Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid

Mayor McLallen noted Item C. 2., under the Consent Agenda should be corrected to read October 29, 1998 instead of November 29, 1998.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked Council to add Wetland Mitigation/Wetland Ordinance Amendment as Item 2 under Mayor and Council Issues.

Councilman Schmid asked Council to add the Master Plan in Western Novi as Item 3 under Mayor and Council Issues.

Nays: None

Mayor McLallen advised that the Michigan Association of Planning Officials and the Michigan Chapter of the American Planning association held their annual convention on Mackinac Island over the past week. The Mayor then reported that the City of Novi and Birchler/Arroyo & Associates were the recipients of the Outstanding Planning Award for 1998 for their Site Plan Development Review Guide Book.

Leroy Asher - stated he represents Ken and Jenny Nanda and noted that they submitted a letter to the city last week regarding the Wilshire Abbey project.

Mayor McLallen asked whether the Nanda’s are still the title holders of that property. Mr. Asher advised they are the still the owners and developers of the property. Mr. Asher reported although the Toll brothers purchased twenty eight lots from the Nandas, the ownership of the streets belongs to the Nandas and they are still the developer.

Mr. Asher advised they are before Council tonight to ask that they deny the request by Wilshire Abbey to go forward as currently presented. Mr. Asher explained from a planning perspective they believe it is a better plan to require a second access to come in where they show the yellow line on the drawing. Mr. Asher believes the choice they are left with from a planning perspective is whether or not they will change what was a tentative preliminary easement that runs through the middle of Lot 3 and through the rear of Ms. Nanda’s property onto Beck Road or to require Mr. Lokey to create a secondary access. Mr. Asher provided photos of Ms. Nanda’s home and what impact this would have. From a legal perspective, the agreement states that the easement is for a temporary basis and for Cheltenham Estates only. He then read a decision made from the Michigan Supreme Court forty years ago: "The use of an easement must be confined strictly to the purposes for which it was granted or reserved. A principle which underlies the use of all easements is that the owner of an easement cannot materially increase the burden of it upon the serviette estate or impose thereon a new and additional burden." Mr. Asher advised that it is their position that by taking what was granted and stated to be a grant of a temporary easement, and changing it into something more than that would result into burdening this property more than what was intended and is beyond what the Council can do. Mr. Asher stated his third point is that there is always a balancing that goes on. He explained Council is well aware of the problems that have occurred between the Nandas’ and Mr. Lokey. However, what Mr. Asher does not believe Council is aware of the fact that after the Nandas’ had Council’s approval, they sat down with Mr. Lokey for two months of negotiations which included legal fees, redrawn plans by the Nandas, carrying costs lost and more than $30,000.00 of lost time. Mr. Asher advised that the Nandas’ made every effort to go forward with Mr. Lokey. Mr. Asher continued by stating that Council is being asked to give Mr. Lokey all of the benefit of not having to create any secondary access by accepting the Nandas’ access as their second which was never intended to be a permanent access. Mr. Asher does not believe this is what Council wanted and it is not what the Nandas’ wanted. He continued by stating that the question becomes whether it is fair to require the Nandas’ to give up the value of Lot 3. Therefore, Mr. Asher requested that Council look at this and ask that Mr. Lokey be required to obtain some kind of easement from the Nanda’s across that roadway if his construction traffic is going to use and possibly damage that roadway.

James Korte - Shawood Lake, stated the north end has tried to come into come kind of compliance with humanity and for Council to allow hunks of wood to sit in the road right-of-way is absurd no matter what binding contract and loss of liability the city has. Therefore, Mr. Korte asked Council to removed Item J from the Consent Agenda. Secondly, Mr. Korte stated Old Novi Road has been redone and there is still some debris left at two entries into Shawood-Walled Lake Heights Subdivision. Mr. Korte advised that a bulldozer distributed the contaminated dirt that was to be removed, the dirt is now spread in a downhill situation and the first rain will take all of that contamination into Shawood Lake. Mr. Korte advised that Oakland County contacted him twice late this afternoon and they are removing those contaminants from the road base immediately. Further, the fence removed by Oakland County to open Erma will be replaced. Mr. Korte continued by stating that Mr. Nowicki is aware of some of the barricade problems.

Jamie Thomas -1105 South Lake Dr., is before Council regarding problems she has been trying to resolve for almost three years. Ms. Thomas advised she was denied when she asked to be heard at the storm water management meeting and she is before Council to ask them to step in and help. She reported that when the City repaved South Lake Drive and removed the speed bumps, they also covered the existing storm sewers and crested the road so that it is higher than the properties. She continued by stating that a new home was then constructed at 1101 S. Lake Drive and that these events resulted in a severe flooding problem for 1105, 1107 and 1109 South Lake Drive. Ms. Thomas reported that 1101 has no flooding problem because its grade became higher than that of the other homes. She suspects that 1101 is using the city’s sewer to dispense of the few drops he may receive and maybe she will do the same. Further, it has come to her attention that Mr. Andris had some problems with flooding after clearing his property of all things living and had his problem resolved and paid for by the city by constructing a drainage system that flows directly into Walled Lake. Ms. Thomas believes the city has no idea how concerned the people are who work to keep the lake safe and clean are going to be when they learn of this. Ms. Thomas is disturbed by the fact that the city wants to place a SAD on the residents to resolve their flooding problems, but the city paid for solving Mr. Andris’ problems. She noted that nothing has been done for the residents in almost three years and they are now having health and safety concerns. Ms. Thomas understands that South Lake Drive will be repaved next year and the city will try to do something for the residents at that time. However, Ms. Thomas advised that they cannot wait another year. Ms. Thomas is also before Council to voice her concerns regarding the traffic issues on South Lake Drive. She asked whether a child must die before the city will do something about reducing the horrendous amount of vehicles that travel their small two lane residential street. At the very least, Ms. Thomas asked the city to put up No Left Turn signs as they try to make a decision about this road.

Sonu Nanda - 23001 Beck Rd., is before Council to discuss Wilshire Abbey and the temporary easement that travels through her property. Ms. Nanda granted the easement to her parents under the condition that it was a temporary easement used for emergency vehicles and used only for Cheltenham Estates. Ms. Nanda advised that she did not grant that easement so that it could later become a permanent access for any developer on Beck Road. Further, Ms. Nanda was very disturbed when she discovered that the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for Wilshire Abbey. She was not made aware of the agenda because she does not fall within the 500 foot boundary, but it does concern her because it turns her temporary easement into a permanent road. Ms. Nanda does not oppose development, but she has no idea who Mr. Lokey is and he has never approached her to use her property. Further, Ms. Nanda advised that she was not approached by the Planning Commission to find out whether he had received any permission to use her land. Ms. Nanda hopes Council will take this under consideration when Wilshire Abbey comes before them tonight for approval.

Councilman DeRoche noted he is meeting with a group of citizens on October 28, 1998 to discuss the South Lake Road traffic issues.

CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

Mayor ProTem Crawford requested that Council remove Items J, S and V.

Councilman DeRoche requested that Council remove Item U.

Councilwoman Lorenzo requested that Council remove Items C. 2. , H. and R.

Councilman Schmid requested that Council remove Item K.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. October 5, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting.

2. October 1, 1998 Town Hall Meeting of the City Council.

B. Schedule Executive Sessions:

1. For Monday, November 2, 1998 at 6:00 P.M. for the purpose of Pending Litigation and Attorney’s Opinion.

C. Schedule Special Meetings:

1. Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of City Clerk and City Manager Evaluations in the Council Room Annex.

D. Adopt Resolution #1 for a potential SAD - Shawood Walled Lake Heights Subdivision Water Main.

E. Adopt Resolution #4 SAD #151, Austin Drive/Section 10 Water Main and Schedule a Public Hearing for 7:30 P.M. Monday, November 9, 1998.

F. Approval of agreement between Oakland County and Novi Community that Care Coalition.

G. Approval of Amendment to the Municipal Credit Contract for 1998 with SMART for additional municipal credit monies

I. Approval of "Revised Copy" of the Detroit Edison Pole Relocation Plan dated 9/18/98 for Equipment Relocation associated with the Taft Road Extension/West Road Mitigation site.

L. Approval of Change Order No. 1 (Taft Road Extension East Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Addition) for the Taft Road Extension, Bridge, Water Main, Sanitary Sewer & Wetland Mitigation contingent upon issuance of the MDEQ Sanitary Sewer Permit.

M. Approval of Change Order No. 2 for the Taft Road Extension, Bridge, Water Main, Sanitary Sewer & Wetland Mitigation Project for a savings of $727,570.50.

N. Acceptance of an Earthen Embankment Easement ($133,040.00) and Drainage Easement ($1.00) from FG 40 Corporation for the Taft Road Extension, Bridge, Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, and Wetland Mitigation Project.

O. Approval of waiver request for overhead Detroit Edison facilities at Settler’s Creek Subdivision consisting of approximately a twenty-foot overhead line extension and two utility poles.

P. Approval of Resolution permitting Phone Michigan to expand their fiber optic system by approximately 7,600 lineal feet generally paralleling Thirteen Mile Road from Haggerty to Meadowbrook.

Q. Adoption of Resolution to Release the City of Novi’s Claim of Interest in Lot 8, Supervisor’s Plat No.4, Parcel 50-22-15-476-030, 43410 Grand River Avenue.

T. Award bid for one (1) 1 ton service truck and one (1) 1 tone dump truck to Jorgensen Ford, the low bidder in the total amount of $74,542.50.

W. Approval to seek bids for sale of Section 15 - excess property from SADs # 84, 85 & 86 property is located adjacent to Art Van Furniture.

X. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 528

C. Schedule Special Meetings:

2. Thursday, November October 29, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of Potential Road Program Study/Traffic Improvement Plan in the Activities Room.

H. Approval of agreement between the City of Novi and Soccer Zone for use of the Novi Soccer Zone for the Novi After School Recreation Program.

J. Approval of License Agreement permitting the installation of a nautical theme post fence along South Lake Drive by Mr. & Mrs. Rourk - 1331 South Lake Drive.

K. Approval of Resolution granting a sign easement to Beck Corridor Partners Limited Partnership per a Letter of Understanding associated with the Taft Road Extension, Bridge, Sanitary Sewer, Water Main and Wetland Mitigation Project.

R. Approval of Resolution supporting the Voluntary General Storm Water Permit.

S. Award proposal for MS Office Training to Executrain in the amount of $10,800.

U. Reject bids for the sign computer and approval to rebid.

V. Award proposal for Telecommunications Consultant to Plante & Moran in the amount of $21,000.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Request for adoption of Resolution Declaring Intent to Reimburse for Expenditures and Authorizing Treasury Filing - Senior Citizen Facility

Mayor McLallen advised this is step one in the process that creates the bonds that would eventually fund the construction of the senior housing project proposed on property north of Holy Family Church on the west side of Meadowbrook Road between Ten Mile and Grand River. The Mayor continued by stating that this permits the process to begin and a not to exceed amount is established. She added that it allows the city to recoup any capital expenses that they may have entered into prior to the bonds actually being issued.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman DeRoche is glad to see this come before Council and he is looking forward to moving forward on this item.

Councilman Schmid asked what is the initial cost projection? The Mayor believes the original cost was between $6-8M, but she understands that the site will support and the demand is for more units than what was originally proposed.

Mr. Kriewall advised the prior numbers were in the $12-13M range and it will be a little bit higher. He continued by stating that they attribute much this to increased construction costs and those costs will not decrease.

Councilman Schmid does not want to hold the project up, but he wants to make certain that they calculated the rents sufficiently to pay off the bond. He believes the increase is substantial and he does not believe they can raise the senior’s rents. Councilman Schmid assumes they will have more information about this.

Mr. Fried advised that Council will get other resolutions that will be more clarifying as to the costs.

Mayor McLallen understands this is a precautionary resolution that enables the city to begin the process at a not to exceed number that can always be backed down.

Nays: None

2. Request for approval of Revised Tentative Preliminary Plat and Wetlands Permit, Wilshire Abbey Subdivision, SP 97-48B, property located west of Beck Road between Nine Mile and Ten Mile Roads.

William Hostler - advised he is representing the applicant and believes the issue comes down to the secondary access. According to the city’s ordinance, Mr. Hostler understands they need two points of access and it states they can accomplish that by way of an existing subdivision. Mr. Hostler noted that Cheltenham Estates is an existing subdivision. He continued by stating that their two points of access are at Cheltenham Drive and at Sarnia, and therefore, they meet the ordinance. Mr. Hostler asked Council to recall that they are back before them because there was some hope that they could connect through Edinborough. He continued by stating that if the residents had consented to sell the lots that were not dedicated, then they would have been prepared to construct a grass paver. However, when they met with the homeowner’s, they unanimously declined. Because of the decisions made by the Nandas, Mr. Hostler believes they have little choice. He reminded Council that it was Mr. Nanda that recorded the easement behind his daughter’s home for his own development and not for Wilshire Abbey. Mr. Hostler understands that it is only a temporary access until a permanent access is established. Mr. Hostler added they do not intend to use the access in any way other than as an emergency access.

Mr. Fried advised that they reviewed the easement given from the Nanda’s to the city and the Nanda easement is very clear that it can only be used for the Cheltenham Subdivision. Mr. Fried advised that the city cannot accept that as a secondary access because it is not an access that they can use.

Mayor McLallen understands that Wilshire Abbey as presented, does not have a secondary access; Mr. Fried agreed.

Respectfully, Mr. Hostler does not believe that is true. He explained that the subdivision has two points of access and restated that the ordinance states that they can use an existing subdivision. Regarding the easement issue, Mr. Hostler stated there is no intention to overburden this easement and he does not agree with the premise that they can restrict a temporary easement.

Mayor McLallen interjected, that is a legal point that Council has no authority or competency to debate.

Mr. Hostler does not believe the city can restrict an easement necessary for ordinance compliance with use for a specific subdivision when by its very nature, it is emergency based.

Mr. Hostler stated their plan has full Planning Commission approval except for the points raised, and he advised they have no objection to the issues about street naming and so forth. Further, he understands that the Toll Brothers have rights of access over Mr. Nanda’s road to develop the land they purchased from him. Mr. Hostler added that the Toll Brothers have volunteered to Mr. Lokey to provide access over those roads for ingress and egress for Wilshire Abbey. Mr. Hostler stated if they cannot work that out, that is okay too. He explained they could construct a haul road as requested by Mr. Arroyo.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands the roads in Cheltenham Estates have not been dedicated as public roads; Mr. Fried believes that is correct. He continued by stating that they are roads within a plat and the city has not yet accepted them yet.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether Mr. Fried would consider them as private roads at this point? Mr. Fried stated they are roads dedicated to the city and until the city accepts them, they are not public roads.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether the public has the right to use them? Mr. Fried they can be used just as the developer allows them to be used because it is still a private road.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes the developer is Mr. Nanda; Mr. Fried agreed.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether the builder has the authority to give the option to someone else? Mr. Fried stated he does, if Mr. Nanda has given him that right.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes they need to determine whether the Nandas gave the builder the right to give the petitioner access to those roads. Councilwoman Lorenzo continued by stating that her point was that the Cheltenham roads are not public and the connections to Sarnia are not connections until the public can use those roads.

Councilwoman Lorenzo then asked whether the builder of the lots sold by Mr. Nanda has the authority to grant access to the petitioner. Mr. Fried believes the petitioner is not saying he is going to build or utilize those roads now. He believes the petitioner is saying that by the time they accept his final plat, that those roads would be public roads.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes he is making the assumption that the city is going to accept dedication. Mr. Fried would assume before the city accepts the final plat that the city will determine whether they are public roads or not.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the petitioner may go through the entire process and come to find out at final plat approval that he does not have a subdivision. Mr. Fried agreed that is true if there are no public roads.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether there is enough property near the proposed detention basin to build a permanent boulevard? Mr. Arroyo believes that constructing a permanent boulevard connection there would be difficult. However, he does believe they could construct an emergency access because it is only required to be 18 feet wide. He continued by stating that if it were found that the Cheltenham access could not serve Wilshire Abbey, one alternative would be to make the construction route a permanent secondary access that would be 18 feet wide and would be much like the one that is serving Cheltenham. He added that Mr. Bluhm and Ms. Lemke agree that it could be a permanent secondary access.

In addition to the secondary access being feasible, Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether a two lane road is possible instead of a boulevard? Mr. Arroyo advised there are two issues. He advised one is the spacing of that driveway from Cheltenham Drive. He explained because the two points of access are roughly two hundred twenty feet from one another, they would not meet the spacing standards in the Design and Construction Standards. Mr. Arroyo has not recommended that all along because of his concern with them being too close together to be permanent fully accessed roadways. He continued by stating an emergency access is a different situation because its use is negligible. In addition to the spacing issue, Mr. Arroyo stated a roadway would encroach into the wetland and woodlands located just to the north.

In terms of the Design & Construction Standards, Councilwoman Lorenzo believes a waiver or a variance could be sought. Mr. Arroyo agreed that Council could grant that waiver.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands there are two on site detention basins which will provide temporary detention and asked where is the permanent detention proposed to be? Mr. Potter replied that the permanent detention is not identified, but it would be one of the regional storm water basins that the city would construct. He continued by stating that once the regional basin is constructed, then they typically allow the detention basins to be taken off line.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes if the regional basins were never built, they would never come off line. Mr. Potter agreed and added that even if they do come off line, they then convert them to permanent water quality basins.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands although are temporary detentions, the petitioner should understand that they can remain in place as permanent water quality basins.

Concerning the detention on the western half of the site, Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether they will size the ditch for a ten year or a one hundred year storm? Mr. Potter believes it is sized for a ten year storm.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes the high water elevation on the plan was almost a foot higher than the flood plain elevation, and asked what effect would that have on Lots 14 and 15, or any other adjacent lots. She would also like to know what effect that would have on the flood plain elevation to the adjacent flood plain area.

Mr. Potter asked whether Councilwoman Lorenzo is referring to the elevation within the ditch? Councilwoman Lorenzo said she is referring to the detention in the ditch, high water elevation 964.0 and flood plain elevation 956.0. She noted the water elevation is almost a foot higher than the flood plain elevation. Mr. Potter believes that elevation is local to the ditch.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked what is the one hundred year elevation going to be. Mr. Potter advised that they show the one hundred year flood elevation as 956. Councilwoman Lorenzo restated they will have a ten year storm elevation at 964. Mr. Potter believes the ditch elevation is shown in cross section DD and FF.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is asking whether the ditch has enough capacity for a one hundred year elevation and what would the elevation be for a one hundred year flood? She then asked whether that would impact on the adjacent lots?

Mayor McLallen stated these are very technical questions that Councilwoman Lorenzo should have reviewed with the engineers prior to the meeting. She also believes that she and Mr. Potter are not talking about the same thing.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes they are. She restated she is looking for the numbers and she is asking what is the one hundred year elevation proposed to be and is the capacity in the ditch going to be able to handle a one hundred year storm. She would also like to know what effect it will have on the adjacent lots if it cannot handle a one hundred year storm because it is already one foot over the flood plain elevation.

Mr. Potter replied those issues are typically addressed once they get into the design and construction drawings.

Councilwoman Lorenzo will be looking for those issues to be resolved before the plan comes back for final. Mr. Potter agreed those are important issues.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether the design of the detention ditch basin unusual? Mr. Potter agreed it is unusual. However, he explained that sometimes they will tier their storage volumes depending upon the volume.

Councilwoman Lorenzo will want to know what best management practices will be used and will they take into account a treatment train approach to the extent available, and how it will work with this kind of detention ditch.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked if there is an alternative site for the detention basin on the east side if they were to build a secondary access or another road in that area? From what Mr. Potter has seen, he believes the storm drainage that is being discharged into that area could be moved to the north. However, he believes it would affect a number of trees depending upon how close that road would be to that property line.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether the basin could be moved to the west? Mr. Potter asked what lots are Councilwoman Lorenzo talking about. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes it would affect Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Potter believes that is one possibility and noted there are many alternatives that can be done. He explained because of the contours of the site, that it could also be constructed parallel to the entire wetland area. Councilwoman Lorenzo does not believe it is necessarily restricted to this particular area or even to the north of this area. Just by looking at it, Mr. Potter believes that would be something that the engineer and the developer would have to consider when they are trying to develop the property. He restated that there are many alternatives available. However, he noted that it may cause additional tree removal and they would have to consider wetland and woodland impacts.

Councilwoman Lorenzo noted that they have not addressed the Planning Commission’s recommendation that several lots be scaled back out of the woodland area in the site plan. Therefore, she hopes that Council will take the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding that into consideration with any approval they may give. She believes the affected lots are 1, 2, 4, 5 and 14 through 17. She added that she understands that these lots exceed the R-1 minimums and they could reduce the depths so that the woodlands and buffers were not actually within a platted lot.

Councilwoman Lorenzo does not believe this is a good situation any way she looks at it. She explained she is not pleased that both subdivisions have had to be constructed in this manner. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes they still need to answer the question about whether or not Cheltenham and Sarnia are acceptable to be used by the petitioner at this time.

Mr. Fried advised this is just a preliminary plat and a preliminary plat just accepts the lay out of the roads and the lay out of the lots. He continued by stating that it does not state that the city will accept this plat as a final plat. When it comes through as a final plat, Mr. Fried reported all of the engineering questions should be answered and all of the rights to the road should be answered. If they do not have the answers, Mr. Fried stated Council will not accept the final plat. Therefore, Mr. Fried believes that question is somewhat preliminary.

As a matter of clarification, Mr. Arroyo reported that Cheltenham has received final plat approval. He continued by stating the next step in the roads becoming public will be for the city engineers to inspect the roads when they are ready and they would then come before Council for acceptance as public roadways.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands the secondary access issue is a Council issue; Mr. Arroyo agreed. Councilwoman Lorenzo understands their option is to either waive the secondary access requirement or require the petitioner to provide permanent access through the wetland woodland area. Mr. Arroyo stated Council could require a permanent emergency access or a permanent full access.

Councilwoman Lorenzo would appreciate hearing the opinions of the other members about this issue.

Although Councilman Kramer preferred the idea of connecting the subdivision to the north, he also respects the comments made by the residents of the subdivision to the north and how the cul-de-sac is constructed. Councilman Kramer believes the temporary access emergency road on the southern end of Cheltenham is specifically that and he would not like to see that continued any longer than necessary to support the development of that subdivision. Further, Councilman Kramer believes they should require a secondary road and again, he would prefer the northern route and that they would adjust the woodlands and wetlands as required. He added if there is mitigation required, so be it because he believes the road belongs there and that it should be an emergency access and not a general use road. In addition, Councilman Kramer believes they will address the other issues at the appropriate time.

Councilman Schmid understands the petitioner can construct a temporary emergency access onto Beck Road. Mr. Arroyo advised it would be a permanent emergency access.

Councilman Schmid understands that the retention basin could be moved to the north. Mr. Arroyo believes it would have to be moved to the north if they constructed a permanent emergency access.

Councilman Schmid asked how wide is an emergency access road? Mr. Arroyo replied the standard is 18 feet and is what is required by the fire department to bring their fire trucks through.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Arroyo to address the cul-de-sac length issue. Mr. Arroyo advised if they provide two points of access either through the secondary access to Cheltenham or a new permanent secondary access adjacent to the detention area, then they would not have a problem with the cul-de-sac lengths because they are measured from the point where they would have two points of access. He explained it has been interpreted that a secondary emergency access constitutes a point access through previous approvals. Therefore, Mr. Arroyo does not believe they would have any problems with cul-de-sac lengths if they had a second point of access.

Councilman Schmid understands the applicant will meet the ordinance. Mr. Arroyo agreed and added the only waiver required from Council is a Design and Construction Standards waiver for not providing that stub street to the north to Inverness Court. He explained there is a standard that requires a stub street for approximately every thirteen hundred feet and they do not meet that requirement.

Councilman Schmid asked how can they prevent what happened in the subdivision to the north in the future? He explained he is sure a stub street was required and would end up in a cul-de-sac and the developers never told the homeowners that there may be a street there some day. Mr. Arroyo believes the way to prevent that is not to construct them as cul-de-sacs, but construct them as stub streets that run to the property line. He added the city now has been requiring that stub streets be built right to the property line so they can be extended by other property owners at a later date.

Councilman Schmid asked whether there is any provision that the city could enforce to share the cost of constructing the entrance? Mr. Fried replied there is no provision because it is a public road.

Councilman Schmid will not support the proposal as presented. However, he does believe he could support the possibility of constructing a permanent emergency access on Beck Road.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that they only required the temporary emergency access to the south until they had a connection somewhere else and somewhere else would now be Sarnia. Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch understands if the road depicted as neon green on the plan were to be approved, then they would no longer require the Nanda’s to maintain the temporary emergency access. Mr. Arroyo believes that would be a legal interpretation about what the requirements of that easement are. However, Mr. Arroyo does not believe the Nanda’s would have to maintain that if there is another point of access.

Councilwoman Mutch raised this question because it was represented that the particular connection of the north/south streets (Wilshire from the north and Cheltenham on the South) could provide a secondary access for Wilshire. She believes if it provides a secondary access for Wilshire, then it would function as a secondary access for Cheltenham as well.

Mr. Fried assumes if the secondary access is open and accepted by Council that the developer of the most southerly plat could ask to abandon the secondary access that they maintain for that lot. However, until that time, Mr. Fried stated it should remain open.

Councilwoman Mutch understands it would be until such time they actually constructed those roads in that subdivision.

Councilwoman Mutch is concerned about the three lots to the south of the proposed permanent access road. She explained it appears that there are three lots that have north and south road frontage, and would get traffic from both subdivisions. Mr. Arroyo stated if they approved it as an emergency access there would only be traffic on this route if the other route were blocked.

Councilwoman Mutch understands the three lots are a part of Cheltenham; Mr. Arroyo agreed. Councilwoman Mutch understands that those three lots will get the traffic for two subdivisions; Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch believes the traffic volumes are now not what was expected at the time they approved the first subdivision and in addition, they have granted an emergency only road behind them. Mr. Arroyo advised there is the potential to get a few feet of separation to provide for some landscaping.

Councilwoman Mutch believes this has been an interesting lesson for everyone through the process. She believes some people are very civic minded and cooperative, and try to do what is best for them and for the city, and some people try to get as much as they can for the least amount of money. Councilwoman Mutch will vote for a request that meets the ordinance and when a request does not meet the city’s ordinances, she will not support it.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether there would be less impact on the woodland and wetlands if they were to propose an alternate location for the detention basin and support a permanent secondary access road. Ms. Lemke believes it would have less impact. She explained an eighteen foot road with some slopes constructed five feet away from the property line would impact fifteen to twenty trees. Therefore, she believes if they removed the detention basin it would have less impact on the woodlands and on the wetland’s buffer area. Ms. Lemke believes the city should look closely at constructing a permanent emergency access at this location.

Councilman Kramer is interested in having the road moved away from the rear of the three lots and moving the detention basin at another appropriate spot on the plat. Councilman Kramer believes if they do not resolve this issue and they accept this as tentative plant, they are accepting the lot layouts.

Mr. Fried does not recommend that Council accept this as a preliminary plat until they are certain all the roads are constructed as they want them, including the access road.

Councilman Kramer believes it would be appropriate to send this back before they accept the preliminary plat; Mr. Fried agreed.

Councilman Kramer believes a reasonable approach would be to send this back and have them look at this area to bring back an alternative resolution to relocate the detention basin and the road with a livable proximity to the other homes.

CM-98-10-331: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED: To postpone action for approval of revised tentative preliminary plat and wetlands permit for Wilshire Abbey Subdivision, SP98-48B to give the applicant the opportunity to work out the northerly permanent emergency access road and consider the relocation of the detention basin in order to accommodate their subdivision

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked how far north is the Wilshire Abbey parcel and asked whether there is sufficient area to construct a road. Mr. Arroyo advised the problem in that area is that a regulated wetland is located there.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked why don’t they consider Cheltenham Drive and Sarnia as two accesses? Mr. Arroyo advised they are not considered as two accesses because both roads lead to the same point onto Beck Road.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether they would resolve the secondary access issue if they approved the road depicted in green. Mr. Arroyo advised that road would provide secondary access to both subdivisions.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that would be a permanent road; Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked why is that not an option tonight? Mr. Arroyo advised it is an option for emergency purposes only and would serve both subdivisions.

Councilman Kramer advised the issue is that the road is immediately adjacent to the northerly property lines of three lots and they are proposing that they move the detention pond to the north.

Councilwoman Mutch believes the opportunities for change are limited and would ask how much time are they going to waste if there is no interest in resolving some of the most basic concerns. Therefore, she would suggest that they vote on either approving or denying this matter and not bother postponing.

Councilman DeRoche is against continuing this conversation further and called the question.

Nays: Crawford, Schmid

Mayor McLallen advised this project will never have her vote without the secondary access through Edinborough.

BREAK - 9:02 p.m. until 9:20 p.m.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part II

3. Request for approval of Zoning Text Amendment 18.145 - An ordinance to amend subsection 2516.1 and 2516.4 to permit or require administrative approval of certain site plans - II Reading and Final Adoption

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Lorenzo will not support the motion for the same reasons she did not support for the first reading. She restated she is not convinced that the Administrators are ready or should be given discretionary authority. She is also not convinced that this is serving the public instead of the developers. Councilwoman Lorenzo stated there are certain aspects of this ordinance that she could agree to in terms of the ones that are very straightforward in meeting ordinance requirements. However she is concerned about discretionary decisions. It is Councilwoman Lorenzo’s opinion that the Administrators do not have a stellar track record and she would suggest that there be some kind of monitoring in Council’s monthly review of what and how things are being handled administratively.

Councilman Kramer will support the motion because he believes in anything that can improve the efficiency of governmental operations.

Councilman DeRoche will support this motion for the same reasons he raised during the first reading. He added that he believes this is very appropriate and meets one of his goals to empower the city’s administration to do some of these things. Councilman DeRoche does not see anything in this ordinance as something that the Administrators should not have within their authority. Further, Councilman DeRoche believes he knows who to hold responsible for decisions in the Administration that are not done in the best interest of the citizens of Novi. In addition, Councilman DeRoche believes those who are responsible know that responsibility lies on their shoulders. Finally, Councilman DeRoche believes this ordinance fits well with the form of government that the citizens chose to have with the City Manager running the city on a day to day basis.

Councilman Schmid also supports the concept, but he does not share Councilman DeRoche’s confidence in the Planning Department although he believes they will do a reasonably good job.

Councilman Schmid referred to Item 5 and reminded Council that many site plans are approved with greater than minimum standards because of certain elements. Councilman Schmid understands they will be careful, but he does not see anything in the ordinance that forbids administrative approval of that situation. Councilman Schmid does not believe Administration should have the authority to disregard the Planning Commission or Council’s provisions of approval for a particular facility (i.e., Midas). Mr. Arroyo referred to Paragraph D on Page 4 and reported that language gives the department the authority when reviewing these administrative site plan submittal to say something is a significant change to what was previously acted upon and therefore, it should be sent back to the approving body for action.

Councilman Schmid asked if this would also address facade and landscaping requirements? Mr. Arroyo replied a minor change that would not have an impact on the overall appearance of a project would be handled administratively, but if there is concern by the department that there is a major departure from what was approved, then it would come back to the approving body for review.

Nays: Lorenzo

4. Request for Zoning Map Amendments 98-119.07 to Wetlands Ordinance and 98-125.12 to Woodlands Ordinance - II Reading and Final Adoption

Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to make a motion to approve the zoning map amendments provided that both maps include the resources that were used to determine the areas. Councilwoman Lorenzo explained there is nothing on the maps to show whether the areas were field inspected, whether they used wetland inventory maps or other maps, and she believes it would be beneficial to include that.

Dave Potter believes that can be clarified. He explained they typically begin with aerial photography and field verify, so that kind of information can be added to the map.

Mr. Fried has some objection to that; if the map will not be the final determination of what the map says and then someone would have to go to the source that they have created the map from, it will create confusion. He suggested that the engineers tell Council what source they used to create the map, and that history will then be attached to the ordinance.

Councilwoman Lorenzo agreed with Mr. Fried’s recommendation.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked Mr. Potter what sources were used to determine the wetland map. Mr. Potter also agreed with Mr. Fried on this issue. He explained that they need to look at what the purpose of the map is and noted that maps of this nature typically are used to start the review process. He continued by stating they then need to determine whether more detailed field determination needs to be made at that time. Therefore, by light of those comments, Mr. Potter believes it may be more appropriate to stay with what the map is basically to be used for and that is to define what those limits are. Mr. Potter reported the process they used began with photographs to make basic delineations in conjunction with field verification and topography. He advised when they walked the site they looked at the vegetation that exists, the type of soil and the visual verification of the field.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that they did not utilize the wetland inventory map or any other mapping; Mr. Potter disagreed. He advised they would have used the city’s map inventory and the community wetland inventories are then taken to one more level of detail on the map.

Nays: None

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Items listed on the Consent Agenda which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

2. Thursday, November October 29, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of Potential Road Program Study/Traffic Improvement Plan in the Activities Room.

Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to move to hold this special meeting in the Council Chambers and have it televised on cable because traffic is one of the most important issues with Novi’s citizens.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

It is Councilman DeRoche’s personal opinion that there is a great deal of effort in planning that is being put forward by the city and he believes that the public at large has many misconceptions. Consequently, Councilman DeRoche believes the public would benefit greatly by having the opportunity to hear some of the things that are actually going on or are planned for, as well as the discussions from the Council members as to what they want to see done. Although Councilman DeRoche understands the usefulness of meeting in the Activities Room, he believes because of the level of concern that the citizens have for roads and the future planning of roads, that it would be more beneficial to have this meeting as accessible as possible to those who are unable to attend to the meeting.

Mayor ProTem Crawford will not support the motion because he believes these types of sessions are much more conducive to being held in the Activities Room where Council can have a freer exchange of ideas. He added they must also consider budget restraints and reminded Council that study sessions have not been budgeted for.

In general, Councilman Kramer agrees they should be as public as is reasonable and that he is less concerned about the budget concerns. Further, although he recognizes the benefits of having an informal study session, he believes because they are headed toward putting a bond issue forward, that they should provide this advance information to the public. Therefore, he would support having this study session cablecast.

Councilman Schmid believes there are good arguments on both sides. However, he believes Council’s general policy has been not to cablecast study sessions. He believes study sessions are just that, study sessions and if they telecast them, he believes they become a political agenda for some. Councilman Schmid suggested that the public attend the meeting. Further, Councilman Schmid reminded Council that once they put a road program together he is certain that it will be a part of Council’s agenda and will be cablecast at that time.

Councilwoman Mutch does not believe this is not an issue of openness. She believes if they are going to cablecast a Council meeting, it ought to be done so that the public is better enlightened than they would be if they did not cablecast it. Councilwoman Mutch believes when the public watches a formal meeting, the viewer can follow the discussion because there is a known format and they follow certain procedures. However, even when a study session has an agenda-based meeting, Councilwoman Mutch believes there is still free form discussion and that kind of discussion is difficult to follow on television. She added she believes study sessions should provoke questions to provide additional information and that Council should be able to express an opinion or raise a question without having any other meaning attached to asking those questions. Councilwoman Mutch believes if their goal is to enlighten the public and they are providing more of a public service, then they should plan a meeting after the initial study session meetings to show the public the process they went through and provide a forum for additional comments at that time.

Mayor McLallen will not support the motion because it has been Council’s policy to hold the study sessions informally in the Activities Room.

Nays: McLallen, Crawford, Mutch, Schmid

H. Approval of agreement between the City of Novi and Soccer Zone for use of the Novi Soccer Zone for the Novi After School Recreation Program.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is questioning the items that the City of Novi’s after school program agrees to provide. She noted there is a $1M liability insurance certificate listing Soccer Zone as an additional insured in addition to a communication system, a cell phone and a separate line answering machine. Councilwoman Lorenzo wants to know whether these items are covered in the grant or whether the city is paying for them.

It is Mayor McLallen’s understanding that these items are covered in the grant.

Mayor ProTem Crawford is not certain, but he knows that the grant entirely funds the program so he assumes that if these are conditions that must be met, the costs are somehow met by the grant.

Mr. Fried suggested that they make the approval subject to that determination.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

In regard to the liability insurance, Councilwoman Mutch understands that if they propose that the city’s coverage be extended to include the activity that takes place at Soccer Zone, then she believes Council should state whether they have a problem with that. However, if it is a matter of paying additional premiums, then that cost should come out of the grant.

Mr. Fried recalled that they did check that and Mr. Klaver said they could include the activity that takes place at Soccer Zone in the city’s coverage. However, he noted that the question has not been answered about whether the cost is funded by the grant.

Councilman DeRoche’s believes they should specifically word the certificate as to what it is they are applying it to so the costs should be readily available to separate out. He believes there is about a $15.00 charge for the certificate. Further, he believes the payroll is probably already being separated and advised that the liability insurance is based upon a percentage of the payroll.

Mr. Fried believes the approval should also be subject to all of Council’s comments.

Nays: None

J. Approval of License Agreement permitting the installation of a nautical theme post fence along South Lake Drive by Mr. & Mrs. Rourk - 1331 South Lake Drive.

Mayor ProTem Crawford removed this item because of the request made by a resident and asked for further comment from Mr. Nowicki.

Mayor McLallen advised that the licensing agreement is the same kind of agreement that the city grants to the homeowner’s association for their homeowner’s entry signs in the right-of-way so that if the sign is damaged in any way, the city is held harmless for any costs incurred in the damage.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not have a problem with the proposal, but asked whether they perhaps missed something in the proposal.

Mr. Nowicki advised that the Rourk’s are asking Council to allow them to construct a decorative type three pole nautical theme within the road right-of-way. He continued by stating that because it is in the road right-of-way, it must be brought before Council for an agreement. He explained the decorative theme fencing is structured so that if a vehicle hits it and it collapses, then the agreement stipulates that the city is not held responsible for repairs. Mr. Nowicki noted that the city typically employs this type of agreement for fences in the road right-of-way. Mr. Nowicki noted that this particular fence is not different from many of the other nautical theme fences along South Lake Drive except that this fence has included some extra safety measures.

Councilwoman Mutch understands the road right-of-way is that area extending beyond the road bed itself, and it is six feet beyond the edge of the road; Mr. Nowicki agreed.

Additionally, Councilwoman Mutch understands it there is not just a concern about damage to the resident’s post, there is also concern that the city would be held harmless if a bicyclist ran into the pole. Mr. Nowicki agreed that is also part of the agreement.

Councilwoman Mutch asked whether the distance back from the road is generally six feet. Mr. Nowicki replied it varies in some aspects along South Lake Drive because the road meanders.

Councilman Kramer asked whether the city should continue to support substantial poles within six feet of the edge of the road on a narrow road? Mr. Arroyo believes it comes down to the design. He is not sure whether JCK has reviewed this and what is going to happen to the poles if they are struck by a vehicle.

Councilman Kramer asked whether it is a good policy to permit fences within six feet of the edge of the road.

Mr. Fried suggested that an approval should be subject to the engineers saying that the posts will not interfere with the safe condition of the road.

Councilman Kramer asked why is it necessary to construct the poles in the road right-of-way? Mr. Nowicki advised it is close to the water and he added they only are extending the existing fence lines that their neighbors have.

Although Councilman Schmid has no problems with the poles, he questions the legal liability. He asked whether the agreement to indemnify the city is totally binding. Mr. Fried advised it is binding, but he would not think that the indemnity of a property owner is sufficient to indemnify the city and that is why he thought Councilman Kramer’s question was a good question. He restated that the plan should be submitted to the city’s engineers and if they determine that it is a safe construction of a road, then he believes the posts could be approvable on that ground.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether the other existing fences are located in the city’s right-of-way. Mr. Nowicki replied that many of them are constructed in the right-of-way.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated since the city knows they are in the right-of-way, he asked whether the city has a liability by allowing that situation to exist. Mr. Fried does not believe the city should permit fences in the right -of-way unless they are allowed by way of a license demanded by the City Council. He believes the fences should be removed or the residents should apply for a license under the same license agreement as being entered this case.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked where is the edge of the right-of-way in this case? Mr. Nowicki would have to look at the plat map and they could bring it back before Council.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not believe the city’s engineers will approve these posts.

Mr. Fried advised if the city engineers do not believe the posts are safe, then Council should not grant this license.

Mayor ProTem Crawford will make a motion to refer this matter to JCK & Associates, but he would also like to obtain an opinion from the city’s attorney regarding the city’s liability exposure with existing fences in the right-of-way.

Mr. Fried advised that he will follow up on that request.

CM-98-10-338: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer the matter of permitting the installation of a nautical theme post to JCK & Associates for their recommendation regarding safety issues

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether they should require reflectors? Mr. Nowicki advised that JCK will comment on that.

Nays: None

K. Approval of Resolution granting a sign easement to Beck Corridor Partners Limited Partnership per a Letter of Understanding associated with the Taft Road Extension, Bridge, Sanitary Sewer, Water Main and Wetland Mitigation Project.

Councilman Schmid is concerned about a business sign being constructed in a public right-of-way. Further, Councilman Schmid stated that the city has no idea what kind of sign will be constructed and believes the petitioner could construct a bill board sign if it met the ordinance. Councilman Schmid recommended that they get a clearer understanding of what kind of sign is proposed before they grant a sign easement.

Nays: None

R. Approval of Resolution supporting the Voluntary General Storm Water Permit

Councilwoman Lorenzo is pleased to see the resolution moving forward and she would like to propose some minor revisions to the language. She referred to Paragraph 3 and suggested they change the text to read, "Now therefore be it resolved that the Mayor and the City of Novi reaffirm their commitment to seek coverage under the voluntary General Storm Water Permit by January 1999 and commit the resources of the City of Novi to develop and implement comprehensive plans accordingly." Councilwoman Lorenzo stated the Voluntary General Storm Water Permit will require certain plans be developed and implemented. She added that she believes Mr. Nowicki included the present drafts for the Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan and the Public Education Plan, and she is seeking to commit doing this in a comprehensive manner. She also believes the judge is also looking for this from the cities, municipalities and counties involved in this.

Mr. Nowicki believes the proposed changes suggested by Councilwoman Lorenzo are reasonable and they can include them if Council approves it.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman DeRoche asked whether they are committing to being responsible for something. Mr. Fried advised that the city will be responsible for what the court orders, but this resolution just supports the court’s order.

Nays: None

S. Award proposal for MS Office Training to Executrain in the amount of $10,800.

Mayor ProTem Crawford would like to combine S and V, and explained he is concerned that in both cases because they are not going with the low bidder if they are qualified.

Mr. Gibson advised these are professional services and they draw a distinction between a proposal for professional services as opposed to a straight out bid. Mr. Gibson advised that the proposal is generally considered as professional services and they look for them to present a program to the city in terms of what they are going to do. In regard to the Microsoft Office Training, Mr. Gibson advised they received five bids and they are recommending the second lowest cost one because the lowest cost appears to be geared to training smaller groups and they specialize more in training people for home computers as opposed to training for a multi-office environment.

In regard to the communications consultant, Mr. Gibson advised they checked references and the proposals submitted by the vendors, and their concern with the low bid was the ability to provide enough people to complete the job on a timely basis.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that the low bidders do not meet the minimum requirements as to whatever was bid. Mr. Gibson advised it is a matter of a proposal coming back to the city with certain programs and staffing levels. Therefore, it is a judgement matter and is not a straight qualification. He agreed that they would have concerns about going with the low bidders.

Mayor ProTem Crawford understands that both low bidders did not meet the city’s minimum qualifications; Mr. Gibson agreed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not believe that was clear in the documentation.

In regard to the telecommunications consultants, Councilman Schmid noted there is a substantial difference in the cost. Based on the discussion, Councilman Schmid understands that the low bidder did not meet the requirements of the bid. Mr. Gibson agreed and noted that there is some judgement involved. He restated they based their decision on the number of individuals involved in this firm. He continued by stating they had to consider how quickly they could deliver the service and what would happen in the event something happened to this one individual.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked whether the city only received three bids or do these bids represent the lowest three bids of all the bidders. Mr. Gibson advised these three bids were the only bids that were submitted.

Councilwoman Mutch understands the other proposal is the same; Mr. Gibson agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that anyone can submit a bid and Mr. Gibson will submit all of those bids before Council; Mr. Gibson agreed.

Mr. Fried clarified that these are not a bid items; these are proposals that the city requested and these proposals are submitted. He added that the proposals are then reviewed and the Finance Director determines which proposal is best suited for a specific area. Mr. Gibson agreed.

V. Award proposal for Telecommunications Consultant to Plante & Moran in the amount of $21,000

CM-98-10-342: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To award proposal for Telecommunications Consultant to Plante & Moran in the amount of $21,000

Nays: None

U. Reject bids for the sign computer and approval to rebid.

Councilman DeRoche asked if this is the same sign machine that they debated during the budget sessions this year. Councilman DeRoche recalled that this machine was going to cost approximately $40,000 and then it was said that there are other machines that would probably cost less, and the target price was then reduced.

Mr. Nowicki advised that they went back to define the program and shopped around to get the best prices they could. It was then bid, and they felt that the prices were somewhat high and therefore, they are requesting that they reject these bids. He noted that they found another potential vendor who can bid on the same piece of equipment at a significantly reduced cost.

Councilman DeRoche appreciates what the Department of Public Works is doing by looking for a more moderately priced machine. However, he is concerned about entering into a responsibility that he as a Council member does not want them to. Councilman DeRoche stated the city contracts everything from cutting the lawn to defending law suits because the city does not want to have employees doing work that a qualified vendor could perform for a lesser expense.

Councilman Kramer believes a make/buy analysis would be in order.

Mr. Nowicki agreed and believes that before the bids were solicited, they had provided Council with an analysis on the equipment and they will bring that information back before Council.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked how was it that the budget request was $40,000 and the bids that are now considered high are less than $20,000. Mr. Nowicki advised that during the budget process they solicited information about what the equipment would run and after determining what they wanted, they were able to reduce the costs.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that there was not a drastic change in the type of equipment they are proposing. Mr. Nowicki agreed and added that they just got some better prices from some of the vendors and they believe they can get even better numbers.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked whether this is the same sign machine that actually makes the signs that they discussed during the budget sessions? Mr. Nowicki said it is the same machine and added it is computer generated.

Mayor ProTem Crawford recalled that much of the information they are requesting they have already seen during the budget sessions. Further, Mayor ProTem Crawford understands this was approved by Council and therefore, he will support to reject the bids, but he will not support further discussion about analysis.

Councilman Schmid agrees with Mayor ProTem Crawford and to go through this again to get the same information is a waste of time.

Mayor McLallen supports the motion because of the radical change in the cost and she believes the staff has learned much more about the process since this was last discussed.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Kramer reported that the 30th Anniversary Committee is continuing to meet and they have developed several meaningful, but moderate ideas of appropriate scope and scale. He added that they could use additional volunteers in planning some of the events and noted that Lou Martin would be the best contact.

Councilwoman Mutch reported that Dan Burden will provide a presentation on Walkable Communities at the next SEMCOG meeting. She asked those who are interested in attending can call her or Mr. Kriewall.

Councilwoman Mutch advised SEMCOG is making an effort at the state level to try to restructure what is happening with manufactured and mobile homes so that the property tax situation would be different from what it is now. Councilwoman Mutch believes mobile homes are homes, but they are not taxed in the same way they tax other freestanding homes in subdivisions. Councilwoman Mutch understands they tax the owner of the mobile home park as a single entity and there is a per unit charge of $3.00 per mobile home. Councilwoman Mutch continued by stating there is an effort being made to change that because some mobile homes or manufactured homes cost as much as a single family home.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

1. Resolution, Re: Senate Bill 1181 - Mayor McLallen

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that they requested the city attorney to draft a resolution in opposition of Senate Bill 1181 and that resolution is now before Council. She continued by stating that portion that has changed that is specific to Novi states, "WHEREAS, certain municipalities serve as regional hubs for employment, commerce and recreation and other like activities, creating unique burdens upon their infrastructure and public services to the benefit of surrounding communities and the state as a whole." Conversely, Mayor McLallen advised they are not compensated in any way under this bill or any other bill, so the City of Novi is asking the state to look at that disparity.

CM-98-10-344: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Resolution opposing Senate Bill 1181 and forward it on to the Governor and members of the State’s Senate

Nays: None

Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested that they forward copies to neighboring communities.

Mayor McLallen advised they will send copies to the Governor, the House, the Senate Majority and specific Senators, Representative Cassis, the Municipal League, SEMCOG, Oakland County Association of Mayors, City of Detroit, City of Grand Rapids, the Oakland County Executive and the surrounding communities.

2. Wetland Mitigation/Wetland Ordinance Amendment - Lorenzo

Councilwoman Lorenzo advised that Mr. Weisberger advised them at the last Ordinance Review meeting about action taken at the September 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and also at the last Planning Commission meeting. She reported the Planning Commission did not require wetland mitigation for a certain project. Councilwoman Lorenzo has a letter sent to Mr. Pham from Mr. Fried and she noted that it states: "The city has nevertheless established a practice and policy of following the rules and regulations of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act particularly Administrative Rule 281.925. Rule 281.925 5. D, provides that any proposal shall assure that upon completion there will be no net loss to the wetland resources. The application of this rule results in mitigation. If as a policy matter the Commission believes that mitigation is unnecessary under certain conditions, any change should be effectuated by ordinance amendment or by the adoption of local rules and regulations to set forth mitigation parameters that can be applied in a consistent and even handed manner." Councilwoman Lorenzo believes that the Planning Commission blatantly disregarded established policy and practice, and also ignored the paramount public concern for the natural resources in the City of Novi and the State of Michigan. Further, from what Councilwoman Lorenzo reads from Mr. Fried’s opinion, she does not believe that the Planning Commission has the discretion to disregard established practice and policy. She continued by stating if they want to make changes, those changes should come through the processes of making a recommendation to Council in order to do just that. Further, it appears to her that this would constitute willful neglect of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fried disagrees in part with Councilwoman Lorenzo. He explained their letter states if the city wants the Planning Commission to follow the State rules in that regard, then the city should make it a part of the city’s ordinance instead of making it a policy. Mr. Fried advised it is currently a policy and his office suggests that it should be a part of the ordinance so it is a requirement.

Then Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the Planning Commission does not have a duty to adhere to city policy; Mr. Fried agreed and added that they can follow their own policy. He restated if the city wants to make it a requirement, then it has to be in the ordinance.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that it has been the Planning Commission’s policy simply by virtue of the Council and the Commission that it was an established policy in practice to do so. Mr. Fried advised the problem with a policy is that it can be changed anytime a body wants to change it.

Councilwoman Lorenzo advised that the former Planning Commission on June 4, 1997 brought the Wetland’s Ordinance to the Ordinance Review Committee with unanimous approval and it has been sitting at Ordinance Review since. Further, back in March at the request of the Planning Commission’s Environmental Committee, she advised that it was referred back to that committee for comment. Councilwoman Lorenzo then suggested and Mayor ProTem Crawford concurred that they would bring back the ordinance for discussion and that the Planning Commission would have a thirty day period to make comment. Considering this situation, Councilwoman Lorenzo would ask to bring that ordinance straight back to Council at the next available meeting. She believes if this is what the Planning Commission thinks of this ordinance and of mitigation, then she believes Council needs to take emergency action to make this a part of the ordinance so there is no question as to policy or practice. Councilwoman Lorenzo then moved that the Wetland’s Ordinance be brought back at the next available Council meeting for discussion.

Seeing no support, Mayor McLallen advised that the motion dies of lack of support.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how did this issue come to Mr. Fried’s attention. Councilwoman Lorenzo reported that Mr. Weisberger serves as the attorney for the Ordinance Review Committee and she when she noticed that the wetland’s amendments were under hanging fire, she asked what the status was for them. She continued by stating that she thought that they had given the Environmental Committee a generous amount of time to make comments about the amendments from March until now, so she was requesting to bring it back to the Ordinance Review Committee. Councilwoman Lorenzo reported that Mr. Weisberger said that is a good idea because the amendments included a section on mitigation.

Councilwoman Mutch thought about supporting the motion, but she is not certain whether the Planning Commission members understand that this has been policy.

Councilwoman Lorenzo reported that Mr. Fried’s letter was given to the Planning Commission, and she believes it was Member Mutch who tried to bring the matter back for reconsideration and he did not receive any support for the motion. Therefore, Councilwoman Lorenzo believes the members of the Planning Commission are fully aware of this policy.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that the Chair of the Planning Commission has a great deal of interest and support in this area, and she is surprised. Councilwoman Lorenzo noted that the Chair cannot make motions.

Councilwoman Mutch suggested that the Planning Commission needs to be reminded of what their responsibilities are and what the agreed upon policies are, and the difference between policy and practice.

Councilman DeRoche understands why Councilwoman Lorenzo is alarmed, but he is concerned about an immediate reaction from Council. He explained that Council still has oversight over the Planning Commission’s decisions and that provides Council with some level of security. Further, Councilman DeRoche believes if all the members of Council were as passionate as Councilwoman Lorenzo is about this issue, he would be concerned that if Council provided for an ordinance that Council in effect would be saying that they do not need the Planning Commission to make these decisions because they would be taking away all of their responsibility in that area. Councilman DeRoche would be fully supportive if the Planning Commission disregarded something that is a practice and is going to hurt the city and he would vote for it for that reason alone even if it takes the responsibility away from them. However, he would like to first hear from them.

Councilman Schmid believes if the Planning Commission ignored Council policy, it is wrong and should be corrected. Further, Councilman Schmid believes it should go back to Ordinance Review and carefully looked at, and then brought back to Council.

In defense of the Planning Commission, Mayor ProTem Crawford advised that he watched most of that discussion on cable and he did not sense any blatant disregard of ordinances. He believes they are doing a fine job and there were many pros and cons for doing what they did in regard to this particular site and issue. Further, Mayor ProTem Crawford believes their action may have been accidental because they did not understand the passion of the policy and therefore, he believes it would be appropriate to send it back to the Ordinance Review Committee rather than reprimand the Planning Commission about this one incident.

Since most of the Council members have no information regarding this matter, Councilman Kramer suggested that the Planning Department to provide a brief summary to update them on this subject.

Councilwoman Mutch believes this points out one of the real benefits of Council meeting with the Planning Commission on a regular basis, even if it is only once a year.

Mayor McLallen asked the Clerk to look for a possible date for a joint meeting somewhere between now and late January.

3. Master Plan in Western Novi - Schmid

Based on the Master Plan, Councilman Schmid is absolutely opposed to retail in the western side of Novi and he believes the only people who would like to see shopping in the western part of Novi are the developers. Further, Councilman Schmid noted that 71% of the people surveyed believed there should not be shopping in western Novi.

Because of the large amount of public interest, Councilman DeRoche believes shopping may be appropriate in western Novi if that is what the citizens want. He explained they are not talking about a necessity, they are talking about something that is a benefit for the people in the nearby area. Further, there might be citizens who want this kind of development in their back yard and the Council at that time should keep an open mind by listening to the public.

Councilman Kramer reminded Council that the Master Plan is a Planning Commission document and he wonders if there are some subjects like shopping in western Novi that both Council and the Planning Commission would like to discuss during a joint meeting. In addition, Councilman Kramer would presume that in their approval process that there would be a courtesy review with Council before the Planning Commission adopts the Master Plan.

Councilwoman Lorenzo agrees with Councilmen Schmid and DeRoche. She added she believes Council is here to serve the citizens and if the citizens do not want to be served in a way that developer and others want them to be, then so be it. Further, she sees no reason to change the Master Plan and if it is changed just to manipulate it for a developer, then she will not look at the Master Plan with same validity that she does at this point in time.

Councilwoman Mutch had lived in Novi for a number of years with no grocery store and now she lives in the shadow of a grocery store. Councilwoman Mutch continued by stating that since a previous Council decided to centralize the retail shopping in Novi, she would like to think that the Planning Commission and City Council did not intend for Ten Mile and Meadowbrook Road to be the center of that type of service for the entire city south of the expressway because of the effect it would have on the people in that part of the community. Therefore, she believes while they need to service some people by saying the city will only approve what they want, she does not believe they should ignore the cost to the rest of the community for providing what they say they want or preventing what they do not want. She believes they need to keep that balance in mind. She added that she believes each proposal should be considered on its merits and also agrees that if a rezoning is proposed that it be looked at a little differently than a proposal that is coming in under existing zoning.

MANAGER’S REPORTS

Mr. Kriewall advised that they had approximately three hundred residents at the Ice Arena’s Grand Opening and everyone had a great time. He added that although the Ice Arena is up and running, the Building Authority has not yet completed their job. He explained there are still some outstanding issues with the contractor about who is paying for the wall corrections and there are some other issues that were still not addressed in the final accounting. He noted they are meeting weekly trying to resolve those issues and he hopes they will have some answers about the final accounting in the next two to three weeks.

Councilman DeRoche is concerned about the drainage issue on South Lake Drive and asked if Administration could provide a memo regarding that matter; Mr. Kriewall advised he will provide a memo.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

Mayor McLallen asked what is the status of the Internet policy. Mr. Fried reported they are working on it.

COMMUNICATIONS

1. Letter from James Korte to Terry Morrone, Re: 2026 Austin.

2. Letter from T. Andris, Re: Does not intend to pursue rezoning appeal.

3. Letter from S. Frankel, Re: Withdrawal of 8 Mile/Beck rezoning application.

4. Letter from Barbara Lucas, Re: Opposition to 8 Mile/Beck rezoning.

5. Letter from Randall W. Rumpf, Re: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant.

6. Memorandum from A. Nowicki to E.F. Kriewall dated 10/13/98 regarding Harry’s Landscaping drainage.

7. Memorandum from A. Nowicki to E.F. Kriewall dated 10/13/98 responding to Couzens’ letter to Commissioners issues.

8. Letter from LeRoy L. Asher, Jr. (Mr. & Mrs. Nanda’s Attorney) to City Council, Re: Proposed Wilshire Abbey Subdivision.

9. Letter from Sonu Nanda to City Council, Re: Proposed Wilshire Abbey Subdivision.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by:

Barbara Holmes