HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-08-2322505
MINUTES OF THE 912' REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 912" 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
kviwn,:Sml"=iIGeT--
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also
present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, 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 request for 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, he
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 filing.
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 2005-07-0844 JAMES TOWNE CONDOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-07-
08-14, submitted by Southeastern Michigan Management
Company, on behalf of James Towne 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 condominium
development on properties located at 27480 and 27486 Five
Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 13.
22506
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop a condominium
project on two adjoining pieces of properly (27480 and 27486
Five Mile) located on the north side of Five Mile Road between
Inkster Road and Foch Avenue. Combined, these properties
have 202.50 feel of frontage along Five Mile Road and
measures almost straight north 517.50 feel along their west
property line. The total collective area of the two properties is
2.06 acres. The southern 377.50 feel or 1.60 acres of the
described properties is in the process of being rezoned (Petition
2005-01-01-02) from R-1, One Family Residential, to RC,
Condominium Residential. The Planning Commission, after
holding a public hearing, recommended approving the
requested rezoning at their April 5, 2005, meeting. Following a
public hearing, the City Council gave First Reading on the
requested rezoning at its June 20, 2005, Regular Meeting.
Second Reading and a Roll Call Vole are scheduled at the time
the site plan is presented to the Council for action. Review of
this petition is based on the assumption that the portion of the
properties proposed to be developed will be rezoned to RC.
According to the submitted documentation, the proposed
development would be known as "James Towne
Condominiums." For this development, all of the proposed
dwelling units would contain two bedrooms; thus, each unit
would be required to have a minimum land area of 4,350 square
feel. Taking the area of the RC portion of the site (69,713 sq.
ft.) and dividing it by 4,350 square feet, this site would be
allowed a total of 16 units. James Towne would be made up of
one building, housing 16 stacked condominium units. The
building would be two -stories in height, with 8 units on the first
floor and 8 units on the second floor. According to the floor
plan, each unit would have about 1,200 square feet of floor
area. The overall dimensions of the building would be
approximately 147 feet in length by 65 feet in depth. The
building would be oriented lengthwise from east to west. The
plan is also in compliance with the requirement that the
maximum usable floor area of the building shall not exceed 30%
of the total lot area. By talang the total area of the building
(19,710 sq. ft.) and dividing it by the total area of the site (1.60
Ac. or 69,713 sq. ft.) the building would only occupy 28% of the
site. An RC zoning district requires a minimum front yard
setback of 75 feel (when it abuts a major thoroughfare), a
minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, and side yard setbacks of
at least 25 feel, with the combined total of the two equaling 60
feet. This building complies with the front and rear setback
requirements but is deficient in the two side yard setbacks. The
22507
building setback is only 20 feel 7 inches from the west properly
line making it deficient 4 feel 5 inches. Also the total of the two
side yards (207" plus 35') only add up to 55 feet 7 inches.
Therefore, variances would have to be granted from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for the side yard deficiencies. The site plan
illustrates that storm water detention would be controlled
underground using storage tanks located under the southern
section of the parking lot and the landscape berm along Five
Mile Road. Access to James Towne would be by way of a
single drive off Five Mile Road. Parking would be available
between the building and Five Mile Road and behind the
condominium. The layout of the condominium development
does not include any type of garage. Forty parking spaces will
be provided which meets the ordinance requirement. The
submitted landscape plan shows a variety of plant materials on
the bene along Five Mile Road and around the foundation of the
building. The plan also illustrates that a number of evergreen -
type trees would be planted along the east and west property
lines in order to provide some type of screening for the abutting
neighbors. The elevation plan shows that the first floor would
be entirely brick on all four sides, except for some cultured
stone flaming around the doorways. The second story would be
mainly brick with cultured stone and vinyl siding sections mixed
in. The peak areas of the roof would be infilled with vinyl siding.
The roof would be asphalt singled. A copy of the Master Deed
and bylaws for James Towne Condominiums has not been
submitted at this time.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 5, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above- efemnced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The detention facilities and the
drive approach to Five Mile will require the approval of Wayne
County." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated August 9, 2005, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a condominium development on property
located at the above referenced addresses. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If
subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet
and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Due to
the noted width of 20 feet, this Division requests that the
entrance drive identified as (street name) be posted (on both
22508
sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking.' (3) Any curves or corner of
streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning
radius of 54 feet wall4o-wall. (4) Fire lanes shall be not less
than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads
of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of
vertical clearance. (5) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus
shall be provided where an access road is a dead end and is in
excess of 150 feet in length. The authority having jurisdiction
shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane.
(6) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (7) Fire
lanes shall be marked wth freestanding signs 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 Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 4, 2005,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with a proposal by James Towne Condominium
located at 27480 and 27486 Five Mile. We have no objections
or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated August 19, 2005,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 27,
2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This proposal has deficient side yard
setback at the west side: 25 feet required, 20.7 feet provided.
A zoning variance would be required for this self-imposed
hardship. (2) Landscaping has not been provided to lessen the
impact and glare from vehicles to the adjacent residential
properties as required. This should be corrected (east, west
and south). (3) The required recreation area has not been
provided. This should be corrected. (4) As an advisory, the
drawing provided does not show the grade level units to be
barnerfree accessible as required. (5) The Commission and/or
Council may wish to review the proposed underground
detention system as opposed to an aboveground detention
system. The underground system, although acceptable, may
impose an unnecessary maintenance burden on the residents in
the future that may be avoided with an 'open air' system. 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: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
22509
Mr. Pieroecchi: Where is the fire lane? There's 20 feet of open space there,
right? I was just wondering, on the west end of that building, is
there going to be landscaping?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to Mr. Pieroecchi's concern.
The area in question provides access between the front parking
area and the rear parking area, which is the drive aisle to the
east of the building. Because of the concem of it being only 20
feel in width as shown on the plan, they want that lane posted
..no parking, fire lane" Scott can point to it on the overhead and
show you the area that they would prefer to see no on -street
parking.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That's the 20 footer there? I thought the 20 footer was on the
other side?
Mr. Walsh:
There's landscaping on the other side.
Mr. Miller:
There's no drive on this side.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Does that plan there satisfy the fire lanes?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, as long as it's posted "no parking."
Mr. Pieroecchi:
He mentioned atthe entrance. Well, all right. I'm satisfied.
Mr. La Pine:
I like the idea of the underground retention with the pipes
underground. If there is a malfunction with the pipes or
something, is that the responsibility of the condo? They have to
foot the bill to repair that, dig it up and so forth and so on?
Mr. Taormina:
There will be an agreement between the City of Livonia and
Wayne County for the maintenance of the storm water detention
system. However, the City in turn will demand that the Master
Deed and bylaws include provisions for maintenance through
the association, and where there is a failure to maintain it, the
City can step in and assess the residents of that complex the
necessary fees in order to maintain the basin in good working
order. So the burden ultimately rests with the co-owners of the
condominium, but it may be the City's responsibility to do the
work in the event they fail to.
Mr. LaPine:
And this is spelled out in the condominium's bylaws?
Mr. Taormina:
It will be a condition imposed with the approving resolution. As
Scott mentioned in his analysis, the requested bylaws and
22510
master deed have not been submitted to us at this time, and
that is a requirement that they be submitted.
Mr. LaPine: My only concern is I want to make sure the individuals that are
buying these units realize that if anything does go wrong with
the underground piping, they may be assessed at some later
date and they have to pay for it, because most people assume
all the sewers are the responsibility of the City. I just want to
make sure theyre well aware of it.
Mr. Taormina: Typically, the exhibits that are provided as part of the Master
Deed and bylaws will include all the information relative to
common area maintenance and those charges.
Mr. LaPine: That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Mahn, Southeastern Michigan Management Company, 42705 Grand River,
Novi, Michigan 48375. I'm here on behalf of Southeastern
Michigan Management and representing Albert and Alice
afiate.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add the presentation thus far?
Mr. Mahn: Only that like Mark was saying, we will supply the Master Deed
and the bylaws and that would cover what Mr. LaPine was
concerned about.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Alanskas: The 16 units are going to be about 1,200 square feet. Is that
correct?
Mr. Mahn: Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas: And what will these be selling for roughly?
Mr. Mahn: $170,000 to $180,000.
Mr. Alanskas: And the clientele that you're going to be getting, will this be
older people, younger families? What do you think you'll be
getting?
Mr. Mahn: On grade level, we have other projects right now and we're
finding that the seniors would like to have grade level as well as
22511
empty nesters would be going upstairs. Seniors usually can't
take stairs.
Mr. Alanskas:
You said you have some going. Where are they going up al?
Mr. Mahn:
Right now?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Mahn:
In Plymouth Township.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do they have garages?
Mr. Mahn:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
They do. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Have you given any consideration to make it a garage operation
also? You know, you're really entitled to 16 units because of
the area you have, and you're trying to put in 16 units, but you
have no garages associated with it. I can't remember a
condominium in the 12 or 13 years I've been on this Board
that's come in without garages. Now, Commissioner Alanskas
pointed out that there is one, but its about 30 years old, and it
has carports. Cant you come up with a scheme that would give
garages to that package? I think the difference that I'm looking
atis, when I see a package like this, it reminds me of a motel.
Mr. Mahn:
Ota what?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Than a condo. We prefer condos because people who live in
condos have a vested interest in the city rather than in motels
where they just come in and out. But there are plans, you know,
St. Martins, which is north of Sears up there. You know where
that is, right? Sears on Seven Mile.
Mr. Mahn:
We've built some homes on St. Martins.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sl. Martin's is putting them in, and theyre units have 12 per
building and everyone has an attached garage. Ardmore is
putting in big units. Everyone has an attached garage. The
Hunter package, everyone of them has garages. I can't
remember, like I said, I'm not saying that there aren't any in
Livonia, but none to my knowledge other than the one that my
friend over here, Mr. Alanskas, has pointed out. Why can't you
put garages with that package? I think a member of our staff
22512
made a point. He said approving this development without
attached garages would be detrimental and set an undesirable
precedent for future condominium projects. Is there any reason
why you cant come up with a plan to put in garages?
Mr. Mahn:
In response to your question, we have researched this property.
Its very unique in configuration. We have looked at different
sites in Livonia, as well as we were also involved in sites in
Farmington. We have found, and I have found in my 43 years
of experience in this type of business, that the location of a
particular development is very relative to sale price. If we try to
put garages there, we would have to not give them basements
because of the economics, because of sale price. So we felt
that in due respect for the co-owners there when they're thinking
of reselling, it would be much more lucrative for them if we
supply a basement and not a garage. The Mai Kai site has
garages, but they dont have any basements. So you're giving
and taking here. So we thought that we would have a
marketability study of it and we thought that selling condos with
basements is much more attractive than condos with just
garages with no basements.
Mr. Piercecchi:
These are stacked units.
Mr. Mahn:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you saying the lop unit also has a basement?
Mr. Mahn:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
How do they gel to it?
Mr. Mahn:
By stairs.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
By stairs.
Mr. Mahn:
The plan indicates that, sir.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I look at so many plans, I can't remember them all.
Mr. Mahn:
I understand.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, is it true that if you put in basements, then you avoid
garages? Does St. Martins ... how does that one? Can you
recall the layout in that package? I know they're 12 units.
22513
Mr. Taormina:
Those are slab on grade. I don't believe they had basements as
part of that development. In terms of what's more marketable, I
think that would depend on location and other factors. I
wouldn't want to speculate as to whether or not this particular
product is more or less marketable in this area. Apparently, that
is what Mr. Mahn is saying based on his studies, but again, I
wouldn't want to speculate that they would be equally
marketable in a different part of the community.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you saying it's an either/or proposition?
Mr. Mahn:
No. I'm saying to market this product in this area, the people
would prefer an additional 400 square feet for storage. A
garage is 10 x 20, that 200 square feet. The basement is
approximately 600. So you're picking up 400 square feet, the
co-owner.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Those were double garages at St. Martin's weren't they?
Mr. Taormina:
Not all of them. There was a combination ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Most of them were, except maybe an end unit.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Can I go on?
Mr. Walsh:
I just want to point out, I think the petitioner has answered the
question. I don't want to enter into a debate on this. If its
relevant...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm not debating. You made me lose my train of thought.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Continue.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If you cut back on the number of units, you could do a lot of
different things. You're entitled to 16 by the ordinance, granted,
but you're
putting 16 on there. If you could make that building
smaller, I think you could do a lot of things.
Mr. Mahn:
In all due respect, sir, the acreage can require 20 units. We're
at 16.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Not according to our calculations. I dont want to debate those
issues with you. I agree with the Chairman. I would certainly
prefer a garage package and less units in there. Ithink you're
22514
really squeezing it in there. Obviously, you're squeezing it in
because you can't even make the side yard setbacks. How are
you going to resolve that issue, that five feet?
Mr. Mahn:
I think the measurement was five feet, sir. But to share with
you, we've been working with this site for five to six years with
the neighbors, and we came up with a site that they agreed
upon regarding dwellings. In our 20 years of doing business in
the City of Livonia, we researched the property, the location and
the neighbors. We've been doing business in this city for 20
years, and each one of our projects have been quite successful
because that's our object as far as our company is concerned.
So we have done our homework, and we feel that basements
here is more conducive than garages.
Mr. La Pine:
Expounding on what Mr. Piercecchi has been talking about, I
loo think we should have garages here. The basic reason why I
think garages . you staled and I read your article in the
Observer this week. They interviewed you. That these condos
are for senior citizens, empty nesters and young couples. Well,
I can understand young couples might not want a garage.
Empty nesters and senior citizens want garages. Being a senior
citizen, I don't want to gel out in the morning or evening and
have to sweep snow off my car and gel snow away from my car.
I'd rather have my car in a garage. In my opinion, for that
reason only, you need garages for those types of people. I
agree with you that one of the problems you have with condos,
you dont have a basement. You don't have any storage area.
Mr. Mahn:
Exactly.
Mr. LaPine:
I also believe that the garages are very important, especially to
senior citizens and empty nesters, because older people do not
want to get out in the morning and clean off their car. Then
you've got all the cars in the parking lot. If individuals are going
to come in and dear off the parking lot and push the snow in the
early morning hours, they cant gel out of the house. They have
to wail until the snow is done. Al lead with a garage, they can
back out and follow their way through the snow. Therefore, I
would like to see you somehow come up with a plan with
garages.
Mr. Shane:
Mark, do you recall the size of those units at the Livonia Mall
development?
Mr. Taormina:
No, but ifyou give me a few minutes, I can find out.
22515
Mr. Shane:
The reason I ask that is I assume that if you're building a unit
without a basement, hopefully ifs gang to be larger because it
would have storage space somewhere. If those units are
significantly larger, I can see why theyre able to put garages in
there without thinking.
Mr. Walsh:
While Mr. Taormina is researching, Mr. Shane do you have any
otherquesfions?
Mr.Shane:
No, not right now.
Mr. Morrow:
Just one quesfion on the subject of basements. I looked over
the plans and I couldn't find them. Are these shared basements
or individual basements?
Mr. Mahn:
Individual.
Mr. Morrow:
So each unit has a way to gel to their own specific basement?
Mr. Mahn:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
You said they were 600 square feet?
Mr. Mahn:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
On the second floor, how many stairs do you have to go up to
gel to the second floor?
Mr. Mahn:
Fourteen risers. The architect ...
Mr. Walsh:
Good evening, sir.
Ronald Myers:
It is 14 risers to the second floor, and thafs equivalent to a
normal two-story house, going up 14 risers.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I ask is because I had a friend that lived just across
the street on Five Mile in the condos that had no elevators, and I
think there were about 14 or 15. 1 walk those every so often to
take her groceries and that wasn't fun.
Mr. Myers:
The second and third bag, I agree with you.
22516
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to vhen you say you'd rather have a basement, if I
was a senior ... I like the way your project looks, but you
know, in the wintertime, if you've parked outside and you've
gone shopping and you've groceries and you've got to drag
them through snow and everything, that's not fun either. Where
if you could just pull into a garage and go into your home, where
you have the element of no bad weather, that's a big plus. I
think I would rather have that than a basement.
Mr. Myers:
One of the items that Mr. Mahn did mention was that he had
worked very closely with the neighbors on both streets all the
way around the site. There were public meetings that were held
by Mr. Mahn. The engineer, myself as architect, we attended
these meetings. We answered any questions that they had. If
you did put garages in there, I think what you're going to do is
you're going to impact more of the neighbors' view towards the
site. Basically, if you put garages in, you're going to have to put
them in at the rear on this particular site, and you would change
the look that they would have. That would be my comment.
Mr. Alanskas:
The only comment that I have is that the neighbors are not
buying these units. Somebody else is.
Mr. Myers:
Yes, but I'm just trying to work with everybody to make
everybody happy.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, how are we doing on the research?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm still researching it.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Mahn, how are you?
Mr. Mahn:
Fine.
Mr. Shane:
I'm sure that you considered turning this building from time to
time perpendicular to the way it is now. If you did that and you
decided to put garages in, wouldn't that relieve some of the
problems the architect is talking about? If the end of the
building faces north, for example, and the driveway faced east
and west?
Mr. Mahn:
We had our engineer tum the building to have the side facing
Five Mile Road. Is that what you're referring lo?
22517
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Mahn:
We had that and there were some negative comments from the
neighbors that it was protruding in their backyards. We're like
right in the middle of things. Four or five years ago, there was a
petition from the neighbors objecting to interfering with their
backyard view, and that would be very detrimental to them. Like
I said, we researched this thing to the utmost and the plan that
we have here is at peace with the neighbors and I think it's the
best plan for marketing purposes. Like l indicated before, we've
been worlang with the City for 20 years now, and each one of
our projects have been successful because we do our
homework.
Mr. Shane:
The building would still occur within the zoned area which is R-
C, would it not?
Mr. Mahn:
Turning it?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Mahn:
We don't have it here with us, that particular plan, but I think t
was Mr. LaPine who suggested that at that time. The people on
the west side would have to walk all the way around to the east
side and to the south side to get their parking, to walk to their
cars. It would be really prohibitive.
Mr. Shane:
So there vouldn't be enough room on the east side and west
side?
Mr. Mahn:
No. Like I said, this property, the configuration here is
unbelievable.
Mr. LaPine:
The property to the rear, the 140 feet deep by 142, is that still
going to be sold off to the homeowne rs?
Mr. Mahn:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, any closer? I know its a lot of data to go
through.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm checking the minutes from when we approved that project
and I'm not finding the information. As I recall, they were
between 1,200 and 1,400 square feel in size.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Taormina. I appreciate it.
22518
Mr. Mahn:
The architects applied the unit when we turned @, if you want to
take a look at it.
Mr. Walsh:
Sure, if you want to hand that to Mr. Piercecchi, he can take a
still
look and pass it along for us. While we're doing that, if there's
no other questions for the petitioner, are there any other
questions?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You said you couldn't get @ in if it were north and south, and Mr.
Shane initially suggested R. You do need the side setbacks.
You've got 30 feet on one side and you've got ...
Mr. Walsh:
I think our last question, Mr. Piercecchi, was whether or not he
could have parking on either side.
Mr. Mahn:
Parlang would not be on the west side.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But you've got 60 feet. You can shift that building and you could
put garages in there. Did you bring that layout with you that you
showed us? Can you project that up on the board?
Mr. Miller:
No, it's not on the computer.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi, anything else?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I guess you cant project it.
Mr. Walsh:
At this point, unless there are any additional questions, I'd like to
go the audience. Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
Regardless of how its oriented, they will do without garages. Is
that correct?
Mr. Walsh:
Our petitioner is staling there will be no garages.
Mr. Morrow:
Regardless of how we orient the building, they would
still
be
without garages.
Mr. Mahn: That's correct.
Mr. Walsh: We have only one guest in our audience this evening. Did you
wish to speak for or against? She's nodding no. Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: Assuming we wanted the garages and eliminate the basements,
what's the tradeoff? You've got to dig down for the basements.
22519
With a garage, you don't have to do that. Aren't you saving
money or are you telling me it's more expensive to go the other
way?
Mr. Mahn: It's more expensive to go the basement route, but people would
rather have basements than garages. Mr. LaPine, winter is only
three months or maybe four, and regarding snow, maybe even
less than that. Everybody is predicting the hot zone or the
ozone or whatever. If you have a competent show removal
company, they would remove your snow in the proper way and
early enough to accommodate the seniors. We finished a
project out in Farmington Hills that has carports and no garages.
We sold them quite rapidly and the resale on those are quite
well and they made a good investment, seniors.
Mr. LaPine: Would you consider putfing in carports?
Mr. Mahn: Carports in the rear, yes. But if you put them in front, that would
take away from the appearance of the building.
Mr. Walsh:
If there are no other questions, a motion would be in order at
this point.
Mr. LaPine:
What's the feeling of the Board members of at least getting
some carports?
Mr. Walsh:
I think what you need to do, Mr. LaPine, at this point is put a
motion on the table.
Mr. Alanskas:
I really think we've beat this thing to death. I would like to table
this and have the petitioner come back with the same plan but
showing carports in the rear to see how thalworks out.
Mr. Walsh:
Are you offering that as a motion?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, for a tabling motion.
Mr. Walsh:
Do we have support for the tabling motion?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Would you like to elaborate? Can you expand that motion?
How about a package with garages?
Mr. Alanskas:
No. No garages. That's not what I said, Dan.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I know.
22520
Mr. Alanskas:
I said the petitioner is willing to show carports in the rear of the
building. I would like to see how that would look. So I would
like to table it until he comes back with a plan showing carports
in the rear.
Mr.Shane:
I'll support that.
On a motion by
Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and adopted, 8 was
#08-00-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-07-08-14 submitted by
Southeastern Michigan Management Company, on behalf of
James Towne 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 condominium development on properties located at 27480
and 27486 Five Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 13, be
tabled.
Mr. Walsh:
We operate under Roberts Rules which permits no further
discussion on the motion which is on the table. Would the
secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on
the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, LaPine, Piercecchi, Smiley
NAYES: Morrow, Walsh
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Gentlemen, if you will please correspond with Mr.
Taormina or Mr. Miller, we will set you on our next available
date when you have your plans ready, if you wish to do so.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman? Is 8 in order to also request some plans
shoving the capabilities of how many units ...
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi, I would love to permit the discussion, but we do
operate under Robert's Rules and we've done that consistently
with the motions.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm asking if I can make a motion to ask to return with a garage
package?
Mr. Walsh:
If you wish to make that motion, you may do so.
22521
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If I could have support on that, I'd just like to see what the
maximum number... I think that 16 is the problem.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there support for the motion on the table?
Mr. LaPine:
I'll support it.
Mr. Walsh:
Support from Mr. LaPine. Now discussion may ensue. Is there
discussion?
Mr. Morrow:
What are we talking about? The petition pretty well indicated
he's not going to incorporate the garages. That's not an option,
at least from what I get out of this meeting. Asking him to do d,
we'd be asking him to do something he doesn't want to do. Is
that a fair assessment?
Mr. Walsh:
I think that's a fair assessment.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I didn't know that was cast in cement. Is that true? Garages
are definitely out of the picture?
Mr. Mahn:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Then I withdraw.
Mr. Walsh:
Motion is withdrawn. We have a tabling resolution. Gentlemen,
again, if you would please correspond with the Planning
Department. As soon as you have plans showing carports, we
will reschedule this as quickly as possible
ITEM#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 911 Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 911'" Public Hearings and Regular Meefing held
on August 9, 2005.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#08-91-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 911" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 9,
2005, are hereby approved.
22522
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: La Pine, Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Shane,
Morrow, Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 912" Regular
Meeting held on August 23, 2005, was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman