Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-10-0323585 MINUTES OF THE 933x° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 3, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 933d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley John Walsh Ian Wilshaw Members absent: H. G. Shane Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra Walter, Clerk -Typist II; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a pefition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating pefifion. 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 pefifion requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 2006-08-01-07 AGREE LTD. Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-08- 01-07, submitted by Schostak Brothers, on behalf of Agree Limited Partnership, requesting to rezone property at 17001 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Mallory Drive and Six Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 18 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 23586 Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated September 14, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No additional right-of-way is required, and the legal description for Parcel B, which is being rezoned, is correct" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Al this point, we will go to the petitioner. Following the petitioner, we will go to the audience. If there is anybody who wishes to speak, if you could step forward. Everyone who wishes to speak tonight, for the record we will ask for your name and address. David H. Johns, Schostak Brothers & Company, 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening. I'm here tonight representing Schostak family restaurants. This is a new location for them for the Del Taco interest. They currently operate two other Del Tacos in the area in Dearborn Heights as well as in Roseville. They also operate a number of Burger King locations throughout Michigan, two within the city at Seven Mile and Middlebelt and Five Mile and Middlebell. Mr. Taormina, he did a good presentation. As far as the project, I do have material samples. If anyone has any questions regarding things, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I was also informed that the Walgreens construction is proceeding as planned. Its planning on starting next week, as well as the commitment to the City for the fountain. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Johns? Mr. LaPine: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. When did Schostak Brothers gel involved with this parcel? How long ago? Mr. Johns: Just in the Iasi month or so. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any additional questions? Mr. Johns, since you were kind enough to bring the building materials, they're heavy and we don't want you to have lifted them for no good reason. If you don't mind, would you bring them up to the easel so we could lake a look at those? Mr. Wilshaw, did you have a question? 2358] Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. I'll wail to see the building materials. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Very good. If you take the microphone right in front of the podium, there's a couple of footprints that you can stand on. Mr. Johns: Okay. Well, in front of me I have the proposed elevations, which Mr. Taormina had explained to you. The cultured stone on the bottom, which basically runs from about 12 feel down, we have a sample of right here. You can see the size varies. Its a high quality material that would basically be on all four sides of the building. Above the 12 feet, we have varying shades of the E.I.F.S. to complement the elevations of the Walgreens as far as coloring. You can see over the archway we have a darker E.I.F.S. that would be that material. That would also be on the drive-thru bump out above the 12 feel as well as on the entry element, the entry lower. We have two other E.I.F.S's which are used for accenting and primarily for color. They're above the cultured stone above 12 feel. You can see them on the front elevation as well as on the sides. And then the roofing materials - we have awnings out in front, which are covered with a clay Tile as well as the entry lower element. This sample right here is representative of the material. You can see that basically it has rounding to it and there's overlap on it. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Wilshaw? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, thank you. Del Taco, I assume, is primarily a competitor of Taco Bell. Right? Mr. Johns: Its a competitor of Taco Bell, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: So it's basically considered a fast food type restaurant? Mr. Johns: Yes, its a quick serve restaurant with a drive-lhru. Predominantly, the business goes through the drive-lhru versus inside, with the inside sealing capacity for this, I believe its 56, and then we have an outdoor patio which is typical with the Del Taco restaurant. Its a new entry to the market, basically. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you have a feel for what percentage your business is drive- lhru versus walk in or sit down type traffic? Mr. Johns: Approximately 60 to 65 percent is typically drive-lhru, and the remainder is walk in. Some of that caries out, but you know with a large dining room and a small outdoor patio for 12 seats, we do notice a lot of customers choose to come inside versus dine-thru. 23588 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Your location that is in Dearborn Heights, where is that located in the city? Mr. Johns: Its north of Ford Road on the west side of Telegraph, one block north from the corner. It's been there approximately 15 months or so. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Is that location in Dearborn Heights similar in character to this one? Mr. Johns: I do have the elevations for Dearborn Heights, which I'd be happy to show you. It's very different. I'll bring those up real quick. This happens to be the front elevation of Dearborn Heights. In similarity, it was modified a little bit but basically you have a brick veneer for four feet, and then you have the E.I.F.S. above with the E.I.F.S. banding. There you have a border that goes around the sides. There are signs on multiple sides of the building, as well as the parapet that stands up to 23. And you can see, it's similar whether it's the front or the side. I also have the drive-thru in the rear, which I could show you. You can see the Livonia building is quite different in nature. We wanted change the elevation. We've spoken with various parties that we deal with, and we thought this elevation was more complementary to the Walgreens and it would work better for the City of Livonia. Mr. Wilshaw: I do agree with that. I think the cultured stone is a much more attractive option. The only other question I had was in regard to the drive-thm lane. You have obviously the Walgreens and the Del Taco lanes opposed to each other in a fairly close space. Do you believe there is going to be any issue with conflicting traffic pattems? Mr. Johns: No, we don't. We agree that obviously with any site you need appropriate signage on the site, small regulatory signage to direct traffic as well as pavement markings, plus the thing with the nature of this business, as well as I'm sure similar to the Walgreens, is the customers learn the site very quickly and they learn the movements that are applicable to each site, whether its this location or another location. So we don't anticipate any problems. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. It sounds good. I'm not entirely sure if I'm comfortable having a fast food restaurant in this area. There certainly is nothing similar to this there currently in that area, but it does appearlo be an attractive building. Thankyou. 23589 Mr. Morrow: When this property was last zoned, was it a combination of C-1 and C-2 or all C-2? Mr. La Pine: All C-1. Mr. Morrow: With the original request was it part C-1 and part C-2? Mr. Taormina: No. It was rezoned from OS to C-1 in its entirely. The original request by Agree Realty was for G2, and that was modified to C-1. Mr. Morrow: There was some talk about a restaurant at that time but because it was not that hard and fast, the petitioner agreed to downgrade it to a C-1, which is less intensive, and a restaurant is not a permitted use in the O7. But we are talking about zoning tonight, and I see a drive-thm on the plans, which means, I assume, you would have to come back for a waiver use in order to gel the drive-thru. So, we're looking at a C-2 primarily. By having that drive-thru with a waiver, it opens up questions in my mind relative to hours and things of that nature. But I'm not sure I support the drive-thru portion of it tonight. I could probably support the C-2 but I'll be interested to see what the neighbors say. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Taormina, it was my understanding that he came in here originally, it was Agree Limited, and wanted G7 zoning for the whole parcel. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Actually, the original request was for C-2. Mr. La Pine: C-2. After many discussions, we had a meeting on this case. It first come to us in October 11, 2005. We heard it again in January 31, 2006. We had I here again in June 13, 2006. Three different times. We, after many discussions, it was our recommendation that we thought there was enough C-2 in the immediate area. Now, I have to disagree with my good friend, Mr. Morrow. The only discussion that ever came up about a restaurant at that location was a carryout restaurant. That's the only time it ever came up. One of the reasons we didn't want C- 2 in there is because we thought it was more intense than the C-1. Number two, and we're getting back to my original question; now we passed this on to the Council as a recommendation for C-1. Correct? Mr. Taormina: That is my recollection. I think it was voluntarily agreed to that they would modify their petition to O7. So the petition was modified dining the review by the Planning Commission and that was carried over as a recommendation to the Council. 23590 Mr. LaPine: Okay. Now, he Council has not passed on the G7 on this property at this point. Mr. Taormina: No. It's been rezoned. Mr. LaPine: It has been rezoned. Mr. Taormina: Not only has it been rezoned, it's been fully site plan approved for the Walgreens, Retail Building A and development of the city-0wned property. Mr. LaPine: But not for this parcel that we're talking about? Mr. Taormina: This portion of the original property has been approved for the Retail Building A. Mr. LaPine: Okay, but not the restaurant? Mr. Taormina: Not for any type of restaurant, no. Mr. LaPine: Well, you know, when we hear petitions for rezoning, I would hope that when we look at these things, we look at them hard and long because rezoning and waiver petitions are something that go basically with the land. When we look at them, we should look at them real hard so that if three or four weeks later, a guy comes in and says, hey, I've got a better tenant and I want to go to C-2, we shouldn't do that. If we thought back in June when we approved the G7 it should have been G2, we should have approved the C-2 then. But we all agreed, it was unanimously thought that G7 was the best because there was enough G2. As a matter of fact, when we heard the case on the rezoning for C-2 properly on the northeast corner next to Kinko's, we had a long, long discussion on that one that we wanted to go to C-1 there, but we thought because the properly adjacent to it was C-2, we thought it was a good idea to keep it C-2. But now to come along and say, well, you know, the client now has a nice restaurant going in there. We made a mistake. We should never have made it C-1. We should have made it C- 2. We should have voted for C-2 then. To come back later and reverse ourselves, I think, is wrong. If they were to come in from the beginning and told me they were going to put a restaurant here, I might have looked at it differently, but I don't think the C-2 is right basically because Six Mile and Newburgh is a very busy intersection with all the traffic that goes through there. I don't think this is the right place for this restaurant. That's my honest opinion. I might be voted down but that's the way I feel. 23591 Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. LaPine. Are there any additional questions for the petitioner before we go to the audience? Thank you, Mr. Johns. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Leonard Schoenborn, 37644 Mallory. I'm President of the Laurel Park Association. We were here for the prior meetings and did express our concern about it being changed to a G2 at that time. Like you said, Mr. LaPine, we thought we had things settled by reducing it to a O7 and we're in agreement with that. The residents that are right next door back up to that would be very concerned about having the drive-lhm restaurant and what type of hours they would be open. I would have to agree that there should be a better location that doesn't back up immediately to residents right over the little brick wall that's there. So I would like to just be noted. That's our request, that you consider that. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, sir. Good evening Kelton Jones, 37568 Bloomfield. Good evening. Actually, I live kind of behind it, kitty comer to it. I didn't come to the previous meetings because I saw that it was zoned G7 and I knew it wasn't going to be any kind of fast food. So I really wasn't in opposition to it because when we moved in there about two years ago, we said, you know, there are office buildings right behind us. We can deal with that because really no one's there after 5:00 or 6:00 and that won't be a problem. Where we came from previously in Dearborn Heights, we had a MacDonald's behind us. That was really the main reason we got out of there because we didn't want to hear the drive-thru all night long. We didn't want bags blowing in our backyard and we didn't want to deal with it at all. So when we moved in this neighborhood, we thought it was going to be a nice quiet place to be. I guess I never thought I was going to be here voicing opposition to it, but I just hope that you would say no to it. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, sir. Mike Madden, 37596 Bloomfield Drive. I live in the one corner house there where the dumpster is actually going to be leaning up against there. I guess my only issue is one, the Del Tam in Dearborn Heights, is it? It's a 24-hour facility. And also, it's in a parking lot of a shopping, grocery store. There's no residential anywhere around there. So I also agree with Mr. Jones saying no to it, and I would appreciate if it you would. Thank you. 23592 Mr. Walsh: Thank you for coming tonight. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time. Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw: I have one question for Mr. Taormina. If this property was to be rezoned to C-2 and a waiver use is granted for this property as a restaurant, that waiver use would run with the property. If Del Taco was to say go out of business, its not inconceivable that this could become a MacDonald's or a Burger King or something else that's of a similar nature. Cored? Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Walsh: Even though this is for zoning, the question I have has to do with site plan issues. Mr. Johns, what's the intention for operation ofthis restaurant? Mr. Johns: As far as... Mr. Walsh: Twenty four hours or ... Mr. Johns: We're actually still studying that based upon the market study thats being conducted. In regards to hours, obviously that's something that we hope to work out prior to the next meeting, if there is a next meeting. In regards to a couple of the issues that were spoken of, I can address those this evening. Mr. Walsh: Yes. Mr. Johns: The trash enclosure placement is actually in the northwest corner of the proposed approximately one acre rezoned parcel, so its as far away from the residents as it can be. Also with regard to drive-thru speaker placement and noise from that, the location of the drive-thru speaker is 100 feel from the closest residents from the property line to the residents, another 100 feel from the parcel line to the building, and it's 60 feel on the other side of the building. So it's 260 feet away approximately on the other side of the 20 fool high masonry wall. So I just want to respond on those couple issues. Also, in regards to Mr. Lal fine's comments, we do recognize that we are asking for the rezoning and that there might have been previous uses presented for this portion of the overall parcel. However, we feel this is complementary use. There's already a drive-thru approved for the Walgreens, and we feel that they can function together, as well as without nuisance or inconvenience to the citizens. 23593 Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your time tonight. Unless there are any additional comments or questions, a motion would be in order at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, I had closed the public hearing. We are proceeding to our resolution. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #10-104-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 3, 2006, on Petition 2006-08-01-07, submitted by Schoslak Brothers & Company, on behalf of Agree Limited Partnership, requesting to rezone property at 17001 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Mallory Drive and Six Mile Road in the Northeast % of Section 18 from G1 to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-08-01-07 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That this general area in the vicinity of the Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road intersection contains sufficient C-2 zoned lands to serve the needs of the area; 2. That the uses permitted in the existing G7 zoning district, as well as the several waiver uses, adequately provide for the use of the subject property; 3. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need in this area for additional commercial uses such as are permitted by the C-2 district; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the existing zoning on the adjacent properties. 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: I want to give a little insight why I supported Mr. LaPine's resolution. I said earlier that perhaps I could support a C-2 in that area given a regular sit-down restaurant with regular hours. But because this drive-thru I'm sure is an integral part of this particular project and the proximity to the neighborhood, and as I alluded to earlier, opens up all kinds of hours after normal closing hours and the proximity to the neighborhood, that prompts my support of this motion. 23594 Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. My two cents on it, I was willing to support the petition believing that it would go through to the Council and be held there until we had an opportunity to look at the site plan and to discuss the various issues that have been raised tonight. It is customary for us to proceed in that manner because we have to consider zoning first and then site plan issues. I'm going to vote against the resolution this evening for that reason because I believe that we have the opportunity, should it pass, b look at the site plan issues. That's my two cents, and we'll see where the vole goes. Any additional discussion? Would the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Morrow, McDermott, Wilshaw NAYES: Smiley, Walsh ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shane Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2006-08-02-20 MANIAC'S CAFE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006- 08-02-20, submitted by Maniac's Cafe & Sweets requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 37587 Five Mile Road, on properly located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 19. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 12, 2006, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No additional right-of-way is required, and the legal description is based on the mortgage survey. The description to be used for the occupied area follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 5, 2006, 23595 which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited service restaurant on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast X of Section 19. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 8, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 30, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Without an exact address the review is only partial. There may be issues this Department will address at plan review parficularty in regards to the restroom or restrooms and their configuration, along with all other barrier free requirements including the entry door. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the owners of the China Inn Restaurant located in the New Five Plaza Shopping Center, dated October 3, 2006, which reads as follows: 7n regards to Maniac's Cafe and Sweets' petition to operate a limited service restaurant (Petition 2006-08-02-20), we, the owners of China Inn Restaurant at 37645 Five Mile Road, would like to request that the proposed operation will not be a foodservice serving Asian cuisine. The reasons are that (1) some Japanese or Korean restaurants cater more than just the designated type of Asian cuisine and may serve dishes that are actually Chinese, and (2) there are two Chinese restaurants on the comer of Five Mile and Newburgh already (China Inn and Jade Garden). Thank you for your time." The letter is signed by Hou Yer Li, Owner, and Jun Li, Food Safety Manager, China Inn Restaurant. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will then go to the petitioner. Is the petitioner in the audience this evening? Sandra Maniac, Maniac's Cafe & Sweets, 39026 Grennada, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Hi. I'm Sandra Maniac. My husband is Mano. First off, I worked a lot with Mr. Nowak discussing our plans for it. And in regard to the China Inn, we won't be competing with any of those places in the plaza, any of the food places. Our food items will be limited to sweets, pastries to go with the coffee, cookies and such, cakes. We wouldn't actually even be in competition. There's a bakery across the street. We wouldn't even be in competition with them or anyone in the plaza. We're hoping to add to that plaza as an attraction. We moved in about two years ago in the Tiffany Park Subdivision, and we've been looking at that plaza over time. My husband and I both have a 23596 combined 20 years in the restaurant business. So we've had our eye on that plaza since we moved in. We plan on being a permanent part of the neighborhood and that's something we just want to contribute. It will be something more for the community. We have it set up for like a mom and pop type coffee place, hopefully something that would attract the mothers or parents of the neighborhood. There's a karate class place in that plaza. We assume that people would be bringing their kids and would want to come in with their children. We have an area designated for the kids to be a part of the place as well when they come in. Everything in there is food. We're just going to be offering coffee and maybe some sweets to go with it. Mr. La Pine: Have you ever been in the food service business before? Mrs. Maniac: Yes, sir. I have 10 years. Through putting myself through college, I waitressed as well as managed restaurants including a coffee shop. My husband also. Mr. La Pine: We were out there today. Mr. Morrow and I looked at the building you are going to go into, which I think would be a nice location for you. Although being off the main road as far as you are, you've got to hope the center will attract enough people to keep the restaurant going. But anyways, you're not going to do any cooking of any kind? Mrs. Maniac: No. Mr. La Pine: Are you going to have donuts and sweet rolls and all thatwill be bought from vendors. Is that correct? Mrs. Maniac: Correct. Mr. La Pine: What type of hours are you intending to operate here? Mrs. Maniac: We'll open at 6:00 a.m. being a coffee shop. We plan to open at 6:00 a.m. That plaza doesn't stay open very late to begin with. Nothing in there really slays open late. I think we plan maybe like 8:00 p.m. to close. It will depend on the season and being private owned loo. I mean if it's not busy, we're going to have to see in the beginning. But we plan around 8:00 p.m. to be closed at the latest I would imagine. Mr. La Pine: Is that seven days a week or six? Mrs. Maniac: Seven. Mr. La Pine: Seven days a week. Thank you. 23597 Ms. Smiley: My question was regarding whether or not you were going to offer like internet service or who you expect your clients to be. Mrs. Maniac: Well, we hope that it's everyone. We hope everyone. You guys can come too. We have discussed the internet, a wireless option for people. No one will pay for it. It will be there. We'll have internet for ourselves to do what we need to do in our office. It is something we discussed. I'm not sure if that would pose a problem or not as far as your consideration. Its not something that's set in stone, but its something that we have discussed and we would like to offer because the high school is close. Adults use the internet too. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a couple quick questions. I was looking at your floor plan that you have in our packet here. You have a relatively small storage area. Is that going to be adequate for storing your products or is d going to be pretty much what you have is out for sale? Mrs. Maniac: The storage area is mostly for our cups, napkins, that type of sluff to go, like packaging. I mean everything is going to be fresh as far as our sweets, and that's even going to be limited. Our main thing is going to be drinks, beverages. We're going to have a display cooler for our sweets, our cookies and such. Everything should primarily be there because everything should be fresh. We plan on bringing everything in fresh. So we don't plan on storing really any of the food items that we will have, and we will have a refrigerator behind the counter. That should pretty much serve the purpose of what we plan on keeping in stock. We don't plan on getting a huge stock of food. That's for dry items - the storage area. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Sure. Now this kid's area that's marked on here. Is that just sealing for kids or is there going to be play toys or any of that kind ofsluff? Mrs. Maniac: Maybe just some little toys, coloring books and crayons, something of that nature so the kids are entertained while the parents are there. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So no playscapes or anything? Mrs. Maniac: No. Nothing that would pose any danger to them. Just something to keep them entertained. 23598 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Good. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Is this going to be how you're going to make your income in this restaurant? Is this d? Mrs. Maniac: My husband will be keeping his job. He's a manager at a downtown Plymouth restaurant. He runs the kitchen there. Mr. La Pine: He'll still be working anotherjob? Mrs. Maniac: Hewill. Mr. LaPine: And you'll basically be running it until he gets home at nigli. Mrs. Maniac: Primarily. I will be maintaining a job part time that I've had. I'm actually on leave right now. I just had a baby two weeks ago, so I'm on leave. And I'll be taking a personal leave of absence for three months after my maternity is up and I'm going to actually just be staying there part time two to three days a week just to be financially secure. Mr. LaPine: So you're going to hire somebody to be the manager? Mrs. Maniac: I'll still be managing. I'll only be at my other job two to three days a week, which that's been worked out as well. Mr. LaPine: Now the ice cream you sell. Are you going to be selling ice cream cones? Mrs. Maniac: It will be soft serve only. It will be a freestanding soft serve machine, vanilla, chocolate and twist. It will be sundaes as well as cones. Mr. LaPine: Well, I give you a lot of credit for starting out. I hope you're a grealsuccess. Mrs. Maniac: Thank you very much. We hope we are too. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you, ma'am. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion would be in order. Mr. Wilshaw: I'd like to make a motion. I'm going to offer an approving resolution. I think it is a unique business opportunity that they're presenting in this area. It's different sounding and I wish them a lot of success with it. I hope it works well. 23599 On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-105-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 3, 2006, on Petition 2006-08-02-20, submitted by Maniac's Cafe & Sweets requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 37587 Five Mile Road, on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 19, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the CityCouncil that Petition 2006-08-02-20 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than thirty (30) seals; 2. That the issues as listed in the correspondence dated September 8, 2006, from the Inspection Department in regard to the restroom or reslrooms and their configuration, along with all other banner free requirements including the entry door, shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction; 3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 4. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 23600 Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? I'd like to say I wish you the best. Congratulations on your new baby. It sounds like you have a really good plan. Its a difficult economy. I know that you're aware of that, but I think the best thing we can do is wish you the best and gel out of your way. So good luck on your project. Mrs. Maniac: Thank you. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2006-08-02-21 A & C ANIMAL HOSPITAL Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2006- 08-02-21 submitted by Kreative Designs, Inc., on behalf of A & C Animal Hospital, requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary hospital at 11655 Farmington Road, on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX raiload right-of-way in the Southeast''/. of Section 28. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 12, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description is incorrect. The corrected description of Property A, which is the animal hospital, follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 5, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a veterinary hospital on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX railroad right-of- way in the Southeast X of Section 28. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 8, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 31, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking 23601 area needs repair, maintenance and resealing if not repaving and double striped parking. (2) There is no indication if the existing landscaped areas are irrigated. This should be clarified to the Commission and/or Council's satisfaction. (3) It is unclear if this space, including all restrooms, are fully barrier- free/accessible. This will be determined at this Department's plan review should the project move forward. (4) The proposed ground sign appears to meet the ordinance for size, height and location. (5) This petitioner may need to satisfy other Departments in obtaining separate property ID numbers for the separate businesses. In any case cross parking and/or shared driveway agreements should be presented to the Commission and Council for review and approval. (6) By separate resolution Council, by a super majority, may waive the prohibition of the outdoor walking area. (7) No mention has been made of the required sound proofing of the building and its ventilation system. This should be resolved to the Commission and/or Council satisfaction. This also may be waived by separate resolution by a super majority of council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: You said the site was split. Are there now two owners for that piece, Mark? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McDermott: Mr. Taormina, there's a small strip of land that mns to the west of this building, is that owned by Tim Horton's? Is that on their property line? Mr. Taormina: Lel me see if I can show that on the aerial photograph. I know it may be difficult to see. I'm going to zoom in on that area so everyone can see it more clearly. This is the Tim Horton's site. This is the building. You can see that it's an L-shaped properly. I believe the strip of land you're talking about runs right along here and includes a small area of grass, which is just north of this row of parlang. I believe that is owned by Tim Horton's restaurant. That's correct. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. 23602 Mr. Walsh: If there are no additonal questions for the staff, we will go to the petitioner. Good evening, sir. Could we have your name and address please? Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Kamal Tolia, Kreatve Designs, Inc., 1967 Pine Ridge Lane, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302. Good evening. I would like to answer basically about the dog walk area. Pertaining to that, what the intention of that is basically to bri ng a sick dog to exercise in an open area, and that is why we're trying to do an enclosure out there. If the dog is ever taken out, it will be leashed and attended to at all times. It's not like a dog that's going to be let out there by itself. Again, it is not going to be used for any other reason but for exercise. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. McDermott: I'm curious as to why that enclosed area is so far back from the building. Mr. Tolia: Unfortunately, that is the closest or the ideal location. We did not want to move the parking farther away, and since it was at the comer of the property, the Salvation Army building is way far behind. Tim Horton's is also substantially to the north. Lel me get my bearing straight. To the south, I think, of the parking or the lot line. So we thought that would be an ideal location. It would be private. If the dog is out there and there are other customers coming into the building, it won't be a problem. And we have a door on the far west side of the building. That's what we plan on using to take the dog out for a quick walk. This whole thing again is about a 10 -minute thing. It's not like its going to be half an hour or something. Just enough time for a big dog to go cut, exercise for five or len minutes, and then bring him back in. Mrs. McDermott: Right. My experience has been with a dog that's sick, and I understand you're just boarding dogs that have had treatment and noljusl boarding for the sake of people being on vacation. Mr. Tolia: Right. Mrs. McDermott So a sick dog, that's going to be quite a long walk to gel all the way back there, or one's that's had an opereton, not that I'm a vel, but from my experience. So that grass strip that I asked about earlier becomes very convenient for the animal. So I'm concerned about that grass strip that they will not make it all the way back to the fencing area and they'll be using that area behind Tim Horton's. 23603 Mr. Tolia: Oh. Are you talking about the landscape area of Tim Horton's? Mrs. McDermott: Yes. Mr. Tolia: Okay. I've been talking to my client who is the owner of the clinic, and we went through this discussion. He said these dogs are totally leashed. They will never be let loose. They will be under good control by the pet handler or the dog handler. They will make sure that they dont do anything. Basically, again, this dog is not going to be taken out for urinating or for any other purpose because the kennel is all very well provided. We have all the provisions inside the kennel itself for the dog to lake care of all the hygiene things. The thing is, we would like to not have a fence between Tim Horton's and our lot because that fence is going to create a little bit of a ... you know, it won't look eery aesthetic if you put up a chain link fence. We are trying to make this whole building look so nice from the inside and the outside, and I personally would not want to put a banner between the two properties. That is one of the reasons why we would Ike to go with the fully enclosed dog walk area so that way we don't have that kind of a problem. Ms. McDermott: Okay. I understand. I think I'm still a little concerned though about people who are bringing their pets there. They're not going to know b slay away from that area. I just think that's probably a natural area for them to go to from the parking lot, but I understand what you're saying. Mr. Morrow: You do realize that it is prohibited to have a dog walk area, but it can be waived by the City Council? Mr. Tolia: Right, sir. Mr. Morrow: Now, I'm not entirely sure. This dog walk area is for what reason? It is for non -sick dogs? It's only for exercise? Its not for doing their business or anything like that? Its just for exercise. Mr.Tolia: Itis purely for exercise, sir. Mr. Morrow: In looking at the place, it seems to me, as a veterinary hospital, you would want to have that in closer proximity to the building and not behind Tim Horton's. If it were to be waived by the City Council, it seems like the area adjacent to the building behind their dumpster would be an appropriate place to put it where t is screened from Tim Horton's and the businesses to the north. 23604 Mr. Tolia: You want me to flip the ... Mr. Morrow: And we have a surplus of parking there. Mr. Tolia: Okay. Mr. Morrow: And I said earlier, you would think that it being a veterinary hospital, it would be for the convenience of the dog and not necessarily me, as a customer. I don't own a dog, but I know dog lovers and pet lovers and pets come first. Mr. Tolia: Right. Mr. Morrow: So I don't know. Would you consider an alternate to that dog run area? Mr. Tolia: Are you talking about providing the dog walk area immediately behind the landscape of Tim Horton's? Mr. Morrow: Behind their dumpster. Mr. Tolia: I see. Okay. Yeah, I mean I don't think we should have any problems with that. No, I don't think we would have any problems. If we are allowed, we can slide it out there. Mr. Morrow: This way you're screening it tom Tim Horton's and it's not way down at the other end. Mr. Tolia: Exactly. That perfectly makes sense. No problem. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any additional comments? Mr. LaPine: Two questions. I agree with Mr. Morrow's point of view here because when we went out there, we thought that would be a better location. On the back of your building, you have a door. At least there's one there now. Is there not? Mr. Tolia: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: So you could bring them out of that door and it would be a lot more convenient. Now the second question I have is, how often do you have pickup of the dogs' feces and urine and all that stuff? If you have operations and things of that nature, how often is that picked up by your garbage people or do they do the same thing as hospitals where it has to be put in sealed cans? How does the operation work? 23605 Mr. Tolia: Basically, if you see in the kennel run area, we have a floor drain in each kennel. Each individual kennel has its own floor drain with a flip top. It's a special kind of drain; there's a flip enclosure that you can just lift it. And we're going to provide a water hose in the dog kennel area with tempered water, hot and cold water. Basically, they have a garden hose that they go in and they clean up. All the dog's defecation and that is pushed our through the floor drain. Mr. LaPine: Does the drain go to the city's sanitary system or the storm water sewer? Mr. Tolia: It goes into the city's sanitary system. Mr. LaPine: Okay, the ne)t question I have is, in looking at the location, the parking lot is in terrible shape. I notice that the Inspection Department said repair or resurface. To me, the parking lot really needs resurfacing. The only problem you have there, you don't own the whole parking lot. You only own part of it. So if it has to be repaved, you would have to do it at least where the entrance and exit is off Farmington Road and go straight to the back of the building. Are you willing to do that? Mr. Tolia: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: Because it is in real bad shape. Mr. Tolia: It is. Mr. LaPine: I don't think you could really repair it. There was one other thing. I saw here that you do grooming. You wash dogs. You can lake them in there and have them washed and groomed and combed and you do all thatthere. Mr. Tolia: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: Where are you located at the present time? Mr. Tolia: Well, both the owners are working independently with a veterinary clinic right now, and this is their new business. Mr. LaPine: They're going into a new business. Mr. Tolia: That's it, exactly. Mr. LaPine: Okay. I know you've got a number of examination rooms, laboratories and operating rooms. So I would assume you 23606 would antiapate that you're going to have a good business here. Mr. Tolia: Yes, we are going to be developing brand new business out here. Mr. La Pine: Thank you. Ms. McDermott: After that discussion, I'm a little confused now as to where we're moving the dog walking area? Mr. Morrow: If you remember the site, just to the west of the building ... Mrs. McDermott: Right. Mr. Morrow: That piece of property that you were concerned about who own's it. You said Tim Horton's. Mrs. McDermott: Right. Mr. Morrow: Right there they have a couple of large pine trees and a grassy area and a big dumpsler area. That screens the dog walk area and the businesses to the south, and it precludes them having to walk way to the far west end of the building of the lot to walk the dogs. It would be in close proximity to the building. Mrs. McDermott Right. So we have agreement that's a good new location for it? Mr. Tolia: Oh yes. I think it will workout good now that I can visualize it. I think it's going to work out very well for everybody. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any additional questions for the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw: Just one question. Mr. LaPine alluded to this when he was talking about the disposal of waste. How about medical waste? We understand where general waste is going to go down the drain, but what about medical waste from operations or what have you? Mr. Tolia: I think just like a regular clinic, a human clinic. I think they have people who come in and take away all the syringes and needles and all that. Also for dead animals, they have a special company that comes in and picks them up. If they have to eulhanize a dog or cat or something, they have a special service that comes in and lakes away the animal. And there is a cold storage in the floor. There is a place we keep a deep 23607 freezer, a regular deep freezer, and that's where they keep the animal, and they have a regular or weekly or something like a cycle where the company comes and picks those up. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So basically all that's going to be in the dumpster is Mr. Tolia: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a resolution would be in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-106-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 3, 2006, on Petition 2006-08-02-21 submitted by Krealive Designs, Inc., on behalf of A & C Animal Hospital, requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary hospital at 11655 Farmington Road, on properly located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX railroad right-of-way in the Southeast % of Section 28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-08-02- 21 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by Kreative Designs, Inc., dated August 28, 2005, and received by the Planning Commission on August 30, 2006, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; office waste? Mr. Tolia: Yes, sir. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: What Mr. Wilshaw said, is that regulated by the Stale, how all this is handled? Mr. Tolia: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: So there are guidelines and ordinances and whatever to make sure it's disposed of in a proper manner? Mr. Tolia: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a resolution would be in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-106-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 3, 2006, on Petition 2006-08-02-21 submitted by Krealive Designs, Inc., on behalf of A & C Animal Hospital, requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary hospital at 11655 Farmington Road, on properly located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX railroad right-of-way in the Southeast % of Section 28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-08-02- 21 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by Kreative Designs, Inc., dated August 28, 2005, and received by the Planning Commission on August 30, 2006, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 236118 2. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced Site Plan is hereby approved and shall be completed in accordance with said plan; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-1 prepared by Kreative Designs, Inc., dated August 28, 2005, and received by the Planning Commission on August 30, 2006, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the construction of the new entry vestibule shall be full -face 4 -inch brick; 7. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadways; 8. That the operation of the subject use shall not permit the boarding of household pets except as is needed for the provision of medical care for sick or diseased pets; 9. That all animal remains, medical and animal waste shall be stored in a freezer or other such closed container inside the building; 10. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence dated September 8, 2006, from the Inspection Department shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction: - That the parking area shall be repaved and shall be double striped; - That this space, including all restrooms, shall be fully barn er-free/acce ssibl e; - That the petitioner shall obtain separate properly ID numbers for the separate businesses; - That adequate soundproofing shall be installed to the extent necessary to insure the elimination of all noise from the area used for the treatment and temporary keeping ofsuch sick and diseased household pets; 23609 11. That the outdoor enclosed dog walking area shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the prohibition of open or outdoor runways, kennels, or pens is waived by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; and further provided, that the enclosure for the outdoor dog walking area shall be located adjacent to the south property line immediately west of the subject building; 12. That the endosure for the outdoor dog walking area, if approved by the City Council, and the site's dumpster enclosure shall both be of masonry construction with gates, as shown in the detail on the above -referenced Site Plan; 13. That no animals shall be left unattended in the outdoor enclosed dog walking area; 14. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 15. 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. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mrs. McDermott: Do you want me to induce that we're moving the location of the dog walking area? Mr. Taormina: Yes. That it would be shifted approximately 95 to 100 feel to the east. 23610 Mrs. McDermott: And we're not going to approve a fence. Mr. La Pine: I just have one change I'd like for the maker of the motion and the second to approve. On Item 10, bullet one, where it says that the parking area shall be repaired and resealed, I'd like to remove "repaired and resealed" So then it would read "that the parking area shall be repaved and shall be double striped." Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and second? Mrs. McDermott: That's acceptable. Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Then the motion stands as amended. Any further discussion? Mr. Morrow: I guess I missed the discussion on waiving the fence along the 127feet. Was that part of our discussion? Mr. Walsh: There was discussion between Mrs. McDermott and the petitioner, and the petitioner had indicated that he was not desirous of having a barrier in place. Mr. Morrow: Was there any feedback from the Inspection Department along that line? Mr. Walsh: No, nothing to that effect. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Morrow, I think the reason why we decided, at least when you and I were out there, we thought it was a good idea for that because it would block off that area way in the back where the dog walk was going to be, but now it's going to be blocked off by the dumpsler from Tim Horton's. The fence won't be needed because you have that grass area that goes all around there. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a comment. I think that the movement of the dog run was a good move. That makes this whole petition a lot more palatable. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. 23611 ITEM #4 PETITION 2006-07-01-06 S & K INVESTMENTS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006- 07-01-06, submitted by S & K Investments Inc., L.L.C. requesting to rezone property at 14801 and 14815 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 21 from R-2 to C-1 and OS. Mr. Walsh: Before we go on to the staff report, this item has been tabled. We need to remove it from the table. Is there a motion? On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously approved, it was #10-107-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2006-07-01-06, submitted by S & K Investments Inc., L.L.C., requesting to rezone property at 14801 and 14815 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast ''/ of Section 21 from R2 to G7 and OS, be removed from the table. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: This item was tabled at the August 29, 2006, Planning Commission Public Hearing to enable the petitioner to amend his request. By way of background, this is property that is located on the west side of Farmington Road approximately 490 feel north of Lyndon Road. There are actually two parcels, 14801 and 14815 Farmington Road, both of which are currently zoned R-2, single family residential. The request was to rezone these to a combination of OS, Office Services, and G7, Local Business. We have received a letter from the applicant dated September 7, 2006, which reads as follows: "The undersigned, as petitioners in connection with the above -referenced rezoning petition, by this letter we are respectfully requesting to amend the subject petition. The original petition submitted requested the property be rezoned in part to the C-1 Local Business District and in part to the OS Office Services District. Our amendment is to delete the request for C-1 District and have the entire property all rezoned to the OS Office Services District. Your favorable consideration of this request is very much appreciated. Should there be anything further that needs to be done in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me." The letter is signed by Harry Kzirian, President, S&K Investments 23612 Inc., L.L.C. A revised conceptual plan was submitted along with the letter that shows three potential office buildings on the property. Obviously, this is something that is not under consideration for detail review this evening. It would require a re -submittal of a site plan if the rezoning is approved, and review and approval by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence for us? Mr. Nowak: There is no additional correspondence other than the letter from the petitioner. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any questions for the staff? When we originally saw this, they wanted rezoning for C-1 and OS. We're just looking at OS now for tonight's purposes. I just want to be clear on that. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. Harry Kzinan, S & K Investments Inc., 26675 Wembley Court, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Sir, do you have anything to add? Mr. Kzirian: No. That's pretty much it. We would like to put up all three office buildings. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. LaPine: When you were here before, you wanted the commercial and two other office buildings. The total of the three was quite large. Mr. Kzirian: Yes. Mr. LaPine: So you wont be held up when you come in with your new site plan, you should get together with Mr. Taormina and have those buildings correspond as far as the total three buildings' square footage, which is to the north of you. We'd Ike to keep them approximately the same size because the properties are almost identical. It would save you a lot of time if you come in and we say we're not going to buy this because the buildings are loo large. To do it ahead of time, you'll know what we'll be looking for. 23613 Mr. Kzirian: Yes. We'd like to meet all the requirements, landscaping, parking and all that. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Fine. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Mr. Morrow: May I make a resolution? Mr. Walsh: Well, we do have some audience members. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, you may do so, sir. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously approved, it was #10-108-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on Petition 2006-07-01-06, submitted by S & K Investments Inc., L.L.C., requesting to rezone property at 14801 and 14815 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 21 from 1-2 to C-1 and OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006- 07-01-06, as amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to OS, as modified by the exdusion of the westerly 45 feel, for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional office uses to serve the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning is complementary to the OS zoning on adjacent properties fronting on Farmington Road both north and south of the subject property; 4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the properties located on the west side of Farmington Road north of Lyndon Road; and 5. That the proposed change of zoning is in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan designation of Office land use for this area. 2W14 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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-02-08-05 S & N DEVELOPMENT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 02-08-05, submitted by S & N Development Company requesting an extension of the site plan, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (CR 183-03), in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast % of Section 6. Mr. Taormina: This is the third request for a one-year extension of the site plan that was granted approval for the construction of a three-story office building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway. The City originally approved all the plans in April 23, 2003. A one-year extension of that approval was granted in 2004, and again in 2005. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Shamie, if you can join us please. Sam Shamie, 26111 West 14 Mile Road, Suite LL4, Franklin, MI 48025. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to Mr. Taormina's explanation? Mr. Shamie: Just that we're talking to two different tenants in the park right now for a possible build -to -suit scenario. We just need this extension to be able to complete our negotiations. It's not guaranteed that we will, but we're trying very hard to find somebody for this site. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. I'm convinced. I see his marketing tool here. He's actively trying to bring this to fruition, and I think it would be not productive to not approve this, so I think it should be approved. 23615 Mr. La Pine: When we talked at the study session, you said there's going to be a lower level, which is basically a basement. When you originally came it, you didn't want that, but you say the stale or the city or somebody wants that in there? Mr. Shamie: No. We have to have a lower level to stabilize the building because ofthe ground conditions. Mr. La Pine: Will you have any problem with water or anything in the lower level? Mr. Shamie: No. It's just muck, and we have to have a basement to stabilize the building. Mr. La Pine: Okay. I just wondered. But that will be leased out? Mr. Shamie: Yes. We also have a complete set of plans already done. If we make our deal, we're ready to submit to the city for building permits. So I hope we're successful in the next 90 - 120 days. Mr. Walsh: Very good. We have a few people in the audience still. Did anybody wish to speak to this item? No? Okay. Thank you for being here tonight. Mr. Shamie: Thank you for your cooperation. I appreciate it. Mr. Walsh: A motion is in order. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously approved, it was #10-109-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-08-05 submitted by S & N Development Company requesting a third extension of the site plan, in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast % of Section 6, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (Council Resolution #183-03), extended in Council Resolution #168-04, adopted on April 21, 2005, and extended in Council Resolution #535-05, adopted on November 14, 2005, be approved subject to the following conditions. 1. That the request for a third extension of Site Plan Approval by Sam Shamie, managing member of S & N Development Company, in a letter dated September 13, 2006, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 23616 2, That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #183-03 adopted on April 23, 2003, in connection with Petition 2003-02-08-05, which permitted the construction of a of a three-story office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 931st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 931s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August29, 2006. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was #10-110-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 931s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, LaPine, Morrow, Wilshaw, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: Shane ABSTAIN: McDermott Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 933rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 3, 2006, was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman