HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-03-23 16725
•
MINUTES OF THE 782ND PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF L!VO IA
On Tuesday, March 23, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
782nd Public Hearings 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. with approximately
75 - 80 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale
Dan Piercecchi *Elaine Koons William LaPine
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, Bill
Poppenger, Planner I, Robby Williams and City Attorney, Sean Kavanagh.
Mr. McCann 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, makes 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 is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City
Planning Commission become effective seven(7) days after the 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: We are moving the first item on the agenda to the last public hearing item so
that it may be heard with the adjoining petition.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-2-2 by
Dave and Nicole Bloomingburg (Dave's Collision) requesting waiver use approval to
utilize an additional parcel of land and the building contained thereon in connection
with the expansion of an existing auto body repair facility located on the south side of
Eight Mile Road between Melvin and Louise Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated February 12, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your
16726
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal. The following
legal description should be used in connection therewith: Lot 137 and the
West 65 feet of Lot 138, Storm and Fowlers Country Crest Subdivision, part of
the N.E. 1/4 of Section 2, T. IS., R. 9E., Livonia Township (now City of
Livonia), Wayne County, Michigan as recorded in Liber 42, Page 74, Wayne
County Records. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions."
The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer I. We have a letter
dated March 11, 1999, stating: "Pursuant to your request of March 5, 1999, the
site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted: (1) All parking areas are required by Section 13.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance to be improved with a minimum six (6) inches of concrete or plant
mixed asphalt. All parking spaces are required to be double striped. The site
plan is not clear with respect to the rear yard parking. Is it being proposed at
this time or sometime in the future? (2) Parking and landscaping deficiencies
will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The handicap
parking space is required to be van accessible (96" wide space, 96" wide aisle).
(4) The Petitioner makes reference to installing a new privacy fence on the ear
and side property lines as a Phase II objective. If installed, it would be
required to be installed at a 25 foot setback from the Melvin right-of-way. (5)
The existing fence is at a zero setback on the west property lines. The fence
may need some repair and the barbed wire brackets should be removed. (6)
All junk cars and car parts should be immediately removed from subject site. I
trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by
David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. There is a letter dated March
10, 1999 that states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct an addition to a building 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. We have
a letter dated March 9, 1999 that states: "In reply to the captioned petition, the
Police Department submits the following for your consideration. The privacy
fence at the rear property line (south side) should be extended the entire length
of the chain link fence; up to the area of Melvin Avenue. Phase II Objectives
states that the privacy fence will be extended along the rear and side property
lines, but the scaled drawing does not illustrate this change. The sign, which is
currently at the location , does not appear on the site plan. The current sign is
not a low monument type. If the sign were to be replaced or modified, the
Police Department may have concerns regarding sight line visibility for drivers
exiting the property." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer,
Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Are the petitioners in the audience tonight?
Dave &Nicole Bloomingburg, 4920 Grover, Brighton, MI
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your plans?
16727
Mr. Bloomingburg: He did explain pretty much what we want to do. On Phase I we plan on
removing the fence on the south side of Eight Mile and west aside of
Melvin and going down the east side of the property also and putting the
paving with the recommended handicap parking spot and the other paring
spots and also the widened approach off of Eight Mile with the driveway
going to the building which was the first phase that we had planned.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Hale: Why is that you have this labeled under Phase I and Phase II and do this
under one project.
Mr. Bloomingburg: We are a family owned business and basically we expended our expenses
as purchasing the building and figured out our expenses as to getting the
building and doing the first phase and the second phase. We figured the
first phase to around$25,000 to $28,000 and the second phase we figured
somewhere around $20,000 to $23,000 and financially we just couldn't
do it at one point.
Mr. Hale: How are you financing this project?
Mr. Bloomingburg: Self-financing.
Mr. Hale: You own the building?
Mr. Bloomingburg: Correct.
Mr. Hale: You didn't think about any financing to get the job done under one
project instead of having it under two different phases?
Mrs. Bloomingburg: We bought the building under a land contract. We are still under a land
contract with that building.
Mr. Hale: What is the total time frame you are talking about for both phases?
Mr. Bloomingburg: The first phase we plan on starting as soon as possible as far as this
spring as soon as the weather permits. The second phase would be
started within a 12 month period or at least the parking in the back where
the vehicles are will at least be done as far as attempted to get some of
the parking in there on the first phase also the pavement in the back
towards the north side of the property.
Mr. Hale: Thank you, I don't have any further questions.
Mr. Alansk : As you know,three of us were out there to visit your facility. Of the
twenty cars since Saturday, how many have you gotten rid of?
Mr. Bloomingburg: We are probably down to about 15 and there are some more going out
tomorrow and some of the sheet metal is going out also.
16728
Mr. Alanskas: How long do you think it will take to take care of all 20 out of there
completely of the left side of the building?
Mr. Bloomingburg: I'm sorry?
Mr. Alanskas: How long do you think, time wise, will it take to get those cars out of
there? Two weeks? A month?
Mr. Bloomingburg: As far as all 20?
Mr. Alanskas: -.Yes.
Mr. Bloomingburg: There's not suppose to be any parking back there?
Mr. Alanskas: No. None at all.
Mr. Bloomingburg: Under the first plan we had I believe there was allowed at least parking
for five cars.
Mr. Alanskas: You can have cars parked back there but you can't have cars disabled
back there.
Mr. Bloomingburg: I misunderstood you. As far as disabled cars I would say two weeks to a
month.
Mr. Alanskas: Seeing what you want to do I think it is a great asset, if you do it.
Mr. Bloomingburg: If you came by Saturday and came by today you would see that several
things were moved and after you left Saturday, we were cleaning up.
There was quite a bit moved from the premises and they are still doing it.
Mr. Alanskas: Did you get rid of all that junk/battery at the side of the building?
Mr. Bloomingburg: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: I think we are all sympathetic with what you want to do and a few
months ago I told you that you were going to have a problem with all the
cars you had parked there. We are all sympathetic that you want to
increase your business and but we are also sympathetic that there is a
mess back there with tires and bumpers, it all has to be cleaned up. If
you are willing to show us that you are going to clean that up back there
that maybe some of us feel we can table this until you show us that you
are going to clean up the premises and then we will go ahead and give
you our approval. I've got not objection to your phase one and two but
we have to have a definite answer if we do within 15 or 18 months that
you are going to start phase two.
Mr. Bloomingburg: I said approximately within 12 months if not sooner.
16729
Mr. LaPine: We can't have a situation like in the past where we have gone along with
people and three or four years down the road and they haven't even
started the first phase.
Mr. Bloomingburg: I understand. As you know, you were over there, the situation that needs
to be addressed is the dirt and everything that is over there.
Mr. LaPine: We want you to expand your business but you have to admit that there is
a lot of junk back there.
Mrs. Bloomingburg:You have to understand that we had two feet of snow and over the winter
it does get bad.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: John, did you say the side yard setbacks have to be 25 feet off of Melvin?
Mr. Nagy: Correct. When you have a corner lot your side yard on the street is even
closer.
Mr. Alanskas: We are only showing 10 feet on the site plan. so you are deficient by 15
feet. You've got to pull that fence in 15 feet. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Bloomingbug: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Right now it is only 10 feet.
Mrs. Bloomingburg: I don't know if there is enough room with the building there.
Mr. Bloomingburg: With the way the building is, I'm almost sure there's not 25 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: Then you've got a problem.
Mr. LaPine: Then you'll have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Nagy: That is why in the Inspection Department report indicated that some of
these deficiencies might have to be taken tot he Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. McCann: If there are no more questions from the Commissioners, I am going to go
to the audience.
Norm Kanagy, 20517 Louise. I live directly east of Dave's Collision. I built a brand new
house there 2-1/2 years ago. I am stuck with the barbed wire fence.
When I first built the house,Dave came to me to build a privacy fence.
It has yet to happen. I have pictures of what the Planning Commission is
talking about. About all the junk vehicles,they have been there for three
years, they have not been moved. They have outside painting. I have
16730
pictures of outside painting outside of the building because that building
is very small. I have done a beautiful job of landscaping my yard and I
have two small little boys and I don't want to be smelling fumes like I do
every summer. Every time the weather is good the doors go up on his
garage and we have painting fumes all throughout the neighborhood. I
don't want to be subjected to that on a bigger scale with a bigger building.
I do have the pictures to show you.
Mr. McCann: You can pass the pictures over.
Mr. Kanagy: Because of that, unless like the Planning Commission said there is going
. to be a privacy fence on my property, I've got a barbed wire fence I'm
facing right now. It looks like a prison back there. I was going to come
to the City this year and ask for a variance so I could build myself a
fence. I was promised a privacy and it has never happened. I would like
to keep my property values there. With the a bigger building and open
doors and the fumes coming out when the weather is good and the junk
cars back there which has never changed since the day I moved in, I am
very much against it. Thank you.
Sharon Jason, 20413 Louise. I have a question. Is there an ordinance against noise level and
the odor that we smell? Not only the odor, but the noise is very
offensive. We are very close to Eight Mile and this compared to that
traffic is very offensive. I am also in my yard a lot and I have a small
child and there have been times when we had to go into the house
because of the smell and the noise. So I am just wondering if you know
of any other complaints of the odors and the noise. It is very offensive.
Mr. McCann: That is one of the things they want to have an indoor painting booth but
they are not allowed to have outdoor painting. Have you checked with
the City Inspection Department when you have had problems?
Ms. Jason: No. I have not complained. I guess I am complaining now
Mr. McCann: That is what we are here to look at. John do you have anything to add.
Mr. Nagy: No but you are right, we do have a noise ordinance as well as an odor
ordinance. We can refer both those matters to the Inspection Department
to have those re-evaluated to see if there is a lack of compliance.
Ms. Jason: I would like to say that this is hearsay but I have heard that he has
worked on city vehicles in the past I would hope that your decision
would not be bias because of this.
Mr. McCann: Until you brought it up we would have never known whether they did or
didn't.
Ms. Jason: Well, I don't know,that's all I have to say.
16731
ty Jim Redmond, 29917 W. Eight Mile, I own Evergreen Sprinkler on the corner of Louise. My
complaints are much like my neighbor, Norm. I smell fumes in the
summer, much like he does and I want to know in that area in particularly
what are the provisions for ventilation for this operation. Also I don't
understand if this existing building on the corner that they purchased
from Taylor Landscape. Is this building to be renovated, to be used as is.
This building goes back to the1940's and certainly is not a provision for a
bump/collision shop. I haven't had any explanation on that what the
provisions are for that building.
Mr. McCann: I am going to let the petitioner come back up and address some of these
- .issues because these are the same concerns we would have.
Mr. Redmond: I can understand an expansion and I can go along with that if the parking
area is cleaned up. It is nothing but a total area of junk cars and the fume
situation. I just want to know what the expansion provisions are here
with the structure and the air pollution factors.
Mr. McCann: Sir, I don't see anybody else wishing to speak so I am going to give you
the last opportunity to speak and I would like you to specifically address
those points, including painting outdoors, keeping the doors open during
the summer and these issues that concern your neighbors.
Mr. Bloomingburg: We have a paint booth that OSHA, I can get you a number, has been by
several time and checked because of complaints. They have checked our
filter systems, they have checked the fume systems and they o.k.'d us as
far as stack size OSHA is pretty much on top of things as far as the
environment. They have o.k.'d everything as far as specs to OSHA. As
far as the doors open, we do have the doors open in the summer time
because it is warm but there is no painting done outside. The stuff in
back, I agree that there quite a bit of excess debris but on a daily basis I
am having the rubbish removed and the excess cars are being removed.
Mrs. Bloomingburg: One of the neighbors did complain about fumes about a year ago and a
gentleman from OSHA did come by and inspect it. I spoke to him and
you are going to smell fumes no matter what kind of filtration system you
have, it filters it from going into the atmosphere. There are still going to
be fumes. Especially in the summer when people are outdoors and the
wind blows their way, you are going to smell fumes once in awhile.
Unfortunately, in our business there are fumes. OSHA did write us up
that we were in compliance with everything. The only painting that goes
on outside is with a spray bottle. His question about the building that we
bought we eventually will tear that building down and expanding our
existing building. But financially we are not able to do that at this time.
There is no painting done out of that building next door whatsoever.
Mr. LaPine: How long have you operated there as the collision shop?
Mr. Bloomingburg: Since 1980.
16732
Mr. LaPine: Wasn't there somebody else in that building?
Mr. Bloomingburg: I believe there was a wholesale plumber.
Mr. Alanskas: I visit a lot of bump shops. Usually in the summertime when bump shops
have a lot of work to do if they are only doing a fender or a slight minor
repair, they will prime the fender not going into the paint booth. I'm sure
you do it too, you are not alone. This is where you get all your paint
fumes. If you do all your painting in the paint booth completely, with
the doors closed and the vehicle inside where you don't do spot painting
--in your facility, you are not going to have fumes. You are going to cut a
lot of it out. Right or wrong?
Mr. Bloomingburg: OSHA was over there, they inspected it
Mr. Alanskas: They can't be there 24 hours a day sir.
Mr. Bloomingburg: I understand that. With them being over, and we try to respect the
neighbors in the area, we try to do paint everything in the paint booth and
if you stand outside you will get some fumes out of that stack.
Mr. Alanskas: Trying to do all your painting in the paint booth and doing it is two
different things. What I am trying to say is that people in your business
don't do all their painting in a paint booth.
Mr. Bloomingburg: I frown on that and I don't allow it. If it is done, I don't know about it.
On a daily basis I try to stay by that rule as doing everything in the paint
booth.
Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am going to make a motion to table this petition. Mr. Bloomingburg, I
and others would like to accommodate you in your efforts to expand
your business facilities which include expanding the work stations in
your current building from three to four stations and to utilize the
western parcel for parts storage because I have been told that you do have
an excellent work ethic. However, since your record of housekeeping
needs first of all to be addressed and the fact that you are using the
western parcel now without waiver approval, we must have assurances of
your time table which was referred to by Commissioner Hale which you
are going to use to expedite your plan and correct certain deficiencies
which are now in place. I and other others would like for you to show a
real show of good faith, I know you started doing it, by doing all the
maintenance tasks which would approve the aesthetics as well as the
safety aspects of your site. You don't need City approval to remove
partially disassembled vehicles along with scrap,auto parts, tires and
other debris stored outside in your rear yard. You don't need City
approval to remove move the chain link fence in the front yard even with
16733
the rear building wall. You don't need our approval to increase your
landscaping to meet the ordinance requirements, to remove the canopy
and support poles in the rear yard, to extend the privacy fence, as one of
your neighbors mentioned, along the southern boundary and portion of
Melvin street or to pave the rear the lot or to paint the buildings. When
all or most of the noted items have been addressed, I for one would be
very happy to recommend to Council that your petition requesting waiver
use be approved and that a zoning compliance permit be grant. At this
juncture however I think the best interest of the City and your neighbors
would be to table your petition at this time.
Mr. McCann: We have the next regular meeting on April 20, 1999.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't think we should set a date until we can look and see just what the
status is of that facility before we go on with this petition.
Mr. McCann: I want to get the neighbors involved as to the building and as what type
of device and controls can be put in to elevate the problem of noise and
what protective walls will be necessary around the property and all the
issues that we can deal with their neighbors. We have a 60 day limit
before we can make a recommendation.
Mr. Piercecchi: Well, let's stretch it out to the limit.
Mr. McCann: My suggestion is, how about if we put it off to the study next week to
look at it that gives him three weeks to work on cleaning it up.
Mr. Piercecchi: Next week, I wouldn't say that's three weeks.
Mr. McCann: Because there are no meetings for the next two weeks. The next meeting
would be April 20. That would provide three weeks for him to start
working on it and we can take a look at it then. So we will table it to
April 20. We are going to take a look at it next Tuesday on the 30th and
we are going to invite the neighbors there so that you have time to start
addressing some of the concerns and modifying the plans as appropriate
to meet all of your neighbors concerns.
Mr. Alanskas: He also needs to get back with the Planning Department, Mr. Nagy,
because you are going to have to ZBA and ask for a variance for that
setback. That is going to take time also.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
t,. #3-43-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 23, 1999 on Petition 99-1-2-2 by Dave and
Nicole Bloomingburg (Dave's Collision) requesting waiver use approval to
utilize an additional parcel of land and the building contained thereon in
16734
connection with the expansion of an existing auto body repair facility located
on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Melvin and Louise Avenues in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 99-1-2-2 to the Study Meeting of March 30, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
To the neighbors, you are invited to attend the meeting. It will be in the Third
Floor Conference Room, 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-2-4 by
James K. Wegerly(Pugh Shows, Inc.) on behalf of the Livonia Rotary Club
requesting waiver use approval to operate a carnival consisting of rides, games
and food concessions from May 6, 1999 through May 16, 1999, inclusive, in a
portion of the Livonia Mall parking lot located north of Seven Mile Road
between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook Roads in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated February 25, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your
request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal. The following
legal description should be used in connection therewith: That part of the S.E.
1/4 of Section 2, T. 1 S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan and
described as being a distant S. 89°47'00" West, 720 feet and N. 0°13'00" W.,
60 feet; thence proceeding N. 0°13'00" W., 350 ft.; thence S. 89°47'00" W.,
240 ft.; thence S. 0°13'00" E., 350 ft.; thence N. 89°47'00" E., 240 ft. to the
point of beginning. Containing approximately 84,000 sq. ft. or 1.93 acres. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free
to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John
P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated March 2, 1999, which
states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club.
Consisting of rides, games and food concessions May 6 - 16, 1999, 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, Livonia.
There is a letter dated March 9, 1999,that states: "Recently Mr. Wegerly and I
spoke regarding his request for a carnival at the Livonia Mall. I had previously
addressed my concerns to the Planning Commission in regards to the storage
location of the trucks. Mr. Wegerly assured me of the following regarding my
concern: (1) There will be no motors running on the stored trucks during late
hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 700 a.m. This includes motors on any
refrigeration trucks. (2) There will be no living quarters at the location of the
stored trucks. Mr. Wegerly was satisfied with the hours of operation requested
by the Police Department. It would appear that the Police Department's
concerns have been addressed and resolved. There is no objection to the plan
as currently submitted and agreed upon." The letter is signed by John B.
16735
Gibbs, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated March 11, 1999,
which states: "Pursuant to your request of March 8, 1999,the site plant for the
above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) All
temporary structures(rides, concessions, etc.) should meet the minimum
setbacks for this zoning district. I trust this has provided the requested
information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building
Inspector. We have a letter dated March 15, 1999, stating: This Division does
not see any issues at this time in respect to fire safety that would prevent the
Pugh Carnival at Livonia Mall. It should be noted that this opinion is based on
this Division accomplishing a pre-opening fire inspection which is standard for
this type of activity." The letter is signed by James Corcoran, Fire Marshal.
That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
James K. Wegerly, 3041 Serenity Road, Oakland, Michigan and I also have Mr. David
Cameron from the Livonia Rotary Club with me this evening.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything special you want to tell us this evening?
Mr. Wegerly: Well, it is basically a fund raiser for the Rotary Club and hopefully a
promotional activity for Livonia Mall. I think as we expressed in our letter we
certainly are familiar with the rules and regulations here in Livonia and we
hope that you will look favorably upon our request.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Your shows do an excellent job here in the City of Livonia and I think you
should be commended for that. Didn't last year at the Livonia Mall you have a
setback of 40' from the area. Not so close to the front.
Mr. Wegerly: That was at the Wonderland Mall. I can't really recall exactly how far back it
was.
Mr. Alanskas: I think we had you push it back 40'. Would it be a problem for you to push this
back 40'?
Mr. Wegerly: No, I don't think so.
Mr. Alanskas: Because it looks like you are right at the road and it is too close.
Mr. Wegerly: There is a sidewalk there and a berm. At what point would you like us, from
what point would you like us to use.
Mr. Nagy: From 40' from the back of the sidewalk.
Mr. Wegerly: 40' from the back of the sidewalk? Not a problem.
16736
Mr. Alanskas: Had you considered using the parking lot of HQ across the street? Where you
have all the room you want because it is a vacant lot. That whole thing is
empty.
Mr. Wegerly: Are you talking in front?
Mr. Alanskas: HQ across the street from the mall. That whole thing is just empty.
Mr. Wegerly: Is it owned by the same company?
Mr. Alanskas: It is HQ - HomequartersBuilders Square. They have closed that store and it
has been closed for the last few months and that whole thing is empty. So you
have this huge parking lot where you could have had all the room you wanted.
Mr. Wegerly: That is a great suggestion. Maybe we will look into that for next year.
Mr. Alanskas: Hopefully it won't be empty next year.
Mr. LaPine: John, the letter we have from Pugh Shows states that the security is going to be
provided by the City of Livonia Police Department. I assume we are talking
about our special police department which will be paid for by the Pugh Shows
and it isn't anexpense to the City.
Mr. Nagy: That is 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? Seeing no one, I am going to close the
public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#3-44-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-2-2-4 by James K.
Wegerly on behalf of the Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval
to operate a carnival consisting of rides, games and food concessions from
May 6, 1999 through May 16, 1999, inclusive, in a portion of the Livonia Mall
parking lot located north of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and
Purlingbrook Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-2-2-4 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Pugh
Shows, Inc., which are May 6, 1999 through May 16, 1999, inclusive;
2) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as
illustrated on the site plan submitted with this request;
16737
3) That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and
apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be located at
least 40 feet distant from the Seven Mile Road right-of-way line;
4) That all trucks and other related transportation equipment shall be
parked or stored within the northwesterly portion of the Livonia Mall
parking lot, but no closer to the adjacent residential properties than the
distances shown on the site plan;
5) That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late
hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. including motors on
any refrigeration trucks;
6) That there shall be no living quarters at the location of the stored
trucks;
7) That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter
dated March 5, 1999 from James K. Wegerly, President of Pugh
Shows, Inc.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not
interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not
impede access to the Livonia Mall;
4) No objections have been received from any reporting City department.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-2-5 by
Rocky Zebari requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD (packaged liquor)
and SDM(packaged beer and wine) licenses within an existing building
located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and St. Martins Avenue in
the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated March 4, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal. The following legal
description should be used in connection therewith: The North 45 feet of the
16738
South 70 feet of the East 70 feet of the West 152 feet of the following
described parcel: Lot 437, except the East 40 feet and Lot 438 except the West
27 feet of Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 7 of the West 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4
of Section 1, T. IS., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan as
recorded in Liber 66, Page 58, Wayne County Records. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this
office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E.,
Civil Engineer. There is a letter dated March 5, 1999, that states: "In response
to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site
plan as submitted. Inspection of the site did reveal that the handicap parking
sign post appeared to have been struck by a vehicle sometime in the past. The
post needs to be straightened." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police
Office, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated March 11, 1999 which states:
"Pursuant to your request of March 3, 1999,the site plan for the above subject
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There is an existing
SDM establishment within 500 feet of this proposal. The City Council would
have to waive the 500 feet separation requirement. (2) The parking areas are
in need of minor repair. (3) The building fascia on the west and south
elevations are in need of minor repair. (4) The existing pole sign needs to be
painted. (5) Guardrails and handrails will need to be installed at the rear
landing and stairs. I trust this has provided the requested information." The
letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the
extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Rocky Zebari, 37731 Stableview, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us why you want to move your store to this location?
Mr. Zebari: It is a better location and it is more properly zoned for my business. For the
past couple of years, my business has been declining and I have to make a
move.
Mr. LaPine When we were out there Saturday where the hockey shop once was there used
to a sign up there "Hockey Shop" which is now down, do you own that whole
thing or is it two separate buildings?
Mr. Zebari: No. The Hockey Shop is located in two different shopping centers. I don't
know how that happened. His sign is on the next shopping center, I don't have
anything to do with it.
Mr. LaPine: Are you only taking this one building? Or are you buying a part of it?
Mr. Zebari I am buying half of the Hockey Shop and the rest of the south side of the
building.
Mr. LaPine: So that is why the sign was taken down. Are you buying it or leasing it?
16739
Mr. Zebari: No, I am buying it.
Mr. LaPine: The front parking lot is not in too bad shape but the rear needs some work on
it. Are you going to be patching it up or fixing it up?
Mr.Zebari: I noticed that. I will be fixing it up. I already notified the landlord. There is
nothing I can do right now because it is not mine.
Mr. LaPine: All of the violations by the Inspection Department will be taken care of?
Mr. Zebari: I am very aware of them. I will take care of them.
Mr.LaPine: What is going to happen to your store on Eight Mile?
Mr. Zebari: I will put it up for lease.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, that whole fascia on the building is in pretty bad shape. Is that entire
fascia going to be your responsibility.
Mr. Zebari: What is going to be mine, will be all around there.
Mr. Piercecchi: How much of it is going to be left?
Mr. Zebari: The front is about 110'and I will do the entire 110'and the side of the building
too.
Mr. Piercecchi: So in other words, the fascia on the front building will all be put up to at the
same time?
Mr. Zebari: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is another issue brought up in the letter by Mr. Woodcox. The existing
pole sign, will that be your responsibility?
Mr. Zebari: No. There is no pole sign. That belongs to the other shopping center. It
belonged to the Hockey Shop, it is their responsibility.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is the one I was referring to. So that will not be your problem?
Mr. Zebari: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize you have to get Council to waive the 500 feet?
Mr. Zebari: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is all Mr. Chairman.
16740
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the
public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-45-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on March 23, 1999 on Petition 99-2-2-5 by Rocky
Zebari requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses within
an existing building located on the Northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and
St. Martins Avenue in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby approve subject to the waiving of the 500 foot
separation requirement relative to SDM licenses as set forth in Section 11.03
•
(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance#543 by the City Council and to the following
additional conditions:
1) That the petitioner shall rectify to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction, the problems and site deficiencies as outlined in their
correspondence dated March 11, 1999;
2) That dryvit shall be placed on the full width of the canopy fascia on the
front of the building and the dryvit shall also be continued along the top
5 feet the full extent of the south elevation as depicted on the
perspective drawing marked Drawing Number 99-0212 prepared by
Seymour Zate, Architect, dated February 3, 1999;
3) That the dumpster enclosure to be provided adjacent to the rear wall of
the building shall be of masonry construction and shall have wood
gates which shall be properly maintained and when not in use, closed at
all times;
4) That no signs are approved with this petition and any new signage,
either freestanding or wall mounted, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
for the following reasons:
1) 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;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
4) That the granting of this petition will not increase the number of SDD
and SDM license facilities in the general area.
16741
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Did we include in the motion that all of the violations mentioned by the
Inspection Department will be taken care of?
Mr. Hale Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-2-6 by
Brazen& Greer Masonry, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to stockpile
material outdoors in connection with a masonry contacting business located on
the south side of Amrhein Road, east of Eckles Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section
30.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated March 5, 1999 which states: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal description
contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions."
The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. We have a letter
dated March 16, 1999 which states: "In reply to the petition for outside storage
of materials, the Police Department Traffic Bureau has no objections. The
following were observations of the property which do require attention: (1)
Litter on the eastside of the building near the tree line; appears to have been an
illegal dumping (couch and building materials). (2) The fence line on the west
side needs to be reattached to the posts at areas where it is no longer secured."
The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. There is a
letter dated March 17, 1999 that reads: "After visiting the site in question and
reviewing the plan submitted, I can see no life safety issues which should
prevent the stockpiling of non-combustible masonry contracting materials. If
you require further information in reference to the above, please do not hesitate
to contact me." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal.
There is a letter dated March 18, 1999, that reads: "Pursuant to your request of
March 12, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) The site plan does not indicate the number of
parking spaces provided, how they are striped or where the barrier free parking
spaces are located. (2) Is the existing chain link fence on the east property line
going to be replaced? The fence that is currently erected appears to be
temporary in nature. I trust this has provided the requested information." The
letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the
extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Mdse Ochinero, 6117 S. Miami, Ypsilanti.
16742
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about your project?
Mr. Ochinero: I certainly will. We are an expanding masonry contractor. We are looking
for a bigger building to accommodate our growing business and we found
this building on Armhein Road and what we do, when we complete a
project there is always building materials left over, brick and masonry
materials. We need a place to temporarily store until we go on to another
project or we dispose of it. Also we do own and maintain some cranes and
heavy equipment. Most often this equipment is in the field and in use at all
times, that is how we make money with it, but occasionally we have to
bring it into the shop. We have a 60,000 sq. ft. area to work on these.
Mr. Alanskas: Did you say 60,000 sq. ft.?
Mr. Ochinero: The numbers escape me but it is a large area. Occasionally we like to bring
our equipment in to work on it. It will be inside the building as far as the
cranes and hi-lows and everything. It requires that we leave the crane
parked outside for a day or two. I'm not talking about a crane high in the
air the boom would be lowered. That is what we need to maintain our
equipment. That is basically it in a nut sheet.
Mr. Alanskas: We were out there Saturday to look at this. As far as your forklifts, trucks
and cranes, how many do you have?
Mr. Ochinero: We have a total of three cranes and own and maintain about 10 to 12 hi-
lows. Once again they are in the field at all times except when we bring
them in it is to provide preventive maintenance on them.
Mr. Alanskas: How about trucks?
Mr. Ochinero: We have approximately two low-boys that we haul the equipment with.
We own one stake truck that we move plank and scaffolding,just small
stuff. We have the smaller pickup trucks that the supervisory personnel
drive.
Mr. Alanskas: We are talking about 20 pieces. You said everything is stored in the
building?
Mr. Ochinero: Everything is stored inside the building.
Mr. Alanskas: The cranes, hi-lows and everything?
Mr. Ochinero: If there is a time that they have to be stored, for example in the winter,or if
they are not in use, they will be inside the building.
Mr. Alanskas: Some of that equipment is very heavy and some areas of the parking lot
are in very bad shape. Are you going to repair that lot?
16743
Mr. Ochinero: Yes, we definitely are.
Mr. Alanskas: How are you going to repair it?
Mr. Ochinero: As far as the parking lot?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Ochinero: As far as the area you drive in, it is not as in bad of disrepair as the parking
lot itself. The equipment will not be in the front parking lot. It will be in
the parking lot closer to the building and it will not be on the striped area.
There is a concrete slab that, I assume that it is thicker than the asphalt.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the asphalt that needs repair, you are going to repair that?
Mr. Ochinero: Yes
Mr. Piercecchi: I believe that your request for storage is in an appropriate area. I do
believe that we could improve on it just a little bit. You can really see that
back yard from Armhein. If you would build a berm there and
landscaping it I think if you would screen that and I think you would
eliminate any future hassles from the homes and the people in the area.
Would you consider building a berm and landscaping it with some pine
trees to shield it?
*Mrs. Koons arrived - 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Ochinero: That versus a fence.
Mr. Piercecchi: A fence doesn't shield it. But a berm goes up to the top of the fence. You
could put some pine trees back there and you could feel very comfortable
back there. People do store and sometimes it can be neat and you can't be
there 24 hours a day.
Mr. Ochinero: We would have no problem with that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then you certainly have my support.
Mr. LaPine: The blocks and bricks that you have stored out there, is that the extent of
what you have stored out side, concrete blocks? Or will you have a lot
more there?
Mr.Ochinero: Basically, blocks, bricks and we have been getting into prepoured walls
and preformed channels. That probably would be stored there too. Which
would not be stacked.
t,, Mr. LaPine: That was my point, you are not going to have them stacked?
Mr. Ochinero: No.
16744
Mr. LaPine: The other point about the paving, when you have this heavy equipment,
going in and out it is going to tear up the asphalt a lot, you should take that
into consideration on your repair. Going in there with that heavy
equipment that parking lot is going to be in bad shape.
Mr. Ochinero: Once again the drive off of Armhien Road, I think is concrete.
Mr. LaPine: No, I think it is asphalt.
Mr. Ochinero: We just moved in here, that is why I am a little vague on this.
Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions? I am going to go to the audience. Is there
anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition.
William Kruse, President of UAW 162, 12432 Eckles Road, Livonia and also here on behalf
of my neighbors of the Polish Legend of the American Veterans that is
located nearby. We have some concerns about the fence and the stacking
that is already started. We want to know if the fence is going to remain in
tact and that we're not going to have an eyesore falling over on us or
adjacent to us or vapors or fumes or anything like that is going to disturb
our activities we have there going on with our membership.
Mr. McCann: Can you address those concerns.
Mr. Ochinero: Yes I can. Those are good questions. We have no problem, we are a
masonry contractor. We have no problems building a new fence or
whatever it takes out of the proper building materials or like you mentioned
earlier, a berm. As far as the fumes, there is not enough traffic in there.
Mr. Kruse: I have just seen you start to move in, I don't know what's coming later.
Mr. Ochinero: We want to be good neighbors. We want to do what is takes.
Mr. McCann: We do have some concerns there. John, some suggestions from you as far
the berm and the height of the berm and what protection can we expect the
petitioner to do along Eckles as well as Amrheim?
Mr. Nagy: The drawing proposed is silent on all those issues. We need documentation
to establish clearly on the record as to what is being proposed,what kind of
materials are going to be used both for the fence as well as the height of the
berm and the quantity of landscaping so I would suggest that the plan be
revised and we would be happy to work with the applicant along those
lines and help him prepare those plans to address those issues.
Mr. McCann: Would you suggest that we table this petition?
Mr. Nagy: Right. And let us work it out and get it back in shape for your final
consideration.
16745
Mr. McCann: Thank you. In the meantime you can be back in touch with the staff and I
am sure the petitioner will give you his card before he leaves tonight so
you can address those concerns. Is there anyone else in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to
close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: He also needs to check what he needs for the parking lot.
Mr. Hale: If he could also give us some indication as to what type of material that
fence would be, what type of masonry material you would be using bricks
or what, we would like to know that.
Mr. Ochinero: It would probably be brick, something that would match the surrounding
building. Basically we could build it out of anything that looks good.
Anything that you want.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#3-46-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on March 23, 1999, on Petition 99-2-2-6 by
Brazen and Greet Masonry, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to
stockpile material outdoors in connection with a masonry contracting
business located on the south side of Amrhein Road, east of Eckles Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 99-2-2-6 to the meeting of April 20,
1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution aodpted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-6-1 by the
City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution#405-98 and Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02 and 4.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to set
forth zoning requirements for family (1 to 6 children) and group (7 to 12 children) day care
homes in residential districts.
Mr. McCann: John, I am going to go to you to start with regard to a brief description and
the purposes of the amended ordinance.
Mr. Nagy: This petition was initiated pursuant to a Council resolution. The Council
recognizing the need in the community both for family care and group care
children facilities. In recognition of that fact and the fact in large fact that
many facilities and addressing in the community, the zoning ordinance itself
C ' was silent with respect to any standards or rules or regulations for those uses.
�r The City Council felt it was in the best interest of the public and the
community to have regulations in place that would actually address the
16746
development of those the proximity of one use to the other and some of the
health, safety and welfare issues that are associated with it. To that end a draft
ordinance was prepared after much discussion with the community involved
along with our Law Department and various committees of the City Council.
Language was ultimately prepared in draft form by our Law Department and
was again reviewed at the Council level and further amendments and
adjustments were made and forwarded on pursuant to the Council resolution
that you referenced for the Commissions to hold a public hearing and
thereafter give a report and recommendation regarding that amendment.
Mr. McCann: John, we talked earlier about the pertinent parts of the amendment and before I
open it up to the audience, Mr. Kavanagh are you prepared to speak on this or
just to answer questions?
Mr. Kavanagh: I am ready.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone on the Planning Commission that has any questions for Mr.
Kavanagh regarding the amended ordinance.
Mr. LaPine: I have some concerns about how the City can be liable? Can we put in the
ordinance whereby the petitioner has to have insurance or liability insurance of
X number of dollars so that if there is a lawsuit and something is not in the
ordinance that should have been covered we want the City protected so they
can't come back to the city and sue the city because it was not in the ordinance.
Mr. Kavanagh: State statutes control what city's can put in their zoning ordinance for
the city to be liable for any injuries that may occur or any neglect, any
omissions or errors that may occur at one of these family day care homes or
group day care homes, there would have to be a special relationship between
the City of Livonia and that group day care home or family day care home.
That is tantamount to a citizen suing the City for the services of the Fire
Department or Police Department not arriving in time to prevent a fire from
spreading or prevent a crime things like that. In other words, the City has been
warned ahead of time that this problem is going to occur and fails to act and
that is very rarely enforced, the City wouldn't be liable in a civil liability or
anything that might occur in one of these family day care homes. As far as
whether or not the City can insist whether that an insurance policy be held by
these providers, I would say no that the City has no legitimate interest in doing
that since we would not be the insured nor would we be the beneficiary to that
policy. The state of Michigan itself has certain requirements, not only
requirements but in the administrative rules. A lot of them are safety related
issues, fire distinguishes and things like that but the city cannot order in its
ordinances that insurance policies be required.
Mr. LaPine: The reason I bring it up, I notice that in Huntington Woods in their ordinance,
they do have a certification, a certain amount of liability insurance. The
insurance company has to notify the city if at any time that insurance lapses or
anything of that nature. I quite frankly think it is a good idea and it gives us
some protection
16747
Mr. Kavanagh: We have reviewed about 14 ordinances from townships and cities and 14 of
them have things that are contrary to state law. You can put it in there if you
want. If somebody challenges you, I am not going to tell you that right now
that challenge will or will not be upheld in Circuit Court.
Mr. LaPine: Now a days people sue for anything. The city can be sued by anybody and a
decision can be made by a judge or a jury. Another thing that disturbs me, the
state of Michigan sets the rules, now how do we know it has all the things that
are needed for the protection of a child, such as a C.O. alarm system in case of
a fire, or carbon monoxide alarm and things of this nature. The city does not
inspect these things, this is done by the state of Michigan. I would feel more
confortable if these were done at a local level.
Mr. Kavanagh: We have noticed that in some of these communities that they have passed
these ordinances they have included inspection requirements by the local
inspectors and that would be for the family day care and group day care homes.
For the family day care homes and group day care homes one of them is an
inspection that lasts for two years and one that lasts for three years, I have to
look at my notes to see which one is which. For the initial licensing by the
state of Michigan and there is a listing of entities or people that will qualify as
inspectors. One of them is a local inspector,one of them is a fire marshal and
there are a few others. So if the City, Council in this case, were to insist in the
ordinance that these providers, first of all register with the City Clerk, so at
least we know where they are. We've got a registration list, I just got a new
one today from the State of Michigan, we know where the licensed providers
are in the City of Livonia You could require, as some other city's have, family
day care homes and group day care homes be inspected by the city inspector
and that certificate of compliance by the city inspector could be used by that
provider to show the State of Michigan that they have complied with all of
their requirements. So it is six of one or half dozen of the other, they have to
get it inspected somewhere by somebody so why not get it done at the local
level.
Mr. LaPine: The other thing I like along with that, the city building inspector can look at
the house and see if it is up to code and see if it is up to code plus the report we
have of all the homes that have these day care centers, there was some that
only had 532 sq. ft. or 900 sq. ft. To me we should have a minimum of at
least 1,000 sq. ft. house before you can have one of these operations.
Mr. Kavanagh: There are rules the State has, administrative rules, I can't remember how
many square feet it is for play space and things like that.. The problem we
have with the family day care situation which is six or less children, the State
is only an enabling statue only permits us to do what we do for other homes
that are not used for this purpose in the same residential rezone. In other
words, if we don't inspect every other house, can we inspect these houses. If
we don't require every other house in that zone to have a fence, can we require
these houses to have a fence. If you read these state statutes literally for six
and less children, the answer is no. I wrote you a letter which paraphrases the
16748
statutory language. For the seven to twelve children the group day care homes,
the answer is yes, you can regulate much more stringently than you can the
small family day care homes. You can put reasonable restrictions on the
larger homes, you can't go as far on the smaller homes.
Mr. LaPine: Well, I guess you and I have a difference of opinion. It is not a home in my
opinion. It is operating a business out of a home.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Kavanagh, I don't know, do you have a copy of the latest thing that you
did here so you know the numbers.
Mr. Kavanagh: You mean the list? Yes, I have it.
Mrs. Koons: Number 11, the outdoor play space.
Mr. McCann: Is that family day care or group day care, because they are different?
Mrs. Koons: Group day care. What we have here currently is that we have a total minimum
area of not less than 1,200 sq. ft. outdoor play space.
Mr. Kavanagh: You are talking about the larger home?
Mr. McCann: That's the group day care.
Mrs. Koons: Yes. From what I am reading from the state licensing a day care home shall
provide an outdoor play area which is not less than 400 sq. ft. and which is
available on the premises or within a reasonable walking distance of the home.
Do you know with all the re-writes why there is a 400 sq. ft. to a 1200 sq. ft.
difference?
Mr. Kavanagh: I can't recall the latest, is that the letter from the state. Isn't that about
nine years old. I know the administrative rules address that. I will have to find
that and get back to you.
Mrs. Koons: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Sean, do we have protection in here if there were six children in this one house,
and the next house has 12 children, the next house have six, could we put a
separation of 800 ft. or 1000 ft. feet before you have another home?
Mr. Kavanagh: You can. In counties that are outside of municipalities such as cities and
villages, the county zoning and the township zoning act both have specific
references in them have 1500 foot separation requirements between group day
care, adult foster care homes, community correction facilities, drug
rehabilitation facilities. There is a specific reference to allowing a
municipality such as a township or a county to do that. There has been a case
that says that you cannot apply that 1500 foot separation requirement to adult
foster care homes because the Federal Fair Housing Act does not allow for
that. It prohibits that. But there is no case that we are aware of in the state of
1
I
16749
L Michigan that prevents a municipality from enacting a 1500 or 200 foot or 500
foot separation requirement between group day homes, that is the larger, 7 to
12 children, day care homes. There is no existing prohibition or allowance in
state statute for separation requirement of the smaller homes. As a matter of
fact, they must be treated, under that language that I sited to you, as any other
house in R-1 through R-5 and RUF district.
Mr. Alanskas: So we could have as many as six homes, back to back?
Mr. Kavanagh: You bet, the smaller ones. Also, on both sides of you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions for Mr. Kavanagh at this time? Hearing none, I
"am going to go to the audience. I am going to allow everybody to come up and
speak for and against this petition as they wish, but we have a large number of
people in the audience tonight and I am going to ask that you limit comments
to within three minutes so that everyone has an opportunity to speak who
wishes to. I will alternate from either microphone on either side so if you want
to line up on either side, I will go back and forth. Give us you name and
address and comments.
Karen Egan, 18694 Golfview, Livonia. I am here this evening on behalf of families in our
community that utilize home based child care. I am here on behalf of the
providers that operate these programs and the children that attend them. I
i would like to thank the Law Department for drafting this ordinance that we are
looking at this evening and I know it took a lot of time and research and I
know they did a very thorough job. I know that Mr. Nagy compiled a ton of
information for you to analyze. I appreciate that you postponed this public
hearing tonight to give yourself sufficient time to research the state regulations
and the ordinances in other communities. This really is an issue that
community leaders are looking at not only locally but state wide and across
the nation. We found through our research that most communities lack
ordinances that regulate child care homes at all. This is simply because the
ordinances were written before we had regulated child care. We have only had
regulated child care in this state for 25 years. Before that child care homes
were unregulated. We have had child care in this city for as long as we have
working mothers. The need has increased because we have more mothers with
young children in the work force than ever before. This ordinance is
necessary. Many cities have already tackled this task. Livonia is a little bit
different from those other cities. I am going to quote Mayor Kirksey. We
advertise a family friendly city. Quoting Mayor Kirksey, "Livonia is a
wonderful place to live, work and raise a family. In fact the city is proud to be
have been named the ninth best place to raise families. We have also been
recognized as the sixth safest in the nation by the FBI. Our outstanding
schools and libraries, beautiful parks, fine recreational facilities and
exceptional city services help create a quality of life that is unsurpassed." I
( ,
tor agree with the Mayor. Livonia is a wonderful place to raise a family. My
husband will never live on a lake because we don't have any in Livonia. This
ordinance is another example of why Livonia is a wonderful place to raise your
children. This ordinance, once completed, will be used as a model for other
16750
communities throughout the state. These communities are watching to see
what Livonia does. They are watching to see how the ninth best city in the
nation will draft an ordinance that will protect the children and those that care
for them. They are watching to see Livonia, a family friendly community,
pass a family friendly ordinance. I am not asking you to bring anything new
into this city. I am not asking you to rezone Ward church and bring in a
Farmer Jack. I am not asking you to bring in a Meijer's with a 24 hour service
and lots of traffic. I am not asking you to approve anything that isn't already
here and hasn't been here. This is nothing new. I am asking you to officially
recognize that these homes do exist in the city. Legitimize the fact that they
are in deed here. I understand that you have researched and discussed this
issue and that each of you has differing opinions on what restrictions should be
placed on providers. I appreciate those ideas and recommendations. Mr.
Piercecchi, your idea of having a provider registry with the police is fabulous.
It is extremely reassuring to know that if we have a situation and we feel we
need the police or if we have a medical emergency and we need to dial 911,
they will know that we have a house full of children. And the extra help that is
needed that was a great idea. I am truly pleased that this ordinance came to
you first so that we could get your input and suggestions. No one else even
thought of that. This evening I respectfully request that you take your
suggestions and this ordinance and pass it on to the City Council. They have
also researched this issue in their legislative committee and they must hold
another public hearing at that level. They, as the elected officials, are
ultimately the decision makers. They will take your respected suggestions, as
tof well as those of the community into consideration. There are some
restrictions in this draft that need to make reworked a little to make the
ordinance more workable for families and providers but that discussion really
needs to take place at the City Council level with input from those Council
members who made the original draft of this. Please expedite this process by
voting yes to pass this ordinance. I will be here if you have any questions for
me.
Mr. Piercecchi: I want to make it clear here that we are not opposed to these types of
facilities in Livonia. Our only interest is really for the safety and welfare of
the children and the betterment of our children. As far as our passing it on,
that may not be possible tonight. It depends on what kind of suggestions we
get from the audience. There may be further ways to improve it. That is our
job here tonight. To hear the people and to hopefully to delete some of the
things that are in here.
Ms. Egan: Sir, a lot of these people don't know what is in it. How do you expect them to
comment on something they don't have. Perhaps you could read it.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you want me to read it?
Ms. Egan: You don't have to read all 34 pages. Or give the people some understanding
that the restrictions don't apply to. They don't apply to family day care homes
with six children. They only apply to group day care homes with 7 to 12
children. The group providers, if they meet the restrictions will automatically
16751
be given a waiver use permit. If they don't meet the restrictions, they will have
�` to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to continue to operate with 7 to 12
�r children.
Mr. McCann: Al, were you prepared to go through those tonight?
Mr. Piercecchi: I can go ahead and read it. (h) A "Family day care home," as defined by
Public Act 1973, No. 116 of the State of Michigan, as amended, as a private
home in which one (1) but fewer than seven(7) minor children are received for
care and supervision for periods of less than twenty-four 24) hours a day,
unattended by a parent or legal guardian, for more than four(4)weeks during a
calendar year, except children related to an adult member of the family by
blood, marriage,or adoption; provided, however, that:
1) the owner or occupant of said residence is a licensee in good standing
with the State Michigan pursuant to P.A. 1973,No. 116 as amended;
2) the owner or occupant of said residence has registered with the City
Clerk;
3) the facility is the principal residence of the provider;
4) the use shall not result in traffic congestion or ba7ardous traffic
conditions;
5) a drop-off/pickup area shall be provided where the residence is located
on a major thoroughfare as defined in this ordinance in order to prevent
vehicles from backing onto the roadway;
6) the use shall not involve an increase in on-street parking by more than
two (2) additional vehicles at a time;
7) all health and safety requirements established by the State of Michigan
shall be met;
8) there shall be no dropping off or picking up of children between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
9) no structural changes or exterior alterations shall be made which would
alter the residential character of the dwelling except for those necessary
to comply with the State of Michigan licensing rules applicable to
group day care homes;
10) such use shall provide and maintain an outdoor play space equip in area
to at least one hundred fifty(150) square feet per child and in any event
such play space shall have a total minimum area of not less than six
hundred(600) square feet;
16752
11) the residence will have appropriate fencing which shall encompass the
entire outdoor play space or, in the alternative, relief from this
requirement may be sought upon appeal to the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
12) the use will comply with all noise standards and other provisions
contained in Chapter 8.24(Nuisances) and Chapter 8.32(Noise
Control) of the Livonia Code of Ordinances;
13) no sign shall be used other than one (1) non-illuminated name plate
attached to the entrance of the residence which is not more than one (1)
square foot in area;
•
14) all family day care centers shall be registered with the 911 dispatch
center and the City of Livonia Public Safety Department;
15) Certification that the operator will hold the City of Livonia harmless in
the event of litigation involving the operator's day care operation.
(h) A "group day care home" as defined by P.A. 1973,No. 116, as
amended, as a private home in which more than six (6) but not more
than twelve (12) minor children are given care and supervision for
periods of less than twenty-four hours a day unattended by a parent or
guardian, for more than four(4) weeks during a calendar year, except
children related to an adult member of the family by blood, marriage or
adoption; provided that;
(1) the owner or occupant of said residence is a licensee in good standing
with the State Michigan pursuant to P.A. 1973, No. 116 as amended;
(2) the owner or occupant of said residence has registered with the City
Clerk
(3) the facility is the principal residence of the provider;
(4) the residence has direct access to a public street that has a width of at
least eighty-six (86) feet (collector roads) as designated on the Master
Thoroughfare Plan;
(5) the use shall not result in traffic congestion or hazardous traffic
conditions;
(6) a drop-ofFpickup area shall be provided where the residence is located
on a major thoroughfare as defined in this ordinance in order to prevent
vehicles from backing onto the roadway;
16753
(7) the use shall not involve an increase in on-street parking by more than
two (2)additional vehicles at a time;
(8) all health and safety requirements established by the State of Michigan
shall be met;
(9) there shall be no dropping off or picking up of children between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
(10) no structural changes or exterior alterations shall be made which would
alter the residential character of the dwelling except for those necessary
to comply with the State of Michigan licensing rules applicable to
group day care homes;
(11) such use shall provide and maintain an outdoor play space equal in area
to at least one hundred fifty (150) square feet per child and in any event
such play space shall have a total minimum area of not less than one
thousand two hundred(1,200)square feet;
(12) the residence will have appropriate fencing which shall encompass the
entire outdoor play space or, in the alternative, relief from this
requirement may be sought upon appeal to the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
(13) the use will comply with all noise standards and other provisions
contained in Chapter 8.24 (Nuisances) and Chapter 8.32 (Noise
Control) of the Livonia Code of Ordinances;
(14) no sign shall be used other than one (1) non-illuminated name plate
attached to the entrance of the residence which is not more than one (1)
square foot in area;
(15) all group day care centers shall be registered with the 911 dispatch
center and the City of Livonia Public Safety Department;
(16) certification that the operator will hold the City of Livonia harmless in
the event of litigation involving the operator's day care operation.
(17) no group day care home may operate within a distance of one thousand
(1,000) feet from any existing registered group day care home, as
measured from the nearest property line of the proposed use to the
nearest property line of the existing registered use,except upon the
granting of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
There shall be no grandfathering of existing group day care home and this subsection
shall apply to all new and/or existing group day care homes. Existing group day care
homes shall have one (1) year from the effective date to this subsection to comply with
the provisions herein.
16754
And we are going to add City Inspectors.
tolv Mr. McCann: Now we've got it all out there. You appear to be speaking for the group,
you've reviewed it. I guess what we need to do is see if you have something
for us.
Mr. Nowak: A couple of other comments that I had was I wanted to make sure the people
understood that the family day care homes would be allowed as a permitted use
in our R-1 through R-5 district as long as the specified conditions were met
that Mr. Piercecchi read. The group day care home would be allowed as a
waiver use in all R-1 through R-5 districts and would have to comply with all
the specified conditions. These uses would also have be subject to all the
general waiver use standards and requirement as set forth in the 19.06 of the
zoning ordinance. Also I wanted to explain the difference between the list of
standards for the two types of facilities. One has to do with the minimum
amount of play area a facility is required to have. For a family day care home
it would be 600 sq. ft. which is the amount required for four children at 150 sq.
ft. per child rather than 1,200 sq. ft. for a group day care home. There also
would be 1,000 foot separation requirement between group day care homes but
there is no minimum spacing requirement between family day care homes and
there is also a requirement that group day care homes have direct access to at
least 86 feet in width which is a collector road or a main road whereas there no
requirement that a family day care home be located on a main or collector
460
street.
,,, Mr. McCann: Thank you. And again as you said anybody that cannot comply they can go to
the ZBA. So there is an administrative body which they could take relief from.
Ms. Egan: I do believe I heard Mr. Kavanagh say, correct me if I am wrong, that you may
not put those restrictions on family day care homes with less than six children
unless you do that to every other home in the zone. Therefore, Mr. McCann,
your home would need to have those restrictions met also and would need to
be inspected by the City. Is that correct?
Mr. McCann: Mr. Kavanagh, our city attorney, can answer that.
Mr. Kavanagh: The administrative rules state, if you are talking first of all about the
inspection requirement,they can be applied to family day care homes and
group day care homes, I'll read it to you: "It says proof of a recent inspection
and approval of your heating system by one of the following; (1) a licensed
heating contractor,qualified fire inspector, insurance company or a state
mechanical inspector or local building inspector." If you put that requirement
in there for all of these homes whether it is a large or a small day care home
home, that would satisfy the state of Michigan requirement on the
administrative rules. As far as the play space, what you read was correct. The
same thing that was nine years is the same thing today, it is 400 sq. ft. for
group day car home, that is 20 X 20. You can't put more restrictions on day
care homes in the zoning context than you do for any other home in that zone.
If you say to every other homeowner in the R-1 to R-5 or RUF district that
16755
they must have play space for their children of 400 sq. ft. then you can say the
same thing for day care homes. If the state requires, then we can require it,
that is a simple rule. We can't require any more for the family day care homes
than the state requires. For the group day care homes, you can require more.
Mr. McCann: So what you are saying is the family care home we can require 600 because
the state requires it.
Mrs. Koons: 400 sq. ft.
Mr. Kavanagh: I am saying that it has to be the same as the state.
Ms. Egan: Why can't we just say that family day care homes are a permitted use in all
districts provided that you have a license by the state? That way we know we
meet the requirements, that the person has a license or a registration with the
state and the city doesn't have to waste its time, money and resources
Mr. McCann: One of the things that you suggested,there are certain things that we want, the
911 dispatch, they have to be registered, on street parking and so forth that we
don't allow....well we do, don't we. We have to look at the off-street parking,
correct Sean?
Mr. Kavanagh: For home occupations, we don't allow more than two cars at a time at a site
and that is for all homes.
Ms. Egan: We are specifically not a home occupation, is that correct?
Mr. Kavanagh: The home occupation ordinance that we submitted to you as a draft saying
that family day care homes and group day care homes are not considered home
occupations. If you are going to separate the group day care homes and call
them waiver uses and family day care homes as permitted uses, you should
probably separate that out of the home occupation language also. Because the
larger homes, the group day care homes, would readily fit as a home
occupation and fall under the same requirements as other home occupations in
residential zones which does limit the number of cars you can have and the
number of employees that you can have and that sort of thing. As far as the
play space rule 400.1814 of the administrative rules indicates that a day care
home, they don't say family or group day care, shall provide not less than 35
square feet per child of usable accessible of indoor exclusive of bathrooms and
storage areas. For outdoor play area a day care home area shall provide an
outdoor play area that is not less than 400 sq. ft. and which is available on the
premises or within a reasonable walking distance to the home. That means
that applies to everything, family day care home and group day care homes.
You can have a minimum standard there if you want to make it 600 sq. ft. you
would be exceeding the requirements the state has. Again none of these things
have been tested regarding local governments right to implement more strict
standards on these day care facilities, whether it is family or group day care
homes. There is no case law in the state of Michigan that has addressed these
issues, other than private subdivision restrictions which restrict businesses or
16756
nonresidential uses in residential areas. There are a couple of cases on point
but of course the city doesn't get involved with those.
Mr. McCann: But other communities have these built into their ordinance?
Mr. Kavanagh: Yes they do. You probably have copies of them. There are ordinances that
do have 1200 sq. ft. minimum.
Mr. McCann: And they haven't been challenged?
Mr. Kavanagh: If they have been challenged, there is no reported cases in the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Mrs. Koons: What you are telling us legally about the drop off and pick up, we couldn't
impose those?
Mr. Kavanagh: You can if the family day care were considered a home occupation. The draft
ordinance that we have submitted to you makes it not a home occupation, the
family day care. I am suggesting to you that the group day care home, since
the draft now is calling it a waiver use that it should not be listed a home
occupation, for the larger homes.
Ms. Egan: Specifically when we drafted this ordinance, when City Council worked in the
legislative committee it was taken out of the business use of your home.
Business use of your home ordinance in this city does not allow you to have
more than one non-resident employee. You are going to wipe out every group
provider if you do that. That is specifically why a separate ordinance was
drafted and it was not considered business use of your home.
Mr. McCann: But we could amend the business use to have an exemption for day care
homes, couldn't we Sean?
Mr. Kavanagh: Yes you can.
Mr. McCann: So maybe we should look at amending it in that way we would qualify with
this ordinance. If that is your only concern about having this called a business
use, is the number of employees.
Ms. Egan: There are employees, there are parking issues, and there are square footage
amount of your house issues. Typically family day care providers and group
day care providers will use their whole house. If you put a baby in every
bedroom, they use the kitchen for cooking and art activities, they use the living
family room for playing and reading, business use of your home ordinances do
not allow you to utilize more than 20% of your square footage space.
Mr. McCann: I am going to try, I have given you 25 minutes as opposed to three because
you are the leader, but I know there are other people that want to speak I am
going to allow you to come back.
16757
Mr. Piercecchi: Jim, where do we mention outside employees?
(kW Mrs. Koons: Parking.
Mr. Piercecchi: It's not mentioned in here.
Mrs. Koons: It is mentioned in the parking.
Mrs. Egan: Employees are mentioned in business use with home ordinances with the City
of Livonia, it is not mentioned in your ordinance here. But if you do call it
business use of your home then those ordinances would apply. That is were
the employee issue will come in. We have regulations from the state as to how
many employees we must have to care for the children and the ages of the
children. We want to make sure that we have enough people there to
adequately provide for the safety of the children.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are referring to seven in a group day care home only, because in the other
one there are no employees involved.
Ms. Egan: Depending on the ages of the children, there may or may not be employees.
Mr. Piercecchi: Not in the family day care?
Ms. Egan: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then you really have a business.
Mr. McCann: That is what they are saying.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then you have a business if you bring in employees. You have to have it in a
group day care home because you are working with 12.
Ms. Egan: And you have to have it in a family day care if you have three babies.
Mr. McCann: That is an issue that has to be addressed.
Mr. Alanskas: I am sure you are aware that tonight this is a draft that Mr. Kavanagh and
Council has put before us is and if we pass something that is not correct then
we will have another public hearing with the Council and you know poor Mr.
Kavanagh is going to lose all of this hair over this, because it is going is go for
a long period of time before it is done and corrected. I am sure that Council
and Mr. Kavanagh will make sure that it is correct. So if we approve
something that is not correct, it will be corrected.
Ms. Egan: Great.
,,. Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. You name and address.
16758
Heather Hale, 15435 Middlebelt Road, Livonia. I am coming before you on behalf of the
Michigan Child Care Providers, Inc. The association is a nonprofit Michigan
corporation located in Livonia which represents 1500 child care providers in
Michigan including family and group day care centers, a number of which are
located in the City of Livonia. I am going to keep my comments brief in the
interest of time. I just wanted to go on the record as stating that the association
would strongly urge the Commission to support the proposed amendment and
to Section 4.03. The association would strongly urge the Commission to
support the elimination of the proposed provision prohibiting the
grandfathering of the existing home care facilities. Instead the association
would propose that the city offer permanent grandfathering of existing day care
facilities. Group day care centers with up to 12 children have existed in
Livonia for a number of years. They have been an extremely valuable asset to
working parents in the city. There is a demand for these homes. Working
parents that seek quality care need these homes. They are very useful in
keeping children within their own neighborhoods, their own communities, and
close to their own homes. I have nothing further unless you have any
questions.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
June Thompson, I am a licensed group day care home in Livonia. I started out in a very small
house, Mr. LaPine. I had to raise my children. I started out with two children,
then I was allowed to have three. That gave me a living so that I could build
,,. my home larger and put my children through college here in Livonia. It took a
long time, twenty years. I have been in the business for a long time. I know
my community. My neighbors know me. They can depend on me. I am
there. Not grandfathering us is ridiculous. We need our income and our
community needs our service. The prices are going to go sky high for day
care. You can't find infant day care anymore. It is virtually impossible. You
are allowed to have two children in a family home. If you can't have help,
then you can't have other children. We have a lot of rules that we have to
follow. We are very well educated in those rules and we take classes. We
have to take 12 credit hours a year in those classes of rules and regulations.
We have to have onsite inspections. We have to constantly educated ourselves
and our parents. The people that are licensed are the ones that care. They are
the ones that are here to do the right job. We are doing our very best.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say you have onsite inspections, who are they from and how often
are they done?
Ms. Thompson: They are done by the State of Michigan. They come to my house every two
years and if you belong to the federal food program, every three months. And
those people definitely keep in contact with each other. But we are in a
business that is in dire need in this community. If you don't grandfather those
people that are here now do you think you are going to have hundreds of
people applying for six children? There's not that many now. Look at your
list. You don't have thousands of day care homes in this community. You
have maybe a hundred. How many people do we have? There are people out
16759
here with infants that have been trying to get day care before they decided to
pregnant. I have people call me and I don't even do babies. You have to keep
in mind that this is a very needed resource in our community. Very needed. It
is something you can't live without. Maybe you have relatives that can do it or
maybe you can have in-home day care but a lot of people can't afford that.
And those of us who are making a living at this you can't make it so impossible
for people to run a business by not grandfathering those people those people in
that have been in business for so long, that has to be amended in the charter
because that is not going to work. What little group day care you have family
group day care, if you don't grandfather half of them, you won't have them.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned that the City of Livonia needs these facilities. I am not being
argumentative when I ask this question but what percentage of these children
are residents of Livonia?
Ms. Thompson: In my day care, 100%.
Mr. Piercecchi: Ms. Egan., do you know what percentage.
Ms. Egan: Some work here or some live here.
Mr. McCann: Anything else?
Ms. Thompson: Well, take into consideration, where would you want your children, in a
licensed home or an unlicensed home?
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Jerry Perez, 16148 Henry Ruff, Livonia. My wife and I operate a group day care also. I
wrote a letter to each one of the Commissioners and it seems in some cases that
we are trying to reinvent the wheel. The state does do a lot of regulation on the
day care facilities. When we get down to talking about insurance or if there is
going to be a day care right next door to each other, if there will be 6, 6, and
12. I doubt it. The percentage is that there might 1 to 1400 homes in Livonia
is very small. Some of the recommendations to add to the ordinance seems to
be a little bit more restrictive than it should be especially when you are dealing
with a group. When you are talking about 86 foot access road and things like
that, there's not that many out there. There are a lot of elementary schools that
do not have that type of access either. The inspections they do to the homes, it
might not only be two years, it is also random when you get down to the group.
I would just like to read from my letter to you, "that my wife and I would
appreciate your support for group and family child care homes in Livonia. We
operate a group child care home. This allows us to have no more than 12
children at any one time. We are licensed by the State of Michigan and have
been inspected and approved by their licensing consultants. Group child care
homes are inspected more often and have stricter regulations than family child
tri care homes. Family child care homes allow for no more than six children at
any one time. We are in support for an ordinance that will allow for both
family and group child care homes. Currently there is a shortage of child care
16760
Li ' in Livonia as I mentioned what the percentage where. We do believe that we
do need the ordinance so that we can legalize the existence of these homes in
Livonia. There are many families out there where both the parents have to
work. We offer these parents a choice between a child care center, family
child care home or a group child care home. We hope that our services will be
here in the future to help you or your children and their children. Please
support the need for group and family child care homes. At a minimum, please
consider the grandfathering. Personally, from our home that we have, this is
the sole source of our income so we need this. Thank you.
RalphWilliams, 18630 Foch. I would like to remind everyone here that at a previous hearing
we had people stand at that lectern and this lectern and say they were operating
an unlicensed homes and they intended to continue to operate unlicensed
homes. It is not only wrong but it is a violation of the state law and worst of
all it puts the children at an added risk. And by public approbation all of our
officials are partners in crime. I think the best thing the officials can do and
this includes the Council and the administration is take prompt action to enact
the proper ordinance. My personal feeling is, I think as an absolute minimum,
you should require a state license and also require that they be registered with
the City Clerk.
Mr. McCann: Most people in the audience are saying they are for licensing by the state.
They don't like illegal operations.
411, Mr. Williams: I understand, Mr. Chairman, but there are some who don't want licensing.
Mr. McCann: The state does that, we don't have any control over that. You are saying that
you are agreeing with the city ordinance.
Mr. Williams: I am basically agreeing with the city ordinance but I would like to see them
licensed by the state as well.
Mike Hayes,18798 Norwich, I am here in support of the family day care providers up to 12.
I have two sons that were greatly served by it and the only change in our status
has been dictated by school. They were provided for wonderfully and we are
deeply indebted to those providers. I have noticed tonight, you all seem to
mention that you visit these locations before you make decisions on some of
the other people who bring petitions before you. I was questioning myself
have you ever visited any of these in-home providers too see the services they
are providing versus the commercial providers, because I have visited them
both. Number 2, there was a comment about a 1000 sq. ft. for 12 children not
being very big. I have been to some locations where you can have 24 children
within that amount of square footage. I may be wrong on that. Some of the
facilities I visited and they said they were licensed for 24 within that area and
I looked at it and there were only two adults in providing care and I was
thinking I was watching WWF on a midget scale. Number 3,there was a
comment that there are not homes that these are businesses, but as one who has
utilized these services I would ask you to pull up in your car, dropping your
children walking into a home versus walking into a commercial building,what
16761
type of an effect does that have on your child going into that business. I think
it was very positive for mine. They thought they were walking into a house.
They looked upon those providers as an extended family. We are thankful for
that. We considered them as honorably aunts and uncles as well. Number 4,
this number 12 that is bantered about. These are not 12 teenagers, these are 12
children that for the most part will be under five or six years of age. Most of
those children are outside playing. I grew up in Detroit and when we were
outside playing there were probably 50 of us playing and nobody ever
complained. Number 5, you are making a decision that is already very hard for
working parents even harder. It is traumatic enough, I realize it is hard for a
woman I know but now with men being more and more involved, I did laundry
tonight before I came here, so you are going to make things even harder for the
guys. Maybe you guys from the 60's had it pretty good but the guys from the
90's have it a little rougher. My final comment would be lower the burden of
excessive taxes and fees and I would be happy to be a stay at home dad.
Richard McLain,11326 Hubbard. I do live in Livonia and I take my kids to day care in
Livonia in what would be considered a group day care home, licensed for 12.
One of the things that I certainly don't see reasonable that is proposed in the
ordinance is the frontage road for group day care home of 86 feet. It makes no
real sense to me. I don't see that much extra traffic in a group day care home
with 12 kids over six. I have two kids so I pick them up with one car and I
think that is true for a lot of families in that size home. I do live right across
from St. Michael's School in Old Rosedale Gardens which has extra narrow
streets. My street is probably 19 or 20 feet wide and there are several hundred
cars dropping off kids there and picking them up. I don't really see that that is
consistent with the 12 kids in one home needing 86 feet of road. I would really
like to see you change that and address that.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Rhonda& David Miller, 15743 Penn Drive, Livonia. I would like to make one comment the
gentlemen made. I attended the last meeting before the Council and there was
not one person that got up and said that they were running an unlicensed day
care. That is what we are here for. We are licensed providers and we are
trying to provide the best care or we wouldn't be licensed. The one comment
that we made and I want to make it here, we have been doing this for seven
years, this is how we make our income. This is how we make our living. If
you cut this down to six you just cut half of our income off. We moved from
one house in Livonia that we lived at for approximately four years to a larger
house to accommodate more children. So we have been a part of this
community for eight years. Before we even started the day care, before I quit
my job, I went to the City of Livonia and I said this is what I am doing.
Where does the City of Livonia stand on this? And this is what I was told, as
long as you are licensed with the State of Michigan we basically look the other
way. I don't have the name of the person that told me that. It was an inspector
when I called in. Had I been told at that time that no you are not allowed to
run a day care in Livonia, I would not have pursued it any further. Nor would I
have put the time, the money or myself into this business. So I would ask that
16762
you consider that. For many people this is their income. This is how we make
our money. We care for children and that is not an easy job to do. And as you
can see by the numbers there are not a not of these day care homes in Livonia.
There are only a very few.
Sue Petta, I am also a group child care provider. My husband and I have done this for
seven years. Even though people are getting up here and saying that this is
their income, believe me that is not the reason you do this. It is because how
we feel about children and it is not something that everyone can do. I know
this is something that is new to you and to the City Council, things have been
brought up. Use it as a learning tool. We need to have the ordinance but we
need to be grandfathered in. We need to keep the same as it has been for us.
Mary Aiton, 13975 Cardwell, Livonia. I am a single, divorced mother. I have a five and a
half year old son. He has been with what you would call a group day care
home for four years. I really need a day care here I only looked for licensed
day care. I interviewed 12 areas, 9 of them being home day cares, 3 of them
being child care centers , we need home day care centers here in Livonia. I am
happy that you are looking into having an ordinance here but I do want you to
consider one thing. You mentioned the limit of the number of cars that can be
parked at one time at a group home facility. My day care facility that my son
attends closes at 5:30. There are many of us that are there at 5:25. I work
down town in Detroit it is not just a few miles away. It takes me a while to
leave work and pick up my son. There are many occasions that four parents
are there at one time to pick up their children. It's not something we plan, it is
traffic and the other variables that go into picking up our children. I would
really like for you to consider not putting that type of limit of an extra two
vehicles that could be allowed at a home day care. Also, this 86 ft. wide street,
the limit there, the group day care I go to, her residential area is very narrow. I
really don't know what the footage is there, but it is narrower than 86 feet.
Mr. McCann: Let's make this clear, it is not an 86 ft. wide street, it is an 86 ft. wide right-of-
way.
Ms. Aiton: I don't think that exists in that neighborhood. I don't know what Jamison street
is, but my son goes to St. Genevieve School and there are many parents that
pick up their children. He is bused to my group day care provider and she has
been very important to our lives. I would like for you to take this issue very
seriously because it affects all of us. Twelve interviews and I was almost
ready to start over. She was the second to the last interview. I definitely
would have never considered any of the child day care centers that I went to. I
went to two in Livonia and one in Dearborn. It wasn't personal enough.
Thank you.
Jackie Solack, 15082 Golfview. I have two young children in group day care homes. I think
that other gentlemen had a good suggestion that you should go out to some of
these homes and take a look at them. Because it will give you an idea of what
we are talking about when we say a home environment in Livonia. Going into
16763
a day care center for me, it was like walking into an institution. It was like
somebody said, how many children can you stick in one room and it was
unbelievable. For me to even fathom putting my little baby in one of these day
care centers was pretty scary . Right now I walk him into a home. I am
greeted by somebody. Again, it is like an extended family member to us. So I
really do think that you need to take a look at these homes. Again, we are
faced with the working parents these days. I would love to stay at home with
my children but that is not an option at this point. What I am concerned when
all these homes close, or these day cares go out of business because if you limit
them to only 6, granted they have to be able to make a living, are they going to
be able to make a living if they only have 6 kids? Little Tots in Livonia for an
infant want $205 a week and you have to bring diapers and formula. That's
absurd. And to have two kids in day care it is very expensive. Again I think
you need to consider taking a look at these homes.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have your two children in a home all day long?
Ms. Solack: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you mind if I ask what you pay?
Ms. Solack: It is $140 a child so it is $280 a week.
Mr. McCann: Again, the comments are about whether we do or we don't. My two daughters
were both in a family group home and my two sons were both in the SACC
program. Mrs. Koons was in charge of it for the city schools. There are a lot
of us with kids and have some understanding for the need of these facilities.
Tim Numan, 39115 Parkhurst. I wasn't going to talk at this meeting. I don't own a day care.
We have a son who is going to be two years old in May and we are expecting
a second child. We have our children in day care. For a person to put a child
in a unlicensed day care facility they are fools. They are not doing their
homework. You are talking about the most precious commodity that we have,
is your livelihood and our kids. We scrutinized over ours. Our day care
facilitator is here. She is wonderful. She has 7 to 12 people in her home right
now. I feel safer bringing my child to Lillian every single day knowing that
that kid is going to be loved and taken care of every day. She is
accommodating, I am an educator, I teach at a high school. She
accommodated her hours to allow me to drop off my child so I could attend to
my first hour class. My wife is an educator. I am slightly offended to the
point that,I lived in Westland, one of the gentlemen up there made a point as
to how many of these children live in Livonia that are using these day care
facilities. I teach in Livonia, I deal with over a hundred kids a day. Should I
be denied access to having my children who are going to go to Livonia Public
Schools use a Livonia facility because I live in Westland? I am offended by
that. I touch a lot of lives, I hope, in Livonia, that is why I moved to your
city. I moved here last Christmas. I want my kids to go to elementary school
here I want them to go to high school here. It worries me some of the
16764
comments that I am hearing, I question the loyalty you guys have to our City.
Thank you.
Jeanne Bearer, 27432 Long Street, Livonia. I just had my first baby nine months. I started
looking for day care when I was three months pregnant. Once again, I talked
to individuals that would just watch one child. I went to the facilities and I
looked into group day care and also the family day care. I saw draw backs
and number one, the individuals that were willing to watch the baby, once
again were unlicensed, not paying taxes on that. I didn't feel that was right. I
pay tax on my income so I obviously feel they should be paying taxes as well.
Secondly, the family home, generally you have one person for 6 children
which causes a real problem when the day care provider is sick or one of their
children are sick you can't take your child there. In my group day care home
there are four employees. If the main provider's children are sick or if they are
not able to take care of the kids, there are always three other people. I don't
have to call into work. My husband doesn't have to miss work. We have 15
vacation days a year and generally we are going to waste a week of our
vacation time with our sick child let alone without worrying about a sick day
care provider. Thirdly, the large facilities, and she brought up Livonia Little
Tots has a good reputation. I went in there and they have what I call cages for
infants. They have three rows across and four rows up and down of beds for
these children with a sliding bar that comes down. It look like a pet store.
There was no way I could drop my baby off at that facility. Once again, it is
state regulated. It didn't have the atmosphere that the group home that we are
in. Everyone of the workers there loves my children. Being that the ages vary
my little girl just adores the older kids and has learned so much from them just
observing them. They help take care of her. It is just wonderful. I think you
have to take a look at the frontage of the homes. If you have a little house
maybe only so many cars will fit there but when you have parties or people
over, you will have more than two cars in front of a house. Unless it is
obstructing traffic, I don't think that is a big issue. My child is the youngest in
a group day care home and if they aren't grandfathered clause in I am going to
lose my day care and probably have to put her in a center because I am not in a
position to quit my job.
Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing, you've got two minutes.
Ms. Egan: I just wanted to address the road square footage because I'm not sure
everybody caught that. It is from sidewalk to sidewalk so it includes the
grassy area before the sidewalk. I do believe that every group day care
provider cannot meet that requirement. Mr. Nagy, am I right or am I wrong? .
There is no street in Old Rosedale Gardens, to my knowledge, that has those
right-of-way dimensions.
Mr.Nagy: The right-of-way is generally defined from back of sidewalk to back of
sidewalk and in Old Rosedale Gardens the only street would be West Chicago
that would likely meet that requirement.
16765
Ms. Egan: We're not talking about a four lane road I live on a regular street, I live on
Golfview. Where you can park on both sides of the street and a car can go
down the middle.
Mr. Kavanagh: I want to make sure you don't misinterpret that,they are talking about a
collector road. That is like Harrison, Henry Ruff, the bigger ones, West
Chicago, Curtis, the wider roads.
Ms. Egan: Then it is not a regular road?
Mr. Kavanagh: No.
Ms. Egan: So then you are taking pretty much everybody?
Mr. Kavanagh: We got a list today off the internet of family day care and group day care.
Ms. Egan: But this would just affect group day care? Correct?
Mr. Kavanagh: Correct. There are 24 licensed group day care homes, 7 to 12 kids and 50
family day care homes, 1 to 6 kids. On the list I see three, one on Six Mile
Road and two on Merriman Road, if the list is correct that would comply with
the 86 foot requirement. 21 of them would not.
Ms. Egan: I want to make sure I've got this right. Mr. Piercecchi, the first thing I heard
you say tonight that you are not against this. From what I am hearing Mr.
Kavanagh say is that three of you get to stay open. Do I understand that right?
Mr. McCann: There again this is a proposal and as you pointed out earlier we are trying to
establish a standard and guidelines for the future. That is an issue that we will
have to vote on tonight whether or not it will be grandfathered in and secondly,
there also is a year to comply or to go through the ZBA and grant a variance
saying I don't comply, but I have been existing here. The Zoning Board of
Appeals can grant relief and say you have been here and that things are fine
and that you can go on. That would be sufficient for them to empower the
group day care to say that you have done a good we have looked at it we will
waive that requirement to your home. So anybody that is already in existence
would have the right to go to the ZBA under the proposed ordinance as it is
and waive those requirements. You also have one year under this ordinance to
do that.
Ms. Egan: The ZBA can say no though?
Mr. McCann: They can.
Ms. Egan: My concern is a couple of different things. One, I would like to protect these
providers that are doing this critical service. So grandfathering is a wonderful
thing and it is needed. But we need to draft an ordinance that will meet the
future needs of this community. This is the Planning Commission,we need to
plan for that. Child day care provides do not stay in this field for 25 years.
16766
You do it when your children are young and then you go on to something else.
Burn out is an extremely high factor. These people are not going to be doing
this forever. We need to bring up new people to meet the needs of this
community. If you make the ordinance so restrictive then it is not going to
happen. We need to make it workable. The two car parking limitation is very
difficult for people with assistants. Assistants will park on the road. Parents
will come in and use your driveway. But they do come more than one at a
time occasionally. You cannot schedule parents to come within 10 minute
increments. If you live in Michigan you know its spring when every road you
need to drive on is all chopped up. Parents just can't make it. We would have
to extend our hours and in order to do that. I don't think that most people can
do that. We have families that we want to attend to in the evening hours. The
other issues we can deal with. The parking is very difficult. I realize that a
year is a good time to comply but we cannot move our homes. You are
talking about making people move. People have invested thousands of dollars
into their homes in turns of making it fit for children and allowing for that
child care. I don't think that is a reasonable accommodation.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. I am going to close the public hearing. For the record, we did
receive numerous letters, I am not going to read them all, however, I did get a
special note from Dr. Ken Watson supporting the private day care, the family
day care homes and group day care homes. I am going to open it up for a
motion then we can go to discussion.
Mr. Piercecchi: I want to repeat that we are not opposed to day care homes. There are several
open circuits that were uncovered tonight, one was inspection, one was the
grandfathering issue. There is the off street parking issue. There is the
employee issue and several others were mentioned. So I am going to move
that we table this and take a good look at it. We are not restricted to the 60
day requirement here because it is our own issue. We've been operating along
time without it. I think we should do it right and to satisfy all needs. There are
homeowners that are adjacent to these homes. They haven't voiced any
opinions yet so I move, Mr. Chairman, that we table this to an indefinite date.
Mr. McCann: Since we have our legal counsel with us tonight, I will defer to him whether or
not the 60 days would go to a council resolution asking us to act on the
ordinance.
Mr. Kavanagh: If you had initiated it on your own, I would say there would be no time limit
but I think it is from the Council.
Mr.McCann: It is a resolution from the City Council asking you to review this so we do have
a time issue.
Mr. Kavanagh: You have to at least start the hearings within 60 days. You have done that
obviously.
Mr.McCann: I think the ordinance says that we have to make a recommendation within 60
days.
16767
Mr. Piercecchi: How much time do we have on this one?
Mr. Nagy: We've had it already 30 days.
Mr. Piercecchi: So we have 30 days.
Ms. Egan: Mr. McCann, I'm sorry but there is someone who didn't get to speak that you
didn't get to see her, she is in the wheelchair right there.
Mr.McCann: Unfortunately, the public hearing is closed.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mt. LaPine, and approved, it was
RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, on Petition 99-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Council Resolution#405-98 and Section 23.01 (a)of Ordinance#543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or
not to amend Sections 2.08, 402 and 4.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to
set forth zoning requirements for family (1 to 6 children) and group(7 to 12
children) day care homes in residential districts,the Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 99-2-6-1 to date uncertain.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Hale, LaPine, Piercecchi
NAYS: Alanskas, Koons, McCann'
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, the motion fails.
Mrs. Koons: I don't know if I have an alternate resolution but I do feel strongly and I have
some comments I would like to be put on record but I don't know if that is
before a resolution or after. Can I ask a question first?
Mr.McCann: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: One of our options we talked about was to send this on to City Council
knowing that is was unfinished. Is that an option still?
Mr.Kavanagh: I don't know when you got it but you also can kick it over to your next voting
meeting, what is it, two weeks from now? You may still be within your 60 day
time limit.
Mr. McCann: That would be April 20.
Mr. Piercecchi: That was our tabling motion.
16768
Mr.Kavanagh: That resolution was tabling indefinitely. I just don't know how long you have
it.
Mr.Piercecchi: Do you want a motion to pass it as it is and let the Council massage it?
Mrs. Koons: Can we make comments before we pass it?
Mr. McCann: I'll open it up for discussion.
Mrs. Koons: The points that I had marked are the points that came up pretty much tonight. I
am strongly in favor of grandfathering for a lot of reasons. It is a sole
livelihood for many people and a major portion of a livelihood for most
people. I also know that there are three, four and five page waiting lists for
infants in particular. It would be a hardship for parents. I know in this
community we recently grandfathered in farm markets. When I first moved to
Livonia on Hubbard there was a horse farm that was grandfathered in so I don't
think it is precedent setting. I do know that there are sometimes two or
sometimes three assistants who I would presume that should be parking on the
street so that parents could drop off their infants, preschoolers and school age
children closer to the door. So I am concerned about the two cars on the street.
Those are my major concerns. Other than that I would like to look at the play
area. I think it is a luxury to have 1200 sq. ft. I don't know,that could be
handled through the Zoning Board of Appeals. My main point is the
grandfathering and the parking.
Mr. Piercecchi: That's why I wanted to table this. The parking is obviously not in order.
When you have a party you have more than two cars so why should we not
apply that here. I agree with that.
Mr. Koons: Mr. Chairman, it feels more complicated than this to me. I spoke specifically
and my comments were on group day care home and what I am hearing from
Mr. Kavanagh the thing that is written for family day care homes may have
several errors. So it feels more complicated than that to me.
Mr. McCann: Making another offer? A motion in any form is appropriate at this time.
Mr.LaPine: One of the reasons I supported the tabling motion, I want to be sure when we
pass this on to City Council that we have done our job to the best of our ability.
That doesn't mean that the Council may get it and disagree with everything that
we said and when these people get up there and talk the Council may disagree
with everything we said. I don't think another couple of weeks of us looking at
this one more time and with Mr. Kavanagh, this is the first time we have met
with him, and I think it would be a good idea if he were at our next meeting so
that anything we come up we can make sure that we are on pretty good legal
ground and then pass it on to Council. These homes have been operating for
years and a couple more weeks isn't going to make any difference one way or
16769
the other. As far as I am concerned I am ready to make a tabling motion until
our next meeting.
Mr. McCann: I want to say a couple of things before you make a motion. I have very strong
concerns on this too. I agree with you. I have four children. All of my
children have gone to some type of home care. I think what the intent of this
ordinance has always been is that all parties live up to the standards that are
being provided right now within the City. Some of the things are problems
that are adopted and reasonable and I am concerned about the issue of
grandfathering. I don't want to put anybody out of business but certain issues
that I see in here can be taken up with the Zoning Board of Appeals. What I
would like to do is set up a standard for future people coming in and saying
that you need to have a fenced in yard. You need to have so much area for
play in a group day care. Some of these issues that I think are important that I
think are not being taken care of. I am not trying to rush this through other
than to say that the City Council has requested this back in a certain amount of
time. I think the grandfather clause is a very important issue. If anybody has
any comments, I will open this up.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple of comments. I just want everyone out there to know that we
need child care and I support that but you are getting the wrong message
whether it is 6 or 12. But I think it is very important that we have certain
regulations. Right behind me I have two child care homes. I don't have a
fence in my yard and I have a pond and if these people didn't have a fence
keeping those children out they could go into my yard and possibly drown.
This is a very serious issue and I think there is a little tweaking that needs to be
done. I have no problem going to the next meeting for a tabling.
Mr. Hale: My feelings on this are similar to what other people have already stated to
some degree. This is a very serious issue that faces the community and is
going to affect the lives of children and how it is ultimately voted on. Our job
as the Planning Commission is not to give short script to that but instead to
study it and to make an educated recommendation to the City Council. We are
not in a position to do that currently. That is why I voted for the tabling
motion. I am also concerned about the grandfathering issue. I want to pass on
that I think this is a very serious issue for the community. We wanted to hear
from all the individuals tonight at this public hearing so we could help our
ultimate decision on how we would vote on this. So that is why I think it is
important to add further study on it.
Mr. McCann: You are the last speaker, do you want to make a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-47-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 23,
1999 on Petition 99-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Council Resolution#405-98 and Section 23.01 (a)of Ordinance#543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or
not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02 and 4.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to
16770
set forth zoning requirements for family(1 to 6 children) and group(7 to 12
children) day care homes in residential districts, the Planning Commission
does here determine to table Petition 99-2-6-1 to April 20, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
I want to let every one in the audience know that it is a pending item. These
items have been discussed at several prior meetings and they have also been
discussed at an open public meeting tonight. At those there will only be
limited discussion from the Planning Commission. So you are all welcome to
come down here on April 20, 1999, it will begin at 7:30 p.m. in this
auditorium. Depending on what happens that night, you may or may not be
able to speak. I apologize mam for not recognizing you to speak.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-1-2 by Leo
Soave, on behalf of Chris Lessnau, requesting to rezone property located on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF(Rural Urban Farm- 1/2 acre min.
lot)to R-2 (One Family Residential - 70'X 120' min. lot).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated February 25, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your
request the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections tot he proposal or the legal
description provided at this time. Furthermore, it should be noted the
developer will have to adhere to Section 16.24.210, "Storm Sewers and
Drainage Courses", of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as well as all other
items in Section 16 of the Ordinance. We trust this will provide you with the
information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any
questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That
is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. First I should point out that this petition and the other
two parcels are part of the same development proposal.
Mr. McCann: And that is our pending agenda item 98-12-1-23. Scott, can we put up the
plans for the particular sub.? Mr. Soave can you tell us exactly what the lot
sizes are going to be and a description of the homes?
Mr. Soave: Once we combine this, this property now has four homes. Four of these
homes will be demolished. What we would like to get is a 20 lot subdivision.
This would consist of a concrete road and a R-2 zoning which would be a 70'
X 120' lot size. These homes will be full basement, brick and one and two
16771
story homes. They would be marketed around$225,000. I'll answer any of
your questions.
Mr. LaPine This one home right here, you have cross hatches right there. Does that mean
that homesite goes out to there?
Mr. Nagy: No, what that actually illustrates is that this is the area subject to Leo's petition
representing the westerly of the three lots. It is only shaded to show what part
is now proposed under this rezoning petition.
Mr. LaPine: Otherwise this shaded area is all road and will not be on this cul-de-sac?
Mr. Nagy: That's right.
Mr. Alanskas: I do see that you moved the street further west so that we wouldn't have a
problem with crossing Five Mile as far as left hand turn lanes?
Mr. Soave: That's right. Once we became involved, this is one of the first things that we
did.
Mr. Alanskas: So it lines up correctly.
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am
going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-48-99 RESOLVED that,pursuant to a public hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-2-1-2 by Leo Soave, on
behalf of Chris Lessnau, requesting to rezone property located on the south
side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2,the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-2-1-2 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single family
residential development similar in density to what is existing in the
neighborhood;
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are
consistent with other developed properties in the area;
16772
4) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan which designates the subject area for low density residential
land use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: The Public Hearing portion of our meeting is now closed. We will move on
to the Pending items before us tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-1-23, as
amended, by Charles P. Elmasian and John K. Harris requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita&
Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF (One Family
Residential - 1/2 acre min. lot)to R-2 (One Family Residential- 70'X 120'
min. lot).
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-49-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 98-12-1-23, as amended by Charles P. Elmasian
and John K. Harris requesting to rezone property located on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Santa Anita& Cavell Avenues in the N.E.1/4 of
Section 24 from RUF (One Family Residential- 1/2 acre min. lot)to R-2 (One
Family Residential - 70' X 120' min. lot) be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann: Sir your name and address.
Charles Elmasian, 27495 Five Mile Road.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional other than what we have looked at?
Mr. Elmasian: No. That is all correct.
Mr. McCann: Again, this is the adjoining lots of the proposal which we just looked at.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir,then your portion will be the same as far as brick, one story and two story.
homes?
Mr. Elmasian: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-50-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-12-1-23, as amended,
16773
by Charles P. Elmasian and John K. Harris requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita& Cavell
Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2,the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-12-
1-23 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single family
residential development similar in density to what is existing in the
neighborhood;
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are
consistent with other developed properties in the area;
4) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan which designates the subject area for low density residential
land use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in.
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-8-8 by
Phoenix land Development requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct commercial buildings on property located at 33330 Plymouth Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, and seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#3-51-99 RESOLVED that Petition 99-2-8-8 by Phoenix Land Development requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct commercial buildings on property
located at 33330 Plymouth Road in the southwest 1/4 of Section 27 be taken
from the table.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? We have some updated plans. Do you want to make a
presentation of the changes you have made since you were last here?
Steve Schafer, Phoenix Land Development, 32000 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills,
MI. We have been back before the Planning Commission twice and there were
comments made that we have incorporated into the plans and primarily the
changes that have been made is that the greenspace area has been beefed up in
this area to provide for pedestrian access through the rear section through these
buildings. We were able to provide you with perspective with some
16774
architectural as well. We have added some elements to the rear of those
structures. This would be the view from the rear we have added and we have
added these elements that we had discussed at prior meetings. This sort of
gives you a perspective through that area that we have tried to soften it up so
you don't feel that you are walking through the back of a commercial building.
We have added some pavers, we have relocated the dumpster and have opened
this area up. The other issue that was addressed was the restaurant area the
amount of parking at this point, we have not finalized the tenants on those
particular pads and those envelopes may change and we will probably be back
before you again for site plan review of that and what we are asking is that the
parking for those restaurants be limited to 200 spaces each with the amount of
parking we have, I believe that we will comply with the parking requirements.
There has been some additional parking added in the rear of this building and
we discussed that at the last meeting and we have also beefed up the
greenspace in this area to add some larger trees. There was also some
discussion in the plaza areas that we add some benches and seating. We have
indicated that at that this point. There will be raised planters and bench seating
so people can sit and enjoy that area. We have also some benches back in this
area and we have relocated the sidewalk to the curb of the commercial area
here. I believe those were the primary comments from our previous meetings,
if there are anymore questions I will be happy to answer them for you.
Mr. Alanskas: John, I just have one question regarding that building "E" is 9, 750 sq. ft.
which we said that size would take up 350 seats and if we did that on that one
pad you certainly wouldn't have a restaurant with only 50 seats. If you put
something commercial in there we would still have a parking problem.
Mr. Schafer: I would want to bring that back anyway. At this point what we are trying to do
is to have a plan that we could represent to tenants in the location of those
buildings.
Mr. Alanskas: You said at the last meeting you thought for sure you couldn't get a restaurant
in that building if you only had 200 seats.
Mr. Schafer: I'm sorry.
Mr. Alanskas: You said that for the 9,750 sq. ft. building you thought you could not get
someone to come in there for less than 200 sets. That it would not be enough
for that size of building.
Mr. Schafer: We are only going to allow 200 seats per restaurant. There may be a mixed
use here. There may be a bakery, there may be something else attached. I just
wanted to show some kind of balance here.
Mr. Alanskas: So, in fact you wouldn't have more than 200 seats in both building "D" and
building "E".
Mr. Schafer: Correct. And if those uses change, we would be back in front of you to discuss
that and the parking and this portion of the site plan would have to be modified
16775
to accommodate those uses. At this point we are shooting for two restaurant
with 200 seats and our goal in asking for this approval on this portion of the
project as we show this to tenants I would like to have a plan that has been
endorsed by the Planning Commission and to say this is a configuration that
looks good and this is where I want to draft the restaurant sites because as you
know, if this were two restaurants they are going to want to locate in the center
of those sites and they are going to want parking fields around them. At least I
have a little bit of leverage I feel from the standpoint that we are trying to
deliver a whole package here, a development that will be consistent throughout
architecturally. Again we haven't submitted any elevation or building plans
and those things you will be reviewing as we move forward with this.
Mr. Alanskas: On the building for the bank which is 3,000 sq. ft., shouldn't that be building
"F" ? Because on mine it says "E", You have 2 "E"s on the plan.
Mr. Schafer: Yes. That should be building "F".
Mrs. Koons: Two questions Mr. Schafer, the beefing up of the landscaping, what does that
do to the percentage. Because it still says 15% in our notes
Mr. Schafer: It is 16-1/2%. Basney and Smith re-ran the greenspace. Are you looking at the
site plan?
Mrs. Koons: No. I am looking at our notes.
Mr. Schafer: The current site plan without the landscape I believe does have a note that
calculates that at 16.44%
Mrs. Koons: And what is the total area that the 16.44% is of?
Mr. Schafer: The exact acreage? That is 3.53 acres.
Mrs. Koons: And my second question is, your newest landscape plan I still don't see a
fountain.
Mr. Schafer: It's not noted on your current landscape plan?
Mrs. Koons: No.
Mr. Schafer: I know he put it on the revised plan.
Mrs. Koons: This will be the plan we will be voting on though.
Mr. Schafer: You know what,that was a revision he made on this plan and when he put this
plan together he forgot to add that.
Mrs. Koons: Do we have a size?
16776
Mr. Schafer: No, actually it is going to be of a wall variety with a two sided water feature on
it. It is going to be situated in the island at approximately one 12' island. It
will be anywhere from 16 to 20 feet.
Mrs. Koons: Can we add this and say of not less than 16 feet?
Mr. Nagy: I don't like to leave things like that. I would rather have a revised plan
submitted with the understanding that we would hold up this resolution until
we get a revised plan that will incorporate this.
Mr. Schafer: That is something that can be revised and submitted tomorrow. I don't see an
issue with that.
Mr. LaPine: 16.50% landscaping, we are talking strictly commercial. We've got more
landscaping on the rest of this?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: We are also going to get a fountain on the residential which will be on the
residential portion of the plan?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Let me say, I am happy with the cooperation you have given us and I know we
have been through this three or four meetings now and I think you have come
across with just about everything we wanted. There are some things we are not
happy with, we are not happy with the drug store. I think the plan that you
have shown us, the building elevation is a lot better than the normal drug store
that we would get and I am ready to move for an approval on this, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McCann: I have a couple of questions. I owned a restaurant and had for 14 years and
was in that business. You've got two pads out there. You've got
approximately 224 spots and you need about 24 spots for the bank. That
leaves you about 200 spots. You put two buildings on here, two restaurants of
9,750 and 8,545 and you put one into a bakery or whatever else in there it is
going to require. If you limit it to 1000 sq. ft. you are still going to get 400
people in there on Friday night no matter what the City does. Between
standing room and waiting room you just can't do it. You've got over 18,000
sq. ft. of space. No matter what we do, if we put restaurants in there, it is
going to be a tremendous problem.
How can I approve the plans, knowing we are creating a problem.
Mr. Schafer: John, correct me if I am wrong, but this has to come back for approval for
elevations and seating and parking and all that at another time.
Mr.Nagy: We are not granting waiver use approval for restaurants.
Mr. McCann: No, but he can build the buildings and then come back and say I have built
the buildings we have gone through site plan approval.
16777
Mr. Nagy: He can't build buildings before any building permit can be issued because we
are indicating before any building permit can be issued the buildings elevation
plans and floor plans have to be approved.
Mr. Mc.Cann: For what buildings?
Mr. Nagy: For buildings "D", "E" and "F"
Mr. Schafer: We haven't submitted those with this plan. We did submit them for these
buildings.
Mr. McCann: Why do we need to put them on the plan tonight at all? Before when we
talked we said why not take this part off and let them come back with another
part of the proposal.
Mr. Nagy: You can.
Mr. McCann: He said "no" we don't want to do that. But why are we putting this on, if we
are automatically saying you can't build what you want. You are going to put
a restaurant in there. And you are telling us that you are going to put a
restaurant in there.
Mr. Schafer: We can't build what we want until we bring in the final plans. I am just asking
you to approve subject to not exceeding X amount of seats. Chances are the
restaurant is going to be 5500 or 6500 sq. ft. which will probably will end up
having some more greenspace and some additional parking. I just want to
leave our options open whether a retailer wanted to come in instead of a
restaurant I just wanted to leave our options open. But understanding that I
will have to come back for approval for the elevations, the seating and floor
plan.
Mr. McCann: If it is a restaurant?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. McCann: If it is anything else, he doesn't have to come back?
Mr. Nagy: He has to come for building elevation approval for all three of those buildings
on the east side of the boulevard. The only thing he is accomplishing by
including it now is that he can start some infrastructure improvements. He can
start putting the utilities in that area to accommodate a parking area. He can
put a greenbelt across the front and do some general grading of the site.
Realizing that before permits are issued for any of those buildings he has to
come back. Whether they are out right permitted uses such as a bank or a
bakery, or if they become restaurants then he has waiver use plus the building
elevation plan approval. He simply is trying to get a head start on some of the
site improvement instead of the building improvements.
16778
Mr.LaPine: You bring up a valid point. I am ready to approve this but you said something
just now that kind of backs me off a little. I am willing to approve it tonight
but I want the understanding that that portion is coming back to us but I want
the understanding that I am not going to get any more commercial retailers. I
want either the restaurants or we are going to go to something else. I am
willing to approve this as long we you are willing to tell me that we are going
to get restaurants and not going to get any retail.
Mr. Schafer: Our intent is to have two restaurants.
Mr. LaPine: I know what your intent is. But I am just saying that I can't approve it if I think
one of those two buildings is going to be a retail.
Mr. Piercecchi: I recall that after substantial critique of this site, that it was determined that
the eastern portion of the development at the time that it was presented that it
was basically the domain of two restaurants. Thereby the seating capacity of
the facility should be based on Section 18.38, Schedule 17, which requires one
parking space 125 sq. ft. of available space which is about 80%of the square
footage of the particular building. It was further demonstrated that the western
parking spaces with only a handful of exceptions are not only to be utilized but
are difficult and dangerous to navigate since they must cross the main
boulevard entrance to the commercial as well as the future residential complex.
Based on studies, it was evident that the Commission as well as the developer
found it acceptable to establish restaurant seating capacity on the availability of
223 parking spaces that were allotted to this section. Under this compromise
the total seats to be allocated to the restaurants would be approximately 400.
That is what the motion is tonight that was prepared by the staff, and that is
what this developer is willing to accept.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? I have some questions regarding the east end
and unfortunately I was not able to be here last week but I have questions for
the west end. The area coming from the subdivision through the brick paving
areas have to go right by a loading zone. Further,that both walkways
approach areas are directly adjacent to related drive throughs. There is no
separation between the walkway. You have a five foot walkway that abuts the
curb on both sides there. There is no separation between the walkway and the
road. If this is going to be a walkway and people are going to be walking,
winter and summer, there is no separation between them and the oncoming
traffic.
Mr. Schafer: We chose to put the landscaping on the inside from the standpoint of
maintainability, salt and that sort of thing, next to the road.
Mr. McCann: But that doesn't do anything for the pedestrians walking up and down it
pushing carts, you've only got a five foot walkway. If there are people coming
back and forth and you've got cars coming back and forth. You've got trucks
that are trying to get back there for loading zones. You are putting ease of care
above safety.
16779
Mr. Schafer: We've put a lot of focus on this area and I'll tell you something after analyzing
it, there's probably 15 or 20 residents that are probably actually going to be
able to walk through there because everyone else is going to be funneled
through the walk systems inside and come down through the central spine
system and across.
Mr. McCann: It has a much better access but if anybody is going to the drugstore or to the
other mall, they will have to use the other entrance.
Mr. Schafer: They are going to be coming through here.
Mr. McCann: Right. I am really concerned with the sidewalk especially with the winter
conditions and icy conditions in Michigan along side the road where trucks are
expected to be coming and going and only a five foot walk. The idea we have
always had behind this integrated thing is to have at least 200 units that are
going to constantly walk through this. We really wanted to make it an
integrated part of the condominium association and I have to look at their
safety. I appreciate what you have done out front. The little plantings you
have done out front of the stores. I think that has helped improve it. But
again, it is the access to the individual stores behind there that concerns me.
Again it is putting the sidewalks abutting the main road. Does anyone else
have any questions? If there are no further questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-52-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-2-8-8 by Phoenix Land Development
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct commercial buildings on
property located at 33330 Plymouth Road in the Southwest/ 1/4 of Section 27,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 99-2-8-8 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Basney& Smith, Inc.,
as received by the Planning Commission on March 24, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheets Ll &L2 prepared by Calvin
Hall& Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on March
24, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4) That the 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;
16780
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet Al & A2
prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc., as received by the Planning
Commission on March 24, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
6) That the brick used in the construction of the buildings shall be full face
4-inch brick, no exceptions;
7) That the three walls of each trash dumpster area shall be constructed
out of brick and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not
in use, closed at all times.
8) That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties
and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
9) That the building elevations for Buildings "D", "E" & "F" shall come
back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their
review and approval;
10) That Buildings "D" and "E" shall be development as restaurants, and
the seating arrangement for both shall not exceed a combined total of
400 seats;
11) That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering Department and
Traffic Bureau's satisfaction the following recommendations as
outlined in the correspondence dated February 12, 1999;
that "No Left Turn" signs shall be posted for traffic
exiting either driveway nearest the intersection
that "No Left Turn" signs shall be posted to prohibit
eastbound Plymouth Road traffic from turning into
driveway immediately east of Farmington Road
that the right turn deceleration lane on Plymouth Road
shall be extended the entire length of the development
that a right turn deceleration lane for northbound
Farmington Road traffic shall be installed
12) 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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-8-10 by
16781
Edwards Glass Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the commercial building located at 32000 Plymouth Road in the
southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
#3-53-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-2-8-10 by Edwards Glass Company requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building
located at 32000 Plymouth Road in the southeast 1/4 of Section 27, be taken
from the table.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Hale: The petitioner was told he didn't have to come back.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-54-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-2-8-10 by Edwards Glass Company
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
commercial building located at 32000 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 27, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site& Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Kenneth
E. West P.E., as received by the Planning Commission on March 16,
1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
3) 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;
4) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 4 prepared by
Kenneth E. West P.E., as received by the Planning Commission on
February 25, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped
to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-3-8-11 by
Elias Brothers Restaurant, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to add a
new entrance facade to the restaurant located at 37123 Six Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 17.
16782
Mr. Miller: This Big Boy Restaurant is located in front of the Newburgh Plaza Shopping
Center. The petitioner is proposing to construct a new structural canopy that
would project out over the existing entranceway of the restaurant. The new
entrance facade would be constructed out of panel brick and dryvit.
Highlighting the canopy would be a checkered pattern of red and white
aluminum material. Also as part of this proposal, a 5 foot high parapet wall,
out of panel brick, would be added on around the entire top of the building.
This feature would help adjust the height of the building to the new entrance
facade and also help provide screening for the existing rooftop equipment. The
existing cedar mansard roof would be covered with snap-on galvanized metal
seam panels. A new trash dumpster enclosure would be constructed to the rear
of the restaurant.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence on this.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Tom Reder, Ledy Design Group, 3135 Pine Tree Road, Lansing, MI 48911 If it helps I have
a color rendering and I also have some illustrations, colored copies of other
restaurants done to give you a better idea of what the facade is going to look
like. Can I pass that out?
Mr. McCann: Yes. You can set one right on the front, I think the camera will pick it up. Is
this a new standard in Big Boy restaurants?
Mr. Reder: . Yes it is. This is part of Elias Brothers new remodel program. We are going to
try and do this to all the restaurants. More and more franchisees are getting on
board and doing this. All the new Big Boys constructed will look basically
like page #2. This is the new Big Boy in Grand Ledge, Michigan. The reason
I included these two,the first page is a Big Boy in Romulus near the airport,
the reason I included these two is the facade we are putting on the new store is
exactly the same facade we are putting on the restaurant in Livonia. If you
look at page 3, that is the entranceway of the Livonia Big Boy.
Mrs. Koons: John, in the presentation by Scott he talked about panel brick are we
supporting panel brick instead of the 4 inch brick with our new information?
Mr. Nagy: We are recommending the full brick. We looked at the property, and so did
Building Inspection and find there is actually full brick on the building now
and there is no reason why it is not capable of holding additional brick for the
new parapet. So our staff recommendation is for full brick.
Mr. Hale: The green that comes from the metal secured roof? Is that right?
Mr. Reder: Yes.
16783
Mr. Hale: That is not consistent with these pictures. I don't see any green on here? Is that
a mistake?
Mr. Reder: That green is around the side. The green is on the other side of the second
photograph. I apologize it is not in the photograph. The actual color of the
green, if you look at your third page you see a green metal on the greenhouse,
that is the same color.
Mr. Hale: It is much different.
Mr. Reder: Markers just don't do it justice.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you aware of the practice at that Six Mile restaurant that I think should
be corrected and that is your dumpster. The gates are in terrible shape and they
are never closed. Never. I go to that mall almost daily, and I have never once
seen them closed. Can you make sure that at least that practice gets followed
now. You are probably going to move it in the next month but in the meantime
can we adhere to Livonia's practice of keeping the gates closed and repair
them?
Mr. Reder: We absolutely can. Actually according to the new plan what we are
doing is putting in a brick enclosed dumpster area that will be attached to the
back of the building, new gates that will be closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: How about in the meantime?
Mr. Reder: In the meantime we will make sure that it is kept closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. Thank you.
Mr.LaPine: I just want to make sure what we are getting. We are not getting any red
stripes around here, right?
Mr. Reder: The brick on the facade will match the brick on the existing restaurant. As far
as the facade goes you are getting the red and white checker stripes.
Mr. LaPine: We are? Because I don't see it on the plan right there.
Mr. Reder: It is noted right here.
Mr.LaPine: O.K. The parking lot is in terrible shape, is that going to be repaved?
Victor Ansara, 24827 Plymouth Road, Redford, MI 48239. Actually, that is Stuart Frankel's
parking lot, we are a tenant on this space.
Mr. LaPine: I understand that. But he hasn't completed that yet. He is going to do your
portion too?
Mr. Ansara: He is going to do our portion too.
16784
Mr. LaPine: Is the landscaping out front there where all those timbers are, is that your
responsibility or is it his?
Mr. Ansara: The landscaping immediately next to the building is ours. All that landscaping
will be replaced.
Mr. LaPine: Because all the timbers are in bad shape and the landscaping is dying.
Mr. Ansara: All of that will be replaced and actually we have to be because of all the
construction we are doing.
Mr. LaPine: And we understand we are getting full 4-inch brick, right?
Mr. Reder: I would like to address that. On remodels what we are doing is all around the
perimeter of the building we have a cedar mansard roof. On top of that cedar
roof what we are doing we are putting a panel brick parapet . The main reason
for this parapet is to screen the rooftop equipment. Where we put the parapet
is not on top of the full masonry structure. It is out on the parapet. This is the
best look. It allows us to handle snow loads and control the build up of snow
on this mansard. The panel brick will exactly match, or come real darn close
and when said and done you won't be able to tell the difference.
Mr. Alanskas: I beg to disagree with you. If you look at the design of the brick on your
building it sticks out, it is not a flat brick all around the building. First of all I
wouldn't approve panel brick. If you put panel brick up there it would be flat
against the facade. You wouldn't have the same design that you have on the
rest of the building. I'm sure you have seen the building. You've got all these
bricks sticking out for design. That would not match your panel brick, number
one and number two, the whole building is now full face brick, the rest of the
building should be full face brick. If you need to have a load structure, then
you should make it that way Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Any other comments. Any questions?
Mr. Reder: Introducing real brick and a real masonry backer to that brick it creates a very
difficult structural problems and a lot of expense to correct those problems. If
we do the panel brick, we can have the same look with a lot less expense to the
owner.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? A motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine: John, seeing that this is going to be on the top, do you see any problem with
this.
Mr. Nagy: We did discuss this, if you remember, at our last study meeting and we
indicated because of its elevations and won't be exposed to damage from carts
or people walking by, therefore it won't get the abuse and therefore it will have a
better chance of sustaining itself. Given their intent it is there to screen their
16785
mechanical equipment. Which we think is a genuinely good effort on their part
to do that. In this case I don't think we are actually deviating from our policy.
He does make a good point that it does represent a great deal of additional cost
because there is no ledge in those areas to carry that load. You would have to
manufacture both expensive ledging material to support that. He's got me
convinced.
Mr. LaPine: You made the point that I was going to make. It is there only to cover up the
mechanical equipment and the alternative would be he wouldn't put up brick at
all he would put up some other type of screening?
Mr. Nagy: Right.
Mr. Ansara: We are doing a complete remodeling which isn't really before you tonight. But
we are also doing a complete interior remodeling on this restaurant. All new
furniture, mostly new tile, we are redoing the bathrooms, bringing them up to the
current handicap standards, retiling, new fixtures. It will be a brand new
restaurant on the interior and exterior and I believe that this is just a small
concession. I believe we are doing it to screen the equipment and if we were
required to do otherwise we would have to go to another type of material rather
than brick because the structure just isn't there on the roof to be able to support
that.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Any other questions?
Mr. Hale: What other materials would be possible other than the panel brick?
Mr. Reder: There is wood and more metal panels of light weight materials.
Mr. Hale: What is the additional cost to modify it structurally?
Mr. Reder: There are areas where we are putting the parapet wall over the greenhouse wall I
have no masonry to work with there. It is substantial.
Mr. Hale: The thing I am concerned about the panel brick is the structural integrity if water
gets behind there and it is not the same at all.
Mr. Reder: The panel brick system we are using on the new Big Boys that we are building
are all panel brick now. We are not using real brick any more. This is thin
brick. The two restaurants and panel brick restaurants.
Mr. Hale: But they are not in Livonia. You would face a different obstacle in Livonia.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-55-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-3-8-11 by Ledy Design Group(Big Boy)
requesting approval of all plan s required by Section 18.58 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to add a new front entrance facade to
16786
the restaurant located at 37123 Six Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 17 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A3.1 &A3.2
prepared by Ledy Design Group, as received by the Planning
Commission on March 11, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the brick used in the construction of the structural entrance canopy
shall match that of the existing structure and shall be full face 4-inch
brick;
3) That panel brick shall be permitted in the construction of the 5 ft. high
parapet wall only;
4) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out
of full face 4-inch brick, to match the building, and the enclosure gates
shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times;
5) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated March 19, 1999:
that the concrete sidewalk on the east side of the
building shall be replaced
that the asphalt on the south side of the building shall
be repaired
that the existing trash dumpster enclosure shall be
repaired or removed
6) 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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Application for Review
and Approval by Valvoline Instant Oil Change requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of
the zoning ordinance for the property located at 31151 Five Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Miller: The property is located on the south side of Five Mile between Merriman and
Bainbridge. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in
lieu of the protective wall that is required between a commercially 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
16787
substitution of a greenbelt. Such substitution shall be subject to approval by
the Planning Commission and/or City Council. The applicant is requesting
that the existing landscaped greenbelt along the south property line and
behind the oil change facility be accepted as an appropriate substitution. The
area in question is 40 ft. in depth and contains a 2-3 ft. high berm. Five
Austrian Pines furnish screening from the abutting neighbor.
Mr. McCann: John, is there anything additional?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Robert Tamm, Regional Development Manager, 12836 Foley Road,Emmett,MI 48022.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you can tell us about your proposal and why you
are requesting it?
Mr. Tamm: Nothing other than what has been there for eight or nine years.
Mr. McCann: We notified the adjoining property owners of this meeting tonight. Are any
of the adjoining property owners here this evening? Are there any questions
from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: How long have you been at that building? You said eight or nine years.
Mr. Tamm: Since 1991 when we received our variance.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you lease it or own it?
Mr. Tamm: We own it.
Mr. LaPine: When you went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, what did they give you a
five year waiver?
Mr. Tamm: Initially a one year and then a seven.
Mr. LaPine: What is the hardship of you going back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and
just then continue to give you a waiver. It doesn't cost you anything. They
notify you. I have a problem giving this to you. Only based on the fact that
maybe some day down the road maybe five years, or ten years, you sell the
property and a new business goes in there that may be more intrusive to that
neighbor and they may want to build back farther and it causes trouble to the
homeowner in the rear. This way the Zoning Board of Appeals still has a
hammer on that. Maybe at the time the new one goes in there he may put up
a wall. As long as there is no hardship on you going back to the Zoning
Board of Appeals and the odds are that as long as they have no complaints in
their files saying anybody has a complaint they are going to give you an
additional five or ten years waiver.
16788
Mr. Alanskas: Seven year waiver.
Mr. LaPine: I don't really see any hardship that you have.
Mr. Tamm: My understanding was that the purpose for this waiver was to eliminate
having to come back.
Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Board encourages them to come before the Planning
Commission and you still have the hammer. Under your scenario, if the
building should change and becomes more intrusive they first have to go
through the site plan approval process and the hammer is with you,the
Planning Commission, to determine and review that site plan and see if
under that new development proposal whether if in that instance the
proximity of the parking might change whether it is more desirable to have
that wall versus the greenbelt. So it is really at your level that you will be
able to deal with it and you will have the hammer and not the Zoning Board.
Mr. Alanskas: So we can waiver the permanent waiver?
Mr. Nagy: Right. All the standards of the ordinance will come into play again on a
change or a new development proposal including the one on the screen wall.
Mr. McCann: If there is a change in any way?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission approved the Application
for Review and Approval by Valvoline Instant Oil Change requesting
approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in
Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for the property located at 31151 Five
Mile in the Northwest 1/4 of Section subject to the following conditions:
1) That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as
shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on March 2,
1999, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section
18,.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That this area shall remain in its present state and any changes to this
area shall require Planning Commission review and approval;
3) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated March 18, 1999;
16789
that the existing trash dumpster that is not enclosed shall
either be removed or screened from public view
that the entire parking lot shall be repaired and double
striped.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Koons, Hale, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Alanskas, Piercecchi
ABSENT: None
The motion fails.
Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't think it was that great of a problem to let it stand the way it is. If
things come down the road,who knows, who knows if it will be remedied if
the property does change. It doesn't affect this gentlemen at all. He gets
what he wants. I will make a motion to deny.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and denied it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny the Application for
Review and Approval by Valvoline Instant Oil Change requesting approval
to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45
of the zoning ordinance for the property located at 31151 Five Mie Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 for the following reasons:
1) That denial of this application is in the best interests of the City of
Livonia.
2) That the applicant shall either renew their temporary variance with the
Zoning Board of Appeals or install the protective wall immediately.
Mr. Nagy: Can I make a comment for the record. On the rehearing for these temporary
variances the applicant does pay another fee. It is not at no cost to him.
Mr. LaPine: That must be different than when I was on the Zoning Board because there was
never another fee.
Mr. Tamm: Could I make a comment? Would it help your concerns if we were to include
the entire area behind the asphalt as the landscape area?
Mr.McCann: How far is that?
Mr. Tamm: About 85'or 100'.
Mr. McCann: Would that help, Mr. LaPine? An 85 foot greenbelt?
16790
Mr. LaPine: It really doesn't make any difference. I was out there and looked at the
property. What I looked at is doing the job and John is probably right in his
interpretation and I don't see any reason to leave it with the Zoning Board of
Appeals the way it has been going on for eight years and go back and get a
variance granted. That is my position. If other people don't want to vote that
way, that is fine.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine, Alanskas
NAYS: Hale, Koons, McCann
ABSENT: None
The motion fails.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously it was
#3-56-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on March
23, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Application for Review and
Approval by Valvoline Instant Oil Change requesting approval to substitute a
greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning
ordinance for the property located at 31151 Five Mile Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Application for Review and Approval to April 20, 1999.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Hale, Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: Koons
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application
by Detroit Metro Signs, on behalf of Walgreens, requesting approval for
signage for the drug store located at 8850 Newburgh Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the northeast corner of Joy and Newburgh. On
September 23, 1998 the City granted site plan approval to allow the
construction of a drug store on this site. As a condition of that approval it
was specified: 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. The
applicant is requesting approval for 3 wall signs and a ground sign for the
Walgreens Pharmacy presently under construction. Because the proposed
signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance,the applicant
first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to
16791
being presented to the Planning Commission. A variance (case#9903-23
was granted at the Board's March 2, 1999 Regular Meeting. Signage
Permitted for this site under Section 18.50H: 1 wall sign, not to exceed 112
sq. ft. in sign area. 1 ground sign not to exceed 30sq. ft. in sign area, not to
exceed 6 feet in height. Signage granted by the Zoning Board and Proposed:
3 wall signs totaling 143 sq. ft. in sign area. South elevation- "Walgreens
Pharmacy" - 65 sq. ft., West elevation- "Walgreens Pharmacy" - 65 sq. ft.,
South elevation- "Drive Thru Pharmacy" - 13 sq. ft. 1 ground sign- 30 sq.
ft. in sign area, 6 feet in height. Excess Signage: 2 wall signs, 31 sq. ft. in
wall sign area. The proposed ground sign, with only the graphic
"Walgreens" on it, would be located at the southwest corner of the site,
which is near the intersection of Joy Road and Newburgh Road.
Mr. McCann: John, anything new?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: Scott, this is the same signage package we approved for the other store?
Mr. Miller: Exactly.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Paul Deters, Metro Detroit Sign, 23544 Hoover Road. I would like to say this is consistent
with the sign package that has been approved previously for Six Mile and
Middlebelt. The reason for the signage is for them to be able to
communicate particularly that drive-thru pharmacy. That is such a
tremendous selling point that it is critical for them to be able to identify that
for potential customers. I think the way the buildings are done it is very
tastefully done relative to the size of the buildings isn't overstated. It fits in
with the spirit of the ordinance.
Mr. McCann: Any questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was
#3-57-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit Signs, on
behalf of Walgreens Pharmacy located at 8850 Newburgh Road in the S.W.
1/4 of Section 32 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Walgreens, as received by the
Planning Commission on March 11, 1999, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
16792
tif Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on the City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna Application
by Jian Lin requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna
for property located at 17430 Cross Winds Road in the southwest 1/4 of
Section 11.
Mr. Miller: The applicant is requesting approval to install a satellite dish antenna on his
residential property. The Site Plan shows that proposed antenna would be
located up next to the west elevation of the house, approximately 12-1/2 ft.
back from the front yard. The proposed dish would be 36 inches in diameter
and mounted on a ground base bracket. The overall height of the entire
antenna would be approximately 30 inches. As the Planning Commission
will recall, the neighbor to the west of the subject property was recently
approved for a similar size antenna at the Regular Meeting of January 12,
1999.
In reference to neighbor notification, the applicant has submitted a consent
form with signatures of both neighbors to the east and west of his property.
Mr. McCann: John, anything new?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Jian Lin, 17340 Cross Winds Road, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us this evening about your
request?
Mr. Lin, Jr.: I will speak for my dad. This is a satellite dish. It only gets one channel
from a Chinese program. That's it.
Mr. McCann: Any questions?
Mr. Alanskas: It says that you are going to screen the dish with landscaping, how do you
plan on doing that? It says that you are going to come back, with a landscape
plan. What we are asking you to do, so that the dish will not be seen to put
shrubs or flowers around it. Thank you.
Mr. Miller: That is part of our conditions. He was not aware of it.
Mr. Hale: Is there any way that this can be placed back further towards the rear of the
property. In my mind it is still too close to the front. The next door neighbor
still didn't put it far enough back. Did you check with the satellite company
to see if you could still pick up the signal from the rear of the house?
16793
Mr. Lin Jr.: Yes. We can pick up the signal.
Mr. Hale: You can? O.K. Can you put it in the rear so it can't be seen from the front.
Mr.Lin Jr.: Yes, how far?
Mr. Hale: Anywhere so that it is not visible from the front of the road.
Mr.Lin Jr.: We can work it out.
Mr. Hale: Is that acceptable? Will that work for you. Can you pick up the stations that
you need?
Mr.Lin Jr.: Yes, we can work it out.
Mr. Hale: If you can't for some reason,then come back and we will have to address it
again. We don't want to present a hardship but by the same token we want
these out of view, as much as possible, from the front, in my opinion.
Mr.Alanskas: As you know these dishes have to face southwest 14 degrees and if you put if
behind the house which is still facing south with all that brick he will have a
hard time picking up the signal, won't he John?
Mr.Nagy: He has to be able to pick up the satellite signal from whatever satellite that he
is tracking.
Mr. Alanskas: On the side of the house it is open but if he goes back behind the house with
all that brick I think he is going to have a problem.
Mr.Nagy: He might be back behind the house but he may be out to the side in the clear
Mr. McCann: Can we approve this subject to the farthest back as he can go and still obtain
the signal.
Mr.LaPine: I think Mr. Hale wants it back like the guy next door. He had it right back to
the edge of the house.
Mr. Hale: The guy next door does not have it back that far.
Mr.LaPine: But he is suppose to put landscaping around there.
Mr.Hale: My point is I would like to see it behind the building.
Mr. Lin Jr.: It should be facing south.
Mr.Hale: Well you can still put it as far back as possible.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
16794
#3-58-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Jian Lin requesting approval for the
installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 17340 Cross
Winds Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site and Specification Plan submitted by Jian S. Lin, received
by the Planning Commission on February 26, 1999, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the dish antenna shall be
relocated toward the rear of the house, adjacent to the northwest corner
of the building;
2) That a Landscape Plan, showing the screening of the dish, shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for their review and approval
within 30 days of this approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Nagy or Mr. Miller, would you make sure that we have a phone number so
that they can be reached so that they will know to come back?
tv Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr.Lin Jr.: We have to come back?
Mrs. Koons: Yes, with the landscaping.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 782nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on March 23, 1999, was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
7
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST ,
Jame. C. McCann, Chairman
/rw