Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-20 CITY OF LIVONIA — CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD JULY 20, 2020 Meeting was called to order at 9:09 p.m. by President Kathleen McIntyre in the Auditorium of City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Present: Jim Jolly, Scott Bahr, Cathy White, Brandon McCullough, and Kathleen McIntyre. Absent: Rob Donovic and Laura Toy. Vice President Bahr led the meeting in the Invocation. Elected and appointed officials present: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Todd Zilincik, City Engineer; Leo Neville, Assistant City Attorney; Susan M. Nash, City Clerk; Judy Priebe, Director of Legislative Affairs; and Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation. President McIntyre stated there is New Data on Items 8 and 9. She then thanked Brian Kahn, Director of Emergency Preparedness, who has been instrumental in keeping the City moving forward in compliance with and abreast of all of the constantly changing Covid-19 protocols and rules and Executive Orders and was extremely helpful in the preparation of tonight's in person meeting. There was no Audience Communication at the beginning of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. REQUEST TO AMEND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 09-20: Paul F. Bohn, Fausone Bohn, LLP, re: to add language as required by the Michigan Department of Treasury to delineate the date the Commercial Rehabilitation District was established, the date the public hearing was held, and the application was approved for less than 10 years. (CR 306-19 and 226-19) Brandon Grysko, attorney from Fausone Bohn, presented this request to Council. He stated they were last before Council in late December or early January to discuss this issue and subsequent to that the City Clerk's Office had submitted an application for a Commercial Rehabilitation Certificate to the State Treasury Department. The State Treasury Department responded back requesting further information that is contained in Council's packet. Vice President Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. He then asked for an update on the project and the timing involved. Grysko replied obviously it's a dynamic situation with the whole Covid-19 shutdown and everything like that happening, and that they're still exploring all possible avenues of getting the project completed. 2 Councilman Jolly stated for the record that he was against this, he voted against this the first time around and that he will not ask that this not be put on the Consent Agenda because this Council made a decision and this is only a clerical change here for purposes of allowing what Council agreed to and as a professional courtesy he'll state he didn't agree with it when it came around the first time but he's not going to keep it from going on the Consent Agenda this time. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2. REQUEST TO DONATE PARCEL OF LAND TO CITY OF LIVONIA- Andrew Warner, Norwest Financial Group, re: land located at 28330 Clarita (Parcel ID 046- 99-0054-002). Councilmember Jolly asked if the Law Department knew anything further on this item as the Petitioner was not present at the meeting and Mr. Neville replied that he has only what is contained in Council's packets. Jolly then said it's odd that we don't know how this came about where we don't have further information on behalf of the Administration in regard to this. Neville stated he has heard nothing from the Petitioner. Jolly then asked that this be put on the Regular Agenda so that the Petitioner could appear and provide further information. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 3. REQUEST TO APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HAWKS/WOLVES SOCCER CLUB, d.b.a. LIVONIA CITY SOCCER CLUB, FOR GREENMEAD SOCCER FIELDS: Department of Parks & Recreation, re: for continued use of Greenmead Soccer Fields 1 and 2, for a five year period, with an option to renew for an additional five-year period. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated that he is requesting Council's approval on a lease agreement with the Halks/Wolves Soccer Club. They have been leasing the fields for the last ten years and have maintained them impeccably, it's been a good partnership between a private organization and the City and it does save the City a significant amount in yearly maintenance costs. This is for a five-year initial agreement with a five-year option to renew. Vice President Bahr asked if the benefit to the City is in that maintenance savings or is there additional revenue on top of that. Davis replied there is no additional revenue payment to this, this is simply savings in the yearly maintenance. Bahr then asked if this is consistent with wat we've done prior and Davis replied correct. 3 Vice President Bahr stated this is a great partnership and certainly the City benefits from the partnership with Livonia Soccer Club and he trusts they benefit from the partnership with the City as well. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Jolly then asked Davis how does he play into this Department as the Representative of Parks and Rec, does he have a hold on some portion of Greenmead, by and large you don't control Greenmead but you control the soccer fields, is that correct? Davis replied he thinks control is a strong word and Bahr then asked if he was the steward of a portion of Greenmead and how that has come about is a fantastic question and he has no logical answer to that. The historical site is under the auspices of another City department while the soccer field are with Parks and Recreation. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 4. REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN GOLF CART FEES: Department of Parks & Recreation, re: for single cart riders at all golf courses, effective immediately for the 2020 golf season. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated they are asking for a surcharge for single riders. What they have seen during this pandemic obviously it started off with no carts, then it went to single riders allowed on carts. We have been allowed to operate with two riders in a golf cart from different family units since June 8t", but they're still seeing an increase in overall the demand for single riders on carts. Obviously, this impacts course revenue, this impacts TJW's revenue who is directly responsible and leases the golf cart and they're willing to accommodate that to a certain extent but they do feel a single rider surcharge is appropriate at this time and will just be in effect for the 2020 golf season. If they are still in a similar situation in 2021, they would come back and ask for something similar then but he is hoping they are not. Councilmember McCullough stated he thinks the $3 and $5 is more than fair and has no problem with it. He then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Jolly stated this is an opportune time to point out how nice the golf carts we have are. He had the opportunity this past weekend to play on a different golf course that was still using gas powered carts that had seen better days probably ten years ago. So if this is what it takes in this particular instance to keep our courses serviced with top notch electric battery powered newer golf carts, it's well worth it and he thinks the average golfer would agree. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 4 5. VACATING REQUEST: Engineering Division, re: to partially vacate public utility easement with property located at 19700 and 19750 Haggerty Road in the Southwest '/4 of Section 6. Parcel ID 46-023-99-0005-003 and 46-023-99-0005- 004. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a bit of a housekeeping, obviously it's in relationship to the Haggerty Square Development on Haggerty Road. As you look at Parcel A, they're looking to vacate 23-feet of the Phillips ROW easement, that's for the businesses that are at their out lot. Parcel B is actually where the apartments are being constructed, they're looking to vacate 43-feet of that particular easement and looking to refer it to the Planning Commission for their consideration, public hearing, and hoping to come back to City Council. They don't see a problem with this, go through the formality, housekeeping issues of getting it vacated. The Applicant provided to the City Clerk back on June 15th and hopefully it will get back to us shortly for approval on the development which is going very fast. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution to refer this item to the Planning Commission for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT 6. REQUEST TO WAIVE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND APPROVE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE: Engineering Division, re: for the Schoolcraft Service Drive Storm Sewer Installation, for an amount not to exceed $20,000.00, and approve revised contract amount of $141,905.00, from budgeted funds. (CR 342-19, CR 264-17, and CR 233-12) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this item is in relationship to closing out the contract with D'Angelo Brothers that was approved back in December of 2019. We had three locations in the City that we were addressing some storm water concerns and we have to complete the portion on the Service Drive in order for us to complete the maintenance of some concrete pavement that was put in by L. Anthony. So we would like to complete that portion that's in the contract amount to $141,905.00 and close out the contract for their services provided. Councilmember McCullough stated he noticed after this bid being extended a few times, do you foresee going out for competitive bds probably next year? Zilincik replies yes. The original council resolutions were because it was extended for D'Angelo for the emergency contract and then if there's any future storm water work it would go out for competitive bid. Typically these are a problem that the Assistant City Engineer was working on and they approved it last September but there was a little bit of residual money left and this was a critical item to complete the road. But in the future, yes, for future storm water that will be taken care of. 5 McCullough then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7. REQUEST TO WAIVE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE: Engineering Division, re: to provide Asphalt Subdivision Repairs based on Contract 20-A unit prices with Nagle Paving (Contract 20-L), in an amount not to exceed $100.000.00, from budgeted funds. (CR 101-20) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated in order to coordinate with the DPW, they found some areas that could be beneficial to having Nagle complete. There was money set aside for repairs in the Asphalt subdivisions to help reduce the maintenance that's involved with the DPW. We're looking at Parkdale Court, down off of Stark Road, south of Plymouth Road, other areas that we want to get fixed, joint repairs, and any areas where we can overlay or use any significant maintenance before winter sets in. They are asking to approve an expenditure to Nagle Paving in the amount of$100,000.00 to provide that in helping to assist the Engineering and DPW to do this type of work, from budgeted funds. Councilmember Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. He said this is something that we've become accustomed to, to take advantage of the closeness and the proximity of Nagle doing business in the City of Livonia along with these opportunities. He then commended Zilincik and his people for doing this, it makes sense. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8. REQUEST TO APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT FOR CITY-OWNED BUILDING AT 33251 FIVE MILE ROAD: Department of Law, re: between the City of Livonia and Minush Veliu (Sam's Place Family Restaurant) for the period ending August 31, 2022, with one (1) successive option to renew for an additional one (1) year. (CR 264-05) Leo Neville, Assistant City Attorney, presented this request to Council. He stated they've had the opportunity to review the proposed lease with the amendments. This current lease expires on the 31St of August 2020. The renewal for a period of two years will be locked in and after two years then the City has the option to not renew or not to exercise that option. We believe that the rental of $5,663.92 per month for year number one is reasonable under current market conditions. The second year will be increased in accordance with the Consumer Price Index, whatever that amount happens to be, so it would be a base rent, plus CPI. And then another important term is the fact that due to the situation involving Covid and the Governor's Executive Order where restaurants are only allowed to provide 6 seating for up to 25% of the capacity, the rental, while that 25% number is in place, so the tenant will pay 25% of that monthly rent. And if it goes up to 50% capacity, then he'll pay 50% of that $5,663.92. And then once the capacity goes over and above 50% to full occupancy, then the regular rent of$5,663.92 will kick in for year one plus the adjustment for year number two. And depending on how things are going in year number three, then we have the right to exercise that option for another year. As I said, under the circumstances which the tenant is facing, and with the Covid situation, we believe that this amendment to the lease is fair and reasonable and we would ask that Council approve the resolution and the rent amendment to the lease with the tenant. President McIntyre asked if currently we are at 50% indoor occupancy per the Governor's orders, and Taormina replied outdoor seating is 25% and indoor seating is 50%. Neville replied then he'll pay 50%. McIntyre then stated that the way this is written he will pay 50% based on the fact that we're at 50% per Governor's order. Councilmember Jolly said when he brings up the Consumer Price Index and he gets a whole bunch of grief for it. Neville stated all of his commercial leases when he was in private practice index the CPI. Jolly stated first off, he likes to see that the City is being the type of landlord who is taking into account the current situation and thinking about tenants in that particular way, he likes the fact that it's happening here. He likes Sam's, he's eaten many, many meals at Sam's over the years going back to the old courthouse and then through recent pre-Covid times. To be honest with you, though, he is going to vote to approve this, but he thinks there's something in here that he needs clarification on. Clearly we just went through a major Master Plan for the City of Livonia that re-envisioned that stretch of Farmington Road where Sam's currently resides and the Senior Center and the old courthouse and all that kind of stuff. One point, too, talking about the term of the lease and forgive me if it's in the packet, he didn't look it up, it says the term will commence, extend it until August 31, 2020, subject to the landlord's right to terminate prior thereto as set forth in the lease agreement. If we were to get an amazing deal from a developer who wants to partner with us in a very beneficial way to get the Master Plan done a year from now, do we have the flexibility to do that, is that what that language means? Neville replied what the intent is that going into year two, at the conclusion of year two, or sixty days before the expiration of year number two, the City has the right to exercise the option, the right to say no, we do not elect to exercise the option for year number three and therefore we're going to terminate the lease. 7 For lack of a better way of putting it, we just haven't accounted for this being identified as Master Plan. Basically if that magic development were to be proposed, the City would have to go back and negotiate a plan in regard to that. Neville replied he'll have to plead ignorance on the language in the underlying lease, but if there was language in the underlying lease, because this is essentially modifying the term and then also the rental to be paid. If there was language that would allow the City to terminate the lease having to do with situations such as with the Master Plan, then all those under terms and conditions of that lease remain in full force and effect. So, if there's nothing in there about that, then I would say then we would be stuck for at least two years. Again, I haven't seen the underlying lease. Jolly said he would hate for the City to find themselves in a situation like that and Neville replied he would be glad to look into that and provide that if this is approved, whether it's the Consent or the Regular Meeting, to get you an answer for that. Jolly said Regular is a great option here just to be able to understand what we're looking at. Vice President Bahr stated that he appreciates Jolly bringing that up, it's a legitimate question and he had the same question as he was looking at it. His view on it, and this is just his speculative view, the likelihood of that happening before 2022, being extremely low, particularly just seeing some of the budget challenges that we're going to have here in the next year or two but he does expect by 2022 the Tigers will be competitive. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 9. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2020-05-02-04 submitted by Livonia Budget Storage, L.L.C. re: to develop and operate a climate-controlled, indoor self-storage facility on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Parkville Avenue (29150 Seven Mile Road) in the Southwest '/4 of Section 1. President McIntyre said an email sent to Judy Priebe, Legislative Director, at 5:36 p.m., re: Petition 2020-05-02-04, was received as New Data. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a request to redevelop the former Toys `R Us property on Seven Mile Road. This is the Zoning Map. The property is zoned C- 2, General Business. The surrounding parcels to the east, to the west, and to the north for the most part, are commercially zoned as well. There are three residential properties that border the northeast part of the site. It's a climate controlled facility, self-storage facilities do require waiver use approval. This property was developed originally in 1969 as a toy store. The building itself is about 51,000 square feet. 8 For the most part it sits on one level, however the ceiling height in the structure is tall enough that a second level can be added and in fact that's exactly what the developers intend to do. This is the aerial photograph showing what it looks like. The addition of that second level or partially throughout the first floor would add another 30,000 square feet bringing the total leasable area to about 81,500 square feet. That's enough to accommodate about 650 storage units that would be of various sizes located on both levels. The access to all the units would be restricted to inside building, so one of the requirements for these indoor self-storage facilities is that they, at least within the C-2 Zoning District, is that they cannot contain any exterior roll-up doors for access to those units. All of that would be handled by means of a single entry point which would be located on the west side of the building. And if you look carefully at this drawing, you'll notice here on the west side of the building, there is a drive-thru drop off bay. That area is intended to allow vehicles to park underneath it, it would be enclosed, it would have regulated or it would have doors both on the north and the south sides allowing for vehicles to enter that structure. Clients could then exit the vehicles, unload their materials, or right directly into the building where there are two elevators located to access the second floor. That drop off bay on the original plan reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission was further south on the property. So what you're looking at with this plan is a slight modification to the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. That bay is narrow, narrower, and moved further back on the property, about midway, a little bit beyond midway, along the west elevation, an actual improvement to the design in many respects, quite frankly. And it also increases the amount of landscaping on the property. In terms of parking, one of the major changes to the site will be the removal of a substantial portion of the parking lot, parking that is not needed, no longer needed to support the proposed use. Altogether a combine total of 22 parking spaces are shown on the plan. That has been determined by the planners to be adequate to accommodate the use, it's not something that the City regulates in terms of the amount of parking and rely heavily on what the market requires and these developers are experienced in this type of product and so they believe that the 22 spaces will be adequate. The benefit of that clearly and so adding a substantial amount of green space to the site, most of which is on the north side of the property. You'll notice on the plan that there is an area designated for possible future addition to the building, that is something that would have to come back before the Planning Commission and the City Council before it could be approved. So, access to the site would be controlled, there is a gate, they're far enough on the property so as not to restrict access from Seven Mile, there's the ability of cars to enter the site and get back out safely without the gates interfering. But it would, as you would expect for this type of use, would be controlled through these gates, it would be a decorative fence along the front of the property. The other areas would be fenced using chain link fencing. And then along the east side of the property where it borders the residential, there is the existing masonry screen wall. Landscaping altogether constitutes about 55% of the site. I'll go quickly to the elevation drawings. This is another substantial improvement to the property, what it looks like. I think most everyone is familiar with the existing appearance of the building. You can see that 9 the side of the building facing Seven Mile will be improved substantially with the addition of brick as well as other materials. There would be a tower element added in the southwest corner. And you'll notice on this land that the drive-thru drop off bay is located forward, almost right up to the front of the building, envision that now further back on the property, so that feature will not be as prominent along the front elevation which I think is an improvement. Dumpster is something the Planning Commission reviewed and approved, that would be located on the back portion of the property. Also signage was another matter that was address and you can see that single ground sign located on the front part of the building. We don't have information on any wall signage but that's I would have to get reviewed by the Inspection Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals if it exceeds what is permitted by Code. This comes with an approving resolution by the Planning Commission. Vice President Bahr stated he did notice in the resolution from the Planning Commission, it talks about landscaping being added to that back area, the green space, I think around the detention pond. On the landscaping plan that Council has, he sees a few trees noted in the detention pond, unless I'm looking at the wrong view, I don't see anything in the green space area, can you just clarify. And the reason I highlight this other than I think it's a good question that we had some communication that came in last night hearing from a neighboring business who is in support of the plan but just expressed a desire for more attention so it doesn't just become a blank green lot. Taormina said Mr. EIkUS is here this evening, and he will address Council shortly. It's a conversation they've had as well as with the Petitioner, and that is how that area is treated at least on a temporary basis should be something that is as close to being in a permanently maintained condition as possible. The question then becomes with irrigation and how that area is maintained and while maybe it's not reasonable to require underground irrigation over the area that might someday be a future addition, depending on when that occurs, it is reasonable to make sure that it's properly watered and maintain. So the resolution by the Planning Commission attempts to address that. In terms of the final design of the detention basin, that's something that's till conceptual in nature, we'll have to go through that. It's my hope, in working with the engineers on the final design and with our Engineering Department, that we would have a basin that is a natural part of the landform and not something that is just utilitarian in nature. So this right now addresses the issue of how large this would have to be. So they go through just enough engineering in the design process to verify that they have land area necessary in order to build the basin but hopefully we can work with them on the final design including landscaping to make it look more natural as opposed to just a rectangular linear type of basin which is what it appears like now. Bahr then said you mentioned irrigation in Item No. 4 in the approving resolution from the Planning Commission says that underground sprinklers are to be provided 10 for all landscaped and sodded areas; is it your understanding that that would include this green space? Taormina replied it would not include the detention basin and it would likely not include the area where the addition would go. Other parts would probably have to be treated with permanent irrigation, that's correct. Bahr stated he likes that you're going to be sodding instead of hydroseeding, and he's reading underground sprinklers, so he's asking for clarification of that. He then said in general he likes this project a lot, that he had opportunity to participate in a Rapid Response Meeting on this project in Mayor Brosnan's office and there's been a number of changes it looks like as far as building materials that he thinks are positive, and he thinks it's an attractive building. They're taking a building which right now is not attractive, the only thing attractive about it are his memories of Toys `R Us and he thinks this is going to be a really attractive option on Seven Mile. His other concern with it in that Rapid Response Meeting was this was another area that was highlighted in the Vision 21 Plan, but he actually thinks, we have the Vision 21 Plan out there and we want to be cognizant of that and move towards that, but we can't hold up development either and he actually thinks this is something that is very compatible with the ultimate vision of that and the type of residential development that we're looking to put in there, I think it actually could create a need for this type of thing nearby, so in general he is in support of it. Councilmember Jolly stated he likes this project, he likes that it does not look like a storage facility, he likes that it looks like maybe any kind of corporate structure or office building or something that would add value to the neighborhood. He is also glad to see that the Toys `R Us site will not be lingering and suffering a slow death at that particular intersection. In that intersection we're accustomed to other big retail spaces standing vacant and lingering for decades or at least a decade. There's a lot that we would normally ask for in something like this that I think it's largely accounted for and he thinks it will add value across the board so he is in support of this. Councilmember McCullough asked Taormina if there is a timeline for this project and an estimated ETA of construction process, is it within a year, any idea from the Petitioner? Taormina replied that he will let the Petitioner address that but that he believes this project will get underway as soon as it can, given the lead time necessary to final engineering and plan review and final architectural. McCullough said this might actually accelerate and make it more appealing for that district. Again, for being a storage unit it is pretty nice to see especially from what the old Toys `R Us used to be, even though I will miss Toys `R Us as well. 11 Brandon Grysko, attorney from Fausone Bohn, on behalf of Livonia Budget Storage and the Petitioners, came to the podium. He said in response to Councilman McCullough's comment, they are going to get underway with this project as soon as possible, obviously this is one of the preconditions to doing that. So while they don't have a hard timeline in place yet, they are looking to move as quickly as reasonable in this situation. And in response to Councilman Bahr's comment related to whether there would be sodded irrigation on the north end of the property behind or in the area where the green space is shown, the attempt was to have that hydroseeded, not necessarily irrigated or sodded. And the reason for that being that it's a pretty large space and it would be a pretty significant investment to do that and the hydroseed itself can actually be an improvement over what the sod could look like potentially, just given that it would take an extra growing season to get there. Vice President Bahr thanked Grysko for the clarification and noted while there might be concern about what happens with that green space, an empty green lot is much preferable to an empty concrete lot which is what it is currently, so he doesn't have an issue with that. His concern is that the resolution that comes from the Planning Commission, I don't see that area carved out, so he's glad we all have that understanding but it seems that the resolution that Council ultimately votes on should reflect that unless I'm missing something. Grysko replied that the carve out was in there, that there was one item that said that the area shown as a future addition would be maintained to the satisfaction of the City and I believe that was meant to encompass the situation that we're talking about and that's number 4 towards the end of the item number. Bahr replied that number 4 says underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaping, sodded areas, so I guess technically you're right, you said this part was hydroseeding then that would exclude this part from it because it says all sodded areas shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the City and plants maintained in a healthy condition but then it says all disturbed lawn areas shall me sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; as this is written out wouldn't that include that large green space? Grysko replied that point 3 does talk about the area that includes the detention area and the future addition can be hydroseeded and shall be watered and maintained. Bahr thanked him for the clarification and he then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Lawrence Elkus, 30833 Northwestern Highway, Suite 204, Farmington Hills, came to the podium and stated that he is the agent for Todd Realty, the owner of the property where Perani's which is north of the subject property. He indicated he put together what he thought was a concise email that showed where we were and 12 what the concerns are and we endorse the project, we think it would be a nice addition. We are concerned that the green space is green and as long as Engineering and Planning hear these words in their heads as they're going through it, that's all we're looking for. Vice President Bahr stated he recognizes the practical consideration of the owner as to whether we can configurate an area that large, it's not really being used for anything and possibly it's going to be built over but he hears Elkus' concerns and that he trusts that they're going to maintain that area to the satisfaction of the City and he's not ready to ask for them to sod that area. Elkus replied he's not looking for sod, he's not looking for underground sprinkling, he just wants it to look green and as people come to Perani's, customers, staff, they look over there, he's not looking for a putting green, he's just looking for green. President McIntyre commented that she thinks this gets back to some of the discussions that we've had about things that are required in the site plan and when the Planning Commission approves and then the need to go back and make sure that the project stays in compliance and I think that's what you're asking for. Elkus replied that's right, that's what he's looking for long term. Councilmember McCullough stated he frequent Perani's a lot but seeing what it looks like now, at least going through the construction process, usually these detention basins, the newer ones anyway, the way they filter the water, they don't go stagnant, and especially with that green space. It might take a couple seasons but you're going to start seeing some grass grow through. The seeding profiles that they use now, they'll usually take usually in a fall season, so he would more than happy to walk in Perani's and look over at not a putting green but close. Elkus stated he wanted to thank the City's amazing Planning Commission, Planning Director Mark, wonderful to work with on this project and he applauds them. President McIntyre said in all seriousness as you've recognized, Mr. Taormina does an outstanding job and he wears a lot of hats and he does it well and she doesn't like to speak for the entire Council but she will in this case, they feel extremely fortunate to have him. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 13 AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None heard. As there were no further questions or comments, President McIntyre adjourned the Study Session at 9:58 p.m. on Monday, July 20, 2020. For the 1,902nd Regular Meeting of August 5, 2020 DATED: July 22, 2020 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK