Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-10-15 11801 MINUTES OF THE 632nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 15, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 632nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 20 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann *Donald Vyhnalek Members Absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. ` w Mr. Tent acted as Secretary in the absence of Mrs. Fandrei. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 91-9-3-3 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #692-91, proposing to vacate a 6 foot wide easement across Lots 3 through 28 of Joy Road Cozy Homesites Subdivision located on the east side of Deering Avenue north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating there are no City maintained utilities within this easement area but other utility companies should be contacted as to their interests. We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities in the subject area and therefore have no objections. Detroit Edison Company indicates that they need additional time to evaluate the subject easement and we are awaiting their report. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy would you take a minute and describe how it comes about that the Planning Commission would be proposing to make this vacation? 11802 Mr. Nagy: The City Council received a letter from a Gary and Zoe LaRocca, who gave their address as 9084 and 9108 Deering Avenue. They indicated they have resided there for 13 years and could use the additional footage at the rear of their properties. The Council, upon receipt of that letter, pursuant to our vacating ordinance, by resolution referred the matter to the Planning Commission for purposes of *%r holding a public hearing and giving a report and recommendation. These lots are mid lots within the area. They own lots 19 and 20. So in evaluating the request and upon the receipt of a letter from Engineering that indicated the City had no facilities in the area, we took it upon ourselves to expand the area for the reason that if it made sense to vacate the easement with respect to lots 19 and 20, since there are other lots along Deering Avenue, we should look at the easement for its entire length. As a result of that, we expanded the area to address the entire easement for that distance along Deering Avenue on the east. Now tonight we are holding a hearing to hear public comment and comment from the utility companies with respect to this request which was first initiated by the LaRocca's. Mr. Engebretson: Which utility company was it that we haven't heard from? Mr. Nagy: The Edison Company needed additional time. Mr. Gniewek: There is one lot that will not have the easement vacated. Will you explain why Lot 29 will not have the easement vacated? Mr. Nagy The Engineering Department pointed out that there is a catch basin for the storm sewer on that lot and there is a need, therefore, to retain the easement to protect that catch basin. Mr. LaPine: So, in effect, what we have here Mr. Nagy is the fact that the homeowners own that parcel but on their deeds there is an easement that they cannot build on and apparently because of the depth of the lots Mr. LaRocca wanted to use the additional space probably to build a garage or something and therefore the Council felt as long as we are going to do one, we might as well do them all. Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. LaPine: If tonight we see fit to go along with this, could we make it contingent upon the approval of Detroit Edison Company? Mr. Nagy: I believe you could. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Gary LaRocca, 9084 Deering: Basically, as Mr. LaPine pointed out, I just plan in the future maybe putting up a garage and this would give me a little extra room. That is basically all I want to say. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-9-3-3 closed. 11803 On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #10-167-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 15, 1991 on Petition 91-9-3-3 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #692-91, proposing to vacate a 6 foot wide *tor easement across Lots 3 through 28 of Joy Road Cozy Homesites Subdivision located on the east side of Deering Avenue north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-9-3-3 be approved for the following reasons: (1) That no City department or public utility company have objected to the proposed vacating. (2) That there is no longer any public purpose to be served by retention of the subject easement. (3) That this is contingent upon final approval by the Detroit Edison Company. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. *7:40 - Mr. Vyhnalek entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 91-8-7-2 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master p`► Plan of the City of Livonia to adopt a new Future Land Use Map, as amended. Mr. Bakewell presented the Future Land Use Map, as amended. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy will describe what is going on here. Mr. Nagy: What we are trying to do here is, as a result of all of the numerous changes that have occurred in trying to update the Future Land Use Plan, there are so many parcels that were affected and in order to give proper legal notice and record these changes with the Wayne County Register of Deeds, it was felt it would be more simple, in the recording process, to adopt a new plan in its entirety rather than try to record the numerous amendments. What we are having here tonight is really a housekeeping chore to facilitate the recording of these new amendments to the Future Land Use Plan by virtue of adopting a new plan in its entirety as opposed to recording individual amendments. We feel this is the way to expeditiously go on record with the County that the City has amended the Future Land Use Plan and we have a new document now to that affect. Mr. Engebretson: Is this the process we went through at the public hearing previously? 11804 Mr. Nagy: Yes, we went through a detailed hearing on each individual parcel when we amended them on a case by case, parcel by parcel basis. In any case, tonight we are having a hearing on the entire plan. There are no changes. It is merely adopting a plan reflecting all the prior changes that were done on a individual basis. ``r. Mr. Engebretson: We are simply repackaging the thing in a more feasible manner to take to the County. Mr. Morrow: One of the priorities we have, obviously, is the updating of the Master Use Plan of the City and subsequently printing it for the public. I might ask the staff what is our time frame to bring that forward? Will this have any impact on anything done or will this be something that will send us forward? Mr. Nagy: Now that we have made these amendments and updated it, we are now in a position to reprint it and we are going to try to reprint it in a manner so it can easily be disseminated to the public in a nice pamphlet form. We made a request in the 1992 budget for the printing cost involved. Mr. Morrow: This will not erode the work we have done but we will move forward. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-8-7-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-168-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City '14111. of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on October 15, 1991 for the purpose of amending Part VIII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled "Future Land Use Plan"; the same is hereby amended by adopting the new Future Land Use Plan Map for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan Map are consistent with recent changes of zoning and/or with the current established uses of the land. (2) That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan Map will keep the Map current in keeping with the Planning Commission's policy. (3) That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan Map are logical and reasonable. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said "Future Land Use Map" as part of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, and further resolved, that this "Future Land Use Plan Map" shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. 11805 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 91-9-2-25 by F.B.M. Enterprises, Inc. , dba Livonia Italian Bakery, requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license in conjunction with an existing bakery located in Stamford Plaza on the south side of yam, Seven Mile Road between Myron and Whitby in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. The Inspection Department stated in a letter received from them that no deficiencies or problems were found. We also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the addition of the SDM will not conflict with the Traffic Bureau's interest in the building. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: We have one more letter Mr. Nagy, which I will pass on to you after I read it into the record. A letter addressed to the Planning Commission from Primo's Pizza. The letter reads as follows: "I am the owner of Primo's Pizza, located at 33521 W. Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan, 48152. I object to the petition of the Livonia Italian Bakery to waive the 500 foot requirement for issuance of a SDM license. The immediate area has enough SDM licenses, including, but not limited to, the Wine Castle, Lewis' Winter Garden Bar, the Brass Mug, Perry Drugs, K-Mart, and Primo's Pizza. We do not need another competing SDM merchant within 500 feet of Primo's Pizza. I urge you to reject said petition. Sincerely, Dominic Soave" Mr. Gniewek: According to our notes, it says this proposal for utilization of an SDM license is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, including the requirement of a 500 foot separation requirement. Is that true? Mr. Nagy: That is true. It is well beyond the 500 foot requirement. I think what he was confused with is the fact we call them waiver uses. I think when you get a notice of a waiver use they think you are waiving some kind of a requirement or standard but what we are giving notice for and what the hearing is for, is consideration of whether or not the use itself should or should not be allowed. We simply call these uses waiver uses and some communities call them conditional uses or special uses. Our community chose the waiver use to identify special uses. With respect to the 500 foot separation requirement, this use is 500 feet beyond the nearest similarly licensed facility. Mr. Gniewek: So we are not circumventing any types of distance requirement. Mr. Nagy: No. we are not. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come down and tell us why you are making this request. 11806 Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: I represent the petitioner, F.B.M. Enterprises, Inc. It is a relatively new business that moved into this location some two months ago. You may have been by the store or in the store and recognized that there has been a lot of money put into the improvements of the store and I think it is a credit to the City of Livonia and it has proven out to be such with the .4r. amount of business that is being generated. We have asked for an SDM license to accommodate the clientele and the customers that are coming to the store and hopefully will continue to come and increase the volume. The center is Stamford Plaza. It was a center that was approximately half filled until the Livonia Italian Bakery took over the lease and filled up approximately one-third of the store, which reduced the vacancies down to one or two 20 foot units so now, in essence, the shopping center looks to be a very viable and successful shopping center. One thing I wanted to say, the Italian Bakery is really more than a bakery. It is an ethic market. It sells food in addition to all the bakery supplies that they make. It also has a cafe that was the old Polo Yogurt Shop, that has been brought into the bakery part and has been used to serve coffee and donuts in the morning, sliced pizza and submarine sandwiches at noon and capuccino, expresso, yogurt and ice cream in the evening and afternoon. It has become very, very successful. It is a destination store where people come in for their shopping for ethic food and as a convenience for their customers they wish to also offer package beer and wine. Mr. McCann: Is there a limit on SDM licenses in the City? Mr. Tangora: No, just SDD. Mr. McCann: They are still using the yogurt shop. They are still planning on using that end of the business as a yogurt, ice cream store? *ft. Mr. Tangora: As I just explained, it is part of the store. The wall is torn down but they still serve yogurt but it does much more than that. They still utilize the seats for coffee and donuts in the morning. They serve lunch there. People can go in and get sliced pizza. They can get soups. They can get submarine sandwiches and carry them over to the cafe and sit down and eat their lunch there. They also have the expanded ice cream facility there and that is used in the afternoon and evening. Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, one of the problems I had with my first impression of looking at this is by having those two stores combined, it was like putting a beer and wine license at a 31 flavors ice cream store and I went over and took a long look. You say you are kind of mingling. Could that not be done in another way. I see your client's point in requesting a beer and wine license because of the type of products he sells in the store but I do have a problem with the ice cream store, which it started out as originally. It still, in the summertime, is going to be very heavily used as a yogurt shop with the local people. I just feel there should be some type of separation. Have you discussed that at all with your client? 11807 Mr. Tangora: Yes we anticipated and when we filed the petition, you will note, we did not file the petition for the yogurt shop. The approval of the petition is strictly for the Italian bakery and market. The beer and wine would be located at the furthest point away from the cafe. By law, they cannot have open beer and wine in the store so there would be no consumption whatsoever. The only thing they could do is, under any type of SDD or SDM license, is pick it up and take it home or someplace but they cannot consume it on the premises. I don't think it is any different than when you have K-Mart across the street. They have a restaurant and also sell beer and wine. Obviously there is no problem where people would buy beer and wine and take it back to the restaurant and consume it there. It is against the law. I think we have the same situation here. They are aware of it. They run another Italian bakery in Dearborn where they sell beer and wine and it is not a problem. Mr. McCann: I just feel that the ice cream/yogurt store, that is someplace where I have normally allowed my kids to run up to 31 flavors, from the time they were 9 and 10 years old with their friends and that was something they could do individually. My question was, instead of having the customers walk back and forth, is it possible just to have the walk-through just for the employees. If someone orders a pizza or whatever they can go over to the other counter and grab it for them? Mr. Tangora: That would destroy the whole image of the business and the way they have set it up. Again, there is no consumption of alcohol on the premises. It is simply a package where people come in, pay for it and leave. I don't see where there is a problem. I think the proprietors are aware that if anyone attempted to do that, they would be talked to and told it was against the law. Mr. McCann: My indication was more for the mixing of the clientele. Keeping the children and the yogurt store at one end of the store and the other at the other end of the store rather than mixing back and forth. I have no further questions. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Tangora, did you say the business is successful at this time? Mr. Tangora: I think it started off well and it continues to grow. Mr. LaPine: When your client decided to lease the space, wasn't he aware of all the SDM licenses that were in the area? Mr. Tangora: I think so. Mr. LaPine: Did he have the idea he wanted an SDM license before he leased the space? Mr. Tangora: He had one at the other store in Dearborn and I assume he thought after he got operating and became organized that eventually he would go into beer and wine. 11808 Mr. LaPine: Knowing there were five SDM licenses in that close of a proximity of that location, wouldn't it have been logical for him to look into the fact of whether he could get an SDM license before he moved in there? Mr. Tangora: I don't think it would have changed his mind. Mr. LaPine: It wouldn't have changed his mind, so the SDM license wouldn't make or break this location? Mr. Tangora: It wouldn't make or break any location. Mr. LaPine: Is it true they can buy food, sandwiches, pizza, things in the market and take them into the cafe and eat them? Mr. Tangora: Absolutely. Mr. Engebretson: But no beer or wine. Mr. LaPine: Isn't there also an orthodontist at this location? Mr. Tangora: There is a dentist. Mr. LaPine: It is an orthodontist, which caters 90% to children. I don't think it makes for a good situation to have an SDM license that close to an orthodondist nor do I think it should be that close to where children will be coming and buying yogurt. Mr. Tangora: I see nothing wrong with the beer and wine license. Every supermarket in the City, every K-Mart, every Target store has it as a convenience for their customers. It is not necessary for the market but these people, as well as every other vendor of food and that type of product, wants to have that as a convenience to their customers. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Tangora, this place has changed hands a couple of times. Who owns this? What is F.B.M. Enterprises? Mr. Tangora: F.B.M. is the initials of the three partners. Two of the partners are brothers. They are the Petrucci brothers. They were raised in Livonia. They went to Stevenson High School. The other is Mark McMillan. He is the M. Franco and Bruno are the F and B. Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, that is a nice operation. I have been in it. It looks well. They have done a nice job. I have the same concern that Mr. McCann has about the ice cream parlor being part of the establishment. I will come to that in a second. I noted that this is kind of a high volume area for the things you are selling such as pizza, beer and wine, various sundries, etc. These are all items that will sell. If this were to be approved on the condition that the ice cream portion be deleted from the premises, would that be a problem? Mr. Tangora: It already is. 11809 Mr. Tent: In other words, you are not going to sell ice cream? Mr. Tangora: The waiver use is strictly for the market area. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Are you asking us to delete the ice cream? Mr. Tent: I have a problem there with the ice cream parlor with the children coming in there. This is going to be a grocery and a bakery and they are going to be selling all those things you have indicated. I would just as soon see the ice cream parlor be deleted from the operation or partitioned off in such a way that it wouldn't be part of that establishment. Mr. Tangora: The entire theory of the setup was especially designed to do that where people could go into the market and be able to go over and sit down in the cafe and have pizza, have a cup of coffee, etc. It has worked out very well. It is probably the first time it has been established here in the metropolitan area. Other communities have it and it has been a very popular type of operation. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Tangora, is this an existing license that is being transferred? Mr. Tangora: No, it is a brand new one. Mr. Engebretson: I would be interested to know what general portion of the business would be attributable to the bakery versus the deli, versus yogurt, versus pizza, etc. or is it too early to tell? Mr. Tangora: It is probably too early to tell. The core of the business, obviously, is the bakery. They are experienced bakery people. They have operated the bakery in Dearborn very successfully. They .. have expanded that into grocery stock, mainly ethnic types of %4111foods, which I think if you have been in the store you have seen the type of merchandise that they stock and offer and the cafe is something new. It has never been tried as I indicated. The cafe will probably start out slow. The yogurt store, as it was before, was not very popular obviously and it closed up. I think in combination with the market and the bakery I think they believe it can be successful. It is not going to be the major portion of their business by any means. The bakery will still be it. Mr. Engebretson: What was the term, Mr. Tangora, you used to describe the person that comes in to buy pizza or sandwiches and perhaps a bottle of wine or perhaps a six pack of beer and they leave and go home? What was the term you used for that? I liked that. Mr. Tangora: I think I mentioned that I feel this is a destination store. I shop there myself. If I want to take home a pizza and pick up some cut meats, I go down there for a purpose. I just don't go to three or four different markets to do that. Mr. Engebretson: I was just curious what the term was. It zipped by me. I thought it was a point well made and I think it is an important point, particularly as it pertains to the people who are going to come in to buy a pizza and it seems to me the City is better served and the community is better served by the customer having the 11810 opportunity to complete his purchase there and move on home rather than going across the street across Seven Mile Road to K-Mart and again, as you pointed out, passing by ice cream and various products that they sell to get to the beer and wine where children are present and I think the argument of isolating the yogurt portion of the store because children may or may not be present there, isn't such a high priority in my mind because I think that the person that is going to go in to buy the pizza and the beer is going to go in and take care of their business and be gone. I don't think we are going to have a problem with minors making purchases. I don't understand what the concern is because as you pointed out all the major grocery stores, department stores and others, including beer and wine and liquor stores, may exist right alongside of an ice cream store. I am not sure what the concern is there. I am just going on record that I agree with your points in that regard. Mr. Tangora: So far our experience is that the people that do come in, in the afternoon and evening are families. Quite a few obviously are people of the ethnic origin and come in for capuccino and expresso and the children can have ice cream and yogurt. Obviously, we can't guarantee there will not be individual children coming in but our experience is it is mainly a family oriented business. Mr. Engebretson: In that location it would seem to me that most people shopping there would arrive by car. Mr. Gniewek: I would just go along with your comments Mr. Chairman. I would liken this type of business to be very similar to our old Cunningham and Kinsel type of store where we had a soda fountain at one end of the store where people could come in, sit down and have a sandwich, have a coke, have a sundae and go to the back of the store and pick up their beer and wine and even hard liquor and leave. I don't see much difference except this is a lesser use. I really can't see that this is going to have any type of major affect on the mores of our young people in the City by having a beer and wine license at a facility like this one. We have already established the fact that it is unlawful to have open liquor on that establishment. The proprietor of the store readily knows that this is against the law. He would not allow it to happen because it would jeopardize his business and I really don't see where this would be anything contrary to any kind of mores. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this petition? Nicholas Ioannou, 33415 Seven Mile Road: I own and operate the Wine Castle. I have been in the City of Livonia for over 25 years and I grew and got old here. I have some comments about this particular application which I ask you to deny. I ask you to deny it because, in my judgment, with all these years of experience, I think we are saturated with places where we sell beer and wine. It just happened, the City of Detroit, it came up last week two decisions. They arrived at the decision they had too many beauty shops. Now what happened in the City of Detroit, they left the barn door open and the horses got out. In Livonia, because of you gentlemen, you have kept an eye on what is going on here. I am talking about the 11811 harmony between the residents, the industry and the businesses, which never had a clash or any problems because of good planning. I know your committee and I knew the committee before you, who care what is happening in our City. Coming back to Seven Mile and Farmington, in the two and a half blocks, if you walk, it takes five minutes and if you drive, it takes less than one minute and we have five licenses now. Five licenses and we all depend on our businesses to keep on going and I think we can take care of the neighborhood's needs because we are open seven days a week. We know our neighbors and they have known us for years and years and years. I understand the applicant has got a store with a bunch of departments, which takes care of people's needs from the first thing in the morning until the last thing at night. I am sure when he opened up his store he assured people around that he never was going to ask for a beer and wine license. Secondly, I am sure that a sixth license would hurt the neighborhood because it is going to be a conglomeration of the same kind of stores with the same kind of items. Do we need this? I don't think so. If we had some breathing space in between the new license and the existing licenses, it is perfectly alright, but not in this situation. I understand that one of the arguments presented to you was that people will go to the pizza place and they will pick up a pizza and a six pack of beer. I would like to call the Commissioners attention to the fact that Domino's, which is the number one pizzeria in this country, they have no beer, they have no wine, but by golly they sell their pizza. Then there is the thing with the kids and the ice cream . The sixth license I don't think we need. Respectfully I ask you to give a good hard consideration to our argument in denying this application. Mr. Vyhnalek: Sir, you say you are open 14 hours a day? %ow Mr. Ioannou: Yes 12 to 14 hours a day. Mr. Vyhnalek: How is business? Do you need to be open that much? I have no idea what the consumption is in that area. Mr. Ioannou: The other stores are open 24 hours a day and why they are open 24 hours a day, I don't understand. It is their decision. It is their problem. We are forced to open the store 12 to 14 hours a day because we don't like to lose our customers to anyone else. We have only one place where we can make our living. We don't have 2, 3 or 1,000 stores. Mr. Vyhnalek: I was just wondering how the business was in Livonia. Are we selling so much we need more or are we not selling very much and those that have businesses are just making it? Mr. Ioannou: Business is never enough. Mr. LaPine: Do you find the people who come into your establishment to buy beer and wine are the same repeat people or do you have a lot of transient people coming in? 11812 Mr. Ioannou: We have some transient people. We don't depend on that type of traffic because we are a neighborhood establishment. Mr. LaPine: What I am getting at is every time another SDM license comes in the neighborhood, basically what happens is that it would take business away from you so all we do when we increase the area with another `. SDM license, in my opinion most of the people who deal with the stores in that area are neighborhood people except for K-Mart so you only have so many people in the area, so many people to buy beer and wine, so the more licenses you get all you are doing is taking those people and spreading them over six stores instead of five stores. Would you think I was right in that? Mr. Ioannou: That is the situation. There are only so many dollars to be spent anywhere for anything. The more you add on stores that sell the same thing, the slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller. It is not like a restaurant where you might have four restaurants in one block and they would all be different. In our case, Miller and Budweiser and Gallo wine have the same taste and about the same price wherever you go. We have five places where we sell exactly the same commodity. I don't think we need a sixth because it would create more problems for our City. I wish you people would keep us to the same high level. Mr. Tent: The points you made were well taken because it is absolutely true. Other than the ice cream parlor which I was concerned about, the fact is I look at these liquor licenses in the same manner we did the gasoline stations several years ago. We had four on every corner and they were all trying to get each other's business. In this particular case we do have five in the general area. I too am concerned. We have an awful lot of that type of operation within the City. Your point was well taken. Mr. Ioannou: I am in this business for 30 years if not longer. When I first opened up my business I was making a $1.00 on a case of beer. At today's prices I am making $1.20. Now if we have another license here and they don't care if they sell the beer at cost because they want people to come in and buy their pizza, what is going to happen to the stability of our business? This is what is going to happen down the line. I am not going to call any names but I don't want to happen in Livonia what happened, unfortunately, in other cities in Wayne County. Keep it clean gentlemen because you always did a good job. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Ioannou, what other products do you sell? Mr. Ioannou: Ninety percent beverages, ten percent food for parties. Mr. Engebretson: Complimentary products, just like the petitioner is proposing. Mr. Ioannou: It is the other way around. He has ninety percent of the other and I wish him good luck from the bottom of my heart because he has a beautiful place and I know he will do a good job. 11813 Mr. Kluver: I certainly appreciate what you are saying but also in your establishment you do have a small deli type sandwich takeout. Is that correct? Mr. Ioannou: Yes we do and we are considering very, very seriously to shut it down. We had it shut down for two months because we are not food `. people. Mr. Kluver: I just want to clarify the record. Mr. Ioannou: It is there but it is almost non-existant. Mr. Kluver: For the record it is there and it does operate? Mr. Ioannou: Yes. Mr. Morrow: I think we have determined that we are not violating any ordinances with this petition for waiver. However, the question is do we have an obligation to the people who are there already not to over- saturate the area because the numbers seem to be fairly large. Coming back to the zoning of this particular site. This Commission originally thought that site should be office service, which the old classification was professional service. We had recommended that to the City Council who in turn zoned it to a C-1 classification, neighborhood commercial. They subsequently came back to us and asked that the Polo Yogurt be zoned C-2 because of viability concerns. Even though C-1 was not to my liking but with viability as the question, I went along with the C-2. Now we are coming here to ask for a waiver of use in the C-1 classification to further intensify my original thinking, that is the very close proximity to, at that time, an existing subdivision and one that '411111. tonight due to come on stream. My view is we have determined here tonight that viability is not the question. This is nothing against the young men because they are entrepreneurs and are successful in another business and I feel they will be successful here but my view is I cannot support this petition because of the viability and my previous zoning concerns. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-9-2-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #10-169-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 15, 1991 on Petition 91-9-2-25 by F.B.M. Enterprises, Inc. , dba Livonia Italian Bakery, requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license in conjunction with an existing bakery located in Stamford Plaza on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Myron and Whitby in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-9-2-25 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is not in harmony with the surrounding or existing uses of the area or the facility. (2) The area is already adequately served by similarly licensed facilities. 11814 (3) The proposed SDM licensed facility is not appropriate for a local neighborhood retail food market. 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. Engebretson: I want to make a statement. I am going to vote against the denial for some fundamental reasons that I believe strongly in. Mr. Ioannou makes a passionate plea for a denial based on his interest and his business, which I understand. As a businessman I understand totally. However, what he is asking us to deny this business entrepreneur is precisely the opportunity that he has and I don't see the logic or the wisdom in that. As Mr. Tangora pointed out, this is a destination type store. They are going to come in and buy the products and leave rather than jumping across the street or down the street and making another ingress and egress and while I am not proposing that this proposal is a good idea from the standpoint of safety, it certainly is a matter of convenience. From the standpoint of the pressures on small businesses with all of the economic pressures that arise, I understand sir, I am in the computer business and if you want to think you have had a struggle, not to trivialize your point, but we have looked at 100 to 1 reduction in prices so I understand what that struggle is like. On the other hand, I don't think it is in our best interest to artificially provide barriers against new entrepreneurs willing to take the risks and let the chips fall where they may. That is what this country is all about. When the Wine Castle went in that was their opportunity and that is the American way so I am going to recommend to my colleagues that they reject the denying resolution and hopefully pass an approving resolution. �.. Mr. Tent: I have nothing against the proposed establishment and the way it has been operating but the thing I am concerned about is the oversaturation of this type of facility within the City. Party stores, beer and wine stores, we have them all over. I feel that this area is serviced by five existing SDM licensed establishments. They don't have to cross the street to get to them. They are on both sides of the street. So the fact is, we do have a business that is already operating and he is doing good. He has been here a long time. I recognize competition is great but I want to help the merchants here in the City too. I was always opposed to four gasoline stations on the corner. My feelings here are we do have enough SDM licenses in the area. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, your argument I don't think holds water. I am opposed to having five liquor licenses in an almost 2 1/2 block area. If we follow through what you are saying Mr. Chairman, we have turned down restaurants in this City because we have said there are too many restaurants in that area. I don't see what the difference is in turning down restaurants because we felt there were too many restaurants and we felt the competition would hurt the other restaurants in the area. I urge my fellow Commissioners to approve the motion I have made. 11815 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Gniewek, Kluver, Engebretson ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #10-170-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Myron and Whitby in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from C-2 to C-1; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was `rr, #10-171-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 631st Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 1, 1991 are approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #10-172-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-9-8-18 by Kenneth Alflen requesting approval of all plans required by Section 29.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a new housing for the elderly facility on the north side of Seven Mile between Farmington and Osmus in Section 3 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan P-3074 Sheet #1 dated 10-1-91 prepared by JCK and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (2) That Building Plan P-3101 Sheet A-2 dated 9-16-91 prepared by JCK and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 11816 (3) That the Landscape Plan P-3074 Sheet #1 dated 9-26-91 prepared by JCK and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. `fir• (4) That the proposed driveway to Seven Mile Road shall be constructed in full compliance with both City and County standards including any needed improvements to Seven Mile Road. (5) That the proposed ground sign shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval within thirty days of the date of this resolution. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson NAYS: McCann, LaPine ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #10-173-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-10-8-19 by McDonald's Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to extend the drive-thru window area and enlarge rear cooler/freezer area in Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan SP-9179 Sheet 1 dated 9-9-91 prepared by Dorchen/Martin Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Plan 9179 Sheets A-2, R-1 and FC/1 prepared by Dorchen/Martin Associates, Inc. are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #10-174-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request by the petitioner, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 91-10-8-20 by Builders Square requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a T.V. satellite dish on the roof of a building located on the north side of Plymouth Road just west of Middlebelt in Section 26 until date uncertain. 11817 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 632nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on October 15, 1991 was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. *grow CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /7/-2,e:4,j c Raymoxld W. Tent, Acting Secretary //, ATTEST: 47 C4 1,111.1) (1--tJac_ Engetson, Chairman jg