HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2018-02-27 fi
MINUTES OF THE 1,118th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,118th 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: Glen Long Carol Smiley Kevin Priddy
Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: Sam Caramagno, Betsy McCue
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 2018-01-01-01 FORMER CLAY SCHOOL
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition
2018-01-01-01 submitted by Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes,
P.L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the
properties at 36900 and 36910 Mallory Drive (former Clay
Elementary School site) from PL (Public Lands) to R-1 (One
Family Residential — 60' x 120' lots) and the property at 16600
Newburgh Road and a portion of the property at 16700 Newburgh
Road from R-3 (One Family Residential — 80' x 120' lots) to R-1
(One Family Residential—60' x 120' lots), located at the east side
i
I
February 27, 2018 it
28475
of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and Six Mile Road in the E
Northwest 1/4 of Section 17.
1
Mr. Taormina: This rezoning petition involves two properties, the former Clay
Elementary School site and a portion of the St. Timothy
Presbyterian Church. St. Timothy Church consists of two parcels F
having a combined land area of roughly 7.21 acres. The former F
school site, which adjoins the church to the east, is also made up
of two parcels and contains roughly 10.02 acres. The proposed
development would involve the entire school property, plus 4.38 1
acres of the church site. Altogether, the area to be rezoned
constitutes roughly 14.40 acres. The remaining northwesterly
corner of the church site, about 2.80 acres, which includes the
church as well as the parking lot, would remain under the existing 1
R-3 zoning classification. Lying immediately to the south and east 1
are single family homes that are part of the Kingsbury Heights
Subdivision. To the south is R-2 zoning and to the east is R-3
zoning. To the north is Newburgh Plaza, which is zoned C-2,
General Business, and then west, across Newburgh Road, are 1
residential homes within the Laurel Park South Subdivision,
zoned R-3. If the change of zoning is approved, the petitioner is F
proposing to develop the site as a Planned Residential I
Development under the Single-Family Clustering option.
Clustering is a development alternative available in any R-1 r
through R-4 district, subject to waiver use approval. Clustering
provides flexible design standards to encourage more efficient t.
use of land as a means of preserving open space, providing 1
single family development for difficult sites, or offering reasonable
alternatives to multiple family residential development. Clustering
allows for either attached or detached single-family dwellings. In
order to qualify, the applicant must demonstrate that the land area
proposed to be developed contains special characteristics that I
make conventional subdivision development impractical or
unfeasible. In a cluster development, the lot sizes and yard
setbacks can be reduced subject to a maximum allowable 1
density. In the case of R-1 zoning, the maximum density is four
dwelling units per acre. This 14.40 acre site, if rezoned to R-1 and
allowed to be developed as a cluster, could yield up to 57 homes. €
The conceptual plan that was presented with the application 1
shows 56 homes, including 38 single-family detached homes in
the form of a site condominium, and 18 attached condominiums
in six separate buildings, each containing a mix of two, three and
four dwelling units. In a conventional R-1 subdivision, the
minimum lot size is 60 feet by 120 feet, or 7,200 square feet per
lot. Most of the lots shown on the conceptual plan measure
between 50 to 80 feet in width and 115 to 120 feet in depth, t.
resulting in lot sizes that range from 5,750 square feet to roughly F
9,600 square feet. Storm water management would occur in the
February 27, 2018
28476
northeast corner of the site in the form of a forebay for pretreating
the runoff and two detention basins. Ingress and egress to the
new housing project would be only from Newburgh Road. There
would be no connection to Mallory Drive from the east. The new
road, also called Mallory, would be 60 feet in width. It would be a
public street that would enter from Newburgh just south of the
church and form a loop providing access to all 56 homes.
Whenever a single-family cluster is adjacent to an existing single
family residential district, such district must be buffered by either
locating conventional-sized lots immediately adjacent to the
existing single-family district; providing open space or recreation
space immediately adjacent to the existing single-family district;
or providing significant topographic features, landscaping or a
combination thereof immediately adjacent to the single-family
district. The proposed development abuts existing single-family
homes along both the east and south sides of the project. In both
areas, the lots bordering the site would meet or exceed the
minimum lot size requirements of the adjoining zoning districts,
including R-3 zoning, which is a minimum of 80 feet by 120 feet
lots to the east, and R-2 zoning, which is a minimum of 70 feet by
120 feet lots to the south. Where the attached condominiums,
shown as Units 1 thru 11, lie adjacent to the existing single-family
lots to the south, the plan shows a berm and landscaping. The
Future Land Use Plan designates the subject properties as Low
Density Residential, which corresponds to a density of one to five
dwelling units per acre. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out
the various items of correspondence related to this item.
Mr. Wilshaw: Please.
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 19, 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#36900 & #36910
Mallory Drive and #16600 & #16700 Newburgh Road. The legal
description provided with the submitting drawings for the
proposed rezoning appears to be correct and is acceptable to this l
office. The existing parcels are currently serviced by public
utilities, but the submitted drawings do 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 need for a
traffic study for the proposed driveway alignment. We will provide
a detailed review once full Engineering site plans have been
submitted for approval." The letter is signed by David W. Lear,
February 27, 2018
28477 I;
P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Treasurer's Department, dated January 24, 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 current Real and Personal
Property Taxes due, as shown below. Amounts Due $246.53
Winter 2017 - Current if paid by 2/14/2018; $2,010.90 Winter
2017- Current if paid by 2/14/2018."The letter is signed by Lynda
Scheel, Treasurer. The third letter is from the Finance
Department, dated January 23, 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. We have a
letter dated February 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "My
husband and I have resided at 16823 Fitzgerald (Lot 1 70 on
the Preliminary Site Plan) for slightly over 40 years. Livonia has
been a wonderful place to raise our family_ A major reason for E'
the good quality of life in Livonia is the City's Master Plan that
has been followed by the City Planning Commission and the
City Council. Thank you for all you have done to implement the
plan's purpose: to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, and encourage the development of a permanently
wholesome community. Livonia has a well-deserved
reputation as a community that preserves and enhances the
living environment of its residential areas. Therefore, we are
dismayed by this rezoning proposal that seeks to rezone the
two parcels to R-1 with the probability of up to 57 homes on I'
14.395 acres of land, no park/open space, and three retention
ponds within 15 feet of our property. There are no homes
zoned R-1 north of Five Mile, and certainly none adjoining this
property. The proposed rezoning negatively impacts the living
environment of our residential area by: Creating a crowded
group of R-1 homes (possibly 57) that are incompatible with
the existing R-2 and R-3 homes, and will adversely affect our
property values; creating additional water drainage issues in
an already challenged drain system (the current 48" storm
sewer is already running at full capacity and floods Fitzgerald
after about 2 hours of hard rain); creating additional traffic
congestion on Newburgh Road, where it is already challenging
to turn left during certain times of the day. We respectfully
ask you to maintain the current zoning of the St_ Timothy
property as R-3 and to rezone the former Clay property to R-3
single family cluster (14.395 acres X 3.0 units/acre = 43.185
units a//owed). We also respectfully ask you to address the
water drainage issues that further development will
undoubtedly bring." The letter is signed by Susan Tranquilla,
16823 Fitzgerald. We have email correspondence dated
I
I
February 27, 2018
28478
February 27, 2018, which reads as follows: "As a resident living
near the subject development, I am sending this email to you
asking that it be read/provided to the Planning Commission
members tonight at the Public Hearing because I cannot attend
due to health issues. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this
subject with me on the phone. I do appreciate that Mallory is
blocked to eliminate through traffic and that the edge homes in
the site plan are similar in size to those on Fitzgerald and two-
thirds of Munger. However, I do not agree with the R-1 zoning
proposal for the following reasons: (1) Not compatible with
existing zoning and homes in the neighborhoods north of 5 Mile
on the west side of the city. (2) Zoning west of Newburgh is R-3,
south of the subject property is R-2 and east of itis R-3. R-1 stuck
in the middle is inappropriate. (3) R-1 in this area gives a `cheap'
impression (independent of home cost), particularly 50-foot lots
and condos shoe-horned into existing space to maximize
revenue. (4) Existing church property is already zoned R-3 -
approximately one-third of the total area under development. (4) l
Livonia Public School's RFP indicating R-2 lots recognized the
need for compatibility in the area. (6) When sale of Clay property
arose 10 years ago, the Future Land Use Committee appeared
to support R-3/R-2 homes with green-space. (7) Once zoned as I
R-1, different officials at later times could modify site plans and 1
agreements. (8) R-1 maximum density may be at the expense of
our property values and certainly the aesthetics of our
community. For the reasons stated above, I oppose R-1 zoning, I
but would support R3/R2."The letter is signed by Gary G. Witt,
16795 Renwick. The next letter is dated February 27, 2018, and
reads as follows: "My wife and I are the original and current
owners of the home located at 16791 Fitzgerald, 48154 which we
have occupied since May, 1969. This address is designated as
Lot 171 and borders the eastern end of the (former) Clay School 1
property. I support development of the Clay School and church
property now rather than later, thereby removing the uncertainty
of what might happen in the future. Of course, there are other t"
benefits to the community including local merchants, schools, and I
city tax rolls. While development obviously means change,
current area homeowners still become anxious about potential
quality of life issues and resulting impact on home values. I've
reviewed the Petitioner's request, supplemented by the Site Data
on the Preliminary Site Plan (Job # 17033, dated 1/11/18) which
is essential to understand the Petition, and find a project that is
totally unacceptable. Why would residents agree to bring in the
only R-1 district zoning north of Five Mile Road and further find
the R-1 zoning restrictions are diluted by implementing the single-
family cluster waivers (Section 20.02A) available for a Planned
Residential Development? I strongly oppose any version of R-1
zoning, with or without the clustering provision. Any R-1 zoning is
February 27, 2018
28479
totally inconsistent with the character of the existing surrounding
neighborhood, including the neighborhood just across Newburgh
Road. A drive through Washington Park located in the southwest
corner of Livonia makes this very clear. In addition, R-1 zoning
forces extremely limited open space, negative impact on existing
home values, potentially exacerbates an existing storm sewer
capacity issue resulting in the flooding of Fitzgerald Street, as well
as the numerous issues associated with high density
development normally considered in the Site Plan approval
process. It appears the only way to incorporate attached
residential units in R-1, R-2, or R-3 zoning districts is to employ
the single-family clustering provision of the Zoning Ordinance,
20.02A. While / personally do not object to limited attached
condos surrounding the retained church property, I believe it is
questionable that this proposed project qualifies for the clustering
option based on the requirements found in 20.02A(2)(a) through
(e). My request to Planning Commission members is that R-3
zoning - using permitted clustering waivers as needed and
appropriate -be approved for the combined Clay and church land
parcels. I know it would be greatly appreciated by neighborhood
residents if the Commission would go on record as supporting the
buffering requirements (20.02A(3)(c)(i)) for any detached home
lots abutting existing lots on Munger and Fitzgerald, and whether
these requirement are subject to waiver. Thank you for your
consideration." The letter is signed by Robert L. Sluka, 16791
Fitzgerald. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Ms. Smiley: What is the Future Land Use for this area?
Mr. Taormina: It is designated as Low Density Residential. The plan shows the
same classification to the east, south, and west across Newburgh
Road. The various other colors to the north represent non-
residential
land use classifications, including Office and General
Commercial.
Ms. Smiley: So it is consistent with everything to the west, south and east?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. Low Density Residential typically corresponds with a density
of between one to five dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Taormina, I understand that this proposed zoning would allow
shorter setbacks in front and smaller setbacks on either side of
the house. Is that correct?
February 27, 2018
28480
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Ventura: So the houses will be much closer together than R-3 zoning. Is
that true?
Mr. Taormina: Under a clustering provision or an R-1 conventional lot, there
are reduced side yard setbacks. So that's correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our Planning staff? Seeing none, is the
petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Enrico E. Soave, Kucyk Soave & Fernandes, PLLC, 37771 Seven Mile Road, Suite
C, Livonia, MI 48152. Good evening, everyone. Enrico Soave,
on behalf of the petitioner. First off, I'd like to thank Mark
Taormina for his presentation and his time in this matter in
working together with us. The former Clay School parcel and the
St. Timothy parcel, unique in characteristics and features, also
has some challenges as well. Fifty percent of the property is
adjacent to single-family R-2 and R-3; however, the other 50
percent of that is abutting and adjacent to heavy commercial,
which is the backside of Busch's and the Five Mile Plaza, which
has an 8 to 10-foot screen wall in the rear and also has a parking
lot from St. Timothy's Church and the backside of office as well.
However, like any development, we set forth development goals
in putting together a development such as this. One development
goal, which we think was the most important getting started on
this and our efforts to acquire the Clay School district, was to
make this a stand-alone development. We did not want Mallory
to become a through street to Newburgh. One being the impact
and burden on the existing community on Fitzgerald and Mallory.
Neighbors don't like it when they've been there for 30, 40, 50
years and a developer comes in adjacent to that. They've got
heavy traffic, construction traffic, dirt going down their streets, etc.
That was our first goal. The first step in achieving that goal was
approaching St. Timothy's Church to acquire the property
necessary to access Newburgh Road. They were like minded.
They wanted to sell their property for quite some time, so we
negotiated and here we are. Also, in attendance are a few board
members from St. Timothy's Church and the pastor as well. Also
in attendance with us is Gary Reggish, who is a real estate
professional and will make a brief presentation on property
values. Also, step-down development approach. Even though we
thought it best to go for the R-1, we did have a step-down
approach putting R-2 size lots adjacent to existing R-2 lots, and
with R-3 in the most eastern part of the property are R-3, 80 foot
lots or greater. We needed smaller lots in the interior because
we were faced with some development challenges. Not many
1
February 27, 2018
28481
homeowners really want their backyard to be the backside of
Busch's or to be looking at St. Timothy's Church. However
beautiful it is, it's still the backside of a church and office and
parking lot as well. So after two or three revisions of the plan, this
is what we came up with. One of the original versions was to put
the new proposed Mallory Drive closer to Munger. After looking
at that and having a street closer or in the backside of those
homeowner houses, I don't think they would appreciate it or I
would appreciate it to live behind or adjacent to a new street. This
new development will have plenty of greenspace. The clustering
option does enforce. There will be plenty of greenspace, plenty
of landscaping. The attached condominium units will have a
generous rear yard. I think we're up to 70 plus in the rear yard
with R-2 and R-3 zoning only require 30 feet in the rear yard. The
neighbors alongside Munger will have a screen wall behind there
with a densely landscaped berm, and we guarantee that all the
attached units are one-story ranch units with full basements.
Once those are up and the landscape berm is up, they're hardly
going to see or hear from those neighbors living there. I did
mention a few things from the letters that were read out at the
public hearing today. One, a traffic study. I think the traffic study
was provided to the Planning Commission, which I think the
Engineering letter failed to address that. After spending money
on that, traffic engineers came to the conclusion that impact on
Newburgh Road traffic is negligible with not much change in the
queueing, trying to access Newburgh Road. Another
development goal achieved by that was not having Mallory Road
be a thoroughfare. You're going to have morning and evenings,
you're going to have traffic coming from Fitzgerald. That
subdivision will need to exit on Newburgh, which is going to bring
more traffic through that subdivision onto Newburgh. So blocking
that off, I think, is another successful win on keeping this a stand-
alone development. Two is water drainage problems. Done
properly, almost ten times out of ten, when you have proper civil
engineering principles in place, especially in a field that's been
vacant for decades and decades and decades, the water, the
drainage problems get better. They don't exacerbate and get
worse. So the neighbors surrounding this property, guaranteed,
they're drainage issues will get better. For some letters, I don't
know how they're an expert on saying that the capacity of that
existing storm water inlet is not going to be sufficient for this
development. That I don't see any findings on that, through ours
and through the Engineering Department. We're excited about
this development. We think it's a good win for Livonia. It's a great
area, Six and Newburgh. One of the reasons, primary reasons
why we have attached ranch units is, for many years in
developing in the city, most of the time we get asked, are you
going to have any condos here or any attached ranches? We
February 27, 2018
28482
have a lot of seniors, a lot of retirees in Livonia that want to sell
their existing single family residence and move into a
condominium, a ranch, first floor, where there's no stairs. There 1
is a great market for it. Livonia needs and Livonia deserves it,
especially at the Six Mile and Newburgh corridor. It has the
shopping they need. It has the restaurants they need. It has St.
Mary's Hospital nearby and it has a lot of their medical buildings
and doctors in that area. So I think Livonia will be better served
by this development, and I think we did take into consideration
the neighbors surrounding it. With that, I'd like to open the floor
to any questions.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Soave. The one thing I want to point out, I
neglected to do this at the beginning, and I think it's important as
we go forward is, what is before us today is a rezoning request.
We're charged with the responsibility here on the Planning
Commission of trying to make sure that we're focused on the
zoning of this parcel, and not really on the site plan. The site plan
is conceptual at this point. That being said, it's hard to truly
understand what we're going to get on this property strictly
looking at the zoning. A conceptual site plan certainly does help
us and helps the residents in understanding how the property is
likely to be developed. I just want to point that out, and we'll try to
keep things on target with zoning as best we can. So you may not
hear a lot of questions and discussion about the actual details of
the site plan, which would come at a future time. With that, is
there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Priddy: Good evening. We've heard a lot of talk from you and concerns
about the nature of the area. What type of homes are you
planning? Are you trying to match what's already there?Are they
all ranches like you were saying? How do you plan on matching
to that area?
Mr. Soave: All the attached units will be ranch units with full basement, two
car attached garages, minimum 1,400 square feet and greater.
They are going to meet or exceed the brick requirements for the
City of Livonia ordinance, which means ranches will be 80
percent brick. Two-story, story and a half will be 65 percent brick.
They're going to be luxury ranches. They're going to be brick,
stone, a lot of amenities inside of them. Single family minimum r
4.
will be 1,300 square feet plus ranches but a lot of them will be l
colonials and first floor masters. Those range up to 2,000 square
feet. The rezoning sign hasn't been up there greater than what's
required, 21 days, but we've been flooded with phone calls from
families calling from adjacent communities, calling from Livonia,
asking, can I put my name down? Can we put our name down?
We really want to buy here and move our family to that area of
February 27, 2018
28483
Livonia and move into Livonia, and that is where we want to be.
So we expect a great response to this development. Hopefully,
when and if it goes through, it will be a quick response time to
alleviate any construction for the neighbors. But it's going to be
an upscale development bar none.
Mr. Priddy: So it looks like from your conceptual plan from the adjacent
properties, you're working to try and match that as best you can
with lot size?
Mr. Soave: The actual homes are going to exceed what's there. The beauty
of this and the uniqueness of it is going to attract a different breed
of buyers. First time home buyers, retirees, seniors, families with
kids that want to stay in the Stevenson school district. It has a
good attraction to it, but yeah, the homes, the architecture is
going to be second to none.
Mr. Priddy: You already put a lot of thought into that already?
Mr. Soave: Absolutely. We've been doing this for a decade. We're a second
generation of builders and developers. We do what we say we're
going to do, and never shy away from an obligation. And also with
some of those larger lot sizes, especially the R-3 and some of the
80-foot ones in the center, those are also going to afford three-
car front entry or side entry garages. It's really going to be an
eclectic mix of houses in here.
Mr. Ventura: Can you tell us what the price points on these homes will be?
Mr. Soave: The price points of the homes, this will be for the attached units
and the single family units, will be in the upper $200's. Gary
Reggish will have more empirical data on that and what we did in
the past couple developments and how the developments we
actually put forth actually raise the home values in that area in
what the existing homes sold for and the medium price on those
homes.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for the petitioner at this time? Seeing none,
is there any other presentation you want to give to us, Mr. Soave,
at this time?
Mr. Soave: Yeah. The real estate professional, Mr. Reggish, has a brief
presentation if you will. Thank you.
Gary Reggish, Broker/Owner, Remerica United Realty, 47720 Grand River
Avenue, Novi, Michigan 48374. Good evening. If I may, I do have
some packets if I can approach and pass these out so you can
follow along.
February 27, 2018
28484
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Reggish: I'm a 26-year resident of Livonia. There are a couple graphs in
the packet, bar charts that we're going to refer to in a moment.
Behind that, you're going to see some supporting documentation.
There's two reasons why we buy a house, right? The first is to
have a home, but the second is for an investment. What the
community is always concerned with or homeowners are always
concerned with is anytime there's any new development coming
into an area, is what's it going to do to our property value and our l
quality of life, right? Now, I'm a data-drive kind of guy. I like to
take a look at the facts. Now, there's a development that Bellagio
Homes and Enrico Soave and his partners developed at Ann
Arbor Road and Hix, southwestern Livonia. It was the Churchill
school district. Now, that development was a development of
homes that had 50 to 52-foot widths on their lots, whereas better
than 50 percent of these lots are going to be much wider than a
50 foot, 52 foot wide lot. Now with that being said, I first took a
look at what the average sale price is in the surrounding
communities surrounding the Newburgh project. When we take a
look at this, the average sale price is $257,471. Colonials, the
average sale price is $266,287 and ranches are $244,000 and
change. Now a couple things we take a look at. If we can look at
our bar chart here, when we look at average sale price, when I
refer to the Washington Park Subdivision, we took a look at this
subdivision, and by the way, sold out in 10 months time
approximately. The average sale price was significantly higher in
Washington Park. We're talking $301,000 overall. Colonials were
$327,000 average sale price. Now that's $327,000 versus
$266,000 for the existing community. Ranches in Washington
Park sold on average for $286,000. Again, $244,000 is the
average sale price in the existing community surrounding the
Newburgh project. I compared that with the surrounding
community of the Washington Park Subdivision out of curiosity. I
want to see what was the average sale price there. As you can
see by this chart, Washington Park community, or the square mile
surrounding Washington Park, was more comparable to the
Newburgh Road project. This demonstrates that this type of
development drastically increases the average sale price of the
neighboring community. So not a detrimental effect. When you
take a look at the average dollars per square foot, again, you're
going to see the same results. The Newburgh project versus the
neighborhood surrounding the Newburgh project, as compared to
the neighborhood surrounding the Washington Park project, are
comparable as to the average dollars per square foot of sale
price. The Washington Park Subdivision, however, increased the
average dollars per square foot of sale price by better than $30.00
February 27, 2018
28485
a square foot. Folks, this is not detrimental to the community. This
is equity position that's being increased, your homes values that
are being increased. That does three things. That funds individual
retirement. That's going to pay for the colleges of students of their
children, of their grandkids. It's going to provide tax revenues to
the city so that the City of Livonia can continue to provide the top
tier services that we're used to receiving from the City of Livonia.
By any shake of the stick, this development is a good move. I
thank you very much for your time. If there's any questions.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for Mr. Reggish? Seeing none, I think
we're all set. With that, I believe we are through the presentation
from the developer. We will open up the floor to anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item. I know
there's a number of people in the audience. If you wish to speak,
I ask that you please come forward to either one of the podiums.
We'll start with your name and address. We'll try to give you as
much time as possible to speak but we do ask that you be concise
with your remarks just due to the nature of how many people are
here.
Louis Suveg, 16820 Renwick, Livonia, Michigan. I'm the president of the Kingsbury
Heights Renwick Park neighborhood association that resides on
two sides of the parcel that's looked to be rezoned. I just want to
show by a raise of hands how many people are in our
neighborhood here. There's good representation here.
Mr. Wilshaw: Quite a few.
Mr. Suveg: Our neighborhood association, as a whole, opposes R-1 zoning.
We feel that R-1 is incompatible with the existing neighborhood,
Munger to the south of the parcel, which is R-2, and Fitzgerald to
the east which is R-3. And as Gary Witt and a couple others had
mentioned, there's no other R-1 zoning north of Five Mile. With
R-1, which normally has 60-foot wide, 120-foot deep lots, we see
variances because of the single-family clustering where you're
going to have these 50 foot wide lots with big homes on it with a
lack of greenspace in between the houses. You're going to see a
25-foot distance in between houses, you're going to get 10 feet.
As I say, that's just not compatible to the existing neighborhoods
around. Also, on the site plan, there's R-3 lots where normally
you have a 35-foot setback. We're seeing on this that there's only
a 30-foot setback. So that's a concern. So, we would prefer R-3
zoning but we would be okay with R-2.
Stuart Moyer, 37202 Munger, Livonia, Michigan. I'm just curious why the letter
that was mailed to us didn't mention anything about attached
condos or sometimes they call it lot combination? Then I'm just
February 27, 2018
28486
wondering with the R-1 if they're just trying to shove more houses
in just to make more profit. The right-of-way there, it's kind of a
funky area. If they do that, that will put us at nine right-of-ways
between Holmes Middle School and Six Mile. The Holmes Middle
School, it's a funky traffic light and at rush hour in the morning
and night, it's tough to make a left turn out of there. With this
Mallory, normally the streets go straight across. This is going to
force it. You have to make kind of a right and then a left, which I
mean I think it's going to be quite a bit of chaos. Also, I'm
wondering about the soil testing. Is there any radon or any .
asbestos with the soil testing'? And then also, to me, it's kind of a
super sad day when you see a church has to sell part of their
property. I think it's a sad day on earth and in heaven. We
purchased the parcel back in 1993. We can sell it for lake front
property every spring. Also then, finally, one of the reasons that
we purchased the parcel in 1993 was for the beautiful field, and
just watching all the dogs back there and watching the football
teams, all the kids, all the cheerleaders. It's so cool to watch the
teams all come together and have fun and they're not on their
electronic devices.
Livonia. I'm here because when
Winifred Manoian, 36954 Munger, my house was
built on farmland, flat. And when Clay School was put in, it was
raised up so that my backyard is for ducks every time it rains.
What will this new development do? Other houses are scheduled
to be built attached to our backyard, but that just means that it will
still travel down their yard into our yard. I had a professional come
in to see if we could do anything to prevent it, and the answer was
negative.
Mr. Wilshaw: What we will do, just so you understand and everyone else that's
going to speak too, as you're giving your comments or questions,
we're making notes and we'll have the petitioner come back and
try to get those questions answered as best we can. We don't
want to spend too much time going back and forth or answering
individual questions. We'll try to do them all at once.
Ms. Manoian: I just want to make it known, I dropped pictures off of the flooded
backyard at the Engineering Department, but I didn't hear
anything.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Thank you. And definitely water management is very
important with any development in the city. The County has very
stringent requirements that water has to be maintained on the
properties that are being developed now, which is why you have
the detention ponds that you see on this plan, and then they are
slowly released into the drainage system after storm events. So
there's a lot that goes into the engineering of those water systems
February 27, 2018
28487
that didn't when subdivisions were developed back in the '80's,
'70's, '60's, and so on.
Karen Kobel, 16692 Renwick, Livonia. I live at the corner of Mallory and Renwick.
I've lived there for a little over 28 years. I've been involved with
our Kingsbury Heights Renwick Park civic association over the
course of 28 years. We had a meeting with our residents
discussing this property. We have come to the Planning board in
the past with the Busch's, the Newburgh Plaza and also, if you
remember, some of you on the board may remember, when St.
Timothy, they were going to put a cell tower in that land. So I think
us, as neighbors, in this area, have been good neighbors to our
community, to the Newburgh Plaza, in allowing them to expand
to Busch's. In turn, Stewart Frankel was a good neighbor to us
and gave us the buffering that we needed for our neighbors to be
happy. And so we're requesting that this zoning in R-1 because
years past, this was called the crown jewel of Livonia. When the
Laurel Park mall was being built, it was going to be a high scale
mall. That has since recently changed due to people shopping on
the internet, but . . . and so to put R-1 zoning where there has
never been R-1 zoning, when the master plan was R-3 way back
when the Master Plan was developed for this area, is to me just
unimaginable to even to figure out why we're doing this. I'm not
against capitalism. I know that making a dollar is important but I
feel that making a dollar to what expense because down the road
people are going to go buy these homes. Fine, they can buy
them, but it's not going to be beautifying our part of the City. I
think it's going to be a detriment. I don't want to call it cheapening
it, but I live and work in Livonia. And I drive a lot of areas. I work
at Middlebelt and 96. And the spacing even in those homes are
wider than the spacing here. And the realtor had it backwards.
The homes that are the single, not the clusters, more than 50
percent of them are in the smaller lots. That's 26 compared to 13
that are in the R-2/R-3 area. So therefore, we ask kindly that you
really turn this petition down and rezone it to either R-3 or R-2.
Thank you.
Debbie Holliday, 16855 Fitzgerald, Livonia, Michigan. That's Lot 169. We moved
in last May. So this is actually all new to me on the sale of that
land. What attracted us to that house in the first place was the
open field because we actually live in the last house by the brick
wall where they want to build the detention pond. And as far as
my opinion and what I researched on this detention pond, where
they're going to put it, in my backyard, is going to drop my
property value from what I have found in doing research and also
bring mosquitoes and whatnot in the area if it's not kept up. So I
don't know if this has anything to do with the planning as far as
February 27, 2018
28488
the zoning and that or as far if they can relocate that or how that
would work in their planning. I wanted to bring that up.
Mr. Wilshaw: We appreciate any thoughts that you have. Thank you very much.
Robert Sluka, 16791 Fitzgerald, Livonia, Michigan. Our home resides on Lot 171,
which is right in the middle of the eastern border of the project
that's being considered this evening. The Planning Director read
my letter to the Commission earlier, so I'll shorten my remarks. I
will also try to address the remarks of, I'll refer to him as the
builder. I think you know who I mean. The second gentleman that
spoke on the petitioner's side. First, I just want to reiterate the
strong feeling, mine as well as everyone that I've talked to, more
than a dozen people, I haven't found anyone that is a fan of the
way that the R-1 zoning is period, much less one that has
diminished side yards and 50-foot lots. It just changes the whole
feel of everything and if you haven't driven through Washington
Park, and don't do it during the week. You'll have so much
construction traffic you really can't assess it. I commend the
builder for the fine finishes, exterior finishes on the units in
Washington Park, but things are crammed together. I mean, a
quick drive through there, you almost think you're looking at
attached condominiums. With the houses only 25-feet away from
the street on each side, it totally changes the character of what's
there. Now I know they had to work within certain limitations, but
we're several miles north. I think the surrounding area is where
this project is being discussed is . . . I'll say more affluent. As
much as I would like to take the figures that were given about how
that new development, for which there is demand, without
question. You can see it. You can see the houses going up. I
cannot see, as much as I would wish, I cannot see houses, a
large number of houses on 50-foot lots increase in value the
surrounding neighborhood. It just doesn't work. So, I also
endorse the idea of zoning this with the R-3 classification. If the
permitted clustering waivers as needed as appropriate, it is
possible to put in a number of houses that won't cause problems
with all the high-density issues that arise typically that we talk
about during site plan approvals. I know there is a water issue.
That's something to be considered. I'll tell you why. Fitzgerald
floods in front of my house. I've got pictures of what happened on
August 28 with cars running down the street and big rooster tails
up in the air. I have a manhole cover on the sidewalk in front of
my street and it's spouting water through the holes in the manhole
cover. So increasing the land coverage there with this
construction has got to have an effect on the water situation. I'm
a graduate engineer. Not a civil engineer, mechanical engineer.
I've taken graduate fluid courses. I understand some of the
issues, and I know that engineering can be done to somewhat
February 27, 2018
28489
mitigate the problem. There are a lot of wet basements that are
in engineered areas. And sometimes it's the homeowners fault
because of things they've done on their property, but a lot of times i
it isn't. So it's a serious issue for those of us who especially border
the Fitzgerald side. As I look here at my notes, I think I have
really covered what I feel the important points. R-1 of any kind, I
with or without clustering, just doesn't belong in that area and it's
a misfit and I strongly recommend that you would consider
rezoning against R-1. Thank you. I
1
Mr. Moyer: I forgot one thing. I'm just wondering with only that planned one
right-of-way exit to the west, what the Police, the Fire and the I
ambulance . . . if there's some kind of chaos, what they think. How
they can all get out of there alive?
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Moyer, the Police and Fire Departments are always given
copies of these plans as well and given an opportunity to voice
any issues that they have. And they have not voiced any issues.
I live in a development that has 118 homes coming out of one
driveway.
I
Mr. Moyer: Good luck to you.
Charissa Shawcross, 36479 Munger Court, Livonia, Michigan. I am opposed to R-
1 zoning. We moved 20 years ago from the States streets area I
of Livonia to this neighborhood intentionally because of the lower
density of the population, and we would like to keep it that way.
We too on the court have had our catch basin for water runoff
rebuilt three times in 20 years because as Fitzgerald floods,
everything excess comes down into the court. So I don't see that i
increasing the density of the building is going to help with our
water management. Thank you. 1
1
Christine Yee, 37150 Munger, Livonia, Michigan. The builder may have talked
about this. So the condos, are they planning for a one-story or is
it a two-story condo?
Mr. Wilshaw: He said the condos were going to be ranch only.
E
i
Ms. Yee: So right now, there's a fence right behind my property. Is there a
plan to take down the fence, put a new fence in? I just want to
know what's the game plan for that.
i
F
Mr. Wilshaw: The developer can address that, but behind the condominiums,
where it abuts the residential property, there would be a grass
berm. It would be on that property to create a barrier. As far as
removing or changing any fencing, I don't know if there's going to
be any work done on that.
February 27, 2018
28490
Ms. Yee: Okay. And my last question would be, assuming the land sale
does go through, what is the timeline that we can expect that the
condos or the homes to go up?
Mr. Wilshaw: We will ask that question.
Linda LaVere, 37098 Munger, Livonia, Michigan. I back up to the field and the
school. I was the second house built in the area. I bought the
house from my parents. I've been there since Snyder's Farm, a
long time. I have a couple things. One is clarification and then a
couple other things. When you build on this, the properties that
are . . . first of all, I disagree with the R-1. Totally against that. I
have driven through areas of Livonia where it's been zoned R-1.
It is definitely not a fit for our area, I feel. I am very adamant about
that. Secondly, we had to install a French drain in our yard.
understand Fitzgerald has their flooding. Well, so do we on the
Munger side. Even with that French drain that's going out to the
street, the yard doesn't handle the quantity of water that it gets in
a heavy rainfall. So what is the elevation going to be along this?
Is it going to add more water into my backyard is a very big
concern for my property value also. In heavy rains my basement
does take on water. So that's a concern. I guess that's about it.
But I just want to say vehemently, I'm against R-1. It's not a good
fit.
Dawn Marulli, 16639 Fitzgerald, Livonia, Michigan. I just want to go on record.
don't want R-1. I don't think it fits with our area, I think it's going
to be a downgrade to our area. We back up to that field so we
don't want to be looking at a bunch of cluster of close houses. I'm
pretty sure everyone here would agree with that.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this item? All right. With that, we'll go back to the
petitioner and ask if he could come forward, Mr. Soave. You
heard a number of comments from residents. There's also some
questions that were asked in regard to the timeline for the
development, water issues, soil testing. Can you address some
of those for us?
Mr. Soave: Yes. If I may ask a question first.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes.
Mr. Soave: Mark, if you will, what's the condo complex at the northeast corner
of Five Mile and Newburgh just behind CVS Pharmacy?
Unidentified audience member: Hunter's Grove.
February 27, 2018
28491
Mr. Soave: Hunter's Grove. What's the zoning on that? Is that R-C? Do you
know off hand'?
Mr. Taormina: It is R-C.
Mr. Soave: Residential Condominium? Okay. Thank you. I think I mentioned
once before about ground water, drainage issues. It was a
mixture of concerns I heard. One is, or multiple questions, maybe
more towards if the Engineering Department here can answer, is
there anything wrong with the infrastructure of the storm water
there? That I can't answer to because I'm not an engineer and I
don't have privy to that information regarding that. Number two,
is ground water, existing drainage issues. Based upon on the
engineering we've already done and the topography of that, there
are some areas that are artificially low that do retain pool water
after heavy rains, after a snow melt, etc., which will all be made
better once any new development goes in there. The chief goal
of civil engineering from a development standpoint and with what
the engineers do in the City of Livonia is they look at a
development as, does this development keep water on its own
property and get rid of its own water that it collects in a proper
manner. Outside of any issues with the infrastructure, I can
guarantee that it will make the drainage problems better in that
area and the adjacent neighbors won't see water shedding onto
their properties. Another thing I want to iterate is, there's 70-foot
lots all running parallel with Munger and R-3 lots that runs parallel
with Fitzgerald. So they're not going to see the interior of that
subdivision once it's up. Maybe it's a little antiquated but for quite
some time now, lot sizes do not have any bearing on the actual
home values or show a cheapening product. If you go to adjacent
Northville Township, City of Northville, Plymouth, Canton, they're
all smaller lot sizes generally and they're very nice communities.
Seven Mile just west of Northville Road, Pulte built a 50-lot
subdivision. They're all big box homes, 3,000 square foot plus
and they're on 50-foot lots. If you drive by there you can see that.
We're not doing that. These houses are smaller than that and
architecturally better than the Pulte homes, but this has been
going on for quite some time. Livonia is a great city but most of
Livonia has been developed many years ago. So this is kind of
keeping up with the times and with the trends we're dealing with.
Just like Laurel Park, which I like to shop at, was once a great
mall, but now it's turning into empty stores with only Von Maur
and a couple of them left. I've been in Livonia most of my life and
I've seen a lot, developed a lot and built a lot, and this
development is going to be an exceptional development bar
none. And if I missed some questions, Mr. Chair, please let me
know and I would love to answer them.
February 27, 2018
28492
Mr. Wilshaw: The timeline. If this goes forward, that you would start building
homes?
Mr. Soave: If this goes through, according to rough math, we would hope to
have the streets in by the end of this year and some homes being
built by the end of the year. It's crazy. We're already thinking
winter is hopefully behind us, but winter quickly approaches
where you can't pour roadways in. So if this goes according to
plan, we should hopefully have the roadways in prior to
November.
Mr. Wilshaw: Was there any need for soil testing in regards to radon or any
other contaminants?
Mr. Soave: Everything we've done so far has come up negative, and what
the school has done has come up negative. I hope not. A lot of
kids went to that school.
Mr. Wilshaw: I went to that school. Any other questions for our petitioner?
Mr. Priddy: Just one for your realtor. In going through the data, is there a
time range when you sampled those properties?
Mr. Reggish: The last 12 months. The most current data available.
Mr. Priddy: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner?
Mr. Moyer: Can I ask a follow-up?
Mr. Wilshaw: Sir, the public hearing has been finished. If you have an additional
question . . . .
Mr. Moyer: He didn't answer the question.
Mr. Wilshaw: Can you please come forward so we can hear you? Which
question is it that you're looking to have answered?
Mr. Moyer: I want to know who is responsible for the letter, the snail mail that
was mailed, and it did not say "attached condos" and some
people call it lot combination. That was not mentioned on the
letter.
Mr. Wilshaw: The letter that was sent out by the City is in regards to the
rezoning, which is what we're addressing tonight. So it wouldn't
have said anything about what type of development is going on
February 27, 2018
28493
that as far as condominiums or single family homes. That would
be on the site plan stage that you would hear that. Is there
anything else you wanted to offer, Mr. Soave, before we close our
public hearing?
Mr. Soave: I don't have anything further, but thank you for your time.
Ms. Smiley: Does this development meet the Low Density classification for
that area?
Mr. Taormina: The conceptual plan that's been presented illustrates a density of
about four dwelling units per acre, so it would fit within that range
of 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre that is recommended for the Low
Density classification. So yes, it does.
Ms. Smiley: And you said the condominiums were R-3/R-4 behind the CVS?
Mr. Taormina: Hunter's Grove is zoned R-C. That's a completely different zoning
classification there.
Ms. Smiley: And this whole thing would be R-1, but some of the homes would
be more like R-2?
Mr. Taormina: The request is to rezone all 14.4 acres under one classification,
R-1. Again, the conceptual plan shows R-2 sized lots along a
portion of the south of the development and R-3 sized lots along
the eastern boundary of the development.
Ms. Smiley: But it makes more sense to do the whole 14 acres under one
classification?
Mr. Taormina: Well, that's what the petitioner is requesting.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, to follow-up on Ms. Smiley's question, because of
the clustering request as part of this, there's a requirement that
the developer have compatible sized lots adjacent to those
properties. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct and that is what's illustrated on the plan.
Mr. Wilshaw: That's part of the reason why we're seeing R-2 sized lots and R-
3 sized lots for a portion of the development.
Mr. Taormina: Just to preface that, there were three options available to provide
compatibility adjacent to existing single-family districts. One is to
provide for conventional sized lots adjacent to those areas.
February 27, 2018
28494
Secondly, would be to provide open space or recreational areas
separating the two. And lastly, provide topographical features and
landscaping. While it's true the proposed plan shows
conventional size lots adjacent to those existing subdivisions, the
portion where the attached units lie adjacent to homes along
Munger, the plan shows a berm and landscaping. So it's actually
two means by which he's attempting to show compliance under
that provision.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. I know you mentioned that at the onset of this,
but it's probably good to repeat that. Any other questions or
comments from the Planning Commission? If not, we will declare
the public hearing closed at this time and a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by Long, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
#02-09-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on February 27, 2018, on
Petition 2018-01-01-01 submitted by Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes,
P.L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning k:
Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the
properties at 36900 and 36910 Mallory Drive (former Clay
Elementary School site) from PL (Public Lands) to R-1 (One
Family Residential — 60' x 120' lots) and the property at 16600
Newburgh Road and a portion of the property at 16700 Newburgh
Road from R-3 (One Family Residential — 80' x 120' lots) to R-1
(One Family Residential—60' x 120' lots), located at the east side
of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and Six Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-01-01-
01 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in
the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
residential development similar in density to what exists in
the neighboring area; g;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of low density residential
land use in the general area; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning constitutes a
reasonable and compatible transition between the existing
February 27, 2018
28495
neighborhood and adjoining non-residential land uses in the
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Long, Smiley, Priddy
NAYS: Ventura, Wilshaw
ABSENT: Caramagno, McCue
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council where they will conduct their
own public hearing and ultimately approve or deny this. Thank
you, everyone, for coming out tonight.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2018-01-02-02 HAGGERTY CENTER
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2018-01-02-02 submitted by Haggerty Square requesting special
waiver use approval pursuant to Article XX of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to develop a Planned
General Development consisting of a proposed retail shopping
center and multi-family housing development under a single
unified plan called Haggerty Center, at 19700 and 19750
Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to develop a Planned General Development
consisting of a proposed retail shopping center as well as a
multi-family housing development. This property is located on
the east side of Haggerty between Seven Mile and Eight Mile
Roads between the AMC 20 theater complex and Costco. This
property is 10.86 acres in size with 543 feet of frontage along
Haggerty by a depth of roughly 870 feet. The subject site is the
location of the former Haggerty Tech Center, which was
developed in the mid-1980's and consisted of three one-story
"flex-style" buildings that totaled over 150,000 square feet. In
2016, the City Council rezoned the site from R-E Research-
Engineering to the C-2 General Business classification. A site
plan was then approved for the development of a 16,400-square
February 27, 2018
28496
foot retail building as well as two full service restaurant pads
under the development name "Haggerty Marketplace." There
was partial demolition of the site; however, construction was
never commenced and there are no tenants that currently
occupy any portions of the remaining structures. The
authorization for a Planned General Development containing a
combination of both commercial and residential land uses under t;
a single, unified plan, falls under the provisions set forth in
Article XX. The intent of Article XX is to provide design flexibility
by allowing for modifications of lot sizes and yard requirements,
and by allowing uses that would not otherwise be permitted in
the zoning district within which the development is located. The
proposed new Haggerty Center would contain two major
components under a unified plan, retail and housing. I will go
over each one of these separately. The retail phase includes the
front half of the site with frontage on Haggerty Road. It would
consist of two multi-tenant retail buildings each facing Haggerty
Road. The buildings would be separated by a main drive
approach and a central drive aisle that would provide access to
parking lots on either side of and in front of both retail buildings.
Parking is also provided behind the buildings. The proposed
northerly retail building, identified as Building "A", would total
16,048 square feet and would be one-story in height. The
southerly building, Building "Building," is also one-story and
14,160 square feet. Both retail buildings could be subdivided
into six tenant spaces. Outdoor dining patios are shown
adjacent to the units at the north and south ends. A drive-up
window facility is depicted on the north end-cap unit of Building
"A." Under the C-2 district, drive-thru operations are treated as
a waiver use. Currently, the plans are preliminary with respect
to the location and number of restaurants. Once specific users
are identified, detailed plans would have to be submitted to the
Planning Commission for more formal review under our waiver
use provisions. The ordinance requires that the nearest 15 feet
to the right-of-way of any major thoroughfare be maintained in
landscaping. Both retail buildings would be set back about 150
feet from Haggerty Road and comply with the landscaping
requirement. In terms of egress and ingress, primary access to
the development would be provided from a single curb cut and
driveway that would be located midway along the site's frontage
on Haggerty Road. Circulation and parking would be
interconnected, with most of the parking located in the front yard
between the buildings and Haggerty. Additional off-street
parking would be available behind the buildings. Parking
required for buildings with more than four units, which are called
"Group Commercial Centers," and where more than 15 percent
of the gross floor area is devoted to places of assembly,
including restaurants, is computed at a ratio of one space of
February 27, 2018
28497
every 125 square feet of useable floor area. Building A would
require 103 parking spaces under this requirement, and Building
"B" requires 91 parking spaces, for a total of 194 spaces. The
plans show 187 spaces for the retail phase of the development,
so where is a slight deficiency of seven spaces. Dumpsters are
shown behind the buildings. Walls surrounding those containers
would be 6 feet in height and they would be constructed out of
split-face block and would have gates concealing the trash
enclosures. Site Lighting would be limited to 20 feet in height
which conforms to City of Livonia Outdoor Lighting Policy. The
primary building materials include limestone panels, burnished
block as well as composite horizontal wood-look planks. The
side and the rear of the buildings would be constructed mostly
out of burnished block with limestone pier accents. Additional
design components along the buildings' storefronts include
glass doors and windows, and the facades consist of a series of
parapet walls that would vary in height, width and project or step
out from the buildings. Overall, these buildings would be
approximately 31 feet in height. In terms a signage, each tenant
space would be allowed one wall sign totaling one square foot
for each one lineal feet of building frontage. Because the site
has over 400 feet of frontage on Haggerty Road, they would be
allowed two monument signs. Each of the ground signs should
not exceed 40 square feet in area and eight feet in height. The
site plan does depict two ground signs; however, we don't really
have any details as to what those would look like. Let's look
now at the multi-family portion of the development. This would
be medium to high density multi-family housing which would be
proposed on the easterly half of the site. The housing would be
in the form of two similar-looking, three-story apartment
buildings. Both buildings would have a footprint area of about
44,500 square feet. The westerly apartment building is identified
as Building "C." That would contain 99 one and two-bedroom
units, whereas the easterly apartment building, identified as
Building "D," would have a total of 102 units. The proposed "C-
shaped" buildings mirror one another, creating a central
courtyard and a common area that would measure roughly 178
feet by 258 feet. Within this central common area, the plans
show an in-ground swimming pool. Combined, the two
apartment buildings would have a total of 201 apartment units.
The sizes of the individual apartment units are not shown. The
floor plans do show that each unit would have an exterior
balcony. Some other amenities included in the floor plans show
inside storage, including bike storage, an exercise room,
meeting room, as well as a community room. Elevators would
serve both of the proposed buildings. Access to the apartments
would be provided from the same drive aisles serving the retail
shopping center. There are three points of entry, including the
February 27, 2018
28498
main central drive, plus two secondary drives—one located in
the northwest corner and the other in the southwest corner of
the site—all forming connections to the drive aisles and parking
lots in the shopping center. In addition, the plans show a
connection from the east where a new road would be developed
connecting the Costco Fuel facility to the north with Fox Drive
which serves the AMC Theater complex to the south. This
undeveloped parcel is owned by the same entity that owns the
adjacent gas and oil well facility and is operated by West Bay
Exploration. Gates are shown at each entry point into the
apartment complex, indicating that access would be restricted.
Parking for multi-family housing is computed at a ratio of 21/2
spaces per unit. The apartment buildings, containing 201 units
overall, would require 503 parking spaces. The site plan,
however, only shows 323 parking spaces, resulting in a
deficiency of 180 spaces. This translates to a ratio of 1.6 parking
spaces per apartment unit. Masonry carports are depicted along
the west, north and east sides of the apartment complex.
However, we do not have details regarding the design of these
structures. Three dumpster enclosures are shown for the
apartments, one in the northeast corner as well as two near the
southeast corner. The walls would be 6 feet in height and would
be constructed out of split-face block. Sight lighting would also
conform to our outdoor lighting policy and would be consistent
with the retail development. All ground-mounted light fixtures
would be limited to a height of 20 feet. In terms of the
architecture, these buildings would contain some of the same
design elements as the retail; however, the primary building
materials here include metal panels as well as brick, burnished
block and composite siding. The building heights shown are 40
feet. Fully detailed landscaping plans have been included with
the proposed development plans. We do not have any details
with respect to storm water runoff for this project. At our study
session, the petitioner indicated that there would be a
combination of underground detention system as well as above-
ground located on the adjoining properties. That's a very quick
synopsis of a very significant development. I'll be happy to
answer questions, but if I could go through the correspondence
now.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are six items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated February 13, 2018, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The existing
parcels are assigned the addresses of #19700 and #19750
February 27, 2018
28499
Haggerty Road. The legal description provided on the submitted
plans contain a misclosure greater than allowable by surveying
standards. The legal descriptions are sufficient for the proposed
waiver use, but should be corrected during the proposed property
combination and split. The existing parcels are currently serviced
by public utilities, but the submitted drawings do not show
proposed connections or calculations, so we cannot determine
impacts to the existing systems at this time. The proposed
development will be required to extend public water main and
sanitary sewer to service both lots and provide storm water
detention per the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. It is
suggested that the developer contact Wayne County to discuss
the placement of the proposed entrance and the potential need
for a traffic study. Also, any proposed work within the Haggerty
Road right-of-way will require permits through the Wayne County
Department of Public Service."The letter is signed by David W.
Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 21, 2018, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to develop a planned housing
development under a single unified plan called Haggerty Center
on property located at the above referenced address. We have
no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1)
Subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler
system, and on-site hydrants shall be located between 50 feet
and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Hydrant
spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (3) A
fire access road shall be provided with not less than 20 feet of
unobstructed width and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of
vertical clearance in accordance to 18.2.3.4.1.1 and 18.2.3.4.1.2
of NFPA 1, 2015. (4) Knox Box installation is required for Fire
Department access." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
February 14, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the
plans in connection with the petition. I have two objections to the
proposals, one of them being that there is not enough parking
spots for the residential area and the other being that there needs
to be a traffic control device there."The letter is signed by Brian
Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated February 22, 2018, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition
has been reviewed. (1) A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required to maintain the deficient number of
parking spaces. (2) Signage has not been reviewed at this time.
All signage must conform to the sign ordinance or a variance
would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
Department has no further objections to this petition."The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fifth letter
February 27, 2018
28500
is from the Treasurer's Department, dated February 8, 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 current Real (CFT)
Property Taxes due, as shown below: $20,262.56— Winter 2017;
Current if paid by 2/14/2018." The letter is signed by Lynda
Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance
Department, dated February 8, 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. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Ms. Smiley: Did we find out any more about the ring road?
Mr. Taormina: The petitioner will be able to respond more specifically to his
negotiations with that landowner to secure the easement
necessary to build that road, but the plans do show the road being
constructed. If you look at the revised plans that were submitted,
it does illustrate a road running due south from an entranceway
that would be provided along the eastern boundary of the
property.
Ms. Smiley: I think that's a big deal. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina: You can see where the road is proposed and would tie into both
the proposed development as well as a connecting point that was
provided in the southwest corner of the Costco fuel facility. That
is the little apron that is shown on the plan.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions for our Planning staff? Seeing
none, the petitioner is here. We will need your name and address
for the record please.
Tim Ponton, Stonefield Engineering and Design, L.L.C. 28454 Woodward, Royal
Oak, Michigan 48067. Good evening, chairman, members of the
Board. I am the owner of Stonefield Engineering and Design and
the Design Site Engineer for this project. Fortunately, Jordan
Jonna, the developer, is unable to be with us tonight because at
about 3:30, he called us and stated that his wife went into labor.
So he really did want to be here tonight, but unfortunately, duty
calls and he's taking care of the family. I do have Kevin Biddison,
the project architect, along with Jason Gikiere, with Tower
Construction, who does all of Jonna's construction. There's a lot
of information that Mark provided. So just adding on to that a little
bit, our team has had a number of opportunities to meet, not only
February 27, 2018
28501
with Mark the first time, but a number of members from your
Planning Staff, city professionals, Mayor Wright, and we really
would like to commend the city professionals for understanding
how unique this project is, for understanding how cutting edge
this type of development is in terms of having retail in the front
and the residential in the back, what's now referred to in a lot of
common studies as horizontal mixed use as opposed to old failing
concepts which was vertical mixed use. If you read a lot of the
studies, it states that these types of developments are extremely
important in suburban communities for their long-term growth and
long-term health. What's really challenging, but was a breath of
fresh air meeting with your professionals, it's been challenging to
shed some of the old perceptions in terms of, these are going to
be apartments and who wants to live in apartments. Historically,
these have been the last places that people would want to live.
It's as if you couldn't get a house, move into an apartment. But If
you look at different trends in the market and where we're at
today, this is only not the last place that you'd want to be; this is
actually the first place that young professionals want to be. In
terms of capturing a new demographic, keeping young
professionals here, young families, getting them committed to the
community so they can be attracted to the community by this
different type of offering, which typically you only see in urban-
type areas. So you're attracting that demographic, getting them
committed to your neighborhoods, and then ultimately once they
start a family, maybe then they go and do that first time house. A
lot of the studies show that what young professionals are looking
for are four things: amenities, which you can see we have a
number of those, which I'll go through. A sense of community,
convenience, mostly because I think they're lazy, but it is very
important to them. And flexibility until they have the security to
make a long-term commitment to go and get then a 15 or 30-year
mortgage. When the developer sent this project to us initially, it
does have a number of different challenges that, the first one
being, and I think it's a big part of why you see this site sitting
vacant today. It was in front of your Board previously and it never
went anywhere. The main challenge is the depth as compared to
the lot frontage. So you've got an 11 acre parcel; however, you've
only got about 500 feet of frontage. It's very clear in terms of what
should we do with the front three or four acres. But it's a lot more
challenging in terms of how do we make this whole site useable
and what can we do in the rear. This was really a great fit for A.
J. Jonna. They are leading I guess the Metro Detroit market in
terms of these horizontal mixed use developments. They've got
a number of them that I've worked on, and I'm currently working
on. The site sat for a number of years. They acquired it just
probably under six months ago and are looking to go to
construction hopefully this spring, assuming we can move
S
February 27, 2018
28502
through this process. They did task us from a design standpoint
to create a sense of community, to create a walkable area where
people are really going to enjoy living where they can go, even
though they're right in the middle of a regional commercial district,
but they can feel like they're in the serenity of their own private
space. So you can see that we kept the rear portion of the site, I
a
approximately 25 percent of that, we left as greenspace.
Centered around the pool, there is over 150 trees of 13 different i.
species. You've got over 550 shrubs, a number of different colors,
a number of different heights, staggering different time of season 1
for a different bloom. It really will be a great central area for
people to get together, all types of different people. And again,
it's walkable. One of the changes that we made since our study
meeting, we did commit to making those garages as opposed to
carports, adding onto the number amenities. We've got the pool,
a gym, community area. A number of the units have balconies.
We really see this as one of the hot spots in Livonia, and we really
think that the market is underserved. I have a staff of over 120
people. The average age is 28.5 years old, but it ranges from like
23 college graduates up to 35, and they're all looking for a product
similar to this. Unfortunately, they're unable to find it in a lot of
different communities, and/or they can't afford it when they do
find it because it's in Birmingham or Royal Oak or some of these
other areas that are just far too congested. We've also had a
number of meetings with Wayne County. We also have another
meeting with them coming up, but what we're showing now is a
full access driveway along Haggerty Road, and then the potential
for another one along either the southern or the northern portion.
We're still working with them to figure out exactly how access will
work into the site. They're also going to be responsible for
stormwater management. There will be a significant improvement
on-site. We will account for at least a 10-year storm in terms of
retaining that with the combination of above-ground detention
basins and underground basins. So we will be required to meet
all of their requirements. We've taken the design far enough to
know that we can accommodate it with this layout. In terms of the
communications you got, Mark, the one question that I would
have in terms of the Director of Inspection, stated that a variance
may be required for parking. Just looking to you in terms of an
interpretation on that. Our understanding is that if we go through
the PD process, that we're not required to go in front of the Zoning I
Board of Appeals. I'll let you let us know by the end of the meeting
in terms of how your interpretation goes on that. The last thing
that I'd like to touch on is that this developer has been operating
these types of communities. There's some that are larger. There's
some that are smaller, but they're a long-term holder. So they're
a long-term holder of all their real estate. They're going to be here
managing this property for a number of years to come. They're
February 27, 2018
28503
my only developer client that tasks me with making my
construction details better and more expensive because they
don't want to come back and fix things in the long term. What I
can say is that they are very conscious on their customer
experience being the tenants, and we're very confident that 1.6
parking spaces per unit, not only is sufficient for our guests,
tenants and their visitors, but it may even be a little bit high. We
were shooting for 1.5 and we ended up at 1.6. So it doesn't serve
anybody, especially the developer, being the owner, to have this
thing under parked to not be able to have visitors come here and
not be able to retain long-term tenants overall. We are very
conscious of that. We do appreciate the comments. We know that
historically if you look at a lot of the old ordinances and a lot of
the old studies, that they do say 2.5. They do say 3.5. But we've
got developments that have been in operation for over ten years
that have 1.5 parking spaces and we've got 25 percent of the
parking is unused. So we end up with a number of seas of
asphalt. It's unattractive. It doesn't service anybody. As opposed
to adding more parking, we try to include that in our green areas.
With that, I'll bring up Kevin Biddison, the project architect to go
through some of the architecture.
Kevin Biddison, 320 Martin Street, Birmingham, Michigan. My firm is Biddison
Architecture and I'm happy to answer any questions you have
here tonight. Just real briefly, the Jonna's have always done a
quality product and I think this is going to be another one of those.
If you look at the materials they have selected for this project,
starting out on the retail frontage with limestone and a small
amount of metal and the wood products, these are going to be
materials that not only look good but they're going to last a long
time. I think these are going to be quality materials that everyone
will be proud here to see as part of this community. The
residential units behind, the idea again is to make this a cohesive
development. So the materials that were used are in keeping with
the same tones, the light colored brick, the gray metal, the block
on the bottom, which was requested to re-look at that as the
burnished block. That was the additional sample that I brought
with me this evening. We are going to use that in lieu of the split
face for the lower level. Again, that is an additional upgrade of
that materials. We feel that this is going to be a great looking
development. I think it's going to attract a lot of the same young
demographic that you've just heard about. I think that is where
the lifeline of the city continues is to bring in that younger
demographic and give them a place to start to develop and want
to move forward within Livonia. If you have any other additional
questions, I'll be happy to answer them. All of the glass will be
clear and clear aluminum frames and all of the metals on the
projects will match each other. Again, along with the landscaping
February 27, 2018
28504
and the amenities that have been added within the building
interior, we feel this is going to be a very successful development.
I'd be happy to answer any specific questions that you might
have.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Biddison, you have a material sample board which is at the
bottom of your podium. Are camera operator can't see it. Can
you hold it up and go over these materials just quickly so our vast
TV audience gets a chance to see them?
Mr. Biddison: Absolutely. On the retail developments, limestone is the main
material that is on the front and along the signage area. This is a
composite wood product that is something that will last forever.
We've use it for signage areas for restaurants and other facilities.
Mr. Wilshaw: Similar to Trex?
Mr. Biddison: Yes. The glass will be a clear glass with a clear anodized frame
and any screening and metal will be a gray painted metal. On the
rear buildings, the residential components, in lieu of the
limestone, we'll be going with slightly darker brick on the upper
portions. This burnished block would be the lower portions, which
you see as the darker area on the first floor. We're going to bring
in the same composite wood above to warm that up around the
balcony areas. Then use the same metal color for some small
metal detail areas and coping and the balconies that would be in
portions of the building.
Mr. Wilshawa: Would the balconies be black or gray?
Mr. Biddison: The balconies would match the same materials. Prefinished
aluminum.
Mr. Wilshaw: Prefinished aluminum. Okay. Are there any questions for the
architect?
Mr. Ventura: I'm not familiar with burnish block. What kind of a process? Is this
cement block that's been polished?
Mr. Biddison: Yes. Would you like to see it close up?
Mr. Ventura: Yes.
Mr. Biddison: It's basically a ground face and then finish so it's completely
prefinished. You never have to do anything with it.
Mr. Ventura: Can you tell me what percentage of the 11-acre site is contained
in the center area between the two buildings?
February 27, 2018
28505
Mr. Ponton: Approximately one acre. Just over about 47,000 square feet.
Mr. Ventura: And you have 201 units. Can you tell me what the assortment is
between one-bedroom, two-bedroom and are there any three-
bedrooms?
Mr. Ponton: We have approximately 109 one-bedroom units, 80 two-bedroom
units and 12 three-bedroom units.
Mr. Ventura: What do you anticipate the construction cost per square foot is
going to be for this project?
Mr. Ponton: We're not quite that far but somewhere between $80 and $100
per square foot.
Mr. Ventura: And the anticipated rents?
Mr. Ponton: The anticipated rents will be dictated by the market. I think this is
going to be a nicer product that's going to be somewhere around
$1,000 to $1,100 for the one-bedrooms and up from there, up to
$1,400 or $1,500 for the three-bedrooms.
Mr. Ventura: Do you have any retail tenants yet?
Mr. Ponton: We do not.
Mr. Ventura: And can you tell me what the square footage of a single bedroom
unit will be?
Mr. Ponton: It will be around 1,000 square feet, somewhere between 900 and
1,100 square feet.
Mr. Ventura: Do you see any possibility, and Mark, if we could look at the site
plan. You mentioned a sense of community in your dissertation
and serenity and so forth. I'm concerned about the amount of
noise that comes off the adjacent expressway and the lack of
landscaping. As I look at that, and I realize I'm looking at rooftops,
but the only green is that one-acre chunk. Is there any way to
make this greener and more serene, to use your own word?
Mr. Biddison: One thing that I forgot to point out that's very important is, if you
look at just the residential side along the western property line,
the northern property line on the eastern property line, not the
south, those are all garages. Those will be full walls. There will
be somewhat of a built-in sound barrier. That's one of the
amenities that we'll be providing to the residents. We started with
carports and after our study meeting, we moved them to being
February 27, 2018
28506
garages. And then along the southern portion, we've got a
significant number of trees there in our buffering area.
Mr. Ventura: The garages are included in the parking count?
Mr. Biddison: Correct.
Mr. Taormina: A question for Kevin, the architect. Could you clarify the location
on the apartments where the composite wood material would go?
Mr. Biddison: Yes. If you look at that, you'll see brownish, reddish-brown
material above the windows where the balconies are and below
the balconies. You'll see that same color material.
Mr. Taormina: So everywhere you're showing the brown is the composite
siding?
Mr. Biddison: Correct. So above and below the balconies and above the
windows in between the larger brick masses where the balconies
reside.
Mr. Taormina: I visited 42 West today. It is a little bit different design, where there
was siding located along a portion of the façade. Is that vinyl
siding or the composite material that you're considering here?
Jason Gakiere, Tower Construction, 2093 Orchard Lake, Sylvan Lake, Michigan.
The material that's inside the balconies at Southfield Villages is
fiber cement board that is inside the "U" of the balcony. On the
outside, it's all metal panel -the corrugated material that you saw.
Mr. Taormina: It was the lighter yellowish siding.
Mr. Gakiere: It had ribs in it?
Mr. Taormina: It had ribs in it.
Mr. Gakiere: That's metal siding.
Mr. Taormina: Is it metal? Okay.
Mr. Gakiere: Yep.
Mr. Taormina: Just so the Commission knows what I'm referring to, it's these
portions of the building, right there. Also, it would appear as if the
same type of garage structures that are shown on the plan for
Haggerty Center would be similar to the existing garages at the
Southfield project. This is what they look like. It's a utility brick.
It's a masonry product all the way around. Is that correct?
February 27, 2018
28507
F
Mr. Gakiere: That's correct. I think we would use a little more mixture of
burnished block on this project just to dress it up a little bit. In
essence, they would be similar to that.
Mr. Taormina: Thank you.
Mr. Gakiere: And those do have interior dividers so they are separate units for
each person.
Mr. Taormina: I noticed that. One of the doors was opened and a chain link fence
separates the individual carports or units.
Mr. Gakiere: That's correct. We would be following a similar plan for this
development.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, there was a question about the parking and the
deficiency. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Taormina: That will have to be addressed in the Planned General
Development Agreement. Something that we are recommending
would come back to this body for final review. There are a few
items that we feel warrant additional review, that being one of
them.
Mr. Wilshaw: So that would be addressed in that process as opposed to having
to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Taormina: I believe so. We'll verify that with our legal counsel, but that would
be the intent. If it was incorporated into the Planned General
Development Agreement, it could potentially avoid the need to go
to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. I appreciate that. Is there any other questions
for our petitioner?
Mr. Priddy: We heard some concerns about traffic flow on the property. How
are along are you in trying to figure out your access to the
property and egress out onto Haggerty?
Mr. Ponton: We expect to have a better answer once we meet with the County
next week. In our initial meetings with the County, they had stated
that there will most likely be a decel lane required along Haggerty
Road, but more importantly, when you look at how this site will
operate from a traffic standpoint, it appears as if since we're
improving that road in the back, we're assuming that a majority of
people that are exiting the site, the residents, will almost always
use that and they then have the ability to go out to the light. In
February 27, 2018
28508
terms of egress, we expect that, unless they're planning on
stopping by one of these shops on their way home, they'll also
take the easy route. So it's almost as if a large number of trips
that go in and out of this site has been taken away from that main
access driveway. Also in terms of this type of use with this retail
and the residential, the mixed use, it's a little bit more of a low
impact use as compared to a lot of other things that could be
proposed at this site. We feel confident that we're going to be
okay from a traffic standpoint. We do have a traffic engineer
providing some analysis as well, which the County required that
we'll have at our meeting and ready for next week.
Mr. Priddy: So am I hearing that you've already secured access through the
back?
Mr. Ponton: We do have rights to that easement. We confirmed that since our
study meeting and I know that the development team has
exercised their right to utilize that in their written agreement to the
owner of that road. The road exists today. It's not improved; it's
not paved, but it's kind of there as a dirt road.
Mr. Priddy: I noticed in some of your plans you had storage racks for bikes
and so forth. How do you envision people commuting between
the adjacent developments?
Mr. Ponton: With the exception of coming into our residential site, so that's
going to be a gated access. So there's traffic controls and security
in place overall for the residential, but outside of that, people can
travel between these different developments through this road
that we're improving at the rear of the site, which will ultimately
keep vehicles off of Haggerty Road. Does that answer your
question?
Mr. Priddy: There's no bike paths or no other entrances other than what we
see on the plan.
Mr. Ponton: I know that Jordon was having some discussions with the
neighbors in terms of Fox Drive and Phillips Road and he was
trying to secure something and have those conversations.
Mr. Gakiere: We would certainly be open to it if the neighbors would allow us,
but obviously you can't force them to do that. Bikes are a big part
of the type of residence that is going to be in here so there's inside
storage for those as well as outside.
Mr. Priddy: Thank you.
February 27, 2018
28509
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ponton, I just have a couple quick questions. I took a look at
the 42 West development in Southfield as well. I stopped and
went to the leasing office and spoke to the General Manager. It's
a very nice development, a very nice presentation that she gave
me. Where would the leasing office be for this development since
it's gated all the way around?
Mr. Ponton: They would set up an appointment to get access because we
have access gates to control vehicle traffic from the retail center.
We would probably set up a call system at that gate so they could
come in. And then there is a small leasing office that is in the first
building. Very similar to what you have in 42 West, except that
clubhouse is going to be located within one of the buildings to
move it inside to allow more greenspace in that central courtyard
area.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this item?
Mark Herwonick, 39598 Danielle Drive, Northville, Michigan. We live across the
street in the Windridge Subdivision. We're just concerned about
the traffic on Haggerty, being able to get out of that subdivision.
Right now, it' kind of hard with that north entrance from Costco.
With this new entrance or with this new building project, we were
just concerned about the traffic flow or if there's going to be a light
there. The gentleman said they won't know nothing until next
week. That's kind of what our concern is, is there going to be a
light. Right now they have a reduced speed limit coming up the
hill from the north, but no one listens to that. It's pretty hard getting
out of there. So that's what our concern was today was just to see
if they're going to do anything about the traffic.
Mr. Wilshaw: The key thing that I think is very important is, as you've heard us
discuss, their intention to finalize or put in this roadway that goes
between the Costco gas down to the AMC property, in the back
of the property. It's not actually on their property. It's on adjacent
property but they've secured rights to put that roadway in and get
access to that. That will allow these new potential residents to
either move all the way through the Costco and Target property
up to the light there, or they can go down to the AMC property
and use the light over by AMC or, of course, any of the other
driveways. That should hopefully minimize all this traffic going out
that one entrance that you see on Haggerty Road. That's their
intention on how they're going to try to manage that flow. Does
that make sense?
Mr. Herwonick: That makes sense but got to wait and see.
February 27, 2018
28510
Mr. Wilshaw: I understand.
Mr. Ponton: I think the analysis will also show that in terms of peak hours or
time of day trips, when you're looking at this type of development,
not only we will have a mixed use along the front of retail in terms
of some will be morning users, some will be mid-day users, some
will be dinner users, and some will be heavier on the weekend as
opposed to during the week. When you look at all of those uses
compared to the residential, which is almost like clockwork out at
between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. and back between 4:30 and 5:30
p.m., there's a lot of different peak hours and that gives you an
opportunity for better traffic flow overall.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for the additional comment. Anyone else in the
audience wishing to speak on this item? Is there anything else
you'd like to wrap up the presentation with, Mr. Ponton?
Mr. Ponton: I think that's it on our end. Thanks for all of your help and
understanding and we're always here to answer any questions.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you very much. With that, we'll close the public hearing
and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Priddy, and adopted, it was
#02-10-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on February 27, 2018, on
Petition 2018-01-02-02 submitted by Haggerty Square requesting
special waiver use approval pursuant to Article XX of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to develop a
Planned General Development consisting of a proposed retail
shopping center and multi-family housing development under a
single unified plan called Haggerty Center, at 19700 and 19750
Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest
'/4 of Section 6, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2018-01-02-02 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Overall Site Plan, Site Plan (Phase 1), and Site
Plan (Phase II), marked Sheets C-3, C-4 and C-5,
respectively, all dated February 26, 2018, as revised,
prepared by Stonefield Engineering & Design, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to; except that the following
items shall return to the Planning Commission for further
review prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
project:
February 27, 2018
28511
a. Final landscaping for both phases of the project;
b. Location, size and design of all identification ground
signs;
c. Final design of the garages and carports; and
d. Final layout of all site circulation, including development
of an access road to the east of the site.
2. That the Exterior Elevations for Buildings A thru D, inclusive,
marked Sheets A.201, A.202, A.203, and A.204, dated
January 28, 2018, as revised, prepared by Biddison
Architecture+Design, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except that integral color burnished concrete
masonry units shall be used in lieu of split face concrete on
the first floor of the apartment buildings;
3. That the approval is subject to the Petitioner submitting a
Development Agreement to be executed between the City
and the Developer addressing items pertinent to the
construction of the project as well as the long-term operation
of the development, such as, but not limited to: divisions,
leasing and separation of ownership; parking; site design
standards; permitted and prohibited uses; dimensional
standards; and maintenance of utilities;
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
5. That the walls of the trash/recycle enclosures shall be a
minimum of seven feet (7') in height, constructed out of the
same masonry used in the construction of the buildings or in
the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design,
texture and color shall match that of the buildings. The
enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or
durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass. The trash
dumpster area shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
6. That this site shall meet either the City of Livonia or the
Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance,
whichever applies, and shall secure any required permits,
including soil erosion and sedimentation control permits;
7. That all light fixtures shall not exceed a mounting height of
twenty feet (20') and shall be aimed and shielded so as to
February 27, 2018
28512
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadways;
8. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this
petition, and any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
9. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the buildings or
around the windows;
10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
11. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by
City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Ventura, Priddy, Smiley, Wilshaw
NAYS: Long
ABSENT: Caramagno, McCue
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 resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2018-02-08-02 OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda Petition
2018-02-08-02 submitted by Outback Steakhouse of Florida
L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47
and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, in connection with a proposal to enclose the outdoor
patio area of the existing restaurant (Outback Steakhouse) at
13010 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt
Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25.
February 27, 2018
28513
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to make modifications to the recently developed
Outback Steakhouse on Middlebelt Road. It was in 2013 that this
restaurant was approved. It is one-story in height and 5,630
square feet in size. It was approved for seating for 234, including
202 interior seats and 32 outdoor patio seats. The petitioners
would like to enclose the outdoor patio and make all of the patio
seating inside seating. Doing so will slightly change the parking
requirements. Parking for restaurants is based on two factors,
one is the seating with a ratio of one space for every two interior
seats and one space for every three outdoor patio seats;
secondly, the number of employees that are at the restaurant
during the largest working shift. Currently, there are 109 parking
spaces available on the site with a deficiency of 23 spaces that
was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The parking
requirement was for 132. By enclosing the patio, the required
parking will increase. We're recommending that they make a
slight adjustment to the interior seating count. If they limit it to 224
seats, then the existing variance would be adequate. In terms of
the construction to enclose the patio, they would use materials
that are similar to what has been used in the construction of the
restaurant. It would include composite wood siding as well as
metal paneling and some areas containing dryvit or E.I.F.S. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to ready out the
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 13, 2018, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced In accordance with
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed
project at this time. The existing parcel is assigned an address of
#13010 Middlebelt Road. The legal description provided with the
petition appears to be correct and is acceptable to this office. The
existing parcel is currently serviced by public utilities which should
not be impacted by the proposed project, so no Engineering
Department permits will be required. Should the proposed project
scope change to include reconstruction of the site, plans will need
to be submitted to this department for possible permitting." The
letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
February 14, 2018, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
enclose the outdoor patio area of existing restaurant on property
located at the above referenced address. We have no objections
February 27, 2018
28514
to this proposal with the following stipulation: Knox Box
installation is required for Fire Department access." The letter is
signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated February 14, 2018, which reads as
follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition.
I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian
Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated February 22, 2018, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition
has been reviewed. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
would be required to maintain the deficient number of parking
spaces. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of
Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department,
dated February 8, 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 sixth letter is from the
Finance Department, dated February 8, 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. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for our Planning staff? Seeing none, the
petitioner is here. Please come forward. We will need your name
and address for the record please.
Josh Liberti, ArcVision Inc., 1950 Craig Road, Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 63146. I'm
here representing Outback Steakhouse.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else you'd like to add from what you've already
heard?
Mr. Liberti: I just want to add that we're going to match the existing finishes
and construction that's in place right now. We also want to add
five horizontal sliding windows to create a different feel without
cross breeze and separated from the interior of the restaurant a
little bit.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Ventura: I'm looking at the site plan. Is the area identified as the "covered
lounge" included in the area to be enclosed?
February 27, 2018
28515
Mr. Liberti: No, it's not. That's still going to be a waiting area. It won't be
enclosed.
Mr. Ventura: Will there still be seating?
Mr. Liberti: There will still be seating just as it is existing. It just won't be
enclosed.
Mr. Ventura: Will the landscape area adjacent to the covered patio be
disturbed or will that be retained?
Mr. Liberti: It will be retained as is.
Mr. Ventura: Do I understand that you are adding additional landscaping to the
site?
Mr. Liberti: We are not adding any landscaping. No.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you.
Mr. Priddy: When are you looking to do this?
Mr. Liberti: As soon as possible. As soon as we get approval, they want to
break ground, before wintertime I assume.
Mr. Ventura: We've had before us a number of petitions to create outdoor
patios at other restaurants in town. Why are you going in the
opposite direction?
Mr. Liberti: For some reason, they just can't get guests to use the patio. They
don't know if it's weather related or what, but for some reason,
they just can't get people to utilize it. So they feel that if they
enclose it, it will help them sell more steaks.
Mr. Wilshaw: If there's no other questions and there's no one in the audience
wishing to speak for organist this item, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Long, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-11-2018 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-02-08-02
submitted by Outback Steakhouse of Florida L.L.C. requesting
approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in
connection with a proposal to enclose the outdoor patio area of
the existing restaurant (Outback Steakhouse) at 13010
Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in
February 27, 2018
28516
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Elevations, Schedules & Detail Plan labeled A2.1
dated January 31, 2018, prepared by Frederick J. Goglia, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
3. That this restaurant's maximum customer seating count
shall not exceed a total of two hundred twenty-four (224)
seats;
4. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
5. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #392-13
shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict
with the foregoing conditions;
6. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
7. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by
City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2018-01-SN-01 STANLEY STEEMER
Ms, Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2018-01-SN-01 submitted by Allied Signs, Inc. requesting
approval for an additional ground sign pursuant to Section
18.50H of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, for the commercial building (Stanley Steemer) at
39200 Schoolcraft Road, located on the north side of Schoolcraft
February 27, 2018
28517
Road between Newburgh and Eckles Roads in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 19.
Mr. Wilshaw: This item was tabled at our last meeting. Is there a motion to
remove this from the table?
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-12-2018 RESOLVED, that in connection with Petition 2018-01-SN-01
submitted by Allied Signs, Inc. requesting approval for an
additional ground sign pursuant to Section 18.50H of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, for the commercial
building (Stanley Steemer) at 39200 Schoolcraft Road, located
on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Newburgh and
Eckles Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, the Planning
Commission does hereby remove this item from the table.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The item is removed from the table. Mr. Taormina, is
there new information on this item?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, there is. Originally, the petitioner had proposed a ground-
mounted sign along the highway on the north end of this property
that would have measured roughly 240 square feet and 30 feet in
height. The plans have been modified. He is showing a wall-
mounted sign on the north side of the building that would total 104
square feet. It's actually slightly smaller than what was presented
at the study meeting last Tuesday. This sign, at 104 square feet,
would still require a variance as there is currently a sign on the
Schoolcraft Road frontage portion of the building as well as a
smaller ground-mounted sign on the south side. The dimensions
of the proposed wall sign would be 3.5 feet in height by roughly
30 feet in length, totaling 104 square feet. We took a look at the
signs on the adjoining buildings. This gives you an idea of what
the sign would look like on the north side of the building. Also, it
shows what Ford VIP Trucks has located on the building
immediately to the west of this site. That sign is roughly 174
square feet. This sign would be smaller. Further to the west, Ram
Construction has a sign that is roughly 115 square feet. It would
be consistent with the other signs in the area, all on buildings that
are zoned for General Business purposes and all of which do
contain additional signs with frontage along Schoolcraft Road.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: The petitioner is here. Is there any new information you want to
provide to us'?
Eric Morton, 1480 Devlin Road, Columbus, Ohio. No.
February 27, 2018
28518
Mr. Wilshaw: Do we have any questions for our petitioner? Seeing none, is
there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this item? With that, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Priddy, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-13-2018 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-01-SN-01
submitted by Allied Signs, Inc. requesting approval for an
additional ground sign pursuant to Section 18.50H of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the commercial
building (Stanley Steemer) at 39200 Schoolcraft Road, located
on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Newburgh and
Eckles Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the wall sign plan prepared by Allied Signs, as received
by the Planning Commission on February 20, 2018, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the additional wall sign shall not exceed 104.13 square
feet (3.5 feet by 30 feet) in sign area;
3. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to the City Council with an approving
recommendation. We want to thank the petitioner for their effort.
They came to us originally with a pylon sign that we didn't feel
comfortable with and came back with a much more reasonable
proposal. So we thank you and wish you luck.
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,117th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval
of the Minutes of the 1,117th Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held on February 13, 2018.
•
1
February 27, 2018
28519
On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-14-2018 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,117th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February
13, 2018, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Ventura, Long, Priddy, Smiley, Wilshaw
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Caramagno, McCue
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,118th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 27, 2018, as adjourned at 9:17
p.m.
CITY PLA. ING COMMISSION
,� arol�rni ey; Acting Secretary
bM C��Z,At�dti�
ATTEST:
Ian Wilshaw, Chairman
f