Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 8:15 PM.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi added Item #16 to Matters for Council Action, Appointment of Robert Wolf to the Storm Water Management and Water Shed Stewardship Committee.

Member Lorenzo added to Mayor and Council Issues, Item #1, Report from

administration on Pioneer Meadows SAD.

Member Csordas congratulated City employees for putting on the Fall for Novi event

this past weekend and the recycling event. Member Csordas said it was very well done and very well attended. He also noted that the Wednesday night car show truly benefited the Main Street area. Three people in the community who always seemed to be out doing things like this, contributing their time with no financial benefit, put on this event. They are Rick Gilbert, Tom Marcus and Ed Kriewall who are truly community supporters.

Member Csordas reported that SWOCC had a meeting last week at their new studios

and he invited everyone to visit and see a state-of-the-art facility that puts on public

access and governmental TV. The facility is located on Nine Mile Road east of

Farmington Road and they are hosting an open house on Tuesday, October 8^th and the

general public is invited for a tour between 7 and 9 PM.

Member Csordas introduced Ms. Collins, Executive Director of SWOCC, who said they had very little authority over rates because the FCC took most of that away from local

entities. However, there is an authority over the basic cable service rate in terms of

auditing or reviewing what Time Warner files and that is what SWOCC has been doing

on an annual basis and making recommendations based on that.

She invited everyone to the SWOCC open house.

Member Csordas said there was a short meeting last week and advised that John

Donohue who served for the commission passed away. Mr. Donohue was an associate

with Mr. Fisher and Member Csordas offered condolences to him, his family and the

firm. They are seeking another attorney to replace Mr. Donohue and his assistant is

now keeping everything together. Rate regulation was discussed but he felt the

cable company would do what they wanted and there wasn’t much we could do about it.

It is the responsibility of the commission for budgetary oversight and the cable company

kind of does what they want on the rates.

Mayor Clark offered a proclamation dedicating September 11, 2002 as "Always

Remember 9-11 Day" in the City of Novi.

Mr. Fisher stated that in light of discussions with regard to budget and particular focus on things like attorney’s fees, engineering fees, etc. and consistent with our discussion of last week and his meeting with administration, he had put together and submitted a draft of an ordinance that would require a payment of monies to reimburse the City for review fees. The ordinance is a policy document for Council to consider. On the one hand it has been a very strong view that we don’t want to overtax those people who come to do business in the City and on the other hand the City is expending, from a legal standpoint, an extraordinary amount of money reviewing applications and requests for approval on the part of individuals and entities coming before the City to do business. Mr. Fisher said their billing system has contract items, separately in the category of escrow, which we have often and routinely billed under an ordinance such as this in other communities. So it isn’t without precedent that this is presented to Council. He wanted to bring this to Council’s attention that it is now at the City, it is a significant policy issue and he hoped it was something Council would be able to review and reflect.

Karl Wizinsky, 26850 Wixom Rd., presented information to Council that he had discussed with Ordinance Officer Maureen Underhill regarding the conservation easement of the Target store being built next to his home. Trucks have been going out of the Profile driveway, which is the property adjacent to both the Target property and his home. He looked at the excavation of the mitigation area next to the Profile parking lot. Since it had been a relatively dry summer the wetlands are lower than they usually

would be. It revealed a tremendous amount of old construction material comprised mainly of concrete forms, a tremendous amount of wire and cable and some rubber or other black material. He showed Council pictures of the mitigation area and explained each. His concerns were that this is not a fenced in area, there are two schools within 600 ft. to the south, and Catholic Central High School was being planned for across the street from Target. The Target parking lot comes relatively close to this. Mr. Wizinsky said because the water is low and because the mitigation area had been excavated and had not been planted or seeded and there is no wild life there he thought there was an excellent access between this and the Profile parking lot. In fact they are using the Profile parking lot to excavate the mitigation area. He felt once the mitigation area was replanted, people would be more resistant to trample it. He encouraged Council members to go and see it, as it is very bad. Secondly, Target would open within the next few weeks and it seemed to be an obligation of the developer to clean this up.

Mr. Helwig said several others had seen this today and he appreciated Mr. Wizinsky’s diligence in bringing this forward and they expected to have a plan for the cleanup after tomorrow’s meeting.

Andrew Mutch said he wanted to add his support to comments made by Mr. Shaw for the proposed parkland acquisition in southwest Novi as presented to Council this evening. He said Council has a historic opportunity to preserve a significant area of open space. As promised, they have been working diligently with the property owner and other organizations to bring forward opportunities to the City to preserve parkland to make up for what was lost in the past and to preserve for the future. Now is the time for the City to take the lead and actively pursue this opportunity. We recognize that a process has to be followed and that takes time, but time is running out on the chance to save this land. In the past, this Council spoke about the need to move at the speed of business and never has this statement been more appropriate than now. We are racing against developers who have a lot of money and desire to make even more money developing that property. He thought with direction and encouragement from City Council this City could match those developers and beat them in this race to preserve that property. This is a great time for the City to be pursuing grants for purchasing land of this type. At the recent election the voters gave their approval to Proposal 2, which would insure that the Natural Resources Trust Fund would have even more money to support communities like Novi pursuing grants for this kind of land. Grants won’t do us any good if we don’t make the effort or if the land is already sold and developed by the time we apply. Mr. Mutch said Council needed to make an active commitment as the City administration had been supportive but they couldn’t make this commitment without the support of the Council. He couldn’t say it wouldn’t cost the City anything but the property owner was willing to work with the City, there are funding opportunities that could make this cost free or maybe at a relatively low cost to the City. He encouraged Council to review the information Mr. Shaw provided and see how this fit into the big picture because we won’t see this kind of an opportunity in the future as there are not large pieces of land like this left. He asked that Council take the historic step and leave a legacy for the future by supporting this proposal.

Member Lorenzo added, for clarification, that Item E was to implement the Sandstone settlement.

A. Approval of Minutes of August 26, 2002, Special City Council meeting

B. Approval of Minutes of August 26, 2002, Regular City Council meeting.

C. Approval to purchase a Weapons Training System for the Police Department from Firearms Training System, a sole source vendor, in the amount of $85,694.50.

D. Approval to award quotation for Elevator Maintenance Contract for Meadowbrook Commons to City Elevator, the low quotation, in the amount of $275 per month.

E. Schedule Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of September 9, 2002 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing acquisition of real estate interest.

F. Approval of claims and accounts on Warrant No. 631.

and include performance of a traffic consultant’s count to determine whether stop sign placement is in agreement with Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The analysis is to include the issue of whether or not installing the stop sign would create adverse circumstances. Also, a public notice is to be put in the newspaper that this would be discussed at the next Council meeting. Report to be returned to City Council.

Member Csordas supported the motion but believed when the report came back whether positive or negative they would recommend it. He would like a friendly amendment to the motion to check for any adverse impact on the site and hopefully that would save money in the long run.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi replied they had thought of that but never amended this regulation to deal with such circumstances so she would accept the amendment.

Member Landry asked for an additional friendly amendment to the publication in the newspaper that this would be discussed at the next City Council meeting? The maker agreed.

Mr. Fisher said, for clarification, when the study is done, his understanding from the motion as amended would be that the analysis would include the issue of whether or not installing the stop sign would create adverse circumstances. Member Csordas said that was correct.

Ice Arena with the City having the absolute right to terminate

Member Lorenzo said if Mr. Anastos was agreeable to this she would support it. However, she felt this penalized someone who had done an outstanding job with the facility by not granting the five year renewal that was requested, which, in her opinion, would give Mr. Anastos further ability to retain good employees and Council would have the knowledge that someone of his ability was managing the arena for us. She was concerned that Council was actually decreasing his base fee from 5% to 4% this year. She thought Mr. Anastos was doing an exceptional job and if 5% was exceptional that’s what he should receive. Also, she didn’t think it was fair to include the lost revenue for the after school recreation program which was never a part of Mr. Anastos’ revenue stream for that facility; that was something the City established for him. She thought with the pro shop he actually saved the City money in the long run. She would have entertained a five year contract and less a view of looking at this in terms of Mr. Anastos making up for that lost revenue.

Member Csordas appreciated those comments and said when he read the packet it appeared to him this agreement was a negotiated final settlement agreeable to the City and the Manager, who absolutely had done a great job. It seemed that both parties were amenable to the agreement.

Member Capello asked if the pro shop rental was included in gross revenues? Mr. Klaver said it was and Member Capello asked if there was a reason they were using

that to bump up the revenues to pay him a commission when it is a fixed lease that has nothing to do with his management of the ice rink? Mr. Klaver said the most significant

adjustment involving the pro shop was a discussion of where that was going to be a part of the operations and so there was potential revenue associated with that that is not available now. That is one of the downward adjustments we made in discussing where the revenue brackets ought to be for the incentive program. Member Capello asked if instead of bringing the incentive down, the pro shop rental was stuck in there?

Mr. Klaver said one of the fundamental values talked about over the last couple of years was developing and maintaining partnerships. This was absolutely approached with the idea that Suburban Hockey had done a great job of turning around a floundering operation. Therefore, the main goal was to reach an agreement that was fair and would build on the relationship that had been established over the last three years and that was how they approached this renewal situation. In doing so, however, because of his success, they tried not to penalize him for that success, as commented earlier. However, if looking at the idea of an incentive program because of the increases in revenue of 15% and 9% if they hadn’t made an adjustment in the incentive system Suburban would have started a new contract somewhere in the middle or upper end of the incentive. The idea with any type of incentive program was to allow for the capacity to build on success in the future so there had to be a logical starting point. Mr. Klaver said they looked at cutting off the first tier because it started below $16 million and revenues last year were $18 million. In theory a significant amount of money could be lost and an incentive could still be received, which didn’t make sense. After removing the first bracket it brought it more in line, they backed out the money that was lost from the after school program and also the revenue that might have been available from the pro shop.

Mr. Klaver said it was their expectation that the operation during the next year would be in that first incentive and therefore what was earned last year would be matched this year. Then during the next three years, they expected a greater potential for them to move through that incentive bracket.

Mr. Klaver said there was one glitch. When the review letter came back from the City Attorney late Thursday there was a change made in the contract to bring it into compliance with the IRS regulations dealing with these types of bonds. There can’t be a commitment for a long term, beyond three years, that involves penalties. He asked Mr. Fisher to speak to this. Mr. Klaver directed Council to look at page 7 of the contract, which indicated there would not be any penalties if the contract was canceled in the 4^th year. This was not administration’s intent but was needed to bring this in compliance with the tax laws.

Mr. Fisher noted the City issued public purpose bonds and that category allowed specialized tax treatment for those that purchased the bonds. This was an advantage to the City because the interest rate could be a little lower. Now, because the IRS got less money out of this they established special regulations to make sure that this remained a public purpose. The IRS developed a revenue procedure that advised what would be permissible in this type of management arrangement. It provided a safe harbor, which, basically says you can have this kind of management agreement for 3 years. We are talking about something for 4 years but the right to terminate was with

the City at the end of three years. The question is what can we do more favorably? There are two types of terminations here. There is a general termination at the end of three years and then there is a second category of terminations for cause where there is

a failure to make revenue projection, material breach, mutual termination, etc. Mr. Fisher suggested something to make it more advantageous to the property owner and

still have a realistic 3-year arrangement might be to require the City to provide a longer advanced written notice for termination and whether it was six months or even longer. Twelve months was another possibility.

Mr. Helwig noted their recommendation was for 12 months so that we can get the benefit of four years. Mr. Fisher said they didn’t want to say that because this is a three-year contract. Mr. Helwig understood that and said they negotiated four in good faith and negotiated the management annual fee increase at 4% based upon those four years.

Mayor Clark understood but his concern was based on the comment that Mr. Fisher made about staying in a safe harbor and asked what was needed in terms of the motion that insures we can stay in that "safe harbor". Mr. Fisher stated it would be that the City had the absolute right to terminate at the end of 3 years but the termination would require an advance notice of whatever period Council determined appropriate. Mayor Clark asked if that was needed in the motion? Mr. Fisher said yes; Member Csordas accepted the addition to the motion and asked if Mr. Anastos understood this and Mr. Klaver said he did, they had discussed it and this arrangement was Mr. Anastos’ suggestion.

Member Capello stated at some point, the Parks and Recreation Department should be managing the ice rink. He asked if the liquidated damage provision amounts were negotiated? Mr. Klaver said they remained the same. Member Capello said the way this was written, if forced to terminate in the 11^th month, the City would pay $62,500 but under the contract the City would only be required to pay $7,000 for that final month plus whatever possible percentages that are there. Member Capello didn’t see that in any given year projections are that he would receive $62,000 in incentives so he would like language that for each of those three years we have the option of paying the liquidated damages or pay the balance due under the contract for the remainder of that year. Member Capello asked if advertisement fees were included in gross revenue also?

Mr. Helwig noted administration had not received direction to develop a business plan for operating the ice arena. To the contrary, we are putting precious Parks and Recreation staff strategic planning now in tandem with the community on Master Planning our open space programs as well as inventory and development of that space. He said they had represented to Mr. Anastos that he should not lose one hour of sleep during the four-year period of time that there was going to be a termination contrived because the City all of a sudden wanted to take over the operation. Member Capello said he was fine with the four years and stated he was looking toward the future but was not looking at terminating this contract early.

Mr. Helwig stated this partnership with Mr. Anastos and his colleagues has been superior and that comes from this Council and the users of the facility. Member Capello agreed. Mr. Klaver said the gross revenue includes all revenue including advertising.

Member Capello thought the City should have the option each year to pay the liquidated damages or the balance of the monthly fee during that period of time as opposed to being in the tenth month and paying $62,000, we should be able to pay the

$7,000 or maybe a projection of what any incentive would be. He did not see anywhere where an incentive for any given year would be as high as $62,000 and that would carry through for all three years.

Member Capello said on Page 2, subsection C, "Suburban shall lease ice time and space within the facility including the operations of the pro shop"; he asked if the pro shop text should be taken out since there is a separate agreement with Perani to run that or does Mr. Anastos still have some control over the operations of the pro shop? Ms. Smith-Roy stated the City entered into the agreement with the Pro Shop and not Suburban. Member Capello said then reference to the pro shop should be taken out. Ms. Smith Roy said they would still have oversight of that area but the reason the City had to have the lease was the same reason that we have the management contract and it fell under the same IRS’s provisions so we made sure those provisions met the same requirements that we are meeting here.

Member Capello said also on page 2, subsection C, "Suburban shall have the authority to enter into sponsorship agreements on behalf of the City subject to existing contracts. He would like a review process for the sponsorships as to what type of sponsorships there are and to whom. Mr. Klaver stated they could report on that.

On page 13, paragraph 3 section 12, "City further acknowledges and agrees that Suburban may rent ice time at the arena to companies that are affiliated with Suburban." Member Capello didn’t have a problem with that but he wanted to make sure it didn’t take quality ice time away from our Novi Youth Hockey Association or our figure skaters. There should be some restrictions in there in regard to this.

Lastly, in regard to increases in rental, he knew there was a benefit to the City and Mr. Anastos to increase rental but he didn’t want to see, as long as the City was breaking even, increases in ice rates to the Hockey Association or figure skating unless absolutely necessary. It is at par or higher than some of the other quality rinks in the area and he would like a provision to have some protection that our kids don’t have to pay more than they should be paying to skate in Novi.

Member Capello commented that Mr. Anastos was doing a great job and he was glad he stepped in and was happy to have him for the next four years to make sure that it is a stable ice rink.

Mr. Klaver noted Mr. Anastos had locked in the next year’s rates without any increase recognizing that there had been significant increases over the last two years.

Member DeRoche commented he was passionate about the Novi Ice Arena and felt Mr. Anastos delivered what Council wanted and felt it was everything Council expected and every month the reports are going in the right direction. The City has been better off allowing Mr. Anastos to run the arena and it has been successful because he runs it like a business. Member DeRoche would resist any moves by Council to reverse that trend as he thought that was what set us up for some of the failures in the past. He does not want Mr. Anastos accountable directly to Council on a frequent basis. He wanted Mr.

Anastos accountable to the administration for goals set up by Council. Member DeRoche felt this was being managed very well by Mr. Anastos and wanted to see it continue. He supported the contract.

Member Landry noted the City was very lucky to retain the services of Suburban Management, they have turned the project around and it is very impressive. He applauded both the City administration and Suburban’s team for getting together and executing this contract. He thought it exhibited the give and take on both sides evidenced the willingness on both side to enter into and maintain a long-term relationship.

Member Lorenzo agreed with the previous speaker. This is a business operation and Mr. Anastos runs it like a business. She preferred that he run it to the bottom line of making money for this community and the business. She said she would never ever look to the City administration or City staff running this operation because they could never do it as well as Mr. Anastos. She agreed with Member DeRoche and said prior to Mr. Anastos coming on board they did accumulate a hefty deficit. The ice arena still owes the General Fund almost $800,000 so until that is paid up she wouldn’t look for anything other than a strictly business arrangement.

Mayor Clark stated when Mr. Anastos took over the operations he fixed it and it functions well now and he wanted to see Suburban and Mr. Anastos here for the long haul and hoped he would be here when there was no debt. He said the City government doesn’t have any business running the ice arena, as this is one thing best left to private enterprise. Mr. Anastos is doing an outstanding job.

Dave Gilliam, attorney, was present representing the applicant and other owners of a parcel of property on Eleven Mile Road between Taft and Beck that has been proposed to be developed under the zoning ordinances Subdivision Open Space Option. The development is Asbury Park, a 45-unit development that would occupy 54 acres on the site. This development received a unanimous recommendation for conceptual approval on August 7^th from the Planning Commission. They were asking for approval from Council.

Mr. Joe Rokicsak, applicant, said the project began in 1999. Originally Asbury Park Estates started out with 75 lots and was about 7 acres smaller than it is now. Through dealing with the consultants, planning department and City engineering they have arrived at a conceptual plan that took into consideration the woodlands, wetlands, open space and dual access for fire and police protection.

Mr. Brian Devlin, Construction Management Specialist, said the project had a significant amount of open space the majority of it being a large wetland in the central of the site. There are also smaller wetlands located off to the side and also upland woodlands that would be preserved. They believed they met with the intent of the ordinance in that their active open space along the southern border could be accessed from the street on both sides. It would be in close proximity to a large number of lots even though it does not border a significant number of lots. Being at that location the residents would have access to the active open space. Out of 18 ½ acres of wetlands they are disturbing about 37,000 sq. ft., they are mitigating that at a ratio of 1.7 to 1 in part because the wetland they are disturbing is a wooded wetland. They tried to preserve wetlands by using the section of the ordinance that allowed offsetting of the center line of the paved road from the centerline of the right-of-way so that on the eastern road the road is pushed as far to the east as possible in order to stay out of the wetland on that side of the property. On the southern portion of the site, they would channel storm water run off into two basins within the open space, one on each side. The northern part of the subdivision the storm water runoff would be handled with a micro pool system. They would preserve as much woodlands on each lot as possible and they would only take trees out for the road right-of-way and utilities. Each lot would come to the Building Department for approval on tree removal on an individual basis. There is approximately 5 acres of open space that would be classified and that would not be considered as the central wetland. In addition to that they have 5 acres of which only 4 are required in the ordinance. They worked with the consultants to develop plans for mitigation and tree preservation and to provide active open space.

Mr. Gilliam said they were asking for conceptual approval, which would allow them to go back to the Planning Commission to conduct the necessary Public Hearings for site plan approval and for woodlands/wetlands permits.

Member Csordas noted that the Planning Commission granted relief from technical requirements of having open space bordering a majority of the lots. In Mr. Arroyo’s July 24, 2002 letter he spoke about a Council waiver that would be required for the 3 lots proposing to have wetlands within their boundaries. He didn’t think it sounded like a good idea and said logically speaking what is to keep the property owner from just filling all that in. He asked them to point out the lots they wanted to do this on and give Council the reasons for that train of thought. Member Csordas didn’t think the City would have jurisdiction over the property after the end property user purchased it.

Mr. Rokicsak stated the amount of wetland contained on the lots was very minimal. One lot had 24 sq. ft., one had 200 sq. ft. and he didn’t know what the third one was. He said there is a requirement of so many sq. ft. for lot size and there was no way to achieve that maintaining the buffers and still developing the lot. There would still be a 25-foot buffer on the lot and they were proposing to put up a split rail fence around the entire wetland on the individual lots. The lots are governed by the deed as to their uses and basically everything beyond the fence they would not be allowed to do anything to. Member Csordas asked them to point out the three lots this would apply to.

Mr. Devlin couldn’t remember where the third lot was but said there were two on the west side of the road and one on the east side. Member Csordas wanted to see the

third lot because the first two seemed like reasonable requests as they seemed to be contiguous with the wetland. Mr. Rokicsak pointed out the third lot. Member Csordas said it was safe to say that none of these wetlands are in the central area of the property of the lot. Mr. Rokicsak said absolutely not.

Member Csordas said another issue Mr. Arroyo raised was that active recreation areas were not permitted along outer perimeters of the subdivisions and asked Mr. Rokicsak to show Council where they were. Mr. Rokicsak showed the recreation areas and explained it had a jogging trail, playground equipment and workout stations along the trail. He pointed out the large woodland/wetland open space and south of that was private residents. The other recreation area just has a jogging trail, an easement and two access points. The jogging trail would not interfere with residents and west of that are single family residents which would be buffered by the wooded wetland in the center of this and the pathway follows in the upland area and around. Member Csordas asked if there was additional buffering on the neighbors property? He said it was the consultant’s request that it be disturbed as little as possible so it would be left natural. There are two easements so that if anything had to be maintained it could be accessed without disturbing it.

Member Csordas asked if they had conversations with the residents south of the play area? He said they had talked to the residents on four lots and needed to talk with one more. Member Csordas asked for clarification on the scale of the waiver they were requesting. Mr. Rokicsak said they tried to create an open space in three different spots to make it available to any lot in the site within walking distance.

Member Csordas noted there are a significant number of conditions in JCK’s letter dated July 31^st starting on page 4, and he asked if they were agreeable to these? Mr. Rokicsak stated they’d drawn up some agreements with regard to those for their review. Member Csordas asked about Mr. Arroyo’s traffic review letter of July 22nd regarding the absence of access stubs. Mr. Rokicsak stated they could only stub to industrial and they had nothing to stub to since Singh Development received a waiver to eliminate their stub street, which would have attached to theirs. They are providing fire access, with a gate, from a small stub off of Grand River, which is paved and about a ¼ mile from Grand River.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how this development proposal would impact the wetlands with regard to water quality, elevation of standing water pretreatment and treatment of water that enters the wetland with regard to storm water conveyance, etc. Mr. Rokicsak stated they developed a plan on how to treat the waters to maintain it as a functional wetland. The problem they had originally was that they were trying to funnel all the runoff and storm water to two basic basins. The problems that occurred with those basins was that an entire section of wetland would suffer from lack of water as those would drain into a seasonal drain going to the northwest of the pond. She asked what the impact would be, if he was a wetlands expert and what his qualifications were. He replied he was a wetland expert and had a degree in landscape architecture and the impact will be a better-preserved wetland. They would be using a new idea that is being used in Wayne County and Oakland County called micro pool, which has two catch basins on each micro pool. The water is discharged from each micro pool and distributes the water evenly as it would in a natural situation and it would nourish the entire wetland.

She asked what the surface of the swale would be and he said it would be a vegetated swale. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked who would maintain it? Mr. Rokicsak said it would be up to the subdivision owner. She said then he wasn’t talking about turning it over to the City and the City maintaining it? He said no. She asked if a maintenance plan and budget plan would be set up as part of his proposal? He said there would but at this point there is none. She asked about how the water quality would be affected as a result of what was being discharged there? He said volume wise it would remain the same and the quality should be better than the runoff it’s getting from industry. Mr. Rokicsak guaranteed there would be no elevation change in the water.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked why Mr. Arroyo reviewed this plan? Mr. Evancoe stated Mr. Arroyo frequently assisted them with projects where he has a history. They take as much in house as possible but there has been only one planner in the Plan Review center for several months. She asked if Mr. Evancoe reviewed the plan and asked what his recommendation was? Mr. Evancoe said he had and his entire staff had reviewed it quite extensively and if compared to what they first reviewed, it is a much-improved plan with a reduction in units and increased open space. He thought it was a good plan but there was a possibility for the loss of a couple lots. He felt it was a little tight space-wise and that the site was being maximized in terms of lot coverage a little more than what would be ideal. He thought it was a fairly decent plan. She agreed with him in that they were shoe horning lots in there and the idea that we should accept these lots with our regulation that doesn’t allow lots to be platted into wetlands was not a precedent she wished to make. She asked what he felt the sufficiency of the active recreational areas was because she considered them to be remarkably thrifty. Mr. Evancoe thought that when the Subdivision Open Space Plan, 2402, was conceived it probably contemplated more of a green field site that was not as dominated by wetlands and woodlands as this site. When we think about active recreation we think of something more active than what is proposed here such as softball, soccer, tennis, etc. The difficulty with placing those types of activities on a site like this is the impact that would have on the natural systems. They have attempted to provide something more active than a walking path and yet not destroy the environment. He felt the petitioner was willing to do whatever the City would like in terms of providing active recreation.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she didn’t agree that the southwest corner of the project was conducive to anything except the enjoyment of the surrounding lots. It’s a difficult site but there are too many lots on the site and she believed that the active recreation areas and the wetland lots shouldn’t be sacrificed to the number of lots this person needs.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi questioned the regulated essential areas to be filled and the only areas she would propose in this situation were those areas that require roadway construction. Secondarily, Ms. Thor, JCK consultant, mentioned on page 2 that the waters are tributary to Leavenworth Creek and the Middle Rouge Watershed and she wanted to make it plain that the City’s commitment to that area is covered. She noted the commitment the City made is number two in the City of Novi’s criteria for planning. She felt the applicant had not presented enough impact information, Ms. Thor provided more information than the applicant and she believed it was the applicant’s responsibility to indicate how the wetlands would be affected. She asked if the homeowners association would maintain the oil/gas separators mentioned by Ms. Thor?

Mr. Rokicsak stated they had gone through complete engineering for this project and the questions she had asked had been answered but she was told that this was conceptual. The plans are here and he could show Council all the aspects of it if they wished. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi replied if he had the answers she would like him to give them.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi referred to the Woodland Review document dated July 31^st and asked Mr. Evancoe who reviewed this and what their qualifications were? Mr. Evancoe said Lauren McGuire is the landscape architect on staff with the Plan Review Center and she, along with Mr. Printz, City Forester, jointly conducts the woodland reviews. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked that whoever does this work has his/her name on it so that questions can be directed to them; that also goes for the landscape review. Member Bononi asked about size and building footprints of these homes? Mr. Rokicsak stated they were looking at side entrance garages, lots of 110 feet or larger and the minimum size home would be 3,000 square feet. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi stated the building department would decide what trees could be removed. Mr. Rokicsak said the woodlands people would decide and all the homes are as far forward as possible to give as much rear yard as possible. She asked if they had applied to MDEQ for a permit? He said they had but did not have a letter of approval at this time.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she had real concerns about eliminating the lots that are wetlands-involved and also assuring that there would be more information forthcoming about the impact of this building activity on the wetlands because she was not satisfied that information had been brought forward.

Member Landry asked if they were asking for Council waivers? Mr. Evancoe stated no waivers were being requested tonight, they would be taken up when the preliminary site plan is processed. Member Landry stated this is a very difficult site and thought they should be commended for saving 95% of wetlands. He thought the Planning Commission did a fine job in their review of this, the stub street waiver didn’t bother him but he shared the opinion of the previous speakers regarding the wetlands within a lot. . He could not see himself approving that at any time because it created a dangerous precedence. He felt a small size wetland increased the chance that the landowner would just fill it in because property owners feel they can do whatever they want on their own property. These lots will be sold to individual builders and while Mr. Rokicsak might have the best intentions, Council had seen too often what a builder would promise to a purchaser and they would come before the Planning Commission or Council and say the builder said "I can do this, etc." and the developer says he never made that representation and they are both true. Also, he was concerned that if there is a wetland on someone’s land, they would end up in a tax tribunal claiming that they can’t use that portion of the property so they want their SEV decreased. Member Landry said if one or two lots were eliminated, that would increase their situation with respect to the recreational space on the property. He asked if anyone had thought about grass tennis courts like they do at Wimbledon. Mr. Rokicsak said Mr. Devlin just informed him that since the meeting with the Planning Commission two weeks ago, the engineer is attempting to eliminate the wetlands from the sites that were affected.

Member Lorenzo agreed with the previous two speakers as the ordinance does not allow plotting the lots in wetlands and they discourage and deny filling of wetlands for lots. She said roads are necessary and she had no problem with that. However, any fill

for building sites or wetlands on lots, she would not support. Unless Mr. Rokicsak gave assurances that he would remove all of the impact, she couldn’t support the concept plan. She said there appeared to be some discrepancy when he said there were no known impacts or increases of water in the wetland complex but Mr. Devlin at the Planning Commission stated, "the overall increase in water elevation to the existing wetland is less than 6 inches for 100 year storm".

Mr. Rokicsak stated Mr. Devlin was dealing with storm events and a volume of water that came down all at one time. She asked if they were using the wetland complex as a storm water detention basin? He said they were not controlling the flow of water as it flowed out. They are putting in a 4 by 10 box culvert in the road so that the water would not be affected as it’s for retention not for storm water.

Member Lorenzo asked about micro pools and the maintenance issue and was concerned about it being a homeowner’s maintenance issue. She said these micro pools would be running between lots with sticks and stones, etc. Mr. Rokicsak said those things help in a mircropool. Obstruction of the waterway flowing out goes over and around the debris and provides more filtration. This is not to go in and dig a swale; it is to utilize the natural topography that exists there to allow the water to meander between the trees, drop off sedimentation and slowly discharge out into the wetland. She asked how the water discharged? He said there was a pool at the end and the water makes it down through the trees, vegetation and when it gets to the bottom there was a small settling pond and the water has to rise to a certain height before it could leave that pond. She asked what happened during 100-year storm events? He said it left faster. The water is always running downhill. She asked how much of a grade there was between the micro pool and the units. He said probably 5 or 6 feet. She said flooding was her concern on private property. Mr. Rokicsak said it’s less than 1 cubic foot per second of water volume that would be leaving the storm sewer system and flowing down to the micro pool. Member Lorenzo was concerned about the possibility of creating water on property where there was none before. She would be looking for the Planning Commission to be extremely vigilant to make sure that there is enough capacity in micro pools, etc. so that there’s no impact on flooding and wetlands. Mr. Rokicsak stated they had discussed this with both the DPW and the engineering department and this is how the water would work. We aren’t regulating the water, outflow is what makes this work because there is nothing to stop it.

Member DeRoche said he respected the input of the Council from a planning standpoint but thought the concern was legitimate on improving this conceptually with the wetlands going into lots, which is a departure from what had been done in the past. Member DeRoche said one wetland was 6 feet by 4 feet and another was 4 feet by 10 feet in another. He asked what would be the impact because of the mosquitoes and asked how many would be killed filling that 24 sq. ft.? He didn’t see the value of saving those wetlands and sided with the homeowner who might want to fill them in. He didn’t know how many wetlands had saved lives but he did know how many mosquitoes had taken lives in Michigan this year. When we are carving out this big of a square and a 3,000 sq. ft. home in Novi it sounded like nice homes with a nice layout that area wetland did not make any sense to him so he would side with the average American that says fill it in and fills it in himself. He would support the motion to move this along.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said her office received a lot of comments and concerns about mosquitoes and they found out the best protection against mosquitoes is personal control. There are a lot of things one can do like introducing bat houses, having a lot of wildlife in the area, insect repellent, larvacide in pools that only target mosquitoes. The likelihood of a virus borne mosquito bite is very, very low and as many mosquitoes could hatch in mown grass as in water areas. It is an overall problem. She added that if the lots platted in wetlands were entirely removed, she would favorably vote for the conceptual plan but would still want a requirement attached that additional information from Mr. Rokicsak regarding impact on the wetlands be submitted to the Planning Commission. She would also be concerned and wanted him to look into a greater prohibition on the application of fertilizers or pesticides, other than the buffer area, because ponds like this could end up in a camp swamp scum situation.

Member Capello didn’t have a problem with a small amount of wetlands on the lots and wouldn’t mind if the developer filled the small wetlands in and would be in favor of enhancing the existing wetlands as opposed to having to mitigate and create new wetlands. He said we could easily, in Mr. Rokicsak’s and the City’s documents, put preservation easements over the wetlands on the lots as well as we can put them over the wetlands that aren’t on the lots and are in the open space areas. He felt anyone backing up to the wetlands wouldn’t care if the 24 sq. ft. were on the lot or in the open area if they wanted to fill it they would.

To approve request from Joe Rokicsak for approval of the

Mayor Clark had the same concerns as Mayor Pro Tem Bononi and Member Landry and would watch this very carefully. He also shared the concerns of Mr. Evancoe about over maximizing the site in terms of 2 or 3 lots might be to many. He would support the conceptual plan, but when this came back Council, would have a lot of questions and would go over it with an even finer tooth comb.

Mr. Evancoe stated his concern with the measurement of the wetlands. He thought unit 12 looked to be approximately 60 feet x 30 feet, which was quite large. Unit 21 appeared to be about 20 ft. x 100 feet and he agreed with what they said regarding unit 29. He thought as Council considered the impact, they should have the right numbers.

Member Lorenzo reminded Council that these parcels were rezoned about a year and a half ago from RA to R-1. She thought the previous Council was very accommodating to this applicant and to ask this applicant to remove the wetlands impacts, except for the road, was extremely reasonable. Mayor Clark asked that a copy of the Council minutes of this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fisher noted he was aware that Ms. Bundoff had made a request at this meeting, as she did at the last meeting, for further opportunity to review the judgment. She indicated she had a meeting set up in the immediate future with her legal counsel. He wanted to bring to Council and Ms. Bundoff’s attention that there is an assignment of this case along with many other cases in the Oakland County Circuit Court for a review conference that would result in the need to expend additional monies, of some consequence, to prepare materials for that appearance in court along with an appearance itself. Thereafter, if the case was not resolved in that proceeding, the cases would be set for trial on a short term leash. He thought that under these circumstances, although it would obviously create no final obligation on the part of Ms. Bun doff to approve the judgment, that we at least create the opportunity to resolve this case before spending all that money, time and resources in court by having the Council approve it this evening. Then when Ms. Bundoff met with her legal counsel, and if she is satisfied with this, she could then approve it and we could be done with the case. Mayor Clark asked if the need to spend substantial sums of money would be for both sides and not just for the City? Mr. Fisher said that he was correct.

Member Lorenzo proposed that on the page 2, #5, the language "At the City’s option" is amended to say "at the City Council’s option ". She thought the decision whether or not to expend money should be a City Council decision. Member Csordas commented he would accept that if Mr. Fisher agreed. Mr. Fisher said in this context "City" would mean City Council so adding the word Council would be fine.

Member Bononi reminded Council members that she requested information regarding a proposed policy some time ago. It had never come forward and to consider this is a policy in absence of a policy or to consider this as an ordinance in absence of an ordinance, she thought was doing business on a case-by-case basis. She was looking for a time frame on which to solidify either a policy or an ordinance and/or in absence of that, a moratorium on any further discussions until we do that.

Mr. Helwig said they were awaiting information from staff and that he understood the need.

Member Lorenzo asked if the administrative fees covered the attorney’s fees involved. Mr. Pearson said yes, 10% is the amount that would be payable, $147,000, and the legal fees occurred to date on this matter is $1,800.

John Harvey, 1321 West Lake Drive, spoke about SAD 159 and 160. He said after reviewing all the petitions brought forward there had been a lot of discussion among citizens and newpapers about this issue. He wanted the Council to know his opinion and asked that they take a close look at this issue. He read a notice that started the petition against the SAD’s. It read "We are the residents of the subdivision who are subject to the special assessment districts. We are not opposed to paving and water projects, we are simply not happy with the cost and the terms of the plan. Similar paving projects in Farmington Hills, 120 feet of paving, was $3,700, similar water project in Wixom was at no cost to residents, it was free. The utilization of private property by the City, Lot 9, was totally unacceptable. Your officials have no problem charging you whatever they want if you don’t reject it out of hand now. 8% is quite steep too, referring to the interest rate. The Friends of Lake Wall intend to enlist an attorney to reduce our costs and keep the City off our Property. " He attended the meeting and a petition was brought down, the writing was done but the signatures hadn’t been collected until the meeting started. It said "Lakewall and Hawthorne Subs Special Assessments 159 and 160 petition against the project" and underlined five times, "under the current terms". This is the petition that was put forward and there’s a big stop sign on it and it says, "The following residents opposed to the above projects. The following elements represent the primary points of the projects we are opposed to". It basically talked about Lot 9, outrageous costs, terms of interest rate and the voting process was tainted; one home cannot be used based on SEV. This was started by one of the residents in the neighborhood and it was an eye opener because the Lot 9 issue has become a very serious issue and he thought they had it resolved now.

The petition was submitted to Council on August 7^th with a cover letter, which went through a lot of information and a lot of detail, which was different then the detail at the top of the petition. There was additional information put forth by the person who

submitted the petition and he is asking Council to believe that all the petitioners agree with everything he said on the cover letter, which he didn’t know whether it was true or not because it was not on the petition itself. On August 19^th a new cover letter is sent with different conditions and statements but the same petitions are attached. Mr. Harvey asked if these petitions were agreeing to this cover letter 14 days after they signed the petition. He was not sure. Mr. Harvey said he claimed there are 56 signatures on the petitions but there are only 55. In actuality, three of these people represent 9 units of use so he thought this did not represent 56 but 61 units of use, more than what the person is alluding to.

Mr. Harvey said there are people who are against this project but there are also people that just wanted a few things changed. He wanted to give Council a list of people who were saying they wanted it to go forward with changes. He put together a petition that said if the Storm Drain on Lot 9 and if the City contributes $200,000 toward the project, then they would like this project to go forward. He has 47 signatures on his petition. Mr. Harvey said of the 61 people on the other petition saying stop or else 18 of them signed the petition that said if these two things are changed we want you to go forward. A majority of the people want this to go forward. There are six houses in the neighborhood that they had never been able to get to sign a petition, vote or anything else. They are elderly people and they don’t live there or they own rental properties and he has never been able to track them down. He didn’t think Council could get more than half to say they want it or half to say they don’t and the tiebreakers are unavailable. He asked Council to look closely at the signatures and if necessary, have a vote.

Anthony Tomasso, Connemara Hills Subdivision, said he had talked with the Mayor and submitted a letter to Council in June. The subdivision was built over a 30 year period by a variety of builders. They have City sewers but do not have City water but surrounding subdivisions do have City water. There have been two attempts at an SAD and they only had 54% of the subdivision that was interested in it. However, he determined that there was about 75% interest on Kilrush and Byrne Drive so they cut the size of the SAD down and JCK did their preliminary planning. When it came down to a vote it was 13 for and 22 against with 6 who couldn’t be contacted. Three months ago his neighbor asked him if he would work on a smaller sample of just their street. Due to the health of some of his neighbors he thought there was a very real need in his community for City water service and didn’t think anyone had the right to deny it to them. It should be a point of community standards and City water should be provided. He felt the SAD process was fatally flawed because it pitted neighbors against each other and denied people needed services. He had talked with Mr. Jerome and discussed ways of doing this. He felt the City should put in the water main and then charge the residents when they hook into it and give residents 10 years to comply. Mr. Tomasso didn’t feel those pockets of resistance should be tolerated where essential services were concerned. It is also a safety issue because there are no fire hydrants. He asked for an answer to his letter to Council three months ago.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Helwig for a response by the next Council meeting with reference to this proposal. Mr. Helwig said yes, but there had been no policy change to what they were implementing.

Mayor Clark noted they had an updated communication from the Chief of Police. He talked with Chief Shaeffer early to confirm that the previous considers relative to tax liens from the IRS and the State of Ohio had been satisfactorily taken care of and the Chief had seen the documentation to support that. He said given this is a transfer of an existing license in escrow somewhere else it would not affect the number of licenses left allocated to the City of Novi. Mr. Fisher said that is correct.

Member Csordas would not support this because Council had not seen anything in writing that the tax levies had been taken care of.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi commented she shared the concerns of Member Csordas from the standpoint of the documentation and the circumstances that bring a business that wishes to locate in our community to these circumstances. She said considering how sought after liquor licenses are, although she realized this was a transfer, she would not be voting in favor.

Member DeRoche said he assumed that the motion was subject to a final building inspection as was recommended by the administration. Mayor Clark said that was his understanding.

Scott Edwards, applicant’s attorney, said one thing on the resolution that was presented by the MLCC for approval tonight it was only referencing a dance entertainment permit. There are actually three separate dance areas that each needed to be permitted. The resolution should be dance (3) and (entertainment). The thought that was what the MLCC would be looking for although he knew it was almost sacrosanct to put anything onto their resolutions different than what they provide. In speaking with the investigator that is what they would be looking for on an approval resolution. If the Clerk’s office would like to verify that, of course, but he wanted to make Council aware of what he believed the investigator would be looking for.

Mr. Fisher said if we could approve that, maybe the LCC could send a revised resolution. Mr. Edwards said that would be a good way to handle it.

The maker and the seconded of the motion were amenable to the amendment.

Mayor Clark felt it was an excessive amount of arcade machines for this type of an establishment.

Mr. Edwards said it was a 34,000 square foot place, similar to Dave and Busters, with adult oriented games, interactive games and they would be spread out over a very large area. Mayor Clark thought that with this many games, patrons try to communicate with another adult and with these games going off and with normal conversation added to the noise, it would be pandemonium.

Mr. Field, owner, said it was a 180 foot restaurant that would be divided and it has the sporting screens and then you go into about a 15,000 sq. feet room. Basically, they are like virtual reality games that take up a lot of space but it was not like they’re playing games where you’re eating. There are separate areas and it’s a large space and the 124-126 games are laid out so that it is not cramped.

Member DeRoche said he had gone to some of their competitors and understood the concept and that having that many games and that type of atmosphere was an important apart of their business and would be a big part of Mr. Field’s business. He respected a choice between Mr. Field’s restaurant and a quieter restaurant. This is different and unique and he thought for 35,000 sq. ft. and the type of environment you have to come in large and with technically advanced stuff to attract the crowds. He thought it was appropriate after hearing the explanation.

Member Capello said he had been to Disney Quest and Gameworks and his children were 6, 10 and 13 and all of them have something to do there and thought it was nice to have a full family type of atmosphere to all go to and he would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked who his typical customer was? Mr. Field said it was all ages from children to whatever age. He thought most customers were 21 to 60. She asked if he had other operations like it and he said no. She asked if he had any idea how many fire and police calls he would get to his establishment? Mr. Field said they would work with the local police department and off duty policemen and he hoped that would take care of that. As far as fire, they would hold to the number allowed in and hoped that wouldn’t be a problem. She was thinking of emergency calls and people

needing assistance because if they were providing their own security that was one thing but if relying on a City service then that was a cost to the City. Mr. Field said they had already discussed providing off duty officers with the Police Department. They certainly had no intention of understaffing so they would have to rely on City services.

Member Csordas asked how similar his establishment was to ESPN Sports Zones? Mr. Field said it was the same concept.

Member Landry asked if the Margarita Mama’s portion was 35,000 itself. Mr. Field said that was the lower level and where the games would be. There would be no games on the upper level. He tended to agree with the Mayor that 124 machines could be very loud but this is a huge space and according to his calculations each machine would have 250 sq. ft. per machine. Member Landry said given the situation he would support the motion.

Nays: Lorenzo, Clark, Bononi

Member Csordas said the dollar amount should be $4,600 not $4,6600 as shown on letter from Secrest, Wardle.

Mr. Fisher said there was an update on the Council table for Council members.

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

Member Lorenzo requested a report from the administration as to why this issue had

not progressed further or faster.

1. Letter from Dennis Colligan resigning from Parks and Recreation Commission

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at

11:22 PM.

________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: _________________________

Charlene McLean

Date approved: September 23, 2002