Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-22 CITY OF LIVONIA – CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD JULY 22, 2019 Meeting was called to order at 8:12 p.m. by President Laura Toy. Present: Brandon Kritzman, Scott Bahr, Cathy White, Kathleen McIntyre, Brian Meakin, Jim Jolly, and Laura Toy. Absent: None. Elected and appointed officials present: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Todd Zilincik, City Engineer; Paul Bernier, City Attorney; Susan M. Nash, City Clerk; Linda McCann, Director of Community Resources; Jacob Rushlow, Superintendent of Public Service; and Mayor Dennis Wright. Councilmember Kritzman led the meeting in the Pledge. th Councilmember McIntyre wished her son Patrick Henry McIntyre Culliton a happy 16 birthday. President Toy once again sent prayers out to Janelle. She then stated there is New Data on Item 4. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE CITY’S NOISE ORDINANCE: Richard McLain, Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association, re: to show family friendly movies beginning at dusk until the end of the movie on Friday, September 13, 2019 in Kleinert Park. Zach Curd, Vice President of Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association, presented this request to Council. He stated they have done this movie night in the past and it’s been a real big success. This year they will be playing “The Greatest Showman”. Councilmember White stated this is her neck of the woods and would be happy to offer an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Vice President Jolly stated the choice of movies is excellent but to be prepared that the kids will be singing the songs constantly for weeks. Councilmember Kritzman stated he remembers when this item first came before them and that he is happy it has been such a success. 2 DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SMART AND THE CITY OF LIVONIA: Department of Community Resources, re: for the Municipal Credit Contract for the period July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, with all Credits to be used for the Livonia Community Transit Program. Linda McCann, Director of Community Resources, presented this request to Council. She stated she is before Council tonight asking to approve their yearly contract for the Municipal Credits. This is from the Michigan government but it’s administered through SMART. Councilmember Meakin stated this is a typical housekeeping item and that he would be happy to offer an approving resolution on the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 3. REQUEST APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH SIMPLE RECYCLING: Department of Public Works, re: for four-year agreement with option to extend for an additional four years to provide services for the collection of soft recyclables. Jacob Rushlow, Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated this item was initially brought to them through the Department by the Greenleaf Commission under a submission to try to encourage environmental practices here in the City. This was presented at a meeting a few months back and the idea of starting a curbside soft recyclables collection program offered by the company Simple Recycling, and there’s a representative here from that company to answer any questions of Council. He stated that soft recyclables in this program would include items such as clothing, shoes, hats, blankets, curtains, pillows, table linens, sleeping bags and other small home goods. Simple Recycling provides a residential curbside pick- up service, also in conjunction on the schedule performing with our current solid waste and recycling pick-up schedule. Through this program residents would have the option to place these items into the provided collection bag and place the bags on the curbside on their regular scheduled collection day. In addition to curbside collection, Simple Recycling will also provide a drop-off box at our recycling drop-off location on Glendale as another option to place recyclables there. This program was offered to the City and its residents totally free. The residents will of course still have the option if they don’t want to use this service , more than welcome to still donate to whatever charitable organization that they currently do or would continue to like to do in the future. He stated it is the Department’s recommendation to move forward with this program to proceed and 3 authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to enter into this four year agreement with Simple Recycling with an option to extend for an additional four years. Councilmember Bahr stated this is an intriguing idea and that he had been approached about it a few years ago and that he is happy to see it come up for Council’s consideration. He then asked if Rushlow was aware of any other local communities that are doing this and Rushlow replied yes, there certainly are in Southeast Michigan and when Sonny from Simple Recycling presented to the Greenleaf Commission and himself at a meeting a few months back, he had a slide that showed there are eleven communities in Southeast Michigan that they work with in conjunction with GFL, and then there’s a number of other communities that they work with that have other trash haulers for their collection service as well. So they definitely have a presence in Southeast Michigan. Bahr then asked if Plymouth, Farmington Hills, Northville, are some of those communities doing it that he knows of and Rushlow replied that both Plymouth and Canton are. Bahr then asked if this service would be available every week with trash collection, or every other week or how does that work? Sonny Wilkins, Vice President of Simple Recycling, came to the podium. He stated they mimic the current curbside recycling schedule with all of their partnerships, five days a week, and that’s what they’ll do, follow that existing schedule. Bahr asked if a resident whose trash pick-up is scheduled for Friday, any given Friday they could put items out there and know that they’ll be picked up and Wilkins responded in the affirmative. Bahr then asked if the company provides the bags to residents and Wilkins replied yes, along with a postcard that comes with it. The city provides a list and then they will mail all of the two bags along with the postcard to every eligible household of the program. Bahr then asked Rushlow about the statistic that was provided in the materials that these types of trash accounts for 15% of the local waste stream; is there any chance that this would have a positive impact on the future negotiations with trash contractors? Rushlow replied that the 15% number is something that comes from a statistic that was put out by the EPA on what is collected through recyclables and what is sent to a landfill. In regard to the idea of it having some positive benefit to the City in the future on contract negotiations with solid waste contracts, he’s sure it’s something that can be mentioned to them. He doesn’t know if it’s going to have a direct impact on the total tonnages that we’re disposing of every year, but he thinks 4 that will be probably the most direct benefit to the City, it would be a reduction in the amount that is being sent to landfills. Bahr then asked for the list of communities participating in this program and Wilkins replied Canton, Garden City, Harrison, Lincoln Park, Milford Township, South Lyon, Southfield, Taylor, Walled Lake, White Lake, Wolverine Lake and some other communities within Michigan. Bahr then asked if there were communities that had been doing this for a significant period of time and Wilkins replied that the program has been around for about five years overall. At that time they started out with two communities, they’re based out of Cleveland, Ohio and Cleveland. They started off with two. At this time now, twelve markets, eight states and over 200 municipal contracts and growing. Bahr then asked about the volume that Canton produces which would be a comparable community to Livonia and Wilkins replied he doesn’t know offhand but he could say typically across the board for Simple Recycling across those 200 communities, they’ll pick up roughly about 1.5 pounds per household per month across the whole year. Bahr said the last question he has is that there’s a lot of neat opportunity he sees in this and he sees little downside to the City, the only mild concern he has is what impact this has on charitable giving, he thinks it would have a downward impact on that. On one hand, it’s another outlet for people with this which he thinks is a good thing, less waste is a good thing; but he is a little bit concerned as to whether there’s a huge drop in charitable donations on this. He then asked if Wilkins had feedback from other communities on that subject. Wilkins replied there are a couple of things to remember. The first thing to remember is that even with all of the charitable organizations and different ways where people could actually bring these items and donate them, according to the EPA only 15 percent of the materials ending up in those places combined, the other 85 is either being landfilled or incinerated. The second thing that you should remember, too, is that if you’re a supporter of a local organization, whatever that organization may be, typically those people are doing it because they want to benefit that organization, those typically continue that normal behavior even with Simple Recycling being involved. Bahr said he can see that but just to be clear, this is not a charitable donation, there’s no receipt that comes with it, this is just self-dividing your trash to be more environmentally responsible, right? Wilkins replied that’s correct. Bahr then stated he likes the idea, the idea of putting clothing out to be picked up isn’t different than what people do for various charitable drives, some of which he’s been a part of, and that he sees little downside in this for the City, there’s no cost 5 to us, we have other communities around that have experience in this. He then offered an approving resolution. Wilkins then said one more thing he’d like to add is not only is the program is free and at no cost, they’re actually going to reimburse the City $20.00 per ton for everything that they actually collect. Councilmember Kritzman stated that Mr. Wilkins addressed some of the thoughts that he had, but he thinks a lot of times what you end up with is people wanting the materials from their house to not be wasted and not get thrown out but what ends up happening is they end up going into other material streams, whether that be like Salvation Army or something to that effect and they kind of contaminate that process with you know they have a threshold from a quality standpoint of things that they will accept and things that they won’t accept. I think this will actually alleviate some of the stress on that. He stated he had the same thought about the City’s own recycling program, as much as we try to educate people on what is acceptable materials to throw out or throw into the recycling bin and what is not acceptable materials, he sees all the time things that shouldn’t be in there. He then said he thinks this will have a positive effect on cleaning up the contamination of that recycling materials stream as well. Vice President Jolly sent kudos to the Greenleaf Commission, this is like a concrete development to come out of your existence and the Administration as well for entertaining it and he thinks it’s a good idea. Councilmember McIntyre stated she thinks it’s a great idea, she has been digging deep into recycling for a few years now, and certainly textile recycling is a big deal and a lot of it does end up in landfill. And a lot of what the Salvation Army gets, and other charitable, ends up not being usable and they dump it out to jobbers for rags. She then went on to state she has talked to some of the other communities who use this, and there are two concerns she has which she thinks are minimal compared to the value of this. One of them is it does bring trash pickers and it brings people who will open up the bags and go through the bags and then occasionally you’ll end up with instead of a nice neat bag, you’ll end up with a mess of things at the curb. The other is the sloppiness with which people engage in recycling and that she’s concerned that the same way that we educate on the recycling bin, and what should be in them, how they should be filled, they hear a lot of complaints because a lot of the complaints from recycling and trash pick-up are because the recycling bins are not used properly. There’s stuff put in that shouldn’t be that sometimes ends up outside the bins, they’re not filled properly, papers are put out on windy days. Her concern is and in some of the other communities that have this experience, the bags aren’t tied up right and you end up with a mess of wet clothes out on the curb on recycling day. She stated she certainly laud the Greenleaf and the Administration and the business model that Simple Recycling does, but she’d like to ask if it would be possible for us to try a shorter period, like maybe two years. She knows that Councilmember Bahr has 6 offered an approving resolution but she’d like to see how this goes. She stated she thinks it’s a great idea and she is very willing to support it, but she would prefer a shorter initial term just to see if there’s unintended consequences sometimes, but overall she thinks it’s great. Councilmember White stated in trying to get rid of things that had accumulated in her basement she found out a few years ago that charities like the Salvation Army don’t take small kids’ stuff animals, the average stuffed animals and asked Wilkins if they took that and Wilkins replied they do. He said 95 percent of what they receive is clothing and shoes on the curb but they do take that. Vice President Jolly stated he’s not completely sold and that anybody with kids knows the most difficult thing to get rid of is those big bags of old stuffed animals. Councilmember White said she thinks a trash picker probably had a field day at her house the day she put out a box of beanie babies. President Toy asked Wilkins where the merchandise is taken after it is collected and Wilkins replied the process and what happens in the secondhand textile world is pretty much the same wherever you bring the items. So what happens, for instance, if you bring it to Goodwill, they’re going to sort through it and decide what will go on the retail floors and the rest will go on to folks that will actually sort through it and grade based on quality and best use and then send it somewhere internationally. It’s sort of the same with what happens with Simply Recycling, we have a number of independent thrift store chain partnerships across the country. For us it’s important that we utilize our downstream network to liquidate that material as quickly as possible, that’s why we’re able to keep it at no cost, so that’s what we do. And based on the quality of the material, the type of material and the best use depends on what route that actually goes. But we don’t determine that, we allow them to basically decide where it’s going to go. President Toy asked if any of those outlets are around this area at all and Wilkins replied that most of them will be in either Chicago or Houston. He is not really involved in who those partners are because that’s sort of their competitive advantage, is being able to liquidate it as quickly as possible. President Toy asked what will be done to educate the Livonia residents as to what to put out at the curb, how clean it should be, like others have mentioned recycling is a great thing but she just heard this morning on TV that you can recycle pizza boxes as long as there’s no grease in them or crumbs. She said she wondered what education would be provided. Wilkins replied that one of the things with the program being at no cost is that they ask their municipal partners to utilize their social media platforms and their communication channels that they have to communicate with the residents how best to utilize the program because they’re going to hear that message mostly from 7 you rather than us. What we’ll do is obviously we have certain social media things that we do also, we have the postcard, but I’ll be relying on my contact in Public Works to communicate that. Now, they do have certain templates that they distribute to their partners that have the logo already laid out so you don’t have to spend too much time in that, you can just sort of modify it but he will be working with Public Works together to try to communicate it as best we can. President Toy stated in the picture it’s a van, is that what picks up the recycling in bags of the soft goods, is it a van, not a big truck that has lift on it and all that kind of stuff, correct? Wilkins replied they’ve been changing their fleet over to this, so basically it’s a Ford Transit type of van, however, in certain markets, they also pick up with a box van, so depending on the route. One of the things we talked about is we partner with a lot of nonprofit organizations because there’s just so much material that they have that doesn’t suit the demographic that they help, so they actually buy material from them also, so some of their routes are built around that. So you may see one of them here depending on the volume, a box truck, but it would still be a small box truck. President Toy asked if it would be identifiable with signage on it and Wilkins replied absolutely, not only will the truck be labeled but then their workers should also have a fluorescent vest on and will be very easily recognizable. Vice President Jolly stated that something Wilkins said at the end caught his attention; there is a difference between the word recycling and reusing in their meanings and Wilkins replied yes. Jolly then said when he hears the “Simply Recycling” name and we’re talking about recycling, he’s of the mindset that the materials will be to some degree shredded, destroyed, and turned into other products. With your comments just a few minutes ago, his understanding is that is not necessarily what might be happening here, you’re going to be transporting them downstream for use elsewhere, is that correct? Wilkins replied that reuse is always higher on the chain than recycling, it’s always better to reuse in the current form. So one of the other ways that they’re able to keep the program free, but when you reuse the material has a higher value than if it was actually broken down into a different material. So they’re going to send it through a process to try to reuse it first here domestically, then it would be, the next step down would be to reuse it internationally but still use it in its current form. And then for the worst materials that just can’t be reused, it will at that point be recycled and made into something else. At that point that individual piece of material has a much lower value so we want to send it through the process of in getting the higher return on it. Vice President Jolly then reiterated that he thinks it’s a great idea, there could be a lot of use for it, but he does think there’s a lot of wisdom in what Councilmember 8 McIntyre said in terms of doing it two years as opposed to four years to see how it works out, so he would support that as well as a trial period, two years is enough to get it off the ground and see if it works, and if it works great, we’ll be happy to do it again. President Toy asked if there is a motion on the floor and Bahr responded he had offered an approving and he doesn’t have a problem with offering an approving for two years, that’s fine. Councilmember White clarified with Bahr that the offer be for two years with the option to extend it two years and Bahr stated he would be fine with that. Rushlow stated the four year term is what we went through in the process of looking at the agreement and what was going to work. Sonny can explain on their process and how they operate. They need that four-year term to recoup their costs on setting up the program as well as starting the whole collection process and coming into our city and into our market to recuperate their costs. That’s why I referred to that as a four-year initial term. Bahr said with that in mind he would go back to his original resolution, the four years, he doesn’t have a problem with it. He said it’s also clean, the way that it aligned with the end of our refuse contract as well so we can talk about all those things at once four years from now. I will offer the original resolution for four years and for the Consent Agenda unless there’s an objection. McIntyre stated she would like to place it on the Regular Agenda. Vice President Jolly stated the things that Councilmember McIntyre brought up could potentially be problems and is there anything in the contract that says that if this becomes an absolute mess and residents are outraged because there’s clothes here and there all over the roads, does the City have any kind of out in the contract? When the City has GFL issues, does the City have a person from GFL that they call to handle those things? Will there be a direct line of communication to ensure that this is running smoothly and is not just some disconnected entity at this point? He said to Wilkins that he likes the idea of it but Council is a body that tends to hear from residents if there’s something that goes wrong, so it’s good to know these things up front. Wilkins stated that he would like Council to know that they have never had one cancellation from any municipality across nine states and 200 of them where someone has cancelled due to lack of performance. I am the direct contact for them, of course I have some people that work for me, but every one of them has my phone number and can contact me at any time if there is an issue. We will perform and when there are issues I’ll work my hardest to make sure that they’re addressed and you know we provide references. 9 President Toy asked if there was something they could put as a clause in two years to do a review? We do have a contract, I get that, for four years, if this goes through, but perhaps a two-year window so that it comes back to Council because it might be a new Council by then, etc. She then asked Wilkins to give a history of Simple Recycling, how long they’ve been in business and how long he’s worked for the company. Wilkins stated he’s been with the company for almost five years, started off as a rep when we were actually building the company, and again, now we’re at 200 and I’m the vice president. As far as the company itself is concerned, Simple Recycling is a little bit more than five years, but the family that owns --- we’re a family run business, has been in the clothing and discard industry for about sixty years, third generation. They’ve been picking up for charities for almost sixty years now. City Attorney Bernier pointed out that Paragraph 20 of the Agreement calls for a termination and breach in this. If there is a breach of the contract, there’s a 30- day opportunity to cure the breach and if it doesn’t, then we can terminate for cause. He stated there are protections for the City and for the company. Councilmember Kritzman stated that he was actually going to say what Bernier just stated and additionally there are monthly reports that the City will be receiving so he thinks the City is covered from the standard of care from a performance standpoint and there is a process laid out in the contract and in place for termination and breach. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 4. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-06-02-09 submitted by Neumann/Smith Architecture, to expand floor area, renovate the exterior appearance of the building and modify the vehicular parking layout of the existing Salvation Army resale store on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads (33600 Plymouth Road) in the Southeast ¼ of Section 28. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a request to expand and renovate the Salvation Army store located on Plymouth Road just west of Farmington Road. This property is a little over three acres in size. As everyone knows, the Salvation Army has been at this location for many years but they did not occupy the entire building. They now own the site, the property, the building, and would like to expand into the remaining portion of the building. So they would go from about 23,700 square feet in the space that they’re currently in, to the full building which is a little over 30,000 square feet. And in doing that, they’re going to completely renovate both the interior as well as the exterior of the store and the site around it. This is the site plan and 10 what you’ll notice here is there is plenty of additional landscaping on the site. They are limited, given the way the building is situated on the property and the parking arrangement and drive aisles but they will be changing the circulation along the front of the store. They’ll be moving the front entrance from the southeast corner of the building to the middle of the front of the store, and in doing that they will be adding a new façade treatment, they’ll be installing a canopy on the public drop off donation area in the northeast corner of the building. They’ll be adding PRDA streetscape elements, in fact, the New Data you said you received, is the letter from the PRDA recommending approval of this with one stipulation relative to the irrigation system and some of the landscaping along the frontage. The building itself will look like this when it’s completed, this is the new entryway on the front center of the building, you can see the new metal canopy overhang, the brick that will plank the main entrance of the tower. This is the top portion that shows you what the building will look like really from the south as well as the east elevation with the donation drop off area and the addition of that canopy. The parking lot will be improved. The site actually operates with a deficiency of 30 parking spaces. That is a pre-existing condition. The situation, in my opinion, will not worsen. Still the question remains as to whether or not they’ll have to seek a variance for that deficiency. Site lighting will be limited to a height of 20 feet. The signage was not reviewed in any detail but the approving resolution does refer that to the Zoning Board of Appeals to the extent that any variances are needed for signage. With that, Madam President, I’ll be happy to answer any questions. President Toy asked Taormina if that takes in the old Italian store and Taormina replied yes, Chimento’s was the space to the west and that is the space that they will be occupying. Councilmember McIntyre stated that the Traffic Sergeant notes that there are no handicap accessible spaces in the plan. Taormina replied that the issue of the barrier free spaces is addressed on the plan. Vice President Jolly stated in light of everything that Council just talked about, he will still be making his bi-monthly deliveries to the Salvation Army and make sure to support them especially with the new improvements that are planned and look great and thanked them for the value that the Salvation Army adds to our local community and the much larger community as well. President Toy called the Petitioner to the podium. Jim Cummings, from Neumann Smith Architects, came to the podium and stated he is the project manager/project architect for these plans. He indicated he brought samples if Council wanted to look at them of the materials going on the building. He produced a sample of the new brick that’s going to go on the pier 11 and fascia part and so that will be matched, they will be painting the existing brick on the building so that would be painted a color to match the new brick. He indicated the Salvation Army has a brand new prototype that they’re implementing so all of the colors in the schemes that we’re looking at is to implement that branding. So this red matches what their branding is all about. The existing other sides, the sides in the back is all made of CMU so that CMU will be painted this color here to mimic some of the other colors on the building. This is a sample of the paneling, so all of that red that you see on the front façade, the existing canopy is going to stay and what we’re going to do is put this new panel, the panel will be that red, so this will ne the new panel that will go up and around that canopy. Then underneath the existing canopy we’re going to put DRYVIT System, so this is the color and texture of that type of material underneath the existing canopy. Councilmember Bahr then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Vice President Jolly asked about the “Family Center” that is in the center of the site plan, and whether or not there will be any actual Salvation Army branding on the building. Cummings replied there will be a logo on it. Jacquelynn Idzior came to the podium to introduce herself as the Assistant Administrator for the Adult Rehabilitation Center and they run all of the thrift stores. President Toy thanked her and the Salvation Army for doing housing for human trafficking victims. Councilmember Bahr asked Taormina if there is going to be issues with signage here with the Salvation Army logo plus everything else. Taormina replied that was not evaluated but more than likely a variance will be required for two wall signs to be on the front of the building, that will require a variance. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5. SITE PLAN PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2019-06-08-09 submitted by SC Health to construct a new four-story medical/health services facility located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads (18600 Haggerty Road) in the Northwest ¼ of Section 7. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this involves development of one of the last remaining vacant parcels located along the I-275/I-96 Expressway. This property is about 8.3 acres in size, it lays at the northeast corner of the Schoolcraft Campus College. The site is in 12 the process of being rezoned from PL (Public Land), to PO (High Rise Professional Office) with a maximum of four-stories. The First Reading was given on the rezoning on April 22, 2019. The Second Reading and Roll Call are on hold pending a review of the site plan. The building that is proposed and which you’ve seen some conceptual plans prior to this, this building is towards the east side of the site for better exposure and visibility along the highway. The main entrance to the building would be on the west side. Parking, as you can see, would be available on the west portions of the north as well as the south sides of the building. Primary access would come from the ring road that was built to facilitate access around the east side of the campus. And as you can see here, too, the name of that road would become St. Joe’s Parkway. The building will be constructed in two phases, so if you look closely here, you’ll see the line that runs through the center of the building. The portion on the right side is Phase I and that would be four stories in overall area or height. It will contain about 92,000 square feet. And then the second phase on the left hand side will only be one story and that would be roughly 34,700 square feet. So, when complete the structure would contain a gross floor area of about 126,000 square feet. Phase I includes pediatrics, advanced imaging, and Urgent Care, which would all be on the first floor. OB/GYN and Family Internal Medicine would be on the second floor. Surgical and specialty timeshare on the third floor. And then physical therapy and radiology on the fourth floor as well as various common areas located on all four floors. Phase II on the other hand will be devoted primarily to surgical center. It will include a pharmacy, a lab, and other support services. A number of restrictions in the PO District Regulations pertaining to maximum ground coverage, setbacks, landscaping, all of these items are being met. That includes the required parking for the facility with the additional parking provided around the site as well as the expansion of existing parking on the south side of St. Joe’s Parkway. All of the parking would be complied with. Most of the site services, building services would be located on the east side. This would include the trash enclosures, as well as MRI mobile unit, the generators, all of the ground mounted mechanical equipment which would be screened using 7- foot high brick walls. Storm water is not a significant issue on this site since the campus already provides detention located within the pond to the south of this site. 13 Landscaping exceeds the minimum requirement of the ordinance; they’re showing 19 percent of the site. And then looking at the building itself, and I will queue up a fly over of the building, but these are static renderings. It shows you predominantly this building would contain brick, insulated metal panel, curtain wall glazing and then composite siding. The architect is here and she will describe in greater detail the building materials and while they make that presentation, I’ll get the fly over ready. Thank you. John Wright, Executive Director of Facilities of Schoolcraft College, came to the podium, stated he is standing in place for Glen Cerny who is the VP CFO. He had a previous meeting; part of the community colleges have a self-insurance group and he’s a board member on a meeting that was already scheduled so he couldn’t be here so he apologizes. With me here are other folks who will be able to help answer questions. So the lady he’s speaking about is Holly Osterhous, she’s with Lindhout & Associates. Also here is Sara Gilbert, she’s Senior Vice President of Operations at St. Mary Mercy. Jason Harris is Vice President of Planning and Operations with IHA. And then Julian Wargo, he is the President/Owner Senior Engineer at Zeimet Wozniak. We are here to answer any questions. President Toy asked if the balloon is going to be removed and Wright answered they hope it doesn’t deflate. Vice President Jolly asked what about the bumper sticker on the side of it. President Toy stated they do get a lot of complaints on that and perhaps a little landscaping might help or whatever, not being rude, but they do get a lot of concerns about that. It’s a lovely piece of property and do they have any plans for that at all, maybe some landscaping. Wright replied they have nothing planned right now and that part of the issue with that is that there is a lot of snow that comes off of it in the wintertime and that has to be cleared from the side. So there’s a 10-foot asphalt strip that runs around that. There is the pond to the north side. And so that over time will be developed with some tulips and things like that. And then to the south side is all parking and then the outdoor field. Councilmember Meakin asked through the Chair to Taormina, if Council will have site plan approval of signage for this package. Taormina replied this does not include any signage on the building at this point. Meakin stated he did not see any on the building at this point. 14 Taormina replied the resolution addresses that by stating I believe that only conforming signage is approved with this petition and any additional would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals but there are no callbacks at this point in the resolution that would bring signage back to either this body or Planning Commission. That would have to be an amendment that you would have to make. Councilmember Meakin stated he is adding that to the resolution that there will be a callback item, and we will be discussing any signage that goes on this building in great detail. Vice President Jolly asked how would the facility be branded specifically? You mentioned St. Mary’s and IHA, how will it branded, and I guess I ask this specifically for, not to beat a dead issue here, but will the branding of this building affect at all the signage on the soccer dome? And if that is the case is there an opportunity to do a nicer sign or a classier sign, something that looks more appropriate? Because you literally do have an entire campus full of beautiful buildings and I think the signage on the soccer dome which basically is expressway, is really in poor taste. It looks cheap, it looks dirty, there’s got to be a better way to do it and I’m hoping possibly if you’re rebranding that in conjunction with this building, you really should think about that. I understand that you’re the messenger here, but as the Director of Facilities on the campus, you’re probably the person who can get things done. We’ve mentioned this to all the people we have from Schoolcraft. Just for a point of history here, our Law Department has taken cases all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court and won, that validate Livonia’s ban on billboards. And no sooner did that happen that this branding on the side of a soccer dome happen. We just feel like we want to be good partners with you and we have had a great relationship with you, but this is one point that we really wish could improve. Anyway, back to the question at hand, how will this facility be branded? Wright replied it will be co-branded as both IHA and St. Joe’s, so both brands will be on the center. Councilmember Meakin asked if this effect the other urgent care that’s in the Jeffers Building? Wright stated yes, that IHA is currently operating that as a primary care center as well, when this building opens that will be moved to a new location. Meakin asked if this property is being sold or at least a permanent lease? Because the only reason the big sign was there was because they had the urgent care which is part of St. Joe’s on the campus. If this is not part of the campus then, the big sign becomes a nonconforming sign. Wright asked if Meakin is referring to the dome and the site that is being developed, is that a ground lease or is that being sold; is that what your question was? 15 Meakin clarified the ground lease on the property we’re talking about today and Wright replied yes. Meakin then asked if it’s also taxable at that point. He then asked through the Chair to the Law Department, does the big sign become a nonconforming sign that we can actually do something about? Bernier replied that is certainly something that he would like to look into and take a look at and that he will talk to Mr. Fisher would is the expert on that because he’s taken those cases to the Supreme Court and quite frankly that is something that they would like to look at, to see if it’s a nonconforming and we can do something about that sign. Vice President Jolly stated they’ve gone off topic here a little bit, but that he can’t stress enough that this is one of the things we hear about consistently from residents who drive past, and it is a sore subject, and we bring it up every opportunity we have had a chance to and we will continue to do so until we can kind of work together in regard to this. He then offered an approving resolution; he thinks it’s a valuable investment and we welcome it but we would like you to work with us a little bit in regard to the other issue. Taormina stated there is one item the Petitioner would like to discuss, the issue of site lighting. This is looking at the building from the north, in the foreground is the Seven Mile Crossing building and I’m circling around looking at the left side of the building so this is where the main entrance to the facility will be located, from the west. Councilmember Kritzman stated it’s unfortunate that what is getting lost this evening, is that this is a great investment in the community and in the campus and in the area and he’d like to congratulate the design team on what appears to be a very well-designed project. They’ve made some nice contributions to that area with the Masco Building, and I know the same design team was working on that. It will be a nice added element to the area, so certainly I don’t want anyone to get lost that this building is not welcomed, it’s certainly something that we are looking forward to and we welcome into the community. But as was stated by some of my colleagues sitting up there are adjacent elements that have been a point of contention for quite a while. So thank you for listening to that and I hope that something can be done to resolve that. Councilmember Bahr stated that Taormina had mentioned that there was another issue that we didn’t’ talk about and he wanted to make sure that we talk about that. Taormina replied it is the height of the light poles. The Planning Commission limited the height to 20 feet which is our normal standard height and this Petitioner 16 is requesting that they be allowed to increase the height to 30 feet to be consistent with the other light poles that are throughout the campus. Councilmember Bahr stated the first question he was going to ask was what are the other light poles throughout the campus. Taormina replied he believes the majority are 30 feet and Wright stated they always have been, even the original ones that they rented from DTE have been 30 foot all the way through and their new lighting is LED and 30 foot. There is not a light spill over issue. Bahr stated if it’s consistent with the campus and there are no homes nearby, he doesn’t have an issue with that. Being consistent with the campus actually makes sense. President Toy asked if this is a land lease as well on this parcel as well as the big dome there. Wright replied they are two separate pieces. President Toy asked if they’re both land leases. She then stated the Duke project when she was out there as a trustee, that was land leased for 99 years at that point. Wright stated he is hesitant to answer because it’s more of a Glen Cerny question. The Duke property was a little bit different, that was leased to a developer, the property was. This building here will actually be owned by Schoolcraft College and then the space leased to IHA and St. Joe’s. President Toy asked if he is referring to the building they’re currently talking about and Wright replied yes. She then asked him to help her understand what the dome is. Wright said the dome is a land lease, he supposes there’s a land lease with it. They have one tenant primarily that leases that, again through the 503(c) of the college, is how they lease it. Councilmember Kritzman asked what percentage of the building will IHA be occupying and Wright replied that it will be the entire four-story medical office building. Kritzman then asked if IHA is a for profit company and Wright replied they are not for profit; they’re owned by the same parent company as St. Joe’s and St. Mary’s, Trinity Health. Wright then thanked Taormina and Zilincik for their help on this project. 17 DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None. As there were no further questions or comments President Toy adjourned the Study Session at 9:13 p.m. on Monday, July 22, 2019. th For the 1,878 Regular Meeting of August 12, 2019 DATED: July 31, 2019 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK In accordance with Title II of the American with Disabilities Act as it pertains to access to Public Meetings, the City Clerk’s Office of the City of Livonia, upon adequate notice, will make reasonable accommodations for persons with special needs. Please call (734) 466-2236 or email clerk@ci.livonia.mi.us if you need assistance. Council agendas are available on the City’s website – www.ci.livonia.mi.us - under Government, City Council, Agendas.