HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-11-25 15803
MINUTES OF THE 754th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 25, 1997, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 754th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Daniel Piercecchi Elaine Koons Robert Alanskas
James C. McCann Michael Hale
Members absent: John Walsh
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and
Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
,-� involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The
Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating
petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mayor Kirksey recognized Chairman McCann's ten year service to Livonia by presenting
Mr. McCann with a ten year pin.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is the Capital
Improvement Program for years 1998-2003.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-189-97 RESOLVED that, the City of Livonia Planning Commission hereby
authorizes the Planning Department to transmit the document titled
"Capital Improvement Program, City of Livonia, 1998-2003"to the Mayor
t--, and Council as a realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete
fiscal planning strategy for the City of Livonia, and
15804
FURTHER RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission stands ready
to do all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and Council in
maintaining a functioning Program of Capital Improvements and Capital
Budgeting for the City of Livonia.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a Motion to hold
a Public Hearing to amend the City's Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance #543 to
eliminate the RUF classification and establish special residential districts which
have as their objective the preservation and protection of existing low density
residential areas of lots of one-half acre and greater in size.
Mr. McCann: I believe the resolution basically states the intent of this ordinance which
was passed on to us from the City Council in order to review it and hold a
public hearing, and that is in the rural areas in the City to maintain them in
their current condition as much as possible within the zoning ordinance.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#11-190-97 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#518-97, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance#543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or
not to amend Sections 5.01-6.14 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to
amend the RUF classification and establish special residential districts
which have as their objective the preservation and protection of existing
low density residential areas of lots of one-half acre and greater in size.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given as
provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 753rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on October 28,
1997.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
15805
#11-191-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 753rd Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on October 28, 1997 are
hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plan items of the agenda.
Members of the audience may speak for or against these items.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Sign Art, on behalf of Rite Aid, requesting approval for additional
signage for the store located at 37355 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 5.
Mr. Miller: This store is located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Newburgh.
On November 14, 1995 they received Site Plan Approval to construct a
commercial building on the site. As part of that approval, it was
conditioned that signage shall come back before the Planning Commission
for review and approval. In January of 1996 they were approved for a
conforming sign package. The three tenant units in the building were all
approved for one wall sign and the site was approved for a ground sign.
The applicant is coming before you tonight for an additional sign for one of
the tenants, Rite Aid. Because this additional sign makes the entire sign
package nonconforming, the applicant first had to go before the Zoning
Board prior to presentation to the Planning Commission. What is
presented to you tonight is what was approved by the Zoning Board and by
virtue of their variance is conforming. They are allowed 3 wall signs, they
are requesting 4 wall signs. The proposed Rite Aid sign is 60 sq. ft. in size.
They have a 60 sq. ft. sign on the facility. They are allowed one wall sign
at 130 sq. ft. The existing sign faces Eight Mile Road. The new sign
would face Newburgh Road and would be on the entrance tower.
Mrs. Koons: The ground sign, is that Rite Aid only?
Mr. Miller: It was approved that Rite Aid would have half the sign, and the other two
tenants would have to share the other half.
Mike Williams, Sign Art Inc., Kalamazoo, Michigan: The monument sign is approved. I
don't believe it is part of the petition tonight. The basis for the granting of
the variance is that we demonstrated difficulty because of the way the
property lies, the rolling hills and the fact that the way you have to enter
the drive off of Newburgh. There are two busy thoroughfares where cars
are traveling at a high rate of speed, and there are only two access points.
The total amount of signage that is visible there is less than what is allowed
on the front of the building. We are just asking to be able to split it and
15806
know to enter the facility on the east side. The total amount is less than
what is allowed in the ordinance. The ground sign is an allowable sign.
The issue is that the ordinance says that the space has to be split equally
between the tenants, but Allstate agreed to a smaller area, and the other
tenant agreed to it, so the Zoning Board went along with it.
Mr. McCann: You said you had a hardship. You haven't got the corner sign up. Are
you open for business?
Mr. Williams: Yes. The front sign is identifying the business, and that is up and lit. The
landlord is responsible for that sign. Our company builds all Rite Aid signs.
Mr. McCann: How long has this store been open?
Mr. Williams: I think probably two months now.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#11-192-97 The City Planning Commission does hereby deny Sign Permit Application
by Sign Art, on behalf of Rite Aid, requesting approval for additional
signage for the store located at 37355 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 5 for the following reasons:
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements
outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has failed to justify the need for any excessive
signage for this location over what is permitted by the sign ordinance;
3. That approving this sign request would set an undesirable precedent
for the area;
4. That because this site is located on the north border of Livonia,
approving this additional signage would not be aesthetically in the City's
best interest; and
5. The original site plan approved signage which was part of the basis
for approval of the site plan.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi: During the original site plan approval process, the petitioner agreed
to minimal signage for this building. At that time, Rite Aid even stated that
they felt the one wall sign would be adequate. Now to be open for only a
very short time and start claiming hardship is questionable. This store is
_• the only one of its type for miles in each direction. If Rite Aid provides
15807
good service and merchandise at reasonable prices, people are not going to
have any trouble finding this store.
`'`W' Mrs. Koons: I drove around and around the property and I do feel there is a lack of
signage on the west side, but as I look at the monument sign that you
provided for us, I think that will do the job. I don't like to have people
drive around to try and find something, but I do think the monument sign
will do the job.
Mr. Alanskas: I had the same thoughts. I even drove out there in the evening. I think
when that ground sign is put in there, I don't think it will be necessary. I
went up and down Eight Mile and up and down Newburgh. I think this
store will do rather well. I really don't think there is a hardship there
where you need a sign on the west side of the building.
Mr. McCann: When that store came in, the Planning Commission was the one that
approved it. We discussed it with the petitioners at the time. That was the
entrance to our City, across from it is Greenmeade that is a historic
preservation area that the citizens are very, very proud of and work very
hard at. Behind you is the City-owned golf course, across the street is a
child care and a subdivision on the other corner. It is a very residential
area. We've allowed a commercial building to come in there because the
developer worked with us to try and keep it in an esthetically pleasing way.
He agreed to reduce the amount of signage in order to keep it that way.
Further the type of business that you are providing to the community, Rite
Aid and the other type drug stores are very local customer based. You
don't tell someone coming from Taylor how to get there. This is
something that is used by the local residents. They become very familiar of
where it's at, and being right on the corner of Newburgh and Eight Mile, I
don't think it is hard to get directions to get there. Further, I believe there
is sufficient signage. It appears that Rite Aid does this at each of their
stores to develop name recognition throughout the industry as opposed to
the need to identify that particular store and location. I think that is well
served by the corner sign, and the wall sign being the only commercial
center within a mile in any direction, I don't see any reason to approve this.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Beacon Sign Company, on behalf of Crossland Economy Studios,
requesting approval for signage for the hotel located at 11808 Middlebelt Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth
and Five Mile Road. In February of 1997 they received waiver use
approval to construct an extended stay hotel on the subject site. Part of
that approval was the condition that all signage come back before the
Planning Commission and the City Council. The hotel is permitted one
15808
ground sign at 30 sq. ft., and that is what they are proposing. They are
also allowed one wall sign at 170 sq. ft. and they are proposing one at 36
sq. ft., well below what they are allowed. This is a conforming sign
package for the hotel.
Terrance Ulch, Beacon Sign Company, 19719 Mt. Elliott, Detroit: There was a question
at the Study Meeting last week in regards to a directional sign that it was
nonconforming because it was over three sq.ft. We have made a change to
the drawing and we now have a conforming three sq. ft. sign.
Mr. McCann: Did you discuss with the owners anything regarding the interchangeable
panel?
Mr. Ulch: Yes, we had a discussion on the interchangeable panel. The panel is not to
be used as any sort of advertisement. When the sign is initially installed
will be the only time that the sign will say anything other than the weekly
rate. Once the hotel is open, it will state a one figure weekly rate, it won't
be a plural as in weekly rates, it will be one fixed rate. It may change as
inflation goes up and then of course they will change that panel, but it will
not be used at all for advertisement.
Mrs. Koons: Either I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me at the Study
meeting. It was my intention that it didn't have a dollar amount at all, that
the sign said weekly rates.
Mr. Ulch: It would not be weekly rates at all, it would not be plural. There would be
a dollar amount on there, but it would be one fixed amount, the amount
that we would be charging at the hotel.
Mrs. Koons: So it would say so much a week.
Mr. Ulch: $259 a week or whatever it might be.
Mrs. Koons: But you don't know what inflation would do and you don't know when
you would have to change that.
Mr. Ulch: It would be changed yearly, if even that. It has been shown that now there
are several in the area that have been open six months, and the prices have
remained the same.
Mrs. Koons: I still don't think there should be a dollar amount on the sign at all.
Mr. Alanskas: What you are stating is that you would still have a interchangeable panel on
that sign.
15809
Mr. Ulch: There would be a panel that could be changed. The only time it would be
changed if the rate would change.
`�- Mr. Alanskas: The average hotel that you go to, you don't even see that where it says X
number of dollars. Why do you think that it is necessary for your firm to
have that?
Mr. Ulch: Crosslands is not a normal hotel at all. It is based on an extended stay for a
longer period of time. We want to let them know that we have one amount
for an entire week. That's the clientele that we cater to.
Mr. Alanskas: Why couldn't you put on that sign "Crosslands Extended Stay"with no
amount.
Mr. Ulch: One reason is that there is another company with the name Extended Stay
and we don't want to mix any issues.
Mr. Alanskas: I just have a problem with a dollar amount on the sign. It's a good looking
building and a good looking sign and then to put a dollar value on there
seems to say you could change the amount overnight. It's like saying our
business is slow, let's reduce our rates this week.
Mr. Ulch: We only have one panel. If we were to change the rate, it would have to
be an ordered panel. It's not something like a stock item that we keep. It
would remain consistent unless it was something that was ordered through
the corporate office and then changed at that time.
Mr. Alanskas: I think you are hearing right now from two people that it is a problem.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this request and a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-193-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign Company,
on behalf of Crossland Economy Studios, requesting approval for signage
for the hotel located at 11808 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 25 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Beacon Sign Company, as
received by the Planning Commission on October 29, 1997 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to except for the fact that no changeable
copy panel shall be permitted on the ground sign;
�... 2. That all directional signage shall conform to Section 18.50D(i);
15810
3. That all additional signage for this site shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
4. That the signage will not contain information relative to room rates.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-11-8-
22 by John D. Dinan requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of
the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct two office
buildings on property located at 37001 Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6.
Mr. McCann: I received a letter from Officer John Gibbs in the Traffic Bureau that they
have no objection to the site plan. Further a letter from John Hill from City
Engineer that there are no wet lands in the area and they have no objections
in regard to the proposed development, however they will require the
developer to provide storm drainage to both the developed and
undeveloped portions of the property.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh and
Victor Parkway. The petitioner is proposing to construct two separate
office buildings. Both office buildings would be 19,900 sq. ft. in size. The
development would be called the James Towne II Office Center and would
be adjacent to the building to the west named the James Towne Offices
developed by the same petitioner. The plan is to link both sites together so
that once completed it would look as if it were one large office complex.
To help this along, they have two service drives to connect the
developments and also the parking and landscaping schemes would
continue. Parking for this development is required to have 209 parking
spaces. The plan shows 213 spaces, so they meet the parking requirement.
Landscaping for this development would be very similar to the existing
James Towne offices. There is also an undeveloped portion to the south.
Because of that undeveloped portion, the entire site shows 50% and they
are required to have 15%, so they far exceed the landscape requirement.
The architecture and building materials of the building would be similar to
the existing James Towne office where it is brick, batten wood siding, and
fieldstone construction. There is also an asphalt shingled roof and a cupola
on the roof.
Mr. Tangora: We tried to orchestrate this petition so that the rezoning petition second
reading is coming up to Council the second week in December. The
15811
Council would like to see the site plan in conjunction with the rezoning
petition.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is everything in order?
Mr. Nagy: I am satisfied that everything is in order. The Engineering Division does
raise a concern, but it is a matter that is going to be with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality. They will make the final
determination and we will have to be guided by their decision.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, we have a letter from the Fire Marshal regarding hydrant
placement. The Department of Public Works will put that in?
Mr. Nagy: They will be required to put their own fire hydrant in within their own
property area, not outside the boundaries of their property.
Mr. Dinan: As part of our development, we will be putting in fire hydrants both on
Pembroke and in the rear of the building. That will be short length of hose
necessary for fire protection. This will be all coordinated with the
Engineering Department as well as the Fire Department.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is this the usual method?
Mr. Dinan: Yes.
Mr. McCann: The Engineering letter states they require a letter, but they have received a
letter.
There was no one else wishing to speak and Mr. McCann called for a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-194-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 97-11-8-22 by John D. Dinan requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance#543
in connection with a proposal to construct two office buildings on property
located at 37001 Pembroke Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 6 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Michael A. Boggio
Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on November 20,
1997 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the entire parking lot shall be double striped;
r.-
15812
3. That the three walls of both trash dumpster areas shall be constructed out
of the same brick used in the construction of the buildings and the wooden
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times;
4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by Michael A. Boggio
Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on October 29, 1997 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 prepared by
Michael A. Boggio Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on
October 19, 1997 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-11-8-
23 by Zef Ivezaj requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.62 of the
'` zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site condominium
development on property located on the west side of Henry Ruff Road between
Six Mile Road and Puritan Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Henry Ruff between Six Mile and
Puritan Avenue. The petitioner is proposing to construct a site
condominium development. The development consists of 14 condominium
units. Each lot would conform to the requirements of RUFC zoning
classification which is a half acre lot. Access to the site would be achieved
by a new public road that would be L-shaped and end in a cul-de-sac and
would be a continuation of Munger Road and would intersect with Henry
Ruff Road. For clarification, each condominium would be an individual
one on each lot so it will look like a regular subdivision.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nagy, have we received a Master Deed?
Mr. Nagy: No, it is still in the draft stages unless the petitioner has brought it with
him. He has not formally submitted it to the department.
Mr. Alanskas: So if we have an approval, it would be contingent upon the Master Deed?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
15813
Mr. Tangora: I think you are all familiar with what a site condominium is. This is a
development of 14 units of what you would normally call a subdivision. It
is the same size as a subdivision. The buildings will be built the same as in
a single family subdivision.
Mr. McCann: Would these lots qualify as RUF?
Mr. Nagy: All lot sizes meet or exceed RUF sizes.
Mr. Tangora: So if you were to drive into this development after it is completed, you
couldn't tell if it were a subdivision or a site condo. They are individually
owned. There is not a Master Deed as yet. We have to prepare condo
documents, which includes a Master Deed, for submission to the title
company. Zef tells me that the type of homes that would be built here are
in the area of$250,000 and up. I think that is comparable to the type of
homes you see going up in Livonia now. I don't have elevation plans yet.
They are not available yet, but they would be typical to single family
homes. They would be individually owned by the condo buyer. The
question of common areas, of whether the Association would maintain
them, really hasn't been determined yet. Things like snowplowing and
lawn cutting and the islands here would be taken care of by the condo
association.
Mr. McCann: So what you are stating is that lawn maintenance and sidewalk and
driveway maintenance will all be taken care of by the Association?
Mr. Tangora: It could be. This is a private road. Typically when we do condo
documents we include snowplowing. In site condos you can either have a
lawn service cut all the landscaping or allow the individual unit owners to
do that. It's an option for the developer.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, the building elevations will have to come back before us?
Mr. Nagy: If you wish to have them, you could require them to come back.
Mr. McCann: They will have to meet all the standards of other subdivisions in the RUF
district, correct?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. The underlying zoning will still remain in force and effect. They will
have to meet all those zoning conditions within the RUF zoning. The
condos do not change that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Whether it is brick, or vinyl or aluminum siding, that will all come
back to us?
15814
Mr. Nagy: That should all be spelled out in the condo documents, in the Master Deed,
Those things will all be for your review in the Master Deed. Pursuant to
our site plan condominium ordinance, the Master Deed must be approved
at your level, as well as the Council level.
Mr. Piercecchi: Inasmuch as this package is going to be $250,000 and up, it could
be stated in there that it could be entirely of brick and those types of
things?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Each one of those owners buying into it will know what their
responsibilities are and in turn Planning Commission and Council will
know.
Mr. Tangora: Also, all the improvements and underground is all put in at City
specifications. Even though it is a private development, and the road is
private, the standards are still the City standards.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposed development?
Eric Kasaba, 16808 Ryan: Why is this development a site condominium and not a
subdivision?
Mr. McCann: Basically because to go through a site condominium as this will take a year
less than going through a preliminary plat, going through Lansing, and
coming up with a development there. They meet and exceed all RUF
requirements, so to an individual driving by, this will have one of the
largest lot subdivisions going into the City. You will not be able to tell
whether it is a RUF subdivision or a site condo.
Mr. Kasaba: The plan as proposed will be adhered to? Are there any regulations that
could be changed? We had visions of these attached condominiums
showing up behind us.
Mr. McCann: If they get this approval tonight, they would have to start all over again if
they want to change it.
Mr. Nagy: The only thing I would add is that we will have a similar hearing when we
get the condominium Master Deed. We would be happy to notify the
people again and have them come in and we can share with them the home
improvement requirements and so forth. The only other thing I would say
to the residents to assure them that this is in fact equal to any other
subdivision is that we are getting all the needed improvements that you
would in a typical subdivision. It will be a public street. It will be put in to
City standards as any other conventional City street. It will be inspected,
fully paved, curb and gutter, sidewalk, be dedicated to the public. It will be
15815
the City, not the association, will maintain it, plow it, see that it is swept,
mail will be delivered to the homes as they are in any other residential
subdivision. We assure you that it will be equal to what you are used to in
''" any other subdivision in the area.
Jim Vizzaccaro, 16830 Ryan: My platting that I received when I bought my house
indicated it is not extensive wetlands, but I have wetlands on my property,
and it extends out in such an area that it seems that there would be
wetlands on this property as well and I don't see any indication of wet
lands.
Mr. McCann: You bring up a good point. The office did receive a letter from John Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. "The Engineering Division has the following
concerns with the referenced petition which should be brought to your
attention at this time: 1) A small portion of the property appears to fall
within the 100 year flood plain, thus this portion of the property could not
be developed. 2) A considerable portion of the property appears to be
wetlands as determined by the U.S. Department of Interior. 3) Storm
water runoff for the site would most likely be discharged to the open drain
which would require a permit from the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the Engineering Division issuing a site
development permit. Furthermore, the Engineering Division would not
issue a permit until a qualified professional(s) delineate the boundaries of
the wetlands and 100 year flood plan." So basically what you are saying is
a concern. It is now part of the public record. Even if we approve the site
plan because it appears to be appropriate and they are saying that it is not
in the wetland area, they cannot build on it and they cannot get a certificate
of development, they cannot start to develop it until such time that all these
concerns are met and satisfied.
Mr. Vizzaccaro: Wouldn't the start of the development include the clearing of the
property, which has already been done? The property has been cleared.
All the trees are gone. Wait a minute, there's wetlands here. I was told
with the wetlands on my property I can't disturb the soil, I can't change it.
So I have a portion of my property that I assume I am not allowed to plant
grass on, I can't plant a garden, etc., so as a lay person, if I can't plant
grass, how can they build houses?
Mr. McCann: It's a legitimate concern. Mr. Nagy, can you comment on that?
Mr. Nagy: Because it is a wetland, it doesn't mean you don't have a right to use your
own property. It doesn't mean you can build on it, put certain structures,
but you can certainly use it for recreational purposes, outdoor purposes,
you can plant on it.
Mr. Vizzaccaro: Isn't there something on changing the soil or the grade?
15816
Mr. Nagy: If you are in a designated floodplain area, then it is regulated. You cannot
disturb the elevation, but there is a difference between one that is a wetland
area versus a regulated flood plain area. That area you cannot disturb the
grade. You cannot diminish the flood holding capacity within the
boundaries of the flood plain area.
Mr. Vizzaccaro: Yes, this area is a known flood plain and being as how my property buts
up against this, the questions is, when the heavy rains come, where is the
water to go because obviously I don't want it running onto my property?
Mr. McCann: I read you the letter from the Engineering Department. Those are
engineering concerns and they will not let them develop the property until
all the concerns are met. We are a planning body. We look at subdivisions
when they come in and we say, does it meet all the City requirements? Is it
appropriate for an R-1 or an R-2. In this case it is in a RUF zoning, the
largest zoning as far as requiring the square foot of property in subdivisions
going in today. So yes, it does meet the requirements that we are seeing,
but yes we are concerned about this, but it is something that the
Engineering Department is concerned about, is looking into, and they will
not issue any building permits or let any construction until such time as
that's been met, and any concerns for water that has to be diverted from
that area, will also go through the Engineering Department to make sure
that it doesn't go in the neighbors yards.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Nagy, is this a typical procedure that we would approve site plans
with, what I am considering, so many unknowns?
Mr. Nagy: This is a typical procedure. We do require that plans such as this, site
condominiums, subdivisions, be prepared by registered engineers who have
the experience and knowledge to take into account flood plain areas,
wetland areas, as well as all the other engineering concerns to show us that
the site is usable within the basic parameters of our City ordinance which
includes all of the above. In this case, Arpee/Donnan is well qualified and
has done numerous subdivisions in the City of Livonia. While we do know
that the lower tier lots are in the area of the wetlands and flood plain, from
the City records, that does not diminish the total lot in terms of having
sufficient area to accommodate a single family home. The same floodplain
issue when the adjoining subdivision, two parcels to the west, the Hidden
Creek Subdivision, we looked at that and were confident that they put that
into account when we recommended that plan to you.
There was no one else wishing to be heard on this item, and Mr. McCann, Chairman,
called for a motion.
r..
15817
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
'New #195-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 97-11-8-23 by Zef Ivezaj requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal for a site condominium development on
property located on the west side of Henry Ruff Road between Six Mile
Road and Puritan Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 14 be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc.
as received by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1997 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That no site condominium may be sold or offered for sale, nor shall
a permit be issued for construction of any unit prior to a Master Deed for
this development being reviewed by the Planning Commission and
approved by the City Council, as outlined in Section 18.62 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Koons: Does the Master Deed include all of the floodplain water? In order to
obtain a Master Deed, will all the other information have to be cleared up?
Mr. McCann: It would not be part of the Master Deed. We can ask the staff to keep us
informed of any developments in that area.
Mr. Nagy: We can certainly do that for you.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 754th Regular Meeting
held on November 25, 1997 was adjourned at 8:26 PM.
Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
Attest: �y� ., - e'
J. • es C. McCann, Chairman
i
�.. /dia