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