Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-03-20MINUTES OF THE 941'' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 20, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 941s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. William LaPine, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ashley R. Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw Members absent: John Walsh Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Acting Chairman LaPine 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 tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Al this time I wish to welcome Ashley Varloogian as the newest member of the Planning Commission. This is her first voting meeting tonight. We're looking forward to her serving with us in our deliberations this evening. ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-02-01-01 RONALD EMLING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-02- 01-01 submitted by Ronald W. Emling requesting to rezone properly at 39115 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southwest % of Section 30 from RUF to R-1. March 20, 2007 23926 Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina, will you give us the background on this case? Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, it has come to our attention through site inspection that the applicant did not post the required sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. That is the sign that would advertise the public hearing. For that reason, this item will have to be rescheduled to our next public hearing, which will be April 24. Mr. LaPine: Mark, is the applicant here this evening? Mr. Taormina: He is here this evening. Mr. LaPine: Do you understand the proceedings? You didn't put the sign up; therefore, we cannot hear this. Robert W. Emling, 39115 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Yes, I do sir. I was out of town on vacation. I got back and made the call. Mr. LaPine: I know it's up now because I was out there on Sunday and I saw R. Unfortunately, without the sign, the neighbors would not know that the properly may be rezoned. With that, unless any member has a question, a motion to table it to our next study session would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-27-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2007-02-01-01, submitted by Ronald W. Ending requesting to rezone properly at 39115 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southwest % of Section 30 from RUF to R-1, be tabled until the next Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of April 24, 2007, inasmuch as the required signage was not posted on the property 15 days in advance of the public hearing as required by city ordinance. Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #2 PETITION 2007-02-02-03 MARCOS MAKOHON Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 02-02-03 submitted by Marcos Makohon requesting waiver use approval to operate a sport therapy and hockey training facility at 33050 Industrial Road, located on the north side of Industrial Road east of Farmington Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 27. March 20, 2007 23927 Mr. Taormina: The Planning Commission received a letter dated March 19, 2007, Mr. Marcos Makohon, the petitioner's representative. He is the architect. He indicates in his letter that they are officially withdrawing their petition due to irreconcilable differences and a breakdown in the lease negotiations, and for that reason, the project is not going to move forward. For that reason, we would look for a motion that would withdraw this item without prejudice. Mr. Morrow: Are you ready for a motion? Mr. La Pine: Yes. Go right ahead. Mr. Morrow: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the letter of withdrawal. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-28-2007 RESOLVED, that in connection with Petition 2007-02-02-03 submitted by Marcos Makohon requesting waiver use approval to operate a sport therapy and hockey training facility at 33050 Industrial Road, located on the north side of Industrial Road east of Farmington Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 27, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to lake no further action with regard to this matter since the petitioner has formally withdrawn its request by letter dated March 19, 2007. Mr. La Pine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #3 PETITION 2007-02-02-04 PLYMOUTH FOOD STORE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 25. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. La Pine: Are there any questions for staff? March 20, 2007 23928 Mr. Morrow: Do our records indicate that they were given a waiver for the SDM license or is that something we can'ltrack? Mr. Nowak: I think that predates the requirement for waiver use approval for an SDM license. Mr. Morrow: So they did not receive a previous waiver for the SDM. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 21, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description submitted is correct and no additional right-of- way is required." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 27, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Plymouth Food Store. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 2, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 20, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This has been reviewed as all conditions previously noted for the addition and alteration are still in effect. (2) This Petition will need a waiver of the 400 -foot separation distance from a church. This may be done by separate resolution with a super majority approval vote by the Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. Previously, we received three letters of support in connection with this waiver use request, and they are in your packets. Two letters are from residents, Daniel Eugene West and Nancy Silvestri; one letter is from John M. Vardouniolis, owner of the Mama Mia Restaurant at 27770 Plymouth Road. Just prior to the meeting, we also received a packet of letters from the petitioner that have been signed by persons in support of the request for wavier use approval. We haven't had a chance to look at these letters yet, but there appears to be 34 letters in support of the waiver use approval. That is the extent of the correspondence. March 20, 2007 23929 Mr. La Pine: We will accept these letters. You can pass them down to the commissioners. Mr. La Pine: Is the petitioner here this evening? Patrick Howe, Carlin, Edwards, Brown & Howe, PLLC, 2855 Coolidge, Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. Good evening, members of the Commission. I'm here on behalf of Plymouth Food Store. I have Mr. Badri Yono, the owner of Plymouth Food Store with me. The information covered by Mr. Taormina, I don't see any inconsistencies or anything incorrect. Mr. Yono has operated the Plymouth Food Store for approximately 11 years. He has an impeccable record with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, and also the City of Livonia. He has not received any violations during the past 11 years. We're here tonight because he'd like to expand his business. He'd like to improve the exterior of it and also the interior of it. In order to do this, he would really like to expand his services as well, that being to add an SDD license. We realize that this matter has been before the Planning Commission, also the City Council, three times before. However, there are two differences today that really give us a reason to come back, and Mr. Yono, having applied in 2001, he understands that it was denied, but there are two differences - one being the added space and the second being our inability to locate anyone from the church or to prove that it's operating. The Michigan Liquor Control Commission and also the city has attempted to contact the church. We've not received any response that we know of. I talked to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission investigator today, Janice Salsbury. She has not received any correspondence back from the church either in writing or a telephone call. Therefore, we request that you either recommend a waiver of this requirement by super majority of the City Council or consider the church to be inoperable or vacant. Mr. Yono has monitored the church over the past six months to a year, and he has only seen one or two cars at most at any time. He never noticed that the driveways or the parking lots are plowed. Therefore, considering a vacant or inoperable church against him under this circumstance we think would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Looking at Section 19.06 and also Section 11.03, really the only section that we're here to talk about is the church waiver. We meet the requirement of 1,000 feet for the SDD license. We meet the requirement of 500 feet for the SDM license, and he's proposing to expand his space and locate all the alcohol behind the counter. As far as Section 19.06, the broad requirements for fitting within the March 20, 2007 23930 confines of the community and also adhering to the size, shape and character of the community, we're really trying to improve the community by improving the exterior, adding only about 400 square feet and really aesthetically making it more pleasing from the street. So we would argue that as far as fitting in with the community, we're not looking to expand the hours or to be a nuisance to the neighborhood. We want to expand the services, maintain the same hours, and improve the aesthetic value both of the interior and the exterior. We feel that we do fit well within not only the dimension requirements outlined in 11.03, but also the general requirements in 19.06. 1 think all the information has been provided b dale. The applicant has submitted, like you said, 34 letters of support. You're going to hear from some community members and neighbors in support. Mr. Yono really wants to maintain his business in Livonia. We all know about the economy in Michigan, and this would really help him solidify his presence here and also improve his business as he's currently operating. You couldn't have a better licensee in the city. Mr. Yono operates the business himself. He doesn't have any employees. He's there seven days a week. We work with licensees all the time and this is one of the best records we've ever seen. It's impeccable. There were three control buy operations, the last one being in December of 2006. That's when either the state or the city sends a decoy in that's underage, gives him an ID and attempts to buy liquor under age. Mr. Yono has passed all three of those. In terms of is he qualified to have an SDD license, like I said, I don't think you could have a better licensee. As far as is the city adequately served, it's a pretty subjective consideration. For your information, there are currently six licenses in escrow. That means that there are six SDD licenses that were formally in place in the city and operating. So I guess in terms of population versus how many in escrow, we're a little bit below. So that's just for the record. In conclusion, I'd like to answer any questions you do have. We understand its been here before, but given the church and given the financial investment that we'd like to make to expand the space, we think that the circumstances have changed and this would be a great licensee to have in the city among the other ones that you currently have. Therefore, we request that you recommend approval of the waiver to expand the space and also to add the SDD, and either not consider the church under the ordinance or recommend a super majority waiver by the City Council. Mr. La Pine: Thankyou. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? March 20, 2007 23931 Mr. Morrow: Yes, I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Yono. I'm impressed with the fad that you're there seven days a week. Could you quantify that in terms of hours that you work a week? Badri Yono, Plymouth Food Store, Inc., 27600 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Actually, that's because I want to try to help my business. The past 11 years I tryto do a lot of things to remodel the store. It depends how much I do business. There's not enough like I can pay somebody to work. I work 95 hours a week actually, seven days a week, the past 11 years. After I paid off the business a couple years ago, I tried to expand the business. Maybe I can hire a worker that can work and help me with my job. Mr. Morrow: We know one of the reasons you want the SDD is so you can afford to improve your building. Mr. Yono: Building and hire somebody maybe like one day a week to pay them that can lake one day off a week at least. Mr. Morrow: Now, your customers, have they asked that perhaps you could expand it to the SDD license? Mr. Yono: My customers, maybe I can tell you the truth, maybe 20 customers a day ask me about liquor license because a lot of time they tell me, I'm not coming here. I go to Redford. I'd be more than happy to give you the business. Same time when I want liquor, I go pick up my liquor and other stuff at one stop. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Al this time I'll ask you a couple questions. You maintain that there's no action at the church. Is this correct? Mr. Yono: Past six months ... Mr. LaPine: When is the last time you checked the church? Mr. Yono: Last time ... something like four weeks ago or something like that. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Morrow and I went out there Saturday. We looked at the sign. We went behind the building and everything, and it didn't look like there was any action going on there. But I look it upon myself to go out there on Sunday, and the church was open Sunday. There were eight cars in the parking lot. I got there March 20, 2007 23932 about 1145 a.m. I wailed to 12:30 until the church got out. I went into the church. As a matter of fad, I stayed awhile during their altar service. I talked to the pastor. As far as he's concerned, the church has been operating all these years, and you say it hasn t been operating. Mr. Yono: Because what I know, the next house, I heard he moved. I know that because the neighborhood told me, the person that lived before, picked up his stuff and he moved. I can tell you the lmlh because past six months, I watch every Sunday, maybe got one car or two cars. I go on Sunday. I see one car or two cars no more than that. Mr. LaPine: You told us that there was no operation there. Mr. Morrow asked if you ever seen any lire marks after a snow fall or if you ever saw the snow cleared, and you told us no. I went out there on Sunday morning. I got a leaflet from the church the day I was there. So its operating, and you're telling me it wasn't operating, and I know now it has been operating. Mr. Yono: Because I'm not there 24 hours I can sit down from the church and watch. I go before I open the store. I go to the store and pass the church. Mr. LaPine: I understand. I dont want to be argumentative. I'm just telling you as far as I'm concerned, the church does operate. Are there any other questions? Mr. Howe: If I may respond? Just for the record, we have sent, I believe the city sent notices, the slate sent notices. They have not responded at all. So as far as our representations, that's been . .. I talked to the state investigator today, and they have not received any correspondence. So as far as eight people there on a Sunday, this is our first notice of that is from you and we haven't, you knov, from letters and phone calls, we haven't received anything in that regard. Mr. LaPine: Well, then the pastor is here this evening. We'll discuss that with him. Ms. Varloogian: I have a question for the petitioner. The letters that you provided us with today you say are in support of the approval of the liquor license. Are those from residents in the area? Mr. Yom Yes. March 20, 2007 23933 Ms. Vartoogian: In the immediate area? Mr. Yono: Some of them two houses, three houses behind me, one block and half from behind my store. Most of them you can look at the address. Most ofthem Cavell. Cardwell and Arcola. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I did lake a look at the letters, and you're correct. Most of them are from at least neighboring streets. How did you obtain those letters? Did you walk door -lo -door? Mr. Yono: No. Actually, because everybody they come there. I told them I'm wailing just for a liquor license to see what happens to my SDD license. They told me this is great. I go to Redford give them business. At least you are in Livonia. I can support you more. I know most of them for five years, six years. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. I imagine the majority of your customers are people who live in the neighborhood. Correct? Mr. Yono: Exactly. Correct Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And your hours are currently, I believe, until 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Is that correct? Mr. Yono: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: What time on Sunday? Mr. Yono: Sunday I open 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Are your hours going to change at all as a result of having a liquor license? Mr. Yono: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Do plan to have any additional signage in your window as a result of having a liquor license? Mr. Yono: Just open sign, ATM sign and lotto sign. That's it. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Vartoogian: You said you're the only employee right now at the store. March 20, 2007 23934 Mr. Yono: Yes, me and my wife. Ms. Vartoogian: Oh, okay. So is she there right now? Mr. Yono: Yes, she's there now. Mr. La Pine: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefition? Kevin Palmer, 11610 Cardwell. I've lived in the neighborhood for 10 years, ever since I refired from the military. I've known Brian, we call him Brian, all that time. And I just wanted to come here and support him and encourage the request of this. I myself I don't drink hard liquor. I'll have a few beers, so it's not necessarily for that, but I do use his store a lot for food products, pop, and things like that. I just don't think that granting this ... wanting to allow him to expand his business is going to have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood. I've always supported him. I was here in 2001 before the City Council. I've lived here, like I said, for 10 years and he's always been a good neighbor and he really likes to keep his store up as best he can. So I just wanted to support him. Cristie Parent, 12065 Cavell. I live right down the street probably a block and a half from Plymouth Food Store. I as well was here in 2001 when Brian petitoned. I call him Brian, Mr. Yono. Our family has lived down the street from Plymouth Food Store since 1991. We've raised and are still raising our five children in the same home. We've been taxpayers in the City of Livonia for 16 years. As far as I know regarding the church, my children have hung around with the previous children from the church. As far as I know, the previous owners of the church moved out. So if there is any recent activity, it must be new people. We are familiar with the previous owners of Plymouth Food Store and have been regular customers of Plymouth Food Store since Brian, Mr. Yono, look ownership. We have continually watched the store grow into a clean, friendly, and courteous small business. Brian has provided excepfional customer service to our family as well as his customers that frequent his establishment. He knows most everyone by name. Therefore, we truly believe that Plymouth Food Store should be allowed to obtain a liquor license. If allowed to do so, the store will be expanded and redeveloped to ft in with the Plymouth Road Development project plan. This would generate more business and keep our property values up, as well as generate more revenue for the March 20, 2007 23935 City of Livonia. I believe that supporting our local small businesses to grow and prosper would benefit all of us in this community. With so many small businesses closing, including up and down Plymouth Road, we need to give the existing businesses every opportunity to generate more ways to establish customer growth. Granting Plymouth Food Store a liquor license would do so. Patrick J. Higgins, 11736 Cardwell. Good evening. I'm a long term resident of Livonia. I was bom in Garden City, but I've owned a home on Cardwell since 1986. I've known Brian since I moved into that area. I didn't know the previous owners of the store, but I knew what happened in that little spot and all the little hoodlums that would hang out there. Over the years, I've seen how Brian has maintained and kept up his property and kept the riffraff away and maintained himself and the business in a upright proper order, and by granting him a liquor license I don't see how that would be detrimental to our community. If you look up and down the rest of Plymouth Road and see all the other renovations they've been doing, like the sluff they did at Dunkin Donuts and all the other facades and his plans to improve his store will be an improvement on everybodys value and improvement of Livonia as a whole. I don't see any drawbacks to allowing him to sell packaged liquor. He's never sold even cigarettes to underage kids. If somebody comes around doing, you know, trying to do that, he chases them off. He doesn't tolerate that kind of thing. You know, kids hang around school and mill about. Like I say, he's done a lot to keep the place up, clean. You don't see rats and dirty dumpsters and all the other stuff you can see around some of the other businesses. He's been a good supporter to the people in the neighborhood. If somebody was short on cash and needed a gallon of milk, he'd take care of them and tell them the next time to gel some money. So if there's anything I can do to support him or anybody else in my neighborhood, I'm here to support him. If there's any questions or anything, I'd be happy to answer anything that you might have to ask of me. Bishop Dan Strength, 11633 Arcola. The church is located at 11663 Arcola Street in Livonia. From what I can tell, the church has been there more than 50 years, perhaps longer. It has had name changes. However, it has maintained its affiliation with the Pentecostal Church of God. In September of this past year, the pastor abruptly moved to Idaho. It was unfortunate. A great loss to the church and community. However, it was so abrupt that to fill the congregation, the pastor, took us some time. I March 20, 2007 23936 decided to come myself in that I'm a Michigander. I moved from Florida and began to pastor the church the first part of January. The congregation has maintained it's membership all during that period of time and lay leadership has taken care of the services. However, there have been a few cars at a time. However, that is changing. As I look into the records, we have some 60 families that are associated with the church. We're working to rebuild. In fad, we have already decided to have two services on Easter Sunday. We seem to feel that Easter Sunday, in particular, will be very well attended. I enjoy having good neighbors. I was impressed moving. I do live just behind kitty comer from the party store. I was very much impressed with the party store. I've not met Brian. I'm looking forward to meeting him and being his friend. I certainly appreciate good business people in our community and they're doing a good job. However, when I hear that untrue things are being told about the church, that gets me stirred up. Our church has been in operation for over 50 years and has continuously been in operation. Because of a loss of pastor, it was difficult. Attendance did ... many of the folks are elderly, and of course in the wintertime, as this Iasi Sunday, many could not gel out. In terms of alcohol and liquor, I am totally personally opposed to it. My own brother died in a car accident from the result of alcohol. As I looked into my records in funerals that I've had in the last 35 years, I have buried more than 100 young people under the age of 30 from the result of alcohol and liquor. So that's where I stand. I'm definitely opposed to liquor or alcohol of any kind. I understand everybody doesn't share this opinion. We have a epidemic in America of alcoholism and problems that have occurred. My brother was paralyzed from an alcoholic that hit him and in a wheelchair. So I've seen the results of alcohol. When you talk alcohol or liquor, you're talking to the wrong person. However, this is America. People have their freedom to destroy themselves if they want to. I believe as a church we're there to maintain a posture of being drug free, alcohol free. This will make a much better America. I think that the sooner we gel back to the principles of God's word in America, the sooner we're going to see things turn around, even for this community. I'm a Detroiter and I've come back home. And there's a new sheriff in town. I believe the church is going to expand and grow and with people, with programs, we've already started children's programs Wednesday night and Sunday school and children even in the community walk to the church, and so good things are happening. I'm here tonight to represent the Church. The official board of Living Water Pentecostal Church of God met this week, and their position is that they are March 20, 2007 23937 in opposition to this license. Then yesterday, we did lake a vole of the congregation, and it was unanimous that they would feel that this would not serve us well in our community. So we are opposed to it. However, we still want to be good neighbors. We're not, you know, I probably would not have come except for the fad that I've heard you said we were not in operation. People have been saying God's dead for a long ime, but he's not. He's alive, and the church is strong, and it's alive and its moving forward. Our efforts are the opposite and that is to gel people off drugs and alcohol and that's what we stand for. So I must take that position tonight. Questions? Mr. La Pine: Yes. Did you receive a letter or have you received any phone calls from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission? Bishop Strength: No. I have not received any phone calls, and the church phone does ring into the parsonage, and I do have an answering machine on it. Its been on there for two months now. Prior to that, I cant tell you. I dont remember receiving anything other than this invitation. Mr. Morrow: And you've received nothing in writing from the Liquor Control Commission? Bishop Strength: No, I don't believe so. Mr. Morrow: We were advised lonightthal... Bishop Strength: If it came before the beginning of February, I may have not received it. I mean someone else may have picked it up. Mr. Morrow: All I was going to say was Mr. Yono's attorney advised us tonight that there's been many attempts to hear from you, and they did not get any response. Bishop Strength I'm home all the time, and I've been conducting services now since the last Sunday of January, every Sunday. Mr. Morrow: I don't doubt you. I'm only trying to ... Bishop Strength I apologize for not going over to see him. Normally, I go visit all the businessmen in town. I've made it to Larry's Kitchen and had a good breakfast and got only that far. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. March 20, 2007 23938 Bishop Strength: But I apologize for not making that contact. Mr. La Pine: Any other questions or discussions? Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak? Mary Kaneris, 11610 Cavell. I'm directly behind the party store in question. Brian, as I also know him, he's been more than supportive in the neighborhood. My brother owned the home previous to me, so it's been 15 years. As long as he's been there, we've known him. He's always been supportive of the neighborhood, the neighbors. I probably hear, and I'm directly behind his store, I probably hear more noise from the Dunkin' Donuts than I do anything from his store. He is there everyday. When I leave for work in the morning usually around 9:30, he's there. When I come home from work usually around 7:30, he's still there. Brian has always been, when I first moved in, anything I needed, anything I wanted, he came over offered his help for anything. He didn't have to do that. I was actually quite very surprised, and again, I'm a recovering addict, so I don't drink. I don't care if he sells beer. I don't care if he sells liquor. I do care about the neighborhood. And he's also told me about the fence he plans on building so that will be nice because its an eyesore. The alley, I think, is probably more of a problem than anything else. Mama Mia's, and I am a believer for the church people, they sell liquor and they're only just a few yards away. The church is around the corner. I can see the church from my kitchen window. So if I'm looking out my kitchen window, and last year I did see more traffic than I have over the winter months. Is it because of the winter months and the bad weather? I don't know. But from my dining room and my kitchen window, I can me the back of the church. Its like kitty comer. Again, if there are any other questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them for you. He is there. When you asked him about being at work everyday, yeah, I can't believe it. He's like my dad. He used to work everyday too in the restaurant. But I'm here to support him also. Again, like I say, if Mama Mia's, which is right next door and they're selling liquor, then you know people go out to dinner, granted, he'll be selling it packaged, but you know I think there's probably ... there's nothing I can say bad about him, and I've only know him just a short while. My brother was there for 15 years. I had my daughter just graduate from LLD and we had a huge party. He was more than willing to help. Hey, if your people need to park, you know ... So he's just been a wonderful neighbor and he owns the store. The other businesses in the area, I don't know them. He's always been there for the entire neighborhood. I've March 20, 2007 23939 never seen him tum anybody down, a little bit short or kids would go in there like the other gentleman was talking about the milk — no problem. He knows everybody in the neighborhood. We need that. So many businesses are closing, and I've seen his business fall over the years with a lot of the plants. He used to sell the best sliced pizza, and he slopped doing that because all these guys aren't coming in there for lunch anymore. His business has gone down. I dont know if selling the liquor would help him, but I suppose that's his own right. It's really all I have to say. Mr. La Pine: We thank you for coming in and giving us your opinions. Is there anyone else wanting to speak? Please line up at the podium. Robert Palina, 11564 Cavell. I've known Brian for many years too, just by frequenting his store. We love his little food store being right there and handy. I've enjoyed being one of his customers. Unfortunately, I'm opposed to the liquor license expansion. I feel that with the Taloo Parlor just down the street and the new ice cream place across the street down al Dunkin' Donuts, we're really attracting a younger crowd of young adults at the Tatoo Parlor and young children and families. In the summertime, we've had some trouble with the Taloo Parlor with a lot of people hanging out over there, young adults congregating there wanting some place to meet in the evening. I'm afraid that with a packaged liquor dealer so close, that really what we're going to end up with are small bottles of liquor in brown paper bags and people purchasing them for almost immediate consumption, and that's one thing we don't want. Anybody who has been purchasing liquor today goes to the Liquor Castle down the road, a well established liquor dealer that's been there for over 20 years. CVS liquor has a big parking lot well lit. There's over four places up and down Plymouth Road that do supply full packaged liquor service, so I don't think our community is hurting for access to packaged liquor. I'm afraid that really his little food store really just serves our little light community and the neighborhood. I'm afraid that's who his new liquor purchasers are going to be. And again, I can't help but gel stuck in that vision of small little bottles and brown paper bags for almost immediate consumption. I'm afraid that's where he's headed with that. His store is wonderful. Brian is a really nice guy. I enjoy his store just like it is. I was hoping he would go into something family rented like hard candy selection or a slot car track up front to attract children. I hale to think that he thinks his only future in expanding his business is in packaged March 20, 2007 23940 liquor sales. That can't be true. I've heard tonight that the battle for this has been going on since the 1980's. There's a reason why the community keeps fighting another packaged liquor dealer in their midst. We don't want it. We like Brian. We like his store. He's an excellent businessman. He's been a good neighbor. And admittedly, I think the councilman had to go out to his place the last time he applied, and then demand that he clean up his place and fix that fence, and he did. So he's coming on line. And again, we love having Bran there and that little food store, but another full service packaged liquor dealer just can't be a plus for tie neighborhood and really isn't necessary there. We've got to avoid those little bottles of liquor and brown paper bags. Mr. La Pine: We thank you, sir, for coming in and giving us your opinion. The petitioner has the last word. Mr. Howe: I'd like to darfy a few things. First with regard to the Bishop's comments, in no way did we come here and say that the church is not operating. That was from our observation and from my conclusions based on my discussion with the Liquor Control Commission investigator, Janice Salsbury. My phone records indicated that I contacted her on February 22, February 26, March 12 and March 20 to inquire as to whether she's heard back from the church from her phone calls or from this nofice, which is dated March 6, 2007. to Living Water Pentecostal Church of God, 11663 Arcola Street, Livonia, Michigan. So I apologize if it was represented that we were making false statements. That certainly was not the case. We are trying to come to the Board with our representations. Looking back in the timeline of what has gone on, I understand that the last pastor Teff in September. That's sort of when we started observing the church. Then the new pastor started up in January. Our applicafion was filed on February 13, and then here we are today. So obviously in the past six months or so there's been a lot going on, and it sounds like they are increasing their membership from here on out. So in no way do I want you to think that we came in and lied to tell you that this church is not operafing. It's just been from my communication with the State Liquor Commission investigator to try to gel a good idea of what's going on so we can be honest with you. But I'm glad that he's here tonight, and I'd be happy to give him a copy of this letter since it appears he does not have it. Aside from the church, there are differences today. The last community member stated that this has been going on since 1981. Yes, it has, but there are two things that are different March 20, 2007 23941 today - one being the church. Obviously, we know what's going on there and they are growing. So we're going to need a waiver for that. And the other aspect is the willingness of the applicant to expand his space and to invest money into his store. That wasn't up for consideration back in 2001. We've already got the site plan approved. We want to improve the business, and truly, there's no guarantee that the Plymouth Food Store will be around if this can't be expanded and an SDD license can't be added. That's still up in the air. In terms of inquiring on Sunday mornings, Mr. Yono works seven days a week. He's not open until noon on Sundays. That's his time off. I dont know if you have any other questions for us, but I'm glad that we got to the bottom of why the church is here. We're going to need the waiver and we do request that to help Mr. Yono expand his business, make it a better environment for the community and recommend approval of the waiver for both the expanded space, the SDD space and recommend a waiver by the City Council of the 400 -foot rule. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, then a motion would be in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Vartoogian, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 20, 2007, on Petition 2007-02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-02- 04 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That this approval to expand the SDM license and add an SDD license shall be contingent upon the completion of all building addition and exterior renovation work approved under Petition 2006-08-08-17; 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #534- 06, which granted site plan approval to construct an addition and renovate the exterior of the subject building under Petition 2006-08-08-17, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the conditions of this approval; March 20, 2007 23942 3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 4. That the use of LED lighthands or exposed neon, such as to outline windows or building features, shall not be permitted on the site; 5. That the expansion of the SDM license and use of an SDD license shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the requirement for a 400 foot separation distance between MM and SDD licensed establishments and an existing church building is waived by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; Conditions pertaining specifically to the use of an SDD license at this location are as follows: 6. That all liquor products allowed to be sold in connection with the use of an SDD license at this location shall be displayed behind a counter with no direct public access in accordance with the Floor Plan marked Sheet 2 dated August 4, 2006, prepared by Scope Data, L.L.C.; and 7. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Reasons to approve the request to expand the SDM license and to add an SDD license are as follows: 1. That the proposal complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the proposal complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirement that there be at least a 500 fool separation between SDM licensed establishments (and/or the requirement that there be at least a 1,000 fool separation between SDD licensed establishments) as set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance; March 20, 2007 23943 3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposal; 4. That the proposal is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; Additional reasons pertaining specifically to the use of an SDD license at this location are as follows: 5. That the use of an SDD license will complement the existing use of the subject property and will provide an additional service to customers; 6. That approval of this petition will enable the owner to expand and upgrade his store and to remain competitive, which might not otherwise be possible given the small size of the building and the limits this places on his existing operation; 7. That the approved plans for the addition and renovation to the petitioner's building represents a plan of action to substantially upgrade the facility and to accommodate the increased spatial needs of an SDD licensed business; and 8. That the petitioner has a proven track record of compliance with the regulations of the Michgan Liquor Control Commission with respect to the sale of alcoholic beverages. 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. LaPine: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: In reviewing the minutes from the previous meetings that were held on this item, it sounded very much like the meeting that we had today. Many residents from the area came in and spoke in favor of the liquor license and the church came in and spoke against it. The commissioners, after reviewing the conditions and the reasoning behind it at that time, felt there was no need to expand liquor sales in that area. When I look at this situation, I see the exact same thing. It's the same people coming in giving the same reasons, and I'm not seeing any particularly compelling reason why anything has changed which would require the expansion of liquor sales in this area at this time. I March 20, 2007 23944 don't have a problem with the beer and wine sales, and I certainly don't have a problem with the expansion of the beer and wine to that new area that is proposed, but I personally dont see any reason or any change that would compel me to vole against or different than the previous Planning Commissions have. Mr. LaPine: Is there any other discussion? Lel me put my two cents in. I'm going to vole against it basically on the fad that we turned it down before. I think that the Plymouth Road corridor from Inkster Road all the way up to Middlebell Road is well serviced by liquor establishments. If people want hard liquor, they can go the extra half a mile or quarter of a mile if they need it. I think the church is too close to the establishment, realizing that they do have beer and wine but they've been established there for many, many years. I don't see any reason to deny them the use of that license, but I don't see any reason to expand it to another packaged liquor store. Thank you. Could we have a roll call vote? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Vartoogian, Smiley NAYES: McDermott, Wilshaw, LaPine ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Walsh Mr. LaPine: Its a three to three tie. Is there a motion for denial? On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 20, 2007, on Petition 2007-02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-02- 04 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set March 20, 2007 23945 forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the proposal fails to comply with the standard set forth in Section 11.03(r)(2) which requires at least a 400 foot separation distance between a proposed SDD licensed establishment and a church; 3. That this area of the City is currently well served with existing SDD licensed establishments; 4. That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD licensed facilities in this area of the City; 5. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed use would be compatible to and in harmony with surrounding uses in the area; 6. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate that the facility has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 7. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, are intended to insure suitability and appropriateness of uses. 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. LaPine: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: The reason I offered the approving resolution is that I was impressed with the petitioner and his work habits and his work within the community. There are certainly those among us that do not dank and perhaps frown on the use of alcoholic beverages, but he does have an SDM license in effect. He's requesting to upgrade his business, perhaps remain in business, upgrade his store, and we're talking about 140 feet. He complies with the regulations as far as distances between other licenses of that nature. It was for those reasons, in addition to the ones I wrote, but those are my thoughts on the matter, and there has been a change here as he indicated. The space is being increased and the building is being upgraded. It is for those reasons also that I offered the approving resolution. March 20, 2007 23946 Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to quickly mention that I do also agree with Mr. LaPine that the work ethic of Mr. Yono is very commendable. It sounds like he runs a very good business and he certainly dedicates a tremendous amount of his personal time to that business, which serves the neighbors in tie area, and I do appreciate that. I just don't see a need for the liquor license at this time. Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Is there any other discussion? A roll call vote please. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, McDermott, LaPine NAYES: Morrow, Varloogian, Smiley ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Walsh Mr. LaPine: We have a three -three tie. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Under such circumstances, the staff would recommend that the item be tabled to the next regular meeting at which time maybe the petitioner would be afforded a full commission to hear the item involved. Mr. LaPine: Is there a tabling motion? On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-29-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 20, 2007, on Petition 2007-02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item until the next regular meeting. March 20, 2007 23947 Mr. LaPine: This case has been tabled to the next regular meeting or will it go back on a study meeting? Mr. Taormina: The item will be voted on the April 3rd Regular Meeting. Mr. LaPine: Okay, the April 3'd meeting. You'll want to come back and hear it again. I don't think we will be sending out notices again. Mr. Taormina: We will not be sending out notices. Mr. LaPine: We will not be sending out notices again, so if you want to come back, d will be April 3' at 7:30. Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 2007-02-02-05 TACO BELL Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 02-02-05 submitted by Peter Lyders, on behalf of Sundance, Inc. (a franchisee of Taco Bell Corp.), requesting waiver use approval to demolish and reconstruct a full service restaurant (Taco Bell) with drive -up window facilities at 19055 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 9. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. La Pine: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: Are there any significant changes between what we have now and what we had previously? Mr. Taormina: There are no significant changes. I think the design engineer will point out some subtle differences. There's certainly some new information they can provide relative to the petition, in particular, maybe some noise study information. In terms of physical changes to the plan, there may be one change and that is the increase in the height of wall, but I'll lel Mr. Rauch from the design team point out the differences. Mr. Wilshaw: One brief question for Mr. Taormina: Looking at the overhead site plan that you had up previously, there's one handicap March 20, 2007 23948 parking space on the north side of the building that appears, just from the plan, to be rather narrow. Is that in proper scale? Mr. Taormina: That would have to be analyzed at the time of plan review by our Building Inspection Department, but you'll also notice this is the area designated for exiting that vehicle. While these are permitted to be 8 feet in width, they do require additional area adjacent to that space to be designated for barrier free space. That is what this is illustrating, but it doesn't include the dimensions. I do believe our Inspection Department has reviewed the preliminary plans and does not have issue with the size of that barrier free space, only the fact that one additional space is required to satisfy the barrier free requirements. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 21, 2007, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description submitted is correct and no additional right -0f -way is required. The drive approaches to Farmington Road and the underground detention facilities will require the approval of and permit from Wayne County. The owner has shown signage to make the westerly drive an 'exit only' in a northerly direction to Filmons and has configured the drive as such." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 23, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a full service drive-thru restaurant on property located on the east side of Filmore Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast X of Section 9. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 2, 2007, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with Taco Bell located at 19055. We have the following recommendations: (1) Utilizing the existing parking in front of the liquor store to achieve the number of required spots is questionable, and it will create a vehicle/pedestrian conflict at the entrance. (2) We performed a gap study during peak hours on Farmington Road to determine the possible need for some type of traffic control device for March 20, 2007 23949 existing traffic. At this time, traffic gaps are within guidelines and no such device is needed." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 2, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 20, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The protective wall along Filmore does not return to the property line at a 3 foot height at the north end of said wall. Two ways to resolve this are to install the wall or obtain a permanent variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) This building may have only one wall sign. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required for more than one wall sign. (3) All directional signage must be neutral with only directional information. (4) The monument sign is limited to a length of 10 feet. It must be configured to that length or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals must be obtained. (5) As proposed this new structure will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front yard setback. 46 feet is proposed where 60 feet is required. (6) This site requires two barrier free parking spaces. An off site space may not be utilized for this requirement. A second grace, sized property, must be provided nearest the entmnce. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. LaPine: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Eric D. Rauch, Desine Inc., 2183 Pless Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48114. I'm here tonight on behalf of Sundance Inc., franchisee for Tam Bell. Also with me is Rick Eccles; he's the property manager for Sundance Inc., and he can offer you more insight into the operations of the stores. Could you put the proposed site layout up, Mark? Thank you for your thorough overview. I know that the Planning Commission has seen this petition before, so I'm just going to over a few points here that we'd like to make. The site plan has evolved through the review procedures, which have taken place since late 2005. Some of these changes include the incorporation of more green space up along the front of the building. The previous submittals had a bypass lane coming around. That's been removed in favor of some lawn area, some significant landscaping, and this three-foot tall knee wall proposal in the front that would be red brick with the limestone cap and incorporate the signage. That signage would also meet the 10 foot overall width requirement. This decorative knee wall here is kind of a feature that we noticed throughout March 20, 2007 23950 the community as we traveled through it, and we'd like to incorporate that City of Livonia imaging into our ste in hopes maybe someday, if improvements are ever made near the intersection of Farmington and Seven Mile, this is a feature that could be incorporated along that intersection. Additionally, the dumpster enclosure had been previously proposed in the very southwest comer of this site. It has been moved towards the middle of the site further east away from the residential properties on Filmore Avenue. Currently, that dumpster is located just south of the existing entrance along Filmore Avenue. So right now that dumpster is in this location. It was proposed in the southwest corner, and now has moved even further to the east away from the residential units. The western driveway has been revised completely. It currently has four traffic functions, right and left turn ingress and right and left turn egress. Three of those four functions would be removed as part of this petition so that there would be right tum egress only north onto Filmore Avenue towards Seven Mile Road. So there would be no permitting of egress left onto Filmore Avenue or south, and it would prevent traffic from going into the residential neighborhood. We have a traffic study here as produced by the URS Corporation. If you want, we can give you a copy. This traffic impact study concluded that the traffic volumes on Filmore Avenue south of the Taco Bell will not increase. Additionally, it concludes that we do not represent a significant increase in traffic onto adjoining roads during peak hours. I don't know if you'd like to see a copy of this. It's been in previous submittals, and it's basically the same. Additionally, there's a significant amount of screening proposed along the west and southern boundary lines. This includes the 5 -foot tall screening wall. Again, it would have that red brick appearance with the limestone cap on it that's indicative of the city here, and we've softened up the mass of the wall by putting a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees along it. Those conifers and deciduous trees also help in improving the buffering and light dampening characteristics of the site. We've also had a company by the name of Acoustics By Design. This is an acoustical study that I like to hand to you. This acoustical study produced by them has conduced that the noise levels on the site will be below the city noise ordinance and an amp or below the existing background noise levels. How they conducted this study is that they went to another site by the petitioner which has residential right up against the Taco Bell property, literally within about 45 to 50 feel from the doors of Taco Bell, much closer than here. They took noise levels from that existing site, and then they took noise levels here at the site out at March 20, 2007 23951 Farmington Road. From that information they will able to conclude an ambient sound level, the background noise level. Those conclusions then in this report from Acoustics By Design stale that we will be at or below the existing ambient noise levels. Would you like a copy of this? Ms. Smiley: We have that. Mr. Rauch: You do have it. Great. So both the traffic impact study and the acoustic study take into account the additional business that we're going to generate because of the introduction of the drive- lhm window. Mark, would you put up the Transactions by Day chart? I think it's important for the Board to understand when these additional transactions are going to take place. This is a chart comparing an existing Taco Bell in Dearborn. Its on Michigan Avenue. It actually experiences much heavier traffic volumes than Farmington Road. They are represented in blue. We look the number of tmnsactons for the three general hours of operation, lunch, dinner and late night hours of operations for Taco Bell. They don't have a breakfast menu so they don't have a breakfast hour of operation. You can see it starts on Sunday and goes through the three hours, and then on Monday at lunch, there is a significant difference between the Livonia and the Dearborn store. The Dearborn store has the drive lhru and the one on Farmington Road doesn't. Again, it comes back to dinner and late night, which are very similar. And this is true all the way through the five working days. What this chart shows is that the increase in the number of transactions isn't going to take place at 1:00 a.m. in the morning or 9:00 at night. It's going to take place at lunchtime during the five working days. The petitioner is seeking to make a substantial investment into a business that's been there for over 25 years. The site plan has been refined, and the traffic and noise concerns have been addressed; you've been provided with studies and reports and those fads. If there are any questions or comments, I'd be open to the board. Mr. La Pine: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: I was trying to follow along the comparison you have between the Dearborn and the Livonia store. The Livonia store, did you factor in the increase in business on that chart? Mr. Rauch: No, sir. What this is showing is that the two stores are similar. They're along similar thoroughfares. The Dearborn store is a newer store built three years ago. It does have a drive-thru; the March 20, 2007 23952 one on Farmington does not have the drive-thru. This gap here depicts where our increase and what time the increase and the number of transactions will occur. So we expect if this Farmington Road store were to open, that the red line here would be similar to that of the blue. So we didn't experience an increase in the number of transactions similar to the Dearborn store. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, the drive that's in the back of the property exiting the Filmore Avenue. You've done some changes to improve that situation, but is there any compelling reason to have that open at all? Mr. Rauch: Yes. Could you go to that presentation, Mark? This drive in the back is part of a 20 -foot wide alley that is shared by Taco Bell and the Wine Castle. We cannot change the function of that portion of the alley because of the Wine Castle. It's part of the Wine Castle function, and they want to see that remain the same. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. As far as the parking is concerned, can you address that handicap parking space in any way? Mr. Rauch: The dimensions? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. There's the dimensional question I had, plus the Inspection Department noted that there's a need for possibly two handicap spaces. Mr. Rauch: Yes. In fact, that's the first I heard of that, and I'll certainly look into it. If there is a need for one more space, we'll certainly put that in. In regards to this space here, ADA requirements require that you have at least one space, which they consider van accessible. The drop-off space must be 8 feel wide, and then you're allowed to make your actual parking space 8 feel wide for the ADA requirements. After that, you can make your spaces 11 feel wide by 5 feet wide drop off zone. So basically, the van accessible space allows a little bit more width on the hatch portion here for their equipment to come down, and they do request that the first one or at least one be on the property. Mr. Wilshaw: I'm assuming the regular spaces are 10 feet wide? Mr. Rauch: Correct. March 20, 2007 23953 Mr. Wilshaw: So you're narrowing that space to 8 feel, plus adding a hatched area. Mr. Rauch: In the determination of a parking space width, they factor in the width of a car but also doors swinging open. One side of that space, the doors and then of course the lift equipment would all be included on this side here, which is why the ADA requirements allow you to go with an 8 fool width. Does that make sense? You don't have to count one side of the door opening. Mr. Wilshaw: It does, but when I think of a typical conversion van, the slider is usually on the passengerside. Mr. Rauch: Yeah, that's a good point, actually. We can just flip flop these two features around. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The other question is, I see you have a lot of parallel parking spaces to try to make this thing work on the south side of the properly. What's the typical demographic age range of a person that's going to a Taco Bell restaurant? Mr. Rauch: I don't know if there is any information in regards to that. I know the franchisee doesn't have information of that sort, and I don't know if the corporation does. Maybe the corporation does but I'm not aware of any. Mr. Wilshaw: My experience has been that the typical Taco Bell patron tends to be fairly young, especially at least later in the day. Parallel parking spaces don't thrill me. They don't thrill me at any site, and particularly in one where you have potentially young drivers that are going to be using these spaces. Just looking at this site plan in general, just to evoke a phrase from our friend, Ray Tent, this has the feel of ten pounds of coffee in a five -pound can. There are spaces that are angled. There are parallel spaces. You have two straight spaces in the corner. It looks a little hodgepodge there. Do you have anything you can tell me as to the reasoning why there's no consistency? Mr. Rauch: We have a counterclockwise traffic circulation pattern, which is why I see a lot of the 60 degree parking, a very common pattern for traffic control for the drive-thru restaurants. Obviously, we're trying to accommodate more parking there. Taco Bell has anywhere from four to six employees, and they instruct them to park using spaces such as this here, the least convenient March 20, 2007 23954 spaces on the site per se. It's anticipated that 95 percent of the time these spaces right along here are going to be more than fine for the amount of patrons they could see. As the chart indicated, the majority of the traffic flow is going to be five days a week during that working week, during that lunch hour. Mr. Wilshaw: The only other comment I have is, I took a look at the dimensions of this site. You have a property at 27,000 square feet and a building that's about 2,200 square feet proposed. I took a look at the other Taco Bell's in Livonia. There's one at Merriman and Plymouth, which was 39,000 square feet of property with a 3,000 square foot building approximately. And Five Mile and Middlebelt had about a 30,000 square foot property with a 2,300 square foot building, very similar size to the one that you propose. The density of the building to the square footage of the property on this site is greater than it is on the other Taco Bells within the community. Not by a ton, but it is certainly higher, and that was a concern of mine as well. Mr. Rauch: And maximizing the density on this site, we're able to produce more green space adjacent to us to offer the buffer that we've provided. Mr. Wilshaw: That I do appreciate. I like the movement of the dumpster as well. Mr. Rauch: In doing that, there's an effect to the site but we're willing to make that effect to try and offer that benefit. Ms. McDermott: I had one question in addition about the parking. There was mention of the shared spaces with the adjacent property. I'm assuming those were the ones up front on the plan. What kind of arrangement is that? Is that a verbal arrangement, written arrangement? Mr. Rauch: Its a written contract. Mrs. McDermott: And basically we're just doing that to meet the parking requirements? Mr. Rauch: Its been there since 1984, since the establishment of the restaurant. That's been a long-standing agreement. Ms. McDermott: The reason I'm asking the question is we're proposing all of this because most of the business is drive-thru. It seems kind of contradictory that we need to share spaces with the neighbor. March 20, 2007 23955 Mr. Rauch: And we don't anticipate needing those spaces very often certainly, maybe during peak hours occasionally, but most of the business is done through the drive-lhru. Mr. LaPine: Can you put back up the site plan? I have a couple questions on that. How far will the Taco Bell wall sit back from Farmington Road? That is on Farmington Road, cored? Mr. Rauch: Yes. The one depicted here is set back approximately five feet. We made it undulating. Mr. LaPine: Is it adjacent to the sidewalk? Mr. Rauch: Yes. It's right where my red line is right now. Mr. LaPine: Does it abut right up against d? Mr. Rauch: It does not. There's five feel of landscaping area between there with shrubbery as depicted on the plan. Mr. LaPine: I also notice on what I have here, you show the Taco Bell and then a big bell. Is there a big bell that goes on there loo? Mr. Rauch: Yes, right there. Mr. LaPine: How is that bell set on there? Is the bell mounted on there? Is that was it is? Mr. Rauch: Yes, it is. It's back -lit illuminated like a normal sign would be, and I think it's about 6 to 8 inches in width, and it's mounted directly to the wall there. Mr. LaPine: I assume you have a bell like that on the front of the building. Is that cored? Mr. Rauch: Cored. The same bell. Mr. LaPine: I was just curious a bout that. Mr. Rauch: This here we intend to be as part of our ground sign, so it needs to meet the ground sign requirements. Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, and I mentioned this to you before. Let's assume a person is coming from the west and wants to go to Tam Bell, the only way he can get in there, he has to go ... March 20, 2007 23956 he can't turn on Filmore Avenue and gel in there. Is that correct? Mr. Rauch: Correct Mr. La Pine: So he has to go up Farmington Road, make aright hand turn, come in, gel his order. When he leaves, if he goes back out to Filmore, he only can tum right going north. Then he has to make another right hand turn, because he can't make a left hand tum there onto Seven Mile Road with the amount of traffic. There's a cul in there where you can gel over to make a right hand turn onto Farmington Road, which I think causes a lot of headaches trying to make a left hand tum to go back west on Seven Mile Road. If you notice, if you come up Seven Mile Road, then you move over to the nghl hand side to make the right hand tum onto Farmington Road, so now you've got people lined up, especially in the morning. I don't know about noontime because I'm not usually around there at noontime. But to me, it's just a bad location. The other fling, no matter how many limes you can tell us that you cant make a left hand tum onto Filmore if you come out of there, people are going to do it. There's no way you can slop it. You can put up a sign up there, no left tum, but the no left turn is not put up by the city. It's put up by you, so it's not really enforceable. It's not a sign that the city put up there. The individual put it up there. You're still going to have that traffic on Filmore no matter which way you cut the mustard. Mr. Rauch: Can I respond to that? Mr. La Pine: Yes. Mr. Rauch: All traffic features, as an engineer in designing roads and things, all traffic control devices operate and only operate because in trust that the driving public is obeying the posted laws with which they receive licensure under. And you're correct. If you ask me the question, is it possible for someone to turn left here, my answer to you has to be yes. Is it likely? My answer to you is no, and the reason is because we have provided significant signage there. Also the geometry of this egress forces and suggests to vehicles that they must go north. It is always possible. It's possible to run a red light. It's very possible not to slop at a slop sign or go 150 miles down the road. But all traffic control devices work and only work because people that have licenses should obey the law. Rick Eccles, Sundance Inc., 7915 Kensington Court, Brighton, Michigan 48116. 1 work for Sundance, Incorporated. The design of that building is outdated, and the corporation is in the process of eliminating all what they call the mission -style buildings. We've noticed, and the corporafion has noticed, that with the new style buildings, sales have increased at similar locations that obviously have drive-thrus. In general, the business is better with their new image and they are eliminating these stores. For us to invest, whether we put a drive-thru window in or not, is not advantageous for us as a franchisee to invest $1 million into a building and site if we cannot maximize the business. In doing so, to maximize the business, the drive-lhru is needed, and the building is obsolete at this point. As you know, corporations make decisions. Comerica left Detroit. They make decisions and we have to stand by that. Mr. LaPine: You would think they would take into consideration you do not have enough land, as Mr. Wilshaw pointed out, to build the type of restaurant you really want here. You're trying to buy up a house that you want us to rezone so you can increase the C-2 March 20, 2007 23957 Mr. LaPine: Okay. Just one more question, now. This operation has been there for 25 years, at least that long. I assume it's been a profitable franchise for the Taco Bell Corporation. Would I be right in saying that? Mr. Rauch: I dont think so much it is. I mean its been okay. They're still in business. The corporation recognizes this as a site that doesn't even come close to meeting its potential. Mr. LaPine: If it's been operating for all these years, and the corporation is making a profit. The indication you have made to us is if you dont gel the drive-lhru, the odds are Taco Bell will go away. It's hard for me to believe that the corporation would just say, well, Tel's walk away from the unit even if we're still making $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 a year in franchise fees and close it down. Why wouldn't they keep it open and realize for this operation they just dont have the land? The city doesn't want a drive-lhru there. Why would they want to close it down? What's their motive for it? Mr. Rauch: Well, I'm notthe corporation. I can't answerthat. Mr. LaPine: Is there anybody here that can answer the question? Mr. Rauch: Rick is with property management. Rick Eccles, Sundance Inc., 7915 Kensington Court, Brighton, Michigan 48116. 1 work for Sundance, Incorporated. The design of that building is outdated, and the corporation is in the process of eliminating all what they call the mission -style buildings. We've noticed, and the corporafion has noticed, that with the new style buildings, sales have increased at similar locations that obviously have drive-thrus. In general, the business is better with their new image and they are eliminating these stores. For us to invest, whether we put a drive-thru window in or not, is not advantageous for us as a franchisee to invest $1 million into a building and site if we cannot maximize the business. In doing so, to maximize the business, the drive-lhru is needed, and the building is obsolete at this point. As you know, corporations make decisions. Comerica left Detroit. They make decisions and we have to stand by that. Mr. LaPine: You would think they would take into consideration you do not have enough land, as Mr. Wilshaw pointed out, to build the type of restaurant you really want here. You're trying to buy up a house that you want us to rezone so you can increase the C-2 March 20, 2007 23958 operation there, which I am opposed to. It seems to me the corporation should take that into consideration, that yes, we want to expand, but we can't do it at that location. The only other alternative you have is to find another piece of property that's large enough to build the type of restaurant you want to build with the type of drive-lhru you want in an area that will accommodate it. That would be your final solution. I understand you have tried to do that. Apparently, you can find any land in that particular area, but there must be some someplace in the City of Livonia where you might be able to find a parcel of land that you could build a brand new restaurant, have plenty of land to do d with, and be successful without trying to shove this thing in this corner, which I think is wrong quite frankly. That is my feeling at this point. Mr. Eccles: Like you said, we have looked for property in the city, and to stay within the area without infringing on other stores that are in Livonia or surrounding communities. The corporation is very strict on that. To try to find a piece of properly on Farmington Road or Seven Mile Road, we've looked. We've turned over rocks. Iljust is not there or we wouldn't be here a second time. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: First of all, I thought it was represented at one of the earlier meetings that the height of the wall had been increased, but apparently that is not the case. Mr. Rauch did point out that the wall is 5 feet in height where it separates the proposed C-2 zoning classification from the R-3 district. So I wanted to point that out. I thought it was represented earlier that the wall was going to be increased in height by a fool. Secondly, the question was asked, I think by you, Mr. Chairman, what the setback of the monument wall was going to be for the sign. Mr. Rauch indicated it was approximately 5 feel, but we verified through the site plan that d is 10 feel from the nghtof-way of Farmington Road, which is the minimum setback for maintaining a ground sign. And then lastly, I'd just like to point out something, and its a bit of a discrepancy that exists between the traffic study that was presented under a previous petition and the data that is provided under this graph. I want to ask Mr. Rauch, as a representative from Taco Bell, if this chart characterizes the transactions between the Livonia store as it exists today without a drive -up and a Dearborn store that does contain a cinve-up. Is that accurate? Mr. Rauch: Correct. March 20, 2007 23959 Mr. Taormina: And would you characterize the Dearborn store as being a well performing franchise? Mr. Rauch: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Looking at this, the only real difference we see is in the amount of transactions that occur during lunchtime, at least in terms of any statistical significance. Would you agree? Mr. Rauch: Correct. Yes. Mr. Taormina: And that varies. During lunch we see an increase relatively speaking of about 75 transactions per period on an average weekday. Mr.Rauch: Yes. Mr. Taormina: I point out that in the traffic study that was done for the proposed Livonia store which is based from ITE studies done throughout the nation over a period of time, and under the conclusion section on page 3, it states that the new Taco Bell restaurant with drive-lhru window will generale 19 new vehicle trips during the weekday mid-day peak hour and 32 new vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. This graph might just be the opposite. I'm not seeing a number of transactions increase all that much during the dinner period as opposed to the lunch period. So we could actually see more trips generated from this project during the mid-day period as opposed to the dinner period. I'd like to point that out. Secondly, I think this also points out, and this is a question to the petitioner, you're really not benefiting that much in terms of maximizing your sales during the late night and dinner hours, and hence wouldn't that suggest that the drive-thru would not have to be open during late night hours? There is no benefit received, necessarily, by keeping that drive-lhm operational during Tale night as might be suggested through this graph. Mr. Rauch: Yes. Can I respond to a couple of those things? What you just mentioned about the late night hours, we didn't negotiate those hours as I recall with Council. I think people would be a little surprised at the margin of profit on a site like this. It's not as much as a lot of us would think. The Tale night hours between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., you're absolutely correct. These are accurate numbers here representing maybe 10 — 15 transactions in the Tale night hours, each one somewhere March 20, 2007 23960 between maybe an average between $7 to $8. When you ran that through the line over a year, it starts to make a significant difference, closer to $50,000 - $60,000 at the end of your line. It spells a big difference in how profitable this business is. So you're absolutely correct. It's not much. Ifs certainly not as much up here. Just like any business, there's quite an expense to ran them. Eighty to 90 percent of this represents what it lakes to operate a business, an additional 10% is maybe what you receive at the end of the line here, which is very well represented there. The other thing that Mark mentioned was maybe a discrepancy between this graph here and the traffic study. The graph - the Dearborn - these are transactions. For both Dearborn and Livonia, taking the second half of 2006 into consideration, the Traffic Impact Study as produced by URS lakes into account the standards of the ITE, which is publications of national data. You go to this publication and you look up fast food restaurant, and there it is. It takes into account Taco Bell, Domino's, Wendy's, places that have breakfast menus, so it's not specific to Taco Bell when you look at future vehicle counts. This is a correct document and they constructed R under the guidelines of traffic engineering principles, but in relating to future calculations, I'm looking at the ITE. You go to a fast food calculation, it spits out for you at the other side, but R's not maybe 100 percent in relation to what Taco Bell might do, which is one reason why we wanted to provide you with this graphic. Mr. La Pine: We thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or againstthis pefition? Roger Cole, 19018 Filmore. Could you put the site plan up again? I want to ask some questions. Say the traffic on Farmington, vehicles are making a left into Taco Bell. Say I'm getting everybody at the office lunch. And maybe I've got maybe like 100 tacos that I'm ordering. I pull up. Its going to take a little time to make those tacos. You know what I mean? And all of sudden you're going to have quite a few bumper to bumper people in that parking lot, and all of sudden you're going to have a lot of vehicles on Farmington that, you know, either ... Mr. LaPine: Sir, if I may interrupt. Its very unlikely that someone is going to order 100 lams. But if they do, number one, they're going to call ahead I would think. Number two, you would pull in and park in one of the parking spots and go in and make your pickup. So you know, that's really not germane. March 20, 2007 23961 Mr. Cote: Okay. I just wanted to, you know, because you know, things do happen like that. But even though, I mean, I might just order 20 tacos, for instance. The traffic, what kind of room for traffic in that parking lot can the site handle? Mr. LaPine: How many cars have we allowed for stacking, Mark? Do we know? Mr. Taormina: They are required to provide eight slacking spaces, and as Al just pointed out to me, an additional two spaces are provided beyond the drive -up window for persons waiting to f11 their orders, and that would constitute at least two of these parallel spaces here on the south side oflhe site. Mr. La Pine: Does that meet the requirements of our ordinance? Mr. Taormina: It does meet the ordinance, yes. Mr. LaPine: That takes care of that. Mr. Cote: And then, also, you said the people that actually work there, where are they going to be parking in that parking lot? Mr. LaPine: It's my understanding they're going to park down here. Is that cored? Mr. Taormina: I'm going to refer that question to the petitioner. Mr. LaPine: Where will the employees be packing, down on the south side? Mr. Rauch: Yes, absolutely. These three spaces here, maybe if there's one or two additional employees there. We certainly want to keep these open for dine -in and carryout patrons. They are most convenient to the site and they always instruct their employees to park there. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Anything else? Mr. Cote: I'm a resident, that you know. I'm against the rezoning of 19036 Filmore. It's a bad idea in my opinion, and a lot of neighbors in the neighborhood agree with me. It seems like a lot of people think it's a bad idea, but I'm just up here to give my opinion. I want to thank everybody that's been doing a good job on trying to get the right solution for this. March 20, 2007 23962 Mr. La Pine: We appreciate you coming in and hanging in there. Mr. Cole: I'm a concerned resident, and I do believe, because I've lived in Livonia since 1991, and I know about that Taco Bell because I have a friend that lives real close to Plymouth Road and Merriman. I know they tore that place down and built a new one. They had the land. They did a really nice job at that location. They didn't have to tear a house down to build that business. I'd like to just hope that everything is, you know, everything works out fine, you know. You'll probably see me again over here. Mr. La Pine: We thank you for coming in. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience? Gloria Kildani, 19031 Filmore. And again, I'm back here again hoping that you will deny this due to the fact that it is encroaching into the neighborhood. We did purchase our house, which is across the street from the house being proposed to be demolished, knowing full well that there was a Taco Bell there, but also that there was a house directly across from us. Not hearing the traffic. I have kids and they said there would be an increase in business during the middle of the day during the week time. My children are out of school in the summer time, out on vacation time. It's still hazardous to them for traffic flowing onto Filmore Street. Supposedly, as was mentioned before, that there had been a sign, and I'm not sure if it was supposed to be put up by the Taco Bell people or who it was put up by. It has been down. Still no resolve of one being put up as to no left turn onto Filmore. That has not been taken care of. So I just hope, again, that you guys do again deny the proposal of this as you did Iasi year, and that we don't have to go through this again. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Can I just ask you one question? You live across the street from the house that is trying to gel rezoned. Was there a for sale sign on that lot? Ms. Kildani: We moved in four years ago, and no, there was never. Mr. La Pine: Thank you. I was just curious. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was March 20, 2007 23963 #0330-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 20, 2007, on Petifion 2007-02-02-05 submitted by Peter Lyders, on behalf of Sundance, Inc. (a franchisee of Taco Bell Corp.), requesting waiver use approval to demolish and reconstruct a full service restaurant (Taco Bell) with drive -up window facilites at 19055 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Garita Avenue in the Northeast ''/ of Section 9, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-02-05 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the proposed use and its location, intensity, site layout and periods of operation are such that the use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area, particularly with respect to the residential neighborhood to the south and west; 3. That the proposed site layout and its relation to streets giving access to it, particularly with respect to vehicular turning movements in relation to routes of traffic flow and location and access of off-street parking, will be hazardous and inconvenient to the neighborhood and will unduly conflict with the normal traffic flow and circulation patterns in the neighboring area; 4. That the proposed use is contrary to the purposes, goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which seek to insure 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; 5. That the petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 6. That the proposal fails to condusively deal with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. March 20, 2007 23964 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. La Pine: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: I just want to add a few comments. As far as the rezoning of the property, I never really had a problem with that if it was meant solely to lessen the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. But because it was secured in order so that they could come back with a waiver of use, and that's where I have my difficulty is because the residents, at the prior public hearing, we had a large number of residents expressing their concern about this petition. I don't know if we've worn them out and they just didn't want to come back and fight again, but I suspect their feelings remain the same. That's my concern too - the impact it will have on the neighborhood. I am not an expert on Taco Bell but I suspect the biggest nuisance value for the drive-thru will be coming through during the evening or Tale night hours as indicated. And those are the hours where it will have the more trouble in controlling the decibels and the waste that occurs with that particular amount of traffic. Again, I'm not opposed to businesses increasing their business, but when it impacts the neighborhood the way it does, that's where I come down on it. It's just not the site where a drive-thru should be approved. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Thank you, Mr. Morrow, and I agree with you 100 percent. Is there any other discussion? Lets continue with the roll call vole. Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The petitioner has len days to appeal the decision to the City Council in writing. ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 939TM Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 939"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 13, 2007. March 20, 2007 23965 On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #0331-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 939" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Morrow, McDermott, Wilshaw, LaPine NAYS: None ABSENT: Walsh ABSTAIN: Varloogian Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 941s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 20, 2007, was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: Wililam LaPine, Acting Chairman CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary