Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members DeRoche (absent/excused), Kramer, Lorenzo. Mutch (arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Schmid (absent/excused)

The Consent Agenda was changed, to add item T- Request for approval of Plunkett and Cooney fee schedule for the Sandstone Court Case.

Mayor McLallen would like to take a quick moment to congratulate Jan Jeffries, of the Novi News, on her promotion as New Editor.

Mayor McLallen introduced Barbara Holmes, who made the presentations on behalf of Novi Youth Assistance and Local Color Brewing Company, to a group, of a three outstanding young people in the community.

These three students accepted a challenge in April, during Alcohol Awareness Month, to write an essay and provide an illustration about what to ask an adult to think about before they drink. She also thanked Local Color Brewery for their continued support of the Novi Youth Assistance Alcohol and Drug Awareness Committee. Through their donations, the committee was able to initiate this contest and is an event that Youth Assistance hopes to sponsor annually.

Veronica Kirin, placed third, Jennifer Dorsch, placed second and Kim Weidl placed first. They where introduced and asked to read their essays. Mayor McLallen commended them on speaking before Council and presented awards to the children.

Mayor McLallen spoke of Mrs. Jane Brown starting as a volunteer, but with her love and enthusiasm of the Library made it her profession. She spoke how Mrs. Brown personifies the public servant and made a difference in the community by making the Library inviting, invigorating and exciting. On behalf of the community, the Mayor read a Proclamation honoring Mrs. Brown on her retirement.

Mr. Pat Burnett, President of the Library Board, read a proclamation on behalf of the Library Board.

Myrtle Locke, on behalf of Friends of the Library, presented a plaque to Mrs. Brown and read the inscription.

A Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from Congressman Knollenbergs’ Office was presented by Ms. Melissa O’Rear to Mrs. Brown.

Mrs. Brown thanked everyone and said she had no words to express her feelings.

Mayor McLallen again congratulated Mrs. Brown stated these are the kind of people that make Novi what it is, and want it to be. Mrs. Brown has been a wonderful ambassador and example of this.

Mr. Chuck Tindall, 2453 Shawood, stated he is representing the Citizens group known as SPARKS. He wanted to thank Member DeRoche for his effort in having Council place the SPARKS Charter Amendment before the voters. While they admire Member DeRoches’ effort, as well the support of Member Lorenzo and Member Crawford to place a referendum on the golf course before voters, SPARKS cannot support it. His understanding of referendums is that the language could put the City in a must do or must not do situation. SPARK does not agree with that or want to place the City in this type of situation if it is not prepared to go ahead with the golf course. Therefore SPARKS feels a Charter Amendment is still the best way to go. If the Charter Amendment should fail, they could continue as they have for the last three years, spending money on studies and wait it out; the opposition. What they have asked for, the last three years, is to resolve this issue by asking voters if they want a golf course.

Mr. Tindall asked a question concerning the Ice Arena. With all the legal advice paid for by the City, how did they end up with a contract that does not hold the builder/developer responsible for their own work and no guarantee holding him responsible for a minimum of one year, after the work is completed?

Mayor McLallen stated that Administration could obtain the information on the contracts to Mr. Tindall if he would like to see them.

Ms. Maria Nuculaj, northwest corner of Nine Mile Road and Meadowbrook, advised she has just moved to Novi in October. She spoke to Terry Morrone about putting a wall in front of her home, on the corner of Nine Mile and Meadowbrook, a very busy area. He has allowed her to place construct four columns, because she would like to eventually put in fencing across her circular driveway. She has come before Council to plead her case. She brought a set of blueprints and a signed/notarized Hold Harmless Agreement. They have the workers ready to do the work. In fact, they have started the wall for the safety of their children, ages eleven and under, but have been issued a ticket. She stated that the wall will go up whether the City lets her or not, be it this year or in seven years. If the wall is there, she feels that she is more protected on a "vulnerable corner" than if it is not. The children need to go outside and play. She will feel better if there is a wall to protect her children when they are playing in the front yard.

Mayor McLallen said she remembers speaking with Mrs. Nuculaj on a couple of occasions and referred her to Mr. Morrone. The difficulty with her situation is the process. The City’s Ordinance does not permit a wall with a subsurface structure and there are utilities involved in this area. She needs to state her case before the Zoning Board of Appeals. At the moment, she is under a stop work order on this project. Council cannot offer her the relief that she is seeking. Several weeks ago she was made aware of the process she needs to follow by Mr. Morrone.

Mayor McLallen asked the City Attorney if under this highly unusual audience participation, Council could discuss the issue or do they send it to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. David Fried suggested sending her to the Zoning Board of Appeals. City Council was asked if they would like to suspend the rules to discuss Mrs. Nuculaj’s fence issues.

Member Kramer asked if Mrs. Nuculaj could approach the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals with her request. They occasionally agree to hold a special meeting.

Member Mutch commented that she thought there is a meeting coming up in the next week and the Agenda is already published. What would be the procedure for Council to request that she be placed on the Agenda.

Mr. Kriewall answered that nothing can be done in this short time frame. Her neighbors need to be notified, as though there will be an impact on the neighborhood. There are also questions about site distance, and there may also be buried utilities on that corner. All of these factors need to be looked at and scrutinized by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Member Mutch agreed that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the correct group to go to. It may be another month before they meet again, and they typically do not hold special meetings. She asked if Mr. Morrone given her any ideas for alternatives to the wall?

Mrs. Nuculaj said Mr. Morrone has suggested bushes, but this is unacceptable in the driveway portion. She also stated there are no utilities in the area designated. They have already installed the foundation and there were not any conflicts with the utilities. Regarding the neighbors, she is willing to go to every house and speak to them. She feels strongly that the City should cooperate with them, as they have cooperated with the City by installing a sidewalk on the corner. They are the only house on the street that had to put in a sidewalk. The only thing she is asking for is a little privacy and security for her children. Bushes will not stop a drunk driver like a wall, which has strength and protection.

Mayor McLallen asked that Mr. Kriewall have someone in the Building Department offer safe alternatives.

Member Lorenzo asked why the resident was not directed to the Zoning Board of Appeals in time to be placed on the Agenda.

Mayor McLallen stated it has been a very difficult situation as the Nuculaj family has chosen to begin construction. The Nuculaj’s had been told, by the City, they could not build the wall.

Member Lorenzo asked that Mr. Kriewall be directed to look into the line of communication that took place for this situation to come before Council prior to going to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If Mrs. Nuculaj was not told about the Zoning Board of Appeals process, that may be an error on the City’s part.

Mayor McLallen mentioned if Mrs. Nuculaj has further questions, Mrs. Conley, Director of Development Services can speak to her in the Atrium.

Mrs. Nuculaj stated that only today was she told to go before Council during Audience Participation for their approval, and after Council has approved the wall, she can than go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the Zoning Board of Appeals approves the wall, she can continue construction on the wall. She is getting very frustrated with this process, and is running out of time as school will be out June 10^th. She has all the supplies, the only thing lacking is time.

Mayor ProTem Crawford requested that Council remove item K.

Mayor McLallen requested item E be removed except for discussion purposes.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. April 12, 1999 Regular Meeting - Budget
2. April 15, 1999 Regular Meeting –Budget
3. April 19, 1999 Regular Meeting
4. April 22, 1999 Regular Meeting -Budget

B. Schedule Executive Session:

1.To immediately follow the Regular Meeting of May 24 for the purpose of property acquisition and pending litigation.

C. Adoption of Revised Investment Policy

D. Approval of Highway & Utility easement for the Taft Road Improvements (9 -10 Mile Road) Project in the amount of $2,500 from HNC Investments, LLC

F. Approval of various easements/permits for the Meadowbrook Road Paving Project in conjunction with Approved Change Order No. 4.

G. Introduction of Resolution regarding the proposed vacating of Big Bend Road and authorization to schedule a Public Hearing for June 21, 1999.

H. Approval of Agreement with Earth Tech for the RPO Soil Erosion Control Blanket Project and authorization for the Mayor and Clerk to sign said Agreement.

I. Approval of Traffic Signal No. CO 953 Maintenance Agreement between the City of Novi and the Road Commission for Oakland County for the Novi Road/Sandstone Drive intersection.

J. Acceptance of re-executed Sanitary Sewer Easement and Temporary Construction Easement from Hattie Fisher for the Beck Road Sanitary Sewer Project in the total amount of $15,001.00.

L. Approval of a Sign Easement being granted to Beck Corridor Partners Limited Partnership and associated with the Taft Road Extension, Bridge, Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, and Wetland Mitigation Project.

M. Approval of renewal of Massage Business License – The Sports Club of Novi, 42500 Arena Drive.

N. Approval of renewal of Arcade Business License – Soccer Zone, 41550 Grand River

O. Approval of Resolution of Support authorizing participation in MDOT Critical Bridge Program for Meadowbrook Road bridge crossing Ingersol Creek

P. Award bid for EDC Marketing Kit to Spectrum 3, the low qualified bidder, in the amount of $17,611. (Planning)

Q. Approval to purchase C Map Application, in the amount of $12,920, from D.M. Data, a sole source supplier.

R. Approval of Resolution adopting MERS Retirement benefit B-3 for Administration Division.

S. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No 544

T. Approval of Plunkett & Cooney Fee Schedule, Re: Sandstone vs. City case

E. Authorization to reject the sole bid received for the 1999 Concrete/Bituminous Paving Program and approval to rebid for a summer 2000 construction

K. Approval of Resolution authorizing initiation of condemnation action pertaining to property to be acquired from Mary Jane Masters, J.R. Burgess, Mary C. Bosco a/k/a Mary Catherine Bosco, Paul Bosco & Michigan Department of Treasury, and authorization to proceed the Eleven Mile/Beck Road Intersection Improvements and Beck Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Projects as presented in the 5/13/99 JCK letter.

1. Request of AT&T Wireless, SP 99-17, for Special Land Use Approvals to replace an existing football field light pole with a 150 foot. monopole support structure and wireless communication antenna. Site is south of Ten Mile, east of Taft Road, at the Novi High School football field, zoned Single-Family Residential (R-4)

Mayor McLallen stated that this matter has gone through the public planning process. A Special Land Use Public Hearing, was held May 19^th by the Planning Commission and a Special Land Use was recommended to come forward. Minutes from the May 19th Planning Commission Meeting are on the table before Council. She asked the applicants they have anything else to add? There were no additional comments by the Applicants.

Member Kramer commended the Novi School Board for agreeing to work with Council on processing this request. In so doing, he feels they have honored the City Ordinance requirements and the Planning Commission thoroughly went over the issues. He supports the approval.

Member Lorenzo asked the representative of AT & T Wireless, John Reilly, if the boundaries can be identified in the search ring of the Project Summary under the Statement of Necessity?

Mr. Reilly introduced Dan Wellington, System Design Engineer, and Jim Koester, from the Novi School District. Mr. Reilly answered that the search ring itself is not depicted on the map in front of Council. What is in front of Council is called the Signal Propagation Map, a computer generated plot to indicate the approximate coverage that a 150 foot monopole at this location will provide. The actual search ring was basically centered on, the City Hall, Police Station, Ball Fields, High School, complex and a little beyond.

Member Lorenzo would like to know where the "a little beyond" goes to and what are the mile/ crossroads.

Mr. Reilly answered it is roughly the southeast quadrant of Ten Mile and Taft Roads. It goes beyond the area a few hundred yards.

Member Lorenzo stated it is only the area between the School and the City property.

Mr. Reilly answered correct. When their office receives the map, it is basically a circle on a USGS elevation map. When it is translated to the City Zoning Map, about 90% of the search ring is encompassed by the City Hall/High School Complex, with only about fifty to a hundred yards going north of Ten Mile and little on the other side of Taft Road. There may be some in the residential area to the east.

Member Lorenzo said they do not have the actual search ring in their Council packet.

Mr. Reilly stated that was correct, and added, it was provided in the materials distributed before and stated about 90% of the search area was this complex.

Member Lorenzo asked if they identified any other areas that would be appropriate for a monopole that would pick up the similar area that they are looking at.

Mr. Reilly explained that the technology is blind to jurisdictional and boundaries. Anywhere in this area would work fine for this site, be it City Property, or in someone’s backyard to the east or just north of Ten Mile.

Member Lorenzo stated she read the Planning Commission Minutes and the Chair asked if Mr. Reilly has explored areas on Grand River in some industrial sites that would be more appropriately zoned for this type of use. She asked if he looked to those areas or considered them?

Mr. Reilly believes what he had said was they are actively considering those areas. They are looking in that area for a site in addition to the City Hall/High School site. Ideally it would not be a covered situation. They are looking to pick up traffic along Interstate 96. They envision they will be able to utilize a tall structure that is already there; most likely one of the Detroit Edison existing radio towers that run immediately north of I-96, approximately at Taft and Grand River, north of Grand River. AT & T is investigating those towers. Information they have received is these towers are at their design capacity. They are looking to see what it will take to beef up or structurally reinforce those structures, as well as locating on the Detroit Edison property. The biggest problem is they cannot find access to the Detroit Edison corridor, because of the proposed development along Twelve Mile, most of the property owners are not willing to give any type of an easement so they can reach the electric poles. What started out initially as an easy situation of locating on the Detroit Edison towers, because of the City’s interest in regulating tower proliferation, only to now find out they have an uphill battle trying to get to them. They are continuing to working on that matter.

Member Lorenzo asked about going outside of the specific search ring, for instance on Grand River in an industrial area, for coverage as well as capacity.

Mr. Reilly stated that it would not work in the Grand River area. This site is designed for specific coverage, Grand River is a mile north, leaving a mile not covered in the south end. It would skew the growth plan that the AT & T engineers have come up with in terms of capacity relief.

Member Lorenzo asked if they are receiving complaints from subscribers in this area? Mr. Reilly stated Mr. Wellington can attest to the numbers.

Mr. Wellington comments about customer complaints, they have trouble reporting packages that come in, especially the western and southwestern portion of Novi. In certain areas there is not coverage and other areas have severely degraded coverage.

Member Lorenzo asked him to comment about the particular area that they are currently discussing that is covered by this search ring. Have there been complaints received in this specific area for lack of coverage/no coverage/bad coverage?

Mr. Wellington responded that complaints have been received in the area southwest of the proposed pole location, where the pole is going itself, and back towards Novi Road. There are not as many complaints as severe in nature. Because it is a residential area, they are trying to cover to the west and south and this is an effective location to do that.

He said they have a National Customer Service Team, not all of the complaints are filtered down locally. AT & T prioritizes the complaints in terms of which communities have the most complaints. Most often it is due to coverage reasons. This area in Novi so far, is at the top of the list.

Member Lorenzo asked if they have considered locating the structure on an existing building. If not, why not? Mr. Wellington stated that one of the problems they have is clearing the tree line. In this area, most of the buildings are not high enough to clear the tree line and will not allow the signal to propagate.

Member Lorenzo asked if he could be more specific about what he means by "clearing the tree line?" Mr. Wellington responded typically this means need the antennas, unless it is in a boulevard situation or downtown urban area along an expressway, to clear the tree line, which may be sixty/seventy/eighty feet high.

Member Lorenzo asked if he means trees that are not located near it but trees that could be several hundred feet away from the tower. Mr. Wellington responded yes, typically they see the best results with tower heights that are much higher than the tree line, this is usually why buildings do not suit their needs, unless it is a high concentrated area, such as downtown Detroit.

Member Lorenzo stated the reason she asked is when she was a member of the Planning Commission Implementation Committee, who drafted the Ordinance that is in place, had seen a magazine article, which was "Can You Find the Antenna?" It was located on a building and she does not recall it being an urbanized building. She is wondering why the companies are not going towards that as opposed to putting up these large poles.

Mr. Wellington answered that they have to differentiate, generalizations cannot be made. AT & T has cell sites that are on three story buildings in this market, but that cell site is not attempting to provide coverage like this site. The cell site is attempting to provide capacity relief in a very high usage area. For instance, at the intersection of a major interstate, there may be a cell site that may only cover an eighth of a mile. They can only receive so many telephone calls in one cell site. The magic of this technology is to make the cells smaller to put more in. A cell can handle only so many calls at a time. As there are more and more users, the size of the cells shrink and put more of them in. This particular site is designed to cover a large area, primarily developed residential, that does not have any tall buildings or anything remotely tall in the vicinity of the cell site. The technology has not evolved to the level where they could afford to put in thirty or forty cell sites at a building level, which is what it would take to replace this one cell site. It is not purely economics, but also limitations of the technology. While rooftops and some locations are suitable in many other situations, they are simply not tall enough.

Member Lorenzo asked what equipment would be located underneath the bleachers? Mr. Wellington responded it would be the electronic radio equipment located under the bleachers. The transformer will be outside the bleacher area, as required by Detroit Edison.

Member Lorenzo understands from reading the material that the bleachers are a type that has no access. Mr. Wellington answered yes, the bleachers will be sealed. No one will be able to climb through the bleachers to get underneath. Debris cannot be thrown down through the bleachers as they are completely sealed and fenced off along the back.

Member Lorenzo again questions that there is no access at all, not even a hole? Mr. Wellington again stated access is only via a gate in the cyclone fence.

Member Mutch commented on the process and to commend the School District for working with the City, the Planning Commission and AT & T. She said the public record of the Public Hearing shows there was one member of the community addressing the Public Hearing on the matter. As it has gone through the process, the number of diminishing objectors indicates that the process is in fact working.

Member Lorenzo wanted clarification that there would not be any strobe lights on top of the monopole? Mr. Wellington answered there will not be any obstruction or lighting, red or white, on the structure and it will be invisible at night, except for field lighting.

Member Lorenzo said the Planning Commission and the Administrative Planning Department indicated the recommendation was with an adjustment to a fall zone. She wished to know if this is the motion being made this evening?

Mayor ProTem Crawford answered the motion is the recommendation of Staff and Planning Commission. It is his understanding the monopole is well within the fall zone limit.

Mr. Wellington stated within the Ordinance, City Council has been granted the authority to waive that nothing be within sixty feet of the monopole. In this particular case, there will be bleachers and an out building within the required sixty feet, which AT & T asked Council to waive. However, the light pole that would go there in any event would be ninety feet tall and also within sixty feet of the ground structures. This would also need to be waived.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if that needs to be a separate motion? This is a site plan, does it need to be incorporated into the motion?

Mr. Fried answered that it can be incorporated into the motion.

Mayor McLallen stated under Section 2508, 1A, "The Council may vary the standards."

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they need to include the adjustment, as it is not in the recommendation?

Mr. Fried answered that it is included in the recommendation.

Member Lorenzo asked if the bleachers are within the fall zone? Mr. Wellington answered yes.

Member Lorenzo stated that this puts a whole new spin on things.

Mr. Wellington restated the pole that would be there in any case would be in the same location as the monopole and it is ninety feet tall. The part that AT & T is adding to the top is outside of the fall zone. Technically, the structure is within sixty feet, and is asking that Council waive that requirement.

Mr. Kriewall stated that the petitioner was not notified of the matter being on the Agenda at this time. Council can either pass on the issue, or if they are comfortable in dealing with the information presented before them without the petitioner, they can move forward with it.

Mayor McLallen asked Council if they wished to continue discussing this issue. She spoke with the City Hall Staff about the lack of sidewalk on the Federal Express property, it would be the natural continuation. The response was that there is not any right-of-way.

Mr. Fried answered that some of the property has right-of-way other portions of the property do not. That is why the recommendation before Council is the way it is.

Mayor McLallen questions if they are asking for the part with the right-of-way to be waived?

Mr. Fried answered IKON is asking that the part where there is no right-of-way be waived. The portions where there is right-of-way should have sidewalk installed.

Member Lorenzo began to make a motion regarding the construction of an eight foot sidewalk.

Mr. Fried interrupted, he believes that the applicant wants a total waiver. His opinion is if Council is going to act on it in accordance with a recommendation, he suggests that the applicant be allowed to speak one way of the other.

Mayor McLallen restated that the applicant requested a waiver from the requirement for a sidewalk, period. The staff recommends waiving the 240 feet and posting funds for the construction of the rest. The staff recommendations are not what the applicant wants.

Member Mutch asked to postpone this issue.

Mr. Fried stated that this could be adjourned to the next meeting and to give the applicant notice that it will appear then.

CM-99-05-121: Moved by Mutch seconded by Lorenzo CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to Postpone the request of IKON for a waiver from the Design and Construction Standards for the construction of an eight foot bike path along Meadowbrook Road.

Mayor McLallen further explained Members Mutch and Lorenzo requested the postponement to allow the applicant a chance to be present. They do not concur with the recommendations.

Mayor McLallen stated Council received a letter from Lynn Kocan in opposition to this change. The Planning Commission has recommended that we move forward with this ability.

Member Kramer stated that he will not support the Ordinance as presented. The City has worked very hard at light industrial versus residential. He agrees with the philosophy and policy of easing ordinances were appropriate; this one leaves a number of questions open and the letter points them out. He is not clear how this would function. The approving body is given the ability to waive this, but how is that known before it comes before the approving body. Therefore, it says the consultants would waive the requirement, he is not totally comfortable with that. The issue of adjacent residential unit separate from the proposed industrial site by an existing buffer, he feels from past-proposed developments, frequently the noise comes from climate control units on the roof, that is a function of where they are placed. He is also concerned about other noise generating elements such as dumpsters. Item three Proposed Use is of non-industrial nature and is not likely to generate noise levels. Is there some manner in which the City can loosen this up, for example, major thoroughfare; maybe that is far enough away that it is straight forward, two and three are concerning, and number one, "adjacent residential district does not contain residential dwelling units."

Member Lorenzo concurs with Member Kramer. Miss Kocan’s letter was to the point and has a lot of merit. She also cannot support the Amendment as proposed; the only one she may support also would be number four. Planning Commission did a lot of work on the original ordinance. She does not feel it should be opened up for loopholes.

Member Mutch stated that she does not recall seeing the letter in April. Has Council seen this before?

Mrs. Reutter. Deputy City Clerk, responded no, the Planning Commission prepares the information and did not have the letter. The letter was in the Clerk’s office.

Member Mutch is concerned about the lack of time given to review a page and one-half single spaced letter and reflect upon it. To review it during the meeting would mean that they would have to ignore other issues being discussed. At this point, on the basis of not having a chance to look at this, she would be in agreement that Council should not, at this time, approve the revision. After considering proposed changes to the Zoning Amendment she may be able to support it. There have been enough issues raised at the Council table that deserve consideration by Council before a decision is made. She does not always agree with Ms. Kocan’s conclusions, but she can appreciate the information that she brings to the table and would like to opportunity to consider it.

Mayor ProTem Crawford explained that this is a First Reading and Council’s process is to adopt the first reading with proposed changes so that it comes back for a second reading. The arguments made that evening seem quite good if someone is able to put them into a proposed change and let the Attorney come back with those proposals for a second reading. This item can move along and still satisfy everyone’s concerns.

Member Mutch does not feel that she can vote on any recommendations for revisions without really looking at this. They may sound good at first but she wants the opportunity to think them through, especially if Council adopts them with change. She prefers that the Amendment be brought back at a later date.

Member Kramer stated he would like to take the Council’s table discussion and Mrs. Kocan’s letter back to the Planning Commissions Implementation Committee. Have them discuss the recommendations, make revisions and bring it back to Council. He feels there is additional thought that needs to be applied to the Amendment.

Member Mutch comments that she believes the Planning Commission has already seen Mrs. Kocan’s letter, they have considered it and, her suggestion for Council to wait, is for Council’s benefit before they propose changes that would then be incorporated .

Member Kramer interjected the Planning Commission Meeting was April 7^th, and the letter is dated April 15^th.

Member Mutch continues, she asked if the Planning Commission or the Implementation Committee have discussed this issue since April 7^th? She questioned why the letter sat in the Clerk’s Office since April 15^th.

Mayor McLallen commented that the discussion seemed to be going nowhere that evening. The Amendment was brought to Council for action, first reading only. Two members have spoken against the heart of the matter as presented, other members are concerned that there has not been an adequate process. Since there was a meeting and a letter from a citizen that unfortunately was not included, which leads to holding this over for further discussion. She said the amendment states "the approving body." Does the approving body for noise abatement issues vary between Planning Commission and Council or does one body always have the approval?

Mr. Rod Arroyo stated the approving body here means it is the body that approves the site plan and special land use. In most instances that will be the Planning Commission but in some rare instances it may come before the Council. For the most part it will be the Planning Commission.

Mayor McLallen understands why the Amendment is being requested because there has been several times during the past year, where the reality of what was being measured for noise was a theatre in the absurd, particularly on the issue of day care centers adjacent to residential areas. How are you going to figure out how to measure noise emitted by children at day care centers? Cemeteries and churches were also another unintended consequence of the Ordinance. This is an effort acknowledging very clearly that "no special land use for a permit in residential abutting an I-2 shall be granted unless they conform," this tries to address those instances that fall into this gray area. The Ordinance dealt with shift changes, smoke stakes, heating and cooling, doors opening, trucks and rails, very industrial kinds of things, this had a purpose. The unintended consequence was when it fell over into some of these other areas. She believes the intent of the Ordinance Amendment is to address these other gray areas, when it makes sense to hold them to a noise study, than do so, if it does not make sense, than give them the option of building a case to present to Council. She does not want to just drop this it was a major attempt by the Planning Commission. A middle ground needs to be reached, at all times protecting the residents, yet not encumbering developers with unattainable things. She does not have a problem if Council does not wish to go through with it at this time but would like to get further background and bring it back to the table at another meeting.

Member Lorenzo believes the amendment before them goes way beyond what the Mayor summarized. She does not believe any of the items the Mayor mentioned are addressed. There are many other things addressed that should be addressed here. A cemetery may be a legitimate area, she does not see that listed. She does not like number one at all. What exactly is it? Is the land going to be rezoned, master planned for something else? The same with the second one, is the buffer sufficient to mitigate the noise and impacts, unless you know what the impacts are and do the study anyway. The additional provision that would have some benefit, requiring a noise analysis for any proposal that is adjacent to residential districts. That one has merit. She cannot support any of the others, it is opening up Pandora’s Box and doing exactly opposite of what the intent is.

Member Mutch would like clarification from Mr. Arroyo if this Zoning Amendment is being sent back to the Implementation Committee. She does not think that is necessary, Council just needs further information and discussion. Did the Implementation Committee of Planning Commission have the benefit of hearing from Mrs. Kocan?

Mr. Arroyo responded that Mrs. Kocan’s letter was presented to the Planning Commission and she attended the Public Hearing.

Member Mutch commented on Number One, "that the approving body may waive", does address Cemeteries indirectly, it says " the adjacent residential district" Cemeteries are classified as Residential District. The adjacent residential district does not now and is not likely to contain residential dwelling units, she believes that a Cemetery, possibly a church or school area may be the only things you would have some degree of certainty.

Member Lorenzo stated that those items should be spelled out, Cemeteries and Churches.

Member Mutch restated that Council needs more time to digest the additional information that was presented to the Planning Commission and Council had not seen yet.

Mayor ProTem Crawford did not think it was very clear.

Mr. Arroyo stated under number three it has the work or, that means any of those not all of them. One of the conditions needs to be met and the study could be waived.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated that he is still at a loss in which direction Council is going to send the Amendment.

Mayor McLallen responded that Planning Commission has done their duty, which was to make a decision and send a recommendation to Council. At this it involves a two step process, one is to see the Ordinance in its entirety and the background information presented. At this point Council can say there are some things they like, but want certain changes made, it then comes back to Council for a second reading. If the changes are sufficient, than Council adopts the Ordinance or at either one of the two steps Council can say thank you very much Planning Commission, they understand what they did but do not concur. The responsibility ultimately is the Council.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated that if Council is not sending the Amendment back to the Planning Commission, he thinks that recommendations on changes should be made and adopted for a first reading and have those changes come back for a second reading. The second reading does not have to be passed by Council but it does keep the process going.

Mayor McLallen asked Member Kramer if he has a recommendation?

Member Kramer stated in the spirit of moving things along:

Member Kramer does not believe this is an appropriate response to the issues as pointed out. He stated that his other direction is to turn it down totally.

Mayor McLallen wanted to be sure that she understood Member Kramer’s statement; he would accept the Ordinance as presented, "the approving body may waive a noise Ordinance study under the following conditions, being one, that the proposed use is separated from residential by a major thoroughfare. Additionally, the body may require a noise analysis for any proposed principal permitted usage adjacent to residential that is expected to have noises similar to an industrial project. Those two items; the addition and the deletion of one and the special land use paragraph at the beginning saying that "except as provided below which is only in the residential by a major thoroughfare all special land use abutting residential districts in an I-1 or general I-2 must demonstrate compliance with the noise ordinance."

Member Kramer answered that is what he is saying in his motion.

Member Mutch does not believe that she can vote to approve this motion, it would imply that she is agreeing that those three should be eliminated. Her point being that she has not had a chance to review the objections made by Mrs. Kocan. Others may be able to do that at the table at the same time other things are going on, she is not able to that. She would like to see the Zoning Amendment tabled, not approved for first reading or turned down.

Mayor McLallen stated that there is a motion to table the Zoning Amendment to a date certain, meaning the next meeting.

CM-99-05-121: Moved by Mutch seconded by Lorenzo CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to Postpone Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18-150 – Amendment to Subpart 2519.10c to allow the approving body to waive the noise study requirement under certain circumstances – 1 Reading until the next Council Meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Consent Agenda items, which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

Mayor McLallen stated this is the authorization to reject the sole bid for the 1999 Paving Program and to rebid for the year 2000. Her concern was that the primary recipient of the monies are the Meadowbrook Glens Homeowners, they have had construction going on in their neighborhood for some time. She was concerned that even rebidding the contract, they may not get a better price and lose the construction season. Mr. Nowicki stated yes they can wait, but it would be nice to finish the project as well.

Member Mutch stated the primary questions she has been receiving from her "neighbors" are along the lines of how soon is this going to happen, not so much because they want it to happen immediately, but because they want to plan. It is the season for graduation parties, weddings, things like this where parking is needed on the streets for guests. Fortunately Meadowbrook Glens roads, while they do need attention and coming around on the maintenance schedule, are not in a condition that needs immediate attention. She feels that the homeowners feel the same as her, for the City to save a little money and have it rebid. When there is only one bidder they do not know how low this may go. The homeowners also want to know what the likely cost will be to them for sidewalk and driveway repairs.

Mr. Nowicki said regarding the sidewalk and sidewalk repairs that the homeowners voluntarily pick up, he can provide this information to them. There is a list of homeowners that have requested to participate in the sidewalk repair program. He will be sending them letters, letting them know of the delay, if Council approves it. He can enclose a copy of some of the numbers to give them idea of what they can budget/plan, for the following year.

The sidewalk program has been a tremendous benefit. It was pioneered in Meadowbrook Glens. The Contractor is available for the private homeowners to do sidewalk repairs in front of their homes at unit prices that are bid. The Homeowner receives an advantage of the scale, because the City can bid a lot, the inspectors inspect the sidewalk work and do the design work. All they actually do pay for is what the contractor charges the City. It has been a tremendous program and would like to carry it over into other subdivisions. It is a voluntary program and the City is very pleased with the amount of participation.

Member Kramer asked Mr. Nowicki to explain why this ends up being a one year delay.

Mr. Nowicki responded that the City tries to do the construction in the subdivisions and limit the time between when school lets out and the construction concluded before school starts in the fall, which lessens potential conflicts of school busses maneuvering in the subdivision and children trying to walk to school on sidewalks that would have holes.

Member Kramer asked if the City could try to rebid it this year, can the contractor still accomplish the work?

Mr. Nowicki answered if the bidding process is expedited, it would take several weeks before a notice could be sent out and bids accepted/opened. Normally it takes four weeks, minimum, to award a bid and the contractor to get his insurance in order. There is a good chance they would not even start until August. That would not even give a contractor enough time to complete the project before school starts.

Member Mutch commented this is the final phase, which includes all three entrances to the subdivision. They want to start at the beginning of a construction season so that all three can be completed.

Mayor McLallen appreciates the education and update given regarding this project. It looks like holding this one over until the year 2000 will allow the homeowners to work on budgets for sidewalks, or interrupt summer festivities.

Mayor ProTem Crawford steps in to chair the motion and vote.

Mayor McLallen resumes chair.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated that he is always concerned when Council condemns private property. He thought there had been considerable discussion about this particular project to the mutual benefit of all parties concerned. Can someone bring him up to date on the most recent activity, and why the City is in a condemnation proceeding.

Mr. Nowicki responded that Council is aware they have been trying to acquire property along Beck Road south of Eleven Mile. There have been a number of different ongoing negotiations in respect to that parcel. So far there has been no movement on the part of the property owner, there was significant discussions, but never got to the point where the property owner agreed to the sale. It initially started where there would be a donation of right-of-way. There have been concessions on the part of the City to move fences and some trees, and a number of items construction related with respect to sewers, sewer extensions. These did not get very far. A number of weeks ago Council had authorized a good faith offer, around $17,000 plus all the other improvements that Council authorized them to proceed with. Again there was no response or reply by the property owner. There have been discussions by JCK, correspondence in the packet was included that indicated the right-of-way agents had contacted the property owner, had discussions, than there was no real reply. The City’s Attorney’s had sent an official letter transmitting the offer to purchase as approved by Council. Mr. Nowicki also spoke last week to Mr. Lou Bugbee, the attorney who is handling the matter. Mr. Bugbee stated the property owner regarding this issue has not contacted him. The property owner is also copied on all of the packet materials supplied to Council when there is a condemnation issue. The property owner has not contacted Mr. Nowicki either.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there has been any personal contact after the City or Consultants sent out that letter. Mr. Nowicki stated he had not contacted the property owner personally.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated there is more than one property owner. There has been no response by any of these parties?

Mr. Nowicki stated the property owners know that we are moving in this direction. He has not made personal contact with the property owners. There have been on going discussions before, they are well aware of the process.

Mayor ProTem Crawford responded if Council authorizes the beginning of condemnation, can that be halted if there is an informal agreement or some other agreement that might be mutually beneficial to all parties. Mr. Nowicki stated yes you can.

Mr. Fried responded that once the City starts the condemnation action and withdraws the action, they are entitled to their actual attorney fees. He suggested they send a letter with a copy of the proposed complaint to the property owners and suggest that if the City does not hear from them within X period of time a complaint will be filed.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if this was a second chance at condemnation? Is this the personal contact that has apparently not been made? If there is a response, then the City would not initiate the condemnation that may or may not be authorized tonight.

Mr. Fried asked if instead of preparing a condemnation petition/complaint, that the City attempt another personal contact? He does not think there is anything wrong with that. He further explains that once the petition/complaint is filed for condemnation and served, the property owners are entitled to attorney fees if the City withdraw it voluntarily.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked Mr. Fried to repeat his suggestion about a letter of complaint.

Mr. Fried responded that the City send them a letter stating that we are anxious to resolve the matter, we have prepared a complaint in this matter, we would suggest that you contact the City, if the City does not hear from you in X number of days, they will file this complaint. Which would than start the condemnation procedure.

Mayor ProTem Crawford responded he will not support the condemnation. He prefers Mr. Fried’s suggestion of sending them a letter. He is concerned in general about condemning private property, in this case he feels that there are avenues, if pursued more vigorously may be beneficial.

Mr. Fried stated he does not think there is anyone in the City who is anxious to condemn private property.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated that he will not support a condemnation. Can the suggestion about a second letter/second chance, can that be done before Council decides on a condemnation. If it can, he would like to move that, that process take place than come back to us.

Mr. Fried asked, how anxious are you to proceed on this condemnation, what the time schedule is for the project?

Mr. Nowicki responded the contractor is ready to start and has basically completed the Eleven and Wixom Road water main and sanitary sewer. The City would like to get the intersection completed along with the installation of the traffic signal so that the intersection is fully functional prior to the beginning of school in August of 1999.

Mr. Fried suggested that the City send a letter to each of the property owners stating that Council has authorized the City to start a petition process to condemn the property if the problem cannot be resolved in ten days. That would keep Mr. Nowicki close to the schedule and the City would be authorized to proceed with the condemnation if the City does not hear from the property owners. The owners will realize the City is anxious to proceed in utilizing the property and would like to resolve the matter. This is his recommendation to proceed with the matter.

Member Kramer said he could support this approach but the letters should be registered with a return receipt to insure that the owners have received the letter. He supports the idea of a personal contact but if that is not possible, he would like acknowledgement with a registered letter.

CM-99-05-123: Moved by Kramer, Seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED: To send

Mr. Nowicki commented that the City has authorized the contractor to begin the construction project short of the work on that particular parcel. Did the motion include this fact? Mayor McLallen commented the contractor would not make it to the fourth corner in ten days. Mr. Nowicki asked if the contractor could be authorized to mobilize the equipment? Mayor McLallen wanted clarification that the City has easements on the other three corners. Mr. Nowicki and Members answered yes.

Mayor ProTem Crawford said that the Negotiating Committee for the renewal of the Time Warner contract has had four meetings. He is pleased to report in his opinion, substantial progress has been made and he anticipates a renewal contract in the near future.

Member Mutch asked that a meeting be scheduled for the Fuerst Committee with Ms. Conley. There is not a Chair for the committee so a staff member is asked to work with the committee, which can make it more difficult to schedule.

Mr. Kriewall mentioned the letter received from Mr. Kemper addressed to Chief Shaeffer. Mr. Kriewall had a meeting with Lt. McNamara and was provided with supporting data on the patrol activity on South Lake Drive going back to April. Lt. McNamara is fully aware of the situation and the police have directed extra enforcement and patrol targeted at the traffic on South Lake Drive. Every effort has been made to maintain the traffic.

Member Mutch commented on the Detroit News article on tax dollar value of services. There is information on the web and it is interesting not on the information mentioned but on the issues not addressed. Mr. Kriewall said the article was poorly done because the end results showed other communities more livable than Novi. The article was unfortunate because the citizens of Novi know of the services available. Member Mutch commented that the paper did mention that the article could be arbitrary. One of the examples was if the community had a pool. Novi does not have a pool but a public beach along with other facilities and private pools.

Member Mutch mention the article counted parks in the communities. Many communities did not know how much parkland they had in their city. But Novi knows how much parkland is owned and has purposely planned to have open and green space along with neighborhood park space built within developments. None of these things showed up with the statistical accounting and people who only read the headline would not get the correct impression of the City. Mayor McLallen commented it was an unfortunate article because Novi has the fourth lowest tax effort and is able to provide the services the City does.

There being no further business before the Council the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Kathleen S. McLallen Tonni L. Bartholomew

Transcribed by:

Susan E. Blumer Melissa H. Place

Date Approved: June 21, 1999