|REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997 AT 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS-NOVI CIVIC CENTER-45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD
Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel (arrived 9:15), Mutch, Schmid
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Kriewall, City Attorney David Fried, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Deputy City Clerk Nancy Reutter
Mayor McLallen announced on June 6, 1997 the City of Novi received a positive recommendation by unanimous vote from the Michigan Historical Center Review Board for the inclusion of the Fuerst Farmstead on the National Register of Historic Places. Mayor McLallen added this is the first step in preserving significant buildings for future generations in Novi.
Councilwoman Mutch reported this recommendation is the cumulation of the work of many citizens and organizations in Novi. Councilwoman Mutch noted the National Register of Historic Places is a list maintained by the United States Department of the Interior that includes places determined to be historically or architecturally significant and have some connection to the history of the United States. She explained it is not necessary that the preserved places have national significance, but they must represent a particular community. Councilwoman Mutch believes the positive recommendation will be passed on to the Department of Interior and is then usually acted upon favorably within thirty days. Consequently, she believes they will have the results of the Fuerst property by the end of the summer.
Mayor McLallen reported over the past five days the city has come together and experienced a wonderful event in the construction of the Tim Pope play structure at Eight Mile and Napier Roads. She explained during that time, upwards of 600 and more people volunteered and she believes it was a wonderful experience for those who participated.
Larry Gordier, Governmental Finance Officers Association Representative, advised he was present tonight to bestow the City of Novi with the Award of Financial Reporting Achievement. Mr. Gordier explained they are a national organization and the have a membership of more than 13,000 representing the United States and Canada. He added they are also represented around the world to virtually every nation.
Mr. Gordier reported the GFOA has many goals in the financial field. He explained they aspire to develop and maintain a high quality of financial administration and financial reporting He stated they also strive to develop the skill levels of the financial staff who spend their lives in governmental finance to a high level and maintain them at that level. Mr. Gordier advised they accomplish this through several means. He explained they have a certification program that has just become underway and should be fully developed within the next five years where professionals in the governmental financial arena will be able to receive a tested certification. Mr. Gordier said they also have three annual scholarship programs, continuing education programs and an affiliate organization, the Michigan Municipal Finance Officers Association.
Mr. Gordier advised there are three awards given by the organization. He explained one is focused on budgeting, one is focused on communications with a local community called Popular Reporting, and one is focused on the comprehensive annual financial report. Mr. Gordier reported tonight’s award focuses on the comprehensive annual financial report document and added this is the oldest award program that GFOA has. He advised it was established in 1945 and was developed out of a need that GFOA saw across the United States of trying to upgrade the finance reporting systems as well as the financial management that goes into the preparation of those systems. He reported they found there was a large disparity between the various local municipalities about how they reported. He also advised that they were not expressing to the local citizenry about what was actually taking place within the community. Consequently, GFOA developed a program to encourage communities to upgrade their financial reporting and maintain those high standards. Mr. Gordier reported this award is administered by encouraging communities to submit their annual financial report to the GFOA, who in turn have three individuals independently evaluate that document against 26 criteria. He added whether or not a community receives the award, they will still receive a letter of comments and suggestions about how to improve that document in the future. Mr. Gordier advised this is the first year that the City of Novi has received this award and it is a big accomplishment. He reported it takes much work by many individuals, and explained the community has to have the support of their council and participation by the city’s administration.
Mr. Gordier reported out of 80,000 communities, there were only 2,369 awards presented across the United States and Canada. Further, the State of Michigan was privileged to have 62 recipients this past year of which 41 were cities. Mr. Gordier commended the City of Novi for preparing a document that met the high standards set by the GFOA and presented the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Novi.
Mayor McLallen presented the award to Kathy Smith-Roy.
INTRODUCTION OF POLICE OFFICERS
Police Chief Shaeffer introduced Kevin Rhea, Mike Warren, and Erick Tapia as Novi’s new Police officers. Chief Shaeffer noted the addition of these three officers will bring the department up to a full staffing level.
James Karlavage - 41976 Quince, advised he is the current President of the Orchard Hills Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Karlavage advised he read in the Novi News approximately 6-8 months ago that construction would begin on the roads in their subdivision in July. Mr. Karlavage spoke with Mr. Haim Schlick who advised him that the city has three bids. However, Mr. Schlick advised him that the bids were too high and JCK has not yet provided their recommendation. Mr. Karlavage asked Council to comment on this issue.
Mayor McLallen asked the City Manager to inform Council about the current status. She further noted Mr. Nowicki is present and he can provide a personal update to Mr. Karlavage.
Lynn Kocan - 23088 Ennishore Drive, advised the comments she made on June 2, 1997 to clarify her statement in the Council minutes of May 15, 1997 were regarding her opinion of the first reading. Ms. Kocan explained she clarified a statement she made at midnight without written text at the end of the May 15 RUD work session. She appreciates that the city reviewed the tape and confirmed that her comments were transcribed verbatim in the minutes. However, she is sure Council will acknowledge that sometimes they can start a statement, change the introduction, which will ultimately change the meaning of the statement when it is transcribed verbatim. She knows many Council members have corrected their statements in previous minutes so that the record accurately reflects their intentions. Ms. Kocan hoped her clarification of what she had said or at least what she had meant to say would be good enough to get the minutes changed. She then asked Council to honor her request to amend the minutes as she asked at the last Council meeting.
Ms. Kocan referred to Item 4 regarding Planning Commission appointments and stated she was disappointed to learn that Laura Lorenzo did not reapply for the Planning Commission. Ms. Kocan believes Ms. Lorenzo has been a positive force for the residents of Novi and further hopes Ms. Lorenzo will pursue another avenue of service within the city. However, Ms. Kocan noted she was pleased Gwen Markham reapplied. She believes Ms. Markham has worked diligently during the last 18 months and has been an active participant on the Recreation Planning Committee. Ms. Kocan further believes Ms. Markham represents residents’ views regarding the need for additional recreational amenities in the city. Further, Ms. Kocan believes Ms. Markham continues to be an advocate for resident’s quality of life issues concerning planned development. Ms. Kocan appreciates the tough questions that she asks of developers and of other commissioners. Ms. Kocan further believes Ms. Markham represents her own view most of the time. Therefore, it was very disturbing for Ms. Kocan to hear from a Council member that they perceive Ms. Markham as not being a "team player." Ms. Kocan asked the Mayor to recommend Gwen Markham for the best interest of the residents and asked the remaining Council members to support this appointment although it is a mayoral recommendation. She reminded Council members that they were elected to speak for Novi residents.
Laura Lorenzo - stated the amendments made during the first reading of the RUD Ordinance please her. However, she still has some serious concerns regarding the language as it currently exists and explained it is still too broad and arbitrary. Ms. Lorenzo suggested lot size reductions should only be based upon an equal percentage of open space preserved. Further, she believes they should specify upland woodlands that exceed the amount already preserved under the woodland’s ordinance for preservation credits. Ms. Lorenzo added that they should also specify wetland and watercourse setbacks that under exceed the 25 foot setback already required under the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lorenzo believes the RUD Ordinance has the potential to be a positive ordinance if they make these types of amendments to tighten up the language.
Chuck Young - 50910 W. Nine Mile Road, believes good people are no longer volunteering because of the political wrangling and added it is citizen involvement that creates the quality of the community. Mr. Young also supports the reappointment of Gwen Markham to the Planning Commission.
John Foley - stated he disagrees with the RUD Ordinance and believes there have been many back room negotiations made about it. He specifically disagrees with the perimeter buffering because of the legal consequences. Mr. Foley stated he has also written three letters asking for relief for the Schmidt Farm and he has not received a response.
Mayor McLallen interjected, that is a site plan matter and the developer has not yet submitted a site plan.
Mayor McLallen noted Councilman Mitzel contacted the Clerk’s office and asked to remove Items 3, 4, 11, and 20.
CM-97-06-191: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meetings of June 2 and June 9, 1997
2. Final Report from Consultant Review Committee
A. Approval of Resolution, Re: JCK & Associates and Rate Increase
B. Approval of Resolution, Re: Bendzinski & Associates and Rate Increase
C. Approval of Resolution, Re: Keller, Thoma & Dubay and Rate Increase
5. Approval of Ordinance 97-62.02 - Department of Public Works/Department of Water and Sewer - II Reading
6. Approval of Ordinance 97-18 - Site Plan Review - Ordinance Revision,
7. Approval of Ordinance 97-45 - Water Moratorium - to Revise the Requirements for Subdivision Water Supply, I Reading
8. Approval of Budget Amendment #97-17 - Final Budget Amendment for the 1996-97 Budget.
9. Approval of Resolution-budget Amendment Number 98-01, in the Amount of $1,700.00 Data Processing and Approval to Purchase Internet Access in the Amount of $1,700.00 from Network Solutions
10. Approval of Bid Award for the Concrete Paving Improvements Program to Six-S, Inc., the Low Bidder, in the Amount of $1,123,062.43
12. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Participation in the RCOC FAST-TRAC Program for the Grand River Avenue/Meadowbrook Road Intersection Traffic Signal Upgrade Project
13. Approval of MDOT Right-Of-Entry Permit for Haggerty Road Regional Detention Basin; MDOT Excess Property
14. Authorization for the Director of Public Services to Sign the CSX Transportation Company’s Application for Private Road Crossing, and Authorization for the Finance Director to Prepare a Check for $200 Payable to CSX as a Contract Preparation Fee, All Associated with the Taft Road Extension Project
15. Approval of Traffic Control Order 97-06 - Northbound and Southbound Devonshire Drive to Yield at Addington Lane
16. Rescind Award of Uniform Rental Contract to Arrow Uniform
17. Award Bid for Radiant Heating Fire Stations 2 & 3 to International Radiant Heating, in the Amount of $21,158.00
18. Award Bid for Fire Rescue Vehicle to American Fire & Rescue, in the Amount of $159,035.50
19. Adoption of Resolution, Re: Revised Development Review Fees
21. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 492
3. Adoption of Administrative Personnel Policy
4. Approval of Ordinance 97-92.08 - to Require That a Vehicle, Driven or Moved upon a Highway Display a Current Registration Plate - I Reading
11. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Mdot to Install Electrical Conduits for a Future Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Meadowbrook and Thirteen Mile Roads in Conjunction with Their Road Improvements (M-5) and Invoice the City for Such
20. Adoption of Resolution, Re: Sunset Computer Advisory Committee
Vote on CM-97-06-191: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid
Councilwoman Mutch noted they have not approved the agenda.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor McLallen advised Councilman Mitzel requested that they change Approval of Zoning Ordinance No. 98-18.131 - To Revise the Standards for (RUD) Residential Unit Developments - II Reading as A and Determine Amount of Additional Review for Harvest Land as B under Item 8.
Mr. Kriewall added Property Acquisition to Item 7.
CM-97-06-192: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended
Vote on CM-97-06-192: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I
1. Approval of variance from Section 3.02.C(2) of the Novi Subdivision Ordinance and Extension of Final Preliminary Plat - Autumn Park - SP91-35E from July 12, 1996 to December 1, 1997
Rick Hirth stated he is an engineer for the Autumn Park subdivision. He explained he is before Council to request an extension of the variance for the open space plan and the tentative preliminary plat for the last phase of the subdivision. He advised they expect construction to begin in the next month.
Mayor McLallen asked if there is a reason for the requested extension. Mr. Hirth replied when they began selling houses, they could not keep pace with the period in which the preliminary plat and the variance lasted.
CM-97-06-193: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED: To grant a variance from Section 3.02.C(2) of the Novi Subdivision Ordinance and Final Preliminary Plat extension from July 12, 1996 to December 1, 1997 for Autumn Park Subdivision, SP 91-35E Subject to the conditions stated in City Staff and consultants’ review letters
Vote on CM-97-06-193: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mutch
2. Approval of Final Site Plan SP 93-30G, Waltonwood of Novi Continuum of Care Facility (a.k.a. Crescent Oaks), property located south of Twelve Mile Road between Twelve Oaks Mall and Meadowbrook Road
Mike Kahm of Singh Development gave a brief history of the project and added he is present to answer any outstanding questions.
CM-97-06-194: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Final Site Plan approval for Waltonwood of Novi Continuum of Care Facility (f.k.a., Crescent Oaks), SP 93-30G subject to city staff and consultants’ recommendations, and amendment proposed by petitioner in June 11, 1997 letter
Councilman Schmid asked when will they begin the next phase. Mr. Kahm replied that is difficult to say because they would like to stabilize the first phase before they begin the second. He speculated it may be two years before they commence construction on Phase II. However, he noted they have begun architectural construction drawings for Phase II.
Councilman Kramer asked for clarification about the woodland’s permit. Mr. Kahm recalled Ms. Lemke’s letter required a change in one of the species of material in the landscape plan and their architect is currently addressing that. Further, there were a couple of trees that they had not counted for being removed and it appears they may be lost during the construction process. Consequently, they are asking them to count those as additional replacements.
Councilman Kramer asked if that item is still an issue with the Planning Commission. Mr. Kahm believes they recommended approval subject to working that out and he does not see any problem with that.
Ms. Lemke stated she did not want to include this in the packet. She explained this is part of their final engineering review and it is usually done after the woodland’s permit approval. She added the permit approval is based upon review of the details of final engineering and this was just one of those details.
Mayor McLallen stated for the record the applicant has an approved woodland’s permit. Ms. Lemke noted the applicant has an approved woodland’s permit based on that condition.
Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kahm to describe the facade. Mr. Kahm replied the facade is substantially comprised of brick.
Councilwoman Mutch asked when will construction begin. Mr. Kahm is waiting for final site plan approval, building approval, and the state’s license approval. Mr. Kahm anticipates getting the state’s license and building approval by the end of this month.
Councilwoman Mutch asked when do they anticipate opening. Mr. Kahm believes they will open in approximately one and a half years.
Vote on CM-97-06-194: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid
3. Approval of Revised Tentative Preliminary Plat and Wetland Permit, Settler’s Creek Subdivision, SP 96-22B, property located east of Clark Street between Ten and Eleven Mile Roads
Mayor McLallen noted the project received a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission and the wetland consultant does not recommend approval due to issues stated in their letter. Further, she advised the planning and engineering consultants recommend approval subject to the conditions in their letters, and the traffic consultant and fire department do not recommend approval due to the excessive length of the cul-de-sac.
Cliff Seiber stated he is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Seiber reported the area is zoned R-4 and therefore, provides for 80 foot wide minimum sized lots. Mr. Seiber briefly described the location and characteristics, and some alternatives they considered during this process. Mr. Seiber noted they platted Clark Street as part of the Novi Heights subdivision and added that they never constructed that portion of Clark Street. To the east of the site, Mr. Seiber stated there is an industrial building which provides for a parking lot near the screening berm and some evergreen trees on that side of their development and to the south there is an 80 acre parcel zoned R-4. He advised they have attempted to contact that owner to see if there was any interest in extending Clark Street southerly and westerly to an existing subdivision. They have also unsuccessfully tried to secure ingress and egress easements for emerging vehicles from Johnson Controls due to their site security. Mr. Seiber noted the site contains 65% or 6 ˝ acres of woodland area and they are located in the northerly part of the site. Mr. Seiber reminded Council that since the property is zoned R-4 it permits up to 32 sites. However, he reported they are only proposing 18 sites and its density is comparable to R-1 zoning. Further, Mr. Seiber noted as part of their analysis of the site that they reviewed several other alternatives. Mr. Seiber reported the DEQ approved the 18 lot layout last November and issued a permit, and that Sue Tepatti also recommended approval. However, the problem they had was with the woodlands and consequently, the Planning Commission sent a negative recommendation to Council. Mr. Seiber advised they hoped that they designed a plan that provided for wetland issues within a regulated woodland. To accomplish that they shortened a cul-de-sac and provided wetland mitigation at the easterly end of the site and adjacent to the Monroe Creek. Mr. Seiber advised the applicant prefers the first plan they submitted to the Planning Commission in November.
For the record, Mayor McLallen noted the applicant has received a DEQ permit, but they have not received a Novi wetland or woodland permit.
Councilman Schmid asked for further definition of "no backyard." Mr. Seiber believes it means there are some protections that they will require in the subdivision’s covenants and restrictions as to the use of the backyard relative to removal of vegetation.
Councilman Schmid asked if the woodland area would be usable. Mr. Seiber replied the woodland area would be usable for a certain amount of the backyard.
It seems to Councilman Schmid that this is a piece of land that is not buildable anywhere near the number of homes they are planning to construct. Furthermore, Councilman Schmid would not support building homes without backyards. He suggested that the developer come back with a plan meeting R-4 zoning. Mr. Seiber replied if they were to delete that row of lots, it would not be a feasible project.
Councilman Schmid does not believe this plan is ready for approval.
Councilman Clark agrees with Councilman Schmid’s comments. Additionally, he is very concerned when the traffic consultant and the Fire Department do not support a project.
CM-97-06-195: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny revised tentative preliminary plat and revised wetland permit approval with the removal of Lot 18 and cul-de-sac waiver
Councilman Kramer stated this is a difficult parcel to develop and is perhaps the reason they have not yet developed it. Councilman Kramer would favor any action that would encourage the developer to provide further creative thoughts while realizing the expense to develop it. He then suggested the time to develop may occur when the property to the south becomes developable or negotiable so that they can append to it.
Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Pargoff where has the "no backyard" terminology developed from and what regulates it. Mr. Pargoff replied they developed the term in response to simplify the preservation type easements that the consultants have been asking for these areas. He added it goes along with the request by consultant’s for preservation easements and is a definition of what a preservation easement stands for in that very little should be attempted in the backyards. Mr. Pargoff advised it would not prohibit swing sets, but it would prohibit pools.
Mayor McLallen asked if there are criteria to define this. Mr. Pargoff replied that is the reason they used the "no backyard" language because it is simpler than a preservation easement. Further, it would be available to the builder and the homeowner at the time of woodland’s permit in terms of that is what the back yard designation would be at that time.
Mayor McLallen asked if that is disclosed prior to any perspective homeowner thinking about purchasing this kind of lot. Mr. Pargoff replied they disclose it as well as they can get it. He said the developer is required by ordinance to have the city’s phone number on the sales maps and signage constructed on the lots. Mr. Pargoff advised lots like these are officially designated in Abbey Hills and Bristol Corners. He believes Council approved Bristol Corners at their last meeting.
Mayor McLallen is concerned that this kind of terminology comes back to haunt them and believes this is the first time Council has had this term clearly presented to them early on. Mayor McLallen asked if Mr. Pargoff is absolutely comfortable that potential home buyers are fully aware of this definition. Mr. Pargoff replied he is comfortable with Bristol Corners because of the developer’s efforts to make this clear to their perspective buyers. He added they provide this definition in the grading guidelines and they give it to all builders constructing in regulated woodlands. Mayor McLallen asked how often will the average citizen read grading regulations. Mr. Pargoff replied the buyer must sign them before they can purchase the lot.
Councilman Schmid recalled this was originally meant to provide a buffer. Mr. Pargoff stated he believes this area is mostly a wetland’s buffer. Councilman Schmid understood that there would be a buffer, but it would not take up 90% of the backyard. Because he believed it would only slightly infringe on the property line, he has a problem with this. He added his second problem is what happens when a second owner purchases the property and the original property owner does not disclose this information. Mr. Pargoff is not certain what would happen, but he believes there are certain disclosure requirements in sales documents to new homeowners.
Councilman Clark asked if they could require that the sales document along with the deed conveying title of the property at closing be recorded. Mr. Fried replied he supposes they could include it if they amended the ordinance to make that a requirement.
Councilman Clark thought if they required that, the title company would pick that information up on a title search for the second purchaser.
Councilwoman Mutch does not believe "no backyard" means there is no backyard because there is clearly some backyard. Mr. Pargoff explained the grading guidelines indicate there is a 15 foot grading area around the lot. However, depending upon the locations of possible drainage swales, the lot can sometimes go back further than the 15 feet to provide proper drainage on many of these lots. Mr. Pargoff reported In that case, it is at the discretion at the city engineer that does the final grading approval. In order to make the grading work and to make the drainage work, Mr. Pargoff advised 15 feet is not written in stone, but it is a guideline they give the city engineer to help preserve the area at the rear of those lots.
Councilwoman Mutch stated it sounds to her as if Mr. Pargoff is saying it is only a grading situation where there is not enough distance in which they can do appropriate grading and it is not really a matter of not being usable. Mr. Pargoff agreed and added there is still the ability to put in swing sets. He explained it is just a simpler language so that people know these are preservation areas and they are supposed to remain as natural as possible.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if there were enough land to meet the requirements of the lot size would an alternative be to take the wooded area and set it aside as a preserved area for the overall development. Mr. Pargoff replied that has been done for many projects, but it has been designated as a preservation easement. He added they include the easements with the individual lots and homeowner’s are well aware of them.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if the only reason they would go with having individual ownership a part of that area to be preserved and creating all these additional problems is because there is not enough area to create a lot. Mr. Pargoff agreed and added it is basically intrusion into the woodland.
Councilwoman Mutch thought when they approved a subdivision, they already recorded all of those other things that went along with it. Consequently, why do they have to record the "no backyard" situation separately. Mr. Pargoff believes it was a designation more than a recording. He explained a recording would go into preservation easement because that is a legal situation.
Councilwoman Mutch recalled Councilman Clark asking Mr. Fried about changing the word to allow for the recording and it seems to her virtually everything associated with the subdivision, including the covenants and restrictions is recorded. Therefore, she asked why wouldn’t they recorded this. Mr. Fried replied the covenants and restrictions would be recorded, and it would probably reflect the fact that there would be what they now term "no backyard." Mr. Fried also noted that he believes the term is poor terminology. Despite that, Mr. Fried reported they could require that as a separate instrument in the disclosure ordinance so that would call the attentions of a second buyer to that problem. He repeated they would reflect it in the covenants and restrictions that they would record.
Mayor McLallen asked if the city owns an easement through this property for the Monroe basin. Mr. Kapelczak directed Council’s attention to an area on the map and replied he believes that is where the easement is located. However, he added he would have to check that. Mr. Seiber interjected, the city does have an easement.
Councilman Schmid asked what is the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Seiber replied the length is 799 feet.
Councilman Schmid thought there was an indication at some time that there was a problem. Mr. Seiber replied that was because of where they were taking the measurement.
Councilman Schmid asked what measurement are they using from a planning standpoint. Mr. Arroyo replied the Design and Construction Standards specifically defines how to measure a cul-de-sac. He advised they measure it from the point where there are two points of access and it is not necessarily the external access to the road. He explained that is why there is a secondary access through Marlson into the Arbor Drugs. He reported the intersection of Clark and Marlson is the point from which they begin to measure the cul-de-sac length. He continued by stating although it is technically less than 800 feet on the plat, it is actually longer than that as the ordinance calls out for it to be measured. Mr. Arroyo added it is just over 1,200 feet.
Councilman Schmid believes a solution would be to combine this land with the land to the south.
Councilman Kramer believes there is an access to Marlson through the industrial developments for emergencies. Mr. Arroyo agreed. Councilman Kramer said they are looking at the length of the cul-de-sac down to the proposed subdivision from the Clark Street intersection. He noted if he looked to the existing development to the north, he believes Durson and Stassen would have similarly excessively long cul-de-sacs today. Mr. Arroyo disagreed. He explained because there is a point of access at the end of Marlson as it backs up to Arbor Drugs and because they can enter Clark Street from the north, it has two points of access serving Durson and Stassen.
Councilman Kramer stated as development occurs in other areas, he stated there is a stub on Sussex and the expectation of eventual development in the south. Therefore, there is some sort of natural connection that they have not yet designed. Mr. Arroyo agreed and stated as the applicant mentioned, they did try to contact the property owner about moving the stub over to Sussex.
Vote on CM-97-06-195: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid
Councilman Clark would like the "no backyard" recording disclosure matter referred to Ordinance Review. Mayor McLallen noted there is a Council consensus to refer this matter to Ordinance Review.
Chuck Young - 50910 W. Nine Mile Road, is concerned about RA moving out of Novi and how it will affect the western portion of the city.
Oakland County Commissioner Kay Schmid - reported that she does not believe Oakland County is going to implement the 911 Service Program that is supported by the various Police Departments. Commissioner Schmid explained the current service charges a 15˘ flat fee. However, the State Legislature has changed laws so that businesses with more than one line is only charged one fee for a cable. Further, instead of a flat fee, there is talk about charging a fee that amounts to 4% of the base phone rate. Commissioner Schmid realizes this could be high for some taxpayers and believes this is not a good way to pay for this service. Commissioner Schmid said the Police Departments believe they need to update their equipment and further believe this may be the way to accomplish that. Commissioner Schmid does not agree with this hidden tax and wondered what they will do with the extra money collected from this fee. Commissioner Schmid reported the Oakland County Board of Commissioners has developed a task force to look into this issue. She believes they are not here to subsidize local police departments in another way that has not been appropriated in the budget. She also does not believe the taxpayers want to do this. Commissioner Schmid noted if they do approve some kind of charge, that it should be a flat fee. Further, if it is not a flat fee, she believes it should go to a vote of the people. Commissioner Schmid added they should have some indication of direction within the next month.
Commissioner Schmid also stated that she attended the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce Conference and reported she hopes they will accept that the Governor’s reforms saved some money in terms of Build Michigan 2. She noted there was discussion about raising the gas tax and Mr. Brooks Patterson proposed weaning the General Fund from the gas tax. She would have hoped that they would have discussed this at a conference.
Commissioner Schmid added they also talked about what they called A Partnership with Local Governments and Businesses to try to bring economic development to the SEMCOG area. She advised SEMCOG currently has seven counties after adding Lapeer and Genesee. Commissioner Schmid reported Oakland County exceeds all other counties in terms of economic development and briefly described some of the services the Oakland County offices provide. Commissioner Schmid explained Oakland County does not want to compete with the other eight counties, but they would like to keep development in this region and they will support this effort.
Mayor McLallen advised Novi’s Council did not support the 911 proposal and asked if that is what Commissioner Schmid is looking for. Commissioner Schmid replied she is not looking for that and suggested that they let the task force do their work to try to come up with an equitable solution.
Cliff Seiber - stated there are a couple of areas in the RUD Ordinance that Council may want to consider. He explained there is a section at the bottom of Page 2 that states, "the RUD shall not be considered adjacent to a property zoned for one-family use where it is separated from such property by a major thoroughfare." He asked if they would also consider a utility line corridor or railroad right of way as also providing that separation. He said this would be especially true for a utility line corridor and noted there are Edison towers located in the western portion of Novi and believes they may be an appropriate alternate buffer. Mr. Seiber then referred to the items that qualify for credit on Page 5 and suggested that they also consider park areas adjacent to main thoroughfares. He reported Canton Township requires a 50 foot wide park whenever a subdivision abuts a main thoroughfare. Mr. Seiber advised this is very useful for moving homes away from the main thoroughfares. He also asked if Council would consider providing a park area next to high tension corridors to ensure that the homes are moved further away from the lines. Mr. Seiber concluded by stating he believes it is a powerful ordinance and could be very a useful planning tool while still maintaining the RA density.
BREAK - 9:15 until 9:30 p.m.
Councilman Mitzel arrived.
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II
4. Mayor Appointments of Planning Commissioners and Library Board Member and Results of Council Board and Commission Appointments
Mayor McLallen nominated Victoria Dickieson to fill the five year term expiring March 1, 2002 for the Library Board.
CM-97-06-196: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Mayor McLallen’s recommendation to appoint Victoria Dickieson to the Library Board
Vote on CM-97-06-196: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
Mayor McLallen nominated Kim Capello for reappointment and further nominated Brent Canup and Michael Watza to the Planning Commission for terms expiring June 30, 1997.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if they are looking for a motion to approve all three nominations as a group.
Mayor McLallen would prefer that they vote all at once. However, if there is not unanimous support, they can vote individually.
CM-97-06-197: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Mayor McLallen’s recommendation to reappoint Kim Thomas Capello and appoint Brent Canup and Michael Watza to the Planning Commission
Councilman Clark would like the opportunity to vote individually for each appointment.
Councilman Schmid agreed and believes they have traditionally voted individually.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if parliamentary procedure permits Council to vote on this matter as a whole. Mr. Fried replied procedure permits this.
Councilwoman Mutch stated in deference to the Mayor and since this is her nomination, she would like to leave the motion as stated. However, if Council does not support the motion, they can then go to individual motions.
Councilman Crawford advised he will support the motion because he concurs with the three appointments, but he is willing to do it either way. He added for the sake of expediency if there is sufficient support for the three nominations, it would take care of further deliberations.
Councilman Clark believes there may be some members that support only some of the proposed candidates and they are left in the position of either voting yes or voting no. He explained this kind of vote might not mean they are voting for or against all three. Councilman Clark reported he supports the reappointment of Mr. Capello and the appointment of Mr. Watza.
Councilman Schmid believes the Mayor is making an error by insisting on going the way she wants to go by taking away all chance for discussion.
The Mayor disagreed and said there is currently discussion where members can make any comment they wish.
Councilman Schmid restated it seems the Mayor tries to push these things through without going through what he believes is fair discussion. Councilman Schmid supports two of the three appointments and if he votes no, it gives the impression he does not support their appointment. Councilman Schmid advised he does not support the reappointment of Mr. Capello because he believes Mr. Capello has serious conflicts serving on the Planning Commission. Councilman Schmid explained Mr. Capello represents many developers that come before this Council in other cities because that is part of his profession as an attorney.
Councilman Clark clarified his lack of support for Mr. Canup is not a personal matter; he would prefer to reappoint Gwen Markham.
Councilman Mitzel will not support the motion because he believes one of the recent issues before the Planning Commission is continuity and membership. Consequently, Councilman Mitzel was hoping that they would reappoint both incumbents.
Vote on CM-97-06-197: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Mutch
Nays: Clark, Mitzel, Schmid
Councilwoman Mutch believes saying that one can appreciate what someone has contributed is important and not necessarily take away from that person’s service in support of other candidates.
Mayor McLallen believes the mayoral appointments are one of the most difficult tasks that a mayor has. She explained a mayor is elected based on a philosophy every two years and the community has the right to decide whether that philosophy has been carried out. Mayor McLallen advised the Planning Commission is a very integral part of this community and must function in harmony with City Council. The Mayor believes the current Commission consists of a bright group of individuals and noted that she appointed every one of them. Mayor McLallen then complimented them for their hard work. Mayor McLallen believes her role as mayor is to appoint people keeping in mind that the consequences will go far beyond the seven of them currently sitting on Council. Mayor McLallen believes they have to ask whether they are getting the best members at the time. As the elected leader, Mayor McLallen believes it is her task to make sure that the members are functioning well as a unit. The Mayor stated it is her prerogative to appoint new members when she sees that they are not accomplishing that function and it is no reflection on the talent of those individuals.
Deputy Clerk Nancy Reuter announced Mr. Jeffrey Bowdell was selected in a unanimous vote to serve on the Construction Board of Appeals. She further announced that J.R. Atiyeh, Dennis Colligan, and Charles Staab were all reappointed in a unanimous vote to serve on the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Councilman Kramer supported the Planning Commission appointments because he believes it helps to create a balance on the Commission from the perspective of diversity and experience.
5. Possible reconsideration of Approval of City Council Minutes of May 15, 1997
Mayor McLallen noted Ms. Kocan provided further clarification earlier this evening during Audience Participation about a statement she made at the May 15, 1997 meeting. The Mayor explained Ms. Kocan did not believe the minutes of that meeting accurately reflected what she had said. Further, when the City Clerk reviewed those minutes they discovered that those minutes did reflect verbatim what Ms. Kocan said. However, Ms. Kocan advised that it did not reflect her intent. Mayor McLallen advised the original minutes are correct, but Council may want to amend them to include Ms. Kocan’s comments from this evening so that the intent of her comments can be known.
Councilwoman Mutch appreciated having Ms. Kocan point out that they have all been in the same situation when what they say appears in print reads differently than what they intended to say. However, Councilwoman Mutch does not believe Ms. Kocan’s request to change the record of the meeting is the appropriate thing to do. Furthermore, it seems to Councilwoman Mutch that to have the record of the subsequent meeting where the comments were made be the only record of her objection is not quite sufficient either. Councilwoman Mutch suggested that there may be a way that her request outlining her intent be kept with the original minutes of May 15, 1997. Councilwoman Mutch agrees many speakers have second thoughts about how statements sound after they have said them. However, she believes that having the potential for changing the record for these meetings is inappropriate. Councilwoman Mutch believes it is appropriate to have any objections to the way they have recorded the minutes filed with the original record.
CM-97-06-198: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the May 15, 1997 City Council Minutes as originally submitted on June 2, 1997 and attach Ms. Kocan’s written request, and her statements made during Audience Participation at the June 2 and the June 16, 1997 City Council meetings
Mayor ProTem Crawford was going to make a similar motion and asked if they need to move to reconsider or can they just simply move to approve the minutes as originally submitted.
Mayor McLallen stated the motion does not involve reconsideration.
Mayor ProTem Crawford advised they have already taken action and asked whether they should reconsider that action or take different action. Mr. Fried stated they would take different action.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the motion means that the comments of the last meeting and tonight’s meeting during Audience Participation would be an addendum to the original minutes. Councilwoman Mutch agreed.
Councilman Mitzel asked if they can legally attach an addendum to the minutes. Mr. Fried replied it is not really an addendum, but it is just another explanation to be added to the minutes. In other words, it is not a part of the meeting minutes, but it is an addendum attached to the minutes.
Councilman Mitzel understands it would be a nonofficial part of the minutes; they would just attach it to the minutes. Mr. Fried agreed.
Vote on CM-97-06-198: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
6. Schedule an Executive Session for 7:00 P.M. Monday, June 23, 1997, in the Activities Room of the Civic Center, for Union Negotiations
CM-97-06-199: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session for 7:00 p.m. on June 23, 1997 for union negotiations in the Executive Conference Room
Vote on CM-97-06-199: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
7. Schedule an Executive Session to follow the meeting, Re: Pending Litigation
CM-97-06-200: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session to follow the meeting for pending litigation
Vote on CM-97-06-200: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
8. A. Approval of Zoning Ordinance No. 98-18.131 - To revise the standards for (RUD) Residential Unit Developments - II Reading
Mayor McLallen advised this ordinance is a tool to further enable this Council and future Council’s to take advantage of those opportunities that present themselves for development that can enhance and give the greater community certain opportunities that would not be available under rigid residential zoning classification. The Mayor added this is an option and there are certain criteria being proposed that would need to be met in order for the options to be granted. Mayor McLallen stated the primary issue Council directed to the attorney was the issue of density credit for the lake.
Mr. Watson believes there were five changes. The first was to revise the language about the perimeter buffering in accordance with the minutes from the previous meeting. He explained the change would indicate that the property within the 330 feet was to be devoted to detached noncluster one-family dwellings as opposed to development in accordance with the underlying zoning of the adjacent property.
Mr. Watson reported the bodies of water change dealt with the density credit issue. He explained the previous draft indicated that a credit was available for bodies of water and a change there was to indicate that it is only a portion of the area of a body of water. He noted they would determine that percentage by the amount of perimeter the park would surround the body of water, and it would have to be a minimum of 100 feet in depth and width. The computation is made by taking that percentage of the boundary of the body of water surrounded by that type of perimeter park and dividing that by the entire boundary of the body of water, and by that coming up with a percentage of the area that they allow the credit.
Mr. Watson reported a third issue was about a provision for pedestrian safety paths. He advised the ordinance now provides that they have to be on both sides of the street unless it is necessary for the protection of woodlands or wetlands. He advised in those instances they can eliminate the sidewalk on one side of the street or provide an alternative design compatible with the woodlands or wetlands.
The fourth change deals with amenities that they are providing and planning as a part of the RUD. Mr. Watson advised the language indicates that where they plan amenities, they have to be actually constructed within the phase they propose that they be in or at the time of certificate of occupancy. Further, a financial guaranty must secure them in the same way other site improvements are secured.
The final change was a minor change to the provision dealing with amendments and revisions to indicate decreases in dwelling units or increases in lot size are not items that are to be considered as major changes that would require somebody to go through the whole process.
Councilman Schmid recalled that they had tried further to clarify "portion." Mr. Watson replied there was discussion to that effect. However, his notes reflected that item did get a majority vote of Council.
Mayor McLallen stated Councilman Schmid has requested to revisit the issue of a definition for the term "portion." She explained his concern is that it does not delineate how many units of the underlying zoning are required.
Councilman Schmid clarified he is not looking for a number, but he would like a term that would better encourage that they construct a substantial number of homes with the underlying zoning.
Councilwoman Mutch thought they already addressed those pieces of properties that have uniform zoning where they said under no circumstances would it exceed the underlying zoning in terms of density. It seems to Councilwoman Mutch that this position gives Council more flexibility. She explained if they feel a certain percentage or number is appropriate tonight, that when someone comes in with a project that is on a piece of property that should not have that high of number, Council has locked themselves into having to approve it. Whereas, if they have some flexibility and not lock themselves in, Council will have greater control.
Councilman Schmid reiterated he is not suggesting a number. Councilman Schmid is looking for a better term and would prefer the term "substantial."
Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested "substantial portion."
Councilman Kramer prefers "substantial number."
Councilman Schmid believes adding "substantial" would still leave a lot of flexibility.
Mayor McLallen said the purpose of this option is about how it plays out on specific pieces of land. She explained if their goal is to preserve those intrinsic environmental features that are most important for that piece of land and they define that this "portion" or "substantial portion" has to be rigid lots, they are right back at the problem that they started with. That is, given any particular piece of land, they may lose the very thing after which they are going. The Mayor can understand the hesitancy to leave "portion." She reminded Council again that the goal of this ordinance is to try to preserve in a way that allows those desired environmental features. Mayor McLallen stated until they see a specific piece of property, she would like to see this ordinance remain as flexible as possible so they do not lose any of the goals they are setting out by their own regulations.
Councilwoman Mutch believes the current language states a majority of dwelling units within the RUD are detached, nonclustered one-family dwellings and a portion of the dwelling units are conventional one-family dwelling units. Councilwoman Mutch stated if they are saying a majority of them are detached nonclustered one-family and a portion is conventional one-family dwelling units, to raise the portion above the majority creates a math problem. She explained they cannot have more than half and also have more than half if they are different entities. If they are not, then they are saying they have to have a majority of this, while at the same time saying they have to have a portion.
Councilman Schmid agrees that much of what Councilwoman Mutch has said is true. However, he noted much of the credit they give for density is not the pristine land about which Councilwoman Mutch is talking. He said the credit is for parks, for views and for many things that have nothing to do with the things they want to preserve. Despite that, Councilman Schmid thinks "substantial" could be interpreted almost as well as "portion" except substantial could be fifty houses. Councilman Schmid just believes substantial is a better definition than portion.
Councilman Kramer believes they would like to have more than a token. He suggested that they use any word that means greater than a token.
Councilman Schmid repeated he believes "substantial" is appropriate. He explained it does not mean "majority" or 50%. Councilman Kramer interjected, it means some identifiable amount that is more than a token.
Mayor McLallen asked if this would create any legal problems. If Mr. Watson understands the discussion correctly, he believes Council would like to see more than just a handful of conventional lots. He understands they would like something of a significant nature that reflects the longstanding policy of the city for conventionally developed lots as reflected in the language of the Master Plan. Mr. Watson advised the ordinance deals with that in one respect in the criteria for approval that indicates one of the things they are balancing against this open space is that desirability for conventional residential development within the city. Mr. Watson believes there is some language that indicates that is one of the functions they are doing. Mr. Watson added he believes what they want is something just to reiterate that here and he thinks the insertion of the word "substantial" is a way readily to accomplish that. Mr. Watson would simply rely on the criteria later in the ordinance and then just refer to that as a "substantial portion."
Mayor ProTem Crawford and Councilman Kramer concurred.
Mayor McLallen advised there is a Council consensus to insert the word "significant portion" in place of "a portion" in Paragraph 1. A on Page 2.
Councilman Schmid understands they will construct many of these developments on RA zoned property and they are suggesting they can construct R-3 homes in the buffer area. Councilman Schmid asked if there is any interest in trying to add a buffer for RA zoning to this ordinance.
Mayor McLallen believes some buffering items Mr. Seiber suggested also have some merit and asked if there is any interest to add those items. Mayor McLallen explained they are not considered abutting if a railroad or a utility line separates them. The Mayor added Mr. Seiber also asked that a credit be given if they put a park next to the utility line.
Councilman Schmid asked if Council is comfortable with having some areas right next to RA zoning because he believes that will be a problem in the future. He further believes the only way to solve that problem is that any peripheral of an RUD would have to be the same zoning as the adjacent property.
Mayor McLallen noted Council does not share Councilman Schmid’s concerns regarding the RA buffering.
Mayor McLallen noted Council is satisfied with the language for the amenities.
Mayor McLallen asked Council if there is any further discussion about the lake.
Councilman Kramer stated he agreed with Councilman Mitzel during their last meeting because he convinced him that they shared the same ideas about the intent of what they were trying to do. Unfortunately, Councilman Kramer does not believe the language really reflects what they were trying to do. Councilman Kramer recalled their previous conversation related to the accessability of the lake and the amount or proportion that was park land. Councilman Kramer reminded Council he had pointed to the terminology that is still on Page 5 of the comparison draft that states, "lakes or ponds when landscaped maintained made part of a larger open space area within the RUD." Further, he stated they had discussion in terms of how a subdivision open space plan treats parks. Councilman Kramer stated he views the lake as a water park. He read, "it shall be designed and laid out in such a manner that it shall directly border a majority of the lots within the subdivision or at least 25% of the perimeter border on a street." Further, "it shall be provided with significant means of access by streets or pedestrian ways to all areas reserved for common use of land for those lots in the subdivision that do not direction border the common areas." Councilman Kramer was expecting that this language would be paraphrased in terms of a water environment. Consequently, Councilman Kramer withdraws his support for this newly drafted language.
Councilman Schmid asked Councilman Kramer to provide further clarification about what he means.
Councilman Kramer replied in open space it states they have to have 25% which he assumes would be an adjacent park where it says it has to abut a road. He asked if it has to abut a road in a subdivision, it says anyone can have access to the park there. In terms of a lake that means perhaps 25% has to be common area to which people can come. In the other park land, it says they have to have significant other accesses. Councilman Kramer believes for a lake that means they have to be able to walk around it. Councilman Kramer believes the idea of requiring 100 foot depth ring around a lake is much greater than what he thought would make a good residentially oriented lake. Councilman Kramer referred Council’s attention to the bottom of Page 5 on the comparison draft and believes the better definition is on the top of Page 6. Councilman Kramer read, "perimeter park land is dedicated for use that is at least a 100 foot depth and is adjacent to a water course or body usable for active or passive recreation." Councilman Kramer explained that is the only portion they would use to credit the amount of lake area that would be creditable.
Councilman Schmid stated that could be 100 feet on the lake period. Councilman Kramer believes the intent is for 100 feet of land. Councilman Schmid does not believe that is all the way around the lake. Councilman Kramer stated there is a proportion calculation that says if they only provided this for halfway around the lake, then they only get 50% area credit for the lake.
Councilman Mitzel believes they talked about this issue most extensively at their last meeting. He recalled the consensus among at least four members was that they could give the lake credit if it were usable to the residents. Further, as Councilman Kramer just stated, one of the things he was looking at was if they could walk around it. Councilman Mitzel recalled if there was a park around it, they could get credit for 100% of the lake. However, if they put parks only around half of it, then they would only get credit for half the lake. Councilman Mitzel believes the concern at that point was how would they define parks so that it would not just be a narrow strip of land and that is where they are focusing right now. Councilman Mitzel explained the 100 feet is the language that the attorney’s developed. Councilman Mitzel stated if the feeling is still that for in order to get credit for the lake, they should still have this park around it. However, he suggested the issue is how deep that park is as opposed to no park. In other words, there was support at the last meeting that if the park only went around half the lake and the other half of the lake had backyards platted right up to the water’s edge, then they should give only half of the lake credit. However, if the park went all the way around the lake, then they could give the entire lake credit. Councilman Mitzel believes that is where the attorney’s came up with the possible language of 100 foot deep back from the water and 100 foot wide so that it would be a usable nature as a park as opposed to not just a 5 foot strip between the backyard lot line and the water. Councilman Mitzel said 100 feet might be too excessive and asked if Councilman Kramer has another suggestion. However, as of right now, this is what is in the language of the second reading and he believes it can only be changed by an amendment.
Councilman Kramer would propose an amendment at the right time.
Councilman Clark believes a 100 foot parcel is a minimum. He added when they say it is available to the residents, he asked if they are talking about the residents of the development as opposed to the public at large. Councilman Clark believes homeowners’ would not like everyone walking across their property to access the lake when they pay top dollar for a piece of property and a view.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether they mean 100 feet wide or 100 feet deep. Mr. Watson replied he means 100 feet deep.
Mayor ProTem Crawford believes if there is a certain amount of access to the lake that there ought to be full credit for the lake because they have full access to the lake through an area or several areas. Consequently, Mayor ProTem Crawford would be willing to revisit that issue because he would like Council to change their minds on this issue.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if Councilman Kramer was offering a motion to amend this at some point and if so, was he going to replace that original language or was he suggesting that he wanted a percentage. Councilman Kramer replied he is using open space as a model. He explained if there is 25% perimeter access upon a road that he would interpret that as on a park. However, he noted it further states it shall be provided with significant means of access by streets or pedestrians to all areas reserved for common use; which means they need some other access points. He believes the way they interpret it here is that they have landscaping maintained as part of a larger open space within an RUD. He suggested that they add language that states they need reasonable access, a park and residents must be able to walk around the lake.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if he is suggesting that they come up with a percentage and amend this in a way that addresses it with a minimum or maximum percentage. She then asked if he is suggesting that they scrap the effort to calculate the portion of the lake and go back to the original language.
Councilman Kramer would scrap the effort to proportion the lake, but he believes they would have to ask themselves if they do not provide the criteria, what do they do?
Councilwoman Mutch agrees Councilman Kramer articulately expressed at another meeting the idea that there is a value to having a body of water that is accessible by the residents of a community and is an asset of that community as a whole. She also agreed with other comments in that it would be difficult to find a way in which to calculate anything less than the full perimeter of the lake. Therefore, if Councilman Kramer is suggesting a percentage then suggest it so they can vote on amending it that way. However, if he is suggesting that they should go back to the original language, then he should propose that so they can vote on that.
Councilman Kramer would propose to have credit for the entire lake. He added the developer would need to provide 25% access to the shoreline by a park land and open to the residents of the RUD. He added they should provide additional access points and the ability to walk around the entire circumference of the lake.
Councilwoman Mutch would disagree with Councilman Kramer’s proposal because of the practicality of it. Specifically, she thinks if they develop around a lake where there are lake front lots, she agrees with Councilman Clark that they cannot realistically have an unseparated water, then public access and then a private back yard.
Mayor ProTem Crawford concurred with everything Councilman Kramer proposed except the idea of a walk around the lake. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Councilman Kramer is talking about 25% public access within the RUD, at least 100 feet deep and at that point, the developer would get total credit. Mayor ProTem Crawford supposed if they only had 10% access, then they would only get 10% credit. If they had 25% access or more, then they would get total credit for the lake. Mayor ProTem Crawford believes 25% of a perimeter is significant public access. He repeated that he agrees with Councilman Kramer’s proposal except for a boardwalk surrounding the lake.
Councilman Clark does not have a problem with the concept. However, he asked Council to remember that they are trying to develop an ordinance that is going to give potential developers an additional density credit under an RUD because of a body of water. He stated if the access they are creating is 25% of the water frontage, then it seems reasonable to him that the developer should only get 25% credit beyond what he might otherwise have gotten in terms of density.
Councilman Kramer advised 25% is consistent with how they treat other open spaces, and believes it is appropriate and substantial. Further, Councilman Kramer agrees with all the other comments made and will retract the perimeter walkway.
Mayor McLallen understands that Councilman Kramer is revisiting the issue of credit for the lake and has proposed if the developer were to offer a 25% physical frontage access to the lake for all residents of the RUD, they would grant 100% density credit. Councilman Kramer concurred.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they are also including the 100 foot depth. Councilman Kramer replied it would include the 100 foot depth.
Mayor McLallen suggested they state, an access park dedicated to the uses of all RUD residents at least 100 feet wide and in return they would grant the density credit.
Mayor ProTem Crawford stated if that is an amendment by Councilman Kramer, then he would support it.
Councilman Kramer would propose that amendment for the ordinance.
Councilman Mitzel reminded Council there is no main motion.
Mayor ProTem Crawford believes Councilman Mitzel is suggesting that a motion be made to approve the second reading with all those amendments and restate those along with the main motion.
Mayor McLallen asked if there is a consensus to change the language under B, subsection A. Environmental Features?
Councilwoman Mutch hopes it is safe to assume that she can make a motion to approve the second reading with the clear understanding that there are some changes they have already agreed to make. Mr. Watson suggested they move forward in this manner.
CM-97-06-201: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED: To adopt the second reading of Ordinance 97-18 - Revised RUD Ordinance as presented
CM-97-06-202: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend language on Page 2 under 1. A to read "significant portion" instead of "a portion"
Vote on CM-97-06-202: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
CM-97-06-203: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, FAILED: To amend language on Page 3 to read for the purposes of this section the RUD shall not be considered adjacent to property zoned for one-family use where it is separated from such property by a major thoroughfare, utility line corridor, or railroad right of way
Councilman Mitzel asked if the attorney’s can tell him what the definition of a utility line corridor is, how wide it is, and what type of utility that would include. Mr. Watson believes utility line corridor does not define it sufficiently to comport with they are intending to do.
Councilman Mitzel believes they would want to make certain that the utility line corridor is at least 330 feet or if it is less, they would probably want to include a buffering.
Mayor McLallen believes the person who brought that issue up was addressing the high tension wires.
Councilman Mitzel asked if that is 330 feet in width.
Mayor ProTem Crawford does not believe the 330 feet is the issue. He noted a major thoroughfare is not necessarily 330 feet.
Councilman Mitzel noted a major thoroughfare has berming on the other side from the residential development where a utility corridor does not necessarily have berming on the rear of those lots.
Mayor McLallen stated Councilman Mitzel has correctly brought up the lack of clarity with the word utility and raised other issues with the corridor itself.
Councilwoman Mutch suggested this may not be the appropriate place to address a utility corridor or the railroad right of way since just below this it states, "City Council after review and recommendation of the Planning Commission may vary the 330 foot depth in any one of the following circumstances." She suggested that perhaps C should address those two issues in a way that does not necessarily identify them. She suggested that it state there is a permanent existing undeveloped buffer or whatever it is that the utility corridor and the railroad right of way offer. She believes someone said earlier not to eliminate the buffer, but to reduce the required perimeter buffering by the appropriate amount. For example, if the utility corridor is 200 feet and they want 330 feet, they would have to provide 130 feet that abuts the 200 feet. She believes this is what they are looking for and not the total elimination that results in less of a buffer.
Mayor ProTem Crawford does not think the issue is about buffering. He read, "For the purposes of this section, an RUD shall not be considered adjacent to property zoned for one-family use when it is separated by a major thoroughfare." and believes adjacency and what divides it are the real issues before them. Right now they are saying a major thoroughfare will divide it and the suggestion was also to include utility lines or a railroad right of way. He noted it has nothing to do with buffering, but is a matter of when is an RUD considered adjacent to single family and what separates it.
Mayor McLallen stated the motion they have supported is the inclusion of the language utility line corridor and railroad right of way.
Councilman Clark believes they want to better define the "utility line corridor" and suggested "overhead electrical transmission corridor" instead. He believes if they only state overhead lines, somebody could say a group of lines with 240 volts creates a buffer. Councilman Clark believes their intent is to do something substantially more than that.
Mayor McLallen believes there already is a legal definition for the utility line corridors because they take up a huge amount of space in the community already. Mr. Watson replied there is a term and he will check that.
Mayor ProTem Crawford believes railroad right of way would be very similar and substantial in width also.
Mayor McLallen asked if there is a Council consensus to accept the clarification of the term.
Councilwoman Mutch appreciates what Mayor ProTem Crawford pointed out because the current language addresses the adjacency and then immediately addresses the perimeter buffering. She went on to state the discussion that preceded her comments addressed both. Councilwoman Mutch would like to know if Council would only like to address the adjacency question. She also does not believe they would want to build a house adjacent to a railroad right of way.
Councilman Clark believes that is already in there and is the intent of that section. He explained it gives Council the option to exercise its discretion when that situation is existing.
Councilman Mitzel stated there is no perimeter buffering required if it is not considered adjacent. He explained the discretion is only when they require perimeter buffering.
Mayor ProTem Crawford reiterated that he did not intend for his amendment to complicate anything in the 330 foot buffer. He explained what they are now talking about does not have anything to do with the 330 foot buffer. He reminded Council that the current ordinance only addresses a major thoroughfare and to that they wanted to add power lines and railroads.
Mayor McLallen noted that the amendment would also include the correction of the proper term for utility line corridors.
Councilman Schmid asked if this motion means they would require no buffering if it is adjacent to a power line or a railroad track. Mayor ProTem Crawford replied this amendment does not address anything that relates to the 330 foot buffer. He added the sentence they are adding this to is right in the middle of that whole discussion, but it is really a separate issue if they pick it out of there. He continued by stating, right now they are saying if there is a major thoroughfare there an RUD is not considered adjacent to single family. What they now will say is if there is a railroad there it is not adjacent and if there is a power line there it is not considered adjacent. Further, they may or may not need the 330 feet and noted something else may trigger that.
Mr. Watson disagreed and explained the significance of whether it is adjacent or not is whether they have to provide the buffer.
Councilman Schmid said they are then saying they do not have to provide the buffer with a major thoroughfare, and now they are adding high power electrical lines and a railroad right of way. Mr. Watson agreed.
Councilman Schmid believes there should be a buffer for the power lines and even more so than for a road.
Councilwoman Mutch supposes they could discuss whether it is a 200 foot width for the total corridor and determine whether that 200 feet is wide enough. She believes it is 200 feet so that it can provide a buffer. She added since they are the ones imposing that structure in the community, they are the ones required to construct a buffer and not the other way around. Councilwoman Mutch would not personally purchase a lot next to a utility corridor.
Councilman Kramer stated the last sentence in that section states, "However, in no circumstances shall any attached or detached clustered housing dwelling unit in the RUD be located closer than seventy-five feet to any peripheral property line." Councilman Kramer believes Councilman Schmid’s comments are very appropriate. He explained if they add utility lines and railroads, they are essentially encouraging them to plot right up to the edge of that within 75 feet. He suggested they may be better off to go full circle back to where they are and leave thoroughfare there, and not address the railroads and the transmission lines. He added they can state that they need to space the housing away from that. He believes if they add railroads and utility lines, they are telling them building it up to the edge of those right of ways is okay. Given Councilman Schmid’s concerns, Councilman Kramer believes that leaving it as it is might more appropriate.
Councilwoman Mutch does not believe they currently have this issue as a problem. She sees this as way of trying to address something that might have ramifications beyond what comes to mind immediately just because they raised the issue during audience participation. Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council they have not even asked for input from the consultant’s.
Vote on CM-97-06-203: Ayes: None
Nays: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
Mayor McLallen stated the third item brought forward as an amendment to the main motion was (a) under Section B on Page 4, Environmental Features. She explained 100% credit for the lake can be granted if there is 25% access to those residents of the RUD, and this property is at least 100 feet deep and adjacent to the watercourse or body of water.
CM-97-06-204: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED: To amend language on Page 4, Section B (a) to include 100% credit for lake can be granted if there is 25% access to those residents of the RUD, and this property is at least 100 feet deep and adjacent to the watercourse or body of water
Councilman Mitzel will not support the amendment. He explained he agrees with Councilman Kramer’s position in that the criterions’ mechanism he is proposing has worked in the subdivision open space plan. However, he believes there are two fundamental differences. He stated one is that the area in that plan is not provided a density credit and the second is that plan that is set aside is typically buildable land, whereas a body of water is not buildable.
Councilwoman Mutch thinks they probably have in mind that the plans most likely to come in are going to have bodies of water that are somehow central to a planned development. She believes they might consider that because they see bodies of waters as assets and that it might be an incentive to a developer when assembling parcels to include that amenity as part of a planned development. However, she believes as a developer assembles land that they might pass on property that has water and assume that the land owner is not going to be able to do much with that land anyway. Further, because it will always be there, the developer might think that the homebuyers on his property will be able to enjoy the neighboring view and without incurring the expense. She said the offset to that is if it is part of planned development, then they get all these things that they have outlined in terms of a landscaped managed body of water without some of the problems that they get by being adjacent to something that is not managed. She believes it is a minor consideration, but it is something that they could provide as an incentive for those kinds of things that can be included as part of a planned development.
Councilman Schmid cannot support the motion. He believes the intent of the ordinance is to provide some amenities that would not normally be in a "straight" subdivision. Councilman Schmid stated a developer would not fill a lake because they would want to maximize their profits for the lake property they are going to sell. He further believes it is not keeping with the intent of the ordinance. Councilman Schmid reiterated the developer will benefit from that lake just because he is going to benefit from the value of the lots around the lake. Councilman Schmid agrees if the developer provides 25% of the lake for park and access to that lake, then they should give him that credit. However, just because he provides 25% access, Councilman Schmid does not believe they should give him credit for the entire lake because he would not have gotten it in the first place. Councilman Schmid stated the developer is not adding anything to the City of Novi and the credit is actually increasing the benefit to the developer by substantial dollars. Councilman Schmid can accept that except for the fact that it also increases density. Councilman Schmid does not think this ordinance is consistent with what they are trying to do.
Councilman Clark concurs with Councilmen Mitzel and Schmid, and he will not support this amendment.
Councilwoman Mutch said because it is hard to overlook the fact that there is a large piece of property with a large body of water, every time they talk about body of water and lake credit, she believes they are envisioning such a situation. However, she noted there are also situations in western Novi where there are many smaller bodies of water that do not
necessarily bring to mind developing as they would a whole lake, but still could be part of a developed park area. She believes this amendment would provide some incentive for developing the property in a way that makes that part of open space acceptable by the public. It would avoid having to configure the lots in such a way that they have several property owners who have the responsibility for that body of water and are the only ones who benefit from it. Councilwoman Mutch knows they have some philosophical differences about whether they should be private or public, but she believes they should keep in mind that bodies of water come in a variety of sizes. She explained sometimes having that as a bigger planned park area would be a benefit that they would not have under conventional development.
Councilman Kramer believes this amendment is an enhancement to the prior ordinance that essentially gave credit for the whole lake with no stipulations other than it is part of a landscaped area that they maintain as part of a larger open space. He added this also provides 25% access to the RUD residents and is a substantial enhancement.
Vote on CM-97-06-204: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Mutch
Nays: Clark, Mitzel, Schmid
Mayor McLallen asked if there is any further comment on the main motion.
Councilman Mitzel advised he will not support the main motion. He explained the RUD may provide a development tool, but he believes the entire section about density credits is not consistent with the spirit of development within the city and what this city has been working toward. He further believes that having an ordinance that gives this density credit is a very poor incentive. Councilman Mitzel then said if Council approves the second reading, he asked if it will take affect in fifteen days. Mr. Watson said it would.
Councilman Mitzel asked if the only recourse for anyone that wishes to see this ordinance changed either way would be through the City Charter Referendum and Petition method. Mr. Watson agreed and added they could also come before City Council or the Planning Commission to suggest further revision.
Councilman Schmid will not support the motion. Although he is pleased about some revisions, he agrees that this ordinance is moving away from the philosophy of this city. He noted the Novi News article that states residents are looking for large lots. He also believes this ordinance increases density.
Councilman Clark concurs with Councilman Schmid and he cannot support the motion.
Councilman Kramer does not believe this ordinance will substantially change the density of the City of Novi. He reminded Council members that the density is capped by the underlying master plan density for which they planned all the infrastructure for the city. He also thinks it offers them the opportunity to construct quality development, preserve the natural resources and features that are there, and still give them a substantial portion of the character in the places they are putting an RUD. He said they included elements within the ordinances that prevent RUD’s from being constructed everywhere. His vision is that this high quality development is the character of development that they are striving to achieve in the western portion of the city. However, in those places this does not apply, they will develop them according to the underlying zoning.
Councilwoman Mutch recalled there was a comment made during Audience Participation that this type of potential development threatens the Schmidt’s five acre parcel on Wixom Road where something very large under an RUD would devour a smaller property. However, Councilwoman Mutch does not believe the RUD permits that to happen. Councilwoman Mutch then advised that the Schmidt’s have not suggested that they want to sell their property. She also advised they have spoken in favor of the RUD ordinance and the specific project proposed under it. Councilwoman Mutch stated the audience participation comment seemed to indicate that potential home buyers in an RUD development need to be warned about the existence of that five acre farm. Councilwoman Mutch thinks that most of the people in this community already consider the Schmidt’s farm to be an irreplaceable community asset. Further, Councilwoman Mutch believes if they want one acre lots to continue and one acre parcels to develop residentially, they certainly would prize the continued existence of a five acre parcel and recognize that people who buy larger lots are not necessarily building million dollar homes.
Vote on CM-97-06-201: Ayes: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Mutch
Nays: Clark, Mitzel, Schmid
Mayor McLallen believes the RUD is a development tool, but also believes they raised three other issues tonight in terms of the west side of Novi. She explained it was noted there is a significant estate under development adjacent to an open space subdivision. The Mayor further stated there is a rigid 107 one acre lot subdivision developing on 130 acres. Further, there are a variety of small family parcels from one to five acres. Mayor McLallen added there is probably more diversity developing that they do not yet know about.
8. B. Determine Amount of Additional Review for Harvest Land RUD Application
Councilman Mitzel reminded Council that they currently have a submittal awaiting Council action under the RUD application that Planning Commission reviewed prior to the enactment of this amendment to the RUD. Councilman Mitzel added Council asked the city’s attorney to comment on what the proper review of this application would be at this point now that they have just amended the RUD ordinance.
Mr. Fried reported they had advised Council in their letter of May 28, 1997 that they thought Council had the authority to approve this plan as submitted under the old ordinance. However, he noted they suggested to Council that they should have the plan reviewed by the consultant’s to make certain that it complies with the provisions of the ordinance just adopted. Further, Council also has the authority to send it back to the Planning Commission for their review.
Councilman Mitzel stated in the newly adopted ordinance there is an extensive section on findings that the Planning Commission must make based on the new criteria of the new ordinance and make a recommendation to City Council. Councilman Mitzel stated if he understands Mr. Fried correctly he is stating that at Council’s next meeting they could act upon that application based upon the ordinance as it was when they applied or have some feedback from the consultants on the new ordinance. Mr. Fried disagreed and explained Council would have to adopt it under the new ordinance.
Councilman Mitzel asked if it that is because they did not include a grandfather clause. Mr. Fried agreed.
CM-97-06-205: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Schmid, FAILED: Review of the Harvest Lake Land RUD application by the Planning Commission for consideration under the newly adopted RUD Ordinance criteria
Councilman Schmid seconded the motion for discussion and discussion with the attorney.
Councilman Mitzel stated at this point, there are extensive review criteria and findings that the Planning Commission should consider. Councilman Mitzel would prefer that the Planning Commission have the chance to do the review work of this application under the criteria that the majority of Council approved tonight. As a result, Council would then review the complete package as they would any other applicant that would be coming in underneath that new ordinance. Councilman Mitzel does not want to try to put this together at the Council table on the basis that part of it was reviewed under the old criteria and part of it was reviewed under the new criteria. He believes it would be better to have it reviewed based on the process and criteria outlined in the new ordinance.
Councilwoman Mutch knows that the Harvest Land proposal was on Council’s agenda at one time and then pulled. However, she asked as of now have they even received something from them that they can send back.
Councilman Mitzel believes his motion should actually state that the Planning Commission should review the application.
Mayor ProTem Crawford does not think there is anything significant enough in the changes they made in the ordinance as to what was submitted by Harvest Land under the old ordinance. He believes anything in the new ordinance has been thoroughly considered by the Planning Commission. He added that Council will have many opportunities for participation from various sources. Further, he believes their review is sufficient for the initial submittal. Mayor ProTem Crawford reiterated they have not changed this ordinance that significantly and he believes there are other considerations that they need to weigh. He also does not want to sound like this is on the fast track, but reminded Council that they have discussed this for months. However, he noted the school and the park land issue are major issues. He explained if they send this back, it would cause significant delays and there are projects that are in jeopardy when it comes to the school district. Mayor ProTem Crawford encouraged Council to move forward with the review at this level and not delay it any further.
Councilman Schmid stated they have a proposal before them under the old RUD ordinance. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed and made their decision based solely on an ordinance that is now no longer in use. Further, Councilman Schmid believes they significantly changed the ordinance and now they are suggesting that the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission under the old ordinance can come before Council under the new ordinance without having to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fried replied that would be a determination made by Council.
Councilman Schmid asked what is the basis for that. Mr. Fried replied the basis is that Council can consider whether there are substantial changes in the ordinance that the Planning Commission should review before they make their determination or the Planning Commission has already considered everything except what they just adopted tonight. He repeated Council would make that determination and whether they need the input of the Planning Commission regarding this plan.
Councilman Schmid asked if Council could make that decision the next time it comes forward. Mr. Fried would hope that they would not put Council in this position again.
Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Fried is suggesting from a legal and technical standpoint they could do that. Mr. Fried agreed.
Councilman Schmid did not realize the school was still a problem until Mayor ProTem Crawford mentioned it. He assumed now that they adopted the ordinance that the developer will sell the property to the school. He did not think that would have any significance about whether this goes back to the Planning Commission or not. Councilman Schmid asked if he should wonder whether they will not sell this school property until Council addresses this issue and he repeated the ordinance has passed. Councilman Schmid believes the developer is holding up the school district and if that is the intent, it is a shame after what this city has just given this developer. However, Councilman Schmid still believes it would be beneficial to have this matter go back before the Planning Commission, but he does not want to delay the school and he may then agree to let it move forward.
Councilman Kramer would be amenable to postponing this decision until they have a position stated back to Council in terms of Councilman Schmid’s comments.
Mayor McLallen believes they can have an answer to that right now. She thinks the city attorney’s have made a clear statement on the issue of the school site. She advised they are currently waiting for a number of documents from the school board’s attorney relating to the transfer of sale of the land. She added they are also waiting for documents from Delta Trucking which is the actual firm that is selling the land to the city. She explained the city will then sell the land to the school.
Mr. Fried added they have documents prepared that reflect that Delta, the school board, and the city arrived at a contract in which Delta will sell to the city, and the city and the school board will be bound to comply with the RUD Ordinance. However, he noted those agreements are currently unsigned and until that is done, Mr. Fried cannot provide any assurance that is going to be done.
Councilman Schmid asked if the developer will wait until he gets his plan through to make sure he gets everything he wants before he signs that agreement. Mr. Fried replied the developer could do that, but he does not really know.
Councilman Kramer would like to tie the motion to the signing of those documents.
Mr. Kriewall stated it is his understanding that there will not be a sale of the property until there is an area plan approval.
Councilman Kramer believes this is a critical point and he thinks they need to understand this before they make this decision.
Councilwoman Mutch thinks if any one of them had a plan that was dependent upon having a certain amount of acreage involved in order for all the rest of what is written to come into play (i.e., density credits, perimeter buffering, positioning of lots, etc.), one would have to know exactly what property they include in the plan. Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council that the proposed plan includes the school property. She said if any one of them were in control of that property, good business sense would dictate that they would hang onto that property until they had in writing what that property is worth in terms of the area plan and then they would sell the property. She asked why would anyone sell that property to put themselves in that position when they know they proposed the school and the park as part of the area plan. She stated the real question is whether they are committed to that property being considered as part of the area plan.
Councilman Schmid believes he is a relatively good businessperson and he does not believe he would act in the same way this developer is acting. He believes he would show a little faith in the city. He recalled that this city provided permits to this owner for mining this area with many pluses for them. However, the fact that they are coming back to this city, and holding the school and city up is astounding to him. He does not agree a good businessperson would do this. He believes they could add language that this land would be considered as part of the RUD in their agreement if that is their problem. Further, Councilman Schmid’s purpose is not to help Harvest Land. He would like to see the school get their property, but he would also like to see this ordinance properly followed by the Planning Commission and that all the considerations under the new ordinance be given attention.
Mr. Fried noted that is included in the proposed agreement. He added the agreement has not been presented to Council and he is certain the developer is more familiar with it than Council is.
Councilman Mitzel stated the intent of his motion is not to delay and involve the school or park land property. He explained his intent was to provide a proper review for the plan under the newly adopted ordinance under which Council will make their determination upon. He asked Council to recall the Vistas of Novi resubmittal by which they had extensive Planning Commission review and they still had extensive Council review. He advised if the Planning Commission had not done a good portion of that work, he wondered how many other Council members could pick up that amount of work. He reminded Council that they will already have a huge amount of review and he would like the benefit of having the Planning Commission do some of the leg work so they will not have to go line by line through the entire submittal package.
CM-97-06-206: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Schmid, FAILED: To postpone action until June 23, 1997 and direct the city’s attorney to provide evidence of a signed purchase document or a report regarding the status of the school property purchase
Councilman Mitzel clarified by stating that the main motion is a question of what level of review they want on this application as opposed to anything to do with property purchase.
For the record, Mayor McLallen is absolutely opposed to sending this back to the Planning Commission. The Mayor explained the ordinance Council has revised this evening is really a refinement. She stated they had a thorough public hearing by the Planning Commission, and comments have been made on this over the past four months by the Planning Commission and members of the public. Mayor McLallen noted the plan itself is not substantially changed. She said what has substantially changed is the density of the proposed plan. She explained the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission contained more than 900 units and under these calculations, the units will be lower. The Mayor further explained they are only talking about the area plan. She reported that has been thoroughly discussed and documented by the Planning Commission as a whole and by a subcommittee of the Commission. It is Mayor McLallen’s understanding that the plan that Council has never formally seen, has not changed. However, what has changed is the criterion and they have improved that criterion. She stated they can send the plan to the consultant’s for review and although Council considers the recommendations of the Planning Commission, they are ultimately responsible for the decision. Mayor McLallen reminded Council they already have substantial information regarding the public and various Commission’s comments on this area plan. Mayor McLallen advised they now have a very refined ordinance that the consultant’s can all review one more time before Council reviews it. However, she believes to send it back to the beginning of the process will only create a lot of expensive and redundant work and she does not believe it will provide a better product. She believes the ordinance that Council just passed will bring forward the better product.
Councilman Kramer stated the motion is to postpone action on this motion until June 23 in which case, direct the attorney’s to put forth a diligent effort to bring back a purchase document signed or a report about its status. He added they would also have to add this item to the agenda for that evening.
Mayor ProTem Crawford concurs with Mayor McLallen. He added they are only talking about a concept and he reiterated that he does not believe they substantially changed the intent of the ordinance that would necessitate them going back before the Planning Commission. Secondly, he will not be present at the June 23 meeting and consequently, he would prefer to decide tonight.
Councilwoman Mutch will not support the motion to postpone. She thinks that asking for additional information from the consultants is possible based upon the work they have already done and the changes made. She reminded Council the consultants have been present for virtually the entire discussion and they have contributed to that discussion. Further, she believes the Planning Commission is currently overloaded although they have tried to make room during a busy time on their calendar. Councilwoman Mutch believes not only has Council thoroughly discussed this, but she believes they have also been diligent and creative in exploring alternatives for every change they proposed.
Vote on CM-97-06-206: Ayes: Clark, Kramer, Schmid
Nays: McLallen, Crawford, Mitzel, Mutch
Councilman Schmid will support the main motion, but he is fully expecting that they do not hold up the land purchase agreement for the school and that it will be signed next week. Councilman Schmid said his intent to support this motion is that the application gets a full review by the Planning Commission. Further, he disagrees with anyone who would suggest that this ordinance did not change substantially. He agrees the overall intent of the ordinance did not change, but it has changed. He added he does not believe this review will delay the Harvest Land project.
Councilman Mitzel said because these types of RUD developments tend to be long term in nature, he asked if the city would be on better ground if they followed the complete review process in case there may be a future challenge or litigation concerning adoption or denial of certain sections of the RUD. Mr. Fried disagreed and explained Council has the authority to waive or vary any of the terms that they wish. He added that is what they are doing in this case.
Councilman Mitzel said if Council did not agree to send this back to the Planning Commission, they are basically waiving the review of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fried replied it would be a variance in the procedure.
Vote on CM-97-06-205: Ayes: Clark, Mitzel, Schmid,
Nays: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Mutch
Mayor McLallen said since there is school property under consideration, she asked if Council can pass a resolution tonight that says they agree as a Council to give Harvest Land density credit for the school. Mr. Fried replied he is not certain whether that would satisfy Harvest Land.
Mayor McLallen offered the floor to Mr. Weiner to discuss the school issue.
Mr. Weiner first pointed out that the area plan will not change. Mr. Weiner then stated they believe the Planning Commission’s motion clearly stated that they sent a positive recommendation to City Council to recommend the concept plan as submitted by Harvest Land. He advised they have been working very closely to try to figure out a way to allow the school to begin construction. Councilman Schmid interjected, it is called sell the land. Mr. Weiner continued by stating they are prepared to work all night and come back by July 7 to present an RUD submittal for Harvest Lake of Novi, a 900 acre project that was first submitted in February. If Council approves that plan, their intent is to begin construction the next day. Mr. Weiner believes Mr. Koster can comment on the accuracy of his comments in terms of working toward accommodating the school construction.
James Koster, Superintendent of Novi Schools believes Councilwoman Mutch asked a good question and that Councilman Schmid made a good observation. Mr. Koster asked if Harvest Land Company can sell that land now or do they have to retain control until they get the application approved. Mr. Koster is looking for a response from legal counsel. Mr. Fried replied the language of the document states if the owner sells the property to the city and school, they will comply with the new RUD Ordinance.
Mr. Koster believes that explanation should satisfy both Councilwoman Mutch and Councilman Schmid. Mr. Fried noted however, that they do not have a signed document.
Mr. Koster believes they could sign the document and the sale could take place when possible. If it goes back before the Planning Commission and takes some time to come back before Council, the Harvest Land Company can be assured that they would still get credit. Mr. Fried believes that is correct.
Councilwoman Mutch does not want to be too optimistic and she hopes she understands Mr. Fried correctly. She asked if they signed the documents and the land purchase takes place that when the area plan comes before Council, they will still be dealing with it as if it is under the control of single ownership as required in the ordinance. Mr. Fried replied in his opinion, the applicant would have control sufficient to bring it within the RUD Ordinance.
Councilwoman Mutch said the other 50% of her concern is about whether that is an interpretation that Council is ready to live with. Mr. Fried reiterated that is his interpretation and he does not know whether Harvest Land’s attorney will consider it in the same way.
Councilwoman Mutch wants to know what this body is willing to commit to. Mr. Fried reminded Councilwoman Mutch that this body has not seen the agreement.
Councilman Clark called for a point of order.
Mayor McLallen stated there are two legal documents that will come before Council within the next twenty one days. She explained one will be a purchase agreement from Delta Truck to the City of Novi and the other will be a purchase agreement between the City of Novi and the Novi School District. Further, she noted the actual project will come before Council Monday, July 7, 1997.
Councilman Schmid asked why couldn’t the purchase documents come before them by Monday, June 23, 1997. Mr. Fried believes they could be ready for Council’s review by that time.
Mayor ProTem Crawford noted they need five votes to purchase or sell property. Therefore, in order for those documents to be put into effect, it will require five votes.
CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
3. Adoption of Administrative Personnel Policy
Mr. Klaver stated it has been brought to their attention that there was a Council consensus to change the job title for Greg Capote the next time they revised this document. Mr. Klaver explained Mr. Capote’s title would be changed from Senior Staff Planner to Economic Development Coordinator. Mr. Klaver asked if this was Council’s consensus that they amend the motion to include this change.
Councilman Mitzel does not agree with making an Administrative Assistant position out of an Executive Secretary position. He believes they should all be either Administrative Assistants or left as Executive Secretary positions. Although Councilman Mitzel understands Mr. Kriewall has a different opinion, he will not support the motion without this further amendment.
CM-97-06-207: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED: To approve the adoption of the Administrative Personnel Policy as amended
Vote on CM-97-06-207: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid Nays: Mitzel
4. Approval of Ordinance 97-92.08 - To require that a vehicle, driven or moved upon a highway display a current registration plate - I Reading
Councilman Mitzel asked if by vehicle do they mean motor vehicles or any vehicle. Mr. Fried replied it refers to commercial vehicles and is a part of the commercial vehicle section.
Councilman Kramer noted the sentence states the required vehicle is "driven or moved" on a highway and asked if a towed vehicle would require a license plate. Mr. Fried said it would. However, they would not require a plate on a vehicle carried on a flatbed truck.
CM-97-06-208: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Ordinance No. 97-92.08 - an amendment to Subsection 33-746(i) of the Novi Code of Ordinances to require that a vehicle drive or moved upon a highway display a current registration plate - 1st Reading
Vote on CM-97-06-208: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
11. Approval of Resolution authorizing MDOT to install electrical conduits for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Meadowbrook and Thirteen Mile Roads in conjunction with their road improvements (M-5) and invoice the City for such
Councilman Mitzel’s question was whether the conduits would work both for span wire and mast arm depending upon what Council decides for that issue. He advised Mr. Nowicki informed him that the conduits would work for either, but he believes there is another correction that Administration would like to make about this matter.
Mr. Nowicki advised the cost is incorrectly listed as $6,270 and the correct cost is $6,720.
CM-97-06-209: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Resolution authorizing MDOT to install electrical conduits for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Meadowbrook and Thirteen Mile Roads in conjunction with their road improvements (M-5) and invoice the City for such
Vote on CM-97-06-209: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
20. Adoption of Resolution, Re: Sunset Computer Advisory Committee
Councilman Mitzel has correspondence from a Computer Advisory Committee member stating that the committee did not have the courtesy of being informed that this item would be on tonight’s agenda. Councilman Mitzel believes it would have been more appropriate to provide notice to the members. Further, he has not had the opportunity to read their last report and he would like to review that before they sunset the committee. He added he does agree there may be a need to revise or sunset them, but he does not feel comfortable doing that at this point.
CM-97-06-210: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED: To adopt Resolution to sunset Computer Advisory Committee
Councilman Kramer asked if Councilman Mitzel would like to propose a motion that would put that item on Matters for Council Action at their next meeting.
Mayor McLallen noted there is a motion currently on the floor that has received support.
Vote on CM-97-06-210: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Mutch, Schmid Nays: Kramer, Mitzel
COMMITTEE REPORTS - None
MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES
Mayor ProTem Crawford would like Council to revisit the flag issue because of the comments made in the newspaper, letters received and comments made during Audience Participation. He is concerned about the perception they have in terms of being unpatriotic and it bothers him to get that kind of criticism. He suggested that they send this item back before Ordinance Review.
Councilman Schmid stated he just came from the Town Center Committee tonight and he asked those committee members what happened. He explained he also saw the articles in the paper and wondered what happened that has not been the same in the last twenty years.
Mayor ProTem Crawford advised they have limited the size and the number of flags. He can appreciate the need for some type of regulation because some people could take advantage of the situation, but he would like to design something agreeable to all parties.
Councilman Clark concurs with Mayor ProTem Crawford.
Councilwoman Mutch believes there were some good suggestions that came out of the discussion during the Town Center Committee meeting. She advised one addressed balancing the desire for people to display the American flag and not be overly restricted in that area while at the same time to have some control so it is not abused and commercialized. She suggested that Ordinance Review also address flags in terms of proportional size.
CM-97-06-211: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct Ordinance Review Committee to review flag issue
Councilman Mitzel believes this is part of the sign ordinance. He noted Council has a policy that sign ordinance revisions are to be treated as zoning ordinance issues and sent through the Planning Commission and Implementation Committee.
Mayor ProTem Crawford believes Councilman Mitzel is correct, but he would like to begin with the Ordinance Review Committee.
Mayor McLallen stated there is an Ordinance Review Committee meeting Thursday and asked that they begin to gather some information for that meeting.
Vote on CM-97-06-211: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
Councilwoman Mutch asked if the city is responsible for Meadowbrook Road in terms of striping. Mr. Kriewall replied they are.
Councilwoman reported the lines are totally gone from the south side of the Meadowbrook and Novi Road intersection and asked that Meadowbrook be added to their list. Mr. Kriewall advised they stripe the roads twice a year.
Councilman Mitzel reported the rubberized railroad crossing at Novi Road and Nine Mile is no longer smooth. Mr. Kriewall replied they have met with CSX in October 1996 and told them the city expects them to repair that immediately. To date, CSX has not responded. Mr. Kriewall advised he wrote DPW approximately two weeks ago to follow through on that again and the city is now on the verge of taking legal action because it is a traffic hazard.
Councilwoman Mutch reported the Old Novi Church is ready to be moved to the Beck Road site. She added the only thing holding up the move is the high fee Edison is charging and noted the movers are considering other routes hoping to reduce the cost.
In response to the asphalt resurfacing program for several subdivisions, Mr. Kriewall reported the engineers have reviewed the bid opening for that project and have submitted a recommendation to Mr. Nowicki. Mr. Kriewall believes it should appear on Council’s next agenda.
In response to Mr. Kosinski’s letter, Mr. Kriewall advised that Mr. Nowicki has kept Mr. Kosinski informed him all along as to the non-status of the repair in front of his home.
ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None
1. Letter from State of Michigan to Port Papadapalis, Inc., Re: Denial of Liquor License
2. Letter from Timothy Kosinski to City Council, Re: Road Conditions
3. Resolution from Charter Township of Independence Re: Respect-for-Law Week
4. Memorandum from Oakland County Department of Community and Economic Development, Re: Community Development Block Grant Partnership
5. Letter from John J. Schuster to City Council, Re: Resignation from Novi Construction Board of Appeals
6. Memorandum from Construction Board of Appeals to City Council, Re: Appointment of Jeffrey Bowdell
7. Letter from Jeffrey Bowdell to City Council, Re: Request for appointment to Construction Board of Appeals
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M.
Mayor City Clerk
Transcribed by Barbara Holmes
Date Approved: July 7, 1997