Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-06-12MINUTES OF THE 946° REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 12, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 946" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:30 p.m. Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a pefition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 2007-05-08-09 ROCKFORD Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefition 2007-05- 08-09 submitted by Rockford Development Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a three- story office building on property located at 19499 Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 6. June 1Z 2007 24105 Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a three-story office building on properly located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue. The building would be situated on the northerly part of a vacant parcel that is visible from the 1-275/96 Expressway. The vacant parcel, which is situated between the Embassy Suites Hotel and Doc's Sports Retreat, is 14.38 acres in area. The proposed office site would measure approximately 265 feel along Victor Parkway by a depth of about 680 feel and lake up the northern 3.94 acres of the vacant property. The proposed office building would be three -stones in height and have a gross floor area of 40,400 square feet. This site is zoned PO, High Rise Professional Office. Buildings in a PO zoning district are required to be over two stories in height. The proposed building would be positioned close to the 1275/96 Expressway on the western half of the site. Most of the parking would be situated east of the building, between the building and Victor Parkway. All required building setbacks would be mel. Access to the site would be by a single drive off Victor Parkway. Storm water runoff for this site would use the large detention pond that is located south of Doc's Sports Retreat. This pond was created to accommodate existing and future Victor Park developments. The ordinance requires 162 parking spaces for this site, and the petitioner is providing 266 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance allows office centers that contain over 15,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 90% of the required parking spaces striped at 9 feet in width by 20 feel in length. In order to provide an adequate number of visitor and customer spaces, no less than 10% of the total parking has to be 10 feet in width. This development qualifies for 9 foot spaces and the site plan notes that 246, or 90% of the provided parking spaces, would be striped at 9 feel wide. The plan also shows that an additional 18 spaces would be 'land -banked" along the Victor Parkway frontage. Although not required, these spaces could be constructed at a later dale if necessary. The petitioner is providing 27% of the site with landscaping, which exceeds the minimum required landscaping of 15% of the total site. The proposed building would be constructed out of a combination brick and glass. Over the main entrance area would be a steel and metal panel canopy. All rooftop equipment would be screened and enclosed by perforated metal panels. The three- story structure would have a maximum height, measured from the finished grade to the lop of the parapet, of 48 feet. To the lop of the mechanical screen walls on top of the roof, the building reaches a height of 53 feel. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? June 12, 2007 24106 Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 24, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time and the legal description submitted is correct. No additional right-of-way is required. The storm outlet for this development is the drainage course at the Southwest corner of the overall parcel which empties into the large detention basin adjacent to Victor Parkway. Extensive offaite storm sewers will be required in connection with the current development Also, the Victor Parkway Condominium Association is aware that the large basin is in need of cleaning. We have assigned an address of 19517 Victor Parkway to this current parcel." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 23, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a threeatory office building on property located at the above -referenced address We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Any curves or corner of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty- three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (5) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane. (6) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 31, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Rockford Building, located on Victor Parkway, north of 7 Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 1, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 16, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. June 12, 2007 24107 (1) All landscaping is to be irrigated. (2) The parking layout of the 10 feet wide spaces does not appear to meet the intent of the code. The layout needs to be reconfigured and all striping is to be double striped. (3) This site would be allowed one monument sign of 30 square feet (maximum 6 feet high, 10 feet long, setback minimum 10 feet) and one wall sign of approximately 49 square feet Any other requests would require a variance(s) from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: Scott, on the letter from Alex Bishop, there's a question on the parking. Is the parking okay? Mr. Miller: Yes. The plan has been revised and now all the 10 -foot spaces have been relocated closer to the door. Ms. Smiley: So its already taken care of? Mr. Miller: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Mark, on the letter from the Engineering Division regarding the cleanout of the basin, will that be done prior to this building being constructed? Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure what tie status of that is. The Association has been made aware of the need to clean the basin. Yet if they're aware that there's going to be some new construction in the not loo distant future, it would probably be wise to wail until that construction is completed before cleaning it because that could introduce more silt into the basin. Mr. LaPine: So basically then, they could not get a Certificate of Occupancy until that basin is clean? Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure if it would apply to this property. I realy dont know the answer to that question, Mr. LaPine. I would have to check with the Engineering Division. Mr. La Pine I don't want some problem coming down the road here. June 12, 2007 24108 Mr. Taormina: We could stipulate that since they are a part of the Association, it will become part of the responsibility for maintenance of the basin. Mr. LaPine: As long as it's taken care of. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Kurt Hassberger, Rockford Development Group, 5540 Glenwood Hills Parkway SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512. I am a member of Rockford Development Group, who is the applicant here this evening. I would like to thank staff. They have shared all this correspondence with us since your study committee meeting. I have Mike Corby from Integrated Architecture and Jim Buller from PEA Engineers here this evening, and can review some of the issues that were raised in that letter and also I think we have some samples of exterior materials and that sort of thing with us this evening. So we'll be very happy to answer any questions you might have. I'll just turn it over to Mike at this point and he can walk you through the changes that have been made to the plans in response to the staff comments. Mike Corby, Integrated Architecture, 4090 Lake Drive, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Just to respond to some of the earlier comments, the plans have been revised and specific to the dead end condition, we've revised this particular portion of the parking area to be within the 150 foot limit so we did not have to address the turnaround here. The parking was changed as well. I understand from the work session that we will be dealing with the signage at a later date. We do show some preliminary locations, but we will be dealing with that in another process. We do have a rendering that's able to show a three dimensional rendition. This is from the south as you would be approaching the building heading northbound on 275. The primary building material will be brick. This will be that material. There will also be a metal panel that was referenced both for the canopy and some of the fascia and the screen element that kind of comes along the west side. There will be a champagne metal. We have a frosted glass. As you can see with the curtain wall system on the east side of the building, we don't want to see into the building so it's a frosted glass. You don't really see much that's behind there. And then the primary glass is a high performance glass. For the most part, it's a clear glass. It looks like it has a little bit of a tint just from the high performance coating but for the most part, it's a clear glass. I think that covers it. I think we covered most of the issues. As Kurt said, Jim Butler is here also from PGE if there are any specific questions on the engineering. June 12, 2007 24109 Mr. Walsh: Are there any quesfions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: I have a couple questions. The area where you have the parking for the 28 cars, is that where the 10-fool spaces are going to be? Mr. Corby: It was indicated in the study session that they needed to be the closest spaces to the building entrance. So we had originally all in this island here. We've since moved all of the spaces into these two islands, butthe closest spaces to the entrance. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Then all the rest are 9 fool spaces? Mr. Corby: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The individuals who are going to be at this higher education building, are they going to be assigned parking spaces? Mr. Corby: No. Mr. LaPine: So whoever gets there first, gets the parking spaces? Mr. Corby: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Again, this is a higher education building, and I assume you have students that come in the morning and all through the day. Is that correct? Mr. Corby: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: Nowhere on the plan do you have an area where they can come out, say at lunchfime, and have picnic tables. Maybe in the summertime they can sit outside and have their lunch. Do you have any type of area like that? Mr. Corby: Actually, we do. This the first floor plan. The southwest comer of the building will be the library. Out in the front of the library will be a terrace area, and we have a row of trees that are going to be in paving. So it will create a canopy and create a protective kind of terrace area. So we will have outdoor furniture there for students to use. Mr. LaPine: So students can come out and eat their lunch and talk and meet girl meet boy and that kind of stuff. Mr. Corby: Yes. Mr. LaPine: We do have landscaping all along the parkway. Correct? June 12, 2007 24110 Mr. Corby: There is landscaping here. You can see the internal landscaping in the parking area. Mr. LaPine: Are there going to be some trees planted along there loo? Mr. Corby: Yes, these indicate the deciduous trees here. There are some coniferous on the northeast corner here. Mr. LaPine: And those green things in the parking lot, are they going to be in the little islands where you're going to have trees or something planted there? Mr. Corby: Yes. Mr. LaPine: That's all I have at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Are the light poles shown as part of your plan here? Mr. Corby: Yes, we submitted a lighting plan and a photometric plan that shows the distribution of lights. We also submitted the specifications on the light fixtures themselves. Mr. Morrow: I assume they are 20 feel or less? Mr. Corby: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Do you have a target date you're worlang toward as far as opening the school? Mr. Corby: The expected opening is the 2008 Fall. The construction start would certainly be dependent upon the process but l think the expected construction is August, sometime in the month of August. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Taormina: There is a retaining wall shown along the north side of the property between the landscaped area and that northerly row of parking. Could you describe what that retaining wall will look like, what it will consist of and whether or not it will require a railing along the top? Mr. Corby: I'm going to let Jim answer that question, but there is a retaining wall that's here because the Embassy Suite Hotel site is higher than this site. June 12, 2007 24111 Jim Butler, Professional Engineering, 2430 Rochester Court, Suite 200, Troy, Michigan 48083. Good evening. The wall that will be along that north face will be a freestanding modular block wall. You've seen these walls. They're keystone -type walls. Yes, Mark, t will have some sort of barrier on the lop of it, be it a fence, be t a guardrail, be it something else because of the differential in grade. We are required by the Code to have some sort of protection. Mr. Taormina: What will the height be? I know the parking lot will be the lower of the two grades. Mr. Buller: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Al its highest point, what will the height of the wall be? Mr. Butler: As you go into the site away from Vidor Parkway moving westerly, the wall will get larger. I think at its highest point, its about 8-1/2 to 9 feet. Mr. Taormina: So that would definitely require some type of railing along the lop. Mr. Butler: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: The wall is not going to be just a concrete poured wall. It's going to be some kind of brick or something nice. Mr. Butler: No, sir. It's not a poured wall. Its a keystone -type wall. It's an individual block wall. You've seen these probably throughout the community. Mr. LaPine: What color would that be? Mr. Butler: I'm sure it would be complementary to the building. Mr. LaPine: Okay. That's fine. The other thing I want to make sure of, I want to gel it in the official record, the Rockwood Development Group that's building this building is leasing it back to the college. Is that correct? Mr. Butler: Rockford Development will be the owners of the building and they will lease the building Mr. LaPine: Therefore, the City will be getting their lax dollars on this building. June 12, 2007 24112 Mr. Butler: Yes, sir. Mr. La Pine: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Thank you gentlemen. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, a motion would be in order. Larry Goss, I'm with Burton Katzman Development Company, 30100 Telegraph Group, Suite 366, Bingham Farms, Michigan. We are the owner of the parent parcel. I just wanted to take a moment and let you know that our experience with the Rockford Group has been exceptionally good. They are a very professional organization, very thorough in their research on this site, and from all indications, I think they have planned a very high quality building in an area that. Of course, we know the city considers it a headquarters -type of location, a gem of the community in terms of locations. We think they have mel that challenge and we would just ask for you to consider this favorably. We certainly endorse what they're doing here. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here. Mr. Morrow: You say you are the owner of some of the properly there? Mr. Goss: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: You probably own quite a bit of the property there. Are you part of the Association that is responsible for the deanup of the detention pond? Mr. Goss: I understand that to be a concern. The park was set up years ago, and the documentation on the Association is somewhat vague. But we have had, as was mentioned, we've had some discussions with the Association. Of course we dont control the Association, but the discussions have all been very amicable and we talked to them about sharing in the cost of mucking out that detention pond and sharing our fair share of that. That would be our desire as well. So I don't see that being any controversial issue whatsoever. Mr. Morrow: We're just hoping that in addition to Rockford, somebody else could kind of spearhead the effort to gel it cleaned up. June 12, 2007 24113 Mr. Goss: Absolutely. We would be paying the lion's share of that because we have the remainder parcel. Mr. Morrow: That's why I asked you. Mr. Goss: Right. So I have no problem going on record saying we've mel with the Association on that, and it seems like we're going to work out something to do a fair sharing of that. Mr. LaPine: Then you own the other approximately 10 acres that's vacant. Mr. Goss: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Do you have any prospects for that? Have you had any more biles? Mr. Goss: Actually, we are in discussion with another group at the moment. One I cant disclose to you but it is another use that we think would be well received by the city. Mr. LaPine: You mentioned in your presentation prior to this, it's a prime location. We always have had this great idea that some big corporation worldwide was going to come in here and build their world headquarters here, but we're thankful to get what we're getting and we're hoping to get the other parcel finished off as soon as possible. Mr. Goss: Well, thank you. And we've been trying to make sure that the site was handled in the appropriate manner. We also got that big headquarters building if you recall but in any event we're moving forward with a quality development there. Mr. Walsh: Seeing no one else coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-60-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-0508-09 submitted by Rockford Development Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a three-story office building on property located at 19499 Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: June 12, 2007 24114 1. That the Overall Site Plan marked Drawing Number R2 dated June 8, 2007, prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Site Plan marked Drawing Number P-3 dated June 8, 2007, as revised, prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Landscape Plan marked Drawing Number L-1 dated June 8, 2007, prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked a-4 and a-5 both dated May 15, 2007, prepared by Integrated Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shal match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, June 1Z 2007 24115 from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 12. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated June 1, 2007; 14. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated May 23, 2007 15. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 17. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2007-05-08-10 CUSTOM STONE WORKS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 05-08-10 submitted by Custom Slone Works requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 32910 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 27. June 12, 2007 24116 Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to the Custom Slone Works facility that is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue. The subject property is somewhat "L" shaped and is split zoned. The southwest comer of the site, measuring 160 feel along Plymouth Road by 315 feel in depth, is zoned G2, General Business. The rest of the site is zoned M-1, Light Manufacturing. The proposed addition would be added to a section of the building that lies within the C-2 district. The proposed addition would be constructed to the west elevation of the building, basically squaring off that portion of the structure. The addition would add 4,446 square feel to the building. The existing facility is 26,575 square feel in size. Once completed, the overall size of the building would be expanded to a total of 31,021 square feet in area. According to the floor plan, the addition would be utilized as interior storage space. The plans do show that there are 21 striped parking spaces available on site. It should be pointed out that if additional parking is needed, there is plenty of room on site to accommodate more spaces. According to the elevation plan, the addition would be constructed out of "new 12 inch reinforced CMU". CMU stands for "Concrete Masonry Unit", which is commonly known as a concrete block. A man -door and a number of windows would be incorporated into the west elevation of the new addition. A large overhead door would be installed in the north elevation. The addition would have a flat roof. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 31, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. No additional right of way is required. The address of 32910 Plymouth Road is correct. We would recommend that a new paved drive be installed to maintain access to the west side of the northerly portion of the existing building." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 25, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the commercial building located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (2) Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings that are set back more June 12, 2007 24117 than 150 feet from a public road or exceed 30 feel in height and are set back over 50 feel from a public road. (3) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (4) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of 150 feel in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of fifty-three feel wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane. (5) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (6) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 31, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Custom Slone Works Addition, located at 32910 Plymouth. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted" The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 3, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 23, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the petitioner please step forward? Good evening. Omar Faris, Custom Slone Works, 32910 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything pu'd like to add or should we go straight to questions? Mr. Faris: Should you approve this proposal, we would like to ask for a seven day waiver so we may gel on the next Council meeting. Mr. Walsh: Okay. We will keep that in mind. Let's go to the initial subject matter and then we'll get to that request. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Faris, the Engineering Division made a note that a new paved drive should be installed on the west side to maintain June 1Z 2007 24118 northerly access to the building. Is that accounted for in your plan here? Mr. Faris: I'm sorry, sir. I don't understand. Can you point that out? Mr. Miller: On your site plan, this shows as a grass area. Mr. Faris: No. That is now paved. Mr. Wilshaw: That is paved? Mr. Faris: It's been paved for quite some time. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Faris: Sure. Ms. Varloogian: Is the addition going to be built out of similar materials to what the existing building is constructed of? Mr. Faris: The new addition is going to be constructed out of block similar to what we have now. Correct. Ms. Varloogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-61-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-0508-10 submitted by Custom Slone Works requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 32910 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest I/ of Section 27, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Al dated May 30, 2007, as revised, prepared by Donald A. DiComo, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; June 1Z 2007 24119 2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A-4 dated May 30, 2007, as revised, prepared by Donald A. DiComo, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated May 25, 2007; 4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 5. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh: The motion passes. The petitioner has requested a seven day waiver. Sir, I'll seek a motion to see if we can put that on the table and vole on it. We cant guarantee that the Council will do that. We can give you the seven day waiver. It will be up to Mr. McCann and the City Council office to determine if they can gel you on the next agenda. I didn't have a chance to speak with them prior to the meeting. Mr. Faris: Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh: Did you speak with him, Mark? Mr. Taormina: We did have a discussion. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Mr. Taormina has spoken with him. So what I would seek then is a motion to waive the seven-day requirement. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #06-62-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2007-05-08-10 submitted by Custom Slone Works requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 32910 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between June 12, 2007 24120 Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 27. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motions are carried and the foregoing resolutions adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. k 1 =l Ai Ei$= 9 =k I Y I [e] 7 K1111arRE11: 5 E-:3= U4e] 7I /_\ Ai 01 [0] [11816] 7I DIGN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 08-08-16 submitted by Livonia Manor Site Condominiums, which previously received Master Deed, bylaws and site plan approval by the City Council on October 26, 2005 (Council Resolution #519-05), requesting to amend a bylaw in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on properties located at 31540, 31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 3. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting to amend a provision of the approved Master Deed and Bylaws for the Livonia Manor Site Condominiums. This development is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue. The City granted Master Deed, bylaws and site plan approval on October 26, 2005 (Council Resolution #519-05). Article VII. Use and Occupancy Restrictions of the approved bylaws specked. Building size and Height. No building or structure shall exceed two stones in height, and all buildings or structures shall be constructed within the perimeter, except however, that on Lots 11 thru 15 the building height shall be limited to one story. In the request letter dated May 2, 2007, it is conveyed that the developers of Livonia Manor wish to eliminate the exception wording "except however, that on Lots 11 thru 15 the building height shall be limited to one story." It is explained that an effort has been made to market these lots, but the height restriction removes them from consideration from young family buyers that prefer colonial style houses. Based on the developer's experience, they do not believe it is economically practical to hold out for an extended period of time trying to find a buyer for a single story house. The letter goes on to state that even with the bylaw changed, a sincere effort would be made to market Lots 11 thru 15 as one story home sites. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? June 12, 2007 24121 Mr. Taormina: No, there is not. Mr. Walsh: There's no correspondence. Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the petitioner please step forward? Enrico Soave, 31567 Bridge, Livonia, Michigan. Just a minor correction. The Master Deed as originally written said Lots 11 through 15. It should have staled Lots 10, 7, 8 and 9. So we want to amend the Master Deed and Bylaws to reflect that the restriction will be removed from Lots 7, 8 and 9 on the site plan. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Miller or Mr. Taormina, do you concur with that conclusion? Mr. Taormina: I'm going to have Scott zoom in on the area he's referring to. Mr. Miller: Are you saying Lots 7, 8 and 9? That's this area right here. Mr. Taormina: Could you point to which lots it would apply to, Mr. Soave, because maybe the lot numbers that we have on this plan are not what was recorded on the final Master Deed. Mr. Soave: The Master Deed was revised, so the lot numbers were configured to meet additional lots that were added on to this original rendering of the site map. It should read at the far left of the screen, it should be lots marked Lot 20, 7, 8, 9 and 10. So #15 should read 10 descending, in descending order, it should go down to 7 and the one in the comer is Lot 20 as finally recorded. Mr. Walsh: What I would like to do for purposes of tonight, if we could have the Planning Department followup with Mr. Soave and make sure we have the right records on hand in terms of the numbers. But what we're talking about for tonight, just using these numbers, is 12, 13, 14 and 15 for our purposes. Mr. Soave: Absolutely correct. Ms. Smiley: Not Lot ll? Mr. Walsh: Is Lot 11 included? Mr. Soave: To my knowledge, 11 is not included. Mr. Taormina: We are referring to these numbers here. Lot 11 would be this one. Mr. Taormina: Have we done this previous to this or since then? I cant think of an occasion off hand. This was unique and as Mr. Soave pointed out, it was something that was voluntarily offered by the petitioner at the time the rezoning was being considered by City Council. As I understand it, he held to this word because that language was incorporated into the Master Deed and Bylaws that were presented to this body and the City Council at the time the Site Plan was being considered. So documentation that June 12, 2007 24122 Mr. Walsh: Lot 11 was part of the letter. So its 11 through 15. So we will use these numbers for now and I'll ask if you can follow up with our staff. Mr. Soave: It will make things easier that way. Mr. Walsh: Make sure your documents are similar to ours for legal purposes. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Mr. Soave: When Livonia Manor Site Condominiums was first developed almost two years ago, there was a need or market for new construction rancl+styfe homes. But unfortunately the state of the market has changed drastically since then. The composition of the homes in there as they were sold or built reflect that. Out of the 21 homes built, only two of those are ranches. Currently, we have four remaining home sites available in Livonia Manor. Three of those lots are affected with that restriction. Lot 15, ranch style home, was built upon there. It is probably 15 months it's been sitting for sale and we have not had one offer since the home was under construction. Furthermore, such restrictions on Lots 11 through 15 were voluntarily offered by the developer and was not mandated as a condition for development. It is our opinion that the completion of the subdivision is highly unlikely if the one restriction is to remain in effect in the Master Deed and Bylaws. And also, from a builders standpoint, no homes will probably be built upon as a spec home if you can't gel rid of one home that's been sitting there for 15 months. The homeowners that actually live in Livonia Manor, me being one of them, would like to see the completion of Livonia Manor sometime in the near future. A petition was passed around in the subdivision reflecting that the homeowners in Livonia Manor do support this proposed amendmenllo the Master Deed and Bylaws. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions? Ms. Smiley: My question is for Mr. Taormina. Have we ever put a stipulation on there on what story house, whether it has to be a ranch or a two-story. Do we do that? Mr. Taormina: Have we done this previous to this or since then? I cant think of an occasion off hand. This was unique and as Mr. Soave pointed out, it was something that was voluntarily offered by the petitioner at the time the rezoning was being considered by City Council. As I understand it, he held to this word because that language was incorporated into the Master Deed and Bylaws that were presented to this body and the City Council at the time the Site Plan was being considered. So documentation that Mr. LaPine: Well, if I may say so, what you're telling me tonight, that the ranch is not selling, I have a survey here. Il was in the Sunday's Free Press paper which was in February of this year. The staff of the Associated Design invited readers to participate in the Homes for the Heart survey. Free Press readers and readers from all over the country describe how they would configure an ideal home for their family. A ranch style home was by far the most popular, more than 40% of the 443 respondents choosing this style. Then it goes on to tell what the different things are June 12, 2007 24123 was approved included that Building and Use Restriction. He's here before you this evening to see if he could have that item modified or removed to give him some greater flexibility. Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mark. Mr. Morrow: As it relates to potential homebuyers, what are demographics or the age groups of the people who have built in there and the potential people you're talking to now? Mr. Soave: Primarily, almost unanimously, they are all families - all families having kids or aspiring to have kids. So every home in there, besides myself, there is a family. Its a familyonented subdivision. Mr. Morrow: Okay. And normally what you're running into is the fact that you gel a little bit more home for the dollar as far as living space if you go two -stories. Mr. Soave: Absolutely. More square footage for your dollar. I couldn't have said it better myself. Mr. Morrow: I suspected that but I just wanted you to confine. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: When you are marketing these homes and someone comes by and wants to build a ranch, did you lead them to those back lots or if somebody wanted to pick a lot, say Lot 17, for instance, and wanted a ranch built, would you build a ranch there? Mr. Soave: We'll build a house anywhere the homeowner would like to build a house. We don't steer them in any direction. Usually when they come in, they already have conditions on where they want the home, what kind of home they want and usually how much they want to pay for it. So there's no steering whatsoever on where you want these home to be built upon. But currently, there are only four lots available to build homes. So the way it stands now, there's only one home site available where you can actually built a colonial, story and a half, and so forth. Mr. LaPine: Well, if I may say so, what you're telling me tonight, that the ranch is not selling, I have a survey here. Il was in the Sunday's Free Press paper which was in February of this year. The staff of the Associated Design invited readers to participate in the Homes for the Heart survey. Free Press readers and readers from all over the country describe how they would configure an ideal home for their family. A ranch style home was by far the most popular, more than 40% of the 443 respondents choosing this style. Then it goes on to tell what the different things are June 12, 2007 24124 they would like in the home. But the last part says, more than 60 percent prefer a one-story home, and about the same percentage opt for a basement. So apparently, we're not in sync with the rest of the country or the rest of the surrounding area, because apparently rancl+type homes are what people want. Basically, they want a suite on the first floor and the other bedrooms upstairs. Now the colonials they're building now, they're doing that, but they're putting a suite on the first floor. I was just surprised when I read that in the paper you couldn't sell ranches when it seems that's the preferred kind of home people want. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? If so, please come down to one of our podiums and give us your name and address, Nick Terzes, 31553 Gable. My home directly abuts the development. I see some familiar faces here from when I was here a couple years ago, so its good to know most of you are familiar with the original project. Interestingly enough, Mr. Soave and yourselves pretty much said 90 percent of what I was planning on coming up here to discuss. I read that same article myself. Basically, I guess just to be beef, its unfortunate the stale of the housing market right now. I think most of you know how depressed it is. My family is also having trouble selling homes right now. They are in construction as well. You go through the sub you can see many homes that have been for sale for two or three years now. Again, I think maybe what needs to be looked at is instead of trying to build a larger home, a colonial style home, there are other options that Mr. Soave and the city should consider. Maybe instead of having such small lots with small ranches on them, there might be an opportunity to split a couple of those lots and build a larger ranch for some other options like improved landscaping and improve some of the points of the home. I think we need to consider some of the things that need to be done to maybe make the homes more preferable for families coming in instead of just trying to build a colonial, which again, for most of the residents that live right on the strip that will be basically abutting those homes ... again, I think when we first spoke a couple years, that was the big fear. We were going to have these towering homes behind us. Al the time, Mr. Soave basically said this is one of the concessions we'll make. We're going to try to put some additional landscaping behind and try to maintain some of the trees that were originally existing, and it just seems we're changing plans because of the market. Again, it's unfortunate that that they chose to build the subdivision at a time when the market is basically in a depression but that's just the reality of the situation. I don't think June 12, 2007 24125 its fair to compromise the existing residents because of that. I think we need to look at some other options that may work better for all the parties involved. That's basically what I have to say. Ann Nizienski, 31451 Gable. I see some new faces here from when we went through this two years ago. The homes on Gable are ranches that were built in the 50's with detached garages. And two of the concerns I had, and many of the questions you ask, was the size of houses going on the size of lots. I wondered would the new homes that back up to our property be somewhat consistent with our 50 style ranches with the detached garages. And these were also half acre rural lots with dense forests, and a lot of us liked the trees behind our homes. I have the meeting notes from that meeting, and Mr. Soave said he would leave a 5 foot buffer of trees from the property line and he did not. He removed every tree. It's bare back to our fences. So this was one of the things that the existing residents on Gable wanted. We were concerned about there being a little bit of a buffer barrier between the new construction and the old construction. The other thing that pleased me was the fad that these lots that back up to our homes were ranches, like our homes. And there has been one ranch built on Lot 15. My plan shows it Lot 10. But this is a ranch but its a walk -out ranch. It looks like a ranch from the front, but from our back side you see two levels. Now imagine your homes. You walk out your lower level, look across your backyard and you don't see the first level of the house behind you. You're looking at the basement level. Another way to look at this, this is on the east side of the property. You've got commercial property. You've got the Livonia fashion mall, medical buildings, parking lots. It's surrounded by a 6 to 8 fool cement wall. Now if you drive down Merriman and you look at this house, the first story of it, is up above that 6 fool, 8 fool cement wall. So it's high up compared to where our homes sit. This is a one story. Now add another story and a roofline and you can see how our homes are going to be dwarfed by putting two story homes there. I know Mr. LaPine was on the Commission then. I know you asked a lot of questions. You were one of the dissenting votes. I think it was passed by a 5 to 2 vole. These are some of the conditions we have - that these big houses don't overtake our small ranches. Thank you. Bob Moreau, 31609 Gable. I'm behind Lot 15 1 believe it was - the end one. I'm against it. I dont want a big two-story building behind my house like anybody else. Like my neighbors all said, none of the trees were kept. Everything is just gulled and everybody says, oh, well, they're going to put bushes and everything else in. That doesn't lake away what the trees were you know. And the June 12, 2007 24126 funny thing about that survey, we never got any part of that survey because we would have voted it down about putting colonials in. I'm against it and I just wanted to voice my opinion. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Susan Calfin, 31633 Gable. My husband and I moved into our house in 1959. We raised three children who went through the Livonia Public Schools and participated in terrific sports and cultural activities. Through the 60's and 70's, Livonia had what today we call a mission statement. It was a commitment to the American dream that people could, families could have their house. They could have the American dream, and they didn't have to be super wealthy. They could have the American dream. And Livonia developed to attract families, and our subdivision represents a very modest application of that American dream. And it is, for the most part, where it backs up on the development, it is ranch homes. And I thought at the time, well, I don't want to see the trees go, but reality says development happens and people have the right to sell their property and people have the right to develop property. So I'm a grown up. I understand that. I did appreciate that, though it was voluntary, it was part of the plan that was approved, that there would be ranch homes that would back up on the ranch homes that are part of the original sub. I thought it represented a total view. Again, one of the things that impressed me about Livonia years back was that it was a total picture. It wasn't, what are we going to do with the corner of Middlebelt and Seven Mile? It was, how does this impact the city? How does it impact what Livonia means? And we are in a difficult time now. I do not envy the developer in terms of buildings and selling homes now, but I would be wary of a quick fix or a seeming quick fix to change the idea in the hope that the houses can be built, excuse me, the colonials and all will be well. I think the quick fix might violate what has traditionally been true of Livonia, that we look at the big picture, and the big picture says development occurs but one must engage the whole area so that the whole area remains whole. We are a community where there are a lot of gray hairs living in this community and many of us live in modest homes. Livonia was developed, again, with the appeal of the American dream to the average family. And Livonia, as it moves into the future, has to look at preserving the value of the American dream as played out in Livonia, which lends to be a lot of modest housing. So I think we want to look at just maintaining the integrity of the whole and not look at doing a patch, a quick fix here, that may or may not work. There may be other solutions to make those potential ranch homes more appealing and they, in fact, then June 12, 2007 24127 would speak to a transition between the new development and the old development. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I'm getting that your objection is its dwarfing your particular home. Is that your only objection? Ms. Calfn: I'msony? Mr. Morrow: Dwarfing your home. Ms. Calfn: Dwarfing? Mr. Morrow: Is that two story dwarfing your home? Is that your only objection or do you have other objections too? Ms. Calfn: Well, it would dwarf, yes, but it draws a line where maybe a transition would preserve the new and the old. So it isn't just the size per se, its that it creates a new community and an old community. And I think in Livonia that is not desirable. Mr. Morrow: Well, thank you. You made a very fine presentation. Ms. Calfin: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: We have another speaker coming forward. Good evening. Richard Young: I live on Gable Street also. I've been a Livonia resident for well over 50 years. I've lived over there for 48 years and on Brookfield here for 4 or 5 years before that. I'm also against the proposal here because to go all the way back to when the Planning Commission approved it, they approved it with the condition of ranch homes backing up to ranch homes, not two story homes and then a break and ranch homes. Its not blending neighborhoods. So I'm totally against it, and I hope you folks can see our point of view also. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I would open the floor to a motion or any additional comments or questions. Mr. Morrow: I would like the petitioner to refresh our memories on the trees in the backyard of the lots. Was there some sort of an agreement to preserve those trees, and if there was, why were they done away with? Mr. Soave: In the rear of that yard where the utility easement was, that's where the Edison lines were constructed or actually excavated. June 12, 2007 24128 In order to get power back there, we had to excavate ground and remove whatever vegetation there was in order to gel those utility lines in there. As it is now, saying there was not many or currently now there are no trees in the back, it's mostly just shrubbery and vegetation. However, once homes will be constructed on there, as the homes to the east of the subdivision, there are Blue Spruces that currently run to the most southern end all the way along to the northern end of the subdivision where there are Blue Spruces that line the entire subdivision on that eastern end, and then will continue to follow around in the back of abutting the neighbors homes as well. Mr. Morrow: Is there any intention to do any berming to augment the height of the.... Mr. Soave: To my knowledge, we weren't allowed to put a berm in the rear of those homes. Mr. Morrow: Because of the ... for what reason? Mr. Soave: I don't recall what the exact reasons were, but we weren't allowed to put berms in there. We had to be maybe two feel high maximum. For a selling point, we'd love to put a big berm back there to kind of conceal the eastern end of the subdivision, which abuts next to commercial office space, but we weren't able to do that. I would love to put a 6 foot berth up there to try to conceal all that so you could see a beautiful line of Blue Spruces. Mr. Morrow: I'm talking about the propertyto the north. Mr. Soave: Yes. That restriction continues all the way along the rear end of that property, from the southern end all the way to the north, and then spreading back to the west. Mr. Morrow: I'm just curious. Mr. Soave: From a selling point, that beautifies the rear of a home having a nice landscaped berm in the back, rather than seeing a chain link fence. Mr. Morrow: That's where I'm coming from, but was that commitment made to preserve that, only subsequently to find out you couldn't preserve it because of utilities? Mr. Soave: We love to preserve vegetation and trees as much as possible, as much as the development will allow us to. June 12, 2007 24129 Mr. Morrow: Okay. So whether or not there was a commitment, you're unaware of it. Mr. Soave: Well, there was a commitment to save trees, but it's not always feasible to save the trees. Mr. Morrow: It wasn't specific. You were going to save them wherever possible. Mr. Soave: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Varloogian: Have you had to tum away any potential buyers because of this restriction? Mr. Soave: Yes, we have, but I'd like to ask my sales agent to come up and answer the question because he's more knowledgeable in that respect than I am. Mr. Walsh: If you could step forward, sir, please. Paul Mocert: I'm the Sales Manager for both the Livonia Manor and Churchill Manor. To answer you question just real briefly, yeah, we have actually turned away two buyers in the past six months that wanted to do two story or one-and-half story capes on that back row. We only have four lots left that we can build on in Livonia Manor. I read the same article that Mr. La Pine did in the news and it's a national survey. I've been selling real estate in the Livonia market for about 22 years, and we've always done well selling ranches. We have not just one ranch planned, ladies and gentlemen, we have three - three distinct styles, six different elevations for those ranches, and we've only sold two ranches in that subdivision. It's not because of any lack of effort and trying, believe me. I'll sell any house a customer wants on any available lot. So again, we have a wide variety of ranches, square footage-wise from 1,676 to almost 2,000 square feel. We have six different looks or elevations to these homes. So we're not just trying to shoehorn one size as far as offering ranches. We have a nice selection of ranches that we had specifically designed for these subdivisions. The fact is that if you look at the per square foot price, we can give a lot more house for the money in a one-and-a-half story with a first floor master suite, and this is what the buyers are choosing. The overwhelming majority of our sales are either cape cods, and then to younger families we're selling colonials also. The reality of the market, it is what it is. If I could sell ranches, they could pick any lot remaining for the ranches, not just the three in the June 12, 2007 24130 back. From the sales perspective, we felt we had to request this change because, again, we're down to only four lots left and three of those four are restricted in the back. Ms. Vartoogian: I have two more brief questions. I dont know if you can answer this question but, has there been any opposition by the two current ranch owners to have ... Mr. Moceri: Their names are on the petition to allow us to change that. They are directly across the street from two of those three lots. Ms. Varloogian: Okay. And my other question is, what is the height differential at the lop point of the ranch compared to the one -and -a -half story? Mr. Moceri: I'm not really certain on that. Ms. Vartoogian: Some ranches can have very high peaks. I just wondered what the difference in height was. Mr. Moceri: Well, the one ranch that we do have there that we're trying to sell is a walk out and it does sit up higher because of the contouring for the walk -out, but the one -and -a -half story has a lower profile typically than the two story. So the one -and -a -half story is our most popular style. We have three different versions of that house also that we're building in there, and those by far have been the most popular. They don't have quite as aggressive a profile as the two story. Ms. Vartoogian: You can't give me the height differential between the ranch and the one -and -a -half story? Mr. Moceri: I'd have to look on the plan. If I had anticipated that, I would have looked and checked but ... Ms. Vartoogian: Do you have an approximation, like 10 feet, 20 feet, 5 feet? Mr. Moceri: I would hale to even hazard to guess. It just wouldn't be accurate. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. That's it. Ms. Smiley: My question was, on a ranch, how big would the footprint be as opposed to a colonial? Mr. Moceri: Well, as far as the width of the ranch, I mean our one -and -a -half stories, as far as the width of it. like we have a one -and -a -half story, the widest one we have, is about 45 or 46 feel wide. The June 12, 2007 24131 ranch, the smallest ranch we have is about 43 feel wide. So there's only a couple feet difference width -wise between the smallest ranch and biggest cape cod. Ms. Smiley: Okay, and on a two story house, how wide would it be? Mr. Moceri: Well, the two story, it depends on the size. We have a smaller two story where it goes probably maybe 42 to 44 feet wide, and we have a bigger one that's probably closer to about 46 feet wide, a colonial. That would be about the widest home unless we had room and the customer wanted to expand the square fool. Occasionally, there are a few homes in there where we have made them a bit wider, you know per the customer's request if it will work on the lot, if we're able to ft it on the lot and expand it and a couple of our homes do allows us to do that. Ms. Smiley: So a one story building, it wouldn't be smaller. It would be about the same size for a larger ... Mr. Moceri: Width -wise that would be accurate. Again, I'm not sure of the height, but width -wise that would be correct, yes. Ms. Smiley: They'd be about the same or maybe less? Mr. Moceri: Within a couple offeet, yes... Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: When you construct a model, how many models did you have as ranches and how many models as far as colonials? Mr. Moceri: Well, we've had that one ranch we've been trying to sell right from the beginning. That was one of our original models, that walk -out ranch we're discussing. Mr. La Pine: Was that the only one you had that people could walk through and look al? Mr. Moceri: From both sites, I had three or four different ranches, but we've always had ... Mr. La Pine: Let's just talk about this site. Mr. Moceri: Okay. Mr. La Pine: How many did you have up as a model? June 12, 2007 24132 Mr. Moceri: Two different styles. Mr. La Pine: Two different styles. Mr. Moceri: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: So they had a choice to look at two different styles? Mr. Moceri: Yes, and then of course we had the blue prints that could be looked at. Mr. LaPine: Normally, a new homebuyer who never owned a home before, they go through the model and that's whallhey base how their house is being built. The look at the way it's configured and they buy it. That's why I was curious. You could have up on the walls pictures of different styles but you can't really visualize how it looks until you go through it. Mr. Moceri: Mr. LaPine, we have our models at the Seven and Merriman site but I frequently lake customers to our site on Newburgh Road just so I can show them all the styles, and we have other ranches at that site that I also take customers to. Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me you only have four lots Teff in this sub? Mr. Moceri: Four lots that we have not built on, correct. Mr. LaPine: And they are all in the back? Mr. Moceri: Three of the four are in that back row and the other one is along the commercial side Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: What is the price of the ranch that's for sale on the comer? Mr. Moceri: That's our lowest price. I mean we're very aggressively priced on the ranches. I have a 1,676 square fool ranch at the Seven and Merriman site that goes for $272,900 and in the Newburgh site, the base price of that house is $249,900. It's not because of pricing, ladies and gentlemen, that we're not selling the homes. I mean we are very aggressively priced on what we're offering, and as I mentioned, we have a variety of styles too of whether it's a cape, colonial or a ranch. Mr. Wilshaw: So that ranch is priced at basically about $272,000? RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-08-08-16 submitted by Livonia Manor Site Condominiums, which previously received Master Deed, bylaws and site plan approval by the City Council on October 26, 2005 (Council Resolution #519-05), requesting to amend a bylaw in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on properties located at 31540, 31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road June 12, 2007 24133 Mr. Moceri: $272,900 would be the base price for the smallest ranch and the bigger ranch, which is a couple hundred square feet bigger, is not much more. Its $284,900 for that one. So we're well below $300,000 on the ranches. I mean it's a tremendous deal if you just do the math on the per square fool price, and I still can't gel customers for the ranch. And believe it, it's not for lack of trying. If you pick up a copy of the Observer, we have internet web sites; we have a lot of Observer ads; we do direct mails; we have a very aggressive marketing campaign that we use. So we're trying b reach everybody that we possibly can and the lmih of the matter is, that as people come in, in their mind their perceiving more value with a lower per square footage price in the capes and the two stories than they are in the ranches, and the cape cods have kind of stolen the ranch thunder a lot in this market. I mean we've had everything you need in a ranch. Basically, in a cape cod all you have upstairs are bedrooms and bathrooms, maybe a loft area. That type of style, which is much less per square foot than the ranch, seems to be the most popular style among buyers right now. Mr. Wilshaw: As a point of comparison, what's the average price of a cape cod or a colonial in that subdivision selling for? Mr. Moceri: The base price of the cape cod would be $308,900, but it's about 2,300 square feel compared to the nearly 1,700 square feel, $272,900 ranch. Mr.Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Additional questions or comments? Thank you, sir. Mr. Moceri: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: In the absence of any additional discussion, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-08-08-16 submitted by Livonia Manor Site Condominiums, which previously received Master Deed, bylaws and site plan approval by the City Council on October 26, 2005 (Council Resolution #519-05), requesting to amend a bylaw in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on properties located at 31540, 31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road June 12, 2007 24134 and Auburndale Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request to remove the exception wording "except however, that on Lots 11 thru 15 the building height shall be limited to one story" from Article VII: Use and Occupancy Restrictions (a) Building size and Height of the Livonia Manor Site Condominiums bylaws, as approved in Council Resolution #519-05, is hereby approved for the following reasons: - That the height limitation creates an economic hardship that is not fair to the developer; - That two-story structures are permitted in an R-1, One Family Residential, zoning districts; - That two-story houses are common throughout the City of Livonia, - That enforcing the height restriction would not be in the best interest of the City; and 2. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #519-05, which granted approval for the construction of a condominium development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Ms. Vartoogian: I just wonder if we can come to some kind of compromise. It seems one of the main concerns of the neighboring property owners is the height of the two-story home. If there's not much difference between the height of the ranch and the height of the cape cod, which the proponent says there has been interest for their potential buyers, there's been interest in buying the one and half story home, I just wonder if we can come to a compromise and maybe restrict it to a ranch ora one -and -a -half story home. Perhaps I believe the proponent said that the height difference between the two story and the one -and -a -half story, that there was a difference. Mr. Walsh: You'd have to have the acquiesce of the maker and the second of the motion or offer a substitute motion. Ms. Smiley: Do you want to offer a substitute motion? Is that where you're going? June 12, 2007 24135 Ms. Vartoogian: I suppose l do. Mr. Walsh: So we have a substitute motion offered by Ms. Vartoogian that the change in the document, correct me if I'm wrong, that the item that you read, Ms. Smiley, would indicate that it would permit a ranch or a cape cod. Ms. Vartoogian: Correct. Mr. Walsh: Is there support for the subsfitute motion? Mr. LaPine: I'll support it. Mr. Walsh: Support from Mr. LaPine. Is there any discussion on the subsfitute motion? Ms. Smiley: If I could, we haven't done this actually, these restrictions, anywhere else. We're talking in this particular sub on five lots. I don't know what the difference between a one -and -a -half and two, if it would be that big of a difference. The footprint of the building on a two story, I don't find offensive. I lived in a ranch myself and there were two story houses in the same sub. I didn't feel it look away from my home to live in a ranch with bigger neighbors. So I don't think I want to support that. Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, my experience is similar to Ms. Smiley. I live in a condo but its a mix of ranches and two story, and we back up to primarily a two story colonial type house. As many times I've driven down there, I never really sensed a particular concern that some of the neighbors had. If you look across the board, Livonia has a lot of two story homes that are mixed with ranch houses. It's a concern I wasn't familiar with. Mr. Walsh: Any addifional discussion on the motion to amend? Mr. LaPine: Originally, I voted against this sub for other reasons, but I think the petitioner did make a commitment that he would build ranches back there. Now, I'm willing to compromise and say okay, instead of having all ranches, we'll give you an opportunity now to try and market it with either a cape cod or a ranch. So I'll compromise my position here too. My gut feeling is, a person makes a commitment that he would build only a ranch, but I can understand houses are not selling. and I understand all those things that are going on, but still, he's made that commitment. June 12, 2007 24136 But at this point, I would support the other motion that's on the AYES: floor. Mr. Walsh: Any further discussion on the motion to amend? Mr. Morrow: I'm comfortable with what Mr. LaPine has offered because the ABSTAIN: real estate sales manager indicated that their most popular ABSENT: model right now appears to be the cape cod, and give him the opportunity to see if he can move the one -and -a -half story, which I'm assuming approximates the size of the ranch with the walk -out basement perhaps. Mr. Walsh: Any additional discussion? Mrs. McDermott: I just want to add that I think it's a good idea to try and work a compromise here so that it would heelp both the developer and the neighbors. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Any further comments? I see none. Would the secretary please call the roll on the amendment. This is the motion to amend the original motion. On a motion by Vartoogian, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was #06-63-2007 RESOLVED, to amend Condition Number 1 of the prepared resolution so as to read: ,except however, that on Lots 7 thru 10 and Lot 20, the building height shall be limited to either one story (ranches) or one-and-ahalf story (cape cods)." A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vartoogian, LaPine, MacDermott, Morrow, Wilshaw NAYES: Smiley, Walsh ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh: The motion passes 5 to 2. The motion originally presented now stands modified to induce a ranch or a cape cod. Is there any discussion on the now revised motion? We are now taking discussion on the original motion, which has been amended. Seeing none, would the Secretary please call the roll? Ms. Smiley: For the ... Mr. Walsh: Original motion, as amended. June 12, 2007 24137 Mr. LaPine: Not original motion. Mr. Walsh: The original molion, as amended. Mr. LaPine: Amended. Okay. Mr. Morrow: As amended. Okay. Mr. Walsh: Is everybody on board? Ms. Smiley: I'm unclear. I'm sorry. Help me. Mr. Walsh: To use other terminology, it's the primary molion which we've amended. The amendment has taken place. Mr. Morrow: We're on board now. Mr. Walsh: Very good. Unidentified Audience Member: Excuse me folks. You know, we can't hear. You're all talking up there. We don't know what you're deciding. Mr. Walsh: Sir, what we've done. We have a motion on the table now. The mofion that we're addressing is to amend the bylaws to permit a ranch or a cape cod. That's the motion that we're now voting on. Unidentified Audience Member: Ranch or a cape cod? Mr. Walsh: That's correct. Unidentified Audience Member: What did you just vote on? Mr. Walsh: The original motion offered by Ms. Smiley was to remove any restriction. Then the amending resolution that was offered by Ms. Varloogian was to limit the change to ranch and/or cape cod. That motion passed. Now we're back to the primary motion. I know this is confusing. We're back to the primary motion and what we're voting on, simply put, is will we permit the bylaws to be amended to allow a ranch and/or cape cod on those lots. That's what we're voting on. Unidentified Audience Member: So that means the builder can build one or the other on those lots? Mr. Walsh: That's correct. June 12, 2007 24138 Unidentified Audience Member: And you don't know the height of the cape cod and you're voting on it? Mr. Walsh: That is correct, ma'am. They would have to fall within our building requirements. Unidentified Audience Member: So if he has a choice, he's going to build the cape cod because he can't build a ranch. Is that right? Mr. Walsh: Sir, we're done with the discussion. I'll answer that question or any other question if it's procedural in nature. Unidentified Audience Member: How can you make a decision without knowing the difference in height? Mr. Walsh: Because we have building codes in place that all of our builders follow. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a routine action by this body. We have codes in place that regulate the construction of buildings. The discussion is over on the matter. Ma'am if it's procedural, I'll answer the question. If it has to do with the building size ... Unidentified Audience Member: How can a walk -out be considered a ranch? Its not what Iwould consider a ranch. The ranches are not on the same level. Mr. Walsh: Ma'am, it met our building codes. What you understand is going to be quite different than everybody else in the room or even I might understand. Unidentified Audience Member: Yes, but we have to live behind it. Mr. Walsh: We have to comply with our building codes. Will the Secretary please call the roll? Ms. Smiley: This is the original one, as amended? Mr. Walsh: That's correct. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, itwas #06-64-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2005-08-08-16 submitted by Livonia Manor Site Condominiums, which previously received Master Deed, bylaws and site plan approval by the City Council on October 26, 2005 (Council Resolution #519-05), requesting to amend a bylaw in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on properties June 12, 2007 24139 located at 31540, 31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road and Aubumdale Avenue in the Southeast''/. of Section 3, be approved, as amended, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request to remove the exception wording "except however, that on Lots 11 thru 15 the building height shall be limited to one story' from Article VII: Use and Occupancy Restrictions (a) Building size and Height: of the Livonia Manor Site Condominiums bylaws, as approved in Council Resolution #519-05, shall be amended to read as follows: 'except however, that on Lots 7 thru 10 and Lot 20, the building height shall be limited to either one story (ranches) or one-and-ahalf story (cape cods)" for the following reasons - That restricting the height of the houses to only one story creates an economic hardship that is not fair to the developer; - That permitting one -and -a -half story structures on the lots creates an appropriate transition between the two story houses of Livonia Manor and the one story houses ofthe adjoining subdivision; - That requiring only one story houses would not be in the best interest of the City; and 2. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #519-05, which granted approval for the construction of a condominium development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, La Pine, McDermott, Wilshaw, Vartoogian, Walsh NAYES: Smiley ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None June 12, 2007 24140 Mr. Walsh: The motion that passed will permit the builder to build either a ranch or a cape cod on those lots, if the City Council agrees with us. This will now go on to the City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 943m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 943`° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 24, 2007. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously approved, 0 was #06-65-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 943rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, MdDermoll, LaPine, Morrow, Vadoogian, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 946" Regular Meeting held on June 12, 2007, was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman