MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.



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





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



ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ed Kriewall, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew






1. Proclamation to Providence Hospital


The Mayor presented a congratulatory proclamation to Michael Slubowski, a Novi resident and CEO of Providence Hospital on achieving the designation for one of the top one hundred hospitals in the United States.


Mr. Slubowski explained the award is based on an analysis performed by two major health care consulting firms on an annual basis. He added there are eight measures of clinical quality, operational efficiency and financial efficiency used to determine the award. One measure relevant to Novi is hospitals that have diversified in using creative approaches to outpatient care. Mr. Slubowski reported that Providence was number one for all the major teaching hospitals in terms of its percentages in outpatient care.






James Korte - stated for the petitioners that their main concern is health, safety and welfare. He then explained the materials he provided to City Council about the vacation of Erma Street. Mr. Korte believes the following three questions should be asked: Was the home purchased because of the proximity to the commercial development on Novi Road?; Will vacating Erma Street devalue the property?; and At this point in time, would someone live in a home with commercial traffic in their front yard? Mr. Korte believes Council can understand their problem and the only solution is to close Erma Street so they can make their end of the subdivision as pleasant as the other.



Mark Robbins - 2295 Austin Drive, is very opposed to the closing of Erma Street and stated many of his neighbors share his opinion. Although they do not live at that end, he questions the concerns about health, safety and welfare in closing the street. Mr. Robbins explained if the street is closed, children will be forced to walk along Novi Road because they will no longer be able to walk along Erma to get to the store. Mr. Robbins suggested that the City should post a sign that would fine all commercial trucks using Erma.



Debbie Koder - 1129 East Lake Drive, described the area as a lovely residential area in a natural setting. Ms. Koder often visits the area with visiting relatives for glimpses of animals in their natural setting. Ms. Koder agrees that travelers are taking their lives into their hands by entering the area of Austin and Erma because of the truck traffic.



Carol J. Eberhart - 2293 Austin Drive, is opposed to the vacation of Erma Street and agrees with earlier comments made by Mr. Robbins.



Mary MacDermaid - 2297 Austin, does not believe the closing of Erma Street will alleviate the problems of the trucks. She believes if trucks are the issue, they should address the trucks. She would rather travel on Erma than have to battle cars parked on both sides of the street.



Henrietta Korte - 2026 Austin Drive, stated she has lived at her address for twenty-six years and those who say Erma is a lovely street do not live near Erma. Ms. Korte stated the nearby residents receive all of the debris thrown out of the cars that travel on Erma. She also added that the trucks are very dangerous. Ms. Korte does not believe the other residents realize what the real problems are on Erma.



LeRoy Harrison - 1755 Decker, stated he is the son of Anna Lewis who resides at 2292 Austin Drive. Mr. Harrison said if the City closes Erma they will endanger the neighborhood because police and fire vehicles will have a limited access to the area. Mr. Harrison explained his mother is seventy-eight years old and he is worried about her health and safety because Erma is the most direct route between the fire station for the majority of the neighborhood. Further, many residents enjoy walking to the nearby corner store and they will no longer have access from the easement on Erma. Mr. Harrison grew up in the area and doe not recall ever seeing diesel trucks traveling on the roads on a regular basis because the roads are narrow and the problem is now being blown out of proportion. Mr. Harrison believes because one or two people can profit from the closing of this street that everyone else in the neighborhood should have to pay for it. Mr. Harrison does not believe City Council is representing the other residents fairly if the street is closed. He suggested that the City perform an environmental and residential impact study.



Steve Schuster - 2299 Austin, believes they should conduct a traffic study because if Erma is closed, traffic on Austin may be increased. Mr. Schuster also asked if there is a way to poll the residents about the closing? Further, he believes the closing would disconnect the store from the entire neighborhood and would consequently affect their business. He believes the closing would hurt a lot more people than it would help. Mr. Schuster added that he has not seen any problems with big trucks.



Ruth Hamilton - from experience, Ms. Hamilton knows that signage prohibiting trucks on streets do not work. Secondly, Ms. Hamilton reminded everyone that there are sidewalks on Novi Road. Ms. Hamilton added that most of the traffic travels on Erma and heads toward South Lake Drive. Further, most of the traffic does not travel on Erma and make a left toward Austin and Novi Road. There are three entrances to the area and they are located at Austin at Novi, Austin at South Lake and Erma Street. Ms. Hamilton stated the most narrow part of the road is a thirty-foot wide stretch from Erma toward South Lake and the bulk of the traffic travels on Erma to Austin then turns on Austin toward South Lake and exits at the light. Ms. Hamilton explained there is not only cut through traffic from the store trucks, but there is also a problem with the South Lake traffic that does not stop at the lights. Consequently, Ms. Hamilton can see why the Austin residents have a serious problem and urges Council to vacate Erma.



Bill Halvangis - 2020 Austin, stated his house is located directly behind the veterinary clinic between Erma and Charlotte. Mr. Halvangis believes Ms. Hamilton accurately described the traffic in the area and that is why he supports the vacation.



Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, reported the SES Homeowner’s Association support of the Erma Street vacation is already on file. She stated they disobey the stop sign at Austin and there has been an overall lack of enforcement of signs in the entire area. She further reiterated earlier comments made about the inappropriateness of truck traffic on residential streets. Ms. Gray added there are sidewalks on Novi Road, but they only travel to the north and they do not connect to anything at this point. She also does not believe there are sidewalks to the south, but the depth of most of the properties would accommodate pedestrian traffic. Ms. Gray reported the SES would also like the City to seriously consider reducing traffic on Old Novi Road by reducing the speed limit to twenty-five miles per hour because of the residential nature of the area. In addition, Ms. Gray believes Iva Street set a precedence when they vacated it and whether the residents who gained the additional property chose to do anything with it is immaterial. However, she knows those who stand to gain property from the Erma Street vacation do have landscaping plans to block it off. Further, she added that the bulk of the traffic is cut through and confesses that she is also an offender by cutting through on Erma. Ms. Gray clarified that it was the store that started the vacation and not the nearby residents because of the complaints the store was getting about the commercial traffic. Ms. Gray reminded Council that the owner stated his support at an earlier meeting and that they also received a letter of support from the owner of the property south of the store. Ms. Gray believes it is a win-win situation for everybody in the area except those whom they will inconvenience. She believes Council needs to ask how will they be impacted by the vacation. Ms. Gray stated as SES President, she has been receiving phone calls because of information in their newsletter. She advised the predominant comment was, "If Korte is for it, I am against it." Ms. Gray again reminded everyone that Mr. Korte did not initiate this vacation.



Marcy Davis - 2299 Austin Drive, stated she does not want her children walking on Novi Road and consequently, she is opposed to the Erma Street vacation. Further, she does not understand why those who are not directly impacted by the vacation are commenting on it.



Jim Grant - stated he is Janet Grant’s father and that his she has a majority interest in the Lakeview Market. Mr. Grant said the business has grown because of the resident’s support and consequently, there are more trucks than there were thirty years ago. As he stated at the last meeting, he believes the Planning Commission studied the problem and he supports their recommendation. Mr. Grant explained if they block the traffic from Erma Street, they will confine the truck traffic to just that area in the T-turn around area. Further, he also believes the store will now have the ability to make an ingress at the back property line to create off-site parking and lessen traffic. Mr. Grant believes the best interests of all would be served if Council supports the vacation.



Steve Shuster - asked if they considered constructing a one-way street for Erma?





The Mayor directed Council’s attention to two letters received from residents who object to the sanitary sewer extension. The first is from Lynda L. Racey of 24740 Taft Road and the second is from John and Anne Serkaian of 24816 Taft Road.


Mr. Kriewall suggested that the City’s engineer present the cost and then ask for public input so that everyone will have the benefit of the proposed cost. Mr. Kriewall explained they are at a critical stage because although specific residents have petitioned it for, this is the first public hearing. Mr. Kriewall added Council will have the opportunity to approve the project as presented, to redirect the district or cancel the project. He added that sometimes in the evolution of a special assessment process, they may expand or diminish the district in size based on public comment. It is a very important public hearing in that Council must listen to the residents affected by the project and reflect upon which direction they should take.


Joe Kapelczak of JCK & Associates reported they plan to connect the sewer to a manhole on Emerald Forest Drive and travel easterly across Taft Road to service Lots 1-5. Mr. Kapelczak added that Administration asked them to consider expanding the district to serve some extra lots in the south. Mr. Kapelczak explained service for lots almost to Ten Mile Road would cost approximately $80,000 and would service all the homes except the last lot.


Mayor McLallen asked what the cost is for the original five lots? Mr. Kapelczak replied the cost is approximately $50,000.


The Mayor asked if there would be any advantage to do all the lots now? Mr. Kapelczak proposed that they should first determine if the residents want to connect and then make certain that the sewer is deep enough.


Mayor McLallen asked if they already serve the corner lot? Mr. Kapelczak replied they do.


Councilman Kramer reiterated that the cost is $50,000 for five lots and an additional $30,000 for the next five. He asked if they connect only the five lots now, could the other five lot owners expect the cost to be approximately $30,000 with inflation? Mr. Kapelczak replied that the cost would rise because of the economy of scale of bidding it as one project and there would then be an additional cost to reopen the hole.



John Wohlfeil - 24660 Taft Road, stated he owns Lot 11 and supports the sanitary sewer connection. Mr. Wohlfeil petitioned with his neighbors to have the entire section sewered at the same time they constructed Yorktown and at that time they had 51% support. Mr. Wohlfeil asked if Council would consider connecting the entire road because the neighbors to the south also want to connect.



John Adams - 24630 Taft Road, reported he owns Lots 12, 13 and 14 and he supports the sewer connection.



Scott Silvers - 24740 Taft Road, reported he owns Lot 10 and opposes the connection because the Resolution states that any home within two hundred feet of the sewer line would have a mandatory hook up. Mr. Silvers also stated that his septic tank is working well. Further, his house is the only one that extends halfway into Taft Road and the sewer line would require the removal of the evergreen trees in front of his home. He is also concerned about the cost involved.



John Serkaian - 24816 Taft Road, objects to the exorbitant cost to cross Taft Road to provide the sewer and assess that on the owners of only five houses. Mr. Serkaian believes the proposal to extend the sewer needs to be resolved and it might be more realistic if the City distributed the cost over more than five houses. He also opposes the mandatory requirement to tap-in. Mr. Serkaian explained he proposed the same concept before he looked into developing Lot 5. He advised that he previously lived on Lot 6 and that the septic field on the lot is approximately forty years old. He advised that the current owner has recently had some problems with it. Mr. Serkaian stated he attempted to get permission for the identical extension in 1990 before he looked into building the house on Lot 5 and he was unsuccessful. The City then required that he construct an engineered septic field for approximately $10,000. Mr. Serkaian advised that the City did not require this for his neighbors fields that were constructed in the fifties and sixties. He is not opposed to the district, but disabling a perfectly functioning system seems ridiculous to him and is not a benefit he will need in the foreseeable future. Mr. Serkaian believes if the whole neighborhood would benefit, then the maximum number of residents should be included to share the cost. For the record, if the connection is strictly for Lots 1-4, he does not want to be obligated to tap in because he does not need it. However, if the residents beyond his lot want sewers, then he has no problem with being forced to a part of the project. However, he believes the City should first look at correcting some drainage issues and access across Taft. Mr. Serkaian asked if everyone understands there are approximately twenty lots in Salow’s Walnut Hill and this extension can only service approximately one half of them. Mr. Serkaian believes there are too many unresolved issues to make a decision.



Ronald Ozark - 24860 Taft, stated he has lived on the second lot for forty years and he also owns Lot 1. Mr. Ozark explained his septic field is old and he is managing because there are only two people currently living in his home. Mr. Ozark stated Lot 1 will not perk and they informed him he cannot have an engineered lot because the lot next to it is considered a wetland. Mr. Ozark is concerned that a new field would cost more than the sewer connection and he would like to see the rest of Taft get sewers because of the same problem.






Charles M. Young - 50910 W. Nine Mile Road, stated the Harvest Land project will be constructed in five phases and consists of 1,014 homes in various magnitudes. Mr. Young noted that the developer submitted the project on February 14, yet it appeared on the January project map. Mr. Young asked that all meetings be held in the Council Chambers and televised for better communication with the residents.



Gary Hopson - 25756 Cheyenne, stated he has been a Novi resident since 1985 and two of his homes were new homes built by Tri-Mount. When Mr. Hopson purchased the second home, he knew he would need a well, but was informed that he would have the choice of connecting to the City’s water supply. He was also aware that the cost of his home purchase would be higher due to the additional cost of a well. Mr. Hopson installed a water purification system to further improve his well and he has been satisfied with the water quality from his well. Further, he has been advised by hydrogeologists that well water quality is better than city water because a nonpermeable layer of clay protects it from surface contamination. Mr. Hopson added although there have been improvements in water capacity delivery rates to the northwest suburbs, water mains in Novi remain the same and water pressures are not expected to increase. Mr. Hopson volunteers to remain on his well to help conserve city water supplies.


Mayor McLallen advised that the City is discussing this matter administratively.



Jim Korte - Shawood Lake, commented on Matters for Council Action, Item 1 and stated there were comments made at an earlier meeting about the aesthetics for the potential vacation of Erma Street. Mr. Korte advised the residents will do whatever they can to see that the area is maintained. Further, he does not understand the logic for those who spoke against the closing. Mr. Korte believes it is tragic if their opposition is a vendetta against him. Mr. Korte advised that he does what he does to make a better north end and not for personal gain.



Lynn Kocan - 23088 Ennishore Drive, is pleased that the proposed zoning ordinance regarding recreational uses within the I-1 zoning will be a separate discussion. Ms. Kocan stated the item was clearly identified on the agenda so that residents know what they are discussing. Secondly, there is a summary of the history regarding the ordinance change and is the way that they should review every major ordinance change. Previously, recreation uses of this nature were never allowed to abut residential properties and now the proposal is to permit it with special land use approval. Ms. Kocan believes it is critical for districts that abut residential properties not to adversely impact the residents. Ms. Kocan has been lobbying for the past two years to disallow manufacturing uses next to residential. It is imperative to Ms. Kocan that any recreational facility should not disturb the surrounding zones. Ms. Kocan questions whether all the uses indicated in the proposal would be compatible with residential. She does not want to see a Soccer Zone or an inflatable golf or baseball dome within any proximity to residential. Ms. Kocan asked Council to consider the implications of the revision to insure that residents get a high priority. Ms. Kocan is concerned that the meeting on Saturday regarding the revisions to the entire ordinance will not be held in Council Chambers and consequently, will not be televised. Ms. Kocan believes the ordinances are the key components of Novi’s government and the revisions deserve as much publication as can be afforded. Therefore, Ms. Kocan requests that a motion be made this evening that the first reading of the revised ordinance be postponed to a time and location when they can broadcast it. Ms. Kocan believes Nancy Cassis would not have hesitated to comply with this request and she is looking for the same type of representation from the current Council members. She is also concerned about the discussion of the RUD ordinance. She reported the Implementation Committee started reviewing this ordinance only two months ago. Ms. Kocan said as a comparison it took one solid year of consorted and dedicated research to finalize revisions to the noise ordinance. She believes revision to the RUD ordinance were being made as late as last Wednesday’s meeting and the Planning Commission has not yet seen the final version to make a recommendation to Council. Ms. Kocan believes the RUD ordinance deserves more review to insure that the proposed changes are desirable as well as realistic. Consequently, Ms. Kocan requested Council not to include the RUD ordinance as part of the zoning ordinance first reading until the Planning Commission can give it the consideration it deserves.



David A. Ruyle - 40474 Mill Road Court E., suggested that Council place a non-binding golf course proposal on November’s ballot. He further suggested that the language state, "Would you support a city owned municipal golf course built on city owned property in northern Novi and paid for by revenue bonds?" He believes this action would relieve the city of a hot political controversy in this election year. Mr. Ruyle added this does not preclude the City from conducting any of their feasibility studies or other necessary work to make a decision about construction of a golf course. Mr. Ruyle also urged the City to enter an additional agreement with another cable company such as Ameritech when they have the opportunity. Mr. Ruyle added the present company, Time Warner, chooses to increase their rates at every opportunity. Mr. Ruyle reported neighboring cities have more than one company to choose from and have better rates. Mr. Ruyle believes more competition reduces rates.



Glenn Ely - President of the Sports Club of West Bloomfield, reported they are in the early stages of planning the construction of a large athletic club in Novi adjacent to the ice arena project. Mr. Ely stated Item 3 on the agenda involves changes to the I-1 District to allow for the construction and operation of recreational facilities. Mr. Ely stated the passage of these changes is critical to their project. Mr. Ely believes Novi needs to provide recreational use in its zoning ordinance. He added it was the consensus of Council and the Planning Commission that the I-1 District was the best place to include those provisions. Mr. Ely stated large recreational users allowed to operate in the I-1 District is common for cities. Other Oakland County communities that have large recreational facilities include West Bloomfield, Farmington Hills, Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Farmington, Southfield, Beverly Hills, Troy and Rochester Hills and that most are in industrial districts. Mr. Ely explained including specific provisions in the ordinance to allow for recreational uses is necessary to encourage private investment and the kind of large scale facilities that residents are now demanding. Knowing what requirements they must meet gives private companies a clear map for evaluating their investment. Mr. Ely said making approval uncertain and dependent upon special conditions and permits or zoning variances introduces substantial uncertainty. Mr. Ely said they would be very hesitant to spend the $50,000 necessary to obtain site plan approval if the approval is based upon subjective criteria or if they had to obtain zoning variances and special land use permits. Mr. Ely stated they advanced a proposal to develop a complex in Novi in a residential district. The City concluded that the use was not appropriate in a residential district and that it should be in an industrial district. Mr. Ely reported they are back with an industrial site, but to complete the process he believes they must change the I-1 ordinance.



Mary MacDermaid - 2297 Austin Drive, advised she is opposed to the Erma Street vacation and she is not here as a vendetta against Mr. Korte. She is present because she lives in the subdivision and she objects to the fact that the SES implied that they represent her subdivision. Ms. MacDermaid stated the reality is that the SES represents only a few in her subdivision. Further, the residents on Shawood or on Crown and the other areas do not belong to the SES. She asked Council to seriously consider the other suggestions made earlier and the impact on the local residents.



Jeff Bowdell - 25790 Sierra, believes special assessment districts in general have good uses in some places and are difficult to do in others. Mr. Bowdell would like someone to look into water funds that would provide water and sewer in areas that do not have them. He also does not believe they should make people sign up immediately, but they should establish some kind of time frame instead. He added they should include terms such as requiring a tie in only if the resident suffers a failure. Mr. Bowdell believes the money would come back to the city in many ways, but they should not force anyone to tie in immediately.



LeRoy Harrison - 1755 Decker, supplied pictures of a home near his mother’s home on Austin and he believes the house is violating zoning ordinances. The photographs were given to Administration.



Helen Manos - Danka Business Systems, 21630 Melrose - Southfield, MI 48075, appreciated the opportunity to bid on the copier for Novi but she has an objection to the bid. Ms. Manos explained her original bid noted that all prices are predicated on the award of all the equipment and was based on a full package amount. Ms. Manos stated in the interim of the bid dated October 9, 1996, the City’s items in the bid specs were that the prices contained in the proposal must be firm for ninety days. Ms. Manos explained they are now beyond ninety days. Further, when Ms. Manos bid the Kodak, Danka was in a marketing agreement with Kodak as a third party and they were able to market and service their product, but they could not sell it directly as Kodak. Since the bid and expiration of the ninety days, Danka Business Systems has purchased Kodak office imaging solutions and the pricing has been drastically reduced. She specifically reported that the Kodak copier bid was reduced by $22,000. In addition, there is a bid for a Canon 6030 and the copier has since been discontinued. Further, there was a price reduction on Canon and Sharp for the fifty copy permanent system. Ms. Manos asked if she could submit new pricing based on the changes within her organization and the expiration of the ninety days. In conclusion, if she is not allowed to submit new pricing, she would like to rebid.



Bill Bowman, Sr. - Thompson-Brown, 30180 Orchard Lake Road - Farmington Hills, MI 48334, spoke in regard to Item 3 and believes encouraging private enterprise to provide facilities in a community of a recreational nature is a positive move. However, Mr. Bowman noted that the recreational ordinance does not comment on golf and he requested that they consider including it.






CM-97-02-060: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve agenda as submitted


Vote on CM-97-02-060: Yeas: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

Nay: None



CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)


Councilwoman Mutch asked to remove Item 7.



CM-97-02-061: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Items 1-6 and Item 8 on the Consent Agenda






1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of February 10, 1997, Special Meeting of February 10, 1997 and Regular Council Boards and Commissions Interviews February 3, 1997

2. Approval of Amendment to Ordinance No. 97-159 - Tree Nuisance Ordinance - I Reading

3. Renewal of Arcade License - Mr. B’s Farm, 24555 Novi Road

4. Approval of Document Acceptance for East & South Lake Drive Sidewalk Easements as follows:


Type of Document Executed by Compensation

East & South Lake Drive Sidewalk - N3701

Sidewalk Easement Mark Kemper $1,150.00*

Utility Pole Easement Mark Kemper Gift

* Subject to special conditions as noted on Exhibit "B" attached

5. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Novi’s participation in the 1997 Tri-Party Program with funds directed to the Grand River Avenue Bridge Project

6. Approval of Final Pay Estimate No. 15 and Balancing Change Order No. 2 for the Twelve Mile Improvements Project - Hudson District Sanitary Sewer Extension

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



Vote on CM-97-02-061: Yeas: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

Nay: None








1. Approval of Resolution vacating Erma Street from a point at the northeast corner of Lot 68 in the Shawood Walled Lake Heights Subdivision westerly to Austin Drive


Mayor McLallen reported the following issues were raised during the Public Hearing: adequate clearance for police and emergency vehicles on the remaining roads, drainage issues, pedestrian safety, traffic counts and volume, signage for cut through traffic from Novi Roads on Austin to circumvent lights and traffic, parking on Erma issues, enforcement issues in general and speed limit reduction. Mayor McLallen added the City’s staff recommends the closing.


Councilwoman Mutch asked that the pedestrian traffic issue be addressed in terms of the local market and asked if they would change the recommendation based upon issues raised by the residents tonight. Mr. Arroyo replied they have not included the level of pedestrian activity and he is not certain how much pedestrian activity there is between the residential areas and the market. Mr. Arroyo believes the pedestrian activity will depend upon what happens to the vacated portion of Erma. Mr. Arroyo stated it may be more difficult for those who live along Austin to reach the market by foot, but he cannot predict what level of problem that will be.


Councilwoman Mutch asked if they can determine what kind of traffic they should encourage for this type of neighborhood facility. Mr. Arroyo believes two of the key issues is the truck traffic in the neighborhood versus the fact that it is going to be more difficult to access from a pedestrian standpoint. Mr. Arroyo believes that has to be weighed and they have not asked him to look at the pedestrian activity.


Mr. Arroyo added it is important that some portion of Erma Street be available for the truck traffic because the width of the pavement in front of the market cannot provide for loading, unloading and parking.


Councilwoman Mutch asked how much more area they would need if they designed it to today’s standards. Mr. Arroyo replied that it would be fairly substantial. He advised there was a proposal to add parking in the rear of the market that never went forward. Because the building is so close to Novi Road, the parking in the front would be very limited and does not provide enough distance for standard parking and aisle. Consequently, most of the parking would have to be in the rear. Mr. Arroyo thinks because of the surrounding development that it would be close to impossible to develop the market site to today’s standards with the same building. Mr. Arroyo added that putting a bay of parking in the rear is a possibility.


Councilman Schmid asked what are the advantages and/or disadvantages of closing Erma Street from a traffic movement standpoint. Mr. Arroyo replied the key disadvantage is the truck and vehicular traffic access issue. Mr. Arroyo explained because of the limited availability of loading off Novi Road, trucks are forced to use residential streets to access the market.


Councilman Schmid asked if trucks are currently restricted from using Erma Street. Mr. Kriewall replied there is no signage posted.


Mr. Arroyo said there is also an increased potential for non-truck traffic in the neighborhood. He explained Erma currently makes truck traffic accessible from Austin and consequently, encourages the use of some of the subdivision streets. Further, when any street is closed, some increase in traffic is likely on other streets. There could also be modest traffic increases at the Austin and Novi intersection and volume increases to the north. Mr. Arroyo believes Lakeview Market is the only business impacted. He further believes there is concern about parking on Erma and added parking is currently prohibited on the south side. Mr. Arroyo reported the Fire Department supports the vacation and that the school’s busing system will not be affected.


Councilman Schmid asked if he could set aside the enforcement issues, what is Mr. Arroyo’s recommendation from a traffic flow standpoint. Mr. Arroyo replied it comes down to a matter of how important is it to minimize the traffic destined to Lakeview Market and still keep it out of the residential area. The alternatives are total vacation, making it a one way street and try to address enforcement concerns, or leave it as it is. Mr. Arroyo explained if the goal is to try to minimize the amount of commercial traffic on residential neighborhoods, then he believes vacation would accomplish it best.


Councilman Kramer asked if they would consider a trial period and invite the public back for feedback. Mr. Arroyo believes that is an option and recalls that they temporarily closed Iva Street. Mr. Kriewall added a street can be closed without vacation by constructing a barricade or berm and he would recommend a 90 to 120 day closing.


Councilman Kramer asked if there is a means by which they could not have a through road and also have an easement for a walking path. Mr. Arroyo believes they could maintain a narrower width of an easement for pedestrian access. Mr. Watson added they could vacate a more limited area by retaining whatever width they would need to maintain a sidewalk along the center line.


Councilman Kramer asked if they could assess the amount of pedestrian traffic during that time period. Mr. Watson said they would need a means or mechanism to do that.



Councilman Kramer advised the public that Council packets’ include letters from the Police and Fire Departments in terms of their concern for the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Councilman Kramer stated he would support a trial period.


Councilman Clark believes a trial period may be a good idea.


Mayor McLallen added that the City’s engineers addressed the drainage and sedimentation issues and requested that an easement be retained. Further, the Mayor is most supportive of maintaining a pedestrian path instead of dedicating all the property to the adjacent side property owners. Mayor McLallen believes they may need increased enforcement and that they should also review the signage and its placement. She suggested that the sign might include no left turns between peak hours.



CM-97-02-062: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To initiate a trial closure period of 120 days including the maintenance of an easement for a pedestrian traffic for the access to the market. The City’s Administration will monitor pedestrian traffic and report back to Council at the end of the trial period




Councilwoman Mutch supports and sees the advantages of a trial closure in terms of lending greater credibility to the various arguments. Further, the trial closure may raise issues that have not yet surfaced.


Councilwoman Mutch asked how should the issue of inadequate parking at the market be addressed. Mr. Arroyo said they allow parking on the north side of Erma, but it would not be as long. Further, the market owner has explored constructing additional parking behind the market and Mr. Arroyo believes this would be the best long term solution.


Councilwoman Mutch would encourage the market owner to decide how he can best service the residents and still maintain a situation that is safe while meeting his own needs. Further, Councilwoman Mutch supports the vacation as proposed if they can solve or resolve the problems that they have raised.


As a friendly amendment, Councilman Kramer added that Council should request the market owner to return with a parking plan for the site after the 120-day trial period and that the City provide public notice for the next review.


Councilman Clark accepted the amendment.


Mr. Arroyo stated if Council agrees to the temporary closure, the city’s engineers should be directed to prepare a plan for interim improvements of the T-turn around. Mr. Arroyo explained gravel must be added or it will not function properly and will be unusable for the delivery trucks.


Councilman Schmid will support the motion but he would prefer that they have a trial period for enforcement instead. Councilman Schmid is concerned Council is making a lot of moves to create a parking lot. Councilman Schmid does not believe that it is the City’s problem that there is not enough parking for the store. Secondly, he is not certain that they would want to create a parking lot for turn arounds if this is just a trial period. Councilman Schmid hopes the residents try to determine honestly what the best approach is. He believes at the very least there should be a pedestrian walkway. Further, he is still uncertain about whether there should be a drive through if they can properly enforce traffic without consideration of a parking lot for the market. Councilman Schmid also asked the City’s attorney to consider the safety of a pedestrian pathway in terms of the City’s liability if a pedestrian was struck.


Councilwoman Mutch understands that when they vacate a street, they divide the property at the center line and give it to the property owners on either side. Councilwoman Mutch asked if it has to be split that way if they wanted to retain the pedestrian access. Mr. Watson replied anything that is vacated will be divided based upon where the center line is to one side or the other and where they retain a section of sidewalk is entirely up to Council.


Councilwoman Mutch believes if a business is successful enough to have more vehicular traffic than it has parking, then the business ought to consider redesigning its facility to provide for more parking or perhaps they have outgrown the site. Councilwoman Mutch is concerned about creating a situation where they allow parking on what is left of a public street while at the same time, sanctioning trucks to use it as a turn around. She believes they will create a problem that does not currently exist.


Mayor McLallen has an issue with Mr. Arroyo’s recommendation to gravel the T- turn around. Mayor McLallen asked if it would be the City’s responsibility even though the benefit is to a private business. Mr. Arroyo replied that because it is within the City’s right-of- way, it would be the City’s responsibility to make the improvement.


Mayor McLallen asked why can’t they vacate the whole street and give the piece to the store owner so they would be responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Kriewall replied the problem is they would lose half that property to the property owner to the south. That owner might then choose to fence it off and only take half the width of Erma Street, thereby reducing the vehicular access. Mr. Kriewall believes that option did not seem to make much sense.

Mr. Arroyo added that they would also lose the parking along the south side of the building if they vacated the entire road because half would go to the property owner to the south and half to the market. Consequently, there would only be a narrow area between the building and the center line that belonged to the market that could be used for access and in the event they added parking in the rear, it would be a narrow area. Further, any trucks would have to pull to the back of the building to unload and then back out to exit.


Councilman Kramer suggested that the market owner may arrange to purchase the property from the property owner. Mr. Arroyo believes that possibility exists.



Vote on CM-97-02-062: Yeas: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

Nay: None


Mayor McLallen stated the City’s Administration should come back before Council in July with their comments and recommendations.



2. Approval of Resolution No. 3 - Special Assessment District 148 - Salow’s Walnut Hill Sanitary Sewer - Lots 1-5


Mayor McLallen stated the special assessment process includes seven different resolutions and at each of the steps 51% of the group or more can continue, they can move forward or they can end the process altogether. The Mayor explained this step was to bring forth preliminary cost estimates for the five lots. Mayor McLallen reported Lot 5 has a new septic field and the owner does not object to being included, but he does not want to be forced to join. Further, one owner with a functional field is concerned about the mature trees in the front of his home and the remaining lot owners are very interested in connecting to the sewer.


Mr. Kapelczak believes there was also an interest to bring the sewer further north. Mayor McLallen asked if they could all be done in one economic package. Mr. Kapelczak replied that they could.


Mayor McLallen asked if the entire cost has to be paid up front or is it amortized. Mr. Kapelczak replied that is up to Council, the City’s Administration and the State Law.


Mr. Kriewall reported State Law mandates that if there is a sewer in front of a residence, the resident must connect. Mr. Watson further added that if they define it as an available public sanitary sewer in a right of way easement highway street or public way that either cross, adjoins or abuts a property and if the structure that is being served is within two hundred feet, the resident must tie in. Mr. Watson reported that it is included in the local ordinance and in the Public Health Code.


Mayor McLallen asked if they can design the financial aspect for the district in terms of when they pay back the cost. Mr. Kriewall replied the City normally spreads the cost over a fifteen year period. In some instances, Council has included the debt service or connection charge on the interceptor as part of the special assessment district.


Based on this information, Councilman Kramer asked if Mr. Serkaian has changed his position. Mr. Serkaian replied his position has not changed.


Councilman Kramer asked if Lots 7, 8 and 9 are vacant. Mr. Serkaian advised they are built lots, but were built in the 50's and 60's.


Councilman Kramer asked if they could reduce the SAD to 4. Mr. Kriewall replied they could. However, Mr. Kriewall recommends that the matter be referred back to the Department of Public Services and consulting engineers to review tonight’s input . He then suggested that they bring back a recommendation in sixty days. He also believes they should schedule a meeting with all of the affected homeowners.


Councilman Schmid stated there are at least four homeowners’ who have signed a SAD agreement and he asked if they now have to proceed. Mr. Kriewall reminded Councilman Schmid that they can stop the project at any point and he believes this is a good time.


Councilwoman Mutch asked if combining it would have the potential of being able to provide the service to two sets of property owners to the north and south at what would at least be no more expensive than just doing the original proposed five lots. Mr. Kapelczak hopes that it would at least have an equal cost.


Councilwoman Mutch clarified by stating that adding anybody from another direction would not increase the cost for the four who still would like to connect. Mr. Kapelczak agreed and added that it may be more cost effective.



CM-97-02-063: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone approval of Resolution No. 3 - Special Assessment District 148 - Salow’s Walnut Hills Sanitary Sewer - Lots 1-5 for 60 days with a report back to Council on issues raised



Vote on CM-97-02-063: Yeas: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

Nay: None


Mayor McLallen stated sixty days would be the second meeting in April.




3. Approval of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 97-18, Recreational Uses within the I-1 Zoning District - I Reading


Mayor McLallen reported Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to investigate how using industrial zoning rather than recreational zoning could grant recreational opportunities to the City. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment with the exception of whether to make it a special land use or not. The special land use was in regard to whether the property abutted a street road or highway between the residential use and the proposed recreational use. Mayor McLallen added Council has correspondence from Mr. Bowman and comments from Ms. Kocan. Further, there is correspondence from the City attorney addressing the Planning Commission’s position to hold this as a special land use and Community Development supports Alternative 4 in Mr. Watson’s letter.


Mr. Watson reported the matter was originally before Council on November 2 at which time Council asked that ordinance language be prepared to insert recreational uses in a variety of zoning districts. Mr. Watson advised that was done in the first draft of the zoning ordinance rewrite. When the Planning Commission made its recommendation, they wanted to hold off on that issue until they looked at it further and they now recommend that it go forward. Mr. Watson explained there is a list of uses in Section 1902 allowed as principal uses in I-1. Mr. Watson reported under the current ordinance if they are adjacent to residential, they are special land uses. However, if a road separates them from residential, they remain principal uses. The Planning Commission removed the clause in Section 1902 that dealt with the separation by a road. The effect was that the Tier 2 uses were principal uses, but if they were adjacent to residential they would become special land uses irrespective if there was a road between them. Mr. Watson explained their letter points out a number of alternatives to deal with that issue and the fourth option would modify that language to deal with single family residential districts. Mr. Watson stated it would read, "However, when such uses abut a single family residential district they shall be treated as special land uses." Consequently, the Tier 2 uses would be principal uses and if they were adjacent to a single family residential district, they would be a special land use. Further, if they were adjacent to a multiple family residential district, they would remain a principal use and not be a special land use.


Councilman Kramer asked if Mr. Watson could explain the difference in the process between special land use and Tier 2 use for public information. Mr. Watson explained a principal use is a use that they permit within the zoning district. The applicant would present a site plan application and go through the site plan process. However, depending upon adjacency to residential, Tier 2 would become a special land use. Mr. Watson advised when it becomes a special land use, they hold a public hearing and there are additional criteria that the Planning Commission looks at in addition to completing an application for a site plan.

Councilman Kramer asked if this proposal would only require that special land use and the Tier 2 provisions next to single family residential. Mr. Watson stated that information is correct. Mr. Watson added that the rationale that led to this zoning is the thought that multiple family is frequently a transitional use between single family residential and other more intensive uses.


Councilman Schmid asked what is the difference between Tier 1 and 2. Mr. Watson replied that they list Tier 1 uses in Section 1901 as essentially office uses and Tier 2 uses are listed in Section 1902.


Councilman Schmid stated Tier 2 allows for outdoor or indoor swimming pools, soccer, baseball and basketball next to residential and would require special land use. Councilman Schmid asked what is the criterion for a special land use and does it include noise. Mr. Watson replied there is a set of criteria listed in Section 2516 and it does include noise.


Councilman Schmid asked how could they have a recreational soccer field or swimming pool next to residential if one criterion is noise. Mr. Watson believes the Planning Commission would have to make that evaluation and agreed that getting approval next to single family residential may be very difficult.


Mr. Watson further explained Tier 2 includes indoor or outdoor recreational and Tier 1 includes public facilities.


Councilman Schmid believes this is a very serious ordinance because they are discussing allowing recreational use next to single family residential. Councilman Schmid is having difficulty accepting any recreational use next to single family residential unless the special land use would protect it sufficiently.



CM-97-02-064: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt the proposed amendments regarding recreational uses within the I-1 District as modified and referenced in Alternative #4 of Fried, Watson and Bugbee’s letter to Steve Cohen (February 13, 1997) which includes the change which provides for the deletion of "except where there is a street road, highway or freeway between said use and abutting residential district" language




Councilman Clark stated this language would be taken out so that whenever recreational abutted single family residential it would require special land use. Councilman Clark’s purpose for moving this item along for discussion is that he believes with the additional provision of having excluded that language will prevent a situation similar to Interlock.


Councilwoman Mutch believes the reason they are looking at recreational uses in the I-1 District is because they were trying to find a way to address the growing demand for recreational uses in the City and they wanted to have some control over the placement that made some sense. Councilwoman Mutch stated one of the largest recreational facilities in any community is the local high school and they can locate in any residential district they choose. Churches can also build in residential areas and can have a recreational facility as a part of it. Councilwoman Mutch believes they should establish a standard by which they can measure the special land uses. Further, it seems hypocritical to her that they can put public facilities anywhere without special land use because they are Tier 1, but a private investor has to be subject to more scrutiny. She thinks if having certain uses is not appropriate, then it is not appropriate whether it is a private or a public project. Councilwoman Mutch does not have a problem with allowing the uses next to multiple rather than single family because when people move into a multiple situation, the nature of that kind of residential living is different.


Councilman Kramer suggested that they only address the multiple portion tonight, and bring back single family and private versus public use for further discussion.


Mr. Watson does not know how they could accomplish Councilman Kramer’s suggestion. He believes if they need to have that question answered before action that they request Administration to bring the information back before Council.


Councilman Schmid is sufficiently satisfied that the special land use provision will provide a sufficient control.


Councilman Kramer would like to request that they continue discussion about the review of the controls and private versus public.



Vote on CM-97-02-064: Yeas: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

Nay: None





Lynn Kocan - 23088 Ennishore Drive, stated they have always allowed recreational uses in an I-1 District, but only in a Tier 3 which means it has never been allowed next to residential. Ms. Kocan believes that the recommendations for special land use for any development abutting single family residential is a good one for the residents of Novi and hopefully for the residents of Meadowbrook Lake. Ms. Kocan hopes that Council does not believe there is a guarantee with this that there would never be another Interlock. She stated they still include manufacturing in the ordinance as a Tier 2 use, so the potential for problems will always be there. Ms. Kocan believes Section 2516, Standards goes hand in hand with this ordinance and that the standards are reasonable and enforceable. She also hopes that the noise ordinance receives approval with the new recommendations. Ms. Kocan has a problem with the addition of public parks to Tier 1 because she does not understand the difference between a publicly or privately owned recreational facility. Consequently, she would like it to include both in Tier 2.



Jeff Bowdell - Ten Mile and Beck Roads, stated the majority of the people who come before Council are objecting to something and those that are not present are generally in agreement. Mr. Bowdell is concerned about losing industrial property because he believes it is a valuable tax asset. Further, he believes Ten Mile and Beck would be a perfect place for a shopping center. He cited Ten Mile and Meadowbrook as an example of how it can be done without negatively impacting the surrounding residential area. Mr. Bowdell asked how many times has the City constructed SAD’s for sanitary sewers? Mr. Bowdell does not understand why a state law would require a mandatory tie in when a resident has a functioning system. Mr. Bowdell asked if he could review the appropriate State law.


Mr. Kriewall believes the City has constructed ten to fifteen districts. Mr. Watson added he would contact Mr. Bowdell about the State law.



Charles M. Young - 50910 W. Nine Mile Road, agreed with Ms. Kocan and asked Council to take a vote on either postponing the March 1 meeting or that they hold it in the Council Chambers for the best interest of Novi citizens.



Robert Shaw - Community Clubs of Novi, stated the final plans for the ice arena will be before the Planning Commission on March 19, 1997 and the ZBA request is scheduled for April 1, 1997 to address secondary access and parking requirements. Mr. Shaw further advised they are still anticipating an October 1 opening.



BREAK: 10:45 - 11:05 P.M.









7. Award bid for 3 primary/satellite copiers to Hovinga Business Systems in the amount of $192,862 and 5 desk top copiers to Danka Business Systems in the amount of $30,060


Mayor McLallen asked what are Council’s legal requirements in terms of the bidding process.

Mr. Watson replied Council’s prerogative is to award the bid as recommended by Administration or not award the bid. Further, it appears that the bidder has numerous complaints and they do not believe their bid is still open. Mr. Watson suggested that Council defer action and refer the item back to Administration. Mr. Kriewall agreed.


Councilwoman Mutch asked if pursuing rebids would be appropriate for Administration if they deemed it necessary. Mr. Watson said Administration could choose to rebid it or bring it back before Council.



CM-97-02-065: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct Administration to review bid and determine if the general issues within the bid are still valid and if not, rebid the items based on Council’s discussions



Vote on CM-97-02-065: Yeas: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mutch

Nay: None


Councilman Schmid was not present for the vote.


Mayor McLallen stated they will reopen the bidding process and information can be obtained from Mr. Kriewall.








Mayor McLallen stated there are some ongoing concerns and a continued need for communication with the community based on the water moratorium and she asked for an update from the City Manager.


Further, Mayor McLallen asked if Council members would like to respond to Mr. Andris’ February 19, 1997 letter.


As a point of information, Mayor McLallen stated Mr. Robert Hinbern, a representative of the Pere Marquette Employees’ Credit Union is in the audience and he would like to direct Council’s attention to Correspondence, Item 10 which is a proposal to install an Automated Teller machine at the Novi Civic Center.


Councilman Kramer asked if Council would like to discuss Novi Road’s speed limit, whether there is a City ordinance or a State law regarding sewer connection and Saturday’s work session.


The Mayor asked if he is asking Administration to investigate and respond to the speed limit. Mayor McLallen advised there is Council consensus to forward this item to Administration.


Councilman Kramer asked if there is consensus to clarify if there is an ordinance or State law regarding the sewer connection. There was Council consensus to have Mr. Watson research that matter.


Councilwoman Mutch asked if it is possible to hook up to city water in the older section of Orchard Hills. Mr. Kriewall replied there are a variety of situations in that section. Mr. Kriewall explained there are areas that have sewer who must connect, there are areas that have water who do not have to connect and there are areas without water who cannot connect. Mr. Kriewall stated it really depends upon what lot the resident is on and they can contact the Water Department for specifics on a particular lot.


Councilwoman Mutch asked when will the sanitary sewer recommendations be made on the current situation. Mr. Kriewall replied their target date is March 1.


Mayor McLallen stated there has been a lot of public comment on the issue of the Saturday meeting. The Mayor reported that the ordinance review is a huge task and Council requested a work session, not a decision making session to establish where there is consensus and where there are areas that need to be looked at more closely. The Mayor clarified that Council is not prepared to make any recommendations on the ordinance revisions at this time. Further, when they do get to the first reading, it will be an agenda item at a regular Council meeting.



CM-96-02-066: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To change intent of Saturday, March 1, 1997 meeting from a first reading to a Work Study Session to be held in the Activities Room of the Civic Center



Vote on CM-97-02-066: Yeas: McLallen, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

Nay: None


Councilman Clark stated he read Mr. Andris’ letter and he is "flabbergasted" at his request to build a different restaurant on the water. Speaking for himself, Councilman Clark asked how often do they have to say no.


Councilman Schmid believes Mr. Andris has every right to go through the same steps to rezone and he invites him to come back. Further, he is not certain they should give Mr. Andris a no before it actually comes before Council.


The Mayor with consensus of Council said they appreciated Mr. Andris’ interest, but he has to follow the proper channels.


Councilwoman Mutch asked who is responsible for providing the building construction contract bid information for the ice arena. Mr. Shaw replied Rudolph Libby is the contact company and they are contracted by Center Ice to do the construction management work. Mr. Shaw added that there has been no formal bidding because there have been no formal bid documents. Right now they are gathering budget numbers and firm numbers with no contracts being awarded so they can establish what they call a guaranteed maximum price for the building. As the project proceeds and as bids are available, then Rudolph Libby would seek bids or contractors could contact them directly.


Councilwoman Mutch asked if Rudolph Libby ultimately approves the bids. Mr. Shaw replied they take the bids, but they present them to the owner for approval. Mr. Shaw explained Community Clubs will provide input in terms of different mechanical systems and different vendors or furnishings.


Councilwoman Mutch asked what material is the facade is constructed of. Mr. Shaw replied it is constructed of split face block above and flush metal panel below on all four sides and that meets the I-1 zoning requirements.


Councilman Schmid asked if the Community Clubs will be involved in designating the specs that are going out for this facility. Mr. Shaw replied an eighteen-page Scope of Work prepared by Rudolph Libby was issued to contractors to solicit numbers to put into the guaranteed maximum price. Mr. Shaw advised that it is very performance oriented and they have added allowances to other areas, so it is fairly general.


Councilman Schmid is concerned about quality. Mr. Shaw stated the performance specs for things like the mechanical system were very specific.


Mr. Shaw believes the next thing that Council will see are the bonding contracts from Miller Canfield.


The Mayor asked if Council could preview the architectural renderings. Mr. Shaw believes they have submitted them as part of the site plan.


Councilman Kramer stated Mr. Kriewall responded to the mid-census money and he asked whether Council should discuss the process or timing in terms of allocating the funds. The Mayor asked if he would like to add it to next week’s agenda.








Mayor McLallen asked if Mr. Kriewall has reviewed the automated teller proposal. Mr. Kriewall believes they need to present it to the Treasurer and Finance Department for a written report for Council.


Councilman Schmid is opposed to any type of commercial business in a public building.






1. Letter from Teresa LaRosa to City Council, Re: Opposition to Rezoning at 10 Mile and Beck Roads

2. Letter from James LaRosa to City Council, Re: Opposition to Rezoning at 10 Mile and Beck Roads

3. Letter from Robert Smith to City Council, Re: Opposition to Rezoning at 10 Mile and Beck Roads

4. Letter from Stephen Ratkowiak to City Council, Re: Opposition to Rezoning at 10 Mile and Beck Roads

5. Letter from Judy Notenman to City Council, Re: Opposition to Rezoning at 10 Mile and Beck Roads

6. Letter from Maureen Johnston to City Council, Re: Opposition to Rezoning at 10 Mile and Beck Roads

7. Letter from Brad Thinnes to City Council, Re: Opposition to Rezoning at 10 Mile and Beck Roads

8. Letter from Richard Sayles to City Council, Re: Consideration to waive mandatory requirement for water hook up

9. Letter from Lynn Kocan to Editor Novi News, Re: Zoning Ordinance Revisions

10. Letter from Robert Hinbern to Tonni Bartholomew, Re: Proposal of Automated Teller Machine for Novi Civic Center Building

11. Memorandum from Lou Martin to City Council, Re: Existence of Beautification Commission

12. Memorandum from Dan Davis to City Council, Re: Existence of Housing & Community Development Committee

13. Letter from William Bowman to City Council, Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to include golf facilities in Subsection 17 of Section 1902










There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M.





Mayor City Clerk



Transcribed by Barbara Holmes


Date Approved: March 3, 1997