maybury situation doesn’t come about in a timely manner.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi moved on to page 9, section 16, Water Supply, and said there was a specification concerning water pressure in the area and she wanted aquantitative explanation where this area places, with regard to existing water pressure limitation and how does that number rank in regard to safety and desirability? Ms. McClain said currently water was not available in the area but the draft water study study underway with JCK shows that if there was a main in this area the water pressure would be in the high 20 to low 30 lbs. of pressure, which is not considered a suitable level to be able to service a home. With the addition of a crossing of I-96, our draft study shows that that number can come up into the mid to upper 30’s which is considered serviceable for fire service and we would want it higher than that to provide potable water to the house. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the boring under I-96 would improve the fire service but would not improve the potable water. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said until that number was met there would be no City service. Ms. McClain said there could only be fire service and it would be reliant on whether or not there was enough pressure at the hydrants. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said in the next paragraph, last sentence, regarding long term water supply says "the approved plan for Tuscany Reserve requires construction of a 12 inch water main in the Eight Mile Road right of way across the entire Eight Mile Road frontage", she asked why that would be required? Ms. McClain said it was a requirement under the Master Plan to allow for future service to route out through the southwest part of the City and provide services. We are also requesting that at Maybury and at Our Lady of Victory so that we can continue that water main across there and have that put in by the developers instead of at City expense. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thought it would be a sprawl promoter.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked regarding Page 10, Covenants and Master Deed, third of the way down the paragraph, what does a "hearing before City Council or other board, body or official delegated by the City Council" mean? Mr. Fisher said this paragraph contemplates instances in which there is a violation or failure to live up to the obligations. City Council might not want to conduct that type of hearing and delegate it to the City Manager to conduct the hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi didn’t think they had done this before and Mr. Fisher said it just gives Council the option, not the requirement, of delegating it. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated she would support the motion.

Member DeRoche asked what the price of the homes would be and Mr. Guidobono said $600,000 and up and would be just a little under Bellagio’s price. Member DeRoche asked what the average sale price would be when people close on their homes in a couple years. He said it would be between $800-900,000 and on the high end up to possibly $3 million. Most would be in the $750,000 to a million dollar range. Member DeRoche asked what the revenues to general fund would be on a million dollar home? Ms. Smith-Roy replied about $10,000 and about $25,000 would be generated to the school district. Member DeRoche said if we go from 61 to 58 homes it would be roughly half the cost of a police officer. He asked if they go from 61 to 58 homes as proposed would those homes move back into urban areas or would it be more likely they would move out to where the sewer leads from this development? Mr. Evancoe stated they

would most likely move out. Member DeRoche said we are talking about urban sprawl now and stated vacant land pays for itself. We have lost three lots in this development under the premise that we would get vacant land and buffers around wetlands. Is that going to pay for itself? How much do we tax the added buffered areas? Ms.Smith-Roy didn’t know what the assessed value would be. Member DeRoche said he heard that vacant land pays for itself but we are giving up $10,000 in revenues per home, that’s $30,000 and $25,000 per home, that’s $75,000 to the schools for something that is not going to pay the City any money. He was trying to figure out how the vacant land would pay for itself when we went from a half a police officer and a school teacher to zero.

Mayor Clark believed the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of movement. This is not a country in Europe where you had to get your ticket punched going from point A to point B. In this case, the developer is happy with his 58 homes. We know from experience that Mr. Guidobono puts up first class, quality projects and he is happy with 58. The consideration cannot always be to squeeze 61 in there because of more tax money to the City; there are sometimes other considerations.

Member DeRoche said, for the record, he thought it was unfortunate that one of our other freedoms in this country is for Mr. Guidobono to make a buck and that for no other reason than hypocrisy he has been cut out of his opportunity to make three more houses for twisted logic.

Mr. Fisher said Mayor Pro Tem Bononi made a comment of a proposed modification on page 6 relative to the plantings and he asked for clarification. Member Capello accepted it as a part of the amendment. Mayor Clark said Mr. Guidobono said he would comply.

Member Csordas as seconder to the motion accepted the amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she remembered when Change Order #1 for $55, 000 plus was brought forward before Council and when Change Order #2 for $684,172 was brought forward for approval she had asked if there would be anymore and was told there would not be. Now there is a final balancing Change Order of a $154,038.04 for a total of $1,596,388.00. She said this is 111% over the original contract award. She asked if that was correct and why there was an additional $154,038.04?

Mr. Helwig said the memo dated March 25^th attached from Mr. Uutinen to him documented the fact that there would be a third change order coming based upon finishing the work in the spring of this year. He thought Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was referring to earlier than March 25^th , he went back and asked for this memo after there had been some discussion. Mr. Helwig said he misspoke as to what it would take to complete the work. He asked for the memo to document. It has gone from the $110,000 to $120,000 range to this $154,038.04 to complete the Village Oaks work. She said she understood and she did not understand whether or not Mr. Helwig had the information at that time or if something had significantly changed. Mr. Helwig said the work was completed in the spring of this year and this is the final pay. There had been a lot of issues with Cadillac Asphalt to get to this point.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she had also asked at that time if there would be anything constructive in pursuing the recovery of any of these funds. Mr. Fisher said they did a relatively in-depth investigation and found nothing conclusive enough to lead to that. She said she was sure her committee members would agree that they came across information last week that told them that on national average cost overruns should be between 3% and 5% on any one job. She said that was an interesting thing to keep in mind.

Absent: Lorenzo

Wayne Hogan thanked the properties that do comply and over-comply with ADA because the ADA compliance is the absolute minimum. He felt we should be far more aggressive with the planning stages. Mr. Hogan also mentioned that Cindy Uglow, Nancy McClain, Maryanne Cornelius and Mayor Clark helped out with some of the issues and were very prompt in some of the issues brought to their attention. He was concerned with policy driven answers. However, he said he could give at least 100 violations of ADA in Novi alone. For example, he would challenge anyone to get in his wheelchair and come back up the ramp in the Council Chambers. He noted the Outback Restaurant was in compliance but there was a 12 inch curb and Mayor Clark was discussing that with them and the manager was cooperating. Policy

driven answers bothered him and he noted he had plenty of other items that were significant. He noted it’s difficult to negotiate in stores with strollers let alone wheelchairs. He thought that Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was correct in stating there is a need for more compliance officers. Building permits that have little or no enforcement as to when they expire, you have perpetual non-compliance for ADA because parking is unusable. Also noted that Farmer Jack and Kroger placed things in aisles that causes difficulty maneuvering the wheelchair. There are many places that aren’t in compliance and should be considered in Master Plan amendments. The Red Hot & Blue Restaurant has more than adequate handicap access and was cleaned up on the night it snowed. Mr. Hogan stated he has 200 photos of non-compliance instances. Also mentioned that Community Cab had issues that needed to be addressed.

Ms. Cornelius informed Council of the results of the vote and the following were elected:

Board of Review Lee BeGole with six votes

Election Commission Heidi Dean with four votes

Historical Commission David Lussier with six votes

Thomas Swope with six votes

HCD Advisory Committee Thomas Lindberg with six votes

Parks, Recreation & Forestry David Staudt with five votes

Zoning Board of Appeals Gerald Bauer with six votes

Sarah Gray with six votes

Samson Associates for Façade Architectural Services and as a

Member DeRoche said the "work within the City Clause" would be a big step backwards. It used to be that JCK would not do business with private contracts within the City of Novi but also would not do public work in the surrounding Commerce, Farmington Hills, Northville Township and Lyon Township. Member DeRoche said that suited our needs and benefited our community. He felt those aspiring for a contract with Novi should make a clear decision that they want to play for our team and sit on our bench. He would vote for this but asked the maker of the motion to instruct the City Attorney to have language that clearly says they would not do work in the City of Novi other than for the City of Novi.

Mayor Clark said there are provisions in the contract for work they are already doing. One of which is the fire station that is already behind schedule and we are trying to get it back on track. Mayor Clark said he didn’t want to create problems there.

Member DeRoche thought the language he offered would accommodate that work in the City of Novi but for the City of Novi. He didn’t consider helping other Erickson communities along and other part of the contracts doing work for Novi. He considered that doing it for somebody that Novi is trying to regulate. Either they want to be our contractor or they want to still be in the private sector.

Member Capello agreed and reminded them about former agreement some time back when building the DPW building. Council asked for an opinion from Dennis Watson, City Attorney, on whether or not JCK could do the engineering and the work and the opinion came back no because it would be a conflict of interest. They could not do the engineering work and then review their own work.

Mayor Clark commented this was brought up in discussions with the Consultant Review Committee and it should be noted that the proposed agreement also has a termination clause that allows either party to terminate within 90 days.

Member Landry commented he interpreted this is to allow them to work out the contracts they have. The one exception to that is the OEM Company. If some huge project came in from GM or Ford, that might be a once in a lifetime project, this consultant might want to do that. He said the way he would deal with that is to take it out of this contract. Let him work out the fire station and Erickson and this contract would provide that they not accept other jobs and if another OEM contract comes in, they make a business decision of whether they want to take our contract or the OEM. It might never happen and if it did it could be discussed at that time. He offered as a compromise to take out the OEM Company and leave Erickson and the fire station in. Member DeRoche said that is what he was asking for.

Member Capello asked questions about fees and turn around times for reviews. He asked for clarification in the Fee Schedule, Section A, Section A.1, Similar/Dissimilar Review $100.00, additional review is $80.00. He asked if included in that review was a one time back free and Frank Ray President and CEO of Nordstrom Samson and Associates, said yes and the $80.00 time back would actually be the third time back. Member Capello said the IBC Code Review is $120.00 and the Option B Trust Review is $30.00 and Mr. Ray said correct. Energy Code $30.00, review elevations is $60.00. Mr. Ray said he wanted to clarify on the energy code and elevations that that is if it comes in as a separate review. Those reviews are included under the IBC Code Review unless they come in separately. Mr. Ray said the Trust Review and the IBC Code Review are generally what happens and it is $150.00. Today the fee is $153.00 and they are proposing a slight decrease in that. Member Capello asked if turn around time would be consistent with our ordinances and Mr. Ray said it would be the same or better. Member Capello asked who would be his Act 54 person? He said Peter Robertson would be the primary person handling that and would be certified and anyone else in the firm that is first hand doing reviews would receive certification. The motion was amended and the maker and seconder were agreeable to the amendment.

Environmental Wetland Services.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked, for the record, Mr. Fisher to state how much actual area of land is being transferred for this consideration. Mr. Fisher said this is essentially an easement over the front of the property in question. It is depicted it’s for a Consumers line and is a 40 foot wide easement that appears to be 1,671.44 feet long. If taking the actual land, the assessment would be double that but we’re taking an easement and so we have the appraised amount. She said that is a little over an acre.

Landry, Clark

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION (Consent Agenda items, which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Council and Mr. Fisher what they would think of the establishment of a fee structure to cover the City’s monitoring costs and that the applicant should pay the fees with regard to the requirements imposed. The applicant benefits from the City’s agreement to this language and she said she understood that this is a new wrinkle in the Federal requirement that we monitor and yet there is no fee attached to that. Mr. Fisher said it would have to be something we negotiate and get voluntary agreement. She asked if an ordinance required this, would it be a cleaner way to do it because she thought there would be a lot of these? Mr. Fisher said yes and hopefully the ordinance that will be reviewed Thursday night at Ordinance Review would get into that. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this one wouldn’t fall into that if approved tonight. Mr. Fisher agreed. She asked if the next ones would and Mr. Fisher said yes and Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she was satisfied.

Wayne Hogan pointed out the library has some handicap spaces with 11-inch curbs to be negotiated and van accessibility is only on one side, which makes it difficult to negotiate the space. Even the new repaired cement where there is a ramp is 3 times the incline. He cannot use the restroom at the library either because he cannot close the stall. He cannot park close to the playground and would like to see more parking spaces in the south end of Power Park.

Council returned to session and there were two matters Mr. Fisher wished to bring to everyone’s attention.

1. Adams Outdoor Advertising of Michigan vs. the City – There is a settlement before the City to consider and that is entering into a stipulation of dismissal in the case with a view that the amount of $10,000 will ultimately be paid by the City’s insurance carrier to the plaintiff in the case with the view that for a period of 15 years the advertising company will not request further billboards or challenge the City’s ordinance and will continue to maintain the existing four billboards in the City for the same period of time.

To approve entering into a stipulation of dismissal in the case of

2. Adell Trust – Mr. Fisher said on December 11, 2002 the Michigan Court of Appeals denied the City’s application for rehearing on a decision that that same Court had earlier decided and the issue is whether or not the City will seek application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court which must be filed on or before January 3, 2003.

1. Letter from Lori Larsen Re: Community Cab

2. Letter from Lillian Larsen Re: Community Cab

3. Letter from Dorothy Steinberger Re: Community Cab

4. Letter from Adelaida Santos Re: Community Cab

5. Letter from Paul DiGiusto Re: recommendation for City Council

6. Letter from Yvonne and Steve Miles Re: Community Cab

7. Letter from Fannie McCoy Re: Community Cab

8. Letter from Patrick Brennan, Sixth Circuit Court, Re: Appointment of Toni Nagy to the Novi City Council.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m.

__________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ___________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: January 6, 2003