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

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ed Kriewall, Assistant City Manager Craig Klaver, City Attorney David Fried, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

PROCLAMATION

Mayor McLallen read the sentiment on the proclamation and declared the Week of May 11 - 17, 1997 as Nursing Home Week.

2. Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust

Mayor McLallen read the sentiment on the proclamation and designated the Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust to be Sunday, May 4, through Sunday, May 11, 1997, including the International Day of Remembrance known as Yom Hashoah, May 4.

Linda Racey - 24740 Taft Rd., has three objections: 1) cost, 2) mandatory hook up and 3) possible damage to her mature evergreen trees.

Daniel Moore - 24742 Taft Rd., opposes the mandatory sewer hook up because he recently constructed a new home.

Mayor McLallen noted that the City Attorney has stated that they can review the mandatory hook up on an individual need case basis. She agrees that requiring hook up would be absurd if the resident has a new working system.

The Mayor took a hand vote and the results were: five in favor, four opposed and one would agree if hook up is not mandatory.

John Wohlfeil - 24660 Taft Rd., reported they had a meeting with the Department of Water and Sewer and he recalls most of the residents favor the sewer hook up. Mr. Wohlfeil favors the sewer because he believes it will help the community and the property owners.

Mike Rosinski - reported his parents live at 24614 Taft. Mr. Rosinski had asked how many special assessments can one property owner have simultaneously. He explained there is a problem with drainage in the rear of his parent’s property and there is a possibility that they will pay a special assessment to have it corrected. He asked if they will be expected to pay on both at the same time?

Mr. Fried replied residents can pay on more than one assessment at one time and added there is a hardship provision. He referred Mr. Rosinski to the City Clerk’s office for more information.

Councilman Clark noted the letter received from Mr. Hany E. Demitry indicates that he is opposed to the special assessment district. Further, Councilman Clark reported based on Council’s April 21 meeting and the consulting engineer Mr. Demitry wrote, "that toppled the required quota of 51% of the total assessed value of the privately owned real property mandated by section 30-4 of the ordinance. The City Clerk should be able to certify the same to the Council." Councilman Clark asked if Mr. Fried reviewed this issue. Mr. Fried replied he had.

PUBLIC HEARING: 1997-98 Budget

Mayor McLallen asked the City Manager to present the 1997-98 Budget for Public Hearing.

Mr. Kriewall stated the proposed budget for fiscal 1997-98 has been a product of four study meetings with City Council. The budget presented for adoption is proposed at $17,252,967. Mr. Kriewall reported it is more than the 1996-97 Budget of $16,205,630 and more than the 1995-96 Budget of $13,527,317.

Mr. Kriewall reported the funding for a typical city budget comes from several funding sources. They are: Fines and Other Fees at 1%, State Revenue Sharing at 20%(Novi is the largest benefactor in Michigan of a mid-decade census), Federal Grants at 2% (directed to the Police Department in the form of a COPS Fast Grant), Non-Business Permits at 8% (Building Department is 100% self-funding), Business Registration & Property Taxes is at 40% and Utilization of Fund Balance.

Mr. Kriewall presented a history of Novi’s property tax. He stated the operating millage ten years ago was 9.6608, last year it was 8.2468 mils and it is proposed for 8.2419 mils for 1997-98. The total debt ten years ago was 2.8883, last year it was 2.1566 and it is proposed for 2.6863 mils for 1997-98. Mr. Kriewall reported most of the increase in the proposed budget has been voted and approved by the community through General Obligation Bonds. Mr. Kriewall stated the Road Bond Issue of $17M and the Fire Station Completion Bond Issue has accounted for all of this change.

Mr. Kriewall reported the total millage ten years ago was 12.5491, last year it was 10.4034 and it is proposed for 10.9282 for 1997-98. Historically, it shows the significance of Novi’s growth. He explained they have dropped the numerical number of millages over time to the proposed millage rate of 10.9282 and most of it is because of Novi’s strong growth.

Mr. Kriewall reported there are no increases in the general operating millage of 4.1215 mils and the drain millage has been set at 0.6945 mils.

Mr. Kriewall noted there are decreases in the Municipal Street Fund, Police and Fire, Parks and Recreation, and the Library.

Mr. Kriewall reported the most significant part of the proposed budget is the change in the debt levy. He explained the increase is based on the two approved bond issues.

Mr. Kriewall reported the largest portion of the overall city budget is the General Fund. He explained it would include the base operating costs for the community including police and fire, general administration, and the building department. He then explained the various funds as they appeared on the bar graph.

Mr. Kriewall reported the total proposed expenditures are $17,252,967 and the fund is divided into twenty-two areas. He reported the largest area of operational cost and expenditure is the Police Department at $6,937,550. The smallest cost to the community is City Council at $30,000.00.

Mr. Kriewall reported the top ten areas total $14,511,669 and the remaining twelve areas amount to $2,741,298.

Mr. Kriewall reported the top ten general fund cost centers are: Police Department at $6,937.550, Building Department is self funded at $2,167,352, General Administration at $1,218,821, Ordinance Enforcement at $1,055,152, Assessing at $627,600, Municipal Garage at $615,812, Department of Public Works, $532,249. Mr. Kriewall noted that a large portion of the expenditures for the Department of Public Works and Municipal Garage are chargeable to gas and weigh taxes from the state. Consequently, these numbers appear low. Further, Planning and Community Development is at $460,205, the City Clerk is at $456,951 and Building and Grounds amounts to $439,911.

Mr. Kriewall stated the key indicator of the city’s operation is usually measured by the relative full time staff and he noted the net change from 1996 is six additional personnel. He explained they added significant personnel in the 1996 budget and most of those changes came in the areas of public safety. He reported there were six additional employees in the Police Department and three additional full time firefighters. Mr. Kriewall reported they propose only six additional personnel for the current budget.

Mr. Kriewall reported although there are no proposed additional personnel in Public Safety, they anticipate their ability to gain additional personnel through available federal funding in the next fiscal year. Mr. Kriewall explained that may enable them to add police through the acquisition of grant funding.

Mr. Kriewall reported they are adding a Data Technician in the Finance Department as the city continues to expand their computer system. They are also adding a Clerk/Typist in General Administration to replace a part time position; it will also service three areas of the General Administration operation. Mr. Kriewall reported they are also adding a Water and Sewer Superintendent because one individual has supervised the entire Public Works operation at the Superintendent level. Mr. Kriewall explained most communities the size of Novi have a separate Water and Sewer Superintendent and a separate Street Superintendent. Mr. Kriewall reported the addition of this position would give them a greater level of supervision. Mr. Kriewall stated they are adding a Clerk/Typist in Parks and Recreation to replace a part time position and a laborer position because of the dramatic increase in parkland acquisition. Finally, they are adding a Children’s Librarian in the Library.

Mr. Kriewall explained the impact the proposed budget would have on a tax bill if they valued a home at $200,000 in 1996. He reported they would multiply the $100,000 SEV by the prior year’s millage rate of 10.4034; the tax would amount to $1,040.34. For 1997, with a recalculated value of $102,800 x 10.9282, the tax would amount to $1,123.42. Mr. Kriewall stated the increase is 7.99% and is attributable to the voted General Obligation Bonds for street and fire station construction.

Mr. Kriewall concluded by stating the proposed budget is scheduled for adoption by City Council Monday, May 12, 1997 to be implemented July 1, 1997.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Ernie Schlager - 1419 West Lake Dr., stated Lot 9 on West Lake Dr. was originally deeded as a road for the Hawthorne No. 2 Subdivision and it has been used as an access for approximately thirty years. However, he now understands that it has sold. Mr. Schlager reminded Council they went through the same thing in July 1993 and they were told that the city would notify the residents of any changes as they occurred.

Mr. Fried stated they raised a question in 1996 about the ownership of that lot. Mr. Fried believes there has always been a question about whether the city accepted that street when they originated the plat in 1914. Mr. Fried explained the law requires a municipality to accept a street and they never accepted that particular street. The question then arose about who was the owner of the unaccepted street. Mr. Fried believes the next door owner wanted to exchange that for whatever interest the city had in that lot for another piece of property. That matter came before Council and they approved the exchange. Mr. Fried recalled that he did not believe the city had interest in the street, but he was not certain until they litigated it.

Mr. Schlager reminded Council that the nearby residents were supposed to be notified and added that he has a tape to confirm this arrangement. He added he is the owner of Lot 8 and he opposes an access next to his property without his knowledge.

Mr. Fried does not know about Mr. Schlager’s lot and he cannot address what happened over a year ago. He added he would agree to meet with Mr. Schlager to discuss the issue.

Mayor McLallen reminded Mr. Schlager that this forum permits citizens to bring issues to Council, but it is not the forum for resolution.

Ellen Prevost - 40079 Whispering Lane, is present with a group of her neighbors, and they would like to state for the record that there is a dispute with the developer and eighteen homeowners in the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Ms. Prevost explained they are concerned about the vacant land between Eight and Nine Mile Roads on Haggerty. Ms. Prevost stated she has retained an attorney to represent her and asked if it would be appropriate for him to provide some background information for the record. She added they have prepared a packet for Council.

Jeffrey Supowit, attorney for Ms. Prevost, stated there is a dispute with the developer of the property on Haggerty Road. He reported Eight Haggerty Properties is the partnership that owns the land and one of the principal partners is Joe Gerak. Mr. Supowit reported they have provided minutes of the special Planning Commission meeting of February 1, 1984. He explained the land was zoned residential at that time and was part of the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Mr. Supowit reported the developer requested rezoning to allow construction of office on that land and the only zoning classification that would meet his requirements was the OSC classification. There was a lot of concern raised by the homeowners and Planning Commissioners about the OSC classification because it might allow the construction of commercial establishments on the property. In the minutes, they quoted the developer as stating that he has no interest in developing the property as commercial and his only interest was in developing office. At that same meeting, they suggested that some type of deed restriction be placed on the land to prevent it from being commercial. Mr. Supowit noted that was done in connection with the rezoning. He explained the land closest to the residents is actually zoned OS-1 and the land along Haggerty is zoned OSC. He reported they approved the rezoning, and they developed and recorded a deed restriction on the land that specifically states there will be no free standing commercial service or retail establishments as identified by the city’s zoning ordinances under OSC. Mr. Supowit noted they have built the Extended Stay Hotel and he understands they have approved plans for a Ramada Express for the land on Haggerty Road. Mr. Supowit reported they have met with the developer to resolve this dispute and the developer has not been amenable to work this out. Further, the developer has threatened to sue everybody if they do not allow his development to go through. The attorney reported that the developer offered to plant twenty trees to serve as what he sees as a sufficient buffer. The homeowners’ were asking for a berm with dense plantings to block their view of the development. He noted they addressed these restrictions at a Planning Commission meeting when they brought the Ramada project before them. They told the homeowners there was nothing the city could do because this was a private restriction.

Mayor McLallen added she has a letter from Daniel Strausberg about the same issue.

In conclusion, Mr. Supowit stated the residents would like to allow the development to continue on Haggerty, but if any development gets closer to the homes on the OS-1 land, they would ask the developer to agree to construct a berm with plantings. Mr. Supowit advised that the developer has flatly refused this solution and they are concerned about being able to enforce these types of restrictions. They are hoping that the city would become a part of this agreement to say that if any development occurs on the OS-1 land, the city would require a berm.

Councilman Schmid asked the attorney to provide a full report about this matter.

Gary Bennett - 117 Faywood St., was the spokesperson for the residents of Faywood Street three years ago and provided a tape to Council where they promised that they would notify the residents about Lot 9 on West Lake Dr. Mr. Bennett asked for further clarification from Mr. Fried.

Mr. Fried stated he would prefer to meet with the residents after he had the opportunity to review it.

Mr. Bennett stated the city is currently removing the fencing and he is in shock. Mr. Bennet reminded Council about their promise to notify them about any activity on that lot.

Mayor McLallen referred this matter to the City Manager for a full report. She asked Mr. Bennett to leave his name and address with the City Manager.

Jim Wood - 1418 West Lake Drive, is concerned about Lot 9 in the Hawthorne Subdivision. He stated Mr. Fried reported that they freed that property because it was not dedicated. However, Mr. Wood has a document from 1916 that dedicates the property as a roadway. Mr. Wood gave the document to Mr. Fried.

Karl Wizinsky - 26850 Wixom Road, noted his property is located across the street from the northern street of the proposed Harvest Lake project. Mr. Wizinsky explained he has had the opportunity to meet with Steve Weiner, and he and his wife support the project. He understands only the RUD review is on tonight’s agenda, but he would like Council to know he believes that having a master developer develop the 900 acres will give it more integrity. Further, he believes the proposal allows for a variety of different types of housing. He also believes the project allows for the maintenance of many of the characteristics of that particular parcel. He stated the open space planning permits the enhancement of the features of the property. He added although he is supportive of one acre lots, this proposal offers an alternative that fits this piece of property. He also believes the project has considered environmental features of the property.

Mayor McLallen noted Mr. Wizinsky’s fax from 10:50 a.m. this morning was received.

Shirley Schlager - 1419 West Lake Drive, asked how could the work on Lot 9 get this far without anybody knowing about it. She asked how can the residents stop it.

Mr. Kriewall interjected, City Council approved the transfer of property from the owner, Mr. Sobolewski, in November or December 1996 and the City vacated any interest that they might have had in the road right-of-way. He added that the city’s attorney indicated earlier that the city’s interest in that property was questionable anyway. Mr. Sobolewski was able to attach a portion of that yellow street right-of-way to his property in exchange and the city acquired a twenty-foot easement on the southerly end of the property. Further, Mr. Sobolewski is paying for the drain and fence relocation.

Ms. Schlager asked how can they do this without notifying the residents.

Mr. Fried advised there is nothing in the law that requires such notice to be given. However, he does not know what arrangements were made on the said on the tape.

Mrs. Schlager asked Council to view the tape.

Ruth Ann Hamilton - read a statement from Debbie & Rudy Koder. The Koder’s made three points regarding Papadapalis: 1) Clean it up, 2) Rescind liquor license, and 3) Note the change in the residential climate along East Lake Drive. They also question whether Mr. Romain’s property should retain the commercial zoning. They asked Council and the Planning Commission to make sure all of Mr. Romains’ properties remain residential.

On her own behalf, Ms. Hamilton provided a video of the Andris Romain property.

The Mayor interjected, the city has issued a ticket.

Mark Thomas - 47170 Stratford Lane, reported many of Barclay Estate residents are present to discuss the Dunnabeck development. Mr. Thomas noted the group does not represent the Barclay Estate’s homeowners association because their developer currently controls it. However, he added many residents are members of an advisory committee that they formed to advise the homeowner’s association on matters of concern to Barclay residents. Mr. Thomas reported the advisory committee has met twice with the Barclay homeowners, three times with representatives of the Selective Controlled Homeowner’s Association, and twice with Dunnabeck representatives and Terry Gores of Vision Research in the last eight days. Mr. Thomas stated they were impressed with Mr. Gores willingness to listen to their concerns and his proposed solutions. He noted at the end of this process, the Selective Controlled Homeowner’s Association decided not to oppose the approval of the final preliminary plat plan and the advisory group did not disagree with this decision. He explained they want to be good neighbors, but they are not convinced that Mr. Gore’s solutions are a total solution to their concerns. The consensus of the advisory group is that the process by which the Dunnabeck plan reached this stage was flawed and that the result is a development plan that is unfair to Barclay residents. They believe the only satisfactory solution is a separate entrance for Dunnabeck to preserve the unique identities of both subdivisions.

Mr. Thomas outlined the flaws: 1) landscaping of Stratford Lane., 2) inadequate notification., 3) safety issues., and 4) precedence of permitting a new subdivision take advantage of a completed landscaping job.

The advisory board would like Council to be aware of these problems despite the Selective Controlled Homeowner’s Association decision not to oppose the plat. Mr. Thomas added that the advisory group wants to insure that the progress of the Dunnabeck development is done with regard for Barclay’s interest and the promises that Mr. Gores had made. Secondly, they believe Council should consider the notification procedures used in the future because although the procedures used here were legal, they were not sufficient to alert the affected community to the problems.

Rob Russell - 47281 Stratford Lane, lives in the house after the proposed entrance into the Dunnabeck subdivision. Mr. Russell reiterated and concurred with Mr. Thomas’ remarks about the inadequate notification and safety issues. He raised the question about the similar, dissimilar ordinance and believes that the spirit of the ordinance would apply in his situation. Mr. Russell noted part of his lot is directly across the street from the Dunnabeck subdivision and he believes that is a clear standard for similar dissimilar. He asked that the Lot 1 house in Dunnabeck not face Stratford Lane and suggested that it be pushed as far north as possible. He believes if that houses faces his, it will detract significantly from his location and he will be the one to suffer. Mr. Russell should not have to consider moving to preserve the capital that he has poured into his home. He added that Council should also reconsider the use of a separate Beck Road entrance due to the safety issue and the dissimilar nature of Dunnabeck when compared with Barclay, Bradford, Breckenridge, Autumn Park and so on.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, as representative for SES, Ms. Gray stated they believe Mr. Andris applied for his Erosion Control Permit on December 4, 1996 and it is still sitting in the Building Department. They have a major problem with the condition of the property and asked if they are going to be forced to live with the mess until he gets a plan that he likes. She does not believe they should penalize the residents because Mr. Andris cannot get his act together. Further, the residents need some assurance that something is going to be done to that property so they do not have to live with what looks like a war zone all summer and possibly for the next twelve to seventeen years as history has proved. Therefore, Ms. Gray asked Council to rescind their approval for the conditional liquor license.

Ms. Gray also has a major problem with Lakeshore property clean up and asked if the city has received an environmental impact statement? She further asked who is conducting the environmental impact study and asked for an answer in writing within the next five days. She stated this is not an FOI request, but it is a request for something that they asked for long before now. Ms. Gray further asked what is the status of the DNR permits for the shoreline proposal? Ms. Gray stated the city cannot assume they can remove the sea walls because they have bass spawning season in that area. Ms. Gray is surprised that Councilman Mitzel did not request an EIS before he proposed the clean up. Further, Ms. Gray asked why are they seeding an area that is going to be torn up. She also asked when is the city going to set an example and clean up the branches on their own property before they ask the residents to clean up theirs? Ms. Gray asked if the city has begun the process for the legal vacation of the roads rights-of-way on South Lake and Novi Road on the city property.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Fried to respond to Ms. Gray’s concerns.

Ray Byers - 44290 Winthrop, spoke in regard to the approval of Ordinance 97-18.131 - RUD Ordinance - I Reading and asked Council to expedite that matter as soon as possible because it affects Item 7. He also asked Council to expedite that matter as soon as possible because they have a middle school that they would like to do in conjunction with that and the timing is tight.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor McLallen noted there is a letter before Council from the Selective Group about Item 5, Greenwood Oaks No. 3 and due to further negotiations with Detroit Edison, the developer asked to remove their request for final plat approval because they need more time to adjust the plat.

Mayor McLallen asked Council to add as Item 2. Fuerst Property and the National Historic Designation and as Item 3. Pere Marquette Credit Union - Drop-off Center for Western States Floods under Mayor and Council Issues.

Councilman Mitzel requested to add as Item 4. Weed Ordinance under Mayor and Council Issues.

Mr. Fried requested to add to Item 7., Litigation under Matters for Council Action - Part II.

CM-97-05-141: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Agenda as amended

Councilman Mitzel removed minutes of April 17 and 28 in Item 1 and Item 2.

11. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 488

Dave Potter, JCK & Associates reported at their April 3, 1997 meeting nineteen homeowners attended and fifteen favored the special assessment district.

Mayor McLallen asked how many landowners have to be in support. Mr. Fried replied it is totally within the discretion of the Council and it does not matter how many landowners support it or oppose it.

Mayor McLallen noted at this point the mandatory hook up can be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Mr. Fried advised they would have to amend the ordinance to allow for that because the current ordinance requires mandatory hook up. However, Council can allow waivers and they will amend the ordinance to provide that.

Mayor McLallen stated the next step is a specific design and a finalization of the cost. Further, Council would also have to proceed as Mr. Fried outlined to accommodate those who have new and functioning systems.

Councilman Mitzel asked if a proposed ordinance amendment could come forward at the same time the next resolution comes forward. Mr. Fried agreed.

Councilman Mitzel noted Council has addressed the residents’ concerns about a mandatory hook up and saving the mature trees.

CM-97-05-143: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Resolution No. 3 - Special Assessment District 148 - Salow’s Walnut Hill Sanitary Sewer - Lots 1-21

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer supports Councilman Mitzel’s comments. However, Mr. Demitry raises the issue about whether the people in favor represent 51% of the total assessed value of the property of the SAD. Therefore, subject to that determination, he would also support the motion.

Mr. Fried advised 51% can initiate the SAD, but Council is not bound to that.

Mr. Kriewall added they can initiate it with a petition of 51% or over in terms of total SEV. However, when it gets to this point, Council would look at the number of homes that favor it versus the number of homes that oppose it. Mr. Kriewall noted there is a preponderance of homes that favor this project and that is what should drive Council’s decision.

Councilman Schmid reported historically the ordinance specifically states when the sewer goes in, those in the line of the sewer must hook up. Councilman Schmid thought they spread the cost over the number of homes and if it is less than that, how is the other money carried. Mr. Kriewall replied the project would continue and they would proportion the cost of the actual construction against the lots. He explained Council can have latitude in terms of not allowing people to connect if they have a functioning septic tank by amending that ordinance. Consequently, they would not have to pay the $3,200 interceptor charge until they actually connected to the system.

Councilman Schmid clarified by stating that even those who do not connect will still have to pay their proportion of the construction costs. Mr. Kriewall agreed.

Councilman Schmid asked what does the $3,200 charge cover. Mr. Kriewall replied that is the interceptor capacity and is the downstream capacity in the system; every new home pays that fee.

Councilwoman Mutch noted when a homeowner pays the fee whether they hook up or not, that value is added to their property.

Mayor McLallen advised this matter is before Council as a matter of formality. She reminded Council they set specific parameters in December for the applicant to meet by May 1, 1997 and the applicant has not met them. Further, the applicant has forwarded a letter stating he was withdrawing his request for a license. However, Council must take formal action to send the license back to the Michigan Liquor Control.

Councilwoman Mutch stated this is more than just a revocation of a conditional approval; they are looking for a motion to deny. Mr. Frey agreed.

CM-97-05-144: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny Quota Class C Liquor License for Port Papadapalis, Inc.

Nay: None

Councilman Clark asked if they issued an ordinance violation ticket. Mr. Kriewall replied they issued it last Friday and they will have a court appearance date.

Councilman Clark assumes they will assess a fine if the owner does respond. Mr. Kriewall agreed.

Councilman Clark asked if the owner does not respond, can the city clean up the property and assess the cost against the property. Mr. Fried replied they would have to first get a court order.

Councilman Clark asked Mr. Kriewall to advise Council about the resolution of this matter, if any, after the hearing.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they are talking about the lake front property and/or the actual site of the proposed restaurant. Mr. Kriewall understands it is the restaurant site.

Councilwoman Mutch said the most graphic illustrations have been on the property between the road and the lake. She asked if it is a single site. Mr. Kriewall replied it is one owner and therefore, one site and the entire area would be included in the clean up.

3. Approval of Transfer of Class C Liquor License - Ruby Tuesday, A Georgia Corporation

Mayor McLallen reported this is basically a paper transfer between what was a privately held company to a publicly held company.

A representative of Ruby Tuesday concurred with Mayor McLallen. He explained they determined in the interest of the shareholders to set up three separate entities, one of which would be Ruby Tuesday, Inc. originally a Delaware Corporation. They then realized another state, Georgia would allow them to incorporate and allow them to save $400,000 per year in franchise fees. Consequently, they made Ruby Tuesday, Inc. a Georgia Corporation. He added all this was going on while they were trying to transfer liquor licenses and therefore, there are two resolutions before Council. One authorizes the transfer from Morrison’s Inc. to Ruby Tuesday, Inc. a Delaware Corporation and the other is transferring from the Delaware Corporation to Ruby Tuesday, Inc. a Georgia Corporation. Further, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission has waived any investigation, but they still need a local recommendation.

Mayor McLallen asked if the city is required to waive their regulations. Mr. Fried said that was not required.

CM-97-05-145: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To transfer stock ownership from Morrison Restaurants, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) to Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation)

Nay: None

CM-97-05-146: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Kramer & Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To transfer ownership from Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) to Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (a Georgia Corporation)

4. Approval of Final Preliminary Plat - Dunnabeck Estates Subdivision, SP 96-39C - Property Located East of Beck Road, South of Nine Mile Road

Mayor McLallen reported this is before Council because they had come to Council for preliminary tentative plat approval and received a five to one vote. They then came back before Council with essentially an identical plan for final plat approval. At that time there was citizen input from the adjoining neighborhood expressing their concerns about similar dissimilar issues, a shared entrance, and landscaping and signage issues.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Fried to explain the process at this point. Mr. Fried replied the tentative preliminary plat approval includes the street and lot layouts of the subdivision, and Council is bound by that approval. He added if the final preliminary is in conformance with the tentative preliminary, then they must approve that under the state statute.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Fried what would their position be if they were to assume that the original street layout was not appropriate as it relates to the legality of entering the street. Mr. Fried cannot give an answer unless Councilman Schmid wants to make a motion to reconsider the prior approval. Mr. Fried believes the developer might have a vested interested in that prior approval and he does not know if they can do that without researching the legal implications. However, it is his opinion that there is a vested interest in that tentative preliminary under the state statute and he does not see that there are any options. He explained the statue says that the developer has a vested interested in that tentative preliminary for one year and if the final is in conformity with the tentative, they must approve it. Councilman Schmid’s suggestion is that he should assume that the city made some kind of mistake in approving the tentative preliminary and he cannot respond to that.

Councilman Clark said one of the homeowner’s raised the issue of the similar dissimilar ordinance and he understands the smaller home must be at least 75% of the size of the existing home of an abutting property or a property within a three hundred-foot radius. He further believes it has to be in the same subdivision. Mr. Fried agreed.

Councilman Clark stated if they did not have to consider the state statute and they were in a position to deny the request, given the current zoning, he asked if the property owner could construct apartments. Mr. Fried replied it is zoned for multiple.

Councilman Schmid believes this property should have been rezoned several years ago to the existing zoning in that area. He also does not believe that the state can hold a municipality to such an approval. He added that he will request Mr. Fried to research that for future reference. Councilman Schmid reminded Council this was set aside for exploratory conversation about how the two subdivisions could agree to get into the subdivision. Councilman Schmid agrees Dunnabeck will devalue the Barclay homes.

Councilman Kramer added they postponed action so the two parties could meet to address the issues and he would like to hear about their progress.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated their previous decision apparently binds Council and added there are a couple of other steps. He asked what discretion does Council have in the next steps in terms of entrance signs, landscaping and so forth. Mr. Fried replied the final plat approval has statutory requirements and Council has some minor discretion.

Pat Keast of Seiber Keast, introduced Mr. Terry Gores and thought it would be best for him to describe what happened at the residents’ meetings. He explained Mr. Gores attended the more positive second meeting where the residents came to a consensus about what should be done. Mr. Keast believes Mr. Gores went beyond what the ordinance required and his willingness to try to get along with the neighbors is what motivated him to do that. Mr. Keast reported Mr. Gores’ company does a lot of work in the area of landscaping and signage and they have also done work on the Main Street project.

Terry Gores reported he met Thursday night with the Barclay Estates advisory group. He explained they were concerned about the landscaping and the entrance sign trying to denote a difference between Barclay Estates and Dunnabeck Estates. Mr. Gores explained to the advisory group that they are not looking to slap up homes and move on. He reported the homes in the area are beautiful and they do not want to jeopardize their value. He noted the homes they are constructing may be smaller, but they will still uphold the same stature as the Barclay Estates. He said the homes would range from 2,200 to 2,800 square feet. Mr. Gores acknowledged Mr. Russell’s concern about his home facing the first home in the Dunnabeck subdivision. Mr. Gores said fortunately, Lot 1 gives them a large enough lot to turn the house toward Stratford Lane and put a higher elevated home where they have a side entrance into the garage area. Mr. Gores stated he showed Mr. Russell a picture of the home style and he seemed receptive. They also discussed the landscape issue. He told the group that he is meeting with the city’s forester Thursday. He stated he and Mr. Pargoff will review the landscape to make sure it meets the quality of the current landscaping. Mr. Gores added they are suggesting construction of a brick limestone style sign. He noted Barclay has a sign in the median and that they wanted the two subdivisions separated. Mr. Gores proposed to incorporate a sign at his cost on their side with similar landscaping constructed of brick, limestone that would denote Barclay Estates. Further, each sign would be well landscaped with up to a twenty-foot spruce planted behind them, boulder walls, annual flowers and in return, they would maintain the strip and the lighting. Mr. Gores reported Dunnabeck would be responsible for all the landscape maintenance and anything else that would fall into the square of their property. Mr. Gores thought this was a reasonable solution. He added that he agreed to relandscape the median portion with five or six sizeable Bradford Pears and relandscape the front so they could move the Barclay sign to Nine Mile. Mr. Gores reported all parties seemed receptive at the meeting.

Councilman Kramer asked if the results of this discussion would be reflected in the final plat. Mr. Gores replied that is correct and he also agreed to work personally with Barclay’s homeowners association when doing the landscape design. He explained his company, Vision Research and Development is an LLC; the LLC is joined together by Wayne Oakland Contracting and Redman Homes.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Mr. Gores stated they would build a larger home on Lot 1. Mr. Gores replied their building envelope will only permit a certain size home. He explained Barclay residents wanted the home to face Dunnabeck Court and they are unable to do that due to constraints in the building envelope. Consequently, they are proposing to construct a home at a higher elevation and more comparable to the home across the street if possible. He added they have to build to match the other homes in the subdivision, but they are trying to build it with a higher elevation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford noted the lot is almost as large as some of the lots in Barclay Estates and asked why wouldn’t a larger home fit there. Mr. Gore reiterated they will build it as large as they can fit in their envelope.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if he is saying that it would be comparable to the Barclay Estates homes. Mr. Gores concurred.

Councilman Schmid commended Mr. Gores for his efforts. He asked if the depth is restricting them from building a larger home on Lot 1. Mr. Gores replied that is correct; they need a thirty-five-foot setback and they cannot achieve that because of the wetlands. However, he reiterated the lot will hold a larger home than the other Dunnabeck homes.

Councilman Clark commended both groups for working together. He believes Council is in a dilemma; state law has mandated one and the other is the concerns of the Barclay residents. He noted if Council could vote to deny the project, the owner could construct apartments because the property is zoned multiple. Councilman Clark believes this would have a substantial impact on the property values as opposed to having homes constructed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford prefaced his motion based on Mr. Gores’ presentation, an apparent resolution between the two parties, Councilman Clark’s comments, and Council’s previous decision.

CM-97-05-147: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED: To grant Final Preliminary Plat approval for Dunnabeck Estates Subdivision, SP 96-39C subject to City staff and consultants’ recommendations based upon Mr. Gores’ presentation, an apparent resolution between the two parties, Councilman Clark’s comments and Council’s previous discussion

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford would like all of the comments to be specific in the minutes.

Mr. Fried noted because the applicant has consented to it, Mayor ProTem Crawford is conditioning the approval of the final plat.

Councilwoman Mutch echoed earlier comments and commended everyone’s efforts because it does affect business plans and homeowners’ investments. Councilwoman Mutch believes they had to overcome a lot of emotional energy because they are dealing with peoples’ homes. She added that Mr. Margle contacted her and he represented his neighbors very well. One thing she found intriguing was that this process was a way for him to get to know his own neighbors. Councilwoman Mutch added that it would be a luxury to vote in the way she thinks people would like to see her vote because it would put the city at risk in terms of potential multiple development and to go back on a decision that Council legally made.

Councilman Schmid would like the record clearly to show that the traffic consultant believes it would be safer if an entrance did not go out onto Beck Road. However, on the other hand Councilman Schmid hopes the consultant would be equally consistent when they attempt to put up a market at Ten Mile and Beck Roads.

Councilman Kramer received many telephone calls from both parties and some of them expressed frustration with the process. Councilman Kramer added it is fortunate they are in the middle of the process and they have used their intellect to come forth to work with each other to reach a middle ground.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Greg Henwood - 21979 Barclay Drive, reported his home is on lot 6 or 7 and stated a Dunnabeck home will be constructed approximately twenty feet from his property line. He noted his home is 3,900 square feet and he would like to see a similar size home constructed by Dunnabeck on the lot adjacent to him. Further, Mr. Henwood reported one reason Dunnabeck wants to share their entrance is to preserve another lot. Mr. Henwood also understands concerns about the traffic on Beck Road. However, he noted that there are two cuts on Beck Road for six lots a mile away from them. He believes the city’s policy is inconsistent.

Stephen Walukas - 21955 York Mill Circle, stated he and his wife chose to move to Novi after looking all over the area. He explained his wife works in Dearborn and he works in Auburn Hills, and logistically, Novi is not the best place for them to move to. He reported their choice did afford them a nice community, but he is losing hope that their property values will be sustained and/or appreciate. He suggested that Council should look at what they can do to put more money into city planning and zoning when they review their budget so future situations like this do not happen. He stated it is very emotional for them because they have invested a lot of money and time into their homes. He reported one home recently sold for almost $579,000. He suggested that the city hire clerk/typists through Kelly Services and put more time and money into the planning of Novi as it grows.

Glen Bonaventura - is before Council to discuss the RUD Ordinance. Mr. Bonaventura to trying to protect the integrity and the character of the west side of Novi. He has some problems with the ordinance because they directly link it to the Harvest Land Project. Mr. Bonaventura’s major concern is about the ordinance being written by the developer, although he believes they can submit any changes for consideration. Mr. Bonaventura explained the number of changes in the Harvest Land project would drastically change the RUD character that has been master planned for the city for many years. Secondly, he opposes the fact that they are using the proposed school property and the proposed city park property as part of their density calculation. He also opposes the fact that they are including the 169 acre lake and believes that should be changed in the current ordinance. Mr. Bonaventura reported the property is currently zoned RA and R-1 which they characterize as large lot, low density, single family dwellings. Mr. Bonaventura reported they will not have that with the RUD change. Instead, they will have multiple family clusters and that is not mentioned once in the Harvest Lake Development proposal. Further, the Harvest Land Company’s proposal to change the RUD amounts to nothing more than a rezoning of the entire west side of Novi. If Council agrees to change this ordinance, the entire west side of Novi which is currently zoned RA will fall under this unique and flexible proposal. Further, If the ordinance is changed, the number of homes on the west side will increase and the size of the lots will decrease. Mr. Bonaventura added Harvest Lake boasts 54% preservation, but when all of the items he has mentioned are removed that number is reduced to 14% preservation. Mr. Bonaventura believes If the property were zoned RA and R-1, this 14% would be called backyards.

5. Approval of Final Plat - Greenwood Oaks No. 3 - Located North of Ten Mile Road, West of Beck Road (Removed at petitioner’s request)

BREAK - 9:50 p.m. to 10:10 p.m.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

6. Approval of Ordinance 97-18.131 - RUD Ordinance - I Reading

The Mayor reported this matter is before Council for a possible revision. She explained to date this ordinance has been before the Planning Commission, the city’s consultants and through the private sector. She noted any member of the community may propose changes to an existing ordinance and the process has been followed to permit that. She reported the Planning Commission held a public hearing in April and their packet contains their comments as well as the comments from staff, legal and the private sector. The Mayor believes the city has the opportunity to craft an ordinance to meet today’s needs. The purpose is to address innovations in the planning industry, to clarify unclear language, grant flexibility, address an issue about city policy to offer an incentive for extraordinary development practices and follow some of the new development practices known as open space planning. The Mayor reported the current ordinances are not flexible enough to permit this to happen.

Dennis Watson presented a brief overview. He explained there was a request made by Steven Weiner of the Harvest Land Company for certain changes in the zoning ordinance pertaining to RUD development. They put the matter before the Planning Commission and they conducted a public hearing. The Planning Commission felt they could not recommend some of the things requested and some they could, and they also recommended a few additional things on their own initiative. The draft before Council is their attempt to try to produce ordinance language that follows what the Planning Commission recommended. In doing so, there were a number of issues that they did not resolve and they have listed those issues in their cover letter. He added there are some minor language concerns, but there are other concerns that are more fundamental.

He believes the most significant concern is about what Council wants to do relative to three interrelated issues. One issue is about density. He asked what kind of density does Council wish to permit in an RUD in terms of whether it follows the underlying zoning district or whether the lot size controls it. The second is to what extent does Council want to restrict dwelling units to single family residences as opposed to cluster dwellings. The third is to what extent should there be flexibility on lot size and setbacks. He noted they have also listed five or six other issues.

Mr. Watson added there is one element they should also consider. Mr. Watson stated some of the language that the Planning Commission added was a requirement that there be hydro seeding or soil stabilization within a five-week period for soil erosion purposes. Mr. Watson suggested rather than deal with the soil erosion issue in the RUD ordinance, it might make more sense to deal with that language on a city wide basis.

Mayor McLallen asked if the RUD ordinance in its final form is a contract between a specific developer and the city. Mr. Watson replied the ordinance itself is not a contract; the ordinance is the regulations that the city imposes to control development. He explained if they approve an RUD project, one ordinance provision currently in place is that once the application plan is approved, the city enters a contract with the property owner to hold the city and property owner to what they have approved. It is a similar situation as to what was done with the PUD development and previous RUD developments.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that only the language in the ordinance is before them and not a specific project although a specific landowner brought some of the proposals within the ordinance forward.

Councilman Mitzel understands Council’s options are to either approve the first the reading as is, approve it with amendments, send it back for further study, or deny it. Mr. Watson agreed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated they have three documents before them. One from Mr. Rogers, one from the city’s attorney and one from the petitioner. He does not want to start with the existing ordinance and suggested they should begin with Mr. Rogers or the attorney’s and then the private sector’s submittal.

Councilwoman Mutch agrees with Mayor ProTem Crawford and believes that starting it with the attorney’s draft would be logical. She explained if there are items the attorney’s are saying cannot be done, they will know that beforehand.

Councilman Schmid would prefer to leave the ordinance as it is. He reminded Council they are dealing with an ordinance that will affect the entire western part of Novi. If they pass it as written, there will never be another development with large lot subdivisions. Councilman Schmid noted open space is not something new. He explained they were building open space subdivisions as far back as the seventies. However, he believes this ordinance disregards large lot subdivisions that the master plan calls for. He is amazed that the consultants are recommending an ordinance that is totally against the master plan. Consequently, Councilman Schmid thinks this is going to take considerable time to review. He added Harvest Land is a different issue and they are not before Council. He would like to go through the ordinance page for page or send it back to the Planning Commission to write an ordinance that adheres to the city’s master plan which supports large lot subdivisions in the western part of Novi.

Councilman Clark shares some of Councilman Schmid’s concerns. He stated it would be one thing if they were only dealing with the Harvest Land project, but he is concerned with the impact this will have on the western half of Novi. He believes it has some serious implications and the first one that comes to his attention is the reduction of the forty-acre minimum to twenty-five. The other problem is they were unable to finish their total review of the zoning ordinances. He believes they need more time to devote to this review and allow themselves time to deal with this directly as a one issue item instead of sending it back to the Planning Commission. He added this issue is very important to the future of this city.

Councilman Mitzel agrees with many of the earlier comments. However, he is not certain about sending it back to the Planning Commission without being more specific about what Council’s concerns are. He believes it would be helpful to first use the marked up copy from Mr. Fried’s April 30 letter for their review. Councilman Mitzel believes the size should remain at forty acres and that the density should adhere with the underlying density in an attempt to provide a uniform approach for calculating density for base zoning and all of the options. Further, because the RUD as it currently exists was intended as a flexible tool for planning and development, he believes they should just say they have options on the books in terms of lot area, open space, setbacks, cluster options and so forth. He added the petitioner can approach Council and the Planning Commission with a proposal that meets the underlying density with a variety of housing sizes, lots and so forth. However, some of those must meet the base lot size without any reduction and some may be reduced. He explained it would still be under the judgement of the Planning Commission and City Council to review that and determine if it is acceptable. He believes it should be a discretionary option. He explained if they write their standards so they are discretionary and Council agrees that pursuing it is worthwhile, then they may enter into the RUD agreement. Consequently, they will not have to figure out where they want to allow flexibility and not allow flexibility.

Councilman Mitzel is trying to provide useful feedback for the Planning Commission. Further, Councilman Mitzel believes they can address the application requirements and the plan approval process later. He noted the major issues before them tonight is how they determine density and what kind of flexibility should they provide.

Councilman Kramer does not support sending the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. He believes they need to address some underlying philosophy and agrees with many of Councilman Mitzel’s comments. He believes they need to discover what elements should come together to make an ordinance, but thinks they are tying themselves up in over specification. He believes they should put the intent in place of some of the specifics. He explained the RUD gives them the ability to negotiate the outcome and the ordinance should provide a framework consistent with the philosophy they endorse. To send it back, does not resolve anything. Further, they should determine whether they can endorse the items or reject the various philosophies behind them.

Mayor ProTem Crawford noted the motion was to send it back and before they can move forward, they need to address that motion.

Councilman Clark said they could vote on the motion and put their comments on the record. His concern is about a 900-acre parcel that is going to affect the entire western half of the city. He said there were earlier comments from residents about the future impact and that is what they are talking about. They have to do this right because they will only get once chance to do it right in terms of the impact this will have in the years to come.

Councilman Schmid stated the problem is that Harvest Land wrote this ordinance and by default, they have become a part of this discussion. He can deal with the 900 acres, but he is concerned about what this ordinance will do to the other several thousand’s of acres in the western part of the city. Councilman Schmid knows people like to live on large lots and this ordinance will practically eliminate that. Further, the content of the ordinance implies that the only way developers will develop land is if the city gives them a break in terms of woodlands and wetlands. He reminded Council the ordinance is full of language saving woodlands and wetlands.

FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen noted Councilman Kramer believes there are underlying philosophical issues that need to be defined by Council before they can move forward. Those issues are about the density and can the structure of the ordinance be used by anyone owning land that meets these requirements. Mayor McLallen believes the attorney’s letter spelled out the parameters that the Planning Commission came to about density. She explained their recommendation was to use the density outlined in the underlying zoning. In addition to that, Mayor McLallen advised they asked how can the density be controlled. She asked if it is a not to exceed density that ignores lot size or is it a density based on underlying zoning as stated by lot size which gives a different number if environment features have to be factored in?

Mr. Watson added the other question is how that would relate to the size of the units or the size of the lots in the numbers of conventional type single family units as a percentage of the total units.

Mayor McLallen noted the density is predicated on the gross underlying zoning in the existing ordinance. Mr. Watson added there are exceptions to that and the main ones are: subaqueous swamp land and perimeter road areas.

Mayor McLallen asked if they had ten acres of subaqueous and five acres of perimeter road they would then reduce the gross acreage by those amounts to calculate the underlying zoning. Mr. Watson said that is correct.

Mayor McLallen stated however they can figure out the underlying units in the existing ordinance would then be played out on a variety of housing types. However, at the moment it is regulated by a certain percentage of them being a reduction of the underlying zonings particular lot. Therefore, if they had 150 foot zone, they could only step down in scale on the lot size by a very rigid formula. Mr. Watson disagreed. He stated according to the current ordinance among the uses they have are detached one family dwellings and also one family dwelling clusters. Further, the ordinance states that part of the residential component of the RUD is to be comprised of conventional one family dwelling development. Mr. Watson understands conventional to mean as they would develop in a conventional subdivision; it would have the same lot sizes as the underlying zoning would allow. Mr. Watson added the current language indicates that a portion of the development is to be of that conventional sort and it does not indicate what the maximum or minimum on what that portion is to be. Although some of the development would have to be of conventional lot sizes, the ordinance leaves it open about what that amount is going to be. He noted that is one issue they pointed out that no matter what they do with changing the other aspects of the ordinance, that is something they may want to clarify.

Mayor McLallen said there is a philosophical hurdle they have to get over and that is whether Council sees this as a beneficial tool which is actually offering lot size reduction. If that is part of the tool, she asked how are they going to control it by determining what is the legitimate density. She believes if they cannot get over that hurdle, then the rest will be immaterial.

Councilman Mitzel agrees with the two issues Mayor McLallen pointed out. However, he believes they may want to first address the density issue since they already discussed it at the zoning ordinance work session in March. He reminded Council they talked about unifying zoning densities. He believes the attorney’s wrote it in their draft and the Planning Commission direction was that the number of dwelling units would be based upon the net site area. He further believes it excluded regulated wetlands. Mr. Watson interjected, he believes it was regulated wetlands and it might have been even regulated woodlands. Councilman Mitzel went on to state they were going to apply that to all the conventional developments and he also believes they were going to apply it to all of the options. Councilman Mitzel believes if they agree upon that, it would resolve the density issue. Further, if they are going to look at all options that are standard, they can still get the same maximum number of houses on that property and they can then move onto the next step to discuss what type of flexibility they want. Councilman Mitzel suggested that they may have to say 50% of it has to be conventional and not put a limit on it.

Councilman Mitzel moved to change Section 3, Density to state for purposes of determining density the maximum number of dwelling units per care shall be determined by the underlying zoning district. He added that they define it elsewhere in the zoning ordinance.

CM-97-05-149: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION POSTPONED: To change Section 3, Density to state for purposes of determining density the maximum number of dwelling units per care shall be determined by the underlying zoning district

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Watson understands Councilman Mitzel to mean that it will then be consistent with how that was going to be addressed in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

Councilman Mitzel replied Mr. Watson is correct and if they do not change it right now, the current zoning definition would apply. However, if they do amend the zoning ordinance, then that definition would apply. He noted the motion is just referencing how they treat the conventional underlying zoning density.

Councilman Mitzel further explained his motion is about how they reference density in the current ordinance. He reported his motion removes all of Section 3 and it will read, "for purposes of determining density, the maximum number of dwelling units shall be determined by the underlying zoning district." He noted they currently base it on gross acre, but they are now talking about changing it based on net acre. He stated how they have it defined for conventional zoning would then carry through here.

Councilwoman Mutch understands Councilman Mitzel’s motion in terms of a piece of property with a single zoning classification, but asked how would it address assembled parcels with different types of zoning. Councilman Mitzel cited Bristol Corners as an example of split zoning. He reported they took the each zoning area separately to calculate the units. He believes in that case, they applied the option based on R-1's standards within the R-1 area and RA standards within the RA area.

Mr. Rogers clarified by stating that 80% of Bristol Corners was zoned R-2 and the lake front area was zoned R-4, which did not qualify under the preservation option. He agreed with Councilman Mitzel in cases of split zoning, they address each part separately.

Councilwoman Mutch understands Councilman Mitzel’s motion suggests that the split be observed and it does not include any type of averaging.

Councilman Mitzel said they are talking about the density, which is calculating the number of dwelling units allowed for the project. As the Mayor stated, Councilman Mitzel noted that they still have the separate philosophical issue of what type of flexibility they want to provide.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how Councilman Mitzel’s proposal differs from what is currently before them. Further, if it is different, he would like to hear from staff, consultants and Harvest Land about how that affects this ordinance. He suggested that it may have a broader impact on other areas in the ordinance.

Councilman Mitzel believes the current zoning ordinance bases density upon the definition of overall acreage. He believes that section would be the same if they do not change their conventional zoning ordinance definition which will be a fall out of their zoning ordinance work session. He added that does not change if they are only referencing the current definition. What would change and be removed is the whole section concerning lakes and ponds being included in the density calculation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if this is currently in the ordinance. Councilman Mitzel replied it is. He further stated it is also in some of their other option ordinances that they are talking about unifying and removing that type of language.

Councilman Kramer said this type of language does not exist in the basic RA density definition. Councilman Mitzel agreed and believes it only states overall acres.

Mr. Rogers stated the present ordinance computes the gross area less subaqueous areas and any perimeter major streets as has been defined by the city attorney’s office. Further, the present zoning ordinance also includes lakes or ponds which are to be landscaped maintained and made part of the overall RUD. Mr. Rogers stated that language remains in the draft that came forward from the Planning Commission. Mr. Rogers reminded Council that they did discuss this standardization, and that they would remove regulated state and local wetlands from density computation. Mr. Rogers does not believe they removed regulated woodlands, but they would remove wet-woodlands. He added they are not talking about any density credit; they are only talking about the basic underlying density which a developer has the option of building up to. Mr. Rogers believes this ordinance does not only apply in west Novi and it could also apply to northeast Novi. Further, Mr. Rogers reported the ordinance was carefully studied by the Implementation Committee and the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendations after the public hearing in April. Mr. Rogers believes by adding some incentive for density computation, they may be able to preserve more land in permanent open space. The question before Council is, what are the ingredients they want to use in computing density.

Mayor McLallen stated the question before them is how would Councilman Mitzel’s proposal vary from the existing proposal. Mr. Rogers replied if they standardize as Councilman Mitzel suggested, they would remove all regulated wetlands, and not just subaqueous and submerged swamp lands. It would reduce the number of units for a hundred-acre parcel to a fewer number than if they follow the present ordinance and each site would have different limitations. Mr. Rogers noted that the Implementation Committee talked about reducing the size of an RUD to ten acres. Mr. Rogers is comfortable with forty acres because he believes it would give them the opportunity to do an internal street system, adequate buffers and so forth.

Mayor McLallen restated the question is how would Councilman Mitzel’s proposal affect the density versus what is existing.

Councilman Mitzel stated Mr. Rogers is correct if they approve proposed overall zoning text amendments that include the changed density to net site area. Currently, if they were to adopt this, it just refers back to the existing definition of density. He explained his motion is just saying they should remove the special density section inside the ordinance and refer back to how they define conventional density in the zoning ordinance.

Mayor McLallen stated then under this proposal, there is no net change. Councilman Mitzel explained this proposal would refer back to overall acres and it does not include any special language concerning swamp land or lakes. However, if they were to make the overall text change, they are discussing in the study session, then it would refer to that modified definition.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they could also hear from Harvest Land about how this could affect an RUD.

Mayor McLallen noted that the participants in this meeting are Council, staff and a member of the private sector who has proposed issues within this ordinance. Whether this Council chooses to accept their recommendations or not, they have a legal position to present their information and Council will grant them that courtesy.

Councilman Schmid disagrees that they should be permitted to speak at this meeting. He explained they are not a part of this ordinance, although they made some recommendations. He believes they will be able to speak when they come before Council and the Planning Commission for their development. Councilman Schmid has read what they have to say, but he does not understand how they are a part of this text amendment. He said if they are a part of it, then every citizen in Novi should be a part of it.

Mayor McLallen reminded Councilman Schmid that they have already established the fact that anyone can bring forward a recommendation for a change to an ordinance.

Councilman Schmid will remember this for future ordinance changes.

Councilman Mitzel thought participation of the public can only occur during Audience Participation and not during Council debate of a motion.

Mayor McLallen stated this issue had specific input from a specific party. It is her understanding according to the attorneys, that as long as they spoke to the planning issues and not a specific development, Council could question them about the planning issue and not a specific development.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the Mayor would like to open discussion to the public even though there is a motion on the floor. Mayor McLallen noted as a point of order, there is a motion on the floor.

Mr. Watson clarified that the input is not that they are opening discussion to general comment from them but to respond to specific questions from Mayor ProTem Crawford. He reminded Council members that they are free to ask questions.

Mayor ProTem Crawford restated his question and asked how would Councilman Mitzel’s proposed deletion of lakes or ponds affect the overall ordinance or the specific density area in this ordinance.

Mary Jukuri of Johnson, Johnson & Roy, stated at the ordinance level it would allow fewer units to be built on any given parcel. She is a somewhat unclear, because Councilman Mitzel has referred to existing density definitions per the existing ordinance versus where their interpretation stands considering Report No. 6. She would, at Council’s pleasure, like to also refer opportunity to comment to Kevin Kohls from Harvest Land Company to clarify where current ordinances are standing. Mayor McLallen interjected, that was not the question.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that it would reduce the density, but he is asking how that would impact an overall RUD ordinance. He is looking for a philosophical statement in terms of how it would impact the way the whole ordinance works.

Mayor McLallen stated a specific ordinance is before them and there are changes proposed to that ordinance. She suggested that it might be helpful for them to hear comments from staff and the attorney about how a change may make it better or worse. She noted part of that ordinance is the density issue. However, the larger question is, why are they tinkering with this ordinance in the first place. She asked if there is something about this that they will learn that is going to make an option available to the city that is better. She believes it is an option that Council will always have the right to ever permit to be implemented or not. Philosophically, she again asked why are they tinkering with it in the first place and why is the new ordinance going to be better than the old. Finally, Council must determine whether they will ever decide to use it or not. Mayor McLallen asked if they would like Mr. Rogers to explain why staff has supported changes in the ordinance and why it would benefit the city versus the old ordinance.

Councilwoman Mutch believes that would be helpful, but she asked if the discussion is going to continue in this direction. She asked if they are going to continue to "ping pong" through the ordinance or are they going to follow some sort of order. She suggested if they are going to have staff address this, they should provide a list with key issues for them so there will be some direction to the conversation.

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council that the Mayor mentioned two main issues; density and flexibility. He stated his motion relates to the first issue and he thought that was how they were going to proceed. He disagrees that there is no direction in their discussion.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Council has the expectation of finishing this tonight or is it their intention to only address a portion of the issues.

Mayor McLallen suggested that they step back and have Mr. Rogers layout the issues before them. Mayor McLallen asked Councilman Mitzel to withdraw or table his motion so they can establish a procedure. Councilman Mitzel stated he will consider this as discussion concerning his motion.

Mrs. Bartholomew stated this can be considered as a continuation of the discussion.

Mr. Rogers believes this ordinance was first submitted February 14, 1997 by the applicant and he, the Implementation Committee and Planning Commission have carefully studied it. He reported they prepared a composite draft for public hearing in April based on the input they received. Subsequent to that time, Mr. Rogers stated the city’s attorney prepared a revised comparison draft. He noted this draft incorporated the last thoughts of the Planning Commission and he did not agree with all of them. Mr. Rogers added this ordinance is not site specific and that it has not been used in fifteen years. He recalled Briarwood of Novi, Dunbarton Pines and Village Oaks are the only projects using this ordinance, and they all predated him.

Mr. Rogers believes it is Council’s decision to determine whether they want to have a division of the remaining portions of the city into standard subdivision lots with some preservation subdivisions or whether they want to espouse the open space concept. Mr. Rogers believes the key issue is density and he believes they should include the lake. He noted they included it in the PUD ordinance for Sandstone of Vistas. He explained it provides a density credit for another dwelling unit as an incentive to preserve more than the ordinary open space. Consequently, Mr. Rogers foresees a substantial portion of the site kept in its natural state under this ordinance.

Mr. Rogers stated a portion of the housing can be single family. He advised the present ordinance provides for cluster housing which is a permitted use in the current R-1, 2, 3 and 4 districts and they can be detached or attached in units of one, two, three or four units in each cluster. Mr. Rogers believes the inherent intent of the RUD is one of flexibility in housing type, style and architectural appearance.

In another memo, Mr. Rogers noted he addressed criteria that would allow them to reduce setbacks of a given home in a given district. Mr. Rogers believes there are other issues about phasing, but he has no problem with the latest draft. It seems to Mr. Rogers that RUD planning is a coordinated form of planning.

Mr. Rogers noted that there was thought to put in commercial, but he did not support the Implementation Committee’s provision for a commercial center in an RUD. Mr. Rogers would also like to preserve western Novi and provide for some lots of a larger lot size. Mr. Rogers added without getting site specific, he believes there should be some conventional lots in terms of conforming to the underlying zoning.

Councilman Schmid is not sure about how the whole issue of looking at the ordinances as it relates to open space started. He recalled some individuals discussed it during a meeting between Council and the Planning Commission. However, he does not recall Council giving any directive to Mr. Rogers to take this on. Secondly, Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Rogers would say that the RUD ordinance moves dramatically away from large lot subdivisions as it is master planned in any area of the city of Novi. Councilman Schmid does not agree that it is an issue of density because it is not a density ordinance; it is a lot size ordinance. He noted they are suggesting they cannot preserve the open space under single lot RA conventional zoning. He believes there will be more open space or close to as much open space in a conventional subdivision as there is in an RUD or other types of zoning. He noted the difference between conventional and open space is that the land does not belong to city, it belongs to an individual.

Mr. Rogers believes that is an alternative. However, he would like to distinguish between the master plan and the zoning ordinance.

Councilman Schmid asked if the cluster housing ordinance would fit close to what they are recommending; he believes it does not. Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Rogers to respond to how the ordinance relates to density, open space and then compare it with the master plan.

Mr. Rogers replied the master plan talks about a density that he is not recommending they depart from. Further, Mr. Rogers stated the zoning ordinance is another instrument that talks about one acre minimum lot size in an RA district and half acre lots in an R-1 district. Mr. Rogers explained there are two separate policies; the master plan is adopted by the Planning Commission and Council adopts the zoning ordinance. Mr. Rogers reported the case that may come before them is existing within the general concept in density and philosophy of the Master Plan of Land Use. However, Mr. Rogers noted they depart from the lot sizes. Mr. Rogers believes if they do not amend the RUD ordinance, somebody could come in with forty acres and propose an RUD in the RA zoned area of any part of the city. Further, they could have 95% of the units under the present ordinance in cluster housing and 5% as single family conventional detached homes.

In response to the question about open space preservation, Mr. Rogers agrees they can accomplish that by having large rear yards on one, two and three acre lots. However, they would not have any continuous pathways, there may be some intrusion into woodlands and there might not be any common maintenance policy. He also believes they would be cutting up the property into one acre minimum parcels, and they would not have an overall blue print of open space and internal roads. However, if they hold to the one acre minimum lot size for a 901-acre parcel which might be able to support 846 dwelling units, and if they observed the wetlands and woodland’s ordinance, they would probably have 441 lots.

Councilman Schmid asked what would be wrong with that. Mr. Rogers does not believe, with the cost of an infrastructure and all the environmental protection, they will get a coordinated RUD development.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Rogers is representing communities where they are building five acre lots and so forth, how are they affording them. Mr. Rogers replied they build slowly, they have no water and sewer and they have to be on large parcel developments. Mr. Rogers believes this is a decision each city has to make. However, he is recommending an option with all kinds of checks and balances, and criteria. Mr. Rogers stated they may not get another RUD, but reducing to twenty-five acres may move some property that is just sitting.

Councilman Schmid believes they are "giving away the shop" on large lots. He stated if Mr. Rogers is a proponent of small lots, he would agree with him 100%. However, the irony of this ordinance is that they want credit for large lots. He added if they combine two lots, they want credit for more density. Consequently, they are giving up the large lot subdivisions on the master plan and someone has already concluded that is what they do not want in this city based on this ordinance.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Rogers believes there will be another project for western Novi that does not have some portion of an RUD in it. Mr. Rogers believes if they update this ordinance or some type of this ordinance, they will get other RUD’s.

Councilman Schmid asked if they will get any conventionals? Mr. Rogers believes they will because there are some people who do not want a site condominium.

Mr. Rogers believes the question was where did he get the motivation to review the RUD ordinance. He reported that Mr. Wahl has a chronology of where the Planning Commission and Council directed him to review this ordinance. Councilman Schmid disagrees.

Councilman Schmid asked why does Mr. Rogers believe they would have more open space with this type of ordinance than they would with conventional. He believes Mr. Rogers stated there would not be much more open space and the difference is that the homeowner will own the space. He believes Mr. Rogers wants public land for people to look at; Councilman Schmid wants private land for people to use. Mr. Rogers respects that.

Mayor ProTem Crawford recalled he made a motion for further study on how they might improve the RUD ordinance at a joint meeting held several months ago with Council and the Planning Commission. He added they were directed to come back before Council with a recommended RUD ordinance.

Councilman Schmid asked if it was site specific. Mayor ProTem Crawford replied it was not.

Mayor ProTem Crawford recalled it was stated there will never be a conventional subdivision of a RA nature if they pass this RUD; he asked Mr. Rogers to expound on that. Mr. Rogers replied there are currently a dozen single family plats in the review process. Mr. Rogers believes small parcel development does not lend itself to an RUD, particularly if they put a twenty-five-acre cap on it.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated if there are no wetlands/woodlands to protect as open space, he does not imagine it would be beneficial. Mr. Rogers agreed and added there would be no incentive to layout open space.

Mr. Rogers stated he has seen development cut up a square mile of privately owned property for open space subdivisions,. Mr. Rogers suggested that they construct units both in clusters or smaller lot sizes on one acre lots that are nestled into these large open spaces. He noted the great amount of wetlands and woodlands in west Novi.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Mr. Rogers knows of areas where there would be future plats. Mr. Rogers replied there are areas and he does not see any hindrance in it. However, he reminded Council site condominiums are unpopular right now.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there are any examples of how this RUD might affect woodlands or wetlands in the open space. Although Mr. Rogers does not have examples with him tonight, he noted Mr. Arroyo presented a seminar on open space planning.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what is the density if they had forty acres with ten acres of regulated wetlands. Mr. Rogers replied forty acres less ten acres would leave them with thirty acres. In an RA District, after they allow for internal streets, they multiply the acreage by 0.8 which for thirty acres would amount to 24 home sites versus 32 if they had full use of the forty acres. Mr. Rogers noted the density of the full forty is 0.8 units per acre, but when they get down to 24 units on the forty acres, they are down to 0.6 units per acre.

Mayor ProTem Crawford concluded that the overall density is less than what might be conventional. Mr. Rogers disagreed. He stated they would still regulate the regulated wetlands whether it was a conventional plat or an RUD. He said if they go down to 50% being regulated areas on a forty-acre parcel, the density would drop from 0.8 to 0.4 units per acre.

Councilman Mitzel explained he moved for postponement because they will not get through this tonight and he believes they need a special meeting to address this.

Mayor McLallen believes they need to schedule a date for this because this is a very pressing issue.

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council they have a regular meeting scheduled for May 12 and a work session is scheduled May 15 for the zoning ordinance review.

Councilman Kramer suggested they schedule the May 15 meeting for the RUD review.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said previous to the motion to postpone, he was asking for some overall philosophical comments from staff and/or Harvest Land; he would still like to hear these comments. Consequently, he believes they should not vote to postpone and that they should continue because it might shed some light on a future meeting. He added he does not disagree that they need a future meeting.

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council they will go through all of this again when they have a future meeting and they still have more items to address on tonight’s agenda.

Councilwoman Mutch will not support a motion to postpone to an indefinite period.

Councilman Kramer agreed and noted they have reserved May 15 to continue their discussion about the zoning ordinance. He reiterated his suggestion to use that date to review the RUD.

Councilman Clark asked if the maker of the motion would be amenable to postponing the item to May 15 in fairness to all parties present. Councilman Clark believes the worst thing they can do is act in haste given the complexity and importance of the issues involved. He believes it makes sense to have one meeting that is specifically directed to this project which would obviously begin at a much earlier hour in the evening.

Councilman Mitzel agreed to postpone until May 15.

Mayor McLallen strongly objects to putting this item off until May 15. She said there are a lot of matters involved and she believes Council needs to settle this issue. She advised this Thursday is open.

Councilman Schmid interjected, he is not available this Thursday.

The Mayor replied if the majority of Council is available this Thursday, it is open.

Councilman Clark stated he is not available Thursday.

Nay: McLallen, Crawford, Mutch

FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen stated this issue has been ongoing for a long time and the underlying philosophical issues behind this Council are not going to be resolved tonight.

Councilman Schmid’s intent is not to postpone this, but it is to get an ordinance that will work in the city of Novi; he believes the ordinance currently before them will not work. He further believes Councilman Mitzel’s postponed motion was proper. However, it did not inlcude what they would take out of the underlying zoning in terms of woodlands, wetlands and so forth.

Mayor McLallen stated the issue is a flexible zoning ordinance for use at their option in this city.

Councilman Kramer believes they have to sort through a lot of issues and they need more time for open discussion. He believes there are at least three major philosophical things; they have density, extent to which they want to flex the mix and whether they want to address open space credit or not. He believes the rest of the issues are technical and he believes they may need a couple of work sessions to address them. He would be willing to meet this Thursday to have some preliminary discussions prior to the May 15 meeting.

Mayor ProTem Crawford concurred with Councilman Kramer. However, he believes the May 8 meeting should not be a decision making meeting because all members cannot be present. He moved that they hold an informational meeting only and that they will not decide on any text change in the ordinance. He suggested that they discuss attorney, staff, consultant and public opinion.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Clark noted Council has some major philosophical differences tonight and if they cannot all be present to hear the information, there will still be a contest of philosophies at the May 15 meeting.

Mayor McLallen believes this meeting should be more geared to structure. She asked why they could not get to where they want to be so that the philosophical debate can happen with a positive result.

Councilman Clark does not believe that can happen if they are not all there at the same time. He suggested if they have one meeting dealing with this item only and they begin at 7:30, there should be no reason why they cannot discuss it all at that time.

Councilman Schmid feels strongly about all members being present.

Councilwoman Mutch noted because a Planning Commission meeting is scheduled at the same time, Council would not expect to have the entire complement of people that would normally be attending in a supportive way. She believes there are some basic philosophical differences they could debate without getting into the substance of the ordinance itself. She believes this discussion could take place without staff members being present.

Councilman Kramer agreed there are three or four basic philosophical subjects they can discuss and see if they can find the common ground within there to build a framework of an ordinance they can support.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed and added they need to establish an approach to this discussion.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if everyone will be available Wednesday; they established that everyone will be in the building at that time.

Councilman Mitzel reminded Council there is no deadline for this issue. He further reminded Council they postponed the entire zoning ordinance longer than the postponed this. He added that they should not forget the rest of the ordinance because some things in the overall zoning ordinance need to be resolved before they resolve this.

Nay: Clark, Mitzel

Councilman Schmid did not vote.

Steve Weiner thanked everyone for their efforts and would like to confirm with Council individually that at they will give them the opportunity to present a global analysis of the issues. He believes they can clarify many misconceptions being debated while discussing the existing RUD and the proposal, they as petitioners have put forward.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated this is exactly what he wanted and would appreciate the same kind of presentation from the attorney, the consultants and everybody else.

7. Schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting for the purpose of Property Acquisition, Opinion of City Attorney and Litigation

CM-97-05-152: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting for the purpose of Property Acquisition, Opinion of City Attorney and Litigation

Councilman Schmid noted he will not be in the area Wednesday and consequently, he will be unable to attend the scheduled meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION

1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meetings of April 17 and 28, 1997

Councilman Mitzel noted the city attorney was not present at these meetings. Further, Mrs. Bartholomew provided a memo to correct an error in the minutes of April 28, 1997 on Page 7.

CM-97-05-153: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve minutes of April 17 and 28, 1997 as corrected

Nay: None

2. Approval of Ordinance 97-92.07 - Commercial Vehicles - I Reading

Councilman Mitzel asked why is this ordinance being changed from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor for not having a driver’s license. Mr. Watson replied it was to make it consistent with the State Motor Vehicle Code.

Councilman Mitzel asked what would happen if they do not do this. Mr. Watson replied it will make a difference in terms of the penalties.

Councilman Mitzel asked if they can have a civil infraction instead of a misdemeanor. Mr. Watson replied they could.

Councilman Mitzel will not make a motion because he does not support it.

CM-97-05-154: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED: To approve Ordinance No. 97-92.07 - Commercial Vehicles - I Reading

Nay: Kramer, Mitzel

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

1. Confirm Novi Historic District Study Committee Members Original Appointments

Mayor McLallen noted because the members have almost completed their report, Council must provide them with a due date; she would like to give them a date in mid-July. Further, they do not need to appoint new members because once their report is in, the committee will sunset as they have performed their function according to ordinance.

Mayor McLallen noted there was a memo indicating whether the Fuerst property shall be considered for designation as a historic site and this is the first step in gaining national historic status. She added they are all invited to attend the June 6, 1997 hearing.

3. Pere Marquette Employes’ Credit Union

Mayor McLallen reported Pere Marquette is serving as a drop off site for donations for the North Dakota flood victims.

4. Weed Ordinance

Councilman Mitzel would like to refer the Weed Ordinance to the Ordinance Review Committee to apply it to subdivided land and strike the fact that it only applies to residentially zoned land. Councilman Mitzel explained there are some instances where there is commercial property within a platted subdivision and he thinks it will solve some of the weed problems in commercial zoning.

Councilman Mitzel reported there will be an opening of some of the bike trail systems at 7:00 p.m. at Lakeshore Park Friday, May 8, 1997.

Councilman Kramer requested that staff determine if an environmental impact study is required for the lake clean up project. Mayor McLallen reminded Councilman Kramer that this directive was assigned earlier in the meeting.

MANAGER’S REPORTS - None

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

COMMUNICATIONS

6. Letter from John J. Margle/Petition from Barclay Estates Residents to City Council, Re: Opposition to Using Stratford Lane as Dunnabeck Estates Entrance

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 A.M.

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes