HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-07-18 14268
MINUTES OF THE 707th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 18, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 707th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 15 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Robert Alanskas R. Lee Morrow
Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: William LaPine Patricia Blomberg James C. McCann
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director, and
Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
'taw have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
95-2-1-3 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property
located north of Seven Mile Road, east of the I-275 Freeway in Section
6 from POIII to POI; POIII to PO; PO to POIII; C-4III to POIII; and
POIII to C-4III.
Mr. Miller presented a maps showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, since the City is the petitioner in this proposal,
would you please take a few minutes and discuss the objectives
that have motivated this petition, and what the net effect would
be relative to either changes of intensity up or down, and also
please comment on the existing uses as it pertains to the splits
that go across the property, what effect it has on the property
owners, if any, and does this help or hurt any of those
particular users.
Mr. Nagy: What caused us to reevaluate the zoning for the entire park area
`r..
14269
is really at the direction of the City Council pursuant to a
Council resolution which asked the Planning Commission to rezone
the lands on the east side of the Parkway, from the center line
of the Parkway to the east property line of the corporate park,
Nrw all to the POI zoning classification. That came about at the
time the City Council evaluated the C-2 zoning on the west side
between the center line of the parkway and the right-of-way of
I-275 when the C-2 was placed on that property in connection with
the Lone Star Steakhouse as well as, initially Builder's Square,
now proposed to be the Incredible Universe, a retail store to be
constructed by the Tandy corporation. The Council asked us to
look at the zoning in the area, and when the staff did that, we
realized in many respects the zoning that was already there
didn't really correspond to the existing development, but more
importantly as Scott pointed out, in most cases the zoning lines
did not correspond to the property lines. The zoning, as we
tried to indicate earlier in our presentation, the zoning that
was placed in 1985 on the property was really the result, at that
time, of an envisioned master plan for the park that was prepared
by the proponent of the zoning change, the Victor Corporate
people. So it was a conceptual master plan, and over the years
as development enfolded, they tried to conform to the extent they
could to that zoning, but property was being split off and sold
to various entities, such as the Embassy Suites Hotel, the
restaurants, Hellman Corporation with respect to the Victor V
building. So rather than just do it on piecemeal basis and just
do what the Council directed us to do to look at the property on
the east side of the parkway, the staff really expanded that
petition to adjust the entire zoning for the whole park area and
Nos, only have one petition go through the hearing process and go
through the publication process, etc. Really it is more of a
housekeeping chore in the sense of adjusting zoning lines to
correspond to property lines or reflect actual development. We
don't believe we have destroyed the value of any of the
properties. We are, in the case of the Past side, really doing
what the Council directed us to do. The physical proportions of
those properties really make it hard for me to visualize it being
sufficient to support a 12-story building, for instance, in that
area north of Pembroke, east of the parkway. That little POIII
that we have at the frontage of the park off Seven Mile Road, no
way does that have physical dimensions to support a 12-story
building. So we don't think we have injured any of the property
values with respect to the rezoning of the properties on the east
side of the parkway. The Embassy Suites Hotel, it is already a
developed property. We are merely adjusting the zoning to
actually correspond to the property line of the hotel. The
residual C-4 that extended over onto the property on the north
was really of negligible value and it is more appropriate in
keeping with the plan to have that all POIII. There is one
debatable piece of property, and that is the property acquired by
the Digital Equipment Company. The Digital Equipment Company at
the time they purchased that part of the park from David Johnson,
r.►
14270
for a large office it was zoned for the most part in the PO
classification. They had a plan to build a three-story building
on the property. For the most part that property adjoins
residential development, either in terms of the Villas
Condominiums or the single-family Livonia Hills Subdivision. For
that reason the broad expanse of that PO district spread across
the entire north property line so that they would not have
12-story buildings so close to residential homes. We really
looked upon that as an adjustment of zoning to really correspond
again to the physical dimensions of the property, but we
understand it is a debatable point, and we understand they will
be represented tonight to possibly further discuss that matter
with us. Again, we believe it is really a reflection of what
Digital originally intended, what that zoning originally was
intended for, for that northern area. Again, we look upon it as
an adjustment in housekeeping even with respect to the Digital
property.
Mr. ErigPhretson: Thank you very much John. If there are no questions, we will go
to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or
against this proposal.
Stephen Bromberg, 32270 Telegraph Road, Birmingham, Michigan. I am with the firm
Butzel Long. Tonight I have a dual purpose. I am representing
both Digital Corporation and Embassy Suites Hotel. From the
Digital Equipment Corporation standpoint, they are strongly in
opposition to the rezoning of that portion of their property
which is POIII to the PO. They do not feel that is appropriate
for their use. They feel it reduces the value and their
`.. potential uses of it. They believe it is unreasonable to not
have the POIII, which is adjacent to the POIII, stay that way,
and it would be unreasonable to change the zoning. In looking at
the building and use restrictions which apply to the Digital
property only, you would find that Digital cannot seek a rezoning
change under the restrictions that were placed upon it, but the
restrictions do contemplate up to 12 stories. So if you look at
them you will see the whole fabric of the structure of the
restrictions is based on that approach. This, we think, is
consistent with the concepts in the master plan, which after
saying one of their goals is to encourage development of office
areas, it then says they allocate land area of sufficient size
and quantity to accommodate those office locations that can be
attracted to the City. Then it says locating office buildings
accommodating a wide variety of business, corporate and
professional offices on large sites and allowing their
development as an integral part of a major commercial
development. The property itself, the Digital property, is about
27 acres in size. We are talking about that from a standpoint of
vicinity. We think it is important for the stability of the area
to maintain that, however, we have absolutely no objection, we
being Digital, to the other rezoning which is proposed.
Insofar as Embassy Suites Hotel is concerned, they have asked me
to indicate that they certainly have no objection to the evening
14271
off of the zoning on their parcel. In other words, that parcel
is divided now between POIII and C-4III. It makes eminently good
sense to make the entire parcel C-4III; therefore there is no
objection to that. There is no objection to the POI zoning on
`r., the east side of Victor Parkway to the treatment of the parcel at
Seven Mile and Victor Parkway as POI or to the rezoning of the
property to the north of the hotel so it is all POIII. That is
the parcel Mr. Johnson's company owns.
Basically, in summary, we have no real objection to any of the
rezoning proposals. We think they make good sense with the one
exception that Digital much prefers to keep the POIII zoning on
those portions of the property in which it is presently located,
having made that determination in their home office in
Massachusetts.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bromberg just so we are clear, the two winged sections
that go out, going from POIII to PO, your client would prefer
that zoning change not occur, but this little triangular area at
the bottom there going from PO to POIII, do they have any
objection to that?
Mr. Bromberg: If I may point out, the little triangle that you refer to, that
is part of the ownership of Digital so you have PO going into the
POIII zone. I don't know if there would be any hew and cry if
that went away, but the instructions I came with tonight were to
avoid any rezoning because it made sense from their standpoint
not to rezone. That is the only issue that I see here.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bromberg, if I read that map correctly, I think the intention
is to increase that little triangle from PO to POIII.
Mr. Bromberg: I wouldn't have any objection to that. It just makes sense.
Mr. Engebretson: So if the two sections at the top of the map were deleted from
this petition, then neither of your clients would have any
objection.
Mr. Bromberg: If this portion here and this portion over here were deleted from
your petition (he pointed this out on the map) neither client
would have a problem.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Bromberg, in your contacts with Digital did they give you any
insight as it related to possible development in the relative
near future or is it just laying fallow until something comes
down the line?
Mr. Bromberg: I believe the Digital Equipment Corporation has turned a corner
from a period which was a very bad period for it, and all I can
indicate is what I have been told. I certainly am not privy to
the inner councils of what is going on with that corporation but
the indication to me was they were looking at it and they were
contemplating doing something with it in some fashion or other or
dealing with it in some fashion or other, but at this point
nobody has communicated anything to me of any specific nature.
14272
It is different, however, than it has been in the last several
years when the whole thing was not a subject matter of
discussion.
`„w Mr. Morrow: Well we have more information than we had before.
George Boller, 36270 Hammer: Mr. President, would you be kind enough simply to, as
you would ask Mr. Bromberg, to clarify exactly what is happening
again? Am I to understand that the entire area where the PO is
now, that is to become PO? Or is that not correct?
Mr. Engebretson: It is to stay PO.
Mr. Boller: The shaded area.
Mr. Engebretson: The shaded area is presently POIII, and Mr. Bromberg's client
would protest changing that to a lesser zoning classification.
Mr. Boller: Thank you. Now in PO am I correct that limits the high-rise to
four stories?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes sir.
Mr. Boller: Mr. President, this might be a question to pose to Mr. Bromberg
since he is representing Digital, which I understand owns the
property. Isn't it true there is a "For Sale" sign out in front
of that property?
Mr. Engebretson: I believe that is likely to be true. I am not sure.
\r.
Mr. Boller: I guess the question is does Digital have a serious interest in
actually building on this parcel as was originally planned before
they encountered their financial difficulties in recent years,
and I simply call that to the Planning Commission's attention,
and I am sure Mr. Nagy is aware of that also. If the plan would
put that entire area above the straight line, if that would make
that all PO limited to 4 stories, that would be of benefit to
the community.
Mr. Morrow: Just to expand on that, I am pretty sure the "For Sale" sign is
on the property that is not connected with Digital. I may be
wrong on that. Mr. Bromberg do you know if there is a "For Sale"
sign out there? Mr. Johnson has one, but I am not sure if
Digital has one.
Mr. Bromberg: To my recollection there have been two "For Sale" signs on Victor
Parkway for some period of time. One of them was with Signature
Associates, which I believe is the Victor property. There has,
for a number of years, been the same sign on the Digital
property. I don't think that is significant at the moment.
Mr. Morrow: But there is one? I have seen one but I wasn't sure there were
two out there.
14273
Mr. Bromberg: Those signs have been on those properties for a great number of
years, three or four years.
Mr. Morrow: I guess everything is for sale at one time or another.
r..
Mr. Bromberg: Well the problems that we all discussed before have been present
so people were trying to see what possibilities there were.
Dr. Joanne IaFleur, 38132 Vista Drive South: I live in the Villas. I wanted to
clarify something on a document I received in the mail. Are they
attempting to rezone any of the land that was zoned PO adjacent
to the Villas property to POIII?
Mr. Engebretson: No, it is the opposite. What the proposal was, was to downzone
the high-rise office building POIII, which supports 12 stories,
to PO, which would be 4 stories.
Dr. LaFleur: Right underneath that it shows the PO being changed to POIII.
Mr. Engebretson: There is a little tiny area. I don't know if that is an acre of
land. It wouldn't support a high-rise office building for sure.
The majority of the property that abuts that little triangular
area is already zoned POIII, high-rise office building.
Dr. LaFleur: So they are going to keep that the same?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes.
Dr. LaFleur: But the land adjacent to it will remain PO?
Mr. Engebretson: The land adjacent to the Villas is and will remain PO and the
area that borders the southern triangular property lines, that
property is presently POIII and is likely to stay POIII based on
my reading of what is going on here.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, you just informed that person that there would be
nothing next to that R-7 zone. Digital is adjacent to that R-7
zone.
Mr. Engebretson: There is a buffer. What I was attempting to tell the lady was
that what is being proposed is a downzoning. The property owner
objects, and with that information, it is likely that the
downzoning would not occur, and that section would probably be
deleted frons this petition leaving it the same.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-1-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
14274
#7-131-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 18, 1995 on Petition 95-2-1-3 by the
City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located north of
Seven Mile Road, east of the I-275 Freeway in Section 6 from POIII to
r.. POI; POIII to PO; PO to POIII; C-4III to POIII; and POIII to C-4III,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 95-2-1-3 be approved with the exception that the Digital
Equipment Company property that is currently zoned POIII will remain
POIII, and is withdrawn from further consideration, for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed changes of zoning will make zoning lines
contiguous with property lines;
2) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide zoning districts
which are more compatible with adjoining residential areas; and
3) That the proposed changes of zoning will more properly reflect
existing and proposed uses within the Victor Corporate Park.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
95-5-1-10 by Louis Bitoff, Jr. requesting to rezone property located
on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor
Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Marrow: A point of information. I was out there looking at the site and
I was trying to find the sign that depicted that there was a
petition before the City to change the zoning. Did anybody
verify that the sign was out there because I couldn't find it?
Mr. Nagy: Flom the staff's standpoint we had the same results in that our
field investigation indicated we too did not find the site
properly posted indicating there was a pending zoning change.
Mr. Morrow: What does that do to our action tonight?
Mr. Nagy: It is a defective petition in that sense that the property was
not properly posted so to give public notice of the pendency of
the zoning matter on this property.
14275
Mr. Morrow: So we should probably move forward on this?
Mr. Nagy: You should table it to the next public hearing to allow the
petitioner sufficient time to properly post the property . We
Now could reschedule the matter in August.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner aware of this.
Mr. Nagy: I don't think so. I think this is new information this evening.
Mr. EngPhretson: Are you the petitioner sir?
Dr. Bitoff: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: You have heard the discussion here. Do you have any comments to
make relative to the posting of the sign?
Dr. Bitoff: I was under the impression that the sign was posted after this
was completed.
Mr. Engebretson: Why would one find it logical to post a sign that there is going
to be a public hearing to rezone property after the public
hearing? Help me out on this.
Dr. Bitoff: I can't help you out on that.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to this issue because
I don't think it is appropriate to proceed tonight. I think we
will re-advertise the public hearing if you care to proceed. I
'tor, will tell you there are so many deficiencies on your site that
the probability of successful rezoning is not real high based on
the very, very small size that you have, but it is not for me to
determine. If you care to proceed with this, then I think you
need to discover what the process requirements are, and we will
re-advertise and schedule you for the next public hearing. If
you will be in touch with the staff, they will make sure that you
have all the information that you need to proceed in a proper
manner.
Dr. Bitoff: What deficiencies are there?
Mr. Engebretson: You didn't post a sign. You didn't let your neighbors know.
Dr. Bitoff: Other than that?
Mr. Engebretson: Well that is a pretty significant point. It is important that
your neighbors have an opportunity to be aware of what is being
proposed, and have an opportunity to comment on it, as was the
case a few moments ago. As John said it is a defective petition
because of the failure to comply with the part of our ordinance
dealing with these matters.
14276
Dr. Bitoff: So I should put a sign up.
Mr. Engebretson: If you want to proceed with this proposal, you will put up a sign
according to the City's specifications, and it will be on that
�•• property for the specified number of days prior to the public
hearing. Then you will have a petition that meets all the
requirements and we will proceed with the public hearing.
Dr. Bitoff: I understand.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to table this?
Mr. Engebretson: Because of the fact that it is a defective petition, we will
direct that we move this to the next public hearing date, which
will be August 15th. It will be on Tuesday here. Be sure you
call the staff tomorrow and talk to Mr. Nagy or Mr. Shane and
they will make sure you understand what it is you need to do.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
95-6-2-22 by Pacoma Purlingbrook LLC requesting waiver use approval to
construct cluster homes to be located on the east side of Purlingbrook
Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this proposal. We have
also received letters from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police
"r.. Department recommends the installation of a stop sign on the
proposed public street at Purlingbrook. We have also received a
letter from the office of the Fire Marshal stating they have no
objection to this proposal, pending on-site hydrants made
available. Tastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection
Department stating this proposal is in compliance with all
district regulations as well as the provisions set forth in
Section 20.02A of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Morrow: Is there a preliminary plat on this site?
Mr. Nagy: There has been. Previously the Commission did grant approval for
a preliminary plat for this site.
Imo'. Engehretson: Has that expired Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: No it has not. I think there is a new owner involved but the
property has actually changed title. There is a new proprietor,
and his intention is to take a different avenue for development
of the property.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come up and tell us what you plan to
do.
14277
Craig Corbell, 33966 Eight Mile Road, Suite 102: I would like to start out by
thanking you for the preliminary as well as final plat approval
for Hunter's Pointe. We have had an extremely successful project
there. You approved it approximately two years ago this month
for final site plan approval, and we completed the models last
spring, early summer, and have sold out 42 single-family homes
since then.
Based on our experience at Hunter's Pointe here in Livonia, and
having grown up in Livonia plus being in business here in
Livonia, I feel that we have a realistic and good understanding
of what the market is looking for on various locations within
Livonia. This is one of the few locations that will support a
single-family site here in Livonia, and we have purchased that
site within the last 45 or 60 days.
After telling you a little bit about our success, I wanted to
also start out by telling you that the previous developer was
also a Livonia builder who is familiar with Livonia and builds on
scattered sites throughout Livonia. This particular developer
was not able to market this particular site with the previous
proposal, which was for the preliminary plat that you inquired
about. This developer had even approached myself knowing of our
success over at Hunter's Pointe to see if we were interested in
purchasing the lots.
What we found from our experience at Hunter's Pointe, again we
are market driven, we have unlimited options within our
particular floor plans, is that we offer more ranches than almost
�.. any other home site in the Western Wayne County, Western Oakland
County area, is that the market is not calling for single-family
homes in that location because at Hunter's Pointe we found a lot
of people either moving from other locations within Livonia that
were in the same schools, literally elementary school or high
school, or they were coming from neighboring communities that
didn't have the reputation that parents felt the quality of
schools that the City of Livonia offers. I would like to also
comment that I am very proud of the Livonia schools. I am a
product of the Livonia school system, and feel great about the
Livonia school system as well.
The people in this price range and these types of homes are
looking for Livonia schools and the problem with this particular
site being conducive to that is that it is not Livonia schools.
Purlingbrook happens to be the dividing line for the Livonia and
Clarenceville school systems. That leads us to believe that it
is more conducive to people that want to live in Livonia that
aren't necessarily as concerned about the school system but are
more concerned about living in Livonia and having a new home in
Livonia.
Again, drawing from our recent experience in Hunter's Pointe we
have, and again they sold out in one year so they sold very
r..
14278
quickly, we have four individual home sales that were done to
what we would consider empty nesters, people who aren't
interested in having their children attend the school system. We
also have the remaining 38 homes, a total of 87 children will be
"Ni.• attending Livonia schools this fall. Some of them were currently
in the Livonia school system and some of them are new to the
Livonia school system. So we feel the empty nesters would be
less interested in the Livonia school system because we sold
mostly to people who are interested in buying for the school
system in this particular location, which did offer a number of
floor plans that were conducive to an empty nester type
lifestyle. Also, we felt the Livonia schools were an extremely
important draw factor, and that is both literally from the
statistics as well as speaking personally with the purchasers.
Again like we said, we have offered many different options for
people at Hunter's Pointe and we feel we would like to do the
same thing here on Purlingbrook. The difference, of course,
would be that we wouldn't be able to give them the option of
attending Livonia schools with them being in the Clarenceville
school systems.
We do propose to have a design with the public road system in
place rather than private roads to lower the maintenance as well
as the difficulties in coordinating maintenance of the road
system versus letting the City take care of that matter, which it
does so well anyhow.
As far as the lifestyle goes, again with the empty nesters we
would be looking at a common maintenance for the exteriors but
r,. they could do whatever they wanted for the interiors and that
would also help keep down the dues. We are not planning on
offering any type of amenities such as pools, tennis courts,
things like that. We feel Livonia does an excellent job of that.
Irrespective of the schools, there are tennis courts located
throughout the community.
The other factor that we felt was very significant here was it is
not within what we call a residential "neighborhood". It has
actually the least amount of exposure to an adjoining residential
neighborhood. You have the senior high-rise on the north side.
You have the mall, as well as the mall parking lot to the east
and the north. If you see where the two seniors are, where the
R-9 is located to the right of that to the north of units 17, 18,
19 and 20, that is still part of the mall parking lot rather than
the senior center or any type of residential environment. To the
south you have the church, which obviously would be a nice quiet
neighbor with minimal traffic and impact on the residents living
in this location, and then to the west is where you have the
minimal amount of exposure to the adjoining residential
neighborhood, which granted it is Livonia and it is a wonderful
neighborhood. It is part Livonia school system rather than
Clarenceville school system. That is why we feel this would be
the best use for this particular site.
`o..
14279
We would love to be able to duplicate what we did at Hunter's
Pointe. We would love to be able to build that type of home,
attract that type of homeowner and offer those type of selections
and amenities. On the other hand, we feel the particular home
'+o.. that should be offered on this site should be a little bit
different and geared toward a little bit different type of
individual.
I can also cite, and unfortunately we did not provide for you in
any of your packets, a national study and it does break it dawn
by regions as far as what empty nesters and retirees are looking
for versus young families, first-time buyers, etc. I think we
are right on target with what this survey is also demonstrating
as well.
Mr. Piercecchi: It seems we only recently had that property converted to R-1.
Are you aware sir that the regulations, according to my notes
here, state in order for clustering to be considered the subject
property must contain one or more of these five characteristics
listed in the ordinance. I will read you the five
characteristics. (1) The property must contain natural assets,
such as natural stands of large trees, unusual topographic
features, etc. ; (2) The property has a substantial portion of its
perimeter adjacent a major office, commercial development or high
rise development so as to act as a buffer or transitional area
between conventional single family residential and uses which are
incompatible; You don't qualify for that because the other side
of Purlingbrook is residential. (3) The property contains a
flood plain resulting a substantial portion of the land to be
unbuildable; (4) The property contains poor soil conditions; (5)
Is a small parcel with frontage on a major thoroughfare. Can you
sir justify your proposal here in regard to any of these five
characteristics which the ordinance states are required to put in
clustering home according to Section 20?
Mr. Corbell: I guess to start off, we have had this reviewed by a number of
different departments within the City as well as professional
engineers and they had reviewed the ordinance thoroughly to see
that we did meet the ordinance. We do have the option, under the
ordinance to go to a private road or a public road. The private
road gives you a little more flexibility. It also allows you a
much higher density. We chose to go with the public road because
we felt the parking features and the maneuverability of the
street worked to the benefit of the purchasers and we found out
in the past the tighter spaces for a private road system make it
less desirable.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is only the road sir.
Mr. Corbell: The reason I mentioned that is because those are the two
different options we would have under the cluster option. Front
the five points you mentioned, which we need to meet at least one
14280
of them, again, I refer to the experts who have reviewed this and
put together this particular plan and flout my awn insight and
knowledge of the actual site, concerning the first issue, yes we
do have trees and natural wooded areas that we plan on
`.• maintaining. If you notice where it says general common element
to the north side along lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, that is a large
stand of trccs that we plan on maintaining within that site,
which will help serve as a buffer between McNamara 'Rower and the
northern homes along the northern edge of the property. As far
as item 2 goes concerning the commercial, I think I stated
earlier that we are 390 feet along Purlingbrook, which is across
the street from the residential area, and then we have, I would
have to say as far as the other three sides I would say they add
up to at least four to five times what that adjoining property is
to Purlingbrook, which subsequently adjoins the neighborhood to
the west. So with the four or five to one ratio, I would think
that would qualify for a commercial adjoirnnent. As far as the
flood plain goes, I am not aware of any type of flood plain
within this site. I know in the spring pretty much any site will
appear to be a little bit wet. How this site actually sits in
that regard, I don't know, but as far as the flood plain goes, I
am not aware of it being within a flood plain at all. As far as
soil conditions go, from what I understand there are a few spotty
soil conditions and those are in the areas that we do not have
the actual homes proposed. I believe that is also to the north
where the large stand of trees are, and over to the eastern edge
I believe the sewer system would be coming from the southeast
corner. I believe that road was actually pulled west to avoid a
particular spot within that site. Again, I have to refer to the
r,,. engineer's report. As far as a major thoroughfare, I don't
believe this would meet that requirement if you consider Seven
Mile Road a major thoroughfare and not Purlingbrook.
Mr. Pierceochi: Who are all these experts that gave you all this data?
Mr. Corbell: It would be McDowell & Associates, a soil testing firm;
Arpee/Donnan, which is a engineering firm; and of course the
various departments within the City of Livonia.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Corbell, you made reference to your market survey and I can
appreciate the 36 homes based on what you so eloquently stated.
Was that primarily the reason that you came up with the cluster
development or did you perceive that the original preliminary
plat that was approved for 26 lots would not work fruit a
financial standpoint as it relates to the prior owner and the
current owner?
Mr. Corbell: I was actually somewhat familiar with the site even before the
prior owner, and I believe he actually optioned the property and
did not actually purchase it. Before he actually had optioned to
purchase it, I had stated that I felt this site would only be
conducive for a cluster type home or detached condominium type
14281
arrangement, something along those lines, because of the
surrounding properties. To finish that process off was the
school system situation. I was not aware that Purlingbrook was
literally the dividing line. I takes a jagged run through the
'r.w northeast corner of Livonia, and Purlingbrook is one of the
vertical lines of that jagged line. When that came into play,
and after my experience at Hunter's Point knowing how important
the school system was to those purchasers, it confirmed to my
mind what should have gone on there. So we went to the engineers
and stated to them what kind of a layout can you come up with
based on this type of unit, and we came up with three bedroom
rather than necessarily two bedroom. We do have what appears to
be two bedroom with a loft up, which is very popular in any price
range, but especially in the higher end where people want to live
in what appears or looks like a smaller home yet they have the
upstairs for visitors or a home office and stuff like that. We
wanted to be able to offer that in this particular type of home.
We also found that with the detached type of arrangement rather
than an attached duplex or a side-by-side of three attached, that
people just want to have what feels like their own house. They
don't want to have neighbors on the walls next door. It actually
gives them a separation of space and it gives them a yard where
they can actually go out and walk around. It appears like it is
their yard. We wanted to run it by the Planning Department as
well as some of our consultants who are familiar with what
specifically we should do with the common element. What I mean
by that is you have common elements and limited common elements,
whether they are the porches, the patios, the immediate yard, and
then the common area where the woods are. We found at Hunter's
`., Point that with single family homes people wanted a good old
fashioned subdivision style home throughout Livonia. We had no
deed restrictions, no associations, no by-laws, none whatsoever,
and we had people that some of their specific questions were can
we put up a fence. We said as long as it meets the City of
Livonia's zoning requirements, you can put up what you want. We
have no rules or requirements. They asked about dues. We said
there are no dues. A lot of people said is this one of those
site condos, which is essentially the condo is the lot itself
rather than the unit itself or the interior space itself, and a
lot of people were turned off by the condo concept. They wanted
a good old-fashioned, single-family home. So that is one of the
things we would like to get pinned dawn as far as where the
general and the limited commons start and end, and I think we
need to talk to customers, the consultants, and the City to see
which is the best way to approach and where actually to put the
dividing lines. We are open to whatever we feel the public
wants. We want them to buy the home.
Mr. Morrow: Your market study drove you to what you are proposing as opposed
to say financially these 26 lots won't work? You just moved from
preliminary plat that was approved to this. In other words what
r..
14282
I am saying I had the feeling that perhaps you couldn't develop
that site based on 26 lots.
Mr. Corbell: When I had met with the previous developer, he had gone over with
me and I had explained to him I didn't feel it was conducive to
single family.
Mr. Morrow: I understand that. You said that most eloquently.
Mr. Corbell: As far as when we actually crunched numbers or ran the numbers, I
am not sure the site will support single family or not. We are
still in the single family zoning with the cluster option. As
far as development costs go, obviously with more units on a
street, it is not necessarily that they are deeper units but
narrower units is the important factor because of improvement
costs, roads, water, and sewer lines, literally the length of the
pipe and the pavement becomes a big factor. I don't think it
would be economically feasible, unless I think the school system
would have to come into play for people to pay that much money
for that type of home in that location. They would have to have
the Livonia school system. Any realtor in Livonia can show you a
study that will show you that a home in the Clarenceville school
system, and you can pull the recently built homes, an identical
home in the Clarenceville school system versus the Livonia school
system, both being in the City of Livonia, there is about a 10%
to 15% difference in price, although they are almost identical.
Mr. Morrow: I didn't want to get particularly into that, just to get your
proposal versus preliminary plat.
'41111w Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Corbell, what do these five black lots designate?
Mr. Corbell: Again, we wanted to offer as much flexibility as possible in
allowing prospective homeowners to choose the floor plan they
like, and because the site plan needs to represent more than just
these boxes, we actually included some proposed floor plans.
Because of the spacing requirements, I believe is what the
engineer said, and the configuration of the sites, based on the
fact you have to have a cul-de-sac with a turnaround, maintaining
the trees to the north, he was limited on those specific sites
and I guess he could juggle which particular ones between 25 and
36 would actually be that particular unit that would only allow
for the unit that would have the loft up rather than all the
others which would allow for any floor plan that we would like to
offer.
Mr. Alanskas: All 36 homes are ranches?
Mr. Corbell: At this time we propose only offering ranches or ranches with a
loft up, which would be more or less a cape cod.
Mr. Alanskas: What price?
\..
14283
Mr. Corbell: At Hunter's Pointe we started out at $125,000 and ran up to
$175,000. At this particular location we feel they are probably
going to be in the $130,000, $135,000 to $140,000 price range,
and pretty much stay in that price range.
Mr. Alanskas: When we were working with 26 lots, to me it made a lot of sense.
This looks like it is too crammed in with 36 lots.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Corbell, anything you want to add before we see if there are
others that want to comment on this proposal?
Mr. Corbell: One last comment as far as the actual lot size and spacing when
you perceive that they are crammed in. In a R-1 district you
have a 9x5 minimum requirement, which is 9 feet on one side and
five feet on the other, and so if you were to have two homes that
were built with the two 5 minim ns adjacent to each other, that
would be what an R-1 would actually show with a five foot side
yard on each particular home. We could actually increase the
distance between homes if the customers who choose to purchase
decide to go with loft-up floor plan versus the three bedrocns or
two bedrooms and a den on the first floor because one is four
feet wider than the other. So if everyone were to purchase a
loft-up style unit, these would be literally identical in spacing
to an R-1 subdivision, Hunter's Pointe or the previous
developer's site plan as far as the R-1 requirements go. We
would like to leave that to the market place.
Mr. Engebretson: Just to follow up on that Mr. Corbell, if people did not choose
that option, if everybody chose not to have that option, haw
close would those units be to each other?
Mr. Corbell: They would be 10 feet apart versus 14 feet apart in an R-1 single
family platted lot layout.
Fred Heiby, 19385 Purlingbrook: I have four items I would like to cover. First, I
would like to submit a letter to the Planning Commission. I will
read that, Secondly, I would like to ask a few questions of the
developer.
Mr. Engebretson: Ask the questions up here. We don't want any debates going on.
Mr. Heiby: Third, I would like to have something a little more emotional and
state some of the objections I see if this kind of development is
allowed in this area. First I would like to read the letter.
"I recommend that the waiver to build CLUSTER HOMES on the land
located south of MacNamara 'Ibwers and north of St. Priscilla
Church be REJECTED.
D.
"I support the beneficial use of this land, but I have two major
concerns with this or any other development on the referenced
site.
14284
"1. The development of this land could further effect the
watertable and groundwater conditions in the area.
2. This development could further reduce the quality of life in
the area and have a negative effect on local property values.
"I believe the City Planning Commission and Engineering
Department have contributed to or created a situation where the
referenced property is not financially attractive to support the
submission of positive land development proposals.
"The above concerns are interrelated because of a slow, but
disputable, lack of ground water control of in the area. See
attached points WATER CONTROL.
Other factors have occurred, which are related to water control
or combined with other Public Initiatives. See attached points
QUALITY OF LIFE CONCERNS.
"I would like make the following Recommendations/Suggestions
related to the referenced property.
1. Reject the waiver for construction of Cluster Homes.
2. Review the area for classification as wetlands.
3. Initiate an engineering study to establish the effects of past
and future development on groundwater and conditions in the
old Purlingbrook water shed area.
4. Up grade infrastructure to support the development of the
referenced site consistent with area community values and
needs."
I will go over the second page because I want to go over the
points. First, I would like to know if this development is going
to have basements or is it all going to be above grade
`vow construction?
Mr. Engebretson: We will determine that. Go ahead, we will make a list of your
questions.
Mr. Heiby: Secondly, I would like to know what kind of grade changes will be
done in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: We cannot get into that tonight. That is an engineering issue,
but we understand you are concerned about it.
Mr. Heiby: Also, what kind of drainage revisions will be made in the area.
I would like to review my points, and again I can't support it
and I don't intend to. I only intend to highlight the things
that I know about in the area. If you look at the public hearing
site plan it very clearly shows where the old Purlingbrook River
bed flows. If you look at that plan, and knowing some of the
conditions I have seen, number one is, I know the house right
next to me at 19415 Purlingbrook had his basement completely
reconstructed because of leaks, at a very high value. They were
not able to sell the house and it is a group home today because
of that. I know at Seven Mile and Purlingbrook the Public Works
Department has been out to do a lot of revisions to try to
eliminate flooding conditions and to date have not been
successful. Purlingbrook itself is deteriorating. It is
14285
breaking up in the low areas. It has been patched temporarily
but it won't hold for very long. I also know at 19721 Flamingo,
which is up on the back side of the river bed, the owner was
allowed to build in that area and he had water problems. Along
with that St. Priscillas just finished renovating the parking lot
and ended up having at least double the cost because it required
extensive substructure. The parking lot for Livonia mall
discharges in the back. There is a drain but it is not adequate
in the back northwest corner. It is above where most of the
water will go. I don't know where the water goes but I suspect
it goes into some kind of underground situation. As far as
quality of life goes, it is going to increase the density of
cars, people and everything else in that area, and I don't think
we really need it. If there are children in the area, it doesn't
support any kind of playground or area where children could be
active. Also, the road as it is, does not support it. It is
breaking up. It would have to be revised. Some past revisions
that have happened in the local area have impacted my house
personally and I am not ready to support any additional community
type things. We have two group homes.
Mr. Engebretson: Hold it sir. We don't want to talk about that. We want to talk
about this proposal. If you would like to add any comments
relative to this proposal, this is the time for that.
Mr. Heiby: Another issue, since the previous proposal was made to develop
this land I know at least one person that has moved out of the
neighborhood because of their fear of what is going to happen to
property values. I have had at least two or three other
neighbors relocate. I am not aware of why they left, but within
the small area that we live in with 1/2 acre lots and the kind of
houses we have, to me that is a panic situation. I don't know if
that is happening or not but I know at least one person panicked.
I could see where this could have a drastic effect on the
community. Personally, I live on a 1/2 acre lot with my house on
one edge. If this proposal goes through, it would give me a very
good reason and cause at some future date to come back to this
Commission and ask for a deviation to take and split my lots off
in the vicinity of this and maybe, since I have 165 foot lot, put
four of these units there. Personally I have a lot of options,
but a lot of people in the area don't.
Mr. Engebretson: You close with a good point sir, and that is you feel as
a property owner that you may choose to seek changes that may
enable you to use your property in the manner you wish, and that
is exactly what this petitioner is doing. He has a right to make
this proposal, and we are taking input here to make a
determination if it is a reasonable proposal or not.
Mr. Heiby: I have stated my opinion. I don't think I have to go any further
than that.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner whether or not you plan to
build these units with basements. It is the one issue raised
that we can inquire about.
14286
Mr. Corbell: Plum the outset and through completion, we plan on putting in
basements. If a particular site location does not accommodate or
is not conducive to a basement, and most, if not all builders'
contracts, have a clause that addresses abnormal subsoil
conditions, then we may end up with a unit that would either be
sow on a crawl or slab space. Otherwise, we anticipate having
basements under every single home.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy if he could tell us why Purlingbrook
is stubbed off at St. Martins there?
Mr. Nagy: There was concern at the time the Livonia mall was constructed
that due to the traffic that would be generated along the
frontages of the mall along Seven Mile and along Middlebelt, that
if Purlingbrook was extended to St. Martins, that the traffic
might be generated along Purlingbrook to St. Martins to avoid the
intersection of Middlebelt and Seven Mile. So it was done to try
to discourage any traffic skirting around Livonia Mall.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-6-2-22 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-132-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 18, 1995 on Petition 95-6-2-22 by
Pacoma Purlingbrook LLC requesting waiver use approval to construct
cluster homes to be located on the east side of Purlingbrook Avenue,
north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-6-2-22 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 20.02A of the Zoning
Ordinance #543 governing Single Family Clustering;
3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area;
4) That the proposed use will overburden the subject land with
substantially more dwelling units that would ordinarily be
possible with conventional subdivision platting; and
5) That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a need to employ
single family clustering as opposed to conventional single family
residential subdivision development in order to develop the
subject property.
14287
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-6-7-1
by the City Planning Commission proposing to amend Part VII of the
Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to
reflect recent zoning changes at various locations throughout the
City.
Mr. Engebretson: This is another petition by the City, and as you heard it is to
amend the Master Plan to reflect zoning changes that have
occurred in recent years. This type of petition requires five
positive votes in order to be passed. We don't have five people
here tonight. Unless there is someone here wishing to speak for
or against this proposal, I am going to ask that we move this to
our next public hearing with no further action here this evening.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of
whether or not to rezone property located on the south side of Five
Mile Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 22 from C-2 to OS.
Now Mr. Engebretson: This is a proposal to set a public hearing date for a rezoning
as Mr. Alanskas described. It is better known as the Triple A
building at Hubbard and Five Mile. I am looking for a motion to
set a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-133-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located
on the south side of Five Mile Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 from C-2 to OS; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
14288
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is motion by the
City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of
whether or not to rezone property located on the southeast corner of
Plymouth Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33
flan C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Engehretson: Again, this is a motion by the City Planning Commission to set a
public hearing for a piece of property that has reverted back to
the City and we are going to look to change the zoning so it can
be more properly used.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-134-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located
on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Laurel Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 flail C-1 to C-2; and
FURS RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
,0011. City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of
whether or not to rezone property located north of Plymouth Road
between Hartel Avenue and Micicfl ebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 25, from C-2 to R-1.
Mr. Engebretson: We are looking to set a public hearing to consider this zoning
change.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-135-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located
north of Plymouth Road between Hartel Avenue and Middlebelt Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, from C-2 to R-1; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
14289
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi: One question Mr. Chairman. We referred to an individual on Seven
Mile regarding a sign there. I think the rules are the person
that owns the property has to put up a sign. In order to get
participation by people who may or may not approve of this, is it
possible to have signs posted in that area?
Mr. Engebretson: I defer to Mr. Nagy.
Mr. Nagy: It certainly is possible but it has been the policy of the City
of Livonia since we are the people initiating the zoning change,
in order to post a sign we would be trespassing on private
property, therefore, particularly when we might be trying to
initiate a zoning change that the property owner might perceive
not to be in their best interest, to that extent we do not try to
go upon their property.
Mr. Engebretson: We do issue the standard notices to not only the property owner
but to the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 705th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on June
13, 1995.
On a notion duly made by by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
No approved, it was
#7-136-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 705th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 are
hereby approved with one correction.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 706th Regular Meeting held on June 27, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-137-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 706th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on June 27, 1995 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-8-7
by Tas Brisas Development Company requesting approval for all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with
`s,
14290
a proposal to construct an apartment complex on property located at
28808 Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Five Mile Road
�.. between Garden and Harrison. The proposal is for a two-story
apartment building that will consist of 12 units, six on each
floor. The site plan shows the parking will be located along the
east property line and along and adjacent to Five Mile Road in
front of the apartments. The site is required to have 30 parking
spaces, which the site plan shows, so they are conforming in
parking. Landscaping is 37% of the site. Also for parking they
show carports located along here, which are covered. There is a
trash dumpster located in the northeast corner of the site. It
will be screened from Five Mile Road by an accessory building
which is located here. At the north property line and east
property line there is an existing 8 foot high fence on one side
and they will build an 8 foot high fence on the other side to
screen the trash dumpster from view. The elevation plan shows
the lower half of the apartment building will be brick with the
upper half dryvit system and the roof will be an asphalt shingle
pitched roof.
Mr. Engebretson: Any correspondence Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the site plan proposal. Also in our
file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police
Department does not recommend the approval of the site plans
until the deficiency in the parking spaces have been corrected.
Additionally, the site plan does not indicate a ramp to the
concrete walk to assist handicappers. We have also received a
letter from the Inspection Depadrtment stating apartment
buildings are required to comply with the Michigan barrier free
rules. Section 512.4.2 requires that one unit within the complex
be fully accessible. The floor plan and site plan do not have
sufficient detail to determine if they meet the barrier free
requirements. This petitioner was before the Zoning Board of
Appeals and was granted a variance for the deficient rear yard
set-back. No other deficiencies were noted.
rastly, we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating
access to the rear of the complex is approximately 22 ft. wide x
320 ft. long dead-end driveway. Responding emergency equipment
has no means to turn around to exit complex. (Sufficient
clearance is not available for one piece of responding apparatus
to pass another) Many times tactical operations/maneuvers need
to be altered during an emergency scenario. The physical layout
in terms of accessibility to this complex would effectively
"lock-in" the initial plan of attack. Equipment could not be
maneuvered or repositioned. An intitial fire emergency response
to this location would consist of but not be limited to (2)
Pumpers, (1) 50 ft. Telesqurt-Pumper, (1) Heavy Duty Squad, (2)
Rescue Squads and a Battalion Chief. A hose-lay in the driveway
from existing area hydrants, supplying water to the scene, would
r..
14291
effectively prohibit emergency equipment from entering or exiting
the complex. A turn-around area and an on-site hydrant located
at the north end of the complex is not certain to reduce fire and
life safety concerns. The narrowness of the dead-end driveway,
°'` certainly to be encroached upon by winter snow fall and parking,
would compromise this Department's abilities in terms of
strategic placement of equipment of tactical operations. As
opposed to separate single family dwellings, apartment complexes
are unique in terms of physical size of structure and large
numbers of residents affected during an emergency.
Richard Sommerville, 24824 Marguerite, Flat Rock: I represent Las Brisas
Development Company. We are proposing a 12-unit apartment
building, six on the first floor, six on the second floor. These
are going to be higher range apartments demanding about $800 a
month rent. We are more custom builders. We are putting
fireplaces in, 9 foot high ceilings on the first floor, cathedral
ceilings on the second floor, large kitchens with pantries,
plenty of storage. Each unit will be two bedrooms, two baths,
1230 square foot of apartment, which is fairly large for
apartments. On the exteriors we are proposing a traditional look
with a lot of architectural detail, brick and drivit mix. We
brought in some of our colors. We have done test panels and
picked out a dimensional shingle, which is on the higher end than
just a regular asphalt shingle. We are also proposing a lot of
windows for a very light apartment and they are having grids in
them, which compliments the architecture of the building. Also,
the grounds will be very heavily landscaped with on site
sprinkler system. Back to the shingles, we have some pictures.
``•► (He passed out pictures) We have come up with carports that
looked nicer than the lean-to that you tend to see. It fits our
standards a lot better. It will have dimensional shingles to
match the building. We have worked really close with Mr. Shane
and Mr. Nagy and we submitted quite a few plans and revised them
and we think we have a real nice project here. We have removed
two existing houses which were there, which were very old and had
water problems, and we think this will compliment the City and we
have already gotten rid of two eyesores in my opinion.
Mr. EngPhretson: We would intend to agree with your conclusion but what do you
think about that Fire Marshal letter? Haw do you react to that.
Do you have a copy of that letter?
Mr. Sommerville: Yes I do.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to hear your comments on haw you feel about that.
Mr. Sommerville: We are working with a real tight lot. We don't have too much
room to move these buildings back and forth. We feel that is
plenty of room to get any kind of vehicles out, and I don't see
why people can't back up in the spaces. We can construct a long
T here. I could put concrete as far back here as you want, but I
14292
don't want to cut into a lot of landscape area. Another option
would be to take this dumpster, I think we have had it three
different places so far. We could put it up front and make a
large T so they could turn around. I could think of two
areas. We did have it here but we were directed by the Planning
Commission to move it to the back. We could also maybe put it
here and create a larger T here. As far as the width of the
driveway, there is really not much we can do. My only option to
his comment is to put a large T in the back of that and maybe
relocate the dumpster.
Mr. Engebretson: Maybe relocate the fire hydrant also?
Mr. Sommerville: We haven't even submitted our utility plans yet. There is a fire
hydrant here.
Mr. Engehretson: It really wouldn't be accessible though. You would have to
install a new one.
Mr. Sommerville: Depending upon what the Engineering Department feels, we could
just extend this line and put it where the Fire Department
recommended. We have no problem with that.
Mr. Morrow: I concur with what the Chairman stated. We think you have a nice
development for that particular parcel, but you mentioned not
only having your normal heating equipment but having fireplaces
within each unit, and that just amplifies the need to make sure
that the Fire Department is satisfied. It sounds like you have
some options to pursue. We are not the body to pursue it with.
`'` We think you should work it out with the Fire Marshal, and if we
could get that blessing on that, I have no reason to think I
would not go along with your proposal, but I would be hard
pressed to act on it tonight based on those comments.
Mr. Alanskas: John, by putting that T in there, would that suffice?
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. This project is no great departure from the very
conventional way apartments historically have been constructed in
the City, and I think a T type turnaround to some degree being
abbreviated would be sufficient.
Mr. Alanskas: It is conceivable to have this?
Mr. Nagy: I don't see any problems at all, and certainly the hydrants would
be put in at the discretion of the Fire Marshal to satisfy their
requirements. I think that is all that is really needed, a flare
at the end and a T-type arrangement to handle that situation.
Mr. Engebretson: We have a voting meeting two weeks from tonight. It appears this
is headed for a tabling motion, not because there is any fault
found with what you are proposing. It is strictly an issue of
public safety, and as Mr. Morrow said, we are not the experts
`..
14293
there. If we were to table this tonight that would give you an
opportunity to work with the Fire Marshal and let them help you
determine what you have to do to make that site safe. That works
to everybody's benefit, certainly not the least of which would be
Nom. yours as the owner of the property. I don't think we can work
that out tonight. It sounds like in Mr. Nagy's view it would be
acceptable, which I would tend to trust his judgment, but I would
surely be reluctant to give approval with this kind of concern.
We could do it in a very clean fashion protecting everyone's
interest by deferring this for two weeks.
Mr. Morrow: This is not a control zone is it John?
Mr. Nagy: The Council would have to concur. You are recommending and the
Council would have to give final approval.
Mr. Sommerville: I would like to clear up one question. One of the other
correspondence was about parking deficiency. I would like to get
these all cleared up.
Mr. Nagy: You rectified that with your appeal to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Also there was a decision regarding the amount of
parking in the front yard, and that was the problem that was
resolved with the Police Department and the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
`'` #7-138-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 95-4-8-7 by TAR Brisas Development Company requesting
approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 in connection with a proposal to construct an apartment complex
on property located at 28808 Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 13 until the Regular Meeting of August 1, 1995.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
95-7-8-14 by Robert German requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct an office building on property located at 17270
Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the east side of Farmington Road just north of
Six Mile Road. It is located in the Burton Executive Park. As it
is there are existing two buildings, and this is a vacant lot,
and they are proposing to construct a 14,000 sq. ft. office
building on that property. Based on the square footage of the
building, they are required to have 55 parking spaces, which the
site plan shows, so they are conforming in parking. The plan
14294
shows landscaping to be 15% of the total site, which they are
required to have, so they are conforming with their landscaping.
The elevation plan don't note it but the architect has stated
the building will be entirely brick with asphalt shingle roof,
``' and the greenbelt along here will be continued from the existing
site to the west to screen it from the church property.
Mr. Nagy: We have received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the
Traffic Bureau indicating they have no objections to this site
plan. Also in our file is a letter from the Engineering
Department stating their office has no objections to this site
plan proposal. Iastly, we have received a letter from the
Inspection Department stating Michigan Barrier Free Rules require
three barrier free parking spaces be provided when the total
parking for the site is between 51 and 75 spaces. this plan only
provides for two barrier free spaces. No other deficiencies were
noted.
Mr. EngPhretson: Mr. Nagy, the notes indicate that there are three handicap spaces
provided. Is that a change?
Mr. Nagy: Yes there are three handicap spaces provided so that satisfies
their comments.
Mr. Engehretson: Mr. German would you like to come forward and make whatever
comments you wish.
Robert German, 30611 Munger, Livonia: I propose to build an office building on
the subject property and I believe I have met all of the
`► requirements of the City regarding landscaping, parking, etc.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you put some doors in it?
Mr. German: Actually the doors are as the plan originally shows, and that is
the best because it provides a vestibule type of entrance so it
is protected from the weather. In other words, the doors will be
to the side of the entrance rather than a straight line. I put
landscaping around the entire building. I actually shortened up
the building a little bit in the front so I can get a strip of
landscaping in there. (He presented his plans)
Mr. Engebretson: That is a nice improvement. Would this landscaping density be
similar to your other building further dawn Farmington Road?
Mr. German: Yes it will.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-139-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 95-7-8-14 by Robert German requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with
14295
a proposal to construct an office building on property located at
17270 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, subject to
the following conditions:
441.' (1) That the Site Plan, Landscape Plan & Building Elevations marked
Sheet P-1 dated 6/16/95 prepared by Larry W. Woehkle &
Associates, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to.
2) That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property line, as
shown on the approved plan, shall be substituted for the
protective wall required by Section 18.45 of Zoning Ordinance
#543.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 707th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on July 18, 1995 was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
f
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
\. W I
ATTEST': .' v
Ja Engebret..n, Chairman
jg