Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-01-2919104 MINUTES OF THE 838"' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 838" Public Hearings and 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: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Pastor Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a pefition on tonight's 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, the petitioner hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in wnting, 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 ofthe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 200142-0143 MARK BAK Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 12-01-13 submitted by Mark Bak requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View Lane and Hickory Lane in the Northwest %of Section 6 from RUF to OS. 19105 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated December 19, 2001, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We would request that the developer be required to permanently improve the existing gravel approaches and parking lots to either asphalt or concrete in accordance with Section 13.06 of the Zoning Ordinance to handle the increased traffic associated with the business." The Iefler is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Bak, 6367 Robison Lane, Saline, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Is there any additional information on your project? Mr. Bak: Yes, I have two letters that I received from different neighbors that I did forward here last week. I'm not sure if those are there. Basically, we just simply want to be able to take photographs at the studio. We are a portrait studio that primarily photographs on location in homes, at weddings, sporting events, things like that on location. We have a lot of clients that would like us to be able to take pictures of them and don't have a location or facility for us to do that, so we wish to lake pictures in our backyard there. I did have a meeting last week with some of the neighbors. I sent out a letter to all the neighbors inviting them to come in and see the studio and let me shay them the plans. Several neighbors showed up. We had a very nice meeting, and I think some of them are here tonight so they can tell you what they thought. But it went over very well I thought. They were happy with the improvements that we made on the building. We've renovated the inside and started on the outside replacing some deteriorated wood and things like that. We have a new painljob on it. I think we've improved the building quite a bit. We put about $70,000 into the exterior and interior overthe Iastyear and a half, and I thinkwe cleaned it up pretty nice and would like to continue doing that and make it a pleasing part of the neighborhood. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Do you own the property? 19106 Mr. Bak: No, sir, not until April. I have a lease with option to buy which is effective April 1. Mr. Alanskas: Are you in there now working as a studio? Mr. Bak: Yes, exceplwe don't do portraits there. We are primarily a wedding studio so we shoot our pictures on location. Right now, it's basically our sales offices. Mr. Alanskas: Could you tell us a little bit about the grooming part in the back? Is that going to still be there? Mr. Bak: No, sir. Mr. Alanskas: That's going to be going out. What will be going in where they are? Mr. Bak: We're not sure yet. Just additional sales offices, maybe a shooting room. We haven't really determined what is going in there. Mr. Alanskas: You sayyou wanttD put a pond in the back. And what else? Mr. Bak: Yes, sir. A pond with a little waterfall, landscaping, gazebo... Mr. Alanskas: What size are you talking about? Mr. Bak: The pond ... well, depending on what I can afford, I guess, and what is allowed. We have different renderings of it, anything from 20' around to 40' around. Again, just depending on if there's a limit to what I can do and how much I can afford. Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou. Mr. La Pine: I have a couple of questions. Mr. Piercecchi and I were out there last week, and we got into your building. But there was a gentleman there that really did not want to show us loo much because he was an employee and he didn't know if he was supposed to shoe us around. Butwedidwalkupanddovnthefirstfoor. Inthebackyou have a sales office and you've got a closet and you've got another sales office. This training room. Now to me thattraining room had a black backdrop wit. I'm in the graphic arts business. So you take photographs in there, do you not? Mr. Bak: Yes, it's where we train photographers on how to do portraits. Mr. La Pine: This is a training place? 19107 Mr. Bak: Yes, for our wedding photographers. We teach them how to do portraits in there. So like in our old locafion, when we did a shooting studio with 16' wide, 31' long. The room you're talking about is 5' wide and 8'long. Mr. La Pine: Yes, right. Mr. Bak: So its for nothing more than doing head and shoulders shots. Mr. La Pine: How often do you train? I mean, how many photographers do you have? Mr. Bak: We have about 12. And we do seminars. Right now we do them every other Tuesday night from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The photographers will come in and we just do our little seminars in there. Mr. La Pine: So there are 12 people continually being trained? Mr. Bak: Yes, sir. Mr. La Pine: That's strange. Okay. Now, tell me something aboutthese sales offices. You have four. I dont know what you have upstairs because he didn't want us to go upstairs. What's on the second floor? Mr. Bak: The second floor is just as when we moved into it. Its just a finished upstairs like a house would be. Mr. La Pine: Now your operation is upstairs? Mr. Bak: Yes, sir. That's where we put the albums together for the bride and groom. Mr. La Pine: Doyoudo anydeveloping oflheflmthere? Mr. Bak: None at all. It's all outsourced. Mr. La Pine: What's in the pole bam? Mr. Bak: Storage. There's nothing in there at all except stuff—just old props, old desks, things that we might take on location. Like if we do a dance studio shoot, we have our big background stands that are in there made out of wood that go up 12' high, so that we can't keep them in the building. So that's kept out in the barn. Things of that nature. 19108 Mr. LaPine: And when you have one of these types of shoots, you take that to the location. Is that right? Mr. Bak: Yes, sir. Those are ... Mr. LaPine: This is a commercial operation. By that, I mean do you do shoots for corporations, for businesses, and thi rigs like that? Mr. Bak: Yes. Mr. LaPine: This is not strictly a portreit operation. Mr. Bak: No, sir. A lot of our clients will call us to come in and do ... see, even though it's commercial, we don't do commercial work. I don't know which way you want to dassify that. A company will call us to come in and do head and shoulder portraits of a committee, of all their vice presidents, something like that. So most of the time it relates to portrait work. However, I have photographed buildings. I have photographed molding machines, cars, things like that. So I am trained in commercial work. I can do it if need be. Mr. LaPine: Okay, now, the sales offices ... I assume these are used if a couple comes in and wants to supposedly hire you to shoot their wedding. You have four sales offices. That means you have four salesmen that can show them samples of your work and so forth. Is that what that's for? Mr. Bak: Yes, sir. Mr. La Pine: Do you do anylraining of slide films or anything like that at this location? Mr. Bak: I'm not sure what you mean. I don't do anything with slide film at all. Mr. LaPine: You don'tdo anyslide film? Mr. Bak: No, sir. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr Shane: What is the total number of employees that would be on the site at any one time? Mr. Bak: There are two gids that work upstairs in the order department. There is a total of four salespeople downstairs but we rotate because we are open 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. So usually its two salespeople per day 19109 and two people upstairs. Once in a while there will be a crossover where someone's come in for a couple hours and someone is going out in two hours. So sometimes you might have three downstairs and two upstairs. Most ofthe time two and two. Mr. Shane: How many customers would you presume would be there at any one lime? Mr. Bak: We work strictly by appointment. An appointment is about an hour and a half to two hours long, so two clients at a time is all we can really take because there's only two salespeople there usual ly at a time. Mr.Shane: Thankyou. Mr. Piercecchr Sir, would you repeat again when you're going to terminate the grooming because that definitely doesn't apply in either of those zonings. That's a commercial operation. When you had the vets, you could tie in with the veterinary operation. Thalwas fine. But inasmuch as that hasn't been there for many, many years ... when is the exact date that you can terminate that? Mr. Bak: Well, I can officially purchase the building April 1 and then I assume they need time to move out and do what theyre going to do. I assume it wouldn't be more than 30, 60, maybe 90 days after that, but we actually haven't set a termination dale for them to leave. Mr. Piercecchr So, it's roughly around June if you're getting the rezoning. By June you would terminate that commercial operation? Mr. Bak: I would thinkso. Again, I honestly haven't had that conversation with the owners yet, but I think we're both thinking that. Mr. Piercecchi: If you got the rezoning to OS, you could operate a photographic studio, but the dog grooming doesn't apply because that's a commercial operation. Mr. Bak: And that was there before I got there, sir. I believe they're planning on refining and moving out of stale. Mr. La Pine: Do you have any plans to improve the parking lot, to build an approach from Eight Mile Road on your property, to stripe your parking lot? Mr. Bak: I haven't had any plans, no, sir. 19110 Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Rodger Matthews, 38530 Morningstar in the Livonia Hills Subdivision. My wife, Emma Lou, is here with me tonight. I was just going to basically make a comment that we're opposed to what's going on here. There is a series of events that started last December. I have a piece of paper here just for the record; it's a copy of my notes, if that's okay. We came over in December 11 for waiver use approval in this forum. And then in January, I received a memo from Mr. Bak saying he had obtained a variance to operate his offices earlier in October, 2000, and then we were invited to a public hearing on December 11 where a waiver was also being requested. So I'm kind of confused between a variance and waiver. The requested waiver had a variance requesting awaiver. On January 15, Mr. Bak sent memo to us stating that he's simply fling for a permit to be able to do landscaping and to use the backyard for outdoor portraits. This was in response to a written comment that we had made to Mr. Bak where we had erroneously made the assumption that he was intending to hold outdoor weddings on the property. This brings us to tonight, where I think there's a request to rezone the property, but I'd like a clarification what Item 9 is on the back of the agenda. Is that for tonight or is that for a future meeting? Mr. McCann: That's actually on tonight's agenda. It was previously scheduled last November or early December, I believe. The problem we had with it, it's not a permitted use in an RU zoning. We couldn't grant him a waiver use to do this unless he changed the zoning. Mr. Matthews: So the zoning comes first and then it's a waiver request after that? Mr. McCann: That's exactly correct. Mr. Matthews: Thankyou forlhe clarification. Mr. McCann: The zoning of this property would need to be changed before we could approve the waiver use. Mr. Matthews: By the way, Mr. LaPine, I want to compliment you. Thank you for coming out to the property and taking a look and reviewing what's going on there. I appreciate that. I did visit a web site of Mr. Bak's — a very nicely done web site. And I just want to make mention that the web site says he's planning on putting over $1 million into the comer properly, so that's quite a lump sum to be putting into that corner property iflhal's the case and that's exactly what he's planning on doing. And then in the letter of response on January 15 that Mr. Bak 19111 sent tome, he mentions that he's received a variance to operate the studio and since has purchased the building. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thinkjust moment's ago he said he has notyet purchasedit. He's got a whatever-you-want-tocall-itto purchase it. I don't think it is purchased yet. So I just want a point clarification there. Sothis whole series of events kind of leaves me and my wife unsettled. We're a little confused as to what Mr. Bak's plans really are. I dont think theyre detailed. I don't think they're represented very well at all in this forum or to the neighborhood. We'rejust dissatisfied with that. In verysimple terms, my wife and I are both opposed to any request for variance of waiver use and, most importantly, we request that you vole no regarding the request to rezone the subject property. Thank you for your time. Mr. McCann: Thankyou, sir. Nancy Gaston, 38685 Jahn. I'm one of the neighbors that never got any notification from Mr. Bak, along with quite a few other neighbors who knew nothing of what was going on, or being invited over to his studio. One of the things that I wanted to go back to is a meeting that was held— it was a public hearing — with John Nagy. This is going back to March 16, 1988. This is on the property when Helmkamp wanted to buy the property from Bob Siegmund. I want to read what was said at that time because this is what we're going through again. First of all, Mr. Taylor talked about waiver use. It was granted. If the house did, for some reason bum down, could there be another office building under the waiver use provision? Nagy. The waiveruse would be conditioned on the attorney's own plan to use the house in its present condition. ff that happened, they would have to come back to the City Council for amending. Waiver use runs with the land, not with the applicant, it remains with the property. ff the structure were destroyed, we would not allow the construction of an office building on the property. The RUF zoning remains. Special waiveruse: Since the residential zoning remains, they would have to build residential -type construction. This isjusl part ofwhal went on althe meeting. This is why dwas kept RUF. This also affects Farmington Hills. Farmington Hills has properly on Eight Mile Road that is vacant. Theyjust turned down the properly as being any type of commercial or office use. They want to keep it residential. The people there have not been notified officially of Mr. Bak wanting to make this an office. I doubt very much that they are going to go along with it. They want to keep everything residential in the area as most of the residents do. This property is in a residential area, whether it's on the Farmington side or on the Livonia side. Having an office building there is going to not just look funny, but we have no idea what's going to happen four years down the road with Mr. Bak. 19112 We've already had the attorneys in there. It was burned down. Then we had a veterinarian in there. Then we had the dog groomer. Now we have a photographer. And this is in RUF. Now if this goes to office and he decides to sell, we could have anything put in there. So, my husband and I would appreciate that you understand the residents' point of view and not let this go to office. Thankyou. Shawn Janik, 20535 Meadow View. I live right next door to the property we're talking about. I'm kind of nervous so excuse me. I've lived in that home for almost three years. Prior to purchasing the home, we had inquired about that particular property and what's going to happen with that. At that time, we were assured that there would be nothing else. Once the groomers were gone, there would be nothing else in there because of the way its zoned, unless of course they went to the variance or what we're doing this evening. Because the groomers were already there, I can live with that because I knew what I was getting into. Shortly after moving into the home, now we have a photographic studio there. It affects me a great deal. There's really no way of knowing exactly what's going to happen. I don't know if there's going to be a hundred people in that back yard when I want to cul my grass. I cant cul my grass because I might disturb them or my dogs are barking if they've got family groups taking photographs around the pond that he wants to bui Id, as well as the parking. I'm going to have cars parked on the street to where it makes it difficult for me to get in and out of my driveway. I moved from a neighborhood because I didn't want that. At any given time when you go into that building, there is a minimum of eight cars inside that parking lot. This evening when I left at 7:01, there were eight cars and two cars pulling in at the same time. In the past, I've had run-ins with his customers actually being parked in my driveway and had profanity used against me. When you talked about employees, there's going to be a number of cars inside that parking lot. It's going to look like a parking lot. It's not going to look like a residential neighborhood. As far as all the improvements that he's done, well that's pretty much normal things of maintenance, you know. Painting the building is basically maintenance. I'm sure that anybody in the neighborhood would love to see other homes, as well as mine, painted. That's something that'sjust normal things. He's put a great deal of money into it; that's great. But for what he wants to use it for, my wife and 1, we don't wart to have a commercial building next door to us. When he originally got his variance or his waiver in October, how come nobody was notified then that he plans on doing this? 19113 Mr. McCann: You misunderstood, sir. He never got a variance. He applied for it Mr. McCann: Do you have any last comments, Mr. Bak, before we close the public hearing? Mr. La Pine: First I'd like to ask Mark a couple questions. Mark, let's assume this was rezoned OS. Five years down the line, somebody comes along We said we couldn't do it. It was called a waiver use. Itwas adjourned untl tonight. Mr. Janik: Right but this was supposedly in October of 2000 that he ... Mr. McCann: There was no waiver use applied for or received. Mr. Janik: Okay, maybe I'm misunderstanding his letter that he had written to us. Mr. McCann: Whatever his letter says, I'm saying the waiver use was applied for this last fall. We did not act on it because it's improper zoning. He decided he wanted to try and get the zoning changed. That's what we're here for tonight. Mr. Janik: Okay. Basically, like I said, we did a lot of research before we purchased this home, and I would not have purchased the home knowing that this was going to happen. My wife was in contact with Mr. Nowak a number of times on different properties in Livonia that we were interested in, but we had concerns with what's going to happen with the property that is for sale. We were under the impression that it would stay a residential area. That's the way we'd like to keep it. Again, it does affect me more than anybody else in the neighborhood because of the fact that I have all their traffic. What's going to happen in the backyard down the road? Will my privacy be affected. I moved into this home because of the yard. And if my privacy is going to be affected because he's having 50, 20 people, whatever, in the backyard ... I bought it as a home to where I can relax and have my family enjoy the backyard. I think if this happens, that isn't going to happen for us. Harry Piotrowski, 20559 Hickory Lane. I'm opposed to it simply because it's a business. If you're anywhere in our neighborhood, we're very close to the expressway. Traffic is tremendous in our sub because of the expressway. They use is as a turnaround. I have a neighbor that has two big flower pots in his driveway to prevent that. We still gel more traffic than most subs in Livonia. So any business adjacent to our subdivision is just going to add more traffic. So I am definitely opposed to it. Mr. McCann: Do you have any last comments, Mr. Bak, before we close the public hearing? Mr. La Pine: First I'd like to ask Mark a couple questions. Mark, let's assume this was rezoned OS. Five years down the line, somebody comes along 19114 and offers him a big sum of money for that property. Could they come in and tear that building down and build a brick commend at structure there? Right now, it looks like a home bulwe know it's a business. In the future, if somebody bought it with the OS zoning, could it be demolished and an OS classification be built there? Mr. Taormina: Yes, certainly. The only limitation that might apply, and I'm not sure what exactly those restrictions would be or what hurdles would have to be overcome, is the historic designation of the structure or the main residence. But under a situation where let's say fire damaged the structure more than 50%, then certainly reconstruction on the site could be done in compliance with our OS, Office Services, district regulations. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bak, you're not going to have any weddings per se in the backyard? Mr. Bak: No, sir. Mr. LaPine: So if somebody wanted to gel married in the back because they liked the atmosphere, that's not going to happen? Mr. Bak: No, sir, not at all. That was in the letter that the gentleman up here sent to me. I wrote him back letting him know I'm not sure where the rumor came from but it is a rumor. I have no intention at all of doing that. Also, just for the rest of the gentlemen that may not be familiar, my driveway is the very first one as you tum off of Eight Mile, so I don't think there would be an increase of traffic going through the subdivision. I am the very first one as soon as you turn off of Eight Mile. My driveway is 10 yards on the hill and you tum right onto my property. Also, talking with this gentleman here ... I was talking with his wife after the last meeting. One of the things we talked about outside afterwards, they suggested maybe just putting a small lawn sign up orjust a little "Bak' with an arrow, which I did order. Its just not in yet. That would be for anybody that might drive past my driveway and drive over to his, just to let them know to come in this driveway. Mr. LaPine: I have just one other question I want to ask somebody in the neighborhood. When the veterinary hospital was there, how did that operate? Did you have any problem with that being there? Is this a worse situation than a veterinary hospital or is this a better situation? I don't care who answers. I'm just curious. Mr. Janik: It's getting progressively worse. 19115 Mr. La Pine: Okay. Mr. McCann: We've got a problem. We've already closed the public hearing. If 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. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchr I'm going to support the denying resolution because there is no question that OS zoning would permit too much activity on this site there is no objection, we can reopen it. Mr. Pastor: I have no objection. Mr. McCann: Anything else, Mr. Bak? Mr. Bak: No. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #01-11-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, on Petition 2001-12-01-13, submitted by Mark Bak, requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View Lane and Hickory Lane in the Northwest''/.of Section 6 from RUF to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-12-01-13 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning would constitute spot zoning; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will be incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning will encourage future requests for similar zoning changes along the south side of Eight Mile Road in this area; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends retention of low density residential use for the 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. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchr I'm going to support the denying resolution because there is no question that OS zoning would permit too much activity on this site 19116 and that the proposed change of zoning is contrary to our Future Land Use Plan. As was pointed out here, Mr. Chairman, once its zoned OS, it could be torn down and another structure could be put there which would comply with our ordinance. So it's very dangerous for that particular subdivision to have that corner to be zoned OS, in my opinion. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an denying resolution. We do have Item #9 on our agenda tonight for the waiver use for Mr. Bak. We are in the same position we would have been in November. Based on our recommendation to Council, we would not be able to approve a waiver use for this situation. Mr. Taormina, I want to look to you for direction because I do not want the people in the audience waiting around until 9:00. Can we take it out order? Are we going to table it because the zoning issue is still a problem? Mr. Taormina: Yes, I believe you can take it out of order. You can move that item ahead on the agenda. The staff would recommend this evening that you take action on this item in the forth of a denying resolution. That would constitute the final action unless the petitioner decides to appeal it to City Council. Mr. McCann: If there is no objection from the Planning Commissioners, would the Secretary take Agenda Item #9, under Pending Items, and call it please? ITEM #2 PETITION 200140-02 22 MARK BAK Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 10-02-22 submitted by Mark Bak requesting waiver use approval to operate a photographic studio on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View Lane and Hickory Lane in the Northwest % of Section 6. Mr. McCann: This is a pending item. There is no audience discussion because the Planning Commission has reviewed it at length in prior meetings. Therefore, a motion is in order. 19117 On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, was #01-12-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-10-02-22, submitted by Bak & Associates, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a photographic studio on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View Lane and Hickory Lane in the Northwest %of Section 6, be removed from the table Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, was #01-13-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 29, 2001, on Pefilion 2001-10-02-22, submitted by Bak & Associates, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a photographic studio on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View Lane and Hickory Lane in the Northwest%of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-10-02-22 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the petitioner has not submitted an adequate site plan in compliance with the requirements prescribed in Section 2.10(18) of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 3. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 4. That the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient information to determine if the proposed use will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding single family residential uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to the City Council in writing. 19118 ITEM #3 PETITION 200142-0144 ODYSSEY INVESTMENTS (Brentwood Avenue) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petifion 2001- 12-01-14 submitted by William Skubik, on behalf of Odyssey Investments, requesfing to rezone property located on the west side of Brentwood Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northwest%of Section 12 from OS to R-1. Mr. McCann: The item does not meetthe compliance with the City statute requiring that the property be posted for a zoning change. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot act on this unfil it is properly posted. The hearing will be rescheduled for February 26, 2002. ITEM #4 PETITION 2001-12-01-15 ODYSSEY INVESTMENTS (Seven Mile Road) Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 12-01-15 submitted by William Skubik, on behalf of Odyssey Investments, requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Brentwood and Maplewood Avenues in the Northwest''/. of Section 12 from OS to R-1. Mr. McCann: The item does not meet the compliance with the City statute requiring that the property be posted for a zoning change. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot act on this until it is properly posted. The hearing will be rescheduled for February 26, 2002. ITEM #5 PETITION 200141-02-26 BOULDER PINES Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 11-02-26 submitted by Michael Soave requesting waiver use approval to develop single family cluster homes at 32405 Seven Mile Road, south of Seven Mile Road, east of Brookfield, in the Northwest %of Section 10. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 30, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has 19119 reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the legal description contained therein. We have no objection to the layout of the development, but have concems overthe lack of a storm sewer outlet shown on the plans. Once detailed engineering plans have been received by this office, we will be able to determine ifpermits can be issued." The letter is signed by David Lear, P. E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 26, 2001, which reads as follaws: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to develop a single-family cluster on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Mayfield Avenue and Canterbury Drive in the Northwest''/. of Section 10. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Fire hydrant shall be provided with residential use groups. (2) The most remote hydrant shall Flow 1500 GPM with a 20 PSI residual pressure. (3) Minimum diameterofcul-desac shall be atleast80feet (4) Any curves or comers shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 45' wall-to-wall." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 8, 2002, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the proposed site plans and have the following recommendations: (1) Installation of deceleration lane for traffic turning into the development from eastbound Seven Mile Road. (2) There is no indication on the site plan as to streetlighting. Seven Mile Road is a four4ane road with minimal lighting between Merriman and Farmington Roads. We recommend installation of a streetlight for the intersection of the private road and Seven Mile Road. (3) A stop sign just north of the sidewalk is required forvehicles exiting the proposed development. (4) The proposed berm should be constructed so it will not interfere with exiting motorists' line of sight along either direction of the sidewalk as they approach the intersection." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Tra fic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 10, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 27, 2001, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the deficient setback from Seven Mile Road. 75 feet is required, 38 feet provided, deficient 37 feet. (2) The required plan was not provided showing the location, type and size of all existing trees having at least a three inch caliper and designating those not in the roadway or building envelope for non -removal. (3) Itis not apparent as to what section of 20.02A this request forsingle family clustering complies with so as to be allowed to proceed under that section. The documentation should be provided to the commission as to their -hardship that complies with at least one section of (a) through (e). This Department has no further 19120 objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: We did receive a letter from Suzanne McInerney, dated January 29, 2002, that was provided to our Planning Commissioners. This will be part of the record. Itis received and filed. Is the petitioner here this evening? Paul Maceri, 39500 Orchard Hill Place. This is a rendering of the entrance to Boulder Pines Subdivision along Seven Mile Road. We have spoken with many of the Council members regarding the landscaping and other issues on this site plan, underground retention and a few other items. We've talked to them and we've tried to revise this site plan on several different occasions with Council. We tried to take everything .... Mr. McCann: There are several members of Council you spoke to regarding this? Mr. Maceri: Regarding the site plan, right, especially regarding the landscaping and other issues. So we've adjusted this site plan several times to hopefully accommodate some of the concems that the members of Council have had. And this is what we have currently. Mr. McCann: When were these conversations going on? Mr. Maceri: I think over the last three weeks or even longer than that. Mr. McCann: Do you want to give us the name of the Councilperson you spoke lo? Mr. Maceri: There were several revisions tothe site plan. Mr. McCann: Do you want to give us the names of the Council people you've been speaking lo? Mr. Maceri: Basically, what Mike had told me ... I did not individually speak with them. Mike has spoken with each of the council members and we revised the plan accordingly. Mr. McCann: So you don't know if any of the council members were spoken to. Mr. Maceri: I did not speak to them myself, sir. All I'm telling you ... is recounting what Michael told me. Mr. McCann: Is Michael here this evening with you? 19121 Mr. Macen: No, unfortunately he had something come up at the last second and he couldn't be here. So really this is a last minute thing for me. Sol tried to get up to speed as much as I could, as quick as I could, so I could hopefully answer some of your questions here tonight. Mr. McCann: All right. I'm looking at your drawing but it's just entrance markers and beautiful trees. Are you going to leave the park -like setting? Mr. Maceri: I'm Sony? Mr. McCann: You're providing us an entrance to a park. I don't see any homes. Mr. Maceri: Well, I have a layout at the lots also. Mr. McCann: I believe the petition before us tonight is approval of a duster project, not entrance markers. Mr. Maceri: This is a layout ofthe lots thatwe have. I've listened to some of the comments as we've gone along and I guess one of the things that I've heard here is the setback from Seven Mile Road. There are a couple other subs ... actually I brought a copy of one that was approved with a smaller... same type of development, a cluster development like this in R-3 zoning. And they had, as I recall, I think it was 30'setback and this was also off of Seven Mile Road. I'm sorry, 34'setback. This is a subdivision called Shays Estates along Seven Mile that has been approved for the same zoning in R-3 cluster zoning. So we felt that we were in conformance with all the side yard and the setback requirements. There's 20', 10' on each side in between. There's a 30' setback from the front; 30' setback from the back. And we do have 38' from the right-of-way. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: The side setback is 30' on these, isn't it? It has to be an additional 30' from the major thoroughfare? I thought the sideyard was different. Mr. Maceri: I was just trying to address that one point about the setback from Seven Mile Road. Mr. Piercecchr As the Chairman pointed out, your drawing doesn't show any houses. It looks like they're a mile back. Where are the houses going to in that design? Can you get back to your pretty picture there? Where are the houses going to be? 19122 Mr. Maceri: I guess we have to look at these two together to get a good idea of that. This is just a rendering of the entrance and some of the landscape we had in mind for the entrance. As far as a rendering showing both the entrance and the lots, I don't have that with me today. I didn't realize that would be required. Mr. Piercecchr That doesn't really tell us anything, sir. Its a pretty drawing but itjust shows the front markers. Mr. Maceri: I understand. You're wanting to see also haw the homes sit on the lot. Mr. Piercecchi: If you're going to show us a layout, yes. Its a nice picture though, but it really doesn't show us what we want to see. Mr. Pastor: I can possibly help with explaining the situation since I was on Council when this petition came in. As one Council member, some of the concerns that I had on this project was there were loo many homes on such a small lot. It was brought to our attention that he conformed to everything in the R-3 zoning, and that was one of my requirements for my approval. The other requirement for my approval was to have a rendering of the front entrance and the landscaping and all that. So that's where you're getting this from, which is very nicely done. But going back to the petition at hand, with the information I know now, I may not have approved it back then. And I'm here to say, I made a mistake for the reason being that this isn't a landlocked piece of property. There is other property that he could possibly get. The way the site is on the board is not what we have here and I know that it's probably not your issue there, but I think we have too many concems: one, being the 75 fool setback; and two, the turning radius of the fire department. I think that's going beat away especially with the retention. The other thing that we don't know is the retention underneath ... I believe underneath is what you're doing, not a retention pond. And I believe its going off into the river or there's a creek over there. I think its where he's going to be tying into. But those are some of the details that might also help out in the situation. But again, a lot of these things, when I talked to Mr. Soave when I was on Council, they were supposed to conform to the R-3lotswithout it actually being R-3 ... you know without the roadway. Mr. Maceri: Actually on both those points, Mr. Pastor, both on the turn around and on the setback from Seven Mile Road, I actually have a plan with me if you'd like to see it. 19123 Mr. Pastor: I understand that. But again just because we might have made a mistake before doesn't mean we should continue to make mistakes. I believe that fire protection is very, very important especially for when you're done building. And don't get me wrong. Mr. Soave builds a great subdivision. He's very reputable in the City of Livonia. But on the same token, I think we really need to make sure that this is done right if it can even be done a1 all. Again, I think it's loo much with setbacks, turning radius, and then some other considerations that these great Planning Commissioners bring to the attention of the council members. Such as when somebody has a party and all that stuff, and you only have a 26' wide road, it just really gets very cramped in there. Those are the issues I have with this pefifion. I wish Mr. Soave were here as I know you don't have the authority to actually address these things. Mr. Maceri: I'm kind of in a difficult position because itwas such a quick ... seeing that I was asked to step in and we wanted to try to provide as much information as we could. But on those issues, if I'm understanding you correctly regarding the turnaround and again the entry off of Seven Mile, I was just looking at some other projects and wasn't referencing if they were a mistake or not. I dont know. I guess that's up to you guys to make that determination but there is precedent as far as the setbacks and that. I understand the difference in the statute that was read, but I also see that there's precedent that that's not 100% always the case. So, I guess what I've tried to say, and people who know Mike or the Soave family, they've always tried to address any objections that the Commission and the Council have had. Like I say, when we put this together, we were actually entitled to more lots than we ended up with. We put in the underground retention; we modified the landscape plan. So we've done a number of things, and we're willing to do other things if thatwould help. But when you're dealing with that piece of property, there's only so much you can do and work with and still have an economically viable project. So I guess we're hoping to find a middle ground in here that we can ... Mr. Pastor: A couple things. You're really not entified to anything unless we approve something so that it actually fits. Again, with all the variances and all that stuff that we're willing to do, which I think that the Council had already done, now because there is precedent set somewhere else, doesn't mean that it should continue on whether it's a mistake or whatever. I'm not trying to put it in a negative tone. But the other portion of this petition, from my understanding, there is other land available that he could possibly purchase to make this a right type of development. 19124 Mr. Maceri: There is adjacent property. But understand, Mr. Pastor and everybody else, we've been after that property for a while. I've been working with the Soave family for about two years and not just on this project, but what sounds so great in theory sometimes is much harder in practice to make. We've made reasonable offers to property owners on both sides and it's up to them at that point. So we have tried, I guess would be a short answer to your question. Mr. Pastor: I appreciate that and I know that sometimes it is just a matter of time and all that sluff. I mean they're also recommending a decel lane so that's what I'm also looking for ...especially the setback, meeting that. Why dont other subdivisions have a decel lane that they re looking for. The retention area ... it may grow bigger. Mr. Maceri: Help me with that term, I'm sorry ... decel lane? Mr. Pastor: Was it a decel lane that they asked for? Mr. McCann: Deceleration. Mr. Pastor: Deceleration lane. That means when somebody comes up to your property to tum in, that there's actually a lane they tum into so they're off of Seven Mile. Mr. Maceri: Isee. Mr. Pastor: So whalthat does, it cuts into going that close to the sidewalk. So therefore, it's going to look like that house is right on lop of the road even more than what the 35' is. I haven't seen the other plan, but it just brings it that much closer to the road. The retention .... possibly could because I know Wayne County came up with some new standards since this was approved, from my understanding, that may make the requirements a little bit larger, so you may lose some area there as well. I don't know if he's checked into that. Those are the concems that I have as one Planning Commissioner. Mr. Shane: I wondered if Mr. Soave has ever considered a conventional single family subdivision on this site as opposed to duster houses. Mr. Maceri: We considered a lot of different alternatives for this, I guess. And you always brainstorm when you get a piece of property and toss around how many different ways you can work the land and make it make sense both from an economic standpoint and for the requirements of the City and the Planning Commission and the Council. So there is always I guess a tradeoff between those elements, and you try to find the best of both words when you put a 19125 project together. So again, yes, we have considered that and I don't know what else to say regarding that other than this is the plan we've come upwith now. I thought we had gotten pretty much an understanding regarding the site plan. Now some of the issues that have been brought up today, Mike and I just talked about a couple hours ago for the first time that I actually had a chance to discuss those with him. Knowing Mike and knowing the family, I know that they are willing logo a long way in addressing the concerns, but it has to make sense economically too. Maybe that's not your highest priority and I understand that, but those are factors that we have to take into account in putting together a plan. Mr. Shane: I wonder if you were aware of the requirements to meet the conditions under which a planned residential development could be planned. There are four or five things that have to be met in order to be considered that, and that's why I asked you if you had considered a single family subdivision because, in my view, you don't meet the criteria for a cluster housing project. Andilseemslomethalifyou're going to be approved, you're going to have to go back to the drawing board. Mr. Maceri: Well, like I say, we looked ala couple other subdivisions that had the same layout. This is obviously a determination that you have to make. We fell that the two issues that I discussed with Mike a few hours ago that did come up here ... the setback from Seven Mile Road and the turnaround at the end ... we did talk about that a little bit. So those were two of the issues that I understood might come up tonight. My understanding was that the landscape plan and the retention ... Mr. Paslorjusl told me they were new requirements regarding the retention. I dont even know if Mike is aware ofthat to be honest with you. So the plan we had come up with on the retention ... we had thought it was exactly according to the way it should be. Mr. Shane: The other question I have is, did Mr. Soave consider the fad that this site, if you didn't know better, looks like its part of the park because it's a very nicely treed site. And if I look at this site plan, when you get done with the bulldozer, its going to blast it back to the stone age because there won't be a tree on the site. That's the other reason why I'm wondering if he's looked at some other altematives so that there would be a sensitivity toward keeping as many of those trees as possible. Mr. Maceri: Yes, for a couple good reasons. One, not only for the aesthetics, but it makes good sense economically. If you look atthe subdivision we just did in Kenwood Meadows, we have a periphery of trees. As long 19126 as the trees aren't in the building envelope or the approach, we'll do everything we can to save the trees. It makes good sense, not only to you gentlemen, but it makes good sense economically and to people when we're out there marketing and selling the homes. Ever since I've worked with the Soaves, our philosophy has always been with regard to the trees and that we'll preserve as many of them as we possibly can for a couple good reasons. So that would be our plan here also. I mean we're not going to take down anything that doesn't absolutely have to ... if it's not in the building envelope or in the approach. Mr. La Pine: Just one question that Mr. Shane brought up. To qualify for single family dusted rig, you have to meet certain criteria. Mr. Taormina mentioned those. What one did your people think was germaine to this parcel? Mr. Maceri: I don't quite understand the question. Mr. La Pine: Toqualifyfora single family duslering, you've got to meetcertain criteria under the ordinance. For instance, "natural assets, such as, but not limited to, natural stands of larger trees, natural habitat for wildlife" and things of that nature. What one did your people think that you qualify under? Mr. Maceri: Well, a number of them, I think we qualify for. Like I said, we had revised our landscape plan several times so that's one. Maybe I'm not understanding the question. Mr. La Pine: I guess you're not understanding the quest on. If your people discussed this thing and you came up with this plan... Mr. Soave has done a lot of building in this town. He knows the ordinance probably as well as anybody on this board. He must have figured he met one of these criteria. He must have looked it up in the ordinance. Mr. Maceri: We feel we've met all the criteria regarding side yards and setbacks on the lot space between the homes. Mr. Piercecchi: That's not what he's talking about. It has nothing to do with cluster housing. Mr. McCann: Mr. LaPine has handed over the floor to me. There's five sections within the duster project thatyou must meet in orderto be identified for a cluster project. The first one is "(a) natural assets, such as, but notlimited to, natural stands oflargertmes, natural habitat for wildlife, unusual topographic features, a substantial portion of which 19127 would be preserved through the use of clustering." So what it is like in Deerwoods on Five Mile, there is a large water basin and that, that might be more common to (c), but in this section you have beautiful tree stands right in the center of the street and around, but you are not trying to preserve a substantial portion of the property for trees. That's one of the considerations we would use in saying, hey, look, rather than build a typical R-3 and wipe out a forest, if we moved it to the front half of the property and do a cluster project, we would be able to save all these trees. But you're not. You're going right to the back and pretty much taking out most of the forest. So you don't believe that would apply to this case, do you? Mr. Maceri: Well, I mean as far as preserving the trees, if there was a tree we could replant, would that satisfy the requirement? Mr. McCann: No. In order to gel cluster, it's to preserve the natural park area within an area that's being developed to save natural stands of large trees or natural habitat for wildlife. The second one, "(b) has a substantial portion of its perimeter adjacent to major office, commercial, industrial, institutional or high rise residential development.... " Basically, you abut a nature preserve and RUF, so you're not abutting any problem -type zoning next to you. (c) Contains a Flood plain which results in a substantial portion of the total land area being unbuildable"such as in Deer Woods where you want to save the natural environment, the flood plain, the creek and build around it. "(d) Contains poor soil conditions which result in a substantial portion of the total area being unbuildable using conventional construction methods . . . . " This hasn't been done on this case, has it ... that there's a problem with soil? Sir, Mr. Maceri? There are no soil conditions that make this unbuildable, are there? Mr. Maceri: None that I'm aware of, sir. Mr. McCann: So the only one left is (e) Is a small parcel which has frontage on a major thoroughfare" (which this does)'tvith an existing or planned right -0f -way width of one hundred twenty (120) feet or more as indicated on the 'Master Thoroughfare Plan' and contains acute angles oris of shallow depth as measured from the thoroughfare so as to make conventional subdivision development physically impractical." Are you physically able to develop this as an R-3? Can you put a 60' road and homes into that? Is it possible? Mr. Maceri: I would say no because the width of this property is ... Mr. McCann: Ifyou built homes on one side ofthe road and put in a cul-de-sac? Mr. Maceri: I guess that would be about the only way you could do it. 19128 Mr. McCann: Okay, then itis buildable. Is that correct? Mr. Maceri: It's an R-3 with maybe four or five homes. Mr. McCann: There are no acute angles on this. Its not an unusual shape. So is it buildable as an R-3? Mr. Maceri: I guess I couldn't answer that question. I'm really not sure. I think so but I'm not sure. Mr. McCann: We've gone through the five requirements that are required in order to build a cluster project and you basicallytold us you dont believe it fits any of them. If it doesn't fit any of them, you have no right to come before us and ask for duster. That's why I went through the five conditions. You were provided with them. You're the petitioner coming before us. The burden is on you to show us that this does meet the cluster project. If you can't do that, how can we approve it? Mr. Maceri: Can I ask a question on point (a) then that might apply? You're talking about preserving natural assets. Does that preservation mean that as long as those trees are preserved in some spot on there, or does it mean in the spot that they stand on? Mr. McCann: I'll let the Planning Director, Mr. Taormina, answer that. Mr. Taormina: If I understand your question to the Chairman, does it mean preserving an individual tree or group oftrees? Ithinktheintentof this section of the ordinance is the preservation of something a little bit more substantial than just an isolated tree within a yard or possibly along the rear of the property. Itwould have to be something that would have to be a little bit larger and contiguous and would have to serve as some kind of habitat for wildlife or possibly contain unusual topographic features. Mr. Maceri: So then does the term "substantial" mean a number oftrees or I guess I'm not clear on whether the trees have to stand where they're at or if a number of trees to meet "substantial" have to be moved. Mr. McCann: I think I can answer the question. It's saying, would you be able to preserve a substantial portion of the forested area or wildlife area by changing it from R-3 to cluster. And what that generally means is that if you can put ten homes under the R-3 in an area but by putting the ten homes in a duster project, you are going to save five or two acres of a wildlife area, it may be more appropriate to go to a clustering. It doesn't mean it's a way to get more homes into certain 19129 ' area. It's away of preserving a large portion of the property for wildlife or for natural stands of larger trees. So what they're saying is, is it an instance where we're looking at it and we see that its a beautiful rear portion of the property? Its a very nice natural setting; it's preserving certain types of wildlife. Would we be better off, rather than developing the whole property into len homes, put ten homes at the front of the property as a cluster and save the rear portion as a natural stand of trees and wildlife area. It isn't what your doing. Mr. Maceri: No. Its not what we're proposing. Mr. McCann: Right. So that's where I come to the problem. It's incumbent on a pefilioner to provide to us the reason at a public hearing as to how you meet the ordinance requesting a waiver use for cluster housing. Mr. Maceri: Well, if it's not sufficient to take those trees and preserve them and move them to some spot, then obviously (b) doesn't apply like we discussed and neither does (c). And I'm not aware of any soil conditions. Icould be wrong. We may have soil conditions that may make a part of that unbuildable. Mr. McCann: You would have had to confirm that by flood plain information or by a report prepared by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, when you said a couple hours ago you talked to Soave about the setback, what did you come about with your discussion with Mike? Mr. Macen: We looked at a couple other projects. Mr. Alanskas: Forget the other projects. We're saying it has to be 75 feet; it's only 38 or 34 feet. How are you going to cored that setback? What did you and Mike discuss in regard to correcting that? Mr. Maceri: I guess we discussed just basically that there was precedent involved for this. Mr. Alanskas: There's just no way to correct it to make it 75 feet. Mr. Maceri: I didn'lgo into that detail with him. We had a limited conversation, so I didn't go into what happens if we dont gel this and what do we do al that point. I guess it was just, I'll talk to Mike tomorrow about it depending on the results of this meeting tonight. Mr.Alanskas: Thankyou. 19130 Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Pat Murphy, 17530 Fairfield. My home backs up to Rotary Park. It's a bit south of this project. Our zoning is Rural Urban Farm, half acre lot size minimums. I know that the pefitioner here was able to get this property rezoned R-3, which was Rural Urban Farm before, and the adjoining properties are Rural Urban Farm that back up the nature preserve. There are plenty ofwoods there and big trees, butthere's a lot of other properties loo that are backing up to this nature preserve that could create a domino effect ifsomelhing like this is approved. I'm not happy that the property got rezoned R-3 in the first place which happened last year on this particular parcel. I'm less happy with the idea that the petitioner is actually trying to bend the rules and tightened up even more to put this kind of project in. I'm very opposed to this site plan. I would think the developer could comply with the R-3 zoning without having additional variances from that. I am opposed to this project. Mr. Pastor: Real quick because I was on Council ... to the petitioners defense: when he came before Council, it was R-3 clusters. So what he was actually doing, what the Council did approve, was exactly what he has before us. So he wasn't trying to take advantage of anything other than what we had already approved and discussed with him. Just in that light, I think the petitioner has done a lot in the City of Livonia and usually tries to conform. Jim Scoft, 17230 Fairfield. I am also south of this project we're talking about. I just became aware of this going through Rotary Park. My concem is the sanitary sewer that apparently was proposed that goes from Seven Mile to Six Mile. It is my understanding is it will go rightthrough Rotary Park. Mr. McCann: I dont believe so. Mr. Taormina, is that park off of Clarita? Doesn't it tie in at Clarita and go around ordoes it go from the easement through the Nature Preserve? Wasntlhal only from like Clarita and Mayfield up lolhis and around in back? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. The easement that was approved does just that: it extends from the east end of Clarita Avenue and runs due north immediately east of the vacated portion of Brookfield Avenue, until it gets to the northern limit of the Rotary Park Nature Preserve and then extends easterly for a distance I believe to the eastern limit of this property. I'm going to guess it's about 800' to 850' in length and it's only from Clarita north and east of this site. 19131 Mr. Scott Why wouldn't the sanitary sewer... Mr. McCann: I don't know if you were here before the meeting. The City Council is going to readdress the issue ofthe sanitary sewer easement on February 4. That is not before us tonight. The only thing before us is the duster housing. We really don't have anything to do with the sanitary sewers. Mr. Scott: Okay. Well, I'm just opposed to the natural setting that we have back there to take that away to put that many homes back in that small of an area. Bob Stockton, 17330 Fairfield. I've been there since 1975. You'll find most of the people in that area like that setting, like the park -like environment around there. To put eleven homes in that condensed area is just not in keeping with the neighborhood. I had no idea that itwas not in keeping with all the requirements that you guys have. I think it's wonderful to have that setback cut in half even without a deceleration lane. Traffic along Seven Mile without the shoulder there is bad enough as it sits. To do that would be very bad as far as I'm concerned, let alone the sewer. Thank you. At lafrate, 17320 Fairfield. I'm opposed to the proposed duster home subdivision for a lot of the same reasons the rest of my neighbors are. That drawing doesn't represent anything about what that looks like. I walk my dog through there everyday. There's no way you're going to put homes in there and it will look anything like any home in that area. That's one of the last areas in Livonia where there are any trees. I mean they're ripping down houses and building four homes on a lot that used to be one house. I thank you for your time and I'm opposed. Lawrence Butler, 18858 Mayfield. I am adjacent to Rotary Park and kitty comer to this proposal. I would like to speak against the waiver. There are many houses that have been built in that area overtime. I've been there since 1968. We have seen compliance to setback rules or we've seen compliance to minimum lot sizes. And frankly, the area doesn't lend itself to cluster homes. The petition doesn't address any of those issues that are pointed out by Mr. McCann and the rest of the Planning Commission. I think without that compliance and a reasonable plan where there is sufficient land usage for these homes, the waiver should not be granted. Mark Bdchford, 32285 Seven Mile Road. I've been here for all the meetings regarding this issue, and I'm very opposed to the proposal here. It will back up the congestion and the amount of traffic on Seven Mile and speeds. There are a tremendous amount of accidents in front of 19132 my home. There was even a person who was struck and killed early in December right out in front of our house. A deceleration lane, I'm certain, would be a good thing if they were going to put the homes in there but l dont want to see them. Thank you. Lawrence Sekulich, 16616 Mayfield. I also am opposed to the plan. I believe that 1. That the petitioner has failed to affnnatvely shoe that the proposed use is in compliance with all the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the petitioner has failed to provide documentation substantiating that the land area to be developed contains one or more of the characteristics listed in Section 20.02A(a) through (e) as required in order to qualify for single family clustering; 3. That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance standards set forth in Section 20.02A(2)(b) with respect to the setback requirement that all buildings shall beset back at least seventy-five (75) feet from any major thoroughfare; putting eleven houses on a site that small is just totally inappropriate. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Macer, you have the last comment before we vote. Mr. Maceri: I would like to say that we will take any suggestions the Planning Commission has and I will discuss them with Mike. I apolog¢e that I couldn't answer your questions a little bit better this evening. A little bit more notice would have helped but I guess that's all I have to say. Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #01-14-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, on Petition 2001-11-02-26, submitted by Michael Soave, requesting waiver use approval to develop single family duster homes (Boulder Pines) at 32405 Seven Mile Road, south of Seven Mile Road, east of Brookfield, in the Northwest''/.of Section 10, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-11-02-26 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affnnatvely shoe that the proposed use is in compliance with all the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the petitioner has failed to provide documentation substantiating that the land area to be developed contains one or more of the characteristics listed in Section 20.02A(a) through (e) as required in order to qualify for single family clustering; 3. That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance standards set forth in Section 20.02A(2)(b) with respect to the setback requirement that all buildings shall beset back at least seventy-five (75) feet from any major thoroughfare; 19133 4. That there is a lack of information in regard to type and size of units and the amount of brick that will be used on the buildings; 5. That the proposal does not provide the plan required under Section 20.02A(2)(d) indicating the location, type and size of all existing trees having at least a three (3) inch caliper and designating those not in the roadway or building envelope for non -removal; 6. That the proposal does not provide for a full cul-de-sac with a minimum diameter of at least 80 feet as recommended by the Fire Department; 7. That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a need to employ single family clustering as opposed to conventional single family residential subdivision development in order to develop the subject properly; and B. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to the City Council in writing. ITEM#6 PETITION 200142-0227 PLAYWORLD AMUSEMENTS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 12-02-27 by Jeff Williams, on behalf of Playwodd Amusements, requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions to be held Wednesday, April 24, 2002 through Sunday, May 5, 2002, inclusive, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 14. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? 19134 Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated December 19, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referencedpetition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 4, 2002, which reads as follows: Afterrevie lung additional information dated January 2, 2001, supplied by Playworid Unlimited, we have no objection as proposed for a Livonia Rotary Club sponsored carnival at Wonderland Mall." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third Iefler is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated December 2l, 2001, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of rides, games and good concessions from April 24, 2002 through Sunday, May 5, 2002, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milbum Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 18, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest of December 17, 2001, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. We have no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Jeff Williams, 31250 Cooley, Westland, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you want to tell us about the carnival? Mr. Williams: That's about d... the same as the lasllwo years. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? We've had a good experience as I recall with the last two years and everything worked out fine. Mr. Alanskas: Just one question. How many bathrooms are you going to have for the people? Mr. Williams: Four. They will be maintained daily. Mr. Alanskas: Do you think that's enough? If you have good weather and you gel a good crowd, isn't four awful small? 19135 Mr. Williams: It seemed to be enough, but if its a question, we can ... Mr. Alanskas: If you need more, would you be putting in more? Mr. Williams: Oh, we would. Mr. Alanskas: By the demand of the public ... Mr. Williams: Just to make it comfortable ... Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to dose the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #01-15-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, on Petition 2001-12-02-27 by Jeff Williams, on behalf of Playworld Amusements, requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions to be held Wednesday, April 24, 2002 through Sunday, May 5, 2002, inclusive, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 14, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-12-02- 27 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Playwodd Amusements, which are April 24, 2002 through May 5, 2002, indusive; 2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as illustrated on the Site Plan submitted with this request; 3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and apparatus relating to the operation ofthe carnival shall be located at least 60 feet distant from the Plymouth Road dghtof- way line; 4. That all trucks and other transportation -related vehicles and equipment shall be parked or stored within the southwesterly 19136 portion of the Wondedand Mall parking lot, but no closer than 200 feel from the adjacent residential properties to the south; 5. That there shall be no motors running on the stored tracks during late hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., including motors on any refrigeration trucks; 6. That there shall be no housing trailers or other temporary living quarters to accommodate carnival employees on the Wonderland Mall site, except for the Security Trailer (limited to security personnel only); 7. That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter dated January 2, 2002, from Jeff Williams, Routing Director of Playworld Amusements, which have been approved by the Police Department; and B. That unobstructed access to any hydrants within the carnival area be provided for the Fire Department; for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not impede access to the Livonia Mall; and 4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use; 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. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 19137 ITEM #7 PETITION 200142-02-28 HAWAIIAN CAFE Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 12-02-28 submitted by Sayer Ghosn, on behalf of Hawaiian Cafe, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 31160 Five Mile Road in the Mem-Five Plaza on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 14. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? It's a public hearing. We advertised it. We need to go forward. We can table it if the petitioner doesn't appear. Mr. Taormina presented a map shaving the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated January 3, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 8, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed site plans and have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated January 10, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to review plans in connection with a proposal by Sayer Ghosn to operate a restaurant on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 10, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 2, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The plans art= very rudimentary and lack clarity and detail. (2) Due to its change of use, this site will need to be barrierJree compliant. As depicted, this petition would not meet the barrier -free code. These issues maybe addressed at plan review. (3) Is then= a kitchen? HVAC issues will need to be addressed. (4) The site lacks barrier -free parking signage and spaces. (5) The seating has been calculated at 22. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is 19138 ITEM #8 PETITION 200140-07-02 MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 10-07-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuantto Council Resolution 634-01 and Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, as amended, on the question of whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, The Master Thoroughfare Plan, to incorporate changes in transportation system road definitions as recommended by the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer. Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution 634-01 requested the Planning Commission to consider several changes to the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Pastor: I think normally ifthe petitioner does not come before the body, we normally either postpone it or table it to the next meeting. I would request that we do that. Mr. McCann: Is that your motion? Mr. Pastor: Please. I would imagine February 12 is the next one, right? Mr. McCann: That's a regular meeting. I think we can move it to that dale. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #01-16-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, on Petition 2001-12-02-28 submitted by Sayer Ghosn, on behalf of Hawaiian Cafe, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 31160 Five Mile Road in the Meri-Five Plaza on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest %of Section 14, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-12-02-28 be tabled to February 12, 2002. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #8 PETITION 200140-07-02 MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 10-07-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuantto Council Resolution 634-01 and Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, as amended, on the question of whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, The Master Thoroughfare Plan, to incorporate changes in transportation system road definitions as recommended by the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer. Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution 634-01 requested the Planning Commission to consider several changes to the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. 19139 This is part of an ongoing effort to provide a city-wide road maintenance and rehabilitation program. The proposed revisions would add four new road categories to the current road classification system including (1) City Major Road, (2) Industnal/Commercial Roads, (3) Class I Collectors, and (4) Class II Collectors. The City Major Road category would serve mainly to distinguish the approximate 14 miles of arterial and collector streets that are owned and maintained by the City. City Major Roads are designed to manage heavy volumes of traffic to other areas of the City and/or communities. They would indude Newburgh Road, SchodcreR Road, Ann Arbor Trail, and portions of Levan and Stark. Approximately 15.4 miles of roads would be reclassified as Industrial/Commercial. This category of road is designed to funnel or direct traffic primarily for a commercial and/or industrial purpose. All of the roads that would be reclassified are currently designated on the Master Thoroughfare Plan as either Collector Roads or Local Streets and include most of the City -owned streets within the industrial corridor which encompasses Sections 25 through 30 as well as other roads that carry traffic generated mainly by the abutting commercial properties including Victor Parkway and portions of Pembroke and Laurel Park. Collector roads would be split into two (2) categories for the purpose of differentiating between those roads that function primarily as a junction between Iocal streets and major roads, which would be Collector ll, and those that also carry a high volume of through traffic between major roads, which would be Collectorl. Altogether, a total of twelve (12) segments of roads would be reclassified as either Collector I or Collector 11. The Collector II category would include mostly city -owned streets that are presently classified on the Master Thoroughfare Plan as collector roads. In addition, several roads that are presently designated on the Master Thoroughfare Plan as Local Streets would be added to the list of Collector 11 Roads, including portions of Brentwood, Pudingbrook, Osmos, Deering, Gramand and Hathaway. Moreover, several roads would no longer appear on the Master Thoroughfare Plan as Collectors and instead would be changed to show as Local Streets. These include portions of Curtis, Gill, Lathers, Henry Ruff, Hix, Levan, W. Chicago and Hubbard. The requested changes to the Master Thoroughfare Plan will primarily reflect the role that each of the roads currently has within the City's transportation network and would not necessarily mandate additional widening or nghtof-way acquisition. In addition, the new road classification system would be consistent with future changes being considered to the cost apportionment guidelines the City uses for street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects. The guidelines would be based on the road type, with the City contnbufing a greater share for Collector I roads 19140 than for Collection II roads and Local Streets, due to the increased traffic volumes and through traffic. Mr. McCann: Mr. Paul St. Henry is here to answer any questions. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #01-17-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 634-01, held a Public Hearing on January 29, 2002, in connection with Petition 2001-10-07-02, for the purpose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, The Master Thoroughfare Plan, the same is hereby amended to incorporate changes in the transportation system as depicted on a plan entitled "Proposed Revisions to the City of Livonia Thoroughfare Plan" as prepared by the City of Livonia Planning Department dated January 16, 2002, for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendments will provide a more detailed road classification system which represents a combination of both the function as well as the jurisdiction of all public roads; 2) That the proposed amendments are part of an ongoing effort to provide a city-wide road maintenance and rehabilitation program; and 3) That the proposed amendments are recommended by the Department of Public Works and City Engineer. And having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution ofthe City Planning Commission, with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be fled with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission; and a certified copyshall also be forwarded tothe Register of Deeds forthe County of Wayne for recording. 19141 We cerlify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 29, 2002, by the following vole: AYES: Alanskas, Pastor, LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. I thank Mr. Paul Sl. Henry from the Department of Public Works for attending the study session and tonight's hearing to assist us in this matter. This concludes the public hearing items on our agenda. We will begin with Miscellaneous Site Plans. ITEM#9 PETITION 2002-01-08-04 CURTIS CREEK CONDOS Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002- 01-08-04 submitted by Vincent and Frances DeSanto, on behalf of Curtis Creek Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct site condominiums on property located a129967 Curtis Road in the Southeast %of Section 11. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Curtis between Middlebelt and Merriman. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a site condominium development called "Curtis Creek Condominiums" on property adjacent to the Presbyterian Free Church. The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development would consist of twelve (12) condominium lots. Each proposed lot would conform to all requirements of an R-1 zoning district. A 60 R. wide public street would egress and ingress off Curtis Road, slightly meander to the east, then curve to the west and end in a cul-de-sac. Lots 1 through 5 would face, and have direct access to, Curtis Road. Lots 7 through 12 would abut part of the designated flood zone of the Tarabusi Drain. The area within the flood plain cannot be built on but can be calculated toward the lot size requirements. A storm water retention easement or basin is shown within Lot 12 of the development. A copy of the Master Deed and bylaws call out the percentage of brick for the exterior of each unit. The first floor of each unit would be full - face, four -inch (4") brick or stone on all four sides. The total amount of brick or stone on each one-story dwelling would not be less than 80% and 65% on two-story dwellings. Minimum floor area for each 19142 one-story dwelling would be 1,500 sq. ft. and 1,800 sq. ft. for each two-story dwelling. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 18, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the legal description contained therein. The building envelope for Unit #9 of the site condominiums will need to be modified so that the building is not within the Floodplain. Also, the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance requires that both a forebay and retention basin be included in the design. On the submitted plans, there is no forebay shown. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal, provided they meet all County and City ordinances and requirements." The letter is signed by David Lear, P. E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 23, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest ofJanuary 14, 2002, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The building envelope on Unit 9 encroaches into a Flood zone, which is not allowed. In addition, Unit 10's building envelope directly abuts the flood zone. Typically construction encroaches three to five feet while being built and that would not be allowed in this instance. (2) Unit 4's building envelope is shown encroaching in the required side yard setback and must be adjusted. (3) The plan has a comment under'Setbacks'that the'minimum'lot coverage is 25%, while in fact 25% is the'maximum'lot coverage. (4) The plan provided does not designate which 3" trees are scheduled for non -removal. (5) The plan also does not show that permanent survey monuments will be installed as required per 16.24.030. (6) The irrigation plan for the island areas are not noted as required (16.24.200) nor are the required sidewalks (16.24.120) noted. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Vincent DeSanlo, 25937 W. Eight Mile, Redford, Michigan. I'm here with my wife, Frances. And I brought along Mr. William Mills, who is part of Jarrett, Mills, Schron and Associates, Inc., that we hired to do the planning and site plan. With your approval, I'd like to have him answer any questions that you may have. 19143 William Mills, Jarrett, Mills & Schron, 33608 Palmer, Westand, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Are there any quesfions from the Commissioners? Mr. Pastor: I was going to go over the concerns that Mr. Taormina just stated beforehand. I dont know if you've had a chance to listen to them clearly. Basically what we're looking for is clarification. Mr. Mills: I think that I've heard most of them. Of course, the building envelope on Unit#9 will be adjusted so that there is no part of it within the flood zone. I believe #10 could be removed slightly from the flood zone to avoid any overlap or any potential overlap onto the flood zone. I did not catch the note on building envelope #. Mr. Pastor: It was a setback requirement. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Mills: That again would be comected if there's an error with that. Permanent markers, of course, under the condominiums rules — those would have to beset. That's part of stale law. I'm a PS, Professional Surveyor, in the Stale of Michigan. Mr. Pastor: The retention basin ... have you looked into that as opposed to what's drawn here? Mr. Mills: The retention basin will meet all requirements ofthe Wayne County ordinance and also the Livonia standards. Mr. Pastor: I appreciate that. Have you looked into seeing what's drawn on here is going to work? Mr. Mills: Yes, it is sized properly, and we're looking at a forebay configurafion within the pond ifthat is acceptable to engineering, and that is through berming across the throat of that. You mise an earthen berth that gives you a forebay for your first flush to catch your contaminants and settle out. And then as the water level builds up in the basin, it will go over the berth into the second bay which is where it will perform its actual detention. Mr. Pastor: The other one was irrigation into the landscaping islands. Mr. Mills: Irrigation will be provided as required, and the three inch trees that are to be preserved will be identified. 19144 Mr. Pastor: I think on lop of that my only concern was on the back portion of the lot. It looks like none of the lots conform and are odd -shaped. twas my hope that possiblywe could eliminate whether it be 12 or 9 or whatever it is to kind of reducing it so it's maybe one less on the back side so that they're all nice lots that are getting doser to the road and stuff. Because getting into Lot 12 is kind of goofy. Mr. Mills: Mr. Taormina and Mr. DeSanto had discussions as recently as today regarding this item. I believe they are in agreement that we will eliminate one lot on the south side of the roadway, and this will be apportioned among all lots to make them each a little larger and a little more regular in configuration to the roadway. Mr. LaPine: Do these have attached garages to them? Mr. Mills: Pardon me? Mr. LaPine: Do they have attached garages? Mr. DeSanto: All of the homes will be two-story colonials. The smallest design we have, and I apologize, I had some drawings from the architect, and they will vary from sizes from 2,000 to 2,400 square feel. They will all have two -car, and wherever possible, if the buyer wants, a third car can be added. They will all be attached. Mr. LaPine: Okay. The other question I have, in most of these situations, its fine if only two people live in the house. We don't have a problem. All right. Because you have a 27' pavement road, is that correct? Mr. DeSanto: I think it's going to be a little larger. I was discussing this with Mr. Taormina today. I think it's going to be increased slightly to accommodate both traffic and the need for a fire engine. Mr. La Pine: Well, that was my next question.Idon't think the radius ofthe cd - de -sac is the right radius. The other question I have, lets assume that somebody is having a party and they're going to have four or five people. Is there any place on this plan where there is additional parking for overflow when somebody has a party or somebody has relatives over for Christmas dinner or something like that? Mr. DeSanto: You mean additional parking? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. DeSanto: Probably no more than any other neighborhood street. Curfis itself is parking on both sides. There's no limit to that street. As far as the 19145 off-street parking in the event of a party, I dont know because its never been posed. I mean if someone is going to have a graduation party, I'm hoping in any neighborhood they wouldn't all have them on the same day. As far as backyard and all that, I think there's more than enough in the common area. Mr. La Pine: I don't agree with you, but that's my personal opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchr I think this item ought to be tabled to give the petitioner a chance to revise his arrangement, reducing one unit, so they are more perpendicular to the roadway and the building envelopes are out of the way of the flood plain. I'd like to offer that motion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pastor: The radius coming into that ramp... l think we also want him to take a look at. If you would add that on there. Mr. Piercecchr A new arrangement. Revise the arrangement. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, you had a comment? Mr. Taormina: I mean this for the benefit of Mr. Mills who is doing the design work. I think he understands based on our discussions as far rearranging the lots on the south end, but as far as the radius of the road is concerned, are you asking if it can be pulled a little bit to the north and the radius made smaller? I'm nolsure. Mr. Pastor: Rightwhere that sharp point is, if we can try and reduce that a Title bit so that it's not as sharp a radius. We had discussed that in the study meeting. Mr. Taormina: Okay, we'll take a look at that showing the radius ... Mr. Piercecchr The tabling motion was to table until the petitioner revises his arrangement possibly and hopefully reducing one of the lots so they are more perpendicular to the roadway and the building envelopes are out of the way from the flood plain. And any potential changes to the roadway that is required to make this a very acceptable plan. Mr. McCann: I think one of the other questions was for a 34' roadway. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Whatever standards are required for a conventional subdivision. 19146 On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #01-18-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-01-08-04 submitted by Vincent and Frances DeSanto, on behalf of Curbs Creek Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct site condominiums on property located at 29967 Curtis Road in the Southeast%of Section 11, be tabled. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina will put you on the agenda when we get these things worked out. Mr. La Pine: Atthe next meeting, will you bring in any drawings ofthe units and what they're going to look like? You made a statement that if somebody buys a lot and they want a three -car garage instead of a twocar garage, I'd like to see how that's going to look. Mr. DeSanto: Whenever its conceivable, sure. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 838" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January29, 2002 was adjourned a19:25 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman /mr