HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-05-13MINUTES OF THE 963x" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 13, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 963`° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott Ian Wilshaw
Ashley Varloogian Carol A.Smiley John Walsh
Members absent: R. Lee Morrow
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge
Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
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 PETMON2008-03-02-11 T -MOBILE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefifion 2008-03-
02-11 submitted by T -Mobile Central L.L.C. requesting waiver
use approval to construct a 85 fool flagpole -type wireless
communication facility at 29100 West Chicago Avenue, located
on the north side of West Chicago Avenue between Middlebelt
Road and Harrison Road in the Northwest % of Section 36.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pefition plus the
exisfing zoning of the surrounding area.
May 13, 2008
24725
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 17, 2008, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposal petition. Then= are no additional right-of-way
requirements for this site. An address of 29150 West Chicago
Avenue should be established for the tower site. The legal
description of the base parcel should be checked for accuracy."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., for the City of
Livonia. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated April 7, 2008, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct an 85 foot fiagpole-type wireless
communication facility on the property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 10, 2008,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with T -Mobile Flagpole Towerlocated at 29100 West
Chicago (Emerson Middle School). We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 21, 2008,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 2,
2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. A
landscape plan has not been provided. This item should be
addressed to the Commission's and/or Council's satisfaction.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the Planning Department before we
go to the petitioner? Seeing none, would the petitioner please
step forward.
Wallace R. Haley, Haley Law Finn, P.L.C., 8065 Grand River, Brighton, Michigan
48114. Our office is here tonight representing T -Mobile. I don't
know where to start considering Mr. Taormina's recap was very,
very good. In our packet that our office provided, not Mr.
Taormina's staff report, it really goes through a lot of the
justification on why these things are happening and why it is
important to you as a planning group and why it is important to
T -Mobile. If you look at where the coverage is being aimed for
this site, it is for the residential neighbors in the City of Livonia.
They are not trying to cover 96 coming across. They are not
May 13, 2008
24]26
using the industrial sites up here to cover all the major traffic.
They are covering residents, and that's obviously a trend you
will see from all the carriers. Everybody is using their phones at
home. Everybody is using their computers at home that use the
wireless networking cards. So what you're trying to craft is a
solution that can be aesthetically pleasing to the Planning Staff
and the city and the residents. T -Mobile has proposed, in this
particular case, the flagpole -type stealth lower. Mr. Taormina
has put up a computer image. This is actually a photo
simulation of what it would look like on the Emerson School
property. I brought along a couple of other pictures of flagpoles
if you want to see what some actual ones look like. You have
one already installed locally in the cemetery. I think it's the Beth
EI cemetery. That is approximately, Mark can correct me if I'm
wrong, 4 or 5 feet taller than what this one is proposed. What I
would rather do at this point in time, given the extensive nature
of his recap, is answer any questions that you as a Commission
may have or the residents may have.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for Mr. Haley?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have a few questions just based on the initial report that we've
heard from Mr. Haley. Is the flagpole going to be painted?
What is the appearance of that pole going to be?
Mr. Haley:
Il would be painted white.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Painted white. Okay. Similar to the picture that we see on the
screen then?
Mr. Haley:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. Is there going to be a generator located at this
particular facility on the ground?
Mr. Haley:
No, sir.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I know that there is pending legislation to require
generators for cellular sites as a result of the blackout that
occurred several years ago. If that is mandated by the
government, do you have adequate facility there to place a
generator?
Mr. Haley:
Yes, we do. There would be sufficient grounds based on that
40 by 40 to do that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. What's the diameter of that pole going to be?
May 13, 2008
2/]2]
Mr. Haley:
I don't have the tower drawings because they don't order the
actual tower until it's done. I took a look at another 85 fool, 90
fool pole. The base of the pole was 33 inches; the top of the
pole was 26 inches, so it has a 9 inch taper.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. The reason I ask that is because I have looked at a
couple of the other stealth poles that are a flagpole design, the
one we have in our city and the one in Westland. They are fairly
bulky for a flagpole when you look at them up close. From a
distance, they look pretty appropriate as long as the flag that's
placed on it is complementary in size. Sometimes they put loo
small of a flag on there, and it looks quite awkward. But you're
not going to maintain the flag or put a flag on there in any way,
are you?
Mr. Haley:
No. We will provide the school a flag that is appropriate for the
size of the lower. They will choose when they are going to fly R.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Haley:
The other thing loo, I'd like to hand out a picture.
Mr. Walsh:
If you want to give that to Ms. Vartoogian, she will pass it along.
I think she had a question for you as well.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I do. Do you have any plans to extend the height of the
flagpole?
Mr. Haley:
No. Arguably another carrier could come in and say they would
like to be higher. Once we have zoning approval at 85 feel, we
can't extend it without coming back in front of you and modifying
that whole waiver use and coming back to say why we would
want to do it and what reasons were appropriate to allow us to
do that.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Has there been any interest shown by other wireless providers
to be located on the same pole?
Mr. Haley:
Not on this one, not yet. Typically, the way it works is once they
go up, then they start contacting the collocation departments of
the various carriers. Rather flippantly, I always use the field of
dreams. You know, if you build it, they will come. Typically, if
you look around your monopoles and other towers in the city, I
think you can feel very comfortable that that's happened.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Do you plan on submitting any kind of landscape plan or
doing any landscaping to that site?
May 13, 2008
24]28
Mr. Haley:
Because it was a school, because it was so close to the
bleachers and it was such a traffic area, the school felt that they
didn't need it. Obviously, if you come back as a planning group
and say that it should be screened, we would do that; but the
reality of it is, it's an area of a lot of chain link fence right now.
It's an area of a bleacher. Landscaping, I don't know. I think
Mr. Taormina made the comment, I dont know if it would really
help to do what you're trying to do with this area because of the
school nature and that use there.
Ms. Varloogian:
Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Mr. LaPine:
I just have two questions. Mr. Wilshaw brought up the painting
of the pole. How often do you have to paint these poles? Is it
on a regular cycle? Do you do it every three years, every five
years? Or is it that the paint is such that it never needs
repainting?
Mr. Haley:
I'll be honest with you. I dont know the answer. I know typically
the requirements of the city, they have to keep it maintained in
appearance so if it chipped or something, they would have to
paint it. I dont know. I've driven by one in Heartland for a long
time. I know it hasn't been repainted. I would have seen it. I'm
not saying that they wouldn't though.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I was just curious. The other question I have, one of our
members brought up at the study session the fad that originally
you weren't going to put any lighting to fly the flagpole at night.
Now, I understand there will be lighting there, and it will be at
the option of the school.
Mr. Haley:
I don't think that's correct. I kink the issue was that if you fly
the flag constantly, you would have to light it per the rules of
etiquette for displaying the flag at night. My understanding is
that the school will raise it on appropriate holidays. They're not
going to fly it daily, and they will take it down before nightfall.
Therefore, it wont need to be lit. They are not intending to fly it
at night.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, lel me ask you this. Is it an inconvenience for you or is it a
lot of work to put a light there? For instance, on national
holidays, the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, the flag could be
flying all night. You have no restrictions.
Mr. Haley:
No, we have no restrictions to that. We could put a light in
there. That's not an issue. I think it is more of an issue that the
school didn't want to deal with the raising and lowering of it and
didn't want to fly it at all limes. I think there was a consideration
May 13, 2008
24]29
there and concern for the neighbors and it being lit also being
500 feet from the residential to the east.
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions?
Ms. McDermott: I'm one of the commissioners that had concern over the flag
being flown or forgotten and not taken down without the lighting,
even though people are well intentioned. We already have a
problem near my house with another school whose
administration does not feel that the flag needs to come down at
night without a light. It's been periodic over the years. We've
tried to address it. So are you stating that you will put a light in
or you wont?
Mr. Haley: If you want us to put a light in, we will put a light in. We had no
intention, based on our conversations with the school system, of
putting a light in. I guess it would come back to the issue of, d
you're not flying it at night, you don't want the light on. And I
hale to say this, but if you have an issue of somebody not going
out and taking it down, you probably have the same issue of
somebody not going out and turning the light on. That's
something that we can address with discussions with the
school. Obviously if we put a big flag and flagpole in, it needs to
be flown properly.
Mrs. McDermott: Right. Well, regarding turning on and off of the light, I was
thinking more of a light sensor type that would come on when it
was dark.
Mr. Haley: I understand that, but from what my involvement with the School
Board and Denise from my office involvement with the School
Board, they dont have the intenfion of flying the flag daily from
that flagpole. They want to fly it on special occasions and at
special times for them. It's my understanding that they would
not be flying it at night and it would not be flying over extensive
periods. I would hope that it would actually be easier to bring it
up and down when you're only doing it on a special basis.
Mrs. McDermott: Okay. Just as one commissioner, I feel very strongly that if the
flag is up and it's there at night, it has to have the light on or it
needs to come down. I think in the school system we need to
be teaching the children the proper respect for the flag. So I
can't really rely on the administration, unfortunately, to do that
because we already have an issue at another school. Thank
you.
May 13, 2008
2/]30
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions?
Mr. Taormina:
Considering the fact that the lease area is typically secured, will
school personnel have access to that area?
Mr. Haley:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions before we go to the public?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just one additional question, Mr. Haley. I noticed several weeks
ago in the Observer there was a small announcement in there
that because this is a cellular lower abutting an historical distract,
the Wilson properly, they were seeking public comment about
that particular issue. Do you know if any comments were given
or was that posting put by you or was that by the Historical
Commission?
Mr. Haley:
The way that works, in order to build a lower, you have to have
what they call NHPA, National Historic Protection Act, and
SHPA, Slate Historic Preservation Act, approval on all lowers.
So what happens is, if you're within x amount of feel of any
historically implicated areas, which the barn area obviously is,
you must give public notice for input. Al this point in time, I have
not heard anything that anybody came back with any kind of
notice. I haven't heard anything from SHPA that they have any
issue. The school itself and football field lends to subsume the
historic nature of some of these things. But no, I have not heard
anything from that. That announcement happens on almost all
cell sites. They have to seek public comment.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. Thanks. I appreciate the follow-up on that.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions? Mr. Haley, thank you.
Mr. Haley:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Al this point, we'll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing.
A motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 8 was
#0535-2008
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 13, 2008, on
Petition 2008-03-02-11 submitted by T-Mobile Central L.L.C.
May 13, 2008
24]31
requesting waiver use approval to construct a 85 fool flagpole -
type wireless communication facility at 29100 West Chicago
Avenue, located on the north side of West Chicago Avenue
between Middlebelt Road and Harrison Road in the Northwest
''/ of Section 36, which property is zoned PL, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2008-03-02-11 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Location Plan marked Sheet LP prepared by
Terra Consulting Group, dated February 20, 2008, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Engineering Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared
by Term Consulting Group, dated February 20, 2008, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Site Elevations and Antenna Mounting Details
Plan marked Sheet ANT -1 prepared by Terra Consulting
Group, dated February 20, 2008, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
4. That a light shall be installed either on or at the base of the
flagpole for the purpose of illuminating the flag at night, and
such lighting shall be aimed and shielded so as to be
deflected away from any adjacent or neighboring
residential properties;
5. That barbed wire shall not be allowed anywhere on the
facility; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time the building perils are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 18.42A 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.
May 13, 2008
24732
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. Walsh:
Is there anydiscussion?
Ms. McDermott:
Yes, I think probably not surprising, I just wanted to add, I have
nothing against the cell lower. It looks nice, but unless we can
be guaranteed that the light will be installed, I can't support this
item.
Mr. LaPine:
It is my understanding, and correct me, Mark, if I'm wrong,
according to the motion, there shall be a light put at the bottom
of the flagpole,
and if the flag is not taken down at night, then
the light will
shine on the flag. Is that corect? Isn't that what
the motion more or less says?
Mr. Taormina:
You staled that you thought the motion was such that it required
the light.
Mr. LaPine:
That's right.
Mr. Taormina:
And I think the light is only required if the intention is to fly it at
night.
Mr. LaPine:
How do you know if the school board's intention is to fly it at
night? If the light is there, then if they want to fly it, they can fly
it. If its not there, well, if they fly it and they don't have a light
on it, they're really breaking the law to my way of thinking.
Mr. Taormina:
Its up to the Commission to decide if you want to alter the
resolution to require the light so that it's available when and if
its flown at night.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, I'll ask to make a motion to charge it to require
that the light be installed at the base of the flagpole.
Ms. Smiley:
So that it's available to them should they decide to fly it at night?
Mr. LaPine:
If they decide they want to fly it at night, it would be available.
Ms. Smiley:
I don't have a problem with that. I think we're putting the
responsibility on the petitioner to do the lowering and mising of
the flag and make sure that the proper etiquette or procedures
are followed when flying the flag, when its not really something
theyre going to be doing. It's the school district. Does that put
the responsibility on them or not?
May 13, 2008
2/]33
Mr. Walsh:
No, the responsibility will slay with the schools.
Ms. Smiley:
But the lighting will be available should they elect ...
Mr. Walsh:
Is you agree to the change. Correct.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. All right. That's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Wilshaw, are you agreeing with that change?
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Mrs. McDermott?
Mrs. McDermott:
Yes. I just wanted to say that you dont have to worry about the
responsibility of the school if you put in a motion sensor
because its going to go on when it's dark, and if the flag
happens to be up, it will be okay. So that's why I suggested that
originally.
Ms. Smiley:
It will light up every night? Do you really want to light the
flagpole up every night in the middle of the field?
Mrs. McDermott:
I dont know any other way. I mean, no, I probably don't, but I
dont know any other way to make sure that the school handles
it properly.
Mr. LaPine:
They have a custodian at the school. I understand from the
petitioner that the custodian at the school will have a key to get
into where the flag would be. Therefore, if the flag is up at night
and he sees it up at night, then he can turn on the light. If they
dont want the light on, they can shut it off. Either way, we're
covered.
Mr. Walsh:
As it stands right now, the light is required to be installed. It
doesn't require that its on.
Mr. LaPine:
That's right.
Ms. Smiley:
I think I prefer that.
Mrs. McDermott:
I think I could compromise with that. However, the school that
has a problem right now also has a custodian that could lower
the flag but the administration doesn'lfeel that it's necessary.
Mr. LaPine:
As far as I'm concern, the administration should be told that the
law is, when a flag is flying at night, the light should be on. We
May 13, 2008
247M
want to make sure that you do your job. I don't see a big
problem.
Mr. Walsh: All we can do is condition the motion but we cannot mandate
how they conduct themselves. So then as it stands, the light is
required with the installation. It's turning and off would be up to
the school system and/or T -Mobile. Does everybody
understand the nature of the motion? Are there any other
comments? Hearing none, then a vole is in order.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2008-04-02-12 MAYFIELD PARTNERS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
04-02-12 submitted by Mayfield Partners, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a child care facility
at 32520 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven
Mile Road between Mayfield Avenue and Shadyside Avenue in
the Southwest % of Section 3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated April 17, 2008, which reads
as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objection to the proposal petition. According to our records, the
right -0f -way of Seven Mile has been dedicated, and there are no
additional right -0f -way requirements for this site. The legal
description should have a bearing of S. 00TV30" E. in its eighth
line. The address of 32520 Seven Mille Road is correct. Since
the storm drainage facilities outlet to a private sewer, a Wayne
County detention permit may be required. This should be
checked with the County. Detention facilities have been shown.
A copy of the crossaccess easement should be provided prior
to site plan approval." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., for the City of Livonia. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 17, 2008, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a child care
May 13, 2008
2/735
facility on property located at the above -referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulations: (1) If subject building(s) are to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, an onsite hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and
located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet betwe an hydrants.
Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI." The letter is signed by Donald F.
Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated April 22, 2008, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans in connection with Children of America Child
Care located at 32520 7 Mile. It is requested that the Planning
Commission require installation of a stop sign at their eastern
exit at Mayfield. The stop sign must comply with the standards
as set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices."
The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April
21, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
April 16, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. If the additional parking
spaces located at the northwest comer of the property are to be
considered employee only parking, then any employee with a
handicap larking permit must be permitted to use the barrier
free spaces as shown near the front entry. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. The next letter was
submitted this evening to the Planning Commission by Pam
Tanner, addressed to Children of America, dated February 25,
2008, which reads as follows: "1 am writing to you as a longtime
business owner and concerned citizen of Livonia, Michigan. 1
was one of the residents that received a letter regarding your
proposed site. As 1 am sure you are aware, your company is
proposing a new daycare center in our town of Livonia on Seven
Mile Road east of Farmington Road. My concems minor those
of many others in the area and include: Trafflc/Noise: Drop-offs
and pickups to/from your proposed center will have to enter and
exit via a side street, Mayfield during peak traffic times,
mornings and afternoons. Back-ups and congestion are sure to
occur and, with no traffic light from Mayfield onto Seven Mile,
safety is a concern. This will be a daily frustration to your clients.
Inadequate Space: Due to the relatively small parcel size for
such a large, proposed facility, when state-rnandated
playground size requirements are factored n, your center will
have a tiny parking lot (12 spaces for staff and only 8 others).
This will further exacerbate traffmJparking congestion along
Mayfield and onto Seven Mile, day to day, not to mention the
logjams that would occur when special events are held. In
May 13, 2008
24736
addition, 1 wonder who is advising you locally on site acquisition.
Some facts on our area you may not be aware of..
Demographics: The median age of Livonia residents continue to
increase, affecting elementary school enrollment, with many
schools closing in recent years. In tum, 1 know this has affected
daycare centers in the area, many of which have also closed
their doors. Saturation/Economy. Even with center closings, 99
existing Livonia centers stmgg/e to compete in our challenged
marketplace. The terrible Michigan economy, which leads the
nation in unemployment, further, exacerbates the problem,
leading to rampant disenrollments by laid off parents. Chrysler
announced in recent weeks it plans 15,000 new layoffs
nationwide (including in Michigan) in the coming weeks and
months. GM has also offered buyouts to 50,000 employees.
Finally, a direct competitor, The Learning Experience, is
opening a new center a mile and a half west of your proposed
Livonia site. This has been strategically placed next to Victor
Parkway, an area that houses several commercial businesses
as well as a large health care establishment, Providence
Hospital, directly across the street. 1 and others in our city hope
you will consider these dynamics before moving forward with
yourp/ans." The letter is signed Concerned in Livonia. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the Planning Department?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Taormina, in your presentation you mentioned that the
dumpster gales would be metal enclosed wood slates. I
assume that you misspoke on that?
Mr. Taormina:
I think that reflects what is being proposed. However, typically,
in a resolution that we offer, they would have to have steel gates
to comply with our new policy.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I will double check with the petitioner and make sure he's
okay with that. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
At this point, we will go to the petitioner.
Steve Pyrkosz,
Mayfield Partners, L.L.C., 51331 Pontiac Trail, Wixom, Michigan
48393. With me today is Kevin Schonsheck, representing
Mayfield Partners with the same address. Again, Mr. Taormina
did a great job explaining/summarizing what we've been through
and what we're trying to achieve. I'll try to reiterate some of the
things that Mr. Taormina said. We came to you in October of
last year. Arohilecturally, it was the same project. Its been kind
of a numbers game since then. We came to you requesting 157
students and 20 some parking spaces. We had a small dropoff
May 13, 2008
24737
rather than designated parking spaces for drop off and pickup.
Since that time, we've spoken with Children of America and
they've requested that we try to get 177 students approved,
which increased the teacher count, which increased the parking
requirements. So from the time it went to the Planning
Commission with a recommendation for approval for the waiver
and site plan, to the time that the City Council was asked to
form an opinion on this, the scope changed. We've also, in that
time, mel with Wayne County and got feedback from Wayne
County on how they fell this project would impact Seven Mile
Road. Based on that discussion and the correspondence back
and forth, we changed our design in the boulevard entrance off
of Mayfield and we wrapped around the entrance and provided
kind of an access point, a deceleration lane, if you will. They
had a concern about the number of cars that would potentially
queue up and therefore backup onto Seven Mile. Once we
made this change, they were satisfied with the improvements to
the boulevard and with the queuing. Also in that time, we've
hired Parson's Transportation to provide a traffic gap study to
analyze this building and compare it to statistics from Children
of America all across the country. So we went back to Children
of America and we asked them to give us comparable daycare
centers that they've built and statistics on traffic flow and
teachers and percentages of students that show up on a daily
basis. With all this information, a gap study was generated,
which ultimately told us that this properly as a daycare would
generale 790 some trips a day. In comparison, a bank could go
on this property, which does not require a waiver use, and it
could generale up to 830 six days a week versus five days a
week here. So with that traffic study, we took another look at
our loading/unloading area. We designed it for the peak
durations, the peak hours of the day. With that, the worse case
scenario was 55 pickups or drop offs at any given hour with an
average time of 10 minutes. That equated to 10 spaces that we
would need for loading. Our particular plan as proposed today
would allow for 17 if you discount the barrier free parking
spaces, 17 loading and unloading spaces. So we've increased
the loading and unloading spaces, which we feel would address
part of the queuing issues. We've addressed the Wayne
County issues with the boulevard entrance, and we've satisfied
Children of America. And Children of America is also committed
to limiting the number of students to 150, which is less ban
what you previously approved in October. So with all that being
said, we feel like we're addressing the concerns the City Council
had as far as safety and welfare of the students and residents,
and we feel like this is a better solution in the end. So we're in
front of you again to go through the process, and ultimately, we
hope to have this approved. So if there are any questions, I can
May 13, 2008
24]38
try to help you. Actually, I'm not sure, Mr. Taormina, that we
received any of those review letters yet. But from what I heard,
it does sound like there are any issues that we can't address
and wouldn't be willing to address. The dumpster gates, of
course, we can modify those to meet the minimum standards.
We dont want them to fall apart either, so that's not a big deal
for us. But if there are any questions, we're here to answer
them for you.
Mr. Walsh:
Questions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thank you, Mr. Pyrkosz, for addressing the dumpster
enclosures.
Mr. Pyrkosz:
Sure.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The gap study that you had performed by a traffic engineer, is
that study available to us to see?
Mr. Pyrkosz:
Yes. I have a copy of it here if you'd like. Its kind of technical
information, but I can definitely get you all copies of it for your
review.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'd appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Pyrkosz:
Sure.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional comments? Seeing no additional
questions, I'd like to thank you both for being here. We're going
to go to our public hearing at this point in time. Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefition?
Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order.
Good evening.
Pam Tanner
I just have a question regarding events. If they have 150
students and they have parking for 26 cars or families, if they
have an event such as a Valentine's party, holiday party,
graduation party, where would they propose to put all the cars?
Mr. Walsh:
We will put that question to them at the end of the public
hearing.
Ms. Tanner:
Thank you.
Raymond Monczka, 18355 University. Basically, I'm in support of this because
the community is changing. I just feel that its not going to be for
all of us old folks. The young people need a place to drop their
kids off and raise them and pick them up because two people in
May 13, 2008
24]39
a family are working. I see that all the time. I build homes
downnver and the subdivision is empty during the day because
everyone is working. So they need childcare.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, sir, for being here tonight. Is there anyone else in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Seeing
no one coming forward, then the public hearing portion is
closed. Mr. Pyrkosz, if I could have you come forward, we had
a question from one of our residents regarding parking and
events in general. How would you handle that if you have a
large event?
Mr. Pyrkosz:
To be honest, I haven( had those discussions. I think Kevin
could probably handle that better.
Kevin Schonsheck: This question was raised at the City Council meetings. We
actually flew in the tenant from Florida to address that concern.
They do not have any special events whatsoever, so the parking
is not an issue.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Schonsheck:
You're welcome.
Mr. Walsh:
We've had public commentary. Unless there are any additional
questions, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0536-2008
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 13, 2008, on
Petition 2008-04-02-12 submitted by Mayfield Partners, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a child
care facility at 32520 Seven Mile Road, located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Mayfield Avenue and
Shadyside Avenue in the Southwest I/ of Section 3, which
properly is zoned G7, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-04-02-12 be
approved for the following reasons or subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the maximum number of children to be cared for at this
facility shall be one hundred and fifty (150);
2. That the Layout and Paving Plan marked Sheet CP -01, dated
April 11, 2008, as revised, prepared by Schonsheck Inc. is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to any
revisions as noted below;
May 13, 2008
24740
3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a
cross parking agreement, that gives notice and outlines the
terms of how the subject property(s) would share parking and
access, be supplied to the City;
4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-100 dated April 11,
2008, as revised, prepared by Schonsheck Inc., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
7. That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-300 dated
April 11, 2008, as revised, prepared by Schonsheck Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from
public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the
building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's
design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the
enclosure gates shall be of steel construction and maintained
and when not in use dosed at all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits, including
storm nater management permits, wetlands permits and soil
erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County,
the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
12. That the fencing that encompasses the outdoor play area
shall be at least five (5) feet in height;
13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
May 13, 2008
24741
14. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
15. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulation
contained in the correspondence dated April 21, 2008,
from the Inspection Department;
16. That a stop sign shall be installed at the easterly exit at
Mayfield Avenue as recommended in the correspondence
dated April 22, 2008, from the Traffic Bureau;
17. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulations listed in
the correspondence dated April 17, 2008, from the Fire
Marshal;
18. 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; and,
19. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is
valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval
by the City Council, and unless a building permit is
obtained and construction is commenced, this approval
shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 10.03 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. Walsh: Is there anydiscussion?
May 13, 2008
24742
Mr. LaPine: That property has been empty for quite a number of years.
We've had a number of proposals come in on that which we
have turned down, such as a restaurant. In my opinion, this
property being developed by a daycare center, probably the
least amount of traffic is going to be generated by that. I base
that on this assumption. They open at 6:00 a.m. Most of the
kids being dropped off is probably going to be from 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 a.m. Now if Joe's Produce was doing business that early
in the morning with the amount of traffic they have, then I would
say, yes, there's going to be a traffic problem, but that early in
the morning, I just don't see that happening. I will make the
statement that in the evening, there could be some problems
because a lot of people stop at Joe's and pick up stuff on their
way home from work. But overall, the amount of traffic that
could be generated from a bank, as this gentleman mentioned,
would be a heck of a lot more than this childcare center is going
to generate. I think it's a good proposal for that location. That's
why I'm supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2008-04-03-01 ALLEY VACATING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
04-03-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #216-07, and Section 12.08.015(A) of
Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to determine whether or not to vacate the eashWesl alley
adjacent to Lots 28 through 40, Lot 201 and Lot 290 and the
adjacent vacated north/south alley in Schanhile's Marquette
Manor Subdivision, located north of and parallel to Plymouth
Road between Cavell and Arcola in the Southeast % of Section
25.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated June 19, 2007, addressed to the City Council,
that was in response to Council Resolution 215-07, which
requested a report and recommendation from the
Administration, which reads as follows: As requested, we have
May 13, 2008
24743
investigated the feasibility of vacating the subject alley. There
are no businesses o- residences that appear to be using the
alley. The party store at Cavell has direct access to Cavell and
the current Kentucky Fried Chicken has direct access to Arcola.
The tattoo business located mid -block has the alley fenced off
from their parking lot The homeowner on Cavell has stated that
she does not need access to her existing garage. We
recommend that you proceed with vacating this alley. Since
there are overhead utilities and sanitary sewers in the alley, a
full width easement should be retained for their maintenance.
The description of the alley to be vacated follows. The
East/West alley adjacent to Lots 28 through 40, Lot 201 and Lot
290 and the adjacent vacated North/South alley in Schanhite's
Marquette Manor Subdivision as recorded in Liber 61 of Plats
on Page 63, W.C.R." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer, and Patrick A. Hogan, Director of Public
Works. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, when they talk about a full width easement, are they
talking about 12 feet?
Mr. Taormina:
The easement will be 20 feet. The alleyway being vacated is 20
feet, so there will be an easement retained for the full width, or
20 feet. Even though title will accrue to each of the adjacent
property owners, the city and other utility companies will
still
have access to the easement area for maintenance purposes.
Mr. LaPine:
The 20 feel would be split between the business owners and
residence.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
So no one could build anything on it because there's always a
possibility that they may have to go in there and dig that up. Is
that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any more questions for the Planning Department?
This is here by our request, so we can go straight to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Please step forward.
MaryKaneris,
11610Cavell, Lot 290. The question you had just asked about the
easement, both the telephone poles, if you split that alley, they
get 10 feel and I gel 10 feel. Both the telephone poles and the
May 13, 2008
247"
sewer, they'd be on my 10 feel. I have no opposition to
vacating this valley because it's dusty. Cars drive by 40 miles
per hour. You get all this dust. Its very dose to my house and
I'm a new owner there. Honestly, I don't even open my blinds
on that side of the house because the driveway is so close, you
could ... that dust right there. That's my house and you stand
right here in the alley. I can see it. There's nothing blocking it.
I'm not opposed to vacating the alley, but I still don't quite
understand whalyou're talking about, this right -0f --way.
Mr. Walsh:
What it means is that if a utility has to gel in there for the
purpose of working on the poles or the sewer, they have the
right to go in there and do so. In my backyard, for instance,
there's a 10 foot easement. They could go in there and disrupt
whatever I planted to gel to whatever they have to get to. It
would be the same on this properly.
Ms. Kaner s:
Okay. That one telephone pole, which is right at the end of my
driveway, which is right at the end of my house, its completely
leaning. It has a transformer on there that's probably as old as
the City of Livonia or when that telephone
pole was first put up.
Is there anything that Detroit Edison
would have to do to
upgrade this or would that be any of the concern here or I would
just contact them?
Mr. Walsh:
You could contact Detroit Edison directly, but I think Mr.
Taormina could give you the city's contact. Mark, would that be
possible to at least direct her in that?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we could provide her a contact.
Ms. Kaners:
The only other question I would have is, when hese business
owners and they're both two really nice guys. They have a
thriving business. I would understand their point that they would
want access to additional parking. This would provide that for
them, but as neighbors and people that live there, what type of
issues might arise in regards to fencing it off, getting some
privacy. Is anything like that going to be involved in any of this?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, I dont think we're in a position to mandate that,
but that would be something they could agree with you on.
Mr. Taormina:
Each of the property owners would be entitled to fence that
portion of the alley that is vacated and reversed to them. Doing
so would effectively block access to the alley for any vehicles
being able to access from Cavell to the rear portions of these
businesses. So, Ms. Kaneris, for example, could take her 10
feel and fence that area off. The owner of the Plymouth Food
May 13, 2008
24745
Store could do the same thing. That would then prohibit access
from the alleyway for any vehicles to go in that area. The owner
of Eternal Tattoos and the adjacent business here could extend
their fence, with permits mind you, for an additional 10 feet to
the rear of their businesses. Again, you could do that here, and
the owner of this business, formerly the KFC, could do that to
their property as well. So you would have certain rights to
occupy that land. You would be prohibited from building certain
structures, such as sheds or other buildings, but I do not believe
you would be prevented from installing a fence or landscaping
or those types of improvements with the understanding that if
the city or another utility has to get back there for maintenance
purposes and those improvements have to be removed or
altered, it could be at your expense.
Ms. Kaneris:
But would that be possibly a requirement that the city might
impose so that the kids and residents, so we don't have to sit
there and look attheir parking lot?
Mr. Taormina:
There will be no requirement at this point for them to fence off
their area. Let's say, for example, that the owner of Eternal
Tattoos wants to construct an addition onto his building.
Following the vacating of the alley, he would then have a certain
portion of his site abutting residential properly, your site here to
the north. The city may require him at that time to build a
masonry screen wall along that portion of his property that abuts
the single family property. But it wouldn't be required at this
time - only in the future should they undertake certain
improvements and it's required by the city. They would be
basically grandfathered for the time being until such time ...
Ms. Kaneris:
Until they decide to make improvements?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Ms. Kaneris:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
We have one more person coming forward. Mr. La Pine, I'm
going to ask you to chair this for a moment. I'll be right back.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Fine.
Daniel West, 11640
Cavell. I'm for the vacating of the easement. We gel a lot of
cross trafflic. Trucks use it to turnaround from Plymouth Road,
Acola, and Cavell and cul through there quite a bit. Dust. I
presume it would be less maintenance for the city. My concerns
are some kind of banner in between the businesses and the
houses, maybe not directly now, but potentially in the future.
May 13, 2008
24746
There is a driveway from Cavell into the alley, and I do believe,
just so people don't think there is an alley there, even after it is
vacated, that something like that should or could be removed. .
Mr. LaPine:
Let's understand something. Once the property is split, and the
Cilys responsibility for the alley no longer exists, it's between
the two properly owners. So the City has no more
responsibility. You gel 10 feel; he gets 10 feet. We're not going
to block off the alley. That would be up the property owners or
the homeowners. So, then on the other hand, maybe no one
will do anything and the alley will stay the same. If it gels
potholes and things like that, the City is not going to come out
and repair it because it's no longer their property. I just want
you to understand that.
Mr. West:
Okay. Well, I do believe the city should require at least a barrier
in the middle or something before they vacate it so cross traffic
can't go through.
Mr. LaPine:
Unfortunately, that isn't the way it works because you're getting
10 feet of properly.
Mr. West:
Well, I'm not.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, whoever the owners are that abut the property.
Mr. West
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak?
Terry Walker,
Eternal Tattoos, 27590 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1
own Eternal Tattoos. I'm all for it. I'll apply for permits to move
my fence back and we'll take care of it. We'll end up closing
that alley off. Il will be a good thing for me.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Badre Yono,
Plymouth Food Stores, 27600 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan
48150. I'm for closing the alleyway. The sooner I can put a
fence up and give my neighbor privacy, my business won't
interfere with my neighbors.
Mr. LaPine:
By the way, while you're here, how are things going after you
got your liquor license?
Mr. Yono:
It is doing very good.
May 13, 2008
24747
Mr. LaPine: Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience
wishing to speak? Heading none, I will dedare the public
heading closed. Is there any discussion by members of the
commission? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, 8
was
#0537-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 13, 2008, on
Petition 2008-04-03-01 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #218-07, and
Section 12.08.015(A) of Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City
of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate
the east/west alley adjacent to Lots 28 through 40, Lot 201 and
Lot 290 and the adjacent vacated north/south alley in
Schanhite's Marquette Manor Subdivision, located north of and
parallel to Plymouth Road between Cavell and Arcola in the
Southeast % of Section 25, which property is zoned, R7, C-2
and P, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2008-04-03-01 be approved
subject to the retention of a full width easement for existing
public utilities as recommended by the Engineering Division, for
the following reasons:
1. That the subject alley is not needed for public access
purposes;
2. That the land area of the subject alley can be more
advantageously utilized in private ownership in conjunction
with the adjoining properties;
3. That the vacating of the subject alley will place the property
back on the City's lax 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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted. I'd like to thank Mr. LaPine for filling in. It will go on to
City Council with an approving resolution.
May 13, 2008
24148
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 96V Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 13, 2008, was adjourned at 8:14
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman