Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2017-10-17 MINUTES OF THE 1,113th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 17, 2017, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,113th 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. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, 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 2017-09-02-11 10th PLANET Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2017-09-02-11 submitted by 10th Planet Michigan, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a martial arts and yoga studio at 12924 Farmington Road within the Livonia Trade Center, located on the east side of Farmington Road between the CSX railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest '/4 of Section 27. October 17, 2017 28303 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a martial arts and yoga studio within the Livonia Trade Center, which is located on the east side of Farmington Road between the CSX railroad and Schoolcraft Road. The property is zoned M-1, Light Manufacturing. Approval to operate this type of use falls under the provisions set forth in Section 16.11(f) of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for public or private indoor recreational facilities and athletic training schools in the M-1 District subject to waiver use approval. Uses such as gymnastics training facilities, martial arts and cheerleading schools, soccer facilities, tennis courts, baseball and softball practice areas, and other similar type of uses may be allowed within industrial buildings because of unique features or characteristics that these uses might have, such wide-open spaces or higher ceilings. A key criterion in determining whether a use of this type is appropriate is making sure that all the parking and ingress/egress to the facility does not pose a safety hazard or interfere with the normal industrial traffic of the area. The Livonia Trade Center is a four-building multi-tenant industrial complex with frontage on both Farmington Road and Westmore Avenue. The parcel is 6.8 acres. It is 360 feet in width and has an average depth of roughly 823 feet. Buildings "A" and "B" are located on the westerly half of the property near Farmington Road. Both of these buildings measure about 28,400 square feet. Buildings "C" and "D" sit on the eastern half of the site near Westmore Avenue and measure about 22,000 square feet each. The proposal is for 10th Planet Michigan to occupy a 3,276 square foot unit in the middle part of Building "D," which is the southeast building. The unit has exterior doors on both its north and south elevations. The floor plan submitted with the application shows that the front half of the unit would contain a couple of changing rooms as well as a restroom area, while the remaining back portion of the space would consist of a large open studio. There are no building modifications planned as part of this petition. In terms of parking, the ordinance requires one space per employee plus sufficient off-street space for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of students. The Livonia Trade Center has a total of 250 parking spaces available, which are shared by all four buildings. Even though students could park anywhere on the site, there are at least 30 parking spaces in close proximity to the unit, which the petitioner feels is adequate for the proposed use. Presumably, students would be allowed to access the building from the rear or the south side, whichever is closest to the most convenient parking spaces. This is the third such request for an indoor recreational facility or athletic training school at the Livonia Trade Center. The City granted waiver use approval to Dance Innovations under Petition 2013-04-02-10 and Ignite Gymnastics October 17, 2017 28304 under Petition 2015-05-02-13. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 28, 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 existing parcel is assigned a range of addresses from #12900 to #12976 Farmington Road, with the address of#12940 Farmington Road being assigned to the overall parcel. The submitted legal description appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Should renovations to the building require alterations to the existing services, drawings will need to be submitted to this department to determine if permits will be required. Also, should the owner need to complete work within the Farmington Road right-of-way, permits from the Wayne County Department of Public Services will be required."The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 26, 2017, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a martial arts and yoga studio 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 September 19, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 26, 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 fifth letter is from the Finance Department, dated September 20, 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 correspondence. October 17, 2017 28305 Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, is the petitioner here? Please come forward to the podium. We'll ask you to start with your name and address for the record please. Adlai Cleveland, 14160 Lyons Street, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. And what else would you like to tell us about your petition? Mr. Cleveland: Nothing in particular unless there are any questions or issues that need to be resolved. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you have any questions for the petitioner? Ms. Smiley: Are you familiar with this kind of business? Mr. Cleveland: Yes, I am. I am currently teaching at a jujitsu school in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ms. Smiley: And that is martial arts, I take it? Mr. Cleveland: Yes. Ms. Smiley: And yoga. Do they have the same combination in Ann Arbor? Mr. Cleveland: Not the same combination. One of my very good friends is a very experienced yoga instructor, and she is going to be partnering with us to run the yoga studio within this building. Ms. Smiley: And you feel this is well suited for your business obviously. Right? Mr. Cleveland: Absolutely. Ms. Smiley: How long were you in Ann Arbor? Mr. Cleveland: We've been in operation in Ann Arbor for three and half years. Ms. Smiley: And what kind of a setting do you have in Ann Arbor? Mr. Cleveland: It's light industrial. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Ventura: Has anything changed in your proposal between the study session and tonight? October 17, 2017 28306 Mr. Cleveland: No, sir. It really hasn't. Mr. Ventura: Do I understand that most of the activities in this facility will take place in the afternoon and early evening? Mr. Cleveland: That is correct. Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Smiley: What is your age group? Mr. Cleveland: Our primary age group is going to be adults and we will also have a children's class Monday through Thursday at 5:00 p.m. and that age group is 6 to 15. Ms. Smiley: Six to 15. And are you going to run on the weekends? Mr. Cleveland: Yes. We're trying to figure out what time is going to work best but there will also be a Saturday class for kids. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Priddy: So you obviously visited the site and you know the parking is kind of behind your building from your entrance. Mr. Cleveland: Yes. Mr. Priddy: How do you see your students and employees accessing the building? Is it through the north side? Mr. Cleveland: Both sides. Mr. Priddy: You'll have an entrance on both sides then? Mr. Cleveland: Yes, sir. Mr. Priddy: And the parking seems to be sufficient for what you need? Mr. Cleveland: Yes. Parking appears to be very sufficient. I've check early morning, afternoon, early evening, late evening and there appears to be sufficient parking regardless of the time period. Mr. Priddy: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Cleveland, you're going to have yoga and martial arts occurring in this building. Are they going to occur at the same time or are they going to be separated? October 17, 2017 28307 Mr. Cleveland: For the most part, separated. For one hour during the day, there will be an overlapping class, and that will be in the evening. Mr. Wilshaw: How do you plan on separating those two functions within the unit given the fact that yoga tends to be a more serene activity where jujutsu may be a noisier, more active activity? Mr. Cleveland: Yes. That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Will you have a partition or some sort of wall for that area? Mr. Cleveland: Yes. We're actually going to be walling in the northwest corner of the unit using soundproof insulation to make sure that the yoga people can remain as serene as possible. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Are there any other questions for our petitioner? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask fora motion. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-59-2017 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 17, 2017, on Petition 2017-09-02-11 submitted by 10th Planet Michigan, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a martial arts and yoga studio at 12924 Farmington Road within the Livonia Trade Center, located on the east side of Farmington Road between the CSX railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, which property is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2017-09-02-11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Overall Site Plan, labeled Sheet No. S-1 and the Partial Site Plan, labeled Sheet No. S-3, both prepared by F. Matthew Ray Architect, as received by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2017, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That adequate off-street parking shall be provided which shall be sufficient to comply with the parking requirement for employees and patrons as set forth in Section 18.38 (12) of the Zoning Ordinance; October 17, 2017 28308 3. That adequate lighting be provided in the parking areas and walkways as determined by the Inspection Department; and 4. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 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 2017-09-02-12 TISEO ARCHTECTS (Outdoor Storage - Recreational Equipment) Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2017-09-02-12 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(d) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop and operate an outdoor storage yard for recreational equipment at 12350 Merriman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Taormina: If it is okay with the Commission, I'd like to combine this presentation with the next item, which is a companion petition. Mr. Wilshaw: That is fine. We will have to vote on these separately but for the sake of brevity, we will have one presentation. October 17, 2017 28309 Mr. Taormina: Thank you. This is a request to develop and operate an outdoor storage yard for recreational equipment. The site is located on the east side of Merriman, just south of the CSX railroad right-of- way. The property is about 5.4 acres in area. It is 195 feet in width. It is a fairly deep property; approximately 1,207 feet altogether. The zoning is M-1, Light Manufacturing. All of the surrounding properties are zoned either M-1 or M-2. As I indicated, the next item on tonight's agenda is a companion Petition 2017-09-02-13 by the same applicant involving a request for waiver use approval to develop and operate an outdoor storage yard for special trade contractors located on the same property. The storage of RV's requires waiver use approval under the provisions set forth in Section 16.11(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. The front part of the site is identified as Parcel A and contains an existing industrial building and parking, as well as shipping and receiving areas for the business that currently operates there. The remaining back portion of the property is currently undeveloped and consists primarily of grass and other natural vegetation. The storage yard is identified as Parcel B on the submitted plan and covers the full width of the property which is about 195 and roughly 830 feet in length, extending from the back of the building to an existing railroad spur that crosses the site at the easterly end. The open storage recreational equipment, including campers and RV's, is shown primarily along the north side of the property with some boats shown at the west end of the storage yard. The number of each illustrated on the preliminary site plan include 17 RV's, 34 campers, and 13 boats. Although these numbers are only estimates, exact numbers and locations would be determined based on demand. On the top portion of the drawing, the notation has RV's and then immediately to the right it shows campers, and then on the west side of the property is where the boats are located. That area was previously shown to contain landscaping materials. In addition to the recreational equipment, the plan also shows the open storage of lumber materials and other commercial vehicles and equipment such as dump trucks, trailers and water tanks, containers, as well as excess dealership inventory. Most of these items fall under the waiver use provisions set forth under Section 16.11(b) which addresses special trade contractors and is the subject of the next item. Like the recreational equipment, the plan does not provide detailed information for each of these items. Instead, it only provides examples of the types of equipment and materials that might be stored and how they would be organized on the site. In response to comments at the study meeting, notes were added to the plan prohibiting the storage of flammable liquids, scrap lumber, car parts or damaged cars. In addition, no public sales would be October 17, 2017 28310 allowed at the site. Gravel is shown as the finished surface material throughout the storage yard, but the ordinance requires that the entire lot be hard surfaced with either concrete or asphalt. So maintaining the yard with gravel will rely on Council waiving the paving requirement. Another special requirement is that the entire storage area must be enclosed by a fence. The plan does comply with this requirement and shows a six-foot high fence encircling the entire storage area. Ingress and egress will be provided via a 22-foot wide sliding gate that would be equipped with a remote key pad. Again, this is a change from the previous plan where the opening was shown and a gate was identified in the northwest corner of the yard. There was concerns that the opening wasn't wide enough. So the petitioner has increased this from 18 or 20 feet to 22 feet, and he is indicating that there would be a sliding chain link fence with a remote key pad to operate it. In terms of lighting, the plan now shows a total of six 40-foot high light poles that would be spaced at equal intervals running throughout the center of the storage yard. It should be sufficient to illuminate the entire storage yard. The plans do not indicate how stormwater runoff for the project would be handled. Mr. Chairman, I can read out the correspondence, and this would include the correspondence for both items. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 27, 2017, "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use petitions at this time. The existing property is assigned an address of 12350 Merriman Road. The included legal description appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with these petitions. The property is currently by City of Livonia sanitary sewer and water main, as well as storm sewer owned by Wayne County within the Merriman Road right-of-way. The submitted drawings do not indicate any proposed utility construction or calculations, so we cannot comment on impacts to the existing systems at this time. Should the owner pave the proposed storage area as required by ordinance, storm water detention will be required for the parcel per the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. The owner will need to obtain permits from Wayne County for any storm sewer detention and connections to the existing sewer system, as well as for any work within the Merriman Road right-of-way. Should fire protection of the entire storage area be required by the Fire Department, the owner will need to obtain permits from this department, as well as the MDEQ, for the private water main and hydrants. The owner October 17, 2017 28311 will also need to submit construction drawings to this department showing proposed grades in order to obtain grading and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits prior to any construction activities." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 3, 2017, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to develop and operate an outdoor storage yard for recreational equipment and special trade contractors on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) An additional fire Hydrant will be required for this storage yard. (3) This division requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking.' (4) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (5) Knox Box installation is required for Fire Department access."The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 25, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 26, 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 fifth letter is from the Finance Department, dated October 2, 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 Tim Priebe, Accountant II." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, the petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I believe we addressed all the items that were brought up at our study session. I did want to add that there was October 17, 2017 28312 a comment to add a gate at the back, which we did do that too. We do have access to the rear portion. It's not fenced in but we may need access to pick up any trash or anything of that nature. I'm here to answer questions if you have any. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Tiseo. Do we have any questions for our petitioner's representative? Ms. Smiley: I see you have storage only, not for sale. So the only people going in and out of there would be people that have like a boat there. So you're expecting the traffic to be very minimal, aren't you? Mr. Tiseo: Correct. Ms. Smiley: Are the storage containers empty or full? Mr. Tiseo: I imagine they would be full. I see them as people that need excess storage that have a pod or a container of something that they don't need on a frequent basis. So they might go back there every two or three months if they need something. Ms. Smiley: But it's not something you . . . Mr. Tiseo: I don't expect someone to be going there every week. Ms. Smiley: You probably have no idea what's going to be stored in those, do you? Mr. Tiseo: No, but part of the reason of adding some of the notes on the drawings is to make sure that there aren't things like flammable liquids and things of that nature. It's a matter of whatever the community allows, per the Zoning Ordinance, to be stored there. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Long: Thank you for making the changes on the gates and such. appreciate that. I think those are important. As far as we don't want flammable liquids there and you're drawing does still show water tanks. How do you police what's there? Mr. Tiseo: I'm assuming that's going to be up to the owner to make sure that whatever they bring on site is appropriate. Mr. Long: Okay, but there will not be an office on site there. The access will be controlled by a . . . October 17, 2017 28313 Mr. Tiseo: By remote access. But the owner will be visiting the site on a regular basis. Mr. Long: Okay. So it will be done through site visits. Mr. Tiseo: Site visits and I'm sure there will be a contract with each of the people that will be storing there to make sure they don't have explosives or flammable liquids or anything of that nature on site. Mr. Long: Okay. I understand that method. I guess I'm a little worried about its effectiveness, but overall I'm very pleased with the changes that you've made. Mr. Tiseo: Thank you. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Tiseo, I'm still disturbed by the fact that you have what I deem to be a number of incompatible uses allowed on this site. I am concerned that you have boats and RV's, and then you have construction equipment, storage boxes and a whole bunch of other uncontrolled kinds of storage here. I'm not comfortable with the family coming over to pick up their boat or pick up their RV and having kids running around when somebody is unloading their storage container, moving a dump truck or moving a piece of construction equipment. I think those are incompatible uses. I'd be much more comfortable with the site being a homogenous use. It seems to me that they're trying to put too broad an assembly of uses here, and I agree with Mr. Long that I'd be much more comfortable with some kind of supervision on the site. I mean once you put the gate up and you put the keypad up, unless there is some consistent supervision of what's being brought on site, the owners aren't going to know what's in the boxes or in the tanks for that matter. I don't know how you propose to police that minus having somebody on the site all the time and seeing what's going on there. Mr. Tiseo: I will bring that up to the owner. I don't know how to answer that. Whether or not he's going to hire a full time employee to be onsite or he will police it himself. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Priddy: Good evening. We had talked earlier. Does the owner operate storage yards currently? Mr. Tiseo: No. He does not. Mr. Priddy: This is his first one? October 17, 2017 28314 Mr. Tiseo: This is his first venture. Mr. Priddy: I was trying to figure out how he would address all those different uses that we're talking about. Does he do any type of storage or is this . . . . Mr. Tiseo; This is a new venture for him. Mr. Priddy: New venture. Okay. Ms. McCue: I'm just curious as to how they came up with the idea, the thought process, of identifying the need of this many different types of storage there? Do you have any idea what their thought process was? Mr. Tiseo: Again, I do not know what the methodology was to determine the market for this, other than I'm sure the owner did some research. He's not about to put this kind of money into this kind of a development without knowing that it would be successful. Ms. McCue: Thank you. Mr. Long: I believe you're going to be asking for a waiver use in order to put a gravel . . . Mr. Tiseo: Yes. Mr. Long: As we discussed in the study meeting, that's a pretty wet area. So can you talk a little bit about what you plan to do to stabilize the ground, and why you believe that a gravel surface would be sufficient? Mr. Tiseo: One, is that our plan is to excavate the material that needs to be excavated in order to put in a good granular fill so that the property still would not hold any water on it. And we have not gotten into the engineering portion of it, but obviously the Engineering Department would not approve anything that they didn't feel would work. Mr. Long: So you haven't got that far into the details, but if it's proved to be not suitable to hold the gravel, would they consider paving it or do you think they would just . . . Mr. Tiseo: That would be a consideration if that case came up. Correct. Mr. Long: Thank you. October 17, 2017 28315 Mr. Tiseo: I did want to make one request if it's required, and that is, is there a waiver required to be on the next City Council meeting or is that the standard schedule? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, we can always offer a seven-day waiver to speed it up. Mr. Taormina: You can, but I'm not sure what the rush is in this particular case, but that would be up to the Commission. We would have to see whether or not it's sufficient time to get on the next agenda. It could very well be. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else, Mr. Tiseo? Mr. Tiseo: No. I appreciate your time. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item'? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. This would be for the outdoor storage yard component of recreational equipment. A motion is in order. Ms. Smiley: I have one question. So this would be just for half of it, like where the boats and RV's are? Mr. Wilshaw: It would be to allow the use of recreational equipment on the site, not necessarily in any particular location on the site, but that waiver goes for the entire parcel. Correct? Mr. Taormina: I addressed that really in Condition #2 of the prepared resolution. It would limit it to the specific areas as identified on the plan with any changes first having to go through the Planning and Inspection Departments. Of course, you could modify that anyway you feel is appropriate. I understand the concern that was voiced by Commissioner Ventura regarding the potential conflict with traffic between the various uses on this site. One of the things that might be considered is that they be separated somehow, with a specific area on the site devoted to recreational equipment and that any contractors equipment occur on a different area of the site. That probably doesn't address the concern that there's going to be a traffic lane that serves both major uses, but at least it might help address some of the concern of having conflicting uses directly across from each other on the same aisle way. October 17, 2017 28316 Mr. Wilshaw: The other option would be if the Commission didn't feel comfortable having the special trade contractor equipment, we could offer a motion to just allow recreational vehicles on the site. Mr. Taormina: In looking ahead to the next item, because they are so inter- related, there's language in that prepared resolution that really says nothing is approved at this point relative to any specific trade contractor - that every single lease or use would require a Certificate of Occupancy and has to go through an approval process. So while you may approve the concept of having that use established at this location, it doesn't occur until you say so, unless we know the details of those special trade contractors. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Smiley, are you okay with your questions'? Ms. Smiley: I am, but like you said, it's pretty hard to decide where the boats are in the yard. I consider boats and RVs recreational equipment. I don't think lumber has anything to do with it, or dump trucks. The car storage would probably be all right. Are you talking about a dealership's new car overflow. Is that what that is? I guess I'm not real comfortable, like Mr. Ventura, on this combination of things. The pods, I don't know what's in them. I'm not comfortable with that. The tanks that we say are only going to be water, but don't know. The security in here, with no one being on site, is a concerned for me at this time. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Ventura? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Chairman, as I read the prepared materials here, I don't know if the Commission was a mind to approve a use, such as storage or construction equipment. I don't know how we'd accomplish that tonight with one motion. And Mr. Taormina, your comment about having a specific use or a specific permission for a kind of storage come back to us every time that the petitioner wanted to store something there, did I understand you correctly? They'd come back to us or they'd go to the Inspection Department or who exactly would they go to to get the Certificate of Occupancy that will allow a particular category of storage? Mr. Taormina: It could be either. The Occupancy Permit is going to be required no matter what. They will be required to go before the Inspection Department for those permits, but it could be that you require these items to come back for Planning Commission review as well. I apologize. I misspoke. Item#2 really addresses the zoning compliance and Certificate of Occupancy process and not necessarily coming back for additional Planning Commission review. So that language would have to be added to the October 17, 2017 28317 resolution. It's just a thought to address those concerns because I think they're very legitimate. Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Chair, I'd like to suggest that maybe we put this aside this evening and come back and take another look at this thing, perhaps with the petitioner, and see if we can massage out and limit the scope of the kinds of storage being done here. The resolutions that are before us don't give us that latitude without a whole bunch of guess work, and I'm not comfortable making the guesses here tonight. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: A tabling motion is always in order. Is there any other discussion before a motion is made? Mr. Long: I'd be open to considering a tabling motion. If we could also call the petitioner back up. He asked if we could do a waiver so perhaps there is some sort of time sensitivity to this, and if there is, I would want to hear about that in order to determine whether we should try to iron out a resolution to approve it or deny it here tonight, or if tabling is in order. Mr. Wilshaw: I think that's a fair question to ask. If Mr. Tiseo could just step forward one more time. The question is, are you under a time constraint on this project? Mr. Tiseo: No. We are not. Mr. Long: That answers my question. Mr. Wilshaw: With that, again, a motion is in order. Tabling is also an option. Mr. Ventura: I'd offer a motion that this be tabled at the present time pending giving the petitioner an opportunity to come back and talk about the concerns that have been expressed here tonight and to see if we can find a resolution. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-60-2017 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 17, 2017, on Petition 2017-09-02-12 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(d) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop and operate an outdoor storage yard for recreational equipment at 12350 Merriman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, which property is October 17, 2017 28318 zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 2017-09-02-12 to the next study meeting of the Planning Commission on October 24, 2017. Mr. Wilshaw: We normally set a date on tabling motions. Are we going to table until our next study meeting for further discussion'? Mr. Ventura: That's fine. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution } adopted. ITEM #3 PETITION 2017-09-02-13 TISEO ARCHTECTS (Outdoor Storage - Trade Contractors) Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2017-09-02-13 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop and operate an outdoor storage yard for special trade contractors at 12350 Merriman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Wilshaw: We already heard the presentation from our Planning staff so don't think we need to do that again. Mr. Tiseo, do you have anything to add on this particular item'? Mr. Tiseo: No. Mr. Wilshaw: We always do give an opportunity for our audience to participate. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to participate on this item, either for or against'? Seeing no one come forward, we will close the public hearing on this item and ask for a motion. On a motion by Priddy, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-61-2017 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 17, 2017, on Petition 2017-09-02-13 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop and operate an outdoor storage yard for special trade contractors at 12350 Merriman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, which property is October 17, 2017 28319 zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 2017-09-02-13 to the next study meeting of the Planning Commission on October 24, 2017. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 2017-06-02-08 BISHOP ESTATES REV. Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a request to amend the plans of Petition 2017-06-02-08, which previously received approval by the City Council on July 24, 2017 (Council Resolution #268-17), to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single-Family Clustering option (Bishop Estates) at 28200 Lyndon Avenue, located on the north side of Lyndon Avenue between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 24. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to amend a previously approved site plan for the project called Bishop Estates. It was initially approved in July of this year under the Planned Residential Development Single- Family Cluster option. This is the site of the former CB Swim Club located on the north side of Lyndon Avenue just east of Harrison. The site is about 2.7 acres in area. It includes 346 feet of frontage on Lyndon and has an average depth of 341 feet. It contains a former swimming pool, club house and parking lot that are no longer in use and which would be removed prior to the construction of the new development. At the rear of the property, much of the site is undeveloped and maintained as an open field. It was last Fall when the City rezoned this property from the RUF classification to R-2, One Family Residential. In July, City Council granted the approval of a site plan consisting of a total of nine condominium homes that included three two-unit buildings and one three-unit building. All nine homes were designed to front on a road that would extend north from Lyndon Avenue. Following that approval, the petitioner obtained bids for all of the site improvements necessary to support the development of the homes, including the road, water, sanitary and storm, etc. According to the petitioner, the bids that came back, in addition to the cost of the land, exceeded what was expected, and he determined that the project, as designed and approved, would not be economically feasible. He is now seeking an alternative that would lower the development costs. The revised plan show three buildings each with two units for a total of six homes. This is a net reduction in the density by three homes. All three of these buildings are located at the south end of the property with direct October 17, 2017 28320 street frontage on Lyndon Avenue so it eliminates the need to build a road on the property. The balance of the site, which is about 1.83 acres, would remain as open space. Each two- bedroom unit would be similar in size and appearance measuring about 1,140 square feet and containing a two-car attached garage. The front setbacks of the homes are shown at 40 feet as measured from the outside right-of-way of Lyndon. The west and east side yard setbacks would be 44.5 and 32.5 feet, respectively, and the spacing between the buildings is 15 feet. The plan that we looked at at the study session had two buildings each containing three units and located approximately 10 feet closer to the road. The petitioner, in receiving comments at the study session, has reworked the plan. It is now showing three two-unit buildings for a total of six units, and pushed the homes back an additional 10 feet from Lyndon Avenue. That allows sufficient space between the sidewalk and the front garage for two cars to park. He's also made some revisions to the landscape plan that shows the trees along Lyndon, as well as along the east and west property lines. There is no monument sign that would be provided as part of this development. The latest plan also relies on sheet flow drainage to the open field behind the homes where there is an existing storm sewer with catch basins that crosses the property in an east/west direction located about 140 feet north of the homes. The plan shows the storm sewer easement in the rear of the property. Our Engineering Department has reviewed this revised configuration, and because of the lower density in the additional open space, he believes it will completely forego the need for a stormwater detention basin. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 26, 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 proposed petition at this time. The existing property is assigned an address of#28200 Lyndon Avenue. The legal description included appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The parcel is currently serviced by public water main, storm and sanitary sewers. The owner has submitted drawings to this Department for permitting for the proposed service leads and site development, and is aware of the revisions that need to be made prior to approval (adding storm sewer detention, televising existing sanitary leads, etc.). Since the petition does not contain calculations for the proposed utilities, we cannot comment on the impacts to the October 17, 2017 28321 existing systems, although it does not appear that they will be negatively affected by the development. The owner will need to submit full engineering drawings to this Department for all proposed utility extensions prior to any permits being issued." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 3, 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 September 25, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 26, 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 fifth letter is from the Finance Department, dated October 2, 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, 1 have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Tim Priebe, Accountant II. Lastly, we have an email correspondence dated October 13, 2017, from Donald Kleinknecht, which reads as follows: "Will the builder inform the purchaser that the home or homes have been built over a recently filled in swimming pool hole? I have not taken the time to drive by the abandoned swimming pool to see if the builder is serious about his project. IMO the hole should have been filled in years ago for the safety of the children in the neighborhood and the rat problem that exists on the property." Again, that was from Donald Kleinknecht, Livonia, with no street address. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Hearing none, the petitioner's representative is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Brian Duggan, 14315 Denne, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Good evening. Welcome. Mr. Wilshaw: What else would you like to add from what you've already heard'? October 17, 2017 28322 Mr. Duggan: Mark does a great job, but we took everything you said at the study session to heart. We set it back an additional 10 feet. We cut it down to two units per building. I think it's going to be a much better site. I appreciate your input for that. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Duggan. Are there any questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: Are the units the same size'? Mr. Duggan: Correct. Ms. Smiley: You added more landscaping, and in the back, it will mostly be natural or lawn or what? { Mr. Duggan: It will be natural back there. It will be grass and it will be maintained. The landscaping is beefed up on the side and some of it in the front. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Duggan, are the topographical elevation lines shown on this print intended to show what's there today or what will be there after it's developed'? Mr. Duggan: I don't have the print. Mr. Taormina: I think that's an overlay of the existing topographic conditions. I don't think it provides all of the proposed grades at this time. That reflects what is out there today. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for the petitioner'? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? We do have a few people in the audience. Please come '$ forward. Please start with your name and address. Patrick Robinet, 28149 Oakley, Livonia, Michigan. Originally, the proposal was done to just build the buildings on the front of the property on the south side, which this Board said no to. It kind of seems like a bait and switch when they decided they were going to put all the buildings and then build it all the way back. Now they're saying they're back to the original plan of just putting buildings on the south side of the road. The problem was, down the road are they going to put buildings in on the northern portion of it where they October 17, 2017 28323 have problems? It sounds like they're doing the same thing they originally proposed that you guys said no to. Mr. Wilshaw: This is a little bit different that our first . . . Mr. Robinet: Slightly different, but it's the same plan. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. Mr. Robinet: Basically, just building houses on the front of the property, on the south side. The north side is going to be probably built later. They're not going to let that property sit. Mr. Wilshaw: No. That's the difference. The first proposal that we had, had three homes located on Lyndon Avenue. Mr. Robinet: Which is what this one is. Mr. Wilshaw: No, three homes. This is six homes. There were three homes and then there was some room available for a road to be put in and houses to be put toward the back of the property later. As proposed on this plan, there are six homes grouped in three units of two homes and there is no allowance for a road to be placed behind these homes in the future. The back half of the property would be undeveloped. Mr. Robinet: That's good. Our other concern is the property slopes and drops from all four sides four to six feet. If you put those houses in there, I think you're definitely going to have a drainage issue with the current problems that they have in that area. If you head west down Lyndon, there's a park right over there which is about the same depth and that floods every time it rains. There is usually two to four feet of water standing there for weeks at a time. So I think you're going to have the same issue here if they don't do something about the drainage if they put houses on there. You won't have the property able to absorb the water. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That's a good point. Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Mr. Robinet: Nope. Thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Ventura, do you have a question for the petitioner? Mr. Ventura: I understand your comment with regard to the elevation and that's a solvable problem. We can have the petitioner put drains and so October 17, 2017 28324 forth in there, and we have a competent Engineering Department that can make sure that the homes don't flood. My question really, and it's not a wise guy question. I'm really interested in your answer to this question. What would be an acceptable way to develop this land in your mind, given that the last petition that was before us kind of created a little microcosm of a little developmenta e neighborhood t' working for financiallittlreasons. So nowif you we havewill. aAnd prettythamuchsnot similar kind of development to the rest of the surrounding neighborhood with homes facing the road. What about that is troubling you? Mr. Robinet: I think what we need in that area are single-family dwellings. I don't think we need cluster homes. I think we need individual single-family swellings for the property values. Mr. Ventura: So it's the difference in the character of homes that's disquieting you? Mr. Robinet: Yes. That's a big part of it, and also, like I said, with the swim club there, if it floods, it's not an issue. But when you have homes in the area, originally, they were talking the problem was so bad there was going to be a retention pond. Now that seems to have disappeared but the elevation hasn't changed. So would you want that in your backyard? Mr. Ventura: I would not but, I . . Mr. Robinet: Well, that's what we're saying also. Mr. Ventura: I have confidence in our Engineering Department. They can solve that problem. Mr. Robinet: They could solve it for you too, but you don't want it in your backyard. Mr. Ventura: That's a different question. Mr. Robinet: I'm just saying, if it's not good for you, it's not good for us. Mr. Ventura: I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that it's a solvable problem. Mr. Robinet: It is a solvable problem, but you've just finished saying you would not want that in your backyard. Mr. Ventura: No. I didn't say that. I said it's a different question. October 17, 2017 28325 Mr. Robinet: You had just said that you don't want that in your yard. Mr. Wilshaw: Let's not debate back and forth. Mr. Robinet: That's not the issue. The issue is, I don't think it's good for the neighborhood. I don't think it's what we need in the neighborhood, and it doesn't fit the neighborhood. Mr. Ventura: But your primary problem is the character of the development being different that everything else around it. Mr. Robinet: That's a big part, and like I said, the problem with the water is also a big concern. Mr. Ventura: That's a good answer and I appreciate. Thank you very much. Mr. Robinet: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Anyone else in the audience wanting to speak for or against? Belinda Eleson, 28154 Lyndon, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I am east of the swim club, literally next door to it. Mr. Ventura, when you asked the question of the gentleman before me about the drainage problem, they said it could be fixed. Well, the homes behind me that are on, I believe, Oakley have all had major flooding issues in the past. So if it could be fixed, it should have been fixed a long time ago. That's just my two cents to that. Anyways, so now the new plan is to have three buildings, two units per building, facing Lyndon, if I'm correct. Will that have the appearance of looking like a duplex? Mr. Wilshaw: That is a question that we will address to the petitioner. He can explain what the units will look like. Ms. Eleson: Okay. And then also, as mentioned before, the last time when we were discussing this, there was talk that there would be a drainage pond, which would be right next to my home. And that's not going to be taking place now? Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Ms. Eleson: So they're going to be using the main sewer and the catch basins, which are in the very back of the property. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. They will shove the water to that. Ms. Eleson: Is that going to be sufficient? October 17, 2017 28326 Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Ms. Eleson: You feel confident about that? Mr. Wilshaw: The Engineering Department will have to give a full review of that, but the petitioner believes that they can shed water to those catch basins and not have to have a retention pond. Ms. Eleson: Okay. Thank you. Also, and then I want to make sure understood the property then, the remaining property that is left, the grass and whatnot with the incline. That's going to be maintained and landscaped to some degree? Mr. Wilshaw: It will be grass, which is the question that Ms. Smiley had asked the petitioner, how is that going to look, and he said that's going to be grass and will be maintained. Ms. Eleson: Okay. And then also, on both sides of the property then, mine in particular, I'm extremely concerned about the fence line. I don't have a fence line right now because the overgrowth is through my fence, which has destroyed the fence. Will that be repaired, replaced, cleaned up? I Mr. Wilshaw: When two residential properties abut each other, there is no requirement that a fence be placed between them. Ms. Eleson: There's one there now. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. We can ask the petitioner if he's going to do any work to that fence. I'm not sure if he owns the fence or if it's owned by the homeowners behind there. But you can also see on the plan that's on the screen, there's a row of trees also that will be placed along the east and west ends of the property to help obstruct the view from the backyards there. Ms. Eleson: Okay. I did hear him mention that, but I would assume you would want to clean up the fence line because there's growth. The saplings have turned into trees and they're growing through the fence. Mr. Wilshaw: We'll ask about that. Ms. Eleson: Okay. And then the new proposal now for the six units. Is the price of the homes still . . . is that still going to be the same as it was before, between $250,000 - $300,000? October 17, 2017 28327 Mr. Wilshaw: As we ask the petitioner about the types of homes. He can address that, but as we understand it, the homes will be the same, basically the exact same units that you saw at the last meeting, just turned to face Lyndon. Ms. Eleson: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Wilshaw: You're welcome, Ms, Eleson. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against? Seeing no one coming forward, we'll ask the petitioner to please come back before us. There are a few questions that you've heard. Mr. Duggan: The water problems, most of that is probably because right now they've got a lot of black top down there. So once that goes away, we're going to have grass. There should be no problems. As you know, the Engineering Department will make sure that whatever water is on our property stays on our property. So there should be no runoff on that. I did meet with Mr. Soave and the engineer yesterday and they were fine with what we were proposing. I don't know what your definition of a duplex is. It's a two-building condominium project so, is it a townhouse? No. Is it a duplex? It's two buildings so I guess it might be considered that, but if you will remember, the plans are nicely elevated. Let's see here. The cleaning of the fence, I think we talked to this lady before, and we have no problem with her doing that. We'll help. We will obviously take the stuff on our side of the fence. We can't go on her property. And she can take stuff off her side of the fence, but we will clean that out. I talked to Mr. Soave before about that and he said not a problem. Was there anything else that they asked? Mr. Wilshaw: Will the price points of the house remain the same? Mr. Duggan: I don't see why it wouldn't be. I would ask if we could waive the seven days so we can get this thing moved to Council so we can get the swim club torn down this year. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. One of the issues that we heard at our last meeting was some residents had expressed concern about the middle unit of a three home unit being harder to market. This actually addresses that by every unit essentially being an end unit. Mr. Duggan: Yes, it does. And I think it also addresses the issue they have with the retention pond. There is no need for one, so there would be no water standing in that one particular neighbor's yard. Mr. Wilshaw: One thing, Mr. Duggan, that we spoke about at our study meeting briefly was the elevations. Could they be adjusted slightly so it October 17, 2017 28328 doesn't look like two cookie cutter units stuck together, that maybe one unit has a slightly different look or architecture to it so that there is variety. Mr. Duggan: Yes. And Mr. Soave has always done that in everything he's done, given architecture a little bit different colors of each unit. So he will break it up. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Thank you. Are there any additional questions for our petitioner after hearing what we've heard so far? No one else in the audience wishing to speak, so . . . Ms. Eleson, would you like to come back for one more comment? Ms. Eleson: I forgot to ask about the retaining wall. How is that going to work along the property line because as the neighbor before me had said, the property slopes on all sides. There is going to be a retaining wall that will replace what's up there right now? Mr. Wilshaw: There's an existing retaining wall that you're referring to on the back portion of the property? Ms. Eleson: On my side of the property, on the east side, there's for, gosh, what is it? I don't know. Maybe 20-30 feet there are railroad ties that is being used as a retaining wall. And because of the trees growing on the CB side, the samplings have come between the railroad ties and the fence, so it's actually separating now. So the ties are not butted up to the dirt anymore. Mr. Wilshaw: I see. So it's heaving a little bit. Ms. Eleson: It's heaving a lot. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Well, as the petitioner mentioned, he's going to clean up all the landscaping, get rid of all the debris and saplings that are growing. I'm sure he's heard what you just said about these retaining ties. If those are necessary to remain there due to the grading or for drainage, I'm sure he'll make sure that those are working property. Ms. Eleson: I do recall him mentioning something about retaining, but I wasn't clear, so I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate your comments. With that, I think we can close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Long, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was October 17, 2017 28329 #10-62-2017 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 17, 2017, on a request to amend the plans of Petition 2017-06-02-08, which previously received approval by the City Council on July 24, 2017 (Council Resolution #268-17), to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single-Family Clustering option (Bishop Estates) at 28200 Lyndon Avenue, located on the north side of Lyndon Avenue between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 24, which property is zoned R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2017-06-02-08, as revised, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the following shall be incorporated into the Master Deed and bylaws of the development: - that the each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four(4)sides, and the total amount of brick or stone shall not be less than 80%; - that the minimum floor area for each dwelling shall not be less than 1,400 square feet; - that all exterior chimneys shall be brick; 2. That the Site Plan identified as Sheet 1 dated October 16, 2017, as revised, prepared byArpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Landscape Plan identified as Sheet 2 dated October 16, 2017, as revised, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; 5. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from the City of Livonia Engineering Division; 6. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to Article XVIII of October 17, 2017 28330 Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development; and 7. 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. I 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: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Secretary can call the roll. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, Smiley, McCue, Priddy, Wilshaw NAYS: Ventura ABSENT: Caramagno ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Duggan: Did you waive the seven days for me too? Mr. Wilshaw: We have not yet. Would someone like to offer a motion to waive the seven days? On a motion by Long, seconded by McCue, and adopted, it was #10-63-2017 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2017-06-02-08, as amended, which previously received approval by the City Council on July 24, 2017 (Council Resolution #268-17), to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single-Family Clustering option (Bishop Estates) at 28200 Lyndon Avenue, located on the north side of Lyndon Avenue between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24. October 17, 2017 28331 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, McCue, Priddy, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Caramagno ABSTAIN: Ventura Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,112th Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,112th Regular Meeting held on October 3, 2017. On a motion by Priddy, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-64-2017 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,112th Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 3, 2017, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Priddy, Long, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Caramagno ABSTAIN: McCue, Ventura Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,113th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 17, 2017, was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION dF i•!__' . I .� Carol Smiley, A,ting Se ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, . rman