REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1999 AT 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – NOVI CIVIC CENTER – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD
Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members DeRoche (arrived at 7:55 p.m.), Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid (absent)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Member Lorenzo would like to add under Mayor and Council Issues as item #1 improving public relations. She said there are specific issues she feels need to be addressed. It was also mentioned by Member Kramer for the Board of Commissions to be added as item #2.
CM-99-03-054: Moved by Pro Tem Crawford, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED:
To approve the Agenda as amended
Vote on CM-00-03-054: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
Mayor McLallen presented Michael Montpetit with a plaque for his service commitment as a member with the Board of Review. She explained the board is where citizens from the corporate or residential community might appeal their taxes.
The Mayor read the inscription, which expressed the city’s appreciation and recognition for Mr. Montpetit’s contributions to the city. Mr. Montpetit graciously accepted the plague from Mayor McLallen.
2. Introduction of Kelly LaLonde – Budget Analyst for the City of Novi
Mr. Les Gibson, the Chief Financial Officer for the city introduced Kelly LaLonde the city’s new Budget Analyst. Mr. Gibson spoke of her education and experience she has brought with her for the position.
Mayor McLallen welcomed Ms. LaLonde to the city.
Asa Smith of 1294 E. Lake Drive requested a stop sign removal of E. Lake Drive and New Court. Mr. Smith continued to say in 1991 three stop signs were installed in the area for a 90 day traffic control study. He said one was removed shortly after installation based on resident objections. He said this sign was located at Lashbrook and E. Lake Drive. This left two stop signs at New Court and the corner of Thirteen Mile Road and E. Lake Drive.
He presented to Council a letter from a resident who was instrumental in the removal of the one sign along with a petition of residents along E. Lake Drive who also are in favor of the stop sign removal. Mr. Smith continued to say it is an aggravation to not only to his family but also to several neighbors.
Mr. Smith stated there are numerous problems that he feels have been caused by these signs. He went on to explain trash has been collecting from vehicles stopping at the sign. He continued to say the sign has been there for over eight years and the noise associated with the stopping and starting of vehicles has gotten out of control. He also mentioned the traffic speed has not been effected because of the stop sign. He believes there are other ways in which the traffic could be controlled with more effectiveness.
Mayor McLallen informed Mr. Smith that there is a request for a public hearing scheduled for March 15, 1999. The Mayor asked all documents and petitions be turned over to the City Clerk.
James Korte of Shawood Lake had concerns with the Walled Lake sector study. Mr. Korte has concerns with the stop sign located at E. Lake Drive and New Court. He would like for the sign to be removed and for the police department to continue to enforce the traffic speed in the area.
Sarah Gray of 133 Maudlin expressed her support of the removal of the stop sign. She requested a public hearing be scheduled and insists the police department continue the enforcement in the area.
CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)
CM-99-03-055: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda as submitted:
1. Monday, March 15, 1999, at 6:30 P.M. for the purpose of Pending Litigation
J. Approval of Claims and Accounts
Vote on CM-99-03-055: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – Part I
CM-99-03-056: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Public Hearing for
March 15, 1999 for stop sign removal on East Lake
Drive at New Court
Vote on CM-99-03-056: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
Mayor McLallen stated for the record Member DeRoche
arrived at 7:55 p.m.
Mayor McLallen explained the project is in Section 19 on the east and west sides of Wixom Road and north of Ten Mile Road involving 901.13 acres. During the Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 1999, positive recommendations for the changes proposed where sent forward to Council. The amendments involved a reduction in road access to Napier by one curb cut. This is a major improvement because it preserves a woodland area. It also includes a reduction in cul-de-sacs and a removal of detached clusters in the project. The number of units in the project is 876 dwelling units, which stays the same.
Mayor McLallen continued to say there have been concerns regarding sidewalks by the school location. The Mayor stated all required sidewalks would be put in place by the school district.
Steve Weiner started with the history of the project. In 1995/96 the project was first conceived and in the 1996/97 the RUD ordinance was updated and approved by Council. Then in 1998 a contract was signed with the city to develop the property under the RUD.
Mr. Weiner explained the plan for the project finally came together with a company partner of Toll Brothers in Pennsylvania. Mr. Weiner continued to say Toll is a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company and has been in the home building business for 30-40 years while operating in over 20 states. He continued to explain the company specializes in the luxury home building market.
Mr. Weiner said Toll Brothers well be the sole developer and builder of Harvest Lake. Mr. Weiner continued to explain that the company did have some concerns with the plan presented and those concerns needed to be addressed. Mr. Weiner stated with the assistants of the Planning Commission staff; it was determined that there were some major amendments to the ordinance that would have to be made. Mr. Weiner introduced Mary Jukari to explain the amendments.
Mary Jukari gave a brief summary of the proposed revisions and said it had received positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and city consultants. Ms. Jukari said the revised plan proposes increases in lot size as permitted in the RUD ordinance for the portion of the north side of the site. This would replace the previous single-family detached cluster units with single-family detached lots. She continued to explain that Toll Brothers recommended one housing type should be developed and the one decided upon was the single-family detached lot. This process increases the total portion of a single-family detached housing from 52% to 57% overall through the project.
Ms. Jukari continued to say the majority of the revisions concern modifications to the internal road network of the site. It has been proposed for reduction of the number of cul-de-sacs across the site. This should improve internal site circulation, increase pedestrian connections and also better utilize available areas of the site. Ms. Jukari said these revisions will also allow for increasing the number of lots with rear yard views to open space areas and reduces the number of street intersections while still providing internal site circulation.
Ms. Jukari stated the plan also includes modification to three entrances to improve site egress and ingress and straightening of the arrival roads. She again stated this is done primary along the entrances on Wixom Road and the entrance coming off of Ten Mile. She further said some entrances have been eliminated to avoid intrusions into the woodland area. She said with these proposed changes along with similar ones should provide a greater open space in these areas.
Ms. Jukari said there were changes made to the lots, building site areas and open space corridors due to the changes with the road layouts. She continued to say the open spaces have been shifted in location but not in amount. The revised area plan still provides 136 acres of common upland open space. Harvest Lake continues to be a planned residential community with a variety of housing options with half the site as permanent open space with greater connectivity, and less intrusion into the upland woods and lastly the plan revisions improve the internal site circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians.
Member Lorenzo asked Ms. Jukari if the total percentages of open space would remained the same in both plans? Ms. Jukari replied yes. Member Lorenzo stated there is not an increase or decrease in any of the woodland areas? Ms. Jukari said it was just a rearranging of areas for an overall balance of the site.
Member Lorenzo referred to the amendment that quoted 15% of the area is set aside for common open space where the previous report read 20% of the site. Ms. Jukari commented the same acreages are being carried over. Member Lorenzo asked if the city park was taken out? Ms. Jukari said the discrepancies could account for the city park. She again stated the open space remains the same. Mayor McLallen clarified the approved June RUD amendment is correct not the March amendment Member Lorenzo is referring to. Ms. Jukari clarified the 136 acres does not include the city park. Member Lorenzo stated it comes out to 15% of total gross land area. Ms. Jukari said that is correct.
Member Lorenzo stated it appears to be positive changes. She believes the amendments are good for two reasons because of the appearance of positive changes and it opens the whole plan for further discussion. Mayor McLallan stated it opens the plan to discuss these four issues only. She explained everything else involving the plan has been approved and stands.
Member Lorenzo directed the comment to city attorney, Mr. David Fried. Mayor McLallen restated; if the request by an applicant to amended the area plan for the four major changes permit discussion within anything else in the RUD? Mr. Fried answered if Council desires to discuss those things it is permitted. Member Lorenzo commented once a major change has been added the entire RUD is open for discussion. Mr. Fried said it is not all open for modification, but the Council has the right to bring up anything within the RUD once the request is open for discussion.
Member Lorenzo said her concern with the application as proposed has been the application has taken the benefits of an open space plan. But the city is not reaping the benefits from percentages of space typically associated with open space plans. Member Lorenzo referred to a study by Randall Arendt and believes under the principles of open space planning; typically if the plan is allowed the maximum density and is given density bonus and reduction in lot sizes, the benefit is 50% of the site dedicated in buildable open space. Member Lorenzo stated the city is giving under this RUD agreement reduction in lot sizes, maximum density under the underlining zoning districts and additional bonus credits. She pointed out the city is only getting in return 15% of buildable open space which obviously falls short of the 50%. Member Lorenzo has great concern the city will not be reaping the benefits in exchange for what the city is giving.
Mayor McLallen commented philosophically that Member Lorenzo has been on record for this position consistently. Member Lorenzo agreed. Mayor McLallen explained the Council by majority vote has approved the RUD. Member Lorenzo asked in the mayor’s opinion if this RUD meets Arendts’ vision of an open space-planning concept?
Steve Weiner commented he showed the plan to Mr. Arendt. Mr. Weiner believes Mr. Arendt would say it is a very creative, environmentally sensitive land use. Member Lorenzo said she did not say it was a bad plan. Her concern is the inequity feature and believes the city deserves more for what its giving. She finds this very problematic to this plan and is appealing to the Council concerning this issue.
Member Kramer liked to commend the plan revision. He believes it is providing a much better traffic circulation route and layout, and likes the open space layout. Member Kramer said he continues to support the RUD plan that was approved and supports the changes presented.
Member DeRoche stated his evaluation of the project is that it is better. He stated it is a better layout and appears to a nicer subdivision community with the improvements proposed. He commented he was not a member of Council when the RUD was approved, but out of respect for the previous Council work invested, he believes the plan indicated what all concerned parties would be receiving out of the project. Member DeRoche made a motion to approve the revised RUD option area plan.
CM-99-03-057: Moved by DeRoche, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED:
To approve the Revised Residential Unit Development
Option Area Plan for Harvest Lake of Novi SP-97-06C
Mayor ProTem Crawford mentioned the elimination of the south entrance off of Napier Road. He asked if it is anticipated for the future to put another entrance if needed off of Napier Road? Mr. Weiner referred to the original RUD contract, which called for a traffic study for every 70 units. He said if the study indicates another entrance is needed off of Napier Road, he is not sure what procedures would be taken.
Rod Arroyo commented the entrance was not going to be a high volume access point. He continued to say because of the proximity to Wixom Road and the freeway interchange, it was anticipated the majority of the traffic would go out to Wixom Road or down to Ten Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo again stated it is not anticipated the traffic on Napier Road will be significant and the one access point will be more than adequate to handle the traffic that would be going onto Napier Road.
Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the process could be revised if needed? Mr. Arroyo commented if the traffic studies show there was going to be a significant problem, it might be handled in a couple of ways. It could either be re-planned in some other way or attempt to find a second point of access.
Mayor ProTem Crawford commented during a recent Planning Commission meeting, it was mentioned a resident who lives on Wixom Road would have an entrance located across the road from his property. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if this problem had been solved? Mr. Arroyo said he believes it can be resolved. He said there are several options that can happen but it is a site plan issue and it can be addressed.
Mayor ProTem Crawford said he would like some clarification on the sidewalk issue. Mr. Arroyo said the recommendation of the Planning Commission would be the sidewalk and safety path be consistent with the previous plan. He said the plan provides for safety paths on the east side of Wixom Road and the north side of Eleven Mile adjacent to the school property. He continued to say these would be in addition to the sidewalks that are already proposed in the Harvest Lake plan. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the school is responsible for construction? Mayor McLallen restated the school superintendent has confirmed the district is committed to this position.
Member Mutch asked if the school district in buying the property from the city, was already a part of an approved RUD? Member Mutch asked are they buying into the entire RUD package? In other words, whatever restrictions were placed on that property because of the RUD, apply to them in a way that they normally would not be restricted if they were buying the same acreage if it was not a part of a RUD? Mr. Fried said he does not recall if the school districts property was in the RUD or if the city was providing the RUD that they would not be governed by the RUD. He can not recall what the language was in the agreement. He said he would get back to Council with an answer.
Member Mutch commented because the school district is a separate governmental entity; it is not subject to the City of Novi directing their movements. She commented when the property was bought as part of the RUD, was the school district not also buying some restrictions? Mayor McLallen commented the utilities are planned through the site and curb cuts are coordinated as part of the RUD. She was not sure of any others. Member Mutch restated she wants an answer. Mr. Fried commented an answer will be given. He further stated if the answer is they are subject to the RUD, then they are subject to the RUD.
Member Mutch said it appears the amendments are improvements and this was confirmed with the commendation from the consultants.
Member Mutch brought up her support for the Mayors direction in terms of discussion. When an issue has been previously decided such as a RUD issue, the Council has had the same opportunity that the property owner does to bring up amendments to the RUD. She asked if there would have to be Council agreement to move in that direction? Mr. Fried said if the developer asks for a change in the RUD that opens up the question whether the city can change the RUD. If the developer does not ascertain the RUD that is the agreement between the city and the developer. Member Mutch said she agrees. She questioned if the Council at any point has second thoughts then the Council could entered into a discussion to amend the RUD with developers agreement? Mr. Fried confirmed this point. Member Mutch stressed that she agrees with the Mayors comments that only the four issues presented should be discussed.
Member Kramer said he was pleased with the response from the school district regarding the sidewalks. He mentioned the school district is not required to work their site plans with the city but they have been consistently supportive of student safety and he believes they gave a positive and responsible reply. Member Kramer said he looks forward to working with them on items of mutual needs and interest.
Vote on CM-99-03-057: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Mutch
Mayor McLallen said this issue was before the Planning Commission on February 17, 1999 and comes before the Council with a positive recommendation. She commended the Planning consultants recommend this rezoning because it is consistent with the proposed Master Plan revision.
Cliff Seiber came before the Council representing Northern Equities group which includes the FG 40 Corporation who is the applicant for the rezoning. Mr. Seiber explained the location of the parcel as being adjacent to south of West Road which borders a northerly property line and the CSX Railroad is along with easterly property line. The proposed Taft Road extension also runs along the easterly property line. Mr. Seiber explained the extension of Magellan Drive from the City of Wixom was extended through the parcel for future connection for the Taft Road Extension. Mr. Seiber believes the proposed down zoning from the heavy industrial I-2 to the I-1 zoning will make for a better neighbor adjacent to this light industrial zoned property.
CM-99-03-058: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED: To
approve proposed Zoning Map Amendment #18.583
Member Lorenzo asked if it was known which direction the front yard would be facing? She asked if it was going to face the new West Road or the Magellan Drive? Mr. Seiber answered these parcels would face Magellan Drive.
Vote on CM-99-03-058: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo,
Mayor McLallen commented this request from Quicksend Delivery is located north of Nine Mile and east of the CSX Railroad tracks and west of Meadowbrook Road. Quicksend is constructing a new facility on a narrow lot, which is why the variance is needed.
Bennett Donnelson is the builder representing Doug Pope who is the owner of Quicksend Delivery along with the Hickory & Associates.
Doug Pope explained Quicksend Delivery is a small package delivery located on Heslip Drive for the past four and a half years. Mr. Pope said they are currently leasing a building but would like to expand by constructing their own facility.
Mr. Donnelson commented Hickory & Associates has owned the property for the past ten years and has tried to get the property on the eastern side of Venture Drive built out but has failed because of various circumstances.
Mr. Donnelson explained the ordinance states the truck well or loading needs to take place either in the rear yard or in the side yard. But the residential ordinance states the truck well or loading needs be in the side yard or at 90 degree angle to the residents. Mr. Donnelson continued to explain the project did not comply with the decibel level. He said many sound engineering tests were performed but they all failed. The option that remained was to have a front trunk well option that results in the dual curb cut. He said they do have the support of the consultants hinged upon the front truck well and driveway variance. Mr. Donnelson also said they have the support of the Homeowners Association.
Member Lorenzo asked if the sound engineering that was performed, did that also violate if it was in the side yard? Mr. Donnelson answered yes. Member Lorenzo said information has been received from the city’s other consultants and city employees with concerns about the loading and unloading may interfere with the adjacent land uses in the park along with their traffic moving in and out. Member Lorenzo asked if there are any other alternatives? Member Lorenzo referred to a document received by Mr. Arroyo that it might be possible for the applicant to meet the requirements but place the truck loading area in the front side. She asked Mr. Arroyo to explain.
Rod Arroyo said it was suggested to have the loading area more toward the front of the building with a side entry so it was away from the residential area and also meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Arroyo explained the problem is because the lot is so narrow, it would not be possible to maneuver a truck in and out of the loading bay. Member Lorenzo asked if the truck well and proposed office were switched would there be mobility for the trucks? Mr. Arroyo answered there would not be enough room to turn a large vehicle.
Member Lorenzo inquired if the applicant has explored the possibility of purchasing more property? Mr. Donnelson said that has been researched but it is not practical with the lot and building size. He said the ordinance requires 120 feet to maneuver a truck and 120 feet would be buying a whole piece of property. Mr. Donnelson restated this design and the whole philosophy are based around trying to keep the maneuvering away from the residents.
Member Lorenzo commented on the number of trucks involved. She referred to the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting, which states that there is a truck delivery at 1:00 am to this location? Mr. Pope replied yes. Member Lorenzo then asked if the truck leaves at 5:00 am? Mr. Pope said it is a 24-foot truck because they do not have any semi-trucks. He explained a truck comes in about 1:00 am and is unloaded by a night crew that sorts and separates packages then three trucks leave about 5:00am. Member Lorenzo asked if that is one of the trucks that leaves at 5:00 am or does that truck just stay there for awhile then leave? Mr. Pope explained when it is emptied it goes back to Livonia. Member Lorenzo asked if it is the truck that may be there an hour? Mr. Pope replied yes. Member Lorenzo then asked if there are three trucks on the site that leave at 5:00 am? Mr. Pope replied that is correct and they do not return for 8 to 10 hours. Member Lorenzo restated the traffic concern conflicts between the trucks and traffic regarding the park.
Member Lorenzo asked the question if this is a principle use permitted or is it a special land use? Mr. Arroyo replied this is a special land use because it is adjacent to residential. Member Lorenzo commented if for some reason the business no longer existed at the location and the building was going to be used for something else, would there be reconfiguring on the issue? Mr. Arroyo explained if another user came in with the same type of operation they could continue. But if a user came in with a substantially different operation they would be required to come back forward through the special land use approval process and have that evaluated.
Member Lorenzo inquired if it is known what times of the day the existing businesses go in and out? Mr. Donnelson stated there are two buildings across the street and one down the road on the cul-de- sac.
Member Lorenzo wanted clarification that this concerns one truck at 1:00 am, Monday through Friday coming in and staying for one hour then leaving? Mr. Pope stated that is basically it. Member Lorenzo asked if they anticipate ever increasing the number of trucks that may be frequenting at 1:00 am? Mr. Pope replied not at 1:00 am. He said they might have one truck come back around 5:00 am or 6:00 am. He explained the procedure is that at 1:00 am the truck is loaded at the Livonia location then driven to Novi where the truck is unloaded. He does not see anything increasing with the night procedures. Member Lorenzo asked if the other three trucks get loaded and unloaded at this location? Mr. Pope said they get loaded there but get unloaded at the scheduled stops. Member Lorenzo asked if the size of the three trucks is the same as the one truck with the maneuvering problems? Will the same problem regarding size be the same for the other three trucks as far as traffic concerns? Mr. Arroyo commented he could not address this issue because he does not know the specific dimensions and requirements for each truck along with the conditions concerning length of the truck and what the turning radius requirement might be.
Mayor ProTem Crawford wanted clarification if the variance being asked is for two drives instead of one? Mr. Donnelson answered it is the distance between the two drives. Mayor ProTem Crawford commented the distance between is 55 instead of 120? Mr. Donnelson confirmed these distances. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked Mr. Arroyo if this solution would work? Mr. Arroyo commented the business does not have a choice. He continued to say the one northerly drive is only for truck loading and unloading traffic and the south drive will be for passenger vehicles. Mr. Arroyo does not see a major conflict between the two driveways. Mayor ProTem Crawford made a motion to approve the variance.
CM-99-03-059: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the request for Quicksend Delivery for driveway variance from Design and Construction Standards-Venture Drive and Hickory Corporate Park, SP#98-21A
Member Kramer commented he has an interest concerning this issue, but it is not financial. He asked the Council whether he should vote on this particular issue? Mayor McLallen explained that Member Kramer does not have a financial interest so he is required to vote.
Member Kramer commented the project is appropriate and supports the motion.
Mayor ProTem Crawford expressed his pleasure that the company is keeping their location within Novi.
Member DeRoche wanted further clarification concerning the truck sizes. He mentioned these conditions might not be appropriate for future consideration. Mr. Arroyo explained the criteria used were the standard design vehicle for trucks. He continued to explain what is proposed with this project if it can accommodate the larger trucks. Mr. Arroyo continued to explain if it had a side entry on this project it could not accommodate the larger trucks. Member DeRoche explained the city does not want empty buildings. He further stated when the larger buildings are constructed in the industrial parks in the future, he wants this building to be able to be sold and be used by a variety of other businesses.
Mayor McLallen read the ordinance requirements and supports the project.
Vote on CM- 99-03-059: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - NONE
BREAK from 9:00 until 9:15 p.m.
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – PART II
5. Request for approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.148 – Amendment to Section 1301 and to add subpart 1302.3 to Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to include as a principal use permitted instructional centers and to include as a principal use permitted subject to special conditions sit-down restaurants with a maximum seating capacity of 50 persons and carry out restaurants that do not vent odors to the outside – I Reading
Mayor McLallen gave a brief history and commented this is the 1 Reading before Council. She said the Planning Consultant is recommending approval of this ordinance. It has progressed through the proper channels upon which the Planning Commission has forwarded it to the Council for adoption as presented. Mayor McLallen commented because this is an ordinance it would be universal to the entire city.
Mr. Arroyo started with some background information. He explained this process came about with the Planning Commission discussion on various uses that are permitted in a B-1 district and it was decided this needed to be evaluated. Mr. Arroyo continued by saying the Planning Commission referred this to the Implementation Committee. The Implementation Committee and the Planning Commission contacted some adjacent communities and discovered there is a mixture of choices that can happen in a B-1 or local business districts. Mr. Arroyo said there was no consistent pattern and it appeared what the community feels is appropriate. He continued by saying when the committee looked at this along the Planning Commission there was a feeling that restaurants could in fact be a reasonable land use within a B-1 district if in fact they meet certain conditions.
Mr. Arroyo said there were a lot of concerns if a restaurant did locate that it be consistent with neighborhood. Mr. Arroyo explained this is not meet to draw from a large populous. He said some of the businesses mentioned where a coffee or ice cream shop. Something that would be low impact and not seat lots of people. Mr. Arroyo said the emission of orders has been a major concern so one of the conditions recommended is that food preparation sales be very limited. He explained that the use of a microwave or a conventional oven that does not require ventilation to the outside or that goods be baked off-site and be brought to the site. Mr. Arroyo also said there was concern whatever happens there would not be a 100% restaurant situation. It was felt that this should be part of a shopping center so there is a limitation of no more than 50% of the total floor area of a plan commercial center can be comprised of restaurants.
Mr. Arroyo stated the other issue brought forward is the suggested principal permitted use of instructional centers. These are used for music, arts or martial arts. These are typically uses that are often found in a local business setting that serve a surrounding neighborhood. They usually do not draw region or community wide level. Mr. Arroyo said it was felt these uses might also be appropriate in a B-1 district.
Member Kramer commented he understands the basic definitional items presented and he accepts the description on why this is reasonable. But he would like an explanation at the second reading on how this fits in with the other restaurant provisions in the other zoning classifications. Member Kramer said his concern is with the B-1 is a lot of times closely or typically adjacent to residential areas and it has always been challenging to found appropriate uses in those areas. He would like more information and would like to get input from residents.
Member Lorenzo said she would like to address the issue of resident response. She explained the reason the residents did not speak at the public hearing was because the only notification the residents would have received would be the public notice in the Novi News or Northville Record. However, she stated when this was before the Planning Commission as a rezoning application five people attended with one of those people speaking on behalf of the Orchard Hills Subdivision. Member Lorenzo explained when the re-zoning did not go forward to the Council; the Implementation Committee took the issue up from the Text amendment change, unfortunately no residents were notified that this discussion was occurring. The residents also did not know this was coming before the Council.
Member Lorenzo would like either to post-pone this item or notify the residents involved to make them educated to what is proposed. She restated it is important to get the information to the public so they can understand the Text Amendment changes and have the opportunity to give the Council input. Member Lorenzo stated she wants the item removed from the Mayor and Council discussion and address it at this time.
Member Lorenzo commented the Planning Department needs to be more sensitive with the needs of the residents and public along with other parties involved. She would like the public to be aware of implementation. She stated when this issue came from rezoning to implementation it would have been considerate for the persons who attended the Rezoning Public Hearing been aware of the fact it was going to be discussion at another forum. Member Lorenzo further stated interested neighbors of other B-1 districts would be effected if this change goes through.
Member Lorenzo had some individual concerns about the uses. She mentioned that Meadowbrook Road and Ten Mile are not conducive to the traffic that would be generated with this change. She also commented the ordinance is saying the dumpsters will be located as far away as possible from the adjacent residents. Member Lorenzo stated in some cases that may not be very far. She further stated that even though the food may not be prepared on the site or not cooking certain foods at that location does not change the fact that food garbage will be generated.
Member Lorenzo asked if the restaurants are going to be a special land use or a principle use permitted? Mr. Arroyo answered it will be a special land use and the instructional centers will be a principle use permitted. Member Lorenzo stated it would be subject to all the various special land use criteria? Mr. Arroyo answered absolutely. He also added a public hearing would be held prior to occupation in a particular site and residents within 500 feet would be notified. Member Lorenzo wanted to know why the residents were not notified in this case? Mr. Arroyo answered because it was Text Amendment and they do not have to be notified under the state law.
Member Lorenzo asked to make a motion to post-pone and if that fails, then she would like to make a motion that if this passes for 1 Reading that the various parties be contacted.
Mayor ProTem Crawford expressed his full support of Member Lorenzo’s concerns. He said he has some concerns about some of the items the ordinance revision would permit. He stated there were good reasons for not having the changes in the ordinance before. Mayor ProTem Crawford stated he would still like to study all the possible ramifications of allowing any of these kind of uses in B-1 and particularly other B-1 areas in the city.
Mayor ProTem Crawford stated his concern regarding the notification. He realizes there is no requirement for notification, but the circumstances surrounding the Text Amendment came to the Council was a result of a specific re-zoning request. He does not believe it should be done every time there is a Zoning Text Amendment, but in this case he believes it would have been prudent to send to Orchard Hill and Briarwood and possibly others. Mayor ProTem Crawford stated the 1 Reading should not be approved as presented but be post-poned. He stated he would like to see the Planning Commission have another public hearing with the proper people being notified.
Member Mutch stated she agrees that alternative ways need to be found to notify the public. She believes the people that attended the public hearing meeting were aware of the actions being taken. Member Mutch did wonder whether Member Lorenzo was asking if subdivision organizations be notified or individual property owners be notified? Member Lorenzo said the people who spoke at the Public Hearing or wrote letters should have been personally notified and in terms of the other adjacent B-1 shopping centers, she recommended the Homeowners Association Presidents be notified and from there the information could be dispensed. Member Mutch expressed her concern that the Homeowners Association might not always be efficient and they should not be depended upon. She believes some alternatives need to be found and publish this as the alternative while building a better public relationship between the media on similar issues.
Member DeRoche expressed his agreement with the previous speakers. He understands what the B-1 ordinance has set out to do and understands what the drafters of the text had in mind. He continued by saying he is not necessary opposed to this type of use, but because one of the principle locations that is going to be affected by this has been the matter of decision and focus over the years and as recent as a few months ago. He believes it is appropriate that a public hearing with some form of notification be implemented.
Member DeRoche said he prefers to pass the I Reading. He believes the I Reading be passed and scheduled a public hearing before scheduling a II Reading so the information can be processed and make changes for when it becomes forward for future readings.
Mayor ProTem Crawford says he agrees with Member DeRoche as long as nothing is done until there is a public hearing and some of the concerns are addressed fully before the II Reading comes before Council. Mayor ProTem Crawford commented the Council would be better informed to discuss the merits of the Text.
Mayor McLallen believes there are two issues before Council. Mayor McLallen said the first being the language of the Text Amendment as presented. Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Arroyo if the Council has the list of all the B-1 sites in the city. She read the list as Briarwood at Ten Mile and Beck Road, Peachtree at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook and a plaza at Beck and Pontiac Trail. She asked Mr. Arroyo if these were the only three B-1 sites in the city?
Mr. Arroyo said Walgreens at Ten Mile and Novi Road is a B-1 property. Mayor McLallen asked if Walgreens takes up the B-1 district? Mr. Arroyo said yes. Mayor McLallen commented at this point in time the city only has three? Mr. Arroyo said the southwest corner of Ten Mile and Haggerty Road is also a B-1 district but re-development could occur.
Mayor McLallen inquired there are actively three sites with the fourth site completely developed. She commented that three of the active sites are located in strip malls? Mr. Arroyo said yes. Mayor McLallen said all three are located next to residential areas? Mr. Arroyo answered yes. Mayor McLallen restated the fourth site as being located at Novi Road and Ten Mile is not located next to a residential area. Mr. Arroyo answered yes.
Mayor McLallen asked the Council to deal with the ordinance for the I Reading on the merits on the ordinance itself. Mayor McLallen commented all the concerns for the actual use are protected within the ordinance and that the restaurant use seems to be causing the most concern. Mayor McLallen explained the process was followed but it was discovered there were areas not acceptable to Council members so adopting a new policy is a secondary issue. She is in support of the I Reading because that will enable the Council to have some information to speak to the residents.
Member Kramer commented that in the ordinance Text it is stated that dumpsters should be located as far away as particle from adjacent residential uses and districts. He would like the language to be stronger in the statement.
Mayor ProTem Crawford said he agrees to the 1 Reading but commented before the II Reading is presented he said he will have to be convinced of a lot of issues within the Text.
Mayor McLallen asked Terry Groad to address Council.
Terry Groad is the President of Orchard Hills Subdivision Association and stated he had written a letter opposing the rezoning request. He said he has been in contact with the Planning Department on occasion and said they have been very cooperative. However, he said he was surprised to see a Text Amendment and commented it would have been thoughtful to be notified.
Mr. Groad stated he believes the process should require a public hearing with comments from the surrounding property owners. He also commented as a courtesy the subdivision president be contact with the opportunity to comment. Mr. Groad said he questions when the rezoning was denied that the Text Amendment happened. He commented if the city is accommodating the developer or does this make sense on a city wide issue? Mr. Groad asked if the Text Amendment makes sense for all B-1 districts city wide then approve it, but after the Council receives public comment. He continued if this is being created solely to help one developer, then it does not make sense. Mr. Groad stated the site was laid out poorly and that is why the developer is having problems. He continued by saying the neighborhood commercial is a good transition use to residential and buffering from the greater intensity commercial. He commented B-1 does make sense at this site. Mr. Groad only asks that when the Council considers the B-1 Text Amendment to look at the entire issue and not just this particular case. He thanked the members for letting him address the Council.
Member Mutch said her understanding of the I Reading is to bring the issue to the table. She supports to approve the I Reading and makes a motion to approve.
CM- 99-03-060: Moved by Mutch, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED: To approve the I Reading of the Ordinance Text Amendment 18.148 with the comments to be included in the Public Hearing and before the II Reading
Member Mutch commented that it is important to address the issue as whether or not the Text Amendment was developed as a response to a developers need instead of a city need. She stated the history of the business area has been denied rezoning requests on numerous occasions.
Member DeRoche wanted clarification as to where this conversation was leading? Mayor McLallen answered it involves how the policy should be changed.
Member Kramer would like to propose an amendment to the motion. He agrees that the Council needs to look at the policy so this situation is handled before it comes back to Council.
Mayor McLallen commented the public hearings of this type are done by the Planning Commission. Mayor McLallen said the Council is expressing that they want to hear this issue. She said if the Council wants to take charge of this issue; how is the Council going to create a policy? Mayor McLallen stated the public policy is another area. Member Kramer said he withdraws his motion and discussion.
Mayor ProTem Crawford said the motion includes comments from discussions. He said if it is not possible to have an official public hearing; then the intent is to have public input on the issue.
Member Lorenzo wanted clarification if the Planning Department will be sending out information on this motion? Mayor McLallen answered not with this motion but hopefully next time. Member Lorenzo commented this motion does not include the criteria mentioned? Mayor McLallen commented the motion states before this Council deals with this issue again, the Council wants more public input. Then the Council can give some direction. Member Lorenzo asked if the actual direction be in another motion? Mayor McLallen commented that would be most appropriate. Member Lorenzo said she is voting against this motion because she is not comfortable with the proposed Text Amendment changes.
Vote on CM-99-03-060 : Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, DeRoche, Kramer, Mutch,
Mayor McLallen stated that this particular issue has brought up that notification for Text Amendments is a simple notice in the paper, which is the legal obligation. Mayor McLallen commented it has been the Council’s practice to be in touch with the citizens involved. Mayor McLallen said it has been decided what the most efficient way is for all parties involved.
Mr. Arroyo referred to the statue that states the Council does have the authority to hold additional public hearings. He continued to say the City and Village Zoning Acts states that after the Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation the legislative body may hold additional public hearings if it considers it necessary. Mayor McLallen stated the Council has the authority to have a public hearing.
Member Lorenzo made a motion to hold a second public hearing for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.148 before a 2 Reading. Mayor McLallen commented the adjacent homeowners associations of the three B-1 districts, which are Ten Mile and Haggerty Road, Ten Mile and Meadowbrook and Ten Mile and Beck Road need to become aware of the public hearing.
CM-99-03-061: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED: To hold a second public hearing, notify the Homeowners Association Presidents, all individuals that participated in Public Hearing Rezoning, notify the commercial property owners, and property owners within 500 feet
Member Mutch commented there are some properties located at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook that have multi-families and stress that these residents not be over-looked.
Mayor ProTem Crawford restated that the Council might do additional public hearings. He asked if there are any requirements for notification? Mr. Arroyo commented it would be the general notification in the paper. Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if individual mailings had to be done? Mr. Arroyo responded it would be to whomever the city chose to send to.
Mayor McLallen commented she hopes with this discussion that there will be a clear direction to staff because it will be their time and energy. The three specific neighborhoods have been identified. She asked the Council how far they want the staff to go to in notifying the property owners in these locations?
Member Lorenzo stated in addition to the participants and person who wrote letter during the rezoning application she feels the presidents of the Homeowners Associations and people within 500 feet. Mr. David Fried, the city attorney, also suggested that a notice be given to the land or property owner who requested the zoning change so they will have an opportunity to comment.
Mayor McLallen restated the notice is to go to the adjacent Homeowner’s Association President at Ten Mile and Haggerty, Ten Mile and Meadowbrook and Ten Mile and Beck. She continued to include the property owners of the shopping centers, persons who spoke or wrote in regards to the rezoning and to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the site.
Member Mutch commented she disagrees. She mentioned this appears to be the procedure to be done with this issue, but she would like to see how this works for future consideration.
Mayor ProTem Crawford commented that he thinks this will involve more notices then first thought. He agrees that the persons involved need to be made aware as to what is happening. However, he is afraid what might happen in the future with the individual notification.
Mr. Fried suggested that a motion can be made for this case and it will not be a precedent. Member Lorenzo said she wants to leave the motion as it stands.
Member Kramer commented the Council may hold an additional public hearing. He stated this tool should be used on a case by case bases instead of setting policy.
Member DeRoche said he is in support of the motion and he wants to review the issues individually as they are presented.
Vote on CM-99-03-061: Yeas: McLallen, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch
CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION-None
Mayor McLallen thanked the 30th Birthday Party Committee for doing a superb job.
Member Mutch asked when the video might be shown on cable? Mr. Kriewall answered the video will be available at the end of the week.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES
The issue of Board and Commission Appointments was brought forward by Member Kramer at the start of the meeting. Mayor McLallen asked City Clerk, Tonni Bartholomew to explain what direction the Council needs to take.
Tonni Bartholomew explained that six of the potential candidates were not available for interviews. She explained it is up to the Council to decide if these interviews are rescheduled or does the Council want them placed on the next agenda for an appointment without interviewing the other six?
Member Mutch suggested the Council schedule the appointments for the next Council meeting as followed:
Member Mutch commented there might only be one person to appoint where there are multiple vacancies. She continued to comment if the Council does interview the other applications and advertise the positions again, maybe additional vacancies would be filled at that time. Member Mutch commented the EDC and HCD could wait until interviews are done. She inquired if a position needed to be filled on the Board of Review right away? Mayor McLallen said the Board of Review is content.
Member Mutch mentioned to Council members who were unable to attend the interview session that Kathleen Givens interviewed for the Board of Review and EDC. Member Mutch continued to explain that Ms. Givens was under the impression she had to sign up for more than one committee but she is not really interested in being appointed to these areas. Member Kramer said Ms. Givens was given information about other committees so she might find areas of interest.
Mayor McLallen asked the City Clerk’s Office to draw up the ballot for the next Council agenda.
Mr. Ed Kriewall mentioned Police Chief Shaeffer wanted to announce there are still openings for the Lakes Area Citizens Police Academy. The session begins March 11, 1999 and runs once a week for eleven weeks. The participants get an overview of the criminal justice system including trips to the courts, firing range, the K-9 unit and a look at operations of the Helicopter Medical Transport. There is no charge to persons who are residents or work within the city. Those interested can call the police department at 348-7100 for more details or obtaining an application.
Mr. Kriewall commented that Mr. Craig Klaver interviewed Mayor McLallen about the Vistas Lawsuit. Mr. Kriewall mentioned that Mayor McLallen did a wonderful job explaining the situation and the interview will be showing the next few days on local cable.
Mr. Kriewall announced Barbara Holmes, who runs the cameras for Council meetings, was selected and gave notice to the city of Novi because she is going to Farmington Hills as an executive secretary to the Human Resource Director. Mr. Kriewall said Barbara will be missed and possibly she will continue to do some camera work.
Mayor McLallen said she wishes Barbara well and commented she has been an outstanding employee.
Mr. Kriewall said he talked with Mr. Tony Nowicki and found there are a couple of open Mondays in March to get back to the Road Improvement Program. He said Monday, March 22, 1999 has been the suggested date to get started on the road study. Mayor McLallen asked if the library, roads and union be combined for one night? Mr. Kriewall suggested the Council take advantage of the 22nd and 29th. Member Mutch commented the Library Board is anticipating the Council coming to their facility. The Council discussed varies nights to accomplish these studies. Mr. Kriewall interjected the Council has many commitments for April and feels these Mondays should be taken advantage of.
Mayor McLallen stated the consensus seems to be for as many committees to be paired would be appreciated. She asked Mr. Kriewall to give the Council a review on March 15th.
Mr. Kriewall commented a meeting was held on a display approach for the podium. He said the concept that will be presented to Council is to have stained oak rails on each side of the podium. He continued to say this would allow the boards to be mounted right on the podium. He said for a single board presentation this would work but for multiple boards the tripod would still have to be used. Mr. Kriewall suggested a light might be mounted on the podium as well.
Mayor McLallen commented she would like a formal letter mailed to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts councils in town to assist in leading the Pledge of Allegiance Ceremony. Member Kramer gave his support.
Mr. Fried said he had nothing to report but asked if there were any questions? Member Mutch asked how long it will be before the RUD school district issue be resolved? Mr. Fried answered at the next meeting scheduled on March 15, 1999. Member Mutch acknowledged the response.
Mayor McLallen commented some of the Council members are going to Washington, DC for the National League of Cities.
There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
Kathleen S. McLallen Tonni L. Bartholomew
Melissa H. Place
Date Approved: March 15, 1999