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

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning

Sheryl Walsh, Community Relations Manager

Mayor Pro Tem Capello added to Mayor and Council Issues, #2 Overlay District/OST District and #3 Establish a committee to review bonds and personal guarantees.

Member Paul added to Mayor and Council Issues, #4 Meadowbrook Town Homes landscaping.

Mayor Landry added to Mayor and Council Issues, #5 to discuss and/ or schedule for June 12^th meeting for the Library presentation.

Senator Nancy Cassis offered congratulations for a very successful Memorial Day parade; it was enjoyed by all. Secondly, she wanted to offer congratulations, along with Speaker of the House Craig DeRoche, to the appointment of Clay Pearson as Novi’s new City Manager. She said Mr. Pearson had certainly given the City his time, and thoughtful consideration. In his duties he had already shown that he would lead Novi and lead well in the future. She said anything they could do to be of help they were there for him.

Senator Cassis said it was her very special honor to pay tribute to an extraordinary gentleman, Dennis Ireland. She said they were fortunate to know this man, a Novi resident, who started out his 48 year career at age 18 in Novi with the Novi Fire Department. Then he went on to South Lyon, but spent the majority of his tenure with the Northville Township Fire Department. He retired in 2002, but in many ways that was just the beginning. He was very active, becoming the Director of the State of Michigan Firefighters Association, and gave of his time and energy to a task that he believed in so wholeheartedly. He became Vice President, and in June 2005 he became President of the organization. As he was stepping down from this position, it was without any doubt in our minds that he would continue to be very active in the association. She said they truly appreciated his exemplary work, his character, and his ethic on behalf of all Michigan citizens, and especially here in Novi. There was no more of a challenge than that of being a fireman or policeman, and we know everyday the risks and sacrifices they make. She said there was no higher calling than in service to others, and Mr. Ireland was certainly exemplary in all of that. Therefore, on behalf of the State of Michigan and our community, Speaker of the House Craig DeRoche, Governor Jennifer Granholm, and herself, she presented to him this special tribute. She hoped it would connote all the caring and appreciation they had for all his years of service. Senator Cassis said when going in or out of the Civic Center there was a wonderful tribute to our fireman, and she thought that it spoke volumes of the respect Novi holds for men and women who do so much for our health, safety, and welfare.

Mr. Ireland thanked everyone. He said he would still be active in the association and anything he could do for the City, and the Fire Department, he would be glad to help out.

There were no comments from the audience, and the public hearing was closed.

There were no comments from the audience, and the public hearing was closed.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. May 22, 2006 – Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of June 5, 2006 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and privileged correspondence from legal counsel.

C. Approval of the revised City of Novi Investment Policy (to update List of Approved Financial Institutions).

D. Approval of award for Meadowbrook Commons pavement repair, seal coating and markings quotation to Midwest Pavement, for the lowest qualified quotation in the amount of $19,852.

E. Approval of request for proposal award for Meadowbrook Commons landscape improvements to Mist-O-Matic, for the lowest qualified proposal in the amount of $53,375.

F. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 722

Mr. Pearson said this parcel was a small triangular piece at the corner of Old Novi and Novi Roads, and was two tenths of an acre. There would not be any road realignment or public work necessary on this. He said, it was his understanding, there would not be a building on this parcel, and that it simply assists the development to incorporate into their site plan. Public notices were sent out for the Public Hearing, and Council had a record of any that were returned.

Member Mutch asked if the underlying property ownership belonged to Singh, and it’s just the public easement for the highway being vacated.

Mr. Schultz replied yes, unlike the next item on the agenda. The vacation would get rid of the City’s interest, from our perspective, and would then transfer to the adjacent property owner who would be left to his own devices on claims that other property owners might make. He said the City would have vacated its interest, and believed that it would go to the underlying owner.

Mr. Pearson said this was Karevich Dr., and the request by Art Van had been before Council on several occasions. It took some research to determine the proper process and what the property would be used for afterward. He said Art Van had a conceptual site plan for the corner and how it might be used. They had also proposed in this latest transmittal, landscaping improvements along Novi Road, and a sidewalk improvement that had been previously discussed with Council. Mr. Pearson noted this was not up for consideration of the resolution, at this point, as they were taking this another step to get more feedback from Council.

Member Gatt stated he would not be in favor of the vacation of Karevich Drive, until and unless the City came up with a plan to honor former Mayor Patricia Karevich in another manner.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said in previous presentations of this to Council, he said he might look at vacating Karevich Drive if he saw substantial landscaping along Novi Road in place of the location of the road. He said he saw very little landscaping, and all he did see was additional parking lots.

Member Nagy agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Capello. She asked the applicant if there would be any landscaping in the parking areas. Michael Rupert, representing Art Van, said they were land banking about 75 parking spots, which would be landscaped. They

would add trees along Novi Road, and assumed the existing parking area met the landscape ordinance. She thought they were reducing their parking from what existed today. Member Nagy thought the shrubs were minuscule on the design, but was for the vacation of Karevich Drive.

Member Paul noted she was also looking for a lot more landscaping. She was in support of vacating this drive but in lieu of that she wanted to see enhancements. She said the Parking Ordinance for Islands was every 15 spaces, and that was not so on this design. She said when looking at a lot of the land banking, one of the things that she and Mr. Pearson were discussing was how to re-look at the parking ordinance, and reduce the spaces. She wanted

to look at that before doing a final plan. She asked Mr. Pearson or Ms. McBeth to comment on their discussion about the Kroger parking lot, how large it was, and how many unused spaces there were. Now, they are looking at this Art Van plan, and they are land banking 75 spaces. She said the City of Novi had the largest amount of parking for any City in the State of Michigan, and she would like to see this rectified before putting in 150 more spaces.

Mr. Pearson said the site plan itself was conceptual, and had not been reviewed for compliance with the landscape ordinance, the building or for the parking requirements. He commented that would come as a separate site plan. He said they were showing this conceptual plan for illustrative purposes that what they were going to do would work, they could fit a building of a certain size, etc. He said with the vacation consideration Council could ask for and require, as part of the vacation, more landscaping along Novi Road, which was the property that was being given up separately from that, as they wanted. Mr. Pearson suggested Council do that. Otherwise, they would be waiting for the building development, and he didn’t know when that would be. However, they could make the Novi Road improvements happen much faster with the vacation consideration.

Member Paul said the items they were looking for in the motion were increased landscaping along Novi Road, and decreased parking. Mr. Pearson suggested leaving the parking issue out of the motion because it would be dealt with on a separate site plan. He said it would be the landscaping along Novi Road, and the property the City was giving up as part of the vacation consideration.

Member Paul said she would like a friendly amendment. Member Nagy said she would like to change her motion.

Mayor Landry said they were not voting on the vacation tonight. Mr. Schultz said he was correct. Mayor Landry said they were just voting to move forward and ask the City attorney to bring back an actual vacation order for this Council to sign. So, it might be appropriate for Council to indicate, if they wanted to move forward, what they wanted to come forward was a vacation order, a lot more landscaping, and an actual landscape architect rendering. Mr. Schultz said he was correct. This would be a two step process should Council ultimately

determine to vacate. It would need to be followed by a conveyance, and all of the things discussed tonight, such as landscaping and future use could be part of the requirements and conveyance documents, purchase agreement, transfer agreement, whatever it ended up being called. If Council went forward it would have those kinds of details, and he suggested doing both on the same night. Mayor Landry said whatever Council wanted ultimately should be put in the motion now. Mr. Schultz said or enough direction so that staff could go forward.

Member Nagy restated her motion, which was that the Administration bring the actual vacation resolution back to Council at a subsequent meeting along with the conveyance agreement containing the terms and conditions of the transfer, and future use of the vacated area with additional landscaping along with a more detailed rendering.

Member Paul, as seconder of the motion accepted. She thought there was also a $50,000 fee, and a sidewalk that was going to be part of the resolution. Ms. McBeth said there was a letter in the previous and the present packet regarding a number of items that Art Van had been offering as part of this request. She suggested that the terms of that letter be included in the motion. Mr. Schultz said he was assuming and thought staff was assuming that it would be part of the conveyance document. Member Paul stated she would support the motion with hopes they could make significant changes and move forward, and also look at suggestions of land banking when it went through the Planning Department.

Mayor Landry said whenever a City vacated property, especially if it was being deeded over, they had to be consistent and have very specific reasons of what the public benefit would be. He said it was his understanding that the time to put those reasons on the motion would be when the Council actually voted and not tonight. Mr. Schultz said he was correct.

Member Margolis said the main reason for the City to consider vacating this road was to have an extra public benefit. She thought the public benefit would be the increased landscaping along Novi Road. She would support the motion. She said Council really needed to see that there was a greater landscape plan than this one, and something that would be a benefit to the City in vacating the road; otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense for the City to consider this.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he would not support the motion until he saw a landscape plan. He wasn’t just looking for trees and shrubs; he was looking for a low brick or ornate wall with landscaping in front to dress it up a little.

Member Mutch said according to the rendering Council received, the area in front of the existing Art Van store, the City would retain most of that right of way, and Art Van was giving the City an additional portion directly in front of that. He asked what the status of the area was to the south of that because there was discussion of that being retained by Art Van with an easement on it. Mr. Schultz thought he was talking about the reservation for a public utility easement across the entire vacated area. He said not that there was one planned or designed, but a statute that allowed roads to be vacated also allowed the retention of a public utility easement, if it might be useful in the future. Mr. Schultz said they had done a general reservation, it might be released if not needed, but while they were planning it’s typical to reserve an easement area. Member Mutch asked how the area in front of the new store would be addressed.

Mr. Pearson said that was an area that Art Van, in their latest transmittal, offered as even more additional right of way on Novi Road. He said they didn’t think it would be needed, so the suggestion was to create language that would give the City the right of first refusal, or something along those lines. Then if it was needed it would be available. Mr. Pearson said he wasn’t suggesting they take it, he didn’t think it was necessary, and thought it should be kept on the tax roll. Member Mutch asked if that was part of the transmittal letter. Mr. Pearson said yes, he thought it was in the last version.

Member Mutch asked if five votes were needed to vacate a public right of way and for property conveyance. Mr. Schultz said he was correct. Member Mutch commented he wanted to point that out to everyone involved recognizing there were Council members who had expressed reservations about that. He said, hopefully, they could come to a resolution that met everybody’s needs. He would support the motion as he agreed with comments regarding landscaping. He didn’t think Council was seeing the totality of the landscaping that would come with the new development. Obviously, they would need more than what was shown, because what was shown was just the frontage area being discussed tonight. He thought it would be helpful for the Council, when looking at this, to see what the landscape on the adjacent properties would look like, and he agreed additional landscaping was needed. Member Mutch said they had been discussing the public benefits for quite a while, and one of the benefits of vacating Karevich Drive was it would allow the assembly of that parcel so it could be developed. At one time this was a proposed frontage road, and no other area within West Oaks was developed with a frontage road, so it wasn’t really serving a public transportation need. He said there was discussion about the cost that was generated for maintaining that road, and that would be a cost that the City would no longer have to bear, which was likely going to be far in excess of any revenue received from maintaining that road.

He wanted these statements on the record so they could be incorporated into what came back to Council at a future meeting. Member Mutch said, regarding the sidewalk, Mr. Pearson had said he thought it would be an 8 ft. sidewalk. He assumed administration looked at the City’s Master Plan, which proposed a 5 ft. sidewalk, and the bike path to the north on Novi Road from Twelve Mile north was 8 ft. wide. He noted this was a heavily traveled area, and he thought an 8 ft. sidewalk would be appropriate. It was a standard everywhere else in the City. He said the west side of the road always got an 8 ft. path, and that it’s 8 ft. wide on Taft Road from the Northville City limits to Eleven Mile, and along other major north/south roads. He didn’t know how this ended up 5 ft., but he would be looking for 8 ft. path in that area. He said they could come back through the committee he was appointed to, and look at how it was changed, and at getting revised in the future. He said because there was no other sidewalk from the freeway up to Twelve Mile, this would set the precedent for the remaining properties, and that was what he would be looking for from this proposal.

Mayor Landry stated he would vote in favor of a motion to move this forward, but he wanted the applicant to know that come time to approve or disapprove this he agreed with his colleagues. Mayor Landry said he would like to see more landscaping, and a better rendering of exactly what the City would receive. Mayor Landry said to Mr. Pearson, he was confident that he would be able to find another road in the City that a developer would agree to name Karevich Road, because he was protecting the field of former Mayor’s in this town.

Mr. Pearson said there were several resolutions for consideration, and this was an annual rite. In bulk this was passing the charges the City received for the bulk rates from Detroit Water and Sewer, and the Oakland County Drain Commission. He said Novi received water from Detroit Water and Sewer, and send treated sewage to Oakland County. These resolutions update the new rates received from them, and pass them on. Also, for the first time in a couple years, they had seen the need to increase the local maintenance rates, which were added to that. He had some background information, and there was an example of what this would mean in dollars to a typical residence. They were using that example, currently, for both water and sewer. The estimate would be an increase of approximately a $41.92 for both of these over the course of a year.

Mayor Landry said Council was looking for three resolutions tonight; one on the water rates, one on the Huron Rouge sewer rates, and one on the Novi/Walled Lake sewer system. Mr. Pearson agreed.

Gary Trusell of Hubbell, Roth and Clark, representing Providence Hospital, was present to respond to any questions of Council.

Mr. Pearson said there was a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission, this was in conformance with the Master Plan, and they recommended approval.

Ms. Alicia Hyderman of McKenna and Associates, was present representing the applicant. She said they had been working very hard with staff, and felt the language in front of Council met their goals and the intent of the TC-1 District. They were in full support of what Council had tonight. She commented, regarding Mayor Pro Tem Capello’s question two weeks ago about the amount of retail space, and she said even though the plans were preliminary, they were at about 24% of the site area for commercial uses.

Ms. McBeth said following the last Council meeting where the first reading was held the Planning Department went back and tried to formulate some language to address some of the concerns of Council, as well as some of the concerns they had with the text amendments. She said they met with Mr. Schultz and the planning staff and came up with some suggested modifications. They put those together and met with Mr. Nona, Triangle Development, and

McKenna and Associates to come up with some modifications that would be more pleasing for everybody. They basically left the first two amendments in place, the building height being permitted in the Town Center District increasing in height from 65 ft. to 78 ft. subject to a number of conditions. She said modifying the density calculations from a mixed use building to a mixed use development were left the same. The modification of the room count calculation was the part that they focused on during the last couple of weeks. The ordinance was modified a little in terms of the building height, and now reflected the request that Triangle had at the last meeting, which was to allow the additional building height for mixed use buildings on any roadway that’s not less than 28 feet in width, and constructed according to City standards. Ms. McBeth said the minimum unit size had been amended to 700 sq. ft. in accordance with Triangle’s latest request. She said that was an increase over the current minimum unit size that was 400 sq., ft. but it was reduced from 800 sq. ft. they were proposing. She said staff recommended splitting the table in the ordinance into two separate tables so that there was one table related to mixed use developments, and the other table related to uses that were not considered mixed uses for development such as Main Street Village I, they could still rely on the other table. They thought that would facilitate the reading and clarity of the ordinance to split that into two tables. Ms. McBeth said, per City Council’s request, staff added a paragraph below the table and the applicant was agreeing to provide conceptual floor plans for each dwelling unit to establish a maximum number of rooms permitted per building at the beginning of the process. After that maximum was established, the developer could modify the floor plans as needed individually as long as they don’t exceed the total number of rooms in the mixture of the types of units that the standards currently allow for in the ordinance. As a means to facilitate that flexibility, a word was added in the second or third column of the chart, the maximum room count was identified for that column. Additionally, there were modifications from the initial room count calculations that would be possible for the developer at a later date.

Ms. McBeth said they felt they had come to an agreement that the Planning Department was satisfied with, where they could still make sure that the intent of the ordinance was met in terms of density, and parking calculations. She said Mr. Nona and Ms. Hyderman seemed to be satisfied with those changes as well.

No vote taken on this motion

Member Margolis commented she had no problem with the height modifications, and thought it looked like the kind of development that Council was looking for in Novi. She said she appreciated their hard work with staff. She was not concerned about retail and was fine with the retail this development would bring in, and the office space that they were looking for. She thought the retail that fit with this fit with the usage of the residents of the area. She said as a general direction for staff, that each time Council added requirements to the ordinances, to zoning, etc. they needed to look carefully at whether they added value to the City, and to the applicant. She thought sometimes Council added lots of requirements, and the value it added to the City in terms of future development versus the cost to regulate, to the extent that she saw some of these doing, not only cost the developer but also cost our staff time. She said they talk about the process taking a long time, and no matter what process was looked at, when all kinds of requirements are added for every possible situation a lot of time was added. This was not a criticism of staff because she thought it was very common in organizations. She brought this up in view of the discussion about room counts last time. She was fine in determining room counts with size of box. As she was looking through this, she noticed that under these changes if the applicant put a loft type unit into a large space they could then use those extra rooms in another area of the development. She thought that added density, and thought it was what they were getting away from. Yet, it seemed to be adding another step in the process. She would approve this, and appreciated the hard work by staff and the applicant. She said they would see her questioning each step from the point of view of a non planner, what value does this add to the City versus the cost to the City.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello stated he could support the room count calculations, but that was all he could support at this time. He asked if the 24% included the retail and all office, and Ms. Hyderman said it did, because each building had one floor of retail and a second floor of office, which were roughly the same at 12% each. He asked if it was every building, and Ms. Hyderman said every mixed use building. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he still had problems with parking on the first floor. He didn’t have a problem with the height, and he would be happy to give them an extra floor of residential for every floor of retail, and every additional floor of office. He said he didn’t like parking on the first floor because the architectural aspects aren’t the key to him. He said they were learning, but the most important lesson they had learned was that by just putting apartments and more people in the downtown district, it would not drive the downtown. Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought there needed to be more businesses downtown. Royal Oak was a good example, and even with the closing of some of the stores in Birmingham, it was a good example. People are driving there, and you can tell that by the parking problem. He said the additional residential here would not drive the downtown area if

Council doesn’t make sure, in this next phase of the Main Street area, that there was sufficient office and retail along Main Street and the two corridor streets, because that’s all there was to work with, and they have to be at street level. Ms. Hyderman said the site plans are preliminary phases, but they know for sure they have no parking on the first level for Main Street or for the

two corridor streets. It was only for the residential buildings on the southern portion of the site by Trans X Road. The parking for the residential units along Main Street was underground. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he could live with something like that, but that particular language needed to be included in the ordinance. He said the other thing he saw previously, was that they were asking Council to allow them to fill in the wetland to make a community corner. He told Mr. Pearson they needed to take down the "Band Shell Coming, Fifties sign". He said where they were potentially going to have a park it had originally been residential, and he didn’t see the benefit of having that particular part of the building facing the park. He said if they are going to have the retail on those main facets, he wanted to see retail and the office there, and not residential. He could not support this tonight but wanted to work with them, as he thought it needed additional tweaking.

Ms. Hyderman said, regarding the language, that Mayor Pro Tem Capello would be interested in providing language that stated there would be no parking on the first floor on any of the streets, and he agreed. He said if it was in the back of the building he would have no problem with it. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said she had said they didn’t want parking to count as a level, and that was fine with him as long as it was not a first floor parking. He said he would give them additional height and additional stories, if they were to give more commercial and retail above the first floor. He noted he wanted to make sure that the restriction regarding the parking level not counting as a story, would only apply to parking that did not front Main Street or any of the corridors. Ms. Hyderman asked if he meant only private streets or small local roads, residential access roads, and what would be acceptable. He said he didn’t think there were any of those there, and she agreed. He said there are Main Street and two corridor streets, and he didn’t know how far they abutted Trans X Road. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he drove down there today to see the flavor of the area, and thought it would eventually get redeveloped. Ms. Hyderman said she had some reservations, but she did have a preliminary site plan she could show him. Mayor Pro Tem Capello noted that he offered to look at it at the last meeting if someone called, and no one did, and he made the same offer again to Ms. Hyderman. She showed Council the site plan, and the residential buildings with parking at street level, which were about 50% underground and 50% at grade due to the grade change in the area. All the others have underground parking. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he would like to table this to tweak it a little more to be sure mistakes weren’t repeated. He said it might help if he looked at the site plan they were intending to use to get an idea of how language would work for them. He commented he was not trying to make them redesign their project, but wanted to make sure the language would meet their needs, and protect against things Council absolutely didn’t want to see there.

Member Paul said she would support Mayor Pro Tem Capello because this had been his biggest project. She understood his concerns with the parking. The 50% that was showing was not a lot, but she thought there could be some architectural enhancements so that would be where the eye went instead of the 50% parking. She said maybe there was a joint way they could do the architectural renderings to help everyone at this table be comfortable. She said if approved as is, and there are issues Council had with it, Council didn’t have a rendering to go back and try to enforce what they were looking for. Member Paul said Council wanted this to be very, very successful. If retail wasn’t going to be what was market driven, maybe they needed to show Council members what was happening in other cities. If it’s going to be more office versus more retail or vice versa, anything that could help Council to feel comfortable with the 12% of office and 12% of commercial would be appreciated. She said when it came to the question of the white box, in regard to the spacing, she was really comfortable with what was added, and being on the Planning Commission it was helpful to have two different charts. She said she and Member Margolis would look at each of the boxes, and clarify where they would go with the numbers. She believed the Planning Department did that with the applicant, and it did help her to understand that they wouldn’t get a whole lot more density in that building. Member Paul’s concern was if they said they were going to have 1,000 units, they were going to have 1,000 units, and have a little give in each building, but not end up with 1,075. She was not looking for a whole lot more; she was looking for some wiggle room in each of the units to have a total amount that would be sufficient to what the density was going to be driven for. She appreciated staff’s time, and it was helpful to her to see it in numbers. She said she appreciated how they used different colors of ink and the clean copy, and all the hard work that went into it. She hoped that they could move forward quickly to get this done, because she was very supportive of the project.

Member Mutch said he wanted some of his points on record so the applicant and staff knew where he was coming from. He shared some of the concerns that Mayor Pro Tem Capello had, and probably his biggest concern about the ordinance language was that he felt it was project specific language. He said this project was obviously a major component to the whole downtown area, but TC-1 zoning also included some of the adjacent parcels that had not been re-developed yet. Then the whole other side of Novi Road in the southwest quadrant where there was one strip center that was quasi Main Street. A good ordinance with good language could really re-drive the redevelopment of that area. So, the concern he had was that some of the provisions seemed too focused on this particular project, when he thought they needed to be thinking a little bit longer term. He said he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Capello in terms of the mixed use percentage. It required two different land uses to constitute a mixed use, and then one of the uses only had to be 10%. So there could be projects that were 90% residential and 10% retail or office. He said his minimum for this area would be 20%, which would be the starting point for non-residential or whatever minimum floor. He was fine with the height and said 78 ft. was not a number that was fixed in his head. The areas where he was stuck with the height provisions were some of the things they asked for. One of the reasons they asked for 78 ft. was they wanted the higher first floor, and he agreed that was the look they wanted, and was what successful downtowns had. He said there was no language that required that, and so this developer might do it but the next project might not take advantage of the height provision, and the City wouldn’t receive that benefit. He said that was an example where we might look at it and say we are over regulating, but he thought that was a giant loophole that needed to be addressed. He said he took some time to look at ordinances of other communities with existing downtowns, and another issue was that Novi didn’t have any requirements for building setbacks in terms of the taller buildings and the upper floors. Ann Arbor had a 10 to 20 ft. front setback and a 5 to 10 ft side setback above three or four stories so there would be some articulation. Otherwise, it could be a 78 ft. wall, and they were trying to get away from that affect, and that’s the kind of provision he would like to see in the ordinance. He also wanted to see a minimum. Member Mutch said this site plan proposed a one story building, and he didn’t want any one story buildings downtown, as that over emphasized the height difference when there was a 78 ft. building next to a 25 ft. building, versus having a five story and a two story. He would look for a two story minimum downtown, and thought a one story would be a waste of land. Member Mutch said this was a unique area of the City, and he wanted to discourage low buildings. He also felt there were way too many parking spaces. It was probably what the ordinance and market conditions required, but he was thinking there might be people moving into this area who want to down size and not have two or three cars. He said he would like to see that reduced. In terms of the first floor parking issue, he understood where they were coming from its only residential areas, but he had concerns about the first floor street level view. He asked how it would look, interact, and impact the activity on the street.

Member Nagy thanked the staff for all the work they did. She said she was totally for this mixed use, and thought it was a great idea. She thought the City had to diversify its population in the future. Member Nagy agreed with the comments of Member Mutch and Mayor Pro Tem

Capello, and would like to see those changes made. She commented she didn’t want to see this ordinance project specific, and this ordinance had to be able to apply to everything else that came through the City. She commented she liked the overall project and the idea, and thought it was a great way for the City to go and encourage more of a diverse population.

Member Landry stated he would support the motion to postpone, and asked that this be brought back to the next City Council meeting.

Mr. Pearson thought they could capture all the items, and incorporate them or discuss them with the applicant. The one point that was new, and he would like a little better sense on consensus, was the idea of a height story bonus for additional commercial and retail uses, non residential uses. He asked if that was a consensus item Council wanted them to bring back and appropriate. Mayor Landry thought Mayor Pro Tem Capello brought that item up and invited the applicant to speak with him personally about that. He didn’t know if Council wanted to get involved and asked Ms. Hyderman if she wanted to address that.

Ms. Hyderman said retailers would not go on a floor above the first floor, unless in Chicago or New York, they insist on being on the ground level. She said unfortunately, they had maxed out the retail and office space at those levels due to the parking constraints. She knew Member Mutch felt there was too much parking, but there was actually a reduction in what would be allowed if the City would just look at this, and what they called Greenfield Development, which would be standing on its own. They did do shared parking, which reduced the number of spaces by a few hundred according to the City’s guidelines and their ordinance. She said they already put in a parking deck to accommodate the medical building that would go in there, but unless they reduce the buildings they didn’t have anywhere to put additional parking for additional retail and office space. Ms. Hyderman said that was also why they had parking at the first level of the residential buildings. At this time, ordinance standards would allow them to just have it at the street level, but they put it at the building level because that way there could be more open space, and actually have more buildings there. She said an option would have been to go underground for those units, but that would add about $30,000 per space on the cost of the units. She said there were also questions about the minimum height. She said there were some one story buildings over there now, and they didn’t want to create a non-conforming situation. She said that was why they hadn’t set a minimum height. She commented they had no intention of building a one story building as it would not be cost effective for the developer.

Member Margolis said she would support the motion to postpone. She thought Member Mutch didn’t have an opportunity to look at this and add his comments. However, she cautioned Council that a lot of the issues that had been brought up tonight were not brought up last time by people that were here. Member Margolis said if Council was looking for economic development, and looking to make processes easier on both ends, Council also had to make sure that what they were bringing up they brought up as early as possible. She was sure they had just added to the cost that the developer was paying, which would probably reduce the value of the property, and they had added to the cost of staff time, who are now are going to incorporate new things. She commented that she was beginning to see why they end up with ordinances that are kind of convoluted and difficult to apply, because Council tended to go back, reconsider, and strike through. Member Margolis said she didn’t have a specific resolution to that but she encouraged Council to be as simple as possible, and guard the most value for the public without changing back and forth on things that were going through. She stated she would support the plan as it was, and appreciated all the work that had gone into it, and encouraged Council to work to support that kind of economic development.

Member Paul asked how many spaces were 50% underground. Ms. Hyderman showed her on the site plan that it was along the whole property line. Member Paul said Ms. Hyderman said that each parking space that was going to go underground instead of 50% underground and 50% above ground on the first level would be $30,000 more per space. Ms. Hyderman said she meant to say that for these 600 buildings, due to the grade change, it would be like a retaining wall for that area. When walking it would be similar to Gateway Village, it’s about half at grade in the back, and in the front it would be about 50% above ground. She said the reference to $30,000 a space was for an underground parking garage, which they have on Main Street to keep that parking off the street. She said this plan would be in front of Council for site plan review too. She said they could address their concerns with their plans when they see them. Member Paul wanted to clarify the parking cost, and wanted to be sure they could look forward. She said she had lived in New York and there were some 50% and 25% parking showing, and it did not look bad if there was a lot of architectural interest. She said that was why she said earlier that Council could ask for that architectural interest, and beef up the parking level. She wouldn’t have a problem with that, and a lot could be done with window boxes at ground level, etc. Member Paul said if they were looking at putting in a lot of money into this and make it all underground parking, she didn’t know how feasible that would be in regard to the project. She wanted to agree with the Council members but also be realistic in what they were looking for. She agreed with Member Margolis that Council was making this a longer process, and Council did have the ability to move quicker, and suggested it be back at the next meeting.

Ms. McBeth said they would be happy to bring it back at the next meeting.

Member Gatt said he was in favor of the project as is last time, and still was. He was anxious to get this going, and thanked Ms. Hyderman for her efforts.

Mayor Landry said he would support the motion to postpone, and would like it back at the next meeting. He commented that he liked the idea that the first floor parking was in the residential only, rather than on the actual Main Street, and wanted that in the ordinance. The height didn’t bother him, and he was anxious to get this moving forward. Mayor Landry commented he saw that one of the names of the streets was Memorial and one was Central. He suggested Karevich would be wonderful for one of these streets, however, that would not hold this up one way or the other, but it would be wonderful.

Ms. Hyderman said she had already submitted their street name proposal but they had talked about this since the last meeting and Triangle Development was willing to do that.

Mr. Schultz said he would like to reserve the ability to look at what the final product was that would come back to Council next time, and make a determination whether, at the next Council meeting, they needed to put it on for a public hearing to make sure the zoning statute was satisfied. He didn’t know yet and it would depend on what they ended up with. Mayor Landry said if there were any drastic changes they might have to have another public hearing. Mayor Landry assumed Mr. Schultz would give Council that advice and that was reserved to him. Mr. Schultz said it could be done here if needed.

Member Paul said she had concerns about the unexcused absences, she could live with one unexcused absences and two consecutive absences would result in forfeiting their position. She asked if Ms. Walsh was comfortable with five excused absences. Ms. Walsh said this was over a two year period, and she was comfortable with it. She said she thought the concern she had was that the students originally only met once a month, and when they have a variety of other commitments such as academics, sports, etc. she felt they should be given a little bit of leeway. Member Paul asked what happened throughout the year and how many were missed. She said they started out with a once a month meeting, it went to almost three times a month. She asked if there were some people that didn’t show on a repeated basis. Ms. Walsh said the problem they saw was that their excused or unexcused absences were tied into a reappointment issue. Seniors that had other obligations, and did not show, were not as concerned about not showing because it was tied to a reappointment, and there was nothing she or the Youth Council could do. She said if they missed that many it was not an automatic removal from the Council. Member Paul said a suggestion was made by a Youth Council member for Council’s consideration, and that was to have alternates so that if someone could not come the alternate could be present. She said, secondly, if someone didn’t come on two consecutive absences they would have alternate 1, 2, etc., and then that person would go forward. She said the Youth Council was a little disappointed by the participation by some members.

Member Margolis said she would not support the alternate, although she thought it was a great idea. The reality was that anyone who did volunteer work knew that most of the time it was half the people that did the work, and it was probably a good life lesson. She thought that logistically it might be very difficult juggling alternates. She was very comfortable with the number of absences over a two year term. The life of a high school junior or senior was frantic even for the most dedicated. She thought they needed to cut them some slack. She said she didn’t think there were any requirements for the adult boards for unexcused or excused absences, which perhaps Council might want to consider. She thought this was just fine, and the fact that it came from them, she thought they needed to support it.

Member Nagy said she didn’t think the alternates would work, and didn’t think it was fair to those who take the time to show up all the time. She would support the motion. Member Nagy thought there were rules regarding absences for the adult boards and commissions.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the absences are over a two year term. Ms. Walsh said he was correct. He suggested that be put into the resolution because it didn’t identify over what term.

Member Margolis stated she would take that as a friendly amendment that it was over a two year term.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he saw in the memo that they were meeting twice a month, and asked if that was something they were proposing as an amendment to the by-laws or did she still want to keep the one meeting a month. Ms. Walsh said they would keep the one meeting depending on their schedule of what special event or project they were working on. He said then the absences would apply to missing one meeting a month. If they have two meetings a month they have a freebie for one of them, and the absence policy only applies to the other meeting. Ms. Walsh said no, because it would take the majority of them to call a special meeting, and they always have at least two weeks notice. He said if the miss that special meeting that would be one of their absences, right. Ms. Walsh said yes. He said in regard to item # 2 "Youth Council member shall be appointed for a two year term and will be chosen based upon success of completion", how many members are reapplying. Ms. Walsh said there were nine seniors that were going off of the Youth Council, and ten members were scheduled with re-applications for reappointment for Thursday night. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said that was perfect, and asked if there was something Council could do tonight to say that the ten that are on there, their term was extended another year.

Mr. Schultz said Council could indicate they wanted to apply to the currently serving members retroactively. Member Margolis accepted the friendly amendment.

Member Paul said she and Mayor Pro Tem Capello had discussed this. She said they were looking at the new houses that were on both Beck Road and Ten Mile Road, and on Ten Mile Road several of them didn’t require sidewalks or street trees. She said it was quite a long stretch, and unfortunately the sidewalk would not be placed by the developer or homeowner. She suggested that any major thoroughfare that a home was built on or they were trying to meet the current standards, that Council would be able to have street trees and sidewalks placed in that area by the developer, builder or homeowner, at that time. She wanted to see if Council would look at this in future meetings for an ordinance change.

Mr. Pearson said sidewalks are required, and it was just the street trees that were not required.

Member Paul said when she spoke to Mr. Pearson regarding this, he said on Ten Mile, north side of the road west of Mockingbird Glen there were two homes that abutted Ten Mile. He said sidewalks were not required at those two homes. Mr. Pearson said they were older ones, and had slipped through the requirement, but in the ordinance they should have been required.

Member Paul said she would like to have both required because that was an error on Ten Mile, and they should have had sidewalks. Mr. Pearson said he would look into the specifics of the homes on Ten Mile, but that was what happened on Beck Road. She said the two homes she was speaking of were built within the last year and a half, and are on the north side of Ten Mile west of Mockingbird Glen. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said they were directly east of the power lines. Member Paul said if that was mandated, she would like to see those put in because it would help to develop that stretch on Ten Mile. She commented if the sidewalks were already being done then, she would like to see just the street trees on major thoroughfares.

Mayor Landry asked if anyone disagreed with that position. Mr. Schultz said he was not in disagreement. He commented from a perspective of trying to put the regulation in place. He said the street tree requirement was in the Zoning Ordinance. It was transplanted there from the Subdivision Ordinance where he thought there was a lot of good planning and case law to support it for a coordinated development trying to get a treed canopy look. He said it might take a while for them to talk about what the governmental purposes of single properties are that’s similar to doing it in a subdivision, and to find regulations made it through a court challenge between the purpose, the regulation, and whether it accomplished a purpose. He said if it was Council’s desire to look at that it might be breaking a little bit of new ground, and it would be the only part of the landscape section of the Zoning Ordinance that would apply to single family homes. Unless, Council wanted the staff or Planning Commission to look at it, but for the most part single family homes don’t comply with, not just street trees, but pretty much any of the landscape provisions in the ordinance.

Mayor Landry asked Member Paul if she would be agreeable to having the City Attorney research the matter, and get back to Council in an off week packet with a report. Then it could be discussed again in Mayor and Council Issues. Member Paul agreed.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said regarding ordinances that required the subdivisions to put in the sidewalks and street trees, it always seemed like the developer waited until the project was done before he completed the sidewalks. He commented he would like to see them have to put in the sidewalk before the first building permit, and get them to do it up front so it can be used. He asked if he could look at that, and also to get them to speed up the process of getting the street way done, at least, so people wouldn’t have to look at the construction for as long as it took to build out the subdivision.

Member Mutch said he specifically remembered the Fed Ex facility at Eleven Mile and Meadowbrook Road in regards to requiring sidewalks. The issue was the City didn’t own the right of way or had, like at Novi Road, a highway by user kind of easement, and whether they could require the sidewalk outside of the right of way. The existing right of way line was 33 feet, and the future right of way line was 60 feet. He asked if they could be required to put a sidewalk in beyond that existing right of way line, and if not, would there be safety issues requiring them to put it at the existing point, and whether Council might need some kind of waiver as was necessary with the home on Eleven Mile. He suggested having a provision dealing with those situations. He was in 100% agreement with the intent but knew this had historically been an issue. He had been pleased with the Administration’s ability to get sidewalks on some of the major thoroughfares in locations where they had not previously attempted to. He commented if Mr. Schultz wanted to cover this in the off week packet, that would be fine.

Member Margolis stated she supported the sidewalks for the single family homes, but was having trouble seeing the need for street trees on those parcels. It seemed a small number of parcels, and the comment about it being a change in our whole approach to things, and we are so close to build out and suddenly Council would require street trees, which she was having trouble envisioning abutting a main road. At first thought, she wasn’t sure it was worth the time to put into street trees, sidewalks yes, but street trees she was not so sure.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if Council remembered the decks with the man made material in Portage. He said maybe they should look at the boardwalks when looking at reviewing Design and Construction Standards for the top of the boardwalk to be made out of that material, and not just for maintenance issues but for safety issues. He commented it wouldn’t warp with the kids going over it with roller blades, etc.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented he didn’t think it was necessary to look at the whole OST Ordinance. However, with some of the new developments coming in along certain corridors, there are certain areas in the OST Districts that Council might want to enhance the height requirements. He said Council members had been talking to developers and to Matt Sosin of Farmington Hills, and they knew Novi was still losing business to Farmington Hills because the high tech people wanted taller buildings. He said there are areas in Farmington Hills, particularly the new development coming in M-5 from 13 to 14 Mile Road. Mr. Sosin said there were new materials that could be used, and Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought they might want to find out what the new materials are. He said, for example, in their OST they don’t allow a free standing restaurant. He commented if they were going to development that entire section from 13 Mile to 14 Mile Road as an office development, it might not be bad to allow free standing restaurants to service the development as a whole. He suggested putting a committee together to look at not only the district, but potential changes to the OST Ordinance that would apply only in these particular overlay districts.

Mayor Landry suggested the Ordinance Review Committee, and Mayor Pro Tem Capello agreed, and there was consensus of Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello commented he was aware that they had amended the Financial Guarantee Ordinance, and that it mostly applied to residential projects. He thought there were areas in the commercial projects, and with some of the major commercial developers that Council might want to look at, which were the bonds and guarantees required, and the amounts of the bonds and guarantees. He said developers were investing multi millions and millions of dollars into a project, and felt that Council might not need the same protections as were needed for someone putting in a ten house subdivision. He wanted to see if a sliding scale could be utilized.

Mayor Landry asked if he was asking for a summary report on all the bond requirements from the Administration so Council could see what they were. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he would with some input from the developers because he thought they would have ideas on how to streamline that a bit. Mayor Landry asked the Administration to put together a list of the bond requirements, not text, and developer input and return to Council within 90 days.

Member Margolis requested the information contain comparisons with other municipalities. If Novi was losing building to Farmington she felt Council better find out if that was one of the reasons.

Member Paul said while on Planning, one of the things brought forward was the OST, and they really liked only two stories with higher stories to accommodate higher levels within those two stories. So, she would like to understand this also, because it was not what she had been told by developers. She commented that when looking in Southfield there are a lot of really tall OST buildings that are vacant.

Member Nagy thought Council had discussed this before in regard to some of the corridors along 12 Mile and along the freeway. Council had talked about putting taller buildings in there. She said since they were just allowing 78 ft. now, she thought they could make it real simple. They do not have the tall, tall buildings in Farmington Hills like Southfield, which are quite vacant.

Member Paul said approximately two years ago Meadowbrook Town Homes was having problems with their landscaping. She received a letter today from the homeowner’s president, and they were working with Lance Shipman, and they don’t know where to go or who to contact. She said the same requirements that were supposed to be done by the developer a long time ago have not been done. She said they were looking for some assistance, and asked, since Mr. Shipman was no longer with Novi, if there was any one she could direct them to.

Mr. Pearson said she could pass it onto him, and they would get it done. He said he had not heard about that project in a year and a half and knew they, personally, had done a lot of work there.

Member Nagy commented there was still a big hill with a bunch of weeds out there, and asked if that would ever be developed. Mr. Pearson said he remembered it being discussed.

Mayor Landry commented that the Library would like to make a presentation to City Council. He said the Library was requesting that Council place a bond issue on the November agenda, and Council had indicated to them that they would give them one hour to make the presentation. He suggested they do this at the next available meeting, which would be June 12^th. This was the same meeting that Council had interviews for boards and commission. He asked for Council approval.

Member Nagy asked how many applicants there were for boards and commissions. Ms. Cornelius said they were scheduled from 7 until 9 P.M. Member Nagy wanted to be sure that the Library had enough time. Mayor Landry said it would be at the beginning of the meeting, and upon realizing interviewees had been notified of their interview times, Mayor Landry asked that the presentation be at the end of the meeting. Mayor Landry suggested asking the Library to be present at 8:30 P.M., because lately interviews had been going quickly.

Member Mutch asked if they were just going to make their presentation or would there be discussion with Council. Mayor Landry thought they were going to put it on the following agenda for discussion and decision. Mr. Pearson said Council received material from the Cresa Group, they would have a 20 minute presentation, and then a question and answer period for 40 minutes. He said there was no action expected or requested. However, there could be something on the June 19^th agenda for action or consideration.

Mayor Landry said if Council was limiting them to a 20 minute presentation with discussion; why not act on it that night. There was Council consensus, and it was decided it would be put on the agenda as an action item.

Mr. Pearson said Mr. Schultz informed him they might need some time to draft some millage language. Mayor Landry said then more time would be needed. Mayor Landry suggested limiting the Library to 30 minutes for presentation, and limit Council to 30 minutes for questions and answers.

Council adjourned to executive session at 8:35 P.M.

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: June 19, 2006

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean