Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2018-12-11 MINUTES OF THE 1,134th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,134th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Glen Long Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2018-08-01-06 CROSS WINDS COURT Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 08-01-06 submitted by Cross Winds Court pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 34417 Ann Arbor Trail, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich Avenue and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from R-U-F (Rural Urban Farm - Minimum 1/2 Acre) to R-1 (One Family Residential - 60' x 120' Lots). December 11, 2018 28844 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone property located at 34417 Ann Arbor Trail. This property sits on the south side of the road. The parcel is roughly 3.2 acres in size. It includes 148 feet of frontage on Ann Arbor Trail with a depth of approximately 930 feet. There is an existing single-family home located on the northerly portion of the property, and the remaining back section is presently vacant. In the area surrounding this property, immediately to the east is a 2.7 acre parcel that is also owned by this petitioner that was recently rezoned to R-1, One Family Residential. Dover Avenue dead ends in the southeast corner of this property allowing for the possible future extension of the road to serve a future development. Immediately to the west are single family homes that are on Hanlon Street. These lots back up to the property in question. They are part of the Arbor Parkview Subdivision, also zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Immediately to the south of the subject property is land zoned PL, Public Land, that is owned by Wayne County and is part of the William P. Holliday Parkway. Most of that is located in the City of Westland. North across Ann Arbor Trail are single-family homes that are zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. If the rezoning moves forward, the petitioner intends to combine this parcel with the adjacent easterly parcel that he owns, and then develop the combined acreage with single family homes that would be part of a site condominium project. The concept plan submitted with the rezoning application shows a total of 17 lots that would front on a new road that would extend from Dover approximately 350 feet with a cul-de-sac turnaround. The width of the right-of-way would be 50 feet in order to allow the lots to comply with the R-1 zoning requirements which provide for a minimum size of 60 feet by 120 feet in depth and 7,200 square feet. All 17 lots would conform to the minimum lot standards of the R-1 zoning. The plan also shows four out lots that would be located along Ann Arbor Trail. All four of these lots would also comply with the minimum lot standards of the R-1 zoning. Lastly, at the very southerly end of the site, there is an area that would be devoted to open space that would be part of the stormwater management system. The Future Land Use Plan shows the subject parcel, as well as the parcel to the east, as medium density residential. Thus, the proposed R-1 zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 19, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced rezoning petition. December 11, 2018 28845 We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of 34417 Ann Arbor Trail. The legal description provided by the petitioner appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with his petition. This office has been in contact with the owner regarding the proposed development of the site, and they are aware of the requirements for connections to existing public utilities. The information submitted does not show proposed connections or calculations, so we cannot determine impacts to the existing systems at this time. At the time of plan submittal for permitting, the owner will need to provide proposed flow calculations for the sanitary sewer and water service connections to determine if there is capacity in the existing lines to service the proposed project. We will provide a detailed review once full engineering site plans have been submitted for approval." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated November 27, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The third letter is from the Finance Department, dated November 20, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. We have two items of correspondence from residents. The first item is from Michele Farless, received on December 11, 2018, which reads as follows: "I am writing this letter concerning the property at 34417 Ann Arbor Trail in case I cannot attend the meeting. In the summer of 2018, I received a letter from Judy Taormina about buyers interested in the property. I have and many people over the last 32 years approach me. I responded to the letter a few weeks later out of curiosity. I was unaware she was represented Leo Soave. At the time when she was negotiating I was very ill with pneumonia and bronchitis which in combination with other life issues, regretingly, I decided to sell. Mrs. Taormina never produced other buyers. Several issues were negotiated upon closing, one of which was occupation of the home until 5-1-19, which included fencing for my animals. One day I came home from work and the workers of Leo Soave took a lot of my fencing down and one of my animals got out. Thank God I called and called and she returned. I immediately called Mrs. Taormina. When I was able to speak to her, she assured me the fence would be put back up. I knew that was another lie. Mrs. Taormina and Mr. Soave are deceitful December 11, 2018 28846 dishonest people. Please be aware of who you are dealing with and I assure you I will let all know of how dishonest they are. I was offered $200.00 for compensation which Mr. Soave also reniged on. As a lifelong taxpayer of generations in Livonia, I want all people in Livonia to know what kind of people they are dealing with. Both should be ashamed of how they treated me."The letter is signed by Michele Farless, 34417 Ann Arbor Trail, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Next we have an email from Chris Veighey, dated December 10, 2018, which reads as follows: "My name is Chris Veighey and I live with my wife and children at 8914 Hanlon Avenue. Unfortunately, I am not able to make it to the meeting in person as I am traveling for my job. I am writing to express my opposition to the rezoning of 34417 Ann Arbor Trail from RUF to R-1. When we decided to purchase our home five and a half years, ago a major factor was that the yard was very private. We verified that the property behind ours was zoned RUF and had been owned by the same person for nearly 30 years. In the short time, Mr. Soave has owned the property, we have already lost all of our privacy. Previously I could not see past my lot line and now I can see a dozen homes over 300 feet away. (Pictures Attached) We have concerns that when new homes are built that the minimum setbacks will be used, and I will have a house 30 feet from my lot line. Additionally, I have concerns about what changes will be made to the grading that will affect drainage into my property. Mr. Soave has cut down dozens of old growth trees in 'Tree City USA' with what I can assume is dozens more to follow. My other worry is the lot size to be approved. Mathematically there is not room for 120-foot deep lots and a 60- foot wide easement for utilities and a road. He has been successful in the past of winning concessions on minimum lot sizes (52-foot wide at Clay Elementary) and this is not something that the city should be allowing in this area. I would strongly suggest that the Planning Commission adheres to the requirements of R-1 and not allow a concession of any kind to the minimum lot size. I will close with asking the Planning Department to reconsider rezoning the property."Again the email is from Chris Veighey, 8914 Hanlon Avenue, That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? I don't see any. The petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Before we start, I want to remind both the petitioner and the audience that tonight's agenda is a rezoning. We're going to focus on the issue of rezoning. There is a conceptual site plan that we've seen but that is purely conceptual at this point. With that, Mr. Baki, please start with your name and address. December 11, 2018 28847 Sam Baki, 38901 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, Cross Winds Court, which is Mr. Leo Soave. We were already successful in rezoning the property adjacent to this property. This is what was the main discussion from last time that we're trying to work on. Leo was successful in making a deal on this property so we can come back and get it rezoned and finalize almost the last two pieces in that section to put it together as a development and clean up and take down some of the older houses that's been sitting there, including this property, has a house that has to be torn down anyway because it sits within the right-of-way. Once this development goes through and the Commission and the Council approves it for R- 1, the first thing that has to be done, which is the house will come down in a few months after the approvals. We're just matching the zoning on both sides, east and west, which is R-1 zoning. And that's what we're asking for. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Thank you, Mr. Baki. Is there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Bongero: I had a chance to walk the property extensively earlier today. It's a nice piece. Obviously, Mr. Soave is doing really nice clean-up out there. I mean, you can see he's got a nice plan going. Walking the property and also in agreement with Mr. Veighey, the grading always comes back to being a big thing.And I know we're so early in it. We don't know the site plan or the engineering, but on the east side of that property, Mr. Soave's property, is about four feet higher than the existing lots that it's abutting up to. So there's going to be an extensive amount of grade cutting. I'd just like to see how that's going to be presented because that's a lot of water. All the yards are currently draining towards the lot. Mr. Baki: I understand. I don't know if the Commission is aware of, I'm a civil engineer by trade. I work on grades and I work on designs and I'm approved by the State of Michigan for waste water management. So I do all that as part of what I help with Mr. Soave. The property in the center is always raised. We always have the property in the center, which is the street, always raised because you always drop the back and I don't know if you guys are familiar with Sarah Estates or Fox Creek Estates, that I developed in the past where I raised the middle and lowered the back even below the neighbors to create the drainage, plus creates better view, which is either walkouts or day lights, depends on how much of a drop we have. So we always do that as part of the design, and then all the drainage goes back to the south side, which is Wayne County property, which is where all December 11, 2018 28848 the drainage goes to anyway. So all will be designed as part of the engineering, and we've worked with the City engineers for the last 30 years. We never had an issue with that. We've always had the drainage properly for the neighbors, and actually we accommodate for them to help them so they won't have the problem with water going to their yards. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions, Mr. Bongero? Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Baki, it's true that you've been before the Planning Commission on these two pieces of land a couple of times. When you came for the rezoning on the adjacent parcel to the east, you had a preliminary site plan that, during the study session, the members of the Planning Commission expressed kind of an official opinion that there was a site plan that probably wouldn't be seen favorably should you ever bring it for approval. You were asked to go see if you could buy the parcel that is the subject of the rezoning tonight. Is that all true? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Ventura: So you're really here kind of at the request of the Planning Commission so that you could bring to us a prospective site plan that's conforming in R-1 with properties to the east and to the west. Mr. Baki: One hundred percent. Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Baki. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: Sam, in putting both these pieces together as R-1 pieces that are both east and west, it will allow all those existing houses to be eliminated, the septic field there eliminated as well. So this will improve that whole two parcel land. Mr. Baki: Mostly, yes. One house that we discussed from the first parcel in the front that we remodeled and we're putting a garage for it, that's the only house that will stay. All the rest of the houses will come down and all the houses, including the existing house, will have sewer lines coming right to them. Yes. Mr. Caramagno: So this will allow for the proper development of these parcels. Mr. Baki: One hundred percent. Yes. December 11, 2018 28849 Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner? I don't see any. With that, thank you Mr. Baki. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Please come forward. Some of you have been here before so we're just going to remind you to start with your name and address. Steven Sobestki, 8927 Norwich, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. I adjoin the property that they've already had rezoned. In fact, the one red house that they're talking about tearing down, I view from my backyard. My only real concern about this whole development is the impact it's going to have on the main streets there, specifically Ann Arbor Trail. It's already extremely heavy, especially during rush hour with people trying to head west get held up at Wayne Road. They're backed all the way up to Norwich and if you're looking at the map there, that's a fair amount of distance that traffic gets backed up on a regular basis every day during rush hour. The same thing going east. They get to Hines. It's backed all the way up to the Nankin Bar that used to be there. And you're talking about adding another 17 homes or so, which in my calculations gives you another 30 vehicles that need to get in and out. You're taxing my neighborhood because I live off Norwich. The only other road there is Dover that you're extending this into and my fear, my concerns are that all this added traffic is going to be very labor-some on everybody in that area and cause a lot of havoc in that way. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir, for your comments. I appreciate that. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Please come forward. Mike Ferguson, 8880 Hanlon, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm on the west side of the proposal area to be rezoned. I'd like to reiterate those concerns about traffic. In fact, we brought this up at a previous Planning Commission meeting when the first property was being rezoned. That is a dangerous area. The road is two lanes. It comes to an odd curve. If you're traveling west on Ann Arbor Trail, it's a limited sight. There has been however many accidents. I guess you can find that out. That curve there, just to the east of the property, is a limited sight, slight curve, two lanes, and it becomes dangerous. There are backups that are just to the west of that curve. So you're coming up to backed up traffic as you come around that curve. So that is a dangerous point. I guess I'd like to know what can be done in the development to try to add view, add lanes, add space, whatnot, to try to reduce that danger. December 11, 2018 28850 Also, the concern that I brought up at a previous meeting was the impact on the nature. We are a Tree USA. Many trees have already been cut down in the area that has not yet been rezoned. I understand it is private property so maybe that's not actionable, but many trees have been cut down on those properties, and something that I did notice. There is a metal sign of some type towards the south end of that property that's to be rezoned that says it's a forest preserve area. Trees have been cut down in that area as well. So I'm curious if that's property that is owned by the Trade Winds or if that area was cut prematurely or against ordinances altogether. So my overall concern is for the impact on the nature. Obviously, I live in the area so I'm concerned about it for that reason as well, but drainage and flooding and whatnot is part of that concern. So I wonder if those can be addressed. I did take a picture of the sign. It's a small yellow sign on a metal post. It says forest nature preserve or something like that, and probably I don't know if you've been out there or if you've seen it, but I want to say almost 100 feet south of that sign, a majority of the trees were removed from that area as well. So I guess I'd like those addressed and the traffic issues. Mr. Wilshaw: We'll ask about that. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, if the petitioner would like to come back up. You heard some concerns over traffic and also trees being cut in an area that has a sign. Are you familiar with that area? Mr. Baki: Yes, I am. The area was cleaned and cut. It's own by Mr. Soave, which is the property he bought which is part of the new development. That sign he's talking about was put in probably by a previous owner a long time ago. It's an old sign. It doesn't belong to Wayne County or to anybody else. Mr. Wilshaw: It's on your property. Mr. Baki: It's on our property. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So it's not part of Hines Park? Mr. Baki: No. Everybody is aware of Wayne County. You don't touch it. But part of the drainage, like I mentioned earlier and one of the things we're already working on, is dealing with Wayne County for the discharge of the storm to the south to Hines Drive, which is what we've done in other previous developments. Somebody mentioned Nankin Mills down the street. That's exactly what Mr. Soave did on the Livonia side property that backs into Nankin Mills. That was discharged to Hines Drive. That's mostly where December 11, 2018 28851 the water goes anyway. So it would be on the neighbor's to the east or the west. It will be going south. Traffic — it's understandable. We know adding more homes is going to add more traffic. We can't avoid that. Now, one thing we're doing for sure that we're improving that corner as everybody mentioned and I mentioned it in the last meeting. I'll mention it again. That home on this property sits within not even 25 feet from the middle of the road. That's why I mentioned that this house has to come down, and the property in the front will be donated to Wayne County. I believe that road, I don't know if it's Wayne County or City of Livonia, but it will be donated to them so they can do whatever they want with it as part of their improvements because that almost will finish up that whole section where if they want to add lanes or widen, they can do that, but once we move the house out of the way, now you have more visibility for that turnaround, which it's been a dangerous turnaround for years. Mr. Wilshaw: What you're referring to, Mr. Baki, is, as we look at the lot line itself, it actually extends into the roadway. So as part of the process you're going to dedicate that front portion of the property to the appropriate municipality so that they'll have an easement there if they wish to improve the road. Mr. Baki: Exactly. Mr. Wilshaw: And this is a process that's happened numerous times across the City over many, many years as property has been developed. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I appreciate the explanation and as far as drainage goes, what I'm hearing is that you're going to put in a system of swales and catch basins and so on. You're going to route the water to a holding area and then slowly release it into the water system. Mr. Baki: We have to follow the Wayne County requirement. It's a federal law. Stormwater management has to be controlled and that's what we do. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Baki. Is there any other questions for our petitioner? With that, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-78-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2018, on December 11, 2018 28852 Petition 2018-08-01-06 submitted by Cross Winds Court pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 34417 Ann Arbor Trail, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich Avenue and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from R-U-F to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-08-01-06 be approved for the following reasons: 1 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 3. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for the development of the subject property in a manner that is consistent with its size and location. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2018-11-02-20 MICHIGAN MASSAGE Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 11-02-20 submitted by Michigan Massage Professionals requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(m) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a massage establishment at 9182 and 9188 Middlebelt Road located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a massage establishment in accordance with Section 9.03(m) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance. This property is located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue. The property is question is roughly 0.75 acre in size. It has 230 feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road and a depth of 142 feet. The existing building is called Westfield Offices. It was constructed in December 11, 2018 28853 the late 1980's. The building is about 5,000 square feet in size. It is one-story in height, and contains 8 leasable tenant spaces, all of which face Middlebelt Road. Parking is shared and is located both in the front and to the rear of the building. Massage establishments are regulated under Section 9.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. This massage establishment would occupy two adjoining units near the middle of the building. The combined lease space would be about 1,300 square feet in area. There would be no exterior modifications to the building. In terms of parking, this is computed based on the size of the office building. In this case, the ordinance requires a total of 20 parking spaces based on the requirement for general office. The site plan shows 35 parking spaces. So parking is more than adequate to serve the proposed use. There are a couple of special requirements as they apply to massage establishments. One is under subsection (2) which requires that no massage establishment be located within 400 feet of any other property which is either occupied or approved for a massage establishment. In this case, there are no other massage establishments located within 400 feet of the proposed location. The next provision is under subsection (3) which specifies that no massage establishment be located within 400 feet of a school, place of worship, state-licensed day care facility, public library, playground, or public park. Again, no such uses are located within 400 feet of the proposed location. It fully complies with those special requirements of Section 9.03(m). With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 15, 2018, 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 existing parcel is assigned a range of addresses from #9170 Middlebelt Road to #9206 Middlebelt Road, with the address of #9206 Middlebelt Road being assigned to the overall parcel. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with the proposed waiver use. The existing building is currently serviced by public utilities, and the submittal does not indicate any exterior alterations to the services. Should the existing services to the building need to be altered, engineering drawings should be submitted to this department to determine if permits will be required. Also, any work within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way will require Wayne County permits." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., December 11, 2018 28854 Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 30, 2018, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a massage establishment at the above referenced addresses. We have no objections to this proposal."The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 15, 2018, 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 Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated November 19, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated November 20, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, however there may be outstanding property tax issues. The Treasurer's Office will advise." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley: Do you know what the occupancy of that building is? Mr. Taormina: I don't know how many tenants are currently in there. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please and tell us a little bit about your business. Barbara McConnell, Michigan Massage Professionals, 31928 Rush Street, Garden City, Michigan 48135. Michigan Massage Professionals have been offering massage services for the past seven years. We have three licensed massage therapists on staff. We do therapeutic massage and we use several different modalities. We work with a variety of clients with different physical issues, some severe. We have clients who have severe MS, muscular dystrophy. We have clients who are in wheel chairs, which is one of the reasons this particular location is very intriguing to us because the location of the handicap parking is right in front of December 11, 2018 28855 our suite door, which will make it much easier for our clients who have handicaps to get into our building. As I mentioned, we offer several different modalities. All three of us have different specialties. We do therapeutic massage that includes deep tissue. In some cases, we just use relaxation therapy for instance for people with fibromyalgia. We work by appointment. We typically do not take walk-ins. The three of us have different schedules but we basically work Monday through Saturday. Our latest client is typically out the door by 8:00 unless we have an emergency client who has to be seen for a specific reason. We have clients that come to us weekly who have severe issues as well as clients that come every other week, some monthly and some come maybe once every three months, but we have a very strong on-going clientele. We see approximately 40 to 50 clients a week. We do on-line advertising but most of our clients do come to us by word of mouth and recommendation from other clients. Mr. Wilshaw: That you, Ms. McConnell. We really appreciate that. Are there any questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: You said you've been doing this for seven years? Ms. McConnell: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Do your other therapists also have that kind of experience? Ms. McConnell: Yes. One of the other gals who is with me got her license the same year I did and we've been working together every since. And the third girl joined us about two years ago. She is licensed just three years now. Ms. Smiley: You also mentioned something about possibly adding a fourth person? Ms. McConnell: Yes. The suite would allow us. There are four adequate therapy rooms and it would allow us to bring a fourth girl in. We have actually a fourth room where we're at and have talked about doing it, but it has to be the right person and we just haven't found that person yet. But the space would allow us to bring another therapist in if we were to find the right person. Ms. Smiley: Okay. And you are the owner and operator? i Ms. McConnell: Yes. Ms. Smiley: You would be the one in charge. Okay. Thank you very much. We're looking forward to it. December 11, 2018 28856 Ms. McConnell: Thank you. Ms. McCue: You're currently in an office or in a location. Why are you looking to move? Ms. McConnell: We are in an office building that currently has five suites. We are the only active business in the building. The person who bought the building about a year and a half ago, much like the previous landlord, does not operate a business where he has clientele coming into the building; therefore, he's had no incentive to upgrade the building or take care of the building, and it shows. So we are very anxious to get into a much better kept facility, an upgrade so to speak, nicer environment for our clients to come into and for us to work in. Ms. McCue: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. McConnell, Mrs. Smiley asked a question earlier of our Planning Staff and I know that this isn't your property. You're just a tenant, but do you have an idea of what other tenants are in this building right now? Ms. McConnell: If I remember correctly, there is a senior support group on the end of the building in the first suite. I think they do home care for seniors. And then there is another suite that is rented by an asphalt company as their office facility. I think that's it right at the moment. I'm not sure. Mr. Wilshaw: And you'd be looking to take two tenant spaces. Ms. McConnell: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner? I don't see anything. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Feel free to come forward. Sarah Matusz, 29197 Grandon, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I live just across the street on the corner from here. My concern is the hours that this is going to bring and when you're talking about rezoning this, what other businesses can go in there if this is rezoned for them. That's my big concern. She mentioned something about open until 8:00 at night. That's kind of long hours, don't you think? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, ma'am. The hours as the petitioner stated would be to 8:00 Monday through Friday, and there's also some Saturday hours. December 11, 2018 28857 Ms. Matusz: Monday through Saturday. Mr. Wilshaw: Monday through Saturday as well. Nothing on Sunday. And this is not a rezoning. This is actually a waiver use of the property. The zoning would stay the same. We're only granting this use because massage establishments are a use that has to be approved specifically for this particular zoning. If we grant this use, it would only allow this additional use in that location. And typically what we do, and Mr. Taormina can correct me if I'm wrong, we usually ask the petitioner to voluntarily sign a conditional waiver of that use so that if they were to change ownership for some reason, Ms. McConnell decides to sell and someone else wants to come into that facility, they would have to come back to the City Council for approval. That way we're not allowing just anybody to put in a massage establishment in there in the future. Mr. Taormina, is that correct, that we would seek that condition? Mr. Taormina: That is absolutely correct. In fact, that language is provided in the prepared resolution. Mr. Wilshaw: So that's one of the things we do to try to help protect the community because we have a chance to speak to this petitioner and know that she is running a reputable business, but we don't know about anything in the future. So that's why we have those conditions. I hope that answers your questions. Ms. Matusz: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anyone else in the audience? We have one gentleman coming forward. Mike Filabovich, 7037 Balmoral, West Bloomfield, Michigan. I'm the property manager and partner. So questions around tenancy I can address. We're half full out of the eight suites. This would truly help us in viability. The way this building is laid out, it's generally people moving from their homes to a more professional business front, and it's hard to get a lot of those kind of businesses. So we struggle. Having Barbara and the team come in would be great. The other tenants in there ... there's a senior home assist which would actually probably complement the two together. There's a financial planner and an asphalt company, as well as one other who does facials or nails or something like that, light cosmetic. This would be a great addition and complement to the building and the portfolio of tenants. Mr. Wilshaw: So it's safe to assume that you are supportive of this petition? December 11, 2018 28858 Mr. Filabovich: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the property owner? Thank you for coming, Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Caramagno, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-79-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2018, on Petition 2018-11-02-20 submitted by Michigan Massage Professionals requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(m) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, to operate a massage establishment at 9182 and 9188 Middlebelt Road located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, which property is zoned OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-11-02-20 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That this facility shall comply with all other special waiver use standards and requirements pertaining to massage establishments as set forth in Section 9.03(m) of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That this facility shall conform to the provisions set forth in Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances pertaining to massage establishments; and 3. That the Petitioner shall not engage in any form of solicitation for business within the public right-of-way of Middlebelt Road. FURTHER, the Planning Commission recommends the approval of a Conditional Agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council. 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. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: December 11, 2018 28859 1. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,133rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,133rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 27, 2018. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-80-2018 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,133rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2018, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Ventura, Bongero, McCue, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Long ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,134th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 11, 2018 ,fas adjourned at 7:47 p.m. CITY PLA NG COMMISSION l� _ Sam 1 .ramagno, Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman