Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-02 CITY OF LIVONIA – CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD DECEMBER 2, 2019 Meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. by President Laura Toy. Present: Brandon Kritzman, Scott Bahr, Kathleen McIntyre, Brian Meakin, Jim Jolly, Brandon Kritzman and Laura Toy. Absent: Cathy White. Elected and appointed officials present: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Todd Zilincik, City Engineer; Paul Bernier, City Attorney; Susan M. Nash, City Clerk; Casey O’Neil, Director of Information Systems; Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation; Dave Heavener, Fire Chief; Doug Moore, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service; and Dave Varga, Director of Administrative Services. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION: John Heinzman II, President, Ardan Academy of Irish Dance Booster Club, Inc., re: as required by the State of Michigan, to obtain a Charitable Gaming License to host fundraising events in the future. Carl Heinzman, Uncle of John Heinzman II, presented this request to Council on his behalf. Vice President Jolly stated this is a well-known organization in the community and offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2. COLLECTION OF THE LIVONIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2020: Office of the City Clerk, re: forwarding a communication from the Secretary of the Board of Education dated October 29, 2019, requesting that the City continue to collect one-half of the district taxes with summer tax collection and the remaining one-half with the winter tax collection, commencing July 1, 2020. Councilmember Bahr stated this is an annual housekeeping issue and offered and approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: RECEIVE & FILE CONSENT 2 3. DETERMINATION OF THE LOCAL OFFICERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION: Office of the City Clerk, re: the salaries of elected officials for the calendar years 2020 and 2021, in accordance with Section 2.48.030 of Chapter 2.48 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Councilmember Kritzman stated this is in keeping with the motions made in the previous meeting regarding other groups throughout the City and offered an approving resolution on this item. Councilmember Bahr stated he is fine with that but knows the Local Officers Compensation Commission had some information available to them about comparison with other cities with these positions and he would be interested in seeing that document. Clerk Nash replied that the packet of information that the LOCC had available can be sent to the Councilmembers. Bill Schmidt, 29688 McIntyre, Livonia, came to the podium and spoke on the salaries of the Clerk and Treasurer, citing that the average household income in Livonia, from competing websites, one says $69,000 for household; individual income $32,000, $32,000 compared to $90,000; he stated he thinks that needs to be taken into consideration. President Toy replied the $90,000 salary won’t come into play until 2021, they will be at $87,750 starting next year in 2020. Councilmember Kritzman stated as the gentleman pointed out there are a multitude of websites out there. Council has their official data that gets to them from a Council perspective and his immediate reaction to the numbers thrown out for median household income are staggering lower than anything that they’ve encountered. And anything he has looked at here has the median household income significantly higher than that, up to $72,000, it’s all over the place. Schmidt then clarified that’s household income, not individual income. Councilmember Kritzman stated although he understands Schmidt’s point, he doesn’t think that is how we are measuring the value of that position in the community. Schmidt said it’s just that’s the people that are paying for that. Councilmember Kritzman stated he understands the point Schmidt is trying to make and Schmidt asked him to state his understanding. Kritzman replied that Schmidt is claiming that there is a significant income disparity between those positions and the people paying taxes. 3 Councilmember McIntyre stated she just wants to explain how these recommendations come. There is a commission, the LOCC, Local Officers Compensation Commission, and their job is to look at the jobs, their job is to look at the salaries in the private sector for comparable jobs and the salaries in surrounding neighborhoods. To take one job that has very specific qualifications and responsibilities and compare it to an average income in our City, that’s apples and oranges. And if you were to look at jobs in our City, jobs held by residents in our City that have similar requirements and responsibilities, you would find parity. This is no different, we have physicians who live in our City, who probably make $200,000 a year. And your point is our taxpayers pay it, our salaries, but if you’re making those comparisons, it doesn’t really matter who’s paying it. And you wouldn’t say well, a physician who lives in Livonia makes $200,000, and the average income is $32,000. So the physician then is overpaid. It’s the same sort of comparison. And if you look at what neighboring cities pay, I’m proud of the fact that Livonia pays on the low side. We don’t look at the salaries of neighboring communities or same communities and say we ought to be at the top of that. We say we ought to be in the middle or a little bit below the middle. So I’m going to say I appreciate your comments, it’s always good to hear from people, but I don’t accept that as a valid comparison. Schmidt asked if the comparison data for other communities, if that will be brought to the next meeting or are they available now? If you’re comparing Livonia against Birmingham or against Royal Oak. Councilmember McIntyre replied they are not and that Schmidt is welcome to go to the internet and look at the salaries of comparable communities such as Dearborn, Westland, Dearborn Heights. Councilmember Kritzman stated that the gentleman cited a number of somewhere around $29,500ish, and Schmidt replied that was just the website he looked at. Kritzman went on to state that’s a per capita income number so that is counting the work that the Clerk and Treasurer do and other appointed people to his seven year old daughter. It’s not the same. It’s an apples and oranges comparison as has been pointed out. Clerk Nash clarified what Council was asking for her office to supply and President Toy replied the LOCC packet as well as a member from the Commission to be in attendance at the meeting. Councilmember McIntyre stated the LOCC meetings are open to the public, as are all of their meetings, so she encourages people who are concerned about these issues to go on the City website and look to see when these committees meet and they are more than welcome to attend and share your opinions. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 4 4. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL ON A PROPOSED LOT SPLIT: Department of Assessment, re: for the property located at the Southwest corner of Robert and MacIntyre Avenues, in the Northeast ¼ of Section 35, (29568 MacIntyre, 29551 Robert and 29525 Robert) and to waive the property depth-to- width ratio for these properties. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a lot split and combination request, it involves three platted lots of record that are located at the corner of Robert and MacIntyre Avenues. The three contiguous properties include Lot 305, 306 and 307 at Bellaire Garden Subdivision. The zoning is R-1, One Family Residential, and all three lots contain developed single family homes. The proposal would split 35.5 feet from the rear of Lot 305, which is located at 29551 Robert Avenue and combine it with the rear of Lot 307, which is 29586 MacIntyre, to create a new parcel. So this map shows you what the three adjoining parcels look like today. This print superimposed on an aerial photograph and you’ll see the three parcels are now identified as Parcel 1, Parcel 2 and Parcel 3. The 35 feet being added to Parcel 3, is being provided at the rear of Parcel 1 as you can see from this plan. The area of 29551 Robert Avenue would be reduced to approximately 5,565 square feet. This is the one that’s referred to as Parcel 1 on the survey and this does not meet the R-1 lot area requirements which is 7,200 square feet. Additionally, this will create a deficiency with respect to the rear yard setback of the house on Parcel 1. Per Chapter 16 the Council can waive the minimum lot area requirement, that does require no fewer than five affirmative votes. For the setback deficiency a variance is going to be needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Parcels 2 and 3 are in compliance with the R-1 lot size requirements per this plan. And that’s a summation of the proposal. Councilmember McIntyre inquired what the New Data was on this item. President Toy responded there is an outstanding water bill. Robert Trenkle, 29525 Robert, came to the podium and stated it is paid automatically, an automatic deduction. President Toy stated Trenkle might want to check with the Treasurer’s Office as it shows a balance. Vice President Jolly stated that how they do things in the City when there is an outstanding amount due to the City, we make sure to bring that up when there’s something pending. So, number one, please check with the Water Department with regards to the balance. He said the graphic says it all and he doesn’t think it makes any sense from, even if this would work for the people who live in these 5 houses right now, it absolutely will be detrimental to property values going forward. This would have never been approved like this when these homes were built and I don’t think they should be approved like this now with what is proposed. You’re essentially creating a house with almost no backyard next to other houses that do have backyards and an odd lot. With all due respect, this isn’t at all how we do things in the City or to my knowledge have ever done things in the City. Councilmember McIntyre stated she would have to hear extremely compelling reasons as to why we should create a nonconforming spot. We look to correct nonconforming properties to make them conforming and we’re going in the opposite direction here. So it would be like Mr. Jolly, an extremely high bar for me to understand why we would want to do this. Councilmember Bahr stated he concurred but just had to ask because he’s intrigued, he’s looking at it on Google Maps, who lives on MacIntyre Street? Trenkle replied he lives on MacIntyre, that he owns both these properties. Bahr said it’s a beautiful set-up and it looks like you’ve already got a fence installed and Trenkle replied everything has been as it is for the last fifteen or more years. Councilmember Bahr said good for you, that you’ve got such a great relationship with the resident, which is your daughter, I understand? Trenkle replied his daughter is next to him on the other side that’s not involved. Bahr went on to state he doesn’t see this making sense from a City perspective and as long as Trenkle resides there it looks like he’s got a great set-up, but unfortunately you’re at a lot of risk if that house on Robert ever sells and he would concur with his colleagues, it doesn’t make sense to do this lot split but in the meantime he’s glad he’s enjoyed it for fifteen years and he hopes he continues to because that looks beautiful. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. Robert J. Trenkle, 29568 MacIntyre, came to the podium with Gina Nguyen, 29525 Robert Drive and Elizabeth Pizzo, 29600 MacIntyre, and co-owner of 29551 Robert Drive. Trenkle stated he would like to give a little background and history. He has been in his location for nineteen years, he was renting initially, some of these things happened, these divisions, long ago and we thought they were amicable while everybody was involved. The person who previously lived in Nguyen’s home died unfortunately, and prior to his death he gave me a parcel of land, a little tiny space, that shows the angle from heading into Parcel 2 which is her property now, so we were able to get heavy equipment into the backyard to do a lot of the things that 6 we did. It gave us the opportunity to put a 6-foot fence or gate there to get into the property. And that pool has been there for many, many years, but Corey Berniac was the person who resided at 29551 Robert Drive. And at one point in time he and his sister I thought were the only owners and they sold me a long time ago for $8,000 half of the back, about that 35 feet, I guess, and I was going to buy the entire property. At some point in time the property went into foreclosure, I was supposed about it immediately but wasn’t told and another investor got it before me, he owned it for about three days and I paid an extra $10,000 so there wouldn’t be any problems legally about me owning half of his backyard. So then I put probably $200,000 above and beyond what I paid for this property into the property, I probably had twenty people who wanted to purchase that lot and that home. It was a small lot because there are a lot of older people who don’t want a lot of property. You have other properties in Livonia that do have very small setbacks in other subdivisions. And I’m not trying to say I understand, Mr. Taormina told me before about the 110 for the setback. But as far as everybody in the neighborhood is concerned, they know how well we take care of the property and how well things are and I don’t think it’s anything detrimental to the City by any stretch of the imagination. I believe I could sell that house, the short Number 1, for $250,000 tomorrow if I wanted to to an elderly couple or many elderly couples have come by. They’ve got a first floor laundry in there. Everything in the property is top of the line. I believe by the sale of that property it would make other properties even more valuable in Livonia but I’m not intending on selling it at this moment. Actually, Gina’s mother who lives in Vietnam, they want to purchase the house and live next door to her, they’re an elderly couple that don’t want the stairs and all that. But I have put two egress windows in the basement to make it – there’s nothing I haven’t done to that house to make it much more exclusive. But as I said already, it’s my fault that this went on this long, I probably didn’t even realize that I was doing anything wrong considering it was all my property until I think, Mr. Taormina, when I came to him and showed him what I was intending on proposing to the Council, but as I said this has been something that has been this way for many, many years and I was told I had to show a hardship. Well, the hardship is that my lot and my pool and the deck around that encroach on the lot that’s the smaller lot. And again, back then, paying thousands of dollars for pools and all that, had no idea that it was going to be a conflict, again, not understanding zoning ordinances and laws. But I have done everything to make Livonia better. I’ve got an application for a variance that was going to go to the Zoning Board that pretty much talks about how everyone in that neighborhood really likes what we have done and I would assume that real estate taxes would be more on my larger property, and I don’t care if you even kept the other the same. In fact, the one of Robert Drive is about $500 more a year than mine because of all the extra improvements. But I have no problem with all of that, I want to make Livonia better. Vice President Jolly stated he doesn’t think Trenkle is a bad guy, he doesn’t think he intentionally did anything wrong. But when he looks at this from a City perspective, it’s Council’s job to have the planning in place and to make sure that homes are of a certain caliber and it means more than just the physical appearance 7 and upkeep of the house. It means that there is conformity from house to house in a neighborhood. Honestly, I appreciate that this may have happened over time and you thought you were doing right the entire time, this is not in the best interest of the City, it’s not in the best interest of future homeowners in any of the three houses that are identified up there to be honest with you. When people move into a residential neighborhood they expect it to be alike in a matter of ways, right? And one of the reasons why Livonia is so highly sought after and ranked in these national lists of most desirable zip codes and stuff like is because we don’t let people do whatever they want to do even if it seems like they were doing the right thing at the time. You know, I look at this and it seems like, although you’ve paid money for purchasing some degree of the backyard there, I hope you’ve consulted with an attorney in regard to real estate law and property rights because I think at some point whether it’s now or in the future, you’re going to have to deal with that. But from the City’s perspective there is a simple solution, that the property line remains as it originally was, at least in terms of the parcels. Leaving Parcels 1, 2 and 3 as they initially were. And you know if you’re using it in this way at this time, I don’t necessarily think they will be stopping you, right? Trenkle stated he understands that. Vice President Jolly continued by saying if you want to go forward and completely alter this for the future, he can’t support. Trenkle replied that he understands Jolly’s position in a way, but he believes Jolly is misjudging a lot of things based on a difference of a property line. If you look at the property directly behind me, it’s not marked, but the one behind Parcel – whatever the largest one, mine is, directly behind that there’s a 110 foot setback is one and only one inch behind that place. It’s a pie-shaped lot, she’s got 110 feet. That parcel is not much bigger than the parcel that I have reduced the size of and mine is in a triangle and hers is in a pie and there is very little difference. And so when you’re talking about having the same kinds of situations, I had a house in Novi where the guy next to me had a pie-shaped lot, it was probably 2,000 square feet less than mine, he paid maybe $10,000 less than the property before we built it. These are not exactly the same but I’m saying you talk about a detriment. If in fact, I’m 74 years old, I’m going to die maybe tomorrow, maybe twenty years from now, you never know. But that’s why another reason I wanted to come here and make sure we could get this thing done and past so I don’t have to leave this with my children and have them have the problem. But if in fact I have to go back to the actual original, as I said, you look at my pool, that deck encroaches on the back half of the other lot, the lot on Robert. And there isn’t any human being that I’ve seen come by my property and not want to buy any of those, including her, she’s maintained hers tremendously well, too. But I’m encroaching on her property, so if that didn’t pass, that’s another fence that has to be torn down. If I don’t get the approval of the Council, I will eventually have to tear another fence down, and it’s at least 3 to $6,000 to move it back on half of my deck and it will make no value better to anybody. It will actually decrease the value. The way it’s situated right 8 now, the City will have more dollar value than any other way, even though you don’t see it that way, I think you’re wrong. Vice President Jolly stated they spend a lot of time when they’re building new neighborhoods, right, and I presume somebody spent a lot of time looking at this plan back in the day when these houses were originally developed. I don’t think this is in the long term best interest for that neighborhood or any future – Trenkle asked where the detriment lies. Vice President Jolly asked Taormina what the property is zoned as and he replied R-1. Jolly continued saying it’s already zoned R-1 which is the lowest zoning for residential neighborhood in terms of the smallest lot sizes, and then this significantly makes that smaller. Our zoning goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, then R-U-F. This is the lowest zoned residential lot to begin with. And then you want to take away the bulk of the backyard from that. I’m not trying to give you a hard time. Trenkle replied he knows that; he understands Jolly’s just doing his job. Jolly said that from a long term perspective I would suggest that you have to figure out some other answer that is not asking us to approve this proposed parcel split as you’ve indicated. Because I think from a long term City perspective, future owners, future residents, it doesn’t make sense. Trenkle said if someone likes that size lot, how can that be detrimental? You have other subdivisions, I was told not to bring this up, it has no bearing, but you have other subdivisions that have less backyard, less square footage off of Ann Arbor Trail then this lot I’m proposing. But that’s got all the lots small like that, I understand that. But if somebody wants to buy a house or whatever, they’re looking at that house, that property, and that’s what they want to purchase. For example – Jolly said let’s not get too far down here because I’m about done and I think you’ve made your point. I’ll just leave you with this, and I’ll leave everybody else who’s listening to this watching at home, what if everybody did this? What if five people did this, what if ten people did this in different houses and then the zoning becomes all for naught. That’s just it. I can’t give you my support. Mr. Bahr, I believe has the floor. President Toy replied yes, he does. Councilmember Bahr stated first of all, you seem like a great guy, frankly, all three of you seem like great people, you’re the type of people we want in Livonia. This is the type of neighbor relationship we want in Livonia. There’s a lot of things about this that’s really good. What you’ve done to your house to improve the property is the type of thing we want in Livonia. I think the lot that you have here is extremely 9 attractive and I do believe that, I mean I think you’re right, there are people that would take a house like that one with the small yard, I get all that. There is a solution for you and the solution is you continue to own both lots. I mean I know other people in Livonia that own double lots and have fenced around them as if they’re one yard. I mean that is the way to make it happen, that’s essentially what you’ve done. And you know, long term, I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know what the legal ramifications are but I imagine you could sell those two properties together if somebody wanted to. So there is a solution around this but from a long term planning perspective of the City, it just flat out doesn’t make sense. Again, with all due respect to you, and thank you for explaining this, you’ve been very competent and polite and I just appreciate you being here tonight. But with everything we talked about, I think we need to move forward with this. I’m going to offer a denying on this and I’ll offer that for Consent, if there’s no objection. Councilmember Kritzman stated if this did come back to us, I wouldn’t be on Council at that point, my term is up at the end of the year, but I look at it and I say alright, maybe there’s a middle ground between what you’re talking about. I mean you have stuff that’s already installed and in place, I’m not going to get into the legal ramifications of how that occurred and what not, because I would not be the expert in that case. But I too think your solution is too far reaching, it leaves that property on Robert with virtually no backyard whatsoever, almost an unsafe condition. Knowing that, is there an opportunity to take less, is there some proportion of Parcel 1 that could remain that would allow that parcel to still maintain the requirements and characteristics listed in R-1, instead of taking it so far as putting it into a nonconforming situation. And I think the only reason that has merit is because this is a unique situation where the roads bend and they come to a point. We’re not talking about a block that has homes on each side, and has a corner/corner situation. This is, you’ve got both roads curving and coming to a 90 degree, you have some weird spots in there. You have these pie shaped elements already so I think there is some bit of merit to some configuration in there that’s nontraditional and maybe a little less nonlinear. But I think your proposal as it stands currently is too far reaching. Trenkle stated he certainly would be amenable to something that wouldn’t encroach on my pool, but it still wouldn’t conform to your 110 foot setback, so Mr. Taormina would maybe have something to say about that. Kritzman replied that’s something that would have to be worked out with a surveyor and an engineer, someone who could look at the geometry of the property. Trenkle stated all the surveys have been done and that’s where all these figures came from, the surveyor that I paid to do surveys for three properties, it cost $2,100 but no, I appreciate that, sir, that there is a possible opportunity just to move that back a bit. 10 Vice President Jolly said what Kritzman suggests makes sense. Parcel 1, how you have the red lines so close to the house, move that line a lot closer to the pool, as close as possible, that still leaves you the situation that you want. What he’s trying to say and he’s saying it a lot more eloquently than I am, you’ve taken too much of Parcel 1 and incorporating it into Parcel 3. It would have to be far less significant and then it would be something that would be palatable and something that we could work with. Trenkle said he doesn’t know if you can see it on the picture but the square, the rectangle there, that’s a garden that we cultivate things on but if we could make it halfway back, which I think it’s 35 feet back, if we went in the middle at 17 feet, that should be what you’re suggesting. Jolly said what he would say looking at this, is if you took the edge of the garden that is as close to your house as possible, and ran the lines straight down from there because that still gives you the little bump out of the patio, or whatever that is there, but it leaves intact a significant enough piece of the backyard of Parcel 1 where that would be something that I think would be agreeable. President Toy asked to show where 120 is depicted on the picture on Parcel 1 and Taormina replied by saying he thinks what she is referring to is the lot depth, and the parcel, as I understand the survey, is deficient as it exists today. You’ll see the dimension of 115 feet, so what makes this lot conforming is it has the additional 10 feet of width. So, changing the split as was suggested to send points just east of some of those improvements that you’re referring to, I think it’s the patio, it will still result in a deficient lot depth that would require Council’s approval. The lot area may be complied there, I’m not sure, we’d have to do the math on that. But that would reduce the amount of deficiency substantially. The question is their willingness to compromise that much. The other thing there is that would more than meet the rear yard setback requirement for the house on Parcel 1 which I believe must be 30 feet. Now they’re showing 12 feet with this picture, moving that back at least 18 feet would comply with that. President Toy asked Trenkle if he understood what Taormina just said and Trenkle replied he thinks so that his lot is a pie-shaped lot, too, the one that he lives in, and he thinks that’s 8 feet or whatever, that’s what he’s saying, that would make the back 30 foot, sure. President Toy asked if he was amenable to that and Trenkle replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Bahr asked Bernie and Taormina if Trenkle were to pursue that, does he modify the current lot split or do we handle this one and he submits a new petition; what’s the best way for him to go through that process? 11 Taormina replied he would actually submit a revised survey for consideration at the next meeting or whenever you decide to postpone this. Bahr asked in Trenkle’s best interest to explore that, does he need to withdraw his motion and Toy replied yes, that he made the motion for a denying on Consent, did he want to change that? Bernier stated if you are considering doing this, you might want to put it into the Committee and have them come up with new plans, that’s probably the best way. Bahr said let’s do that. President Toy indicated to Trenkle to draw some new plans; this item will be sent to the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Bahr offered to send the item to Committee of the Whole for the Consent Agenda. Bernier confirmed that Bahr withdrew his original direction and Bahr replied in the affirmative. Councilmember McIntyre reminded Trenkle to be sure and get the water bill issue resolved. President Toy opened the floor for comments from the public. Bill Schmidt, 29688 McIntyre, came to the podium. He stated he lives down the street from the Trenkles and that they are very nice people. They keep their house and property up beautifully. The suspect house on Robert was a wreck until they bought. It was a really a wreck on the inside, there was mold, it was a terrible house. They bought it, they improved it, it’s a showplace. These folks have done marvelous things to the neighborhood and to their properties and anybody who lives near them just basks in their reflected glory. He urged everyone to swing on by and take a look at what they did. DIRECTION: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CONSENT 5. REQUEST TO RENEW MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT USING STATE OF MICHIGAN CONTRACT PRICING: Department of Management Information Systems, re: for a period of three years, from budgeted funds. Casey O’Neil, Director of Information Systems, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a renewal of the City’s Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for three years. This Agreement covers our licensing for Microsoft Office, Office 365, our Cloud-Based email, as well as our client server access licensing and we’re using the State of Michigan MIDEAL Contract Pricing and purchasing through Dell. 12 Vice President Jolly stated this is something essential that we need to conduct City business, and he then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 6. REQUEST TO APPROVE AN E-PAYMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT: Department of Parks & Recreation, re: to process ACH/eCheck and credit/debit card transactions at the Jack E. Kirksey Recreation Center, from budgeted funds. (CR 412-18) Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated he is requesting Council’s approval for a merchant agreement with CP Pay. This is for credit and debit card and ACH processing. This works in conjunction with our new Cloud-Based Recreation Management Software. This was approved previously by Council, Resolution 412-18, this is a sole source provider for us with credit and debit and ACH processing for the software. Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7. REQUEST APPROVAL TO ACCEPT FY 2018 ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $471,242 AND REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES, THE CITY’S SHARE OF $42,835.90: Livonia Fire & Rescue, re: for the purchase of radio equipment from sole source provider, from unexpended fund balance. Dave Heavener, Fire Chief, presented this request to Council. He stated he is asking Council to approve the acceptance of a grant award. In 2018 the AFG, Assistance to Firefighters Grant, we partook in a joint effort with sixteen other communities spearheaded by Dearborn Heights. That overall grant award came in at the end of the summer, beginning of the fall this year, in the amount of $2,439, 950, a portion of which is earmarked for Livonia. The total grant award for the City is $471,242.00 of which $42,835.90 is the City of Livonia’s share, a 10% match. That is going to be used to replace aging equipment that has either reached its life expectancy at 10 years or nearing its life expectancy. It is critical equipment, it is our communication equipment that is basically our safety net in all of our rescue attempts, firefighting capabilities, emergency medical services. They’re used, they’re abused in very high heat type of environments and it is an item that was going to go on a future Capital Outlay expenditure so the award of nearly a half million dollars is a huge benefit to the City of Livonia. The funds would be coming out of the 911 account that are unspent funds currently waiting for use. Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. He commended the Department and those involved in getting the taxpayers almost a 13 half a million dollars, it was a great effort and I’m sure they appreciate it, we appreciate it as well. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Public Service Division, re: to supply propane to the City, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Assistant Director of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated he is asking Council to award a contract for propane, they are using the Oakland County Liquid Propane Gas Delivery Bid that is good from now th through February 28 of 2022. They currently have sixteen pick-up trucks, twenty- six ZTR Mowers, three hot patch trailers, three forklifts, numerous barbecue grill tanks and heater tanks. The cost is 23 cents mark-up per gallon, this is 10 cents less than the State of Michigan price. The price is based on the NGL Marysville price which is the local version of the Texas Belleville price. The pricing will be sent to us each week so we are paying for the week it’s currently being billed per day and we do have our own 1,000 gallon fueling station at the DPW yard. Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 9. REQUEST TO APPROVE PURCHASE UTILIZING THE STATE OF MICHGIAN MIDEAL PURCHASING PROGRAM: Public Service Division, re: for one (1) Caterpillar Excavator 308RQ with a Trail King Trailer TK24LP for use by the Water & Sewer Section, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Assistant Director of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated this item was approved in the 2019 Capital Outlay budget; it’s being purchased for the Water & Sewer Section but it is available for the other DPW sections. It is used for water break repairs, sewer line repairs, trenching functions.. It’s more flexible and safer and easier to use for digging holes. It will be trailered to jobs in the City on the associated Trail King Trailer. We have one other like unit in the fleet and it lessens the need for the backhoes. It is being purchased through the MIDEAL program with the State. The cost for the excavator is $118,639.00; the trailer cost is $16,568.93; for a total cost of $135,207.93, and the servicing dealer is Michigan Caterpillar out of Novi. Councilmember Kritzman stated this is one of the items that is great to see us investing in and I know that operationally it will be of great benefit to your department. I just had an experience recently in our neighborhood where we had a water main break and I happened to be driving out of the neighborhood and saw it and being the responsible individual that I was, I stopped and texted my friend, Don Rohraff, out there and I know how fast that was taken care of but at the same time we did have two water main breaks in the City at the same time and so this 14 will give us additional flexibility. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10. REQUEST TO APPROVE PURCHASE UTILIZING THE STATE OF MICHIGAN MIDEAL PURCHASING PROGRAM: Public Service Division, re: for one (1) Caterpillar Skid Steer Loader 289D3 AQB for use by the Water & Sewer Section, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated this item was also approved in the 2019 Capital Outlay Budget; it’s also being purchased through the MIDEAL Program. We have one similar skid loader in the fleet. This will also be used by the Water & Sewer Section but will be available to the other sections of the DPW to use. It will be used for cleaning up water main breaks, cleaning up with trenching and digging issues and can be used to clear trails to sewer crossings. The purchase price is $72,434.45 and the servicing dealer will also be Michigan Caterpillar out of Novi. Councilmember Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 11. REQUEST TO APPROVE PURCHASE UTILIZING THE STATE OF MICHIGAN CONTRACT: Public Service Division, re: for one (1) 4-Wheel Drive Tractor with Utility Attachments, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Assistant Director of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated this item was approved in the 2020/2021 Capital Outlay Budget. It will be purchased through the State contract pricing between the State of Michigan and John Deere. It’s going to be used in the Park Maintenance Section for towing mowing decks, ball diamond maintenance, sidewalk snow removal. It will not increase the fleet. A New Holland Tractor circa mid ‘90s will be auctioned of or will be gotten rid of through the auction process. We will have three current units on hand. The auctioned off tractor has been stationed at the golf courses for the past ten years. The tractor that is being replaced will be moved out to the golf courses for them to share with us. The cost of the tractor unit is $43,035.05; the loader attachment is $6,696.50; the plow is $3,020.20; for a total purchase price of $52,801.75 and the servicing dealer will be Bader & Sons out of South Lyon. Councilmember McIntyre confirmed that this was coming out of the 2020/2021 Capital Outlay Budget and the rest of the items were out of the 2019/2020 budget and Moore applied in the affirmative. She then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 15 12. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO (2) ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER TRUCKS UTILIZING THE STATE OF MICHIGAN MIDEAL PURCHASING PROGRAM: Public Service Division, re: for two (2) F250’s and upfitting of vehicles, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Assistant Director of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated the two trucks were approved in the 2019 Capital Outlay Budget. The two F250 trucks are being purchased through the State Contract Pricing with Signature Ford out of Owosso. The animal boxes are being purchased through Swab Wagon Company out of Elizabethville, Pennsylvania. We did receive quotes from four companies with Swab being the most cost efficient for the needed items meeting our specifications. The trucks will be shipped to Pennsylvania for the animal boxes to be put on and then returned to us. Our current trucks do not meet our needs, they will be disposed of through the auction process. The new animal boxes will be more user friendly for the staff and will also include heat and air conditioning to minimize daily runs to the Humane Society. The cost for the trucks are $68,512.00; the upfitting with the animal boxes will be $40,140.00; and we will have approximately $4,000 for shipping for a total cost of $112,652.00. Councilmember Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Vice President Jolly stated this would be a good time to acknowledge the work of our two Animal Control Officers, citing his experience with them while he worked at the Court, and that they carry themselves in a professional manner at all times. President Toy asked if the current Animal Control vehicles have heat and air conditioning and Moore replied in the cab, yes, but not in the back where the animals are put. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 13. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AND APPROVE CONTRACT WITH GRAPHIC SCIENCES: Planning Department, re: for digital imaging services not to exceed $70,000, from budgeted funds. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated the Planning Department is requesting authorization to hire Graphic Sciences of Madison Heights, Michigan, for Digital Imaging Services. This is a project that involves scanning over 40 years of planning petition files and that includes about 115 banker boxes and 250,000 pages including plans, correspondence and minutes. All the files will be indexed, they’ll be converted to a format compatible with Laserfiche which is the software platform that the City uses to search and retrieve historical documents. Completion of this project will ensure long term retention of files and documents that contain vital information on properties and land development projects including zoning, waiver use, site plans. 16 Unit pricing is based on Graphic Sciences contract with the State of Michigan for scanning and microfilm services and as such we are respectfully requesting Council’s approval to waive the City’s competitive bid process. Last year the Inspection Department contract with Graphic Sciences to undertake a similar project that resulted in significant success. This proposed contract would be based on a not to exceed amount of $70,000 from budgeted funds. Councilmember Kritzman asked through the Chair to Taormina, does this get us closer to the site plan approval enforcement program that we’ve been kicking around for a while and he replied absolutely. No longer will they have to go retrieve these files from the basement and that sort of thing. Any member of staff will have direct access to the files at their fingertips. Kritzman stated that this is an item that once it is in place will be of great benefit to the City and this will give the Inspection and Planning Departments far easier access. I’ve said time and again we’ve run people through site plan approval process sometimes through the Zoning Board of Appeals, we run them through Planning Commission, and then through City Council. There’s often two approvals at Planning Commission, two approvals at City Council, and then things kind of get a little more difficult to manage, the more gets built out there and as things are modified over time, it gets very hard to enforce. So, having this digitized and categorized in such a way that the Inspection Department and those in Zoning and Planning are able to access it, it will help us enforce those conditions that are set forth in these approvals. So I think this is a great step forward and I will be more than happy to offer an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Vice President Jolly asked Taormina from an operations standpoint once these are all scanned will the hard copies be disposed of and Taormina replied no, they will most likely mothball those at a storage facility that is off site. They have the space available at the storage building behind the Police Station. There will be rare instances, I hope, that we have to retrieve certain documents, paper files that for whatever reason might not have been scanned accurately. We might need to get additional information from plans that we just can’t get from a scanned copy basically. That’s why at least initially we intend to save those plans. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 14. REQUEST FOR WAIVER USE EXTENSION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2017-08-02-09 submitted by Basheer Elhady on behalf of S.Y.B. Enterprises, Inc., requesting a one-year extension of all plans which previously received approval by the City Council on October 15, 2018 pursuant to CR 366-18, CR 367-18 and CR 368-18, in connection with a proposal to construct a gas station on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Inkster Roads (27430 Seven Mile Road) in the Southeast ¼ of Section 1. 17 Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a request for a one-year extension. This involves the construction of a gas station at the corner of Seven Mile and Inkster th Road. Council granted the approval back on October 15 of 2018, soon after in February of 2019 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted variances involved the lot area, building setbacks and parking. The action of the ZBA was challenged in th Circuit Court by neighboring property owners and on October 8 the Court affirmed the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision granting the variances. However, because of this delay resulting from the Court case the Petitioner was unable to secure any permits or commence construction and hence the reason he’s asking for the extension. I will note that the Planning Commission resolution adopted on th November 19 includes two additional conditions that were not previously part of the Council’s approval and those are number four and five, one deals with the current open status of the facility in terms of its environmental conditions and requires that that be addressed to the satisfaction of the Michigan Department of Environmental Great Lakes and Energy, or EGLE, as well as LARA. And then secondly, the Planning Commission wants to limit the hours of operation in this case from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. to minimize disturbance on the surrounding neighborhood, that was something that was not considered by the Council originally. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. Aly Bazzi, 30825 26 Mile Road, New Haven, came to the podium. He stated they are requesting an extension and he would like to address the additional items that were added on. In regard to Item Number 4, when we originally acquired the property back in 2008, we had an environmental company, environmental engineer, PM Environmental, to handle the Phase I, Phase II, is what we call in regard to determine any contamination on the property. Remediation took place, and continued to take place probably for approximately four years. We still are engaged with PM Environmental. We will get a full closure report, it’s part of the process that we go through with any property that we acquire or own. So that will be addressed fully as the Planning Commission requested and that will be addressed on our end during the construction phase. In regard to Item Number 5, I was not at the last Planning Commission meeting. Originally when we had this approved, our intent was to open 24 hours and based on the performance of the business, we would then determine whether we thought it would be feasible to stay open 24 hours or to limit the hours of operation. I would ask from the Council that Item Number 5 does not put a hindering factor on our progress to move forward with the construction phase of this project. He went on to state the last thing he would also like to address is that once they had the blessing of the Council we were moving full speed ahead to pull permits and to begin construction. Unfortunately of no control of our own, there was a Complaint that was filed as the Planner did advise here and obviously the City 18 Attorney was part of the case. We were kind of, I guess our hands were tied until this matter was resolved and once it was resolved we submitted our full plans for permitting the site, the timing of everything kind of put us in a situation where we couldn’t obtain permits and here we are today. Vice President Jolly said he would be happy to offer an approving resolution as provided by the Planning Commission. I think the hour restriction that they put in place is absolutely appropriate for that particular corner in terms of Seven Mile. To be honest with you I think the prospect of a 24-hour facility there is not something that would be welcomed or appropriate. President Toy asked how quickly the Petitioner planned on moving forward with the project and Bazzi replied they’ve already submitted plans to the Building Department for approval and to the County for Wayne County approval as well. So as soon as we get approval from Wayne County, then we go back to the Building Department get those approvals and any comments the Building Department may have in regard to any adjustments we need to make. President Toy wished him luck and indicated she had received a couple of calls on the property. Bazzi asked to address Jolly’s comment on the hours of operation. He said opening 24-hours from a business perspective gives then a sense of security, a sense of that there’s someone on staff if there’s any break-ins or anything like that, it’s kind of a deterrent. There’s a Seven Eleven that is open 24-hours. There’s another station on the other side in Redford that is also open 24-hours. I believe that the impact of us being open 24-hours is going to be minimal as to what the surrounding businesses are already doing. Jolly stated he would say the fact that there are two 24-hour businesses operating already on two of those four corners, is just more reason why I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask that your business be 24-hours and you are backing up to two residential properties as well, sir. Bazzi said he understands but also keep in mind that it was originally approved without the 24-hour consensus but through no fault of their own they had to go back and go through the process again. Jolly replied with all due respect, had he been aware at the time, I would have imposed something similar at the time that this initially came through. He said his motion stands, and he looks forward to you being a great business in the community, I think you will be. We went through quite a process with you initially to get this all squared away and you’ve handled yourself well throughout the process and I have to agree with the Planning Commission. 19 Councilmember Kritzman asked Taormina through the Chair, if he knows offhand if the other stations we’ve approved over the last however many years, it’s the 11:00 that strikes me as almost early, is that a common timeframe that we have put on other stations or is there a general consensus timeframe because I’d be interested in seeing what those are. Taormina replied frankly he’s not sure in what instances they’ve limited the hours for gas stations, he’d have to go back and check. I believe the hours came from a discussion that occurred at the Planning Commission Study Meeting when the question came up and the Petitioner indicated that they have many stores throughout their portfolio, many of which are 24-hours, some have limited hours from 5:30 to 11:00. So I think there are cases where he’s got stores where the hours are limited to that and that’s probably what the Planning Commission used as their basis at their Study Meeting, this condition; is that accurate? Bazzi replied that is accurate. The question was asked and we answered it. Kritzman stated all that aside, he’d still rather know what we as a community have imposed on other, so is that something you would mind looking into? Taormina replied he’ll take a look. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 15. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-10-02-15 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc., on behalf of Citizens Bank, to construct and operate a freestanding drive-up ATM kiosk within the parking lot of the shopping center on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road (19043-19053 Middlebelt Road) in the Northeast ¼ of Section 11. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this item is very similar to the project, the design that was presented to Council at the time of the rezoning and it is to operate this ATM kiosk for Citizens Bank in the parking lot of Mid 7 Plaza Shopping Center which is located on Middlebelt Road just south of Seven Mile Road. Just to recap on a couple of key stats, this is a site that’s about 5.36 acres. The shopping center is 56,700 square feet. The main tenants include Pet Supplies Plus as well as Planet Fitness. This kiosk would occupy an area at the south end of the parking lot. That area is roughly 20 feet by 90 feet in overall dimension. There would be approximately nine parking spaces removed in order to accommodate the drive- up kiosk. Parking for the center would still be in compliance with the zoning ordinance There is one aspect to the design that does not meet our standards with respect to drive-up facilities and that’s the amount of stacking. You’ll see the three vehicles shown on this plan, that includes the one vehicle at the ATM. The ordinance requires stacking of at least four including the one at the ATM, so they’re shy one space. The Petitioner, however, presented the information at the Planning 20 Commission meeting indicating that this condition is similar to other kiosks they have around the State and apparently does not present problems because they rarely get more than one or two cars at a time at these facilities. In terms of the design, they would restripe the parking along that side of the property. Here’s the design of the kiosk, I think it’s pretty simple to understand in terms of the scope of the project, it’s a canopy that overhangs partially on the driver’s side of the drive-thru lane. There’s signs on all four sides of this kiosk, that’s something that Inspection will look at and more than likely require variances and with that, Madam President, I’d be happy to answer any questions. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the project as proposed. Councilmember Bahr asked Taormina through the Chair, if he could refresh his memory, when have we seen this already? I know you talked about this, did this come here once and we sent it back? nd Taormina replied Council gave First Reading on the zoning on October 2, so you’ve seen this design. Where do we have these around the City? This would be the first one that I’m aware, and it would be a completely independent ATM kiosk without having a principal use located at the site. Bahr then asked to make it conform with our stacking requirement, is there any reason other than obviously the Petitioner not wanting to incur any additional costs, which I understand, but is there any reason from a parking perspective or anything why that couldn’t be done, just extend it down so that can be done. Taormina replied he would probably have to push the kiosk one space further to the east in order to accomplish that because he’s trying to use that drive aisle, so could it be done, yes, absolutely. Bahr then said but from the City’s respect there’s no issue it’s just he’s saying he doesn’t need it and Taormina replied that’s a fair characterization. Councilmember McIntyre stated she understands why we have stacking requirements for drive-up windows of all sorts; I also feel that a business knows its model probably better than we do and if they’re comfortable with the number of stacking, then I’m comfortable because it’s in the best interest of the business to have appropriate stacking. Because if there’s not sufficient space for the number of cars stacked up 80 percent of the time, then people aren’t going to do business there. And I remember when we approved the first free standing Starbuck’s, I can’t remember if it was Planning or Council, but there was a lot of discussion because the stacking I think didn’t conform with our requirement or recommendation, so I’m comfortable with this stacking even though it doesn’t match what we’ve required. I think maybe when we were looking at stacking requirements, there were fewer, the ratio of drive-up banks to teller windows was probably different than it is today. 21 And with more freestanding ATMs, I would guess you would have probably fewer cars. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. Ben Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, came to the podium and stated as was mentioned before about the stacking, we actually had the facilities pull numbers. They have 300 freestanding ATMS around the country and they looked at all of them and they have never had four in the queue. Rarely do they get three. And they feel here maybe they might get two, frankly that’s why we they proposed. And Ms. McIntyre, you’re correct, they did a lot of research to make sure that we got this right. Because you don’t want to have a problem to customers who are going to leave, they’re not coming back, if they’re inconvenienced, so yes, we did look at that very closely. I also did want to point out a couple of things. We did have a conference call this morning, their representative was supposed to be here. He called me about 5:00 o’clock and said he was shaking, he’s ill, he’s not feeling good and apologized to the Council that Mr. Gagel could not be here. I did want to pass on some information that we talked about, one is that the current branch is closed on Middlebelt north of Seven Mile, however the lease is in effect until June of 2021. So they are paying their rent until that time. The other thing that we discussed on the call today is the fact that Citizens still has three full branches in Livonia, the Five Mile and Middlebelt, the Merriman and Plymouth, and Six Mile and Newburgh, so they’re not abandoning Livonia, they’re still here. But this particular location has been difficult as far as making the numbers work. President Toy asked if they’re downsizing in other words. Tiseo replied well, at this location. The other branches are doing well. These decisions to modify, move are way up the food chain, some executive vice president makes those decisions, they rarely will consult down, frankly they look at the numbers. Jolly said they don’t ask the professors and Tiseo replied they don’t ask the professors; they don’t ask the architect. Councilmember Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 22 AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None As there were no further questions or comments, President Toy adjourned the Study Session at 9:34 p.m. on Monday, December 2, 2019. th For the 1,887 Regular Meeting of December 16, 2019 DATED: December 9, 2019 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK