HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-08-13 15094
MINUTES OF THE 729th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
',taw LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 13, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 729th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with
approximately 60 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Robert Alanskas R. Lee Morrow
Patricia Blomberg R. Lee Morrow
Members absent: James C. McCann William LaPine
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott
Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
pow which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The
Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating
petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-1-14 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #459-96, proposing
to rezone 57,000 sq. ft. of vacant land located adjacent to and immediately west of
Exhibit Works, Inc. on Merriman Road between Industrial Road and Glendale
Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 from PL to M-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, since the City is the petitioner in this case would you give us
some background please as to how this matter came about and also tell
us whether we have any correspondence regarding this petition.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
15095
As the agenda item indicates this was initiated by a Council resolution.
`w The property was formerly owned by the City of Livonia. That is why
it is zoned in the Public Lands zoning classification. The City has
determined to sell this property to Exhibit Works. For that reason the
Public Lands limitation for the land use is no longer appropriate. The
property was purchased for use as part of an industrial complex and as
such they asked for, and it is only appropriate, that the zoning be
changed to allow for their intended use of the property, the basis upon
which they purchased it. That is the purpose for the zoning change so
as to be consistent with the surrounding zoning of the area as well as
the special zoning of the property owner.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, has the City Council approved the sale of this property?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they have.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-7-1-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-146-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
13, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-7-1-14 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #459-96, proposing to
rezone 57,000 sq. ft. of vacant land located adjacent to and immediately west
of Exhibit Works, Inc. on Merriman Road between Industrial Road and
Glendale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 from PL to M-2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
96-7-1-14 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan designation for the property of"Industrial"; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the intended use of
the property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
15096
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-1-15 by
the City Planning Commission, proposing to rezone property located at 19810
Farmington Road and 19730 Farmington Road in the West 1/2 of Section 3 from
OS and R-3A to R-C or R-9.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy do we have correspondence regarding this petition, and once
you have dealt with that, would you also explain briefly how this
petition came about?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Just like the previous petition, this too has been initiated pursuant to a
Council resolution that asked the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing on the question of whether or not the existing zoning of Office
Services and Residential in the R-3A zoning classification, should or
should not be changed to a more appropriate zoning classification, and
they suggest either R-9, Residential Housing for the Elderly, or RC,
which is Residential Condominium. The purpose for this hearing is to
hear public comment as to whether or not it is appropriate to make
such a zoning change. The Planning Commission does not have a
predetermined plan for the area other than to hear public comment as
to the advisability whether such a zoning change is appropriate for the
property.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the landowner or landowner's representative here this evening?
Agent for owner of property stated he was in attendance to hear the comments.
Mark Brookman, 19538 Westmore: I was curious what their plans were for this property.
Mr. Engebretson: We don't know. We, the City, are initiating this petition to consider
changing it to a residential classification, and that is what we are
considering here tonight. You heard Mr. Nagy say that the two options
being considered tonight are RC, which is Residential Condominium
class of ownership, which could be either attached or detached homes,
or R-9 zoning, which would be senior citizen housing.
Mr. Brookman: I am not opposed to either of those. I was just curious if they had any
more planned than just changing the zoning.
15097
Mr. Engebretson: When you say they, do you refer to the landowner or the City?
Mr. Brookman: The owners.
Mr. Engebretson: Well we don't know but we are going to hear from the owner's
representative later this evening. This came about as a result of the
Planning Commission being directed by the City Council to hold this
public hearing, so we are taking public comment, as Mr. Nagy
indicated, to try to come to a determination whether or not the zoning
change is appropriate, and if so, which of these two or what
combination should it be. That is what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Brookman: That will be determined at a later date?
Mr. Engebretson: There is a long process involved in this sir. This is the beginning of it.
After our public hearing, if we can reach a conclusion to either
recommend that it should be changed or not be changed, then the
matter goes to the City Council automatically, and they will schedule
their own public hearing. They will conduct a public hearing, and then
at the conclusion of their public hearing, they have direction as to
whether or not it should be rezoned, then they will set it up on one of
their regular agendas for that vote. They may choose to put it in a
4111., committee to study it further. There are many things that can happen.
This is the very first step, and there would probably be as many as three
to four of these types of meetings before this matter is resolved.
Mr. Brookman: The residents in the area will be informed of each of those?
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, because of a zoning change, can you tell us what the extent
is of notice being given to neighbors?
Mr. Nagy: It is the City policy to send notices to all the property owners within
500 feet of the affected area, notice by common mail, and after the
initial notification, the only other official notification you would get, to
the same extent as the Planning Commission has given you notice, is
when the Council hears the matter. Generally it has been the policy
after that,that those who have spoke at the public hearing when the
Commission tables the matter to future studies, those that spoke will be
contacted again and invited to those study meetings.
Mr. Engebretson: To clarify, in case there is any confusion there, the Planning
Commission may or may not act on this tonight, and as Mr. Nagy said,
if for any reason we do not act on it tonight, you will be notified
because you came and gave us your name and address. The way you
15098
would be assured of being kept in the process here would be to call the
City Council office and get your name on file with them relative to this
�.. petition so when they deal with it, they can give you notice, as we will
if we set it up for another meeting.
Mark Zagata, 19970 Mayfield: My question is we have considerable problems with JC
Park soccer traffic. Is this going to include any type of access City
road that will connect Farmington with the park?
Mr. Engebretson: The only thing we are dealing with here tonight sir is the matter of
zoning. Whatever that road system would look like in there if the
zoning change occurred, if a site were planned and brought through the
process, it is at that time that we would deal with the roads, but my
guess would be that it is unlikely that roads would go on through to the
area you are concerned about, but that is just speculation.
Mr. Zagata: It is basically up to the developer then?
Mr. Engebretson: No sir. What would happen, if the zoning change occurs, this is the
long process I was describing, the next thing that would happen would
be that the land would be platted for the layout of streets and
infrastructure and the location of homes that would be built, the
disposition of existing buildings, etc. That is another long process.
This is a process that can take many months. It can take a year or
more. As you heard earlier, we are just beginning. I don't know how
to answer you any clearer than that. I am not trying to deflect the
importance of your question. It is just that we are not really even
permitted to get into those kinds of issues during this phase of the
process. It is defined by ordinance and by law as to when the City
deals with those issues.
Mr. Zagata: Will there be subsequent hearings?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes sir. That assumes that the zoning change occurs. If the zoning
change occurs, that would then be the next series of steps. If the
zoning change does not occur, then, of course, it all stops and stays the
way it is.
Seeing no one else to speak on this issue, we will call on the
landowner's representative.
Phillip Wojtowicz:I am with McNabnay& Associates, 21 East Long Lake, Bloomfield
Hills: We are commercial realtors. The owners appreciate that they be
notified of all subsequent hearings. When we first heard of this, it was
really from one of the neighbors that indicated to me that indeed there
15099
was some movement abroad to change the zoning. I asked the
Planning Department to notify me. They did, and I appreciate that. I
ti.. appreciate any further notice of hearings on this issue. I can assure you
that the owners are acting diligently to attract a positive use for this
land and we have done mailings on a national basis to attract a positive
user for the property and we are continuing to do so. What the needs
for in the zoning of such possible uses of the future, I cannot say at this
time although it seems it should be consistent with the zoning as it is
stated right now or as you are requesting, or even surrounding zoning.
I can't tell you that the owners are in agreement with this because we
don't know who the possible future owner or user of the property
would be, but we are trying to attract a very positive user who may end
up coming to you for a rezoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Can you tell us sir what kind of positive uses you are discussing with
these prospectus?
Mr. Wojtowicz: We have had a lot of attention, on both the local and national level, for
assisted living, and we have been pursuing with some of these
individuals. We have shown it a number of times, both on the local and
national levels for that use. I have had discussions with state and
private organizations, especially in light of the charter schools that are
happening in Michigan and around the nation right now. In my mind, it
'`., would be an excellent site for a charter school, especially one that
would be attractive to folks all around the midwest. That hasn't gone
very far but I do show that for my publicity as one of the possible uses
for the land.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you accustomed to doing business in Livonia sir?
Mr. Wojtowicz: I have done business in Livonia in the past and all around southeast
Michigan. We do not limit ourselves to a geographical area.
Mr. Engebretson: The only reason I am asking, and I really don't mean to be dominating
this meeting, anyone else that wants to come in, I will be glad to yield
the floor, but the zoning, as I am sure you are well aware, is office, and
the waiver use that was in place on this property for its previous use
has long expired and is no longer a permitted use for the same type of
use that it last had, and I am not referring to the short-term, temporary
use. I am referring to the permanent use prior to that. The reason for
asking if you were acquainted with Livonia real estate businesses, is
that if you are, fine. If you aren't, then I would suggest that you
obtain, from our staff, the relative copies of the zoning ordinance that
would be important for you to understand, so you don't go out and
expend a lot of energy, time and perhaps money, only to recruit a user
15100
that was totally incompatible to and not in harmony with that
neighborhood based on our ordinance. It would be well advised for
r+.. you to do that. That is the spirit in which I was making the inquiry, and
I suggest that you do that at your earliest convenience. We will be
happy to supply you with whatever documentation would be helpful to
you.
Mr. Wojtowicz: I have been in touch with some of your staff
Mr. Engebretson: I have a letter here that I would like to read into the record. It is a brief
letter dated July 31, 1996 from Edward and Kimberly Naccashian who
are unable to be here tonight due to the pending joyous occasion of
their first baby so they are making their thoughts known as follows:
Thank you for the informative letter regarding Petition 96-7-1-15. As
you are aware, we are still very concerned with the intended use of this
property.
Two years have passed since Boysville occupied the Ardmore property.
We wonder why such a prime piece of Livonia land still remains
unoccupied. We are happy to see a change in zoning as long as the
change does not limit the chances of occupancy. We sincerely
appreciate all attempts to resolve this situation and hope the property
will soon be occupied and making a positive contribution to our City.
During several conversations with Phil Wojtowicz (Ardmore Realtor),
he said he has shown the property numerous times within the past two
years. We have offered several suggestions for buyers including the
Jehovah's Witness of Livonia, the Gilda Radner Hospice Center,
Livonia YMCA, Safe Haven for Battered Women, a Senior Hospice,
Senior Center with a Child Care Facility. Also, residential housing on
the south piece of property.
We hope this matter will soon be resolved.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to make a few comments. Given the choice the City
Council has given us between and RC and an R-9, as one
Commissioner I favor the Residential Condominium for several
reasons. One reason is the R-9, which is senior housing, the City just
recently acquired some land on Newburgh to landbank future senior
citizen housing. The other reason is residential condominiums seem to
be scarce in Livonia. As we all know, we are kind of a maturing
community, and we have an abundance of residential properties
currently being built but as the people decide to move from their single
family homes into a condominium setting, particularly in the northwest
15101
section, there is really nothing available for them coming on stream, and
they will be faced with selling their single family home and possible
,., moving out of Livonia. We certainly don't want to lose them. This is
based on a mini survey that I made. I have had a number of people
come to me and ask what is the status of condominiums in that
particular section of the City. As I see it this is an opportunity to move
in that direction. As was stated in Naccashian's letter, they did make
reference to a prime piece of property and after site checking it a
number of times, in my estimation it is a prime piece of property
because it does border a flood plain and it does border the park and
there are a lot of opportunities. My concern, not necessarily a concern,
but if it is developed into a residential condominium setting, I wouldn't
want a developer coming in and coming up with the very minimum type
of development. When I say minimum I mean maximizing the number
of units. My view would be to perhaps table this so we can initially
change our Master Plan, which currently is not low density residential,
and if I may ask the staff, what does the current Master Plan show for
this property?
Mr. Nagy: It reflects the established zoning on the property.
Mr. Morrow: Office zoning, the whole area?
`.., Mr. Nagy: The whole area is office.
Mr. Morrow: Then perhaps we could consider an ordinance, as we do in residential,
you see R-3A on your agenda, the A makes reference to the size of the
unit that could be built as far as the square footage, and we have an A,
B and C. We do not have that with the Residential Condominium,
which I think would be a way of controlling the larger type of
condominiums in that particular area. Mr. Chairman, that is my
comment.
Mr. Alanskas: I concur with Mr. Morrow. This is almost 24 acres and I think it needs
more study. I go along with that.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to offer a tabling resolution to date uncertain while we
have a chance to study it, and at that time bring it back so we can act
on it and send it to the City Council after we have had more time to
consider this piece of property. I certainly want to go on record at an
early stage on moving to change the Master Plan so that any
development in that area would see a low density residential type of
development.
15102
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-7-1-15 closed.
vsair
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-147-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
13, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-7-1-15 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #398-96, proposing to
rezone property located at 19810 Farmington Road and 19730 Farmington
Road in the West 1/2 of Section 3 from OS and R-3A to R-C or R-9, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 96-6-1-15 to
date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-2-22 by
Bonnie Scott for St. Michael Catholic School requesting waiver use approval
to construct an addition to an existing private school located south of Plymouth
Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 34.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office will require additional information relative to the status of
the on-site sewer system. They state their office has been in contact
with the petitioner's architect in this regard. We have also received a
letter from the Fire Marshal stating his office has no objections to this
proposal. We have received a letter from the Inspection Department
stating the proposed addition to the existing school building will not
change the parking requirements that currently exist, nor will it create
any additional deficiencies for this site.
On August 7th this department received a letter from the Traffic
Bureau which reads as follows: The Livonia Police Department Traffic
Bureau has reviewed the new parking plan submitted on July 30, 1996.
The new parking plan includes the paved area which is currently
designated as a play area, located on the southern most area of the site
plan. The Traffic Bureau recommends the two basketball poles which
15103
are located within the parking area site plan be removed to avoid any
conflicts of vehicles attempting to park within this area. The parking
`. plan within this area should also include parking blocks along the east
and west fence line due to their close proximity to the sidewalks which
run north and south parallel to the fence line.
Located on the west side of Hubbard south from the sidewalk nearest
Plymouth Road (in front of the Church) is an area which is currently
paved (blacktopped). This area is currently controlled by a PCO #48
(October 4, 1962) which states No Parking or Standing and is affixed
to an electrical pole. This PCO designates no parking or standing in
the blacktopped area mentioned above. It is the Traffic Bureau's
recommendation that this area which is paved be removed up to the
established roadway(Hubbard) and be replaced with grass/landscape of
low elevation not to interfere with sight lines. This recommendation is
made based on the probability of traffic parking at this location and
interfering and creating a hazard with other motorists turning south
onto Hubbard from Plymouth. Motorists backing out if parked at this
location would most likely result in a crash with southbound Hubbard
traffic from Plymouth due to their short distance from Plymouth Road.
This recommendation would only eliminate 11 parking spaces per the
site plan. The Traffic Bureau would not object to a single space
located immediately in front of the wide sidewalk which leads up the
entrance of the church. This single space could be used for the
temporary loading/unloading during weddings, funerals, etc. Should
the Planning Department have any questions regarding these
recommendations please contact the Traffic Bureau.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Bonnie Scott: I represent St. Michael Catholic School. I have a couple colored
renderings. (She presented the plans) The existing gymnasium will be
removed and replaced by this addition. The reason the petitioner wants
to go through this is the existing gymnasium right now does not service
their needs, and this would be a new gymnasium to fit their
requirements for their sports program and also a cafeteria.
Mr. Morrow: I assume it is going to be brick?
Ms. Scott: Yes it is. The existing building is brick right now and the addition will
be to match that, not a dramatic change but to keep the same
architectural style and to match the brick.
Mr. Morrow: As close as you can.
15104
Ms. Scott: Exactly.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any roof top units?
Ms. Scott: At this time there are not. It is planned right now to have a boiler room
with an air handler contained within that to service the whole building
not in different portions of it. If there are any air handlers to be placed
on the roof, they will be screened by the parapet wall.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make sure they would be screened.
Ms. Scott: Right now the only place that may occur would be in the gymnasium.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any additional lighting connected to this project as it relates to
the parking lot or anything that might interfere with the surrounding
residential?
Ms. Scott: Yes there is. If this is approved, we recommend that there be
additional lighting placed in the back, which we would like to work
with the City as far as the location and how it should be handled.
Mr. Morrow: I guess our stipulation would have to be if we can move this forward
without a schematic, it would have to be in keeping with what we
require as far as height and the fact it is downlit and establish the hours
of operation. I am not sure how we would handle that but I think it is
something that should be addressed as part of our resolution.
Mr. Alanskas: Can you give us a rough idea that when and if we did this, how many
days you would be near capacity for parking?
Ms. Scott: I may have to ask the owner to answer that question.
Father Bondy, Parish Pastor of St. Michael: Sunday during mass because we do not use
the gym until the afternoon. We never use the gym simultaneous with
the masses.
Mr. Alanskas: At the present time you don't have a capacity problem as far as
parking?
Father Bondy: No we don't.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you expect that to happen with the new addition?
Father Bondy: No I do not. I would like to add not only would that help our needs
and also the needs of the Rosedale Homeowners Association because
15105
now and then they do use our facility but also as Ms. Scott pointed out
in the first drawing, we have three buildings and this would connect it
,ftp• and that aesthetically would be more harmonious and better for the
neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Christopher Martin, 11037 Hubbard: A question for Mr. Nagy. On that parking plan Mr.
Nagy, you had specified curb blocks on the east and west. Is that the
way it was? Why not to the south? Under Section 13.07 Curbs, it
reads necessary curbs or other protection against damage to adjoining
properties. I have had my fence run into many times because there are
no curb blocks there.
Mr. Nagy: I think it would be a simple matter to also require curbs along the south
property line as well.
Mr. Martin: I would hope so because I would be asking you, at this time, since they
are razing a building and renovating, that the parking lots be brought
up to the existing codes relating to off-street parking, and you and I
have spoken about that many times.
Mr. Engebretson: I think to move pass this particular point that the issue was raised by
Noy the Police Department not by the Planning Department. You raise a
valid point and it is one we can deal with very readily. The Police
Department concerns themselves basically with health, safety and
welfare issues, and if we find there may be some other reasons to
consider similar techniques to protect property and/or health, safety and
welfare issues that may not be so obvious.
Mr. Martin: Before the evening is over I will give each of you a package of the off-
street parking requirements. I would like to take just a minute prior to
doing that. This is the original map, a copy, back from 1961 when the
church was first built. Let me say I have been a resident of Rosedale
Gardens all my life, attended school here and I am familiar with what is
there. On this particular parking plan that was submitted for the City
Planning Department at the time, there are many inconsistencies with it.
Mr. Engebretson: What is the date of that plan sir?
Mr. Martin: This plan of the church was submitted in 1961. I have been waiting 35
years to have these ordinances enforced, and I have heard all kinds of
excuses but let me just give you one pertinent one at this point. As far
as cars, at the particular time this church was built, they had seating for
15106
1212 people. They had to have enough parking for that. The majority
of the parking lots that are listed on this map have been grossly
`.. exaggerated. An example I can give you. There are 70 cars that they
say can be parked directly south of the church. In reality there are 45
and 8 handicap. NBD Bank, they list as 44. There are 26 and 2
handicap. The very most southern parking lot they list as 260. At the
very most, taking down those basketball backstops you referred to, 160
cars. What we have here is we have gone from what they are claiming
to be parking for 412 cars down to 270 with 12 handicap. I have had a
very hard time getting this map. Let me assure you of that. I have
constantly been told they had been lost in the flood. Any time false
information, and it is right in this handbook, Mr. Nagy knows, I am
sure, I have had to go over and read them very carefully, any time false
information is given, I know it is never going to happen in this business,
but you can revoke their occupancy permit. I know that is never going
to happen. It might to the small guy but it will never happen to a
powerful entity like St. Michael's Parish. There are inconsistencies.
There should be a brick wall there that we talked about numerous
times, Mr. Nagy and myself, to provide protection. I have a letter
dated 1969 where the school admits and asks the City Council at the
time to increase that height to 12 feet when in reality they could have
put up a wall 5 to 7 feet and I would have been happy with that 7 foot
wall. Who, on this panel, wants to have a child come up and spit on
your dog? Raise your hand. Anyone here? Who wants to have rocks
``" thrown at your house? Anyone here? These things occur. I am telling
you the exact truth. Later on, I would like to give you all the off-street
parking zoning ordinances. They are very easy to read. It is not that
boring. I would like you to read it because only when I bring up the
question, will then Mr. Nagy change and have it be the correct answer.
Later on I can give it to you.
Mr. Engebretson: We all have copies of the zoning ordinance so we really don't need to
take advantage of your offer.
Mr. Martin: I have made them up for you. I would be glad to give them to you.
Mr. Engebretson: We will be glad to take them. I would just like to tell you sir that you
must be one of the most patient people.
Mr. Martin: I am doing this not only for myself, I went to school there from 59 to
67 and I witnessed how my grandmother, who was the prior owner of
that house, was treated. I am doing this not only for myself. I am still
a young guy and can take a lot of it from some of these children but I
am basically doing it for her. She was an old woman and could not
defend herself. The ironic thing about it also, is that there are monitors
15107
out there to prevent instances of vandalism. I tried to take one to
court. I had over $300 damage to the windshield of my truck. I went
to court. The ruling was made that the school is not responsible, none
of the people supervising the children are responsible. Only the parent
is responsible. How can you have that in that type of environment
where the parent is responsible? I went over immediately when that
occurred and I notified one of the monitors over there. I have a lot of
patience. I will give you all, before the night is over, those ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson: We will be happy to receive whatever material you have. I would just
add before going to Mr. Piercecchi that while we are very much
interested in the process of going from 1961 to 1996, what we are
going to really focus on is 1996.
Mr. Martin: I understand but you have to realize they have been in non-compliance
since that date.
Mr. Engebretson: I think your point has been well made.
Mr. Piercecchi: This wall that you spoke of, is that between Fairfield and Hubbard?
Mr. Martin: There is no wall there sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: The one you said they wanted to put in?
V..
Mr. Martin: They had first requested to put up a fence. This is their only admission
that they could not protect abutting residential property, but in the
zoning code there is a stipulation for that protective wall. Mr. Nagy
wants to disagree with me on it but it is there. Any time you raze or
alter a building, you comply with the ordinances on the book now.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, in the case of a church, it is not my recollection that walls
are required.
Mr. Nagy: That is correct. The underlying zoning is residential.
Mr. Martin: Off-street parking is in residential. That brick wall can be placed in
every area regardless if it is residential, professional services,
commercial, industrial.
Mr. Engebretson: There is a big difference between can be and is required.
Mr. Martin: It is required.
15108
Mr. Engebretson: It is our interpretation that in the use of this land and the zoning of this
land, it is not required but perhaps we can ask our Legal Department to
`.• get on more solid ground.
Mr. Martin: The Legal Department has been asked in the past and these are the
excuses I have heard (1) that has been a long time ago and (2) are you
a parish member? Which I found what does that have to do with
anything? I am a taxpayer.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't hear anyone here asking you any of those questions.
Mr. Martin: I thank them for that but that is not the way it is in the City. I have
lived here all my life. So have my parents, since 1940.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much for coming sir and we will be happy to receive
your packets.
Mr. Martin: I will be waiting after the meeting to have a chat with you.
Mr. Engebretson: We probably won't have any chats. If we have any chats it will be at a
public meeting just like this one.
Mr. Martin: That is the best because there is no hiding. It is out in the open.
*ft" Mr. Engebretson: That is the only way we operate sir. All our meetings are open.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-7-2-22 closed.
Mr. Alanskas: Due to some information we received this evening in regards to
parking, I would like to offer a tabling resolution until September 10 to
study this further.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#8-148-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
August 13, 1996 on Petition 96-7-2-22 by Bonnie Scott for St. Michael
Catholic School requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to
an existing private school located south of Plymouth Road between
Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
96-7-2-22 until the study meeting of September 10, 1996.
15109
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
,,r #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Engebretson, Piercecchi
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: McCann, LaPine
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, will you please get one of these packets off to our Legal
Department to make sure we have covered all the bases. I don't feel
adequate to interpret all these matters.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-6-3 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#138-96,
proposing to amend Section 18.58(a) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to
site plan approval in all OS, C-1 and C-2 zoned property, and general office
buildings located in ML, M-1 and M-2 districts.
Mr. Engebretson: Obviously, this comes to us again from a Council resolution. Mr. Nagy
slow
could you comment briefly on the intent there.
Mr. Nagy: The purpose for the proposed amendment is to require that site plans
with respect to all development, regardless of the size of the
development, whether it be in the office service classification or the
commercial classification, either in the C-1, C-2 or C-3 designation,
those site plans would be reviewed at the Planning Commission level
with a recommendation for the City Council for their approval, as well
as offices that might fall within the manufacturing classifications of ML,
M-1 or M-2. Those site plans, again, would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council.
Currently the ordinance, as it is presently structured, says that with
respect to office sites two acres or less, those site plans, outside of
specially designated control areas, are reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission, and does not require being concurred in by the
City Council, and there is a five acre site limitation with respect to
commercial developments where the Planning Commission would have
the sole authority to review and approve site plans. That limitation of
two acres and five acres would be eliminated and all plans would then
go on to the Council for their concurrence.
15110
Mr. Engebretson: Since the City again is the petitioner in this matter, we will go
immediately to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
yy for or against this proposal.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any statistics on the number of instances where
there are petitions that are acted upon within the framework of these
two zoning districts that have these size limitations as to how many
issues fit that profile versus the number that automatically go on to the
City Council?
Mr. Nagy: Yes we do. We would be happy to share it with you. It is an easy
matter. We distinguish those in the petition process in the site plan
where there is the suffix letter "P" at the end. We know those were
heard only on the Planning Commission level versus those that went on
to City Council. So it is just a matter of reviewing the record. We can
get that for you quite readily.
Mr. Engebretson: I know that having watched the City Council meeting last night, which
went into the wee hours, I think they may have even beat some of our
records, it has always been my impression that this process has one of
the benefits of keeping the City Council involved, of course, in all the
big issues but have the relatively insignificant issues dealt with
New here,realizing that they have more important issues to deal with and
many more of them. We may deal with six, seven or ten and twelve
items, while they deal with 40 to 50. Anyway, I think there could be a
lot of ways of interpreting whether this is a good or bad thing but it
sounds like we need to take some time to find out better what the
history has been.
Mr. Nagy: We can easily develop that for you.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make Mr. Chairman, we are minus the
Chairman and another Commissioner and I think this is something that
they might have something to share with us as it relates to this matter
and I would like to have a full Commission present when we finally act
on this.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-6-6-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
15111
#8-149-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on August 13, 1996 on Petition 96-6-6-3 by the City
,` Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#138-96, proposing to
amend Section 18.58(a) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to site plan
approval in all OS, C-1 and C-2 zoned property, and general office buildings
located in ML, M-1 and M-2 districts, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 96-6-6-3 to date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
Approval for Castle Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the south
side of Lyndon between Newburgh and Stonehouse in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 19.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Nur Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation
stating they find no discrepancies in the plat as it has been proposed.
We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they
have no objections to this plan as submitted. They do recommend the
installation of stop signs on Huff and Huff Court, establishing right of
way for Lyndon Street. Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal
stating they have no objections to the proposed subdivision. However,
the cul-de-sac should accommodate responding fire apparatus having
the inside turning radius of 26 ft. and an outside turning radius of 36 ft.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have recommended to the platting engineer that the island
area within the Huff Court right-of-way be revised as shown on their
sketch. This, in turn, reflects on the alignment of the front lot line of
Lot 4. Subject to the above revision, their office had no objections to
the proposed layout.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Ernie Bourassa: I am President of Ashley Construction Company. We are in for a
rezoning. We intend to put a nice cul-de-sac in off of Lyndon Avenue.
It is going to be nine lots. We will be trying to maintain all the trees
that we can. There are a number of large trees on the site. The
15112
property has a house and about four to five outbuildings in the back
from the dog kennels, which we are planning on removing and having
the area cleaned up.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to pick on you Mr. Bourassa, you said you were here for a
rezoning. For anyone at home that might be interested, the zoning has
been changed. You are looking for a plat.
Mr. Bourassa: I wasn't referring to me looking for that. I was just saying when I was
here before.
Mr. Engebretson: I know you have been through the process many times and that you are
very familiar with it. The comment wasn't directed toward you. It was
just to avoid any confusion with someone in the audience.
Mr. Alanskas: John, do we have what we need for the turnaround?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. Our City engineer did contact the platting engineer, Mr. Priest,
and the court has been revised accordingly reflecting the appropriate
radius spanning the island area.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this preliminary plat.
`ft.. Bob Pachota, 14315 Richfield: This is a lot in the Castle Woods Subdivision. I was out
of town for the last meeting when they went through the rezoning but
my wife did show up, and I thought I wanted to come by and give my
own personal comments to you. The one thing you mentioned to my
wife was coming into our subdivision to review the plat, you got your
car dirty, and you wanted a car wash. I don't want our subdivision to
get a bad reputation so you don't have to come in there any more.
Mr. Engebretson: And you and I both know there is a road that we travel that is a lot
worse than this one.
Mr. Pachota: The second comment is in regards to the attitude of the Planning
Commission about dog kennels. Most everybody in our subdivision
have dogs and there have been some comments made that we should be
glad the dog kennels are going. That is one of the reasons we live there
because we all own dogs and like large lots. I would like to make it
clear that everybody likes to live wherever they want to live for certain
reasons, and I don't think comments about dog kennels should be
derogatory. I grew up in Livonia. As a matter of fact I went to St.
Michael's School in Livonia in 1947. The church was there before the
subdivisions were there. I used to go hunting where City Hall is now.
15113
There were about 6,000 people in the City of Livonia so I enjoyed
having seen the growth of the City and our forefathers doing a great
job planning it. I just hope you can follow the same tradition as our
`"" forefathers because it is a beautiful City and that is why I still live here.
I do have a business in Livonia and love the City. The purpose of being
here is that when you start out in the subdivision plotting, Mr. Bourassa
started out with 12 lots. He is now down to nine and that is because of
certain deed restrictions we have in that subdivision. My purpose here
is just to make sure those deed restrictions, and I know this is not part
of the Planning Commission's rules. In other words, in the City of
Livonia evidently you don't have anything to do with deed restrictions.
There are some cities that do have a consideration in the Planning
Commission that they maintain a builder, or whoever, conform to the
deed restrictions before they even come to the Planning Commission.
Livonia doesn't do that. I think that would be a very progressive
suggestion, and save a lot of time and aggravation. I have had
numerous conversations with Ernie to say Ernie do you realize that
what is approved here won't fly no matter what the Planning
Commission says because of these deed restrictions, and he is a very
gracious, wonderful, fellow that changed his subdivision from 12 lots
down to 9 to conform to the subdivision, which is like our forefathers.
The deed restrictions were good planning. There is nothing wrong
with them now. We have the right not to allow the small lots and part
of the deed restrictions, and I am sure Ernie has a copy of them. What
``•r I want to point out for the Commission and to put it on the record is
that each house has to have a two-car garage. There are certain
setbacks and side yards. I think Ernie that R-3 conforms to what is in
the deed restrictions as far as setbacks and side yards. They are pretty
minimal, 10 foot side yards, so I don't think that is a problem. The one
thing is that no residential lot in our subdivision be less than 14,000 sq.
ft. The plan that I saw, the minimum lot was 14,000 sq. ft. but now
you are talking about a different copy of the subdivision John because
they changed the cul-de-sac. Does that change any of the lots?
Mr. Nagy: It was internal within the right-of-way area It did not diminish the lot
area. It was actually internal, the turn radius of the island area to the
right-of-way.
Mr. Pachota: Then as stated in the deed restrictions, the minimum lot size is 14,000
sq. ft., which does conform to our deed restrictions, so that is a good
solid proposal. Again, that no dwelling have no less than 624 sq. ft. on
the main floor. I would think they are probably over that. What I am
trying to get on record today is to make sure that the builder does
follow the deed restrictions, and it looks like he did a good job and I
would like to thank him for that.
15114
Mr. Morrow: I would like to clear up one point. As one Commissioner, it was not
my intent to be derogatory towards dogs or animals. If you got the
inference that because of that we thought it might be a plus for the
neighborhood, it was strictly because of the use. Commercial use and
commercial service. Sometimes people don't like to have commercial
that close to them from a zoning standpoint. My reference was not to
dogs. It was just to commercial.
Mr. Pachota: My wife really took offense to those comments. I thought it was funny.
Mr. Morrow: Let your wife know it was not directed at the dogs. It was strictly the
commercial use.
Mr. Pachota: I am sure the apology is accepted. Thank you.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just let you know that your wife did a very credible job in your
absence. She did every bit as good a job that night as you have done
tonight Bob. I don't remember the specific references to the dogs but I
do remember that when some of us went out there that no matter
where we were, we heard those dogs barking and we observed it might
be troublesome to us but maybe to some it is a welcome part of the
process of living in that neighborhood for you. I do remember that we
found that the road had some areas in it where we wanted to avoid
`�•• them if we could, but we did our home work and we weren't taking
any shots at anybody. I guess sometimes we don't make ourselves
clear when we make a comment that is intended to be informational and
sometimes perhaps we are not sensitive enough to or perhaps not
understand how it is going to be interpreted. Please explain to your
wife there was no intent to be disrespectful to her relative to any
comments made about the road or the use of that property because it
certainly wasn't intended.
Mr. Pachota: As many years as we have been in this City we have seen a lot of good
and a lot of bad, and the nice part about it is that the City of Livonia
has generally been mostly good, and I think the forefathers and the
people now are very conscientious and seem to be doing a good job.
The purpose is there is nothing in the City ordinances that put up a red
flag for you fellows saying there are deed restrictions and the builder
coming in, wanting something, and leaving and then all of a sudden
there is a law suit because no one knew about it. The reason I am
saying this there are a lot of large lots in the City of Livonia along the
river and along Seven Mile, and I think, myself, those luxurious lots
and houses that we have in Livonia should not be torn down and put
into subdivisions. It seems a lot of them are being done. In our case,
15115
since we have the deed restrictions it is not allowed but it could save a
lot of aggravation in the future if someone in the City researched it. I
don't know if it is possible or not John or if that has any bearing on
your decisions but I would think it is a good suggestion for the City.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you are right because the vast majority of future development is
going to be very much like this particular situation with a scenario that
you just described and after we dispose of this I will ask Mr. Nagy to
put this on one of our study meetings for further discussion, and we can
make a determination. It has been my impression in the past that deed
restrictions is something we cannot get involved in.
Mr. Pachota: One thing I would like to ask the Planning Commission, which I have
heard some weird stories in my subdivision because we do have some
subdivision get togethers, I am sure you are familiar with the area. We
have a tremendous amount of traffic that goes from the other
subdivision out onto Schoolcraft to get to the freeway entrance ramp.
Are you against cul-de-sacing roads to block tremendous traffic like
this?
Mr. Engebretson: There have been a number of proposals in recent years where new
subdivisions have been proposed and people would raise that particular
concern and the Public Safety Departments, the Fire Department and
Police Department, have some problem with artificially disrupting or
't•► interrupting the flow of traffic on a particular street for emergency
purposes, etc. I don't think there is a policy for or against it but each
individual case is taken on its own merits. I will give you two
examples. Recently at Seven Mile and Newburgh there was a proposal
to block off access from the existing Curtis street to Curtis on the other
side and that was inappropriate for reasons I mentioned earlier. On the
other hand, there were some cul-de-sacs that were put in that made
them probably less than attractive so each individual case is dealt with
as it comes through.
Mr. Pachota: A lot of the neighbors told me that they have asked people and cul-de-
sacs are absolutely a no-no, which I didn't believe.
Mr. Engebretson: The proper place to deal with that would be with the Traffic
Commission to get on their agenda and discuss it with them if it is a
concern. Go right directly to the Traffic Commission.
Mr. Nagy: I think you could start there. If they want to vacate a street so as to
block it off and re-develop it into a cul-de-sac, they could petition the
City Council to vacate a portion of it, in which case then there would
be a hearing to contact the larger members of the neighborhood to see
15116
what the neighborhood as a total feel about such a thing. Certainly the
Traffic Board would be a good sounding board for that and from there
you could take whatever necessary steps one way or another from
Now
those recommendations.
Mr. Engebretson: I think he spelled it out very well Bob. I think that the accessibility for
emergency services would be first and foremost in everyone's minds,
that is the Traffic Commission, the Planning Commission, etc. The
decision is made, of course, by the City Council and they would be very
sensitive to those kind of things too, as you would. You wouldn't
want to do something that would create a problem for you or your
neighbors.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat for
Castle Woods Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-150-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
13, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat Approval for
Castle Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Lyndon
between Newburgh and Stonehouse in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
Preliminary Plat for Castle Woods Subdivision be approved subject to the
waiving of the open space requirement as set forth in the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations and to the following additional conditions:
1) That a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council for approval prior to Final Plat approval which will provide a
landscape screen along the rear property lines of lots 8 and 9 and which
includes landscaping for the cul-de-sac median area.
for the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all applicable
standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and in
the Subdivision Rules and Regulations;
2) That no reporting City department has objected to approval of the
Preliminary Plat; and
3) That the design of the Preliminary Plat is in accordance with good planning
principles and provides a reasonable land use solution to the subject property.
15117
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
,,` abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof
of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to
the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police
Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 728th Regular Meeting held on July 23, 1996.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#8-151-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 728th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on July 23, 1996 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Engebretson, Piercecchi, Morrow
`.. NAYS: None
ABSENT: McCann, LaPine
ABSTAIN: Blomberg
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by
Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership for the installation of a cellular tower
antenna on property located at 33239 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington and Shadyside. The proposed tower is to be located on
Lot 18 of Folker's Farmington Acres Subdivision. It is also part of the
Village Green Florist Shop. The proposed antenna would sit on top of
a 100 ft. high monopole tower. It would be 288 feet from Eight Mile
Road; 425 feet from Shadyside and 30 feet from the south property
line. Access to the tower would be through a 10 foot wide gravel
drive, which you would be able to access from the parking lot of the
Village Green Florist Shop. The tower will be surrounded by a 20'x30'
15118
6 ft. high chain link fence and within that area would be power and
telephone cabinets.
�.. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Dave Kaminski, Traverse Bay Land Company: Sprint Spectrum has contracted with
Traverse Bay to provide acquisition services for their communication
network. Quite a bit of what I had to say has already been explained
here on the site plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Assume that nothing has been said. Give us the proposal. This is the
formal process. Whatever we discussed at our study meeting was
simply to enable us to get a feel for what is going on here.
Mr. Kaminski: Sprint has entered into a lease for vacant property with Escar Bachman
for the purpose of erecting a PCS antenna. Again, the location of the
property is on the southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Farmington
Road, commonly known as 33239 Eight Mile Road, near the Village
Green Florist. The site is a 20' by 30' parcel near the south property
line so we access by a 20 feet easement from Eight Mile Road across
the parking lot to the site. It is a 100 foot monopole. The entire
facility will be surrounded by a chain link fence, six foot. This will
provide security for Sprint equipment as well as addressing public
safety. The site is unmanned. It does not require water or sewer
�.. services. The site will be visited periodically, usually once a month, by
Sprint personnel. The proposed monopole is necessary to provide
coverage to Livonia and in-vehicle coverage to Route 102. The site is
located in a C-2 zoning district. Under Article 11.02, paragraph (g) of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia antennas are a permitted
use subject to site plan approval. A couple of other things, beside the
technical aspects of the site, I would like to add I have a letter from the
only residential landowner near this site. His name is Mike Petteys. He
resides at 20411 Shadyside. The letter reads regarding the PCS tower
proposed by Sprint for 33239 Eight Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan, I
own the only piece of residential property adjoining this proposed
tower. I have had conversations with representatives and have no
concerns or problems with this tower. Another item I would like to
discuss, during our study session there was discussion for possible co-
location with an Ameritech tower that is located fairly close to our
subject site. It is within approximately three blocks. First of all,
Ameritech in the past has not been interested in co-location with us.
Sprint has attempted to negotiate for co-location with Ameritech in the
past unsuccessfully. Secondly, that Ameritech pole is basically out of
our needed area. If co-location were even possible, there would need
to be another tower to cover the hole that would be produced by not
15119
staying within our site where we are currently located. We have some
Sprint technical personnel here tonight that can answer any technical
questions that you have.
Mr. Piercecchi: This is the first tower you are trying to put up in Livonia, is that
correct?
Mr. Kaminski: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: You will be coming in for additional towers?
Mr. Kaminski: There will be some additional towers that I believe will be needed in the
City of Livonia.
Mr. Piercecchi: You said you tried to piggy-back with Ameritech? Is that the one on
Eight Mile Road?
Mr. Kaminski: That is the one that is off Eight Mile fairly close to Mayfield.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is also another tower there.
Mr. Kaminski: Further east. Again, that is further out of our area. Even the closest
one that is three blocks away would not work for us for the area that
we need, and again, that could be further discussed with one of the
Sprint personnel here tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any reason why they can utilize those sites and you can't? My
concern is you are going to have towers all over the place.
Melanie McKenzie: I work for Sprint Spectrum. (She presented a plan and pointed out
the site on the plan)
Mr. Piercecchi: You plan on going on the other side of Eight Mile then for some other
sites?
Ms. McKenzie: Yes we do.
Mr. Piercecchi: How far apart would those other two be?
Ms. McKenzie: One will be 1.5 miles and the diameter is 3 miles. It will take these 3
sites.
Mr. Piercecchi: You obviously have a different type of technology than is currently in
use, and you are a new company?
15120
Ms. McKenzie: Yes we do, and yes we are.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is different about your technology from theirs?
Ms. McKenzie: We are using a digital and our radii is smaller so we need more sites
whereas Ameritech has larger coverage.
Mr. Piercecchi: Where will that bottom one be located?
Ms. McKenzie: Approximately Six Mile Road.
Mr. Alanskas: John, do we have a study of all amounts of existing cellular towers in
the City that we have at the present time with all companies?
Mr. Nagy: We are working on that and it is prepared in draft form. It is near
completion. We will have that available for the Commissioners in a
week or two.
Mr. Alanskas: The problem I have, as one Commissioner, you are saying that you
need possibly six and this one needs eight and this one needs ten. We
would be a City of towers. That is a big concern
Ms. McKenzie: We are building our towers for co-location. We will build them for
supportwise for someone else to come on our tower.
Mr. Alanskas: What you are saying is you talked about a four mile radius. Within four
miles you want to have six of your towers in the City.
Ms. McKenzie: That is right but we don't necessarily have to have towers. We can
have rooftops
Mr. Alanskas: In the back of that lot where you want to put this proposed tower, are
you leasing that or did you buy this piece of property?
Mr. Kaminski: That is a lease.
Mr. Alanskas: How long is your lease?
Mr. Kaminski: Each term is for five years, and we can renew up to four times.
Mr. Morrow: What is the service you provide in that given area? Do you skip from
one to the other?
15121
Ms. McKenzie: Nationwide we are going to be making a PCS, which is similar to
cellular but offers more features. We have the whole Michigan area
down to Toledo and one half of the UP.
Mr. Morrow: I guess what I am saying is what is the service you provide?
Ms. McKenzie: Similar to cellular but we offer more features like hand held phone,
paging, voice mail.
Mr. Morrow: So it is a more intensive use than a normal cellular phone. I share the
same concerns, all of a sudden I just visualize like an oil derrick
sticking up. You did answer one thing, apparently somebody is going
to be mandating co-locations to avoid this.
Ms. McKenzie: We are more than happy to have co-locations.
Mr. Engebretson: John, didn't the Council recently take some kind of position on co-
location in general terms, not just associated with that Whispering
Willows tower?
Mr. Nagy: There is an ordinance in draft form prepared by the Law Department
and submitted to the City Council, which will create a series of
standards within the zoning ordinance and one of those standards will
be that the tower shall have the ability to take at least two co-locaters
*4Nrw in addition to the principal one erecting the tower. It is not in
ordinance form yet.
Mr. Engebretson: Was it their intent to deal with that ordinance prior to seeing additional
towers spring up?
Mr. Nagy: I think that is their goal to have that in place as soon as possible. As
with the Whispering Willow site, which set some of the guidelines and
policies around which this ordinance has been prepared, to be applied
to all subsequent towers whether on City-owned property or private
sites as well.
Mr. Engebretson: Doesn't this tower at the Police Department have co-locating?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they do.
Mr. Engebretson: Do we have co-locaters?
Mr. Nagy: I think Sprint Spectrum is looking at locating on that tower.
15122
Heidi Zimmer, Sprint Spectrum: We have already spoken with Mr. Nagy about co-
locating on that tower, and it is my understanding they are first
discussing it with AT&T Wireless and then they will discuss it with us.
Mr. Engebretson: That is a pretty substantial tower. In fact I think it will handle
additional towers over what the City uses there.
Ms. McKenzie: I know from our perspective we would be more than happy to co-
locating on an existing tower.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you could possible go on roof tops. Say it was a 20 foot
height of the roof, how high would you have to put the tower?
Ms. McKenzie: It would have to be an additional 80 feet roughly.
Mr. Morrow: The existing Ameritech tower, do you have any idea the height of that?
Someone told me it was 115' or 150'.
Mr. Nagy: I would say 115 feet.
Mr. Morrow: So it is approximately the same height. As it relates to the adjoining
neighbor, I certainly respect his attitude that he has no objection to it
but we have to look at as the total City because it does impact the
residents that travel that particular corridor.
`tr..
Ms. McKenzie: You said the tower was 115 feet. The antenna that is placed 115 feet
and according to some guidelines like Nextel, which is a paging
company, they sometimes mandate that we are sometimes 20 or 25 feet
below that. So we are roughly at 90 feet and that is where we can first
begin to put our equipment. So we also take those things into
consideration when we are co-locating. I just wanted you to be aware
of that.
Mr. Morrow: So you could be 80 feet but you might have to go to 100 feet?
Ms. McKenzie: That is right.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, we have currently two people giving us this type of service. Do
either of them, to your knowledge, need any additional towers?
Mr. Nagy: All of them do.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you have any idea how many more we are going to have? Maybe
this is an item we should table this in order to get a better picture plus
15123
we have a potential ordinance in the mill. I am offering that as a
suggestion not as a motion.
Ms. McKenzie: The new ordinance would that affect the existing towers?
Mr. Engebretson: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: We could get a better handle on it. As Mr. Morrow pointed out we
look at the entire City, but I am concerned about three in a row on
Eight Mile Road.
Mr. Alanskas: John, does Sprint have a copy of these four points we would like to
have additional information on?
Mr. Nagy: No they don't.
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to let you know we would like to know four things:
1. Have the adjoining property owners been notified of the location of
the proposed tower? 2. What are the distances of the nearest houses in
relationship from the tower? Have the property owners been made
aware of the proposal? Site Plan needs to be revised to show the
relationship of the houses to the tower. 3. What effect would this
proposal have on the future development of the Village Green Florist
and the surrounding properties? 4. Would the applicant agree to
‘411" posting a bond to cover damages rendered should the tower ever
collapse or for cleanup should the site be abandoned? That is
information we will need if we table this tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: Please be aware you are not being singled out for particularly harsh
treatment here. We have never seen any of those towers go through
without some considerable dialogue, and compromises and changes
made. We have the additional situation that we have right now, that is
the pending ordinance. The worse thing we could do, in my mind,
would be to push this project through and then see you find the new
ordinance making it difficult or very expensive to complete your grid
within the City. It would seem to me if you had an overall master plan,
based upon what is acceptable to the City, that you would have a much
better chance then achieving all your needs both from a technology
point of view and an economic point of view.
Ms. McKenzie: When do you expect to have this ordinance approved?
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like it is pending. This came about as a result of a proposal
that was made to lease some space on a City golf course at Eight Mile
and Newburgh within the past number of months, and that proposal
15124
caused all the dialogue that resulted in the ordinance change that is
under way. It is quite recent. This ordinance, as Mr. Nagy indicated,
,,r,, apparently is about ready to be released to go through the process of
making it a part of the ordinance.
Ms. McKenzie: How long will it take?
Mr. Nagy: I don't really know. What I think I could do is pursue the matter with
the Law Department. Since it is in draft form, maybe I could get them
to release a draft copy to you, and maybe then we could process your
site plan in anticipation of that being an ordinance of the City of
Livonia so you could essentially go through the process so long as you
would comply with the standards as drafted. I think then the City
fathers would have no problem dealing with it. Then in the likelihood if
in the future it becomes the letter of the law, you would be consistent
with that. I think maybe that might be the most constructive way we
could handle this.
Ms. McKenzie: Am I looking at two months, three months?
Mr. Nagy: Maybe three to four months.
Mr. Engebretson: For the process to be concluded but as far as releasing a copy of that
draft, that probably could be done within days or a week.
low
Mr. Nagy: We could let you know what the guidelines are and maybe with their
cooperation we can move it along.
Ms. Engebretson: What is your timetable?
Ms. McKenzie: You have to ask the property people.
Mr. Alanskas: Because once we make a decision here, because of the height of the
tower, you have to go to the City Council for approval.
Mr. Engebretson: We may have a copy of that proposed lease in our file. While Dave is
looking for his copy, I would guess whatever the limitations are, under
the circumstances that if relief is needed, it would be very illogical to
assume they wouldn't be cooperative.
Mr. Morrow: If you were to build this tower tomorrow, would you have customers
to use it tomorrow?
15125
Ms. McKenzie: As I said before we obtained the license about a year ago from the
FCC. Nationwide we are building them and we also have a testing
°•w phase that we have to go through before we actually have to turn it on.
Mr. Morrow: When are you trying to go live with this?
Ms. McKenzie: December 15 is our date for roughly the Detroit area.
Mr. Morrow: And that includes five more in Livonia?
Ms. McKenzie: Yes it does.
Mr. Morrow: How many?
Ms. McKenzie: We will have five more in Livonia. These are in the corridor.
Mr. Morrow: How many do you need to develop that corridor between now and
December?
Ms. McKenzie: Roughly 65.
Mr. Morrow: We are trying to be sympathetic.
Ms. McKenzie: We have many people working in many different areas.
Mr. Morrow: I imagine some are not in areas of congestion as far as population.
Ms. McKenzie: Exactly.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Kaminski did you find that date? If not, we could live without it
tonight.
Mr. Kaminski: Apparently we have 90 days after the building permit is issued.
Mr. Engebretson: As a long time cellular user, I am a little curious about the launching of
a new business like this. While I understand the advantages of digital
versus analogue, etc., the other applications that can come with it, it
just seems to me to be a massive undertaking to be able to provide
meaningful service to someone to give up Ameritech or Cellular Ito
come over to Sprint to have all these holes.
Ms. McKenzie: Our marketing is working with that. They don't necessarily have a
contract where you have to sign on for one to two years. Some
companies have the phones, they decrease the cost and some are ten
15126
cents a minute. Even though you are going to be suffering"service
wise", you will be paying less.
Mr. Engebretson: Someone that signs up with Sprint to get their service, if they move
into an area that you don't serve, would they go into a roaming mode
with one of the other companies?
Ms. McKenzie: At the beginning no. The call will be dropped. But we will have that
corridor along with 31 other MTAs across the nation.
Tonna Osko: I am with Sprint Spectrum as well. I am on the construction site of
things. I just want to answer some of the questions that have been
raised as well as a draft of some ways we can get these answers in the
future. I have been working quite steadily with Farmington Hills. I am
a resident as well as a Sprint employee. I am very familiar with what is
going on up there. Some of the things we have done for them is we
have provided a map so you can anticipate our future needs in your
community and be able to address those in your ordinance however you
wanted to structure those. We are building all our locations for co-
locations wherever possible. We are constructing our towers and
engineering them to be able to handle two other co-locaters as well as
us, the primary user. Some of the things to keep in mind when we start
discussing co-locations, the height that other carriers might be at might
not provide what they are trying to accomplish. If we built a 100 foot
v"" monopole and somebody else needed a 100 foot, it would not be
possible. So that is an issue and one of the things we have to look at
when we look at towers like the Ameritech tower a few blocks away.
If they are at 115 feet, we have to be 25 feet under what they are, that
places us below what our coverage objective is and creates a hole
which in turn we would have to place some other type of transmitter in
that location. Some of the other things, you mentioned the setback and
would we be willing to place a bond. We have engineering letters from
all the tower manufacturers that we will be using. These towers are
engineered not to topple but collapse in on themselves at a halfway
point, and we have photographs and things like that of towers that have
had houses leveled around them from a tornado or hurricane and the
tower is the only thing standing in the area. It is very, very unlikely
that they fall. Usually if they fall, it is because of some catastrophic
event not a natural one or a direct hit by a tornado. Some of the other
things we are doing for Farmington Hills is supplying engineering
letters providing some of the things we do on rooftops, some of the
ways we can conceal these. I understand Livonia doesn't have a lot of
tall buildings so that may not necessarily be applicable. I might suggest
you possibly ask some of the other carriers that you are concerned
about for the same type of things that we are willing to do, so you can
15127
factor in their future needs along with ours, and try to adapt your
ordinance to meet everyone's needs. We are certainly not asking you
't.w to tailor your ordinance to what we need. We want to keep the
community happy and the people in the community happy.
Mr. Engebretson: The ordinance sir was launched before we even heard of Sprint
Spectrum.
Mr. Piercecchi: We generally don't try to restrict any kind of trade. When does it
become a point what if six or seven other companies come in and want
to do the same thing? When can we draw the line? Is that a legal
question?
Mr. Nagy: I think it is.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is something else we should know Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engebretson: I suspect you are right. I also suspect that it takes billions of dollars to
build a network like this. There probably aren't too many people that
can consider getting into this business, but the point is well made. I
think it is a valid thing to look into.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-152-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Permit Application by Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership for the
installation of a cellular tower antenna on property located at 33239 Eight
Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, until date uncertain.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson:Don't interpret this as our being opposed to what it is you are
proposing to do. We are willing to work with you. I think you can
understand the concerns that have been raised are valid. We really
want to make sure we do it right and obviously this isn't something we
just dealt with as a result of your petition. The advent of cellular
communications has reached a point where the City Council has taken
an action to deal with it. Your timing probably turns out to be
excellent because while it may delay you a few weeks, maybe months,
you will probably end up better off because of the timing we are dealing
with here. We appreciate all the cooperation we have gotten from you.
15128
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 729th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on August 13, 1996 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
` r
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
ATTEST: Q14(,_ Ly)JackEngebretion, Vice Chairman
Jg
`w