Loading...
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