Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Marshall Goff - Boy Scout Troop #407

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

Mayor McLallen pulled Item #9, Request for approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 99-119.09, to make housekeeping corrections to the standards for the regulations of wetlands and watercourses – I Reading; at the request of Ben Farnum from JCK because of unresolved issues.

Also, under Presentations Item #3, Proclamation -
Recognition of Novi Expo Center would be moved to Matters for Council Action Part 1 Item 1A. This is a resolution requiring a vote of the Council.

Member Lorenzo added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #2 will be Park Place/Deer Run secondary access and Item #3 gaps in tornado siren coverage.

Also, under Presentation, Item #1 Novi 2020 Master Plan for Land Use Presentation, Member Lorenzo requested that Council suspend the rule prohibiting discussion of an item on the Agenda for presentation.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford suggested adding this discussion to the Agenda.

Member Lorenzo requested the Novi 2020 Master Plan for Land Use Presentation be added as Item #9 under Matters for Council Action – Part II.

Member Kramer requested that the Walkable Community Presentation be Item #4 under Mayor and Council Issues. Also, discussion on the Historical Commission Picnic would be under Committee Reports.

Mayor McLallen thanked everyone that participated in the second annual Fuerst Farm Family Picnic. It was an outstanding success and she especially thanked Local Color for their donation and participation.

1. Novi 2020 Master Plan for Land Use Presentation – Rod Arroyo

Rod Arroyo presented an overview of Master Plan for Land Use. The final copy of the actual document had been received. Council received the body of the report and the appendix, which included background material.

This is the culmination of a five-year planning effort. The last Master Plan was approved in 1993 and since then there has been ongoing background studies and planning analysis on an annual basis. This report pulls all that information together and provides a final analysis and recommendation on the Master Plan for Land Use.

There has been more public input into this Master Plan than ever before. There were focus issues such as the Novi 2020 Visioning and there was a survey of residents. Also, the format of the Master Plan has been changed with wider margins, more use of graphics and a format that makes it easier to read and understand.

The most important aspect of the Master Plan is making it become reality and coming up with implementation strategies. There is a specific section in the Master Plan that deals with this and a table of implementation ideas. Some of these are already in place and others will be shortly.

Mr. Arroyo said Novi has a very diverse mix of housing types and 48% of the dwelling units are single family, 44% are multiple family and 8% are mobil homes. This factors in existing and pending units that have been approved. 23% of the City is comprised of regulated woodlands and 15% of wetlands. Finally, the highest volume surface street is Novi Road north of I-96, which carries over 55,000 vehicles per day.

Also included is a build out analysis of residential development. They looked at how many units there would be at build out based upon planned density and those units that are already built to date or under way. The dwelling unit capacity build out is 27,756 as compared to 28,700 or so in the 1993 plan. There are actually fewer units anticipated at build out with this Master Plan. One of the reasons for this is the M-5 corridor, east of M-5, between the freeway up to 14 Mile previously planned for residential is now planned for high tech development. Also, the way of calculating density in the Master Plan is to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance which is to exclude regulated wetlands from the calculations. The Zoning Ordinance has been changed only allowing density to be calculated on net site area, which excludes wetlands.

Also, included is development within mixed use projects and more units might be added. This dwelling unit capacity of 27,756 does not include development within mixed-use districts such as NCC, TC or potentially other districts such as the downtown Gateway.

The forecast population, 68,557, is based on the 27,756 units. The higher range, consistent with SEMCOG’s forecast, of 74,000 would account for additional residential development within the mixed use districts. This is being provided as a range of a population build out depending on what happens in those mixed use districts and how much of the area in those districts goes to Residential versus Office, Commercial or other possible uses.

A Master Plan is an important resource of a lot of information collected over a number of years. They have taken a lot of the environmental features and natural resource mapping that has occurred and put it all in one document. The Woodlands and Wetlands Maps, Wild Life Habitat, Flood Plain and Watersheds are all included in this document.

Unique concepts and features include the continuation of the Town Center and a new area called the Town Center Gateway which has been refined and is now referred to as the Down Town Gateway. One of the concepts is the Town Center that is the heart of the City located near the four quadrants of Grand River and Novi Road. Another is the Town Center Gateway area that goes to Meadowbrook Road up to Eleven Mile and includes the frontage on both side of Grand River Avenue. These districts have a number of things in common. First and foremost is the desire to attract mixed uses, higher density within the core of the City and this is the area that makes the most sense for higher density development. We are used to minimum set back provisions but in these districts there are maximum set back provisions with buildings closer to the roadways to show the architecture and to keep from looking at a parking lot.

There is a focus on pedestrians in both of these areas providing for wider than normal sidewalks, providing for pedestrian connections and lighting to make things safer. On street parking is another component that is stressed in both of these areas where you would provide for parallel parking or potentially other forms of parking along internal roads. This provides an urban or village type character and also provides a separation between the pedestrians on the sidewalks and the moving traffic.

The Commercial plan is the continuation of Town Center and Main Street along with new neighborhoods and community shopping areas identified on the Master Plan. One of the things that came out of the citizen’s survey was there is very little support for Commercial within the heart of the residential area in west Novi. There was support for additional Commercial along the Grand River Corridor. Responding to input from the citizens and some additional study that was done the Planning Commission has designated two future Commercial areas. One at the intersection of Grand River and Beck Road and at the intersection of Grand River and Wixom which has two different Commercial areas that have been designated on the Master Plan on both sides of Wixom Road south of Grand River. Also, an additional Commercial area was added to the Master Plan at the southeast corner of Novi and Ten Mile behind the Walgreen’s area.

Another unique component of the Master Plan is the tax base analysis. They compared Novi with other cities and municipalities in Oakland County, looked at residential SEV and non-residential SEV total and compared Industrial and Commercial and looked at the mix. They looked at tax rates and provided an overview of how we fare. In most cases Novi fared very well in terms of the strength of the SEV per household or per acre. One thing identified was there is a stronger Commercial base than Industrial with the regional draw and the regional shopping centers. This is why an effort has been made to identify other areas for OST type development for Light Industrial and for Heavy Industrial to try to build the tax base.

Mr. Arroyo commented there was much more public input than with other planning updates. They had the futuring process, which is a hands on component that was part of the Vision 2020 process. There was a community attitude survey that was distributed to a random sample of 3,000 Novi residents and was evaluated as part of the Master Plan. The individual studies that were ongoing over the past five or six years have been summarized and are available over cable TV. There have been numerous public meetings and hearings and we think there has been significant effort to gain public input into this process.

Looking at the Residential Build Out Analysis a build out was done of the city population and dwelling units and came up with a future population which is included in the analysis. There is an Office and Industrial plan which focuses on Office and Industrial uses. It looked at the tax base benefit, the high tech market opportunity, new road capacity such as M-5 and West Park Drive and the potential of high paying jobs within those sectors benefiting the economy.

Mr. Arroyo said they looked at the Urban Design Plan and felt there were many valuable components of that that needed to be brought forward into the plan. This included establishing entry features, unique view shed corridors and unique districts to be treated as a part of the community that is very different and is reflected through the plan and development process. He said the Boundary District concept was brought back, changes and recommendations were made and they are seeing some of the benefits of that as the site plans are coming forward asking for implementation of various techniques. It has been very successful and they hoped it would lead to a character of the development and an appearance and aesthetics that would fit within the surrounding areas so new development does not stick out and become obvious but blends with the existing character of the community.

Obviously, with any Master Plan a thoroughfare plan element is very important. They did a forecast of trip changes and daily trip generations based upon the changes from the last Land Use Plan. They modified the future forecast of volumes based upon the changes and trip generation from various land uses and changes in the Master Plan. The future road network and number of lanes that is included within the final recommendation is based upon these changes in traffic volume.

Mr. Arroyo said they see this as a plan for diverse land uses and unique development within this community.

Mr. Arroyo said copies of the new Master Plan were in the Planning Department and would be in the library soon.

Mr. Arroyo said in the last couple of days new traffic counts were received that were taken at the M-5 Corridor and he thought it would be interesting to see the impact M-5 has had on local volumes in the northeast section of Novi. One of the most staggering changes has been along Haggerty Road north of 12 Mile Road. In 1997 the volumes along Haggerty Road were 33,370. This count, taken within the last week, showed a drop of almost 10,000 vehicles per day. The volume has dropped to 23,533. They anticipated when the M-5 opened they would see a decrease in north/south volumes but an increase in the east /west volumes as they try to get to the access points to the freeway.

Looking at 13 Mile Road, back in 1995 east of Meadowbrook Road there was only 1,802 vehicles per day. There is now 8,630 vehicles because traffic has picked up trying to get to M-5. Also, there is an increase on 14 Mile going from 15,900 in 1995 to 22,800 a week ago. Meadowbrook Road, even when it was a gravel road, was carrying very high volumes of traffic because there were few alternate routes. It has dropped from 6,139 in 1995 to 3,600 vehicles per day in 1999 once again reflecting on the influence of M-5.

Mayor McLallen commended the Planning Commission and members of the consulting and planning staff for an outstanding job.

2. Novi Crime Rate Presentation – Police Chief Shaeffer

Chief Shaeffer said the crime in Novi is down dramatically. Since 1995 the crime in Novi has been reduced by 28.8%. He said Novi is down to a 1988 level of crime and it is quite an astonishing accomplishment considering the growth in Novi.

He said one of the media outlets reported that crime in Novi was up 63% recently and nothing could be farther from the truth. Chief Shaeffer did not know where they obtained their numbers, they did not return his phone calls and he had written asking them to correct their errors.

Member Lorenzo brought another article to his attention that was in the media on Friday. They reported that crime in Novi was up 1.6%. When he analyzed their figures they were talking about 8 crimes they had compared to a previous year. That is true because crime goes up in certain categories and down in others from year to year. This category was larceny.

He said larceny is a serious crime but a $5.00 larceny pales to many assaults, molesters cruising the streets trying to molest little girls, forgeries, frauds, embezzlements, narcotic offenses, sex offenses and many other serious crimes. He felt compared with these crimes he would not label larceny as a serious offense being up 1.6% as they had reported in their article. The fact of the matter is all crime in Novi is down. We have had the opportunity to measure all crime in Novi and it is down 28.8% since 1995. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Novi has grown about 66% in that ten-year period. Also, Novi has one of the finest retail shopping districts in the entire state and attracts visitors from throughout the region. The population influx to that portion of the community is tremendous every day and every weekend.

Chief Shaeffer said crime is down but calls for service are up. Calls for service are up in about the same proportion as population, about 66% in that same ten year period. While calls for crime are included in calls for service not all calls for service are crimes. For example, a false alarm, no crime has been committed, but it counts as a call for service as does domestic disturbances where no crime has been committed, animal calls, calls for suspicious activities, lock out of a car etc.

Chief Shaeffer said crime is down 28.8% and it is going down this year too and they are very excited about it. He said it takes an entire community to do this, it takes a very attentive City Council, neighborhoods, business groups and a very attentive, devoted community as a whole.

He said he would not minimize the impact the men and women of the Police Department also have because they are a very committed group who have worked exceptionally hard to make a difference in their community and they are doing so.

Mayor McLallen thanked, on behalf of Council and citizens, all the members of the Police Department from the dispatch, receptionists to everyone. She said people did not realize how small a number of people there are and this further makes their accomplishment outstanding. She wished the citizens could read letters that Council received every month from citizens, not necessarily in our community but who have interacted with the department, complimenting them on their service. Some received this month were regarding an Officer who helped change a tire and an Officer who had to deliver a death notice. Consistently, the tenor is these people are doing more than a job. They are caring human beings and give an extraordinary level of service.

1. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant ‘99 (LLEBG) Proposed Use of Funds

Mayor McLallen said the Grant would be $35,000 and the local match would be just under $4,000. It would replace two of the bikes for the Bike Police, pay for the overtime and the uniforms involved.

Chief Shaeffer said this is a standard block grant they receive every year and it requires a 10% match that is in their current budget and already appropriated to them so no additional appropriations would be required. It appeared that they would spend approximately $5,000 to purchase bikes and equip officers and the remainder would go toward overtime for the Bicycle Patrol so they can further commit themselves into the community.

Mayor McLallen asked for comments and there were none from the audience and the Public Hearing was closed.

Member Lorenzo removed Item B and Item G.

1. Approve Minutes of:

1. August 23, 1999 Regular Meeting
2. August 30, 1999 Special Meeting
3. September 13, 1999 Regular Meeting

C. Approval of Offer to Purchase Real Estate Agreement for the sale of excess property -

Section 15 to Art Van Furniture

D. Authorization for Police Department to hire 4 additional Part-time School Crossing Guards

E. Adoption of Resolution accepting a Temporary Construction Easement from Stanford and

Ann Stoddard for the Ten Mile Road Pedestrian/Bikepath

F. Adoption of Resolution accepting a Temporary Construction Easement from John A.

Young for the Rehabilitation of the Eight Mile Road Pump Station

H. Adoption of Resolution No. 2 for West Lake Drive Paving, Special Assessment District No.

153, setting a Public Hearing date for October 18, 1999

I. Adoption of Resolution No. 2 for Shawood Walled Lake Heights Subdivision Sanitary Sewer,

Special Assessment District No. 154, setting a Public Hearing date for October 18, 1999

J. Approval of the West Service Water Connection route concept and authorization to work with

the City of Walled Lake and the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department

K. Approval of Option Agreement with Richard F. and Linda Jean Scavo for property

associated with the future water storage facility and booster station, and authorization for

City Attorney

to prepare an Agreement with the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department for such facilities

L. Approval from ABC Cab Company to renew Taxi Cab Company License for fifteen cabs

M. Approval of Change Order No. 1 – Civic Center Parking Lot Improvements

N. Approval of Claims and Accounts

1. Warrant No 554

Mutch, Schmid

Nays: None

Member Mutch commented on the Taxi Cab Licensing stating that the materials that were to be attached were not and requested that they be in the future.

Mayor McLallen requested this be on the agenda because there had been much discussion of relocation of the Expo Center. She felt the Expo Center had been a major focus for this community. It is an economic engine and offers our citizens recreation, education and a lot of opportunities. She would like Council discussion and a resolution passed saying that we support them being in our community and would like them to continue if possible. We would like them to keep the name of the Novi Expo and the actual facility within our community.

Mayor McLallen read the resolution to Council.

1. Request for adoption of a Resolution, Re: Act 88-Reciprocal Retirement Provision.

Mr. Klaver said this is the tightest employment market in many years and there has been difficulty filling the positions Council has authorized. There are significant positions that we have worked at very feverishly to fill and have not been able to. It is a positive problem in that it is predominately due to full employment; however, it is having a negative impact.

Furthermore, perhaps as significantly if not quite as direct is the fact that the entire employment field is changing in terms of the nature of the candidates. Twenty years ago we were looking at employees that have had one possibly two employers and it is changing. For example, people graduating from college are predicted to have as many as eight or nine different employers throughout their career. It is a market where people are more inclined to change and are changing jobs for fairly small differences in compensation and other benefits. They are moving to new fields on a much more frequent basis and the Municipal Retirement Systems are geared for long term employees and do not accommodate that.

This Act which goes back to 1961 allows for the transfer of retirement service from two different employers but is careful to note that it only applies to the vesting and the service requirements. There is no money that transfers. This would allow us to take another community who has also passed this legislation and combine two five-year periods of service to allow an employee to receive a benefit from both communities.

Mr. Klaver stated that in this particular employment field they felt that this was something that the City should do and recommended Council’s adoption. Mr. Klaver stated Ms. Smtih-Roy was present for questions.

Mayor McLallen stated there were only five employees currently in the City that could benefit from this. So in addition to a marketing tool to attract future employees there are only five out of our 200 plus employees that would benefit from this.

Mr. Klaver said two of the employees have over nine years. The list of the communities that adopted this came from MERS and is only cities that belong to the MERS system.

Member Kramer said he understood the Act would allow for combining two service periods from Community A and Community B and they would draw a pension from both communities. Mr. Klaver said there is no co-mingling of money, combing or enhancing of benefits or money in any part of this. It is just the service requirements.

Member Schmid had a couple of concerns. One being that this could encourage employees to leave the City. Employees have to be employed by the City for ten years to vest. If this is adopted an employee of five years could go to Farmington Hills and stay for five years and would be vested there and receive credit of five years from Novi.

Mr. Klaver said it is true this could induce someone who was thinking of leaving. He said another issue is most communities have lowered their vesting period to seven or eight years and some down to five years. He felt they were responding to the changing work force.

Member Schmid said it looked like a vast majority of the communities were on this program from the information provided and it did not include the ones that are in MERS.

Member Schmid thought it would cost the city money. If the Farmington Hills employee with five years vested comes here and works five years and is vested here it would cost the City money in five years not ten.

Mr. Klaver said it is money that we would otherwise save that we will not save because the employee will be eligible for the benefit. It will not cost the City any money now because it is already budgeted but it would be money that would not go back into the system. He said Member Schmid is correct there would be some financial ramifications. Mr. Klaver talked with Ms. Smith-Roy and MERS and this is so speculative on such a minor number that they said they could not determine it on an actuary basis.

Member Schmid said we have a Farmington Hills employee who comes to Novi for a new position. Normally they would vest in ten years. Now they are going to vest here in five years or whatever years they have left and there is going to be a five or six year difference when this person vests. He thought it would be substantial dollars in a retirement fund standpoint.

Mr. Klaver said they looked at the number of employees hired in the last nine years and tried to come up with a percentage. This would not have any impact for the police and fire because they are generally career employees. Therefore, that eliminates about 50% of the work force. When you look at the number of employees that stay past ten years then this is no longer an issue. Out of 97 employees hired over the last nine years five could be identified that could potentially benefit from this. Many if not most we expect to stay longer than ten years so it would not be an issue any way. He thought two or three people might fall into that circumstance.

Member Schmid said it is difficult to talk about two or three people. You are talking about today’s people, dollars and events. The City is going to go for the next several decades and things change as we move on. Member Schmid asked why this had come forward at this time?

Mr. Klaver said it had come up about a half dozen times in the last four or five years. Each time either the employee said in the final analysis it was not an issue or we selected another candidate. It came up with an employee we recently offered the position of controller to. That individual indicated they would like to have us consider this benefit. We agreed to do this but the job offer is not conditional on approving this. Mr. Klaver said they see it as a potential issue in reference to recruiting a City Manager. That is the kind of position, like many other professional positions such as positions in finance and more technical areas, where the normal career path is short. Most managers serve less than ten years and serve a multiple number of jurisdictions.

Member Schmid asked if this program would fit all employees in the City of Novi?

Mr. Klaver said it would.

Member Schmid asked if this would be a union contract issue?

Mr. Klaver said his understanding, because it is a State law, there are no provisions for it being a contract issue.

Member Schmid said the union could request it through negotiations.

Mr. Klaver said they could but it is not an issue with police and fire and that represents all but one of our unions.

Member DeRoche said when he looked through the list of when the effective dates were there had not really been any activity of late. There are only a couple of cities that had done this since 1992. The most recent is 1995 with Lake County.

Mr. Klaver said he found about seven or eight that were in the nineties. He thought it was because most were passed within a five or ten year period following the passage of legislation.

 

Member DeRoche thought it was something that would cost the city more money. The semantics were the money would be set aside any way whether this employee has this benefit or doesn’t but the City would actually spend the money if the person has this benefit.

Ms. Smith-Roy said Farmington Hills did not adopt the act.

Member Schmid said he used Farmington Hills as an example but understood that they have an independent retirement plan.

Ms. Smith-Roy said a number of cities have their own pension system.

Member Schmid asked if Farmington Hills would fit into this plan?

Ms. Smith-Roy said they would qualify if someone came from Farmington Hills to Novi and we had adopted this but if someone went to Farmington Hills they would not qualify. They have a shorter vesting period.

It would cost the City money. If someone leaves within the years of service from the three year to the ten year period it would definitely cost the City money. The actuaries have determined by doing a history of MERS cities in their program and they came up with a figure that was so minute that they determined they would not do it on a percent basis for anybody. So they are not increasing any ones percent of contribution but there is no doubt that it is going to cost if people leave within that three to ten year period.

Member DeRoche was concerned because of how things work in a City government and it can’t be predicted now. However, when we become a much bigger City with many more employees twenty years from now the sitting Council will be asking why they have this problem.

He thought a system was being created where there really has not been a problem. We have a controller applicant that is the first sign of the problem. With the number and quality of employees we have been able to attract it seemed that the problem was being addressed before it existed and before applicants were turning down jobs.

Mr. Klaver said it is hard to access all other issues that go into a decision when people either accept or do not accept a job. He asked Council to turn their direction to the broader issue of what other communities were doing. He thought one of the most interesting trends in pensions in the governmental field is the conversion over to a defined contribution program. Oakland County is probably one of the larger governmental units in the process of doing this. One of the reasons they are doing it is to come up with a more predictable and manageable amount from the units perspective. The other big advantage they see is recruiting because it is more portable. That system goes with the employee whether you have worked 30 days or 30 years from employer to employer. He thought in 20 years it would probably be predominate as the only type of pension in governmental circles. He felt it was a trend that communities would have to recognize and address.

Member DeRoche thought benefits were being given before they were needed. He asked about the police officers and firemen being career positions.

Mr. Klaver said they have very low turnover, in part, because of the salary structure. Police and Fire traditionally start fairly low, mid 20’s, and then within five to six years they get significant increases based on their increased value as they become trained and more veteran officers. That kind of salary schedule makes it very difficult for employees mid career to start all over.

Member De Roche thought police officers were hired from other communities.

Mr. Klaver said very rarely. He said there was only a couple in the last 20 years. There were three Officers that left in the last 18 years for Federal positions. The movement of police officers from City to City is virtually non-existent.

Member Lorenzo agreed with the interests and concerns of Members Schmid and DeRoche. She did not think one applicant represented a problem. If this was a long range documented problem for several years in a row that applicants or potential applicants were not accepting positions with the City because this was an issue she might consider it a little more. Since it is not a documented problem at this point and it would cost the City money in the long run and given the City’s financial situation she did not think extra benefits should be given out at this time. Member Lorenzo would not vote to support this.

Member Schmid said obviously one of our responsibilities is to be conscious of costs to the City.

It is, also, our responsibility to be conscious of employees in the City and give them benefits that they certainly deserve. If we have an existing employee that came from another City with five years and was a part of this program and they vest sooner here in the long run it would not cost that employee any money. Is that accurate?

Mr. Klaver said no because it would not change the benefits.

Member Schmid said it would not cost our employees any money down on the retirement side at any time? Mr. Klaver said it would not. Member Schmid said we are not doing anything negative to the existing employees except perhaps those four or five that have come from other cities and would vest sooner and have an opportunity to leave sooner. He said it was important

to know that we are not jeopardizing any employees in any way. Member Schmid would not move on this item.

 

Mayor McLallen commented it appeared that no action would be taken on this issue.

2. Request for adoption of a Resolution, Re: Support for Category A Grant for the

improvement of a section of Grand River Avenue.

Member Lorenzo asked if this committed the funds of the City in any way?

Ms. Hannan said the application before Council is actually to submit an application. They want to get the support of Council to begin the application process so it does not commit any thing.

Member Lorenzo understood there is money involved on the ballot question and if the ballot question is not successful she wanted to be sure we were not responsible for any monies that this grant may be involved in.

CM-99-09-242 Moved by Schmid, seconded by Crawford; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: That the request for adoption of a Resolution

for support of Category A Grant for the improvement of a

section of Grand River be adopted.

DISCUSSION

Member Kramer asked if there was anything critical about the grant application timing?

Ms. Hannan said they look at the grants at the beginning of October so it needed to be put together and submitted to the State.

Member Kramer asked what the time period was for the window for funding?

Ms. Hannan said there is no dead line but it can be submitted in October and it is kind of a first come first served grant.

Member Kramer asked if it was an annual submission by October? Ms. Hannan said it was.

Member Kramer said then we should get our request in. He asked if the matching fund would come from the bond issue?

Ms. Hannan thought Council would have to make that decision.

Member Kramer asked if there was a fund available to match the grant? She thought there was nothing currently. At the time the grant is approved they would request the money before Council.

Member Kramer said Member Lorenzo had indicated that this did not obligate Council to spend money; however we are looking at the public vote on the road bond issue as the potential source for the matching funds for the grant. Ms. Hannan said that is correct.

Member Kramer said the worst case is the grant is applied for and received and the bond issue fails then the grant would be rejected. Mr. Watson said that was correct.

Member Mutch asked if every grant that is applied for whether a Road Bond Grant, Juvenile

Justice Grant or whatever, the Council has to approve the application as well as the amount offered. So there is always a built in opportunity to back away from it.

Member Mutch commended the employees involved in this grant for taking the direction Council had given them to take advantage of every opportunity for grants that came along, get in the loop and the process and see what opportunities could be taken advantage of.

Member DeRoche hoped that it would be the recommendation of the City Administration to consider holding public hearings prior to the Council taking the action to accept the grant. He also hoped that Council would consider, when accepting grants, internal deadlines as to when we planned to use the money. Then the Council, Administration and the residents would all know that the money had been accepted, discussed and there would be opportunity for public comment. He thought this a good idea so the grants would not hang out there indefinitely until some of them were taken away. He thought a public hearing and establishing an internal deadline would go a long way to solving the haze that surrounds these grants once they are applied for.

Vote on CM-99-09-242 Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo,

Mutch, Schmid

Nays: None

See attached Resolution

3. Request for adoption of Zoning Map Amendment 18.585 – The proposed rezoning of a 1.63 acre parcel in Section 16 on the east side of Beck Road between Eleven Mile Road and Grand River Avenue, from Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-1), to High-Density Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-2) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Mayor McLallen stated this had been before the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing and the Planning Commission and staff recommended this. This is a multiple housing project across from Providence Hospital with a congregate care facility. This is before Council because between the preliminary research on the project to the more final engineering they discovered some environmental issues. The protection of environmental features is the cause that brings this back to Council.

Blair Bowman, representing N.O.B.E. Property Group L.L.C., said there were two zoning items to be addressed before Council. The first of which was the one-acre parcel that fronts on Beck Road. It would allow them to be consistent in the treatment of the frontage of Beck Road and the overall design of the project would be much better. They were able to come to terms with the homeowner, acquire the property and it would give a uniform look to the frontage and allow the very dramatic and elegant clubhouse to be moved closer to the road system with the entry gate and position the recreational facilities more appropriately.

Mayor McLallen asked if that was the RA to RM-1?

Mr. Bowman said it was to the RM-1 that would then be included in the townhouse apartment project.

Member Schmid asked that these areas be pointed out.

Mayor McLallen commented that it was an out parcel previously and had been acquired by the applicant and needed to be brought in from RA to RM-1.

Mr. Bowman said previously in the designs submitted in the conceptual stages the clubhouse features were forced back into the middle of the site and this was a significant break up of the Beck Road frontage. We would have had to design and landscape around the homeowner’s property. On the currently submitted plan we have the organized entranced, uniform landscaping and the clubhouse features brought down to the Beck Road frontage.

The second rezoning matter was a by product of a significant amount of adjustments that were made, several revisions and revisitations on the site plan for the congregated care housing portion of the project. In the original submission they had proposed the single significant intrusion into the woodlands areas to provide for a buffer. As they proceeded through the planning process they found there was a swale area that the wetlands people were interested in maintaining so they moved the building to the north. They were also able to move even further from the woodlands as well. As they looked closer at the site and worked with some of the environmental features they found a lower quality but still a wetland area. They committed that they would revisit it and they did and that created an orientation of the building problem. They originally submitted for a .73 acre modification and now they are going to do with a 1.63 acre modification because the building actually shifted further to the east and back to avoid a small area along the Beck Road frontage. We are now proposing a minor swale type of infield in these areas.

Mr. Kramer said the Planning Commission recommendation is favorable and he thought the benefits for making these changes were obvious, at least the congregate care being relocated out of the more sensitive areas. He appreciated the work they had done and as far as adding one more acre to an RM-1 it did add to integrating the whole facility and he thought from a quality and appearance perspective the community would benefit.

CM-99-09-243 Moved by Kramer, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Zoning Map Amendment 18.585

for rezoning of 1.0 acre parcel from Residential Acreage (RA-)

to Low Density Multiple Family Residential District (RM-1) and

Possible rezoning of 0.744 acres parcel from Low Density

DISCUSSION

Member Lorenzo seconded the motion whole heartily and agreed with the previous speakers comments and commended him for recognizing the natural elements on the property and working hard to avoid any or minimal impact to them. She felt it should serve as an example for other developers who come to the community.

Member Schmid said he did not vote for this project initially because of the density problems, apartments, etc.

Mr. Bowman said there were about sixty less apartments than they originally thought.

Member Schmid asked if this would increase the density of the original project?

Mr. Bowman said a concept plan was submitted that had up to 320 town house apartment units and 120 senior housing units and now it has 119 senior housing units and 254 town house apartments.

Member Schmid asked if the land to the south, a little over an acre, was buildable?

Mr. Bowman said they are committing, as they indicated they would in the rezoning process, but from a legal perspective it was not able to be a condition of the rezoning. They would continue their commitment to provide for a preservation easement on all of the area marked preserve. He said it ended up being about three acres more than they had originally proposed.

Mayor McLallen said to Mr. Watson that Member Crawford was still concerned that the zoning map amendment, as printed on the subject material, was inclusive of both actions.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford said it did not describe the residential piece.

Mr. Watson said the motion as it has been made corrects that to include both the l.63 acre portion and the 1 acre.

Vote on CM-99-09-0243 Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo,

Mutch, Schmid

Nays: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Debbie Bundoff, asked if Item #7, approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 99-88.04, would outlaw plastic garbage bags for garbage pickup?

Mayor McLallen thought that was what it said and said it would be discussed.

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – Part II

4. Request for approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-18.153 – An Ordinance to amend Subsection 1602.4 and Section 2302A, of Ordinance 97-18, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to reorganize those provisions – I Reading

Mayor McLallen said this is to make the Ordinance flow better, to correct errors and to try and address some of the issues that were coming forward. This went before the Planning Commission and a Public Hearing was held in August.

Member Lorenzo took issue with this being described as "clean up amendments" when there are serious changes and proposed amendments to the I-1 next to residential and various other adjacency issues in this Ordinance. She also questioned the timing of such amendments coming five weeks before an election.

Member Lorenzo spoke to Lynn Kocan today and had left a message a few days ago describing what was happening. There is a letter from Ms. Kocan in Council packets. Ms. Kocan was totally unaware of the proposed changes from the I-1 next to Residential. Member Lorenzo asked why residents, particularly those following this issue for several years, were not notified that these issues were being raised at the Implementation or Planning Commission level.

Mayor McLallen said this issue did go to a Planning Commission Public Hearing in August and it is not the policy of this Council or this City to notify every individual every time an issue comes up.

Member Lorenzo said she understood they do not notify everyone in the City. However, Ms. Kocan probably knows this section of the Ordinance better than most if not all of the Planning Commissioners and probably Council as well.

Mayor McLallen advised Member Lorenzo her point of notification was taken and asked that she continue.

Member Lorenzo said these were her main concerns with these issues.

Mayor McLallen said this Council has an obligation to continue with City business. This business has come through the channels properly on its own timetable. It takes many months to get to this point and to state that this is a politically motivated situation did not bear appreciation of all the work that went into the meeting this evening.

Mayor McLallen asked if she had any specific exceptions to the proposed amendment.

Member Lorenzo said the issue of I-1 and I-2 where the berming is being changed is a major issue. She said Mr. Arroyo explained to the Planning Commission in the minutes that the change for non-residential structures next to residential was being proposed mainly for purposes of avoiding rear parking next to churches or Special Land Uses such as day care centers. If that is being proposed then that is what the Ordinance should say. Referring to the comparison draft, top of page 19, "For Non-residential structures and uses in the RA, R-1 through R-4", Member Lorenzo suggested if this amendment is being proposed to address certain types of Special Land Use issues then Council should spell out that these are for Special Land Uses.

In other words for "non-residential structures and uses committed as a Special Land Use in the RA, R-1 through R-4." She said "off street parking may, instead of shall, be permitted in the front yard, provided the parking setback shall meet the minimum front setback for the principal structure in the district and shall be effectively, instead of appropriately, screened per Section 2509 and add when off-street parking in rear or side yard would abut such residential pieces

This way we are allowing the possibility of having this parking elsewhere but we are specifying if the intent was to avoid these particular uses that are allowed in the Special Land Use as impacting residential then that is what we should say.

Member Lorenzo is concerned about any waiver or reduction of the 100 foot parking setback. Ms. Kocan also felt that setbacks should always be 100 feet from Residential and this includes parking, buildings and dumpsters. Ms. Kocan thought to word the Ordinance to say that landscape screening is all that is necessary to "protect the neighboring residential area" is ludicrous.

Member Lorenzo said, on page 22, that she was concerned where it said "portions of an I-2 Industrial site or park are adjacent to land zoned for I-1 use" She said if we are saying land zoned for I-1 use it could be being used as residential and as long as it is used for residential she had serious concerns about any kind of modification of screening purposes. There seems to be several adjacency issues in this document.

On page 25, Part VI. (2), "The plan satisfies the intent of the Special Land Use provisions as stated in Section 2516.2.c" she did not know what the bolded 2 was. Mr. Arroyo said it was a typo and that it was just a reference point with no language change at all.

In terms of the TC and TC-1 on page 2 she asked if they were reference changes or changes being made to the setbacks. If they are changes to setback she would like to see the present and proposed setbacks.

Mr. Arroyo said essentially what is being done with one exception is to take the TC-1 and TC standards and place them together in that section rather than having to jump back and forth. There is only one actual change in setbacks and that was found in the Schedule of Regulations on page 9. The only change is on the very last line on TC-1 the side yard parking setback is being changed from 20 feet to 10 feet. This would provide, if there were two parking lots on adjacent properties, 20 feet between them. It was felt that it was adequate given the type of district, TC-1 District, which is the most dense. All the other changes are just providing consistency between the TC and the TC-1 language.

Member Lorenzo asked if there were any other setback changes in the Schedule of Regulations?

Mr. Arroyo said no.

Member Lorenzo questioned the double asterisks at the bottom of the page and what they referred to?

Mr. Arroyo said they referred to parking lot setbacks and it was all existing language and there are no changes.

Member Lorenzo asked if the Planning Commission had the ability to modify those setbacks?

Mr. Arroyo said they did but just for parking.

Mr. Arroyo said on page 5 there was discussion about the Industrial next to Residential the 100 foot setback area for parking, loading and unloading. Right now the Ordinance has two separate provisions in it. One section says all parking and loading should be sixty feet away and the Planning Commission can reduce it to 40 feet. Another section says it should be 100 feet away and they can reduce it to 60 feet. This brings the standard up so that they are consistent and both start with 100 feet and potentially could allow 60 feet.

Member Lorenzo asked if it should be allowed to go down to 60 feet under any circumstance and under what circumstance should it go down?

Mr. Arroyo said it would come down to what are you going to send to the Zoning Board of Appeals and what are you going to allow to have changed at the Planning Commission or Council levels for site plans. One situation might be a fairly shallow depth lot where it might be difficult to provide for the full parking setback without making it almost impossible to use the property. There may be extra width and you could add extra setbacks on the sides and it may be more effective because you could have more sensitive uses adjacent to the side lot line. It provides flexibility and is not a weakening of your present standards.

Member Lorenzo asked about OST being added on page 30, under berming requirements.

Mr. Arroyo said it was just a clean up. It has been effectively treated as being there because it is an OS District but the thought was that it should be clearly spelled out because it is currently missing.

Member Lorenzo stated she felt it was inappropriate for this Council to be making major policy changes at this point in time.

Member Schmid commended the Planning Commission for working so hard on this. Member Schmid questioned page 3 and Mr. Arroyo said this has been moved so that all the TC and TC-1 provisions are in one location.

Member Schmid asked what was different on page 4?

Mr. Arroyo said all of page 4 has been moved also.

Member Schmid asked about page 5 and what (2) was? Mr. Arroyo said to look at page 19, footnote I-2, we are trying to replicate the language so they are consistent. On page 5 it talks about a 100 foot setback and the Planning Commission can reduce it to sixty "where said reduction is made up elsewhere on the site." The same language is on I-2 except we are increasing it from 60 to 100 feet to be consistent with page 5 and changing the other numbers and the language remains the same. This is a consistency issue bringing it up to the higher standard and making it consistent from one section of the Ordinance to another.

Member Schmid asked if the landscape would be put some where else and would it be reduced?

Mr. Arroyo said for example if they had a narrow lot they could reduce the front setback area for the parking lot from 100 feet to 60 feet. They would have to take that area and shift it over to a side yard or rear yard to make up the difference. It might be more appropriate to do it along the side yard where you are right up against the residential and have more protection then you would otherwise under the current Ordinance.

Member Schmid asked about page 6, b. Mr. Arroyo said Linda Lemke preferred that we just refer to the landscape section of the Ordinance rather than trying to repeat another section here. He said it should all go under the landscape provisions.

Member Schmid asked about what had changed regarding front yard parking on page 18.

Mr. Arroyo said this only applied to the OSC, I-1 and I-2 Districts. There is a provision that allows front yard parking in almost all districts except for these. This allows it under a very limited situation. It doesn’t allow it to be any closer to the road than the building setback. If the building is set back greater than the minimum that area in between you can potentially have parking but then it can only take up to 50% of that area. The I-1, I-2 front yard parking is really limited. This doesn’t change that; the only thing it does is it strikes #2 which is not very applicable and somewhat confusing which ties the amount of front parking to one and a half the usable floor area devoted by office.

Member Schmid said it was designed to keep minimal parking in the front yard.

Mr. Arroyo said the other provisions already do that because you can’t exceed 50% of the area beyond the front setback of the building already. So, it is already significantly reduced and your not going to get a lot of parking in the front yard. This just takes away the reference to usable floor area. He said it really is based on aesthetics and the standard is lets be sure we don’t get a whole lot of front yard parking, allow some, and leave it at that and not look that closely at how much office space they have that is usable or not usable. Lets look at the bigger picture which is how much parking is in the front yard, what does it look like and stay away from how much office there is.

Member Schmid said the problem with that is what you think it looks like and what I think it looks like could be two different things. Here you have a standard that everyone has to look at the same way.

Member Schmid said he understood page 19.

Mr. Arroyo said regarding page 19, if you read the Ordinance now you could argue that you are allowed to do front yard parking if you are a Special Land Use in RA, R-1 to R-4 and RT Districts. This is meant to clarify that if there is parking in the front yard lets make sure it is setback 75 feet because you are in a residential district. We want to make it clear that it is a 75 foot setback, there will be screening if there is parking in the front yard.

Member Schmid asked about page 21. Mr. Arroyo said these are two footnotes that no longer have any application.

Member Schmid asked Mr. Arroyo to explain pages 21 and 22.

Mr. Arroyo said this is a change that would only be applied to the I-2 District, Heavy Industrial, and it would reduce the size of a planned Industrial Park that would be eligible for certain treatment. The requirement now is 100 acres minimum in order to apply the reduced setbacks that are already in the Ordinance at 50 feet front and rear and 30 feet sides. Also there is a provision that allows in an I-2 park screening all the way around the park instead of screening between the individual lots. All the Ordinance provisions are the same it just allows it to be reduced down to a 40 acre or larger park that would be eligible for this. As I-2 developments occur we would like to encourage some of these planned industrial parks and allow them to be a little smaller, get the screening around the part for outdoor storage and allow them to take advantage of the reduced setbacks. This would only be allowed if the use is next to another I-2 user.

Member Schmid asked if there had to be screening between each lot if there was outside storage. Mr. Arroyo said yes. Member Schmid said some I-2 does not have outside storage. So if you had an I-2 with outside storage and there was one that was not next to it they might be offended if they had to look at yours.

Mr. Arroyo said a reduced amount of screening would be required and it would provide for a three foot landscape berm or a five foot wall. Member Schmid asked if this would change the setbacks and Mr. Arroyo said it would not.

Next was page 26. Mr. Arroyo said #12 is an old reference to computing the number of parking spaces usable floor area is used. He said the Ordinance has really been changed on how they apply parking standards primarily to leasable and to gross floor area and usable area is not really used except in very limited situations.

Member Schmid said what about a Kroger that has 100,000 square feet of usable and 50,000 non-usable? Mr. Arroyo said retail is now based on leasable area and if it is a Kroger it is probably going to be 100% of the floor area is going to be leasable because all that could be excluded would be a common corridor.

Mr. Arroyo wanted to look at footnote E under Industrial Parking Standard. He said the Standard in the Ordinance is if you go through the landbanking provision. Currently, if you want to put in a warehouse you have to landbank the difference between the parking for a warehouse and a Light Industrial user. To determine how much parking that is it is 1 per 700 but if you are going to do a Light Industrial building the parking standard of 1 per 700 is not in there. It is 5 plus 1 for every one and a half employees on the largest shift. That is a difficult standard to apply when you have a spec industrial building and they don’t know how many employees they are going to have. The thought was we would have both of these standards and which ever was the greater would be the one that would apply. Both of these standards are in the Ordinance but they are not directly applicable to this particular land use and we are trying to clarify it so that it makes it easier to deal with some of the spec industrial building.

Mr. Arroyo said #7 is being stricken because it does not apply anymore. There used to be a provision that if you had a parking lot a wall had to be put around it but there are already screening requirements in Section 2509. The requirement does not change but the language is coming out of this area.

Mr. Arroyo said on page 27 we are changing an old reference to 2514, which is going to 2509 which is Proper Landscaping Standards. The significant change is at the bottom of page 27. Right now if you are putting in a 100% office use in an Industrial District you have to have loading based on it being an Industrial building. We just had this come up with ICON which is putting in a three story, 100% office building, in a Light Industrial District. It had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because it would have required three or four huge loading bays because of the size of the building. This says if you have an office building in an Industrial or Expo District then the standard is applied that would have applied if this were an Office District. This would eliminate sending people to the Zoning Board of Appeals just because they are putting in an office building in a Light Industrial zoning.

Page 28 changes the reference from the Planning Consultant to Landscape Architecture Consultant in reference to some of the landscaping provisions. There are some typos in some of the species that are being changed.

Page 29 is just a typo being corrected by adding ing to the end of screen in Item K. Also, at the bottom of page 29 it says "if property abuts a Residential District certain landscape screening has to be provided". In a TC District it could be Residential but additional buffering against that Residential is not required because it is not considered to be a Residential District. This clarifies that if you are in a TC District and that area of the TC District has Residential uses like Main Street Village and you are in an Industrial use next to it you have to screen it as if it were a Residential District. Those residents would have to be provided the same benefit that they would have if they were in a Residential District.

Page 30 has been discussed before under the I-1 District. The change would be to make the berm height 10 feet with a 6 foot crest rather than having a range of 10 to 15 feet. For the I-2 District it will allow a range of 10 to 15 feet rather than specifying a minimum of 15 feet.

Mr. Kramer asked why these last two would be changed?

Mr. Arroyo said this primarily was a result of some discussion between Ms. Lemke, the Implementation Committee and the Planning Commission. The thought behind this was that a ten foot high berm for an I-1 District adjacent to Residential with landscaping on top was providing substantial screening. Since there was outdoor storage in an I-1 District and there really is not a significant outdoor component that it was not necessary to go to 15 feet. Instead of having a range they felt that having a bare minimum of ten feet would make it clear that ten feet was the minimum but it could be higher. In an I-2 District they felt it might be appropriate to allow something between the ten and fifteen feet. It was fifteen feet before but it now would allow a range from ten to fifteen feet.

Mr. Arroyo said on page 31 there is one new addition to #4 which states if evergreen trees are used in a landscape island there has to be at least 50 feet in width because evergreen trees tend to block sight distance and cause problems for parking lot circulation. There has to be an appropriate setback from those trees from the adjacent isles so it does not block sight distance.

Deciduous trees or low shrubs are preferred in a parking area.

Member Schmid said one of the reasons screening was required was to break up the asphalt in a parking lot. He felt low scrubs and trees that lose their leaves are not attractive.

Mr. Arroyo said the concept is really a safety matter around corners in the parking lot.

Member Schmid understood that the corners or the end of the island might be a problem. He did not see any reason to take away evergreen trees from huge parking lots. They are there all year round. He asked if someone told Mr. Arroyo there was a safety problem?

Mr. Arroyo said they had observed it and thought it was fairly recognized that if evergreen trees were not placed properly they are a safety problem. This would not eliminate all evergreen trees in a parking lot.

Member Schmid commented he had never seen a parking lot island 50 feet wide.

Mr. Arroyo said they could be combined or they could be around the perimeter of the parking lot.

Member Schmid said the intent of the Ordinance was to try to break up the parking lot.

Mr. Arroyo said it is a good intent and it can still be accomplished.

Member Schmid said there are hundreds of parking lots with evergreens in them with parking lots of less than 50 feet and wanted to see more information on this.

Member Schmid questioned Interior Building Landscaping Requirements at the bottom of page 31.

Mr. Arroyo thought it was to provide flexibility with other materials such as decorative paving and other amenities rather than landscaping if the situation presented itself.

Member Schmid said this is primarily a façade item.

Mr. Arroyo said there have been buildings that because of their design they tend to have a fairly large overhang or roof structure etc. There has been concern expressed about the ability for landscape materials to properly survive because it is against the building and in the shade and may not get rainfall.

Member Schmid asked if Ms. Lemke suggested this? Mr. Arroyo did not know. Member Schmid thought she had told him that she did not recommend this and that a couple developers recommended it.

Member Kramer had substantial concern on the last two pages. He would not support and would do all that he could as a Council member to prevent reducing berm height in I-1 and I-2 especially adjacent to residential.

Member Kramer supported Member Schmid’s position on the evergreen trees. He thought they were excellent in the islands as long as they could have sufficient width to support their vitality. If there was a concern about safety they needed to look at visibility versus the end of the island not the width. He also would not support the four foot green space or the writing into the Ordinance of that flexibility and thought he would let it go in a hardship basis.

Member Kramer commented he would support the rest of the changes.

Member Kramer asked that the dumpster issue referred to in the letter from Ms. Kocan be addressed by Mr. Arroyo and brought back.

CM-99-09-044 Motion by Kramer, seconded by Schmid; MOTION CARRIED:

To accept the I Reading of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-18.153 – An Ordinance to amend Subsection 1602.4 and Section

2302A, of Ordinance 97-18, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance,

to recognize those provisions with comments.

DISCUSSION

Member Mutch thought it would be useful to have not just the comparison draft but something that essentially gives the reason for the change. She said many of these changes were typos, or were redundant or addressed somewhere else and very few of them needed discussion.

Member Mutch questioned the end of the letter from Ms. Kocan which said "I am requesting that for any Special Land Use there either be a requirement that waivers must receive approval from Council or at least appeals of Planning Commission approval be allowed at the Council level." She asked if that was something that could be done as she thought that by State law the Planning Commission had that authority.

Mr. Watson said in the Ordinance there are some instances where Council has Special Land Use approvals. In most instances the Planning Commission approves them. It is possible, if Council wanted to restrict waivers it could be put in the Ordinance that the Planning Commission approves the Special Land Use and require that it be subject to Council approval.

Member Mutch asked who would be the appropriate people to provide commentary for Council’s consideration if there was interest in pursuing this suggestion? Would it be a legal matter or a Planning matter?

Mr. Watson thought it would be planning advice from the Planning Consultant, Planning Administration and comments regarding the legal questions would come from the City Attorney.

Member Mutch commented the majority of Council would like to pursue this. Then she asked that an evaluation be provided. Maybe the overview that Mr. Watson offered that the Council does have the authority to build that into the Ordinance and from the Planning people the pros and cons of doing that. She did not want any one to think that a thoughtfully made suggestion was ignored but did not want to discuss it without the proper background.

Mr. Watson felt it would be useful to give some direction for background information.

Member Mutch did not want to amend the motion.

Member DeRoche agreed with nearly every recommendation that had been brought forward. He was also frustrated with this document. He felt some of this could have been done without debate or discussion. He said there are some that are policy changes and they are well prepared with good explanations as to why they are included. The bottom line is they are changes that are going to effect the way we do business with people. This is new intent and new direction and he thought it made it very difficult.

Mr. Arroyo said he appreciated his input because there would be another series of amendments coming and he would be sure there was more information and more description on where the changes were coming from.

Member DeRoche was not happy with this but would support this so the process could continue. He was concerned with the number of policy issues being brought up and the timing of this. He felt it was not necessary to pass this meeting or get the second or third done at the next meeting but there was a lot of policy issues that deserved the discussion tonight. If that can be done in the next two meetings then so be it.

Member Mutch said when talking about the evergreens in the islands were we talking about anywhere there is a landscaped island?

Mr. Arroyo said that is correct.

Member Mutch asked if he was talking exclusively about safety with regard to sight distances, traffic and pedestrians?

Mr. Arroyo said there was a secondary issue that if the island is too narrow there is a potential for the base of the evergreen tree to grow beyond the width of the island itself.

Member Mutch asked if it would be appropriate to get input from the Police Department. She thought parking lots with deciduous trees and lower shrubbery were very attractive and very open. It does visually break up the parking area but also gives additional security that you are not blocked from view.

Mr. Arroyo said there is a whole series of training that takes place within a number of different realms similar to what Member Mutch is describing. It has to be a balance between screening and safety.

Member Schmid asked Mr. Arroyo if this was his idea.

Mr. Arroyo said it was not. He thought it came from Ms. Lemke but was not sure and would check into it.

Vote on CM-99-09-244 Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

Nays: Lorenzo

 

CM-99-09-245 Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Lorenzo; MOTION CARRIED:

To request an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the legality of adjusting the Ordinance to allow appeal within the City of Special Land Use and comments from the Planning Department regarding policy considerations.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Watson said it was a policy issue not a legal issue.

Mr. Kramer wanted to be advised of the pros and cons of changing the Ordinance to provide the appropriate processes within the City so if there was dissatisfaction there would be an appeal within the City without taking it to the courts.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford asked if the attorney was being asked to provide a legal opinion or a political opinion? If you’re asking him to rule if this can be done that is one thing. If you are asking him to rule as to if we should do it that is different.

Mr. Watson suggested asking for comments from his office on the legality of it and from the Planning Department as to the policy considerations.

Member Kramer accepted this as his motion.

Vote on CM-99-09-245 Yeas: Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid

Nays: McLallen

5. Request for approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-18.158, to permit storage of a small amount of firewood on lake front lots – I Reading

CM-99-09-246 Moved by Schmid, seconded by Kramer; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-18.158, to permit storage of a small amount of firewood on lake

front lots – I Reading.

DISCUSSION

Member Crawford thought there might be a problem with the portion that reads "not to exceed three feet in height, three feet in width or 18 inches in width". He thought the

"or" had to be changed. Mr. Watson said they would have revised language for clarification in the II Reading.

Member DeRoche said he understood this is for the lake front lots that are divided by either East Lake or South Lake Drives. He said the concern was people crossing the road with firewood. There are lake front lots that do not have a road dividing their property and he thought there might be some people that would be surprised that this was passed that are not necessarily part of the problem

Member Kramer asked if it would be negative for them? Member DeRoche said it would and asked what the regulations were on non-lake front lots?

Member DeRoche said if they do not have the road dividing their lot then they should have the same standard that is applied to other homes in Novi and that this Ordinance should be strictly applied to lots that are divided by either East Lake or South Lake Drives. He said the intent of the Ordinance is different from how it reads. It reads that every lake front lot would be subject to this. He would not support it imposing a standard on people that did not have a problem and asked that the wording be tightened up.

Member Mutch asked what the intent of the text amendment was?

Member De Roche said the problem was transporting wood across the road for fire pits and this would allow the size of the wood that could be stored across the street where the residence is not located.

Member Mutch thought it was a concern about the amount of wood stored on the lot. If it is the amount you are carrying how does limiting the size of what is stored connect?

Mayor McLallen said previously wood was not allowed to be stored. Mr. Kramer said it was prohibited. Mayor McLallen said this permitted a small storage of wood.

Member Mutch said you could take a small amount now and a small amount later and have the same amount you would have if you had a house. She did not see how this dealt with the problem.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford said previous to the recommended change storing of wood on a lake front lot that did not have a dwelling on it was prohibited.

Member Mutch asked why should it be different whether there is a house or not?

Mayor McLallen stated if a whole cord of wood was stored on a lake front lot it would be a visual obstruction.

Member Mutch said the aesthetics of this appealed to her but the basic unfairness did not.

Mr. Watson said if there is a house it is not as though there is unlimited storage of wood but it has to be immediately adjacent to the house or the garage. The house and garage are already obstructing the view.

Mr. DeRoche commented this is specifically to address the crossing back and forth.

Member Schmid said it is more aesthetics and the handiness of having a small pile of wood available. He also mentioned rodents.

Vote on CM-99-09-246 Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo,

Mutch, Schmid

Nays: None

6. Request for approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 99-81.17, to update local Ordinances dealing with alcohol related driving offenses and driving while license suspended offenses with State Law provisions – I Reading

CM-99-09-247 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Ist and 2^nd Reading of

Ordinance Amendment No. 99-81.17, to update local

Ordinances dealing with alcohol related driving offenses and

driving while license suspended offenses with State Law provisions.

Vote on CM-99-09-247 Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo,

Mutch, Schmid

Nays: None

7. Request for approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 99-88.04, to clarify the type of refuse receptacles that may be placed at the street for pickup – I Reading

Mayor McLallen commented this began because of the concern of a north end resident. There was an extensive conversation in the Ordinance Review Committee but she did not remember how this ended up addressing refuse receptacles. It was about mandatory garbage pickup.

Mayor McLallen said our Municipal Ordinances only require that property is kept sanitary and we do not regulate how that is done or what receptacles are to be used.

Member Kramer recommended that this be rejected and sent back to Ordinance Review.

Member Mutch stated that there was at one time, a community wide decision not to have City trash pickup. Member Schmid agreed and said it was a ballot issue.

Member DeRoche did not think this issue was municipal trash pick up. He thought it went more to the type of Ordinance we have regarding cutting your lawn and maintaining it. We do not have a municipal lawn cutting either but do have an Ordinance and some recourse against people who don’t do things according to City standards. He thought there should be an Ordinance regarding trash pickup, removal etc., that addresses some one who does not take it off their property and what if some one puts it on their neighbors.

Mayor McLallen said from what they have heard at Ordinance Review the remedies that Member DeRoche is talking about are already on the books.

There was no action on this item.

8. Request for approval of Ordinance Amendment No.99-115.04, to amend the Snow Ordinance to allow the D.P.S. Director and/or Weighmaster to remove vehicles from streets during a snow emergency – I Reading

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford said it was suggested in the letter that City staff went door to door and asked people to move cars. He asked if this was in the Ordinance? The letter suggested it be published in the local newspaper if time permits and Mayor Pro Tem Crawford did not think time would permit that but thought cable might work. He asked if there was something in the Ordinance that notified people to remove their vehicle.

Mayor McLallen asked if signage that is put up every fall on major access streets that say "this is a snow removal area" would work? Member Kramer said that was for snow emergencies.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford did not have a problem authorizing notification but there has to be sensible and proper notification. The newspaper is not proper notification.

Mr. Nowicki said the policy in the Ordinance proposes that twice a year before the snow and sometime in January there be a notice put into the newspaper very similar to what we use with weed Ordinances and all the other Ordinances with certain property maintenance provisions for the homeowners. It is part of the policy for the Weighmaster or designee to knock on doors in the event of an emergency.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford asked if that provision was in the Ordinance.

Mr. Nowicki said it was not in the Ordinance it was in the policy.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford asked Mr. Watson if it should be in the Ordinance?

Mr. Watson said he did not think it should be in the Ordinance and that it belonged in the policy. If put in the Ordinance it would restrict to the point that if some one had their car towed and then tried to beat the charge saying that nobody knocked on their door when they may not have answered their door.

Member Schmid said in subdivision what difference did it make if the cars were parked on the roadway?

Mr. Nowicki said it hampered efficient removal of the snow and the plows have to go around and then when the cars are moved the DPW has to spend extra time going back to remove the snow.

Member Schmid said he was concerned about cost. He asked if there was any way to control the cost.

Mr. Nowicki said the towing company that we would use and the procedures would be identical to what the Police Department is using now.

Member Schmid asked what the storage cost is for a vehicle towed? Mr. Nowicki thought it was $7.00 a day. Member Schmid felt that was reasonable. He felt there should be something that would control the cost.

Mr. Klaver said there was a contract for towing services and it would be the same as for the Police Department.

 

CM-99-09-247 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the 1 Reading of the Snow

Removal Ordinance Amendment No, 99-115.04, to allow

the D.P.S. Director and/or Weighmaster to remove

vehicles from streets during a snow emergency subject to

Comments of Council.

Vote on CM-99-09-247 Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo,

Mutch, Schmid

Nays: None

9. Master Plan Discussion

Member Lorenzo said the public input part of the process included taking the information from Novi 2020 Visioning Process and the community attitude survey. Once the Planning Commission identified specific changes to the Master Plan other than the Public Hearing what community outreach is performed to make the community aware of these potential changes? Was there any feedback?

She noted there were specific changes made in the additional areas for Commercial particularly the SE corner of Novi and Ten Mile Road. She said 2020 did not deal with specific land use issues. The survey, which was completed by 746 people, 28% strongly agreed with the statement that "City of Novi businesses provide all the daily goods and services that I need" and 51% somewhat agreed with that statement. Based on that where did we get all this additional Commercial use. How did the public influence that.

Mr. Arroyo said the public input process was done slightly different than before. Rather than going through the whole process, completing the document and then having a Public Hearing and saying what do you think, the Planning Commission wanted to get the public input early.

Member Lorenzo said if the survey told us that 51% agreed that we have all the businesses we need providing daily goods and services and 28% strongly agreed how did we get the additional Commercial? She asked how much additional Commercial between Walgreens and the railroad tracks on Ten Mile and Walgreens and the apartment complex on Novi Road?

Mr. Arroyo said the question that was asked dealt with existing residents and how they felt about Commercial services being provided today. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee was looking at the future. There is still another 25,000 residents coming into Novi, it is a combination of existing plus proposed. There was an economic analysis done that showed that the City actually does have a short fall on certain types of retail. Local Commercial such as a grocery store and gas stations showed there was quite a bit of money flowing out of the City from City residents to other communities because some of the services are not being provided.

That was one of the factors they took into consideration when adding Commercial. Another is trying to make sure that that Commercial is not adjacent to Single Family Residential. He thought they stayed true to that by identifying the Grand River Corridor and the site at Novi and Ten Mile Road.

Member Lorenzo said there was no specific public input on those particular proposed changes to the Master Plan.

Mr. Arroyo said that issue at the corner of Novi and Ten Mile was heavily discussed at the Public Hearing in which there was a public notice made and quite a bit of information provided that there was going to be a Public Hearing. If some one was interested in the Master Plan and wanted to attend the Public Hearing or watch it on TV the ability to do that was available. They did not make the decision that night. It was tabled and was sent to committee and it was brought back again. Mr. Arroyo felt there was an opportunity for public input.

Member Lorenzo was concerned that there was way too much Commercial on that corner. She said she was very supportive of the Providence Park Place Commercial Center and the Commercial rezoning of the Wixom/12 Mile Road area but now on the east side of the street the Commercial was extended south. She felt before rezoning property to Commercial those two particular areas should be allowed to absorb the market.

Mr. Arroyo said the Planning Commission was very clear on the rezoning issue. They were not recommending that that corner be rezoned. In fact, language was put into the Master Plan that specifically said they did not want to consider and would look very strongly at any rezoning application until infrastructure, roads and traffic were dealt with at that intersection. Because it is in the Master Plan does not mean it has the support of the Planning Commission.

Member Lorenzo said it would have been helpful to have the full Master Plan book before now.

She also has concerns with density issues that were changed. The Gateway Ordinance also concerned her.

Member Schmid said figures in this document said that presently in 1999 the number of multiple units are some where in the area of 44% of our total housing. The Master Plan is proposing substantial additional multiple dwellings particularly in the Gateway area.

Mr. Arroyo said it says it is potential because it is a mixed-use district, it could be office, Commercial and might have multiple.

Member Schmid thought there were enough multiples and that they were not a good tax base and asked why they encouraged and increased.

Mr. Arroyo said if in the right location they could be an asset to the Community particularly with the Town Center and the downtown Gateway District that is proposed. The whole idea is to inject more residential within the heart of the community that creates vitality and energy in the area and is consistent with long range planning that has been done over many years. Also, because of the high quality of building standards and façade requirements there will probably be a high percentage of multiple family condominium for sale rather than rental. Developers showing any interest in the Town Center or downtown Gateway area recently had been looking for the potential of the for sale condominium units. These would have a different impact on the tax base then rentals. There seems to be, because of the high price of the land and the Ordinance structure, a very high probability that there will be multiple family condominium units within this area. However, this is not a 100% guarantee.

Member Schmid said he would be reluctant and almost totally opposed to any more rentals in the City of Novi. He said Novi has more rentals than most communities. He asked what percentage of single family to rental was projected?

Mr. Arroyo said the percentage of the total acreage devoted to single family at build out would be 42% and for multiple family it would be 4.5%. He did not have the percentage of housing units.

Member Schmid was also concerned with the Commercial that came forward late in the planning process. It seemed like the Planning Commission keyed in on the Commercial and at the last minute it changed.

Mr. Arroyo said there were changes on Ten Mile Road and at Wixom and Grand River there was expansion of an area.

Member Schmid asked why we want more Commercial? He felt more industrial was needed and it is good to have a lot of Industrial because they pay taxes but it is not good to keep putting more people in because they do not pay enough taxes, particularly rentals. He felt that density should be controlled.

Member Kramer was also concerned about the scale and scope of the convenience commercial proposed on Ten Mile Road. He thought the Planning Commission should study it more thoroughly over time. He would have difficulty supporting the scale and scope of the amount that is shown in any request for rezoning. He thought that the expansion in the Master Plan might go beyond a reasonable amount of convenience commercial for residents.

Member Lorenzo did not think there was enough public participation particularly with the specific changes that were being made to the Commercial areas, residential density and multiples. She had not heard adequate justification for those changes and questioned the validity of the Master Plan.

Mayor McLallen thanked Mr. Arroyo and the Planning Commission and thought this Master Plan was much more comprehensive and complete and that it allowed readers to find out what it really said and envisioned for this City. It is a comprehensive input of many people of the community and their thoughts. The Master Plan is the charge of the Planning Commission and it is their sole and primary responsibility to create this document and update it on a regular basis. The implementation of those ideas and vision will be left to future Councils.

Mayor McLallen said an enormous amount of work went into this document, and it contains the history of where the City has been and where, based on those past decisions, the City can hope to go. It leaves a lot of room for the opportunities that will come.

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Consent Agenda items, which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

2. Schedule a Special Meeting for Saturday, October 16, 1999 at 8:00 AM in the

Member Lorenzo questioned the necessity of the meeting given the ad for the City Manager position had been placed. The review of applicants and selection for a candidate will be the next Councils decision and if members of this Council, who may or may not be here, would like to write a memo on their experiences for the next Council to consider that would be appropriate. In terms of the potential Gateway Ordinance it was her understanding that was coming to Council at a regular meeting. Also, if it was discussed at a Special Meeting she hoped it would be done in Council Chambers and be on cable TV for the residents.

Mayor McLallen said regarding the overview of the City Manager process it was felt that it was important to include a Council that had worked together with an individual and it was kind of an exit interview. This group as a whole had certain functionality with the administration, what were the pros and what were the cons. These were the things that the typical Monday evening meetings do not allow the latitude to have a firm discussion on. This Council has had a historic working relationship and to analyze the pros and cons of that relationship, for this Council, the wealth of information would be important to put on the table as a group. She thought every Council should perform an exit interview as the Council changes. It is something that we have never done. In this case, in addition to persons of the Council exiting a Manager is exiting and she thought Council needed to assess what happened and what the expectations are. The next Council will have a completely different perception but she thought it would take both of those perceptions to achieve the most satisfactory results in doing an executive search.

Mayor McLallen said the second issue is the potential Gateway Ordinance. It is suppose to come to Council and could be a major Ordinance. In the constraints of our normal meetings there is no time for the free flowing discussion and since it is a new concept it would probably warrant a couple of hours of candid discussion. A Saturday, October 2^nd meeting did not work out so it has to be decided if Council wants a meeting for these two issues.

Member DeRoche agreed with some of the principles of Member Lorenzo. He welcomed the opportunity to offer input but believed it is up to the future Council. The business of the City should not stop because of an election but this might be more than we can handle over the next two or three meetings. He thought rather than trying to exccelerate the work of this Council we should realize that some of these things need to be deferred on to the next Council.

Member Kramer commented he would not have difficulty postponing the Gateway discussion but Mr. Kriewall has indicated he would like to leave in February. He felt the process had to be moved along. If nothing is done until the new Council, then the holidays are upon us and time will be short. He thought it would be prudent to do a brainstorming session on a City Manager character, quality, priorities, etc. It could always be amended and we should take advantage of the experience here and get some ideas and information together. He thought it would help move the process along and would not obligate anyone. He commented he would be willing to find time and it may help to have a facilitator at the brainstorming session.

Member Mutch agreed with Member Kramer. She understood those who might want to defer this until after the election since that is when the decision would be made anyway. The fact is there are two people on this Council who have had the unique experience of having been Mayor with Mr. Kriewall as the City Manager. She felt the experience of those possibly leaving was very important. It should be drawn on for things such as how this works or doesn’t work, what was missed, what we could appreciate that we haven’t had, and those things we have had with Mr. Kriewall that we want to be sure continue. The new Council would not be able to offer that because of lack of experience. It is a very human tendency with a new Council and they are faced with a decision with none of the background there is not going to be the inclination to look back. She did not think that kind of information and experience should be lost whether there is one change or four. She thought when the new Council came in they should have a consensus from this Council on what they considered important. That way the three people who are continuing do not have a disproportionate influence on the new Council.

Mayor McLallen commented there was support to have a meeting to discuss the City Manager process but not a lot of support for a Gateway Ordinance Study session.

Member Schmid said the Gateway Ordinance is a significant Ordinance and if it was coming before Council before the new Council is sitting then there should be a study session. If not then there would be no need for it. He felt it was a significant change in the zoning and land use in that particular area and warranted more discussion.

Member Schmid thought there would be value to discuss the pros and cons of the position but timing would be a problem.

Member Lorenzo removed this item and had since received the answers she needed.

Member Mutch asked if it was the same thing that is stacked on the Farmington Hills side of Nine Mile and Haggerty?

Mr. Nowicki said it was very similar.

Member Mutch said the Historic Commission Fuerst Farm Picnic was an event sponsored by the Historical Commission and the Novi Parks and Recreation Department. The Commission has had other events that were not very well attended but 400-500 people attended this event. Families of all ages came and approximately 60 people toured the property to find out more about the Town Hall and the buildings on the Fuerst property. She thanked Local Color for the food and their own Root Beer. Marilyn Troshak and Marcia Stevens handled everything on the Parks and Recreation end and Marcia was involved with the old fashioned game and they did a wonderful job. Margaret Schmid was there with her animals and exhibits she used for the State Fair that included milking a goat. Tom Lee provided music and the Historical Society provided prizes for the games and Roy Prentice and his crew from M.S.U. Tollgate 4-H Education Center provided horse drawn wagon rides. Lou Martin and Maureen Malone did a fantastic job on publicity hitting every medium from print to cable. There was also a brochure that outlined the Fuerst Farm property, which will be reprinted to be available at the Library and City Hall. The Novi Community Credit Union offered a public service called Kid Print which is polaroid ID photos and fingerprinting. About 160 children participated. Jan Jefferys of the Novi News with the help of staff did a wonderful job, including Jeremy McBain, and their photographer who did an excellent job in looking at the old photographs and taking new ones for contrast.

She thanked Chris Pargoff, the D.P.W. and the Parks and Recreation workers for cleaning up the property and getting it ready for the event. She also thanked the members of the Historical Commission for their hard work and said this will be an annual event.

Member Lorenzo commented that maybe next year $1.00 a person should be charged.

1. Election of Voting and Alternate Voting Delegates, for the Annual Congress of Cities, November 30 – December 4, 1999, Los Angeles, California

Mayor McLallen commented that this is awkward because some members may not be here.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford stated he is planning on going to the convention and volunteered to be the voting delegate and would be happy to relinquish that position to the next Mayor if he would like to go. Member Kramer agreed to go as an alternate.

Member Lorenzo said in May 1998 when the Park Place Tentative Preliminary Plat was before Council, the Council voted to allow grass block pavers as a secondary emergency access between Park Place and Deer Run. In May 1999 that changed by suggestion of the Mayor and basically what the Council did was make the Final Preliminary Plat contingent upon a change in the Design and Construction Standards that were not in effect. So it was changed to whatever the Design and Construction Standards coming forward were going to be which in this case now required pavement and not grass block pavers. To further complicate the matter, not six weeks ago this Council gave a waiver to Bellagio Estates for grass block pavers.

Last week at the Planning Commission they reviewed Deer Run and there were residents there questioning the emergency access and were told that now it would be paved. She wanted to attempt to try and rescind the requirement or the contingency that was placed on the Park Place Final Preliminary Plat so that the applicant could install the grass block pavers that this Council originally agreed to. She did not know where the applicant was in the process with Park Place and thought any rescinding needed to be contingent upon the applicant.

Mr. Watson said one of the restrictions on a motion to rescind is that it can not be used where something has been done that can not be undone. In this case a project got an approval and proceeded forward and as of tonight we do not know where they are in the process and the extent to which they have gone forward. They may already have a vested right to continue under that prior approval and if that is the case there is nothing that can be done with the rescission. His suggestion was to direct the administration and himself to find out where they are in the process.

Mayor McLallen asked that the minutes of both meetings regarding this be brought back to Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford commented he had the minutes of the May 1998 meeting and Member Lorenzo had the minutes of May 1999. He thought they had discussed both methods in May 1999 not realizing what had been done the year before. The Mayor said it was in Ordinance Review and about to come out and suggested Council abide by whatever they do.

Member Mutch said a statement was made that action taken by the Council originally might not have been legal. She asked for Mr. Watson’s opinion on that. Mr. Watson said he would provide that.

Member Schmid thought this should be sent back again to the Ordinance Review Committee. There were good arguments for paving at that time.

Member Lorenzo had a handout that Mr. Nowicki made for Council. She was surprised to learn from the Novi News a couple of editions back that even though during the budget sessions the Council included an additional tornado siren for the community that we still have gaps. She said this is a match between the City and Oakland County and costs the City $12,750 per tornado siren. If we need two or three additional she thought it was well worth the money for this important public safety service.

Member Mutch stated she would be inclined to agree except that she did not think two or three would accomplish that.

Mr. Nowicki said what they proposed was to install one additional siren and have a contractor consultant for Oakland County Emergency Management Operations Group go through the siren locations and see what can be modified to make best advantage of the existing sirens and possibly move the locations. He said the information has been requested from Oakland County and they are aware of what we are doing and are prepared to assist us.

Member Mutch asked how long it would take them to respond. Mr. Nowicki said it was in the process and should not take long. She said maybe some of these could be moved further out and add one or two new ones that would be more centrally located. Mr. Nowicki said that would be the concept. Member Mutch said in that case wouldn’t it make sense to wait to see how many there are and then do a budget amendment.

Member Lorenzo thought the request needed to go in.

Mr. Nowicki said Oakland County would get back to us and provide us with the optimum location for the existing sirens in addition to the one. When the report comes back he will come back to Council and seek the exact number of sirens needed to gain 100% coverage.

Member Lorenzo asked if it would be appropriate with Oakland County and would they be able to install these before tornado season? Mr. Nowicki thought it would be appropriate and that they could be installed by tornado season. He said he would get back with them this week. Member Lorenzo said it was her goal to get these sirens in place by March.

Member DeRoche thought Novi citizens would be surprised that the tornado sirens did not cover them and felt it safe to believe they would expect it as one of their City services. He thought it should be done immediately because every single area in the City should be covered and it should be done quickly.

Member Mutch said it seemed to her they should work with Oakland County to find out what is happening in those areas on our borders. Maybe in moving things around they would be encouraged to moving a little closer to us and we move a little farther out and the overlap will give them greater coverage as well.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Nowicki to proceed with the process and to give Council a time line when he heard more.

1. Walkable Communities

Mr. Kramer said Mr. Nowicki and the City of Novi sponsored a Walkable Community Session September 24^th and it was very interesting but unfortunately the attendance was moderate. He recommended that Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Arroyo meet with other people who attended and create some follow up action. They discussed roundabouts that might have some potential applications in the City or mini traffic circle devices. There were some aspects of streetskate psychology that we might be able to use for traffic calming. They discussed something called a speed table versus a speed bump and talked about traffic calming in subdivisions.

Member Kramer thought if we had more ideas to use we might be able to move out to the leading edge of communities that are employing new traffic technology and get some benefits. There are alternatives to limit speeds in subdivisions aside from stop signs. They recommended pedestrian linkages between subdivisions if we are not providing the roadway linkages that we are continually pressured not to provide.

There were interesting ideas about requiring sidewalks to be completed within a quarter mile of a civic facility and sounded like something that could set priorities for us and if not, a foundation for an Ordinance. There was also discussion of T-21 Grant Funding.

Member Kramer said there were a number of ideas and the consultants are being sponsored by SEMCOG in the area and felt they would be willing to share if we contacted them for follow up.

Member Mutch also attended the Walkable Communities event and said there was an article in the Road Commission newsletter about roundabouts and how they were installed in Rochester Hills. She said that while the attendance to this event was limited, Novi Schools thought it was important enough to send the Director of Transportation and he had a lot of input regarding how busses have to get through neighborhoods. Detective Fanning from the Police Department was also there.

Member Mutch thought it would be very valuable to have these consultants come back and very specifically invite people who are representatives of the neighborhoods.

Member Mutch said they have excellent suggestions on how to deal with some troublesome bike path questions around the lake.

Member Kramer thought it might be worthwhile to try some of the ideas in a test residential area or subdivision, to see if some of these approaches would be effective in Novi.

Mr. Klaver thanked the employees for their cooperation in taking the shuttle bus or walking to the back lot while the parking lot is undergoing reconstruction. The construction is ahead of schedule.

Member DeRoche said the crew working on the West Road construction has been working very efficiently. However, what is going on up there highlights a concern that we should have for any construction around our perimeters for roads that are used as an entry to Novi or a through way for non Novi residents. Member DeRoche said there are a lot of traffic problems around the West Road area. He did not think surrounding communities got the message that West Road was going to be under construction and felt it would be wise to put signage up in the surrounding communities.

Mayor Pro Tem Crawford asked about the Ice Arena Management and requested a detail report at the next Council meeting.

Mr. Klaver said he had talked to Mr. Davis and they are still in transition and are still hiring employees and a lot of the management duties have been taken over by Suburban.

Crawford asked if the Parks and Recreation Department were out of the picture yet?

Mr. Klaver said not entirely but they are withdrawing as Suburban takes over more of the responsibility.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:51 PM.

_________________________________ _______________________________

Kathleen S. McLallen Tonni L. Bartholomew

_________________________________

Charlene McLean

Date Approved: