Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-22 CITY OF LIVONIA — CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD JUNE 22, 2020 Meeting was called to order at 9:41 p.m. by President Kathleen McIntyre via Zoom remote technology. Present: Cathy White, Brandon McCullough, Rob Donovic, Jim Jolly, Laura Toy, Scott Bahr, and Kathleen McIntyre. Absent: None. Councilmember Cathy White led the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance. 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; Judy Priebe, Director of Legislative Affairs; Brandie Isaacson, Director of Housing; Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation; and Doug Moore, Assistant Director of Public Service. There was no Audience Communication at the beginning of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. BLOCK PARTY: Jim Rumell, Ray Franges, Pearl Franges and Ari Wilson, re: to be held Saturday, August 22, 2020, from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Brentwood Street, between Jacquelyn and Meadowlark, with a rain date of Sunday, August 23, 2020. Vice President Bahr stated this is a yearly request which has been ongoing for over a decade and offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE: Ashley Olds and Andrew Murray, re: to host wedding ceremony and reception with music in the backyard of their home located at 20269 Gillman Street, on Saturday, October 3, 2020, from 5:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m. Vice President Bahr stated he has one question for the Petitioners, that being if they had gotten their neighbors approval for this, and the Petitioners not being present he offered an approving resolution for the Regular Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 3. REQUEST TO ABANDON RYDER DRAIN: Douglas Boehm, Livonia Comfort Care, LLC, re: for drain on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, between Farmington and Stark Roads, (34020 Plymouth Road), in the southeast '/4 of Section 28. (CR 442-18) 2 Douglas Boehm, 16663 Country Ridge Lane, Macomb, Michigan, presented this request to Council. He stated this project was approved by the City Council about a year and a half ago and there are some new members on Council since that time. He said they are asking to abandon the Ryder Drain that is currently on their property and currently not in use right now. He stated he has Mike Spencer with him from Global Construction and Development and he would like Council to refer questions to him on the abandonment of the Ryder Drain. Councilmember Toy offered an approving resolution, stating that the drain is not being used. Councilmember Donovic stated he has driven by the project many times now and it looks like they're doing great work there. He then directed a question to City Engineer Zilincik asking why is this drain being abandoned and why has it not been used. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, replied he had not seen anything formally from the Clerk's office or through the Administration that they sent around to the Law Department, the Planning Department, the appropriate departments for comments on this just to make sure we're all in agreement to give a recommendation to the City Council for approval. This was put on the Agenda, but they want to get input from all of the different department heads to make sure there's no intended liability to the City, most likely it's not an issue, but he'd rather make sure they have their I's dotted and T's crossed by everybody, the Law Department, DPW, Planning, anybody out there to make sure that we get any comments back to Council to make an informative decision to make sure we're doing the right thing, and make sure it's in the best interest of all parties to make sure the information is disseminated to all departments from the Clerk's office, have all the information, or Wayne County is on board, too, and make sure they have no problem with this, a representative from Wayne County's Drain Office, too. He then stated he's not sure what the Petitioner's timeframe is. Mike Spencer, Global Development and Construction, stated he is the Operations Director for the project. He said the Petitioner called for abandoning the Ryder Drain, the Ryder Drain was a ditch that ran across the property that actually drained seven residences behind the property. To say it's being abandoned, it's being abandoned in a figurative way. They have a drawing into Wayne County and he actually thought it came from the City's Engineering Department, that they are tying a circus drain on the back side of the retaining wall around their property to facilitate draining the lot to the north of them. They had went around a couple different ways of trying to do that with the County and this is what we had come up, the plans are amended, they have been submitted and stuff but they're still going to drain the lot behind them because if they didn't do something back there, there would be a water problem. So there is exact locations on the drawing that are already out there. 3 Spencer stated that this project has been delayed over a month now and until they get the permit from the County, the manufacturer of all the underground structures, all of their catch basins, all of the piping and everything, they will not make anything until they have the permit number and they're still a couple weeks out on them making that, so yes, anything that delays it is being them further into fall which that just adds a lot of costs to their construction. We have all of our soil erosion, all of our permits through the City of Livonia are already in place, everything is paid, and we've got a check ready to give to the County once they get their approval so they can go. Councilmember Toy asked if two weeks would give Zilincik enough time and he replied that the Petitioner tried the Wayne County route, and it sounds like they got nowhere, and the City is trying to assist in that matter but he wants to make sure, he has a boss that he has to account to, the DPW Director, is there anything built on their side or anything that the City is taking over for liability, that he needs to review one at a time and it not being routed to all of the departments and he thinks it's in the best interest to make sure whatever information is on the document be routed to all of the departments and if you want to keep the approving until July 6th he has no issue with that, but if there's a problem the Petitioner has to realize it may not be approved based on information that's forthcoming by July 6t" would be beneficial to all. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 4. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL ON A PROPOSED LOT SPLIT: Department of Assessment, re: for the property located on the east side of Hillcrest Avenue, between Schoolcraft Road and Lyndon Avenue, in the Southwest '/4 of Section 23, (14060 Hillcrest) and to waive the property depth-to- width ratio. (Tax Item 46-091-01-0022-000) (Petition #2020-03-LS-02) Ben Baumgarten, 14060 Hillcrest, presented this request to Council. He stated he is the property owner of the proposed Hillcrest lot split. He knows of three other properties that have performed a lot split, the most recent constructed in 2015 at 14341 Henry Ruff. He has the notice signs put up and he has three questions about this before proceeding. He plans to put in a sewer and asked if the lot split request include an easement down the south side of the lot and if not, where should he go to obtain it. He then asked if a variance from the ZBA was required prior to starting construction on the new lot. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, stated that the easement question is something that would be reviewed at the time permits are submitted by both the Inspection and the Engineering Departments providing the necessary leads from Hillcrest over to the buildable portion of the site, that's the detail that would be reviewed at the time of permitting. With respect to the variances, if you're speaking strictly about the lot width and depth issues, that's something that is within the purview of Council. Any setback variances that might 4 be needed to construct a house on the proposed building site, that would have to be handled by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the lot width and the area is something that Council can waive if it's two/thirds majority vote. Baumgarten stated his questions were about the variance to start construction and what the setback and building dimensions are currently of the lot and asked if the setback and building dimensions would be with the ZBA? Taormina replied yes, that's correct. He said they don't have plans showing where the house is going to be located on the lot, if it cannot meet the required setbacks then that's something that the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to take up. Baumgarten stated he wants to have the ability for someone to build on it after the split and he is using the precedence of the recent lot splits and construction on the other properties to move forward with this and just wants to mirror what their setback and construction dimensions were. Councilmember Jolly clarified what the Petitioner stated about using the precedence to guide what you're requesting and what your plans are, and said the previous precedence does not rule what happens in this circumstance. The decisions at hand will be made independently given the facts that are before Council at this time. Precedent in regard to other decisions made has no bearing. We can look to that as advisory and we can look to draw some kind of conclusion here, but in terms of precedence, we're not bound by any precedence. Please understand that. Thank you. Councilmember Donovic stated the Petitioner did mention some past homes that were built, those homes that have been built that are similar to what the Petitioner is asking for, are those still R-U-F or are those rezoned to R-3 or R-2. Taormina replied there are roughly twenty-one lots located along the west side of Hillcrest between Lyndon and Schoolcraft that are similarly situated. Of those twenty-one, there are five that have been split. The history of those splits, some of those were done many years ago while a couple have been done more recently. Two of those five were rezoned to R-3. So the majority of the area is still R-U-F along the west side of Henry Ruff. Again, these are double frontage lots. They were platted that way back in 1949. Over the years the majority of those lots have been retained and their configuration as they were originally platted. But what we've seen over time is a handful of these be split in half, some of which retained the R-U-F zoning, others were rezoned R-3. The two that were rezoned R-3 was done in 2010 and 2011 respectively and those are further to the north of this property by several lots. None of these lots that have been split are actually contiguous to each other, they're kind of randomly along that side of Hillcrest and you should have some maps that illustrate what that looks like. 5 Donovic then asked about the additional stresses to infrastructure, we're talking about the east parcel and the west parcel, if there has to be an easement because he's using the stormwater or the sanitary in connection with the west parcel, does that add stresses onto the sanitary or would you in your professional opinion rather have multiple sanitary and multiple stormwater now for the homes. Taormina replied that he's going to defer that question to Mr. Zilincik but it's his understanding that sewer is not available along Henry Ruff so it would have to be brought to the site from Hillcrest and that would necessitate an easement across the westerly parcel to access the east parcel. Whether or not that presents any stress to the system, that's a question for Mr. Zilincik. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, responded that they won't know until they get the plans in there but he would say that either easements have to be provided and/or way of the sewer extensions and that would be on the proposed plan itself but obviously sometimes the cost may exceed the improvement value there and we'll see what happens but again we'll work with all developers the best we can as far as giving them options and then they'll figure it out and come back to us. Councilmember Toy stated it's not clear to her, is this gentleman splitting the lot for his own use or is he selling this lot if he can get it split? Baumgarten replied that he has someone, actually the builder who constructed 14341 Henry Ruff, he's in talks with him and he has desire to purchase it to build a similar home, so he would like to do what the builder had done, and he understands it's not based on precedence, he's just looking what was done in the past to help guide him through this. Councilmember Toy asked if he was going to own the lot and Baumgarten replied no, he's not. Vice President Bahr said he has a question on the zoning, since this Petitioner is just looking to do the split, if this property were to be rezoned R-3, would that come later or is that something that Council should consider now? He stated it makes sense to him that this be R-3, similar to some of the other homes based on what's across the street on Henry Ruff, but is that not even a question right now, that would come later? Taormina replied it is a question right now, it's whether or not it's appropriate or would be more appropriate to have the property rezoned as opposed to keep the R-U-F zoning and the deficiency as proposed. The R-U-F requires a minimum land area of 21,780 square feet. This lot as it exists today is about 23,900 square feet, so divided in half you would have to sites about 12,130 square feet in area, so approximately half of what the minimum required for the R-U-F. So, I think that was one of the reasons in the past the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected variances back when they had the authority to review these lots with the lot area petitions 6 and it only left one choice for the builders of both lots and that was to seek the rezoning as we've done in those two cases. So, I'll just point that out but your decision tonight should be whether to grant the relief which you have the authority to do or instead reject this and give the Petitioner the option of seeking a rezoning. Bahr then asked why not rezone this to R-3 and Taormina replied that the awkward part of that is the pattern that gets created as a result. If you look at the map you can see what's resulting from this piecemeal of development along the west side of Hillcrest, if you will. So what it does not represent is a cohesive pattern of development along the road and zoning for that matter. So again, it's addressing kind of a singular need for each one of these property owners and they get developed. So that's the awkward part of all of this, but then again it's a double frontage lot so that in and of itself is somewhat unique but like I said, it's been around since 1949. Bahr stated he thinks he sees a trend here, it may be a trend developing over a long period of time, and he thinks it's likely the City of Livonia will see more of these, and if we were planning Henry Ruff from scratch, these would be R-3 lots, that's what's across the street. Taormina said he would point out, if he may, the road has limitations itself. It does not continue through and I think Todd can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it has a full cross section all the way down to the site. So there are some infrastructure limitations with respect to the road in this area. Bahr then asked meaning with an R-3 it would require a wider road, is that the implication? Taormina replied that if you have, with additional development, should come the appropriate infrastructure to handle the lots. So if the thought is it should be R-3 all the way down Hillcrest and all of these lots conceivably could be developed in a similar manner, then we would have to have the infrastructure to support that. Bahr then stated he doesn't think we don't even have that option available to us, right, because those are all individually owned and they would have to be petitioned to be rezoned, we can't just sweep in and say it's all going to be R-3. Taormina said the zoning, actually there is a mechanism that can allow the City to initiate a rezoning of that property, it could be done either way, by the homeowners or by the Planning Commission or City Council for that matter. So there is a means to do that if that was desired. Bahr said he's not suggesting we do that. So, if Council were to approve this, then that approves all the variances that they're asking for as well as an R-U-F lot split and they can move forward. If we don't approve this, they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is that right? 7 Taormina replied if Council approves this in its full form, then the builder would have to construct a home that met all the setback requirements; if not, they'd have to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If Council rejects this, then their only option is to seek the rezoning and I think under that scenario the setback requirements are much less so it would be much easier to develop the site under the R-3 Zoning. Now, I'm not aware if there are setback variances for either of the other lots on this, that's something we didn't investigate. Bear in mind you've got a 50-foot front yard setback requirement and a similar rule on setback requirements, so the lot depth is only 127-feet, that limits the depth of the building envelope on the site. What does that mean, if they build a 27-foot deep home, that could be done but I don't know what the intention of the builder would be in this case. Bahr then asked if Council rejects this then the next action would be to come back with a petition to do a lot split and rezone it to R-3? Taormina replied yes, it would be a rezoning and then followed by a lot split, that's correct. Bahr stated the downside of that from the City's perspective is that there is weird looking zoning on the street, we've got these scattered pockets of R-3 among R- U-F, that's basically the downside. Taormina replied that's probably the only true downside, at this point in time, it's been done in two other instances along this street. Bahr then stated is what he's hearing it makes sense that this would become an R-3, is that what you would recommend? Taormina replied he's had this discussion with Mr. Fisher in the past and I know he supports the change of zoning over the lot split simply because it then creates conformity under the zoning rules and laws as opposed to nonconforming splits. The lots are nonconforming, they're nonconforming just the same, and from the purest point of view I kind of support that direction. Bahr then said he knows the Petitioner is still on the call, that he has no problem with the lot split, he'd like to see it rezoned an R-3 and he then offered a denying resolution. Councilmember Jolly stated he thinks this is the perfect reason to justify why Council has study meetings, that he agrees with Bahr and his analysis and what he's suggesting here. He's not opposed to ultimately this happening, but it needs to be done the right way and he would like to see that happen and requested that this item not be on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Donovic said he has absolutely no problem with the Petitioner building a home, he thinks it's a great idea. But I think maybe before this becomes 8 more normal in the future, there needs to be some sort of standard operating procedure and he thinks looking at what was in the Council packet it makes sense. We have two parcels, one is 127 feet now and another would be 124 feet if this lot split happens and he thinks making them R-3 makes much more sense long term and maybe sets that precedent for future homes that if this situation happens again, that future Petitioners know that this is going to have to be rezoned first. He apologized to the Petitioner if this makes it longer and extends his plans but that's the way new build works, we've got to make sure we do it the right way. Vice President Bahr offered it for the Consent Agenda if there's no objections. He stated to the Petitioner that if he comes for rezoning it sounds like he's going to have people that are amenable to that so this shouldn't be a discouragement here, it's just a different way of doing it. Baumgarten stated he was talking with Kathy at the Assessor's Department and she is the one that guided him down this path of doing it with a Rural Urban Farming split. He knows that the property directly adjacent to him at 14081, if you look on Google Maps it does have about a depth of 35-feet, so he doesn't know if there's a 50-foot setback variance is from the actual road or from the actual start of the property line. Because if they did it with Rural Urban Farming, then the building dimensions are what I need. But what he doesn't want, he needs to do that and then another, get another petition for a setback variance, he would like to do this with the fewest decisions if possible, so if the R-3 rezone is that pathway, then that's the way he wants to go. Councilmember Jolly stated he appreciates where the Petitioner is coming from here, and he thinks he's trying his best to accomplish this, but you may want to ask the builder who's interested to provide some assistance in regard to how to accomplish this. Particularly for the builder who built the house next door, they may have a very easy route to be able to assist you here. Does that make sense? Baumgarten replied that makes sense, but he's been pushing on me to basically do everything for him and I'm trying to have communication between him and the Assessor's Department while I was doing this and you guys, he is requesting that he wants the biggest build volume possible but I just want to get the build volume that's already been done on the street because I just want to conform with what prior decisions have been made. So he's asking for it, so I don't know if I'm going to need to petition to get the variance to even build on the Rural Urban Farming, but if the R-3 rezone is the way I can go, if it takes a few more weeks I'm totally fine with that, I just want to do it so that as soon as the lot splits that I plan --- I already talked to a contractor to run a sewer down the side of my yard and that plumber said he's going to get the permits necessary to get the easement and run that there for the sewage, so I'm willing to work with you guys. I want to go the path of least resistance and if doing the R-3 to rezone is the proper method, then that's the way I want to go. 9 Jolly said he is not intending to give you the impression that the City will not assist you here, but there's a lot going on here and I think you have a lot of tasks to accomplish here. You may be suited to get some assistance, whether that's legal assistance or some guidance from a builder or somebody who's gone through this process before. As I'm hearing you think about this and I think we've all heard you, I think your intentions are good, and I think what you also may want to do, I don't think you're going to have a whole lot of opposition from, but you're doing a lot of work here and it might be easier on you if you have some assistance, that's all I'm trying to say, best of luck to you. President McIntyre opened the floor for comments from the viewing audience. Lisa Oleria (ph) stated that there is a total of twenty-four houses on Henry Ruff Street from Lyndon down to the dead end. She has gotten fourteen signatures strongly opposing this lot split in five days' time and she knows with more time she is confident she could probably get all twenty-four residents to sign this petition. Everybody that she has talked to is completely against it. Also, they have a lot of concerns, the residents at 14060 Hillcrest originally wanted to put up a privacy fence which was denied by the next door neighbor. And now in spite of that, not getting the privacy fence, they want to split the lot. The other people on this street that did get their lots split, I believe two of them were grandfathered in and three of them had to prove hardship in order to split their lot like that. But basically she's pretty sure that she can get every single person on her street to strongly oppose it. Also, she already has fourteen people that signed the petition and another concern that they have is that the Petitioner is destroying too much of the natural wetlands in the area, they have a very quiet street with lots of wildlife. People bought these homes for the dead end area and the wildlife and a lot of people have lived here for a long time and for somebody who has only lived here a couple years and is upset that they didn't get a privacy fence to just turn around and split the lot, isn't very neighborly. Dawn Lucas stated she lives on Henry Ruff Street and wants to give some of the newer Council members a little history. The entire two blocks of residents from Lyndon to Schoolcraft have come before City Council a handful of times but you had to do this over the last twenty-some years and everybody has been opposed to this except for the Petitioner asking to split the lot. And one of the main reasons and I'm glad a couple just referred to the infrastructure, you need the infrastructure to support this. And I'm sure there's notes that are in the City Council archives where someone has come up before, but there were some problems. And the people on Hillcrest had to come and point out, one woman behind one of the two houses that did push this through, one of the Hillcrest neighbors had to come and point out she has pooled water and sometimes flooding anyway and she said that the sewer lines and the water wouldn't support this. And also the City people had to get involved, you all may know about that. But I just want to make sure that the infrastructure will support new housing because we were told that it would not. And another thing, our electricity goes out a lot, at least twice a year on this street, 10 sometimes for up to five days and we've had to throw freezers full of food out. So Edison came a couple years ago and put heavy duty lines across from our house, our view, it's the backyard of the Hillcrest but I don't see how — this is going to be in somebody's front yard if you go ahead and approve this house being built there. But most of all our concern is that as somebody just said the road itself on Henry Ruff has limitations and we just had our street kind of paved to a two-lane road from a one and a half lane road and I believe it was to accommodate the other house that was built there. But the main thing is we've all come to City Council and said we don't want Henry Ruff Street which is a dead-end opened up to accommodate these new houses. We have two schools on our street. There's Roosevelt on Lyndon and there's Riley on Five Mile and we live on a dead-end street. But if you start putting houses here and you have to open this street up. We had the pastor from the church on Schoolcraft come personally and talk against putting this open — I know my time is running out but we don't want that road opened up. Everybody already came and told City Council that, even the school administrator said that would be a disaster. So of those two houses that were put up, there's no cohesion, there's no uniformity, it's mish mash, you got a ranch, you got a big lot. A lot of people on Hillcrest are upset, they don't want to build on it, they like their big lots, they don't want to build a house on it. So you've got a ranch that was forced in there by description, or the two-story, everybody who does this moves, they don't stay in their Hillcrest house. So you put up a two- story house on Henry Ruff and it's looking down on the ranch on Hillcrest and both of them have such short backyards now, that nobody's happy and as the people on Hillcrest sell their house and sell the piece of property to have it built on. So it's a money grab and from our view, like I said, there's no uniformity. You have the ranch, you have the large lot of a person that wants to keep their backyard, then you've got a two-story, then you have all land. And now Mr. Baumgarten, so he's going to sleep in another house right next to the freeway and it's not uniform. I've got some more points but I know I'm out of time but I think I got most of the main ones in, so thank you for listening. Mr. Miller stated he has one concern and that is he lives on Henry Ruff and he does not want Henry Ruff opened up to the highway, that would create a lot more traffic. Mrs. Miller stated her concern also is with the development of the road. If this home is put up there, the current road would not probably support the development of the home, it's a one-lane or one and a half lane street that as pointed out earlier was improved with the two houses further north. And we talked a lot about roads on Gary Lane and how construction traffic would damage the road and she thinks building a home, a lot of the construction traffic would damage Henry Ruff and then we'd have to go back to square one to have to improve Henry Ruff so she doesn't really see — she loves the quiet, she just walked down there today and it was so nice and peaceful and quiet and they really don't want to see this street have to be opened up to prevent our enjoyment of the neighborhood. 11 Tim Wirick, 14168 Henry Ruff Street, stated that basically everything that his neighbors have just said are reasons why we shouldn't do this. He's lived there for twenty-some years, and they've had problems with people wanting to develop and exactly what was said. They sell the lot, build a house, then they move out and we're left with everything else. This hodgepodge development, you know, a street that can't support it, and they like their street the way it is, he doesn't see why it can't stay the way it is, and he doesn't know why more houses need to be put there just because somebody wants to make a buck out of it. President McIntyre reminded the audience that what they have offered is a denying resolution on the floor. Ben Baumgarten, Petitioner, stated he is sorry, he didn't mean to inflict stress on anyone in this request, he'd just like to make a point. He did not request to put up a privacy fence, he doesn't know where that came from, and he has no intention of requesting or extending Henry Ruff all the way to Schoolcraft, those are unrelated. DIRECTION: DENYING CONSENT 5. REQUEST TO APPROVE NEW LEASE AGREEMENT FOR FOX CREEK RESTAURANT: Parks & Recreation, re: with increase in lease payment for the first five-year term and two options to renew for an additional five years each. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated they are asking City Council to concur with the Parks and Recreation Commission, they passed a resolution at their last meeting asking for an extension of George Murphy's doing business as Coach's Corner, for three five year options. Five year rent goes up, you can see of approximately $7,000, subsequent increases will be based on the Bureau of Labor price index, and we acquire some additional documentation moving forward every year regarding maintenance. Mike George and Coach's Corner and George Murphy's before that, they have been a great community partner, we don't see any reason why we wouldn't continue this relationship, it's been successful and we've enjoyed it. Councilmember Toy offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 6. AWARD OF BID: Livonia Housing Commission, re: for Glendale Archery Range Project, to be funded by the 2019-2020 CDBG Program. (CR 178-19) Brandie Isaacson, Director of Housing, presented this request to Council. She stated she is requesting approval to award the Glendale Archery Range Project to Genoa Contracting, LLC, in the amount of$50,625. Initially back in 2019 the Community Development Block Grant Program did approve a budget of$60,000 12 for neighborhood revitalization which typically includes parks, landscaping, infrastructure improvements, commercial/residential blight and feasibility and planning studies. So this year they thought that they would tackle some ADA or accessibility issues at some of the parks and currently at the Archery Range, the accessible turf is made of mulch and dirt, and they would like to pave those areas with concrete and make them more accessible to those that are disabled or have mobility impairments. Councilmember McCullough offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7. AWARD OF BID: Public Service Division, re: for a two-year contract for the City's Vegetation Control Program, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Assistant Director of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated they are asking to spray weeds at City buildings, some of the sports fields, the Schoolcraft fence line, Five Mile and Farmington Road, and Six Mile Road islands near Newburgh. They've broken the pricing up between two contractors that gave them the best options for the pricing. Vice President Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AND APPROVE PROPOSED 2020 JOINT AND CRACK SEALING PROGRAM (CONTRACT 20- D) BY EXTENDING CONTRACT 14-D UNIT PRICES WITH MICHIGAN JOINT SEALING, INC.: Engineering Division, re: same. (CR 36-19, CR 176-18, CR 98- 17, CR 261-16, CR 163-15 and CR 283-14) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated they are asking Council for approval of a contract amount of $125,000 based on the 2014 year prices, again appreciating Michigan Joint Sealing coming in, taking advantage of it, and they plan on going out for bid next year. Vice President Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 13 9. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AND APPROVE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE: Engineering Division, re: for the 2019 Sidewalk and Pavement Replacement for Water Main Breaks at the DPW Fleet Maintenance Building (Contract 19-F) for an additional amount not to exceed $20,000.00. (CR 180-19) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated they had $40,000 earmarked for repairs around the DPW building, luckily the DPW Road Division was able to do some work behind the building with their own forces for a generator pad so that saved some money obviously inhouse. And they cut the budget from $40,000 down to $20,000 to do just the threshold as part of the bay doors in front of the Fleet Maintenance Building. A lot of them have been rotted out and they want to make sure the doors close properly. Now is the time to get that done before fall when they have to get the equipment out, get everything all changed over and for snow, so they're asking for Council's approval in the amount of $20,000 to have Joe Rotondo Construction do that work now most likely in the summertime here before winter and fall sets in to go ahead and get that taken care of for our friends at the Fleet Maintenance Building for all the efforts and what they do to maintain our vehicles. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Vice President Bahr asked what the cause of the cost lowering was and Zilincik replied they decided to do just 18 feet outside the door instead of doing the entire area, so they want to make sure they enclose the doors properly and do what's necessary in front of that bay door. Part of it was some of the work was done inhouse and some was reduced because they limited the scope of the construction. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None heard Councilmember Toy commended Brandie Isaacson and Ted Davis for their attention to the disabled members of the Livonia community for the work at the Archery Range. As there were no further questions or comments, President McIntyre adjourned the Study Session at 10:46 p.m. on Monday, June 22, 2020. For the 1,900t" Regular Meeting of July 6, 2020 DATED: June 26, 2020 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK