|View Agenda for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
MONDAY, MAY 7, 2001 AT 7:30 PM
NOVI CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Cub Scout Pack 354 – Novi Woods Elementary-Webelos
Den #7 – Leader: Frank Maynard
ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, absent/excused, Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo, Council Members Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, absent/excused, Kramer
APPROVAL OF AGENDA (additional communications or petitions)
Member Bononi added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item 1 Façade Ordinance and Item 2 Churches in Single Family zones permitted uses.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo advised that under Matters for Council Action Part 1, Item #1 had been removed and Item #3 had been postponed.
CM-01-05-109 Moved by Cassis, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
To approve the agenda as presented.
Vote on CM-01-05-109 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
SPECIAL REPORTS - None
COMMITTEE REPORTS - None
Contest winners held in conjunction with the Alcohol Awareness Month.
Bob Steeh, Novi Youth Assistance Citizens Committee, was present to
recognize three outstanding middle school students who participated in the
"Think Before Your Drink" Poster Essay Contest. Eighty students
participated and the winners were Todd Janer who received a $150 savings
bond, Julie Kuhn who received a $250 savings bond and Kristen Thomas who
wrote the number one essay and received a $500 savings bond.
No one was present to accept the proclamation. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo read the proclamation into the record.
3. National Association of Letter Carriers Food Drive Day-May 12, 2001
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo presented Janell Thompson with the proclamation declaring May 12, 2001 as Letter Carriers Food Drive Day.
Robert Churella, 4356 Scenic Lane, felt the budget should be considered carefully regarding staff and changes to be sure they are needed and should be considered in steps because of infrastructure problems that need correcting. The present consultants understand the problems of the City and are ready to solve some of these problems. He felt it would be a shame not to take advantage of what they already understand and know about our City and use it for our benefit before radical changes are made.
Debbie Bundoff stated she had asked about having copies of the budget and what was proposed available at the meetings and the public hearing. Some residents cannot get to the Clerk’s office before 5:00 PM and thought there wasn’t a copy available at the Library either.
Finance Director Smith-Roy said two copies were sent to the library. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked that the budget is readily available to the citizens.
CITY MANAGER - None
Mr. Klaver reported three more customer service cards were received. Compliments were for Michelle in the Police Records Division, Heim Schlick, Construction Coordinator, and one for the DPW.
ATTORNEY REPORT – Update on Jason Ct. issue
Mr. Fisher said with regard to the law applicable to this type of facility, the Michigan Legislature had determined it would be appropriate to try and place handicappers in as close as possible to a normal, customary, single family setting in our society. For that purpose, the legislature in Michigan determined that a facility designed to care for 6 or less people, would be considered to be a single family residence. It would be permissible without any special approval in a single-family residential zone. In conjunction, the legislature also determined that when an application was filed with the State that the State would provide notice to the local community and the community would send the notice out to all residents within 1,500 feet to determine if there was another facility within that 1,500 feet. If it were disclosed that type of facility existed then the State would not license it.
That piece of the legislation was the subject of the United States District Court and later at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals litigation. The judges held that the 1,500 foot requirement and the obligation to send notice out within 1,500 feet essentially amounted to actions or requirements that were discriminatory against the handicapped and therefore preempted by the Federal Fair Housing Act. The 1,500 foot requirement is no longer an integral part of the statute. What did remain and was unaffected by the
Federal Court determination was another standard in the statute that was vague in how it would apply and that statute provided that a license should not be issued to a new facility if the authorization of that facility would result in an excessive concentration of facilities within in the area. This had been appealed by the City of Livonia and the Michigan Supreme Court upheld it as being sufficiently descriptive of the result they were trying to prohibit. It would take more than one or two facilities within an area to result in excessive concentration.
In this particular matter, an application was made in the Building Department to add a bedroom, exercise room and a bathroom. The applicant intends to use the facility as an adult foster care home and to our knowledge licensing had not been processed with the State of Michigan.
Member Kramer asked how many people could live there? Mr. Fisher said it would depend on how many people were in each of the four bedrooms.
Member Csordas asked who the determining body was regarding excessive concentration. Mr. Fisher said the neighbors or the City could notify the Department of Social Services that there was excessive concentration and the license should not be issued. That would be subject to an administrative appeal within the department and then possibly Circuit Court litigation. Member Csordas asked if that process would start after the home was occupied? Mr. Fisher said after a license was issued, which could be before occupancy, if the City became aware of the license. The City is not typically advised and the State did as little as possible to make it known that licenses were being issued.
Member Csordas asked if Council decided there was excessive concentration how many lawsuits would result? Mr. Fisher said they would need to find out the number of other facilities in the area and then examine the precedent. If the circumstances matched precedent he thought it would be a pursued through the Department of Social Services.
Member Csordas asked if improvements on the home were done before the issuance of permits? Mr. Fisher said not that he was aware of.
Member Cassis stated if there were alterations to the home, there might be some zoning change as compared to the underlying zoning of the whole subdivision. Would zoning make any difference? Mr. Fisher said the facility would have to meet all the zoning requirements for single family residential in addition to requirements of the Department of Social Services. This applicant requested improvements consistent with the codes and ordinances of the City. Member Cassis asked if there were any ancillary structures needed to accommodate this how it would affect the situation? Mr. Fisher said they would have to be consistent with the zoning district.
Member Kramer asked if the Department of Social Services could be requested to notify the subdivision homeowners association when a permit was granted. Mr. Fisher thought the Department would notify the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked Mr. Fisher to request, from the State, the adult foster care home facilities, and their locations in the City and the extent of physical challenges the residents would have. Also, any permits pulled in regard to the alterations to the home. She asked that the information be available at the next meeting.
Member Cassis asked if the home was going to be rented as it might have an effect. Mr. Fisher said that was conceivable as it related to the number of people in the home.
Ken Irvine, 24361 Homestead Ct., Novi Homestead Subdivision, asked why the Council meetings were not video taped to allow people to watch them on the City channel. There was an issue he not been notified about regarding parking signs in his subdivision. There were 8 signs in his subdivision of 8 homes. He felt they were an eyesore and asked Council how to have most of them removed?
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo noted the City did not have the equipment to put meetings on the City Channel but they were working on it.
Member Kramer said when the contract was signed with Time/Warner they were going to put digital equipment in S.W.O.C.C. When that was done Council had indicated they would be interested in recording the meetings on digital and play them back for one week.
Mr. Helwig noted the parking signs would be reviewed and a report would be forthcoming. Also, he could see digital recording of Council meetings being a policy discussion with Council.
Member Bononi noted she would support video taping and replaying of Council meetings.
Barbara Thomas, 39951 Jason Ct., appreciated the questions and concern from the Council. There are 10 adult foster care facilities in Novi. There is one that is 2/10 of a mile from the adult foster care facility discussed this evening and it would be closer than the 1,500 feet. The existing adult foster care home is licensed for up to 6 people and only has two residents and
she was felt there was no need for another. She said improvements were made before the permits were received and building supplies had been on the front porch for two months. At this time, there is a renter in the house. How would the City know if the owner of the home lived there or not? She asked if Novi would ever have rules and regulations for AFC homes, assisted living homes, halfway houses, drug houses, etc.
Dennis Cline, 24101 Nilan, asked what happened if the homeowner did not get a license from the State and just put people in his home after the work was completed? What could he do later on as far as bringing in prisoners, drug addicts, etc and who would control and monitor it?
CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)
CM-01-05-110 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Bononi: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Vote on CM-01-05-110 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, Kramer
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
B. Authorize acceptance of $3,000, no matching funds, grant money from the Traffic
Improvement Association of Oakland County
(SONIC) Replacement vehicles.
K. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No.596
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – Part I
1. Request for approval of Appeal for land division from Daniel Booth, Parcel No.’s
50-22-04-451-011 & 50-22-04-451-012
Removed by applicant.
2. Request for approval of a Variance to construct a masonry wall within a sewer
easement at 20911 Turnberry Lane, Lot 12, Lou & Donna Agoston.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo noted this proposal received negative recommendations from Don Saven, Building Official, Bruce Jerome, Water and Sewer Superintendent and JCK , consulting engineers. There were positive recommendations from the homeowners association and the neighbor next door.
Mr. Agoston explained his request and that it was consistent with the landscaping of the rest of the subdivision and was architecturally compatible.
Member Csordas referred to Mr. Jerome’s memo regarding the sewer easement variance whereby the wall would be constructed within the easement, and required the wall to be removed before the sewer could be installed. It would hinder routine maintenance operations. He felt this would not be good. JCK could not recommend approval because of the construction of the wall below grade. Mr. Saven also said there was not, according to ordinance, to be any construction below grade nor interfere with the operations and maintenance of the utility or drain. Thought this would cause significant trouble to the City when the City moved water to the Cambridge Subdivision. Mr. Agoston’s subdivision association approved of the wall but they did not address the wall on the side of the property. He would not support approval of this.
Member Bononi asked why he wanted a wall on only one side? Mr. Agoston said there was a boulder wall on the other side between his property and the existing house. She asked if he had considered a less invasive fence or screening out of the easement such as lattice fencing or something that wouldn’t require such a substantial poured concrete footing? If he would propose something less invasive or substantial regarding its immovability she might be able to consider it. She would find it difficult to support this particular proposal.
Mr. Agoston said they were asking for this because there had been some question, after talking with JCK, as they were not sure about this easement from the beginning. They weren’t sure if the easement was built for the subdivision itself not connecting the subdivision behind them or if it was the actual easement for sewer that was to run for his subdivision. They could never get an answer as to what the easement was for.
Member Bononi asked Mr. Fisher what the recorded plat said regarding the purpose of the easement and what Mr. Agoston’s deed said? Mr. Fisher thought the plat would call it out as a utility easement and they had been informed by consultants that the utilities that might go in there would be impeded by what was being proposed.
Mr. Agoston asked if there was an objection to go across the front of the yard and staying out of the easement? Member Bononi did not see a problem with that.
Member Cassis asked what the main reason was for building the wall? Mr. Agoston said because their elevation was three feet higher than the neighbor and because of the drive between the garages that came to the property line. They thought it would be aesthetically pleasing. There were a lot of different things they could do but they felt this was consistent with the rest of the yard.
Member Kramer said this is a quality design proposal but unfortunately the substantial foundation would be an impediment. Mr. Agoston said they could go with a paver wall that would not need the footings in the ground. Member Kramer supported Member Csordas’ comments.
CM-01-05-111 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Cassis; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
To deny a variance to construct a masonry wall within a sewer
Easement at 20911 Turnberry Lane, Lot 12, Lou & Donna Agoston.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-111 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, Kramer
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
III, to rezone 4.2 acres in Section 9, located on the south side of West Road, west of
West Park Drive and adjacent to the CSX Railroad, from General Industrial (I-2) to
Light Industrial (I-1) or any other appropriate district.
Postponed at the request of the applicant.
Council suggested scheduling the meeting for May 31st or
June 7th and the EDC would be contacted to see if either of
these dates were convenient.
City Clerk Cornelius noted Rich Bailey had already resigned but expressed a desire to serve in the future in another capacity. Former member Vicki Nelson had moved per the U.S. Post Office and certified return receipt mail. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said these two members had to be officially removed since their terms had not expired.
CM-01-05-112 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY: To remove Richard Bailey from the Economic
Development Corporation and defer the removal of Vicki
Nelson until clarification was received from Mr. Fisher.
Member Cassis asked under what power was Ms. Nelson being removed? Mr. Fisher said if Ms. Nelson was no longer a resident of the City and did not notify Council it was sufficient basis to remove.
Member Bononi stated there were several committees that if so many meetings are missed it is basis for removal.
Member Cassis thought removal of Ms. Nelson should be deferred. Ms. Cornelius suggested just removing Mr. Bailey since a resignation was received.
Mr. Fisher said unless there is urgent business of EDC that would be a prudent course to remove Mr. Bailey and defer on Ms. Nelson. Members Bononi and Csordas concurred.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-112 Yeas: Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, Kramer,
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
6. Appointment to Economic Development Corporation.
CM-01-05-113 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
To postpone the appointment to the EDC until Mayor Clark is
Vote on CM-01-05-113 Yeas: Cassis, Csordas, Kramer, Lorenzo, Bononi
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – Part II
Mike Csapo, General Manager of RRRASOC, said State law required counties to prepare solid waste management plans. Seven other communities approved the plan. There are import/export authorizations in the plan and the plan is compatible with the solid waste programs of the City and RRRASOC. It would ensure that existing programs are in compliance with state law as well as compatible with the solid waste plans of surrounding counties. The key feature of the plan is local control and responsibility. There are no county mandated programs and RRRASOC would work with the City to see what made the best sense for the community.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo noted there are occasions when residents prefer their own trash haulers and asked if this plan would be mandated? Mr. Csapo stated it would not and there was no authority to mandate it. He said their goals were to identify the best practices of the community while assisting with grant funding.
Mr. Csapo advised that Household Hazardous Waste Day is May 12th in Farmington at the District Court, which is on Shiawassee off of Grand River and in Lyon Township on June 2nd at their former landfill. It would be in Novi this fall. They will all accept used computer parts.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo stated she would support this item.
CM-01-05-114 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Oakland County Solid Waste
Management Plan 1999 Update and adoption of Authorizing
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-114 Yeas: Cassis, Csordas, Kramer, Lorenzo,
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
CM-01-05-114 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Kramer; CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY: To approve solicitation of construction bids
for the 2001 Neighborhood Roadway and Major Street
Member Bononi asked how the funds would be apportioned for the Taft Road bike path? Director of Public Services Nowicki said he would have to see the bids to respond to her question. Member Bononi asked why the Taft Road bike path was a priority? Mr. Nowicki said it was a hold over from last year and mentioned that the path over some of the wetland area had deteriorated.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-114 Yeas: Csordas, Kramer, Lorenzo, Bononi,
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
CM-01-05-115 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Kramer; CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY: To approve consideration of a request to
Vacate a portion of Owenton road right-of-way and
authorization for the City Attorneys to prepare a vacating
Member Kramer supported the idea to vacate.
Member Bononi felt the property had to be assessed and the receivers of it should pay the costs and stated she would be looking for a policy regarding this.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-115 Yeas: Kramer, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis,
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
Member Kramer said this was only for the engineering review and then it would come back for acceptance.
CM-01-05-116 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Kramer; MOTION CARRIED:
To approve authorization for an engineering review.
Member Bononi could not support this because it would benefit a private neighborhood. If the cost of the engineering reviews was nominal and the neighborhood wanted to reimburse the City for the reviews, with no obligation to approve or disapprove, the reviews could be done. She would not support funding this by the taxpayers. Member Bononi felt there should be a policy to address this.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo agreed with Member Bononi and noted she wondered how many of these requests were on file and how many were approved. She felt this should be postponed.
Member Cassis said Council could not do this arbitrarily now with this situation.
DPS Nowicki said historically. Council had considered these requests and asked for an engineering review. One such review was for Briarwood South. The residents had requested review of the roads and acceptance of those roads by the City. Council authorized a complete comprehensive review by the engineers, planning, zoning, etc. Council considered the request and based on the recommendations of staff and consultants the request was denied.
This is the same situation. DPS Nowicki did not know what the cost would be but would submit an estimate if Council desired at the next meeting. He said it was clear through his review of that particular development that the developer had advised Council and the Planning Commission that the roads were intended to be private.
Member Cassis asked Mr. Nowicki what he would do about this situation as far as an analysis? Mr. Nowicki said they do an analysis which would not be very costly because this was a small area. Member Cassis said he would support that.
Member Kramer said it was a legitimate function of government, there would be some costs involved to do our duty, and he would continue to support the motion.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-116 Yeas: Cassis, Csordas, Kramer
Nays: Lorenzo, Bononi
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
CM-01-05-117 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Kramer; CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize solicitation for design,
right -of-way assistance and construction engineering/contract
administration services for the Grand River Avenue
improvements Project (Beck Road to CSX Bridge)
Member Kramer asked for an explanation of the right-of-way assistance portion of the request.
Mr. Nowicki said the attorneys would be conducting the right-of-way negotiations and actually doing all of the right-of-way service work. However, at times they require title searches, verification of legal documents, the development of exhibits, grading easements and all of the legal issues associated with preparing the documents in order to make a good faith offer to the property owner.
Member Kramer asked what the time requirement was. Mr. Nowicki said it was to be a Spring 2002 construction and they were under time constraints in order to keep the project rolling. Member Kramer asked if the budget amount was in line with what was discussed during the budget sessions? Mr. Nowicki said this would be paid for out of the 2000 Roadway Bond Program.
Member Cassis asked about the Grand River corridor study and whether we would try to adhere to some of the recommendations or had it been thrown out? Mr. Nowicki said none of the studies had been thrown out and they would consider the Grand River corridor study. In addition, there would be a Grand River visioning program Thursday, May 10th and he would try to marry the two programs to be sure that whatever was done through the engineering program was consistent with the vision of the Grand River Avenue corridor.
Member Cassis asked if the corridor study would be distributed at the visioning program? It was discussed and approved at prior Councils. Mr. Helwig said Mr. Pearson had found that study and it was now being circulated widely.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-117 Yeas: Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, Kramer,
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
Member Bononi asked what the status of approval of Phase II was in regard to the overall concept. Mr. Nowicki said this was the first round of expenditures for Phase II of this project. It followed the general alignment. There is a plan and a map in Council packets and with respect to approvals they are going through the process of the State permits and everything associated with it. The reason it took so long to move this forward was the uncertainty of the Beck Road/I-96 Interchange. MDOT recently finalized those designs and it looked like we would be clear of any improvements in that area.
Member Bononi asked if the $1,374,200 costs were still viable and would they remain viable? Mr. Nowicki believed they were but it was subject to bidding and contractor prices. She said before us is the acceptance of an easement and a consideration of $12,600. She asked from the standpoint of everything else that would happen with regard to other acquisitions, this would start the ball rolling without Council having an overview of Phase II and whether or not this Council saw the Phase II approval the same way as the previous Council.
Mr. Fisher said he would have to study this to give a valid, reasonable answer.
Member Bononi was concerned about whether the costs would remain the same because our experience with acquiring easement right-of-ways was that they often exceeded the original cost. She was concerned that there have been two or three changes in route of this extension since 1997. Mr. Nowicki said there had been a number of design scenarios and he believed this one was the most direct route and the least costly. Member Bononi asked if there was documentation of the other routes and why they were not followed up? There were vague references about people in zones who were not interested in having this water line and she asked if there was documentation to those questions regarding the routes.
Mr. Nowicki commented he could not guarantee that but would check the files and go back and see what they have with respect to the other design alternatives. Again, this was the most direct route.
Member Bononi said another statement in the material referred to the current Capital Improvement Plan and asked what else was in the Capital Improvement Plan with regard to projects? Mr. Nowicki said the program was approved in 1997 and included a list of projects. There should have been a summarized list of improvements in packets and a memo with the list of the projects included in a 1998 bonding program for utilities. Mr. Nowicki stated he would provide copies. Member Bononi wanted to know what the funding for all of the projects totaled. Member Bononi asked if a site had been determined for the booster station? Mr. Nowicki said it was negotiated as part of the property acquisition for Phase I of the water program. We already have that booster pump station, it would remain the same, and it is located at 12 Mile Rd. and West Park Dr.
Member Bononi asked the proposed cost of ROW and easement acquisition. She said the cost is specified as $25,000 not including takes or eminent domain situations. She asked if the $25,000 figure was still reasonable? Mr. Nowicki said based on the current alignment, yes.
Member Bononi asked once the booster station was in place what quantitative difference would the booster station make?
Dave Potter, JCK, showed overheads and said they were in the process of finishing Phase I of the water distribution study. He said they anticipated pressures at peek hour conditions to be 20 or 30 pounds PSI, which are marginal under State mandates. After reviewing the use of the proposed 24 inch along this route making the connection at Grand River the pressures increase to about 35 to 50 PSI which would insure that the City has more than adequate pressures over the next three years as construction develops in the area. They felt that Phase II of the study, which identified some of the other water mains that are needed, would help take us into the next 15-20 years which is the main goal of the study.
Member Bononi asked if it would be reasonable to assume that the Detroit Water people would also agree with their estimation and be willing to give us a letter or documentation that this would occur? Mr. Potter said absolutely. They are required to submit this study to Detroit. We are being fed by the Detroit system so they review the study, they need to concur with the pressures that they are supplying. Detroit is constructing a large pumping station and a
booster pump station at 14 Mile and Haggerty that would help maintain the pressures. Member Bononi asked the same question of the Detroit Water people, the letter she received was not quantitative, and she was looking for something quantitative with regard to spending this much money. She wanted it absolutely documented that what we would get would deliver the goods.
Mr. Nowicki said the primary function of the water main was to provide a secondary crossing of I-96 for system reliability. There’s only one crossing now at Novi Road and if it went down, there would be no access to water south of I-96 and put the City in really dire straits. She asked if the proposed route would come through the Novi Expo property? Mr. Nowicki said from West Park Drive it is a straight shot south, jogged around some of the properties, and the engineers said this was the most favorable route and the property owners were willing to grant the easements and discuss the water main routing. Member Bononi asked if there was negotiation with the Novi Expo site to grant easement through their property for this water line? Mr. Nowicki said there had been ongoing discussions per Council charge. She asked if the water line would serve the Expo Center? Mr. Nowicki said it could be served but did not know if they would tie into it. They currently have access to the Grand River Water Main. She asked if it would be a problem serving those south of I-96 with the existing water line? Mr. Nowicki said they have water up and down Grand River. She asked if the pressure was sufficient at the new proposed Novi Expo Center to utilize the tap they have now or would they require tapping into the new line? Mr. Nowicki said it was adequate now without the water main. However, they could tap in to it but now they did not need it to service their facility.
Member Bononi asked where the funds were coming from. Mr. Nowicki said the funding was based on a system wide connection charge that was established in 1990 or 1991which included the basic mains. In 1999 it was updated and the per tap cost was increased and was
intended for all new connections to pay their share of funding the overall network infrastructure. Laterals and individual connections would be paid for by the benefiting properties. Member Bononi asked what final design phase was? Mr. Nowicki said prior to the actual bidding of the project is the final design phase. Member Bononi believed in order to
expend $1.5 million of the taxpayers money that Council should at least have the overview of the conceptual plan of what would be approved. Then collect the easements, ROW or whatever else was needed. Secondly, she was concerned about the letter from the Detroit Water Company regarding the actual quantitative number that this booster station would provide improved service.
CM-01-05-118 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Kramer;
To approve continuing negotiations without final
approval and move forward with the acquisition of the
easement pending the presentation of a concept plan to
Council and a statement from the Detroit Water Authority with
regard to improvements as a result of the booster station
Member Kramer withdrew his second.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said once you negotiate and pay for an easement there is an assumption that the project is a go.
Member Cassis thought the motion was different then the question.
Member Kramer said the motion accepts that but requests the other information to be brought back.
Member Bononi asked if continuing negotiations consummated the transaction or hold it in abeyance? Mr. Fisher replied holds it in abeyance.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked what lateral connections were and if this was going off the beaten path of giving someone freebies? Mr. Nowicki said not even close. This is a direct crossing of I-96 from Twelve Mile at West Park Drive to Grand River Avenue almost due south. Laterals are the connections that a developer or private property owner would install that would connect to this main and then feed their individual development. In this case, the properties that this main goes through have direct access to the water main along Twelve Mile Road and Grand River thus they would not need to make a connection to that water main.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said according to Mr. Pakala’s letter of February 28, 2001 he stated "whether to allow lateral connections to this main is the decision of the City Council. It should be noted that the property owner of the easement currently under consideration has requested two eight inch lateral connections." Mr. Nowicki said that was fine and that he still had access to the Twelve Mile Road water main if he needed it. It is not being installed for the benefit of a particular property owner or a combination of property owners. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said we do not have to allow the lateral connections. We can just allow the main to go through. Mr. Nowicki said right, if Council wanted to deny a lateral connection there they could do that. She asked what the benefit would be to allow a lateral connection?
Mr. Fisher assumed that the more connections there were the more the system was looped and the healthier the system would be in many instances. She asked if this was something the property owner typically did or something the City typically did? Mr. Fisher said if the laterals are already connected or available and you are merely adding connections or enhancing the looping it is an overall enhancement of system that the system normally paid for.
Mr. Nowicki said that is correct. The primary purpose of this main is to provide a secondary crossing of I-96 as well as to boost system pressures within the zone that is on the map.
She asked why Mr. Pakkala brought this into the picture of whether to allow them as Council’s decision? He did not make it clear that this was a system enhancement as Mr. Fisher and Mr. Nowicki seemed to be stating. Mr. Potter pointed out that Novi Road currently has a 36-inch and 30 inch water main crossing I-96 and development adjacent to this tap into it and is serviced by the lateral connections. Even though its primary purpose is to act as a transmission water main supplying the heart of the City; the secondary feed will connect at Pontiac Trail to a 42 inch and a 36 inch that is being constructed at this time by DWSD to service Walled Lake and Commerce. This secondary feed will cross I-96 because the direct route is most feasible. The primary purpose is to connect to Grand River. However we can get that 24-inch to connect to that 16 inch is the primary goal to service the middle district in Novi. Whether or not you allow the developer to tap in from an engineering standpoint is
incidental. If the developer connects they would be charged a connection and a tap fee regardless of where they connect. There would be no freebies.
Member Kramer said when he seconded the motion he did not understand the intent of it. The intent is to not pursue the purchase at this point. He asked if the City attorney was involved in negotiations for ROW? Mr. Fisher said yes although he was not involved in this one. Member Kramer asked if there was anything that said Council had to act upon acceptance or rejection of the easement? Is anything in jeopardy if Council did not act? Mr. Potter said they did an evaluation of the property without the use of appraisals. Those are based on market prices and the property owners accepted that. If they change their mind at a later date or the property changes hands the City would probably incur the additional cost of the appraisals. Their recommendation was the price was good and they had property owners who were ready to move forward with granting that easement.
Member Kramer asked when Council could expect information about the overall plan to be brought back? Mr. Nowicki could not speak for Detroit because JCK would have to provide them with system modeling and they would have overseen the calculations performed in this particular case. Member Kramer stated he would like to receive the information Member Bononi requested but preferred to move forward with the easement.
Mr. Fisher said let’s assume that this project was never completed. Given the fact that that portion of the City needed to be fed at some point in time and given the location of this easement was this easement something that could be utilized later in any event even if this project did not go forward? Mr. Potter said the sole purpose of that easement would be only
for this water main extension. Mr. Fisher understood that but the water main must come through there at some point in time. Mr. Potter said that was right. At this point, we would have to contact Detroit Edison to get the water main through their property and then across MDOT’s property and at the location, depending on MDOT’s final plans. If we could not go
south, the answer would be yes, we would need to get the water main across whether done at this location or another that easement is critical and is not a waste. When MDOT constructs that road that whole area would be demolished and he did not know what their final grading plans were. This just keeps this project on track.
Member Cassis said he would not support the motion and would support the request to go ahead with an easement for $12,600. This project has been in the process for a long time and we have expended time, effort, money, and resources to get to this point on this project. It is obvious this project is absolutely necessary.
Member Bononi commented she was interested in absolutely protecting the interests of the Novi citizens and placing them first. We are not talking about $12,000 we are talking about a $1,374,000 and she was looking for a great quality project. She was looking for an arrangement to protect every dollar spent. This matter came before Council in January and was supposed to be back before Council for a February 22nd meeting so she did not see any emergency with regard to what is going on. She asked if there was a time frame to negotiate and/or finalize this agreement. Mr. Fisher commented it was before his time and did not know.
Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Potter noted there was no time frame associated with it.
CM-01-05-118 Moved by Kramer, seconded by Cassis; MOTION CARRIED:
To accept the easement acquisition and request the concept plan
and the statement from the Detroit Water Department.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-118 Yeas: Cassis, Csordas, Kramer, Lorenzo
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – None
MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES
Member Bononi was interested in the steady parade of façade ordinance variances seen at the Planning Commission level. She was also concerned with the declining quality in architectural projects being brought before the City. In comparing architectural examples of a few years ago they seem to be of a lot higher quality then the majority of the ones we are seeing recently. She felt that a paint by numbers mathematical approach was what was used to determine the quality of architecture in the City. She understood that the Planning Commission Implementation Committee was looking at the Façade Ordinance because of the variation and changing of numbers as opposed to the overall concept of how architectural plans are reviewed. She suggested if the Implementation Committee’s revision had not been brought forward that it should be and the Façade Ordinance should be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee to either enhance it as it is or look at other alternatives with regard to architectural review. When saying other alternatives she was not talking about an in depth study but the provision of several concepts to bring this back to City Council in 60 days or as long as the Ordinance Review Committee had a two meeting opportunity to look at that item.
CM-01-05-119 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Kramer; CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY: To refer the Façade Ordinance to the
Ordinance Review Committee.
Member Kramer would not support 60 days. He wanted to see what was on the unaccomplished agenda of the Ordinance Review Committee because there were two ordinances he wanted to see go to the Ordinance Review Committee and another in tonight’s packet. Something was needed on septic systems, phosphorous content fertilizers in riparian areas, and a rental repair ordinance. He did not want to impose this on the ORC as the top item as he didn’t know what they were already dealing with.
Member Bononi said the Ordinance Review Committee had taken a very hard look at what their priorities were and putting this ahead of any other priority item would not happen. She agreed to leave the time frame off the motion but felt it would be a doable thing.
Vote on CM-01-05-119 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, Kramer,
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
Member Bononi was concerned about applications regarding "Church complexes". They were not the typical church but seem to have evolved into outreach organizations that had a sanctuary secondary to a lot of other uses not normally associated with churches until recently. Banquet facilities, sports halls, auditoriums are all things that respond to needs of churches. However, it brought questions about how most ordinances allow churches in single-family zones by way of special use permit or special land use. She questioned what that meant with regard to compatibility and adjacency issues in single-family zones. If we are talking about complexes that could generate thousands and thousands of trips with regard to special events then it is a different thing then what we are talking about now. This question had also been raised in regard to daycare centers that when ordinances were written they addressed something much more simple and less dense. She asked that the special land use designation be looked at in regard to single-family zones and referred to the Ordinance Review Committee to not only look at what the Planning Advisory Service suggested is a suitable land use for such applications but also what other communities were doing. We are talking about large traffic generators, large parcels of land that would not
generate taxes for the City and we need a vehicle to act in our best interests and our residents’ best interests.
CM-01-05-120 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Csordas; MOTION CARRIED:
That the Ordinance Review Committee and the Planning
Commission re-examine the Special Land Use permitted use of
churches in single-family zones.
Member Kramer suggested this go to the Planning Commission Implementation Committee and thought these were all land use concerns that should be addressed with consultants and advisers to present back to Council for consideration. He would not support the motion.
Member Cassis concurred with Member Bononi.
Roll call vote on CM-01-05-120 Yeas: Csordas, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis
Absent: Clark, DeRoche
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
1. Letter from Eleanor Rzepecki, Re: requesting reappointment to the Economic Development
Corporation of Novi.
2. Letter from Jim Korte Re: 2027 Austin (fka: 170 Erma)
There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at
Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk
Transcribed by: ________________________
Charlene Mc Lean
Date approved: May 21, 2001