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

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Barbara Mc Beth, Director of Planning

Mayor Landry said it was time to say thank you to three individuals who so richly deserve the gratitude of the citizens of Novi for their services on several boards and commissions. The City could not function were it not for the volunteering efforts of people on boards and commissions. Those who serve do not get paid, they are second guessed all too often, they are sharply criticized at times, but without them we could not function as a City. Mayor Landry said it was his pleasure and honor to say thank you to the following people. Mayor Landry read each of the plaques presented to Frank Brennan, Tom Lindberg and Tom Swope.

Mr. Brennan said he has enjoyed volunteering and hoped to do it again. He didn’t think one could live in a community without doing something to pay back, spend a little time and care.

Mr. Lindberg said it was his honor to participate in this program, and he hoped Council would see to it that this program goes on.

Mr. Swope thanked the Mayor and Council for their recognition. He said it has been a pleasure to serve and hoped he could serve again.

1. SPECIAL/COMMITTEE

Mr. Pearson commented that this was their latest and possibly the last effort to try to come to some conclusion on an inspection regimen and program for the very important Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control program. At Council’s request, Member Paul and Mayor Pro Tem Capello have been involved in this as part of the Council team. We have gone back to the City’s vendor who provides this service, Spalding DeDecker, and tried to sharpen the numbers, get a fee structure that was more in line with what the City had previously been charging, what other communities have been providing, and provide and improve the level of service we previously received. Mr. Pearson said what Council had before them was recommended by the Building Department, which is the overseeing body for this function, and what they have outlined is a program that would look at a construction project, determine it’s level of risk in terms of soil erosion, put it in one of three categories, and that would determine the number of inspections. This is a little different in that this is an escrow account and we would ultimately be charging a project for what it cost us to pay a vendor to do this work. So, it is subject to how long a developer keeps a project open. This serves as an incentive to wrap up the project as quickly as possible, and it provides a financial incentive. Another highlight of the program, at Council’s suggestion, is if a developer has a track record of having problems and having to be brought in for any kind of show cause or stop work order, they would automatically be put in a high risk category. This would also provide an incentive or disincentive depending on how you look at it.

Again, the vendor is anxious to get started, and some of these projects are going on now. In addition, this program, as laid out, puts the primary inspection responsibility on the contractor, and does not have the City providing any winter inspections for the normal regimen.

Mayor Landry asked if the Administration was asking for approval this evening.

Mr. Pearson replied that he thought it would be appropriate. It is a reduction in the fees, and he didn’t know if that would be technically required, but it has been discussed so much it might be good to take action on it.

Member Margolis thanked Mr. Pearson for his excellent work on this, and she personally appreciated the work that was done to do comparables across communities. It helped her, as a Council person, to see where they stand in terms of these kinds of fees. She said he had done an excellent job, and had answered her question about the escrow issue. This really puts it in the developer’s hands to control their own fate based on compliance.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said when he saw this in his packet he presumed it was just the information being provided to the State for approval. Dave Potter, Spalding DeDecker, said he was correct. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the actual working relationship and contract between Mr. Potter’s firm and the City is much more in depth than this. Mr. Potter said absolutely. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said then we are talking about the winter months, inspections, fees and costs; Mr. Potter agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said this doesn’t replace what Council looked at before, that part of it goes to the State. Mr. Potter agreed.

Member Paul said her understanding was that he was initially going to have the City look at the winter inspection months. Then a member of Council advised that the State required the developers to pay whatever the fees were, and the City should not pick up that cost. She said what Mr. Potter proposed was doing inspections every other week initially, or if the developer has a good track record without soil erosion problems, they could go to every three weeks, but the City would no longer be doing inspections during the winter months. Mr. Potter said that was correct.

Mr. Potter said during their last meeting with the City it was decided that they would start immediately on all the projects, including through the winter, and those fees would be assessed to the developers. Member Paul said the fee changed quite a bit from less than five acres for $135 per acre instead of $175, correct. Mr. Potter said it actually was $175 per inspection and now it is $100.

Member Paul said when looking at the rate structure on Exhibit B, she saw cost per distributed acre is $135 and Exhibit C, Class One, is $100 per acre. She wasn’t sure which one had changed from the $175 for less than five acres. Mr. Potter said the rate schedule proposed now is less than five acres will be $100, between five and fifteen will be $200, and greater than fifteen will be $300. She said then he was looking at Exhibit C, and those are the approved numbers he was speaking of, and Mr. Potter agreed.

Member Paul asked him to explain Exhibit A, a three acre site, so she thought it would be $100 per acre. Mr. Potter said Exhibit B shows the history of the fee structure when they first met with the City. It was a collaboration of how the fees and the scope of the work could be adjusted to improve the program and the compliance by the developers. He said they went from Exhibit A, to B and to C and through that process they developed a proposal that is going to the State upon Council’s approval. It basically creates a Class 1, 2, and 3 system. This allows a lot of flexibility during the review process to really use a common sense approach to the project sites. Exhibit C is what is currently proposed. It has been recommended by City staff, and Mr. Potter said they agreed with it too.

Member Paul said now the inspections will be scheduled every two, three or four weeks depending on the Developer’s capabilities and what their history is. Mr. Potter agreed. She said and the new proposal Council was looking at in their discussion is going to the State. Mr. Potter agreed.

Member Nagy asked if he said Novi staff would do winter inspections? Mr. Potter said no, and when done in the winter, Mr. Potter’s company will be doing them.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he didn’t see where they decided that from November through March the City was not going to do it. He said he recalled the City was going to do it, and a fee could be put on it to reimburse the City. At what point did Spalding decide to do them all year long. Mr. Potter said that occurred during the last meeting with the City.

Mr. Pearson thought there were rightful concerns about the City potentially absorbing the costs. He said they could build another rate structure to recapture that, and there is also the fact that getting into the winter weather brought home that we might want to back off that. Most importantly, with this inspection regimen, this is entirely doable for Spalding DeDecker to be the lead agency for the regular inspections. Mr. Pearson said the City still has a role throughout the year; this is a contract for the routine regular inspections and documentations. If there are follow up penalties, show cause hearings, etc., the City steps in and is the enforcement agency. We are monitoring their regular work and doing some of the follow up enforcement work

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he thought the direction was to place a fee on it for the Administration’s time during those winter months to go out and do the inspections. Mr. Pearson said that is true between when we met as a committee and before Council feedback, and back again with this proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said this is the first time Council has seen this proposal. Mr. Pearson said formally, yes. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if a majority of the projects that come in will fall in the Class 3 inspections. Basically, he was looking at "no direct discharge towards open waters". Mr. Potter said most of the sites they would see would be less than five acres, and between five and fifteen acres. The larger sites are easier to work with. He said as first classifications they would probably see most of them in the middle to high risk, and they have a detention basin, which allows sedimentation filters to be put in.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said as he read the medium Class 2, it looked to be very limited because they were talking about "projects collecting and discharging storm water run off of a temporary sedimentation or retention control basin with an outlet." He assumed that was the product during construction to hold the water. So, he assumed that would not come up very often.

Mr. Potter said what was submitted and what is going to the State isn’t as detailed as what will happen in practice. The engineering staff and the reviewers will be designating which projects he reviews, and that should be in a Class 1, 2 or 3. Depending on the type of project it will allow them to go into a higher risk, and as the project progresses through completion and restoration they can spread out the inspections from two weeks to three and then four. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if they would still have the different time periods of inspections based upon the progress of the project. Mr. Potter said yes. Initially, if a project started where plan review for the City said this is a high risk area, it is next to a lake or stream so we want every two weeks, as the project gets stabilized toward the end of the job it can go to three week and four week inspections. Mr. Potter thought it was a good common sense approach to the fee structure as far as not having to go out every two weeks, nothings going to change, but we do want to document the progress. Mr. Potter said the opposite can happen. If the project is in a once a month type of inspection and we see things aren’t going as they should then we can go backwards to once every three weeks and then once every two weeks. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he didn’t mind moving this forward, but there have been so many changes that he would like to see the actual agreement or schedule between their firm and the City in a Council packet. This sounds a little different because you are talking about starting at two weeks and going up to three or four weeks based upon the progress. However, it seems if you are put in a Class 3 you are at four weeks. The idea was as you moved into the project, and there is less earth being moved, you might go from four weeks to six or seven weeks because there’s not that much destruction of the earth. Mr. Potter said that is correct. When the City does a plan review the initial assessment for classification is done by the plan reviewer. The escrow that is collected is based upon that classification. As a project goes through its construction phase, if they are doing a good job, we can back off the inspections; that’s the idea. If you have a good developer and contractor they might get a reimbursement of the funds left in the escrow fund. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he had no problem moving this on to the State level at this time, but he would like to see a more detailed breakdown as far as the City’s relationship with Spalding goes in a future packet.

Mayor Landry said, for clarification, his understanding of the motion is that this would now become a part of the contract between Spalding DeDecker and the City with respect to the charges.

Mr. Pearson said this Saturday, February 11^th there is a special meeting of Council in Council chambers at 9:30 A.M. This will be a brief but important background briefing led by Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy specific to the topic laid out by Mayor Landry.

Will Siembor, 46500 Eleven Mile Road, was present to speak on Item #4, a variance on a sidewalk for Bryn Hartshorne. Mr. Siembor said he owned the property directly to the west of Mr. Hartshorne. The north side of Eleven Mile is characterized by a rural type setting. The

south side has a lot of subdivisions, and there is a trail that is already started on the south side and is about 80% completed. It is a bike trail from Taft Road moving up to Beck Road, and the only place it is missing is between the bus garage and the City park. He thought this would be a higher priority than the north side. Another reason he didn’t think they should be forced to put sidewalks on the north side was because a lot of the residents didn’t have City water or sewer yet. He felt that needed to come in before the sidewalks. There are about seven homes that didn’t have access to City water or sewer, and he would like to see that be a priority over sidewalks on the north side of the street.

Member Margolis requested Item E be removed because the City Attorney has comments regarding this item. She asked that it be placed under Matters for Council Action between number four and five.

Mayor Landry asked Mr. Gillam to explain why this is being requested.

Mr. Gillam said there are a couple of documents that are going to be forthcoming from LaSalle Technology Center that they believe they need to have before Council formally accepted the utilities in this particular case. Specifically the maintenance and guarantee bond and the commitment for title insurance they received from the property owner would indicate that there are existing mortgages on the property. It is our standard practice to ask for subordination agreements in reference to those mortgages before the utilities are accepted.

Mr. Gillam said, assuming that Council agrees this should be pulled from the Consent Agenda, when the item comes back up he would ask Council to put a couple of additional conditions on the approval. Then, he believed it would be appropriate to accept the utilities.

Mayor Landry commented that because those are different from what it is in the Consent Agenda; it should to put on Matters for Council Action to add those two conditions. Mr. Gillam said he was correct, and the conditions he was talking about are not contained in the resolution that is contained in the packet as part of the Consent Agenda.

A. Approve Minutes of:

January 23, 2006 – Regular meeting

January 23, 2006 – Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following Matters for Council Action item #4 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending labor negotiations, pending litigation and confidential written legal opinion from legal counsel. (Council will return to open session following Executive Session).

C. Approval to renew Massage Business License for Gina Agosta, Inc., located at 39831 Grand River Avenue.

D. Approval to apply for an Emerald Ash Borer Tree Planting Grant for a maximum grant award of $20,000 (City’s grant share is $32,000 to be funded from the tree fund).

F. Acceptance of St. James the Greater Catholic Church water main and approval of storm drainage facility maintenance easement agreement.

G. Acceptance of Amson Dembs/Beck West Corporate Park Unit 38 water main and sanitary sewer and approval of storm drainage facility maintenance easement agreement.

H. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 714

Mayor Pro Tem Capello stated he had always been opposed to using replacement tree fund money to replace street trees. He understood the situation with the Ash trees and that money had to be found to replace them. However, he thought it only fair that if they were going to take replacement tree money and replace street trees that the developers should be given the same option. As the ordinance stands now, the developer is not given credit for the street trees that they plant against the replacement trees. If the City is going to use replacement tree fund money, we should allow the developers to get credit for the street trees they plant in new developments against the replacement trees that they are to put into the development.

Member Paul asked if Mr. Gillam or Mr. Pearson could explain if the developers have a 100 trees they have to replace on their twenty acre site, and are putting in replacement trees, are they utilized as replacement trees on their site or not. Mr. Pearson said no. They are separate landscape trees, street tree requirements are, and if you take out woodland trees you have to pay in the credit for those separate woodland trees. He said Mayor Pro Tem Capello is correct that we look at street trees for developments as part of the landscape requirement that they are required to do separate from the woodland tree replacements.

Member Paul thought it was something to look at during a future meeting, and was not concerned about it with this bid, and thought the price was fantastic. She said the bids are so much better, and when looking at all the bids there is a $500,000 difference between some of them. Member Paul said the Ash trees will be replaced in almost every subdivision. This is amazing and she is thrilled with it. She commented that she 0was in the Barclay Estates Subdivision and Mr. Printz was out there checking all the trees that needed to be replaced. She appreciated his work and diligence. She appreciated the price given and thought it was fantastic that all the trees could be replaced, but she would not mix that with a development question. She wanted to support this agreement and look at that proposal at another meeting.

Member Nagy commended Mr. Printz for getting the bids because we are getting 1,600 trees. She said we have to look at the fact that we are replacing street trees that were put in by developers initially, and they never got a break. She didn’t think it mattered that they were using Tree Fund money to replace street trees because they need to be replaced, and the developers put them in initially any how. She noted she is for this and happy it is going to happen in the Spring of 2006.

Mayor Landry commented that Mayor Pro Tem Capello raised a valid point, and perhaps it was something Ordinance Review could take up in the future and make a recommendation to Council.

Member Paul said this is a question Council had discussed when looking at Orchard Hills North. There was a sidewalk that could not be put in by the developer because it would encroach on the wetlands. It was a single cul-de-sac street or circle, and Council waived the sidewalk next to the wetland. She said when Council was looking at landbanking for parking they were looking at a site that had a single office building. Member Paul said a basement under an office building can only be used for storage, because the ordinance does not allow an office to be on the basement level. So, why does an office have to have parking spaces for the basement?

Ms. McBeth said the Planning Department looks at the gross leasable area of any building, and a determination would need to be made whether the area within the basement would be gross usable area or if it’s used for storage. She said that would be something they would take into consideration when coming up with the parking determination.

Member Paul said someone who wanted to build an office had brought this issue to her attention. By ordinance he was not allowed to have any person or office space in his basement. However, he was required for that storage space to have parking spaces. If we are looking at landbanking she would like to understand if that is accurate and how it could be addressed. She said she would rather have less parking for a storage space, because it didn’t make any sense. She said it is a cost to the developer and an impervious surface is a cost to the City because we have to maintain the run off. She asked Ms. McBeth to help her understand this ordinance.

Ms. McBeth said for this ordinance it is simply for placing the parking spaces that would typically be required, show their location on the site plan but maintain that space in green area until the spaces are actually needed. So for the example Member Paul had given, the developer said he was going to use the leasable space only for storage, which would be a perfect example for something that would be appropriate to use this type of ordinance. The Planning Department would say eventually that area might be leased for somebody who wants to use it for office space. Those spaces could be landbanked or set aside temporarily until that space is needed. Member Paul asked how they would start that process. Ms. McBeth said they would come to the Planning Department with two separate plans. One would show parking for the entire building as though it would be leased and used for office space, and the second plan would show the spaces to be installed initially, and the spaces that would be installed at a subsequent point. The Planning Department would look at it for ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission could look at it and approve that landbanked plan for the time they would use the space only on the first floor, and not in the basement. Member Paul asked if that would be addressed in this ordinance or would it be left up to discretion. Ms. McBeth thought with the ordinance, as written, they would be able to apply that type of standard just based on the information Member Paul provided. She said they would look at whatever the application provided, and at the ordinance, and make a recommendation to utilize this ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said if you have basement storage with a stairway and an elevator or a second story storage with no elevator, so no access, and it is designated as storage, do you require the project to have allocated parking spaces for specifically designated storage areas. Ms. McBeth stated they would have to look at the building code and find out whether it is space that could be occupied. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said it is storage space. She said if it is storage space, with no windows and probably no elevator to that location they probably would not consider it as space that could be occupied. He said then that would not apply to any landbanking because it is not space that can be occupied. Ms. McBeth said they would probably take that at a much lower rate.

Mayor Landry commented that this matter was previously considered before Council and a decision was made. Then Mr. Hartshorne brought to Council’s attention that he had not received notice that Council would be addressing his issue. There are rules regarding the reconsideration of matters, and the time limit according to the rules, to reconsider this matter has come and gone. Therefore, in order for the Council to reconsider this matter a motion to suspend the rules has to be made to allow someone to make a motion if the Council chooses to reconsider it.

Nays: None

Mayor Landry said the rules have been suspended, and in order to reconsider a motion needed to be made by someone who was on the successful side, and the vote was 7-0, so any member of Council, other than the Mayor, could make a motion to reconsider this matter.

Mayor Landry said the matter is now on the agenda to be reconsidered. He asked Mr. Pearson if the Administration wanted to make any comment on this before calling on the applicant. Mr. Pearson said the material had been provided previously, and does require action by the Council if they wish to waive the sidewalk requirement. He noted that the newer subdivision to the north, Asbury Park, has put in sidewalks. However, Mr. Siembor, who spoke at Audience Participation, is correct that the majority of the sidewalk in this neighborhood is on the south side. He said they were seeking Council direction on how they would want this to be handled.

Mr. Hartshorne thanked Council for reconsidering this issue. He said he was not against sidewalks, and if Council told him that they would complete a sidewalk on his side of the street in the next 20 years, he would be all for it. He presented copies of the ordinance as written with portions highlighted for Council. He said the City ordinance does call for sidewalks throughout the City. All the north/south and east/west roads in the general plan, which is Figure 55, show all the roads throughout the City that are planned. It shows 8 foot and 5 foot pathways. He said he didn’t know if there were any 8 foot pathways in existence, and certainly not where they show them in Figure 55. Grand River and Ten Mile doesn’t have them, and neither do the others. The plan calls for them, and he felt they were really straying from that as it is. He said the next figure is the plan of the City to put sidewalks in and the next page doesn’t show any sidewalks on the north side of Eleven Mile Road from Beck to Taft in the next 20 years. Mr. Hartshorne said when looking at this, if he is the only person except for Asbury Park, to have a sidewalk for the next 20 years, it is not a sidewalk. It is a piece of concrete in the middle of his front yard that is never going to be used. He could walk back and forth fifty times and get a mile. Mr. Hartshorne was asking the City to suspend putting the sidewalks in until they can be completed so that it will actually go somewhere. Asbury Park has sidewalks but the people within that complex can go to their neighbors, and actually have some place to go. They can walk their dogs on the part that comes out on Eleven Mile and it has a function. Mr. Hartshorne said for him it would be a single sidewalk, a piece of concrete, for 125 feet that went nowhere with the City not intending to complete it for more than 20 years. In the mean time he would have to maintain the piece of sidewalk for 20 years. He felt that near by tree roots would break up the concrete, so the root systems would have to be cut into, and those trees might die. Also, the sidewalk might give, and then it would have to be fixed again when Council got around to completing that section. The south side is almost complete other than the school section and a couple of small residences. If he takes his bike out he will ride on that side until it ends. To force somebody to do it now seems silly, and if Council can force people to do it now they can certainly force them ten or twenty years from now when it is all done at the same time, and then it will actually be functional.

Member Nagy said she agreed with the applicant. All those houses, except for Asbury Park on the north side, are private. She was always concerned that there wasn’t a good sidewalk system because of zigzagging. On Ten Mile it’s on the north side east of Meadowbrook, and then it becomes the south side. She said with Mr. Hartshorne’s property she didn’t see a function to the sidewalk, and thought there was plenty of time. She agreed with Mr. Hartshorne with regard to Asbury. She said they have a sidewalk along Nine Mile that dead ends, and basically people walk off of Cranbrooke, go east on the sidewalk and come back. Member Nagy suggested that since Council has this requirement, could they compromise by putting funds into escrow for a future sidewalk. She knew that was a long time away, but maybe that could resolve the situation.

at the present time. Also, If Council is going to take this property into

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he sympathized with the applicant and understood that the sidewalk goes nowhere in either direction. However, we do have a Master Plan that shows a five foot sidewalk across the front of his property. People come in all the time asking for variances for that reason, but we are never going to connect our sidewalks if we don’t require everyone to put their sidewalk in. He said he could not support this variance; the sidewalks need to be connected. Council works hard every year to connect the sidewalks that we have, and he is confident that a sidewalk will be connected all along the north side of Eleven Mile Road. Mayor Pro Tem Capello didn’t think it was a bad idea to have money put into escrow. Then it would allow the City to use that money to connect portions that are ready to be connected sooner than Mr. Hartshorne’s section. He didn’t think there was a mechanism for that yet, but perhaps an ordinance could be adopted that if someone comes forward requesting a variance, the cost would go into a sidewalk fund to be used in the next years budget. He said this was nothing against Mr. Hartshorne, and he thought he was making a lot of sense, but the sidewalks had to be connected.

Member Gatt agreed up to a point with the previous speaker, but also agreed with Member Nagy and would support her motion. The sidewalks did need to be connected and eventually they would be, but in the applicant’s situation that won’t happen for many, many years. If the idea of creating an escrow account is a good one then perhaps we can wait a year before forcing this gentleman to comply with an ordinance that we don’t even have regarding an escrow account.

Mayor Landry asked if the motion stated was require the applicant to pay now the full cost to replace the sidewalk, the City would hold the money but the sidewalk would not be built. Member Nagy agreed and Mayor Landry said the applicant would pay the full cost now and the City would hold it. Member Nagy agreed.

Member Margolis said the ordinance talks about granting easements to construct the sidewalk, and asked if it were escrowed would Council have a difficult time, if the home was sold, getting that sidewalk constructed.

Mr. Pearson said this mechanism has been used previously. It has been done on site plans where there were escrow accounts. He said he usually would not recommend these because they are very difficult to track, and the costs always go up. However, given this circumstance, being a single lot and a single family house for a resident that has been here for 35 plus years, he thought it made sense. He said a cost estimate could be developed and the property owner would post that. Council would want to be sure that the City got any easements or property needed now, as a part of the agreement, so they wouldn’t have to worry about that down the road. Any property access would be in addition to the money.

Member Paul offered a friendly amendment to add the easement that is required for this site. If we are going to take this property into escrow, the property easement would go along with whoever owned that property, and the City would have access rights to it in the future. Member Nagy, maker of the motion, accepted the amendment.

Member Paul commented that some of these lots vary very much in regard to street frontage. Some houses are 25 feet from the street and others 75 feet or further. Since it is only one house and we have many gaps, she would like to have a sidewalk fund that has escrow money

as developers have done. She thought a sidewalk fund would be important to look at in the future, and it could be like the tree fund that we have put into escrow, and Council could use it as they see fit. She would like to have the money in escrow for the future.

Member Mutch suggested this be postponed to allow the information to be put together for the applicant so he can make an informed decision. Member Mutch thought Mr. Hartshorne was kind of on the spot this evening if he has to agree to specific items for Council to grant the variance. Member Mutch asked if Council would be holding up anything in terms of his approvals or occupancy of his home, and how does this fit into the whole permit system. Mr. Pearson said a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy could be issued but he didn’t think Mr. Hartshorne was near that point. Mr. Pearson said they needed direction to see if the gentleman was interested in going this route or how to make it work. Member Mutch said he would like to postpone action on this this evening, have Administration pull the information together, and get together with the homeowner to see if that proposal would work.

Member Mutch said he was generally in agreement with Mayor Pro Tem Capello and thought that because of the development on Eleven Mile that Mr. Hartshorne would be there for a while, but some of his neighbors would probably not be. He would like Council to give due consideration to the context of Mr. Hartshorne’s home and some of the other homes. Member Mutch said he walks that path in the summer and as often as he can in the winter and knows the area well. He said Mr. Hartshorne’s neighbor has large pine trees close to the right of way very similar to the situation with the older existing homes on the south side of Eleven Mile. He said when there is a new subdivision like Asbury Park putting the sidewalks quite a ways back in those areas might make sense. Member Mutch thought that now and into the future no matter what happens, unless these properties are completely redeveloped, that we don’t want the sidewalks set back as far as it’s being proposed. He would also like some consideration given to bringing those sidewalks closer to Eleven Mile as it is not a heavily traveled road, is not going to be widened, and it would help retain some of the rural character. Member Mutch thought it would be sensitive to the context if the decision is to put that in, or maybe a compromise can be reached so he would not have to see those sidewalks for a while.

Mayor Landry said he could certainly understand the viewpoint that it appears very piecemeal, and that there are sidewalks that go nowhere. He said that is correct, they do. However, as

he understood it the Master Plan is that as properties develop the City requires every property developer to put their portion of the sidewalk in. Although now it may be piecemeal, in 15 or 20 years it won’t be, and he thought it was the reasonable way to get it done throughout the City. He likened this to a painting done by many different painters with each one putting one stroke on the canvas. It may seem stupid but when you step back at the end of the day it is a painting. Mayor Landry said to him the only way to do this is to require everyone to put their part of the sidewalk in. He stated he was not in favor of granting a variance, and he thought if

Mr. Hartshorne was going to pay, then he might as well put the sidewalk in as he didn’t see any benefit to waiting.

Member Nagy said if the sidewalk was required, and ten years from now it starts crumbling who pays to replace it.

Mr. Pearson said a sidewalk like this in the City system would be a City maintenance responsibility.

Member Margolis agreed that the policy had to be followed. She said when she was first a resident in Novi she thought it was kind of nutty walking sidewalks that would come to an end. So, having a longer view she did agree that policy should be followed. She said her purpose in even considering a postponement, and an escrow would be more for aesthetics. The gentleman does not want a sidewalk in front of his home that goes no where for ten years and that is something she would consider. She also wanted to be clear that she was not in support of this Council moving pieces of sidewalk around the City. The purpose of this ordinance is to place it in front of whatever development is going on. She wanted to be sure that the escrow is not for connecting something else, but for putting that piece in when it makes sense.

Mayor Landry noted he was confident that they would notify the applicant when the matter came up again for consideration. He asked that when the matter is brought back to Council that there be some consideration given to what’s going to happen if there is an escrow and five years from now the cost of sidewalks double. Who’s going to pay for that? Mayor Landry asked that those kinds of considerations be added to any proposal or offers for consideration.

Mayor Landry noted this item had been pulled off of the Consent Agenda and asked Mr. Gillam to apprise Council of the necessity for adding whatever needed to be added to this.

Mr. Gillam said there are documents they had anticipated would have been provided by this time, they have had additional information regarding the documents, but did not have the documents yet. He said they didn’t have the Maintenance and Guarantee Bond for the utilities, which is standard practice for the City to require that, and the second is Subordination Agreements for existing financing that is in place on the property. He said they want their interest in the property to take priority over any existing mortgages on the property, and they

need something in writing from the applicant to do that. If Council would consider it appropriate, the action that is contained in the item in Council packets would be appropriate, but he would ask that Council make that approval subject to a review and approval of the Maintenance and Guarantee Bond for the utilities by the staff and the attorney’s office, and also review and approval of the Subordination Agreements for any mortgages on the property by the attorney’s office.

Mayor Landry noted Council would not address Item 5 yet because it would require some consideration in Executive Session.

Mayor Landry noted he had talked with Bob Churella who is on the Economic Development Corporation and he was concerned and frustrated that the committee didn’t do a lot. He spoke to Mr. Pearson who indicated that it’s necessary to have the committee in existence because it has to meet once a year for the audit for those bonds that are outstanding, Industrial Revenue Bonds. Mayor Landry said there are members

of the Economic Development Corporation who would like to be more active and do more to attract and maintain businesses. Mayor Landry suggested that Council would entertain devoting the first hour of a City Council meeting in March for a presentation from the Oakland County Economic Development Corporation. This would take about 15 to 30 minutes and then Council could develop some direction for the Economic Development Corporation. Mayor Landry felt they needed to give them some direction. He asked Council to devote from 7 PM to 8 PM of the March 6^th meeting for an Oakland

County Economic Development Corporation presentation. They would hear a brief presentation and then Council could take up the discussion and give some direction to the Economic Development Corporation.

Member Nagy thought it was a wonderful idea as she has also heard the same complaint from EDC members. There was consensus of Council to invite the Oakland

County Economic Development Corporation to give a presentation at the Council meeting of March 6^th.

Member Paul asked if the Novi Economic Development Corporation would attend the presentation also. Mayor Landry said he was not anticipating that because there are a lot of members on that committee. He was anticipating Council discussing it and giving them direction, then they could meet and if there were questions they could bring them back to Council. Member Paul asked if they could be informed that Oakland County was going to be here so they could be sitting in the audience seeing the presentation. Mayor Landry said that was a great idea, and asked Mr. Pearson to see that they are notified that this is going to happen.

Member Mutch said there are several properties that are City owned that were either donated or acquired by the City for the purpose of parkland. These include properties he listed on the memo provided to Council. There are 16.49 acres adjacent to Bristol Corners South, 5.22 acres adjacent to Rotary Park and a number of properties that make up about half of the Singh Trail properties. These are City owned properties and do not include properties still owned by Singh Development. The purpose of bringing this forward is two fold.

1) As we were reviewing the City Master Plan and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan we discovered that the first two properties are listed on the City’s Master Plan as parkland but are not listed on the Community Recreation Plan. He said that would simply be directing Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission to give consideration to including those properties. They are adjacent to existing City parks, and he wouldn’t anticipate any problems incorporating that. He said those two plans need to be in sync and right now they are not equal.

2) Member Mutch asked that Council direct City Administration to draft resolutions for these properties to be approved at a future Council meeting formally indicating that we do designate these as parkland. The goal for that is to put everyone on the same page as far as the intended use of these properties, and this is consistent with one of the City Council’s goals approved to designate City owned properties, including the Singh Trail properties, as parkland. He asked for Council support.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said there is a property about the size of a lot on South Lake Drive that is City owned with lake access. He didn’t think it was designated as parkland but he would like to take a look at it. He told Mr. Pearson he could give him a description of that property. He also asked about the M-5 mitigation area. He knew there was a Conservation Easement over that and asked if that was a designated parkland, and if it wasn’t he thought it should be.

Mr. Pearson commented that it was not, but he would wonder about that as it does have storm water purposes. He believed the spirit of what was discussed was to get that into our recreation plans, and then we can program that as passive or active parkland and go after grant opportunities. Mr. Pearson said if it is the property he was thinking about at M-5 and Twelve Mile Road he didn’t know if those kinds of opportunities would exist. He didn’t know if it was better left to storm water utility purposes or not.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought Parks and Recreation had been looking at it, and thinking about designating that as passive parkland. We might want to at least discuss it and look at those two parcels of property.

Mayor Landry asked Mayor Pro Tem Capello if the property on South Lake Drive was The Landing, and he responded it was not.

Member Nagy stated she appreciated this from Member Mutch, and thought this was important when doing grant applications. She said she presumed more grant applications would be done this year before the money runs out. She said she would support this.

Mayor Capello advised that he had asked to have two other properties added. 1) The South Lake Drive property, which he needed to give Mr. Pearson the legal description. 2) The M-5 mitigation. Member Nagy agreed to add the South Lake Drive property.

Member Mutch asked if the motion included the resolution to return to Council to formally designate these as parkland. Member Nagy agreed.

Member Paul said on Item #3 for the Singh Trail properties, she thought there were some legal questions regarding when the trail was put in before Council accepted the parkland. She said maybe they were talking about the portion to the east of the Singh Trail. She asked for legal clarification on that before there was any acceptance, and she wanted an understanding on what Council was supposed to do. She said that was supposed to be done last fall and was not. She said she wanted very clear direction when it comes back to Council, because she felt uncomfortable with that portion of it.

Member Mutch commented for clarification that he and Mr. Pearson made sure that the properties they were considering were only the City owned properties. If there is any concern from Administration about timing, Council will look forward to seeing that come with whatever returns.

Member Gatt commented that Mr. Helwig was recognized at his last Council meeting of January 23, 2006. Tonight in the audience there is a gentleman attending his last meeting, long time Fire Chief Art Lenaghan. He asked that he come before Council so everyone could see him for the last time as Fire Chief because Chief Lenaghan is retiring.

Member Gatt said he met Chief Lenaghan on one of the first days he was on the job. He has done wonders for the City and the Fire Department and we are going to miss him greatly.

Chief Lenaghan appreciated the opportunity to speak and thanked everyone. He said there have been a lot of administrations during his time, a lot of support, and some difficult times, but a lot of things were accomplished. Chief Lenaghan said 28 years is a long run here in Novi, you speak to a lot of people, and a lot of people have made things a lot easier for him at times. Chief Lenaghan said he has been very fortunate, and you never do this alone. He said he has had a lot of support, in a lot of areas, throughout his whole career, from family and people in this City and Department. He said it was a little difficult to list everyone he wanted to thank but they were people in the community, the administrations and people who have worked for him. He thought a lot of the decisions you make are based on things you learned, and he has had some very good teachers. He said unfortunately a lot of them are gone now as it’s been 42 years so he thought it was time to just say thank you.

Mr. Gillam advised that if moving into Executive Session a roll call vote was needed.

Mayor Landry reconvened the Regular Meeting of the Novi City Council. The final item on the agenda is Item #5.

5. Consideration of approval of consent judgment in Board of County Road

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 P.M.

_______________________________ _____________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_______________________________ Date approved: February 21, 2006

Transcribed by Charlene Mc Lean