Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-12-16MINUTES OF THE 973rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 16, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 973rd 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 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge Watson, 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 ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the 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. Before we move on to our agenda items, Mr. Morrow had requested that I give him a few moments althe beginning of the meeting. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the benefit of those that may not know, our Chairman John Walsh was elected to go to the State House of Representatives. This will be his final chairing of the Commission. I guess I can say we certainly will miss you. It's a loss to have you leave the Commission, but our loss is Lansing's gain. You certainly did a fine job during your tenure on the Commission and certainly your duties on the City Council prior to that as far as Livonia is concerned. Your representing us in Lansing has put us in pretty good hands knowing the type December 16, 2008 25048 of person you are. So I'm not going to take any more time but I'll close by saying I'm just proud to say I know John Walsh. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. This is my last meeting and I'll miss this body as I did the Council, but I'm only moving on to another service for our community. You can certainly expect to see me around. With that, we will move on to our agenda. Our petitioner for Item #1 is in traffic. He has called in and spoken to Mr. Taormina, so we are going to move on to Item #2. ITEM#1 PETITION 2008 4 0-01-09 SOAVE BUILDING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-10- 01-09 submitted by Soave Building Inc. requesting to rezone property at 14745 and 14766 Taylor Boulevard, located at the north end of Taylor Boulevard in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2. Mr. Walsh: Ladies and gentlemen, as each of you know, this item has been removed from the agenda at the request of the petitioner. I simply wanted to have that read into the record and indicate for those people who may have previously received the agenda, that the petitioner asked that this item be removed. With that, we will move on to the next item. ITEM#2 PETITION 2008-06-0248 T4NOBILE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 06-02-18 submitted by T -Mobile Central L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct a 110 fool flagpole -type wireless communication facility at 18000 Newburgh, located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis in the Southwest % of Section 8. 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 three items of cortespondence. The first item is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 19, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request br waiver use approval December 16, 2008 25049 to construct a 75' flagpole -type wireless communication facility on the property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 14, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with T - Mobile flagpole, located at 18000 Newburgh. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 26, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 7, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This petition was reviewed with the revised height of the flagpole at 110 feet. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? Wallace R. Haley, Haley Law Firm, P.L.C., 8065 Grand River, Brighton, Michigan 48114. Good evening, everybody. Once again, Wally Haley on behalf of T -Mobile. Also, tonight I'd like to introduce Ken Kalousek, who is the site development manager for T -Mobile, who is also here with us tonight. Obviously, this is very similar to what we were here before you with the Emerson School. Emerson School is almost done. The lower is in. They've been waiting for the final engineering to go on to put the shrouds on it. If you've gone by there to take a look at Emerson, you would at least have seen the base and the lower and the open portion of the antennas inside it, but there weren't any shrouds there. A couple things. Mark obviously did a very thorough job like he always does. A couple points though that I think need to be brought up to the Commission. We were first going to be on your agenda several months ago and what happened was, there were some neighbors who had some concerns. T -Mobile tries to do its best to meet with the community in cases like this. We scheduled a community meeting. We sent notices out to everyone that the Planning Department had sent notices out. We had a fairly good turnout. I would guess 20 people who had concerns about what was going on. We listened to them. One of their concems was the close proximity of the tower. They asked why couldn't we move it over to more of the middle, use the existing tree line down there as more of a buffer. We went back to T -Mobile. It was kind of like pulling teeth with the radio frequency department. That's why we ended up with a little bit taller lower here than we did with Emerson, because of that December 16, 2008 25050 move and that accommodation to come I think its like 700, 800 feet further southwest. But I wanted to make that point that we did meet with those people. I assume obviously since its not a great night out here tonight, loo, but one of the things that I got them to buy in, is if we do move this, would this make you happy, and would you feel much more comfortable with the proposal. To a person who was there, I believe that's a fair representation that they said if we would move it over to the tree line to the southwest, they would feel much more comfortable about doing this. We did that. The RF people bought into it. And the other thing obviously is learning our lesson. We put the light on it this time in advance rethe r than at your request. I'd rather just answer any questions that you folks may have and we can go from there. Mr. Morrow: Could you just kind of tell us your intent as it relates to flying the flag as far as who will be doing that? Mr. Haley: It will be up to the school to fly the flag. The point of discussion that we had last time relative to this was that the lights are going to be there so that if the school so chose to fly the flag, that there would be no choice and it would be lit. Mr. Morrow: So they have the ability to turn the lights on and off. Once its turned on, it will go on at night and then go off in the morning. Mr. Haley: That's correct. Its on a photocell timer, yes. Mr. Morrow: So I guess what I'm angling at is if the flag is not flying, there is no need to put the light on. Mr. Haley: Its my understanding they would actually have to go out and physically shut the light off at that point because it's on a timer and it's automatic. That was based on some of the concerns that some of the commission members had last time that they didn't want to leave it to the school system to make the decision of going out if the flag's flying. Oh, we forgot to tum the light on. So they wanted to make it more that the light's on and you have to go out and manually shut it off if you're not going to fly the flag. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Haley, just a couple questions. The fenced in area where the equipment is going to be, when I looked at the diagram, it shows two pads for future equipment racks. One of them appears to be right in front of the entrance to the fenced in area. It seems to cross over the path of the gate. Is that just because of the way the diagram is indicated or is there adequate room Mr. Haley: The short answer to that is, its usually considered when you're in or near residential, that the flagpole design, or what we call the unipole that doesn't have a flag on it, is usually more aesthetically preferable because when it has the antennas and the cabling and everything on the inside, it creates an image of just a single pole as opposed to the platforms. Now there are definitely tradeoffs with that. I mean from a technology point of view, from the carriers, they gel a litfle bit better signal strength and signal catch and send with an extended platform. There's consideration of getting everything ft inside the pole. One of the things I want to caution you on Emerson, now Mark if you could put your cursor up to the top part of that flagpole over December 16, 2008 25051 there for that equipment to be there without blocking the entrance? Mr. Haley: Mark has his curser there. The way they would do it and put additional carriers in there, they would make an open space porton of the gate. There would be someone directly south of where the T -Mobile compound is and then directly west, south of the gate directly west. If that's not graphically represented, that's how they would actually put it together. Mr. Wilshaw: So the equipment will be closer to the fence line itself so that there's adequate room to get vehicles in there and service the equipment or whatever they need. Mr. Haley: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I was just concerned about that. Obviously you don't want to gel stuck. The issue of the flag, I do have one question about it. I do appreciate TMobile's willingness to move this location from the Taylor School area to where you're proposing it. It's much more favorable in my opinion as well, but just a question about the flagpole design. I've taken a look at the one that's down at Emerson. What I see when I drive by there is essentially a lit up metal pole, of course with no flag on it because the school is not flying a flag on it, which to me doesn't seem very stealthy in the sense that its not only a pole, which is a visual thing to see and an eyesore to some people, but to me, it doesn't bother me. But when ifs lit up, it's only drawing attention to that object in the field. So my question to you is, assuming that the school district is not going to fly flags on these poles, do we need to make them stealth towers that look like flagpoles with no flags on them, or is it easier for you and is R easier for us and for the residents just to make a normal cell tower like they see at Stevenson High School or any other school with a standard antenna? Mr. Haley: The short answer to that is, its usually considered when you're in or near residential, that the flagpole design, or what we call the unipole that doesn't have a flag on it, is usually more aesthetically preferable because when it has the antennas and the cabling and everything on the inside, it creates an image of just a single pole as opposed to the platforms. Now there are definitely tradeoffs with that. I mean from a technology point of view, from the carriers, they gel a litfle bit better signal strength and signal catch and send with an extended platform. There's consideration of getting everything ft inside the pole. One of the things I want to caution you on Emerson, now Mark if you could put your cursor up to the top part of that flagpole over December 16, 2008 25052 there. The pole at Emerson is not done. So when you see what's been lit over there, you're seeing the top portion of the flagpole where the antennas go but you're not seeing the covering on it yet. You're literally looking at the base of the flagpole and then the inside guts of the flagpole, the things that you'll never see. If I can maybe, I don't know if I'm a good illustrator. Say this is the pole. The black part is the part where the antennas would be inside. Right now, the covering that goes over those antennas is not there. So when you see that light thing, you're exactly right. It looks terrible because you've got the base and what is basically lighting up right now is the inside guts of the pole at the top without the shrouds around it They had some issues with engineering and the antennas and had to rework some of the insides, which is why its taking so long, but what they're doing now, is they will put the shrouds up this week. Ken M. Kalousek, Manager, Real Estate & Zoning, T -Mobile Center, L.L.C., 12170 Merriman, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Hi. What we're wailing for right now is for AT&T to provide us with a T1 line for backhaul. We can't hook that up and wire our antennas properly until that's done. Its promised by the end of this month by AT&T. As soon as that's provided, we'll put the shrouds up, weather permitting. Mr. Haley: I want to stress to you so when you drive by there and you see that light shining up right now, you're not looking at the finished product. I think most people would tell you in that kind of area with residences 400, 500 feel, that the unipole design that the Planning Department and T -Mobile worked with is more aesthetically pleasing in the long ran. Its obviously not now, but I think when you look at some of your other flagpole configurations, I believe there is one in the cemetery, you'll find R's much more of a pole with no guts visible much more as its intended retherthan what you're seeing. Mr. Wilshaw: They also do fly the flag on that one, which is different than the ones I'm seeing so far, but maybe once the shrouds are up, the school district will maybe look more favorably upon putting a flag on the pole. Mr. Haley: And they cant put the flag up right now until the shrouds are in. Its just not an option because they can't ran it up there. Once it goes up, I think you'll feel much more comfortable that that's a pretty good looking configuration. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. December 16, 2008 25053 Mr. Haley: We also do a lot of the unipoles without a flagpole in a lot of jurisdictions where they would prefer us to put the unipole up and the monopole with the platforms. Mr. Wilshaw: I'm fine with the rest of your petition. The only word of advice I could give is, and I don't know if it can be worked into the resolution or not, if there is a way to not illuminate the pole if there's not a flag on it, that would certainly be preferable than illuminating a pole with no flag on it because you're only drawing attention to something that you generally don't want to draw attention to in the community. But thank you very much for all your effort working with the residents and with us to relocate that to a better location. I think it's a good move. Mr. Haley: The ultimate light piece is within the control of the school. I think the concern with you and a few others Iasi time was that if the flag's up, they wanted to make sure it was lit. So if they don't put the flag up, obviously it's something that they should be able to go out and override the lighting and shut it off. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Ms. Scheel: Duly noted. I will pass it on. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Ms. McDermott: Thank you. Yes. I actually, as you remember, was concerned about the light on the flag. Since that time, I've actually spoke with an electrical engineer friend, which of course I'm not. But he had mentioned that there is another option and it would be called a limit switch. I'm going on what he's telling me, but one of your electrical engineers I'm sure would be familiar with it. What that does is It makes it so that only when the flag goes up does the light go on. So that might be another option and then that would actually address Mr. Wilshaw's concern which I can second, that it probably does look a bit odd if there's a light and nothing there. So if T -Mobile would be willing to look at that, it might be another way to address it. Mr. Haley: Absolutely. You called it a limit switch? Ms.McDermott: Alimilswilch. Mr. Haley: So its got to be some kind of a load thing. If the cord is pulled through it, it means the flag is up there. Ms. McDermott: Right. It must be something like that. I dont understand it, the technical part, but that's what he told me. December 16, 2008 25054 Mr. Haley: Okay. You're already past my technical part, but yes, we would investigate that. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh: Anything else? Are there any other questions for the petitioner? All right. Thank you, sir, for being here this evening. Mr. Haley: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefition? Good evening. Maureen Casey 36832 Gardner. Good evening. This is literally going in my backyard. The letter that I'm holding in my hand was received by myself and my neighbors not even quite two weeks ago. We were unaware of any other meetings that had taken place regarding this issue, and we are not happy. My next door neighbor is in his 80's and because of the weather, chose to stay home tonight. So I'm here telling you we're not happy. First off, pretty much our experience has been when something gels to this point, it's already a done deal, which is very disappointing to me. When my husband called, he was told that this lower was going to go at the original site and then we got this map and we got in the car and it is literally, that line of trees, that's my backyard. We know the pole is going to go up. We're pretty much resigned to the fact that this is already done. We dont want it illuminated and lit up in our backyard. Put a flag up if you want but we already have issues with the church property leaving lights on in the building at night, which illuminates the back half. I dont know. Can you put up a map so you can see exactly where I'm talking about, where our house is? That's not R. Okay. This isn't going to really help either. Right there. That's us. So pretty much, that's what I'm going to look at out my windows. I have this beautiful Florida room, this lovely tree line and now we're going to have this pole. I dont want the pole lit up. I'm not really happy about the change having been made from what we were originally told it was going to be to now it's literally in our back yard and not being notified. I don't think that's right. The jury is still out on the health effects that these cell phone lowers have the potential. Back in the 40's, we were told, oh, its okay. Go ahead smoke cigarettes. We were told back in the 60's, there was nothing wrong with asbestos. And now here we are with cell phone towers. Are we going to find out after the fad that they're not healthy either? I would really, as I said, I would really like to make this work because, you know, it's pretty much a done deal. That's pretty obvious here. December 16, 2008 25055 Can we minimize the impact to myself and my neighbors? No light. No flag. And while the flag might look really nice during the day, at night it doesn't have to be up. It doesn't have to be lit. Can you take that into consideration? Will you please lake that into consideration? And in the future, I would really like to be apprised of things a little bit more in advance than this. I would have been at the other meeting had we been notified, but we hadn't. Mr. Walsh: Ma'am, we'll have to work with our staff to find out what the dales were, when they were distributed and so on. We are only a recommending body, just so you understand. This still has to go to the City Council. We will take into account your comments this evening. The vole will go one way or the other, but there will still be two more meetings on the subject matter with the City Council, a study meeting first and then a regular voting meeting. Ms. Casey: Okay. Thank you Mr. Walsh: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Is there a final word from our petitioner before we close? Mr. Haley: We have no inclination whatsoever to need a flag, as T -Mobile. If you want to totally avoid the lighting issue, it's the school board's decision at that point in time. I don't believe they had any requirements that it had a flag. It was just a stealth design to bring forward to the community. I don't think anybody really has a problem saying it's a unipole and no flag and no light. So I don't think from T -Mobile's perspective at least that would be a requirement that we don't have any major desire to put a light on there or fly a flag. Its a stealth design as a unipole. Mark may weigh in on this from a commentary point of view, but its still a lot better aesthetically in most people's viewpoint from the residential as a unipole. So I would just throw out that unless the school system objected, which I don't think they do, that we would be more than happy to agree that it was a unipole and not to fly a flag a nd not to light it. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: As it relates to the stealth flag, sometimes I might be a proponent of having that based on where the flagpole is placed, but we put it in a position now which in one area has more than doubled our ordinance requirement for setback. The other one is almost double. So its not like you have it in close proximity to a school building. With the setbacks, as far as one December 16, 2008 25056 commissioner, I have no problem with just a pole, something that is aesthetically pleasing. It's kind of funny because when I was sight checking the thing, I travel Newburgh Road all the time. I was trying to visualize the height, and I looked at row after row of these utility poles that are almost 75 feet tall, the ugliest things I ever saw in my life, once I noticed them. But I drive by there all the time but I never really noticed them until I was looking for something to give me a frame of reference. My feeling is that I have no problem with those setbacks to have a regular pole, and it is usually something you get used to. We all got used to telephone poles and light poles almost at zero setback. Mr. Wilshaw: To add to that point, as a ham radio operator, which there are several hundred or thousand of in the city, any one of them can put a 75 or 100 fool lower in their backyard and hang all sorts of antennas off of it for the purpose of operating their ham operator stations and that can be right in the backyard next to your next door neighbor. Towers are not, while some people view them as unsightly and certainly they can be if they're not done property, but they are not particularly unique or unusual, especially in this day and age of wireless communications. Based on the comments of the petitioner, I would just say that we modify our approving resolution, if that if going to be offered, to make this essentially a unipole with the slight modification, if the petitioner is willing to do that, to remove the ball at the top that makes it appear more like a flagpole. You may as well gel rid of that if it's not a problem, and we'll just call this a straight unipole and have a pole there. Mr. Walsh: Any additional comments? At this point then, a motion is in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-08-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 16, 2008, on Petition 2008-06-02-18 submitted by T -Mobile Central L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct a 110 fool flagpole - type wireless communication facility at 18000 Newburgh, located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis in the Southwest % of Section 8, which property is zoned PL, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petifion 2008-06-02-18 be approved subject to the following condifions: 1. That the Survey Site Plan marked Sheet SS -1 prepared by EC&S Engineering, Inc., dated August 28, 2008, as December 16, 2008 25057 revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. except that the design shall be a unipole and not a flagpole, and that revised plans shall be submitted to the City Council showing the requested modification; 2. That the Lease Area Detail Plan marked Sheet SS -2 prepared by EC&S Engineering, Inc., dated October 14, 2008, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Overall Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by GPD Associates, dated October 13, 2008, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the Detailed Site Plan and Tower Elevation Plan marked Sheet C-2 prepared by GPD Associates, dated October 23, 2008, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That this wireless communication support structure shall be designed so as to accommodate three (3) total users; 6. That barbed wire shall not be allowed anywhere on the facility; and 7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. 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. December 16, 2008 25058 Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Ms. Scheel: Is there anything we need to add to make sure that it's just the utility pole? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We will modify the language of Condition #1 appending at the end, except that the design shall be a unipole without a flag or we will fashion language to that effect to modify the design as was discussed if that is the desire of the board. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable? Ms. Scheel: That is acceptable. Mr. Walsh: Is there support? We have support from Ms. Smiley. 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#3 PETITION 2008-09-01-08 NED HAKIM Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 09-01-08 submitted by Ned Hakim requesting to rezone properly at 19333 Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Vidor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Drive in the Southeast 114 of Section 6, from C-2 to C4 -I. 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 is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated December 2, 2008, which reads as follows: "The Engineering Division reviewed the one page print, sealed by Wiliam Roskelly, which contains a legal description for the Parcel. The legal description shown on the drawing does not agree with that on record with the City Assessor. The following two discrepancies exist. (1) The legal description on the print shows page number 797 as the final page number in the Liber for that record. Our City records indicate it is supposed to be page no. 796. (2) The legal description on the print indicates the parcel contains 1.47 acres. The legal description on record with the City indicates it is 1.25 acres. Note that we have December 16, 2008 25059 confirmed that the address for this site is 19333 Victor Parkway." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Acting Assistant City .Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Sir, if we could have your name and address for the record. Ned Hakim, 22580 Telegraph Road, Southfield, Michigan 48033. I'm the developer and general contractor with the owners too. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Mr. Hakim: Not really, except that we are here to gel approval from you guys to rezone the property from commercial zoning. It's still commercial zoning from C-2 to C-4 and then we will proceed with the site plans and do ourjob here. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions? Mr. Morrow: The particular zoning you're asking for is C-4-1, six stories. You're presenting a four-story building. Should we gel to that point, would you have any problem with knocking your request back to C-4 minus the Roman Numeral 1, which would cover what you desire to build there? Ghassan Abdelnour, GAV Associates, 31471 Northwestern Highway, Suite 2, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. So the question is, if we go to C-4, you're saying ... Mr. Morrow: You can build a four-story building. Mr. Abdelnour: Yes, we're still going to build a four-story building. Mr. Morrow: You're asking for up to a six story zoning. Mr. Abdelnour: The building we're showing now is four stories. Mr. Nakim: Ninety percent, we're not going to go six stories. The structure is loo high and expensive to do. The whole structure changes. He knows. We just want to be flexible. Mr. Morrow: As one commissioner, I would like to see it as C-4 and then if somewhere down the line you decide you want to go higher, then you can come back for the zoning. We normally zone what December 16, 2008 25060 you present to us, and we assume that's what you're going to build even though we're not talking about the building tonight. Mr. Nakim: We will take that into consideration. We'll do C-0. I can live with that for the time being. If we decide to go higher, we'll just come back again. Mr. Morrow: You mentioned some monetary constraints and structural changes if you go higher. Mr. Abdelnour: The construction costs would be way more expensive if we go to six stories. Mr. Morrow: Which places a burden on your occupancy. Ms. Smiley: My question was about the parking. You know that they all have to be 10 fool? Mr. Abdelnour: We have some extra parking now. The criteria is 100. We have 110, so we can play with that. Ms. Smiley: That will help if you stay at four stories too. Mr. Abdelnour: Yes, no problem. Ms. Smiley: Because you'll have to have bigger parking. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Abdelnour: No problem. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Mr. Wilshaw: The area has a number of hotels in it and the zoning you're looking for is going to facilitate you to potentially come before us with a future plan for a hotel. Do you think that the area can handle the extra rooms that could potentially go onto this properlywithoul over-saturating the market in this area? Mr. Hakim: Mr. Wlshaw, the hotel is an extended slay hotel which is not available in this city at all. There's a few of them only in the area, just a couple, three, maybe two or three. An extended stay caters for leisure, caters for businesses, caters for travelers. It's a nice concept. The holding company, the Marriott Company, they have the Holiday Inn. You don't have an extended slay in the City of Livonia. Its a concept that we can ... besides there's only 92 rooms. It's not 500 rooms or something. Actually, I spoke to the planner, Mr. Taormina, and the Mayor, loo, yesterday. We have a hotel right across the street, the Holiday Inn Express. We're booked there always. December 16, 2008 25061 So there's overflow. The area needs new construction. There's a Holiday Inn on Haggerty Road, 165 rooms. We anticipate the business is going to gel better in a couple years, a year from now. Mr. Wilshaw: The other challenge you have is in Vidor Park. Its not right on the main road. It's set back a little bit. But you're comfortable that you can bring forward plans to us that will be viable, that you, as a business owner are going to feel successful there. Right? Mr. Hakim: Actually, the location of the site is, in the opinion of the engineers and the associates, its phenomenal. The exits are right in front of you. You are next to a university now. It's visible from the highway, perfect location. It doesn't have to be right on the main highway. The noise is not good at all. We have a lot of complaints about noise. This is a perfect location for leisure and for travelers. We cannot control the noise even with tons of insulation. That's a perfect location. Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand what you're saying about the noise. The residents there can attest to that. Mr. Morrow: We're heard that before. Mr. Hakim I experience noise sometime when I travel, and its just very hard to control Mr. Wilshaw: I agree with Mr. Morrow that I would rather err on the conservative side of F4, which would give you your four story building, and I look forward to seeing plans as such. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Were you able to decipher what the engineering was saying as far as the discrepancies in those measurements? Mr. Abdelnour: Maybe it was a misunderstanding about the sizes, but we can fix it. We have enough size to fix it. Mr. Morrow: We don'lwant to send anything forward that is not correct. Mr. Abdelnour: No, no, no. Actually, we'll show it to the planner and make sure. Mr. Morrow: Okay. You mentioned about a good location. We're pretty proud of that. I've heard it referred to as the golden corridor where we have a lot of successful businesses as far as hotels, restaurants, commercial. So I will concur. You're in a good location. December 16, 2008 25062 Mr. Hakim: Absolutely. You want to be visible from the highway. For a hotel, you definitely want to be visible from the highway, a location that is easy in and out. Mr. Morrow: You even have a light to tum in. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this evening. We appreciate it. Mr. Abdelnour: We're sorry we were late but the weather ... Mr. Walsh: It's not a problem. We appreciate that you made it. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-99-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 16, 2008, on Petition 2008-09-01-08 submitted by Ned Hakim requesting to rezone property at 19333 Vidor Parkway, located on the west side of Vidor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, from C-2 to C4-I, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-09-01-08, as amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to C4, for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the type of development that has occurred along the 496/1-275 Freeway corridor; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the City's development policies for the Freeway corridor; 4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the spirit of the Future Land Use Plan as it relates to the Freeway corridor and vicinity; and 5. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for uses which are consistent with the location of the property near a major freeway interchange. December 16, 2008 25063 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. ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 972n" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 972nu Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 21, 2008. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-100-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 972n° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scheel, McDermott, Vartoogian, Wilshaw, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Walsh: Al this point, it brings us to the conclusion of our meeting. I'd like to lake the opportunity to thank the Planning Department for all their support over the years and all the support I received from my colleagues. I do appreciate it. I want to thank City Channel 8 for making sure that we broadcast. I look forward to serving Livonia in another capacity. Its been my honor to be here on the Planning Commission. December 16, 2008 25064 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 97V Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 16, 2008, was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman