Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,167 - April 13 2021 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,167th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 13, 2021, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,167th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting via Zoom Meeting Software, Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Peter Ventura Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, and Debra Walter, Clerk -Typist were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2021-03-01-01 Fadie Kadaf Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 03-01-01 submitted by Fadie Kadaf pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 28200 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster Road and Brentwood Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 1, from OS (Office Services) to R-7 (Multiple Family Residential). April 13, 2021 29934 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone property from OS (Office Services) to R-7 (Multiple Family Residential). The location is at the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Lathers Street. The property in question is approximately 0.75 acre in size with 120 feet of frontage on Seven Mile Road and 270 feet of frontage on Lathers. The site contains a two -level general office building that is named Livonia Office Center. The design of the structure is bi-level, meaning that both the upper and lower levels of the building are several feet above and below the ground surface elevation. In general, as you can see from this aerial photograph, the building is rectangular. It measures 35 feet by 168 feet. It has a gross floor area of both floors totaling 10,542 square feet. The building is oriented length wise from the south to the north. The main entrance faces east toward Lathers. Parking is available on the south, east and north sides of the building. The building is currently vacant. The purpose of the rezoning is to convert the structure from commercial to multi -family residential. The proposed R-7 zoning allows for apartments as a permitted use, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Looking at the surrounding uses to the north, east and west of the property are residential properties zoned RUF (Rural Urban Farm). To the south there are commercial properties zoned C-1, as well as residential homes under the R- 1 classification. Both the interior and exterior of the building would be completely renovated. The interior would be converted in to ten (10) apartment units, with five (5) on the upper -level of the structure and five (5) on the lower -level. The five -unit types would range in size from approximately 660 square feet to just under 1,000 square feet. The new materials going on the outside of the building include wood siding and fiber cement panels. These are the renderings that were provided by the project architect. The site landscaping would also be redone. The parking spaces along the north and south sides of the property would be removed. These areas would be replaced with grass. In terms of screening, a masonry wall presently exists along the north property line where the site abuts residential. Along the west side the plans show a new six-foot high wall that would tie into the existing wall at the northwest corner of the property and then extend south to approximately the south end of the building. The zoning ordinance limits the usable floor area of the building to 30% of the overall site. In this case, the usable floor area constitutes roughly 25.7% of the site. In terms of density, what is allowablet is a function of the land area as well as the number of bedrooms in each unit. For each one -bedroom unit, 3,100 square feet of land is required. For each two -bedroom unit, 3,650 square feet of land is required. As proposed, the minimum required site April 13, 2021 29935 area based on a total of eight one -bedroom units and two two - bedroom units would be 32,100 square feet or 0.74 acres. With the total area of the site being 32, 400 square feet, the total number of units would be conforming to the ordinance. For setbacks, R-7 district regulations require 75 feet, both from single-family districts as well as major thoroughfares. The front of this building from Seven Mile Road is approximately 42 feet from the right-of-way. From the residential district on the west side of the building, the setback is about 15 feet. On the north side it is about 60 feet. The building fails to comply with front, rear, and side yard setbacks of the R-7 district. For parking, required is two and a half spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed apartment building with 10 units requires 25 spaces. The plan presented here shows 33 off-street parking spaces. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as medium density residential. This would include small scale in -fill apartments as recommended. At a density of 5 to 14 units per acre, this project would have a density that translates to about 10 units per acre and therefore is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 22, 2021, which reads as follows: in accordance with yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time. The proposed project parcel is assigned the address of #28200 Seven Mile Road. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main and sanitary sewer, as well as private storm sewer. The submitted drawings do not indicate any modifications to the existing services that would require a permit through the Engineering Department. If revisions to the existing service leads are needed, the Developershall submit plans to this Department for permitting. It should be noted that the developer may be required to obtain a permit from Wayne County should any work occur within the Seven Mile Road right-of-way." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 5 , 2021, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. This would be a change in use and the structure would be required to meet the current building code including the barrier free code. The current setup does not provide barrier free access to the units. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next April 13, 2021 29936 letter is from the Finance Department, dated March 17, 2021, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. There are no past due amounts receivable, however, their water bill of $261.96 is currently due on April 9, 2021. 1 have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated March 24, 2021, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. We received other email that read as follows: Anish Mani, 19053 Harrison, Livonia, MI, dated March 24, 2021: `9 am responding to the letter I recived regarding public hearing on petiotion 2021-03- 01-01 submitted by Fadie Kadaf. The property on 28200 seven mile rd , I am opposing that place turning into multiple family homes. It would be better to turn into single family home." The next email is from Gary Lentz, 19300 Lathers, Livonia, Ml, dated April 2, 2021, `1 am the property owner of 19300 Lathers St north of the subject property on the east side of the street. I am against the proposed rezoning sought in this petition. First, the present zoning better serves the needs of the city and residents by providing office space. Second, this parcel is much too small for multiple family housing uses. Third, multiple family housing is not needed at this location as there are more that sufficient such zoning in other areas of the city. Fourth, such a change in zoning to multiple family use is not in character with the current zoning and uses in the area which has businesses along this section of Seven Mile and single family residences. Fourth, this proposed rezoning is non -conforming with all other zoning in the area and if would not fit in with the neighborhood. Fifth, vehicular traffic would be much greater and be 24 hours a day as opposed to what we have had with the present office building (prior to its closing). Sixth, it has been shown by studies that there could be more crime in multiple family housing as opposed to the present zoning and in single family residential areas. Seventh, this proposed zoning could require more city services than the current zoning. For the reason stated herein, I respectfully request the this petition be denied." The next email is from Kevin and Kristina Delisle, dated April 9, 2021 that reads: `Y Kristina and Kevin Delisle am a resident residing at 28290 Seven Mile. I am writing to express my strong opposition to petition 2021-03-01-01 submitted by Fadi Kadaf on behalf of 29200 Seven Mile LLC requesting the approval to rezone the property at 28200 Seven We Road. My opposition is based on the following concerns. I am concerned that the property values will decline with the April 13, 2021 29937 addition of a multi -family apartment complex. I am also concerned with increased noise and traffic that will result from the complex and the safety of the children in the neighborhood. The location is right down the street from Botsford Elementary School. There is already a lot of traffic congestion at that intersection, especially during the school months, as well as children walking to and from school and the park. 1 fear the increased traffic will add further congestion to the intersection and increase the likelihood of accidents at the intersection and possibly endanger the children walking to and from the school or the park. In addition, I feel that our privacy will negatively be impacted by the construction of a apartment complex. This zoning change does not conform with the current neighborhood of single-family homes. I have spoken with multiple neighbors and they have expressed the same concerns. We would like to keep our neighborhood as it is, a neighborhood of single-family homes. Please do not rezone this property." Next, we received 14 letters of opposition that all read the same. It reads: "do hereby fully oppose the petition 2021-03-01-01 submitted by Fadi Kadaf on behalf of 29200 Seven Mile LLC requesting the approval to rezone the property located at 28200 Seven Mile Road." The letters received are from various residents including Roger Pray and Janet Pray that give their address as 19315 Lathers Street, John Finch at 19304 Lathers, Veronica Finch at 19304 Lathers, Robert Sloan at 19314 Lathers, Mary Rose Fife at 19321 Lathers, Brian Frisbee at 19290 Lathers, Joseph and Kimberly Coogan at 19291 Lathers, Kaitlyn Klein at 28300 Seven Mile Road, and Kristina Delisle at 29290 Seven Mile Road and Kevin Delisle at the same address. We have a couple more. A Craig Custard at 28220 Seven Mile Road and a Gary W at 28112 Seven Mile Road. I believe that is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley: We didn't have anybody that was in favor of this change, did we? Mr. Taormina: I read all of the correspondence. I believe that is the case. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Or. Wilshaw: Any other questions of our planning staff? Or, Bongero: Do you know how Tong that building has been vacant? Or. Taormina: I really cannot answer that. I think there were one or two tenants that were kind of hanging in the building after the majority of them April 13, 2021 29938 vacated. I am sure the residents probably have a better knowledge of who has been in and out of the building. I did not Zook to see how long it has been empty. There may be someone operating out of there today, but I am not aware of any. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Just one other question. In its current zoning, is it non- conforming to the setbacks? Mr. Taormina: I don't believe...) would have to double check on the side yard setback. I think that it is actually... unless it is 15 feet, there could be a very minor deficiency on the west side. Other than that, I am not aware of any non -conformities with respect to the building as it exists as an office under the OS zoning classification. Mr. Bongero: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. We are going to go to the petitioner, Mr. Kadaf, who is in our audience tonight. I am going to give him a chance to unmute himself. There we go. Mr. Kadaf, you can unmute yourself and introduce yourself with your name and address for our record. Fadi Kadaf, 4 Parklane Blvd., Ste. 312, Dearborn, MI 48126. This is in respect to 28200 Seven Mile Road. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, great. Before we get too deep into the presentation and questions, I always want to remind folks that tonight's agenda item for this property is the rezoning of the property from Office to R-7 (Multi -family residential). We do have a conceptual site plan and some renderings that you provided that we appreciate. Right now, our main discussion will be based on the zoning and if the zoning is appropriate for that area. There will probably be not as much discussion regarding the actual building, details, and the site plan because if the rezoning is recommended for approval then that would go to City Council. That would then start the site plan process to come back to us. I just wanted to start out with that establishment of what our main topic of discussion is tonight, which is the zoning. Is there anything else you would like to add, Mr. Kadaf, to the presentation that we heard from Mr. Taormina? Mr. Kadaf: Just a couple things. I know there was the city Building Department regarding barrier free. The property is currently not barrier free that is correct. We have in the plans to make the proposed site barrier free. It is in the plan, our preliminary plans. There were a few comments made by residents in the area regarding traffic. I feel like I am on the other side of that. Keeping April 133 2021 29939 it as a commercial property where you would have not only employees that work in the building but customers versus the eight singles and two two -bedrooms tentative that defines traffic that is of the same traffic that lives in the neighborhood. We are basically on the same schedule. We feel that this would actually decrease traffic versus increase traffic. Especially when it came to traffic for the turn from Seven Mile to Lathers. In terms of the type of property, this is intended to be a high -rent apartment building. Very minimal units and it is going to be designed in a way that is attractive to young professionals or people that are downsizing. It is not going to be designed to attract families. Just so we are clear about that. Other than that, this property has been a nuisance and it is currently unoccupied. We acquired this property late '20 and from the previous owners that did nothing with it allowing it to become more dilapidated. Previous to that I understand the old operator was just letting it go whichever way he wanted, operating businesses that were illegal. We feel that this property has had its opportunity to be a commercial property and think that keeping it a commercial property in this climate and the changes that we have had globally in terms of office space and so forth is going to be less suited and putting a nice fagade and adding some green space and allowing people to live there that would care about the community is more impactful than to have simply people that come in and out and don't care about the community or the property. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Kadaf. We appreciate that background information and the explanation as to why you are seeking this rezoning. Do we have any questions from any of our commissioners for our petitioner? Mr. Bongero: I wasn't at the study meeting so just a couple things. Mr. Kadaf, I know you're saying that these will be higher end. Can you tell us how much these would rent for, the one and two bedrooms? Mr. Kadaf: The plan is to have the single bedroom units rent anywhere between $1,400 to $1,700 and the two -bedrooms would be $2,000 give or take. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Will there be... Mr. Kadaf: There are not large spaces but they will have high end fixtures and in the lower -level planned common space for workout equipment and small common space. Outside of that it is really intended for the people to have a space to live that has high end fixtures, a nice fagade, and nice green space. April 13, 2021 29940 Mr. Bongero: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for our petitioner from our commissioners? Mr. Caramagno: I have a question or two for the peoner. Do you own any other properties in residential nature or commercial nature? Mr. Kadaf: Commercial, yes. I have had other properties that were commercial in nature. This would be our first project that is multi- family versus single family homes. Mr. Caramagno: Where are your commercial properties? Generally, what is it? Mr. Kadaf: We had a property in Allen Park. It was amulti-story office building that we acquired and rented and later sold. I had a property that I purchased in Dearborn several years ago and moved that property as well. Currently I do not have any properties other than the property in Livonia. Mr. Caramagno: Would you intention be to build this and then sell it to a property management firm or would you intend to keep this? Mr. Kadaf: This is intended to be kept. This is at a time in my life where now I had the opportunity to purchase and renovate and create small multi -family units to retain. It would not be self -managed. We intend to hire a management company. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Kadaf, I don't know if you stated it and excuse me if I didn't hear it, but how long have you owned this property for? Mr. Kadaf: We purchased it in late '20. It was either November or October. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, so roughly six months or so? Mr. Kadaf: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: If there are no other questions for the petitioner from the commission at this time, I am going to go to our audience and see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this item? Mr. Kadaf, we just ask that you stand by and we will give the other audience members a chance to speak to us. We have a few folks raising their hands. We just ask that you click raise hand if you want to speak and we will start with Mr. Coogan. You can unmute April 13, 2021 29941 yourself and again we will ask that you start with your name and address for our record. Joseph Coogan, 19291 Lathers, Livonia, MI. Good evening. I am representing basically the people that wrote the letters, the 14 letters. The residents of Seven Mile and Lathers. So, we are in complete opposition of the proposed rezoning. The building in its current state is not ADA compliant, but I see that they are going to make measures for that in their planning. Right now we feel that the property is non -conforming use of the property in its current state and also in the proposed rezoning state. This interferes with the integrity of our single-family RUF or R-1 residents as it may be. We are concerned also about the proposed rezoning driving down our property values. Also, with a little research I kind of discovered that it is also in direct conflict with the city's Master Plan, page 38 Book I of the Livonia 21 plan. There was a proposal to fix available housing types and senior housing and apartment maintenance of existing part of the apartments. Also to keep senior living options and retain our current single-family housing in our area. A single-family residence built on this site will generate better, basically the same tax revenue as a multi- family dwelling and for that like I said I represent the members of the area here of Seven Mile and Lathers and we are in complete opposition of it across the board. Thank you for your time. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Coogan. We appreciate your comments and appreciate that you are representing the group of people who wrote those emails to us. That is certainly helpful to have a single voice represent them like that. I appreciate your time. We also have Mr. & Mrs. Curry. I am going to give you an opportunity to speak. You can unmute yourself when you are ready. Introduce yourself. Terrence and Glenda Curry, 19042 Harrison, Livonia, MI. We are across the streetI caddy corner to the proposed property. We are also neighbors of Anish, the first letter that you read off regarding the property. I had a conversation with my wife earlier about this property and Mr. Kadaf, that you bought this property just last year. I am glad that you mentioned that. Last time this property came up to the zoning commission for review was from the previous owner who wanted to actually put in massage parlors into this property which was shut down, thank goodness. It's coming up again and I know that property has been there a while. Yes, it is hard to get commercial customers into some of these properties. I kind of deal with that type of thing myself as far as dealing with certain properties. I like the rendition you have here. I am not really arguing for or against, I am just putting out April 13, 2021 29942 information. I said to myself that the commercial property across the street where you may have a dentist office, lawyers office, accounting office, doctors office, something to the effect, may be you would have residents or customers or, excuse me, clients who would rent space in that office if it looked like something more updated than just have an old piece of property from the early 1970's. Your rendition looks like the type of office that if you updated the outside and inside like that, you may get clients and tenants that are business professionals to actually come and put their offices there. I would love to have an office or have clients come to an office that looks like your rendition. The one that it looks like now is no. It looks like something that I wouldn't want anyone to come to. Any business off of Seven Mile, all these strip mall areas, they have these little offices where no one has businesses. There is a bunch of turn over. There is turn over in the strip mall in front of the Wal-Mart past Middlebelt on Seven Mile. So, you have to have something that draws people eyes as far at attention for a commercial property. Now you talk about putting money into this to turn this into a residential multi -family property and you said, yes, it is going to be high end rent starts here and I am glad that the commissioner brought that up about how much the rent would be, but that is what you are proposing. My issue with this multi -family... and again, just for the record, I am not trying to say anything negatively or trying to portray any type of whatever, but all best intentions we all know that what we want from the commission is that if somewhere down the line, if he cannot get these high end tenants who live in a place like this, this place would not turn over to something like low income housing, Section 8 housing. Nothing that could be subsidized by the government is got to be high end so it can't be that later on we couldn't get the high end tenants we were looking for so we are just going to get any and everybody who decides they can pay for the rent with a one -bedroom or two -bedroom. I am hoping that the commission and if by some chance you approve this, there is a restriction in place that this area or that this, if it turns into a multi -family apartment complex, cannot be subsidized housing. It has to stay as it is. In my opinion, Mr. Kadaf, if you updated this outside of the property by your rendition now, you may get some qualified business clients who would actually move into the location and make it a viable office space. Currently the way it looks, nobody wants to go there. I love the rendition from the outside and everything else, but you know appearance, location, location, location is everything. If you are trying to have a business or you are a doctor or lawyer or attorney, an accountant, or whatever, if you said that my office is in this spot and it looks like this, they will get business. They will want to lease this space, but the way it looks now, no. I wouldn't want to April 133 2021 29943 put, as a business owner...I wouldn't want to have an office in that space the way it looks right now anyway. That is ... and a bigger marquee that shows the name of the businesses out there. That is just our input from here at ... across the street caddy -corner to the property. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Curry. We appreciate your comments. We are going to keep those in our minds as we go forward here and make our decision. Thank you for coming this evening. You are free to continue to listen and see how things go. We appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? If so, please click raise hand and we will give you an opportunity to speak. I don't see anyone else clicking raise hand. Mr. Kadaf, we will go back to you and give you an opportunity to have the last word on anything you would like to say before we make our decision. Mr. Kadaf: Thank you. I want to honestly just address the people that have concerns. I can understand their concerns. Obviously, I live in the neighborhood as well and if there was something going up that I felt strongly or disliked, I would speak out as well and give my reasons. I appreciate the comments from everybody. I understand that everybody wants something to happen to this property that is positive. My only concern is that this property has had its opportunity to become and be an office space in the past. It has failed multiple times over...I am not qualified whether or not the property values are affected if it is turned into a multi -family versus an office space. I can tell you that in the sense of community and sense of people that care, people that work in an office space they are 9 to 5 so speak and they don't care about the surrounding communities. They are not going to support the community. They are not going to contribute and make sure that the place that they work is tended to versus someone who lives there and is paying rent that rivals that of a mortgage to be honest with you. In the end, we are presenting what we think would be a great idea and would be good for the community. If it doesn't go in our direction, then so be it. At that point .... there are no guarantees where the property goes from there, ya know? If we want to convert it to office space, we will make our best effort, but it has to be economically sensible for us as well as the property owner. For anybody else that purchases it, we would never want to consider turning this building into anything like a massage parlor or anything like that. At the same token, ya know, there is only so much right that can be put into a commercial space for the lease rates that you get. I don't think if it stays office space that is going to change so dramatically, so to speak. No way is it April 13, 2021 29944 going to attract a lot of companies in this day and age would want to be there. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for those comments. Before I close the public hearing, I am going to go to our commissioners again and just see if there is anyone else who has any questions that they would like to make before our motion? Mr. Caramagno: Mark, maybe you can answer this. Mr. Curry had some good points about Section 8 low-income housing. Is that preventable if this becomes R-7 residential? Mr. Taormina: No. Section 8 housing is a voucher program. Persons that qualify for Section 8 vouchers can, I believe, use those vouchers anywhere. So, I don't know if that is a condition that could be imposed on this or any other property. I don't have the answer to that. I suspect that it would not be something that could be enforced. Mr. Caramagno: So, on the back of that, can this be similar to other properties that I have seen that is a 55 and older crowd that can only move in. Is that something that could be enforced on an R-7 property? Mr. Taormina: Those are usually voluntary offerings by the owners or petitioners. Can it be imposed as a condition of approval? I would caution the commission making that recommendation without first getting advice from the Law Department. If it something that Mr. Kadaf was willing to impose as part of his development, that is fine. That would be completely his discretion. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. That helps. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions? Mr. Kadaf, I believe you wanted to make a comment. Mr. Kadaf: Yeah, regarding subsidized housing in terms of what is attractive for subsidized housing, based on my experience in subsidized housing it is based on bedroom count and square footage and things like that. Vouchers that are permitted are based on those factors, so if you take a property that has very low square footage per unit, single bedroom, and you get a voucher against it, that voucher is going to be a very small amount and the difference in the rent is paid by the tenant. It just isn't feasible zooming out from that perspective. Just so you get some kind of idea of the program and how this really doesn't fit the mold for a program like that. April 13, 2021 29945 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for that. Mr. Long, did you make a question or comment? Mr. Long: Yes, thank you. Mr. Taormina, I believe Mr. Coogan cited that this proposed rezoning would be against the Future Land Use Plan, but I thought in the study session we had it said that it was consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. Do you have a verdict on that? He referenced a code. I don't' know if you have that in front of you. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Coogan is citing part of the plan that references retaining single-family development and other issues. What we were presenting is how this property conforms to the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map does in fact designate this area for medium density residential. Medium density residential has a range of recommended density anywhere from 5 to 14 units per acre. That is bit more than what an R-1 or R-C would fit into that category all the way up to R-7. What is being presented in terms of a use is not contrary to what the Future Land Use Map envisions for this part of the community. Mr. Long: Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions from the commissioners? If not, a motion is in order. On a motion by Long, seconded by Bongero, and adopted, it was #04-13-2021 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 13, 2021, on Petition 2021-03-01-01 submitted by Fadie Kadaf pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 28200 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster Road and Brentwood Avenue in the Southeast'/4 of Section 1, from OS (Office Services) to R-7 (Multiple Family Residential), the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-03-01-01 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed change of zoning and the intended use of the property as a multiple family residential apartment complex would be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. April 13, 2021 29946 2. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the established pattern of the surrounding development and would adversely alter the character of the area. 3. That maintaining an office land use is more consistent with the established pattern of development and character of the area, and 4. That the proposed zoning and use is contrary to the purposes, goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which seek to ensure compatibility and appropriateness of uses so as to enhance property values and to create and promote a more favorable environment for neighborhood use and enjoyment. 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 vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, Bongero, McCue, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYS: Caramagno ABSENT: Ventura ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, 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 2021-03-02-04 Biggby Coffee Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 03-02-04 submitted by EJB Enterprises L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(I) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full -service restaurant with drive -up window facilities (Biggby Coffee) at 38047 Ann Arbor Road, located on the east side of Ann Arbor Road between West Chicago Boulevard and Ann Arbor Trail in the Northeast '/< of Section 31. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate afull-service restaurant with drive -up window facilities. This petition occurs at the Sunny Village shopping center located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road west of the intersection of Ann Arbor Trail. As you can see from April 13, 2021 29947 this map, the zoning is C-1 (Local Business). Immediately to the east of the property is a McDonald's restaurant that is zoned C- 2. Further to the east is a Mobil gas station. Looking to the south are single-family homes as well as the Arbor Woods apartments zoned R-7. There is a combination of commercial and residential on the opposite side of Ann Arbor Road. C-1 zoning allows for limited -service restaurants with drive -up facilities, subject to waiver -use approval. Limited -service restaurants are normally restricted to 30 seats. In this case, the seating layout for the Biggby shows a total of 34 seats. City Council does have the authority to modify the seating limit, which they have done in the past. Some examples were cited at the study meeting, including Qdoba Mexican Grill, Sheesh Mediterranean Restaurant, The Blue Plate Diner, Town Grill, and most recently, China House Inn. As you can see from the site plan, Sunny Village retail center consists of three individual multi -tenant commercial buildings that share access and parking. The building where the Biggby is proposed is located in the northeast part of the site. This building is roughly 6,000 square feet in size and currently divided into four tenant spaces. Biggby would occupy the end unit of this building. The other two buildings measure about 9,260 square feet and 8,236 square feet. Combined, the three buildings have a gross floor area of about 22,000 to 23,000 square feet and contain roughly 16 tenants. Biggby Coffee presently operates within a commercial shopping center located at the intersection of Ann Arbor Road and Newburgh Road. about 1/3 of a mile from this location. There is no drive -up facility at the current store and is the main reason the owner is attempting to move to Sunny Village. The unit where Biggby would go was previously occupied by a bank that included the drive -up window. The front of the unit faces west toward Ann Arbor Road. The units' size is about 1,920 square feet. As previously mentioned, the petitioner is proposing a total of 34 interior seats. No outdoor seating is shown on the plans. In terms of the drive -up window service, this is planned along the north side of the building. There would be single traffic lane that would commence at the rear of the building where it would then wrap around the corner of the building and proceed to the pick-up window. There are seven (7) existing parking spaces located directly behind the building. These would be eliminated and replaced with a loading zone as well as the drive - up lane where the cars would enter into the queue to use the order station. After ordering the cars would turn the corner of the building and finish at the pick-up window which is beneath a canopy that was part of the former bank's teller services. The plans show stacking for at least six (6) vehicles. This does not include the car at the pick-up window. The Zoning Ordinance also requires that it have adequate by-pass opportunities for cars April 13, 2021 29948 that are in the drive-thru service lane. In this case, there is a 30 foot wide drive aisle adjacent to the service lane which transitions to about 23 feet on the north side. There is ample opportunity for vehicles to get around the cars that are in line to use the drive -up service. Parking at the center is adequate to handle the needs of the proposed restaurant. There are no other exterior modifications proposed to the unit. We do not have information relevant to signage at this time. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 15, 2021, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The parcel is assigned a range of addresses of #38047 to #38151 Ann Arbor Road with the address of #38047 Ann Arbor Road being assigned to the overall parcel. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main and sanitary sewer, as well as private storm sewer. The submitted drawings do not indicate any modifications to the existing leads, and we do not believe there will be any further impacts to the existing systems. It should be noted that the developer may be required to obtain a permit from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), should any work occur within the Ann Arbor Road right-of-way." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 15, 2021, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 16, 2021, which reads as follows: `I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Scott Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 5, 2021, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. There are currently no dumpster enclosures on this site. Dumpster enclosures should be provided behind the building for the existing dumpsters. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated March 15, 2021, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. The following April 133 2021 29949 water bill charge is due to the City of Livonia: Water Bill charge (38047Ann Arbor Road): $540.53"The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. This has been paid in full on April 2, 2021. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated March 24, 2021, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? If there are none, I believe our petitioner is in the audience. Mr. Buison, let me give you an opportunity to unmute yourself. There you go. Good evening. We will need your name and address for the record please. Ed Buison, 37403 Ann Arbor Road, Livonia, MI. Good evening. I am looking to relocate the current Biggby Coffee that is there to this site here to add a drive-thru so that we can have a better chance of surviving the current times. Mr. Wilshaw: Understood. Is there any questions from any of our commissioners for Mr. Buison? In regard to this petition. Mr. Caramagno: Hello Mr. Buison. Your drive-thru behind the retail establishment eliminates those parking places. I am assuming the owner has spoken with the tenants that would be below you as we look at this picture and they are okay with not having good access to the back of the building? Mr. Buison: I believe that is the case yes. Mr. Caramagno: As I drove by probably a week or week and a half ago, I saw a lot of activity back there. Plants outside. People sitting outside. I just wonder if there is going to be concern from them and if there is, is there a way to route that traffic differently as to not have a bad relationship there. Mr. Buison: When you say out back, are you referring to like directly behind the building or further back to the back of the property? Mr. Caramagno: No. I am referring to directly behind the building. I randomly pulled in there one day and saw a lot of activity behind that building. People coming and going. Loading and unloading. It would awfully inconvenient for them. Listen, I don't know if the property owner tells them listen, this is what I am going to do and April 13J 2021 29950 that is too bad. I don't know that. It just looks like there could be a problem there from what I saw. Mr. Buison: My understanding is that the landlord has spoken to them about us coming in. They didn't have any objections. I don't know in regard to the parking spaces. If they are having loading and unloading there temporarily or if they are standing outside. There is a loading zone there that would be designated so that the traffic wouldn't cross over. I hear what you are saying. I definitely don't want to have a bad relationship with the neighbors there. Mr. Caramagno: It was worth mentioning. I see the loading zone. It struck me as a busy area of all days that I went through there. Other than this, I like this plan other than the potential conflict. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions or comments from the commissioners for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: Do you normally have that long of a wait of 8 cars? Mr. Buison: No. Typically, we want to have cars move every 1 '/z to two minutes. If we see that there is a backup of cars, then we would then take the cars off the window and direct them to park in the parking spaces. Then we would run there order out to the car to alleviate the traffic in case it starts backing up like that. That is not typical to have a stack of cars of 8 to 10 deep from the pick- up window. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions for our petitioner? If not, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? If so, click raise hand. I don't see anyone raising their hand. If there are no other questions or comments from any of the commissioners, Mr. Buison, is there anything else you would like to say before we close the public hearing? Or, Buison: No. I just appreciate everyone's time and hope we can move forward with this project and get servicing the community over there. Or. Wilshaw: Thank you. I think we can close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Caramagno, and unanimously adopted, it was April 133 2021 29951 #04-14-2021 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 13, 2021, on Petition 2021-03-02-04 submitted by EJB Enterprises L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(I) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full - service restaurant with drive -up window facilities (Biggby Coffee) at 38047 Ann Arbor Road, located on the east side of Ann Arbor Road between West Chicago Boulevard and Ann Arbor Trail in the Northeast'/4 of Section 31, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-03-02- 04 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan prepared by EJB Enterprises, as received by the Planning Commission of March 11, 2021, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2. This approval is subject to City Council modifying the seating requirement to allow for a maximum of thirty-four (34) seats; otherwise, seating shall be limited to thirty (30). 3. That the loading zoning area behind the building shall be appropriately striped to differentiated it from the adjacent traffic lane serving the drive-thru facilities. 4. That the issue, as outlined in the correspondence dated April 5, 2021 from the Inspection Department that enclosures shall be provided behind the building for the existing dumpsters, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. 5. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, shall be prohibited. 7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. 8. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits; and April 13, 2021 29952 9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one (1) year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2021-03-02=05 Thomas's Restaurant Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 03-02-05 submitted by MNB Dining Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the existing food service operation and Class C Liquor License of the existing restaurant (Thomas's Family Dining) to include an outdoor dining patio at 33971 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast ''/< of Section 33. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to develop a permanent outdoor dining patio at Thomas's Restaurant to expand the existing food service operations, including the operation of a Class C liquor license. Thomas's is on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads. This property measures roughly 1.4 acres in area with 100 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road and a depth of 600 feet. It is the north 400 feet of the property that is zoned C-2 and as you can see from the aerial photo comprises the developed portion of the site, including the restaurant building and the off-street parking areas. The remaining rear portion of the site, extending for a distance of roughly 200 feet is undeveloped and zoned P (Parking). Also, you will see from the aerial that there are commercial properties to the east, west, and north and residential homes that are a part of the Wellington Woods sub -division immediately to the south. The new brick paver patio would extend from the front of the building toward Plymouth Road for a distance of about 23 feet. Extending from about the face of the building to just a few feet from the sign is April 13, 2021 29953 where the new patio would be constructed. The site plan shows a red hatched area where the patio is going. This is the rendered plans showing the details of the patio as well as the landscaping and other features. The existing building is setback at the minimum which is 60 feet from Plymouth Road. The new patio would be about 37 feet from the right-of-way line which is allowed as long as there are no structural canopies or coverings or other enclosures. The area of the patio would be about 520 to 550 square feet with tables, chairs and benches arranged to accommodate approximately 20 persons. Surrounding the patio would be a three -and -a -half -foot high black wrought iron fence that would be supported by masonry piers. Access to the patio from within the restaurant would be from a new door opening that would be in the northeast corner of the building. There would be a gate on the west side of the patio that would lead to a sidewalk and the parking lot and would be available mainly for egress. Thomas's currently has, according to our records, about 160 interior seats. Required parking is based on the number of seats, both inside and outside the restaurant, as well as the number of employees. When you do the math, they are required to have 99 parking spaces. The site currently provides a total of 72 parking spaces, resulting in a deficiency of 27 spaces. This is something that would have to addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals with the granting of a variance. As you can see from this plan, it is fully detailed in terms of landscaping that would be provided on all three sides of the new patio. The last item is with respect to the Class C liquor license. As you know that operation would be expanded to the patio. There is a provision in the ordinance that requires on -premises liquor licenses to be located at least 1,000 feet apart. In this case, there are two other licenses within 1,000 feet. The Plymouth Roadhouse Bar & Grill is to the west of this property by about 200 feet and then bowling alley, Woodland Lanes, is about 800 feet. Both of these are within the 1,000-foot separation requirement. This is something that City Council can waive. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 15, 2021, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. The parcel for the proposed project is assigned the address of #33971 Plymouth Road. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main and sanitary sewer, as well as April 13, 2021 29954 private storm sewer. The submitted drawings do not indicate revisions to the building services, so we do not believe there will be any impacts to the existing systems. As a precaution, it would be beneficial for the owner to locate the existing services prior to any construction to avoid disruptions. It should be noted that the developer may be required to obtain a MDOT permit, should any work occur within the Plymouth Road right-of-way." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 15, 2021, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 16, 2021, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petitions. I have no objections to the proposals." The letter is signed by Scott Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 5, 2021, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated March 15, 2021, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated March 31, 2021, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no taxes due, therefore I have no objections to the proposal. " The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. We received a letter from the Police Division today dated April 13, 2021 that reads as follows: "We reviewed the plans submitted by MND Dining Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the existing food service operation and Class C Liquor License of the existing restaurant (Thomas's Family Dining) to include an outdoor dining patio at 33971 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast quarter of Section 33. After reviewing the plans with the Chief of Police, we have no objections to the waiver being granted, contingent that the petitioner complies with installing a barrier preventing vehicles from penetrating patio and patrons. April 13, 2021 29955 Also, contingent that the petitioner complies with: All State Laws, City Ordinances, Stipulations and conditions set by the Livonia Police Department Liquor Investigation Unit as approved by the Chief of Police Stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic Bureau of the Livonia Police Department We are available to provide any additional information you may desire on this subject." That letter is signed by Jeffrey Ronayne, Special Services Bureau. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. McCue: Mark, I feel like I am obligated to mention something about PRDA. This is beautiful, obviously. The landscaping plan is beautiful. I don't see anything on the curb plan that should interact at all with PRDA plans up and down Plymouth Road, but is this something... should we be inserting something in there about it being consistent with the PRDA plans. Again, they don't have any of the fences and they don't have any of the brick pillars. I don't see anything right now, but I don't know if this is something that we should start to incorporate as we go up and down Plymouth Road. Maybe this isn't even the time to talk about it, but since they are doing such an extensive landscaping plan ... just a thought. Mr. Taormina: I don't...) am trying to recall, and I am actually going back to the prepared resolution to see if we mentioned the landscaping plan. Ms. McCue: I know we had discussed it, but I just want to make sure it is in there. Mr. Taormina: The PRDA, when they discussed this, did not direct any hardscape improvements in terms of fencing or walls. They did indicate that the landscaping should be done in a way that would be consistent with the PRDA theme, if you will. We have incorporated that into condition 2 of the prepared resolution. Hopefully, that addresses... As. McCue: Beautiful. As long as it is in there...) just didn't see that. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Good discussion. Any other questions or comments to our Planning Director before we go to the petitioner? If not, Mr. Kuszczak is in the audience. I am going to give him an opportunity to unmute himself and introduce himself. Good evening sir. April 13, 2021 29956 Mark Kuszczak, 33971 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI. Other than the fact that we are trying to beautify and enhance our building as well as I think it is going to enhance the look of the building from Plymouth Road. We updated the outside of the building last year. This is kind of phase two. With the current situation with the virus, I think a lot of our customers asked for that, so we are just trying to be proactive and give them what they want. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright. Are there any questions from the commissioners for our petitioner? I don't see any questions for Mr. Kuszczak. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? If so, please click raise hand. I don't see anyone raising their hand. Anything else, Mr. Kuszczak, that you would like to add before we make our decision? Mr. Kuszczak: No. I think we are good. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for coming. I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Mr. Bongero: Just one point on the police review about a barrier wall. Is that something that is going to need to be considered? I don't know, I guess that is a question for Mark. Mr. Taormina: I did speak with Mr. Ronayne this afternoon. I indicated to him the intention of putting the fencing as well as ... the fencing would be supported by these masonry piers or blocked pillars as they are identified as on the plan. He was fine with that. As long as it is demarcated and protected, he felt that it would be adequate. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions or comments? If not, I will once again close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Tong, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-15-2021 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 13, 2021, on Petition 2021-03-02-05 submitted by MNB Dining Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the existing food service operation and Class C Liquor License of the existing restaurant (Thomas's Family Dining) to include an outdoor dining patio at 33971 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the April 13, 2021 29957 Northeast '/4 of Section 33, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-03-02- 05 be approved subject to the following conditions: That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2021 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. That the Enlarged Proposed Patio Plan identified as Sheet No. L-1.0 dated March 3, 2021, prepared by Reliable Landscaping, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, including all shown landscaping, which shall be consistent with the character of the PRDA's streetscape design elements. 3. That the maximum number of outdoor patio patron seats shall not exceed a total of twenty (20). 4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner either reducing the amount of inside seating, expanding the existing parking lot, or being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking and any conditions related thereto. 5. That the type, sizes or quantity of the plant materials to be planted along the outside edge of the patio shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Departments and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. That there shall be no outdoor speakers or sound equipment, including televisions allowed at any time. That all light fixtures shall be aimed and shielded to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadways. That any form of outdoor advertising or signage shall be prohibited on any of the patio structures, including the fencing, seating, and tables, without the prior written approval by the City of Livonia Inspection Department. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, shall be prohibited. April 13, 2021 29958 10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 11. That no LED light band or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 12. 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. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,166th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,166t Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 9, 2021. On a motion by Smiley ,seconded by Bongero ,and unanimously adopted, it was #04-16-2021 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,166t''Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2021, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, Bongero, Wilshaw McCueSmiley Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unania Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 13, ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman April 13, 2021 29959 ted, the 1,167th Public adjourned at 8:22 p.m. CK�7PiIP4t.�9C�P► Secretary