Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2018-11-26 - APPEAL OF DENIAL OF REZONING - PET2018-08-02-18 CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, November 26, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, November 26, 2018. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Toy, President Jim Jolly, Vice President Scott Bahr Brian Meakin MEMBERS ABSENT: Brandon Kritzman Kathleen McIntyre Cathy White OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development Paul Bernier, City Attorney Bonnie J. Murphy, Certified Electronic Recorder, CER-2300 The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:32 p.m. with President Laura Toy presiding. This is a Public Hearing relative to a request for a change of zoning on an Appeal of the Denial of the Planning Commission regarding Petition 2018-08-02-18 submitted by Comfort Care Senior Living, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads (34020 Plymouth Road), the Southeast ¼ of Section 28. This will also be heard the evening of the December 17, 2018 Regular Meeting. 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. Please state clearly your name and address before making your comments. There were nine people in the audience. Toy: Mr. Taormina. Taormina: Thank you, Madam President. Again, this is an Appeal of the denial by th the Planning Commission who voted on the resolution at their October 30 meeting. It was a request to construct and operate a senior assisted living 2 facility known as Comfort Care located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads. So as you can see from this zoning map, this a T-shaped parcel that has roughly 132 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road and it extends back about 650 feet with a total land area of 3.88 acres. The site is currently vacant, it was once held in common with the developer of the Social Security Administration which is located immediately to the east of the site but has since been split off. There are, as you can see, too, from this map, three different zoning classifications on the site. The southerly part, the frontage on Plymouth Road, is zoned C-2 General Business, immediately north of there is a C-1 zoned section of the property and then the northwest corner of the site is zoned R-U-F. th City Council did give First Reading on the rezoning on June 18 of this year, Second Reading and Roll Call are on hold pending the review of site plan. Originally the front portion of this site was developed as a gas station, that was several years ago and that was demolished and then as I indicated, the Social Security Administration, that portion of the site was developed in the mid 2000’s and the balance of the site has remained vacant since then. Immediately to the west of the site is the Black Label Tavern as well as Zerbo’s Health Foods and Pro Cam is a retail business located to the west of this site and all of those sites are zoned C-2 General Business. Then you have the Social Security Administration Building to the east as well as OHM Advisors. And then there are single family zoning as you can see, there’s homes along the south side of Wadsworth Avenue that touch this property. Per Section 903 of the Ordinance, Convalescent Nursing Homes as well as well as homes for the elderly are allowed as waiver uses in the OS zoning classification. There’s a land area requirement of one acre plus 500 square feet per bed. This proposed facility would have 69 beds in therefore it would require a minimum of 1.8 acres of land, which the subject site does contain. The plans that were presented and reviewed by the Planning Commission showed a 53,600 square foot building that would be placed on the north portion of the site, it would be set back roughly 350 feet from the right-of- way of Plymouth Road, and as I indicated there would be 69 units 3 altogether, including 28 studios, 30 of them one-bedroom units, and then ten memory care units. Where the proposed building abuts residential and along both its north and west set back, the set back or the distance there is 28 feet. The original plans showed a set back of 15 feet which is the minimum in the OS District, however that set back was increased to what you see today, 28 feet, in order to accommodate a 16-foot wide emergency access road that would run around the sides as well as the rear of the building. So the original plans did show that building pushed as close to the rear property line as well as the west property line as the ordinance would allow but because of concerns by Public Safety relative to access around the building, the plans were adjusted, the set back was increased and that access road is now a part of the plan. The reasonable flow as a percentage of water is 31.7% so that’s well below the 35% that the Ordinance limits it to. In terms of parking, this would require 39 total parking spaces and the site plan shows thirty-five parking spaces, so there’s a slight increase of six units. Plans for the building itself, the exterior finishes include a combination of red brick and plain veneer as well as Hardie siding and then some areas of E.I.F.S. As you can see, too, from these new diagrams, it’s a little difficult to tell, but this is a peaked roof with asphalt shingles. The maximum building height, again it’s a one-story structure and I believe the maximum height is about 24 to 25 feet overall. Going back to the site plan, there was a single dumpster that was shown on the southeast corner of the property, the problem with that is it is shown with a wooden closure, so ultimately if this item was approved that would have to be changed to a masonry enclosure. The landscaping, this was an issue, this did go to the Plymouth Road Development Authority for its review. The plans that the PRDA reviewed at the time showed an open water, an open surface detention basin located on the front portion of the site. That has since been modified and the plans now show what will be a subsurface detention system, an underground system, and the area where that basin was originally shown will now be utilized as a recreational area, it does show a couple of small gardens and a sidewalk that would link the sidewalk along Plymouth Road with the parking lot a little bit further to the north. While that is a nice amenity, we feel that the final design of that sidewalk should this be approved should be moved slightly to make better sense in terms of providing pedestrian access for the residents and that particular amenity. 4 But overall 30% of the site would be in landscaping which does comply with the Ordinance, the plans show I think a total of 29 trees and 114 shrubs. The capacity of that underground sewer system will have to include not only this site but the Social Security Administration site. When that building was developed, they actually utilized a portion of this site for storm water management, so that is something that would have to be built into the design of the new system, it would have to accommodate both sites. The other issue that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and adjusted prior to the final vote was the inclusion of the wall on the west side of the property where this site is adjacent to residential families as well as completing the wall around the north sides to be a five-foot high masonry wall, that’s a requirement anywhere nonresidential zoning abuts residential zoning. Another item to mention is the signage. The sign was never a concern of the Plymouth Road Development Authority as well as the Planning Commission, they are showing a monument sign that would be about six- feet in height and 33 square feet, however the zoning ordinance does limit the size of the sign as we discovered today to 16 feet, but the six-feet height is okay as well as the setback from Plymouth Road but either that’s something that will have to be adjusted to comply with the zoning ordinance or ultimately the Zoning Board of Appeals where this would be heard. th Again, on October 30, as was indicated, the Planning Commission reviewed this item and voted to deny it. Thank you. Toy: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Taormina? Councilman Bahr. Bahr: Mark, is there enough parking on this site? Taormina: The parking requirement for uses, for this type of use, is one parking space for every three beds, plus one per employee. So that the 69 beds and the 17 employees require a total of 39 spaces and they’re showing 35 total. Bahr: I’m not usually one to express concern about too little parking but in this case it doesn’t look like enough but your argument is it tends to be adequate. 5 Taormina: Yes, and then I will tell you this Petitioner has experience developing these types of facilities so they can from experience tell you what the general parking demands are. Bahr: I’m curious about the reason for the Planning Commission denying this, I remember when this came before us for zoning what the conversation was then, so I was surprised when they denied it, do you recall what the reasons were? Taormina: Well, the Planning Commission resolution I think, Item #2 of that resolution probably summarizes it best, they felt that the overall intensity of the use was too much, there was quite a bit of discussion during the hearings with the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Petitioner would consider a two-story structure and then to minimize the impact on the site. This is a heavily wooded site, those trees, the tree line goes all the way back to the residential properties along the north side. When the plans shifted and the building was moved 28 feet away from those property lines, the road itself would have to go in back there and that would have an impact. That road probably will be a requirement no matter what, at least a partial road. It may not have to go all the way along the back of the property but with a two-story structure depending on what kind of turn around could be provided, I think overall they felt it was too intense of a development for that portion of the site that borders on the residential properties. Bahr: I have a question. Would approval of this petition tonight, does this include site plan approval or would that be handled separately? Taormina: No, Council has its discretion this evening to vote to approve. I think in similar projects where it was an appeal, your action on that appeal is the final vote. If you elect to approve this, reverse the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve it, that would be final. But of course you have to complete the change of zoning, the prerequisite to approving that. Bahr: Thank you. Toy: Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Thank you, Madam President. Mark, have all the Public Safety requirements been met with the new plan? Taormina: As far as I know, this really satisfies the Fire Department’s request and their desire to have full access around the building. What they indicated in their initial letter was that they would need access to within 150 feet of any point of the building. And so now it might be possible those with a road on 6 either side of the building and not have to have one along the back, the concern there is that they wouldn’t have any room to turn their vehicles around. So that’s why they completed the road, the whole road, if you will, around this building to be able to have full access. Meakin: And the quality of the construction materials in the first presentation seemed to be lacking, have they improved? Taormina: I don’t know that they’ve changed, I’d have to go back and take a look, when you say the first I’m guessing that it was, I think we saw something similar to this design as part of the rezoning, it may have changed a little bit but maybe that’s something the Petitioner can respond to. Again, we have a combination of the stone and the brick, veneer, the Hardie plank siding, the E.I.F.S. and then the asphalt shingles, so I think that’s pretty much been the design all along. Toy: Mark, if I may, on the wall, the masonry wall, did you say that’s in the requirement or is it going to be berm and green belted because you seem to be concerned about trees. Taormina: Well, that’s a great question, so currently, yes. But you’d have to more room I think to sufficiently put a berm and landscaping there. There would appear to be about eight feet or thereabout between the wall and the edge of the drive. They’re not showing any landscaping along that wall currently, so that is something that Council might consider if you’re looking at the possibility of approving this, it would be our recommendation that the landscaping plan be enhanced to provide some form of vegetation along the north and possibly the west sides of this site where it abuts residential. What type of vegetation it is, I don’t know, it could be in the form of some type of arborvitaes or some narrow row of trees and maybe they can get a few more feet back there to do all the plants and some more pine trees but I would recommend that. Toy: Thank you. Council Vice-President Jolly. Jolly: Thank you, Madam President. Mark, I apologize, was the dumpster enclosure addressed at all? Taormina: Well, we had pointed that out in our comments to the Planning Commission, the dumpster is not shown on this plan, I’ll go to another plan. The dumpster enclosure is in the southeast corner on the side that abuts the OHM property. Now they’re an enclosure, they’re showing a wood enclosure and that’s something that’s easily remedied, they just have to provide a masonry enclosure that matches the materials on the building, either the brick or the stone. 7 Jolly: Are they aware of that? Taormina: They should be aware of it because it’s been mentioned multiple times during the Planning Commission review of this. Jolly: Thank you. Toy: Thank you. Any other questions from the Council? If there’s not, we’ll go to the Petitioner. State your name and address for the record. Boehm: Douglas Boehm, 4180 Tittabawassee Road, Saginaw, Michigan 48603. Sikander: Hamza Sikander. Boehm: So to give you a little background, I’m the executive director of Comfort Care Senior Livonia and Hamza is the managing director. We started our business in 2013 with our first assisted living in Bridgeport, Michigan, by Frankenmuth. Since then we developed seven more assisted livings, until today, we have 450 employees within our organization. Today we submitted an appeal to overturn the decision by the Planning Commission. While we are proposing a 69 unit facility, licensed by the State of Michigan, that will cater to the needs of the residents of the City of Livonia. We did complete a market study, a third party market study which accounted for 960 beds of assisted living and 71 memory care beds that are needed in the City of Livonia. So we have developed over a 50,000 square foot facility, 50 units, it includes four interior courtyards, a memory care lane, an ice cream parlor, a couple dining rooms, a couple living rooms, and 24/7 care, three shifts of caregivers and an LPN nurse as well. We did come before the Planning Commission a couple weeks ago and ultimately we were denied “it looked like a prison”, which I thought was an unfair reason to potentially openly deny this. And you can see it in the power point disc, I did email a copy to all of the Council members and I tried to talk to them personally as well regarding the power point. As you can see from our rendering of Livonia Comfort Care and this is the Commerce Comfort Care which was just recently passed by the City and the construction began about a month ago, we were able to finally get our renderings done. You can see here with a brick and stone exterior, with a canopy over the front entrance as well. And in the back, we ultimately decided to go with a stone trim and brick as well, just to keep that look around the building. I’m going to turn it over to Hamza now. 8 Sikander: When we were looking at several parcels in Livonia, this is the best one that would actually fit and we have. We will be using quality materials and address the landscaping issues that were brought up. Jolly: Madam President? Toy: Yes, go right ahead. Jolly: First of all, I appreciate the fact that you’ve reached out and I appreciate that you made some adjustments to the documents that you provided here today and I can appreciate you’ve done this before. There’s still a lot that’s missing, that unfortunately we don’t take your word for, it’s got to be on the documents that you submit, including landscaping. I would suggest that you to speak and to his staff and you correct all of this before you come back to see us on the voting meeting, because it’s not going to fly without that being done. Do you understand? Sikander: Absolutely. Jolly: The only other thing I would say is you showed a picture of the elevation of the front of the building and I notice on the left hand side there seems like there was a second story, what is that raised structure on the left hand side there? Boehm: That would be our living room. Jolly: Why is it two stories? Boehm: It’s an arched ceiling. Jolly: So it’s just a higher ceiling there? Boehm: Yes. Jolly: As someone who has frequently or has visited clients in a prison before, that does look prison-like. If you look at the elevation of the building the way that that comes out dramatically, it’s hard. Boehm: So that actually came from the masonry wall and the road brick around the building. Sikander: That’s something we’ve seen a lot of. Toy: Councilman Bahr. 9 Bahr: A few questions. First of all when I think back to my time on Council and on the Planning Commission, I’ve got two particular properties that come to mind, both of which interestingly enough were assisted living facilities that are two regrets that I have. And one of them was where we allowed way too much siding on the building, and I notice on your plans here, I love the fact that you use masonry and stone on the front, but the siding all the way around which is facing the neighbors behind there, I would want to see the masonry and stone all the way around because I don’t intend to make that mistake again. Second, it was a situation where and in hindsight, it was a natural wooded site very similar to this one and in hindsight I wish we would have required more of the natural buffer than what we did and what got approved is similar to what you’re proposing here. The concern I have is that you have an opportunity here to use some of that natural buffer to help ease some of the concerns that the neighbors have and I’d like to see something done with that. The other thing I jotted down, first of all I like your garden area, I think it’s a very nice use of the space, but I do think what Mark brought up is a good point with the sidewalk with the way it is now, requiring residents to walk all the way through the parking lot to get to that sidewalk and I think that’s something that could be redesigned that would not be radical, and I don’t see a sidewalk indicated at all in these new plans so I’m not sure what your intent was with that. So, those are just some of the concerns I had. One of the questions I have, our resident architect is not here tonight, I notice on the plans there is a few spots that appear to be in the building that says wooded, can you explain that to me? Boehm: Are you talking about the courtyards. Sikander: I’m not sure, it could be something printed off another plan. Bahr: And one more thing that was one of the Planning Commission’s comments, have you looked at putting this in as a two-story? From a community perspective it doesn’t seem to be a problem and that might be a way to address some of their concerns. Sikander: We did, we have looked at it in the past, but to make this project but to do it as a two-story structure, we found out that one of the reasons we can’t because the costs would go up not by hundreds of thousands but closer to a million dollars. Another thing is, this is a transitional site, right, going to two-story, looking at the houses down there, a single story is more transitional and the way the property is, whatever comes in here would have to be commercial or transitional. And the diameter of this site where you drive in and storm retention is, you really can’t put a building over 10 there, you have to put it more in the back. So this transitional sort of property we felt that that’s the way it would facilitate that. Bahr: I can appreciate that. So you’re saying it’s cost prohibitive? Sikander: Yes, we looked at doing that at another site in 2017. Toy: So, we talked about the sidewalk, we talked about the landscaping, and we talked about the signage, is that correct? The two story we just talked a little about, what about the wall and the berm that I asked the question earlier of Mr. Taormina, what’s your feeling on that? Sikander: We want our residents of our community to not be looking at a wall, we would like put trees back there. Toy: Could he have other kinds of vegetation? Taormina: No. In order to substitute a greenbelt near the wall, the greenbelt would have to be at least 10 feet wide, I’m not sure they can accomplish that in this case. I would say the wall is preferred in combination with some amount of landscaping to supplement the wall, yes. Boehm: If I could add to that as well, when we did go to the Planning Commission and City Council for the rezoning, a couple of the residents did show up and they did want a masonry wall along that line. Toy: I was trying to because as was pointed out, it’s a nice treed lot, Mother Nature there. Boehm: I think between the road and the wall we could definitely add some shrubs and flowers to line that wall. Toy: Anything else before we go to the Audience? Hearing none, does anyone from the audience want to speak? Henke: Hi. I’m Victoria Henke and I live at 34055 Wadsworth Street, I just moved in six months ago. And so from what I’m hearing from you guys, in addition to the road wanting greenery, obviously when we purchased the home we didn’t know that that was coming in or anything like that. But I think that all the residents along our street would probably agree that the woods are one of the nicest features along the back wall. So in my backyard personally there’s half like a short brick wall and half chain link fence along that property line and so I guess I’m wondering how close the masonry wall would be. And also as far as what they said, they want to shrubs and flowers, I personally think that the taller trees are better, I don’t particularly want to look at their building so definitely encouraging them to 11 do taller trees, our preference. And then another thing if they’re going to put a road in and they’re getting deliveries and that can create a lot of noise and that is literally right in our backyard. I have a baby, a lot of my neighbors have children, so that’s a concern of trucks making deliveries and the noise it will create. Toy: I’m not sure because of the road if they could put trees in, could they, Mr. Taormina? Taormina: Absolutely. I think we would have to talk to the fire marshal to see whether or not the 16-foot road could be reduced, so if we could reduce that to 12-feet, then there would be an additional four feet between the road and the wall, I think there’s plenty of room to plant some type full size evergreen trees, i.e. Spruce, Pine, something like that as opposed to shrubs or flowers. Henke: I think that’s all I have, it’s just I worry about the deliveries and stuff. Bahr: Madam President? Toy: Sure, go ahead. Bahr: Just a couple points. We appreciate you coming tonight and expressing your concerns. Your comments are well taken, I think anybody in your situation would express exactly what you expressed tonight. As somebody who grew up and played in a nice big field behind me and played football, and looking at Google Maps you have pretty sizable yards with wooded trees, I appreciate your concerns. Toy: Go ahead. Avedisian: I’m Rebecca Avedisian, I live 34239 Wadsworth. I’m the first house on our street, this is our backyard line. It was one thing to hear there was a building going behind there but after – to find out that they’re going to have the road for fire trucks, now it just makes a road and then an alley and I don’t think any of us will be wanting that. It’s a very weird spot to put – the homes, it’s by a restaurant, and an administrative building, it just seems like a really weird space, I wouldn’t want to spend my last years there. So I hope if this continues and there’s stuff that happens, that at least the woods stay and it makes it a little bit more friendly but right now there’s like a building and a road and a wall. Toy: You realize why they have to have the road, right? Avedisian: Right, absolutely. And at the very beginning that wasn’t what they were saying so we didn’t know about it but now that just changes it. Where it 12 was different where it was just going to be a building back there, be like someone’s house. Toy: What would you rather see there? Avedisian: Well, the idea of a wall, I’m not in love it, it’s going to make a weird cut out in our area and I definitely want it separated and I don’t think that they’d be able to provide the type of greenbelt that would be sufficient. Toy: Thank you so much. Anyone else? All right that concludes the audience communication. Is there any direction or comments, Council? Jolly: Madam President? Toy: Yes, please, go ahead. Jolly: I’ll offer an approving and denying and a Committee of the Whole. th Toy: So on the 17 of December, there’s going to be a vote, and it will be as an approving with all the corrections that we talked about, a denying, we could deny it and a Committee, meaning that we will further study it. Have I explained it okay and everybody’s fine, I will conclude the second public hearing. Thank you. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 8:17 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK