HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-06-0121345
MINUTES OF THE 886th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 1, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 886th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Allen Nowak, Planner IV; Bill
Poppenger, Planner I; Ms. Debra Walter, Clerk Typist; and Ms. Marge Roney,
Program Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Walsh 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 tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the dale of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
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 2004-04-01-04 BEVERLY STREET
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-04-
01-04, submitted by Beverly Street requesting to rezone
property at 29559 Norfolk, located on the southwest corner of
Fremont Avenue and Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast % of
Section 2 from RUFA to R3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
21346
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 28, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuantto yourrequest, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petitfon. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Additional right-of-way is not
required at this time. The legal descriptions as provided am
comect. Parcel A and B can be served by the sanitary sewer
which will be constructed in Fremont Avenue this construction
season." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Petitioner, dated April
15, 2004, which reads as follows: "Please allow my husband,
Robert Bresler, to speak on my behalf at the June 1, 2004,
meeting for the rezoning of my property located at 29559
Norfolk" The letter is signed by Beverly Street. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Is
Mr. Bresler in the audience? Please state your name and
address.
Robert Bresler,
20305 Fremont, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Do you have anything to add to the Planning Department's
presentation?
Mr. Bresler:
Not at this time.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Is this your mother?
Mr. Bresler:
No, it's my wife, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Does she own both parcels?
Mr. Bresler
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you going to sell off the other parcel or are you going to
build a house there?
Mr. Bresler:
As to the plans that she has for the property, she was going to
divide those between her two children. One child right now is
19 years old attending college at Concordia University. She is
21347
going to give her the existing house, and she was also going to
give her 13 year-old son the 80 foot lot when he became of age
to do with whatever he wanted.
Mr. LaPine:
I see. Okay. So right now, basically, if you get the rezoning,
nothing is going to be built?
Mr. Bresler:
No. There's no builders or anything in the fold or anything like
that.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to make sure that the gentleman is aware that if the
new lot goes through, your buildings would be nonconforming.
You'd have to go to the ZBA to gel approval for some setback
requirements. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Bresler:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, if and when they build a house on that lot, they just have
to lake their
plans to the Building Department and they'll make
sure everything
fits to code? It won't ever come back to us
again. Is that cored?
Mr. Taormina:
It shouldn't have to. Following the rezoning of this properly,
however, they would be required to split the properly and to
petition the Assessor's Office for the lot split. Depending on
what happens with the proposed language amendment, one of
the items we're reviewing later this evening, they may or may
not have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but it's likely that
they would for the deficiency in the setbacks of the buildings.
Mr. LaPine:
Al that point, once the land is split, and the 13 year old, I don't
know if its going to be in his name, I doubt it, but if it is, at that
point, at any time they want to sell a lot off to a builder, they
would have no problem. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, that should be cored as long as the split is approved by
the City Council.
Mr. Alanskas:
The one child is only 13 and one is 19?
Mr. Besler
That's correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
Why do you want to split it now? Why don't you wait unfil about
seven years down the road, and then do it, because everything
can change in seven years?
21348
Mr. Bresler:
I understand, but she was worried as to whether it can be done
right now or not, what the requirements were and all that. Itwas
her understanding that it was a site condo location, the new
zoning would be, and that she would have to come up with
bylaws.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, could you address that issue?
Mr. Taormina:
There's a statutory limit on the number of limes a lot can be split
for building purposes. That would only be the case in the event
that the original Lot 9 has been divided more than four times,
and I'm not aware of that. I'd have to check the records. But if
he is correct, ifthis represented the fifth division of that property,
then any further divisions would have to be done through the
Condominium Act.
Mr. Alanskas:
That answers my question.
Mr. Bresler:
Also, it really didn't matter whether she could do it now or then.
Il was just a question of she wanted to get that out of the way.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the
public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was
#06-74-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 2, 2004, on
Petition 2004-04-01-04 submitted by Beverly Street requesting
to rezone property at 29559 Norfolk, located on the southwest
corner of Fremont Avenue and Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast
% of Section 2 from RUFA to 1-3, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2004-
0040401-04
04-01-04be approved for the following reasons:
1. Thatthe proposed change ofzoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in
the area;
2. That the proposed zoning district will provide for residential
lot sizes which will complement the existing residential
development in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
established character of the area; and
21349
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
development that will be consistent and in accordance with
the Future Land Use Plan recommendation of low density
residential land use for this area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Morrow, Shane, Piercecchi, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES:
Alanskas
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETMON 200405-01-05 SOAVE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
05-01-05, submitted by Michael and Reno Soave requesting to
rezone property at 19751 Gill Road, located on the west side of
Gill Road between Bretton Drive and Northland Drive in the
Southwest % of Section 4 from RUFB to R-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Forty-three feet of right-of-way must
be dedicated in conjunction with this development for Gill Road.
Off-site storm sewers or a restricted outlet may be required to
serve this development." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. There is also a letter from
residents in the area, received by the Planning Commission on
May 28, 2004, which reads as follows: "We are the neighbors
21350
surrounding the proposed zoning change. We fully approve of
the rezoning and are hoping a new home will be built in the
area, not only will it increase the value of houses but it will add
beauty to the existing neighborhood. Please take into
consideration that we are in agreement for the rezoning of the
property at 19751 Gill Road." The letter is signed by eight
residents of the area, six of whom live on Northland Drive, one
on Sl. Marlins and one on Gill Road. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Reno Soave,
20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. For the most
part, the Commission pretty much mentioned most of our
concerns with the property. There's R-2 across the street;
there's R-3 to the rear of us to the west. One of the concerns
we had was a few of those lots are not conforming. I believe
there was a rezoning that was done several years back on the
corner of Northland and Gill that created two or three additional
lots that required ZBA approvals. So that's pretty much the
grounds for our petition. I'd be happy to answer any questions
at this time.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you tell us what type of a home you plan on building?
Mr.Soave:
Similar to what my family is building on Chestnut Grove off Eight
Mile.
Mr. Alanskas:
Brick?
Mr. Soave:
It would be pretty much all brick, at lead 70% to 80% brick.
They'd probably range from anywhere from 2,500 to 3,000
square feel.
Mr. Alanskas:
Ranch or colonials?
Mr. Soave:
Probably a story and a half, cape cod is what we're looking to
do right now, and probably have a value from anywhere from
$350,000 to $400,000 selling price.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do you own Lot GGSA, the lot north of it?
Mr. Soave:
No, we do not.
21351
Mr. Piercecchi: Is that house occupied? It looks like it's in rough shape.
Mr. Soave: The one to the north, you said?
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, north of your property.
Mr. Soave: Yes, to my knowledge, right now there's a family who is leasing
R, I believe.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you intending to purchase that land and continue north?
Mr. Soave: No, I believe several years back it was already bought and split.
Right now the house itself sits on two lots. The house is in
pretty poor condition. I'm assuming the guy's going to
eventually tear it down and built two houses. That's my
understanding. That's what they told us, anyways.
Mr. Piercecchi: So you have no intent to go north?
Mr. Soave:
No, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
That lot was sold a few years ago. I heard that the Soave family
bought it. Is that not true?
Mr. Soave:
I believe my father bought it back in the middle of the '90's.
Mr. LaPine:
And I understand he was going to tear the house down and
build two homes. I just wondered if the Soave family owns it?
Mr. Soave:
No. I can't recollect the guy's name at the present time, but he
bought it. To my understanding from what he was telling us and
what the guy leasing it was telling us, that he has about two or
three years left on his lease, and after that the guy's going to
build a house for himself.
Mr. LaPine:
But ft's nolyourfamily?
Mr. Soave:
No, sir.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions from the commissioners? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to close the
public hearing, and I will seek a motion.
21352
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm going to offer an approving resolution. It appears as though
the residents in that area also were hoping for an approving
resolution.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#06-75-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Petition 2004-05-01-05 submitted by Michael and Reno Soave
requesting to rezone property at 19751 Gill Road, located on the
west side of Gill Road between Bretton Drive and Northland
Drive in the Southwest % of Section 4 from RUFB to R-2, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2004-05-01-05 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. Thatlhe proposed change ofzoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in
the area;
2. That the proposed zoning district will allow a reasonable
development of the subject property into single family
residential lots comparable in size to existing lots in the
area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning district occurring
immediately east of the subject property across Gill Road;
and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
development that will be consistent and in accordance with
the Future Land Use Plan recommendation of low density
residential land use for this area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
21353
YY=11iFR?•9=k I Y 1[a]C FIQrLSLff6'bi'� E 1da]:114*H1h9=1
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
04-02-22 submitted by Scott Iglehart, on behalf of T -Mobile,
requesting waiver use approval to erect a flagpole wireless
communication lower al the Beth EI Cemetery a128300 Six Mile
Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between
Middlebelt Road and Carol Drive in the Southwest'''/ of Section
12.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated April 29, 2004, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. Additional right -0f --way is
not required at this time. The legal description is approved for
use with this waiver use petition." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 11, 2004, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to erecta stealth Flagpole
wireless tower on property located on the north side of Six Mile
Road between Middlebelt Road and Carol Drive in the
Southwest X of Section 12. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
May 10, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal to erect a stealth flagpole
wireless tower. We have no objections to the plan as
submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated April 29, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of April 26, 2004, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The tower may be approved as a special waiver use under
Zoning Ordinance 18.42.A(c)3. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Florence
Tetreault, dated June 1, 2004, who resides at 28115 Six Mile,
which reads as follows: "Afferreading several scientific reports
obtained on the intemet, 1 am very concerned about the
21354
proposed location of this tower. These reports strongly advise
that such towers should not be located in school yards or
hospital areas and should be at least several hundred feet from
the nearest residential home. Some of the reports state that the
results of some of the experiments are inconclusive. Clearly not
enough time has passed to state definitively the effect the
radiation would have on people. We should remember that
when asbestos insulation was first installed in public buildings,
there was no indication that it would prove to be harmful. Many
years later, the evidence was in and the insulation had to be
removed. Hindsight is a great teacher. Perhaps 20 years from
now new evidence will be in concerning cell towers. 1 think that
if we are going to en, we should eff on the side of caution. The
cemetery is very large. The tower could be placed several
hundred feet farther north and several hundred feet farther west.
This would protect the people living in homes along Six Ivltle
Road and along Carol Drive. The present proposed site is too
close to both of these streets." The last letter is from Michael
Cordtz, received by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2004,
who resides at 17250 Carol Street, which reads as follows: "1
am writing this letter to voice my concern regarding the request
fora waiver (Petition 2004-04-02-22) to erecta communications
tower at the Beth EI cemetery on Six Mile Road. My main
concern is the unproven long-term safety from exposure to such
a tower. 1 have lived on Carol Street for over 14 years and have
a five year old son who will be playing in close proximity to the
proposed tower site for many years to come. For this reason, 1
am opposed to the tower at its currently proposed location.
Given the amount of land available in the immediate area, 1
think another location further west or even at the northwest
comer of the cemetery property would be a much safer and
more popular choice. 1 would respectfully ask the Planning
Commission to waive the half mile tower separation minimum to
help accommodate T -Mobile in relocating it's 'stealthy'
communication tower. 1 thank you for your time and
consideration in this matter." That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Ms. Smiley: Mark, have they questioned a better location for the lower?
Mr. Taormina: I will allow the applicant to respond to your question, but they
have sited the tower to comply with the City's requirement that
no tower be located within a half mile of an existing structure.
Whether or not it could be positioned in another location within
21355
the cemetery grounds and still meet their requirements is a
question they would have to respond to.
Ms. Smiley:
Where it's located now, they don't have a waiver of any kind
because they meet all the requirements we would have, right?
Mr. Taormina:
It requires waiver use approval this evening, that's why ft's
before you. Unless they can demonstrate that collocating on an
existing lower is not feasible, then in order for it to be located
within a half mile of an existing structure, that would require a
two-thirds majority vote of the City Council. They would have to
concur with your recommendation to locale the lower within that
half mile buffer zone.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mark, how many towers do we have in Livonia?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know precisely the number of lowers. Many antennas
are located on lop of buildings and other structures, Detroit
Edison power line structures, for example. So if you're asking
the exact number of monopole structures, I don't know. If you
give me a few minutes, I can probably research that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The reason why I ask that question, I was wondering if we had
any problems with radiation or any studies that were performed
in the eady phases of this?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi, I can answer that. There have been studies
done, but the Telecommunications Act, which the federal
government passed, restricts the analysis of the safely to the
federal government and not to the municipality. So we would
not be able to rule based on safely. We would have to find
other grounds for that ruling.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
The Iasi study we had on cell towers, it said we have a total of
36 of them. Some are monopole; some are not. We have a
map here that shows where they are located throughout the
City. There's quite a few of them in the town.
Mr. Taormina:
Presently, there are about 39 locations with antennas. Of those
39, there are probably about 30 monopole -type structures.
21356
Mr. LaPine:
Looking at the map here, it doesn't look that there's that many
around the Six Mile Road-Middlebelt area. It looks like there's
one at Seven Mile and Middlebelt and there are two near Six
Mile and Middlebelt.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, I believe you said that the pole's lower is 290 feet
from the easterly district line, which would basically correspond
to the property line, I presume.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Shane:
That would mean that the lower is actually even a little further
than that to the actual structure.
Mr. Taormina:
To the actual residence?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, probably an additional 30 feel or so to the actual buildings
on those properties.
Mr. Shane:
Could you esfimale for me the distance from the lower to the
nearest residence on the south side of Six Mile Road, plus or
minus?
Mr. Taormina:
That would be about 95 feet to the right-of-way, then the right-
of-way itself which is approximately 120 feet, and then add to
that probably another 35 feet to the actual structures.
Mr. Shane:
240 feet plus or minus. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions for staff? Hearing none, would
the petitioner please step forward.
Scott Iglehart,
T -Mobile, 12170 Merriman, Livonia, Michigan 48150. This is an
unusually complete report, and I appreciate the work that's gone
into it. I would like, if I could, to just briefly address the
Commission members, residents, staff and the rest of the
citizens abouljust some general information about T -Mobile and
how our network works because we are, of course, asking for
specific permission for this one site. The concept in how
wireless phones work depends on the network of these. They
are tied together and the placement of this particular site,
besides being in compliance with the City regulations so as to
not require a variance per se, is also very much fied into what's
existing and what will be constructed. It's a fairly elaborate sort
21357
of chess game that goes on as we construct and also visualize
what will be the best sites in the future. We've brought in some
diagrams that's I'd like to discuss a little bit later to show you
how this site fits in. Actually, we summarized some of that in
the materials you may have received and the staff may have
prepared for you. Just briefly, T -Mobile is one of six nationwide
wireless voice and data services covering the entire United
States. This network of antennas nowadays is typically 100 feet
high in the air. That varies somewhat but it's different than the
old days when they used to be 200 and 300 feel in the air,
perhaps when we were starling out. That also is the answer to
the question of why we can't build a big lower two miles away
and just put our antenna up on that, or go into an industrial area
two miles away. The technology has changed such as that
won't work any more. Users of our network and our competing
other wireless carriers are basically everyone at this point. We
have teens with prepaid cards, grandparents, mothers, mothers
running Tale to daycare pickups that need to call, businessmen,
and increasingly people are using them in their homes. This
article, which came out Sunday in the Ann Arbor News, is
entitled, "Land lines future unclear as phone technology
advances." I don't know if this fellow is the definitive expert, but
it's something to think about and does reflect a trend. Startup
businesses, I started one up in the year 2000. Building our
economic engine everywhere in the City of Livonia and
everywhere else is very important. I know for a fact that
wireless is crucial for that because, unfortunately, SBC may not
be able to run right out and install phones for you. If you have a
contract, you need to be on and have phone service
immediately. Wireless can do that for you. Youcanwalkdown,
sign a contract and be on the air. It is a factor in job creation, in
my opinion, and it's obviously, when we talk about wireless
infrastructure in Michigan and growing jobs in Michigan in the
21s' Century, the wireless infrastructure would definitely be a
key part of that. I think most people would agree. Locally, since
1998, T -Mobile has had its network operations and engineering
center for the Detroit region located in Livonia. That's at the
Merriman Road site, paying taxes and providing dozens of high
tech jobs to employees who shop and live in Livonia and
nearby. T -Mobile is committed to being a good neighbor and
remaining in the City indefinitely. I might add that we have our
major switching facility for North America located in that site, so
it's a serious investment for T -Mobile with the City of Livonia.
Good neighbors means co -locating our antennas whenever
possible. Co -location refers to placing antennas on existing
structures. That is a very, very high priority for us. First of all,
21358
its the right thing to do. It's a good neighbor policy, but also it's
economically sound. If we can put our antennas on an existing
building or electronic transmission tower or something like that,
we're always going to do that. Approximately 85 percent of our
sites are co -locations, so its the exception when we come
before you or other governing bodies and ask permission for a
free-standing, in this case, flagpole lower. In the affidavits that
we submitted to you, we documented that every effort was
made to find a co-locafion alternative. In this case, we were not
able to and that's why we proceeded to have the proposed
flagpole site. I could also add that we just recently co -located
on the Police Department lower here in the City of Livonia
through working with the staff here and City Council and the
attorneys. That revenue stream will be more than half a million
dollars over the course of the lease - a little bit about the Detroit
market and Livonia is part of the Detroit market for T -Mobile.
This article also states that the Detroit area has the highest rate
of cell users in the country, approximately 74%. I've been
working here steadily forwireless companies since July of2000.
I originally grew up in Michigan, but I came back to do this
particular work. Meanwhile, more people are giving up land
lines as I've staled before. This site proposed is for a coverage
site. I will be showing you this diagram but what we're saying is,
that the general area that it's intended to service is barely
gelling coverage right now. People can gel a signal, perhaps
especially in the middle of the night when there's no strain on
the system. They can get a signal standing outside.
Unfortunately, that's just not sufficient to provide the level of
coverage people expect nowadays. They want and expect
coverage in their businesses, in their homes, in their cars. This
is what this site will help us achieve. So we're saying this will be
the primary means of providing service to all T -Mobile users in
the general vicinity of the site. It's a key lynch pin for the other
sites we're proposing around it, and if it's not approved in this
location, it's likely we will have to design two sites one way or
the other to replace this one because its centrally located.
Additionally, its co -locatable as staff mentioned to you. Two
other carriers can co -locale on this flagpole lower. When we
show you the diagram, we will show you that the adjacent site to
the southeast has not yet been built in Redford Township but it
has been approved. You'll see that it fits in very well with that
site. The site in Redford Township is a 110 fool monopole.
This stealth flagpole is, in my opinion, considerably more
attractive, and it is definitely more expensive to construct. So
we're trying to come forward with a site that we feel will be
aesthetically pleasing, that fits within the ordinances, and althe
21359
same time will benefit T -Mobile as it attempts to provide better
coverage to its customers. Also, the revenue in the lease would
go to the Beth EI Congregation so that we're benefiting a
landlord that in turn strives to benefit the community. So those
are some general remarks. Specifics have been covered by
your staff, and I believe this is probably part of the record now,
at this point, the various documents we have submitted and the
staff has prepared. I know you dont always have a chance to
go through all the materials that you receive because of the
volume of them. I would just say that in this package that we
prepared is point -by -point detail of how we are in compliance
with the ordinance for the City of Livonia, and also attached to
that is an affidavit explaining the need for this from an
engineering perspective. This is where this all starts. Our
engineers monitor the network, see that the site is needed, and
at that time they usually don't know anything in particular about
the area. They ask is it possible to put a site there and it will be
delegated outto persons such as myself. I am a site acquisition
and zoning manager. Also attached is an affidavit explaining
the process that led us to this particular site, and as you may
have read, we initially attempted to see if we could go on the
adjacent lower on Middlebell. This was rejected by our
engineering department, which is in the affidavit that's attached.
We reviewed databases, utility companies, tower vendors and
FCC and FAA data. There are no feasible co -location
candidates located approximate to this tower. Based on a
professional evaluation, those factors and looking at the
networks needs, this site was selected. What this diagram
shows is a before and after scenario for our proposed site. The
white areas are sites that do not have sufficient coverage. Right
now you can see these are around the outside. This site here is
the proposed site for the Beth EI Memorial Cemetery. This site
here is the site that is located in Redford Township, which has
received zoning approval. You can see that pulling this site
here, the green represents maximum coverage in building, in
car coverage for everybody. Putting the site here in the Beth EI
Cemetery effectively fills the entire gap that is present here.
This is the current coverage and you can see that there's a very
large gap here. This is one of the very few areas where I've had
trouble with my T -Mobile service and they send me to areas
they're having problems in, right in this area right in the City of
Livonia. So the intent of this site is, there is an explanation for
why we have arrived at the proposed site in the cemetery, not
only that it's 40 acres, not only that it reaches back a half mile
off the road and is obviously a good place for a tower, but
specific to this design, which has been evolving over the past
21360
year or so. We'd like to enter this into the record if we could.
We did want to give you the sense that it is tied into something.
Mr. Shane:
Within the green area that you pointed out, which takes in the
site you're talking about, is there flexibility within that site, within
that green area, that the tower could be moved around a little
bit?
Mr. Iglehart:
There is some; however, we're very much limited by the existing
ordinances of the City. We're only 30 feel away from the half
mile separation that's required to the west.
Mr. Shane:
What about to the north?
Mr. Iglehart:
That is something that is difficult to do. It's hard to think about
moving very farther north because of the internments, if you go
into the cemetery, you'll see begin as you move much further
north.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. So west doesn't seem to be an option. You can't go
much further west other than 30 feet. Is that what you're telling
me?
Mr. Iglehart:
We are just past the half -mile separation required cistance in
your ordinance.
Mr. Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Did you mention what the yellow stands for?
Mr. Iglehart:
Yellow is basically, I guess, in -building, in-home coverage but
may not reach into businesses, which are typically better
constructed.
Mr. Morrow:
The green is the maximum coverage and yellow is marginal,
perhaps?
Mr. Iglehart:
Yes, or adequate for now. We can look ahead and see that
there's going to be a lot more data transmitted over these
networks. Korea and other countries are already putting much
more data across their wireless networks, and it's logical to
assume the U.S. will be following soon.
Mr. Shane:
If it weren't for the distance limitation to the west, are there
areas you could go to?
21361
Mr. Iglehart:
The chairman of the cemetery board is here. That might be a
question for you to ask him directly. Lel me see if ... is that
something you'd like me to answer? I've done a visual
inspection out there and, of course, I don't have the depth of
knowledge that Mr. Deutchman has. It does appear that it
would be possible in theoryto move to the west some distance.
We're already more than twice as far as required set back from
residential to the east, and almost as much to the houses to the
south. So I'm not sure how much further to the west we would
want to travel to achieve ... I don't know at what point we
achieve a distance that's comfortable. We can'lgoloofarlolhe
west because, first of all, their boundary. They only have 800
feel of frontage and, second of all, we need to slay within the
design, if we can, of our network as we showed you in the
poslerboard.
Mr. Alanskas:
I read your affidavit over completely. Atter reading it from this
Scott Iglehart, which is the zoning manager, I'm convinced that
this is a no problem site for the lower. In regards to the lower,
what kind of a maintenance program do you have on the flag
itself?
Mr. Iglehart:
Typically we offer a replacement flag to the landlord. Flags of
all types, whether on telecommunication sites or not, have to be
monitored by the landlord, as you could guess.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason why I ask is because naturally flags, depending on
the wind, they tear and they shatter. A lot of flags that are
posted on poles look terrible because they're not maintained.
That's why I asked what you would do in regards to making sure
that this does not happen. Do you give them a lot of flags, or is
there a time period that you do this, or how does it work?
Mr. Iglehart:
We agreed with the cemetery that we would give them an extra
flag. These are very large, very expensive flags, and we would
hope that the revenue stream from leasing the site would pay
for additional flags. T -Mobile would be very unhappy with me if I
promised them that we would maintain flags because, after all,
they are trying to focus on their core business of
telecommunications.
Mr. Alanskas:
So after the second flag, its the responsibility of the cemeteryto
make sure it's maintained correctly?
Mr. Iglehart: Yes
21362
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thankyou.
Mr. Iglehart:
I think we can trust them. They are very much a vital member of
the community.
Mr. Alanskas:
With this flagpole -type lower, we've come a long way from the
towers we've had in the past. Do you foresee anything in the
future in making anything different besides a flagpole?
Mr. Iglehart:
A different type of site?
Mr. Alanskas:
No, a different type of lower to make it look less intrusive.
Mr. Iglehart:
I don't have any kind of technical expertise. My background is
in real estate and zoning analysis. I used to actually be staff for
a Planning Commission.
Mr. Alanskas:
But this flagpole has come a long way. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, what determines the height of these structures? Whalfacts
do you use? It seems like they're all over the place. Some are
300 feel high. What determines that? What is the range
basically of these lowers? We have 39 types in 36 square
miles.
Mr. Iglehart:
Why don't I lake an attempt to answer this, and then if we need
further clarity, we'll ask our engineer who is here. I can tell you
that in the last round of sites that were issued out by our
engineers, at least all the ones I saw, which was 20 of them,
they all were 110 to 120 feet high. The site at the cemetery, we
requested that they analyze a less height because we thought it
would blend in better with the community and the aesthetics of
the cemetery. In general, the sites must be tall enough to get
over trees, and trees in Michigan ran 60 to 80 feel high when
they're mature. So that's a partial answer. Would you like more
detail because I can ask Mr. Chauham if he'd like to speak
further on it?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Inasmuch as we have a half mile distance between lowers,
does that mean that each lower is good for like a quarter of a
mile?
Mr. Iglehart:
T -Mobile has other sites, and it's not parliculady clear in some
ways on this map which is generated to show radio frequency
instead of roads. But for us, our existing sites to the west are
really loo close to that lower that we're talking about to make it
21363
useable. In other words, it's a tower that is standing there and
it's the first lower I went to when I began my investigation
because it's already there. However, it will not function for us in
our network because it is too close to the existing site, which is
shown there on that diagram to the west. We're on another
tower west of the one on Middlebelt, loo close to the one on
Middlebelt to use.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Pieroecchi, if you don't mind, I'm going to go to Mr.
Taormina who has asked for the floor. I think he has a point to
make.
Mr. Taormina:
I'd just like to point out that the half mile distance requirement
does not apply to applicants who demonstrate that co -location is
not feasible. The graphic on the slide illustrates where that half
mile line is. It is superimposed on the aerial photograph. As
you can see in the lower part, the black dot, that is a general
representation of where this structure is proposed. You can see
the road pattern within the cemetery grounds. The red shaded
area is actually the half mile radius from the lower that is located
at Middlbelt and Six Mile Road al the Phillips Plumbing site. So
you can see that this proposed tower falls just outside of that
half mile distance, but again, it does not have to apply where
there's a demonstration that co -location is not feasible.
Mr. LaPine:
When I went out and site checked the project, I noticed there
are really no cemetery plots right in that immediate area where
you're putting this tower. Is that corect?
Mr. Iglehart:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Then I went around the back northern part. So I imagine they
picked that particular location basically because they wanted to
keep it as far as possible away from the cemetery lots already
developed. Is that correct?
Mr. Iglehart:
Yes, sir. There's also some nice existing growth there that we
can put it in as shown in the photos.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I didn't read it, but when I went out there with Mr.
Piercecchi, the flagpole that's there now is on a base, and that
base has been dedicated to the cemetery by someone who died
during the Second World War. What's happening to that? Is
that flagpole going to be dismantled, taken out? Does the
person that donated that know that this flagpole is going to be
demolished or moved or anything like that?
21364
Mr.
Iglehart:
I spoke with Mr. Deutchman earlier today about that and he may
wish to speak to you directly. My understanding is that the
existing flagpole itself may not be utilized any more as a
flagpole. However, the memorial itself would remain. There's
no intent to destroy the memorial.
Mr.
LaPine:
The bottom portion will still be there?
Mr.
Iglehart:
Yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay.
Mr.
Morrow:
This may be a little bit off the subject, but do you currently have
any flagpoles of this nature in any other sites?
Mr.
Iglehart:
Yes, we could locate the addresses for some and supply them
to you.
Mr.
Morrow:
This is not new ground we're plowing here?
Mr.
Iglehart:
No. This is not new ground.
Mr.
Morrow:
Is the flagpole going to be It in any manner?
Mr.
Iglehart:
The flagpole will be proposed to be lit so that it will not have to
be raised and lowered.
Mr.
Morrow:
That is your intention?
Mr.
Iglehart:
Yes.
Mr.
Morrow:
That was where I was headed. So it will be constantly lit at
night?
Mr.
Iglehart:
That's what we had proposed unless the Commission has a
different feeling for some reason.
Mr.
Morrow:
Not 1.
Ms.
Smiley:
Mark, thanks for investigating the property itself being tax
exempt but that the structure proposed by T -Mobile will be
laxed. I appreciate you checking on that.
Mr.
Taormina:
That is correct.
21365
Ms. Smiley:
And also I apologize for what I did to your name earlier.
Mr. Iglehart:
I'm not sensifive whatsoever about that. I didn't even notice.
Ms. Smiley:
I'm pleased to see the flag structure as opposed to just a lower,
and I'm happy to find you sharing the wealth. You're going to
have two other companies, probably two other providers?
Mr. Iglehart:
Yes. The flagpole is designed for two other wireless carriers as
well as T -Mobile.
Ms. Smiley:
Because I do believe 74% of people in Livonia have cell
phones. They're all on 1-96 and 275. I've seen them.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Eric Henke, 17288 Carol, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Through research, I had a
couple of concerns. One, video interference can be
experienced by residents living near cell phone lowers. Will T -
Mobile pay for devices inside each home to eliminate the
interference and/or pay for cable television as in some past
cases? Number two, I'm curious about concerns of cellular
phone towers interfering with pacemakers. Number three,
there's an article that came out by the Associated Press April 7
of this year that cell phones and cell phone towers interfere and
disrupt some police and fire fighting radios.
Mr. Walsh:
Again, I will repeat that the Telecommunications Act of 1996
prohibits this body or the City Council from acting on safety
concerns. The federal government has concluded after their
own studies that it is safe and the law supercedes anything that
we might do. We cannot rule on that basis. I hear your point
and I'm answering it by letting you know, whether we agree or
disagree, we're precluded from ruling on that.
Mr. Henke:
Even video interference?
Mr. Walsh:
No, on video interference, I'm going to lel Mr. Iglehart answer
that. As for the police and fire, our Police Department has
allowed - I think we have five carriers now on our lower.
Mr. Taormina:
Three or four, yes.
21366
Mr. Walsh:
After extensive study on our police lower, it was determined,
within the confines of the city and based on our own expertise,
that it has had no such effect, and so we permitted it.
Mr. Henke:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
The one item that I'm going to ask Mr. Iglehart to address, if he
would, is whether or not T -Mobile has a policy to reimburse
citizens or provide any protection against interference? Are you
able to address that point for this citizen?
Mr. Iglehart:
I want to see if our engineer could speak more directly to the
interference question.
Nilesh Chauham,
T Mobile Engineer. I'm an engineer. As far as the interference
with the cable, I think that is what the question was. Right?
Mr. Walsh:
That's correct.
Mr. Chauham:
To my knowledge, I'm not aware of any interference issues with
the cable TV so I cant really comment on that.
Mr. Walsh:
The citizen made reference to a reimbursement policy that T -
Mobile may have. Is that lme, sir?
Mr. Chauham:
I'm sorry. I'm not aware of any.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. We hear you both. Perhaps in our vote it will come up.
We hear one saying there is a policy and you're saying there
isn't for T -Mobile. Al lead there's no policy of providing
interference prevention equipment for lack of a better
description.
Mr. Chauham:
Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Iglehart:
I haven't seen the particular article that's been cited, but we're
not aware of interference caused by T -Mobile's equipment. As
you probably know, T -Mobile buys this spectrum from the U.S.
government. Its quite expensive. We're limited to a very strict
set of frequencies, which is monitored very carefully by the
government, and fines of $10,000 a day are not uncommon if
they find we deviated from this spectrum whatsoever. Within
that spectrum, I don't believe there is a way we can interfere
with it. So my answer would be, perhaps in a very rare instance
it could be possible, but day-to-day, I've never heard of such a
thing to be honest. Now I can't speak for all carriers, and there
21367
is one carrier on the police lower that has had some issues with
the police. I want to be honest about that, but it's not T -Mobile.
Mr. Walsh: All right. Thank you, sir. I'm going to suggest then that should
this pass here and the Council, and there are issues, you may
want to contact T -Mobile directly. Is there anything else that
any of you would like to address? Is there any other member of
the audience that would like to speak to this petition? Seeing no
one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#06-76-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Petition 2004-04-02-22 submitted by Scott Iglehart, on behalf of
T -Mobile, requesting waiver use approval to erect a flagpole
wireless communication tower at the Beth EI Cemetery at 28300
Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road
between Middlebell Road and Carol Drive in the Southwest % of
Section 12, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2004-04-02-22 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Survey Site Plan, marked Sheet Number S-1,
prepared by Landtech Professional Surveying and
Engineering, dated May 12, 2004, as revised, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Enlarged Site Plan, marked Sheet Number G7,
prepared by Landtech Professional Surveying and
Engineering, dated May 12, 2004, as revised, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except that the
proposed landscaping around the lease area shall consist
of minimum eight (8) foot high evergreen trees spaced len
(10) feel apart on -center;
3. That the Elevation and Mounting Details Plan, marked
Sheet Number C-2, prepared by Landtech Professional
Surveying and Engineering, dated May 12, 2004, as
revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the proposed landscaping shown on the above
referenced Enlarged Site Plan shall consist of a minimum
of eight (8) foot high evergreen trees planted ten (10) feet
on -centers and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department;
21368
5. That all light fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadway; and
6. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 18.42A and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: Would there be any additional conditions relative to illumination
of the platform?
Mr. Walsh: I was going to mention that. I understand from Mr. Morrow that
he didn't have a problem with it. Personally, I do. If there's any
reason for me to vole against it, that would be it. I think you
demonstrated the need for the lower. The towers have come a
long way, but to illuminate a lower of this height is of concern to
me. I don't want to slop this from moving forward, but in my
personal opinion, it will really slick out like a sore thumb at night
illuminated. And if I stand alone, that's okay.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, if I may? Looking at the cell lower report we got
here, the height of every tower in town is, as I'm going through
here, 120 feel, 120, 145, 120, 120, 120, 120, 120, 150, 120,
120. This is one of the smallest ones in the City. The smallest
one is 99 feel and that's at the Detroit Edison substation on
21369
School craft. Most of them are allover 100 feel. The City's tower
is 300 feet. This is 90 some feel. I don't think that's going to be
that big of a detriment personally. But I understand your
position.
Mr. Walsh: And again, I don't object to the tower at all. It's just the
illumination.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would offer is, when you display
the American flag, if you don't bring it down at the appropriate
time, and you choose to leave it up 24 hours a day, to be
technically correct it's supposed toilluminaled. Soshort oflhal,
does that mean they would have to take it down every evening
and put it up every morning? As I said earlier, the fact that it's
illuminated doesn't bother me but I'm only one commissioner. I
mean the setbacks are such that they meet the ordinance. As
long as it's going straight up in the air, what we're seeing is the
American flag. That's just my position. If you're looking for the
flag to be illuminated at night as being part of the resolution ....
Mr. Taormina:
If we allow it to be illuminated, I think the Commission should
consider additional conditions relative to the illumination, such
that stray light shall not trespass onto the adjacent residential
properties, and if it does that it be removed. It is contrary to the
City's lighting policy to allow that type of directional lighting. I
know it's done elsewhere in the community, but the recent
policy that we enacted attempts to discourage that. It doesn't
speak to flagpoles specifically, but we do try to minimize any
type of spotlight effect where possible. Whether or not there are
exceptional conditions here, I don't know. There was an
indication from the petitioner some willingness to not illuminate
the flag if that was the desire of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Morrow:
Ifthalgoes againstthe City's lighting policy, and the pelitioneris
willing to forego that, then I will exempt that from the resolution
that it be lit 24 hours day, at least during the night hours.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't really see where the problem is. When you're talking
about the pole being 90 feet in the air, if they shoot it up from
the south up toward the pole, all the light is going to be shooting
up in the air. I don't see where it's going to have any impact on
anybody around the surrounding areas.
Mr. Morrow:
I do know that in other petitions where things have been lit, the
condition is such that should it be offensive to the neighbors,
they make necessary adjustments to it. Butwhere I was coming
21370
from, if it goes against our ordinance for lighting, I for one don't
like to go against our ordinances.
Mr. Shane:
I'd just like to say that I don't like these no matter where they
are, but this is probably one of the better ones I've seen in the
way it's handled. Number one, it's a Iitfle shorter; number two, it
has a flag on it. But I don't think we need to advertise it at night
if we don't have to, and certainly as Lee said, if it's against the
ordinance, don't light it. But other than that, I have no problem
with it.
Mr. LaPine:
Protocol is that if a flag is up 24 hours a day, it has to be lit,
which means they're going to have remove the flag every night.
I mean that's the way it is.
Mr. Shane:
Fine. If they want the pole up there, if they want the flag and
they have to lake it down every day, so be it.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any further discussion? The motion on the floor then is
an approving that would permit it to be lit 24 hours a day as it
stands.
Mr. Shane:
I have a question. Is there a way to alter the ordinance? Can
the Council do that?
Mr. Taormina:
Its not an ordinance provision. It's not a restriction. This is a
policylhalwas enacted by the City Council abouttwoyears ago
to discourage that type of direct lighting.
Mr. Shane:
It doesn't require any formal action from anybody to alter that
policy?
Mr. Taormina:
No, it does not, but if the Commission would like, we could add
our standard language relatve to shielding light and preventing
it from causing a distraction. At a minimum, the staff would
suggest that we insert that language into the approving
resolution.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow, would you like to add that?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, absolutely.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no problem with that.
Mr. Walsh:
So now we'll add the language Mr. Taormina has suggested.
My last comment, again, please don't misunderstand me, the
21371
height is fine. I think the location is fine. I just don't want to light
it. I love the American flag. Its going to be 90 feet in the air on
a major thoroughfare, and I think that its unnecessary. Other
than that, I think it all stands good.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In reference to this flag, there's no reason why the flag has to go
up to the 90 foot level. Why can't it be down around the 40 foot
level where it is now and make them put it up and take it down
everyday. Won't that solve the problem?
Mr. Walsh:
To follow flag protocol, the pefifioner really has only two
choices: lake it up each morning and bring it down each night
or illuminate it. They have indicated through Mr. Iglehart that
they wish to leave It up day and night, and they will illuminate it
in accordance with flag protocol. So they've indicated their
preference.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Preference. That doesn't mean that we have to acknowledge it.
The flag right now goes up and down every day. Right? The
cemetery handles it. Why is it a problem to run the flag up a
certain height and you then you don't need the lighting. Take it
down at night.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Iglehart, do you know if the flag that's presently there is
raised and lowered each night?
Mr. Iglehart:
I have not monitored the flag there, but I can say that the flag
that will go on this flagpole is quite large. I think we're talking
something like 10 feet by 18 feet, otherwise it wouldn't be in
perspective with the lower. So, to mise and lower that particular
flag daily could be challenging, especially in a high wind
situation and so on. I'm not familiar with the City policies, but I
think we would be willing to work with the City and staff to do
minimal lighting, pinpoint it, right center it on the flag. Perhaps
we could mount it on the flagpole itself so it just shines up
directly on the flag with minimal light. We already mount lights.
We have to light lowers over 200 feet for the FAA. We already
have special lights that point straight up. Residents call us all
the time saying they're burned out. They're concerned. They're
on, but they're doing their job. They can't be seen by the
residents. So I would ask for the opportunityto lightthe flag and
then if there's a problem, we can respond appropriately. We
certainly want to Iighl it and gel it correctly from our point of view
and then it would stay up just because of the size of it and the
logistics of bringing it up and down.
21372
Mr. Alanskas: I just don't want to see T -Mobile or the cemetery held up
because of a lighting issue. I think thatwhat he is suggesting, if
we stay within our ordinance parameters of lighting, Mark, if
there's a way where they can mise that light to be closer to the
flag like you suggest, I think that would be a good solution and It
would still take care of being lit all the time and yet it would not
be intrusive to the area, to the neighborhood.
Mr. Walsh: Any other discussion? Hearing none, would the secretary
please call the roll?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, La Pine, Alanskas, Shane, Pieroecchi,
Smiley
NAYES:
Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Y I =1 k5 Elil9 =k I Y I [a] � FIQriSriffrYt&*M:1 BYJI:7e1":1 S69 Clq:7a1 � k i
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
04-02-23 submitted by Rolaro, Inc. d/b/a Rio Wraps, requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Rio
Wraps Restaurant) at 33523 Eight Mile Road, located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill
Roads in the Northeast % of Section 4.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 6, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-referencedpetition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Additional right-of-way is not
required at this time. The legal description to be used with this
waiver use petition is approved." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
21373
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 11, 2004, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited
service restaurant on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated May 10, 2004, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal to operate a limited service restaurant on Eight Mile
Road between Farmington and Gill Roads. We have no
objections to the plan as submitted." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated May 10, 2004, which
reads as follows: "Pursuantto yourrequestof May3, 2004, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) As this is a change in use, this space must meet the
current barrier free code in its entirety, including any point of
sale counter, exterior entry door and all bathrooms. (2) No
mention is made for provision of trash and/or grease
containment. If dumpsterorgrease bin is to be used, will it be
placed in an enclosure? (3) There art; elements of the plan that
will not pass plan review (hallway width at lavatories such as
this must be 48 inches when there is a closer and latch on the
door). This Department will address those issues at our plan
review when submitted. (4) The barrier free exterior access
ramp needs to be repaired or replaced. (5) The Managing
Agent of the shopping center, David Field, has requested to be
copied on all correspondence in regards to Northridge
Commons Center. This Department has no further objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for staff? Is the petitioner here this
evening?
Jason Alden, 833 Sherbrook, Commerce, Michigan 48382. With the dumpsler,
we are going to share a dumpsler and if that's not adequate, we
will put in a dumpster.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I'm not one to interfere with the free enterprise system, but
are you aware that this will be seven food sites in that little
area?
Mr. Alden: Yes.
21374
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is this
particular product going to be in direct competition that
would just
knock one out or is it so unique that it's an added
feature to the food chain in that area?
Mr. Alden:
Its different than everything else that's in there, but at the
same time, it is similar, so ilwill bring more people to the area.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Where is it dissimilar from the other products?
Mr. Alden:
It's like a wrap sandwich. Subway just came out with some
wrap sandwiches. I don't know exactly what Healthy Choice
has. I haven't been in there yet. We have catering and all that
like a lot of the other places loo.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is it like Mexican food where you have something and you
enclose around meal or whatever?
Mr. Alden:
Yes, it's in a wrap.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. All right. You call that wrap.
Mr. Alden:
Yes, or a pita -type thing.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Butyou said Subway has some oflhose now?
Mr. Alden:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
There is a Subway in there now, isn't there?
Mr. Alden:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, like I said, I don't want to interfere with free enterprise.
Its your decision to make, and I wish you the best of luck.
Mr. Alden:
Thank you. Its not our goal to knock anyone out of that
shopping center, though. It's to bring more people to the area
to help everyone and ourselves.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is Rio Wraps a chain?
Mr. Alden:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any other Rio Wraps in this area?
Mr. Alden:
In Livonia, no.
21375
Mr. Alanskas: In Farmington Hills or Garden City?
Mr.
Alden:
There's one on Northwestern between 14 and Middlebelt; one
on 14 Mile between Haggerty and M-5, one out in Milford on
Milford Road by the GM Proving Grounds, and I think there's
about 15 more. I don't know all the locations offhand though.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Well, that's quite a few. Usually when a petitioner comes for a
restaurant, they submit a menu so we can look at it. Oh, we
have one. Are you going to have soups?
Mr.
Alden:
We will have a couple soups.
Mr.
Alanskas:
You will have soups daily?
Mr.
Alden:
Yes.
Mr.
Alanskas:
And will you have chili?
Mr.
Alden:
Its a form of chili.
Mr.
Alanskas:
And what are your hours going to be?
Mr.
Alden:
I think they are 10 to 9 give and lake a little.
Mr.
Alanskas:
How many days a week?
Mr.
Alden:
Seven and Sunday is a little adjusted, maybe like 11 to 8.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Now what about the grease containment. Are you going to
have a grease container?
Mr.
Alden:
There is a grease trap.
Mr.
Alanskas:
There is?
Mr.
Alden:
Yes.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Inside the building or outside the building?
Mr.
Alden:
Inside.
Mr.
Alanskas:
And then that's picked up weekly?
21376
Mr. Alden:
I personally haven't had experience with that yet. I don't know
how fast it will fill up. It may be weekly; it may be bi-weekly.
Mr. Alanskas:
Depending on how much grease you get?
Mr. Alden:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
Is this your first store that you will be operating yourself or are
you operating d?
Mr. Alden:
I will be running R. I have prior restaurant experience. I've
worked in a Subway for four years.
Mr. Shane:
But you've never run one of these particular shops yourself?
Mr. Alden:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you working with the restaurant next door with the
dumpster so you're getting a large enough dumpster to handle
both stores?
Mr. Alden:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you. Mark, will they be required to put a brick wall
around this dumpster?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know the answer to that question. I believe it's
screened from public view given its location at the rear of the
complex. I'm not sure whether or not it would be visible from
the residential properties to the south. That's something that
we'll have to determine with the Building Department.
Mr. LaPine:
Even if it isn't visible from the residential property, one of the
reasons I always thought we had these enclosed and with
doors on it is in case sluff fell out, it wouldn't blow around the
whole area. It would just blow around inside where the
dumpster is.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, since he's sharing it, I'm not sure if we required that as a
condition of approval for Healthy Choices or if that was a pre-
existing container, but it's within the discretion of the Planning
Commission to require an enclosure. I don't believe the
ordinance mandates the three wall container, but its certainly
within your power to stipulate that as a condition of approval of
granting the waiver use.
21377
Mr. LaPine:
I justthink it makes good sense. We're making the restaurant
we just approved on Seven Mile Road there, we're holding up
his approval on his outdoor seating until he encloses the
dumpster. What's the difference? We're making him put it in
and there's only four stores there? I guess I'm trying to find
out, Mark, how do we choose one place that should have it
and another place doesn't.
Mr. Taormina:
We don't always require it. There have been several petitions
involving restaurants at shopping centers where they use
dumpslers at the back that are not screened. In other cases,
we require it. I think each case is reviewed by its own mems.
I'm looking at the aerial photograph of this center right now,
and although it's a few years old, I only see one trash
containerthere and ildoes appearlo be screened. Thalwould
be in the southeast corner of the complex. I'm thinking that's
directly behind Block Buslervideo.
Mr. LaPine:
You're exactly right.
Mr. Alden:
There is a dumpster that is enclosed back there. That's the
one we were going to use. I dont know if that affects it.
Mr. Taormina:
If the existing one is enclosed, then that's fine. If he chooses
to install another one, we can include the condition that it be
screened in a similar manner.
Mr. LaPine:
But you say you're going to use the dumpster that's there?
Mr. Alden:
That is provided by the landlord.
Mr. LaPine:
Do we know if the capacity of that dumpster is large enough to
handle whoever is using it now plus these two restaurants?
Mr. Taormina:
I dont know that.
Mr. LaPine:
Whodelermines that?
Mr. Taormina:
I think that's the landlord's and tenant's decision. If the
Inspection Department sees a problem, they will discuss that
issue with them.
Mr. Shane:
I was going to say, it's always a little fuzzy when you're trying
to determine who is responsible for dumpslers when you have
a long shopping center and they have all these different uses.
I think that's why at a number of locations we haven't required
21378
a particular user to erect a dumpster enclosure. Whose
responsibility is it, the tenant or the shopping center owner?
Unfortunately, in this case, it sounds like you're going to be
using an existing enclosed dumpster. Hopefully that will take
care of it. I guess I would be for having a stpulation in there
that if that one isn't available or whatever, that the shopping
center owner or the petitioner will erect the proper dumpster
enclosure. Maybe we can do something like that.
Mr. Morrow: As far as the enclosure for the dumpster, is there room if the
existing dumpster is not large enough, is there room to have a
larger dumpster put in that enclosure to perhaps take up the
excess?
Tom Slegeman: If I could interject. I'm with the franchiser. Sometimes the
issue isn'tthe size ofthe dumpster, it's an increased frequency
of picking up on the dumpster. So our intention is to go
forward with the current dumpster that's there based on our
contractual agreement with the landlord. If, indeed, the
garbage is in excess of what the capacity of the dumpster
allows, we can increase the frequency of how often that
dumpster is removed, emptied and replaced.
Mr. Morrow: That's a very good point
Mr. Walsh: Any other questions or comments from the Commissioners?
Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to
close this public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-77-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Pefilion 2004-04-02-23 submitted by Rolaro, Inc. d/b/a Rio
Wraps, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited
service restaurant (Rio Wraps Restaurant) at 33523 Eight Mile
Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast''/. of Section 4, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2004-04-02-23 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than 30 seals;
21379
2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 10, 2004 from the Inspection Department shall
be rectified to that Department's satisfaction:
• That this space shall meet the current barrier free code
in its entirely, including any point-of-sale counter,
exterior entry door and all bathrooms;
• That the barrier free exterior access ramp shall be
repaired or replaced;
3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject
restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: During your lunch hour, that's your busiest time, how many
employees are you going to have working making sandwiches?
Mr. Alden: Between four and five.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
21380
YY=11iE4�9=k1III I[a]C 11PIQrLSLls6bkl9=k 0AL4'LSI41U9gIL', WI C 10
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
04-02-24 submitted by Pete Wood Plumbing requesting waiver
use approval to expand outdoor storage for contractors to store
commercial vehicles at 31675 Eight Mile Road, located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Osmus Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Nowak?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-referencedpetition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Additional right-of-way is not
required at this time. The storm sewer outlet shown is under the
jurisdiction of the Road Commission for Oakland County and the
owner will have to obtain their permission to tap their storm
sewer. The legal description to be used with this waiver use
petition is approved." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated May 11, 2004, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to expand outdoor storage for contractors to store
commercial vehicles on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 11, 2004,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the site plans in
connection with a proposal to expand the outdoor storage for
31675 Eight Mile Road. We counted 11 parking spaces located
south of the existing oneatory building. One of the parking
spaces should be posted as a handicap parking space and all
11 parking spaces need to be painted. We have no objections
or recommendations regarding the storage area." The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 10, 2004,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 3,
2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The existing landscape beds are in poor
repair and need maintenance and care. (2) The existing fence
appears to be 6 feet tall topped with barbed wire. (3) Is a new
21381
dumpster enclosure planned? It is unclear as to what is
proposed. (4) The gravel paving at the east side is not allowed.
(5) Once the entire parking area has been repaved, the required
parking will need to be double striped and accessible parking
nearest the entry signed and marked. (6) A super majority vote
of council will be needed to waive the requirements for a 20 -foot
wile greenbelt abutting the residential property with the
designated plant material as specified in 16.11(b)5. (7) We did
not receive the required vicinity map as per 16.11(b)(3)a. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Pete Wood, 31675
W. Eight Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr. Wood:
Just that I bought the building in 1998, and since I bought it, I
put a new roof on it, a blue roof, and I plan to put a lot of money
into security and asphalt and making it a nice site.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
All the old equipment out there, you've got two trailers there.
They look like they're bashed in. They are in terrible shape.
Are they going to be removed?
Mr. Wood:
Yes. I inherited those when I bought the properly and we're in
the process of emptying those right now.
Mr. LaPine:
And all the other debris around there to the north of that, there's
a lot of copper tubing you brought back from sites laying on the
ground. There's a car back there. I don't know if it runs right or
anything. Is that all going to be cleaned up?
Mr. Wood:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
How about the trailer that is to the east of your building?
Mr. Wood:
That will be removed too.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you use that for anything now?
21382
Mr. Wood:
We used to use it for copper tubing. It is alarmed and it really
has very minimal stock in R.
Mr. LaPine:
When you repave the parking lot in the back, and you're going
to repave the east side where you're going to remove the trailer,
coming in off of Eight Mile Road, the main drive going to the
rear, is that all going to be repaved?
Mr. Wood:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
You've done a nice job of landscaping the front. You were
working on it the day we were there. That's all I have, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We understand you want the greenbelt waived. I have a
question regarding that area. What would be the maximum
height of equipment that you would store up against that five
fool wall that's adjacent to residential property?
Mr. Wood:
It would be typically an Econoline van, like just a regular van.
Most of what we will be parking in there is trucks that
contractors use like an electrician or a painter, a landscaper.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Will they have baskets and that on them?
Mr. Wood:
No.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So what would you say the maximum height would be? I know
there is some screening in that area.
Mr. Wood:
Yes, there is a greenbelt area there now with some pretty dense
shrubbery.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, there are some gaps loo. It's not total screening. But
that's what I'm so concerned about, how high some of these
vehicles can be.
Mr. Wood:
Well, that area there, we could keep that back of the wall to a
minimum height, to like a standard van.
Mr. Piercecchi:
How do we get that in the resolution, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Walsh:
Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
We can include those types of restrictions or limitations in the
resolution.
21383
Mr. Piercecchi:
We don't want any booms on them or things like that that's
going to go way over that wall and can be seen. After all, it is
residential properly and we have to protect that. So, Mark, can
you come up with it?
Mr. Taormina:
To do that, we first need to learn what exactly is being stored on
the premises. We may want to place height restrictions on the
type of equipment to be stored on the property. I think we
should at lead know what he is intending to store on the
property.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I don'lthink he knows what equipment is ultimately going to get
in there, do you?
Mr. Wood:
No, but for four years I've had a backhoe and a dump truck. It's
currently not there, but we've had a Case 580 backhoe on a
trailer and a dump truck.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The question I'm asking you could go a long way to City Council
waiving the greenbelt if they know that there's not going to be
any equipment parked back there. So we'll try to gel that in the
resolution then. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane:
I think my question was mostly answered. I was just going to
ask Mr. Wood to get very specific on what's going to be stored
on the site, and I think you're headed there, but I'm not so sure
we know exactly what it is.
Mr. Wood:
I'm sorry I don't have it, but there was an article in the News that
several violations are written in Livonia yearly for contractors
that park in the neighborhoods. The idea is to use that area for
contractors' vehicles. So there could be some contractors that
might have trailers or a bobcat or a landscapers trailer, a typical
Econoline van that a contractor would use, commercial vehicles.
Mr. Shane:
So you're talking about vehicles as opposed to other equipment.
What about your kind of equipment?
Mr. Wood:
Again, we have several vans. They all have ladder racks on
them. Backhoe, dump truck.
Mr. Shane:
Will there be any materials of any sort that aren't vehicles, like
pipes or whatever?
21384
Mr. Wood:
Right now we do have a pipe rack that is closer to the building
there.
Mr. Shane:
How high is that?
Mr. Wood:
That is approximately about 7 - 8 feet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Al our study meeting, I was really not loo much in favor of
approving this, but after seeing your site, I can see that you're
trying to improve the building. But 1, like Mr. Shane, would like
to make sure you're not going to be storing old equipment and
parts. I want to make sure you don't store it in your yard. Do
you do commercial and residential both?
Mr. Wood:
Both.
Mr. Alanskas:
So what if you are putting in plumbing and toilets and sinks and
you take out the olds ones. What do you do with them?
Mr. Wood:
Any fixtures that we remove typically are ...
Mr. Alanskas:
You bring back to the site?
Mr. Wood:
The only thing that we bring back now typically would be like a
water healer. We store those next to the dumpster and usually
a scrap guy will come by at least once a week and pick those
up.
Mr. Alanskas:
So after they're brought back, they're gone after no more than
48 hours? That's two days.
Mr. Wood:
Well, I don't know if it would be that quick, but within a week.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think you can see where we're coming from. We don't want to
have like a scrap yard there. I can see storing some commercial
vehicles if they're not loo large, but if you're going to start
storing junk and like Mr. LaPine said, you have old cars there
and a lot of refuse back there that's been there for quite a while.
Now because you come before us, you say you're going to get
rid of it, but if you do gel rid of it, what's going to happen six
months down the road? Are you going to put back more old
cars there, and old junk back there?
Mr. Wood:
No, actually, that vehicle is my son's vehicle. It's just been a
couple months. We were trying to decide what to do with it.
21385
Mr. Alanskas:
And now that you want to be approved, now you decide to get
rid of d?
Mr. Wood:
Well, we need to get rid of the car and the trailers and clean the
site up. We've been doing that since we've moved in.
Mr. Alanskas:
Once you get the area clean, it's going to be kept clean?
Mr. Wood:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Wood, my concern is the fad that this waiver use will be
running with the land. That means if you gel this approval
without restrictions, you can pretty much put in there what you
want to, and being an accessory use to your business, we can
see you're hard pressed to say exactly who will be coming to
you to store whatever. And that's my concern. Also, you are
backing up to a fairly dense residential area. Now, would there
be restricted hours to that activity or would it be open 24 hours a
day for your tenants to come in and go, say 4:00 in the morning
or bring back equipment at midnight. Any thought as to what
the hours of access to your properly would be?
Mr. Wood:
The current hours of operation now are 7:30 to 5:00. The
proposal includes a gale with a carded entry so the site would
be accessible 24 hours a day.
Mr. Morrow:
What I'm saying is we need a more definitive idea of the types
of things that are going to be stored in there, seeing that the
waiver runs with the land. I can remember on Eight Mile Road
when it was a vast storage area from Farmington Road to
Middlebelt with of all various types of things being stored back
there, slicking up in the air. That's one of the things we've been
trying to clear up through the years. I don't want to see this
begin to go in the other direction. Anyways, those are my
concerns. The other thing was, I would like to see your
dumpsler further away from the residential area closer to your
building. I know that it probably won't impact the neighborhood
loo much, but I think its just a good practice not to have it too
close to the neighborhood.
Mr. LaPine:
Basically, are you going to have the same people renting from
you? Say a contractor has a job out in this area and he needs
storage for a month. Will you lease for a month? Are you going
to have yearly leases? How are you going to operate as far as
the lease is concerned?
21386
Mr. Wood:
The goal is to have long term leases, hopefully yearly leases.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I'm glad to hear that. And I have the same concerns as
the other members of the commission have. When the
Schuler's company was in there, they gave us a list of
everything that was going to be in there, so we knew what we
could expect. Here, we really don't know for sure. Maybe you
don't really know for sure. I like the idea you're going to clean
up the back, you're going to pave it all, which is good. I mean a
lot of these stores we have in the City are not like that. They're
just kind of a bunch of gravel down there. This is good as far as
I'm concerned, but I'm a little worried about not knowing exactly
what's going in there. If you were just doing this for your own
operation, I wouldn't have a problem at all. But now that you're
going to be leasing things out, I'm just worried. The other thing
that Mr. Morrow brought up that worries me, especially during
the summer months, some of these people will be working until
8 and 9:00 until it gel darks and then they start rolling in with this
equipment. It's kind of late at night to be pulling it in and making
noise with the residential people, then maybe they're back out
there at 5:00 in morning pulling it out again. It creates a
problem for the residential homeowners. So I don't know which
way I'm going yet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, how many employees do you have?
Mr. Wood:
Right now, I have 12.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many of your own vehicles do you have here?
Mr. Wood:
I have five vans, two pickup trucks, a dump truck and a backhoe
and trailer.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now the backhoe that you have, is that ever run on the property
itself or it is always put on a lowboy and taken to a job site?
Mr. Wood:
Its taken to a job site.
Mr. Alanskas:
It is taken on a lowboy?
Mr. Wood:
Yes. It's a trailer.
Mr. Alanskas:
I really don't have a problem with what you want to do, but again
because you want to lease your storage in back, it could be due
to a lot of subcontracting.
21387
Mr. Wood:
A lot of subcontracting?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Wood:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
You don't. All right, so you have no slop gale. If I called you
and said I wanted to store four big 40 -fool trailers, you would
lease it to me?
Mr. Wood:
I'm sorry?
Mr. Alanskas:
If I was contractor and called you and said, "Mr. Wood, I'm a
plumbing contractor and I need to store four 48 -fool trailers for a
year." Would you lease that tome?
Mr. Wood:
That's not what I'm looking for. No.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. What are you going to lease?
Mr. Wood:
The areas that I'm looking ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Because we have no idea.
Mr. Wood:
The area is for contractors that work out of their homes that
drive vehicles that are typically parked in the City that they're
not allowed to park in their driveway or in front of a house. So it
would be typically like an electrician, an HVAC contractor.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is it fair to say that you would stipulate that you're going to be
leasing strictly to small vans only?
Mr. Wood:
No, because one item would typically be a trailer.
Mr. Alanskas:
How big of a trailer?
Mr. Wood:
Like a 14 fool trailer. I have one right now. It's typical of what a
landscaper might use.
Mr. Alanskas:
So if 10 people called you and they all had 14 fool trailers, you
would lease that area to them to put those trailers down there
and have them stay there for a year?
Mr. Wood:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have a problem. Thank you very much.
21388
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Wood, just a couple comments on the discussion that has
taken place tonight. One, I think you have a good reputation,
and you've done a nice job making an investment in the
building.
Mr. Wood:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
We obviously have some concern about what you're going to
park there, and I think what you're offering is a win-win situation
for the City and yourself. Its an opportunity to make some extra
income. And the City is cracking down severely on people who
park work vehicles in their driveway. Yet, these are the exact
same people that I'm going to want to come to my house at
midnight when I'm having a problem, and I don't want them to
have to drive four hours to find their equipment. If it's here in
the City and its at your lot, I think that's good. It's the definition
we're struggling with in terms of what you're going to have
there. I think we're inching toward that. Maybe tonight isn't the
night to come to a final conclusion on what it is. I don't know if a
tabling resolution is in order.
Ms. Smiley:
I think I would like to offer a tabling resolution until we have
some more questions answered.
Mr. Shane:
We haven't gone to the audience yet.
Mr. Walsh:
You're absolutely right. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I
will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. Ms. Smiley, if
you will restate your motion?
Ms. Smiley:
That we table it unfil we can gel some more answers available
as to what's going to be there.
Mr. Walsh:
Depending on the schedule, could we table this until our Study
Meeting next week and then back to the Regular Meeting on the
15" so we don't have to hold up Mr. Wood?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-78-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Petition 2004-04-02-24 submitted by Pete Wood Plumbing
21389
requesting waiver use approval to expand outdoor storage for
contractors to store commercial vehicles at 31675 Eight Mile
Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast % of
Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that Petition 2004-03-02-13 be tabled to the next Regular
Meeting of the Planning Commission on June 15, 2004.
Mr. Alanskas:
Does Mr. Wood know exactly what we want him to get ready for
this?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Wood, the rules of discussion on a tabling motion are rather
limited, but I think, unless there are objections, what I will tell
you is we're hoping that you will work with our staff, if this
motion passes, to come back to our study meeting next week
and give us a defined utilization of your property so we can build
that into our resolution and gel you onto the Council at our
meeting on the 15r".
Mr. Wood:
Is there a preference that you're looking for?
Mr. Walsh:
Again, if this resolution passes, we suggest that you work with
Mr. Taormina, and he will give you some guidelines on our
behalf. If you're able to attend our study session next week, we
can discuss this with you further. Would the secretary please
call the roll?
Mr. Piercecchi:
We will all go and take another look at your property prior to
next week. It would be nice if you could have some of that sluff
out of there.
Mr. Wood:
Okay. I'll do my best.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2004-04-02-25 CLIPPERS LANDSCAPING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
2004-04-02-25 submitted by Clippers Landscaping requesting
waiver use approval for outdoor storage of landscape supplies
and equipment at a business at 13320 Stark, located on the
east side of Stark Road between SchoolcraR Road and the CSX
Railroad in the Northeast % of Section 28.
21390
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 4, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Additional right-of-way is not
required at this time. The legal description provided is
approved." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated May 11, 2004, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request for approval of outside storage of landscape supplies
and equipment on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated May 11, 2004, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal for outside storage of landscape supplies and
equipment. We have no objection to the plan as submitted.
However, there are currently no handicap parking spaces at the
listed business. One individually signed handicap parking
space is required. All of the parking spaces including the
spaces on the south side of the property need to be repainted."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May
10, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
May 3, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) A pipe frame for an indeterminate
use is in the front yard, eitherin or close to the right-of-way and
must be removed. (2) The existing landscape beds need
maintenance and clean up. (3) The salt storage area must be
constructed to meet MDEQ standards and is reviewed as
uncovered or open. (4) All existing structures, sheds and
hoppers, outside of the main building, numbering four, are
reviewed as though demolished and removed as per site plan.
(5) The parking lot needs maintenance, repair, resealing and
double striping of required parking. Accessible parking nearest
the building entry needs to be signed and marked. (6) It
appears petitioner is proposing to remove trees and shrubs at
the east and north property line that are not detailed in the site
plan. (7) The grade elevation differential between this site and
the north abutting property will need to be addressed by the
21391
petitioner. This Department has no objections to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Seeing none, is the petitioner in the audience?
Edward McIntosh, Clippers Landscaping, 15473 Parklane, Plymouth, Michigan
48170.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation?
Mr. McIntosh:
No, they covered it very well. We are an existing landscape
business in Livonia. Al the current time, we've been for 10
years at the Eight Mile address. We went through this
procedure in order to gel there. We complied with all the City
codes and requirements they put on us at that time, and we've
had a very good relationship with Livonia. We want to keep our
business in Livonia. It's growing. That's one of the reasons we
are moving to a bigger location in Livonia. Basically, we need
the same type of operation at this location as we had at the
other one.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Your storage beds are only six feel high?
Mr. McIntosh:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
What do you store in there?
Mr. McIntosh:
Mulch, dirt, stone.
Mr. Alanskas:
Usually when you dump the mulch, if ft's over six feet high,
doesn't a lot of it get blown away?
Mr. McIntosh:
If you notice, those are approximately 22' x 22'. That particular
container would hold approximately 120 yards of mulch, and we
rarely put more than 50 in there at a time.
Mr. Alanskas:
You store pea gravel there also?
Mr. McIntosh:
We store pea gravel and sand.
Mr. Alanskas:
Its a good looking operation. Thank you very much.
21392
Mr. Walsh: Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? There is no one in the audience. I will close the public
hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-79-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Petition 2004-04-02-25 submitted by Clippers Landscaping
requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of
landscape supplies and equipment at a business at 13320
Stark, located on the east side of Stark Road between
SchoolcraR Road and the CSX Railroad in the Northeast % of
Section 28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2004-04-02-25 be approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the Site Plan submitted by Clippers Landscape and
Supply, dated April 30, 2004, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the outdoor storage of trucks, trailers, equipment and
materials shall be limited to the locations shown on the
approved Site Plan and shall be maintained in an orderly
manner;
3. That the bulk storage bins shall be constructed in
accordance with the details provided on the Site Plan, and
the outdoor storage of all loose material such as mulch,
stone, sand, topsoil, bark, peat and salt shall only occur
within these bins;
4. That the landscaped areas shall receive needed
maintenance to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and shall thereafter be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That there shall be no outdoor storage of inoperable
equipment, scrap material, debris or other similar items
generated by the subject use;
6. Thatthe following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 10, 2004, from the Inspection Department shall
be resolved to that department's satisfaction:
21393
• A pipe frame for an indeterminate use in the front yard,
either in or close to the right-of-way, shall be removed;
• The salt storage area must be constructed to meet
MDEQ standards and is reviewed as uncovered or
open;
• All existing structures, sheds and hoppers, outside of
the main building, numbering 4, shall be demolished
and removed as per site plan;
• The parking lot shall receive maintenance, repair,
resealing and double striping of required parking;
accessible parking nearest the building entry shall be
signed and marked;
• The grade elevation differential between this site and
the north abutting properly will need to be addressed by
the petitioner; and
7. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for.
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. Thatthe 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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
21394
ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-11-06-08 OFF-STREET PARKING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
11-06-08 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolutions #594-03 and #178-04, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 2.08 of Article 11, Section 10.03 of Article X,
Section 11.03 of Article XI, and Sections 18.37 and 18.38 of
Article XVIII, of Ordinance #543, as amended, to change the off-
street parking requirements for certain retail and office uses.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, this is a housekeeping matter?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. I will describe that briefly. The City Council, after having
held a public hearing on this item March 31, 2004, referred it
back to the Planning Commission in order to give proper public
notice. The description on the original public notice made
reference only to Section 18.38. Subsequenllo the notice being
published, the Planning Commission expanded the scope of the
parking amendments to include Sections 2.08, 10.03, 11.03,
and 18.37. With only one exception, the proposed language
amendments are identical to the draft that was approved by the
Planning Commission on February 24, 2004. Al the pre -
hearing meeting of June 1, 2004, the staff was directed to revise
the off-street parking schedule in order to establish a separate
parking standard for food establishments that include outside
seating. Currently, the parking standard that applies to interior
dining areas, which is one parking space for each two customer
sealing spaces, is the same standard used in the calculation of
parking for outdoor dining areas. The general sense is that
because outdoor dining is seasonal and does not typically draw
customers in equal proportion to that of indoor dining, the
parking standard can be relaxed. As such, the revised
language of Section 18.38(17) has been modified to require one
parking space for each three outside patio seating spaces.
That is the extent of the changes to this draft as compared to
the draft that was previously approved by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there any discussion? There is no one present in
the audience. I will now close the public hearing and ask for a
motion.
21395
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#06-80-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Petition 2003-11-06-08 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolutions #594-03 and
#178-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 2.08 of Article II,
Section 10.03 of Article X, Section 11.03 of Article XI, and
Sections 18.37 and 18.38 of Article XVIII, of Ordinance #543, as
amended, to change the off-street parking requirements for
certain retail and office uses, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-11-06-
08 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendment will give the
Planning Commission and City Council greater flexibility in
the review of site plans by allowing surplus parking spaces
to be landbanked under certain conditions, which will
increase the amount of green space, reduce runoff, and
provide additional buffering opportunities;
2. That the proposed new parking standards will reduce the
degree of nonconformity as it relates to the number of
required parking spaces that presently exist at several
shopping centers and medical office buildings throughout
the city;
3. That the proposed language amendment provides new
parking standards for certain commercial uses that are
more closely related to the actual demand for parking; and
4. That the proposed new parking standards will result in
more efficient land use practices.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
21396
YY=11i FI -MMU =kIkI[a]C FIQrLSL1SQ>]9➢—a1 i4[IR]=11i IAC Y■UA9[a]*:
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
04-06-01 submitted bythe City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #172-04, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.59 of Article XVIII of Ordinance #543, as amended,
to allow mechanical amusement devices in restaurants.
Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment, if approved, would allow
for mechanical amusement devices in full service restaurants
regardless of whether or notthey operate Class C liquor license.
This stems from a recent Zoning Board of Appeals case
involving a request by McDonald's Corporation to maintain 11
mechanical amusement devises within its Ann Arbor Road
restaurant. The ZBA approved the request and asked the Law
Department to provide a memorandum to the City Council
asking them to review Section 18.59(a) of the Zoning Ordinance
for inclusion of restaurants to allow them to have mechanical
amusement devices with a waiver use. Section 18.59, which
was adopted by the City Council in 1982, regulates the use of
mechanical amusement devices. Mechanical amusement
devices, as defined in Section 2.10, are permitted as accessory
uses to the following principle uses: bowling alleys, billiard
parlors and poolrooms, racquetball and handball courts, tennis
courts, swimming pools, skating rinks, dance halls, private clubs
and lodges, meeting halls, theaters, hotels, motels, Class C
liquor licensed establishments, and colleges and universities.
Moreover, the number of mechanical amusement devises that
are allowed in each type of establishment is restricted, based on
either the floor area, the number of guest rooms in the case of
hotels and motels, the number of customer seals in Class C
establishments, or the number of students. The concern of the
ZBA is that there is an apparent disparity in the law at it relates
to the treatment of restaurants: those that sell alcohol are
allowed to have mechanical amusement devises, while those
that don't are not permitted to have them. The proposed
language amendment would simply include full service
restaurants under Section 18.59(a)(3). The number of
mechanical amusement devices permitted in any single
establishment would be limited to one for every 30 seals,
provided, however, that in any event no more than a total of
eight such devices shall be allowed on any premises.
Mr. Walsh: Any discussion or questions?
21397
Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to make a comment on that. We only had one incident in
reference to these amusement devices, and that was
McDonald's. Because of this single incident, I find no compelling
reason to immediately respond to this petition. What I did
discover in my review of said section were areas in need of
additional detail and clarity. I would like this board to consider
tabling this issue for study. There are spacing requirements. If
you're going to put these things all over the place, I think there
should be some allowances for those that house them in
separate areas. Also, we're talking about diners here. How
about the distance of these mechanical devices to a diner? You
can't have it two or three feel away. I think we have to get more
clarity on this. That's my opinion on this, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Piercecchi
Mr. LaPine:
I can agree with Dan to some degree, but my position is, here
we have a public hearing tonight. I don't see anybody out here
ranting and raving that they want these devices in their
restaurants. Why should we change it? I think the ordinance is
well written. In the future if we start getting a lot applications for
this type of an operation, maybe we should lake a look at it
then. But for right now, I don't see any overriding reason to
change the ordinance.
Ms. Smiley:
The only one we're discriminating against are restaurants?
Everybody else can have them except a restaurant that doesn't
serve liquor?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, it was the case of the McDonald's petition that brought this
issue to light. Whether or not we are treating all other similar
uses equally, I don't know. There may be other things that will
arise in the future that we missed. I've included the list of those
principal uses that are allowed to have these devices as
accessory operations. Full service restaurants are what the
ZBA believed was the obvious exclusive from that list.
Ms. Smiley:
So the only obvious exclusion is full service restaurants?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I believe so, but again, there may be others. Maybe an
argument could be made that limited service restaurants should
be included in this list. We restricted the language as proposed
this evening to only full service restaurants.
21398
Mr. Alanskas:
My position is that even though you can only have one device
per30 seats, I think, like anyfaslfood chain, like a MacDonald's
or Subway or Hardy's or whatever it is, a lot of kids go in there
without their parents. If they have a game to play, even though
you only had one, two or three, you could start having a loitering
problem with kids just playing games there and not eating, so I
think its a bad thing to start. This may be an absurd comment,
but maybe down the road people will say, let's put slot machines
in gas stations and Tel's put them restaurants. You let young
kids play video games, why can't you have a slot machine? I
think its a bad idea. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Maybe I'm getting old, I don't know, but I agree with Mr.
Alanskas. I dont see any overwhelming reason for these video
games. I don't have young kids, so maybe I'm coming from the
wrong direction. I dont see the point.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to make sure I'm following this correctly. In the
McDonald's case, was that handled as a waiver of use or were
they given the use of the machines or were they precluded from
that?
Mr. Taormina:
They were precluded, so it would have had to have been
reviewed as a use variance. There are very strict standards that
apply under that classification.
Mr. Morrow:
What was the Zoning Board's disposition?
Mr. Taormina:
They approved the petition. That's all I know. I dont have the
case before me.
Mr. Morrow :
So if another restaurant of 30 seals or more wanted to use
amusement devices, they could approach it in the fashion as
McDonald's to see if the Zoning Board would allow that?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, even if they had less than 30 seats, I think they would be
within their rights to petition the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
use variance.
Mr. Morrow:
But they do have some relief if they do want to put those in?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, as was demonstrated in the case of McDonald's.
Mr. Morrow :
That's where I was coming from. So going along with what Mr.
Piercecchi's said, we're not inundated with a lot of requests for
these devices. Until there is a further demand for il, I don't see
21399
Ms. Smiley: I guess I dont really object to it only because I think it will kind
of police itself. I dont think Fonle's is going to put in probably
15 games this week, and maybe some of the places like
McDonald's will. I don't know. A lot of young families, and
that's what I'm looking at, when they go to dinner, maybe it
allows the parents to have a few minutes of peace while they
play for a minute or two. I dont perceive it as a problem, but I'm
just one commissioner.
any need to alter the ordinance at this time because they are
given relief if they really need it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Everybody seems to agree that there's no compelling reason to
make changes. Mr. Morrow, if you read 18.59, it doesn't really
tell you that much. It needs to be expanded and clarified. Like I
said, spacing, and putting them in separate areas which are
enclosed. You've got a whole different ball game if you enclose
them than if you have them amongst the diners. I think we can
table this thing and really look at it at our convenience. We all
agree there's no panic on this. We've got time to do it and it
won't hurl for us to do it up and look it all over because down
the road, we may need it and this way we will be prepared.
Mr. Morrow:
Where I was coming from with this particular petition, I don't find
fault with what you're saying, but that would be handled if it ever
came forward again.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The thing is, if a motion to table is put out, then we will look at it.
If we just defeat this one here, we may never bring it back for
another good look.
Ms. Smiley:
My question is for Mark. Was it the Law Department that asked
us to take a look at this?
Mr. Walsh:
The ZBA.
Mr. Taormina:
Through the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Walsh:
They made a recommendation.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
So they recommended that we take a took at it now?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Ms. Smiley: I guess I dont really object to it only because I think it will kind
of police itself. I dont think Fonle's is going to put in probably
15 games this week, and maybe some of the places like
McDonald's will. I don't know. A lot of young families, and
that's what I'm looking at, when they go to dinner, maybe it
allows the parents to have a few minutes of peace while they
play for a minute or two. I dont perceive it as a problem, but I'm
just one commissioner.
21400
Mr. LaPine: I agree with Mr. Shane. I didn't want to bring it up at the time I
was making my presentation. but I'm older. When I go out to
dinner at a nice restaurant with my friends and two or three
couples, and we sit down, I'm not there to play games. I'm not
there to see kids running around playing games in a restaurant.
I'm there to eat a meal. Now, if you want to say these can go in
fast food restaurants, a McDonald's, a Wendy's and places like
that, where I personally don't go, that's one thing. But in a full
service restaurant, I just don't think its needed. I think it would
be fine if we deny this. If we want to do like Mr. Piercecchi says,
look at the ordinance overall and have an idea in our heads
what we want to do the future if we start getting a lot of
requests; up to this point we haven't had all those requests. So
I don't think the panic is here at this point.
Mr. Walsh: Its the absence of panic that resulted in my seeing value in the
ZBA's suggestion that we consider this along with others, but
Mr. Morrow is correct. They do have relief through the ZBA if
they wish to pursue that. So, unless there are other
discussions, I will seek a motion.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, and adopted, it was
#06-81-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Petition 2004-04-06-01 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #172-04, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 18.59 of Article XVIII of
Ordinance #543, as amended, to allow mechanical amusement
devices in restaurants, the Planning Commission does here
recommend that Petition 2004-04-06-01 be denied for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language
amendment is not needed to accommodate the subject
use in the City;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance currently contains sufficient
language to adequately provide for the subject use in
proper locations; and
3. There is no compelling reason to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the subject use.
21401
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
La Pine, Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYES:
Smiley, Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2004-04-06-02 LAND DIVISION ACT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
04-06-02
0040406-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #175-04, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.46 of Article XVIII in order to conform to both City
practice and the Slate of Michigan Land Division Act.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, if you could give us some background.
Mr. Taormina: This proposed amendment to Section 18.46 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertains to the division or partitioning of lots. This
petition follows the recently enacted changes to Chapter 16.32
in which the City Council established new standards for the
division or partitioning of lots, including the division or
partitioning into one or more nonconforming parts. One of the
effects of this proposed language amendment is to give the
Council the authority to approve lot splits that result in certain
deficiencies such as lot width and lot area. Such exceptions
can only be granted in which no less than five Council members
concur. Any "unwaived" deficiencies (i.e., building setbacks)
would still require the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Otherwise, the action of the Council would be final.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Is there any discussion on this item?
Hearing none, I will seek a motion.
21402
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-82-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, on
Pefilion 2004-04-06-02 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #175-04, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 18.46 of Article XVIII in order
to conform to both City practice and the Slate of Michigan Land
Division Act, the Planning Commission does here recommend
that Petition 2004-04-06-02 be approved for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendment will provide
consistency in the lot split review process between Section
18.46 of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 16.32 of the
Code of Ordinances;
2. That the proposed language amendment will grant the City
Council the authority to approve lot splits which result in
zoning nonconfonnifies; and
3. That the proposed language amendment contains
appropriate standards and requirements to provide for
sufficient control over the division and partitioning of land in
the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolu0on
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 884th Public Hearings &
Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval ofthe
Minutes oflhe 884th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on Tuesday, May 4, 2004.
21403
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alan skasi, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-83-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 884th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held bythe Planning Commission on Tuesday,
May 4, 2004, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Alanskas, La Pine, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 886th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 1, 2004, was adjourned at 10:00
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman