Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, Council Members Capello (absent/excused), Csordas, Landry (absent/excused), Lorenzo, Sanghvi

Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Helwig, City Manager, for information on acceptance of streets; whether there is additional information or should the items be postponed. Mr. Helwig responded that they would like to keep the items on the Agenda. He has spoken with both the City Attorney and City Engineer. Ms. Nancy McClain, City Engineer had provided a copy of the memo stating when notices were mailed to residents and that one resident’s comment has been received.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi reported the activities for the Ad Hoc Committee on the Gateway ordinance. She and Member Capello submitted written comments and it is being re-drafted and she plans for it to be on an agenda in March for Council review.

She also reported that the Stormwater and Watershed Stewardship Committee are re-evaluating and re-stating its’ mission with the help of Robert Wolf. They will be fine tuning the function of the committee to the needs of the community with regard to water quality and watershed protection.

Mayor Clark stated Council had received several response forms. He read the names and whether they oppose or support the proposed SAD No. 165.

Bryan Thorpe, 21718 Kilrush, stated he and his wife Diana Thorpe oppose the SAD due to the approximate cost of $13,000; in addition to that there is the connection fee and the meter charge which is another $1250, plus the plumbing costs, which can vary. Also he is concerned about the continuing water rate increases. The SAD has been reduced to only encompass sixteen homes but the whole subdivision of Connemara Hills has 160 homes. The number of homes has been reduced to reach the 51% interest. Because of the small size of the SAD there are certain aspects of the engineering that benefit the whole of Connemara Hills; typically it will include fire hydrants and extending the valves and tie-in to the main on Taft Road. He and others do not feel it is fair that this small group of residents should have to pay for what they consider to be items commonly benefiting the whole of Connemara Hills. Another item is that the property values would not increase proportionally with the SAD. This would be putting a penalty on the property value. He is also concerned about deliberate water contamination even though it is a small possibility.

Mayor Clark noted he also received Kathleen and Ronald Klein’s opposition and an opposition from Diana Thorpe.

Anthony Tomasso, 21705 Kilrush, noted he was the person who ran the last effort to bring City water into Connemara Hills. Since the last SAD petition was not successful, he cut the homes down to two streets, Byrne Drive and Kilrush also with two or three houses on Galway. The estimate for the current SAD is $12,500 for seventeen households. He asked if the City of Novi would be willing to lift some of the financial burden for this SAD by paying for the crossings at Taft Road. What they need to do is connect to the 16-inch water main and bring it across Taft Road at Galway, connect to Kilrush Drive, Byrne Drive and back to Taft Road. He felt it would be appropriate for the city to pay for the two crossings to alleviate the burden of the SAD. He thought the increase of $5000 was substantial in nine years. Mr. Tomasso supports this as it should not be only about money. He has been a resident of Novi in the Connemara Hills subdivision since 1984, at that time there was an effort to bring water to the subdivision. He stated there is a real need for City water because a few of the neighbors cannot load their own water softeners. He personally is tired of living with the rust; it rusts everything. He noted that the last house on Galway was built in 1985 and water service was not available. He does not see any reason why they should live with this situation. He used the analogy of purchasing a car for close to the same price without a long service life. It is not cheap to live on a well as he had to replace the pump and pay for a water softener and he also had to install a special filter. He noted the sewage bill went

down when people changed from wells to city water. He would also like to have a fire hydrant in the subdivision as there was a fire and the truck ran out of water. He noted there was a dentist who signed the petition last as he recognized the value of fluoridated water. Many people want the service but the cost is too great but others are willing to pay the cost for city water. He again noted that maintaining a well is costly. His opinion of the SAD process is that it is inherently unfair.

Mike Czarniecki, 45332 Byrne, is opposed due to the costs ranging from $16,000-$20,000 and feels that it is a significant amount of money for him and his wife at this stage of their life this will be a burden. They had figured it will be an additional $350 per month even with a 5% interest rate. Also, he quoted Mr. Tomasso regarding the people moving in who did not have the option to vote on the water. He disagreed and stated they did when they purchased their home knowing it was on a well. Cost is the biggest consideration. He also stated the process is not a good process. He commented that the booklet for SAD is very good and explains this process well. He would not have signed the petition if he had been able to read the booklet ahead of time. It was presented to him that it was nothing more than obtaining a costs. He asked that Council emphasize that signing a petition is all part of the process.

Linda Mulder 21641 Kilrush Drive, supports Mr. Tomasso in the pursuit of city water. While the cost is high, she does not like not knowing what is in the groundwater surrounding them or what is in the well water, as it can change from day to day. She stated she has had to replace her well once, at a cost of about $5,000, and does not want to do this again. She also does not like the odor, rust, sediment, and stains on her fixtures, taste, and continued expense of maintaining the well. She would like the opportunity to have the mains come through and noted the cost for her neighbors was only $900 to hook up the interior plumbing. She plans to get three estimates to make sure of the exact cost before she decides.

Mr. Helwig, City Manager reported he attended the Gateway Village ribbon cutting ceremony. Dr. Sanghvi was able to attend as well. All were excited to have this type of multi use or old fashioned, development in the core of Novi.

Mr. Helwig stated Chief Lenaghan was reporting on public safety during the replacement of the Grand River Avenue Bridge over the CSX Railroad tracks. This deals with the service area west of the tracks and a little south, it has been historically served by Station 1, without the bridge in place, residents and the Chief have been working on a plan. He asked the Chief to share his plan with Council and the community.

Chief Lenaghan reported the result of closing of Grand River Avenue on some of the districts, primarily Fire District Number One, which isolated access to part of the district.

He attended a recent homeowners meeting and the question was brought up as to how the Fire Department was going to service this area. In the past they have always used a three mile response criterion. It was suggested that they take the reserve engine, and place it in, what is currently, Station Number Four (Beck and Eleven Mile), designate that engine as Station Number Five and have it respond into the west end of Station Number One’s district. They have also extended Station Four’s territory in Section 22 to the CSX Railroad. He has two paid-on-call members living in that area who have been temporarily detailed to Station Four. During the day he has four full time fire fighters at

Station Four. The second phase will occur when they open the new fire station at Ten Mile and Wixom Roads and he will designate the station at Eleven Mile and Beck as Station Number Five and move the reserve engine there. The engine will operate with the Unit Two, or paid-on-call operation, from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and for 24 hours on Saturdays and Sundays. The day shift will operate as they currently do. One other point is that Gen-Mar Drive, accessible from Novi Road, will continue to be served by Station Number One.

Dr. Sanghvi asked if they have done any dry runs to see how long the response time is. Chief Lenaghan noted they have used the three mile response criterion; one problem they are faced with is the traffic on Ten Mile to access the area, which would increase the response time from Station Number One. One other alternative would be using Station Number Three.

Mr. Helwig asked the Chief to comment on two other matters, one being the loss of life at the night club on the east coast.

Chief Lenaghan pointed out that Novi has a very aggressive inspection program. Under the current circumstances he has sent a letter out to all places of public assembly reminding them of their obligations in terms of exits, capacity and things like this. The Fire Department will also be doing spot checks from time to time. In the past they have not had a great deal of problem with overcrowding but on occasion he has been called in at night to address this issue. He has found management to be very cooperative and has taken care of the situation. Police also become involved because the overcrowding creates parking problems. He also pointed out that most of the places of public assembly are sprinklered. Mr. Helwig stated that the letter sent out emphasizes some matters that pertain to businesses, open flames, occupancy load, means of egress, and fire protection systems. In the past, during routine inspections they have not found any major violations.

Chief Lenaghan spoke to Council about a letter regarding damage to the gate, and requesting restitution, at the Enclave Condominium. This is the second time it has occurred, the first time it was the Fire Department in entering the complex, and the City has made restitution for it. The second occurrence was not attributable to the Fire Department but by a private ambulance company.

Mr. Helwig asked Mr. McCusker to give a brief, behind the scenes summary of what goes on in dealing with a storm like what was had on Saturday, February 22, 2003. Mr. Helwig noted how proud he is of the strides forward with de-icing and snow removal in the last two years. The objective is to clean and clear all major emergency routes as well as commerce and residential streets within twenty-four hours after the beginning of the storm event. The hope is to reduce that to twenty hours with next year’s budget.

Mr. McCusker stated that the storm began with freezing rain on Saturday morning around 9:30. He had a small complement of men in on Saturday to work on other duties and they began salting by 10:00 a.m. Around 4:00 p.m. the storm hit harder so the crew went back to the garage to install the larger plows on the trucks. By 6:00 p.m. they were back out battling the snow and completed most of the major roads about midnight and kept them open throughout the night. Crews of twenty men are staged in overlapping shifts so no one is burned out when they know they will be out for twenty-four hours or more. Most of the subdivision roads were cleared by 6:00 p.m. Sunday night.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked if the city is using any subcontractors to help. Mr. McCusker replied no. She was interested in hearing what he will be coming forward with during budget time to improve the response time. She felt 24 hour service for neighborhood streets is not acceptable. She asked what percentage of our time with personnel and equipment is being spent to maintain Oakland County roads. Mr. McCusker stated they have added two new subdivisions since last year, plus they are going into two more additional subdivisions that have residents in the back that would not be able to get out to the main roads. They are probably using two men and two vehicles assigned directly to the County roads. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated she was looking forward to hearing from him at budget time as to what resources he needs to do a better job. She stated that with what he has, he is doing an excellent job.

Member Lorenzo concurred.

Mayor Clark stated he has lived here since 1979. The last two years the roads have been in good condition. He can remember not being able to get out if his subdivision to come to a meeting. He noted the main arteries need to be cleared first and he has seen a remarkable improvement. He commended Mr. McCusker and his staff for their snow removal efforts.

Member Csordas asked how many miles of roads do they have to clear. Mr. McCusker replied a little over a 111 miles of local roads, 35 miles of major roads, 55 lane miles of County roads, 13 miles gravel road, and 25 miles of unaccounted for roads; close to 250 miles of roads to clear. He appreciated Mr. McCusker’s efforts as the roads were clean and clear.

Mr. Helwig stated, with all due respect, his compliment stands that to do the complete cycle of the City, including plowing, in 24 hours is an outstanding level of service. His compliment stands as it is well documented how far we have come in two short years.

Mr. Fisher reported that the City is addressing an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals that has the potential of being harmful to road and other utility projects for this City as well as other communities and road agencies around the State. He happily reported that the Michigan Municipal League has now signed on to prepare a Friend of

the Court brief on behalf of the City’s position. After speaking to the Chief Attorney assigned to the Michigan Department of Transportation, he indicated he will also write a brief in support of the City’s position. This has the potential impact of improperly impacting future projects in this City as well as elsewhere.

Mr. Fisher reported that the Sandstone remediation closure report, signifying that the last work has been completed, is now being finalized and a meeting will be conducted to submit the closure report this week at Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The MDEQ has up to six months to respond to the report.

Member Lorenzo asked if the City will wait to submit the report until Sandstone’s expert agrees with the numbers of what we have done on the property. Mr. Fisher believed the City had submitted all the numbers to Sandstone and he felt confident there will not be any significant objections.

Hugh Crawford, County Commissioner, congratulated Member Sanghvi on his appointment. He congratulated the City of Novi staff in clearing the roads as the job was well done. He noted he still represents the majority of the City of Novi as County Commissioner. Mr. Jeff Potter is representing Precincts 9 and 10 at the north end, around the lake. He commented on a huge upcoming task they have which is to find where to make adjustments for approximately a $23,000,000 deficit in the County.

David A. Ruyle, 40474 Mill Rd Ct. E., thanked Dr. Sanghvi for his representation of the city. He commented on the great job the city has done with the snow plowing. He then addressed Council on Agenda item number one, the Brightmoor Christian Church. As a Planning Commissioner, he recused himself from the item because he is a member of that church. He spoke as a citizen and member of the church. He felt this was a win-win situation. He has seen what the developer builds and stated he builds an excellent project. He noted he would even consider buying a unit. Also the City would be getting 60 acres back of taxable land. This was sent from the Planning Commission on a seven with one abstention vote to approve the project.

Jorge Linke, 25896 Clark Street, noted that traffic on Clark Street was still creeping through as traffic looked for another route. He gave a petition to the City Clerk requesting that Council permanently close Clark Street. The subdivisions would gain an elimination of the transient traffic, increase the pedestrian safety, as there are no sidewalks in this area, and reduce crime. There will be an overall increase in a quality of life in this area, due to the traffic calming, water run-off will be maintained, there will be no increase due to the road elevation changes, money will be saved by not having to elevate both streets, and reducing the risk of severe accidents, which would result in merging subdivision traffic directly into a five lane fifty mile-an-hour highway. A drawback would be an emergency vehicle coming from the northeast end, over the bridge, would have to use Lanny’s Road, which is approximately 500 feet to the west. The request has a time factor attached to it because all decisions need to be made before the construction of the street elevations by the Road Commission of Oakland County begins. Also it would have to allow for the redesign of the Clark Street and Grand River area. Mr. Linke also asked for the sidewalk connection, south of Grand River, to be wheelchair and stroller compatible and accessible.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Helwig to have the Traffic Consultant and the City Engineer look at this item. Mr. Helwig stated they promised the residents that this item will be on the March 3, 2003 agenda as a discussion item.

Mr. Linke also asked if medical service will come from the station at 11 Mile Road and Beck Road. He thanked Clay Pearson, Chief of Police, DPW and the administration for their

response to the potential road closure.

Chief Lenaghan reported the same crew responds to all emergency runs. Medical first responders will be the first to respond.

Member Lorenzo asked to have Item C removed.

A. Approve Minutes of:

January 27, 2003, Regular meeting

February 3, 2003, Regular meeting

February 8, 2003, Special meeting

February 10, 2003, Interview meeting

B. Approval to renew Massage Business License for Visions Spa Salon, 22003 Novi Road.

D. Approval of Resolution Number 1 for West Lake Drive, Water Main Extension, Special Assessment District 168.

E. Approval of Resolution Number 1 for West Lake Drive, Street Paving, Special Assessment District 169.

F. Approval to seek bids for Spring 2003 Street Tree Planting.

G. Approval to award quotation for cable retrofit to R.J. Telecommunications and Detroit Temperature Engineers, the low quotation, in the amount of $6,110.50.

H. Approval to award quotation for 60 replacement holsters to C.M.P., the low quotation, in the amount of $4,410.

I. Approval of Resolution Waiving Jurisdiction of the Economic Development Corporation of the City of Novi. (Catholic Central High School) – Requested by Oakland County.

J. Approval of Resolution Consenting to the Transfer of Employment from the City of Novi to the City of Wixom. (R & K Tool, Inc.) – Requested by Oakland County.

K. Approval of Resolution Consenting to the Transfer of Employment from the City of Novi to Charter Township of Lyon. (A & M Label) – Requested by Oakland County

L. Approval of emergency purchase of 43 masks and carriers from Safety Today, the low quotation, in the amount of $9,039.

M. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 643

Pastor Ratz noted he appreciated the cooperation they have received from the city. It has been almost five years since they had purchased the property at Thirteen Mile and M-5 and they have accomplished a great deal since they moved there. From the beginning it has been their intention to sell off the northern portion of the land to developers to recoup some of the church’s investment. They currently have 103 acres in total. From the start they were advised by the Planning Commission to develop a RUD application with the City, which they proceeded to do. They have gone through the woodland, wetland, engineering, and traffic studies and made their official application at the point when they were officially ready to come before the Planning Commission. The City made a development agreement with the owners of the property next door, the Fox Run Development, which changed the nature of their property so they withdrew their application. Over the last few years they have repeatedly met with the Planning Commission to develop the area in order to meet their needs and those of the community. In response to that they have met with the Master Plan, and Planning Commissions to work out a satisfactory plan that the church and City are comfortable with. The Brightmoor Christian Church has reached an agreement to sell the property to a developer by the name of Lautrec that calls for a RM-1 zoning, which maximizes the best use for the property in relation to the surrounding area. They gave them a copy of the development agreement that was reached between the City and Ericson, for the senior’s development next door, and they advised the church to proceed with the plan that had been worked in conjunction with them and asked for a development agreement. At their last meeting with them they gave them a unanimous approval to go in this direction. The church is very excited that they have reached this point after five years of detailed work and knowing they have the endorsement of the Planning

Department makes them comfortable and looks forward to Council’s approval to proceed with the development agreement. Mr. Jim Galbraith, was present for questions, as a representative of Lautrec, the company purchasing the property. Member Csordas advised Council that the insurance company he works for provides health care insurance for Lautrec. Mr. Galbraith stated Lautrec is a property management company; he is a principal of PT Commerce LLC, which operates under

Lautrec and is the purchaser. PT Commerce is a single purpose LLC that would be developing the property. Lautrec is a service company and would not have an ownership interest in this development. Mr. Fisher asked if the project is successful, and the LLC moves forward, would any profits flow through to Lautrec. Mr. Galbraith does not anticipate that to be the case but certain principals of Lautrec might benefit. Mr. Fisher does not see conflicts assuming those statements are fully accurate. Mr. Galbraith stated they had entered into a purchase agreement with Brightmoor Church in the middle of the summer of 2002. They have been engaged as the contract purchaser of the residual 60 acres on the north end of the site. They have had a number of meetings with the Master Plan and Zoning committees, which resulted in a recommendation that the Master Plan be amended to allow for multi-family development with a cap on the number of multi-family units to be 200 units. It is their intention to develop this parcel as a condominium owner occupied development of duplex ranch condominiums similar to the development at the southwest corner of Maple and Welch Roads known as Oakwood Pointe, in Commerce Township. As part of this process they developed a very conceptual plan for the deliberation of that subcommittee of the Planning Commission. It had been further discussed that the Multi-family zoning would provide for many more units than they desired to build on this site. They felt a more appropriate approach would be to enter into a development agreement, proposing their willingness to negotiate with the City to pursue a limit on the parcel to 200 units situated in 100 buildings. It would be only 100 buildings because they are duplex ranch condominiums. The Planning Commission, on the petition of Brightmoor Church, held a hearing to amend the Master Plan, and voted to amend it to reflect this designation with a density limitation. Recently they held a Public Hearing to change the Zoning to RM-1 and have passed this on to the City Council with a recommendation to rezone the property subject to a development agreement. Mr. Galbraith stated he was available to answer any questions Council may have with the hope that they will give them a direction to work with and the appropriate professionals to work out a possible development agreement for Council’s consideration.

Member Lorenzo stated she felt the Council was at a loss since they did not have the minutes from the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meetings from July through September. She had requested them previously and was able to review them. Her biggest concern about the rezoning and the density increase being requested is the extent of it. Her question was what the legitimate and appropriate density for rezoning should be. She looked at the different land uses and also looked at the fact there are wetlands and woodlands buffering this piece from the Erickson development. Also that the property just north of the considered property is R-2 single family development and the south piece of property is the church. Member Lorenzo stated that churches are allowed in residential districts and there is an acknowledgment that churches are compatible with single family districts. When she looked at the plan she thought an R-2 might be appropriate, with the density of two homes per acre. She is not concerned with the type of housing but with the number of dwelling units, or density, on the property. The number of dwelling units on the property equals the ultimate population in Novi. The Council will need to budget more schools, fire fighters, police personnel, or parks based on the population. It is critical that Council examines the land use decisions based on those parameters. She stated that after reviewing the Master Plan and Zoning Board Minutes, she is concerned that the number of units has been inconsistent and jumped throughout the entire process. She commented it originally started out with 123 units under an RUD and it was decided that single family residential was appropriate given the land use to the west, which is Erickson. She is not sure if this is fact or speculation. She would like to know if there has been any impact on the value of the family homes to the north to show if Erickson is compatible with single family. She continued commenting about the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting minutes, there were representations made after discussing the 123 units, the Reverend stated that due to the lay of the land, the maximum number of units that could be constructed would be 190 units. Previous to that Mr. Siegal, of Siegal, Toumaala and Associates presented that the product being considered at the time was 187 units with a committed 50 units for senior citizen housing. Her concern now is first they discussed 123 units, then 187 units and now it is now 200 units with none committed exclusively to senior citizen housing. The concern now is do we have to educate more children, are there going to be more daily trips, traffic generated in and out of the complex; senior citizen traffic is generally much lower. Member Lorenzo stated she would be willing to commit to 187 units if 50 units were dedicated to senior citizen housing. If this is the only alternative being presented to this Council she would not support it.

Member Lorenzo said she was not pleased with the way this has proceeded through the Planning Department. In reading through the information from the Master Planning and Zoning Committee meeting from the staff and reading through the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings both for the Master Plan amendment and for the rezoning she came away questioning whether our Planning Department and staff is working for and getting a paycheck from and representing the City of Novi or the applicants.

Mayor Clark called for a point of order. He stated whether we receive a report or recommendation from the Planning Department that Council may disagree with, it does a great disservice to the City employees when it is implied or suggested that they are on someone else’s payroll other than the City of Novi. Member Lorenzo said she would clarify that they are definitely being paid by the City of Novi. She did not mean to infer that that was the case in terms of where the paychecks are coming from. They are coming from the City of Novi and that was her concern because we are paying the staff here and she expected the staff to represent the best interests of the City. A report had been received by Council that evening, after she questioned why the Planning, Master Plan, Zoning Commissions had not received any other alternatives for this piece of property, one being R-2. Also she asked why the OST property immediately to the east, across from M-5, had not been discussed. She asked why the staff had given them information that stated "the developer associated with this project had expressed that they will be developing this site with two family units". This has not been decided yet, Council is the body that makes the ultimate decision. She reminded applicants and developers that because Planning makes a positive recommendation it does not mean that Council will agree with them. Her recommendation for the future, was that a policy be developed for development agreements, this is a new item that has developed over the last few months. She also suggested that any time staff, or a department considers a development agreement, it should come to Council first to see if there is interest before it gets to this stage. She does not like misrepresentations, be it on the part of the applicant, staff, or Council; she does not want to mislead anyone. She stated she is not questioning the applicant’s quality development or intentions, but what are the best interests for the City of Novi.

Member Csordas stated he appreciated the efforts of the Planning Commission and Department and he agreed with their recommendation. The recommendation seems to be a very even handed response to what appears to be a long effort. He asked, regarding the 62 ½ acres, how much open space remains after build out. Mr. Galbraith stated he is aware of the extensive woodland and wetland area on the site and at the conceptual stage have developed a plan that reflects this but at this time he cannot give an accurate acreage and will not estimate what it is other than it will be quite substantial. He gave as clarification it will be 100 buildings and 200 dwelling units.

Member Csordas stated he looked at the proposed residential community and it appears that the intent is what the City continues to look for. Cluster the homes, cluster the dwelling units and leave more open space if possible and park area; there is a proposed gazebo and park area but what actually is built could be different. He commented that this Council is very cautious in signing any agreements, because they want to make sure that everything is straight forward and people, on both sides, know what is going on. The concept shown is attractive and a good use of the land. He asked, on page 2 of 6, the planning review letter the second bullet item says RM-1 zoning with an attached development agreement limiting the density to 3.25 units per acre, and then another paper, titled, Rezoning request from RA etc, dated February 11, 2003, states 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Galbraith believes it is 3.25. He stated his company has been in this business for thirty-five years and recognizes the final decision rests with the City Council. This is a process they have been involved with and it is an evolving process through the various sub-committees and various recommending bodies. Some advice was given that suggested that it may be reasonable and appropriate to do a development agreement, they are not presuming that it may happen. The proposal that is on the table is a cap on the number of dwelling units. The material given to Council may have contained an arithmetical error. Member Csordas stated that if the development was built as proposed, it would be an excellent addition to the City. He stated what he did like was the property going back to taxable land and would address Member Lorenzo’s issues of paying for the services that would be required. He also stated they would be owner occupied and detached condominium units. He emphasized that he understood these to be conceptual and they would not be approving site plans. He would support it as proposed because it is attractive and looks to save a lot of open space with a proposed retention area. Mr. Galbraith commented that given the opportunity to work with staff they could be in a position, if the need arises, to work out a better plan that would be more respective of the wetland and woodland areas on the site. Member Csordas asked about a quasi-neighborhood park, north of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Galbraith stated he believed it to be the natural wetland area at the south end of Haverhill, with some of their wetland and open space contiguous to it as is some of the property on the Erickson piece. Member Csordas stated the Council is willing to look at the proposed development agreement and want to work with people who find the City attractive enough to develop it. His intent is to have the document be very simple. The developer would have to bring the agreement to the city if that is what they decided. Mr. Galbraith replied his company is prepared to do that if that is the desire of the Council and they would work with Mr. Fisher’s office to that end. Member Csordas asked if there was not any business agreement in place,

how many dwelling units per acre would be allowed if this was rezoned to RM-1. Mr. Evancoe, Planning Director, stated there could be eight dwelling units per acre. Member Csordas stated that would be too much and that would be a concern of a rezoning in that area. Mr. Galbraith stated that is a concern of theirs as well and it is what led them down the path of limiting the property to the 200 units. Member Csordas stated he would be open to an agreement with severe oversight by Mr. Fisher and Council.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated she had no problem with the rezoning but was concerned with the unclear statement of what they wish to achieve as a result of entertaining a development agreement. She also stated they have no policy for development agreements; hopefully they can address this at the March 8, 2003, Council meeting.

However, if you are talking about different bodies of this house instigating a policy that has not been approved by Council, and when it comes back to Council with no input from them, it is a done deal. She noted that there is a great deal of time, effort, commitment, and dollars coming to this end, and there is no end. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi also stated we seem to be wending our way into hybrids of our system. One of the things that she noted that evening was a Member of Council who stated they had a potential conflict, if the zoning application had been included with the paperwork he would have been able to see who the principals involved are. Also she stated the infrastructure requirements that need to be met in order for them to accomplish a rezoning were they to look at an academic rezoning, were not included. She referred specifically to the regular Planning Commission Meeting minutes, dated December 4, 2002, page 25; item 4; when a member of the Planning Department suggested that the "sewer lines are in the process of being built" i.e. they do not exist. One of the main requirements of constituting a rezoning in the planning profession is to not only infer but to state whether the infrastructure that is required to serve what you are planning to do is in place and all of the items of the infrastructure under contract, nothing like that is in this document. Normally when we have a straight rezoning we talk about land use issues only, with strong parameters about the areas we can discuss or that the applicant is supposed to discuss. When we bring a development agreement into the process, the scope of their discussion becomes greater, the academic discussion of the zoning change is no longer totally relevant if this Council is willing and desires to protect the interests of the community. When they discuss development agreements, they have pros and cons, some of the pros are that they can lock in density, preserve wetlands and woodlands, and entertain other conditions of approval. Some of the negatives, as she sees them, are the process for negotiating is out of the public view, unknown costs that may have already been apportioned to the citizens of the community as they do not have a schedule of fees wherein they can apportion costs to applicants and City as are appropriate. She also has concerns with development agreements as, disputes down the road, entangling alliances; the hair of the dog that bit them, nothing more need be said. How that process would actually work has been determined by others, she is not sure what that process is. If they are discussing a rezoning wherein they specify how many of the units are going to be predicated to senior housing because that puts a decidedly different color on usages and costs for emergency services; if they are going to entertain a development agreement, that needs to be spelled out now. She could not support an agreement that did not do that. She also would have to know whether or not the streets being proposed will be built to city standards and publicly maintained. Normally in a rezoning she would not have to know nor the right to ask. This is a complicated matter that is not addressed formally in Council’s process; those questions would have to be answered for her to move forward. She further stated that a development agreement with very strict parameters would refer only to three items; density, preservation and habitat issues. If it is not dedicated to seniors, she would also have a concern with that as well. The numbers that the traffic engineer has given regarding trips per day are considerable.

Member Sanghvi stated he is amenable to the rezoning idea as such. The whole process of development, including that of life, is an evolving process and we have to be prepared to move with the times and change and adapt as needed. He asked why we need to rezone the RA. In looking at what kind of property this is, with the wetlands, woodlands, the church nearby, and all of the other developments they are aware of; he is unclear as to why RA is not adequate. He stated he wondered what would happen if they have RM-1 Zoning; he referred to January 24, 2003, page 5 and 6, of the Planning review rezoning request and he spoke of a minimum lot sizes RA and RM. He continued with the dwelling unit density, 0.8 dwelling units per acre, with a second being 8.02 and a third one 4.8. You can conclude the RM-1 zoning is probably six times more than proposed. Member Sanghvi then referred to setback issues, which is stated that under most circumstances setbacks on all sides shall not be less than 75 feet. There are special issues involved here in all of these things. He continued with page 6 from the minutes which talked about the infrastructure concerns and the public water and sanitary sewer being available along Thirteen Mile Road. Another concern is that Thirteen Mile Road is maintained by the City and Master Planned to be a five lane road, but we do not know when or how it will be financed. One other possibility that he mentioned was what if the developer decided to sell the property to someone else after it is rezoned. Member Sanghvi stated there all kinds of questions with no answers being given at this time. In principal he has no problem with the rezoning, but would like more information before making up his mind.

Mayor Clark noted he did not have a problem with the rezoning, which is all that is before them. His opinion was that Council did not have to micro manage every project, or simply take a position that they do not like something because it may disagree with their view of a particular project given the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. This has been discussed on numerous occasions; it is well known in this community that what is proposed here is a residential community of owner occupied condominiums. If you look at a market analysis, you will find that most of the condominium developments are not occupied by families with multiple children. They usually are older couples. They have heard in the past from Reverend Ratz that many members of his congregation are looking forward to this project being developed so they can move there to be close to their church. He stated that he could not think of a better fit or more positive aspect for this community than to have this developed as indicated. He noted that only a few weeks ago, the people at the Council table were all for development agreements. It was a vehicle to control more rigorously the developments of certain projects in this City. If a development agreement were worked on by the developer and Council for the City, it is not out of the public view as it comes back before Council to be debated in the open. Part of any development agreement will deal with issues such as water, sewer capacity, and the impact that it may have. Mayor Clark commented 200 units would not bother him and just as the Erickson development will not be a big burden on roads or the school system, neither will this. He cautioned this Council to be very careful about how exclusive we become or think we are in this community. As a practical matter condominiums are usually going to be populated by seniors, empty nesters, widow/widowers or people down sizing and looking for a simpler lifestyle. He believes this is what would be found if the property was developed as proposed and be a plus to the community and would support it 100%. He also reminded Council they also have the additional vehicle that if a development agreement is worked on, it still has to come back to Council.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated that in order to give the applicants the opportunity to come forward with some of the information that has been requested from members of Council, she is prepared to move to offer to table this matter until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. She also requested her fellow Council persons ask the City Manager and Clerk to give this matter precedence with regard to establishing the following pieces of information to be added to what had been previously provided. The first item would be a density maximum that is proposed, 2.) age designated ownership if you are proposing any, by percentage of total units, 3.) that infrastructure to serve the facility exists and has the capacity to serve the number of units proposed, 4.) the proposed or draft acreage of area that is proposed to be retained in perpetuity in the areas of wetlands and woodlands preservation, 5.) a simple draft of the number points that is wished to be included in the development agreement.

Mr. Galbraith stated that given the constructive discussion the motion to table is in order; this will give him a chance to come back and respond to the questions raised that evening.

CM-03-02-040 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Sanghvi; MOTION CARRIED: To table Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment 18.621, request from Brightmoor Christian Church, to rezone property located in Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile Road and west of M-5, from RA (Residential Acreage) to RM-1 (Low Density, Low Rise Multiple Family) or any other appropriate zoning. The subject property is 62.5 acres until the March 3, 2003, Regular Council Meeting.

Member Lorenzo asked for the addition of the acreages of wetlands and woodlands being preserved to be included. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated land area is a term she uses interchangeably with acreage. Mr. Galbraith stated they will give them the acreage two ways, graphically and in acreage computation.

Member Csordas asked the maker of the motion for a friendly amendment in reference to the age designated ownership, he asked that it be removed, he does not feel that he is interested in who the developer will sell the units to.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked for the age designation to determine whether or not the daily trips generated would remain the same and also whether or not the degree of City services with regard to emergency response care would be different. She did not suggest they would cement that, but if that is their intent, Council would at least have the ability to look at the statistics in regard to traffic and provision of emergency services. Member Csordas removed his request.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked if the engineering certification has been received for this. Ms. McClain stated it has not been received or asked for since this has been in the works, as far as acceptance documents, since September. She stated JCK notified her, after their inspections, that it had been built to City of Novi standards. Typically developers do not have a separate inspection for those facilities that are going to be public, they are inspected by JCK for the City of Novi. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated all the more reason; she commented that in past discussions Council had made it perfectly plain that Council would be looking for the engineering certificates. She stated in her way of thinking it does not make it any different from any other circumstance; she will be looking for an engineer’s certification. She did not think it was such a big deal and quite frankly if JCK inspected the building, they should be willing to provide an engineers certification. She will be looking for it.

Member Csordas stated the developer had agreed to leave $3000 on deposit with the City to cover the expense of the sidewalk, was it enough. Ms. McClain stated that is 200% of the projected cost.

Member Lorenzo stated her concern with regard to this project was that she did not see anything indicating the physical conditions of the streets. She wants to make very sure we do not have another situation like what is in Westmont Village. She also asked when we began getting Act 51 monies for these streets and when the last lot in the subdivision was completed and when the roads were paved. Ms. McClain stated we do not receive

Act 51 monies, at this time, for this subdivision. The condition survey; these streets were paved approximately 1-1/2 years ago, they are in excellent condition. There has been a walk through and a punch list; the only item the developer had to clear was debris off catch basins that had collected over the winter. Ms. McClain corrected her statement to paving being done 2-1/2 years ago. Residents were notified of the intent to accept the streets and no responses have been received. Member Lorenzo asked if there are any drainage issues. Ms. McClain stated there are no problems reported and none viewed in the walk-through.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated she received a call about Lilly Pond Drive as it connects to South Lake Drive, that it consistently has a standing pond when it rains, nearly as wide as the street. She has also been told there are no catch basins in this area, and is concerned that this will be approved without the problem being remedied. Ms. McClain said there is a catch basin at the intersection of Lilly Trail and South Lake Drive, it may have had some flooding problems, and has not been reported to the staff engineers, she will also have this checked to see if there is a problem. She continued stating that this is one of the few areas along South Lake Drive that has drainage and it could have been plugged. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked about notifications in 2001 with no response, why has it taken until now to get here. Ms. McClain noted one of the reasons it has taken this long is the title work and the bill of sale being put together; they received the bill of sale in October, the final walk through was done after that, and was waiting for space on an Agenda. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi is also looking for the engineer’s certification on this. She also stated from the stand point of Council’s tradition in accepting streets, they do not accept streets that have items that are outstanding and she is not interested as a Council person in having the valuable hours of City staff spent building sidewalks on behalf of developers who find it easy to walk away from a $5000 performance bond. She would appreciate having outstanding items brought to closure before they come to Council. Ms. McClain stated in regards to the sidewalk it had been discussed as long ago as 1-1/2 years ago whether or not to have the sidewalk put in at that point, they had assumed that South Lake Drive would be under construction by now. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked to not have a time lag like this with regard to future street acceptances. She stated from April 2001 is a long period of time, not to mention the fact there could have been observations and problems that have ensued during this time that these persons have not had an opportunity to comment on until the meeting that evening. She also suggested that the Ordinance

Committee, through Mr. Fisher, can help with either an ordinance or policy to address these reductions of a performance bond. Ms. McClain stated the engineers are working on cleaning up a lot of the ones that have not been through the acceptance process and reducing the financial guarantees that are outstanding and having the developers do what they need to do in order to clean them up.

Mr. Fisher clarified on the Lilley Pond Subdivision the motion did not indicate the engineering certificate being a condition, and asked if this is part of the motion. Member Csordas agreed to have the engineer’s certificate as part of the motion.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked to have the engineer’s certificate added to this motion as well. Member Lorenzo asked if it could be a permanent part of these types of motions.

5. Acceptance of streets and utilities in Beckenham Subdivision and adoption of Act 51 New Street Acceptance Resolution.

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked if there had been notification sent to this subdivision. Ms. McClain replied there had been on January 14, 2002, with one response in July, the respondent did not wish to have the sidewalk abutting their property completed. The sidewalk turns and crosses the street in the middle of their property and did not wish to have the dead-end portion to the edge of the property which led no where.

Member Csordas asked why the City considered using the money for issues other than the use of landscape. Mr. Helwig stated that Mr. Klaver has been working with the neighborhood group and there is the recognition of a short fall in other categories, basically roads. Member Csordas stated he preferred to keep the funds to be used for the purpose for which they were designated.

Member Lorenzo stated there was an e-mail that said there had been an inspection performed on the roads and the estimated cost to complete the repairs was $28,800. She had asked when the inspection was done and by whom. Mr. Helwig stated Mr. Pearson and Ms. McClain have the information. Member Lorenzo asked if the $28,800 was from 2000. Ms. McClain replied the money was from 2001, with a 5% increase per year. The inspection was done in mid May, 2001 by JCK and they wrote a letter outlining what the repairs would need to be and the costs were at $28,500. Member Lorenzo stated we can now look at a 10% increase for this year. She also thought the money should be used for priorities. She wanted the residents to be aware that funds would not be available for the roads as the funds are short. Mr. Vanderhoof, Treasurer of Yerkes Manor Subdivision Association, acknowledged they did the landscaping because it was a performance bond strictly for landscaping. Member Lorenzo wanted to make sure that the Homeowners are aware that the City is short for the roads. The Council will not be able to commit to the subdivision when the roads will be repaired; it will depend on City finances and the budget. Mr. Vanderhoof replied the money that they are in the process of releasing was actually set aside as a bond for actual landscaping. Member Lorenzo explained that if the subdivision had thought the road improvements were more important to be completed, they may have considered waiting on the landscape. She stated that since $20,000 is left with the funds, there is not enough left to do the road repairs without additional tax dollars.

Member Lorenzo asked where the public safety committee "would be going". She stated it has not been very long since we had the Fire/EMS Task Force and also have had numerous reports from Chief Shaeffer regarding staffing levels, and numerous committees throughout the years. She said her goal would be to have that committee report back to Council by budget discussion time. This is when they need recommendations as to how they are going to attain the levels they wish to attain. She hoped this would not be a duplication of the work done by Member Csordas and others not too long ago. Member Csordas replied the committee would be focusing on Police staffing and needs and would be available for the 2004 Budget. Member Lorenzo stated that the numbers would not change with another study being done. She felt the Council needs to determine, based on the recommendations previously made and the standards offered by various organizations, what if any of those standards they will use. Member Csordas agreed that she was correct. Member Lorenzo stated she would like to take action, they just need to ask for the information to be accumulated; they do not need a committee studying things that have already been studied. Mayor Clark replied this is a long term goal; they can request the information and then determine if they need a committee. Member Csordas felt it would be a short term committee, about eighteen months. Member Lorenzo did not think they needed eighteen months to do this, the information is there. Mayor Clark suggested that Mr. Helwig and Chief Shaeffer put the information together and bring it to Council. Mr. Helwig suggested changing the wording to Formulate goals for Police and Fire staffing level of service. He first would

like to review all of the information and present it to Council for discussion they then have the option to form a study committee. Member Csordas recommended a very small, streamlined, action oriented committee.

9. Discussion of Ordinance Requiring the Payment of Monies to Reimburse the City for Review Fees.

Mr. Fisher stated this item had appeared before Council briefly sometime ago and has made a trip to and through the Ordinance Review Committee on an expedited basis. The policy question before Council is making provision for the payment of review fees by those individuals and entities that stand to benefit by the process of the application and approval process. This ordinance contemplates that a resolution would be adopted for fees for various types’ projects and applications. There would be a general provision for an unanticipated fee for a particular project that had been over or under estimated. If Council does see fit to move forward with this ordinance, a first reading would be appropriate accompanied by a direction to the administration to develop a resolution that contains the proposed fees and the ordinance and resolution would be brought back for final approval and adoption of the resolution.

To Approve the Ordinance Requiring the Payment of Monies to Reimburse the City for Review Fees. 1^st Reading

Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated that at the last Ordinance Review Committee meeting it was discussed; those minutes are not attached, the discussion left it that it was to be determined by legal counsel whether or not it would be most appropriate and effective to have this follow an ordinance or a stated policy. Mr. Fisher stated there must be an ordinance to have this work. Member Lorenzo commented she saw items she brought up regarding applicants without sufficient funds that must have supporting documentation and also there was not an option of going to escrow for the fee; the only thing was if they do not have specific fees, they can than put in escrow monies based on the approximate cost and be reimbursed in full.

Mayor Clark asked if this would be covered in the resolution. Mr. Fisher replied it would be.

Member Csordas asked if it would be easier to set a fee per hour rather than a fee schedule. Mr. Fisher stated an estimate would have to be made in each and every case of how much we are going to collect from a particular applicant. This would add a step to every process and five people an opportunity to disagree in every process. There is a provision for an applicant to appeal if they think they are being treated unfairly.

Mr. Fisher stated the section is a deletion for clarification.

Member Lorenzo noted she was concerned with the sanitary sewer and the water main improvements. She stated an e-mail given to Council indicated that the 16-inch water main needs replacement because of conflicts with the storm and catch basins and it is being replaced with a 24-inch at the additional cost of $280,000. She quoted from the contract that Part A, State participation includes drainage improvements, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and the traffic signal; 12-inch water main and 16-inch water main work. She is concerned that we are asking the taxpayers of Novi to foot the bill of $280,000 to increase the size of the water main. She asked why. Clay Pearson, Assistant City Manager said the widening project required relocation of the water main. Just as any other utility is required to move their facilities out of the way of a public improvement the City is required to relocate our water mains. As part of the relocation, the entire cost is the $280,000 not the cost of the upsizing. Because we are relocating, it is the perfect opportunity to upsize it and provide a second feed to the entire western section of the City, existing residential, commercial, all of the people that are connected to the water system. This 24-inch pipe will connect into the 24-inch pipe coming under I-96. Member Lorenzo asked who this directly benefits. Mr. Pearson replied it benefits everyone in the community. Member Lorenzo asked Ms. McClain how that occurs. Ms. McClain stated the new water main at West Park Drive is connecting at Commerce Township and we will bring forward one of the projects in the Capital Improvements Plan, which is to connect that water main underneath I-96 and connect into Grand River Avenue. By replacing the 16-inch with the 24-inch, we allow for that connection to be made. One of the goals just passed was to address the water pressure problems in the City. This is one of the steps in addressing the water pressure problems because it will give us a main feed on the west side of the City, so that along the west side of the City we will have the pressure for homes and fire safety. Currently as people connect to the water and create more demand on the system, whether or not we build additional water mains, we have an existing water pressure problem that needs to be addressed. Member Lorenzo replied that sounds reasonable as it is explained. She asked if the State will only pay for replacing the current 16-inch size. Mr. Pearson replied the State is not paying for any of this. Member Lorenzo asked what the State is referring to in the contract. Ms. McClain responded the State will pay for some of the hydrant relocations; they will not pay for a main line to be moved. They will only pay for the hydrant relocations if we are to leave the line where it is and extend the hydrant back, that is the 16 and 12-inch work they would pay.

Mayor Pro-Tem asked about the lateness of this coming to Council considering the imminence of this. Mr. Helwig stated the City Council has approved the local participation some time ago. The State insisted now that they have a specific contract, and are ready to start work, they asked for this agreement to come back to the City Council. The amount that it is coming in at is much lower than originally anticipated. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi asked if this item was specifically budgeted or budgeted within the total number that was being set aside from the 2000 Road Bond. Mr. Helwig replied it was budgeted at $4,250,000 and was a line item included in the November 2000 Road Bond. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated a specific size increase and relocation was not specified in that budget item. Ms. McClain responded that was looked at under water and sewer, however we do not budget line item projects in the water and sewer fund, Ms. Smith-Roy would have the explanation as to why we do not do separate line items. It has been anticipated that the money would be in the water and sewer fund to handle this change. Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi stated that maybe we could be looking at this in a little more detail at budget time, because she sees line items in her budget all the time as it helps eliminate surprises. Her second question was with regard to the ambiguous, amorphous and esoteric water pressure solutions that we seem to have every time subjects like this come up. She asked by how much significantly will the water pressure increase. The water pressure problem for her is a very serious one; and if we are going to say the water pressure is going to be ameliorated or improved, she prefers to hear some quantitative discussion how each one of these things are going to improve the water pressure. We do not seem to be, with the exception of one project, curtailing any kind of development as a result of that. These two things go hand in hand. In the future she would like to hear when we are claiming that water pressure is going to be improved, how much it is going to be improved.

Ms McClain stated the draft water study is undergoing changes. They do plan within the next month or two to have the final water study and being able to bring it forward. This should answer many of Council’s questions. Member Lorenzo expected to hear about why this particular project will enhance the water pressure when the final water study comes forward.

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

Member Lorenzo commented that in view of the responses received and the comments at the public hearing that evening, she feels it would be premature to approve this resolution. She believes the residents need to understand the process more. She explained this is the resident’s process, it is up to them whether or not they want to do the Special Assessment District, based upon participation of 50%. As one of the residents mentioned she is not sure if this was a formal petition for a SAD. If this was simply a "how much will this cost us", that has been accomplished. By her calculations they have six yes’s and six no’s and four/five people who have not responded. She did not feel that any more staff time should be spent until a definitive answer on whether the residents wish to move forward with this. Mayor Clark suggested they do what they have on a prior SAD by sending out a formal document and give all of the potential properties affected a specific time period to tell Council whether they support or they oppose going forward with this request. Member Lorenzo stated without further information from the residents, she feels this is a waste of staff time and tax dollars. Mayor Clark asked if this should be tabled based on the responses received and send notices to those who have not responded. Member Lorenzo stated her concern was if the process used for the petition is legitimate. Mr. Helwig suggested that he will work with the Clerk’s office to send a card for responses and another copy of the SAD process booklet to all seventeen households. Member Lorenzo asked to have the City Attorney review the petition to see if it was legitimate. Mr. Fisher stated his impression is that it was not so much the form of the petition but what was stated in connection with or to inducing the signing of the petition. He stated he will review the wording on the petition.

Member Csordas commented that the booklet outlines the percentage of SEV property owners that need to sign. This should be clear to the homeowners.

Member Sanghvi stated maybe they should also send more detailed expense figures, so the residents know the real cost instead of ball park figures.

Paul Weindorf, 1641 West Lake Drive, spoke about the new SAD 168 and SAD 169 resolutions for water and paving of West Lake Drive. He stated it was not very clear from the documents that he reviewed where exactly the proposed water mains are and what streets are included. In reading of the paperwork it talks about West Lake Drive, he is not on the list of people in the proposed SAD, he wants to make sure there will not be a water main going through his property again because of the loop of the condominiums and the paving does not come near his tree. Mayor Clark suggested he meet with Ms. McClain to go over his concerns and provide him with the necessary information.

Wayne Hogan, commented about the snow removal and had read that the change only speaks about the removal being done within so many hours of the snow fall. The language did not indicate in words who should be able to get through the snow and what is left of the snow, and where the snow is supposed to be put or that is should be removed from the handicapped parking spaces instead of being dumped in the handicapped parking spaces. It also does not indicate that the ramps should be cleared, it seems like it would be common sense, but that is not the reality. Mr. Hogan asked that someone look at that. Another issue he has is in regard to the meetings in the City, there was no one location to retrieve dates of meetings. There is no one person to give him information. He is also concerned about meetings being moved different locations or being cancelled.

Mayor Clark seeing no further business before the Council adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m.

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Date Approved: March 17, 2003