REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
 MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2005 AT 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – NOVI CIVIC CENTER – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Csordas called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Csordas, Mayor Pro Tem Landry, Council Members Capello, Gatt, Lorenzo, Nagy, Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning

Tim Schmitt, Plan Review

Member Lorenzo added, under Mayor and Council Issues, Item #2, Fire Station #4 Staffing levels and response times.

Member Nagy added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #3, Library Financial Report

Member Capello added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #4, Senior Center sign at Meadowbrook Commons and #5, Sign waivers for businesses at Grand River and Beck Road as the expressway opens.

Member Paul added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #6, School Board and Administration.

Melissa Madigan of Anderson, Eckstein and Westrick, Inc., was present. Mr. Hayes stated there was public concern expressed, regarding stream bank stabilization, at the February public information meeting for the Meadowbrook Lake dredging project. He said Anderson, Eckstein and Westrick, Inc. were asked to study the issues. They came up with a report listing six recommendations dealing with erosion and sedimentation issues, and that was given to Council in July.

Melissa Madigan said they studied from the mouth of Meadowbrook Lake up to the CSX Railroad, and from the mouth of the Ingersol upstream to Meadowbrook Road. They then went downstream from the dam to Nine Mile, and this was the area of concern. This area had many areas of severe erosion, and many areas where the banks had sloshed into the river.

Ms. Madigan said the first idea they would recommend was a proposal to modify the dam’s spillway. It is currently about 38 feet wide, and the main concern is that when looking downstream from Meadowbrook Lake to Nine Mile all of a sudden the river has taken a 38 foot wide path, which was not naturally there. It takes the energy of that spill, bounces it, and it doesn’t dissipate anything. She said they would like to allow for the attenuation of smaller storms with a v-notch, which would allow the normal flow to pass through, and the higher events to pass on over. However, with that modification, they would be blocking a little bit of area that currently allows flow through, so they would have to consider the overflow spillway. For this, they have considered Pyramat, which is something that would hold the ground in place. It is a geo-synthetic fabric and was installed at the Quarton Lake Dam spillway in Birmingham. It allows the vegetation to grow through, and when flow comes through at a high velocity it allows that vegetation to stay. This would be a vegetated spillway that looks like a nice park, but in case of a 100 year event, the water would fly through.

Ms. Madigan said the first item recommended by Mr. Hayes would be to hard armor the end of the outlet where the concrete channel was constructed near the sanitary manhole. There is a void spot under the concrete channel; it is approximately three feet deep, and next to a sanitary manhole. To protect that existing structure, they would recommend some riprap protection. The riprap is monstrous, but is very ascetically pleasing. It is natural stone and does a great job. However, if you aren’t excited about hard armor, vegetation could be planted and it would serve the same purpose.

Ms. Madigan said the next issue is the Nine Mile culvert that is creating another area for water to sit. Then the soil gets saturated, it can’t hold itself at the banks, everything starts sloshing, the banks are lost, and there is more sediment downstream. She said, because of the two arched culverts that are there, they were considering the v-notch configuration to allow the base flow to go through. Then it wouldn’t create such a backwater effect or stagnate the river so that it couldn’t be considered for recreation.

Ms. Madigan said the next area of concern, looking downstream at the Walled Lake branch of the Rouge River, is the banks are saturated and have fallen in. Another reason that is happening is that the lawn is being manicured very well, but grass does not provide as much stabilization up top. If there was native landscaping that was two or three feet high the bank would hold itself much stronger. So, the next consideration would be to stabilize the rest of these banks that have been eroded by the high flows. She showed a photo of the Walled Lake branch of the Rouge River downstream of Meadowbrook Lake that showed what a little riprap at the toe of the slope could do with a sloped bank. It has held itself while other areas of the banks have fallen in, and is one of the options.

Ms. Madigan advised another remedy would be the riffle; the Gibson Drain in Sterling Heights has it, which provides aeration, and a good habitat for fish and wildlife. It is simple to do with a few stones and vegetation, and it makes the DEQ happy with good habitat. Another option for the bank is biologs, which are at the toe, and are made of corn husks and other types of native land vegetation, they are staked in, and afterwards the vegetation is planted.

Next, upstream of Chattman Road, is a pooled area that is on City owned property with a sanitary easement that runs north from Chattman Road. It is starting to erode and the pool there is stagnate. Another option could be a concrete riprap, however, because it is in a residential a soft armoring would be a great idea. She felt that if the riprap is going to be used in different locations, it might as well be ordered in bulk, because this stuff will work.

Ms. Madigan said at Ingersol Creek there is a temporary crossing that goes towards City owned property. They didn’t feel this needed immediate attention because it looked great compared to what they had seen. If there is concern for any sediment disposition, a temporary basin could be constructed. This would involve putting a couple of two by fours about three feet high in the ground, with a little riprap, maybe six inches in diameter to stop the base flow, and allow the water to go through. It’s a big maintenance issue, but it would give them an idea of how much sediment is accumulating at Ingersol Creek, how much upstream at Meadowbrook Lake at the Walled Lake branch of the Rouge River, and north of Chattman Road where they just did a dredging project, and it would be nice to make sure they have stopped more sediment from going in. In the future they could consider taking all the samples and dredging material taken from the temporary basins, get an idea of how much sediment disposition is coming from each location, and if necessary, do some hydro geological studies.

Ms. Madigan said in the end they would like to do the dam modification, however, these things would come to about $55,000. All of these items are in Mr. Hayes’ memo.

Member Paul said when Ms. Madigan was showing Council the bridge with two arches, she said a v-notch could be placed in the bridge. Ms. Madigan replied it would be ahead of the concrete apron about 10 feet. They would try to take out a v-notch in front of each culvert the length of the apron; then the base flow would continue to go through. It is not eroding; it is just stagnate, sits there, and creates more backwater. Therefore, the base flow could continue to go through, it would protect the saturated soil, and prevent more of the banks from falling into the river. Member Paul asked if it would back up north of that and create pooling. Ms. Madigan said it shouldn’t back up at all, it should allow more of the base flow to go through, and that should alleviate any stagnate water. She didn’t know if it was normally a clear stream, but there is some riprap down there, and given the option to allow that flow to go through, they could have a riffle they haven’t uncovered yet. Member Paul said then you will do the v-notch and the riffle and Ms. Madigan replied yes, both. Member Paul thought it was very pleasing to the eye and helpful to close residents. Member Paul asked if she was proposing they do a combination of the biolog or more of the stones. Ms. Madigan said that would be Council’s call on the budget. They had King and McGregor Environmental Engineering do cost estimates, and vegetation can get quite expensive. The biologs could be installed at the toe and are relatively inexpensive, $10.00 a roll for 10 feet.

Installation is simple and biologs are recommended with vegetation. She said there are grants available for native landscaping they could look into.

Member Paul said the soft armor by the home on Chattman Road is a really nice option to look at aesthetically versus the riprap protection. Member Paul would look to Ms. Madigan for what is best so this doesn’t reoccur. She asked if the soft arm worked as well as the riprap, and Ms. Madigan said it works just as well if not better, because it doesn’t erode underneath. Ms. Madigan said she and Mr. Bednar like the soft armoring; it looks very nice and holds up well. Member Paul asked what the cost difference was between the two. Ms. Madigan said the riprap can be pricey because it is the natural, large angular stone. The vegetative quote was between $15,000 and $20,000, but if native landscaping can be used it would be about $5,000.

Member Paul said that would be her preference. In regards to concrete, there is a lot of heating, and wildlife dies because of the heating of the concrete. She asked about the sediment trap and said she would like to avoid spending millions of dollars on dredging. She thought this was a very quick study for Council to understand how much sediment was washing down. She would like to see this done for preventative measures and cost prevention. She asked how often the trap had to be changed, and if it could be done easily. Ms. Madigan replied there are two locations where they would like to see the sediment traps placed. The Ingersol on City property would be one location, and would be monitored for five to six months to get an idea of how much it is accumulating. The other area would be upstream of Chattman Road, which is in the pool area. They felt it would prevent the majority of sediment coming into the lake.

Member Paul said there were several neighbors who came from the Chattman area who said they lost more than six feet of their yard. Ms. Madigan replied she had talked to one of the neighbors who thought native landscaping would be great. Member Paul asked if they were proposing the dredging project with the $55,000, in that area, or just the remedial work to do the restoration. Ms. Madigan said the sediment traps are easy to construct but the maintenance was not included in the proposed price, but would probably cost $2,000 for both.

Mr. Hayes said they are basing their budget on what they think is going to be remaining in the dredging contract. He said there was quite a deficit in the number of cubic yards removed, and thought there would be an even greater savings. He said these are the projects they are strongly recommending.

Member Paul said Mr. Hayes’ recommendation is to do the top six areas mentioned. Those being Walled Lake branch south of Meadowbrook Lake to Nine Mile, Walled Lake branch immediately north of Chattman Dr. to Meadowbrook Lake, and Ingersol Creek between Meadowbrook Road and Meadowbrook Lake.

Mr. Hayes said the recommendations are #1-4 Hard Armoring the Outlet, #1-5 Modifying the concrete apron south of the lake between the dam structure and Nine Mile Road and #1-6 is to armor the creek channel bends downstream of the lake. These are the first three recommendations.

Mr. Hayes said the next two are the Walled Lake branch north of Chattman Drive between Chattman and the lake, and #2-1 is to stabilize the banks, #2-2 is to install a sediment trap and the final recommendation is to do a sediment trap on the Ingersol

branch north of the lake. Member Paul had no problems with the recommendations, but did have concerns with the hard armor at the outlet of the concrete channel with riprap. She asked if that was where he would want it or if he preferred the soft armor.

Ms. Madigan said in that area the riprap would work best, because we can see how the concrete has been undermined by quite a few feet already, and they want to protect the sanitary structure as much as possible. She said they didn’t want some type of illicit connection coming into the ground water, so there, they would recommend the heavy riprap. If they want to make it look softer they can leave some voids, and put plantings in them.

Member Paul asked if they were looking to have these six items recommended for approval this evening. Mr. Hayes said if possible, because it would get them back on track with the project so that Anderson can continue with the design. Member Paul said the funding they have is money left from the Meadowbrook dredging, and no money will come from the General Fund. Mr. Hayes said that’s correct.

Member Lorenzo agreed with the previous, speaker and understood why the concrete was needed. However, she would like plantings in void areas, and preferred the softer native wild approach, as opposed to the hard concrete, in other areas. She thought it would serve dual purposes because it would serve to stabilize the banks, and would serve as a wildlife habitat as well. She asked if the dam would have any back water affect. Ms. Madigan said if they did the v-notch it would have a back water affect in the event of a ten, twenty or 100 year storm. Member Lorenzo asked what properties would be affected. Ms. Madigan said if they were to do this alone, they would be in big trouble. They would have to do the overflow spillway. Member Lorenzo asked if the flood waters would go into that area. Ms. Madigan said yes, and Member Lorenzo said then that area would be lost. Ms. Madigan said the area would be lost only during the flood, and it would come around into the park. In order to stabilize it to be sure that vegetation didn’t get washed out they would like to install the Pyramat spillway, which unfortunately blends into the ground. It is vegetation and grass can be planted on it, keep it a park area or put whatever you want on top of it, but in those high flows and high velocity’s it will not erode.

Ms. Madigan said if they were to modify the overflow spillway, which is the most expensive aspect of the project, they could remove quite a few people from the 100 year floodplain, because looking at the FEMA maps it is almost like they didn’t consider the dam to store any flow. It was modeled like the dam didn’t exist. If the v-notch was put

in it would help to restore the habitat downstream because there wouldn’t be the continual 38 foot wall of water coming down. Hopefully, they could put some kind of a cold water release in, because the cold water mixing with the warm water passing over the dam provides for an even better habitat. Ms. Madigan said their favorite was to modify the dam because in time it would repair itself downstream. She said this could be set at any elevation, and it could be cut in the existing spillway.

Member Lorenzo said she was concerned about the island of trees, and species being able to survive even temporary saturations like that. She asked if Ms. Madigan was going to utilize that area and the other area as a spillway.

Ms. Madigan, using a map, explained the area they would like to use. She said the other trees seem to be 2 or 3 feet higher than the spillway would be. Member Lorenzo asked her if the trees would survive. Ms. Madigan said they have King and McGregor Environmental Engineering, who specialize in types of wetland trees, and if Council wanted to do more than just grass they could specify the types of trees. She said it would not be inundated in standing water for more than two or three days. Member Lorenzo asked how much this would cost as it is not a part of the recommendations tonight. Ms. Madigan said the modification to just the overflow spillway was between $75,000 and $100,000, because it included putting Pyramat from the spillway all the way along the park, because you wouldn’t want that to become its own river too. To do the v-notch dam it is $15,000 to $25,000, however to do one without the other could be cutting our own throats. Member Lorenzo agreed and didn’t know where that would fit in terms of other priorities in the Storm Water plan. However, it should be on the radar, and as monies come into the Drain Fund it would be for future Council’s to determine priorities. Member Lorenzo said she understood the recommendation, the approach, and appreciated it.

Ms. Madigan said regarding the 100 year flow, they have seen something equivalent to the 100 year event happen two or three times in the last five years. It is a study that might need to be redone. One thing that could happen is that the berm, not knowing the geo-tech or soil underneath it, could possibly fail and allow a floodway all the way down and over Nine Mile Road, and who knows what could happen after that. However, that is extreme. Member Lorenzo said you always have to prepare for the possibilities.

Member Nagy agreed with the previous speakers, especially regarding the soft armor or riprap. She asked if their company would sub-contract it out.

Mr. Hayes said they would put out a formal bid open to all contractors. Member Nagy asked how often the sedimentation traps would have to be maintained. Ms. Madigan replied in the beginning they thought in the five month range, and could end up every five years. They weren’t sure how much was coming through.

Member Nagy said they would be letting out bids for Village Oaks Lake, and that the east shoreline has been eroding for years. She said when they send the bids, she wanted to include stabilization of the bank. She said in photograph #17, where Ms. Madigan was standing in the pool depth, there is a home on the east side of Cranbrooke, south of Ten Mile, and the first home north of the bridge, which is Bishop Creek, and all the vegetation that goes down the streambank has been removed. She thought that caused erosion and she assumed that streambank was a part of our right-of-way. Ms. Madigan agreed. Member Nagy said that should be checked. She stated she wanted to see as much natural vegetation as possible, and she supported the motion.

Member Capello asked what the motion was.

Member Paul clarified her motion. She said to go out to bid AEW recommendation 1 through 4, AEW recommendation #1 through #5, AEW recommendation #1 through 6, which all fall under the Walled Lake Branch south of Meadowbrook Lake to Nine Mile Road.

Member Capello said the motion was to go out to bid on these items and Member Paul agreed. Member Capello asked where the money was coming from. Mr. Hayes said it was coming from savings experienced in the Meadowbrook Lake Dredging Project. Member Capello asked if they would be going over the budgeted amount even if they hit the maximum on these items. Mr. Hayes said the six recommendations highlighted in his memo could be done for $55,000, and there might be additional money left over to take on one or two recommendations.

Mr. Hayes said Anderson Eckstein’s work was included in the budget approved in February. Their contract includes this design work and bid that Council is on the verge of endorsing. They originally intended to have this added on with the dredging contract but reconsidered, and now we are recommending they go out fresh for new bids.

Mayor Csordas said there was mention of cutting the grass close to the river and asked who would cut that, the City or the residents. Ms. Madigan said the park is a private park and the residents do it. Mayor Csordas asked how they would be told not to cut it. Ms. Madigan said they do things such as "Adopt a Stream" and a lot of volunteer things. Sometimes just getting out there and putting events in order from their office or the City, and just educating them that they don’t have to mow the grass, and to let the natural weeds grow along the banks. She said there would be a ten or fifteen foot buffer to allow the bank to reestablish itself, and get its own vegetation. They could still have their park area, and if the dam project went through and the Pyramet was done, it would still be all grass.

Mayor Csordas asked Ms. Madigan to become familiar with Quail Ridge. There was classic erosion there, and the people living there were causing their own problems. He asked that she advise people that are maintaining the grass that it might be in their best interests not to.

Lorenzo, Nagy, Paul

Member Nagy thanked everyone for their cards, letters and telephone calls wishing her good luck with her arm, and for asking what was wrong. She said she would be wearing a sling for four weeks due to rotator cuff surgery.

Member Capello thought everyone had read the comprehensive report from the City Attorney, and it didn’t look like Mr. Schultz needed any direct action now. If action was needed, he thought that any direction concerning ongoing litigation should be coming from the new Council.

Mr. Schultz stated that would be fine if that was Council’s pleasure. He said there was one update in the Louzon case that he was going to bring up, but it was not essential that it be done tonight. Member Capello thought that could be addressed at the November 14^th Council meeting.

Member Lorenzo respectfully disagreed with Member Capello. She thought the case that Mr. Schultz mentioned was during this Council’s time, and if there is something to be said or a decision to be made it should be this Council. This Council has this meeting and the next; there is work yet to be done, and she was not slacking off. She said until November 8^th she is a Council member and would hope everyone would treat each of them as Council members.

Member Nagy stated she could not support the motion because the case mentioned came under this Council’s jurisdiction. She thought it would be a lot to explain to a new Council.

Member Capello asked if their only concern was the Louzon case. Member Nagy said there are two more meetings, and she didn’t want it to look like Council wasn’t doing anything for that reason. She wanted to go into executive session and do what they normally do.

To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. September 26, 2005 – Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of October 10, 2005 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and privileged correspondence from legal counsel.

C. Approval of Sale of used vehicles.

D. Approval of acceptance of Estates of Meadowbrook street, water main and sanitary sewer and adoption of Act 51 New Street Resolution accepting Club Lane as public and adding 570 linear feet or 0.11 miles of roadway to the City’s street system.

E. Approval to set a Public Hearing on October 24, 2005 for the 2006 Community Development Block Grant Fund Program.

F. Approval to award bid for a replacement heating, ventilating and cooling system for Fire Station #1 to Supreme Heating and Supply Co., the low bidder, in the amount of $19,862.99.

G. Approval to award bid for Fire Station #1 paving project to ABC Paving, the low bidder, in the amount of $68,925.30.

H. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 706

Terry Sanford of Nederveld Associates was present on behalf of Todd Rosenzweig, who was also present. Mr. Sanford said the site is a 10 acre parcel located on Welch Road on 14 Mile. It is surrounded by Haverhill Farms with two units an acre on the south and east. On the west is Maples of Novi at four units an acre. The site has direct access onto 14 Mile Road, and that would be their access point. The Master Plan for the site is at 4 units an acre.

He said they looked at several different options for this property. They viewed it from a planning perspective as a transition between four units an acre to two. They looked at cluster and woodland cluster options as well as the PRO Ordinance, but with a site of ten acres it was not recommended by the planning staff as an option. It would be hard to demonstrate a significant advantage to the public good. Mr. Sanford said they were urged to use the R-4, which allows four units an acre.

Mr. Sanford said the desire of Mr. Rosenzweig was to develop a single family home, platted subdivision. Mr. Sanford said using the R-4 restrictions and the 80 foot lot size they would only be able to develop at 2.5 units an acre, which was their desire. They felt that four units to two units was a good transitional element, and was reasonable and consistent with the Master Plan.

Mr. Sanford said they followed the City’s process for the rezoning. They supplied a traffic study, and there were specific comments made about the traffic as a requirement for the denial. He said they supplied traffic data based on current results. The City’s own traffic consultant came back with a recommendation for approval as did the planning staff. He said it showed that there would be no impact to the level of service of 14 Mile Road.

Mr. Sanford said they also discussed the possible access point onto Welch Road with the Oakland County Road Commission. He said there were some concerns made about future improvements and the issue of traffic. It is really a site plan issue, and during that site plan they would be required a right turn lane, restructuring the turn signal for access, which would be a much safer access into the development through a signal as opposed to another curb cut. They also required significant grading to allow a clear vision corner. He said that is preliminary without a site plan submittal, but that grading would allow them to extend the sidewalk along 14 Mile Road from the east to the west. He said looking at the history of the site, its location is good with surrounding development and the fact that it comes out to an arterial road, which would not negatively affect the level of service on that road. Mr. Sanford felt the rezoning request to R-4, which gives the flexibility of a smaller lot size while keeping consistent density with the surrounding area, is certainly a reasonable request.

Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning, showed the location of the property and the site area on a location map. The property and surrounding zonings are currently zoned R-A.

Ms. McBeth highlighted the Master Plan for Land Use and indicated that the property is recommended for four dwelling units per acre. Maples of Novi is recommended for four per acre and Haverhill Farms is two per acre.

Ms. McBeth said an issue came up at the Planning Commission meeting and one Commission Member noted that on the map that was prepared showing the update to the Master Plan, this property was not identified. It called the change from two to four dwelling units on this last update into question. She said they contacted members, who had been on the committee, and one recalled there had been discussion about increasing the density to be more consistent with the Maples of Novi, and another didn’t recall that at all. She wanted Council to know this for their consideration.

Member Lorenzo stated there are two issues here tonight. One is the rezoning, and one calls into question the validity and legitimacy of the Master Plan change. In addition to what Ms. McBeth stated in the Planning Commission minutes of September 28, 2005, Mr. Schmitt said "this change in density for the subject parcels occurred with the most recent Master Plan update". Mr. Schmitt was unable to locate the specific minutes wherein this topic was discussed; however, he contacted Ms. Darcy Schmitt who specifically remembered this discussion and decision to change the density. Perhaps the only reason this change was not listed on the Modification Map was that it was a last minute change and was unfortunately dropped off.

Member Lorenzo stated she had done a lot of research, and has several documents that would be contrary to that thought. First, she has from April 14, 2004 the Master Plan for Land Use recommendations. In section one the only committee recommendations that were made were "Attention should be paid to the potential connections to Commerce Townships pedestrian path system to the north through the township park and the City of Farmington Hills to the west. These systems will soon connect to the West Bloomfield Nature Preserve." She said that was the only information. Next, she had the Planning Commission minutes from February 11, 2004, when the Master Plan and Zoning Committee gave their recommendations to the Planning Commission. Member Lorenzo said under density two major changes were proposed, and included an area west of Clark Road where the current density is 3.3, and the Committee suggested 1.65, and the Toll Gate extension area, where the density is currently shown as quasi public, the Committee suggested .8 density. She said during the discussion Chairman Markham said "the Master Plan and Zoning Committee tried to maintain the same overall density for the City", and felt that these areas could be rezoned to compensate for some of the other areas in the City where the density increased.

Member Lorenzo also had the August 13, 2004 information given to Council that included Oakland County’s report on the proposed changes. On page 5, it starts the comparison of the draft of the 2004 Future Land Use Map to the 1999 map. It says that "the only changes made at Novi’s borders are the changes at Napier and Twelve Mile Road mentioned above and one small area of single family residential adjacent to Commerce Township on Fourteen Mile Road west of M-5 that changed to office." Member Lorenzo said in fact then it goes to the north boundary of Commerce Township and says "Along this border the City of Novi planned for local commercial at the south east corner of Fourteen Mile and Decker, and then single family residential ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre to the east almost to M-5." She said there are no proposed changes there.

Member Lorenzo said at the Planning Commission Regular meeting of October 27, 2004 Mr. Bowman and Mr. Quinn appeared for zoning changes. She said some of these were addressed later on for the Wizinski and Pellerito property but she found absolutely no documentation in any of the minutes or anywhere else that this change was supposed to occur. Member Lorenzo said the only conclusion she could come to, based on the information that she has, is perhaps there was a mapping error, and because the only document this appears on is the density map. Or, a staff person misunderstood, and gave that kind of information to the GIS people. Member Lorenzo said if there is going to be any change here, the logical change from a Planning Commission perspective, would have been to change it to two units per acre because the logical line sets this up for just north of Haverhill Farms, which would be two units per acre not four.

Member Lorenzo said she could not recognize the authorization for this change, and based on the information available she would have to say that this is a mapping error. In terms of the rezoning, four units per acre, in terms of the adjacent subdivisions, Maples of Novi was a PUD, and was allowed four units per acre even though it is actually still zoned R-A. It was allowed four units per acre because under a PUD the applicant has to offer certain benefits to the City for that change. Haverhill Farms was an adjusted lot size development and was given that density, because they were providing preservation of natural resources, which is why it is showing those densities.

Member Lorenzo said in terms of their proposal and saying they are only going to do 2.5, unfortunately what is being looked at tonight is a straight rezoning. We don’t have any guarantees, this is not a site plan review and she didn’t know if they could get 3.3 units per acre. She said there is no evidence showing one way or the other. Also, the reason we have a PRO, which apparently they chose not to do, is so that the City can have some negotiation with them if they wanted to do 2.5 as opposed to something else. But that would have to come from them, as it is not something Council can tell them to do. Member Lorenzo said she could not support the rezoning for these two reasons and most specifically because she did not recognize this as a legitimate change. If anyone could show her differently she was ready to look at it. She said the best information she has is that the Planning Commission never authorized this change.

Member Lorenzo said her recommendation was that if this is not denied, she would hope the applicant would come back voluntarily with a PRO, which would lock them into a 2.5 density.

Member Nagy said before Chairman Markham, she was the Chairman of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. During her Chairmanship the whole point of their

Committee was to reduce R-4’s, because they were trying to make up for the increased density in other areas whether by Consent Judgment or otherwise. Member Nagy said this was never made an R-4. She thought it might be a clerical error, because there never was a plan for this to be an R-4. The reason was Haverhill had natural features preserved, there were natural features on this property, and there was no way that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee would have made this an R-4. She said there has been an error somewhere along the line. This is not an R-4 and she would be willing to look at an R-2 or something creative possibly an R-4. Member Nagy said as a former member of the Planning Commission and the Chair of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee there is no way this was ever done as an R-4. She said one of the things they did to compensate for some of the higher densities was to rezone the 11 Mile and Taft area from R-4. There was an oversight because they were talking about rezoning 12 ½ Mile and Novi Road from R-4. She said there was no intent to make this an R-4. She says as an R-4 she could not support this. However, if they would like to discuss an R-2 or look at the options for a PRO, she would be willing to look at that. She said this would be the wrong thing to do as the infrastructure isn’t there, there was never any intent to do this, she would like to see other options, and come to a reasonable compromise.

Mayor Csordas said compelling information was brought forward but his concern is published plan documents. He didn’t know what the intent was and thought the prior two speakers have uncovered some very interesting information. However, the fact remains that we have a published legal document. In the health care industry if you make an error in a published plan document as far as benefits covered you have to cover them. He asked if this was an appropriate question regarding the issue of published planned documents.

Mr. Schultz said from their perspective the Master Plan is what the Master Plan was when adopted by the Planning Commission. He said what that means as a published legal document is a plan that shows this with a density of 4.0. Mr. Schultz said having said that the Master Plan is not the Zoning Ordinance and they do not have to show the same thing. The Master Plan is a guide for how Council legislates through the Zoning Ordinance process, and creates the districts. In this case, the question is not whether the Master Plan is valid but rather what weight it is given. In the normal course, and in most cases you will want to give it substantial weight, because the concern is if it is not followed as a City Council when we zone, some reviewing court someday is going to note that, and decide that we are making decisions based on something other than a plan, which can undermine the entire zoning structure.

Mr. Schultz said the question for Council is has the information presented, more or less for the first time, sufficient to allow the Council to give a little less weight to the Master Plan classification of 4.0 units per acre or do they need to know more about what happened. The problem with the Master Plan process is the minutes are never verbatim, and things happen that aren’t documented here and everywhere else, so there needs to be some satisfaction if Council is going to discount the weight to the Master Plan, and that is what the hope would be. He said Council needed to be sure they relied on good complete information. Mr. Schultz said the question is do they have all of the information tonight.

Mayor Csordas said this is new documentation tonight, and he is concerned about what he perceives as a legal document/publication, and he would not be in favor of weakening that. He said he understood that the zoning and the Master Plan sometimes don’t match.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Ms. McBeth if the Planning Department had an opinion as to whether the existing Master Plan, which designates this as 4.0 dwelling units per acre, is accurate. Ms. McBeth said they did look into the minutes to find specific documentation of that, but did not find anything specific in the minutes. However, they did find maps that showed it had been changed to 4, it wasn’t called out specifically as changed from 2 to 4, but from as early as April, and a map prior to that as well, it continued to show it as residential uses with 4 units per acre to be consistent with the property to the west.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said then the position of the Planning Department is that the Master Plan Map that was adopted is accurate. He asked if he understood correctly that she had not found minutes, but versions of a proposed Master Plan Map that was discussed by the Master Plan Zoning Committee that had 4.0 designated on it. Ms. McBeth said he was correct, and that they were discussed by the Committee as well as the Planning Commission as a whole, and she believed the maps were also showed to the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked if it was in the materials indicated here that the recommendation of the Planning Department is to approve the rezoning to R-4. He asked if that was still the recommendation of the Planning Department. Ms. McBeth said it was still the recommendation of the department.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the information brought up was very interesting. However, he tended to agree with Mayor Csordas’ comments, and the Planning Department is recommending this. He said looking at this property, and what it is surrounded by he didn’t think it needed to be R-A, it would be an island of R-A if it was. Clearly, R-2 is to the east and R-4 to the west so it does not need to be R-A.

Member Capello thought previous speakers made some good points. The Maples of Novi was given R-4, because they did provide a lot of amenities on top of just residential housing. They brought in a type of condo/multiple housing that Novi needed, the golf

course and club house and a community shopping center on the corner, which are all beneficial to the community and people of that area. Haverhill also got R-2 rezoning because of some amenities they provided. He said he was concerned with the R-4, and

usually believed they should follow the Master Plan, but it is not set in stone. Member Capello asked if they are only going to provide for 2.23 or 2.25 densities, how they got to that figure.

Mr. Sanford replied they worked with Mr. Schmitt on providing a "by right plan", which used the $10,000 sq. ft. lot, the 80 ft. lot frontages, removing the storm water retention area from the plan, following all of the guidelines in laying out a road, and that is what they came up with. He said by the time you remove the road right-or-way, your area for storm water, and the lot sizes themselves, it is physically impossible to get more than that on the site. Member Capello asked who their engineers were and he said

Nederveld Associates.

Mr. Schmitt, Plan Review, said the last concept he saw from Nederveld was approximately 2.25 units per acre. It is a square site and from a development standpoint it is ideally shaped site for development, and they couldn’t get to the maximum 3.3 under the R-4, it would be physically impossible.

Member Capello stated he knew that Council could not hold them to it once the rezoning is granted, but at some point we have to have some faith, because they have never been before Council before so there is no track record with the City. He thought he could live with that given what Mr. Schmitt said, and sticking with the 2.25 density.

Member Nagy thought some points by the previous speaker were well taken, but this property is surrounded on two sides by Haverhill, and only one side by Maples of Novi. She found it impossible, being on the Planning Commission and on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee that this was the intent. She said the border is only on one side with Maples of Novi, which was a PUD, Haverhill retained a lot of the wetlands and natural features, and she couldn’t support this. She would do an R-2 but not an R-4.

Member Nagy offered an amendment to the motion:

Member Paul said when the Master Plan was before Council we asked for an overlay to see the changes made, and she didn’t recall that as being a change that was brought up. She said when she looked at the Master Plan overly, this didn’t show up. Ms. McBeth said it did not show up on that map. The map was prepared by the Planning Department as a result of a request of City Council to highlight each change that was being made to the Master Plan Map. She said that particular parcel was overlooked, it wasn’t highlighted, and so they can’t find any record of formal discussion of it. Member

Paul said so there is no discussion, no revision on the overlay, and we are just going by a number that someone typed in. She thought it was sad Council was in this predicament, and that it could be a legal issue. She said she was really disappointed. Member Paul asked when we have an R-2 what happens if we put a preservation option in it, can’t they get to an R-3 with a preservation option of this corridor, which would please several Council members who said they would be willing to go to R-2.5. Ms. McBeth said the residential options typically allow for a reduced lot size, but not an increase in density. For example, Haverhill was done under a different residential option that we don’t have any longer that allows that reduced lot size to be consistent, maybe, with an R-3 lot size, but they have preserved some open space somewhere else on the sight. So, if they came in with one of those residential options they probably couldn’t increase the density, but their lot sizes could be reduced.

Member Paul said if Council looked at this R-2 tonight, could we say R-2, plus whatever remainder homes would be, if they did the preservation option. R-2 plus 5 homes or 10 homes, whatever you’re thinking, that would get them to the R-2.5. Ms. McBeth said she might want to talk with Mr. Schultz on that. Mr. Schultz said no. Member Paul stated she was disappointed that this was before Council in this condition.

Member Paul said if this developer sells the property, Council would have no control over what they do. They could rip out the woods, do fill and a lot of things, and the City would be in a predicament and have R-4. Member Lorenzo supported a postponement until the next meeting.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Schultz where they stood now. Mr. Schultz said if the motion to postpone has been seconded Council would discuss and vote on that.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry said the evidence he heard so far regarding this is that nobody’s been able to find specific minutes showing the change, the minutes are not verbatim, several proposed maps showed the change, and several proposed maps shown to the Master Plan and Zoning Commission showed the proposed change. He said the ultimate map showed the change to the world, so we have published to the world that this is R-4, and we have told the world to rely on our published map that it is R-4. He said he had asked the Planning Director what the official position of the Planning Department was, and the answer was R-4. So personally, for all of those reasons, he would not support a motion to postpone as he had heard all the evidence he needed to hear. He was prepared to move forward and didn’t think there was any other evidence.

Member Lorenzo said she would like to see what was given to Oakland County, because the document she read from before from Oakland County, dated June 25, 2004

on page 5 said that, "The appendix contains a map, Attachment C, showing land use changes". She said there are 23 changes, and that is what she was reading from before, that said the only changes made at the borders were at Napier and 12 Mile and single family adjacent to Commerce Township on 14 Mile west of M-5, which was changed to Office. She asked if Oakland County had a different map; that’s why she thinks it should be postponed so they can have all the information. She said she was also disappointed.

Member Nagy stated she would support the motion to postpone because she was upset there was nothing in the packet regarding the support of the recommendation of the planner himself, when in fact even the present Planning Commission was looking for the same thing. They wanted evidence and something before them, and she thought a phone call to a non-employee was not evidence to indicate that this was true. She said the document filed with Oakland County is a legal document, and that is probably the real truth of the matter, and not what somebody thinks. She knew, when she was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, it was their intent up to November of 2003 to reduce R-4’s, and to reduce densities, because of Consent Judgment densities that they were given. She was disappointed that the Council was trying to make a decision on nothing.

Mr. Joe Galvin was present on behalf of Mark Guidobono asking Council to approve the amendment to the RUD Agreement for Tuscany to allow it to become a gated community. He said as a technical matter it would involve the Council approving a phasing line, the closure of a connection to the stub in Maybury and the gating of both the Garfield Road and the Eight Mile Road entrances. In addition to those changes, there is also a correlative change to the landscape plan to account for the creation of the cul-de-sac. When the issue was before the Planning Commission there was no controversy over the phasing. He said that was acceptable with one technical adjustment that was required, which was that the base for the roadway would be put in with Phase I, so there will be a point of secondary access. He said equally, there is no controversy over changing each of these entry points to accommodate some technical corrections which are required for radius.

Mr. Galvin said the only real issue, in his view, is a policy issue for this Council to deal with. In truth, while the report of the Planning Commission and the planning staff states that there is a policy of the City with respect to the stub streets, he thought that, in

reality, Churchill Crossing and other projects in the City including Bellagio show that this issue has been decided by this Council on a case by case basis. He said in support of this particular request, they asked the Council to consider the following:

First, from the point of the developer and the persons who will reside in the subdivision, a gated community is a very desirable feature, because privacy can and will be provided to the persons who live in these homes.

From the perspective of the City, there is an immediate benefit because these streets will be private and not public streets. The cost of the street maintenance will be the burden of the homeowners. It is a trade off for the privacy he spoke of.

Mr. Galvin said other issues he thought were relevant for the Council’s consideration are that Mr. Guidobono is a developer with a strong track record in the City. Council is familiar with Bellagio, and the quality of this subdivision will be equal to it, and a very desirable and high end subdivision for the City of Novi. He said based upon the benefits to the City and future residents, and using the same appeal made to Council when Churchill Crossings came here when the existing residents said "please cut off this subdivision from our subdivision", on behalf of the persons who will be the residents of this subdivision, they asked that this community be allowed to be a gated community. He asked that the two waivers set forth in the staff reports be granted by Council. Mr. Galvin said Mr. Guidobono and Mr. Keast were present to answer Council questions.

Member Nagy said she was on the Planning Commission when this came forward, and they didn’t want gated communities because of a recommendation of the Fire Marshall.

Member Nagy drove out there and suggested a 15 year bond for maintenance of the roads. If Council approves this they should afford the change in the RUD to Maybury Estates too, because it would be the fair thing to do. She asked Mr. Guidobono about the bond for maintenance.

Mayor Csordas said these are private roads. Member Nagy said Vista Hills has private roads. Then they came to Council and said they met the standards for the streets and they wanted to be accepted and have repairs made. She didn’t want to get in that predicament where they come back in 10 years, and want the City to accept their roads. She said everything they have talked about prior to this meeting, regarding acceptance, is, she thought, that they more or less had to accept it. She didn’t want this to happen as it has before. She said her concern was to protect the City in the long term. She was a little concerned that the stub road was put in, and wondered what they were going to do there.

Mr. Schultz said RUD’s are like most of the optional forms of development, a little bit of a different animal than the typical site plan approved subdivision or site condominium. They have a lot of opportunity to clarify what the party’s respective intents are. He didn’t know if they have had to comment on a situation where someone with an RUD or PUD came to the City and demanded that their streets be accepted. They may ask but it will remain the City’s option to do so. Mr. Galvin did give him a draft of an agreement that would change this, and it didn’t cover the question of making sure the private roads are maintained. We have language that deals with ongoing maintenance obligations. They are going to build this and have an obligation that the streets comply with City requirements. We can’t insert, in that document, an obligation to maintain it to appropriate standards, an indication that the City doesn’t intend to make them public, and probably even put some enforcement mechanism in there if it is Council’s desire. Mr. Schultz said he didn’t know if there ever a bond on a private street for any length of time. We can deal with long term maintenance in a document that says if you don’t do it and the City has to come in and do it then you are going to make us whole.

They have to make us whole for having to meet their maintenance obligation.

Member Nagy said in plain English, financially. Mr. Schultz said right, this document gets recorded at the Registrar of Deeds, and everyone who buys into this property will know that the obligation is there and there are ways to deal with this without posting a dollar amount of bond. It is a promise that is enforceable and that the City can effectively collect on. She said she wanted some very strong language that could be enforced.

Secondly, she asked if they were going to have break-away gates or the kind the Fire Department could push a button to open.

Mr. Guidobono said they would have a Knox Box like Bellagio; the Fire Department would have their own master key to allow them to respond immediately. He said it had been very affective in Bellagio, and Member Nagy said money has just been approved in the budget for these, and she was happy with that.

Member Nagy understood that this was not part of the motion but in order to be fair to Maybury Estates, she wanted to be sure they were afforded the same opportunity with their RUD. She asked if the language was something that had to be worked out at the Council table or something they could bring back to Council.

Mr. Schultz said there are a couple different options, and it would be difficult to work it out at the Council table. He said they could bring it back as a formal amendment to the RUD, or Council could make a general motion that asks that appropriate language be put in and not bring it back if Council didn’t want to clutter an agenda. Member Nagy said she would want to read the language.

back to Council. To also add the phasing line and the

Member Capello said together with the granting of the waiver for the access to Maybury Estates, that being a stub street instead, with pedestrian bike access between Tuscany and Maybury, and the gated community is also a waiver of the Fire Prevention Code to allow for the gated community. He said these are two waivers to be included in the motion. Member Nagy agreed and said also, a revision of the language for the RUD Agreement that strongly indicates what was said to be brought back to Council.

Member Capello asked if she was adding the phasing line and the landscape plan to conform. Member Nagy said yes. Member Capello said as they are selling the units they are going to collect capital improvement money from each of the homeowners and keep them in a separate account for capital improvements for road repairs and such, correct. Member Capello said you will have an account established. Mr. Guidobono said he was correct in that they collect association dues and you have to keep 5% in a reserve for things like road repairs or anything along those lines that needs maintenance. Member Capello said then these residents are going to know they are private roads, and that when they close there is money in an account for such things. Mr. Guidobono said it is in the deed restrictions, and something they identify up front.

Member Nagy asked if Mr. Guidobono or the association was keeping the 5%. He said the association, and Member Nagy said the State law is 10% of minimum operating expenses. He said if it’s 10% then he misspoke. Member Nagy said she wanted the language to come back on a Consent Agenda.

Member Paul had no problem supporting this, but they had the Planning Commission divide that into two motions, and asked if they wanted it in one or two. Mr. Schultz said the way the motion was made is fine.

Member Lorenzo said the Woodland Consultant recommended that the cul-de-sac be adjusted so that there would not be any additional removal of trees. Mr. Guidobono said that has already been done. She said she would support this, but would like strong language saying it would be private in perpetuity. She was aware these documents could be changed and possibly changed to 99 years. Mr. Schultz said they could work on the language, it would be advisory and a message but, obviously, it could be changed by the next Council too. It would not be binding in that sense. Member Lorenzo said she would like the language as strong as possible. She said, with that, she would support the motion, and thought the petitioner and the representative was correct that Council had varied from the strict interpretation of the ordinance. Since it is preserving more woods and doesn’t affect anymore wetlands, and the road would be private she would support it.

Member Paul thanked Mr. Pearson for meeting her on the site to discuss a sidewalk issue and appreciated all his cooperation to help the residents.

Member Capello said he read Mr. Schultz’s letter and thought he did a nice opinion, but he was still confused about this item. The Planning Commission took out Lot #3 but granted the Woodland Permit. So, all Council can do is approve the Woodland Permit,

because they don’t have any authority over the site plan to put Lot #3 back in. Mr. Schultz said what is before Council is Mr. Rossi’s appeal of the imposition of the condition that Lot 3 be removed. Member Capello so the motion would be to

remove the imposition of the deletion of Lot 3 from the Woodland Permit. Mr. Schultz said that would be the motion, if that is the intent. The site plan would have to be dealt with again, if that were to pass, at the Planning Commission level.

Member Capello said it is ironic, because Bellagio was the first one that came before Council. We had a problem, while on the Planning Commission, that developments would come before us asking for a Woodland Permit, it would be granted, and then when they came in and put the envelopes for the houses they’d come back again for another Woodland Permit. So, in fairness to everyone, they would require the developer to show them where all the woods were so they knew when the houses came down, and it worked fine. He thought that was where the Planning Commission was coming from. He asked how this would affect the procedures the Planning Commission was looking at in reviewing Woodland Permits with site plans in the future; when they are both looking at the woods taken out with the development, and houses are being constructed at the same time. He said when he looks at this now, it seems that their decision would change the procedure. and that it would have to come back on a piece meal basis, which results in more trees coming out.

Mr. Schultz said there would be nothing wrong with the Planning Commission on a plan by plan basis saying, "if you are asking us for a Woodlands Permit we see that you have put a building envelope on the entire permissible area of the building envelope, set backs, etc. and everything is maximized." Mr. Schultz said what they want to see, for example this site, for Lot 3, because our Woodlands Consultant says there are a lot of good trees on the site, and that you are paying a little more attention to those trees. Mr. Schultz said Mr. Rossi said before the Planning Commission, that they didn’t intend to take all those trees down. He thought it would have been permissible for the Planning Commission to say, under our ordinance we want to see the foot print of that, and want to be shown exactly what trees are coming down in this case. The Woodland Consultant said there was some grading that could be fixed and should be addressed, then come back and talk to us about Lot 3 and Lot 12. He said that would be fine, and they can address those based upon the feasible and prudent alternative standard that is discussed in the letter. Mr. Schultz said what happened here is it was a different approach to remove all of Lot 3, and at this stage we are just laying out lot lines and ownership, and his opinion is that they probably went about that the wrong way if there is going to be a dispute. The ordinance is set up to do what they described. When there is a particular lot, trees or woodlands in question let’s deal with that on a Planning Commission site plan basis for a building envelope.

Member Capello asked for a friendly amendment and said the motion should be, to grant the Woodland Permit without the elimination of Lot #3. Member Paul accepted the amendment. Mr. Schultz said the intention then, is for the Planning Commission to address with Mr. Rossi the concerns on Lot 3. He suggested it be framed in the terms of we are removing the condition of removing Lot 3 and sending the matter back to the

Planning Commission to look at in regard to what the building envelop is going to be on that lot.

Member Capello said Council will send it back, and then the Planning Commission has to review the Woodland Permit again to figure out how they will address Lot #3.

Mr. Schultz said, and act again separately. Member Capello said he thought that would automatically happen with this motion, and that is why he was following up with the question.

Mr. Schultz thought what they were really doing was reversing the condition, that Lot 3 be removed, and sending it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the Wetland (he said wetland but shouldn’t it be Woodland?) Permit with the information about looking at Lot 3 as a building site.

Member Capello said the developer has to do that because there was no permission to remove any trees from Lot 3, so he has to do that anyway.

Member Lorenzo thought the Planning Commission had the authority and the reasonableness to do what they did. She thought this because she assumed that the property owner knew there were woodlands on the property, just as he knew there were wetlands, and other topographical issues that limited the number of homes he could get on the property. She said given those other limitations this is maximizing the site. If you look at the Woodlands Ordinance it specifically says in these cases when there are no other alternatives, "the purposes of this chapter is to provide for the protection, preservation, replacement, proper maintenance, and the use of trees and wetlands located in the City, in order to minimize disturbance to them, and to prevent damage from erosion and infiltration, a loss of wildlife and vegetation and/or from destruction of the natural habitat in this regard. It is the intent of this chapter to protect the integrity of the woodland areas, as a whole, in recognition that woodlands serve as part of an ecosystem, and to place a priority on the preservation of woodlands, trees, similar wooded vegetation, and related natural resources, over development when there are no location alternatives. Conservation of irreplaceable natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction is of paramount concern. Therefore, the preservation of woodlands, trees, similar woody vegetation and related natural resources shall have priority over development when there are no location alternatives." Member Lorenzo thought the Planning Commission looked at this and told them they knew the limitations on the property when they purchased it, they are maxing out the site from what the limitations are. In terms of removing one lot, and meeting this ordinance to protect the integrity of the woodlands to the degree that they could based on the Woodland Consultants recommendation that this lot contained the most trees and the most high quality woodlands. They tried to protect the integrity of the woodlands as the ordinance states.

Member Lorenzo said she realized this Council was not going to support that. What she would like to see as a modification, would be what the Planning Commission would have been allowed to do, as Mr. Schultz has stated, to modify the Planning Commissions decision, which is our purview tonight. We can affirm, reverse and modify it to say that what Mr. Rossi has to do with this lot is make sure the building area is moved to the best location according to the Woodlands Consultant to avoid the trees, and that the smallest house be placed on that lot to avoid the number of trees that would be impacted. She offered this as a friendly amendment, to modify the Planning

Commissions approval to make the building envelope smaller, and place it in an area that would have less impact.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Rossi what he was planning to do with Lot 3 after hearing what the previous speaker said.

Mr. Rossi said they were definitely going to work with the City’s Woodland Consultant to adjust the building envelope. He thought they had some tolerance as far as depth on that lot and also on the building envelope to possibly reduce the depth, and maybe shift it over to try to preserve the high quality trees on that lot. He said they don’t want to lose the lot if it can be saved.

Member Nagy asked if there was a smaller house and Mr. Rossi said yes, the plans range from 2,200 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. He said they could restrict the size of the home on that lot or come up with some creative design that would be marketable.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Mr. Schultz if he was comfortable with the proposed, formally amended motion. Mr. Schultz said he was with a clarification. He said the motion as stated before the amendment was that Council wasn’t really granting the Woodland Permit, they were reversing the condition and sending it back to the Planning Commission, probably to do what Member Lorenzo’s proposed motion is. He said do I understand Member Lorenzo is saying to grant the permit with the conditions stated. She said correct, it eliminates the step of having to go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schultz said it would have to go back to the Planning Commission for site plan approval. Mr. Schultz had no legal impediment to that motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Mr. DeBrincat if he was confident that he would be able to work with the developer, and save some of the trees on this lot by dealing with the building envelope and the size of the house. Mr. DeBrincat said yes, they can work with him, but one of the things they went over on review of this plan was that they asked for a preliminary grading plan so that they knew what the impact of this development was on those trees and within those lots. The preliminary grading plan indicated that the trees within the lots were going to be cleared. So based on that grading plan they had some concern and that is why they were expressing concern of possibly saving one of the lots. There are good trees on Lots 2, 3 and 4 and Lot 3 had the highest concentration of the 8 inch and larger Sugar Maples, so that is why they were saying as a minimum, they were recommending that Lot 3 being removed from the development would be an asset.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked Mr. DeBrincat if he could work with a developer to come up with an appropriate building envelope designation and size of the house to save

some of the trees. Mr. DeBrincat was sure they could save some of the trees. Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated he would like to support this, but was concerned about sending

this back without some sort of standard. Are we leaving it up to Mr. DeBrincat or perhaps it is clear enough to say we are not going to save all of the trees, but we are going to save as many as we can. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said Member Lorenzo suggested that the standard would be the smallest house possible, 2,200 sq. ft., and moving the building envelope. Mr. Rossi said the house ranges are between 2,200 sq. ft. and 3,000 sq. ft., but sometimes a 2,400 sq. ft. house, like a colonel will have a configuration on the building envelope that would be better than a 2,200 sq. ft. cape cod, for example. Mayor Pro Tem Landry said he was concerned whether they had the standards they needed to properly negotiate this. Mr. Rossi said yes, and thought if they could see a smaller footprint for the proposed building, and a very sharp pencil on the grading plan so as to meet the minimums to get drainage away from the home, and reduce grading to the property limits they could see some preservation of the trees. He thought it would be better than what the preliminary grading plan indicated.

Member Nagy said Council is not sending this back to the Planning Commission, right. Mayor Csordas said that depended on what motion was approved. Member Nagy said it would go for site plan but not for this. Member Nagy said the amended motion was, that Council approves but it doesn’t go back, they modify their decision but it doesn’t have to go back to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Schultz said, as he understood the motion, the Woodland Permit would not go back. A site plan would have to go back because they also removed the lot from it.

Member Paul said she could support this, but her experience with Sugar Maples is that their roots grow on the top of the soil, so no matter what is done in the near vicinity, most of them will die off. She said she would support the amendment because both the applicant and Mr. DeBrincat agree with it. However, she was concerned there would be die off anyway and they would be above a nice house. She said it happened all over her subdivision.

Ms. Cabadas restated the amended motion.

To reverse the Planning Commission decision on Lot 3 but work with the consultants regarding placement of the home and make it the smallest footprint in the plan.

Nays: None

Mr. Csordas said a letter was sent regarding this a month or so ago and it was not in the packet. Member Lorenzo offered to read the letter.

Mr. Pearson said not knowing where this is going, they were happy to offer a different way to approach this. He said Mr. Debrincat, Mr. Printz and Mr. Shipman had various concerns with the idea, that they would be short changing the tree fund and losing out on protecting some of the woodlands in the original corridor. He said it is an interesting parcel and contiguous to other parkland, but they didn’t want to get to far ahead. He apologized for not resending the letter to Council, as it was originally sent out on August 31^st. He suggested bringing this item back, and he would provide staff recommendations. Council agreed to address this at the next meeting.

Member Lorenzo said some weeks ago Council received a Fire Department Staffing Report; two weeks ago on September 20, 2005, they received Fire Department information regarding the Fire Department Needs Assessment. She said Chief Lenaghan indicated they were taking action regarding the sleep over program at Station #2, because of an identified problem that they have with maintaining an adequate number of paid on call employees at Fire Stations #2 and #4. At the last meeting Council addressed the Fire Station #2 staffing issues by implementing a new sleep over program. Member Lorenzo had similar concerns with Fire Station #4. Member Lorenzo said the last indication was that they had ten paid on call personnel assigned to that station. She stated she would like to receive information in Thursday packet, regarding whether Station #4, this year or last, had to be closed because of inadequate personnel. Also, information on response times for Station #4. She said in 2005, Council received information that Unit 2 response times, which are the nights and weekends, in general were 9 minutes and Unit 1, the day positions, were 4 minutes and 55 seconds. She

said that was in 1999, and she wanted to know whether that has changed or is the same, specifically for Station #4 in 2005.

Member Lorenzo said Fire Station District #4 is quite a large district. It encompasses Island Lake, Birchwood, Bellagio, Barkley Estates, Bradford of Novi, Addington Park,

Simmons Orchard, Echo Valley, Westmont, Autumn Park, Yorkshire, Lexington Green, Park Place and Deer Run. She wasn’t sure that the residents, particularly of Island Lake who are so close to the new Fire Station, are aware that in the evenings and on weekends there are no personnel at the Fire Station to respond with a truck to a fire. Or

that they are covered by paid on call personnel, that come from their homes to the station and then to their homes.

Member Lorenzo thought, at minimum, a sleep over program was needed at Station #4 to increase the level of service in that area. She said she would like to know specifically whether that station has ever been closed down, and what their response times are.

Member Lorenzo asked Chief Lenaghan to respond to this in a subsequent packet.

Chief Lenaghan responded they had discussed this before regarding Station #2. He said Station #4 is not as critical, but they are down to eight paid on call personnel. Member Lorenzo said it was ten the last time she looked. Chief Lenaghan said he would verify this information and submit a report to Council.

Chief Lenaghan said regarding response times. He said they have a problem because they have switched programs since the information Member Lorenzo got for 1999. Then, they had a program called Fire House, which they ran in the City. Today, all their incident reports go through Oakland County through a different program. He said they contacted Oakland County and asked them to start feeding him the information and as soon as they get it, hopefully it will be back in time for this report.

Member Lorenzo asked if Fire Station #4 had to be closed; Chief Lenaghan said they were checking that also. He said he would get everything they wanted in one report, and bring it back to Council.

Chief Lenaghan said regarding response time, Council has to understand that some responses are emergency responses, and some are non-emergency responses. So, consequently, when averaging these it isn’t always a true picture. There might be 10 incidents that were emergency responses, but two weren’t and so there would be a longer response time. He said they would try to break it out for medical emergencies and reported structure fires. The service calls will take the average up. The other possibility is when all the equipment gets there versus the first unit. Member Lorenzo asked if it was the first unit that is counted or is it when the total number of units arrive.

Chief Lenaghan said now it is as soon as a unit arrives and calls in; that establishes a response time. Member Lorenzo said then the information back from 1999 when it was 9 minutes for Unit #2, which was evenings and weekends, that just said when one unit was there not all of them. Chief Lenaghan said yes, and she said then it could have been even longer by the time all of the units arrived to actually start putting out the fire.

Chief Lenaghan said building fire response is two engines and two squads. At night we have Fleet 507, if it gets there it usually gets there first. However, if you are looking at a total response time it should cover when all the units are at the scene, and available to take care of the emergency. Member Lorenzo said she would appreciate his report.

Member Lorenzo said this is a critical issue and this Council, the next Council and the public needs to be aware of this, and address it as quickly as possible.

Member Paul said when on tour of the Fire Station they said that 90% of fires occur at night, and so a 9 minutes response time is a very long time for a fire. She said it is imperative the questions be answered as soon as possible.

Member Nagy addressed Ms. Smith-Roy and said she understood that the Walkers donated a million dollars. Then the Library Board was supposed to raise a million, and then they were going to give us another million. However, an article in the Novi News said the Library was supposed to raise only a half a million dollars in 2005. She asked if there was any kind of agreement regarding this. She questioned how to read Ms. Smith-Roy’s report. She asked if the total amount raised in two years was at the very bottom, which is Reconciliation of Total Interest Earned, and how much money was raised versus expenditures. She was concerned they were missing an opportunity. She read they received a million dollars, and it was put into an interest bearing account; but, some of the interest was being spent on fund raising, etc., and she wanted to know what the actual profit was.

Ms. Smith-Roy responded that there is the Library Building Fund Gift Agreement, which is between the Library Building, the Charles Walker donor and the Board of Directors for the Novi Public Library. She has a copy of the agreement, which is on file in the City Clerk’s office. Ms. Smith-Roy said it does say up to a million dollar match and it expires December 31^st. Member Nagy said so if they raise $50,000 then the Walker’s will give them $50,000. Ms. Smith-Roy said she was correct. In terms of the report, the total investments that we have to date are $1, 021,000. She said that includes all of the donations to date of $1,026,000, less the disbursements to date of $31,000, which have been primarily for fund raising activities.

Member Nagy asked what was left. Ms. Smith-Roy said $1,021,000. Member Nagy said that is with the donation, and Ms. Smith-Roy said yes. Member Nagy said minus the million dollar donation, how much have they raised in two years. Ms. Smith-Roy said $26,481, and that is the amount that will be matched by the Walkers, as part of the agreement.

Member Nagy asked if the consultant would be paid out of the million dollars that has already been donated by the Walkers. Ms. Smith-Roy said that is yes. In September the Library entered into an agreement with Community Counseling to raise money, they entered into a contract with them, and the first installment was paid in September out of the Walker fund. Member Nagy asked what the amount of the contract was, and Ms. Smith-Roy responded it was $82,500. Member Nagy asked what the life of the contract was, and Ms. Smith-Roy said the schedule of services is to be completed by December 31, 2005. They do have some follow-up services and solicitations, but she didn’t know the extent of it, as she wasn’t involved in the contract process. Member Nagy said we will pay $82,500 for less than a year contract. Member Nagy wanted to clarify this information for people who were as confused as she was.

Member Capello said at Meadowbrook Commons we have the residential living units and the Novi Senior Center, which is incorporated in the same building but are two separate entities. The only sign on Meadowbrook Road is for Meadowbrook Commons. He said he has been told that the seniors who don’t live there and are coming for an activity, flu shot, etc. can’t locate the Novi Senior Center. Member Capello said they need a sign that says Novi Senior Center. The main structure of the sign is brick and block with a foundation, and the Meadowbrook Commons name on the sign is some type of a material that can be taken off and repainted. Member Capello said he would like Parks and Recreation to take a look at it, see what it would take to add onto the existing sign or develop an additional level on the

existing structure, to keep our costs down, to add the Novi Senior Center, so our seniors can find where they are going.

Member Capello said the Interchange is going to open October 28^th and those businesses have suffered immensely because of Grand River and the Interchange. He suggested that a week or week and a half lapse on the sign ordinance, as was done before, would help business come back when the Interchange opened. He asked Mr. Pearson when the ribbon cutting was. Mr. Pearson said a note had been sent out that the opening would be on the 28^th, but that’s going to change. However, whenever it is they will send a letter out in advance that it will be from this date to this date, and then the opening will be sometime between those dates.

Member Paul asked if Council would consider, in the future when there is a new Council, a joint meeting with the new superintendent of schools, and the two new school board members. She said they used to have these meetings every six months, at alternate locations. She said many residents said that was very helpful, because they could come together for consensus on how to spend the tax dollars. Member Paul said there was an article in the Nation’s City Weekly that talked about conflict or consensus, and the collaboration between cities and schools as being the key to reform. They have many different issues and problems in bigger cities, and she thought it would be helpful because we have joint Parks and Recreation, and issues that could be brought up for discussion. This would help us to get to know one another. We will also have a new City Manager, so all of those things would be helpful. Member Paul said if Administration and Council are interested they could put some future date out, possibly in January, when changes are solidified in this area and they would have a few months in their location. Member Paul said a joint meeting could be used to welcome them. Mayor Csordas said he would assume there is consensus for this.

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

9:35 P.M.

________________________________ ___________________________

Lou Csordas, Mayor Mary Ann Cabadas, Deputy Clerk

________________________________ Date approved: October 24, 2005

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean