Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2017-03-28 MINUTES OF THE 1,103rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 28, 2017, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,103rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Kevin Priddy Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Scott Miller, Planner IV, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten 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 2017-03-02-03 MYSTIC CREEK CONDOS Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2017- 03-02-03 submitted by Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C. requesting special waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 20.01 and 20.02A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single Family Clustering option (Mystic Creek Condominiums) at 18000, 18040 and 18080 Wayne Road, located on the east side of Wayne Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis Road in the Southwest '/ of Section 9. March 28, 2017 28075 Mr. Miller: This site was recently approved for a 13 conventional size site condominium development, called Mystic Creek Site Condos. The property is zoned R-4, which is a minimum lot area of 11,700 square feet and minimum lot dimensions of 90 feet by 130 feet. All 13 of the currently designed and approved lots comply with these minimum lot areas. One of the benefits of clustering is that the single family option allows flexibility with the placement of the homes on the individual lots. The advantage to the developer is it allows the homes to be moved approximately 10 feet closer to the front lot line or the front yard setback. R-4 requires a 40 foot front yard setback and the petitioner is asking for a 30 foot setback. The main benefit is that it would increase the rear yard setbacks. It would not only increase the distance from the homes of this development from the homes of the adjacent subdivision, but also increase the distances between the homes and the wetlands and flood plains that are contiguous to several pieces of the property. The petitioner is also asking for approval of a landscape plan. The plan shows landscaping along the frontage of Wayne Road and between the proposed detention pond and the road turn-around. The petitioner is also asking for approval of an entrance marker. He is allowed one at 20 square feet, and he is proposing one at 15 square feet to be located on an area coming in off Wayne Road. That is the extent of the proposal. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any correspondence on this item? Mr. Miller: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 13, 2017, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the waiver use at this time. The proposed development has been reviewed by this department, and is in the process for permit approval. The proposed changes in front yard setback do not appear to affect any of the previously reviewed utilities, and thus should not require revisions to any of the submitted drawings." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 14, 2017, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single Family Clustering option on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 20, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the March 28, 2017 28076 proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 20, 2017, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition."The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. he fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated March 10, 2017, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated March 10, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. We also received an email communication from Don Kleinknecht, 16434 Parklane Street, Livonia, Michigan, dated March 28, 2017, which reads as follows: "The family who is building that beautiful home at 18100 Wayne Road will be highly disappointed if the two-story clustering single family row housing (condo's) project is approved. There's an empty parcel of land on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Wayne Road. Why not approve another drive-thru donut shop for that corner. Clustering— be or come into cluster or close group; congregate." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Department. Seeing none, if the petitioner is here, please give us your name and address for the record please. Enrico Soave, Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C., 37771 Seven Mile, Suite C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening, everyone. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. Thank you, Scott, for your presentation on this matter. I think you covered most of the bases. Just to reiterate, some of the Board members may know, this is a companion petition to the previously approved Mystic Creek Condominium back late last year. The purpose of this one, one is for the landscaping plan, to present that to you. Two, is to allow more flexibility with the placement of the lots. As most people don't know, R-4 zoning requires a greater front yard of 40 feet than the rear yard. The rear yard is at 35 feet. Most people buying a new home expect that their rear yard should be greater in depth than the front yard to the street. Also, this will give us a little larger size homes. Most of these homes have three car side entry garages that will additionally help bring the house further from the March 28, 2017 28077 street in trying to keep these houses further away from neighbors. Everything else stays the same. The units stay the same. Everything facially on the site plan stays the same. This is the only reason why we're bringing this petition forward - to improve the already existing site plan. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Soave, I just want to confirm that the side yard setbacks between the homes do not change with this request. Mr. Soave: No, not at all. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: We will have an opportunity for the audience to address us momentarily. Ms. Smiley: Is there going to be lighting at the entrance to Mystic Creek? Mr. Soave: What we have proposed is four lamps, two on each side of either entrance marker. There is lighting on Wayne Road. At this time, we haven't decided whether to ask for a waiver of the lights that are required in the development. That will probably be brought up at a later time, maybe give the homeowners a chance to chime in that are buying in the subdivision whether they want additional lighting throughout Mystic Creek or proposed Milana Drive. I think it's up to them to actually make a determination if they want street lighting in there. As you can see, it is a pretty shallow street so they won't get a lot of illumination off Wayne Road and the lamp posts out at the entrance. Ms. Smiley: Just for clarification, they're not really condos. Mr. Soave: They are site condominiums. Everyone seems to worry about condominiums. It sounds scary like cluster of houses but when they're built, or as you can see as proposed, they look and feel no different than any other house that's platted or any condominiums adjacent to where they're at. So it's legal fiction. Site condominium versus condominium versus a platted development. Ms. Smiley: That was just for clarification and thank you. Mr. Caramagno: Sir, of the 13 lots, how many of those lots are going to have side entry garages? March 28, 2017 28078 Mr. Soave: I would say a majority of them have side entry garages. Most people buying a larger home, like the homes that are on Curtis and Wayne now, they all have three car garages. Even on the smaller homes, people want three car garages. It's just a new norm. Mr. Caramagno: Will everything be at 30 feet setback or could some be further back than that? Mr. Soave: Thirty feet is the minimum, correct. Mr. Caramagno: That doesn't mean they have to be. Mr. Soave: Correct. Mr. Caramagno: It's the minimum and if it fits, that's how it will be. Mr. Soave: Correct. This proposal also gives a minimum of 40 feet in the rear yard. So you'll have some that will be 45 feet, flexibility there too. That's just a minimum. So a lot of these homes will actually be greater than 40 feet in the rear yard. Currently, it's 35 feet as the project was approved. Mr. Caramagno: Some will certainly be deeper than 40 in the backyard. They have deeper lots. Mr. Soave: Absolutely. Mr. Caramagno: Tell me a little bit about the landscape, especially at the dead end. Tell me a little more about that. Mr. Soave: Landscaping at the dead end, if you may recall, a lot of that was born out of some of the neighbors to the south of that property. I spoke to a few of them personally. I'm not sure if they're in attendance tonight, but that was to create a berm towards the end of the street with densely placed landscaping to kind of buffer any headlights that would be beaming into those neighbors' rear yards so it actually creates a little privacy for them. This reflects what was previously agreed to with City Council, Planning Commission and with the developer. Mr. Caramagno: I would imagine from looking at this plan, it looks like the impact you have is probably two to three homes there, no more. Mr. Soave: Correct. Mr. Caramagno: The maximum impact. March 28, 2017 28079 Mr. Soave: Yes. Three homes. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Again, for the audience's benefit, because we have already seen this site plan for this item and approved it a couple months ago, what's before us today is a waiver use for the clustering option. I know the word "cluster" can mean a lot of things to people, but really what it is, it's a way for the City to allow a slight variance on the side or front or rear yard setbacks of a lot. In this case, the petitioner is simply seeking the clustering option to allow for a smaller front yard setback, which would then allow the house to be moved forward so that the rear yards have a larger setback. That's the item that's before. I'm sure there are some people in the audience with some questions for us. At this time, I will give an opportunity for anybody in the audience wishing to address us to please come forward. We're going to ask for your name and address and we ask that you please address us with your questions. Mr. Soave: If I may insert into the conversation, by bringing the houses further towards the street, of the newly created street, also helps protect and preserve open spaces in the rear of those houses. The properties adjacent to them already have established brush, tree lines which will help keep the integrity of those as they currently exist. So it does help with open space as well. Mr. Wilshaw: And also, Mr. Soave, while you're here, one item that was discussed briefly at our study meeting was the reason that the landscape at the end of the dead end was placed by the roadway as opposed to at the south end of the property. It is to be more effective in screening the headlights than it would be if all the landscaping was moved right to the south end of the property. Is that correct? Mr. Soave: Correct. I think there's about a four feet difference from where the street ends until where the property line begins to the property owners in, I believe, Nottingham West. So correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Ma'am, please give us your name and address. Barbara Skelly, 35406 Brookview Drive, Livonia, Michigan. I just have questions. How big are these homes going to be? How many square feet? Mr. Wilshaw: That is actually not an item that is before us right now. We'll see if we can answer some of these questions for you. These were March 28, 2017 28080 items that were discussed at the site plan approval, which was a couple months ago. Ms. Skelly: I don't think the neighbors . . . nobody knew about that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We'll try to answer some of these questions for you. So the square footage of the home. What we'll do is, we're going to note some of these questions and then we'll try to see if the developer can answer some of these for you. Ms. Skelly: Okay. They're all two-story homes? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, I believe they're intended to be two-story homes. Ms. Skelly: How wide are the lots? Mr. Miller: It's R-4 zoning, so they are 90 feet by 130 feet. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. The lots are zoned to be 90 feet wide by 130 feet deep, which is the R-4 zoning. Ms. Skelly: And how wide is the street going in and out? Is there only one street going in and out of this? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. There is one street. It ends at a dead end and there will be a turnaround at the end, a T-turnaround to allow for cars to turn around. Mr. Miller: The street will be 60 feet wide. Mr. Wilshaw: And it's a standard 60 foot wide street like you would see in any subdivision. Ms. Skelly: Okay. And the two houses that are on the property . . . Mr. Wilshaw: The two existing houses? Ms. Skelly: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Those are intended to be removed. Ms. Skelly: They are. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Ms. Skelly: For sure? March 28, 2017 28081 Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. As approved in this petition, you can see on the diagram that's on the screen, you can see the proposed . . . Ms. Skelly: It doesn't come on this screen any more. It was only on this screen to begin with. It just shows on your two screens here. We just saw it . . . Mr. Wilshaw: I think you can see it now. Ms. Skelly: No. Mr. Wilshaw: They switched it. There is a proposed lot layout there and those will be all new homes in this development. The existing homes will be removed. Ms. Skelly: Okay, and those two houses are coming down? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Ms. Skelly: Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you. Bill Karwan, 17588 Wayne Road, Livonia, Michigan. I'm actually talking on behalf of Kevin and Malinda Malinowski, who live at 35405 Brookview. They were not able to make it tonight due to surgery. They're big concern is, and I agree with them, the layout as shown shows the street entrance actually goes into their driveway. They have a side entrance garage that faces Wayne Road. I was wondering if . . I know the site plan has been approved, but is it possible to review this one more time so that we can make a real intersection at Northgate, which is just a street further down, further south from where the existing street is. To me, it just makes sense to make a regular intersection rather than having cars and headlights always come into that one house coming out of the subdivision, the new subdivision. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand your request. The placement of the road is dictated by the width that's necessary for the road and also the width of the lots. If the road were to be moved to the south, that would eliminate at least four lots in this development and change the dynamics of it. As you mentioned, the site plan has already been approved. When the petitioner comes back up, if he wants to address that further, that's something he can do, but I don't believe there's many other opportunities to reconfigure the road at this point. Mr. Karwan: Okay. Thank you. March 28, 2017 28082 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Does anyone else wish to speak on this item? Yes, sir. Name and address please. Michael Michalski, 18311 Wayne Road, Livonia, Michigan. I live down Wayne Road and I have a subdivision that dead ends into my driveway. I'm going to tell you one thing. I got a lot of people that end up in my driveway, especially at night, on the weekends. It's a stupid idea. It's a stupid idea. Secondly is, I've never seen a job sign put on this parcel stating that they were going to change the zoning. We just found out about this now. This is very odd. I'm in the industry. I go through these things in many states, and it's very strange that there was never a sign saying this piece of parcel or these multiple parcels were getting changed from R-1, agricultural, whatever it was, to this. Can somebody explain that to me? And I think the rest of the people want to know as well. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. The property, as I understand it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Miller, was already zoned R-4. Is that correct? Mr. Miller: That is correct. It's been R-4. Mr. Michalski: Since when? Mr. Miller: You'd have to ask the petitioner. I don't know. Mr. Soave: It's been zoned R-4 for many years. Mr. Miller: This goes back years. Mr. Michalski: 2001? 1980? 1970? Mr. Wilshaw: We would have to check the records to find out, but there is nothing in our documentation as to when it was zoned R-4, but as far as I can tell from our zoning maps, this goes back a very long way. This is not a recent change. Mr. Michalski: I'm letting you know it's kind of stupid how that driveway, basically that road, goes into a driveway. I've had plenty of issues with it. I feel sorry for whoever that homeowner is. It's going to devaluate their lot. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. We understand that. Mr. Michalski: Well, if you understand that, you would have worked around it. Mr. Wilshaw: Hello, sir. Name and address. March 28, 2017 28083 John McKee, 35450 Gardner, Livonia, Michigan. I live in Section 8. I guess I can only add on to what that previous gentleman stated. I see a lot of the neighbors from my street here today. We have one flyer distributed on our block in the last two weeks letting us know about this meeting, and none of us knew about the previous meeting where the site plans were initially approved. And if we, we certainly would have been here to voice our displeasure. That neighborhood has character. The lots appear large, spacious. There's commons. And I can't help but feel looking at this plan, it looks like things are being shoehorned in, where once there were two homes, now there's going to be 13. That does not fit in with the character of the rest of the neighborhood. I feel sorry for the gentleman at 18001 Wayne Road who has put in a significant investment only to find himself being built upon. I don't know what statutes and laws are in place for notifying residents when site proposals like this are introduced, when they were a couple months ago. But I can tell you, I don't think that my neighbors and I were adequately notified, and we're very displeased with the Planning Commission. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Mr. Wilshaw: Hello, sir. Name and address. Jasper Ficara, 35426 Gardner, Livonia, Michigan. I've been a Livonia resident going on 44 years. I guess I have to echo the same concern that John mentioned. We received very poor notification. I did not get any notification on the first go round and I did receive notice on this meeting but to my surprise, many of my neighbors did not. That is a significant oversight. There's one thing that I want you guys to clear up, and that's this business when somebody says condominium to me, that says it's a separate unit that is maintained by an organization where there is a monthly fee that requires payment and administration and that sort of thing. Could you please describe that aspect of it? What are we looking at? Are we really looking at single family homes that are just simply having less side yards and front and back yards? Is that really the issue here? Or are these going to be multiple family structures? Mr. Wilshaw: I'd be happy to explain that. I, in fact, myself live in a site condominium similar to this. Pretty much any subdivision built in Livonia in the last say 10 years or so, is done under the site condominium law. What you see if you look at these newer subdivisions that have been built, is what looks like a standard subdivision like the one that you live in with standard single family homes, same setbacks, same side yard setbacks and everything March 28, 2017 28084 else that every other subdivision would have. The only difference is instead of going through the platting process, which is how subdivisions have been formed in the past, they are using the condominium law which is a different law that allows them a little bit easier process with the State to get all the legal requirements taken care of, but the homes themselves are single family homes. The individuals own the homes. One person per home or one family per home. They own the lot around them. The only difference is, under condominium law, there's got to be some piece of common property somewhere in the development. It's generally going to be around the entrance area, the entrance marker. There's also a retention pond that's required toward the back of this property and that would also probably be common area. The condominium, which is going to be the individuals who live in this development, will pay some small annual dues to contribute to maintaining that common area. Of course, like any condominium, they would have to have an association with a Board or some group of people who take care of that common area. So for all intents and purposes, this is a standard single family residential development, R-4 zoning, just like all the area around it, the same setbacks. The only difference in this case is because they would like to try to have bigger rear yard setbacks, they're asking us to approve this waiver use for clustering which will allow them to have 30 foot yard setbacks instead of the standard 40 foot, which basically moves the house slightly forward and allows for a larger rear yard. Mr. Ficara: Okay. As I understand it, these are going to be two-story homes and that each individual owner is going to be responsible for maintaining their own property. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. The developer has the opportunity to put ranches on these lots if the buyers so wish if he has a model that would fit on there. But more than likely, it's going to be two-story homes. You may see a story and half or some other type of model that he has available, but like any developer, he's going to have a portfolio of different homes that he can offer on these lots and the buyers can choose which one they want. Mr. Ficara: Okay. Of concern and I think it was mentioned earlier, the square footage. The valuation of the homes is very important. Let me explain. When I bought my home in Nottingham West many years ago, I specifically was concerned about the location of that property relative to all the adjacent properties. And at that time, it was very stable and it proved to be true for more than 40 years. Now that's going to change and the character of the neighborhood is at risk if real significant attention isn't maintained March 28, 2017 28085 to what's going to be built there. Square footage matters and the character of the homes that are being built matter. Those kinds of things affect the valuation of the neighborhood. It's very important that be maintained. At this stage in my life, I don't have options about moving anywhere I want to move. I've got to be real careful about what I do. So what I just want to emphasis is that the character of the neighborhood is paramount, and that it's maintained at a quality level that is commensurate with what's been there for many, many years. You can see the homeowners association and the care that they provided over the years. It's survived I think far longer than most other associations, and the character and nature of the entranceways and the quality of the islands and all the rest of it have been maintained for many years. We want to assure that that continues. Mr. Wilshaw: Definitely. It is a beautiful area that you live in. We will talk to the petitioner when he comes back up to have him reiterate the square footage and the possible pricing of the homes, just to help you out, but I think you're going to see something similar to what you see up on Curtis east of Wayne Road and that general area. It's going to be a quality home. Ms. Ficara: Okay. I appreciate that. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Name and address please. John Tragge, 35404 Northgate, Livonia, Michigan. I live at the northwest corner of Northgate and Wayne Road, not far from where this entrance is apparently going to be constructed. I had a question for the Commission. Up for approval today is both something to do with the landscape plan or modification of it as well as this request for a zoning waiver for the setback. Is that right? Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Mr. Tragge: Okay. So the landscape plan is part of what's before the Commission today. Is that correct? Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Mr. Tragge: Included among that would be the adequacy of the landscape plan for buffering with respect to the existing single family homes? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Tragge: Okay. What is new in this proposal? I didn't hear that discussed. March 28, 2017 28086 Mr. Wilshaw: At our previous site plan approval that was done for this development, we asked that the petitioner come back with landscaping detail because he didn't have that at the time. So this is not a changed plan. This is his plan that he didn't have at the previous meeting to show us what he is going to do in terms of landscaping. And the two main areas that were addressed in this plan are landscaping around the entrance markers in the front of the development along Wayne Road, which you can see is on the left side of that diagram. And then also at the end of the road, there is a landscape berm and also a number of vegetation that will be placed on that berm to try and shield headlights from people driving on that street from shining into the backyards of the adjacent homes to the south. Mr. Tragge: To the south. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Because that was one concern that some of the residents that live in that area had, a very valid concern, that they didn't want to have headlights coming to their back window. Mr. Tragge: That comes to my next point. The Commission should know, I'm past president of the Nottingham West Homeowners Association populated by I think approximately 225 homes, probably at least 500 voters. I'm wondering, did you approve this site plan? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, we did. Mr. Tragge: When did you approve this site plan? Mr. Wilshaw: This was approved at our January 10th meeting of this year. Mr. Tragge: What was the vote? Was it unanimous or was it divided? Mr. Wilshaw: I would have to look at the minutes. I believe it was unanimous. Mr. Tragge: Was the notice to the homeowners . . . isn't there notice to the homeowners required for approval of the site plan or is that only required when they are requesting a zoning waiver? Mr. Wilshaw: Zoning definitely requires a notice. Mr. Miller, on the site plan, do you know if there is notice necessary for that? Mr. Miller: No. Site plans are permitted uses. This is a permitted development. March 28, 2017 28087 Mr. Tragge: So even if not strictly required to give notice to all these people about this development, the Commission certainly had discretion to require the developer to give notice to all these voters. Right? Mr. Wilshaw: No. We do not have the discretion to force them to do that. Ms. Smiley: Scott, can we bring up the map that shows the area where people are notified, the notification? Mr. Miller: I don't have it online. It's in the file but I don't have it in the slide show. It's anybody within 300 feet. Ms. Smiley: Everyone within 300 feet both ways of the development were notified. Mr. Tragge: I can tell you . . . Audience: No, we were not notified. Mr. Wilshaw: That's for the waiver use which is before us tonight. Mr. Tragge: So does this Commission, in light of the apparent failure to give all of these people notice of the site plan, have the authority to revisit it's vote on the site plan so that there can be adequate notice and comment? Mr. Wilshaw: The Planning Commission is a recommending body. We make a recommendation to City Council. City Council ultimately approves or denies these items. We reviewed this item. We gave a recommendation to approve it with modifications and it was sent to Council. Council reviewed it and I understand Council also has approved it at this point. If the Council wants to revisit this, they certainly could do that but . . . Mr. Tragge: What discretion do you have to revisit a decision when you have so many people who didn't receive notice of the proceedings? Mr. Wilshaw: Since we are reviewing body, we can review something again if we want to but it's not normal practice for us to do that. Mr. Tragge: Is that something as a Chair would you consider? Mr. Wilshaw: That's not . . . Mr. Tragge: I think we'd all . . . . March 28, 2017 28088 Mr. Wilshaw: That's not my decision to make at this point. What's before us right now is the waiver use for the cluster development and that's what we're here to discuss today. Mr. Tragge: Okay. So included among that would be the adequacy of the landscape plan. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Mr. Tragge: And the reason I mention that, one thing you might not know about Nottingham West is that within the Nottingham West subdivision, a properly platted subdivision, there is a restriction on privacy fences. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Mr. Tragge: They're not permitted. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. Mr. Tragge: So one reason why, and you might have known this had you given the residents of this community an opportunity to comment on the site plan before you approved it, but one reason why traffic and headlights are particularly important to this community and all of these voters, is because we don't have the option to construct privacy fences. One of the reasons many of these people chose Nottingham West is because it's a private community with many common areas, open commons. It's quiet. Notwithstanding the Fire Station at Bicentennial Park, it's relatively low traffic area. People don't want headlights shining into their yard. This intersection makes no sense to me. Just like Mr. Malinowski, who you heard comment about this lot, Mr. Malinowski and I share a backyard. So all of this traffic, all of these headlamps will not only be shining into our kitchens and rear yards, but all the way down the entirety of the lots between Brookview and Northgate. And if any of us in this community had been aware that you were considering approving a site plan for the sake of preserving what? Maybe one or two lots, rather than creating a proper intersection at Northgate, we wouldn't have these problems. We would have been here to tell you that this site plan shouldn't be considered as modified. And as it stands now, I don't think this landscaping plan is adequate. I think it has to be significantly increased in the degree to which landscaping buffers the existing residents from the poor site plan you guys shouldn't have approved in the first place. March 28, 2017 28089 Mr. Wilshaw: Well, we appreciate your opinion. Is there something with the landscaping that you would like to suggest? Mr. Tragge: Does the map that no one in the audience can see because it's only broadcast on these TVs, does that comply with the requirements for a zoning waiver as far as the presentation of a site plan? Mr. Miller: Are you asking if this is like a landscape plan? Mr. Tragge: I'm sorry, a landscape plan. Yeah. Mr. Miller: Yeah. I mean it's up to the Planning Commission and City Council as to how they want the site landscaped. Mr. Tragge: I don't know if the people in the audience can determine what constitutes a tree or a shrub or the height of the scale of the proposed landscaping. Can either of you tell what this says? Audience: No. Mr. Tragge: Then how could you approve it? Mr. Wilshaw: We have the details. We can look and see each tree that's on the diagram and it is marked as to what the species is. Audience: Inaudible. Mr. Wilshaw: I don't have the ability to do that. Mr. Miller: I don't know if I can either. Mr. Wilshaw: Each species is marked on the plan and the heights of those species. That's something that we review. Mr. Miller: This is basically how it's . . . this is the front of Wayne Road. You're going to have a wall here and some landscaping, some trees. That's a basic subdivision entrance. It's really what the City wants. Is it buffered from the street? There is a plan here — Serviceberry, Sugar Maple, Sugar Gum, Tulip trees, white pine. Mr. Wilshaw: It gives the size and caliper of the trunks as well. Audience: Inaudible. March 28, 2017 28090 Mr. Wilshaw: Ma'am, you can't speak from the audience. There's no way for our cameras to pick you up. Ma'am, could you please let us know your name and address so we know who we're referring to. Jan Ficara, 35426 Gardner, Livonia, Michigan. When he showed the names, it's Maple trees. These are trees with a trunk. The trees grow up higher. And what I think the neighbors are concerned with is privacy and light blockage, which those trees won't give. So, what is it really supposed to look like? There's a few white pines but is that up by the front by the signage or behind the signage? As it stands, it doesn't look like adequate landscaping. Mr. Wilshaw: The species that are toward the end of the street at the dead end, which is intended to block headlights, are mostly bushy, shrub- type species which are obviously to filter the light. At the entrance, you have a couple of the trees, like the Maples. Mr. Miller: These are the pictures. I just made them. These are the yews, the cranberry bush and the hicks yews. These are the ones that are at the end of the road. Mr. Wilshaw: And then the ones that are toward the front are more deciduous ornamental and larger trees. Ms. Ficara: So that doesn't really do anything to address the problem that the neighbors across or on the west side of Wayne Road are concerned with. Mr. Wilshaw: It's not going to address the problem of headlights coming from the street facing westbound. Ms. Ficara: Or any lights. I haven't memorized the road. We haven't really seen it. I don't know if it's a straight road coming out or if it curves coming out, but you have different angles of lights. Mr. Wilshaw: It's a straight road. Ms. Ficara: It's a straight road. So there's not going to be anything to protect them. Mr. Wilshaw: No. If there was something that needed to be placed on the west side of the street, because . . . Ms. Ficara: You can't do anything on the west side of the street, but on the front of the sub area, there isn't going to be anything there then. Mr. Wilshaw: You can't block the road from Wayne Road. March 28, 2017 28091 Ms. Ficara: No. Mr. Wilshaw: There's nothing you can do there. Bradford Dilley, 35419 Curtis, Livonia, Michigan. I am very surprised that we are in this spot, but I guess I really have no other comments than that except for the clustering of the properties. Now moving these properties from a 50 foot setback to a 30 foot setback . . . Mr. Wilshaw: Forty to a 30 foot setback. Mr. Dilley: Forty foot setback. Doesn't that allow for just larger square footage houses? Are we looking at houses that are going to be these two-story big foot type where everything around it is a little bit dwarfed by these? Is allowing this clustering from 50 to 40 going to allow for the footprint of the house to go from 2,500 to 2,700 an example. That's my question. Mr. Wilshaw: It will allow for a certain amount of that. As the petitioner mentioned, many of these homes are probably going to have three car garages which would be side entry garages. That causes the footprint of the house to have to come out a little bit further so that you can fit in the actual three car garage. So it's possible the footprint of the house may increase slightly, but as part of changing the front yard setback to 30 feet in this proposal, he indicated that he was doing that so that he could increase the rear yard setback. Mr. Dilley: But does it allow for a larger house? Mr. Wilshaw: We can ask the petitioner what change that will make in terms of the square footage. Mr. Dilley: I mean is this just to say, hey, we really want to enlarge the backyards so that we're all in agreement with it, or is it that I just want to get more meat on the table. I want a larger house. I want a bigger house. I want to be able to . . . I mean, Livonia is a beautiful community. I've been here a long time and I don't see how this already passed proposal is any beautification to this area whatsoever, and then, so that's just my basic question is, are we looking at houses now that are going to be the taller, the broader, the wider, you know. If allowing for this to move forward 10 feet allows for a bigger house, I think it's out of place. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Any other questions from the audience? Ma'am, please come forward again. March 28, 2017 28092 Ms. Skelly: I want to know the size of the houses. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, we're going to get that question answered. Ms. Skelly: The size of the houses. Ms. Smiley: You need to talk at the podium, please. Mr. Wilshaw: Ma'am, you need to talk at the podium so we can hear you Mr. Wilshaw: But yes, that is one question that you asked that we are going to get answered for you is the square footage of the homes. Ms. Skelly: Right, because these are 90 by 130 foot lots. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Ms. Skelly: Which are not that large if they're going to put really big houses on it. It's just going to dwarf . . . like this other gentleman said, it's just going to dwarf everything. They wouldn't even allow the people that own the 18100, the house next door that has three acres. They would not allow him to put that second garage on there because I don't know why. I came to all the meetings and I don't know why. It was very, very unfair and now this all seems to just go through and nobody even hears about it. We never knew about this meeting in January. And that's entirely unfair to the neighborhood. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand. Ms. Skelly: How did it happen. Mr. Wilshaw: Our agendas are published every single week and the audience is . . . Ms. Skelly: Where? Mr. Wilshaw: They are published in the City paper. They are published here at City Hall. We have a standard publishing process that we go through for rezoning requests, which this did not have to go through because it's the same zoning that it's always been, or for waiver uses, which we have tonight. There is a notification requirement that we have to send out notifications to people within 300 feet of the property, which we did for this meeting tonight. March 28, 2017 28093 Ms. Skelly: Right, but not for the other one. Mr. Wilshaw: No, because there was no obligation to do that. There was no requirement to do that. Ms. Skelly: So now they're going to put up huge houses right next door to the one that they would not even let put another garage on there that he needed for the size of his lot. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. We were not involved in anything to do with the house to the north. It's beautiful house that's being built. Ms. Skelly: Yeah, well, it's not the house that they wanted. The house that they wanted was going to be a great addition to the neighborhood. I don't know if this is going to be an addition that we would be happy with or proud of. I want to know the size of these houses that are going to fit on these small lots. Mr. Wilshaw: We'll get that for you. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Chairman, is this possible? I don't know the answer to this question but allow me. Is it possible to have Mr. Soave answer that question? We have a lot of concern in the audience about the size of the houses. Mr. Soave knows the answer. Let's give them that answer now and save everybody else from parading up here expressing their concern. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Mr. Soave: I'd love to. Minimize size multi-story dwellings, which is a two- story, typically called a colonial, first floor master, typically called cape cod, is 2,000 square feet. Ranches are a minimum of 2,200 square feet. R-4 zoning is not really small lots. There are one of the largest zonings that you can have within the City of Livonia and this property has been zoned R-4 for many years. The developer owned most of this property since 1996 so it's not like we just came into it and decided to make a development. It's been owned by the developer for quite some time now. Like we said, this petition is not necessary required. This development is slated to go in the spring time and whether it happens or doesn't happen, the development is going in. It's an approved project and it's going to happen. Lot coverage requirement — this does not necessarily mean they're bigger homes. Lot coverage requirement, which means you can't exceed 30 percent of the building . . . 30 percent of the lot can only be developed or put a home on it. So just by changing the front setback and rear setback is not going to give you the authority or the permit to build March 28, 2017 28094 a larger size home. You're still going to be capped at 30 percent, which is Livonia's requirement for how big you can build on a lot. Ms. Smiley: Would you repeat the size of the homes again? Mr. Soave: Yes, 2,800 square feet for two-story; 2,200 for ranch. Audience: Inaudible. Mr. Soave: And most of the homes that are on Curtis and Wayne that were probably built in the late '90's, 2000's, all of those are 3,000 or above. Mr. Wilshaw: Please, let's not get into a debate back and forth in the audience just for decorum. Mr. Soave: We're not going to get into a debate. That's R-4 Zoning as well and I believe some of the backyards in this community are bigger than the ones that are on Curtis, especially the four, five in the rear that are a lot bigger. So they're not small lots. Most of them actually exceed the depth . . . are they 130, Scott, R-4 zoning? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Soave: Yeah. A lot of them are 135 or more. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Soave, for answering that question. We will have you come back up when the audience is done speaking as well just to address any other issues that have been raised. Sir? Mr. Dilley: As we've been discussing this, one thing has been made pretty clear and that was despite all the effort that the City has made over the years, and I have a lot of confidence in the administration and the way things are run in this town. I've lived here a long time and I've been pretty happy with the how things have gone. They kind of dropped the ball on this one in that they did not notify the residents on the first meeting in January, and this meeting was also not well publicized. Now I guess my question is, what recourse do we have regarding this? Is there any rewind? Is there anything that we can do to re-engage on this whole issue? I mean Mr. Soave, or the Soave representative, is saying that this is a done deal. Is it a done deal or do we have some recourse? Mr. Wilshaw: Sir, the approval has been given, as I understand it, by City Council. If the City Council wishes to re-visit an item or repeal one of their items, that would be something that they could do, but March 28, 2017 28095 that's not something that I've typically seen in our City in the past. But that's not our decision to make. Mr. Dilley: How do you send a message to the Council that proper notification wasn't established to the residents that were going to be most affected? Mr. Wilshaw: You're certainly welcome to write to City Council. They have email addresses on the city website. You could always write City Hall. Mr. Dilley: Is there any formal process of petition to do that? Mr. Wilshaw: A formal process? Mr. Dilley: Yeah. Mr. Wilshaw: No. Just by contacting your councilman like you would for any other issue you have. Ms. Smiley: We are an advisory board. Everything that was said this evening will be in notes to go to the City Council, along with our recommendation from this evening. So they will be aware that you feel that you were not notified properly about this subdivision going in. Mr. Dilley: Okay. Well, as a former president of our Association and there's a couple other presidents that are in attendance this evening, we're concerned about that. I mean one of the basic issues of good governance is making sure that people are notified of what's going on in their neighborhoods and their immediate areas, and I got to say that I think they dropped the ball on this one. Mr. Wilshaw: And thank you, Ms. Smiley, for making that point about our minutes for tonight's meeting. Everything that is being said here, and some people may not realize this, you've been on boards before and understand the concept of minutes, but the minutes that we publish and are made for these meetings and are sent to Council, and Council always reviews them as well, are literally word for word. Every word that is spoken, not just a summary of, you know, five residents came forward and said this. It's all word for word. They will have an opportunity to see that as well. Mr. Dilley: Okay. As long as it's . . .some measure of emphasis is placed on the issue of communication because that's probably the central issue right now. There wouldn't be half the questions if things were property communicated earlier on. March 28, 2017 28096 Mr. Wilshaw: Understood. Mr. Dilley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Dave West, 36824 Gardner, Livonia, Michigan. Basically, I think a lot of people are confused but what you're saying is the planning that happened in, I think, you said early January . . . Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Mr. West: Legally, nobody has to be notified. Right? And nobody was. Mr. Wilshaw: There is no requirement that we send out notices to the people who are adjoining property owners. Mr. West: So nobody got notified. I walked the whole area yesterday night and I didn't see one sign of any, like any zoning variance or anything that was going on which I found peculiar but I'll leave it at that because I don't think that's of any interest to the panel here. But what I would like to say is that if you brought that picture back up with the subdivision, there's a real easy way I think to pacify the people out here and possibly lose one lot. If you took that, as you're exiting the street, the last house on the left, if you put a 90 in the straight and another 90 so it lined up with the existing street and put a berm along there so you wouldn't put headlights into peoples' windows and you build a berm at the end of the other street so you would not have headlights in peoples' windows, I think that most people would be able to live with this. I don't think that's any great loss to the developer. I don't see any willingness of compromise here, and I think that's a very simple compromise that I think would make a lot of people happy. Mr. Wilshaw: As I like the recommendation, the issue before us, though, is not the site plan and the placement of the road tonight. That is an issue that's been dealt with two months and . . . Mr. West: It's been bought and paid for. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Mr. Wilshaw: Seeing no one else coming forward, if the petitioner would like to come forward and address anything, he's certainly willing to. He's already spoke to most of the issues, but is there anything else, Mr. Soave, that you would like to address? March 28, 2017 28097 Mr. Soave: Nothing further. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. With that, are there any questions from the Commission? Ms. Smiley: My question is through the Chair to Scott. Can you look in the record? When this first went through, when they first proposed this subdivision, would have been when? If it was approved in January, that's not when it first went through. Mr. Miller: It was submitted in November. Ms. Smiley: November of last year. And at that time would there have been signs on the property or anything at that time? Mr. Miller: No. These are permitted uses. So we are not required to notify the public. Ms. Smiley: And it's not a change of zoning. Mr. Miller: No, it is not a change of zoning. It is a use of the property that conforms to the ordinance. Ms. Smiley: Okay. That's what I want to make sure of because this group has already owned this property for some time. Mr. Miller: Mr. Soave said the developer has owned this property since 1996. Ms. Smiley: And they just now decided to develop it. And this meets all the requirements of the City for R-4 zoning. Mr. Miller: Yes. The only thing before us tonight is the setback. If it's not approved, he could develop the property now with 40 foot setbacks. It's just the setback. Ms. Smiley: That's what I wanted clarification on. It's already gone through Council and it's already approved. Mr. Miller: Correct. Ms. Smiley: The only thing we're possibly changing tonight is how far set back the homes which are already established in the size, determined by the 30 percent of the size of lot — that's the maximum. Really what we're looking at today is whether the houses can come up 10 feet closer to the street or not. March 28, 2017 28098 Mr. Miller: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: And it's a public road so all the dimensions have already been settled? Mr. Miller: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: That's just a confirmation. Thank you. Mr. Ventura: I also have a question for Scott. Looking at my zoning map, it appears that all of the properties within a half mile of this site are zoned R-4. Is that true? Mr. Miller: That's true. The whole surrounding area is zoned R-4, other than to the east, which is zoned PL, Public Land. Mr. Ventura: Which is the park. Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Ventura: So they all have the same allowed building envelope. Mr. Miller: That's true. Mr. Ventura: Which results in the same size houses, roughly. Mr. Miller: Yes. Same size houses and same size lots. Mr. Ventura: So this developer can't come in here and drop a 10,000 square foot house on a 90 by 130 foot lot. Mr. Miller: No. He can only cover 30 percent of the property with a house. Mr. Ventura: Thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw: Before I close the public hearing, I'll give you an opportunity to speak again, ma'am. Ms. Skelly: It came out that the property was owned since 1996 or something like that. But along Wayne Road, there were three houses with for sale signs just a few months ago on them. Did you purchase them then? Mr. Soave: I said most, not all of it. Ms. Skelly: Most. We didn't hear the word "most." Okay. He didn't say most. He said you owned the property. March 28, 2017 28099 Ms. Smiley: Really, you should address the Commission. Ms. Skelly: Okay. He said that he owned the property. Well, he didn't. He bought the remaining frontage on Wayne Road just a few months ago. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Ms. Skelly: Okay. Just to establish that. Also, one last question for me is, what's the value on these houses? Mr. Wilshaw: Let me ask the developer what he expects that to be. Ms. Skelly: Just out of curiosity. We've talked about everything else. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Soave, can you give us an idea of what the estimated sale price of these homes would be roughly? Mr. Soave: Mid 400,000's. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. With that, I'll close the public hearing on this item and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-17-2017 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 28, 2017, on Petition 2017-03-02-03 submitted by Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C. requesting special waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 20.01 and 20.02A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single Family Clustering option (Mystic Creek Condominiums) at 18000, 18040 and 18080 Wayne Road, located on the east side of Wayne Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9, which property is zoned Residential-4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2017-03-02-03 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #53-17 in connection with Petition 2016-11-08-14, which permitted the construction of a site condominium development (Mystic Creek Condominiums), shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions; March 28, 2017 28100 2. That the following shall be incorporated in the Master Deed and bylaws: - that the front yard setback of each unit shall not be less than thirty feet (30') 3. That the Landscape Planting Plan marked LP-1 and the Landscape Notes & Details marked LP-2, both dated February 29, 2017, prepared by Nagy Devlin Land Design, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the entrance marker shown on the above approved Landscape Notes & Details (LP-2) is hereby approved except that the sign shall be moved outside of the right-of- way and onto private easements dedicated for such purpose and located on the lots adjacent to the entrance to the subdivision and at least ten feet (10') from any right-of-way line unless granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals; 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. 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. Wilshaw, 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 2014-02-08-02 VICTOR EAST Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, request for a one-year extension of Petition 2014-02-08-02, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 21, 2014 (Council Resolution #104-14), to construct a one-story office-research building (Victor East) on property at 37640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: I don't have anything to add other than we have two items of correspondence since we now send these to the Finance and March 28, 2017 28101 Treasurer Departments. The first item is from the Treasurer's Department, dated March 16, 2017, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The second letter is from the Finance Department, dated March 17, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the new correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Miller. And just to make it clear. This is an extension of the existing plan that's been before us. There are no changes to the plan as proposed. Is that correct? Mr. Miller: That's correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please and is there anything you would like to what you've heard so far? Josh Suardini, Etkin, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200, Southfield, Michigan 48034. No. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, thank you for coming tonight. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Long, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-18-2017 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for a One-Year Extension of Petition 2014-02-08-02 which previously received approval by the City Council on April 21, 2014 (Council Resolution #104-14), to construct a one-story office-research building (Victor East) on property at 37640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for an extension of waiver use approval by Etkin Management, L.L.C, in a letter dated February 27, 2017, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and March 28, 2017 28102 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #104-14 in connection with Petition 2014-02-08-02, which permitted the construction of a one-story office-research building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,102nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,102nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 14, 2017. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Caramagno, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-19-2017 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,102nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2017, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Caramagno, McCue, Priddy, Long, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Ventura ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution { adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously dr pted, the 1,103rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 28, 2 1 , was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. CITY P NNING COMMISSION am C I:magno, ecretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman