View Agenda for this meeting

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2003 AT 7:30 P.M.

Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.


ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Bononi, Council Members Capello, Csordas – absent/excused, Landry, Lorenzo – absent/excused, Sanghvi

ALSO PRESENT Rick Helwig – City Manager

Art Lenaghan – Fire Chief

Benny McCusker – Director of Public Works

Gerald Fisher – City Attorney

Barb McBeth – City Planner

Craig Klaver – Chief Operating Officer


Ms. Cornelius noted that the Clerk’s Office received a phone call from Senator Cassis’ office that the Senator would like to postpone the tribute under presentations to a later meeting, possibly September 8th.

Member Landry wished to add to Mayor and Council Issues, Item #1, "Status of the Planned Rezoning Overlay Ordinance." He suggested that the City Attorney may be able to present the status of this item.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said her concern could be covered under either Attorney Reports or Mayor and Council Issues. She had emailed Mr. Helwig, and also Mr. Lemmon, regarding the City’s process for lot splits and storm water review. Council had requested on July 21 that the item be placed on the next available agenda. She said she would ask the question under Attorney Reports, and would pick up the issue under Mayor and Council Issues if necessary.

CM-03-08-247 Moved by Sanghvi, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-247 Yeas: Clark, Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo



1. Public Hearing on Revised Special Assessment District 162 – Pioneer Meadows

Sanitary Sewer Extension (adding one parcel).

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Helwig if he was correct in stating that adding this one parcel would lower the cost per household, overall, of this project. Mr. Helwig agreed with this statement, and said he was very pleased with the City’s finance personnel who caught the matter. There had been a change in ownership of the corner parcel along Beck Road, and it looked "strange" to not have this included in the Roll. The new owner had felt all along that they were included in the SAD, but they had not registered. Mayor Clark asked if it was correct that the item was only back before Council because of the addition of the one parcel, which Mr. Helwig answered was correct. Mayor Clark asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to speak for Special Assessment District 162, which is the Sanitary Sewer Extension for Pioneer Meadows. As no one wished to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed.

2. Public Hearing on Revised Special Assessment District 163 – Pioneer Meadows

Water Main Extension (adding one parcel).

Mayor Clark noted that this item was also before Council because of the addition of the one parcel to the Special Assessment District, which would also lower the unit cost per household. As no audience member wished to speak on the item, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing.




Mr. Helwig said he had three brief items to report on. There was an excellent, lengthy article in the previous week’s Novi News about the availability of free smoke detectors, as well as courtesy home inspections, by the City’s Fire Department personnel. The article also noted that the City performs annual inspections for each business. The recent tragedies in South Lyon and Pontiac have caught everyone’s attention, and he wanted to remind the community that these services are available. Interested persons should contact the Fire Department at (248) 349-2162 for a free home inspection, or installation of a free smoke detector.

It is construction "crunch time" in the next 3 months regarding the City’s 3 major east-west roadways. Not only Grand River Avenue, but also Twelve Mile Road and South Lake Drive have been worked on this year, and are scheduled for construction until mid-November or the latter part of November. These will be trying times for persons going east or west, particularly when I-96 is experiencing difficulties. He asked people to do all that they can to plan ahead, observe detours, and be as courteous and cooperative as possible during this period.

Mr. Helwig presented a symbolic check to Council, which was received from Governor Granholm, reinstituting the Beck Road/I-96 construction project. He said administration was not entirely certain how the $46,000,000 computes, but it was believed that the money referenced the state and federal dollars attributable to the construction effort, as well as the local $6 million which was allocated. The City is very proud to have the project back online, and he thanked those who were instrumental in helping Council to achieve this, including Senator Cassis and State Representative Craig DeRoche. Mr. Helwig said the City is very appreciative that Governor Granholm was willing to reinstate the project. The word from those working on the project at the Michigan Department of Transportation is that the contract should be let sometime in October, with some work commencing before winter.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Helwig whether the concerns about trash by resident Jeff Sherman at 24473 Cavendish, who had appeared before Council at its previous meeting, had been resolved. Mr. Helwig answered that for now, the code enforcement personnel and Mr. Pearson had toured Churchill Crossing on a frequent basis since Mr. Sherman came forward with this request. Mr. Sherman alleges that the trash containers are insufficient; the City does not specify that those containers be traditional dumpsters. The adequacy of those containers will continue to be monitored, and if there is a reoccurrence of a problem notices will be sent, in addition to whatever processes are necessary. For now, the City feels that the developer is complying, and the immediate complaint has been resolved. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi suggested that if he containerization of the waste is a problem, that the City look to another community’s ordinance that requires capacity containers, so that the City does not have to send its people to the site. She said that as an Ordinance Review Committee member, she would be looking into the item.


New skid steer equipment for drainage problems.

Mr. Helwig said that Mr. McCusker was in attendance at the meeting, and wished to share two items with Council. He noted that the new skid steer was on display outside of the Civic Center before the meeting. This skid steer had been used several weeks, and will aide the City in getting to difficult locations, particularly to resolve neighborhood drainage issues.

Mr. McCusker said that the day the skid steer arrived, it was unloaded onto a trailer and immediately used at a drain site. It has been used on drains, both on the Seeley and the Miller, and has also been used for repairs at the Ice Arena. The machine works great; it saves everyone’s backs, and probably does the work of 4 or 5 employees. He believes the list of projects agreed upon earlier in the year will be completed before the end of the budget year.

Haverhill update.

Mr. McCusker said that the property owner adjacent to Haverhill who would not let the City onto their property moved as of August 4th, and the City went in on August 5th and performed maintenance on the drain. The grates on drains at the property were removed, as these were only there to protect her animals from going back into the drain. After the grates were pulled and a culvert tipped, the residue was cleaned in the actual drain itself, and the pond levels were actually lowered by 6 to 8 inches immediately. This was done through the DEQ permit which the City has for actual maintenance. Quotes were obtained for the repairs for Commerce Township. That Township’s engineering firm, Giffels-Webster, is checking against some of their contractors to ensure that their numbers are good. They can act on the item soon to complete the job and move forward.

4. ATTORNEY – Landscape Ordinance Amendment Update.

Mr. Fisher said that regarding the Landscape Ordinance amendment, which the City has been working on for some time, it was decided at the previous Council meeting that very significant benefit could be achieved both by considerably shortening the Ordinance, and adding certain standardized materials, such as a standard detail sheet which could be submitted and distributed by the City. This would be accomplished by creating a design guidebook that would be approved by Council resolution and amended from time to time by Council, rather than going through the ordinance amendment process. These changes would essentially be technical points, and if Council determined that a technical issue needed to be adjusted, it could be done through the guidebook. The Ordinance would then be much more tailored to the things that it would normally consist of, and would benefit all parties.

Member Sanghvi said that what Mr. Fisher proposed was an excellent idea. He said that the less verbose the Ordinance is, the better. What is essential should be part of the Ordinance; the other things should be appendices. Dr. Sanghvi reiterated that Mr. Fisher’s suggestion was excellent.

Mr. Fisher said that regarding Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s concern about lot splits, formerly in the Land Division Act as land division, and the Storm Water Ordinance compliance, it is very important to distinguish two things as they relate to land divisions in Michigan as of 1998, when the State Legislature made a very significant amendment to the Act formerly known as the Subdivision Control Act. Under that Act, the Legislature describes a land division and specifies criteria for a land division which essentially is dividing land on the tax records of the City, and providing a new tax identification number. In its wisdom in amending the Land Division Act, the Legislature specified that a local community can consider the following criteria in determining whether a land division shall be granted, and the community has 60 days in which to do so. Many of the things that the City is interested in, as it relates to actual development as opposed to providing a technical definition of a parcel, go un-reviewed and un-scrutinized for purposes of a land division, as the Legislature has described it. Mr. Fisher said his suggestion for the Ordinance would be to make a clear distinction between granting a land division within 60 days, without knowing, for example, whether there is actually an easement or a road to provide frontage. The Legislature says that the division will be granted if there is accessibility. Accessibility is defined as an easement or the ability to create an easement, which is quite astonishing. He said the idea of a land division needs to be split from the ability for development or construction or improvement of land. When the process progresses to the second phase, the City can demand the applicant meet its demands for such items as storm water requirements. Mr. Fisher said it was his recommendation to amend the Ordinance to accommodate what the Legislature has done in that field.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said the reason for her concern about this item was the requirement in the City’s Storm Water Ordinance to do one of two things: if applicable, to either provide a storm water management plan for a lot division, or to provide site engineering for that. If this applies to one or two lots, the requirement is not significant. However, the City is processing 500 of these a year. This means that all of that site drainage, unless covered by a building permit, is essentially the burden of the residents of the City.

CM-03-08-248 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Landry; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct the City Attorney to address lot splits and the Storm Water Ordinance, to accommodate changes stemming from the Land Division Act; and to refer the matter to Ordinance Review and the City Engineer regarding the manner in which the lot split shall be reviewed.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-248 Yeas: Clark, Bononi Capello, Landry, Sanghvi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

Mr. Fisher noted that Council had received in its packets a letter from Singh, asking Council to hold the rezoning of property situated between Meadowbrook Road and the Twelve Oaks Mall in advance, until Singh has the opportunity to analyze the issue further, with the notion that Singh will seek ways to accommodate Council’s desires on the property. He said he assumed Council would not object to this, as it was asking for a deferral. To shorten the agenda later, he said he may segue into the planned rezoning overlay concept. The planned rezoning overlay has "not seen the light of day at implementation", and the City will do what it can to help that process. There are other items pending in the City right now which administration would feel more comfortable about with the rezoning overlay process in place.

Member Sanghvi said he thought that Singh wanted to table the rezoning item more or less indefinitely. He asked if Mr. Fisher also took this understanding from the letter. Mr. Fisher said he read that it was indefinite to allow Singh to explore the issue for an uncertain amount of time, to explore the ability to comply with the wishes of Council, and that it would only be brought back at their request.

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Fisher if he felt that a motion was appropriate to accomplish this purpose on the record. Mr. Fisher said that it would be appropriate.

CM-03-08-249 Moved by Sanghvi, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the request of Singh Development for a period of 6 months, at which time the company shall return to Council with a proposal.

Mr. Fisher suggested that the motion be with the understanding that if the Planning Commission determines that some other action be taken, the City shall not be prevented from moving forward on its own.


Member Landry said that generally speaking, he does not favor leaving things open ended. He said that if the maker of the motion would consider a friendly amendment, he would not be opposed to leaving the item open for 90 days, and Council could readdress the issue at that time. He said it was not a good idea to leave the request hanging, and this would provide both Singh and the City with incentive to examine the issue.

Member Sanghvi said it was a nice idea to set the 90 day period, but Council would face the same thing in 90 days. In addition, the composition of Council may be very different in 90 days. He questioned what would be achieved by setting the 90 day period for consideration, and said Council would have all options open for what it can suggest be done with the plan by leaving the period as indeterminate. Dr. Sanghvi said he would very respectfully decline to accept the friendly amendment.

Member Capello said he had the same concern about leaving something open-ended. The reason that he seconded the motion was his belief that the market conditions are the cause of the delay. He said he would not have an objection to putting a cap on the review time, but said that 90 days would not give Singh enough time to know where the market is going regarding that particular land use. He said he would agree to a cap, but perhaps of 6 or 9 months. Dr. Sanghvi agreed with the 6 month cap. Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher if he was correct in saying that Council told Singh it could utilize the use if the company comes back to Council under the same terms that it had approved the land for. Mr. Fisher responded that he assumed the thrust of the discussion would have the rapport that Council made an arrangement and the company needs to live with it. Member Capello said that in some sense, the City is tied because it gave Singh its guarantee that if the company would do as the City wished, it would approve it. Mr. Fisher said he did not know if it was a guarantee, but it was an indication to that effect. Member Capello said he believed that Member Landry was correct, that Council needed to put a time period into the motion, because it may not have the ability to install a time limit in 9 months.

Member Landry said he would not be opposed to a 6 month time period for the review. To segue back into the original topic, he said he did not see the City approving the planned Rezoning Overlay Ordinance in 6 months. He is interested in that Ordinance moving because it appears that Council is considering development agreements all the time. He said legal counsel’s suggestion that this be placed in an ordinance is a wonderful idea. He did not see the Ordinance being approved in 6 months, but said he would support a 6 month time limit on the postponement.

Member Sanghvi said he would accept this friendly amendment.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-249 Yeas: Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi, Clark

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if Council required a resolution that it separate the design and technical concepts from the Landscape Ordinance itself, in order to allow Mr. Fisher to move on with this. This was discussed early on, when Linda Lemke was working with the Ordinance Review Committee.

CM-03-08-250 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Sanghvi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To provide for the separation of technical concepts from the Landscape Ordinance.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-250 Yeas: Capello, Landry, Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo



Matthew Quinn, 21995 Meridian, said he wished to speak regarding Item #7, the Gateway East Ordinance. He represents one property owner on the southeast corner of the district, and a contract holder for the property on the northeast corner. Those two properties have never been zoned NCC, nor have they ever been master planned for that type of use. One of the purposes of the Gateway East Ordinance was to take previously zoned NCC property and make it viable. NCC property during the past 20 years has not developed; Council in its wisdom, which he agrees with, has seen to it to make that property developable. These two properties are unlike any other in the Ordinance. The property on the northeast corner is master planned for community commercial and is zoned light industrial. The southeast corner is also master planned for community commercial and is zoned OS1. Everything to the west of Meadowbrook Road being considered in the Ordinance is master planned for the Gateway District and is mostly zoned NCC. He would like Council to consider in Section 901A, under discussion of boundaries, those properties on the northeast and southeast corners of the Grand River and Meadowbrook Road intersection with frontage on both streets not be included within the Gateway District. This is what the property owners and the owner of the contract for the purchase of the northeast corner object to. Good planning, as in the current master plan, uses the road system for master plan boundaries, and also for zoning district boundaries. The Gateway District currently stops on the master plan at Meadowbrook Road, and these two properties will be developed in the future as the OS1, and the northeast corner property is proposed for rezoning from light industrial to another community commercial use, a B3 use. Mr. Quinn asked Council to consider amendments to the Ordinance between the evening’s meeting and whenever it comes back for a 2nd reading. He said that his clients will have submitted by that time some actual language, either to revise that section or perhaps to revise the sections that deal with the specific permitted uses.

Judy McNeil, 21772 Kilrush, expressed her support for bringing city water to her neighborhood, Connemara Hills. She knows that Council has seen a fair number of letters from supporters of the measure, and she wished to encourage Council to move the process along so that she and her neighbors could experience city water by the fall if possible. Ms. McNeil said she spoke for the majority of homeowners in her district in saying they looked forward to seeing city water soon.

Victor Cassis, Daleview Dr., wished to address the question of the Gateway Ordinance, as he owns property in that area. He listened to the deliberations of the Planning Commission a few weeks ago regarding this Ordinance. He was heartened and very impressed by the enlightened and perceptive comments of all the Commissioners. Their vision and the perception of the Gateway Ordinance were visionary and practical, and he complimented the entire Commission. Last week he listened to his friend, Council Member Sanghvi, when he commented, "Let us dare to dream and take risks." He listened to Mayor Clark’s comments last week and his overwhelming support for the wholesome thoughts. Mr. Cassis said his comments were mostly derived from comments by Council and the Planning Commission. Number one, Mayor Clark rightfully said that communities change and evolve with generations. Number two, entrepreneurs are innovative, respond to market demand, and usually want to build a successful project. Number three, we live in a free enterprise nation: this failure will occur, and nobody has predictive power as to what will succeed. Number four, we need to balance commercial and residential property so as to be an affordable community. He noted that he was still reiterating the thoughts of Mayor Clark. Number five, ownership has its rights and privileges, be it residential or commercial, both are citizens. Mayor Clark also emphasized that this Ordinance has been debated, massaged, polished, manicured, and had major makeovers for several years. "We should vote up or down" Mayor Clark said last year, "and get it behind us." Number six, neither perfection or the ideal can be obtained, which Mr. Cassis said was well said by the Mayor. He said he was also impressed by Mayor Pro Tem Bononi’s comments that Novi is a great community, that residents all chose to move here because of the quality of life here, and that we are what we are because of the City’s location. Former Council Member Cassis apologized to Council for borrowing their thoughts, and said he shared their beliefs. He also recognized a perceptive comment made by Commissioner Avdoulos, who said "Novi is a great community. We should celebrate what we have and make an effort to tie it all together in partnership with businesses and residents."

Mr. Cassis said the City hired experts to craft an ordinance that is legal and workable in all of its components. An expert must be allowed to give their honest and impartial wisdom, uninfluenced by any pressures. He realizes that Legislative powers are still supreme. Location has a large bearing, and dictates to a large extent, zoning. Though heavy commercial would not be placed at Ten Mile and Beck, Grand River is a major thoroughfare and is appropriate for commercial zoning. A city requires a variety of services to fulfill its needs. It does not make sense to build a Meijer’s store and then have to drive across the street to shop at it. Mr. Cassis urged that in approving a site plan, the mistakes of the past should not be made, where Councils and Commissions created, engineered, and designed a Town Center and a Main Street. A common desire among people in Novi is to wish for a rural atmosphere everywhere in the City; yet, building a downtown is distinctly different than planning a housing subdivision. A downtown, as in Northville, requires certain components: density, height, concrete and bricks, shared parking, and zero lot lines when possible. He said he was not necessarily calling for these in the Gateway Ordinance. There are amenities that complement these ideas of a downtown. Commercial property, by nature, is very expensive. It cannot be burdened by a disproportionate setback, greenspace, access roads, etcetera. If these restrictions are carried to extremes, they may render the project and property unaffordable. The properties under consideration in the Ordinance have been vacant and undeveloped for many years, which is a hardship on the owners who, in many cases, have their life savings invested. It is impractical for a city not to optimize the tax potential of these properties as income. Mr. Cassis urged Council to "make this leap of faith", as Mayor Clark had once said, and with determination approve a workable ordinance. Everyone moved into Novi aware of its character and all of its amenities. He encouraged moving forward in harmony to recognize the City’s promise.

Anthony Tomasso, 21705 Kilrush, said he wished to speak about SAD 165. To bring water into his community, the water main which runs down the west side of Taft Road must be tapped into. Because Connemara Hills is on the east side of Taft, the line must be brought under that road to connect to Galway. From there, the line would be brought into the community, make a left-hand turn at Kilrush, make another left-hand turn at Byrne, and go west again across Taft Road to make a loop. All totaled, the project cost comes to $39,000. If this figure is divided by the 17 members in his SAD, each household would need to pay $2,295. However, if this were divided by the total of 103 potential households who would benefit from the improvement, the cost would only be $379 per household. Eventually the line will probably be taken down Galway Drive and also down Byrne Drive and connected to existing water mains in North Hills. The whole 103 potential households will benefit from this. The situation is that the 17 members of SAD 165 are paying $379 plus an additional $1915 to make this happen, which they are willing to do because they value this service, and some have waited a very long time for this improvement. He said it makes no sense for residents to pay those costs up front if the people who will follow them will only benefit by saving $379. A more equitable arrangement would be for the City to pay the cost for the potential households who would benefit from the improvement, which would come to about $32,557, and allow members of SAD 165 to pay their fair share, about $6,443. Mr. Tomasso said the City would eventually be able to recoup the costs when those other people come online. If they get the ball rolling, other people in the subdivision would certainly follow. Earlier in June, Council approved payment of $60,000 to the West Lake Drive SAD’s 168 and 169 to pay for contractors who treat groundwater before it enters Walled Lake. While it is true that the lake belongs to the whole City, practically speaking, only people who live in that area will benefit from those improvements. At West Lake Drive, the dirt road was paved because much of the road was submerged during rainfall. This is a similar situation of a small group of people trying to get something done, but to get it done they must pay costs that are associated with a greater number of people. He asked the City to share some of this cost.

Richard Atto, 2150 Franklin, Broomfield Hills, asked Council whether it was appropriate to speak regarding the Gateway East Ordinance, or if it preferred that his comments be made during discussion of the actual matter. Mayor Clark said that now would be the right time to make his comments. Council did have his letter from August 8th, and also heard his comments at the joint meeting of Council and the Planning Commission. Mayor Clark said he did not want to preclude Mr. Atto from making his comments, but asked him to bear this in mind.

Mr. Atto said he was before Council to speak regarding the Gateway East (GE) Ordinance, which evolved from the DG, which was the original downtown Gateway Ordinance. He wished to support the Ordinance, but said the Ordinance needed minor adjustments before it could become viable and developable. He had earlier prepared a site plan for the area, has a high-quality retail tenant available, has high-quality office tenants ready to come onto the site, has a restaurant interested in the area, and is interested in developing if the Ordinance is implemented. However, he said that if Council were to look at him in the context of the GE Ordinance and express its approval of his site plan, it would not be good enough, because he does not want the Ordinance to be about one site. His development works in the context of the entire District, which is what the beauty of the District is: it allows different sites to be developed with different uses that work together, creating a synergy. Developing one site, although a fairly decent-sized parcel of 10 acres on the corner, as a stand-alone development without the synergies of the entire district being developed under these guidelines, would not be good enough to move forward. This is why his comments were made in the context of the entire district, not just one parcel. The beginning of his comments discussed the permitted uses of the site, and he discusses specific uses that were not included but should have been, as these are standard and retail uses that any commercial district would allow, even if it were a restricted commercial district such as today’s NCC Ordinance. There are questions regarding legalities with zoning matters; he was instructed by an attorney that Council is actually a legislative body, and some of the items included in the Ordinance ask the Council to function as an administrative body. He feels Council should act in its legislative position and not try to add another layer of administrative functions to its operations. When Council acts as an administrative body, it cannot also act as a legislative body at the same time. Specifically, he mentioned the maximum floor area ratio increasing from 25% to 30%. Many people, even those who do not like retail, seem to favor offices. However, with a maximum height restriction of 25 feet, not even 2 stories can be constructed, and he asked for this number to be increased. There are clarifications that are necessary in the Ordinance. If a person has features on their property such as wetlands or woodlands, they should be able to count 100% of those features as open space, and if not this could almost be considered a taking. There are questions about some unclear items in the Ordinance, and he would like to be able to work with a planner or even Council to work out some details. Having to go through the Special Development Option is something that he has objected to since the day one, and he has said this for 3 years. If the wish of Council is to have an option for the purpose of allowing the high density residential, then it must be at least somewhat workable so that it can actually be used. He supports the Ordinance, but it needs to be cleaned up. Nobody wants to build an Ordinance that will fail or not allow development to occur in the first place.

Chris Irving, Kilrush, wished to support SAD 165. He is a groundwater well engineer, and said that his first dilemma from moving into the area was dealing with rust stains from water. He had a home inspector tell him that his water pressure was a little bit low, and he can only use one bathroom in his house at a time, even though he has three. He can either wait for the city water that he hopes is coming, or invest money in a new well and other purification devices which would add significantly to the cost of keeping that well. He asked Council to speed the process so that he does not have to invest both in a new well and in the city water when it comes in.

Joe Sheena, said he is one of the founders of Pizza Pablo’s restaurants, and is also one of the tenants which Mr. Atto spoke of. When his company looks for an area to move to, it looks for an area with family growth, and an area where the restaurant would be a welcome addition. When Mr. Atto proposed the location to him about a year and a half ago, the company had an interest, which continues to grow all the time. The restaurant is now convinced that the Gateway District would be a good area to move to. Pizza Pablo’s has been around for about 17 years now, and it prides itself on being a family type of restaurant. The restaurant would be a welcome addition to the area, just as it has recently done in Rochester Hills and Dearborn. The proposal and the layout of the site plan would work very well with what the company tries to do, but it would need to have a type of restaurant which would seat in excess of 200 people, because it often has large groups coming in. The restaurant would need necessary items, such as a liquor license, as even though liquor is only 10 to 15 percent of its sales, it is something that a full-scale restaurant needs. He wished to express his support for the site plan, and said his company is a very interested party in the venture.


CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

CM-03-08-251 Moved by Landry, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-251 Yeas: Landry, Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi, Capello

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

(Background information for Consent Agenda items is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office).

A. Approval of Minutes:

  1. July 17, 2003 – Special meeting
  2. July 21, 2003 – Regular meeting.

B. Approval to schedule an Executive Session in the Council Annex immediately following the Regular meeting of August 11, 2003 for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. (Paragon)

C. Approval of Second Revised Resolution Number 5 for Special Assessment District

162 – Pioneer Meadows Sanitary Sewer Extension – necessary to adjust the District and cost per benefiting property owner as a result of the addition of one parcel to the roll.

D. Approval of Second Revised Resolution Number 5 for Special Assessment District Number 163 – Pioneer Meadows Water Main Extension – necessary to adjust the District and cost per benefiting property owner as a result of the addition of one parcel to the roll.

E. Approval of Revised Resolution Number 7 for Special Assessment District 162 – Pioneer Meadows Sanitary Sewer Extension – necessary to adjust the District and cost per benefiting property owner as a result of the addition of one parcel to the roll.

F. Approval of Revised Resolution Number 7 for Special Assessment District Number 163 – Pioneer Meadows Water Main Extension – necessary to adjust the District and cost per benefiting property owner as a result of the addition of one parcel to the roll.

G. Approval of Drainage Easement Agreement for a 10’ wide permanent drainage easement on parcel 50-22-10-278-012 located at 2330 Austin Drive in the Walled Lake Heights Subdivision for the chip seal project.

H. Approval of resolution authorizing the reimbursement of expenses associated with mosquito control from the Oakland County West Nile Virus Fund.

I. Approval of appointment of Brenda Borders (Employee Delegate) and Stephanie Sharpe (Officer Delegate) as the 2003 City of Novi representatives to attend the Annual Michigan Employees Retirement System Conference to be held on October 1-2, 2003.

J. Approval to renew contract for one year for trophies with Awards & Specialties on the same terms and conditions.

K. Approval to add the DPW facility to the Protection One bid award for proximity lock system in the amount of $10,509, and approval of Budget Amendment 2004-1.

L. Approval to award bid for an elevator maintenance contract to Elevator Technology, the low bidder, in the amount of $2,252.

M. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 654.


1. Approval of Revised Resolution Number 5 for Special Assessment District Number 165 – Connemara Hills Limited Water Main Extension – to amend the cost estimate for the project previously adopted by Council on July 7, 2003.

CM-03-08-252 Moved by Landry, seconded by Sanghvi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Revised Resolution Number 5 for Special Assessment District Number 165 – Connemara Hills Limited Water Main Extension – to amend the cost estimate for the project previously adopted by Council on July 7, 2003


Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked how the timeframe for moving this SAD along might be affected in the event that Council decides to move on Agenda Item #6. Mr. Fisher answered that this is an SAD that is in progress. In all likelihood, the process that is now being considered on the agenda for Item #6 would likely have very little bearing on this proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if once an SAD is underway, it would not be subject to any changes enacted by Council. Mr. Fisher said that to avoid confusion and to provide continuity in the event of any objections, he would recommend to clarify that any SAD’s in progress would be governed by the rules that applied at the time. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi thanked Mr. Fisher and said she was satisfied with the answer.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-252 Yeas: Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi, Capello, Landry

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

2. Approval of Resolution Number 6 for Special Assessment District Number 165 – Connemara Hills Limited Water Main Extension – setting the third Public Hearing for September 8, 2003.

CM-03-08-253 Moved by Sanghvi, seconded by Landry; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Resolution Number 6 for Special Assessment District Number 165 – Connemara Hills Limited Water Main Extension – setting the third Public Hearing for September 8, 2003

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-253 Yeas: Clark, Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

3. Approval to award the contract to chip seal Dinser, Delmont, and Austin Drive, to Highway Maintenance & Construction Company, the low bidder, for the bid amount of $64,959.00.

CM-03-08-254 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Landry; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve to award the contract to chip seal Dinser, Delmont, and Austin Drive, to Highway Maintenance & Construction Company, the low bidder, for the bid amount of $64,959.00


Mayor Clark commented that 4 years ago, Council said it would do anything possible to improve Delmont and Dinser Roads. It has taken a while, and this may not be the final solution, but this is certainly a step in the right direction, and he was sure that those residents would appreciate this decision.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-254 Yeas: Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi, Clark

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

4. Approval to award the contract for the Shawood Bridge Culvert Replacement Project to Davis Construction, Inc., the low bidder, for the bid amount of $191,425.30.

CM-03-08-255 Moved by Sanghvi, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve to award the contract for the Shawood Bridge Culvert Replacement Project to Davis Construction, Inc., the low bidder, for the bid amount of $191,425.30


Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if there were any easements needed in order to complete this project. Mr. Helwig answered that there were none.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-255 Yeas: Capello, Landry, Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

5. Approval of a request from Cypress Partners, LLC, for a Section Nine Façade Waiver to allow modification of an existing building façade for Gus O’Connor’s Restaurant and Pub. The subject property is located in Section 23, on Market Street south of Grand River Avenue in the northwest corner of the former Vic’s Market building, in the TC-1, Town Center Zoning District.

CM-03-08-256 Moved by Capello, seconded by Sanghvi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve request from Cypress Partners, LLC, for a Section Nine Façade Waiver to allow modification of an existing building façade for Gus O’Connor’s Restaurant and Pub. The subject property is located in Section 23, on Market Street south of Grand River Avenue in the northwest corner of the former Vic’s Market building, in the TC-1, Town Center Zoning District.


Member Landry said he fully supported the motion, as the selected façade materials would be consistent with and enhance the building concept design. The façade materials would be complimentary to the existing or proposed buildings within the surrounding area; specifically it would enhance the individual look of the buildings, which is what Council is trying to achieve. The façade materials would not subtract from future developments in the district, and Council has the necessary accompanied written design statement from the developer. He suggested that all of these findings have all been met.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she had noticed a designation on the façade about a grocery in the fold-out plan set. She asked what this referred to. Ms. McBeth displayed a photograph of the plan. She believed that this was only a design element that the applicant would like to have on the building. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi expressed concern that if this was legible from Grand River, someone might literally think this building was a grocery. Ms. McBeth asked to point out that the item had not been through the Sign Ordinance review, and thus not all of the requested signs may be permitted. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she understood the look that was being sought, but said she would not want people to feel that they were being mislead.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-256 Yeas: Landry, Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi, Capello

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

6. Discussion of recommendations for revising the Special Assessment District City Council Resolution/Public Hearing Procedure.

Mr. Fisher said this was a process that was going through administration. He had not yet been involved with the process, but said he soon would be. Mr. Helwig said that Mr. Klaver had been heading a fairly extensive review by City staff of other communities, and how to streamline the process.

Mr. Klaver said there were 3 items that he wanted to highlight. The group identified in the literature was a group of staff members that had been working on the item. They deserved credit, and it is a part of the administration’s philosophy that anytime such as an SAD where it is appropriate, work teams which cross departmental boundaries and involve a number of different departments are desired. In addition to being the individuals that helped form this recommendation, this would be the group that would go forward, and all SAD’s and correspondence would include those individuals, so that everyone in the process knows what is going on at each step of the way. Regarding the recommendations, what he understood Council to articulate during its discussions was to: number one, speed up the process. The 10 step process is being reduced to 7 steps. Instead of 7 resolutions and 5 public hearings, administration is recommending 5 resolutions and 2 public hearings, and an informational process would precede the formal application for an SAD. This would be an opportunity for residents to investigate without making a commitment. Council had indicated that it was looking for some way for the City to help induce neighborhoods to consider SAD’s, and administration believes this meets that goal. Number two: administration estimates that if it went perfectly, the current process would be 12 months. These recommendations would reduce that period to 8 months. Administration believes it has been able to respond to Council’s requests, to shorten the process and make it more user friendly, and make it easier for people to get information, sooner.

Member Landry said that as he understood it, he liked the additional request for an informational meeting, which would be held at the request of 30% of the units which would be involved. His understanding was that at such an information meeting, a thumbnail sketch of the typical estimated cost would be given. After this, the residents would have to come back with petitions signed by 51% in order to "get the ball rolling." He asked what the difference was between Resolution Number One and Resolution Number Two, and why separate resolutions were needed. The same things happen at the two resolutions, except that at the second a public hearing is set. He asked why the tasks could not be done in just one resolution. Mr. Klaver said this question may get into the one issue that was discussed with the City Attorney, which regarded different basis of assessment. For example, the option of using front footage was left in, which would most typically be employed when dealing with road improvements, particularly if the neighborhood was such with large parcels and smaller parcels. This step would allow that particular consideration, rather than sending it to a public hearing.

Member Landry asked Mr. Fisher if it was his opinion that it was in the City’s best interest to separate the two resolutions and give a second look its second resolution. Mr. Fisher said that where it is unnecessary, Resolutions One and Two could be done together. If it provides an option to do otherwise, then the City has the benefit of going in both directions. The Township Public Improvement Act calls for those Resolutions One and Two as being proposed here, and it is very customary in townships to do Resolutions One and Two together. Member Landry asked if this would be the City’s option, which Mr. Fisher said was correct.

Member Capello said that as the 7 resolutions were actually being reduced to 5 resolutions plus an added preliminary resolution, so the reduction was actually only from 7 down to 6. He asked if this could be further streamlined, even by combining some of the other resolutions, or maybe some of the provisions within resolutions. It would be better off to have the preliminary informational meeting, as the citizens would definitely have more input, and thus the City would not need as many resolutions as it had.

Member Capello asked if the SAD is initiated by 30% of the total units benefited, if it automatically goes to the stage of preliminary designs and cost estimates, or if it would come to Council and it would make the decision of whether to expend resources. Mr. Klaver said the concept was that it would not involve Council at this point, the idea being that many audience members expressed frustration with needing to make a preliminary decision on whether or not they supported a petition without any information whatsoever. This is designed so that the City’s Engineers would determine a cost range of plus or minus 10%, and they would share that range with residents. At that point, with that information in hand, the neighborhood would presumably discuss the item and decide whether or not to come forward with a formal petition. This is the point at which Council would come involved with the process.

Member Capello asked that if the neighborhood had the 30%, Council would have nothing to do with the item, and administration would be obligated to go on to the next step. Mr. Klaver said that if he meant, by the next step, developing the estimate and having a public informational meeting, the answer was yes. Member Capello asked if administration could look at the proposal and decide not to do it. If the neighborhood gets 30%, the City would do it for them. Mr. Klaver said this was correct.

Member Sanghvi asked if by collapsing or combining steps, what was actually being gained in real time. Mr. Klaver said the estimate was cut short by 4 months. Dr. Sanghvi said he would hold him to this.

CM-03-08-257 Moved by Sanghvi, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve recommendations for revising the Special Assessment District City Council Resolution/Public Hearing Procedure

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-257 Yeas: Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi, Capello, Landry

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

7. Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 18.154, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create the Gateway East Zoning District which is intended to encourage mixed-use development, including multiple-family residential, office, and limited commercial land uses, and to authorize use of Planned Unit Development (Special Development Option) regulations. 1st Reading

Mayor Clark reminded the audience that the process for the Gateway Ordinance began in 1999.

Member Sanghvi said he was glad Council was discussing the Gateway Ordinance, and he hoped that a consensus could be reached soon on the item. He said it was interesting to review the history of the Ordinance and listen to comments of both some current Council members, as well as the City Attorney, and had originally planned to quote those people’s comments about the Ordinance. Dr. Sanghvi said the Ordinance was rather verbose, and contained some bombastic words. He asked that the Ordinance language be generally simplified. He said that original discussion had mentioned the protection of the Main Street area businesses, and he questioned why the City was trying to protect one business over another, rather than allowing the marketplace to determine which businesses thrive in the area.

Member Sanghvi said he would prefer to operate on an overall vision for the City of Novi, instead of focusing on Grand River between Meadowbrook and Novi Roads. He said that whatever happened with the success of the Main Street development is now history, and the City now is looking at every unit of development very closely. Dr. Sanghvi noted that the word "apothecary" was used to describe one potential development, and suggested that this word be replaced by the term "drugstore" to more easily convey the intent of the development. He said that some terms used in the document were exercises in futility and a waste of everyone’s time, and wished to see a more simply-written Ordinance.

Member Sanghvi said that any legitimate and honorable business should be allowed to open in the area. He said that this is what a downtown is all about. His vision of a downtown is that people would walk around freely, surrounded by many other people. A downtown should not only look beautiful, but should also be financially viable and successful. Density issues should be examined when discussing developments, as well as the height of allowed buildings. Member Sanghvi asked how high the Fire Department could safely reach on a building to fight a fire. Fire Chief Lenaghan said the City’s current fire equipment contains a 100-foot ladder, which equates to approximately 8 stories with a setback. Dr. Sanghvi asked why building height was being restricted, when safety issues such as fire height are not a concern. He noted that property costs are very expensive in the Gateway area, probably reaching somewhere from $200,000 to $500,000 an acre. He suggested maximizing the use of sufficient land with adequate density, so that the area is full of people. People will either make the downtown, or the downtown will fail.

Member Sanghvi said he had seen an interesting note from Police Chief Shaeffer, that sometime around the Music and Motor Fest time, a new bar opened in the Main Street area, the Post Bar. Chief Shaeffer said that the vast majority of the people who were patronizing the area were between the ages of 25 and 35, the types of people who might want to live in a studio or 1-bedroom apartment. Those people can afford those types of accommodations, but not many of the large homes in Novi. Dr. Sanghvi suggested that keeping those people around the downtown area, and thus keeping the area full, would help downtown to thrive. He recalled reading comments from Member Capello that he did not want to see empty parking lots, such as those seen in the Orchard Lake area. Member Sanghvi suggested that a single-lane service lane could be constructed, with buildings next to it and a distribution point for parking behind those. He suggested taking a visionary approach while looking to the future prosperity of Novi, including an increased tax base to support the community with. Dr. Sanghvi said that if needed, some of the City’s restrictive ideology should be relaxed for the Gateway area.

Mayor Clark said he was going to suggest between 1st and 2nd reading that members of Council may wish to submit any comments, so that they could be distributed among all members to set the tone for discussion when the Ordinance comes back for 2nd reading.

Member Capello noted that a six-page letter from Mr. Atto was received at the Council table, and said he appreciated Mr. Atto’s references to specific sections, and that he had provided a specific alternative. Unfortunately, as Council had just received the letter that evening, Member Capello did not have opinions from Mr. Arroyo about the suggested amendments. Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher if he had received a copy of Mr. Atto’s letter, which Mr. Fisher responded he had. Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher to respond to paragraph 9 of the letter, as he had never heard someone tell Council that it is only a legislative body before. Though Council does not hold a significant amount of power, its powers expand over the legislative, executive, and judicial forms in some form or another, and Council may be the only form of government which contains this level of flexibility. He said he did agree, however, that there should be enough standards in the Ordinance to ensure that Council would not act arbitrarily. Member Capello was one of the drafters of the Ordinance, and Mr. Atto’s site plan was examined at the time. He said he was under the impression that Mr. Atto could build what he wanted under the Ordinance. The Planning Commission had tried to set guidelines in the document, and he said he would approve the Ordinance if Mr. Fisher also approved it.

CM-03-08-258 Moved by Capello, seconded by Landry; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Text Amendment 18.154, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create the Gateway East Zoning District, 1st Reading; and amendments to page 3 - section 902a, page 7 - section 904a(1), and page 9 – section 904c.


Member Capello noted that he had two changes that he wanted to see in the Ordinance for the 2nd reading. On page 3, under subsection 902A, he wished to add a subsection 6, and change the 6, 7, and 8 to 7, 8, and 9. Subsection 6 to add is "Principal Permitted Use – Funeral Homes." There is an existing funeral home which is not going to move, and may need to expand its parking lot which may be non-conforming, and Council owed this to Mr. O’Brien. His second change came to him during the evening. He had spoken with Mr. Quinn before the meeting, and had listened to him during the meeting, and he wanted to find an alternative for the corner of Grand River and Meadowbrook. Member Capello said the entire corner is important, and he did not want to see the east side of Meadowbrook go because that entire corner will create an ambience. He said he wanted to control the intersection, but not overly-control it. Council needs to add something into this Ordinance to build something with a very unique or high-profile type of use, even if it does not fit in with the specific uses. He said he could not support a B-3 use on that corner; however, the use that Mr. Quinn is bringing in is a high-profile use and would enhance the Gateway District. On page 7, section 904A(1), he wished to add a subsection (e), which is an additional use under the special development option, "a unique or high profile use utilizing a high profile building on the corner of 2 major thoroughfares, which incorporates the natural features of the land and the design criteria otherwise set forth herein." Member Capello’s final comment was on page 9, under the introduction to section 904C, to add "904A(1)(e)" so that it reads "the uses listed under Section 901A and 904A(1)(e).

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that it seemed "as if everyone in town has had a stab" in the Ordinance at one time or another. She, Member Capello and Member Landry had got together and decided to produce something more creative with the document. There are two options for the Ordinance, and the City cannot have some or all of both options. Earlier, there were statements made that the master plan and zoning is relegated to roadways as boundaries, which is simply not true. Master plan and zoning boundaries can split land parcels, follow streams, and use meaningful boundaries to the persons who approve them. With regard to properties who do not wish to be included in the district, if properties are not part of the contiguous ownership that would otherwise break up a district or boundary, it is not her intention to include anyone in a district who does not wish to be included. To the contrary, it was communicated to the Master Plan Committee that the two parcels being contested, the northeast and southeast quadrants, were requested to be included into the district boundary at the time they were working on this amendment.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that regarding drugstore usage being placed in the Gateway East Ordinance, she would not approve a drugstore which would function like a department store, which many drugstores now do. The intention of including the term "apothecary" was to designate that use specifically for the dispensation of drugs, medications, and personal care products. She said she might be willing to support Member Capello’s reference to a unique, high profile use, but with more definition for "unique" and "high profile." A Special Development District option is included in the Ordinance at this point, and she noted that this section of Gateway East has actually only existed for about 1 year. She said the unique, high profile use at the site is definitely a possibility, but it should be spelled out exactly what parameters will be allowed for the facility, and the project’s quality would need to be demonstrated by the applicant.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that in reviewing the materials for this Ordinance, she looked again at the Grand River Avenue corridor study, and the information of the study very much relegates to the intent and spirit of the Gateway East Ordinance as written. There is plenty of information that would not need to be duplicated if the study is examined. The Mayor Pro Tem said she was very pleased that the City chose the construction option for Grand River that it did, as it will work out very well for the area. She said she would be very interested in seeing some of the amenities suggested, such as street lighting and landscaping, be applied to the Gateway East Ordinance, as these are referred to anecdotally. She said she supported bringing forward the 1st reading.

Member Landry said that the last time Council addressed the Gateway Ordinance in depth he found it frustrating and almost painful because each member wanted to go a different direction with the item. After that meeting, he, Member Capello, and Mayor Pro Tem Bononi met, and also enlisted the aid of Rod Arroyo. They spent a great deal of time reviewing the document, as well as comments. He noted that nothing is happening at the area right now, and something needs to be done with the area soon. There are unique-shaped parcels that the City would love to encourage to be grouped together and developed as one. This Ordinance, though not perfect, accomplishes this. Member Landry wished to echo the Mayor’s comments that it is time to change the zoning in that area and try something different. He supports the Ordinance, supports the Special Development option, and believes that there are sufficient criteria. He said he trusts Mr. Fisher’s opinion about whether there are sufficient criteria in the Ordinance to govern the deliberations of Council. He likes the idea that the concept plan under the Special Development option goes to the Planning Commission, and then stays at Council. This way, potential developers are not pushed back and forth between the Planning Commission and City Council. Member Landry said he liked the idea of encouraging the Special Development option, and would support the 1st reading.

Mayor Clark said that everyone’s comments were to the point and well placed. He appreciated the comment which referred to the parcels on the northeast and southeast corners, and said that Mayor Pro Tem Bononi was correct that those site owners wanted to be included in the district. Council Member Capello’s proposed language is a creative way to deal with this problem, and he supported this. This language amendment makes sense, and accomplishes the purpose that the petitioner would like to achieve. He suggested it was time to "move off the dime" with the Ordinance. Mayor Clark recalled the recent increase in the number of area drugstores, and said the City must be careful in determining where and how various uses are placed. He agrees with Dr. Sanghvi that the market will dictate which stores will survive, but certain uses should be placed with more discretion than others. He commended the Master Plan Committee for their fine work, as well as the review by the Planning Commission. Mayor Clark stated that this Ordinance is a step in the right direction, and said that if the country waited for every plan to be perfect, everyone "would still be living on the east coast." He said he supported the Ordinance 100%.

Member Sanghvi asked to maintain his right to restate some issues of concern at a later date. He said that with this right, he was happy to support the Ordinance, and suggested putting a time limit on the decision time for the Ordinance, possibly at the end of November. Mayor Clark said he agreed with this.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-258 Yeas: Clark, Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo



Council recessed at 9:28 p.m.

Council reconvened at 9:49 p.m.


8. Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 18.167, to add definitions for four types of day care establishments, and to modify the standards for child day care and adult day care establishments within the City of Novi. 1st Reading

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this matter had been pending in the Ordinance Review Committee for some time. She had emailed Mr. Pearson earlier in the day to find out why the matter had not been sent to Ordinance Review as repeatedly requested. The Ordinance has come out of the Planning Commission Public Hearing directly to Council, which is fine, but she has serious concerns about certain basic tenets included in the Ordinance, especially regarding: the number of children in facilities; the underlying zones that permit day care centers and adult care centers to be permitted uses; hours of operation; and also some material concerns to the Ordinance. She would not want to hold the Ordinance up, but wanted to move to approve the 1st Reading with proviso that the item go to where it was intended to go, Ordinance Review. She said that Mayor Clark, as a member of Ordinance Review Committee member, may recall the numerous requests to have the item brought forward.

CM-03-08-259 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Sanghvi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Zoning Text Amendment 18.167, to add definitions for four types of day care establishments, and to modify the standards for child day care and adult day care establishments within the City of Novi. 1st Reading. The matter shall be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee to address concerns and returned to Council within 60 days.


Mayor Clark asked the Mayor Pro Tem if she would have a problem to have the item come back within 60 days, so that it could be examined within the next meeting or two. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she had no problem with this.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-259 Yeas: Clark, Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

9. Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 18.181, to amend the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of creating a new Article 27, "Special Accommodation Use."

1st Reading

Mr. Fisher said that this was an ordinance which had been recommended some time ago, and has now worked its way through the process. State zoning and planning law contemplates a certain type of creation, of a master plan and zoning ordinance, and authorization of uses within zones. Federal law did not take into consideration the State of Michigan zoning process and limitations and structure, and this is true throughout the United States. Much of the zoning structure is similar throughout most states in the Union. Communities are given an obligation to authorize certain uses without the tools available to do it. This ordinance is the City’s effort to provide those tools for uses that are required to receive a reasonable accommodation, meaning that Federal law compels the City to grant certain uses where it otherwise would not, in instances applicable under the Federal Fair Housing Law. This ordinance gives the City the opportunity to conform to that law.

Member Landry asked if a public hearing was required to be held with the City Manager, which Mr. Fisher said was correct. Member Landry asked how this works. Mr. Fisher said that the procedure can almost be adversarial in certain circumstances, and does not lend itself well to being conducted before City Council or any other body, as the potential is for this hearing to last several hours. He had a hearing under a similar ordinance that lasted a day and a half. This provides the opportunity to avoid conducting a hearing over a long period of time, which may in itself be considered to be a violation of the Act. Even stretching something out too far may be deemed to be the opposite of a reasonable accommodation. This allows the Manager to conduct the hearing, make recommendations to the Council, and then move on. Member Landry thanked Mr. Fisher.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she was not speaking for Mr. Helwig, but asked why Council would want the City Manager to use his time doing this. She said she believed he should have the ability to appoint a designee to hold this hearing. Mr. Fisher said he believed this was very reasonable. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi suggested that Council institute a policy so that when Mr. Fisher or other Legal Counsel sees it to the City’s benefit to bring forward ordinances under the law that apply to the City that it does not have, that at the point that Mr. Fisher brings this to the Planning Commission, he should also notify Council so they have an understanding of seeing that item coming through. Mr. Fisher said he sent this item a very long time ago, and had done as the Mayor Pro Tem had requested. He said he had sent this item in May of 2001, and the document was authorized first by Council before instructing him to proceed.

Member Capello asked Mr. Fisher to clarify that this type of hearing could go on for a day, or even days, which Mr. Fisher answered was conceivable. Member Capello asked if the City’s executive is the proper designee to appoint somebody, or if this should be an independent arbitrator. Mr. Fisher said this depends on the complication. Typically, these issues involve a home for between 6 and 12 persons who need care, and under State law, a home for 6 individuals is considered to be a single-family dwelling and need not go through this process. When there are more than 6 persons in a home, the process is required, and when someone comes in and asks for a home for 12 individuals within a single-family residential subdivision, everyone should be able to be heard, and only so much of an accommodation as needed is provided and the proper construction and conditions are imposed to avoid a conflict within the neighborhood. Member Capello asked if Council could designate a Board of more than one designee. Mr. Fisher believed the City Manager may appoint an appropriate designee. Member Capello asked if that designee could be more than one person, such as a Panel. Mayor Clark asked if a Panel was truly desired, because of concerns of disagreements about recommendations from that Panel. Mr. Fisher said this may create a new set of problems, though either a single designee or multiple designees could be used as the case may be.

CM-03-08-260 Moved by Landry, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Zoning Text Amendment 18.181, to amend the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of creating a new Article 27, "Special Accommodation Use." 1st Reading

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-260 Yeas: Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi, Clark

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

Mayor Clark noted that Member Capello had asked to be recused on Item 10 and Item 11.

CM-03-08-261 Moved by Landry, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To allow Member Capello to abstain from participation with Items 10 and 11.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-261 Yeas: Clark, Bononi, Landry, Sanghvi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

Abstention: Capello

10. Consideration of First Amendment to Maybury Park Estates Residential Unit Development Agreement.

Mayor Clark noted that Council had a recommendation from Mr. Fisher, that in the event Council would deem it appropriate, to approve the 1st amendment subject to the conditions indicated by him: engineering and woodlands approval of the conservation easement; confirmation that separation between physical development and preservation areas has been provided for; engineering approval that all storm water facilities have been included in the plan; legal approval of all master deed provisions are as required in the agreement; the finalization of two easements over private land to be in hand as referenced (Agreement 12), and securing the appropriate title work, being undertaken, and be subject to final legal review.

CM-03-08-262 Moved by Sanghvi, seconded by Landry; MOTION CARRIED: To approve the agreement with First Amendment to Maybury Park Estates Residential Unit Development Agreement as recommended by the City Attorney.


Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she had quite a few questions about what Council was considering to approve. To describe this situation as a radical departure from the processes that the City has in place, both by ordinance and by policy, is an understatement. One of her main concerns was that the applicant is placing the burden of potentially building storm water detention ponds on buyers of properties. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if she was correct in saying that there was no storm water management plan provided with the agreement.

Dean Gould, representing Maybury Park LLC, said he understood that nothing was being changed in the amendment regarding storm water management, but that if anything, the management systems had been tightened in favor of the City. There is no substantive difference between this proposed amendment and the existing RUD agreement regarding storm water management. He said he also believed that Maybury Park LLC had gone through great pains to satisfy the City in many respects, as the development’s engineering has been approved, and the developer has agreed to do some off-site improvements at its own expense to ensure that the storm water management plan is properly implemented.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked why it was then suggested in the material that if additional storm water detention is required, it would be the responsibility of the property owners to build it after the fact. Mr. Gould said he believed that the reason this language was added was not to put a different burden on the proposed owners of the condominium, but instead to clarify the fact that after the condominium is developed and the association is running the property, it will have a continuing obligation to maintain the storm water facilities that have already been put in place by the developer. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said there was a notation in the document about construction if additional facilities are required. Mr. Gould said that ultimately down the road, if an unforeseen circumstance occurred whereby it was necessary to make changes of any kind, Mr. Fisher wanted to make it clear that the association would have that responsibility, rather than the City. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that from a planning standpoint, this would be superfluous and offers more problems than resolution. She said that with regard to the development proposal, and in consideration of what the current pre-development runoff is, this will not significantly change. She said that why there would be a clause that would add any kind of particular construction responsibility to a future homeowner is a problem with her. Mr. Gould said he understood, but submitted that without that language there may be a concern in the future that the City should be responsible for that work. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that she agreed with Mr. Gould if he was discussing maintenance, but not about construction.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that her second point of contention regarded having no future site plan approval above what the City already had. Mr. Fisher asked for clarification on the question. While Mayor Pro Tem Bononi looked for a specific example in the agreement, she noted that some terms in the document were in conflict. On page 10, there was a reference to a final site plan approval, but page 3 stated that "at such time as a Special Assessment District to finance construction of the sanitary sewer extension to service the property has been approved, the final site plan for Phase I shall be deemed approved." She asked if this essentially said that when that SAD is approved, the entire project is approved. Mr. Fisher said that this project, a normal RUD agreement, comes to Council long before a final site plan has ever been prepared or submitted. In this situation, the RUD agreement was presented to Council and approved by Council based upon a preliminary plan in December of 2001. Since that time, the agreement went through the process, and everything is now ready for a final site plan on this project, except that there is nothing concrete in place to provide sewer. There is the mechanism in the agreement that was in the original agreement that contemplates an SAD, but that has not yet been created. Normally in this type of agreement, there would not be discussion about a final site plan approval.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she understood this, but had a problem with the plan, in that it is not wise to look at alternatives with regard to development within the same document. She asked that if it is not known if the facilities are actually needed, why Council should approve the agreement. Mr. Fisher asked if she meant the sewer project, which Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said was correct. She said the sewer construction is a matter of convenience for the person who will benefit from this, which in this case is the developer. She does not want to see the City’s time and administration resources used this way. She said that the 38.8% of the site being preserved as open space is very commendable, except that storm water basins are included in this number, which has not happened before. Mr. Fisher said that this did not represent a change, but rather was language from the original agreement. The Mayor Pro Tem said this was fine, but she still took exception to it.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi read page 4, item D of the agreement: "Physical development of Maybury Park shall be in accordance with the approved final site plan. Preliminary site preparation shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Agreement." She said that essentially the whole diligence, oversight, and process items were being removed from the final approval, and asked why the City would want to negotiate away its control of the project. Mr. Fisher said the language refers to section 19C, which requires all of the approvals of plans and so forth, as is customary. In this instance, because the sewer has not yet been constructed, and there is a very significant time crunch for this developer with it being the end of the year, the developer is willing to take the risk that it will do on-site development while knowing that it may not be able to construct homes until a time in the future when that SAD is in place. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi questioned the City’s wisdom in doing this. She said that while the gamble of the risks by the developer is one thing, how the City uses its resources is another matter.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she also had a concern on page 5, regarding recreation areas, and asked what these recreation areas were specifically going to be, as the plan requires specificity of these sites. Mr. Gould said these areas would be a tot lot and a natural walking path. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if this was what was agreed to in the original RUD. Mr. Fisher said the original RUD was before the final site planning occurred. This has now been through the equivalent of final site planning, and that area has been worked out, whereas when the original agreement had gone through, it was still at the proposal stage.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi read page 9, item XIII: "It is acknowledged that, in order to control the rate, quantity and quality of storm water outlet into the culvert, the association shall be obligated to maintain (and construct, if needed) on-site facilities within Maybury Park." She said she was looking for a City Engineer’s statement of authenticity on this item. Mr. Fisher said this statement was in a letter from the City Engineer, though the statement on page 13 was his initiative. There is significant area on the property to withhold storm water, and it was his thought that it may be possible someday that as upstream projects are developed that pass through this land, some restraining device may be needed to better suit the storm water management on this property. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she would not support this language and would look to see that it was removed. Mr. Gould said he would have no problem striking that language.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked why on page 10, XIV, "Storm Water Management", the entire storm water system is an enclosed system. Ms. McClain answered that the conveyance system is enclosed, and there are not open ditches along the roads to handle storm water. There are open areas for storm water detention at the site, but this is all routed through curbs and gutters. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if all out letting was into basins, and there are no swales or vegetated areas to absorb storm water runoff – storm water is simply piped into a detention basin. Ms. McClain said this was basically correct. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if there was any suggestion that the developer do otherwise. Ms. McClain said there were some open areas in which it had been suggested that the developer do this to, but those were to be active recreation areas. It was felt that by flooding those areas at times, it would eliminate the active recreation in those areas. The rest of the areas would have to dispense into catch basins.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she had a question about the bottom of page 11 of the agreement, regarding easements either being required or necessary over certain private property. She asked if those easements are already acquired, which Mr. Gould answered they were. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said page 12 of the agreement discusses that easements have been acquired for alternative (i), and suggests that the City is paying for those easements. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Gould both said the City is not paying for those easements. Mr. Gould said the cost of the one easement is financed through the SAD, as per the original RUD. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi quoted the next paragraph: Because such sewer extension would be contemplated to serve other property situated within an area or district which has been or will be established by the City for special assessment purposes, the extension, easements and related facilities shall be financed by a special assessment district to be established by the City. Such special assessment district shall either be:", and noted that there are two alternatives in this statement. Mr. Gould said this was correct, and said that the City has already agreed through the original RUD to finance the sewer construction throughout the traditional SAD. The developer is proposing a different alternative that will come up after this, which is the contract SAD. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if the SAD obligation would be levied upon a heretofore unknown property owner. Mr. Gould said the obligation would be levied initially in the contract SAD that would be presented to Council after this, among the 3 primary participants. Thereafter, it would only be levied against people who come into the district, noting that the developer has agreed to provide each existing property owner to the east of Maybury one residential tap, free of charge, without any need to pay. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this was not stated in the agreement. Mr. Gould said the SAD agreement would state this. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she understood, but she was concerned with how potential property owners would be affected by this. Mr. Gould said that the RUD only applies to the Maybury parcel.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi continued to the next paragraph: "Maybury may provide written notice to the City Clerk, with copy to the City Manager, requesting the City Council to commence proceeding without delay for the establishment of a special assessment district in accordance with Chapter 30 of the Novi City Code, as amended…" She asked why the City would want to do this, as it is not the developer of the site. Mr. Fisher asked if she meant why the City would want to consider creating the SAD by agreement, which Mayor Pro Tem Bononi answered was correct. Mr. Fisher said there were several reasons for this. One is that the City is resolving the extension of the sewer to that planned area, section 32, with the benefit being particularly to the single-family property owners there who will not have to pay anything for that extension, and the few other property owners along the way will only have to pay an availability fee, which is the equivalent of paying into the SAD, if and when they request a connection. This provides the City with a nice, neat arrangement for the financing of that project, to be paid for possibly fully by the 3 developers pursuant to this arrangement. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she could see why it ends up in a nice, neat package, but said she disagreed that this was any kind of great benefit to the City of Novi.

The Mayor Pro Tem quoted an item from page 13 of the agreement: "the City agrees to conduct all proceedings required for the establishment of the special assessment district to service Maybury Park, as specified above." She asked if, depending on what alternatives were being considered for use, and also the administrative costs required by the City, what Mr. Fisher would estimate those costs to be. Mr. Fisher said his estimate was probably about $10,000 at the most, and that cost is rolled into the SAD as an SAD expense. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said another concern was language on page 15 which referred to property owners having responsibility to construct detention basins, which she would not agree to. She also had concerns about the second paragraph of page 16, regarding delay on part of the City. The City has "been there, done that", and she was very concerned about that language. She said she was also concerned that the City is being looked to for enforcement of any provision of covenants, and asked if the City enforces DCCR’s or Declarants. Mr. Fisher said that normally, a covenant has an obligation on the part of the property owners to do certain maintenance and related tasks. What this paragraph says is that if the City has that right of enforcement, and does not do it right away, it is not waiving its rights to later enforce it. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she understood, and while if the language was specific to what Mr. Fisher had just said she would agree to it; but covenants often have a number of other items included in them and she would not want to have responsibility for that general topic. Mr. Fisher said that any failure on the part of the City to enforce any provisions of the covenants of the master deed would only apply to the extent the City has the authority to enforce. Mayor Pro Tem suggested that this language be inserted.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Ms. McClain if regarding the bottom of page 16 of the agreement, Mutual Agreement, the City has a formal storm water management plan, including calculations. Ms. McClain said she could not say if the City had a formal storm water management plan at the current moment; however, the final site plan has been reviewed in accordance with the storm water regulations that were in effect at the time, and the approvals were given, and it meets those requirements. They have also agreed to do additional work in other areas. However, she could not say whether the City has a plan that is specified as a storm water management plan. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if even under the City’s old regulations, it was required to have a formalized storm water management plan attested to by a professional engineer, including calculations to ensure sufficiency. Ms. McClain said the developer has met all of those requirements. With the completion of getting the downstream easements, and being able to handle the water out under Eight Mile Road, they have completed all of those requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi noted that this was without a plan, and asked Ms. McClain if she was talking about anecdotal or verbal information. Ms. McClain said this was all written information, and she could literally just not remember at the moment if there was technically a plan called the "Storm Water Management Plan." The City has copies of all of the calculations, has been over those calculations with the developer, and all of this has met the City’s requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that in view of this language, it is important to have documentation of this.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that on page 18, there was a comment concerning that "the Developer specifically acknowledges that, in the event of a failure to obtain approval for construction of the sanitary sewer facilities as specified above, an alternative means of providing sanitary sewer service must be established and approved by the City in order for the Developer to secure permits for the construction of residences." She said the paragraph went on to essentially say that if something untoward happens, it is the City’s responsibility. Mr. Fisher responded that this would not be the City’s responsibility. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that with regard to responsibility for ascertaining the public’s health, it is. Mr. Fisher said there would not be a public health issue because the developer is not permitted to construct homes until the matter is resolved. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if the City’s responsibility ends at the point where it has a home with no sanitary sewer service or no septic tank. Mr. Fisher said there would not be an issuance of a building permit without the sanitary sewer facilities approved and constructed.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said that her point in asking such questions was that she believes the proposal circumvents existing policy and ordinance to benefit the developer. From the standpoint of how this particular entangled web can end up in something that nobody wants to be responsible for is her concern. She does not want to see the City’s resources used to have a mad hatter’s selection of circumstances and alternatives that may or may not happen. In essence, what the City is doing is providing a blank check, and seeing what will happen as it goes along. This is not the planning process, not the way cities do business, and not the way she represents the citizens of Novi. The City has established policies and principles, established ordinances, a site and construction guidelines manual, and she expects this to be used. To have a few alternatives, fine points that must be put in order, is fine. However, this does not resemble anything that the City has done. She said she would not support anything in the shape of this agreement. The agreement is premature, and the developer does not have utilities in place. The Mayor Pro Tem asked where water would come from.

Mr. Gould said that within the past few days, the project had received final site plan approval. The project has final site plan approval, and has met all of the criteria of the City. The developer has been working with the City since 2001, when the RUD was originally approved, to try and get to this point. He said the agreement is not premature. The intention is to be able to move forward appropriately with all of the approvals in place, and all of the scrutiny of the City staff, while at the same time constructing the sewer on a parallel course with approval of the contract SAD. Thus, both would be in a position to hook into the sewer at the point that the developer has finished its horizontal development. The developer has not abrogated any real processes of the City. Everything has been approved, stamped, sealed, and delivered in due course.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she would take issue that if the developer does not have an approved storm water plan, then this is not the case. The hurry to do the development

Is understandable, but is not the City’s hurry. The entangling web of alternatives places the City in the burden of having to deal with this, which is not how she wants to see the City’s resources used. She said she would not support the motion.

Member Landry said the RUD has been approved. The final site plan has been given. The City Engineer indicated that she has reviewed the storm water calculations and is satisfied. Many of the changes, as he understood it, have been at the suggestion of the City Attorney to protect the City. This contract SAD is an opportunity to provide sewer service to some folks who would not otherwise have it. It is an opportunity to provide this service to an area of the City, and will be financed by those people. The City Attorney’s suggestions protect the City, and Member Landry said he was satisfied with and could support the agreement.

Member Sanghvi asked how much the SAD would cost the City. Mr. Fisher said the construction costs would be considerable in this situation. There is bonding, legal costs, engineering costs, and all of these costs are rolled into the total project cost, and with Council approval would be paid for in this case by 3 developers. Dr. Sanghvi said he could not see why the agreement was not of benefit to the City. He did not see any major problems regarding the liability of the City. He said he would stand by his motion.

Mayor Clark said he would join in the comments made by Dr. Sanghvi and Member Landry. The request made is not very significant. He would not want to change the items that have been placed in the first amended RUD agreement by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher is the City’s Legal Counsel, and when he puts something in an agreement, he has a very good reason to do it – to protect the interests of this City. Mayor Clark said he would not second guess Mr. Fisher’s judgments, as he is one of the foremost experts in the State in this area. Mayor Clark said he would give great credence to Mr. Fisher’s judgment, and would support the proposal. The SAD will be paid for by the developers, and any legal costs to the City associated with the district would be rolled into the SAD costs, so the City will not pay for this either. Mayor Clark said he would support the motion.

Mr. Fisher asked to clarify one item. He asked if the issue concerning the obligation on the part of lot owners to maintain, and language that they will make improvements if necessary, should be included in the Development Agreement. Mayor Clark said that right now the agreement says "maintenance and/or construction if needed," which is Page 9, Item XIII. If the site is built out and the storm water detention facility is built, and there is area to expand it in the future if needed, it would normally be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association if the City had not accepted the responsibility for the detention basin or the obligation to maintain it. Mr. Fisher said this was correct. Mayor Clark asked what would happen if it needs to be improved and becomes a health and safety issue. He asked if the City would be obligated to work on the site, even if it had not taken over maintenance of the basin. Mr. Fisher said that to actually construct a facility was an ambiguity, which is why he included that item in the document, to protect the City. Mayor Clark said his position would be to leave the language in.

Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked Mr. Fisher if the City would supply the same language with regard to every storm water plan that it approves. Mr. Fisher said that in the normal course, the City does not have the opportunity to negotiate like this. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked if he would suggest that the ordinance language be changed to include that. Mr. Fisher answered yes, if it could be done, but he did not know if the City could force property owners to do so. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this was her point.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-262 Yeas: Landry, Sanghvi, Clark

Nays: Bononi

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

Abstention: Capello

11. Consideration of setting a public hearing on Maybury-Tuscany-Singh Special Assessment District for the Extension of Sanitary Sewer in Section 32.

Mayor Clark said that Council had received a recommendation from Mr. Fisher that if this item were to be approved by Council, that it should be subject to certain items, including that documents be available for inspection following notice for public hearing, and that the following should be done: all exhibits are to be completed and attached, and a property ID number for the Singh parcel is to be included. Mr. Fisher said it appears that a conservative estimate of the construction cost in the matter would be $2.5 million, which is likely higher than would be necessary. This would be used for this purpose with the idea that at the point in time when the public hearing is conducted, the City will hopefully have more information available. During the process, the sewer line will be constructed and installed in 3 phases.

Mr. Gould said that phase 1 of the project was divided into 2 parts – phase 1a and 1b. Phase 1a is the offsite drain to Maybury up to the west line of Maybury State Park. Phase 1b will bring the sewer in 2 locations to the western property line of Maybury Estates, so that it is available for extension through the proposed Tuscany property. There are 3 phases, but the first phase is divided into two parts, to mirror Maybury Park LLC’s construction.

Mr. Fisher said there would be scrutiny for the cost of each phase, and the agreement contemplates that if the costs increase or decrease, the City would be able to make an adjustment on the assessment roll accordingly, which the property owners would be responsible for.

CM-03-08-263 Moved by Landry, seconded by Sanghvi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To set a public hearing for August 25th, 2003 on Maybury-Tuscany-Singh Special Assessment District for the Extension of Sanitary Sewer in Section 32, including the additional comments submitted by the City Attorney, including that documents be available for inspection following notice for public hearing, and that the following should be done: all exhibits are to be completed and attached, and a property ID number for the Singh parcel is to be included.


Mr. Fisher noted that the hearing date for the motion should be August 25th.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-263 Yeas: Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi, Landry

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

Abstention: Capello

12. Consideration of request from Erickson Retirement Community for approval of a revised Preliminary Site Plan with a PD-1 Option and revised wetland permit and authorization for the City Attorney to revise the Development Agreement on the site to incorporate the revised Preliminary Site Plan. The site is located north of 13 Mile Road and east of Meadowbrook Road.

Member Landry said he had reviewed all of the information submitted on the item. The Planning Commission supported the item and went through a very exhaustive review of it. The changes to preserve 2 dozen high quality trees are laudable, and while there is an addition of a raised walkway which slightly increased the wetland impact, this does not appear very significant. The changes being requested were being requested for all of the right reasons. The project is proceeding apace, and he also had no problem with the modifications for the approved facades.

CM-03-08-264 Moved by Landry, seconded by Sanghvi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the revised Preliminary Site Plan with a PD-1 Option and revised wetland permit and authorization for the City Attorney to revise the Development Agreement on the site to incorporate the revised Preliminary Site Plan. The site is located north of 13 Mile Road and east of Meadowbrook Road.


Member Capello asked if this included the Section 9, which Mr. Fisher said it did.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-264 Yeas: Clark, Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

13. Annual Salary increase for City Clerk and City Manager.

Member Sanghvi said this was a very pleasurable exercise. Normally, Novi tries to keep pace with neighboring cities and how they take care of their people. Here at Novi there are 2 extraordinary people who serve the City extremely well. He has been an employer for more than 30 years, and he has always believed that if you have a good employee you should keep them. The only way to keep a good employee is by adequately compensating them. He said he would have no hesitation in suggesting that a 7% increase would be in order. He said he suggested the 7% increase for discussion purposes. Mayor Clark asked if this was for both positions, which Dr. Sanghvi said it was.

Member Landry said he would certainly echo the comments of the previous speaker, Dr. Sanghvi, about the excellent performance of both the City Manager and the City Clerk. Both are doing an outstanding job. Given the average increase that the City has been giving to other employees, it would be appropriate to follow this as a guideline. His suggestion would be a 3.75% increase for the City Manager and the City Clerk, and as a component the City Manager would receive $3,000 toward his deferred compensation plan. He asked if the City Clerk had the same plan, which Ms. Cornelius said she did not.

CM-03-08-265 Moved by Landry, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve a salary increase of 6.6% for the City Clerk, and an increase of 3.75% for the City Manager plus an additional $3,000 toward his deferred compensation plan.


Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said she seconded the motion for discussion. She asked what percentage increase an additional $3,000 to the City Manager’s current base salary would be onto the proposed 3.75% increase, and what the commensurate amount would be that Ms. Cornelius would receive. She said that whatever this would work out to, Ms. Cornelius should receive the same thing, which Mayor Clark agreed with.

Member Capello asked Mayor Pro Tem Bononi if she was suggesting that Ms. Cornelius would receive 3.75% plus $3,000. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi said this was correct in whatever it worked out to as a percentage in comparison to the increase to the City Manager, being that she is not in the same kind of program to added cash accrued amount. Mayor Pro Tem Bononi asked for this to be a friendly amendment to Member Landry’s motion, which Member Landry accepted. Member Capello said he computed the raise to be 6.6%.

Roll Call Vote on CM-03-08-265 Yeas: Bononi, Capello, Landry, Sanghvi, Clark

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo


Member Sanghvi noted that Council had passed a resolution to thank the Governor for sanctioning the Beck Road/I-96 interchange construction, and also to thank Senator Cassis. He asked what the procedure was for forwarding these types of resolutions to the people that they concern. Mayor Clark said he assumed that those resolutions are processed by the City Clerk and forwarded to the appropriate parties. Dr. Sanghvi said it was his suggestion that the City Clerk do this and let Council know when the resolution had been sent.


CM-03-08-266 Moved by Sanghvi, seconded Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: to adjourn to Executive Session

Voice Vote on CM-03-08-266 Yeas: Capello, Landry, Sanghvi, Clark, Bononi

Nays: None

Absent: Csordas, Lorenzo

_______________________________ _________________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk



Transcribed by: Steve King


Date approved: August 25, 2003