Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-10-21MINUTES OF THE 972ntl PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 21, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 972"d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 2008-09-01-07 19055 FARMINGTON RD. Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-09- 01-07 submitted by 19055 Farmington Road, L.L.C., requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 19036 Filmore, located on the east side of Filmore Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 9, from R-3 to C-2. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. October 21, 2008 25025 Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated October 2, 2008, which reads as follows: At your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above petition. We have no objection to the proposed petition. There are no additional right -0f -way requirements and the legal descriptions as shown are comect. We are not able to comment on access to the site until a site plan is presented for approval. However, we assume that the Planning Commission is aware of the previous controversy over access to Filmore Avenue. The address of the parcel facing Farmington Road is 19055 Farmington Road and the address of the parcel facing Filmore Avenue is 19036 Filmore Avenue." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., for the City. The second letter is from Erik Kuszynski, dated October 20, 2008, which reads as follows: 9 regret not being able to attend the meeting on October 215' in person, but 1 did want to express my concems over the proposed rezoning of the above -referenced property. 1 am familiar with this piece of property from the old Taco Bell rezoning proposals. Mile 1 am not familiar with the particulars of the proposed business that wants to use this property, 1 have serious reservations about converting it to business use of any kind. A look at the map of this area shows the line Castle as the first business on Farmington south of Seven Mile, and the old Taco Bell as the second business. The petitioner now wants to add the first house on Filmore to the old Taco Bell property for the new business. This raises the question: How far should we allow businesses to encroach into a neighborhood? Looking at neighborhoods throughout the city, it appears that Livonia rarely stacks businesses two -deep off any major road. As a rule, businesses occupy the frontage on major roads, then the residential lots begin. This proposal would stack two businesses off of Seven Mile toward the south and encroach into a neighborhood. This goes against the type of planning that has gone into the rest of the city. It also brings up several questions. What kind of precedent does this set? Do residents in other neighborhoods have to worry that similar proposals might be approved in their neighborhoods9 Will the city allow the next house on Filmore to be taken over by another business in a few years? What will be done for the owner of the second house on Filmore to compensate him for the loss of value to his house? Then of course there are the ever-present problems of noise, traffic, and litter that are rarely resolved in a manner that makes the neighborhood better off than they are now. 1 urge you to deny this rezoning request. 1 know the Taco Bell property is currently vacant and represents an eyesore. October 21, 2008 25026 Furthermore its size makes it difficult for it to be redeveloped. However, 1 wonder if the city might give incentives to the owner of the line Castle to expand his business onto this property. 1 know they recently expanded their product line to include home - brewing supplies and they may benefit from expanding their store. This would be a much better use of the land and would keep the adjoining neighborhood intact." The letter is signed by Erik Kuszynski, 18775 Blue Skies. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the Planning Department? Ms. Vartoogian: Will this Parcel A become a separate taxable parcel or is it taxed along with what is designated as Parcel C? Mr. Taormina: It would be split and then combined with Parcel C to form a single tax parcel, if its rezoned to C-2. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any other questions? The petitioner is in the audience. If you could please step forward? Enrico Soave, The Soave Law Firm, 33611 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. I've taken the liberty to put together bullet points in making the distinction between the previous petition and the current petition in front of us this evening. As I go through the bullet points, at any point in time feel free to stop me if you have any questions or would like me to elaborate any further. With that said, please let me begin. The present rezoning petition is born out of the need for more parking spaces for the curent proposed business as the forthcoming site plan will have more seating than currently existing as the building stands today, the old Taco Bell site. The area rezoned will be pnmarily used for parking only. The present petition keeps the existing house on Filmore Avenue, which will completely comply with the R-3 zoning. The present petition creates a buffer to all the adjacent and adjoining residential R-3 parcels. Also, the present petition is less intrusive, less invasive to the neighborhood while still keeping the overall character of the neighborhood, which would remain unchanged besides 13 feet as the house still remains. The area to be rezoned to commercial is much smaller and min -ors the C- 2 zoning on the west side of Filmore Avenue. The present petition seeks to keep the existing building with the addition of drastic renovations to the building as it stands today. The present building is 700 square feet smaller than the previous petition brought before you. The present building is farther October2l, 2008 25027 away from adjacent residenlial property than the previous petition. The neighbors will be far less inconvenienced by keeping the existing building by way of less construction, less traffic, less noise. We have more of a turnaround time as construction begins and constructions end, and less of a safety hazard as the current building will stand and not need to be demolished. The hours of operation of the likely business is far less controversial than the previous petition. This business will probably have, at maximum, midnight hours on weekends. The previous petition was at 4:00 a.m. as it originally stood. The previous petitioner's request for a drive-thm window was derived from a corporate mandate in an effort to raise revenue. Also, the previous petitioner was able to stay financially viable without the need of a drive-thru window. However, this petitioner will be an independently owned and operated business that needs a drive-thm window just to be able to compete and actually survive. The present petitioner does not have the name brand nor the massive following that Taco Bell has. The result is a lot less traffic and reduced noise issues than with the previous petitioner's Taco Bell. Furthermore, the proposed business will be more of a casual dining experience rather than a typical Taco Bell fast food, higl rdensity restaurant. The forthcoming site plan will maximize the amount of green space on the property as much as possible as the previous petition did. Lastly, the petitioner is willing to add and construct a higher screen wall than is required per the ordinance to further provide a buffer to all adjacent residential property. As required, its five foot and the petitioner is willing to go higher than that in order to create a better buffer to the rest of the residential neighborhood. At this point, I'd like to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions? Mr. Wilshaw: Looking at these bullet points, they're very compelling arguments, but the petition before us is for zoning. Unfortunately, I can't consider a lot of the site plan -related aspects as a result of that. Mr. Soave: Very true. Mr. Wilshaw: So looking at just the zoning itself, if this zoning approval is not accepted today, will that site be viable for your client as it stands right now? Mr. Soave: As it stands, no, because the parking is an issue. The seating in the old Taco Bell is not enough, especially for a casual dining restaurant, and we would want patio seating to keep up with the October 21, 2008 25028 times to give it a more modern look. In order to do that, we need more parking. So this is a must in order to proceed further. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr.Soave: My pleasure. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Ms. Vartoogian; When you say its not enough parking, are you speaking with regard to the ordinance or just based on your client's experience? Mr. Soave: It's actually two -fold, per the city's ordinance and in reality and actuality. If you have the opportunity to actually go through the back of that building, which would be the western half, it's kind of deceiving from Farmington Road because it looks big from the front. But as you proceed further back, it gets very narrow. So turning around that building is more of a safety hazard than anything else, and by laking that 13 feet from the adjacent home, actually opens that parcel a lot more for ingress and egress especially if a fire was to happen. A fire truck would have a hard time actually cirding the building the way it stands now but opening it up would be less of a safely hazard. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Mr. Morrow: Can I make a comment? Mr. Walsh: Absolutely. Mr. Morrow: Basically, as Mr. Wilshaw said, is kind of hard to separate the zoning from the future site plan. I would have no difficulty with the rezoning should it be for added parking and a larger more workable area, but as we see here tonight, it appears that there will be a request for a waiver use to install a drive-lhru window. So even though I might approve the zoning tonight, should it come back in the form of a drive-lhru waiver, I would probably be troubled in that area. I'm not voting tonight. I dont know how I would vole in the future. But that is the way I look at the particular zoning tonight. On the one hand, I can support it, but for the use you're showing here tonight, I'm not in favor of that particular waiver. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? October 21, 2008 25029 Ms. Smiley: You said that mirrors across. Mark, can you show a picture where that mirrors the property across Filmore? There's an L- shape or not really? Mr. Taormina: Is that a question for me? Mr. Walsh: Yes. Mr. Taormina: I have to speculate as to what is meant by mirror, but if he means that the proposed zoning line would match the C-1 line that is across the street, then you can see actually that the additional C-2 area would extend precisely 13 feel further to the south than the G7 zoning boundary on the west side of Filmore Avenue. It doesn't exact mirror it in terms of its dimension south of Filmore Avenue. It's a little bit further south. Ms. Smiley: Okay. And then this probably is for you loo. The L, does that go beyond Taco Bell into that other piece of property? Would that be the back of the Taco Bell? What's in front of that? Mr. Taormina: If you're referring to this portion ... Ms. Smiley: It would be to the right of that. Mr. Taormina: To the right of that? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Taormina: That's the parking lot of the Taco Bell currently. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Taormina: The aerial photograph shows that much better. Here's the Taco Bell building. Here's the parking lot and this is the area that would be rezoned to C-2, the area shown in yellow. Ms. Smiley: And south of that would be some office building or what is south ofthat? Mr. Taormina: This is an office building, correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McDermott The purpose of the rezoning is to gain more parking. My question in relation to that, is does that have anything to do with the drive-thru? So for instance, if the business didn't have the drive-thru, would you have enough parking spaces? October 21, 2008 25030 Mr. Soave: Regardless with or without a drive-thru, we still need more parking to proceed forward. Ms. McDermott Okay. And then I was out there today and you said that it would comply with the minimum setback or side yard setback there. What is the minimum because they must be just right on the line. There's not very much space there. I'm just curious. Mr. Taormina: It's seven feel for the side yard. Ms. McDermott Okay. Because when I looked at it today, there's a Blue Spruce right on the yard line, so that's obviously going to go. And then there is a pine that is fairly close. I dont know if that's within the 7 feel of the house or the 13 feel that's going to go, but it just seems to me you're going to have a hard time renting out that house when the house is siting right on a parking lot almost. Just a comment, but ifs pretty close. Mr. Soave: I'm not going to disagree with your statement, but the onus would be on the petitioner. He's not buying just Parcel A. He's buying the whole entire parcel. That house will be rented out or sold whether the side yard will be 7 feel or 20 feet. To a renter, it's not going to make a difference. Actually, to a person who's in need of a house, its not going to make a difference. Its still adjacent whether it's 20 feel or 7 feet to adjacent G2 zoning. And they are proceeding with the full knowledge that they're buying a house next to G2 zoning rather than being kind of what holds in the future. They're proceeding with the full knowledge of the remificatons of their actions. Ms. McDermott Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments for the petitioner? Mr. Taormina: If I could just correct myself. The question of what is the minimum setback requirement on the side, I previously indicated it was 7 feel; however, its actually 8 feet. They are showing 9 feel on the north side and 9 feet on the south side, for a total of 18 feet. So that would be in compliance with the R3 district regulations for side yard setbacks. Ms. McDermott Okay. Thanks. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Soave, I thank you for your presentation tonight. Mr. Soave: My pleasure. Thank you. October 21, 2008 25031 Mr. Walsh: At this point, we will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? We will need your name and address for our record please. Roger Cole, 19018 Filmore. You've probably seen me over here before. The neighborhood and I, we really appreciate everybody's help with the Tam Bell issue and all that. We really appreciate everybody working together as a community and neighborhood, you know, to stop this issue. This summer, it's been a really nice summer because it's been very quiet in the neighborhood compared to in the past because I've lived in Livonia at that location since'91. Its been pretty noisy in that lot. Kids partying to early in the morning, and the traffic coming in and out of there. I think the dnve-thru, it was a bad idea for Taco Bell. Why did they move? Because it was a bad idea. It was a bad idea to put Taco Bell in there a long time ago, you know, because if it were to be like a florist or a reasonable business, that wouldn't be wrecking the neighborhood with noise and litter and sluff like that. I think that would be a lot better for that location. That location is very bad for a restaurant. We're going to keep on trying to fight it and do the best we can with it because I know we look years to fight the Taco Bell issue. I know personally I've had my lawyer over here and I've had people helping me here and there. A lot of it came out of my own pocket because I do believe the neighborhood is worth saving. I didn't ask anybody to help me with the lawyers and all that. I just think our neighborhood and the City of Livonia should be a decent place to live without noise all the time and restaurants here and there. We can live good too you know. All we need to do is try to do the best we can for each other you know. I'd like to thank you very much for listening to me. You'll probably see me again. All right. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here. Mr. Cote: Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, the public hearing is closed. Al this point, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McDermott, ilwas RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 21, 2008, on Petition 2008-09-01-07 submitted by 19055 Farmington Road, L.L.C., requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 19036 Filmore, located on the east side of Filmore Avenue between October 21, 2008 25032 Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 9, from R-3 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-09-01- 07 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a need for an expansion of the commercial zoning and land uses in this area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for the further intrusion of commercial land use into a well- established single family residential neighborhood; 3. That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in harmony with the residential uses in the area to the south and west; 4. That the proposed change of zoning would adversely affect the wellbeing of the nearby residents if the C-2 zoning district is permitted to be expanded into their neighborhood; and 5. That maintaining the zoning boundaries as they currently exist in this area will serve the best interests of the community at large. Mr. Walsh: Are there any comments? Mr. Morrow: As I indicated earlier, we're talking purely zoning. I would certainly like to see that property added to the site for the reasons I indicated, such as parking to make it a more viable site. So on that basis, I'm going to vote no because I'm not sure exactly what we'll end up with when the site plan comes back, providing this is approved. But as I indicated to the petitioner, I doubt very seriously that I could support a drive-lhru window. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments? Mr. Wilshaw: Just to say somewhat of what Mr. Morrow said, I do have some concerns over the conceptual site plan that was presented, but those are issues that we'll deal with in the site planning process if it does come to us again. Hopefully, we can get those resolved in a satisfactory way for both the residents and the petitioner. However, just on the issue of zoning alone, which is what's before us today, looking at that, I see it as an encroachment of commercial zoning into a residential area and for that reason I cannot support it. October 21, 2008 25033 Mr. Walsh: I am going to join Mr. Morrow on his vole. I believe this will give the petitioner some flexibility to work with the Council and our Planning Department so you can find a good use for the property. I have the same reservations that he does with regard to a drive-thru and noise, but (hats something that we can work through at the site plan review. If there are no additional comments, then would the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Smiley, McDermott, Wilshaw NAYES: Morrow, Scheel, Vartoogian, Walsh ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh: The motion fails. So we are seeking another motion. On a motion by Vartoogian, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #10-04-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 21, 2008, on Petition 2008-09-01-07 submitted by 19055 Farmington Road, L.L.C., requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 19036 Filmore, located on the east side of Filmore Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast'''/ of Section 9, from R-3 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-09-01- 07 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing zoning on other properties in the vicinity of the Seven Mile Road and Farmington Road intersection; 2. That the proposed change of zoning would constitute a minor expansion of an existing adjacent zoning district; 3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a portion of the properly involved in this request to remain in a single family residential zoning classification to act as a buffer between residential uses and more intensive commercial uses in the area; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the planned future use of the subject property in conjunction with adjoining commercial property to the north and east. October 21, 2008 25034 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. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vartoogian, Morrow, Scheel, Walsh NAYES: McDermott, Wilshaw, Smiley ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. k 0 =l Ai Eib'M9=k IY Ile] 11'&-] /t1:ATA =k 1x:71: f_1 WO Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 09-02-28 submitted by All Star Veterinary Clinic requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary clinic at 38133 Ann Arbor Road, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast'''/ of Section 31. 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 four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated September 30, 2008, which reads as fol lows: "At your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above petition. We have no objection to the proposal petition. Then; are no additional right -0f -way requirements. The legal description for the waiver use area is as follows. The address of this location is 38133 Ann Arbor Road." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., for the City. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 1, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for a waiver use approval to operate a veterinary clinic at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 30, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with All Star Veterinary Clinic, October 21, 2008 25035 located at 38133 Ann Arbor Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 6, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 24, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This space, including all restrooms, shall meet all current barrier free codes. (2) The parking spaces are currently single striped. In the future these parking spaces should be double striped per the ordinance. (3) The building and ventilation system shall be soundproofed to eliminate all noise from the area used for the treatment and temporary keeping of such sick and diseased household pets. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, sir. If you will just come to our microphone. Thank you. Vilayat Kazi, DVM, All Star Veterinary Clinic, 850 S. Harvey Street, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. 1 am a doctor of veterinary medicine. I am requesting the paperwork for 38133 Ann Arbor Road. Let me give my background a little bit so everyone can become aware of it. I graduated in 1970. 1 worked in microbiology research. I published some papers in microbiology. I work in small animal clinic. When I became a citizen in 1981, then I joined with the Department of Agriculture working as a supervisor of public health veterinary. Part time I work as a veterinary in a small animal clinic. I do a lot of volunteer work. The Iasi 7 - 8 years, I worked with animal control in Detroit as a volunteer. I do a lot of spaying and neutering for them. I am planning to retire and I am planning to open some clinics so I can help with the rescue group. That's my ambition. I am planning to retire, maybe next year. All Star animal hospital will meet all the requirements the city has as far as any material pickup, noise level. I'm not planning to keep any - it's only going to be for small animals, dogs and cats. I'm not planning to keep anything overnight. As far as the exam rooms, I will have the wall all the way up to the ceiling. Then after that, in the pharmacy also, there will be wall up to the ceiling. I appreciate if you would give me the permission to open the clinic. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? October 21, 2008 25036 Ms. McDermott: Thank you. I would like to know, I'm just curious, there's not really a lot of grass you know in the area there, like virtually none. There's a tree out in front. Is there a plan where the clients would be able to walk their dogs, or dogs that are there during the day after they've had their procedure? Dr. Kazi: Yes. I had the same question when I was looking at the property. If you look into the building and on the west side, back of the cleaner and everything, they have the area over there. They have the grass and everything. Ms. McDermott: By the Washing Well? Dr. Kazi: I don't know. There's a dentist office and behind that area, behind this building. No, I'm talking about this side, the west side. Yes. Behind over there, in the grassy area. Ms. McDermott: I think it's to the west of the boundary line. I think it's the Washing Well. Okay. Well, it's a bit of a hike to gel there, but that was the only thing I saw as well. Dr. Kazi: I was thinking also. Ms. McDermott: Okay. You might want to, this is a suggestion, and let them know that, because if that's their property, I'm not exactly sure they're going to be real happy that people are wandering over there with their dogs, unless you have maybe one of your staff members making sure you clean that up. Dr. Kazi: We will. We will be. I cannot, if some dog goes from the clinic, even the outside in the parking lot, if something happened, that's going to be the clinic's responsibility because I don't want anything ... because I worked with the public health, and that is my priority. Every year I gel an excellence performance award from the Department of Agriculture. So if I'm going to be open, I will comply and everybody will like it and it will be completely sanitary. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Dr. Kazi: Its going to be clean. Ms. McDermott: And one other question. So you're going to refire from your cumenljob so that you can run the All Star clinic. Dr. Kazi: Yes. Right now, I'm planning to just keep up myjob until l refire. Meanwhile, its going to take time to build up the clientele. In January or February, I think I will be okay. October 21, 2008 25037 Ms. McDermott: All right. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any addifional questions or comments? Ms. Smiley: I was wondering, you're going to bring injured or sick small animals are going to come to you and be diagnosed and possibly a surgery and then released that day probably. Dr. Kazi: Same day. Ms. Smiley: Same day. Dr. Kazi: Same day. All surgery is out patient surgery, spaying, neutering. You can give anesthesia. You can keep under observation. In the morning they drop off and in the evening they pick up. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Dr. Kazi: You're welcome. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Thank you, sir, for being here tonight. We appreciate it. Dr. Kazi: Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition. If so, would you please step up to a microphone. Beverly Bennett, 37933 West Chicago. I hope you will excuse me because I am extremely nervous. My home is between Lamont and Stonehouse, which is, you see the bend in the road? There's Stonehouse and Lamont. The next block. So I live right in the middle on West Chicago. I have a few concerns. They may not be justified but I'm still concerned. First of all, when you change this zoning, what does it change to and will that allow larger businesses to come into that area, because there are small businesses. I've lived there for 22 years. There's small businesses and they service the community. When you start opening it up where other communities will come in, it will be a larger business with more traffic. I have other concerns besides that. Mr. Walsh: Sure. I can answer that one. This is a waiver use request, not a rezoning. So its specific to the particular use the petitioner is asking for. So it would be a veterinary clinic. October 21, 2008 25038 Ms. Bennett: So d wouldn't change the other zoning at all. Mr. Walsh: No. Ms. Bennett: The other concern I had. When you have a hospital of any kind, veterinary, any kind, there is hazardous waste that will be necessary to be sure that is going to be handled properly because we have a small residential community. I don't think we should be exposed to anything that's hazardous because of diseases and other things. That was a concern. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, can I answer that one? Mr. Walsh: Absolutely. Mr. Morrow: When you heard the good doctor speak, he ... Ms. Bennett: I couldn't understand some of ilwhen he spoke. Mr. Morrow: Basically, he was giving his resume, and he brings a wealth of experience, a lifetime of experience mostly, dedicated to animals. He's coming in to be a veterinary. Not only our regulations have to be mel, but he also has to meet the regulations of the Stale. So all your concerns are addressed either in our regulations or the State's regulations as far as noise, taking care of waste, medical matter. That's all been handled through the various laws. I would not concern yourself. And you heard him that if there should there be accidents outside the building, he's responsible for that. Ms. Bennett: Yes, but where he wants to walk the dogs or whatever that area he's using is right next to my house practically, and there's going to be a lot of animals and that's a concern to me. Because even now, people in the residential area like to walk their dogs opposite my house, and most of those people are very conscious of carrying their little doggie bags. You don't have this constant waste across the street. But I don't know how that will be handled with this facility. As they start coming over to that area, it's a grassy area in front of my house. They'd have to be awfully clean. Right across from my house there's a big lot. It belongs to the Ann Arbor Woods Apartments and it's been vacant for 22 years now. And I don't think they build on it because it has been contaminated from the laundry mat, and there's an environmental problem there. I just want to make sure that I wouldn't have to endure a lot of animals and animal waste. I know he says everything will be taken care of properly October 21, 2008 25039 but not everybody does what they say they're going to do. Would the city see that is complied with? Mr. Walsh: Yes, ma'am. Once we pass the resolution, if it passes tonight and the Council passes it as well, then our Inspection Department would enforce the ordinances. So you would be able to call the City if you felt that things weren't being cleaned properly. They would enforce the ordinances. It would be typical of any property. Ms. Bennett: I see. Of course, there's going to be more and more trafficthere because this is going to service a much wider area than our community. That little restaurant that you're talking about is not really a restaurant Its a drop in and pick up Little Caesars and then leave. They dont sit there and eat, and it doesn't have a lot ...it has business, but they don't stay there and congregate. It is a very tiny shopping center. Those are my concerns. I'm glad you listened to me. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for coming in. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to step forward? Seeing no one coming forward, the public hearing is closed. Al this point then, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-05-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 21, 2008, on , Petition 2008-09-02-28 submitted by All Star Veterinary Clinic requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary clinic at 38133 Ann Arbor Road, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast % of Section 31, which properly is zoned C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-09-02-28 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the subject use shall not have open or outdoor runways, kennels, or pens; 2. That there shall be no boarding of household pets in connection with the subject use, except as needed for the provision of medical care for sick or diseased pets; 3. That all animal remains, medical and animal waste shall be stored in a freezer or other such closed container inside the building; October2l, 2008 25040 4. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence dated October 6, 2008 from the Inspection Department shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction: This space, including all restrooms, shall meet all current barrier free codes. That all parking spaces shall be double striped as required by the Zoning Ordinance. That the building and ventilation system shall be soundproofed to eliminate all noise from the area used for the treatment and temporary keeping of such sick and diseased household pets; and 5. 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. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. October 21, 2008 25041 ITEM #3 PETITION 2008-09-02-29 ALADDIN'S RESTAURANT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 09-02-29 submitted by JML3, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C liquor license in connection with a full service restaurant (Aladdin's Restaurant) at 37104 Six Mile Road within the Key Bank Commons Shopping Center, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest''/. of Section 8. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning oflhe surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 30, 2008, which reads as follows: "At your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above petition. We have no objection to the proposed petition. There are no additional right -0f -way requirements. The legal description on the plan has an error in its 7"' line. The 30.00 foot call should be 539.92 feet The address of this site is 37104 Six Mile Road. The waiver use legal description follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., for the City. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 1, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval to operate a Class C liquorlicense in connection with a full service restaurant located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 2, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Aladdin's Restaurant Class C Liquor License located at 37104 Six Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 6, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 26, 2008, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The petitioner's property is located closer than 1,000 feet to a property with a Class C liquor license. The 1,000 feet minimum requirement may be waived by City Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. October 21, 2008 25042 Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the Planning Department? Mr. Wilshaw: I'm just reading the comment about the voluntary consent agreement that Sutariya originally entered into on the Kokopelli property. I don't fully understand how it is if the agreement was that it would only be used for that operation and it would be revoked if it ceased to operate, how this permits them to then sell it and use it elsewhere. I don't fully understand that. Mr. Taormina: The reasoning behind that agreement was to limit the use to that proprietor in that particular tenant space. They couldn't simply transfer it to a new owner or operator within that space. The Council wanted tight control on the location of that license. That was never put in operation and so the license assigned to that address has been placed into escrow. The request this evening is simply to transfer that to this unit, subject to the City's Council's approval. Whether or not the actual agreement was ever executed, I don't know. It may not have ever been executed, and if that's the case, then it really wouldn't matter. It's still the Council's final call as to whether or not to grant the license at this location. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate that explanation. It does ring a bell with me when you say that, but it just strikes me as unusual that there would be tight restrictions on one tenant space within the strip mall, but it's okay if it moves down the way a few feet. It just seems unusualtome. Anyways, thank you for that explanation. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. Shaheen BouMaroun, 37716 Hills Tech Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of JML3. I'm father of the two gentlemen back there that own the Aladdin's Eatery. Our company is Technical Group Inc. We did the architectural drawings and engineering, and we're doing the construction on it. Basically, you had touched on all the issues or concerns regarding the liquor license. We are in the process of hopefully having the liquor license from Kokopelli transferred to Aladdin's Eatery if approved by you and the City Council. I'm just here to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Wilshaw: Sir, I've seen a lot of work has been done at this location for several weeks now. There's been quite a bit of activity over there. Its good to see. Can you explain to me, just for my education, whattype of food Aladdin's Eatery is going to serve? October 21, 2008 25M Mr. BouMaroun: Aladdin's Eatery is part of a natonal franchise that is an American restaurant that serves Lebanese food. We basically tows on health food more than your typical restaurant. We have over 54 varieties of vegetarian dishes. All of our food is prepared fresh everyday at the restaurant. As I said, we're part of a national chain. We have 29 locations nationwide. My sons and our family own one in Chicago and Toledo, and now we're hopefully going to start developing in Michigan. The decision for us to be in Livonia is because the boys were born and raised in Livonia. We lived around the Six Mile and Newburgh area and they feel it's home. That's why they chose to have that location as their first location in Michigan. Mr. Wilshaw: That's great. How many of these 29 locations have liquor licenses currently? Mr. BouMaroun: All of them. Mr. Wilshaw: They all do. Okay. What kind of alcohol are you going to be serving? Is it complementary to the meal? Is it just beer and wine? Is ilfull liquor? Mr. BouMaroun: Our menu offers beer and wine, but we usually have a full liquor license. None of our restaurants have bars per se to serve full liquor. Basically, the beer and wine is more of a convenience for our guests more than profit revenue for us because our alcohol sales are 5% to 10% of our sales. We're not a bar per se, just for convenience. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Do you think that conflicts with your message of a fresh vegetarian food menu in anyway? Mr. BouMaroun: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I think I'm good for questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Morrow: For the record, could you stale the hours of opemtion and the days? Mr. BouMaroun: Sunday through Thursday, it's 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Morrow: Would you have any problem with us restricting the sale of the alcoholic beverages to those hours? Mr. BouMaroun: Absolutely not. Those are the hours we are open. October 21, 2008 25044 Mr. Morrow: We hope you work within those hours is what we're saying. You don't want to extend the bar activity. Mr. BouMaroun: No. Actually, if you've been to the restaurant, we have no bar per se. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Vartoogian: You may have heard some discussion about a conditional agreement that would limit this waiver use to the user of that space only. I don't know if you heard that tonight. Would you be agreeable to a similar agreement? Mr. BouMaroun: We're not going anywhere. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. McDermott I have a question. Will you have smoking in the eatery? No smolang whatsoever? Mr. BouMaroun: No smoking in the entire restaurant. Ms. McDermott: Okay. That's good. That goes along with the health conscious. Mr. BouMaroun: As a matter of fact, when we started painting and installed the carpet, no one is allowed to smoke in the restaurant since then. Ms. McDermott Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Okay. Thank you, sir, for joining us. We appreciate it. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, the public hearing is closed and a motion is in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-06-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 21, 2008, on Petition 2008-09-02-29 submitted by JML3, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C liquor license in connection with a full service restaurant (Aladdin's Restaurant) at 37104 Six Mile Road within the Key Bank Commons Shopping Center, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 8, which property is zoned 02, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-09-02-29 be approved subject to the October 21, 2008 25045 waiving of the 1,000 fool separation requirement as set forth in Section 11.03(h)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council and also subject to the following additional conditions: 1. 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; 2. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the window; 3. That alcohol sales shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday; and 4. That the petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use to a new user only upon the approval of the new user by the City Council and the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. October21, 2008 25048 ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9W Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 971s'Regular Meeting held on October 7, 2008. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-97-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 971s' Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 7, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Scheel, McDermott, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Varloogian Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 972n° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 21, 2008, was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman