Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2022-02-23 - Rezone - Pet. 2021-12-01-11 - Maple Real Estate Group, LLC CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Wednesday, February 23, 2022 ___________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the Livonia City Hall Auditorium on Wednesday, February 23, 2022. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Jolly, President Laura Toy, Vice President (audio only) Brandon McCullough Scott Morgan MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Bahr Rob Donovic Kathleen McIntyre OTHERS PRESENT: Leo Neville, Assistant City Attorney Mark Taormina, Planning and Economic Dev. Director Sara Kasprowicz, Recording Secretary The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:12 p.m. with President Jim Jolly presiding. This item is regarding Petition 2021-11-01-11 submitted by Maple Real Estate Group, pursuant to Sections 13.13 and 13.15 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, requesting to rezone the east fifty-eight feet (58’) of 9120 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue in the Southwest ¼ of Section 36, from RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to C-1 (Local Business). This item will move to the Regular Meeting of March 14, 2022. The Public Hearing is now open. There were 4 persons in the audience. Jolly: Mr. Taormina, the initial presentation please. Taormina: Thank you, again, this is a request to rezone a property that is on the east side of Middlebelt Road, just south of Grandon Avenue. The change would be from R-U-F, Rural Urban Farm, to C-1, Local Business. The address of the property is 9120 Middlebelt Road. The rezoning would affect only the east 58-feet of this parcel, the remaining westerly part is currently zoned C-1 Local Business. Thus, the intent is to bring the entire parcel under a single zoning classification. The parcel as you can see here is L-shaped, with 67-feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road. It has a depth of roughly 373-feet along its north property line. The rear 58-feet of the parcel extends south for 151-feet. This is the area that is proposed to be rezoned. It measures 58-feet by 151-feet, for a total area of 8,758 square feet. 9120 Middlebelt, overall, is roughly 30,000 square feet. It was just under 7/10 of an acre. Adjoining 9120 Middlebelt, to the south, is 9106 Middlebelt, which is under the same ownership as zone C-1, Local Business. 9106 Middlebelt adds another 34-feet of road frontage and 33,000 square feet of land, so again, the two parcels contain roughly 100-feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road and have a total land area of 1.45 acres. Both parcels are vacant and would be combined and developed as a single site. The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate the future development of a planned residential development, consisting of a multifamily apartment complex. Section 5.02 of the ordinance provides the standards for PRDs, which are treated as a waiver use in commercial districts, subject to the review of the Planning Commission and City Council. Planned developments are afforded considerable design flexibility, including modification in lot sizes, modifications in yard requirements and allowing uses that are not otherwise permitted within the zoning district. This is the preliminary layout; it shows a multifamily apartment complex that would be made up of three buildings. Each building would contain eight (8) units, for a total of twenty-four (24) dwelling units. Building number one (1) is positioned towards the front of the site, that’s the one closest to Middlebelt Road. Building number two (2) would occupy the rear, including the area that is proposed to be rezoned. Building number three (3) is between building number one (1) and two (2), along the south edge of the property. There is a two-way private road from Middlebelt that would provide access to all three (3) buildings. The plan shows forty-eight (48) parking spaces. Each building would be two (2) stories in height with eight (8) units, four (4) on each floor. Each unit would have two (2) bedrooms, a living and dining area, kitchen, one and a half baths as well, also a walk-in closet. The buildings have been preliminarily designed to show that they are mostly brick with stone accents. The roofs would be peaked with asphalt shingles, fiber cement siding would be used for the gable that is presented. Looking at the surrounding neighborhood immediately to the north of the site, four (4) single family homes that are on lots that measure roughly 62-feet by 113-feet. These lots are part of the Pearl Wilson subdivision. The zoning is N-1, One Family Residential. To the east and to the south are single family homes along Oxbow Street. These homes are on a slightly larger unplanted parcels that are zoned R-U-F. Also, to the south, is Newport Park, which is a multifamily development that is zoned NM-1. This 27- unit attached condominium was approved in 2001 under the R-C, Condominium Residential district regulations. Just to familiarize yourself with this map, the overall parcel is highlighted in blue. There are actually two (2) parcels, the overall site is highlighted in blue, 9120 is this piece that is L-shaped. 9106 is this triangular shaped parcel. It is the rear portion of 9120 that is requested to be rezoned. Newport Park condominiums are located here, to the south. The other single-family homes surrounding the site to the north and to the east. The Livonia Vision 21 future land use map does designate this property as medium density residential. This corresponds to a density between five (5) to fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre. The proposed housing development as shown on these preliminary plans, has a density of sixteen and a half Page 2 of 7 dwelling units per acre, so it is slightly higher by approximately four (4) units than what the Master Plan recommends. Planning Commission is recommending approval of the zoning change, should Council agree and give first reading, the next step and review process would be the review of the site plan on a waiver use. With that, Mr. President, I would be happy to answer any questions. Jolly: Thank you, we’ll go to the Petitioner for initial presentation here. Fakih: Good evening, my name is Sam Fakih, I’m one of the owners of Maple Real Estate Group. I really didn’t have an official presentation for you, other than to answer any questions that you may have. Like Mr. Taormina said, it’s just a first step of just rezoning this back end of this parcel. The next step we’re going to do is, hopefully, come on back and do a site plan, more detailed plans that you guys can dive into. Unless you have any other questions, all I say is that I hope to ask for your approval. Jolly: Thank you, sir. We need to hear from the audience that would like to communicate in regard to this item. Sir, do you have any communication that you would like to give us? Come on up to the podium please. Good evening, sir, state your name and address for the record please. Shekell: My name is Don Shekell, my address is to 29161 Grandon. Jolly: Thank you sir, please proceed. Shekell: Ok, I have a number of concerns with this whole issue. Jolly: Wait, before you get started. Let me just say, for the record, right now, the only thing that is up for discussion, is this zoning request of this little sliver of land. What these buildings look like and this proposal that has been described here, we’re not considering that at this point. There will be subsequent hearings if they wish to proceed in regards to that, okay? I just wanted to frame that for you really quick. Shekell: Yeah, and I understand. I have spoken to Mr. Taormina about this before, during the Planning hearing. Two (2) things about this issue with the lots that we’re talking about, is that the L-shaped lot was split. When was that split? A little over a year ago, that L-shaped lot was a single family residential. The triangular lot was commercial office. I looked that up and I went through the Planning Commission, and I went through the site. I was confirmed by that. We got the notice that they want to rezone this behind us. My property is directly north of the lot we’re talking about. Suddenly, we’re rural urban family, which never was before, it was single family. My question then, was, when did all this get changed? Nobody had an answer for that, but it got changed to C-1. Why did it get changed to C-1 if you want to do housing? You’re talking about doing housing, but Page 3 of 7 its C-1. Now you have this lot behind me that you want to also make C-1 to accommodate whatever they want to build there. I never got any answers as to when it got changed to C-1 without any hearings with any of the neighbors around it. Now we have this one little sliver of land, and now we have to have a hearing on that. You didn’t have a hearing on any of the other ones. I’m just not quite sure what the whole intent here is. Jolly: I understand your frustration. To be honest with you, this is the first time that I’m hearing about any of this. The person who is best suited to give you the history of the property, as you said, you have spoken to Mr. Taormina, he’s probably best suited to give you the history in regards to any of those changes that were made. I know that here on Council, right now, we’re not prepared to answer those questions and normally we wouldn’t be. That would be an administrative function to give you that history. Shekell: Ok, in regard to that, I am against, and I have to talked to my neighbors and all that, we’re against the change of this to C-1. Ok. Jolly: Thank you sir, thank you very much. Any questions from the Council, Mr. Morgan? Any questions? Morgan: I don’t have any questions. Jolly: Mr. McCullough? McCullough: No, no questions. Jolly: Miss Toy, any questions? Toy: Yeah, just a really quick question, Mr. President. If I may, to the petitioner, what other properties to do you have, in regards to apartments, or multifamily units that are similar to what is before us. Jolly: Ok, I think Ms. Toy has asked to the Petitioner, what kind of background to you have in regards to developing multifamily housing/apartments such as this? Fakih: Sure. In terms of background, I’m a real estate investor that has multiple investments in medical office, retail, as well as multifamily. I’m involved currently in an apartment complex. It’s a 90-unit in West Dearborn, called Wagner West. Its right behind the Ford Wagner complex, as well as I was involved in another complex in Dearborn. More on the east side, on Oakland Steet. I have massive real estate, in terms of experience, twenty (20) plus years, as well as experience in multifamily specifically. Jolly: Thank you, sir. Page 4 of 7 Toy: Has he contacted the neighbors that abut the building in that area? Jolly: Have you spoken to the neighbors in the surrounding properties? Fakih: Not yet, but I am open to speaking with the neighbors. I don’t have any issues; we want to be good neighbors. That’s why we design nice looking buildings that are surrounded by a lot of greenery. What we did is that we try to maintain the height, same height building as the condos next door, so you’re not going to see an enormous building when you move up. We’ve also scattered the buildings, kind of diagonally, to make it more of a neighborhood within a walkway all around. We designed a walkway with a gazebo all around the complex, so there are a lot of things that we’re doing to be good neighbors. To make it look nicer than having a drive through restaurant there, as C-1 zoning would allow. We hope that we would be welcomed by the neighbors and we’re more than happy to sit down and talk to the neighbors. Toy: Mr. President? It may be helpful if the Petitioner gave us some of the addresses where his involvements are with the multi units in Dearborn. We don’t have a full Council here tonight, so I would ask that this be a motion of approving and a denying. Jolly: Thank you, Ms. Toy. To reiterate, she’s offering a motion of both an th approving and a denying on the March 14 meeting like the other Petitioner. She is asking that that you provide some addresses of some of the properties that you are currently involved with. Mr. Taormina? Taormina: Just in response to Mr. Shekell’s comments regarding the zoning history. This was an issue that came up following the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing. I did have chance to go back and take a look at the zoning history. The map I am going to show you is from 1965 and you might recall that is the year that the city adopted ordinance 543, which made significant changes to not only the zoning ordinance but also the district zoning map. The area that we’re looking at is right here. I know it is difficult, this is a single map of the entire city. The parcel that is shown here, and you can see the configuration. This is actually part of a subdivision lot, so 106 and parts of lots 68 and 107 of Newman Joy Road subdivision. Without getting into too much of the details, you’ll see that the P-F, which stands for Professional Services, P-F was the zoning classification that the predecessor to our Office Services classification. As you know, last year, with the adoption of the Livonia Vision 21 zoning ordinance, we eliminated the O-S district and that changed over to C-1. This in fact, shows this parcel as P-F, so you have to respect the fact that is a heavy line showing that, but it indicates that this parcel right here is P-S, and the area that we’re talking about is just slightly to the south. Mr. Shekell’s house is roughly located here on Grandon Avenue. Again, this Page 5 of 7 is from 1965, I think prior to that, we did locate some maps before 1965, which did show this as residential. From 1965 up until last year, it was either Professional Services or Office Services and then last year, it changed to C-1. Jolly: That’s great information, I appreciate you looking it up. If we go to the east, to this little sliver of property that’s being considered at this point, when did that sliver of property become, I presume, broken away from the houses further to the east? Taormina: That I do not know, you are right. That original lot extended all the way to the rear, here. At some point, it was split and a portion of it was sold. Another portion of the lot itself was acquired by the owners of this property. I’m assuming it was the current owners, the Venturas. I don’t know the history of the parcel divisions, we can try to get that information for you prior to the voting meeting, but I don’t have the details on that. Jolly: Thank you, sir. Any other comments from anybody involved? Shekell: Can I make a comment on that? Jolly: You can go to the podium if you want to. Shekell: Thank you. Mr. Taormina… Jolly: No, no, no. You have to direct your comments up here. Shekell: The lot he is talking about, the L-shaped lot, he said since 1965, it was changed? I’ve lived on that street my entire life. When I was born, we moved there in 1955. I’ve been on that property all this time, I grew up two (2) houses down at 29127. The Venturas, who own the property, lived there. They were living at a single family, the lot next to it had houses on it, it was single family. None of that would have changed while they were living on it. How it goes back to 1965, to sit there and say, ‘oh, that’s when it was changed’ is definitely incorrect. That’s why I go back to it, like I said, he doesn’t know when that property line got split. Why did it get split? No one has an answer or that. Like I said, I checked just a year ago. It was single family residential. The one next to it was a commercial office. I don’t understand why we can’t figure out when this happened. Jolly: With all due respect, Mr. Taormina is as good and as reliable as they come. Shekell: I understand that. Jolly: I’ll just ask him to see if he can do any further research to give us further information when this comes back on March 14. Page 6 of 7 Shekell: I know who the owners of the property were, I grew up with them. Jolly: Thank you sir. Mr. McCullough? McCullough: Through the Chair to the petitioner, If I may. I know this is zoning so I really want to stick to that. My only question is with the renderings you are looking at. These are two-story proposals, is that right? Is that what you are looking to do? Fakih: Yeah, just two 2-story building, that looks pretty much like it. Eight (8) units to each building. You walk in, it’s an open lobby that goes all the way through, so you’ll see glass from both sides. McCullough: We not talking about this yet, I know it’s a public hearing, but when I look at it, you’ve got neighbors to the north that are single-story that I’m not even going to get into it. I know we’ve got an approving and a denying; we’ll deal with it on Council. Thank you. Jolly: Ok, if there is nothing else from the Council or the public, we will close this Public Hearing, thank you very much. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:30 p.m. Page 7 of 7