The meeting was called to order at 8:10 PM with Mayor McLallen presiding.


Council pledged allegiance to the flag.


ROLL CALL: Council Members Crawford (present), Mason (present), Mitzel (present), Pope (present), Schmid (present), Toth (present), and Mayor McLallen (present)


Present (7) Absent (0)




ALSO PRESENT: Edward F. Kriewall - City Manager

David Fried - City Attorney

Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

Jim Wahl - Director of Community Development

Geraldine Stipp - City Clerk






Mayor McLallen added Item #11, to schedule an executive session for Saturday, February 4th to discuss parkland acquisition.

It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That the agenda be approved as amended.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried



PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE - Donald Shaffer, Hazardous Chemicals Appeal Board


Mayor McLallen stated she was presenting a plaque to Donald Shaffer who is leaving the Hazardous Chemicals Board. She said Mr. Shaffer had served on this board since 1991 and this was one of our unsung, but essential to this community, boards. She said they review the chemical contents of those companies that are located within our community and make recommendations.


Mayor McLallen introduced Mr. Shaffer and thanked him for his years of service. The Resolution read:


WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Novi wish to express on behalf of the City their appreciation to Donald Shaffer in recognition of outstanding service to the community; and


WHEREAS, he has at all times furthered those ideals that contribute to a better community; and


NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council, being the duly elected voice of the people of Novi expresses the City's appreciation and recognition for this distinguished citizen's service as a MEMBER OF THE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS APPEAL BOARD; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented as a lasting expression of the City's gratitude and appreciation for his contribution to the betterment of the City of Novi, Michigan.


Mr. Shaffer thanked the authors of the Hazardous Chemical Ordinance. He said it would prove to be one of those pieces of City legislation that would really help the safety of this community for years long after the authors have left public service. He also thanked the Fire Chief and Fire Marshall for their interpretation and commitment to the ordinance because it made their job almost like the Maytag repairman. He said they have a very good interpretation of what Council wants out of the ordinance and are able to effectively present that message to the different businesses within the community. Mr. Shaffer said during his service on the board they had no appeals and that speaks very highly of the Fire Chief and his experience in working with business. Mr. Shaffer felt the Fire Chief should be highly commended for that.




1. Michigan Municipal League Insurance Programs


Craig Klaver, Assistant City Manager, introduced our representative Nancy Mickley and stated that Ms. Mickley was with Meadowbrook Insurance which is the company that does the administration of the program. Mr. Klaver said this covers our Worker's Compensation Program and also our general liability. He said these are both offered through the Michigan Municipal League and we have been in the Worker's Comp pool for a number of years and most recently went over to the general liability that was effective in July, 1994.


Nancy Mickley thanked the city for participating in the Michigan Municipal Leagues Liability and Property Pool and the Worker's Compensation Fund. She passed out a brochure that talked about some of the opportunities and benefits that have been affiliated with both programs.


Ms. Mickley advised Council that in the first section of the brochure there was a letter by Chairwoman Gail Kaess that explains the benefits of the program and some of the major opportunities for participants.


Ms. Mickley stated the last page of the brochure contained program facts that pertained specifically to the City of Novi.


2. Fuerst Property Committee


Councilman Crawford spoke for the Committee and reported that basically the findings were that the School District had no interest in preserving that site or preserving it for an Educational Center. He said they are concerned with the liabilities of the buildings in their present condition and they will virtually level that site within several months if something isn't done with it.


Councilman Crawford said the Preservation Novi Group has offered to conduct a survey on the feasibility of restoring those buildings, potential funding and potential uses for the site. He said he is looking for from Council, after this presentation, a general yes or no. If this survey comes back and says these buildings can be refurbished, if there is funding available and if there are uses available, that the Council would be willing to enter into the next step and see about purchasing the land or swapping land. He said the survey is in the neighborhood of $2,000 to $4,000 and that is why they don't want to expend those funds if there is no consensus on Council to proceed with trying to preserve the site in some manner.


James Antosiak, President of Preservation Novi Group, said that they did meet on January 10th with Councilmen Crawford and Mitzel and with members of the School Board and a number of citizens. He advised Council that they were given a packet that laid out more detail of what they intend to do and the reason they intend to do it.


Mr. Antosiak said they do, as a group, believe that the Fuerst Property is a link to Novi's past. He said they think it represents what Novi once was and that we didn't have to many buildings like that left in the City. He said Preservation Novi is willing to commit some of its resources to conduct a thorough assessment of that property and identify the feasibility of restoration and renovation. He said as part of that, Preservation Novi would proceed to look for funding for restoration and renovation and also look for uses for that property after it was renovated. He said they are not interested in simply preserving a piece of property for preservation sake; they would like it to be useful to the community.


Mr. Antosiak said that the first step is to assess the property and determine exactly what would be required both from a physical and financial perspective in making this used and useful property. He said it was a step forward and it was good policy for the City to look to preserve some of its buildings and to make them useful so the community can get a sense of what it was like at one time to be here in Novi.


He said they would like now to continue with this unless there is a clear indication from Council that they are not willing to look at this. He said he understood that Council had a May 31st dead line from the School Board for reaching a decision. He said they were prepared to move within that time frame.


Mr. Antosiak said he wanted to update Council on the move of the Novi Methodist Church to The Vistas. He said Preservation Novi thought they had an agreement with Hughlan Development last November on who would be responsible for what in the move of the church to Vistas. He said within the last two to three weeks he had gotten several pieces of correspondence from Hughlan Development seeking reimbursement from Preservation Novi for items they do not believe they agreed to pay. He was trying to set up a meeting with them within the next week or two to resolve these issues. He said if their last letter is an indication of their position then he had some serious questions in his own mind whether they would be able to reach agreement with Hughlan to move the church to the Vistas. He said the timing is critical because Mr. George Keros who owns the property and the church has indicated to them that he would like the church moved off of his property so that he can begin development of his property this spring. Mr. Antosiak said Mr. Keros has been very reasonable working with them and they would like to meet his schedule and relocate the church within the next two to three months. He said they believe that the Fuerst property holds the hope of being a good future home for the Novi Methodist Church also.


Mr. Antosiak asked that Council keep these thoughts in mind as they weigh their decision as to whether or not to acquire the Fuerst property and that it may speed their decision making. He said Preservation Novi stands ready to help and offer whatever assistance they can not only in looking at renovating the Fuerst property but also the Church.


Mayor McLallen said Councilman Crawford did not wish to amend the agenda to add this item for discussion and asked if Mr. Antosiakh would like a head nod.


Councilman Crawford said he didn't feel Council needed to take any official action just give a general consensus. He said if there were any questions of Council, committee members or of Preservation Novi they would be happy to answer them without getting into detailed site plan analysis because they are not at that step yet. He was asking for questions on the next step they proposed and then they would like a general consensus of yes or no from Council as to whether they would be willing to take the step after this if the study comes back and says this is a feasible project.


Councilman Toth asked how much money these steps cost.


Councilman Crawford said that would all be determined in the study that is proposed.


Councilman Toth said the first study is free.


Councilman Crawford said that is why he didn't put it on as an action item because it is really not a City Council action item. He said it was a Preservation Novi offer at no expense to us. He said Preservation Novi does not want to take that first step if there is no consensus that Council will proceed further if there are positive results.


Mr. Antosiak said part of the property assessment is a tracing, as far back as we can take it, of ownership and use of that property, documenting the buildings and the condition of the buildings and an estimate of the cost to repair and renovate those buildings. He said they are willing to do that and there is a benefit from that process should the buildings prove not to be able to be renovated. He said they felt based on looking at the buildings in 1993 that they can be renovated and reused.


Councilman Toth said he served on the committee in 1993 and one of the concerns they had was the fact that a structural engineer would be needed to look at those structures and that was rather expensive. He said the other thing was to bring all those structures in compliance with the American Disabilities Act and that would also be another costly effort that the Council would have to look at. He said added to this would be the purchase of the land.


Mayor McLallen asked Councilman Toth if he, personally, would be in favor of granting them the comfort level that there is an interest in the Council of proceeding with this property and not walking away from it.


Councilman Toth said he had a problem with it because he didn't see where that source of funding would come from to move in that direction. He said if it does take some money he didn't know where it would be found.


Councilman Crawford said that was precisely what their study would identify; some of those potential funds and what it would cost. He said all Councilman Toth's concerns were valid and would be addressed by the Preservation Novi Survey.


Mr. Antosiak said they have recently begun a survey of the various foundations that grant to organizations such as Preservation Novi for these purposes. He said they will continue to do that currently with this assessment so that hopefully at the time they get the assessment report they will have an evaluation of what their fund raising efforts could produce.


Councilman Toth said he would be in favor of that.


Councilman Schmid said at the first meeting of the School Board and the Committee, the School wanted to retain the southern portion of the property and that included two of the major barns. He asked if that was still the case.


Mr. Antosiak said that was still their position, however, details of how that may be worked out and when would come at a later date.


Councilman Schmid said assuming that they proceed forward he thought there was an issue of money to purchase the property. He said he knew they were talking about a trade or purchase and they had talked that it could be parkland money. Councilman Pope pointed out that when the millage was passed nothing was in there suggesting that we were going to buy houses and barns. He was not opposed to preservation and was one of the pushers for it but he felt there were some very difficult issues to be settled. He felt first there had to be answers to Council on how they are going to purchase the land and where that money was coming from, etc.


Mayor McLallen said Council has an offer from Preservation Novi to spend their own money to proceed. She said they are looking for support from the Council for at least the concept, so their money will not be ill spent. She said if the property is not purchased and if the barns are leveled at least there will be a document that will state what was there. Mr. Antosiak was hoping that after he did his work there would be some mechanisms that would enable us to go forward. She asked if there was consensus of Council that Council would like to do as much as they can to assess the situation and give them some comfort to go forward.


The consensus of the Council was to have Preservation Novi proceed.





Nick Wagner, Novi Resident, said he was at the meeting with the Council Members and the School District. He said the last meeting centered on how Preservation Novi or the City would actually acquire that property. He said they were basically talking about using a portion of the Parks and Recreation bond money to swap with the School District. He said that was never brought forward when the bond issue was being promoted and sold to the public that a portion of that money would be used to support a project like this. He said all of it revolved around providing parklands for soccer and baseball and possibly land for a City swimming pool. He said it was not about diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars because this land, according to the School District, has a market value of somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000 an acre. He said if you're talking about using that kind of money from the Parks and Recreation Bond he thought it was totally wrong. He said this is basically a private organization and he thought they should get the funding on a private level and not come after the Parks and Recreation money to do it. He said even after the Parks and Recreation Department buys the land they are looking at they are going to have a problem developing it. He said they don't have the money to develop it the way they want to and they are going to come back to the residents and ask for more money. He didn't think the residents were going to be particularly interested to find out that a large portion of the original bond issue was siphoned off for this project.


James Korte, Shawood Lake, spoke regarding Consent Agenda Item #2, Ordinance 95.15.02, refrigerators, furniture, etc. He said this was a Walled Lake Sector Study issue and thanks to Don Saven it has gotten this far. He asked Council to push this along as quickly as possibly because there are six spots at the north end that he would use this ordinance.


Mr. Korte said the ticket he received on City property had to do with a situation that had not been dealt with for 1 1/2 years when he was ticketed the first time. He was at City Hall today and he found that the City had removed the fire lane no parking signs. He said this was unacceptable. He said for 1 1/2 years he had been fighting the issue that we have to get TCO's, signage and the flow of traffic correct on this property. He said it appeared the solution was to remove the signs and that was unacceptable to him. Mr. Korte said any City that has property like this that has absolutely no signage or signage that does not tell you what you are presumed to do is unacceptable. He said he did receive a letter from Douglas Shaeffer stating that the ticket he had received would be dismissed as the last one was.


Mr. Korte said he had argued addresses for the last 10 years. He said the Police Department does not know his address. He said he does not live in the City of Walled Lake and for 25 years he has been a resident of Novi.


Debbie Meyers, 1275 East Lake Dr., wanted to speak regarding Item #4 under Matters for Council Action - Part I regarding a variance to the Massage Parlor Ordinance. She felt that when you do operate a business in Novi you need to follow the ordinance and you do need to comply. She said the White Lake Township has adopted an ordinance because of a Novi resident that has a massage parlor business in White Lake. She said she understood that it was a very good ordinance and she would like Council to look at it. She advised Council to proceed cautiously because if you take away any existing regulations, what happened in Farmington Hills could happen in Novi. She said they had a problem and they had to do months of surveillance before they could get anything done about it and close it down. She said she was not against massage parlors, that it was a very therapeutic thing.


Ms. Meyers said the next item she wanted to comment on was #3 on the Consent Agenda, Ordinance 95-114.06 regarding Fishing Shanties. She said she realized that Council probably felt that their hands were tied on this. She said that the Supreme Court ruled that you can't have laws more restrictive than what the State law is. She asked that Council not completely do away with the ordinance and have no regulations at all regarding this. Ms. Meyers asked that they at least revert back to the previous one the City had which would at least require names and addresses on all four sides no less then two inch letters and daily removal when the ice conditions are unsafe. She stated that she did not have lake frontage but she did have access. She said there are a lot of lake front owners who agree with her and they are not trying to restrict the lake from anyone. She said they are just asking them to use it responsibly and that we don't have to clean up the debris in the spring. She said Walled Lake sends their DPW out in the spring in row boats to remove the debris and they pull it out for their residents. She said she would like to see Novi try to do something similar as the DNR does nothing to help.


Warren Jocz, Ten Mile Road, said he was present to develop his understanding on how City Council goes about making major decisions. He was referring particularly to the proposed action plan to widen Ten Mile Road from Haggerty to Novi Road to five lanes. He said when he first asked this question late last year he was told that the fundamental driving force that chose Ten Mile Road was the Novi Master Plan for land use. He said he had researched that and his follow up question since has been focused on how City Council would address errors or potential errors in the Master Plan which set forth Ten Mile as a proposed widening project. He also wanted to know how Council would address the major conflicts that arise when something like this comes by.


Mr. Jocz felt that one of the major conflicts was safety related. He said according to the documents within the Master Plan there are charts from the Federal Highway Administration that cite that because of the number of driveways and access points onto Ten Mile that currently we can expect an accident every 12 1/2 days. He said taking the date that the City of Novi is using in the Master Plan for the year 2010 in the widening of Ten Mile Road that number will then drop to an accident every 6.4 days. He said since there was never a detailed traffic study done to highlight Ten Mile Road he asked how will the City Council address these major issues. Mr. Jocz said these will not only happen at Ten Mile but the Master Plan calls out Nine Mile, Grand River, Twelve Mile and 14 Mile all slated to be 5 lanes in the near future. He asked what the guiding principle would be to help Council make these decisions and that any comment from Council would be greatly appreciated.


Mayor McLallen said it would be directed to Administration to try and get information back to the Council and to Mr. Jocz.


Councilman Pope asked Mayor McLallen to ask the Administration to outline if the Council had authorized the widening to 5 lanes or if the Council had simply asked for a study with information.


Harry Avagian said he had some dialogue with the City Attorney, David Fried. He also had conversation with a member of the Attorney General's staff and he did know that Council had their hands tied. He wanted the people around the lake who are members of the Lakes Area Residents Association to know that their leadership had been on this topic and he had gotten some calls and had spoken with Mayor McLallen. He recognized this was not a local issue at this point in time. He was encouraged that Mr. Fried indicated that he would take some recommendations or suggestions from L.A.R.A. He said his intention was to ask to form a committee within their association that can work with the City Attorney and come up with some ideas and suggestions concerning the ice shanty issue. He does have a lot of sensitivity about the people who do use the lake and are concerned about nails and wood and other debris that comes ashore during the spring and summer. He felt we had to find a way to regulate what goes on on Shawood Lake and Walled Lake.


Becky Staab, 41887 Cherry Hill, said she was the Co-Chairman of the Fuerst Farm Advisory Committee for the School Board and she said she was very pleased with the action Council took tonight. She said the School Board brought in Michael Kirk and he visited and viewed the buildings. She said his look was a very simple look it was not a detailed look. Ms. Staab also had the occasion to go on the property twice; once with a loss control manager for a major insurance company who also serves as a volunteer fireman in the Holly area. She said he was very positive about the buildings on the farm and he felt it would be a great loss if we let them go. She said the second time she went with Michigan State University representatives who were also very positive about the property.


Ms. Staab said she thought Council would be pleased with what Preservation Novi could do. She said there were many grants available but you can't apply for a grant if you don't have anything to use it for. She said this study would also allow those of us who are interested in preservation and in this particular property to go forward and ask for some grant money. She said the City of Novi didn't have more than 5 Senior Citizens programs when they got a Senior Citizens Coordinator and yet now that program pays for itself. She said they also didn't have a Civic Center Supervisor before they had a Civic Center that needed to be supervised. Ms. Staab said now Cindy Uglow is busier than anybody she knows getting everything arranged and taken care of in this building.


Ms. Staab wished that the people of Novi could understand Iva and Ruby Fuerst. She said these two ladies left over $600,000 to the City of Novi and over $600,000 to the School District. She said our children are going to play on ball parks that are on the property that was originally the Fuerst Farm. She said our children are going to play on those parks not only because the Farm was sold at a lower rate but because $600,000 was left. Ms. Staab said the School District should be coming forward with a scholarship program vested with $600,000 of these women's money. She said unfortunately they were not attorneys; they didn't tie their money up so that it could only be used to preserve their property. They trusted the people of Novi. She said they often walked into Library Board meetings and said "what do you guys need" and then they bought it. Ms. Staab was glad to see this City Council finally saying to Iva and Ruby; thank you very much we'd like to take a look at your property.


Margaret Schmidt, 25377 Wixom Rd., said she had a problem with the issues brought up previously about the fact that we should not use monies from that bond issue. She said she voted for the bond issue for the Parks and Recreation programs and as far as she can tell parks are more than soccer fields. She said parks can also be passive recreation areas and that the money that was voted on was to be used to buy areas for soccer fields but also for land that could be used for parks in general. She felt it would be to our benefit if we could acquire land that already had buildings on it that would be able to be used by the children and families in Novi for park purposes.


She said she could see children sliding down the hills by the Fuerst Farm. She could see festivals, people sitting and reading a book, etc. She said seeing what is happening here in Novi we need to look at park areas not just for the youth but for all ages. She said we would have a strip that would lead from the library where the Novi 4-H Club made the wildlife habitat, straight through the Town Hall Center and then up into the Fuerst Farm. Ms. Schmidt said it would be a wonderful addition to this community.




1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 19th, Special Meeting of January 9th


3. Ordinance 95.114.06 - An Ordinance to delete Article III of Chapter 36 of the Novi Code of Ordinances to remove regulation of Fishing Shanties within the City of Novi. Second Reading

4. Approval to purchase open plan furniture from SCP

Contract in the amount of $4,588.50 (Parks and Recreation)

5. Approval to purchase three vehicles through Oakland County Joint Purchasing in the amount of $35,810.24 (Building Department)


6. Approval to purchase two vehicles through the state of Michigan Joint Purchasing Program in the amount of $34,571.50 (Police)

7. Approval to purchase two vehicles through the Oakland County Purchasing Program in the amount of $29,236.55 (Police)

8. Approval of Agreement for Alternate Street Signs - Mission Pines Subdivision

9. Award Contract for 1994-95 Concrete Paving Improvements

to Flat Rock Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $247,462.56


10. Resolution - Approval of recommendations for 1995 Tri

Party Program


WHEREAS, the City of Novi annually decides how to program Tri-Party Funds, and


WHEREAS, the Director of Public Services has recommended that Tri-Party funding be programmed for the interim improvements to the I-96/Beck/12 Mile Intersection,


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that $6,000 of Tri- Party monies be set aside for the local match to the I-96/Beck/12 Mile Intersection, and that the balance of Tri-Party funds be applied to the City Share of the reconstruction of the Grand River Ave. Bridge over the CSX Railroad Tracks.


11. Approval to purchase replacement chairs from ISCG for the Fire Department in the amount of $3,240.00

12. Approval of Traffic Signal Cost Sharing Agreement - Haggerty at Village Wood Road


Councilman Crawford asked that the minutes of December 19th and Item #3 be removed.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That Consent Agenda Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 and the minutes of January 9th be approved.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried





1. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.531 - Requested by Tri-Mount Homes - I-1 Light Industrial to R-4 One Family Residential - Lanny's Road


Ray Cousineau, representing Tri-Mount, said they went before the Planning Commission with this particular request and did not receive a favorable recommendation from City Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers for the rezoning. He said the Planning Commission chose to recommend in favor of the rezoning supporting their request. He said their request is very simple. He said first of all they are in the process of purchasing Lots 18 and 19. He said Lot 18 is the rezoning request and Lot 19 is another lot they intend to purchase. He said both Lots 19 and 18 are purchases subject to the rezoning of Lot 18. He said Lot 19 is already zoned R-4 and they would probably purchase that regardless of the rezoning outcome this evening. Mr. Cousineau said they need the rezoning on Lot 18 to build two single family homes on these two single family lots probably in the range of about 2,000 to 2,200 sq. ft. He said they have a purchaser for Lot 19 and they anticipate if rezoned that they will have a purchaser for Lot 18 in the immediate future. He said they feel that this proposal is logical for many reasons; specifically that there are several existing single family uses in this immediate area that has already established a land use character. He said there are single family homes on Lots 10 and 9 and Lot 17, even though it is currently zoned I-1, has an existing single family use. He was in contact with the homeowner and they intend to maintain that single family; they may come before Council requesting a rezoning on that lot.


Mr. Cousineau said there are some comments from Brandon Rogers regarding why he did not support this and they are all valid. He said his initial comment was that the zoning did not follow the Master Plan. He said they were aware of that but the Master Plan was a guide and it was meant to be modified in specific cases. He said he believed this was a specific case where the Master Plan could be deviated from without sacrificing any of the qualities or the integrity of the plan.


Mr. Cousineau pointed out the land uses in and around Lot 18 and that immediately west of Lot 18 is an existing R-4 zoning. He said that R-4 zoning butts up to over 90% of the rear property line of Lot 18 giving us further support to request this particular zoning.


Mr. Cousineau distributed a letter from the adjacent property owner, Richard Brown, who was in favor of the rezoning.


Mayor McLallen read the letter from Richard Brown, 26105 Lanny's Road: "The purpose of this letter is to express support for the rezoning of the lot adjacent to and south of my home. I feel as well as other members of the neighborhood that the current Industrial Zoning of this lot as well as other undeveloped Industrial Lots along Lanny's is inappropriate. The neighborhood is predominately residential and we feel that future development should be residential. Furthermore, individual lots are simply to small for use in Industrial development. Thank you for taking time to review my letter."


Mr. Cousineau said they have researched the building and use restrictions within Mary's Orchard Subdivision. He said those building and use restrictions prohibit the construction of anything other than single family homes within the subdivision. He said they realized that was a private matter relative to the owners with lots within the subdivision but it is something that would have to be addressed if the lots were used for something other than residential purposes.


Mr. Cousineau said these lots are 100 by 200 feet dimensionally. He said Lot 18 if it remains I-1 and is developed I-1 a setback from an I-1 building located on Lot 18 is required to be 5 ft. horizontal for every 1 ft. in building height of the proposed I-1 building. He said if you have a 15 ft. high building the side yard setback would have to be 70 ft. He said on a 100 ft. lot by the time you add the 70 ft. side yard setback on the residential side, 20 ft. on the other side you would end up

with a 5 ft. wide building. He said it just doesn't fit and that these pieces of property would have to be parcelled together to make use under the I-1 zoning.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant, stated that Mr. Cousineau fairly spoke for both sides and his letter spoke for itself. He said this matter back in 1990-91 was visited internally in the department. He said he brought up these issues where there was an apparent conflict between the Master Plan which takes the Industrial future Land Use recommendation south to the rear of the lots that front on 11 Mile Road. He said this was discussed during the formulation of the 1993 Master Plan and it was the pleasure of the then Commission to leave the Master Plan line where it is on his inset map at the rear of the homes on 11 Mile and to maintain the zoning boundary northerly thereof leaving four lots, 19, 20, 9 and 10 as residentially zoned even though they were knowingly Master Planned for Industrial future land use.


Mr. Rogers said it was a mixed bag on this street. He said there are three industries occupying three lots on either side of Lanny's Road south of Grand River. He said across Grand River is where the DelWal project is going on. Mr. Rogers said there is some Industrial development east of this site along Clark Street; he said Program Products would like to add a 40,000 sq. ft. addition having bought that property and that is currently under site plan review.


He said Lot 18 backs up to the Thornton House property which is before Council tonight for a triple lot split. He said the property where the R-4 abuts the Lot 18 is vacant and the Thornton house is further to the west.


Councilman Schmid asked if the proposed Industrial zoning was south of Lot 18 and what the big line was.


Mr. Rogers said the small dotted line is presently the boundary between I-1 to the north and R-4 to the south. Mr. Rogers said the big line is the Master Plan Boundary. Three of the four Lots 19, 20 9 and 10, are now developed into nice single family homes and Lanny's Road was recently paved.


Councilman Schmid asked what he was proposing.


Mr. Rogers said he recommended that Lot 18 stay I-1 District. He said to the north of it on Lot 17 is a non-conforming home and on Lot 16 is a fairly new Industrial building, EDM Specialities and north of that is the Suburban Rent It Company with outside storage.


Councilman Schmid said all the land to the north of the dotted line is Industrial except for Lot 17.


Mr. Rogers said on either side of Lanny's Road is either vacant or used commercially or industrially except Lot 17.


Mr. Rogers said the lot across from Lanny's Road Lot 17, Lot 12, is used for the parking of equipment and vehicles of Engine Supply Company.


Councilwoman Mason asked if this property was all Mary's Orchard Subdivision in the beginning.


Mr. Rogers said that was correct.


Councilwoman Mason asked when it was Master Planned Light Industrial.


Mr. Rogers said he thought it was in 1980 and that it was in the 1988 Master Plan that he worked on and it was carried forward in tact in the 1993 Master Plan.


Councilwoman Mason said someone took Residential and zoned it Light Industrial. She said it was a cut through street from 11 Mile to Grand River. She said it now has Residential on it and the homes that are on 11 Mile are all Residential and everything had changed since it had been paved. She said mostly the subdivisions use it as a cut through to go to Grand River.


Councilwoman Mason thought the rezoning should be done because they took Mary's Orchard Subdivision and rezoned it Light Industrial on top of the Residential. She said now there is more Residential on Lanny's Road then Light Industrial.


Councilman Mitzel agreed with the concept of Lanny's right around the border. He said the border is very gray between Residential and Industrial. He said he had driven it for many years and as Councilwoman Mason said it is a connection from Grand River to Cedar Springs. Councilman Mitzel's concern was if Lot 18 is rezoned, which could go either way based on the boundaries, and Lot 17 comes in for rezoning what merits would that have to be weighed against then. His concern was future conflicts between houses that would be built on the street and Industrial that would be built on the street. He was not sure how the setbacks work if it is across a public right of way. He asked Mr. Rogers to relate to the factors that play in this situation.


Mr. Rogers said as you move up Lanny's Road to Grand River you are intruding into an Industrial District; you will then have I-1 Districting on the east and on the west. He too, was concerned about the livability of those lots. Mr. Rogers said the setbacks were recorded correctly where you have I-1 adjacent to Residential.

He said there is a green space setback and also a 5 on 1 building height side yard distance setback. He said these lots would be difficult to develop Industrially in the 100 ft. configuration. Mr. Rogers said a 100 ft. lot in the middle of Vincenti Ct., which does not have to provide the buffering, need only have 20 ft. building setbacks and 10 ft. green space setbacks. He said you could do something on a 100 ft. lot but where they are immediately adjacent to Residential, it makes it difficult. He said only through consolidation possibly with Lot 17 could a lot be assembled. He said Lots 17 and 18 could be a development site but if the resident on Lot 17 desires to stay it could be a long time before you could assemble a parcel. He said he had given this a lot of thought and discussed it with other people, Mr. Arroyo and the staff, and came to this conclusion. He said Council had read the Commission's notes and they had deliberated in great length on it and voted 8 to 1 to recommend rezoning and he did want to report that.


Mayor McLallen asked if the house on Lot 17 remains a home for 10 to 20 years and we leave Lot 18 as an Industrial site, does that effectively render Lot 18 unbuildable for that time.


Mr. Rogers said Council would likely be looking at a variance or two to develop a Light Industrial or an Office Use which could go into I-1. He said the house on Lot 17 is a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Rogers said it would be very difficult to meet all the I-1 Ordinance requirements on merely Lot 18. He said when a young developer came in on Lot 11 he had one side yard variance on the south side of Lot 11 but he never proceeded because it was not a big enough building for him to make it work. He said he couldn't say it was rendering it unusable because he might prove a hardship if he went to the ZBA by saying he couldn't buy Lot 17 or Lot 19.

He said a developer might have space for a business office; it did not have to be a manufacturing plant.


Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Cousineau if he already owned Lot 19.


Mr. Cousineau said he had an option to purchase both Lot 18 and 19.


Councilman Schmid said if he buys them and is granted rezoning then that would be 200 ft. He asked how many houses he planned to put in there.


Mr. Cousineau said two homes; one on each lot.


Councilman Schmid said he was asking for R-4 which is 80 ft. lots.


Councilman Schmid said he was going to recommend strongly that Council reject the rezoning. He said this is and has been Master Planned for a number of years and it seemed to him no matter which way Council goes we are not going to create a very good planned area. He said with the commercial on the east side of the road and to the north and Lot 17 and Lot 18 residential and Mr. Rogers saying it would be difficult to build commercial on Lot 18 because of setbacks, he felt that it was not a very good alternative to leave it Residential either. He said he was disappointed the Planning Commission recommended it. He said he was leaning towards not allowing rezoning because the only way to develop the City is to have Ordinances and Master Plans and stick with them. He said that was his usual intent but he was willing to listen to other comments.


Councilwoman Mason wanted to tell Councilman Schmid again that when Mary's Orchard Subdivision was around it was residential and then someone decided to change the Master Plan and make it all Industrial. She said this was a subdivision and all the houses on 11 Mile are part of Mary's Orchard Subdivision. She said it was originally residential, it was Mary's Orchard Sub and was not Industrial.


Councilman Crawford asked what was on Lot 12.


Mr. Rogers said it was a parking lot and outdoor storage for Engine Supply.


Councilman Crawford said Lot 12, 13 and 14 are all under one owner and Lot 11 is zoned and Master Planned Industrial and is another 100 ft. by 200 ft. lot.


Mr. Rogers said that is correct and Lot 11 is vacant.


Councilman Crawford said it was a very difficult situation that is created by the uses there and probably some prior planning and prior lack of planning. He said based on the comments of the petitioner and the Planning Commission recommendation he would make the following motion.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth


Resolved that Proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.531

be adopted.





Councilman Schmid said if there was not a stronger reason to change the zoning then he would not support the motion and will stick with the Master Plan.


Councilman Crawford thought the petitioner's comments were strong reason to rezone and the fact that you would almost create a spot Industrial Use between and surrounded by Residential uses.

He felt this was a strong reason to rezone and said there is Residential use to the north, and there would be one to the south and there is one to the west. He said in effect if Council did nothing there would be created a spot use and it is not zoning. He felt in order to partially clean up this mess and get it zoned as it is used, he thought it was a strong case for rezoning Lot 18.


Councilman Toth thought Lot 18 was a Residential lot that is existing within a group of homes. He couldn't foresee Council saying to a developer, in the future, put a factory in there. He said he would much prefer to have a home in there.


Councilman Toth's second concern was Lanny's Road. He said it was not built for Industrial and businesses that are currently on there, with the exception of one, basically use Grand River. He said if we add a couple more Industrial uses, Lanny's Road will fall apart rather quickly.


Councilman Toth thought that Lot 18 should be rezoned to R-4 and also sent it back to the Planning Commission asking that they strongly consider rezoning Lot 12 to Residential. He felt Council should try to hold the residential down in that area and leave the Industrial up on Grand River.


Councilman Mitzel said that he would oppose the motion because he concurred with Councilman Schmid.


Councilman Schmid said his problem with this was it is going to either be Commercial or Residential. He said if we allowed this house to go now it will be a mix that will never be resolved. He said it would be Commercial and Residential mixed in together and we would be creating a very bad situation.


Councilwoman Mason reminded Councilman Schmid again that this used to be Mary's Orchard Subdivision before anyone thought of Master Planning that whole section into Light Industrial and giving those poor homeowners on Lot 17 a legal non-conforming. She said once they were living there and everything was fine cause it was Mary's Orchard Sub; then you get people who want to control other people who come in and rezone the City. She said she does not believe in City rezoning unless people want it. She said at this point there is a house on Lots 17, 19, 20, 10, 9 and all the way up 11 Mile on Lots 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1; that is all a subdivision that was conforming until someone did a Master Plan and decided that someone they knew needed those lots at the top of Grand River.


Yes (3-Mason, No (4-Mitzel, Pope, Motion defeated

Crawford, Toth) McLallen, Schmid)

Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried if there was a problem with down sizing zoning and you can put a residential house on an I-1.


Mr. Fried said that could not be done because it was contrary to the Zoning Ordinance.


Councilman Pope said that, overall he voted against this, but he thought the whole section needed to be looked at and he would encourage the Planning Commission to do that.


2. Final Plat Approval - Autumn Park Subdivision No. 1 - Subdivision in Section 28 and the south side of 10 Mile east of Beck Road, consisting of 56 lots.


Richard Ives, representing Trinity/Bosco the owners of the subdivision, stated that this was Phase I and they would be shortly submitting Phase II which was approximately another 40 Lots. He said both had been constructed and they were waiting on Phase II for some final signatures on out of state owners of the property on a proprietary sheet. He said he and Mr. Bosco would be happy to answer any questions.


Mr. Rogers said this was not really Phase I; it was Plat #I and he had been advised that it is not connected with the Flood Plain. He said Plat #2 is and when that comes in there will be examination of any impacts on that issue. He said Council had letters from JCK, David Bluhm on what Plat #1 actually encumpasses.


Mr. Rogers stated that his letter reported there were 53 lots and said this was a typo, that there are 56 lots. He said all 56 do conform to the Final Preliminary Plat that was approved by Council. He said Plat #2 has already received Final Preliminary Plat approval but they have only brought Plat #1 before Council tonight.

Mr. Rogers recommended approval.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth


That Final Plat for Autumn Park Subdivision No. 1 be approved subject to all consultant review letters.





Councilman Mitzel said along Sunnybrook Lake at Beck Road they are building entrance signs and brick structures within the right of way of either Beck Road or Sunnybrook Lane. He asked when are they supposed to come for licensing agreements to build those structures in the right of way.


Mr. Fried said they would have to come in and get a permit and license from the City to do that.


Councilman Mitzel told Mr. Kriewall this had been under construction for at least a month and he was concerned that no one in Administration questioned it.


Mr. Ives said they had a meeting with several individuals in the Planning Department. He said the landscape plan was approved separately and later we added the detail with the walls and actually this had been under construction for about 4 months. He said if there is a permit required he was not aware of it and will take care of that within a day. He said both entrances were revised, particularly on Nine Mile Road, because they had to relocate a high pressure gas main.


Councilman Mitzel suggested that Administration resolve this issue and also that this not be allowed to happen again. He said some how we have to catch these things.


Yes (6-McLallen, Mason, No (1-Pope) Motion carried

Crawford, Schmid

Mitzel, Toth)


3. Appeal from Assessor's decision - Request for Property Split - William Garfield - Eleven Mile Road - Section 15


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Toth


That the appeal from the Assessor's decision regarding a request for a Property Split for William Garfield, Eleven Mile Road in Section 15 be denied.





Councilman Mason wanted everyone to be aware that she had had Mr. Garfield's property listed for approximately 2 months about a year ago and then she gave him back his listing.


Councilman Mitzel felt that out of courtesy he thought that Council should hear the presentation.


Councilwoman Mason said that Council saw a presentation at the time Mr. Garfield got the split for two pieces showing that there was going to be another historic home on the second piece. She said so far nothing has happened with the first home and now we are looking at a split for 3 and that is not what was approved.


Councilmen Pope and Schmid thought it was proper that Mr. Garfield be allowed to present.


Mr. Fried said to grant this split would be contrary to the lot split that Council granted the first time it was before them. He said they would be going against their own lot split if they granted this.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried



4. Request for Variances to Massage Parlor Ordinance - Salon Nadwa


Mayor McLallen stated this was a new business in the Town Center area. She said this petitioner was before Council some time ago and brought a number of issues to light and Council advised them to meet with the City Attorney. She said the City Attorney had advised that under City Code Council can grant a variance to this specific use and specific location. Mayor McLallen invited the petitioner to present their case.


Eric Paul Breda introduced himself and his wife Nawda. He stated that they were asking for variances regarding Chapter 20 of the Ordinance:


1. A variance from windows 6.5 x 6.5 inches, centered, 4 to 5.5 ft. high on massage room doors.


2. A variance from Section 20-10G restricting use of privacy locks on massage room doors.


3. A variance from Section 20-10A limiting massages to same sex gender.


4. A variance to Section 20-52.9 and 20-53; there is no mention of a mandatory American Massage Association Certification.


5. A variance from Section 20-4, Subsection C, Employee lockers and private dressing rooms


Mr. Breda said regarding Section 3A, we do have lockers and private dressing rooms for clients. He said he was under the impression that this may be a typo to request employee dressing room and lockers. He said it would be unnecessary for any employee to undress or change clothes during the course of work at a day spa.


Mr. Fried said the Council had the authority under the code to grant variances if they make the findings as required in the ordinances as set out in his letter. He said Council should make those findings if they are going to grant the variances. He said the applicant should explain to Council why he needs and desires those variances and how it will affect his business so that Council can apply this factual matter to the criteria necessary for the Council to find in order to grant these variances.


Mayor McLallen advised Council that in their packets there was a very thorough presentation by the petitioner as well as the three criteria laid out by the attorney.


Councilwoman Mason questioned the attire of the employees.


Mr. Breda said they dress like a nurse with the appropriate lab coats, all in white. He said that is how they come to work, that is how they perform their work tasks and that is how they leave.


Councilwoman Mason asked if they wear those clothes in their car and then they come in and work on clients.


Mrs. Breda said not their lab coat; they put on their lab coat when they come in to work.


Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried if Council was assuming in the ordinance that it should be more sanitary than that or that it would be a certain uniform if you are going to work on someone's body.


Mr. Fried said that is the purpose of that section.


Mr. Breda said there is running water for washing their hands or any part of their body. He said they had washing facilities, sinks, hot water, soaps, towels in the two individual massage rooms in question. He said pursuant to other fields that are reasonable, the nursing or medical industry, a nurse would come to work in a doctors office at a strip mall and dress in her uniform, wear her coat to and from work and put on her lab coat at work. He said it is sanitary and they do consider sanitary conditions important.


Councilwoman Mason asked what difference would it make if there was no lock on the door.


Mr. Breda said it would be a violation to their right to privacy and no client or perspective client, of the caliber that they attract, would solicit their services under those circumstances. He said he could not see any male or especially female subjecting themselves to a massage under those conditions where an Ordinance Officer could walk in without locks on the door and come in anytime at their discretion.


Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried if the fire laws precluded any locks.


Mr. Fried said there was a letter in the packet from the Fire Department in regard to that particular question. He said we don't believe that you can't have locks on the doors. He said it was the outside doors that are significant in regard to locks. He said he thought the ordinance was drawn properly in the first place. Mr. Fried said if the applicant can show Council that in his particular situation, locks are required and Council believes it is necessary then Council can grant that variance.


Mr. Breda said he would submit that the request for privacy locks, one sided locks, on a door would be reasonable. He said the exact same locks that you would encounter in any place of business for instance on a restroom. He said these type of locks would be allowed on a restroom and would not violate the Fire Code and would not endanger the public health or safety in anyway.


Councilman Crawford said there was a letter on the table from the Chief of Police and even though it is within Council's power to grant variances in this particular ordinance his recommendation is because of the nature of this ordinance and the nature of this business Council be consistent and not grant variances on a case by case basis. He said even though this is a very reputable establishment and will probably do everything they say they will do, our ordinance is drawn to prohibit other activities from taking place. He said his recommendation to Council would be not to grant the variances but perhaps a review of this ordinance if a change is needed, by the Ordinance Review Committee. He suggested to take into consideration some of the requests the petitioner had made along with concerns of the Police Department and see if some modifications to the ordinance could be made which would help this situation.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason


That the variances to the massage parlor ordinance be denied and that this Ordinance be sent to the Ordinance Review Committee.


Councilman Schmid said in general he agreed with Councilman Crawford. He said he would be willing to look at some changes in the ordinance if it made sense. He said as the ordinance is written now he would not be in favor of making variances.


Councilman Mitzel said that he would support the motion and stated that he appreciated the letter from the Police Chief and pointed out that this was Item #2 on the Agenda for the Ordinance Review Committee meeting January 24th.


Councilman Pope said that Mr. & Mrs. Breda have a wonderful facility which he had the opportunity to see. He said that his comment is not directed at all to their establishment. Councilman Pope said he would be quite concerned about making changes in the Ordinance. He said one only has to look at what our aging communities of Ferndale, Royal Oak and others are going through. He said this is a family town and he would be very concerned about broadening or making it easier, making it more difficult to enforce the laws that are important. Councilman Pope stated again that this is no reference to the business that they provide. He said the Bredas are wonderful people, they have made a huge investment in this town and he knew they would be successful. He said he thought they could be successful even within the constraints of the ordinance.


Councilman Crawford asked if the Bredas would be invited to the Ordinance Review Committee meeting January 24th at 4:30 PM in Council Chambers. He said he hoped that their input would be considered when the ordinance was discussed.


Mayor McLallen said prior to the discussion, she was willing to grant the variances. She said she had some concerns about the necessity of the locking door. She thought a closed door would be quite adequate without the window and was not convinced of any necessity for a lock. She felt that the current ordinance was somewhat antiquated and she felt that the petitioner made a strong case for verbiage of a spa vs a massage parlor. She said they are two different creatures. She said, as Councilman Pope said, the facility is quite lovely and would indicate that they are seeking an entirely different type of operation. She said this is Council's difficulty fitting square pegs into round holes. She said the ordinance, as it stands, does not permit you to do a large portion of what you perceive as your business in this community.


She said she felt that granting the variance with the caveat that if there were no problems you could continue but if there were any problems you would be immediately shut down.


Yes (6-Mason, Schmid No (1-McLallen) Motion carried

Pope, Toth, Mitzel,




Mr. Breda said the statement Councilman Pope made as to the equitability of this ordinance; the policing powers that he had mentioned according to the police letter stated he asked Mr. Fried if this would fall under the policing powers of the 10th and 14th Amendment.


Mr. Fried said that everything falls within the United States Constitution.


Mr. Breda asked if this was the basis that the City of Novi Police Department was using to deny his request for variance.


Mr. Fried said no that they are using the State Police Powers.


Mr. Breda said according to Black's Law Dictionary defining policing powers "the power of the State place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of public safety, health and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police power is subject to limitations of the Federal and State Constitutions and especially the requirement of due process." He said it says it three times in the definition of policing powers and he most respectfully submitting to the City Council that this decision of the Novi Police Department falls well outside their policing powers and would be in fact police policy. He most respectfully submitted, pursuant to Councilman Pope's comment, this is not a matter of equity it is a matter of law and the law before us is our right to work in the profession and place of our choosing and contract our services freely as we see fit. He said this is such a basic and the Supreme Court has upheld First Amendment life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness right that it shouldn't even be fooled with. He said that he petitioned the ladies and gentlemen of this Council that that is exactly what is happening. He said this is not a question of equity, it is a question of law, due process and the free exercise thereof. He said he most respectfully objects to Council's decision to deny both his employees and our business the right to work and contract our services freely pursuant to Title 42 and Title 18 of the United States Code.





Carl Miller, speaking for the Bredas, said what has been done with this area is magnificent and he knew the Council wished to maintain the beauty of the community and enhance it in every capacity.


Mr. Miller said the Bredas have invested a tremendous amount of money and capital and put their necks on the line to set up a program and run a first class health spa operation. He said unfortunately because of past histories as stated regarding Ferndale, Royal Oak and these other areas, they have to deal with the tainted operations of other facilities. He said he appreciated the concern of the community that something of that nature could happen here. Mr. Miller said he wished that Council understood that when someone sets up something like this they try to do the very best that they can do to put on a first class establishment. He said when you get a young lady, especially with the situations in our society today where we have the crime element we have, people are scared and they want security. Mr. Miller said in Ann Arbor and other places the ladies travel in teams of 5 and 6 because they are nervous about some of the types of people that are in our society. He said these people cannot be blamed for wanting security and intelligence. He said, he could not picture any lady going into a room and disrobing and not wanting at least a lock on the door or some type of security procedure that would protect her right not to have someone barge in on her. He said nor would he expect her to have some window open that some one could peek in on her while she was receiving these type of services. He said he knew, as an employer, that when a standard is set up, the State and/or Federal Government also holds the employer to stringent standards on discrimination between male and female employees.


Mr. Miller said for the Nadwa Salon to set up a standard where there are only female employees doing the massage; or only male employees doing the massage could cause problems. He said they could run into all kinds of litigation problems and if someone complained, the employer could be in a major Title 42 lawsuit because they are discriminating against the client because he is male or female. He said Mr. and Mrs. Breda realize that they are breaking new ground with the City of Novi and that they are taking risks to set up their Salon. He said they are trying to do this in a professional manner and they are bending over backwards to bridge the gaps between the differences and work with Council to do this beautiful project. He said they are trying to work this out so that it is feasible to do and the only way they can reasonably do that is to deal with what is practical, what is in the industry standards today. Mr. Miller said other communities such as Bloomfield or Southfield set up certain standards for their clientele who require standards of professional operation.





5. Ordinance 95-45.19 - Revise Street Tree Requirements - II Reading


Mayor McLallen said Mr. Pargoff was present and that the last time he was before Council the major issue appeared to be the planting of street trees and who would have jurisdiction and what exactly that jurisdiction was going to include.


Mr. Pargoff, City Forester, said they have made a typographical error in their January 19th memo to Council. He asked the Council to indulge him and allow him to read the first paragraph.


"The Ordinance that is before you tonight contains a developer planting option. This office supports the first draft that was presented to Council on January 9, 1995. The January 9, 1995 Ordinance does not contain a developer option which best represents the trend in urban forestry and seeks to provide the future residents of Novi with quality street tree plantings. As you are aware, the developer option is based solely on market considerations which is not ( the previous word "not" is the typographical error as it was not in the memo) always in the best interest of the individual homeowner or the entire street tree population."


Mr. Pargoff said basically their thrust is that they would like to retain the control over the street tree planting in order to avoid micro concentrations in a single development. He said they have a city wide perspective and that is the correct perspective for the planting of street trees. Also there were some questions about the efficiency of their program. He said in his opinion he felt that they were better able to receive the most competitive bids since many times they have received 15 to 20 bids on individual plantings. He said most developers will possibly seek out three.


Mr. Pargoff said they have also had several difficulties. He said the most concerning to him was the one that is addressed in Warrington Manor where through the contractual agreement between the homeowner and the developer, the developer has made the homeowner, responsible for the planting. He said we hold the developers money but the developer is not returning the homeowners money when we return the bond to him.


Mr. Pargoff said another is the Woods of Novi and Timber Ridge where trees were planted before sidewalks were in and then the trees were destroyed during the building process and the final grading process.


Mr. Pargoff said these are a few of the things that have inspired him to ask for the control over the planting of the trees.


Mayor McLallen wanted Council to note that she received a letter from the Village Oaks Commons Areas Association signed by the Chairman of their Board of Directors and they are in support. She read "We feel it would be in Novi's best interest to place the responsibility for the street tree plantings solely in the hands of the City Forester and not as an option to the developer and we urge you to vote accordingly."


Councilwoman Mason asked if they were planting trees in Village Oaks.


Mr. Pargoff said they had planted trees in Village Oaks through a grant that was received because the trees that had been planted were a species that was restricted. These trees were Pin Oaks and they were restricted because of the soil chemistry within the City.


Councilwoman Mason asked who is suppose to watch the quality of the initial planting.


Mr. Pargoff said that his department does.


Councilwoman Mason asked who is supposed to watch that they don't plant in the fall.


Mr. Pargoff said his department has planted in the fall themselves and they have not been satisfied with that.


Councilwoman Mason asked who is supposed to watch that the developer doesn't transfer the responsibility to the homeowner.


Mr. Pargoff said he didn't think they could watch that because its a contract between the developer and the homeowner.


Councilwoman Mason asked who was supposed to watch to make sure that before he gets his bond back, he did the right thing.


Mr. Pargoff said he has been doing that but the burden has been placed on the homeowner and he didn't feel that was fair because of the contract between the developer and the homeowner. He said they could not get involved in that contract.


Councilwoman Mason said the developer has a bond and a contract with us.


Mr. Pargoff said that was correct; we are holding his bond.


Councilwoman Mason asked who goes around and makes sure he does the right thing?


Mr. Pargoff said the developer doesn't do it the homeowner does it and he didn't feel that responsibility should be passed onto the homeowner.


Councilwoman Mason also asked who was supposed to be watching that trees aren't planted before final grade.


Mr. Pargoff said they have made sure that the developer is doing his part. Mr. Pargoff said he didn't know if he had the authority to tell them they can't plant the trees because the developer has chosen that option.


Councilwoman Mason asked if all these things happened when the developer did not have an option.


Mr. Pargoff said they happened under the developer's option.


Councilwoman Mason said we have a department that is supposed to watch this so apparently it wasn't watched. She said, in her opinion, it didn't matter if the developer had an option or not. She said these things happened, no one checked it and so maybe we need a bigger Forestry Department.


Mr. Pargoff said he has told them to remove the trees in The Vistas and the developer said this is a marketing situation and that they don't have to remove the trees since it is their property.


Councilwoman Mason said so the City doesn't have to give the bond back. Mr. Pargoff said that was correct.


Councilwoman Mason said, in her opinion, there should be a developer option. She said you have to say that people will do the right thing and if not we have a Forestry Department and things are happening, even things that we are supposed to be checking that aren't happening and our hold is the bond.


Councilman Mitzel said he wanted to follow up a point that was discussed with Mr. Fried. He asked if a developer plants trees that are not within the specifications of the plans and refuses to remove them, would that be grounds to refuse to accept the roads as public right of way.


Mr. Fried said the City has the option to accept roads and can put almost any condition on the acceptance of roads. He said normally that wouldn't be the basis on which not to accept a road. He said if he plants his trees and they aren't in accordance with the tree plan then obviously we can use the bond to correct that.


Councilman Mitzel said on the first page of the January 19th memo Mr. Pargoff gave examples of developer planted subdivisions. He asked if Briarwood of Novi was the single family subdivision part or the condo part.


Mr. Pargoff said that was strictly the single family. He said the first two were planted before we were here but we are paying the price in the process.


Councilman Mitzel asked about the correspondence dated January 17th, which was titled "Reasons for City to Administer Planting Program"; on the second page third paragraph you put in writing that there are unsafe trees in Meadowbrook Glens. He pointed out that Mr. Pargoff said that 15 to 20% of the trees in Meadowbrook Glens are unsafe silver maples.



Councilman Mitzel said he had a couple of concerns with this; one was that it is now in writing that the trees are unsafe and now as a Council Member he would like to be assured that the City Administration had a plan to address the situation, remedy the problem, set a time frame for doing such and report back to Council when it has been corrected. Councilman Mitzel said it disturbed him to see a situation where the Administration had identified there is something that is unsafe and he didn't want it to fall through the cracks.


Mr. Pargoff said he has asked in every one of the budgets for a tree trimming budget and has not received it as yet.


Councilman Mitzel referred to the part of the ordinance concerning developer planning at the last meeting he made comments that we should consider leaving it in there. He said he wasn't convinced at that time but Mr. Pargoff has done a good job documenting reasons why that method is not working and why it would be more troublesome in the long run. He said at this point he would not push to keep that in.


Councilman Crawford asked Mr. Pargoff what had to be done with the Ordinance to do what Mr. Pargoff wanted to accomplish?


Mr. Pargoff said Page 5 all of Paragraph D should be deleted and the words in E "the option of having" should be deleted.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth







Mayor McLallen said she was not in support of the ordinance and that she was in support of the one that was on the table tonight because she thought many of Mr. Pargoff's issues are more administrative by his department on the quality and variety of planting trees. She believed he firmly has that power and discretion and that having the developers keep the option of planting their own trees does not usurp that power from Mr. Pargoff.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Crawford - Yes Mason - No

Mitzel - Yes Pope - No

Schmid - Yes McLallen - No

Toth - Yes


Yes (4) No (3) Motion carried



5A. Resolution - Fees for plan review and financial guarantees - Landscaping and trees - Subdivision Ordinance


This will be on the next agenda.


6. Discussion - Iva Street Barricade/Street Vacation Issue - Requested by Councilman Mitzel


Councilman Mitzel passed a photograph of the area to Council Members. He stated many people have come to the Council meetings because of the appearance of the area, the barricade, the cars that are parked there, etc. He said at the time the pictures were taken, 5 PM January 19th, there was only one car parked there but typically there is more than one. He said he had been trying to find a way to bring this back to Council to discuss what we should do with the area and try to resolve that situation. Councilman Mitzel said when he saw on the Planning Commission Agenda that the Vet Clinic was going to expand and clean up some of the area all the way to Iva Street he thought it was an appropriate time to discuss the future of this area. He said he thought a good solution would be if we are not going to use the road to vacate it and allow that to be re-established in that area.


Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Kriewall if there were plans by the Clinic to vacate part of it because the Clinic is going to expand and what does that have to do with this.


Mr. Kriewall said he thought that they could expand without vacating it.


Councilwoman Mason asked if the parking lot was coming in front of it on Novi Road.


Mr. Kriewall said not that he knew of.


Councilman Mitzel said he was at the Planning Commission meeting when they were discussing this. He said they were not planning on intruding within the Iva Street right of way at all. He said they were discussing landscaping, sidewalk, vehicle access and parking all around the site and would probably include in front of the building on Novi Road also. He said that issue was thoroughly discussed at the Planning Commission meeting January 18th.


Councilwoman Mason said she was against this because of all the reasons of last time. She said the problem with this street is it full of cars constantly; at the barrier and either side. She said her fear was that if it is vacated and the street is given to each side that it is going to end up being a parking lot like it is now. She said now they can be ticketed but if it is vacated there would be no ticketing and it would be like that all the time and will look as bad as it ever did.


Councilman Schmid asked who parked there and if it was private would it control the parking.


Councilwoman Mason said the tenants from all the houses that were single family and are now tenements. She said it would be divided between the property owners on either side so then it would no longer be illegal to park there. She said fire safety came down to because the two houses at the top couldn't be reached the way the cars were parked in there.


Councilman Schmid thought Council needed more input. He felt that if the road was left it should be permanently closed and better landscaped then it is today.


Councilman Crawford said if it is not going to be vacated then it ought to be made aesthetically pleasing and if it is vacated it may not be aesthetically pleasing but wouldn't they have every right to park their vehicles there. He stated that Council may not like the way it looks but they would have a right to park there.


Councilwoman Mason said the problem was getting a Fire Truck or Ambulance up there.


Councilman Crawford said if that was the case then Council needed to know more about that.


Mr. Kriewall said the Administration recommended the vacation of Iva Street a long time ago and it was proposed by the then property owner that he would build an attractive berm and make this area look attractive. He said Council decided not to vacate the property and the property owner said he would not build the berm. He said that is where the stalemate is. Mr. Kriewall said it was always their recommendation to vacate this roadway. He said the property owner on each side controlled the area anyway; they were his tenants parking there and Administration saw no reason not to vacate this road.


Councilman Crawford asked if it was vacated was there an emergency vehicle access problem if that whole road was blocked.


Mr. Kriewall said he understood that the house and the building would come down now for the Veterinary Clinic.


Mayor McLallen said because there seemed to be a lot of issues would Council could list the questions and have the Administration answer them and bring them back. She said that Mr. Korte indicated that he also had quite a bit of information to give Council also.


Councilman Crawford thought Council needed drawings also.


Mayor McLallen asked if Council would direct Administration to bring a complete package of information particularly in conjunction with members of that street area and their concerns, fire and police concerns and options of what would happen to the property and the current development plans in that area.


Councilman Mitzel said the Zoning Ordinance prohibits parking in front yards and that may relieve some of the concerns.


Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Kriewall if Council could have this for one of the two February meetings.


Mr. Kriewall said it would be ready on February 6th.


Councilman Crawford said at that point Council's course of action would be to make a decision to vacate or not to vacate. He said if we do not vacate it and keep it closed then he felt it was the City's responsibility to make it aesthetically pleasing. He asked if it is vacated then is it up to the property owners make it aesthetically pleasing.


Mr. Kriewall said it was his understanding that the property owner was going to build an attractive berm across there.


Mayor McLallen said the Council was in consensus to send this to the Administration for a full hearing of all the issues in February.


7. Ordinance 95-45-20 - Amend Subdivision Ordinance to amend the procedure for permitting front yard utilities. Second Reading

It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth





ROLL CALL: Council Members Mason (Yes), Mitzel (Yes), Pope (No), Schmid (No), Toth (Yes), McLallen (Yes), Crawford (Yes)


Yes (5) No (2) Motion carried


8. Appointment of one Council Member to Consultant Review Committee


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the Mayor be appointed to the Consultant Review Committee.





Councilman Mitzel said he would oppose this because he did not believe that the way the committee was set up was appropriate. He said we are not only doing consultants but also service review on the list that is here. He said he did not feel comfortable with the whole process of consultant review and City management review with the sub-committee and he would not support the motion.


Councilman Crawford said the motion only addresses who is on the committee not the format of the committee. He thought that once some Council rules were decided on, it would help address some of Councilman Mitzel's concerns.


Yes (6-McLallen, No (1-Mitzel) Motion carried

Pope, Toth,

Crawford, Schmid,



9. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 429


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Pope


That Warrant No. 429 be approved.


Yes (6-McLallen, No (1-Toth) Motion carried

Pope, Mason,

Mitzel, Crawford,



10. Appointment of Council Liaison to Chamber of Commerce Board


Mayor McLallen said they are asking for a member of Council to attend their Board of Directors meetings. She said they have 12 meetings, once a month at 6 PM. She asked Council Members if they had a favorite hotel, time or date to volunteer.


Councilwoman Mason said that she would not participate because she goes to a lot of meetings and works a lot of nights and she thought that when someone invited you to participate in their Chamber they should provide the dinner.


Councilman Pope said he would volunteer for March or September or any other date that would be appropriate. He requested that Gerry Stipp remind the Council of the meetings as the agendas from the Chamber usually come the day before.


Councilman Crawford asked that these dates be included on the Council Agendas so that any member who is free and would like to stop in could go as well as the assigned people.


The following is a list of the 1995 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SCHEDULE; all meetings are on Tuesday at 6:00 PM





Jan. 31 Wyndham Hotel


Feb. 28 Toth Mountain Jacks


Mar. 28 Pope Holiday Inn-Farmington Hills


Apr. 25 Mitzel Country Epicure


May 30 McLallen Embassy Suites


Jun. 27 Schmid Baronette Hotel


Jul. 25 Novi Hilton


Aug. 29 Sheraton Oaks


Sep. 26 Pope Wyndham Hotel


Oct. 24 Mitzel Novi Hilton

(4th Tues.)


Nov. 28 McLallen Country Epicure





11. Schedule an Executive Session for Saturday, February 4th at 9:00 AM for the discussion of Parkland acquisition.






Councilwoman Mason asked how could it be an executive session if we are going to be out in public looking at a site.


Mr. Kriewall said Mr. Fried advised it could be done.


Mr. Fried said the public could realize where the property is but they would not have any information as to the price of the property, or what would be offered because that will be done in executive session. He said Council is viewing the property and that can be done in executive session.


Councilman Mitzel stated he would be absent because he is going to the Michigan Municipal League Parliamentary Procedures Training Session on that day. He also pointed out that was the day of the Walled Lake School District Election on the new bond.


Councilwoman Mason said she would be working on that day.


Councilman Pope asked if it would be appropriate that this could follow the rules meeting Saturday, January 28th; everyone agreed.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason


That Council schedule an Executive Session on Saturday, January 28th following the Rules meeting.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried




Mr. Korte said he wanted to speak to the Iva Street situation. He said he was speaking for about 4 of the Shawood Lake front residents. He said we have the only chance we have ever had of getting rid of that enclave. Mr. Korte said that enclave is the 5 unit, 3 buildings on 80 X 100 ft. of property. He said that piece of property is totally useless to anyone except the veterinarian. Mr. Korte said the veterinarian will be at the ZBA on February 7th and he was sure it would be as unanimous as the preliminary planning board was. He said the only problem that the veterinary clinic has in pursuing that venture is run off. He said the lake fronts on Austin are going to be real (expletive deleted) about direct discharge into Shawood Lake. He said he had talked with JCK and Tony Nowicki on many situations that can happen to solve all of our problems. He said if we were not to vacate Iva at this exact point and take the residential of Iva we have the place for retention detention filtration system area. He said that would be approximately 50 X 70 Ft. and would solve most all of their problems at a quick glance. He said the Iva Street residential could be immediately given away to the LeRoy Wixom house and the Harvey property. He said we have the potential to clean up the whole mess but the sale of the property is not a done deal yet. Mr. Korte said they have to go a little farther with the process so that the vet knows that he can really break ground. He said nothing should be done until there is a specific date that the 5 units and 3 buildings are to be bulldozed under. He said when that is done all of Councilwoman Mason's problems are over with because no will be in there to park. He said if we do A, B, C and D and then look at the proper engineering it will solve everyone's problem, the business, the road and the frontage people. Mr. Korte said the area is totally supporting the project. He said hopefully with JCK and Planning we can all work together and if we can give any more space to a cramped parking lot that has been approved we all win.




COMPUTER COMMITTEE - Councilman Toth said the Computer Committee is meeting Tuesday, January 24th and they have sent letters out for the best and final offers from the vendors who had submitted prices on computers. He said they expect to have them back within a week. He said he expects this should be ready for Council to look at the first meeting in February. He said if and when that is approved against the amount of money that was appropriated they expect to have computers in by March. He said in addition they have several firms looking at upgrading the systems networks inside the City and we should have within a next week to 10 days the final figures on that to proceed with the upgrading of the system here.



SEMCOG - Councilman Pope said SEMCOG met on Friday, January 20th and they approved the TIP which had the two projects important to Novi; the Beck Road Improvements and the Haggerty Connector. He said he would provide the City Manager and the Council a fascinating letter by the charming City Manager of Southfield, Mr. Block, objecting to the Haggerty Connector further being extended. In the light of the fact that Southfield has to work with us on other governmental agreements Councilman Pope found his letter quite uncooperative for the City of Novi.


Councilman Pope said our communication was not part of the official documentation. He said Council passed a resolution regarding Beck and it was not received as part of the official documentation. He was sure the City mailed it and he made sure it was part of the discussion. He said the only controversy seemed to be from the City of Detroit and some of the railroad unions regarding the expansion of the Blue Water Bridge Tunnel and that is a regional battle. He said at least Novi was included.


Councilman Pope said SEMCOG also improved a substantial growth management package on legislation that would provide more tools to local governments. He said they are urging the legislature to adopt that. In light of the discussion of one of our Planning Commissioner's, it is ironic that the legislature is looking at providing us additional tools to control growth and how to make sure that the Council sees that when it comes through. He said elections are coming up in March for the executive committee again and he would like to retain his position on the executive committee and the involvement.


Mayor McLallen stated the Ordinance Review Committee is meeting January, 24th.





Mr. Kriewall had nothing to report.


Councilman Mitzel asked if Decker Road was a City road or was it still the developer's road as he was curious who was snow plowing the road.


Mr. Kriewall said it was a City road and we are supposed to be plowing it.


Councilman Mitzel asked if Council had accepted the road because he thought there was documentation such as a ready for use certificate that JCK mentioned in the letter.


Mr. Kriewall said he thought the last opinion from the attorney regarding acceptance of roads was if it is a public right of way and it is improved and utilized for traffic the City has to maintain it.


Mr. Fried said he didn't know if we had accepted it or not and could not answer that. He said that leads him to concern himself with whether we have to maintain it and he said he would like an opportunity to look at it and report back to Council on it.


Councilman Mitzel wanted an answer because if Council had not accepted it then he didn't feel the City should be snow plowing it just so people can get to the Vistas models.


Mr. Kriewall said he thought they had sold some homes and possibly people live there.


Mr. Nowicki, Department of Public Services, said the road was built under an SAD and he thought before they went to construction they had all the easements and right of way in hand. He said it is our responsibility to maintain that road, we did construct it, it is open for public use and we do plow it.


Councilman Mitzel said in July when the question came up about opening it at Novi Road there was a memo from JCK that Council had to adopt a ready for use certificate that Council had to approve this before it could be open for public traffic.


Mr. Nowicki said that is for tying in right at Novi Road.


Councilman Mitzel asked if it was just at that point.


Mr. Nowicki said that is correct. He said he thought that was the issue that was under discussion at that time and it had to do with vision obstructions there and with Novi Road and the alignment and tying in right at that intersection. He said the temporary access that we were permitted to have by Oakland County Road Commission had been terminated.


Councilman Mitzel said he had a picture of the City's barricade, snow fence, knocked down barricades, sand bags, wood pallets all laying around on the road to block off traffic and people started driving around it so we put pallets there and snow fence. He said if this would be there awhile then maybe the City could put down something that is a little more attractive. Councilman Mitzel said it looked extremely tacky.


Mr. Nowicki said they had type 3 barricades anchored down to the pavement and the contractors working in the Vistas took their trucks and rode over them. He said they have had the police, ordinance enforcement and the weigh master up there. He said he had personally stopped contractors from using that.


Mr. Nowicki said they had a real tastefully looking area with type 3 barricades until the contractors kept running over it. He said if there are suggestions to keep the contractors from running over the barricades, the lawn and the curb he would be happy to listen.


Councilman Mitzel thanked Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Kriewall for the response on the Eight Mile sidewalk question. He said his problem still was how we were going to connect with Northville. He said Northville had sidewalks on the north side of Eight Mile west of the bridge. He said we have sidewalks on the north side of Eight Mile east of the bridge. Councilman Mitzel said the City Ordinance called for having sidewalks on both sides of all roads that are collector or major arterial roads (couldn't remember which). He said although there is no 8 ft. safety path designated in that area our Design and Construction Standards do call that out. He was concerned that the City had now provided a continuous path from Haggerty up to Old Novi Road but now there is no way to get from there to Northville which has a continuous sidewalk all along the north side of Eight Mile up to the High School area just short of the bridge.


Mr. Nowicki said the problem that we have is the design of the bridge itself. He said as indicated in his memo he has a real concern with the safety of pedestrian traffic and channeling them in a City installed project to an area that is unsafe.


Councilman Mitzel said his problem is they are going to use the bridge anyway which he felt was less safe. He said the pedestrian connections are important in the City and it is frustrating to see gaps and the gaps not able to be filled.


Mr. Nowicki said he shares that same frustration but they also see the reality of placing pedestrians in a situation where they could be subjected to some danger.


Councilman Mitzel said then we have no alternative at all to connect.


Mr. Nowicki said that is correct.


Councilman Mitzel said he was not sure what the regulations were for model homes in areas that are not subdivisions but a builder built two houses at the southeast corner of East Lake Dr. and 13 Mile Road. He said one of them they built a little parking area and they have a couple of signs with little arrows that say "parking" and their driveways are barricaded off so they can come in and park in that certain area and look at this model home. He asked if that was typical to have a model home in an area that isn't really an actively being built subdivision.


Councilman Mason said they are not model homes. She said they are all for sale in the multi list. She said there is not going to be any more on those 8 lots that were divided up into 3 or 4.


Councilwoman Mason said she had to go back one more time to Decker. She asked if the public was allowed to use the road.


Mr. Kriewall said they can use the road from 13 Mile Road.


Councilwoman Mason said they can use the road from 13 Mile Road but they can't come down to Novi Road.


Mr. Kriewall said that was correct.


Councilwoman Mason said then the public cannot use the road as it was intended. She said Council didn't know if it was dedicated yet.


Mr. Kriewall said it was dedicated.


Councilwoman Mason said we don't know because we have to find out what JCK's letter said so we have to clean that up. She said we are using our equipment to clean the street for models for a subdivision. She asked Mr. Nowicki if that was correct.


Mr. Nowicki said we are plowing snow. He said as you may recall and Mr. Fried may remember we had Jamestown Green Subdivision sometime ago and it took a number of years before those roads were actually dedicated. He said he believed that there was research done and as soon as those roads are open to public use we begin maintaining them.


Councilwoman Mason said when we were cleaning the roads in Jamestown Green and they were not dedicated yet everybody that lived in Jamestown Green was allowed to use that and it went nowhere.


Mr. Nowicki said everyone is allowed to use Decker Road.


Councilwoman Mason said the very purpose that the road was there was to help alleviate traffic and to make that circle and we are cleaning it and the citizens can't use it.


Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Kriewall to bring back information to Council on when it will be completely opened and criteria as to why it is not open at this time.


Councilman Toth said the last time the Vistas of Novi were here there was a statement made that certain fees and so forth were waived. He requested, from Mr. Kriewall, a complete report on the number of fees that were going to be charged against the retainers that the City paid for. He said he would also like any legal time that was spent and charged to the City, staff man hours put against this same program and supposedly waived. He felt that the authority to waive this was not appropriate therefore he requested that the City Attorney research and provide Council with a letter on the authority to waiver the fees because he felt they were in violation of Page 24 and 35 of the Charter with regards to Section 7.6 and Section 12.2 and perhaps other points in the Charter. He said he would like a legal opinion on that authority to waive those fees that were granted by Council. He said according to the Charter the only ones authorized to waive fees made by resolution is Council itself.


Councilman Toth said there was an excellent article in the Detroit News that portrayed Novi as one of the hot spots in Oakland County. He thought they had done a very good job on that article and wanted to get copies for Council.


Councilman Toth advised the Council that there is a software package out that he thought the City should invest in. He said it was portrayed in today's paper that allows an individual to go in and select a community by looking at their crime history, number of children, housing, affordability of housing, etc. He said it sounded interesting and intriguing because when we talk about strategy and the quality of the community, etc. someone has built this into a software package and he thought it would be interesting to get some response back on this package.


Councilman Crawford said that he seemed to recall discussion several months ago, didn't know if it was Mr. Kapelczak or who stated, in response to some of our concerns about traffic relief, and couldn't we open that road just a little and he recalled the answer being Decker Road would not be open to the public until the improvements are made on Novi Road and it is signalized in that area. He took that to mean the road would not be opened to the public and he is still not clear if the road has been accepted as a City road.


Mr. Kriewall said there are two types of acceptance; 1) General acceptance involving Act 51 Funding and reimbursement for road maintenance which does not involve Council acceptance of the physical improvements. He said he would get Council some information on it.


Councilman Crawford said he didn't know there were two kinds of acceptance. He thought Council either accepted a road or didn't accept a road and if it wasn't accepted then it would still be a private drive or private road and why would we plow a private road.


Mr. Kriewall said there are two levels of acceptance and he will report to Council on them.


Councilman Crawford asked if there are other roads that the City has not accepted that we plow and maintain.


Mr. Fried said on the February 6th meeting there will be a report for Council on the issue of these roads from the City Manager and the City Attorney.


Councilman Schmid said before Vistas comes back to City Council for approval or rejection for their new proposal it was his understanding that you cannot count commercial when you are figuring the density of residents; you can't count the land. He said at one point 80 didn't seem like to big a deal, then we went to 100 and now we are at 700,000 sq. ft. potentially. He said that could have a traumatic impact on the density if they come back with their 700,000 sq. ft. of commercial which might make it bigger than most cities commercial property.


He said it was also his understanding that once the roads are dedicated in Vista that the land cannot be included in density either. He said that should be computed and reported back to Council. He asked Mr. Fried to look into this.


Councilman Schmid said at one time we were going for some grants and thought they were turned down for 12 Mile Road between Haggerty and Meadowbrook. He asked for a report on this also.





Mr. Fried said they were going to submit a report on Decker Road and a report on the alleged waiver of fees that has been discussed with the consultants.


Mr. Fried said the questions that Councilman Schmid raised were questions that he raised in a meeting with the developers and they are important and we have asked them to address them and you will have answers on those.


Councilman Pope said a while back it came to our attention that we did not have in our ordinance on qualifications for a Planning Commissioner that they had to be a resident. He said the statute does not require that however can we be more strict on that.


Mr. Fried said we could.


Councilman Pope asked if it was proper, if Council is interested in making the provision that you have to be a resident of Novi, that the City Attorney would draft such an amendment and bring it to Consultant Review or however that is handled that would require that a member of the Planning Commission be a resident of the City.


Councilwoman Mason asked if this would be totally different than the discussion about residency requirements for employees that had been in the newspaper for two days.


Councilman Pope said it would not deal with any other labor agreements, any other board and would only be within the Planning Commission. He said if someone is going to represent the community then they should live in the community. He said he did not want to debate Police and Fire because he had a different philosophy on that.


Mayor McLallen stated Councilman Pope would like the Council to direct the City Attorney to explore language that would make residency a requirement in our City. There was consensus to so direct the City Attorney.


Councilman Pope said we need guidance on the exact language of the parks bonding and what is appropriate. He asked that Mr. Fried review this because there is a difference between perception and legality. He asked Mr. Fried to define for Council, using the bonding language, what could be used and what could not be used.


Mr. Fried asked if he wanted the legal conclusion and not the perception.


Councilman Pope said that was correct and that he understood that the committee may have sold it one way and this Council may have made comments but what did the voters approve in that bonding language.


Mr. Fried said the question is what can be purchased with the funds obtained in the bonding. Councilman Pope said that is correct.


Councilman Pope said during the leadership program Dr. Harvey from MSU made a presentation on fire costs. He said the information he would like to give Council now may not be enough. Dr. Harvey explained that many cities are not following a bill back procedure for fire policies. He said within fire insurance polices that if a city has a bill back requirement an insurance agency will pay for a portion of the fire service that is provided. He said he could get those for Council if they were not familiar with the issue. Councilman Pope said there was a recent court case on double taxation and Dr. Harvey told the class that local governments are not using this funding source and that it was a substantial funding source.





1. Approval of Council minutes of December 19th


Councilman Crawford removed this from agenda. He stated on Page 15 the result of the vote is Yes (4) No (3-Mason, Pope and Toth). The three no's should be Crawford, McLallen and Schmid.


Councilman Crawford stated that on Page 18 about 2/3rds of the way down it said "It was then, Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mason", this was a friendly amendment included in the original motion by Councilman Toth.


Councilman Crawford stated that on Page 49 regarding safety paths on Lake Shore, it was moved by Councilwoman Mason and seconded by Mitzel that it be approved and the vote showed Yes (6) and No (1-Mason) and it should be 7 Yes.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Toth


That the Regular Council minutes of December 19th be approved as amended.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried


3. Ordinance 95-114.06 - An Ordinance to delete Article III of Chapter 36 of the Novi Code of Ordinances to remove regulation of Fishing Shanties within the City of Novi.


Councilman Crawford said the reason he pulled this was that he understood that Council had to comply with what the State had said. However, he said he would like to delay this action and have a report back from our attorney on whether we have to delete the whole ordinance. He wanted to know if there was something that could be left in that ordinance that pertains to some local regulation. He said in the new guidelines from the State we can remove and store or destroy a fishing shanty and maybe some of our ordinance could stay in place and some fees or costs be associated with that. He said before Council deletes the whole ordinance maybe discussion would be in order.


Mr. Fried said obviously the ordinance we have cannot be enforced. He said he would like to have concerns of the L.A.R.A. Committee to see what we can do. He said we had to make some legal determinations as to what the State Statute means in regard to this area. He said if they have some matters that we think can be fitted into a local ordinance we would like to do that but we don't want to do that within the framework of our current ordinance. He felt we would have to get a new ordinance.


Councilman Crawford asked if it was Mr. Fried's recommendation that we delete the whole ordinance and come up with something new. He thought it may be easier to leave it on the books and modify it.


Mr. Fried said if we can we would like to come up with something new and to find out what the L.A.R.A. concerns are.


Councilman Crawford asked if the L.A.R.A. Committee was supposed to come to Council to propose what we might do.


Mr. Fried said yes and he thought the Ordinance Review Committee could go over this.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Crawford




ROLL CALL: Mitzel (yes), Pope (yes), Schmid (yes), Toth (yes), Crawford (yes) Mc Lallen (yes)



Motion carried





Councilman Pope said the sign that said "no one is allowed to come by this door" is now moving closer and closer to the actual door of the Chambers. He said he understood that some Council Members are concerned about the back hallway but he felt the whole sign should be removed to see if that problem reoccurs. He said if it does then put the sign back up. Councilman Pope said he found it the most uninviting sign to come in, to come speak to your Council, to watch your Council; there is a sign that says by the way do not pass these doors this is for Council Members only.


Mayor McLallen asked if there was a problem.


Councilman Crawford said there had been a problem at one time and that was why the sign was put there. He thought that it was an appropriate sign so that the general public does not wander through that hall and back here during Council. He did not think it was appropriate in front of the Council doors it should be moved over where it was.


Councilman Pope said put the sign in the hallway and it will be the first thing that they see.


Mayor McLallen said there is consensus and the sign will be put in the hall.






There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 PM.











Date Approved: