Judge Robert Bondy administered the oath of office to Mayor David Landry and Council Member Kim Capello.

Judge Brian MacKenzie administered the oath of office to Council Members Terry Margolis and Andrew Mutch.

Mayor Landry called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Council Members Capello, Gatt, Margolis, Mutch,

Nagy, Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Richard Helwig, City Manager

Clay Pearson, Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning

Member Nagy added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #2 South Lake Drive and Bristol Corners.

Member Paul added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Planning Commission and Council Joint Meeting and #3 Information from Administration about the Eleven Mile Road pathway project between Beck and Wixom Roads.

Member Capello suggested the Planning Commission and Council Joint meeting be addressed when Council approves the Council meeting dates.

Member Capello added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #4 Parking on Main Street and #5 Temporary holiday signage.

Member Gatt announced that County Commissioner Hugh Crawford asked him to extend his apologies for not attending the meeting tonight. Commissioner Crawford had a meeting in Oakland County, but said he wished everyone well.

Mayor Landry said for the last four years it’s been his pleasure to work with a Council member who has done a tremendous amount of work, and is a huge asset to the Council. The City voters obviously agree because he did well in the last election. Mayor Landry said it was his pleasure and privilege to appoint as his Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Kim Thomas Capello.

Mayor Landry opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.

Ernestine McRae, Haven, 2550 Telegraph, Ste 111, Bloomfield, MI 48302, thanked Council for their contribution last year, and they are asking for the same contribution this year. Ms. McRae said they are an agency that deals with domestic violence and sexual assault, and 153 clients were served from Novi last year. She said this included their Advocacy Program and Start Programs, which is their Forensic Nurse Specialist, where rape victims can come and get their rape kits done in a more comfortable environment.

Mayor Landry closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.

Mr. Helwig offered congratulations and said a new era has begun in our community, and staff and Administration looked forward to working with Council on future challenges and endeavors.

Mr. Helwig said the community has made it to the finish line on the Nine Mile Road improvement between Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road. It was opened today and back to two way traffic after several weeks of construction. It is all asphalt now, including a new entrance on Chase Drive and some adjoining roadways. He said that part of the community has been severely impacted this summer with the emergency replacement of the bridge on Meadowbrook Road and some of the neighborhood streets and Meadowbrook Lake dredging. Mr. Helwig said they were very grateful for everyone’s patience, and the fact that these are now accomplished and working for us.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. October 24, 2005 – Regular Meeting

B. Approval to award snow removal and salt application contract for Meadowbrook Commons to J.C.’s Lawn Care, as recommended by Keystone Management Company, for an estimated annual cost ranging from $22,000 to $33,000 based on actual use and unit costs.

C. Approval of resolution to authorize the purchase of additional service credit by a City employee.

D. Approval of an amendment to the agreement with Professional Engineering Associates, Inc. in the amount of $7,341.80 for additional design engineering services associated with the 2005 Neighborhood Road Rehabilitation and Repaving Project (Asphalt).

E. Approval to accept option for the first one (1) year extension of the trophy contract with McNish Sporting Goods based on pricing submitted with the original bid of October 14, 2004.

F. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 708

Member Paul said the Singh trail has not been completed and some of this property abuts the area. She asked for clarification regarding the Singh trail.

Mr. Helwig said they were recommending that Council accept this parkland, and this portion of the trail, which actually came after the development agreement with Singh was reached regarding the Singh trail. They expect the main portion of the Singh Trail to be accomplished during the next construction season.

Member Paul asked what happens when Council accepts land as parkland but doesn’t designate it as parkland on our Master Plan. She thought that was happening with the Singh trail and other areas in the City.

Mr. Helwig replied that can be accomplished. We want to complete the transition with the developer, and then the Planning Commission can make that happen.

Member Paul asked if he would look for a recommendation from Barbara McBeth to the Planning Commission in the near future. Mr. Helwig thought Council’s acceptance tonight would accomplish that, and they would follow through with that designation and amendment to the map. She asked about the Singh trail, and Mr. Helwig said whenever Singh’s documents were ready they would bring them forward, and that does relate to their development time table for Legacy Park or the Links of Novi.

Member Paul asked if that would also encompass the Fire Station parkland that is to the west of the Fire Station. Mr. Helwig said yes, that’s where the trail head and the parking lot will be.

Member Mutch asked for direction from Administration regarding insuring that the designation of parkland is sufficient when applying for grants or other funding opportunities. He said we will be formally accepting the land as a City, but he wasn’t sure that would constitute parkland or if Council needed to do a formal resolution. He asked that the Administration follow up on that.

Member Paul suggested that the joint meeting of Council and the Planning Commission be on January 16^th or 18^th or in February on the 13^th or 15^th, which would be Council’s off

weeks. She also suggested April 19^th or the 24^th.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought it would be easier for either Council or the Planning

Commission to have the meeting two hours before their meeting so they wouldn’t have

to schedule another evening away from their families. Council could keep their agenda

light and start with the joint meeting at 6:00 and then have the regular Council meeting

at 8:30 P.M.

Member Nagy didn’t think April would be a good month because of budget meetings.

She felt that two and a half hours was too long. Mayor Landry and Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought an hour would be long enough. Member Gatt thought an hour would be sufficient, and agreed with it being before a Planning Commission or Council meeting.

Mayor Capello suggested being present an hour before the March 22^nd Planning Commission meeting.

Member Nagy disagreed scheduling this meeting on their time as their agenda is very full and they are often there until very late at night. She would rather have the Planning Commission meet at 6 P.M. before a Council meeting.

Member Paul agreed with Member Nagy and said their meetings often go until after

Midnight. She offered a friendly amendment to begin the January 23^rd Council meeting

with a Joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council at 6:30 P.M. She

suggested allowing an hour and a half for the joint meeting. Member Capello accepted

the amendment.

Mayor Landry advised Council that the Zoning Board of Appeals has some vacancies and needs new members right away. He suggested the week of December 12^th for interviews.

Mr. Helwig said the Administration has provided their recommendation, which is in

support of this request.

Member Paul asked if there was a neighbor that has a sidewalk that would abut this

roadway. Mr. Helwig said he wasn’t aware of any because this is a new development.

Member Paul said we have areas such as Taft Knolls, for example, which is on the east

side of the road and the only sidewalk in the corridor. There are lots of areas that

have gaps. She was wondering if Council could look at this, as an example, and take

these areas that have gaps and are by themselves, measure the distance that the

proposed site is going to have to put in, and relocate a sidewalk into another

area. She said she knew that wasn’t something they normally do, but when there’s

one lone sidewalk that doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not the most efficient use of the

developer’s money if we can use it in another area. She asked Mr. Schultz if that

was something they could propose.

Mr. Schultz responded they could look into it.

Member Paul said in this area where there is a lot of environmental sensitivity, and no

one abuts the sidewalk; she was looking at how they could make the maximum out of

our dollars, and benefit a lot of other areas that are in need.

Mr. Schultz said it might be something that could be brought up with the Planning

Commission at Capital Improvement Plan time, which is when they talk about

those kinds of public improvements and when they ought to occur.

Mayor Landry asked Mr. Schultz if that wouldn’t have to come as a recommendation

from the developer rather than a request from the City. Mr. Schultz said it typically

would, but we can plan for it and have a policy in place that talks about it when the

request is made. Obviously, we are asking them to pay for something that is an

improvement off site, and that is something we would have to get agreement on

rather than impose.

Member Paul asked if that was an ordinance change, would it have to go through

the Planning Commission. Mr. Helwig said they would be reviewing their committee

structure at the next meeting, and depending on what they decide, Ordinance Review

Committee, Planning Commission, or City Council could do it.

Member Paul said when Council looked at the budget two years ago they had a

proposal for $8,000 for a Greenway Plan. She said the Planning Commission came

forward and requested an $8,000 Greenway Plan, and this might be something that

could fall in together.

Mr. Pearson said the plan that was budgeted is definitely moving forward. The staff

submitted it in the last Parks and Recreation brochure, and there have been meetings at

various locations. He said they have an adopted Sidewalk Plan as part of the Master

Plan for Land Use, and there is a phasing plan in there. As a young City there are going

to be those kinds of gaps and these opportunities. Typically, the developers want

improvements, with their dollars, that are going to benefit their properties. On this site

there is another development to the south, and they will be building sidewalks. These

will be filled in over time, and we have a good track record.

Rick Hirth of Warner, Cantrell & Padmos, was present representing Mirage Development to answer any questions Council has about the variances.

Mr. Helwig said they provided their thoughts on this document, and are in agreement with variances #2 and #3. Regarding variance #1, they agreed with the requirement of the road commission that any fixed object be at least 12 feet from the curb. He said this would be similar to the boardwalk that the City authorized just west of Novi Road on the south side of Ten Mile.

Member Nagy said the south side of Ten Mile is where they are proposing to put in the boardwalk over the wetlands. She said the boardwalk would be across Meadowbrook Glens, and there is a wetland and a pond there. Her concern is that there is no sidewalk area along Ten Mile between Meadowbrook and Novi Road. She found it strange to put in this boardwalk that would lead to nowhere. Member Nagy said people don’t walk on the north or south side of Ten Mile, because there are no sidewalks. She said rather than putting in this boardwalk why don’t we ask the developer to fill in a gap somewhere else. It makes no sense to make the developer put it in this location.

Member Nagy said one of the things that is going to be difficult is on Ten Mile east of Meadowbrook on the north side there are sidewalks, but not on the south side. Now, when going west of Meadowbrook there will be something on the south side but not on the north side. It zigzags the City and makes no sense. She stated she would prefer to take that money and ask the developer to connect sidewalks in other areas that would benefit pedestrians.

Mr. Hayes said he could only comment on the utility of requiring what’s in our ordinance as far as a developer putting in a boardwalk or sidewalk on a particular parcel. Member Nagy said she would make that recommendation for all the reasons she stated. She asked Mr. Hayes, regarding the rest of the proposal, what he felt about the one foot inside the road right-of-way. Mr. Hayes said that is our standard in the Design and Construction Standards of the ordinance. It provides us with a level of assurance that the sidewalk or bike path is going to be placed a safe distance away from the roadway. Member Nagy asked Mr. Hayes if the boardwalk would be a safety hazard. He responded that it would get too close to the pavement on Ten Mile Road. It would take us within five or six feet of the paved traveled roadway. Member Nagy asked if there were any other areas in the City close to the roadway. Mr. Hayes said there are

areas that have deviated from the right-of-way line, but he didn’t know how close they get to the pavement. She said she knew other areas had the deviation, and wondered why they were not allowing this one. Mr. Hayes said their requirement is to place the sidewalk or bike path one foot inside of the right-of-way or away from the property line. The applicant has proposed a meander that takes it to within five or six feet of the pavement. Member Nagy asked if they had proposed any other alternative. Mr. Hayes said no.

Mr. Hirth said the reason for the meandering is because they are crossing the wetlands in two spots with the boardwalk/sidewalk combination, and they are trying to minimize the impacts to the wetlands. If they don’t get the variance it will be put in where the ordinance requires it and it will cause more wetland impact and a longer boardwalk. The boardwalk will be an item that the City owns and will be in the City’s right-of-way. The maintenance of these boardwalks is greater than a sidewalk; so it is our feeling that this location is the best location. In the past, the City had a meandering sidewalk as part of their Design and Construction Standards and five or six feet was normally considered

the absolute distance between pavement and a walkway. He said, as proposed, it does not meet the City standards and that is why they are here for the variance.

Mr. Hayes said when a meandering sidewalk has been allowed, it is where we have allowed pavement to occur. When we are meandering it’s to avoid a wetland or woodland, and is when we would require a boardwalk to try to mitigate the impact to the wetlands or woodlands.

Member Nagy stated she would be willing to grant the variance because she believed it would save more of the wetlands and woodlands. That area is a part of the Middle Rouge and is very important with regard to the environmental issues there. Member Nagy asked if there was another way to alleviate the 975 foot cul-de-sac. She looked at the plan and there was nothing else they could do unless they totally took out the cul-de-sac and eliminated those homes.

Mr. Hirth said it was suggested that they try to tie into the apartment project, which is not only a practical difficulty but Mr. Rossi made several attempts with the apartment owners to tie into the water main, but they weren’t willing to allow them to tie into the road, because the road is going to be a City road, the apartments are private and they would lose parking, etc. Mr. Hirth said normally a cul-de-sac link is planned out to be so many units, double loaded or lots on both sides. This development has lots only on one side. There are 12 lots and it is well under the usual 20 or 30 lots that could be done there. He said with the school property being adjacent to the site they felt this was the best way to minimize the impact to the ground.

Member Paul said when talking about moving the sidewalks, that’s something that the developer would offer to us. So, this as part of the motion concerned her. She said she could support most of the motion, and asked for clarification.

Mr. Schultz said it concerned him as well. He said he had given an intentionally guarded answer to her question that we’d probably have to look at it, and formulate a response. The reason that we are able, as a City, to require a developer to build a sidewalk across the frontage of the property is that there is essentially case law. It says where there’s an impact of the development that is going to relate to sidewalk that

is going to specifically relate to this particular development. In addition to that kind of direct proportional benefit and cost, we also have a limitation in Michigan that we can’t require improvement to be done off site. He said between the two of those things without a lot more discussion, consideration and, frankly, an actual formal offer from the developer, he had a lot of concern with that as well.

Member Paul said she could support the motion if an amendment was made to remove that portion. She said we are going to approve the bike path be located one foot from inside the road right-of-way, and the meandering location proposed. She could support that, but not the portion that suggests that Council ask him to move it to another area unless the developer comes forward with that proposal.

Member Nagy asked if Member Paul’s amendment proposed taking out the Ten Mile boardwalk all together. Member Paul said no. Member Nagy asked if she wanted the boardwalk built. Member Paul said the beginning of the motion suggested that the developer be asked to move the sidewalk to another location. She thought that portion had to be extracted, because that has not been offered so we can be sure that we are meeting every requirement of our City ordinances as well as the State ordinance.

Member Nagy said the first variance of the motion is what is to be removed and Member Paul said she was correct. Member Paul suggested calling the vote on Items 2 and 3 and then discuss the sidewalk. Member Nagy accepted the amendment.

Member Paul said just removing the first portion of the motion regarding the sidewalk location, and then we can decide if we want it to be on that area one foot from inside the right-of-way or have it meandering. Member Paul said she would rather preserve the environment and do the meandering one as suggested.

Mayor Landry said Member Paul was suggesting that Council vote on Item #6 in two stages. First stage with respect to the second and third variance only, and then as a separate item address the request for the first variance. Member Nagy agreed and Mayor Landry asked Mr. Schultz if that was appropriate.

Mr. Schultz said if that is the motion, it is appropriate.

Mayor Landry said there has been a friendly amendment and it has been accepted. Now the motion is to approve the second and third request of variance. That being the elimination of the five foot wide sidewalk on the single loaded cul-de-sac and the variance to allow a 975 foot cul-de-sac.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Hayes if the plan depicted the road moving south, and if the road is moving south what else is moving south. He said he was trying to see where these improvements to the southerly boundary of the wetlands were taking place.

Mr. Hirth said the reason for their request eliminating the sidewalk on the south side of the road is that there are no houses there. He said the sidewalk on the north side of the road is making a connection to the school’s walkway pattern. He said the roadway won’t shift and the location of the pavement in right-of-way will remain the same in both instances. Mr. Mutch asked Administration to address this.

Mr. Hayes said the road itself wouldn’t move further to the south. The point they were trying to make was that they would eliminate the impact to the wetlands and woodlands on the south side of that roadway. Mr. Mutch asked if there was any opportunity to shift the road and the lot south, and would there be any benefit to that occurring. Mr. Mutch said if we are taking out the sidewalk, which he agreed didn’t make sense there, if there is an opportunity to shift the road south and bring the road and the houses away from the wetland, which makes sense. He said he would like to see that take place if possible. Obviously, if the sidewalk isn’t along the southerly right-of-way, you’ve got 60 feet of right-of-way to work with that gains us at least another 15 feet and could potentially move those lots and the road away from the wetland further. Mr. Mutch said along the southern boundary the only thing going there is a berm. He said it made sense otherwise we are saving the developer some money not constructing a sidewalk we don’t need. However, this wouldn’t address the rationale provided to Council.

Ms. McBeth said the plan has been worked on very carefully over the past several months regarding the exact location of the cul-de-sac, and the location of the road and sidewalk. She believed, with the road as currently located, they are able to get as many units as possible without the need for a sidewalk on the south side, and it kind of benefits over on the far west side of the property where the cul-de-sac is located. She said that is the pinch point involved in this development, and is where the wetlands cease to exist on the north and south side. There is no need for the sidewalk to be located there, and she didn’t think it increased the opportunity to shift the property any farther to the south then is seen on the plan.

Mr. Mutch asked if her opinion was that it would be too much work to do a shift south working with the right-of-way and the area that’s available. Ms. McBeth thought it was possible to take another look at the plan, and see if the actual roadway could be moved a little to the south so there is a little more space on the north side. Mr. Mutch said even if the lot can’t be shifted south, which he thought would be the ideal situation, even

increase some of the front yards on those lots would, by moving that road to the south, benefit those future homeowners in that area. If that was accomplished it would be some benefit to giving up the sidewalk. Mayor Landry asked Member Mutch if that was a friendly amendment and he responded it was.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented that looking at the sidewalk to the west of Lot 12, he thought there should be an apron to get to the street.

Mr. Hirth stated they didn’t want to put an apron there because they didn’t want to encourage crossing the road except at intersections. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said they have to there, because there is a sidewalk only on one side.

Member Paul asked if this was going back through the planning or Administration stages for the relocation of the street. She didn’t want this going through another six month process and asked for clarification. Mayor Landry said the motion was that they would meet with Administration to see if this was feasible. Mr. Helwig agreed and said he would report back to Council.

Member Gatt asked if it comes back and is not feasible, does the motion just go through then. Mr. Helwig said that was his understanding. He said they would try, and if there’s elbow room, they will abide by the wishes of Council.

Mayor Landry asked for comments on the first part of Item 6, and the request for a variance regarding the location of the bike path along Ten Mile Road.

Member Mutch said he would not support a variance that eliminated the bike path entirely or resulted in the bike path being located where the applicant proposed. He said there would be problems with not meeting Oakland County standards. The other concern is that this particular location is used by a blind gentleman, who walks down Ten Mile Road along the curb and along the property, because there is no where for him to walk. This is a hazardous situation and alleviating it would be helpful. Member Mutch understood the arguments on the other side, but the concern he would have without having something formally in place to address the cost, is that we would end up installing this path at a cost to the City at a future date. He is not opposed to looking at alternatives because there are other locations in the City, and Council needs to address those paths. He wouldn’t support the variance as stated.

Member Gatt agreed with Member Mutch, and said he would not be in favor of any variance being granted on this matter.

Member Nagy disagreed with some of the comments, because there is a sidewalk granted for the apartments, but even if a boardwalk is put in in front of the wetland you still would not be able to have a sidewalk at the end of the boardwalk. She said this is an Oakland County road, and asked if the money from the project could be put into escrow for future construction.

Mr. Schultz said in the past, Council has had applicants who wanted to delay construction of a sidewalk or boardwalk for a particular period of time, and on occasion, Council has granted that. He said that is not really what they are asking for in terms of a variance. They are not asking to do it later; they want it in a different location. Secondly, he thought that it is rare that we hit the number that it will actually cost in the future, so you have to weigh the reasonableness of the amount placed in escrow.

Member Nagy asked if Council could take the whole project out, and not require the developer to do it. Mr. Schultz said the question is instead of granting the variance request of moving it, can Council just delete the requirement. Mr. Schultz thought Council would want an actual request to do that, but obviously, Council would have the authority to grant that kind of a waiver.

Member Nagy said she had concerns about putting in a boardwalk on 10 Mile. There have been no safety studies, and it seemed dangerous to put a boardwalk in the middle of an area, and then when you exit the boardwalk you’re on grass again. She said she didn’t understand the need for this.

Member Margolis said she could not support the variance because the Oakland County Road Commission is not in support of it. However, after talking with residents, people do want these paths created in a community. She thought the long term goal of this process was to connect the City up over time. She is concerned about Council deciding to move sidewalks from one area to another. She thought the goal was to work with the developers to connect up the City so people can have sidewalks. She encouraged them to find a way to do this without a variance.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said we have been struggling for years to fill all the gaps in the sidewalks, and it made no sense to him to now create a gap when we have the opportunity to fill the sidewalks in. He said they had seen tentative plans from Walgreens at Ten Mile and Novi Road coming east to the railroad track, which will be developed in the near future. He assumed the Pico property would be redeveloped in the near future and would create another area where the sidewalk gaps would be filled. He said it made sense to create a sidewalk from Novi Road to Meadowbrook Road. There is a lot better chance to fill in the gaps on the south side of Ten Mile than on the north side. So to say we will relocate the sidewalk elsewhere, and create another gap over a wetland area that is going to cost us more money in the future to build the sidewalk, made no sense to him. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said Council granted a variance and had them remove the sidewalk within the subdivision. If we had an ordinance that said a developer could apply for a variance to not construct the sidewalks where required, and the developer would offer to build that sidewalk elsewhere, that would make sense. However, that is not in front of us now, so we can’t do it. He said maybe Mr. Schultz could look at that and come back to Council. It seems the consensus of Council is they want the sidewalk there. It is going to be a boardwalk, and it will have to be carried further off the right-of-way.

CM-05-11-357 Moved by Capello, seconded by Margolis; CARRIED

Member Paul agreed with many of the comments made at the table, and thought that Council would have the sidewalk once the Walgreen area was further developed. She wondered what would be done with this portion. Member Paul said the developer wants five to six feet back from the edge of the pavement, and our Design and Construction

Standards say one foot. She felt one foot from Ten Mile was a concern. She thought that the developer’s proposal of five or six feet back with a meandering sidewalk was safer than it would be to come one foot off the right-of-way.

Mr. Hirth stated the ordinance called for one foot off the right-of-way line, which is normally 60 feet from the centerline of the road not the edge of the pavement. He said if they are to follow the ordinance they would construct the combination of walk and boardwalk at one foot from the right-of-way, which leaves 12 to 20 feet from the edge of the road. The reason they are requesting the variance is because if we swing it closer to the road, whether 5 feet or 12 feet, it shortens the length of the boardwalk which lessens the temporary impacts on the wetlands. He said that is the reason for their request for the variance. Mr. Hirth said if they didn’t receive the variance they would have to build the boardwalk over a longer distance of wetland, which they are willing to do. However, they felt the farther they are from the edge of the wetlands, instead of building it within a reasonable distance of the edge, now they are a little farther back, it will have inevitable impact on the wetlands, albeit temporary, are probably going to be a little bit more. The variances were to try to minimize that. He said if they can get the variance to the 12 feet as the road commission requests they would be glad to do it, but it is not a project killer to build it at the ordinance required location. In any case it will be as safe as any other sidewalk or developments are.

Member Paul asked if there was a way to build a sidewalk within the Oakland County Road Commission standards, and decrease the amount of boardwalk. She thought that was a good idea. She said the boardwalks on Beck Road by Kirkway Place and Greenwood Oaks, and the one on Ten Mile by the Whitehall Nursing Home are starting to curl and need maintenance. She thought decreasing the amount of boardwalk would increase the ability to last longer, and it would decrease the amount of impact on the wetlands.

Mayor Landry said he couldn’t support granting a variance to the sidewalk. He agreed with Member Mutch and thought the sidewalk needed to be there. There is a sidewalk to the west and if someone wanted to go from Quince to the apartments, they have to have a sidewalk. There is a school to the south of this with children coming in and out. He stated so to just do away with the sidewalk, he could not support that. Mayor Landry said if we build the sidewalk to the City’s Design and Construction Standards, it meets Oakland County Road Commission rules, and there is no fixed object within 12 feet, which complies with their rule. He said he would support the motion to deny the variance.

Member Mutch said the concern he has about placing this somewhere between where they are proposing and one foot off the right-of-way is that if Ten Mile Road is

widened, the City could incur the cost of tearing it out and replacing it. He said in terms of getting those pathways completed, the developer has already had significant savings

by not placing the sidewalk on the south side. It is a trade off in this situation, and obviously, it will be more expensive to put in the boardwalk segment. However, he thought Council should look at the developer incurring that cost with some off set from the previous motion, and then getting that completed for the long term.

Mr. Schultz said, for clarification, the denial is based on the reasons in the staff report.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if they could contract with this individual employee, offer them something different, and not have any union problems.

Mr. Helwig said yes.

Member Gatt asked why they would want to do this. He asked if this person wouldn’t stay with the City if she wasn’t offered vacation and time off.

Mr. Helwig said the memo was provided so that Council would have the complete history. This is heightening the arrangement over what it was before, and that is the principal objective. It also accommodates the individual opting out of the health insurance and pension programs. Member Gatt asked Mr. Helwig if he recommended this and he replied he did.

Mayor Landry noted there were five responses to the RFQ’s, and Council members received them in their packets. Mayor Landry suggested Council members review the RFQ’s, and come to the next City Council meeting prepared to decide how many of the five they wish to interview, and set a date for the interviews. Mayor Landry suggested that Council have interviews on Saturday, December 3, 2008.

Member Paul felt the Saturday meeting date should be set now.

Mr. Helwig advised Council that the RFQ’s would be sent again in the off week packet to make sure that everyone had the information.

Member Nagy asked if all their concerns were addressed. Mr. Helwig said Lynn Norman met with them and said it would be done in the spring.

Member Paul asked for clarification about the public information meeting that was hosted for the Eleven Mile Roadway Pathway Project between Beck and Wixom Road. Mr. Hayes said that project is referred to as Phase II and the public information meeting will be held this Thursday at 6:30 p.m. He said they would provide a report at the conclusion of that meeting. Member Paul asked if this was the entire length of that area. Mr. Hayes said it was and it stopped at the school property at the western end. She said she thought Mike Fellows, developer of Taft Knolls, was going to do part of the bike path in front of the school property that abuts the King property on the east side. Member Paul’s understanding was that he would do this when Council did a rezoning of the Eleven and Taft area.

Mr. Helwig said what Member Paul said is correct. He said her inquiry is dealing with the north side of Eleven Mile between Beck west to Wixom. Mr. Helwig thought she was talking about Taft Road and Eleven Mile. Member Paul said when the rezoning was done we talked about what else they would do with the Planning/Rezoning overlay. At that time Mr. Fellows made the offer to do the sidewalk on the north side of Eleven Mile, closer to Wixom Road where the soccer fields are. She said that was something that he came forward with, he met with Mr. Auler.

Mr. Helwig said Council authorized the design to be completed for the entire stretch of 11 Mile between Taft and Wixom. Phase 1 is under construction now, asphalt was being laid today and concrete down to Sierra Drive was completed last week on Beck Road. The meeting this Thursday evening is for the input for the design for construction for Phase 2. Mr. Helwig said Council asked that construction be deferred until they could see what developments were coming forward, and who might pay for them.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello noted employees are taking up all the parking spaces, because there’s no one hour or two hour parking limits. He thought there should be a limit on the time for parking so that the patrons could park. He asked Mr. Schultz what Council needed to do.

Mr. Schultz responded that the engineer and DPW would look at it, look at traffic control orders, also through the Police Department. This is not an involved process, but there are several departments involved in it. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked what the next step would be.

Mr. Helwig said Administration would bring back to Council a justification for a Traffic Control Order on a temporary basis, evaluate it and come back to Council and they could make it permanent, if that was their desire. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he was sure most of the leases there have restrictions that employees must park in certain locations, but that only relates to the parking lots and not to the public streets. There was Council consensus to direct Administration to conduct a study of the parking on Main Street and return to Council with a recommendation.

Member Paul thought Mayor Pro Tem Capello’s point was very well taken. She thought they should look at the handicapped spots that are in those areas, because most of those are to the rear of the site, and she didn’t think there were any on Main Street on either side of the road. Member Paul suggested the time should be one hour with handicapped spaces also available.

Member Mutch stated he was concerned about parking there because when reading the Northville or Plymouth papers, parking and managing the parking in their downtown areas seemed to be the biggest issue in town. He didn’t want to be too hasty. Member Mutch asked how it would be enforced. He wanted to approach it comprehensively, and not create problems for employees and customers.

Mayor Landry asked if the Administration could come back and advise Council of some options on this. He thought it was a great idea too, but he didn’t know if the businesses would want that. Mr. Helwig said they would be happy to. He said most businesses want turn over, and it appears that employees are camping there for the day and they are not getting the business turnover. He said he was going to take the liberty of starting to explore that. This would be a first for the City to get into a program like that, which is costly. Most cities that get into to it end up wanting to off set that partially or totally with revenue for parking meters, citation programs,

etc. Mayor Landry said we are already low in terms of police staffing, so this will be a significant work program. He said they would be glad to undertake it, but would need more than the usual amount of time to put something together for Council. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked what he thought would be a reasonable amount of time to get something back. Mr. Helwig asked for a month, because some collaboration with the business community is important.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello suggested using the Senior Handicap Enforcement Officers. They might be ideal for that small area.

Member Nagy thought they should proceed with caution. She asked why they couldn’t explain to their employees that they prefer they park in back where they are supposed to, because it does affect business. She was also concerned about parking meters because one or two hours is not a lot of time.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he didn’t say anything about meters. Mayor Landry said Council would look for something from Administration in 30 days or so.

Member Capello noted last year, merchants were allowed to have temporary signs from Thanksgiving until the day after Christmas. He said he preferred a specific type of sign, and that it should be a holiday theme. There was consensus of Council to do this. He asked that someone come back with a proposal for the next meeting of what can be done to generate some type of a temporary sign with a Holiday theme. Mr. Helwig said it will be City wide and Mayor Landry agreed.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M.

____________________________ _____________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

____________________________ Date approved: November 29, 2005

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean