Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-08-10 17041 MINUTES OF THE 790th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 10, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 790th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale William LaPine Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Members absent: Elaine Koons Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams were also present. Approximately 100 people were in attendance. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request,this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing, make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission becomes effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the first item on the agenda is a pending item. This item has been discussed at length in prior meetings and therefore there will only be limited discussion tonight and participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-1-6 by Marvin Walkon proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Pembroke Street and St. Martins Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to OS. Mr. McCann: We received a letter from Mr. Walkon asking to have this tabled. Mr. Walkon do you want to explain your reasons for requesting a tabling at this time? Mr. Walkon: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission, I have an extensive soil investigation and at this point we are not sure in what direction we want to go. We are doing some more studies and it will probably take at least two months 17042 and maybe more so I would ask that this matter be tabled and I also am going to be talking at a public hearing with the neighbors. Mr. McCann: Do you know the date yet? Mr. Walkon: No, we don't. We had one small meeting but we intend to have a larger meeting. Mr. McCann: For the audience that is here tonight, the subdivision presidents attended last week's meeting and we explained to them that based on the information that we had and the problems we see in the development that is proposed, we would agree to a tabling motion on the condition that you are waiving the 60 day requirement. Is that correct? Mr. Walkon: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. Mr. Hale: So moved to table indefinitely. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #8-142-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 13, 1999, on Petition 99-6-1-6 by Marvin Walkon proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Pembroke Street and St. Martins Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 99-6-1-6 to date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This concludes the Pending Item portion of the agenda. We will now proceed with the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-1-7 by Kenneth M. Hunt on behalf of Hunt's Ace Hardware proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Myron south of Seven Mile in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to P. Bill Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? • Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated July 14, 1999 from the Engineering Division which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable tot his department and should be used in connection therewith: "Lots 381 and 382 of the Seven Mile Superhighway Subdivision of 17043 the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, as recorded in Liber 53, Page 50, Wayne County Records" We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated August 3, 1999 from a neighbor in the proposed vicinity which reads as follows: "Dear Commission Members: In the event we are unable to attend the City Planning Commission meeting, we are submitting this letter to voice our opinion on the referenced rezoning petition. To be brief and save the Commission time, we are opposed to this petition for the following reasons: (1) The property itself. The neighboring property owners purchased their properties with the understanding that the parcel involved in this petition was for residential use only. We do not deem it proper that his status should now change and force neighboring properties to have visual sight of a parking lot. This could result in an adverse impact on the property. (2) Traffic considerations. Myron Street already handles more traffic than it deserves. This is partly due to Stamford Street one block to the West not having ingress or egress to Seven Mile Road. Consequently the residents of Stamford utilize Myron to access to and from Seven Mile. A parking lot on Myron would only increase traffic causing severe safety and road erosion concerns. (3) Intangible. The property that lies between the business and the petitioned property is already zoned commercial. It is acknowledged that at present a residential structure resides on it and the property and residence is owned by the petitioners. We feel it would be to the best interest of all concerned parties to have the petitioners prove why they are unable to utilize this property to meet their objective. In closing we respectfully request that this rezoning be denied." The letter is signed by Dennis and Judy Uniatowski. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I was over to see Mr. Hunt today and he had gotten a call from Mr. Al Nowak. Mr. Nowak had informed him that it would be a good idea if he would draw a plan and bring to us what he proposes to do there. He is in the process of doing that. He assumed that we weren't going to have the meeting tonight. I asked if he sent a letter asking for a postponement and he said "no". With that in mind I told him that we would have to go ahead and have the Public Hearing tonight and that I would try to get a tabling motion so that he can come back. He said he would have his plan complete and to show us next Tuesday so he will not be here tonight. Mr. McCann: The gentleman in the back, are you here to represent the petitioner? Ken Hunt, 19006 Stamford, Livonia. In my conversation with Mr. Nowak, he said it would probably be better for me if I brought down a drawing showing what I wanted to do so everybody just isn't saying parking is just a slab of asphalt. I am in the process of trying to get that completed. I didn't have it completed in time for tonight. I am asking if I can have this item tabled until next Tuesday. Mr. McCann: If you can possibly answer some questions for us here tonight. There are a number of people in the audience that came to voice their opinions with regard 17044 this evening. You might be able to clarify what your intentions are, or possibly, the Commission might have some suggestions or alternatives for you. You want to give us first a brief summary of what you would like to do. Mr. Hunt: First of all, I am a Livonia businessman. I am a neighbor to this property myself. I have owned this property for 25 years, paid taxes on it and I can appreciate the neighbors seeing this as a kind of a woodsy area. Over the years of development of my business, I have had to absorb K-Mart, Toys-R-Us, Meijer's, Home Depot, H-Q, Builder's Square. Each time you bring in one of those big guys in, it kind of puts a little dent in your business and you kind of regroup and start over again. Over all those years it cost quite a bit of money to go through and do this project and I want to make sure I saved up and not put my business in jeopardy by jumping on it too early. Well, now is my time. Somewhere down the road, I don't know five years, ten years, we hope maybe to expand the building. I don't want to come back to you gentlemen at that time and say I want to expand the building to this size and then be shot down because "hey, you don't meet the parking requirement." Since I own the land already and it has been back of my mind for a long time, that this is what I wanted to do with it. My father-in-law had a business just like this and how it responded to him when he bought land next to his business and turned that into a parking lot and how it made his business grow. I have been a long time resident of Livonia and my long term plan is that my son will take over this business when I retire and I don't want to give him something that he can't succeed at. When I am at this particular point of things if I can resolve the parking first and the building when I have the money, I'll expand it. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: You said you live in the area? Where do you live? Mr. Hunt: I live kitty corner behind the property on Stamford. Mr. McCann: Can you point out on the map where you live? Mr. Hunt: I am right about here. In fact, this is my house, I suppose. Mr. Shane: You rent the house which is right in back of the building? Mr. Hunt: My brother-in-law lives there. Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: You want relief on Lot 381 and 382 and yet it is really unclear what you are going to do about 380. I assume that Lot 380 is 50 feet by 130 feet or 181' or 182'? My question is why aren't you requesting parking at Lot 380? Mr. Hunt: It is already C-2. It already is commercial zoning so I felt I didn't have to request that. 17045 Mr. Piercecchi: You don't but you do for parking. It seems to me that an extension on your building, you have adequate possibilities with the 380 and the house would have to go and for additional parking without encroaching down into the residential part of that property which would be adjacent to Lots 480 and 479. Mr. Hunt: I agree with you to the point that Monday through Friday this is true. It is not true on Saturday and Sunday and it is not true at Christmas time or say early in the spring when people are doing lawn work. You get a landscape contractor coming in there, which we do a fair amount of business with, hauling his truck and his trailer in there, that really screws up my parking lot. Mr. LaPine: When we talked today, it was my understanding that if you expand, you are going to expand on to Lot 380 which is where the house is now. Is that correct? Mr. Hunt: I don't know that I would use all of that but I might come down to it. Mr. LaPine: So you want Lot 381 and 382 rezoned to parking P. Can you live with just Lot 381 being rezoned? I can see some sense to rezoning 381 because to your west where the other shopping is there, they go deeper into the residential area than you do. But when you go to 382 then we going farther into the residential area and I think that is where we have a problem. Mr. Hunt: I can say I understand it and I am a neighbor to that property myself and I am sure the gentleman who is just to the south of me on that property, he doesn't like it at all. I probably would agree with him except that I am willing to try and keep that property in the visual condition that you see it today. In other words, a greenbelt that allowed the existing woodsy area to stay as is and agree to, I don't know what would be agreeable line for the amount of shrubbery and trees and that would provide the same ability that that fence does, the masonry fence. Mr. LaPine: As I explain to you today, the problem that we have is that if we allow that to happen, then the business on the other side of Myron may figure I am going to get Lot 379, by 292 and get that rezoned and expand by commercial business deeper into the residential area. Mr. Hunt: But there is a home on that property. Mr. LaPine: But there is a home on 380 too. You can always tear the houses down or move them to another lot. Mr. Hunt: I think every circumstance has to be looked at. That is why you gentlemen exist and do I have a reasonable request here or not. It's not like I am some kind of builder out trying to make some bucks for myself. I am just trying to keep my business going forward and hopefully it will there long after I am """ gone. 17046 Mr. LaPine: I hope it is too. I am only saying I have a problem with 382. That is the only problem I have. r.. Mr. Alanskas: Don't you think for what you are asking for 382, if it is 50 feet in width that is 100 feet so if your customers did park there, you are asking them to walk a 100 feet or more because you've got Lot 380, so actually it is 150 feet and your entrance is in front of the building? Mr. Hunt: It is. Mr. Alanskas: They still have to walk 150 feet to get into your facility. As a thought, it would make more sense to take this lot 380 if you want to keep the house and move it down to 382 and still have the house there and then have parking on 381 and 380 which is closer to the facility for your customers to get to. That is just a thought because to have parking way south and to have a home on the lot between the two to get to your business, to me doesn't make any sense. Mr. Hunt: I agree with you but when I looked at how far the people who have to park at the Livonia Mall and walk in or K-Mart or Home Depot, they have similar situations on a busy day. Mr. Alanskas: Yes, but you are talking to go to a mall to go to numerous stores. We're talking to go to your store for just one thing. Mr. Hunt: Well, K-Mart is a one store thing and so is Home Depot. Mr. Alanskas: I just thought that that makes more sense Mr. Hunt: If I was a customer, I would try to park as close to the door as I could. Mr. Alanskas: Especially in the winter. Mr. Hunt: Yes. I don't know if my entry way will stay there forever and ever. If I have that situation approved and I see how it works maybe it would behoove me to move the entry way onto the parking lot side. Mr. Alanskas: How old is the home on 380? How many years? Mr. Hunt: 1963. Mr. Alanskas: How many square feet is it roughly? Mr. Hunt: 1100 sq. ft. Mr. Alanskas: So it's not that big of a home to take down. All right Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchi: Do you see our position here. We don't really have a plan to look at. In fact, can you give me an estimate of what you think future parking needs will be 17047 and perhaps you can offer a plan that way and perhaps we can massage it a little bit here too to see if we can satisfy your needs.. Mr. Hunt: That is really a hard call because first of all, this winter at Christmas time and then when we had our major winter in early January, I have one exit out the back of my parking lot so if things are a little busy people will flow that way. If somebody comes in there and all the parking spots are filled, where do you think they park? In that exit. Now everybody has to turn around and get back out and people coming in and waiting, I mean it was a mess. Mr. Piercecchi: I don't question your need but we would like to have some estimate of just what would really satisfy your condition now and perhaps any future expansion that you anticipate. You must have some idea of what you need. You can't just say you need more space. Mr. Hunt: It is hard to say and of course the City gives me guidelines that says if you have so many square feet, you are going to have so many parking spaces. Mr. Piercecchi: One parking space for 150 sq. ft. if I remember correctly. Mr. Hunt: Yes. I don't know what my business is going to be doing 10 years from now. If I go and look at a house projected over the last few years, last year we had an exceptional year. This year it is down because of what is going on Seven Mile Road and it is really hard to say. I thought I have the property, I would like to develop that as a parking lot and that is the way it would stay. I am not asking to put a building back there or anything of that nature. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I personally don't see how we can decide without all the information and take in all the parameters without seeing a plan. Mr. McCann: Mr. Hunt. I've got a couple of questions. I've looked at this. Your intent is to take down the home or move the home? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Mr. McCann: Would you move it or would you just rip it out? Mr. Hunt: If I have all parking, it is gone. Mr. McCann: How many square feet do you have right now? Mr. Hunt: The total building is about 7250 sq. ft. Mr. McCann; What is the size of the Ace Hardware store you would like to get to sometime? Mr. Hunt: 10,000 sq. ft. 17048 Mr. McCann: Would you be able to put your building using lot 381, continuing the commercial line straight across as parking, 381, 380 and you would still be able to get 10,000 sq. ft. on the lot that you are on, wouldn't you? Mr. Hunt: I haven't looked at that part of it. I almost have the drawing done which shows all the parking spaces going all the way into 382. Mr. McCann: You are a neighborhood store. It's where you are working on the weekend. You run up and get your things. I've done it a hundred times at your store. I like it, I do a lot of shopping there but we also have residents. What we are trying to do is a future land use plan and make our zoning make sense. It's got to make for you as well as for the neighbors in the community. Would you prefer that we recommend to the Council, "no" because we don't think it should go. I think I am hearing a major group of the Planning Commission saying "no". It is too encroaching or would you rather us send a message that we think it is appropriate to continue the line right across and rezone just Lot 381? Mr. Hunt: I haven't looked at the parking relative to just Lot 381 alone. Mr. McCann: So you haven't decided if you could do it or not with that. Would you want some time to look at that? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Mr. McCann: All right. I am going to go to the public now. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition I would like for you to lineup at either one of the podiums, give us your name and address. Give us your comments as to whether you are for or against this petition and why. Helen Paul, 18991 Myron. I have lived there 18 years and I am two doors down from the proposed parking lot. Hunt's has been a great store to go to, a neighborhood store. My kids have grown up with the Hunt's kids. We have no sidewalks on our street which is also a major concern of mine if this happens and there is going to be more traffic in the area. It is just going to be an eye sore and there is so much other vacant commercial property in the area. If they really want to expand their store that much, I think they should possibly consider moving the store. Thank you. Crystal Stapanski, 18953 Stamford. I have concerns regarding the parking lot. One is when you have the parking lot, I am concerned with lights because eventually parking lot needs lights. There are no sidewalks on that particular side of the street so people would be walking in the street. The street also has culverts, or ditches, which can be deep with water in them at times, so walking on the side of the road is not really a possibility. In the fall season when leaves are piled up, it is real deceiving. When you think it is all leaves because they are filling the culvert, you can step down quite a bit. In addition to that,there is parking on that side street that is allowed. When there is an overflow, and I have been to the store on weekends myself, sometimes you have to park on the side 17049 street. There are several other businesses in that area, like Primo's, that operate like a bee hive with people going in and out of there constantly. They have a smaller parking area and people utilize the side streets. That street at least has sidewalks on it and they are still able to deal with the in and out traffic. If those lots were sold to a builder, the residential requirements are substantial. Beautiful homes are in the area. More new construction homes are being put in the area. There is a new construction home going in right down the street. Those lots are buildable and would be very appealing for a new home to go on that lot rather than a parking lot. I think most people in the area purchased with the intent that they were in a residential neighborhood. Several of the very smaller homes are the older homes in the area. People are expanding them and I think in the future they might be tearing them down and building new homes on them. We are seeing that in all likes of areas in Livonia and Farmington Hills where smaller older homes are torn down and bigger newer houses are rebuilt. It is unprecedented to have a parking area in a residential zone. It is unprecedented any where in Livonia for there to be residential homes with parking in the middle even if there is one house in between. I do feel it would be detrimental to the property values in the area. The other neighborhood parking lot, there are other commercial businesses next door nearby that have a lot of available space in them. I realize those are not owned by the same parties but I don't know if it is possible if negotiations or some type of agreement could be reached with the other businesses that are often closed on the weekends for them to be able to use some of that parking. There is the parking across the street which nobody would want to cross Seven Mile but all the other businesses that run along that same side of Seven Mile that are often not open on the weekends. There is a brick wall also that runs along the length behind all those commercial properties. That is a beautiful brick wall. I am sure when that was put up, you are going around a big brick wall. It's not like you are walking right through that thing or it's going to be torn down. I certainly hope not because that brick wall is what really puts up a divider between the commercial and the residential properties. It is a noise barrier. It is definitely a dividing line for all of the commercial to the residential and keeps a lot of that on that side and keeps the residential on the other. I would hope that brick wall would remain in tact and it would be very awkward to walk around even to the side of the store. I hope you will take that into consideration. Thank you. Gerald Thomas, 19030 Myron. I live directly across from the proposed rezoning lots. I have lived there since 1971. I have been good friends with Ken and his family. But I am completely against the rezoning of both of those lots, moving it to residential area because if you rezone it, my house value drops, automatically. Nobody wants to live across from a parking lot. When we bought they rezoned 50 feet south of the proposed alley way years ago and it was rezoned directly where it is now and we agreed to that and now they want to encroach more and more and more down into residential. It's like anything else, if you out grow your business, you have to move. You move to a different area and get a larger building. The same with a house, you try to work with what you can but when you can't, your other option is to move. There are a lot of empty commercial buildings that we all know of that are larger that would be capable 17050 of handling the business that he wants to and the son if the son takes over. But I am completely against the rezoning of those lots. Thank you. Bryon Michels, 19019 Myron. My home is situated on Lots 383 and 384 directly south of the two lots being proposed for rezoning. I guess first of all, according to the figures given to me by Mr. Allen Nowak, a business of this size only requires 11 parking spaces of which Mr. Hunt currently has 23 parking spaces. So he has more than double the necessary parking according to the ordinance of 1965. He also made the comment that at Christmas time it gets very busy. I have been to Livonia Mall and Twelve Oaks Mall and at Christmas time people are parking on the grass and they probably have millions of square feet of parking. It's not unusual for a business to have the problems at holidays. I am definitely opposed to this. I think the Commission brought up a very good questions as to why where the home currently situated on Lot 380 is already zoned commercial. Mr. Hunt already owns this property and he has already suggested he may move the home. He also suggested he wanted to increase the building size to 10,000 sq. ft. According to what Mr. Nowak told me that a parking space is required for every 500 sq. ft. of business. That is only adding 3000 sq. ft. to his existing business, and roughly adding six parking spaces to satisfy the ordinance. At this time no formal plan have been put forward. That is an enormous amount of area. There is a 10 foot alley behind his store, a 10 foot easement and then three 50 foot lots, so we are talking about 170 feet by about 120 feet deep. That is an enormous amount of area for a 10,000 sq. ft. building as he proposed and I don't see why it is necessary. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nowak, it is one parking space for every 150 feet of commercial parking lot or is it 125 feet? Mr. Nowak: For general retail it is one per 150 but in a case of a hardware store it is different. It is one per 500. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Brian J. Walker, 19042 Myron. I live directly across the street from the hardware store now. Right directly across from the house and the proposal where they want to put the parking lot up. I bought the house approximately two years ago. Of course with the understanding, I live right on the side of the other commercial lot with the wall running down the side and the buildings there with the light there. When I look out my back yard I do get to see that too and when I look out the front window I can still see the hardware store where they load their stuff up, not the front of their building but where they actually get shipping in which is off to the side so it's not so bad when I look out or look at a house or woods. But if they were to rezone that I would look directly into a parking lot and in my back yard I would directly into a parking lot. I currently am going to have a child soon. I don't want a lot of traffic in front of my house. I have a dog. I have only lived there for two years. I planned to live there longer. I want my property value to stay high. I don't want to not be able to sell my home. I plan to hopefully sell it some day and move to a bigger house. Also, I am a small business owner and even if I would need to move I would have to move my 17051 business if I need more room. There is a lot of vacant land all over the place if you out grow your space. I shop there all the time. I like the store there but I don't want to live across from a parking lot. I'm sure everybody here doesn't want to live across from a parking lot. I am opposed to that. Thank you. Kevin Shaw 19006 Myron. I am also opposed to the parking lot of course. I am not going to say anything different than what everybody else has said. The only thing I can tell you is that I have a three year old and a one year old and my children play out in front. Actually there is going to be a lot of traffic going by. Seven Mile is being worked on right now and I can tell you they don't go 25 miles per hour down the side street when they are cutting through to get to Farmington Road. As far as he mentioned Christmas time and he mentioned the fourth and Memorial Day, if you have ever gone into Home Depot who has a ton of parking, they are over loaded too. You can't find a parking space in Home Depot. You have to wait just as you have to do with his business. As far as trees and shrubs blocking any type of parking to the residents, if that gets over grown or it's not kept up on I just can't see where it is going to do us any good. It is going to be good for one person and one person only but not good for the majority. That is the bottom line. Thank you. Chuch Paul, 18991 Myron. I am two doors down from the proposed property. I have lived there for about 12 years now. Right now Myron is a very busy street because Stamford years back they put that Stamford Plaza out there which is only a one story but looks like it could be a three story building. It is a very high building and a high direct area and pushing all this back into our area is just going to make it look bad so I really disagree with this. Thank you. Dan Ferrera, 18962 Stamford. I am Mr. Hunt's neighbor and I like the Hunts very much. I have only lived in Livonia for a year. I just bought a house last July. It was a newly built house on lots that Mr. Hunt formerly owned and I pretty much sunk just about every penny I had into the house. The house cost me $240,000 last year. I used to have my broker's license for real estate and I know that if you rezone the lot that is on the residential line that is behind the commercial line that runs across for the strip center of the Livonia bakery is that it is going to have a detrimental effect to the property values. I am definitely against that and I am also concerned that down the road since he owns the property with his current residence that that could some day be petitioned, if he gets the lots behind it some zoned for parking, that he could look at expanding the parking lot from where his house is or making even Stamford a through street to connect the parking. The other thing I have, I'm not going to beat a dead horse to death, but as far as expanding the business if he is looking at growing his business and increasing parking, right across the street in the same basic location right next to K-Mart there is an empty building there since I moved there a year ago. I don't know if he has looked at possibly leasing that space with larger parking and the same location where his customers would be familiar with his business. Mr. McCann: Mr. Hunt I will give you the last word. Is there anything else you would like to say before I close the Public Hearing? 17052 Mr. Hunt: Since I don't have a drawing here I can't point to it but anyway the proposal 1/101, that I would have brought if I had had it ready would have me exiting the parking lot pretty much adjacent to the way it comes out from behind Primo's and the ceramics place. It is not going to dump on to in front of the other people's house. I was hoping to not have to go to the masonry wall which I would find objectionable if it was in a residential area. I would hope that we could do it in a greenbelt fashion. As the last person said, why don't move your business across the street. I did look into that. In fact they called me. About 8 years ago, they wanted $8.00 a square foot for rent in that building. The building would have been great but the rent I couldn't have handled. So as far as moving the business, that would have been an ideal thing except that I just can't handle the rental on that. I'm not going to be working for the landlord. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mr. Hale: Can I ask one more question? If we were to table this as to Lot 380, would there be any possibility in your mind of turning that into parking as opposed to the house that is there? Mr. Hunt: People keep talking about that. If the parking is approved, the house is gone. Mr. Hale: So you are reserving Lot 380 only for purposes of expansion of the existing r.. building? Mr. Hunt: For that and partial parking. Mr. McCann: I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and approved, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-7 by Kenneth M. Hunt on behalf of Hunt's Ace hardware proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Myron south of Seven Mile in the N.E.1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to P,the Planing Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-6-1-7 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents an encroachment of non-residential zoning into a residential area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent residential uses in the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? 17053 Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a substitute motion to give Mr. Hunt an opportunity to bring in his plan and I'll move for a tabling motion. Mr. McCann: To a date unknown? Mr. LaPine: No,to next Tuesday. Mr. McCann: That would be the Regular Meeting of August 24, 1999. Is there support for a tabling motion to August 24, 1999? Mr. Alanskas: I'll support that. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was #8-143-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-7 by Kenneth M. Hunt on behalf of Hunt's Ace Hardware proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Myron south of Seven Mile in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to P,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-6-1-7 be tabled to August 24, 1999. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Shane, McCann '`" NAYS: Hale ABSENT: Koons Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will be tabled to August 24, 1999. Again, as I stated earlier in the meeting for a pending item there is no discussion except that the new information is brought forth. You need unanimous consent from the Planning Commission to open it up to the audience. You are all invited to come back to that meeting whether or not you will be able to speak will be up to Planning Commission. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-1-8 by Leo Soave Building Company proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the S.E.1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1B. Bill Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter from the Engineering Division dated July 19, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has ,► reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description does generally 17054 describe the property, however the description does not close. Therefore, the provided legal description cannot be approved by us. The petitioner should also be aware of the fact that should the requested zoning be approved, the Engineering Division will require on-site detention of storm water. Furthermore, the Engineering Division would require an 8" water main be brought on-site for fire protection. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke. This is a small parcel of property. The property to the east is zoned R-1. The property to the west, I think, is currently being rezoned to R-1. Once this property is rezoned we will build three and four bedrooms homes, full brick, to keep in the quality of homes that presently exist there. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: Is the R-1 the maximum of which you an handle in there? Can you make it a higher R grading, instead of R-1. Mr. Soave: Are you saying R-3? Mr. Piercecchi: That is only 60 footers. Mr. Soave: Everything there is zoned R-1. R-3 that probably wouldn't, with all due respect Mr. Piercecchi, I don't think R-3 would be any good for me over there. Mr. Piercecchi: How about R-2? Mr. Soave: I'm sorry, I can't go R-2 either. Mr. Piercecchi: Can't go R-2 either? Mr. Soave: No sir. Mr. Piercecchi: It has to be an R-1? Mr. Soave: Yes sir, I'm sorry about that. Mr. Piercecchi: Don't be sorry about it. It's your business. Mr. LaPine: The property to the west, the RUF property that is now under consideration for rezoning, have you had any contact with that builder so we can tie these two subs together? Mr. Soave: That is a good idea. No, I haven't. If this is approved, I will contact the other developer. 17055 Mr. LaPine: I would assume that this road will go across your property and split your property? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: We don't know if that is going to go all the way across the other property being rezoned to the west, you don't know that? Mr. Soave: I'm sorry, I haven't seen the other plans. Mr. LaPine: I've got no big hang up rezoning it, but I would like to see some connection to the other property because some of these subs that we are seeing look pretty bad. Here we have an opportunity with all of these lots. We can come up with something a little better, I think. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Mr. Soave, you have not drawn up any plan for that lot as to how you would split it? Mr. Soave: There is only one way of splitting it. You've got maybe one lot to the north and maybe one lot to the south. There is only one strip of land there. Mr. McCann: It appears that you would be able to take two lots. You have extra width left over from your current property, so you would be able to get two lots to the north and two lots to the south and two lots off of Ann Arbor Trail and Trillium Court. Mr. Soave: Correct. Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Janet Cooper, 8887 Parkside Drive. I think Mr. LaPine was reading my mind. I understand there is a tentative site plan filed for the property immediately to the west which would involve the construction of 14 additional homes, but the road, Trillium Court, will not go beyond Mr. Soave's property and will dead end there which doesn't make much sense because there will be a new road going in for only 14 houses. This is an addition of six houses, Mr. Soave has already added six houses to the Lakeside Estates No. I general area and Parkside is the only access to Trillium Court and Trillium Court has no outlet to the east or the west. So I would urge the Planning Commission to consider those two properties together and see if there is not someway of tying those two subdivisions together so that nobody bears the brunt of that traffic. The traffic, I would point out also on Ann Arbor Trail, has been increasing and there are a number of times now when you come out of Parkside Drive and you have to wait quite a while to make a left hand turn to go east. There is no other way out of that whole subdivision and there are now something in excess of 35 homes on those two streets. So, I would urge the Planning Commission to do that. I must also say that in the subdivision immediately to the east of this, the 17056 lot split resulted in one house at least and perhaps two where the side yards are only five feet. I would urge the Commission, when they consider a site plan for this property to continue enforcing the standards for R-1B which I think require 14 foot side yard split between both sides of the houses. Mr. McCann: For your information we did discuss exactly this at our study when we first reviewed this. The preliminary plat, 3A and 4A is before the Council right now in their study. Ms. Cooper: I am aware that they have a public hearing scheduled for September 1, 1999. Mr. McCann: Right and our intent was to try to move this on to them. We notified them that it would be coming so that they could look at these properties all at once so that there could be a tie in between them. Since the property to the east is already beyond the Planning Commission we don't feel there is much we can do with it other than get it to Council as quick as possible so that they can tie the whole group in together and make a common plan. Ms. Cooper: Would they be responsible for that or would they return it to you for the common plan? Mr. McCann: I think at this point,they have gotten recommendations from us on all the different properties that they can go ahead and finalize it. Ms. Cooper: So you suggest any further communication be directed to the City Council? Mr. McCann: I would recommend that, yes. Ms. Cooper: Thank you very much. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this? Mr. Shane: Point of information. The current status of 3A and 4A is a zoning situation now? You mentioned a preliminary plat. Mr. McCann: Is it a preliminary plat or is it zoning? Mr. Nowak: It is zoning. Mr. Shane: Then we will be getting a preliminary plat? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Shane: The second question I have is, this particular property before us, can that be developed without a preliminary plat with the lot split process? Mr. Nowak: No, I believe that would be creating too many lots. Mr. Shane: So then we will have a preliminary plat? 17057 Mr. McCann: We will get the preliminary plat for parcel 3A&4A coming back to us. Mr. Nowak: Correct. Mr. Shane: So there is no reason why we can't combine them at that time. Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. McCann: I apologize. Since it is only a zoning before the Council we will take a look at the preliminary plat when it comes back. Mr. LaPine: If we approve this tonight, we are going to get both of these parcels back so that we can look at them and tie them both together. Is that correct? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. LaPine: That is assuming both property owners agree to whatever we agree to. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #8-144-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-8 by Leo Soave '"' Building Company proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the S.E. 1/4. of Section 33 from RUF to R-1B,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-6-1-8 be approved subject tot the following conditions. 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an existing zoning district in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of low density residential land uses. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-1-9 by Steven J. �- Summers/Twin Valley Corporation proposing to rezone property located on 17058 the north side of Schoolcraft between Merriman Road and Berwick Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 22 from RUF to OS. Bill Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: Yes. We have several items of correspondence in connection with this petition. We have a letter from a neighboring property owner dated July 29, 1999, and reads as follows: "Dear Planning Commissioners. I am Paul J. DeNapoli, homeowner living at 31791 Scone and I would like to comment on the proposed zoning petition (99-6-1-9, RUF to OS) submitted by Mr. Steven J. Summers. I attended the information meeting put on by Mr. Summers (July 28, 1999 at Civic Center Library) and found him to be a sincere and reputable developer. Having personally surveyed the parcel today, I am concerned that the zoning change is not in the best interest of the area or the residents affected for the following reasons: (1) Project Density: The overall office space utilization is (3-3000 sq. ft. buildings) too large (Dense) for the proposed parcel size. The Berwick side of the project affords only a 10' to 12' easement from the fence lines to the buildings and parking area. This will cause potential security, privacy, and devaluation of home value to the Berwick and possibly the Scone sides of the project. (2) Zoning Uniformity: The project utilizes only 2/3's of the approximate total RUF designation(190') and leaves a potential undevelopable RUF parcel in the middle of an OS zoning. This zone locking to the existing homeowner is not fair and also causes the project to compress itself into a smaller than available area causing the project density problem as mentioned above. (3) Schoolcraft Office Corridor: At the present time, the Schoolcraft Road Office Space availability does not warrant additional OS zoning. Both north and south Schoolcraft Roads have complex vacancies that need to be filled before additional Office Space is developed. For the above reasons I am requesting that the Livonia Planning Commission DENY the zoning request and that the existing parcel be left RUF at this time. Thank you for considerations. I am available after August 8, 1999 for questions or comments." The letter is signed by Paul J. DeNapoli. There is a letter from the Engineering Division dated July 14, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. the Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith: The South 422.0 feet of the East 190.0 feet of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of Section 11, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, except the South 102 feet thereof, containing 1.40 acres, commonly known as 31850 Schoolcraft Road. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. We have another letter from an area resident dated August 3, 1999 addressed to the Livonia Planning Commission: It reads as follows: Dear Planning Commissioners, I ... wish to comment on the proposed zoning petition(99-6-1-9) submitted by Mr. Steven J. Summers. I attended the information meeting held on July 28, 1999 17059 at the Civic Center Library. I am the homeowner residing at 13918 Berwick Street and will be directly affected since the proposed development is immediately adjacent to my home. I do not believe that this development is in the best interests of the neighborhood for the following reasons: (1) The location of office buildings immediately adjacent to homes has the potential to create security problems, invade the privacy of a residential neighborhood and cause the devaluation of adjacent residential property. The 10 to 12 foot landscaping area is grossly inadequate to screen one land use from the other. The existing Willow Wood Professional Village has a wider landscape divider which is relatively ineffective. Home owner behind the existing development are relatively unhappy with their situation. (2) It appears that the three buildings that are proposed have been shoehorned onto a parcel that is too small to serve any interest except the developer. (3) A survey of Schoolcraft Road shown numerous office buildings with vacancies. These premises are not being well maintained, which may somewhat result from the low occupancy rate. It does not seem prudent to build a new development that may increase vacancy rates at other buildings. (4) The rezoning of this parcel will increase the non-uniformity of zoning along Schoolcraft Road, a problem magnified by the construction of I-96. It seems as thought he construction of the freeway is sufficient penalty for the adjacent homeowners. For these reasons I request that the zoning change be denied and remain RUF." The letter is signed by Cheryl D. Lindner. There is also a petition submitted that states that "The undersigned do hereby request that the petition 99-6-1-9 by Steven J. Summers, Twin Valley Corporation, to rezone property along the north side of Schoolcraft in the S.E.1/4 of Section 22 from RUF to OS be '``" denied." The petition is signed by 11 area property owners and is attached to a letter dated August 3, 1999 addressed to the Planning Commission which reads as follows: "Attached is a petition requesting that the proposed zoning change be denied. Signatures have been obtained from all abutting property owners with the exception of Mr. Paul De Napoli who resides at 31791 Scone who is out of town. He has submitted a letter requesting denial of the petition. Your consideration of our position will be appreciated." The letter is signed by Cheryl D. Lindner. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Steven Summers, 20025 Shadyside Street, Livonia. A couple of points I would like make, to begin with, first of all the City of Livonia Master Plan has had this property designed for eventual OS development and rezoning for quite some time now and we feel that the time is right for that based on the current business climate and high premium for good office space in the area. Secondly, our intent for development is such that it is the same characteristics and outline as what we have at Willow Wood Professional Village just to the east of this parcel and the buildings that are there are low profile single story. They are residential looking buildings and we feel that they would fit very well on this property. They blend in quite well with what we currently have at Willow Wood right now. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? 17060 Mr. Shane: Did you attempt to purchase the adjacent lot to the east of this property? Mr. Summers: I talked to the owner some time ago and yes, I did. I made an offer and we couldn't come to an agreement on the price. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, do you own this property now? Mr. Summers: No. We have an option. Mr. Alanskas: Is it an option on approval? Mr. Summers: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Phil Machalski, 13930 Berwick. I live directly behind the proposed building that is going up. First off, I would like to say I appreciate Mr. Summers did give us a chance to voice our opinions a couple of weeks ago. That was very nice of him and that is where my neighbors and I got a good chance to see what is going to happen behind us, if it gets approved. I would like to start out by saying Mr. Summers said that the timing is right for a new building. Perhaps right now the timing is right to put up new buildings. The economy is never going to get any better than it is right now, I would think and yet there are still vacancies up and down Schoolcraft Road. I wonder why that is. Secondly, he said that there is a premium on office space there. If that is so, I wonder why there are vacancies. I would ask the Commission to consider why do we need to put in more office space if there are open offices within a 1000 feet. Also, my concern, there is approximately a 3' to 4' grade difference between the proposed office and my lot and my neighbor's lots. We have a very pretty brick wall back there. My only imagination is that that would disappear. We have woods back there to the existing structure. We have a lot of traffic up and down Berwick street because as you can see we are the entrance to the entire neighborhood. We will be adding more traffic right behind our houses. We will be pretty much sandwiched in. Directly across the street from Berwick behind those houses there is already office space. The entire half mile between Hubbard and Merriman is all office now. I respectfully ask that we try and keep some of it residential. The noise is a major concern to my neighbors and I and I just appreciate it if you would give us a chance. Thank you. Gerald Dundas, 13960 Berwick. I am right in the northwest corner of that property and my biggest objection is I think we are going to have a security problem. Right now you couldn't steal anything out of anybody's back yard because you couldn't make it through that property. It is virtually a woods back there and it is beautiful. I bought the house four years ago and that was one of the reasons I bought the property because I look back and I didn't see anything but trees. I am not too thrilled about looking at cars pulling in, lights lighting up the back 17061 of my house, parking lot lights being left on all night. I think we would have a security problem. The ten to twelve foot greenbelt, to me, is not enough. I want to see trees. I want to something high, not just a few evergreens just over the other side of the fence. I think with this thing moving in, I think our property values are going to go down. We are going to have more traffic on Berwick. I can't see any reason to have it. I would like to see it left rural farm. Cheryl Lindner, 13918 Berwick. I think the security is a major issue. I have children, three of them and they are in the back yard and if there is an office, there is nothing in between but a little fence. It is real easy for someone to come right over. The lot is too small for the proposed construction. There is no uniformity. You know, there are offices then a house and then offices and a house. It just doesn't look good for the community. It is already poor maintenance of the property. There are many vacancies now, like everyone has said. I have surveyed it. There are signs everywhere. Decrease value of the homes, increased traffic and also we already have the freeway which has been put in since those homes were built. I wondered if it was standard practice for it to be surveyed before there is a purchase agreement? It was surveyed last week and I don't quite understand why. Mr. McCann: That would be for whatever reasons for purchasing. That is not really a zoning issue. Ms. Lindner: Thank you. Mike Peitz, 31751 Scone. The back of my property line runs up against the property that is sitting between the two areas that will be office services if this is passed. I do live on a small lot myself and one of the reasons I decided to take the house was because I could look out at the property behind me which is a huge lot up to the house. I know eventually that if that office services is zoned that they are proposing now, I am sure they are going to come back with greater offers to the property right behind me and frankly I wouldn't be able to refuse either if someone came back with a huge offer to buy up my only piece of property left in the middle and turn it into office service also. Again, I have a problem with the security idea of it since it is such an easy access from the parking lot or from the street, the expressway into the parking lot in the evening, if the office close up at 6:00 o'clock. There is nobody really looking at that lot back there. People can drive up at 8:00, 9:00 -10:00 at night. There is just a 20 foot, I think they are proposing greenbelt area back there. They can jump over your fence, take things out of your yard,jump back in their car and back on the expressway. I moved in 1991 and I am a former resident of Detroit. I had a house for 11 years. I bought that house in 1980 for $26,900 and had to end up selling it for $900 less than I actually bought it for. I don't want to have to moved into Livonia, bought a house in 1991 and end up losing money on this kind of proposal again. That is why I am against this being rezoned to office service. 17062 Richard Deering, 31763 Scone. I am one house west of Mike's address and when I purchased the house about 8 years ago, one of the reasons I purchased it was because there was a nice woods and we have a lot of wild life that comes in our yards and to my east we have already developed buildings that have been developed and just by taking a walk and walking you can hear security alarms go off for periods of time because for whatever reason and for myself I just really like the way the setting is now. When you have different winter, and we do have our share of storms, as you know in Livonia, the woods do look pretty and beautiful and I think with another commercial building that would take away from actually what I love to see in my back yard. Thank you very much. Jacquelyn Gonterman, 31670 Schoolcraft. I agree with all my neighbors in the back here . The only thing I would add to that is I do not consider $15,000 over what I bought the property 11 years ago any kind of offer. Patrick Naszradi, 31775 Scone. My lot backs up to this piece of property. I have the same concerns as everyone else here and they pretty much covered everything and expressed all my concerns and I just want to say that I am opposed to the rezoning. Mr. McCann: Mr. Summers would you like to make any last comment before I close the Public Hearing? Mr. Summers: Just a couple of points, in regards to the security issue. In all my years of vow managing Willow Wood just to the east, I have never had a security problem there at all. When they talk about sirens going off, there is one building in there that is owned and managed by another individual. He does have an exterior siren system on his building. We have no control over that. As far as the buildings that we own and manage, nobody has outside security alarms of any kind. So the noise factor, I'm not really sure. As far as more security goes, I've never had a police report involved. We have the same set up as what we are proposing here. There are greenbelts of the same size. The parking lot rings the perimeter and I can honestly say I have never dealt with that before since 1985. Vacancies along Schoolcraft, the buildings in question I would presume are the ones to the west which are poorly maintained. There are weeds everywhere in them. I keep my projects, I consider very nice. I would do the same here. We clean them. We keep them maintained well. We put adequate landscaping in and we don't skimp on anything. So as far as the vacancies go, I consider that somebody's problem, it is not ours. Have we surveyed it? No, we did some original taping of the perimeter of the complex looking for trees we can save. There are a lot of natural trees on the perimeter that we can save that are close to the fence lines. I think that is an advantage for the homeowners and I am also proposing to put heavy landscaping in around the three sides of that site. So, we would maintain it as well as we have maintained our other sites in Livonia, which I think is very well done. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Thank you. I am closing the Public Hearing. A motion is in order. 17063 On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved, it was #8-145-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 1999, on Petition 99-6-1-9 by Steven J. Summers/Twin Valley Corporation proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft between Merriman Road and Berwick Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 22 from RUF to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-6-1-9 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the existing office zoning along Schoolcraft Road west of Merriman Road adequately provides for office uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning would provide for uses that are not needed in this area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning would constitute a spot zone since it is not contiguous to a similar zoning district; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to the adjacent residential uses in the area. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Koons Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-7-2-22 by Nextel West Corporation requesting waiver use approval to install a 150' wireless communications antenna for shared usage, and its accompanying equipment shelter, to be located on the east side of Sunset Avenue between Robert Avenue and West Chicago Road (within Devonaire Park) in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35. Bill Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first is a letter from Mary Bergsman, 10007 Arden and her letter reads as follows: "I recently read in the Livonia Observer that your commission is considering erecting a Nextel wireless tower at Devonaire Park. I am asking that you deny this request. My son attends daycare at The Learning Tree and frequents that park. There is also an ice rink there where many children skate. It is located ion a heavily 17064 also an ice rink there where many children skate. It is located ion a heavily populated residential area with many children who also enjoy the facilities at the Park. I went onto the Internet to see what information I could find about the dangers of wireless towers to human health. There is plenty of arguments against the installation of these towers where humans and animals will be exposed. I have copies a few and have attached them to this letter. Yes, you could say the jury is still out concerning the health risks of wireless towers to human health, but I do not feel we should be experimenting with our children. I respectfully ask the commission to turn down this request in the interest of the children of Livonia's health." Again, the letter is signed by Mary Bergsman. The second item of correspondence is a letter from the Police Division of the Department of Public Safety dated July 14, 1999, which states: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from the Department of Public Safety, Fire & Rescue, dated July 15, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to install a telecommunication facility o property located at the above referenced address." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter, dated July 20, 1999, is from the Engineering Division and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description for the lease area provided with the site plan is acceptable tot his department and should be used in connection therewith: Part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of `ftsi, Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan. Commencing at the Center Post of said Section 35; thence S. 89°57'35" West, 1316.21 feet along the east-west 1/4 line; thence N. 00°21'20" East, 190.23 feet; thence due East, 402.53 feet; to the point of beginning; thence North 75.00 feet; thence East, 75.00 feet; thence South 75.00 feet; thence West, 75.00 feet to the point of beginning. (containing 5625 square feet) We trust this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Ashley Cormany, Nextel Communications, 23800 West Ten Mile, Suite 190, Southfield. I also have with me on behalf of Nextel Tonya Archibald, the RF engineer on the project and Randall Reid, senior attorney for the Great Lakes region. As was briefly addressed, we are proposing a telecommunication facility in Devonaire Park that would be located within a 75' x 75' compound adjacent to the northeast corner of the ice rink building that presently exists. Within the compound their would be 150' galvanized steel monopole and Nextel would place its antennas at the 120' level. The monopole would be co-locatable for up to three other three wireless carriers for a grand total of four. The compound space is large enough so that it could also accommodate those other carriers' equipment whether it be shelters or cabinets within that. Nextel �.. proposes to install a 12' x 20' equipment shelter within that compound and that shelter would be bricked and have a single hipped roof. The compound would 17065 also be landscaped on the three sides that don't abut the ice rink building with six foot pine trees that would be 12' on center and the compound will be fenced on those three sides as well. After speaking with Mr. Nowak we have agreed to remove the barbed wire that is shown on our plans. We would just have a chain link fence around it. Devonaire Park is zoned PL, Public Land, and governed by Section 18.42A of the zoning ordinance that requires a waiver use for this telecommunication facility. The set backs required for such a facility and the public land zone are 300 feet from residential. We meet this on all four sides with no problem. Our frequency emission guidelines are regulated by the FCC as per the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. This site would meet all applicable guidelines and when fully operational, this site would perform at only 2% of the governmental standards set. Therefore, 98%of the power allowed by the law would not even be utilized by this site. Nextel is desiring this site in this area because we have coverage needs. We are not covering in this area like we need to. Merriman and Middlebelt, very heavily trafficked, there is a large population growth that is occurring and our engineering needs are now such that we need to provide coverage and also overflow capacity from our existing sites. We researched the area and we feel this is an excellent site because it meets all the requirements of the ordinance under section 18.42A specifically including the design and the set back requirements. We feel this is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and we would respectfully request that you grant the waiver use. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. LaPine: When you talk about 2% of the power, are you talking about when all four carriers are on there or just you? Ms. Cormany: Let me have our engineer, Tonya Archibald address that. She is more qualified than I am. Ms. Archibald: As stated earlier, my name is Tonya Archibald, 23800 West Ten Mile, Southfield. When we are talking about 2%, we are just speaking about Nextel on the tower itself. Mr .LaPine: Then what would it be when all four of them are up there? Ms. Archibald: It would depend on all the frequencies, but we would still be way below. I can't give you a percentage right now but we would be way below the national standard. I can guess, but I don't want to. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Looking at this chart here, you have at the present time a locator between Merriman and Middlebelt and between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Road. Correct? ve ow, Ms. Cormany: You mean another site? 17066 Ms. Cormany: Yes, I believe so. Mr. Alanskas: Then you also have one on Plymouth and Eckles? Is that correct? Ms. Cormany: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Then you also have one on Eight Mile, between Eight and Seven Mile and between Merriman and Middlebelt? Is that correct? Ms. Cormany: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Then you have one also between Newburgh and Farmington on Eight Mile? Is that correct? Ms. Cormany: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: How many more do you have to put in the City? Randall Reid, Senior Attorney for Great Lakes Area for Nextel. I am not here in an adversarial manner. Fair question, we will take that right on. What determines the number of sites that all or any wireless carriers may require in any community or in its grid, is the usage. As the market continues to grow, as you continue to get additional people using the devices, you have to provide additional sites, additional capacity in order to support those sites. So it is completely a market driven function. The more users there are the greater need there are for sites. The benefit, however, is as we use additional sites and gain additional customers we are able to bring the heights of our facilities overall. We are building, or proposing to build a 150' tower in order to facilitate the needs and requirements of co-location. Under the ordinance that has always been our policy since 1994 but you will note that our "rad" height is only at 120' and that indicates that our overall requirements are coming closer to the ground. So we will more of them but shorter. Mr. Alanskas: On the one that you have between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Road, which is only a mile away from there, how far will that tower draw for you for phones? Mr. Reid: Good question. I will answer that and I will have our RF engineer supplement. What you are seeing, and all of us are familiar with the standard flashlight that you use from time to time and you know that if you have Mr. Alanskas: Because what you are saying is if we keep having more demand for cellular phones, our City will look like one big tower. Mr. Reid: I don't think that is correct at all. Having more sites, depending on what type of facilities are available in any community, it gives us more options in terms of using existing facilities, be they buildings or other towers that are available. We always co-locate whenever, where ever we can, and each of the towers that Nextel has built in the City have been co-located and that has actually reduced 17067 Nextel has built in the City have been co-located and that has actually reduced the number of towers over all. But it would not be the case that it would be one big tower. One tower in itself would not be sufficient in any regard. Let ,I" me supplement further RF maps that will show you better in terms of the layout of where the coverage will actually be. Ms. Archibald: As Ashley previously stated, Nextel's objective right now is to provide coverage and also for capacity. What you see here is a coverage map. What is it is just a representation of our current coverage in the area. The red and the green represent the different type of coverage that you have. What Nextel wants is the red and that is the most adequate coverage. That means that you can use your cell phone in doors and in buildings, in your car or on the street. Our objective is for this whole area to become red. Our site that we are proposing is 881 and as you can see, without this site you see a lot of green. What we want to do is provide coverage, enough coverage in order to make this red, in order so you can use your phone in buildings, in your car and on the street. We consider this a coverage hole for us. So the intent for us is to put a tower here in order to provide enough coverage in order to fill in this hole. We also mentioned that capacity is a another factor that is driving our system. What you see here is a best server map. In any given area, a certain antenna provides coverage in an area. That means an antenna one mile away covers that area, serves the best in that area and if I go another mile to the east, another tower has the most powerful signal. What we have here is what we call our traffic map and it is a little hard to read. For the different antennas it shows the types of traffic we have. What we have here is the representation of the traffic for the different antennas. Currently, our site located on Schoolcraft is providing too much traffic and our surrounding site to the south. So what we want to do is provide enough coverage in order to off load traffic off of these antennas. As I stated before, these two sites here, this is the best server and what we are trying to do is provide enough coverage in order to off load these sectors. What I have here is an overlay and all I did was overlaid an outline the best server for these sectors here. What I want to do is put an antenna here in order to take some of the traffic off of these sectors and place it on our antenna. That is my main goal. Mr. Alanskas: The concern I have is that besides yourself we have Sprint, we have Omnipoint and we AT&T, we have AMCI. At the present time we have 27 locators for all these different companies. Then you want more and Sprint wants more and this person want more and all of a sudden we have all these towers for cellular phones and that is a big concern. Ms. Archibald. I understand but I think the cellular industry is trying to work together. I know it is Nextel's policy that if we can co-locate, we will co-locate. We are trying to work together because we understand the concerns of the community at this point. Mr. Shane: Did you diligently look for a location that is not totally surrounded by residential area? Is there any location that would give you the same coverage 17068 which isn't located directly within a residential area? I think that is one of our concerns. Ms. Cormany: We did look and as Tonya can tell you we work around these existing sites also as to the capacity issue in addition to the coverage and given the sites around there, we needed to place the antennas in a specific area. So what happened when we were given that area, we came to the Planning Department. We looked and we started with what were the zones in that area. What did the ordinance say? Where could we go? What could we do? It was felt that Devonaire Park was our best and basically only option. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me there is no other site within the radius that you need that is available except this site that would take care of your problems? Is that what you are telling me? Ms. Cormany: For both capacity and coverage, yes. Mr. LaPine: I have the same problem as Mr. Shane. I never voted against any of these towers but in this particular instance, Number 1, I don't like it because it is too close to the ice rink, Number 2, I don't like it because it is too close to the Livonia Public School District property which still has a school there and some day may be re-opened. I do not know. It is surrounded by residential and that creates a problem_ Ms. Cormany: I understand that and we actually also spoke with the school district because they have numerous towers on their properties and they are cutting back on that. We did approach them and I understand your concerns but as I said this is where we needed to be from an engineering standpoint. Mr. LaPine: If you don't get it here, the only that happens is that some people who want to use their cellular phones in that area are not going to get good reception. Is that correct? Ms. Archibald: If we don't get coverage here, our system would degrade. You would get a lot of dropped calls and you probably will not be able to use your cell phones. Yes, that is correct. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: With this age of so-called high-technology, why are we so crude in this method of having towers, as Mr. Alanskas pointed out. We've got more than enough. Why can't you go to the satellites? They did use them in Kosovo. The technology is there. Everyone doesn't have to have one in their car, I'm not sympathetic is you say you are going to take them out of cars because there are some states, I understand that are thinking about ticketing people that are .... phoning and driving. That may be a reality in Michigan. Why such low technology? 17069 Mr. Reid: Remember, the technology is actually quite sophisticated. You are describing the difference between a terrestrial or land based system and extra-terrestrial or satellite based system. They serve different functions. Certainly you can use a satellite phone in the United States of America now. It would cost you about $7,000.00 for a handset and anywhere between$6 and $7 a minute for phone use. Most Americans don't want to pay that price for phone service. If everyone has kept track of their phone bills and the different options available, what they will notice overall is that the price of phone service overall whether it is landline or wireless, is falling at a very rapid rate. That is brought on by competition spurred by the Federal government, the FCC and the wireless carriers themselves, to bring competition into the telecommunications industry so that you will have either a wireless or a landline or cable, as the case may be, whether it be interne, long distance, local, fax, data, paging, all of these options available to you whether you are in your home, in your business or in your car. Having raised the issue about proper operation of motor vehicles and use of cellular phones, we do have a case say for use of these phones and it is entirely possible those people who are adequately trained do it well everyday and these are people who are in the industry and they are using walkie-talkie devices or phone devices such as law enforcement or engineering crews and the like. It is here. It is not something that is going to leave. It is an adjunct though. It is not going to replace indefinitely. Telegraph is still here. Morris code is still here although that has been digitized lately but it will be here. It is not a low technology. It is actually a very sophisticated technology but it is the best for the type of use that we are involved in given the density of the people that are actually using it. Mr. Piercecchi: I hear you but, nevertheless, we have a technology that has been placed on our people that we are not ready for because how many towers, as Mr. Alanskas point out, is it going to take? Next month somebody else might come in and say that we need this little green area and we want it all red now. It is getting to be a mess. Obviously the technology is not ready for us or we wouldn't have all these towers. 27 towers, is that the total number Bob? Mr. Alanskas: 27 different locations. Mr. Piercecchi: We are 36 square miles and we've got 27 towers and we're talking about one mile radius. Theoretically how many towers would it take if all you guys were together to do this area? But you are not only interested in this area, obviously. Right? Mr. Reid: We're interested in everywhere. Mr. Piercecchi: Not just Livonia, right? I mean with this tower. Is this tower going to go outside of Livonia? Ms. Archibald: This tower is specifically for Livonia. 17070 Mr. Piercecchi: Theoretically, how many towers would it take? Aren't they 2-1/2 mile radiuses on most of these towers? Ms. Archibald: It depends on the height. Mr. Piercecchi: How many would it take to do 36 square miles? Mr. Reid: Again, the issue here is coverage and capacity. The question is a good one but there is no simple pat answer to it. I'll answer your question straight on. It depends on the number of customers using the system. It depends on the number of customers using each system. Every carrier works diligently every day to find options other than building a tower first. We don't build towers for the fun of it. They are expensive. If there are other sites out there, if there is someone else's tower, if there is a water tank, if there is steeple, if there is anything in the area that will provide us the type of elevation that we need, we will use that first. But you, this community and all the communities around southeastern Michigan are growing at a very rapid rate. The economic activity here is phenomenal which is a good thing. Businesses and homeowners both are driving us to provide them with the type of reliable coverage and reliable capacity and the variety of services that they have grown to expect. The beautiful thing about our business is we don't put in a site unless our site demands it. It is not something you do on a spec basis, it is too expensive to do that way. So what we can do and what we have done and where we began efforts for co-location were places like Livonia going back as far as 1994. The tower that is here on City property now was built by Nextel in 1994. It is a co- locatable tower. It is a heavy weight tower and it has many users on it. That provides certain economic benefits to the community as well. We take your ordinance as it is written, we find those locations that are indicated to us that we can possibly use and we do our best everyday to try and work with them. That is not to say that there aren't difficult choices to make at the end of the day and this is one of them. But in terms of the ordinance and the requirements, we made very sure that we had worked with the City before coming to you to present on this particular site, it is the best option out there for all parties considered given the tough choices that need to be made. Mr. Piercecchi: Are these towers limited to handling voice only or are they capable of handling the Visa transactions and things like that from tower to tower to tower? Mr. Reid: What do you mean, Visa transactions? Mr. Piercecchi: Is it strictly for voice? Is that what all of these are for? Mr. Reid: Ours provide voice, data, paging, internes and if you want to call up someone and order goods or services and use your Visa, you can give them that as well. It is capable of doing that. Mr. Piercecchi: People run the Visa card through the machine? 17071 Mr. Reid: No, it is not that. That is a different technology. We don't do that but they can speak it in or they can punch into the phone if they just trying to make an order ,,fe. to a system that is adapted for that. Mr. Alanskas: I have a question for you. Have you ever put up a tower in any City and then your business has dropped and you removed a tower? Mr. Reid: We have not had to remove a tower yet. Mr. Alanskas: Which means that your business is always going up. Mr. Reid: The business is increasing. Mr. Alanskas: That answers my point. Mr. Reid: I'm not sure what point that might be. Mr. Alanskas: That you will need more towers. Mr. Reid: Not necessarily, where we need more towers, we will come out and say we need towers. Quite frankly, with the design of our system and the way it is going now we have gone from "rad" heights that began as high as 450 feet down to where we are now in areas of 120 feet and in some places, lower. We are actually moving closer to the ground not higher. That gives us more options but Livonia is not like some of the other communities that have tall buildings. If you had 6, 7, 8 story buildings in this area , we would get on the building and forget about the tower, it is not necessary to do it. We could hang antennas with balloons, quite frankly, if that were permitted but it is not. We have put up something that has sufficient capacity to hold the antennas and we have always, always, always, been in favor of co-location. It is in our intent, if we are going to put in a tower that it will be one with enough capacity so that the next carrier that comes along can get on that tower and not have to build one separately. We were pioneers in that, quite frankly, we moved the entire industry across the nation in that way and that is one of the benefits that we can bring to you. Mr. McCann: All right. I am going to go to the audience. Again the communication was the safety factor. Does someone want to give me a short but complete explanation as to why this is not a danger to the family and residents? Mr. Reid: As Tonya Archibald mentioned, at our out put levels we are only at 2%of the applicable Federal limit. We can give you the necessary studies. In fact,the City of Livonia requires on all existing towers that are here now that readings be taken on an annual basis and to prove that we do meet with the FCC requirements we would do that as well. If you want to consider other sites where we have had this issue arise, for example, the Gross Pointe Academy which is a school building itself, where we have facilities inside the school Now building up in the rafters of the building. We have done studies there and we have been able to show over and over again that the emissions that most people 17072 fear are no greater than you would get off a television set or a light bulb. Because of the type of radiation it is, and you see this is not a dirty word, radiation, it is non-ionizing, meaning unlike the sun, which is ionizing where you can go out and lay out and get a suntan this will not cause this kind of an affect whatsoever. We are confident. We can prove it. We have proven it over and over again that we meet the limits and it does not cause a risk to public health or safety. Mr. McCann: Thank you. I am going to go to the audience. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition can line up on either side. Please be ready to speak when there is no one left, I am going to close the Public Hearing. Denise Kline, 9886 Flamingo, Livonia. I have three major concerns with the tower going up. Two of those concerns pretty much tie in together, the first one being the safety and security. I know there was a little bit of talk about how such a tower affects human health. I am more concerned about secure is the building itself going to be. It is going to be a separate structure built smack in the middle of the playground. I don't know if you folks have been out there but we just have a brand new little tykes playground that has been put in, Devonaire Park, and ever since that playground was built there P_re a lot of people in the park every night. My concern is that kids are going to play around on the tower and in the building. I don't know how secure it is. They talked about taking the barbed wire off of it. Mr. McCann: Main,just for your information, we have looked at these. They did provide °N" with a small site plan as to what is going on. It is a small brick building. There are no windows. There is one locked door. It is a shingled roof building. There is no way a child could enter or exit it and the tower is a monopole. It is a pole that can't be climbed. Kids can't get into it. At least at issue we have looked at it because we have public golf courses in the City. We have to look at them in park areas and the City parks. So we have looked at that issue as far as the building's safety for children and we could not find anything that we could see that could be a natural hazard. Ms. Kline: Well that is a relief for me because my son, being a dare devil, I worry about him. Mr. McCann: I agree, mine are the same way. Ms. Kline: The other concern I have is the signal interference from the tower. I don't know what kind of interference there will be locally for all the homes with the radios and televisions. Personally I don't subscribe to cable service. I haven't subscribed to cable service for over 10 years because I really don't watch television but I do enjoy the network and public news and I would hate to have to spend another $300 a year to squeeze that our of my budget just to get around the interference from another tower. Finally, I want to make a mention about the demands for signal service. I understand and can appreciate the need `�- for the Nextel service. I work for a major construction company based out of southeast Michigan and we do use Nextel's service for the two-way radio that 17073 it provides but in that particular area where the tower is proposed there is no business around there where there would be a huge demand like that. As far as for individual cell phones that is all homes in there as far as I know. Every resident in Livonia has a telephone line or two in their house and they can use the old fashion wired method. What I wonder is why can't it be located in an area that is already commercial or industrial. Something a little more secure and not smack in the middle of a playground. Marty Mulcahy,30850 Robert Drive. I heard Nextel talk about the traffic maps and the signal holes and all the problems that we are going to be having and are having with signal problems. I maintain that is not my problem. That is not the City's problem. That is Nextel's problem. I am not willing to give up a perfectly good 75' x 75' plot of land to help them out in one of the last green areas of the City. On behalf of a lot of residents and virtually the entire neighborhood I am here to present a petition with 210 names of residents who do not support the placement of the tower at that location. Frankly, getting the signatures was like shooting fish in the barrel. Of the 213 people we contacted, only 3 people declined to sign the petition. It was quite an eye opening experience going door to door and talking to people. The first thing the neighbors asked when we approached them was, "they want to put it where?" "In the park?" Followed by, "can't they find somewhere else to put it?" Followed by, "where do I sign?" People were so willing to sign because a 15 story or 12 story antenna, or whatever they are talking about now is a tremendous eye sore and we all know and I don't think anybody here, including the people from `` Nextel would want to live 100 yards from one if it were put up. It would be taller than any tree in the park and it would be especially visible in the winter time. Then you are going to pour a big concrete slab and you are going to put a fence around it and you are going to take up a perfectly nice piece of land to help out Nextel and I don't think it is right. Thomas Carey, 29843 Richland. I live right down the street from the park where they are going to put this monster in. I watched them build the first one here by the police department. I paid no attention to it. I just happen to notice it tonight coming in here. That thing is growing. It is spreading out,they are adding things on to it and that park doesn't need that thing down there. It should be put on Plymouth Road some place behind a building or commercial, not in residential. That is our park for the kids. We are losing a lot of it all the time anyhow so let's keep it for the kids. Thank you. Greg Graham, 31030 Grandon St. I have lived there for eight years now and before that I was born and raised at Ann Arbor Trail and Merriman,just down the street. I went to Franklin High School. I can see Franklin High School from my picture window and right by the football field there is a cell tower right next to the stands. I can see it from my picture window and I would hate to have one right behind me. I have three young kids. We go to the park three or four times a week, weather permitting, when it is summer and spring. I would hate to have my little boy say "hey dad, let's go to where the tower is at". When you talk about 75' x 75' compound, it sounds like a military compound you are going to put up there. All of the safety concerns, I don't know all that much about it but 17074 I would hate to have another tower and when you look at a map for that square mile, from Joy to Plymouth and from Merriman to Middlebelt, it is right smack '""' in the middle of a residential area as the perimeter of that is all commercial. Why would you want to put something that is a business in the middle of a residential area? I am greatly opposed to that and I would hate to see it go up. Michael J. Morrison, 9848 Sunset. I live directly across from where the tower is to be going up. As a matter of fact it is directly out my kitchen window. I have to look at this tower morning and night. This is a Nextel phone. One of your phones, I assume. I am an engineer. I work with the big three. I am always going all over the place. I am personally tell you and swear I have only lost one phone call at my house and if I did lose it, it went to voice mail and I picked it up 30 seconds later. It was not a problem. Weak signal, yes, there is a bar graft that gives you a signal strength. Signal strength is weak at my house and my house according to you is at the worse possible place for you to cover your area so you want to put an antenna there. Well you antenna is right next to my kitchen window. I don't want to look at it. My signal is strong enough. My phone works. My two-way radio works. My voice mail works. My e-mail works. It all comes across. I've only dumped one phone call. I moved here, my company transferred me and I moved in February 4. I went broke buying this house. My wife, I can remember clearly said to me, I am going to love living here because there is a great park across the street and they are not going to build anything. I asked the realtor to check into it and call the City of Livonia and they said, "no, we don't do that to our parks." I said great. I signed the �.. papers, bought the house and now you want to put a tower next to my kitchen window. No. Forget it. I use it. They work. Mr. McCann: Sir, you have to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Morrison: I'm sorry. It's really burning me, I apologize. This is their product. It works fine. Thank you very much. Mr. Graham: I just have one more comment. When you see some of the cell towers,there are different tiers for different communications and probably other companies. have you researched when a company will run out of space or a tier on a tower? Mr. McCann: Yes sir, we have a complete survey of all the towers. We know who co-locates and who doesn't co-locate. We have all the companies here. It is a complete survey that we do in researching for this petition. Mr. Graham: Couldn't you search to see if they couldn't run a tier on there because as far as my recollection there is only one tier? Mr. McCann: In that square mile there are no other towers. It is one of the few but that is what we are looking at here tonight. Mr. Graham: There is plenty of room by that tower next to the football field. 17075 Lisa Bunker, 9860 Sunset. One of the main reasons we chose our home five years ago was because of the fact that it was two houses from the park. We have 25 nieces and nephews that visit us frequently. We are at the park all the time. I would hate to see that tower from sitting in my front yard or back every day. We bought out home as a handyman special. It was not taken care of and we put our money into it and fixed it up to make it a good home to match with the other homes in the neighborhood. I am totally opposed to putting a tower in a play ground where all the children go. It is not a good choice. Dave Bunker, 9860 Sunset. I agree with whatever she says but I also want to say, how many trees are you cutting down in that park? Wasn't it along side the ice skating rink? Ms. Cormany: The northeast corner. Mr. Bunker: Oh, the northeast corner, so there are no trees are coming out. Well, I oppose it. It is going to be in my site from my back yard. Mr. McCann: Thank you. I don't see anybody else wishing to speak so I will give you that last opportunity to speak. Mr. Reid: The security issue as it was noted, we will make this site as secure as the City will allow us but the idea is not to build Fort Knox. We don't want to have something that is that unappealing either to you or to us but we will secure it and it will not be capable of being climbed by any of the children who may reach the park. There will be no signal interference either. We are assigned our frequencies from the FCC. We are restricted to those frequencies. They are similar to the frequencies used by law enforcement. We are not permitted to interfere with them or anyone else. If we do, that is on pain of losing our license. Finally in closing with respect to the sort of late in the issue of property values, but what we know is that in every community across the United States where towers have been installed, we are not able to find one case, one case, where a local tax assessor lowers the value of the property because of the proximity of the tower anywhere nearby. What we do know is that in the studies that we have performed those sites that are closest to towers actually have little uptake, not measurable in any significant way, one to two percent above what the overall market value is. What we can say, in all good faith, is that it will not harm property values and we are capable of proving that. Mr. McCann: I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously denied, it was #8-146-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 1999, on Petition 99-7-2-22 by Nextel West Corporation requesting waiver use approval to install a 150' wireless communications antenna for shared usage, and its accompanying equipment shelter,to be located on the east side of Sunset Avenue between Robert 17076 Avenue and West Chicago Road (within Devonaire Park) in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City ',taw Council that Petition 99-7-2-22 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; and 2) That the site of the proposed use, although located on public property, is inappropriate because it is totally surrounded by a residential neighborhood. Mr. Hale: I would like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. The petitioners did a very nice job. One of the nicest presentations I have seen in a long time. Mr. McCann: Any other discussion. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The petition has been denied. You have 10 days to appeal our decision to the City Council. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-7-2-23 by 7-Eleven Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a convenience store with a SDM license on ,�, property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile and Levan Roads in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: Yes, the City has received six letters all in opposition to this proposal. The first letter is dated August 7, 1999 and is signed by Lance and Mary Howard. The second letter is from Ron Reinke of 15025 Golfview. The third letter is from Vincent Moceri of 15574 Woodside. The fourth letter is from Jeffrey Wheeler, President of Kingsbury Heights Country Homes Estates Subdivision, 36517 Roycroft. The fifth letter is from Ronald and Karen Szymula, 15577 Woodside and the last letter is from Derek Highman and Jackie Highman who reside at 36063 Parkhurst. There are four items of correspondence from various departments of the City. The first item is a letter dated July 14, 1999, from the Division of Police which reads as follows: "In reply to the site plan submitted for the 7-Eleven store at the address of 36400 Five Mile Road, the Police Department Traffic Bureau has the following considerations: (1) The handicap signs currently at location, which appear to be those utilized in the site plan, need to be replaced. The signs are completely faded and not enforceable. (2) It appears that the site plan calls for the removal of the handicap ramp currently at location which is located near the handicap spaces. If the ramp is to be removed, then the petitioner needs to amend the site plan to include a barrier free handicap ramp located near the handicap spaces. (3) The Traffic Bureau is requesting the installation of "No Left Turn: sign at the exit of the lot at Five Mile. Left turn traffic would most likely create a conflict 17077 with traffic already on Five Mile due to the exit's close proximity to the intersection (Five/Levan). Any traffic desiring to go eastbound on Five Mile from the store could easily exit to Levan Road and then turn left at the traffic light at Five Mile. There have been a total of 50 reported crashes at Levan for the last 2 years." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer. The second letter dated July 15, 1999, from the Fire & Rescue Division reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a convenience store with a SDM license on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter, dated July 16, 1999, is from the Engineering Division, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable tot his department and should be used in connection therewith: That part of outlot "A" as described as beginning at the southeast corner of said lot and proceeding thence N. 89°51'30" West, 150.00 feet; thence N. 00°12'30" West, 150.00 feet; thence S. 89°51'30" East, 150.00 feet; thence S. 00°12'30" East along the west line of Levan Road, 150 feet to the point of beginning, "Kingsbury Heights Subdivision", Part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, as recorded in Liber 84, Pages 35 through 37, Wayne County Records. (Containing 22,500 square feet more or less. Also subject to any and all easement or rights-of-way of record, if any.) We trust that this will provide you with the information �. requested. the letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The third letter, dated July 29, 1999, from the Inspection Department reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 12, 1999, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The parking lot needs to be resealed and double striped with accessible parking spaces to specification and proper location. (2) The landscaping and lot needs a general clean-up. (3) Parking space size, as noted on the plan, are deficient in length. (4) The dumpster enclosure specifications need to b clarified. (5) The accessible ramp specifications are not clear and need to be reviewed. (6) This project will also need approval from City Council for the SDM license as there are two (2) other licenses within 500 feet (Arbor Drugs and Elias Party Store). (7) The proposed ground sign will require a variance the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess sign area and excess height. Allowed sign area is 30 sq. ft. Proposed is 49 sq. ft. Allowed height is 6', proposed is 9'10". (8) The proposed wall signs will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess number of wall signs and excess sign area. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Richard LaRowe, Tech Express, 16801 Newburgh, Livonia. I am representing 7-Eleven, Inc. We have a handout of the boards that we will be showing here reduced for your use. First we have a site plan where we are showing we are doing minimal impact to the site. We are suggesting to replace landscaping in the 17078 area of the corner of the building. We are suggesting to replace landscaping around the monument sign. We are going to trim and prune the landscaping as ... suggested by site plan. We want to take advantage of the mature trees that are already growing on the lot so our intent is not to take those down. We are increasing landscaping in the corner and improving landscaping the that exists along side the building. We are adding a trash enclosure. Currently the site does not have a trash enclosure and we are screening that trash enclosure and that is the impact that we have for the site plan. I listened to the recommendations as far as no left turn on Five Mile and the other impacts to the site plan. We have no problem with any of those including the reduction of the proposed monument sign. This is one picture of the existing building. It shows the disrepair of the awning. It shows the color of the awning and it shows what the current site looks like as far as the building with the windows. This is currently the front of the existing building. We see the large trees and the poor upkeep on the landscape area near the building. We see the awning all the way across the front is in total disrepair. Our proposal for the side of the building is to brick in the existing windows that are there currently. We would match the existing brick on the building. We do have a handicap ramp that may not have been clearly defined for the site plan. It is next to the handicap parking that we are rebuilding. This shows the improved landscaping in the corner of the building. Over here you see the trash enclosure and the improved landscaping on the trash enclosure. This gives you what the building would like from the front. Our intent is to have glass along the front similar to what it is now. We have improved lighting coming from the side of the building. It is diffused lighting but to light the area along the parking. We have our front fascia. We are taking down disrepaired awnings. We believe it is a much improved look to the building from it currently is. It will still be an all brick building. Any brick replacement will again be to like material. You see our proposed landscaping at the corner of the building, which will be much more impressive than what we have currently. All of those improvements are fine but they are really not a justification for what we are asking. What we are asking for is a waiver for a use. Currently in Livonia we operate five 7- Elevens, they are located, the new one that we are proposing here would be the closest one to our corporate office which is considered the western region corporate office. It is here in Livonia at Seven Mile and 94 over by the Lone Star and Rio Bravo. That is actually where the corporation is from for this region. This would be the closest store. 7-Eleven has been in this region for a long time. They are a Livonia resident and this region is very important to the success to 7-Eleven. They want to maintain a very good presence in this region. They have found that it is a very good community to do business in and we work very hard with Livonia to maintain a good relationship. What we have been doing recently is buying party stores that are run down or that are currently used as a convenience store or buying run down properties in the area and refurbishing those properties. The common theme I have heard here tonight is that people don't want them to move into residential. We don't want you to come into this green site and tear down our woods. Well, we are for that. What we are doing again is refurbishing these existing sites and it has been working quite well for us. The main reasons for the waiver. We think that you would not find another owner/operator asking for this waiver that has 17079 more plans in place to assure that the public is protected. 7-Evelen currently works with the police department. They have many programs, one program being where the officers are given coupons. For instance, these coupons are in a relationship based on how many stores are in a particular community. Those are given to be handed out as perks to children that are doing things that promote good neighbors, that promote good values. The nicest part about those is not prize but the fact that police officers are able to give these out. For instance, if they see a child with a helmet on riding a bicycle. If they see one that is roller blading and they've got their protection on, policemen can stop them and give them a reward. What this really does, this promotes a better relationship between children and police. It is something we feel is very important to a community. There are other programs that have been initiated by store managers for 7-Eleven where good report cards so a coupon is given out to the child. Again, a reward for behavior that is conducive to being a good neighbor, programs for protection and security. One thing 7-Eleven brings is consistency, whether a store is owned by a company or whether a store is owned by a franchisee or operated by a franchisee. The rules are the same. The consistency of how employees are trained. Trained not to have loiters outside. Trained to recognize someone trying to buy illegal substance, or substance illegal for a certain age group. There are many training programs that are going on that are mandatory for anyone that is going to operate a 7- Eleven store and those are a continuously improving programs that are used to promote safety in the area of our stores. We typically will add lighting and that is within the ordinance. That is down lit lighting but it is done in such a way that these stores and the properties on these are stores are made safer than the properties were before we took them over. The interior lighting in the stores also enhance the light around so our customers will feel safe. 7-Eleven's market is the 35 year old single parent, or the 35 year old person that is one market, we want those people to feel safe. When they get out of work at 11:00 they go to our stores. Most of the party stores are closed down. Stores like the drug stores are closed down at 11:00. 11:30 or 12:00 is when they are going to stop to get their bread on the way home. The other market 7-Eleven caters to are the service people in your community. The policeman, St. Mary's Hospital, these are 24 hour operations, ambulance drivers. These are the people that are out there all night long that don't have the choices we do if we work a day job and this is a market we cater to as providing services for those people in the community. As much as we are providing services for the community itself, we are really trying to service the people that service the community. One of the most advance items that are going on right now in regards to the beer and wine license which we are seeking a waiver for... Mr. McCann: If you are going to explain that, can you justify why you would want a beer and wine license when there are two establishments within 500 feet that already provide it? Mr. LaRowe: When we do our market studies for any particular site, there are two things that influence our markets here in Michigan. One is if we have gasoline sales, those add a certain percentage to the profitability of that site. If we don't have gasoline sales, then we have beer and wine which is in addition to our sales. 17080 They are a customer draw in some cases, they are a part of our business. It is used in the evaluation of those properties but what I was starting to say is if we `.. look at the people who have their existing licenses in this area and there are two, we know of those stores,their use is different that the use we are providing in that we are a 24 hour operation and that our overall use is different than what they are marketing. Mr. McCann: Isn't alcohol limited to the time you can sell it? Mr. LaRowe: Yes alcohol is limited to the time we can sell it. It can't be sold past 2:30 at night, that is all controlled by the Liquor Commission but our overall market ... Mr. McCann: Is it 2:00 or 2:30? Mr. LaRowe: I'm not the expert, I can call upon the people if you need the exact time. But one of the things I was going to say is one of the things we bring is the consistency is the training. One of the things that is being tested right now by 7-Eleven and it is actually out being tested on sites is that the Michigan license, the bar code on the new licenses, will be able to be passed through our registers to record if a person is old enough to buy beer or wine. These are things that you are not going to get from other people asking for the same waiver that we are. We feel some of the things that we bring to the table as our obligation and our ongoing commitment to the community makes us worthy of a waiver and maybe more worthy some of the others that are out there. So ;,,,.,, that was one of the points I was trying to make in regards to why we thing we should be able to get a waiver. Mr. McCann: All right. Are there any questions? Mr. Alanskas: I have plenty but I'm not going to stir his thunder. Do you also sell tobacco in the store? Mr. LaRowe: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of your sales are tobacco sales? Mr. LaRowe: About 18%. Mr. Alanskas: How do you regulate in regards to minors buying tobacco in your store? Mr. LaRowe: We actually have a program... Mr. Alanskas: There is nothing here about tobacco, its alcohol, not tobacco. Mr. LaRowe: May I call one of my associates up to give you the particulars because I don't want to misquote. Mr. Alanskas: You sure can. 17081 Rick Fernandize, 19500 Victor Parkway, Suite 550, Livonia. I work for 7-Eleven as a loss prevention manager for the Eight State Great Lakes Division. I am going to have to ask you to repeat your question. Mr. Alanskas: The question was in regard to tobacco, how do you keep your people in the store regulate selling to minors tobacco? Mr. Fernandize: As you just heard, our coming of age program for all employees is about three hours long and without going into great detail, it involves the sale of any product that is age restricted, whether it be alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or lottery. They are schooled and required to pass at a 100% proficiency level concerning all the laws on all of those products. What we were just explaining with our new cash register system which we are rolling out in Michigan and I think across the state we are about 98% complete. With that in our next computer phase, which we hope to have by the end of this year or the first quarter of next year, any product that is age restricted when the bar code is swiped or hit with a little reader will automatically pull up on that screen that they must be carded. The State of Michigan has recently issued driver's licenses that have bar codes and one of the features that will be in our system, and I can't give you a definitive answer of when, but it is in process right now and being tested in our California stores is much like a credit card reader. It is built in right into the face plate of the point of sale register as you swipe the driver's license through there and it gives you a yes or no on whether or not that person is of legal age to buy that product. Mr. Alanskas: Question number 2, do you have a problem with children loitering in your stores? Mr. Fernandize: Not generally, no sir. Mr. Alanskas: On your five stores, have you had any crime problems? Mr. Fernandize: Yes sir, we've had some crime problems over the years. Mr. Alanskas: What kind? Mr. Fernandize: Approximately half of what the national average is. Mr. Alanskas: Is it people just stealing merchandise? Mr. Fernandize: It is a variety of things as you would expect. Mr. Alanskas: Have you had robberies? Mr. Fernandize: We've had a couple of robberies in the past 10 years. Mr. Alanskas: What time of that is usually when there is a robbery? Usually late in the New evening? 17082 Mr. Fernandize: Generally speaking, it is in the dark hours, anytime from sunset to sunrise, it is probably three quarters of that. New Mr. Alanskas: I have some other questions but I will let some of the other commissioners ask their questions. Mr. LaPine: What does 7-Eleven sell, besides beer and wine that Arbor Drugs or the groceries there don't sell? Do you sell sandwiches? Mr. Fernandize: Yes sir, absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Do you sell pop in cardboard containers? Mr. Fernandize: Pop in cardboard containers? Are you talking about soft drinks? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Fernandize: Yes sir. Mr.LaPine: Do you sell coffee? Mr. Fernandize: Absolutely, a bunch. Mr. LaPine: Next question, how often do you go around your stores, I'm talking about the Livonia stores right now, and look at those stores at how they are kept, how they are maintained, how they take care of their landscaping, how they do about cups that are thrown in the parking lot, how often do you police that? Mr. Fernandize: Above and outside of the store level, whether it is a company operated store or a franchise store, above that level that our field consultant level who oversee a group of about eight stores, they are in there a minimum of twice a week with scheduled three appointments and in this area a lot more frequently than that. But they are scheduled appointments especially with our franchisees because we are imposing on them and we have to make appointments with them but it is a regularly scheduled time. Mr. LaPine: You make an appointment before you walk in to see if they are going the job they are suppose to be doing? Mr. Fernandize: What I'm saying is that it is a regularly scheduled appointment. We also make night visits as a group to our stores across Michigan so there is a variety of different visits but the primary person who oversees that store is the field consultant who is required, once every 60 days to visit their stores at night. As a matter of repetition, they set up scheduled appointments, they will be in stores such and such from noon to 3:00 every Wednesday afternoon to meet specifically with that franchisee and then a second time that week during that week at a mutually agreed upon time. 17083 Mr. LaPine: Otherwise, what I am getting at, I have been around a number of your stores especially the one on Middlebelt near Joy Road and the one on Inkster and Six '`•w Mile, the one on the corner, in my estimation there are always cups and things laying around. To me, if you are going to police these stores you've got to do it when the owner of the store or whoever is running the store doesn't know when you are coming. If you tell me you are going to come and inspect my store, I am going to clean it up. Mr. Fernandize: The only thing I can tell you is that for any store that has a problem, whether it is on site or off site with litter, it is incumbent upon our franchisees who own that store to keep that place picked up. There are only doing harm to themselves if there is a problem. Mr. LaPine: I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, I don't think that happens all the time. The other question I have, you are open 24 hours a day from midnight to 6:00 a.m., how much of your total sales of that store is done between midnight and 6:00 a.m.? Mr. Fernandize: It varies anywhere from 15%to about 30%. The national average as a guess, I don't have that number, is probably in the 20% to 25% range. That is a pretty close approximation, I don't know the exact figure. Mr. LaPine: Has 7-Eleven bought this property contingent upon getting a waiver to get the beer and wine license? Mr. Fernandize: I would have to defer to one of my associates. I am not sure of the answer to that either. Mr. Zokulski: It is contingent upon getting the waiver. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. Shane: Can anybody tell me how late you can sell alcoholic beverages with an SDM license? Mr. McCann: 2:00 A.M. Is that correct? Mr. Fernandize: Right, yes sir. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Hearing none, I have a couple. Have you looked at purchasing the other convenience store? Mr. Fernandize: I would have to defer to Zokulski, I an the Loss Prevention Manager. Ted Zokulski, I am the construction engineer, construction manager for this project. I am at the same Victor Parkway address here in town. Mr. McCann: You've got the Elias Brothers and the Rite Aid, or the Arbor Drug right there 17084 and an Elias Brothers convenience store. For me it just doesn't make good planning. We have a situation where we have separation between SDM New' licenses for a reason. That area is well served right now. What possible need could there be to provide more alcohol. You are competing with two other people. It can't be a great percent of your profit because you are dividing it now three ways and supplying basically the same services that the other stores are providing. Mr. Zokulski: First off, I don't really believe that our sole purpose is to go in and sell alcohol. Alcohol is something that people can sell any place. It just happens to be a piece of our business. We're not in the alcohol business per se'. That is not what we are all about. We are after the 35 year old female. That is our target. If you take a look and if you think about 7-Eleven where we've come through over the last four years, in the last four years we've remodeled 6,000 stores across the United States. 6,000 stores overseas, that is 12,000 stores and in that period of time we have taken a look at were we used to be and I agree with you, if we listen to late night T.V. we hear all kinds of jokes from Leno, etc. We are after that 35 year old female working mother. That is our target, that is who we are going after. We have eliminated a lot of the video games we used to have. We have cleaned up the lots and the landscaping, we have concentrated efforts on lighting on displays in the stores. Mr. McCann: They why Mr. Zolulski: We are in the convenience business. The part of being convenient is having those things, things like handicap ramps, and well lit parking lots and well maintained grounds. That is the business we are in, to serve the community as a whole. Mr. McCann: Are you telling me you would go in there without the SDM license? Mr. Zokulski: No, I am saying that we are not solely in the liquor business of which this sound like this is what this is all about. We're here to take over an existing piece of property that is being run down. That does not look good, clean it up and to put a viable business into town. We have four or five other locations and we are trying to serve the rest of the community of Livonia like we are serving the locations or the neighborhoods where the existing stores are. I think if we talk to the police department, if we talk to the neighbors where those existing stores are, you will find that we are real good neighbors and that we do serve a need in the community and that is what we are about. Mr. McCann: Did you contact the people at Elias? Did you contact the other convenience store,that is the target area that you are looking at, to see if you could negotiate a purchase if that is an area that you want to go in to. That is the type of store that is there now. Actually that little mall could use a cleaning up. Did you contact them? �'" Mr. Zokulski: No, I did not. 17085 Mr. McCann: Why not? `�► Mr. Zokulski: Because that is not the corner location that I wanted. I want the video store location. Mr. McCann: All right. I have no further questions. Mr. Alanskas: Just to make a correction when you say that property is run down, Video Jack has always taken care of that building. I just live four blocks from there. This last winter we had a real bad storm and their awning was blown down and you are referring to it being run down, the property has been taken care of very good. I have question for you, you just opened a store two weeks ago on Greenfield and Rotunda Drive. Are you aware of that location? Mr. Zokulski: Yes. That is in Dearborn. Mr. Alanskas: Yes and that is a real small store. It's not a big store. How is that store doing? Mr. Zokulski: It is doing fantastic. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any 7-Elevens that do not sell beer and wine? Mr. Zokulski: Not that I know of. Now- Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Zokulski: May I make one more comment in regards to the beer and wine question that you asked? Mr. McCann: You are going to get the last shot at the end of the hearing. I am going to go to the audience. Eric Merenic, 36232 Roycroft. All my other neighbors are going to be bringing all kinds of things that are going to be generalized. I would like to address several things that are maybe in my expertise. I was a police officer for 15 years before becoming an attorney. First off as far as their programs the coupons, we are all educated individuals, we know that these are nothing more than gimmicks to cause the children to come into the store and cause larger purchasers or having the parents coming in so they can redeem the coupons in order to get more money. Training programs - the state requires them to go through tips training, all of their employees that sell alcohol, if they are going to talk about bar codes on driver's licenses it is because of the fact that they are incapable of keeping employees or their turn over rate is so high they have to rely on computers to determine whether or not they are suppose to be selling alcohol to somebody or not. As far as safety, my colleagues and I always used to and continually refer to these places as stop and robs. Just due to the fact that it is going to be open late at night and it is insulated. You are going to have the ability for people to get in and get out quickly. Our police department here in 17086 Livonia has an extremely fine reputation within the law enforcement community. They are known for always getting their man however at the same ..• time I really don't think we need to give an open piece of bait for somebody to come in to. As far as the neighborhood, we are tired of picking up trash that gets blown in from the nursery and from Arbor's but what is going to happen with this 7-Eleven is the same as with every other 7-Eleven, we all see it, we've all been there, you've all made mention of it, we are going to have cups blown into our yards. We already have trash blown into our yards. Video Jack has been an outstanding neighbor to us. We can walk up to that store, we can rent our videos, we are on a first name basis with a lot of those employees. They are a part of our neighborhood. We have alcohol that we can go get if we need to go get it at the two stores nearby. We do not need a third license. I dare say if you decided to deny the review as far as the ability to give them a liquor license, 7-Eleven will walk away because they don't want their store there if they can't sell the alcohol. Thank you. Mark Waldecker, 36067 Roycroft. Currently the house has been in the family since it was built back in the 60's. I would say in the past six years I have probably seen three or four buildings go up around that area and I still say we probably have the quietest corner in Livonia. I just have to say, enough is enough. I don't know how many drug stores you can put in this neighborhood, how many Arbor Drugs, how many liquor stores that we already have currently in this neighborhood. I don't feel that a store open 24 hours at our corner is going to do any justices for that neighborhood. I feel that this is the worst possible location for a 7-Eleven based on the two locations that are already there servicing the type of product that they do and I hope this action is denied. Janet D'Ascenzo, 15754 Golfview, Fairway Farms Subdivision about three blocks from the proposed site. My husband and I strongly oppose the addition of a 7-Eleven store to our neighborhood because we believe first of all that it will encourage loitering, also increase traffic in the area and increase noise in the area, especially at night. We do not want a 24 hour anything in our neighborhood. We have the emergency room and it really is quiet. We hardly even hear sirens or anything so we are concerned about that. But most of all I have two small little boys and I am afraid of the danger to the pedestrians and bicyclist because of the quick entrances and exits of cars that seem to go in and out of facilities like that. It is not the type of neighborhood store that we want nor is it the type we need. All of the items carried at 7-Eleven are readily available at the three other corners by the Elias party store, which has been there for years, Arbor Drugs and both gas stations across the street. Incidentally, I am a 35 year old mother, I work part time and I do not shop at 7-Eleven. Greg Durbin, 36408 Sherwood,two blocks north of the proposed site and I have been there since 1976. One of the things I have always enjoyed about where we live is the fact that Five Mile Road has a unique character to it. It is anchored by the golf course and by St. Mary's Hospital and by some low rise buildings. It has maintained a nice residential character for many years. I think this would be disruptive. When we look at the need in that area you have a Mobile gas station that is open 24 hours that has a variety of small grocery items. You 17087 have the old Bingham Amoco Service. You have the Elias party store. If you go just a little farther west, you have Farmer Jack and you also have another �.., party store at Five Mile and Newburgh that has been there for a number of years that has liquor, SDM or SDD, the whole nine yards. I feel strongly also that also there would be an issue of litter, those issues are of a major importance but beyond on that you would an increase in traffic problem. Levan as it stands now, when I moved there about 25 years ago, Levan was a relatively quiet feeder street for the subdivisions and it has become now a major thoroughfare. Some of that is acceptable and you have to understand that these things are going to happen but what we are doing now is we are going to increase it even further. Last but not least, and I think I echo what other people have said, Video Jack has been an excellent neighbor for a lot of years. When they first started, they were at Five Mile and Newburgh and then they built this building and it has always been a friendly place to go etc. I maintain that they have an obligation to that neighborhood like we have had an obligation to them for years to be good customers. We have supported them and we have helped them to succeed. I think it is wrong on their behalf to sell out to just anybody so that they can enhance their personal financial gain. I am vehemently opposed to this 7-Eleven party store and I also would like to add, echoing the sentiments of the first gentleman that spoke, our former police officer and now attorney, I spent 30 years in law enforcement before retiring as a lieutenant. I ran surveillance units and I can tell you without question that 7- Eleven and similar type stores, not just 7-Eleven I don't want to blanket them with a cloak of evil, but similar type stores do attract crime problems. There are hold-ups and car thefts, car jackings and purse snatchings that do go on in these types of places not to mention the eternal crimes of theft, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness and fighting and you name it that is generated by an all night store. Thank you for your time. Cheryl DeGraff, 36248 Roycroft, I am on the northeast corner of Levan. Most of issues that I had planned to raised have already been raised by my fiends and neighbors here. I think the target demographic of the 35 working mother, we have 193 homeowners, I can probably count on one hand at least the ones in that age group and demographic that have come to our homeowners meetings. I don't think anyone is looking for anything from 7-Eleven that isn't available already in the area. However, I also have a nine year old daughter who has been attending all of these meetings and she has written a letter and I would like to read it to you. "Dear Planning Commission, My name is Ada West, I live on the corner of Roycroft and Levan. I sleep in my room on the west side of the house next to Levan. It takes me a long time to go to sleep because of all the noise from the traffic and the people walking and biking down Levan at night. They can be very loud. A new store open late at night will bring me more noisy teenagers. I want to put a sign in my yard that says 'please be quiet after 9 P.M.'. Don't let another store be so close to my house that will not close until late. Sincerely, Ada Marie West." Craig Senkowski, 15540 Woodside. One question I have to ask is, if 7-Eleven has done the "' research in the area I would like to know how many people that live there are 17088 35 and single and 35 and female. There are not too many people in that area that fit that category that they researched. Mr. McCann: I am not going to open it up for debate between you and I. Obviously they feel there is a market there for them. The question is whether it is proper planning to allow a waiver use for another license in that area. Mr. Senkowski: I am opposed to this as is my family and my two children. Kurt Loveless, 15662 Woodside. A lot of the things that they have already mentioned, other people have mentioned. My wife and I feel the same way. There is a 24 hour Rite Aid at Six Mile and Newburgh that provides access to alcohol to 2:00 o'clock in the morning so 7-Eleven is not going to provide that to us. Also, I have a contention to one of the things that they remarked about, they take care of their stores. If you go over there to the store at Schoolcraft and Inkster which is on the Redford border,that thing is trashed. There are all kinds of bad people hanging out there. You go by there in the evening, the place is filthy. I am sorry, the place is filthy. I am not targeting 7-Eleven, it's bad. I have a contention with that. This is an easy target for this thing to get run down too. A franchisee does not have to take care of it. If it has a certain kind of business that attracts people, they are going to be going in there whether there is trash out there or not. Sorry, that is just the way it is. There are all kinds of other convenience stores around there. I don't think it is fair to those other businesses who have been there a long time established there that we open another store that sells the same stuff. Thank you for your time. Kevin Baumler, 15658 Golfview. My wife and I are strongly opposed to putting a 7-Eleven there. There are already two stores that sell liquor. We do not need another one. We walk to Video Jack to rent our movies. We go to Arbor Drugs to get our candy or pop or whatever we need. We are strongly opposed to putting a 7-Eleven at our corner there. Thank you. Carolyn Jones, 15646 Levan. I live about 2 to 2-1/2 blocks away from the proposed 7-Eleven. I would like to address some specific instances of traffic and traffic problems as some people spoke before me that there is very loud people and sometimes loud cars. This week there have been two accidents on the street, one running into some telephone wires and another one, one of the stop signs nearer to Six Mile was run down and that was recently replaced,just yesterday. In addition, earlier this summer, about May or June one of our cars was legally parked on the side of the road and it was rear ended, totaled. This happened about three years ago as well. I believe that there are other stores in the area that have the things that 7-Eleven does. To address the issue of vandalism and loitering, not they necessarily go together, I am 20 years old. I am a young adult living at home with my parents. I have a younger sister. She is a good kid. She goes up to that Arbor store and she actually purchases things and that is fine. However, we have actually had some problems. There have been people and random vandalism and me being a younger adult, I realize there are kids out there that if there would be a place for them to hang out that they would congregate there. I know that if this store is put in with a liquor license it 17089 would increase traffic, which traffic is terrible already and a 24 hour aspect is not good. Thank you. John Moran, 36757 Sherwood. I am opposed to the 7-Eleven store. As everyone has said earlier the drug store issue is covered by Rite Aid. I think they missed their target market. Livonia is a family community not 35 year old single moms. The number of crashes I think would go up. Gasoline is their number one revenue generator and since we don't need another gas station, I think beer and wine is the principal revenue generator. Also there are other markets in the area with more choices, Meijer's, Farmer Jacks, Busch's that other people have mentioned. The thing I would like to add, is the fact is that if this store does come in and is a 24 hour store, the other party stores will want to be 24 hour stores too to maintain their market share. So you are going to compound this problem if you give them a 24 hour store in that neighborhood. I respectfully request that you decline this request. Beverly Jovan, 36411 Roycroft. I live directly behind that. I am the first house north of it right on Roycroft and Levan. In 1991 these people came forward and they wanted to have where Video Jack, they wished to have that be their location. When they refused the license for the beer and wine they didn't take the location. The same problem we had at that time exists today. I am surprised that some of you people said that Video Jack keeps a poor place. They keep a wonderful place compared to the rest of the businesses that are in that area. r.. Mr. McCann: I don't think anybody up here said that. Ms. Jovan: I'm sorry, the gentleman who made the presentation was saying that the problem, "oh no, you are from the City." When they went out they said the problem with the building, the awning. The awning just went down and you know they are not replacing it because they lease that property and they have been told that their lease is not being renewed. So these people want the property, O.K. We have a problem there. We don't need it. I don't think they probably even know that that traffic signal at 12:00 o'clock changes to a flashing red and a flashing yellow. Did they check that? I mean that is how little traffic we have on that road. The need for a store open 24 hours just isn't there. I see that road all the time. I lived there for 33 years. There isn't the traffic there. We have a hospital there, yes but it is very quiet. The parking lot is vacant. I don't know who they plan on shopping there because there isn't anybody around to shop. If you sit out there on the corner, late at night you see 15 or 20 cars go by. That is the extent of it. We don't need another liquor license in this area. They can go to Farmer Jack and buy it after the other stores close. It's open all night. Ursula Schleup, 36247 Roycroft, which is the northeast corner of Levan and Roycroft. I am very much opposed to the 7-Eleven store because I have a lot of problems on the corner lot now with debris and forever picking it up. Also we have a lot of loud cars with boom boxes and they keep us up all night until 12:00 or 1:00 in '"' the morning. I would appreciate if that store does not go in the neighborhood. 17090 Christine Leach, 36231 Roycroft. We don't need a 7-Eleven at that corner. Everything is fine. We have enough access to the things that we need. We don't need a 7- Eleven. Laura Rosky, 15610 Golfview, Fairway Farms. I have lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. It has been a quiet super neighborhood. We've had no problems. I raised three children, all grew up fine. Now I see young people coming up and I see a 7- Eleven store that wants to come in that is open 24 hours. I defmitely disagree with it. We don't need anymore. We have plenty in the area. There are a lot of places to buy liquor and food and so on and so forth. I just want to voice my disagreement with the store. Thank you. Maria O'Connell, 36157 Sherwood. I just want to say I share the concerns that our fellow neighbors have expressed. Also one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that there is an elementary school approximately two blocks north of the proposed 7-Eleven site. I would have a lot of concern with the elementary school children going into that area, especially with the heavy traffic as well. Thank you. Terry Moran, 15615 Parklane in the Fairway Farms Subdivision. I support the comments of my neighbors here. One point I would like to bring that I don't think has been addressed this evening was the argument put forth for the bearings. The arguments that I heard that they would give away coupons and that they would more diligently check I.D.s in an automated fashion. That is not a very persuasive argument to me for having a 7-Eleven. Thank you. ti.. Jim Grant, 15661 Parklane. My wife and I are here as 25 year residents of Livonia. We have been in Fairway Farms for almost 20 years now and Jane reminded me, it is intriguing my 17-1/2 year old, who is going to be a senior at Catholic Central, looked at me today and said why in God's name would they want to put a 7- Eleven store at that corner? I found that intriguing. Neither one of his brothers, who are 14 and 12, think it is a good idea either. So it is kind of intriguing, I guess they are not going after that market but the young people don't think it is a good idea. My whole thing is about quality of life and I think that is what the whole idea of the Zoning Commission is. Is this variance going to lower our taxes? Is it going to reduce traffic? Is it going to reduce trash? Is really going to do anything for the neighborhood other than all the negative things that the people have talked about? So it is intriguing that the folks at Video Jack would want to sell because it looks to me that they get a lot of business and we have been good customers through all the years. I think it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to listen to all the folks who pay the taxes and do the right thing. We thank you and good luck. Mr. McCann: Sir, you have the last comment this evening. I promised that before we closed the Public Hearing I would let you respond. Mr.LaRowe: It is obvious that I wasn't very convincing on our point but I just want to state that we share a lot of the same concerns that the residents spoke of here and those programs that I talked about, they are not to bring in more business. We 17091 want our stores safe. If our stores aren't safe, we won't get customers. My client has worked very hard in the last six years to build the image of 7-Eleven ... and rebuild that image. These training programs are not just a put on. They are not mandatory. They are sincere and they are an effort to improve and to be a good neighbor in the community and to build a reputation with the same values that the people here portray and we certainly don't want to be adversaries, however this turns out tonight. That is not our intent for 7-Eleven. That is not how we want to operate the stores we have now. We just hope that, although we are heated about this particular location, that people will be a little more open minded about our locations and try to look to see if there is improvement in how we are operating. The only other point that I have. We did a lot of research in regards to SDM and SDD licenses as far as the granting of them and the changing of the rules at the time. Since 1997 the LLC has been doing a study on what they were going to change in the rules and this is no slight on your ordinance. I understand the importance of your ordinance and proximity I only bring this up as a point of interest. The LLC was very concerned about proximity also. One of the things that has changed is that beer and wine is offered in many more types of stores than used to use and it is very common place, the same as cigarette sales or anything else. It is just a common product that is offered. One of the changes, and these changes are due to come out and be finally approved this summer in the study and they were voted on last month and there are a few changes to go on. What they are trying to concentrate on now rather than the proximity of the licenses is the quality of the operation. How sincere the owners are that operate those businesses in living up to the expectations and values, living up to the training, living up to the protection so our young children aren't able to buy products like tobacco, wine or beer, or any other product we don't want in the hands of our children. That is were the emphasis is on and their emphasis is also going to be on the renewal of those licenses. So they will be constantly monitoring the granting of those licenses from the state and not so much by location. It doesn't do any good if the businesses are a mile apart if they don't have those ethics installed to better promote the betterment of our children. Whether we win or lose tonight, 7-Eleven really is behind what these people are concerned about and it is not a game to us. It is important. Mr. McCann: I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was #8-147-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 1999 on Petition 99-7-2-23 by 7-Eleven Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a convenience store with a SDM license on property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile and Levan Roads in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 17, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-7-2-23 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 17092 requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; r.. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 10.03(g)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a 500 foot separation between SDM licensed establishments; 3) That this area of the City is currently well served with SDM licensed facilities; 4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with surrounding uses in the area; and 5) 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 uses as is being proposed. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-7-8-21 by Leo Soave requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 33611 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads. Presently on this site is a Pella Windows & Door showroom. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 6,800 sq. ft. freestanding multi-tenant commercial building behind and away from the existing structure. The proposed building would set back approximately 275 feet from Plymouth Road and a distance of 55 feet from the residential district to the south. Access to the site would be achieved by the exiting drive off Plymouth Road that currently runs along the east side of the Pella Showroom. The floor plan shows that the new structure would be divided into three lease units with a large warehouse space attached to one of the units. Because of the number of parking spaces proposed for the development, no more than a combined total of four(4) businesses would be allowed to occupy tenant space within both buildings at any one given time. Parking required is 49 spaces and 49 spaces are provided. The Landscape Plan shows that the majority of the proposed landscaping would be located along the rear property line. Plant material would also be installed along the north elevations of the new commercial building. No landscaping modifications are proposed around the existing Pella building. Landscaping required is 15% of the total site and 15% of the site is proposed for landscaping. The Building Elevation Plans note and 17093 show that the new building would be constructed out of Scored Block on all four sides and would have an asphalt singled roof. The window treatments proposed for the building are very unusual for a commercial building in that they are small and narrow. The petitioner explained that because the building would setback so far from Plymouth Road he is worried about security. No color rendering has been submitted at this time. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item of correspondence is a letter from the Plymouth Road Development Authority dated August 10, 1999, which reads as follows: "At the 96th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on August 5, 1999,the following resolution was unanimously adopted: #99-40- RESOLVED that, the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby support he proposed site plan submitted by Leo Soave for property located at 33611 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 for the reasons that the proposed plan will provide for quality site and building development, consistent with City standards. The proposal will make excellent use of undeveloped property and will have a positive impact on the surrounding development of the area. Through the assembly of the vacant parcels of land and the resulting development the local economy will be enhanced,jobs created and additional merchants and shoppers will be attracted to the area, all of which will accrue to the benefit of the district and the City of Livonia. The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, P.R.D.A. Director. The second item of correspondence is a letter from the Engineering Division dated August 2, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time, except to mention that it appears an additional 27' wide right-of- way strip is needed to meet with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The third letter is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated August 5, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 29, 1999, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot will need to be cleaned up, resealed and double striped. (2) Debris, dirt and construction materials need to be removed from the property. (3) The accessible parking as proposed does not meet the code with regard to location and size. As proposed the front building would require one van accessible space and the rear building would require one van accessible space. Van accessible spaces are 8 feet wide with an adjacent 8 foot aisle. Accessible spaces are 8 feet wide an adjacent 5 foot aisle. Multiple entrance buildings require dispersal of the accessible spaces. (4) Landscaping as proposed appears to met minimum requirements as to amount. However, landscape type of materials, irrigation and quantities and sizes of stock are not detailed and should be addressed. (5) This proposal would result in two principal buildings on one piece of property. Therefore, the applicant should be directed to the City Assessor's Office to see if the property must be split. A split may then result in one parcel being deficient in landscaping and would also require ingress and egress easements. (6) No 17094 signage has been reviewed with this proposal. (7) There is a Zoning Grant with regard to signage on the existing commercial building. (8) There may possibly be a land use agreement in regards to parking with Buddy's Pizza that should be clarified. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. The fourth item of correspondence is a letter from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division received in the Planning Department on August 6, 1999 which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal. However, our approval is contingent on the following conditions. (1) Provide a fire hydrant in the vicinity of the proposed new commercial building. (2) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius of up to forty-five feet wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. What I have here is three parcels of property. The first parcel is Pella Window. We bought that about six years ago. The other two properties are a florist, which is 80' x115' and the other parcel is the brake shop which is 80' x 95'. These two parcels are not used by these two other buildings and they meet code without them. What we propose is a 1600 sq. ft. building. The parking meets code with 49 spaces. The landscaping also meets code at 15%. I will answer your questions. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions of the petitioner? Mr. LaPine: What is going to go back there? You've got a warehouse area, an office area and two lease areas. First, let me say, if there is going to be any retail sales in here, they won't be visible from Plymouth Road. Mr. Soave: One of the offices is going to be mine. The other will be used by Pella Window for storage. The third one, I am going to shop it in the paper and see what I can get. Mr. LaPine: Pella Window is the front building. Do you own the building next door? Mr. Soave: All I own is the Pella Window. Mr. LaPine: What about this agreement you have with Buddy Pizza where they are leasing some land and their parking? Mr. Soave They are on a month to month lease and yes sir, when we decided to develop this, they will be left to be on their own. �•► Mr. LaPine: The time when Buddy's needs additional parking is in the evening. But all of your buildings in the rear will be closed in the evening anyway, I would 17095 assume, except you work 24 hours a day looking for these little square parcels that you can build on. But basically everything in the back will be closed at New night, correct? Mr. Soave: Right. All I need is space to park one truck at the end of the day. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Shane: The easement with Buddy's Pizza, there is an access easement now, is that right? Mr. Soave: There is no easement. There is just a right to use it. Mr. Shane: A right to use it? What happens when the right to use it is gone? Does Buddy's Pizza still have a way to get in and out? Mr. Soave: The driveway that we have is 25 feet. Their approach is east of the driveway that we have now but they have a 20 foot area that they park on, of which they pay a monthly rent. Once we develop this property, that will stop. They will have to park in their own parking lot. If I get into that, like Mr. LaPine says, we close at 5 or 6:00 p.m. we are out of there. Most of their business is at night anyhow so they could park there if they wanted to. Mr. Shane: I was just concerned they were going to be left deficient or without access to the property. Mr. Soave: I think they are legal without the property in the rear. I think they meet code without the property. Mr. Shane: Is this by and large an office building? Mr. Soave: It is my office. Part of my office is going to be used for storage for my building material and part of that building is going to be for Pella for their products. Mr. Shane: It doesn't sound like there will be retail sales in this building in which case the parking requirement probably isn't going to be as much as it normally would from a practical standpoint. The building, is there a reason why you have the little tiny windows as opposed to something a little larger? Mr. Soave: Yes sir, that is a good question. Part of my reason for that is that we are sitting back off the road behind a bunch of buildings and that is more like a security idea than anything else. But if you think I need bigger windows, that is no problem. Mr. Shane: How are you going to advertise that you are back there? Mr. Soave: That has been in the back of my head since we tried this. Probably a wall sign or whatever sign we decide upon since it is a control area we have to come 17096 back in front of the Planning Commission to get your approval. We've got different ideas and we'll come with a few ideas and hope you will approve one r.. of them. Mr. Shane: To the staff. Is it true that they can't have a free standing sign? Mr. Miller: Yes, because Pella Window has no front yard set back, they are not allowed a ground sign for either building. Mr. Shane: What if the property were split? Mr. Miller: The easement would probably take up the entire drive and there would be no place to put it. Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Everyone asked about the windows. With the windows being so small, I can understand why you would want it back there but it kind of puts out an alarm. Are there going to be any kids back there breaking in. This is this going to be like warehouse type thing, an office building, I don't think that would happen. I would like to see, if possible,just a little bigger window. I have no problem with the buildings in the back there. I think it is good for the City and of course, good for you. The building looks all right and I am not against the scored block because you are 250 feet in the back. It's not like being right on top of Plymouth Road. The florist in the front, The Purple Rose, does she own that property? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: She owns that property. Then you bought the remaining in the back from her? Mr. Soave: It is under option. I haven't bought it yet. Mr. Alanskas: Then you own the property where Pella Windows is? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. I was just wondering. Like I said at our study, I saw her about two months ago and she said she thought she might possibly want to try to buy the Pella Window building where she would be closer to Plymouth Road and sell the entire parcel. Mr. Soave: I don't know anything about that. Nobody has told me anything. Mr. Alanskas: How many feet is this building going to be set back from the neighbors? Mr. Soave: It's about 55 feet, is that right? Mr. Miller: Yes. 17097 Mr. Soave: 55 feet from the front of the line but then you've got another 30 feet in to the .,,. closest house. Mr. Alanskas: Then there is going to be a wall back there? Mr. Soave: The wall is existing, yes sir. The wall is there already. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Soave, I'm just looking at your plan and your dumpster is way over to the west side of the building and way back. A garbage truck is going to come down here and pick it up, and what does he have to do, how is he going to back around here somehow so he can drive back out? There is no way he can go around. I am just curious how he is going to get out. Mr. Soave: At the end of that drive, we've got 95 feet to turn around in because we are building anything on that. Mr. LaPine: You mean back over here? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. The other thing is we are behind a bunch of buildings and we are trying to utilize whatever we can to make it feasible. Mr. LaPine: It looks like you are putting a lot here on this property. O.K. Nair Mr. McCann: I have a couple of questions and concerns. Because you are abutting a residential area, both you and Pella will be storing materials. Will Pella be assembling windows in that building? Mr. Soave: No sir. Mr. McCann: There will be no manufactured windows in that area? Mr. Soave: No sir. Mr. McCann: Just storage? Mr. Soave: You can make that part of the agreement. Mr. McCann: The other thing, the storage of your equipment, what type of equipment. I imagine in your industry you are up before the dawn and late at night. What kind of equipment is going to be coming in and out of there? Mr. Soave: If I get a good deal on windows, I would like to be able to put them in there. It's not like I am going to go in there late at night and start up our equipment. We are not going to do that. 17098 Mr. McCann: I am more concerned about 5:30 in the morning. Are you going to have bulldozers or tractors? Mr. Soave: No sir, that is not going to be that type of building. Mr. McCann: Just pickup trucks? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #8-148-99 RESOVLED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-7-8-21 by Leo Soave requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 33611 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, as received by the Planning Commission on July 29. 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, as received by the Planning Commission on July 30, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, as received by the Planning Commission on July 29, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same material used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 7) That no more than a combined total of four(4) businesses shall be allowed to occupy tenant space within both buildings at any one given time; 17099 8) That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 feet in height; law 9) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated August 5, 1999: - that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped - that the required accessible parking spaces shall be installed according to the current Boca Codes 10) That the petitioner shall correct to the Department of Public Safety's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence received by the Planning Commission on August 6, 1999: - that a fire hydrant be provided in the vicinity of the new commercial building - that adequate turning radiuses and vertical clearances be provided on the site 11) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 12) Larger (picture type) windows shall be installed on the new building to the satisfaction of the Planning Department; 13) There shall be strict adherence to the ordinance in terms of the permitted uses and there shall be no manufacturing or outdoor storage permitted on this site. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Greenbelt Review Application by Dr. James A. Marcoux, on behalf of Marcoux Chiropractic, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 15825 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Middlebelt between Five Mile and Puritan. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between an office zoned property and a residentially zoned property. According to the City Law Department, when a protective wall is required a property owner has one of three choices. To either install the wall, obtain a temporary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or have the wall permanently waived by the substitution of a greenbelt. Such substitution shall be subject to approval by the Planning 17100 Commission and/or City Council. The applicant is requesting that the existing natural greenbelt along their west (rear) property line be accepted as ow- an appropriate substitution. The area in question is 29 feet in depth and 100 feet wide. In a letter that accompanied the site plan the applicant explains that the greenbelt provides a much preferred natural barrier between this office and the Woodhaven Retirement Community that is located approximately 1/4 mile behind this property. Mr. McCann: We received a fax letter from the petitioner dated August 10, 1999, which reads as follows: "Livonia Planning Board - I have a conflict tonight which will make me unable to attend the meeting on the greenbelt issue. To night we are celebrating my daughter's 13th birthday and I don't want her alone at the movie theater. The meeting at Livonia City Hall is at 7:30, but I need to be with my daughter. She is unable to celebrate her real birthday on August 15th because she lives with her mom in Grand Rapids. I am going to Paraguay in the next few days to be a team director for the missions, therefore, I am asking if you could pass the greenbelt issue or table it until I get back in the middle of September." Is there a motion? On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #8-149-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Greenbelt Review Application by Dr. James A. Marcoux, on behalf of Marcoux Chiropractic, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 15825 Middlebelt Road in the southeast 1/4 of Section 14 be tabled to a date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 790th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 10, 1999 was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • Michael Hale, Secretary ATTEST: Jai'nes C. McCann, Chairman /rw