HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-03-2619230
MINUTES OF THE 842ntl PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 26, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 842nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Walsh
mun:r�a:z�atlll�tnm�rr
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Bill Poppenger,
Planner I; and Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs 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 dened. 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 hasten 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 2002-02-02-04 CHINESE GOSPEL CHURCH
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
02-02-04 submitted by Brivar Construction Company, on behalf of the
Chinese Gospel Church, requesting waiver use approval to construct
an addition onto the existing diuroh building, inducing a new
sanctuary with increased seating capacity, on property located at
35301 Five Mile Road on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Gary Lane and Yale Avenue in the Northwest%of Section 21.
19231
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above -referenced petition. This department has no objections to the
proposal or the legal description provided. It should be noted that the
developer will be required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance in connection with storm water runoff and
retention. Also, the developerwill need to contact Wayne County for
any permits pertaining to approaches orwork within the Five Mile
Road right-of-way. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 5, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct an addition onto the existing church in order to increase the
seating capacity of the existing sanctuary on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building is to be provided
with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet hom the Fire Department connection.
(2) Access around the building shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall-to-wall and a
minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet" The letter is signed by
James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division
of Police, dated March 11, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans in connection with the request to construct an
addition to the Chinese Gospel Church. After reviewing the parking
plans, we recommend a curb cut be made in the curbed area in front
of the handicap parking spaces or the removal of the curbed area.
This would allow the handicapped individual a shorter distance to
travel from the canto the front door. We expect there will be no curb
between the sidewalk and parking lot near the entrance to the church
for easy handicap access to the building. Each handicap space must
be individually signed and markedper city ordinance. Thereisno
indication on the plans in regards to the size of the parking spaces.
Parking spaces should conform to city ordinance. Stop signs will
need to be installed before the sidewalk at each exit of the parking
lot." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 7,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February
25, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
19232
following is noted. (1) The barrier free accessible parking may need
to be relocated (8 spaces). Fifty percent of the entrances need to be
accessible and new areas must be fully accessible. (2) The
petitioner based their parking requirements on the main sanctuary
only and neglected to include the fellowship hall or the classrooms.
We would estimate required parking at 186 spaces and they are
providing 228. (3) The parking spaces need to be double striped
also. (4) The plan is not exactly clear as to landscaping and the
retention basin and should be clarified to the Commissioners'
satisfaction. (5) Parking lotlighting is not specked and should be
clarified. This Department has no further objections to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioners representative here this evening?
Joseph R. Hammond, Vice President, Brivar Construction Company, 7258 S
Kensington Road, Brighton, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Will you tell us about the project?
Mr. Hammond In addition to what Mr. Taormina said, I put together a package which
I left on the table for all of you this evening responding point by point
to the comments made by your various reviewing agencies. I think
we've covered most of them, hopefully to your satisfaction. In Mr.
Bishop's letter, he did recommend a landscape drawing, and we
have done that this evening. I brought it along with us. I'd like you to
take note. All ofthe islands are within the parking structure. This, by
the way, is their existing parking lot. This shows the extension of the
lottothe south and to the east. Please note that all of the islands are
landscaped with either plantings or shrubs. Additionally, adjacentto
the greenbelt on the residential to the west, we have provided some
screening -type trees along that greenbelt area. On the east side
adjacent to the residences on the south, we have a row of screen -
type plantings immediately adjacent to their property and then some
othertrees as a buffer between that and the parking area. One thing
I would like you to take note of is the elevation difference between
this residence and the actual surface area of our parking lot. Itis
anywhere between six and nine feet, so between the height that we
have, the trees and the fact that our parking lot is dropped down in, I
don't think we'll have any adverse reaction from car headlights. To
the property to the north, we have provided a berm and some closely
planted screen trees to buffer that area of the parking from the house
immediately to the north of our "L." As Mark suggested, we did color
up a set of elevation drawings as far as the building materials are
concerned, and I brought a sample board out. Some of this was a
19233
little too heavy to actually mount on the board. If I can, we'll start with
the laver level walkout. It is a walkout and it only faces to the south
ofthe site towards your nature preserve. We have a precolored split
face masonry. Above that we have a precast concrete stone belt.
And then we sort of changed from when we met with Mark, the siding
that we're proposing is an intricately colored ...
Mr. McCann:
Sir, could you put the board up and show us?
Mr. Hammond:
Okay. We talked initially about the split face block which I let on the
ground. That is the lower level. Right above that is a smooth precast
stone bell. Above that is a six inch and a twelve inch siding. What
we are proposing is actually a smooth cementitious siding. It is not a
vinyl siding. Itis intricately colored. It is applied by the carpenters
but it is a permanent material. Above that would be a shingle to
match the existing. This board includes their existing brick.
Mr. McCann:
They are pretty much earth tones.
Mr. Hammond:
It is consistentwith the church architecture, and it does match and
blend in with residential -type structures. All of them are in the same
color range as their existing brick.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You show a lot of landscaping. What height are those plantings?
Mr. Hammond:
The screen trees start out at six feel high. The screen trees are six
foot pines to start.
Mr. Pierceochi:
Which ones are the pines?
Mr. Hammond:
This and this.
Mr. Pierceochi:
What are the larger ones?
Mr. Hammond:
We have some autumn Purple Ash, Sugar Maple, Pear, Sunset Red
Maples, a few flowering crabs ... it's pretty well landscaped.
Mr. Pierceochi:
And they will be a sufficient size?
Mr. Hammond:
They're averaging 2.5" caliper for all of the hard wood trees.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
What percent landscaping do you have there now? It looks like
you've got quite a bit.
Mr. Hammond:
I couldn't answer that queston.
19234
Mr. Piercecchi: Any idea, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: To answer that, I'd have to question the petitioner. Is thatthe same
parking layout originally submitted or has that been scaled back?
Mr. Hammond:
No. Here's what we did. Some of the residents had expressed
concerns to Mr. Nowak and Mr. Taormina about the area where we
have our retention basin questionably being a wetlands. We
contacted Mr. Robert Leighton, who is a registered MDEQ wetlands
consultant, and asked him to visit the site. You have a letter in your
package from him. He did visit the site. He said, in his opinion, if it is
a wetlands, it is a very poor quality wetlands, and he's making that
determination based on the species of plants and the size. He does
say that within 500 feet of that wet area, we have the stream that is
on the other side of the road and which has been enclosed running
through this property. He is suggesting that as a result ofthat, we
contact the MDEQ and ask them for a determination. He doesn't
think they're going to make a determination that it is. Once that
sewer was endosed, that basically dried up this area. Thalishis
opinion. From the comments that the neighbors made, we look a
look at the plan with Mark Taormina and At Nowak. The church has
suggested scaling back the easterly 24 spaces on the site. So this is
where those 24 spaces were originally shown on your drawing, and
we've just taken that back to landscaping. Eliminating those 24
spaces still gives us 202 spaces. It's still more than the 186 spaces
that Alex Bishop requested. That allows us a 110 foot greenbelt
buffer to the property line at the east, and it is 145 feet from the
nearest house in that direction. From the parking lot area to the
house to the north is approximately 130 feet. With that, with the
screening that we've provided, the berm and the screening here, the
additional elevation and the screen plantings, we're hoping that
satisfies some of the neighbors' concerns.
Mr. Taormina:
To answer the question about the percentage of landscaping, it was
37.6% greenspace on the original plan. Whatyou would have to add
to that is estimated to be 6,600 square feet for the elimination of the
24 parking spaces.
Mr. Shane:
It's hard for me to see the entire plan from here, but to the east of the
proposed addition, what provisions have you made for landscaping
along there?
Mr. Hammond:
We are showing some upright arborvitae, and they are dosely
planted. There is a combination of what appears to be a Red Pine
and Elm there now. I took some photographs that I could pass out to
the Commission members this evening. The trees that are there are
19235
approximately 4 feet inside the fence line, if the fence line is actually
on the properly. Detroit Edison has an overhead line that feeds a
utility pole south of the existing building, and they've cut the backs
out of lot of those trees. Again, there are Elm or Red Pine, and they
don't appear to be in very good condition. Some of them are dead.
It's really tough to tell at this time of the year. So we areremoving
those trees, and we are replacing them with upright arborvitae.
Mr. LaPine:
Looking at my plan, we're eliminating all the parking thatwas directly
behind the retention basin. Is that correct?
Mr. Hammond:
Directly south of the pond. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, you're going to put landscaping along the easterly property line.
Will that start where the retention basin starts and go all the way back
to where the nature preserve is?
Mr. Hammond:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
On the west part of the property, there are now some plantings and
some of the neighbors have put up a vinyl fence along there. Where
are those plantings going to start? Are they going to be stopped
where the vinyl fence starts or are you going to be planting in front of
the vinyl fence?
Mr. Hammond:
Mr. LaPine, I don't know where thalvinyl fence is located. We are
starting our planting south of the existing trees. We are continuing
those trees all the way to the south to where an extremely large
Willow is.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you planting anything from that point going north?
Mr. Hammond:
We are not planning lodo anything there.
Mr. LaPine:
Because that's all residential there too.
Mr. Hammond:
Okay, so the only area thatwould be in question, ifyou look atthe
existing site plan ... there are some pines and some deciduous trees
there ... would be a little section in here. We would have no
objection to doing the same thing there.
Mr. LaPine:
I would personally like to see that happen. There is a nice white vinyl
fence there. I think two neighbors have put it up. I don't know if you
have to plant anything else in front of them. The only other question I
have is, and I think Mr. Shane brought it up, I was concemed about
the landscaping between where the church abuts to the residential
19236
property. I guess you said you were going to plant some arborvitaes
along there.
Mr. Hammond:
There is probably nothing you could plant in six feet other than an
upright tree that doesn't have a fairly large drip line.
Mr. LaPine:
I want some clarification on the retention basin. How is this going to
be done? Is ilgoing to be sodded? Will there be boulders around it?
Is there any possibility that children can get down there or anything
like that?
Mr. Hammond:
I dont know your Engineering Department's requirements for slopes,
but we would have to make it a mountable slope or fence the pond.
It wouldn't be our intention to put a fence around there. We would
rather do a mountable slope. Given that we have decided to
eliminate the parking, it gives us a little more area to make that pond
a little bit softer.
Mr. Shane:
Does the retention basin now reflect the requirements of Wayne
County?
Mr. Hammond:
It's generally sized to meet their requirements. We haven't shown
the first flush sedimentation chamber area. That will all be done.
Mr. Alanskas:
How tall will the arborvitaes be that you are putting in?
Mr. Hammond:
It will have to start around ten feet. We're assuming that we'll have to
start somewhere in that range just to get the screening.
Mr. Alanskas:
So it will be at least ten feet?
Mr. Hammond:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
When you say the steeple is 50 feet, is that from ground level?
Mr. Hammond:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Is that going to be lit up at night or will there be lights on it?
Mr. Hammond:
I wouldn't think so. No.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition?
19237
Thomas Dunn, 15115 Ellen Drive. I think I'm Lot 17 on the east side. I brought a
picture. This is a view of the site from my fence in my backyard. The
main objections I would have is primarily with the size of the parking
lot as it is pretty close to the edge of the property and the loss of
approximately 100 trees in that area. You can see there is some
standing water that is there pretty much year round except for maybe
in the very rare dry summer. Also, the concern I think would be with
the double layer on the parking lot because that lower level for the
parking lot is going to be significantly lower and also hidden
completely from the street. We already have concems with
basketball going on in the evening over at the back end of the lot.
That lower level will be completely shielded from the street for
security purposes, and again I'm concerned about partying going on
down there in the evening.
Mr. McCann:
Anything further?
Mr. Dunn:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Well have the picture here foryou injusl a second.
Mr. Dunn:
That's fine. You can hold onto that if you want.
Charles Haag,
15039 Ellen Drive. I believe our lot number is 22 on the layout sheet.
There are several concems. Primarily, its the parking lot — the low
areas. They've been addressed before. The retention pond on the
original sheet we got from the Planning Department I think ....
Mr. McCann:
Right. That was the original one we received.
Mr. Haag:
We went to John Hill, the Assistant City Engineer, and had him pull
some plans. There is a 650 foot floodplain area that runs through the
area where the retention pond is that doesn't show up on here. And
the retention pond is shown going from 650 feet down to 644 feet in
elevation. I'm wondering what type of impact that will create with the
floodplain of 650 feet.
Mr. McCann:
The Planning Commission will look atthe building and the site.
Engineering is taken up by the Engineering Division. They report the
problems to us. Also, they have to be approved now by Wayne
County as far as drainage. They have to control all their drainage
within the site area.
Mr. Haag:
Okay.
19238
Mr. McCann: Okay. And then we're also going to look for a report with regard to
the wetlands. Those issues are really out of our control. Those are
things that we are obviously concerned with, but it's up to the
Engineering Division to make sure they conform and to make sure
the water is taken care of.
Mr. Haag:
The other part of my concern was the wetland. There had been a
letter sent to the Michigan DEC, and I don't know what the results of
that have been.
Mr. McCann:
My understanding is that issue is still pending. Is that right, Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Haag:
Thank you.
Joseph Boley,
15139 Ellen. I believe that's Lot 29 on your sheet. My biggest
concern is basically the drainage. The other thing I wanted to
mention is that I do get, even in the parking structure now the way its
designed, I do get headlights into my backyard. If they do approve
this, I'd appreciate you guys taking into consideration that they do put
something thereto block some of that. Right now at the house that
they're talking about has landscaping problems. The police have
been called outthere many times in the Iasi couple years from the
kids that live there because of the partying going on at night— I mean
to the extreme to where theyve arrested them and taken them away
in quite large numbers. As neighbors, I'm sure everybody here that
does come up will express the same thing. We do have a lot of
concern back there because it is going to be dark. And on the other
side, if it is going to be dark, if they are going to light their parking lot,
are we going to have it in our backyard shining in our back window?
It sounds like you guys have taken all these things into consideration,
but I just want to express my concern that this follows through on
how close the parking does end up in our backyard over there. lam
on the other side ofwhere they put all those trees. They're showing
three big trees back there which is probably what's going to cover up
my area because I'm probably right behind that. My biggest concern
is the drainage. I'm sure the people on the other side have the same
problem. As long as they take all these things into consideration and
do them right, I don't have a problem.
Mr. McCann:
We do consider everything that you spoke of, including the lighting.
It's not like you wouldn't be able to see the parking lot lights, but they
are a special form of lighting that shine directly down into the parking
19239
lot and are covered so that they don't shine out at the neighbors. Its
for their interest and yours that they keep the lot lit.
Mr. Boley:
And the drainage is the other main thing. We do have water
problems back there. That's a pretty swampy area. There's a lot of
foliage, a lot of rabbits and animals living down there. I dont know
what kind of concern that is but I'm sure it's going to take a lot of that
out of there if they dont leave some of it for the animals. That goes
all the way back to the following street. I believe that's all City land.
There's no housing. It's like just a walking area.
Mr. McCann:
A nature preserve.
Mr. Boley:
Yeah. And hopefully they will preserve some of that because there
are a lot of neighbors that do use that to walk their animals and
things like that. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you, sir.
Colonel Myers,
15127 Ellen Drive. Excuse my appearance. I just had surgery
today. I'm getting old. I'm copied on that letter to the DEQ because
my property, Lot 28 ... really we thought that was wetland. And we
still think that it's wetland. I guess they will make that determination
on it. But our other concern is that the church only uses that parking.
That's excluded parking. I don't think the police will enjoy the
partying that will be going on by the youngsters down there. They
just had a problem over on Five Mile Road for quite sometime. I
mean the kids are gone now, but they are there partying all the time
in the parking lot. So when it gets down in the bottom there, it's just
going to draw the kids there. And I would appreciate it if you people
would take that into consideration because that's really going to
create a lot of problems for us with our lots backing up to that. And
the fact that we feel that it's wetland. The State will determine that.
Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you say people party, haw late at night do they party.?
Mr. Myers:
All night long. Let me tell you. Three o'clock in the morning the
music is going.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Myers:
Really. I'm serious. Theyll be partying down there all night long.
Mr. McCann:
You'retalking aboutthe home next doorto the church... nolthe
church?
19240
Mr. Myers:
Right. But I'm saying once you put the
parking lot down behind the
church, that's a secluded area, and it will
just draw the kids down
there.
Mr. Piercecchr
Have you called the police?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, they have.
Mr. Shane:
Is that house a rental property?
Mr. Myers:
Yes, it was. They evicted them.
Mr. Shane:
Its vacant now?
Mr. Myers:
Right. Its vacant. No, no. They're fixing it up. I'm just saying ...
Mr. Shane:
If we're lucky, maybe they'll sell it.
Mr. Myers:
We dont have any choice in that matter. He's a good fellow that
ownsit. I think he's golthem out ofthere. Ilwill be a good person
that's coming in. He's there working on it now. Bulwe'retalking
about the parking lot that will be right behind our houses. We'rejust
concerned with it.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, may I ask the architect a question?
Mr. McCann:
Sure, Mr. La Pine.
Mr. La Pine:
What's the distance from the property line to the eastto where the
parking lot begins? What's the space?
Mr. Hammond:
The current dimension based on removing this row of parking is now
110 feel to the property line. I was just trying to make a
determination on which one of these lots ... I think it's lot 27, it could
be lot 28 ... the nearest house to this site is now 145 feet from the
edge of the parking lot and nine feet above the parking lot.
Mr. La Pine:
So we look care of one of those problems. We got rid of the parking
that was going to go in there.
Mr. Hammond:
We got rid of a significant portion of the parking, yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
Did you sayyou have alighting plan forthe parking lot?
19241
Mr. Hammond:
I haven't done it yet. Itis being done. But we're not going to make
these neighbors angry with the lighting there.
Mr. Shane:
I was thinking more ...
Mr. Hammond:
For security?
Mr.Shane:
Yes. If it is lit up...
Mr. Hammond:
I'd love to have one of the members of the church speak to this
partying issue because it was brought up to us in the meeting.
Certainly no one from the church stays there late at night doing that.
Mr. McCann:
That was already explained. Really that's not an issue before us.
Mr. Hammond:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Those people are gone. Let's try and keep our focus where it's
supposed to be tonight. Sir, name and address.
James Lee, 15140 Yale Street. I'm Lot 5. 1 haven't seen any lighting that's going to
be in the parking Iol. My house is directly to the west of that location;
1 am already lit up. So I'd like to have some kind of diffusion of the
lights onto the parking lot and not on the houses that are on the west
side.
Mr. Hammond:
As the chairman mentioned earlier, it has to be shielded down. The
light goes directly down. And the sides are shielded. So there
shouldn't be any overflow towards your property.
Mr. Lee:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Sir, name and address.
Lawrence Aubert, 35217 Five Mile. I'm partial owner of the properly at 35217 Five
Mile which is directly adjacent to the east of the church.
Mr. McCann:
So its you having the parties until three in the morning?
Mr. Aubert:
No, sir. Sometimes I party to three in the morning, but not at that
location.
Mr. McCann:
Okay.
19242
Mr. Aubert:
None of that sort of thing will be gang on any longer. That situation
is all taken care of. Myself and my friend and partner are taking care
of the property, building it back up both inside and out, front, behind
the side, everything. Our concems are with a parking lot being
installed directly behind and lighting. I understand there's shielded
lighting and that it's going right directly down, but still you get a wet
night or a dewy morning or something, you have it bouncing off the
parking lot. It's going crazy anywhere anyhow no matter what kind of
shielding you have. Besides the parking lot and the lighting, we're
kind of hoping to preserve the natural wooded type area that's
directly adjacent to and in and around the property.
Mr. McCann:
That's always a concern for the neighbors, for us, for everybody else.
One of the issues that we have is that you have private ownership of
property. This church also has ownership of the property. We are
supposed to be allowed to have a reasonable use. What they are
requesting tonight, reasonable use within the statutes, is what we
have to look at. It would be nice to make everybody keep their green
areas for the enjoyment of others, but we really cant do that.
Mr. Aubert:
Right. Also, another concern is what level of standing water or runoff
pond would be associated with the building of this parking lot, where
it would be located, how much surface area it would be, how well it
would be maintained ....
Mr. McCann:
Wayne County now has very new strict standards. They have to
maintain all the water on their property. Theyre only allowed to let so
much run off per hour for 20 years rains or something. Do you want
to explain it, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Sure, I'll just generally describe how the detention system will work
on this property. It will be in the form of a basin that will be carved
into the landscape. It will be a bowl -shaped basin. Itwill be several
feet deep with sloping sides. All of the runoff that lands on the
rooftop of the structure, as well as the parking lot, will be directed to
catch basins that would then be diverted through a pipe into this
basin. The water would then outflow from the basin through a similar
type of pipe, but that outflow would be at a restricted rate which is
designed to release the water from the basin back into the receiving
body of water, which in this case would be the storm system that runs
through this property. It would be restricted at a rete that is regulated
by Wayne County and would not be any greater than what would
occur under a predevelopment condition. That is generally the theory
behind how these basins operate. Typically, they're at the low points
on the sites in order to be able to receive all the water and also be
19243
able to outletit into, in this case, the enclosed river that flans
beneath the parking lot on this site.
Mr. Aubert:
Currently, the water tends to run through the property and doesn't
hang up a whole lot except for a wet area about the size of this room,
well at leastthis end ofthis room. I was just picturing a large pond -
type thing breeding mosquitos and such.
Mr. Taormina:
The basin is ...
Mr. Aubert:
Or possibly a chain link fence around it. Also, I have concems about
the arborvitaes that are going to planted as the screening -type trees.
Sometimes they work well and sometimes they dont. I might
suggest putfing Blue Spruce in there instead, something that might
cover the area. But like you were saying about the drip width or
something on the boundary between the church and my property to
the east of it, there really isn't room for that sort of thing at that
location. Or possibly there is. What's in there right now? White
Pines?
Mr. Hammond:
It appears to be Red Pine and Elm.
Mr. Aubert:
Thirty foot Red Pines and Elms. Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou, sir. Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public
hearing. Are there any last comments, Mr. Hammond?
Mr. Hammond:
One gentleman made a comment about the engineering. The
Engineering Department did review this plan in its preliminary nature
and had no objections to the plan. Is that cored, Mark? Wasn't the
first comment we heard tonight from the Engineering Department?
Mr. Taormina:
Relative to the Engineering Department's review of this site,
generally there were no objections. I think they did make certain
recommendations and qualifications with respect to the storm water
system, but there were no significant issues with respect to the
engineering of the site.
Mr. Hammond:
Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
Is the pastor of the congregation here or a member of the church who
can give us some information?
Mr. Hammond:
Both the Pastor and members are here.
Mr. LaPine:
I just want to talk to the Pastor. I have some questions I wart to ask.
19244
Mr. McCann:
If there is no objection, we will reopen the public hearing.
Pastor Peter Wu, Chinese Gospel Church, 35302 Five Mile Road.
Mr. LaPine:
How many services do you have there? Two on Sunday?
Pastor Wu:
Right now?
Mr. LaPine:
Right now.
Pastor Wu:
Yes, we have two.
Mr. LaPine:
How many services do you have during the week?
Pastor Wu:
Well, actually, during the week on Tuesday night, twice a month, we
have a board meeting in the church. And the rest of the day, we
have cell groups that we separate into 15 members' homes, not in
the church.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm orly interested in what happens at the church.
Pastor Wu:
We have board meetings on Tuesday nights twice a month, and
every Thursday night we have worship team practice.
Saturday morning we have a prayer meeting and a Sunday service.
Mr. LaPine:
A last question. What's the latestthat people leave the church on a
Sunday night or weekday? 9:00p.m.? 10:00p.m.?
Pastor Wu:
Iforgot about Friday night meetings for the youth group. Sometimes
they stay Tale, probably about 10:00 p.m. or 10:30 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, what is the total of your membership? How many do you have?
Pastor Wu:
Total membership or attendance? Membership sometimes has a lot
of lists. Attendance right now in the morning ... we have two
sections, for adults it's around 200 or 210.
Mr. Alanskas:
Does your church during the summertime have any carnivals or
picnics out in the parking lot?
Pastor Wu:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
19245
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: I want to commend the architect and what theyve done, but I don't
see how we can vote on this without a complete answer from the
MDEQ. I know this is just an opinion, but I think this should still be
tabled.
Mr. Piercecchr
Bob, chats the only problem, right?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Cant we go through with this approving or denying pending the
outcome of the water problems and let Council handle it? It will take
a couple weeks to go through that phase.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have no problem with that.
Mr. McCann:
Then we need another motion.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#03-41-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-
02-02-04 submitted by Brivar Construction Company, on behalf of the
Chinese Gospel Church, requesting waiver use approval to construct
an addition onto the existing church building, inducing a new
sanctuary with increased seating capacity, on properly located at
35301 Five Mile Road on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Gary Lane and Yale Avenue in the Northwest%of Section 21, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-02-02-04 be approved subject to the following
conditions, pending the outcome of the County analysis of the water
storage and relief problem:
1. That the Site Plan prepared by Albert T.Y. Wu, AIA, Architect,
dated March 26, 2002, as revised, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the Building Elevations Plan prepared by Albert T.Y. Wu,
AIA, Architect, dated February 22, 2002, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
19246
3. That the brick used in the renovation of the northwesterly
portion of the church building shall be full -face four (4") inch
brick, no exception;
4. Thatthe block used for the lower level addition shall be textured
pre -colored block;
5. Thatthe existing parking lot shall be repaired and resealed,
where needed, to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and the entire expanded parking lot shall be double -striped;
6. That this approval shall incorporate the recommendations
regarding the handicapped parking as stated in the letter dated
March 11, 2002 from the Traffic Bureau;
7. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall
be shielded so as to be deflected away from the neighboring
residential properties;
8. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan, as well as a Lighting Plan,
shall be submitted for approval within 60 days following
approval of this petition by the City Council;
9. That the temporary mobile classroom shall be removed prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and
10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for;
forlhe 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 4.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
19247
Mr. Shane: I will support this but I want to ask Mr. Taormina a question first. Did
you have a chance to review the landscape plan they submitted?
Mr. Taormina: No, we have not reviewed it in any degree of detail.
Mr. McCann: Maybe we should bring back the landscape plan as well as the
lighting plan because I'm just little concern about the parking lot
lighting for the neighbors especially to the west.
Mr. Taormina: I think that would be appropriate.
Mr. Piercecchi: I took that for granted. Perhaps I should have mentioned it because
in the paper that was submitted to us, it stated that they were coming.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Regarding the MDEQ, couldn't that takes months and months before
they come down with a decision? Maybe Mr. Taormina might know.
Mr. McCann: Right. Is that something that's coming from the county or the stale?
Mr. Taormina: That would come from the district office here in Livonia, the State of
Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality. In terms ofthe
amount of time, that's very difficult to say how long it would take them
to make any kind of formal determination.
Mr. Alanskas: But it could be lengthy, couldn't it?
Mr. Taormina: M could be.
Mr. McCann: But we're doing this subject to their approval. Without their approval,
they wouldn't be able to go forward with this site plan anyway.
Correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19248
ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-02-02-05 TRI -WEST (DAY CARE)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
02-02-05, submitted by Sam Balli of Tri -West Development,
requesting waiver use approval to construct a child day care center
on properties located at 19323 and 19337 Farmington Road on the
weslside of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Nortolk
Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 4.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at
this time. The following legal description should be used in
connection with this petition. It should be noted that the developer
will need to design the storm sewer to meet the Wayne County Storm
Water Management Ordinance. Also, any work within the
Farmington Road right of -way will require a permit from Wayne
County. We trust this provides the information requested." The letter
is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 12, 2002,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a child day care
centeron property located at the above -referenced address. We
have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James
E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated March 11, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to construct a child
day carecenter. We have several questions or concerns that should
be considered in regard to the proposed plan. (1) We don't believe
there is enough parking available forparents dropping off orpicking
up their children. We recommend reserving all the parking along the
building forparentpickuprdrop-0ff. This will reduce the numberof
pedestrians walking across the parking lot to or from theirparked
vehicles at peak times during the day. (2) We question the
placement of the dumpster so close to the enclosed play area and
feel it should be moved to the north side of the property. This
recommendation is due to security cencems as well as health
reasons. (3) A stop sign should be installed at the driveway just west
of the sidewalk for exiting traffic." The letter is signed by Wesley
19249
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 8, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest of February 26, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This project does not have the required play area of 27,600 square
feet. (2) There was no evidence provided of the required 55%
approval of the residential property owners within 400 feet of the
project. (3) The Petitioner has proposed two (2) separate buildings
on one parcel ofproperty, which is not allowed. (4) The Petitioner
states there are 23 teachers butis silent as to the numberof
administrators or secretaries or other employees. Theya/so
proposed only nine spaces for drop-off of 184 children. Even at two
children per car, this is 92 cars for drop-off and pick-up. They have
not given a schedule so nine spaces does not seem to meet the
intent of the ordinance. (5) The north parking aisle is only 20 feet
wide where 22 feet is required. (6) The parking lot must be double
striped and parking lighting specified with coverage area. (7) The
required protective wall along the north property line is not detailed.
(8) The Petitioner proposes wall signage not allowed by ordinance.
Due to the amount of items not in compliance, we would recommend
this Petition be returned to the Petitioner to enable them to come into
compliance." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
oflnspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Ishould
mention that the Petitioner will be presenting tonight a revised Site
Plan that addresses many of the concerns that were listed in the
letters from the Inspection Department and the Traffic Bureau.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, Tri -West Developers, 36800 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I'm
here with Andrew Moiseev, the architect.
Andrew Moiseev, Moiseev/Gordon Associates, Inc., 818 West 11 Mile Road, Royal
Oak, Michigan.
Mr. Bad We have submitted revised plans which accommodate most of the
questions that were asked by the Planning Department. We moved
the parking to the side completely and allowed more landscaping in
the front. We preserved some of the mature trees sitting on the
property. We moved the dumpster as was asked by certain people
who thought it was too close to the play area. We enlarged the play
area. We have more percentage of landscape area on the property.
We will separate the property with a lot split because of the two
buildings on the property. As mentioned by Mr. Taormina about the
size of the property, this property is 1.83 acres which would
accommodate an office up to 20,000 square feel in space for a
19250
building size. As you see here, total square footage we have
presenting tonight is only 16,150 in total between the two buildings.
The other question here, the property would have up to 20,000
square feet and will accommodate almost up to 80 parking spaces.
Now we're only coming down to 60 because we're not putting as
much, so we're preserving more. We're putting more in landscape
area with the use that we're requesting today instead of having an
actual office building with a big parking lot in front of it.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Baki, you're saying it could hold up to 20,000 square feel. Is that
taking into consideration the detention area that you would have to
put in there?
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Even with that detention area, you'd still have room for 20,000 square
feet plus all the parking?
Mr. Baki:
Yes, we would because Wayne Countyallows us to go with a storage
tank if we need it. And we could accommodate that and we can do
that if we would have done it as an office.
Mr. McCann:
If you had done it with the office, you would have had to do a storage
tank?
Mr. Baki:
Yes. If we want to put afull 20,000 square feet with a full parking lot.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Igot you. Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Baki, in regards to the outdoor play area, you're showing 7,500
square feet and by ordinance we need 27,600 square feel. Why is
there such a large deficiency? Looking at our notes from the staff,
we have the UAW Ford Development Center. They have 170
children; we require 25,500 square feet. They gave us 33,000
square feel. We have one more: Adventures in Learning School
with 33 children required 4,950 square feel. They gave us 7,376
square feet. Yet you want to be by two-thirds deficient. What can
you do to coned that?
Mr. Moiseev:
We believe while we are deficienlfrom the zoning ordinance, we are
sufficient for the needs of the students. Its unlike a school that
recesses and the entire population is outside at one time. As you
can see, the play area is divided up in two areas. This area is for
older children; this is for younger children. And the classes go out on
a set schedule. They go out one at a time or really two at a time.
19251
One class in the small children area and one class is the larger
children area.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm sure the other two do the same thing, but you have no idea what
the ratio of it is going to be. It changes daily.
Mr. Molseev:
Tutor Time has some 200 centers throughout the nation so their
experience ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, I'm concemed with what's in Livonia. Through the Chair, Mark, if
we took out that building, wouldn't we have enough room for the
27,600 square feet of child play?
Mr. Taormina:
I dont believe that the building covers the ground area that would be
sufficient to make up the difference in order to comply with the
ordinance.
Mr. Alanskas:
Wouldn't it make a big portion of it?
Mr. Taormina:
The ground area of that building is 4,500 square feel. If you add that
to the 8,000 square feet, that would give you 12,500. You're still
more than half deficient of what technically the ordinance would
require.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right, thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Baki, you suggested that with the 20,000 square foot building,
you could store your water underground. Could you do that here and
increase the size of the play area?
Mr. Baki:
Even if we do that, we're still going to be deficient. The City of
Livonia has one of the higher standards per child care as a play area.
The Stale of Michigan doesn't even have that. A lot of the cities in
the surrounding area don't have that in their ordinance. Some of the
numbers that were mentioned earlier for other day cares, probably
these day cares were built in the past. I dont know how many years
ago, but nowadays most day cares do not put in a large play area
because, like was mentioned by our architect, they do not go out at
the same time because they have a set time for the play areas.
Mr. McCann:
Fifty children in that play area...
Mr. Moiseev:
It wouldn't be a class of 50; ilwould be 24 in the larger play area, 16
in the smaller.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's one class. You said there would be two losses out.
19252
Mr. Moiseev: Well, 16 of the smaller children.
Mr. Baki: We have a representative from Tutor Time here.
Mr. McCann: Please give us your name and address.
Katrina Perusi, 615 Brighton Lake Road, Brighton, Michigan. I'm a director from one
of the Tutor Time day care centers. I've ran a few of them, so I know
a little bit more about the operation as far as for outdoor play and so
forth.
Mr. McCann:
How many children are at your center?
Ms. Perusi:
Well, I ran two centers. Alone center we are licensed for 151. We
have 230 enrolled but on a given day, there is always 151 in the
building. We're at full capacity. We have the two playgrounds. One
is for infants and toddlers, which is the smaller playground. We
nevertake out more than 16 children ata time. That's the highest
ratio for one of the smaller classrooms. And then for the bigger kids,
we never take out more than 24. A lot of the reasons why we do that
is for a safety feature for the children loo.
Mr. McCann:
That's my cencem. If you have 150 children, and you can only have
24 out at a time, it really limits what you can do with the children or
limits whether or not they can go out and play.
Ms. Perusi:
They go out twice a day, once in the morning, once in the affemoon.
They have half hour intervals. They have a scheduled time that they
go outside and play.
Mr. McCann:
These children come from 7:00 in the morning to 5:00 at night?
Ms. Perusi:
Some from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., unfortunately.
Mr. McCann:
So they give each a half hour a day outside because of your
limitations.
Ms. Perusi:
It's not really a limitation. Its just something that's required by the
State that we at least offer that for the children, but you know they
have scheduled times. There's also other things they do inside the
building because we're more of an academic -based program. We
have a village and so forth inside that theyre able to play and get
more of a gross motor activity also.
19253
Mr. McCann: I've had my children in day care. Let's face it, from 6:30 in the
morning to 6:30 at night, you're only going to allow them to go
outside a half hour in the morning and a half hour in the affemoon. If
you had a double sized play area, you'd be able to put two dasses
out at once.
Ms. Perusi:
We wouldn't be allowed to do that even with our license because it's
a safety feature. They license the playground also as far as how
many kids is the licensed capacity for the classroom and usually the
largest classroom will be 24.
Mr. McCann:
And if you have the number of adults supervising the children, you
could watch over them. Correct? Whether they are inside or out,
you have to have a certain number of adults watching over them. So
if you have two classes out with the two supervising units ...
Ms. Perusi:
That would be a possibility if the licenser would do that. Morelhan
likely the State of Michigan, their licensing department, does not go
over usually the highest licensed capacity room. That's usuallylhe
24 size classroom. Just because it's a safety feature. Ifyou have
several classrooms and they're all running around, even if you're in
licensed capacity, it's an accident waiting to happen. It's a safety
feature for the children. And I as a parent wouldn't want 48 children
outside on a playground. Its loo much of a liability not only for Tutor
Time but also for the children. They are more at stake having all
those kids out on the playground.
Mr. McCann:
I think all our Livonia schools then are in real trouble. Even our
preschools.
Ms. Perusi:
Well, they may be.
Mr. Walsh:
Through the Chair to the Director, Mark, can you explain what the
discrepancy is between our local requirements for space and the
stale requirements?
Mr. Taormina:
In terms of the guidelines?
Mr. Walsh:
Right.
Mr. Taormina:
There is a considerable difference if you look at the Slate of
Michigan's requirements for minimum area of outdoor play space at
1,200 square feet and the City's which is based on 150 square feet
per child. That would be, as our ordinance describes it, provided for
each child so cared for in the facility. Ifwe take the total number of
children within the facility and use that as a basis for determining the
19254
outdoor play space, clearly the number increases well beyond what
the State would require. However, if you look at the number of
children that are outside at any one time, then, in fact, the play area
requirements would be met.
Mr. Walsh:
I guess what I see here is a huge discrepancy in numbers, one
between the licensing agency that determines the health and welfare
of children inside a day care center and our own imposed statutory
reasoning. I'm not sure what the history would be behind that. In the
extreme case that we've heard, a student could be there from 6:30
a.m. until 6:30 p.m., but a student could be there from 7 a. m. to now.
As far as the play area is concerned, I am comfortable resting with
the State guidelines since they are the licensing agency. It's going to
be up to the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant the variance if needed.
In terms of the time outside, that's going to be an issue for the
parents and the institution. Is a half hour in the morning and a half
hour in the afternoon enough? I know what my answer would be to
that but that's between me and my day care provider. That's
something that would have to be addressed by the individual. So I'm
not so troubled by the amount of space per se.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Baki, when you purchased this parcel, was it purchased as all
one parcel?
Mr. Baki;
Yes, it was.
Mr. La Pine:
Atthe time you purchased it, was ilyour idea at thattime to pultwo
buildings on this one parcel?
Mr. Baki:
We have options of putting up to three buildings on this parcel. I did
some layouts prior to discussing it with the Tutor Time people. I
made some layouts to accommodate either one building at22,000
square feet or two buildings at about approximately 10,000 to 12,000,
or three buildings of 8,000 each. That's one of the options I had as
an office zoning, but then we ended up lallang to Tutor Time and
that's when we shifted to doing it the way we're doing it this time.
This parcel was two legal descriptions and still is. We still have two
parcels on the property at this time. The house is separate from the
old fire station.
Mr. La Pine:
Well, explain to me why then you're going to go back and split the
property.
Mr. Baki:
Because the way the property is split atthis time, it is two pieces.
The one site is about half an acre, and the other site is 1.3 acres.
The way it's laid out, the half an acre is about 300 deep right next to
19255
McDonald's with 75 wide; and the other piece with the actual fire
station site is 105 and goes back 430, which is 1.3 acres. The way
the configuration of the parcel is right now is the reason we have to
combine it and re -split it.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. The next question I have, I notice from my inspection of the
property, along the McDonald's property line, which is the southern
property line, there is a wood fence there now. I assume that fence
belongs to McDonald's. It's not in the best shape. Il doesn t look
nice, but that's your problem. What are you going to do from the
portion of the fence where it ends on their property to the west?
Mr. Bad :
I believe there is another fence in the back which belongs to the
property owner which I believe is McDonald's too. McDonald's owns
the property behind it, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
There's going to be no more fencing along the southerly properly
line?
Mr. Baki:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. You're going to go ahead and put up the masonry wall on the
west property line.
Mr. Bad :
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
To the north, you're required to put up a wall. I guess your plans are
to put landscaping along there?
Mr. Baki:
Yes. We felt that would make it a better looking site and to leave it
open instead of enclosing the site.
Mr. La Pine:
You haven't submitted any landscaping plans?
Mr. Baki:
Yes, we have as far as the plans that you have in front of you.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I notice that on the petition you passed out that you had the
neighbors sign, all you mention on there is the day care. Why wasn't
the other building mentioned on there?
Mr. Bad :
We don't need a waiver use for the other building.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that. I live in the subdivision behind there. The
neighbors are assuming there is one building going on this property.
19256
Mr. Baki: Believe it or not, I did pass a lot of flyers out to every homeowner.
And I still have about 25 left in my possession that I did pass out
when I went around and had them sign and showed them what we're
doing.
Mr. La Pine: Could l gel a copy of one of those?
Mr. Baki: Sure, I will give you one right now. I passed the copies out one
week, and I came the weekend after to go over it with them and have
them sign. I did not have them sign the first day because I wanted
them to see what they're getting.
Mr. La Pine: A question to a member of the operator of the facility. Is therea
kitchen in here?
Ms. Perusi: Yes, there is.
Mr. Moiseev: It's only for warming food.
Ms. Perusi: Right, its only for warming food
Mr. Moiseev: Theydonl prepare food. Its not a commercial kitchen. They will be
fed warts food, but its prepared off-site. It's brought there, warmed
up and served.
Mr. La Pine:
The site that l visited, they warm food up there. is that something
they can do on their own?
Ms. Perusi:
The food is brought in from a vendor and then we warm it up. It's
already pretty much prepared, pre-cooked, and we just reheat it and
serve it at the temperature it needs to be at through the state
licensing requirements.
Mr. La Pine:
You have refrigerators. At leastthe one I visited had refrigerators.
Ms. Perusi:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
How many meals a day do you serve? Say someone is there from
6:30a.m.1o6:30p.m. Do they gel three meals, two meals?
Ms. Perusi:
We serve a morning snack, a hot lunch and an afternoon snack.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
19257
Mr. Shane: Do you have any idea of how many lass will be there at the various
times of the day ... for instance, from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., from 7
a.m. to whenever?
Ms. Perusi:
On the average, from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. its more for parents that
are working. They need the early drop off. On average, its not as
high. Al the other center that I ran, we might have maybe 30 children
from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., then our basic preschool program would
ran from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., or like 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., like a
halfday program. Most of our children are in the morning preschool
program, and that's when we start filling up- any time after 8:00 a.m.
to 10:00 a.m. Then we go pretty much from 30 children to maybe
125 to 150. Then it will start steadily going down throughout the day.
Usually between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. most of the children are
gone, and then between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. we might only have
maybe five to ten children left.
Mr. Shane:
The reason I asked the question is because I'm trying to determine
how many parents would be coming and going at any one time. I just
want to make sure that the parking lot is sufficient to handle it.
Ms. Perusi:
Our staff also comes in and out too. They don't stay throughout the
whole day. Generally, when its a high drop off time or high pick up
time, it's when our staff is coming and going. So our parking Iol is
very, very small at the other center, and it seems to accommodate
the parents. By the time the staff is starting to leave, the parents are
coming and picking up and that's alleviating parking spaces also.
Mr. Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr.Chairman, l have anotherquestion I'd like to ask. Thewayyour
center is set up, at least the one I visited, they have infants up to five
year olds. Is that an actual number used? You can take no more
than six infants, no more than six one-year olds? What if you don't
get that ratio? Can you take on more five-year olds?
Ms. Perusi:
Each room is licensed fora certain capacity, so we go by our ratios.
So if my infant rooms are only licensed for eight, I can only take up to
eight children.
Mr. La Pine:
So if you only have two children in there, that's just tough. You can't
take six additional two -years olds into another room?
Ms. Perusi:
No, because that would throw them out of ratio because their room is
only licensed for 12.
19258
Mr. La Pine: Okay. I was just curious. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Bak, I'm trying to follow your properly line split here. It basically
looks like a jigsaw puzzle.
Mr. Moiseev:
The property line split came in response to Mr. Bishop's letter. And
its something that over time, as the parking lot has changed through
your concems, it hasn't quite kept up with it. It will be refined as time
go on. And there's going to be cross easements anyways for access
to the back of the site and so forth. It's going to be a very long and
interesting legal descripfion when its all said and done.
Mr. McCann:
The legal description as its shown right now would be an incredible
one. I wouldn't even attempt to try and write it. Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing
no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. Are there any last
thoughts from anybody?
Mr. Alanskas:
I'd just like to bring out one thing. We are not the only city that has
the minimum of 150 square feet per child. Its also Plymouth and
Taylor. Port Huron wants 100 square feet per child. So we arenot
the only one that wants a lot of open space for children.
Mr. McCann:
Well, I think it should be made clear. In certain ways I do agree with
Mr. Walsh, but the fad of the matter is that we have a city ordinance;
and it's because the State sets minimums in building codes and
many other direcfions that we look at. And then the city decides that
it wants a litfie stricter or more refined ordinance. I was with the
Planning Commission when it was originally dratted. One ofthe
concerns is that the State's guidelines say 1,200 square feet whether
you have seven students that you're licensed for or 1,000 students.
It really does not give a dear indicaton of what you should need.
And therefore, the 150 square feet may be a little bit large under
today's standards. That's something that maybe we could review,
but I certainly dont think 1,200 square feet, no matter what the size
of the facility, is appropriate either. I'm going to ask for a motion to
approve or deny.
On a mot on by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was
#03-42-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-
02-02-05, submitted by Sam Balli of Tri -West Development,
requesting waiver use approval to construct a child day care center
on properties located at 19323 and 19337 Farmington Road on the
west side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Norfolk
19259
Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 4, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-02-02-
05 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals for the deficient amount of outdoor play area, as
well as being subject to the following additional conditions:
1. That the number of children to be cared for at any one time shall
be limited to 184;
2. Thalthe Site Plan marked Sheet SP -2 prepared by
Moiseev/Gordon Associates, Inc., with a revision date of March
25, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. Thalthe Day Care Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-3 prepared
by Moiseev/Gordon Associates, Inc., with a revision date of
March 25, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the Office Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet AA
prepared by Molseev/Gordon Associates, Inc., with a revision
date of March 25, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
5. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be
full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception;
6. That all rooftop mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally
screened from view;
7. That the three walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be
constructed of either brick or poured concrete with simulated
brick pattern, and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and,
when not in use, closed at all times;
8. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, am
approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission
and City Council;
9. That all parking spaces provided on this site shall be double
striped;
10. That the Landscape Plan marked sheet LP -1 prepared by
Robert Leighton Associates, Inc., as received by the Planning
Commission on March 26, 2002, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
19260
11. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced
Landscape Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained
in a healthy condition;
12. That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property line, as
shown on the above -referenced Landscape Plan, shall be
substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of
the Zoning Ordinance; and
13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies 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; and
4. That the petitioner has provided evidence of compliance with
the provisions of Section 9.030) of the Zoning Ordinance #543
which requires that written consent of fifty-five (55%) percent of
the residential property owners within a four hundred (400') fool
radius of the property lines of the proposed day care center be
obtained.
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. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: Since I supported this, I have no problem with the petition, but for the
record, I'd like to state that the huge disparity between the
requirements of the State and the requirements of the City of Livonia,
and then a third requirement that the petitioners have which is
different than any of the other two, makes me believe that we should
take a good look at the ordinance in regard to this issue and see ifwe
can't figure out what is proper. I'm sure the State is not proper, and I
19261
think we're probably over in many respects. So I think we need to fix
it so that every time we have an issue before us with regard to day
care centers we don't have to have ask the Zoning Board of Appeals
to void that requirement.
Mr. McCann:
Maybe we could get someone from the State to come down to one of
our meetings.
Mr. Shane:
That might be a good idea.
Mr. LaPine:
I have never seen an actual rendering of this building with the
materials, construction. Are we approving the office building as well
as this building at this lime?
Mr. McCann:
My understanding is that we were and those were the plans we saw
the Iasi time. Do we have the elevations? Do you want to go over
them?
Mr. LaPine:
I just want to know what the building likes look.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, the elevation drawings are included in the packet that you
received, and we have a color rendering this evening.
Mr. LaPine:
We have the color rendering of the day care center, but not the office
building.
Mr. Taormina:
You don't have a color rendering as I'm aware of ... well, possibly a
view of the building in the background ...
Mr. LaPine:
I realize that, but that doesn't show me anything.
Mr. Taormina:
We do have the detailed building elevation plans forthe office. They
are induced in your packet. The materials match those being used
on the day care. I'll let the architect describe those in more details.
Mr. Moiseev:
The building is a base course of split face integral colored blockwith
an accent color band. On top of that is full-faced brick veneer four
inches thick with a pitched asphalt shingled roof with large dryvils or
exterior insulated finish system soffit and facia. We have two
pediment gabled entries. This is the actual entry to the building
because it's facing Farmington to announce the building and provide
signage location. The office building has the same materials. The
gabled pediment entry is more restrained. It's only a three foot
overhang rather than the five foot overhang of the day care center.
19262
The columns that are the symbol of Tutor Time Day Care Center are
exduded from the office building.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, thank you.
Mr. McCann:
We're not approving the sign package tonight, are we?
Mr.Taonnina:
No.
Mr. McCann:
They're going to have to come back for that.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think that your plan for the day care enter is very nice. I think we
need one there, but like one of our ex -commissioners always said, I
think in the open space we're trying to put five pounds of coffee in a
two pound can and therefore for that reason I will be voting no.
Thankyou.
Mr. Moiseev:
May I speak to that?
Mr. McCann:
No, this is discussion. We really went out of orderlo put that up
there. Any other comments? I agree with Mr. Alanskas. really
dont believe that this is sufficient play area, but I'm going to send it
onto Council. I will vole for an approving resolution. I would like the
pefitioner to consider putting the dry wells into retain the water
underground so that the play area could be expanded. There was
one other queston I had. Are you going to move the old fire house
out to Greenmead? I just wanted to check if you were going to
volunteer to do that.
Mr. Baki:
No.
A roll call vote
on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolufion.
19263
ITEM #3 PETITION 2002-02-03-02 VACATE HARRISON AVE.
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Pefifion 2002-
02-03-02 submitted by Thomas Jablonski, Joe Winter, Mark
Lamirand, Florence Deshler and Susan Anderson requesting to
vacate Harrison Avenue right -0f -way where it abuts Lots 130 thru 133
of Thomas F. O'Conner's Park View Acres Subdivision, between Six
Mile Road and Carol Drive in the Southeast%of Section 12.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of corespondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated March 4, 2002, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above-referencedpetition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal description
should be usedin connection with this petition. tt should be noted
that the northerly 70 feet ofright-of-way adjacent to Lot 130 shall be
retained as an ingress and egress easement for the cemetery
maintenance facility. We trust this provides the information
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
The second letter is from Consumers Energy, dated March 15, 2002,
which reads asfollows "Consumers Energy has no facilities in
Harrison Road between Six Mile Road and Carol Street in Section
12. /have enclosed a copy of our records foryour use. We
therefore have no objection to any street vacation." The letter is
signed by John R. Turner, Team Leader. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Thomas Jablonski, Executive Director of Temple Beth EI, and Temple Beth EI
Memorial Park and owners of the Carol Drive property noted as Lot
130, 7400 Telegraph, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: What is the reasoning for the request for the vacation of the street?
Mr. Jablonski: As a practical matter, I believe there has been no access there.
Additionally, there would be future plans to add an addition to the
home on Lot 130, but before we proceed, we would be too close to
the existing property line. Therefore, we've asked for that
arrangement to be made so we would be in compliance when we ask
for that down the road.
19264
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
There seems to be no problems with this petition. Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I'm going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it
was
#03-43-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-
02-03-02 submitted by Thomas Jablonski, Joe Winter, Mark
Lamirend, Florence Deshler and Susan Anderson requesting to
vacate Harrison Avenue right-of-way where it abuts Lots 130 thru 133
of Thomas F. O'Conner's Park View Acres Subdivision, between Six
Mile Road and Carol Drive in the Southeast%of Section 12, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-03-03-02 be approved subject to the retention of
an ingress and egress easement over the northerly 70 feet of rightof
way adjacent to Lot 130 as recommended by the Engineering
Division, for the following reasons:
1. That the subject right-of-way is not needed for public access
purposes;
2. That the subject right-of-way can be more advantageously used
in private ownership;
3. That vacating of the subject right-of-way will place the property
back on the City's tax rolls; and
4. That no reporting City department or public utility has objected
to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia
Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. Piercecchr I think the approving resolution should be subject to the retention of
an ingress and egress easement over the northerly 70 feet of righlof
way adjacent to Lot 130 which is recommended by the Engineering
Division.
Mr. McCann: Is there any objection?
19265
Mr. La Pine: I have no objection.
Mr. McCann: Is that appropriate, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I believe it is, yes.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2002-02-03-03 VACATE MAYFIELD AVE. EASEMENT
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
02-03-03 submitted by Bill and Barbara DeBoe requesting to vacate
the easterly 15 feel of a 30 R. wide public utility easement along Lots
170 and 171 of Argyle Park Subdivision located on the west side of
Mayfield Avenue (18605 Mayfield) between Curtis Avenue and
Clarita Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under pefition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuantto yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at
this time. The following legal description should be usedin
connection with this petition. We trust this provides you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The second letter is from Consumers Energy, dated
March 19, 2002, which reads as follows: "Consumers Energy has no
facilities in the rear of the lot designated as 18605 Mayfield. We
therefore have no objections to the vacation of the rear utility
easement. This notice will be faxed to youroffice followed by
mailing." The letter is signed by John R. Turner, Team Leader. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Would you like to give us any
additional information? I know this has been a long process. I think I
spoke to you last year.
Bill DeBoe, 18605 Mayfield.
19266
Mr. McCann: I think you're getting on the right track finally.
Mr. DeBoe: Ihope.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you for
coming down. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it
was
#0344-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-
02-03-03 submitted by Bill and Barbara DeBoe requesting to vacate
the easterly 15 feel of a 30 ft. wide public utility easement along Lots
170 and 171 of Argyle Park Subdivision located on the west side of
Mayfield Avenue (18605 Mayfield) between Curtis Avenue and
Clarita Avenue in the Northwest 114 of Section 10, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-02-03-03 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be vacated is
not needed to protect any public utilities;
2. That the subject land area can be more advantageously ufilized
by the property owners if unencumbered by the easement;
3. That the Engineering Division has no objection to the vacating
of the east 15 feel of the subject easement; and
4. That no public utility company has objected to the proposed
vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia
Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19267
ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-02-06-01 OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
02-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Arfide IV, Section
4.04 and Article V, Section 5.04 in order to establish an open space
preservation zoning provision in the R-5 and RUF zoning districts as
required by House Bill No. 5029.
Mr. Taormina: House Bill No. 5029, which was signed into law on December 15,
2001, requires all non-exempt cities within Michigan to include certain
open space preservation provisions in their zoning ordinances. The
deadline for complying with the new law is December 10 of this
year. The mandatory provisions of the statute require that a
community must permit owners of certain residentially zoned property
to have the option of developing all the permitted dwelling units on a
portion of the property if they leave the balance of the property
undeveloped. The undeveloped part must be protected with a
conservation easement or other legal restriction and can only be
exercised once on any given parcel of land. In order to qualify, the
land must be zoned at a density of two or fewer dwelling units per
acre or, if public sewer is available, three orfewer dwelling units per
acre. The Law Department has determined that the amendments to
the zoning enabling act will require modifications to the City of
Livonia's Zoning Ordinance provisions governing the R-5 and RUF
zoning districts. The prepared language would amend Article IV,
Section 4.04— Schedule of Minimum Lot Sizes in R-1 through R-5
Districts (although the changes would only apply to R-5 districts), and
Article V, Section 5.04—Minimum Lot Size (RUF District). The
statute provides that we must treat these socalled "open space"
developments as permitted uses rather than waiver uses. Implied
within the amendatory language is the requirement that cities allow
for a reduction in lot sizes and yard requirements. In our opinion,
such reductions should be allowed, but only to the extent necessary
in orderto complywith the statute. Single-family clustering is
presently an option available as a waiver use in the R-1 thru R-5
zoning districts. As such, the City maintains much greater control
over the development process. As proposed, the extent to which the
size of a lot or setback could be reduced in either the R-5 or RUF
zoning district would be restricted to no more than 20% of the current
zoning requirement. This would make the amount of reduction
proportional to the amount of open space that must be preserved. In
order to make a proper determination on the number of homes that
could be developed on a parcel, the proposed language would
19268
require that, at the lime a request is filed to divide or develop the
property, a plan be submitted showing full conformity to current
zoning regulations. This would avoid the creation of more building
sites on a parcel of land than would otherwise be possible under
conventional design standards. The City's primary objective in
establishing open space zoning provisions, besides bringing our
standards into compliance with State law, should be to encourage the
preservation of valuable open space through flexible design
standards that are consistent with and compatible to surrounding
developed land. Lastly, I would like to point out that if the Planning
Commission should still have some unanswered questions regarding
the impact of this legislation, we could request that this item be tabled
for further study given the fact that we have initiated this process well
in advance of when the actual law takes effect. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience thatwishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Sam Baki, Baki Unique Home Builders Developers, 36800 Seven Mile Road,
Livonia, Michigan. As everyone is aware of, I'm one of the
developers in the area. We do use that option in the cluster zoning
as permitted by the ordinance when the property does not
accommodate a full site condo or actual residential development with
actual full sizes required as a minimum width or depth. If you limit
the duster zoning to meet the actual residential units you can build,
to submit the plans that meet the requirements to see how the site
will accommodate, then the only thing that could be met under that
condition from a developers standpoint is the overall square footage
per unit with allowing actual road. The reason we use cluster at
certain times is when we don't have the sufficient width on a property
to accommodate a full road. Let's say a two-sided residential
development so we use the cluster. I do have a copy that I would like
to pass to show the actual ... this is an R-1 zoning. I have a piece of
property that this is just a sample that I'd like to pass around then I
can go over it.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Baki, I think you're talking about Item 6, which has to do with
clusters.
Mr. Piercecchr You're on the wrong agenda item.
Mr. McCann: Cluster is Item 6, but we're glad for your speech. I know you don't
want to provide open space either in your subdivisions.
19269
Mr. Baki: That ordinance under Item 5, as mentioned by Mark, itis a proper
the state thatjust passed lastyear, its a 20%underthe City
ordinance to preserve for some properly. Its a good idea. We like it.
It accommodates so we don't have to do a duster. We can just do it
as a regular subdivision with preservation of the land, and I am in
support of that.
Mr. McCann:
Oh, now you're i n support of Item 5. Okay.
Mr. Baki:
He mentioned something about cluster, so I thought he was talking
about Item 6.
Mr. Piercecchr
Do you want to take it out of order?
Mr. McCann:
No, we have to finish the public hearing on this one. Is there
anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no
one else, I am going to close the public hearing.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I've been wrestling with this one for two days or more.
I don't quite understand all the implications and the exact impact that
it's going to have on Livonia setbacks, etc. I'd like to table this
motion and go into study so we can go into great detail on it. Ido
know that it came out of the farm committee and I can't understand
why the farm committee would even gel involved in this. So I'd like to
offer a motion to table this thing and study it at our study session,
which you can schedule whenever you feel like it, and table it to any
convenient time because we've got to December of 2002 before we
have to enact that. Is that correct, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
December, 2002. So I just want to make an open table on it.
Mr. McCann:
Mark, although it is the State thatwill not enact House Bill 5029 until
December, if we do in fact pass this order, we would still be eligible to
abide by it in the meantime.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. McCann:
So we could go forward with it and use it if we felt it was beneficial
under our own ordinance at this time. Okay, there's a motion out
there. I just wanted to clarify that issue.
19270
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#03-45-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-
02-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article IV, Section
4.04 and Article V, Section 5.04 in order to establish an open space
preservation zoning provision in the R-5 and RUF zoning districts as
required by House Bill No. 5029, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that Petition 2002-02-06-01 be tabled.
Mr. McCann: I'll leave the scheduling to Mr. Taormina until we have a fairly light
agenda.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm pleased that I got support forthattabling motion.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This concludes the Public Heading section of our agenda.
We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda.
These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings;
therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience
participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission.
Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM#6 PETITION 2001-09-06-09 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
09-06-09 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #607-01
and C.R. #608-01, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or
not to amend Article XX, Section 20.02A and 20.04 to reduce density
computations that govern a single family duster development and
establish guidelines to consider impacts of single family cluster
developments on future development of adjacent properties.
19271
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#03-46-2002
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-09-06-02, submitted by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolutions #607-01 and
#608-01, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Article XX, Sections 20.02A and 20.04 to
reduce density computations that govern a single family cluster
development and establish guidelines to consider impacts of single
family duster on future development of adjacent properties, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-
09-06-02 be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, do you wantto bring us up to date on this one?
Mr. Taormina:
The draft that you have before you this evening has been revised. It
adjusts the density limits for single family cluster developments in
each of the four qualifying zoning disidcts as follows: In the R-1, the
limit would be 4.0 dwelling units per acre; in the R-2, the limit would
be 3.5 dwelling units per acre; in the R-3, the limit would be 3.0
dwelling units per acre; and in the R4, the limit would be 2.5 dwelling
units per acre. I just want to point out that these limits are consistent
with the average densities that exist for conventional subdivision
developments throughout the City, and lowering these densities
below these standards would eliminate, in our opinion, any incentive
for developing under the single family cluster option. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchr
It looks good.
Mr. McCann:
All right. I suppose there is somebody in the audience that wishes to
speak. Since this is a pending item, it requires unanimous consent
from the Commission. Is there consentfrom the Commission to
allow Mr. Baki to speak? It appears that you may speak, Mr. Baki.
Mr. Baki:
Thank you. One of the conditions under the cluster is, like
mentioned earlier, to accommodate for odd -size parcels with not
enough width to accommodate for a road and housing on both sides.
If this passes, under the cluster, as is mentioned, which is four per
19272
acre for an R-1 zoning. This will limit it at less than what could be
accommodated as a regular square footage per acre if it was a
proper sized parcel as you see in front of you. Herewe have three
parcels at 75' width each. Presently let's say it's under the R-1
zoning. Its a total addition of these three parcels; its 225 by 423. If
you notice, even though I put in a 50'right-of-way road, I could have
put in a 60' right-of-way road without any problem because the
average lot sizes that I have overall exceeds the R-1 zoning at 7,200.
It shows at 7,562 with all these sizes over 7,200, but it doesn't meet
the actual depth. We can meet the width but we cant meet the
depth. This total parcel which I presently have that I'm working on,
it's 2.19 acres with 10 units that I can accommodate with the proper
street and everything else, but because of the ordinance, I have to go
to a duster zoning because I cannot put an actual road and have lots
with only 75' or 100' depth. That gives us about 4.57 per unit, per
unit per acre. If you get adopted under the square footage, overall or
two of the three items to be met, which is either width and square
footage or depth and square footage. Because of some of the
conditions of these parcels that we usually use the duster on.
Mr. McCann: But Mr. Baki, isn't it true what you're saying is, I can't build a normal
subdivision in here because I just dont have enough lots. I can
probably put six or seven homes in there under the normal R-3, but
lel me use this cluster resolution to gel by the problem and put in the
ten houses you have here.
Mr. Baki:
Yes, this is an R-1 zoning.
Mr. McCann:
Right. And my concern is that what you're saying is, "I don't have
enough room. I can't meet your ordinance. So let me use dusters
as a back door to get in as many units as I want" Whereas a duster
is, if you've read it, to either try and save a large stand of trees and
nature area ... in here you're not saving any of the natural wetlands
orsurface. There's no area that's unbuildable because you don't
have wetlands; you don't have a problem with soil conditions; you
don't have other natural impediments. Now, one of the
considerations is, does this abut an industrial or commercial area?
We could consider it.
Mr. Baki:
Ora highway.
Mr. McCann:
Well, no.
Mr. Baki:
How about a highway? If its 275 or 96?
Mr. McCann:
All right. Lets take a look at that.
19273
Mr. Bad :
I don't know if its in there but that's another ...
Mr. McCann:
It's a small parcel which has frontage on a major thoroughfare with
an existing or planned right-of-way width of 120' or more indicated on
the Master Thoroughfare Plan and contains acute angles or has
shallow depth as measured from the thoroughfares to make
conventional subdivision development physically impossible. You
meet that, but you don't have acute angles and you don't have an
unusually shallow depth. You have to have one of those two things
to make the consideration work. So you don't meet it in that respect.
What you're basically arguing is, "We need this loophole to build big
subs into small areas"
Mr. Bad :
Well, I disagree on that. It's not to build too many homes in one area.
Sometimes we use this loophole in an area where the homes ...well,
itis a loophole. You're right. But we use it only where the homes
accommodate ... when you don't have too expensive a home ...
just like what I did on Seven Mile Road where we brought the square
footage down and had more units because the neighbors didn't want
big homes. We have the same conditions sometimes. When you
have the homes around you in the $170,000 to $190,000 and you're
putting in a cluster zoning at a $350,000 house, it's not going to sell.
So if we add a little more, then we bring the price down to
accommodate the area so it will be sellable. That's one oflhe
reasons...
Mr. McCann:
I have a question for Mr. Taormina, and then I'll tum it overtothe
other members. We do allow waivers. You can do a traditional
subdivision and get a waiver use to do a 50' road. Correct, Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
That has been done in certain instances, yes, especially when the
road is providing access only to a limited number of homes.
Mr. McCann:
And we've also limited where there's a certain circumstances the
depth won't meet on certain lots, we've been able to send that over to
the ... is it the Zoning Board that waives that?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, I believe the Planning Commission and City Council has
the authority to make adjustments to the lot depth requirement where
certain conditions are mel and, in particular, where immovable
limitations existwhich prohibit meeting the lot depth requirements for
platted subdivisions.
19274
Mr. McCann: Butwe have the ability to work with hardships where you do have
hardships under the waiver, but not under the cluster housing.
Cluster housing is designed to be used basically where the City can
benefit from it or there's an unusual circumstance regarding that
particular property, not because it's just not quite wide enough. Then
we'd ask you to go to the neighbors and buy their lot and then have
wide enough property.
Mr. Baki:
Sometimes we try but sometimes they do not want to do that. Most
of the time they do not want to sell.
Mr. McCann:
l understand.
Mr. Baki:
The only reason I brought this layout is because I know it's
mentioned alfour per aae for an R-1 zoning. know you can do
more under even a conventional on the regular sub for an R-1
zoning, and that's why I was bringing this. The R-1 zoning, you can
do technically a 4.5 if you can adjust to maybe 4.3, 4.25 ... its a little
more to deal with than just four per acre.
Mr. McCann:
The analysis was done by the Planning staff as to comparisons of the
R-1 subdivisions within the area and the R-2 subdivisions and that's
him they came up with the number that t meets the typical
subdivision.
Mr. Piercecchr
Sam, I don't know how you put this sample parcel together here, but
looking over your plan, you seem to have fault with the four units per
acre that was specified in this cluster package. If it did qualify for
cluster, which our very able Chairman pointed out it does not, you got
2.9 acres here. That really qualifies for nine.
Mr. Baki:
Not technically. Its alittle less than that. If you add the actual
numbers ....
Mr. Piercecchi:
I dont know what all this maneuvering here came about for one lot.
Thats what it boils down to.
Mr. Baki:
The reason I brought up this ... other townships have the cluster,
like mentioned by Markwith the last item ... with between the 20%
or if you have preserved land or wetlands, if you can use the
clustering ... which that is a perfect use for it. But sometimes you
use it too because if it sits on a highway, which this one meets and
does have that highway, it does have the full width. It's the cluster
just to make it accountable and we could work with the area because
I've seen it happen before. And you guys have seen ittoo. I can go
back to the same site on Seven Mile. People didn't want big homes.
19275
So you put a big lot and a big home, first thing they'll say is, "Wail a
minute. You're overpowering my house. Put a small home." Solo
accommodate for that, you go with little smaller homes, then you
need a little more parcel to accommodate for the cost.
Mr. McCann: Cost is your problem. Thank you. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved,
it was
#03-47-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-09-06-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant
to Council Resolutions #607-01 and #608-01, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Article XX, Sections 20.02A and 20.04 to reduce density
computations that govern a single family cluster development and
establish guidelines to consider impacts of single family cluster on
future development of adjacent properties, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-09-06-
02 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendments will reduce the overall
density permitted under the single family dustering to be more
consistent with the density limitations that apply to conventional
subdivision developments; and
2. That the proposed language amendments will enable both the
Planning Commission and the City Council to exercise greater
control over the review of proposed single family duster
development as it relates to the impacts on abutting properties.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19276
ITEM#7 PETITION 2002-01-02-02 RITTER'S FROZEN CUSTARD
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Pefifion 2002-
01-02-02, submitted by Brent A. Goings, on behalf of Mern-Eight
Land, L.L.C., c/b/a Ritters Frozen Custard, requesting waiver use
approval to add a drive-thm window to Ritters Frozen Custard on the
south side of Eight Mile Road (31195 Eight Mile Road) between
Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest%of Section 2.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#03-48-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-01-02-02, submitted by Brent A.
Goings, on behalf of Mern-Eight Land, L.L.C., d/b/a Ritter's Frozen
Custard, requesting waiver use approval to add a drive-thm window
to Ritter's Frozen Custard on the south side of Eight Mile Road
(31195 Eight Mile Road) between Merriman Road and Milburn
Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 2, be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolu0on
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, are you going to bring us up to date?
Mr. Taormina: I'm going to let Mr. Goings do that.
Brent Goings, 2552 Harlun Drive, Brighton, Michigan. Atthe recommendation ofthe
Planning Department and since the last meeting, I've added the "one
way do not enter" sign here. I've added some directional signage at
this locafion for the drive thm directing the traffic. Also, I've added an
island here that will be curbed, and the curbing will con around the
outbound edge of the drive-thru. I removed the parking blocks and
made that into a curbed location there also. As to the one-way
directional, from this location through here, it will be marked on the
pavement as shown. I removed the drinking fountain from the drive
thm area, and came up with the 12' foot drive thm lane area and the
25' radius. I adjusted the menu board closer to the drive thm location
and also increased the area here to allow wheelchair access to the
public restroom in the rear.
Mr. McCann: Could I look at the fence around the exit of the drive thm? What
have you decided there?
Mr. Goings: We're going to go with landscaping that area.
19277
Mr. McCann: Landscaping?
Mr. Goings: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: You've really done a greatjob. But being that you are so busy, have
you thought of down the road if you may need another window for
juslwalk-ups allhatfacility?
Mr. Goings:
If the building could accommodate it, I would.
Mr. Piercecchr
Are bumpers in there and the stop sign at the end of the driveJhm
lane?
Mr. Goings:
Oh yes, I'm sorry. That was on there.
Mr. Piercecchr
Around that area or just south of it, will there be some type of
plantings or stones or whatever you want to put in there?
Mr. Goings:
There will at least be stones. If I can gel excess capacity, I'm going
to landscape that area.
Mr. McCann:
Any other questions? Any other issues? I don't see anybody in the
audience wishing to address this. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and unanimously approved,
it was
#03-49-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on February26, 2002, on Petition
2002-01-02-02, submitted by Brent A. Goings, on behalf of Merri-
Eighl Land, L.L.C., d/b/a Ritter's Frozen Custard, requesting waiver
use approval to add a drive-lhru window to Rillers Frozen Custard
on the south side of Eight Mile Road (31195 Eight Mile Road)
between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest %af
Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2002-01-02-02 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan, marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 00-11-28,
prepared by Basney and Smith, Inc., with a revision date of
March 25, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
19278
2. That one (1) menu order board sign is approved which shall not
exceed 30 square feet oftotal sign area;
3. That the drive -up window shall be as portrayed on sheets
marked Attachment#3 and Attachment #4, submitted by Ritters
Frozen Custard, dated January 25, 2002;
4. That additional directional signage indicating the pedestrian
route to the required handicapped restroom shall be installed as
recommended in the letter dated February 7, 2002 from the
Inspection Department;
5. Thatthe specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted tothe Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for; and
6. Thatstone orsome othertype ofdecoretive landscape material
shall be provided in the traffic island located just south ofwhere
the drive -up window lane connects to the drive aisle east of the
building, such landscaping shall be approved by the Planning
Director;
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
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. La Pine:
I'd just like to say, Mr. Goings, we pulyou through the wringer but
you stuckwith us. I lhinkwe came upwilh a good plan.
Mr. Goings:
I appreciate your comments. I think @ made it a much better site.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Safety was our prime interest. The cooperation was wonderful.
19279
Mr.Alanskas: How was business today?
Mr. Goings: Very good.
Mr. McCann: Ifyou have good business today, you're going lodo well oulthere.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 839TM Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes of the 839" Regular Meeting held on February 12, 2002.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved,
it was
#0330-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 839" Regular Meeting held by the
Planning Commission on February 12, 2002, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 842n° Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 26, 2002, was adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
ATTEST:
coir
James C. McCann, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary