MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995 AT 8:00 PM EST



The meeting was called to order at 8:00 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: Craig Klaver - Assistant City Manager

Anthony Nowicki - Director of Public Services

Douglas Shaeffer - Chief of Police

James Wahl - Director of Community Development

Rod Arroyo - Traffic Consultant

Joe Kapelczak - JCK & Associates

Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

Chris Pargoff - Forester

Dennis Watson - Fried, Watson & Bugbee

Geraldine Stipp - City Clerk







Councilman Toth requested that a short discussion on City Clerk Selection Agenda be added as Council Action item #6.1.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That the agenda be approved as amended.


Yes (6) No (1-Pope) Motion carried





The Mayor presented plaques and certificates to the following in appreciation for their years of service to the community:


1. John Goodman, Construction Board of Appeals

2. Donald Flis, Economic Development Corporation

3. Charles Pfeffer, Zoning Board of Appeals

4. Senior Citizen Housing Committee Members:

- Ernest Aruffo

- Kim Capello

- Kathy Crawford

- Peter Hoadley

- Elinor Holland

- Ruth Ann Jirasek

- Carol Mason

- Jean Rowe

- Arnold Rzepecki



PROCLAMATION - Severe Weather Awareness Week - March 26-April 1


Mayor McLallen read a proclamation declaring the week of March 26th through April 1st as Severe Weather Awareness Week. She commented that unfortunately the community has been impacted in the past by severe weather.



PUBLIC HEARING - MDOT Request for Mining/Filling Permit for M-5 Wetland Mitigation - Jimco-Ash Site - Garfield Road, Section 32



1. Consideration of Issuance of Permit


Mayor McLallen explained that this was the MDOT request for a mining and filling permit for approximately 35 acres that will be constructed as part of the M-5 Contract in which Novi requested that a wetland be constructed within its City boundaries so there would be no wetland net loss within the community.


Mike Flajole, Project Manager of the M-5/Haggerty project, said what they were talking about was the mitigation for the taking of wetlands within the right-of-way of the M-5 Connector. He said the Department was currently in the process of obtaining the right-of-way there and they were hoping to commence construction early this summer and tonight they would like to get approval of the mining permit for the construction of this wetland.


Mr. Flajole said three MDOT staff people would be making the presentation tonight; they were Bob Owens, Bob Zelski, and Dave Wilson.


Mayor McLallen called Mr. Flajole's attention to a letter received by Council from the Garfield Road Homeowners Association listing six specific item questions they would like answered.


Bob Owens, MDOT Wetlands Specialist, said he would give them some historical background on the project and let them know how they got to this point. He said he would also go into why they had to create wetlands for wetlands taken for road projects.


Mr. Owens said initially MDOT was using a consulting company who delineated approximately 44 acres of wetlands that would be impacted within the project site which according to Federal and State mandates they would have to mitigate for the wetland loss and replace them somewhere within the vicinity of the project area. Many sites were looked at and eventually the DNR allowed them to create 15-20 acres of wetlands at St. Johns Marsh and the remainder had to be created somewhere in the Novi area which was how they came to the Jimco-Ash site. He said through surveys and monitoring wells, they found out that the water table at the site was 7' to 10' below the surface which was pretty good to create wetlands.


He said according to the Federal and State mandates, because they were creating wetlands from an upland source, they are required to create 1-1/2 acres of wetlands for each acre of wetlands impacted. On this site, they can place approximately 35 acres of wetlands and they will also be creating 15 to 20 acres of wetlands within the project area. He noted that the City wanted MDOT to create this wetland basically for retention purposes and that was why they were here tonight. He said the wetland created will have a combination of emerging-type vegetation, scrub shrub vegetation such as willows and dogwoods, and some hard wood trees would be planted there that were water tolerant.


Mr. Owens said this type of wetland was very productive in that it would give a production of most wildlife species in the area although it would take a few years to mature into the type of area that they have it designed for. The wetland was also designed to retain water so it would be good for retaining flood waters. He said it would be a shallow area with the deepest portion being about 2-1/2 feet deep allowing for good production of wildlife and emerging growth.


Bob Zelski, MDOT Landscape Architect, said one of his main functions was to work with the DNR, EPA and road people to come up with a design for a workable wetland. He said through well monitors they found that the static water table was at 958 elevation which was basically the same elevation as a forested wetland. He pointed out the 106 acres MDOT was buying which contained about 35 acres of mixed, mostly forested wetland to the east and an area in the south which contained an emerging scrub shrub wetland.


Mr. Zelski said when he was given the information for this wetland he was told they needed to come up with 35 acres of wetland - 12 to be forested wetland and the remainder being emerging scrub-shrub. He said he had to stay out of the existing forested wetland as well as the wetland to the south and using a 1 on 6 slope to get down to the edge of water he had to use, consume most of the property. He pointed out the area of wetland that would be 6" to 1' above the water table which was what was needed to grow seedlings like red maple, silver maple, white swamp oak, etc. They would plant 400 seedlings per acre over 12 acres. He said the rest of the area was what they called emergent with water 1' to 2-1/2' deep at most.


He said when they begin construction, they would be stripping back the top soil, removing up to 400,000 cubic yards of material, and then the top soil would be placed back because it was needed for growth. Mr. Zelski said the steepest slope would be 1 on 6 which would look very natural to the area and it would blend in with the existing forested wetland. There would be a temporary fence complete around the perimeter during construction with "keep out" signs, and silt fence would be along the east side and anywhere they were concerned about contaminating existing forested wetlands or open water wetlands.


Mayor McLallen said the project was scheduled to begin this summer if a permit was granted; she asked how long they anticipated construction to take place. Mr. Zelski said it would probably be a two year project ending next year.


David Wilson, MDOT Resident Construction Engineer, said in order to construct the wetland about 400,000 yards of dirt would have to be removed and trucked off site. They are proposing to designate a haul route of Garfield Road down to 8 Mile and require the contractor to pave a haul road from 8 Mile northerly about 4,500 ft. up to just north of the entrance into the wetland site prior to allowing excavation to start. He said they were proposing to pave the road to minimize the dust and potholes on Garfield Road which would result from the trucking operation and lessen the noise of trucks driving down a gravel road.


He said they have also proposed to pave the residential driveways that adjoin Garfield Road for about 15 ft. from the edge of the road and they were proposing a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of 8 Mile and Garfield.


Mr. Wilson said they have been talking to Mr. Nowicki about reviewing the condition of the road at the end of project with the City engineers, and if it was in good shape, MDOT had no objection to leaving the asphalt in place but if it was pretty well beaten up, there were provisions in the contract to pulverize the asphalt materials back into a gravel type material and grade and shape the roadway back to a gravel road.


Councilman Pope asked if they were proposing construction on Saturdays and Mr. Wilson said he believed the mining ordinance allowed it.


Mayor McLallen noted this was a public hearing on the mining permit and the action item for Council was the granting of the permit; she asked for any comments the public wished to address to Council. She said the letter from the Garfield Road Homeowners listed specific questions and that had been turned over to the MDOT for their response point by point after the citizens had a chance to speak.


George Zervas, Garfield Road resident, said he was in the development business and knew what happened during construction. He said they were talking about capping the road and that would cause a flood in his front yard. He said he also had a 12 acre pond that he lived on and he asked what would happen to his water level and if it went down, that would affect his property value. He asked who would insure that his property value would not go down.


Jean Riecker, Garfield Road resident, said they already had beautiful wetlands in their backyards. She said they needed protection for the homeowners in the event they disrupt or jeopardize the water table and liability protection for their homes, landscaping, wells and existing ponds, She said she was quite concerned about the ponds because the City put in a sewer several years ago and she has lost some water level on her pond that the City has yet to acknowledge. She said she was further worried about the landfill south of her property and what a 35 acre hole would do to their ponds.


Nick Boudre, 2l940 Garfield Road, said he was very happy the wetlands were going in behind them on Garfield Road but he thought they needed to take a lot of considerations before going ahead. He said just capping the road did not make any sense because that would raise the road level and flood people's yards. They need to make sure that stipulations were put in that the road be excavated down 6 inches before adding 6 inches so they didn't have a problem. He said if they were going to pulverize it, it would be raised 6 inches after anyway.


Mr. Boudre said he wasn't an expert on water tables but he didn't want a well that was bad or to have the lake go down across the street. He said that needed to be a decision factor and if something happened, how would it be corrected.


His third concern was that this was a very rural area and they didn't want any more misuse of the site by hoodlums than they already had. He felt this could be handled with communication with the police.


Another concern was with the speed limit; he said there were 25 kids living there and all that has been said by MDOT was the situation would be assessed. He said this was something the residents would have to rely on Council to handle.


Mr. Boudre added that the residents would rather have quiet Saturdays and extend the project by 20% and because the project affected the Garfield Road residents so drastically, they would like to have everybody notified of every meeting so they could be represented.


Mayor McLallen asked if they wanted notice sent to the homeowners association or to the individual homeowners, and Mr. Boudre said if the City would notify the association's three representatives, they would notify everyone else.



Cindy Gronachan said her major concerns were the public misuse of Garfield Road if this project was not gated and locked and protected. She said they have experienced illegal dumping, partying, and drug sales on ungated and unprotected property in the past. She said the proposed wetlands would be in the backyards of Garfield Road residents so this was a very serious issue with them and they hoped that Council would give serious consideration to a gate as well as the speed limit. They would like their quiet country neighborhood to continue as such.


Rich Booms of Garfield Road said they were looking forward to the project and they would like to work with the State which has been great so far in responding in a positive way in answering residents' questions. He said it seemed to be a simple issue to reduce the speed limit from 30 to 25 and they hoped it wouldn't turn into a monumental challenge for them.


Andrew Mutch asked what the acquisition cost was of the 106 acres and Mr. Wilson said it was still on-going but it was in the neighborhood of $872,000. Mr. Mutch asked if the southern end of the property where the house was located was included and Mr. Wilson said MDOT was not buying that end.


Mr. Mutch said it sounded like a great project considering the wetlands and woodlands already identified in wildlife habitat studies so to add to that was great. He said he was just concerned about going to all the trouble and money of creating a wetland and then ten years later having subdivisions crowding in around it. He said he would like to see the City make an effort to acquire some of the land around it to preserve the area.


Ray Miras, 21801 Garfield, said he also was on the pond and was interested in its water level. Secondly, they said it was a two year project but he asked how long it would take to haul the dirt out which would be the big project in terms of traffic.


The resident of 49075 W. Nine Mile said his yard was contiguous with the project and he thought for two years inconvenience to the residents, they should put in a permanent type road.


The Public Hearing was closed at 8:45 P.M.


Mayor McLallen said the major comments and concerns brought to the table by the citizens appeared to be a strong issue with the construction of the road and the elevation of the road causing flooding problems when it was paved which needed to be addressed. There was concern about the protection of home and property values and the structural integrity of their homes. They were also concerned that if the water table changed in the area, who would bear the responsibility for the consequences. Another concern was the security of the property to keep outsiders out and the speed limit and truck traffic on Garfield affecting the safety of the 25 children in the neighborhood. They requested extending the length of time for the project in order to not have construction on Saturdays and they requested that the City notify the residents of all meetings concerning this project. The residents want to work closely with the Police Department to monitor both the speed limit and any other illicit activities going on in the area. She said there were two very specific questions by a homeowner-what the length of time was for the actual heavy hauling for the excavation and what consideration had been given to creating a permanent road in the area.


Mr. Flajole said the questions raised about problems with drainage in yards was something that would have to be looked at in detail relative to the properties that felt they had some special problem. He said relative to concerns about draw-down in wells or ponds, they would be setting up monitoring wells on the perimeter prior to the construction which would be monitored before, during and after. In the case of the pond, it was his suggestion to get a water level to start with; during the course of the year there were natural fluctuations but they would expect to get a read off the monitoring wells as to what was happening to ground water relative to what was occurring on the site.


Dave Wilson said a real ambitious schedule for a contractor as far as taking dirt out would be about 3,000 cubic yards per day. He said they usually allow one bad weather day per week when the contractor couldn't work so it would take about 33 weeks, keeping in mind that normally the contractors shut down November 15th to April 15th for the winter season. Therefore if the trucking operation started June 15th, it would carry into next spring for about ten weeks. He said if we had a very mild winter, the contractor could continue to work but they would have very muddy conditions on Garfield Road.


Mr.Wilson said addressing the drainage on Garfield Road, the southerly half mile of Garfield Road goes through farm fields with a few low areas but there isn't much drainage. He said in the residential areas, it appeared that the City had tried in the past to establish some ditches and catch basins. He said it was not a perfect situation, but through the residential area they were proposing to excavate 3" and put back 6" of blacktop which would raise the road about 3" at the centerline. He said he did not know if that would make things worse; they were trying to channel all the water through the residential areas to the existing ditches.


Mayor McLallen said one of the concerns of the residents was if front yards were flooded, who would bear the responsibility and straighten it back out. Mr. Wilson said during any contract there were things that cropped up that weren't anticipated and if a situation came up where they were flooding out someone's driveway, the State would have to take care of that.


Mr. Wilson referred to the concerns about the speed limit and commented that they couldn't set the speed limit on city streets, but they wouldn't have any objection during construction to signing it for 25 mph.


Mayor McLallen said based on the comments heard, what were they proposing the construction schedule to be; she said the citizens were not in favor of Saturday work. Mr. Wilson said if that was a requirement of the mining permit, they would have to stipulate that in their contract.


Councilman Toth asked if they were talking about just no trucking on Saturday but they could work on site on Saturday. Mayor McLallen said the issue appeared to be trucking and she asked what else could be done there. Mr. Wilson felt there was very little else until the excavation was over and then they had to restore the area with top soil and plant the trees and vegetation that was required.


Councilman Toth asked if they were going to take out the 400,000 cubic yards first and then reconstruct the site or would they take half out and start reconstructing that half. David Wilson said contractors had different ways of doing things and it was hard to anticipate what one would do versus another. He said he would assume that he would start excavation and once some of the area was excavated, he would start doing restoration by placing top soil and tree planting so he would stage his activities.


Councilman Toth said then all of the plantings would be guaranteed for two growing seasons after the site was completed. Mr. Wilson said that was correct plus in their specifications, there were only certain periods of the year in which trees could be planted.


Councilman Schmid said he felt this was a very positive project as did many residents and one that would benefit the area. He said some residents were concerned that ponds and wells would be affected if they created a wetland by excavating down 6' or 8'. He said he assumed this would really turn into a liability question with damages if someone's pond went down three feet as a result of the project. Mr. Wilson said they certainly wanted to be a good partner in doing this project and the department would stand behind what they were doing. Councilman Schmid said if wells were contaminated or dried up, obviously the State would have to rectify that one way or another and Mr. Wilson said that was correct.


Mr. Wilson said other concerns expressed were accessibility and security of the site; he said they were proposing a split rail fence along Garfield that would wrap around the sides with a locked gate. He said the site would have to be monitored over a period of five years to see that the trees were actually growing and the project was meeting the requirements that the DNR wanted. He said they didn't anticipate that it would be a problem.


Mr. Wilson said the homeowners also expressed interest in sitting in on meetings with City, State, police, and school and the State could certainly inform them.


Councilman Crawford said with regard to the pond level and flooding from the road, he thought Mr. Wilson had previously said that any flooding from the road the State would be responsible for repairing. Mr. Wilson said they would have to look at what problems were relative to the particular concern. Mr. Crawford said it would be the State's responsiblity to repair that and assure it didn't happen again or happen in the first place and Mr. Wilson said yes.


Councilman Crawford said it sounded like excavating 3" from the road and then putting on 6" might be an acceptable method but perhaps the City needed some assurance from its own engineers without doing a detailed study - if that looked like it would work. Councilman Crawford said he mentioned monitoring wells but he did not say who would be responsible if something happened and Mr. Wilson said it would be his department's responsibility.


Councilman Crawford asked if they were monitoring and saw something happening, how would they stop it from continuing. Mr. Wilson said they certainly could suspend operations. He said they were not going into this with the anticipation that they would be draining people's wells and ponds or else they wouldn't be here. Mr. Crawford said but if that happened, it was the State's responsibility to repair the damage, and Mr. Wilson said that was correct.


Councilman Crawford said the issues of Saturday construction, speed limit, and security were all issues that could be handled at the Council table, and he would hope they would handle those issues as it had been suggested tonight.


Councilwoman Mason asked if the actual deepest excavation would be 2 ft., and Mr. Wilson said about 2-1/2' below water table. She asked how deep that would be from the present grade, and Mr. Flajole said 7' to 10'. She said the ordinance said that had to be totally fenced where excavations exceeded 5 ft. in depth with 6 ft. high chain link or wire mesh fence around the perimeter of the parcel or mining area with a locking gate.


Mr. Wilson said they approached the City months ago to ask for recommendations on fencing and what came back was not to fence right up to the existing forest because it was the same elevation and place split rail fencing and a gate at the entrance.


Councilwoman Mason asked who at the City said that and Mr. Wilson said he believed it was from JCK. Councilwoman Mason said that absolutely did not follow the ordinance so she would felt that had to be adjusted.


She asked if they had done a mitigation in an area where people had wells. Mr. Owens said they had near I-69 between Lansing and Charlotte and there was a draw down on a private citizen's fish pond. He said to correct the problem, they located where the seepage was coming from, sealed the area, and restored the fish pond.


Councilwoman Mason asked if their contract said they would do that, and Mr. Owens said he believed that was the State's responsibility. She said if this happened, where was it written that the State would do this.


Mr. Wilson said that was just the way the Department operated, and Councilwoman Mason said but if the Department didn't want to operate that way, it wouldn't have to. Mr. Wilson said if they took the Department to court, they had a problem that the Department would have to resolve. Councilwoman Mason asked if that could be part of the project - that there were guarantees this would happen. Mr. Wilson said they would be entering an agreement with the City relative to the financing of this so this could be part of that agreement.


Councilwoman Mason asked if basically what was happening was taking out 3" and putting in 6" on the road. Mr. Flajole said through the first half mile north of 8 Mile where it went through farm fields, they would just surface the road with 6" of asphalt. Then when they got into the residential area, they were proposing to cut down 3" and then lay 6". Councilwoman Mason said that would be raising the road 3" above what it was now and her concern was she was aware that some people already have problems as far as more than one sump pump or pumps running a lot because it was a wet area. She asked what would this do to those properties.


Mr. Wilson said right now for the most part, the road drained into the ditches and went somewhere. He said by raising the road 3" the water would still go wherever it was going now. He said it was not like they were going to take the ditches or the catch basins out that the City had put in.


Councilman Toth asked if they were putting in 6" of asphalt or gravel, and Mr. Wilson said asphalt. Mr. Toth asked why they were taking 3" out first, and Mr. Wilson said in the residential area there were a bunch of driveways entering Garfield Road and if they raised the road too high, they would be making bumps at everyone's driveway. He said what they were also trying to preserve was it appears over the years the City had spent a lot of money putting gravel on the road and by only removing 3" of it, they were trying to utilize some of that gravel as a compacted road base.


Councilman Toth asked if the State had any plans of putting in pass-throughs so the water would equalize on each side by passing it through underneath the road. Mr. Wilson said they had some culverts set up in the contract to be used at his discretion. He said if one side of the roadway was draining a certain way now, he didn't want to take a bunch of water and put it into someone's yard where it wasn't going. Councilman Toth said if they had a problem area, they could put a culvert in and move it over, and Mr. Wilson said if there was a problem, there was probably something they would have to do to correct it. He said he would work with Mr. Nowicki's office to see what could be done.


Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Nowicki if he had any comments or information that would answer the citizens' or Council's questions. He said they had a public information meeting some weeks ago, and a lot of what was just discussed was brought up at that meeting.


Councilman Crawford said they had a request to waive permit fees and asked if he had a recommendation. Mr. Nowicki said he believed the permit fees were waived at the last Council meeting, and Mayor McLallen said they were because ultimately the taxpayer would still be the payee.


Councilman Toth said this would be a temporary construction site for two years; he asked what would be a good speed limit. Mr. Nowicki said if the trucks abide by the 30 mph speed limit, it would be no different than any other road where there was a lot of construction like 9 or 11 Mile. Councilman Toth said given this was not a street that would meet City standards and that there would be a lot of heavy truck traffic in residential, what would his department recommend for the speed limit during the temporary construction period. Mr. Nowicki said at this point, the department recommended maintaining the 30 mph speed limit. He said he had already talked with the Weighmaster and asked him to be out there to supervise the area and if there was any notice of problems, they would immediately lower the speed limit. He said they had the ability to lower speed limits immediately through the ordinance that grants the traffic engineer that authority on a temporary basis for 90 days. He said they had also indicated to the residents that they would maintain a high level of contact with the Police Department inviting them to pre-construction meetings and stressing the number of children in the area as well as the safety factor and the perceived concerns of the residents. He said if there was a speed problem then upon recommendation of either MDOT, our Police Department, or the Weighmaster the speed limit could be lowered at a moment's notice.


Councilman Pope asked if the site would have a conservation easement over it and be dedicated to the city, and Mr. Nowicki said no. He said it would have a conservation easement over it and they had been looking towards eventually having it dedicated to the city. He said after talking to MDOT earlier today, he felt he might have been too optimistic about turning that into some form of passive recreational site. He said the Federal Highway Administration had a few more guidelines that he was unaware of with respect to turning some of that property over to the City. Councilman Pope asked what that meant, and Mr. Nowicki said it meant he couldn't answer for FHWA at this time. Councilman Pope asked MDOT officials what happened to the land once the project was done, and Mr. Owens said it remained in MDOT's ownership until the Real Estate Division disposed of it.


Councilman Pope asked if there would be buildable sites left on the land once it was manufactured to a wetland, and Mr. Owens said the conservation easement prohibited any type of construction on this parcel. Councilman Pope asked if MDOT would have the liability and policing responsibilities for that land and the tax responsibility, and Mr. Owens said that would be a question for the Real Estate Division.


Councilwoman Mason said prior to the issuance of a permit, there would be more meetings between the City and MDOT to incorporate some of the things the citizens have requested or look at some of the concerns. Mr. Nowicki said they routinely reviewed concerns, and if Council placed certain conditions or suggestions that the residents might have as a condition of the permit, then they would look at them very seriously because that would be the condition on which the permit was issued. He said if it was not a condition of the permit, he did not think MDOT was really held liable to make those modifications.


Councilwoman Mason said her point was they were looking at an ordinance that said it had to be fenced and now they hear from MDOT that the consulting engineers and probably Mr. Nowicki were saying they really didn't have to fence it. She asked who made that decision.


Mr. Nowicki said from a wildlife and environmental point of view, it was recommended that the area not be fenced because it was felt the fencing would prohibit or restrict the movement of wildlife. He believed he heard earlier that the area had been identified as some type of wildlife or conservation type area and any type of fence would detract from that. Therefore, they had the engineers review it based on the environmental impacts of fencing in the area and forwarded that recommendation on to MDOT. He said they further indicated that as a means to control access to the site the area adjacent to Garfield as well as the areas moving directly east from that Garfield Road fencing would be split rail type fencing in order to maintain and enhance the rural atmosphere of that area.


Councilwoman Mason commented that would not keep children and pets out. She said it was a very serious concern for her that the ordinance said one thing and the consulting engineers have suggested another thing. She said they would either have to go for safety or environmental and she didn't feel they really had to chose between the two.


Councilman Crawford said concerning the speed limit, Mr. Nowicki had said this road would be handled like any other road in the City but he frankly hoped it would not. Mr. Crawford said he lived on 11 Mile and when that road got paved last year there was a lot of discussion at the Council table to lower the speed limit to 25; it was kept at 30 and the trucks travelled 40 and 50 on the road. He said he felt the same thing would probably happen on Garfield. The police have made every effort to patrol it but they could not be there all the time; it was not just a matter of safety which was of primary concern but also noise pollution. He said a strictly enforced 25 mph speed limit was a lot different from a 30 mph zone where trucks were going 40 and 50. He said the other point made that the speed limit could be lowered at a moment's notice was not that easy to do in all reality - it had to come before Council and several other things had to happen.


Councilman Crawford said he would encourage Council to do this at the table tonight as part of this project and it would be much easier to set the limit at 25 now than have to come back several months later after the problems occur.


Mr. Nowicki said with regard to lowering the speed limit at a moment's notice, the Charter or the Code gave the traffic engineer the ability to execute a temporary order at his discretion at any time he deemed appropriate without Council action. Councilman Crawford said then all he had to do was call the traffic engineer to get the speed limit lowered on 11 Mile, and Mr. Nowicki said if he concurred with the problem. Mr. Crawford said that was the problem; he would guarantee the traffic engineer would not concur unless he came back to Council first.


Mr. Nowicki said he made the comment that the speed limit was 30 and the trucks were doing 40 and 50; he asked if Mr. Crawford believed that lowering the speed limit to 25 would make the trucks do 25. He said he believed the reality was they would drive 40 whether the limit was 25 or 30 and it would be the Police Department that would have to implement enforcement activity to strengthen those areas.


Councilman Mitzel said it seemed that the ordinance was entirely geared towards gravel pit mining operations as opposed to wetland mitigation. He asked if as part of the permit, Council had to specifically grant waivers or variances to those sections of the ordinance that weren't truly applicable for a wetlands mitigation as opposed to gravel pit mining.


Dennis Watson said he thought they should and there was a specific provision within the ordinance that allowed them to do that - it provided standards for considering those types of variances.


Councilman Mitzel asked how he recommended they do that; should they have a specific list presented in front of them. Dennis Watson said he thought that should be provided to Council, and Mr. Mitzel noted they did not have that tonight. Councilman Mitzel said it looked like they would need waivers in five or six areas; he said also come back with the answers to putting in clauses for whose responsibility drainage and water draw down would be and try to incorporate that all into one permit package that would be ready for Council to act on.


Mayor McLallen said the item tonight was consideration not actual issuance of a permit. She said it appeared to be boiling down to the Council needed to see more information and very specifically what would be included in that permit for the protection of the City, the citizens and the environment. She said if it was the consensus of Council, they would direct the staff and the attorneys to bring forward that information.


Councilman Pope asked if she was suggesting they postpone this or send it on until that information came back. He said maybe they could provide some direction by making a motion and then tabling that motion to the next meeting. He said that would allow the attorneys to draft it rather than leaving all of these issues out like the speed limit and the promises that have been made. He said might be helpful to Administration to have a motion that would set some parameters for them to come back with.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope,

Seconded by Councilman Crawford,


That a Mining Permit be granted to MDOT contingent on the contract requiring the speed limit to be 25, Monday through Friday removal, residents of the Garfield Homeowners Association to be notified of any meetings that would impact the nature of the project, all representations made by MDOT tonight regarding drainage, and all other issues to be on the record, that a lockable gate and fence would be along the front of the property, and that as part of the Mining Permit to direct the City Manager or his designee to establish a reclamation plan for this project. The City Manager or his designee is directed to review the ordinance and bring back to Council any variances that may be needed.





Councilman Pope said "reclamation" was a term in the mining permit but his point was that the future use of this site should be as part of a reclamation plan as any permit is.


Councilman Crawford said regarding Saturday construction, having been involved in that on 11 Mile, he felt if the project could be completed during this summer's construction season, it would probably be in the best interest to get it over with and have a peaceful next summer but since this was going to go into a two year period he felt they should consider as was in the motion that no construction of any kind be allowed on Saturday.


Councilman Toth said Councilman Pope brought up a good point that under a mining permit they needed to have a reclamation plan in place before a permit was issued. His concern was that of the 106 acres approximately 70 acres would be used for the wetlands mitigation and the other 36 acres could be used as a City passive park or buildable sites. He said he wanted to make sure that the City addressed it to MDOT that they wanted to see what those 36 acres would be used for.


Councilman Mitzel asked for clarification from Councilman Pope on the 25 mph speed limit; he said that was a truck speed limit Monday through Friday and Councilman Pope said yes. Councilman Toth commented that speed limits were for anybody that drove the road and Councilman Pope said if it was an issue of contention he would be happy to discuss it but he was not convinced that a truck would be able to get up to 30 mph out of there. He said as Mr. Kapelczak pointed out, it was really the ones coming back empty that were more of a concern but he felt the speed limit during construction should be 25.


Councilman Crawford said his comments were directed at a 25 mph speed limit 7 days a week, 24 hours a day for trucks and residents. He said two different criteria for speed limits would be difficult to enforce and he felt everybody would like to be in the habit of driving slower on those roads.


Councilman Mitzel said he believed the appropriate route if they were talking 25 mph speed limit all the time was a warrant rather than a permit.


Councilman Pope said a warrant was the proper thing to do and he felt with this motion the Administration would know what they needed to do to implement it. He asked Mr. Nowicki if he needed any further clarification that his motion did not point out. Mr. Nowicki asked for clarification with respect to the reclamation plan.


Councilman Pope said his motion should reflect that they were asking the City Manager and/or his designee to work with and direct MDOT to present as part of the mining permit a reclamation plan. He said he was using that term because it was in the mining permit but what he was saying was a future use because when a mine went in, they were required to put in a reclamation plan and tell the City what the use would be. He said while this was under that, he felt it was an appropriate question that Council had.


Mr. Nowicki said when a mine went in, he suspected the result was typically a wetland type area as what was going to be constructed.


Councilman Crawford said since the motion left the door open for some recommended waivers because this was not strictly a mining operation, was that a consideration they could waiver - a full blown reclamation plan.


Councilman Pope said absolutely. He used the term because it was a term within the mining permit. He said he was asking for some clarification with the City Manager and MDOT on what the future use was going to be. He said if that meant the Parks & Rec Department was working with MDOT to master plan what could simply mean that they say through the Fisheries or the U.S. Government that nothing could happen, that a lock would be put on the gate and a sign saying no entrance and there would be wetlands.


Councilman Pope said he wasn't asking for the type of site plan they have received under other mining permits, and MDOT did not have that answer tonight but he felt it should be part of the file.


Councilman Toth said on the other side, they wanted a plan that identified what the use of the property was going to be because instead of being a City park, it could end up being an MDOT facility. It was noted there was a conservation easement over the entire parcel and nothing could be constructed.


Councilman Pope said the biggest question was whether they were going to allow people to walk through it or would it just be ducks.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel,

Seconded by Councilman Pope,


To postpone the motion until the April 10th Council Meeting to allow Administration to address the issues that had been brought up.





Mayor McLallen clarified that there were seven issues: speed limit, Monday through Friday workday, notification to the homeowners association, definition of the liability of MDOT, placement of a locking gate and fencing, the manager or designee to review the mining permit reclamation plan so something definable is presented, and the manager or designee to review which ordinance variances are necessary under this permit.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously




Mayor McLallen announced the upcoming Blood Drive and the fact that Geraldine Stipp, City Clerk, had won the City's Distinguished Service Award.





Gerry Harris, 23918 Forest Park, said he was here as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals on an issue which the Board believed begs their involvement. The issue brought before them at the March meeting was gun sales out of the home but he was not before them to ask about gun sales particularly but rather the ordinance they were asked to review for a possible variance was Article II, Section 20l-Home Occupations. In that article it specifically said "no keeping of stock in trade and no article shall be sold or offered for sale from the home." Mr. Harris said that a literal reading of this said that there was nothing a Novi resident could sell from their home, whether it was a car, a bike, Avon products, etc.


He said it was unfortunate that what brought this to their attention was the fact that the Federal Law changed and that change was very specific to the class of federally licensed fire arms dealer who came before the Board and there were 26 more in the City they expected to come. That Federal Law specifically required as a condition of that license that the dealer deliver from the home only, consequently, the City Ordinance was at distinct variance with the Federal Law.


Mr. Harris said the issue was not the gun permits or licensed dealers but the ordinance itself which was so completely difficult to enforce. He asked that they consider sending this to ordinance review to at least give the Ordinance Enforcement Officers some conditions under which it would be permissible.


He said he felt it was unfortunate that in this system of laws to protect they have in fact brought forward a situation here with the licensed gun dealers where they have now been identified in their neighborhood; where the neighbors did not know before because there was no traffic, no indication they existed. But, now there was a health and safety issue for this gentleman and all the others who have now been identified as having weapons or potential ammunition in their homes which they generally do not. He said they are asking that some time be taken to review the ordinance and begin to address these things because the Board did not want to see every Avon or Amway distributor or anyone else who had stock in trade out of their home before them because the ordinance was so specifically restrictive.


Dennis Watson said that could go either to Ordinance Review or the Planning Commission Implementation Committee which deals with zoning ordinance changes. His suggestion was the Implementation Committee along with the minutes of this commentary and the minutes of the ZBA meeting where it was discussed.


Tom Carle, 49176 Quince, said he wanted to address the safety and traffic situation of the subdivision with regard to item #2 Preliminary Plat of Orchard Hills West Subdivision. He said they would hear from other residents tonight about water problems and environmental issues as well. He said the traffic situation was terrible as it existed and he felt that he was held captive from 5 to 7 PM because it was impossible to make a left turn onto Ten Mile from Quince. He said Mr. Arroyo didn't feel additional cars were a problem but he hasn't seen the accidents or helped the injured people involved like he had. He said adding 200 vehicles to the subdivision with two entrances and exits would be a disaster.


He understood that the land was 65% wetlands and the DNR was supposed to purchase a good percentage of it. He asked that the City either hold up construction until they got the main arteries straightened out and a smoother safer traffic flow going or purchase the rest of the land and turn it into a natural environment park for them because there wasn't a lot of park area on the east side of Novi Road and they were pretty congested.


Mr. Carle said if the construction did go through, many kids played around the school after hours and they would play in the half finished basements and get hurt. He asked that the company's liability along with the City's liability be checked.


He said the developer did not come to residents and they did not know what he would be building; the developer said to the Planning Commission basically that it was his land and he was going to build on it and basically didn't care what the residents said. Mr. Carle said the residents voted Council into office and he asked who ran the City and controlled it. He asked if Council just let outside developers come in and tell them what they were going to do.


James Korte, Shawood Lake, said Sandstone/Vistas was on the agenda again and it was a PUD, which was the most horrible thing the City ever had and why they didn't have them any more. He said the City has held the north end hostage with this PUD; he said Hughlan properties has been wonderful to deal with and this was a good project and he asked that Council pass it along so they could get in.


Mr. Korte said last October the City Manager took personal police records and brought them to Council on an issue of open intoxicants. He said this Thursday, both of those tickets were dismissed and that same afternoon the City was re-issuing the warrants for his arrest. He said the City Prosecuting Attorney outright lied to the judge in the issues which would be taken up in a court of law which meant he would be re-arrested and it would up his felonious arrests greatly. He found it hard to believe that the City had nothing to do but allow things to be dismissed and within hours start the process all over again.



He said that this harassment and lies by the Prosecuting Attorney were unacceptable; he said all of this was a farce and their tax dollars and lawyer fees.


LaReta Roder, a resident of the Novi Heights Subdivision, said last fall she read an article in the Detroit News regarding a new proprietary process developed by Johnson Controls, an industrial company which abuts her subdivision. The article detailed a 5 year $7 million conversion to a new patented process they developed and would license to others. She said since she had never seen anything put before either the Planning Commission or Council for permits, she started asking around in order to answer several questions this article raised. She said the response letters she received from the Greg Capote in the Planning Department and Johnson Controls raised even more questions on her part.


Ms. Roder asked once a special land use was granted for an industrial operation, where was the ordinance enforcement other than fire safety. She asked if a company could just say that their process was proprietary and that protected them from having to divulge answers to legitimate concerns by abutting residential, and how could a $7 million conversion not come under more intense scrutiny especially when abutting residential.


She said because there didn't seem to be good answers to these questions, she was before them per Mr. Capote's suggestion to ask that this matter be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for study and that she be appraised of any conclusions reached and remedies implemented. Ms. Roder said not only was this of grave concern to Novi Heights Subdivision, she would also hope this would prevent any future problems for other subdivisions.


Mary Jane Brugeman, 46040 9 Mile, said she and her husband were requesting that Council deny item #3-Request for one year extension of final preliminary plat approval of Royal Crown No. 6, until the pending litigation was resolved between Beztak, JCK, the City of Novi and John and Mary Jane Brugeman. She said the litigation concerned the issue of protecting the root structure of very mature and irreplaceable sugar maple trees.


Michele Bonini of Bertram Drive in Royal Crown Estates said she represented the Royal Crown Estates Homeowners Association and Board as well as the Royal Crown Wetlands and Woodlands Committee. She said she would also like to speak to Consent Agenda item #3; the homeowners' concerns were specifically related to wetlands permit status, the enforcement of the City's soils or erosion and sedimentation ordinance, the transfer of parks and commons to the homeowners association in phases where final grades were not yet complete, and the status of existing wetland ponds regarding siltation received during construction.


She said it was of great concern that there was no current wetlands permit in effect for Royal Crown Estates. The area encompassing Phase 6 included the environmentally sensitive Thornton Creek as well as a proposed mitigated wetlands area. She said Phases 4 and 5 were active construction areas and also had an impact on Thornton Creek. She said since the developer intended to proceed from the present mass graded site to completion, they would like to know why a wetland permit - state or local - was not required.


Ms. Bonini said secondly, erosion and sedimentation controls at the construction sites had not been adequately maintained with many catch basins silted in and unstablized soil runoff was common in the active construction areas. She said this soil ladened runoff discharges mostly to Thornton Creek. She said the mass graded area of Phase #6 wintered over with raw exposed soil, however, as a result of the Board's recent complaints to the City, some of the catch basins have been provided with stone filters and construction area streets were cleaned last week.


She said thirdly, Beztak deeded to the Royal Crown Estates Homeowners Association the parks and commons areas for Phase 3, 4, and 5 in October of 1994 with no notice to the association. She said since the parks in Phases 4 and 5 have yet to have final grades in place or soils stabilized, particularly in Phase 5, the association took strong exception to the liability it had incurred for the passage of developer's equipment and tradespeople in these areas. They also took exception to ensuring construction activities of the developer as a result of having been deeded these properties before construction was complete. Ms. Bonini said in this regard, the board was particularly concerned about the two acre active recreation area which fronts on Irvine Drive.


She said they had been informed that the mitigated wetland ponds of Phase 1 which also serve as retention areas for storm water in Royal Crown Estates received no final inspection prior to the City's formal acceptance of the drainage systems from the developer. Such inspection would usually include verification that the pond pool elevation had not been negatively affected by siltation. She said since the City's maintenance responsibility for storm water in these ponds ends at their outlets, the homeowners association had inherited any siltation resulting from the construction of Phases 1, 2, and 3. Were the ponds to require dredging due to silted in conditions, the homeowners association would also inherit this costly expense from the developer.


Ms. Bonini said she would like them to know that the Royal Crown Estates Homeowners Association was resolution oriented and to that end, they have had extensive communications with relevant City departments and the DNR in an effort to have their concerns addressed and they plan to continue to do so. She said since the extension of the final plat was before Council tonight, she asked that they consider the homeowners association's position.


Warren Jocz, a Ten Mile Road resident, said for the past several months, he had been challenging the Council with facts and questions regarding the proposed Ten Mile Road Improvement Project. He said on February 27th, Council was asked to approve the expenditure of $284,000 on preliminary engineering services as awarded to JCK & Associates. Mr. Jocz said at the meeting, many residents expressed their concerns as to the construction of the contract as well as the perceived position that the City officials had already concluded that the road improvement requirement was to widen Ten Mile Road to five lanes. In response to these expressed concerns, many Council Members proceeded to ask extremely important and insightful questions. He said based on answers to these, several members took a pro-active approach to amend the contract with the following three provisions: 1-JCK and the Dept. of Public Services would provide monthly updates to the Council; 2-Council would be notified of any significant project conclusions; and 3-Council retains the right to terminate this contract at any time desired.


Mr. Jocz said he commended the Council for this action in finding a means to act responsibility and address the issues brought forth by the residents they serve. He said the Ten Mile Task Force would provide Council with significant and overwhelming information which would allow them to exercise the right to terminate this contract. He said to avoid any legal problems, the City Council requested that JCK provide a letter to the City stating their agreement to these new terms and he asked if such a letter had been received by Council. He said he believed based on the Council voted amendments that this contract could not be signed by the City until the letter of confirmation had been obtained.


He said one important item overlooked three weeks ago was the JCK profit statement. In the original quote package provided by JCK, the project was quoted as an expenditure of $284,000 with $19,020 of that to be retained as profit. In the formal contract that Council was to sign, the overall expenditure remained at $284,000 but JCK's profit increased 34% to $25,541. His concern was that this $6,500 difference was obtained by subtracting that dollar amount from another important area of the engineering contract and he asked that they review this if they had the opportunity.


Brad Nelson, 41821 Aspen, Orchard Hills Subdivision said his concern with the approval of Orchard Hills West was with his children who play on Aspen and walk home from Orchard Hills Elementary School through a vacant lot which would soon have a house built on it. He said he was not against the development, but with houses going in his child would have to walk from school down Tamara and back up Aspen which exposed her to all of the traffic going around the elementary school plus the heavy truck traffic of construction.


Mr. Nelson's request was for the City to consider helping put in sidewalks so there would be a safe place for the children to come and go from school and play safely.


Barbara Michael, 23585 Silvery Lane, wanted to address the Orchard Hills West Subdivision. She said she lived at the back of the subdivision at Silvery Lane and Sycamore and the designated wetland area was right behind her house with a creek connector running through it. She said there are significant problems with the creek flooding right now in the sub and the developer has a plan for routing storm water from the new development directly into the creek which would severely impact the current residents. She said they also have a concern about the heavy construction traffic because the roads in the sub have not been resurfaced in 20 years and the wear was beginning to show and the only access to the construction site was Quince and Borchart.


Ron Knox, President of the Orchard Hills Homeowners Association, said this was one of the oldest subdivisions in Novi with blacktop streets and no sidewalks. He said children play and ride in the streets and adults walk along them. He said 43 new homes on dead end streets would add about 430 new vehicle passages per day in an area that has heavy school traffic.


Mr. Knox noted that Orchard Hills Subdivision streets have not been paved in over 21 years with repaving scheduled in 1999. The streets would not withstand the heavy weight of construction traffic over the next two years. The residents recommended that the developer use his property north or south of the proposed site as a haul route; let him tear up his property and not their neighborhood streets. He asked if the contractor was responsible for damaged streets.


He said the proposed construction site's highest elevation was 888' dropping to the southeast lots of the existing subdivision at 840' over 15 acres. Mr. Knox said the developer proposed to add sewers and sump pumps to carry water to Lot 26 which would be concentrated from a small pipe to a swale which in heavy rain would flood the last two lots on Silvery Lane. He said the flooding in this area should have been looked into years ago; it appears the people in the affected area had water problems all year long.


Mr. Knox said some of their unanswered questions were has there been an environmental impact study done on the proposed sub and if so, how did it affect the present homeowners. If wells were going in, what effect would they have on the current wells in the area. He asked who was liable if there was additional flooding to their homes.


A resident of Borchart said in talking with a cement contractor, he was told it took ten cement trucks to do one house so that would be 500 cement trucks going in and 500 going out and all that dust would ruin his carpeting and get his cars filthy and ruin the way of life in the subdivision because it was nice and quiet.


Ken Spesak, a resident of Orchard Hills Subdivision, said he was opposed to Orchard Hills West Subdivision with 43 additional homes. He said his subdivision was built in 1959 with 115 homes on wells or City water with no City sidewalks and asphalt roads that were getting old and in need of repair and repaving. He said they were concerned about the additional traffic these 43 homes would create not only in the subdivision but also in the Ten Mile/Meadowbrook area. The area is heavily trafficked and there are plans to widen Ten Mile and they feel it would be much better to have the subdivision go in after the Ten Mile widening had taken place.


He said as they understood it, the contractor had not proposed a haul route in and out of the construction site and the only access he would have was on the existing roads. Mr. Spesak said a concrete truck empty weighed 34,000 pounds and it holds ten yards of concrete weighing 4,000 pounds a yard for an additional 40,000 pounds. A full concrete truck weighed 74,000 pounds and the subdivision had a 26,000 pound tandem axle limit on its roads; the roads simply cannot handle this construction traffic.


Mr. Spesak said in addition, there was an elementary school in the subdivision and he asked Council to consider the liability risk a new development would pose to children in the neighborhood and those attending the school. He urged Council to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the applicant.



Mary Bohem, 41911 Aspen, said her home was situated next to proposed Lot 43 in the Orchard Hills West Subdivision. She said one of the reasons they moved to Orchard Hills Sub was because they could see the elementary school from their front yard. She said this was important to her because she had two children and she could see them walk to and from school safely. She said another important reason for moving there was that her home is on a dead end street. She said worries of traffic zooming by on a daily basis was removed and they also enjoyed living in a subdivision that had a rural flavor to it. Mrs. Bohem said this uniqueness she felt was being lost in Novi with the incredible growth rate Novi is having now.


Mrs. Bohem said they knew that the land next to them would be developed someday and though this was not a pleasing thought this was progress. She said that the disturbing thing about this development was that these 43 homes have no other access into their sub other than the Orchard Hills Sub two entrances and that Aspen and Borchart are to be extended west because of it. She said there are no sidewalks and the children have always walked to school up a path that begins at the end of her street. She said in this way they avoid all the morning traffic of adults going to work, parents driving their children to school and all the school bus traffic that exists walking the other way.


Mrs. Bohem said the preliminary plat presented to the Planning Commission by the developer showed no such access for the children to continue to walk to school in the same manner. She said if the plat is the same as presented she was concerned that this way to school would be totally cut off. She said the possibility of a berm or brick wall would abut the schools parking lot that is situated at the top of this path and this would force the children to walk the way that would expose them to the heavy traffic that she had previously mentioned.


Mrs. Bohem said she had spoken to Mr. Paul LePlae, Principal of Orchard Hills Elementary, and he had expressed the same concerns she had. She said other subs with schools in them such as Novi Woods and Village Oaks have walking access for their children to get safely to school.


Mrs. Bohem said other concerns about the development had already been voiced such as where was all this heavy equipment going to enter and exit from, our two entrances. She asked if the developer cared what this would do to their streets and the adverse impact it would have on the children's ability to play safely. She said would our homeowners have to endure the same type of water problems that Briarwood is having at this moment. She said we already have problems with the water without disturbing the land this water problem exists. She said she had neighbors who had standing water in their backyards and would this have any effect on her well.


Mrs. Bohem said there had been questions about size, type and cost of homes going in. She said granted a $225,000 home next to hers would increase the value of her property and it would also show in the taxes that she would have to pay. She asked what would placing such a home next to her 30 year old, on a slab home do to her resale if she decided to sell.


Mrs. Bohem asked if Novi, in the name of progress, would all that was natural in it. She said she was aware that the developer had no responsibility to them and may feel he can develop as is his right. However, Council as our elected officials have a duty to answer our questions and our concerns and to protect the people who already live there. She urged the Council to please consider carefully the impact this development could have on their existing community.


Colin McQueen, lives on the corner of Borchart and Silvery Lane, stated his concern was the safety of the children. He has two pre-schoolers who like to walk through Orchard Hills Subdivision to visit other children on the street. He said he is at the intersection of the two entry routes so which ever of the two options the heavy trucks have they are going to come up either the side or front of his yard. Mr. McQueen said the school bus drivers who are notoriously safe drivers already managed to cut across the grass when they take that corner. He said they tell us we are going to have a stop sign but some that already exist are ignored whether by residents or visitors. He urged the Council to take great consideration of the safety of the children of the Orchard Hills Subdivision.


Tom Ouer, Orchard Hills Subdivision, asked if the development is proposed would the City Planner be confident about the drainage situation. He said he had heard numerous reports of people with standing water getting flooded now with the rains. He was wondering if there were plans for a retention well. He said recently the 100 year rain scenario in the last 5 years we have had two 100 year rains and what happens to the houses and who would be responsible if we have another one.


Mr. Ouer asked, in light of the traffic situation, he has young children and lives on the corner of Aspen and Tamara and right now the UPS driver can't make it around the corner without coming on his property. He said what happens when the cement trucks or gravel haulers are coming through there, are they going to tear up his lawn and who would replace it let alone the safety of his toddlers. He asked about the dust and would the developer be willing to clean and repair the streets.


Mr. Ouer said he was also concerned with the 10 Mile expansion. He said it is a nightmare now on Ten Mile and with the construction traffic it will be a nightmare. He said he didn't know where the access road would be to go in the subdivision. He asked would the construction be limited to the weekdays. He said he would like to take a walk with the family during the weekend and would not want to be diving into ditches when the concrete trucks come through on weekends.


Mary Urick, 41510 Tamara, said she takes 50% of the subdivisions water as it is from the north end. She said she was at the low end and her house was already on a spring. She said they put in dry wells dug inside and out to keep the water out of her house. She said when the gophers dig holes the ground bubbles up in her back yard. She said after $8,000 worth of waterproofing they have kept it from flooding as bad as it did before. She has two sump pumps that run every 15 to 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She said when one sump pump goes down she has water. She said if Council allows any more water to be added to her land she didn't know what would happen. Ms. Urick said she had standing water along the ditch along Borchart now and had been told by the City that they don't clean the storm drains and if that was the problem and she wanted the ditch deeper that it was her responsibility. She said her son had been walking along Tamara to school for 4 years and this fortunately was his last semester at Orchard Hills so he would be bused from now on. She said, like the gentlemen before not wanting to dive in ditches, her son had been diving in ditches for four years and she doesn't know how he had kept from getting hurt. Ms. Urick said there were 430 children in Orchard Hills School and they are not all from her subdivision. She said the parents that drop their children off especially in bad weather do not adhere to any kind of a 25 MPH speed limit. She said they come around her corner at 50 MPH. She never allowed her children to ride Big Wheels and they did not ride bicycles until they were 9 years old because they don't have sidewalks and the drivers don't stop at the two stop signs that are there now. Ms. Urick asked the Council to take into account their concerns when they take their vote.


Vicki Rose, Woodland Creek, and said she had many concerns over the proposed development but the one she wanted to emphasize was the water issue. She said she was out there yesterday and in that parcel of land a river runs through it. She estimated it was 25 to 35 feet wide and approximately 1 1/2 feet deep. She said she was in a lower part of the sub and concerned about potential flooding and asked each Council Member to do what they could if the proposed project went through to assure that there wouldn't be flooding and other types of water problems.


Bill Langquist, 23655 Silvery Lane at the corner of Borchart.

He said along with his neighbors he shared their concern about water but he had an additional concern living at the corner that would support probably half the traffic coming out of this proposed subdivision. He said that would put another 200+ cars by his house every morning and every evening coming in. He said he doesn't know how he would get out of his driveway, it's going to be near impossible. He said he was kind of land locked in there between Meadowbrook and Ten Mile, today we can't get in or out during busy hours. He said coming up Meadowbrook was how they came in and it was bad now and if another 400 cars are introduced into that area there would be a standing line trying to get in. He strongly recommended that Council support the residents and turn the proposal down and protect their area. He said they have had enough strip malls and growth in the area and are almost grid locked in there now. He said the road system around them would not support any more traffic on it. He said he liked Novi and had been here for 15 years but you are driving us out and if Council proposes this between the water conditions and being grid locked and not being able to get out of our property he would probably have to leave Novi.


Fred Beya, 23615 Silvery Lane, said that he was on the southeast corner of the proposed development. He said reading from a letter from JCK to the Planning Commission of 2-23-95 it said that "the southeast corner is subject to frequent flooding". He said they are right because he lives there and had spent over $6,000 for water treatment for his house, his sump pump is constantly running and he is on a wetland. He said his back yard drains towards his house, the street flows down the hill to his property from the area of the proposed development. He said water flows downhill and that was where he was. He didn't think there was enough planning put into this to check on the water problem because no one came around and asked him anything and he was paying for it. He said he was paying for it but he liked where he is at and he is paying his dues but he doesn't need anymore problems.


Mr. Beya said from the Foresters comment from his letter of 2-23-95 he was concerned with the improper grading in that development. He said he was concerned about it too because everything grades down his way. He asked where the woodland preservation easement would be, where would the detention basin be. None of these things are clear and felt Council should address them before making a decision. He asked if the wetlands in the southeast corner of the site be protected permanently or subject to future review. He asked what kind of studies were done on traffic impact in regards to the people in the sub.


Michael James, 41711 Aspen, said the big concern was the amount of traffic that would be ingested into this little subdivision. He said the teachers take the children from the school and walk them through the subdivision probably two classes at a time with a teacher in the front and a teacher in the back. He said that was about 60 children walking down the street with no sidewalks. He said he had all the same concerns that his neighbors had but thought the children and sidewalks were a very important things that Council needed to think about. He said by the City's own admission there would be 400 more cars per day in the subdivision.







1. Approval of Minutes - Regular meeting of February 6th, Regular Meeting of February 27th, Special Meeting of March 2nd.


2. Resolution - Transfer of Ownership of Resort Class C License from Morrison Restaurants, Inc. to Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 27736 Novi Road/Twelve Oaks Mall


That the request for: RUBY TUESDAY, INC., Request Transfer

Ownership of 1994 Class C licensed business located at 27736 Novi, Twelve Oaks Mall, Novi, Oakland County from, Morrison

Restaurants, Inc. be considered for approval.


It is the consensus of this legislative body that the

application be recommended for issuance.


3. Request from Beztek Company for a one year extension of the Final Preliminary Plat Approval of Royal Crown No. 6

4. Resolution - Request to transfer ownership of Class C Resort

License from Novi Ventures, Inc. to Stevens Holding Company

(Salvatore Scallopini Restaurante)


That the request from STEVENS HOLDING COMPANY to transfer

ownership of 1994 12 Months Resort Class C licensed business,

located at 24299 Novi, Novi, MI 48375, Oakland County, from

NOVI VENTURES, INC. be considered for approval.


It is the consensus of this legislative body that the

application be recommended for issuance.


5. Resolution - Approval of DNR Grant Application - Community

Sports Park



WHEREAS, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources administers three (3) programs which provided financial assistance to local communities, and



WHEREAS, this financial assistance is directed at creating

and improving recreational opportunities and providing

protection to our valuable resources, and



WHEREAS, the City of Novi has adopted a Recreation Master

Plan that prioritizes acquisition and development objectives,




WHEREAS, the recreational development of Community Sports Park

has been recommended in the City of Novi Master Plan.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Novi City Council will

direct the Department of Parks and Recreation to submit a

grant application to the Michigan Department of Natural

Resources for the development of Community Sports Park.



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Novi will provide

co-funding of the park development in the amount of 25% of

the total cost.


6. Acceptance of Water Main Easement and Bill of Sale - Maxim

Building/Section 23, subject to title policy verification and

review by the City Attorney

7. Resolution - Request of Epoch Enterprises, Inc. to transfer

ownership of 1994 12 Months Resort Class C licensed business

with Dance Permit, located at Marquette, MI 49855, from Sara

Jane Pelto, to 27155 Sheraton Drive, Novi, MI 48375 and

request for a new Entertainment Permit without dressing rooms

(Step II)


That the request from EPOCH ENTERPRISES, INC. to transfer

ownership of 1994 12 Months Resort Class C licensed business

with Dance Permit, located at Co. Rd. 550, Star Route 550,

Marquette, MI 49855, Powell Township, Marquette County, from

Sara Jane Pelto; transfer location (governmental unit) to 27155 Sheraton Drive, Novi, MI 48375, Oakland County; and

request a new Entertainment Permit without dressing rooms

(Step II) be considered for approval.


It is the consensus of this legislative body that the

application be recommended for issuance.


8. Award bid for street trees for Walden Woods to Michigan

Turf, Inc. in the amount of $78,144.00

9. Award bid for street trees for Nine Mile planting to Michigan

Turf, Inc. in the amount of $20,834.00

10. Award bid for street trees for Bradford planting to Dan K's

Inc. in the amount of $76,881.00

11. Award bid for softballs to Dee's Sport Shop in the amount of



Councilman Pope removed Item #3


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

and 11 be approved.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously


Mayor McLallen stated that 10 Items had been passed on the Consent Agenda and Item #3 would be addressed by the Council at a later date.


Councilman Pope asked if Mayor McLallen was suggesting that Item #3 could be tabled at this time. He said he would be in favor of doing this because it would be a late meeting and he had a lot of questions. Mayor McLallen said the petitioner was present and it would be discussed.






1. Revised Resolution - Establishment of Building Authority and

Articles of Incorporation


Mayor McLallen said this item was back before the Council because of clarification issues. She said the major change was the composition of the Board and instead of a Building Official it had been recommended that the Parks and Recreation Director be put on as the other official.


Craig Klaver, Assistant City Manager wanted to point out an additional issue that Councilman Mitzel raised and that was the extension of the provision that Council amended to indicate that one of the citizens members that would be on the Building Authority should not be a resident of the project. He said Mr. Neiman heard that to read should not be the resident of any senior project and that was how that particular provision was drafted. He said if Council did not want to make that change then they would need to amend that.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That the revised Resolution be adopted with the change of language that the Resolution talks specifically of that senior facility and not all senior facilities.





Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Watson if the Council had to officially rescind the formal Resolution and Articles of Incorpora-



Mr. Watson said Council needed to make a motion to approve this Resolution and rescind the Resolution that was approved previously.


Councilman Mitzel asked the maker of the motion to include rescinding the previous Articles.


Councilman Crawford agreed.



Councilman Pope opposed this because it was an $8 Million expenditure that was not going to the voters.


Councilman Toth opposed this because he had concerns about the Parks and Recreation Director being on the Committee. He felt that the recent bonding proposal that was passed by park lands was a very significant issue and the amount of time that would be required in the development of the parks should command his attention more so than this area. He felt someone else should be more adequately appointed to the Committee.


Councilwoman Mason opposed it because there is $9.3 Million in bonding for Parks and Recreation to develop park land. She said there was no money put in there to develop park land so that was something else Council had to come to the people with. She firmly believed that someone from the Building Department should be the person who was involved with this and not Parks and Recreation. Councilwoman Mason said Parks and Recreation programs are growing so fast, park land had to be developed and we are acquiring so many things that she did not think that one person could do that.


Mayor McLallen restated the motion:


That the previous Resolution that established a Building Authority be removed and replaced with language that substituted the Park Director for the Building Official and change the language regarding residency.


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

Crawford) Pope, Toth,



ROLL CALL: Crawford-Yes, Mason-No, Mitzel-Yes, Pope-No, Schmid-Yes, Toth-No, McLallen-No


The previous Resolution stands.


Councilman Pope said there seemed to be some confusion. He said the intent of his motion was that the authority which would set the rents for the facility should not have a resident setting the rates. He said it did not mean that other residents in other senior housing facilities could not serve. He said that was the intent of his motion, the attorney did not hear it properly and the record should reflect that was the intent of the motion.


Mr. Watson said then the previous Resolution should be corrected to reflect what that motion was. Councilman Pope said that was correct.



Mr. Klaver said Mr. Watson made amendments that were included in this revision that he believed Mr. Watson wanted to be included. He asked if those amendments would stand.


Mr. Watson said the amendments that were made as part of the motion at the last meeting would stand.


Councilwoman Mason asked what those amendments were.


Councilman Pope said they were restricting down to just senior housing so parking facilities, etc. were removed and the residency requirement.


Councilwoman Mason asked if those were the only amendments.


Councilman Pope said those were the only ones he recalled.


Mayor McLallen said that Resolution stands with Councilman Pope's clarification.


Councilwoman Mason asked where the idea came from to change Building Department to Parks and Recreation.


Mr. Klaver said it was done in light of discussion the Council had that suggested there was concern relative to the residency issue that Mr. Neiman had spoken to. He said they felt it was discussed and there was some interest on Council that it be evaluated. However, it was not included in the motion and they were not sure whether Council wanted the Administration to make additional recommendations and that was why they did so in the latest revision.


Councilwoman Mason asked because it wasn't recommended at the last Council meeting who decided to replace one governing person with another governing person.


Mr. Klaver said it was a decision discussed with the City Manager.


Councilwoman Mason said then it was opposed to what the Council said. She said that when the Council directs the City Administration to do something that did not mean the Administration should change everything that Council suggested at the Council table.



2. Tentative approval of the preliminary plat of Orchard Hills West Subdivision - Approval should be subject to the granting

of a Woodlands Permit by the Planning Commission


Richard Lewiston, Berger/Lewiston and Associates, owners of the property. He said the subdivision comprises 43 single family lots on approximately 14.7 acres in an R-4 Zoning District. The property is bound on the west by Orchard Ridge Apartments, on the north by the Orchard Hills School, on the east by Orchard Hills Subdivision and on the south by approximately 45 additional acres which he owned as part of the same parcel. Mr. Lewiston said they also own the 9 acres located north of the public school to 10 Mile Road. He said they had owned all of the land for about 30 years.


Mr. Lewiston said the subdivision was first filed with the City in March of 1994 and it under went approximately 6 major revisions. Mr. Lewiston said they attempted in consultation with the City staff and consultants to make it more sensitive to the City's environmental laws including the woodlands/wetlands laws. He said the end result was a subdivision that contained so little wetland and had so little wetland impact that it was considered a minor use subject to an Administrative permit rather than a full fledged permit. He said they also, by virtue of re-figuring the streets in the subdivision, minimized the woodland impact to the peripheral areas of woodlands involved only in the rears of approximately Lots 20 through 26.


Mr. Lewiston said the subdivision would not be developed until the water moratorium was lifted. He said it had at all times been contemplated that the subdivision would be served by public water. He said the public water that would be extended was located on the westerly boundary of the proposed subdivision at the common line between the apartment site and the subdivision site.


Mr. Lewiston said the sanitary sewer was also on the westerly boundary again the common line between the apartments and the subdivision site.


Mr. Lewiston said the storm drainage, a very critical element at the Planning Commission discussion and the discussions this evening. He said along the easterly boundary of the sub there was an existing easement for storm drainage, 25 feet in width. He said there was presently a ditch section which served to drain the school property. He said the intention of the subdivision, all of this was subject to the absolute verification of City engineers to Council's satisfaction, all of the drainage for the subdivision would be captured within a storm sewer to be installed within that easement. The storm sewer would run due south to an existing ditch due south of Lot 26 where it was the original intention that it would be an outlet directly to the Walled Lake branch of the Rouge River. He said no storm water from the subdivision entered the adjacent Orchard Hills Subdivision and this was by virtue of the City's engineers calculations. Mr. Lewiston said the Walled Lake branch of the Rouge River was designed to contain 100 year floods, that was it's purpose. He said it was a major, major drainage way. He said it was the estimation of his engineer and the City's engineer that the water level impact on the Walled Lake branch of the Rouge River was statistically immaterial. He said it was not even measurable. He said the river probably had a watershed of 1,500 acres or more and perhaps three times that much. He said the water level increase, they occasion by direct drainage into the Walled Lake branch might be an inch or two but still well within the 100 year flood level of that drainage area. He said unfortunately the Orchard Hills Sub was developed and constructed long before any of the present engineering standards were adopted for how far away from a source of 100 year flooding housing should be. He said there was approximately 40 feet of fall between the high point in their subdivision and the nearest low point in Orchard Hills West. He said their drainage intercepts all of their drainage but he could see how the proximity of the branch of the river at its elevation only some 8 or 9 feet below that lowest elevation might lead to problems. He said it was the finding in the statement of the engineering staff that nothing they are proposing in Orchard Hills West would exacerbate that situation at all.


Mr. Lewiston said obviously these people have a lifetime investment in their homes and all of this ought to be verified so that they are not left open to chance. He said they know it to be a fact and he would like the City to know it to be a fact. He said no drainage from Orchard Hills West would go easterly into that subdivision, that no water level now upon their yards or in their homes would be elevated by anything that they do. He said, certainly, nothing they do in the Walled Lake branch of the River Rouge would have any additional effect on the troubles they are experiencing.


Mr. Lewiston said he was in no rush and asked that all of this be decided and discussed by the engineering staff so that all are sure that in fact was the case. He said they had stated it at the meetings, they had stated it to them and the engineers have verified those same numbers. He said for their satisfaction he would like to be sure that he could be as good a neighbor as he could be.


Mr. Lewiston wanted to speak to the question that he felt engenders the largest problem. He said he was between a rock and a hard place. He said he had a 65 acre parcel and you would like me not to use 45 acres of it. He said the 45 acres that he doesn't use as part of this subdivision was the #1 priority development rights purchase on the City's agenda. He said he had been invited to a meeting tomorrow morning at 10:00 am in which he was supposed to discuss reasonably the acquisition of the development rights to that property. He said he had a hundred ways to get into the subdivision but they all involve building roadways through that pristine 45 acres. He said he would like to avoid it. He said that was the rock and the hard place. He had another 10 acres north of the school property. He said if the City would bring its influence to bear on the School Board and if the School Board would sit down with him there may be room for discussion on having an alternate way into the public school. Then at least that traffic would be taken off Quince, Aspen and Borchart. He said they have the land, it is an odd site, but there are some usable areas along 10 Mile Road. He said if you drive by it is a site that looks like it had a swamp just north of the school property but there are usable portions of it. He said there was certainly room for driveways, better driveways serving the school then the old style public street simply dead ending at the school site.


Mr. Lewiston said instead of denying this at the Planning Commission there were things to talk about. He said there were things that the engineer for JCK said are not true, don't listen to them, these people aren't causing that problem. He said there are alternates that could be discussed whether they are possible or not he didn't know. He said no one wants to use that 45 acres, no one wants to tear down a tree for a haul road. He said it was a beautiful piece of property and the people to the south in Meadowbrook Lakes would like to see it preserved and he would work with the City to see that that was done. He said he had owned it for 30 years and would like to see it put to a use that satisfied people. He said on the other hand there might be some area of the school property that could be used temporarily in exchange for his providing off 10 Mile Road even better access to the school. He said at least it was something to discuss instead of dismissing out of hand.


Mr. Lewiston said sooner or later, whether it's him, his son, or his partner someone was going to look again to do something with this and the problems are going to have to be solved. He said they have had similar problems in the past in Livonia where they had parcels of land at the butt end of developed districts they put up road bonds for the future reconstruction of the roads they used. He said that was a possibility especially in view of the fact that there was a future major road planned for the area. He said if there was some other alternative short of using any part of the 45 acres for a haul road and if the School Board could be asked to sit down by someone with more power than he had then perhaps some reasonable alternative would come out of it.


Mr. Lewiston said he had the time and he was not in any speed contest and he would like to make sure that everybody was on a solid footing on this.


Councilwoman Mason where it says "not included on the map access available from Meadowbrook Road", is that Hampton Drive.


Mr. Lewiston said they were asked to indicate that they were not land locking this parcel. He said when it says "not included" that relates to the entire 45 acres which was the regulated woodlands and wetlands. He said there were some usable areas too but it was the pristine area of this 59 acre parcel.


Councilwoman Mason said if there were not woodlands on it you would be able to have access from Meadowbrook and Hampton Drive.


Mr. Lewiston said it would be possible to build a road from Meadowbrook to the subdivision, whether it would be desirable because it would do some damage to the extent that the State of Michigan was serious about its development rights acquisition under Public Act 116. He said he didn't know about the Act until last week when he got a notice from the City saying the parcel had been nominated for acquisition and was the #1 priority on Public Act 116 by the DNR. He said he had no objection to it and was going to sit down and try to work something out and to that end it would probably be the worst of alternatives from a naturalist standpoint to build that road. He said from a people standpoint it would be the best way and it would disturb nobody. He said that was why he was between a rock and a hard place because that road disturbs nobody except people who like beautiful things and this road disturbs 112 people. He urged Council to look at the school situation and see whether there isn't some trade or something that could be worked out to at least bring the construction traffic in from 10 Mile. He felt that the permanent traffic generated by the subdivision by 43 houses would somehow over time be absorbed in road improvements.


Mr. Lewiston said the effects from increased water lever were immaterial from the subdivision. He said they did have within their ownership a storm water detention basin that serviced the Novi Ridge Apartments. He said according to JCK during the latter stages of engineering design they were going to look at that detention basin and see if it had any utility for purposes of this subdivision to eliminate all direct run off. He said to these issues he would want the people to be satisfied.


Councilman Toth asked if Mr. Lewiston had considered putting in sidewalks along Borchart.


Mr. Lewiston said that he hadn't.


Councilman Toth said the children do walk in the streets in that area, if sidewalks were in from Borchart to Meadowbrook that would probably alleviate some of the concerns that the residents had. He asked if that would be a consideration that Mr. Lewiston would entertain.


Mr. Lewiston said absolutely.


Councilman Schmid said he was getting the sense that Mr. Lewiston didn't want any action on this tonight if there were other possibilities.


Mr. Lewiston said absolutely and what he had heard were some very legitimate concerns.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant, said that this subdivision had 43 lots and did not meet the threshold for a detailed traffic impact analysis and that was why Council didn't have one. He said at the Planning Commission meeting there were questions raised regarding traffic. He said he indicated at that meeting that most single family developments generated approximately 10 trips per day per household and that was where the 430 trips per day came from. He said in terms of its impact he felt that based upon the layout of the subdivision it might be reasonable to assume 50% of it would go to 10 Mile and 50% to Meadowbrook. He said that was about 215 cars going to each one of the roadways during the PM peak hour. He said typically it was about 10% of that daily so roughly 22 vehicles during the PM peak hours going to Meadowbrook and 22 going to 10 Mile.


Mr. Arroyo said the haul route for construction was discussed briefly at the Planning Commission. He said some of the things the developer mentioned was new information. He said typically that type of decision was made later on in the process but since it was an issue now he thought it was something that could be explored by meeting with Mr. Arroyo, the City engineers and also the Building Department. He said if there were alternatives to be explored he would be happy to be involved and was sure there were others that would be happy to be involved.


Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Arroyo to comment on Mr. Lewiston's offer of an alternate entrance to the school off of 10 Mile.


Mr. Arroyo said he felt it was definitely worth exploring and he would have to hear the comments from the school district and look at where that access would come out onto 10 Mile to make sure it was a reasonable location. He said he could not come out and say it was a good idea to do it at this point but he could say that it was a good idea to explore it.


Councilman Schmid said it seemed to him the impact on the streets would be rather severe and asked if that would be a major item he would consider in his analysis.


Mr. Arroyo said he didn't know what he meant by severe. He said these are existing public streets, there are sub streets intended to be involved in serving the adjacent property. He said anytime traffic was added to an existing residential street there would be concerns. He felt it was important that the transition areas be constructed so that we are going from the existing roadway situation to the proposed roadway and that the transition be done in a safe manner. He said they are going from a ditch type roadway to probably a curb and gutter situation and that would involve transitioning details which are typically worked out at the subdivision engineering drawing level. He thought that was where the major concern would come into play.


Councilman Schmid said if Mr. Lewiston were to build the sub, all of the sub the old and the new, wouldn't there be some different road configurations. He asked if there would be a collective street.


Mr. Arroyo said it was difficult to tell. He said given the size of this there might not be. He said collector roads are usually looked at when it is a half section or full section. He said when there was a collector there was a whole different set of

design standards and no longer do you have lots fronting on the collector road. He said when there are a lot of environmental features that come into play that also restricts the ability to put in collector roads in different locations.


Councilman Schmid said from a traffic engineer, you are saying that this would not dramatically impact the existing sub.


Mr. Arroyo said there had not been a detailed traffic survey done to tell him what the level of service would be at Quince and 10 Mile and Borchart and Meadowbrook. He said without that information it was difficult to answer this. He said based on what he had before him, review of the City Ordinances, he did not see any reason to recommend denial of this application and that was why he had recommended approval of the tentative preliminary plat.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant, said his report of February 15th he found that the design, lot sizes, relationship to the Master Plan all conformed. He said the street stubs were put in with the intention of extension to the land in the back. He said they had looked at the impact on woodlands and Mr. Pargoff and Linda Lemke had recommended the woodlands permit. The Planning Department had not acted on this yet. He said his recommendation, with a few details to be put on the final preliminary plat was one to approve the design.


Councilwoman Mason said the existing Orchard Hills was not hooked up to the storm system, is that correct. She said their storm system was the deep ditch system where the water comes off the road and goes into the ditch.


Mr. Kapelczak said that was correct they are not hooked up to a regional system within their subdivision because of the standards that were in place some 20 some years ago. He said that was why they had an open ditch design and a 22 ft. wide asphalt paved surface.


Councilwoman Mason said Mr. Lewiston's proposed subdivision comes up to the subdivision, is that correct.


Mr. Kapelczak said that was correct.


Councilman Mason said he would be required to put in a storm drain system to go into our storm water drain system, is that correct.


Mr. Kapelczak said he would be required to go into the standards as they exist today.


Councilwoman Mason asked if there was anyway for Mr. Lewiston to incorporate any of the problems on Silvery Lane drainage into his storm drain system. She asked why couldn't that storm system be incorporated into where it floods so badly on Silvery Lane and Sycamore.


Mr. Kapelczak said this was the tentative preliminary plat stage and to engineering that meant very little because they don't look at it until after this stage. He said their engineer wouldn't get into any final design until the Council approved this stage. He said everything they had looked at between their engineering office and his office are of a very preliminary nature just to see if concepts could work. He said nothing in detail had been looked at. He said to comment on any detailed matters at this point it would be way to early in the process. He said if something doesn't work engineering wise then it would come back to Council. He said if they say this plat cannot work because of some engineering standard then it would come back to Council and would have to go through the process again.


Councilwoman Mason asked who decided that. She said one of the most important things to these people tonight was their worry that the drainage would come off that property into their property. She said the developer said this would not happen.


Mr. Kapelczak said at this point he didn't know if it would happen.


Councilman Toth said the drainage from the existing Orchard Hills goes south toward Meadowbrook Lake.



Councilman Mitzel indicated that some of his questions had been answered but he asked if the developer could be required to resurface the roads.


Mr. Watson said bonding for damage that occured as a result of the work can be required. He suggested getting a video of the conditions prior to the work commencing.


Councilman Mitzel asked if the City could require off site improvements.


Mr. Watson said they could not.


Councilman Mitzel said the subdivision ordinance stated that the Planning Commission may require a developer to place a walkway to schools. He asked if it was in Council's power to require that.


Mr. Watson said that it was.


Councilman Mitzel asked if the traffic concerns from an existing subdivision would be a legal reason to deny the approval of this plat.


Mr. Watson said he did not think it was a basis for denial.

The traffic engineer can designate haul routes.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That the tentative approval of Orchard Hills West be tabled to a date uncertain to allow the developer and the City Manager or his designee the opportunity to work out details of a solution working with the school district regarding access to the subdivision from 10 Mile Road, and that the developer investigate the possibility of a sidewalk on Borchart.



Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously




3. Resolution - Senior Housing Implementation Committee


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That the following Resolution be adopted:



WHEREAS, the Senior Citizen's Housing Committee has completed

the duties for which they were empowered; and



WHEREAS, as a result of this Committee's efforts a Building

Authority for the purpose of investigating Senior Housing

Project has been created; and



WHEREAS, there is a need for input to the Building Authority

regarding the need for Senior Housing and Senior Citizen




NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a Senior Citizens Housing

Implementation Committee be formed for the purpose of assisting the Building Authority with such decisions as the

criteria for the eligibility for residents of the housing

project, the features such a project should include and other

Senior Citizen services.



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Committee shall consist of

five members to be appointed for two year terms. The Assistant City Manager and the Special Recreation Coordinator

shall be ex-officio members of the Committee.





Councilman Toth said his understanding was that we would have some fixed period of time for members to be appointed.


Councilman Pope stated he did not want City staff being members of the committee.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That the Resolution be amended to change the make up of the Committee to 5 members of the public for 2 year terms, the Assistant Manager and Special Recreation Coordinator to be ex-officio members of the committee.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That at least one of the five members be a senior citizen age 55 or above.



Councilman Toth said that when he served on the Senior Housing Committee one of the problems they had was the definition of a senior citizen.


Vote on second amendment.


Yes (2-Crawford, Schmid) No (5-Mason, Amendment defeated

Mitzel, Pope,

Toth, McLallen)

Vote on first amendment.


Yes (6-Mason, Pope, No (1-Schmid) Amendment carried

Mitzel, Toth,

Crawford, McLallen)


Vote on Resolution as amended.


Yes (6-Mason, Pope, No (1-Schmid Motion carried

Mitzel, Toth,

Crawford, McLallen)



4. Approval of Federal Grand Application for two police officers.


Chief Shaffer was present and presented the grant.


Councilman Toth indicated that the information does not cover anything but actual salary. He asked for the actual cost.


Chief Shaffer indicated that no additional vehicles would have to be bought. Original uniforms would cost $3,500 with $600 to $800 a year after that. There would be $1,000 for education however, it might not have to be spent if we could find someone who had already put themselves through that school. A prep radio would cost $1,200. Chief Shaffer said he felt they could handle these costs internally.


Councilman Crawford asked how long it took to get an officer on the road and what was the Chief's projection for additional officers for the next 2 to 5 years.


Chief Shaffer indicated that it took approximately one year before they could function individually and about 3 years before they could function self sufficiently. He said he would be prepared to answer the second question at the budget meeting.


Councilman Pope said he would support this even though he had great reluctance.


Councilwoman Mason said she supported the grant.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Pope


That the Federal Grant Application for 2 police officers

be approved.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously


5. Approval of Grant Application/Computer Funds


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason


That the grant application for computer funds be approved.





Councilman Toth said the Computer Committee had encouraged the Chief to seek Federal Grants wherever possible.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously


6. Approval of PUD agreement - Vistas of Novi


Dennis Watson stated that if Council had any comments or changes that they be brought forward this evening so that the developer could return with the entire document including the Revised Area Plan Booklet. He indicated the agreement had been prepared, the density calculations have been completed and the applicant would complete the booklet with those changes. He indicated the developer had one item he wished to discuss.


Greg Gamaski representing the developer said that in as much as it is not clear that the City may or may not accept the roads in the project he felt that the issue in the agreement regarding snow removal should be removed. Greg Gamalski said that if Market Street was not accepted for dedication the owners on Market Street would pay for the maintenance of the road. He felt that if the City accepted the premise that the owners on Market Street should not have to pay for the maintenance of the road if it were dedicated, the snow removal reference could be removed.


Councilman Pope indicated that it was midnight and he was not ready to begin this discussion. He felt Council should proceed the way the contract was written.


Councilman Schmid questioned the parking issue and said if you read this carefully on the issue of the live/work town houses, no where did it address parking.


Brandon Rogers stated that he and Mr. Arroyo had studied the parking at length. He said it was their opinion that the actual locations could not be determined at this time. He said they would access the availability of parking on the curb and within 600 feet. He said he would be concerned with this matter at the time of Site Plan Review.


Councilman Schmid felt they were creating a parking problem.

Rod Arroyo mentioned that the attachment provides for common parking lots. These will be reviewed during the site plan review process.


Councilman Schmid wanted to be sure that in the total parking for the commercial in this project that they did take into consideration all of the live/work units and that there is enough parking for all of those and the commercial.


The snow removal matter was discussed and Mr. Gibbs mentioned that when snow removal was discussed it was strictly for village center and not all of Market Street.


Administration to bring the matter back on the agenda when the Revised Area Plan Booklet was ready.





It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Pope


That the agenda be amended to discuss Item #3 from the Consent Agenda, Final Preliminary Plat approval Royal Crown Estates #6 at this time.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously


Mr. Larry Wilkinson was present and indicated that this was the last phase of the Royal Crown Estates Open Space Subdivision. He said the extension of the Final Preliminary Plat approval does not relate to trees off site.


Mark Sturing a resident of Royal Crown Estates and a representative of Beztek Corp. wanted Council to understand that the trees mentioned are off site. There is a soil erosion permit and they do have a woodlands permit. There is litigation against JCK, the City and Beztek in regard to some off site trees.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


To table this item until April 10 recognizing that this is the City's request and the developer is not in peril. City staff to review the issues in the letter that was read by Michelle Bononi at this meeting.


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


6A. City Clerk Committee


Councilman Toth indicated that he expressed his concerns at the committee level. He said his understanding was that in late January they were authorized to place an ad in the Municiple League Publication. He said after that he found the want ad was sent out without Council approval and a salary figure was stated. He felt that the position should have a minimum requirement of college graduate. He said he was concerned about this and the advertisement and the way the advertisement was written. He felt the salary level should be set by the Council.


Councilwoman Mason said this entire matter was discussed at the committee level and Councilman Toth was over ruled.





Council took at 10 minute break




7. Ordinance 95-18.123 - Street Tree Requirements in Site




It was then,


Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That Ordinance 95-18.123 - Street Tree Requirements in





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

Crawford, Schmid,

Mitzel, McLallen)



8. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 434


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That Claims and Accounts Warrant #434 be approved.


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

Mitzel, Schmid,

Crawford, McLallen)



9. Ordinance 95-09.02 - Planning Commission Residency Requirement



It was then,


Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Pope


That Ordinance 95-09.02 - Planning Commission Residency

Requirement II Reading - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27-17



CITY OF NOVI be approved.


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

Mitzel, Pope,


Schmid, Mason



10. Ordinance 95-149.02 - Amendment to Liquor License Regulations



It was then,


Moved by Councilman Pope

Seconded by Councilman Schmid




Mr. Watson said this would allow the Council to direct the Police Department to put conditions in their records. He said the other section that was referred to, 3-14E was the section that required the City Clerk to submit it to the various departments including fire and building and to get reports from them. He said after discussing it with Mrs. Stipp, City Clerk, they came to the conclusion that Council would probably still want to have that in there and get those reports.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously



11. Schedule Executive Session for Monday, March 27th at 7:00 PM

regarding pending litigation.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel


That an Executive Session be scheduled for Monday, March 27th at 7:00 PM regarding pending litigation be approved.


Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried unanimously





12. Approval of the Budget Study Meeting Schedule as presented.


Councilman Schmid said he would not be available April 6th.


Councilman Mitzel asked if this was for all 4 Thursdays of April. Mayor McLallen said that was correct.


Council Members Mitzel and Mason won't be available on the 17th and Councilwoman Mason won't be available on April 20th.


Mayor McLallen asked how many members would not be available the week after Easter. Mayor McLallen stated there would be a quorum on the 17th.



It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That the Budget Study Schedule be approved as presented.


Yes (2-Crawford, No (4-Mitzel, Mason, Motion defeated

Schmid, Toth, Pope)



Councilman Mitzel suggested Monday, April 3rd replace April 17th.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel


That the Budget Study Schedule Meetings be held on April

3rd, 6th, 13th, 20th and 27th.


Councilman Schmid said he may not be available the 27th.


There was no second to the motion.


Mayor McLallen said Council was unable to come to agreement on the Budget Study Sessions and that a quorum was required but unanimous participation was not.


It was then,


Moved by Councilwoman Mason


That two Budget Study Sessions be held one on April 3rd at 7:00 PM and one on April 6th at 7:00 PM.


Councilman Toth said he was not available on the 6th.


No second to the motion.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the question be reconsidered to approve the Budget Study Meeting Schedule as presented.



Yes (3-Crawford, Mitzel, No (3-Toth, Pope, Motion defeated

McLallen) Mason)



Councilman Schmid did not vote he was totally confused.


Mayor McLallen said there was a meeting March 27th and the staff could work at it again and try to come to consensus.


Councilman Crawford said perhaps the reason this was suggested was because this was when Administration was available. He asked if Council would be scheduling some of these without Mr. Kriewall and without other people. He said maybe they didn't schedule the 3rd because there was something else going on that Council was not aware of. He said he thought the City Manager lined up department heads to go through this and therefore they had recommended this schedule. He said when we start doing this without Mr. Kriewall here we are in jeopardy of not having a useful session.


Councilwoman Mason said Mr. Klaver said Mr. Kriewall would be here and he said it would be too soon.


Mr. Klaver said if there was a problem with the date it would be getting everything ready by then.


Mayor McLallen said her suggestion was to continue the discussion on the 27th when Mr. Kriewall was available and Council was a bit fresher. She said to remember that 100% attendance was not required at every meeting. She said these are study sessions.







Councilman Pope said every since he had been on Council he had never seen an issue like there was in their packet tonight. He asked Mr. Watson if he was concerned that a motion to disincorporate the City by the Nadwa Salon was a legitimate Federal lawsuit to have the City's Charter removed and the Council no longer exist. He said he would not think that would be a legitimate lawsuit.


Mr. Watson stated that he thought it would be a frivolous lawsuit.


Councilwoman Mason said she wanted to know what the last point was that his office was collecting ordinances from surrounding City's so that Council could see how they were standing with the locked doors, no windows and so forth.


Mr. Watson said they went beyond that at the last meeting. He said they were asked for additional research in particular on the gender issue and they would be presenting that to them.


Councilman Mitzel said Town Center Drive south of Grand River was open to traffic and that served Vic's Market. He said he recalled in the language that was approved in the licensing agreement that says "the roadway shall not be open for public use until one of the following was met: either the roadway was dedicated and accepted as a public street or the Council approved usage of the roadway as a private drive serving only Vic's site in the payment of the $28,000." He said the Administration responded saying that Vic's had a temporary Certificate of Occupancy and posted a letter of credit of $655,000 and change and that when the final determination was made regarding "Main Street then the $28,000 was collectable or the roadway was dedicated as appropriate." Councilman Mitzel asked if Mr. Watson could review this and see if the conditions of that licensing agreement are being met and if not what action would be appropriate.


Mr. Watson said he would.





Councilman Toth said not a committee report but a report that we have in our possession a firm agreement supposedly from the Oakland County Road Commission that the traffic light at 10 Mile and Haggerty would be in by the 21st of April. He said they placed the blame on Detroit Edison because of the reorganization.





Mr. Klaver informed the Council that Mr. Kriewall was ill and that was why he was not present.


Councilman Crawford questioned if those that voted against reconsidering the motion understood what they were voting for. He thought there might have been some confusion because he assumed that since Councilman Mitzel made the motion to reconsider that he would probably vote in favor of scheduling it as presented and perhaps it could move us along. He said if they didn't understand he would be prepared to make another motion to reconsider.


Councilman Crawford asked who voted Yes and No.


Toth, Mason and Pope voted no, Councilman Schmid didn't vote and McLallen, Crawford and Mitzel voted Yes.


It was then,


Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford


That the original motion be reconsidered for Budget Study Session Meeting on April 6th, 13th, 17th, 20th and 27th.



Yes (4-McLallen, Mitzel No (2-Mason, Motion carried

Crawford, Schmid) Pope, Toth)



It was then,


Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid


That Council adopt the originally proposed Budget Study Session Schedule of Thursday, April 6th, 13th, 20th, 27th and Monday the 17th.








Councilman Pope said that he would plead not to do this, not to try to get four votes to schedule these because two members have said they cannot attend. He said attendance was not mandatory but this was an important function and these four votes that are about to pass this are also the four votes that made a major policy change by removing these discussions from Cable. He said not only would they not be on Cable but Council Members would not be able to attend. He said he thought it was bad policy to do this.


Councilman Crawford said it would certainly be ideal to have all members present but that was going to be very difficult. He said if there were three members missing that would be a different consideration because it was very important to have everyone's input. He said there would only be one member absent at a meeting, according to what we know now, so there would be 6 Council members at those meetings and 7 at others and he felt that was sufficient to conduct the Budget Study Sessions.


Councilman Pope reminded Council it did take 5 votes to pass a budget and he felt Council was not headed in a positive direction.


Yes (4-Mitzel, McLallen, No (3-Mason, Toth, Motion carried

Crawford, Schmid) Pope)






1. Letter from Fried, Watson and Bugbee Re: Open Meetings Act -

Consultant Review Committee and Manager Evaluation Committee

2. Information letter from Tony Morrone Re: Proposed Orchard

Hills West Subdivision

3. Letter from Bradley and Angela Nelson Re: Proposed Orchard

Hills West Subdivision

4. Letter from Glaine E. Stewart Re: Proposed Orchard Hills

West Subdivision

5. Resolution from Farmington Hills supporting the proposed

amendments to the Fiscal Year 1995-1997 Transportation

Improvements Program

6. Letter from Joseph W. & Barbara J. Michal Re: Proposed

Orchard Hills Subdivision

7. Letter from Suzanne Szlaga Re: Proposed Orchard Hills

West Subdivision

8. Letter from Michael McDonald, Mayor of Wixom Re: Meeting

of elected officials





There being no further business to come before Council the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 AM.












Date approved: