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