Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2022-04-11 - Appel of Denial - Jeffrey Scott ArchitectsCITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, April 11, 2022 ___________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the Livonia City Hall Auditorium on Monday, April 11, 2022. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Jolly, President Scott Bahr Rob Donovic Brandon McCullough Kathleen McIntyre Scott Morgan MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Toy, Vice President OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Bernier, Assistant City Attorney Scott Miller, Planner Sara Kasprowicz, Recording Secretary The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Jim Jolly presiding. This item is regarding Petition 2021-11-08-06 submitted by Jeffery Scott Architects requesting approval of all plans required by Section 13.13 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior facade and modify the approved landscape plan of the commercial strip center at 16112 thru 16184 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Terrence Avenue in the Northwest ¼ of Section 13. This item will move to the Regular Meeting of May 2, 2022. The Public Hearing is now open. There were 3 persons in the audience. Jolly: Mr. Miller, can you introduce us to this item please? Miller: Sure. Concord Plaza was approved back in 1986 and part of the approval and an approval of the landscape plan. The landscape plan at that time showed up 44 trees along the Middlebelt Road and Terrance and the trees included a variety of deciduous trees such as maple, ash, crab, and evergreen trees. Within the parking lot they also had maples and honey locust, about 14 trees in the parking lot. Last August of last year the Inspection Department noticed that several of these trees had been removed. Based on the original plan, it was estimated about 42 trees were missing or cut down. The owner was notified of a violation. We informed them that any deviation from that existing landscape or that landscape plan should conform with the new landscaping standards of the Livonia 21, Vision 21. The new ordinance, which states we have standards in there. Just real quick, it's based on low frontages and you can have like one tree or one hard tree every one hundred linear feet. An ornamental tree everyone hundred feet and then eight shrubs every 40 feet, so that's pretty clean cut with what is required. That's basically where we're at right now. Jolly: Okay, do you ever, I apologize I don't have a computer with me. Do you have a proposed look here? Miller: Here is the proposed plan if you can see it, I can't really zoom in. Basically, he doesn't show any trees along Middlebelt Road. He's got two existing trees along Terrance that which were existing. Yeah, those are the remains. So, there's two trees along Terrance and no trees along Middlebelt Road and then there are no trees into the parking lot. Jolly: Okay. Thank you Mr. Miller For the Petitioner? Sure. McIntyre: Thank you. Scott. My reading of this, and I've read it several times, the city cannot establish which how many trees were removed before Belmont purchased the property, correct? Miller: True. I mean, other than, no, I guess not. I mean, we've looked at Google Maps. Back in 2020, the trees were still there. So, I don't know when they bought it. McIntyre: In the summer of 2021. So, okay. Jolly: Good evening. Tell me your name and address for the record, please. Friedlaender: Good evening. My name is Susan Friedlaender. I'm the attorney for Belmond property address at 1700 West Big Beaver Road in Troy, Michigan, though I haven't been there in two years. I also have Jason with me who is with Belmond. Jason Curis. I think there's some confusion here. First, I'm not sure what plans are up there, but they're not the plans that we've resubmitted, and I do have copies here of what was submitted to you like an eight by 11. If you want them, I could distribute them. Jolly: Please hand them to whoever you want to over there. Friedlaender: Jason can address first, if you'd like to hear first about what was the situation when we bought the property. How many trees were spared, how many were removed, because I think that maybe we should clear that up first, because it's my understanding that there were about eight trees removed after he purchased the property and that was because they were in pretty bad shape, but do you want to... Jolly: Yeah, if you want to just give us a brief history, in regard to the property. Curis: Sure. Thank you, Council. I am Jason Curis on behalf of Belmond Properties. I was fortunate enough to be here a few months ago in front of the Planning Commission, explaining what we are trying to do. We were hoping that we can accomplish this evening through some modifications. When the property was purchased in summer of 2020. There were eight remaining trees left on Middlebelt. I, myself, was curious on Google. So, I did go back and Google and saw what it originally looked like, what it looked like prior to our ownership throughout the years because they can time track Google now and what it looks like today. The road was being worked on at the time, there was some construction going on Middlebelt in the summer, they were on our right-of-way. It was torn up. The trees themselves were beyond repair, dead, dying, had dead tree disease. So, what we did, was remove them before they caused any more damage to anything else in the area. It was August and it was basically bark out there. There were very limited leaves so we knew the trees were dead. After doing that, probably one day after Scott's department had reached out to us before submitting for an updated facade improvement. The center itself, as Scott indicated, was built in '86, it looked like it was from '86, still looks like it's from 1986 and I love the 80's but we wanted to freshen it up, soften it up and revive it. We purchased it from some owners and operators who were a little absentee, which is the complete opposite of us. So, as we started renovating, cleaning things up, even the weeds in the parking lot redoing parking lots, redoing all sorts of different things that were just really, general maintenance. We submitted a plan to the Planning Department for the facade improvements. In that, was a landscape plan. Now, the original landscape plan, which I believe, is what you have up there. Now, that is not the current landscape plan. That's the original one from the 80's. The one that was up there as our proposal, I think was the outdated one. That was the one that was submitted initially to the Planning Commission review, where they indicated, look, you need to add some more trees, let's get some more stuff on the Middlebelt, so what's being handed out was supplied via email, and was hand delivered February 17, for this Council meeting appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Friedlaender: I think maybe part of the confusion, I wasn't at the Planning Commission hearings, but from my reviewing of minutes and different things, I think that the Planning Commission was a little peaked because when, first there was a meeting, I think, on February the first with what Jason is referring to as Belmond's original landscape plan. When they got the feedback, they realized, that they should provide a revised plan, which they did. The next meeting was a week later, and it does not seem that their new revised plan got before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission seemed to be upset about that. It seems to me that their whole decision was based on Jason's original plan, which is very different than his updated plan. We've supplied you with the updated plan. I've gone over this. I don't know if you had the chance to read the memo that I provided for you. Jolly: I think you have six sets of fresh ears up here. I wouldn't worry about the Planning Commission, anything that may have happened at that point. Can you walk us through what the proposal is now? Friedlaender: Yes, what the proposal is now, and is consistent with your new ordinance, as Mr. Miller advised, there's like X amount of deciduous trees per, is that one per 40 feet and you also have to subtract from your frontage your, your drives. So, when you subtract that amount, I think your ordinance requires 18 deciduous trees, and we are proposing 16. That’s full frontages. I'm being a little unclear there. I'm giving you a total like for both frontages. There's a total of 16. They get divided. I guess maybe in a different way, depending on the linear feet. Then for the ornamental trees, I think we're, we have we're proposing one fewer tree than is required under the ordinance standard. Then for shrubs, there are I think, 140 are required for the front edges. I think we have 98, but then we have 86 shrubs that are in the parking lot and also there's a tree that's being preserved also in the parking lot, though the Planning Commission did not really seem to review anything that was going on in the parking lot. This is just the frontage requirements. So, what you have, what we're presenting, and what we presented to the Planning Commission, the second time was very different than our first plan and we're very close to meeting the letter of your ordinance. So, we're asking for a very modest modification. The ironic thing is, you know, your standard is that you can modify this within the intent of the ordinance, as far as I can tell, there's not a specific statement that I guess it's logical and obvious. I'm trying to find a way to fit recitation in here, and I just can't think of anything. It's aesthetics, it's to beautify the site and the whole ironic thing is, that Belmond came in when they purchased the property, and what they were doing is they're trying to beautify the site. They're trying to upgrade it. While they weren't doing like, a ton of things that would trigger a whole new review, really, but they were doing enough to make it nicer. He's already getting new tenants. You know, Mr. Curis can tell you himself, but his whole concern, and he's very much very experienced in, redevelopment and development of these kinds of shopping centers, is that you need visibility. You need, you know, for another obvious thing, you have to have visibility. So, he's, he's put together a landscaping plan that that is going to really improve the aesthetics of the site and provide while providing the kind of visibility that these kinds of centers require to not only attract customers, but to attract tenants too, so tenants can feel this is a place where we can make it. This is a place where we can stay in business and so he's here to improve too, to have a successful business. Jolly: Are we also talking about the building updates today as well, the facade updates? Is that part of this as well? Is there anything you'd like to say about that real quick, and then we'll go to Ms. McIntyre. You might give us a brief outline of what your plans are there, just so we do it all at once. Curis: Sure, I apologize that our architect who put this together could not make it. She had COVID and she is out for a few days. The requests that we would be looking for the full meeting on May the second, would be a full site plan approval, which is including but not limited to the new facade, so everybody's, for the most part familiar with the shopping center. We wanted to do something that wasn't a total knock down and rebuild. The bones are strong here, but it's just a little harsh. So, we want to come out and we want to soften it up with some nice EFIS, modernize it with some awnings. We have done some minor things to, as far as cleaning up the grounds. The landscape was a big item of Planning Commission, which we've modernized the landscaping and lighting for school for landscaping. I've worked hand in hand with the landscape architect, to give it a more modern look, that falls into the guidelines of the exact type of trees and shrubs, and how your ordinance defines what they should be in here. So, while they may not be the firecracker ones from the 80s, that, you know, you can go under and it looks like an umbrella and they're open, they meet the guidelines. They fulfill everything and we jammed as many as we could on there, in our opinion. I guess a little bit of experience from the time of the Planning Commission, really from the time that the trees themselves have been down, just wanted to make note that our office has signed five new businesses, new to Livonia, never been here before, because they never noticed the shopping center before. So, from August of 2020, until today, we've seen five new businesses that have moved in, from an event space, to a pet groomer, to a hair salon, to a kiddie spot, to an antique resale shop, all who are super excited to be a part of Livonia and the Livonia business community. In addition to that, we had a couple of leases coming due, where the business owners were struggling a little bit in COVID. What came up was, they were thankful and appreciative that they could now be seen and viewed by the street. We renewed the lady’s gym that's been in Livonia 20 years. There's a dental office that's in the rear of the shopping center. Both were looking at relocating out of there, because they had just said that people had forgotten about them. The center was rundown. You couldn't see the businesses. Again, when we came even probably previous ownership and what I heard from Council appeared before was, many of those trees were taken down long before we purchased the building. So, there was obviously some concern, at some point, with trees coming down. From a visibility standpoint, if you were to Google this thing and look at 2008, you could not see this building. It looked like a heavily forested office complex, but yet this is a retail shopping center. Jolly: Let me stop you right there. We're going to go to Council real quick for some questions. Ms. McIntyre. McIntyre: So, I'm delighted that you're interested in improving this and that you have new tenants coming, but you are asking for deficiency in the landscaping requirement, do I understand correctly, two deciduous trees in one decorative tree? Is that the deficiency you're asking for? Friedlaender: Yes. I'm a little confused about your ordinance on the lower bushes, on the shrubs. McIntyre: I'm not concerned about the shrubs. So, I guess my question is, and again, I've read through this packet, why are you not able to just comply with the requirements, the landscaping requirements under the new zoning ordinance? Curis: So, based upon the deficiencies that we were looking for in the groupings that our landscape architect put together, there's only so many groupings of the trees that can be put together before they're kind of on top of each other and subsequently would starve each other. The idea was to get as close to fulfillment, because our original plan was substantially deficient. And when we came back, we wanted to quit as many as we could, try not to be deficient, even though we were slightly deficient on that and come up with groupings that look aesthetically pleasing, but got as close to what the ordinance was. While I always hate to come in front Council for a minor variance, if you will, we just didn't want to overload it and have the trees die after the first year or two. So, we thought that these would be the best survival rate. And it would be as close to the ordinance, the 2021 ordinance that has been written. Jolly: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McCullough. McCullough: Mr. Chair, to the Chair to the petitioner, I guess, just looking over at the overall site plan, you know, the landscape plan seems very sparse still, to my, in my opinion, especially on Terrence Drive, and especially asking for this deficiency to be approved as is. This doesn't seem like a few more trees to meet our ordinance. Listen, what you're doing at the site, I applaud it. I congratulate you. I'm very happy for the businesses that are coming in, but we have ordinances in place for a reason. You're so close them as it is. I know, I just look at it a few, I mean, we're talking two trees and if I'm looking here, you have a ton of weight on Terrence Avenue, closer to what would be the west side closest to Middlebelt, that you're removing a few trees. It shows remove existing Norway maples. There's a ton of land in there to pop some trees, and personally for me, I'd like to see us hit that ordinance and move forward with this. I think you're very close. Curis: Can we get confirmation, Scott, because I thought we were a little bit farther away than three trees and I'm trying to go through my notes on this. I just want to make sure we're we are talking the same deficiency. Miller: Can I answer? Jolly: Yes, of course. Miller: Okay. I haven't seen the new plan, but basically, along Middlebelt Road, you're supposed to have nine full-size trees, or nine full-size trees, four ornamental trees and shrubs are seventy-two. Along Terrence, you have eleven full-size trees and five ornamentals. So, I'm not sure what you have. Curis: Yeah, so, we have ten on Terrence, we have nine, I'm sorry. We have eight on Middlebelt on the larger trees, so we would be two short on Middlebelt, one short Terrence. McCullough: For me, we're so close. It looks on Terrence, to get one more tree in there, does not seem to be an issue, especially in some of those voids. Your landscape architect should have no issues popping in a couple. I don't want to overload the site, but I don't see it being that big of a deal to add these and hit our ordinance. Friedlaender: Well, I did want to just mention one thing, I'm not trying not to be petty, but just the terminology of full tree, that's not in your ordinance. In your ordinance, it's two feet diameter. Just so that we're talking about the same thing, I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing. McCullough: Just as you said, for the groupings, your landscaper, per any kind of contractual documents, should be warrantying that your industry standard for two years on each of these trees, whether they're too inch or not. That's general construction practice. That's why I'm saying, I have no issue. I think this is great. I think the plan looks good. I just would like to see a hit three more trees and we can call it a wrap on this. Curis: If we could get, I don't have a problem achieving that for you. What I like though, is to keep what we have on the frontage of streets, if we need to plant some more, maybe in the rear. I'm really trying to preserve the fact that the building itself is the opposite direction of the traffic. So, as you mentioned, that Terrence is a little bit light, that was purposely designed so that the frontage of it was really the priority on Middlebelt. When folks are driving 45 down the Middlebelt right there, as they're heading south, at least they've got some ability to see into the shopping center and because of the date of when this was built, you got a big parking field. Most other centers are closer to the road. As previous Council said, you know, we're trying to be a good neighbor with the rest of the folks on that street, that have limited to no shrubs, and we're competing with them ultimately, to have tenants say, well hey, why is it the guy across the streets got nothing, they have sod. McCullough: No, no, absolutely. If this is allowed, I'd be happy to offer an approving, if you could add the deficiency along Terrence Avenue. I mean, you've got more than enough room to add three trees. Friedlaender: Meaning not on Middlebelt, put them all on, Terrance? McCullough: I'm okay with that, if Council's okay with that resolution on there. Donovic: Mr. President? Jolly: Mr. Donovic? Donovic: Thanks for being here tonight. How many trees do you have on Terrance again? Curis: We're talking about the large trees because there's the smaller ones and the shrubs. Terrence has ten. I'm sorry,Terrance has eleven. Donovic: So, my point of view on this is, I've actually been at the building before you guys took occupancy, and I remember it was a rundown building. It is pushed back, far to the east. It's hard to see if you're driving down the Middlebelt Road, especially if you're going north, you're going towards the back of the building. What I'm seeing is, I understand my colleagues’ concerns, Councilman McCullough, I see what he's getting at. I think you guys have gone above and beyond to bring this building back to life and fix the landscaping issue. This isn't an office building. This is a retail center that needs a lot of eyes, especially going up and down Middlebelt Road, 45 miles an hour. Unfortunately, people are busy with all sorts of things, and you have an entire retail center is blocked by trees all the time along those major frontage roads. I think that that's an issue. So, I'm going to offer an improving at its current state. I think you guys have met the spirit of the ordinance and trying to plant as many trees as possible. It looks great, small trees and large trees. The building, I think, is going to look great as well. It's updated, an updated facade of the building and attracting new tenants to Livonia. Thank you. Jolly: Mr. Bahr. Bahr: I know you've said this, how many total trees again, the number you need? I know what you have, but what do you need? Friedlaender: Mr. Miller, I'm not sure when you gave your original amounts, were you going from your original computations? That's where I think there was a disconnect, because I think their original computations didn't subtract for the street openings, for the curb cuts? Miller: We take the curb cuts. Friedlaender: You did take the curb cuts? Okay, all right. Miller: Basically, he needs twenty deciduous trees. They have it and nine ornamental trees. That's on both streets. Bahr: So, twenty deciduous trees and nine ornamental trees, in addition to the deciduous trees? Miller: No, no, that's the count. He needs nine on Middlebelt Road that are deciduous trees and eleven on Terrence. Bahr: That's what he needs? That's what I'm counting here. First of all, I agree with Mr. McCullough. I totally appreciate what Mr. Donovic is coming from, I echo everything he said, and this might seem like semantics, like I want you guys to be successful with this thing, okay. So, we're on the same page on that. I'm with Mr. McCollough, since we're so close, just knock it out and let's be done with this thing, but having said all that, I'm looking at this, I count on the one you've just handed out to us. I just circled one. I'm counting eleven along Terrance and I'm counting nine along Middlebelt, I see four LSS. Curis: You are correct. I'm sorry. Maybe I need to get reading glasses. You're right, I counted eleven. You have eleven on Middlebelt. I'm sorry, you have nine on Middlebelt, which is what the ordinance requires, and you do have eleven on Terrence. Bahr: So, do we have an issue? If that meets what we're looking for, I think this is easy. Jolly: We're close enough. Bahr: You said we needed twenty, right? I'm going to say I'm supportive of approving with plans he handed us. Jolly: Right. So, we have two approving’s. We have one from Donovic, one from McCullough. Do you want to clear this up and go forward with one approving or no? So, we call get on the same page? Bahr: Mr. President, I see Mr. McCullough quickly trying to look at the plans over here. What I'm counting is on Terrence is a GVF. There's six LTF two AGR, two LC and two ALC that's eleven. McCullough: Are the ALCs over on Middlebelt? Bahr: Well, that meets with what Mr. Miller said, so anyway, we have time before the voting meeting to be able to look at this more closely. McCullough: I will withdraw mine, just make sure that there are enough trees. Bahr: I'm in agreement with you. I just hit it. I think we're there. McCullough: It's before the next Council meeting, just make sure we get the trees. Bahr: Thanks for everything you're doing. McCullough: Sorry to be tedious. When we look at this, we have many developers that come in and if we got to do it for one, we got to do it for all. I mean, you're so close. So, if everything looks good here and meets, then I am and I'm good with approving this. Jolly: I don't see anybody else from Council. Ma'am, would you like to speak about this at all, or no? Friedlaender: She's with us. Jolly: I know. I'm just kidding. We have nobody else here from the public, for the record. We have an approving. Thank you for your time and wish you the best of luck. I'll close the public hearing. Thank you. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:41 p.m.