|REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1998 AT 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD
Mayor ProTem Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen (arrived 8:15 p.m.) Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
1. Jaycee Week - January 18 - 24, 1998
Mayor ProTem Crawford read the sentiment from the Proclamation for Jaycee Week.
PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE PLAQUES
Jill Baty - Zoning Board of Appeals
Fil Superfisky - Economic Development Corporation
Nick J. Valenti (absent) - Community Clubs Board of Trustees
Mayor ProTem Crawford read the sentiment and presented community service plaques to the above recipients.
Jim Korte - noted there are several letters from him and replies to those letters under Correspondence. Mr. Korte finds it interesting that he had to go to the city today to get the replies. He cannot understand why the city cannot get the answer to him. However, he added when he got the answers he then understood why they did not send them to him. He explained they are full of useless rhetoric. Mr. Korte will not get into that at this point, but advised that he will forward a letter at another time about the absurdity of all these situations.
Mr. Korte advised Sunset Grill had a dumpster delivered today and it is the same dumpster that used to be there. Mr. Korte said all he has ever asked is that the owner comply with the city’s ordinances. Mr. Korte noted he will address the fire code and 11-01 in a letter to the city at another time. However, he will say they are talking watershed. He explained the Building Department has very nicely pushed the watershed situation upon the north end. Mr. Korte explained the north end has a deplorable watershed and he is talking about the most recent watershed caused by the new construction and the dumping of plastic that allows all of the dog urine and feces to be washed on the property next door. Mr. Korte advised that Mr. Saven inspected the property and he understands Mr. Saven told the owner that he has a right for concern. Mr. Korte advised that Mr. Saven then dumped the problem onto Mr. Morrone’s lap and added that nothing has been done to resolve the situation. Mr. Korte believes this is only the tip of the ice berg.
Mr. Korte reported Mr. Saven has solved his problems regarding the flood plain. He explained he spoke with Mr. Morrone on December 28 who advised Mr. Korte that he still has problems. However, if Mr. Saven has saved him his problems, Mr. Korte believes that the city should also notify Mr. Morrone. Mr. Korte restated that all he asks is that city enforce the ordinances.
Mr. Korte advised as of 3:20 p.m. today, the developer has not given a final site plan to the city for Lilley Pond. Mr. Korte finds it interesting that the city is being asked to approve a final site plan that does not exist. Mr. Korte believes there is a disclosure situation in this city. He explained for the record that the north end residents have asked that no one build in a flood plain and that home buyers must be notified that they are buying in a flood plain. He then reminded Council about Briarwood and he believes Lilley Pond is a far worse situation.
Mr. Korte asked why did he have to go to the city to pick up the responses to his correspondence? Mr. Kriewall responded by stating that Mr. Korte complains about the process, yet he does not follow the correct process. Mr. Kriewall explained that Mr. Korte should communicate directly to the Building Official as opposed to writing to City Council. Mr. Kriewall further explained they replied to Council because Mr. Korte wrote to Council. However, in the future if Mr. Korte would communicate directly with the Building Department, Mr. Kriewall advised he would get a quicker answer and not take up everyone’s time.
Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, referred to Item 2, Lilley Pond and understands that this is to be a retroactive extension of a final preliminary site plan. Ms. Gray noted that it states approval of a final plat and asked what is the correct terminology?
Mayor ProTem Crawford replied the request is for a retroactive extension of a final preliminary plat.
Ms. Gray asked Council to approve the request because it is retroactive. She explained it somehow expired in 1996 and she believes that is the city’s fault. Further, she believes the developer has been working diligently toward developing this site although it is under water.
Ms. Gray referred to her letter to Mr. Kriewall under Communications that was originally written in October and then referred to Mr. Bugbee. Ms. Gray advised her letter is about the fact that there is no historical title and the out lots that are access lots, were dedicated in 1922 to the back lot owners of the subdivision. Her question is, can the city vacate and give away property they do not own?
Mr. Kriewall interjected, they have referred this matter to the city’s attorney who has written the title company so they may respond to Ms. Gray’s question.
Bud Scott - thanked Council on behalf of the Novi Chamber of Commerce for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Scott advised that the Chamber has two upcoming events. He explained the first is the annual installation dinner scheduled to be held Friday at the Embassy Suites Hotel. Mr. Scott noted this will feature installation of the 1998 Board of Directors, recognition of outgoing board members, the announcement of their honorary member, the announcement and recognition of the small business person of the year, and the presentation of the partnership and education awards. Mr. Scott reported the guest speaker is Mark "Doc" Andrews from WOMC.
Further, Mr. Scott reported Mayor Kathleen McLallen will present her State of the City’s Address at the Chamber luncheon scheduled for Tuesday, January 20. In addition, the Chamber’s Economic Development Committee will present an overview of the report entitled "Novi at the Crossroads of Development" that was originally issued in August 1995.
Bea Lindoerfer - 23910 Woodham Dr., is present to address Item 2 regarding the prohibition of portable toilets under the Consent Agenda. She advised that she has resided in Novi for forty years and has had a portable toilet in her yard during the summer from Memorial Day through Labor Day. She advised she no longer has one because she does not have as much company. However, she noted when she has pool parties she would still like to have a portable toilet to accommodate her guests. However, now she understands that she must get a permit. Ms. Lindoerfer does not believe tax dollars should be spent to discuss this issue because of a complaint of one person.
Tim Madanski - 23910 Woodham Dr., advised he is Ms. Lindoerfer’s son. Mr. Madanski understands the process regarding the portable toilet issue. However, he advised there is a misconception that the portable toilet was in his mother’s yard for the entire summer. Mr. Madanski advised that they could prove that it was not and that the gentleman who filed the complaint exaggerated the truth. Mr. Madanski stated if Council is willing to base their decisions upon exaggerated truth, then he would question their integrity. He asked Council to gather all the facts before they make their decision.
Mayor ProTem Crawford interjected, the city does not make law based upon exaggerated complaints nor on what they read in the paper. He noted they will discuss this matter later in the agenda.
Mary Ann Grutza - 45385 W. Nine Mile Rd., advised although JCK is holding another meeting with her neighborhood January 27, she would like to make a couple comments about the traffic signal. Ms. Grutza has spoken with approximately seventy five to eighty people that live in Connemara Hills and several business people about the traffic signal, and not one person wants a signal. She said they believe the police have enough trouble controlling the speeds on Taft that they cannot imagine what it would be like with a light as motorists travel through the intersection and over the hill. Ms. Grutza reported they all believe the current situation is safe.
Ms. Grutza added her retaining wall is not a decoration and advised the wall was constructed to retain the soil and to protect the foundation of her hundred year home. Ms. Grutza believes the proposal to remove it would jeopardize her home’s foundation and invited Council to look at the wall.
Noreen Poltorak - 22358 Taft Rd., advised her home is the very first driveway entering Taft Road south of Nine Mile Rd. Ms. Poltorak advised they can currently see cars stopped at the top sign from her driveway. However, she believes if they construct a traffic signal she will not have the chance to see any cars stop before she pulls out. Further, Ms. Poltorak understands that JCK is calling their January 27 meeting the second public informational meeting. However, she knows not everyone for whom this proposal actually affects received a notification. Ms. Poltorak advised that she and Ms. Grutza have taken it upon themselves to keep their neighbors informed. Ms. Poltorak believes if JCK is going to call it a public informational meeting that they should notify everyone affected.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked the City Clerk to check the notification policy for this matter.
Councilman Kramer asked Mr. Kriewall to elaborate on the process for this proposal. Mr. Kriewall advised this is a new process that they have for road improvement projects where they try to meet with as many people as they can to inform them about the city’s plans. Mr. Kriewall believes with the response they are getting from the public about this traffic signal that they may hold several meetings with the homeowners before they make any recommendation to Council.
Keith Jones - 21734 Taft Rd., agrees with the comments made by Ms. Grutza and Ms. Poltorak about the proposed signal for Nine Mile and Taft Road, and that the four way stop is a safer alternative. Mr. Jones added although his driveway is approximately a quarter mile south of the intersection, he is concerned about backing out of his driveway because of the speed of the motorists traveling along Taft. Mr. Jones suggested that they construct another sign just before the Stop Sign to alert motorists about a four way stop. For the record, Mr. Jones believes a stop light at Beck and Nine Mile would probably serve to alleviate much of the traffic on Taft Road because traffic is backed up there between five and six o’clock every night.
Mr. Jones stated in regard to bicycle paths, they already have sidewalks on the west side of Taft and he is uncertain about where the idea came from to construct paths on the east side. He noted judging from the pedestrian and bicycle traffic that there is not a huge need for more paths in that area.
Pat Holt - is before Council to discuss the impact that the November election and the committee opposed to the aquatic facility had on the City of Novi. Ms. Holt believes they clearly sent a message to city officials and Council that Novi residents want a voice in what goes on with their tax dollars. She explained they want plans and they want studies. Further, she would like to elaborate about what was stated in last weeks’ Novi News editorial. She stated the development in Novi is at what was written as "break neck speeds" so diligence is a top priority for Novi officials in the coming year. Ms. Holt believes the city needs to set priorities and asked Council to listen to the people. She believes their group proved that residents want to be involved. Ms. Holt added the residents also want responsible government spending and believes the next issue before Council is the proposed golf course. Ms. Holt understands that Council has many issues before them, but they should set priorities. Ms. Holt believes the most important point the Novi News made was about building a city. She understands that the city manages development, but asked who manages the development by the city? Ms. Holt concluded by stating that Council should initiate prioritization and listen to the people.
Mayor McLallen arrived at 8:15 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilwoman Lorenzo requested they postpone Item 3, Request for Lot Split, Parcel 22-32-100-014 - Richard A. and Amy I. Booms until January 26, 1998 as requested by the petitioner.
Councilwoman Lorenzo requested they remove and reword Item 2, Request for Retroactive Extension of Preliminary Plat/Approval of Final Plat - Lilley Pond Subdivision, Property located South Lake Road between Buffington and West Roads under Matters for Council Action-Part 1.
Councilman Schmid understands Council should first discuss Item 2 before they remove it from the Agenda, but agrees they should reword it.
Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested that they move to reword Item 2 and when they get to that matter on the agenda, they could move to postpone.
CM-98-01-001: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Agenda with the removal of Item 3 and rewording of Item 2 under Matters for Council Action-Part I
Vote on CM-98-01-001: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)
Mayor ProTem Crawford noted they should include today’s date and add "Attorney’s Opinion" to Item 25.
Councilman Schmid removed Item 13.
Councilwoman Lorenzo removed Item 22.
Councilman Kramer removed Item 2.
Councilwoman Mutch noted they do not indicate a direction under Item 10. Mr. Kriewall clarified it should read "southbound" Novi Road, north of Expo Drive.
CM-98-01-002: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Consent Agenda as amended:
1. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meetings of December 15, 1997 and Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting of December 13, 1997
3. Adoption of Family Medical Leave Act Policy
4. Adopt Resolution authorizing a change to the City of Novi Investment Policy to remove Merrill Lynch Investment Services and add Smith Barney Investment Services on the List of Approved Financial Institutions Addendum
5. Adopt Resolution to change MERS Benefits for Police Clerks from C-2 to B-2 effective July 1997
6. Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Detroit Edison Company License Agreement for the temporary use of property associated with the proposed Taft Road Extension Sanitary Sewer
7. Approval of Final pay Estimate No. 9 and Financial Balancing Change Order No. 3 for the 1995-1996 Bituminous Paving Improvements
8. Approval of Final Pay Estimate No. 4 and Final Balancing Change Order No. 1 for the Lake Property Clean-up Project
9. Approval of Final Pay Estimate No. 3 and Final balancing Change Order No. 2 for the Beck Road Sanitary Sewer SAD-141C
10. Approval of Resolution authorizing participation in the 1998 Tri-Party Program for a right-turn lane on southbound Novi Road, north of Expo Drive, with local share from Road Funds
11. Approval of MDOT Contract No. 97-5477 and Authorizing Resolution for preliminary engineering costs associated with the Crescent Boulevard Extension Project
12. Approval of Road Commission for Oakland County Cost Participation Agreement and Authorizing Resolution for improvements to Haggerty Road generally from Orchard Hill Place to Eight Mile Road
14. Approval to purchase 1 Chevrolet Malibu in the amount of $13,859.38 through State of Michigan Joint Purchasing and 1 Chevrolet Lumina in the amount of $14,840.67 through Oakland County Joint Purchasing as General Service Vehicles for the Police Department.
15. Approval to purchase 1 GMC Cargo Van in the amount of $17,613 through the Oakland County Joint Purchasing Program for the Police Department
16. Approval to purchase 1 Chevrolet in the amount of $13,668.38 through the State of Michigan Joint Purchasing Program for the Building Department
17. Approval to purchase 4 Pontiac Sunfires in the amount of $45,252 through Oakland County Joint Purchasing for the Assessing Department
18. Approval to purchase 1 Jeep Cherokee in the amount of $19,659.03 through the State of Michigan Joint Purchasing program with the attached budget amendment for the DPW
19. Approval to purchase 4,000 feet of 2.5 inch fire hose through Oakland County Fire Chief’s Association/Oakland County Joint Purchasing in the amount of $7,960
20. Award bid for 1 tandem axle dump truck to Wolverine Truck Sales, Inc. In the amount of $106,334 for the D.P.W. Department
21. Approval to purchase one full size pick-up truck through the State of Michigan Joint Purchasing Program, in the amount of $15,128.16 for the Forester
23. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 507
24. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 508
25. Schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1998 for the purpose of Pending Litigation, Property Acquisition and City Attorney’s Opinion
2. Request for Approval of Ordinance No. 97-162 - To prohibit portable toilets except when used on a construction site, public park or school facility or pursuant to a permit - II Reading and Final Adoption
13. Adopt Resolution authorizing commencement of condemnation proceedings to acquire property from John Abbott, Samuel White and Amanda White, to necessitate the construction of the Taft road Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Project
22. Approve Option to Purchase Parcel #22-22-100-014
Vote on CM-98-01-002: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I
1. Request for Adoption of Notice of Intent Resolution-Special Assessment Bonds-Northern Equities Project - Taft Road Extension
Mayor McLallen advised this is a request for the adoption of the Notice of Intent Resolution for a special assessment bonding for Northern Equity Group’s project as it pertains to the Taft Road extension. Mayor McLallen added this involves property where the new Taft Road project north of Twelve Mile is to be built and involves the creation of a special assessment district. She stated this is a part of the formal process that requires that the city advertise that it intends to sell the bonds forty five days before they sell the bonds.
Mr. Kriewall noted the Mayor summarized the process sufficiently, but added this is a standard procedure for all special assessment bonds. Mr. Kriewall noted that Council has discussed this project for some time and city staff has also briefed the two new members. Further, Mr. Kriewall advised that Council has been apprized of this project all along in Executive Sessions and added that nothing has changed in terms of the concept. Further, the attorney’s are currently preparing the appropriate agreements which should come before Council at the next regular meeting.
CM-98-01-003: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Notice of Intent Bonding Resolution for the City of Novi Special Assessment Bonds and to be printed in the Novi News forty five days prior to the sale of the bonds
Councilwoman Lorenzo noted that Northern Equity Group will pay for the entire cost of the improvements.
Vote on CM-98-01-003: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
2. Request for Retroactive Extension of Final Preliminary Plat - Lilley Pond Subdivision, Property located South Lake Road between Buffington and West Roads
Mayor McLallen advised this property received final preliminary plat approval approximately two years ago. Subsequently, the developer that made the initial request has sold the property and somewhere in that process, the approval has expired although the new developer has begun work on the project. The Mayor reported the new developer has asked the state about what his options are and the state advised that he must come before Council to request a retroactive extension of the final preliminary plat.
Mr. Fried recalled that this is really just an extension of the approval of the preliminary plat and a final plat will come forward at a later date. The question is whether Council is going to waive the time for submitting the final plat pursuant to the preliminary plat. He explained the preliminary plat has been approved, but the time has expired for submitting the final plat and the developer want an extension of that time so that they might submit a final plat. To do that, they must waive that time for approval of the final plat. Therefore, there are two items currently before Council. Mr. Fried advised one is whether Council is going to waive the time. He explained if they waive the time, Council must then approve an extension of time for the preliminary plat.
Mayor McLallen clarified the extension is for the preliminary plat and not for the final plat. Mr. Fried replied that is his understanding.
Bryan Amann advised he is the attorney representing the petitioner. He explained the issue currently before Council is a request for retroactive approval of the final preliminary plat which is not the final proprietor’s plat. He added they understand they must go through the process of submitting the final plans for review before they come back before Council for approval of the final proprietor’s plat. Mr. Amann advised tonight’s request is a result of an error and omission by the previous developer. He explained the approval expired before the purchase was made by the current petitioner and it was not until they went before the state that this issue came forward. Mr. Amann advised that Council will see at final plat that they are developing the property according to the current standards for planning and engineering.
Mayor McLallen understands that if Council does not grant a retroactive preliminary plat, then the petitioner would have to start over. However, she also understands that the petitioner is stating that they are functioning under the most current standards and that the final plat will adhere to every 1998 ordinance.
Mr. Amann agreed and added they have also constructed the water line down to Buffington Drive and provided water connection access for nine to ten residents. Mr. Amann advised if they were not given retroactive approval, they would lose significant time to build in season. He explained much of the infrastructure is already in place and therefore, they must consider safety factors and that it would be an eyesore to nearby residents. In meeting with JCK, the City’s attorney and staff, Mr. Amann advised they believe it does not make sense to require a whole new process to get to where they are today and that they should follow the state’s recommendation for a retroactive approval.
Mayor McLallen asked whether Mr. Fried is comfortable with the petitioner’s explanation. Mr. Fried is comfortable with the explanation, but added if Council grants the extension that it is an extension of the approval of the final preliminary plat and the petitioner would still have to come back for final plat approval.
Mr. Fried restated the two issues before Council are whether they will waive the time restrictions and whether they will grant the extension.
Councilman Kramer asked what does an extension of the final preliminary plat commit the city to in terms of the plat? Further, does any of this subsequent update prohibit the ability to revise the plat given the issues regarding the flood plain and woodlands? He asked if they should extend the final preliminary plat as well?
Mr. Fried understands the question is if they grant approval for a retroactive extension of the final preliminary plat, will approval include all of the updates that have occurred since they granted the original preliminary plat approval. To ensure that they address Councilman Kramer’s concerns, Mr. Fried would suggest that they phrase the motion so they are extending the time of the approval of final preliminary plat providing engineering reviews to see that the plan contains all subsequent provisions.
Councilman Schmid asked why the petitioner did not confirm that they had a legitimate plat. Mr. Amann recalled the petitioner relied on the representations made by the seller. He added since the work had been progressing, they made a reasonable but mistaken assumption that it was approved. He added because they obtained permits and so forth, they understood they had a legitimate plat. Mr. Amann agrees a mistake was made and although they could initiate litigation against the seller for misrepresentation, the city and petitioner would be no further ahead because the undeveloped subdivision would just sit there.
Councilman Schmid asked what is the city’s policy for issuing permits in terms of legitimate and active plat approvals? Mr. Kriewall understands the developer had final preliminary approval and after that point, they designed their engineering and began constructing utilities. With a final preliminary plat approval, they could then begin final engineering design and construction of the utilities and that is what has taken place here.
Mr. Amann added typically in the permit process references are made to the plat for compliance with the plat and at that time, someone would notice if the plat expired.
Councilman Schmid understands that someone should have noticed that the plat expired when the petitioner applied for a permit. Mr. Amann agreed, but added it depends upon the process. He has seen where it is noticed and others where it is not.
Councilman Schmid believes if the state had not stopped the petitioner, then they would have continued to move forward; Mr. Amann agreed.
Councilman Schmid asked whether there are any checks and balances for these types of things? Mr. Kriewall believes the engineers monitor these situations because they monitor the construction and engineering. Mr. Amann added he recalled that their primary position was whether this complied with the plat and when they reviewed the paper process for dates of expiration, he does not doubt that an expiration notice was sent to the previous owner to remind them about the renewal.
Councilman Schmid would like a report back about the procedure and wants to know who is accountable for this kind of follow up.
Councilwoman Lorenzo prefaced her remarks by stating she appreciates, understands and respects the petitioner’s dilemma. Councilwoman Lorenzo began by stating it seems they are not only extending the life of a plat, but giving it indefinite life when Council is asked to allow an extension of a plat retroactively that has been technically expired for almost two years. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes the expirations are to make sure that any ordinance revisions are complied with and to review the entire situation by looking at other conditions.
Councilwoman Lorenzo has serious concerns about the extent of flood plains within the lots. Councilwoman Lorenzo realizes although the buildings are not in the lots, a good portion and sometimes the majority of backyards are in flood plains. She is concerned that this will severely limit the use of those people’s back yards and that it also compromises the potential homeowners. She explained when any portion of a lot is in a flood plain, the lenders consider it in a flood plain and the buyer must go through a map revision that could take as long as year. During that time, the buyers would also be required to purchase flood insurance and have a strict limitation of the use of their property. She added they must also consider health, safety and welfare issues in terms of the possibility of drowning during a flash flood. In addition, it may also compromise the city’s ability to earn points toward flood insurance rate decreases. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes points are earned under a community rating system program when they maintain new developments outside the flood plain.
Councilwoman Lorenzo is concerned about this project for all these reasons. Therefore, she would suggest they remove those lots proposed in the flood plain before this plan moves forward any further.
Mr. Amann advised they just determined there was an extension to the plat approval at one time and the permits were obtained before the expiration of the extension. In fact, the process, if there was one, worked appropriately because the expiration occurred after the permits were approved.
Regarding the flood plain issue, the issues regarding adherence to the requirements and the prohibition of certain activities in flood plains, Mr. Amann advised the covenants and restrictions will obviously include prohibitions and the purchaser will be put on notice through this device. In addition, he reminded Council when a buyer applies for mortgage insurance, they are required to sign many documents to confirm they have a thorough understanding about the risks involved and the additional insurance required in flood plains. Mr. Amann added the petitioner has addressed many of those issues by raising the grade of the road and basements. In addition, they made special arrangements with the Building Department to individually inspect each basement to avoid flooding concerns. He added they have taken extraordinary measures as required by the ordinance.
Councilwoman Lorenzo is looking at what is practical for the people that will live there. She believes that removing a lot is always practical if it is in a flood plain. Further, if Council chooses not to approve this as submitted, it is an option for them to deny it as it was in 1994.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether permits expire? Mr. Amann advised permits have a two year sunset clause to complete the work.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether any part of the completed work has to be redesigned if there were changes made in the platting of the lots? Mr. Amann replied there is some work that must be redone.
Councilman Kramer is willing to take an additional amount of time to bring the plat back for review by staff and the engineering consultants to further examine issues on the plat that may be subject to revised ordinances and then present reasonable alternatives for them.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether Councilman Kramer is suggesting that the petitioner would submit for review and therefore, incur the cost involved or is he suggesting that Council is requesting a review and therefore, the city will absorb the costs.
Mr. Kriewall does not believe a review will be that involved. He explained since certain utilities have been constructed, that Council would just want an updated status report.
Councilman Kramer would like a fuller understanding of Councilwoman Lorenzo’s concerns. He explained he would like to understand how much of the plat as approved in 1993 is in the flood plain and how much do they currently allow by ordinance. Councilman Kramer realizes the utilities are installed, but noted taps still need to be connected to lots and he wondered whether the lots need to be reconfigured. Councilman Kramer believes that having this discussion without support information is difficult. Therefore, he suggested that Council direct the consultants to review the plat as they apply it to current conditions and ordinances, and that the city will assume the costs.
Councilman DeRoche will support a short postponement. He explained because this decision was made in 1994, that it is this Council’s responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of Novi’s citizens whenever they have an opportunity.
Councilman Schmid asked for further clarification about the permit. Mr. Amann advised that the plat approval was granted and then there was an extension obtained on the plat until August 1996. He explained prior to the expiration of the extension, permits were pulled by his clients to begin the work.
Councilman Schmid asked whether they would continue to work if they began the work and the extension expired? Mr. Fried said they would not continue to work because the plat is no longer effective. Councilman Schmid asked who stops the work? Mr. Fried replied the engineers should have determined whether the plat was still effective during their inspections since all the work had not been completed before the expiration of the two years on the first extension. If the plat was not effective, Mr. Fried reported the engineers should have stopped the work.
Councilman Schmid will not support a motion to bring this matter back before Council.
Mayor McLallen understands there are two distinct stages on platting property from raw land into subdivisions in Michigan. She advised the first is a preliminary plat that basically depicts roads, lots and infrastructure; Mr. Potter agreed.
Mayor McLallen further understands they then use that plat to obtain permits to move land and place infrastructure. She explained at this point it is more a process of refinement until the final plat is submitted. However, once the major pieces are put in the ground, but before a final plat, that any corrections, oversights, improvements and so forth are made between the preliminary and final submittals. Mayor McLallen’s concern is that there is a preliminary plat and there is land changing under an original plat. She said the concerns expressed by Council are how can they affect the final product. Further, she asked is their ability to affect the final product at this time more effectively exercised by going back to the preliminary plat or let the petitioner know at this point that when the final comes forward, everything must meet all current standards. As a matter of process, the Mayor asked at which point can Council exercise what they have brought up as the most stringent control for the future. Mr. Potter replied that action should take place at the approval of the final plat. He advised that they cannot sell lots until final plat approval is given. Therefore, by not approving the final plat until Council is satisfied, the developer cannot sell the lots.
Councilwoman Mutch stated they are not here to create a situation where a developer moves forward with the infrastructure, laying out lots and developing a marketing program only to get to the final approval stage and discover they are denied. Mr. Potter agrees and believes that is a risk that some developers take upon themselves to compress a time schedule that is normally required in the development of some property. Mr. Potter explained experienced developers sometimes proceed in that way with the understanding that there is a risk that before the final plat is approved, that they may be required to make some changes.
Mr. Fried added if the final plat is in accordance with the final preliminary plat and the engineering is in accordance with the engineer’s approval, that must be completed pursuant to the final preliminary plat at which point Council must approve the final plat. He added there is no question about that policy because that is the way it must be done.
Mayor McLallen understands that Council’s greatest control is at final preliminary plat and not at final; Mr. Fried agreed.
Councilwoman Mutch tends to agree that the temptation is often there to second guess what a previous configuration of Council has done. Although Councilwoman Lorenzo has raised some very good points about why they might reconsider an earlier Council’s decision, Councilwoman Mutch believes it is a difficult position because they want to balance all the interests involved. Further, she would agree that it seems that the city has some involvement in this development moving forward although the plat extension expired. Councilwoman Mutch believes Council should try to respect decisions made previously. However, when serious mistakes have been made, Councilwoman Mutch believes they should take the opportunity to address them. Further, Councilwoman Mutch does not believe that moving forward with this request will irreparably harm the city. She believes because the developer has publically expressed a willingness to bring everything up to a standard equal to or beyond what the city is requiring as of today is further assurance. Therefore, Councilwoman Mutch would support a postponement of this matter no later than the first meeting in February for additional input or an assurance from staff that everything presented this evening represents the city’s position.
CM-98-01-004: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED: To postpone action to grant retroactive extension of Lilley Pond Subdivision’s request for final preliminary plat until the Regular Meeting of Council January 26, 1998 subject to the consultants’ recommendations based upon further review of the current plat
Vote on CM-98-01-004: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
Mayor McLallen noted Council has directed staff to create a flow chart that depicts the notification process for the expiration of plats.
3. Request for Lot Split, Parcel #22-32-100-014 - Richard A. and Amy I. Booms, Property located on the east side of Garfield Road between Eight and Nine Mile Roads
Removed from the agenda at the request of the petitioner.
4. Request for Clarification of Boundaries of the RM-1 and RM-2 Rezoning of December 17, 1997 - NOBE Group, L.L.C., Property located on the east side of Beck Road between Grand River Avenue and Eleven Mile Road
Mayor McLallen understands that this matter is a technical question. She understands there are two pieces in this property and that there is still an out piece. Consequently, they need to more clearly define the pieces.
Blair Bowman stated he is representing the NOBE Group and explained after receiving the Planning Commission’s recommendation, they formally acquired the rights to purchase another resident’s parcel. He explained as a result they were then able to rotate the proposed congregate care facility further out of the woodlands, create a single entrance versus two curb cuts and in doing so, the configuration of the RM-2 parcel changed. He advised the acreage remained about the same, but it became more irregularly shaped. He noted they had the legal descriptions modified and included it in the packet, but the rezoning was advertised with the old legal description. Mr. Watson reviewed the records and advised that they needed to have it clarified. Mr. Bowman advised they are simply asking that the revised legal descriptions be utilized and reflected in the rezoning amendment.
Mayor McLallen noted Mr. Watson’s opinion of December 17 concurs with Mr. Bowman’s explanation.
Councilwoman Lorenzo would move to verify that in approving Zoning Map Amendments 18.571 and 18.568, the rezonings were approved as originally submitted.
Mr. Fried asked that the rezoning be officially republished with the amended description.
CM-98-01-005: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED: Move to verify that in approving Zoning Map Amendments 18.571 and 18.568, the zonings were approved as originally submitted and be republished with the amended description
Vote on CM-98-01-005: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
Noreen Poltorak - 22358 Taft Rd., asked for further clarification concerning Item 1 by asking if the area of Taft is between Twelve Mile and West Road or is it from Grand River to Twelve Mile Road. She explained according to JCK that they were going to open it over the expressway with possible entrances to I-96.
Mayor McLallen advised that was proposed many years ago, but the funding in the 1996 Road Bond was for an extension of Taft from Twelve Mile Road west of the railroad tracks and heading northward to West Road.
Ms. Poltorak reminded Council that the residents voted against that. She explained Providence Hospital wanted to come in at Ten Mile and Taft and the only way they were going to build there was if they could open Taft Road to the expressway.
Jonathan Brateman - 42705 Grand River, as the Legislative Affairs Chairman for the Novi Chamber of Commerce appreciates the city’s contributions for amending the NCC ordinance.
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II
5. Architectural/Design Review and Facade Ordinance Amendment Report: Jim Wahl, Brandon Rogers & Doug Necci
Mr. Wahl advised the purpose of this agenda item is to ask for Council’s direction in terms of the next step and whether Council wanted clarification on any of the details before they prepared this into ordinance form. Mr. Wahl noted there are some substantive changes in the proposed regulations.
Mr. Wahl reported the next step would be to put it into an ordinance draft and go back before the Planning Commission for a public hearing as an amendment to the zoning ordinance and it would then come back before Council.
Mr. Wahl believes their overall philosophy was to work within the existing planning process and not create any new authorities or steps to the process while addressing some concerns about qualitative matters. Mr. Wahl asked Mr. Necci to respond to commonly raised questions about issues related to facade, design, and regulation.
Mayor McLallen believes this report addresses the city’s concerns and provides a mechanism to use in what they agree are significant view quarters.
Councilman Schmid asked how could the recommendations before them have changed what happened with Best Buy? Mr. Necci advised that the facade chart has been changed. He explained they not only reduced the number of categories, but they have restricted the materials and percentages permitted.
Councilman Schmid asked how could they avoid the problems they had with the construction of the court house? He reminded Council that Mr. Rogers had stated when he looked at the samples of the materials that they looked nothing like the final product. Mr. Necci stated because it is not always practical to bring in larger sizes of materials that they must still rely on good judgement. He advised they have added quite a bit of new language that will require higher standards on the submittals (i.e., facade drawings must be more accurate) and if they see a facade drawing that is not really descriptive, they will reject it.
Councilman Schmid understands that it will still require a lot of subjectivity rather than objectivity; Mr. Necci agreed.
Councilman Schmid noted there are minimum requirements such as 30% brick in Zone 1 Mr. Necci noted that is something new and added that the ordinance never previously set minimum amounts of any material and each elevation has to stand on its own.
Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Necci to address service station issues. Mr. Necci replied that they included that the existence of corporate architecture style service stations will not imply that they could build another corporate style gas station next to it. He further advised that service stations close to a residential area would have to be a residential style gas station. Further, if it were in an office environment near commercial buildings, then the petitioner could construct a more commercial style of architecture.
Councilman Schmid asked whether the service stations at Ten Mile and Novi Road would comply with this ordinance? Mr. Necci replied that the station at the southwest corner is adjacent to some residential style buildings and the northeast corner is a different matter. Mr. Necci believes the southerly one would have had to been of a style that was similar to a residential character.
Councilman Schmid expected to see an ordinance that specifically addressed gas stations.
Councilman Schmid read from page five of the report, "The material limitations for these buildings will actually be less demanding with respect to relative cost (e.g., split and fluted C.M.U. block will be allowed up to 25% in the area where it would not previously be allowed). This will be offset by the fact that buildings within 1,000 feet of a major thoroughfare, in B, NCC, FS, RC, C, EXPO, I-1, and I-2 districts will be more expensive." Mr. Necci advised that explaining this is somewhat difficult because the categories no longer overlap. In general, Mr. Necci explained the idea was that the buildings closest to major thoroughfares should be under the highest standards of the ordinance. However, as they get closer to industrial subdivisions, the standards could be less. Mr. Necci believes the percentages have been changing since they wrote this report. He explained at the time they wrote the report, the percentage for decorative concrete block (a popular material in industrial type applications) was higher than it used to be. The theory would be that they might have to spend a little money on the corner building, but they could save it on the interior buildings.
Councilman Schmid becomes alarmed when they begin to lower requirements. He believes they should maintain the highest standards that they can and people will continue to come to Novi because of its location.
Councilman Schmid asked whether they have met with Northern Equity Group about their opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Necci advised Mr. Stewart has had some input and is interested in remaining involved in this ordinance. Further, Mr. Necci stated that Mr. Stewart’s main concern is about color restrictions.
Councilman Schmid asked whether Mr. Necci believes this ordinance will solve the problems they have been facing. Mr. Necci’s theory is that the purpose of the ordinance is to catch problems. He hopes this will increase the dialogue and bring more criteria to the table. However, he also believes there will be some things that the ordinance cannot prevent. Mr. Necci believes the facade chart should be ongoing, and that they need to be able to respond and change it quickly if needed.
Councilman Schmid reminded Council that they required Art Van to put brick around the entire building and it is now the owner’s most successful store. Councilman Schmid’s point is that they should be as restrictive as possible, but keep in mind that they do have to attract business. Councilman Schmid then added he does not buy the rhetoric that Novi’s ordinances are too tough.
Councilman DeRoche is opposed to an ordinance of this type because of its subjectivity and although he concurs that they need high standards, he believes people will continue to build in Novi because its location. Councilman DeRoche believes the major problem that businesses have when they come to Novi is that they do not know where they stand. He believes the subjective standards are a large part of the problem and therefore, he would support a facade ordinance that would say they require 100% brick because at least the developer would know where he stands. Councilman DeRoche believes they are setting themselves up to take a step backward because this ordinance is too subjective in nature. He believes they are once again saying what they have said in the past and that is they are going to make it as difficult as possible to do business in Novi. He believes the message should be that Novi has very high standards and has a clear idea of what they want the city to look like when it is developed.
Councilwoman Lorenzo is glad they are talking about this and appreciates the work done thus far. Councilwoman Lorenzo stated since this proposed ordinance does not designate by zoning, she wondered whether they should use the word "zone" as describing the various levels. She suggested they use another word so they do not confuse "zone" with zoning and get the impression that they are regulating by zoning district.
Councilwoman Lorenzo further suggested that they add "abutting residential" in terms of high visibility of zone or region to that list to avoid the potential problem with any buildings located next to those types of districts. Further, the current facade material language does not consider the degree of visibility to adjacent corporate neighbors or the public that will enter the buildings.
Councilwoman Lorenzo has a concern about OST because she understands they are often as concerned about the aesthetics of their neighbors as those in residential neighborhoods are and therefore, they may be concerned about locating in Novi.
Councilwoman Lorenzo has another concern about the language that states year round visual screening could mitigate the facade requirements. She does not believe they should lessen the review criteria based upon vegetation. She believes a building should be able to stand on its own without a dressing around it; it is either good design or it is not.
Councilwoman Lorenzo also believes revisions made after an approval is granted should be resubmitted to the Planning Commission and no administrative approvals should be granted.
Councilwoman Lorenzo would prefer not to reference gasoline stations near residential areas because she does not want to send a message that they are encouraging or consenting to locating gasoline stations near residential areas. She suggested that they include language stating the architectural design of a new or renovated gasoline station shall show evidence that the architectural context of that building was influenced by nearby visual development.
Further, Councilwoman Lorenzo also believes it would be advisable to establish fees for the consultant review and for the on site facade inspections.
Councilwoman Lorenzo believes Councilman DeRoche’s comments had merit in terms of trying not to be as subjective. She suggested that instead of recommending colors that instead they recommend neutral tones in highly visible areas.
Councilwoman Mutch referred to the rooftop view seen from Meadowbrook Road south of the expressway and asked whether there was a way to address how a building will actually be viewed from a road based upon its location and surrounding topography. Mr. Necci replied they did take the Roof Appurtenances section from the ordinance and included it with the facade ordinance. He explained that he expanded on it in a way that things that are not meant to be exposed need to be screened.
Councilwoman Mutch said in this case motorists are looking at the roofs of a whole industrial or office park. Mr. Necci advised on the other hand, on the fifth floor of a multistoried building, one would expect to see the roof of another building and therefore, there is a limit as to what they can do. Mr. Necci said the Wyndom Hotel had structural supports on a decorative roof that the architect did not realize would be so predominant and they were able to solve the problem. Mr. Necci believes to regulate the roofs from a birds-eye view would be incredibly difficult; Councilwoman Mutch agreed.
Mr. Necci advised the purpose for adding this criterion is to provide a list of concerns and not to provide many difficult to define things in the ordinance. He explained they want to convey what issues are going to be discussed to the applicant so they can have visual displays prepared for consideration. Mr. Necci agreed there may be some things that are beyond what is in the text and the reviewer could flag those to the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Mutch now believes the facade ordinance may not be the place to address any additional regulations that might improve issues similar to a rooftop view situation. She suggested that perhaps somebody may notice something like this during the review process and they could then address this in the landscaping ordinance instead. She believes a different type of landscaping along Meadowbrook Road could resolve the problem in that area.
Councilwoman Mutch recalled Mr. Necci had said formulas cannot guarantee good design. However, she does believe there has to be some range of subjective professional judgement involved in the review. She explained while certain colors may seem acceptable today, they may be unacceptable ten years from now.
Councilwoman Mutch noted comments have been made that this is basically one architect’s opinion and asked whether Mr. Necci solicits architectural opinions from other sources. Mr. Necci replied the language of the ordinance advises that an applicant can seek the opinion of a consulting architect.
Regarding colors, Mr. Necci explained all they are asking for is that the colors show evidence that they have been selected to run along the side of another color. Mr. Necci advised they are trying to avoid the use of left over materials from past projects with no consideration for the color of those materials. He restated they are not trying to tell developers what color they are supposed to use.
Councilman Kramer believes the focus should be quality and further believes they are on the right track because they are not proposing new layers of bureaucracy. However, he suggested that they expand a few areas and one area would be to spell out the criteria for gas stations more succinctly. Councilman Kramer believes they need to encourage quality gas station design, but agrees they should not encourage gas station development in residential areas. Councilman Kramer believes that creating pure objectivity will be difficult, but thinks they can help themselves along the way with some criteria.
Mayor McLallen believes this conversation indicates that this community has a greater sensitivity to Novi’s image. Further, she understands the goal of this ordinance is to create a tool that will create a visual clarity that depicts the quality and excellence of Novi. Mayor McLallen believes all Council members agree that the visual context is paramount. She explained new buildings have to be sensitive to its neighbors and although it can be visually different, it should retain the harmony of the surrounding area.
Mayor McLallen advised the next step is for Council to direct this matter to the Planning Commission so the attorneys may begin to draft an ordinance based upon this input.
Councilwoman Lorenzo would move to forward this matter to the Planning Commission.
Mayor McLallen reminded this ordinance is not a Council ordinance, but rather it is a Planning Commission ordinance. She explained if Council wants these changes to come forward, this is the process they have to follow.
Councilwoman Lorenzo added it will come back before Council for adoption.
Councilman Kramer asked whether they will hold a public hearing? Mayor McLallen advised they will hold a public hearing.
Councilwoman Mutch understands when they say it is a Planning Commission ordinance they are saying the implementation of this ordinance is in their area of responsibility, but it is a city ordinance. Mayor McLallen agreed, but the process needed for it to move forward is to first move the matter to the Planning Commission.
CM-98-01-006: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED: To forward Architectural/Design Review and Facade Ordinance Amendment Report to the Planning Commission for the continued development and drafting of an ordinance amendment for public hearing
Vote on CM-98-01-006: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
6. Request for Approval of Ordinance No. 97-18.137 - To amend the NCC Ordinance to modify the standards and uses allowed in the Non Commercial District - II Reading and Final Adoption
Councilwoman Lorenzo asked Council to consider changing the word "lot" to "parcel’ where referenced under Item 9 and on the Table found on Page 8. She is uncertain whether they usually refer to parcels as lots. Mr. Fried noted it has been pointed out to him that "lot" has a definition that includes "parcel."
Mayor McLallen stated the current language will stand.
Councilman Schmid asked whether Primo’s Pizza would be considered to be a fast food carry out; Mr. Rogers agreed and read the following from the ordinance, "A business establishment wherein food is prepared or cooked on the premises to be sold in disposable containers or wrappers to patrons that is not intended to be consumed on the premises or within a motor vehicle parked or standing on the premises." Mr. Rogers added they are not permitted in NCC districts.
CM-98-01-007: Moved by DeRoche, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt amended NCC Ordinance to modify the standards and uses allowed in the Non Commercial District - II Reading as submitted
Vote on CM-98-01-007: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
7. Approval to participate in the Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Enforcement Team Consortium and to purchase two undercover vehicles in an amount not to exceed $24,000 with the attached budget amendment for the Police Department
Police Chief Shaeffer advised they will end their relationship with Narcotics Enforcement Team of Oakland County and join the Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Enforcement Team Consortium (which includes Novi, Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield) which would enable them to focus their efforts closer to Novi. To accomplish this, Chief Shaeffer advised they need Council’s approval to purchase two used vehicles not to exceed $13,000 each at $100.00 over wholesale and resale to them at a wholesale price whenever they return the vehicles. Chief Shaeffer believes they will be returning them every three to six months so they can carry out their undercover investigations.
Mayor McLallen asked whether there are any implications from removing themselves from the county wide program? Chief Shaeffer advised they will maintain all of their relationships will all the other enforcement teams throughout the metro area and a close relationship with the Oakland county team, but their efforts will be focused closer to home.
Mayor McLallen asked if there are any further cost increases besides the vehicles? Chief Shaeffer said there will be no offset in costs as a result of no longer being a member of the Oakland county team. However, he advised the other two communities involved in the new program have shown that their forfeiture funds have increased dramatically since they formed their own group.
Mayor McLallen understands the goal is to make this program self-funding and essentially stop the problem; Chief Shaeffer agreed.
Councilman Kramer understands the funds will come from the police forfeiture account, but they also have shown that funds for future years will be presented through the standard budget process. He asked if they still intend to fund this completely from the forfeiture fund? Chief Shaeffer replied that is their intent and they hope to offset the costs if the forfeiture fund increases and if not, they will resort to using the budget process.
Councilman Kramer asked whether they will launch the program from the current forfeiture fund and then assess the program year by year to determine whether the forfeiture fund can continue to fund it? Chief Shaeffer agreed.
CM-98-01-008: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve participation in the Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Enforcement Program with approval to purchase two vehicles not to exceed $24,000.00
Councilman Schmid understands there is a cost to the city because they will be using one additional police officer. Chief Shaeffer agreed and advised the officer would come from the road patrol program.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if this would be a reassignment for a patrol officer or would that officer just spend more time in this area? Chief Shaeffer replied he believes Council is aware that their commitment has been one officer on the narcotic’s team and this would double that commitment by assigning two officers to focus their efforts closer to home. He added a second officer would be removed from road patrol activities and assigned to this activity. Chief Shaeffer reported they wanted to focus their efforts in a way they believe would cause them to have a greater impact on the war on drugs in Novi.
Councilwoman Mutch asked if there is any concern about one less officer doing things that would otherwise be done if they did not assign him to the narcotic’s team? Chief Shaeffer replied it would not be directly affected, but he would agree it could affect that indirectly. He explained that they know between 70-90% of the crimes are related to drugs in some manner and the greater impact they could have on that regard would have a greater impact on the total crime picture. He added it would especially impact those economically motivated crimes such as purse snatching. Consequently, they are hoping they will have an indirect impact on those types of things and lower the workload for the officers in that regard. However, Chief Shaeffer cannot say that there will be a direct trade off.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether Chief Shaeffer has any concerns about having an officer assigned in a way that they will still adequately cover the other work that he would otherwise be doing. Chief Shaeffer believes they will still adequately cover the community. However, he agrees there is a trade off and he must balance their resources with the tasks that they need to perform. Further, he restated that he believes they must improve their performance on the war on drugs in the community.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether he foresees coming back to ask for an additional officer to perform the duties for that officer who is now assigned to the narcotic’s team is unable to do? Chief Shaeffer advised that he will request additional manpower in his budget. However, he believes the growth of the community primarily motivates the request.
Councilwoman Mutch understands that, but it sounds as though by assigning a police officer to the narcotic’s program they will be getting to the heart of many other spin-off crimes. She further understands, in the long term it will ultimately reduce crime in Novi and the work load for the other officers. Chief Shaeffer agreed.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether they are assigning enough officers? He noted the other two communities have assigned four officers and one sergeant, and Novi is only assigning two. Chief Shaeffer replied he is uncertain whether they are assigning enough at this point and hopes they can evaluate that over the next year. Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested that they reevaluate that by next fall.
Vote on CM-98-01-008: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
8. Request for approval of Dispatch Recommendations
Mr. Klaver advised they prepared the cover memo on this request to indicate to Council their support of Chief Shaeffer’s recommendation and to clarify several technical issues. Mr. Klaver reminded Council although there are twelve dispatchers in the current budget, when they initially discussed the turnover and other problems the department has been experiencing, they asked Council’s permission to temporarily hire a thirteenth position. He reported that position was approved and they proceeded to hire another dispatcher. Therefore, the recommended action that Council is authorizing to fourteen is actually a two-position increase over what is in the current budget. Secondly, he would like to clarify that portion of the proposal that would create the senior dispatch position. He advised that position is a mandatory topic for collective bargaining and they still must negotiate it even though it is an improvement. Mr. Klaver believes they can expect a favorable response from the union, but they must first make a presentation and agree upon job description and other related issues.
Chief Shaeffer agreed with Mr. Klaver’s comments and added they recommended that Council increase the authorized manpower in the Police Department’s dispatcher position because in reviewing their operations they came back to the same issue which is the number of personnel for the work load and counter. Chief Shaeffer reported they have experienced a 38% increase in work load in the last six years and there were recommendations made by outside consultants in 1990 that they increase to fourteen dispatchers.
CM-98-01-009: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve amendment to the 1997-98 budget to change the number of authorized Dispatch positions to fourteen and to direct the City Administration to initiate negotiations with the Clerks and Dispatchers union for the purpose of creating three new positions titled Shift Leader. The eventual staff authorization would consist of three Shift Leaders and eleven Dispatchers
Councilman Schmid asked whether the other communities that Novi dispatches for will contribute to the increased costs for the new positions? Mr. Klaver replied they will not contribute immediately because their contract does not expire until July 1. However, one determinant of that fee is the cost of the dispatch operation and Mr. Klaver believes that would be a factor in the renewal. Mr. Klaver advised they have typically tied that cost into the salary of the dispatcher, but in this instance they are doing something new in that they are creating a position. Therefore, they must discuss this with South Lyon, Lyon Township and Wixom, and he would expect their fees to reflect the additional cost.
Chief Shaeffer added the contract allows them to escalate the cost by 10% per year.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether they would discuss this during their budget in preparation for the new year; Mr. Klaver agreed.
Councilwoman Lorenzo hopes when they restructure the contract that they would not only look at the impact on the actual cost in terms of adding dispatchers or changing the positions, but also in terms of just the impact that serving those communities has on Novi’s dispatch system in its entirety.
Mr. Klaver noted the system was created approximately fourteen years ago and because of the growth of the communities, he would be surprised if Novi had not exceeded that. He said they had a ratio from the very beginning based on the cost of additional officers and what it costs to provide that service. He further reminded Council that the other communities are paying most of the cost of the Dispatch Manager.
Councilwoman Mutch pointed out that they are only handling the emergency calls and dispatching officers within those communities. She understands they are not sending Novi Police Officers to other communities; Chief Shaeffer agreed.
Mayor McLallen asked whether the $36,000 request is for a full year’s cost? Mr. Klaver believes they are mixing two different figures. He explained that adjusting the budget for the new dispatchers will not be necessary. Therefore, they are really amending the budget by changing the authorized personnel. He advised they can fund those due to some vacancies and added, every time a senior dispatcher leaves there is a significant savings in terms of the salary and longevity. Mr. Klaver believes the number the Mayor referred to is the actual cost for the personnel and they are not going to incur that this year.
Mayor McLallen understands they are not going to incur the cost although they may hire the person. Mr. Klaver advised they may, but it will not exceed what they currently have on the budget for the twelve authorized positions.
Mayor McLallen understands that they are not changing anything financially. Mr. Klaver agreed and added they are making a commitment for next year.
Councilman Kramer believes this is a very conscientious response to a problem that has been growing in the department.
Vote on CM-98-01-009: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
9. Request for approval of Canvassing Agreement with Oakland County
Ms. Bartholomew advised although the City of Novi has contracted with Oakland County for the last twenty seven years, the city has no formal agreement. However, she advised there was a recent law change at the county which now mandates that Novi must have a signed agreement with them. Further, the agreement also increases the fee on local year elections when they are county wide and would include ballot proposals or when they have to fill a council vacancy. However, if they do not put anything on those ballots, then no fee is incurred. Ms. Bartholomew added odd year elections, which are primarily council elections, would be calculated in the same format that they are now (divide the total cost of the canvass among all the communities that participate by precincts and then multiply the number of precincts). Consequently, Ms. Bartholomew explained the only thing that would change are the even year elections and the cost would increase from $5.00 to $25.00.
CM-98-01-010: Moved by DeRoche, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Canvassing Agreement with Oakland County
Vote on CM-98-01-010: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
10. Request to Schedule Special City Council Meetings for the Purpose of Goal Setting
Mayor McLallen advised Council directed the City Manager in November to find a facilitator for the purpose of goal setting before the city’s budget process. The Mayor advised the City Manager has subsequently made a recommendation and the potential dates for the session are before them. Mayor McLallen noted Council has found in the past that two sessions tend to be beneficial. She explained the first session lays out the goals and the second session refines the goals for adoption. Mayor McLallen advised that the goal sessions direct the budget in that by creating goals, Council can set the priorities for the spending cycle.
Councilwoman Mutch believes if they have a meeting in January and then hold a second meeting later, it gives the newspaper time to make the community aware of the direction they are going. Further, she believes if residents would like to attend the meeting and offer direction for Council priorities, she would rather see them do that during an Audience Participation as a part of a meeting that is set aside for that purpose as opposed to taking time during a regular meeting.
Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether it possible to have these sessions cable cast? Mr. Kriewall does not believe they would want a goal session on cable because the Council Chamber environment is not appropriate for setting goals. Consequently, he strongly recommends that they meet in the Activities Room. Councilwoman Lorenzo disagreed.
CM-98-01-011: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule Special City Council Meetings for the purpose of goal setting for Thursday, January 22, 1998 - 6:30 to 10:30 p.m. and Saturday, February 7, 1998 - 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the Activities Room of the Civic Center
Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to amend the motion to hold the meetings in the Council Chamber so that it can be cable cast.
Mayor McLallen advised the amendment failed for lack of support.
Councilman Kramer agrees with the spirit of Councilwoman Lorenzo’s amendment. Although Councilman Kramer believes Council is not looking for Audience Participation at this meeting, he thinks they should make the public aware of the meeting and that Council would appreciate their input.
Councilwoman Mutch thinks it is worth emphasizing that Council does want public input and she believes the best time for that is before any discussion they may have. She also believes that some people need to be reminded that Council does get input from various sources whether people show up at the meetings or not. Further, she thinks people need to show that they are interested and participate, and the city provides many opportunities for that. Councilwoman Mutch restated they do want public input and appreciates the effort that the Novi News makes to let people know the various ways in which the public can get the information to the city.
Councilwoman Lorenzo feels very strongly that the business of the Council is the business of the public and Council should be as assessable to the public as possible. She reported that 74% of the homes in Novi have cable and Council meetings are the most watched access programs. Further, she explained that coming to the Civic Center may not be convenient for a resident, but they can easily turn on their cable station. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes people are interested in what Council is doing.
Vote on CM-98-01-011: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Items listed on the Consent Agenda which have been removed for discussion and/or action)
2. Request for Approval of Ordinance No. 97-162 - To prohibit portable toilets except when used on a construction site, public park or school facility or pursuant to a permit - II Reading and Final Adoption
Councilman Kramer still has a concern about the language that states, "portable toilets shall be removed within one day of the event and shall not remain on any property for more than three days." Councilman Kramer thinks there is an unwritten assumption that an event is for one day. Although Councilman Kramer thinks the ordinance is a good idea, he thinks it is too restrictive as it is currently written. He explained he is not certain whether the companies that provide the portable toilets can pick up one day after the event and restated he is not certain whether they can assume that an event is held for one day. Councilman Kramer would like to solicit further discussion about this issue.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether there is a mechanism included to accommodate requests for additional number of days? Further, she asked what does "school facility" mean? Councilwoman Mutch explained she is concerned about accommodating events where church groups may have summer camps that last as long as a week. She added their concern was originally focused on the impact a portable toilet has in residential areas where people live in close proximity. However, in large acreage situations it may not be a problem for anyone. Mr. Fried will review the language of the ordinance.
Councilman Schmid supports the ordinance as it stands except for whether portable toilet suppliers can pick the toilet up by the day after the event.
Councilman Kramer suggested they extend the event to one week and the pick up should be two days after the event.
Councilman Schmid believes the ordinance was proposed for small congested subdivision areas where portable toilets are not appropriate for an extended period. However, he added he would agree that perhaps it may need some of the revisions as suggested by Councilman Kramer and that the enforcement of this ordinance will be based upon complaints.
Councilwoman Mutch believes if a resident needs additional toilet facilities that perhaps they should construct a permanent facility on their site. She explained if the lot is large enough to accommodate a pool and they have a situation with many people using it, but they cannot use the inside facilities, then perhaps they should construct something that is more permanent in nature which would solve the problem in a different way. In addition, Councilwoman Mutch agrees occasional event situations might face the problem that Councilman Kramer raised. She explained that even if a resident makes a request to pick up the toilet in accordance with the city’s ordinance, that an extension still may be necessary for picking up the toilet.
Mayor ProTem Crawford would support extending the pick up requirement, but would not support an appeal process. Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested that they adopt the ordinance in its current form and see how it works. If they find it does not work, they can look at it again.
Councilwoman Lorenzo asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals would serve as the appeal board if a resident felt the ordinance was too restrictive? Mr. Fried advised this matter would not go before the Zoning Board.
Mayor McLallen asked whether Mr. Fried had a response to the initial question. Mr. Fried advised the ordinance permits portable toilets for an event twice on a single property and there is no appeal procedure included. Mr. Fried advised they could include an appeal procedure, but it would be complicated.
Councilman Kramer would then propose that they incorporate a hardship paragraph indicating that it would come before Council and liberalize the items in Paragraph 3e.
CM-98-01-012: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Lorenzo, WITHDRAWN: To approve Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 97-162 - To prohibit portable toilets except when used on a construction site or in a public park or school facility or pursuant to a permit and incorporate a hardship clause appeal to City Council and extend the period in which the portable toilets shall be removed within two days of the end of the event and shall not remain on any property for more than seven days
Councilwoman Mutch will support the motion but would like to add Section 7-121 states, "It is unlawful within the city to keep, maintain or permit to remain on any parcel of land a portable toilet" and asked whether they would be able to specify in "platted subdivisions" since that seems to be their concern. She explained those who live on three acre lots in a platted subdivision cannot do anything other than what is in the ordinance, but people who have five to twenty acres can abide with setbacks without any difficulty. Mr. Fried believes they can limit it and added he believes that might be the intent. Mr. Fried has some concerns because the ordinance as written totally prohibits portable toilets and therefore, would disallow portable toilets for community events.
It appears to Mayor McLallen that there are many outstanding issues regarding this ordinance and asked whether they should table this matter so they can develop language to address the concerns raised this evening. Although the Mayor believes what they have before them addresses the basic issue and agrees that they should try it for a season, this has not been a pervasive issue in the community and is more of a reaction to a very specific problem. Consequently, she will not support the motion at this point. Further, she added Mr. Fried also raised the issue of community events and therefore, she thinks they need to be careful about what they decide to do.
Mr. Fried believes he understands the intent and he will come back with language that will address their concerns and what the Ordinance Review Committee proposed.
Councilman Kramer withdrew his motion.
CM-98-01-013: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To table the approval of the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 97-162 - To prohibit portable toilets except when used on a construction site or in a public park or school facility or pursuant to a permit to allow Administration the opportunity to review the concerns raised by Council within thirty days
Vote on CM-98-01-013: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
13. Adopt Resolution authorizing commencement of condemnation proceedings to acquire property from John Abbott, Samuel White and Amanda White, to necessitate the construction of the Taft road Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Project
Councilman Schmid removed this item for a further explanation about this matter.
Mr. Klaver advised the owner is not interested in selling this property and noted the property is located on the west side of Taft Road.
Mr. Fried added because there are title problems with this parcel, they must proceed with condemnation. He explained they must get absolute title before they can run the pathway through the property.
CM-98-01-014: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Resolution authorizing commencement of condemnation proceedings to acquire property from John Abbott, Samuel White, and Amanda White, to necessitate the construction of the Taft Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Project
Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether there is any evidence that the property was used as a burial ground? Councilwoman Mutch advised the documentation suggests that the property was dedicated for a burial ground purposes and anyone ever buried there was removed. She added that Samuel and Amanda White were the property owners that restricted the property to that use and the reason they are included is to protect the city from any claims by their heirs.
Mr. Klaver added that Barbara Louie researched this and was able to account for all of the other members of the family.
Vote on CM-98-01-014: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
22. Approve Option to Purchase Parcel #22-22-100-014
Councilwoman Lorenzo is concerned about how much money the city had to spend to date on this project. She would like to make a motion to request the appropriate parties to explore the restructuring of the city’s storm water tap or detention fees to pay for the actual costs of improvement, to evaluate the current fee structure and explore some type of restructuring to more equitably reimburse the city for these types of costs. Councilwoman Lorenzo reported the soft cost alone amounts to more than $174,000 and that does not take into consideration the land acquisition and construction.
Further, Councilwoman Lorenzo advised that Mr. Potter from JCK explained to her that they had land and construction costs of $128,000 and she wondered whether that is minus the $100,000 in terms of the agreement with Tri-Mount. In other words, she asked whether Tri-Mount will pay $100,000 toward the land acquisition and construction costs? Mr. Kriewall advised that Tri-Mount will pay that amount.
Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that would then mean they are then down to $28,000 in terms of construction plus $21,000 to purchase the parcel; Mr. Kriewall agreed. Councilwoman Lorenzo understands they will basically add $21,000 for the purchase of the property and $28,000 for the channel construction. Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to point out to Council how much money has been spent to date on this project and is why she asking that they explore not getting into this type of situation in the future. Therefore, Councilwoman Lorenzo restated the motion is to refer this matter to Mr. Nowicki and JCK to further explore the restructuring of the fees to adequately reimburse the city for these improvements in the future.
Mayor McLallen asked how does Councilwoman Lorenzo wish to address Item 22? Councilwoman Lorenzo advised she will reluctantly move to approve that Item.
Councilwoman Mutch asked how often and on what basis do they review and update the fee structure? Mr. Kriewall believes it has been four to five years since they have reviewed those fees. Mr. Kriewall believes they should review it community wide.
Mr. Potter agrees with Mr. Kriewall and added they are facing critical choices with the Storm Water Master Plan as far as how the state through the MDQ is imposing permit regulations on the city. Mr. Potter advised they have a couple of pending projects and they are awaiting a decision from the state before they proceed with them. He added based on those decisions, two of the regional basins will provide some guidelines about how they will impose the state regulations on the city. He advised they have recommended to the Storm Water Financial Committee over the past two years to hold off pending the decisions made on these two basins. He noted Monroe and Dunbarton will probably be the two basins to gauge it.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether he is saying they can do this, but they are not ready to do this. Mr. Potter agreed and added he believes the appropriate time would be within the next six months to a year. He explained they could provide an update about what their experience is, but added there are many changes being made in terms of storm water regulations with communities and federal regulations that they will impose on the communities.
Councilwoman Mutch supports a periodic review because she agrees they need to be as close to recovering their costs as possible.
Instead of that, Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to include some type of general clause that says something to the effect that costs incurred above whatever will be born by the petitioner when they enter contractual agreements. She agrees they could wait a year, but wondered how many tax dollars from the Drain Fund they are feeding into that fund.
Mr. Fried does not believe Councilwoman Lorenzo’s description is an accurate characterization of this underlying agreement. He does not recall the total background, but he believes Tri-Mount was preserving Yorkshire’s water until the city could provide the easements to let the water flow downstream. Mr. Fried believes they should ask for a history of what occurred on this and determine why they entered these agreements.
Mr. Kriewall responded that the residents living in the subdivision did not want the retention basin maintained in that location because they believed it affected the value of their homes. They petitioned the city to work with the developer to abandon the existing detention basin and that is exactly what they did. Mr. Fried interjected, it was not just for the benefit of Tri-Mount. Mr. Kriewall agreed that it was not Tri-Mount’s idea and added they would have left it as it was.
Mayor McLallen noted there is a motion on the floor that died for a lack of support.
Councilwoman Lorenzo is very aware of the history, but she does not agree with it. She explained they have many subdivisions throughout the city that have storm water detention basins and to assume just because an adjacent property owner dislikes it, is not a reason to spend other taxpayer’s money to remove them. Consequently, she is disagrees with this arrangement and would like to prevent it from happening in the future.
CM-98-01-015: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Option to Purchase between Ramesh M. Patel and Bharati Patel - Parcel #22-22-100-014 in the amount of $121,000
Vote on CM-98-01-015: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid
Mayor ProTem Crawford advised the Consultant Review Committee meeting is scheduled for January 27, 1998. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked the four members not on the committee to write their concerns on the form supplied in their packet.
Mayor McLallen advised that the Rules Committee met to review the written comments they received from Councilwoman Lorenzo and are prepared to offer their recommendations under Mayor and Council Issues.
Councilman Kramer advised the CIP Committee met and plan to meet again January 21. He added the process began in November and they have requested input from the Planning Commission. Councilman Kramer advised they are also looking for a Council priority list.
Councilwoman Mutch advised the CIP Committee is the Capital Improvement Project and she thinks it should be noted that it is their responsibility to set priorities for public or municipal projects annually.
Mayor ProTem Crawford advised the Cable Commission will meet January 13 at 4:30 p.m. at the Farmington City Hall.
Mayor McLallen advised Ms. Collins from SWOCC sent a flyer to residents about how to protest cable rate increases and tomorrow night’s meeting would be an appropriate time to comment on that issue.
Mayor McLallen advised residents with Northville addresses have been heavily solicited to join Broadband which is being provided by Media One in Northville. The Mayor asked when it will be available in Novi and understands it will take a capital investment to initiate the system.
Mayor ProTem Crawford advised that Time/Warner is not exclusive in Novi, but they are the only cable company that have invested in the infrastructure in the last several years.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES
1. Council Organizational Rules and Order of Business
Councilwoman Mutch reported that the last Hanging Fire indicated that she was on the Rules Committee and she is uncertain about that appointment.
Mayor McLallen advised they will hold off on this item until they resolve the committee’s configuration.
2. Continuation of the Novi Futuring 20/20 Process - Councilman DeRoche
Councilman DeRoche would like revitalize the futuring process. He believes the process is a very timely one in the city’s development and that it serves an invaluable purpose in allowing many citizens to come forth and offer their experience, comments and insight as to what they want their city to become over the next twenty two years. Councilman DeRoche thinks they were successful in creating a vision statement and that it has a good balance for today and in the year 2020. Further, he believes if they continue with the process that they can be successful in completing what it is that the citizens want from this process.
Councilman DeRoche advised he is prepared to serve as the chair in an effort to reassemble the steering committee. He believes they first have to reassemble volunteers and he would like to get more volunteers from as broad a base as possible, and he is willing to spend the time and energy to do that. He added he believes they can avoid burdening the Planning Department at this time and if it was overly burdensome, Councilman DeRoche would take whatever corrective steps are necessary to remove that burden from the department and back onto the volunteers. Councilman DeRoche wants it to be a volunteer process with as little expense as possible and added it is meant to just bring forth ideas. Further, because he volunteers enough of his time as a Council member, Councilman DeRoche believes the volunteer effort from a citizen base should be preserved and therefore, he would resign as soon as somebody was able to take on those responsibilities.
CM-98-01-016: Moved by DeRoche, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED: Resolution titled "Novi 20/20, Focus on the Future Vision Process" as adopted by Novi City Council September 8, 1997 be rescinded
Mayor McLallen asked if the motion implies that the process will be picked up under the volunteer parameters as Councilman DeRoche outlined.
Councilman DeRoche replied it was his understanding that Council had authorized this to proceed to its conclusion. He recalled that the citizens had voted to continue with the subsequent stages and they only postponed for the summer and for the elections for various reasons, and because of the resignation of Larry Frey.
Mayor ProTem Crawford concurs with Councilman DeRoche’s comments and that perhaps they should include them in a motion if the resolution is rescinded.
Councilman DeRoche believes an affirmation by Council that they want to revitalize the program is sufficient.
Councilwoman Lorenzo shared comments that she had previously heard from some participants in the process. She advised that some believed it was too heavily staffed by city officials and administration. Therefore, she thinks it would be prudent for any Council member to not participate in this effort. She also heard comments about exclusiveness instead of inclusiveness. She explained some people told her they were not invited to meetings when the mission statement was developed. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes they need to be very inclusive and that all the meetings should be held at the Civic Center.
Councilwoman Lorenzo believes the mission statement is positive, but her concern about the process is that they are soliciting volunteers to put forth all this effort and then not have their efforts implemented by Council. She believes if they are going to do that. they need to have a disqualifier or qualifier in terms of saying someone may participate, but just because certain things are recommended does not mean Council’s decisions are going to be based on the statement. Councilwoman Lorenzo knows just in the two months she has been on Council that they have not been true to the mission statement. Consequently, Councilwoman Lorenzo cannot support something where they are soliciting suggestions from volunteers that Council will ultimately ignore in their decision making.
Councilman Kramer supports revitalizing the 20/20 effort. However, he understands they are faced with the issue of budget and staff support for it. Councilman Kramer would recommend that the steering committee compare the current and old vision statement for discussion purposes. He advised if half of the items have not changed in terms of the citizen’s priority, he does not see any reason to readdress that item. He would like the committee to provide a plan and then look at the Master Plan in terms of the visioning process. Further, Councilman Kramer has no problem with Councilman DeRoche revitalizing the steering committee, but agrees he should step aside at the appropriate time. In conclusion, Councilman Kramer believes Council needs to have some commitment to the process in that Council will take their goals under advisory.
Councilman Schmid did not originally support the 20/20 program because he thought it was a political ploy. Councilman Schmid spoke with several committee members who told him this program was getting them nowhere. In regard to the mission statement, Councilman Schmid does not believe it is any different than the mission statement that the City of Novi has always held. Councilman Schmid’s concern is that these types of concepts attract many special interest groups with their own agendas. Councilman Schmid agrees they should have input from citizens and disagrees with the constant criticism that their meetings are not open. He cannot think of any other community that is more open than Novi.
Councilman Schmid can support some form of group that would give support for the "whole" city of Novi, but he believes they will end up with a small group of perhaps twenty. Councilman Schmid believes it is a good concept, but does not believe they will get a true picture of what the total citizens of Novi want. Instead, he believes they will get a very distorted, special interest opinion of what a few people want. Councilman Schmid believes they will spend $30,000-$40,000 for a document that no one will pay any attention to because there will be issues that only have the support of 50-75 people. He noted Farmington Hills did it and got a beautiful report, but they have done nothing with the information.
Councilwoman Mutch agrees with much of what Councilman Schmid stated, but there are some critical issues that she disagrees with. Councilwoman Mutch believes there has been some differences in vision as to what the futuring process is all about. She knows different communities have done it in different ways and Novi is not really in a position to compare what has happened in Novi to what has happened in other communities because Novi has not completed the whole process yet. Councilwoman Mutch believes there are some valuable things that can be learned from this kind of a process.
Councilman Mutch reported she looked at Farmington Hills two and a half years ago which included preliminary reports, committee reports, the draft document and a video. She continued by stating it was interesting to see exactly how that process progressed. Councilwoman Mutch advised they had more than 150 people involved in the process, and added they started in January, ended in December and that they had their documentation ready by February. She noted they also had a tremendous expense because they brought in someone who is paid top dollar to provide a presentation. She reminded Council that Novi decided not to follow that same route and therefore, Novi did not spend money on a professional facilitator.
Councilwoman Mutch thinks the primary benefit of futuring for a community like Novi is that it provides an indicator of what the community is interested in. Although she agrees it only provides a snapshot view of the issues, the benefit of this particular process is that it brings a cross section of the community together. Therefore, Councilwoman Mutch believes it does not matter that there could be someone who represents a specific special interest or there are dozens of people who represent dozens of special interests because they will be counter balanced by the average citizen who just wants to participate. As a result, that process provides a much better understanding of their own view and their neighbor’s view of the community to everyone who participates. Finally, Councilwoman Mutch believes the greatest product of the process is that people will walk away with a greater appreciation for what Novi is. Further, Councilwoman Mutch believes it is useful for Council members to sit in on the process and hear what people are saying as they go through the process. In the end, she thinks Council will benefit from the suggestions and that they will not have to make a commitment to follow through on the suggestions because the people coming out of the process will realize individually that Council is in no better of a position than any of them to say, this is where I want my tax dollars spent. Councilman Mutch thinks the end product is important to the sense of identity for Novi as a community. Councilwoman Mutch also thinks it is well worth having staff support so that the volunteers know they do not have to spend their own money for things like copying and so there is a contact available to provide information to those outside of the futuring process.
Councilwoman Mutch believes this process should be reopened to the entire community, they should retain the steering committee volunteers and they should solicit a cross section of the community. However, she added if people are not willing to participate in the process, there is not much more they can do.
Vote on CM-98-01-016: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
3. Economic Summit Proposal Report - Mayor McLallen
Mayor McLallen advised there was a proposal from the Economic Development Sub-Committee of the Chamber of Commerce to hold an economic summit that would bring together those who participate in promoting the City of Novi for economic development. She advised the purpose of the summit would be to ensure that everyone is working in the same direction. She added that the Chamber has written an update to their previous report, "Novi at a Crossroads" and they have indicated there have been many positive responses to that. However, the Mayor added there are still some hurdles.
If Council concurs with that, Mayor McLallen advised the initiative was to select an appropriate date in March for this meeting and because of the late hour, they can set that date at another time. Mayor McLallen added Council, the Planning Commission, the City’s Economic Development Corporation and the EDC coordinator, Chamber of Commerce members, staff and the Building Department will attend the meeting.
Mr. Kriewall advised that the Building Authority met to review the status of the Ice Arena, and added it is ahead of schedule and under budget.
Mr. Kriewall advised Council was given an scan that must be completed and returned as soon as possible so Mr. Richards has an opportunity to compile the information for the Goals Session.
Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether they are supposed to be looking to the future in terms of what they would like to see as the goals and objectives. She understands they are not assessing today, but that they are looking down the road; Mr. Kriewall agreed.
Mayor McLallen asked whether an Open House has been scheduled for the Ice Arena? Mayor ProTem Crawford replied a Working Open House is scheduled February 8 to inform people as to what activities will be available and to sign up for leagues.
Mayor McLallen asked who should they refer employment questions to? Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested that they contact Dan Davis for now.
Mr. Klaver provided additional review forms to Council and asked that they complete them as soon as possible for the next scheduled Consultant Review Committee.
Mr. Klaver reported they did not receive any bids for the marketing of Fire Station #1. However, he added that Jim Chen is interested and because he did not receive his bid package, he was not aware of the deadline. Mr. Klaver recommends that they proceed and added they are close to making a recommendation back to Council on the architect for this project that at a minimum would consist of Fire Station #4 and the training facility as authorized and funded in the bond issue. Further, if someone comes forth with a reasonable offer for Fire Station #1, Mr. Klaver advised they would bring that back before Council. He added they believe they have met any obligation for making that property available to the public at large and if someone came in with a reasonable offer, he believes Council would be in a position to entertain that offer and they could simply amend the scope of the work for the architect at that point.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked for an update on the status of the senior citizen housing project. Mr. Klaver replied they provided a recommendation on the selection of the architect to the Building Authority last Thursday and the Implementation Committee recommended three finalists with a strong recommendation on one firm. At the last presentation, Mr. Klaver advised that the architects gave excellent presentations and the Building Authority decided that they would like to see the presentations for the last three finalists. He reported they scheduled that meeting for January 22 and hopefully, the Building Authority will be able to make a decision at that time or shortly afterward.
Mayor McLallen asked Council members to provide choices for flight information by this Thursday for the NLC in Washington.
Councilman Schmid asked whether the public meetings will continue for the Nine Mile and Taft Road issue? Mr. Kriewall believes they will hold one more meeting with the homeowners and noted they are receiving a lot of opposition on that project. He advised that they will provide a recommendation to Council after that meeting based upon some of the suggestions they have received from the neighborhood.
Councilwoman Mutch asked whether this project was included in the road bond; Mr. Kriewall agreed it was. Councilwoman Mutch asked whether the Beck and Nine Mile Road intersection is on the same road bond; Mr. Kriewall agreed and added they will look at that.
Mayor McLallen reminded Council to respond to the Providence Hospital Dinner scheduled for February 11 at 6:30 p.m. at the Providence site by tomorrow night.
ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None
1. Letter from Althea M. Reames to City Council, Re: Willowbrook Drainage S.A.D.
2. Letter from Janet Larson to City Council & Planning Commission, Re: RAMCO Rezoning
3. Letter from Sarah Gray to Ed Kriewall, Re: Arnold Fisher Gift Property & Ivy Leaf Walk
4. Letter and Resolution from City of Orchard Lake Village to Oakland County Road Commission, Re: Resurface Orchard Lake Road
5. Letter from Frank Brennan to City Council, Re: Somoco Oil - request for second well at Comerica site
6. Letter from Zigmund & Mary Ann Grutza to City Council, Re: 9 Mile/Taft Road Intersection
7. Letter from Linda Clancy to City Council, Re: 9 Mile/Taft Road Intersection
8. Memorandum from City of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, Re: Public Hearing on Proposed FY 1998/99 Water and Sewage
9. Letter from Fried, Watson & Bugbee, P.C., to City Council, Re: Mobile Home Zoning
10. Letter from Carol Bauer to Tonni Bartholomew, Re: Receipt of Service Plaque
11. Letter from State of Michigan Department of Transportation to Bruce Jerome, Re: 42" Water main Pressure Reduction - #2 (14 Mile Road Between Haggerty & Novi Road)
12. Letter from James Korte to City Council, Re: Fire Code/1101 South Lake Drive
13. Letter from James Korte to City Council, Re: Sunset Grill, 13 Mile/Old Novi Road
14. Letter from Fried, Watson & Bugbee to Chairperson Weddington & Planning Commissioners, Re: Rockwell International Corporation vs. City of Troy
15. Response letter to Mr. and Mrs. Poltorak regarding the 9 Mile/Taft Road signalization
16. Response letter to Mr. and Mrs. Grutza regarding the 9 Mile/Taft Road signalization
17. Meadowbrook Road Paving Public Informational Meeting held 12/17/97 summary letter from J. Mortimer dated 12/23/97
18. Memorandum from Craig J. Smith to City Council, Re: Willowbrook SAD 150
19. Letter from Donald Saven, Building Official, to City Council, regarding James Korte’s letter dated January 5, 1998-Fire Code/1101 South Lake Drive
20. Letter from Donald Saven, Building Official, to City Council, Regarding James Korte’s letter dated January 5, 1998-Sunset Grill 13 Mile/Old Novi Road
21. Memorandum from Greg Capote, Re: Economic Development Activity Update: Quarterly Report. December 15, 1997
22. Letter from Jim Goodman to City Council Re: 9 Mile/Taft Stop Light Proposal
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:36 a.m.
Mayor City Clerk
Transcribed by Barbara Holmes
Date Approved: January 26, 1997