Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2014-09-23MINUTES OF THE 1,061sT PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 23, 2014, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,061" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Kathleen McIntyre R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Scott P. Bahr Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow 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 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, 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 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 PETMON 2014-08-01-06 KUCYK, SOAVE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2014-08- 01-06 submitted by Kucyk, Soave and Fernandes, P.L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone properties at 38801 and 38901 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, from R -U -F to R-1. September 23, 2014 26555 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone two adjoining parcels that are located on the south side of Plymouth Road just east of Eckles Road. The current zoning classification is Rural Urban Farm, which requires a minimum lot size of one-half acre. The request is to rezone these two parcels to the R-1, One Family Residential category which would allow for homes on sites that measure 60 feel by 120 feel or a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet. Each parcel presently contains a single family residence. The easterly parcel, which is 38801 Plymouth Road, contains about 147 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road and has a total land area of roughly two acres. The westerly parcel, 38901 Plymouth Road, contains a little more frontage, about 180 feel along Plymouth Road and has a total land area of roughly two and half acres. The depth of these properties are roughly 610 feel. When you combine both parcels together, there is about 326 feel of frontage on Plymouth and an area of 4.5 acres. Immediately to the east of the subject parcels is an area that is zoned R-8, and is the site of the Plymouth Woods Apartments containing multiple family residential structures. Immediately to the west are a couple of acreage parcels containing single family homes, which are zoned RUF. Further west is an R-1 zoned area, and to the north across Plymouth Road is an industrial zone, M-2, which is General Manufacturing. Immediately to the south is the site of Edward Hines Drive and the Middle Rouge Parkway. It was in 1998 that the Planning Commission and the City Council denied a request to rezone the subject properties including the parcel to west, from RUF to M-1, Light Manufacturing. Plans were approved for a 12 lot site condominium that was called Genesis Park on the parcels to the west. So the R-1 District on the lett hand side was rezoned by the City in 2007 and subsequent to the rezoning, there was a development approved for that properly. It was a 12 lot site condominium called Genesis Park that was never developed. The petitioner has provided a conceptual plan showing how the site might be developed should the rezoning be approved. This could be done either as a site condominium or as a lot split. The two properties combined will be developed with a total of eight home sites, and a single road would provide access to the home sites. You'll note that the two lots that are on the north side adjacent to Plymouth Road have the existing homes. The intent would be to retain the existing homes on portions of each of those properties and then construct six new homes on the created lots. The last thing I will mention is that the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends medium density residential land September 23, 2014 26556 use for this area. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated September 8, 2014, which reads as follows: In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition. The existing parcels are assigned addresses of 38801 and 38901 Plymouth Road, which should be used for any future correspondence regarding the proposed project. The legal description provided with the Arpee/Donnan, Inc. boundary survey dated August 27, 2014, appears to be correct and is acceptable to this department. The petitioner does not indicate any proposed improvements or utilities connections on the submitted drawings, so we are unable to comment on any impacts the proposed project may cause to the existing systems. It should be noted that the parcels are currently serviced by a 12" sanitary sewer, an 18" water main and a 24" storm sewer, all located on the north side of Plymouth Road. Should the owner wish to connect to any of these existing utilities, permits from Wayne County, as well as the City of Livonia, will be required. Also, storm sewer detention will need to meet the current Wayne County storm water ordinance, including detention, and be approved through the Wayne County permitting office. Any proposed paving or work within the Plymouth Road right-of-way will require permits through the Wayne County DPS prior to construction. We would also request that the owner dedicate the northerly 60' of properly for Plymouth Road right-of-way, as well as extending concrete sidewalk across the properly to match the abutting development to the east." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark. Mark, is this the final plan or is it just a concept? Mr. Taormina: I'm going to call this a concept, Mr. Taylor, simply because there are a few finer points that will have to be adjusted to this plan depending on what method is utilized to divide the property. There will probably have to be some adjustments, but by and large, it will look similar to this. The number of lots, again, could be altered depending on the method used and also as the details for utilities have to be reviewed, there could be some September 23, 2014 26557 adjustments to account for stormwaler and those sorts of things. I suspect we'll see something pretty similar to this plan. Mr. Taylor: I assumed that. All we're talking about tonight is zoning. Mr. Taormina: All we're talking about this evening is zoning. I think when the plans do come eventually, we'll have the discussion about the road access, landscaping and a lot of other details. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions of the Planning Director? Mark, this conceptual plan we have, it would appear that some of those lots far exceed an R-1 classification. Mr. Taormina: All of these lots exceed the R-1 classification. Mr. Morrow: So they are R-1, but they will be larger lots? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Some of them actually exceed the RUF district requirements. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Enrico E. Soave, Esq., Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C., 37771 Seven Mile Road, Suite C, Livonia, MI 48152 Good evening, everyone. Nice to see you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you want to add to or delrect from what you've heard so far? Mr. Soave: Mr. Taormina was pretty on -point in his presentation. This is a conceptual plan. Nothing has been defined in regards to the final site layout. We wanted to see where zoning would lay first, and then send this back to the engineers and see what they can come up with. I hope you approve the rezoning tonight. Mr. Morrow: Okay. We'll see if the Commissioners have any questions. Mr. Wilshaw: You own this properly, correct? Mr. Soave: The petitioner owns the property. I don't own the property. Mr. Wilshaw: You're representing the petitioner? Mr. Soave: Absolutely. September 23, 2014 26558 Mr. Wilshaw: And the petitioner owns the property. Do they own the property adjacent to it? Mr. Soave: No. Mr. Wilshaw: That's it for now. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: The petitioner is Michael or Leo? Mr. Soave: The petitioner is Leo, one of his companies. Mr. Taylor: Leo is going to build the homes? Mr. Soave: I believe so. They haven't got that far but it is his project. Mr. Taylor: I only ask that because he has a good track record in Livonia. Mr. Soave: It is Leo. Most definitely. That I am sure of. One thousand percent Mr. Morrow: Any other questions of the petitioner? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #0930-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 23, 2014, on Petition 2014-08-01-06 submitted by Kucyk, Soave and Fernandes, P.L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone properties at 38801 and 38901 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, from R -U- F to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-08-01-06 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning would provide an opportunity to develop the subject properties in a manner September 23, 2014 26559 that is consistent with their size and location and would serve the area as well as the City as a whole; 3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends medium density residential use in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2014-08-02-11 CHILDREN'S OUTLET Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2014- 08-02-11 submitted by Brian and Lisa Rich requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(() of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a second-hand store and resale shop (The Children's Outlet) at 31092 Five Mile Road within the Merri-Five Retail Plaza, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Meriman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Southwest 114 of Section 14. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a second hand store and resale shop within the Merri-Five Plaza which is on the north side of Five Mile just east of Meriman Road. Mem-Five is a group commercial shopping complex that has a total of roughly 78,000 square feet of floor area. Some of the major tenants within the shopping complex include Meriman Drugs and Dollar Tree, which are on the west end of the shopping center, and then AutoZone which is at the east end. This property as well as the surrounding properties to the west and to the east and south are all zoned C-2, General Business. There are residential properties to the north of the shopping center. Second hand stores and rummage shops, not including antique stores, fall under Section 11.03(() of the Zoning Ordinance and specified under this section are two special requirements: One, that there shall be no outdoor sales, storage or display of merchandise, September 23, 2014 26560 and secondly, that ingress and egress be provided by a road having the right-of-way width of at least 120 feet. The proposed store would occupy a unit that is located on the east side of the shopping center. It will go on the side of the shopping center where AutoZone is located. The store fronts west towards Merriman Road. The unit measures only 20 feel by 80 feet in size for a total of 1,600 square feet. This is identified as Unit 25. This plan shows the vacancies within the shopping center but it is not up -lo -dale because three of the units immediately adjacent to Unit 25 will be occupied by a new leather store called Tandy Leather. The petitioner has submitted a floor plan. It's a basic sketch showing how the unit would be subdivided. It's pretty much an open floor plan with racks and tables. About 95 percent of the items would be devoted to children, mostly clothing and toys, and then a small section is devoted to maternity clothing. Parking for the shopping center is based on the total square footage of the complex. There is adequate parking available to meet the needs of this store and all the stores within the shopping center complex. They are not proposing any exterior changes to this unit in particular other than the addition of sign that would conform to the ordinance. The owners representative is here this evening. They will be undertaking a number of improvements to the center in the near future, but it will not include any changes to this store front other than a sign that would look something like this drawing. This was requested at the study session. You wanted to see what the sign would look like. The drawing doesn't have the backdrop according to what the shopping complex looks like, but I think it gives you an idea of the type of sign. It was indicated that those would be individual letters that would be illuminated and match the signs that are on the shopping center today. This would be limited to 20 square feet. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Yes, let's do that Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 2, 2014, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of renovating the interior of the building which will not require Engineering Department permits. The City legal description provided with the petition has an error and does not close. The legal description completed by Nowak 8 Fraus that was provided by the petitioner along with the background September 23, 2014 26561 information appears to be conect and is acceptable to this office. The existing Mem-Five Retail Plaza is assigned an address ranges of #31072 to #31320 Five Mile Road, and #15420 to #15430 Merriman Road. The proposed store is to be located Unit #25 of the building which corresponds to the address of #31092 Five Mile Road. The existing structure is currently serviced by public utilities, which are to remain in place. Should changes to the existing utility leads be needed, the owner will need to submit plans to the Engineering Department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer 11. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 18, 2014, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a second hand store and resale shop located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: Chapter 35, New Mercantile Occupancies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways, Travel Distance, Occupant Load, and Extinguisher Requirements." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 3, 2014, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 22, 2014, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mark, do you know if that center has any of their own restrictions on the size of signs? Mr. Taormina: I will let the owner's rep answer that question. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Would the petitioner please come forward? We will need your name and address for the record please. Lisa Rich, 5453 Detroit Street, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48125. Mr. Morrow: Okay. You've heard the Planning Director. Now we're going to give the floor to you to add or detract from what you've heard so far. The Commission looks forward to learning a little bit more about your business. September 23, 2014 26562 Ms. Rich: Okay. Well, I think Mark did a great job of explaining pretty much what we're going to be doing there. Like he had said, we're going to be selling new and gently used children's clothing, children's toys, baby items, and maternity items. Our inventory will be coming from customers, the general public, and also online sources. We will be accepting items from the general public just two days a week. We will have a list provided on the items that will be accepted and how they should be brought in. Examples are that they must be neatly folded, clean and in boxes and containers. No bags will be allowed. Also we will be advertising and doing some marketing with flyers, ValPack. We also plan to visit some Montesson's, preschools, daycares, etc., and also have social media, Facebook and Google ads. Mr. Morrow: Maybe I missed it, but I think at the study session you said you were going to be restncting the days and times that you would receive items coming into the store to see if they can sell them to you. Ms. Rich: Yes, that is correct. We will have that two days a week, and there will be different limes when people can come in. Mr. Morrow: But the public will be aware of that? Ms. Rich: Yes, it will be posted on the door, and there will also be flyers in the store that people can take with them. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Does the Commission have any questions of the petitioner? Ms. McIntyre: I assume that you will be insuring that everything that comes in meets current safely standards. In other words, I can't remember if you're laking furniture like cribs? Ms. Rich: We will not be laking any cribs or any car seats. Ms. McIntyre: Okay. Perfect. That addresses my concerns. One suggestion that I would have, and as a retailer, unless you're a retailer like Target that you sell your own things or you sell in bulk, it's hard to keep up with all the recalls of children's items, but maybe to have a sign up in your store on your flyers that gives people the cite. It's Consumer Protection of where they have the recalls of all the kids' products. Do you know what I'm saying? So people can be aware. Its a good thing if you are retailer of new or gently used to probably check that from time to time to keep current on because it changes all the time. I think this looks like you have a very, very nice plan and I think we talked at the September 23, 2014 26563 study meeting that this sounds similar to Baby Baby in Northville, which is right on their downtown strip, and I'm personally familiar with and I know they do a very nice job and provide a nice service to the community. Mr. Wilshaw: I notice on your floor plan that you had a room that has a washer and dryer in there. So if you do receive some merchandise that has a slain or needs to be freshened up, you have the ability to do that before you put the items on display. Correct? Ms. Rich: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We talked about this at the study meeting, but we just want to make sure we keep things on the record. We were going to ask in our approving resolution that when you gel to Council, you consider volunteering what we call a Conditional Agreement that would limit the approval of this waiver use to you as a tenant as opposed to anybody who may come in the future because waiver uses slay with the land once we approve them. So this is a common request that we have that allows us to protect the City as a whole a little bit by just asking if you were to sell your business in the future or grow out of it or whatever, great things may happen, that any future tenant that would come would have to come in front of the Council again just to get approval. So it doesn't limit you in any way. It just gives us a little bit more protection. Are you okay with that? Ms. Rich: Yes, absolutely. Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: It doesn't mean you can't sell your business. It just gives the City a chance to review the prospective buyer and make sure he conforms to what the original intent of the waiver was. Ms. Rich: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? Mr. Taylor: Maybe I missed it, but this is not a consignment store, right? I think we should make that clear because a lot of people, that's what they do. They bring clothes in for them to sell. If they sell them, fine. If they dont, they take them back. Ms. Rich: There will be no consignment. September 23, 2014 26564 Mr. Taylor: No consignment. Ms. Rich: No consignment at all. Mr. Taylor: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions of the petitioner? We're going to give you the floor in case there's any type of promotion you want to address to our television audience. Ms. Rich: I hope that it gets approved. Mr. Morrow: Just tell us a Iitfle bit about your background and why you got in the business and what you look forward to in the community. Ms. Rich: I have a business background. I specialize mostly in finance, but I also have a background in marketing and advertising. I've been around children my whole life. I have two young children of my own, a twoand-a-half year old and a three month old, and I'm very familiar with children's items, maternity items, children's clothing. I have many nieces and nephews, and a lot of friends that have grown up that have many children as well. It's special to my heart. It's a very special interest and this is where I would like to see my future going. Mr. Morrow: And the good thing is children grow and there's turnover. Ms. Rich: There's a very high turnover. I can attest to that myself. I've already had two. For my three month old, I've already had to change her sizes twice, and I'm probably going to do that a third time, and also with my two-and-a-half year old. She goes through sizes very quickly. So there's a very high turnaround for children's items, maternity items too, and toys and so forth. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Ms. Smiley: My question is, your sign looks very nice, but I think it doesn't meet our standards, does it? Through the chair to Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina: No. We pointed that out to the petitioner, and she has indicated that she will make sure that the sign that's fabricated does comply with the ordinance. Mr. Morrow: That clears up my prior question about if there's any restriction althe shopping center. September 23, 2014 26565 Mr. Wilshaw: Just when we're talking about the basics of the business, some of the questions we lend to ask sometimes and didn't this time around. I guess it's probably good while you're promoting your business to lel us know what hours of operation you're considering. Ms. Rich: Currently, we would like to have the shop open Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, closed on Sundays and Mondays just to start. And the hours of operation would be from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And how many employees? Ms. Rich: To start off, it will just be me and my husband but we would like to in the future to employ some people, a few. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Well, obviously a business that's ran by the owner gets the most attention to detail of the operation. I like Ms. McIntyre's idea. I agree. It sounds like you have a good business plan that meets a need in the community. This isn't a large shop that you're looking for. It's a small one. It's modest. I see no reason why I wouldn't approve this particular waiver use. So thank you. I know the representative from the property owner is also here. I don't know if he wanted to supplement any information about some of the upgrades that he was going to do to the site or anything like that, but since he's here, he might want to promote his center a little bit as well. I'll put him to work. Mr. Morrow: We'll need your name and address, sir. Brian Terrace, First Commercial, 27600 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, Michigan 48034. We're the company that owns Merri-Five. A couple of the planned improvements, as you well know, Tandy Leather is well under way right now. It looks fantastic, but the planned repairs are that they are going to paint the mansard and that parking lot repairs are planned. The parking lot is huge, 520 spaces, but it is planned, in the works to do repairs or improvements, renovations, whatever you call those. I believe that was it. Mr. Morrow: Okay. That's fine. You have the floor. You can add anything else you want. Mr. Terrace: I should say they, she and Brian, will do a fantastic job. Mr. Morrow: I assume you're going to be the chief executive officer? September 23, 2014 26566 Ms. Rich: Yes. Mr. Morrow: That means your husband will be doing the laundry, right? Ms. Rich: Yes. Mr. Morrow: If (hats all the questions and comments, I'll go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by McIntyre, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0931-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 23, 2014, on Petition 2014-08-02-11 submitted by Brian and Lisa Rich requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(t) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a second-hand store and resale shop (The Children's Ou0et) at 31092 Five Mile Road within the Mem-Five Retail Plaza, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Mernman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-08-02-11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That there shall be no outdoor sales, storage or display of merchandise, and no storage of merchandise or other materials in any type of temporary or portable unit, structure, trailer or donation receptacle; 2. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 3. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits, occupancy permits and zoning compliance permits; and 5. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a September 23, 2014 26567 period of one year only from the dale of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER, the Planning Commission recommends the approval of a Conditional Agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council. 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. Mr. Morrow, Chainman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you for coming tonight, and good luck. ITEM #3 PETITION 2014-09-08-12 CADE MEADOWS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2014- 09-08-12 submitted by Triumph Building Company, L.L.C. requesting approval under Section 18.62 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to amend the site plan in connection with a previously approved site condominium development (Cade Meadows) on properly located at 36905 Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. September 23, 2014 26568 Mr. Taormina: This request involves modifications to a previously approved site condominium project that dates back to 2006 under the name of Cade Meadows. It was later changed to Dinallo Estates in 2013 following a transfer of ownership. The site plans approved under both of the earlier petitions were essentially the same. The only thing that changed was the name of the development. The property has changed hands once again, and the new owner and developer is the Tnumph Building Company out of Plymouth, Michigan. They are going to go back to the original name, as far as I know, which is Cade Meadows. The zoning map shows the location of the property in relationship to the surrounding zoning and properties. It is on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail just east of Newburgh Road. Abutting the property to the south is Kingston Village Site Condominiums, zoned RC, Residential Condominium. To the west there is an office building and other commercial zoning, and to the east is a single family home which is zoned RUF. Il was the owner of the adjoining parcel to the east, the single family home, which the previous developers apparently had an arrangement with involving an exchange of land that would allow enough area in the southeast corner of the property for the development of a stormwater detention basin. I'll go back to the original plan that is currently approved. You'll notice the cul-de-sac design, the street with the turnaround, and looking at the bottom right hand side of the drawing you'll notice that portion of the site which is actually dedicated to an open water surface detention basin. The land swap agreement also had the effect of providing enough land for the 120 foot diameter turnaround needed to service the 11 lot development. Unfortunately, this land swap agreement with the abutting property owner is no longer in place. As a result, its forcing several design changes including replacing the cul-de-sac with a T-tumaround and the creation of an underground stormwater detention basin as opposed to the open surface pond and also the elimination of one lot. Looking at this new plan, you will see what the impact is when you take away that additional land area. One lot is eliminated. The cut - de -sac design also has been modified as a T -turnaround. There will no longer be an open detention basin. Instead, there will be an underground stormwater detention system which more than likely will be located at the rear of the lots, maybe on both sides of the street. The Fire Marshall has reviewed this design and he is okay with it. Some minor changes to the geomelrics of the T - turnaround were recommended, which the petitioner has complied with. All of the lots meet or exceed the R-1 district lot size requirements. Where the corner lots are required to be 90 feet in width, there was already a variance granted to accommodate the one lot which is a little bit deficient in width. September 23, 2014 26569 But what this plan does is actually improves on the previous design. These corner lots are larger than they were under the original plan. I already mentioned stonmwater design changes. Sidewalks would be provided on either side of the street with this development. This would be a private street. It's very similar in design actually to the T -turnaround that exists at Kingston Village. In fact, if I go to the aerial photo and zoom in on that area, you'll see the adjoining development to the south and how it has a similar type of road design associated with it. At the study session, there were questions regarding the homes and compliance with the Master Deed and bylaws. It is the developer's intention to comply with all the previously approved building and use restrictions that were approved as part of the Master Deed and bylaws. This includes the minimum building sizes as well as the percentages of brick. I know these are only line drawings but I have looked at them in detail. They are all brick on the first floor. The size of homes range from 1,800 square feet to 2,500 square feel. Really what we're doing is seeking your concurrence that the revised plan is within the framework of the original approvals and we can move forward with the development and the modified street design. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is no correspondence, but as I did indicate, this is being reviewed right now by our Engineering Division. They have had several meetings with the petitioner. We did send this to the Fire Marshal and they have approved this design. Mr. Morrow: So there has been a little bit of activity on this. Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Wilshaw: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, I just wanted to check a couple details on this. The road will stay a private road. It will not be handed over to the City when it is complete, correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Maintenance of the road will be the obligation of the residents of the development. Mr. Wilshaw: That will be handled through association dues. September 23, 2014 26570 Mr. Taormina: Yes. An arrangement will be made in the bylaws to provide the necessary finances to handle road repairs, snow removal, and all those things. Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Do those terms end up in the condominium bylaws or the documents fled with the State or the County to detail that? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The water detention system is a little unique because its not going to be an open pond like we usually see. Do we have other developments that have put an underground system in like this? Mr. Taormina: We have several developments, in fad, that rely on a similar design. Again, this is more of a conceptual design, but there will be easements on those portions of the lots that will contain the underground detention system. We have used that in several residential developments in a similar fashion. Mr. Wilshaw: That has worked out well? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it has. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Lighting and sidewalks and all that is the same from the previous plan? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Sidewalks are the same. Lighting is a standard requirement so I'm not sure. I'd have to check with the Engineering Division on the lighting requirements. Ms. Smiley: Okay. When the neighbor did not go with the land swap, does this impact him, this new shape? Mr. Taormina: No. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: Its a separate parcel. Mr. Morrow: It would appear that the petitioner is not here tonight. We'll find out if the Commission is comfortable with this and all their questions have been satisfied, and the Planning Director concurs that there's not open questions that we would have to ask the petitioner. September 23, 2014 26571 Mr. Wilshaw: If I could ask one question to the Planner Director, have we ever had any experience with Triumph Homes? Mr. Taormina: I have not. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, so we don't know of anything they've done in the City. Okay. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Tabling is always in order. Is anyone willing to make a motion on this item? On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #0932-2014 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-09-08-12, submitted by Triumph Building Company, L.L.C. requesting approval under Section 18.62 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to amend the site plan in connection with a previously approved site condominium development (Cade Meadows) on property located at 36905 Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the following conditions: 1. That the final recorded copy of the Master Deed and Bylaws shall comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tifle 16, Chapter 16.04- 16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, and that all building and use restrictions shall be in accordance with the previously approved restrictions for Cade Meadows and Dinallo Estates, including the following: That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four (4) sides; That 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; and That the brick used in the construction of each unit shall be full face four inch (4") brick; September 23, 2014 26572 2. That streeflights and sidewalks shall be installed throughout the development to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department unless waived by City Council; 3. 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; 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 owners property prorala and place said charges on their real estate lax 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; 5. That the Site Plan submitted by GLA Surveyors & Engineers with a revised dale of September 16, 2014, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That Council Resolution #82-07 in connection with the approval of the Landscape Plan for Cade Meadows, dated January 12, 2007, prepared by South Hill Construction Co., shall be complied with as it applies to the new site plan; 7. That only a conforming entrance marker is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 8. That the Planning Commission recognizes the lot width deficiency for Unit #10 and that a variance was previously granted for the corner lot across the street, which is now conforming, and has no objections to the latest plan which reduces the amount of the variance; 9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; September 23, 2014 26573 10. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the lime the building permits are applied for; and 11. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety 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 issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, under normal ciroumstances, we would want the petitioner here, but we have heard this before and I read through this approving resolution before it was read, and actually it covers just about everything we would ever want to cover. So that's why I'm supporting this resolution. Mr. Morrow: Any other discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: I have one question and then a comment. To Mr. Taormina, with the prior approval, they went to the ZBA for a waiver of a particular lot that had insufficient setbacks. Because this is going to be a different lot that will have insufficient setbacks, do they need to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and do we need to put a provision in our approval resolution that they may need to go back to the ZBA for any deficiencies. Mr. Taormina: I would lel the Building Inspection Department make that final decision. If you want language added, we could, but ultimately it will be the Inspection Department that will decide if they will have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Since the variance is still valid, the question is whether it can be transferred to the lot across the street. It actually reduces the request for a variance significantly. Mr. Wilshaw: I didn't know if we needed to codify that into our resolution. Mr. Taormina: Yes, we could add that language. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. My comment is that I typically don't like to approve a resolution of this magnitude without the petitioner even showing up, but as Mr. Taylor noted, I think that we have a very detailed approving resolution here, and based on the previous work done on the Master Deed for the prior development, I think we have a very limiting approval that locks this builder into certain characteristics of a home that we find Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,060'^ Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,060th Regular Meeting held on September 9, 2014. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #0933-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,060th Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014, are hereby approved. September 23, 2014 26574 very important, like having brick all the way around. So we have a pretty good idea of what we're going to get at this site as opposed to them just slapping up some homes that we really haven't had a chance to see. That being said, it would have been nice if the petitioner had come, but after Mrs. Smiley read that very detailed resolution, I'd hale to turn around and offer a tabling. So I'll go ahead and go with this as well. Mr. Morrow: Did I hearlabling? Mr. Wilshaw: I will not. I wouldn't want to make Mrs. Smiley's work go to waste. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to pass the gavel to Mr. Wilshaw because I'd like to make a comment on this. I concur with everything Mr. Wilshaw just said. I think we touched all the bases that relate to approving this particular site plan because we pretty much approved it in the past with minor changes. However, I'm a little uncomfortable with the fad that the petitioner is not here and I'm not going to ask why. But I guess what I'm trying to say, I want the record to show that the petitioner needs to show up at the City Council meeting so that they can pursue a lot of the questions about the company and their track record that we were unable to do tonight. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other comments from this Commission? If not, we have an approving resolution on the floor. Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. I will pass the gavel back to the Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,060'^ Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,060th Regular Meeting held on September 9, 2014. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #0933-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,060th Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2014, are hereby approved. September 23, 2014 26575 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McIntyre, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Bahr ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,061st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 23, 2014, was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman