HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 31, 2021 - 255th Regular Minutes signedMINUTES OF THE 255th REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH ROAD
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
The 255th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the
City of Livonia, Michigan, was called to order at 3:05 p.m., Thursday, March 31,
2021, via Zoom.
Members Present: Omar Faris, Chair
John Hiltz
Betsy McCue
Susan Harvey
Dan Laible
Members Absent: Maureen Miller Brosnan, Mayor
Jeremy Curtis, Vice Chair
Stephanie Roehl Blatt
Patrick Mies
Others Present: Mark Taormina, Economic Development &Planning Director
Mike Slater, Director of Finance
Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, Planning
Jacob Uhazie, Planning & Economic Development
Coordinator
1. Roll was called. A quorum was present.
2. Audience Communication. None
3. Adoption of the Minutes.
On a motion made by Hiltz, seconded by Laible, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2021-01 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority
does hereby approve the Minutes of the 254ih Regular Meeting held on
October 15, 2020.
Mr. Faris, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
4. Financial Reports —September 2020 through January 2021, Mr. Slater
went through all months of financials. He specifically explained the
disbursements for all months. As of September 2020, the total assets were
about $1.2 million. The liabilities were about $6,000. The fund balance at
the beginning of the fiscal year, which is from December 1, 2019 through
November 30, was about $555,000. The revenues exceeded the expenses
by $658,000 and the Total Fund Balance was $1.2 million. The expenses
March 31, 2021
2
for September were about $78,000. He explained that the expenses were
comprised of street lighting, which we have every month from DTE, along
with energy from the controllers. There is also an irrigation bill during the
summer months. In September 2020 TechSeven performed on our behalf
and the cost was about $20,000. There is also an expense for OHM for
consulting on the streetscape repair program in the amount of about $3,500.
He stated that the Total Fund Balance for October 2020 was about $1.18
million. The expenses were about $27,000. For November 2020, which is
the end of the fiscal year, the assets were $1.17 million and there were
liabilities of roughly $89,000. These numbers are reported to our external
auditor, Plante -Moran, in the city's financial statements. The expenses for
November were about $22,000, which included the street lighting and the
consulting fee for OHM. In December 2020, the total assets were about
$1.15 million. The liabilities were about $119,000. The Total Fund Balance
was just over $1 million. The expenses were for the street lighting and
consulting fees totaling about $16,000. In January 2021, the total assets
were $1.07 million, and the liabilities were about $49,000. The Total Fund
Balance was $1.02 million. The expenses were $83,000. There was an
expense of $69,000 for our annual water bill for the irrigation of the right-of-
way. This expense is not out of line. Some years it is higher and some
years it is lower. Mr. Faris was a bit concerned about the bills from
TechSeven in the beginning but did recognize that they faded over time.
Jr. Slater stated that last year the expenses for TechSeven were less, but
some years were very high due in part to replacing the controllers. Once
the system is shut down for the season, generally we do not see anything
from them until the system is brought back online in the spring. Mr. Hiltz
wanted to ensure that he could approve the reports since OHM was
included in the expenses. Mr. Slater stated he doesn't feel it is an issue.
Ms. McCue asked about the DTE expenses. She inquired whether the
costs were within what was anticipated. Mr. Slater stated there are no
surprises with the expenses. He explained that when the PRDA was initially
put in place, the street lighting was installed by the PRDA and few years
ago the board decided to sell the streetlights to DTE. The Authority no
longer owns the streetlights. DTE owns them and they are responsible for
the maintenance. We get a bill every month for the energy and
maintenance. The amount that is seen each month is pretty consistent
month to month. The other smaller bills are for energy that is hooked to a
controller. It is measured and is for certain street signs and such. They are
a very small bill each month. After we sold the assets to DTE they had to
be replaced. Mr. Taormina explained that originally the PRDA acquired all
of the street lighting. Those poles that were acquired needed to be replaced
rather quickly. Approximately eight years ago the Board looked into
transferring the ownership back to DTE. It turned out to be a good thing
because they all needed to be replaced. They took their standard light pole
and then the decorative luminaires were added. They were purchased and
supplied to DTE. An inventory of those fixtures are at our DPW yard and
every time a pole falls we supply that part of it. The rest is the responsibility
of DTE. They were presenting real safety hazards at the time they were
March 31, 2021
3
replaced. It was a liability that was removed from the PRDA. Mr. Hiltz
stated that some of the poles were actually condemned. Mr. Taormina
stated that DTE was very cooperative, and they even installed a couple
sample poles to give the Board an idea of what they would look like. He
feels it helped in the final decision.
On a motion made by McCue, seconded by Harvey, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2021=02 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority
does hereby accept and approve the Financial Statements of
the Authority's Special Revenue Fund for the months ending
September 2020 through January 2021.
Mr, Faris, Chairperson, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
5. Update on Streetscape Asset Maintenance Program. Mr.Taormina
explained that the contract was recently executed with RAM Construction
Services. He stated that the work that is going to be undertaken along the
corridor for the streetscape repair program. It identifies each of the major
items associated with the project. It also identifies the unit prices and a total
cost. For all items, the total came to $473,600. He explained that a lot of
time was spent trying to solicit interest in this contract. He said that he felt it
was probably because the services were so varied. It was not easy to find
bidders. Ultimately, we got RAM Construction Services to complete their
final submittal and it was the only one. Jacob Uhazie explained that he did
go on a walk-thru to see what needs to be replaced and where to start. He
stated he believes the project will start on the south side at Levan and then
work east. There will be samples taken of the fencing, one part of the
aluminum, and a part of the iron. It will be about eight weeks to manufacture
replacement fencing. In the meantime, RAM and OHM will be identifying
which areas need to be replaced. The lead-time will also allow time for the
brick work to be undertaken. There should be some upcoming updates
soon. Mr. Taormina introduced Jacob Uhazie as the City's Planning &
Economic Development Coordinator. He will be involved with OHM on this
project. He explained that OHM put the original bid specs and documents
together. They will also be our representative as far as contract
administration and site observation. Jacob will be involved with that. He
stated that hopefully the work will start to be seen next week. They should
be working through the summer. The Chairman stated that he knows that
RAM Construction likes to be efficient. They will do it correctly and move on.
He feels the Board will be happy with how quickly they get things done. He
feels the quantities should be kept an eye on. He feels it is very specific and
that the contractor will stick to those quantities or come back for more if it
goes above and beyond. He stated that when quantities are depicted in a
contract there is usually discussion later about how much was done or how
much is left over. Mr. Hiltz asked what we had budgeted for this work. The
March 31, 2021
4
Chairman stated $500,000 without going to the whole board and $700,000
going to the board. Mr. Slater corrected by saying that is was $500,000 that
the Board authorized to proceed with a contract. If there are overages due
to more work, it would come back to the Board assuming that it is significant.
He stated that it is why we have OHM doing oversite and to monitor
quantities. Mr. Hiltz stated that his recollection was that all the needs are
within the budget. An amount was given to administration to negotiate a
contract under $500,000. It does fall within the estimate. The Chairman
stated that other than getting more bids, it went rather smoothly. Ms. McCue
is very excited to make progress on the corridor. She agrees that there
needs to be checks and balances. She is thrilled that OHM is overseeing it
with RAM. The Chairman suggested that once the project is done, there
should be some type of ad or on the website or somewhere to let the public
know. Mr. Taormina stated that it is something that will be done. He feels it
is important that we announce this, especially to the businesses. Ms. McCue
feels that everyone will be excited to see it happening.
6. Upcoming Plymouth Road Development Projects
Waiver Use Petition 2021-01-02-01 The Space Shop: Indoor Storage
Facility, 31100 Plymouth Road. Mr. Taormina stated that it is a three-story,
100,000 square foot building that AT&T used to occupy until around 2009.
It was sold and has been empty since. There was a church, Journey
Church, that was using a portion of the building for a short time. He
explained that this type of use is not heavy traffic. Half of the site is for
parking and the petitioner doesn't need that part of the site for the intended
use of the building. They are going to reserve that for future development.
They will use the building for indoor storage. There will be ramps in the
back of the building, as well as an elevator, to get access to the lower and
upper levels. He stated that it will be a significant site improvement. The
building will be completely refaced. The front glass lobby will be redone for
branding purposes. They will have an office in the back corner. He stated
that the Planning Commission was very pleased with proposal. It is on the
way to Council but there are some due diligence issues to be resolved
before that. They were invited to this meeting but because of the issues
with the seller, they felt it was premature. They should be back on the
Council schedule in late April or early May. He did show the detailed
landscape plan. Ms. McCue felt that the Commission agreed that it is a
great location and a great use for the building. She felt impressed by the
petitioner and how they repurposed so many different buildings for the
same type of project. They are all very well put together and very detailed
in the landscaping. She stated that when the Commission walked away
from this petition, they all felt really good about how this project was going
to look. The Chairman inquired as to whether the petitioner said what they
were going to use the other portion of the parking lot that is designated for
future development for. He questioned if it has to be for storage or not.
Mr. Taormina said it does not. They did ask about outdoor storage of
recreational vehicles. Mr. Taormina stated that he cautioned against that.
March 31, 2021
5
He indicated to the petitioner that he didn't believe that it would be a good
use for that land and that their request would be met with some resistance.
The petitioner chose not to go down that road. They will wait to decide
what they will do with that portion. The Chairman asked if they decided to
go forward with something on that portion, will it have to go back to
Council? Mr. Taormina said yes it would. Mr. Hiltz questioned if we could
expect to see any change to the front landscaping? He did notice the
existing trees on the boulevard and how they do not show the streetscape
trees by the PRDA. He was questioning where the trees went. Mr.
Taormina stated that it can be looked at as this goes to Council. He said
that it could be recommended where any of the right-of-way trees are
missing that they follow the plantings along Plymouth Road. We can ask
that they are replaced with similar type trees. Mr. Hiltz was making sure
that what is there will be maintained, and this is an opportunity to re-
establish. Mr. Taormina agreed. Mr. Hiltz inquired as to whether the
ramps were for semi -trucks or not. Mr. Taormina stated that he doesn't
even know if they are equipped for semi -trucks. The ramps are for move
all trucks. It is storage for personal items mostly. Mr. Hiltz noticed that on
some of the drawing it showed semi -trucks. Mr. Taormina said that they
may have been designed to accommodate semi -trucks, but he doesn't
believe that is going to be trucks of that class.
Rezoning Petition 2020-08-01-06 Wonderland Village: C-2 to R-8,
29707-30273 Plymouth Road Mr. Taormina shared his screen again. He
stated that the Schostack brothers brought this request to rezone a large
parcel at Wonderland Village. He stated that it is the old K-Mart property
between the Wal-Mart and the LA Fitness. It was thought to be a good
location for higher density residential apartments. A plan was presented to
the City as part of the rezoning request. It went to a Public Hearing but
was removed at the last minute by the developer as the result of a lot of
resistance that they were hearing from the neighborhood. They wanted to
go back and look at how they might be able to achieve a better design to
address some of the concerns of the residents. The structures would be
three -stories. They felt maybe they were too close to the residents in the
rear. This project is on hold. It will have an impact along the corridor if it
happens. The plan is for 200 apartment units with a large courtyard and
large community building with an outdoor swimming pool. The Board will
be updated as the petitioner reaches out to the Planning Commission.
Waiver Use Petition 2021-03-02-05 Thomas's Restaurant: Outdoor
Dining Patio, 33971 Plymouth Road Mr. Taormina stated that this is a
request for an outdoor patio. He shared his screen and showed the plans.
A very detailed landscaping plan was provided. The parking is deficient
and that will have to be addressed when going to Council. He stated that it
will be up for review in front of the Planning Commission in a couple weeks.
Mr. Hiltz stated that he feels they are putting a lot into improving the fagade
of the building and are putting a lot into the property. The Chairman
March 31, 2021
6
agreed. Mr.
Taormina
let the
Board know that they do
have a Class C
liquor license
and
that is
part of
the
request to expand that
license.
Site an Petition 2021-02-08-02 Plymouoppes: Fa9ade
Renovation, 29195-29215 Plymouth Road Mr. Taormina explained that the
owners of the property are looking to change the fagade on the building.
The fagade will be raised up about six or seven feet and will take down the
awnings. They will be replaced with a variety of materials and masonry
that are maintenance free. He explained that next door will be a Biggby
Coffee. The drive-thru for the Biggby is creating some issues with the
owner of this building. It is a civil issue for the time being.
Waiver Use Petition 2020-11-02-10 Shoppes of Livonia: Chick-fil-A and
Other Site/Building Modifications, 29250-29350 Plymouth Road Mr.
Taormina explained this location is where the Office Depot Plaza is located
at the corner of Middlebelt and Plymouth. He gave a brief history of the
tenants of the property. He explained that the new owners are going to be
completely redeveloping this site with a new Chick-Fil-A. He stated that
about one-third of the existing building will be demolished to create the pad
for the Chick-Fil-A. It will have a double drive-thru that wraps around the
building with a pick-up window on the west side of the building. He
explained that traffic was a major topic of discussion. There will also be
another out lot retail building with frontage along Plymouth Road. The
Walgreens property is in the process of being converted into an IHA, a
medical related business. Phase I will consist of the construction of the
Chick-Fil-A, and II and III will be the out lot and the redevelopment of the
main building. No new tenants have been decided on either of the other
buildings at this time. Ms. McCue stated that the traffic was a huge topic of
conversation. She stated that there was a lot poured into the traffic study.
There will be some adjustments on the timing of signals, along with other
signs regarding left turns, etc. She stated that everyone on the
Commission is excited about the facelift coming to this corner. She
proceeded to speak a little bit about how Chick-Fil-A has a methodology as
to how they wait on the customers, and how they address the inside and
outside lanes. Mr. Hiltz mentioned that he would be alarmed by the traffic
of a Chick-Fil-A. He has only seen a large backup. He wanted to know
what the expectation of the queue is, and will it have an adverse effect on
any of the other businesses or proposed businesses that are there. Ms.
McCue said that the new owners expect it to be in the beginning during the
novelty stage when it opens. She said there is not a lot of competition in
that area for them. She said they do understand there will have to be some
traffic control and have acknowledged that they will be responsible for
some of that. Mr. Taormina said that they are being required to present a
traffic plan to the Traffic Bureau through the Police Department at least six
weeks prior to opening. That plan will provide they will manage on -site
stacking and traffic circulation. The option of being able to queue up their
traffic in multiple lanes in the main parking lot during the honeymoon
phase. After that diminishes, hopefully it won't impact the other phases of
March 31, 2021
7
construction. Mr. Hiltz wanted to know if these projects, like Thomas's,
were asked to try and compliment the corridor landscape. He would like to
see a complimentary landscaping that would climb them into the corridor.
Or. Taormina said that we can relate that back to the Commission. Mr.
Hiltz would like to see that any sites that come in front of the Commission,
that they consider materials that would be complimentary to the corridor.
As. McCue stated that the PRDA is always considered on these properties,
but that maybe we should be a bit more specific and more consistent.
7. Request for Minor Correction to PRDA Development Area Legal
Description
Mr. Taormina stated that when the PRDA was established much of it
revolved around the district that was created. The city has been focused on
what to do with the Alfred Noble Library. It has been closed due to flooding
and mold issues. The future of the building has led the way to a discussion
A how that would affect the surrounding area including Sheldon Park and
the former fire station on Farmington Road. Numerous steps have been
taken regarding the surveys. Some easements need to be cleaned up in
the language in the deeds from when the land was originally acquired by the
city. An error was also discovered in the original legal description for the
district. It was always the intent to include the Alfred Noble library and
Sheldon Park within the development area within the district. The legal
description did not include it. It was included in one part of the plan but not
in the other. The Law Department did review it and realized that it was
always the intent of the PRDA to include the Sheldon Park and Alfred Noble
library within the district. The simple solution is to correct the legal
description. An amendment has been provided to the Board that would
correct this legal error and incorporate the park and the library within the
district boundaries. Mr. Taormina showed an aerial photograph of the
current boundaries and explained what the corrected legal description would
encompass. This could lead to the PRDA having a major role in the future
decisions regarding the redevelopment of these properties. Mr. Hiltz
clarified that this change could have significant importance for eligibility.
As. McCue questioned whether the upkeep and maintenance would then
become a part of the PRDA responsibility. Mr. Taormina said that it is still
being evaluated for what options are available. This is an important step
that gives a greater opportunity for the future. Once the land is incorporated
into the district, then the resources of the PRDA are available to play a role
in the redevelopment of the property. Mr. Hiltz inquired if the properties
became public -private partnership, would they then become taxable? Mr.
Taormina said depending on what is ultimately decided for portions of the
property, and should the city decide to sell any of the property or partner up
with someone, it could become taxable. That is one possible solution. Mr.
Hiltz stated that this has the potential of a capture, but it also allows the
PRDA to possibly partner on this development and use some of their
resources. Mr. Taormina concurred.
March 31, 2021
8
On a motion made by Hiltz, seconded by Harvey, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2021-03 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority
does hereby approve the correction to the legal description to
include the Alfred Noble library and the east half of the Sheldon
Park parcels, as intended, and incorporate it into the Plymouth
Road Development Authority district boundaries.
Mr. Faris, Chairperson, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
8. Comments and Motions from Board Members. None.
9. Adjournment: On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously
adopted, the 255th Regular Meeting held by the Plymouth Road
Development Authority on March 30, 2021, was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.
A 2 %
d 04
Patrick Mies, gecretary