Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2018-03-28 - REZONING CLAY SCHOOL CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Wednesday, March 28, 2018. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Toy, President Jim Jolly, Vice President Scott Bahr Brandon Kritzman Kathleen McIntyre Brian Meakin MEMBERS ABSENT: Cathy White OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development Don Knapp, City Attorney Eric Goldstein, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie J. Murphy, CER-2300, Certified Electronic Recorder The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:13 p.m. with President Laura Toy presiding. She stated that this Public Hearing is for a rezoning, that there is no site plan to be discussed, but there is new information on this item via letters and phone calls. This rd item will also be heard on Monday, April 23, 2018, here in the Auditorium. This is a Public Hearing relative to Petition 2018-01-01-01, submitted by Kucyk, Soave and Fernandes, PLLC, to rezone property located at 36900 and 36910 Mallory Drive, the former Clay Elementary School site, from PL, which is Public Land, 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 on the east side of Newburgh Road, between Five Mile Road and Six Mile Road in the N.W. ¼ of Section 17. The City Clerk has mailed a notice to those persons in the area affected by the proposed changes, and all other requirements of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, have been fulfilled. The public hearing is now open for comments. There were forty-five people in the audience. Please state your clearly your name and address before making your comments. 2 Toy: We will now turn this over to Director of Planning and Economic Development, Mr. Mark Taormina. Taormina: Thank you. This is a request for change of zoning that involves two separate ownership units; the first would be St. Timothy Presbyterian Church, which actually consists of two parcels that have a combined land area of about 7.2 acres, and then the former Clay School site, which is also made up of two parcels, totaling roughly 10 acres. So that portion of the church property that is proposed to be rezoned encompasses the southerly and easterly part of the property, about 4.38 acres, so when you add that to the 10 acres of the school site, it brings the total area that is proposed to be rezoned to about 14.4 acres. As you can see from the Zoning Map, there are single family homes located to the east and to the south of the subject property, these homes are part of the Kingsbury Heights #3 Subdivision. R-2 zoning exists to the south, while R-3 zoning exists to the east and then immediately to the north of the subject property is Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center as well as an office complex and then across Newburgh Road are residential homes that are part of the Laurel Park Subdivision, also zoned R-3. If the change of zoning is approved, the Petitioner is proposing to develop the site as a planned residential development under the single family clustering option. In a cluster development, lot sizes and yard setbacks can be reduced subject to a specified maximum density allowance. So in the case of the R-1 zoning classification, the maximum allowable density is four dwelling units per acre, thus the subject 14.4 acre site if rezoned to R-1, could accommodate a total of up to 57 homes under the clustering provisions. The conceptual site plan that has been presented to the Council shows 55 homes, including 38 single-family detached homes in the form of a site condominium, and then 17 attached condominiums that are in six separate buildings, five of which contain three attached units each and then one duplex unit. As a conventional R-1 subdivision, the minimum lot size as indicated is 60’ x 120’. Most of the site condominium lots shown on the conceptual plan measure between 50 to 80 feet in width and 115 to 120 feet in depth, resulting in lot sizes that range from 5,750 square feet, to approximately 9,600 square feet. You’ll note on the plan that storm water management would occur in the northeast corner of the site, in the form of a pretreatment basin, where all of the runoff from the development would be collected within these two detention holding ponds. 3 Ingress and egress into the new housing development would only be from Newburgh Road, there would be no connection to Mallory Drive from the east. Here was the dead end. The new road which is also called Mallory would be 60-foot wide public street that would enter from Newburgh just south of the church and then form a loop providing access to all 55 homes. An important provision within the single family clustering provisions requires that where a single family cluster abuts an existing single family residential district, the district must be buffered by means of at least one of the following: First, to locate conventional size lots immediately adjacent to the existing single family district; two, to provide open space or recreation space immediately adjacent to the existing single family district; or the third option is to provide significant topographic features, landscaping or a combination of both immediately adjacent to the existing single family district. So the proposed development abuts existing single family homes along both the east and south sides as previously noted. And both areas the lots that border the site, would meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirements of the adjoining zoning districts. So this would include the R-3 zoning, with a minimum 80’ sized lots to the east, and then R-2 zoning, minimum of 70’ lots to the south. So if you look on the plan, you look at Lots 10-13, which border the R-3 district to the east, all of those lots are at least R-3 size. And then Lots 1-9 on the south side where it abuts R-2 zoning, would meet the minimum R-2 zoning requirements. But where the attached condominiums, which are units 1-11, lay adjacent to the existing single family lots to the south, the plan provides a berm and landscaping. Future Land Use does show this as low density residential which corresponds with the density of between one and five dwelling units per acre, so the proposed development as presented does comply with the Future Land Use Plan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Toy: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Any questions from Council of Mr. Taormina? Meakin: Madam Chair. Toy: Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Mark, on the conceptual plan, what is the lot coverage per lot? 4 Taormina: You mean in terms of ground coverage? Meakin: Ground coverage, yes. Taormina: Typically it’s about 30 to 35 percent. Meakin: So there’s still 65 to 70 percent land? Taormina: On the individual lots. We haven’t calculated the overall percentage of open space on this development. Meakin: That’s not including the duplexes? Taormina: Yes, so those areas, all of the green area around the attached condominiums would be common area, so that there would be a more traditional form of a condominium. And then the site condominiums would really be no different than a single family subdivision where all of the green space around the homes on the individual units or lots would be maintained by the owners. Meakin: Thank you. Toy: Thank you. Yes, Councilman Bahr. Bahr: To Mark, Lots 14-20, Lots 21-38, those are all R-1 zoning? Taormina: So those are actually where the lot sizes would comply more with the clustering provision, so those are actually the lots that aren’t one sized lots, so this is where the benefits of the clustering would come in for the project. So whereas in the Lots 1-13 would all be conventional sized lots, exceeding the R-1 minimum requirements. Lots 14-38 are actually narrower than R-1 would allow if this site is approved as a single-family cluster. Bahr: And I think you covered this, but particularly the question is, are there any besides the common variances you would allow on the size of the lot if the clustering option is approved for this development or is it basically that? Taormina: That is the most important, the setbacks would be the other, if, for instance, and really the benefit here because most of the lots are deep enough so that the homes on them can comply with R-1 standards, it’s really the side yard setback, the distance between the homes that is a benefit that would come into play here as far as cluster. 5 Bahr: Do you know off the top of your head, if not that’s fine, if there is another neighborhood in Livonia that would be comparable to the type of spacing we have on these lots? Taormina: Absolutely. Washington Park is probably the best example, if you wanted to see how homes are laid out it would be very similar to the arrangement again, and this applies to lots 14-38, it would be Washington Park. It’s very, very similar to the size lots. Bahr: Thanks. Toy: Is the Petitioner here? Soave: Good evening, everyone. Enricoh Soave, 37771 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, representing the Petitioner. Mark, thanks again for your presentation. Also in the audience tonight is Mr. Gary Reggish who is a real estate professional specializing in the Livonia area who will give a brief presentation on property values and how new construction in Livonia increases property values around those being built. And also I believe there are two board members from St. Timothy’s Church which is a part of this property. After the Planning Commission meeting or during the Planning Commission meeting, listening to some of the neighbors’ concerns, I know this is not site plan but a rezoning but we modified some changes to the conceptual site plan. I think we lost one unit, we’re down to 55. Another being adjacent to the pond we’re going to add significant landscaping here, but we’re also going to add significant landscaping on the east end of the front of the berm where the detention pond will be to buffer the pond from the neighbor’s backyard. Also, if it helps, why the neighbors were opposed to the overall plans, they were just in my humble opinion, not very trustworthy of developers who come into their neighborhood and ask them to approve everything that’s why I’m offering a voluntary condition to impose upon this rezoning is that all single family homes that are constructed adjacent to R-2, will be compatible R-2 lots, and all single family homes that will be built adjacent to R-3 will also be R-3 compatible lots. We think we’ve had a great response to this, it’s being publicized in the newspaper, we think it’s going to be an excellent development in Livonia, it will be a unique area in Livonia, and I think a new development would suit this area quite well. For years we’ve been asked how come nobody is building ranch condominiums, single story condominiums where the homeowners don’t have to cut their lawns, Livonia has retirement population and those that want to move out of their house and stay in Livonia, there’s really nowhere for them to downsize, they have to move outside of Livonia. The past two 6 or three developments we’ve done in the past few years, Ann Arbor Trail Estates, Washington Park Estates, those sold really quick, one reason why is the lots weren’t essentially bigger lots, we were offering a lot of smaller ranches that seniors were moving into, they wanted to stay in Livonia. One thing that I’m optimistic about, is that millennials are moving back into Livonia, young families are moving back into Livonia because Livonia is building. And with this development we’re going to compete with Northville and surrounding areas because this is what everyone else is doing and I think Livonia will be well suited for this development. Thank you. Toy: Any questions for Mr. Soave? Soave: Actually, I have Mr. Reggish here to speak. Toy: Certainly. Reggish: I’m Gary Reggish, a broker with Remerica Realty and 2015 President of the Michigan Realtors, I’m at 47720 Grand River Avenue in Novi, Michigan. In front of each of you you have a bar graph coupled with supporting documentation. We’ve heard for a long time in the National press that new construction has led us out of the down times which started in Michigan here in 2006 and it really hit hard in Southeastern Michigan. So those of you that know me know that I want to see how does this really impact Livonia, so this is great for the national scope, but how does it impact Livonia. So I went out to take a look at the existing neighborhood that surrounds Washington Park which is in southwestern Livonia, a comparable development similar to the Newburgh project. So that being said, they first said the neighboring or surrounding communities one mile in any direction surrounding Washington Park and compare that to the property values of the homes in Washington Park. You will see on this graph that there’s anywhere between a 20 and 40 percent increase in property values when you compare. So that proves new construction is absolutely increasing the equity position of the neighboring communities. This is looking at southwestern Livonia, this is Churchill School, what about northwestern Livonia, Stevenson School and how does that compare with the property values for all properties sold, colonials sold, and ranches that were sold and how did that compare to the new construction site, Washington Park, and take a look at the graph, once again you’re looking at a 20 to 40 percent increase in property values. This absolutely increases the equity position of homeowners in Livonia, increases the equity position, you know that’s folks’ retirement, kids and grandkids college tuition, it increases revenues to the City, right, so the City of Livonia can continue to maintain the high standard of services that they currently offer to the community. You know couple that with the fact that this has been repeated with Arbor Trail Estates, with Livonia Manor II, 7 it has also been duplicated right now in the newest development, Mystic Creek, Six Mile and Wayne Road I believe are selling 2600 square foot ranches in the Mid 500’s. That has not been seen in Livonia for years. Without a doubt the facts speak to this project and it will be as relevant to this community, to the neighboring homeowners and I speak in favor of the project. Toy: Thank you. Meakin: Madam Chair. Toy: Yes, Mr. Meakin. Meakin: Mr. Reggish, you said this development is similar to other communities such as Northville and Plymouth, with your experience in the industry can you explain some of those projects, what are they and how does it relate to the Livonia properties? Reggish: Well, actually it’s not just the neighboring cities like Northville and Plymouth and Farmington and what have you, but nationwide and The National Association of Realtors has numerous comments on this, that you’re finding that the millennial generation are not looking for the big yard that we used to look for. They want smaller yards, they’re more about that quality of life, they don’t want to spend an entire day with yard maintenance. You know Washington Park in Livonia, not only increased property values an average of 30 percent, but forty-five homesites sold out in less than a year. There’s a demand for these to be built here and there is nationwide. Livonia hasn’t really offered that solution unless you go into homes that are built in the 1950s and 1960s. What is really exciting about this development is you name another location in Livonia where grandparents can buy a condo and live in the same subdivision as their kids and grandkids and have their kids bike to their houses. That just doesn’t exist in Livonia. You know, it’s a solid project and it just makes sense. Meakin: Thank you. Bahr: Madam President. Toy: Yes. Bahr: Just a comment. We’re talking about a zip code here that was just named the second hottest housing market for millennials in the country. In my work I do a lot of work with a lot of data on millennials, to be quite honest with you I’m growing kind of tired of millennials data. While many younger millennials today maybe don’t want the bigger yards, when hose 8 millennials have families they’re going to want the yard and they are coming to Livonia, we’ve seen that. As somebody who is a little too old to be millennial but I grew up in this city and do have my kids ride their bikes to their grandparents’ house in Livonia, so it absolutely does happen here. I’d just thought I’d say that. Let’s not get too hung up on what millennials want, let’s just talk about what’s going to make sense for our city. Toy: Thank you. Any others? Anyhow, parking, I know we’re not here for a site plan but I’ve got to ask that, one thing I find when I visit people in condos a lot of times, people come over for Easter dinner and there’s not a lot of parking for the unit. Help me understand that. Do we have something set aside for the overflow? Soave: Parking wouldn’t be any different on the attached units, the single-family units. They’re going to 1,400 square foot ranches with a two-car garage and a full basement, the only thing different is that they’re attached. There’s parking on site on the 50-foot public road, so there would be parking in the street just like there would be with any other residential sub, so there wouldn’t really be a parking issue in my mind. Toy: Okay. And just lastly for now, what is the reason for the zoning being all R-1, is there any kind of wiggle room here for a compromise or anything at this point? Soave: Well, we’ve spent a lot of time on the planning and design of this, we’ve been working on this for quite some time. And the stepdown approach of R-2 next to R-2, R-3 is next to R-3, and then as we get closer to the center and heavy commercial, asphalt parking lots, offices and St. Timothy’s, we put the higher density units there. As you stepdown in density and get closer to commercial. So the neighboring communities will have the same sized lots as they have. And once its built you’re going to be able to see the inside of the community. Another thing we focused and strived for and St. Timothy’s can also attest to and good for your properties is making a stand alone development, egress and ingress is off Newburgh and our experience in development when you bring new development into – or adjacent to older communities, they don’t want traffic from your development going into their street even though they’re public streets, they don’t want your construction vehicles going into their community. And Livonia Public Schools is finishing with the demo, they’re removing the foundation from the ground and already they are coming in the street on Mallory, they have to go past Fitzgerald and go by Levan. If we were just to focus on half of this development as single family and open Mallory up, this would be going on in their community for a period of two years. So we stepped back, did not want that to happen and we pursued St. Timothy to purchase their property so we could get access and eliminated 9 that. So once this project gets going, the neighbors will be not as impacted as if we did not purchase St. Timothy’s property. Toy: That helps. Soave: So, keeping that in mind was one of the concerns and the board members from St. Timothy’s can attest to that. Jolly: Madam Chair. Toy: Mr. Jolly. Jolly: I regard myself as a younger, active family who spends a lot of time riding bikes throughout the neighborhoods, and what I would like to see, do you know whether or not there will be the traditional Livonia public walkway from the property, the new development into the traditional or existing neighborhood? Because the way I look at this, if there are young children who happen to live here and attend Hoover Elementary School like my kids do, I would not want those kids to have to out on Newburgh, down Newburgh, down to Six Mile, back down Levan when they are really only a couple of blocks away from Hoover, and if that’s what we’re trying to create is a family neighborhood, an environment where we’re going to see planning for the future, I’m looking at the site plan that is proposed here, it looks like between 10 and 11 is potential for one of these walkways to go down to the existing walkway, have you thought about possibly extending the existing public walkway over on the south side 45:18, with that being said we have a lot of people here, I would like to hear their comments as well, so thank you. Toy: Sure. Councilwoman McIntyre. McIntyre: This isn’t a question, but a comment, I’m glad that Mr. Soave brought up the fact that the traffic that is there now is the demolition that is strictly being done by the school district. I’ve read a lot of comments that work has already begun on this development and I wanted to say is that absolutely no work is being done, all of the equipment and all of the activity that is going on there is related to the demolition and the digging up of the pond basin and nothing that is being done by this developer. Toy: Thank you, Councilwoman, I appreciate your comment. We’ve heard from everyone we needed to hear from in regard to the zoning and the reasons for it and whatever, so now we’re going to go to the audience and if you would line up because there’s many of you and I know you want to go home before midnight. We’ll go both sides and if you would state your name before you speak, we would really appreciate it. Thank you. Good evening. 10 Shaw: Good evening. I’m Charissa Shaw, I live at 36479 Munger Court in Livonia. I appreciate Mr. Jolly’s comments about those common walkways. We did address that at the initial meeting of the Planning Committee. I do appreciate changes but one of the many changes that were made to the site plan after that meeting, I do still have a couple concerns. One of my concerns is really related to a public health concern that I have is the retaining basin that’s built in the corner of the property. There’s no green space for children to play. If we’re looking at this as a family opportunity, I would worry about children playing in that green area where it’s really not a safe area. If they do need to do that sort of a basin then they would need to do some sort of fencing enclosure. I’m also concerned about the landscape and who would be doing that. The basin that’s at the corner of Five Mile in front of CVS is poorly maintained and looks at best like an overgrown marsh. And I would be concerned about that type of property being in the backyard of people on Fitzgerald Street. I do appreciate the comments about people wanting smaller lots. I think that I know I’m not one of them, I’m a baby boomer so I can’t appreciate millennials wanting the smaller lots. I don’t like to see houses that are literally right next to each other, I think the easements that we currently have in the existing subdivision are more comfortable. But yes, I’m obviously not their target audience. I do appreciate the Council being open to hearing the comments. After the Planning Committee I didn’t feel like our comments and concerns were being addressed or listened to so I appreciate you being willing to listen to our comments. Thank you. Toy: Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Good evening. Mrs. Kobel: Good evening. My name is Karen Kobel and I live at 16692 Renwick which is just on the corner of Mallory and Renwick, I’m one block away from the property. I have been subject to the construction, a couple tires got into them but that’s okay. I’m very happy that Mallory is going to be closed off due to two tires within a week from each other having to be replaced due to that construction so I’m happy you’re going to block that off and it will be a whole new neighborhood, that’s great. A little background about me, I’ve been living in Livonia, I used to live in Taylor as a child. I grew up on a 40 by 60 lot home, 900 square foot house which there is less than eight feet between homes and our windows were lined up that you could see down five houses to where my best friend was and I could see if she was in her living room or not so I could go visit her. So when I’m looking at this this evening, in the crown jewel of Livonia which we were told when I moved here 28 years ago when we helped with Newburgh Plaza maintain its plaza and bushes instead of having a four- story office space in that location, if you remember. And also with St. Timothy with the Bell Tower Drain, we were very good neighbors, the Kingsbury Heights Association neighborhood of over 270 homes are very 11 good neighbors to the City of Livonia and our surrounding businesses. And looking at this and seeing it is a cluster home and I understand the rules so I could take this 14 acres and if the ruling is right no more on average four homes per acre, I could build a house on 10 acres and then 55 more homes on the other four, and I’m still within the four homes per acre. So, with that I feel there’s a little bit of a loophole in this law that I don’t agree with so I implore you that there are provisions here that R-3 abut the R-3 but for the homes that are planned this way, I would just request the builder but he didn’t do this as a favor to us, he did it because it is in the law of the clustering. What I didn’t appreciate is the two and half homes by the detention pond, they don’t have the three things, either a house that’s the same size, some type of berming or some type of green space. Now when I was told back over a dozen years ago when Livonia Public Schools was thinking about selling the Clay property but the economy was still not right yet, they said that they would definitely make sure R-2 or R-3 zoning would remain. And just last fall the Livonia Public Schools told us in their building, they had a neighborhood meeting, that the provision of the sale what we were told was going to be R-2 zoning or R-3 of the homes. Then we get to the Planning Commission a month ago and it’s been R-1 zoning all along, I believe. Let me ask the cluster condos, the reason why they didn’t put the cluster condos on the Livonia Public School property is because I was told that Livonia Public Schools has a provision that no clustered condos can be sold on that property because they want pupils to go to their schools and usually condo clusters that is older empty nesters. So that’s why the St. Timothy property only has the clustering condos. Now, in the middle property section here, if you did the four per acre that’s within the requirement, you’re really looking at almost eight homes an acre and that’s just too unreasonable. Now my mother-in-law rented a condo at the Hunter’s Grove, she lived there for four and a half years, until just recently she had to relocate to another facility to meet her needs, and it was quite difficult to pull up and park fully in those driveways with just barely enough room to get around the front bumper of the garage door or being just within two feet of the drive. So noticing that Washington Park, those entrances to those homes being that short, and I have a pop-up camper, there’s no way I’d be able to put one there, there’s absolutely no way. But anyways, nothing north of Five Mile in this area is zoned R-1 and why should we be short sided to have just eight additional homes in this area is my rough estimate, be short sided because Mr. Reggish says millennials want smaller lot sizes. So you know what, a lot of millennials don’t even want to purchase, they want to rent so I discount that kind of information. But in the long term, twenty, thirty years down the road, these millennials are going to be older and they’ll probably move out and other people will move in and now we’re going to have this clustering just jam packed in this corner where nowhere else around it, the further north you go, the lot sizes get bigger. Just across Six Mile they’re R-3 and R-4, and why would we compromise 12 here? I don’t think that we should have this be the last big piece of Livonia in this corner and develop it and twenty years down the road think this is the biggest mistake we ever did. And that’s how I’m looking at it. And there is just privately owned more just for the tax base and possible children, but a lot of millennials aren’t having children, you know, they’re too selfish to want to have children. So there goes, you know, pupils for the school system, things like that and that’s really a lot of my points that I have here but I just wanted to be heard tonight, I do want to thank all of you for paying attention to me because I was very disappointed that the Planning Commission where a few of them you could tell were not paying attention because of the questions they asked afterwards. People had already given them answers time and time again and I’m very disappointed that the ones that voted for this zoning weren’t even paying attention and I sure hope all of you here are really paying attention because we want to be good neighbors, we do want this place developed, I can see it, it’s going to be gorgeous but not because the middle is going to be crowded. And it doesn’t matter if we can’t see it from our homes. If you tell me there’s going to be a garbage dump in the middle of this property – Toy: Please – Mrs. Kobel: -- that you can’t see from our homes, you know, it’s kind of like but we don’t see it and if we know it’s there it’s just – kind of it’s not pretty, you know, it’s not what I don’t think overall Livonia wants and I know it’s not what I want. And I never thought I’d live in Livonia, I mean I grew up downriver and coming to here was a culture shock. But now that I’m here I love it and I don’t want to leave. But I don’t think I’d ever want to live in something this small either. But just consider that, just make this section of Livonia how it’s meant to be, keep it R-2, R-3, because this R-1, this clustering isn’t R-1, it’s less than that and I hope that you consider that. Toy: Thank you. Hold on a minute because Councilman Meakin wants to speak. Meakin: There’s just one thing I wanted to deal with facts here, Livonia Public Schools has no say on what happens with this property. When they put it out for bid, they never ever retained the City that has the responsibility of zoning this property, they ever asked us what we wanted for it. So I just wanted to make it clear that there are no conditions on zoning on that property. There is no condition on zoning on that property. They do have old Livonia schools that have condo associations on them. But those comments you made are not accurate. Kobel: Well, when I spoke to Mr. Taormina when I went to his office over a month ago, alluded to the fact that cluster condos could not be on the Livonia 13 Public School property to increase the pupil population, just to be on the record. Toy: Just a minute. Councilman Jolly. Jolly: We should stop putting this in the context of millennials because number one, I am unfortunately the only millennial up here, but I do have it looks like two colleagues who barely missed the cut off to be millennials but between us we have twelve children. The kind of people we’re attracting to the City of Livonia largely are people who are not looking to be the renegade, like a person who does not have children or some situation like that. The kind of people we envision or we expect to move to Livonia are people who have always moved to Livonia, people who moved here back in the ‘60s and ‘70s who are going to be here for a while. And I see that with the children and the parents that my kids share a school with at Hoover, I think we’re looking at the same type of people who have always been in Livonia. So this bringing up millennials this and millennials that, I don’t think that’s the appropriate way to approach this at all. And I’m not pointing this in your direction but putting it in the context of this new strange person, a millennial moving in has these expectations, I don’t think that’s true and I know from my own experience it’s not true. So thank you. Toy: Thank you. Mrs. Kobel: I agree on that because I was just referencing what he was saying, that I agree that Livonia is a family friendly community and you know millennials, x-genners, they call me different whatever, it doesn’t matter, but people are people and families and I think that the City of Livonia is for families and I’m hoping that you guys see this that folks want larger lots for our community in that corner. Thank you. Toy: Thank you, Karen. Bahr: Can I ask a question? Toy: Yes. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark if I may, the Brookside property between Seven and Eight Mile, you know what I’m referring to, I notice they have a mixture somewhat similar to this, do you know off the top of your head whether that has a similar kind of mixed zoning to this with the R-1 homes or is it all R-2 and R-3? Taormina: I’d have to look. R-C I believe is the zoning that applied to the attached condominiums there but I’ll check as far as the single family subdivision phase of that development, I’m going to guess it’s R-3 but I’ll check. 14 Bahr: Okay. And then one other clarification here, as Mr. Taormina explained earlier when you’re doing a development like this and you’re abutting up to an existing neighborhood as he explained there’s three options you have. You can either separate by landscaping or a berm of some kind, you can do it with open space or you can do it by having the same kind of zoning abutting it. So the fact that the builder does have choices here and you’ll see that on the plans that where the condos are they’ve got the landscaping but then there are R-2 to R-2 zoning in places throughout the neighborhood that would satisfy the requirements. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Toy: Thank you. Okay, sir, you’re next. Suveg: Okay. I’m Lou Suveg, I live at 16820 Renwick, I’m the President of the Kingsbury Heights Neighborhood Association. We are a community of R- 2, R-3 houses and as Karen said there’s no R-1s north of Five Mile at this time. I feel that the Petitioner is deceptive when it says R-1, lot sizes are 60 by 120, and you see on the site plan multiple plans that are 50 feet wide and less than the 120 feet deep and these are going to be big houses on those lots. So we oppose R-1 but we would be favorable to R- 2. And I know there’s been much discussion in our neighborhood about the retention pond backing to the homes on Fitzgerald, that you know, the fear is that it will be an eyesore, insects, rodents, whatever. And I would like to see maybe the retention pond be moved to like the northwest section of this parcel where it would back to St. Timothy, the professional office building, the Newburgh Plaza, and it wouldn’t back to any other housing in the new or the existing neighborhood. And right now we have walk-throughs and I think you mentioned we would have to go out Newburgh and all around to get to Hoover where we now have walk- throughs now and there’s one that’s going to be blocked off with the way the site plan is designed and I would like to at least to see one walk- through. Toy: Thank you very much for coming tonight, sir. Good evening. Tranquilla: Good evening. I’m Susan Tranquilla, I live at 16823 Fitzgerald. My home is one of those backing up to the retention pond as shown on the site plan. So I do have concerns about that area. I would agree with Lou, it would be much preferable to move that retention pond if it could be moved where he suggests, you know, further north and west on the lot. Because right now we have a situation and we have water drainage issues in our neighborhood right now. When it rains for two hours straight Fitzgerald in front of our house floods, water comes up out of the sewer. I think there’s a 48-inch sewer line right on the diagonal coming back towards the back of our property now where the retention pond is planning to be put, and I’d 15 like to request, if this goes forward, I know the site plan isn’t at issue today but look into those issues before we decide where the water retention pond should be and make sure the water is getting cleared on the property before things are built. And I appreciate Mr. Soave comments about wanting to put up a buffer between my home and the retention pond, I appreciate that. I appreciate the quality of his construction, I’ve seen it at Washington Park and the homes are very nicely built, I have no issues with the homes. And I talked to one of the homeowners over there and they were very impressed with the service they got from your company. My only concern is the size of the houses and the tininess of the lot, I did feel it doesn’t fit in our neighborhood because as you know we’re all R-2 and R-3, why, like Karen said, why would we want to put R-1 in there? It just doesn’t fit. So I’d really like you to seriously consider whether you want to go ahead and do that. And another concern is, I mean I don’t know what the law is, but let’s say one to three acres were all rezoned R- 1, and say things happened, the City economy or what not, and it wasn’t built on for six or seven years, and you folks were no longer on the Council or different people were on the Planning Commission, and then it was all rezoned R-1, couldn’t the new builder come in with an entirely different plan and not abut R-2 and R-3, you know, would they still have to be cluster? Toy: Mr. Taormina would know that better than I would. Taormina: It would still be subject to Council. Tranquilla: Okay. And another question I do have is I know that it’s been talked about it’s low density housing because one to five houses per acre, but isn’t higher density housing defined as four to fourteen houses per acre, so couldn’t you say this proposed four houses per acre could be considered either minimum density or moderate density? And so for that reason, too, why are we putting a moderate density development into a minimum density neighborhood. Toy: We appreciate your time. Hi Eileen. McDonnell: Hi. My name is Eileen McDonnell, thank you for allowing me to speak, and I do not live in this neighborhood, I live north of Six Mile, however, I do have some school board experience. I have some information that I will scan and email to President Toy tomorrow and she can disburse as she sees fit. But the original proposal that Livonia Public Schools put out back in, I think it was back in April, calls for this part of the document says the property is currently zoned for Public purposes but the City has indicated that a logical rezoning to R-2, one family residential district. The R-1 family zoning allows single-family residential lots with a minimum of 70 feet frontage and a minimum depth of 120 feet and a minimum 8,400 16 square feet of lot. It says all necessary public utilities are available at the property. And they did attach a concept plan that the consulting group put with the original RFP which shows 33 lots. So anyway that’s part of this section here that the City of Livonia is the one that suggested R-2 originally when Livonia Public Schools put this out. So I guess my question is and I’m sure many of the folks here is when did that change? Toy: What was the document you were referring to, was it a proposal put out from the school system? McDonnell: No, it’s from the School District. It was anybody who submitted a purchase interest, this is what they had to submit. And when Infinity Homes submitted their proposal, they put their proposal together in an R-2 document on Livonia Public Schools. So I just wanted to say that and also a couple of questions. Any of the school district properties, the Clay property, are there going to be condominiums on that property? I couldn’t tell from that. I’m saying attached condos, not single family homes. Toy: All condos. McDonnell: So that’s kind of a big factor and just so you know, I don’t believe from what the purchase agreement states that until all of this is completed the property hasn’t been transferred over into Soave’s name yet. So, but I will send this to you, the purchase agreement, the bid, so it will give you something to look at. Toy: Yes. Bahr: The condos we were referring to a moment ago, they’re all closer to Newburgh Road. McDonnell: All right, perfect. Toy: Thank you, Eileen. McDonnell: You’re welcome and I’ll send this over tomorrow. Toy: All right. Sir, thank you for waiting, you’re next. Boegner: I’m Norman Boegner, 22755 Brookdale Street, Farmington, Michigan. I’ve been a member of St. Timothy’s for almost twenty years and during that time I’ve been an elder and a deacon and I’ve worked with the church and community within that area and our property has come up for sale for proposed sale many times as mentioned, for a cell phone tower, and this is really the first time when we heard the school property was being sold that we thought it was an opportunity that we could actually sell a portion 17 of the property. We were approached by many builders during that time, even before the property was sold to Mr. Soave here, and we were even approached to sell our property as a stand alone property and not be connected to the school’s property but we didn’t really think that was a great idea and the more we talked it over and the more that we had talked to people in the neighborhood, we really thought the bonus factor about selling our property and giving access to Newburgh Road and hopefully closing off the entrance to the existing neighborhood because really it would help everybody and it wouldn’t add any additional traffic to the existing neighborhood and it would also be good to have our employees have access to Newburgh Road. So it was during that time we found out who had won the bid from the school, obviously they came by and we got to talking and I had a group of us, six members that were working with Ricoh and his team for almost six months now it seems. We had many concerns and we were talking about selling the church property and we had trustees there and we had all of that there. He was at our church every time we called, he answered every question, I mean we still had concerns and issues and every time we’ve asked him for something and every time we’ve had an issue and we’ve had open meetings at our church, people would pose their questions, we’d take them to him and you know we just had a relaxed comfort feeling working with what he decides and what we decide and between the City laws require you. You know it’s going to be a fantastic project and I can only say that every time we’ve met and we’ve met a lot and we agreed on everything. We agreed on what needs to be done, we agreed on how to make everyone happy, within our congregation, within our trustees, you know with this development. So I just would say if you have concerns, call them and talk to them because I think at the last meeting that we had, there were quite a few people that stopped Ricoh in the hallway and brought their concerns to him and he sat out there for a half hour, forty-five minutes talking to everybody. So you know as a church, as a member of that church I just think you should just sit and talk and get it worked out and surely, you really have the laws and the requirements and the zoning to take care of all of the issues and so I trust in you that you’ll make that all work and of all the builders I believe they have given us the best option. Toy: Thank you. All right. Lipinski: Good evening. My name is Dan Lipinski, I live at 16855 Renwick and I’ve been there since 1989. I wanted to add my support to the comments some of my neighbors have already either written to you or said previously. Those are, first of all, in the latest proposal it includes a significant amount of R-1 properties on 50-foot lots and my concern is related to large houses on small lots. So personally I would like to see a minimum of 60-foot wide lots over there and I’ll address them a little bit later. The main reason that I’m against large houses on small lots 18 because water management in our subdivision is an issue right now and by putting large houses on small lots, there’s less land area just for water to soak into and you’ve already heard my neighbors talking about water coming up sewers and they do and I see it particularly on Fitzgerald and if you ever want to go there during a rain storm, park your car on Fitzgerald and you will see that water actually come up there. And when the water comes up there, even though I live on Renwick, it flows through other people’s backyard and into mine. So keep that in mind. And also the proposed retention ponds, they are too close, particularly to the three people right behind them. So keep in mind that we would like to see those retention ponds potentially moved to another area of the development site so that they aren’t as big as a mosquito breeding ground and as someone else said possibly for rodents and other pests. So you know in summary my comments are first of all I was glad to see Mr. Soave, I believe your name is, I was glad to hear him say that they are committed to the bordering properties matching the houses that they back up to in our subdivision. We’d like to see the interior properties or I’d like to see the interior properties with what’s proposed to be 50-foot wide lots, to be at a minimum of 60-foot wide so that there is less density of houses and just more land area. That they give more consideration to the two properties that border up to the proposed retention pond and that they do whatever actions they need to do to improve the drainage because right now the drainage in our area is very poor. And just finally I would like to say that we are glad that Mallory is going to be closed off and also being that there is a street stub over there, one of the potential uses for that might be a walk-through somewhere in the center of that Mallory Street. So with that, that’s really all I have to say. Thank you. Toy: Thank you. We appreciate you coming out. We do have four letters from folks who couldn’t be here tonight and those are in our folders. Council Vice President Jolly would like to say something. Jolly: Mr. Soave, I have a couple questions if you could approach the podium just for a moment. Looking at the proposed site plan and I know we’re only here for a zoning issue tonight, it seems as the gentleman indicated that if maybe one of the lots on the northern row of houses were removed and those houses were spread out further, and if one on each side of the middle section, if not two were removed and those houses were spread out further, either three of five potential houses not being built and the lots being separated a little further, is that – I hate to ask questions about possibilities, but is that in the overall scheme of the project, that would be a relatively low change, would it not, removing three to five houses and spread it out further. Soave: I would think that’s a significant change from my understanding, I mean in the plans to develop the property we looked at both pieces of property and 19 figured this was the most advantageous for all parties involved. One of the reasons why we waited in order to bring the project forward, because we could split the project into two different developments. We could put a road off Newburgh and make that a condominium development. There are condominium developments close to Five Mile, maybe it’s not R-1 but there are plenty of R-C which are condominium developments north of Five Mile. So I can turn this into a condominium development and defeat that part of it. Piggy backed on that I could put the Clay School as single family and have Mallory extended to Fitzgerald and then go through the subdivision. So I wasn’t lying when I said we spent a lot of time in the planning and design of this and this is the best project we put forward. We thought this was the best and we stand by that tonight. Jolly: I see you as a very trustworthy individual, I see you work with people who had issues, I just wanted to bring that up and have a conversation about it before we move forward. Soave: Losing five single family lots would probably be a deal breaker. Jolly: And that’s what I was trying to get at. Soave: We’d have to go back and look at the zoning and maybe put the development up as condominiums or go a different route if that were the case. I mean land is expensive, development is expensive. Keep in mind half of the property does border commercial, it borders office, it borders an actual parking lot. So to have those circumstances, you have to look at it that way. I mean I’m glad some of the residents that are here tonight did recognize we’re making a compromise, I understand what they’re saying, but compromise goes both ways. Jolly: Thank you. Toy: Thank you, Councilman, and thank you, Mr. Soave. It’s all yours. McDonald: Hi. My name is Susan McDonald and I live 37124 Munger, my property backs up to the Clay School. I guess my question to Mr. Soave is, it’s my understanding there’s going to be a berm. Toy: You have to go through Council. Thank you. McDonald: If the berm going to end where the condos end, my property has got a fence that I believe belongs to the school, what’s going to happen to that? Toy: What’s going to happen to your fence? 20 McDonald: Yes. Are they going to leave the fence up or are they going to continue that berm all the way down. Toy: Could I ask Mr. Soave to address that. Soave: Based upon our engineering, we haven’t come across a fence line on other people’s properties. We intend on leaving whatever fences are there presently so the berm would be entirely on our property or St. Timothy’s property and we plan on keeping as many trees as possible that border St. Timothy’s and Kingsbury. Toy: Does that help? McDonald: Yes. I was just wondering do you plan to take that fence down? Soave: We have no plans to remove fences. The fences, based upon engineering, are you talking about on the R-2 lots, are you talking about the ones in Kingsbury Estates? Toy: I want her to finish her comments. Is that it? McDonald: Yes. Toy: Councilmember Bahr? Bahr: Let me answer the question. According to the plans we have in front of us, because the homes that are proposed to back up to your property, are the same zoning, there’s no berming there and the existing fence that is on your property will remain on your property. Any of the other streets that are in that area that have houses backing up to each other and have a fence separating them, that fence is on somebody’s property and it would be the same thing here. Toy: You understand that, Ms. McDonald? McDonald: Yes. Toy: Thank you. Sir? Mr. Kobel: My name is Robert Kobel and I reside 16692 Renwick, I’ve bee a resident there for almost thirty-four years and the zoning change if we take it to a higher level what I’m concerned with is in the thirty-four years I’ve lived there, we’ve never had any problems with sewer back up, the other water. We talked about drains, water and run-off but in the thirty-four years we’ve been there we’ve never had problems with sewage backing up. Now, the proposal is they’re going to pack almost twice as many homes in there as 21 what was originally designed in our fifty to sixty-year old infrastructure that’s underneath that area. So my concern is that we’re going to have an issue with overloading our system. I don’t know if engineering has studied that or what the capacity of our sewer systems are or whatever but if we’re putting in twice as many toilets as what was originally designed and I don’t want them in my basement. That’s my concern. When you’re taking a zoning and you’re packing in twice as many homes as what was originally designed, in thirty-four years there was a school with minimal and a church, we don’t have a lot of load that has really tested our system and I’m hoping that someone in the City has studied this in detail. Toy: Mr. Kritzman is one of the experts on garbage dumpsters and sewers. Kritzman: Among other things. I will start with complimenting you for the analogy that you didn’t want all those toilets in your basement. And as you said, since you’ve been there thirty-four years, the storm water requirements put forth by Wayne County have been vastly, vastly revised multiple times and if you were going to be putting this development together based on the storm water ordinances thirty-four years ago, those would be in your basement and that is something that is recognized and certainly something that nobody wants to happen except perhaps the repair guy. Those ordinances that are in place right now that will be enforced by the City and by Wayne County through this process are intended to keep that from happening. So this I’m not saying it’s going to be 100 percent rest assured that nothing will be further contributing to your current troubles – Mr. Kobel: I don’t have troubles. Kritzman: I just want to let you know that if there are additional storm water requirements in here, you’ve got that retention basin there for that specific reason to help eliminate some of the additional troubles there. And let’s not forget that storm water projects that happen along Newburgh Road have taken this particular road in mind as well and those storm water sites added along that street has been upgraded over the last thirty-four years as well. Mr. Kobel: I’m not talking about storm water, I’m talking about the other water. Kritzman: It’s all in the same ordinance and I will tell you the sanitary is reliable which is great because the last neighborhood I lived in they weren’t. Mr. Kobel: You hear horror stories, there’s the sink holes happening and I think from new developments going in and certainly. Kritzman: I’m not familiar enough with the engineering in that area, do you know if the storm water and sanitary are on separate systems in that area? 22 Mr. Kobel: They’re separate drains in the basement, I assume they’re separate systems, that would be my assumption. Kritzman: Either way, the engineering of this particular area will be looked at. Mr. Kobel: Okay, thank you. Toy: Thank you. Mrs. Kobel: I just wanted to address Mr. Kritzman’s comments. The storm and sanitation are separate, they’re in front of my house and they’ve been rebuilt three times in the past five years. Mr. Meakin was out at one point because we were having so many issues with it so we’ve been able to get those issues resolved but they are now separate drains. Kritzman: That’s good to hear. Toy: Yes. Meyer: My name is Theresa Meyer and I live at 37202 Munger. My property actually backs up to what is proposed as condos. We also had some drainage issues at our house with the storm drain in the back there and in the spring time the property behind us so it’s actually church property, the water will sit there for at least a month so that’s an issue that has to be addressed. I realize a lot of people are really pleased that Mallory is going to be closed off, unfortunately that’s going to make it more difficult for us on Munger just because if you try to get out of Munger onto Newburgh Road between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., you are sitting there for a long time with school traffic there and everybody trying to get in and out it’s difficult to leave the subdivision by that route. So adding an additional cars for fifty-five homes is definitely going to burden that even further. So I don’t know if any thought has been put into that to address that item. So I think that’s a concern that we all have. Soave: If I may? Toy: Mr. Soave may have an answer for you. Soave: This was overlooked tonight but it wasn’t overlooked during the Planning Commission portion of it. We spent a great deal of money on a traffic consultant that looked at the issue that was recommended by the Engineering Department for the City of Livonia. It was a lengthy study that stated there was insignificant traffic during peak hours, the stacking of cars will remain the same, and actually opening up Mallory Drive would cause a pass-through for people in the existing subdivision off of Fitzgerald using the new Mallory Drive to Newburgh as a pass-through 23 would also exacerbate traffic by opening up Mallory so it’s being prevented. Meyer: So you’re saying that adding those additional homes in that subdivision will not increase traffic on Newburgh at that time? Soave: Insignificant is the word I said. Toy: Coming down the new Mallory would cause even more problems. Do you see what I’m saying? Meyer: I’m just worried about Newburgh. Soave: I prefaced it by saying that the consultant indicated it would make insignificant traffic concerns with the new development in place. Obviously having no development versus a development there would increase a little bit of traffic of course but that their findings were insignificant. Meyer: I don’t agree with that. I mean if you come and sit there between 7:30 to 8:00 Monday through Friday and if there are people with children going to the middle school and you’re trying to get out of there at the same time or you’re trying to get to work at the same time, there is significant traffic already so I can’t imagine that this is not going to be an issue. So just wanted to mention that. Toy: Thank you. Councilman Bahr? Bahr: I just want to say when he said insignificant that’s not disputing that there’s a traffic issue there now. As somebody who drives his daughter to Holmes Middle School, I can attest to the traffic but all I can say is what the studies show it is insignificant as a result of this development. Meyer: What do you mean by insignificant? Bahr: It’s a statistical term just to say you’re not going to notice a huge difference understanding we’re not disputing you have an issue now. I know any time you have any changes coming to your neighborhood it’s an emotional issue, the area that I grew up in and played in the field behind it has been developed and I used to play baseball with kids so I know how that goes. And I just want to thank everybody that appeared tonight, everybody was professional and courteous and well informed so kudos to all you. Toy: Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak? Good evening, sir. 24 Garrison: My name is Ben Garrison, I live at 16917 Levan. I appreciate Mr. Jolly’s comment about making sure there’s a pass-through for the children, Mallory having something like that for the children to come through. I understand the developer has got to make money, that’s what you do when you go to work. I’m one of those millennials we’re stuck with a five bedroom colonial with no kids. We looked at moving someplace else. We didn’t find anyplace else that we liked better than living in Livonia. We didn’t find the ranch that you’re talking about. We talked about looking at moving but to be honest with you if it’s too crowded and the houses are too close together, that would be a negative for anyone who wanted to buy there. I mean we used to live in Dearborn so we know what living right next to your neighbors was and we still go over to Dearborn sometimes and we see people literally tear down nice homes and build huge homes on those lots and it looks insane. And I think that the people that are attracted to Livonia are attracted with they want a – they don’t want a half an acre but they want a yard where they can build a playscape and all those things and have kids. And I agree, everyone has been very polite. Thank you Toy: Thank you very much. Before I go back to the Council, Mr. Soave is there any summary you wish to make? Soave: No, thank you, I think we covered a lot of things tonight. Toy: Council, we’re at the bewitching hour, so to speak, it’s not Halloween, but may I get a direction or any offer of a direction? Meakin: Madam President. Toy: Yes. Meakin: I’ll make it easy. At this point I’ll offer three resolutions, an approving, a denying and Committee of the Whole. Toy: Does everyone understand what Councilman Meakin just said? Audience: No. Toy: Approving would approve the zoning asked for by the Petitioner, denying would deny it and the Petitioner would have to start over again and Committee of the Whole would be upstairs in chambers where this would be studied more in depth with the Petitioner and the City Council and taking into consideration the comments that were heard. rd This will be on the meeting of April 23, you can stay home and watch it or come down and watch the vote on this particular issue, that’s when it’s 25 going to be heard and one of those three resolutions probably will be adopted or something else could be offered on that. Kritzman: Madam President. Toy: Councilman Kritzman. Kritzman: I just want to reiterate the issue tonight is strictly limited to zoning and there is an additional step in this process where the developer will take the input that you guys have shared this evening and apparently what they’ve been doing along the way, been responsive. From our perspective this is our first time to add formal comments and we’re going to share those with them as well, not just what happened here but we’ll have the opportunity to share our thoughts again and if we can incorporate those things that we come up with into the final plan. There’s another bite at this apple for us because we get to make sure it comes back through for site plan approval. So all those comments we talked about this evening, liking adding a walkway and potentially moving the basin, we’ll get another chance to make sure those things are incorporated as we see fit prior to the final approval on the site plan. Toy: All right. So we have three resolutions, if there’s nothing else, we are adjourned. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 8:34 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK