Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Boy Scout Troop 54

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid (absent/excused)

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ed Kriewall, City Attorney David Fried, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

There was Council consensus to insert a commentary from Mr. Kriewall about the impact on residents and the City’s position about the recently lifted six-year water moratorium.

Mr. Kriewall reported the moratorium was a result of undo demands placed upon the Detroit water system caused by suburban growth. Detroit was unable to keep up with the constant supply of water to the western suburbs based upon inadequacies in their distribution system. Mr. Kriewall stated the water moratorium allowed Detroit the time to construct a six-foot diameter water main from two different locations within Oakland County. Mr. Kriewall reported they were assured that Detroit would lift the water moratorium, at the time the construction was completed. As part of Novi’s attempt to allow orderly growth in the community during the moratorium, they required that City Council adopt an ordinance restricting the connection to the existing water systems for new construction. Mr. Kriewall explained the moratorium went into effect locally and part of the provisions in the ordinance provided that at the time they would lift the water moratorium, the resident would have one hundred twenty-days to connect to the system. Mr. Kriewall hopes this has not come to a surprise to anyone who has purchased a home during the moratorium because the City instructed all the builders to provide information to their buyers about the moratorium. Mr. Kriewall further advised that the City is considering relaxing the one hundred twenty-day connection period because of the difficulty involved in processing all of the homes. He added the City will also explore whether they will require the connection at all because of the continual suburban growth connecting to the Detroit system. Mr. Kriewall believes they will have these answers by the first meeting in March.

PRESENTATION: Debra Ahrens - Hazardous Chemicals (unable to attend)

Carol Bauer - Historical Commission (unable to attend)

Michelle Bononi - Historical Commission (unable to attend)

Dan O’Connell - Historical Commission (unable to attend)

Lynda Racey - Parks & Recreation Commission (absent)

John Thomson - Historical Commission (absent)

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

John J. Margle - 21936 York Mills Circle is opposed to the construction of Dunnabeck Estates because of their proposed desire to share the main entrance on Stratford Lane with Barclay Estates. Mr. Margle explained Stratford Lane is a unique entrance because it is bounded on the north and south for the first five hundred feet by natural undeveloped land. He asked Council to preserve the beauty of Stratford Lane, maintain the identity of Barclay Estates, and maintain the identity of Dunnabeck Estates. Mr. Margle then described the different characteristics of the two subdivisions and consequently, he believes Dunnabeck should have their own entrance on Beck Road. Mr. Margle believes the curb cuts could be reduced by two, if Dunnabeck planned to have only one curb cut.

LaReta Roder - described the chaotic traffic patterns and unavailable parking near the Expo Center that she and her family experience when they hold events there. Ms. Roder believes the situation has gone beyond "inconvenient." She further believes regional visitors have compromised residents’ safety and welfare. Ms. Roder advised that the Ann Arbor News cited Novi as an example of how not to develop. She believes it is time to place a moratorium on more development until adequate infrastructure and appropriate enforcement are in place.

Jeff Smith - 46301 Cordoba, stated as a homeowner affected by the sewer tap in, he would like more information before the first meeting in March. He would like to know what is going on, who is involved, and how can he get involved in the decision making process in terms of not requiring a tap in at all.

The Mayor explained the City will distribute guidelines to the homeowner’s associations and if an association is not yet in place, they will let the homeowner’s know where they can get the necessary information.

Victor Cassis - 22186 Daleview Drive, spoke in support of Item 6, the Providence Hospital rezoning. He explained he is a member of Providence’s Advisory Board, but he also comes before Council as a citizen and as a businessperson. Mr. Cassis believes the rezoning would be good planning. In addition, Providence has been a member of the community for quite some time and has provided an excellent project for Novi. Further, Mr. Cassis supports the road improvements and believes they can converge them with the Providence project for the good of the public. Mr. Cassis also believes the seventy five-foot set back in B-2 zoning is wasting valuable property and offers no practical advantages. Mr. Cassis further believes the ordinance is vague about its definition of a sit down restaurant and that the two major intersection requirement is too restrictive. He reminded Council that the B-2 property at Ten Mile and Beck Roads is not at two major thoroughfares and consequently, it is a nonconforming use.

Chris Pargoff - asked Council to remove Item 17 from the Consent Agenda.

The Mayor advised Council already has a memorandum before them in regard to the removal of that item.

Joseph Galvin - stated from his perspective, Item 5 is tied to the Providence proposal. Mr. Galvin agrees with Mr. Cassis in that the ordinance change will apply throughout the city. Mr. Galvin reminded Council that they related Providence’s participation in the B-2 drafting process to Council’s decision to table Providence at their last appearance before them. At that time, Council directed Providence to find a compromise between what they proposed and what is on tonight’s agenda, which is B-3 zoning for the northerly property. Mr. Galvin advised that they participated in a process with the City’s consultants, their staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Galvin advised they are before Council conceptually to support the B-2 ordinance, but they still have some minor issues to negotiate that relate to some items mentioned by Mr. Cassis. Mr. Galvin thanked everyone for working toward a compromise to avoid a complicated rezoning and achieve something for one of Novi’s premier citizens. Mr. Galvin asked Council to look favorably upon the B-2 amendments.

Rob Russell - 47281 Stratford Lane, agrees with the earlier comments made by those residents who are opposed to Dunnabeck Estates. Mr. Russell does not understand why the property is zoned as multi-family and applauds Mr. Dunnabeck’s action to construct single family housing. However, Mr. Russell believes the subdivision should have its own entrance because the homes will not be of similar size, stature and net worth as those constructed in Barclay Estates. Mr. Russell is also opposed to the construction of the home on Lot 1 because it will face sideways and will disrupt the look of the Barclay Estates entrance. Mr. Russell wants to live among houses similar to his own and he believes smaller homes will harm some property values. He believes if they could make the homes larger, he would not have nearly the objection that he has now.

Jim Cavicchioli - 22066 York Mill Circle, agrees with the earlier comments made against the Dunnabeck Estates Subdivision. Mr. Cavicchioli would like to raise his children in a natural setting with minimal traffic. He chose Barclay Estates because there were only going to be eighty to ninety homes constructed and he believed the traffic would be limited because the builder only planned three entrances. Further, he believes with the potential addition of fifteen new homes, Mr. Cavicchioli reported there will be an additional 18% housing and increased traffic. Mr. Cavicchioli asked Council to consider the idea of Dunnabeck having their own entrance.

Dave Doolin - 21994 York Mill Circle, explained his family moved to Barclay Estates because they liked the country atmosphere, the size of the lots and the woodland areas. Mr. Doolin described the adverse situation they had when they lived in Timber Ridge and explained that Council did not help the residents at that time. He is against putting smaller homes into their subdivision and he believes Council does not understand it. He also asked Council to consider density issues in terms of Beck Road because he would not like to see it grow to four lanes.

Jonathan Brateman - 24230 Karim Blvd., as the Legislative Affairs Chair for the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Brateman reported that they would like to play a proactive role in working with City Council and the other organizations of the City. Mr. Brateman reminded Council he was before them two weeks ago and he believes he received approval of a change to the NCC ordinance. Mr. Brateman explained the change was meant to provide some hope to people who own NCC property along Grand River Ave. Mr. Brateman was hoping that they could have resolved this tonight, but he sees that it is not on the agenda and he is still looking for Council to change this ordinance.

Ed Ecklemeyer - 47221 Stratford Lane, recently relocated to Novi from Chicago where there are many premier suburbs northwest of Chicago. One reason these cities became premier was that their city council’s believed it was important to protect the investments of those moving into those cities. Mr. Ecklemeyer found Novi to be a premier city, an area where he wanted to raise his children and an area where he wanted his investment protected. Consequently, he is opposed to Dunnabeck Estates and asked for Council’s consideration about the sizes and prices of the homes to secure his investment in his home.

Patty Dunnabeck - explained that she had the unique opportunity of growing up in the same homestead that her father grew up in since he was eight years old. Ms. Dunnabeck believes her father and grandfather’s best intentions are to keep single family residential homes on the property although they have the option of constructing multi-family residential.

Ginger Barrons - Red Carpet Keim Reliable Real Estate, shared background information on Dunnabeck Acres and believes they are trying to propose responsible development on the site. Ms. Barrons explained that the Dunnabeck family made an investment in Novi many years ago into what is zoned as multiple family. She advised that the Dunnabeck’s have never changed the zoning. Further, she advised they could have developed it as multiple and made a great deal more money than developing it as single family homes. Ms. Barrons said the Dunnabeck property was there long before Barclay Estates and when buyers purchased in Barclay, they should have known how the adjoining property was zoned. Ms. Barrons believes it would be a shame to put sixty apartments there and that it would not benefit the Barclay homeowners. Further, she does not see how a curb cut on Beck Road would benefit the entire City of Novi and that is why it is located off Stratford Lane. She added the plans indicate that no homes will be directly affected by that entrance. Ms. Barrons also reported there is ten feet of property on the north side of the intersection that the developer chose to purchase when Barclay Estates was there. She also personally approached the developer of Barclay Estates to purchase the Dunnabeck property and was refused. Ms. Barrons concluded by stating that if they remove one home from their plan, there is no profit margin left to build their project.

Michael Kirsch - 47201 Stratford Lane, stated the resident’s major concern with the Dunnabeck project is the sharing of the entrance. Mr. Kirsch attended the Planning Commission meeting and reported that the traffic consultant advised that Barclay Estates would experience an additional 200 trips from the entrance. Mr. Kirsch explained this validates that the proposed subdivision will dramatically affect their subdivision. At the same meeting, Mr. Kirsch advised that the traffic consultant attempted to justify the Stratford entrance by stating they were trying to reduce the Beck Road traffic. It is also difficult for him to understand that if Dunnabeck removes a single home that the project is not financially feasible and mentioned subdivisions with fewer homes that are still profitable. He is also concerned about the safety of the children because of the increased traffic flow.

Joe Dunnabeck - advised their property in Novi has been zoned for multiple family for many years. However, seeing how the surrounding area has built up, Mr. Dunnabeck explained they decided to look at other options besides apartment buildings. He added not only are they not maximizing their property, but half the beautiful entrance to Barclay Estates belongs to Dunnabeck. Mr. Dunnabeck also asked them to realize that they do not want to devalue Barclay Estates, but large homes do not sell on a busy thoroughfare. He explained Nine Mile is not a busy thoroughfare, but Beck Road is.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Kriewall asked to add as Item 10, Schedule an Executive Session regarding Property Acquisition after the Regular Council Meeting.

Councilman Mitzel asked to delete Item 17 on the Consent Agenda based upon the Administrative Memo Council received.

CM-97-02-040: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended

CONSENT AGENDA (Approvals/Removals)

Councilman Mitzel asked that they remove Items 15 and 19.

Councilman Clark asked that they remove Items 14 and 20.

Councilman Kramer asked that they remove Item 4.

CM-97-02-041: Moved by Crawford, Seconded Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Consent Agenda with the exception of Items 4, 14, 15, 19 and 20

Nay: None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

Mayor McLallen reported that the property is west of Beck and north of Eight Mile Road. Further, this matter is before Council in an appeal of the assessor’s decision not to grant the lot split. The Mayor explained the criteria for granting a variance to the assessor’s decision is that not granting the lot split would create an undo hardship for the owner, granting the lot split would not cause a detrimental impact on the public and granting the split would not substantially impair the intent of the ordinance governing this area.

Mike Kahm is representing his brother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law, Larry Meyer, who is the underlying property owner. Mr. Kahm explained the property is zoned RA and the owner is contemplating a single family subdivision under that ordinance. However, the requested variance is a variance from the requirement of the lot fronting on a public thoroughfare. Mr. Kahm explained the drawing depicts a possible RA subdivision layout and shows their intent of how this lot would tie into a future subdivision once it becomes developed. In order to provide legal ingress and egress, they are proposing a sixty-foot easement which would run from the parcel and out along the edge to Eight Mile Road. Mr. Kahm explained the easement would allow for a legal ingress and egress with the provision that if they develop a subdivision, they would vacate the easement to allow for the development of the subdivision. The hardship is that there is no way to provide a lot split on a public thoroughfare and provide for the ability of this property to be developed as a subdivision. The frontage is approximately 160 feet and would provide for a lot, but the lot would prevent any access to the rest of the property by virtue of a subdivision entry. The configuration of 1.5 acres would easily tie into a future subdivision and the applicants have agreed to abandon the easement at that time.

Mayor McLallen stated their packet contains a different diagram. Mr. Kahm explained the subdivision diagram is not completely consistent with the dimensions of the requested split and he wanted to make certain that it was clear to Council that the possible layout is exactly consistent with the dimensions of the proposed split.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked the City’s attorney to restate the criteria Council needs to consider for this action. Mr. Fried replied the general criteria are practical difficulties, undo hardship upon the owner of the property sought to be partitioned or divided, if there is no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial deviation from the intent and purpose of the ordinance.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the small frontage has any bearing of a subdivision being constructed in the future. Mr. Rogers advised that the larger parcel has approximately 175 feet of frontage on Eight Mile Road and could qualify as a building lot. They have not submitted Mr. Kahm’s sketch for review and there would be a question on the length of the cul-de-sac, but the drawing depicts two outlets to the north and east. Mr. Rogers reminded Council that the plan is only in a concept form.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if it is a feasible concept. Mr. Rogers replied it is possible.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if it would constitute a flag lot. Mr. Rogers stated that he has not reviewed the plan in terms of a flag lot issue. In his opinion, there is no compelling reason to put the house at the frontage. However, Footnote A in the Schedule of Regulations states if they go back and the lot narrows, the setback line of the house has to be at least 90% of the ordinance requirement which he believes to be 90% of 150 feet. Mr. Rogers repeated that they have not submitted the plan for an engineering review.

Mayor ProTem Crawford is prepared to grant the request, but he is trying to determine whether they are complying with the criteria as stated by the Mayor.

CM-97-02-042: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED: To grant approval of the lot split for Parcel 50-22-32-400-021 for Tim & Debi Bostwick (Meyer Berry Farm - Eight Mile Road) as submitted subject to consultant and departmental correspondences

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the applicant is proposing to split the lot from the entire piece. Mr. Rogers replied that is the proposal. However, if they were not parceling it off, he would have no problem with them merely building a house on the larger parcel. Mr. Rogers explained the lot split becomes problematic because it does not have frontage on a right of way or on a private road in an approved site condominium.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the reason someone would want to do that is because they are only working with the smaller piece of property and the rest of the property may be under someone else’s ownership. Mr. Rogers stated that was correct.

Councilwoman Mutch said the concept of the subdivision does not really have anything to do with this particular lot except that it is residential. Mr. Rogers replied that was correct.

Councilman Clark asked if strict application of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties or to undo hardship upon the owner of the property sought to be partitioned. Mr. Rogers believes Mr. Fried mentioned that. Further, Councilman Clark asked if the parcel is currently under one ownership. Mr. Rogers stated that is correct. Councilman Clark believes in those terms, the hardship is self imposed. Mr. Rogers believes Mr. and Mrs. Bostwick only want to purchase the acre and a half parcel.

Councilman Kramer asked if there is any long term knowledge that they could sell the rest of the property to someone else. Mr. Fried replied that they could sell it to somebody else, but to utilize the property, it would have to be platted unless the new owner would only want to use it as one lot.

Councilman Kramer where is the easement location. Mr. Kahm replied that the entire easement is completely on the parcel that is being split.

Councilman Kramer asked if they draft a legal agreement and there is an easement on the other piece, is there protection that the lot will never become a flag lot. Mr. Fried replied it cannot be a flag lot because it has no access on any street.

Councilman Kramer said they are using the easements for a driveway and if they sell the rest, the easement will go with the other property. Mr. Kahm advised that they would vacate the easement as a condition of the sale.

Councilman Kramer asked if there is a way to make that legally binding. Mr. Fried replied they could condition the lot split on the fact the easement will remain in effect until the time it is a public street. Mr. Fried added that the easement is on the larger portion and will remain with the larger parcel until that larger parcel has a public street on it.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would like to include that a variance will be granted for a conditional easement on the lot until such time the easement becomes a public road.

Councilwoman Mutch disagrees that this is a hardship of their own creation. They have referred to the ownership of all of this as being in the Meyer family. Councilwoman Mutch believes if she owned a piece of property of that size and her children wanted to continue to live on a part of the property, she thinks it would be a hardship to expect them to either acquire the entire parcel or for her to give it up to them when all they would need is a building lot. Councilwoman Mutch believes Councilman Kramer’s suggestion would help access the site in a way that serves the owners for the short term, but does not preclude what the City would want in the long term if that area were to develop fully.

Councilman Mitzel clarified the language about the public road by stating that it would also include a private road if it were a site condo development. Mr. Fried stated he would not suggest a private road and he believes they would return to Council if it were a site condominium. He added it would come back as a plat and Council would control it. Mr. Fried suggested that they leave it as a public road. Mr. Fried added it must first go before the Planning Commission, but any condition that Council places on it would have to come back before them.

Mayor McLallen asked if Councilman Mitzel’s concern can be met by adding language that states that the easement will stay in effect until it becomes a public street or part of a private road in a site condominium. Mr. Fried replied they could add language which states until such time it becomes part of a plat.

Councilman Mitzel questioned if the proposed language prohibited a site condominium project. Mr. Fried replied it would not.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they require a road, a driveway or some type of minimal access when they talk about an easement to the proposed lot. Mr. Fried replied a road is not required to be constructed in the requirements of a public road.

Mayor McLallen advised there is a motion to grant the lot split if legal language will be added stating that the easement will stand until it becomes a public road.

Mr. Fried believes the motion is that the variance be granted and conditioned upon the easement to the lot remaining in effect until that easement becomes a public road.

Nay: Mitzel

2. Approval of Encroachment into an Easement - Russell P. Fasnacht (40969 Hollydale)

Mayor McLallen reported the request is to replace an old steel shed with a new wooden shed in the identical location.

Mr. Fasnacht advised that they have already constructed the shed and he does not know if a ZBA variance currently exists. He added that he did not add to the encroachment of the easement. However, he did add a rat wall around the existing slab and used the existing concrete for the building.

Mayor McLallen noted there is a petition signed by approximately twelve neighbors who do not object to the building.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a need to send this forward to the ZBA regarding the deficiency in the setback. Mr. Fried thinks before they say it needs to go before the ZBA, it would have to be reviewed to see whether they constructed the shed at the time they put the ordinance in effect. Normally it would not have to go to the ZBA.

Mr. Fasnacht does not know the history of the shed and reminded Council that it was there when he purchased the property.

Councilwoman Mutch said one of JCK’s objections is that it should be located at least three feet from the property line. Mr. Fasnacht stated it is thirty-two inches from the fence line.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how will they address JCK’s objection?

Councilman Kramer stated if the end action is a variance from ZBA, what action is needed from Council. The Mayor replied it is before Council because there is a structure in a utility easement and the ordinance states structures cannot be placed in utility easements.

Mr. Fried reported Council is the only body that can waive that and the ZBA action would allow a variance from the side yard line or permit a structure there.

Mayor McLallen explained the petitioner has two problems; he has a building in an easement and it is too far into the easement. She further explained that Council can address one, but the other has to go before the ZBA.

Mayor McLallen explained to Mr. Kapelczak that the petitioner believed his newly constructed shed was an improvement over the old one until he discovered that the old one violated City ordinances.

Councilwoman Mutch interjected by stating that Victoria Weber’s letter advises that the structure shall be located at least three feet from the back property line. Councilwoman Mutch reminded Mr. Kapelczak that the new structure is replacing the old one and asked if thirty-two inches poses a problem for JCK?

Mr. Kapelczak replied it is four inches short of three feet and he does not think it is a significant difference. He believes the bigger factor is that they should maintain the drainage area at all times.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they can instruct the petitioner about how to maintain the drainage area. Mr. Kapelczak said the petitioner must be certain that the grade is not obstructed.

Councilman Clark believes Mr. Kapelczak has addressed the four-inch issue. He added that Ameritech and Detroit Edison have no issue with this proposal with a proviso that if their work in that area caused damage to the structure, it would have to be put back to its original condition at the owner’s cost. It appears that the petitioner has used the base of an existing structure and whether it was in conformity with the ordinance or not, it was there for more than twenty years which the law would construe as open, obvious and notorious. Consequently, Councilman Clark supports the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch appreciates the applicant’s desire to improve his neighborhood and conform with the City’s ordinances. Further, Councilwoman Mutch believes the City should already know if the existing structure has a ZBA waiver.

CM-97-02-043: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the encroachment into an easement - Russell P. Fasnacht (40969 Hollydale) as submitted subject to Consultant and Departmental correspondences

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Fried believes they should advise the applicant that if in fact this is not a non-conforming use, he will need ZBA approval irrespective of the motion. Mr. Fried believes the Building Department should be able to advise the applicant on that.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the motion would exclude JCK’s three foot objection.

Councilman Clark stated his motion includes that change.

Pat Keast, Seiber Keast & Associates, explained they are the engineers for the project and represent the developer, Vision Research & Development. Mr. Keast described the site and advised that the property owner has chosen to develop according to the less dense zoning classification. Mr. Keast reported the utilities are available to the site and storm drainage is managed by directing all the storm water to sediment basins adjacent to the existing wetland. Mr. Keast added the plan has received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Mutch said although there were references made to multiple alternative exits from the proposed subdivision to Beck Road during Audience Participation, it appears to her that the only entrance is off Stratford Lane. Mr. Keast replied that is correct.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they considered entering the subdivision in another way. Mr. Keast replied the amount of real estate that both take up reduced the density beyond what was economically feasible for them to construct a single family layout. They also believed it would be more attractive to the City because there would be no additional curb cuts to Beck Road.

Councilwoman Mutch asked Mr. Fried to comment on whether the similar/dissimilar ordinance has any application for this project. Mr. Fried said that ordinance only applies within a subdivision.

Councilman Kramer asked if it is a public road right of way. Mr. Rogers stated it is and assumes the signage is on the public right of way.

Members of the audience advised the sign is erected on the island.

Councilman Kramer noticed the Barclay subdivision lots start beyond the Dunnabeck property, so they do not own any frontage onto Beck Road.

Councilman Kramer asked if it is feasible that they could configure a plat to take advantage of the existing curb cuts. Mr. Arroyo replied there is an existing structure shown near the cul-de-sac and the width is such that it will not provide access for any more than one lot.

Councilman Kramer asked if another viable design is feasible. Mr. Arroyo replied that extending the right-of-way to Beck Road is conceivable. However, there are a couple of issues with an access onto Beck. First, the Design and Construction Standards call for a 230-foot center line radius for most residential streets. Another issue is by having the access directly to Beck Road and given the number of lots that they propose in the subdivision, it would not meet the warrants for a passing lane on Beck Road. Mr. Arroyo believes the proposed access on Stratford Lane is safer.

Councilwoman Mutch stated Lot 1 in Dunnabeck is the only potentially visible lot from Stratford Lane. She believes there are limits to what Council can do in terms of relief that the people from Barclay are looking for. Councilwoman Mutch reminded everyone that Stratford Lane is a public street and the residents in that neighborhood do have the benefit of it being a public street, but they also have the disadvantages that go with it. Councilwoman Mutch explained that the Dunnabeck’s have the right and City policy encourages the kinds of things that will be eliminated because of the sharing of the entrance. Councilwoman Mutch understands why the residents of Barclay Estates are seeking relief from their point of view. Consequently, she does not see any reason to deny the Dunnabeck request.

Councilman Clark agrees with Councilwoman Mutch’s comments in terms of the limitations Council is presented with although they are sympathetic with the concerns raised by Barclay Estate residents. If Council were to do deny the request, the petitioner could come back and develop it as multiple and he does not believe anyone would want that. He further believes to avoid that, is to insure that it will be developed as a single family residential.

Councilwoman Mutch commended the Dunnabeck’s for trying to find a way to develop their property in a way that is compatible with the surrounding development and economically possible for them.

For the record, Mayor McLallen explained the history of the current zoning of the Dunnabeck property. She reported the previous Council attempted to rezone the property into conformance with the Master Plan which would have zoned it from RM-1 to the zoning in the surrounding area. Because of the position and comments made by the land owner at that time, the previous Council voted against changing the zoning. Consequently, the Mayor believes the proposed Dunnabeck project is a fair compromise.

CM-97-02-044: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED: To approve request for tentative preliminary plat approval for Dunnabeck Estates Subdivision, SP96-39A subject to consultants’ conditions

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer commended Mr. Dunnabeck in one respect, but in another way he believes the proposal is insensitive to the adjacent R-1 development. Councilman Kramer suggested that the developer reassess the economics to see if their project can be more closely in line with the R-1 zoning. Further, Councilman Kramer believes the homeowner’s concerns are legitimate, but he believes Council’s options are limited.

Nay: McLallen

4. Approval of Final Plat - Greenwood Oaks Subdivision No. 3, SP91-28M

Pat Keast, Seiber Keast & Associates reminded Council that the plat has been before them many times and has been held up in an effort to explore various options for a sanitary sewer. Since then, they have resolved the sanitary sewer issue and the plat can move forward.

CM-97-02-045: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve request for final plat approval for Greenwood Oaks No. 3 Subdivision, SP91-28M subject to staff and consultants’ recommendations

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what was the original problem with the sanitary sewer and how did they resolve it. Mr. Keast replied the fifteen lots in Phase 3 and the forty-five in Phase 4 were master planned to go to the north. Council granted an approval to permit those to flow into the Simmon’s District and Briarwood Plaza in May.

Nay: None

Mayor McLallen stated the request is to incorporate this draft into the zoning ordinance update. Mayor McLallen reminded Council that they asked staff and consultants to find a way about how they could resolve some issues presented to Council with the existing B-3 zoning. The Mayor reported there will be a minimum two-acre site size and it will be considered a Community Business District designed to serve a larger population than the Local Business District. Further, there will be common parking for all of the tenants and it should be located on two major thoroughfares with a primary pedestrian orientation. It will also be a planned district of moderate intensity. Currently, there is no fast food, no open air sales and no automotive permitted. They have simplified the process permitting this district to be used so there is no longer a request for special land use. She added the 75-foot setback issue and a clarification of carry-out in terms of restaurants was brought forward during Audience Participation. They also raised the question about whether this should be limited only to two main thoroughfares.

Councilman Mitzel asked what impact will the change have on the existing B-2 zoning. Mr. Rogers replied there is only one B-2 District in Novi and is located on Pontiac Trail, west of West Road. He said Novi Square Shopping Center was preexisting and he believes the setback is greater than 75-feet. He also does not believe it complies with the 30-foot sideyard, but it does meet the minimum two-acre site size. Mr. Rogers believes there would be a few dimensional provisions, but what is already operating there can legally continue. Mr. Rogers stated if a new store came in that did not comply, they would have to seek another remedy.

Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council that food can be ordered from a restaurant that they do not view as a carry-out restaurant and she is not certain how they should address that, if at all.

Councilman Mitzel stated the proposed language includes restaurants, sit downs, banquet facilities or other places serving food or beverages except those having the character of a drive-in, fast food, fast food carry-out or a drive-through window. Councilman Mitzel believes they define fast food carry-out in the definition section of the new zoning ordinance.

Councilwoman Mutch believes that would mean that they would not preclude the type of restaurant she described from offering a carry-out service as long as it is not primarily falling into the definition of fast food or drive-through. Mayor McLallen agreed.

Councilman Kramer believes staff still needs to address the 75-foot setback and the requirement for it being situated on two major thoroughfares.

Mr. Rogers advised that the present ordinance calls for a 75-foot setback for B-2 when it was conceived as a much larger planned shopping center. However, he and Mr. Arroyo believe 40-feet is sufficient, but the Planning Commission recommended 75-feet and they now leave that to Council’s discretion. In regard to the thoroughfare issue, Mr. Rogers asked Council to keep in mind that major thoroughfares are defined in the ordinance as a major arterial like Twelve Mile Road or an arterial like Beck Road and a minor arterial like Taft Road. Mr. Rogers further explained it includes all the rights of way of at least 120-feet or greater. The intent was that these planned commercial centers should be at planned sites and not appear as a mid-block strip malls.

Mr. Arroyo cited the existing front setback requirements for the various commercial districts so Council can see how they compare with B-1, B-2 and B-3. Mr. Arroyo said for Council’s information, the access situation for a B-2 District would have to be established at the intersection of two major thoroughfares or be internally connected to a use that does exist at the intersection. Their thought was that if this is to be a district that they would establish in areas that are not currently zoned for commercial and primarily going into new areas, that it would be better to concentrate them at the intersection of major thoroughfares rather than have the more intense commercial use mid-block. Mr. Arroyo reiterated that their intent is to apply it to new commercial districts rather than having it at the intersection of major thoroughfares.

Councilman Mitzel thought within the ordinance Council cannot specify where they may apply a certain district within the City. He believes they may say within a certain district they allow certain uses only at an intersection or on corners or within a certain amount of feet of each other. However, Councilman Mitzel does not recall any other zoning district where Council can say that it can only be in an area of the City that is limited by something up to Council’s discretion. Mr. Fried does not recall that being a part of the text of an ordinance.

Councilman Mitzel asked whether something like this is acceptable or is it something they should avoid. Mr. Fried believes it could create a conflict long term if Council designates an area for B-2 zoning that is not at an intersection of two major arteries. However, he believes they would guide Council not to designate an area for B-2 zoning that is not at such an intersection.

Councilman Mitzel stated it sounds that it may be better for Council to leave that language out and follow the same prudence they had for the rest of the zoning ordinance of applying districts to areas that are appropriately master planned, petitioned and reviewed by the City’s staff.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what is the rationalization for requiring a 75-foot setback and would B-1 and B-3 subsequently change too. Mr. Rogers replied the Planning Commission felt there was a desire to have more greenspace in front of the buildings.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if a 40-foot setback is acceptable. Mr. Rogers replied that he recommends a 40-foot setback.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not understand the rationale behind a 75-foot setback in B-2 zoning. Mayor ProTem Crawford believes another appropriate number would allow them more flexibility in designing parking lots and building placements. Consequently, he concurs with the 40-foot setback which still exceeds the other business district setbacks.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is Council consensus about the setback requirement.

Councilwoman Mutch believes the Planning Commission, City staff and consultants have taken a close look at this issue. It seems to her that a 75-foot setback has the potential for creating a situation that is less attractive because they would push more parking to the front. She is at a loss about why B-2 uses should be set back that much more than B-3 which is generally more intense and less attractive.

Councilman Kramer stated the parking setback is ten feet. Consequently, there is then ten feet of greenspace, parking and then the building. No matter how far the building is setback, they would only have a ten-foot greenspace anyway. Ultimately, it would not be green space, but space to the building. Councilman Kramer believes the 40-foot setback is reasonable.

Councilman Clark concurs with Mr. Rogers 40-foot setback recommendation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated he is ready to make a motion.

Mayor McLallen would like to clarify all the other issues. She believes Council agrees about the definition of carry-out. However, she is uncertain whether Council has reached a consensus about the two thoroughfares. She stated Councilman Mitzel’s position was that he did not see a need for it to be restricted solely to intersections, but he is the only member to speak directly to the issue.

Councilwoman Mutch believes Councilman Mitzel does not believe it is necessary or advisable to have that in the text of the ordinance and she is willing to support the removal of it. Further, she stated a comment was made about the Briarwood shopping project during Audience Participation and she believes Briarwood is found at two major intersections with access from both roads.

Councilman Mitzel believes Councilwoman Mutch is referring to the language in the consent judgement on Ten Mile and Beck Roads and he believes it was limited to B-2 uses. He asked if they are limited to the new B-2 or the old B-2 by changing the text. Mr. Fried cannot recall the language in that judgement, but if it is limited to B-2 uses, then the new text would take over and become a part of that judgement.

Councilman Mitzel stated although there is only one B-2 zoned use step, Mr. Rogers mentioned the other one may fall under this change depending upon the language of the consent judgement. Mr. Fried concurred. Councilman Mitzel stated they probably would like to have that clarified.

Councilman Mitzel believes the purpose of this discussion is to prepare for the March 1 meeting when they will review all the changes made to the zoning ordinance and attempt to reach consensus or comment on areas of concern. He believes the paperwork in the packet implies that they would then adopt the entire zoning ordinance as one motion which falls under the one main public hearing held for that zoning ordinance. Councilman Mitzel clarified that the meeting for March 1 is a City Council Meeting and not a Planning Commission Meeting. He further clarified that by the City’s Charter, Council cannot adopt the ordinance on that day because it is a special meeting. Mr. Fried concurred.

Mayor McLallen stated tonight’s Council action is to forward their comments and questions about the B-2 District so they can put it into language for the March 1 meeting. After the March 1 meeting, they can then put the zoning ordinance through the adoption process.

Councilman Mitzel has an issue with 2B and 6 in the section of permitted uses because it lists certain occupations. He also does not understand why they deleted some uses in 2B and others were added.

Mr. Rogers stated that he and Mr. Arroyo initially deleted 2B entirely from the ordinance. However, the Planning Commission added the revision. Mr. Rogers explained the language in Office Buildings, Item 6 is standard language from the OS-1 District.

Councilman Kramer would rather judge a request to place a B-2 in midblock on a corner rather than be in a position where the ordinance permits development mid-block.

Mr. Fried believes the Intent Section, 1402 subparagraph 8 of the ordinance, specifically states that it should be located at the intersection of two major thoroughfares and he believes it should remain there.

Mayor McLallen understands Mr. Fried to mean if they leave it in the intent, that would be the primary location sought. However, if they remove Item 8, it could float somewhere else. Mr. Fried replied when they select an area, it might go somewhere else. When they select an area for the zoning in which they would put a B-2 District, it might not be at two intersections. Consequently, Mr. Fried would hope that Council would follow the Intent Section of the ordinance.

Councilman Kramer believes that Mr. Fried means they could take out the specifications, but leave it in the intent. Mayor McLallen stated the recommendation is to leave it in the Intent Section and remove it from the text.

Councilwoman Mutch stated Section 1401, Principal Uses Permitted originally said, "all retail business, service establishments or processing uses as follows . . . " Since processing uses was removed, Councilwoman Mutch asked if it means all "retail business or service establishments" or "retail business service establishments." Mr. Fried believes the verbiage should include "or" and read "retail business or service establishments".

Mayor ProTem Crawford is prepared to make a motion and would like to include a 40-foot setback instead of 75-feet in the B-2 District. Further, he believes the sit down restaurant question was resolved, but he is not certain about Council’s position on the intersection issue. Mayor ProTem Crawford’s question is why does it have to be at the intersection of two major thoroughfares. He would prefer that the ordinance be more flexible. Although he will be absent for the March 1 meeting, Mayor ProTem Crawford would like his questions addressed. Further, he believes Mr. Rogers or Mr. Arroyo would be valuable resources if they attended the meeting. He further noted a typographical error on the cover form that refers to a Special "Planning Commission" Meeting and advised instead it should read "Council Meeting."

CM-97-02-046: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To incorporate the revised draft of the B-2 District into the Zoning Ordinance Update document, to revise setback language from 75 feet to 40 feet and incorporate Council’s discussion and comments into the document for discussion and review at the March 1, 1997 Special City Council Meeting

Mayor McLallen stated the motion is specifically to support a 40-foot setback and the rest of the issues will be clarified and further discussed at the March 1 meeting of the City Council.

Nay: None

6. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment 18.562 Providence Hospital/Mission Health, property located north and south of Grand River Avenue, west of Beck Road from I-1 District, OS-2 District and OSC District to B-3 and OSC District or any other appropriate district

Mayor McLallen advised that the City’s consultants support the zoning amendment request and the Planning Commission, in an 8-1 vote, also support the rezoning.

Joe Galvin stated Providence has worked closely with the City to bring forth a compromise for the development of the Providence campus and he then described the drawings before Council. Mr. Galvin explained the current R-3 zoning will remain the same. There is also a possibility later of putting elderly housing or another complimentary use to the main hospital campus on the site. Providence proposes to integrate and focus upon the hospital use with the peripheral health care related services that will exist on the OSC and on the commercial portions of the B-2 to the north. Mr. Galvin stated Providence’s notion is two fold. Mr. Galvin explained first the hospital is the center of the development and secondly, it is cooperative in terms of working with the City. Mr. Galvin reported sufficient land use and planning reasons support each part of their request. Mr. Galvin reminded Council that their discussions have focused primarily on the north parcel. However, he added that they have also discussed the OSC to the south. Mr. Galvin stated the OSC is consistent with the Master Plan for the area except for the small nearby industrial which is separated from other I-1 to the west. The original road plan, which had been the basis for the line for the I-1, is now gone and the rationale for not having any of this integrated with the hospital is also gone. Mr. Galvin asked Richard Abbot, Providence’s Director of Facility Planning & Construction, to speak about the urgency of the hospital’s need to design the Master Plan on the southern property.

Richard Abbot advised Providence Hospital is a nonprofit organization that serves the community to promote public good. Mr. Abbot explained the community owns Providence and they want to continue to support the community. However, Providence needs the City’s help to accomplish that by supporting the development of the interchange. Mr. Abbot explained they are moving forward with master planning for their facilities and they are in a competitive environment. Providence has to remain competitive by master planning and making sure they have the best production from their facilities. Mr. Abbot reported they have two facilities planned for the south parcel for an expansion of the medical office building and a cancer center. To continue to develop those facilities, they need to be developed around what is going to be the zoning that is going to be intact and will allow them to have the best use of that campus facility. Consequently, Mr. Abbot explained they are asking for an expedient decision and for Council to continue to promote their mission in the community and benefit the public good with a favorable decision on the rezoning.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that the action request is specifically for three zoning changes that will bring four separate zoning districts into two zoning districts.

CM-97-02-047: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To approve Map Amendment 18.562

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer supports the B-2 and I-1 rezoning, but he does not support rezoning the OSC-2 to OSC. Councilman Kramer stated OSC provides for up to 150,000 square feet for a retail commercial business center which is part of the justification for rezoning the northern property to B-2 from OSC. Further, the history of the property goes back a long way and no one could foresee a necessity to provide for the interchange. None the less, Councilman Kramer believes the arrangement they have come to is equitable on the northern property. He does not believe that the OS-1, PD-2 would be an impediment except potentially for procedural things on the southern property because it allows for five story buildings and meets Providence’s needs. If it does not fulfill their needs, he has a problem with OSC permitting 150,000 square feet of commercial and he does not know if there is a way to delete it from the OSC use. Consequently, he will vote no on the motion.

Councilman Mitzel shares Councilman Kramer’s concerns about the OSC zoning. At this point, Councilman Mitzel believes Council concurred with the Planning Commission wanting to remove all of the automotive and fast food type uses from B-3. Councilman Mitzel was focusing on the different zoning ordinances, such as the TC that would offer aesthetic amenities that many Council members felt should be incorporated at a major entrance way to the City. Councilman Mitzel stated the B-2 change brought forward accomplishes the Planning Commission’s concern about removing the automotive and fast food type uses. However, he does not see how it accomplishes Council’s concern about the aesthetics of the development. He would like to know what is wrong with having a gas station or fast food restaurant to service the intense office development in that area. He believes with aesthetics considered, there is an actual need for those services. He would like someone to try to convince him why they should provide for certain type of uses that are lacking in many areas of the City.

Mayor McLallen reminded Councilman Mitzel that they took out those items of the ordinance at Council’s request, but it does not mean that he cannot bring the issue up.

Councilman Mitzel suggested that they discuss this at their March 1 meeting.

Councilman Clark asked if Mr. Galvin would like to briefly respond to Councilman Kramer’s concern about the southern portion of the property.

Mr. Galvin reminded Council that their proposal is a package and a lot of hard work has gone into it. It is presented as a package because all of the pieces are there for a constellation of reasons. In response to Councilman Kramer, Mr. Galvin explained there are two specific reasons that commercial uses available on the south are significant to the total package. They are things such as pharmacies and other health related prosthetic equipment that they sell. There are also health care related uses that require other commercial services to the persons who will reside there and their proximity is important.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Galvin to specifically address Councilman Kramer’s concerns about the 150,000 square foot allowance in terms of aesthetics and quality.

Mr. Galvin replied the entire project depends upon the hospital as its center. He added they are going to make certain that it is both physically and aesthetically integrated into what they are doing because it makes sense to them and they have a track record. He knows they permit commercial uses, but the property is not going to be developed alone. He reminded Council that it is going to be developed with the City and especially with health care uses to the south.

Councilman Kramer reiterated that retail commercial is permitted within the OSC in two places. One is within the office buildings and the other is 150,000 square feet in a stand alone retail commercial business not to comprise more than 20% of the total site. Further, they also include many of the ancillary commercial needs that Mr. Galvin described in the OS-1 District, but they do not spell it out as a 150,000 square foot, 20% of the site potential use. Councilman Kramer said without their master plan before him, he is very nervous about that zoning.

Mr. Galvin simply asked Councilman Kramer to understand their position.

Councilman Mitzel stated his comments about aesthetics were no reflection of Providence Hospital’s track record, but was only a statement about the zoning going with the land. Councilman Mitzel believes the entire discussion is proof that they need a planned unit development option in their zoning ordinance so they can deal with the site as an overall development. They could then address projects such as this to the satisfaction of the City and the developer.

Councilwoman Mutch is supportive of the motion as presented. She believes this matter has had a lot of public discussion and staff work.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mark Guidobono - CEO of Cambridge Builders, stated he believes they can make RA work in Novi. He advised that Mr. Wahl, Mr. Rogers and City staff have done an excellent job putting a report together on residential development options. Mr. Guidobono advised that the issue is density and the current ordinances do not allow developers to achieve this density. He advised that they build houses from $400,000 to $1M and they have become involved in the development end of the business in order to control the quality of the subdivisions. As high end builders and developers, when they cannot achieve the density as stated in the ordinance, developing a RA subdivision is economically difficult. Mr. Guidobono advised the report provides some positive points such as; flexibility of sites, creating more open space, incentives for developers to protect more woodlands and wetlands, allow wetlands on platted lots, lot size flexibility, more user friendly approval process, reduction in number of law suits and creativity. For these reasons, Mr. Guidobono believes it would be in the best interest of the City for Council to look closely at Mr. Wahl’s recommendations in the Residential Planning & Zoning Report and try to adopt more flexible ordinances in the residential classification.

BREAK - 10:50 p.m. to 11:13 p.m.

Mayor McLallen advised there is a Council consensus to move Item 4 on the Consent Agenda as the next matter after Appointments to Boards and Commissions because the petitioner is present.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

7. Appointments to Boards and Commissions

Mayor McLallen advised there are results for everyone except the Economic Development Corporation. The Mayor reported there was a tie between Mr. Czekaj and Ms. Kazanis and Council will need to vote again.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they have to appoint someone else.

Councilwoman Mutch suggested since Mr. Czekaj was unavailable to attend the interview for reappointment, that they provide that opportunity to him.

Councilman Mitzel suggested that they postpone this matter until the second meeting in March when all the Council members can be present.

CM-97-02-048: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION FAILED: To appoint Katherine Cosentino and Julie Johnson to the Economic Development Corporation and republish the remaining vacancy for other interested applicants

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked if Council is planning on another special meeting for interviews.

The Mayor believes that is the intent of the motion.

Councilman Mitzel advised that would then take them into June and asked if they would then just incorporate this within that as opposed to breaking the tie.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said that was correct.

Councilman Mitzel does not support the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch said if Mr. Czekaj, who is already a member has to wait until June to know whether they reappointed him, he may not be available. Consequently, they would lose some continuity on the board. She suggested that they revote tonight.

Nay: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not believe Council has to vote for three vacancies if they had three vacancies and ten applicants. Mayor ProTem Crawford chose not to appoint either applicant and he does not think that having to vote for either one is appropriate for him.

Mayor McLallen reminded Mayor ProTem Crawford that Council did not support his motion. Mayor ProTem Crawford replied that the Mayor’s direction is now to vote for one of these two applicants and he does not believe they should have to vote for one of them if they do not want to.

Mayor McLallen stated Council’s policy has been when vacancies occur, they use a pool of applicants that exist until the next time they interview. Further, this is one of the reasons they developed a quarterly interview process.

Mayor ProTem stated that is a different question. His question is, if he personally feels they do not have a qualified candidate, he should not have to vote. The Mayor said that is his right.

Mayor McLallen said Mayor ProTem Crawford is saying that she directed Council to vote for someone from the existing pool. Mayor ProTem Crawford is not supportive of the remaining parties and would like to open the pool further. He is questioning Council’s support of her request to have them vote for one of the existing applicants. The Mayor asked Council if they wish to proceed with the EDC appointment from the existing applicants or do they wish to postpone to another time.

Mayor McLallen advised Council consensus is to vote from the existing applicants.

Mayor McLallen moved onto Consent Agenda, Item 4 to allow the Clerk the time to tally the votes for the EDC appointment.

4. Adoption of Resolution, Re: Wit-O-Matic, Inc. Transfer of Employment Resolution

Mayor McLallen advised when a company wishes to leave the City and they are looking for tax abatement in another City, in order to remove their employees and business, Council has to concur with their move as part of the process. The Mayor further advised that they do not like businesses to leave, but Novi does not grant tax abatements.

A representative from Wit-O-Matic reported they have operated in Novi for five years. He further advised their move has been prompted by a growth in business and the fact that three corporate members of their company reside in Clarkston. Consequently, they are trying to be more efficient by moving the business closer to their key employees and also take advantage of the tax abatement now available to them if they qualify. The speaker stated one requirement is a resolution for transfer of their employees and is why they are before Council.

Councilman Kramer asked if approving the resolution contingent upon the sale of the existing business in Novi is reasonable. Mr. Fried replied that contingency is appropriate.

The representative stated he cannot sell the current building until he makes a commitment for the construction of the new structure and he cannot make a commitment on the new structure until he purchases the property and he cannot purchase the property until he gets the tax abatement.

Councilwoman Mutch asked why is Springfield a tax abatement area. The Wit-O-Matic representative replied that the people who developed the industrial parks had the whole park tax abated and the city approved it. Councilwoman Mutch will vote in favor of the motion, but usually she is not supportive of these requests. She believes tax abatements are useful in helping to develop an otherwise difficult area to develop or to help improve the economy for the entire county. To move a successful business from one community to another for any other reason and then offer a tax abatement means that everyone will pay the price eventually. The representative made it clear he is not moving because of the abatement.

Nay: None

Mrs. Bartholomew announced the following appointments for Boards and Commissions:

Board of Review - Lee BeGole, Mike Watza and Michael Montpetit

Beautification Commission - Elinor Holland, Linda Krieger and Julie Johnson, Mrs. Bartholomew noted that Anamaria Kazanis received one write in vote.

Cable Access Committee - Mark Adler

Computer Advisory Committee - Matthew Weisbert and Mark Adler

Economic Development Corporation - Anamaria Kazanis, Katherine Cosentino and Julie Johnson

Election Commission - Heidi Dean

HCD Committee - Jerry Ross and Julie Johnson

Novi Building Authority - Mark Sturing

CM-96-02-050: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To accept the Boards and Commissions appointments as selected by Council and ready by the City Clerk

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch has expressed to the Clerk’s office that she hopes that they can find another way to make appointments. She said they had individuals who applied for several different appointments and it may be more than they had in mind. Further, she does not believe that it necessarily gives the City the best people.

Nay: Crawford

Mrs. Bartholomew advised the Clerk’s office has received communication from Caren Collins and March 6 is not an available date for her. However, she is available on March 12, March 20 or Monday, March 17 before Council’s regular meeting.

Mayor ProTem Crawford added that March 3 and March 5 are also dates Ms. Collins is available. Further, Mayor ProTem Crawford advised that she will need approximately forty-five minutes for her to update Council on the cable renewal process.

Councilwoman Mutch suggested that they hold this meeting before the National League of Cities session because they will have a telecommunications session and Council members would be better prepared.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer stated he will not be available for that meeting.

Mayor McLallen stated this report was requested by Council as a result of their last joint meeting with the Planning Commission in November. Mayor McLallen stated 99% of the remaining residential development property is currently zoned RA. That land has wonderful variety and is located from the northeast to the southwest city boundaries in many different sized parcels. Further, many of the parcels have very significant environmental assets. Unfortunately, the current RA zoning is very rigid. There are several other open space options, but they require certain percentages of land and are not very flexible. This report was an attempt to look at all of the possibilities and tell the City where they can meet the challenges that this land presents in a realistic way. Mayor McLallen complimented the staff on the quality of the report. In conclusion, the Mayor reported the major issue boils down to density versus lot size. Mayor McLallen asked if Council would like to pursue some of their recommendations or add any other thoughts.

Councilman Mitzel believes a lot of the specifics concerning their options are in the processes. Further , he stated some specifics regarding density calculations and a couple of other minor adjustments will be addressed at Council’s March 3 meeting, but there were a couple of issues that they did not address. One is allowing part of the RA lot to be platted within a wetland. They have already referred that to Ordinance Review and they can probably advise when that will come before Council. Further, he believes major revisions to the RUD or incorporation to a PUD have to be handled as an offshoot from the March 1 meeting. Councilman Mitzel believes the report is an overall good summary and will serve as a good starting point for them to work with.

Mayor ProTem Crawford commended the Planning Department and especially Mr. Wahl for the report presented to Council. He also believes it gives them a good basis for a starting point and basis for discussion at the March 1 meeting. He would like to know where do they go from here and how do they proceed with the goal of some type of timely conclusion to the ordinance without lasting several months. He suggested they take the report, anything the Planning Commission has in process and any other input before March 1 so all the data can be considered and discussed at the meeting. He hopes Council can come to a conclusion at the end of that meeting.

Councilman Kramer also thought the report was well done. However, he believes there are many conflicting things that need to be worked out. One is that wetlands are not buildable and perhaps they do not want to give a density credit for them. On the other hand, they may want to support the underlying zoning density and large lots in the western part of the city. He suggested the key may be in the proposal to allow some large lots to be platted with some wetlands and allow the use of more large lots. However, he is concerned if they allow wetlands to be platted as part of large lots because the owner will need a way to have some discernable boundaries. Another issue is whether lakes are to be counted as a density credit. He realizes lakes are not buildable, but they enhance property values.

Councilman Mitzel suggested that staff should contact Pat Burnett at SEMCOG as another resource because they just completed a land use comparison on how options such as Novi’s preservation option and adjusted lot size seem to save a city money over time.

10. Executive Session - Property Acquisition

14. Authorization to proceed with design on Meadowbrook Road Sanitary Sewer and Water Main for Walled Lake Middle School

Councilman Clark asked if Hughlan Development was initially going to be responsible for the sanitary sewer and water main. Mr. Kriewall stated that was correct.

Councilman Clark understands the need to act expeditiously to get the sewer and water line to the new school. However, he is concerned if it is going to cost the taxpayers more than a million dollars to do it. If it costs the taxpayers and if it were originally Hughlan Development’s responsibility, he asked what is the City contemplating on doing. Mr. Kriewall replied the City normally attempts to have new developments pay 100% for utility extensions. Historically, Novi has done that with many projects. Mr. Kriewall stated the typical method for building a project of this nature might be a traditional SAD which would take a considerable amount of time. Further, Mr. Kriewall reported that communities can build a project of this nature on a utility basis. Frankly, Mr. Kriewall said that is the most common method of constructing utilities that is found in other communities. They build it, they bond for it, they borrow money for it and they charge a sufficient connection charge to cover the entire cost of the project. In other words, the City would have to provide some up front money to get the project moving, but they will design it in a way that the City will recover 100% of the cost. Mr. Kriewall said it is more of a timing situation. Further, he stated they prefer to use the developers funding as much as they can, but there are instances that they cannot. Sometimes constructing the utility would be more equitable and timely for the City if they can establish a district and suitable tap fees to recover 100% of the money, including interest.

Nay: None

20. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 482

Councilman Clark asked if Item 284 for Varsity Ford for 1997 Ford Taurus’s (PD) for $29,219.20 is for two vehicles. Mr. Kriewall replied it is. Councilman Clark asked Finance to indicate the number of vehicles in brackets in the future.

Nay: None

15. Consideration of Lake Property Clean-up Project Alternates as prepared by JCK & Associates and Authorization to seek

Councilman Mitzel thanked Administration for the thorough packet. He added their recommendation is to seek bids and get an exact number for Alternate C, which would be the comprehensive clean-up. After speaking with Tony Nowicki, Councilman Mitzel suggested that they could propose Alternate D within the bid proposal, which would include the less expensive covering option. Consequently, if a bid came in above their funding mechanisms, they could still have a fall back.

Councilman Mitzel believes the intent of creating this committee should be to replace the Manager Review Committee and incorporate the roles of both into one. Councilman Mitzel thought they could merge the two together so they will not have another standing committee for Council. Mr. Kriewall said these are the same committee. He explained they are utilizing the existing committee and giving them an additional charge.

CM-97-02-056: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Resolution expanding the charge for the Appointed Officials Evaluation Committee noting that the City Manager Review Committee is now one in the same

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mayor ProTem Crawford announced there is an open 4:30 p.m. Cable Commission Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 1997 at the Farmington Hills City Hall.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Councilman Mitzel stated there was a memo in the last packet from the Planning Department requesting Council input about whether they should proceed with their work to clarify the PD-3 Option and report back to Council. Councilman Mitzel does not want to give them a deadline for this task.

CM-97-02-057: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct the Planning Department to continue their work on clarifying the PD-3 Option and bring back to Council

Nay: None

Councilman Kramer asked if Mr. Kriewall has a target date for a recommendation for candidates for the mid-decade monies. Mr. Kriewall believes there was a memo in the packet for the Lakeshore Park bidding. Further, he indicated they should look at all the priorities at the same time the budget process is already underway. Mr. Kriewall added they plan to have a presentation to Council within forty-five days. Mr. Kriewall believes there are some operational and capital priorities that should be looked at simultaneously.

Mayor McLallen believes there was a request to the City Manager to bring all of the people that are wishing to look at mid-decade money sooner than that. The current memo indicates that Mr. Kriewall is going to combine it with the budget.

Mr. Kriewall said he can provide a list, but it would just be requesting budget requests from the department heads forty-five days earlier.

Councilman Kramer said they are looking for Mr. Kriewall’s recommendations.

Councilman Mitzel added he believed they talked about treating it separately.

Mr. Kriewall said he can do that, but he does not recommend it.

Councilwoman Mutch stated the Ordinance Review Committee requested that Council provide some direction that would authorize them to continue to their work on the ordinance governing day care and home occupations. She stated there is concern about certain aspects of the child care business in terms of the state licensing requirement, but the licensing does not require local municipal approval. Consequently, it is not automatic that people going into that business will seek local approval and she believes Novi’s check system is not sufficient.

CM-97-02-058: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct the Building Department to continue their work on the ordinance governing home occupations and day care as requested by the Ordinance Review Committee

In response to Councilman Mitzel’s question at their last meeting, Mr. Kriewall reported the pole at I-96 and Novi Road is a part of the SCATS Traffic Control System and a monitor camera will be placed there. The camera will provide vantage points to a remote control camera and monitor the traffic at I-96 and Novi Road, and the Expo Center. They will wire the camera to dispatch at the Police Department and it should be a valuable tool in the future.

Mayor McLallen has several concerns about the Main Street traffic light and its effect on flowing traffic on Novi Road. She believes it needs to be synchronized. Mr. Kriewall said it is possible that they have not installed the controller that is actually tied to the SKATS System and he will look into it.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS

Mayor McLallen asked if the attorney would like Council to vote on the Fretter deposit. Mr. Fried would like Council’s determination about what they want to do with the deposit.

The Mayor explained the City is holding a bond for the bankrupt Fretter organization and according to the City’s attorney letter, the City may choose to return the money if they desire.

Councilman Clark believes if they return the deposit it should include the stipulation that it be returned to the bankruptcy trustee.

CM-97-02-059: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize the City Attorney to return Fretter deposit to the bankruptcy trustee

Chuck Young - 50910 W. Nine Mile Road, requested a copy of the Residential Planning & Zoning Report for the SWAN organization because of the development of RA in their area. The Mayor gave him her copy.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:12 A.M.

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes