Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2018-10-02 MINUTES OF THE 1,130th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 2, 2018, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,130th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: David Bongero Glen Long Carol Smiley Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Sam Caramagno, Betsy McCue, Peter Ventura Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2018-08-01-05 LEO SOAVE BLDG. INC. Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2018-08-01-05 submitted by Leo Soave Building Inc. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 20209, 20219, 20225, 20235 and 20307 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from R-U-F, Rural Urban Farm (minimum 1/2 acre lot) to R-1, One Family Residential (60' x 120' Lots). October 2, 2018 28757 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone five contiguous parcels that are on the west side of Farmington Road south of Eight Mile Road from RUF to R-1, One Family Residential. The five properties in question combined measure approximately five acres with 363 feet of frontage on Farmington Road and a depth of approximately 600 feet. Houses currently exist on 20235 and 20225 Farmington Road, while the remaining three parcels are vacant. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the development of a single-family site condominium. With respect to the adjoining land uses and zoning, immediately to the north of the subject parcels is an office complex that is zoned OS, Office Services. Lying to the east across Farmington Road are other office buildings as well as G. Subu's Leather Bottle restaurant, which is zoned C-2. Immediately to the west of the property is On the Pond Condominiums zoned R-7, Multi-Family Residential, and lying immediately to the south are residential homes that are part of the Windridge Village Subdivision zoned R-3, One Family Residential. The conceptual plan submitted with the application shows how the site might be developed should the rezoning move forward. The plan is based on the single-family cluster option which is available under Article XX of the Zoning Ordinance. Clustering is intended to provide design flexibility by allowing smaller lot sizes and reduced setbacks but at densities that are capped according to the zoning. In an R-1 zone, which is proposed here, the maximum density allowed would be four homes per acre. The concept plan shows a single access road ending in a cul-de-sac. There are 20 lots measuring between 50 to 70 feet in width and 120 to 150 feet in depth, with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 square feet to 11,595 square feet. As a conventional R-1 project, the minimum lot dimensions would be 60 feet by 120 feet. The conceptual design of the stormwater management system shows bioretention swales located along the perimeter of the site. Further engineering is needed to confirm if this will suffice in lieu of a more traditional detention basin. The Future Land Use Plan designates this site for Medium Density residential. This category of land use supports housing densities ranging from 4 to 14 dwelling units per acre. At a maximum allowable density of four dwelling units per acre, the proposed R- 1 zoning is at the low end of the density range that is recommended under the Future Land Use Plan. At the upper end of the density range for Medium Density residential, which is 14 dwelling units per acre, the corresponding zoning might be R-C, R-7 and possibly R-8 Multiple Family Residential. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. October 2, 2018 28758 Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 7, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced rezoning petition. We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time. The existing parcels are assigned the addresses of#20209, #20219, #20225, #20235 and #20307 Farmington Road. The legal descriptions provided appear to be correct and should be used in conjunction with his petition. The existing parcels are currently serviced by public utilities, but the information submitted does not show proposed connections or calculations, so we cannot determine impacts to the existing systems at this time. The developer has been in contact with this Department and is aware of the site plan requirements including storm water detention and the requirements for certifying that the storm sewer outlet has the available capacity to handle the additional flows from the site. It should be noted that the developer will also be required to obtain Wayne County permits for any work within the Farmington Road right-of-way. We will provide a detailed review once full Engineering site plans have been submitted for approval." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 5, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated September 21, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. The next is an email from Ewa Kedzierska, dated October 1, 2018, which reads as follows: "As I cannot attend the 1,130th Public hearing on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2018, please accept this email to be read in my stead. Petition 2018-08-01-05 by Leo Soave requesting rezoning of properties at 20209, 20219, 20225, 29236, 20307 Farmington Road from R-U-F to One Family Residential. I object to this request for rezoning and kindly ask you to consider the following before granting or not. (1) Farmington Road is a main thoroughfare through Livonia and right now reflects the diversity of the city with many different homes and businesses combined. This is good and I feel reflects well on the city. Recently four `cookie cutter' homes were constructed on Farmington Road between 6 and 7 Mile Roads - at writing two homes are still for sale. It concerns me that five October 2, 2018 28759 similar homes on small lots would be constructed turning our'end' of Farmington Road into a strip of cookie cutter tract homes, thus losing its charming eclectic character. (2) Folker's Farmington Acres (where I reside) is the area east of Farmington Road and the neighborhood is a real neighborhood. There are larger and smaller lots, a large variety of housing, a lot of green spaces and many neighbors really know each other. We do not want to lose this identity and we feel that we should retain larger lots for families and - with the growing trend - for vegetable gardening etc. There are still plenty of single-family homes all over Livonia for sale. We should have diversity in the city and constructing single family homes along a stretch of a main road such as Farmington defeats that purpose. Thank you for your consideration." The email is from Ewa Kedzierska, 20310 Mayfield, Livonia, Michigan 48152. The next letter is from James Inglis, dated September 27, 2018, which reads as follow: "Please be advised that I'm a resident of the On the Pond Condominiums which is adjacent to the west of the proposed construction of new homes under the R-1 zoning district. /'m also on the Board of Directors of the On the Pond Condominiums and have worked with residents on Norfolk Avenue on landscaping issues in recent years. The proposed rezoning from RUF to R-1 is not compatible to the adjacent Norfolk properties which are zoned R-3_ While new housing is beneficial to the area, the proposed smaller lot sizes would be a detriment to neighbors to the south and specifically those owners on Norfolk Avenue. I believe a rezoning to R-3 would not only benefit the Norfolk residents but also enhance the value of the On the Pond condominiums. Therefore, I would encourage the Planning Commission to deny the R-1 zoning in favor of the R-3 zoning district. Thank you for your consideration.". The letter is signed by James Inglis, 33695 Pondview Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, the petitioner is here. Before we get into this item, I just want to remind both the petitioner and the folks in the audience that this is a rezoning request. We're going to focus our attention on zoning issues. A conceptual site plan was provided to show how this property may be developed if it is rezoned to R-1, but that is not the actual site plan that we are going to be approving tonight. That will come back in a future meeting if this zoning proceeds. Mr. Baki, do you want to start with your name and address? Sam Baki, 38901 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. As Mr. Taormina mentioned, this property is sitting on Farmington Road. It's been October 2, 2018 28760 sitting mostly vacant for years, and it's sitting in a transitional area. To the north we have commercial, office; to the west is R- 7, to the south is R-3, across the street is commercial. We feel R- 1 is a good transition to go from the R-3 to the office/condo on the west side. Now, the R-7, like Mr. Taormina said, we can go up to 14 units but we're not looking for that. We're looking just for the four units per acre at this time so we can at least try to get 20 lots out of it. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other information you want to provide to us? Mr. Baki: No. Like Mr. Taormina mentioned, the site plan is conceptual; it's not the last one because we're still checking with the requirement by Wayne County sewer/storm and the entrance and everything else. This property is 360 feet wide so even with a typical subdivision, most of the time we use 30. That's why if you notice the conceptual we gave a 40-foot setback where technically, it's not a detention but it's a stormwater management system that will be fully landscaped. That's one of the principles so we can create a huge buffer for the homes on the south side. That's what the conceptual is but we're still not final because we're still doing all the calculations and everything else we need to do. We'll be coming back for that. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Thank you, Mr. Baki. Is there any questions for our petitioner? Mr. Bongero: Mr. Baki, did you guys ever consider doing 70-foot wide lots? Mr. Baki: With the property that we have right now, because of the configuration of the land, it's tough. It's going to be hard to do to accommodate to try to get the 20 lots. Mr. Bongero: It looks like you would have to forfeit a couple lots, but it would make the subdivision with a little bit larger lots. Mr. Baki: No, I understand, but the reason we're doing it that way because I know you guys, it's not crucial for the Commission or anybody else, but the value of the land. That's the reason it's been sitting for a long time and different people tried to. It's not economical to do with the development and everything else we have to do cost- wise. Mr. Bongero: I understand. I have another concern. When I walked the property, you've got the bioretention pond around the perimeter of the new development and then the letter from the Engineering Department, they discuss that this look suitable to handle the October 2, 2018 28761 additional drainage from this new development, but the lots to the south, all those homes, most of the backyards drain directly towards this vacant parcel. Do these retention ponds take that into consideration, the volume of water coming in? Mr. Baki: It will take it 100 percent. This property, we already did some boring to see about the ground itself. It's sand. So it will drain properly without any problems. Whenever we develop anything, adjacent properties are going to be lower than them. So whatever excess comes off their property, comes to ours and drains into the storm system that we're going to create to discharge like we're supposed to with Wayne County. That was the reason we created the 40-foot setback in that area. Mr. Bongero: I understand. And the type of home, is it going to be similar to the home that Mrs. Kedzierska was concerned about up on Farmington Road? Is it the same? Mr. Baki: No. They will be bigger. Those homes on Farmington Road, everything on Farmington Road is going around $250,000. We're going to be at $350,000 and up. They're going to be bigger homes. They won't be small. Mr. Bongero: I have no more questions. Mr. Long: Again, recognizing that this is a conceptual plan, but the road is only 27 feet wide. Mr. Baki: That's what the City of Livonia requires. It's a concrete road. The actual width of the road is at the right-of-way 60 feet wide. The City of Livonia requires the 27. Sometimes they go up to 29. Whatever they require we're going to do. We're not against it. Mr. Long: And by doing this, the 27 feet, this allows you to put in sidewalks? Mr. Baki: Yes. That's why the City's been requiring it. It allows for one car to park on the side and everything else like they always do. That will create sidewalks through the whole subdivision on both sides. And landscaping, trees and everything else. Mr. Long: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Please come up to the podium. Please give us your name and address for the record. October 2, 2018 28762 Lyn Gerber, 19963 Myron Drive, Livonia, Michigan. I live in that subdivision to the south that I call Pine Creek. I'm new at this. This is all kind of new knowledge for me. So if some of the issues I have you've already addressed, bear with me, but it was my thoughts today at school. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We'll go easy on you. Ms. Gerber: Okay. As a resident of the subdivision just south of the proposed Soave building project, I would like to call to your attention the following concerns. It is my understanding that the builder is requesting permission to construct approximately 60 homes with the accompanying sidewalks, central drive/street, and a subdivision separating berm, is what I understood. I heard now about a retention pond. I believe the proposed number of units is too dense for the rezoned property. Consider the following issues. I was a lithe worried about infrastructure overload. In our sub, as well as others at this location, we've experienced power outages as you might know, during the previous couple of decades. I've been there 34 years, and an explanation given to residents included the fact that new constructions have taxed the existing systems for energy delivery and usage. Adding a great many more homes can possibly cause future outage challenges. So my question is, what is the plan for powering these homes and is it an additional supply or adding to the current supply in the area? Another area, maybe you're not familiar with, is the flood and water absorption issues. As you know, we're right on the Tarabusi Creek and presently, the area under consideration for development is rural zoned with a good deal of open land that allows for good precipitation absorption. With the proposed constructions and sidewalks and streets and this kind of small lot sizes, I am concerned that more water will end up causing flood or wetland overloads on our properties. You maybe don't remember because you're all babies, you're all young, but in our subdivision on our south end, we had a severe flooding problem way on the south end about 15 years ago or so. And there were claims for exterior and interior house damage. So my question is, has the Soave engineer or project manager been informed of the prior flooding and what is the current plan to prevent flooding? He addressed a little bit about that with this catch area, which I'm kind of hazy about. Maybe you guys out there understand it a little better. Traffic issues. Farmington Road is a well used means of transit to the bigger expressways, especially I know at 6:00, 6:30, 7:00 in the morning. At peak times, it's quite a challenge to enter and exit our sub either northbound or southbound on Farmington Road. I just can't imagine how much this congestion will be compounded with the addition of more new houses in the area. My question is, will MDOT be conducting a traffic study currently October 2, 2018 28763 and after construction? When you look at where the opening will be for the new subdivision, man oh man, I could get rear ended or crashed on a left hand turn either way. So I'm a little worried about that. And the width of the new street. I'm glad he mentioned that because I just don't see enough room for a full width street with easements and sidewalks and backyards and comfortable distances between buildings. It's a little bit too compact for me to be a favorable coupling with my present subdivision, and I want to know, does the current proposed street allow for parking on both sides of the street and also allow for emergency vehicles to pass, because that's a big concern of mine because I'm old. Also, public school enrollment. I'm a teacher, a retired teacher, but I still volunteer teacher and I know how the addition of a gob of new kids, and we could stand to get maybe 40 to 130 new kids in this new sub, and that means we'll have an increase of bus pickups and drop-offs and also the average class size is going to increase and maybe you aren't concerned, but you know I walk that beat. I know what happens when you get one, two, three more kids in your room, and everybody says, well, the average class size is 26 kids because you count the secretaries and you could the speech teachers and everything, and instead of 23 kids, you end up with 28 kids in your room. I'm a little worried about that and I wondered if you've asked for input from the teachers who will receive these new students. And also, remember, kids grow up to be drivers. Will there be enough on-street parking to accommodate the kids as they age into the need for second, third and fourth cars? You know how that is. I'm a little worried about that new street that's going to go in, if it's fat enough. And property value enhancement. Right now, Pine Creek as well as the subs further south on Farmington, have houses with ample square footage and Livonia size, that 80 by 120 feet lots, and it seems that the proposed smaller lots and denser R-1 construction maybe would decrease our established property values. That does not sit well with many of you guys and me. Also, our sub is quiet and peaceful and built near natural landmarks like the Tarabusi Creek and the Rouge River. We like that quiet and we like the natural setting. I don't know, again, all these new residential sites, will they take away from our quiet and natural ambiance and that? Here's my suggestions. I realize that Soave has the right to use the land that's been purchased. I realize that. But a construction company should also strive to make present homeowners happy. Afterall, we've been here a while and when building is done, the builder walks away and we remain. So, I'd like to propose that the lot size be enlarged, a large amount of land left open would be welcome and helpful. So maybe rezoning to R-3 would match our Pine Creek subdivision, and maybe we can reduce the number of houses that will be built. I still want the October 2, 2018 28764 guys to make money, but I'd like nice house compatible with ours and lot sizes compatible. Also, another thing, we had another new sub built that used to be like medium growth forest between Farmington Road and our sub, and they kind of whacked down all the trees and built another subdivision there, but we had a little problem with berms, those big bumps they put in. I just want to make sure that the homeowners on the other side of this water retention pond or berm or whatever they put, that they get some input about their concerns, you know of that issue, to make sure they're addressed and that they're not short changed. I want more than just a squeak by add-on of that doo dad to them. To us it's really important. I also propose that the City have an informal or formal discussion or study with the teachers about their concerns with an upcoming increase in their enrollment and I also propose the constructed street match the size of existing streets in Pine Creek. Sidewalks and easements need to be proper sizes too and ample parking on each side of the street should be required and ample room for emergency vehicles. I'm almost done. I've lived in Livonia in my Pine Creek sub in my lovely home since 1984. My neighbors deserve your respect and consideration when evaluating the new subdivision constructions that is presently up for discussion this evening. And if you'd like further input, I've given you my telephone number and my address. I'd be glad to add my ten cents, and I made copies for you if you want. Thanks for listening to me. Mr. Wilshaw: You did an excellent job. Todd Salo, 33524 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. I have a few questions for Mr. Taormina. Mr. Wilshaw: Please ask your questions and we will try to get them answered. Mr. Salo: Mr. Taormina, I'm not familiar with the cluster versus conventional R-1 zoning. Could you expand on that? What the minimums would be for cluster zoning as far as lot size, house size, whatever. The other question for Mr. Taormina, are there any other RUF parcels that are designated for Medium Density on the Future Master Plan in northwest Livonia? Perhaps, he could also provide us with a little bit of a history why these lots are designated as R-7 on the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand. Do you have any additional questions? Mr. Salo: Not for Mr. Taormina. October 2, 2018 28765 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Let's start with Mr. Taormina. Mark, the questions were about explaining the difference between the cluster option and regular. Mr. Taormina: Again, R-1 is the zoning category that is proposed here that would establish minimum lot sizes and design standards for any development. The distinction between a project that is considered conventional versus cluster is, the conventional would have to meet the lot size as prescribed in the ordinance which would be 60 feet by 120 feet for a total area of 7,200 square feet. Clustering is a special land use option, meaning that the City can, if it feels the right circumstances exist on the property being developed, apply standards which are intended to allow for more efficient use of the land. This is accomplished by reducing the lot sizes as well as the setbacks of the homes. There's no difference necessarily in the size of the homes. In certain cases, clustering would allow attachment of homes. But the main purpose of clustering is to provide even greater flexibility, particularly on sites that are constrained by natural features or that may have an odd shape to them, or may be small in size, or clustering could be used possibly as an alternative to higher density forms of housing where, again, it's deemed to be appropriate. In allowing smaller lot sizes, the ordinance expects there to be land left for some open space, whether it's for stormwater detention or for other purposes, such as parks. But it also prescribes certain buffering standards that have to occur whenever there are single-family homes that adjoin cluster developments. The ordinance has several standards that apply. So that's the primary difference. Tonight's consideration really doesn't involve whether or not this site should be developed as a cluster. That's something the developer would attempt to pursue should the zoning move forward. The Planning Commission is not necessarily bound by a decision to approve a cluster if they move forward with the zoning this evening. Your other question with respect to are there other RUF zoned properties in northwest Livonia that are designated on the Future Land Use Plan for Medium Density residential, I suspect there are. However, I can't cite any right now in particular. I would have to go back and take a look at the plan and identify where those properties are located. The map on the screen, as you can see, is an excerpt or a part of our Future Land Use Plan showing how it is designated as Medium Density. When that was done, I'd have to go back and take a look. More than likely, this category of land use was established for this group of parcels a number of years ago, and it could have been done by a previous Commission after studying what they felt were the appropriate land uses for this area. Oftentimes, that Medium Density category is considered a nice transitional zone between commercial land October 2, 2018 28766 uses and other single-family areas. It's not surprising to see that the City planners chose these properties for Medium Density residential. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Salo, I was going to echo Mr. Taormina's comments in regard to the Future Land Use Plan. It's most likely that whenever this was set, which could have been 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago, was looking at a transition between Low Density residential to the office and commercial property that's to the north and having a buffer or something in between. Mr. Salo: My feeling, more likely, is when the On the Pond apartments were built back in the mid-80's, around the same time as our subdivision was built, the plan was possibly that . . . obviously there's homes on these areas at the time the On the Pond apartments were built . . . wasn't possible to put apartments there at that time. That's probably how the designation came about but it's certainly outdated in my opinion. Can I ask a few questions through the Chair to Sam Baki? Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Fire away the questions. Mr. Salo: For the record, Leo Soave has owned one of these pieces of property since 2001, if the Board is not aware of that. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, we are. Mr. Salo: I'm assuming, Mr. Baki, that has been the plan for quite some time to gather all these properties together and develop them as single-family homes. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Salo, you need to ask us. Like we did with Mr. Taormina, if you can give us all your questions, we will ask Mr. Baki. Mr. Salo: I'm sorry. My other question to Mr. Baki is, through the Chair, would you agree that without the Master Plan designation, that you would have submitted a proposal for less density? Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We'll see about that. Mr. Salo: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Baki, Mr. Salo asked a question about the ownership of the property and if there was an intent to acquire all these parcels to do this development. October 2, 2018 28767 Mr. Baki: Mr. Soave, since he started building in the City of Livonia for the last almost 45-50 years, he does pick up scattered lots, whatever is available, especially on acreage parcels and some not, but mostly acreage, and he does plan always to move forward on it. But as everybody is aware of, that property stayed vacant for a long time, not because he didn't want to buy the rest, but because all the people next door didn't want to budge on their price because they were going after commercial. If anybody recalls, which probably the neighbors do, those properties, the neighbors were asking $250,000 an acre for years. I tried, separate from Leo Soave, prior, when I was doing development, and we almost came in, tried to come in with an R-7 to do the same thing because of the high price property. Now, in the last two months, one of the persons who was holding off, didn't want to budge on the price, went down a little bit and now made it feasible to make the deal and make it work to see if he can sell it because they got older, the people who live in the house. There's one lady who owned two properties. There's another guy who owns two properties. Leo only owns one. Actually, Leo owns the one further north next to the commercial. That was the intention from years ago to go to commercial/office, but when the office business went down, nobody bought it. Leo was thinking, hey, if I can make a few bucks, I don't have to develop it, but it didn't work. So he's been sitting on that property, rented it out, for years. The house is a small house and it's not worth anything. Until he was approached by the neighbors. Now, we're ready to make a deal. Let's make a deal and see what we can do. That's the reason it stayed till this long. Like anybody else, investors, they put their money and they expect to see what they can do down the road. That's what he did. The other issue about the zoning. If it wasn't for the Medium Density requirement that was already approved from the 1980's, like the gentlemen mentioned. He's right. When the R-7 went through, that's when they did that. Right after that, they designed it and they did ... he wouldn't even pay or try to buy the whole thing if he's expecting to put in only a few lots. It's not just the cost of the land. It's the cost of the developments that's expensive. The other issue, which Mr. Taormina mentioned, which was asked earlier by the young lady or the gentleman, the principle behind the cluster, like Mr. Taormina mentioned, one of the things we're trying to do with that is like what we did with the conceptual, create bigger greenery. This bioswale is going to grass, all landscaped, and we're talking 40 feet, not 10 or 15 or 20. It's not a big berm. It's a bioswale, a little bit lower than the ground, and it's all going to be greenery and that's one of the principles behind the cluster. Can we make the lots 60 foot all the way down? Yes, but then we'll have to configure it in a different way. Then the lots will only be 120 deep October 2, 2018 28768 just like the R-3 south of us. but what we're doing is, instead of the 120 depth, as you noticed, it's 160 now technically, even though it's 120 for the lot. And the backyard is not going to change. So if the R-1 zoning the backyard is 30 feet, now you've got 70 feet backyard abuts the R-3. That's why we designed it. We tried to design it that way, but we're still playing with the conceptual and we have to work on the waste water management issue, which is Wayne County and City. We're working on that right now. Mr. Wilshaw: Like I mentioned at the beginning, we want to focus mostly on zoning. Mr. Baki: I understand. I just have to clarify things because that was the main reason we're trying to go for the cluster because of the land itself. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Baki. I appreciate those answers. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Scott Pennnington, 33638 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. We're one of the furthest homes from Farmington Road that abuts this property. I know we're only talking conceptual. Our lot backs up to where this retention ditch or whatever you want to refer to it as, is not shown on the conceptual drawing. I do have a bit of a concern that we're talking about making a decision based on conceptual, and I'm sure, not being familiar with the process, I'm sure you have checks and balances in place, but I would hate to, for the Commission to move forward, approve the change in the zoning, and then have the builder come and redesign his plans and some of these things, some of the promises or the items that are being mentioned, are no longer in the plans. So that's one thing that concerns me a little bit when we talk about conceptual. Kind of not to take up too much time because everybody else is saying the same thing. I've lived in Livonia for 40 years. One of the things that's attractive to Livonia, it's always been a well-managed city. It's had services for the residents and I really think it's done a very good job protecting the residents and the interests of the residents. With the Rec Center, with the developments, by putting these cluster homes right adjacent to our property, I'm really concerned that it's going to end up looking kind of like the development that's happened on Farmington Road where they're packing them in right on top of each other. Certainly, to me, and I know the neighbors, it's not a very attractive situation. I don't think it's the Planning Commission's responsibility to approve a change so that a developer can be profitable. When the developer buys the property, I mean, just like all of us. We buy October 2, 2018 28769 property and we're risking our investment in the property. I think the Planning Commission needs to look at what's best for the City of Livonia and what's best for those people that are immediately going to be impacted by this development, and that's why we're all here today, just to make sure that our voice is heard, to make sure . . . I mean we understand we don't own the property. We understand it's going to be developed. We'd like to see it developed to something that fits with our current subdivision, with the R-3 configuration, with 80-foot lots. Our lots are 80 foot by 120. There certainly seems to be enough depth for the lots. The width of the lots, yes, they're going to lose some houses, but that's what's going to happen if you're not able to cluster houses right in on top of each other. The young lady here mentioned the utilities and electricity is one concern, but the other thing is water. I think we're on the end of the water line. I know when it hasn't rained for a few days, my sprinklers are only functioning at half capacity. What's going to happen if we add 20 additional homes into that water system? That's pretty much all my comments. Again, I think we understand the lot can be developed, but I think we'd like to see it developed so that it fits with our subdivision, it doesn't impact our property values as opposed to trying to pack as many homes in there to make it as profitable as possible for the developer. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Pennington. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this item? As this lady comes forward, I just want to help explain a little bit about how this works. We're looking at zoning, so we're trying to see if the proposed zoning is proper for this area based on the lot widths it would create and the density that it would create compared to the surrounding areas. If this zoning is approved, either as R-1 or anything else, this would then go on to City Council with a recommendation of that zoning. City Council has their own public hearing where you have another chance to speak on the item, and also, typically, what the Council will do is they will hold the zoning until the site plan goes through this whole same process of our Commission review and then also the City Council. That way there is no surprise when the site plan comes forward to make sure that everything that was talked about and promised is there. If those things don't materialize for some reason, the Council has the opportunity to deny that at that time. With that, Ma'am, your name and address? Regina Aimar, 33651 Pondview Circle, Livonia, Michigan. I have a very different take on the situation than the people who own homes that back up to that property, and I respect everything they said. I'm going to approach this from a different point of view. I have owned a condominium because my Mom lives at On the Pond October 2, 2018 28770 Condominiums in Livonia I can't tell you how many years. For five or six years now. I volunteer at the Livonia Library bookstore. I go to the Y in Livonia. I love the City of Livonia. My husband and I have been looking for a residence. We live in the UP part of the time and in Livonia the other part, and we're looking for a residence in Livonia. Part of the reason is because Livonia has a feel of, a lot of the neighborhoods, the houses aren't right on top of each other. There's property. You can use your backyard when you have grandkids. They can come and play. It's not going to bother the neighbors. My take on the situation is, I wouldn't even look at a piece of property that's 60 feet wide because you're so limited to the neighbors and so limited to using your backyard other than going through the house. My favorite street in all of Livonia is Hubbard Road because of the park at the end of the road and because of the Rec Center that's right near that road. Okay? And all of Livonia's services. There's homes that the people here have been talking about on Farmington Road that are new. The ones that are clustered together that look the same, and there's several homes on Hubbard Road, and then I heard they were putting a home on Hubbard. I was so excited until I went to see the home on Hubbard because there's no backyard. The two homes are right on top of each other and I wouldn't even consider buying a home in Livonia if that's what the whole city looks like. So I just wanted to approach this from a different point of view as a person that would love to reside in Livonia that's been looking to resident in Livonia, and I can tell you that if that is a cluster home situation, I wouldn't even be interested in buying a home in the City of Livonia. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I appreciate that. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Tony Varlesi, 33676 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. Me and my wife have lived on Norfolk for 33 years and our house backs up to the property in question. As a homeowner, I don't object to having houses built, but when you talk about lot sizes, 60 feet, to me, that's not adding to the property value of the existing lot sizes and houses that we live in in our neighborhood. My main concern is I want to get the best bang for the buck if I ever have to sell my house, and I don't think that lot sizes that small are going to add to the value currently that our houses are worth right now. That's it. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you. Anyone else? Tim Kilroy, 20148 Stamford Drive, Livonia, Michigan. I'm the last house on the left down Norfolk Road. I moved to Michigan and I settled in Livonia 24 years ago and that's where I landed.While the gentleman here October 2, 2018 28771 that's representing the firm that bought property to make an investment, so did everybody else here. In the 34 years, 33, 24 and it's not just a one-time investment. These people have made improvements to improve their property, siding, new windows, landscaping, upgraded kitchens and baths. They made an investment and they're staying. So I just want to lend my voice to support my neighbors. I would like to see R-3, the property zoning that complements the neighborhood. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Mr. Salo, one more chance. Mr. Salo: Written comments I can make please'? Mr. Wilshaw: Of course, Mr. Salo: While I fully support single family homes for these properties, I do not believe R-1 is the proper zoning for the following reasons. (1) Not harmonious with adjacent properties — eight existing homes are at least 80 x 120 lots, all zoned R-3. (2) Not consistent with most recent neighborhood development. There are 75 homes in our subdivision built in the mid-80's. In 1999/2000 Irving Drive was extended south adding 13 homes. In 2005, Irving Drive was further developed adding three more homes. See my attachment on the back. All 16 of these very attractive homes are at least 80 by 120 lots and are zoned R-3. According to the online Livonia Property Inquiry database, all these properties had the same grantor — Leo Soave. (3) Market value suppression of existing homes. A hypothetical example: 20 R-1 homes at$300,000 equal 15 R-3 homes, which would be the maximum allowed, at $400,000. Each scenario yields $6 million in property value; however, the existing 75 homes in the subdivision will have their property tax base suppressed by the R-1 zoning versus R-3 zoning. This, of course, will lead to less revenue for the City of Livonia, Livonia Public Schools, Wayne County, Schoolcraft College, Huron Clinton Metro Parks, etc. (4) Variety of housing. Washington Park is being developed with 45 lots of R-1. Clay School project is being developed as R-2; however, 20 lots out of 50 are less than 60 feet wide. To the best of my knowledge, there are no R-3 subdivisions currently being developed in Livonia. Since vacant land is scarce, this could be one of the last opportunities for high end housing in northwest Livonia. (5) Demand. According to Zillow, since September 1, 2017, over 50 homes have sold in Livonia for at least $350,000 with at least 22 homes over $400,000. In fact, the Petitioner is currently constructing about 13 luxury R-4 homes at Mystic Creek. Thus, we both appear to agree that the economy is strong and there is October 2, 2018 28772 a demand for higher end housing. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to me that it would be in the best interest of our City to have some new R-3 home options to offer our residents; otherwise we risk losing them to our neighboring communities such as Northville, Plymouth, etc. (6) Aesthetics. The preliminary site plan shows 11 lots out of 20 less than the typical R-1 threshold of 7,200 square feet and 10 of those lots are only 50 feet wide. I believe this development would be enhanced with wider lots. (7) Density. R-1 (four units per acre) can be viewed as Low Density (1 to 5 units per acre) or Medium Density (4 to 14 units per acre) which makes its definition somewhat arbitrary. Therefore, if Low Density is acceptable by definition within the Master Plan, I believe the Planning Commission could use their discretionary powers, granted under the Master Plan, and consider other Low Density rezoning options such as R-3. In summary, I, like everyone else here, am proud to be a Livonia resident. The Planning Commission, the Planning Director and the Petitioner, Leo Soave, have all made tremendous contributions to make this City a beautiful place to live. Many of us have lived in this neighborhood at least 25 years and, of course, want what is best for our community. With all due respect to the petitioner, it is my firm conviction that this R-1 proposal is not the best usage for this site or our community. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Salo. I appreciate that. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?With that, we'll go back to Mr. Baki and just ask if there's anything else that you would like to address based on any of the comments that you've heard? Mr. Baki: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions from the Commission for Mr. Baki or any of the residents? If not, I will close the public hearing and a motion would be in order. Mr. Long: We've heard a lot of interesting testimony tonight and these things are never easy. Looking at the purposes and the ideas behind the Future Land Use Plan and then knowing, of course, that we are not the final word on this. This will go on to City Council as part of a larger plan. In order to move the process along, I am going to offer an approving resolution this evening. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. On a motion by Long, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was October 2, 2018 28773 #10-65-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2018, on Petition 2018-08-01-05 submitted by Leo Soave Building Inc. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 20209, 20219, 20225, 20235 and 20307 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast '/ of Section 4, from R-U-F, Rural Urban Farm (minimum % acre lot) to R-1, One Family Residential (60' x 120' Lots), the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-08-01-05 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for the development of the subject property in a manner that is appropriate with its size and location; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan, which designates the area as Medium Density Residential. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Taormina: If the maker of the motion could cite one additional reason, and that would be that the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan, which designates the area as Medium Density Residential. Mr. Long: The maker would allow that to be added to the approving resolution. Ms. Smiley: I agree. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. I want to thank the folks in the audience for coming and remind October 2, 2018 28774 you that this will move on to City Council where there will be another public hearing. There's an opportunity for you to speak at that as well. I would encourage that and also a site plan will likely be coming at some point here in the future, and I would also encourage you to be involved in that process as well. Thank you. ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,129TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,129th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 18, 2018. Mr. Wilshaw: We have one other item on our agenda which is an approval of minutes. At the direction of the Chair, we are going to move that item to our next agenda. That leaves us nothing else on our agenda. Before I close out the meeting, I do want to take just a moment to welcome Mr. Bongero to the Planning Commission. We do have a new face up here. We don't get those too often so it's always nice to have a new Commissioner on Board. So welcome. We look forward to working with you for the future here. Mr. Bongero: I'm glad to be aboard. Thank you. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,130th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 2, 20 , was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. CITY • NNING COMMISSION SA►-A CAP-stMAQ0..1Q Cars\ Smiley, Acting Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, hairman