Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-08 CITY OF LIVONIA – CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD MAY 8, 2019 Meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m. by President Laura Toy. Present: Jim Jolly, Brandon Kritzman, Scott Bahr, Cathy White, Kathleen McIntyre, Brian Meakin, and Laura Toy. Absent: None. 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; Curtis Caid, Chief of Police; Brandi Isaacson, Director of Housing; and Mayor Dennis Wright. Councilmember Brandon Kritzman led the meeting in the Pledge. President Toy announced that the Rotary Club and the Clarenceville Foundation had reverse raffles and did an outstanding job raising money for both of those organizations that are very active. She congratulated both parties on their success. Vice President Jolly talked about the recent loss of long time Judge and former Councilman of the City of Livonia, Judge James R. McCann. He was patriarch of a prominent family in Livonia and somebody who literally pulled himself up by the bootstraps and lived the American dream and all along the way offered many opportunities to others in the City of Livonia and the people that live and work here were oftentimes the beneficiaries of those opportunities. He then asked for a moment of silence in memory of Judge McCann. President Toy sent condolences to the McCann family. She then stated there is New Data on Items 7 and 12. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: During Audience Communication Chief Curtis Caid came to the podium and spoke about a story that was in the local media about Livonia being the second worst driving community in the state. He stated he went to the source of the information and found two sentences that tried to define that. He then read the second of the two sentences “Livonia is surrounded by safe drivers in neighboring cities, but with Ann Arbor Trail and Edward Hines Drive weaving through Livonia, drivers are likely to move through them with reckless abandon.” He said he was given that as justification of stating it was the second worst driving community, He then indicated the article cited Holland as being the worst driving city. He stated he felt the content of the article was frankly nonsense. Councilmember Bahr stated his wife had read that article to him and the metrics utilized in the conclusion was how often people are stopped. He said if you read between the 2 lines what he took away from that article was that Livonia has really effective Law Enforcement. The content was totally different than what the headline indicated and it was one of those articles used for quick bait to attract readers. NEW BUSINESS: 1. BLOCK PARTY: Amanda Duke, re: to be held Saturday, June 15, 2019, from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Louise Street between 17137 Louise Street to Bobrich, with no rain date requested. Amanda Duke, 17200 Louise Street, presented this request to Council. She stated th they are requesting permission to have a block party on June 15 and also to block a portion of the street off for the safety of the little ones running around and darting from house to house. She introduced her daughter Lily who wore a new dress to come down to the Mayor’s office. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2. REQUEST TO WAIVE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT: L.J. Jakupi, President, Arvati Design Build Co., for the single-family home to be constructed at 20005 Osmus Street. L. John Jakupi presented this request to Council. He stated they are proposing a new house on this property located at 20005 Osmus and that they are requesting a sidewalk waiver mainly because it appears that only one property south of their property doesn’t have a sidewalk and the rest of the properties north all the way to Eight Mile don’t have a sidewalk so it’s more of a practical matter, there being no benefit to putting a sidewalk in when the majority of the homes don’t. Councilmember Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 3. REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT FOR A FIREWORKS DISPLAY BY GREAT LAKES FIREWORKS TO BE HELD AT ST. MARY’S CHURCH FOR THE TH 11 ANNUAL MICHIGAN FEST ON MAY 31, 2019, WITH RAIN DATES ON JUNE 1, 2019 AND JUNE 2, 2019: Fred E. Sackllah, Festival Chairperson, St. Mary’s Church, re: same. Jimmy Ajluni, Finance Committee Chairman of St. Mary’s, presented this request to Council, 23017 Willowbrook, Farmington Hills. He introduced his colleague, Abe Raskala, co-chairperson of festival. He stated Father George sent his greetings and paid his respects to City Council, as well as Valerie Knol, Councilwoman in Farmington Hills. He stated they are present to answer any 3 questions about the fireworks they are requesting. He said Council has the completed application which has all of the information related to the fireworks, the insurance, the resume’ of Great Lakes Fireworks Company and the layout of the display at Bryant Park. He said it’s identical to what they did last year and that Fred Sackllah, Festival Chairperson, spoke with Fire Inspector Keith Bo today and that Bo stated he did not have any major complaints from last year, that things went very well. They heard the same comments from the Police Department and would welcome any questions Council may have. He indicated a representative of Great Lakes Fireworks is also present and can answer questions as well. Councilmember Meakin asked if they had received permission from the School Board and Ajluni replied they had sent a request but had not received a response yet. He went on to say that if permission is not received, that they would not proceed with the fireworks as they own the land. Councilmember Meakin then offered an approving resolution for the Regular Agenda. Vice President Jolly inquired on the length of the fireworks display and Ajluni responded it is a 15-minute show. Councilmember Bahr asked if there is a financial benefit in having the fireworks display and Ajluni replied they do it just to make it a great festival and giving back to the community. The neighbors that live adjacent to the property commented that they all enjoyed the fireworks. th President Toy stated that last year’s request was presented as a 10 Anniversary celebration and inquired if the fireworks will be done annually so to answer any questions of residents should they come in. Ajluni stated the whole intention is to show that they are part of the community and provide an event that people will be proud of. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 4. REAPPOINTMENT OF DAVID BONGERO TO THE LIVONIA PLANNING COMMISSION: Office of the Mayor, for a three-year term, which will expire on June 9, 2022. Mayor Dennis Wright presented this request to Council. He said he is asking for the reappointment of David Bongero to the Livonia Planning Commission. He stated that Bongero has been a welcome addition to the team and would like for him to continue on the Commission. President Toy asked Bongero if he liked his position and he replied he truly enjoys it and has learned a lot and would like to learn more. 4 Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5. REAPPOINTMENT OF GREGORY COPPOLA TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Office of the Mayor, for a six-year term, which will expire on June 7, 2025. Mayor Dennis Wright presented this request to Council. He stated that he is asking Council to approve the reappointment of Gregory Coppola to the Economic Development Corporation, that he has done a great job and would like him to continue for a six-year term expiring June 7, 2025. Coppola stated he appreciates the opportunity to serve the community and stands ready and willing to jump in when meetings are called and thanked Council for the appointment. Councilmember Meakin stated the purpose of this group is an important task that they have in Livonia. He stated Coppola is also Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals which meets quite frequently and he does a wonderful job on that Board as well and thanked him for his service. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 6. PETITIONS TO WAIVE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT OF SIDEWALKS BEHIND FOUR (4) HOMES AT WASHINGTON PARK SITE CONDOMINIUMS: Christine Eskander, Lori Julien, Rob Morgan, and Chirvag Parikh, requesting an amendment to the approved site plan for Petition 2016-01-02-01 submitted by Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C., for homes located at 9361, 9371, 9379 and 9387 Liberty Ct. (CR 151-16) Christine Eskander, 9387 Liberty Court; Chirvag Parikh, 9361 Liberty Court; Rob Morgan, 9379 Liberty Court; Lori Julien, 9371 Liberty Court came to the podium. Councilmember Meakin asked through the Chair to Engineering if these are the four homes closest to Ann Arbor Road that they’re trying to eliminate and Zilincik replied in the affirmative. Meakin then stated the sidewalks are no longer there and there is really no necessity for the sidewalks to go along the back of their property and he then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Eric Wurmlinger, 9220 Liberty Court, came to the podium and stated that he got a text about 20 minutes ago to show up here as a representative of the newly elected homeowner’s association even though they haven’t officially taken over, they are still in negotiations with the builders. He said they have met on this issue and totally support and would only ask that the caveat that the two lots that already 5 have fences in, that the fences be moved back to the appropriate property line if this is approved. And further, the homeowner’s association would also like to see some type of barrier on Knolson, they are uncertain what the Engineering or Planning Department intends to do with that cut-through that comes into the property. He said he is a recycled resident as he lived in Dover Estates for twenty years, moved to Chesterfield Township, and upon retirement couldn’t wait to move back to Livonia so he is very familiar with that cut-through and his children all attended Washington Elementary School at the time. He stated those are the comments he would like to make on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association. Vice President Jolly thanked him for coming out and stated that some of the comments and things that he brought up, that Council doesn’t really have the authority to dictate as part of this. Any stipulations that he is requesting would have to be worked out with either the builder or the property owners who own those properties. Councilman Kritzman stated that what Vice President Jolly is conveying is when the item gets to Council, those property lines and boundaries have already been established by the Applicant. The Applicant in that instance was the developer, which it sounds like the Homeowner’s Association is currently in final negotiations in takin over control of that, so that would be something that would be initiated on the Association’s end as the HOA or it would be initiated by the developer. The Law Department, the Engineering Department, the Planning Department are all there to help facilitate that process and it may have to come back to Council because does that become a modification of an approved site plan or is that something that can be approved administratively but that would be initiated by the developer. He stated he thinks it’s in the best interest of those folks on Lots 42, 43, 44 and 45 to push for that, because without that technically they wouldn’t own that little back portion of what they would think of as their properties. So now that this sidewalk is being vacated and you do have the opportunity to naturally extend those property lines as they would have been extended to the outer property of the overall development, now is the time to go do that but that is something that should be initiated by the developer, working hand in hand with their civil engineering team, they’ll likely have to develop an alternate site plan, present that to the Engineering Department, and I’m sure they would be able to take a look at any easements or other things that would need to be dealt with at that time. Wurmlinger thanked Council for the clarification and stated that is their biggest concern, who is going to take care of that little piece of property back there as they are again negotiating, so to speak, with finalizing the items. Kritzman then indicated without going and modifying those property lines of Lot 42-45, that little strip would likely be the responsibility of the Association as opposed to the individuals so it would probably be long term and in the best interest of the Association and the developer to go ahead and modify that at this point. You get out of having to do the sidewalk, you get out of having people walk through 6 back there, you get out of having that in the back, but you still have a little extra leg work to do to get this thing tied up. Wurmlinger again thanked Council for the clarification and stated that that wasn’t exactly the way it was explained to the Homeowner’s Association but he will carry that back to the group. The owner of Lot 45 came to the podium and stated she is holding off on her fence for the reasons that were just stated, she doesn’t want someone walking behind her property and she was trying to hold off until the property lines are changed with the Master Deed in the City. She indicated she has been working with the builder since September on this and it will be closed off and they are all planning on taking care of the area behind and extending it as part of their property lines but they can’t do anything until all of the paperwork is completed and the Master Deed is finalized by the builder. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, commented that as far as the maintenance of the property, easements were mentioned but there are also utilities out there from telecommunication companies that they have got to be cognizant of if they install a fence and how that is impacted, obviously call Miss Dig, but there are utilities that are back there that have to be accessed and that has to be part of the equation, too. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF 42 IN-CAR CAMERAS WTH UNLIMITED CLOUD DATA STORAGE: Division of Police, re: to provide in-car recording within police vehicles for a period of five (5) years, utilizing grant funding and budgeted funds. Curtis Caid, Chief of Police, presented this request to Council. He stated this item is the second phase, the final phase of their transition that partners with their body work camera system. The current in car camera system is the I-COP, and that has been in place since 2012, it has been a good system, it served them well, however that company is no longer in business and parts for it are not accessible. Going forward, utilizing the body camera format that they have through Axon and the interoperability of the in car camera system and the body camera system, it only makes sense to continue with that process. The Axon in car system, much like the body worn camera system, has triggers that will activate on different levels that they set, whether it’s speed of the vehicle, emergency equipment. The body worn camera also has activations that occur without the officer having to manually do that. Triggers, if you will, one of which would be removing their taser or moving their side arm. In addition to that, which is also very beneficial for them, is that if a number of officers arrive at a particular location or scene, all of their cameras automatically sync and activate from their different perspectives to capture all of the activity that is going on at that particular situation. 7 In addition to that, Axon has worked with Plymouth to allow the metadata from their CAD system to integrate with the video system of both the in car and the body worn cameras. So, if everything goes well, and they’re sure that it will, and Axon has been in the business for some time with very large departments, Grand Rapids is one of the largest in our state, but L.A. and many others, New York, they have a proven product. In addition to all of that the artificial intelligence that is coming around the corner for this type of equipment is quite frankly a little scary at times, but they’re confident that this is the best move for their officers and staff and community in moving forward with this in car system. Currently they have twelve or sixteen cars that do not have any in car system in it because of various failures and we will immediately begin to retrofit and outfit their fleet to bring them up to par with their body camera system. As mentioned, with their body cameras being Axon, they’ve had experience with different manufacturers and vendors and the interoperability or lack thereof and safe reporting that occurs when there’s failures, again, they feel this is the best thing to move forward for the Department and the community and they are asking City Council to waive the bid requirement for this project. Funds are budgeted for this purchase, it’s a five year contract with Axon, the total of the contract is $331,547.20. Again, funds are budgeted, they are working with their insurance carrier, MMRMA, to access RAP grant funds to offset some of that to a degree at least. They believe they’ll qualify for $30,000.00 in RAP grand funds from their insurance carrier. He stated they are asking for Council’s approval to proceed with this project and would be happy to answer any questions Council may have. Vice President Jolly stated that every time he has an opportunity to talk to an officer as they are wearing their body cams, he always asks them how they feel about it or how it’s working out. Universally they say it’s a great addition, a tool that they utilize and they rely upon at this point. He went on to say that when they first looked at this system, it was indicated that the use of Evidence.com would be a substantial savings in terms of man hours, in terms of providing discovery and going through preparation for trial and that sort of thing; has that actually been realized, that savings? And I’m sorry to bring this up but I’ve heard from other constituents in the City, mainly lawyers who practice who are local people, and they say that they have not seen that necessarily in terms of a cost reduction in terms of discovery or the ability to access the videos on Evidence.com via a link necessarily as was initially thought. Chief Caid stated that is news to him as far as having any issues in accessing that data with anyone seeking, whether it’s through subpoena powers or otherwise. The only hiccup that he’s aware that they’ve had with that is coordinating with the 8 Wayne County Prosecutors Office and with their office in determining different platforms that they were accepting. To the best that he knows at this point has been worked through, where they’re going to contract with Axon for Evidence.com and allow all of their video evidence to go into that platform and then access it. As far as the benefit of Evidence.com and the redaction and the ability to get this data seemingly it has been, it’s proven itself to be beneficial and timesaving which is in turn money in realizing those goals. The ability, speaking of the in car camera only, it’s such a different system and the time that it’s necessary to access the in car. If they are looking to access a short incident currently, it takes hours to access that data from their server and then have to trim it down to burn it onto a DVD, and then provide it to whether it’s a defense counsel, if it’s in car. The body worn which through Axon is much different and much more comprehensive and which will be the same as well for the in car. They have found that the Evidence.com platform has been very beneficial for the Department, not only with the audio and video of their body worn, but other evidence as well that they upload to that platform and that he anticipates that certainly there’s no reason to think that they wouldn’t have the same success. He indicated he will look into that complaint. Vice President Jolly responded it’s not a complaint, but that he overheard this from other people and he wanted to make sure the City was experiencing the savings that they had anticipated, that’s the moral of the story, and you’re saying we have. Caid replied they have, just the caveat, of course, that they get Freedom of Information requests and there’s more and more data for people to request that information so there’s more and more requests which require more and more time. But the system in place, the redaction, the ability to access the data requested, it’s top notch. City Attorney Paul Bernier stated that he deals with it on a daily basis, and that the problem that he sees most of the time are some of the more seasoned defense lawyers who may not be as computer savvy as some of the younger ones. And quite frankly, their equipment is not up-to-date enough to access it and they don’t know how to use their computers is the problem. So when they come to court and once I show them how to use it, they don’t have the same problems that they have. In fact, once they learn how to use the system, they love the system. He stated from his perspective it saves a lot of money because he is constantly bugging the Police Department and rather than burning discs and sending them over to him which may take two days, within 10 minutes it’s electronically sent to him and he can view what they’re talking about. So from the Law Department, there was a huge savings in time and of course time is money. Vice President Jolly then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember McIntyre indicated her approval for this and stated that the information for the body worn cameras was presented well and broken down for 9 Council to understand it before their approval. She then asked Chief Caid if he sees anything coming down the line to improve the other in car technology with the in car computers that officers that are on patrol have to do so much manual intervention and pay attention to that and the situation and sometimes the suspect, does he see something coming similar to how the body cameras and the technology have really improved the ability to use and get data? Chief Caid replied that technology, referencing cell phones and how much that has changed and how much it changes year to year even, and what they have today, having a computer in your pocket essentially that allows them to communicate. On the Police perspective and Law Enforcement, those same technologies and accesses are ever increasing and when he referenced artificial intelligence and facial recognition and other things that are there for Law Enforcement and in other aspects as well is present to some degree but as things get tuned more there is a lot coming forward. Dictation is an example, and this is an exciting thing, especially for their officers, where currently they’re taking notes and taking information and interviewing complainants, witnesses, suspects, whatever it may be to a crime or an accident and coming soon the body camera is on and the officer is asking certain questions, as the questions are being answered, they’re literally being filled out through the computer, through the dictation of the person being interviewed and the blanks are being done without the officer having to type in any data whatsoever. And all there is it’s a check and balance, ensure that it’s accurate and you push the button send and it’s there. The ability for the folks inside the police building to access whether it’s a body cam or in car camera and view real time, maybe a slight delay, but view real time what’s going on at a particular scene. It’s incredible. Again, year to year the advances that are made and again, almost kind of scary in all of that. And it’s something that we watch and keep track of regularly but it’s really amazing how things have --- I think about my career, started now 40 years ago and how we did our job then to what we have now and the access of information and data, it’s just amazing, amazing. Councilwoman White commented that the Prosecutor Platform Feature that this has, having formerly served as a prosecutor, I know that our City Attorney mentioned the benefits of this video link that you can get and see these via email so that we no longer have to have an officer come over to our office or their office with a DVD. Not my office anymore. The other thing is with this unlimited Cloud storage does that mean that no longer are there any issue as to how far back you can go with this information if you file either a Freedom of Information Act or a Discovery Request or are there still issues with how far back you can go with at least as we’re captioning those images today and with this system, will you still be an issue with that? Caid replied that Evidence.com it’s unlimited, however the amount of time that we maintain data, because I don’t want to say evidence necessarily, but the amount of time that we retain data that has – that is not case specific or is not evidence, by our policy that we will remove and I can’t cite the years, I think it’s five or seven 10 years before we’ll remove that data and that may not be exactly accurate. But we will not keep data indefinitely. We will keep data that is specific to crimes, specific to incidents that are applicable that have an evidentiary necessity, and other than that we’ll keep some of that data for a period of time and then remove it. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2019-20 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG); ANNUAL ACTION PLAN DRAFT AND BUDGET; AND REQUEST TO APPROVE HOLD HARMLESS CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF LIVONIA AND FIRST STEP, FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT, WAYNE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, CRUZ CLINIC, HEGIRA PROGRAMS, INC., ASCENSION ST. JOHN HEALTH SYSTEMS, STONEBROOK COUNSELING ASSOCIATES, PLLC, AND CITY OF LIVONIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES: Livonia Housing Commission, re: in connection with the operation of a domestic violence victim assistance program; for the purpose of providing fair housing; and for the mental health counseling program provided for through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs for the 2019-2020 program year. (CR 52-19) Brandi Isaacson, Director of Housing, presented this request to Council. She stated she is requesting approval of the 2019/2020 Community Development Block Grant Fund Program. They were before Council in February requesting approval of a proposed budget. The Department of Housing and Urban Development typically doesn’t give them their allocation until April, they received that last month, so now they are back with their final numbers. This program actually provides services for the City of Livonia’s residents providing homeowner rehab, low income grants, mental health counseling, utility allowance assistance, transportation, fair housing. They also use it to participate in the First Right of Refusal Program with the County, to demo blighted properties or to rehab and we actually purchased a property for Livonia Public Schools for their trades program, so it is a very large stth program. This program will start July 1, 2019 and end June 30, 2020. President Toy stated they have the domestic violence victim assistance program, too and Isaacson responded yes, First Step. Councilmember Meakin offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 11 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Engineering Division, re: for the 2019-2020 Sidewalk and Pavement Replacement Program - Water Main Breaks – Contract 19-F, for a two (2) year contract. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated that his Department went out for bids for a two-year contract, Contract 19-F, to replace and repair water main breaks that occurred over two different phases. The first phase is from October through April, we’ll complete those repairs by July. Then the water main breaks that occurred from April through September, will then be completed in October before the leaf season starts. They went out for bids, the bids varied from $438,000.00 all the way up to $804,000.00, and there were three bids rd received that were opened on April 23 through MITN. The lowest bidder was Joe Rotondo Construction who’s a local contractor and they are looking forward to completing the repairs through the next two years. He stated he is asking City Council’s approval to award the contract to Joe Rotondo Construction in the amount of $438,069.00, consisting of about $200,000.00 of repairs each year for the water main breaks that have occurred. Councilmember McIntyre offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda and she thanked both Zilincik and Taormina for working on the event that was held that day. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10. REQUEST TO AMEND ENGINEERING CONTRACT AND REQUEST ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE: Engineering Division, re: for Phase 2 of Five Mile Road (Merriman Road to Middlebelt Road) Water Main Replacement Project. (CR 365-16) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated his Department is requesting Hubbell, Roth and Clark to help them out in the second phase of this project with construction engineering services and administrative services in the amount of $95,120.00. In addition they had to repackage the plans for Phase 2 from Merriman to Middlebelt and they are looking for their design costs in the amount of $12,000.00, the total amount being $107,120.00 in an effort to replace a 12-inch water main that obviously has reached its life expectancy, there have been numerous water main breaks along that corridor and they want to ensure to provide reliable water for the businesses along that corridor, Merri-Bowl, Kroger, those are very important to the City and he is asking for approval to have Hubbell, Roth and Clark as the engineers for this project. Councilmember Meakin offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 12 11. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Engineering Division, re: for Five Mile Road Water Main Replacement Project – Phase 2, from Merriman Road to west of Middlebelt Road in the amount of $1,056,905.00, from the Unexpended Fund Balance of the Water & Sewer Fund. (CR 303-16) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated there th was a mandatory pre-bid meeting held with HRC on March 27, the bids were th advertised on MITN for three weeks and they were opened up on April 16, 2019 with five bids being submitted, that varied from $1,056,905.00 all the way up to $1,743,008.30. The successful bidder was B & B Water and Sewer from Canton, Michigan, who originally did the Phase 1 back in 2017 and they are asking Council’s approval to approve them for Phase 2 and construction, if approved, would start time mid to late June and be wrapped up most likely early November, again to replace about approximately 4,000 lineal feet of 12-inch water main along the north side of Five Mile between Merriman and Middlebelt. There is a small section in the middle that was replaced previously back in mid-2000, so that portion near the school will be exempt but they intend to start from the Merriman side and work their way east towards Middlebelt. Councilmember Meakin offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 12. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2018-12-02-24 submitted by KAC Livonia, L.L.C., to construct an addition, increase the number of service bays and renovate the exterior of the existing automobile and truck repair facility (Kirk’s Auto Care) located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Merriman Roads (31390 Plymouth Road) in the Southwest ¼ of Section 26. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated the property that is the subject of this petition as indicated is at the northeast corner of Plymouth and Merriman roads. The site is zoned C-2, General Business, it’s a little over 1/3 of an acre in size with 90 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road and approximately 160 feet of frontage on Merriman Road. Automobile, light truck repair facilities are classified as a labor use. This property was originally approved in 1977 as Livonia Brake Center. Currently it operates with three service bays within the building. The building itself is about 1,790 square feet and as you can see from this aerial photograph, it’s located somewhat centrally on the property. The current owner/operator of the business would like to expand the service area to the north of the existing building by adding two bays. Originally this came to the Planning Commission showing a three bay addition, but after considerable discussion and tabling, the petition was modified to reduce the size of the addition. Now, there’s about 1,020 square feet, a reduction of about 390 square feet over the original proposal. It’s a little taller than the existing building, it’s about 18 feet 13 as opposed to 14 feet, this is to accommodate the vehicles a little more easily. The setback of the addition would be 60 feet which does comply with the ordinance, however, because the existing building is nonconforming with respect to its setback along Merriman Road, this will have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval for constructing an addition to a nonconforming building. In terms of parking, the ordinance requires two spaces per workstation, plus one for employee. This equates to about fourteen required parking spaces which is exactly what is shown on the property. Again, a lot of discussion regarding how vehicles are parked on the property, Mr. Lee is here and can describe what he normally goes through on a business day but the resolution that was approved by the Planning Commission does restrict total parking overnight to fourteen vehicles within the designated spaces as shown on the approved site plan and you can see what those look like. Lastly, with respect to the building itself, the existing building would be refaced to match the addition using a burnish block material and another composite type of material, I believe that is what would appear to be the siding on the building. All of that would be consistent. The pylon sign that is on the property that is also nonconforming would be removed and as proposed replaced with only conforming signage as restricted by the Planning Commission. PRDA, I believe you should have in your notes, recent review and recommendation on behalf of the Plymouth Road Development Authority with respect to this property. Also indicating that the sign should be removed, the nonconforming pylon sign that is, as well as maintenance of the existing landscaping since this site is rather sparse with respect to landscaping, it’s pretty much limited to what the PRDA installed several years ago but does need maintenance. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. Christopher Lee, 90 Lawrence Street, Detroit, thank you for having me. He stated as Mr. Taormina explained, they are looking to add on two additional service bays to our existing building with the goal of being able to get cars in and out more quickly. At this point they do end up with a backlog because they only have the three service bays and so we’re actually looking to do this in order to be able to alleviate some of the parking issues that we have had on the site. They had originally submitted a petition to put in three additional bays, but after some discussion as far as parking and dumpster placement and everything, they decided to go with two. But one of the reasons for the addition being a taller building was so that one, that they could accommodate slightly taller vehicles, and two, so that they could as far as parking after hours goes, be able to stack vehicles, so they’d be able to actually park one vehicle under another one on a hoist in those bays where the way they’re set up right now they are not able to do. He stated they have been wanting to do façade improvements, the building is quite old and dated and they’ve been wanting to do façade improvements for a long time but they 14 wanted to coordinate that with being able to create a much more usable space for ourselves, too. Councilmember Kritzman asked what Lee’s role was and he stated he’s the owner of the business. Kritzman then asked if he owned the property as well and Lee responded that he does not but there is a purchase agreement to purchase it in about a year and a half. Kritzman then asked when he purchased the company and Lee responded about three and a half years ago, end of 2015. Kritzman then stated he’s familiar with the site, he’s familiar with the property, he’s walked through it and he has spoken with the previous owner and he believes he’s had some repairs done there so he understands well how this addition could be of great benefit and he thinks this is a nice step forward for the business but he does have a couple questions regarding the design. As the Petitioner indicated, the existing façade has a great deal of wear and tear on it and it’s in need of a little bit of love. Mr. Taormina has placed the rendering up on the screen, can you tell us what you intend to do with the Plymouth Road façade? This appears to be an all new exterior façade material unless you were planning to paint it. Lee replied that this is an all new façade material, it’s a burnished block which is basically like a high end concrete block, comes in a lot of different colors and different grains and it’s like a polished surface. So the siding itself is what is referred to commonly as rain screen in architecture speech but it’s basically a composite siding, like a wood look siding. Kritzman asked if that is a fiber cement board and Lee replied no, it is actually composite. If you think of like a Trex decking, composite decking type of material, it’s similar to that. Kritzman then asked if the Petitioner is intending to add the burnished block on top of the existing concrete block and Lee replied in the affirmative. Lee then stated that the addition would be constructed with actual standard concrete blocks that were made or that are burnished on the face, so the existing building will look just like it’s a full cinder block but it’s actually more of a tile. Kritzman then asked if Lee intended to replace all of the front doors as well and Lee replied at least two of the three. One of them is a newer door that they had replaced a few years back but the other two, yes. At this point they may end up just getting all three of them but the two doors, the center door and then the door that’s furthest east, yes, those would bot get replaced for sure. Kritzman stated he is quite surprised that they are adding the burnished block which he thinks is great because his thoughts when he first saw the project come 15 through, was the intent was to either sandblast the paint off of it and paint it a new color or he wasn’t quite sure how it was intended to be handled. He indicated that the documents that get brought to the City, that becomes their contract, their legal document that binds you to the agreement, there’s a nonconforming situation here and he realizes that this could be a great benefit to the Petitioner as an operator. He went on to state that contextually it fits well into the area and it will be a nice addition for it and that certainly anything that helps clean up that property is going to be welcomed. He added that he has some angst about not having a fuller understanding of the building materials, it’s not from lack of understanding as he is an architect himself, they deal with it week in and week out, every site plan approval that comes before the Council, there are varying levels of detail. He said in this instance he doesn’t feel there is a whole lot of details and what they typically like to see is the actual materials being called out and a greater understanding of what materials are being selected as opposed to simply saying rain screen or something generic and asked the Petitioner to provide Council with a little more information about the color palate and the materials, they would be able to give a little more feedback. Lee said he actually does have samples, that he brought them to every other meeting, including the PRDA as well, but did not bring them tonight. The concrete block is Grand Blanc, a product from Grand Blanc Cement and he’d be happy to furnish those. Kritzman stated from his perspective he likes the direction that the project is going and that he’d like to offer an approving resolution for the Regular Agenda and to bring the materials. Ideally what he would like to see is an updated drawing that shows a little bit more detail right on those drawings, the floor plan, those elevations, if you can put those elevations on those drawings that becomes the contract. President Toy thanked the Petitioner for improving the building on Plymouth Road. She’s been on that road for 41 years and there’s a lot worse buildings that are sitting out there and she appreciates his investment in that corner. Councilmember Bahr thanked the Petitioner for his flexibility and reasonableness on his part in working through this project. During Audience Communication, Richard George, 30303 Plymouth Road, 31250 Plymouth Road, 11700 Merriman, 11680 Merriman, 30830 and 30805, came to the podium to address Council on some concerns he has. He commended Christopher Lee for making some good changes to the original site plan, but still has some valid concerns. He stated that even though the Petitioner is trying to make Plymouth Road better, and he agrees with him, make his business better which he agrees to, of course. He went on to state he feels the Petitioner is putting a 50-pound brick in a 5-pound bag. He stated the business is booming already and can he really handle what he has now, yet he wants to make it bigger, bring in 16 more cars. He said he brought pictures that shows that his parking lot is on a daily basis either over full and very crowded on a very busy corner. So, his concern is, although he’s beautifying the neighborhood which he likes, it just seems that he’s trying to put a 50-pound brick on a 5-pound bag. One very important concern is there is a sewer problem there that George himself has been maintaining for the last twenty years, between C & C Underwriters and himself, his two homes behind it, his building to the west of it and Chris’ sewer water it’s going to the north and draining into what he maintains and own and he doesn’t believe that can handle any more waste water because there are problems there monthly. One thing he would like to see regardless of what happens here, is he’d like to see that problem repaired, fixed or changes. Both parties have talked to the Water Department and it’s something the he would hope that a stipulation be made if it is approved. Again, if the Petitioner is going to increase the business there, please realize that he’s going to need more than fourteen spaces and he thinks it’s unusual that Livonia would let somebody overbuild, it’s nonconforming, the parking spaces will be insufficient as soon as he puts up two more spaces, then he’s going to have two more mechanics, so it’s a concern of mine. My property surrounds that property and I think if he could just find some deeded parking, he thinks that would help the plan. But again, the sewer problem, he hopes this Council will address before anything is approved. President Toy asked George if he is selling any property behind the Petitioner’s property and George replied that it is not for sale but he did offer it to Chris but he’s not interested. He stated he can’t sell the property piecemeal because it’s a three piece parcel. The property all behind the Petitioner is now going to be one building parcel, so if there is a wraparound, there will be an entrance on Plymouth Road and an entrance on Merriman Road and if that is done, the system, they won’t be able to build on the property because the system is under the center of the property and they maintain it, they own it, they tried to give it to the Water Department about sixty years ago because we had a problem there we had to dig it all up, he thinks they spent $17,000.00, so they claim ownership and the City has no easements so perhaps if they all work together, C & C Underwriters and Chris might be able to solve that problem. But again, he would hope the Council would make that a stipulation. President Toy asked if C & C Underwriters is the house behind his property and George replied that C & C Underwriters is directly east of the Petitioner and then George is directly east of that and if you go to the north, the house directly north of his property is one of his properties and the other home is his property, so they surround that corner. He stated if Lee is interested in working with them, they would be happy to work with him and stated for the record it’s a situation that will not hurt him financially because he made it clear that they could give him a land contract and there’s income on the property already. George said as a City of Livonia not only a resident and businessman, the Petitioner is trying to put too much in a small piece. If the Petitioner can get deeded parking somewhere and he does already because Lee is walking across his property which he objects to. 17 George went on to state that he thinks the Petitioner needs more parking to increase that property, it’s nonconforming, he wants to put a 50-pound brick in a 5-pound bag. He asked Council that his main concern is that Council not make him a utility and have to supply to them for something that he shouldn’t have to because it’s wastewater. Councilmember Meakin asked through the Chair to Zilincik if the City has any jurisdiction over the sewer line that George claims is private and Zilincik replied that he would have to get with the Water Department and Tom Wilson and see what the status is or the history on that, that he doesn’t know offhand. George stated there is no easement there and it’s on his property and the Water Department seventeen years ago said thank you but no thank you. President Toy stated she heard the Petitioner say he didn’t own the piece of property for maybe another year and a half and perhaps that’s a consideration to take into account. Lee stated they have a signed purchase agreement for the end of 2020 so he will be purchasing the property then and the water problem was not brought to his attention until he went before the Planning Commission, that he had no idea that was a private sewer. Lee went on to say he’s been talking to the Water Department, Tom Wilson specifically quite a bit, too, and so there are a few different options on the table between putting a whole new line in up Merriman or an easement on existing line. Councilman Bahr asked George to clarify the properties he owned. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 13. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-02-02-01 submitted by Wade Shows, Inc., to conduct a carnival in the parking lot of Sears, sponsored by the Rotary Club of Livonia, consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions from Thursday, May 16, 2019 through Monday, May 27, 2019, inclusive, on property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Middlebelt Road (29500 Seven Mile Road) in the Southeast ¼ of Section 2. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a recurring petition and this year’s event really matches what’s been done in the past, it’s for a duration of twelve days, running th from Thursday, May 16 to Monday, May 27, 2019 and all other aspects of the petition are the same relative to timing, hours of operation, set-up and breakdown and location of all of the facilities including the carnival location on the Sears property as well as the temporary housing located on the southwest corner of the parcel. 18 Councilmember Bahr stated that Council has worked the kinks out of this petition over the years, it’s been this way for a few years now and worked pretty well. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Meakin commented that in looking at the dates for the event, that th the approval that would be required would be slated for the Monday, May 20, 2019 Regular Meeting of Council which is in the middle of the event and how did that happen. Joanna Hardesty, Wade Shows, Inc., stated she didn’t know that until tonight when th they heard that the next voting meeting was May 20. Councilmember Meakin asked Law if he had any suggestions for Council to resolve this matter and City Attorney Bernier replied no. President Toy suggested they could call a Special Meeting of Council and further discussion was held. Councilmember Kritzman stated that he doesn’t think Council wants to set a precedent of straying from their standard meeting cycle to accommodate things like this, however, he does feel in this instance – and I don’t know the cause of the timing – but I think we’re all sitting here kind of wondering how do we move forward from here. I look at it as though this is something that has been recurring for years now, it’s a mistake that it’s here now, and I don’t know where that started, but if there is a way to accommodate this request I think it is in the best interest of the City. This is an event sponsored by Rotary which is obviously one of our important community service groups, I’m certain there are a whole lot of things already set up in place, on its way, packed up in a truck maybe and on its way over here. If there’s an opportunity for Council to accommodate this request, I think it’s in the best interest of all of us. Councilmember Bahr stated he appreciates Councilman Kritzman’s comments th and spoke about the meetings being held on the 15 being well attended by Council and asked if a resolution needed to be made and Bernier responded that a resolution could be made to have the Special Meeting and that he will have it checked on the next day but that he did speak to the Mayor who stated if there was any need for any kind of nonveto, the Mayor said that he’d be happy to sign that. Councilmember Bahr asked President Toy if she thought there would be an issue just to keep things clean, this will be a very short Special Meeting, should they just do it at 7:00 that night and do the Committee Meeting following that and President Toy responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Bahr then offered a resolution that a Special Meeting be held on th the evening of May 15 at 7:00 p.m. 19 Councilmember Kritzman asked for clarification through the Chair and perhaps to the Law Department, the format of the resolution that was put forth was to have a Special Meeting scheduled. Do we need a separate resolution to offer approval of the motion as it exists and Bernier responded in the negative. Councilmember Bahr stated they need a resolution approving this matter and Bernier replied he assumed that was on the table already, so that would be the two resolutions, one is to approve this, and two for the Special Meeting. Councilmember Meakin stated there is a precedent for this procedure going back in his days of the Jaycees back in the early ‘90s, they had a similar problem when they had a carnival at DRC and the Council did offer a Special Meeting to allow us to do it, so it’s happened before, thank goodness it hasn’t happened in 25 years, but it has happened before. Bernier stated to his recollection as long as four Council members call the Special Meeting, you can have the Special Meeting. Vice President Jolly asked Clerk Nash for the resolutions that were on the floor and she restated them. DIRECTION: 1) APPROVING CONSENT 2) SPECIAL MEETING 14. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-03-02-02 submitted by Leo Soave Building Inc., to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single-Family Clustering option (Capri Court), consisting of sixteen (16) site condominium lots, on properties located on the west side of Farmington Road, between Norfolk Avenue and Eight Mile Road (20209, 20219, 20225, 20235 and 20307 Farmington Road) in the Northeast ¼ of Section 4. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated the Council is familiar with this site and the project, th Council gave First Reading to the rezoning of this parcel back on February 4, it’s a rezoning petition involving the five parcels from R-U-F to R-1. The total land area involved in this case is roughly 4.7 acres located on Farmington Road. As you recall the Petitioner submitted a conceptual plan at the time showing eighteen lots, that was referred to or actually it was twenty lots at the time originally. It was referred to the Committee for discussion. The Petitioner went back, worked out with the owners to the south, homeowners, a plan that reduced the number of homes to eighteen and that resulted in a combination of lot sizes, on the north side of the street those shown under that plan were 50 feet in width and the ones shown on the south side of the street were 70 feet and then there was the area between the proposed homes on the south side and the existing homes in the subdivision to the south, that would be separated by a storm water detention basin. The Planning Commission reviewed that plan, it went through their review and there 20 was concern regarding the mismatching in the lot sizes between the two sides of the street. And as a result the Petitioner elected to remove one more lot on the north side of the street, thereby resulting in the total of seventeen lots. And you’ll note on the plan there’s a mislabeling on what should be Lot #16 is labeled as Lot th #17. The additional 17 homesite is actually located outside of the condominium, it’s that last property or actually the first property as you enter the street on the south side. So there are a total of seventeen lots under the current plan. The lots on the north side are now 58 feet in width as opposed to 50 feet and mostly all other aspects of the petition remain the same compared to what you looked at a couple of months ago. Landscaping plan was included with the application, the Petitioner is proceeding through working with the Engineering Department on all the requirements necessary for the storm water detention basin. The Planning Commission has approved this design and a number of conditions were imposed as part of that approval. And with that, I’ll answer any questions you might have, thank you. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. Sam Baki, 38901 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150, came to the podium. He stated he is present on behalf of Mr. Leo Soave. As Mr. Taormina mentioned, they did go through a lot of meetings, through the Council, through the Planning Commission, and with the neighbors. And to make everybody happy and I guess I can thank the Planning Commission for giving us some different ideas in a way to work with us on it, to make us do some changes in which we did accommodate what they wanted, which is we lowered the lot quantify from a total of eighteen to seventeen to make them happy and to make the project look a little better. And at the same token, we still met with the neighbors more than one time and they all saw everything we’re doing and they’re satisfied with what we are presenting tonight. President Toy stated that she commended Mr. Baki and Mr. Soave for meeting with the neighbors because when this first started, you’re absolutely right, it got a little messy. And I know a couple of them that I’ve known for many years, I said call them and they’ll work with you and you’ve done that and I appreciate that and I’m sure the Council does because tonight we don’t have an audience. Not that we don’t want neighbors here but we certainly don’t have a lot of upset, frustrated people and I appreciate your indulgence on that. If more petitioners would do that, it would make things go a lot smoother. Thank you. Councilmember Bahr stated he has a few questions. He said we zoned this R-1, and I know it’s the R-1 clustering, R-1 zoning requires, without a question requires 60-foot lot widths, right and Taormina responded that’s correct. Bahr went onto state that it never ceases to amaze him how we had all these neighborhoods built with consistent lot sizes and yet suddenly every neighborhood that comes to us now, it just doesn’t make financial sense unless we squeeze more houses in there. But since you’re only two-feet short, I won’t give you a hard time about 21 that. And I know you’ve already taken out not one, but three lots from what you originally said. You originally said there had to do twenty. Bahr asked Taormina for clarification on the last lot on the south side, it is or is not part of this condo development? I know in the Planning Commission meeting it wasn’t but then I think there was maybe some thoughts that it was. Taormina replied that it has been referred to by the Petitioner as an out parcel. I do not believe that it will be described as a unit within the condominium, however he has indicated that the owner of that property will share in paying dues and will have to abide by all other conditions of the Master Deed and Bylaws, building and use restrictions relative to the design of the house, the size of the house, the materials that are used, etc. So, effectively it would appear that it’s part of the condominium but legally it would have a description that falls outside of the condominium. Bahr asked if the reasoning for that is one, it’s just a timing issue that allows them to build a model there sooner by keeping it separate, and then there was the drainage and Taormina responded it’s his understanding that it’s a combination of those two factors. It allows them to proceed sooner rather than later with the construction of the model home but it also removes any doubt as to the size of the parcel with respect to the storm water management calculation. Councilmember Bahr then said to Bakki that the plan he has in front of him doesn’t show the home footprint that is to be built on that lot, that out lot. He then asked is it going to be just a home with an extra deep backyard and Bakki replied yes, and that Soave does that so he can create a model while the development is going in so people can look at the product, that’s one. Bakki went on to say the other main reasons, like Mr. Taormina mentioned, a Wayne County requirement which was passed as a law over twenty years ago, anything over five acres goes under the hundred year storm instead of the ten year storm. Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember McIntyre requested it be put on the Regular Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION During Audience Communication Larry Kwiatkowski, 33410 Norfolk, came to the podium and said he appreciated City Council and Planning looking at this property and getting very constructive, and asking the property owners to take a good, hard deep look at everything and they came about to the property owners’ benefit and to the City’s benefit as well. He said he saw the homes that were planned on this site and they look great. He stated he is one of the neighbors and that they have 22 met with Sam and Leo probably five times already and everything has been positive and he commended them saying they’re looking out for the neighbors’ benefit and their own benefit. They wouldn’t be doing this if it wasn’t a profit, and they all understand that. He stated he is in full agreement with what they’re doing and the other neighbors probably didn’t hear about tonight’s meeting, they had been to all of the Planning Commission meetings and they were there in full force last time and everyone walked out in real good spirits. He thanked Council for their time and is looking forward to a positive commitment. President Toy thanked him for waiting to the end of the meeting and the nice comments he made. As there were no further questions or comments President Toy adjourned the Study Session at 9:49 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2019. rd For the 1,873Regular Meeting of May 20, 2019 DATED: May 15, 2019 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK In accordance with Title II of the American with Disabilities Act as it pertains to access to Public Meetings, the City Clerk’s Office of the City of Livonia, upon adequate notice, will make reasonable accommodations for persons with special needs. Please call (734) 466-2236 or email clerk@ci.livonia.mi.us if you need assistance. Council agendas are available on the City’s website – www.ci.livonia.mi.us - under Government, City Council, Agendas.