Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - PH 2016-01-06 - REZONING - 15983 MIDDLEBELT CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Wednesday, January 6, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Wednesday, January 6, 2015. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen E. McIntyre, President Brandon M. Kritzman, Vice President Scott Bahr Maureen Miller Brosnan Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning Don Knapp, City Attorney Bonnie J. Murphy, CER-2300, Certified Electronic Recorder This is a Public Hearing relative to a request for a change of zoning within the City of Livonia on Petition 2015-09-01-09, submitted by 15983 Middlebelt, L.L.C., to rezone the property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, between Five Mile Road and Puritan Avenue, 15983 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast ¼ of Section 14, from OS (Office Services) to C-1 (Local Business). There was new data provided to Council containing some additional conditions offered by the Petitioner. The City Clerk has mailed notices to those persons in the area affected by the proposed changes, and all other requirements of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, have been fulfilled. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Kathleen McIntyre presiding. There were seventeen people in the audience. The Public Hearing is now open for comments. Please state your name and address before making your comments. McIntyre: We’re going to take up this first item for the rezoning and Mr. Taormina, do you want to begin that? Taormina: Thank you, Madam President. This is a request to rezone property that is located at the Southwest corner or Middlebelt Road and Puritan Avenue. The request is to rezone the site from OS (Office Services), its current zoning classification, to C-1 (Local Business). The property is about 8/10ths of an acre in area, it includes 190 feet of frontage along Middlebelt Road and roughly 200 feet of frontage on Puritan and currently there is a 2 3,600 square foot vacant bank building on the property that does include drive-thru facilities. The request for the rezoning is to enable the use of the building as a retail pharmacy which is treated as a permitted use under the C-1 District regulations but is not allowed under the current OS regulations. Looking to the north of this property are properties that are also zoned Office Services. Immediately across the street from Puritan is the Home Instead Senior Care Facility. Looking to the east across Middlebelt Road are a variety of commercial properties zoned both C-1 and C-2 and probably the one business most directly across from this would be the Bank’s Vacuum Store. And then to the south and to the west are residential lots, although the property to the south, all those properties to the south are Master Planned for future office use. The site contains twenty off street parking spaces that are located mostly between the building and the south property line. General retail establishments including pharmacies requiring parking based on a ratio of one space for every 150 square feet of usable floor area, applying the standard we fill the nineteen required parking spaces, therefore the site will be able to provide parking for the use that is proposed. As we mentioned, the subject property does abut residential lots on the west and south borders. The ordinance requires screening walls whenever a commercial zoned property abuts on land zoned for residential. The option does exist, however, to substitute a wall for a 10- foot wide planted greenbelt and in 2005 this site did receive approval for building an additional wall with a greenbelt in lieu of a wall along the west property line. Over on the south side the distance between the parking lot and the property line is less than 10 feet and therefore does not qualify for a greenbelt but the Petitioner does have the option of either erecting the wall, immediately going to the ZBA for a variance or seeking the approval of the abutting property owner for a five year temporary separation agreement. As indicated, there is new data that was submitted and this is in the form of a letter whereby the Petitioner is voluntarily offering a number of conditions with respect to the zoning change, those five items in particular, one that limits the use of the property as a pharmacy with the drive-up operations, a voluntary prohibition of selling any types of groceries or alcohol products, also limitations on the hours of operation, installing appropriate screening along the west property line, etc. And just to give you an idea, this is what the site looks like today, in fact, this was the plan that was submitted at the time of the addition to the Standard Federal Bank back in 2005. You’ll notice the trees along the west property line, that’s the area at the top of the drawing and I took some photographs today to give you an idea of what actually exists between the parking lot of this property and the adjacent residential which is on the other side of the 3 trees shown in these photographs. This is a view of the back side of the drive-up operation. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the rezoning, th undertaking that at the November 17 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you. McIntyre: Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina? Mr. Meakin? Meakin: Thank you, Madam President. Mark, since there’s OS on the west side of the street going up and down and the other side is C-1, isn’t this the exact definition of spot zoning? Taormina: Well, if you’re looking at just the real estate, the zoning in and of itself, it might be looked at as being out of place, but bear in mind that the C-1 and the OS have many similarities in terms of the uses that are permitted and it’s with this I think conditional agreement that he tries to, or that the attempt is to lock the use to one that is compatible to an OS classification and without expanding any future uses beyond that to – other uses that might be viewed as more intensive than are allowed in C-1 which would include full service drug stores, limited service restaurants, things of that nature. So through this conditional zoning agreement, those types of uses would be prohibited. Meakin: Then my question is then instead of changing the zoning why not justgo to the ZBA for a variance to use that type of business in that zoned property? Taormina: These are all questions that came up between the Petitioner, the Planning Department and the Legal Department several months ago and this Petitioner and it was decided this would be the most appropriate route to take. There are some complications with seeking a use variance by the very nature of the criteria with which the ZBA uses to judge whether or not a use variance is appropriate. Meakin: Because I think this is actually a pretty good use for this property. Thank you. McIntyre: Any other questions of Mr. Taormina? Ms. White? White: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. Mark, the conditional zoning agreement that’s in place, does it incorporate all five of these conditions in our most recent letter from the Petitioner, do you know? Taormina: This would be the actual agreement and it’s not something that the Law Department has actually looked at or determined if it’s satisfactory at this point in terms of the document, so it’s nothing that’s in place but it’s, I think 4 it’s really what the Petitioner intends to offer to this Council as part of the zoning process and if it’s agreed then the details of that document would be finalized with the Law Department. White: Thank you. McIntyre: Any other questions? All right, I’d like to turn now to the Petitioner. If you would please come to the podium and give us your name and address and explain your request for the rezoning and what you would like to do with your business. Dabaja: Good evening, my name is Frank Dabaja and I’m the property owner at 15983 Middlebelt and my address is 8351 North Wayne Road, Westland. Our proposal is to actually lease this property to a pharmacy and I have the pharmacist here that will be able to answer your questions regarding the operations of the business and so on and so forth. I’m not a pharmacist so I really don’t know that part of the business. But if you have any questions for me as the property owner, I’ll be more than happy to answer that. McIntyre: Seeing none, I think we’d like to hear from the pharmacist. Thank you. Chehab: My name is Ali Chehab, my address is 5801 Calhoun, Dearborn, Michigan 48126. We would be leasing the property from Mr. Dabaja to run a retail pharmacy or independent pharmacy, so whatever questions you have, please put them forward. McIntyre: Could you maybe just explain to us why this site is attractive to you and why you were interested in seeking the rezoning? Chehab: Well, the reason that this specific property kind of stuck out to us was one, it was formerly a bank with a set up that is very similar to what a pharmacy set up is. And then the fact that it has the drive-thru services, we really feel that would make us more competitive with other retail pharmacies such as your CVS, Walgreen’s and what not. However, we do plan to offer additional services to kind of separate us from them and create a more personalized service in the community. We would be offering you know just your typical drugstore people coming in, dropping of prescriptions, picking up prescriptions. Our over-the-counter would be very limited to just you know cough and cold, allergy, stuff like that. Like in the conditions we won’t be having like a full blown like CVS or anything like that, so like no groceries or alcohol, just strictly pharmaceuticals and then prescriptions over-the-counter. We do plan to have some durable medical equipment so like canes, crutches, stuff like that that people might need. We won’t really be doing any kind of compounding so we won’t be considered a compounding pharmacy. And then we do plan to offer 5 services, one that we really feel that would be a great advantage to the community is we will be offering free delivery and we feel that really helps with the elderly, especially in times when the weather here is bad. So, you know there are ways that we try to separate ourselves from retail, try to provide a more personalized service and you know try to give back to the community. McIntyre: Thank you. Chehab: You’re welcome. McIntyre: Any questions from Council? Mr. Meakin. Meakin: Sir, how long is your lease for? Chehab: Right now it’s five years with an additional two, yes. Meakin: And are you affiliated with any medical practice? Chehab: No, we are not. Meakin: Totally independent then? Chehab: Totally independent, yes. Meakin: I just want to welcome you to Livonia and we wish you the best of luck. Chehab: Thank you, I appreciate it. Brosnan: Madam Chair. Through the Chair to the Petitioner, I know what we’re talking about tonight now is just rezoning, but can you expand on any changes that you plan to make to the building once you know should you be successful in getting the rezoning? Chehab: We weren’t really planning on making any significant changes to the building itself, you know, maybe inside but we don’t plan on putting up any additional walls or things like that. So we plan on taking out, you know they have the cubicles in there, we’re going to try to take those out and put shelving in, but nothing more significant than that. We plan on keeping the drive-thru the way it is and just using that for drive-up services. Brosnan: Now, is there any chance that you’ll also be servicing like nursing homes and elderly care facilities? 6 Chehab: That’s not in our immediate future but you know if down the road we are able to get in touch with you know nursing homes, we’ll have no problem servicing them. Right now we’re planning an open door retail pharmacy. Brosnan: I mention that because we have an independent pharmacy in Livonia for quite a while at Plymouth and Farmington, it’s a small independent pharmacy, and that was a lot of work that they did. I don’t believe they’re doing it anymore because a lot of our nursing homes have had trouble making contact with the pharmacist and the people who are doing deliveries for them. So, your delivery service may actually be an appealing service to facilities in Livonia, may be something you want to explore. Chehab: Definitely, thank you for the advice. McIntyre: Mr. Kritzman? Kritzman: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple quick comments and I know you already have an approving resolution on the floor and I wish you well in that. Chehab: Thank you. Kritzman: I had a chance to stop by the property today and I think it’s a great location for that and certainly from your standpoint Livonia is a great community for something like this to be located in. Additionally, we have a high concentration of senior housing in that area with varying degrees of care, and building off of what Councilwoman Brosnan was saying, perhaps there’s additional business opportunities for you there. I think it is by no means any more intrusive the use than what was there before in the banking situation, so I think it’s a good use for that property. But one of the questions I would ask and perhaps this is to Mr. Taormina, does this come back through for any sort of site plan approval, where does the property sit as far as adhering to the previously approved site plans and landscaping that is there? Obviously the photographs that you showed, show very mature trees that are back there. The property has been unused for several years, that’s one of my concerns, but as you look at the site plan approvals that we’ve gone through in other areas, they kind of fall off over time and not be strictly adhered to. We have a chance to enforce that with our Inspection Department. Taormina: Yes, as part of the occupancy process that that could be looked at. The site is in relatively good condition in terms of the grounds. There’s nothing that I’m aware of that would trigger a need for this to come back for a formal review. It may have to go back to either the Zoning Board of Appeals or if the Petitioner can work out a separation agreement amicably 7 with the neighbor to the south, then there’s no need for any formal review there. He’s already been in discussions with the neighbor to the west in terms of maybe some supplemental plantings or even a fence to help augment the trees that are already there. So the answer really is no, there’s a good chance this won’t be coming back. Kritzman: And that’s acceptable, I certainly understand, we’ll get into the conditions of the property. I guess from our standpoint, welcome to the community. Chehab: Thank you, I appreciate that. Kritzman: I just kind of hope that things get spruced up a little bit along that route. Chehab: And we feel the same way, obviously, we want a business that’s presentable so we’re going to make sure to upgrade the landscaping, you know, that’s required. Kritzman: Great. McIntyre: Any other questions? All right, thank you. The Public Hearing is now open for comments and anyone who would like to, please come forward and please state your name and address so we know who is addressing us, please. Caruana: Hello, I’m Patricia Caruana, and my husband is here also with me, Vincent Caruana. We live at 29515 Puritan Street, right next to the bank and I have pictures to show. I’m going to read to you tonight basically what I want to say because I’ll forget half of it. Our house is the first house on Puritan Street on the hill, right beside the vacant bank on the corner of Middlebelt and Puritan Street. We live right next door to the 15983 Middlebelt property. So, whatever happens to this property has a potential to affect us and our quality of life. We’re against the rezoning of the property at 15983 Middlebelt Road from Office Services to Local Business rezoning to put in a pharmacy. There are enough pharmacies, drugstores in the area and we do not need another one. Specifically, Walgreen’s Drugstore is at Middlebelt and Six Mile. The CVS Drugstore is at Five Mile and Middlebelt Road. There are many more pharmacy drugstores in our general area and another for sure is not needed, especially because this is on a business and residential property. There are many strip malls on Middlebelt with empty buildings and plenty of parking area. Perhaps, although not needed in this area, the pharmacy drugstore would be better located in one of the vacant strip malls where there’s a lot more parking. There is also not enough parking space to support a pharmacy drugstore. This business is on a business and residential area. So parking customers will be parking on the residential 8 Puritan Street where there is no room. Before when the bank was there, the Home Care Instead business, it was a little smaller, their parking was full, but their building, they expanded it and the parking is a lot worse. And the business customers should not be parking on residential streets. That is for people that live in the houses, not for business customers. The 15983 Middlebelt property is at the stoplight at Middlebelt and Puritan. It is a busy area because the traffic light, bus stop right at 29515 Puritan Street, at the corner, and a home care business at Middlebelt Road right at the light, corner of Middlebelt and Puritan, right across from the old bank proposed rezoning property. The home care business does not have enough parking spaces, so employees, customers, also park in the old bank parking lot as the pictures show, and also they park on Puritan Street. And the pictures that I have in the book they were taken over a period of five days. So parking will be a big problem if the pharmacy drugstore is located on this property. If the pharmacy drugstore is put in the property, it will be too congested with cars adding already to a parking problem. It will also be dangerous to school children as at this corner there’s a bus stop. A pharmacy drugstore will cause a safety issue both for cars, vehicles and pedestrians. Besides the residential car traffic, Puritan Street is a school bus route, also with city vehicles, delivery trucks and business cars parked on Puritan Street makes it harder to get to the street. It is also dangerous because of the red light, too much traffic coming and going on both ways on Puritan Street. It is hard to get through, especially when turning at the light, either going onto Middlebelt Road from Puritan or going onto Puritan Street from Middlebelt Road. Vehicles fly down Puritan Street, not only to make the green light but also going into the business. That is good business for the police giving tickets because they always sit there, so they’re happy about it but it’s dangerous for the pedestrians. The parked cars on Puritan Street for the home care business and the proposed pharmacy drugstores do and will add an element of danger to the mix because they are in the way of both traffic and pedestrians. There are a lot of people that walk, jog and ride bikes on Puritan Street, mostly through the warmer weather but people still go for walks even in this winter weather. And because there are no sidewalks on Puritan Street, the traffic plus the business traffic parked on Puritan Street is an added danger to pedestrians. There is also a safety issue of a pharmacy drugstore going into residential area. It will sell drugs, prescriptions, thus causing a potential for business to be robbed because of Rx medications thus bringing into the area of possible unsavory people. And before when the bank was there, that I personally know of was robbed three times and we even had police coming to the door to make sure we were okay. 9 Also, we do not want a pharmacy drugstore in a residential area but if one is put in there, there is not brick wall on the old bank lot line. One needs to be put there to keep our property separated from the business, keeping customers out of our yard and keeping us safe. There is a greenbelt on the lot line and the pictures they showed us there on the screen, those pictures were taken from far away, those pictures there, that looks nice. You see the pictures I took up close, a picture says a thousand words. And it isn’t solid, the greenbelt, there are empty spaces and dying and decaying trees and shrubs that’s leaving the greenbelt too sparse. The bank that was there before, they said they would keep it up. Yeah, look at the pictures I took, that was never kept up. What did they keep up? They kept up the debris like falling leaves and people’s newspapers there, that’s it. And I had asked the bank for them to put up a brick wall. The manager there said yes, they would. When they went into higher level because they were leasing they said no. People have gone from old bank property into our yard many times and we have had to put up two no trespassing signs. Now, the business is empty so if one goes in people will be trespassing into our yard, it is not safe for us and we have lived here in our house since 1968 and we want to feel safe in our home. A lot of businesses have brick walls separating businesses from residential house, keeping the homes safe from the business customers and that is what we want. We live right next door to the proposed rezoning to a pharmacy drugstore and this affects our quality of life and living and we want to feel safe in our home, both inside and outside. The greenbelt now is very thin and sparse. With it not a solid wall, empty areas are in the greenbelt, thus allowing people to easily come in our yard and also show to business and all the activities going on there. A brick wall would also keep the sound down from business from the cars coming and going and also people talking a lot, especially in warmer weather when windows are open and outside. The greenbelt also decays and gets more sparse and a brick wall would solve the problem and business having to fill it in and constantly replace and keep up the greenbelt which the business before said they would and never did. The greenbelt as is is unacceptable. Also, teenagers have hid in our side of the driveway, those green trees are not all up there like that now because there are telephone lines, they’ve been trimmed a lot because they were in the way of the lines and they just decayed but it’s not like that anymore. Teenagers have hid on our side under the trees when the cops were there looking for it and I had to go out and get after them and they were older kids and I was scared and we as the residential person right next to a business should not have to feel that way. We should be able to feel safe and secure and happy in our own home. 10 A brick wall is a much better permanent solution to keeping a business and residential house separate and safe. Not only the residential community but also the business customers and employees will benefit from this keeping everyone safe and where they belong. A business should always be a positive addition to a community, especially to the residential neighbors. Also, before at the meeting that they had before about this rezoning, when the owner at the previous meeting said he would put up a brick wall, that he had no problem with that, his exact words but he should state in writing exactly when this brick wall will be put up and final day of completion and date and sign paper, otherwise he can agree to put up a wall and ten years from now if no specific date is stated, a brick wall still not be put up. Just like the bank that was there before, what did they say they would keep it up for five years, the greenbelt, they said whatever you people wanted to hear and they didn’t keep it up. Anyhow, I want to thank all of you for listening to all I have said about the rezoning of the old bank property and what I have said tonight, I hope you all take this into heart to think would you like to live right beside here, living in your home all these years you wouldn’t want to have to pick up and move just because a potential safety issue and too much congestion. Thank you for listening to me. McIntyre: Thank you. Meakin: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Mr. Meakin. Meakin: Thank you. Ma’am, I just wanted to address a couple of your points there. You mentioned about the Walgreen’s and the CVS? Caruana: Yes. Meakin: And if they were putting a Walgreen’s or a CVS at this location, I’d absolutely agree with you, I have some issues with what this company is trying to do is do an independent pharmacy, it’s not a retail store. So they’re going to make their living on providing outstanding customer service in the pharmacy industry. So they’re going to come for just those particular items. There’s no groceries, there’s no you know beer, wine, anything else. This is just a pharmacy where you have a doctor working out of that location. So it’s not going to be the traffic that you’re thinking of in the situation for a CVS or a Walgreen’s. He’s an independent looking to provide outstanding customer service to the community. And with having this business in that property there will be more traffic than the vacant property because right now the vacant property is an attractive nuisance 11 and you’re probably getting more mischief going on in your section there because there’s nobody there to watch the other side of the property for you. So I think this would benefit you having this business at that location by just having a small business operating there, you’re going to have nowhere near the customers going in to those – they have what, twenty some parking spaces? If they use twenty spaces in a day all day long, he’s going to be the best pharmacy in the whole world, hopefully he is, but it’s going to take a long time to develop that. But this is a good business for that location, it’s less use than the bank so I want to try and ease your fear because I know your fear is about the safety of the community and I believe this would be actually beneficial to your street there and to the rest of your neighbors as well. Caruana: It’s beneficial to a business, not a residential area, especially living right beside there, you have drugs there, you have potential for it to be broken into, they show that all the time on the news when the bank was there and it was broken into, we had police coming in our yard to make sure that we were okay. If this is such a wonderful idea, like you said before because of the drive-thru and they have a bank vault there to put the narcotics in there, and it’s a small time operation, guess what all these people that do the robbing, especially of pharmacies and stuff, they figure this is a little cow town with a pharmacy with not all the proper safety like a bigger drugstore is, easier to rob. The bank that was in there before, when you’d go up to the cashier, they didn’t have the bullet proof windows and they thought that was one of the reasons they were robbed plus they were right next to 96 the expressway, it was an easier escape for them. But you would have my exact same concerns if you lived right next door. And there’s a cop sitting there all the time, that eases my fears a little bit, but still the cop is not there all the time. Meakin: Well, I have faith in our Livonia Police Department, they’ll keep the business safe, they’ll keep your home safe, and they do a pretty good job keeping Livonia safe. We can’t stop robberies from happening but we do the best we can to keep it – because they try to avoid Livonia, the Police Department tells us that all the time, that they go to other communities more often than they come here. So the Police Department does a very good job and you mentioned one thing you were chasing people off and I’d ask you not to do that, call the police and let them do it for you because you don’t want to be engaging in people around your neighborhood there. Caruana: Right, right. Meakin: Call the police and let them chase them off for you. Caruana: Okay. 12 Meakin: We want to keep you safe, that’s what’s important. Caruana: If a brick wall is put up that would be one less thing that I have to worry about. Meakin: Okay. Caruana: Okay, thank you for hearing and listening to me and please take what I said in consideration and thank you. Meakin: Absolutely. McIntyre: Thank you. Mr. Kritzman? Kritzman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Caruana, on behalf of Council I’d like to thank you for sharing your thoughts this evening and I would like to reiterate something Mr. Meakin said. I’m an architect professionally, I had the opportunity once to design an independent pharmacy and it’s very much like Mr. Meakin was describing, very much like the Petitioner was describing. Their concentration to sell durable medical equipment and over-the-counter prescriptions, your cold and flu season sort of things, their concentration is not going to be on groceries, greeting cards, quick in and out sorts of things that you would see a lot of people using CVS, Walgreen’s, Rite-Aid, those sorts of places for us, it’s great that you put those provisions in there, I think that’s what makes this a far more tolerable situation but the photographs that you brought this evening bring an issue and it’s not so much about this property and the proposed pharmacy, but Home Instead obviously is exceeding its capacity of their approved parking lot and so we’ll come back to that in a second. But I don’t believe this is any more intrusive a use than what the bank was and so we need to recognize that you’re obviously correct in that people are parking on Puritan but it’s not because of this business, it’s obviously not because of this business because it’s not even open yet and those photographs show another thing, that Home Instead’s customers and employees are using this property, probably without permission, to park there. So there’s clearly an issue that needs to be addressed but on that Home Instead property. And we as Council cannot or should not prohibit someone from utilizing the property that they own in order to alleviate the issue caused by someone else. So I think the role of Council here this evening is to take a look at the petition that’s before us and address those things. So I guess I’ll direct the question quick to Mr. Taormina, I recall when Home Instead expanded their operation, I know they expanded quite a bit of the parking lot, it very well may be the case that they’re exceeding. I don’t recall how their parking was derived. For those of you in the audience, everybody’s business has a parking count that is derived based 13 on the use of the space and how many square feet they have or how many people they’re expecting. Mark, do you recall how we set the parking requirement on that? Taormina: I’d have to go back and take a look at that, Mr. Kritzman, and I don’t know if the problems that are reflected in the photographs are a daily occurrence or if that’s only an issue on occasion. I do recall there being a discussion that she would entertain, there would be certain times when she was entertaining certain training programs and people would be coming at different times. Kritzman: Coming at different times, with different scenarios? Taormina: And that for sure was going to fill the lot, that’s why she needed some parking spaces for what’s ultimately a small business of hers, but I don’t know, I’d have to look into that. But I remember the discussion. Kritzman: It would be worth spending some time on that. Finally, the question of the greenbelt versus the wall, this kind of goes back to the question that I initially stated to you, is what chance do we have of enforcing the site plan and you shared with us the requirements of either a wall versus the greenbelt. The greenbelt is there and obviously is very mature, I mean those things are in place for longer periods of time, their coverage is not exactly what we’re looking for on a greenbelt standpoint. I for one have always been a proponent of making our greenbelts even a little more, increasing the amount of materials needed on those greenbelts. What course of action do we have to try and either replace the greenbelt with newer materials that may have better coverage over time or enforcing a brick wall issue? Taormina: Well, we would have to evaluate this and determine whether or not the effectiveness of the greenbelt as it was designed has somehow been compromised or diminished. If that was the case, we could then bring this back for consideration for additional plantings. The Petitioner, I think, has discussed and maybe this is a question that we can go back to him on, the possibility of installing some type of a fence along that property line, a more effective screening. Because right now there’s a cyclone fence. I would caution against a brick wall, that would probably require the removal of several of those larger evergreen trees, so what might be a more effective solution would be some type of vinyl fence or other types of screening fence that could go along that property line. And it may not have to go along the entire property line, maybe just a section there. 14 Kritzman: I’d have to go back and verify what our greenbelt requirements are. Typically there’s a description of how many shrubs or trees there are to be per linear footage. Taormina: This is it, this is what was approved, this plan. Kritzman: And I think that’s exactly why we should be looking at requiring more plantings. Taormina: And that could be done, too, I mean a condition of something that maybe the Petitioner can take into consideration and bring back as part of the agreement. We can’t enforce that as far as the conditional agreement aspect of it, but he’s already indicated that he will install appropriate screening along the west property. Kritzman: Thank you. McIntyre: Ms. Brosnan. Brosnan: Madam Chair, I just wanted it clear, I think this question was asked already but I want to make sure we’re clear about it, the Petitioner in that th letter dated November 20 provided five additional conditions that they’re willing to agree to that are not part of the original approving resolution that was reviewed by the Planning Commission. So, are we prepared to add these as conditions? Taormina: These here, yes, these can be combined into an approving resolution at the time the ordinance is adopted. Brosnan: So, I think it was Mr. Meakin who offered the approving resolution tonight, it was your intent then to include those items, right. So then within those items, Item Number 4, it says the Petitioner will install appropriate screening along the west property line. So in my estimation the only word there that provides us with any amount of wiggle room is the word “appropriate screening”, and as Councilman Kritzman has indicated what may have been appropriate back in 2005 when the greenbelt was originally constructed, may now be overgrown and no longer the most appropriate way of screening. So I think what we’re hearing, what you’re hearing from me anyway and I think you heard it from Councilman Kritzman as well, is that we’d like to know what is going to be considered or how can we make this more appropriate screening for this, given the fact that it does abut residential and so rarely do we have a commercial use abutting residential in our community. We work hard to make that not happen. In this case, we all agree that it’s a less intense commercial use, it’s probably one of the best uses of that property right now, but I think we need to do something to make it work for the person that lives behind it. 15 So do you think there is any possibility, Mr. Taormina, between now and the voting meeting, that you would have a chance to work with the Petitioner on exactly what that additional green element or vinyl fence may look like and where it would be positioned? Taormina: Yes, I think what we can do is ask the Petitioner, I’ll work with him on being more specific in terms of Item Number 4, how that would be accomplished and provide that prior to the voting meeting. Brosnan: Because I think short of asking the Petitioner to come back before the Council for approval on some sort of a greenbelt upgrade, you know this is going to be the only shot we get and I think we can avoid having you come back again, I think that will speed things along for you. Thanks. McIntyre: Thank you. All right. Seeing that we have no more public comments on this, we will close the public comments on this and we have an approving resolution offered by Mr. Meakin with some additional work to be done between the Planning Department and the Petitioner on the definition of the screening. And just to remind the Petitioner, this will be on the th Agenda for the Wednesday, January 20 meeting and you will need to, you or a representative, ideally both of you will come back for that meeting, please, you’re required, one of you or a representative to be there. Chehab: Thank you. Dabaja: Thank you. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:43 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK