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

ALSO PRESENT: Rick Helwig – City Manager

Clay Pearson – Assistant City Manager

Craig Klaver – Chief Operating Officer

Gerald Fisher – City Attorney

Nancy McClain – City Engineer

Rod Arroyo – Traffic Consultant

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Member Landry stated he and Member Capello and Mayor Pro Tem Bononi had formed an Ad Hoc Committee to work on the Gateway East District proposed zoning ordinance. They have come up with a proposed ordinance and since it is drastically different from the pre-existing ordinance that Council considered last spring, they consulted City Attorney, Gerald Fisher and he advised them that another public hearing should be held.

Member Lorenzo arrived at 7:37 p.m.

Nays: None

Mayor Clark read the proclamation declaring April 25^th through May 4^th as "White Cane Week" and presented it to members of the Novi Lions Club and commended them for the outstanding job they have done.

Mayor Clark read the proclamation declaring April 27th through May 4^th as Holocaust "Days of Remembrance" in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, and in honor of the survivors, as well as the rescuers and liberators.

Mayor Clark read the proclamation declaring April 26^th as Arbor Day.

No public comment

No public comment

Mr. Fisher asked that it be clarified whether there were any objections by letter to either SAD. Ms. Cornelius said no objections had been received.

Mr. Helwig said he had worked with Mayor Clark on the letter included in Council packets last week that went to Governor Granholm regarding the status of our Beck Road I-96 interchange restoration project. There will be opportunities for us to testify, as early as Thursday this week, before the State Transportation Commission.

Representative DeRoche said the Beck Road Interchange is clearly the number 1 issue for the City. The school district has a number of issues they would consider a high priority as well with funding. State Representative DeRoche advised Council that he is on the Transportation Committee in the House and he will be able to have an affect on the policy that is being set. He said representations have been made from the local level all the way up to Congress and now the Governor has put the project on hold. The fastest way to get this done is for the Governor and MDOT to change their minds. There are legislative things that can be done but the odds of any legislative activity putting it back on line this year would be small. As he looked at where the road projects are at in

the process, the safety issues regarding the road projects of all the 34 that were taken off line, he thought there was a very strong case that Beck Road is the closest thing to a

mistake that might have been made. Several years ago the decision was made not to fix that road because it was going to be rebuilt. Now we have a road that when you drive underneath it, you’ll see the plywood that’s in place to keep the concrete from hitting cars. There is not a smooth piece of surface left on the bridge, it is filled with potholes and is rusted out on the sides. If there is any project that should be reconsidered, it is Beck Road. He said he has been working with leadership of the House and Senator Cassis has been working with her leadership and they are aware of how high a priority this is for our community and they are willing to help get the Governor to reconsider this. Representative DeRoche noted he briefed the School Board on the shifts in funding formulas to the detriment of the Novi, Northville and Walled Lake Schools. He said currently the Governor and leadership of the House and the Senate are not talking about going after Revenue Sharing to balance this budget, yet. It has not been discussed in his caucus room in three or four months and that is heartening. The other issue is the DARTA busing. The Governor has made it a priority and he personally, with Representative Drolet out of Macomb County, wrote the amendment that allowed for Novi and three contiguous municipalities to opt out of any mass transit system contemplated by the Detroit Area Regional Transit Authority. Novi has opted out in the past and he wanted the community to have the opportunity to opt out in the future. They are trying to get that opt out provision taken out of the legislation. He thought it might include talks of what’s more important Beck Rd and Wixom Rd., or being able to have Smart Buses. It is a real intense time politically.

Member Lorenzo said she had spoken with Senator Cassis and she said in addition to the Mayor’s letter to the Governor, it also would be advisable for the Council to send a resolution to reinforce our position and asked if Representative DeRoche concurred. He said he wouldn’t tell the Council what was in their best interest. He said he received the letter and it was very well worded and very appropriate and he appreciated it and it does help. He noted Wixom has started the process to adopt a resolution for the record and his office is working on language for that resolution. He offered to make it available for the Council to consider but that would be up to Council to consider what is best. He said his understanding is that Providence Hospital’s letter is being received and Ford Motor Co. and General Motors have both supported the position and offered their assistance. Member Lorenzo asked for Mr. Helwig to prepare a resolution for the next packet.

Mr. Fisher said several weeks ago there was a conceptual approval of a rezoning for Singh on property situated between 12 Oaks Mall and Meadowbrook Rd. From the time Council acted until now Singh, had requested a 90 day extension and it is running out this week. Singh has indicated that they are running into complications and would appreciate another 60-day extension. It is really a delay to them than anything. Mayor Clark stated this was the proposal to work on a development agreement with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher stated they are working on some of the commitments made the evening of the hearing that are incorporated in the development agreement.

Member Landry said he was not in favor of this rezoning and in fact had voted against it. However, he was out voted and it was the position of the majority of the Council to allow the rezoning. If this Development Agreement is to limit the uses they can make of the property, he would support the motion.

Diane Stepinski, 233 Bernstadt, thanked Clay Pearson for his help with storm damage from fallen limbs. She spoke about the South Lake Drive construction project. There were a couple of things that puzzled her and one was when they had a Road Committee about South Lake Dr. in 2001. They took 6 weeks and went over and over paperwork. They got a lot of paperwork back and she felt that nothing was really resolved. There were a lot of questionable things about what to do with traffic halting, reducing traffic and speed, etc. She did not get a satisfactory answer. Then in 2002, they had another meeting and Mr. Pearson headed it with the engineer. The majority of the people said they wanted it done like East Lake Drive. She felt there were added items such as storm drains, curbs, greenbelt, a change in bike path, etc. and she wondered if it had been approved. A survey was sent out and she responded but never heard the results. She said she assumed that the 125 people surveyed wanted the East Lake Drive layout but apparently the Council wasn’t listening to that, so they are going to go with something new. She is now hearing that bids are being taken and she thought as a private citizen who volunteered 6 weeks, she should have received a final report regarding what Council was going to do because the people wanted it.

Margaret Beller, 1235 South Lake Dr., stated her concerns about the South Lake Drive reconstruction plan. Ms. Beller said the first time they saw this plan for her section, between Henning and Buffington, they said they had forgotten to bring that section. The second time they’d lost it and the third time they couldn’t find it. Last summer there was a meeting at the pavilion at Lake Shore and it was a fiasco. She felt Mr. Pearson was very vague when answering people who had valid questions. She understood "I don’t know" but she didn’t get that and felt she was really made to feel like she was foolish. She didn’t see the plan that day and doesn’t ever remember seeing it. Her husband contacted Ms. McClain and she was going to let them know if there would be any meetings and they never received anything from her. She noted there wasn’t anything written about the width of the bike path on the comment cards. They returned the cards knowing the way it was worded that it didn’t matter

and it would not change it because the card was set up to represent what they wanted and not what the residents wanted. While reading the newspaper, it was discovered that instead of going from West Park to Lilly Pond, it would go from West Park to Henning, it would have a curb, 20 foot of green belt and an 8 foot wide bike path. She understood that the City had the ROW through her front yard but an 8-foot bike path appalled her. Immediately they called Ms. McClain and she told them to get a petition going and have it signed by her neighbors, Ms. McClain wrote down what should be on their petition, and they returned it to her the following Monday and she said she would notify them if they needed to attend the Council meeting and they have never heard from her since. The only person she hears from is Mr. Pearson. Her husband came in to find out what was going on and was told that the petition was lost. So he submitted another one and requested a meeting with Ms. McClain because she seemed to understand what they wanted. They held an on site meeting with Mr. Pearson and Brian Coburn and she was told it was a done deal. They had the ROW, they only got 125 responses and the majority wanted this plan. There are only 12 homes impacted by this and she had a petition signed by four people that said they didn’t want it and he told us that he had been directed by Council to use up all of the ROW where possible. Her husband pointed out that the house on the corner of Henning and South Lake Drive would have the same setback they did and he told them that wasn’t part of the plan. She said all they wanted in their petition was to be included with the east side of the plan where the path was in the street side. Ms. Beller said since she was getting nowhere, she called Mayor Pro Tem Bononi last Thursday and she was so gracious and listened to everything she had to say and she offered to see what was being done with this petition. Ms. Beller called Ms. McClain on Thursday and was told she was on vacation and two minutes later Mr. Pearson called and said he and Ms. McClain had been talking about a compromise and was in Mr. Pearson’s office. The compromise was they would put in the curb, five feet of green and an 8-foot bike path. She asked for an example of an 8 foot bike path in front of a residence in Novi and Ms. McClain said Meadowbrook between 8 and 9 Mile. Ms. Beller said it is behind residences and it fed off the street. Ms. Beller and her husband have driven around Novi for three weeks and have not yet found an 8 foot bike path in front of anybody’s home. She thought Mr. Pearson told her that that section in front was not her residence because he said it wasn’t residential. She pleaded with Council not to put an 8 foot bike path in front of four homes and ruin their view. She recognized that the movement of the bike path closer to the road was an improvement.

Stan Williams, 43635 Cottisford, came to talk about the creek behind his home and asked what was happening regarding the Dunbarton Retention basin Council was considering to help restrain the floodwaters from flooding the back of the property during the spring rain? He said his property hasn’t flooded recently because it has been drier, but he recalled that one of the families across the creek from him spent most of the summer filling in an area with dirt because flooding had washed the property away. One year his next-door neighbor spent about a month building up a peninsula on his property with boulders and dirt to keep his property from flooding out. Mr. Williams said one year he actually installed broken concrete in the area of the creek to keep floodwaters from eroding several hundred square feet of his property. His neighbor, Mr. McManus said the Dunbarton Retention basin had been taken off line about 10 years ago. He said he hoped this information helped Council make a decision to bring this issue back; he wanted Council to know from his perspective it would be nice if there was more control of the floodwaters so the water would stay inside the creek bed.

Dan Mahlmeister, 43421 Cottisford, noted Thornton Creek floods after it rains even with the new culverts. Over the last few years, they’ve lost some major trees to uprooting from saturated soil. He said anything that could be done upstream to hold water up from coming towards his home would be appreciated because the water flows over the back of the property and comes within 25 feet of the house and it stays there for awhile. He understood Council would be reviewing a proposal on Saturday regarding matching funds, which are not always easy to come by and he would hate to see those funds lost without being able to take advantage of them.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. April 7, 2003, Regular meeting

B. Approval of request from The Putting Edge, 44125 12 Mile Road, Space G-235 at Fountain Walk for an Arcade Business License with five machines.

C. Approval to award the quotation of $4,082.40 to Mueller, the sole source for the preventive maintenance program and parts for the Zamboni #2 at the Novi Ice Arena.

D. Approval of Special Assessment District Resolution Number 3 Pioneer Meadows Subdivision authorizing the preparation of final plans and final estimates of the construction costs; Revised Pioneer Meadows Subdivision SAD 162 Sanitary Sewer.

E. Approval of Special Assessment District Resolution Number 3 Pioneer Meadows Subdivision authorizing the preparation of final plans and final estimates of the construction costs: Revised Pioneer Meadows Subdivision SAD 163 Water Main.

F. Approval of Traffic Control Orders 03-01 through 03-05 for the installation of stop signs located within the Nottingham Woods and Pebble Ridge Estates Subdivisions.

G. Approval to purchase thirty two (32) sections of 2.5" fire hose from Apollo Fire Equipment, the low quotation, in the amount of $4,451 for Engines 2 and 3.

H. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 647.

Mr. Helwig commented that this project had been protracted, divisive and this has been a lengthy process. He chaired the Community Task Force in 2001 and the meetings were lively to say the least and at that time there was very serious commitment to community involvement in this process. A report was issued to Council in July 2001 and was heard by the Council. A web site was set up and cards were sent to solicit input and the most recent polling rendered 225 responses. He said following the review of those results and getting their thoughts on the

process on March 3^rd they chronicled those design parameters in a memo and we are back before Council seeking final approval for that design so it can go out to bid and award the construction engineering contract.

Mr. Helwig said listening to some of the points made tonight is where time is best spent. He said they decided on March 3^rd that there would be no traffic tables or raised intersections and they are not included in the design. They also approved in the major core along the lake the same treatment as East Lake Drive that Ms. Stepinski referred to and this would be that there’s only ROW enough for a dedicated bike way lane integrated and separated with the roadway by a painted line on the south side of the road. There is not enough ROW to do both sides. To facilitate the bio swales and the concern about storm water runoff, the bio swales and curbing on the north side with brakes was authorized so this water would have a chance to settle, be gathered and sediment pulled out before the water went back into the lake. That is the design in the core area along the lake abutting the residential areas. Mr. Helwig thought they were being true to the task force Ms. Stepinski served on which voted 12 to 4 for a narrow roadway, still two way and a separated walkway as much as possible. The response from the citizens in the 225 was split 50-50 and Council decided on March 3^rd to have the integrated roadway and the core. He said he appreciated Ms. Beller coming forward and apologized that there had been perceived or actual confrontations with staff. He commended his staff for wanting to meet on site and it is a practice his staff likes to follow through on and was not surprised there was divisiveness in this because there are people who have felt very strongly almost at polar ends about many features of the process over two years. We are committed to listening, trying to respond and work things out. Realizing there was a commitment to have a separated walkway as much as possible where ROW would permit and this is where there is ROW on the western portion of this project as it goes from the Beller residence all the way up to West Park Dr. it made a lot of sense to do what they suggested and that is to move the bike path closer to the roadway. He said they have moved it and the recommendation to Council is that they have moved it as close as the Construction Standards permit and that is 5 feet from the curb. It is a safety feature that certainly the police and the design standards recognize. We don’t have the ROW in the core to do anything like that so we have adopted the East Lake portion. As far as the width of the bike way, it is our practice where we have that separation, wherever possible, to have the 8 foot, which is the Federal standard for a bike way. He thought that was Council’s call through this section whether they want to have 5 feet running integrated along side the roadway opposite the lake. That 5 feet could be continued west until it went by the residential areas all the way to where it exists just east of Lilly Trail and then it would be 8 feet going up the hill to West Park Dr. He said, depending on Council’s action tonight and possible award of bid in June and what those bids are, they were excited about the potential to get this project completed this year. The roadway is deteriorating rapidly and the features that have been designed in terms of storm water control, pedestrian safety, the crossing for residents to their property on the opposite side, they felt was a real plus for the overall setting.

Member Lorenzo offered her apologies for the issues the residents had in this area with communications. She said if the residents wanted a five-foot bike path instead of an 8-foot bike path she would certainly support that. She asked Mr. Helwig if from West Park Dr. to Henning and from Lake Shore Park to Old Novi Road there’s a separation of 5 feet from the curb? Mr. Helwig said the area from Henning to Lake Shore Park is not separated, it is integrated just like East Lake Dr. They are recommending the separation because the ROW is

there of 5 feet in the area in front of Ms. Beller’s residence. Member Lorenzo said that was being recommended because the minimum standard should be 5 feet. He agreed. She asked if it was a mountable concrete curb? Mr. Helwig said in the core area on the north side where the only curb is, it is mountable. In the 75% it is a monument curb non-mountable. She asked why they were different? Ms. McClain said the mountable curb was being used along the lakeside so if the residents wish to access their property to put a boat over it, they could roll up and over the curb. It is the same mountable curb used in the neighborhood street program last year and replaced in Jamestown Green and on Galway. Member Lorenzo asked why they would use a non-mountable curb? Ms. McClain said the non-mountable curb is a safety curb and is being used mainly in those areas to the west along the frontage of Bristol Corners North and South where we don’t want people driving across it. Member Lorenzo asked if the City was maintaining only a 10-foot lane width in those areas where there are non-mountable curbs? Ms. McClain said yes, the difference between the curbs is actually the curb face. Member Lorenzo said she was concerned since the roadway is being narrowed about fire and emergency apparatus access and if the lanes are occupied, it would be easier to gain access with a mountable curb. She was looking at it as a safety issue and asked if it had been discussed with the Fire Department. Ms. McClain didn’t think it had been discussed with them. We look at it from a safety point of the driving public and keeping them on the road easier in those areas with the non-mountable or monument curb. Mr. Helwig said Chief Lenaghan and Chief Shaffer were active members of the Task Force and they concurred that with the recommended narrow roadway, including those long straight a ways up to West Park Dr., it would have a calming influence just like East Lake Dr. on the traffic and Chief Lenaghan signed off on that. She said she would be more comfortable with a mountable curb throughout the entire project because we are narrowing the width of the street. She said she would make the motion to include mountable curbs throughout the entire area. Safety for emergency vehicles is more important to her then somebody driving over a lawn.

Member Lorenzo asked if Giffels-Webster was the lowest bid for the Construction Engineering part of this project? Ms. McClain they were not. Member Lorenzo said she was concerned about that because now this represents they are now charging 12% for the administrative construction estimate and it was 14%. She thought the low bidder should receive this bid and since Giffels-Webster has worked on this project perhaps they have an unfair advantage and that’s why they are being awarded this contract. She wished all of the bids had been included in the information because that is a question for Council to consider.

Ms. McClain noted the low bidder was JCK but that she didn’t have the exact numbers with her. The previous percentages were also based on a lower construction estimate which they gave a dollar amount and asked them to give us a percentage of that amount as their construction engineering. We previously included a percentage reduction if the design engineering and the construction engineering were awarded to one team they asked what the percent reduction would be. The different firms had different reductions because it is often felt that if a design team has it and it carries into construction there is that familiarity with the project. Ms. McClain said JCK was at a 12% of construction engineering. Member Lorenzo asked if they were meeting the low bid now? She said they were meeting the same percentage with the change in dollar amount for the estimate the 12% is now the same. So, while we have not gone to JCK or the other bidder and asked them if they would maintain that same percentage Giffels-Webster has dropped their percentage to meet that same percentage number of the construction. Member Lorenzo asked if they were being used because we felt

more comfortable with one firm doing both? Mr. Helwig said there was a very lengthy discussion when the design for this contract for this project was awarded to Giffels-Webster.

One of the factors, at that time, was the workload of JCK. He said he would not recommend JCK to Council now. If you look at the list of transition projects that they have, he could not recommend them, although he was not recommending they be excluded from new work, but in terms of work in process, they are overdue on the water study and other projects. He said staff went about this trying to make sure what came before Council tonight was the lowest cost proposal and Giffels-Webster responded to that. They have absorbed some design overages because this has taken far longer to design and has had numerous changes. He felt they were more than getting their moneys worth with the Giffels-Webster recommendation and the original decision was to go with Giffels-Webster. He apologized that this information was not laid out more clearly to Council.

Member Sanghvi asked to see a map of this project and what exactly they were finally deciding to do? Ms. McClain displayed a map and explained the entire project and said any changes would be incorporated. The tunnel that served the lake side of the park and to bring people under the road is being maintained in this plan. Member Sanghvi asked Chief Shaffer if he thought the mountable or non-mountable curbs would make any difference in an emergency? Chief Shaffer said he didn’t think it would slow down any police vehicles and the response time would still be as effective as ever. He asked Chief Lenaghan the same question. Chief Lenaghan said probably a little bit due to the size of the trucks as long as it’s mountable, as anything higher than 3 or 4 inches creates a problem in terms of the truck. He said it would slow the larger trucks down a little but they could get through it. Member Sanghvi asked if there would be a statistical difference in the time it would take to go over a mountable versus non-mountable curb? Chief Lenaghan said it would probably be a couple seconds. He thought this was a great plan and would support it. He asked Mr. Helwig where Giffels-Webster was from? Mr. Helwig said their office was in downtown Detroit and another in Rochester Hills. Member Sanghvi asked if JCK was located in Novi and if they paid taxes in Novi? Mr. Helwig said they are taxpayers in Novi. He asked what kind of difference is there that we have to outside of Novi to give somebody a contract even though they are not the lowest bidder? Mr. Helwig said there is a huge workload that JCK has now that they are obligated to complete for us, not only the project that they bid on but also the work that they were doing as the City designated engineers. For example, we have a water study that is over a year overdue and that work doesn’t preclude them from bidding on new projects but when both proposals were at 12%, we are bringing you the lowest cost to do the construction engineering with the Giffels-Webster recommendation. JCK also had the same percentage but Mr. Helwig said he felt there should be more than one engineering firm working in this community at any given time. We have more than enough work and right now JCK has more than enough work and deliverables that are in process, due and owing to us. There is the added attraction that the design engineer firm can also carry forward the construction engineering and there’s continuity to it. He thought it had been the City’s practice to award both at the same time but here there was a gap because we knew there would be some significant design challenges because of the nature of this project. Member Sanghvi said Ms. McClain has been putting a lot of work inside also. The City has it’s own Engineering Department which is doing good work. When taking everything else into consideration, what is the marginal difference? He said as a matter of principle, he would like people in Novi to get the business from the City of Novi regardless of what it is unless they are not capable of doing it. If JCK is the lowest bidder then we ought to tell them they better deliver this or they are out

of business, but just to write them off is not a very sound business practice and is not doing any service to the citizens of this town. They are also taxpayers.

Mr. Helwig said they were not interested in arbitrarily writing anyone off and in fact, thought this firm had been afforded courtesies and work that no matter how many firms were located in this community, you would not put all your work with that firm. There is no way they could keep up with all that work and they are showing that now. They are a fine firm and they will be bidding on other future work and he was sure if it is the low bid, this Council would be awarding to them. We are not arbitrarily writing them off. He thought there were sound reasons, in this instance, since there’s a tie in what the costs will be to go with a firm that has done the design work and absorbed additional design costs and is in a position to focus totally in our community on this project. As far as our City engineer, she is in a capacity to monitor the engineer work being done. She is not in a capacity to be doing any design or construction engineering. Member Sanghvi said all the design Ms. McClain has been showing him was not done by her. Ms. McClain said no, it was done by Giffels-Webster and overseen by the Engineering Division. He asked why they weren’t here to show what they designed and why was she there on their behalf. She said Scott Clein and Lorie Lodico of Giffels-Webster are both present and it was just the City’s habit to have her do the presentation. Member Sanghvi said he thought she was doing a very good job.

Member Csordas said this Council has set a number of precedents where they don’t award bids to the lowest bidder. For example, when an engineering contract was awarded to Ayers, Lewis, we had the City engineer rank each of those entities and we picked the seventh lowest contractor to do that business. He said he had a lot of confidence in the City engineers and remembers the discussion regarding the workload of JCK and he supported that position then and still does. He thought that what we have done was make a decision a couple of years ago to change the philosophy of the way the City does business and he thought they should continue to support that. The lowest bidder is not always the best bidder. The City is a business and it is run very professionally. Member Csordas said the bike path is close to the road and then transitions immediately in front of the four homes mentioned by Ms. Beller, to a separation in the road. He asked Ms. McClain to point that out. She showed Member Csordas where the four houses were and explained the layout of the project. He thought it was an excellent improvement and the design of the whole project was a great job and would like to see this project built as shown.

CM-03-04-109 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Landry; MOTION CARRIED:

Member Landry said with respect for the bike path issue, he could understand how someone who lived adjacent to a lake would not want a bike path in front of their house. He could also understand, to an extent, why a resident would say "this is what we want, why does the City Council care, why is the City Council doing something different, they don’t live there". However, Council has an obligation to all the residents of the City and to the people that live

way down near West Park and to the people who live on the other end of Old Novi Road and the ones pushing baby buggies and strollers, etc. When it comes to safety, that is the City’s number one obligation. He said his understanding was that the only reason there is an integrated bike path anywhere is because we don’t have the ROW. If we had the ROW, there would be a separate bike path in the interest of safety because no wants people walking next to cars. We did it on East Lake because we had to, but it is not the optimum situation. Member Landry thought the compromise that the administration has reached with these folks to move the bike path as far away as possible from their property to allow them to have as much of our ROW as possible by moving it to 5 feet from the roadway and that’s what this proposal would include. Ms. McClain said agreed. He asked if the motion Member Csordas made is to move it to a minimum of 5 feet from the road way? Ms. McClain said yes. Member Landry stated he would support the motion in the interest of the overall safety of the community. Regarding the low bid issue, he said he had heard the statements from the administration on how a tie bid is broken and asked Council not to forget that they agreed when engineering firms were changed, Council was going to allow JCK to work through and complete all the transitions jobs. We could have just ended the relationship and went with Ayers, Lewis, Norris and May.

Mayor Clark agreed with the comments made this evening. No matter what we do, it is impossible to please 100% of the people. We have to take into account in the final analysis, the issue of public safety, and we have done that. If the Beck Road Interchange comes on line and works for both east and west bound traffic, one of the benefits would be a dramatic drop in traffic on South Lake Drive. He said JCK has done a lot of work in the community and would continue to do so. It was agreed that it was appropriate for JCK to complete those projects they were already working on. There is concern about some of them such as the water study that is long overdue and that is a legitimate concern because it affects the entire community.

No one has taken the position that JCK would be precluded from bidding on anything in the City in the future and he and Mr. Kapelczak have discussed this. He would also support the motion.

Member Sanghvi commented that he was not present as an advocate for JCK or anyone else, but wanted them to know that as a good business practice and as a taxpayer and homeowner he wanted the City’s money spent wisely to the lowest bidder when possible. He believed Council was the trustees of the taxpayer’s money and should watch it like their own.

Member Lorenzo appealed to her colleagues regarding the 5-foot sidewalk instead of an 8-foot bike path in that section between Henning and Buffington. She thought the residents were accurate when saying that typically we do not have 8 foot bike paths in front of homes. Yes, we have them on major roads but do not typically require them in front of homes. She felt that if Council was going to change its philosophy and require 8 foot bike paths in front of homes, then it has to be consistent and change the policy. We should not be arbitrarily penalizing four homeowners in this case because of something that we consider a safety issue. If it is a safety issue, then it should be considered across the board in our ordinances and that is not the case. She proposed an amendment to the motion to include a 5-foot sidewalk between Henning and Buffington to satisfy the four homeowners who do not want the 8-foot bike path in front of their homes.

Member Csordas asked what Ms. McClain thought of that as an engineer? Ms. McClain said in our current Master Plan, there is a map that shows pedestrian and bike paths. She

displayed an overhead map and explained that bike paths are shown on West Park, Novi Rd. and 13 Mile Road and on the continuation of 13 Mile and Old Novi Road. According to the Master Plan, it is supposed to have an 8-foot bike lane along it. Member Csordas did not accept the "friendly amendment".

Member Lorenzo stated she would not support the motion.

Multiple-Family uses, and certain non-residential uses and developments," and to

Schedule of Regulations, for related purposes. 1^st Reading

To approve Zoning Text Amendment 18.179 to amend Ordinance No.

97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of

the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, to create Section 2514,

"Additional road design, building setback, and parking setback

requirements for One-Family Clustering Option, Two-Family uses,

Multiple-Family uses, and certain non-residential uses and

developments," and to amend Section 2403, "One-Family Clustering

Option," and to amend Section 2400 Schedule of Regulations, for

related purposes. 1^st Reading

Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Arroyo, Traffic Consultant, how, historically, the ordinance has been interpreted with regard to public and private road standards? Mr. Arroyo said there had been few cluster developments until just recently. Therefore, it had not been a major issue because there have been primarily detached single family homes and standard site condos or platted subdivision. They noticed a couple years ago that there were several proposals that had come forward at one time for cluster option projects so that was one of the holes in the ordinance. They found when they came in with the cluster option proposal, they weren’t asking for a site condominium approval, they were asking for a general condominium so there weren’t the equivalent of lot lines that we normally see with a site condo. They were just seeing a general condominium with just the building unit where the structure would be and no equivalent lot lines. When going to the ordinance standards it specifies for site condominiums, which you have to do, and it specifies for plats, which you have to do. If it’s a general condominium, it is not explicitly clear what standards you follow. That was when they noticed there could be some amendments to clarify what happened and that’s why this

interim policy is in place to hold over until an ordinance could be drafted and brought to Council. Mr. Arroyo said they also noticed, through application of some of these cluster option

projects, is that the setback in the current standards for cluster option projects as well as two family developments, is 25 feet from the back of curb if doing a private road situation. 25 feet is not adequate if you are going to park a car in the driveway, as that would take 20 feet and then there’s a 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot separation from back of curb. He said 35 feet is needed if Council wants to adhere to those standards and it is a change in this recommended ordinance to increase the setback for those scenarios. Also, in keeping with the theme of trying to address these things across the board, they noticed that the ordinance did allow for some private road scenarios under certain situations. He thought it would be appropriate to explicitly say how those private road scenarios would apply in this type of situation and that’s where the definition of a major drive and minor drive is and try to attach some standards to it. We want some flexibility with the standards but also want to set a minimum benchmark.

Member Lorenzo said prior to the interim policy, of which she thought Council should have determined, not the Planning Commission, how were they being treated? Mr. Arroyo said prior to the interim policy, he couldn’t recall a situation where the Planning Commission had to act.

He noted as soon as they saw the problem during the development review process, they tried to bring it forward so something could be put in place formally before they actually had to act on a specific plan. She said there weren’t any cluster developments that would have needed interpretation? Mr. Arroyo said he couldn’t think of any. Member Lorenzo said with regard to allowing for parking, where did that come from and why would we want to do that? It had not been done before; it is not allowable, so why would we want to do that now? Mr. Arroyo said he didn’t think they were doing that and he was not suggesting it be done arbitrarily. The reason behind this is it primarily applies to cluster option, two family uses and multiple family. All they have in common is reduced front yard setbacks, that means there is limited availability of places to park. Mr. Arroyo said with these types of units, in a situation like this under the current ordinance, if looking at it strictly as public roads, you would not be able to park in this type of situation. These are limited setbacks with limited ability to have a vehicle parked and then have any more than one or two vehicles per unit available. This provides some flexibility for guests to park, in a situation such as a party where guest parking would be needed. This came up in a proposal for a cluster option project before this was put into place and they were told they could not do that because the ordinance didn’t provide for parking directly off of a residential roadway. They talked to the Planning Commission about it and they thought in certain situations particularly with optional developments or developments with limited setbacks, that it might be appropriate to allow it. It is recommended based on a type of development and the limited setbacks associated with it. It is not necessarily just because of environmental features being present. She said isn’t this, in effect, a parking lot? Mr. Arroyo said yes, except it is a limited scope being limited to the one drive with parking coming off of it. Member Lorenzo asked what the distance was between the end of the parking space and the outer part of the curb? He said there was a 24-foot wide aisle and an 18 or 19-foot space. She asked if it was wide enough for two-way traffic? He said it was even with the parking space. She said she would prefer to have this as an option and as an incentive to preserve more natural features on the site; she didn’t want parking lots in minor drives in a general concept, but in a concept to reach another goal, it might make some sense. She said cluster option is typically single-family attached homes. He said they could be attached or detached. Member Lorenzo said now we are saying we are going to have parking lots in single-family environments and parking lots are typically multiple family environments. She thought they

were really changing course here and she was not in favor of it discriminately. She might support it as a feature or as an incentive to do something, but not just across the board.

She would not support the motion as it stood.

Member Sanghvi asked what happened if a roof was placed over these spaces and make it into a carport, would it still be a parking lot? He didn’t think so and didn’t think it would happen too often and wasn’t going to worry about it too much at this point. When the time comes, we will see if there is some way out of it.

Member Csordas asked Mr. Arroyo if the parking spaces shown were driveways that go into a garage in the units? Mr. Arroyo said they were not. They were walkways. Member Csordas said then there is no driveway going into a garage? Mr. Arroyo said correct, not in this situation. However, normally what would be done is if they wanted to have garages and this was an open space area, we might flip this over and have the spaces on the other side with access into the garage. It depended on the layout of the situation.

Member Landry thought the parking area was a great idea because if there wasn’t a parking area, people would not be able to get down their major drive because cars would be parked on both sides of it. He said if there was enough space, he would be for the parking areas and he would support it.

Mayor Clark said he would support this as well. He said he had been to a fewer of the older condominium developments where there are two units together and had been invited for dinner and there was a one car garage on each unit. The homeowner has a car in the garage or in the drive and one guest can use the driveway. He asked where everyone else would go? This sought to alleviate that problem and still met the concerns for public safety. He thought it was a step in the right direction and he would support it.

Member Lorenzo said it was also an issue of consistency or non-consistency. If we are concerned about people having parties and not contain them to driveways, what do people do in subdivisions? People park on the street and it is not any different from this. It doesn’t make sense to her to do this indiscriminately across the board. She said this is not a discretionary item. If they want to do this, they would be able to do it, correct? Mr. Arroyo said if it’s a cluster option, the cluster option is discretionary and to qualify for it, the cluster option has to be met. She said if you meet the cluster option, your 50%, you would be entitled to this parking? He said yes. Mr. Arroyo said on the issue of applying this; keep in mind it is for higher density units.

Member Sanghvi said when talking about cluster option, there are usually some special circumstances attached to it and special circumstances require special treatments. He would have no problem supporting this motion.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Klaver said this amendment was designed to improve the process in the notification of the adjacent properties within a 300 ft. radius and the make up of the board. It had been their experience that with staff members being on the board, it was awkward. He clarified that the Forester and a representative of the Building Department would be present at every board meeting as a resource. Mr. Klaver said there was a question on whether or not it was appropriate for a member of the Planning Commission to serve on another board or commission and noted that one of the members currently is a representative of the Planning Commission

Mr. Fisher said there is a limitation in the State Planning Act that allows one Planning Commissioner to be on the ZBA but aside from that, it is a prohibition to have them sit elsewhere.

Member Sanghvi thought this should be looked at for all boards and thought Council should clarify it right from the beginning that this person would not be sitting on any other board at the same time.

Member Landry said in the interest of consistency, he would like a Planning Commissioner on the board because they are sort of the stewards and administrators of the Woodland Ordinance. However, as a matter of law, we can’t. The only two exceptions are the ZBA can have one member and, he thought, a joint police-fire board. Also, there is a concern that this Woodland Review Board has at its disposal, the ability have the advice of City staff members and Forester. Member Landry asked if it was necessary to put in the ordinance, as he would hate to have a situation arise where the Woodland Review Board indicated they needed help

from the City Forester and there’s an overtime issue. Mr. Klaver said that would never be a problem. Member Landry said with respect to the notification provision of this proposal, it

indicates that notice was to be given to the persons to whom real property within 300 ft. of the proposed activity is accessed. If someone owns a large lot, does that mean that the neighbor wouldn’t have to be notified because they are more than 300 ft. from the proposed activity?

Mr. Fisher said it could be interpreted in that manner. Member Landry asked if it would be appropriate to add language to this that says that notice must be given to real property within 300 ft. of the proposed activities and if not already included therein to the contiguous property owner? Mr. Fisher said it could be worded that way or within 300 ft of the property line on which the proposed activity is. Member Landry offered that as a friendly amendment. Member Csordas accepted the amendment.

Member Lorenzo asked Council if they would want to change 300 ft. to 500 ft? Mr. Fisher said the statutory and other distances are 300 and he believed as a special courtesy, some greater distances are used from time to time. Three hundred is in the ordinance.

Mayor Clark said he would support the ordinance for all the reasons stated in the language of the proposed ordinance. He felt it was needed and is consistent with this Council’s philosophy of affording as many citizens as possible an opportunity to participate in their government.

Member Csordas noted he spoke to Cindy Uglow to ask her if it was her request to bring this forward and she said it was and that it most usually applies to garage sale signs. He thought without this, there could be 10 signs on the same corner.

penalty. 1^st Reading

CM-03-04-113 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Ordinance Amendment No. 03-100.31 to

amend Chapter 28, "Signs," of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances,

to implement a misdemeanor penalty. 1^st Reading

Roll call vote on CM-03-04-113 Yeas: Landry, Lorenzo, Sanghvi, Clark, Csordas

Nays: None

Absent: Bononi, Capello

roadway. 1^st Reading

28, "Signs," of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, Section 28-6(2)

A.3, to change the setback regulations applicable to Twelve Mile

Road to reflect the widening of the roadway. 1^st Reading

implying the existence of a home occupation. 1^st Reading

of Novi Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, to add to the definition of

home occupation a limitation on the placement of signs displayed within or outside of the dwelling so as to be visible from the exterior of the dwelling structure in areas otherwise suggesting or implying the existence of a home occupation. 1^st Reading

Member Landry asked for clarification of wording in sub paragraph A of Part I, which says "there is no sign advertising device or other manifestation displayed through building glass area located on the exterior of the dwelling". He asked Mr. Fisher if that meant a sign on the inside of the glass it didn’t violate the ordinance because the sign was not on the exterior of the dwelling or does the phrase "building glass" that’s what on the exterior of the dwelling? Mr. Fisher said he had the same concern that Member Landry had.

Mr. Evancoe thought the key word might be the word "through". It’s suggesting that one could see through the glass to a sign that is on the inside of the building. Member Landry saw what the intent was but thought there was a big loophole and felt it should be tightened up. He

offered to make an amendment if Mr. Fisher could come up with some language. Mr. Fisher offered to consider language during Council break. Mayor Clark suggested this item be passed until later in the evening.

Wayne Hogan thanked Council for the proclamation for White Cane Week. He asked Council to pay attention to mobility issues specifically with regard to transportation regarding who can ride in the vans in the City. He asked that the vans be more inclusive instead of dictating individuals who were supposed to be riding on the vans.

Recessed at 9:53 p.m.

Reconvened 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Fisher said he was addressing Sub Paragraph A. He said he would pick up at the end of the first line on A after the word "displayed" insert "within or outside of the dwelling so as to be visible from" and then delete "through building glass area located on" and start again with "the exterior of the dwelling structure, or insert "otherwise". He said they would fix this up for the next meeting. Mayor Clark asked if the changes were acceptable to the maker and seconder of the motion and they were accepted.

Nays: None

Member Lorenzo said she would make the motion with one change. Under Availability Fee and User Connection Fee she would prefer to see the word "shall" used instead of "may" when talking about what they need. It says, "which may include any or all of the following components if applicable".

Mr. Helwig said Ms. Smith-Roy has been working on Items 8 through 11 to get us caught up and she agrees with Member Lorenzo. Member Lorenzo said it talks about cost of construction and administration and she asked if legal should be included? Mr. Fisher thought if there was an issue, it should be included. She wanted legal included anywhere there was discussion about cost of construction, administration, operation, maintenance and replacement. Council agreed.

Mr. Fisher said this is not intended to stop First Reading but, if proceeding with First Reading, he wanted it noted that he wanted to discuss with Ms. Smith-Roy as well as the engineers and the water and sewer personnel, this "per front foot" as the formula. He had some issue about that and the ultimate objective would be to make sure the measure is reasonably calculated to reflect what benefit someone is getting. We may want to insert some additional language in there and it could be done after the First Reading.

Member Lorenzo said she would not support the motion because with a full time position, health benefits would be involved. She didn’t think this was the prudent thing to do at this time.

Member Landry commended the administration for acting on the City Council goals relatively quickly. One of the goals was to increase the staffing and support services at Meadowbrook Commons. He would support the motion.

Member Csordas said he attended an event at the Senior Center and was amazed at how much they get done with one and a half persons. He agreed with Member Landry’s comments, as it did help relieve a fairly stressful situation at the center. They do great work over there.

Member Sanghvi said if we expect to grow an extra and better service then we need better manpower and more hours for the people doing this kind of work and then we have to put our money where our mouth is and pay for it. He understood there would be benefits, etc. but that is part of the territory and he had no hesitation in supporting this motion.

Mr. Fisher said this would be an appropriation and therefore, if the contract is going to be acted upon and approved this evening, and if it doesn’t have five votes, it would be approved subject to a budget amendment. Member Csordas accepted the amendment to the motion.

Mayor Clark said he echoed the sentiments that had been made. The Center does outstanding work and you can only expect people to do so much with a given amount of manpower. This is a step in the right direction, it is money well spent and he would support the motion

Clark

Mr. Helwig asked for Council policy direction regarding this matter. He said a letter was received from the congregation, dated March 12^th, and all the work on their project is complete except for the actual purchase and planting of 105 trees and 185 shrubs, as required by the site plan. The delineated the sidewalk work that has been done, the lighting upgrade, the berming, handicapped parking, etc. They are in a legitimate catch twenty two where in order to make any further progress, they need to have a temporary Certificate of Occupancy to execute the final mortgage to take advantage of the current interest rate to have any chance to try and seek financing sources to finish the landscape.

Mayor Clark said the issue has become whether or not Council is amenable to providing some relief in terms of at least a temporary C of O so they can close on there mortgage, which is something they have to do to get any additional extension of credit to finish the landscaping portion. They have been cooperative throughout the project doing a number of things.

Member Lorenzo said she didn’t get the impression they were applying for a mortgage that was going to include the monies they needed to do the landscaping. If they were she would approve the motion. If they are trying to get out of the landscaping or do it over time she would not.

Mr. Helwig didn’t mean to give that impression. Mayor Clark said they are talking about getting a temporary Certificate of Occupancy so they can close on the original mortgage amount. Until they do that, they are in a bind in terms of getting any addition credit line to finish what they have to do. Mr. Helwig said they are not representing to Council that they have a means of financing to fulfill the landscaping. They are strictly trying to close on the financing that they have lined up. They have zero sources for meeting the landscaping requirements. In the meantime, they would like to have use of the facility and consummate the mortgage for everything that’s been approved thus far.

Member Lorenzo thought the landscaping needed to go in accordance with the building permit or something because we need to give people that are constructing anything, incentive to get their landscaping in. Landscaping and trees shouldn’t be the last thing they are doing as requirements for the City. She was disturbed at the trend she thought was beginning. The requirements are what they are and when someone is building, they have to be aware of that.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if there would be any difficulty giving them a temporary Certificate of Occupancy with a deadline date? Mr. Fisher said a deadline on a temporary Certificate of Occupancy would be a standard provision. What happens if the provision isn’t met? Member Lorenzo asked what does happen? Mr. Fisher said, legally, if you have no bond or other security, then both sides, particularly the City, is left to its other legal devices. She said they wouldn’t want to get into that either.

Member Landry said he was uncomfortable because he is a member of this church and asked Mr. Fisher if it would be appropriate for him to recuse himself? Mr. Fisher said it would be.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if there was a way for the church to accomplish their purpose and the City to accomplish theirs? Mr. Fisher suggested giving them a temporary Certificate of Occupancy if they applied for financing that would include this obligation; or if they could get a commitment from the bank that they would be able to get it within a certain period of time.

Member Sanghvi said suggested making an arrangement similar to the one made with homeowners when they move in and their landscaping isn’t done. Mayor Clark said they have so many months depending on when they move in to get it done. He asked if it was appropriate, from a legal standpoint, to do something like that? Mayor Clark thought that they should direct a letter to them saying that if they could get a commitment from the bank for the

financing to cover those two items, at that point, Council would be amenable to immediately granting their request for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. He asked if there was consensus and Member Lorenzo said absolutely and she would make a motion. Mr. Fisher said a motion would be appropriate and would assist the Building Department to have the strength of a motion and it also might be appropriate to clarify that it need not come back to Council. Mayor Clark said if they come forward with some verification that the bank would extend to them the funds necessary to complete the landscaping portion of the project, then the Building Department would be authorized to issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy.

To authorize the Building Department to issue a temporary

Member Sanghvi said from the practical point of view, when you are broke it is hard to get more credit and that is where the catch twenty two is. So, what are we going to do? Is Council going to keep them in limbo for as long as it takes to raise more funds for the landscaping and not use the facility they have already paid for? He thought they should be very careful and very gentle when dealing with a situation like this.

Member Csordas asked if they were asking for exclusion to the ordinance or were they looking for some temporary relief? Mayor Clark thought they were looking for whatever relief the Council might be able to provide them and he thought this was an avenue to do that. Member Csordas thought this was a good compromise.

Mr. Helwig said Mr. Asa Smith participated in a February Goal Setting Session with comments about Walled Lake Stewardship, lake levels, weed levels and a number of issues that are affecting a number of other lakes in the region. He sent a letter to the City and Mr. Helwig was asked to obtain minutes from Walled Lake City Council meetings and he took that opportunity to meet with the new City Manager of Walled Lake, Mr. Jerry Walker. Since that time, when he attended the Michigan Municipal League Legislative Conference, Mayor Roberts was in attendance and he echoed what Mr. Helwig thought he had heard from Council Members after he sent this out. He said their preference would be an Ad Hoc joint committee of residents or whomever Council desired, to explore these issues and bring back different options and look at the state of the art as Mr. Smith had started to do on his own. He said and not to go to the formality of a Lake Board that would have other autonomous powers, but to try to work in cooperation with our neighbor to bring forward ideas on maintenance and the like. Mr.

McCusker has volunteered to be our executive liaison to such a group if Council decided to proceed.

Mayor Clark asked if there had been discussion with Mayor Roberts in terms of how many people would be on the committee. Mr. Helwig said no, but he thought possibly about five individuals from each community.

Member Lorenzo said she wasn’t convinced that a committee was necessary. She felt the issues had not been defined or clarified enough for her. Issues that Mr. Smith wrote in his letter such as aquatic weeds, zebra mussels and fertilizer pollution and Member Lorenzo said Mr. Fisher worked with the Ordinance Review Committee and came up with a brand new fertilizer ordinance and she thought it was the best that could be done under the circumstances in the State and wasn’t sure any more could be done with regard the surroundings of a lake. She thought aquatic weeds were more of a maintenance issue and wasn’t sure that the municipality should be getting involved in private property lake maintenance issues. She said she was concerned because representations were made, she thought by Mr. Smith, to the Walled Lake City Council that our DPW was picking up weeds at curbside that the homeowners had put into bags. Her concern was that on the south side or the west side she was sure homeowners would like to put leaves, etc. and have the City pick those up too. If we are providing a service it has to be provided consistently throughout the City. In terms of any ordinance amendments, Storm Water Management we have the Storm Water Committee, we have the Ordinance Review Committee which has always been very open to any residents coming in. In fact there have been a lot of lake area issues come through there. She was not sure a committee was needed because she wasn’t sure that other issues that a committee comes up with are within the purview or budget constraints of this municipality. She felt it was not advisable at this time. Perhaps if there were more clarity over what specific issues they would like to have addressed or if it was consistency or communication between the two communities, she could understand that. She preferred that Mr. Smith or whoever would come before Council or other committees and state their case and Council could assign it to the appropriate committee.

Mayor Clark said three quarters of Walled Lake is in Novi and in the past there had not been cooperation between the two communities. He said Member Lorenzo raised the question that the issues had not been clarified and that would be the whole purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee. To have an individual here and one there come and tell Council what the problems were was like saying we are going to take two people out of the community and they would tell us what all our storm water management was. It doesn’t work. It takes a lot of good people willing to commit themselves and some time on a volunteer basis to service this community. He didn’t think they were talking about a great deal of time or commitment. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Walled Lake is a real resource to Novi and the City of Walled Lake. There is a problem with weeds and zebra mussels and with three quarters of the lake in Novi he didn’t have a problem if they were pulling weeds out that would otherwise degrade the quality of Walled Lake, he didn’t have a problem with the City picking those up along the shoreline. He said he enjoys the lake with his grandchildren and there are weeds and it is not very inviting. Mayor Clark felt it made good common sense to have an Ad Hoc Committee to look at it and report back to Council on what the issues are. Then Council could decide how to address them.

Member Landry concurred with Mayor Clark’s comments. This is a unique resource, there’s a group of citizens who are active and interested in the community, they care

about the lake and the area and all they want is a little organizational assistance from the City. If they come and asked for money, Council can answer yes or no and prioritize it like everything else. Member Landry thought Council should give them the opportunity, a forum, support and look and develop the issues and make the decisions later. He would support the motion.

Member Sanghvi said this would be people from Walled Lake and Novi and they would accomplish communication in a friendly manner rather than in an adversarial manner. He thought it was a great idea and he thought they should have three to six months of life and see what they complete. If necessary it can always be cancelled and he felt there was no harm in trying to find out if they could come up with solutions that wouldn’t cost a lot of money. Sooner or later, that lake is going to need to be cleaned up and it is going to cost money. Walled Lake belongs to the entire City of Novi not just to the citizens who live there. He would support an Ad Hoc Committee and would be happy to be involved in it.

To support an Ad Hoc Walled Lake/Novi Lake Committee of no

Absent: Bononi, Capello

1. Letter from Senator Cassis Re: Delay of Beck and Wixom Interchanges to 2007.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:51 p.m.

__________________ _____________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_______________________________

Transcribed by: Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: May 5, 2003