Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.

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

Mayor McLallen extended condolences on behalf of Council and the citizens of Novi to Councilman Kramer on the recent loss of his wife.

Nancy Cassis - State Representative, reported Governor Engler signed the amendment on the transportation budget for the Wixom-Beck interchange design study last week. Representative Cassis explained this is important because it is the first step in improving the interchanges at Wixom and Beck Roads. She added the large amount of traffic and the rate of accidents have moved this issue into the forefront. Representative Cassis reported this is only the first step and noted they must get MDOT to put the dollars to the design study itself. Representative Cassis further advised once the study is completed, the next phase is the construction phase and it is critical for the entire area. Representative Cassis thanked the key people who helped this become a reality.

Leon Kour - 24117 Elizabeth Lane, advised there has been a drainage problem between the city easements in the backyards of Addington Park since he moved into his home two years ago. Mr. Kour has contacted the Water Department several times and reported nothing has been done. Mr. Kour submitted a letter with twenty signatures of residents who agree there is a drainage problem. Mr. Kour is asking Council to address this matter formally.

Mayor McLallen directed this matter to the City Manager and requested a detailed response at the next Council meeting.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, referred to Consent Agenda Item #7 and advised they first brought this item before Council approximately a year and a half ago. Ms. Gray noted there is another spur of Maudlin within that same vicinity that will never be used and believes it should be included. Ms. Gray does not understand why this cannot be moved forward immediately.

Mayor McLallen thanked Ms. Gray for bringing this to their attention so they can address the issue as one complete item.

Ms. Gray noted there is also a small triangle at Lemay where it cuts into Maudlin and there is another piece of Lemay traveling into the back area that would now be Southpointe.

Ms. Gray asked what is the status of the vacation of Ivy Leaf Walk, the wetland located behind her house, Mr. Fisher and the potential gift to the city?

Ms. Gray is extremely concerned about what is going to happen with the South Lake traffic when Fourteen Mile is closed for improvements. She asked the city to increase police patrols and enforce zero tolerance because South Lake will get the bulk of the traffic when motorists discover they will be unable to travel on Fourteen Mile Road.

Mayor McLallen advised they have already discussed this matter and agree they need to work closely with the residents on this issue.

Noreen Poltorak - 22358 Taft Road, understood that the aquatic facility on the November ballot would not be a water park. She now understands that it will have twenty foot water slides, water guns and volley ball courts. Ms. Poltorak is opposed to a water park and reminded Council that Milford’s Four Bears Water Park folded.

Mayor McLallen interjected, Novi is proposing a community pool and information is available.

Ms. Poltorak stated the definition of what the aquatic facility will be is unclear.

Mayor McLallen advised they will continue to hold public information meetings and added the proposed design of the facility is available in the Parks and Recreation Department. Mayor McLallen stated if Ms. Poltorak homeowner’s group would like it brought before them, they can contact the city offices.

Ms. Poltorak would appreciate more information in the Northville Record.

Mayor McLallen asked Ms. Poltorak to provide her name and address to the City Clerk.

Marion Holt - 45409 Addington Lane, objects to an aquatic facility because it is not just a pool. He reminded Council that Mr. Davis was quoted as saying that they cannot guarantee that the facility will be viable. Further, Councilwoman Mutch is quoted as saying that it is appropriate that the city undertakes this as a city-funded project. Councilwoman Mutch also stated that if the community approves the bond proposal, Novi residents will be paying more money because that is the nature of a bond proposal. Mr. Holt reported Councilman Schmid expressed concerns that the City of Novi must fund at a rate of $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Mr. Holt attended the August 25 informational meeting and no one seemed to know anything. Mr. Holt added there were many questions with no answers. Mr. Holt is concerned that the facility will be a bottomless pool and he does not want his hard earned tax dollars being thrown in it.

An unidentified speaker asked Council members to be clear about their positions on issues like the pool so that the voters can decide whom they would like to lead them when they vote in November. He added he would specifically like to understand why the Mayor believes a pool is important. The speaker also believes Council needs to make a clear statement about their expectations of this community and what it represents to the people who have moved here. The speaker is disappointed in Council’s ability to describe that vision. He has observed different debates about issues that he has believed to be relevant to why they are here. He wonders why they have expended energy on the pool and they have not yet gotten through the impasse on Ten Mile and Beck Roads as a location for a grocery store. The speaker was somewhat impressed about Council’s ability to understand the issues around the Ten Mile Road widening. The speaker would rather see Council find ways to expand the tax base than argue about $4.5M for a pool. The speaker does not believe they can compete with private enterprise and asked Council to pay attention to the basics of government, and provide leadership and an infrastructure that the citizens need to live here.

Mayor McLallen noted the League of Women’s Voters is holding the first public forum for candidates at the Civic Center Wednesday, October 8 at 7:30 p.m. She added they will televise it.

Mayor McLallen added under Mayor and Council Issues, Update on Graham Ward’s Letter as Item 3 and Update from Mr. Jerome about Truck Traffic on Nine Mile Road as Item 4.

Councilman Schmid added under Mayor and Council Issues, Eight Mile and Haggerty Commercial Development and the Facade Ordinance as Item 5.

Councilwoman Mutch added under Mayor and Council Issues, Update of Construction Progress that is impacting Willowbrook Access to Ten Mile Road as Item 6.

Councilman Clark added under Mayor and Council Issues, SCAT System at Twelve Oaks as Item 7.

CM-97-10-320: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Agenda as amended

CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

CM-97-10-321: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Consent Agenda as submitted:

1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of September 22, 1997

2. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 97-18.134 - Site Plan Extensions - II Reading and Adoption

3. Approval of Ordinance No. 97-16.03 - Amendment to requirements for obtaining a taxicab driver’s permit - II Reading and Adoption

4. Approval of Arcade License with 10 machines for Soccer Zone, 41440 Grand River.

5. Award bid for Uniform Cleaning Contract for Police and Fire Departments to Meadowbrook Cleaners

6. Award bid for Annual Report Calendar to Dearborn Lithograph in the amount of $22,701.00.

7. Approval to send request of Lawrence Wesson for Vacation of Maudlin spur-Idlemere Park Subdivision to staff for recommendation

8. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 501

Nays: None

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Special Assessment District #149-Eubank and Lemay Water Main Extension

Bruce Jerome, Water and Sewer Superintendent, advised this special assessment began in November of last year. However, because of the moratorium on the expansion of services from the water system, they put it on hold. Mr. Jerome reported it began with an original petition from four of the five property owners on Eubank Street between South Lake Drive and Lemay Street. Since then, another petition came forward from the residents on Lemay Street between Eubank Street and Maudlin. Because of the additional interest, Mr. Jerome sent letters to all of the property owners of record within the Idlemere Park subdivision to see if there was an interest for further expansion. Mr. Jerome advised they have received four positive responses, one negative response and one request for additional information. Mr. Jerome reported JCK has prepared three alternatives. He advised Alternate #1 is the initial request from the four property owners’ on Eubank Street; Alternate #2 included the residents on Lemay Street and Alternate #3 included the entire subdivision.

Mayor McLallen asked how many parcels are involved in the total proposal? Mr. Jerome believes there are seventeen parcels.

Jeff Baron - 914 Lemay, supports the special assessment because the quality of the water is unsatisfactory. Mr. Baron reminded Council about the problem with renters on Maudlin, but he hopes they will still provide the special assessment to Eubank and Lemay.

Christopher Postma - 905 Lemay, agrees with Mr. Baron’s comments. He added that he is a Dearborn firefighter and their fire marshall pointed out that NFPA recommends hydrant spacing of approximately five hundred feet in a residential area. Mr. Postma reported the nearest fire hydrant is five hundred feet from the edge of his property.

Keith Clark - 225 Eubank, agrees everyone has had problems with their wells. However, until one week ago, he has not heard anything about this special assessment. Mr. Clark would like more information in terms of cost.

Mayor McLallen explained the special assessment process and noted the costs are addressed during the process.

Councilwoman Mutch believes that advising the residents about how they can find more information about the process would be helpful.

Mr. Jerome advised they have printed material available and they can also meet with the residents to explain the process. Mr. Jerome added they sent a letter on September 16 to the balance of the property owners and he outlined the estimated costs at that time. Mr. Jerome advised the estimated front foot cost would be $65.00. He explained the assessment for a forty foot lot would be $2,600.00, the connection fee is $1,100.00 and a one inch service with a five-eighth meter is $750.00. However, he added that he did not provide the water rates or the impact on their sewer bill.

Mayor McLallen advised that Mr. Jerome will contact all of the affected landowner’s with information and they will notify each homeowner individually at every step.

Councilman Schmid asked what plan are those costs for? Mr. Jerome replied they gave those costs to the balance of the subdivision that had not expressed any interest. Mr. Jerome advised he gave them an approximate construction cost of $65.00 per linear foot for their half of the extension of the water.

Councilman Schmid asked if those costs would vary from street to street? Mr. Jerome replied they will vary and provided several examples.

Mayor McLallen believes they must first determine if there is an interest in the community to initiate a special assessment rather than try to design the costs tonight.

Mr. Jerome noted there is enough support to proceed with Eubank from South Lake Drive to Lemay, and Lemay from Maudlin to Eubank.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, was surprised when she received Mr. Jerome’s letter. She explained she does not believe it is fair to those who have been fortunate to buy more than a forty foot wide lot. She advised she asked Mr. Jerome about what they can do to make it more equitable for everyone. She believes they need to have a meeting to get more information. Ms. Gray referred to Mr. Jerome’s memo of October 1 and noted this is not the entire Idlemere Park Subdivision and that it only includes three of the five streets. She reported there are two more streets to the east and they are: Owenton and Bernstadt. She suggested that they determine if the residents on these two streets would also like to tie in. Ms. Gray restated she is limited in her support because she does not want to pay for eighty feet and believes that it should be on a curved building site basis. Ms. Gray asked if they are combining all the common ownership together; she believes they should.

Mike Hilley - 135 Maudlin, does not oppose the SAD, but he does not favor it for himself. He explained he has a new well that is spring fed, and noted he is the person who resides south of Ms. Gray and owns three lots. Mr. Hilley does not want to pay for something that will not benefit him personally.

PRESENTATION

1. Rod Arroyo, Birchler Arroyo Associates - Preliminary Road/Property Access Analysis for Twelve Mile/Meadowbrook Area

Mayor McLallen advised Council requested this analysis and they brought it forward because of a preliminary request for a site plan in this area that would potentially cause many curb cuts. Mayor McLallen noted there are approximately twenty six parcels in the area under the ownership of eight primary landowners. Mayor McLallen added the major issues were about trees, topography, Taubman and traffic.

Mr. Arroyo reminded Council there was a rezoning petition before them for a five acre parcel along Meadowbrook Road, south of Twelve Mile Road to rezone that property from RA to OS-1. Mr. Arroyo advised there was concern about the potential of additional driveways onto Meadowbrook Road and Council asked that it be studied in more detail.

Mr. Arroyo reported they have collected a variety of information that he believes would help make a determination about what the best route to take would be. He explained they first collected property information from the city assessor to determine the existing ownership patterns. He added they collected wetland and woodland information, and they have topographic information. Mr. Arroyo reported Taubman is the largest landowner, and there are five wetland areas and an extensive woodland area that covers most of the Taubman property. Mr. Arroyo noted most of the frontage parcels along Meadowbrook Road are relatively free of regulated woodlands and wetlands. Mr. Arroyo added in terms of topography, the highland is along Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook Roads, and falls down as they travel toward the lake. He then noted the contours on the drawing and advised the high point is approximately 950 feet east of the Woodland Medical Center and most of the frontage property varies between 905 to 925 feet and falls to the west. Mr. Arroyo reported the woodlands, wetlands and the topography information plays a part into some of the alternative access arrangements.

Mr. Arroyo advised they met with the Taubman Company to determine the road plans they have for the area since they control a substantial amount of the property. Mr. Arroyo advised they currently have an 86 foot wide private road easement in place north of the approved Crescent Oaks senior citizen development that extends to the south and ends between Woodland Medical and DMC. He added they also own another 86 foot wide easement between Woodland Medical and DMC. Mr. Arroyo reported their current plans on a conceptual level would be to extend this out to the Meadowbrook Road frontage and extend it to the south.

Mr. Arroyo reported they have identified a number of alternatives for providing access to the frontage parcels. The first is to allow one access per parcel, another concept is to provide a frontage road that would serve as a marginal access road along the west side of Meadowbrook Road, they discussed a rear access or backage road to the rear of the properties but noted there are topographic problems, another option is shared driveways but added there are some legal issues and finally, they could do nothing. Mr. Arroyo noted to do nothing would mean to do so in a manner where there is encouragement for parcel consolidation and for property owners to provide shared access voluntarily.

Mr. Arroyo believes the size of these parcels is advantageous. He explained the most recent parcel that came before Council was five acres and is large enough to construct an office development. Although the other properties are smaller, and given its location and connection to M-5, there is a likelihood that these parcels could be consolidated in the future. Therefore, they do not believe the establishment of a mandatory frontage road or a marginal access road is something warranted in this instance and they would encourage shared driveways on a voluntary basis so that the regulatory mechanisms are kept to a minimum.

Councilman Schmid asked if there is a way to force or encourage combining the land before they rezone it? Mr. Fried replied the way they normally encourage combining parcels is by rezoning the property. He said they cannot force the owners to combine, but they can encourage them to do so by limiting access to their property.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Arroyo has any recommendations? Mr. Arroyo believes they should monitor it to see if there are additional parcel splits occurring and not do anything from an ordinance standpoint at this time. He said if they notice some significant changes they can then come before them and suggest some alternatives.

Councilman Schmid asked if the Taubman property is developable? Mr. Arroyo believes there are portions that are developable and that the wetland areas are the most difficult to develop. He believes the woodland area will present a challenge, but noted there can be some development within wooded areas and cited Crescent Oaks as an example.

Councilman Schmid asked if there are any plans to construct the roads as proposed by Taubman several years ago? Mr. Arroyo replied he recently spoke with David Weir and they are not prepared to come forward with a proposal anytime soon.

Mayor McLallen believes their best course of action is to continue to watch. She suggested that Administration alert the assessing area that this is a watched area in terms of lot splits.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Approval of Bond Authorizing Ordinance No. 97-153.02 for Water & Sewer Refunding Bonds

Denny Neiman advised an underwriter has approached them and explained underwriter’s periodically review various community’s debts to see where it would make sense to refund the debt. Mr. Neiman added in a period where interest rates are dropping the municipal rates tend to follow, but the long treasury bonds do not. Mr. Neiman stated they spoke with Mr. Kriewall and Mr. Gibson who suggested that they bring this matter before Council because they thought the savings were sufficient to warrant this action. Mr. Neiman advised the ordinance before Council puts the first step together. He explained it authorizes the bonds in a "not to exceed" amount, it authorizes a filing with the treasury, it suggests that they get an official statement together and try to market it to see where the savings lie. Mr. Neiman advised they ran the savings report on September 18 and it showed a savings of approximately $212,000 net to the city over the next thirteen years. Mr. Neiman advised it would be their recommendation that the city move forward with this and put themselves in the position to test the market. He explained if the market holds, they will move forward and come back before Council with a sales resolution. However, if the market does not hold, then nothing ventured and nothing gained.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Neiman to provide further explanation. Mr. Neiman explained this is similar to refinancing a house where they have to ask themselves if there is a minimum savings they must achieve or they are not going to do it. Mr. Neiman added they can only have one advance under Federal law and therefore, they want to have some minimum savings they are comfortable with and most municipalities are comfortable with 3-4%. Mr. Neiman advised they are issuing a new debt and paying off the old debt through a series of escrow agreements at a lower rate.

Councilman Schmid asked if they combine the bonds? Mr. Neiman replied they could in theory. However, since they only have one series of revenue bonds, they are only refunding one issue of revenue bonds. He added they have refunded more than one issue at one time in the past.

Councilman Schmid asked if this would extend the date. Mr. Neiman replied it would not extend the life.

Councilman Schmid asked what does the ordinance do? Mr. Neiman restated the ordinance authorizes an amount not to exceed $5.0M, it authorizes the filing with the Michigan Department of Treasury that is necessary to get state approval, it authorizes the preparation of an official statement, it has a bond formula that shows the form of the bond, it authorizes various city officials to do the things necessary to get the city in a position to bring back the savings.

CM-97-10-322: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Ordinance No. 97-153.02 for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1997 immediately

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Fried advised they should adopt this ordinance immediately. Councilman Clark agreed.

Nays: None

2. Request for approval of Wetland Appeal, Timothy and Deborah Wagner, SP97-18, property located west of Garfield between Eight Mile and Nine Mile Roads

Mayor McLallen advised the attorney, the consulting engineers, the environmental engineers have indicated support of the revised site plan. Further, the Mayor reported the applicant has permits from the DEQ, Oakland County Septic and the Woodland’s Board of Review.

Mr. Fried advised they have outlined a condition on which they should grant this approval on page two of their letter to Council. He explained a motion should include that if public sanitary sewer facilities become available to the property before construction or the septic field fails after construction is complete, then the Wagner’s must tie into the sewer facility. He added they must provide this in recordable form.

Mayor McLallen noted Ms. Tepatti’s letter states a restrictive covenant would follow with the land stating all of this information. Mr. Fried restated it must be in recordable form.

CM-97-10-323: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve wetland permit contingent upon the conditions included in Susan Tepatti’s September 30, 1997 letter and David Fried’s letter of September 29

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked whose responsibility is it to monitor the failure of the septic field? Mr. Fried replied the responsibility to notify the city of septic field failure lies with the applicant.

Councilman Schmid is not comfortable with the fact that they have to do this although he understands the Wagner’s are in a situation that is almost impossible to get out of. Councilman Schmid wondered if the Wagner’s were sold the land by somebody who knew the land was not buildable and asked if there is a way to prevent this in the future? Mr. Fried believes there is nothing they can do about this and the city’s regulations cannot prevent them from building on that property, unless the city wants to buy that property.

Paul Bohn, attorney for the applicant, advised in response to Councilman Schmid that the city has done a great deal since the property was purchased by the Wagner’s in 1989.

Councilman Clark shares Councilman Schmid’s concerns and he is also sympathetic to the Wagner’s situation. He believes they have a hardship and therefore, he will support the motion.

Councilwoman Mutch is pleased they were able to work toward a compromise, receive a positive recommendation and maintain the standards they are trying to achieve for the city.

Nays: None

3. Adoption of Resolution No. 3-Eubank and Lemay Water Main Extension - Special Assessment District #149

CM-97-10-324: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED: To adopt Resolution Number 3, directing that final cost estimates and plans to be prepared for Eubank Street - Water Main Special Assessment District 149 for Alternate #2

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Kriewall understands they need to select an alternate.

Mr. Jerome recommends Alternate #2.

Councilman Clark agreed to amend the motion to include Alternate #2. Councilman Schmid will support the amendment for discussion.

In response to Ms. Gray’s concerns about the apportionment of the cost, Mr. Kriewall advised that cost is not determined until the final public hearing by the assessor. Further, Mr. Kriewall explained it is up to the assessor to look at the alternative methods of how it is special assessed. He noted they determine it either on a front footage basis or per benefitting unit basis. Mr. Kriewall advised historically that has been a difficult decision, but he believes that it best that the assessor makes his recommendation to Council for the last public hearing on the preferred method of special assessing. He added the residents will be called back to a final public hearing to review the assessor’s recommendation and Council can either accept it or alter it at that time.

Mayor ProTem Crawford recalled instances where Council has been presented with both of those options and with further input from the residents they can decide whether they base the special assessment on front foot or benefitting units.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how many more resolutions will they have? Mr. Kriewall replied there is a total of seven resolutions. Mr. Kriewall reported the fifth resolution directs the assessor to spread the roll and make a recommendation to Council, the sixth resolution sets the public hearing on that roll and then Council would confirm a special assessed roll at the final public hearing.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if residents with new wells have to tie in? Mr. Kriewall replied in those instances, they would assess the resident for the frontage cost for the main itself, and they would not have to pay the connection fees or tap in charge and the equipment fee. However, they still normally assess for the installation of the main in front of the property. Mr. Kriewall also noted there is a hydrant benefit and explained if a resident did not connect to the main at that point, he would still receive an immediate benefit with lower insurance costs and so forth.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what is the anticipated length of time between now and the seventh resolution? Mr. Kriewall replied the longest time frame is probably the next phase because they have to develop final engineering plans and estimated it would take approximately sixty days. He added they would then hold another public hearing that would probably take place in December and the final assessment roll could happen as soon as January.

Mayor McLallen is not in favor of the motion at this time. She explained it seems that there is much confusion in that particular area, although she agrees there is an interest in improving the water situation. She noted there is a cost factor to the special assessment district processes and every time they expand or contract the district, the engineers draw other plans. Further, she is not comfortable that all of the parties in this potential district have been contacted. The Mayor reminded Council that the process requires cooperation from 51% of the affected homeowners to bring this forward and to date they have only received a few replies. Further, she is not certain whether 51% of the homeowners are even fully aware of the implications of this. Therefore, until that goes forward, she does not believe they have reached the point of making the district decisions.

Mr. Jerome advised they do have support of the required 51% of the residents for Alternate #2. He noted it is the balance of the residents in that section of Idlemere Park Subdivision that they have not heard from and they are uncertain whether they are interested. However, he added they have sent those residents an informational letter.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they had 51% support of Alternate #2 in November 1996. Mr. Jerome replied the only petition they received at that time was for Alternate #1.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the residents of the outlined area and the surrounding area are aware of the other two alternates? Mr. Jerome reported he sent letters to the balance of the property owners on Eubank and Maudlin. He added the original residents on Eubank and Lemay who indicated an interest by petition were not notified.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that at the time they brought forward a petition, 51% of a certain group said they wanted water and the only alternative presented at that time was Alternate #1. Mr. Jerome stated that was correct. Mayor ProTem Crawford’s point is that perhaps if they had known about the costs involved in the other alternatives, they may favor another one.

If they do not move forward with this resolution tonight, Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if some of that information can come back and be presented to that general area. Mr. Jerome replied they can send a broad mailing to all the owners of record.

Mayor ProTem Crawford agrees with the Mayor in that it may be somewhat premature to adopt Alternate #2 when there might be another alternative.

Councilman Schmid asked for further clarification about whom they notified. Mr. Jerome restated his earlier remarks.

Councilman Schmid understands that the reason to delay this matter would be to send another letter. He reminded Council they have already sent a letter and there was very little interest.

Mr. Kriewall suggested they could send another letter inviting interested residents to an informational meeting with the administrative staff.

Councilman Schmid asked if they are satisfied that they have notified the residents? Mr. Kriewall believes they have notified the appropriate residents, but if Council is uncomfortable with it, they will send another letter.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that they have notified the people in the red outlined area, but they did not receive responses from some of them and they would be the ones they would renotify. However, his point is that there are other alternatives that might be a better alternative.

Mr. Kriewall noted they have notified everyone on the drawing; Mr. Jerome concurred.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that to get water to the petitioners, they would have to use Alternate #2 and asked if the city notified the other residents whom that alternative could serve. Mr. Jerome disagreed. He explained there may be some properties in Alternate #2 that do not make up the 51%. He is uncertain whether the person who circulated the petition went to every parcel. However, he knows they do have 51% of the assessed value as certified by the assessor and as required by the ordinance. Mr. Jerome advised he then identified the balance of the subdivision and notified those residents.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the blue line on the drawing is a line that would not only service them, but also some additional properties? Mr. Jerome agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch stated after they knew where the line would have to be to service the petitioners, she asked whom else they notified? Mr. Jerome restated he notified the balance of the property owners on Eubank and Maudlin to determine if they were interested rather than presenting Alternate #2 and then having people come in later saying they forgot them.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that they notified more people than what that particular design would service. Mr. Jerome agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch’s point is the same as Councilman Schmid’s in that residents petitioned the city and in response, the city notified anyone that would be affected by what the original petitioner’s were asking for and provided them with the opportunity to indicate whether they had an interest in a second design that could service a larger area. She understands despite the notifications that went out, they had minimal additional interest. Mr. Jerome agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch noted the residents can petition the city at any time if they were interested in having water service. Councilwoman Mutch added she believes they should move forward as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Kriewall reported the design does not really change. He explained if they select Alternate #2, Alternate #3 is just an add-on.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there is likely to be an increase in cost or cost savings for those who petitioned originally if the district were larger? Mr. Jerome replied there should be a reduction in cost if they enlarge the district.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what would the cost be for each alternative? Mr. Jerome replied Alternate #1 would be approximately $170.00, Alternate #2 would be approximately $141.00 and Alternate #3 would be approximately $114.00 per linear foot.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they proceeded tonight, could other areas petition and add-on without starting the entire process over? Mr. Kriewall replied they could start the entire process over, but they could actually catch it up by extraditing it and end up at the same point by January.

Nays: McLallen

Mr. Jerome believes they have developed a plan to maintain the mature trees of the concerned property and still provide water sewer service to her property.

CM-97-10-325: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Resolution Number 4 determining the necessity of the improvements and the setting of Public Hearing Number 2 on November 10, 1997 for Salow’s Walnut Hill - Sanitary Sewer Extension Special Assessment District 148

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they have resolved the homeowner’s concern to her satisfaction? Mr. Jerome has not spoken with the homeowner personally, but the engineers met with her and determined they would service the main stops just to the north of her property line and save the trees.

Nays: None

5. Approval of Liquor License Transfer - 1997 Class C 12 month Resort License from Antoniou Restaurant Ventures-Novi, Inc. to Rocky’s of Novi, L.L.C., 43150 Grand River

John Carlin, representative for the applicant, introduced the new owners. Mr. Carlin reported the applicants are making minimal changes to the restaurant and noted they are constructing a curb cut through the bank’s property, new awnings, and some changes to the interior.

Mayor McLallen noted the Police Department, Fire Department and Building Department have no objections to the liquor license transfer subject to the conditions stated in their letters.

Councilman Clark asked if they have a projected opening date. Mr. Carlin replied they hope to open by December 1.

CM-97-10-326: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve transfer of ownership of 1997 Class C 12 Months Resort License at 43150 Grand River Avenue, Novi, Michigan from Antoniou Restaurant Ventures - Novi, Inc., pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Novi Code of Ordinances subject to final inspection on the Police Department form

Nays: None

6. Re-approval of request of Breaktime Billiards Bar & Grill, Inc. to transfer a Class C-R license to be located at 30700-30850 Beck Road, Novi, MI from Walter Gronek (MLCC No. 97-2567) subject to final inspection

Matthew Quinn, counsel for Breaktime Billiards, reminded Council that in July 1997 they approved a transfer of a Class C-R resort liquor license for Breaktime Billiards subject to several conditions. Mr. Quinn assumed that they would make those conditions a part of the city’s file and Mr. Frey inadvertently made his own resolution instead of using the state’s resolution that contained all of those conditions. Mr. Quinn reported those conditions are not acceptable to the state and they need their form as they approved it, which is just an approval. However, he added the city’s internal file can contain those conditions and the certificate of occupancy would not be granted until they meet those conditions. Mr. Quinn asked Council to approve the resolution as submitted by the Community Development Department. Mr. Quinn requested it state that it be considered for approval period and delete "subject to final inspection."

Mayor McLallen noted they also the deleted the dance permit. Mr. Quinn advised the applicant is not requesting a dance permit.

Councilman Schmid advised it was not his intent to include the dance permit and asked if there was a specific reason why they excluded the dance permit? Mr. Quinn replied Mr. Zaid previously informed Council that he had no intention of needing the dance permit. Mr. Quinn explained it is currently a part of the resort license that they are transferring from Port Huron and is why they have to say that they are not requesting it.

James Utley - has received all the correspondence from the city dating back to 1996. Mr. Utley understands that the consultant’s, the engineer’s and city attorney want to postpone this matter until November. Mr. Utley advised the residents of Walden Woods have invested more than $18M in their homes and he believes they deserve better streets. Mr. Utley asked Council members to look at the streets in the Lochmoor Subdivision because they were resurfaced. Mr. Utley disagrees with Mr. Kapelczak’s assessment that there is only approximately $13,000 worth of repair work needed. Mr. Utley believes other issues also need to be addressed such as the woodland die out at the front of the subdivision and the ponding situation in front of his driveway. Mr. Utley would like to see additional bonding placed on Tri-Mount until they can resolve this matter.

Mayor McLallen noted this issue is on tonight’s agenda.

Lynn Kocan - 23088 Ennishore Dr., appreciates the Planning Commission’s support to deter truck traffic from traveling on the more residential portions of Nine Mile Road. She also appreciates Khanh Pham’s inclusion of the relevant city communications regarding her questions in tonight’s packet. However, Ms. Kocan would have appreciated receiving the August 25 letter in response to one of her questions regarding Ash Gear and classification of roads. Ms. Kocan noted Officer Swope stated in his letter that there are no Class C roads in Novi and she believes it is important to state that she got her information from the October 16, 1996 Planning Commission minutes in that there is in fact a Class C road east of Venture Drive. Ms. Kocan described the truck traffic traveling south on Meadowbrook Road and does not believe truck traffic belongs there. However, to her surprise she saw the city already posted truck traffic routing signs on Nine Mile Road directing truck traffic to travel west on Novi Road. Further, once the trucks get to Novi Road there is a truck route sign that points north and south, and she agrees that is the direction the trucks should travel.

Mayor McLallen noted she has just received a communication from Councilman Mitzel’s father stating Councilman Mitzel will not attend tonight’s meeting.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

Mayor McLallen reported the Planning Commission has voted to send a positive recommendation to change the text to language proposed by Dennis Watson and Rod Arroyo with additional amendments offered by Commissioner Capello.

Councilman Schmid referred to Part II, Item 3 b. (4) stating "No department store building shall be located closer than one thousand (1,000) feet of another department store building unless separated by a major thoroughfare" and asked why would they include "thoroughfare?"

Rod Arroyo replied when the Town Center Steering Committee members originally discussed this, they considered one thousand feet as a reasonable distance so there would not be an over concentration. However, in the instance where they had a major thoroughfare, which in this case would be Grand River or Novi Road, Mr. Arroyo said if someone had another development on the other side of the street, there may have been some restrictions where they could possibly have a department store closer than one thousand feet. He added that would be acceptable as long as they had a separation by a major thoroughfare.

Councilman Schmid does not believe it is their intent to have a lot of department stores in the Town Center. Mr. Arroyo agreed and added it would be difficult to have more than two in this circumstance.

Mr. Arroyo advised one other issue that came up was that Main Street West (west of Novi Road, south of Grand River) is an unusually shaped parcel and because there is not a lot of land to work with, it is unlike the rest of Main Street.

Councilman Schmid said if they wanted to restrict that kind of development in the Town Center area, there would be nothing wrong if they said they could only have one every ten thousand feet. Mr. Arroyo believes the one thousand feet is the number that was felt to be a reasonable separation to avoid overcrowding. He added they could possibly construe ten thousand as unreasonable.

Councilman Schmid asked if he is suggesting they are looking to have another department store? Although Mr. Arroyo does not believe they should be encouraged, he believes the potential exists when Main Street West comes forward because there could be a need for that kind of anchor. However, he does not necessarily want to preclude that from happening within that particular area.

Councilman Schmid believes they need to protect this ordinance to assure that they do not have two or three department stores on a two thousand foot long site. Mr. Arroyo recalled given the amount of frontage, they are typically talking about at least 80,000 to 110,000 square feet and he believes it would be difficult to construct a store on the north or south side of Main Street for various reasons.

Councilman Schmid would like the consultant’s to look more closely at increasing the one thousand feet so that they do not construct two stores next to each other. Mr. Arroyo agreed and added they will research that before the second reading.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes one reason they included "unless separated by a major thoroughfare" is that Mervyn’s could possibly be closer than one thousand feet. Mr. Arroyo noted Mervyn’s is located in the Town Center and not the TC-1 district, and this generally applies to only the TC-1 district. Mayor ProTem Crawford said that would then include Novi Road and the west portion. Mr. Arroyo advised that is currently zoned TC-1.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what is the square footage of Mervyn’s? Mr. Arroyo believes Mervyn’s is approximately 69,000 square feet.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said it would then be larger than Mervyn’s and asked if two stores are permitted? Mr. Arroyo said it could be as high as five stores and depends upon the individual development.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated the footprint would not necessarily be overwhelming. Mr. Arroyo agreed and believes a two story development is most likely.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would not like to see a sprawling development. Mr. Arroyo agreed and he believes the Town Center Steering Committee raised the same concern.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there is anything that would limit the footprint size? Mr. Arroyo referred to the first page and advised if they have a two story building, the second floor shall contain at least 40% of the gross floor area.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said they could still have a one thousand square foot footprint and asked if there is anything included to avoid that. Mr. Arroyo replied the floor space devoted to a department store cannot exceed 50% of the total developed gross leasable area in any phase of construction and it cannot exceed 20% of the total gross leasable area of the development. Mr. Arroyo explained if they were to develop a one story department store with 100,000 square feet, they would be consuming a significant amount of their land area and given the limited amount of land area, he believes it is unlikely.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there is language included to prevent that from happening? Mr. Arroyo replied that would be addressed under Part II, Item 3. b. which states if they exceed 7,500 square feet they have to have two stories.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they have considered Commissioner Capello’s recommendations? Mr. Arroyo replied Mr. Watson has already incorporated Commissioner Capello’s recommendations into the draft currently before Council.

Councilwoman Mutch referred to Part II, Item 3, b. (4) and she believes it sounds as if it does not matter whether that other department store is within the same district. Mr. Fried agrees it does not matter whether it is the same zoning district. Councilwoman Mutch referred to the comment referencing that Mervyn’s was in a different zoning district and the question was raised that Mervyn’s might be within one thousand feet and therefore, they could not build it there. However, she believes they also commented that it was in another zoning district and therefore, it would not matter. However, she believes it would matter according to this language.

Mr. Arroyo suggested that they could address that by adding a clause at the end of the second sentence that reads another department store building in the TC-1 District. Councilwoman Mutch agreed if that is the intent. Mr. Fried believes Councilwoman Mutch’s interpretation is correct. Mr. Arroyo understands that the intent of the committee was to make it within the district.

Councilwoman Mutch understands Councilman Schmid’s concern about the possibility of a second department store. However, she believes it is a good idea to plan for the possibility with this restriction for a second planned department store in the immediate area because it does not necessarily mean it will happen. Further, the possibility means they are not guaranteeing a monopoly for whoever builds that first department store. She also believes it would be wonderful if they got to the point where the economy in this region would support having two department stores in close proximity. However, she is concerned that if they have even one that is not successful, they will have one large empty box in the Town Center. She further noted that they have discussed that the facade design requirements and access to the building eliminate some of those concerns so that a department store use of a building could be used in other ways.

Mr. Arroyo agreed and added that the design of the department store would be such that it looks like there are individual stores so they can establish it as individual stores if the department store went out of business.

Councilman Schmid understands they must have several entrances to the building. Mr. Arroyo advised they must have one pedestrian entrance spaced every one hundred twenty five feet and only one entry can be a main entrance to the department store. He said if they have more than one along the same facade, then they have to look like they are going into a separate department with a separate facade. Therefore, the number of entryways is based upon the width of the building or the frontage of the building.

Councilman Schmid recalled that the Town Center Steering Committee discussed that they would design the interior so the shoppers are not walking into an open department store and asked if the ordinance addresses that. Mr. Arroyo replied there is nothing specific in the language that would require that. Councilman Schmid believes they should look more closely at that.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with Councilman Schmid’s comment and noted that the whole Main Street marketing aim is to have the shopper feel as though they have entered a special area.

Mr. Arroyo agreed, and believes they are talking about design elements and their intent is not to necessarily construct walls to separate the departments.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen has some concerns about this text amendment, and added she has shared them with the department and the petitioner. She explained on one hand anchor stores have long been the key to Main Streets nationally. However, the problem is what the demise of those anchor stores have done to Main Streets nationwide. Mayor McLallen believes the hope this community had was that Novi’s Main Street would stand the test of time and she hopes this ordinance can architecturally achieve the look that the community expected while still permitting the flexibility to meet market demands.

Nays: None

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - None

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated he has read the Ordinance Review minutes and he is unclear about the status of the flag issue. Mayor McLallen replied they discussed the condition of current flags and have a continued discussion about flags as advertising issues. However, she reported they have not come to any resolution.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they have received input from the business community, veterans’ groups and so forth? Mayor McLallen replied those groups have not come forward.

Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested that soliciting input from the Chamber and veteran’s groups might be worthwhile. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there are some suggestions that will come back before Council in the near future. Mayor McLallen recalled they were still in discussion and they are still working through the court case on the definition and delineation of number of flags permitted. Mr. Fried interjected, there is no court case pending on flags.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if someone could forward a letter to the Chamber and local veteran groups to solicit comments about the flag ordinance, and invite them to the next Ordinance Review meeting. Mayor McLallen agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch believes it would be equally effective if they simply notified the Chamber for input so they do not offend anybody. She suggested that the Chamber approach the Veterans Alliance because they represent a cross section. She also suggested that they solicit the cooperation of the local newspaper to solicit the cooperation of other people who are concerned about flags. Mayor ProTem Crawford agreed.

Mayor McLallen asked Jan Jeffress of the Novi News for her cooperation in this matter.

Councilwoman Mutch added they would also welcome written comments if someone is unable to attend an Ordinance Review Meeting.

Mayor McLallen stated the written comments should be forwarded to the Ordinance Review Committee in care of the Clerk’s office. She noted they scheduled the next Ordinance Review meeting for October 16, 1997 at 4:30 p.m.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

1. Report on Road Conditions at Walden Woods I

Joe Kapelczak of JCK & Associates advised that he, Haim Schlick, Vern Monkman, and Tony Nowicki investigated the pavement problem last year. Mr. Kapelczak advised his letter of last year stated that Mr. Evangelista would replace 691 square yards of concrete at that time; the other $13,000 is a cash placement into the road bond issue for cosmetically inferior concrete. He explained although it is structurally good, it may have a shortened life cosmetically over a twenty year cycle. Mr. Kapelczak believes there is a letter from Mr. Cousineau included in the packet that explains their position. Mr. Kapelczak understands they have met with Mr. Fried’s office and that they have to bring the original documents to their office. Mr. Kapelczak stated the developer wants an agreement that if they do this work, that the city will approve all of their utilities. Mr. Kapelczak understands they still have to provide a maintenance bond on the concrete.

Mayor McLallen asked when do they anticipate correcting the problems? Mr. Kapelczak believes it is possible to replace the concrete this year. However, he suggested that they complete the work in the spring of next year unless November’s weather is great. Mr. Kapelczak added there is ten days of work required to remove and replace the concrete.

Mayor McLallen believes the residents would feel ten days would be an acceptable response because they have already waited over a year. However, she also believes the residents are looking to Council to find some mechanism to make this happen, rather than wait until next spring.

Mayor ProTem Crawford referred to Mr. Kapelczak’s August 1996 letter which states 691 yards need replacement and Mr. Angelou’s letter dated November 1996 states that they would replace it by July 1997, and it is still not replaced. Mr. Kapelczak is uncertain why the work has not been done. However, Mr. Kapelczak does know that Tri-Mount has not yet compiled their final paperwork for street acceptance. He understands they wanted to bring the paperwork before Council for an approval contingent upon the replacement of the concrete.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not understand why that would have a bearing on the repairs when they have already admitted the repairs must be done. He asked who follows up on these types of matters? Mr. Nowicki advised they routinely follow up on these matters. He explained the developer wanted Council approval of the replacement program as well as approval of the streets and utilities.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked why wasn’t this before Council last year? Mr. Nowicki restated Tri-Mount did not have the documents compiled at the time.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how does Mr. Angelou factor in? Mr. Nowicki replied they are the cement contractor for Tri-Mount.

Mayor ProTem Crawford is still unclear about why the work was not done. Mr. Nowicki stated there is a partnership between the contractor and the developer where the developer and contractor would each assume a certain square yardage and a certain dollar amount of repairs to be done. Therefore, they were working together on the issue and restated they have tied all that into the total acceptance of the streets within the subdivision. Mr. Nowicki stated when they bring this back, they will provide Council with the square yardage, what needs to be replaced and the developer’s proposal. If Council deems that acceptable, then they can accept the streets contingent upon the repairs.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would not be comfortable doing that based on what has taken place already. Mr. Nowicki stated the city is not accepting the roads until the work is completed. Mr. Nowicki cannot in good conscience recommend to Council that they accept anything that Council, the engineers or he is uncomfortable with. However, he reminded Council they are not city roads, they are private property.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they have addressed Mr. Utley’s problem? Mr. Nowicki understands Mr. Utley’s problem will be taken care of. Further, Mr. Nowicki does not recommend the work before next spring because they do not know when it will snow. Mr. Nowicki believes they would all like to see the roads repaired. However, he explained it is solely in the hands of the developer and restated the bottom line is that they are private roads.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there are any safety issue concerns? Mr. Nowicki is not aware of any safety issues.

Councilman Clark agrees with Mayor ProTem Crawford’s assessment, and also believes a lot of promises have been made and not met. Further, he believes the Walden Woods’ residents have been more than patient and that they should schedule this as an action item on the next agenda to determine an adequate cash bond to be posted by Tri-Mount until the work is completed. Councilman Clark referred to Mr. Evangelista’s November 5, 1996 request to waive the two year maintenance bond because the job is already four years old. Councilman Clark argued it may be done, but it was not done correctly and therefore, he would not favor waiving the two year maintenance bond. Instead, Councilman Clark wants a hefty bond posted to get action from the developer. He would also like to post a maintenance bond to be certain that the same problems do not occur again.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they post a maintenance bond from the time a developer builds a road or from the time the city accepts them? Mr. Nowicki recalled the ordinance at the time Walden Woods was constructed required a maintenance bond for two years at the time of acceptance of the streets and/or utilities.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that the clock does not begin until the city has accepted the streets. Mr. Nowicki agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch does not want the work to be restricted to the problems found in the current correspondence if they have to wait until next spring to repair or replace the roads in case other problems arise. She asked if they can review the repairs again before beginning the work? Mr. Nowicki said they would do that and added they just received Tri-Mounts request to place this before Council for acceptance. Mr. Nowicki trusts that they will be reevaluating the road conditions.

Mayor McLallen agrees this has been going on too long and unfortunately, the streets are private and the city’s jurisdiction is limited. Because it is a private situation, the Mayor asked if there is anything the residents can do? Mr. Fried believes the homeowner’s can do something. However, he is certain that they want the city to do something about it.

Mayor McLallen asked how can Council say the work must be completed by next June or the developer’s bank account will be affected? Mr. Fried is not certain they can do that. Mr. Fried believes Councilman Clark has offered a good suggestion in that they should come back with a report by the next meeting so Council can understand what the problems are and determine if there is a resolution.

Mayor McLallen stated because it is a private situation, Council is unable to offer the solutions that the resident’s would like them to offer. Mr. Fried agreed it is a private street and the city will not accept it. Obviously, the homeowner’s wants the city to accept the streets because then all of the responsibility of maintaining those streets will lie with the city. However, the city does not want to accept the streets until they are in good condition. Mr. Fried restated he believes Councilman Clark’s suggestion is a good one and that they should come back before Council and have either some suggestions or say they are not going to do anything.

Councilman Schmid sees this as a much larger problem than just one subdivision. He explained if residents are spending $300,000-$500,000 per home, the city should expect excellent concrete roads. Councilman Schmid believes it is time for the city to demand quality.

Mr. Kapelczak stated they had the Concrete Institute look at this subdivision and he believes this is probably the only subdivision that he knows of in twenty years where any spalling of this magnitude has happened. Mr. Kapelczak asked the experts and the Concrete Institute what happened, and no one could answer that question. Mr. Kapelczak noted Mr. Angelou’s cement company is one of the finest concrete pavers in the business and they have poured many miles of quality subdivision roads in Novi. Mr. Kapelczak stated in this situation, it appears as though it rained and washed away the top cement finish. However, they know it did not rain during the three days it took to pour these roads. Mr. Kapelczak added the same equipment and the same people were used, and all of the cement came from one truck. Mr. Kapelczak disagrees that this is a big problem in Novi and believes it is a one subdivision problem.

Councilman Schmid knows there are many subdivisions with bad concrete. Councilman Schmid asked how can they correct the problem in Walden Woods?

Mr. Kapelczak said they looked at several alternatives; one alternative is diamond grinding. Mr. Kapelczak noted they have to determine whether it would affect the structural analysis of what is there and added diamond grinding is a cosmetic feature only. He recalled it costs approximately $1.00 per square yard.

Councilman Schmid believes they should investigate that alternative. He also believes someone should be accountable for the work. Mr. Kapelczak agreed and that the contractor should remove the bad concrete. However, he does not believe he should remove all of it because he does not agree it is all bad.

Councilman Schmid asked if the miscellaneous items have been completed on the September 12, 1997 memorandum? Mr. Nowicki replied he is uncertain, but it is a part of their check list and is a part of their acceptance.

Councilman Schmid asked if they should eliminate site condo building to avoid private streets? Mr. Fried replied under state law they can move ahead on site condos and the city cannot prohibit them from doing so.

Councilman Schmid asked if they could remove some of the provisions? Mr. Fried said they cannot remove any provisions, but they can apply some other provisions to site condos.

Mr. Nowicki reminded Council they recently adopted an ordinance regarding the acceptance of streets and utilities that would generally prevent this type of activity to occur on other types of streets. He explained they have a two year period where the city could do the work.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes there is a safety problem because they have not resolved Mr. Utley’s ponding problem. Mr. Nowicki advised the developer is aware of the problem and hopefully has liability insurance.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked what would Councilman Clark’s suggestion accomplish? Mr. Nowicki understands it is to explore some of the alternatives that the developer may have and ones to which the city is not privy. Mr. Nowicki restated they are expecting to bring this back before Council by the second meeting in November.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Council is going to be asked to accept the streets based upon the problems being resolved? Mayor ProTem Crawford asked why are they asking them to accept the streets at this point when they do not know what the conditions will be next spring and they are not going to accept them until they are up to standard? Therefore, why wouldn’t this come before them next spring? Mr. Nowicki replied they are acting at the request of the developer. Mayor ProTem Crawford believes Council can choose to reject the acceptance of the streets until they are brought up to standard.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would like to know what can be done right now to alleviate some safety concerns. Mr. Nowicki stated he can write Mr. Cousineau another letter and advise him of Council’s concern for the safety of that particular location. Mr. Nowicki added the DPW, based upon the developer’s request to accept the utilities, inspected all of the manholes and pipes, and have a list of needed repairs.

Councilwoman Mutch asked at what point does the city say the roads meet the construction standard for use? Mr. Nowicki replied they do that for platted subdivisions before they sell the first house because they are designed to meet city standards. However, it is his understanding for this subdivision, the developer submitted a road design that was consistent with the city’s standards at the time through the site plan process. Mr. Nowicki does not know if it has been documented, but in discussions the developer indicated that it was his intent to have the city accept the streets as city streets.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there is a way the city can know early in the process that private streets are constructed according to the city’s standards, and still have the flexibility to bring the roads back up to that same standard after wear and before they accept them as city streets? Mr. Fried believes the developer should go through the same process as in a subdivision if they intend to have the city accept the streets. Further, Mr. Fried believes those who buy homes in a site condo development should understand when they get their condominium documents whether there will be public streets or not. He explained if they are public streets, then they should follow the public street process and if they are private streets, they are likely to get stuck with them.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that it was presented to the buyers that the streets would be public. Mr. Fried believes the homeowner’s may have a claim against Tri-Mount if the city does not accept the streets. Councilwoman Mutch does not believe the resident’s should have to wait until the city rejects the streets. She asked if Mr. Fried could determine whether they can do something with their ordinances so that when somebody purchases a home in a site condo development, they have to follow the same procedure. Mr. Fried believes they can do something if they intend to dedicate them as public streets.

Councilwoman Mutch believes they would then have to declare that intent earlier; Mr. Fried agreed.

Mayor McLallen believes this is a larger issue and it may take more time for further research about how to avoid this situation in the future.

2. Report on Water Hook-up Fees for Richard Bond-Nine Mile Road Water Connection

Mr. Kriewall reported Mr. Jerome prepared a preliminary response to Mr. Bond’s inquiry for relief for paying connection fees on the Nine Mile Road water main which others funded. Mr. Kriewall believes Mr. Jerome indicated that they have no record of allowing anyone to hook to the system without paying tap-in fees. He also knows they have a policy with the engineers who negotiate most of the right-of-way work that the city does not negotiate tap-in fees in terms of right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Kriewall reported they have not found any representation to Mr. Bond that they would not require him to pay for a connection to the water and sewer lines. In fact, Mr. Kriewall advised Mr. Bond’s builder paid the sewer tap-in fee to get on the sewer, but did not hook onto the water system because the moratorium was in place at the time. Therefore, based on the information they currently have, Mr. Kriewall advised there is no indication that there was any representation made that there would not be fees charged to hook-up to the city’s utility systems. Unless they can find that there is a representation, then Mr. Kriewall recommends that no relief be given at this time.

Councilman Clark understands Mr. Bond gifted easements to the city. Mr. Kriewall stated that is what Mr. Bond indicated.

Councilman Clark thought they made a strong suggestion to Mr. Bond that he is giving the easements to the city at no charge, he has paid the tap-in to the sewer and that they would not require him to pay to tap-in to the water.

Mr. Jerome stated he spoke with Mr. Bond on several occasions and added there was a series of public meetings before the easement negotiations. Mr. Jerome understands that Mr. Bond is trying to provide some documentation to substantiate his claim that he was told that there would be no connection fees associated with the water tap-in. Mr. Jerome advised he has discovered that Mr. Bond’s builder paid the very fees he is appealing on the water, but that does not mean he was aware of that. Mr. Jerome stated he does not have enough information at this time to offer a recommendation, but he will continue to work with Mr. Bond until they resolve the issue.

Councilman Clark believes it would have been better if Mr. Bond had charged the city for the easements.

Mr. Kriewall advised when people bring that up during right-of-way negotiations, the city advises they will compensate them in dollars because the road fund usually purchases the right-of-way. However, Mr. Kriewall stated the city has never negotiated in water taps as a direct trade off.

Councilwoman Mutch referred to the memo from Mr. Jerome to Mr. Nowicki that states that the builder paid more than $4,000.00 of which $1,382.50 were availability fees. Councilwoman Mutch asked if the $1,130.00 availability fee is the balance of what they would normally ask Mr. Bond to pay? Mr. Kriewall believes that is for the water tap. Mr. Jerome added if Mr. Bond asked for an estimate on the water service today, the $1,130.00 availability fee is in lieu of a special assessment. Mr. Jerome further stated that the connection fee is $1,100.00 and if he chose a one inch service and a five eighth meter, there would be an additional $750.00 equipment fee.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what is the $1,382.50 availability fee that was part of the $4,192.00? Mr. Jerome replied that is in lieu of a special assessment on the water side.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there are two different types of availability fees? Mayor McLallen replied there is one for water and one for sewer.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that the builder paid the sewer availability fee and they are asking Mr. Bond to pay the water availability fee. Mr. Jerome replied in the truest sense that is correct, but he is not certain whether Mr. Bond knew what his builder was paying or if the builder understood what he was actually paying. Mr. Jerome restated $1,075.00 was paid toward the Nine Mile sewer connection, there was $257.60 paid toward the Nine Mile/Center Street improvements and there was a $50.00 availability fee paid toward the Center Street sewer improvement. He explained they increased the size of the sewer main at the Center Street/Nine Mile intersection and all future connections being served by the tributaries to that sewer were to be assessed $50.00.

Councilman Schmid understands that Mr. Kriewall reported the city has never negotiated a tap fee. Councilman Schmid also understands that many individuals have gifted right-of-ways to the city and this situation is not unique. Mr. Kriewall agreed and added that there are a number of other people in the community that have gifted right-of-ways for no compensation.

Mayor McLallen believes it would be helpful for Council to learn the terminology and also asked Mr. Kriewall to provide a one page outline of the fee structure.

3. Update on Graham Ward’s letter

Mayor McLallen advised Mr. Ward’s letter requested clarification of the status of the Community Clubs. She added they also had a memo from Dan Davis stating they are aware that the Community Clubs is in the building process, but that they are bringing them back into the forefront once they get beyond the building program.

Mr. Kriewall concurred and added that they have been so busy trying to move the project forward with the Building Authority that they had to set the Community Club’s resolution aside. However, he reported Dan Davis and the attorney’s office is actively working on it at this time and they will provide a report to Council in a week or so.

4. Update from Mr. Jerome about Truck Traffic on Nine Mile Road

Mayor McLallen believes they addressed this item during Audience Participation and no further discussion is necessary.

5. Eight Mile Road and Haggerty Road Commercial Development and Facade Ordinance

Councilman Schmid has become concerned with the facade ordinance when he sees some of the industrial buildings and cited the district courthouse as a recent example. He explained they may not be keeping with the quality that he thought the City of Novi established. Councilman Schmid added he believes Best Buy is a disgrace and he believes the city has to develop a facade ordinance to prevent this from happening again. Councilman Schmid suggested having Administration and the Planning Commission look at this ordinance more closely.

Mayor McLallen advised the Planning Commission is currently pursuing what they describe as architectural review standards and Council should get a recommendation before the end of the year.

Councilman Schmid asked if there are any current projects that would use the current standards and if there are, they should place a moratorium on the ordinance. Mr. Rogers does know of any project at this time.

6. Willowbrook Access to Ten Mile Road

Councilwoman Mutch stated there is concern about the impact to Willowbrook where work is being done at Ten Mile Road.

Mr. Kriewall advised he can bring that information forth at the next meeting.

7. SCAT System at Twelve Oaks

Councilman Clark reported he was at Twelve Oaks between six and seven in the evening coming out onto Novi Road on the last Saturday in September. Councilman Clark was at the bottom of a long line of traffic and advised it took twelve minutes for the light to change. Councilman Clark stated the first five drivers became so frustrated, that they pulled out onto Novi Road. Councilman Clark believes there is something wrong with the system and is hearing mixed comments about the system from other communities.

Mr. Kriewall believes there may be some isolated situations where the system breaks down because it is an electronic monster. However, Mr. Kriewall noted north-south traffic on Novi Road is a dream. He explained when he returned from the Thirteen Mile opening at 4:00 p.m., he sailed through the traffic signals from Twelve ½ Mile to Ten Mile Road.

Mayor McLallen asked if they locally monitor the system and have a mechanism for receiving complaints? Mr. Kriewall suggested that they should request a report from Oakland County or the body that documents comments about the system.

Councilwoman Mutch asked that they include what the planned maximum wait is.

Mr. Kriewall advised they have received $89,000 MDOT money under the Public Act 110, Transportation Distribution Funds because of the gas tax increase.

Mr. Kriewall agrees with Councilman Schmid’s comments regarding facade quality.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

1. Letter from Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision Association, Re: Request for Weight limit restrictions and/or prohibit truck traffic on Nine Mile east of Venture Drive

2. Letter from Andrew Kowal, Re: Support for Rezoning request on Beck Road south of Grand River

3. Petition signed by Addington Home Owners, Re: Drainage problems in the private easement between Addington Lane and Elizabeth Lane

4. Letter from Marilyn Corbett, Re: 8 Mile/Haggerty corner

5. Letter from L. Graham Ward, Re: Status of Community Clubs of Novi

6. Letter from Jim Utley to David Fried, Re: Compliance by Tri-Mount Development, Walden Woods 1, with Section 7-22 Novi Code of Ordinances.

7. Letter from Planning & Community Development, Re: Lynn Kocan’s letter/Nine Mile Road

8. Memo from Chris Pargoff, Re: Gypsy Moth Update

9. Memo from Weighmaster Swope to A. Nowicki dated 9/30/97 regarding Meadowbrook Lake Homeowners Assoc. letter to Mayor

10. Memo from Khanh Pham, Re: Novi Futuring 20/20 Budget

11. Letter from Lauren Graves, Re: New positive changes in the City.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

James Chen - Evergreen III, reported they are moving ahead with the Main Street project. However, he reported there are some utility issues with Edison. He explained the issue is about how Edison can feed power to the Main Street project. Mr. Chen suggested that they feed the power underground along Novi Road. Further, because they are a new potential user, they do have some kind of leverage. He explained they can approach Edison to join with the city in making the request a priority on their list. Mr. Chen asked Council if it is possible for them to join together in this action. Secondly, Mr. Chen stated they are trying to construct some signs on Building 100, located east of Vic’s Market. He explained they are having problems they did not anticipate in regard to the signage ordinance in that according to the ordinance, the entire building can only have one sign. Mr. Chen advised they currently have nine items before the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked that Council direct the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee to review the sign ordinance once again as it relates to the TC-1 district.

Mayor McLallen stated if Council wishes they can forward this issue directly to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee to review signage within TC-1 as it relates to two story buildings.

Councilman Schmid is astounded by what Mr. Chen has said and asked Mr. Rogers to submit a recommendation about what they should do.

Mayor McLallen questioned whether they had a glitch and they are misreading the application within the Building Department.

Mr. Kriewall will review this matter.

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes

Date Approved: October 20, 1997