HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-11-19 15247
MINUTES OF THE 735th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 19, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 735th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with
approximately 60 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann* Jack Engebretson Robert Alanskas
R. Lee Morrow Daniel Piercecchi John Walsh*
Members absent: Pat Blomberg
Messrs. John J. Nagy*, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and
Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present
In the absence of Mr. McCann, Mr. Engebretson acted as Chairman.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
`�•- involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The
Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating
petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-9-2-27 by
Professional Engineering Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a
motel facility on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
* 7:35 - Mr. McCann entered the meeting at this time.
15248
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they note that Middlebelt Road has not been dedicated to its fullest
extent (60 feet) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare
Plan. They end by saying their office has no objections to this waiver
use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Plymouth Road
Development Authority stating they support this petition.
We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have
no objections to this proposal. However, this Division requires"Fire
Lane - No Parking" signs be posted, per City ordinance, at the
following locations:
North side of entire roadway from Middlebelt to the east
end of complex
Both sides of entire north/south roadway along west end of
complex.
- South side of entire east/west roadway along south side of
complex.
- West side of entire north/south roadway along east side of
complex.
�.. In addition to hydrants located along Middlebelt, hydrants shall be
strategically located around complex.
We have also received a letter from 11900 Middlebelt L.P., owners of
America's Auto Village stating the following: Our property is adjacent
to the northern property line of the proposed motel facility under
consideration. Until we received notice from the Planning Commission
we were completely unaware of the proposed project. Unfortunately, I
am unable to attend the meeting due to a schedule conflict. Please be
advised that we strongly disapprove of the proposed development.
We believe that the proposed use is completely incompatible with the
uses of neighboring properties, which are zoned industrial, residential
and commercial. The very nature of the motel business, including
transient customers and intense traffic patterns, would be deleterious to
the neighborhood. Residents living directly to the east will be bothered
by late night slamming of car doors, parking lot lighting infringing on
the tranquillity of their backyards, and unclear but worrisome potential
problems inherent to the motel business. We and our tenants also are
extremely concerned with the potential for theft, vandalism, and
assorted potential problems inherent to being located next to a 24-hour
facility such as a motel. Our tenants operate only during normal
15249
business hours. Several of our automotive tenants are concerned with
damage to cars parked on our lot awaiting repair at their facilities.
Middlebelt Road already carries a tremendous amount of traffic, which
,`"" would be further taxed with the proposed development. Tenants,
customers and employees at our complex currently have to deal with
McDonald's traffic, making left turns out of American's Auto Village
(to go southbound on Middlebelt) a near impossibility. Certainly this
situation would be further aggravated by a motel. It should be noted
that when we acquired America's Auto Village almost four years ago,
it was approximately 80% vacant. During the past four years we have
worked diligently (and have spent a considerable sum of money) to
bring our property to full occupancy. We greatly respect our
residential neighbors to the east and strictly enforce the rules and
regulations of our complex. The proposed motel facility would be an
unwelcome, detrimental addition to the area. In our opinion, a motel
does not belong in such a congested location, especially when
numerous other options are available for the site, and the abutting
properties are completely inconsistent. We urge you to vote against
this proposed development. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and describe your proposal.
Tom Goldberg, 1780 Associates Limited Partnership, 6735 Telegraph, Bloomfield Hills:
We are here tonight on behalf of the land owner, and we are part of the
development team. Also with us is Larry Costakis.
Larry Costakis, 2138 North Clifton, Chicago, Illinois. I am employed by Extended Stay
America, the owner of the Crosslands Inn that we are proposing here
tonight. As you are aware, we are here requesting a waiver use to
construct an extended-stay hotel on the east side of Middlebelt Road
just north of Plymouth. Our hotel is designed to cater to extended-stay
business travelers such as consultants, trainees, engineers, etc. The
reason we selected this site is within a one mile radius of the site there
are 20,000 jobs. For example, Detroit Diesel employs 3,000 and rents
4,000 rooms at nearby hotels. General Motors and Ford employs
4,500 combined. We have spoken with other hotels nearby and they
have many extended-stay guests. Some background on our company.
Our company was founded by Wayne Huizenga and George Johnson.
Wayne Huizenga is one of the founders of Waste Management and
both of them are founders of Blockbuster Entertainment.
Mr. Goldberg: If anyone has any questions, we will be glad to entertain them.
Mr. Engebretson: Why don't you describe the proposal to us.
15250
Mr. Costakis: We are proposing to construct two separate buildings, two stories high
with 128 rooms. Each room will have in it a kitchenette, which will
have a two-burner stove, a refrigerator, microwave and a coffee maker,
and again, our design is to cater to extended-stay business travelers.
Any questions?
Mr. Engebretson: On the waiver use sir, this process also includes a consideration of
approval or disapproval on the site plan so you may want to also
address the construction of the buildings, the flow of traffic, the lighting
and traffic patterns and anything you feel is appropriate to convey an
accurate description of what goes on at that facility.
Mr. Costakis: I may ask our Civil Engineer to step over to talk about the site.
Jim Albrecht, Project Manager with Professional Engineering Associates, 2430 Rochester
Ct., Suite 100, Troy: This site is on the east side of Middlebelt Road.
It is approximate 3 1/2 acres. The site layout is two separate buildings
having 128 units. We have met the parking requirements for C-2
zoning. We also meet the required setbacks both from Middlebelt
Road and from the sides and rear. As you can see, the landscape plan
we had presented to the Plymouth Road Development Authority has
been modified. We added landscaping at their recommendation. The
discussion with the Engineering Department, all site utilities are in
place. No detention is required on the site. As far as the traffic flow, I
�.. don't have specific traffic counts on Middlebelt Road. However, the
nature of the development being an extended stay for business
travelers, would not expect to generate as many trips as where you
would have just one night stays.
Mr. Engebretson: What about construction materials.
Mr. Costakis: The structure will be constructed out of wood, which is permitted by
local codes. The exterior of the building will be primarily an external
insulating finish such as dryvit. However, we have added brick on the
end of the building, which would be exposed to Middlebelt Road.
Besides that we will use an architecturally appealing asphalt shingle on
the roof, and that is all I have to say about the construction.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say the building is wood, it needs to be painted. What is
your average time before you have to repaint it again? How many
years?
Mr. Costakis: It is like a plaster or stucco, whatever you want to call it, and basically
the finish is guaranteed for five years.
15251
Mr. Alanskas: When you say stucco, you are putting dryvit over the wood?
Mr. Costakis: Yes, so over the wood there would be an inch and half minimum of
Nom.
Styrofoam insulation, and then on top of that would be the actual
plaster material.
Mr. Alanskas: Question number two, when you said extended-stay, what is the
average stay for the extended-stay visitor?
Mr. Costakis: It varies between one week and 14 days.
Mr. Alanskas: What percent do you have for only one day?
Mr. Costakis: A small percent, probably 10%.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any buildings now that are entirely brick?
Mr. Costakis: No.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to your second floor, how high is your walkway?
Mr. Costakis: I am just guessing about 9 to 10 feet.
Mr. McCann: How many of these hotels do you have completed at this time?
Mr. Costakis: I don't know the exact number but it is close to 20 and by this year's
end we will have a total of 40 open in the United States.
Mr. McCann: How many of those proposed, or done, would have brick at least
through the first floor on the hotels?
Mr. Costakis: A small percentage. Maybe four of them.
Mr. McCann: Dryvit is basically a plaster type surface on top of a foam insulation. It
can't take very much abuse like the brick can. It would seem to me
over a 20 year plan, wouldn't the brick pay off'
Mr. Costakis: It possibly would in terms of maintenance. The finish is very durable,
and there are different methods in terms of where customers are going
to be able to touch it. Wherever people are going to be bumping up
against it, we put on a much thicker coat and it is very durable. It is a
very common building material nowadays.
Mr. McCann: I have seen it a lot but I haven't seen where anybody hasn't gone at
least the first 8 to 10 feet with brick. Brick is generally the top choice.
15252
Stucco seems to weather well and, as you say, it seems to hold the
finish and it is a good insulating material but it doesn't wear well to
cars or people hitting it or bumping into it. My concern is that you are
putting a hotel in here, and I don't know what the company's motive is
but we want it to be a long-term investment. I would have a real tough
time supporting this project where people are accessible to the walls
and it is not brick. At the ends where it is above 8 feet, that is not a
problem with me, but the sections where people are walking and the
bottom floor and second floor where they are walking, I really need to
see some brick there. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Costakis: Yes it is a possibility.
Mr. Morrow: Because you are abutting the residential neighborhood there, could you
give us a feel for the lighting that is going to be on the site? The height
of the lights in the parking lot and the lights on the building?
Mr. Costakis: Right now all the lighting is attached to the building and in this case it
would be about 16 feet off the ground and it would be perimeter lights
around the building shining straight down for customers to be able to
get out of their cars safely and get to the building.
Mr. Morrow: If I am following you correctly, there will be no pole lighting?
ti.. Mr. Costakis: There will be no pole lighting.
Mr. Morrow: It will be downlit so it will not cast any light into the abutting
neighborhood?
Mr. Costakis: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: As far as the landscaping, I don't think the percentage was mentioned.
Could you give us an idea what the percentage of landscaping is on the
site?
Mr. Costakis: As I recall it is 22%.
Mr. Morrow: That is the number I had but I wanted you to get that into the record.
Secondly, I assume the height of the building will not exceed a normal
two-story residential house?
Mr. Costakis: I believe the ordinance requires 35 feet.
Mr. Walsh: I am just curious in terms of attracting your business clientele, in
addition to the kitchenette, in what other way do you try to preserve
15253
this as a business extended-stay as opposed to extended-stay for other
uses?
Mr. Costakis: We definitely go and visit all the local businesses and that is definitely
the type of customer we are trying to attract. The first thing we would
do here is to go visit with General Motors and Ford and Detroit Diesel
and explain to them what we do. That is the type of customer we have
been attracting.
Mr. Walsh: Have you met with GM and Ford and the companies that are in that
area?
Mr. Costakis: No, we have spoken with them though.
Mr. Walsh: They said they would be interested?
Mr. Costakis: As I stated earlier Detroit Diesel said they rent out 4,000 rooms a year
alone for trainees coming to this area.
Mr. McCann: I have several questions. The first was my concern over the durability
of the building. The second is to its impact on its neighbors. What
type of customer, can you explain to the audience and to the
Commission as best you can, the type of customer you expect. What is
the minimum and maximum stay, average stay?
Mr. Costakis: As I stated earlier we will be renting nightly as well as on a weekly rate.
It is a better rate if you rent by the week. We expect some people will
be staying as much as a month at a time based on their business
requirements here.
Mr. McCann: Do these have kitchens inside each one?
Mr. Costakis: Just kitchenettes, a two-burner stove, a microwave and a coffee maker.
Mr. McCann: You can't tell us what percentage you expect? I assume a company
brings someone in for a week, that is the type of customer you are
looking for?
Mr. Costakis: Correct.
Mr. McCann: You don't have any split, like 60% are going to be long-term stays?
Mr. Costakis: It is all based on need. Our reservation system, if someone books for
two weeks and they stay an extra week, it is hard for us to turn away
15254
nightlies. We don't have any percentage but we prefer to keep people
there on a weekly basis. That means we keep it full.
''r"' Mr. McCann: You are going to have parking along the rear wall. You don't have
much choice about that but you have the dumpster up against the rear
wall, which would be next to residential. You only have one dumpster
setup, correct?
Mr. Costakis: Correct.
Mr. McCann: That is probably going to require daily pick up with a facility that size.
Is there a possibility of looking more towards the southwest corner.
Something along there would have less impact on the residential
neighborhood. Sometimes those companies come in at 7:15, 7:30 in
the morning and if you have to listen to that every morning it would be
one of my concerns, if we consider this, as to what impact it has on the
neighborhood and having a dumpster there is a problem.
Mr. Costakis: We can definitely consider that. The reason we selected this location,
first of all there is an existing screen wall back there, and we thought it
would be better than having it back of McDonald's where there is also
a lot of traffic, and I don't think McDonald's would appreciate it, but
we would be very flexible to doing that.
�.• Mr. McCann: You said just lighting on the building. You have quite a lengthy drive
there. Do you have any plans for lighting in that area?
Mr. Costakis: I am not sure right now.
Mr. Piercecchi: I too share Mr. McCann's concern about durability and about
increasing the amount of brick on that structure, especially in the heavy
traffic area. Is there a possibility that you could return and revise that
to satisfy those concerns?
Mr. Costakis: We can definitely add some brick. Right now we put brick on the ends
of the building where there was more of the building appearing to
Middlebelt Road but I am sure we can add more.
Mr. Piercecchi: Dryvit makes a pretty appearance like we all know and it is very
common but to my recollection the installers of dryvit only guarantee
their product for ten years, and brick lasts a lifetime. I would like to
recommend that you return again, similar to the situation we had a
couple of weeks ago near the expressway. They came back with a
revised plan that was really wonderful and they too started out in that
direction. I would like to have you do that if you would.
15255
Mr. Costakis: We would be glad to.
Mr. Goldberg: I think we can make a commitment now, for the benefit of time, to do a
brick enhancement program in the heavy traffic areas. We will be glad
to come back if that is required but we are glad to give people that
comfort. That is not an issue we can't live with.
Mr. Piercecchi: Inasmuch as there is an objection to this facility by Auto Village, this
will require six Council votes?
Mr. Engebretson: No that is only on a zoning matter. That does not apply to a waiver
use.
Mr. Goldberg: One other point, this is approximately a five million dollar project. I
think people need to keep in mind that this is a first class facility and it
appeals to a very high-class business traveler. The typical proto-type
customer is an engineer or a person that is a skilled person interfacing
with the automobile industry. Extended-Stay did extensive research.
This is a very critical location. There is a very critical need for this type
of use, and I think if people understand that they will appreciate it.
Mr. Piercecchi: I appreciate the five million dollar package but inasmuch as you are
going to spend five million dollars, how much more would it cost for all
brick?
Mr. Goldberg: That is a substantial cost. It is expensive but what I think we can
commit to is we can definitely enhance the brick on this project.
Construction is expensive as the Commission knows and costs are not
going down and it is a competitive business so we try to keep the cost
competitive, but adding additional brick in the whole scheme of the
development can be accomplished.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Goldberg, you should be aware by adding brick to Mr. Piercecchi
means adding brick right to the top.
Mr. Goldberg: Yes I understand.
Mr. Engebretson: On the three-story motel that we dealt with recently that is what they
did and that made it more acceptable. We have a long way to go
though on this particular issue.
Mr. Alanskas: What is your average price for a nightly stay?
15256
Mr. Costakis: Average weekly stay is about $250 to $275, and our average nightly
rate is $45 to $60 a night, and we usually start with an introductory
,N.ir lower rate but all the final rates are based on what we spend on the
project and is determined by Operations at the time of opening.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you have 5 built right now or 20?
Mr. Costakis: We have 20 built right now.
Mr. Alanskas: How long have they been in operation?
Mr. Costakis: The longest one we have had in operation has been about a year and a
half.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you had any problems whatsoever in regards to teenagers trying
to get into there on weekends or for senior proms or that type of
business.
Mr. Costakis: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have an age limit you have to be?
Mr. Costakis: I don't know what the law is on that but I am sure we comply with the
law.
Mr. Alanskas: You don't have a certain age where they have to be at least 18 to get
in?
Mr. Costakis: I am not aware of it.
Mr. Engebretson: I have a couple of comments or observations or questions, I am not
sure how to categorize them. I am troubled by the orientation of the
buildings with respect to the residential uses to the east. I noted the
documentation that we have that you provide precisely the correct
number of parking spaces but in order to do that you come within
inches of the property line of those residential uses to the east. On the
other hand you show ten foot buffers on both the north and south
property lines, if I am reading this print correctly, where you are giving
some buffered effect between your use and the commercial uses on
either side of you, and that seems to be backwards to me. It would
seem if we were going to be providing some buffers, some relief from
parking all the vehicles that go with that, that it would obviously be
best to do that in the area that would get the most benefit from it, that
being the residential uses. Now it appears to me that the plan is
workable for this piece of property but that it has been taken to its
15257
absolute maximum, and that in doing so you intrude, and I don't use
that word to be argumentative but I do view it as an intrusion into the
N•.. peace and tranquillity of those residential uses at the east where we
have a dumpster back there, which as was pointed out earlier, is
serviced on a daily basis. We all know what kind of shock waves that
can send through a neighborhood. Another thing, we have a large
satellite dish mounted back there that is not going to be particularly
noticeable to the people staying in your facility but I think it is going to
be quite visible to the people, again, that are there now, and we have a
motto in Livonia. Our City motto is that"In Livonia citizens come
first", and our purpose here in pursuing these lines of reasoning is to
fulfill that commitment. While you have rights to utilize property and
you have the right to maximize the use of property, and I certainly
don't question that, we think it is good business sense, and it is good
citizen sense, to make an effort to be compatible with the surrounding
uses of the community, particularly when the surrounding uses are
residential. I guess that is really more of a statement rather than a
question but I think it is really important that you understand the
troubling nature of the statement that this layout makes in that
particular regard. I guess the question would be, is it possible that this
site plan could be reworked to leave a 40 to 45 or 50 foot buffer
between your buildings and the residential uses where you could plant
some heavy landscaping that would start out relatively mature, and
something that would in very short order give a good screening effect
from the visible aspects of what people would be looking at, and I
would understand that these kinds of planting type buffers would also
go a long way towards screening out some of the noises that are bound
to occur. Even though the presentation you made indicates these are
business-type travelers and they are students and professionals, they
too have a need to be coming and going at hours that aren't necessarily
normal business hours so they are probably going to be parked back
there and there are going to be lights and doors slamming. We are
concerned about those things. The question is, is there anything you
can do to reorient the facility that would address those concerns?
Mr. Goldberg: We can definitely do some reorientation to accommodate your
concerns. Our engineer has some comments,
Mr. Albrecht: We had looked at a couple of different site layouts. As you have
seen,the plan in your packet did mention a 42-50 foot buffer. There is,
I believe, a 40-foot sanitary easement that runs along the residential
property. There is also a drain easement that cuts across the south end
of the property. We had looked at taking the footprint the developers
wanted to use on this site and basically came up with this as the best
15258
plan. You can't really flip these buildings and get them to fit with the
easement configuration the way the site lays out.
*8:05 - Mr. Walsh left the meeting.
Mr. Engebretson: I think if the buildings were turned 90 degrees it would make it even
worse because now you would have the second floor balcony up there,
which would not be very workable. I understand about the easement
there and I guess if there was a necessity to access that sanitary sewer,
that moving some pavement around it is a better choice than moving
some trees and things. On the other hand what is the probability of
having to do that? It is something to think about. The other thing is if
that is necessary to stay there, would it be illogical to make the facility
somewhat smaller? I realize that your total land costs and development
costs would be advertised over a fewer number of rooms,but on the
other hand it might take something that has some real serious concern
and alleviate some of those concerns. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Goldberg: Yes it is a possibility. At this point I cannot commit to doing that.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand that. We will now go to the audience to see if there is
anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal.
Eric Wolfe: I am with America's Auto Village. We own the property to the north
of this property. I didn't think I could be here so I prepared that letter
but fortunately I came tonight,but having seen the design I have a few
more problems with it. Rather than waste a lot of time, there are a lot
of people in the audience who I am sure want to say a few things also
for items on the agenda later tonight, I won't repeat what I said in my
letter. I will add a few things based upon statements made here tonight
by the developer. First, Planning Commission you are doing your job.
You are evaluating a development. You are looking at some very
important design considerations. My problem has to do with the nature
of the facility. This is a motel. We are an automotive, retail, industrial
operation. We have residents to the east It is primarily retail in that
area, and of course, you have GM Power Train, etc. I don't see any
motels in the area. We have a McDonald's right there, which causes a
tremendous amount of traffic. What we really have there is a developer
who has taken a relatively small piece of land and has devoted almost
all of the frontage to McDonald's, which is a very intense use,
preserving for itself a driveway to the rear of the property for which he
is also proposing an incredibly intense use. What we have here is a 128
unit motel. I was under the impression, for some reason, that it was
proposed as a single-story motel. One hundred twenty-eight rooms,
whether they are extended stay or by-the-day, they are going to have a
15259
lot of trips in and out of there. Combine that with the trips at
McDonald's and my tenants will have a major problem getting cars out
onto Middlebelt Road. It is almost impossible to turn left right now
and this is only going to enhance that. If other uses went back there,
and there are a number of uses allowed under C-2 that I don't believe
would require a waiver, I may or may not have an objection, but they
have proposed other developments for this site in the past and we
didn't object at that time. This is the first time we have objected and I
have serious reservations. Just specifically, besides what I have in my
letter, this is a new development by this group. They mentioned they
have about 20 other facilities built in the last year and a half. Wayne
Huizenga builds and then disposes of businesses. That is what he does.
He is an entrepreneur. He builds companies and sells them. What we
have here is a relatively inferior form of construction, clearly out of a
cookie cutter format that he devised, being placed on that site at the
rear using virtually 100% of every square inch of that parcel. My
property to the north, we have at least a 50, and I believe it is a 60 foot
rear setback between us and the residents. This is right up against
them. The lighting is going to be at 16 feet. It is going to be above any
screening wall. I get a kick out of the five million dollar number. That
sounds like a lot of money but if you know anything about construction
that really isn't expensive. What we are going to find is Huizenga's
group is going to sell this facility in the future and it will be difficult to
44.0. maintain it. It is going to have to be painted readily, and once it starts
changing hands, you have a problem. It is a $45 to $60 motel. I don't
see any guarantee where it is going to be extended stay. That is one of
the cheapest motels around. What they are doing is taking this project,
this design they have, and trying to cram it on as tight a spot as they
can find. They are not willing to move things around because of
easements. How about a smaller operation, not trying to jam
something down the adjacent property owners' throats. My final
comment has to do with the landscaping. I don't see any creative use
of landscaping. I see trees up and down the perimeter of the property.
I don't see any interior parking lot landscaping. I am not that familiar
with what the ordinance says in Livonia but a lot of other cities require
that they put in islands in the parking lot. They have trees and shrubs.
I don't see where the sign is going to be on this property, which is
going to add to obscuring my property. They are taking all the view as
you are heading north on Middlebelt and obscuring it with this massive
structure that is inferior. I am glad I showed up tonight. I urge you to
listen to the residents. I am sure they have some interesting things to
say as well, but as a property owner I object strongly and I urge you to
vote no.
15260
Mr. Engebretson: I might mention to you briefly that the sign package is not a part of this
proposal tonight. The other thing is that the landscaping, by ordinance,
o.. has to be 15% of the total ground cover. They have achieved 22% of
at least green area but we don't have a lot of the types of landscaping
particulars that you refer to.
Mr. Wolfe: The site on paper looks like it is going to be exciting. To go out there
and look at it, it is going to be narrow driveways, at the back of the
parcel, extremely detrimental to the area. I believe we will all be sorry.
Mr. Alanskas: At your Auto Village, how many units do you have vacant at the
present time?
Mr. Wolfe: They are all full right now. It was 20% occupied when we took over
and we improved it and painted it and we are here to stay.
Mr. Engebretson: How long have you owned that business?
Mr. Wolfe: Four years.
Arthur Flemming, 11885 Haller: I have lived here for 65 years. My family has been in
Wayne County for 165 years. Mr. Baker is here with me and we are
opposed to having this place so close to us. Some of the clientele that
*tawwill come there, and the kids will have parties, and the truckers with
their big rigs.
*8:17 - John Walsh returned to meeting
Fred Baker, 11865 Haller: That is right behind where the hotel is going up, and my
complaint would also be the noise. I appreciate you asking for a 40-50
foot buffer between the wall and their place. If they are going to be a
motel, I don't think they are all going to be business travelers. I think
we are likely to have a few trucks in there delivering things because
there are factories and shopping centers, etc. down there, and knowing
diesel trucks, they run them all night long so that will make a little
trouble. Thank you very much.
Mr. Flemming: I was talking to Leonard Hatch and he said no also.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Flemming for coming down. Does the developer have
anything further to add? If not, we will close the public hearing.
Mr. Goldberg: I just wanted to comment about Mr. Huizenga. He is probably one of
the most capable business people in the country. He runs first-class
facilities. Extended-Stay America is a publicly listed company and has
15261
a fine record. I don't think it is fair to take a shot at that company.
The other thing is the structure of the facility is a business oriented
`'` facility. We tried to meet all the ordinances, and we are going to try to
meet every accommodation that Planning Commission and staff will
require of us to build a first class facility. As it relates to alternatives,
we have been approached with a number of alternative uses, and I want
to underline that for you, which we have not brought to you. They
include car washes, they include miniature golf, other various
incendiary uses which we didn't think were of the caliber of this
opportunity. We wanted members of the Commission to be aware of
that. We think this is a first-class use and please give it your fullest
consideration.
Mr. Alanskas: On your facilities now, what is your smallest size you have as far as
rooms?
Mr. Goldberg: I think 120 to 125. This is 128, and 120 to 125 would be the smallest
size.
Mr. McCann: I have a number of concerns. I am not familiar with the type of
structure. They have to meet all our requirements but it is a wood
structure. It is 95% dryvit. It encroaches on the neighbors. There is
10 feet between it and McDonald's but nothing between it and the
neighbors as far as any greenbelt or trees to dampen the noise. There
are just a lot of problems with this. I would like to make a tabling
resolution.
There was no one else in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-9-2-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-208-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 19, 1996 on Petition 96-9-2-27 by Professional Engineering
Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a motel facility on
property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth
Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 96-9-2-27 until
the Regular Meeting of January 21, 1997.
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.
15262
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. McCann.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-2-28 by
Paul DePalma requesting waiver use approval to construct detached
condominiums on property located on the west side of Hubbard Road north of
West Chicago in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. Also in our file are
letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal stating their offices do
not have any objections to this proposal. We also had a Jo Ballert, who
resides on Cranston, call and state she would not be able to be at the
Commission meeting but wanted you to know that she has an objection
to this item. 1. She does not like the idea of only 58 1/2 feet width
instead of 60 feet. 2. Her church wanted to purchase the property.
They were only given 2 days to bid on the property not 2 weeks or 2
months. 3. She is worried that they will be used as rental properties.
She does not want this to happen.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane,just for the audience, according to our notes this complies
with all the requirements of the R-1 zoning district?
Mr. Shane: Under the cluster option it does.
Mr. McCann: Except for the 58 1/2 frontage?
Mr. Shane: The 58 1/2 foot also complies because this is not a conventional
subdivision.
Mr. McCann: Other than that would it qualify?
Mr. Shane: It would still qualify.
Mr. McCann: The reason for doing this is so they don't have to go through site plan
so this could be more quickly done? Other than than that, they would
not be able to tell this from a normal subdivision?
Mr. Shane: That is true.
15263
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Would you come up and give us a brief
description of what you are intending to do.
Paul DePalma, 7102 Fox Hill Rd., Canton: Currently there is an existing commercial
building that was used by the Italian American Club, I believe, at first
and then went to the Jaycees. We are proposing to demolish that
building. Currently there is a chain link fence along two sides of the
property. We would like to remove that as well and replace those with
plantings. I state on here as a general note 4 to 5 foot arborvitaes
placed 3 foot on center. I have laid out two plans here which we will
go over next. We laid out the specific driveways accordingly and left
the proper setbacks. If there are any questions from the Commissioners
on that.
Mr. McCann: Are there sidewalks?
Mr. DePalma: Yes there are.
Mr. McCann: Can you show us the elevations?
(Mr. DePalma presented the elevations)
Mr. DePalma: These are two plans that I took out of architectural books. Both are
colonials, 3 bedrooms,2 1/2 baths, dimensions start at 41 feet wide by
46 feet deep. Starting with the first plan, the first floor is brick. The
second floor will be a premium vinyl siding. All corners and around the
windows themselves will be trimmed out in pine. As far as color
selections, we are going to try to maintain the earth tones. The second
plan, again this is also 3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths, brick on first floor or
40% total. I came up with this because as you can see this metal gable
actually looks to be like stucco. This, however, will not be stucco.
This second gable will most definitely be brick. The reason I put the
40% was to give me an option to possibly even go to the 3 foot brick
ledge on the garage side and maintain the first floor brick all the way
around, but I have no objection to going with first floor brick all the
way around. It is not a problem. As far as windows, both will be
either a wood window, more likely a vinyl window.
Mr. McCann: What about the price range?
Mr. DePalma: My early estimates show probably between $170,000 to possibly mid-
$180,000s for both plans, plan two probably being a little more
expensive than plan one.
Mr. Piercecchi: This property does qualify for R-1, does it not?
15264
Mr. McCann: It does meet R-1 but petitioner did not want to go through site plan
New approval, which would take him six months. He is doing it under a site
condominium.
Mr. Shane: Site condominium as opposed to a normal subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: I am curious about the issue Mr. Shane was just describing, that the
motivation to seek this kind of waiver use appears to work, but the
question I have is will you really operate this as a condominium? Will
there be a condominium association, etc.?
Mr. DePalma: I don't intend to. I plan to treat this as a normal lot split. The only
purpose for going to site condominium is to eliminate the time factor
obviously.
Mr. Engebretson: I am just wondering how appropriate that is. Is it your interpretation of
the ordinance Mr. Shane that the word condominium is used to
describe a use that is within the general framework of how one would
normally view a condominium development?
Mr. Shane: If he were to plat this as a platted subdivision, then he would have to
provide 60 foot wide lots. If he chooses the cluster concept for site
condo, then you really wipe out lot lines and you are dealing with a
density factor, which would put four houses on that particular area.
The site condo is a concept where the house is purchased by the owner,
and perhaps some small part of the property around it, but the rest is in
common. I don't suppose that would prevent him from selling each lot
as a condominium type of thing but it just couldn't be platted. He
would have to submit a condominium plan to the City Assessor as
opposed to being split.
Mr. Engebretson: In my mind the condominium type of development implies some
common grounds and common maintenance of the exterior of the
buildings. If house number one has a problem with a roof or siding,
then it really is a problem of one of the owner of two, three and four
because of the way in which condominiums operate. That is my
understanding of how they operate.
Mr. Shane: There may be some modifications to that but that is how I understand
it.
Mr. Engebretson: I find that very troubling. It either is or it isn't. My purpose, Mr.
DePalma, is not to cause you a problem but I really need to understand
what is going on here, and the response then causes the concern to
15265
escalate. Now that you have heard this discussion, if we were to ask
that same question again, how would you respond?
Mr. DePalma: I don't know. Just to reiterate again it is just more or less a time
factor. If you are worried about By-Laws, I think that is what you're
getting at.
Mr. Engebretson: No, I am not getting at that. I am not really concerned about those
details. What I am concerned about is we are dealing with this as a site
condominium type of development, and we know why we are doing
that, but that is not really the way in which the project is going to
function with common ground, common ownership, and common
maintenance. Typically that is done with an association with people
having these common interests, paying dues, having officers. I am just
wondering if that works with four units. If it doesn't, then the question
is, is this really a proper approach that we are taking here? Should we
take the time to go through the other process, which I realize also
introduces another problem with the 58 1/2 foot lot size.
Mr. McCann: Then he has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: My purpose here is not to be problematic. It is only to make sure we
do things properly and we all understand what it is we are doing.
Mr. Walsh: Is there going to be any common ownership of the property
whatsoever?
Mr. DePalma: No.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, haven't we done this before on a couple of other projects
where we found the size of the project, considering there are only four
homes here, the deficiency because they can only go 58 1/2 foot lot,
and I think we have used cluster housing?
Mr. Shane: There are several projects which have been done similar to this under
the cluster housing type of concept. In those instances there was some
common area involved where there would be common maintenance of
landscaping for example.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have 225' of frontage on Hubbard Road. You divide 225 by 4 to
get 56 feet. I wonder if this gentleman wouldn't be better off if he
went to the R-1 status and went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, or
maybe he qualifies under the 7200 sq. ft. under R-1, rather than trying
to pass this thing as condominium when as our learned colleague,
Commissioner Engebretson, pointed out, it really isn't a condominium.
15266
He is asking for condominium when he doesn't qualify for
condominium.
vow
Mr. Shane: I think he either has to plat it or he has to have a condominium project
because I believe there have been too many splits on that land to allow
him to go through the splitting process. He has two choices, a
condominium project or cluster housing as he is proposing or plat it.
Mr. Piercecchi: He could plat that into four lots, correct?
Mr. Shane: If he could get four 60 foot lots. You would get three lots instead of
four in the platting process because he was not meeting the lot size
requirements. By doing the condominium project you don't worry
about lot sizes because it is a common area. All you worry about is
density, four houses on that property either through condominium
process or platting process.
Mr. Piercecchi: The gentleman doesn't plan on platting this as a condo.
Mr. Shane: I understand that but there are modifications to that where a portion of
land is owned by each land owner and usually there is some common
area involved.
,` Mr. Alanskas: The building there now, how long has that been vacant?
Mr. DePalma: Actually I believe the Livonia Jaycees have some existing parties they
are still using it for until the end of the year. We purchased the
property and leased it back to the Jaycees until the end of this year.
Mr. Alanskas: By you saying you are going to be adding more brick on that one gable,
actually we are calling it a condominium but it looks like a home.
Mr. DePalma: I am trying to do this like four individual houses. I would also like to
comment on the call from the lady and assure her these homes will not
be used for rental purposes.
Mr. Alanskas: Did you also have a couple of ranches you wanted to put up here or are
they all this type of home?
Mr. DePalma: I won't have any ranches. Actually I prefer Plan One over Plan Two.
There may well be a variation too rather than Plan One and Plan Two.
Mr. McCann: I would like to respond to the point brought up by Mr. Piercecchi. We
have done this before. There are certain aspects that can be of benefit.
Number one, we have common ownership, then you need some type of
15267
common group to maintain that. When you have private ownership,
you have individuals that are responsible that the property gets
maintained. We have looked at that before. I think the one cluster we
did off Six Mile Road, it was just the common ground, which was at
the very end of the property. We looked at that and decided it was like
a play area space requirement.
Mr. Shane: There was a large space which was required for setback for the first
house and we turned that into a common, recreational area.
Mr. McCann: It had nothing to do with the other homes. In this instance, we are
getting four full size homes at 130 foot depth. I guess my only point is
to respond and say that it does have some benefit in not having a condo
association whereby you have to come up with a group in order to
maintain certain properties.
Mr. Morrow: It seems to me when we went to various plats, some of the lots in
platting may not necessarily have the front yard frontage but the overall
dimensions qualify. Is that true?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: This is just an extreme variation on that theme?
ftaw
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Bruce Johnson, 9614 Blackburn: I am also here on behalf of Rosedale Gardens
Presbyterian Church, the church that is immediately adjacent to the
property. I am here on behalf of the session of Rosedale Gardens
Presbyterian Church that is the ruling body of the church and the
session wants to be put in the record the supporting position that the
City of Livonia not grant a waiver to Mr. DePalma to enable him to
construct the four detached condominiums on the property adjacent to
the church. Also as a homeowner, I have been a resident of Rosedale
Gardens for 11 years. I would also like to go on record as not
supporting it. I am in favor of keeping it in the present size rather than
giving a waiver for smaller lots. If it takes three houses to develop it, I
may be in favor of that but not for granting a condominium.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Johnson, you have explained your reason for having an objection
to the plan as presented. You stated the church's position but would
you be aware of the church's reason for opposing the development as
presented?
15268
Mr. Johnson: The church has no specific reason other than the fact they were
interested in the property also and we were cut out of that position.
`r•• They are not holding hard feelings about it,just they would just rather
see the property developed in the manner that the rest of the
homeowners' association around that area is.
Mr. Engebretson: You said you spoke on behalf of the session so let me just ask you to
clarify it. Would it be your belief that if this were proposed to be
developed with three homes, that the church would probably be
supportive of that?
Mr. Johnson: I don't think the church would be against that. I think they are more or
less trying to keep the position of the homeowners in the area. They
may look at it as more members.
Daryl Nakonezny, 9612 Hubbard: I would first like to say that in the past we have had
several concerns with the rental use of the Jaycee clubhouse as it stands
today, and in general I personally am in favor of new development
there; however, I am concerned with the lot sizes. We have established
minimum standards for lot sizes for good reason in the past. The
existing homes in the area, I believe, none are less than 60 feet. I
would be opposed to dividing that property into four separate lots.
The other comment I have, one of the things we pride in the old
Rosedale neighborhood is the unique designs of the homes, each having
a little different character. I believe Mr. DePalma has attempted to
show some variation here in two of the homes although I would be
concerned that he not duplicate the same basic shape in all four homes.
A. G. Ballert, 11405 Cranston: I have been there for about 43 years. A couple of items.
I am not directly opposed to it but first the terminology has bothered
some of you. That isn't a condominium. I look at that as something,
as you may know, over in Plymouth, New England Corners. I thought
that was what he had in mind. It looks like the reason for it is to not
have the full frontage that is normally the case. Some of you on the
Planning Commission might recall a number of years ago a fellow
wanted to build that place right behind the National Bank of Detroit on
Hubbard and he wanted to squeeze a little more and get two in there
across from St. Michael's Church, and finally it ended up he had a hard
time but he finally put one house there but he wanted to squeeze two in
that place also. This location, back a number of years ago when
Rosedale was a grade school, there was a proposal to put about seven
houses on part of that land which the school owned, I believe, but
someone wanted to put seven houses along there and the Planning
Commission, for whatever reason, opposed that. This seems to fall
within that same category. I don't think it is compatible to put that in
15269
there but certainly they shouldn't get more than three houses on that
property. I was a City Planning member myself for the City of
_•- Chicago, so I have had some work in the field of planning, and I just
think corners are being cut here,so if it is approved, it certainly
shouldn't have four houses on that piece of property.
Frank Kasun, 9800 Hubbard: First of all thanks for letting me speak. Second of all, I did
not receive any notification. I only found out about this three days ago
from some of the neighbors that were passing by. I think it does have
an impact on the homeowner directly across the street. I was miffed, to
say the least, that I was not contacted. A couple of my concerns, I am
interested in how the water and sewage might be affected by this
development. Also the traffic flow, what is going to be happening with
the road surface, resurfacing the road, how this may affect the
development, the existing landscaping? There is a bank of trees that
has been used as a wind break for us for our homes across the street
because of the gusts of winds and other property damage that we have
sustained over the years. I too am concerned about the property, the
size of the lots in relation to the size of our lots as was stated. Mine is
on a double lot, double 40 foot lot. We are concerned about resale.
When I was told this was possible condo units, questions arose as far as
is this an adult living situation, is this family oriented? Those things
have not been addressed. If he is going to use it as private residences,
it should be listed that way. Condos versus homes, I understand about
trying to quicken the time factor. In my experience most condo owners
usually own the dwelling and there is one common land owner. There
isn't much common area for the residents. I could be wrong. There is
a classification that is called detached condos, which are single family
homes on common ground as opposed to cluster condos or high-rise
multiple condos. I too would like to see more ownership in our
neighborhood but I do have concerns about family life, etc.
Mr. McCann: I am not sure we can address all of your issues that you stated. He is
looking for single-family, residential-type use. He is requesting waiver
use for detached condos because of the deficiency having not met the
60 foot requirement. He comes up with 56 1/2 feet. As far as your
question concerning construction, he would have to provide a bond to
the City to maintain the streets for any damage he did during
construction, and the City would have a bond to provide protection to
the citizens. The other aspects of it, we are going to continue on and
explore that.
Dan Williams, 9628 Cranston: I wish to state for the record tonight that I am opposed to
this Commission granting a waiver of use approval for the construction
of condominiums on the site where the structure known throughout our
15270
neighborhood as the "clubhouse" currently stands. My first concern is
over the property dimensions of the four condominiums. The width of
each of the four sites would be only 56 1/4 feet. That is 3 3/4 feet
short of the required minimum 60 feet to build a freestanding structure,
such as a house or condominium. By my own measurements 3 feet 9
inches is just less than half the width of my driveway and approximately
2/3rds of my Ford minivan. It sounds like 3 feet 9 inches isn't much;
however, where my land is concerned, I certainly wouldn't want to be
without it. The law has required a 60 foot width for sometime and I
see no reason to change that. Another concern is what will happen to
the condominiums after they are sold? Will there be a condominium
association? Will they be required to maintain the properties or will
Mr. DePalma be the owner and rent the properties out? If so, how will
Mr. DePalma guarantee the renters will not be disruptive transients
here today and making trouble and gone tomorrow, leaving the site a
mess that someone else will have to clean up? It is my opinion that if
Mr. DePalma wishes to build three houses on the land, then I would
have no objection. A house usually means a more stable and
responsible owner and three houses would divide the land evenly and
well above the residential required 60 foot minimum width. In closing,
I would much prefer that the sale of this clubhouse and its parking lot
to Mr. DePalma not happen at all. True, there have been some
annoying problems with some factions that have rented it from the
.�.� current owner with parties and other gatherings, but I feel the
clubhouse would be better used and cared for by the adjoining
Rosedale Gardens Presbyterian Church, which has an interest in
acquiring the property as it stands. Sometimes gentlemen it is better to
leave things be. I do not believe the construction of condominiums on
land too small to hold them is progress for our neighborhood or the
City of Livonia.
Jennifer Dunigan, 9620 Hubbard: For the record I would like to state that my husband
and I are against the idea of putting in four condos, or even calling
them condos. What we would like to see, as some of our neighbors
have already stated, is putting in three single-family homes if that is the
way the property needs to be developed. There are four houses on that
street now and in less than the width of our property, you are going to
put in four where three are currently, so it is packing them very tightly.
Again, the problem with condominiums, are they going to be rented in
the future? We would like to see some stability with the people that
will own this property. I have one other point I want to make. The
church parking lot is kind of behind and around where these
condominiums are proposed to be developed. Right now there is a lot
of overflow with the Sunday morning traffic and they park in the Jaycee
parking lot and down that half of the street. If there are houses there,
15271
obviously the church is going to lose a lot of parking and I am
wondering where the cars are going to go. Right now there is no
parking on the street itself so we are going to have some problems with
that parking. I would like to suggest if Mr. DePalma would like to
meet with us, we have a history of having beautiful individual homes
and having three homes that look alike doesn't really fit the
neighborhood, and we would like to invite him to come and discuss
with us some of his ideas.
Jo Ballert, 11405 Cranston: I am the lady that was supposed to be absent, that came after
all. I am a former teacher in Livonia and I taught for 26 years in the
Livonia Public Schools. I might say we need more green space, not
more houses. We have that play field right next door to where this
housing will go and Rosedale School which is still being used as a
Special Ed place. That is pretty busy with children and buses coming in
and out, and I am very much opposed to having housing going in. I
don't think the housing, as much as it might be nice, I don't think it
comes up to the standards of the homes we have in there. I just think
we need more green space. I think it would be nice to think about it a
little bit and not approve it right away. I am very much opposed to it.
Mr. McCann: I will give Mr. DePalma a chance to respond, and if you could, tell us
the economic feasibility of developing this property with three homes.
Now
Mr. DePalma: With three houses on this particular piece of property it is not
economically feasible to erect three homes. The other gentleman spoke
about 3 feet 9 inches being a lot of space. It doesn't seem like much.
You are talking about a 40 foot house. I am still maintaining the 14-15
ft. setbacks on the sides. It doesn't seem to be a problem at all. These
people across the street would rather look at a building, which to me I
think is close to being abandoned. The parking lot is in poor shape. In
regards to the pine trees creating some wind damage, well I have some
houses that will block the wind. Also, I had a conversation with Tom
Wojniak, President of the Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association.
I spoke with him a few months back and told him what we were
planning on doing. I don't want to keep this a secret from anybody. I
want everyone in the neighborhood to want this. So this is a complete
shock to me to think that it shouldn't happen. I want to reiterate again,
these are going to be homes. They are not condos. They are detached
condos hopefully with a family with three kids and two dogs. I just
thought I would say for sure these houses are not going to be rented.
It is not going to be a typical condo association with the common
grounds and such as we spoke about earlier. I personally in my
subdivision, 50 to 60 lots, I mow my grass. I do everything. So
15272
basically this is the same thing. Upkeep is at the owner's discretion.
As far as landscaping, I can only try to enforce it and keep it pleasing.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. DePalma, could you answer just a few questions? Each home and
the land in which it sits will be owned by an individual?
Mr. DePalma: Exactly.
Mr. Walsh: You will have no responsibility over that individual?
Mr. DePalma: Exactly.
Mr. Walsh: Nor will they have any responsibility for any of the others?
Mr. DePalma: Exactly.
Mr. Walsh: You had undergone lengthy negotiations with the Jaycees. Is that
correct?
Mr. DePalma: That is correct, and now I am hearing tonight, I had no part with the
church. We didn't discuss anything with the church. I hope the church
has no bad feelings toward us because we never tended to get
somebody in the back. This is just the way it worked out. We have
Now been negotiating with the Jaycees for some time for this building.
Mr. Walsh: It was a commercial building?
Mr. DePalma: Yes it was.
Mr. Walsh: My third question, to the concerns about the look, that neighborhood is
very nice because of the uniqueness of each home. Can you agree to
require different elevations?
Mr. DePalma: As I said before, I would definitely like to see two to three varying eleva-
ations of one particular plan. I don't want to make them identical, and I
would agree to that up front. I have no problem with that. I don't have
actual plans drawn up by an architect yet. I wanted to get past the stage
of seeing what the board thought of the plans and then I could move on.
Mr. McCann: Do you have an option on this property or do you own it?
Mr. DePalma: It is owned free an clear.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-10-2-28 closed.
15273
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
`..
#11-209-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 19, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
96-10-2-28 by Paul DePalma requesting waiver use approval to construct
detached condominiums on property located on the west side of Hubbard
Road north of West Chicago in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 96-10-2-28 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 10/2/96 prepared by William L. Roskelly, Land
Surveyor, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and
2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Plans 1 and 2 received by the
Planning Commission on 11/7/96, which are hereby approved, shall be
adhered to with the added requirement that there shall be an increase in the
percentage of brick on the front elevations and that there shall be more
variation between the building elevations of the homes.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
'towwaiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 20.02A and
19.06 of 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. Engebretson: I am really concerned about this matter, and I am concerned about it
for a lot of reasons. I think as one of our former colleagues used to
say, we are packing five pounds of coffee into a three pound can, much
like what was being proposed in the previous petition. I am very
concerned about the integrity of our ordinance where we appear to be
skirting the ordinance. While I agree 3 feet 9 inches is not a substantial
deficiency, it is deficient. There are ways to seek relief from that, and
this is not the proper way to do that. We call it a condominium but it is
not a condominium. Most of you know that I have recently resigned
15274
from the Planning Commission because of my grave concern over
exactly these kinds of things where our ordinance has been weakened,
,,` in my opinion, and I think that where there are deficiencies and there
are remedies available to seek relief, then that is the way we should
operate. I am very concerned. I was prepared to, and I would support
this proposal with three homes on it. Mr. DePalma has indicated it
wouldn't be economically feasible. I guess I have to trust his judgment.
If it is not economically feasible to be compatible to homes in that
neighborhood, then that says to me that this proposal is inappropriate
because clearly it is not compatible to or in harmony with the
surrounding uses and that is one of our waiver use requirements. With
that said, I would cast my vote to oppose not because of what you are
attempting to do but the manner in which it is being done and the
density. I would be more than happy to support the development of
three homes there, which I believe would be, in fact, compatible to and
in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to share Commissioner Engebretson's opinions. I believe
the petitioner has failed to show the proposed use is in total
compliance. It does not meet the condo conditions and I too will vote
in opposition
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Walsh, Morrow, McCann
NAYS: Engebretson, Piercecchi
ABSENT: Blomberg
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
*9:10 p.m. - Mr. Walsh left the meeting
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-2-29 by
Joseph P. Durso requesting waiver use approval to develop a site condominium
project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville
Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
should the site condominium petition be approved, it would be
preferable to connect both ends of Hees Avenue. As an alternative,
"T"turn-arounds will be required on both ends of Hees Avenue
including the construction of the north leg of the east turn around area.
15275
Secondly, it will be necessary to loop the existing water main in Hees
Avenue. Finally, an appropriate sanitary sewer extension will be
required to serve both parcels. We have also received a letter from the
Traffic Bureau stating they have no objection to this proposal.
Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the concerns of
their department include but are not limited to, hydrant location, water
supply, site access and fire lanes. While their division is generally not
opposed to subject petition, information supplied is not descriptive or
detailed enough to adequately address particular aforementioned public
safety issues.
We have also received a letter from William and Carolyn Riley of 8953
Linville stating they are opposed to the property in question being used
for a condominium project. They state they would rather see the
property developed into single-family homes similar to the homes
which exist in the area.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step forward and tell us your reasons for
this request.
Joe Durso, 35209 Seven Mile, Livonia: Addressing the one letter that came in, basically
that is what we are trying to accomplish by putting in two new homes
that are similar to the other homes. I am not sure if the person that
wrote the letter understands that. We are attempting to put in two
homes, similar size and style as the other homes. I submitted two
ranches, one with a more modern look and one with a more traditional
look.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Durso, my notes indicate there is pending litigation in regards to
that property and who really owns it. Has that been resolved?
Mr. Durso: No that is going to be in court, I believe, next Tuesday.
Mr. Piercecchi: How can you expect us to resolve this issue?
Mr. Durso: The issue is just if it will pass the site condominium application. If
anything happens in court that proves Mr. Hartlieb does not own the
property, then at that point I would imagine that can be stopped, but I
have documentation to prove he does own that.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are really asking us to vote up or down on a hypothetical
question.
15276
Mr. Durso: Not really. When this property was sold originally, because I handled
the transaction, it was sold with this whole scenario in mind to have the
•,,,. site condo split and take the existing house and add two more lots.
There was never an issue about that. That was the whole concept of
selling the property originally. So nothing has changed. There are
other things that have come up since that point, and that is what the
litigation is about, but that has nothing to do with what we are trying to
attempt to do with the site condo split.
Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this proposal.
Gloria Coffin, 35681 Hees: I have lived there for nearly 33 years. I don't know if you
gentlemen are aware of the proposed cutting of the land but those of us
that live on Hees to the east of the proposed development, would be
constantly looking into the backyards of these two pieces of property,
and there is a home, as was stated, already on the property and that
home would be looking in the back yard of both adjacent properties.
We also have questions as to what site condominiums are. Does that
mean that someone is going to come in and maintain that property or
maybe not come in and maintain it at all and the houses would just be
taken care of by whoever is going to live in them? It was stated also
there is a court case pending. We have also spoken with some other
real estate agents and we have been given to understand that the value
Now
of our property would decrease. I am also speaking for some of our
neighbors that can't be here tonight and we are all opposed to the use
of this land.
Barrie O'Brien, 35787 Hees: This is the existing home on the property. I have been the
warranty deed holder since 1991 when I purchased this land. I think it
is advisable I not speak here tonight since we have a trial coming up. I
have been approached by a lot of my neighbors in the last week, and I
wanted to be sure that the letter that was to be forwarded to you was in
your hands so I will pass this on.
Mr. McCann: Your letter states?
Mr. O'Brien: This is actually to the City from an attorney to advise you that this is
under litigation. I don't believe it got to any of you so I am passing it
on. There is also my warranty deed attached.
Mr. McCann: I don't want to get into the litigation. I think your explanation and
purpose of litigation is to contest ownership and this is pending in the
Circuit Court at this time. Is that a correct summation?
15277
Mr. O'Brien: That is correct.
`„r, Mr. McCann: You can give us the letter for the record. I have also talked to the
Planning Director who has been informed of this litigation.
John Muir, 8832 Linville: First of all I have concerns, all the other petitions were detailed
out. It was firmly explained what they were going to do, and this one
just now has just been put up there. In looking at the layout, the angle
is not the way the rest of the neighborhood is set up. I know the lot is
kind of an odd size there. This house would angle towards my house
and it looks like the house, where it sits, I don't know how far it is
supposed to be off the fence by the ordinance, but it would be awfully
close. It would be in my back window.
Mr. McCann: I believe it is 9 foot minimum.
Mr. Shane: Nine foot at one side and five foot at the other.
Mr. Muir: I would be against it. Putting two houses in there would be nice
because it is just a vacant piece of property but the way they have it set
up there I don't think it would be very well. It would be an eyesore to
the neighborhood. It wouldn't fit in. I would have concern about my
property value.
Timothy Baldwin, 35718 Hees: My house is on the north side next to the field. Right
now it is just a field but kids play in that field and they are allowed to
go through there. Where the dead-end is there is a small path and they
go from one sidewalk, down the path to another sidewalk. If he builds
these houses like this, nobody will be able to go through there. It will
be blocked off and to get to the school, to get to anything, the kids will
have to go completely around the block, way out of their way, to get to
any of the schools. I am against it. Like my neighbor said, his
backyard will be in my front yard. It is not the way the neighborhood is
designed. I just bought the house a year ago because of the way the
neighborhood was set up and now it is going to completely change.
John Tomassi, 35668 Hees: What I would like to find out, are we talking houses or
condos? Are we getting into something like we just got into with the
last petition?
Mr. McCann: Basically the same thing. This is going to be individual homes, private
ownership, is what the proposal is. However, because it does not meet
the normal requirements, it meets the land requirements, there is
sufficient land for the homes, they are just not the proper shape.
15278
Mr. Shane: In this case the lots that would be created more than meet the size
requirements if they were platted.
Mr. Tomassi: I am opposed to a condo site there. I don't think it is consistent or
compatible to what is there right now. We just had a condo complex
approved around the corner on Ann Arbor Trail and Parent. I just
don't think a condo complex belongs in the middle of a subdivision.
Ed Knox, 35680 Hees: I think we all know Sam Goodman. Sam owned that and built the
house and was previously the owner of the house and the City of
Livonia told Sam he had to put the street all the way through from
Linville to Hees, and Sam said that would be too costly. That is why
he dumped the property in the first place. If this gentleman wants to do
it, let him put the street through and put two houses there. This is
wrong to let him put it up the way he wants to.
Linda Stubbe, 8844 Linville: This is the property at the end of the dead-end on the other
side of the street. I am facing Linville. I have lived there for 30 years.
It is an area of well-kept brick homes that very few people move out of.
The houses sold from January to May were very minimal in the area.
Anyone who moves into the area stays there and keeps up their
property, which I have done, I have added to my home and kept it in
consistency with the Livonia codes. I am opposed to this plan because
`r.. of the way it will come off of the street. The street dead-ends at the
end of my property. What I am seeing is a driveway going off one way
and a driveway going off another way, if I understand it correctly. We
have had cars come in there and turn around because it is a dead-end
and they are going to be ending up in somebody's driveway. I agree it
is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The street should
either go through or, as was proposed about three years ago, which I
didn't object to that, a cul-de-sac coming off and then homes being
built. Something that would give some kind of a flow, some kind of
aesthetics. Again, I am concerned too with the sewage and the
hookups of that. You would have to put in another fire hydrant back
there because there is no way you could get to the fire hydrant on
Linville to those homes if there was a fire. I just don't feel, if you walk
through the rest of the neighborhood, this plan is consistent with the
rest of the neighborhood. I spoke with three different real estate
people concerning site condominiums, and I know what a site
condominium is because I used to live in one, and I also know they sell
for a lot less than homes sell for and I have been advised that it could
reduce the value of our homes by as much as 20% if indeed site
condominiums are going in. I would not be opposed to Mr. Durso
going through the proper channels to get approved to get housing that
would be situated on that property the way it should be.
15279
Joe Mercieca, 35645 Hees: We moved in two months ago to the date today. I really
.. don't oppose building there if they put a road through but I can't think
of anywhere, I have looked all over Livonia for homes, I haven't seen
anywhere where you walk out your front door and see someone's
backyard. On the same aspect people buy these site condos they are
going to be coming out in their backyard and saying they have no
privacy and they will put up a big fence and then I am looking at a big
stockade fence. I just don't like it. I think it is a bad idea. I don't
want to walk out my front door and see a fence or someone's
backyard. I lived in Detroit my whole life and I have never seen
someone's backyard from my front door.
Mike Zatorski, 35707 Hees: I don't believe this development is compatible to the
neighborhood. The houses seem to be sitting cockeyed. It just
wouldn't look right.
Judy Oddy, 8904 Linville: About a year and a half ago my husband and I, we lived in
Farmington Hills all our life, were looking for a house in Livonia. We
drove around several different neighborhoods in Livonia and when I
came across the one we are in now, to me it was a very friendly,
easygoing, people were walking the streets with their dogs, their kids
were walking in the neighborhood. Any given night you can walk
through that subdivision and people are walking all over the place and
going through that property where this is supposed to be developed.
I live at 8904 Linville, which is on the northeast corner of Linville and
Hees. If you look at the little map it shows you the way the roads go in
our neighborhood. You would see that first house is facing in such a
way that there is no way it can look good with the rest of the
neighborhood. That property on the north side is very narrow so that
house that is sitting there is going to be more in the middle of Hees
rather than on the side of Hees. You are going to have one house
there. The other driveway would have to be longer. That house is
going to be facing my neighbor's garage, the way they are positioned.
It also means that all those kids and people walking their dogs, they are
not going to be able to go through there any more. Like one gentleman
said, they are not going to be able to walk to school through there. Do
we want them walking on Joy Road or are they going to have to walk
all the way around to Dover to go to school? Some of these kids are
smaller kids and they catch a bus at Linville. Is it right to make them
go all the way around? When I bought my house a year and a half ago,
like I said, I loved the neighborhood, the neighborhood is very clean,
the people take good care of the property. If they put this in the way it
looks on there and if they are allowed to be condominiums, could
someone tell me can a site condominium be put up under the same
15280
jurisdiction and the same rules as a house is? Are they built as good as
a regular house? Are the building codes the same as for a house?
Mr. McCann: In fact, we can restrict a site condominium more than we can a home
because we would require brick up to 50% or 75% or 100% on the
home so we actually have a little more latitude, and this developer is
actually meeting all the residential requirements for this development
but he is trying to avoid going through subdivision approval.
Mrs. Oddy: Like I said I wish you gentlemen would go out, look at the property,
look at the way they are going to sit. There is no way they are going to
sit where they are going to look right when you look down Hees. They
are going to be off-center and the one house will be facing a garage.
Neil Coffin, 35681 Hees: Because of the dead-end we used to have a field down there but
being it is going to be homes there, we would prefer that a road go
through there with sidewalks. That way the kids could go through
there to school and anybody that is walking can go through the area
there like in the past but they should be homes on the street of Hees not
coming off Linville, and I am opposed to it with the rest of the
neighborhood because we are going to be looking at the back end of
those homes.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Durso, we will give you the last opportunity to speak and then I
am going to close the public hearing.
Mr. Durso: I am amazed at some of the thing that were said here this evening only
because I believe that most of the people just don't understand what I
am trying to accomplish for Mr. Hartlieb, who is the gentleman I am
representing. First of all, I heard the property was supposed to go
down in value. That is ridiculous. When you build a new house in a
neighborhood that is established, like this neighborhood is, it can't do
anything but increase the value because new houses do that. I have
seen it many times. You are talking about building a nice house in a
nice neighborhood that will be conducive to the rest of the homes in the
neighborhood. This confusion I hear is people believe a site condo,
you are going to put a condominium in here. To explain, and I think
you did a good job, basically it is the means in which to build a house
where you can't subdivide it because of the circumstances, and for no
other reason. This layout here is simply to show how the lots will be
divided. Where the houses would be placed would be only to the
advantage of the best way to do it. These were just put in there. That
doesn't mean that is the way it will be. The layout, basically what we
are talking about is the way the lots are split, but where the houses are
to be placed, they are to be placed in an advantageous location. This is
15281
not exactly where it is going to be. The other thing is for people
walking through this property, this property is private property. They
`y are using it and nobody is saying anything about it. It is no problem but
somebody is going to do something with this property at some point in
time. I feel bad that kids are going to have to walk around the block,
but this is property that belongs to somebody, and the point is you
can't stop that. If they have been using it to walk on, that is fine.
Nobody is opposed to that but the proposal here is simply to build two
normal houses in a normal neighborhood period. Nothing fancy,
nothing unusual, and it is not a condominium association. There is not
going to be any unusual homes. Simply something that looks attractive
because you can't sell things that don't look attractive. You can't sell
things that are not going to be conducive to the neighborhood. To get
the highest and best price on any project, you have to make it look
right. Anything that would go in there would have to be something
that the public would want and want to buy. Some of the things the
people object to, I would like to see a road go through there and
normal houses put upon both sides too, but it can't be done unless
other parcels of land were purchased. This was just a layout that
seemed to go along with what was required for the piece of property
the way it was laid out, and you just work with it the best you can. It is
bigger, it is larger than all the other lots in the neighborhood so that
should be more value there. Reduce it, that is insane. The only thing
you are trying to do is to build a nicer house. The house will be new,
have new lawn. There is nothing negative about how these houses will
go in. How they are situated on the lot, obviously that would be done
in such a way that it would be advantageous to the way these lots are
divided up, nothing to oppose the neighborhood, nothing to take away
from the neighborhood, nothing to hurt the neighborhood. In lieu of
using up any more of your time, I appreciate your time.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, in looking at this drawing, it is not clear to me whether or
not it would be possible to build two houses on the south side of Hees
if that road were completed, but it would appear if the road were
completed, at least one house could go in on the south side of the
street, and it would appear then there would be an opportunity at some
point in time for three homes to be constructed on the north side of the
street. Mrs. Stubbe observed that this proposal is not consistent with
the neighborhood and I agree with her. In fact, it is my belief this is not
consistent with the rest of the City. Now Mr. Durso referred to
building normal houses in a normal neighborhood. In order to do that I
think it would be proper to look at continuing that street through and
building homes on each side of it. I hope I have given you enough time
Mr. Shane to evaluate whether or not it would be possible. It would
15282
appear to be impossible for two to go on the south side but surely one
can fit right?
Mr. Shane: It is certainly possible to construct a street through to meet, and it is
possible to put a house on the south side but it would be impossible to
put any buildings on the north side of the street because there simply
isn't enough room.
Mr. Engebretson: What if those three existing unoccupied lots were combined with the
portion of this property that would line up with each of those lots, then
there would be adequate room to build three homes there, wouldn't
there?
Mr. Shane: As you can see the lot line is only about 50 feet north of Hees Avenue
on each side. Therefore, if the street was brought through you would
only have 45 feet of depth.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand that. I am assuming there would be some combination of
that property with the property to the north that is now vacant, and that
property could be developed under any circumstances.
Mr. Shane: The problem with that is the property to the north apparently was split
at some time or another and lots 4, 5 and 6, which I think is what you
,` are talking about, would be able to be built on as they now stand, but if
you took anything off of them, at least enough off of them so you could
have proper depth lots on Hees Avenue, then the depth of the lots on
Dover would be deficient. In my opinion, there is not enough land
there to accomplish what you are talking about.
Mr. Engebretson: It looks like we are going to have some time to figure all this out
because the court is dealing with this matter.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to move to table this to a date uncertain to give the Circuit
Court an opportunity to sort out all the legal issues here and once that
is done, if it is appropriate to pursue this at that time, then we can look
at all the possibilities of developing this in a manner that is consistent
with that neighborhood and the City of Livonia.
There was no one else in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-10-2-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and
unanimously approved, it was
15283
#11-210-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
',vow November 19, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
96-10-2-29 by Joseph P. Durso requesting waiver use approval to
develop a site condominium project on property located between the
Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 96-10-2-29 to date uncertain.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-6-5 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #898-96, to
determine whether or not to add Section 18.61 to Article XVIII of the Zoning
Ordinance relative to indecent and improper conduct.
Mr. McCann: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to a
Council resolution, to amend language. Mr. Shane could you give us a
brief description of this?
Mr. Shane: This is a matter that was brought to us by the Law Department.
Mr. McCann: Maybe Mr. Kavanagh would like to speak to it.
Sean Kavanagh: A new Michigan statute was passed which precludes the City of
Livonia from regulating this kind of conduct in anything but the zoning
ordinance so we moved it from our criminal code to our zoning
ordinance so we can still enforce it, with your concurrence.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-10-6-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-211-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 19, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-10-
6-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#898-96, to determine whether or not to add Section 18.61 to Article
XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance relative to indecent and improper
15284
conduct, the City Planning Commissiondoes hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 96-10-6-5 be approved for the following
Now reason:
1) The proposed language amendment is needed so as to provide the
City with adequate tools to prohibit the display, sale or distribution of
obscene books, pictures and literature.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-6-6 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section
11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance and add Section 15.02(f) to the Zoning
Ordinance relative to micro-breweries and brew pubs.
Mr. McCann: Again, this is a motion by the City Planning Commission. It is our own
motion. Do we have any correspondence Mr. Shane?
NowMr. Shane: We have no correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Would you like to give us a brief description of this?
Mr. Shane: At the present time the zoning ordinance has regulations dealing with
Class C liquor license establishments, but there are a couple of fairly
new types of licensed establishments which are being built around the
country called Brewpubs and Micro Breweries, and as the name implies
a Micro Brewery is a facility, which the principal use is the brewing of
beer, and whose ancillary use is providing that beer to customers who
would like to come into the brewery to sample it. The other one, the
Brewpub, is nothing more than a bar, or it could be a restaurant, which
also brews its own beer and sells the beer not only to customers of the
facility but also as a package. In this case the brewing of the beer is the
ancillary use and the principal use is the serving of liquor and beer by
the glass. There are a number of other Class C licensed facilities called
taverns, club licenses, Class A hotel, Class B hotel, and the purpose of
this ordinance is to lump those all into regulations which would more
clearly provide the Inspection Department and the Planning
Commission and Council, who act on these things, to know exactly
what we are talking about. Our suggestion is that everything but
Micro-Brewery be placed in a waiver use category in a commercial
"NNW district but a Micro-Brewery, because it is more of a manufacturing
15285
use, be placed in a manufacturing district. In the ordinance it provides
standards and controls to do that.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-10-6-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-212-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 19, 1996 on Petition 96-10-6-6 by the City Planning
Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03(h) of
the Zoning Ordinance and add Section 15.02(f) to the Zoning Ordinance
relative to micro-breweries and brew pubs, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-10-6-6 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
standards and control over the various types of facilities dispensing
alcoholic beverages in the City;
2) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
comprehensive language relative to the control of the location and nature
of facilities dispensing alcoholic beverages in the City; and
3) That the proposed language amendment will update the Zoning
Ordinance relative to standards found in State Law relative to the various
types of liquor licensed facilities.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-6-7 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #889-96, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance to
regulate the installation of cellular/communication towers, antennas and satellite
dishes.
Mr. McCann: Again, this is from the Council to the City Planning Commission. Mr.
Kavanagh or Mr. Shane who would care to explain this?
15286
Mr. Shane: I will start it off and turn it over to Sean. The purpose of this is to
respond basically to new regulations, actually a Telecommunications
w,., Act of 1996, which was passed recently, and it had to do with antennas
and cellular towers and satellite dish antennas. Mr. Kavanagh's office
has suggested and has provided proposed language to react to that act,
and it is a fairly comprehensive change to the zoning ordinance with
regard to those items. That is the purpose of it. I will let Sean go from
there.
Mr. Kavanagh: As we have written and re-written this proposed ordinance, the
regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission have
changed from day to day. There are two major changes we have in this
proposed ordinance, the first draft. It is the regulation of cellular
towers and antennas, locations, height, placement, landscaping, site
plan approval and various zoning configurations within the City. The
other major change is regulations of satellite dishes. The Federal
Communications Commission has indicated in the latest communication
that we don't have as much control over satellite dishes as we used to
have. As a matter of fact, they don't want us controlling them under a
certain size in any respect, and over a certain size we must justify those
controls to a greater degree than we did before. So local control over
satellite dishes has, although not totally been precluded, has been
limited and severely restricted. The satellite dish dilemma is not as
great for the antennas and towers. The local governments in this
country can still control the installation of towers within the City. This
proposed ordinance is of itself to allow the City to control the growth
in towers we anticipate, and we have received application for
installation of many towers that have not yet been improved and we
anticipate many more. I don't know how many. I know one company
has asked for 15 to 16 locations in the City, and that is just one of many
companies that will be coming forward. We have invited a few of the
representatives of some of the communication companies that do
business in this area, and we welcome their comments. There are
things that are in this ordinance that are technical requirements. We
can use some educating in our office. The City Council has authorized
the hiring of a consultant that will come in and help the Planning
Commission, the Law Department and the City Council in further
defining the technical requirements that we can outline in this
ordinance, and in assisting us in negotiating leases for the cellular tower
installations on public property. We also have in the audience Mr.
Dave Watson from Livonia Public Schools, and as you know the
schools have quite a bit of property in the City of Livonia that could be
available for installation of cellular towers. We are here to answer
questions and perhaps ask some.
15287
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Kavanagh, I read this very carefully and I think there are still a
couple of questions in my mind that may be implied here but I am
slur interested in the matter of the small satellite dishes, the 18 inch satellite
dishes or the less than one meter dishes, that no longer will require site
plan approval. Do they still require a permit?
Mr. Kavanagh: They would be required to pay a $25.00 permit fee to get a permit but
other than front yard placement in some districts, we do not have
control over those dishes.
Mr. Engebretson: That is really where I was going with that. If there is a permit required,
then there still seems to be a bit of control, so if someone wanted to
clutter up a front yard or the front of the house, or a roof, there would
be some control there. These dishes would be mounted in an obscure
place. They tend not to be a problem. We have a lot of them, and they
have become very popular. I just didn't see it in the ordinance itself
Mr. Kavanagh: A few things have been added since you got that draft. I think it is
right at the end where they ask for a $25.00 permit. Section 18.42D
Application Fees states at the time of paying their fee the Inspection
Department would be able to review the location of the installation of
the satellite dish. Other than placing it in the front yard though, we do
not have control over the less than one meter dishes. If somebody
wants to go out and buy a pizza size dish and put it up, they can put it
r.. up wherever they want other than in the front yard. The Federal
Communications Commission has basically told us hands off on those
items.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand. Now that I dig deeper into the material here I see that in
the text of the ordinance. I didn't have the benefit of seeing that before
coming here tonight. Had I had this earlier, perhaps I wouldn't have
asked that question. I would like to move on to the matter of the
cellular towers. I understand the purpose behind this but I am
wondering have we really thought this through from the standpoint of
the types of towers that will be necessary to support three co-locators?
For example, I understand they have to go to the lattice type tower
rather than the monopole, and like behind the police station, I guess
that is the ultimate tower. There wouldn't tend to be others like that in
the City but I believe Mr. Walsh was planning a small version of one of
those types of towers so that it can support three co-locators. Are
we,by reducing the number of towers but making the towers substantial
in size and more noticeable, are we defeating the purpose of what we
are trying to accomplish here?
15288
Mr. Kavanagh: We have thought about that. In fact, one of the reasons we are going
to hire a consultant is to have that person for that company tell us what
we do in terms of requiring three co-locators on a tower, whether it be
monopole or tripod, whatever it is, and I have spoken to some of the
representatives of these companies and they have indicated normally to
withstand the load and the wind conditions and things like that, you do
need a larger pole as far as the width is concerned. Not the height, the
height will be regulated and you don't have to make it a taller tower in
order to have three co-locators. On the other hand, that is your
decision, and the Council's decision, to determine whether you want
that trade-off. Do you want three towers, the skinny monopole, or do
you want one tower that is a little bigger, with no guide wires on it, but
a little bigger tripod that will be able to handle three antennas? That is
the tradeoff we are talking about here tonight, and I don't know the
answer to that.
Mr. Engebretson: The last question I have has to do with commerce. As the technology
races forward to realize various forms of digital paging, and connection
with computers, and cellular phones, and a host of other things that are
coming on stream, given the fact that it appears that these towers need
to be located about one every two miles so that you get the proper kind
of overlapping there, and if we are limiting the number of towers as I
understand we are proposing here, even though there are a couple of
co-locators on each tower, I am just wondering if we are going to have
the capacity to enable the citizens of Livonia, and the people that travel
through Livonia, to have access to all the various kinds of service that
are going to be offered? I am just wondering if we might be limiting
things such that we prevent suppliers of needed or wanted technology
to prevent them from coming into our community?
Mr. Kavanagh: That is the tradeoff we have attempted to address. All the numbers of
this proposed ordinance are arbitrary to a certain degree and not so
arbitrary when you take safety considerations into play here. The
question we have, should we limit them to no more than a mile spacing
or should we make them congregate so they are all in the industrial
belt? I don't know the technical aspects that is required for this grid
system for each one of these companies but I do know that for most of
these systems, other than being competitors, they can use the same
poles if they can get along and pay each other the fair prices they are
requesting and demanding to compete. The answer to that questions is,
are you going to be able to provide enough service for all of the
companies to provide Class A, top-notch service. I think, my personal
perspective is that yes we can do that with this requirement. Instead of
having 100 new poles, we are asking for 33 new poles. That is the crux
of this proposed ordinance. If nobody has any problem putting a 150
15289
foot cellular antenna in their backyard and we have them spaced every
200 yards, then I don't have a problem. What we are trying to do here
is space them so they are at least a mile apart or congregate them in a
section of town that will allow them to serve the function they are
trying to serve, allow the companies to make money, and not become
an eyesore to the rest of town. The answer to the questions as to
whether that is technically feasible, I can't give you that answer. A
consultant will be able to give you that answer.
Mr. Engebretson: I suppose we need to start somewhere, and if it turns out to be
inappropriate, and if we see a need to make a change, then we can
always do that somewhere down the road.
Mr. Kavanagh: That is what we are here for.
Mr. McCann: I will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
to this proposal.
Gregory Need: I am an attorney and I represent Sprint Spectrum, one of the newer
participants in this market. With me this evening are Heidi Zimmer and
Lisa Hand, two Property Specialists with Sprint's Property
Department, and Mr. David Hamby, an Assistant Professor in the
School of Public Health in the University of Michigan in the
Department of Environmental and Industrial Health. Mr. Chairman, I
have prepared some written materials that talk a little bit about Sprint
and have some comments about the ordinance. Would it be
appropriate to distribute those to the Commissioners at this time?
Mr. McCann: That is fine. We can look through them as we are hearing your
presentation.
Mr. Need: Just a little bit about Sprint Spectrum. We are a relatively new entrant
in this market. We are a limited partnership comprised of four major
corporations, Sprint Corporation, TCI, Cox Communications, and
Comcast Corporation, three primary cable television operations and
Sprint Corporation. We offer personal communication services, which
include cellular telephones, fax transmissions and pagers. Although we
are a relatively recent entrant into this market, we are becoming a
major player, we believe. Last year when the FCC auctioned licenses
with regard to this matter in 51 different areas, Sprint acquired licenses
in 29 of these areas including Detroit, and we have an influence in 32
major markets across the United States. I would like to talk a little bit
about our technology. Our personal communication service, or PCS
technology, is new technology and has some similarities and some
differences to the traditional cellular technology. Similar to cellular
15290
technology, PCS does require the use of base transmitting stations,
which requires antennas, transmitter receivers and amplifiers, but unlike
'101r similar cellular providers, our sites can utilize, in many cases, existing
structures, including putting antennas on roof tops, existing towers, and
billboards. Where tower construction is necessary, our towers range
from 80 to 200 feet in urban areas. Perhaps most importantly Sprint's
philosophy is to attempt to work cooperatively with communities to
insure placement of our tower locations in an area that meets our
competitive needs but also is responsive to your community's desires.
We understand there are concerns, as were expressed by Mr. Kavanagh
and your planner, in regard to proliferation of towers, aesthetics, and
those issues, and we have worked cooperatively with several
communities to attempt to work to develop ordinance language and
tower locations to address your concerns. With that in mind, we do
have some comments on your specific proposed ordinance language,
focusing really on three principal areas. The first is in terms of height
restrictions. I am not sure whether the draft has been revised since but
the draft language that was provided to us for review did not have yet
included an appropriate maximum tower height. We suggest that a
maximum tower height of 200 feet be considered and established. Our
technical experts have advised us that a lower height restriction would
probably require more towers within the community to provide
adequate service, much along the same lines as Mr. Kavanagh alluded
to a moment ago.
`ter.
Mr. McCann: We have ten items tonight. I am just confirming in our notes it is 250
feet. Is that correct Mr. Kavanagh?
Mr. Kavanagh: In some sections. It is 150 feet in others.
Mr. McCann: In R-1 through R-9 and RUF, cellular towers shall not exceed 250 feet
according to my notes.
Mr. Shane: In commercial and industrial areas. Outside of Section 25 through 30 it
is 150 feet. They are not permitted in residential areas. In Section 25
through 30 they are allowed up to 250 feet.
Mr. McCann: I am looking at Section (b) (1).
Mr. Kavanagh: That is in other than excluded areas.
Mr. McCann: So we do have areas that would allow 250 feet.
Mr. Need: Again, given the fact that one of the stated goals of the ordinance
language is to reduce, if at all possible, the number of towers, we
15291
believe a reasonable tradeoff would be an increase in the height, and the
height of 250 established is consistent with that goal. Our first concern
soup, is with the height restriction. Our second concern is with regard to
setback and spacing restrictions found in the ordinance. The ordinance
provides a minimum setback of 500 feet from any residential district,
with a few exceptions, and also a provision that no tower may be
located within a mile of another tower whether the existing tower is
inside or outside the City limits. We have done some work, and we
have some concerns with the practical effects of these provisions. Ms.
Zimmer has prepared a map of the City showing the existing locations,
and I will let her explain what is depicted on that map and why we have
a concern with the proposed language.
Mr. Kavanagh: I would just like to say you probably got the draft about a month ago?
Mr. Need: Yes.
Mr. Kavanagh: We have changed quite a few things since then. This draft provides a
250 foot setback from a residential area as opposed to the 500 foot. I
don't know if that will affect your map. I just want you to know that.
Heidi Zimmer: (Presented her map) There are right now approximately 20 towers in
Livonia. What we have done is created a one-mile radius around the
existing towers. As you can see, the only areas left for us are in the
r.. orange. One of the good things is a lot of that is public land, and we
are very amenable to going in public land if that is amenable to you, and
we are also very interested in going in school districts as well.
Mr. Need: Again, we are concerned the practical effect, particularly the one mile
restriction, might in effect prohibit providing our services throughout
the City as required. I do want to point out that we are willing to work
with your existing staff to determine the placement of new towers
within the City, and we believe by examining the City and finding out
where the towers ought to go, would be a guide to developing
ordinance language that would allow towers within those locations
meeting the City's needs as well as our needs to have adequate towers
to provide adequate service. Our third concern is in regard to some of
the co-location provisions that were described before. We do not
object to the concept of co-locations. In fact, Sprint has entered into
co-location agreements with some, but not all of the other cellular
service providers. However, some of the provisions with regards to the
requirement for footings for construction of a building, is inconsistent
with our actual practice in constructing and housing our equipment,
and we believe it may be unnecessary and perhaps at odds with your
goal to minimize the outward appearance of these facilities. Sprint
15292
does not put its facilities within what would officially be considered an
accessory building. Rather our equipment is housed in a cabinet with
�.• dimensions of approximately five feet tall by two and a half feet wide,
and two and a half feet deep. All of our equipment is located within
those cabinets. Even in areas where we do co-locate and the co-locator
facilities are within the existing building, we prefer to use these cabinets
and have our equipment outside. By our reading of the language, if we
are constructing a tower we would be forced to construct footings or
an additional building, which we don't need and which probably are far
more visible than the facilities and the cabinet which we use to house
our equipment and we would ask some modification to those
provisions. We also are willing to provide additional assistance on
technical and non-technical issues. With us tonight is Mr. Hamby. He
is a Professor with the School of Public Health with the University of
Michigan. He is an expert on several aspects of cellular tower
operations, including radio frequencies, and he is available to answer
questions this evening or subsequent to the meeting to answer any
questions that you or your staff may have, and his telephone number is
included in the written material that was submitted. Additionally, to the
extent we could have any assistance in the selection of a consultant,
Mr. Hamby, I am sure, would be willing to share his thoughts with you
as well. We will be delighted to answer any questions you may have,
any of us, and we thank you for the opportunity to express our
',Noyconcerns, and we look forward to working with you to develop
language to again meet your needs and allow us to use our facilities as
needed.
Mr. Piercecchi: I want to make it clear we do not intend to stop businesses from
operating within our beautiful City. We encourage new business and
currently we have Cellular One, we have Ameritech, we have AT&T,
and we have Nextel. So we do not discourage people from coming in
but I don't know if you expect our City, anybody, to be able to
accommodate everybody's requirements. We serve our people first
and hopefully everyone can fit into that particular mold. We are spend-
ing a lot of time on this amendment, and I compliment our legal staff
for the contributions that they made on it, but there has to be some
reasonable boundaries established on all these. Of course our residents
come first, and then you want to satisfy the business requirement. You
claim you are a very high-tech operation. I don't know exactly what
that means. Every one of these operations are pretty much high-tech,
and being high-tech I would assume you would be able to comply with
some of these things. None of us live in a perfect world. Everybody
has to compromise. I am sure when the City is done with this
ordinance, we will be able to satisfy hopefully most of the people that
15293
are in this very important and needed type of communication system
and technology that exists in our country today.
Mr. Alanskas: In your field, if you had locators on each tower, ten years down the
road could we need another 30 towers or 50 towers? What do you
foresee in the future as technology grows?
Mr. Need: Let me begin by saying our company's current needs require, in our
estimation, a maximum of six additional towers. That is our maximum
as of today. That would meet our service needs. With regard to
technology advances in the future, I am not ready to address that.
Mr. Alanskas: It certainly would not be going down? It would be going up?
Ms. Zimmer: One of the advantages of the PCF system that we do offer is that we
have a higher call capacity than the older cellular towers. So you can
see as technology is advancing, there is less need for as many towers.
One of our towers will have a higher call capacity than an Ameritech
tower or a Cellular One tower, so we can have more calls per tower.
Mr. McCann: How many of your competitors, you are concerned about co-locations,
how many of your competitors out there today are using the same type
of technology that you are using?
Ms. Zimmer: There are currently right now two cellular companies in the area,
Ameritech and Air Touch, previously called Cellular One, and there are
two new PBS companies. They are called AT&T Wireless and Sprint
Spectrum. Then there is also another company called Nextel
Communications, which is more in the trucking industry, and there is
another company coming into play in the near future, which will be
called pocket industries.
Mr. McCann: But these new companies coming in, it is the PCS type of system that
you are using?
Ms. Zimmer: Yes.
Mr. McCann: How many companies are using the PCS system?
Ms. Zimmer: Right now there is Sprint and AT & T Wireless.
Mr. McCann: So you have three companies. Theoretically those three companies
could all share a pole because you all have the same system
requirements.
15294
Ms. Zimmer: Theoretically.
�... Mr. Kavanagh: Heidi, I have a question for you. The advancements in technology,
nobody has a crystal ball, but one of the reasons we put the provisions
in this ordinance about posting a bond for removal of obsolete towers
is that we have had rumblings come through our office that after all
these towers are installed, that perhaps ten years down the line they
won't be necessary. Can you give us an indication of your feel for how
this industry is going to evolve and how long these towers will be in
use?
Ms. Zimmer: I can say in our leases right now that we are signing with potential
landlords, we have a stipulation in there to remove the tower when we
are finished with it, and I have someone here who actually takes care of
our site acquisition if you have any questions for her about that.
Another one of our provisions is that our leases are usually 20 to 30
years long. That is what we are looking for right now. In terms of a
surety bond itself, I don't see us having any problem with a surety
bond.
Mr. Kavanagh: In your circle on the map. In the yellow part the mile radius would not
apply so you could pack them in there as much as you want. Could
you put all six of your towers within that yellow area and satisfy your
needs throughout the City?
Ms. Zimmer: One of the provisions that we have, we have to have coverage a mile
and a half apart to cover your whole entire City. That is one of the
reasons we couldn't really concentrate them all in the same area
because that would leave a deficit, what we call a hole, in our coverage.
Mr. Kavanagh: Can you use a monopole tower with your equipment and co-locate on
that tower?
Ms. Zimmer: Yes up to a certain number of co-locators. Mr. Engebretson used a
good example of the more co-locators you have on a tower, the more
stocky the tower.
Mr. Kavanagh: We are encouraging it, but it does say mandatory, that they require
three co-locators. Actually I would like to keep that word in there but
I am getting a lot of opposition. Can that be done in a monopole
situation?
Ms. Zimmer: Yes it can be.
15295
Mr. Kavanagh: Can you explain why another company that is a wireless
communication, PCS, indicates they need 14 or 15 towers when you
�..• are indicating you need 6? Is it different technology?
Ms. Zimmer: I can't answer that question. All I know is our technology is the radius
of a mile and a half in urban areas. I can't answer that question for
other carriers.
Mr. Kavanagh: Could it be the height of the poles?
Ms. Zimmer: Some areas do need lower towers, and those would be more monopole.
It really depends on what area you are trying to cover, how much call
capacity you are trying to reach, where you are at.
Mr. Kavanagh: Is it possible to reduce the number of towers by either upgrading the
equipment to increase the call capacity or raising the height a little bit?
Ms. Zimmer: If you wanted to put a 300,000 foot tower you could probably cover
the whole Detroit area but one of the reasons that we keep them so
low, is to keep them closer to cars and inside the house, etc. The
height of the tower, or it going lower, it can give more of a
coverage,but then you can create shadow effects as well. It is a very
precise type of engineering. Also, there are different technologies out
'garthere requiring different stipulations.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is it possible in the future that none of these towers will even be
necessary? It will all be bounced off space satellites?
Ms. Zimmer: That is one of the stories that has been going around that we might go
to satellite some day. Even if we do go to satellite, we would still need
a tower here on the earth to catch the rays from the satellites. I can't
really answer the question as to how many towers we would need to
catch those satellite waves.
Kathleen Royal: I am with Lewis, Clay& Munday, 1300 First National Building,
Detroit: I am here speaking on behalf of our client, AT&T Wireless
Services, which is located at 26877 Northwestern Hwy., Southfield.
AT&T Wireless applauds your efforts in trying to revamp your current
zoning regulation. AT&T has been working very closely with the City
of Livonia in an attempt to address its needs but in a way that would be
compatible and comfortable with the City. However, we do have
basically the same concerns that to a great extent Sprint has voiced.
We provided written comments to Mr. Kavanagh, and we also
provided them to John Nagy. I would like to highlight some of those
issues which we have the most concern with. There is a concern
15296
regarding the setback. You stipulated that it was now going to be 250
ft. setback from residential zones as opposed to 500 ft., and we believe
Nifty this is considerably more reasonable than the 500 ft. setback. In
general we believe there are two reasons for having setbacks, and they
are generally for aesthetics or because of safety issues. Safety issues,
when it comes cellular towers, generally it is concern about the failure
rate of the tower itself, and the characteristics of how it falls. For the
most part we think it would be wiser or more fair to take into
consideration the actual failure characteristics of the particular tower.
Since you are anticipating subjecting many of these towers to review,
you have the opportunity to look at and to obtain evidence from the
particular provider as to the tendency to fail and the method in which
they fall. To the best of our knowledge, there is no known recorded
instance of any monopoles having failed and then basically toppling
over. The other aspect of having a setback is for aesthetic purposes.
Given the height of the tower, you are not going to actually hide the
tower itself except you may be able to camouflage it and make it blend
in with the skyline. So aesthetics generally focuses upon the site itself.
The equipment structure, for example, may want to be hid. You may
want to provide landscaping, etc. to minimize the visibility of the base
of the tower, but those kinds of things don't necessarily require a 250
ft. setback, and we would just hope that you would just kind of
consider this and look at it from a different aspect of what is the
'41wpurpose of the setback and then review it in that manner and decide
what the appropriate setback should be. Another issue that we have, of
course, the minimal distance that you are requiring between the towers,
the one mile. You have numerous towers in the area, as has been
pointed out by Sprint. By placing this one mile limitation, what
happens is it strongly discriminates against those who are already
present within the community and those that get here first. The net
effect of this can be that basically you don't have all the providers in, so
you don't obtain adequate service for the entire area. As you know,
the federal regulations prohibits the exclusion of service to an area. So
therefore such a requirement of a one mile separation may, in fact,
contravene federal law. It is just something I think you should look at
closely before recommending adoption. Another thing that we are
concerned about is some of the co-location issues. They have been
basically pointed out by Sprint that when you try to mandate co-
location, you are requiring a provider to anticipate the needs of the next
co-locator, and this is not always possible, which may result in things
being put in the ground which are not necessary, equipment shelters
that are larger than what is required. AT&T Wireless supports co-
location. They attempt to co-locate wherever possible, and they also
encourage and try to get people to co-locate on their towers. It is just
another thing we think you should consider. Lastly, the posting of a
15297
bond to cover the costs of removal of abandoned, obsolete, or
destroyed towers. We simply do not know of any other uses that this is
___ a requirement of, and we are not quite sure why there is this feeling that
this is necessary. We understand that there are technical changes that
are going on at all times but it seems to anticipate that all of a sudden
there is going to be a technology advancement that is going to require
across-the-board obsoletion of all the towers and therefore will be
abandoned. Our leases also provide for the removal of any antennas if
we should cease to use them. We also have leases that are a 20-year
span on average. We have the financial capabilities to be able to
remove the towers when necessary. It is not AT&T's policy to leave
towers standing, and there are other ways that I think you can achieve
this other than just simply by forcing people to pay a bond. You could
possibly reach an agreement with the provider that they simply remove
it, and therefore have a binding agreement on that order rather than just
a bond. There are other ways, and I think that should be investigated.
I think that as you view the ordinance it should be kept in mind that the
demand for these services are increasing, and that today there are
50,000 calls daily for the 911 emergency calls that are being serviced
through such wireless communication services. There are
approximately 28,000 people or so that are trying to subscribe for the
wireless services so therefore there is an increase in demand. There is a
great public use for them and the providers are trying to work very
,,�, closely with the community so they can optimize their coverage and
provide the services as demanded, while at the same time not only
being compatible as much as possible within the landscape and
urbanscape of the community. AT&T's policy, for example, is to try to
locate on buildings, rooftops, and existing towers prior to ever putting
up a tower. It not only makes sense because it is more economical to
locate on those kinds of situations but also because they are less
innocuous to their surroundings. As I said before, we applaud your
effort. We really want to work with you, and if we can be of any help
or assistance, we are here.
Mr. McCann: Before we close the public hearing, I do have a question for Mr.
Kavanagh. How do you feel that this ordinance addresses issues as she
said where billboards could be used or buildings? Is it sufficiently
broad enough to allow transmitters being put on top of five or seven
story buildings?
Mr. Kavanagh: It is in certain districts, In Sections 25 to 30 it would be allowed. We
really don't have that many tall buildings outside of those sections that
it would be allowed where it would be a permitted use. It would have
to be a waiver use and unlikely a variance. It is not something we
encourage. In the City of Detroit they have hundreds of tall buildings.
15298
It is a great place to put antennas because they don't have to be 250
foot tall antennas. They could probably be 10 foot antennas on top of a
'v.. 240 foot building, but in the City of Livonia we don't have high rises,
we don't have billboards. We have outlawed them for 40 years. There
is no place to put them. Our proposed ordinance does not allow for
them and we don't encourage it.
Ms. Royal: I would like to add one other thing. There was a statement made about
providing 15 to 16 additional towers. I would like to mention that
AT&T Wireless does not require 15 different towers in the area. In
fact, we anticipate doing I think approximately nine sites as opposed to
towers.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-10-6-7 closed.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer the approving resolution realizing
there is much work left to do. I have complete faith and confidence in
our Law Department and our City Council to deal with these issues as
needed but I am comfortable moving it on for a resolution at that level
having aired out all the various issues up to this point. I think we have
set the ground work and by moving it on I think we assist the process.
I think to try to hold it up at this level to sort out all these issues would
be inappropriate for all concerned. Having said all that I will offer the
approving resolution.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-213-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 19, 1996 on Petition 96-10-6-7 by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#889-96, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance to
regulate the installation of cellular/communication towers, antennas and
satellite dishes, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 96-10-6-7 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with new
regulations promulgated by the Federal Communication Administration;
2) That the proposed language amendment will provide the City with a
more comprehensive set of regulations relative to the location and nature
of Cellular towers and other types of antennae; and
15299
3) That the proposed language amendment will provide more definitive
standards and requirements relative to communication towers and
�,. antennae facilities in the City of Livonia.
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. Morrow: As it relates to this consultant, has he or she or the company been
retained. When do they look forward to having them join your crew?
Mr. Kavanagh: I think the RFP was done today, and we are asking, perhaps the
Professor would help us out on that, to give us some more leads on
potential consultants, but we are asking for responses within two to
three weeks. I would like to have them on board right now but these
things take time. We are looking at about three weeks from now
having responses and I hope we have everything wrapped up and a
consultant hired within a month.
Mr. Morrow: I guess where I am coming from, our moving at this level and passing it
on, I assume the ordinance may be modified?
Mr. Kavanagh: I would guess based upon comments of the speakers tonight that not
`..• only have I learned quite a bit but I also have a lot more to learn about
this as do other people within the City. I think the consultant will teach
us the proper way to put the technical aspects into this ordinance. I
think the company representatives will encourage that because if we
put something in there that isn't going to allow them to do business,
and be challenged in court, then we are wasting our time. If we move
them along now I think by the time it gets to Council we will have the
input of the consultant.
Mr. McCann: If there is no further discussion I have a comment. I think the Planning
Department, the Law Department and Mr. Kavanagh have done an
excellent job. It is a difficult issue because we are dealing with issues
that are affecting us nationally. It is new issues. It is projecting what is
going to happen in the future. We have a tremendous problem. If ten
companies want to come in and they all need one every square mile,
that is 36 square miles, that is 360 towers. It is unreasonable to expect
every person in every sub to have a 250 foot tower. I think the
ordinance is more reasonable by limiting it to 250 feet but I don't think
anybody should have a tower hanging over their home. It is 250 feet
tall and if a tornado for whatever reason should knock it down,
whether or not it will or will not, most of the homes developed in
Livonia, these towers weren't here when we moved here and I don't
15300
think the residents want to live next to a tower. It seems to me the
ordinance will be very beneficial. I am a big cellular user. I have a
`r.r pager but I still don't want to give up the ability to live in my
community comfortably for the opportunity to use these items so I am
going to recommend approval and pass it on to the Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-1-15 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#398-96,
proposing to rezone property located at 19810 Farmington Road and 19730
Farmington Road in the West 1/2 of Section 3 from OS and R-3A to R-C or R-9.
Mr. McCann: We need to remove this item from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-214-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-7-1-15 by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #398-96, proposing to rezone property
located at 19810 Farmington Road and 19730 Farmington Road in the West
1/2 of Section 3 from OS and R-3A to R-C or R-9 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Any new correspondence or information Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. McCann: Then a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-215-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
August 13, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-7-1-15
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#398-
96, proposing to rezone property located at 19810 Farmington Road and
19730 Farmington Road in the West 1/2 of Section 3 from OS and r-3A
to R-C or R-9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
15301
the City Council that Petition 96-7-1-15 be approved for a change of
zoning to R-C, Condominium Residential, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning to R-C is consistent with
surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning to R-C will provide for more of a
variety of residential housing types in the community; and
3) That the increased population density which can result from a
proposed change of zoning to R-C will be offset by the existence of a
major City park and open space area which is adjacent to the east.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna
Application by Leon Zagornik requesting approval for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for property located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 17.
Mr. McCann: We will need a motion to remove this from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-216-96 RESOLVED that, Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Leon Zagornik
requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property
located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, be
taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Do we have the geometry of the pole and the dish?
Mr. Miller: The petitioner called late this afternoon and said he could not make the
meeting. I guess he would like to have it tabled.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved
15302
#11-217-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
�.• to table Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Leon Zagornik requesting
approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property
located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17 to
date uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Motion by the City
Planning Commission to hold a public to determine whether or not property
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road immediately west of and adjacent to
Glenda's Farm Market in the South 1/2 of Section 5 should be rezoned from PL to
R-3B.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-218-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone property located on the north side of
`,o, Seven Mile Road immediately west of and adjacent to Glenda's Farm Market
in the South 1/2 of Section 5 from PL to R-3B; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 734th Regular Meeting held on October 29, 1996.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-219-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 734th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on October 29, 1996 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15303
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-9-8-17 by
�.. Plymouth Investment Company, on behalf of Allen Electric Supply,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
commercial building located at 31720 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Merriman and Hubbard. It is the Allen Electric Supply. What they are
proposing to do is demolish a section of their building and in the same
footprint construct a new addition to the existing building. The existing
part to be demolished is 4,800 sq. ft. and is presently used as storage.
The petitioner would like to build a 5,120 sq. ft. addition and this
would be utilized for office space. Once completed the entire building
would be 28,160 sq. ft. in size. Because this building has deficient
front yard setback, they had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
prior to appearing before the Planning Commission. They cannot add
anything to a non-conforming building. They have a variance so this is
conforming to the variance they were granted. (Mr. Miller presented
the landscape and elevation plans)
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Is there anything you would like to say?
Stuart Fine: I am the architect. I am at 5657 West Maple, West Bloomfield. I
thought he did a very nice job. The owner is very excited about
redoing his building. He needs the added space, and we feel it is going
to enhance Plymouth Road. What is there now is really an eyesore, the
preesent building that he is proposing to tear down. The present
building was built in the late 30s or early 40s and at one time was a
hardware store and grew into Allen Electric.
Mr. Morrow: This is a commercial area right now. Do you do any retailing out of
that area?
Mr. Fine: There is a counter for electrical contractors, walk-in.
Mr. Morrow: It is primarily contractors?
Mr. Fine: It is primarily contractors and they deal with major electrical
contractors in the area not small residential type electrical contractors.
Mr. Alanskas: In regard to your pallets in back, when they are wet, what do you do
with the old ones that are not any good?
15304
Mr. Fine: I can't answer that, I am the architect.
,11.. Mr. Alanskas: They must be maintained and stacked at all time. That is why I asked
that question.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-220-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 96-9-8-17 by Plymouth Investment Company, on behalf of Allen
Electric Supply, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the commercial building located at 31720 Plymouth Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1 dated September 11, 1996 prepared
by Stuart J. Fine & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan dated September 26, 1996 prepared by Great
Oaks Landscape Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new landscaped
and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
4) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets Al and A2 dated
September 11, 1996 prepared by Stuart J. Fine& Associates, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
as well as subject to the following additional conditions required by the
Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) The exterior of the building is to be completely enclosed within 90 days
following commencement of construction;
2) The pallets located at the rear of the property are to be neatly stacked and
properly maintained at all times.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-8-18 by
M. Boggio Associates, on behalf of Standard Federal Bank, requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
15305
proposal to construct an addition to the bank located at 17230 Farmington Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Miller: This bank is located on the east side of Farmington between Six Mile
and Curtis Avenue. They are proposing to construct two additions to
this bank. One will be located on the south elevation of the bank. This
new addition will be 969 sq. ft. in size and will allow the exterior of the
bank to be redesigned. Also, an addition would be on the west
elevation, which would square off the building. This addition will be
159 sq. ft. and this would allow the interior to be redesigned but also
allow the entrance to be relocated from the south to a little more north.
When completed the bank will be 4,969 sq. ft. in size. There is a note
on the site plan that states that all trash will be contained inside because
there is no trash dumpster located on the site. All existing signs will
remain and all lawn area will be irrigated. There is new landscaping
along both new additions. Parking for the site, they are required to
have 33 parking spaces on the site. They have 42 so they meet the
parking requirement. They are required to have 15% landscaping,
including the existing and the new landscaping. They do have 15% so
they meet the landscaping requirements. (Mr. Miller presented the
elevation plans) Once completed the bank should look as if it was
constructed at one time. Also, all rooftop mechanical equipment will
be screened.
`.. Mr. McCann: If there are no questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-221-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 96-10-8-18 by M. Boggio Associates, on behalf of Standard Federal
Bank, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
bank located at 17230 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10,
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site& Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated October 23,
1996 prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
15306
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 dated October 23,
1996 prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates, is hereby approved and
Niw, shall be adhered to;
4) That the building materials of the new additions shall match the
building materials of the existing building so that upon completion the
entire structure shall look like it was constructed at one time.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-8-20 by
Sara K. Sass, on behalf of the Suburban Door Company, requesting approval to
amend the site plan that was approved in connection with this petition for property
located at 28003 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the southwest corner of Five Mile and Santa
Anita. In a letter the staff received that was dated October 28, 1996
the petitioner requested that the sidewalk that was shown on the
approved plan be deleted or waived for the property along the Santa
Anita Avenue side or east property line. Site plan approval of 93-10-8-
20 allowed her to remodel and enlarge her shop. This sidewalk was
shown on the approved site plan. The only way she cannot have this
sidewalk put in is if you waive the requirement.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, any new information?
Mr. Shane: We did obtain an estimate of what the sidewalk would cost the
petitioner. It is approximately $2,430.00.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here tonight? Do you have anything additional to add?
Sara Sass: When I appeared last week, I said there were two driveways that were
24 feet wide each but I forgot that we connected the two driveways
and there is an additional ten feet. I would say about half of that is
already paved at the back portion, and it means we would have to pave
the section from Five Mile to meet the first driveway. One of the
reasons why we didn't do it is because as I said there aren't too many
people that walk on the sidewalk, even on the driveway. I see people
walking on the lawn, and walking on the street, and the sidewalk would
go nowhere. There are no sidewalks on either side of Santa Anita. I
just thought at this time if the residents along Santa Anita didn't want a
sidewalk and the City didn't require it, and the car wash, which put an
addition on wasn't required to put one on, that we shouldn't either.
My first architect put it in assuming that all commercial property would
15307
have to have sidewalks even though I brought it to his attention that
there weren't any along the street, and the plan got to the Planning
`.. Commission with the sidewalk in it and it and it didn't occur to me at
the time that we would have to put it in. I would like to go ahead with
the landscaping. We need to repair the sprinkling system and get that
completed, and I have someone ready to do that. I have held the
project up so I could complete the landscaping and sprinkling system.
The property slopes down quite steeply from the building and it means
the sidewalk would have to be on an angle or we would have to cut in
and bank it some way with railroad ties or something to keep the dirt
from falling down. The way it is now, it gently slopes down and it
looks more natural, I think, that way. I don't know how many of you
have been to the site but there is a considerable drop from Five Mile
Road down to Santa Anita along our property, and it is quite a ski run.
I just don't think the sidewalk would work very well in that area. That
is one of the reasons I didn't want to put it in other than it didn't seem
appropriate if there weren't any others around.
Mr. Morrow: Dan and I checked it out and I think we have the same question. What
in the world would happen to that big tree that sits right there?
Ms. Sass: That is another problem. The tree is more like five trees together and it
would be right in the middle where the sidewalk would go in and we
�.. would have to go around the tree, and if we went around the tree we
would be right up against the street. If we went around the west side
of the tree it would be on a considerable slope and it would be abutting
right up to the retaining wall. That would be a problem. We would
have liked to move the tree but it is on City property and we didn't
even request that the tree be moved. It is quite a large tree but it is also
a messy tree. It is not a pretty tree but that is another reason why it
didn't make a whole lot of sense to put in a sidewalk in if we walked
right into a tree.
Mr. Morrow: That is what we were curious about.
Ms. Sass: We are not talking about a two or three foot base. It is at least 6 feet
wider than any sidewalk would be.
Mr. Piercecchi: H, have there been problems in that area because there are no
sidewalks?
Mr. Shane: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Piercecchi: All the way down Santa Anita, has there been any hint at petitioning for
sidewalks?
15308
Mr. Shane: Not that I am aware of. The Engineering Department would be the one
they would petition to in the beginning and I haven't heard of any. As
a matter of fact, the Assistant City Engineer indicated there were no
actions, at least currently pending.
Mr. Piercecchi: Ms. Sass, you mentioned that sloping area. Are you going to beautify
that area?
Ms. Sass: Definitely. I have to put in some type of retaining wall. I am planning
on having a step down that would help the situation.
Mr. Piercecchi: There would be step landscaping along that slope then?
Ms. Sass: Right.
Mr. Piercecchi: Does our ordinance specify that sidewalks have to be put in?
Mr. Shane: No, it is just that we have a habit of having architects place the
sidewalk on the plans because it is generally something that is required
by the Engineering Department. They are required for sure along the
main thoroughfares, in this case Five Mile Road. On the side streets
they sooner or later have sidewalks. That is why we do that but there
is no ordinance requirement.
Mr. Piercecchi: If and when the neighbors would petition for sidewalks, would you go
on record that you would then comply?
Ms. Sass: Yes I already stated that.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to offer the prepared resolution to approve the request
based on Ms. Sass' observation that it is a sidewalk to nowhere, that
there are no known problems in that area, that it wasn't because of the
fact there haven't been sidewalks there. Even though we try to
enhance neighborhoods when we have the opportunity, this is a very
trivial, small area, and I don't really think it serves that purpose. With
that I will offer a resolution to approve.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#11-222-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Revision to Petition 93-10-8-20 by Sara K. Sass, on behalf of the Suburban
Door Company, requesting approval to amend the site plan that was
approved in connection with this petition for property located at 28003 Five
Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, for the following reasons:
15309
1) That because there are no sidewalks along this section of Santa Anita
Avenue at this time, waiving of the sidewalk would have no detrimental
sl` effect upon the neighboring properties;
2) When sidewalks are installed along this section of Santa Anita Avenue,
the owner of this property shall be responsible, and pay the burden of the
cost, for the installation of a sidewalk on this property.
Mr. McCann: I would like to put a statement on the record, I am going to vote
against this because I believe when we have a commercial situation like
this, it is different than residential. Even in the residential areas now we
are requiring sidewalks. Here you are going to have commercial size
trucks backing up, exiting and entering. Children still have to get by
this area. Sidewalks at least point them in the right direction. I realize
it is a burden on the business but it is the type of burden we have to
absorb as businesses.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Engebretson, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: Walsh, Blomberg
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Revision to Petition
90-9-8-13 by DuBose and Associates, on behalf of Wendy's International,
requesting approval to amend the building elevation plans that were approved in
connection with this petition for property located at 27526 Grand River Avenue in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Grand River between
Inkster and Eight Mile Road. Presently it is the site of a Hardee's
Restaurant. Wendy's International has taken over Hardee's Restaurant
and that is the reason for this request. The petitioner is proposing to
alter the exterior elevations of the existing building so it would conform
to the look of a typical Wendy's Restaurant. (Mr. Miller presented the
building elevations)
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner like to add anything?
15310
Petitioner: He pretty much summed it up. Wendy's International bought out all
the Hardee's and are remodeling them into a Tim Hortons or Wendy's.
... This one happens to be Wendy's.
Mr. Piercecchi: When I inspected the site I noticed there were two dumpsters. One
was housed and the other one wasn't. I think if there is anything that
destroys the appearance of a building is dumpsters that are just sitting
out in the middle of parking lots like that one was.
Petitioner: Hardee's is still operating the restaurant. When Wendy's comes in it
will be entirely different. They keep all their dumpsters enclosed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#11-223-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Revision to Petition 90-9-8-13 by DuBose and Associates, on behalf of
Wendy's International, requesting approval to amend the building elevation
plans that were approved in connection with this petition for property located
at 27526 Grand River Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan marked G-1 dated 11/5/96 prepared by
Thomas DuBose& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
New 2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked G-3 dated 11/5/96
prepared by Thomas DuBose& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on
the plans.
4) That all the dumpsters in back will be screened or enclosed.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Morrow, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Engebretson, Walsh, Blomberg
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
* 11:07 p.m. - Mr. Nagy entered the meeting at this time.
15311
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by American Signcrafters, on behalf of Party City, requesting approval
for signage for one of the units in the commercial center located on the northeast
'" corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This unit is located in what we call the Office Depot Plaza Shopping
Center, which is located at the northeast corner of Plymouth and
Middlebelt Roads. Party City will be occupying the westerly-most unit
of the shopping center. It was formerly occupied by Perry Drugs.
They are proposing two wall signs. Because they are located on the
corner unit, they are allowed two wall signs. The wall sign along the
storefront, because they have 80 feet frontage, they are allowed 80 sq.
ft. so it is a conforming sign. Also to have this sign put on, they are
also asking for approval for a new type of panel that would be
constructed over the middle of the storefront to accommodate one of
the signs. The new panel would be 40 ft. by 13 ft. Also on the west
elevation facing Middlebelt they are requesting 40 sq. ft. of signage.
That is what they are allowed so it is basically a conforming sign
package.
Mr. McCann: If there are no questions I will look for a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
`..
#11-224-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by
American Signcrafters, on behalf of Party City, requesting approval for
signage for one of the units in the commercial center located on the
northeast corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Sign Package as received by the Planning Commission on
November 4, 1996 from Dykema Gossett PLLC requesting signage for
"Party City", is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond 1 hour after the
center closes;
3) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated 10/24/96 prepared by
American Signcrafters, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the building materials used in the construction of the new facade
shall match that of the existing center;
15312
5) That the new facade shall be painted to match that of the existing
center.
NNW
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by George S. and Kathleen L. Garis requesting approval for a ground
sign for the law office located at 9555 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 35.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Middlebelt between West
Chicago and Plymouth. It is zoned OS so therefore they are only
allowed one ground sign at 10 sq. ft. They are proposing one at 18 sq.
ft. It is non-conforming so they had to get a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals prior to coming to the Planning Commission. They
have the variance so what they are proposing is a conforming sign
package on the basis of that variance. The sign would be located
within the landscaped area on the left hand side as you drive in off
Middlebelt Road.
Mr. McCann: According to our notes the only issue we had was the illumination of
the sign and he has agreed to limit it to eleven o'clock at night.
Mr. Engebretson: During that discussion at the study meeting, I really didn't pursue that
like I should have. I am concerned about that eleven o'clock limit. As
we just dealt with on the previous petition, the illumination is to be
extinguished one hour after the center closes and that is consistent with
what we have been doing for years. This is a law office, as I
understand it, and they most likely aren't even there in the evening, and
I am just wondering why we would suggest eleven o'clock for someone
who hasn't been there that evening when most other operators that do
operate in the evening, shut their lights down at ten o'clock? I am
going to recommend that if we approve this, and I am sure we will, that
we make the time stipulation"shall not be illuminated beyond 10:00
p.m.", and because the petitioner was excused from this meeting this
evening, I feel like I am ambushing him but because this has to go to
the City Council, there will be another opportunity for him if this is
working some hardship on him. I don't think he really gave the
impression that he needed it that late.
Mr. McCann: I think I was the one that asked for eleven o'clock. We didn't really
come to a certain time although it was kind of vague as to whether or
not he has to appear depending on the time he closes. I know I am in
15313
my office at midnight at times. It is on Middlebelt Road and I don't
think it would be intrusive to any neighbors and I think it was 11:00 p.m.
would be the maximum.
Mr. Engebretson: I thought he was very, very flexible Mr. McCann and he does have
another opportunity, but it is not a big deal.
Mr. Morrow: I don't disagree with what Mr. Engebretson said. In general we put in
ten o'clock, which is an hour after normal center closing time and we
gave him some latitude on that but at the same token it didn't mean we
would be approving it. I feel comfortable making it ten o'clock and if
he has a hardship, he can take the appropriate steps at the next level.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-225-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by
George S. and Kathleen L. Garis requesting approval for a ground sign
for the law office located at 9555 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package as received by the Planning Commission on
October 29, 1996 from George S. and Kathleen L. Garis requesting
`".. signage for 9555 Middlebelt Road, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond 10:00 p.m.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 735th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on November 19, 1996 was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
By /U+.1 ‘z ;.7
1 } Robert Alanskas, Secretary
L
ti 1
ATTE T: -{x; _ �,�,,
J es C. McCann, Chairman
jg /