Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-06-1521404 MINUTES OF THE 887 1h REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 15, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 887" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a requestfor preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 200405-08-10 PALLAGIA SITE CONDOS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-05- 08-10 submitted by The Parz Group, on behalf of Parz-Pallagia Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property located at 35300 Joy Road in the Southwest % of Section 33. 21405 Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, due to a conflict of interest, I will be stepping down for this item. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Alanskas. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a seven unit site condominium project, called the Parz-Pallagia Site Condominiums, on properly located on the north side of Joy Road between Wayne Road and Harvey Avenue. This property is in process of being rezoned (Pel. 03-01-01-05) from RUF, Rural Urban Farm to R-1, One Family Residential. A protest petition has been fled by the owners of properly within 100 feet of the subject site, which will require a two-thirds majority vote of the Council in order for the rezoning to be successful. Five of the proposed condominium lots would have access from a 24 - fool wide street that would be developed within the condominium subdivision. The remaining two condominiums lots would front off Joy Road. An existing dwelling would occupy Condominium Lot 2. The site plan shows an outline of a "Future Garage" attached to the northwest corner of the existing building on Lot 2. This attached garage would be constructed outside the building envelope and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setbacks. The interior road would commence off Joy Road and continue in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately 200 feet. At its northern terminus, the proposed road would form a cul-de-sac that has been modified in order to provide a stub at the west properly line allowing for future possible extension of the road to the west. All the proposed condominium lots would meet or exceed the lot size requirements of an R-1 zoning district. The site plan shows the construction of a storm water detention basin in the northwest corner of the site. Sidewalks are not shown along the right-of-way of the proposed street. The landscape plan illustrates that the detention basin area would be landscaped with a variety of plant materials, including deciduous trees, evergreens and shrubs. The immediate area around the development's entrance marker would also be landscaped. Several areas throughout the development would retain the existing trees and vegetation. A letter submitted with this proposal, authored by Calvin Hall & Associates, substantiates that an effort should be made to preserve the large number of mature pine trees between the development's proposed road and the west property line. A profile of an entrance marker is shown on the landscape plan. The marker would be erected on the east side of the subdivision's street off Joy Road. The sign 21406 would not be internally illuminated but is permitted to be ground lighted. One entranceway sign not to exceed 20 square feet in sign area is permitted and proposed signage is one entranceway sign 40 square feet in area. Because the sign area of the proposed entrance marker is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. A copy of the Master Deed and bylaws for Parz-Pallagia has been submitted for review. The bylaws specify lhallhe minimum size standards for a one-story ranch would be 1,400 square feel. All single-family dwellings would have a two -car attached garage. The bylaws do not specify the percentage of brick each unit would have. It does explain that exterior building materials may include wood, with limited amounts of vinyl siding and textured plywood siding, such as T-111, brick and stone, but no brick laminate. Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated June 11, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the legal description or the proposed layout contained in the submittal. The site layout does have some unique qualities that should be considered at this stage of approval. The developer has shown the proposed roadway to be offset to the far east edge of the right-of-way to save the trees along the west property line. The following kems are of concem to the Engineering Division as a result of the offset roadway. (1) There would be no room to place a sidewalk along the east right-of-way line of the development. Therefore, if this layout is approved, the approval should stipulate that no sidewalks are required within the development and that sidewalks will only be required along Joy Road as indicated on the plan. (2) The proposed mad is shown as 24 feet wide with no parking on the west curb line. It should be decided as to whether the City wants to accept this as a public road or if it should remain a private road. Typically, a new public road within a planned development would be a minimum of 28 feet wide. (3) If the stmet is to be public, will sheets lighting be required, and if so, where are the street lights to be placed, because again there is no mom for street lighting along the east right-of-way line. It should be noted that the developer will have to meet the requirements of the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance for the proposed development." The letter is signed by John Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 8, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan 21407 submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium development on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with residential areas. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) Standard for residential cul-de- sacs is 50' with a minimum right -0f --way radius of60'to provide for sidewalks and utilities. (3) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces that have the words FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 10, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans as submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property located at 35300 Joy Road. We recommend that sidewalks be constructed in order to reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and to better promote pedestrian safety. There is no indication that streetlights are planned for this site. We recommend that streetlights be installed along the proposed street to enhance public safety. One stop sign should also be installed for vehicles exiting onto Joy Road." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 27, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 19, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The future garage detailed on Unit 2 will require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient side yard and rear yard setbacks. (2) There is no proposed open land for recreational use for this development per Chapter 16 of the Livonia Code. The amount required is 5,040 square feet minimum. (3) The sidewalk does not appear to continue to the west property line. (4) Entry signage is limited to 20 square feet and must be made of natural materials. This Department has no further objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Darwin and Linda Glass, 35380 Joy Road, dated February 6, 2003, which reads as follows: "We are writing this letter to express our views on the request you are looking into for rezoning the property at 35300 Joy Road from RUF to R-1 residential. We have lived here for thirty years and enjoyed the open space and not living in a subdivision. If the property next is rezoned to R-1 residential, our house will now become part of a the subdivision even though it will be RUF zoning. The 21408 developer has made it a point to come to our house and tell us all the negative things that this project will impact our property. He then offered to buy our property at well below market value. Needless to say, we refused his offer. The developer went over his layout of the project with us pointing out that he was going to surround the new public road with a five foot strip of land which he would put in trust in his name, which means he would be the only one that could develop our property with access to the so- called public road. Looks to us like a private road that will be plowed and maintained with Livonia tax dollars if he is allowed to do this. If the City of Livonia approves this project, we would ask that the developer not be allowed to seal off the new public road for his private gain by putting a strip of land in trust that would seal off the road. We would also request that the developer be made to put up a fence between the project and our property for the following reasons. (1) There is an existing fence the fulllength of the property now. (2) We keep our whole yard neatly maintained and without a fence we feel this nice open space will be an invitation for the children in the subdivision to use it for a playground. Also, the people from the subdivision will think it would be a great place to walk their dogs to take care of theirpotty needs. We do not need these hassles created by this project. We really think it should be a privacy fence. Nothing less than a four foot cyclone fence should be considered if you approve this project. We thank you for your consideration and would like to extend an invitation to all council and board members to stop by our home and see how this proposed project will impact the area." The next letter is from Calvin Hall & Associates, Professional Land Planner and Registered Landscape Architects, which is undated and reads as follows: `Our recommendation that proposed roadway service for Parz-Pallagia of Livonia be placed as close to the 60 foot right-of-way on the east boundary of the property as possible. The roadway should be developed at the minimum width required by the City of Livonia Fire Department. The reason behind our recommendation is due to the fact that a large number of mature pine trees are located on the west side of the property near the property line. Reasonable efforts should be made to preserve these excellent trees. Moving the roadway to the east and limiting the width to the minimum required length may substantially increase the trees'survival. A margin of safety is needed to save the root system from being undercut, as undercutting the root system will destroy the trees. In order to provide the best possible environment for the trees, it will be necessary to keep the roadway as far to the east as possible." The letter is signed by Calvin Hall, 29895 Greenfield 21409 Road, Suite 102, Southfield, Michigan 48076. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Erich DAndrea, Brashear, Tangora & Spence, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. D'Andrea: Just to emphasize the issue regarding the road is really put in place to preserve the greenbelt as was mentioned in the correspondence from Calvin Hall & Associates. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: There are a couple things here that ought to be brought up. Number one is this road business. It should be 31 feel wide. And also Lot 1, it would be much better if it lined up with the current house on this street. Mr. Walsh: Mark, is it possible to bring the Site Plan back up on the screen so we can see it? Mr. Piercecchi: What I'm referring to, Mr. Chairman, is Lot 1, which faces Joy Road. It has a much different setback than the house that is to slay. Plus, it would be much more aesthetic if it lined up with that other house, unless they plan someday on getting did oflhal other house. I'm glad to see that the motion on Lot 3 should be no less than 35 feel. Lot 1 can go north about 15 feel which would handle that setback, and Lot 3 could go east, which would move it away from the roadway giving it about 35 feet. Mr. D'Andrea: We'll certainly entertain that. Mr. Piercecchi: You seem to have kind of a hodgepodge here. One in front, then it's behind, and this one is forward and the next one is back. You have sort of a hodgepodge setup there. I'm just making some suggestions. Mr. D'Andrea: Sure. Mr. Piercecchi: Perhaps it's not flexible. I don't know of any major sewer lines or things of that nature. 21410 Mr. D'Andrea: And I'm not sure either, Mr. Piercecchi, but it's certainly something we can take a look at and see if it's workable. Mr. Piercecchi: And you're going to be doing six units? You call it a seven unit package, but I don't know if that's the thing to do here because otherwise the other one won't comply. Mr. D'Andrea: We will be building six. Mr. Piercecchi: Really, I think it should be a package of six, and the other one is staying. Is that right, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: That's correct. Mr. D'Andrea: That is correct. We're not building seven new. We're building six new and there's an existing unit. Mr. Piercecchi: Its really a six package, otherwise the other one won't be conforming. Mr. D'Andrea: It wont go anywhere. The only thing that may be an issue is there may not be a garage on that second unit. Mr. Piercecchi: That's another issue. That would be down the road. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Mark, I'm still concerned about the cul-de-sac. With the new pumper truck the Fire Department has, do we have enough radius there to get that pumper truck around? Mr. Taormina: The indication from the Fire Department is that this apparatus requires a radius of 50 feet for the paved portion of the roadway. As measured, it does not comply with the 50 feet. Now, what is unique about this design is its shape as compared to a standard cul-de-sac. Nevertheless, I believe that in the end there will have to be some adjustments made to the dimensions of this cul-de-sac in order to fully allow for those vehicles to be able to turnaround. It may actually require the elimination of that island or it may require some additional paving in the southwest corner. I'm not sure. I have not been able to get a final response from our Engineering Division, but there is some concern relative to whether or not this complies with those strict standards as outlined by our Fire Department. Mr. LaPine: I guess my point is, Mark, if it is approved, we can be assured that the cul-de-sac will be developed in such a way that the 21411 pumper will be able to handle that. Apparently that's the one piece of equipment that may not be able to make it around. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: The resolution that has been prepared does address this. It stipulates that the final design specifications be reviewed and approved by both the Engineering Division and the Fire Marshal. Mr. Shane: To the petitioner, are you proposing to have a private road or a public street? Mr. D'Andrea: We actually haven't made a final determination on whether it would be a private road or a public street. I think some of it depends on the comments of the Engineering Division as it relates to this cul-de-sac issue. I also called Mr. Tromblay today. He hadn't done a formal analysis of this cul-de-sac. He just set forth the requirements in speaking with the Engineering Division and reviewing their letter. Correctly or incorrectly, we assumed that the cul-de-sac was fine since there is no direct mention of it now being in compliance, but that's obviously something we're going to follow-up on. I think it may just depend on, from a planning perspective, what is required - whether its a private road or a public road. But we can go either way as to what the preference is from the Planning Department's standpoint. Mr. Shane: Were you proposing to have sidewalks? Mr. D'Andrea: We were not proposing to have sidewalks. Again, the emphasis, at least the attempted emphasis, on this current plan was to preserve that green space as was mentioned - the pine trees mentioned in that correspondence from Cal Hall. If we do move to a sidewalk and a larger road, then there will haw to be some sacrifice in that greenspace. Mr. Taormina: The issue is not whether it's a private road or a public road. The same standards still apply. The road will be are treated as if this were a public subdivision street. So the same standards apply in the case of subdivisions as they do for site condominiums. Mr. Shane: Is he required to have 28 feet? Mr. Taormina: Actually, the width of the road is required to be 31 feet. 21412 Mr. Shane: The Engineering Division says a minimum of 28 feet in their letter. Mr. Taormina: That's true. But that's for a planned development. This is not a planned development. Again, the standards are based on a conventional subdivision even though this is a site condominium. It has to meet the subdivision standards. Mr. Shane: So private or public, you need 31 feet of right -0f --way. Mr. D'Andrea: And I think what was being proposed, if we wanted to save the green space, we wanted to leave that alternative up to the Planning Commission to make a determination if that green space was important or not important for this development. But clearly, we can go to the requirements as you indicated and that will have some effect on the current status of the green space as its being proposed. Mr. Shane: My last question is, were you proposing to have any kind of street lighting? Mr. D'Andrea: Again, that issue relates to the green space in part. We're happy to put in any street lighting that could be suggested by the Planning Commission or Mr. Taormina. That's not an issue. We didn't propose it but it's certainly something we're happy to comply with. Mr. Morrow: I was given to believe that the reason for that road width was because if you go any closer to those trees, it would place them in jeopardy by perhaps disturbing the roots and possibly losing them. Is my memory correct on that? Mr. D'Andrea: I think according to the correspondence that was read, part of the reason for the placement of that road was an attempt to preserve those trees as much as possible. Mr. Morrow: So, in effect, that kind of dictated the width? Mr. D'Andrea: It did have a lot to do with it, Mr. Morrow. The desire was to preserve those trees. We felt they would add something to the ambiance, if that's the correct term, on the subdivision, but that did have something to do with the width of that road. Mr. Morrow : As it relates to the retention pond and the larvicide requirements so it doesn't become a breeding ground for mosquitoes, is the petitioner aware of those requirements? 21413 Mr. D'Andrea: We understand that in accordance with the recent enactments and ordinances that have gone through, that in the bylaws there will be a larvicide requirement for this condominium, which obviously we will insert. It is subject to your approval and City Council approval to ensure that the larvicide plan is put in place and that there is some compliance plan put in place. I don't see any issue with that whatsoever, and the petitioner is aware of that, and we're obviously willing to comply with that. Mr. Morrow: The reason I bring it up is you're aware and we're aware, but sometimes our vast audience is not aware of some of the detail in connection with these retention ponds, and I want to make sure we got that part of it as the public record al this hearing. Mr. D'Andrea: Absolutely, Mr. Morrow: I understand that the existing house will become part of the Association and subject to all the rules and regulations? Mr. D'Andrea: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: If you had to widen the road to 31 feet, how many of those trees would you have to take down? Do they all have to come down or half of them, a quarter of them, a third of them? Do you know at this point? Mr. D'Andrea: Unfortunately, I'm afraid to give an answer because I don't think it would be accurate. I can tell you from some discussions that its not all of them, but I just can't give you the answer with the kind of accuracy I'd like to give you. Mr. LaPine: I guess my position is, I'm for saving trees, especially mature trees like we have here. But on the other hand, I'm looking at the safety issue. I'm for sidewalks. I think we should have sidewalks in every new subdivision we build in the City. I think we need streetlights. I think it's a safely issue. And if it meant to me that I had to knock down half of those trees to accommodate those two issues, I'd be more in favor of doing that than allowing you not to put in sidewalks or street lights. And the other point I'm trying to make here is the fact that once the condo is turned over to the association, down the line the people maybe want street lights. Then they're going to have to pay for them and it will probably be more costly than it would be to do them now. So I have to weigh both those issues. 21414 Mr. Piercecchi: Bill elaborated a great deal on this tree business here. I share the save the tree business, but the sidewalks are important and the street lights are important, plus you can always plant more trees. But there's another item that l wanted to discuss here. In your Master Deed, you say that the exterior building materials may include wood, limited amounts of vinyl siding, and textured plywood siding such as T-111, brick and stone, but no brick laminate. You are aware that for a customary ranch home in Livonia we generally expect 80% brick, and yet you totally bypass that by just mentioning different types of materials. What amount of brick are you talking about here? Mr. D'Andrea: I didn't prepare those specific ones, and if I did, they're an old draft. What I believe the requirement to be, and I hope I'm not misstating it, but I thought on my other projects in Livonia, it's been 65% generally brick required. Mr. Piercecchi: For two stories, it's 65%. Mr. D'Andrea: Whatever the requirement is, obviously we will comply with it. If its an 80% requirement, as long as we're being consistent with whatever the previous subdivision approvals have been, that's obviously something we will comply with. Mr. Walsh: Just for clarification, there's a difference between what our ordinance requires and what we've been asking in the past three or four years. Mr. Piercecchi: We dont have any problem with the 80%. Sometimes on a two story, we have a little problem because of styling, 55%, but if they do the two story, the whole front in brick, then it meets the 65% requirement. But are you prepared? Is there any problem with that 80% requirement? Mr. D'Andrea: I would actually have to speak with the client, but I think that we'll certainly slay within whatever your expectations were, which from some of my research in the past, again I'm just going to say, it looks like it ranges from 55% to 80%. It tends to be what the requirements have been, so we'll certainly ... Mr. Piercecchi: There are good reasons for this because it keeps our city looking nice and prim. Siding and all that is fine, but brick lasts forever. You know that and neighborhoods, they could deteriorate internally, but externally, they're permanent. It's a permanent structure when you put it in brick. The motion 21415 probably tonight will be that it would be 80%. Somebody will add that into the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Smiley: Is there some reason that you needed a sign that is twice the size that's allowed? Mr. D'Andrea: Not at all. We'll fix that. We'll reduce that to the 20 fool requirement. Not aproblem. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Don Devore, 8853 Russell. This is in the curved subdivision adjoining this piece of property. I back right up to it. This row of people here represents everyone around this piece of properly. Obviously, there's some great concern here about rezoning this. When this first started, we had a notice that talked about rezoning from RUF to R-1. The notice we got for tonight just mentions approval of the Master Deed. Have we bypassed the zoning part of this, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Miller, if you could summarize again the process. He had given that at the beginning of the presentation. Mr. Miller: Presently, it's going through the process of being rezoned. The Council has held First Reading and they are holding up the Second Reading and the Roll Call vole unfil the site plan catches up so that it can run concurrently. It's still going through the process. Mr. Devore: All right. I'm sure everyone on the Planning Commission is aware that there is a valid protest to this. I've added a couple names of people. A couple people have moved out and some new people have taken their place. They signed. If you want, I can give you this additional information. Mr. Walsh: If you give it to Mr. Nowak, we will make it part of the record. Mr. Devore: Again, our concerns are all still the same. We're talking about a retention pond right behind a couple of these homes. That, of course, brings up the mosquito issue that Mr. Morrow brought up. And also, another thing, we were just talking to Mr. Piercecchi about brick homes. In the curved subdivision, the homes are 100% brick. If they're talking about 20% brick or whatever, they're not actually going to fl into that neighborhood. I'm sure you've all read the petition and what our concerns are - 21418 the same concerns. The police have concerns about the sidewalks, the Fire Department about turning the vehicles around, the bus situation as far as picking kids up on the bus. Again, all the concerns that we have remain the same as when we first made our petition and submitted it to the City Planning Commission last March. I don't know if I can add any more to that. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions? Thank you, sir, for joining us this evening. We appreciate it. Darwin Glass, 35380 Joy Road. My property abuts up to the west side of the property. I've lived there over 30 years, and I don't know about everybody else, but this is like planting an IMAX theater next to my properly, invading my privacy really. Its been so private around there. I just wish that you guys would take it into consideration before you vole on this. The greenbelt part, is that's going to be private or will the City own that if this goes through? Mr. Walsh: The greenbelt? Mr. Glass: The five feel, whatever is going to be left over there. Yes, between the road and my property line. Mr. Miller: Right here? Mr. Glass: Yes. Is that going to become City property? Mr. Walsh: Actually, that will be owned by the condominium development. Is that correct, Mark? Mr. Taormina: I think there are two areas. There's the nghl-0f-way which is the area including the roadway up to a line that is offset about five feel from the west property line, which is the lot line that is shared by Mr. Glass. And there is a strip of land that shows on this site plan that extends from south to north, not quite the full length of the road right-of-way. It's five feel, and I'm not sure if its indicated on the plan what that property would be or not, but it does not appear to be part of the nghl-0f-way, nor is it part of one of the described units. It would lead me to believe that its part of what would be a common area within the association. Mr. Walsh: Mr. D'Andrea, can you confirm that? 21417 Mr. D'Andrea: That's correct. That would be a common element of the association and would be effectively owned by the association. Mr. Walsh: There's your answer on that point, at least as proposed. Mr. Glass: Thank you. Reverend Wayne Jorgenson, 35240 Joy Road. This is directly east of this planned project. We have lived there for 20 years and to my knowledge, everyone in this area, the people on Joy Road in Livonia, the people on Joy Road in Westland, and then the homeowners north of this proposed project, are thoroughly opposed to its implementation. We live in a residential area. They are all residential homes. There are no condominiums in this area. We further have our deepest reservations about the proposed mosquito pond that the developer wants to put in there. We have enough mosquitoes in our area without having this pond, regardless of the larvicides that are promised on this issue. No one came to see us, no one from the developing company, came to see us about our thoughts about this project. To quote two of the things that the developer said, there may be a sacrifice of green space and he wants to preserve trees as much as possible. This all sounds inappropriately vague to me. I don't know how much of a carte blanche you give to a developer when he doesn't have these direct answers to the kinds of questions that you proposed this evening. So I simply feel that I voice all the concerns of the people that live in this area that we are adamantly opposed to this project. Michael Thomson, 8889 Russell. I live directly behind the retention pond to the right in the very corner. When I moved in only seven years ago, I had problems with the deterioration of my garage foundation. There's a two and half to three footdrop off between the back of my property and where that retention pond is. What they did in 1958, when the subdivision was built, is they built up railroad ties and they built up all that foundation, dirt, for proper drainage and what have you. What I see now is even further deterioration of my property by putting this type of retention pond directly behind my garage, which I'm still trying to save, by the way. I dont know if you all have been out to see that site and see what it realty looks like, but there's quite a severe drop off. That area needs to be built up, not removed. Don Allen, 35216 Joy Road. I live on the Livonia side of Joy Road. I've been there for 35 years. When I first moved out here, Livonia was one of the biggest cities in area in the country. We moved out 21418 here from Detroit and at that time, there was quite a flow of Detroilers who came out here. I was born and mised in Detroit. This address where I live, the house that we own, my wife and 1, who's silting the audience, is on a 72 fool frontage. Actually it was subdivided in 60 fool lots. The builder that came through there then decided 60 fool wasn't enough for a house, so he made the lots with a portion. So my house sits on two different lots, 12 feel of one lot and 60 feel of another lot. I had the foresight them to buy the lot next door to my house, which also has 72 feel. That's why I moved out here and I bought that lot for one simple reason. We live across the street from Holiday Park or whatever their name is. That will be there for 99 years. I'm not loo familiar with the laws that govern that when it goes back to Westland, but I think in time I will. But that's not why I moved here. I moved here for privacy and I have privacy now because I have that lot and also because I'm a garden nut. I have a Iitfle garden on the back end of that lot. I'm proud to say that is the only remaining lot from Wayne Road to Newburgh that I know of. All the rest of the lots have been built by some entrepreneur that wants to make a buck. The thing that discouraged me tonight, and I haven't heard it mentioned, is the traffic problem on that street now and on that corner. If you look between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail and the pause between the lights, I wish all you people if you use that area, that's a shortcut to the expressway. Not only that, there's another project on the books on the corner of Joy Road and Wayne on the Westland side. Again, Father James mentioned the fact you didn't contact us or give us any reason for this addition of houses. For every house that they decide to build there, that involves two cars. There's more of a concern in my view on the traffic problem that is there. Plus one of the other speakers here said, the school bus is involved because they are drop offs and pick ups there for children that go to Churchill High School where our children went to school. There is no sidewalk continually all the way down there. I think the last sidewalk is in front of Reverend James' house. So other than the traffic problems created in several spots, on Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road and to the shopping center, those cars get backed up. There's a left turn lane there and a right turn lane, and a staggered light up on lop. If you want to count people going through the red light, go down to Joy Road and Wayne and you better be able to count to 100. Thank you very much for your time. Patrician Jorgenson, 35240 Joy Road. I'm Reverend Jorgenson's wife. We live on Joy Road east of the proposed condominium site. My first 21419 remark is for Mr. Allen, in continuation with his, that the traffic is very bad there. We have Churchill High School down the road around the corner. We cannot gel out of our driveway or in our driveway sometimes without going the wrong direction to try to gel to our house because we have Churchill traffic there, and it is backed up. My second thought on this is the house that they propose building in between the existing home and our home, its going to be on lop of our home. We have a quad level, and they're going to put a one-story level and we're going to be next to each other. We enjoy the open spaces. The sewage and the flooding problems - we've had flooding problems. Are they going to connect the sewage into our line, the main sewer in back of our house, which we already allowed for the one existing house that's on that property because they had flooding with septic tanks, so they came into our sewer line. So is that going to flood my basement more? Mr. Walsh: They do have requirements. We can't address flooding or no flooding, but they are required under law to handle the water on that properly. This body does not deal with that. The Council will deal with that in detail. All I can tell you is that development laws require them to deal with the water on their properly. Mrs. Jorgenson: But are they going to connect that sewer line into the one behind my properly, all those condominiums, or are they going to run another line into the main? Mr. Walsh: Al this point, I don't know that. The petitioner will have an opportunity to speak at the end and perhaps they can address that issue for you. Again, should this progress, that would be covered in greater detail at the Council level. Mrs. Jorgenson: Okay. And then I just want to mention that we've enjoyed a wonderful neighborhood. This gentleman came, bought this land, never lived in il, he was supposed to have his son live in it. Its a residential area. He obviously, for whatever reason, decided to come in and our wonderful neighborhood is now going to who knows what. Are they going sell these? Are these people going to be in and out like apartments, or what's our neighborhood going to be like? Mr. Piercecchi: We should tell this audience that the Planning Commission did not go along with the rezoning on this. We voted no on it. So you cant blame us for the rezoning on it. 21420 Jim Richardson, 38460 Joy Road. That's four RUF lots west of this proposal. I have three concerns with this. One is, power to all of these lots run through the middle of yard, about 35 feel from behind my house. I have a telephone pole on my lot now that carnes the electric, the cable and the telephone lines. I imagine these seven houses are going to require power, cable and telephone. I assume that's going to add on the lines that run behind my house. I would not like to see any additional poles put on my lot, and I'm sure my neighbors wouldn't want to see any on theirs. That's one concern. Traffic, which was already mentioned. It's very busy now. Joy Road is a two-lane road. Its a county road. I would not like to see additional traffic. My kids walk to the school bus along Joy Road. The other concern is, I think from the sidewalk on the plan that was shown up here on this proposal to Joy Road, there's about 17 feel of frontage that's currently part of the lot. I think he's got to give that to either the City or the county. I'm not sure. The adjoining lots, we still own that 17 feel. If they ever want to make Joy Road a four -lane road or a larger road, I'm sure they're going to want to take my 17 feel off my 175 feel of frontage. I don't want to lose that in the future. The more RUF lots that remain the same, the less likely I'll lose any of my properly in the future. Those are my three concerns. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to ask the petitioner to approach the stand and have the opportunity to respond and have the Iasi word. Again, the commissioners would have an opportunity to question the petitioner. Mr. D'Andrea: I think there may be a little confusion about what condominium means. It's essentially going to be very similar to the neighborhood in which they currently live, and I think it is going to be an opportunity for new citizens to come into Livonia and enjoy the amenities that they've enjoyed all these years from the City of Livonia. Mr. LaPine: There seems to be a lot of concern about the retention pond. Has your client given any consideration to an underground holding facility? Mr. D'Andrea: The retention pond actually isn't going to hold water. I think there's some confusion about that loo. Our engineers indicate that when there is a heavy min and the retention pond is, in fad, used, that it will drain within 16 hours. So there will be a point in time when there is water in it, but for the most part, as I 21421 understand it, with the way this is being designed, it will not be a retention pond that is constantly holding water. So this concern, which we can understand about mosquitoes, I don't think will be as large a concern because there won't be standing water. In addition to the larvicide program, I think that will clearly eliminate that issue. Mr. LaPine: The point you make is probably true. It won't be holding water all the time. But the soil will be damp all the time, which still would attract mosquitoes. Maybe I'm wrong. With the underground system, that could be all grass and a common area for the condos. Mr. D'Andrea: Actually, I think a report came from some department within the City of Livonia dealing with this issue. There is some question. I think ultimately this question comes down about the Nile Virus when we talk about mosquitoes, whether mosquitoes that develop in these types of ponds are actually the type that harvest this Nile River disease or whatever it is. There seems to be some indication that, in fact, it isn't. I do have that somewhere in my file. But I think it has actually come through one of the departments indicating that not all of these ponds, and this is one that doesn't necessarily harvest that kind of mosquito. I don't know the research or the science behind il, but I have read that. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Al this point, your client has not considered putting in an underground retention basin? Mr. D'Andrea: No. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, I'm going to seek a motion. Mr. Shane: I'm going to offer a tabling resolution for the reason that there's a lot of things that haven't been answered, particularly with respect to the width of the road and the size of the cul-de-sac and whether or not there will be sidewalks, etc. The petitioner does not seem to have a lot of answers. I think because of that, we need to study this a bit longer. 21422 On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was #06-84-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2004-05-08-10 submitted by The Parz Group, on behalf of Parz-Pallagia Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property located at 35300 Joy Road in the Southwest % of Section 33, be tabled. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, LaPine, Piercecchi, Smiley NAYES: Morrow, Walsh ABSTAIN: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. This item will be tabled to a date uncertain. I would suggest that the petitioner contact the Planning Department and address the open issues. We will reschedule this hearing again. Ladies and gentlemen, what we've done is tabled this item to address some of the issues that were brought forward this evening. You will be notified again, as you were for this meeting, when we will have another meeting to air these issues. ITEM #2 PETITION 200405-08-11 MAPLE WOODS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 05-08-11 submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Maple Woods Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property located at 20151 Gill Road in the Northwest % of Section 4. Mr. Walsh: I'd like to note that Mr. Alanskas has rejoined us at 824. Mr. Miller, could you please give us a review? Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to develop an eight -unit site condominium, called Maple Woods Site Condominiums, on property located on the west side of Gill Road between Navin 21423 Avenue and Eight Mile Road. Access would be provided from a new 50 fool wide street that would be developed within the condominium subdivision. The R-3 zoning district requires each lot shall have a minimum land area of 9,600 square feel, a minimum lot width of 80 feel, and a minimum lot depth of 120 feel. All the proposed condominium lots meet or exceed the lot size requirements of an R-3 zoning district. The Site Plan shows a 15 -fool drain age easement. Within this easement are catch basins, yard basins and storm sewers. According to the pefifioner, the storm water will be retained within properly sized sewer pipes within this proposed easement. The construction of a sidewalk is required within the right-of-way of the proposed street. In addition, the petitioner may want to include an easement for the construction and maintenance of a subdivision identification marker. A copy of the Master Deed and bylaws for Maple Woods has been submitted for review. The bylaws specify that the minimum size standards for a one-story ranch would be 1,800 square feel and 2,200 square feel for a multi- story dwelling. All single-family dwellings would have a two -car attached garage. The first floor and chimney of each unit would be brick on all four sides, with the total amount of brick on each dwelling not being less than 80% on one-story dwellings and 55% on two-story dwellings. All the brick used in construction would be full face, four inch brick. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 6, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. Additional right -0f --way for Gill Road is not required at this time. The legal description of the parcel has an extra repeated phrase 'south line of in the fifth line. If this development proceeds as a site condominium, detention will be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. There is no indication on the current plan of how this will be accomplished. The Fire Department's new pumper requires a 50 -foot outside radius for the cul-de-sac pavement, which, in tum, requires a minimum 60 - foot radius for the right -0f --way line. This will require the revision of the front unit lines of units 2,3,4,and 5." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 8, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium development on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be 21424 provided and located with spacing consistent with residential areas. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) Standard for residential cul-de- sacs is 50' with a minimum right -0f --way radius of 60'to provide for sidewalks and utilities." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 10, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans as submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property located at 20151 Gill Road. We recommend that sidewalks be constructed in order to reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and to better promote pedestrian safety. There is no indication that streetlights art; planned for this site. We recommend that streetlights be installed along the proposed street to enhance public safety. One stop sign should also be installed for vehicles exiting onto Gill Road." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 4, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 25, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There is no proposed open land for recreational use for this development per Chapter 16 of the Livonia Code. The amount required is 6,480 square feet minimum. (2) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? William Roskelly, 33177 SchoolcraR, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1 am representing Mr. Soave who is in the audience. This is like a replay of the last letters, and I hope I have some answers for you. So regarding the first letter, regarding the open space, it's not uncommon and has been the precedent in this city that when you have a small subdivision, rather than want a certain number of square feet, in this specific case it would be 7,200 square feel would be required, actually 6,480 square feel per lot. So they are requiring 6,480 square feet. I am sure the City of Livonia does not want a patch of land that's going to be that small, which in no way can be connected to a contiguous park. You would have liability, maintenance, upkeep, and the precedent has been, and I would hope the same, its going to be waived. This I certainly would ask that you would recommend to waive that restriction. The other reason being there are nine sites in this condominium, eight plus the one which still would be treated as part of this unit. It has a square footage of 117,573 feet in 21425 the nine sites. The minimum requirement would be 86,400 or 9,600 square feet per site, which means we have surplus of 31,000 square feet, which I would consider adequate to say that is the open space. It's in each lot but it's not a separate thing that the City would have to lake care of. Then they asked for signage. We feel as though we would prefer not to have a sign on this small subdivision unless it's demanded. It's a half mile road, but it's nine sites and we feel that there's really no need for identification for these nine sites. If it is, we will put it in. The second letter being from the Police Chief. Sheet right-of-way is okay. I guess you heard where we propose to construct his condominium, we recommend street lights. We have no problem al all. We will definitely put the street lights in. As far as the third letter, which was from Livonia Fire and Rescue, they speak of adequate hydrants. Presently, as I understand the coordinates, as the hose goes, a hydrant has to be 300 feet from the furthest point of the building. At this time, we have one on Gill Road on the east side of the road and one in the cul-de- sac, which would cover this. But if for some reason the Fire Department wants another hydrant, we would certainly put that in. He also speaks of the cul-de-sac and the 50 fool minimum right-of-way. We had 55 but because of your big new fire apparatus, they are recommending the nghl-0f--way be 60. So we could put sidewalks on both sides and around the cul-de- sac, and we will do that. My drawing shows 55 but that will be increased to 60. The third letter from the Engineer and I'd like to point out something here. The last gentleman indicated he was not going to have a wet pond. I can inform you, and I think I'm correct when I say that in Wayne County, if you have a retention basin, you must have a wet pond and it must always carry three feel of water or more. So there will be no dryponds. That's Wayne County's requirements. In our specific case, whatever requirement we have, we will do it underground. I think I've answered most of the glitches here, and I would hope we've all understood this. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly, just to clear something up in my mind, did you indicate that the lot split that's pending will remain part of the condominium association or will that be exempt from the condominium association? Mr. Roskelly: The reason for the split at this time is so he can gel a model started on that piece of land, which would be permitted if this were not to proceed. But I certainly believe that it should ultimately be in tandem and part of the condominium to be 21426 known as Site 1 of this condominium or whatever the number should be. Do you agree, Mr. Soave? Yes, I feel it should be. Mr. Morrow: I guess that's what I wanted clarified. I want to know the reason for the lot split. Mr. Roskelly: The reason is so that they can get a sidwell number so they can start a building. Mr. Morrow: But it will become a part of the condominium site? Mr. Roskelly: It will ultimately be part of it. Now the thing I'd like to point out is, here's a piece of land that has a very large house on it. I convinced Mr. Soave he either has to move it or tear it down. As it now stands, it will be tom down. There are also two buildings that are becoming somewhat unsightly, so we'd be removing those buildings. I think it will be an excellent project. We comply with all your rules, and I would hope that you would be kind of enough and agree and approve it. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I've always had a concern ever since he's been in here on this project about those beautiful maple trees. I've been told they're going to stay, I've been told they're going to try and save some of them, I've been told he's going to have to take them all down. Its a shame to see those beautiful trees be taken down. Mr. Roskelly: Through the chair to Mr. LaPine, because I've been doing donuts over the same item, I'm going to ask Mr. Soave to come up and lel the horse tell us what's going to happen to them. Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Thank you very much. Mr. LaPine, on the south of the road, those red maples, we have to change the grades on-site. As we build the site, we're going to try and save those trees. That's our goal. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Soave: Even after the project is up, if we have to trim them to safisfy some approaches, we'll do that loo. Mr. LaPine: Verygood. I'm glad to hear that. Ms. Smiley: What will be the price range of homes? Let's say the ranch? Mr. Soave: Those homes will go from $350,000 to about $420,000, about the same as what's there now. 21427 Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for v against this petition? Mane Vella, 20226 Laurel. My home is directly behind the back oflhis property. One concern is, I'm just questioning, originally this was coming through as a residential subdivision. My concern is, why is it changing to condominiums? Mr. Walsh: Ma'm, I can address that. It's a method of development. There are different ways to create a neighborhood. They are creating single family homes according to their petition, but they are using a Condominium Act, a law, to do it. You will not have multiply family residences. You will single family homes on property, like a normal home, that's owned by the property owner and then a small amount of common land. But its not multi -family. They are for all intents and purposes, except for the process, single family homes. Ms. Vella : So even though they would be condominiums, they would still be governed by the same laws and the same zoning as single family homes concerning sidewalks? Mr. Walsh: We actually build that in. Because of the way the law works, we have the right to impose all of our requirements on this property through the bylaws and the master deed. Ms. Vella : So the requirements for a residential home or a residential subdivision are automatically transferred to a condominium site? Mr. Walsh: We act upon their bylaws and deed restrictions so that they are similar in nature to the laws that govern a normal neighborhood. Its not automatic. We have to affirmatively adopt their bylaws and their deeds, which we do as a routine course. Ms. Vella : Okay. Also, will it be in writing, the retention basin? I know Mr. Roskelly mentioned that it was going to be an underground system, but is it just verbal or is it going to be in writing? Mr. Walsh: Oh, no. Its part of the site plan. It's written in their site plans and, assuming that it's approved here and assuming that it's approved at the Council level, they have to build according to the site plan that is filed with the City, which includes their underground drainage requirement. 21428 Ms. Vella: Okay, so if it's approved initially, can it be changed? My concern is, it's approved and then through the construction process, it can change. Mr. Walsh: They would have to come back. They would start all over again. They'd have to come back for our approval and the Council approval. You would be notified. It is not an easily done or secretly done process. Ms. Vella: Okay. Thankyou. Pal Quinn, 34625 Norfolk. I'm confused about condominiums and residential homes. I know you tried to explain it, Mr. Walsh, but we were told originally these were going to be individual homes, not condominiums. Mr. Walsh: Again, these are, for all intents and purposes, when you drive by, when they're governed, when people live there, they are single family homes. Only single families can live in them. They have their own property. It is not commonly owned. Their yards are owned by themselves. There might be some common property on the site, but the individual home lots, just like your yard or my yard, are individually owned. Developers are making use of the Condominium Act because in some ways it's easier than the Plat Act in pursuing their development. Ms. Quinn: What do you mean by that? Mr. Walsh: In terms of timing and flings, what they have to do to gel their development moving forward. Ms. Quinn: Restrictions are less? Mr. Walsh: No, no. Because in return for that, the City has the right to approve the deed and the bylaw restrictions that govern the property. We've approved a great many of these. The common opinion is that our rights are strengthened as a City by the opportunity to approve their bylaws and their master deed restrictions. Mr. Morrow: I know its confusing. Now you live on Norfolk, so you're probably on a larger lot. But the subdivisions around these homes will be on lots equal to or greater than all the homes you see around. Ms. Quinn: How big are the lots? 21429 Mr. Morrow: R-3 or exceeding R-3. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: That is correct. They match the Deer Creek Subdivision zoning. Mr. Morrow: So if you look at that subdivision after it's developed, you won't be able to tell the difference between other subdivisions around it and this one. It's just a way of splitting land off, whether it's through the Condominium Act or through the Plat Act. You wind up with the same thing. As Mr. Walsh pointed out, there will be a little common area, but I'm sure that most of the people are going to be laking care of their own lots and all their land and everything like that. Ms. Quinn: They will take care of it? Individuals will lake care of their property? Mr. Morrow: We will let them address that, but a lot of times that's the case. Ms. Quinn: Why are they condominiums then? Mr. Roskelly: First of all, number one, if we were going with a regular, normal recorded plat or subdivision, we're merely doing this as a condominium for the simple number one reason, to go through the process lakes approximately six to nine months opposed to a year or a year and a half to go through a bona fide plat or subdivision as you know it. The condominium itself is stronger and more forceful than a subdivision simply because in addition to all the requirements the City of Livonia has for R-3 districts, we have to adhere to all of those rules that you have and in addition to that, we have extra rules that says everybody that lives on these lots have to pay into the association to have, for instance, in the center we have a cul-de-sac that will have trees and plantings that has to be taken care of. In most cases, the sidewalks in the condominium are taken care by a contractor/ So each person that's living in this house has total control over his lot as you do. The only exception is that as far as cleaning the sidewalks, you have somebody do that. The condominium also takes care of the island, which is plantings and trees. If any of the trees die, they take care of them. Again, any of these utilities that the City doesn't take care, the condominium association does. Soil's stronger than just the requirements of a subdivision. Ms. Quinn: Will they be culling their own lawn and the association won't have anything lodowilh d? 21430 Mr. Roskelly: They could if they so desire. In most cases, people cut their own lawns. But in some condominiums, if the people choose, they can gel somebody to cut the grass and fertilize or do anything they want. But at least they take care of the street right-of-way and this island and the trees and shrubs. Mr. Shane: Maybe to just simplify this a little bit more, I think of a condominium as not so much a type of development as it is a way of selling and purchasing property or developing property. You're not going to know the difference between this and the subdivision around you. Ms. Quinn: I hope not. Mr. Roskelly: In addition to all the rules you people live by, we have an added burden because of the condominium rules that far supercede the requirements of the City itself. Ms. Quinn: Well, I hope you live up to it. You talk a good talk. Mr. Roskelly: But it's etched in stone, Ma'm. It will be in the documents. Mr. Walsh: Correct. Thank you, Mr, Roskelly. It is part of the record. Are there any other people in the audience? Seeing none, Mr. Roskelly is there anything you'd like to add? Any additional comments from the Commissioners? Seeing none, I'll seek a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-85-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-05-08-11 submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Maple Woods Site Condominiums, requesting approval ofthe Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property located at 20151 Gill Road in the Northwest % of Section 4, be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and to the following additional conditions: 1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.0416.40 of the Livonia Code of 21431 Ordinances, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, except for the fact the following shall be incorporated: That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story dwellings; That all exterior chimneys shall be brick; 2. That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full -face four inch (4") brick; 3. That the structure to be built on the lot identified as "Lot Split Pending' shall correspond in architectural design, be constructed out of the same building materials and have the same percentage of brick as the site condominiums of Maple Woods; 4. That the homes on the two (2) corner lots shall face Gill Road, except that driveway access may be provided from the proposed street; 5. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; 6. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owner's properly pro-reta and place said charges on their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia; 21432 7. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 with a revision date of June 10, 2004, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; B. Except as may otherwise be expressly authorized by Council resolution, the proposed road shall comply with the minimum design specifications for minor residential streets pursuant to Chapter 16.24 of the Code of Ordinances; 9. That the developer shall be required to construct a sidewalk in accordance with the subdivision regulations unless waived by City Council; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated June 10, 2004: That streetlights shall be installed along the proposed street to enhance public safety; That a STOP sign shall be installed at the Gill Road exit; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated June 8, 2004: That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with residential areas. Most remote hydrant shall low 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI; 12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan; 13. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 14. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surely bonds which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the 21433 issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Y Y =1 1i FR)• 9 =k I It I [a] � FIQf Y,Sf1•EH -IDk)_ XexON_FI-ION Ie\ I * : Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 05 -GB -03, submitted by F.O.C. Associates requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 27550 Joy Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 36. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between commercial zoned property and land zoned residential. This property abuts residential along its north property line. The submitted plan shows that the petitioner is proposing a 100 -fool greenbelt buffer along the north property line. A note on the plan indicates that the existing dense wooded area would provide screening and would be left in its natural stale. This property measures 450 feet deep by 116 feet wide. The existing building on the site sits up close to Joy Road, approximately 60 feet back. The site's parking lot is situated behind the building. An on-site inspection showed that the back area, including the parking lot, is pretty heavily concealed by trees. The abutting residential property to the north (8883 Inkster) is a very deep lot, approximately 700 feel in depth back from Inkster Road. The house that is located on this property is positioned up near Inkster Road and is over 300 feel from the rear lot line of the subject property. Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated May 28, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 19, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. On a site visit this week several conditions exist that need correction and art; as follows: (1) Grass needs to be cut. (2) A dead tree behind building needs replacement or removal. (3) Remnants of an old metal accessory building were placed behind the dumpster enclosure and need to be removed from site. (4) Several asphalt curbs need repair. (5) The parking 21434 area needs repair especially by the storm water inlets. (6) The required parking needs to be double striped. (7) The exterior building upper fagade requires painting and/or staining this year. The Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Dr. Eric Coffman, Coffman & Fox, F.O.C. Associates, 27550 Joy Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Dr. Coffman: Basically, its pretty straightforward. It's a medical facility. Our use of the property is toward the south end of the property. We never planned to develop and have no plans for future development of the north end of the property, which is the apparent area of concem. That area is a dense wooded area that not only blocks noise and light, but even in the wintertime when there is no foliage, I have tried in the past and I'm unable to walk through there because it's so dense. So I can't even see the neighbors' homes nor can I hear any activity from the neighbors' homes. On previous occasions, I've driven around the block to observe what it would look like from that end, and it's just a dense wooded area. You can't see my building or cars in my parking lot or anything. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Alanskas: Are there any snakes in there being its so dense? Dr. Coffman: I hope not. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I will seek a motion. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-86-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 2004 -05 -GB -03, submitted by F.O.C. Associates, requesting to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 27550 Joy Road in the Southeast % of Section 36, for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions: 21435 1. That one hundred feel (100') of natural landscaped greenbelt along the north properly line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on May 17, 2004, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That this dense natural vegetation not only provides a superior buffer but also contributes to the site's aesthetic attractiveness, helps reduce Nsual monotony, and offers year-round appeal; 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 28, 2004: a) That the grass shall be cul; b) That the dead tree behind the building shall be replaced or removed; c) That the remnants of an old metal accessory building located behind the dumpsler enclosure shall be removed from the site; d) That any deteriorating curbs shall be repaired; e) That the parking area needs repair especially by the storm water inlets; f) That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; g) That the exterior building upper facade shall be painted and/or stained; and 4. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission for their review and approval or immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? 21436 Mr. LaPine: Could I just make one correction? Under Item 3 where it says, "the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined," underneath that there's four items. I would like to replace all that by a, b, c, d, e, f, g from the letter from the Inspection Department dated May 28 because there's an item on the Inspection Department letter that's not on here. I want to make sure that's take care of, especially the "exterior building upper facade requires painting and/or staining this year" and they talk especially about the storm water inlets. So replace that just with that those other items, a through g. I think will take care of that. Mr. Alanskas: That would be fine. Mr. Walsh: We have acceptance by the maker and of course that was suggested by the person that seconded it. Any further discussion? Would the secretary please call the roll? The motion passes. If you wish to discuss those requirements, you can contact the Planning Department and they can help you with that. Dr. Coffman: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item? Y1=1 k5 FE, !»IYIN]OFAlIrEISrSIEel =IIJJP�9101=1.1;1rZrr] 1=1]L1:i10I=1:A: Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 01 -GB -02 00401 -GB -02 submitted by Pinebrooke Partners, on behalf of Pinebrooke Office Park, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 20200-20246 Farmington Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #06-87-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2004 -01 -GB -02, submitted by 21437 Pinebrooke Partners requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 20200-20246 Farmington Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3, be removed from the table. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Farmington between Norfolk and Eight Mile. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the prolective wall that is required between office zoned property and land zoned residential. This property abuts residential along its east property line. North of this property is the restaurant, Rosa's Italian Chophouse (formerly the Leather Bottle). The submitted plan shows that along the east property line there is a 30 R. wide greenbelt easement and an adjacent 30 ft. wide road easement. Combined these two easements provide a 60 R. wide buffer between the office development and neighboring residential homes. The landscaped greenbelt somewhat spreads out and encroaches into the road easement section, making it closer to 45 ft. in width. The greenbelt is made up of a three foot high earth berm on which a variety of trees are planted. According to the plan's Supplemental Plantings List, five Serbian spruce and five While pines would be added to and incorporated into tie existing planting scheme. A note on the plan indicates that the site has underground sprinklers. The road easement portion consists of a gravel driveway that permits access to one of the houses behind the office complex. According to the Ordinance, a prolective wall is required to be erected along the zoning line. In this case, the zoning line is on the east side of the gravel driveway. If a wall were installed, it would separate the residential from the driveway and an opening would have to be available to permit access to the home. If the wall were erected on the west side of the driveway, then the problem arises as to who is responsible for maintaining the small sliver of property between the wall and the adjoining property. Al the February 3, 2004 Study Meeting, the Planning Commission tabled this item in order to be able to see the greenbelt at its full capacity in the summertime. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No, there is not. 21438 Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? James Szkrybalo, 14894 Brookfield, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I am here on behalf of Pinebrooke Partners. A little bit of history. Pinebrooke was built in 1989. Al that time, a variance was given for this greenbelt. It was renewed I believe in 1995. Permission was given again to continue the greenbelt. And now we are here again because the permission has expired. I understand this time it might be given permanent status. There were a few dead trees and bushes there that were cleaned out. It was January so we couldn't tell what was growing and what wasn't growing. Now everything has been restored. I got a little ahead of myself. I wanted to welcome Mr. Morrow back from the wilderness. Welcome back to Livonia. Mr. Walsh, I haven't been here since you've come back to the Commission, and Ms. Smiley, it's nice to meet you. We ask for approval. Pinebrooke is a nice project. If you seen it, we saved 95% of pine trees that were on the existing premises. Most of those pine needles were right on the roof and down into the gutters, and there is substantial cost, but we think it's an attmctive site. We tryto be good citizens in Livonia and maintain the landscape plan. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: Through all your waivers, have you ever had any negative feedback from your adjoining neighbors? Mr. Szkrybalo: No. The gravel road to the east is actually owned by the existing building on Norfolk. That's called Westmore Street. I've never had any problems with the neighbors. To the north is the old Leather Bottle and subsequent names. The neighbors have liked us and we like them. Mr. Morrow: So all you're doing is refurbishing your greenbelt and looking for a permanent waiver? Mr. Szkrybalo: Yes. That's what we're looking for. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I will ask for a motion. 21439 On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-88-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -01 -GB -02 submitted by Pinebrooke Partners, on behalf of Pinebrooke Office Park, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as ou0ined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 2 02 00-2 0246 Farmington Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaped greenbelt along the east property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2004, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That using a combination of tree species, along with other landscape materials, not only provides a superior buffer but also contributes to the site's aesthetic attractiveness, helps reduce visual monotony, and offers year-round appeal; 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 3, 2004: That any deteriorating areas of the parking lot shall be repaired and resealed; and 4. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission for their review and approval or immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21440 YY=11i E4�9=k1III 1[a]C FIQrLSLff6bkl9=k 0=1114RSIS]1J9ttOL'J=111!10 Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 04-02-24, submitted by Pete Wood Plumbing requesting waiver use approval to expand outdoor storage for contractors to store commeroial vehicles at 31675 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 3. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-89-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2004-04-02-24, submitted by Pete Wood Plumbing, requesting waiver use approval to expand outdoor storage for contractors to store commercial vehicles at 31675 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 3, be removed from the table Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: I'll provide some brief background. This item was tabled at the June 1 public hearing in order to allow the petitioner some time to more clearly define his proposed utilization of the outside storage area. The petitioner has submitted a revised plan that addresses some of the Planning Commission's concerns. The rear yard storage area on the new plan is divided into three sections. These sections all would allow for vehicle storage based on the type and maximum size of the vehicles. The south section, which corresponds to the southerly 20 feet of the rear yard, would be designated for parking of vehicles up to a maximum of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. Then there is the north section, which corresponds to the northerly 20 feet of the rear yard area that's adjacent to the building, that would be designated for parking of vehicles between 19,500 and 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. So these would be larger vehicles positioned closer to the building and thus further away from the south property line, which abuts to the residential. Also, there is a middle section that would be available for parking vehicles up to a maximum size of 19,500 pounds gross vehicle weight. The petitioner also provides some general notes on his plans that deal with such issues as prohibiting maintenance and repair of vehicles and equipment, prohibiting the storage of debris and bulk materials, as well as indicating what the normal hours of operation would be, and that's from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 21441 except for emergencies. I'll answer any questions you might have atthis time. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? If not, is the petitioner here this evening? Pete Wood, 31675 West Eight Mile, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add? Mr. Wood: Not at this time. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, we received your plan, and I don't want to dwell on it, but I did some research on some of the areas that you had and some of the class trucks that you're putting in there, in particular your north section. You've got category 6 if I'm not mistaken there? Mr. Wood: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Twenty feet is not enough for those. The average is somewhere between 23 and 33 feel, that line of vehicles according to my sources in Sterling Heights. But the question that I have that's bothering me is, what are going to be your hours of operation? Is that going to be a 24-hour operation? Mr. Wood: The hours I put right on the plan that I submitted to you. The hours of operation would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Piercecchi: 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.? Mr. Wood: 6:00 a.m. Mr. Piercecchi: Oh. 6:00 a.m. Mr. Wood: To 10:00 p.m. Mr. Piercecchi: So there will be no overnight? What I'm concerned about is that it's very easy for this operation, if the availability of the time frame gets extended, that it could easily become an overnight parking facility for contractors, which, of course, in all likelihood would result in early and Tale operations if they are going to pulling them out at 10:00. That's my concern about your neighbors to the south. Are you concerned about those people too? 21442 Mr. Wood: Am I am concerned about the people? Mr. Piercecchi: The noise of your operations. I dropped by there today, by the way, and you really haven't done a thing to that site. You still have those office trailers, that trailer, a car, and there was one big truck that was parked pretty close to the wall, a tall one. I think it said Wood something on it. It was a big, I don't know what you call that, but it's enclosed. I'm very concerned about you not showing any good will here, sir, in reference to wanting this facility. I don't know if we have the power really to limit it to 6:00 in the morning until 10:00 at night. Do we, Mark? We cant enforce that, can we? Mr. Taormina: If you make it a condition of approval, then it's something that would be enforceable. Mr. Piercecchi: How can we enforce it unless there's somebody sitting there all the lime? Mr. Taormina: The City would just respond to complaints. In the event that those conditions were being violated, he would be served notice and go through the normal enforcement procedures. Mr. Piercecchi: But those are my concerns and like I say, I want to repeal, you've been here now what? This is the third week? Mr. Wood: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: The first week we suggested you show something in good will about removing some of that mess back there, and you have not responded. Mr. Wood: I would ask you to think about the last four years if you're thinking about good will. You've asked me to remove those trailers or clean that up, and I have done a Iol of cleaning of that properly. Those trailers that are sifting on that site are full of mechanical items, and they need to be emptied before they're removed. I have no intentions of keeping those trailers. In fad, they are an eye sore for me. There are a lot of items that were in there, and they were actually there when I bought that property. I moved those trailers and kind of cleaned up the site at the time. The car that's there belongs to my son, who is an employee. I have a mechanic that's going to take that car in about week. He's going to work on it at his personal home, so that's the delay with that. There's been a lot of cleaning of that 21443 site. You know there were some issues back when I first moved into that site, and I addressed those immediately. That site, with this approval, will be totally paved. There will be a new fence put in and there will be a big cleanup done to that site. Again, I have no intentions of keeping those trailers. They're really bees nests or birds nests. Its just a matter of some time that I will plan on gelling rid of those. This is an extremely busy time for my business, so its been hard for me to address that. Mr. Piercecchi: Al the Study Meeting, the greenbelt came up that you wanted waived. There were some suggestions made and you showed one of them on this plan here where you would park the pickup trucks and that adjacent to that wall. Do you recall that it was suggested here? I'm not too sure, now, on that greenbelt. You haven't made any move. I don't want to sit here and lecture, so I'll pass, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: To amplify the question about hours of operation, there was a little caveat in there, except in emergencies. In other words, the hours of operation were from 6 to 10, but there could be vehicular movement after those hours if it was construed as an emergency. From my standpoint, I think Mr. Wood has done some things here. We've had some movement in the right direction as far as spelling out what would be parked. He's moved the dumpsters away the residential, but the one concern I've had from day one to this dale is the 20 fool greenbelt. If it wasn't backing up to residential, I would have no problem approving this subject to ZBA and Council waiving the requirement. But because it does back up to residential, in good conscience I can't go against our zoning ordinance. Otherwise, I think with all the approving he has to do and try to monitor the size of trucks based on their size, the smaller they get closer to the residential. That's where I'm coming from. Mr. Shane: I just want to echo what Lee said and just add to it that the vehicles that Mr. Wood proposes to park in that 20 foot area are higher than the prolective wall. Who knows what the future is going to bring? There is a substantial green area to the south now, but who knows what the future brings and waiver uses run with the land. It's incumbent on the petitioner to provide a greenbelt, not the adjacent property owner. So that's my concern, that he hasn't complied with the requirement for the greenbelt. 21444 Mr. Piercecchi: This goes beyond the greenbelt, does it not? What we're making a decision on tonight is whether we wish to make this a storage operation. Correct? Mr.Shane: Whysure. Mr. Piercecchi: The greenbelt is just a part of that. Mr. Shane: My point is that if he doesn't comply with the ordinance, then he doesn't gel the use. The reason for that is that the greenbelt provides additional protection for whatever he wants to store there. Mr. Piercecchi: And the longer that we're dealing with this situation, the more I'm inclined to say a greenbelt is a must. Mr. LaPine: If you go down two properties east of this proposal, there's a storage facility there that we approved. I went by there tonight. I was at the petitioner's property tonight and I knew that was there. There are RVs parked there butted up against the wall. There's a big front loader right up against the wall. There are boats back there. We approved that. This Board approved that. I know this properly has a 50 fool extension into the residential properly, which the Zoning Board of Appeals gave him years ago. I don't know if that is on the properly that I'm talking about here. I still have some problems with this, and one of the problems I have is the same as Mr. Piercecchi's. Nothing has been done. We've talked about this. If you would have shown me that you were trying to clean up the properly now, I might have a little more empathy for you, but after this point, you haven't done anything. I'm not opposed to it completely. I just want to make sure that the residents in the rear are not going to be disturbed. I have one question I want to ask. We talked about the lights. The lights are going to be mounted on the back of your building. Is that correct? Mr. Wood: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Which will be shining south right towards the condos. Are they going to be shooting straight out? Are they going to be shielded or just hit the ground? How are they going to protect the vehicles and things that are back there without shining back into the condos? Mr. Wood: The lighting that's there now, there's lights all along the building, that is to the east of me on the back of that building. There are 21445 lights on my building now. There's never been an issue with lighting as far as complaints from the condominium association that I'm aware of. There is a beautiful natural break between that property and my property, and that property is zoned industrial property and part of this whole process is to help the City out with the violations that they're bringing in through the City of Livonia through the ordinance department. There have never been any complaints from those people. I explained to you earlier that I spent several hundred dollars taking a lot of dirt out of that property. I put the landscape into the property. I plan to pave that whole lot and put a brand new fence around the property. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done to put this into the condition that would make it an ideal condition for contractors to want to park their vehicles there. Mr. LaPine: Lel me ask you one more question. Mr. Morrow brought up a point that he wants a 20 foot greenbelt back there. Are you willing to put that in? Mr. Wood: That's a good question. I'm not sure how to answer that. I think there was a greenbelt there thatwas created by the dirt that was there. It took a lot of work to lake care of that greenbelt. I'm not sure how the ordinance is written in reference to that but there were more issues with that than it was to keep it clean the way it is now level. Mr. LaPine: Lel me ask you this question: Are you telling me at one time when you moved in, there was a 20 fool berm back there, a greenbelt, and you removed it? Mr. Wood: I wouldn't call it a greenbelt. My understanding of it was that, my fear was that someone came in and used that piece of property before I purchased it to gel rid of some dirt that might have been contaminated. So it wasn't laid out or any landscaping work. It was someone who just came in and dumped several loads of dirt in there. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you Mr. Alanskas: You say you want to put a fence there and you want to paint it. When do you want to do this? Mr. Wood: With this approval, it would be stuff that I would go into immediate action with. I would have to coordinate with Oakland County and first put in the storm sewer system. 21446 Mr. Alanskas: This would be done within six month? Mr. Wood: It would be done before, yes, before the fall. The asphalt would have to be in before it gets cold. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Just a couple other statements. I don't know the history ofwhal Mr. LaPine was talking about, but the one question I have, perhaps we can't answer it tonight, Merriwoods is a relatively new condo development. Were those buildings in there prior to the development or were they put in after the development of Merriwoods. Would we have any way of knowing that? Mr. Walsh: I think we could look at that from a staff perspective, but I don't think we'll have that answer tonight. Mr. Taormina: Is the question whether or not Mr. Wood's facility .... Mr. Morrow: No the question was, Mr. LaPine had indicated those buildings were already backing up without the greenbelt. Mr. Taormina: I'd like to confirm with Mr. LaPine which property that is. He indicated it's two parcels to the east. Mr. LaPine: Yes, there's a gas station on the comer of Merriman and Eight Mile Road, and right next to that is the building. Mr. Taormina: Okay, you had indicated earlier that it was two parcels to the east, which would mean that it's this building right here. I don't believe that's the piece you're talking about. If we move further to the east, you'll see this property right here. That is the site of what used to be Modern Moving. Mr. LaPine: That's the site. Mr. Taormina: Modern Moving had received approval by the City to store trucks. In fact, there were petitions involving both these properties. There were both owned by Modem Moving at one time. The site to the west most recently was reviewed for a change of use, but prior to that, Modem Moving did use it for truck and RV storage. I think some of those uses still may take place on this site. But to answer your question, yes, we allowed a certain amount of this area to extend beyond the zoning line. The industrial zoning boundary runs right along the back of this building. As you can see, there is part of the improved portion 21447 of the lot extending beyond that zoning line, and that was granted approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals years ago. But when they came in to expand their use for outside storage, it came with very stiff restrictions relative to the use in this area. We would not allow additional storage back behind the building. It was only to be used for turning vehicles around as I recall. I'd have to research that more carefully, but I do know that we placed certain limitations on the use of this properly where it backed up to the residential district, which in this case, I believe is still undeveloped. Mr. LaPine: There are some homes on Merriman Road. Mr. Taormina: I apologize. This site, although in the aerial does not show it being developed, it is developed today. That is correct. Mr. LaPine: If I remember right, Modern Storage, within the last couple years, we allowed them to make that an inside storage facility. Remember? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that's correct. Mr. Chairman, if I may, that was a different petitioner, not Modem Moving. Mr. LaPine: I know, but that time, they also said they were going to do the outside storage, which they have it there today. I have no problem with it. They have it parked very neatly. I'm just saying its up against the wall. Mr. Morrow: I just thought we were talking about the buildings just adjacent to Mr. Wood. My question was, were those buildings there before the MemwoDd Condos were built? Mr. Taormina: I'm looking at our resident historians, Mr. Nowak and H, and I'm going to guess that they were. Mr. Shane: They preceded Merriwoods. Mr. Wood: My building is from the 60's and those condos are probably from the 80's. Mr. LaPine: I was going to say they're 15 to 20 years old. Mr. Alanskas: Al our Iasi study, we asked you to do this and you did that. I commend you for that. I think you're trying, but I guess you're not getting done what we want quick enough. You say that 21448 greenbelt would cost you a lot. What do you think it would cost you to put a greenbelt in? Mr. Wood: First of all, there's a wall there now. Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Wood: That wall runs the length of several of those properties. On the other side of that wall, there is a berm and its real dense. For me to put in a greenbelt there, not only would it be expensive but it would also take away 13 spots, I believe, from the storage area or the parking area. The purpose of this ... originally this all came through Bill McDonald. This whole idea started with his prompting me that this is a real need that would serve the City well, and that by creating this and going to get a waiver, it would allow me to bring these vehicles in and it would be something that would really benefit the City. I never anticipated this experience of coming here three times. Mr. Alanskas: Let me ask you a question. You said in our last study that the City had given between 800 and 1,000 citations in the last year? Mr. Wood: Right. Mr. Alanskas: You say you're going to have 67 spaces. I mean, it would be somewhat of a help, but it's not even a dent in a wall to help the City. It's not even 10 percent. We appreciate what you're trying to do, but I just want to clarify that it's not a big help to the City for what you want to do. Its more of a help to what you want to do financially. Mr. Wood: It definitely would be a help financially for me. That's another purpose for me to do this. It would help me to spend the money to pave that, to clean it up and to put the fence in and to make it a lot cleaner site. Mr. Walsh: For my part, just as we inch toward a resolution here, Mr. Wood, I think you're making a substantial investment in this property. I happened to sit in on two of the ZBA hearings when they were talking about some of these citations. And while you can only provide the 67 sites, I think it's helpful. I hope that other property owners, perhaps in the industrial districts and so on, might considerlhis. Forlhis reason, l rememberquile cleadya point made by an owner of a van who said, when you have an emergency, nobody in Livonia wants me to have to go two hours to get my truck and return. You want me to be over your 21449 house as soon as possible. If you're helping our tradesmen and you're earning a buck, I see it as a win-win. I'm not sure what motion you're going to have, but I see a win-win here, and I just wanted to stale that for your benefit and the benefit of my colleagues. Any other questions orcommenls? Hearing none, I'll seek a motion on this item. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I see no reason to hold Mr. Wood up. Prior to making a motion, I'll make an additional comment that I can see where it would be a benefit to the City, but we must also be considerate of the neighbors to the south. I'm going to offer a denying resolution. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Piercecchi, and adopted, it was #06-90-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on Petition 2004-04-02-24 submitted by Pete Wood Plumbing requesting waiver use approval to expand outdoor storage for contractors to store commercial vehicles at 31675 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-04-02-24 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the requirement for a greenbelt where the subject property abuts residential zoning to the south; 3. That the information submitted by the petitioner does not indicate that other site problems and deficiencies identified in a letter dated May 10, 2004, from the Inspection Department will be rectified; 4. That the proposed parking/storage of contractors vehicles, equipment and materials will be detrimental to the maintenance of the site in an orderly and satisfactory 21450 condition and would be a deterrent to the longterm stability of this area; and 5. That the residential properties in the immediate proximity of the subject property will be adversely affected by the outdoor storage. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Piercecchi, Alanskas, La Pine, Shane NAYES: Smiley, Walsh ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wood, you will have an opportunity to appeal directly to the City Council. ITEM #6 ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Election of Planning Commission Officers. Mr. Walsh: Our Rules of Procedure require that on the last Regular Meeting of June we take the opportunity to elect our officers for the next year to serve until June 30 of the next year. We have three officers for our board: a Chairman, Vice -Chairman and a Secretary. What I suggest is that we seek nominations in that order, Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary, and if necessary we do have ballots to distribute. Ms. Smiley: I would like to nominate John to remain as chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Walsh: We have a motion for Mr. Walsh. Are there any additional nominations for the office of Chair? Hearing none, in the absence of any additional nominations, does anyone object to showing seven? Would you like to have a roll call vole? Mr. LaPine: Show seven. 21451 Mr. Shane: Show seven. Mr. Walsh: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your confidence. I appreciate that. We will now move for a nomination on Vice Chair. Ms. Smiley: I will nominate Mr. Alanskas. I think he's doing a good job. Mr. Walsh: We have a nomination for Mr. Alanskas. Are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, if there is no objection from anyone, would the secretary please show seven. Congratulations, Mr. Alanskas. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Finally, our last officer is the office of Secretary. I would seek a nomination for that position. Mr. LaPine: I will nominate Ms. Smiley. Mr. Walsh: Any additional nominations? Seeing none, if there is no objection, would the secretary please show that she has been re -nominated and elected. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-91-2004 RESOLVED, that in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of Article II of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, the following officers were elected to the Planning Commission for the period through June 30, 2005: Chairman John Walsh Vice Chairman Robert Alanskas Secretary Carol Smiley It was declared that the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 21452 ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 886TH Regular Meeting Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 885" Regular Meeting held on May 18, 2004. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-92-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 885P Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Morrow, Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a moton duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 887" Regular Meeting held on June 15, 2004, was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman