Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2018-10-30 l MINUTES OF THE 1,132nd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 30, 2018, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,132nd 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 Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None 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 2018-10-01-08 18th STREET Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 10-01-08 submitted by 18th Street Development, L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 39000 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between the I-275/96 Expressway and Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to PO-I (High Rise Professional Office — Maximum 6 Stories). October 30, 2018 I 28800 Mr. Taormina: This request is to rezone property located at the northwest corner of the I-275/96 Expressway and Seven Mile Road. It would change the current zoning from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to PO- I, High Rise Professional Office. This is a single tax identification parcel with roughly 2,000 feet of frontage along the expressway and another 460 feet of frontage on Seven Mile Road. Altogether, it encompasses roughly 35 acres. The site contains a 290,000 square foot industrial building that is currently occupied by A123 Systems, which is a developer and manufacturer of lithium ion phosphate batteries. A123 has announced that it will be vacating the site next year. The change of zoning would allow for the future possible development of the site for office purposes. The proposed PO zoning classification would allow all permitted and waiver uses in the OS zoning district, including professional and general offices. Buildings in the PO-I district are required to be over two stories with a maximum height of six stories. Looking at the adjacent land uses and zoning, immediately to the north of the site is an oil well that is operated by West Bay Exploration. That property is zoned PO, Professional Office. Immediately to the west is the Paragon Entertainment Complex that includes the AMC 20 Theaters, the Hyatt Place Hotel as well as several restaurants including J Alexander's, Bahama Breeze and BJ's restaurant. The zoning of that property is C-2, General Business. Immediately to the south across Seven Mile Road is the Seven Mile Crossing Office complex that includes three multi-tenant high rise office buildings zoned PO, Professional Office, as well as Andiamo restaurant which is C-2, General Business, and also Schoolcraft College zoned PL, Public Lands. Immediately to the east is the expressway. The M-1 zoning of the property was established in 1967 and was initiated by the City Planning Commission. In 1985, the site was developed as the headquarters for CBS Fox Video, which later became TechnoColor. They produced VHS tapes and other entertainment media at that location up until the mid-2000's when the site was closed. It was then repurposed in 2009 as a battery production facility for A123. The existing building does comply with all of the PO district regulations with regard to yard setbacks, as well as maximum ground coverage by principle buildings. The Future Land Use Plan for the site designates the area for office purposes, so the proposed PO zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 10, 2018, which reads October 30, 2018 28801 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 parcel is assigned the address of 39000 Seven Mile Road. The legal description provided by the petitioner appears 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. At the time of plan submittal for permitting, the owner will need to provide proposed flow calculations for the sanitary sewer and water service connections to determine if there is capacity in the existing lines to service the proposed project. Storm water detention has been provided for the parcel with the previous development. The owner will need to determine if the provided detention is sufficient for the additional runoff from the proposed project, or provide additional detention as required by the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. It should be noted that the developer will need to field locate any wetlands on the site and obtain permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for any proposed disturbances within those areas. Also, the owner will be required to obtain permits from Wayne County and MDOT for any work within the Seven Mile Road and 1-275 right-of-way's, respectively. If the proposed project is approved, the owner should contact this department for address assignments for the proposed additional buildings. 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 second letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated October 11, 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 third letter is from the Finance Department, dated October 5, 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 letter is from AF Jonna Development and Management Co., dated October 25, 2018, which reads as follows: "As the Owner and Developer of Haggerty Center, L.L.C. located at 19784 and 19868 Haggerty Road, we are excited to hear of the proposed rezoning of 39000 Seven Mile Road. We highly encourage the approval of the rezoning submitted and hope to see the continued development and October 30, 2018 28802 growth of the City of Livonia." The letter is signed by Jordan Jonna. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Hearing none, is the petitioner here? We will need your name and address for the record please. Tom Kelly, 18th Street Development, L.L.C., 1621 18th Street, Suite 250, Denver, Colorado 80202. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else you'd like to add from what you've heard so far? Mr. Kelly: Yes. I have a few slides I'd like to kind of talk through as we go through them. Starting off, we're requesting the change to PO-I zoning as we believe PO-I zoning promotes the highest and best use of the subject property and provides us with flexibility over the short and long term to be able to repurpose this property to deliver a first-class commercial development. We feel the highest and best use of the site is some form of professional office, and it's based on its proximity to the interstate along with the surrounding land uses. I won't repeat the current zoning around there, but I would like to point out the PO zoning to the south, the three buildings at Seven Mile are four stories in height, across 275 on the eastern portion of our property are buildings that range from one to five stories. Just from the surrounding land uses, we feel that our PO zoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses. Next slide please. We look at this in terms of the current industrial zoning is an island unto itself and looking at the overall city's zoning industrial uses concentrated along the southern portion of Interstate 96. Again, we feel that we are aligned with the overall context of City of Livonia's zoning. Next map please. Again,just to reiterate, looking at the Future Land Use Map, we're aligned with the immediate area in terms of our intended land use map, and again, similar to the overall City of Livonia zoning map, the majority of the industrial is concentrated, rightfully so, right along the Interstate 1-96 along the southerly boundary. Again, a big reason why we chose this site and our going through the vetting of our development is because we feel that we're aligned with the City and want to be a partner in this development. Next slide please. On this map, the subject property is approximately 35 acres and we will most likely have a multi-year phase development approach due to the size of this property. This very preliminary site plan on the screen indicates what we submitted as part of our application. It contemplates the potential adaptive reuse of the existing buildings. We're doing our diligence on the feasibility of reusing some, maybe all, of the existing buildings October 30, 2018 28803 while developing new buildings on other portions of the property. At the same time, we're also looking at scenarios where we would remove all of the existing buildings and start from scratch. The existing buildings range from one to three stories in height and to the extent that we utilize any of the existing structures that's under three stories, which is in contrast to PO zoning, we would seek a waiver from the City to allow us to continue to use any of the structures that are one to two stories in height. I would like to point out that a portion of the warehouse is currently being utilized as the manufacturing facility for the batteries. If we were to repurpose and utilize that building, we would not do any manufacturing on that site, and as the applicant would be fine in letting that manufacturing use go away. We would just use it for other purposes other than manufacturing. As we progress through the rezoning process, we're going to continue to refine our development plan and we'll be in a better position at that time to provide a more detailed site plan for this property. As we vet through this and do our diligence, we're certainly looking at scenarios such as doing a baseline traffic study with our traffic engineer to understand what the traffic patterns are, where the congestion points are and how our development may interact with that and how we can plan accordingly. While we are too early in the process to specifically show a site plan or renderings of what we will ultimately develop, I would like to show you a few photos that are indicative of the types of developments .... These are examples of projects that we've developed in other regions around the country and provide some context to the quality, scale and scope of the development that we would embark on. This is an 80,000 square foot building that's four stories in height. This is an 85,000 square foot professional commercial building four stories in height. This is a 120,000 square foot four story commercial building. Again, this is just to try to give you some context as to what we're embarking on and as we continue down the rezoning process, we're going to continue to refine this and be able to come to you with a more detailed site plan and be able to talk accordingly. That concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I just want to reiterate you did a fine job of presenting this, that this is really a rezoning request that we're looking at right now. Any site plan or conceptual ideas of how the property is going to be used is purely conceptual at this point, and our focus right now is, is this the appropriate zoning for this location. So thank you for your presentation. With that, are there any questions for our petitioner October 30, 2018 28804 Ms. Smiley: With that kind of square footage, you're probably looking at a national or a world headquarters for something. Mr. Kelly: We're talking to various user groups right now. We have developed properties that are multi-tenant and that could very well be the scenario for this development as well. But right now, while we're talking to various user groups, there are no definitive agreements and now wouldn't be the appropriate time to speculate. Ms. Smiley: I do think the PO is the right zoning for this area and a good use of it. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Kelly, you mentioned that a portion of the building is now dedicated to manufacturing. Once A123 moves out, you would not do another manufacturing use there? Mr. Kelly: That's correct. Mr. Ventura: So my question is, what do you do with that space? Is the clear height of that space sufficient to turn it into two stories or would you raze it? Exactly how would you handle that? Mr. Kelly: We are exploring both options as far as repurposing it. Yes, I don't know if the building is going to have enough clear height to make it a two-story structure, but we're exploring what we have in terms of existing assets there and how we could repurpose it, and again at the same time, we're also looking at the cost-benefit analysis and the feasibility of starting with a clean slate. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Please come forward. David Fishman, President, Universal Properties, 38701 Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan. I'd like to start by thanking the Commission and also the City for all the great work that you do to improve the City and also help continue to make the City attractive to companies and businesses and developers that want to come here. So that's something that above all is very important. The issue that I'd like to flag relative to this question is not to ask about the merits of continuing to improve and rezone, but it really has to do with the traffic question and whether or not we're set up with the October 30, 2018 28805 infrastructure that is appropriate to support the rezoning that we're looking at. We own the office complex which is immediately to the south of this site where Andiamo is located and the three buildings which is the Siemens building, the DHL building, and the WorkForce Software. During our ownership, we have continued to observe a pattern of traffic accidents which are on Seven Mile Road. The situation has been improved by the signal that Schoolcraft College has added to Seven Mile Road between the freeway and Haggerty, but our particular boulevard entrance and egress does not have a signal, and there are many occasions where there is a pattern of traffic accidents, both in terms of people turning to the east to get on the freeway and having to, in many cases, burn rubber on their tires to beat out traffic rushing to the freeway, and also people trying to turn west when there isn't a traffic signal to try to head towards Northville. So with that context, we're now talking about a development situation and picture where we have additional development in Northville, we have wonderful things happening on Haggerty with the Jonna development and multi-family, we have more corporate offices coming at the corner of Haggerty and Seven Mile. So this is providing additional traffic and now with this rezoning, we'd be looking at additional traffic. So the question really becomes, are we prepared for that and do we need to have a traffic study, a safety study, to make sure it's all part of that rezoning question to provide for the infrastructure for it. That's really the purpose of the conversation. Any questions that you might have of me? Mr. Wilshaw: Any questions for Mr. Fishman? Mr. Ventura: One question. Mr. Fishman, can you get from your site at Seven Mile Crossing to the driveway that was just signalized that comes from Schoolcraft College? Mr. Fishman: There is a curb cut and we have an easement so that our occupants can access that light. The question that I'm curious about is that our boulevard entrance is directly across from the boulevard drive entrance to 39000 and so, if we're now talking about moving from light industrial to high density professional office, which could be either a density corporate headquarters or medical office of some type, it's going to be a significant multi-fold of traffic ingressing and egressing from that point, when we already have a problem with our site. So again, not a question about the merits of development. It's wonderful for everybody but wanting to make sure we have the infrastructure there. Mr. Ventura: To be clear, the people on your site can get to the signal? October 30, 2018 28806 Mr. Fishman: They can, but interestingly enough . . . . Mr. Ventura: I understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to minimize what you're saying. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for Mr. Fishman? Thank you, Mr. Fishman. I appreciate that. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? We have one more gentleman coming forward. Glen Cerny, 18600 Haggerty Road, Livonia, Michigan. The VP-CFO here at Schoolcraft College. We wanted to reiterate what David Fishman said. We're excited about all the development that Mark and his team are providing for the City of Livonia and we're excited about all those components. The issue we want to raise is again the traffic. We spent a lot of time in 2014-15 in putting in traffic studies and traffic impact pieces on Seven Mile Crossing to our campus. Obviously, as you know, we never had a Seven Mile Road access until we purchased the Jeffress Center building that's on Seven and Haggerty. When we did that, we created that signal, which is a fantastic piece, but when the analysis was done, it didn't take into account the further development of the Jonna property. It didn't take into account the sports dome that's now in there, and also the continued development of Northville. Northville is becoming very extensive in terms of development. So we just want to make sure that our students are safe and not causing issues on Seven Mile getting in and out of the parking, because we spent a lot of time with the ring road that we developed to push a lot of traffic off of Haggerty onto our campus. So you see we used to have big huge parking lots and now we don't. They're very curb cut thanks to Masco being headquartered there. They provide easy access in and out, but we just want to make sure to reiterate that the traffic is going to be an issue. We see it today on Seven Mile and it backs up at 6:00 at night. We see it on Haggerty too as well and I know as the Jonna property gets going. We know you guys will do the work and Mark is very capable of making sure all those traffic and impact studies are done, but we're excited about the proposal. We just wanted to make sure we were heard. We appreciate the time. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Cerny. I appreciate that. Is there any comments for Mr. Cerny? I don't see any. Thank you for coming, I appreciate that. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? I don't see anyone else. Mr. Kelly, is there anything else you would like to add? Mr. Kelly: No. October 30, 2018 28807 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. With that, if there are no other comments or questions, I'll close the public hearing and a motion would be in order. Mr. Ventura: I think Mr. Kelly is bringing a potential improvement to the City and it conforms to the Master Plan. So I'd like to offer an approving resolution. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-70-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2018, on Petition 2018-10-01-08 submitted by 18th Street Development, L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 39000 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between the I-275/96 Expressway and Haggerty Road in the Southwest % of Section 6, from M-1 to PO-I, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-10-01-08 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; 4. That the proposed change of zoning to PO-I, Hight Rise Professional Office, will allow development of the site for its highest and best use; and 5. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office use in this area. 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? October 30, 2018 28808 Mr. Long: Just a point of clarification. So this is for the zoning, and any future development on this would require a site plan and it would have to come back and a traffic study could, of course, be part of that. Is that correct? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, traffic studies are typically involved in the site plan because we really need to understand what the square footage is and the usage of the property to determine the traffic counts. Typically what happens, also for the audience's benefit, is if this rezoning request is passed, it will go on to City Council. The City Council typically will hold rezoning requests until the site plan comes forward and then try to approve them simultaneously. So this is the first step of many steps in the process. I hope that answers your question, Mr. Long. Mr. Long: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. ITEM #2 PETITION 2018-09-03-01 NOLTE VACATING Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 09-03-01 submitted by Jeffery and Tracy Nolte, pursuant to Council Resolution #334-18 and Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate the existing ten (10) foot wide public sidewalk that runs along the north side of Lot 94 of Arbor Estates Subdivision (9386 Knolson), located on the east side of Knolson Avenue between Northfield Avenue and Ann Arbor Road in the Southwest % of Section 31. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to vacate an existing 10-foot wide right-of-way that was dedicated on the plat of Arbor Estates Subdivision for public walkway purposes. This walkway runs along the north side of Lot 94, which is owned by the petitioners, the Noltes, who reside at 9386 Knolson. The abutting property on the opposite side of the walkway, which is 9394 Knolson, is located just outside of the subdivision. This right-of-way was established in 1966 at the time Arbor Estates Subdivision was officially approved and recorded with the Wayne County Register of Deeds. For approximately 50 years, the sidewalk provided pedestrian access from Knolson Street to Washington Elementary School. In 2016, the school site was redeveloped as a single family condominium called Washington Park. The October 30, 2018 28809 approved plans for Washington Park show the existing sidewalk connecting to a new sidewalk that would run north for a distance of approximately 300 feet where it would connect to an existing sidewalk on Ann Arbor Road. The new sidewalk would be located within a general common area that is between the west lot line of the condominium development and the rear of Units 42 through 45. This plan shows the sidewalk is required to be built as part of the Washington Park development. It connects to the existing sidewalk that is the subject of this vacating petition. The Noltes contend that the subject walkway between Knolson and Ann Arbor Road is not needed, and the portion that is existing located in the right-of-way abutting their property should be vacated and subsequently removed. The right-of-way is encumbered by an existing storm sewer that will require a full width maintenance easement in the event that it is vacated. Utilities companies, including DTE and Consumers Energy, have received notification of this request and are not objecting to the vacating petition. There is no official determination at this time relative to the disposition of title for any portion of the right-of-way should it be vacated. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 18, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced vacating petition. We have no objections to the proposed vacating at this time, although the City will need to retain a full-width easement across the vacated property to service the existing public storm sewer and any other utilities. The portion of right-of-way to be vacated is described as follows: A ten (10) foot wide public walkway lying north and adjacent to Lot 94, Arbor Estates Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 88, Page 87, Wayne County Records, said subdivision being part of the S.W. % of Section 31, T. 1 S., R. 9 E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan. If the vacating petition is approved, the owner would be responsible for the removal of the existing concrete sidewalk, and relocation of any fencing to the new property line at their discretion. Also, no structures or permanent barriers would be allowed to be constructed on top of the proposed easement." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 27, 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 October 30, 2018 28810 no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The third letter is from the Finance Department, dated October 1, 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 letter is from Consumers Energy, dated October 12, 2018, and reads as follows: "Consumers Energy has no concerns regarding vacating the right-of-way at 9386 Knolson Street." The letter is signed by Kate Barrera. The next letter is from Eric and Shook, dated October 30, 2018, which reads as follows: "This letter is in regard to the petition to vacate the existing sidewalk located between 9386 Knolson Street and 9394 Knolson Street. We would first like to make it known that the petitioners, Jeff and Tracy Nolte, have been our neighbors for many years. Jeff and Tracy care about our neighborhood and are the kind of neighbors and friends that truly make our community a better place to live. At the same time, we respectfully disagree with vacating the sidewalk in question. As you probably know, this sidewalk is intended to connect with a sidewalk that is part of the approved site plan for Washington Park (see attachment). The connecting sidewalk has not yet been constructed. Essentially, to vacate the sidewalk off Knolson Street would result in vacating the sidewalk not yet built in Washington Park. This is a consequence not known by most people because, presently, the sidewalk in question has not been safe to use for a long time. In fact, it is overgrown with brush and damaged as a result of the development. It is difficult if not impossible to predict its usefulness when it has not yet been completed. Admittedly, this is not the ideal route to get from Dover Arbor Estates to the new park in Washington Park, but, it is safer than walking past a party store and an auto mechanic shop. This was the reason the sidewalk was included in the site plan for Washington Park. Many communities are making it a priority to create more safe and inviting pedestrian paths. This can be accomplished by finishing the walkway in Washington Park, repairing the existing sidewalk and making sure that path is maintained. Livonia is known for being a great, family community. Safe and maintained walkways will encourage this tradition." The letter is from Eric and Theresa Shook, 9397 Knolson Street, Livonia, Michigan 48150. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? October 30, 2018 28811 Mr. Ventura: Mr. Taormina, at the study session there was a fair amount of conversation about the fact that if these two walkways were eliminated, that the children going to the park would have to walk up to the corner on Ann Arbor Road and then walk through the parking lot of a the liquor store on the corner and then through the parking lot at the auto mechanic's shop, which was less than desirable and not nearly as attractive as having the walkways. So, one of the questions that was asked of you at that time, and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong, was could the walkway stop, the new walkway in the new development, stop short of Ann Arbor Road and a walk be created on the south side of the detention pond to the park so the children that went from the subdivision and on the new walk to get to the park would not end up next to the road. The answer as I recall was that could not be done as we have an approved site plan here. Do I remember that accurately? Mr. Taormina: That is accurate. While it could be accomplished, it would require the cooperation of the developer of Washington Park to make that change. Mr. Ventura: So then if we were to approve this petition tonight vacating this walkway, the walkway that the new developer's obligated to build in the new subdivision would be walkway from nowhere to nowhere. Mr. Taormina: Yes. Should it be vacated, I would anticipate that the developer of Washington Park would file a petition to eliminate the requirement to build that sidewalk. Mr. Ventura: So we have a choice of either going back to the Council and creating a walk south of the detention pond or going back to the Council to vacate the whole thing, essentially - one or the other depending on the outcome of the action here tonight. Mr. Taormina: I don't believe the City is in a position to unilaterally relocate the sidewalk on the Washington Park site plan given the fact that the plan has been approved. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions for our Planning staff? Mr. Bongero: The way it is on this drawing is how it was approved and how it was presented last year or two years ago or whenever Washington Park was being proposed. October 30, 2018 28812 Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Bongero: I'm just struggling with why are we trying to change it now? It's what it was. There's no good way. It's a public park so kids are naturally going to want to go to it, and I think this offers somewhat of a safety net to keep them from walking past the party store and auto shop. My feelings are, why are we looking to change it now? That's all I have to say. Mr. Caramagno: My question is, if it's approved, the concrete has to be removed or can they leave it there? Mr. Taormina: As was indicated by the Department of Engineering, that would be at the discretion of the homeowners should they gain title of that property. Again, it's uncertain at this time, although we believe that the full 10 feet would be titled to the Noltes. If that's the case, then they would have to make the decision on where and how much of that sidewalk would be removed and there would be certain restrictions, as was indicated, relative to the placement of any structures or improvements within that 10-foot area given the fact that there is a storm sewer and an easement will have to be retained to maintain that storm sewer. Mr. Caramagno: And then how about the fence? The fence comes right to the sidewalk I think. The chain link fence goes all the way out to the sidewalk there. Would they be required or is that at their discretion also? Mr. Taormina: Again, I think that is probably at their discretion, but if they own that 10 feet, my guess is that they would want to remove or relocate the fence such that they could encompass it within the confines of their property and make it easier for them to secure that area and maintain it. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Ms. McCue: Just out of curiosity, when the previous plan was approved for the other sidewalk, when was that determined that it was going to be put in? Mr. Taormina: Are we talking about the 10-foot easement'? Ms. McCue: The other part, the connecting piece. Mr. Taormina: The connecting piece was decided at the time the site plan was approved. October 30, 2018 28813 Ms. McCue: When would that be done, though? Mr. Taormina: It was in 2016, and I believe this plan you're looking at here was one that the Planning Commission reviewed. This was recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council. Ms. Smiley: I'm looking at this map with the addresses. It looks like that property where the sidewalk is that goes behind 9361, 9371, 9379, actually belongs to 38600. Is that right? Mr. Taormina: Let me explain that. The address of 38600 is merely an address given to that parcel which is a general common element within the condominium. That will be owned and maintained by the Association. Ms. Smiley: So that's common land? Mr. Taormina: That is a general common area. It's not public land. The public area, the park at 38550, is the green area that shows on this plan. That is correct. The other area is privately held by the Association. Ms. Smiley: If they vacated that sidewalk, they wouldn't automatically go back. They would have to petition to go back too, right? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Smiley: So you're going to have to resurvey all that. And we haven't heard from the people at 9394 Knolson, the other side of the sidewalk, that they want to vacate. It just automatically goes to the Nolte's. Mr. Taormina: Have we heard from them? Since this petition has been filed, no, I have not spoke to the owner of 9394 Knolson. The owner provided comments during the original Washington Park development. I believe the owner of that property did represent himself at those meetings. Again, it has not been officially determined relative to the disposition and title if the area is vacated. Under normal circumstances, if 9394 was part of the subdivision, the 10-foot area would be divided such that the north half would go to 9394 and the south half would go to 9386. The unique circumstance here is that 9394 resides outside of the subdivision, which I indicated earlier. So I don't believe the statute provides that they would gain title to any part of the vacated right- of-way, which — as I previously said - was dedicated with the platting of Arbor Estates Subdivision. And since 9386 is the only property abutting the right-of-way that is within the subdivision, October 30, 2018 28814 it's my contention that they would probably obtain title to all 10 feet. But that's something, again, that our Legal Department has to verify and there may have to be a title search and some other things done prior to a final decision on that. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Are there sidewalks that go up on Knolson all the way up to Ann Arbor Road? I know there are sidewalks on all of Ann Arbor Road. Mr. Taormina: Yes. There are sidewalks that continue north along the east side of Knolson Avenue tying into an existing sidewalk along Ann Arbor Road that runs east and west and would continue east to the park in question. It doesn't show on this aerial photograph unfortunately, but there are sidewalks on both streets, Knolson and Ann Arbor Road. Ms. Smiley: There just doesn't seem to be a good way to get these people to the park. At some point, they're going to have to walk on Ann Arbor Road, aren't they? The people from that subdivision if they go there and there, then they're going to take a sidewalk up to Ann Arbor Road. The only advantage would be that they would miss two businesses, right? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I think that's the position. One bypasses the commercial businesses along Ann Arbor Road and the other one requires you to walk in front of them if you traverse the sidewalks. Ms. Smiley: The new subdivision would maintain the sidewalks that go up to Ann Arbor Road and then turn right to go to the park. Right? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I don't know how that has been established within the condominium Master Deed and Bylaws, but I'm guessing that there's some provision in there that allows the sidewalk to be utilized for public purposes with the maintenance being borne by the Association. I believe that's the case. I have not looked into that in detail, but as I recall from the discussions, there was no indication that the City would maintain the sidewalk, that that would be borne by the Association, and since it connects to an existing public walkway, there would have to be some kind of an easement for public walkway purposes, probably within a very defined area, the four or five feet that makes up that sidewalk. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Caramagno: Mark, would the residents of 9361, 71, 79 and 87, be eligible to buy that land behind them or is that locked out? October 30, 2018 28815 Mr. Taormina: That would require an amendment to the Master Deed and exhibits of the Master Deed and also the site plan. So it is conceivable, but there would be a process first with approval by the developer and/or Association, or maybe the developer would initiate that change in cooperation with those homeowners, and then it would have to go through an approval process to amend the site plan as well as the Master Deed and Bylaws. Mr. Caramagno: So they would buy that from the Association? Mr. Taormina: In terms of any purchase, I don't know if that would involve monetary consideration or not. I don't know. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions. Mr. Caramagno, just for your benefit, typically when a condominium association, which is what this is, changes its land area, especially common elements, if they are reduced or added in size, it requires 100 percent approval of all homeowners of that development as well because you are essentially taking away common area that's owned in part by everyone in that development. Mr. Caramagno: Sure. Mr. Wilshaw: It would be part of the details of the Master Deed, but typically it requires 100 percent approval, so it's generally quite difficult to do that. Anyway, with that, our petitioner is here. Please come forward. Good evening. We will need your name and address for the record please. Jeffery Nolte, 9386 Knolson, Livonia, Michigan. Tracy Nolte, 9386 Knolson, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else that you'd like to add from what you've heard. You've heard quite a bit already. Anything else you'd like to say? Mr. Nolte: Yes. I definitely would like to add one clarification. We made it known that there was no parks in our area within the subdivision within a few different subdivisions within the area. North of Ann Arbor Road there wasn't one. East of Hix there was not a park either. The City was wonderful enough to actually put an additional park, play structure, in the southwest corner of the subdivision. So even if it makes it a little bit difficult for the kids to go there, which I don't believe it makes it any more difficult, there is a park within the subdivision itself. October 30, 2018 28816 Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Anything else? Any questions for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Nolte, can you tell us why you brought this petition? I mean this is a piece of land that's 10-feet wide. It's going to be encumbered by an easement so you can't use it for anything other than to grow grass, and conceivably will increase your assessed value that you pay extra taxes on it. So, why are you doing this? Can you tell me why you're doing this? Mr. Nolte: Sure. Absolutely. Right now, we have the sidewalk that goes between our house and our neighbor's house to the north. It's lined by fences on both sides and it was great when it went to the school, to the field where the football teams played and everything. It was awesome. When we did petition to have the park installed within the subdivision, on my end I didn't follow through and find out exactly where the sidewalk was going to go. We assumed that it was just going to continue straight since it's a very short run. We did not know that they were going to turn it north to go to Ann Arbor Road. For us, with the neighbors now being able to build fences on the back of their property, anybody walking along that sidewalk now can be fenced in by a sidewalk. So you're basically making a tunnel from Knolson Street all the way up to Ann Arbor Road. To me, I feel safer walking Knolson Street to Ann Arbor Road than walking through a tunnel lined by fences. And you're only crossing basically a couple entrances from the party store and from the auto shop. We do a lot of gardening and landscaping in our yard and that's pretty much what we would increase the size. And if you look at our plot, our plot only has 25 feet in the back. It's a very narrow land. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Long: I'd like to ask you about your plans. Would you move the fence if you got all 10 feet and would you take the sidewalk out? Mr. Nolte: The sidewalk would be removed, absolutely, and we would fence in the yard within whatever confines we have with that sewer. I guess that was the one thing I wasn't clear on, whether that still can be accessible from our yard being fenced in or whether we have to leave that open to the common in the back. I guess that was the part I was not clear on, but yes, if I could fence it in, it would be fenced in. Mr. Long: My understanding is they could build a fence. October 30, 2018 28817 Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item, and then we'll ask you to come back up. Mark Jones, 9394 Knolson, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I'm on the other side of the walkway. I just want to say that when they put in that . . . it's not really a park. What they did is, a lot of people complained because there were using that park for football, baseball, and people were coming from all over Livonia. When your developers said he's going to build homes there, everybody came in here and said, oh my god. We want to use that park. So the developer, to end that, said I'll build a park to make you people happy. Then you guys said, okay you can build your homes. He's going to give you a park. All he did, Rainbow swing set. I'm sure you all know what that is. Rainbow swing set. One swing set out on Ann Arbor Road. I have yet to see anybody play on it and I'm home all the time and I drive up and down Ann Arbor Road. I've never seen even the people that are close. I guess the people that live right across from that swing set don't have children, because I've never seen any children on it. But if you drive by it, you'll realize that the builder didn't really build a park. There's no picnic tables. There's no shade trees. There's a giant Rainbow swing set. Done. So I'm sure the builder, if you told him you don't gotta cement that walkway, I'm sure he would be elated. Anyway, I was just making sure that if the property does get divided up, that's it's divided up between me and my neighbor. I don't really see no purpose. There's been nobody walking on that sidewalk since the new sub. I walk down there because I thought, I got two grandchildren, six and seven, and I said, you know, I'll take you over to that swing set because they used to play there. So I walked them down there and the walkway goes right into, I don't know which home, but they sodded right to the end of the . . . so I had to tiptoe on the guy's sod to get to the street to get to that swing set. We only did it one time. I let them play on the Rainbow and took them back and I said we can't really cut across this guy's yard. But I'm sure the developer, if you raised cane and say okay, put in the sidewalk, but right now, that walkway goes right into a guy's backyard. If you walk down the walkway, you'll realize that maybe I better tell this guy who I am because he's liable to come out and say what are you doing on my lawn. I've seen nobody use the sidewalk and I've seen nobody use the swing set. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Jones, the developer is required to put a sidewalk in back there. He hasn't done that yet. There will be additional pavement there, if this petition is not approved, at some point by the developer. October 30, 2018 28818 Mr. Jones: I did have one other question. Let's suppose you want to keep the thing open, which is fine with me, and you want to have your walkway. I mean I don't really need that extra three feet. It's not going to make me stay up at night, and I doubt whether it will make my property value go up, but who is supposed to maintain that, because one day, my wife called me and said, hey the city was here. I said what do they want?They said you gotta maintain that walkway on your side. My neighbors don't have many trees. I got a lot of trees. Theirs is pretty much maintained, but my limbs go over onto the sidewalk. So I said really. That guy must not know what he's doing because the city owns that property, so that wouldn't be for me to maintain it. But I did have a guy, I had a crew, so I said, hey do me favor. Run down that sidewalk and make that flush with that fence. And he did it. $125. I didn't really want to argue with the City. But my question is this, you own the property obviously. It's up to you to whether you want to give it to us, but let's say you don't want to give it to us and you do want to go ahead and put in your sidewalk, like I say, which is absolutely fine with me. I have no qualms about it, but who is going to maintain that sidewalk? Is the City going to send a guy out there? Because my neighbors told me at one time, that they sent, in the wintertime when that was a Washington Elementary School, they sent plow trucks and plowed down that path and you could walk down it in the wintertime. And then he said they just quit doing it. So, I mean is the City going to send a guy out once a month to take care of that, or am I mistaken when that guy knocked on my door. Am I supposed to maintain it? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Jones, the sidewalk, and I'll check with Mr. Taormina here in one second, my understanding is that a public sidewalk is a requirement of the adjacent homeowners to maintain, just like you would the sidewalk that's in the front of your house. Even though you don't own the property that your front sidewalk is on, you're still responsible to shovel it and maintain it. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Wilshaw: So even that side sidewalk would be the same thing. Now when the school was there, it wouldn't surprise me if the school district wouldn't, to facilitate accesses for kids to get to school, maybe clean that sidewalk for you, but it is your responsibility. Mr. Jones: Okay. I thought he was crazy. If they would have told me now don't forget when you sign this, are you paying cash for this home? Yeah. Don't forget, the City's got an easement there. You October 30 2018 0 8 28819 got to take care of that. I would have said, woah, wait a minute. I just had a five-way bypass. What's wrong with Livonia? So they must have been making a mistake when they were sending down the plows when they were plowing it before. It's up to you guys, but I'm telling you right now that the developer, just to get off the hook, put a Rainbow swing set, the same one that I bought for my grandchildren. That's his idea of a park. If you want to drive down Ann Arbor Road, you can look at it and you'll never find anybody playing on it. But it's up to you guys. But I just want to make sure if that land is divided, that it's between me and him. But anyway, that's all I wanted to say. But there is nobody playing on that, if he's going to put in a sidewalk, if you're going to tell him { that hey, listen, you got to go ahead and you dropped the ball here. You need to put in that sidewalk like you were supposed to do in the beginning, and also this park that you built, we need you to add a couple shade trees and a couple picnic tables so everybody knows it's a park because right now, they think that the people that are in the subdivision put a Rainbow swing set in their front yard. That's what they think. There is nobody playing on it because they think they're going to be run off. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? John Sobaszko, 9353 Liberty Court, Livonia, Michigan. I'm in favor of their petition. Like Mr. Jones said, the sidewalk gets no use. It empties into people's backyards, and since the school and the playground are gone, there's really no use for it. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Darrell Little, 9341 Mare Court, Livonia, Michigan. I live just down the street, and nobody uses it. Nobody goes through there and I've never seen no kids on the play area out there. So I'm for him. Robert Morgan, 9379 Liberty Court, Livonia, Michigan. To be a little fair about the park, it's not a great park, but it doesn't even have swings. It's got four slides. My kids play on it a lot. It's not great. They're supposed to redo it and make a better one, but there are two sidewalks that go down Knolson and they don't have to walk through the parking lot of the mechanics. They got a sidewalk. And we are three houses to the north - 9371, 9379 and 9387 Liberty. We're all going to privacy fences so it will be a tunnel. Mr. Wilshaw: Good to know. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Sir, if I could. So, do you want them to vacate the sidewalk'? October 30, 2018 28820 Mr. Morgan: Oh, I'm sorry. I want the sidewalk to be gone because there will be people walking through our backyards, the three houses, the four houses. I got two kids under four. Mr. Wilshaw: Sir, we have one more question. Mr. Caramagno: Are you on Knolson? Mr. Morgan: No, I'm on 9379 Liberty Court. Mr. Caramagno: Oh. Okay. Mr. Taormina: My question relates to the fence. If it was vacated and the sidewalk no longer required behind your homes, would you still place a privacy fence along your property? Mr. Morgan: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Okay. Thank you. Chirag Parikh, 9361 Liberty Court, Livonia, Michigan. I've been staying in that house since two months. I've not seen anyone going through the walkway. So I think it's better to vacate the land by the City and give it to the Knolson owner. Dr. Christine Eskander, 9387 Liberty Court, Livonia, Michigan. Again, I am also doing a privacy fence with Rob Morgan, 9379 and Lori at 9371. I do have concerns about people walking behind my house in kind of like a tunnel effect, and honestly, a tunnel, I don't think is very safe, especially with a bend like that, especially with children in the area. I think if I were in the Knolson complex, I would prefer the street because it has more visibility and again you're not walking behind someone's fence or yard. I think that over time the wrong people are going to be using that sidewalk because there is a party store there and there is a yard there with auto parts, so people that have some shady dealings with the auto place or want to ... they'd be covered. It would be a good cover for them. Also alcohol from the party store I am very sure will find it's way on that sidewalk and other things. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Long, do you have a question? Mr. Long: I heard Mr. Morgan say that you want to build a privacy fence either way, correct? Dr. Eskander: Yes. It's already bought and paid for. October 30, 2018 28821 Mr. Long: Okay. So here's my concern. If we vacate this and close that sidewalk off, and you build it anyway, now we've got ... we don't have a tunnel, but we've got a dead end. Dr. Eskander: No. We already had this conversation with the developers, both Rico's Belagio's Homes and Infinity, and both of them did inform us that the land is pretty much ours, that they wanted us to continue our fence all the way and that we would be maintaining it. I agree with them. Then it will be all clean. It would be maintained. It would be off the Association's hands, less money for the rest of the Association to distribute over the rest of the landowners because we do have two large retention areas to maintain and a playground. So that area I am very sure is going to get neglected unless we close it in and include it into our backyard. Mr. Long: So if the sidewalk remains open, you will build the privacy fence on your current property line. If the sidewalk is closed, then you will push that fence back to the common property line'? Dr. Eskander: Yes. And it will be clean and maintained and there would be no one walking back there or hiding. Mr. Long: I understand the appeal of it, but my concern is that you've had discussions with the developer, but that's kind of hearsay to us. I would have a bigger concern about a privacy fence on your current property line right now and creating a strip of grass that's fenced in. That would be a bigger area where you have . . . Dr. Eskander: Exactly. That's why he discussed it with us. Mr. Long: Drinking and problems. Dr. Eskander: Exactly. I do not care for extra land. I hate grass. I want Astroturf. I've been telling people I want Astroturf since last July when I signed for this house before it was built. I'm still leaning towards that. I love cement. So less to mow and maintain. So adding more responsibility to me, more land, it's just responsibility on me. It is not going to increase the value of my house. Honestly, it's just extra maintenance for me, but I know that I'm safe because the fence goes all the way to the edge there, and I do have plans with Lois, who is doing the fence, to have a gate back there so I can clean it up too. Mr. Long: Mr. Taormina, obviously we're going to vote on this today unless it gets tabled. We have no correspondence from the developer October 30, 2018 28822 agreeing to what's been presented to us here today about the privacy fences being able to be moved or anything like that. Mr. Taormina: Yes. This is news to me. I will say this, that doesn't eliminate the fact that it's common area. I don't believe it becomes limited common area or part of the unit, if you will, by any action of the Planning Commission or City Council that would vacate this walkway. I think what they are talking about would get sorted out at such time that the developer would have to petition the City Council to eliminate that sidewalk. When that occurs, then I think the determination on what happens to that common area, is it retained and does it become part of those lots? And if so, are there easements retained for access to the storm sewer? So either way, that probably gets sorted out at a later date relative to the site plan for Washington Park. Their plans right now to place a privacy fence, I'm not sure where that fits in with the approvals with the Master Deed. So if the sidewalk is required, are they entitled to a privacy fence along the back of their properties? That's something that I guess the Association would have to determine as part of the Master Deed and Bylaws. Typically, they're not allowed in these developments, but there may have been an exception made for these particular lots because of the unique arrangement here. Again, I think it gets sorted out at a later date with the Council and when the plan for Washington Park moves forward. Mr. Long: So if we were to, as a body tonight, approve this and it didn't get sorted out in a timely manner, theoretically you would have that sidewalk closed off, the Noltes will extend their fence, so that will be closed off. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Long: And again, this is all hypothetical, but I'm just playing it forward. You will have this tunnel if that has not been resolved yet. The Noltes have closed off their additional property and Mr. Jones, if he gets it as well. So you have a dead end there, but you still would have that strip. If this privacy fence was installed, I mean I'm sure they would wait, but you would have this dead end area. How long of a timetable would it take to have the developer's required sidewalk litigated, for want of a better term. Can we resolve all of these before we resolve this, or are we putting an undue burden because it will take another six months to resolve? Mr. Taormina: Tonight's hearing is posing a lot of unanswered questions. I think Council would probably want to address this with the developer at the time this petition to vacate is before them. Regardless of October 30, 2018 28823 your action tonight, unless you table it, whether you approve it or deny it, it's merely a recommendation to City Council. When this goes before City Council and their faced with the same questions, I think they'll want to hear from the developer to find out what their intention would be relative to the use of that common area, how it would be improved, would the fence run along the west property line of the condominium association, what is the Engineering Department expecting in terms of easements and so how does that look in the end? We know pretty much what it's going to look like for the Noltes and Mr. Jones. They'll close that area off, but the balance of it is something that we're going to have to determine, and I think Council will probably want to dovetail both of these items together. We would ask the developer to join in on that question. Whether or not they have to go back through the Planning process, I don't know. That's something we have to determine. Mr. Long: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for the doctor, while she's up here? Thank you for coming. Dr. Eskander: I just wanted to say one more thing. Currently, Infinity Concepts is the association for us right now, but that is going to be changing relatively soon. Mr. Wilshaw: The developer is still in control. Dr. Eskander: Yes. Infinity Concepts. Mr. Bongero: I have one question. Do you know in your bylaws if they allow privacy fences? Dr. Eskander: Yes. It was presented to me in the bylaws the first day before I signed for the house. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Any other folks wishing to speak for or against? Ms. Nolte: I was going to say that what she had said about the tunnel effect and causing issues. I'm sure my neighbor, Mark, could attest because we walked through that sidewalk last summer and I picked up six or eight liquor bottles because people do go in there and do inappropriate things. One of the bottles was full. It does cause a problem. It didn't when the school was there, but now that it goes to nothing, it does cause a problem. October 30, 2018 28824 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Sir, you have one more comment you want to make'? Feel free. Mr. Parikh: I have one more issue. I just asked the builder to remove some dirt, which was in the back of my house. He said it's a common property. We did not worry about it. Let it be as it is. I have a picture of that. I can show you that. Mr. Wilshaw: So this is on that common property? Mr. Parikh: Yes. Lori Julien, 9371 Liberty Court, Livonia, Michigan. I have on my cell phone the approval from Infinity Homes about my fence and they approved my privacy fence to go to the chain link fence. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Everything you say goes into our record. Unidentified speaker: I've only gone on Knolson once, but the time my wife and I walked down there, there was a sign at the Knolson end of the sidewalk saying the sidewalk was closed, so the City pretty much already closed it. Mr. Wilshaw: We're aware of that. Thank you. Shauqi Mughnnen, 9357 Knolson, Livonia, Michigan. I've been a resident since '68. I've been in the house for 50 years. I love where I am. We use the walk for many times with my kids and grandkids, but right now, it don't look like there is a use for it. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for comment. Thank you for living here so long. It's wonderful. Dr. Eskander: One thing you guys needs to know about, the side of my house, 9387, I abut the retention area. It's a pretty steep slope and I was actually shocked you guys approved the grade of my house. I got a ton of gravel that I put on there, just so I wouldn't fall because I mean it's like a mud slide. If you guys were to have a sidewalk placed on the side of my house there, it's going to be an enormous expense. Just in case you guys considered that idea. It's a horrible slope. It goes five feet down within three feet. Mr. Wilshaw: We appreciate that comment. The cost of the sidewalk, if it was to be put in, would be borne by the developer and by the association, but needless to say, the safety issue that you're raising . . . October 30, 2018 28825 Dr. Eskander: I do not think that sidewalk is going to stay stable. I'm very sure that it's going to end up settling at different angles and then you know people tripping and children. Mr. Wilshaw: That's a good point. Thank you. Mr. Long: Snow wouldn't stick to it, though. Mr. Wilshaw: Of course not. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? If not, is there anything else the Noltes would like to add since you're the petitioner? Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Long, seconded by McCue, and adopted, it was #10-71-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2018, on Petition 2018-09-03-01 submitted by Jeffery and Tracy Nolte, pursuant to Council Resolution #334-18 and Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate the existing ten (10) foot wide public sidewalk that runs along the north side of Lot 94 of Arbor Estates Subdivision (9386 Knolson), located on the east side of Knolson Avenue between Northfield Avenue and Ann Arbor Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-09-03-01 be approved for the following reasons, subject to a full-width maintenance easement for public utilities as recommended by the City's Engineering Division: 1. That the subject right-of-way is no longer needed for public walkway purposes; 2. That the vacated right-of-way will be more advantageously utilized by the abutting property owner(s); 3. That no public utility company has objected to the proposed vacating request; and 4. That the Planning Commission finds that a suitable alternative exists for persons residing in the Arbor Estates Subdivision to access the new public park at the corner of Hix and Ann Arbor Roads. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, as amended. October 30, 2018 28826 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, McCue, Smiley, Bongero, Ventura, Wilshaw NAYS: Caramagno ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation, ITEM #3 PETITION 2018-08-02-18 COMFORT CARE Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 08-02-18 submitted by Comfort Care Senior Living requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility at 34020 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Wilshaw: This item was tabled at a previous meeting. Is there a motion to remove it from the table? On a motion by Long, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-72-2018 RESOLVED, that in connection with Petition 2018-08-02-18 submitted by Comfort Care Senior Living requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility at 34020 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, which property is zoned RUF, C-1 and C-2 and is in the process of being rezoned to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the table. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: This item was originally tabled back in September to allow the petitioner time to meet with City staff, including the Fire Marshal, to talk about some of the concerns that they pointed out relative to access around the building. We received a new plan on October 30, 2018 28827 October 22 that shows a reconfigured building that results in greater side and rear yard setbacks. This allows for the inclusion of a 16-foot wide fire access drive fully around the proposed building. The new floor plan shows that there would be a total of 69 units. This includes 28 studio units, 10 memory care units and 31 one-bedroom units. There are a total of 45 parking spaces shown on the latest plan. This is a surplus of six spaces over what the ordinance requires. The stormwater detention basin has been replaced with an underground detention system that is shown in the same general location as where the basin was originally proposed. In addition, we have new information on a sign that would be placed along the frontage. You received this evening another plan. I'm going to let the petitioner describe the changes that appear on this latest plan. It does not change the location of the building nor the access drive nor necessarily the number of parking spaces. What it does is address some of the issues that were raised at the last study meeting relative to landscaping and screening along the west side of the property. With that, Mr. Chair, why don't we let Mr. Boehm describe the latest plan. Mr. Wilshaw: That sounds good. And there is no correspondence to be updated? Mr. Taormina: No. There is no new correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Anyquestions for our PlanningDirector? The petitioner is here. We'll let you fill us in on these new plans. Doug Boehm, Comfort Care Senior Living, 4180 Tittabawassee, Saginaw, Michigan 48604. I'd just like to appreciate Mr. Taormina and the Commission for allowing us to get back on the agenda. I know we had some concerns regarding the fire access road about two months back now, and we were able to refigure the building with the 15-foot access road around the building/ Actually, we were able to pick up two more units, which is greatly needed in the City of Livonia. I know I've said this before, there is a great need of senior housing in the City and it's surrounding areas. Approximately 890 residents are in need of senior housing, whether they're at home and they're getting care through their children or their grandchildren or have homecare services that may not be there during all hours. We are able to provide senior housing, 24/7 at this time. I'd like to introduce Mr. Rybicki with MLR Engineering. He is our engineer on the project, and he was able to make some changes that were recommended during last week's study meeting. I'll allow him to present his changes. October 30, 2018 28828 Michael Rybicki, P.E., MLR Engineering, 134 S. Main Street, Suite 1, Freeland, Michigan 48623. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just to explain the updated landscape plan that's on your screen. This is a result of comments that came out of the study committee meeting that got back to me. We added additional landscaping with trees and shrubs along the east property line abutting the parking lot. We continued the five-foot masonry wall on the west side for the entire length of the westerly property for that screening need. We changed the detention area to an underground detention area which created a lot of grass space with not a lot of amenities because we're trying to abide by the County's regulations on what goes on top or gets planted near the detention area. So the landscape plan has been updated with a garden scheme with some brick pavers and some prep area for the residents to either do some flowering or some vegetable gardening during their time there. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Rybicki. Is there any questions for our petitioner'? Ms. Smiley: Just to confirm, you have a masonry wall that goes . . . Mr. Boehm: It starts in the northeast corner and wraps around all the way to the southwest corner. Ms. Smiley: So all these people have a lovely view of the driveway and the masonry wall. Right'? Mr. Boehm: Correct. Ms. Smiley: And you managed to put in five more beds'? Mr. Boehm: Two more beds. We were at 67. Ms. Smiley: I thought you were at 64 and you went to 69. Mr. Boehm: I think our original plan when we first submitted was at 64. We were able to pick up three last time and then two more this time. Ms. Smiley: On these outside units, these are single rooms or is that a ward'? Mr. Boehm: Rooms. The State of Michigan requires all rooms to have an outside view. Ms. Smiley: So they have an outside view of the driveway and the masonry wall? Mr. Boehm: Correct. October 30, 2018 28829 Ms. Smiley: Great. Thank you. Ms. McCue: So just to clarify. You added some trees. Mr. Boehm: That would separate the OHM parking lot . . . Ms. McCue: On the east side. Mr. Boehm: Correct. Ms. McCue: But there's still residential houses behind to the north. Correct? Mr. Boehm: Correct. Ms. McCue: So I guess my question is, where else did you add any greenery or any kind of landscaping'? I know it's a challenge right now with what you have going there with the road that goes around. Mr. Rybicki: From the landscaping plan that was submitted on the 22nd of October, there was landscaping added. The easterly property line that abuts the OHM parking lot, there is additional shrubbery added through some islands located in the parking lot. Again, the screening wall was asked to be continued down the west property line and we did that as well, and added the amenity over the detention area upfront. Mr. Boehm: I have a question for Ms. Smiley. It doesn't seem like you're too happy with the masonry wall. Ms. Smiley: I can't imagine living there. Mr. Boehm: Because from our end, we didn't want it either but I know that was requested through the city to put a masonry wall between the property lines to separate the residential housing and our property. Would you be opposed to the tree line continuing through? I know we have to get another variance. What are your thoughts about that? From our side, if I was a resident, I wouldn't want to look at a masonry wall either. Ms. Smiley: It feels like a prison. Mr. Boehm: And the fire access road that was required by the Fire Marshal. We didn't want that either, but .. . . Ms. Smiley: I thought we talked about it not having to go all the way around for the driveway. October 30, 2018 28830 Mr. Wilshaw: There was some discussion at the study meeting to determine if it needed to go completely around the building or not. Mr. Taormina, you haven't heard anything else from the Fire Marshal? Mr. Taormina: No. We have not received a response back from the Fire Marshal on this. I will tell you that his concern as originally noted was that access would have to be provided to within 150 feet of all points of the building. The complication here is while you could conceivably have a driveway along the east side of the building and one along the west side and forego the driveway along the back of the building, what that fails to do is provide an adequate turnaround. So they did that by looping the road that would effectively operate as a one-way drive for any emergency vehicles that had to access that area. Mr. Wilshaw: That makes sense. It's hard enough when you watch the large dump trucks and the garbage trucks try to back up. The last thing you want to see is a firetruck trying to back up down the road. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Chairman, at the study meeting there was some conversation about perhaps access for the firetrucks could be gained through the OHM property. So I approached them to see if they were at all interested in that, and they are not. They would actively oppose that. Mr. Wilshaw: Understood. Thank you for checking. Mr. Boehm: So if you don't mind, I'd like to kind of get a feel from the members about the masonry wall on the north and the west ends. Mr. Wilshaw: My understanding is masonry walls are typically required when an office or commercial zoning is abutting a residential zoning. That's a standard requirement we have. That wall can be waived in lieu of greenery by the City Council, I believe. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: That is correct, and there are standards relative to the use of a greenbelt in lieu of a masonry protective wall. It has to be at least 10 feet in width and has to be planted with sufficient material so as to act as an adequate screen between those uses. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. So that's really not in our purview at the Planning Commission level to make that determination, other than if we think that's acceptable, to do our best to make sure the plan indicates those elements. October 30, 2018 28831 Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Hopefully that answers your question, Mr. Boehm. Mr. Boehm: Yes. Definitely. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: Sir, one of the comments we've been making pretty commonly is that the six properties that back up to you at the north, these don't have any treed coverage and there's nothing there for the people who live here to look at either way. But that's been a big piece of the problem. I realize the road going around is an issue. Is there not a way to push this building further to the south to have a greenbelt on your side of the wall and have some nice trees back there? Mr. Boehm: Which way? Mr. Caramagno: To the north. Move the building to the south and have more room to the north, and probably it requires reducing rooms. I realize that probably impacts your proforma here. Mr. Boehm: So there's the existing retention pond that's in the parking lot and we wouldn't be able to build on top of that. Mr. Caramagno: I'm not saying go way down there. I'm saying there seems like there's something that can be done here, to me. It's a large piece of property. It doesn't seem unrealistic what you want to do. I just think you need to be more neighborly with what you're trying to do, and a brick wall with no greenery is kind a hold back for me. Mr. Boehm: I agree. Mr. Rybicki: Probably two-thirds of the north property line, sir, has an existing block wall now that's been there for quite some time. Mr. Caramagno: Surrounded by trees'? Mr. Rybicki: That's correct. Mr. Long: Frankly, there's trees north and west of the wall. Am I understanding that correctly? Mr. Boehm: Yes. October 30, 2018 28832 Mr. Long: So those will remain? Mr. Bongero: Have you guys addressed the lighting in the back and how it's going to be illuminated? Mr. Boehm: We don't have plans to put any lighting besides inside the residents' rooms in the back. Mr. Bongero: There's nothing in the street or out in the corners of the development? Mr. Boehm: Just in the parking lot. Maybe some flood lights but that's about it. Mr. Wilshaw: Is that it, Mr. Bongero? Mr. Bongero: I guess I side with Mr. Caramagno. It just seems like pulling it back a little bit would just kind of do it justice with all the people abutting up to it. I guess I'm thinking the same thing. It's just wham. It's just going to come right up to their lot line and there's just nothing to look at. If it was me, I would not care for it one bit. There seems like there should be some type of a proposal to put in place and address that concern, because I think it's ongoing. We all kind of feel the same way. It is feasible for you to pull it back 20 feet? Mr. Boehm: I don't think so. Mr. Ventura: If I may, Mr. Chair. Part of the conversation with OHM revealed that there's a significant sewer line running east and west at the end of the access road and running over the southerly portion of the site, and there's a 10-foot sewer in the ground there and a significant easement. He's probably constrained from pulling that building much further south. Mr. Boehm: Yes. You can see the dash line that goes through. And I think there's a 30-foot easement in total for that pipeline. Mr. Ventura: So accessing that pipeline would take precedence over moving that building. Mr. Wilshaw: That makes sense. Mr. Ventura: To the petitioner, is if I may, Mr. Chair. You can hear what the resistance is here. We don't like what's happening with the residents and the vegetation that exists on the site and what's going to happen to the quality of the environment there, and it's October 30, 2018 28833 primarily because you're covering so much land with the building. At every study session that I've been to where this has been on the agenda, we've asked the question, why don't you building a two-story building, reduce the footprint, create some space. When the City Council agrees to eliminate these walls, they typically want a substantial planted berm that's elevated so that you get kind of a wall made out of dirt and then you get vegetation on top of it. That all takes space that you don't have on this site plan. You would get that space if you went to a two-story building. That's been a constant feature here. I can tell you that I'm not going to vote for this site plan the way it. It is just too much building and too little dirt and it has too big an effect on the quality of life. Mr. Boehm: We've looked at it. It would increase costs $2 million plus in terms of development. It wouldn't make this project feasible, plus that's not really the product that we pitched to our . . . Mr. Ventura: I can't address your business plan. Mr. Boehm: But if you think about it, if you're memory care or you have some sort of memory issues and you're upstairs, you seem like you're locked and then you deal with stairs and elevators. That's just not really the pitch I would make to our residents. I mean we have eight buildings right now. None of them are two-story. Mr. Ventura: I understand and appreciate what you're telling me. I get it and perhaps this is not the site for it. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Are there any other questions, comments for our petitioner? Mr. Rybicki: Mr. Chairman, can I get a clarification on landscaping along that north property line? Is it on the Comfort Care side of the masonry wall or is it on the neighbors' side that we're trying to provide more plantings, more trees? Mr. Wilshaw: We're discussing the site which would be on your property. So your side of the wall. Any other comments? There's no one else in the audience. With that, a motion would be in order. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-73-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2018, on Petition 2018-08-02-18 submitted by Comfort Care Senior Living requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(g) of the October 30, 2018 28834 City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility at 34020 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, which property is zoned RUF, C-1 and C-2 and is in the process of being rezoned to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-08-02-18 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use complies with all the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the scale and intensity of the proposed development would have a substantial negative impact to the natural wooded character of the land, which in turn would adversely affect the peace and tranquility of the neighboring residential properties; 3. That the proposed use and its location, intensity, site layout and periods of operation are such that it is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area, particularly with respect to the residential neighborhood to the north; and 4. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, are intended to insure suitability and appropriateness of uses. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chair, if the maker of the motion would consider omitting Item #3 as the plan presented this evening does address the issue of the screen wall on the west property line. Ms. McCue: Yes, they put it all in there. That's fine. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is denied. As this is a waiver use request, the petitioner will have 10 days in which to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council. October 30, 2018 28835 ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,130TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,130th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 2, 2018. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-74-2018 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,130th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2018, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Bongero, Long, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Caramagno, McCue, Ventura Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,131st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,131st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 16, 2018. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-75-2018 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,131st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2018, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Ventura, Smiley, McCue, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bongero, Long Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. October 30, 2018 28836 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,132nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 30, 2018, was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. CITY PLA NG COMMISSION Sam Car. agno, Secretary ATTEST: Ian ilshaw, airman yRy gyyC