Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:37 PM.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Council Members Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo

Member Kramer added, #2 under Mayor and Council Issues, Joint EDC meeting and #3 Gateway Ordinance.

Member Cassis added to Committee Reports discussion on N.S. Corridor Study.

Member Bononi added, #4 under Mayor and Council Issues, the status of the Storm Water General Permit.

Member Csordas informed Council that Ms. Collens mother had passed away. He advised Council that equipment had been installed and sound has been restored to billboard postings on Channel 13. At the Cable Commission meeting last week a resolution was passed challenging Time Warner’s proposed service call and equipment rates for 2002. The maximum permitted hourly rate, per SWOCC, for a service call is $40.97 and Time Warner was proposing $41.68. A resolution was also passed challenging their proposed rate increase for the basic cable service increase from $11.63 to $12.00 per month. For new installation of service the maximum rate permitted per SWOCC is $58.04 and Time Warner’s rates are $59.05. The proposed quarterly meetings for SWOCC are being set and the first meeting is January 23, 2002 at the Civic Center at 7:00 PM. The next meeting is April 24, 2002 at Farmington Hills and two more will be set for the final two quarters.

Mr. Nowicki introduced Mr. Wresinski, Manager of project planning section for MDOT. He presented a brief history of the project and stated that substantial right of way still needed to be acquired and it had been estimated that the required right of way has been increasing at approximately $500,000 per month since the time of their commitment. The increasing land value has substantially weakened the buying power of funds earmarked for these projects. MDOT requested that the design consultant examine interchange options that would work as effectively as those approved that would require substantially less right of way.

Mr. Wresinski said one option, utilized nation wide, was single point urban interchanges. Their design consultant, Tom Williams was present. MDOT has worked hard to honor their obligations with the City regarding these interchanges. However, with rising costs of right of ways, MDOT and the City were faced with two alternatives.

Implement a design plan that reduced necessary right of way needs to bring the department more in line with the project budget.

Slow production of the interchange improvements and look to compete for additional funding, as it becomes available.

However, since 1999 MDOT had been publishing their 5-year plan that outlined how they would be spending all available highway dollars in five-year increments. The likelihood of finding additional dollars was not substantial.

The interchange and design concept that Mr. Williams would present was analyzed using all information that the original design concept approved and the environmental assessment had utilized. Therefore, the results that Mr. Williams would present represented a duplicate comparison of the options.

Mr. Williams narrated a video that demonstrated what the interchanges would look like and the actual traffic volumes and modeling for the year 2015. Beyond that, it would function as well or better than the originally proposed interchanges with less right of way.

The interchanges have been used in the U.S. since 1974. They are used in 26 states, 19 of which have winter weather including Colorado, Minneapolis, Utah, New Hampshire, etc. The closest is at the border of Dublin, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio, I-270 with Sawmill Road going over the top. Arizona DOT did safety studies and they were safer, by more than a 50% reduction in accidents, than interchanges they replaced.

Mr. Williams said the construction costs of the interchange itself is higher than what was originally approved but with the substantial savings in ROW the project cost would be substantially lower. Single Point Interchanges are new to Michigan but they are in production for U.S. 23 at M-59 and M-6 at Kalamazoo for reconstruction. A feasibility study has been completed for I-75 in Oakland County. There were several locations proposed in that study where existing interchanges could be replaced with Single Point Interchanges. MDOT is confident that the Single Point alternative is the appropriate solution to current and future traffic volumes. They have received written approval from the City of Wixom to proceed with the design alternative at I-96 and Wixom Road. The Federal Highway Administration has provided written concurrence regarding this design alternative at both interchange locations. Mr. Williams requested approval from the City of Novi to move forward with the proposed changes. As Council is aware, within their five-year plan, construction of these interchanges is slated for 2003 so it is imperative they begin moving forward with the design alternative very quickly to meet that obligation.

Member Kramer asked for a drawing of the intersection? Mr. Williams displayed an overhead projection of Single Point Interchange in Nebraska similar to the Beck/Wixom plan. The freeway was underneath and the road over the top would be either Beck or Wixom Road. Depending on the traffic volumes there might be traffic signals on the right turn movements. The structure would be wide because of the left turn ramps so both Beck and Wixom could have sidewalks on both sides of both structures without having to widen the bridges any more than they would be for traffic.

Member Kramer commented if there was a traffic design judged to be as safe as existing ones but using less land he would support the design.

Member Csordas asked if Mr. Williams was looking for a resolution or motion? Mr. Williams said they didn’t need a resolution but sought confidence that the City was comfortable and understood what was proposed. They wanted to have a public meeting in late October and early November so the citizens could get exposure to this and have their questions answered. They wanted approval, in some form, from the City in terms of allowing them to move forward.

Member Bononi asked if both of the cities were invited to the planning discussion with regard to how they felt the concept could be adapted to their situations? Mr. Wresinski noted there was a meeting where the design consultant presented the results of this analysis. He had worked with Mr. Nowicki, Mr. Helwig, and Mayor Clark discussing the issues the road commission might have, the communities might have and that the developers might have. While faced with the dilemma they felt it was a win-win situation when properties could be left on the tax rolls and disrupt less lives and still provide an alternative that would be as safe and effective as what had previously been proposed. Member Bononi asked Council Members when this occurred? Mayor Clark thought it was August 30 or 31. Member Bononi asked if Council had input into this or was this just rolled out to us? Mayor Clark said the meeting was scheduled to discuss the proposed changes.

Member Bononi was concerned that at the planning stage when this was being considered that the communities were not brought into the process at that point. We are stakeholders in this and are accountable to the residents and taxpayers in this community who voted to approve a road bond package based on what Council knew and not on what MDOT was planning. She had a problem with that and how the dates in the chronology of these events took place. She asked who produced the video for this? The response was MDOT.

Member Bononi said considering they were looking at a decking over an existing highway she did not understand how it could be similar except in the lane reductions. She was interested in knowing what that comparison was. She asked if this Single Point design was one of the designs that was featured on television’s 20-20? The report stated it was one of the most visually confusing intersections in the U.S. Although these intersections do have the potential to work in mathematical terms the visual presentation they give to the driver is a very serious disruption of what most people would consider quality of driver life. The "experts" felt that these interchanges were visually confusing to use.

Mr. Wresinski felt that the first time someone drove this, it would take a little while to get used to, but the nature of the interchanges at Beck and Wixom Roads are such that for the most part those folks either live or work in that area. So they would drive it on a regular basis and therefore familiarity with how these interchanges operate would take place quickly. He said they had no interest in building an interchange or investing their $80 million in an interchange if the City was uncomfortable. These interchange designs are going to be widely used in the State of Michigan. They haven’t been constructed yet but he was not sure that was cause for concern. There was an opportunity here to move a lot of traffic and to leave businesses and homes on the public tax rolls. This is not an experimental design and these have been built since 1974 in other states. MDOT felt very confident that these would work.

She questioned the letter addressed to Nancy Cassis dated August 30^th and signed by Mr. Rosine. She asked when he said the interchange ROW cost for MDOT had increased by an estimated $500,000 per month. Was this documented to the communities? Mr. Wresinski said that estimate came from Metro Real Estate people and he didn’t know if it was documented to the communities. Certainly, working with the property owners and the appraisal process that was the number that they provided. Member Bononi felt that should be part of this especially in the event that there was no alternative to the community about what our choice was or lack of choice.

The letter stated "These revised alternatives will not compromise the safety of the motoring public or interchange operations" and she agreed with that but asked if they would sacrifice the quality of driver life for us in our community? She was not convinced that was not the case.

Member Bononi quoted "Theoretically, it should not be MDOT’s responsibility to ensure that local traffic looking to access these freeway interchanges or dispersing from these interchanges, have appropriate local intersection treatments to allow this traffic flow." She knew that design concepts did not operate in a vacuum. Mr. Wresinski said that was in regard to another issue in terms of who had responsibility for funding necessary improvements at the county road intersections of Beck and Grand River and Wixom and Grand River. They worked hard, since the letter, to resolve those situations and they were moving forward. He considered it a non-issue in terms of who had responsibility. When they propose an interchange or interchange redesign in the interstate system they are required by the Federal Highway Administration to prove that not only would the interchange function today but they also had to demonstrate that the local road network was capable of taking those traffic volumes. So, the work referenced in Director Rosine’s letter was work that was required through the Federal justification process that was a combination of road commission and MDOT’s submittal. He felt they had resolved that situation and they were moving forward with the design of the intersection improvements. Director Rosine was referring to if it was a county road intersection should it be MDOT’s responsibility to make sure that county road intersection would accommodate the traffic volumes? Member Bononi appreciated the clarification and quoted from second page. "The September 16, 1995, proposal to former Director DeSana, indicated that the City of Novi would provide an estimated $21 million, through the locally funded relocation of an existing rest area and the proposed development of an Oakland County Transportation Service Center." She asked what was the status of the expectation that the City of Novi would deliver this product? Mr. Wresinski commented the gist of the letter stated that they worked with the City of Novi to find a suitable site for the replacement of the rest area that would be removed. They were not able to identify a site but they didn’t walk away from their commitment as a result of that. The development of the Transportation Service Center that the City proposed has been constructed elsewhere and they were moving forward with their commitment in spite of that. Those were part of the package he reference earlier that had come to the department from Wixom and Novi and Providence Hospital under the heading of Mission Roads Group.

She quoted from the letter "It is unfortunate that this disagreement has occurred." She did not find this as a disagreement but thought it was reneging on a deal. She understood what MDOT was saying about ROW and cost but we had a deal with MDOT and as a taxpayer and

Councilperson she expected the deal to be respected. She was not only looking at bottom lines but also re-allocations of funding and other things that could be done. She felt, with regard to receiving such letters, it would help to not refer to us as the "locals". We are communities, we are people, we are human beings and are working hard to increase the quality of life for our driving residents. She would not support the motion and believed it was premature and as a Councilperson she was not willing to be told until she was sold. Mr. Wresinski appreciated her stance on these issues and stated they would try to provide her with whatever documentation she would like to see. He thought it was a solid plan and a win-win situation for MDOT and the communities and it would be a mistake to go back to the drawing board and look at new alternatives that would jeopardize the 2003 plan. Member Bononi would look for validation that this was something we would want to live with and we are not being used as guinea pigs for a design concept that we will later regret and our citizens would hold us to.

Member Cassis called a point of order for the motion on the floor. He thought more time was needed and it might have to come back as a matter for Council action and then a proper motion could be made at that time to discuss this and residents would have a chance to be aware and have public input. He asked if Member Csordas would like to withdraw the motion.

Mayor Clark said his point was well taken and would be followed up.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if MDOT was committed to the right turn lanes on southbound Wixom, the duel left turn lane on eastbound Grand River, the second through lane on southbound Wixom and the third northbound lane on Wixom Road? Mr. Wresinski thought all of those were in there and might have added to the lanes proposed in the letter. She said at a minimum these intersection improvements would be undertaken and financed by MDOT and they would not come back to our taxpayers and ask for additional funds. Mr. Wresinski said she was correct.

Mayor Clark said there was a meeting on Friday and he understood that MDOT took the input from the meeting and those lanes were back in the design. He had expressed that there would be a huge volume of traffic coming off the expressway when those two interchanges were built and open. He was concerned there were adequate lanes to deal with the traffic and the county made the commitment based on the requirements of the State that before this would proceed Grand River had to be widened to five lanes. This was being done now. He had reservations about the configuration because it seemed confusing on the video but agreed people who used it on a regular basis would become familiar with it. However, he was concerned about the driver who was not from the area and not familiar with it because they would be the ones who would potentially cause the accidents. Therefore, more time and information was needed and he wanted to see the 20/20 program referred to.

Member DeRoche’s initial belief was if the money and space were available we would be doing it a different way. That left him to believe that the other way was better. Therefore, he was concerned that if we are not doing the best we possibly can it should be carefully thought through, as interchanges would be used for decades. He would place a great deal of thought and time researching before he would make his decision. He concurred with previous speakers regarding the opportunity for more confusion because of long, sloping left turns. He mentioned the Expo Center would draw hundreds of thousands of people from all over the State and this would not just affect drivers who live in Wixom and Novi.

Member Csordas stated he would not change his motion. He didn’t believe that MDOT would stand in front of Council with a design proposal that wouldn’t be better. He found it very interesting to see the reluctance to change and wondered what the agenda behind that was. This would cost less, would be more efficient, would move the same amount of traffic and with a professional recommendation from engineers. This would stall the project and increase the cost, which was illogical to him. He asked Mr. Helwig if he had ever driven the Ohio interchange when he was down there? Mr. Helwig said it opened after he left the Columbus area. Member Csordas asked if he had heard about any disasters? Mr. Helwig said he had not and apparently it had proceeded quite well. Member Csordas was amazed that Council would not take advantage of an opportunity recommended by a professional from MDOT. There is this reluctance to change and change can be good. Looking at the diagram showed that the flow made a lot of sense, it took up less room and less land and he called the vote.

Mayor Clark said Mr. Wresinski would hold a public meeting in October so whether it came back to Council the first or second meeting in October he didn’t feel it would change the plans of the State significantly. Mr. Wresinski said a decision in October or early November would not impede but was talking about a 2003 project that doesn’t have a completed design or ROW purchased so there is no "fluff" in that schedule. They would have to work very hard to meet their commitment to the City. He would not say a decision a month down the road would push them beyond that date. If this came back on October 15^th that would be less than a month. Member Csordas didn’t know what they could show him then that would be different than now.

Mayor Clark commented that any additional information Mr. Wresinski could provide between now and then it would be appreciated. He said he would leave additional information tonight. Member Kramer asked if these designs were in the Phoenix area? Mr. Wresinski said they were all over the Phoenix area. Member Kramer said he had driven through those in Phoenix and they were very easy to go through and requested he request of Phoenix what their experience was with that type of intersection regarding accidents and bring that forward.

Mr. Nowicki introduced Mary Jesionowski, District Representative for Land and Water Management of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Mayor Clark accepted on behalf of the City of Novi and all departments mentioned.

Mr. Klaver asked Linda Peterson, Manager of the Audio/Visual Room, to step to the podium. Ms. Peterson has, for the past year, managed the cable casting of this and other public meetings and her good work has been noticed. She has become a full time employee for SWOCC as a receptionist and would be handling calls for residents of Novi, Farmington and Farmington Hills.

Toni Nagy, President of Lakewood Park Homes, complained about the burying of cable. She showed two pictures of buildings where the cable came through the back of the building and was down on the grass and all over the place and she measured over 80 feet. They called the cable company, Time Warner, and their excuse was they subcontract the burying of cable out. They came out and draped the cable across between the two buildings, around bushes, etc. then behind a house and through someone garden. Then the grass is cut and cuts the cable and someone could get hurt. She felt it was disgusting that this company has a 15 year contract and we can’t get them to bury their cable properly. It is unsafe, they are not the only ones in Novi, and if someone gets hurt who is going to be responsible. She said Time Warner should be responsible for their subcontractors and it is about time they put a stop to this. She felt Council needed to know about this.

Ms. Nagy commented she went through the single point intersection in Phoenix and it is great because there is no snow. There is snow in Colorado and it is confusing. She appreciated Member Cassis requesting a public hearing before a decision was made.

Kathy Mutch, announced that the Fuerst Farm Event has been rescheduled for Sunday, September 30^th with all the same activities and events. She asked that anyone interested in volunteering call Parks and Recreation at 347-0400. They have a special need for volunteers to work with the games lined up for kids. The historical marker dedication will take place at 2:00 PM on Sunday. Novi resident Dana Howe is part of a group of storytellers and they will be inside the town hall providing a continuous series of stories.

Paul Sherbeck, Simmons Orchard, commented a public hearing was set for October 1^st regarding the proposed settlement discussed in executive session concerning pending litigation. He asked about other pending litigation and if each taxpayer would have shell out $400-$500 for the next 20 years? Will we give away land paid for by public taxes? He asked why Council had kept the citizens ignorant of liability while pushing for tax increases for Fire, Police, Roads, Library and Schools. What are we stepping into when we get intimately involved with private developers, what kind of further litigation would result from micro-managing the growth of Novi. What messes are we getting into by coordinating State of Michigan give-a-ways of taxpayer money to private businesses? The Mayor and Council were elected to represent all the people of Novi and not just the businessmen that are well connected politically. He urged Council to reject the current policy of government interference in the economy and embrace a policy of lower taxes at the state and local level.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. August 27, 2001, Regular meeting

September 10, 2001, Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular Council meeting of September

24, 2001 for the purpose of discussing pending litigation.

G. Approval of Revised City of Novi Investment Policy.

H. Approval of MDEQ Riverbridge Conservation Easement.

I. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 606

Member DeRoche said this was on the agenda from the last meeting and a motion was made that failed for a lack of a second without discussion. He now had a better understanding of the effect this change would have in encouraging use of the Open Space Ordinance. He would offer his second and would support this action.

Member Bononi commented she had three concerns regarding this and felt they could be addressed with a referral to Ordinance Review. Her concerns were: Page 3, bottom of page, "For all development approved under the Open Space Preservation Option, the total area to be reserved for open space shall in no instance be less than four (4) acres." Member Bononi commented no matter how large the size of the development perhaps they should be looking at percentage of area to be a minimum.

Page 4 and succeeding pages we have stricken the words bona fide plan and have inserted conventional platting and she asked how much better is this usage than that would be specifically required in existing City of Novi Zoning Regulations. She thought it downgraded the necessity of the specific comparison.

Page 6, D, top of page, "The development includes a mechanism to assure the permanent preservation of the preserved and open space areas and/or historic structures" and went on to say "The mechanism shall permit, in the event of the failure of property owners to preserve and maintain the areas, the City to perform maintenance and preservation functions and to assess the cost of such performance to the property owners." She felt it needed to be made clear who the property owners were if we were talking about the developer or ultimate lot owners and just why this needed to be included with regard to how few historic buildings left in this City. She also had concerns about who would enforce this or provide compliance to this section and opening the funding can of worms as well. These things could be addressed in Ordinance Review.

Member Kramer said there were a number of places in the ordinance that its intent is iterated and he preferred to see active/passive recreation first and all the rest to follow. He requested that Mr. Evancoe explain the rational behind the change in square area feet. He agreed with Member Bononi that there was an underlying assumption on not being less than 4 acres but it was not spoken. Is it 4 acres or a percentage, or 4 acres based on a minimum site size? He requested there be a brief discussion and explanation of the reduction in the chart.

Mr. Evancoe stated the rationale behind the reduction in lot area, lot width, side, front and rear yard requirements was because the incentives that were in place were not being fully utilized by the development community. He wanted to increase the incentive to encourage the developers to take better advantage of this opportunity. There are many sites remaining in the community that are somewhat awkward to develop and this provision would make it possible for many of those sites to come up with a creative solution. He knew of one particular parcel that is very narrow and a developer would like to have that developed and if these provisions were in place he could do that and the tax rolls would be increased because of the development of that property.

Mr. Evancoe commented that at the bottom of Page 3 there is a phrase that says "see graphic for example" and it was not included in the packet and Ms. Brock passed that out to Council. He asked that it be included as part of the approval if Council approved this ordinance.

Member Kramer noted in some ordinances the concept was to allow a reduction in one zoning category dimensional requirements. He asked what the philosophy was in this?

Mr. Evancoe said the RA would normally have the one acre requirement and that is being reduced to a one half acre size for the R-1. There is somewhat of a logical progression downward in terms of square footage.

Mr. Arroyo noted the idea of making this type of suggestion to Council came from ideas that were first included in the Master Plan. When they looked at open space and where it was occurring, particularly with a lot of the options being used in this community. Many of the natural resources tend to be inside or behind and kind of in the middle of the section and can’t be seen from the public roads. The Planning Commission looked at ways to encourage preservation of more open space on a permanent basis and make it more visible to people driving through the community which would make it a benefit to

the people who live here and those who drive by. The idea behind the graduated scale in lot size reduction and when the Planning Commission was discussing this typically with the preservation option for example you could go up to a 20% lot reduction and it didn’t matter what district you were in as currently written. With the subdivision open space option it is only 10%. The Planning Commission wanted permanent open space and with the proper incentives then it would happen. They suggested a 50% reduction with the RA but they felt as the lot sizes were getting smaller within the district there ought to be a sliding scale when getting into the R-1, R-2 and R-3. If this was converted to percentages under RA one could get up to a 50% reduction, R-1 a 30%, R-2 a 25% and under R-3 a 20% reduction.

Member Kramer asked what R-3 reduced 20% was equivalent to what? Mr. Arroyo said to 9,600 square feet and R-4 is 10,000. They didn’t feel comfortable taking the R-4 much below 10,000. They felt the 9,600 was as low as they wanted to see.

Member Kramer said he would be more comfortable with a higher floor and didn’t think there should be reductions below R-4 at all. The sliding scale should be moderately adjusted accordingly and would rather the results approximated one category reduction.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked in order to get from 43,562 to 21,780 how much preservation needed to take place? Mr. Arroyo said it was just like it worked now with preservation option. In order to get that reduction you had to have that equivalent amount in open space. Through this type of option there is the potential to preserve a lot of open space permanently in the City.

Member Kramer suggested a time limit be put on this and Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo concurred.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the motion was subject to inspection? Mayor Clark

Commented it was indicated in the documentation there would not be an actual transfer

or approval by the State Liquor Control Commission until the necessary inspections had

been made and the approvals granted

Member Bononi said in the description beginning "Singh Development" portion of the documentation further in the paragraph it says "Therefore, if an OST District is adjacent to a Multiple-Family District (which could have more dense development and potentially taller structures)". This portion was her concern because it could, but in many cases it may not. For example, a senior housing complex that would not necessarily have taller structures and she was concerned that this was a potentially disturbing effort to change a solid ordinance requirement with regard to adjacency. She felt there had been a lot of difficulty with adjacency and that was what this language referred to most. All the potential situations that could have implication by this should be looked at and also have the Planning Consultant look at all Multi and single family residences according to the Master Plan and the Zoning Map that might be affected by this height restriction.

Mayor Clark asked for and received concurrence from Council to return this to Council by the first meeting in December.

Member Kramer suggested comments be collected at the Council table this evening, request that they be addressed and brought back to the Council table instead of sending it to committee at this point. If not satisfied at the second reading it could then be sent to Ordinance Review.

Member DeRoche concurred with Member Kramer and would support the first reading with the comments and additional information of the impact this would have for the City coming back for the second reading and adoption.

Member Bononi had no problem with this with regard to the chronology with which we address these matters she hoped she was not hearing what to her would be a disturbing connotation of circumventing the Ordinance Review Committee with regard to the important work that it does. Oftentimes there are planning advisory services that they need and to suggest that something as important as an OST adjacency issue can summarily be discussed and resolved at the table is doing a disservice both to that committee and to the Council.

Mayor Clark asked if it was her intent to proceed with the motion? Member Bononi said it was.

Mayor Clark commented Council had previously approved 46 acres for the applicant, and this is the adjoining 8 acre parcel. He recalled this had been rezoned when the Planning Commission came up with a new Master Plan in December of 2000 and Council felt that as a practical matter they were in a position where they would be acting contrary to their own Master Plan.

Member Bononi asked for clarification. She had a copy of a State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality notice of public hearing signed by Bill Stone, Permit Consolidation Unit Land and Water Management, dated September 18, 2001. Member Bononi said within the body with the description of the purpose of the hearing is stated it referred to the construction of an apartment building complex. She asked whether this was correlated with what was on the agenda this evening?

Mr. Evancoe had not seen the public hearing notice and was not able to comment. He said being a rezoning they did not typically look at site plans as that changes easily from the time one sought rezoning and later decided how to develop the property. Therefore, they don’t rely on that sort of thing but he did not recall seeing any kind of an apartment complex proposed on this site.

Member Bononi said where we have the phrase "or any other appropriate zoning district" she would like to be clued into what it is and hoped Mr. Evancoe could resolve this for Council.

Mr. Rokicsak, the petitioner, stated he did not know what the DNR application was for unless it was for the Singh property because they had no intention of doing anything but single family.

Mayor Clark said that was the approval given on the 46 acres and this is the adjoining 8 acres.

Member Bononi commented there was language that suggested a boardwalk would be built to serve the apartment complex. Mr. Rokicsak said it was not his property and he had no idea what they were talking about. Member Bononi suggested the public hearing should be corrected because perhaps it’s defective.

Mr. Rokicsak provided a site plan, even though it didn’t pertain to this, for reference only.

Member Kramer stated he would support the motion. It is consistent with the Master Plan and the previous decision. It looked like it was progressing in a positive manner and they had taken into account the backyards of existing residents. He would look very critically at proposed plats for this because there are a lot of sensitivities and

encouraged the petitioner to hold informational meetings with the existing residents to solicit their support for the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo stated, as with the previous request for rezoning she would not support this. She didn’t think the Planning Commission had proper justification in changing the Master Plan designation and she was concerned about the adjacency issues.

Member Bononi would support the motion to rezone and would be looking for a sensitive address of land use issues as a result of being able to look at a smaller square footage. That means open space and she realized a lot of people were sold on the "land-hog cookie-cutter large lot" configuration but it is not as sensitive to land use. She would hopefully be looking to the applicant to provide them for just such a design plan.

Kramer, Clark

Mayor Clark noted this would be the second year the City assumed responsibility for Ten Mile Road, Novi Road and Grand River Avenue.

Member Bononi stated in a memo from Mr. Nowicki to Mr. Helwig dated September 18^th Mr. Nowicki referred to a $17,000 total and asked if materials, equipment, supplies, salaries, wages, fringe benefits and Risk Management costs? Mr. Nowicki believed that was the cost generated by the Finance Department. Regarding all the specifics he would have to get back with her but his recollection was it was all the costs. She asked what percentage of the amount was wages. He did not have that information with him.

Mr. Helwig commented it was their custom to include fringe benefit costs in any kind of cost reporting like this.

CM-01-09-266 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED

Bononi, Cassis, Csordas

Nays: None

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

Member DeRoche said for some time the City policy had been to restrict the size and quantity of American Flags that could be displayed at businesses. It is his wish to remove these restrictions. The flag is a symbol of freedom that should be displayed in size and quantity and that the freedom that the flag represents to him is the mirror opposite of the restrictions that this ordinance places on it. He asked that this be placed on the next Consent Agenda with the changes reflected for Council consideration for removing these restrictions.

Member Kramer agreed with the spirit of the request but indicated that the time frame this was written the businesses were abusing the use of American Flags. There were "jumbo" flags being used as an endless array to call attention to their business. These are different circumstances today and perhaps the ordinance should be amended or temporarily set aside or suspended.

Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche

Member Kramer stated a joint meeting was set up with EDC for annual discussion review but was postponed. He asked that it be rescheduled.

Member DeRoche said there is an election in about a month and he didn't think they should be setting the agenda for things after that as far as policy issues and scheduling. Member Kramer asked that it be on the first agenda after November 6th to schedule the meeting.

3. Gateway Ordinance Progress Report - Kramer

Member Kramer asked for a progress report on this item from administration at the next Council meeting. Mr. Helwig said that would not be a problem and could be done in an off week packet to be discuss at the next meeting.

4. Status of the City of Novi Storm Water General Permit - Bononi

Member Bononi reported that a letter was written on August 27th to Mr. Nowicki under the signature of Ms. Siedel, District Supervisor of the Southeast Michigan District Office of Surface Water Quality Division MDEQ. As a result of back and forth communication and a meeting at MDEQ that Mr. Helwig attended, our storm water permit was in non-compliance and will now be considered in compliance with the four small changes we had proposed. Oakland County is also pursuing on site inspections for septic systems. These were good examples of the city going the extra mile.

1. Letter from Allen and Leslie Weirmeir Re: Eagle Scout – Jonathan Weirmeir

2. Letter from Kathe Ray Re: Sidewalks on Ten Mile Road near Novi Rd.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:36 p.m.

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ____________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: October 1, 2001