Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTUDY - 2018-11-19 CITY OF LIVONIA – CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 2018 Meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m. by President Toy. Present: Brandon Kritzman, Scott Bahr, Cathy White, Kathleen McIntyre, Brian Meakin, Jim Jolly, and Laura Toy. Absent: None. Brandon Kritzman led the meeting in the Pledge. Elected and appointed officials present: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Todd Zilincik, City Engineer; Paul Bernier, City Attorney; Lori Miller, Deputy City Clerk; Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Service; Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation; and Mayor Dennis Wright. nd President Toy reminded everyone that the Annual Holiday Parade is December 2. th White wished her twins a happy 26 belated birthday. Kritzman wished his daughter Alexandra a happy sixth birthday. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. REQUEST TO WAIVE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT: Michael Soave, President, Soave Homes, Inc., for the single-family home located at 9815 Wayne Road. Brian Duggan, 14315 Denne, presented this request to Council. He asked for a sidewalk waiver for the new single family home located at the new address of 9915 Wayne Road. Kritzman stated he has visited this area previously and indicated there are sidewalks located in other areas along Wayne Road both to the north and the south and he believes it would be in the City’s best interest to have a sidewalk at this location. Bahr stated he felt that he feels sidewalks should be placed along all major or semi-major roads in the City. Meakin offered both an approving and a denying resolution for the Regular Agenda. 2 DIRECTION: 1) APPROVING REGULAR 2) DENYING 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR CLOUD BASED RECREATION MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT: Department of Parks & Recreation, re: for five years commencing December 1, 2018 and expiring December, 2023, from budgeted funds. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated he is asking Council to approve a service agreement with CivicRec Software. He indicated that Information Services and Parks and Recreation of spent the better part of two years researching software providers in preparation for an RFP. They received three proposals in response to that RFP and that he is asking Council to approve CivicPlus, which is a CivicRec platform. It’s been approved by Information Services as well. This is only their software provider that they’ve used and they are looking forward to the updates this system will provide as far as marketing, an online portal, the mobile ready feature, the ability to do surveys directly from the registration platform, tickets. The patrons of the Rec Center will see a huge improvement in functionality and ease of use with this. Currently one of the biggest things is they would like to push the online platform, online registration. They see about 10% usage of online registration. Comparable sized communities are seeing 40 plus percent and he thinks that is directly related to their current software provider. McIntyre asked how her experience change with the new software as far as registration and Davis responded that one of the main things that a user will see or a member will see is instead of scanning a card now, they will be using HIB readers, chip readers, there will be no scanning it will simply be waved right in front. He said the chip readers are much easier to use and you simply swipe in front and it will pick it up instantaneously, so that’s one big change. He stated registration at the front counter that nothing will change for residents or a member in utilizing this software. What will hopefully change is the confidence and ability to utilize this at home. Instead of standing in line at the Rec Center to sign up for your cardio drumming class, you’ll able to do that online and it will be much easier to use. White asked if charge payments will be accepted with the online services and if there is a service fee attached to it. Davis responded that you can pay with a credit card but that the service fee was dropped about a year ago in an effort to see online registrations increase. He encourages online registrations as it really frees up his staff to do other things, to be in other areas of the facility instead of at the front desk counter taking registrations. He said it is easier for his staff and the user to utilize the online registration. She then asked if this system will recognize City employees or retirees that get some kind of benefit for the cost of the class. Davis replied that that is a good 3 question because employee discounts vary at different times leading up to the sessions. He believes they will be able to put something in as far a deadline and a new fee kicking in at a certain date but that he will have to look into that a little further. He stated that right now the confusing part about how their operation is currently run, is they have member pricing with its own registration begin date; they have resident pricing with its own registration start date; and nonresident pricing with its own price and start date, so it is confusing to have the different levels and pricing but that he will look into that. White stated that typically you can’t register until the Friday before the class begins as an employee or former employee, it’s a very tight timeframe within which to register and hope that you can still get into the class. Jolly approving an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. th Davis then wished his wife a Happy 40 birthday. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 3. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE (1) JOHN DEERE 2025R UTILITY TRACTOR THROUGH THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BID PROCESS: Public Service Division, re: to replace one (1) comparable unit which will be disposed of through auction process, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated this tractor was requested and approved in the 2019 Capital Budget. It’s being purchased through State Contract Pricing reflect a 16% discount versus retail. The servicing dealer will be Bader & Sons out of South Lyon. It will be equipped with the factory installed bucket and will be used for ball diamond maintenance, moving materials around properties, and operating attachments such as rototillers and fertilizer spreaders. He stated they are asking Council to approve the purchase for $17,301.60. Meakin asked Moore why this item and the next three weren’t combined as one request as they are being purchased from the same company and Moore replied that they have always sent them up as individual items. Toy asked if City Attorney Bernier if there was any objection in combining the four and he stated on a go forward basis he doesn’t see a problem but that they should not be combined for tonight’s meeting purposes. Meakin offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. 4 Jolly asked Moore for an update on the bulk leaf pick-up program and Moore replied they are running a day behind due to the snow. He indicated they are utilizing the vacuums but the process is slower because of the wet leaves, the snow, the ice. The claws work better in this kind of weather but not always welcome on the streets because of the debris that is left behind but that the street sweeping has moved into the sections that have had their second pick-ups. White asked if remaining dates for leaf pick-up are on the website and he stated yes, they are weekly right now and the site is being updated daily. One of their staff checks the map every morning and updates it DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 4. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE (1) JOHN DEERE 1575 LAWN MOWER THROUGH THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BID PROCESS: Public Service Division, re: to be assigned to Park Maintenance and used at Civic Center, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated this item was also requested and approved in the 2019 Capital Outlay Budget. The unit and attachments are being purchased through State Pricing and reflects a 21% reduction versus list. This unit will be an out front rotary where it will have the drive unit in back, there will be a 60” mower deck in front, it will have a cab that has lights and heat, the mower deck will be quick connect so we can replace it with a snowblower, a plow and a broom, rotary broom, and those two items can be used year round. It will be stationed here at Civic Center to help mow grass and to do snow removal. The total price for everything is $44,058.39. Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE THREE (3) JOHN DEERE XUV TURF VEHICLES WITH UTILITY ATTACHMENTS THROUGH THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BID PROCESS: Public Service Division, re: to replace three (3) comparable units which will be disposed of through auction process, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated these three units are Turf Trucksters, otherwise known as John Deere Gators, these will have snow plows on the front, salt spreaders on the back. They are used in the summer to haul material around, move items and people; wintertime, sidewalk, snow removal, sidewalk salting. The three units that are being replaced, we’ve contacted the golf courses because the last time we replaced the old three, they bought those three from us, so they were transferred 5 to the golf courses. We’re trying to see if they’re looking to replace those. So the total price for the plows, the salt spreaders and the three units is $88,323.30. Meakin offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda and noted it was bid through the State of Michigan bid process and it is the low bid and is the same company as the last two items. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 6. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FOUR (4) JOHN DEERE TURF VEHICLES THROUGH THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BID PROCESS: Public Service Division, re: to replace four (4) comparable units which will be disposed of through auction process, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated these items were also requested and approved in the 2019 Capital Budget. These are the six-wheel versions of the John Deere Gator that you see tooling around all of the parks. The pricing reflects a 15% decrease versus retail and the current units that are being replaced were purchased in 2010 so they’re getting a little long in the teeth. The total price for the purchase of the four units is $44,802.96. McIntyre offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FIVE (5) TORO ZERO TURN MOWERS (ZTR) – 5000 THROUGH THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BID PROCESS: Public Service Division, re: to replace five (5) comparable units which will be disposed of through auction process, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated the five motors were requested and approved in the 2019 Capital Outlay Budget. These are going to be gas powered. There was a cost savings this year between gas and propane. This also gives us some flexibility with our fuel source. We’ve been purchasing propane powered motors for the last several years and this gives us the opportunity to diversify our fleet, just in case there’s spikes in fuel sources either way. There are five mowers, 60” decks, we use them in all the parks to mow the grass. They’re purchased through the State Bid and this is allowing for a 28% discount versus retail. The servicing dealer is Commercial Lawnmower, a longtime Livonia based company. The mowers being replaced were in the initial purchase of propane mowers and the repair costs are exceeding value. The Department is asking Council to approve the purchase for the five mowers at a total of $49,297.60. 6 Meakin stated he was happy to see Commercial Lawnmower who is an outstanding Livonia company and resident as well and give a 28% percent cost decrease in the purchase and offered an approving resolution on the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8. REQUEST FOR FUNDS TRANSFER FOR THE 2018 CONCRETE ROAD PROGRAM (CONTRACT 18-C): Engineering Division, re: to assist in the offset cost for the emergency patching on Newburgh Road in the amount of $65,000. (CR 130-18) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated there is only a short window to do patching in front of the schools such as Churchill, basically you have July and August. As you know we had an election at that location and they are in desperate in need of some repairs as the northbound lanes had some serious conditions. He stated they are fortunate enough to take advantage of unit prices to go ahead and do the patching along that corridor, and in advance of there was a proposed credit from MDOT to do the portion on Ann Arbor Road to Newburgh and Plymouth Road in 2019, that was the schedule. As you’re aware, Consumers is out there right now actually working to complete their gas main work that they started back in mid-September and they’re wrapping that up hopefully this week and they’ll come back in the Spring and remove the areas where the new gas valves or the existing gas valves on Newburgh Road. Getting back to this location, we want to make sure we got that area done in advance of that MDOT construction and our proposed segment on Ann Arbor Trail from Newburgh to Eckles that is scheduled for next summer. With that, they had the emergency patching done both in the northbound and southbound lanes from Joy Road to Ann Arbor Trail in the amount of $313,000.00 of which we’re asking for an offset of funding from the Inkster Road project, Six to Seven Mile, in surplus to take back to offset that patching. In addition, we have to come back to you as the Concrete Program has been all poured, we’re just waiting for the final numbers to come back to City Council to final that contract out. But in the meantime we want to make sure that we move forward to bring Council up to speed on what has taken place in advance of the MDOT construction in 2019 but may be delayed until they get funding and to bring you up to get a current contract amount to Hard Rock Concrete in the amount of $3.762,097.50, based on the additional $65,000.00 if approved this evening. He stated that does leave a residual in the Inkster Road project for surplus in case anything that comes up from that project to cover themselves. White offered an Approving Resolution on the Consent Agenda. 7 DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 9. REQUEST TO AMEND THE ENGINEERING CONTRACT THROUGH THE QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION (QBS) PROCESS WITH OHM ADVISORS, FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 2019 ASPHALT ROAD PROGRAM: Engineering Division, re: same. (CR 365-16) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this was previously approved this program for 2019 at the last Council meeting as well as the Concrete Program. They were able to work with OHM who has been in the inception since 2002 when the first program was approved for millage and then renewed in 2012. Mark Loch from OHM is in the audience, he has been with the program since the inception and seen it through, and has worked with the City on improving the Road Program and this year they are asking for, based on a budget of 3.4 million, to provide their services to the Asphalt Repair Program in the amount of $146,200.00 under the QBS Process to go ahead and provide the design services so that the City can go ahead and move forward with the proposed repairs, some of which will be across from City Hall here north of Five Mile, east of Middlebelt and then Laurel Park Drive and several other places north of the City. Meakin stated OHM does a wonderful job on this and offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10. VACATING REQUEST: Engineering Division, re: to vacate Water Main Easement 1A located within the Marycrest Manor Development located at 15475 Middlebelt Road. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated the next four items are continuous to the Marycrest Manor facility, it took over three years to complete, there was Phase I and then Phase II. Now that Phase II is complete with the looped water main system around the building, they can now vacate the middle portion, that will be the remaining private line that goes off Middlebelt to their facility with the private hydrants painted yellow. These are housekeeping issues for Easement 1A which is Item #10, and they are asking for Council’s approval to vacate the existing water main as part of the housekeeping issue. White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 11. VACATING REQUEST: Engineering Division, re: to vacate Water Main Easement 1B located within the Marycrest Manor Development located at 15475 Middlebelt Road. 8 Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is just another piece of the segment on that water main easement to be vacated and is asking for Council’s approval. White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 12. VACATING REQUEST: Engineering Division, re: to vacate Water Main Easement 2A located within the Marycrest Manor Development located at 15495 Middlebelt Road. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is another piece of the Water Main easement located within Marycrest Manor Development located at 15495 Middlebelt Road. White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 13. VACATING REQUEST: Engineering Division, re: to vacate Water Main Easement 2B located within the Marycrest Manor Development located at 15495 Middlebelt Road. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is another piece of the Water Main Easement located within Marycrest Manor Development located at 15495 Middlebelt Road. White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 14. REQUEST TO RELEASE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT BOND, PUBLIC UTILITY BOND AND SITE DEVELOPMENT BOND: Engineering Division, re: for the Washington Park Site Condominiums located at the southwest corner of Hix and Ann Arbor Roads (former Washington Elementary School site), in the Southwest ¼ of Section 31. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated according to City ordinances they have to take certain bonds based on the development, whether it’s sanitary, water, roads, so as part of the development back in 2016, these bonds were taken pursuant to Council Resolution #436-16, and that they are now looking to release the bonds for the general development in the amount of $60,557.00, public utility bond in the amount of $5,000.00, and the site development bond for $500.00, all that were cash, to be refunded to the developer. There are still some bonds outstanding until the items have been 9 completed and brought back to City Council for their release, of which the sidewalk bond is one of those, and some other minor ones that are left. But they are getting close to the end of the project and the Engineering Department will be bringing back to you at the next meeting acceptance of the road for Act 51, to put that on a map, approximately 1,800 lineal feet to accept to help in our future calculations for Act 51 funds. Bahr asked if Item 16 related to this item at all and Zilincik stated that the sidewalk bond was kept in place, $10,000.00 set aside. Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 15. REQUEST TO ACCEPT STORM WATER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Engineering Division, re: from Menard, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation, in conjunction with the construction of a storm drainage system that provides adequate drainage from property developed by others that includes 12651, 12661 and 12691 Middlebelt Road, in the Northeast ¼ of Section 26. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is for the out parcels that were developed approximately two and a half years ago, actually three years ago, where there was the Goodyear facility and Goodwill, and there was another one that split off there, but those addresses were either sold or leased but they finally got Menard’s to give them the Storm Water Agreement to take to City Council for approval so that the bond can be released if approved. He stated if there are problems out there, this agreement allows them to go out there and complete any emergency repairs and bill the property owners for that work that needs to be done. He also indicated trees were planted as required and will come back in the spring to address the restoration issues that are still outstanding and then when the water level goes down there is an emergency overflow area that they need to re-establish that, too. It is complete, as far as the Storm Water Agreement, and they will, as promised, come back to the facility in the back of the truss facility and there is a bond held for that, too, in case there are any issues with that parcel. Kritzman offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10 NEW BUSINESS 16. VACATING PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2018-09-03-01 submitted by Jeffery and Tracy Nolte, to determine whether or not to vacate the existing ten (10) foot wide public sidewalk that runs along the north side of Lot 94 of Arbor Estates Subdivision located on the east side of Knolson Avenue between Northfield Avenue and Ann Arbor Road (9386 Knolson), in the Southwest ¼ of Section 31. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning & Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated as required by City ordinance, this matter was referred to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and thereafter submit their report and recommendation to Council regarding the vacation of this 10-foot walkway that lays on the north side of Lot 94 of Arbor Estates Subdivision and Lot 94 is 9386 Knolson, is owned by the Noltes, the Petitioners, in this case. The abutting property on the opposite side of the sidewalk is 9394 Knolson, I believe Mr. Jones, who spoke earlier this evening, is here representing his position on that. That is not located within the subdivision, actually his property sits outside of Arbor Estates. The right of way in question was established in the mid 1960’s at the time Arbor Estates was officially approved and recorded with the Wayne County Register of Deeds and then for over fifty years the sidewalk in question provided access to the Washington Elementary School which is located immediately to the east of this property. There was a sidewalk that continued across the school property directly accessing the parking area and school. And then as everyone knows, in 2016 the school site was redeveloped as a single family site condominium called Washington Park and the approved plans for Washington Park show continuation of the sidewalk, would head due north along the west property line within a common area in Washington Park where it would extend with an existing sidewalk along Ann Arbor Road. The Noltes contend that the subject walkway between Knolson and Ann Arbor Road is not needed and that the portion that is existing located in the right of way abutting the property should be vacated and subsequently removed. This right of way, this 10-foot by 200 foot right of way adjacent to the Noltes property does contain a storm sewer so a full width easement, maintenance easement, will need to be reserved in the event that the right of way is vacated. As is required, we sent notices to all of the possibly affected utility companies including Consumers Energy and DTE and we received notification that they do not have any objections to the vacating request. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this item and I believe there is quite a bit of record on that discussion and they are recommending vacating the subject right of way. Jolly asked City Attorney Bernier if his understanding was correct, that if such a right of way were to be vacated, that it would be slit fifty/fifty with the two abutting property owners and that the Petitioner in this matter has requested that it all be given to the Noltes and he asked for Bernier’s opinion on that for the record. And also that the initial petition asked for assistance financially or service-wise from the 11 City of Livonia and/or the Soaves who are developing the property behind to remove the concrete and facilitate that matter and also asked Bernier his opinion on whether or not the City is providing any kind of financial benefit or assistance in regard to that if this was to be approved. Bernier responded that there are several things that he would address in reverse order. As he understands the property, there are two fences also that separate that sidewalk, there’s one along the Noltes property line and one that’s along the other property line. Then there is the sidewalk in the middle. If the Council was to approve the vacating, that’s not the City’s responsibility to move that sidewalk nor would the City approve that because that is not a City function, that would be their property and their responsibility. Much as if a street was taken out and vacated, it’s not the City’s responsibility to remove it. The question then becomes is you now have two fences. Is there going to be a requirement to take the fences out or the one fence out along the Noltes piece of property and then put it down the middle. There was a question that he talked about with Mr. Taormina and talked about with Mr. Neville who did an opinion on the matter and I believe the issue was whether or not since this is a separate subdivision in a different plot of land, who did that property go to. Mr. Neville was of the opinion when he drafted the letter from Mr. Taormina, was that since this was not the same subdivision and it was taken from the Nolte subdivision, it would go just to the Noltes if we wanted to vacate the property as opposed to the typical street where if we were to vacate it and it was all taken from one subdivision, it was actually taken from those property owners. None of this property would have been taken from the house to the north, none of that property would have been their property so that’s that portion anyway, so it wouldn’t revert back to them. Taormina stated it is his contention from the research that he’s done is that title would vest in the contiguous platted property owners which in this case would be the Noltes only because the Jones property is an unplatted parcel of land. And because this easement, this right of way was dedicated by the proprietors of the plat, effectively it would go back to their heirs to that property which in this case the abutting property in this case would only be the Noltes. Our very limited title search on this reveals that there was no common ownership at the time the subdivision was established with the proprietors of the subdivision and the property to the north including Mr. Jones’ property. So that’s what leads me to believe that title would vest entirely to the Noltes, I think that still has to be verified by the Law Department but that’s really my position right now. Bernier stated he has never talked to the Jones’, he doesn’t know if they want it vacated or if he has any interest in that property anyway, but even if he didn’t want interest in the property and didn’t want the expense of removing the sidewalk, the Noltes could always quit claim their portion if there was one, any interest that they might have, the Jones to the Noltes to avoid the issue if Mr. Jones didn’t want to go through the cost of putting in a fence, removing the sidewalk, he would have to remove his fence, remove the sidewalk and then they would have to put in a fence 12 if they wanted to separate the property. So Mr. Jones, if he had no interest in it, could eliminate the whole issue if he wanted to quit claim whatever interest he might have. As Mr. Jolly knows, being an attorney, when you quit claim all you do is give up all the interest you have, whether you have any interest or not, and that would resolve many of the issues. Jolly stated he had one follow-up question. Is there any other tie, if we were to vacate the path, is there any way to tie it where we would mandate the responsibility to the Noltes to make the improvements, such as removing the sidewalk? Bernier responded absolutely. Like any other contractual, this Council could put in a requirement and when you vacate as a portion of the vacating you have to, for instance, remove the sidewalk, remove your fence. Because right now if they removed the sidewalk you’re still going to have this runway more or less. So the Council could put in restrictions for the vacating of that piece of property. Jolly asked if those restrictions come with a hammer if they were not to do it after the walkway was vacated or could we mandate that that happens in a concurrent fashion. Bernier clarified if Jolly meant penalties with his question and Jolly said yes. Bernier then stated he hadn’t thought of an answer to that. He indicated if he were the homeowner, he wouldn’t expend the money to remove the sidewalk unless it was his piece of property for sure. But much like we do with any contract, there could be penalties placed as part of the contract. In essence we could form a contract, we will vacate it if you do X, Y and Z, and if you don’t here are the penalties that are set forth. Jolly stated for the record he thinks the worst case scenario in something like this is that we vacated and then nobody wants to take responsibility and if there’s future interest in the land, it just becomes a small no man’s land, nobody is going to be dealing with it at all. Bahr asked Taormina what will happen to the sidewalk in Washington Park behind because we did vacate this sidewalk and now we’ve got a sidewalk to nowhere on both ends. Taormina replied that he had a discussion with the developer and he’s waiting to see what happens, what action Council takes on this item and if this right of way is vacated, he would anticipate that the developer would approach Council to amend the site plan to remove that portion of the sidewalk located on Washington Park. Bahr then asked if that land would then just become part of the properties over there and Taormina replied it is common area now, to amend the plans to extend 13 the units to include that area. That is probably a little more complicated. We’d have to find out what would be required to do that because he isn’t sure, it could be that they handed that off to the association so it may require a full vote. He indicated he didn’t know what the status is right now in terms of handing over those responsibilities to the association. Bahr stated that to him that seems maybe a small detail but potentially an important point because if it has been handed over to the association, what happens if we vacate this and then the associations says we don’t want to pay to purchase that additional common area, which is what it would be, right? Taormina replied that the association is responsible for that common area. Bahr asked if they got control of it now, would they have an interest in selling it to the homeowners, if that’s how it would work. Taormina stated he would think the homeowners would want to petition the association to potentially acquire that portion of the common area. Bahr said he would think so, too, but not knowing that, he does not want to create a situation here where we vacate the sidewalk and then there is this weird sliver of land coming down that nobody wants to buy, nobody wants to take care of. Taormina stated he suspects the homeowners would treat that as their own property anyway and that was part of a conversation with the Planning Commission. They will have to reserve some easement back there to access the storm sewer. Toy then asked if they could require the Soaves to remove that insider sidewalk and Bernier asked if she was referring to the portion next to the Noltes and Toy responded yes. Bernier stated that the Soaves, if they wanted to, could remove it but they have no legal obligation to remove it or the fences. Zilincik stated he wanted to add with the vacation of the sidewalk, if approved, he wants to reiterate that the owner, make sure that there is no constructed permanent barriers on there because there is an access for the storm sewer itself and maybe the Council wants to consider timeframe, if it’s vacated, approving the removal of the sidewalk at the appropriate time, maybe a three-year window if they don’t do it then the City could remove it and then put it on their taxes, that’s an option they do with the Sidewalk Program, to remove it. The concrete sidewalk is in good condition except near the end where the storm sewer was broken out by the development, but it’s in pretty good condition, it’s just a matter of it would become their own property at the appropriate time to remove that, at the Council’s discretion as discussed earlier as far as a line item designated with that sidewalk removal. 14 Toy stated that many of the Council members went over to look at the sidewalk and that she thinks that the Noltes and others have tried to keep that up for a long time and now it’s gotten overgrown in different areas. Zilincik stated he wants to make sure that the fence is put in the middle of the property abutting the adjacent northern property because of access and also utilities that go along that sliver piece in Washington Park on the common area for TeleCom and things of that nature. Jeff Nolte, 9386 Knolson Street, came to the podium. He stated first and foremost he wants to congratulate the two middle schools, Holmes and Frost, for making States for robotics. He indicated the sidewalk has been kind of a sticky issue since it used to be maintained by the school when the school was there, but since the school was vacated, they did maintain it. He stated at the last meeting all four of the new neighbors in the new subdivision were present and they have put in sod, some of them put in irrigation systems all the way back to the fence because they didn’t know there was a sidewalk going back. So none of them wanted the sidewalk. But with them, he believes three of them have fences that they are already planning on putting in and it’s just going to create a big tunnel down our property and his neighbor’s property and the auto store, it’s blind turns and it’s not going to be really safe. President Toy asked Nolte what his wish would be on this bottom line and Nolte stated he would like to see the sidewalk removed either way, whether they bear the cost or not, they are willing to do it but do not have the tools to do it easily and that’s part of why the Petition went to the City or the company that built the subdivision because they are saving them money, too, by not putting in a sidewalk, and see if they would be willing to remove the sidewalk. But if that’s not going to happen it’s going to stop them. Jolly stated that’s one of his main concerns. He’s not going to vote to spend City resources to vacate this and remove the pathway. He told the Petitioner if he wants this to be vacated, he’s going to basically in his opinion and his vote, agree that he is going to bear the expense and take care of it. Nolte replied as stated before it never hurts to ask and that’s why they did. Mark Jones, 9394 Knolson, came to the podium stating he is the neighbor that lives on the other side. He indicated that he and the Noltes both have maintained the sidewalk and that his thoughts were if it was to be vacated, it would be split between the two properties. He went on to state that someone employed by the City had actually come to his house to tell him his side wasn’t maintained good enough and that he would be ticketed. He said he really didn’t know at that time if that property was his responsibility to keep up. He said Nolte keeps up his side and he maintains the other side. He indicated now they say his house in not in the subdivision, but his house is somewhere, when he pulls in the subdivision it says 15 “Welcome to Arbor Estates”, he drives right by it and when he looks in the mirror he says he sees the signs are behind him. He stated his house is somewhere, it’s somewhere in Livonia, he pays taxes. He went on to state that he has a real estate firm on retainer because he’s been on a two house battle for two years, and he called them to ask about the sidewalk that is between his house and the Noltes and that the City is saying his house is not inside that sub. The realtor asked him who maintains the sidewalk and he replied that he maintains his half and the Noltes maintains the other half and the realtor claimed that could be adverse possession. Jones said he feels the property should be divided by two. Jolly said based on everything that Jones just said that he is going to designate some time and write a Michigan Bar Exam question and submit it to the State Bar of Michigan with the scenario and the quotes that he provided. Meakin stated he would like to offer a resolution to split it down the middle between the two property owners. Jolly said he didn’t think that was an option in this case. Meakin said if there is a resolution stating that they’re vacating the property, they can vacate it in half. Jolly said he didn’t feel property law works like that. Bernier said there is a statutory set-up when property is vacated who it goes to. Meakin asked why the item is on the agenda then if Council can’t make a decision on it. Bernier replied that Council can make a decision on whether or not to vacate, but the statute determines who gets it. He said Council can determine whether they want to vacate it at all or leave it the way it is, but if it is vacated the statute decides who gets the property. Meakin offered an approving resolution to vacate the property. Bahr said he supports the approving resolution but would like to keep it on the Regular Agenda. Bernier stated if Council wants he’d be happy to send to Council the opinion that Mr. Neville drafted on the issue of the vacating of the sidewalk. Jolly stated that when Council votes on it, that there should be a mandate that the property be improved as discussed earlier. 16 Taormina replied to Jolly’s comment by asking would it be fair as a condition of approval to require that portion of the sidewalk located in the front of the property be removed, it’s likely, especially if the Noltes retain ownership of all ten feet, you might want to fence off that area to the backyard, it doesn’t matter whether or not that sidewalk is retained, the back portion of the yard. He stated the concern really is the portion of the sidewalk between Knolson Street and to the front of their house, so requiring removal of that portion of the sidewalk at the least he thinks would be an appropriate course of action initially. But if Council thinks it’s appropriate to remove the entire sidewalk located that effectively would be the side of their property and the rear of their property. Bernier stated that is obviously a policy decision for Council’s consideration but the only concern he also has is the removal of the fence along Mr. Nolte’s property. Because right now once you take it out, you’re still going to have that strip of land in there and so if his property line is extended, his fence should have to be removed so you don’t still have the strip of grass in there. Meakin stated he doesn’t want to create a greater burden for the Petitioner because it would require a zoning variance to keep the fence there in the front yard anyway, so let’s not create more of a problem by keeping the fence, that he likes the idea of removing the fence and also removing the sidewalk altogether. So there’s no point in keeping it and it becomes a nuisance for them just to be wandering around back there when there’s no need for them to be back there then. Bernier stated that’s an interesting question because the fence requirements state you can’t go in front of the house. And if he was to replace the fence now could on both sides protrude in front of the house. But if the fence were to remain on Mr. Jones’ side, it’s already there. So if he just took down his fence and took down the Nolte fence and the sidewalk, you’re still going to have a fence line that’s already pre-existing. Toy asked if the fence should come down on the Jones’ part and Bernier replied no. Petition Nolte came back to the podium and stated that he wanted to point out that once they brought this to put a park into the Washington Park Subdivision, the City was also nice enough to put a park at the other end of the subdivision, too, so that is not the only park that kids can go to, they can just walk right through the subdivision to the other park which is actually a nicer park. He stated they do have a decorative 4-foot fence on the side of their house that goes to the fence that goes to the sidewalk, so their thought was just to continue to the Jones’ property and then remove the fence at least, initially if we got it, that went up to the street. That way it blocks that off and then blocks off in the back. Jolly stated that was not acceptable from his perspective, that if he wants the property, he has to remove the fence all the way. 17 Nolte said he is just saying immediately. Jolly stated with all due respect he wants that condition in writing that that is going to be done completely and Nolte agreed that he would do that but asked what the timing of the removal has to be. Toy asked if he couldn’t just put some dirt over the sidewalk and plant grass seed and call it a day and Nolte replied that his wife would not let him do that, that would not be an option. Bernier stated as he understands the conditions, there is an approving on the Regular Agenda and there has to be contractual language in it that would require the removal of the sidewalk and the fence within a reasonable period of time and given the fact that we’re going into the winter season, should that condition be st spring or the date of July 1, 2019, giving reasonable time to complete that. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 17. REQUEST TO APPROVE THE HAGGERTY SQUARE PLANNED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LIVONIA AND HAGGERTY SQUARE, L.L.C.: Department of Law, re: in connection with Petition 2018-01-02-02, previously approved by the Council on May 21, 2018 pursuant to CR 196-18, requesting waiver use approval for a Planned General Development consisting of a retail shopping center and multi-family housing development under a single unified plan, at 19700 and 19750 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest ¼ of Section 6. Paul Bernier, City Attorney, presented this request to Council. He stated they provided to Council the Planned General Agreement as it would pertain to the Haggerty Square. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning & Economic Development, stated that the Planned General Agreement before Council this evening was a required condition of the waiver and site plan approval of Haggerty Square and the document was patterned off of the General Development Agreement that Council approved for Livonia Marketplace back in 2008 and which has proven to be a very useful tool for both the developer and the City. So what the Agreement effectively does, is it spells out a number of terms and conditions relative to compliance with the plans that were approved by the City Council, including the site layout, issues related to lighting, parking, architecture and other site design standards. It also deals with issues involving the divisions, and the leasing and separation of ownership of the property, stormwater management has a separate section in the Agreement. It spells out the permitted and prohibited uses as well as minor modifications to the site plan that can be dealt with administratively. So, this is really only the second time we’ve approved one of these, I can tell you from experience with the Livonia 18 Marketplace it has been very useful in expediting and also controlling and eliminating a lot of the guess work and confusion as it relates to that development project and we would hope to do the same here. Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 18. PROPOSED 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE: City Council President Laura M. Toy, re: in accordance with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, 1976 P.A. 267, as amended. Meakin offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT Councilmember Bahr requested that the Law Department prepare a condition to the ordinance in accordance with that for the City to opt out of allowing Recreational Marijuana facilities to operate in the City and to put that on the Agenda for the next Regular Meeting. McIntyre wished everyone a Happy and safe Thanksgiving. She also thanked all of the citizens who have come to the meetings and contacted Council regarding the Planned Parenthood facility coming to Livonia. She stated it’s a difficult and divisive issue but that Council appreciates everyone that has taken the time to express their views, including Councilmembers. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None. For the 1,862nd Regular Meeting of December 3, 2018 As there were no further questions or comments, President Toy adjourned the Study Session at 9:56 p.m. on Monday, November 19, 2018. DATED: November 28, 2018 SUSAN M. NASH CITY CLERK