Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-23 CITY OF LIVONIA – CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD OCTOBER 21, 2019 Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by President Laura Toy. Present: Kathleen McIntyre, Brian Meakin, Jim Jolly, Brandon Kritzman, Cathy White and Laura Toy. Absent: Scott Bahr. 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; Denise Maier, Director of Human Resources; Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation; Doug Moore, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service. Vice President Jolly stated he would like to place an item on the Regular Agenda for the next meeting, that being he would like to request that the subject of meeting agenda information be available on City website for public consumption and information and be placed in the Committee of the Whole for further discussion. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. REAPPOINTMENT OF KATHLEEN MCINTYRE TO THE LIVONIA BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Office of the Mayor, for a three-year term, which will expire on November 24, 2022. Councilmember Brian Meakin presented this request to Council on behalf of Mayor Wright. He stated that Councilmember McIntyre is very passionate about, that being the Brownfield Authority. She’s done her homework for many years and works very hard for future developments here in the City of Livonia. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2. REAPPOINTMENT OF ANDREW LENDRUM TO THE LIVONIA BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: Office of the Mayor, for a three-year term, which will expire on November 24, 2022. Councilmember Kathleen McIntyre stated that the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority received late notice that this item would be on the Agenda this evening, so Mr. Lendrum may have had a conflict in attending the meeting. She stated he is excellent to work with and very knowledgeable about Brownfield matters, comes to the meetings very well prepared and is a very valued member of the Committee. 2 She then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Vice President Jolly stated he fully supports the reappointment but that he would like to put the approving resolution on the Regular Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 3. PROPOSED CHANGES TO JOB QUALIFICATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS AND WAGES FOR PART TIME STAFF AT THE LIVONIA RECREATION CENTER: Civil Service Department, re: to approve job level and classification adjustments effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022, as well as wage increases based on the State of Michigan minimum wage increase. Denis Maier, Director of Human Resources, presented this request to Council. She stated this request has gone through the Parks and Rec Commission as well as the Civil Service Commission and the PRC. This request is based on, as everyone knows our current unemployment rate is 3.5 and we’re trying to be proactive in making sure that we can hire and retain quality employees in all of the part-time positions over at Parks & Rec as we get busier and busier that we’ve got enough skilled staff to provide the services that the residents have become used to. The one caveat here, is with the new Improved Work Force Opportunity Wage Act, 337 of 2018, they have set the minimum wage from 2019 through 2030, however it all hinges on what the unemployment rate is. And if the unemployment rate is less than 8.5 percent, then the minimum wage will go up, but if the unemployment rate goes above 8.5 percent, the minimum wage will not be increased. So Parks & Rec has built in that same measuring tool, if you will, so that if there’s no minimum wage increase, Parks & Rec rates will hold where they’re at. She stated Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation is with her to answer any questions. Davis came to the podium and stated he would be happy to answer any questions Council might have on this. They are seeking rates for three years here, this is going to be for 2020, 2021 and 2022, again with the provision as set forth in the Work Force Opportunity Wage Act. Again, they are also asking for some level changes to positions and this is so we can attract employees and retain our current work force. Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution. Councilmember McIntyre stated her son has worked as a lifeguard at the Rec Center for the past 5 to 6 years, and said she would like to be recused from voting on the item and that she would like it placed on the Regular Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 3 4. REQUEST TO APPROVE THE HOLIDAY PARADE AND TREE LIGHTING ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2019; REQUEST TO APPROVE PARADE ROUTE AND THE CLOSING OF CERTAIN CITY STREETS; TO REQUEST PERMISSION FROM WAYNE COUNTY TO CLOSE FARMINGTON ROAD FROM LYNDON TO FIVE MILE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 4:00 P.M. AND 5:00 P.M., OR UNTIL THE ROAD IS RETURNED TO NORMAL TRAFFIC OPERATION; TO AUTHORIZE SENIOR POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL ARAKELIAN TO SIGN THE ROAD CLOSURE PERMIT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY; AND THAT THE CITY OF LIVONIA WILL ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ROAD CLOSURE: Department of Parks and Recreation, re: same. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated they are simply asking for road closures for the Holiday Parade and Tree Lighting as they have in the last couple years. It’s a one mile parade route, nothing has changed, it’s still the same time. This is going to be on Sunday, th December 8 this year, so hopefully there will be great weather. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions Council may have on this item. Vice President Jolly said he would encourage his fellow Council members to get in the festive spirit this year and up their attire and costumes and what not for the parade. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5. REQUEST TO APPROVE A FOUR-YEAR CONTRACT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING GROUP (ERG) FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ELECTRONIC WASTE PROGRAM: Public Service Division, re: to provide services for Household Hazardous Waste and E-Waste services for Livonia residents at their location (13040 Merriman Road) for the years 2020 through 2023 with an option for the City to terminate the agreement after each year. Doug Moore, Assistant Superintendent of Public Works, presented this request to th Council. He stated they bid this on MITN on Jun 6 of 2019. The bids were due th on the 25 of June. There was one bidder, which was Environmental Services Group, ERG, a Livonia based company. They were the provider for 2014 to 2016. US Ecology, the service provider for the last three years, notified the City they were not bidding on future projects. This will be a substantial change to the program. Instead of the two-day drop off event at Ford Field, they’re going to move it to a yearlong drop off event at ERG, which is located at 13040 Merriman Road. ERG has offered to extend their hours on evenings and provide some potential Saturday dates to allow residential access. Cost for the service in 2020 will be $47.00 a car based on 100 pounds of material with value increases built in for the remaining three years but the cost is still lower than their bid for the four years at Ford Field. The department is asking for a cap of $110,000.00 a year. That figure is based on the average last three years of the event at Ford Field to the vendor, DPW costs plus our costs to the City of Northville who we partnered with for the three-year 4 program. After one year we’re going to re-evaluate and see, if it doesn’t seem like it’s working we’re going to come back and go back to the Ford Field event. So they are asking Council to award a contract to Environmental Recycling Services to perform the household hazardous waste drop-off event, with the ability to terminate the agreement each year. Funding is available in the annual City budget for this service and not to exceed $110,000.00 a year. Councilmember Meakin stated he thinks this is a wonderful idea, it’s going to take a rather large education of the City’s residents to this and is there enough in the budget to accommodate that? Moore replied yes. There will be Facebook, website, news releases, we’ll hit it hard. Meakin stated he knows residents store things for a whole year in their garage for the one special day and now they won’t have to do it, so it makes sense. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember McIntyre stated that when the City does their traditional one day or day and a half events, there was reciprocity with some community, will that still happen or will this be only Livonia residents. Moore replied they teamed with Northville and Northville Township. Northville Township dropped out last year because they lost the funding for it so we were still in with Northville. But when I discussed it with Northville, he was going to have to go back to his Council to ask. But seeing how it’s going just as a drop-off event all year; it may not matter anymore. And Northville, the pricing is extended to Northville also so that they have the ability to jump on to this and then the bill would just go to Northville rather than us being the middleman for their event. McIntyre then asked if residents could go as many times as they wanted to, but the City gets billed every time a car goes, is my understanding correct? Moore replied we get billed for 100 pounds of material. So, if you were to take a cell phone in and drop it off, it goes in the pile until we get to 100 pounds. McIntyre then summed it up by saying it doesn’t matter how many times they go, it’s the volume. Councilmember White asked Moore if there would be someone on site to destroy hard drives when people are bringing in their computers and Moore recommended that it be done beforehand. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5 6. REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF 29 CASES OF FOURSTAR 180 DAY BRIQUETTES: Public Service Division, re: from Clarke Mosquito Control for the 2020 Mosquito Treatment Program from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Works, presented this request to Council. He stated this material would be purchased directly from the manufacturer, Clarke Mosquito Control. There’s no competitive advantage to bid because they’re dealing with the manufacturer. This material is different than the past several years, they’re trying to rotate the product so there is not a resistance built up in the mosquitoes. The briquettes are dropped in catch basins and they last approximately 180 days. So we try to time it through the season. The material is a biological control, it affects the life cycle of the mosquito larvae. The control agent interrupts the larvae’s ability to change into the next life cycle. The program occurs in the late spring, early summer. The Department is asking Council to approve the purchase of Fourstar 180 day briquettes from Clarke Mosquito Control in the amount of $19,836.00. Vice President Jolly asked Moore for more details on the depositing of the briquettes into the catch basins. Moore replied at the bottom of the catch basin it’s called a sump and that’s usually where the water sets and mosquitoes need just still water to lay eggs in. So the material just lays in there, it dissolves over time and what will happen is if there’s a rain event, that water will get flushed out, so the briquette is still there to still provide control measures to the mosquitoes when they come back to lay eggs in that still water again after the rain event ends. Jolly then asked if the catch basins were on public or private property and Moore replied public, they’re street catch basins in the streets. President Toy asked if the difference is measurable and Moore replied that a lot depends on the weather because they need standing water and it’s not a long period of time, but they need standing water. He stated this past spring was a good year for mosquitoes. Vice President Jolly stated he thinks it’s a great program but asked if anything is done in the parks or on the golf courses in regard to this as well because in thinking about the standing water, it seems like those would be logical places where we do have standing water. Moore replied that they have a program in recreational parks that have playgrounds, soccer fields, ball diamonds, if there’s standing water they use a product called VectoLex. He stated he doesn’t know about the golf courses; he can’t speak to that. They don’t do nature preserves, they don’t do wooded areas, it’s only areas where we have public. You know if we had a vacant piece of City land, we don’t do that, it’s just our recreational parks. 6 Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE (1) HYSTER MODEL S40FTS FORKLIFT: Public Service Division, re: to supply the Public Service Division, from budgeted funds. Doug Moore, Assistant Superintendent of Public Works, presented this request to th Council. He stated this item was advertised on MITN on September 18, the bid th closed on the 28 of September. One company, Alta Equipment, out of Livonia supplied a quote for the proper piece of equipment. The unit will be used by the Water Section but is available for all DPW sections to be used to unload materials, meters, hydrants, lids, pipes, bulk supplies, anything that comes in palletized in the back of a semi-truck. The unit is replacing a like unit that was purchased over twenty-five years ago. That unit is in poor shape with repairs exceeding its value. This purchase will not increase the fleet, the old one will be disposed of through the auction process. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8. REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE: Public Service Division, re: to amend the annual expenditure for 2019 only in an amount not to exceed $275,000.00 due to unexpected need for contracted services for electrical-related issues, to RCI Electric (formerly MAS Electric) for the maintenance and repairs of Citywide electrical services for fiscal year 2018-2019, from budgeted funds. (CR 127-18) Doug Moore, Superintendent of Public Works, presented this request to Council. He stated on April 8, 2018 Council approved a three-year extension for a not to exceed amount of $130,000.00 a year with MAS Electric. The Department is asking Council to amend the annual expenditure for 2019 only to RCI Electric, which was formerly MAS Electric to $275,000.00. Funds are available in the 2019 Annual Budget. The reasons for the increase, our City electrician became gravely ill in the spring and passed away early in the year. The Building Maintenance foreman suffered a heart attack in the spring and was out for a couple months. And our Building Maintenance Supervisor retired in August and we also saw an uptake in electrical issues which added to the increased work. They figured out a monthly amount with the contractor and this funding would cover the last two months of this year. Councilmember Kritzman asked Moore to expand on the kind of services this company is performing and what buildings tend to be problem areas. 7 Moore replied that the problem areas are general across the board. It’s anywhere from changing ballasts in the fluorescent lights, to working on parking lot lights, to repairing underground electrical issues on the City’s sign lights and monument lights. They go from Wilson Barn to Greenmead to here to the Rec Center, basically any City building where our electrician would have been doing it before, ultimately we’re depending on the contractor right now. Kritzman then asked prior to this current configuration there was an in-house electrician as well as Steve Makie before he retired and Moore replied yes, and went on to state they are struggling to fill that position because Master electricians are well paid and don’t necessarily want to come to work for the City anymore; where the benefit package was probably something really sterling twenty, thirty years ago, they’re better paid elsewhere in private industry. Kritzman added that at the moment there is a shortage of qualified electricians and Moore replied yes, and an aging Master electrician with a limited resource pool. Frank Struble, with RCI Electric, 32733 Folsom Road, Farmington Hills, came to the podium, stated he is present to answer any questions of Council. He said they were MAS Electrical Services and they merged with RCI Electric, which is still a family company, older brother, younger brother, merged our companies so we took the RCI name. But yes, the City’s electrician did ballast and lamp replacements, small scale type of repairs and such. The volume of work, we would step in as needed, as requested by DPW to help. We basically work in every building in the City from the Courthouse to the Library to Greenmead, to wherever we’re needed. There have been a number of situations where there have been some HVAC replacements at various locations, where the condensing units had to be replaced, furnaces upgraded, that type of thing where we were involved as well as work at the Police Station, the Fire Stations, that type of thing. So I didn’t really realize the volume of work was so much higher this year and if there are any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Councilmember Meakin stated to Moore that Council originally approved $130,000.00, and now it says we’ve spent in the fiscal year $193,000.00 and our th current fiscal year ends November 30, so we still need an extra $185,000.00 in the next month? Moore replied when they did the letter they did not have all of August and September invoices turned in either, so we were trying to balance that in also so that we didn’t have to come back again. Meakin then asked is $275,000.00 enough? And Moore replied yes. Meakin then asked if the City is covered for next year and Moore said yes, to the best of his knowledge at this moment in time. Meakin then stated that is something that they’ll have to keep a close eye on and Moore agreed and stated they have their foreman back so that helps. 8 Councilmember Meakin then offered an approving resolution on this, trusting in Moore’s good judgment that this is necessary and the best resolution for the City at this time. Councilmember McIntyre asked that the item be placed on the Regular Agenda, and state she is comfortable with the recommendation and Mr. Moore is addressing this problem and getting the resources needed but would like to have it on the Regular in case any additional questions arise. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 9. REQUEST TO AMEND CONTRACT WITH OHM ADVISORS AND TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURES: Public Service Division, re: for 2020 Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF) water main projects to provide engineering design administration and soils investigation services, from budgeted funds. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a request for professional services for OHM Advisors under a QBS Contract, not for additional expenditures, not for appropriation, it’s just to have them provide additional professional services for us. As you know the City of Livonia has done DWRF projects in the past, we’ve got funding from the State of Michigan to do low interest loans to help out areas that have been deteriorated throughout the City and OHM Advisors have been very helpful in that aspect and we’re looking to partner up with them again this time for fiscal year 2020. As you know we put in a project proposal, had a public hearing earlier in the year, and asking for City Council’s approval to have OHM Advisors for fiscal year 2020 to provide design services by the January deadline to help get us in the queue of the project proposals and our goal is in the fall of 2020 to help replace three locations. Those three locations, for reference, are over at Six Mile and Middlebelt, there’s two locations in Section 35 of which we have approximately fourteen streets in Devonshire Park Subdivision, and there are approximately eleven streets at Bonaparte Gardens in Section 35, the northwest and southeast. So with that, I’ll be happy to turn it over to Jessica for any supplemental information but then looking for Council’s approval in the amount of $547,000.00 for the design services based on a $10 million dollar DWRF Project, of which $505,000.00 is for engineering, $20,000.00 is for Administrative services, and $22,000.00 for soil boring investigation to help us out for the design plans. President Toy asked if there was a way to inform the public on completion dates for the various projects and Zilincik replied that they are trying to get more information out through a message board concerning same. Jessica Katers, OHM Advisors, 34000 Plymouth Road, came to the podium and stated they are excited to partner with the City on this project. This is the next phase in a project that they have been working on with the City, they updated the 9 City’s Water Main Master Plan in early 2019, submitted a project plan for the DWRF Funding in April of 2019, and then over the summer the State had indicated to the City that they had scored high enough to receive the low interest loan funding for the Drinking Water Replacement. And as Todd said there are three different locations in the City that we are targeting with this first phase. It’s a total of seven and a half miles of water main that would be upgraded and replaced and we are targeting the third quarter of 2020 for construction. Councilmember Meakin stated this is a long term project that the City has partnered with OHM for many years. They’ve helped us in acquiring the grants, and grant approval and bid submission for it and we greatly appreciate working with OHM on this or we probably would not be receiving these funds right now. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda, stating this is an absolute necessity that the City has made a priority for many years and for many years to come in taking care of our infrastructure. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10. REQUEST TO ACCEPT STORM WATER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Engineering Division, re: from Haggerty Square, LLC, in conjunction with the construction of a storm drainage system that provides adequate drainage for property developed at 19750 Haggerty Road, in the Northwest ¼ of Section 6. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a housekeeping issue for Phase II of Haggerty Square, LLC, looking for Council’s approval to sign and execute the Storm Water Agreement with the folks there as part of the approval process of the Engineering Department. Vice President Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Meakin asked Zilincik if these agreements aren’t usually signed at the completion of the project and Zilincik replied that this Agreement is with the City and not the County, Wayne County usually waits until the end, but since this project is under construction they want to make sure to get it signed as part of the approval process early on because they’ve had problems where they could not get the owner to sign the document at the very end, taking a long time to get the Certificate of Occupancy. So they’re trying to make sure to do things up front and work with them to facilitate this Storm Water Agreement to make sure it is maintained. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10 11. REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF WAIVER USE APPROVAL: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2018-04-02-10 submitted by Feldman Automotive, Inc., which previously received approval by the City Council on October 1, 2018 to construct and operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles (Feldman Pre-Owned Superstore) on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Road (33850 Plymouth Road), in the Southeast ¼ of Section 28. (CR 355-18) Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated Feldman Automotive is seeking a one-year extension of the site plan and waiver use that was approved by Council last October. This is on the north side of Plymouth Road, between Farmington and Stark Roads. This is the final site plan. It shows a one-story, 6,850 square-foot building that would house the dealership showroom and sales offices on the front part of the site as well as the porch and of the rear parking lot. It would be used mostly in conjunction with the display and storage of pre-owned vehicles and then the remainder of the rear of the property would be used as an inventory lot for the dealership’s new vehicles as well as the storm water detention basin and maintenance of an existing cellular tower. Altogether the site plan shows a total of 817 vehicles that could be stored on the site. The Petitioner has submitted a letter which explains the challenges that they’ve encountered with respect to progressing with the construction phase, this is due mostly with unexpected high costs. They are therefore requesting the one-year extension of the site plan. In the meantime the Petitioner would like to use the property to store vehicles. They’ve supplied a vehicle inventory lot plan which was reviewed by the Planning Commission. This plan shows approximately one/third of the site or about 3.46 acres being used for car storage for up to 480 vehicles. The vehicle storage lot would be enclosed with fencing. At the closest point the vehicles stored on the lot would be about 280 feet from Plymouth Road. The area between the road and the fence that would include the vehicles, this area would be cleaned up, kept free of vehicles, all of the deteriorated pavement as well as the gravel would be removed and grass would be planted. There’s a number of old lights from the previous dealership that operated at this location. Those lights would all be removed. The only improvements that would be on the front part of the site would be the driveways that provide access from Plymouth Road to the vehicle inventory lot, as well as the adjacent Hertz Rental operation to the west which actually relies on this site for access to that property. So with that, I will answer any questions. Vice President Jolly stated his question is directed to the Petitioner right off the bat, he would love the Council members who supported this initially and my gut tells me at this point that I am inclined to not support it going forward. By all accounts you represent a thriving business here in Livonia and throughout Metro Detroit. I can’t understand why you were not able to get this done. This was controversial in terms of many different people wanting something else to be used for this large piece of property. Ultimately what you’re proposing here is an extension to allow you to continue parking cars there and that’s not what we 11 wanted from the very beginning. Your client was going to be making an investment in the community and that’s why some of us were swayed, the majority was swayed to allow you to do so. Mr. Taormina has done a great job providing the explanation as it’s been presented so far, but you know not to put you on the spot, but I need you to do better, because that’s not going to fly at least with me. Trey Brice, from Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer and Weiss, 27777 Franklin Road, Southfield, Michigan. We share the frustration and the biggest point as Mark mentioned, echoing here, was actually some of the same issues with the Master electrician you talked about, was the availability of construction workers and when we went out to bid and they came in 30 to 40 percent higher than expected. Even after value engineering, the price for the proposal that we had, the one building was 3.5 to 4.5 million dollars for the building and for all the related improvements which was just much higher than anyone had expected. And as well we still have the intent for improving the property, improving the neighborhood, we like being in the City, it’s the goal to continue that. And like I said, we echo that frustration. And so part of when those really high bids came back, it gave a moment to pause to try to figure out how do we move forward. So the goal is still to move forward and have the property returned to a beneficial use. We’ve been looking into several things which brought us to talk to the City. We’ve got still the possibility of redesigning, maybe coming back with a new site plan and essentially going through the process again to have the building change in a manner that economically works a little better and makes more sense for the property. We’ve looked at potentially changing the use, actually having the building in front and getting – almost everything is going to require a new site plan so we recognize that -- to have a retail commercial use building in the front. I’ve looked at climate controlled storage is one of them. And a third option that we’ve looked at is actually acquiring the Hertz operation just west of property, remodeling that, making that into the used car and then still having different commercial use, some other use on the front of the subject property. So, looking at all these things and trying to figure them out is costing time, taking time to get, and has brought us to where we are at this point. So, as part of still trying to represent Feldman in the best manner and to have something that works for the City is to move forward with the vehicle inventory plan that we had that’s going to fix up the front, plant more grass, it will look nicer. The parking area will be fenced in, screened so you couldn’t see the vehicles and then the back portion at this part will just remain as it is, wooded, and with the cell tower in the back. With that, I’d be happy to answer any of your questions. Vice President Jolly asked if the main reason is the cost of the plan that had been approved, that costs are not going to go down any time soon, not for the foreseeable future. So what you’re saying is, if I’m hearing correctly, if I’m analyzing what you’re saying correctly, you need to start over. I don’t know why we’re doing this, extending this piece of property to have the approved site plan extend into the future, and allow you to have an interim usage in the meantime. I 12 want to see a plan, start over, show us what your ultimate plan is because this doesn’t cut it. Cutting the grass, that’s nonsense. Brice replied in the interim, it actually is still an improvement on what the piece of property is right now. Jolly said not enough, not enough for my support. Brice stated so it will just sit with everything torn up as it is. Councilmember Meakin stated it’s kind of ironic that you’re coming back to us saying that you’re going to put in screening and more shrubs and greenery and those are the same things we asked you to do originally and you ignored us. We asked you to do a few things and you said no, we don’t need to. We’re the number one Chevy dealer in the State of Michigan. I’m not as generous as my colleague. I’m going to offer a denying resolution and you can start over with this project because this is not acceptable. Councilmember Kritzman stated he hasn’t had the opportunity to speak to anybody else on Council prior to hearing what they had to say this evening, but I’m happy to hear that some of my same sentiments that I was harboring have been echoed in their comments. This was a long process, on your end as well. You were presented with multiple different versions of the building. I don’t think it surprises anybody that a building costs money to construct. From our perspective, we did not want something that was just inundated with vehicles and that’s frankly all we’ve received so far. I have placed several calls to the City, and Mark knows because he’s fielded them, inquiring about what is the process and how are they able to use it making no improvements to the site. Now maybe you guys did something out there to level off an area, maybe, but there hasn’t been something substantive that has been done. So I was happy to see that there was a temporary improvement plan in place and was considering offering a bit of support recognizing that you do have difficulties in that there are hundreds of vehicles sitting there and there’s a long term plan that’s being worked on. It sounds like you really don’t have any certainty over what that long term plan is, is that what I’m gathering, there’s too many options on the table for you at this point to be committed to any particular direction. And I can understand that those things take time but as I go back and study this temporary measure I agree with some of the other comments, I don’t think it goes far enough even on a temporary basis. Dave Katarski, Feldman Automotive, came to the podium and replied to Councilmember Meakin’s statement about the request to have things done, who was that given to and Meakin replied that was in the site plan approval process. We asked for more shrubberies, more bushes put up front so you can hide the site and it was approved. 13 Katarski went on to state as Trey said, we’ve been in continuous conversations with Mr. Taormina as soon as we put it out for bid, got the bid packages back, and were quite surprised with the costs of the project. We have had probably three separate meetings with some different ideas. We’re in negotiations or talks right now trying to figure out what Ms. Olson wants to do with that parcel where the Hertz location is. Certainly if we can come to terms on that, that could change a lot of our plans. There’s a usable building there, we need to clean it up, do some things. Obviously we know we would have to come back through the process on that. But we’re certainly open. That’s how we – obviously our one year came up, that’s why we’re here in front of you saying we understand that we haven’t gotten done what we originally wanted to bring as Trey said, this isn’t what we signed up for, we didn’t want to go through the two-year process of getting these approvals and then sitting here and negotiating with all these different projects and come up with different uses. We want to get it cleaned up. We certainly still need the back portion of what was originally approved for the overflow storage for the Chevy lot and then we need to figure out what’s going to work for us as well as ultimately the City on the front portion. Right now this proposal would give us our needs and then ideally we could get to work on this ASAP, getting the front cleaned up, you know, to what you have suggested. So, to your request, I hear you loud and clear and that’s what we’re wanting to do. I think you can understand where we’re coming from as we’ve been working through these different scenarios, it’s kind of crazy to spend $100,000.00 in landscaping and tear down until we knew what we were going to do. So we weren’t trying to drag our feet or slow the process down for any reason than that. This has occupied, believe me, far more time and energy than we ever thought it would be. And think it through, you’ve probably seen a lot of people in our boat, the costs --- I agree, Mr. Jolly, that costs aren’t going down but it is crazy high right now. Hopefully we see a little bit of relief, I don’t know, we’ve seen a couple projects come back but some of the trades are just through the roof. Vice President Jolly stated to Council, I’m sure you’re familiar with the terminology of having the wool pulled over your eyes and where that comes from. Tricking the judge, fooling them. That’s what I feel like. Why would we extend a one-year time period on the project when you’re telling us you’re not going to do this project. Brice replied that isn’t what has been said. Vice President Jolly said is it not? You’re looking at buying another building, you don’t know what the plan is, you don’t know how you’re going to proceed, you don’t know when you’re going to proceed. If we’re going to offer an extension, there’s nothing determinate in what you’ve provided, nothing, nothing at all other than the fact that you’re going to keep putting cars there. That’s exactly what we did not want. Brice replied in the options, the first option is still working on the building that was approved and trying to figure out how to make it work. And that was the first – was 14 the list that I gave. I’m sorry if you feel as you said the wool pulled over your eyes, it was never the intent. We would not have made the concessions and done some of the extra landscaping and things as we worked through the process. We just would have said this is what we want and see what happens and that would have been the goal. Katarski said I’d like to say to that point, we have cars sitting in mud and dirt right now, that’s not what we signed up for. I mean we have been – Mr. Taormina knows, we’ve been in constant communication with this, we’re trying to figure out what direction we want to go. We ultimately have to figure out which direction we’re going to go, there’s a couple pieces that we’re still working on. If I can get the Olsen site next door, that could really change. Jolly replied this is what I’m saying, sir, listen, by all accounts you are a thriving, commercial enterprise, figure it out. We signed up for your plan. You’re the one who has the ability. Katarski stated that’s why we’re asking for the extension. Jolly said you haven’t done anything yet and we don’t have any determinate plans to do anything. You just said it again. If you can get the Hertz location next door, it’s all fictitious at this time. Figure it out, we signed up for your plan. Katarski asked so you just want to see this empty? Is that it? That’s my question. Kritzman stated you guys have to understand that from our perspective, it sitting empty is actually more attractive to the development community than it being filled with cars. And it was our expectation that the project would get built and then cars would be stored there and not the other direction. So the day that I saw the first cars being put out there, made me question, and I questioned out loud that day whether or not that project would ever get built. And I don’t think I was alone in that regard. So I think that’s where some of the angst is coming from from our side, is that we had the expectation that until that agreed upon site plan was executed, then you’d be able to use the property in the manner in which you intended to use it. So this looks, from our perspective, as you averted the intent of our approval and that you are simply doing what works best for you. I’m just calmly and rationally laying it out for you. Katarski stated we spent two years on this thing working with you guys, working through site plans, I mean you can see, I can bring in the bid packages, Mark’s seen a lot of the pieces. Kritzman stated he looks at them all day long, he looks at it professionally all day long and I don’t know where you got your original numbers from, I know the firm that’s involved, I mean I would question your original numbers. If that was your operating premise, that you were going to build something for this and it came in 15 30 to 40 percent higher, I don’t think the problem is necessarily in where the bids came in solely, I think some of it was your starting point. Katarski replied we did change a lot through this process, though, too, we had to get them out. Which to your point we probably should have done a better job forecasting as well. The last thing you guys want is us to build a building that’s not a going concern two, three years from now, I mean that’s the last thing we would want to do. Kritzman said say that again. Katarski replied the last thing you want us to do is build a building that is not a going concern two or three years if it’s not a viable business model, right. Believe me if we felt it was a great business model and we could build it where a cost basis made sense, we’d be halfway built right now. Councilmember McIntyre stated she is inclined to support my colleague, Mr. Meakin, in the denying resolution. What this feels to me is like a stall tactic to keep storing cars there. You are a very successful business enterprise, the things that we’ve asked for in the meetings that we’ve had I’ve felt that what Feldman wanted was just the City to agree to do things the way you wanted them done. And we certainly appreciate great businesses, we’re happy to have a lot of great businesses here, but we’re used to more of a feeling of partnership and businesses listening to our concerns which aren’t based on the whims or capricious demands of City Council, but whether to get the highest and best use on something that significantly contributes to a lot of work that’s been done on Plymouth Road. Councilmember Kritzman stated that he will offer an approving resolution, obviously this is going to be on the Regular Agenda. So you do have a denying and an approving resolution out there, but I think it’s fairly evident where the direction of Council is headed at this point. Katarski asked how involved Council should be with conversations that we’re bringing them to Mark, is that something we should be on the schedule to come to Planning meetings as we’re working through plans with that site? Vice President Jolly said with all due respect Council represents the residents of the City, Council makes the decisions. Mr. Taormina guides the process, he’s a professional and he’s going to do everything he can to try and alleviate your concerns and ours, but Council is the one who decides. Katarski stated they understood Taormina was the point person to bring their information to and Jolly replied that Taormina communicates with Council as well, but the decisions are made in Council Chambers as they have been previously. 16 Brice said the question more was in the process while we’ve been working through this and had the meetings with the City, he’s asking would it have been beneficial if you were asked and if we would have gone, shown back up to a meeting and saying we’re working through this, meeting with the Planning Commission saying we’re having these difficulties, so it wasn’t as much as pulling the wool over your eyes, the comment that you made. Jolly stated that Mr. Taormina is more than capable and he’s a professional and he can handle that. In terms of the wool over the eyes comment, that’s particularly, we were never expecting cars to be there until the project was done. So the fact that cars started showing up, that’s exactly what we didn’t want to have happen. As soon as you did that, we all felt like we were tricked, we were fooled and it happened right off the bat, almost no delay in that happening. And that’s exactly what was not supposed to happen. That’s not how this happens in other developments, that’s not how the City operates. That’s not how we do business in Livonia period. Trice stated that wasn’t an intent nor --- Jolly replied it is what happened, Counsel, we’ll just leave it at that, it’s what happened. Thank you. Councilmember Kritzman stated it’s up to your discretion how much information you share with Council along the way, we all have email addresses that you have access to, you’re welcome to share information as you see fit. To me it’s a practice on your part to help usher your project through the process and if it’s in your best interest to offer additional information, great. I don’t think that necessarily obligates Counsel to sit back and review something and owe you a response, but if you decided to offer up additional input and updates along the way, I think that would likely be welcomed. Councilmember McIntyre stated with regard to the point about coming to meetings, Mr. Taormina does an outstanding job of keeping Council informed of things and he makes himself so available to Council all of the time with questions, so there’s no barrier between what gets share with Mr. Taormina and Council’s ability to make decisions. Brice stated he appreciates that but it does sound like that a little bit, though, because we’ve had multiple meetings as he’s aware of with multiple developers, believe me that are business friends of ours that we’re not pulling the wool over anybody’s eyes. To answer that comment that you feel like we haven’t been working on that, that’s where I feel like --- and again, I want to make sure you have the information, that’s why I asked the question. If it’s emails to you just keeping you informed of where we’re going, that’s perfect we can do that in conjunction with Mark’s communications to you. 17 McIntyre said she’s not the one that made the comment, it’s her colleague’s comment. Katarski said he was speaking to the whole. McIntyre stated she just wants to be very clear, Mr. Taormina is never an impediment to information that this Council needs or information that should be shared and he, like the other department, is exceptionally available to Council and answers our questions and meets with us. Katarski said I appreciate that and I was speaking more to Mr. Jolly, not you. Councilmember Meakin stated this brings me back to a point, we had a meeting with them regarding a storage facility. So the purpose of the original approved resolution has been kind of by the wayside. So you were already looking at other opportunities for that project, but yet you’re still parking cars in a dirt lot, which like my colleague mentioned, was kind of what we were opposed to from the get-go. So, there’s a lot more going on here than just that the cost of the building was just too expensive. Everyone faces increasing costs right now, I mean it’s brutal, it’s not easy, and we understand that. Brice replied that it needs to be looked at in kind of both hands. They’re still looking, trying to make the plan work. But knowing these prices came in high and thinking that perhaps they won’t, then it would be prudent to look at what are the next opportunities. Frankly, some of it comes back to the feedback that we got from the Planning Commission and City Council, there were voices that wanted something different on the front of the property and perhaps if that’s something that would work, then we could find a win that works for everyone, and that’s really what led us there. Meakin stated then I think we’re back to square one then. If that’s the reality of where we’re at, then let’s look at what’s the best use for the property for you guys and us and that might not include having an extension on this property. President Toy stated what we have is a denying and an approving for November th 6 and I also think there is a bit of a perception problem when the cars were parked. So whether they were emailing Mr. Taormina, who it has been said does an excellent job in keeping us informed, it is what it is and if you have any other questions, we all have phone numbers, we all have emails, so please contact us. Brice said they will in the future. DIRECTION: 1) APPROVING REGULAR 2) DENYING 18 12. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-09-08-14 submitted by Livonia Medical Ventures L.L.C., to construct a canopy addition and renovate the exterior façade of the building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between West Chicago and Plymouth Road (10982 Middlebelt Road) in the Northwest ¼ of Section 36. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a request to renovate an existing office building. I’m going you this plan so you get a better understanding where this property is located, it’s at the corner of Middlebelt and Orangelawn Avenue, directly adjacent to Emerson Middle School. This is what the building currently looks like. It is a brick building with T1-11 siding on the upper part of the façade. It’s an L- shaped building as you can see. It was built in the late 1970s, actually as a multi- tenant retail building including a branch bank. It’s now used mostly for medical uses. The building altogether is about 9,700 square feet. This is the site plan showing the footprint of the building and the relationship to the parking lot around it. This is what they plan to do with the building, it’s basically a constructed canopy addition within the inside corner of the building. That canopy would extend about 20 feet out from the existing building. It would raise the roof height on that portion of the building by approximately five feet. There are some old planter boxes in front that would be removed and then rebuilt in a different form, different style, with benches added, all new concrete placed within the plaza directly adjacent to the main entry into the building. All the wood siding would be removed. You can see the blue on the top of the building is a new cornice treatment that would be added to the building, that’s E.I.F.S. on the upper part and then the brick would remain but would be painted. All of these details were looked at by the Planning Commission who is recommending approval of the project as proposed with some additional stipulations relative to the repair of the existing parking lot and enclosure of the dumpster that’s in the southeast corner of the building. Councilmember McIntyre asked if the Planning Commission address the requirements or the recommendations that our Director of Inspection, Jerome Hanna, wanted to make sure were included. Yes, it looks like they were incorporated in the Planning Commission’s requirements. Taormina replied they usually are. McIntyre said she’ll be anxious, of course she’s sure they all will be, to see what Mr. Kritzman thinks but it certainly looks like an outstanding upgrade to a building that could use some upgrading. Vice President Jolly said he thinks that Council should store up as much of Mr. Kritzman’s while we can, as there are only five more meetings until his term is up, so we have his wisdom to draw on. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. 19 Mark Abanatha, from Alexander Bogaerts & Associates, the architects for the project, 2445 Franklin Road, Bloomfield Hills, came to the podium. He stated he doesn’t have anything to add to Mr. Taormina’s presentation but indicated they’re excited about the project and he is present on behalf of the developers who couldn’t be here tonight. He said he agrees that it is a vast improvement, that’s what they were looking for, a fresh, new look for the building and we’re really looking in moving forward with the project. Councilmember Kritzman stated anytime they get a project like this, one of the base questions we always have to ask ourselves is are we okay with the masonry being painted. That to me is the biggest change going on here. It’s one of those things that once you do it, you have to keep doing it because what will inevitably happen is that it will stop peeling off of that façade. When this project went through the initial site plan approval process when it was first constructed, it went through the Planning Commission, it went through Council, and we looked and said they’re constructing a masonry building with a brick façade that we have fought for so many times before, this Council has as well. It always gives me pause when we find ourselves in a situation with an existing brick building that we’re going to go paint which, like I said, it can be done and it can be done well. And I think my only concerns about this is just not really having a full understanding of the materials and the colors and you’re talking E.I.F.S. on the top, I see it’s got a little ornamentation at the top, do you intend to go with the teal color that’s illustrated in the rendering? Abanatha replied correct, the new main tenant that is going to occupy that corner space and a lot of this was developed around that, in their signage you can see there’s some blue in that Skin and Vein and so we picked up that them as an accent on that upper banding and we’ve done a number of buildings from the standpoint of painting the brick, we’re working with Masonry Institute standards for the type of paint that will be used and obviously like you said it’s going to have to be repainted. But we’ve done this because when you try and get a fresh new bright color, a lighter color of the building, something we’re considering more state of the art in terms of the architecture, that’s why we felt going with the paint is the best way to go. Kritzman said he doesn’t disagree with Abanatha, it’s got a very old brown brick that has a very dated sort of look. The one thing that bothers me about the elevations at this point, I mean you’re adding a banding across the top, it’s certainly better than the T1-11 that’s up there now. But nowhere in the documents are we able to see the east elevation --- I’m sorry, not the east, the south elevation which perhaps you have it there. Abanatha replied yes, that should be continued all the way around. 20 Kritzman went on to state more importantly, my question was about that parapet section that you’re raising up at the canopy. Similar to the north elevation will that be wrapped around the south elevation as well and Abanatha replied yes. Kritzman said if you’re driving up Middlebelt you’re going to see it from that side and Abanatha replied right. Kritzman said they learn this on some of the fast food tenants, everyone is doing these kind of fake spaghetti western facades that when you look at it from the wrong side all you’re seeing is the back roofing of it so it looks silly. Abanatha replied he thinks the section depicts that, if he’s reading this section correctly, but yes, that’s the intent, for it to be a complete raised element all the way around. Councilmember Kritzman then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION During Audience Communication a representative from Jewell Jones’ office came to the podium to state that the Governor is filling commission appointments and that there are a number seats available if anyone is interested. As there were no further questions or comments, President Toy adjourned the Study Session at 9:20 p.m. on Monday, October 21, 2019. th For the 1,884 Regular Meeting of November 6, 2019 DATED: October 30, 2019 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK