Mayor Landry called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Dr. Tom Miller, president of National Research Center, the organization that did the survey, said the survey was not something they could have done on their own; the staff members were very helpful in making sure they asked questions that were useful to Council, other staff members, and stakeholders of the community. He thanked Rob Giacopetti for his work on the survey. The National Citizen Survey was a survey that National Research Center does with the International City and County Management Association from Washington DC. They have conducted the survey in 35 states with over 120 jurisdictions since 2001. More and more local governments are doing these surveys; it is more of a unique local government that does a local survey. There are about 19,000 cities in America; about 500 are doing these surveys. It was a window into performance that was provided to Council, to staff, and to the public. They felt that at the heart of all the measures of performance and quality is the understanding of what the local residents thought about the quality of services they receive. We asked people if in the last 12 months they had been to a public hearing with an elected official, about 77% of the residents had not. This was not a surprise, but the reason it was pointed out is because Council was hearing from a different group. It was a representative sample of the public, the voice of the typical resident who doesn’t have time to come to Council meetings. They are paying attention enough to be able to answer when asked about important issues relating to the city. The point of doing these surveys, besides assessing resident satisfaction with community services, was to develop a scorecard that can be tracked overtime. City Manager Pearson indicated that there was some intention to monitor on a regular basis what resident think about service delivery and quality of community life. Surveys like these are broad and fairly narrow in scope to cover lots of territory. Often people are left with the answer to the "what" question, but not the why question. This is where Council was still charged with these new understandings about what the residents think about the local government services and public trust. It was a beginning in a sense because it was an opportunity to begin tracking over a period of time and that sets a benchmark for that enterprise. It was an opportunity to understand what not only the residents think, but how that compares to the perceptions of residents across the country where these questions were asked. One of the things brought was normative data that allows us to tell how the residents of Novi perceive planning or library services, services to seniors, or schools. That is a fair comparison because if you ask someone about fire service, it will always get a better rating than street repair. They are different kinds of services, and across the country street repair gets a relatively low rating even if it’s done relatively well. Fire services get very high ratings. The fairer comparison is not fire to streets but fire here to fire elsewhere. They were able to provide that kind of information. They heard from a profile of the residents who responded, he said it reflected broadly the characteristics of the community. A large percentage of Novi residents have lived here 5 years or less, 47%. Only 14% have lived here more then 20 years. Household incomes under $50,000 is about 28%, but over a third have household incomes of $100,000. There is a population that is somewhat older than seen across the nation, but not much. A relatively small number have attended public meetings, but 45% have watched Council meetings on local cable. A mailing was sent to 1,200 residents sampled at random from U.S. Postal carrier routes. The 1,200 households received a post card saying they had been selected and approximately a week later the survey was sent, another week passed and the survey was sent again with a different letter that covered the survey signed by the Mayor asking people to please participate. There was also work done by staff members to be sure that people knew this was coming and if they were selected, they should participate. They went farther than just getting a random sample of households because once somebody in the household received a survey they tend to have the most active person respond. Instead of having that happen we used the birthday method which is to ask the adult in the household who most recently had a birthday to be the one completing the survey. This was an unbiased way of getting responses. The response rate was about 35% which is a fairly strong response rate. That means over 400 individuals from households responded. That gave a margin of error of about 5 percentage points; the margin of error is to be understood as sampling error when some people in the community are intended to represent all the adults in the community. When there is a sample it is not 100% sure that those are the results you would have gotten if everyone responded. The 5% gives a rough idea of the margin of uncertainty. With regards to quality of community life and characteristics and perceptions about safety in the community all these ratings were above the average for jurisdictions where these same questions were asked across the country. He said where results were not glorious in terms of the percent that are saying very wonderful things, that isn’t bad news because it was an opportunity to hear what people say and think. In a way it is uncovering information that already exists. If you didn’t hear about it, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening. Novi is a place to live, my neighborhood is a place to live, this is a place to raise children, and a place to work, were all given ratings that were about the average across the country. There was one rating, Novi as a place to retire that wasn’t quite as high. That is the kind of profile we tend to see in communities where property values are high, the community is attractive and growth is pretty fast. The cost of living, as a result, goes up and that is one of the problems with abundance. Community characteristics are things such as the overall appearance of the community, the shopping and recreational opportunities, cultural opportunities, educational opportunities; those were above the average when compared. Perceptions of safety in your neighborhood in the day time and at night, in parks in the day time and night, and in the downtown at day and night, were all above the norm, and it showed a great deal about the sense of safety among the residents. They asked questions about public trust, whether government listens in the overall direction of the community, all these were positive and above the norm. A question that was at the norm was that I get value for the tax dollars that are spent. Service delivery, most of the services were above the norm or similar to the norm. Recycling and the variety of library materials was a couple of services that were somewhat below the norm. One thing that is worthy of celebration is how residents perceive their interactions with staff. Over half the residents have had an interaction with staff in the 12 months prior to this survey and they gave very positive ratings, above the norm for all the characteristics that were asked and he thought it was important to remember that staff is the front line folks who your constituents get to find out about the city from. When staff is doing a good job it reflects well on everybody, the rest of the staff and elected officials. That was something to pay attention to. On the survey there were many questions that were uniform, common across all the sites so comparisons can be made but there was also room for a few unique questions to each jurisdiction. One for Novi asked about top priorities. This was among 13 different priorities that were offered to people, these are the percentage of folks who identified these priorities as essential or very important. 89% of the folks felt promoting a city government that listens to community needs and desires was very important or essential. Upholding a high standard of customer service from city employees, promoting or maintaining an attractive community, making annual investments in parks and recreation, preserving natural open space were also important. At the bottom of that list but still with over a majority saying that they felt this priority was very important or essential was promoting services and programs for seniors, making annual investments, expanding and enhancing recreation and cultural properties that was still 53% of the folks who felt that was essential and very important. The other 3 questions asked to agree or disagree with these 3 statements were: I would recommend Novi as a place to live, that I envision living in Novi in the coming 5 years, and that I would look exclusively in Novi to purchase or rent if I were to buy or rent a new home. For these we don’t have normative comparisons. 76% of the folks said they would recommend Novi as a place to live seems to be something to celebrate. In an open ended question people were asked to give their own perspective of the top issues facing Novi. Traffic, growth, and economic related questions were the top ones, others were crime prevention, education, and schools and property taxes were towards the bottom percentages.

Member Nagy thought the survey was interesting and found the written comments really interesting because she realized there was a specific question asked and you were limited to a certain response. She found it interesting that there were only 419 residents that responded. She wondered if it would be a better survey to have a higher response, there are almost 53,000 people and 419 respondents seemed like a small fraction. She said in the report Dr. Miller had it broken down by Geographic’s, she assumed he had some sort of code to tell where the survey was coming from. Would a higher number of respondents be better?

Dr. Miller said in general the higher the number, the smaller the uncertainty there is in making an estimate from the number who respond to the entire population. But there are diminishing returns that occur. On the evening news when they talk about the margin of error associated with some survey, they are talking about a survey of 1,000 Americans out of 150 million or more adults. The percentage that 1,000 represents the 150 millions is smaller than the 400 who are participating here out of the 50,000 in Novi. In survey research, the number as a percent of the population is not the percent that one attends to when understanding the precision in the estimate. With the margin of error at 5% it was a reasonable number to use to make reasonable judgments about the results and consequences of those results for policy decisions.

Member Nagy said she asked because when she read the survey and then read the comments, in the written comments she found 4 particular things that seemed to be resonating: one was growth, two was a concern about taxes, three was the complaint about traffic congestion and four was the people want us to preserve green space. Sometimes when she went back and looked at the questions it didn’t always jive as accurately with what the comments were. She asked him if it wasn’t necessary to survey around 2,000 people.

Dr. Miller thought it would be a waste of resources to do that. In survey research they are always making compromise to budgets, if budgets didn’t matter they could do a census which would be everybody in the community. With statistics and margins of error being understood as they are, a 5% margin of error of 400 is a value compared to getting a 3% margin of error if 1,000 people were asked, if 2,000 people were asked it would still be 2.8% margin of error. It is a diminishing return and when looking at the verbatim responses, not everybody takes the time to give their perspective. It is hard to find the right weight and balance and when a disconnect is seen between what everybody is reporting in the forced choice options versus what people say, it is hard to know which is more important. The verbatim responses are useful because you get to hear the words of your constituents but the answers to these questions are answered by a broader number and there is a statistical specificity that you don’t have with the other.

Member Nagy said some of the answers in what was written surprised her. She thought that was interesting.

Member Margolis thanked the staff for opening themselves up for the review. When a survey is sent, you have no real clue what is going to come back. To be wiling to open the City up and say what do you think about how we are doing, took a lot of bravery. She thought it was a wealth of information and found it very fascinating. One question she had was if there was a way to get information in terms of demographics of the people who returned surveys.

Dr. Martin said that in the overall results, staff should have a report that shows the demographics of the people who responded, there was also a weighting table in the more detailed methods section that showed the demographics before weighting and after weighting

Member Margolis said she would be very interested in getting that because it gives an interesting insight to community in terms of the demographics of the people who had the interest of returning the survey. She appreciated the fact that he broke it down by demographics and told them which were statistically significant differences because she found it interesting that people rated Novi as a place to retire to be low and the fascinating thing she found in the demographic results is that people over the age of 65 rated Novi as a higher place to retire. She thanked him and said that it gave them a way to prioritize and invest in the things Novi doesn’t rate as high as other communities in.

Member Paul thanked Dr. Miller and said that it was very helpful. One thing she found interesting was the information about the library materials because she has heard people complain about not being able to find things and the library consistently tells Council that there is not enough room.

Dr. Miller said that the variety of library materials received a 60 on the 100 point scale. 0 was poor, 33 was fair, 66 was good and 100 was excellent. 60 was just a little bit below good. When compared to the other ratings of library materials, there were about 71 jurisdictions where this question was asked, the average rating of 60 was below the average given by others. At the same time, library services received a rating of similar to the norm.

Member Paul said that the library has excellent staff which helps contradict the problem with space and materials.

Member Mutch said he appreciated the presentation and he thought it was helpful in outlining some of the broad concepts that the study was trying to elicit from our residents. The comments he had were more in looking forward to how Council was going to incorporate the information from the study into their goal setting session. He saw the real value in the survey would be determined by how willing Council was to take the concerns expressed by residents and the views expressed by residents and the priorities and incorporate those into the goals for the short and long term. One thing that was gratifying to him was looking at the results and seeing that some of the issues he had been working on in the past year reflect the values of the residents, particularly their concerns about growth balanced by the need for job opportunities and protecting woodland and wetland and open space. One area that stood out was people’s opinions of the ability to get around the community on bikes and walking and how low that scored now only within the community compared to some other items but also looking at the normative comparison. He saw the survey results as opportunities. It was disappointing to see the low levels of participation in terms of volunteers and interaction with city government. He didn’t look at that as a negative, just an opportunity. One other area that they didn’t talk about enough was the geographic differences, particularly in the north end of town, there were areas where the response of residents indicated that they have somewhat disconnected from the rest of the City. That needs to continue to be worked on and it has improved. A future survey would be able to judge if they had affected a change among residents. There are some areas that north end residents indicated a lower score in terms of their overall satisfaction in the services provided. He didn’t think it was a negative, just an opportunity to improve the quality of life for residents in that end of the city and meet some of their needs. He said he was looking forward to their next meeting where they will have a chance to take the information and turn it into a vision for the City that Council can look at the survey and say yes, it is reflective of what the residents want Novi to be.

Mayor Landry said that Council and the Administration decided to utilize the survey as a tool for planning; it was exactly what they were looking for. It was their obligation to listen to the citizens and in order to listen they have to ask the question first. He found the information very valuable. He also found the City employee responses very interesting. He felt it was important for the Council to understand how the employees feel at times other then when Council is negotiating with them.

Mr. Pearson said he appreciated Council’s support of the initiative. He said it was a very helpful tool and was very essential to how choices are made. He also thanked and recognized some of the community partners that went to hear the presentation first hand, from Providence Hospital Rob Casalou, Lou Martin, representatives from the Library, from Novi Schools Pete Dion, and the Greater Novi Chambers. He recognized their time and interest in taking part in the survey because it was a team effort overall. As far as the process, there is a plan that is evolving, he said some questions were customized in the survey to take what Council said in September as far as some emerging priorities and they asked some of the same questions to see perceptions on how essential residents saw that. As far as next steps, they had a session on Saturday; they have had considerable hours of staff leadership work. He sees the information being used in the budget document and trying to measure this overtime internally against ourselves not just against the country. In their survey’s, people across the country will talk about traffic and economic development growth as well, a lot of time surveys give you pause to ask more questions. People said traffic was an issue and obviously that is heard a lot. It doesn’t tell us where those issues are. There is follow up work and other survey’s that we want to be done. There is a great opportunity with the homeowner’s association breakfast which is a reflective group. It was a very efficient and effective way to do it.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. December 18, 2006 – Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of January 8, 2007 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and privileged correspondence from legal counsel.

C. Award of Professional Services Agreement with Walden-Marling, Inc. for appraisal services for Fountain Walk for Tax Years 2004, 2005, and 2006 in the amount of $37,500.

E. Consideration of the request of Singh Development for Uptown Place, SP 03-40B, for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 14, south of Twelve Mile Road between Novi and Meadowbrook Roads in the R-C, Regional Center District, utilizing the PD-2 development option.

F. Acceptance of Oliver Hatcher Building site water main and sanitary sewer as public utilities, and approval of the Oliver Hatcher Building site storm drainage facility maintenance agreement, emergency access easement agreement, storm water drainage easement, and sidewalk easement. The site is Parcel ID No. 50-22-14-200-044.

G. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 736

Mr. Pearson said Council engaged the consulting firm of Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber to analyze Beck Road in the city limits and to take a larger view in how that road interrelates to the larger transportation system. In addition to the presentation he said they are asking consideration of a resolution. It was important because there is no sense in waiting to get going. If Council concurs, trying to get some of the improvements into the overall regional transportation program in 2008 the road commission will be reconstructing Novi Road from Ten Mile to Grand River, it will benefit everyone if some of the short term improvements happen sooner rather than later along Beck Road to make things move as smooth as possible.

Mr. Hayes said that less than 5 months ago City Council commissioned the Engineering Division, and Fishbeck to conduct the scoping study. The purpose of the study was to give the Council options to be used as a long term planning tool for the development of improvements to Beck Road. Fishbeck was busy gathering historical information as well as collecting new data in the areas of traffic volumes, speeds, accident data, and data relevant to the existing pavement conditions, the right-of-way needs, and wetlands impacts to name a few areas. Based on the analysis of the data they developed, the options were presented in the report. They didn’t develop the options in a vacuum, they relied heavily upon the input and feedback from the public, and there were 2 public information meetings. They also relied on members of their projects team that primarily came from not only engineering but also Public Works, Police, and the Planning Departments. Upon adoption of the report by Council, their intent was for Council to use it as a planning tool to give us guidance in the future as to how Beck Road should be improved in the long term and the short term.

Mr. Eno, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, and Huber, said they began the study in late August beginning with some background history and collecting some traffic data, then proceeding with the public informational meetings. The study was done from 8 Mile Road to Grand River. It is a major north and south roadway to the region. It parallels and intersects many major freeways. One long term goal was stated by City Council a couple years ago, to set a time table for Beck Road improvement from 8 Mile to Grand River Avenue, and that is exactly what this study was aimed to achieve. As part of the project they collected and analyzed quite a bit of information. Early on it became apparent that it was easier to split the intention of the report into short and long term goals or options. The desire to analyze Beck Road on a regional level versus just looking within the City, trying to realize that quite a bit of traffic on Beck Road is pass-through or commuter traffic to provide Council with a solution and alternatives and generate some discussion and use the study as a planning tool both now and in the future. Some of the information that was reviewed, public feedback and input, as Rob mentioned, they held 2 public information meetings. One very early in the study and a second about a month later in early November where short and long term options were described in detail to residents. The road right now was not part of the SEMCOG regional transportation plan. The traffic counts were analyzed and most of the intersections have modern signals that count traffic and were able to give up good counts that way. At 8 Mile Road the signal is an older type that doesn’t report those and the City DPW staff put out counters and collected that for us. There was also a geotechnical report which was quite detailed from 8 Mile to Grand River that can be used throughout the future improvements on Beck Road. Among the short term recommendations is to improve capacity relatively quickly. Looking at the current through-put of the intersections, it became apparent that it is a need to improve the intersection capacities and safety. At 10 Mile Road adding right hand turn lanes on north and south bound can increase the capacity quite a bit. Also a short term condition, the road is pretty beat up in some places. The pavement surface evaluation rating are from 2 to 7; 10 being the best, 1 being the worst. Residents complain quite a bit about ride quality and noise from the damaged road. Some long term planning goals are to evaluate the impact of the short term improvements. Novi Road will be improved next year and the Wixom SPUI is going to be built in the next couple years, similar to the Beck Road interchange now. They also need to be aware of other developments around the city, the needs and desires of residents and the cost estimates and potential sources of funding. In 15 years plus, these types of studies should occur basically in the next 10 years after the short term options are implemented. Some of the long term planning options that were presented in the public meetings and in the report are to leave the roadway as it is and do nothing, a three main sectional with the center turn lanes, 4 lane section with two lanes each way with no median or center turn, a 4 lane section with a narrow boulevard similar to Beck Road south of 6 Mile, and a full 5 lane section with 5 full paved lanes. In closing the report they came to quite a few recommendations. Some of the short term recommendations are to improve the intersections, maximize the through-put on the current roadway geometry without making major changes to the overall cross section. Another is to immediately apply for funding, get on some of the regional and county funding lists; long term funding through SEMCOG for example their current long term report is the year 2030 regional transportation plan. Also to review the demand and growth over time, the report is a snap shot in time, hopefully, it is useful over the long term, but that needs to be looked at and in about 10 years a full traffic study should be performed to evaluate short term options that were implemented.

Member Gatt asked in the studies, besides the two open meetings, did you employ any of the citizens in the area to work with you or take into account some of their concerns.

Mr. Eno said yes, not as active members of the committee, but they received several e-mails primarily from subdivision presidents and interested folks. Quite a few of the comments helped to guide the decisions that were presented.

Member Paul asked about question 5 which says, is 8 Mile Road the only intersection without FAST-TRAC? Her understanding was that it doesn’t have FAST-TRAC but she doesn’t believe that 8 Mile and Beck Road was in their jurisdiction.

Mr. Hayes said that section of Beck Road is shared jurisdiction between the City of Novi and the City of Northville. However, Oakland County does have jurisdiction over the signal at 8 Mile Road.

Member Paul asked if Beck Road was a County road or 8 Mile was a County road.

Mr. Hayes said that 8 Mile was a County road in that stretch. Wayne County’s jurisdiction picks up further east.

Member Paul said east of the 8 Mile and Beck intersection is Wayne County. So we have jurisdiction and Act 51 money on 8 Mile when we are going west bound from Beck Road.

Mr. Hayes said that Oakland County does, not the City of Novi.

Member Paul said when they look at the actual cost of improving the SCAT system Oakland County would have a portion and Novi would have a portion. She asked if we ever ask for shared costs with Northville.

Mr. Hayes said yes, they have kept them in the loop during the course of the project and they are aware that any improvements that are selected that they made an indication they were willing to consider assisting with funding. They are not at this point willing to make a firm commitment until a particular project is identified.

Member Paul referred to question 10, any explanations on the number of accidents at Grand River and Beck Road. She said she doesn’t know about the number of accidents at the intersection and asked for it to be explained.

Mr. Hayes said that the data appeared to be high as far as the actual number of accidents, primarily based on turning movements either from or to Grand River or Beck. It is based on the sheer volume of traffic that is on Grand River and Beck at that stretch.

Member Paul said her concern was that this was the only light besides Grand River and Novi Road that has the turn lanes at different times than all the other lights in the City. The turning time is correct; the actual post though is on the opposite side. On number 20, could a wider median or a design that allows U-turns be done with additional right-of-way. It says yes, but her understanding was that the main thing they were looking at was 3 lanes, not 5 lanes. She asked if he was recommending 4 or 5 lanes, 4 lanes with a median, or 5 lanes paved.

Mr. Hayes said based on what they know now, and this is subject to change, but the long term recommendation is to go with either a 5 lane section or in the more residential areas, where a landscape median would be more appropriate, would be a 4 lane boulevard.

Member Paul said that her understanding was to do 3 lanes from 8 to 11 Mile and then from 11 Mile to Grand River they would do 5 lanes. She believes when an intersection is blown out to 5 lanes it improves traffic volumes tremendously. They saw that at 10 Mile and Novi Road.

Mr. Hayes said they evaluated the 3 lane section but it doesn’t really improve capacity, it is just for ease of turning movements. They are recommending, based on what is known now, that either a 4 lane boulevard or a 5 lane section be implemented in the long term.

Member Paul said that she agrees residential should have the median with trees, but she thought they were at the 3 lane because of cost and what they had to participate in. She was surprised to see that taking care of 8 and 9 Mile stretch of Beck wasn’t something being recommended to be done immediately because it is so poor. The only section that is really bad is the portion that we don’t get Act 51 money for and that wasn’t included in one of the reasons. Her understanding, when Mr. McCusker was asked before, is that we don’t own from Bellagio south to 8 Mile and Beck Road. That intersection is approximately a little less than a half mile and we don’t have Act 51 money for that. Is that still the case or is it just left off.

Mr. Hayes said they would work with the City of Northville to make any improvements and to get their contribution as far as any projects are concerned. Right now it is a shared jurisdiction road, we maintain that stretch from 8 Mile to 8 ½, just south of Bellagio.

Member Paul asked if they received Act 51 money for that section.

Mr. Hayes said yes.

Member Paul said that was different than she remembers from before.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he has always been in favor of the 4 lane with the boulevard for 2 reasons, first because it is going to carry traffic through quicker and the boulevard would be a calming effect and would make it more residential. He asked if with the 4 lanes and boulevard is there the opportunity to make the swing around turns.

Mr. Hayes said there is the opportunity to make cut through turns. A passenger vehicle could easily enter the median to either jump across the lanes or to turn around. For larger vehicles there would have to be a widening on the opposite side of the road. In general the boulevard would be about 20 feet wide, the same as what is south of 6 Mile on Beck Road in Northville Township.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said that they could somewhat control that by having U-turns for cars only. They had the problem in the Town Center. It wasn’t addressed in the study itself and the study didn’t go that far but one major thing he saw was pulling out of the resident subdivisions and trying to make a left turn is a safety hazard during the peak hours. The last question is if they have done any mapping to determine what right-of-ways we have in what areas from 8 Mile to Grand River.

Mr. Hayes said the GIS department gave them a detailed map for every quarter section north of 8 Mile to Grand River that shows the right-of-way that they have and the widths that are required.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said that would help them to identify what additional costs will be incurred in obtaining additional right-of-ways.

Member Nagy said that it will be beneficial in regard to the goal setting sessions and one of the things that was done at the previous Council is they voted to make the Beck Road between 8 Mile to 10 Mile only 3 lanes, that was what the last Council voted before the study was done. She thinks it was good to see the study and actually what some of the questions were and the answers that accompany them were very good. She has a hard time believing they can make 4 lanes from between 8 ½ Mile north to 10 Mile because of the residential area. She has great concern in terms of the houses that are in proximity to that road. One of her concerns she has is the intersection at 10 Mile and Beck Road. That is what she gets the most complaints about. She wanted to know how long a project like that would take.

Mr. Hayes said that for the 10 Mile and Beck intersection they are looking at different funding sources. If the funding falls into place, it is possible that it could be constructed in calendar year ‘07 but based on funding it could be pushed until 2008.

Member Nagy asked if he had an approximation of the kind of cost.

Mr. Hayes said the estimate was around $480,000. That included right-of-way acquisitions, signal upgrades, and adding the right and center left turn lanes.

Member Nagy said her only other question is with regards to going west on 10 Mile east of Beck. When she saw the drawing, she would have liked to see a longer right hand turn lane. In traveling there, there are a lot of people who turn right there onto Beck. She liked that he put in the amount of money it would cost the DPW to resurface that street between 8 Mile and 9 Mile to resurface it. She asked if he mentioned anything about resurfacing between 9 Mile and 10 Mile.

Mr. Hayes said they didn’t, they just looked at the worst section.

Member Nagy said that it is the worst south of 8 Mile but it seems that is a bad area. Hypothetically, knowing the condition of the state finances and their own need to repair the state owned roads and highways, she asked when he said that figure of $480,000 were you talking about that as the amount of money in totality or with state and federal aid.

Mr. Hayes said that would be the entire cost of the project and the particular source that they are looking at for the 10 Mile and Beck intersection is called a congestion mitigation and air quality improvement, or CMAQ. That is from the EPA which is federal dollars so it would be 80% funded.

Member Nagy said 80% of $480,000 that would be great.

Member Margolis said that she wanted to recap because there were a couple questions that made the purpose unclear. The short term suggestions are to do the intersection improvements and paving upgrades, then to take a look and see what that does for traffic congestion. Right now looking out 15 to 20 years long term, the recommendation may be to go to the 4 lanes with a boulevard but these short term improvements are the only ones Council was being asked to look at.

Mr. Hayes said that was correct; there are too many variables that are going to be affected in the future. If the short term improvements are made and then gauge how effective other north/south improvements are in particular Wixom Road when the intersection at Grand River is improved, as well as the Novi Road link project with Road Commission for Oakland County, that will tell a lot. Once those improvements happen, as well as our own, that means the time is appropriate to do a detailed traffic study and finalize long term recommendations.

Member Margolis said that she remembered at budget time when Beck Road came up and she remembered having the discussion, she was trying to decide at that point which parts should be improved. The discussion then went to setting priorities. She believed at that time they put some money aside to pay for what would come out of the report.

Mr. Pearson said that she was correct, at one time there was going to be a resurfacing project south of 9 Mile and then they started to get the information back and the cost went crazy and then they came back with alternatives and that is how they got to the comprehensive study. There is some funding available. That gets back to the resolutions, in the short term every one of those involves some right-of-way, so he feels strongly to make the recommendation to at least make an inquiry. He wasn’t guaranteeing to get them done for all kinds of reasons but they won’t unless they start to get after some of the right-of-way now.

Member Margolis said that the resolution puts us also on the list to qualify for the grant.

Mr. Hayes said it gets our foot in the door so that we are eligible to receive federal funding in the future. As the projects are fine tuned, the funding that they are requesting will be adjusted.

Member Margolis said one of the questions she had asked when Council authorized the study was the effect of the M-14 construction on traffic on Beck. She didn’t see anything there, is there any way of determining, the effect of that.

Mr. Eno said they looked at available traffic counts from Oakland County detectors that are constantly monitored. They got data from earlier this year and this time last year. There really wasn’t a noticeable impact due to the construction in terms of raw traffic volumes, they stay pretty steady.

Member Margolis asked if 4 lanes and a boulevard versus 4 lanes without a boulevard was primarily aesthetic or it also has impacts on traffic flow.

Mr. Hayes said it was primarily a safety issue.

Mr. Eno said there are some areas that are conducive to it because left turns aren’t made very often. In some areas you could consider a 4 lane section, but we would be faced with either passing flares where there is typically a subdivision but there are many driveways in a row. We were trying to get away from having full speed traffic any time there is a car trying to turn or stop.

Member Margolis also had a question about the signal timing at 8 and Beck because from her reading, the idea was that it wasn’t completed because we were waiting to see what improvements would take place on Beck Road, it was in the long term capital projects.

Mr. Hayes said that was correct, it has been identified in past capital improvement programs as an improvement. As far as what scope of improvement needs to be made, it was left open.

Member Margolis asked if that would increase traffic flow and would that help with some of the issues.

Mr. Hayes said somewhat maybe if there was variable timing where it could self-adjust based on demand for turning movements. Generally the greatest benefit would be adding a dedicated right turn lane on southbound. Any additional lanes would require a new signal because it would remove poles and it would have to be replaced on a modern 4 pole set-up.

Member Margolis said that popped out at her because it looked like it was waiting on this improvement and she was also looking at the survey results at the same time. One of the areas that were scored low on was traffic timing and signalization. She thought the study gave a lot of really good information and doing the short term improvements is a great balance between the needs of traffic versus those people who border Beck Road and gives its chance to make sure that those improvements might help in the short term and study the long term. Her long term view of Beck Road is to have the kinds of improvements that would make traffic flow better but she doesn’t want to see improvements to the point that it becomes a huge cut through the city.

Member Mutch said that the signalization and any other improvements that have been identified at the 8 Mile Road intersection is one of the unfinished projects from the 2000 road bond project. He asked if there was money sitting aside for those improvements or if it was on the list and the money had been spent.

Mr. Hayes said that as far as he knows the money is still there, they had a total of 3 projects that they looked at and that is one they felt needed to be preserved because of the pending improvement to that intersection.

Mr. Pearson said that the 8 and Beck is one of the 2 that have been cleared out. He said the bond funds have been consolidated since then and for lots of different reasons, not knowing what was going to go on there. There was a potential for development at the northwest corner. The Road Commission might have done some minor improvements there. 14 and Novi Road is the other one that was on the original list in 1999 but there is no specific money from the 2000 road bond.

Member Mutch said if they wanted to fund improvements at 8 Mile and Beck of any kind, they would have to find the money.

Mr. Pearson said with the exception of some Beck Road monies available generically that had originally been for the resurfacing and will now have to be spread out.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Hayes if that kind of improvement would be eligible for the CMAQ funding.

Mr. Hayes said that signal improvements are eligible. He said they looked at a prioritized list of intersection improvements and they felt the 10 Mile and Beck intersection was the most critical. That is why it was the first one out the shoot in going after CMAQ money.

Member Mutch asked what kind of time line we would be looking at for the CMAQ funding. He said lets say that we decided tonight that 10 Mile and Beck is our priority and we want to see that funded and completed, what kind of time line are we looking at assuming we were given the funding through CMAQ.

Mr. Hayes said they expect to hear an answer through SEMCOG some time in the third quarter so some time between now and March.

Mr. Eno said the actual money would be presented and available to the city in about 2 to 3 years, but once you have been given verbal approval, you can pre-build with self-funding and get reimbursed later.

Member Mutch said so we are going to have to come up with the money to do the improvement but we would probably know in the next 3 months that some point down the road we would be reimbursed.

Mr. Hayes said it would be an advanced construct project.

Member Mutch said the other issue in terms of immediate funding that was answered in the questions was the overlay and there has been some discussion about cost sharing with the City of Northville because of the stretch between 8 ad 8 ½ Mile being shared jurisdiction. From his view point, in terms of whatever money there is to spend on Beck Road, he believes that should be number 2. That would be his second priority because it is self explanatory. Anyone who has driven it knows that is the worst stretch of road in the city that is not dirt. The other area of concern that was addressed is the stretch of Beck Road just south of the 10 Mile Road intersection where there is the intersection then a really bad stretch that is really bad and noisy, then an area that has been improved. When we do the intersection improvements, you said you would be looking at incorporating an overlay on that stretch as well.

Mr. Hayes said they would expand the improvement of that intersection further south to envelop that area.

Member Mutch said that in terms of the overlay, that isn’t something we are going to get funding for, that is something that, assuming we can get a contribution from Northville, will be paid through our normal pot of road funds.

Mr. Hayes said yes that would be maintenance paving for lack of a better term.

Member Mutch said if they want to do that they need to identify it. He had one comment regarding the SEMCOG designation for the regional transportation plan. He thought it was interesting that the Northville project to the south and the Wixom project to the north are pretty far out in terms of time line. Wixom was 2016 to 2020 that they expected to need that. Northville Township was 2021 to 2025 which is almost 20 years out. Part of him wonders whether some of the projects get stuck on the plan because we figure 20 years out we may need to do it and we might as well get it on the plan. It is a chicken and egg thing, saying Northville got on the plan and they are going to widen so we need to get on the plan in case we widen when no one wants to widen the road to a 5 lane road, everyone just wanted to be on the plan just in case. On the flip side to get the kind of funding that we would need to do a reconstruction is going to be significant, the dollar amounts that were provided for the point that the roads get beyond what we can just fix with an overlay, it is multi million dollar projects for each segment.

Member Mutch said the reason he added to explore alternatives to address long term traffic volumes is because he knows a number of residents expressed concerns that they saw the long term recommendations as simply widening is going to be the solution, he knows several Council Member have articulated concerns about that. One thing they want to be doing is, in addition to looking at widening, they should be looking at other alternatives they could do in other corridors or in other improvements that would address the long term traffic volume.

Mayor Landry asked if Member Mutch’s motion included implementing the selected short term options.

Member Mutch said yes.

Member Paul mentioned the information from the survey report, there were many people who called out Beck Road and 8 Mile was one of the areas as well as 10. She wanted to bring to Council the 3 Beck Road intersections that involve schools. 8 Mile has a school and many of the people in Bellagio or some of the subs along Beck funnel southbound on Beck Road and make a southbound turn on 8 Mile and that is where a lot of accidents have occurred because there is no left hand turn lane so people run the red light just to get through. 9 Mile is another school, Thornton Creek, as well as 11 Mile which is a Novi School. The second comment is that 10 Mile has left turn lanes all throughout the intersection but there are 2 right turn lanes that are missing, heading eastbound on 10 Mile and there is no right turn lane going northbound on Beck and going southbound making a right turn so there are 3 right turn lanes missing.

Mr. Hayes said that the issue is that all 4 of the center left turn lanes need to be extended because there is not enough capacity in the left turn lane.

Member Paul said that there will obviously be right turn lanes for the area also, so there will be 5 lanes all the way through.

Mayor Landry said he appreciated the report very much; it was very comprehensive and well done. He thought it was important to approach it as indicated in section 1.2 that Beck Road should be evaluated from a regional perspective. To him Beck Road is a direct connection between M-14 and I-96. It always will be. To solve the traffic problem on Beck Road, it has to be widened. He said he will support the motion and support looking at other alternatives. He doesn’t think there is a long term alternative to widening Beck Road. What he liked about the long term capacity is the suggestion of widening it to 4 through lanes throughout the city, and in the residential areas add the boulevards which would keep the residential character which he was in support of. The long term recommendation is to have the boulevard from 9 Mile to 11 Mile. On either end is where 5 lanes without the boulevard are suggested. He thought Beck Road looked very nice between 6 and 5 Mile where they have the boulevards now. He would like to see something similar to that. It would maintain a residential character. He asked Mr. Pearson if with respect to this resolution they were recommending that the City do what it could to implement the short term options, but before any specific money is spent on anything, the administration would have to come back to Council for implementation.

Mr. Pearson said yes, as far as spending money, however they would file the paperwork, if it hasn’t been done already to get into the queue and also ask and work with the City attorney to start identifying and approaching property owners for right-of-way to get that ball rolling.

Mr. Haw, GLA Surveyors and Engineers, was there representing Mandalay Properties, owned and operated by Michael Soave who is the developer of the property in question. They were there to appeal the denial by the City Assessor for the lot split as described in exhibit A. Their grounds for that appeal are due to the awkward configuration of the property and parcels in question. The original parcels consist of 1 parcel which is 82 feet wide by 1,250 feet long. This parcel constitutes the sole access to parcel number 2 which is significantly larger and to the rear of parcel 1. The basis for denial by the City Assessor is that we could not achieve the correct frontage for the zoning on this property and he is correct in that fact. The unfortunate side of that is we can not achieve the frontage in any configuration on that parcel given that it is only 82 feet wide and the minimum required frontage is 150 feet. The configuration of the property becomes not a question of whether the frontage can be achieved but how we are going to go about granting access to the rear of the property with a series of access options. The 2 options include a 15 foot decorative stone driveway that is able to weave in and out of the existing natural features and provide access to 2 parcels in the rear of the property, this is option B. Option C, the second option is a private road that extends straight from 9 Mile Road directly to the rear and provides access to 3 proposed parcels. In terms of option B, their preferred option, there are a lot of positives. The areas through which the driveway is proposed to pass are lightly wooded heading to heavily wooded as you head to the west. Preserving the natural areas and wetlands, is very high on the citizens list of opportunities in the City of Novi, 76% according to the citizen survey. Given that and the City of Novi tree preservation initiative, they believe the driveway option as compared to the private road option is much more desirable. The second factor taken into account was the existing wetlands on the site as surveyed by Brooks Wiliiamson and Partners. The proposed 15 foot wide decorative stone driveway would interfere with none of those wetlands and would be able to maintain a good 10 foot buffer zone in every direction from them. The private road would disturb 2 of the 4 on the site and would have significant impacts to the other 2 as well in terms of storm water drainage and tree removal. Thirdly, the 15 foot wide decorative stone driveway would have a very minimal impact on storm drainage on the site. The decorative stone would be more pervious than the proposed gravel private road and would allow more of the water to infiltrate which will cause significantly less storm water run off to go into the existing wet lands. Finally, the access route for the two proposed options would serve only 2 parcels in the case of the driveway because they are proposing a shared driveway and 2 is the maximum that can be proposed. Should they insert the proposed private road, they would be required to propose 3 parcels in order to offset the price of the private road. Those were the reasons they feel the proposed 15 foot driveway is the optimal choice for the entry into the development.

Mr. Pearson highlighted the recommendations are a negative across most of the reviewing departments as far as conformance with the adopted city ordinances. There have been recommendations that this matter be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for hearing this.

Mr. Schultz said that the application is styled as an appeal for Mr. Lemmon’s denial of the lot split but when you read the materials and hear the presentation, it isn’t an argument that Mr. Lemmon made the wrong decision. It is a petition for a variance relief and their point is that Council could authorize a variance from the lot split ordinance, but it wouldn’t make the resulting parcels be able to build on. What he really needs is to present a similar argument to what he has made in front of the ZBA. Their suggestion has been that with regards to a straight appeal, that there is no basis on determining that Mr. Lemmon’s decision was incorrect with regard to a construction of it as a variance request, council should defer that to the Zoning Board of Appeals to address the zoning ordinance issues and deal with it depending on what the ZBA does.

Mayor Landry asked if his recommendation was that Council refers this matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Schultz said that Council needs to do 2 things, they need to act on an appeal of Mr. Lemmon’s denial and the question is, is there any basis for determining that the denial was incorrect. If Council doesn’t feel it is incorrect, then the appropriate motion would be denial. With regard to the request for relief to allow the division, that should be tabled or denied and the petitioner sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mayor Landry said we should act on the appeal, make a decision on whether Mr. Lemmon was correct or incorrect and with respect for the request for relief Council should decide whether they are prepared to grant relief or if not refer the gentleman to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Member Gatt said that if they refer him to the ZBA what is the time period on that.

Mr. Pearson said for notices they could get up to February as long as they got their application in very quickly.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said that he thinks Mr. Lemmon’s decision was correct, however, he looks at the parcel and sees that there are 5 plus acres and if they don’t try to work something out now in developing 2 parcels, he could easily see someone a few years down the line building a road down there with a cul-de-sac and trying to squeeze 4 or 5 condos back in that area and if there is something we can do at this point to stop it, that is what he would prefer to do. He doesn’t think that Council can grant the relief requested. With the proposal with the road and the cul-de-sac going back there, if it were a private road or a dedicated road wouldn’t that then satisfy the requirements with the minimum road width of the lot.

Mr. Schultz said the proponent has a couple different options, one would be an actual public road, and another is to make a 2 unit condominium. He doesn’t know how much he has explored those options with the planning department.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if something like that would satisfy Glen’s concerns in regards to meeting the minimum road width requirement per lot.

Mr. Schultz said that it could.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he doesn’t think they can grant that relief now, it has to go through planning. He would suggest tabling it and telling Mr. Haw to talk to planning because what he is asking for, Council can not give him, but he thinks there is potential to get what he wants without having to prove the hardship requirement in front of the ZBA. He is afraid to send Mr. Haw to the ZBA tonight because they have a much stricter standard and he would just get turned down and be totally starting over.

Mayor Landry asked if they could make a decision on the appeal and then with respect to granting relief they could postpone the matter.

May Pro Tem Capello said he is afraid if they deny and make a determination on the appeal that Mr. Lemmon was correct, would he have to start this process entirely over again. That is why he doesn’t want to make him start with new paperwork and filing fees all over again.

Mr. Schultz said there are some time limit requirements on the appeal from the denial of the City Assessor. That has to be done with, under the statute Mr. Lemmon had to act within 45 days, within your ordinance you need to make a decision on the appeal within 30 days. Since it doesn’t seem like there is support for finding that Mr. Lemmon misapplied the ordinance, that ought to be done tonight. It is a denial, that doesn’t mean there has to be new fees for and further appeal of that. On the other hand, if he does decide to go the planning route, go to the ZBA, or do a site condominium, that could take a while and that could require fees.

Member Nagy said she agreed that Mr. Lemmon applied the ordinances correctly. The other departments also quoted you our ordinances; the other concern is with regard to some wetland determinations that have not been made. There are 4 wetlands on the present parcel and Council doesn’t know what the MDEQ has to say about that. She has some concerns because there are homes in that area of 9 Mile and Garfield that with the other buildings that were done by Bellagio and other areas, their properties are now getting flooded. She has a great concern about the wetlands and the other residents who own 4 or 5 acres a piece that are now being flooded. She believes that he should go into the planning department if the motion passes and work with those people to see what he can do, but she advised Mr. Haw to take the wetlands into consideration and to work with the MDEQ. She doesn’t want to see any other residents being flooded by that.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Lemmon about the 2 parcels, the square one and the long lollipop stick that extends out to 9 Mile Road. He asked if they were first proposing to consolidate them into a single parcel and then a second proposal to split.

Mr. Lemmon said it is a combined proposal.

Member Mutch asked if there were no ordinance issues for combining the parcels if they were just going to do the combination and not the split.

Mr. Lemmon said he would have no problem combining them. They were owned by the same parties before, the previous parties had never asked for them to be combined.

Member Mutch said that if a single owner wanted to build a home on that parcel, that doesn’t raise anything as long as they meet the setback.

Mr. Lemmon said that even as it sits as the 2 parcels, if someone wanted to build a home on the rear parcel, he doesn’t know if there would be anything that would prevent someone from using the long parcel as a private driveway.

Member Mutch asked if they were running into the issue in the splitting, trying to make 2 separate parcels with the intent there would be 2 separate owners. That makes the decision because of course the ordinance, but this was created by the owner of the parcel with the intent to double the density splitting the parcels is where the problem is being created. The parcels are developed once combined they are developable as a single unit. The owner has that option without running into any of the issues being discussed.

Member Paul said that when they finish the connection of the sewer, there was going to be a sidewalk from the west side of Beck Road between Greenwood Oaks and Kirkway Place is that something that will be done after this sewer project is completed.

Mr. Hayes said that as a part of the project, the contractor was going to replace sidewalk that needs to be removed in order to accommodate the new pipe going in the ground. Then there is a section of boardwalk, 350 feet long that will have to be extended up to Kirkway’s limit. At that time, Kirkway will pick up the remaining segment. It doesn’t extend all the way to the corner of 10 Mile.

Member Paul said she understood that and she was looking from the northbound section between Greenwood Oaks and Kirkway Place. Are you going to put the typical boardwalk wood back in, or are you going to do some type of trek material so it is not wood that would be affected by the water if it would be more of a plastic coating?

Mr. Hayes said they could have their consultants take a look at that as an alternate; the way it is specified right now is traditional treated lumber.

Member Paul said that was something they talked about on the sidewalk committee was to prevent long term costs of repairing some of the boardwalk areas with the plastic coated trekking boardwalk material so they wouldn’t have to replace it as often. It doesn’t get affected when it is sitting right in the water. Do you know the time frame for when this will all take place?

Mr. Hayes said that construction would kick off in February and they hope to have it completed by the end of March.

Member Paul said that is for the sewer portion, and asked about the remainder of the boardwalk and sidewalk.

Mr. Hayes said that is the timeline that they are giving the contractor to complete the project. That is depending on weather conditions.

Member Paul said the last chiller was from France, and it was very hard to get parts. She asked where this chiller would be purchased from.

Mr. Pearson said he said he would have to get back to her about that.

Mayor Landry pointed out that it is coming in $140,000 below budget.

Carol Crawford, Beck Road, was speaking on behalf of Beck Road, Dunnabeck Estates, and Cheltenham Estates. She said one of the things Member Gatt asked was if any of the citizens participated; she knew for a fact that the gentleman from Cheltenham Estates, Tim, wanted very much, begged, to let people be on it, he really wanted to participate. Also the gentleman who is the president of the association is Dunnabeck Estates pleaded and begged to let citizens be on it because he wanted to. She said that is one thing that they were not able to get across. She thanked Member Gatt for that comment. She also thanked Council for mentioning M-5; they think that had a big effect on the traffic. All 3 organizations liked the short program which included redoing the corners and repaving the road. She said they will disagree on the 4 lane boulevard. She knew she could speak for the people between 9 Mile and 11 Mile because they have very small front yards. Most of their comments when she went to visit them was about the road being so close to their home. She said not only the boulevard, but there is a bike path and a sidewalk on either side of the street. She said the ones who don’t have a lot of land will be hurt, a lot of them have remodeled their homes in hopes of staying there for their retirement that will be a hazard for them. She spoke about the idea of the boulevard being attractive and said Novi is not known for attractive medians, she said if it is going to look like the one on 12 Mile, it is ugly. She said they didn’t mind the 3 lane road because most of them need it for turning, they can not get into their driveways. Farther down the road when Council decides to go to the boulevard, they will be back and will state their opinions. She said they were very happy about being able to go to the meetings, and they are happy with the short term plan.

D. Approval to apply for an Emerald Ash Borer Tree Planting Grant, for a maximum grant award of $20,000 (City’s grant share is $32,000 to be funded from the tree fund).

Member Paul said the main thing in the survey was preserving green space and she wanted to comment that many residents have been asking about trees. There were the street trees they did because of the Ash Borer problem. What she wanted to look at was what money Catholic Central has given into the tree fund. She would like an off week packet including where the tree fund money is and what has been spent and what is coming in.

Mr. Pearson said that for Catholic Central it is around $73,000 a year, they made the first installment. The next one will be coming up.

Member Paul asked where the trees will be placed that they were approving.

Mr. Pearson said the targeted neighborhoods were Lakeshore Park, Power Park, Brook Farm, West Park Drive and 9 Mile Road.

Member Paul asked if the 9 Mile Road would be on the boulevard.

Mr. Pearson said it is throughout, where ever they had the right of way, they had to do some Ash removals.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.

__________________________________ ________________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

__________________________________ Date approved: January 22, 2007

Transcribed by Natalie Laitinen