HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-04-20r..
16795
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 20, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
783rd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with approximately
40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale
Elaine Koons William LaPine
Members absent: Dan Piercecchi
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, and Bill Poppenger, Planner I were
also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing, makes the final determination as to whether a petition is
approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City
Planning Commission becomes effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The
Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon
their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
Mr. McCann: We will begin with the pending items of our agenda. There will be audience
communication only if there is unanimous consent from the Planning
Commission. We have discussed these items at length from prior meetings.
Michael Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-2-2
by Dave and Nicole Bloomingburg (Dave's Collision) requesting waiver use
approval to utilize an additional parcel of land and the building contained
thereon in connection with the expansion of an existing auto body repair
facility located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Melvin and
Louise Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion of remove Petition 99-1-2-2 from the table?
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
16796
*MW #4-59-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-1-2-2 by Dave and
Nicole Bloomingburg (Dave's Collision) requesting waiver use approval to
utilize an additional parcel of land and the building contained thereon in
connection with the expansion of an existing auto body repair facility located
on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Melvin and Louise Avenues in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby remove
Petition 99-1-2-2 from the table.
Mr. McCann: Are there any changes on this one Al?
Mr. Nowak: Following the March 23, 1999, public hearing, the Planning Commission
tabled this item to tonight's meeting. In the meantime we received a letter
from the petitioner dated March 29, 1999, directed to Mr. McCann which reads
as follows: "We would like to request that the hearing regarding our petition
be postponed to an uncertain date due to personal and financial reasons." The
letter is signed by Dave & Nicole Bloomingburg.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to table the petition?
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#4-60-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-1-2-2 by Dave and
Nicole Bloomingburg (Dave's Collision) requesting waiver use approval to
utilize an additional parcel of land and the building contained thereon in
connection with the expansion of an existing auto body repair facility located
on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Melvin and Louise Avenues in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 99-1-2-2 to a date uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
If there is anyone in the audience tonight who would like to leave their name
and address with the staff this evening, we will be sure to notify you if this
comes back at another meeting. You can leave that information at the corner
up here and we will make sure to notify you.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-2-6 by
Brazen & Greer Masonry, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to stockpile
material outdoors in connection with a masonry contracting business located on
the south side of Amrhein Road, east of Eckles Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 30.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#4-61-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-2-2-6 by Brazen &
Greer Masonry, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to stockpile material
16797
outdoors in connection with a masonry contracting business located on the
''M► south side of Amrhein Road, east of Eckles Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 30, the Planning Commission does hereby remove Petition 99-2-2-6
from the table.
Mr. McCann: Al, do we have anything new on this petition?
Mr. Nowak: We don't have any new correspondence but we did receive a revised site plan.
Mr. McCann: Scott, can you show us the revised site plan please?
Mr. Miller: As was suggested by the Planning Commission, the wall along the south
property line was extended so now on their site plan they do show a wall about
300 feet in length. Right now there is a warehouse here. They have
discontinued it from there. You can't see that from Plymouth Road, this portion
anyway. So up to the back of the warehouse to the south of them, the wall will
continue so that it will be partially screened from Plymouth Road.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners? Do you want to hear from the
petitioner? Would the petitioner come on down. Is there anything additional
you would like to tell us?
Mr. Onchinero: That is basically it.
Mr. Alanskas: How are you going to repair the parking lot?
Mr. Onchinero: We are going to have it repaved.
Mr. Alanskas: With asphalt or concrete?
Mr. Onchinero: With asphalt.
Mr. Alanskas: It would be at least 2 inches, I would assume.
Mr. Onchinero: I can guarantee that.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#4-62-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, on Petition 99-2-2-6 by Brazen & Greer Masonry, Inc., requesting
waiver use approval to stockpile material outdoors in connection with a
masonry contracting business located on the south side of Amrhein Road, east
of Eckles Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-2-2-6 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
16798
1) That the Site Plan marked SP -1 prepared by Chester Stempien
1•• Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on April 13, 1999,
which illustrates the proposed outdoor storage areas, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
1%W
2) That the outdoor storage of materials, vehicles and equipment shall
occur only within the areas designed for that purpose of the Site Plan;
3) That outdoor storage shall be limited to the materials, vehicles and
equipment noted on the Site Plan and represented to the Planning
Commission in a letter dated February 25, 1999, from George Greer of
Brazen and Greer Masonry, Inc., and
4) That a masonry protective wall in conformance with the detail provided
on the Site Plan shall be constructed along the west line, except for the
front yard setback, and along the east 300 feet of the south line of the
subject property.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11
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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-6-1 by the
City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #405-98 and
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02
and 4.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to set forth zoning requirements for
family (1 to 6 children) and group (7 to 12 children) day care homes in
residential districts.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to remove Petition 99-2-6-1 from the table?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#4-63-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 23,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-2-6-1 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #405-98 and Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02 and 4.03
`` of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to set forth zoning requirements for family (1
to 6 children) and group (7 to 12 children) day care homes in residential
districts, the Planning Commission does hereby remove Petition 99-2-6-1 from
the table.
Mr. McCann: Al, is there anything new or additional that we need to be made aware of?
Mr. Nowak: Yes. At the Public Hearing on this item the conditions pertaining to the family
and group day care homes were read, since that time there were some revisions
to the conditions that would apply to those uses. I think those should be
explained to the audience. In the text of the provisions pertaining to the family
day care homes the condition stated that use shall not involve an increase in
off-street parking, not more than two additional vehicles at a time, has been
eliminated. And the requirement of 150 sq. ft. of play area per child with a
minimum area of 600 sq. ft. play area has been changed to a fixed
requirements for an outdoor play space of not less than 600 sq. ft. With respect
to provisions related to group day care homes the requirement that these
facilities have access to a public street at least 86 feet in width, in other words
a collector street, has been eliminated, and the standard for outdoor play space
has been changed from 150 sq. ft. per child and a total minimum of not less
than 1200 sq. ft. has been changed to a requirement of 100 sq. ft. per child
and a total minimum area of not less than 800 sq. ft. Also language has been
added requiring an annual inspection by the Inspection Department to insure
compliance with the State of Michigan licensing rules as well as City of
Livonia ordinances.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. That is the extent of the changes?
Mr. Nowak: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Since we are the petitioners in this case, are there any questions from the
Commissioners for Al? On a pending item, there has to be unanimous consent
by the Commissioners for the audience to speak. Is there anyone who objects
to opening this up to the audience? Since no one objects to opening this up to
the audience, at this time Mr. Dunn, you wanted to state something.
Harold Dunn, 18745 Fairway, Livonia. As I understand the proposed ordinance, as corrected
this evening because it wasn't in the document, an individual conducting a
family day care will have an automatic right to have that family if they comply
with the requirements. Is that correct?
Mr. Nowak: That is correct.
Mr. Dunn: The group day care home, 7 to 12 children as a waiver use, does that mean
before a person can have a group day care home, they must seek permission
from the Zoning Board of Appeals.?
Mr. McCann: It depends.
16800
``" Mr. Dunn: It is a waiver use. How does someone automatically have a right to a group
day care home if it is a waiver use?
Mr. Nowak: A waiver use requires the conducting of a public hearing by the Planning
Commission and approval by City Council.
Mr. Dunn: O.K. As I read the proposed waiver uses Section 4.03 that means at the end
where it says there shall be no grandfathering of existing day care homes? Is
that section still in the ordinance?
Mr. Nowak: Yes. The existing day care homes will have one year from the effective date of
the ordinance to comply with the provisions contained in the ordinance.
Mr. Dunn: At the end of one year, can someone who has a group day care home apply for
a waiver use in their present home, and if the Planning Commission and if the
City Council approves it, that person can then have a group day care in a
residence in a regular city street area. Is that correct?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. Dunn: The original discussion, I apologize I wasn't at the public hearing and could not
be at it, as I understood the original discussion was the possibility of doing
what we who circulated the petition in Livonia, as you are all aware, wanted
and that was to place the group day care homes on the collector roads. I know
that you discussed that but you are now saying that that will not be part of your
proposal to the City Council. Is that correct?
Mr. McCann: That is what one of the recommended ordinances is to vote on tonight. It has
been removed from tonight's proposal. Although it is still on the table.
Mr. Dunn: I understand, so it is still up to the Planning Commission whether they want to
include it in their proposal to the City Council whether the group day care
home will be on a collector road or not. I would like to make a few comments
then. I think the Planning Commission is correct in separating the issue of day
care from the definition of home occupation, it just makes it much easier.
Permitted uses of 1 to 6 children is accurate. It is exactly what our petition
says, meaning as I understand it, anyone living in any residence can have a
family day care of 1 to 6 and doesn't need any permission providing, of course,
they comply with all of the requirements. That's fine. The issue then becomes
one of a group day care home and our argument last year and still is, is that
group day care homes should be a permitted use, not a waiver use. We are in
favor of it being a permitted use not subject to the whims of the Planning
�,. Commission or some future Planning Commission, and not subject to the
whims of the City Council. But we say that the group day care homes should
be on a collector road which gives them a right automatically to have a group
day care home so long as they comply with the other requirements as are
appropriate, such as registration, etc. Not a problem. The problem with
allowing waiver uses of a group day care home will be a festering problem,
16801
constantly. Whenever someone wants to have a group day care home with 12
children in a residence on a normal small street, then you are going to go
through once, twice or three times a year who knows how many times, arguing
before this Planning Commission or some future City Council arguing if it
should be there or should it not be there. I think the City avoids all kinds of
problems. It becomes consistent with a simple approach, group day care
homes should a permitted use be only on a collector road. I think it is a
mistake not to say it that clear. You are going to have a constant problem. It is
not going to go away. I was hopeful and the people that I was working with,
we were hopeful that this Planning Commission and the City Council would
put an end to this argument in a very simple, clean honest way and that is
permitted uses for a group day care home but only on a collector road.
Otherwise, if the collector road requirement is not mandatory, then the woman
who lives directly behind my wife and I and our neighbors can, before the year
is up, apply for a waiver use and not leave her house and if this Planning
Commission agrees with the waiver use and if the City Council approves it,
then there on out, 5, 10 or 20 years from now, she can still sit there with 12
children as she does now and that is the source of a bitter, bitter fight. I am
asking this Planning Commission to change its approach to not have a group
day care home as a waiver use but to have a group day care home as a
permitted use just like a family day care home but a permitted use only on a
collector road. One final thing, I appreciate the Planning Commission giving
everyone the opportunity to speak very briefly, but I would ask Mr. Hale to
excuse himself from any further discussion or vote on this issue because he
was the attorney for the woman behind us and it was a very bittern, nasty fight
and he is biased. He is committed. I think the remaining members of the
board who were not involved in this fight and who had no direct interest in it,
should make the decision however you vote but I do think it is improper for
Mr. Hale, as a member of the Planning Commission, to be a party of any
discussion or any vote on this issue and he should remove himself from all
deliberations.
Mr. McCann: I state for the record, I leave it up to Mr. Hale to determine whether or not he
wants to vote, but this is not an issue where he has an economic interest or
personal interest, as he is not involved in a day care, so I don't see it as a
conflict.
Mr. Hale: I also would add that I am not currently representing Ms. Egan in any legal
capacity therefore I do not believe there is any legal conflict as well. I also
have no bias that prevents me from properly voting on this issue as well.
Mr. McCann: I am going to ask everyone to please keep their comments brief.
Ann Armstrong, 18713 Fairway. This all started with a child care center we had behind us
and there were nine neighbors that were fed up and took them to court. Then it
ended up in the Observer. When it got in the Observer we started getting all
kinds of telephone calls like you wouldn't believe. How can I help you, how
can I get in on this, I've got the same thing next door to me. We were shocked.
We decided we were going about this the wrong way so we started taking
16802
petitions around to Livonia and let the people vote, put it on a petition and let
them vote. At the time we wanted to go on the November ballot. At the time
we had 3,600 signatures. If we had had another week, we would have had
4,000 or 4,500 signatures. It was easy, the people said "what do you mean this
isn't a business in the home?" They pay taxes, this is a business in a home.
One gentleman said I have a garage. I pay taxes. Why can't I have it in my
garage? Why can't I do it here in my home? Another woman said, I am a
beautician, why can't I have it in my home? I suppose I could but I don't want
to bother my neighbors with all the traffic. These people think it is only the
senior citizens. If these people get out and talk to people, they will find out it
is not senior citizens. Believe me, the people are up to here and they say
Livonia does not keep up on these places or check up on them. So this is what
I have to say. If you had the time, you would hear what the people have to say
that it is a business in the home. No matter how you look at it, it is a business
in the home.
Mr. McCann: Mam, I am sorry we missed you last week but you have the opportunity to
speak this week.
Pat Naud, 33945 Roycroft, Livonia. My neighbor directly behind me has a day care and is
licensed by the State of Michigan for 12 children and when I told the Council
that when I hear the voices of the children in the back playing, it lights up my
life to hear. them. I have an electric scooter that I am able to get on and go
1%W around so that I can visit the children and I have met their parents at picnics in
the summer time. Over the years, I have met them. I feel it would be
devastating if Lillian were required to reduce the number of children to six
because it is so difficult to find good day care. She is required by the state of
have two helpers and I have seen the good care, the attention and the loving
care the children get and from me too. I just wanted you to know there is a
senior citizen here who really enjoys the children. Lillian's house is located on
three lots. She has lots of room for the kids and I don't think she should be
restricted, or the other ones, who can handle them conveniently. Thank you.
Bob Snyder, 16774 Ronnie Lane. I am not directly involved in this but I would like to talk
mainly for all the citizens of Livonia not just these group homes. When are
they going to realize that six non -family members on a daily basis is more than
enough? I personally think two - six is too many, as opposed to 1 to 12. It is
not fair to the neighbors to be awakened every morning at 6:00 am. with
children being dropped off, the cars parking, noise, loss of property value, and
additional insurance, it would require my moving. I think his issue has been
delayed long enough. In addition, I would like to address some of the
comments of the proponents of this ordinance. Someone to grandfather the
business that has 12 children. How can you grandfather an illegal business?
This is illegal! If I were running an illegal business, I would expect to be shut
down. Those that say reducing from 12 to 6 would result in a hardship, maybe
if two members of a family were running this business, maybe one of them
should go out and get a job. The opponents want an unlimited amount of
parking. As was stated if a homeowner had a party the parking would not be
limited, this may be true, however, people don't have parties every day. I
16803
understand you are talking about giving them leeway to park more than two
cars. I think they should be the same as everyone else. In summary, this
illegal business has been going on too long and it must be regulated and the
average homeowner must be considered.
Ralph Williams, 18630 Foch. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the opinion, the City
officials have been waltzing around this issue for about a year and a half. I
realize there are some city officials who would just as soon debate this as long
as they can and hope the problem will go away and especially so now with the
election coming up. It should be resolved promptly for the sake of the
children. I am not saying how it should be resolved but I think you should put
the vote on the Council which is where it belongs. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I don't see anyone else wishing to speak. I am going to look for a motion.
Mr. LaPine: With a waiver use with this type of group home, the way the ordinance is set
up now, the person who operates that home has to live in the home, is that
correct?
Mr. Nowak: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: The owner sells the property. The waiver use goes with the property means the
next person who moves into that house as long as he can get a certification
from the State of Michigan he can automatically operate a group home there,
correct?
Mr. Nowak: Correct, because waiver use runs with the land.
Mr. LaPine: That creates a problem for me. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: I am going to give an approving resolution. You know, we have worked hours,
and hours, and days and days, and months and months on this with the Law
Department and I am sure when we pass this on to the Council there will be
more changes but I think it is time that we did pass this on, so I am going to
approve giving existing group day care homes one year in which to comply.
Mr. LaPine: The items that we discussed at our last study session, which we put on hold,
feeder roads, is that now going to be in there or is it not going to be in there?
Mr. McCann: I think I might agree with you that it might be appropriate on the group day
care home but not on the family day care but it would be a waiver use where
the ZBA could waive that requirement.
Mr. Hale: The collector road requirement?
16804
Mr. McCann: Yes. Leave it to the ZBA to waive it. If we determine that the area is not
r.w appropriate for group day care homes with regard to collector road, that was
going to be my suggestion.
Mr. LaPine: Can I assume that is going to go back into this one?
Mr. McCann: No. That would be up to Mr. Alanskas to make the motion.
Mrs. Koons: Can I have clarification as to what we are agreeing to?
Mr. McCann: No one is agreeing to it yet but the maker of the motion and the supporter want
to add that with regard to group day care homes only, that it has to be on a
collector road. If it is not on a collector road, they have to go to ZBA and get
that part waived.
Mr. LaPine: Let me say, that Mr. Alanskas brought up a very good point, we have all
worked hard and long on this ordinance. We all don't agree and I want to go to
bat for Mr. Hale. I did not know that Mr. Hale represented Ms. Egan in this
case to be honest with you until I heard it tonight from Mr. Dunn. I know him
and I have had disagreements. We have all had disagreements, what should be
in this ordinance, what should not be in this ordinance. I don't think he is
biased in anyway. I think some things he has given in on and some things we
have given in on my side on which way we should go on these things. A
couple of things that bother me about this whole ordinance, I don't but the
concept that this is not a business. Nobody is going to convince me that this is
not a business. When you are making money, it is a business. I don't care how
you cut the mustard, it's a business no matter how you say it. I don't see any
difference in this type of operation than one with a one chair barber shop in a
basement in a house, or a one chair beauty shop in a basement in a home with
somebody doing business there. That is a business no matter how you cut the
mustard. I understand, one of the things that really bothers me more than
anything else about this whole scenario about this ordinance, we have heard
from the provider and we have heard from the people who use the provider.
We have heard from nobody else. This city is about 40,000 homes. We have
heard from about 100 people who are providing these services and from the
people who use these services. The other people haven't said a word. We have
to look at their position too. You can say they had an opportunity to come up
here also. But unfortunately, this is one of those ordinances that if you are
against it you are against motherhood and you are against children and it puts
them in an awkward position. People don't want to come up here and state
their position that they are for it or against something of this nature because
they are afraid. They are against children, I am not against children, I have
grandchildren, I love them. But we have to look at it from my perspective
from what is good for everyone in Livonia. But what bothers me is when
people tell me that this is not an occupation, business or professional services.
If it isn't, I don't know what it is. Being that what it may, and that is my
position, I think we need the ordinance. I think it is something that is here and
it is here to stay, so we have to face it. I have no objection to voting on the
ordinance tonight. There are a lot of things in here I disagree with, that you all
16805
know. There are a lot of things that other people on this board don't agree with
me on but I think overall, I think we have done a good job and I think the
`" Chairman has done an excellent job to bring us all together to get to the point
where we are tonight. Therefore, I can support it. I am not happy with it but I
can support it.
Mr. McCann: Mrs. Koons, you wanted to make a comment.
Mrs. Koons: Yes, there are a couple of areas to comment. I agree with Mr. LaPine, we have
worked hard, we have worked together, and we haven't dragged our feet. It
has taken us long because we have put in some thoughtful effort along with the
staff on this issue. It is at a point where I think we are all happier with it. I
don't_ know that we are the happiest with it. As far as the family day care home
use, those of you that have been following this issue know that we are not to
regulate a family day care home anymore than we could regulate a regular
home. I feel as I re -read the wording on the family day care home that none of
this is prohibitive and in the spirit of give and take, I can live with that. The
thing I cannot live with is the lack of grandfathering. This is not only a
business for these people who have followed every rule that has so far been in
place as far as licensing, these are the people who have played by the rules and
for us to come in and say we have new rules and if you can't comply you are
out of business, does not seem fair to me. Also on the other end of that are
people who have shopped long and hard for appropriate day care for their
children hoping, assuming that it would be there to hold their children in good
stead up until they can be in school or in school age child care, so I don't think
a year is enough.
Mr. McCann: How long would you suggest?
Mrs. Koons: At our study session I suggested two options, one grandfathering as long as the
owner occupant of the residence does not change and two, a five year
grandfathering which in my mind, if an infant began at a group day care could
at least get to the point where they were in kindergarten and more options open
up. Those are two suggestions from me.
Mr. McCann: So you are saying as long as the current occupant of the home is there that they
should be grandfathered in. Would we be able to grandfather them in Al, or
would we have to put a time limit on it?
Mr. Nowak: I think you could condition it that way.
Mr. McCann: That it runs with the current occupant of the home?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I don't see how you can do that. If you grandfather it in you are giving them
.► up front a waiver use, are you not?
Mr. McCann: Only for a certain period of time.
16806
Mr. LaPine: You can't condition a waiver use. A waiver use is there is stay. Once you give
it to them, they've got it.
Mr. McCann: You can condition a waiver use, you can't condition a zoning change, but we
can condition a waiver use, can't we?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Normally, it's for a date certain but I think a person's ownership can be for a
period of a legal term. It is their ownership of the home that is acting as the
catalyst for that business which is a requirement under the ordinance, I think
we could condition it to read that way.
Mr. Alanskas: Just as the maker of the motion, I believe grandfathering is fair and I would not
want to change the motion that I read.
Mr. Hale: Mr. Alanskas, is your motion now including the amendment as to collector
streets?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Hale: It is including the amendment as suggested by Mr. LaPine?
`"" Mr. Alanskas: Correct and that is all.
Mr. McCann: For group day care, not family day care.
Mr. Hale: Simply putting it into the waiver use protocol. Personal comments that I have
is first to the issue of bias. Had I truly had some bias or personal affront to
those with an opinion seeking to limit in-home child care in whatever fashion,
I could have easily objected to any additional comments to have been made
and there wouldn't have been any. My position is that your opinions count and
there wouldn't have been any. My position was that your opinions count as
well. We are entitled to hear your opinions. You weren't here at the original
public hearing but I came to the conclusion that it was important to hear what
you had to say. My comment is that the issues that are before us have come a
long way from the issues that were involved in the litigation. I really and truly
believe, as Mr. LaPine said, I don't believe I have any kind of personal bias on
this matter. I think I have studied it long with the other commissioners and
that my own feeling on this is as follows. I am not comfortable with
regulating zero to six in the fashion in which the current resolution proposes.
I don't know that we can do it. I don't know that. It is unclear in the statue
whether we are permitted to regulate them at all. I could go along with simply
having a permit system where they are registered with the City for safety and
health reasons. I could not in good conscience vote as far as collector streets,
`�- in any fashion, including waiver use. We cannot set the stage to have only
children on collector streets in these facilities. I have had personal experiences
with children from child are facilities being injured involving collector streets
16807
and I just cannot in good conscience accept that as part of any proposal but I
do feel that grandfathering is important. If I would be biased in anyway it
would be based on the fact that I have two children of my own that I know that
if they were in child care it would be difficult for me to say to myself we are
going to uproot them and possibly separate them for the simple reason that we
are not going to allow grandfathering for the existing facilities. So those are
my comments at this time. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann: I have a couple comments. Is it a business? Absolutely, it is a business, but the
question before us is, is it a business that is proper in our neighborhood streets?
I think it is the best place for it. Obviously, I've got children, I think
everybody that has been involved with children, that is not the issue. The issue
is, is it a good place to care for children? It is but it also has to be the place
where we live and do everything else so we have to do it with responsibility to
our neighbors. We are talking here about people that have all registered. That
have all complied with all the laws of the state. These are not illegal
businesses. Everyone that we have been aware of has complied with the state
requirements. They have done everything that they are supposed to do. There
is nothing illegal about it. What we are trying to do is just make sure that we
have standards within society to work with that we think will benefit the
children and the family and the neighborhood in the long run. The reason I
talked about a collector street was for the particular reason that a particular day
care might be too much for some areas. It may be just too intense for the lot
sizes, or depending on the neighbors, or depending on what is going on in that
area, the amount of noise, the amount of roads. It just gives us something that
we could look at individually. I hope with that understood, group day care
might be better placed on collector roads. It was with the hope that the Zoning
Board of Appeals could look at that more closely and say that this isn't a
problem if we have a suitable home. But I am of the opinion that Mrs. Koons
is right, that so far we have found a lot of people that are doing a good job
around the city. I don't want to lose them as centers for our children but yet I
want them to comply with fences. If you are going to have children playing in
the backyard, 12 children, no matter how many people, especially if you have
toddlers. They are not easy to keep track of, you should have a fence. That is
why I wanted them to come in compliance with whatever the conditions they
could. I want to move this along tonight. I don't want to be a stumbling block.
Bob, do you have any suggestions that you have to increasing the time limit for
these?
Mr. Alanskas: No, I still think the one year is ample time for someone to comply with and I
don't want to change that.
Mr. McCann: I guess we have a motion on the floor. Why don't we see how that goes and
send it on to the City Council. They will have a copy of the minutes and they
will be able to work on this and they have all the information that we have.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was
16808
#4-64-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing and Regular Meeting having
been held on March 23, 1999, on Petition 99-2-6-1 by the City Planning
`` Commission pursuant to Council Resolution 405-98, and Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02 and 4.03 of the Livonia
Zoning Ordinance to set forth zoning requirements for family (1 to 6 children)
and group (7 to 12 children) day care homes in residential districts, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 99-2-6-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will allow uses which are not
presently provided for under the Zoning Ordinance #543, although
these uses are prevalent in the City of Livonia:
2) That the proposed language amendment will provide for family and
group day care homes as legitimate uses while, at the same time,
providing for sufficient control over their location and nature;
3) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to
protect the healthy, safety and welfare of its citizens.
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.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: Hale, Koons
ABSENT: Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Application for Review
and Approval by Valvoline Instant Oil Change requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of
the zoning ordinance for the property located at 31151 Five We Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to remove this item from the table?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#4-65-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby remove from
the table Application for Review and Approval by Valvoline Instant Oil
1490, Change requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as
outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for the property located at
31151 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23.
16809
Mr. McCann: Al, is there anything from the last meeting?
Mr. Nowak: There is no new correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Sir, you are the petitioner? Is there anything you would like to tell us?
Robert Tamm, 12836 Foley Road, Emmett, Michigan. The only thing I would like to say is I
have a concern and my concern is, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems,
based on last month's meeting, that this is more of a question of this board if
you folks wanted to have a general opportunity to review these things or if
you want to leave it with the Zoning Board of Appeals. My concern is that
we may be getting caught in the middle of your two groups.
Mr. McCann: You are not caught in the middle of it. It is just a procedural thing as to how
we believe it should be done. It is a generality in the City and in this instance
your petition is exactly on point. We are making a decision that will probably
carry down the line on whatever we do.
Mr. Tamm: O.K.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved it was
#4-66-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Application for Review and Approval by Valvoline Instant Oil Change
requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined
in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for the property located at 31151
Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as
shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on March 2,
1999, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section
18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That this area shall remain in its present state and any changes to this
area shall require Planning Commission review and approval;
3) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated March 18, 1999:
that the existing trash dumpster that is not enclosed shall either
be removed or screened from public view
that the entire parking lot shall be repaired and double striped
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
16810
AYES: Koons, Hale, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine
ABSENT: Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Al, just one more time, now if this gentleman should sell this property and a
new use comes in there, do they have to come back before us for approval for
that greenbelt or for a protective wall?
Mr. Nowak: If it was a use that required site plan approval, in other words if they were
making a change or if they were expanding the building or doing some other
change to the building.
Mr. Alanskas: No, let's say it's going to be the same size building but it could be a cause that
could be intrusive to the neighboring people that live around there.
Mr. McCann: Unless it would require a waiver use. Right now it is zoned what?
Mr. Tamm: I know that we were a waiver use when we came in the first place.
Mr. Alanskas: It is zoned C-2. So someone else coming in there would have the right to keep
`" that greenbelt?
Mr. Nowak: As a matter of fact, they would be required to keep the greenbelt unless they
were going to make a change which would require site plan approval which
would be reviewed at that time.
Mr. Alanskas: Then it would be reviewed at that time?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: All right, thank you.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is 99-3-8-12 by Baki's
Unique Homes requesting approval of all plan s required by Section 18.58 of
the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to
the commercial building located at 29418 Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 35.
Mr. McCann: This begins the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. Members of
the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items.
Mr. Miller: This site is located at the northwest comer of Joy and Middlebelt. The site is
located immediately to the south and west of the Town & Country Bicycle
Shop. Presently on the site are three buildings, one of which is a garage. Two
of the buildings, the garage and the multi -tenant building located adjacent to
16811
the intersection of Joy Road and Middlebelt Road, would be demolished. The
,,r,W petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story, 3,413 sq. ft. addition to the
remaining building located on the northeast corner of Joy Road and Fremont
Avenue. The existing building is 5, 431 sq. ft. in size. If this proposal were
approved, the completed structure would become a combined total of 8,844 sq.
ft. in size. The new building would be L-shaped and become a strip center of
more than four units. Access to the site would be by drives off all three
abutting streets. The parking would be split into two separate lots. The lot in
front of the stores would provide 29 spaces and the lot to the rear of the
building would ftimish 15 spaces. A trash dumpster area is shown in the rear
parking lot. Parking spaces required is 57 spaces, 44 parking spaces are
provided. Because the existing building is nonconforming, due to the fact it is
deficient in front and side yard setbacks and the provided parking is deficient,
the petitioner first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. A variance
(case #9811-154) was granted at the Board's February 23, 1999, Special
Meeting. In staffs opinion the landscaping proposed for the development
should be enhanced. They are required to have 15% landscaping and they are
showing 9% landscaping. More trees and/or tall shrubbery would provide a
better screening of the parking lots. The 11 parking spaces along the Joy Road
right-of-way would be right up against the sidewalk and not screened at all.
Planter boxes or pots along the storefronts would help soften the building's
appearance. The Landscape Plan shows only grass would be planted around
the trash dumpster area. A note on the plan indicates that "all landscape areas
shall be provided with a readily available and acceptable water supply". The
Building Elevation Plan shows that the new addition would be constructed out
of brick, on three sides, that would match the existing building. The north or
rear elevation of the addition would be constructed out of concrete block. The
rear elevation of the existing structure is brick. A decorative synthetic stucco
parapet wall would run along the entire top half of the new storefronts (south
& east elevation). No color rendering has been submitted at this time.
Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated March 30, 1999, that
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct an addition to the commercial building
located on property located at the above referenced address." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. There is a letter which reads:
"The proposal site plan provides for an addition of 3,413 sq. ft. of space. It
would appear from the elevation plans that there may be several tenants at this
location. This site, according to the petitioner's site plan, would require a total
number of 57 parking spaces. The site plan is deficient by 13 spaces. Without
any further insight into the use of the space, the Police Department cannot
recommend the addition to the existing building. If the plans were to be
approved, the handicap spaces must be individually posted in compliance with
`AW the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control devices; no sharing of
handicap signs between adjacent spaces." The letter is signed by John B.
Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated April 15, 1999,
16812
from the Inspection Department which reads: "Pursuant to your request of
March 25, 1999, the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed.
�"' The following is noted: (1) The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance
(9811-154) 2/23/99 for deficient front yard setback (at 47 feet) and deficient
parking (44 spaces). (2) Property was vacant for more than one year so all site
requirements and building requirements, including accessibility, must meet
current codes. (3) Existing protective wall is deficient in height (at 4'6") and
needs repair. The deteriorated cap must be removed, new shadow block added
to proper height, a new cap installed and repairs made as needed. The wall
must be certified by a Structural Engineer. Petitioner could also remove wall
and install a new wall. (4) Dumpster is required to be enclosed and is not
indicated on plan sheet C-1 or C-2. (5) Landscaping as proposed at 10% is
deficient 5% of the required 15%. Plan specified sod or hydro -seed and must
be clarified to sod. Plan does not address required irrigation.. (6) Plan does
not address lighting requirements. All lighting must be shielded from the
abutting residential property. (7) Plan does not address required double
striping. (8) Plan shows incorrect barrier free parking. One space must be van
accessible (8 foot space with an 8 foot aisle). Other barrier free spaces must be
8 foot wide with a 5 foot aisle. Accessible spaces must be closest to main
entries. (9) Plans do not provide wall sections to determine exterior materials
and must be clarified." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Baki, there is a lot on that list. Do you need another week to look this
over?
Mr. Baki: No, I have answers for everything. I mean, I just got this list on Friday.
I didn't have enough time to get a revision on the plan. Let me state my name.
Sam Baki, 36700 Seven Mile, Livonia. We have an existing building as everybody probably
drove by, that has been there located at this corner for ages. This building is
not in a good condition or the setting of the building is not appealing for the
corner or for any business to operate out of. At this time I am representing the
owner of this property. After looking at some studies the most feasible use out
of this building is to do a plan tike we came with. Definitely we have some
sufficient items that we have to consider. The existing building at this time is
12, 806 sq. ft. of the property which is way over what we are expecting to put
in at this time. With respect to the parking, we are aware of that and that is
why we requested to go through the ZBA for that. The extra 5% landscaping
that we could use, there is a location on this site where we could put it in there.
This location, there is an existing concrete walk, the original concrete walk, it
is not the actual sidewalk. It has been used as a sidewalk but it is not a
sidewalk because it sits on the property because a sidewalk sits outside of the
property on the right-of-way. We could take that out completely and landscape
it, leave the entrance as a drive and landscape whole area right off of Joy Road.
That will I believe increase our percentage of landscaping and rebuild the
•�. sidewalk off the right-of-way.
16813
Mr. McCann: Bill, can you give us a percentage if we took the sidewalk and moved it to the
right-of-way, how much that will increase the landscaping by. You've got 5
feet by how long is the section?
Mr. Baki: You are talking total lineage feet 246 minus 25 so you are 221 times 5.
Mr. McCann: You've got another 1,100 sq. ft. of landscaping.
Mr. Nowak: Scott, in your review of this item would you be able to determine what that
would result in an increase of the percentage?
Mr. Baki: We are required to have 10% to 15% landscaping which is 3200 to 4200 sq. ft.
We have actually 3200 sq. ft. so it would bring us into the 4800 sq. ft. which
brings us within the 4800 sq. ft. of landscaping. It if it a 1,000, it brings us to
4200 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: You would still be a little bit short of landscaping.
Mr. Baki: It would be short a little bit of landscaping.
Mr. McCann: You could put the landscaping along the east wall there were we talked about.
Mr. Baki: The owner of the property due to the fact, between the cost of the actual site
and the cost of construction, is really at a tight condition with respect to square
footage. He is already losing a lot of square footage out of it. He bought it as
is. He was under the assumption that somebody was going to buy the property,
tear the whole thing and build one of these drug stores or one of these stores by
itself. It didn't go through and after a year and a half of sitting around doing
nothing with it, we decided going back and forth that this is one way that he
can live with respect to square footage. I understand it is only a small amount
to lose the square footage is not something he was looking forward to because
of the actual cost that will be involved renovating this whole building and the
whole site. Because we are going to go through extensive expenses to do all
that.
Mr. McCann: What about the east elevation on the north side of the building?
Mr. Baki: Yes. That is an oversight by the architect. We will be putting glass on this
east elevation.
Mr. McCann: How far back?
Mr. Baki: We will go back about 15' to 16this way and we will leave about 10 feet for
storage area.
Mr. McCann: Flip back to the front sheet. You've got no sidewalk You've got nothing but
the brick wall coming down the driveway on the northeast end, correct?
Wouldn't it be necessary for anybody coming down Middlebelt Road that is
going to walk in to use those stores to have a sidewalk or anybody parking on
16814
that side. Originally what we wanted was a sidewalk there and some
*ftw landscaping. You are telling us we can't have landscaping. Shouldn't we have
a sidewalk there just for safety precautions? You have a sidewalk in front of
your store, correct?
Mr. Baki: That's right. That is where the front entrance is going to be glass, no doors.
Mr. McCann: For anybody coming around there, wouldn't you think it would be appropriate
to have a sidewalk there?
Mr. Baki: Most of the times, if you look at the conditions, a lot of strip malls, or a lot of
stores, most of the time they don't have it. They have just a drive right next to
it and there are several in the area.
Mr. McCann: But not on a main road like that.
Mr. Baki: There are several on a main road. I mean for somebody who is coming in from
here is still going to be crossing from the parking lot and it is not a big distance
for people to walk 26 feet to come into the stores.
Mr. McCann: I have no more questions.
Mr. Alanskas: My notes say the existing building is 5400 sq. ft.
Mr. Baki: No, the existing building on the site that we are tearing down along with the
garage is 12,800 sq. ft
Mr. Alanskas: But you are going to go down to 88?
Mr. Baki: Exactly.
Mr. Alanskas: Now even with that you are going to have a lot more people coming into your
businesses and you are short of your parking and that is going to create a large
problem for people going into that area for services. What do you plan on
doing to get another 13 spaces?
Mr. Baki: Most of these businesses at this time, we are talking to people, one of the
clients are the Pizza Hut or the Pizza store that they carry out. They don't have
people sitting in there.
Mr. Alanskas: In other words, people will be coming and going at all times.
Mr. Baki: Exactly. But they are not going to have people sitting in there all the time.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that but we call for 57 spaces and you only have 44. Just as one
commissioner, it sounds like you are trying to make a larger building for what
can go there with all your permitted uses. Have you considered down scaling
so you can more landscaping in and more parking spaces?
,%W
16815
Mr. Baki: That is why I have responded. The owner, and we reviewed everything, due to
the cost between the land cost itself and the construction cost itself, if we lose
any square footage he'll reserve to stay with the same building and fix it up
and leave it the way it is. Because of the cost involved with tearing the old
building down and redoing this whole existing building. This whole existing
building is not in good condition. All of the flooring has to be ripped out.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done to upgrade both buildings. He
looked at his cost and it is cheaper for him to fix the buildings at both sites, as
it is at this time and leave everything the way that it is just by fining around it.
Mr. Alanskas: But he has things to consider and so do we and by doing this thing that you say
you want to, we are creating a parking problem. We are creating an
inconvenience to the people that will be going to that area. I just don't think
that the plans that you have would work for the citizens of Livonia. As one
commissioner, I think it should be tabled. You have sidewalks to be
considered, landscaping to consider, parking to be considered and the
building. As one commissioner, I think this should be tabled.
Mr. LaPine: Is 8861 Middlebelt part of this whole parcel?
Mr. Baki: No, it is not.
Mr. LaPine: So you don't have anything to do with that building?
Mr. Baki: No, I do not.
Mr. LaPine: Parking spots 30 through 44, that is new parking for you, correct? Tell me
how those people who park there get to the new building.
Mr. Baki: Mostly it is going to be for the employees. There are back doors.
Mr. LaPine: There are back doors? And all these people that are going to park there are
employees?
Mr. Baki: Yes. Mostly it will be employees.
Mr. LaPine: You've got too much of a hodge podge. I can't vote on this tonight. It needs
some work on it.
Mr. McCann: Al, this building has been closed over a year hasn't it?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Although this is not a waiver use, for him to re -open it as a business at this
point, he would have to pass all inspections, wouldn't he?
Mr. Nowak: Yes. Because of the building not being used for over a year.
16816
Mr. McCann: Even as commercial use and the proper zoning he would still have to meet all
the city ordinances, update those buildings, electrical, building, walls,
everything would have to be brought up to code.
Mr. Nowak: He would have to comply with current regulations..
Mr. McCann: That is not an option for your client is it? The cost of redoing those buildings
and he wouldn't have proper parking. Would the parking be a problem or
would he be grandfathered in on the parking for the two old buildings?
Mr. Nowak: No, he wouldn't be grandfathered in because I know of cases in the city where
sometimes the building occupies the entire parcel and there is no off street
parking provided whatsoever, the Inspection Department will not allow
occupancy of that building without the parking. So he will have to meet that
requirement.
Mr. McCann: So your client does not have that option of using that building right now for
commercial use. That is not an option. His only option is what he is going to
tear down and what he is going to build. there. So let's not deal with that
anymore, O.K., Mr. Baki?
Mr. Baki: What I am saying he is going through the expenses to remodel both buildings.
The cost of the remodeling is way cheaper than building a new building.
11%W Mr. McCann: But he can't remodel because he doesn't have sufficient parking. He can
remodel buildings all he wants but he still can't get an occupancy permit
because he doesn't have enough parking.
Mr. Baki: Even the site exists with the square footage on site?
Mr. McCann: That's correct.
Mr.Baki: I haven't seen that unless somebody was requested to tear some buildings
down to gain a parking lot.
Mr. McCann: Well, it happens when they are unoccupied for over a year. So let's deal with
what he can do. I think a tabling motion would be in order. You have a lot of
things to deal with in regard to the lighting standards, your irrigation of sod,
double striping, handicap accessible. I think you need to move that sidewalk
down to get as much landscaping as possible and I think you need to move
that building in a little bit and get a sidewalk and landscaping on that east side
so that you might get a couple of other commissioners to vote for this.
Remember Mr. Piercecchi will back for the next meeting and he doesn't let any
of this stuff fly. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved it was
#4-67-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission dos hereby determine to
table Petition 99-3-8-12 by Baki's Unique Homes requesting approval of all
16817
plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
*AW proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 29418
Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 to May 4, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-3-8-13 by
Suburban Eye Care requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to alter the building
elevations and construct a porte-cochere to the building located at 32415 Five
Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. McCann: I received a letter dated April 19, 1999, that was addressed to Mr. Miller
stating, "Please be advised that due to revisions to our building plans, we are
requesting the Planning Department table our request to approve the submitted
drawings. We would appreciate if we could be added to the May 18`h meeting
agenda for approval of revised drawings. We will forward these revised plans
to you in the next few weeks." The letter is signed by Frank Tarwacki. Is
there a motion to table Petition 99-3-8-13 to the 18`h of May.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
94-68-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission dos hereby determine to
1,, table to May 18, 1999, Petition 99-3-8-13 by Suburban Eye Care requesting
approval of all plans s required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to alter the building elevations and construct a
porte-cochere to the building located at 32415 Five Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by JP Properties, on behalf of Fairfield Inn, requesting approval
for signage for the hotel located at 17350 Fox Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This is the Fairfield Inn that is being constructed. It is located on the north side
of Six Mile between I-275 and Newburgh. The applicant is requesting
approval for 3 wall signs for the Fairfield Inn presently under construction.
Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign
ordinance, the applicant first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. A
variance (case #9901-12) was granted at the Board's March 16, 1999 Special
Meeting. The signage granted by the Zoning Board and proposed is one for
the west (front) elevation that will be 29 sq. ft. One on the north elevation
which will be 67 sq. ft and one on the east (rear) elevation that will 116 sq. ft.
for a combined total of 212 sq. ft. Signage permitted for this site under Section
18.50H for one wall sign not to exceed 219 sq. ft. They are in excess of two
wall signs and 7 sq. ft. in size.
16818
1%WW Mrs. Koons: They are not in excess of 7 sq. ft.
Mr. Miller: You are right, I read it wrong. They are allowed 219 and they had 212.
Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence on this?
Mr. Nowak: There was a letter from the Inspection Department dated April 9, 1999, which
reads: "Pursuant to your request of March 25, 1999, the sign details for the
above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The Zoning
Board of Appeals under appeal case #9901-12 dated March 22, 1999 granted
three wall signs on the north, east and west elevations of the Fairfield.
Allowed for wall signage for this building would be 219 sq. ft. Proposed and
granted was: on the west elevation, 29 sq. ft. on the north, 67 sq. ft. and on the
east, 120 sq. ft. for a total of 216 sq. ft."
Mr. McCann: Any discussion? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by JP Properties on behalf of
Fairfield Inn requesting approval for signage for the hotel located at 17350 Fox
`... Drive, Livonia, 148154 in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Metro Detroit Sign, as received by the
Planning Commission on April 1, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this
business closes, or midnight, whichever is earlier;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I just have this one question.. We just gave them this signage and it says
additional signage. Are they going to come back?
Mr. Miller: No. I just put that in there in case they did want to come back.
Mr. Hale: The petitioner is here? Why don't we ask him.
Kal Jabara, JP Properties, 388 S. Main, Plymouth, Michigan. This is the all the signage that
will be on the building.
Mr. Alanskas: So we can strike #3?
16819
VAW Mr. McCann: Well no, we can leave it in.
Mr. Jabara: I would say that somewhere down the road, we did close on another parcel to
the north which will be another Marriott which will be called Town Place
Suites.
Mr. McCann: But that is another building?
Mr. Jabara: No. We probably will come back and request a small monument sign on Fox
Drive at the entrance next to Residence Inn where you come in to the Fairfield
and Town Place Suites. But that is going to be a year from now.
Mr. McCann: So that is going to be a new hotel coming in there?
Mr. Jabara: Yes. It has already been approved.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. Jabara: Would you clarify when we have to shut the sign off. I didn't quite understand.
Mr. McCann: We have a motion on the floor. Correct?
Mr. Hale: We can amend the motion.
Mr. McCann: One hour after the business closes, but the business never closes, does it?
Mrs. Koons: The resolution does state "that all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour after this business closes, or midnight which ever comes earlier".
Maybe we should take that out. Maker of the motion says take out "one hour
after business closes, or midnight, whichever is earlier".
Mr. Jabara: All right. Thank you.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#4-69-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by J -P Properties on behalf of
Fairfield Inn requesting approval for signage for the hotel located at 17350 Fox
Drive, Livonia, MI 48154 in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Metro Detroit Sing, as received by the
Planning Commission on April 1, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
"ft- 2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
16820
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted
I%W with out the midnight stipulation.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Application for Review
and Approval by the Neely-Turowski Funeral Home requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt ford the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of
the zoning ordinance for the property located at 30200 Five Mile Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile between Doris and Oporto.
The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the
protective wall that is required between an office zoned property and a
residentially zoned property. According to the City Law Department, when a
protective wall is required a property owner has one of three choices. To either
install the wall, obtain a temporary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
or have the wall permanently waived by the substitution of a greenbelt. Such
substitution shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and/or
City Council. The applicant is requesting that the existing landscapes
greenbelts along the north or rear property line and along the east property line
be accepted as appropriate substitutions. The section behind the funeral home
is landscaped and contains a meandering earth berm. The greenbelt area to the
east is a large open flat grassy field with a few trees.
�.. Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: No.
Lenoard Turowski, 17441 Ellen, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us why you are requesting the greenbelt?
Mr. Turowski: I thought the greenbelt, shrubbery and grass provide a nicer picture than a
cement wall or block wall.
Mr. McCann: I won't say anything about intrusiveness to your neighbors. Any questions
from the questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, then a motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved, it was
#4-70-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Application for Review and Approval by Neely-Turowski Funeral Home
requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined
in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 30200 Five
Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the greenbelts along the north and east property lines, as shown on
the plan received by the Planning Commission on March 17,1999, is
16821
hereby substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of
the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That these areas shall remain in its present state and any changes to
these areas shall require Planning Commission and City Council review
and approval.
A roll cal vote was taken with the following results:
AYES:
Alanskas, Hale, Koons, and McCann
NAYS:
LaPine
ABSENT:
Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of
the 779' Regular Meeting held on February 9, 1999.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#4-71-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 779`h Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on February 9, 1999, are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the
minutes of the 780`h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February
23, 1999.
On a motion Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#4-72-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 780t` Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held on February 23, 1999 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the
minutes of the 781'` Regular Meeting held on March 9, 1999.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#4-73-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 781 ' Regular Meeting held on March 9,
1999, are hereby approved.
16822
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 783`d Regular Meeting held
N... on April 20, 1999 was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
ATTE<1
/rw
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Michael S. Hale, Acting Secretary