Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-23 CITY OF LIVONIA – CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by President Laura Toy. Present: Brandon Kritzman, Scott Bahr, Cathy White, Kathleen McIntyre, Jim Jolly and Laura Toy. Absent: Brian Meakin. 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; Mike Slater, Director of Finance. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION: Sean Griffin, Board of Directors, GEAR-Giving Every Athlete Resources, re: as required by the State of Michigan to obtain a Charitable Gaming License to allow raffle fundraisers in the future. The Petitioner not being present, Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Regular Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 2. APPOINTMENT OF NICHOLAS LOMAKO TO THE LIVONIA BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Office of the Mayor, re: for a term which will expire on November 24, 2022. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated that Mr. Lomako is the Mayor’s choice for appointment to serve on the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. Taormina indicated he has known Nick for many years, he has a vast amount of experience in the planning profession, he’s a graduate of Michigan State University, 1977, and also achieved his Master’s of Public Administration in 1983 from Wayne State University. He has spent most of his career as a professional community planner with Wade Trim & Associates. He is married to Kathleen Lomako who is the Executive Director of SEMCOG. Taormina stated the Mayor has chosen very wisely in this particular case and is happy to have him serve on the Livonia Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. 2 Councilmember Kritzman stated he has known Nick on a professional level for ten to twelve years now and that he is well regarded in the planning community and in his longstanding position at Wade Trim as one of the principles there. He went on to state his wife is also very active in the community and runs with himself and Councilman Jolly at Park Run. He stated that Lomako has a great deal of knowledge regarding planning and community planning and will be a great asset to the City. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Lomako stated it is a wonderful opportunity to serve on the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Board, something that he is looking forward to doing. He said he retired from his planning/consulting world after forty years of consulting in December and he came to see Mark Taormina, Director of Planning, expressing an interest to give back to the community at that time. He stated he and his wife have been Livonia residents for over 35 years now and it’s a great place to live and something he wants to contribute to to make sure it continues to be a great place to live and do business in. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 3. REQUEST TO EXECUTE CHANGE OF INVESTMENT OPTION FOR THE CITY OF LIVONIA’S 401a AND 457 RETIREMENT PLANS: Department of Finance, re: to replace the Ridgeworth Large Cap Value Equity Fund (STVZX) with the Ceredex Large Cap Value CIT Fund (CIT), and to adopt a rule delegating the authority to the Livonia Board of Trustees to determine the selection and use of investment funds for the City’s 401a and 457 Retirement Plans. Mike Slater, Director of Finance, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a two-part request. Based upon the recommendation of the consultant for the City’s 401 and 457 plans, they’re recommending that City Council authorize a change in investment option. It’s in essence the same type of fund with the same managers and a nearly identical portfolio but at a lower few so it saves costs to the participants in the plan. Then along with that, they’re also requesting that City Council, as is allowed by ordinance, delegate the authority for selection of funds for the 401a and 457 plans to the City’s Board of Trustees so that each time this happens it doesn’t have to come back to City Council. Vice President Jolly asked what he was referring to as the City’s “Board of Trustees” and Slater replied that is the Pension Board, but their formal name is Board of Trustees. Jolly then offered an approving resolution on both items for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: A) APPROVING CONSENT B) APPROVING CONSENT 3 4. REQUEST TO APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LIVONIA AND THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MDOT): Engineering Division, re: for the installation of a traffic signal mast arm and the signal painting work at the intersection of Highway Old M-14 (Plymouth Road) and Tech Center Drive, with the City’s portion to be 100% of the estimated cost of $69,400.00. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated as Council knows they want to keep enhancing the PRDA Corridor and this has been a long term efforts by the Board to get the mast arms installed at Tech Center Drive. MDOT has been working diligently to get the mast arms and traffic signals upgraded along that corridor including Sears Drive. He stated they met last year and now they’ve provided a contract to the City requesting the amount of $69,400.00 to put mast arms, similarly to what was done previously at Levan Road a few years back, to help upgrade that corridor. They’re looking for a deposit of $27,800.00. This is a time sensitive contract and they’re looking for approval at th the October 7 Regular Meeting and then ask for a nonveto letter to get this moving forward. There are five communities, they’re improving the traffic signals, and Livonia is one of them and appreciate their efforts to improve the corridor and make it safer and looking for Tech Center Drive to have new mast arms in 2020 and some upgrades at Sears Drive in 2020. Councilmember Bahr asked Zilincik since this is an agreement between Livonia and the State and yet Livonia is doing 100% of the costs; what is the nature of the agreement? Is it because the streetlights are our responsibility but the road is their responsibility? Zilincik replied that we’re paying for a decorative mast arm to go in each quadrant, so typically then with the street name signs, so we’re trying to do what we did previously at Levan Road. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5. VACATING PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-07-03-03 submitted by City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 242-19 and Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate the south 33 feet of Surrey Avenue, located south of Graytona Avenue in the Northeast ¼ of Section 28, to facilitate the relocation of the entrance and exit gates to the City of Livonia Department of Public Works complex. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a request to vacate a small section of public road right-of-way. It is Surrey Avenue. It is located south of Schoolcraft, just west 4 of Farmington Road. This section of Surrey currently terminates at the City Department of Public Works, part of the overall redevelopment of the site at 13335 Farmington Road for the new administration building for DPW. This section of Surrey terminates right at that property and it has been determined as part of the site plan that it’s no longer needed and will actually serve a beneficial purpose towards the redevelopment of this property by allowing the City to install control gates at that point that will limit ingress and egress to employees only into the backside of that facility. It does not adversely effect public utilities and as recommended by the Planning Commission a “No outlet” sign has been installed to advise travelers that they can not exit out to Farmington Road south of Graytona. Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 6. SITE PLAN PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-07-08-11 submitted by Arbid Design & Construction, L.L.C. to renovate the existing gas station located on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads (39350 Six Mile Road), in the Southwest ¼ of Section 7. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a request to redevelop the gas station site located at the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads. This property is roughly 6/10ths of an acre in size that includes 141 feet of frontage along Six Mile Road and about 186 feet along Haggerty Road. Access to the site is provided by two driveways, one on Six Mile, the other off Haggerty Road. This is a smaller gas station. Currently there are four fuel pump islands. There’s a canopy that extends above the fuel pumps that’s roughly 100 feet in length and that runs as you can see from aerial photograph, parallel to Haggerty Road. As part of the redevelopment of the site, the existing 1,000 square foot building will be demolished and a new building constructed that would total roughly 2,576 square feet, so it’s going to more than double the size of the convenience store. The building will be placed about 8 feet from the east property line running in a north to south direction. A new canopy, a new fuel pump will be configured on the site. This will be what is referred to as a dive-in design, allowing the vehicles to enter the fuel pumps from either the west or the east. Again, access will remain from both Haggerty as well as Six Mile Road. Floor plans submitted with the application shows that there will be a large retail display area for food items as well as dry goods and a walk-in cooler. Additionally there would be a cashier’s station, an office, restroom, stockroom and a future food service area. Looking at the building’s design, and let me scroll to the renderings, the building contains a combination of burnished stone which will be along the based, glazing, 5 a large amount of windows along the midportion of the building, brick as well and then the upper part of the façade would contain EIFS along with a decorative cornice. The building overall is about 16 feet, 7 inches in height. The site complies in all respects to the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as parking. We looked at the trash dumpster and where that’s going to be situation, there were some changes made there at the recommendation of the Planning Commission. That will be properly screened. Landscaping overall is about 18% of the site. As you can see from the approving resolution of the Planning Commission, they are recommending that the landscaping be improved. Storm water detention would be handled underground and signage at this point has not been reviewed as part of this petition but the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the application. Councilmember McIntyre asked Taormina if there are any pictures in the packet that show what the current landscaping looks like today and Taormina replied that he has some in the file but not on the slide show. He said there’s ample green space on the site, that won’t change, again it’s nearly 20% of the site, but there’s been an issue with maintenance and with some of the materials either dying or have been removed so we’re asking that that all be upgraded and I believe that should be condition number 3 or 4 in the Planning Commission’s approving resolution. McIntyre indicated that one of here concerns was the shape of the landscaping because one of the pet peeves with service stations is when we approve and at this point it’s generally a remodel and not a new station and landscaping is approved and it looks great for a year and then by the next summer it looks horrible. And because gas stations are, of course, right along generally main thoroughfares, it looks terrible. Just a general comment about the importance of keeping up the landscaping. It’s great and important to meet the requirements as stipulated by the Planning Commission, so I’m trying to recall in my mind what this one looks like. Taormina replied you’re absolutely correct and one of the issues that was revealed during review of this item is that the irrigation system was nonfunctional so that’s one of the items that needs to be corrected. Councilmember Kritzman stated in looking at the drawings that were presented to Council that are representative of a general intention to build, but in the end it represents a very inconsistent product. When you look at the general composition of the building you’ve got block down low, you’ve got a brick sill, you’ve got brick moving forward, you’ve got a couple of bricks making their way around, you’ve got EIFS across the top. I get bothered when we have drawings presented to us that are signed off by someone who clearly didn’t design the project, and I can tell you that’s what happened here. The person whose name is in the signature line is not the person who designed the project. I think for the most part the materials are 6 consistent with what we were to expect. I would like a clarification of what the dumpster enclosure is made of and constructed of and I know that’s an easy one to make fun of but it should be brick to match the existing building. When you look at the inconsistencies of the drawings and door swings and what’s swinging where and where things are shown, I think the drawings need to be cleaned up in general. We’re showing a south elevation that doesn’t have a door in it but the plan shows a door in it. The north elevation is showing a door in it but the door is actually swinging the other way in the plan. We’re talking about block coursing that looks sloppy and frankly doesn’t match on all of the elevations. When you start talking about going away from building materials that we tend to appreciate on Council as it relates to brick, for example, when you start going to partial block situations without the drawings being cleaner, and unfortunately afraid that we might actually get this, and while the general characteristics building are good, the proportions of it are good, this does represent our contract moving forward and I would ask that the drawings be cleaned up a little bit to represent that. And I unfortunately haven’t made my way through all the Planning Commission commentaries and haven’t seen any renderings of the building or material selections, but I think that’s something that we should be paying attention to. If we haven’t been presented with that, I would ask that we are presented with it prior to the next meeting. Councilmember McIntyre stated she was able to access the internet and pulled up the pictures of the landscaping and she understands there’s going to be a new irrigation system, but they grass is dying, it’s patchy, their current landscaping, if you can call it that, that is really nonexistent and not attractive. And the parking lot is in terrible condition, there’s garbage around the interior of the parking lot, there are weeds that have been allowed to grow in between the concrete blocks, in between the asphalt and the curb at the interior of the brick wall, so I’d like to understand how the Petitioner plans to maintain the facility once this remodeling is done because what’s there now is really insulting to the customers and insulting to the City. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. Ali Saad, 39350 Six Mile Road, Livonia, came to the podium. He stated in response to Councilmember McIntyre’s comments, that she made a very valid point and when they were up in front of the Planning Commission, no matter what they’re trying to do to this corner, it’s like putting lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day it’s a pig. It’s an old facility. It was an old Amoco station built in the ‘70s. There isn’t a dollar amount that we can put into this that I feel if we do invest into the overall landscape or whatever money that we’re putting into it, we’re not able to recapture it. But by having a totally new facility, I feel that at that point we’re going to maintain, we’ll have a new landscape, we’re going to maintain all of the issues that you’re saying are visible to me as an owner of that facility as well and to the customers. We try to maintain it but it’s like throwing money in the air to be honest with you because we’re not able to recapture the business and get anything from it. I think that having a new corner there and re-establishing that landscape, 7 we will have more of a sense of private ownership at that point in the facility. And to answer your question, yes, we will maintain that and pridefully do so at that time. Councilmember McIntyre stated the point is very well taken about the difficulty in trying to make an old outdated, not modern facility look like it should today and I understand that and appreciate that, but that certainly doesn’t apply to the ability to sweep up garbage around your lot. Saad replied that’s absolutely correct and that that picture could have been taken on a windy day and McIntyre responded there’s quite a bit there and it looks like debris that’s been there for a while. Councilmember Kritzman stated in general the idea of building a new facility is going to be able to breathe back new life into the property. I think you’re a rare exception that steps up to the podium and says we could put a fresh coat of paint on here and try to make it go but it’s not going to work, so I commend you for that and I think you’re headed in a great direction. I didn’t want my comments to be necessarily indicative of being against the project. I think your direction and your project, I think the layout of the site is good, but you have an opportunity there with all of the real estate and all of the landscape, you’re a bit of a gateway to the City in a lot of ways, you set the mark in a lot of ways. And where right now that property doesn’t speak to the public a whole lot, you have the chance to do that and we invite you to do that and we certainly want to be a partner with you on that. Like I said, I think the material selections that have been made are, it’s the same architecture that gas stations have. I actually appreciated that you didn’t have fake stone on it, which unfortunately is kind of like a typical thing to do on a gas station these days. And if you are able to do the block down at the bottom and a nice course of real brick and go with the brick to the top with a drive-it or EIFS finish at the top, you’ve got a nice look there and I think overall it’s heading in a great direction. When you start looking at the specifics of the block coursing and some of the details of the building, and we can sit and have conversations about that for hours at a time. The big picture stuff that Councilwoman McIntyre and others maybe have expressed, is that you have a chance to have a great property at a super prime location, help us be introducing the world or the community or the greater community to Livonia at that intersection and it sets a precedent. And you certainly as a business owner and operator are going to want to continue that and do that same thing. So anything that you can do to step up that landscaping as has been requested, would certainly be recommended. Saad replied and said constructive criticism is great and I’m not taking offense to this, it’s not like you’re talking about one of my kids. So at the end of the day, I’m here to work and I’m hoping and I’m looking for this type of input from you guys. It is a great corridor to the City. Anytime I describe to somebody where the corner is that I own, I do take pride and say well, it’s on Six and Haggerty and it’s a very appealing corner and you say it’s on your way to Mitchell’s, it’s on your way to P.F. Chang’s, it’s right next to Madonna. So I do like that corner but right now I don’t 8 have that sense of pride of ownership, it’s just old and ugly. I’m going to take pride in owning that corner and it will be a trademark of the City and people coming into it. So I do look forward to taking your recommendations and everybody else on the panel’s recommendation of how you want it built because there’s not a specific budget that we’re putting on this. We don’t mind putting brick, it’s not going to come down to dollars and cents at the end of the day, but a few dollars here, a few dollars there, but we’re going to pick the top of the line in quality of material that we’re going to place on this. So I’m not trying to cut any corners with it at all, we are going to maintain the greenery and the shrubbery and put a new irrigation system in there and properly water everything and make it look pretty again, that’s what we’re here for. Councilman Bahr asked how long Saad has owned the property and he replied since 2011. Bahr said he concurred with what Councilmember McIntyre said, and that he listened to Saad talk and frankly he finds it even more concerning, because he’s not even looking at this and saying, while a big landscaping renovation would be nice, we’re talking about mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes. I don’t care what your house looks like, you can take pride in that. And I’ll just tack on to one thing, if you’ve owned the property for eight years and he’s excited about the project you’re doing here and we’ll wait to see what you do and hope it’s better. But his track record of not taking pride in ownership, and he doesn’t have a lot of confidence that the pride of ownership is going to be there. So he looks forward to Saad proving him wrong. Saad stated he understands the track record is not good but he hopes to prove Council wrong. Councilmember Kritzman offered an approving resolution for the Regular Agenda and asked that he take the comments to heart and bring back some changes and revisions that reflect the things that he’s heard here tonight and if he’s interested in reaching out to Council, please do that. Kritzman said he lives just off Six Mile and he has taken a right turn on that intersection so many times and he looks forward to stopping there in the future. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None. nd For the 1,882 Regular Meeting of October 7, 2019 As there were no further questions or comments President Toy adjourned the Study Session at 8:32 p.m. on Monday, September 9, 2019. DATED: September 27 , 2019 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK 9