Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, Council Members Capello, Csordas, DeRoche, Landry, Lorenzo

Mayor Clark noted communications dated January 3, 2002 were received from Richard Atto of Atto Construction Inc., and two communications from Minasian Development regarding their positions on the Downtown Gateway Ordinance.

Jonathon Brateman, business owner at 42705 Grand River, felt that regarding retail uses for the site, there could be more uses such as a small, authentic, soccer wear store near the Soccer Zone. There are uses found in drugstores, but specifically here, drugstores are not allowed. He felt there should be more flexibility throughout the area.

Richard Atto, read his letter to Council. He asked Council to consider the negative effects if a drugstore, pharmacy, food store, speciality food store, liquor, beer or wine stores, barber, beauty shops, jewelry stores and copy center were not allowed within the district. He felt this could be a beautiful, bustling, vibrant corridor with multiple compatible uses co-existing within the district. The type of retail that must be included in this ordinance is all of the uses currently allowed in the NCC Commercial District. The ordinance should also allow such services as dance studios, fitness centers, nutritional training, aerobic instruction, computer training and repair shops, etc. These are designed to service the development and surrounding area. The Downtown Gateway Ordinance with provisions for necessary retail uses, minor adjustments to setback, and open space requirements, as well as revisions to access road language is a positive ordinance.

Paul Choukourian, 41800 W. 11 Mile Road, Minasian Development Corp. who manages the Marelex Place LLC, which owns 12.6 acres on Grand River, read letters sent to Council. He felt the NCC zoning had been plaguing the city for some time and was pleased the Downtown Gateway Ordinance was in the final stages and encouraged Council to act swiftly to pass it as written. However, Section 902A.5, he recommended that the maximum front yard setback for major thoroughfare be increased to 155 ft. to make allowance for the one row of parking that had been added to the ordinance. Also, Section 902A.7 should clarify and confirm that all greenbelts, sidewalks, bicycle paths and detention basins are included in the 30% open space calculation. Section 902A.17, a 28 ft. minimum shared rear access drive is to be placed within a 40 ft. minimum easement therefore, he recommended the parking setback be reduced from 10 ft. to zero feet given that the right-of-way would already include a six foot greenbelt if the drive is placed in the middle of the easement there would be 6 ft. on each side. Finally, he recommended that the minimum requirement of frontage for development be 200 ft. and not the 300 ft. in the draft.

John O’Brien, resident and business owner, supported this but felt it needed to be fine-tuned. He hoped there would be sidewalks and benches that would be in concert with the existing downtown area. Grand River should be people friendly with parking in front. He hoped, eventually, patrons would come by bus to shop in the city like they do in Northville.

Bill Newman, 24100 Meadowbrook, Novi Drugs, stated his primary vender is the Frank W. Kerr Company at 43155 Nine Mile and that they have a good base of business and felt it would grow. They were not looking to go into the downtown Gateway area because of the close proximity to their Meadowbrook store. Mr. Newman commented he would like to discuss plans with Council to grow the business. He said between the Frank Kerr Company and Novi Drugs, there are dozens of employees and residents of Novi that would be affected should drug stores be allowed.

1. Discussion of Downtown Gateway Ordinance No. 18.154 – 2^nd Reading and Adoption

Mr. Fisher commented that on page 6 of the underlined version, paragraph 902A.2, regarding the chart relating to retail development in a mixed-use project, Council did not give direction to increase retail in this project. However, in reviewing this it was clear that on a single use type development of five acres, a project could have as much as 25,000 sq. ft. of retail. On the other hand, in a mixed use development that could be on any sized property the gross floor area maximum was 35,000 sq. ft. It seemed that, what would be encouraged, without some other language, would be for property owners to divide their property into smaller 5 acre parcels and maximize the bottom line in terms of commercial. So, the added language for the mixed use that took into consideration the possibility for additional commercial on larger parcels over 10 acres, the notion was to encourage larger lot planning which would be a benefit for amenities not feasible on smaller parcels.

Mr. Evancoe directed Council’s attention to page 10 of the underlined version, item 17, fifth line from top is a sentence that begins with "minimum building and parking setbacks." It speaks of a 10 ft. setback from the easement or ROW along the shared access drive. That is the intention that was meant to happen there. However, on page 7 of the same version, the table of building setbacks referred to a 15 ft. building setback and he asked that it be changed to 10 ft.

Mr. Helwig commented on page 8, underlined version, dealing with open space, the intent of this legislation is to distinguish Novi and make the area truly a gateway. He did not see the 15% open space of the Town Center and based on his previous experience 30% was the minimum expectation and included woodlands and wetlands in the calculation and the spirit was to include anything other than building and the impervious surface in the open space calculation. Then, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Evancoe came up with the notion that if you get to 40%, there should be some inducement or density gained from that.

Member Capello felt the ordinance was difficult to get through with regard to understanding what the City wanted. Mr. Evancoe stated the various changes were drafted by himself and the City Attorney. Mr. Arroyo put the original together. Member Capello noted it appeared that they are trying to make sure it did not compete with businesses on Main Street but felt the office uses shouldn’t be so restrictive. He liked the idea of walking to restaurants. In section 901A there are office uses, restaurants, retail business and retail service but in the Chart, 902A.2 on pages 4, 5 and 6, there is no reference to office uses or restaurants and the two retails are lumped together. He asked why? Mr. Evancoe stated the table dealt with densities allowed for residential. The retail was left out because of concern about the amount of square footage that should be allowed. Mr. Capello assumed there would be mixed use with Office and credit given for that. Mr. Evancoe said they wanted to see office within a mixed-use development. The concern was to place limitations on retail so that was not done to the Office square footage. The table referred only to retail sales and personal service establishments and not to office. A limitation on the percentage of office within a mixed-use development was not contemplated. Mr. Arroyo stated it didn’t matter if it was 100% office, if it’s office with residential then it would qualify for the additional densities. Member Capello felt the ultimate was to create the Gateway District and have every project come through as a PUD. In 902A 1c, he thought laundry and heating and cooling rooms shouldn’t be counted as a separate room. Member Capello said it read that the "denominator can be modified from 1,600 to 950 and he asked, from footnote 5, if it can be reduced down to 800? Mr. Arroyo said correct and the difference is you could only get to 800 if it was a mixed-use building, which meant it had to be a single building with more than one use. The 950 would apply for a mixed-use development, which would potentially be office on the frontage of Grand River and then separate buildings with multiple family behind it. Member Capello stated, under this language, it could be three stories. Mr. Arroyo said technically 4 because if the fourth story is incorporated into the roof and has the appearance of three you can have four. Member Capello commented it looked like they were trying to have a mixed use building rather than a mixed-use development. Mr. Arroyo said it was trying to encourage that. Member Capello said you have to have a two or three story residential unit or you would have to put the office/retail on top so the residential could have access to the exterior. Mr. Arroyo noted the section regarding entrances, page 4, b stated "all residential structures should have a minimum of two stories" and then "each unit shall have its own exterior entrance or share an entrance with no more than one additional unit". He said that was to get away from the apartment complex look with an internal corridor. Member Capello said if we are going to go four stories, we are ending up with a four story residential unit. We don’t want just townhouses but more of a downtown with some apartment style. Mr. Arroyo said it might be appropriate to specify that the requirement would not apply to a mixed-use building. Member Capello asked what the first paragraph of 902A.2, page 4 meant? Mr. Arroyo stated it led to the table and replaced what would be the schedule of regulations. This new modification is that if you provide retail that doesn’t meet the scenario, you will be limited to the densities of the RM-1 district. He thought this provision might be better as a footnote to the density calculations found under A.

Mr. Fisher stated it was intended to be highlighted since there was the desire to emphasize there would be a density bonus if the amount of commercial was scaled back. This was in response to the last meeting.

Member Capello said in determining the density of the RM-1 District, the regular standards apply, correct? Mr. Arroyo responded, if applying RM-1 densities, regulated wetlands. All the densities are calculated based on net side area, with the exception of the bonus provision that comes into play except for the open space provision where you would get density credit for additional open space. Member Capello asked if residential density credits were for the space occupied by retail or the office buildings? Mr. Arroyo noticed it wasn’t addressed as to how it would be calculated. He believed the intent was if there was going to be a mixed-use development, density credit would be given for the portion being developed as residential if a pocket of office or retail with associated parking would be excluded from the net side area for the purpose of calculating the residential density. Member Capello asked how parking credit was allocated? Mr. Arroyo said parking required for residential and other uses would be calculated and then they would come up with a percentage of the developed portion associated with residential versus associated with the other uses. Then any open space would be proportionally divided based on the percentage of the particular use being occupied within the overall development. That could be modified as Council saw fit.

Member Capello asked about the chart on page 6, G, Basement Space – referred to "tenant" and he felt "occupant" would be a better word. Page 8, Open Space, he didn’t know if 30% was high. If we are going to have residential where people are living, we might want more than 15% so if there are children or dog walkers, there is somewhere available besides the sidewalk. Whatever the percentage, he wanted it kept as viable usable open space. He suggested giving the developer an incentive to lump all the open space together so it can be used as opposed to just landscaped. It didn’t make sense to jump from 30% to 40% and give only 1 density credit and suggested a new formula be worked out. Section 8, page 8, a, b and c, Member Capello felt there was no criteria to be met. Mr. Arroyo stated b is the criteria and the other two relate to how you get to it. Member Capello said the "of" before "to" should be an "or". Mr. Arroyo said the word "criteria" could be stricken also. Member Capello would like to see this ordinance addressed as a PUD. Regarding on street or front street parking, he saw the need for it with commercial but not office.

Member Csordas said the December 24^th issue of Michigan Lawyers Weekly named Michigan’s five lawyers of the year for 2001 and Mr. Fisher was one of those lawyers. Member Csordas offered his congratulations to Jerry Fisher on such a high honor.

Member Csordas stated he agreed with Mr. Minasian’s concerns regarding Section 902A, 17, regarding the centerline of the shared access drive being 300-650 ft. from the centerline of Grand River rather than 300-500 feet. He would like to see that change in the ordinance. Mr. Fisher stated the change had been made and it was now 650 ft. and could be found on page 10, 17. Member Csordas asked about front yard setback going to 155? Mr. Evancoe stated the ordinance was changed and it was increased from 105 to 135 for the maximum building setback, page 7 (table). The reason was they added in the one row of parking and that comes out to 43 ft. Mr. Evancoe could not favor 165 ft. because one of the things Council wanted to do with this Gateway area was to have the buildings closer so it didn’t have the Wal-Mart look with a lot of parking and buildings set way back and with a horizontal kind of landscape. Member Csordas agreed. He asked that materials not be left on the Council chamber table the night of the meeting. Mr. Evancoe reported, regarding Mr. Minasian’s letter, the open space was still something they were recommending 30% for open space. He was suggesting 15%. Mr. Evancoe noted they disagreed as well where Mr. Minasian referred to the 28 foot shared rear access drive and wanted no setback. In the spirit of open space and not having so much pavement, Mr. Evancoe felt that a little additional separation would be a good thing.

Mr. Arroyo clarified why there was a 40 ft. easement for a 28 ft. wide road. The idea was to encourage parallel parking within the 40 ft. easement. It provided a greenbelt between the back of the pavement and where the parking starts. Member Csordas stated in the spirit of having this mixed use development, a lot of the retail applications were stripped out that he thought would be vital to a mixed-use development. He would like to see retail uses such as jewelry, health food, video store, pet stores, barber and beauty shops. He felt a drug store on a corner would make sense and create more of a neighborhood atmosphere. He liked the ordinance but wished Council would seriously consider putting some of the uses back.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated, looking for the total number of multi units in the build out figure how many multi family units could be allowed if this project was used to its maximum? Mr. Arroyo said in the Master Plan there is a build out analysis based upon the densities in the plan, but they also factored in another 1,500 units that could go in the mixed-use districts to get to the build out population. The Master Plan anticipated this ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how far would the average American walk to a service? Mr. Arroyo said traditionally in a suburban ordinance, about 300 ft. but on a more practical level in terms of small town development, a quarter mile has been the traditional factor. She said this ordinance relied on the old Neighborhood Services descriptions and the original ordinance didn’t relate to residential uses so that the uses members think are missing is because your putting apples together with pears. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated from the standpoint of Neighborhood Services, it was something people went to a downtown for years ago so we are talking about those uses that are listed in here as not being totally compatible with mixed use. How we get from shoe shops to upholstery establishments to home furnishings was beyond her. There are some things missing like residential cooking equipment stores and high-end clothing boutiques. Why wouldn’t we expect to see those here? Mr. Arroyo agreed there was room for additional uses to be incorporated into this and still be compatible with the district. Originally the vision was NCC and TC districts and trying to bring them together. They felt that some elements of both could be added that hadn’t been considered at that time. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated either these uses would support the residents or they would go elsewhere and if we don’t hit it right, what’s the point. She believed these uses had the potential to be the fatal flaw in this ordinance.

She asked about Principle Permitted Uses, Section 901a regarding a 200-seat restaurant situation, which she felt was an extreme adjacency problem. She felt there were other uses in regard to adjacency issues that had not been considered or addressed. She asked what he considered the greatest adjacency issues from the standpoint of the uses being proposed under the Neighborhood Services and the residential usages? Mr. Arroyo said they were dealing with many long narrow parcels. If restaurants come, they will front on Grand River and would not be adjacent to existing single family and farther back would be office or multi-family. Then the question becomes, what if there is residential within the development adjacent to some of the more intensive restaurant uses? He commented there would be a more dense multi family development and people buying into that would know they were moving into a mixed-use development and would be more tolerant. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi felt an applicant could buy many parcels and get them all together. Mr. Arroyo didn’t think restaurants would be placed at the back of the parcel due to density bonuses. She didn’t think this language precluded this from happening. She did not believe adjacency issues had been addressed because there was no overall comprehensive planning in this. Next, Uses, number 7, 901a, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked who would determine similar uses? Mr. Arroyo said it would be the entity reviewing it within the City. If it’s a tenant coming into a space, it’s the Building Department. Member Bononi would not support that in this district because if we are talking about providing uses that are not only compatible but usable, there should not be a lot of discretion regarding that. She wanted number 7 removed. Also, regarding sidewalks linking all sites, as a planner she did not believe it was a premise that she had ever seen espoused to the almost insane degree that it is in this City. She believed that it had limitations regarding security issues. If talking about a day care or adult care center, they would not want cross walks leading to a restaurant that serves alcohol, etc. It was not addressed that some situations might not be appropriate and she wanted to see that changed. She suggested addressing it on page 10, Sidewalks and bicycle paths. She felt the paragraph on page 11, 19 c didn’t make sense. Mr. Fisher stated it would arise at the Planning Commission level when the site plan was being reviewed. She commented that as long as the Planning Commission was included in that language she understood the intent. On page 12, part VI, 2, the "entity" should be clarified. Mr. Arroyo stated it did not clarify the entity because it is a general provision that applied to many different districts where some pertains to Council and some to the Planning Commission. It is intentionally just referring to the City to imply that is the body that would approve the site plan depending upon the district. She requested that be made clearer by a citation.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was not happy with the NCC ordinance years ago while working on it and she was not happy with this now. There is nothing to presuppose that anyone coming in with any kind of application process is held to doing anything that is compatible with the neighboring property. She would be happier with it if the uses were clearly defined. The good thing is to insist on open space but she was not convinced that we would not end up with a lot of strip malls. Mr. Arroyo stated there could be several small retail users lumped together on an individual site probably with other uses combined with it, but not the typical strip mall, as we know them. A typical strip mall has a lot of parking with the buildings set back and that would not be the case here. The buildings will be closer to the road and would have to meet the façade requirements.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was concerned that there were no specifics and we would be victims of our own façade ordinance. She was really concerned that we are not doing better; we are taking many mundane things and lumping them all together. She believed that if the ordinance was passed as is, discrimination and elegance would be sacrificed. There isn’t a comprehensive look or identity here and growth management as a principle is virtually ignored. We are trusting land speculators to design our most vital City corridor because we are not requiring them to do much of anything else.

Member Landry questioned Page 4, paragraph c 2, building elevations regarding face brick, and asked if he was correct that with the region 1 requirements, it is possible to not have any face brick? Mr. Arroyo said it was a minimum of 50% in region 1. On page 9, paragraph 9 c, façade issue, if what we really want is similar features, he suggested the word "preferred" be changed to "required". Mr. Arroyo said he was correct. There was a general intent and it could be strengthened and modified. Member Landry said if it said "required" it would still give the developer some leeway. Mr. Arroyo said to change the word to "required" would mean all buildings would have to look exactly the same. Member Landry said wouldn’t that still give the developer of a town house type project some latitude to make units similar but not identical. Mr. Arroyo agreed it would. Also, on page 9, 11, Streetscape Amenities, regarding "consistent theme" he asked consistent with what? Mr. Arroyo said it referred back to 1602.7 and1607.14. Those would be amenities much like what is found in the town center district. The idea was that initially, those would take precedence and it could be that after additional study, there might be a separate set of standards adopted just for this area but because they are not in place yet, they would likely be very similar to the Town Center so the Town Center would apply unless Council modified them. Also, in same section, change1602.14 to 1607.14. Member Landry asked how the rezoning process would work? Mr. Arroyo said, as written, it envisioned that it would be a petition driven by the property owner. Mr. Fisher responded that shared access drives benefited the public, but we are requiring the private property owner to provide them. If we impose the zoning classification on the property owner, then we have an exaction. If you have an exaction, you have other kinds of tests that must be met in order to sustain them. They are very difficult tests that he would not desire to lead the City into so his preference would be to have this apply on an application basis and that was why he added the language on page 2 referring to application.

Member Lorenzo stated the ordinance was getting better. The underlying district remained the same and it seemed like this was going to be an overlay district much like the Expo Center. Mr. Evancoe stated this is a new district that someone could apply for and one more choice. Mr. Fisher stated in an overlay, you establish the district with various criteria. This is a quasi-overlay with us establishing geographic boundaries within which this would apply. Otherwise, we are not going to accept the application. So in that degree it is like an overlay. Member Lorenzo asked if an overlay district would give the City and Council any more discretion to require things in this document? Mr. Fisher didn’t think so. She felt the concept of give and take had improved. What are the residents getting out of increased density, what do we want out of this downtown Main Street mile, what would it look like, how would the uses relate to each other, what would the tax base be and how would it enhance/relate to Main Street? What we have is an RUD option where certain credits are given for certain features. She proposed that this document be treated the same way. We are starting with the NCC ordinance not only with neighborhood service uses; maximum retail is 15,000 sq ft. and any thing more than that, we should get something for it. Green space in NCC is now at 25% and it should be the starting number and then give density bonuses for each 5% over that. We should be giving density bonuses for mixed unit development with no commercial, if there is office, there should be a bonus. If parcels are assembled, limited commercial with less than the prescribed amount and for sale condo units as opposed to rentals, should be given bonuses. Also, to be given bonuses would be shared access, marginal access roads and all streetscape amenities.

She thought they should start at 7.3 units per acre and have a sliding scale for all these bonuses. She thought the City and developers would both get what they wanted and would be willing to go with 20.7 units per acre in RM-2 but it would all depend on what we get in return. It shouldn’t be a number given arbitrarily with nothing in return. This approach has worked with RUD’s and PUD’s and it could work in this instance also. There are some incompatible retail uses here and Council had to decide, in terms of retail uses, if they wanted something different down Grand River.

Member DeRoche’s concerns related to the core with regard to failure of the NCC ordinance. It was designed by Council and administration to build up the business envisioned on Grand River and it didn’t work because it didn’t work for business people. This is a unique situation with a main corridor going through the State. While change is contemplated to this corridor, we don’t have citizens present giving advice on what should be done at the four corners of Novi. The message is, it is necessary to take the information Council has received to heart. It won’t be anything unless we respect the requests of the residents and their concerns. He was concerned that elements of protectionism exist, which he is adamantly against. He cited the owner of Novi Drugs coming forward to say he would support more drugstores in the district and felt this was a powerful statement.

Member DeRoche asked regarding, retail #5 and 6, Retail Uses and Retail Business Service Uses, what is the purpose of listing specific uses? Mr. Evancoe replied it’s to give assurance to property owners as to what was allowed on the property. Member DeRoche said then the purpose is for them to be assured of what they can do, and not for the City Council or Administration to be assured of what they are preventing them from doing? Mr. Evancoe said it did both. If what they want to do is not listed, then they can’t do it. Member DeRoche asked what the City’s purpose was in listing these? Was it to prevent what we don’t want or develop what we do want? Mr. Evancoe replied they had concerns about adjacency and so they wanted to be sure that what is built in the area is compatible with other uses. It’s a dual purpose; we are seeing what we want and don’t want. Member DeRoche said he should just be concerned with what he doesn’t want there because it was for the business owner to determine what business they had. Mr. Evancoe noted it was a complicated thing because you are looking at a lot of factors and at an area that is built up all around it. There are traffic implications that certain uses bring with them and certain uses tend to function in a way that is not compatible with adjacent resident. A lot of things factor into this and there is discretion to have more than what is specifically listed.

Mr. Helwig thought what they were trying to do was make it harder for them to use retail development so they would put in more residential. Maybe the number needed is when we are done with retail in this corridor so that we can get back to the policy focus that has been set very strongly for this. There is a great deal of retail and if there is any more, it’s got to go into Main Street. There are six more major buildings and maybe a parking structure with all kinds of focus there with lots of room for whatever you wish to go there. A prototype project is coming out of the ground now, Gateway Village, primarily residential with small office or retail uses. The inducement is to have more residential with smaller amounts of retail. Mr. Helwig would like to see the Council galvanize around the maximum amount of retail for this corridor.

Member DeRoche said he preferred to have the bonuses and things structured that way. He was not comfortable passing another ordinance telling people what business they should be in and where they should be located. We are talking about planning the Gateway Ordinance as a gateway to our Main Street area. Past Councils and administrations made it less likely that that development would get done as big or on time because they told developers what could be in there, what the bricks had to be, etc. and made it less likely that the developer or property owner could success in his business. He was frustrated because we are not the downtown we are aspiring to be. He questioned the setback; parking from 10 feet down to zero and Mr. Evancoe reiterated Mr. Arroyo’s statement made earlier and said it was a difference of 6 ft versus 10 ft. Member DeRoche stated when it comes to downtown, open space is not what we want. We wanted it developed tight to the roads with parking and convenience for people and he would prefer to be able to park right next to the sidewalk and walk right into your house or a retail establishment.

Mayor Clark stated it was obvious everyone wanted to move the Grand River corridor forward in a positive fashion. We are never going to satisfy everyone and to move this forward requires a leap of faith from the community. Council expressed their wishes and they don’t want another conglomeration of retail. There are enough empty storefronts in this community and turnovers of businesses that aren’t making it. That is not the sign of a strong community that would stand the test of time. We don’t have a Gateway Ordinance but we do have a Gateway Village coming on line. It isn’t protectionism to indicate the uses we would like to see and excluding others, because if someone wanted to develop a business on Grand River on property that he owned, he was not tied to the downtown Gateway Ordinance but could come in under the existing uses. Also, there are too many narrow parcels along Grand River. At least 200 feet of frontage is needed before there is another curb cut on Grand River. The biggest part of the problem had not been on the part of the City or property owner, it had been dictated by past historical circumstances where you have many small narrow parcels of land. The Gateway Ordinance provided a vehicle for those interested to try to begin to combine some of those parcels so that there could be a beneficial development. However, no one is precluded from a particular use even if this were adopted tonight. Soon, it will be necessary to engage in a giant leap of faith both on the part of the business and this Council and adopt the Gateway Ordinance. It would be an ordinance that would not satisfy every Council Member and would not satisfy every member of the business community. This is not new or unique. We don’t need a proliferation of large-scale retail up and down Grand River. We have the largest concentration of retail in the State bounded by Novi Road and Twelve Mile Road. We have Main Street, which will give us that downtown feel that everyone talks about when making comparisons to Northville. Northville was not developed over night. They have been there 100 years.

Mayor Clark didn’t think they were in a position to have 2^nd reading and adoption tonight but this should come back one more time. Planning had heard all of the Council comments and they should try and put this in a final fashion and then we, as a Council, have to step forward, not trying to please each other or all of the business community because it is never going to happen. Council will have to then vote it up or down to get it off dead center.

Member DeRoche asked that the Planning Department structure the difference of opinions that were expressed so they could vote those amendments up or down.

Member Capello thought a vote of Council should be taken as it seemed that more control and more flexibility was needed in regard to the uses. He saw that happening with a PUD, Overlay District or special land use. He wanted Council to give them direction to come back with an ordinance that is different than this one; one that comes back as a PUD and give them an

incentive to put a couple of these small pieces together. He wanted to see the ordinance come back as a planned development form of an ordinance as opposed to just another type of a zoning ordinance, as it is, with some restrictive uses and one special land use that was the day care.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi is happy to hear the interest in the planned unit development but if we want to do that, we must be committed to take the time and a professional look at the alternative. She would not have a problem adding that to the motion. Mayor Clark said if planning comes back with a revised ordinance encompassing all the comments heard tonight and we vote those up or down, if enough of those are not voted up we might end up with a situation where we tell planning to come back with some sort of PUD option as a concept. He thought this had to be kept moving along or nothing would ever happen.

Mr. Helwig stated Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she would be willing to add to the motion the notion of a PUD or exploring the PUD component. The Gateway Village got there through a negotiating route and is a progressive step forward and if you truly want this explored, it will take more time, and staff is ready to do that. He asked for Council’s support because the last thing they needed was to spend two or three months on something that would hit a dead end. That is an important amendment to clarify.

Mayor Clark had no problem if the Planning Department wanted to come back with a revised ordinance but also suggested an alternate ordinance such as a and b with PUD. Mr. Evancoe asked if within A there might be 2 components to that also where different views are presented and Council would vote them up or down.

Member Lorenzo felt all were on the same page conceptually. She thought whether an RUD or gateway, the components are basically the same and she didn’t feel it was an impossible situation.

Member Capello thought there was probably a consensus that the PUD type of an ordinance would better serve the needs of the gateway and rather than come back with two different drafts he would rather see them focus on just the PUD type of draft.

Mayor Clark said there is such a divergence of opinion the only way to do it is to come back with alternatives at which point Council would vote them up or down.

Jonathon Brateman said the piece of property at Grand River and Meadowbrook is light industrial and if he could find out in an informal way if there is a consensus for that piece to go to NCC, that would help give direction on how to go forward.

Mayor Clark said on the proposed map of December 17^th the northeast corner and the parcel on the opposite side were tentatively proposed as being encompassed within Gateway.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.

________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ____________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: January 28, 2002