Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-08-15 14319 MINUTES OF THE 709th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA [Nifty On Tuesday, August 15, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 709th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann Robert Alanskas R. Lee Morrow William LaPine Daniel Piercecchi Patricia Blomberg Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Asst. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. 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 95-5-1-10 by Louis Bitoff, Jr. requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Louis Bitoff, Jr. , 29559 Strathmore, Farmington Hills: I wish to put a podiatric medical facility at that location of approximately 1200 to 1500 square feet, whatever the lot size will accommodate. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, have you looked into the zoning ordinance to make a determination as to whether or not you could achieve that objective on that site? 14320 Dr. Bitoff: I have had brief conversations with Mr. Nagy and apparently it can be done. Mr. Piercecchi: You realize there are 7.79 acres of property around your site and s'" you have 0.11 acres. Maybe it is possible to get a building on that site but you have your side yard setbacks. That is only going to leave you 20 feet. You have to give up so much in the front and 15 feet in the back. Are you going to have room for a building 20'x 25'. I don't think you will have room for parking. Haw do you propose to set a building there? Dr. Bitoff: What is it, one slot for every 200 square feet? Mr. Engebretson: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: 50' by 98.5' is the subject site. That is the total area of that site. I don't question that sometime way down the line perhaps because of the construction that is going on in that area, that perhaps some of those sites will be requested to go that way sometime in the future because of the hospital and things of that nature, but I would recommend to you that you try to acquire more property to the east of you to make it a legitimate site. You could never put a building on it and have parking in my opinion. Mr. LaPine: Could you tell me why you picked this site? Is it because Providence Hospital is being built across the street? Dr. Bitoff: I am associated with the U of M Surgery Center which is around the corner on Haggerty between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads. `ow It would be a stones throw for my patients and for me as well, convenience, and I want to stay in Livonia. Mr. LaPine: The problem I have with this is it is such a small site. We have almost eight acres of land adjacent to you. It seems to me that for the best interest of Livonia we are better off if somebody that awns that 7.79 acres bought this smaller parcel and combined it with the 7.79 acres and we get something built there that is more compatible and could be one big unit. I am not in favor of having a 50 foot lot built and another 50 foot lot, and another 50 foot lot, etc. , which I don't think is going to happen. It seems to me it would be in our best interest if all the land was combined and we got one development. You don't own the property. Is that correct? Dr. Bitoff: I do have it under contract. Mr. LaPine: Contingent upon getting approval? Dr. Bitoff: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Do you know if the individual that owns the 7.79 acres has ever approached the owner to buy that property? `.. 14321 Dr. Bitoff: I couldn't tell you. Mr. LaPine: Could you just tell us very briefly what you propose to build there and is it going to be a one-story building? Noir Dr. Bitoff: Yes, brick, hip roof, something contemporary. Mr. Engebretson: Dr. Bitoff, the problem is because you abut residential property the side yard setbacks are set at 15 feet, the rear yard setback is set at 15 feet and the front yard setback is 40 feet. When you subtract the setbacks and determine the remaining property, you come up with only 860 square feet remaining. There is a requirement for 750 square feet of landscaping on that property, which would leave you room for a 10'x 11' building with no room for parking, so currently this land mass doesn't have the capability to support the kind of structure that you want to put on that land. Dr. Bitoff: Is it 100 feet deep or 150 feet deep? Mr. Engebretson: Our notes indicate 98 feet, 50'x 98.5. Dr. Bitoff: The agent represented to me that it was 150 feet deep. Mr. Nagy: The legal description goes to the center line of the road, but the south 60 feet is public right-of-way so the net buildable area is what the Chairman is referring to by 98 feet. Mr. Engehretson: As you can see there would be substantial variances needed in `'�•• terms of the setbacks, both side yards, and the front yard is unlikely to be waived. It is possible that the back yard could be waived, but even if that were the case, you would still end up with a very limited size building on that land. Dr. Bitoff: Approximately how big? Mr. Engebretson: You could lose at least half of the land based on the front and rear yard setbacks. Let's assume the side yard setbacks were waived completely. That would leave you with 45 feet by 50 feet, which would be 2,000 sq. ft. approximately, which would require 750 sq. ft. for landscaping, so you would have 1400 sq. ft. for building and parking, if both side yard setbacks were waived completely, and it is unlikely that they would waive them right out to the property line because of the residential nature of the area. Dr. Bitoff: It is not really enough. Mr. Engehretson: That is our problem. We don't necessarily want to give you the impression that we oppose the principle of what you are setting out to do here, but as Mr. Piercecchi and Mr. LaPine have indicated, you do have surrounding property that if you could ti.. 14322 acquire a part of that, it would make your proposal attractive. I just don't know how it is workable. We tried to give you that message last time. We didn't want to cause you any aggravation by going through the process of putting up that sign. We were hoping to send you a very strong signal that perhaps it would be best to reconsider this plan to find a parcel that would accommodate your building by expanding that parcel or looking somewhere else. Dr. Bitoff: Even with zero side yards you feel it would be too small? Mr. Engebretson: I can't speak for the Zoning Board, but with the house next door it is not common practice to waive the side yards. Even if they were waived, you would still end up with a pretty small building. You could end up with a 10'x 11'. You couldn't put a car in there. Please don't view this as being opposed to the type of medical practice that you would propose to put in there, but it is strictly a matter of the size of land you have there. Mr. Alanskas: Dr. Bitoff, you might want to get with the City or John Nagy. I am sure the City has a listing of vacant properties even near that area that could have buildings on them. You might take your pick of the litter, what size lot you want. I am sure there is a lot in Livonia that could take care of what you want to do. Mr. EngPhretson: Let me add to that that the Planning staff would certainly be in a position to give you some recommendations and to help you understand better haw to avoid getting into a situation like this in the future. We also have an Economic Development Office in '`r the City that may be able to provide assistance to you. We would be interested in working with you. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-5-1-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. rapine and unanimously approved, it was #8-155-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 on Petition 95-5-1-10 by Louis Bitoff, Jr. requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-5-1-10 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a comprehensive land use solution for the subject property and all adjacent properties in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; r.. 14323 ' 3) That the proposed change of zoning would provide for spot zoning in the area; and **4111. 4) That the subject property lacks the size and dimensions to permit the development of uses permitted by the proposed OS zoning district. 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. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-1-13 by the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF and O.S. to R-6. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner in this matter, we will go immediately to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this proposed zoning change. There appears to be no one coming forth. Mr. Nagy, let me inquire, the proposed zoning `r•► change has been advertised to go, as indicated here, from RUF and OS to R-6. Is it appropriate or permitted, without re-advertising, to go to a less intense zoning district? Mr. Nagy: Correct, as long as it stays within the residential classification and would allow a density less than what was submitted by the proposed R-6. Mr. Piercecchi: I will make a motion to approve with one change. I think it would be in the best interest of the City and the residents in that area if the R-6 was changed to R-1. I think it would be much more compatible with the homes across the street. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-1-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-156-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 on Petition 95-7-1-13 by the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located on 14324 the Past side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF and OS to R-6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-1-13 be approved as amended to R-1 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning district and land uses in the area; 3) That the proposed zoning district will provide for development of the subject property in a manner consistent with its size and location; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for medium density residential land use. 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. Morrow: If my calculations are correct, could we not get three R-1 lots within the proposed zoning district? Mr. Nagy: I will agree with that. Mr. Engebretson: Even though the depth might be deficient? Mr. Nagy: Yes, even though you have 240 feet. R-1 requires 60 feet. Theoretically the 60 would go into the 240 four times, but because you don't have 120 feet depth to make the 7200 sq. ft. area, you have to widen it to overcome the problem of the depth in order to meet the lot area requirements, so you could only get the three lots. Mr. Morrow: To go along with what Mr. Piercecchi said, I was also noticing across the street there were two relatively new homes, as well as one single family home, that looked like it had gone through some refurbishing, and I would sure like to see if they can't get single family residential in those lots at least at the present. Mr. Engebretson: Is that property owned by the City John? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. rapine: John, the R-6 classification is for two-family duplex? Mr. Nagy: Correct. i.. 14325 Mr. LaPine: So if we get two of those that means we have four units. What size lots would those be? Actually we are getting less units. Mr. Nagy: You are getting one less unit by going to single family. Mr. Engebretson: It would be more compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-2-23 by Lindhout Associates Architects requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing veterinary clinic located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Cavour Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal stating their offices have no objections to this proposal. 'Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the petitioner was before the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 18, 1995 and was granted a variance for the deficient front and side yard setbacks. They further state landscaping for this site is required to be 15% whereas only 8% (approximately) is being provided. No other deficiencies were found to exist. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Henry Lemieux: I am representing Lindhout Associates Architects. This is Dr. McClure, who is the owner of the Strong Veterinary Hospital. Dr. McClure desires to expand his practice, the present building which he is in now. He also owns the building on the corner, which is a vacant store building, and our proposal is to combine the two, remove the front portion of the store building, create a front lawn area, eliminate the drive from Five Mile Road and just leave one drive on Cavour, and turn the building around so the main entrance will face off the parking lot, and redesign and refinish the exterior. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have some elevations to illustrate what you plan to do? (Mr. Lemieux displayed the plans and showed photographs) Mr. Lemieux: We have taken the store building and taken off 22 feet from it, removed it and connected it across the driveway, added a pitched roof. The driveway that comes off Five Mile Road is eliminated, and that paved area where everybody parks will be eliminated and 14326 landscaped. Unfortunately we can't do anything with Chaps Feed Store because that is their property. The rear of the building, as you can see from the photographs, is very pleasant. We have put in all new front here with a decorative entrance facing the sk.. parking lot. The mechanical equipment is all inside except the condensing units. We have placed the three condensing units between these wings on the rear of the building above the garage. The side on Cavour, we propose to remove that old brick and put new brick veneer on the entire building so it will be compatible. Mr. Morrow: I have one question as it relates to Chaps Feed. Did you ever have any discussions with him in the sphere that this is what I construe as a very superior upgrade of the property, in the spirit of trying to make his place look a little better? Was he ever approached by you or by the owner? Dr. McClure: I have never talked to him about that. Mr. Morrow: Do you feel like you could talk to him about that? Just show him what you are doing. Dr. McClure: He knows what I am doing but he owns that property. Mr. Morrow: I was hoping he would get caught up in this and at least put a coat of paint on his building. It was just a point of information. It certainly doesn't affect your project one way or another. Mr. Engebretson: To follow up on that sir, it is not uncommon, I am sure in your 'tow business career you have seen one upgrade like this trigger others to follow and sometimes we get them to do it jointly or together. Mr. Lemieux: We can approach Chaps Feed Store. Mr. Engebretson: That building is in tough shape, and this is going to be so spectacular that it is going to be completely out of character with what is next door. Mr. Alanskas: Doctor, in your previous experience how many animals would you have there in a day? Dr. McClure: There are not that many that are actually housed there. I would have maybe 15 or 20. Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have any soundproofing put in the walls? Mr. Lemieux: The walls are 12 inch masonry. The original building will become the treatment area and where the animals are housed. That has 12 inch masonry walls with 8 inch concrete roof. Mr. Alanskas: That will take care of that. Question number two, the containers 14327 where you have the animal waste, what kind of containers are these? Dr. McClure: That goes in the dumpster. ``fir. Mr. Alanskas: Haw often is the dumpster changed? Dr. McClure: Every week. Mr. Engebretson: Where is the dumpster located on the site? Mr. Lemieux: It is located on the northwest corner of the parking lot. Mr. LaPine: First I want to commend you on the fine job you are doing here. It is really going to clean up the situation. Hopefully it will rub off on the feed store. I just have two questions. I noticed in the notes, your dog run and everything is inside. There will not be any dog runs on the outside. Is that correct? Dr. McClure: Yes. Mr. IaPine: I think Mr. Alanskas asked my other question. I was worried about the waste and the syringes and everything like that, and that is all kept indoors until such time as it is picked up? Dr. McClure: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: I know the Chaps' customers presently use that parking lot because of the easy access they have walking through that alley way. When that is closed off, will that present a problem? Mr. Lemieux: We still allow them access to the parking lot. The parking lot is sized for the vet practice. I don't think they have adequate parking but we have allowed them to enter and use this drive. I would like to ask one question. In the private review you people had, you required that we change this light pole fium one light pole to two because we had to lower it to 20 feet. (He pointed out on plan what they would like to do) I would like you to reconsider that because basically we would reduce the quality of lighting. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to set the record straight relative to private meetings. We dealt with this last week when the staff presented this case to enable us to then go to the site and study the site plans to better understand what was being proposed. It is an open meeting. There were members of the public at that meeting. The petitioners are not necessarily included in those meetings because if we do that then we tend to have a public hearing there and we don't get all the issues out here. I just wanted to make sure the record doesn't stand with the notation of private meetings. None of our meetings are private. Mr. Nagy, do you have any problem with what the gentleman suggests relative to the higher light standard versus the lesser standards. 14328 Mr. Nagy: Not really. I think it is a fair representation. In our Civic Center area our light poles are 25 feet. I think that is the max and I think we can live with 25 foot light poles. 25 has been our height limitation that we try to live with. To that extent I `` think it is a reasonable requirement to stay within the 25 feet. Mr. Engehretson: That would indicate two light poles. You will have another crack at this at the City Council. The standards have been set in the past and if it is something you feel strongly about, then you have another opportunity. Mr. Morrow: I really wasn't checking the neighborhood around there. That normally has been our standard because of the fact when it is close to residential areas, we try to keep them as low as possible because even though it is dawnlit it wouldn't be visible by the neighbors but I really didn't look at that when I was out there because I didn't know that was an area of concern. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-2-23 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #8-157-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-7-2-23 by Lindhout Associates Architects requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing veterinary clinic located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Cavour Avenue in the Southwest `or 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-2-23 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet P1 dated 8-9-95, as revised, prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to final inspection and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet P2 dated 5-15-95 prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 14329 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 'tor accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-2-24 by Super Hi Tech Auto Service Center requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage and rental of U-Haul trucks on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their department would have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal and the Traffic Bureau stating their offices have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The existing landscaping is poorly maintained. Some shrubs along Plymouth Road have died and the landscaping in the right of way is weed infested. 2. All driveway and parking areas are in need of repair and resurfacing and are currently weed infested. 3. Chain link fences need repair and painting. 4. There are metal storage containers for sale on the west side of the building. 5. Miscellaneous tires and debris litter the south lot line. We also have a petition from homeowners in the area that has been signed by 130 folks that give their name and addresses on the petition. The petition reads as follows: "The attached notification was mailed a short time ago to all residents of our immediate subdivision. Super Hi Tech Service Center wants to have our approval for outdoor storage and rental of U-Haul Trucks. We understand that 15 or more IAS TRUCKS will be permitted to park in plain view of our homes. Drop off of these vehicles will be on a 24 hour bases and so will maintenance. Hours and days of business will be extended, noise and air pollution will be at a high level and no plan for a screening wall on the south side or west side has been mentioned. All of our property values will decrease immediately. DON'T FORGET--ADDED CRIME COULD RESULT. "The owner, Arsen Sanjian, did win his last battle two years ago when he added onto the building but not without 13 conditions imposed on his business. Sanjian has been sighted numerous 14330 "violations over the last two years but the City has never enforced him to complete and upgrade his property. "We mast fight against the approval of Petition 95-7-2-24!! Please have everyone in your household sign below and attend the City Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, August 15th at 7:30 at Livonia City Hall." Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner in the audience? Arsen Sanjian, 6610 Franklin Road, Bloomfield Hills, 48301: I have been in business for about 2 1/2 years. I remodeled the building. I think I did a good job. I got quite a few comments from the Mayor and Council people. I do feel now that I need U-Haul privileges. I am a certified or licensed dealer now. We do need your permission. It will benefit my business. I am going to repair some of their trucks and increase my trailer hitch business. All these things are done in the front of the building away from the public, away from the neighborhood on the west side of the building. It is far from the neighbors. Maybe two houses can see a few of the trucks but all the rest won't. I have proved that I run a very clean business. I comply with all the requests and if there are suggestions, I will answer questions. Mr. Engebretson: Did you hear the letter that Mr. Nagy read from the Inspection Department? Mr. Sanjian: I didn't hear all of it. __ Mr. Engebretson: Do you have a copy of that letter? Mr. Sanjian: No I don't. As far as the containers, I do have a few for sale. I can move them tomorrow. There is no problem there. There are a few tires. We explained to the Inspector we have a neighbor that doesn't want any of the cars to be parked in the back of their house. We put about 10 to 15 tires back there so nobody can park their trucks or cars over there. I can remove them tomorrow. I like to be a good neighbor. I put the tires there. I told the Inspector that the purpose was we don't allow anybody to park their cars there so they would be away from the neighbors. Mr. Engebretson: I wondered about that. Right next to those tires there appears to be a car that has been completely stripped and ready to be taken to the dump. Mr. Sanjian: I can move it in the next few days. Mr. Engebretson: Is it normal practice for you to store cars in that kind of condition on your property? Mr. Sanjian: The car is in for repair. 14331 Mr. Engebretson: Not that one. Mr. Sanjian: Which one are you referring to? `ow Mr. Engebretson: The one right next to the tires. It is pretty much stripped. Mr. Sanjian: It belongs to somebody and we don't have the title to take it away. Mr. Engebretson: Do you want to comment on the landscaping and the condition of the parking lot? Mr. Sanjian: The parking lot, I would like to pave the whole front but I was having problems financially. I will be patching all the spots and repair the whole front. Mr. Morrow: In site checking your location I observed in the general area where you want to park the trucks, other trucks in that area. Were those trucks parking there as a kind of rental type area or were they in there for work? Mr. Sanjian: Two of them are my trucks. One is a snowplow and one is a small pickup. Three of them are for clients. They haven't picked them up yet. Mr. Morrow: So you are not leasing space to other people on that site? Mr. Sanjian: No. ``.. Mr. Morrow: Can you harken back to the approval that you received from the City Council as it relates to your service doors? Originally the Planning Commission requested that all doors be maintained in a closed position, not open. I have been by your place several times and I have seen all doors wide open. I realize it is hot but I don't know whether the Council required those doors be closed or if you were given the opportunity to open them when you are working on cars. Mr. Sanj ian: In the summertime they can be open. Mr. Morrow: John, would you concur on that? Mr. Nagy: It has been the policy to require the doors to be closed, but in reading the 13 conditions there is no specific mention as to keeping the doors closed. Mr. Morrow: I know the Planning Commission does make that requirement. Mr. Nagy: The Council put those conditions on and rejected the recommendation of the Planning Commission which was to deny the use. That is why the Commission didn't have any conditions. 14332 Mr. Engehretson: If we had approved it, we surely would have had,conditions in there having to do with the doors but Council chose not to address that issue apparently. `, Mr. TaPine: In your opening remarks did I understand you to say that you now have the rental truck franchise? Mr. Sanjian: Yes I do. Mr. TaPine: Where do you operate that? Mr. Sanjian: I have the dealership but it is not functioning yet without your approval. Mr. TaPine: So it is not functioning yet without approval. The second question I had, when you came before us for approval, which this body turned you down and you went on to Council and they overruled us and gave you your request, you were supposed to only repair certain size trucks. I have been told, whether it is true or not I don't know because I don't live in that area and I don't get by it, that you are servicing some heavy-duty trucks. Is that correct? Mr. Sanjian: Very few. Mr. LaPine: I thought it was my understanding it was supposed to be none. Here again I think that was in our motion Mr. Chairman. Mr. Engebretson: It was in the Council resolution "Repair work shall be limited to `„ cars and medium duty trucks only;". It is pretty clear. Mr. LaPine: I think in your opening statement you also said something about you want this rental of trucks to go hand in hand with hitches. Do you have hitches there now that you sell or lease or rent? Mr. Sanjian: We only sell sir and most of them are for small trucks, 1/2 ton, and cars. Mr. Alanskas: When you came before us originally you wanted seven doors and we said no more than four, but you still got what you wanted. At that time you said that was all you need to run a very good business, and now you want to go into the truck rental business. Is there something wrong with your business that you have to have trucks? Mr. Sanjian: It is a request sir. I want to improve my business. As far as the previous request I had I didn't want nine. I requested five from you people. I was turned down and I proceeded to your City Council and they granted me nine and I appreciated that. Mr. Alanskas: I agree the trucks would not be in the neighbors' way but they certainly would be visible from Plymouth Road, and you know we 14333 have two or three facilities there now with trucks, and to have another facility with trucks I believe Plymouth Road would be a truck avenue, and I think that would be very poor planning. Nifty Mr. Engebretson: I have a couple of questions to ask you. Back to that Inspection report. The landscaping is in terrible condition, and that would include the front yard, which is overgrown and it certainly has its share of weeds. Weeds are growing in the parking lot, and it is my recollection there was to be some screening along the wall in the rear to screen that business off from the neighbors, and I noticed there were a couple of arborvitae back there but it is a pretty weak attempt at screening if that really is a correct recollection, but the landscaping is not in good condition. Would you have any comment to make on that? Mr. Sanjian: I try my best. I planted more trccs than I was supposed to. Due to the weather they just started dying and we discussed the matter with the City Inspector and he advised me to wait because the weather is too hot and he said wait until it gets cooler. I followed his advice. I am waiting for the weather to permit and I will replace them. Mr. Engebretson: When did the plant material die? Mr. Sanjian: This summer. Mr. Engebretson: In the past several weeks when it has been so hot? Mr. Sanjian: About two weeks ago. As far as the landscaping, we did clean all '4111. the weeds in the back. Of course, we don't do it every day. I am a law abiding citizen in the City, and I have done everything the City wanted and the neighbors too. I want peace and harmony around the City. Mr. Engebretson: What about the fence repairs that were mentioned in the Inspection report? Mr. Sanjian: There are no fences. Mr. Engebretson: John, would you read that portion of the report. Mr. Nagy: Chain link fences need repair and painting. That is item number 3 of their report. Mr. Sanjian: I didn't get a letter. I will comply with the letter. Mr. Engebretson: What about complying with the limitation of confining your work to medium duty trucks only? You were fully aware that was a restriction yet you say you periodically engage in the repair of heavy duty trucks. Mr. Sanjian: We don't do it now but if we have to we will go to the Zoning 14334 Board of Appeals and try to change that to reverse it from heavy duty from front to back. I can do that. Mr. Engebretson: If you want to fulfill the commitments that were made by you and '41111. imposed by the City Council, it would seem to me you shouldn't be looking at direction from us to do that. You should just do that spontaneously. Mr. Sanjian: I will have my attorney start the procedure tomorrow. Mr. Engebretson: Good idea. Mr. LaPine: You mentioned in your opening remarks that if you got this franchise, you would also, if I understood you right, be repairing trucks for U-Haul? Mr. Sanjian: That is correct. Mr. TaPine: Are you going to have a separate contract with them where they are going to bring in trucks from other locations and you will be a repair facility for them besides having your rental trucks there? Mr. Sanjian: The facility is a repair center and we do repair trucks. Jody Keesler, 5449 Reed Road, Schwartz Creek: I am a U-Haul representative. This is in my territory. I am the representative. A service contract to repair vehicles is a completely separate contract on a contract from a dealership. If you decide he can rent trucks, he `ow does not have to repair any trucks at all. Usually we give him what the City allows us to park on the premises and when he repairs a truck he takes this out and picks up another truck to stay with the strict quota or whatever you allow. Mr. LaPine: So what you are telling me is if he has 15 trucks there and he has a separate contract to repair trucks, you wouldn't be bringing in three or four trucks to be repaired and still have the 15 trucks there? Mr. Keesler: No sir. Mr. LaPine: Unfortunately, from our experience, and believe me we got burnt by Budget Trucks on Levan where we set a limit on the number of trucks they could have on that lot and I tell you they have more trucks than I knew they had trucks. The problem we have is the same thing could happen here. Unless someone is policing this day in and day out, there is no way we can keep track of how many trucks are there, haw many trucks are being repaired, haw many trucks belong to U-Haul, haw many trucks belong to private individuals. It becomes a real problem for us, and it is not only a problem for the City but I think it is a burden for the homeowners that live in that area. They don't want this type of rr.. 14335 aggravation. When we talked to the gentleman when he originally came in for a repair shop, we set certain standards and we felt after we listened to him that we didn't think it was a good idea to have that there, and then he went to Council and the Council \r passed it. I have to worry here when you talk about two separate contracts, how do we have any control over what is being repaired and what is not being repaired, which are rental trucks, etc. because in reality he could have 15 trucks there, 7 trucks rented out. He could bring in another seven trucks while he is repairing, and he still has his 15 trucks, so in reality he really has 21 trucks because same of those are being repaired. Eventually, I assume, they are going to go back to whatever locations they came from. It gets to be a real policing problem in my way of thinking. That is something we would have to consider. Mr. Piercecchi: I spent a lot of time over at the site and I am pleased that the Inspection Department gave us some sort of a performance report. There is one thing that was never mentioned here, and that is outdoor sales. I noticed some bins were for sale. Mr. Sanjian: That is temporary. I can remove them. Mr. Engebretson: It is also against the law. Mr. Piercecchi: Are any citations issued John? Mr. Nagy: The Inspection Department does mention there are metal storage containers that are for sale on the west side of the building to Nifty be removed. Mr. Piercecchi: All these violations go against some of the conditions that the City Council set like overnight vehicles, the berm condition, the protective wall, and I could go on and on. They had 13 recommendations that the gentleman had to follow and it seems like there is trouble on three or four of them. Mr. Engebretson: I have one last question for you. What would be the hours of operation of this proposed truck rental business be? Mr. Sanjian: Nothing changes. 7:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Nothing changes. No holidays and no Sundays. We don't want to be there 24 hours. I have a life to live. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposed waiver use. Cheryl Druc, 35625 Elmira: I would like to have everybody in our vicinity stand up that are here and are opposing the U-Haul. (Approximately 20 persons stood up) We now have 133 names for Mr. Nagy. Actually what I would like to say right now, since you do have a long agenda and you have already received written suggestions, and you 14336 do know so much about it, and you don't seem to be in favor of it, we can go quite in depth and someone will be willing to speak on this, but we would like to know if you would like to take a vote right now before we say anything? Mr. Engebretson: The problem is if we do that and you don't like it, it is done. Ms. Druc: Well I have faith in you. We all have individual complaints. We could keep you here until midnight. Mr. McCann: Most of us were here when the petition originally came through. You know we are well versed. We listened to the neighbors when that came through. Someone did a very detailed job including prior notes flout the Council, and this is very helpful because we can read this and by having the people stand up we obviously know what the sentiment is of the group that is here. It is helpful. This is a public hearing. We, by design, do not make a decision until after the public hearing is closed so as to give everybody a fair opportunity. We have to hear all sides, and then we have to make our decision after people are cut off. I think it would be helpful for everyone here tonight, however, that if you have somebody that could summarize this or give us the points you need rather than have each person come up here and reiterate the same thing. Mr. Engebretson: Are you familiar with this document? Ms. Druc: I wrote it. Mr. Engebretson: Based on that, if you could introduce this document officially and your remarks into the record, then I think the document speaks for itself. Ms. Druc: Do you want me to read it? Mr. Engebretson: I don't think it is necessary. I think if you reference this document and place it in the record, then I think you can save yourself time as well as us and we appreciate the consideration. Ms. Druc: I would like to enter this document into the record. I would like to point out a few things though. The screening wall. It is a very, very important thing. I understand that they have made no provisions for a screening wall. Since these trucks are going to be half the height of a light pole approximately, we do need some kind of a screening wall if this is approved, which we hope it is not approved. I believe you heard the other comments on haw they have direct access to our neighborhood on the west side. There is no fence there whatsoever. There is a vacant lot there. Cockrum's lot could be purchased for an extension. As you can see, our property values will decrease. Chances are there is supposed to be a dumping ground by Cockrum's Market. 14337 These trucks are going to be parked directly behind the homes. The west side is directly behind these homes. These are family owned homes. Children live there. There is a path coming around the bend that people could easily go around. It will be a `.. 24-hour service for a drop-off service, which means the gate has to be left open. They may not be there for 24 hours but if you read the U-Haul contract, it does say 24 hours, and it is standard with any type of U-Haul contract. I have that in the paper here. It also shows the size of the trucks, which was mentioned previously. We don't want this. We do not want this. Iast night I went by. They were open at 8:33 p.m. The doors were open and they were working on a motorcycle. The overhead doors were open. This has happened many, many times. It looks quite bad in that area. We are tax paying citizens, homeowners, what have you. We live there. We like our neighborhood. We keep up our homes very, very well. We don't want this kind of activity in our neighborhood. There is going to be a lot of crime. The police are not going to know whether it is somebody returning a truck or somebody trying to get into our neighborhood. They aren't going to know. There will be more lighting required. The gates are going to be open 24 hours. He is going to be working on these large trucks. You know he is. It is going to be like Budget. Also the bad odor, the noises we hear. I am going to let someone else talk at this time. You do have my photos. Is that correct? (Her photos were passed around) Do you realize he is just now cleaning it up. Out of 13 conditions, this man has been given violations many, many times. He has been given written violations but never fined. What do I tell my children when I say he has these 13 conditions? They know what I am going through for the last 27 months and he can do anything he pleases. Why isn't he fined heavily? Why? Why can't you do it? I have the law written down. You created it. Here it is. He can park no more than six vehicles or trucks on the outside of his building overnight. As of the 7th of August he started cleaning it up. There is a date in the corner of the photograph. He can't deny it. After 27 months how long does it take. If I left my garbage can out overnight, what would happen? I would get a fine. Bob Marrone, 35665 Leon: I am not a public speaker. I have never addressed a Planning Commission before. I am not near as eloquent as Cheryl is but we are all equally committed. I will be brief and pertinent. I would like to address you folks. I addressed the City Council two times in 20 years here, and both times I made suggestions and perhaps they were on the take because the fix was already in, and it was true in both cases. You guys are a whole different crowd, and this is refreshing. Maybe I should watch you more on TV because you already asked most of the points you will see in here. The three issues I don't know. You guys are already going to do them. I can hear two of them already. Is there a way please, if there is a way for this Commission to get through the City Council's head, three main factors in making a 14338 decision, truth or honesty, integrity and commitment. I am not going to speak to all the violations. I would like you to consider those three things. This is what I would like to say. When I came to the City Council meeting and when I heard those 13 `�. things and I heard all the other conditions, and this gentleman frankly is wrong. There was a rule about the wall. There was a rule about the trucks. There was a rule about all these things and they have all been violated. Let's just take those three. Let's take commitment first. Obviously you guys are committed because you have a long agenda here and you have to be here late at night and all wear those uncomfortable ties, so you are obviously committed right. I don't know how to get these things through to the Council. You have to be committed to the people. The people have to get a fair shake. I am going to sound a little cynical here. I am glad there are no large contributions made to City Planning Commission for their election campaigns. You are doing this out of civic goodness. Because that seems to have one heck of an effect on the other people that sit in those chairs at other meetings. You have already turned this down once. I would like you to get through to the Council to be committed to the people. How are we going to say we are the eighth best City in America down in our little corner on truck alley on Plymouth Road? It is not going to be practical. The commitment question. If you could just keep that in mind. You guys will but get the next people sitting in those chairs to keep in mind the commitment to our City. Not to some guy who can afford to live in West Bloomfield or someplace else, and I don't think I would live there if I could afford to. That is fine. He can live where he wants. I don't care where he lives but he `�. doesn't have a U-Haul sitting next to him, does he? He doesn't have garbage sitting next to him. I really appreciate you people having driven around and seeing that. I find it very refreshing. Maybe you do that all the time, and it is just the first time I knew it. That is the commitment question. Let's take the integrity question. The integrity is a very serious thing. We have so little of it in our society and we are all old enough to remember when it was important. Integrity meant that one honored one's word. At the City Council meeting people who were sitting here listened to all this stuff that was going to occur. On August 7th it began. That was two years ago. The integrity to meet one's commitments is a cornerstone of business. It should be anyhow, and that is a very subjective statement. You guys in the Planning Commission you set the tone for all businesses in Livonia. Obviously drug dealers don't come in here to be regulated or car dealers or grocery stores and everybody else does, and if they don't behave with any integrity at all, there is supposed to be some way to take care of it. I think it is so rude this kind of thing because every single condition that was on that sheet was never done. There were promises. There were promises all the time. There were promises the doors would be closed. There had to be 10 minutes of discussion. Some City Council member owned a garage door company I think. They said 14339 you want two or three more doors. He had to make sure they were closed. I wouldn't want to work indoors in this heat, and that is not my point. It is next to my house. Even if the police were there day in and day out, clearly nothing would happen. We \r police it day in and day out. How many tickets or citations have been issued by the City of Livonia? I think it is the same number as the dollar contribution you guys get to your campaign, zero. Mr. EngPhretson: We don't have any way of knowing that. Mr. Marrone: And I know. I am merely stating zero. That is the integrity issue. The one integrity issue is do people honor their commiLwents if you give them waivers? The third issue is the truth and honesty question. You are committed to the City. You guys have a lot of integrity. You wouldn't be here if you didn't believe in the City. You could easily be home on a night like this. Let me ask you a question. All that junk out there, all those Fitments, all those promises, mean nothing until it is time to apply for another waiver. That is really enough. Those are the three issues, the truth and honesty question. The man has proven not to be a good corporate citizen despite all the promises made before over a two year period. The truth and honesty and integrity part are the important ones to me. The commitment part you people have already demonstrated. Martin Rubin, 35680 Elmira: All the neighbors here are in agreement. The good news is we have all been here 25 years. Each one of these homes is worth in excess of $150,000 at the present time. We are being Now taxed accordingly. Mr. Marrone said it very, very well. Trust, honesty, integrity and commitment. We have had the promises. You heard them. You were here last time. We have dealt with this thing for 2 1/2 years. We feel enough is enough, the noise, the smell, the extended hours. Obviously you have seen the fact there are more than six trucks. There are 14 there right now. With regard to the noise, somebody is building a race car, and that is wonderful but we have quality companies up and down on Van Road that build racing motors. I don't care because they are muffled. Somebody is building a race car back there and spinning the tires. It is upsetting. We have a gentleman who lives directly behind it. He can no longer use his backyard because of the noise and the smell. It is not fair to him, and he is a wonderful neighbor. All of these people are wonderful neighbors. I agree with the fact that we are getting to a point that once upon a time is getting to be a joke. It was hamburger facilities. Now we are getting truck facilities one after another. The circumstances at the corner of Plymouth and Stark is just an abomination beyond belief. The people are very upset behind there. That is not todays' subject. The landscaping, I think I can count the 18 arborvitae bushes which were promised specifically, the bushes didn't die yesterday. If they did, it was amazing because I've never seen more than four. It is not 14340 just a matter of bushes to make somebody happy. It is a fact of hiding a problem, which out of site is a way under certain circumstances to make an area appear pleasant. There are garbage facilities that they spray deodorants so it doesn't smell like a _r garbage facility. We don't have the honor of that. We have the smell, we have the noise, we have the promises. If this is the wall that was going to happen yesterday, well yesterday it didn't happen, last week it didn't happen, 2 1/2 years ago it didn't happen. You have heard that before. The trucks, size wise. There is an admission by the gentleman asking for the petition today that I only had a few trucks. Isn't that like being a little pregnant. Either you are using large trucks or you are not using large trucks. We don't like the large trucks. Commission wise you don't use the large trucks. Maybe he doesn't understand the difference in large trucks. If it is noisy and it is large, it is probably a truck. Hazardous driving is an issue unfortunately to be addressed at a later point. At this point, people that rent trucks of this size don't drive them regularly. We are concerned about that. We have children. The pictures and petitions have already been put forth. The basic issue here, which was well addressed by Mr. Marrone and Mrs. Druc, is promises made, promises broken. We didn't come here to rag and howl but blast it, we all care. Obviously we built here, we bought here, we are raising or have raised our families here. All these people are wonderful neighbors. I have actually had the honor of knowing most of them over 25 years. A friend of mine built the subdivision. He didn't build clap-trap hou_cs. He had some union problems which extended the initial building time but he stood behind them almost 100% to the best of his ability. Obviously we ultimately oppose any addition. We would like to see an enforcement of the original circumstances in appearance, usage, hours and numbers. We are asking that before the Council. We thank you for the opportunity. Larry Warner, 35871 Parkdale: I have lived there since 1964 so I have been there for 31 years. When I moved here I bought the dump in the neighborhood, and since then it has been my pride to not only maintain but to excel in maintaining the property, and I love the neighborhood. I love the community. I told my wife when we moved here, this is the last place we are buying. It was our first house. We have been picked by Greenmead for the Greenmead Walk and honored by the Commission, and a vote was taken of seven houses that year, and we were up against two commercial homes that had been used by corporations. When the vote was taken our house was chosen as exceptional of the seven because people could identify with it. We didn't have a billion and a half dollars to put into landscaping, and the community is taking pride in maintaining houses that are not $150,000, $250,000, $350,000. They are modest homes, and as a result you can feel like well we are on the other side of the tracks and we aren't getting the treatment that is perceived that the northern side gets. As a result, there has been a lot of discontent with the 14341 condition of Plymouth Road, and there has been a big campaign, as you are aware of, to improve the likes of Plymouth Road down in our end in particular, but the length of Plymouth Road there is a big Plymouth Road improvement. The easiest way to get the rest ,4111. of Plymouth Road maintained and cleaned up, and maintain a sense of pride in the community, is to make sure we don't have examples of abuse and disrespect for neighborhood conditions, and as a result, if you want to have the rest of Plymouth Road maintained beautifully, set an example that we are not going to put up with this, therefore when the plaza starts to go under and is maintained, it starts coming back again, which it is now, that is the plaza next door. It is landscaped beautifully and I think the attempt to continue the beauty on the Ford Motor Company side of Levan is being maintained. It is all coming along. It has taken years to do it and as a result we have something so we can say our neighborhood is really coming back, and Plymouth Road is really being taken care of. We do have a perfect example of an eyesore, and it is a rotten apple that is going to spoil the whole barrel, and the best way to maintain the barrel is to get rid of the rotten apple. I think with the concerns we have here, I think as long-term residents that we do take pride in modest homes there. They are not expensive homes but we are putting our money in maintaining our property, and every house is getting all new windows, all new roofs. I just had a new roof put on my house. My mother-in-law awns the house behind us. My mother-in-law lives behind us. I maintain her property. We just put new windows in her home. We want to live there and then we have this sort of thing. We have had some problems in the past that have been taken care of, the Rousch noise, the Ford r,,,,. pollution that used to come into my pool. I believe in the community so I am here for the long term commitment, and it is really more or less a plea because we are very conscientious of our community and what we see going on. This is not an example of a good corporate citizen. I would ask that you take action in favor of our petition. Martha Sanjian: I am the daughter of the gentleman here. I don't want to say anything to convince you to pass this. You are going to vote, but I just would like to refute what the neighbors are saying. I have been there since day one, 2 1/2 years ago. I came to all the meetings. There is a list of what we are supposed to comply with. They say we do heavy trucks. We are allowed to service up to two-ton trucks like the other dealership on Plymouth Road. So we aren't doing anything wrong there. I don't know what their last name is but they live right behind us where the tires are. We planted four trees there especially just for them, plus I can count at least 20 arborvitae trees on the property, and they said they can't even count 16. I am not trying to argue about what they said but just sitting and listening I want to refute what they are saying because it is not true. I planted it myself. I planted all the trees on the side of the building and the front and in the back. It just makes me feel bad because I help run 14342 the service in the front and I am very cordial with everybody. I love people. That is why I am in business. Many of the neighbors, I would say a handful, have come to us for service, and when they come to us and we do repairs on their cars I asked `r► them from all the complaints you had with the previous tenant, how are we doing. Do you have any noise in the back, and everyone said no. I said do you have any smell or any complaints and they always said no. So I don't understand why now they would say they have all these complaints when just the other day I talked to one of the neighbors and they said they had no complaints. Mr. Ehgebretson: Well that may represent that particular neighbor's view but the issues that we are presently concerned about here tonight relative to the condition of that property, we hadn't come to those conclusions based on input from the neighbors, although we did hear the points repeated here tonight, but we each did our homework. We have been to that facility. We have seen the problems that were outlined in the Inspection report and we saw a few things that went beyond that that we would consider problems. You say you don't want to debate the issues, and I really don't want to either, but the fact of the matter is I believe we have a significant difference of opinion as to whether you have indeed complied with all of the conditions that were placed on you by the Council and the commitments that were made by your firm when you went through the process. That is my personal opinion. Ms. Sanjian: We have only received one violation letter, and I think there were about four or five on there. Four of them were minor things Nor that we took care of that week. Within two to three weeks we took care of everything on that list and when the man came back for inspection, he said the bushes in front need to be removed. The next day we pulled all the weeds. We are complying with everything he said. We even pulled weeds on Cockr uns' property, which is not our responsibility. Mr. Engebretson: Well it is good of you to be concerned with your neighbor's property but you have enough work to do on your own property. I would have been a lot more impressed if when I went out there all these things had been done at that time but what I saw, to call it an eyesore would be an understatement in terms of general repair, the parking lot, the landscaping, etc. I understand some work has been done to clean it up for this meeting. Ms. Sanjian: The work had been done when the violation was issued. That was much before we applied for this. Mr. Engebretson: Then it has slipped back into a condition of very poor repair because we were there this weekend, and it was terrible. Steve Druc, 35625 Elmira: Is there a need for the rental truck on this property? No. You can go to Budget on Stark and Plymouth. There are 14343 always plenty of trucks there. His hours are limited on weekends. When do people rent trucks for moving? On the weekends. He is going to be closed Sundays. He is going to be closed half a day Saturday. Why does he have to wait for `.. violation notices before he improves the property. You have all inspected it. We have heard his promises. He is in the City to make a buck. He is a businessman. I respect him for that. We are neighbors who live in a community. We want to see the property improved. He got his blessings from the City Council. He did not get your blessings last time. He got it fruit City Council. All the neighbors objected. He already has his franchise. He has a contract with U-Haul. He has already made his decision. He is going to do this. He will be limited to 15 trucks. You know as well as I know eventually that parking lot will be loaded with trucks. I strongly object to this petition. Mr. Engehretson: Sir, he will do it if he gets the waiver use. If he doesn't get a waiver use, he won't be doing it. I would also like to just add that we are spending a lot of time here tonight listening to the lawful right of a petitioner or a business owner to make a proposal to the City for consideration. That doesn't mean it is going to be approved, but he certainly has the right to make that request. Whether it is needed or not is not really for us to determine, but it is up to us to determine whether he meets all the special waiver use conditions as defined in our ordinance, and that will determine the outcome of this proceeding here this evening. Abe Jaafar, 35638 Elmira: I am a neighbor. His doors are open all the time. He opens at eight o'clock in the morning until four or five o'clock at night. A lot of people go in and out. I can't sit in my backyard. I don't know what you are going to do because the doors are facing my backyard. I never step outside. Now you want to put big trucks there like Budget. I want you to do something about that please. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-2-24 closed. Mr. Morrow: We spent a lot of time talking about the current conditions of the property and we certainly look forward to bringing the site to that, but the real issue is whether or not a U-Haul facility should be added to the uses within this particular business operation, and it is for that reason I would like to offer a denying resolution. Mr. TaPine: I would like to say one thing. In all the years I have been on boards and commissions, it always amazes me when a petitioner comes in that we granted something to, and he doesn't abide by the conditions that we set forth, all of a sudden there is something else he wants, then they start cleaning up and they say oh yes we can do this and we can do that. It leaves kind of a bad taste in my mouth because instead of waiting until such time 14344 as he wants something else, as a good neighbor if he was doing what he was supposed to and keeping up his property these situations wouldn't exist and then when he came in for something new like this, he might have a better rapport with his neighbors '- because at least he is keeping up his property. I can only tell you ladies and gentlemen that if this proposal is denied this evening and goes on to Council, make sure you stick together and let the Council know your position because all we are is a recommending body. We recommend and they have the final say. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add to that. I would like to have my remarks included in the body of the public hearing, prior to the resolution, so that it is part of the minutes so hopefully it will be noticed by the City Council as they prepare themselves to deal with this matter. Mr. Nagy, I think it is appropriate to do the following three things: That we refer this matter to the Inspection Department for another ordinance compliance review, a site plan compliance review and also a similar review of the signage on that property. Furthermore, I think this matter should be referred to the Mayor's Roads Beautification Committee, which is primarily in the business of recognizing businesses on major mile roads that make extraordinary beautification type enhancements to their properties, but that committee also periodically engages in the business of dealing with those on the opposite end of the spectrum, and I, since I serve on that committee, am aware that there is a meeting next week, so if we can get that referral out to them as soon as possible so it can be included on that agenda, and finally I believe that the Planning Commission should express great concern over this matter *ft„ with communication to the Plymouth Road Development Authority, who is engaged in the business of furthering the development of Plymouth Road in an orderly and businesslike manner, and it would be my hope that they would join with the City in doing whatever is necessary to encourage this petitioner to play the game according to the rules. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #8-158-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-7-2-24 by Super Hi Tech Auto Service Center requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage and rental of U-Haul trucks on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-2-24 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; `r► 14345 2) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the adjacent residential area to the south. 3) That the proposed use will further burden the subject site with a use which features the outdoor storage/parking of vehicles which is a deterrent to the long term stability of the neighborhood; 4) That this petitioner has failed to adhere to all of the conditions imposed by Council Resolution #413-93 in connection with the waiver use petition which permitted the vehicle repair business currently existing on the subject site; 5) That this petitioner has demonstrated an unwillingness to maintain the site as currently used in a satisfactory condition which produces a negative effect on the surrounding properties in the area; and 6) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type use as is being proposed. 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. LaPine left the meeting. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-3-2 '`r. by John R. Carney, John R. Carney & Associates, P.C. for Mr. and Mrs. Haneris requesting to vacate a portion of a 6' easement on Lot 73 of the Belle-Lynn Subdivision located on the north side of Jacquelyn Drive, east of Garden Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. 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 the legal description would retain the easterly two feet of the original six foot wide easement area platted along the easterly limits of the lot. The retention of two feet is based on the close proximity of an existing sanitary sewer and Detroit Edison pole line located immediately east of the east lot line of the subject property. They end by saying their office has no objections to the vacating proposal as noted. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. John Carney, 27940 Farmington Road: I am here on behalf of the petitioner. I would ask that this petition be granted. This petition has been bouncing around since October of last year. We went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they found out there was an easement. 14346 They couldn't vacate the easement. We went to City Council and then we are her. I would ask that this petition be granted. Talking about the beautification of Plymouth Road, he is the owner of Senate Coney Island. I would ask you to waive the seven -1111. day rule so we can expedite this. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-3-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #8-159-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 on Petition 95-7-3-2 by John R. Carney, John R. Carney & Associates, P.C. for Mr. and Mrs. Haneris requesting to vacate a portion of a 6' easement on Lot 73 of the Belle-Lynn Subdivision located on the north side of Jacquelyn Drive, east of Garden Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-3-2 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easement is not needed to protect any public utilities; and 2) That the subject easement can be more advantageously utilized by the property owner. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Nilar A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: LaPine Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #8-160-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 95-7-3-2 by John R. Carney, John R. Carney & Associates, P.C. for Mr. and Mrs. Haneris requesting to vacate a portion of a 6' easement on Lot 73 of the Belle-Lynn Subdivision located on the north side of Jacquelyn Drive, east of Garden Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. 14347 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, EngPhretson NAYS: None '�. ABSENT: LaPine Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. rapine returned to the meeting. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-6-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #157-95, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.02 and 10.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for additional permitted uses and waiver uses in the C-1 zoning district. Mr. Engehretson: As you heard, this is to expand the uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district. The purpose of this is to attempt to give businesses a bit of flexibility to sign leases and otherwise enter into arrangements with businesses that under normal circumstances it would have to be a waiver use approval process, and the additional uses being proposed here are for blueprint, photostat and photo-copying establishments; carry-out restaurants without customer seating; job and off-set printing establishments; provided that the maximum size press shall not exceed 17'x24'; locksmith shops; orthopedic and medical supply stores, not including assembly or manufacture of such articles; t„` video stores, not including sexually explicit matter as defined in Section 2.08(22) of this Ordinance; and catering establishments. The C-i zoning district, by the way, is a local business zoning district as compared to a general commercial zoning district where these uses would be permitted uses. With that I will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this ordinance change. Mr. Morrow: The only thing I was going to add Mr. Chairman is one of the reasons we are addressing this particular expansion in C-1 is we have noted a number of commercial areas were coming to us to upgrade their commercial zoning in order to fill up their sites, and we certainly want to make as many businesses viable, but there are some uses that should not be in neighborhood type shopping centers, so this is an attempt to liberalize some of these uses within a C-1 so we are not constantly faced with requests for C-2, which opens the door to many, many more uses than what we have here tonight. There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-6-4 closed. `► 14348 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #8-161-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the \r. City Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 on Petition 95-7-6-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #157-95, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.02 and 10.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for additional permitted uses and waiver uses in the C-1 zoning district, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-6-4 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendment will provide more flexibility for owners and users of property in the C-1 zoning district while still maintaining the local commercial nature of the district; and 2) That the proposed amendment will update the Zoning Ordinance while, at the same time, maintaining proper control over the nature and location of various land uses. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-6-5 `ow by the City Planning Commission, to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02(g) of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for certain home occupations as permitted accessory uses in R-1 through R-5 zoning districts. Mr. Engebretson: The purpose of this zoning change is to bring the City's ordinance in compliance with a state law, and we do that by adding the following sentence to the cited section of the ordinance. "Instruction in crafts and fine arts within a residence by an occupant of that residence as a home occupation shall be considered a legal accessory use." Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this ordinance change? Mr. LaPine: Can I ask one question? I understand when we are talking about crafts and fine arts, but when we are talking fine arts, what do we mean? Musical instruments is that considered fine arts? Mr. Engebretson: We will let Mrs. Blomberg address that. Mrs. Blomberg: I lived near a house that was instructing in ceramics, and this would be some type of art, and I know other people who teach art, and we had a very large traffic problem in our neighborhood ti.. 14349 because of this. The classes were larger than the client's driveway, so these people would park all over our neighborhood, including in front of our driveway so we couldn't get our cars in or out. I have a little problem with that wording. I don't know Na. if we can perhaps table this and send it to the Law Department to look into that. That is my concern, the parking. Mr. Engebretson: I don't think that answered your question Mr. LaPine. I thought you were going to answer Bill's question. Maybe Mr. Nagy can. Mr. LaPine: Does this include musical instruments? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. rapine: If somebody was pounding away on drums out there, this is a permitted use? Mr. Nagy: They would still have to comply with the local nuisance ordinances. They can't create a nuisance by virtue of their home occupations. They still have to abide by the locally adopted ordinances, including the zoning ordinance with regard to off-street parking, and the nuisance ordinances with respect to loud and obnoxious noise. Mr. LaPine: I think Mrs. Blomberg brings up a good point. How do you police it? The only way you are going to police neighbors are when neighbors turn neighbors in, and neighbors are reluctant to turn neighbors in because of the fact you have to live with them. The reason we are changing this, as I understand it, is because of -guythe state law. Mr. Nagy: Exactly. This was brought to our attention by the Law Department as a result in the change of state laws. Mr. Engebretson: What is your interpretation Mr. Nagy as far as Mrs. Blomberg's concern about parking for someone who has a ceramic class, as an example, five or ten people, that all arrive in separate cars. Mr. Nagy: That would be outside the scope of home occupations. There is a limitation on the amount of space within the home you could devote to your home occupation. Mr. Engebretson: So you are convinced that the ordinance as written, which says that there shall not be more than three vehicles, that if a situation like that arose, there would be some basis to discourage that use? Mr. Nagy: Precisely. Mr. Engebretson: Are you satisfied with that Mrs. Blomberg? Mrs. Blomberg: Yes I am. 14350 Mr. LaPine: One of the arguments always has been about operating a business for craft or fine arts, is the charges that a legitimate business that operates a craft-type business, he is operating out of a commercial building, paying commercial taxes. We don't charge V.. any extra to operate out of the home so the legitimate business man is being penalized because he is paying the taxes so he cannot charge the lower price. This does not enter into this picture? Did the state take that into consideration? Mr. Nagy: Obviously I don't know. I didn't directly participate in that but I have a tendency to know that the legislature when they enact these rules does hold hearings, and I would give them the benefit of the doubt that in the course of their evaluation in adopting the appropriate legislation that there were hearings to that effect where both sides of the issue were heard. Mr. Engebretson: I think one of the most probable uses would be things like piano lessons, and things like that. Mr. Shane: That was the original direction, piano lessons. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-6-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #8-162-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 on Petition 95-7-6-5 by ` the City Planning Commission, to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02(g) of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for certain home occupations as permitted accessory uses in R-1 through R-5 zoning districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-6-5 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendment is required so as to provide that the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the State City Zoning Act. 2) That the proposed amendment is recommended by the Department of Law. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-6-6 by the City Planning Commission, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.37 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to require double striping of parking lots. 14351 Mr. Engebretson: As you heard, this is a motion by the Planning Commission that comes about as a result of the practice that was adopted in the last several years to require businesses to double stripe their parking lots so that it would better define the parking spaces, getting people separated from each other to minimize the damage to the adjacent cars or people from people opening their doors carelessly. By doing this we don't need to deal with that as an additional condition each time. It becomes automatic as people upgrade their facility, and we would expect them to comply with this ordinance. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I think you should be commended because you are the one that really pushed this along, and I think it is one of the best new additions to our ordinance. Everybody will benefit from that, and I think we owe you thanks for what you have done on this. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-7-6-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-163-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1995 on Petition 95-7-6-6 by the City Planning Commission, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.37 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to require double striping of parking lots, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-7-6-6 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendment will provide for more user friendly off-street parking facilities; and 2) That the proposed amendment is consistent with the Planning Commission's policies on the design of off-street parking 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. Eng hretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-6-7-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to reflect recent zoning changes at various locations throughout the City. Mr. Miller pointed out the six locations to be revised. 14352 Mr. Engebretson: What we are doing here, as Scott indicated, is bringing this up to date. We do this periodically, approximately once per year, to get the Master Plan to reflect reality, and I guess the plan this time, after 20 some years, is to republish that map, if I New understand correctly. Is that right John? Mr. Nagy: That is the goal. Mr. Engebretson: So when is that going to happen? Mr. Nagy: Before the year is out. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this Master Plan amendment? There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-6-7-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #8-164-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having held a Public Hearing on August 15, 1995 for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia entitled "The Future Land Use Plan", the same is hereby amended so as to update the Future Land Use Plan in accord with actual and proposed revisions having occurred since adoption of the Plan on June 10, 1975 for the following reasons: r.. 1) That the proposed amendments are consistent with recent changes of zoning on the subject properties; and 2) That the approval of this petition will insure that the Future Land Use Plan is current. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. 14353 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 708th Regular Meeting held on August 1, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously ,,,,,,, approved, it was #8-165-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 708th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 1, 1995 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-8-8-17 by Gallagher Group requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the gas station located at 20595 Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Miller: This is the Amoco station located on the southwest corner of Farmington and Eight Mile Roads. They are proposing to construct a 630 sq. ft. addition to the rear of their gas station. The plan shows that 139 sq. ft. of it will be used to house the required environmental equipment. This area here, which is 348 sq. ft. in the middle of the addition, will be used for storage and this area here, consisting of 143 sq. ft. will extend the car wash, and with that addition they will be able to refurbish the existing car wash. The elevation plan shows the new addition will be constructed of materials that match the existing gas station. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger: This is just well needed space is what it boils down to. The people need the storage facility in the back very badly. The car wash is in desperate need of repair. That little shed in the back that temporarily houses that equipment has got to go anyway. We are just combining two or three things at the same time and it will make everything look better. It is easier in and out this way anyway. People won't have to follow a certain direction. Mr. Piercecchi: If you were here earlier, you noticed that the Planning Commission is very concerned about people adhering to the current ordinances that we have on the books, and my time at your site indicated there were 16 cars parked in the rear. You have outside sales and obviously you had overnight parking because I was there early in the morning. You are definitely in violation of the ordinance. If you want to know the section, it is Section 11.03(a) under Gasoline Service Stations sections (11) and (12). They deal with outdoor storage of disabled, abandoned, junked, wrecked and/or unlicensed vehicles, which I assume some of them were, you weren't just using it as a parking lot, and then there was outdoor sales which was outside. We like to grant all these 14354 things but you make it hard on yourself. Why can't you obey the current ordinances that we have? I know we are not an enforcement body Mr. Chairman, but it always upsets me to see the constant violations and then they come in and they wish to have waivers. Art Eliason, 22252 Worcester, Novi: What vehicles are you talking about. They were probably employee cars or ones that were worked on. Mr. Piercecchi: They were cars on your lot, 16 of them. Mr. Eliason: Customers drop them off at night and then our employccc park there. Mr. Piercecchi: This is at nine o'clock on Sunday morning? Third Gentleman: There are some cars that we repair over the weekend and if someone doesn't pick them up until Monday or whatever. Some are repaired on Saturday and if somebody doesn't pick up their car until Monday, we have leftover cars. Plus there are three to four employee cars there also. Mr. Piercecchi: I realize that these situations do come up but 16 cars is a lot of cars. That can be verified by Mr. Morrow. I am sure he will verify that. Mr. Morrow: I will attest to that. Mr. Eliason: I can look and tell you how many cars we repaired on the weekend. Mr. Piercecchi: The point is we like to keep our City tidy, and we want to encourage you to expand and make it better. The thing we want more probably than a lot of other things here is we want everybody in Livonia to succeed, and tidiness, I think, goes a long way towards succeeding, and when I saw 16 cars back there I thought this is kind of a mess here. We would appreciate it if you would try to refrain from having so many back there. I know there are exceptions. Mr. Eliason: With the heat, people bring them in and they won't take no for an answer. They drop them off and leave them. They don't care. Mr. Piercecchi: They will have to take no for an answer if you want to abide by the ordinance. Mr. Morrow: In going along with Mr. Piercecchi, at least where I am coming from, you have indicated there are no derelict cars there, you are not storing cars for other people. It didn't appear to be a big traffic problem because your site is able to absorb it and not interfere with your normal business, but certainly I think you have demonstrated to me it is your normal turnover because 14355 people were having cooling problems and air conditioning problems, but as Mr. Piercecchi said we just want to be sure we are not starting to have junk all over and derelict storage which is not allowed under the ordinance. We certainly want you to be lour__ viable. We think your proposal here tonight will help you along that line. Mr. Alanskas: This new addition of 139 sq. ft. that will house the environmental equipment, what will that be besides a lawn mower? Mr. Eliason: The remediation equipment that is in the back. It is used to clean up the ground water. It is Amoco's remediation equipment. Mr. rapine: Do you own the station? Mr. Eliason: No I lease it from Amoco. Mr. LaPine: When was the last time time Amoco renovated the whole station? A few years back they wanted to demolish that station and build a new one, a quick service one, and we were dead against that. I commend you for your performance and I hope we can take care of the situations that were brought up tonight because we don't have too many full-service stations around here. If you broke down, you could be three miles before you could find a station that can perform service on a car. I am just curious as to when was the last time that station had a complete overhaul and how often does Amoco do something like that? Mr. Eliason: I signed a lease over there a year ago in April, and the previous owner was there I believe five years. Before that it was closed for a few years and that was when they were trying to get it changed. It was probably six years ago that they did a face lift and cleaned it up. Mr. LaPine: Do you have a long-term lease or is it year to year? Mr. Eliason: It is for three years. Mr. LaPine: I live in the area and it is nice to know if I need a mechanic there is one close by because normally it is just a shame because in my opinion a gas station should be full service to help the public but that kind of service has gone by the wayside and if you need service in the middle of the night or in the middle of the afternoon, you can't find it. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Eliason, don't you own another gas station in Livonia? Mr. Eliason: Yes at Six Mile and Middlebelt. Mr. Engehretson: Did you receive one of the beautification awards a year or two ago? 14356 Mr. Eliason: No. Mr. Engebretson: I think you were nominated. I think it is important to point out to anyone that has been listening here and been with us Now throughout the evening, that whatever concerns that have been expressed relative to this location are in no way related to the concerns at the truck repair facility mentioned earlier. Even though there were an unusual number of cars parked on this site, none of them were unlicensed, none of them were derelict. They were parked neatly, and it didn't interfere with the normal conduct of business at that location. Relative to the outdoor sales, I think Mr. LaPine referred to a number of cases of pop, which seems to be becoming a tradition at gas stations. It is not really permitted but we would ask your cooperation in the future. Mr. Eliason: That is part of the storage area we are proposing. I don't have any place to store it now. Mr. Engebretson: Then this will serve multiple purposes here. I think it is important that the record show that this is a well maintained facility and even though there were questions raised relative to ordinance violations, that they were not troublesome in any way. I think that is enough said. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #8-166-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to ,r, the City Council that Petition 95-8-8-17 by Gallagher Group requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the gas station located at 20595 Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 received by the Planning Commission on July 26, 1995 prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 received by the Planning Commission on July 26, 1995 prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the building materials of the new addition will match the building materials of the existing service station so that upon completion the entire structure will look like it was constructed at one time. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-8-8-18 by Quality Maintenance & Repair requesting approval of all 14357 plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the building located at 17001 Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18. °r.• Mr. Miller: This petitioner is planning on constructing a 2,742 sq. ft. addition to the rear of their building. Right now there is Olde Discount located in this building. At this time there are three drive-up window teller islands here. They will be removed and new curbing will be put in around the new addition. A new trash enclosure will be in this area. Parking for the site, with the new addition they are required to have 34 spaces. The site plan shows 39 so they are conforming in parking. Landscaping, they are required to have 15% landscaping and the site has over 50% landscaping so they are conforming in landscaping. The elevation plan shows that the new addition matches the existing materials of the existing building. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. Ralph Elders: I am an officer with Olde Discount. I am basically here to answer any questions you might have regarding this improvement. Mr. Engebretson: I though Scott made an adequate presentation. Mr. Elders: I was a last minute replacement. Mr. Engebretson: We did have some time to review this last week with the Construction Manager, I believe, and he certainly answered any questions, so I think with that we can move on and ask for a `.• motion. Mr. Piercecchi: This one is a pleasure to approve because it has more parking than is required, and it has more landscaping than is required. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-167-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-8-8-18 by Quality Maintenance & Repair requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the building located at 17001 Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 dated 6/22/95 prepared by Bowman Architects & Engineers, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet C-2 dated 6/22/95 prepared by Bowman Architects & Engineers, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 14358 3) That the building materials of the new addition will match the building materials of the existing building so that upon completion the entire structure will look like it was constructed at one time; 4) That the brick used in the construction of the trash dumpster enclosure shall match the existing building. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-8-8-19 by House of Leon requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to renovate the facade and add new signage to the restaurant located at 29041 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Miller: This is the House of Leon restaurant. They are proposing to alter the front elevation of the building by extending out the main entrance about five feet towards the parking lot. This will help enlarge the interior lobby area, and also help define the entrance way of the restaurant. Along with this new extension they will also be putting in an 8 ft. concrete walk to help define the entrance. Along with this, landscaping will be added in that general area. The elevation plans show the new facade will be stucco finish in this area here (he pointed this area out on the plan) . Also, with this request they are asking for signage for the new building which will read "Leon's Restaurant" "BBQ - Seafood - Steak". They are allowed to have 100 sq. ft. ��.,. They are asking for a 67 sq. ft. wall sign so they are conforming in signage. Mr. Engebretson: How far does that sidewalk extend? Mr. Miller: Five feet. Mr. Engebretson: We will ask the petitioner to come forward and make whatever comments you feel are appropriate. Richard Zischke: I am the architect for Wally Leon, the owner of the restaurant. Mr. Leon is behind me in case you have any questions for him. As stated, we are simply trying to expand the waiting space for the restaurant, and at the same time do some beautification of the front facade and add some signage so it has more street appeal to it. The five feet addition is being built under the current roof, which exists as a five foot overhang all around the entire building, so the five feet we are adding already has a roof over it. We are just expanding out over what was a sidewalk space in that we are creating a new walkway up to those front doors. At the same time we are adding some enhancements to the front elevation in terms of adding some depth to some of the synthetic stucco and bringing in a new small canopy across the front. 14359 Mr. Alanskas: You mention walking up to the front doors. You are not going to keep the existing doors you have there now, are you? Mr. Zischke: We have both entrances. One is a back entrance. There is one r► to the east and one to the west. The east side, that entrance will still be there. It will be used more for an exit than an entrance, and the main entrance is being identified as the one on the west side. Mr. Alanskas: Your sign will be illuminated. How about the awning? Mr. Zischke: There is no signage on that. There will be some lights under that awning. Mr. Alanskas: Is it opaque and won't leak through? Mr. Zischke: Some light may come through. It is going to be a canvas style awning. If that is a problem, we can make sure that the lights do not light up. Mr. Alanskas: What are the hours you will have the signs on? Mr. Leon: Dark until 10:00 p.m. Mr. LaPine: I have one question. I think Mr. Alanskas asked it but I want to clarify it. When it was Sutherland's Fish & Chips there was one entrance. That was on the east side. You still have that entrance there now. This entrance that is going to be the focal point, is that a new entrance or is there a door there now where r,,,., you can go in? Mr. Zischke: There currently exists a door now at that location. There were two entrances or exits, one on the east side and one on the west. We are currently using the entrance on the west side as the entrance, but once the new owner developed the inside of the restaurant, he found it works out better for his customers and employe to actually use the west side entrance as opposed to the east. Mr. LaPine: He also has banquet facilities. Do they enter through the same entrance for the banquet room or is there a separate entrance for that? Mr. Zischke: We are probably going to use the Past entrance for those people to came in and out of so they don't have to walk through the restaurant. Mr. Engebretson: The sign that exists on the building that indicates that is the banquet entrance, is that sign to remain? Is that part of this package? Mr. Zischke: Yes. 14360 Mr. Engebretson: So that remains but on the restaurant side you will develop new signage according to that plan? Mr. Zischke: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Actually the front of that building right now is quite nice. It appears to have been done in the relative recent past, and I guess my question is, is the end result going to continue across the building, and is that entire front facade going to be changed or will the change occurring in this new restaurant entrance just blend in with the existing facade? Mr. Zischke: Well I will give you a brief history. When the owner purchased the restaurant two years ago, one of the conditions that the City placed at that time, because that original restaurant had a totally flat roof and all the HVAC heating equipment and ventilation was visible from the road, one of the conditions was to put a screening up to screen all that, and at that time we as the architects designed a facade that went all the way across and cleaned that up, and we added a small canvas awning across the bottom as a skirting. Since then, we have looked back at the building again, and we have come up with this idea in terms of the enhancement on the side, so the materials will be the same as was started with the synthetic stucco across the front. So this is the same material. The colors will be the same. On the east side where the banquet entrance is we are going to add a little bit of stucco to that, a little bit of brick work over there to balance out some of the stucco work we are doing on the west side. 41111. Mr. Engebretson: So the entire front facade will be altered in some respect albeit minor repairs in certain areas on the east side. Mr. Zischke: That is correct. The majority of the work is on the west side, but there is some minor work on the east. Mr. Engebretson: Two small points. One, the matter of the awning being illuminated. We would require you to make that awning completely opaque in order to deal with the lighting in such a way that it not have any bleeding through that awning because depending on how much light bleeds through, they tend to become signs. Our ordinance is very clear that there shall be no backlit. There are a few around the City but they predate that ordinance. I think we understand each other on that. Mr. Zischke: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: The only other point I would raise is you show a dumpster on your site plan, and in fact you have a dumpster back there that there was made some attempt to enclose it, but it is not properly enclosed. In fact, I believe, the doors were even off the hinges, if I recall correctly. Then right along side that is 14361 what I imagine is some form of a grease container that is not enclosed in any manner. What can you do to solve those problems? Mr. Leon: I will take care of the dumpster and the grease container. Mr. Engebretson: Can you extend the enclosure that exists in order to allow the grease container to be contained? Mr. Leon: I will try to see if I can put each one next to the other. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you be comfortable in moving forward with this process with that commitment having been made? Mr. Nagy: I think I would feel better if it was spelled out as a condition. Mr. Engehretson: Then you are agrccable in dealing with that? Mr. Leon: Yes. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #8-168-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-8-8-19 by House of Leon requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to renovate the facade and add new signage to the restaurant located at 29041 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Sheet S-1 dated 6/21/95 prepared by Richard A. Zischke & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 6/21/95 prepared by Richard A. Zischke & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the signage shown on the approved Building Elevation Plan, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 4) That the dumpster enclosure gates will be repaired. 5) That the asphalt parking lot will be repaired and weeds in the parking lot eliminated. 6) That the grease container be enclosed or included with the dumpster. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14362 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Art Store & More, Inc. requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial building located at 15373 Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Miller: They are proposing to add an awning along the front of their store. The awning will be dark green in color and the decorative flap that will hang off the awning will be the sign which will be incorporated in off-white letters. They are allowed to have signage at 20 sq. ft, and this signage works out to be 13 sq. ft. so they are under what they are allowed, so it is a conforming sign. It will not be backlit in any way. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Sandy Messing: If you have any questions. I am not sure if that picture is very good. It is an old fashioned awning more like Mario's on Plymouth Road. The letters are to go on that flap that hangs dawn. Mr. Alanskas: We had one question at the study meeting. We asked you to look into the maintenance program for taking care of the awning. Did you do that? Ms. Messing: Yes I did contact the awning company and they said that is no problem. They can set up something where they come out every year to clean and make sure it is secure. Mr. Alanskas: So you do have a maintenance agreement. Now Ms. Messing: Right. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, When we site checked this facility we noticed that the building has, as our notes indicated, 0 setbacks, and this awning protrudes just a bit, but it doesn't go out over the sidewalk as far as the neighboring buildings do. Is there any problem with the proposal? Mr. Nagy: There is no problem with the proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is this really a zero setback or have they simply filled in the sidewalk? Mr. Nagy: I think they filled in the sidewalk. Mr. Engebretson: So there are absolutely no setback problems that you are aware of? Mr. Nagy: None towards the sign proposal. Mr. LaPine: I would like to speak in favor of this. She has had this business for a number of years. She has moved around. She was 14363 at Eight Mile and Farmington and then you went to Pierson School on Seven Mile and Farmington Road and now you have moved up to this location. I don't ]maw haw well this location is for you. I think one of the biggest problems you will have is parking, `„e, people getting in and out. She has been around a long time and she has tried to maintain this business. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was #8-169-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Art Store & More, Inc. requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial building located at 15373 Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Signature Awning, received by the Planning Commission on July 21, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the awning and the signage on the awning shall not be back-lit. Mr. Engehretson, 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 Aldo Liberatore requesting approval for signage for Maplewood Plaza located at 28911 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 'flaw of Section 12. Mr. Miller: This is the what will be called the Maplewood Plaza located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, which is adjacent to the previous Leon's Restaurant. They are proposing a master sign approval package for the whole center. To explain what a master sign package is, its intention is to make a multi-tenant center uniform in signage. It also allows, once the guidelines have been set, a new tenant to move in and if he conforms to the new guidelines, the sign is approved. This center is located in an OS district and by that he is allowed one non-illuminated wall sign at not more than 50 sq. ft. in size. It also allows for a 30 sq. ft. ground sign. He is proposing a ground sign of 30 sq. ft. , which is 6 feet high, which is conforming, but in the master sign package he is proposing 10 wall signs for the center. Each sign will be 17 sq. ft. in size, which would be 170 sq. ft. total signage for the wall. He is non-conforming. The difference is he has 9 wall signs and the difference is 120 sq. ft. , and the signage will be illuminated, which he is not allowed. Because of this he was non-conforming so he had to go to the Zoning Board for a variance, which he did, and based on the variance this is conforming signage. r.. 14364 Mr. Piercecchi: Scott, I realize that they went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and got 17 over the 10 but the question I have, it was brought up by myself and others on our site check, all those window signs. Did the Zoning Board of Appeals say they have to go? fir.. Mr. Miller: Yes. That is in the condition, and we have added it to our conditions. Mr. Piercecchi: So all the window signs are gone. Mr. Miller: Yes, except for "Open" and "Closed". Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward. Aldo Liberatore, 6931 Plainfield, Dearborn Heights: The reason I want this to go in the center is to get rid of the window signs, and it makes it more professional. Mr. Engehretson: Mr. Nagy, I would like to inquire as to whether it would be your understanding that this is an all or nothing proposal. If one or two of their tenants would prefer to keep their existing window signage, that would then nullify what I understand to be the Zoning Board's variance. Would you interpret it the same way? Mr. Nagy: It would certainly be in violation of their conditions of approval. Mr. Engehretson: There are several tenants, one in particular, that has covered nearly 100% of their window with signage, and it would seem to me that the one that found that necessary is going to be reluctant to move to a small illuminated sign above the building. Perhaps not. Perhaps they are doing what they are doing out of necessity. It would be your understanding that they won't be permitted to make a choice. Mr. Nagy: Correct. The Building/Inspection Department, which issue the sign permits, would not issue sign permits for the individual tenants unless they were in compliance with the removal of the window signs. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if a tenant were to take two suites in that building, do they get two signs or one sign? Mr. Nagy: They would be able to combine the two signs so it would appear as one sign. Mr. Engebretson: It would appear as one but they would have the space of two. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was 14365 #8-170-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Aldo Liberatore requesting approval for signage for Maplewood Plaza located at 28911 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, be approved `nw subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by American Sign Center, received by the Planning Commission on August 1, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That this approval constitutes Master Sign Approval for the entire center and the guidelines set in the approved sign package shall govern all present and future signage. as well as subject to the following additional conditions required by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) The petitioner is allowed ten illuminated tenant signs, however, one sign per tenant. Signs for spaces without tenants shall be the same construction with a blank white panel; 2) All window signage, vinyl and neon, are to be removed except signs indicating the business is open/closed; 3) The illuminated tenant signs must be timer-controlled to go off no later than 9:00 p.m. ; 4) The landscaping around the entire property is to be improved and kept properly maintained. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Detroit Cellular Telephone Company for the installation of a cellular tower antenna for property located at 27509 Grand River Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Miller: This is a vacant lot at this time. They are proposing to construct a 100 foot tall monopole cellular tower. Next to it would be a 286 sq. ft. equipment shelter. Access to the site would be off Rensellor. The antenna area would be surrounded by a 6 ft. high chain link fence. (Mr. Miller presented the landscape plan) The landscaping would screen it from Grand River and from the residents to the south. (Mr. Miller then presented the elevation plan) The elevation plan shows the equipment shed will be constructed out of an aggregate veneer. At the side elevation, which is toward the antenna, they would have two air conditioning units within the wall. Mr. Engebretson: Would those air conditioning units be similar to the type of air conditioning used in a residential environment? 14366 Mr. Miller: That I don't know. Mr. Engebretson: I assume the petitioner is here, ready to go. Ellen Tenter, 26935 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield: I am the Site Acquisition Specialist for Cellular One. My job is to select a site location for the tower. I selected this site. As you know, I have been before you once before. This is the second time. We had some problems with the first one getting all the approvals from the owners. I know we got all your approvals but we weren't able to get the site closed. That is why we have had to look for a second location. This location is owned by Valvoline and at this time we are purchasing the property. It is a vacant lot. It is next to a party store. It is next to C-2 property on all sides. There is a party store and the two homes behind it are non-conforming uses. They are C-2 property. We believe this is a good site for this location. It is quite a distance from the homes. I have given all of you books that have a little bit of information on the health aspects, and probably the most important parts are Sections 4 and 5. If you look at Section 4, it is Power Levels FiUrn Zbwers. What it shows you is how our tower compares with other towers. A cellular tower is only 10 to 100 watts per channel. Police and fire station towers are 500 watts per channel. If you live near a UHF TV tower you are at 5 million watts per channel. There is very minimal wattage being put out by our tower. It is a very, very small amount. We did a study based on the specific location here, how far we were from each of the houses. In Section 5 what we did, we assumed 48 channels, which we won't be installing but we assumed the maximum that we could possibly install at that particular site, *f..► and we based that on what the government allows, and the house to the south of the site is 97 feet from the tower. We found it would be at 1.98% of the allowed government standards. So it is less than 2% of what the government allows as a standard. The house to the west of the site was at 2.14% of the allowed standard. So we are still only near 2% of the standard. Now we took the worse case scenario. We actually did a physical study out at 14 Mile and Orchard Lake. We have a tower that is the same height with the same type of equipment only we have quite a few more channels at it. We actually did the study there and found it was only a .32% of the allowed standard. So it was less than 1% and we had more channels in operation there than we have on this one. It is an extremely healthy situation. There is no danger from this tower whatsoever. The reason I bring this up is because I know we have neighbors here, and the neighbors have been very concerned about the health issues. I have met with the neighbors and tried to explain not only the health concerns but why this site was selected, and why we don't feel there would be any problems from it. If we did, we wouldn't be in business. I know I certainly would not be doing this if I thought there were any problems whatsoever. We have done studies on the cost of the housing prior to a tower and after a tower. We have done that 14367 study down in Ohio. We have not done one here in Michigan, but what we found down there is that the cost of the housing did not change. As a matter of fact, in one particular site one of the houses went up higher than any other in the neighborhood so we 4. weren't too concerned about the cost of the housing. We don't see it as a house risk or a bad situation for the neighbors at all. We think it is a very good site selection for this particular tower, and we request that it be approved. Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate the fact that you have met with the neighbors because it hadn't occurred prior to last week, and I am curious whether or not you supplied them with copies of this document. Ms. Tencer: Yes I did. I had one of the engineers present so he could explain it. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against it. Harry Denoon, 27432 Long: Since we last spoke we have added a couple of signatures to our petition. One is the doctor's office that is across Rensellor and on the corner opposite the proposed tower. The other is the party store owner. Both have signed their rejection of this proposed tower. I don't know if you received additional information from us regarding some press releases concerning cellular towers but I believe you have. I don't know if you have had a chance to wade through all the information. Mr. Engebretson: Is this the information you gave us last week? Mr. Denoon: It is additional information I believe. There is one regarding a 1995 study by a Mike Murphy with the United States Environmental Agency. Mr. Engebretson: We don't seem to have received that. Mr. Denoon: I will provide a copy to you. Mr. Engebretson: If it is something detailed, we probably won't be able to really get into it tonight but you can certainly insert it into the record. Mr. Denoon: I would like to highlight that Mr. Murphy, again he is with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Division, he states there might be basis for concern for people living or working in close proximity to these towers. The other item, the City of San Francisco prohibits cellular towers. Dozens of other communities across the country have great concern about these towers, Hope Ranch, California; Yelm, Washington. It is in the literature, and again I don't expect you to break it out and read it. 14368 Mr. Engebretson: We have read it. Mr. Denoon: I would just like to say that along with all the other studies that we have submitted, I don't intend to stand here and go through them all, your local zoning ordinance, the intent of the ordinance as it explains it in Section 1.02 begins with promoting public health and safety. (1) Increase the safety and security of home; (2) preserve and create a more favorable environment in which to rear children; and (3) stabilize and enhance property and civic values. It is our position that this tower will do none of the above. We did meet with the Cellular One folks and they did submit the packets to us, and in my mind it didn't relieve my concerns because of the other articles that I have read concerning these towers. We ask that the original site be redone. They expressed to us that they were having trouble contacting these people. Ms. O'Neil, who is in the property right next to mind, contacted these people on two separate occasions. They said their objection was to the design of the site, in that their easement was going to cross right across their loading docks. They simply wanted them to submit a different easement location. We talked to the State Highway Department. The State Highway Department has absolutely no objections to them placing this tower on the median on Grand River and will charge them absolutely nothing other than a permit. Again, it is our intention that this is where this tower belongs. Mr. Engebretson: If it were on the median on Grand River, would you be comfortable with that tower there? Mr. Denoon: It would be at least 150 feet further away f um my home. Mr. Engebretson: Generally these towers are not permitted in residential areas, and we like to put them in small lands that are either industrial or away f om residential uses. To the best of my knowledge we have never put one in a right-of-way. I am just curious as to what your impression would be to have that tower located in that median. Mr. Denoon: I truthfully and sincerely believe that is where it belongs. We did talk to a Bruce Dickinson, Utility Coordinator for the State of Michigan Department of Transportation that advised us that they allow cellular towers to be erected on the state right-of-way. I asked specifically about the medians for either Eight Mile or Grand River, both of which are state highways. He said yes they do not charge them anything other than for a permit. Mr. Engehretson: Interesting. Mr. Denoon: That is the extent of my comments. I could talk all night long I suppose but I know you have been here a long time and so have we and there are some other folks that wish to talk. 14369 Mr. Engebretson: Your points are well made sir. The documentation submitted last week, including the petition and the other reference material that you mentioned earlier tonight, were certainly very helpful in helping us understand your point of view. Sharon Hill, 27517 Long: I was unable to attend the study session last week. I speak for myself as well as my husband who is home with my children. Our house looks directly into that lot. I don't mind sitting out on my front porch and watching the cars go by but I would very strongly object to sitting on my front porch and looking at a 100 foot tower going up in the air. I am one of the only neighbors in that area that has the luxury of having an enclosed front porch. We spend much time out there. When it is raining we are just sitting out there enjoying looking around. We do feel that having this tower in our view would be a very unsightly presence to us. We don't want it there. Many of the neighbors that I have spoken to don't want it there. I spoke to people as far over as St. Francis that don't want the tower there. I ask that you would please deny this. They can find somewhere else to put it. It does not belong in that area, and it would totally be out of sorts with everything else in that vicinity. I did sign the petition and so did my husband. Phillip Lemieux, 20335 Rensellor: Our front door is directly across the street from the proposed site. We oppose the building of this tower because of future health concerns. Mrs. Hall has her problems and I personally have muscular dystrophy. We have enough problems now, and we will have problems in the future with our health without having the worry about this tower across the Nom. street from us. My fiancee also has three small grandchildren that she sees frequently and she is also concerned for their health and safety. Tran years ago we spent $17,000 remodeling her house. This house is all we have, and we can't afford to lose it and have declining property values on this house. If we were ever to decide to sell this house, I would not in good conscience be able to tell a potential buyer that this tower poses no health risks. I urge you all to decline Cellular One's plans for this site. Lori Hamilton, 27535 Long: I just moved in my house in February, and I have a three year old daughter, and I am very, very concerned about the health issue. I don't want to feel like I am living in a giant microwave oven that is kept running all the time. I did stop by Dr. Robert Koprince's office, whose property is right across the street from the proposed site, and I do believe you got a copy of the letter, but I would like to read it in case other people in the audience have not read it. Mr. Engebretson: You are welcome to do that. Ms. Hamilton: It reads: Dear Council and Board Members: It is my understanding that the city council is considering approving the 14370 building of a cellular phone tower at Grand River and Rensellor Avenues. When I sold the property several years ago, it was with the stipulation that the property would not be used for any purpose which would hinder my ability to adequately treat my 04ft' patients. I have had interfering with my medical modality (i.e. Short wave diathermy, electrocardiographic equipment, etc.) in the past from C.B. transmittion and various electronic equipment. These have been of a short lived interference but I could not tolerate any prolonged disturbances to my equipment while in treating my patients. Sincerely, Dr. Robert Koprince. Again, I moved in in February and I moved into Livonia because I was specifically looking for an area where my three year old daughter could live in safely, have an excellent school district and be a worry-free neighborhood. When I was told a couple of weeks ago about this I was very concerned about the property value, and again my main concern is about the health risk, especially for my three-year old daughter. I want to see my daughter raised in a healthy environment, and not having to look at this tower, wondering what is going on and if she is going to get cancer. It is a major concern that I have. Hopefully your City motto will hold true that people do come first in Livonia. Ms. Tencer: I know a lot of people have seen some TV shows where they have seen wheelchairs going crazy or something from the frequency from this type of tower. That sort of thing doesn't happen though. The doctor doesn't need to be concerned about his equipment. At this time we are now at Wayne State Hospital Medical Center. At their request we are at their location. We are also negotiating with another hospital right now at their request for us to place a cellular antenna for the doctors to use because there are so many doctors that have cellular phones that they need to get to in an emergency situation, and we have had no problems with those at all. Michael Hoskins, 20040 Antago: I am about one block over from the tower site. All issues aside for just a moment, the lady from Cellular One made the comment she doesn't feel it would decrease property values. If I look out my back window I would look directly over to the site, so I would have to believe a 100 foot tower would have some effect on the possibility of selling my home. If you look out your window, which would you rather see a 100 foot tower or a 100 foot tree? I feel there are better locations for a tower than right adjacent to a residential neighborhood. There are commercial properties down the road at Eight Mile in back of the commercial shops and areas like that. Mike Rice, 27419 Long: I am also concerned about the health effects and property values that can have an adverse effect. One thing, I recently spoke with some friends from Bloomfield Hills and they had a proposed tower put in that was turned down. They were also concerned. Also in Birmingham just recently this spring 14371 Cellular One was interested in putting in a tower there. Of course, there is increased use of cellular phones, but I do believe there are other areas that would better serve the public and the business for Cellular One for putting in a tower. Linda O'Neil, 27428 Long: My house is not shown on the site plan submitted by Cellular One. I am not sure why. The tower would be about 35 feet from my back fence. I spoke to 42 residents, which signed the petition. Nineteen of them are here tonight. We all strongly oppose this. I spoke with Dr. Greg Lotz of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health today. He informed me that the current government guidelines of the safety of these towers was put in effect in 1982 and there are a lot of questions as to whether or not these are really safe. His organization does not back these guidelines and neither has the EPA. I would like to pass out an information sheet that I faxed to Dr. Lotz. Highlighted are some of the statements he felt were incorrect or misleading. Stapled to the back I have his credentials. I am strongly opposed to this site. I feel it would negatively impact our property values as long as this issue is in question, and it is in question. People read about this in the paper. I don't feel they are going to want to buy in this neighborhood. Mr. Engebretson: Do I understand that the expert that you have consulted with has comented on the content of this booklet that was submitted by Cellular One? Ms. O'Neil: His comments were on a two page informational sheet that Cellular One gave me when they first came to my home. Nifty Mr. Engebretson: But it is not part of this package? Ms. O'Neil: Correct. Mr. Lapin: I understand what your problem was with the original site that you had approved, but it was my understanding at the informal meeting we had the other night that you were still negotiating with these people. Is that correct? Ms. Tencer: I am not sure I would call it negotiating. I keep calling and I don't get the return phone calls. I called again this week because Linda O'Neil said she was able to contact them so I thought I would try my best. I called both of the people I was trying to contact. Neither of them were in. I left messages for both of them and I have not gotten a return phone call. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding that you got approval from the property owner but the supermarket, Farmer Jack, and Arbor Drugs have veto power and they say no. Have you been in contact with either one or both so they gave you a reason why they were opposed to it? Ms. Tearer: Arbors would not give a reason. They just said they weren't 14372 interested, and Bormans initially for the first four months would not give any reasons whatsoever. Then they finally did say that if we would pay for their attorney, they would at least have their attorney talk to our attorney, but they really weren't ft. interested. What I tried to do was set up a meeting so I could sit down with the two parties and find out what their reasoning is. Mr. LaPine: If you can't get that location, and if you are denied at this location that you have before us, it is my understanding from when you came to us originally that you need a tower in that area because apparently when the cell area runs out you have to pick it up. I am just curious what is the distance between towers that Cellular One needs to maintain a good flow of reception? Ms. 'fencer: It is not so much the distance between the towers. It is more the capacity. The problem has been capacity moreso than coverage because each tower can only handle up to 60 calls so when you start getting more than 60 calls you get fast, busy signals. When you get someone trying to call 911 on their cellular phones, they won't get through. Mr. LaPine: Is that 60 calls in that area where that tower is? Ms. Tencer: Correct but that could be three or four square miles depending on the tower. Mr. LaPine: Assuming these two locations are dead in the water, do you have any sites in that area? `r. Ms. Tencer: No. I searched that area quite well and those were some of the only sites I was able to find. I tried to find something that is large enough so I can stay at least a little distance from the property line, and typically unless the property is vacant, it is difficult to get in the center of the property. Mr. McCann: Briefly on that issue that was brought up earlier regarding public right-of-ways, public easements, medians, I would have to believe that not only you but everybody else that has a tower would have applied for these. Have you talked to the state? Ms. Tencer: Yes sir. Several years ago we spoke with the state and they would not allow us to go in their right-of-way. I did write down the name she listed though because I am assuming we will call them if we get free property. I can't imagine anyone turning down free property if that was true. Mr. Alanskas: At our first study meeting when we asked about if you had tried future sites, I, at that time, had given you a site to call and locate and this is on the northeast corner of Grand River and Inkster. Right at the corner is a Total Gas Station. Next to that is a place called Jerry's Horseless Carriage, and they have 14373 a large lot that is surrounded by fencing in an industrial area, and he had welcomed you to call him but he never heard from you. I gave you his name and his phone number but you never contacted him. Ms. Tencer: That is correct. I did go over to that piece of property and it is circled on three sides by residential. Mr. Alanskas: No it is not. Ms. Tencer: Unless I misunderstood the piece of property, but the lot I went to on that corner had residential on three sides. Mr. Alanskas: It is completely empty. Mr. Engebretson: Maybe you could give the details to the staff and you could check with them tomorrow. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #8-171-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the permit application by Detroit Cellular Telephone Company for the installation of a cellular tower antenna for property located at 27509 Grand River Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 be denied for the following reason: 1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its `f.. residents; 2) That due to its size and location, this cellular tower would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the surrounding neighborhood by presenting a visual blight that could jeopardize the property values in the area set forth in the comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Engebretson: I have been a cellular user from the very beginning of that technology and I think in the course of seven or eight years, I probably received fast, busy signals on two or three occasions usually in Southfield at five o'clock at night, although I am sure it occurred at other times as well. Even though I have technical background, I don't feel qualified to make any kind of judgment relative to the expert opinions that we see here both pro and con relative to health and safety factors, but it is my impression that the tower that we have at City Hall on the Police Department emits substantially a greater output than these towers do. However, even though no one in City Hall has fallen ill, that doesn't mean that some day they won't. My problem with this location is the location. Cellular towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods. They should be confined to industrial and/or commercial sites that have the proper amount 14374 of space to accommodate them, and at the same time they should not encroach on the visual characteristics of residential neighbors that may even be a block or two away. It is the wrong place. The matter of finding a site to increase your capacity is a `,ft. problem I understand you need to deal with, but that is your problem, and while I don't mean to be flip in saying that, residents do come first in Livonia. They always have and they always will. It is for that reason I would oppose this proposal even without any detailed understanding of any health, safety, and welfare issues, which maybe I could be convinced of at some point, and again I don't want to trivialize the concerns that were expressed by the residents here, but I think it is not an issue. Whether it is a health factor or not, it is the wrong location. Mr. McCann: One comment. I am with Cellular One and I use my phone multiple times during the day and I do get many, many busy signals on a regular basis. The point being, I do sympathize with the petitioners in this case. I truly believe just because I have gone through times when I have waited four to five minutes and put eight or nine calls through to get out, but I have to agree with the chair and that is why I seconded the motion, that the residential quality is so important to Livonia. We all live here because we believe that. There is appropriateness for the towers but not in a residential area. Mr. Engebretson: I would say also in that respect that the site that was approved a year or so ago, if that were to come through for an extension of site plan approval, I would oppose it because at the time we *ft. dealt with that matter we were not aware of some of the residential opposition that existed but they found out about this after the fact, so from my point of view any time in the future there is going to be a cellular tower to be proposed anywhere, I will require that the neighbors be notified even though the ordinance doesn't require that. I will propose that we will table those matters until we have verification that the neighbors have been notified. That one kind of slipped by. That is no disrespect meant to the representatives of the cellular company or the company. It is just a matter of fair play, and again residents come first in this community. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the notion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 709th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on August 15, 1995 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /,;( Xe?1,7 4,/t‘.‹.04 Robert Alanskas, Secretary ATTEST: \''. wk 1/114Q,47 <g`1, Jo Engebretson, Chairman sm. jg