The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2018-02-13 MINUTES OF THE 1,117th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING 1 HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 13, 2018, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,117th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Kevin Priddy Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2018-01-01-02 CLIFF HEELEY Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 01-01-02 submitted by Cliff Heeley pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 20209, 20219, 20225, 20235 and 20307 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from R-U-F (Rural Urban Farm) to OS (Office Services). February 13, 2018 28439 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone five contiguous parcels from R-U-F, Rural Urban Farm, to OS, Office Services. These five parcels are located on the west side of Farmington between Norfolk and Eight Mile Roads. Altogether, the site constitutes roughly five acres with 363 feet of frontage on Farmington and a depth of 600 feet. Houses currently exist on two of the five parcels, 20235 and 20225 Farmington Road. These and all the accessory buildings would be removed in order to make room for the new development. The remaining three parcels on the site are vacant. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the development of a skilled nursing and living facility that is currently being referred to as Livonia Healthcare. The operator of the facility would specialize in the treatment and rehabilitation of persons with severe and traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. The average length of stay for residents undergoing treatment and therapy would range from about three to nine months. The type of use proposed is allowed within an OS office zoning district with waiver use approval under the provisions set forth in Section 9.03(g) of the Zoning Ordinance. In looking at the abutting land uses, immediately to the north of these properties is a five building office complex that is zoned OS, Office Services. To the east across Farmington Road are a variety of office buildings as well as the George Subu's Leather Bottle restaurant, which is zoned C-2. Directly to the west of the subject parcels is the On the Pond condominium development which is zoned R-7, Multiple Family, and lying immediately to the south are residential homes under the R-3 zoning classification. Those homes are within the Windridge Village Subdivision. Looking at the conceptual site plan that was submitted with application, the plans show, for Phase I of the project, the construction of a one-story skilled nursing facility that would contain 24 beds. In addition, there would be two free-standing buildings, an elder care stepdown unit and a free-standing medical clinic and rehab gym that would be located at the rear of the complex. Those are the two smaller buildings located to the west of the larger building. The main building would measure roughly 21,990 square feet, and the two smaller buildings, the elder care stepdown and the medical clinic and rehab gym, would each measure 3,810 square feet and 1,988 square feet, respectively. The building would be setback from the south property line and the rear of the abutting lots along Norfolk Avenue roughly 118 feet. A similar setback is shown for the buildings from the west property line abutting On the Pond condominiums. The drive aisle that would be closest to the residential lots is shown set back roughly 82 feet from the south property line. The plans do show a future 12-room addition that would measure 6,985 square feet. This would bring the entire facility to a square footage of roughly 34,773 square feet, February 13, 2018 28440 representing a lot coverage of roughly 16 percent. Twenty-seven parking spaces are shown on the site plan. The Future Land Use Plan does designate this area as Medium Density Residential, which typically correspondence to a density of between four and 14 dwelling units per acre. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 30, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced rezoning petition. We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time. The existing parcels are assigned the addresses of#20209, #20219, #20225, #20235 and #20307 Farmington Road. The legal descriptions provided are missing information, and should be revised once the properties are combined. For purposes of this petition, the following description should be used: The South 363.00 feet of the North 1,188.00 feet of the East % of the East of the Northeast % of Section 4, Town 1 South, Range 9 East, City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan except the East 60.00 feet thereof. The existing parcels are currently serviced by public utilities, but the submitted drawings do not show proposed connections or calculations, so we cannot determine impacts to the existing systems at this time. The developer has been in contact with this Department, and is aware of the site plan requirements including storm water detention and the requirements for certifying that the storm sewer outlet has the available capacity to handle the additional flows from the site. It should be noted that the developer will also be required to obtain Wayne County permits for any work within the Farmington Road right-of-way. We will provide a detailed review once full Engineering site plans have been submitted for approval." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are current Real Property Taxes due, as shown below: $1,513.17 Winter 2017; Current if paid by 2/14/2018."The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The third letter is from the Finance Department, dated January 30, 2018, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. We February 13, 2018 28441 received an email from an individual dated February 6, 2018, which reads as follows: "To the people making the rules on this at the Planning Commission, for #2018-01-01-02 rezone off of Farmington. Please think like you live at On the Pond when you vote. Farmington Road does not have families 'living'at the space some development want to change from residential. Thank you for sending this out to me. I am sorry I did not get my reply back to you yesterday. I am replying by email because I will be away for the meeting. I understand building is going to happen, but I am very opposed to having the back side of commercial looking buildings in my residential view. We already have an ugly wall in the front of the complex to cover ugly commercial space. I am asking for a huge buffer of very well maintained green space, and strict rules of workers out there if the city agrees to anything other than private owned residential space. 1 am in the back corner. This really affects my living space I think. I am opposed to added noise, smells from trucks, smells from trash. People wandering around that don't have ownership. There is plenty of empty space already commercial, can't we keep this for private homes? Thank you. Please really consider my plea." Again, the email was provided by Edith Szubeczak, 33561 Pondview, Livonia 48152. Mr. Wilshaw: In addition, I believe we received some additional correspondence that just came in today from folks that are in the audience. I think they will speak to those items. We'll hear from them. Mr. Taormina: I did fail to read one other email correspondence, if I can read that into the record. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Taormina: This was an email that the Planning Department received on January 31, 2018, which reads as follows: "I am very concerned about the proposal to rezone a parcel on Farmington between Norfolk and 8 Mile from residential to commercial. I believe this would lower my property values; I have safety concerns. There is a large amount of currently vacant office/medical space in close proximity to this property. The K-Mart site as well as the Kroger complex has a large vacancy rate as well. I believe the Master Plan calls for homes to attract new younger families to the city." Susan Mendyk, 20125 Myron Drive, Livonia, MI 548152. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. February 13, 2018 28442 Cliff Heeley, LW Livonia, L.L.C., 1630 Des Peres Road, Suite 310, St. Louis, Missouri 63131. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Heeley. What would you like to add to what Mark has already said about your proposal. Mr. Heeley: I brought a slide presentation if I could. Second slide please. As I said, my name is Cliff Heeley. I'm with Rangecomm Development. I am the applicant on this project. I'm here tonight to discuss our intention to build a $15 million specialty skilled nursing facility on the property. The facility will specialize in traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury. These facilities provide 24-hour in-patient care through individualized care plans for medically complex cases. This type of facility provides a residential alternative for recovery as opposed to institutional hospital settings. This type of facility is licensed by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and requires a Certificate of Need. This Certificate was received on February 5. In order to construct our skilled nursing facility, as the staff report suggests, we need to rezone to the office classification and then achieve waiver use approval. As the staff report said, the City's Future Land Use Map for the parcel currently calls for Medium Density Residential between four and 14 units per acre. This would be between 20 and 70 units. RC classification would be between 50 two-bedroom units or 60 one-bedroom units. These would be a two-story construction. Our project would be single story construction. Phase I, which just to clarify, and actually we can move forward to the landscape exhibit. Phase I would just be the eastern building. The two buildings on the back would be part of Phase II. Phase I would consist of 4.8 units per acre on the lower end of this density. If we were to have the substantial need required to expand the facility, it would bring the entire density up to 9.6, which would be about the halfway point in the density range for the Future Land Use. That would not occur for probably two to three years and then it would require a Certificate of Need issued by the State before we could proceed with that. As I mentioned, it's going to be single story. It's going to be quiet, and it's going to be low impact. Skilled nursing facilities are often located on the edges of single family, multi-family and commercial spaces. Part of the reason for that is being a single story residential look. It's very transitional. We feel it would be a good spot for the site. We considered a number of things when designing our site, not the least of which was the setback requirements and the practicalities of the site. When looking at our western site border, a 50-foot setback would be typical. Upon completion of Phase I, we will have a 256-foot setback and that would be before the berm and the driveway on the condominium February 13, 2018 28443 space. If and when Phase II is developed, the setback will be 118 feet. We also want to show deference to our southern neighbors. We've pushed the building as far northeast as we can. Obviously, those lots have been vacant and we understand that the residents have probably become accustomed to an open feel. So we've got 118 foot setback there and we would be looking to either build a privacy fence, if that's what the residents want, or if they want the open feel and the city will allow a variance, leave that open and just do a very nice landscaping package there. As I've said, we've done everything we can to move this site to the northeast, but I'd be very interested in any questions from both our future neighbors or the Planning Commission, anything we can address, be happy to answer. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. I'm sure we'll have some questions from the staff here. We'll start with the Commission. Is there any questions for the representative of the petitioner? Ms. Smiley: I was wondering why you picked this piece of property because it is already zoned for Medium Density housing. Mr. Heeley: Typically, that is the use classification and the type of area where skilled nursing facilities go. That would be a Medium Density, either a multi-family or a townhome-type area is typically where it lands next to commercial, in between that and single family. Ms. Smiley: Okay, but it is zoned for families and homes, not really zoned for office. Mr. Heeley: Correct, but since it is an in-patient facility and it is residential, that's typically where these would go. Ms. Smiley: All right. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: The one thing I failed to mention, I think it bears repeating, is what's before us tonight is the rezoning of the property. The site plan that we see is conceptual and gives an idea as to how the site could developed but not the specifics of how the site will be developed. That would come back in the future action of this petitioner if this goes forward, but we want to stay focused on the rezoning of the property and the use of the property at this time. So that will be a theme that I'll try to keep us to as we go forward. Other questions? Mr. Ventura: Do you own the property now? Mr. Heeley: We are under contract for the property. February 13, 2018 28444 Mr. Ventura: So you don't own it but you have the right to purchase it. Mr. Heeley: Correct. Mr. Ventura: Do you own and/or operate any facilities like this anywhere else in the State of Michigan? Mr. Heeley: Our investment company partner does not currently own any in the State of Michigan. We have operating partners that do operate, but we don't personally own one. Mr. Ventura: And my Chairman's comments notwithstanding, you mentioned the efforts you've made to buffer the surrounding residents by leaving big setbacks. However, I don't see any way for you to do that in the southwest corner where you show, and it's more clearly shown on the graphic site plan, not this one, and the typical buffer between residential and non-residential uses is a wall. I don't see any way for you to put a berm down there in the southwest corner where you're going to have a significant amount of land area given over to storm retention. The other solution for surface retention is underground. Mr. Heeley: Correct. Mr. Ventura: Would you be willing to consider that, while I understand that would be significantly more expensive. Mr. Heeley: Absolutely. This is preliminary and obviously the first draw at it. Mr. Ventura: That would be a significant impact. Mr. Long: The patients here, they are bound for the most part to the inside, right? They're not going to be out rehabilitating outside. Mr. Heeley: Absolutely. A lot of these patients are going to be on ventilators or tracs. This is someone who could have been in a horrific car accident. They're not up and about and roaming the property. Mr. Long: I just wanted to make sure that was clear. There's won't be any activity happening outside. It's all confined within the buildings. Mr. Heeley: Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Heeley. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Please February 13, 2018 28445 come forward and start with your name and address for our record. Todd Salo, 33524 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I submitted correspondence earlier today that did not get read, so I'll just start with that. Hopefully, it's in your packets. Does everybody have that? You have the petition? Mr. Wilshaw: We do. Mr. Salo: Do I need to read this or would you like me to read it into the record? Mr. Wilshaw: You can summarize the points if you'd like, the ones that are most important to you. It's your time. Mr. Salo: Okay. We're requesting the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the petition be denied. The proposed change of zoning does not conform to the Master Plan, which designates these properties as Medium Density residential. The State of Michigan CON Certificate of Need summary of nursing homes shows 500 excess beds in northwest Wayne County. I attached a chart there for you showing the excess bed need. I've also attached a chart showing what the current occupancy rate of these homes in northwest Wayne County are and you'll see that the occupancy rate is approximately 83 percent. Which gets to the point that I'm not sure there is a strong need for this. Combine that fact with the strong likelihood of Michigan auto insurance reform, makes this project less likely to be successful. Most of these patients, TBI patients, are as a result of automotive accidents, and I'm sure that you're probably aware that Michigan has the highest automobile insurance rates in the country and that's a direct result of the unlimited lifetime medical benefits through that thing. Obviously, if that not continues, so there's a lot of momentum in the Michigan State Legislature in the last year or so and even more. Right now you can see that there's a lot of proposals going forth to try to change the Michigan automobile insurance reform. Like I said, this could impact the viability of this business. Therefore, we could be left with another vacant office building which would cause obviously a devaluation of our properties along with safety issues, similar to what was experienced at the former Ardmore mental hospital site just a couple hundred yards from us down on Farmington Road. I'm sure most of you have been in Livonia for quite some time and are familiar with that thing that was finally converted over to a beautiful neighborhood in 2003. There are many other vacant land, vacant buildings and options for the petitioner to consider in February 13, 2018 28446 Livonia. I've listed a few of those sites that I quickly was able to find. There's the empty Kmart site. There's also the former Ashley Court on Seven Mile. If you'll recall that last year, or a couple years ago, I guess, it was 2016, the debacle that occurred there that they kicked out all the residents with less than 24-hours notice. That site has actually reopened now under the name of Aspen, and there's four buildings there and it looks like there's very, very few people in those buildings. That would be another site for the petitioner to consider. Traffic issues. There's a Livonia Public School bus stop right at our corner at Farmington and Norfolk, and it is already difficult to enter or exit both sides of Norfolk. The traffic count volume is approaching 30,000 between Eight Mile and Norfolk. I think part of that is the industrial development along Eight Mile between Farmington and Middlebelt has increased traffic, and if you go Norfolk Street itself is the only direct route between Farmington Road and Merriman between Seven and Eight Mile. There's a school back there that a lot of people use. The traffic is building on that corner there. Unfortunately, our neighborhood has already experienced two traffic accidents at the corner of Farmington and Norfolk. Safety issues. We are very blessed to have some younger families in our neighbor. There's five children right now under the age of six living in homes on Norfolk that are directly adjacent to the proposed development. We have already witnessed employees from other office facilities along Farmington Road wandering through our neighborhood on their lunch and break times. Obviously, during the summer, but we see a lot of people wandering around. I'm not sure TBI patients, most of these patients, my understanding, are transitional patients, people who have been released from a hospital and they don't quite be able to make it home so these people are not immobile. These people have the ability to move around. If you look at the, you know, think as far as, um, you know, they're unpredictable. Let me just put it that way. So anything could happen and obviously their point on this would be that this proposal, this is a 24/7 operation. I mean there could be ambulances coming in and going throughout the night. And obviously people taking breaks in the middle of the night too. So in summary, we believe this rezoning would not conform to Livonia's family first philosophy and urge you to follow your Commission predecessors from both 1989 and 1999 and recommend denial. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Salo. I appreciate that. Also in Mr. Salo's letter was a copy of a signed petition from a number of residents asking that the petition be denied. That will be part of our record. Next? February 13, 2018 28447 Lawrence Kwiatkowski 33410 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening, everyone. We have lived in this home for 29 years and have been residents of Livonia for 42 years. Our home is in the Pine Creek subdivision adjacent to the southern border of the properties which have been referred to the Commission for consideration to be rezoned from Rural Urban Farm to Office Services. My wife and I, along with our neighbors, request that this petition to rezone the property be denied. In the City of Livonia Winter/Spring 2018 publication, Mayor Dennis Wright stated the following: "Judging by things they are saying about Livonia in recent months, there's a lot that's great about our community! We had one of the biggest online real estate search engines, Realtor.com, tell us that Livonia has been the second hottest real estate market in the country for millennials in 2017. Livonia is also among the Top 100 Best Cities to Raise Kids in the Nation, according to the National Council for Home Safety and Security. This rating fits in with our "Family First" motto. The proposed rezoning of the subject property directly conflicts with the Master Plan of the City. That Plan limits the subject property to medium density residential property. The proposed office/business use, especially a business that would be engaged in a 24/7 operation, is a concern to me and my neighbors. The five acres in question are suitable and desirable for housing. People want to move to our city. People want to raise their families here. People want to live in Livonia, a city with the motto "Family First." Thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Kwiatkowski. Mr. Kwiatkowski:I also have more signatures on the petition that was initially submitted. Should I give that to Marge? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this item? Tony Varlesi, 33676 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. My property backs up to the property that's trying to be rezoned right now. Commissioners, based on the reasons as stated below, and for all the residents of Livonia, I/we are requesting that the mentioned petition be denied. Existing empty commercial buildings. If you take a drive just north of Plymouth and Farmington Road to just south of 8 Mile and Farmington Road, east and west of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Newburgh, and Eight Mile Road between Newburgh and Farmington Road, you can see how many vacant commercial buildings/properties there are. Many of these empty commercial properties would be well suited February 13, 2018 28448 for any type of nursing facility. Why would it be necessary to build another commercial building, right in the middle of a residential area, when any one of these vacant buildings that I have mentioned can be structurally modified to accommodate a nursing facility? Property value. In regards to property value, would think that all present, including the Planning Commission members present, would agree that by constructing a commercial building right dead center in a residential neighborhood would drastically decrease the value of existing homes in the area. Nobody wants to look outside into their backyard only to see a commercial building facing them. This would hinder, decrease the value of our homes drastically. Safety issues. Our property, as well as the others that are adjacent to the property requesting rezoning are not allowed fences. There are children in the area whose residents would be facing the proposed commercial structure. How do we keep these families with small children safe and let them play in the comfort and security of their backyard without having a parent, adult with the children at all times? Also not to mention the carbon monoxide fumes from all the vehicles entering, exiting this facility. How do we keep our families safe and ensure that the residents are not inhaling these fumes on a daily basis for whatever time this facility is opened, especially in the summer when our residents are enjoying having their windows opened, enjoying activities in their backyards, BBQ's, etc. In closing, I would think that the Planning Commission wants to do what is best for the City of Livonia and its residents that make up this great city. Can you, the Planning Commission, honestly say that by allowing the mentioned petition to pass that this is in the best interests of Livonia, and its residents, in view of all the empty commercial properties already constructed? Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Varlesi. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Hello, sir. Scott Pennington, 33638 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. I'm on the southern border of the proposed property. Just real quick and try not to repeat some things that have already been said here, but about 20 years ago when my wife and I were looking at purchasing our house, we talked to the Planning Commission about what type of development could go into this property. It was a concern of ours at that time, and we were told that it would be some sort of a transitional residential development according to the Master Plan for the city. And now the request is being made to rezone it to Office and then additional waivers on top of that which don't fit the original Master Plan. In fact, several years ago, the current owner tried to develop the property. Actually, he had one parcel February 13, 2018 28449 instead of the four parcels. He had one parcel he was trying to develop it into condominiums, and the Planning Commission turned it down at that time because there wasn't ample property for him to safely develop the condominiums to provide enough room from ethrf on also from thethe strbacketto of thee fhouseontdoor to oour the property milines.iums Theand Planning Commission asked at that time if the property owner had tried to acquire the lots that were north of this parcel, and he said he had but he was unable to do it. Now, apparently the lots are all available for development and perhaps a residential development could be constructed on that site that would fit the Master Plan of the city. A couple concerns with the proposed development. I mentioned it doesn't fit the footprint, the traditional footprint of the Planning Commission. It was mentioned earlier a 24-hour facility operating adjacent to homes with very young children, late night activity as well as light pollution and the effect that could have on the residents living right next to the property. A concern is the track record of the operator of the property. It's been mentioned also the level of vacancy of offices and nursing homes in the area. Does the future operator of the property have the financial wherewithal to be able to successfully run the business so we don't end up with more vacant commercial space in our city? Commitment of the property owner to follow through on some of the promises in the proposal. You know, the way the plans are developed, there's things in there where they are, you know, the property line it's exceeding what the requirements are from residential, etc. As the development proceeds, if it was approved, is the property owner going to be held to those standards to make sure that they don't come back at a later date and all of a sudden start to encroach on some of those promises that have been made. Again, our desire is to protect our families' quality of life in Livonia. Livonia is a great city for families as well as to preserve our property values. The property owner is aware of the designation of the property when they acquired the property. Now to come back at this point and ask for waivers against the Master Plan of the city, that's I think why we're here standing in support of asking you to deny this request. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Pennington. Good evening, ma'am. Renee Pawloski, 33486 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. Hi. I wanted to offer a little different perspective. I am a physical therapist and during my education, I spent a four week clinical rotation at a very similar skilled nursing facility on the west side of the state. While I was there for 14 weeks, two people actually, escaped is the wrong word, but they left without permission, and they were wandering and they had to go find them. My lot would go right up against the February 13, 2018 28450 parking lot. I've worked with patients with traumatic brain injury, and while some will be on ventilators, some will be immobile, some might not be responsive. They are there to get better. So they will become mobile; they will walk. They might walk them outside to work on balance or different surfaces like over grass and that kind of thing. So they will be able to have access to . . . usually it will be with someone, but if they get away, and I'm sitting in the back of my house where all my windows are, and someone who is confused, because you have confusion after traumatic brain injury, they don't know where they are. They can become agitated. In my 14 weeks there, I almost got bit. I got almost kicked and almost punched. So that gives me concern with it being, even if it is 30 feet farther back, it's still looking into my backyard all the time, into my window, into my life. That's all. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Ma'am, please come up to the podium. That way we can hear and also the rest of the audience can hear. Thank you so much. Nancy LaFluer, 33485 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. I'm here to support my neighbors for all the above-mentioned reasons. But I did have a question for the petitioner. You mentioned there was going to be 24 beds and only 27 parking spaces. Do you think that's sufficient? Mr. Heeley: For the first phase, yes. That is . . . Ms. LaFluer: How many staff would you have? Mr. Wilshaw: Ma'am, please direct your questions my way, and then we'll have the petitioner answer all your questions. Ms. LaFluer: All right. That was my only question. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So you're asking about the . . . Ms. LaFluer: Parking spaces. Mr. Wilshaw: The parking. Okay. Very good. We will have him answer those questions. Ms. LaFluer: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Anyone else in audience wishing to speak'? , February 13, 2018 28451 Stephen Hung, 33562 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. I guess I'm generally against this as well. We actually have three of the kids that were mentioned in that petition, 2, 3, 6. And they already take off into that field right now. To have them wander into this commercial area and possible get run over by a car or wander somewhere is a big concern of mine. Just when we moved in there, we knew that something would eventually get built there, and the prospect of having neighbors is a better one for me. It's what our family would want. The traffic on our Farmington right in that area is pretty busy as well. I know it's less dense, but with employees there, it sounds like they're going to need a very high employee to patient ratio. There's going to be a lot of traffic going in there, plus commercial vehicles coming in and out all the time. Like we mentioned before, there's already been a few accidents in that area. The stretch from Eight Mile to Seven Mile, there are no other stop lights night now, and during rush hour, it is a risk trying to pull in and out of there. Adding to that density, it's troubling to me as well. It might get worse. And then I guess the last thing, as I was sitting there, I'm looking at these pictures. There's a parking lot that's going to be built now in my backyard and probably needs to be lit at night. There could be a light on forever at that point, not to mention the fact that there might be people looking out into our backyard now. It makes me feel a little uneasy. Anyways, those are my main concerns, and I'm sure they're shared by my neighbors as well. Thank you. I. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Hung. Just for the residents' knowledge as well, typically any time there is an office or a commercial zoning or any sort of non-residential zoning abutting residential, a wall is required between those properties. It can be waived by the City Council in lieu of a landscape buffer, berm, things like that. So typically, what you would see in this type of parcel, if it was to be redeveloped as office, would be a wall separating the two parcels. In lieu of that, potentially a landscape butter. I just wanted to at least make you aware of that to the folks listening. The petitioner, if you would like to please come forward again, Mr. Heeley. You heard a few questions about parking and how many employees you would have there. If you would like to answer those. i Mr. Heeley: Yes, absolutely. In terms of the parking question first, I believe the city requires one to three beds to parking spaces. We found that doesn't typically work for this type of use. We're going to have about 12 employees and 24 beds. Twenty-seven is actually probably one or two more spaces than we need, but it keeps people having to circle the parking lot if they're waiting for a shift I change or something like that. In terms of the traffic situation, as was mentioned, I fully appreciate the concerns there. If this were 1 February 13, 2018 28452 to go to a Medium Density residential, there could be anywhere between 20 and 70 units there, which would be significantly more than we would be generating from a density standpoint if each unit had two cars, that sort of thing. But we are conscious of that and would do our best to keep the dog off your lawn, as it were. We're very happy to build either landscaping or a very nice wall or whatever it is that would be most accommodating for you as neighbors. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Heeley. Is there anything else based on the comments that you heard from residents that you'd like to address? Mr. Heeley: Just two more things. We're also very sensitive to the views and so we have designed our building so that there would never be any back of the house or anything ugly facing. It would be a residential look that would be facing to the borders of the properties, in addition to being as far from your guys' borders as possible. As was mentioned, typically in a waiver use, the city is going to have a great deal of control over all the design elements. We have to come to them in terms of setbacks or construction materials or anything along those lines. So it's not like we would be free-range out there putting up any ugly building or office- looking structure. That sort of thing. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Heeley, it looks like Mr. Taormina has put on the screen a conceptual rendering of what that building may look like if you want to touch on some of the materials that you're using. Mr. Heeley: Yeah, just to address. There's going to be some stone elements, decorative hardy board, a few painted areas, typical residential- style roof, and nothing ultramodern or flashy or that would be out of place in a residential setting. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Is there any other questions for the petitioner from the Planning Commission? Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Heeley, the question was asked earlier why this location and to build on that, what other locations have you looked at in the area and why or why not? Mr. Heeley: Sure. We had looked at a number of the more commercial locations. Obviously, just northeast of the site there's some property available there. Part of the issue with that is we've got families coming once a week to visit a loved one who's trying to recover, and it's not conducive to have them in a commercial, be it a strip mall or abutting to another commercial property, where February 13, 2018 28453 there's cross access. People are concentrating on their loved ones and that's what they're there for. In terms of other properties at this point, our CON is site specific, so we are approved for this site particularly at this point. Mr. Caramagno: Patients that come to this facility. They come from where? Do you get referrals from all hospitals, a certain hospital? Mr. Heeley: Yeah. Mr. Caramagno: A range of hospitals? How does that work? Mr. Heeley: It's going to be the hospitals in the region. They're going to come by transport so it's not going to be lights and sirens. They'll be brought after a two-day stay or so in the hospital to this facility. This facility provides the care that would otherwise be done at the hospital at about half the cost of the health system. So it makes sense for them to come here. Mr. Caramagno: When you say "range of hospitals,"what hospitals in this area are you speaking about? Mr. Heeley: This could go all the way out to Ann Arbor, Beaumont. Typically, it's Level One traumas centers. Mr. Caramagno: So if you had a radius, you're talking Ann Arbor, you're talking maybe up toward Pontiac, around through Detroit and then south to what? Mr. Heeley: We are more focused on the Detroit Metro to be honest. Mr. Caramagno: That is kind of the Detroit Metro area. So you could have folks coming from a 30-40 mile radius coming to this location? Mr. Heeley: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McCue: Could you just address for the moment the bed availability that was discussed, because my question is, what's going to set this particular setup apart from what's already out there? Mr. Heeley: Yeah, absolutely. The CON beds are divided into different categories. The beds for traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury are separate from general population skilled nursing beds that would be used for long-term care. These are from a different pool of beds and are for a different use. That's why we were February 13, 2018 28454 issued a Certificate of Need despite, as the gentleman said, there is a long-term care bed over-population currently. Ms. McCue: So there's many of those institutions that may have bed availability but not the specific ability to give that type of care? Mr. Heeley: Correct, and also there are facility level requirements as mentions, the tracs and vents and that sort of thing that make it functionally obsolete to try and do it in another building. Ms. McCue: Okay. And then, one more question. Can you just reiterate for me, too, who is primarily paying for the care of the patients? Mr. Heeley: It's going to be private pay and insurance companies. Ms. McCue: So Medicare, Medicaid. Mr. Heeley: No. Ms. McCue: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Long: Ms. McCue touched on the Certificate of Need and I understand how that's different. The question also came up from the young lady who has worked in similar facilities of people getting out. What kind of security do you have in place in your facilities? Mr. Heeley: As mentioned, part of it is just a patient to caregiver ratio. In the case of the 24-bed facility, we're talking about a two-to-one staff to patient ratio. I can't speak to that particular facility. As mentioned, we'd be happy to have the wall there if that adds a feeling of security. Obviously, there are protocols you have to have in place in any facility be it regular, skilled, memory care or something like this. Mr. Long: The question was posed about, or it was inferred that there could be 24-hour intake, but that's not the case with your facility, correct? Mr. Heeley: No. It's not going to be 24-hour. They're going to be discharged from the hospital during normal daytime hours and transported over to the facility. Mr. Long: It was brought up the potential for the auto insurance reform and the possibility in the State of the Michigan, if that happens, that the funds to pay for care like this may dry up in Michigan. Have you and your partners been following that? Do you think that is a real concern? February 13, 2018 28455 Mr. Heeley: Yeah, it isn't a concern for our operating partners. They spent a lot of time researching the market for need and, obviously, how they get paid is very important to them, but they're not concerned about it at this time. Mr. Long: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Priddy: Good evening. Just one quick question. With a 24-hour operation, how do your employees handle shift change? Do they do eight hours or 12? Could you conceivably be doing like midnight where there's traffic being generated? Mr. Heeley: It's typically going to be eight-hour shifts. There will be an evening turn but we're talking about four cars switching over at that time. Mr. Priddy: There's no patients being in-taked at night or anything like that? Mr. Heeley: Correct. Mr. Priddy: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Mr. Long: Can I ask a question of Mr. Salo? Mr. Wilshaw: Certainly. Mr. Long: Mr. Salo, you certainly did a lot of legwork with your research. This piece of work that you did here, what was the source of this? Where did you get this information? Mr. Salo: State of Michigan. Mr. Long: State of Michigan. And it does say across the top that this is a "Summary of Nursing Home/HLTCU beds." I would assume that is long term care. Mr. Heeley was talking about how it's a different Certificate of Need for the brain injury. Mr. Salo: Well, there's a special pool for TBI patients, yes. It's not necessarily required. There's other facilities such as Special Tree in Romulus who has not used the TBI designation, but that's all they do over there at Special Tree is the TBI. So it's not incumbent upon them. I'm not willing to say exactly why they went that way, whether it's for expedient purposes or to try to avoid the excess bed issue. I'm not sure, but my research shows that February 13, 2018 28456 there's no facility in Michigan right now that is operating with TBI licensed beds. Mr. Long: Thank you, Mr. Salo. I don't know if Mr. Heeley wants to talk to that. Mr. Heeley: Just from my research, I believe there are three facilities that have gotten Certificates of Need through that special bed program within the last couple of years. Mr. Long: Thank you. Mr. Salo: There's no one operating on that. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Salo. Thank you, Mr. Long. Anyone else? I will close the public hearing on this item, and a motion would be in order. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-05-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 13, 2018, on Petition 2018-01-01-02 submitted by Cliff Heeley pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 20209, 20219, 20225, 20235 and 20307 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from R-U-F to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-01-01-02 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That OS, Office zoning at this location would be detrimental to the adjoining residential land uses; 2. That the intended use of the property is not compatible with the adjoining residential land uses; 3. That the existing residential zoning is more consistent with the established pattern of development and character of the area; and 4. That the proposed zoning change is not supported by the Future Land Use Plan, which shows this site as Medium Density Residential. 1 February 13, 2018 28457 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council for an additional public hearing, and this is a denying recommendation to them. If you're interested, please continue to follow this item and come to the City Council meeting as well. Thank you and thank you, Mr. Heeley, for your time. Mr. Salo: Will we receive notice of that'? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. They will be notified based on the 300-foot radius and the notifications you've already received. ITEM #2 PETITION 2018-01-02-01 TINY BLISS CHILD CARE Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 01-02-01 submitted by Darrlisha Newby requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(j) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a day care nursery (Tiny Bliss Child Care) at 29794 Joy Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebelt and Henry Ruff Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a commercial childcare center on property that is at the northwest corner of Joy Road and Louise. The site is roughly .0.3 acre in size. It includes 67 feet of frontage along Joy Road and 160 feet of front on Louise. Currently, the property is zoned OS, which applies to three of four lots that make up the property, including Lots 256, 257 and 258 of EG Settle Bonaparte Gardens Subdivision, all with frontage on Joy Road. There is a fourth lot, Lot 259, which fronts on Louise and the zoning of that lot is P, Parking. Currently, the south half of the property, the OS zoned portion, has a one-story 3,120 square foot building, while the north half of the property consists of a parking lot. Daycare nurseries are permitted in OS Districts subject to waiver use approval under Section 9.03(j) of the Zoning Ordinance. Looking at the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area, immediately to the north are residential homes. Those are under the R-1 zoning classification. There is also a house immediately to the east which is zoned R-1 as well. Looking west across Louise, there is a one-story office building under the commercial zoning classification, and then directly across Joy February 13, 2018 28458 Road is the City of Westland. The existing building does face Louise. There is no direct access to the site from Joy Road. Access is provided by two driveways along Louise Avenue. A floor plan was submitted with the application that shows how the building would be utilized. It shows a waiting area, a play and eating area. There are several classrooms as well as a nap area, restroom facilities and a small kitchen. A special requirement in the ordinance that applies to child care facilities requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet of outside play area. A play area is shown on the plans. It's located in the northeast corner of the property directly behind the building. It measures 5,000 square feet and would occupy roughly the easterly 85 feet of the parking lot. It would be enclosed with a five-foot high chain link fence, and the petitioner has indicated that synthetic turf would be placed on top of the existing asphalt in that area. The remaining section of the parking lot shows four parking spaces that would remain as parking. The petitioner has indicated at the study session that, if possible, she would like to reduce the size of the play area. We did check with the State of Michigan and the minimum area requirement for an outdoor play area is 1,200 square feet, but the State can require additional play area depending on the number of children. We don't have an idea of what the State would require, but the 5,000 square feet appears to be more than what the State would require. In terms of parking, the ordinance requires parking based on one space for each employee plus sufficient off-street space for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of students. The site plan shows a total of eight parking spaces including the four that I just mentioned on the north side of the building. Additional parking is provided on the west side of the building. There would be the ability for parents to drop off the children in front of the building off of Louise. They could enter the driveway to the south, drop off the children and then exit on the northerly driveway. The petitioner believes that the amount of parking is adequate due to how quickly the kids are dropped off, and that there would not be any problems with respect to this site or traffic issues. No trash enclosure is shown. The petitioner would rely on weekly curbside pickup of all refuse. There are no exterior modifications shown to the building. Allowed is one 16 square foot wall sign. We don't have any details relative to signage at this point. Staff has talked to the owner of the property. He indicated that the building has been vacant for approximately three years. As far as the exterior of the building, he said the parking lot would be restriped, a new roof installed and that there would be additional cosmetic improvements, including painting the building. One last special requirement of the ordinance is that pertaining to this use, written consent of at least 55 percent of the residential owners within a 400-foot radius of the property is February 13, 2018 28459 required. The petitioner has not obtained that petition and would be asking the City Council to waive that particular requirement should this move forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 24, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced waiver use petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The existing parcel is assigned an address of#29794 Joy Road. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be correct and is acceptable to this office. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public utilities which should not be impacted by the proposed waiver use, so no Engineering Department permits will be required. Should the proposed project scope change to include reconstruction of the site, plans will be required to be submitted to this department for permitting." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 1, 2018, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a day care nursery on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 5, 2018, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) The petitioner's proposal is a change in use. This would require that the proposed space must conform to all current barrier free codes, building codes and all mechanical codes and standards. This will be addressed further at time of plan review if this project moves forward. (2) Building is required to be registered in the vacant and abandoned program per City Ordinance 2844. All required fees are to be paid, inspections shall be scheduled and any and all violations shall be corrected. A certificate of re-occupancy shall be issued after the conditions set forth in 15.51.090 (E) are fully satisfied. (3) 1 Signage has not been reviewed at this time. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fourth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes; therefore, I have no objections to February 13, 2018 28460 the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The fifth letter is from the Finance Department, dated January 23, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. We have an item of correspondence dated February 5, 2018, which reads as follows: "Regarding the waiver of zoning ordinance to operate a day care nursey at 29794 Joy Road, we are supportive of the use of that property for a day care. We feel it would enhance the immediate community and provide needed services for families in the area. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us." The letter is signed by Kathy Mihm and Kevin Leggert, 29880 Joy Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. We have an email communication dated February 9, 2018, which reads as follows: "My only concerns regarding a child care facility (after reviewing property on google earth) at 29794 Joy Rd. is.. I cannot find any emergency exits. This property has very little outside fenced play area for toddlers. (Less than 10 sq. yds. of lawn). Lack of windows. Lack of crash barriers outside of the large floor to ceiling plate glass windows where a potential indoor play area would be. The immediate neighbors input should be asked before approving any change in zoning. Today this day care operates out of a home in Redford with only one bathroom for 7-10 children. A couple of Licensing rules for Child Care Centers: R 400.8137 Diapering; toileting; R 400.8161 Emergency procedures. If cribs are used in emergency evacuations, then all doors within the means of egress shall be wide enough to readily accommodate the crib evacuation. R 400.8167 Indoor space Fifty square feet for each toddler and 35 square feet for preschoolers and school agers. R 400.8170 Outdoor play area. The outdoor shall be considered an outdoor classroom and an extension of the learning environment with an outdoor play area that blends natural materials, features, and vegetation." The email was provided to us by Don Kleinknecht. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley: Mark, what is this letter from Alex Bishop about abandoned property. So it was abandoned for a while from 6/29/16? Mr. Taormina: That would have been a notification to the property owner at the time that the site had been vacant for more than three months and that it would have to be registered under that particular citation. February 13, 2018 28461 Ms. Smiley: Okay. Then the City goes in and inspects it before somebody else can go in there? Mr. Taormina: Before any re-occupancy, there is an inspection that is required. Ms. Smiley: And have they done that or they're going to do it? Mr. Taormina: To my knowledge, it has not been done yet. In fact, we checked and it is still something that would need to be done. I think that was verified in the more recent letter submitted by the Director of Inspection, Jerome Hanna. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Also, licensing obviously hasn't gone through there either, have they? Mr. Taormina: I'm not aware of any State license that has been secured by the petitioner. I think that's probably a question that should be directed to her. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: The petitioner is here We will need your name and address for the record please. Darrlisha Newby, Tiny Bliss Child Care, 25215 Ross Drive, Redford, Michigan 48239. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Newby. Is there anything you would like to add to this petition that you haven't heard already said? Ms. Newby: Not at this time. As far as the State of Michigan goes, Ms. Smiley, I have to first get your approval before I can even submit an application to them. So if you guys do approve it, then yes, there are quite a few inspections I will have to undergo. Environmental is one of them. Fire inspection, lead assessment, playground inspection are the four that I can think of at this time. There may be one more, but yes. I will have to get approved through them in order for the State of Michigan to approve it too. They also will help with capacity. They'll let me know during those inspections just how many children I can have,just to ensure the safety of the children. Ms. Smiley: Then they'll also let you know the ratio for the children to childcare providers and all that. I just want to make sure that you're aware there's a whole lot of stuff before you can have a license in your name. Okay. February 13, 2018 28462 Mr. Ventura: Good evening. Since it is acknowledged that there's a lot of work to be done on the building and a lot of work to be done to secure your licensing, and it appears that there's a fair amount of work to be done just to get the building re-occupiable. Who, by contractor or by agreement, is going to expend all the money to do all this work to get the building ready? Ms. Newby: So, I do have an agreement with the owner of the building, and he has agreed that he would do all of the work that's required. Mr. Ventura: Both to make it re-occupiable and to comply with licensure? Ms. Newby: Yes. Mr. Ventura: So you're not going to have to spend any money to get in there'? Ms. Newby: No. Mr. Ventura: How long do you anticipate it will take to get everything done to make you ready to get licensure? Ms. Newby: If the owner moves fast, as I hope, a good six months. Mr. Ventura: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: You've had some experience in childcare? Ms. Newby: Yes. We currently have an in-home facility that we've been operating for almost six years. Ms. Smiley: Do you have a degree in child development? Ms. Newby: I do. I do have a degree in Early Childhood and then almost six years of experience before that. I worked in childcare centers as a nanny for several years. I've been in the childcare industry for some time. Ms. Smiley: I notice from the background information, that you ran a 24-hour facility. That's not your plan any more. Ms. Newby: No, not for that area. No. Ms. Smiley: What would your hours be approximately? Ms. Newby: Typical hours, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I know last time we spoke we thought maybe 7:00 p.m. could help with the decision-making of you guys. 1 February 13, 2018 28463 Ms. Smiley: With weather and what have you, emergencies, sometimes you end up with children afterhours. I've had a little experience with that. I guess those are my main questions. Good luck. Ms. Newby: Thank you guys. Mr. Taormina: Could you please describe how you envision the parents dropping off and picking up their children, and the frequency of the trips to the site in the morning and pickup in the afternoon? How would the circulation work, because the site has only a few parking spaces and the number of cars coming and going would far exceed that number. How do you see that occurring? Is it staged throughout the afternoon and morning hours or how exactly does that work? Ms. Newby: Well, I'm very glad you did your homework. I'm glad that you found out how much space we actually need for outdoor space. So if we could waive that amount of space, I would be happy. But currently, we serve 24 children at the most. As you see, I'm not sure if you guys rolled by the currently facility, but we don't even have nearly as many parking spaces as we would have at the Livonia location. So I do think that would be more than enough for them. If we could add more, you always want to have extra just in case because we can't predict the future all the time. But if we could add a few more, I would appreciate that, but typically, parents, they don't come all at once. Maybe five or ten minutes apart. Some come at 9:00, some may come at 7:00 a.m. It really just depends on needs because the childcare is catered to parent needs, but as of now, we do have a cutoff time. We don't allow parents to come past 10:45 a.m. as of right now. So we do try to cut that off just to limit, and then it's just not good for the program overall. And then the afternoons, from my experience, parents are coming in between 3:30 and 6:00. They don't all come at once. That's just through experience guys. I know this may be hard for you guys to envision it, but they don't come all at once and I don't see it being an issue. Mr. Taormina: So you don't see the need for parking on the street during any period of time? Do you see most of these parents coming in? Do they park and walk their children in or do they just pull up to the front door and somebody's there to greet them? Ms. Newby: They will park and come in. February 13, 2018 28464 Mr. Taormina: Should there be a shortage of parking, do you see people parking on the street temporarily and walking their children in or just stacking along that driveway and then waiting for traffic to clear? Ms. Newby: I will see them parking on the street just because parents they're always in a rush and they will do things like that. So if we could take away some of that play area, I think that would help with them from parking on the street. Mr. Taormina: I'll just point out to the Planning Commission that what she is suggesting will require a super-majority vote of the City Council. To waive or modify any of the special requirements requires a two-thirds vote of the Council, and that would also apply to the requirement for a petition signed by 55 percent of the neighbors within 400 feet. Should this move forward, both of those items would have to be addressed by City Council under that special provision. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: While I don't have a lot of doubt in your ability to look after children because you've done it for six years and you've got your degree, I do have some doubt in the detail of what we're looking at here for this property. As mark was saying, the parking, the playground for children, the fencing for it, the general cleaning up of the property. I don't have a real good feel for that right now. Like the Astroturf. What preparation has to be done to get that part of the lot ready for this thing, and what kind of toys are going to be there? I'm not hearing many details regarding the property from you. Ms. Newby: I did send a picture of what it would look like. I don't install playgrounds or anything like that, so I will have to call them and ask what it would take to get the job done, because I wouldn't be physically doing it myself. I'll be hiring someone to do that. But just your normal everyday toys, scooters, tricycles, slides. I wouldn't be installing any swings, however, so take note of that. That's mainly it. Mr. Caramagno: Now these toys that are out and whatnot. Do these just stay outside? Do they get put away when they're not in use or do they just stay out? I'm trying to get a feel for what this really is at the end of the day. Ms. Newby: We will bring them in, the ones that can come in, yes. February 13, 2018 28465 Mr. Caramagno: How about something like signage on the building. We're talking about conforming signage. Do you have any idea what that might look like? Ms Newby: As far as . . . Mr. Caramagno: The signage you want to put on this building, the colors, the whole layout of the property. I don't have a real good feel for what you're trying to do here. Ms. Newby: Okay. I haven't really considered that part yet as far as where I will put a sign. On the door, for sure, but I have no plans on doing a whole lot of changing to this building outside either as far as adding things to it, outside of the playground. That I haven't thought about exactly where I'm going to put a sign not just yet. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other questions for our petitioner? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Is there anything else that you'd like to add, Ms. Newby, before we proceed with a vote? Ms. Newby: Not at this time. Well, I'll add one thing. I don't have a sign where I'm am now. Parents, if they want to find a daycare facility, they will go to the State of Michigan site where they can find childcares and see their reports and everything. They will go to Google, Yahoo. There's so many sites that parents can go to. Childcare facilities are pretty obvious looking as well. So we will have sign on the door, of course, to indicate who we are and what we do, but I don't think we even need a big flashy sign. I don't have one now and I do just fine. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Newby, you are intending on moving your existing clientele over to this new location? Ms. Newby: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I think we're all set. So thank you for your time. We will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Ventura, and adopted, it was #02-06-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 13, 2018, on Petition 2018-01-02-01 submitted by Darrlisha Newby requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(j) of the City of Febru ary 13, 2018 28466 Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a day care nursery (Tiny Bliss Child Care) at 29794 Joy Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebelt and Henry Ruff Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, which property is zoned OS and P, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-01-02-01 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum number of children to be cared for at this facility shall be as determined by the State of Michigan, but in no case shall exceed forty-five (45); 2. That the Site Plan, as received by the Planning Commission on January 19, 2018, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to any revisions as noted below; 3. That any reduction in the size of the play area shall be subject to City Council approval; 4. 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; 5. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 6. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulations contained in the correspondence dated February 5, 2018, from the Inspection Department; 7. That the entire outdoor play area shall be surrounded by a five-foot (5') chain-link fence and the pavement shall be covered by an artificial turf material; 8. That the hours of operation for this child care facility shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; 9. The tenant(s) of this building shall not engage in any form of solicitation for business within the public rights-of-way of Joy Road or Louise Avenue; 10 That the Petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement limiting the waiver to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council; February 13, 2018 28467 11. 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; 12. That prior to occupancy, all unresolved issues as outlined in the letter dated June 29, 2016, from the Director of Inspection to Masoud Shango regarding compliance under City of Livonia Ordinances Title 15, Chapter 51, shall be completely resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; and 13. 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 date 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. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: If I could, Mr. Taormina, is there someplace in there we could say that it meets all the requirements of the State of Michigan licensing for childcare facilities? Like the maximum number of children will actually be determined by them because they require so many square feet per child depending on their ages. Could we put something in there? Mr. Taormina: We can craft some language that I think would address that to your satisfaction. Ms. Smiley: So I'm sure that she and her landlord are aware and that they meet all those requirements before we start. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Is there support? Mr. Ventura: Support. Mr. Wilshaw: We have a motion to approve by Ms. Smiley, support by Mr. Ventura with the additional stipulation that she meet all State licensing requirements for childcare facilities. Mr. Taormina: If the maker of the motion might consider some additional language addressing the issue of the play area that would allow February 13, 2018 28468 her to appeal that to the City Council for a reduction, as well as recommendation relative to the petition that's required. Typically we include that language in the resolution. We indicate the need for them to have that requirement waived by City Council and as it pertains to the play area if we can add some language that will allow for that modification to the site plan. 1 Mr. Wilshaw: Is the maker okay with that/ Ms. Smiley: I'm fine with that? Mr. Wilshaw: And the supporter is okay? Mr. Ventura: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: We have a change there. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please call the roll. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Ventura, McCue, Long, Priddy, Wilshaw NAYS: Caramagno ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2018-01-SN-01 STANLEY STEEMER Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 01-SN-01 submitted by Allied Signs, Inc. requesting approval for an additional ground sign pursuant to Section 18.50H of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the commercial building (Stanley Steemer) at 39200 Schoolcraft Road, located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Newburgh and Eckles Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Taormina: This request is for an additional ground-mounted sign at a site located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road just east of Eckles Road. The site adjoins the 1-96 Expressway along its northern boundary. The zoning of the property is C-2, General Business. The existing site contains a 17,840-square foot building that is owned and operated by Stanley Steemer and serves as one of the company's regional headquarters. In terms of what is nearby, immediately to the west of the subject site is the VIP Truck 1 February 13, 2018 28469 Center, and then to the east is both the Laurel Manor Banquet Center and Roseberry Adult Health Services facility. Signs for commercial properties are regulated under Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance. Each single-use building is allowed one wall sign not to exceed one square foot for every one lineal foot of building frontage and, in addition, one freestanding sign not to exceed 30 square feet in sign area. Based on the frontage of this building, this site is allowed an 80-square foot wall sign. Currently, the site has a 40-square foot wall sign on the front of the building that faces Schoolcraft, as well as an 18-square foot monument sign. The plan before you shows what the wall sign would look like facing Schoolcraft Road. What the petitioner is requesting under this petition is an additional monument sign that would measure 35 feet in overall height and would be placed in the northwest corner of the property to gain visibility from 1-96. The dimensions of the sign board would be 24 feet by 10 feet for a total area of 240 square feet. The sign would be internally illuminated. The message would be static and not interchangeable or variable in any way. Because of the height and area and the fact that it's an additional sign over what is allowed by the code, it will require three variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. It would occupy a single parking space in the northwest corner of the parking lot. The remaining parking that is available on the site is more than adequate to meet the needs of Stanley Steemer. We provided some additional information in your packet relative to the nearby signs in the area. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I can read the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Inspection Department, dated February 5, 2018, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess height, size and number of signs proposed. Only one ground sign and one wall sign are permitted. This Department has no further objections to this petition."The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. The second letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The third letter is from the Finance Department, dated January 23, 2018, which February 13, 2018 28470 reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, the petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Eric Morton, 1480 Devlin Road, Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Wilshaw: What would you like to let us know? Mr. Morton: Well, I just wanted to sort of reiterate what we've gone over last week, and that's this sign is important for our overall market presence, for letting our customers know that we're there. Visibility along Schoolcraft is very limited. It's not a commercial corridor. Our customers can come and schedule services, drop off rugs for rug cleaning, attend demo events. This is, as Mark mentioned, our regional headquarters. We run operations for three states out of here. There's a lot of employee screening and interviewing that goes on in this location. We proposed this sign because we had the two signs on either side of us and thought it sort of fit in. I did hear what the committee was saying last week and we would be willing, if that would help, should Stanley Steemer not occupy this facility, to take that sign down. We view it as something germane to the business, not something that's adding overall value to the building. I wanted to add that point. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Morton. Do we have any questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: Did you give any consideration of putting a sign on the back of your building? Mr. Morton: We hadn't, and we thought that this, the pole sign, we had not given consideration to that, but we would be willing to table this sign if that was an available avenue to take, but I believe that's a variance as well. Again, we did the pole sign because we were sandwiched between the two signs, the one with scrolling text and the other was slightly larger than ours. Mr. Caramagno: Just a question I had as I'm looking at it, I'm wondering what options you explored at all. You need the visibility from the freeway for what reason? February 13, 2018 28471 Mr. Morton; Well, one, that's really where the traffic and the visibility from that building. If you're going down the freeway, it just looks like a non- existence or warehouse. All Stanley Steemer vehicles are parked inside, especially in Michigan because it's so cold and there's water in them. You would never know that they were present from where the majority of the traffic goes by. Mr. Caramagno: How much of your business is walk-in business? Mr. Morton: Well, barely any but a lot of business comes from letting people know that you're in the market. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. So this is not necessarily a sign that indicates where you're at. It's advertisement. It's not a sign that people need to find you. You've got a unique location on the freeway exchange here where you want some advertisement. Right? Mr. Morton: Well, it's certainly market presence. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Morton: Well, I think with that being said, we'd like at this point to table the current sign that we have available and perhaps pursue a building mounted sign if that's something that the Commission thinks is a more viable option. Mr. Wilshaw: A tabling motion is always an option. We'll see what the happens this evening. Any comments or questions? Ms. Smiley: It's more of a comment. I'm not a fan of billboards, and we're trying to get away from that in the city since I've been on the Commission. We're trying to get away from the big pylon look. Whenever possible it's our goal to take them down. It's not to put one up. I agree that it's completely 100 percent advertisement. With GPS, you're hard pressed not to know where Stanley Steemer is if you're looking for it. So I'd be glad to table it if they want it tabled. Mr. Wilshaw: With that, a motion is in order. Ms. Smiley: I move we table it until they come back with something more palatable. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was February 13, 2018 28472 #02-07-2018 RESOLVED, that in connection with Petition 2018-01-SN-01 submitted by Allied Signs, Inc. requesting approval for an additional ground sign pursuant to Section 18.50H of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, for the commercial building (Stanley Steemer) at 39200 Schoolcraft Road, located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Newburgh and Eckles Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item until the Study Meeting of February 20, 2018. Mr. Wilshaw: Do we want to include a date specific on the tabling motion? Ms. Smiley: It's up to them. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: The next available meeting is the study session next Tuesday. It would not be a voting meeting, but if he could provide something for us to look at, at least for the study session, that would be helpful. If not, we could wait until the first meeting in March. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Morton, would that give you enough time? Mr. Morton: We could have something ready for you at the study meeting. Mr. Taormina: By next Tuesday? Mr. Morton. By next Tuesday. Mr. Taormina: So we could place it on the agenda for next Tuesday. It's not a problem. Would somebody be present at that meeting? Mr. Morton: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Okay. That's fine. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We have a motion to table to our next study meeting. February 13, 2018 28473 ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,116th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,116th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 30, 2018. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Priddy, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-08-2018 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,116th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 30, 2018, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Caramagno, Priddy, Long, McCue, Smiley, Ventura, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,117th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 13, 2018, was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. 'l CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sam Cariagno, Secreta ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman g$F