Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2019-10-22MINUTES OF THE 1,150th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 22, 2019, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,150th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Peter Ventura Sam Caramagno Ian Wilshaw Members absent: David Bongero Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Leo Neville, City Attorney and Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission 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. ITEM #1 PETITION 2019-09-02-14 ARCO Construction Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2019- 09-02-14 submitted by ARCO Construction Company, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(n)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility (ClearPath Assisted Living) at 33579 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. October 23, 2019 29406 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility. The subject property is located south of Eight Mile Road just west of Farmington Road. As you can see from the Zoning Map, this is an "L" shaped parcel. It is currently vacant. It was previously approved as the second phase of Northridge Commons shopping complex. The parcel is roughly 3.5 acres in area. The zoning is C-2 (General Business). Convalescent and nursing homes are allowed as a waiver -use under Section 11.03(n) of the Zoning Ordinance. The only special requirements that apply to this type of use is that the parcel must be at least one acre in size with an additional 500 square feet of land per bed. The 3.5-acre parcel is large enough to accommodate what is proposed on this site which is a 58-bed facility. Looking immediately to the west of this property, is the Northridge Commons shopping center which is also zoned C-2 ( General Business). Fronting along Eight Mile, directly north of the property, is a PNC Bank, as well as Four -Legged Friends Dog Daycare Center. To the east are a variety of commercial and office establishments. Immediately to the south is On the Pond Condominiums, which is zoned R-7 (Multi -family). Proposed is a senior assisted living facility that would be one-story in height. It would be 39,254 square feet in area. As you can see from the site plan, the building is positioned near the center of the site. It is setback from Eight Mile Road about 340 feet and from the south property line adjacent to the On the Pond Condominiums the setback would be about 88 feet. There is no direct access to this site from Eight Mile Road. Instead access is relied upon via the existing drive aisles that are located within the shopping center. There are easements for ingress and egress as well as utilities and signage that are provided on the shopping center parcel in favor of this site. The complex is, as 1 indicated, would have a total of 58-beds. This is divided into 54 units, including 40 assisted living units as well as 14 memory care units. Amenities included within the facility include several activity areas, kitchen, living room, dining room, multi -purpose chapel, staff laundry, breakrooms, and outdoor courtyard. Parking is based on a requirement of one space for every three beds plus one space per employee. The proposed facility requires a total of 54 parking spaces. Shown on the site plan are 46 spaces. This includes 34 spaces that would be provided initially with the construction with an additional twelve "banked" spaces at the south end of the property. These would not be developed as part of the construction but could be, should the need arise for the additional parking. I will note that the Declaration of Easements provides for cross -parking with the adjacent shopping center. The October 23, 2019 29407 adjacent shopping center has a surplus of parking available. We do not anticipate that there would be any parking problems at this site. Exterior building materials include a combination of fiber cement siding or Hardie plank plus cultured stone. As you can see from this rendering it has a gabled roof that wouldl be finished with asphalt shingles. The height of the building would be 24'-2" at its highest point. Back to the site plan, there is a single dumpster enclosure which is shown behind the building along a service drive. This dumpster enclosure would be enclosed with six -foot -high poured concrete walls that would have a simulated brick pattern. There is also ground mounted equipment that would be located in the southwest comer of the building. That too would be screened with the use of cedar fencing. Landscaping overall represents about 50% of the site area which exceeds the minimum standard which is 15%. There is an existing detention basin located along the east side of the site that would be upgraded in order to accommodate this new development. A protective screen wall is required where this site lies adjacent to the residential district, which is to the south. There is an existing six foot high concrete wall at that location currently that would be maintained. Mr. Taormina: With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 25, 2019, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of #33579 Eight Mile Road. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing site is currently serviced by public sanitary and water main that may need to be relocated based on the proposed layouts. Storm sewer detention is indicated, and the owners have been in contact with this Department and are aware of the utility requirements for the proposed development. A full Engineering review will be done when plans are submitted to this Department for permitting. if needed, any work within the Eight Mile Road right-of-way will require a permit from the Wayne County Department of Public Services."The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue October 23, 2019 29408 Division, dated October 11, 2019, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate a senior living facility on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: 1.. Subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, and on site hydrants shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. 2. Fire Department access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and provide an adequate all- weather driving surface. 3. Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. 4. Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings that are set back more than 150 feet from a public road or exceed 30 feet in height and are set back over 50 feet from a public road. 5. A fire access road shall be provided with not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance in accordance to 18.2.3.4.1.1 and 18.2.3.4.1.2 of NFPA 1, 2015. 6. Fire lanes shall be marked with wall or pole mounted signs that have the words. FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted on both sides (for pole mount) or single sided (for wall mount) in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 7. Commercial kitchen Hood and Duct fire suppression shall be a UL 300 system and comply with NFPA 96. 8. Building shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system." The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 27, 2019, which reads as follows: 1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 21, 2019, which reads as follows: " Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this Petition. I trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated September 25, 2019, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 27, 2019, which reads as follows: "in October 23, 2019 29409 accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Wilshaw: The petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Jim Eisenhart, Clear Path L.L.C., 1415 Elbridge Payne Road, #129, Chesterfield, MO 63017, it is going to be an assisted living and memory care. This is going to be our fourth project in Michigan. We have 13 of these across the Midwest. I wanted to bring my team here. We have some members with the construction team and with our operations that can answer any questions. We did get some questions regarding materials for the building. I think we tried to address some of those questions and tried to put a little more brick or stone onto the building. We also had some questions regarding the operations of when people break and when shifts happen. I was going to open it up so we can answer those. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: I am looking at the ... you put the cultured stone all around the trash enclosure. Is that right? Mr. Eisenhart: That is correct. Ms. Smiley: Then you added some cultured stone on the west elevation or more should I say. Mr. Eisenhart: This is John Auble with ARCO Construction. Mr. Auble: We added more stone, about 30% 40% more stone on the north elevation and the same on the west elevation as those are the prominent elevations that are visible as you come into the building and around to the service entrance. Ms. Smiley: I see there is a little bit on the east elevation so that must be ... am I reading that right? Mr. Eisenhart: What we tried to do here is provide a 3-D and best illustrate the two sides of the building that you will actually see. And to John's October 23, 2019 29410 point we were trying to...at our meeting we talked about potentially putting a ribbon around the entire center and we thought it would be a better use of the dollars to put more stone up on the visible areas and bring it up and go higher and so to John's point... it is 40% more stone that we put up there. We have some samples of what that stone would look like. Ms. Smiley: I think I would have taken it off the dumpster and put more on the building. I mean, cultured stone on the dumpster...I know you wanted a like thing but who is seeing the dumpster? Mr. Eisenhart: We would prefer not to have it on the dumpster. We were trying to accommodate the request that you wanted something beyond just wood around the dumpsters. Ms. Smiley: We definitely do want something, but I'm just saying you have very limited cultured stone I wouldn't put it...the dumpster is in back I take it? Mr. Eisenhart: Right. Ms. Smiley: I wouldn't have spent all my stone on the dumpster. Mr. Auble: That might end up being like a split -face CMU masonry. It's preliminary design right now as we finish up these and work with your requests on materials and locations. We will still work with our interior designer on finalizing the materials and colors. Mr. Eisenhart. We were trying to make a good faith effort to put more stone on the front and if there is still tweaks that we need to do we are open to suggestions. Ms. Smiley: Do you want to show us your samples? That would be great. If you can put them up, they can get on the camera. That's fine. Mr. Wilshaw: You can hold them up on the podium. Our camera operators will be able to see it. Mr. Auble: So, you have cultured stone and then we have a black shingle with hardy colors as represented. Mr. Eisenhart: So, one note we will say is we had this design with a two dimensional rendering and in an attempt to do this there wasn't a lot of time to coordinate all of the different colors so we do feel there is a lot of red. It was supposed to be a highlight so we will October 23, 2019 29411 probably come back and try to even that out a little bit. We tried to get more stone on the building than coloring the Hardie board concrete siding we have. Ms. Smiley: We are big on brick and more culture stone in the city. appreciate your effort to put more on there and so yes, maybe less red and more stone would be great. Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions or comments for our petitioner? Mr. Long: In the letter from the Fire Marshal it talked about the need to have ... I don't have the letter in front of me so it won't be a direct quote, but the access road all the way around and your current design does not have that, correct? Mr. Auble: That is correct. Mr. Long: Is that something that you are going to be able to work out? Mr. Auble: Probably not on that site but I haven't seen the letter, so I am not exactly sure... Mr. Long: Mark, am I correct in ... did I hear the letter correctly? I think it said... it was number 3 right? Access around the building shall be provided for emergency vehicles... Mr. Taormina: So, I did have a conversation with the Fire Marshal on this issue. I wanted to confirm with him that changes made to the site plan based on a pre -application meeting that we held with the various departments, that they had responded to that. The Fire Marshal, while he was not able to confirm precisely the changes made would meet all of their requirements, he is fully aware that this site cannot provide 360-degree access around the building in terms of a driveway. He is more concerned with extending that "Y" turn around on the east side of the building, such that they can get full coverage. They have an extended ladder that can easily reach all points of this building with probably just a slight modification to that design and without the need to go fully around the building. The fact that this building is a single -story building and the fact that they have some flexibility in extending that driveway he felt confident that at the time of permit review he would be able to address any remaining concerns they have regarding the geometrics of the driveway design. October 23, 2019 29412 Mr. Long: Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may continue. At the study meeting we spoke of your shift changes and what the standard operation procedure... could you speak to that a little bit please? Mr. Eisenhart: I am going to introduce Andrew Kennard. Andrew is a Senior VP of Operations for our operator that runs the place. Mr. Kennard: Good evening. So, in general this particular community wants stabilized occupancy which would be about 80 — 85%. We will have a staff on a daily basis of around 25 — 30 FTE's in the building. First shift, which in general will run about 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. will have about 15 people. At around 2:30 pm. To 3:30 pm. You will have a shift change of about six to eight people in general is what we will see at the community. At 11:00 p.m. you will see about another six to eight people come and go at that time. Mr. Long: Thank you. The parking... obviously, your employees are going to need parking. You clients, your tenants, they aren't going to have cars I would assume being an assisted living facility. Mr. Kennard: That is great question. On average we see about 10 -- 15% of our residents still have a vehicle. Many times, they are just parked there. It's a way when they move into the community to still have their independence, but then subsequently pretty quickly after that three to six months they quickly learn that they no longer need the car. Mr. Long: Each individual case will differ, but your average stay for a tenant is? Mr. Kennard: About 18 months. Mr. Long: We talked about the shift change. Well, I am going to cede the floor Mr. Chairman with the right to call back if I need to. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Long. Any other questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: So your assisted living... is this skilled nursing? Mr. Eisenhart: No it is not. It is a private falls under assisted living. Medicare or Medicaid. pay assisted living that memory care It is all 100% private paid. No use of Ms. Smiley: Okay, so there are no nurses there? October 23, 2019 29413 Mr. Eisenhart: There are, but not at the same level as a nursing care. Mr. Kennard: Typically, what we will have is a wellness director and that is part of the management team. He or she will typically be an RN or an LPN. As the building fills up we will have an additional nurse that will cover the second shift, kind of in a supervisory role and providing nursing care. Ms. Smiley: The memory care people, are they in a restricted area so they are not able to leave? Mr. Kennard: Correct, so it is fully contained and completely secure neighborhood. So, like 14 units and it will have a secured courtyard area as well. Ms. Smiley: So, there is no hospice or end of life or any of that kind of stuff? Mr. Kennard: That is correct. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Long: I did recall my last... on the material board you have there,um...so is the bottom sample, is that the red that we saw on the picture earlier? Mr. Auble: Yeah. Mr. Long: Okay, because I mean that, at least from this distance....I would like to see it up close. It looks quite different from —almost brownish compared to the red. It looks much different. That was my final question. Mr. Wilshaw: It's nice having these hot studio lights we can see the... it's all lit up. Mr. Eisenhart: Ms. Smiley, if I may. You asked a question about hospice. It is not care that our facility will provide. This is no different than if someone had their own independent apartment and they wanted to hire hospice to come in and provide that service for them at their apartment, they can do that. It is not going to be a service that is our company's offering or practice. There is a level of care where you have to have the ability to function and leave and get out of a facility if there happened to be a fire —that separates us October 23, 2019 29414 from skilled nursing where folks have a little more acuity and not mobile. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for making that distinction. Do we have any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: I recall that most of the mechanical equipment for the building is going to be ground mounted with the exception of a vent fan for the kitchen area, is that correct? Mr. Auble: That is correct, but we have the ability to ground mount that as well and keep that contained in the enclosure as well. We have done that on other facilities. So that is the route we are assuming at this point. Mr. Ventura: Okay, so it will be on the ground and not be on the roof. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Mr. Taormina, did you have something? Mr. Taormina: I think I just answered going through the plans the question that I was going to ask and that is, on the north elevation whether or not this was illustrating the number of openings in the two end wings if you will. The parts of the building that flank the porte- cochere don't show any opening and those are units within the facility. The openings for those units are on the side, not facing the main entry. I believe I confirmed that on the floor plan. Mr. Auble: You are correct and what we have done there is kind of put columnar landscaping. Bushes to kind of spruce up that front elevation. Mr. Taormina: I will point that out to the Planning Commission, the renderings that we are looking at here really do not tell the full story. The landscape plan if you refer to that, shows substantial foundation plantings that will kind of soften the appearance of the building all the way around. It is not something that was depicted on the renderings. Mr. Wilshaw: That is good point, thank you. Mr. Eisenhart: We had a long discussion about improving the quality of our renderings. There is a full vestibule with glass. If you saw October 23, 2019 29415 pictures of our previous projects that we showed at the last meeting, it is very obvious where the entrance is. We will do a better job of getting the rendering to depict that, but our previous projects show that. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Eisenhart. Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: This is for Mark and potentially the petitioner as well. Mark, how high is the brick? How high is that stonework on the building. Mr. Taormina: The wainscot? Mr. Caramagno: The stonework around the wall. Mr. Taormina: The height of that is probably... Mr. Auble: Three feet. Mr. Taormina: Yeah, okay. That answers it. Mr. Caramagno: So it is three feet tall around the edges and back by the dumpster enclosure... at the study meeting we talked about the fencing. Are you saying that this is all cement fence or is this still cedar fence here? Mr. Auble: Around the equipment enclosure, as of now, is cedar fencing. Eight foot cedar fencing. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Mr. Taormina: A follow-up if I may Mr. Chairman? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina: I just want to confirm the height of that wainscot because it is showing the textured stonelveneer wall on these section views as being two feet not three feet. Was that a change? Mr. Auble: I will confirm that. I don't have the answer as to why that is but it is my understanding that they were three feet on previous facilities. I will follow-up with that. You are correct it shows two foot. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. October 23, 2019 29416 Mr. Caramagno: That is why I asked. It just looks like it is very low. Now you are talking about putting in shrubs and bushes in front of this and the next thing you can't ... all this stonework here you can't even see. It sill be covered up. So, as I said in the study session, I certainly want more stone, more brick, more concrete and this just doesn't do it for me. I just want to make that very clear right now. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions for the petitioner before we go to the audience? Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-84-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 22, 2019, on Petition 2019-09-02-14 submitted by ARCO Construction Company, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(n)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility (ClearPath Assisted Living) at 33579 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast '/a of Section 4, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item to the meeting of November 19, 2019. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. . Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #2 PETITION 2019-08-06-02 City of Livonia Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2019- 08-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #293-19, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, which regulates wireless October 23, 2019 29417 communication facilities by removing the governing of small cells and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Section 18.42B that would oversee the rules and technology of small cells. Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment is intended to establish standards for regulating small cell wireless facilities in compliance with recently enacted State Law, which in large part, preempts local authority over such uses. In July, City Council enacted Chapter 6 of Title 12 of the Code of Ordinances for the purpose of providing procedural rules and other standards directly related to small cell wireless facilities. The proposed changes involving the Zoning Ordinance are twofold: 1. Section 18.42A would be amended to exclude small cell wireless facilities from the rules currently applied to other forms of wireless communication facilities. 2. Section 18.42B would be added as a new section that would be specific to small cell applications. It is the intent of these ordinances to provide the City with the maximum authority available under the restrictions imposed by the new state law. From a land use perspective, what primarily distinguishes small cell wireless facilities from other forms of wireless communication is the size of the equipment. Small cell wireless antennas and equipment are much smaller and operate under different technology that requires closer spacing between cells. Hence, the facilities are typically placed on shorter structures such as existing utility poles or on dedicated new poles that are 40 feet in height or less, as opposed to traditional cell towers which are typically 120 feet in height. In terms of local zoning, the Small Wireless Communications Facilities Deployment Act, PA 365 of 2018, generally exempts small cell wireless facilities from zoning review. Exceptions exist in cases where the equipment exceeds a certain size, the height of a support pole is above 40 ft., or the small cell adds more than [5] to the height of a pole. Act 365 imposes limits on fees that a City can charge, as well time restrictions. Because of this, the Ordinance specifies that a single authority responsible for reviewing applications, which is the City Engineer. Aesthetics can be a considered in circumstances where a small cell facility is proposed in a residential zoning district, within the PRDA district along Plymouth Road, or within an established historic district. For this to occur, the City must establish written, objective requirements for reasonable, technically feasible, nondiscriminatory, and technologically neutral designs or concealment measures. That is straight out of the statute. With that Mr. Chairman I will answer any questions you may have. Mr. Neville is here this evening to assist with the discussion. October 23, 2019 29418 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Because this is the Planning Commissions own motion or petition, we don't have a petitioner to come forward on this item so we will go directly to the Commission if there are any questions of either our Planning Director or of the Law Department. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you for coming, and it is my understanding that the State is regulating this, and the City cannot override the State. Mr. Neville: Correct. In fact, the State statute is modeled after the Federal statute. Under the State statute, even though technically under our State Constitution local authorities have the right to regulate zoning, the State has essentially taken much of that authority away from us as Mr. Taormina said, except for limited circumstances. Essentially those deal with the height of the utility pole and the extension if the small cell facility is place on top of the utility pole. In short, we have very little discretion other than with respect to those limited measures. We have to follow the State statute, which preempts local authorities' ability to regulate this area. Ms. Smiley: Which came from the Fed's? Mr. Neville: Correct. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Ventura: Again for Mr. Neville, so as I understand Mr. Taormina's recitation of the regulations that we are going to write, this Planning Commission will never see any of the applications to erect these small cells. It will all be handled by the Engineering Department. Mr. Neville: The Engineering Department, correct. Mr. Ventura: And so, it will never appear on an agenda here or the public will never have an opportunity to come before us to object or comment. This is all going to be out of our prevue. Is that correct? Mr. Neville: I would say unless someone wanted to erect a utility pole that was in excess of the 40 feet or go above the five feet extension utility pole, then you are correct. The engineer will have that authority to approve those applications for the small cell facilities. October 23, 2019 29419 Mr. Ventura: As long as they don't go across the few lines that they have drawn. Mr. Neville: Correct. Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Neville. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our staff? We do have some folks in the audience who I believe wish to speak on this item, so I will give them the opportunity. is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Rachel Middaugh, 19488 Osmus, Livonia, MI, I didn't' quite understand all of that, but I do know that small cells were on the agenda, so I wanted to be here because 1 am very concerned about them. I have noticed the small cells on the rights -of -way on some of our major roads already. It is very concerning. Some of them are right in front of people's homes. They have no idea of what they are going to be exposed to. 5G is the fifth generation for wireless communication. It uses small cells for radio frequency transmissions. It is estimated that 5G will use between 24 — 90 GHz frequencies. Where 3G and 4G is at 1 — 6 GHz. 5G is designed to deliver concentrated and focused electromagnetic radiations. Up to 100 times more than current levels. In 2011 the World Health Organization classified wireless as a Group 2B carcinogen. The U.S. and Canada have the highest safety limits compared to other countries. Our safety limits are 61.5 volts per meter, while the limit in Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland is 6 volts per meter. It is quite the contrast. In December 2018, despite expert testimony explaining the dangers and opposition from city governmental officials, SB 637 and 894 were signed into law. The law help enable wireless technology providers to increase their capacity, streamline regulations, and lay the groundwork for future technologies such as 5G. It also diminished local government ability to be compensated for the costs of rights -of - way and it leaves the costs up to taxpayers, when the private company should be responsible for the cost. This push came from the Federal Government with the FCC's recently mandated small cell implementation in our cities. Even though the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows for more control from the private companies over the voices of the taxpayers, the voters, and the scientists, the language was codified in Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits discussion of environmental concerns or health concerns in the placement of October 23, 2019 29420 cell towers. While the industry and the government would have you believe EMF's are safe, there are over 1000 studies and scientific research showing EMF's can increase cancer, mutagenic effect, it prevents healing, it increases hormonal changes, it alters brain development, it causes neurological symptoms, sleep problems, sperm damage, headaches, dizziness, and more. There is also research showing the negative environmental effects that include the drastic decline in our bees and our birds. Not to mention they will have to cut down all of our trees because they have to be able to communicate with each other. So, they are talking like every 200 — 500 feet. Someone is going to have a cell tower in their back yard. We don't have a say. I am asking you to do everything in your power to fight for the citizens of Livonia. Protect us from this unwanted, unnecessary RF radiation. We do not need 5G. Fiber optics is faster, and it is more reliable. Allow safe technology. Reject unsafe and untested technologies. There are safe tech groups throughout our state, the nation, the world. They are helping cities get educated and they are helping them establish ordinances and they are teaching them how to fight back to gain their local control. One of the organizations is called PROTEC and that stands for the Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights of Ways. That was founded after the changes in the Michigan laws. They also have a current lawsuit in the 9tn District against the FCC. There are a lot of cities and townships that are joining PROTEC. I am asking you guys to also do the same. I would like to give this to you guys as well. I am also asking you to consider passing a resolution stating the Livonia supports less legislation for an immediate moratorium on small cell installations on Michigan's public rights -of -way until safe RF radiation levels are established for long term exposures. Thank you for your consideration and for looking out for the health of the citizens. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Middaugh. If you want to hand that over to Mr. Neville I think he will... Ms. Middaugh: I also have a draft of a resolution. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Just so you know, we are at the Planning Commission and our role is to start the process of an ordinance change. We review the language that has been presented to us. Approve it or make a recommendation that it be approved or denied to the City Council. The City Council is the one that will ultimately have to review this and make this decision. They will be the ones that October 23, 2019 29421 could also enact legislation or ask for moratoriums and things like that. Ms. Middaugh: Because we are not powerless. We can do things to stop this. I have a utility pole in my backyard, and I won't be here if a small cell comes on it. I grew up here from eight years old and I am 44 now. I will leave. I am not going to be exposed to that. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand. I definitely understand your concerns. They are valid, but I just want to you to understand the process that we are going to go through because at the end, what I am going to do is recommend that you also attend the City Council meeting and speak to the council They are ultimately going to make the decision. Ms. Middaugh: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Good evening, ma'am. My name is Amy Ciavaglia, 18997 Gary Lane, Livonia, Ml, Rachel touched on a lot of the key points that all of us are concerned about. I am a very health conscious mom. I have two daughters. My youngest has special needs. I have pretty much changed our whole lifestyle since we discovered her special needs. We eat healthy. We buy organic. We don't allow any chemicals in our home. We don't drink. We don't' smoke. Pretty much a non -toxic life. So, when I was informed about 5G and I learned that these small cells could be installed right on the light posts across from my house it has been keep me up at night. I feel like if I wake up and find one of these and my family is exposed 2417 to these harmful levels of radiation, which are totally different from 2, 3,and 4G, my right to keep my family healthy has been taken away from me. I really... love Livonia. I have lived in Livonia my whole life. I have worked in Livonia. I have worked for Livonia schools. I am raising my family in Livonia. Livonia schools are amazing. I have always considered Livonia as a wonderful city to raise a family. But if have one of these small cells in front of my house I will be moving. Livonia needs to continue to be a safe place to raise a family. If we want to keep moving Livonia forward, keeping people in Livonia, we can't make people sick. We can't watch our kids come down with cancer and neurological disorders. Unborn babies are going to be very susceptible. Scientists are coming forward, doctors are coming forward, expressing their concerns over 5G radiation and the effect that it is going to have on our health. Unborn babies, children, their skulls are thinner. They October 23, 2019 29422 are predicting that babies will be born with numerous neurological disorders on top of the rise in Autism and other neurological disorders we are already seeing. They have already established that cellphone radiation is harmful to our health. 5G takes it one step further, and whether we use 5G, whether we buy 5G adaptable phones, if we have a small cell in our neighborhood, we are exposed 24/7. We have zero control over that. I just wanted to express my concern. I hope you will take this into consideration and do what is best for the citizens of Livonia. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Ciavaglia. Sherry Prush, 9090 Lathers, Livonia, MI, first of all thank you for explaining the process. We felt it was important to come and speak, not only to you guys, but we do plan on attending City Council meetings as well. This is going to be very hard to talk about. 5G is very scary to me. I have four little girls. Two of them have autism, one of them is severely compromised and has auto --immune encephalitis. So, little things affect her in a huge way. We do have a pole in our yard. I have every reason to believe that there will be a tower, a cell tower there, if they are able to put it there. I am really sad at how our government has gone. I understand that a lot of your control has been taken. I am here to beg you to find ways to take it back. Livonia is a great place to live. I did not grow up here. I chose to raise my family here. My husband and I moved away from all of our families and our workplaces specifically for the community of Livonia. Hearing this, I was telling someone today my daughter is in a medical setback right now and life is pretty difficult. I cannot imagine what will happen to my household if there is a 5G tower anywhere near her. cannot imagine what will happen next. I am scared for the citizens. Even the healthy ones to become ill, but the ones that are already affected by the environmental changes that we have seen over the last several decades. I am terrified what will happen to my daughter, specifically when these 5G towers go up. The exposure, like Amy said, even if I choose to not to buy the products, which I will choose to not use the products, but if that tower is in my back yard so my neighbors can use the products, don't have a choice anymore. Things for our family will get much much worse as well as the other citizens. I am really hoping that you guys will take this into consideration, and we can work together as a community to find a different way. Again, we will definitely speak to City Council. Thank you. October 23, 2019 29423 Mr. Wlshaw: Thank you, Ms. Prush. We appreciate your comments. Audrey Rogers, 36937 Ladywood, Livonia, MI, like those that have already spoken, I have huge concerns about 5G rolling in for myself and my children and for our future. We don't know enough about the consequences of 5G. The regulations that are put in place currently, and they were put in place in the 1990's, were based largely on scientific data from the 1980's on rats. That is not enough. There is a group of scientists, over 240 scientists, who have put out a statement saying that they want the FCC to change/update the regulations. To have stronger exposure limits. Here is part of the statement that they said. Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF's effect living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risks, cellular stress, increase and harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life. This is hugely concerning. Sometimes it may seem like there isn't something to do because things are rolling just to fast. This is where people need to stand up and put forth efforts in new mandates, updating the information, getting better information, because this is our future. Thank you for listening. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Rogers. Mandy Ordaz, 30797 Bobrich, Livonia, MI, my husband and I moved here maybe five years ago to Livonia for the schools, for the community as has been mentioned. A couple years ago we went through the whirlwind of buying our forever home through that crazy hottest market in the nation. We found one and we were so excited to raise our four boys, the youngest of whom also has special needs. He suffers from a life -threatening form of epilepsy actually. It is caused by genetic mutation. There is no cure. It is very resistant to medications, and as has been mentioned before, he is also very sensitive to anything. A seizure can be triggered by a fever, by illness, by being tired, by a storm, by the full moon, eating a potato chip, you name it. So, I don't even want to know what this technology is going to do to him. I have already noticed that he is sensitive to just electromagnetic frequencies from cell phones and computers, etc. I just don't' even want to try... it scares me to think what might happen to him. For him it is a life- October 23, 2019 29424 threatening condition that there is nothing else I can do. He is ten years old and we have tried everything. I just want to echo what has been said, that we need to treat this seriously and with caution. I am curious ... we have heard that the state passed the laws, but what can we, as a city, do? You have explained that the City Council is part of it. So, if you could just clarify just a little bit more for me, how would we go about this? What can we do? Mr. Wilshaw: Well, ma'am. The process that we are undergoing is, as I understand it, and Mr. Neville can probably speak a little bit more to this, the state has required that communities pass and enact some sort of ordinance to deal with small cells. Again, in my understanding and I am going to ask Mr. Neville to talk a little bit more about it, the ordinance that has been prepared and presented to us is as strong a language I believe is possible under the State Law and under what the FCC has mandated that we can pass. We literally cannot enact anything more stringent for small cells. That being said, it isn't that stringent because our hands our very tied by the state and the FCC thanks to lobbyists and whoever else has caused that to be. Mr. Neville, I am going to ask, is my generalization of this ordinance accurate and is there anything else that can be done? Certainly, no necessarily by us as a Planning Commission, but the City Council or the city as a whole regarding small cells. Mr. Neville: Unfortunately, the short answer is no. Our concern is that by not passing... our ordinance is preempted by State Law which is preempted by Federal Law. The Legislature and the Federal Government just carved out, essentially... maybe it is just the tip of the —nod of the head to the local communities but they have given us a limited amount of room in order to regulate what is going on in this industry. The fear is that if we don't pass this ordinance, then we don't have any ability to have a say into this because the state is going to essentially overrule anything we may want to do. I may be speaking out of turn, and maybe it isn't my position to say, but Haley Stevens is holding a public hearing here on Friday morning. The whole idea is to address small cell facilities. A great opportunity for residents to come and perhaps to speak out and perhaps have a say as to what options the local community might have and more importantly, what the state might be able to do. That is going to be held here in City Hall at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, October 25, 2019. This came to my attention this afternoon and so I wanted to share it with the Planning Commission. So this is probably another forum that people can come forward and have a say in this area. As the October 23, 2019 29425 Chairman has indicated, we really have very little room, if anything, to... Ms. Ordaz: So, this ordinance is basically... you are wanting to alter it just because it is geared for the big cell towers? Mr. Neville: This is for the 5G because the small cell facilities are different than traditional telecom facilities. The State has enacted Public Act 365 which addresses the small cell wireless communication facilities and so we decided that we needed to pass on ordinance that would address that and that is why we have 18.42B I believe is our ordinance as well as 12.05 and 6 in the Code of Ordinances. Our ordinance is essentially designed to mirror what the state statute is because it is modeled a lot after the Federal regulation. Ms. Ordaz: Thank you for the information and for giving us the time to speak on this item. Mr. Wilshaw: Definitely. Mr. Neville, thank you for pointing out that informational meeting that is going to be available. Any public information that we can give people is great. Mr. Neville: My pleasure. Gina Wheaton, 10945 Stark Road, Livonia, MI, I wasn't planning on speaking today but I am here because I am passionate this issue. There is a 5G cell tower 100 yards from my home. I have small children, 9, 2, and 8 months. I am a registered nurse. I work here in the city. My husband owns A Greener Method carpet cleaning. We use all chemical -free all plant -based cleaning products. We are really passionate about organic and keeping thing fresh and clean, so when 1 heard about this it just really really really got me going so I am here for the first time. I grew up in Livonia. I just want to say that the notion that exposure to radio frequency microwave radiation with the notion that it is not harmful to humans, which has been the underlying principal of all of the federal regulation regarding wireless technology for more than 20 years has now been proven false. It's false. So, your saying that your hearing it come down from the federal and the state but it's wrong. So, think as a community, as people of the community we want to see change and there has to be a way. There has to be a way for us to speak out. I think all of these people are elected by the community in which they live in to represent us at the state level, to represent us every which way. There has to be a way that we October 23, 2019 29426 can collectively create a voice loud enough for them to hear us. Just for everyone else's information, Haley Stevens is also going to be at a Livonia Chamber of Commerce event at St. Mary's Cultural Center on November 1, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. for those of your who can't make it this week, because I know I will be out of town. But I know 1 will be there talking to her and I will be at this meeting, I will be at the next meeting, 1 will be at every single meeting. 1 will fill this auditorium. Just don't underestimate the power of like a mom that feels threatened. Mr. Wilshaw: I definitely understand. Ma'am, your welcome to speak. Rosalie Tislerics, 9655 Farmington Road, Livonia, MI, 1 have a question. How many of these antennas have already been installed in Livonia and is there a schedule for the implementation of the others? What is the saturation point in the city? I guess that is three questions. Mr. Wilshaw: That is three questions. We will see what we can answer for you. Mr. Taormina, there are some in the city already and I believe there are some pending applications. Do you have any feel for how many antennas have been erected at this point? Mr. Taormina: The number installed; I am unable to verify. Based on information from our Engineering Division, to date, the City has issued a total of eight permits. A few of them, I am aware, have been installed. Driving around the city, checking a few others, 1 noticed that they have not yet been constructed. A few are in the pipeline. I think four or five additional antennas. This covers a single carrier. A couple of other carriers have indicated their interest in deployment and are in the early stages of discussing this with the city. There is not a schedule that we are aware of. That is probably something each provider has separately. A schedule as to how they are going to deploy this throughout the whole community. That is pretty much it. Ms. Tislerics: What would be considered the saturation point? Mr. Wilshaw: That is the questions that I was going to address for you. I don't know if there is a good answer for that because the two questions that Mr. Taormina, or rather that one question Mr. Taormina wrapped up which was the schedule is really dependent on the carrier and what they decide the customer demand and the consumer demand is. The more demand there is for this, the faster they are going to want to put them in. That type of thing. October 23, 2019 29427 As far as the saturation point, again I don't know if we are qualified to answer that. It depends on range that each of these facilities can accomplish and how many devices that they can accommodate and so on. We saw the same thing with regular cell phone towers when they started to go up. They started popping up throughout the city and then eventually they started coming back and saying they need in fill locations. We need smaller towers to fill in gaps and so on. It is constantly adjusting. I don't know if there ever really is a saturation point. I don't know if 1 can give you a definitive answer on that. It's really going to be for the RF engineers and these people that understand this technology better. Needless to say, we are definitely at the early onset of this technology and we are, obviously, no where close to a saturation point yet because as I understand it these towers have a very limited range. 5o, there is going to be a lot of them. Ms. Tislerics: It seems to me that if you have one it's saturation. You don't need anymore. Okay. There is much more scientific evidence that previous scientific evidence has been contradicted. I would rather stand still then be caught rolling down a hill that seems to have no bottom. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: That is an excellent point. Thank you. Ms. Middaugh: I just want to give you the name of the guy from PROTEC. His name is Michael Watza. He is with Kitch Attorneys and Counselors. They actually have a small cell ordinance sample that I can send you guys. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Middaugh, I believe we are a member of PROTEC. Mr. Taormina: We are a member of PROTEC. Just to let you know, Mr. Watza was instrumental in the drafting of these ordinances. Ms. Middaugh: Oh, he was? Mr. Taormina: Absolutely. Ms. Middaugh: That's good. Thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw: We appreciate you bringing the PROTEC to our attention. It is something that the city has been involved with for many many years and it is an excellent organization. October 23, 2019 29428 Ms. Middaugh: Thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? We have one more. We want to make sure everyone is heard. Pam Civello, 18683 Gary Lane, Livonia, MI, I just wanted to point out that the 5G frequency is actually used as a weapon. I am just pointing that out. That perhaps it is something that we need to look into more. There is actually no research done by these cell phone companies to what is happening. There is no more ... they don't know what they are actually doing. It is the bottom line. They just want to create these towers so that you can get what... download your You Tube video faster? I mean honestly. We are talking about a health issue... I know you are kind of laughing but it's true. 1 have a daughter in middle school and that is what they do on the bus. How fast can we get the latest joke? Or the latest picture. Or whatever. They don't realize what they are actually doing. It is up to us as parents and moms, right? And the city to look after all those that can't look after themselves. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this item? If not, I will close the public hearing and a motion is in order. Ms. Smiley: We are a member of PROTEC? Mr. Taormina: We are. Yes. Ms. Smiley: This gentleman helped us write this ordinance. Mr. Taormina: Yes, the city has been active in the organization since it's inception. Mr. Watza is considered an expert in this area and I know he worked very closely with our legal department and Mike Fisher in particular with drafting these ordinances to make sure they provided the city with absolutely the highest degree of authority that it can have based on the limitation imposed by the State Law. We are creatures of the state and to people who work in municipal government, any time there is a threat to home rule or local authority, it is a challenge. It isn't something that we take lightly or fall to our knees lightly, so PROTEC has been very active in trying to counter the efforts in Lansing, the lobbying efforts to get these laws enacted and unfortunately that power was too overwhelming and as a result we have a statute that October 23, 2019 29429 imposes considerable restraints on municipalities. That is where we are at right now. These ordinances are designed to give us as much authority as we can on this issue. Ms. Smiley: Okay, that is what I want to clarify. While we are not approving the 5G,what we are approving is getting as much authority as we can possibly get to... Mr. Taormina: That is correct. The suggestion earlier about imposing a moratorium is typically is a great tool afforded to municipalities to deal with issues that they are not ready to handle. Unfortunately, PA 365 under Section 15 prohibits authorities from enacting moratoriums on the issue of small cell wireless. While it was a great suggestion, and something the communities would jump on the opportunity until they were able to fully understand, but unfortunately the City's hands are tied and unable to do that. The state has prevented cities from doing that. Ms. Smiley: Just for the record, that meeting with Haley Stevens is when? Could you tell us again where and when that meeting with Haley Stevens... Mr. Neville: That is Friday. This Friday the 25t" at 10:00 a.m. right here. Ms. Smiley: Right in City Hall. Okay thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Again, 1 will say a motion is in order. This is a motion not to approve, as Ms. Smiley pointed out, 5G but to approve language for an ordinance to go to council regarding the control of 5G and small cell towers. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-85-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 22, 2019, on Petition 2019-08-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #293-19, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, which regulates wireless communication facilities by removing the governing of small cells and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Section 18.42B that would oversee the rules and technology of small cells, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend October 23, 2019 29430 to the City Council that Petition 2019-08-06-02 be approved for the following reasons: 1. The proposed language amendment would establish standards for regulating small cell wireless facilities in compliance with recently enacted state law; 2. This amendment would create procedural rules and other standards directly related to small cell wireless facilities and provide the City with the maximum authority available under state law in connection with the deployment of small cell wireless facilities; and 3. That the proposed language amendment will provide aesthetic considerations where small cell wireless facilities are in residential zoning districts, within the PRDA district along Plymouth Road, and within other established historic districts. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina, I want to note that as you were talking about PROTEC, I believe current Councilwoman Cathy White was also heavily involved with a lot of the PROTEC and wireless ordinances that we have had throughout the years. She is quite an expert in this as well. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: That is something our residents should be aware of as they go to City Council to also be aware of. Mr. Taormina: Very good point. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2019-09-02-13 Children's Paradise Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2019- 09-02-13 submitted by Children's Paradise Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.030) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a child day care center at 9424 Newburgh Road, located on the southeast corner of Newburgh Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest '/ of Section 32. October 23, 2019 29431 Mr. Wilshaw: I believe this item was tabled at our previous meeting so I will need a motion to remove this item from the table. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-86-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 22, 2019, on Petition 2019-09-02-13 submitted by Children's Paradise Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.030) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a child day care center at 9424 Newburgh Road, located on the southeast corner of Newburgh Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest Y4 of Section 32., the Planning Commission does hereby remove the item from the table. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried, and the item is removed from the table. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I will just refresh everyone's memory that at the study meeting we discussed a number of items and the petitioner provided some additional information with respect to the hours of operation, signage, as well as improvements to the play area and landscaping. Covering the item of hours of operation, the petitioner stated that after hearing some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors, she would limit the hours, at least the evening hours, from what was originally proposed as a 9:45 p.m. closing time to 7:00 p.m. There was some additional information provided regarding signage, although we didn't have enough detail to review that, but I did confirm with our legal department and Mr. Fisher in particular, that the silhouette figures that were described at that meeting do in fact constitute signage and is something that would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. As it stands now, those would not be something that are permitted. They would need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Probably the biggest issue, however, was the issue of the environmental conditions of the site. The petitioner was able to get a full copy of the report and submit that to us. We have provided that report in your packet, at least the executive summary, which confirms that the site is still open according to MDEQ's leaking underground storage tank database. It is also deemed to be a "Facility", as the term is defined under the Michigan National Resources and Environmental Protection Act. It was recommended that the petitioner seek advice from the State of Michigan Licensing and October 23, 2019 29432 Regulatory Affairs, as to whether or not the conditions of the site might impose difficulties obtaining a daycare license. I don't know if she has been able to get that information but that is really an update from our last meeting. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any questions of the Planning Director? If not, I believe the petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Felicia Guess, 35688 Garner Street, Romulus, M1. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any new information that you need to provide to us? Ms. Guess: Not at this time. I have sought out with the state to see about the environmental and I have not gotten an answer back yet. My licensing inspector is also looking over the paperwork. At this point I do not have an answer of moving forward with my petition. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, regarding the state... Ms. Guess: The state regulations and even if what else is the owner going to do if there is anything else that needs to be done to close that out or make sure that everything is fine. At this point, I guess I am still in limbo until I get some answers back from my state counselor and whether the childcare can even go there now. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, alright. We appreciate that. Is there any other information that you need or would like to provide to us regarding this petition? Ms. Guess: Not at this time. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you. Is there anybody on the commission that would like to ask any questions of our petitioner or staff? Ms. Smiley: This is really for Mark. Could we table it? Can we delay it? I don't want her to lose her application, but I don't want her to get a glowing... Mr. Taormina: In deference to the petitioner's situation that she is under, it is critical to this body to find out the issue with the licensing authority. Again, it is at your discretion. You can table it indefinitely and when she is able to get a response back, then we can place it back on a future agenda. I don't know what your October 23, 2019 29433 timeframe is with the landlord. Sometimes it is restricted. Maybe we can ask that question and what her due diligence is. Ms. Smiley: Would you like us to table it for a while? Ms. Guess: I would and the time with the owner is he pretty much knows that I can't do anything until this portion is done. He was supposed to be here tonight. Unfortunately, he is not. The realtor and I are going to check and see why he wasn't here to answer the questions he is responsible for and I am glad you are giving me more time to try to get this rectified. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table it indefinitely. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-87-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 22, 2019, on Petition 2019-09--02-13 submitted by Children's Paradise Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.030) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a child day care center at 9424 Newburgh Road, located on the southeast corner of Newburgh Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest % of Section 32, the Planning Commission does hereby table the item until further notice. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,149th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,149th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 8, 2019. On a motion by Long, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-88-2019 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,149th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2019, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: October 23, 2019 29434 AYES. Ventura, McCue, Smiley, Long, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Bongero, ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,149th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 22, 2019, was adjourned at 8:21 P.m. X-I WWA Sa ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman no, Secretary