Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing 5-18-2020 - Rezone - Pet 2020-02-01-02 - Belaggio Homes CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, May 18, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, May 18, 2020. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen McIntyre, President Scott Bahr, Vice President Rob Donovic Jim Jolly Brandon McCullough Laura M. Toy Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development Paul Bernier, City Attorney Sara Kasprowicz, Recording Secretary The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:59 p.m. with President Kathleen McIntyre presiding. This is a Public Hearing relative to Petition 2020-01-01-01 submitted by Pastor 4G L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the eastern 150 feet of the property at 16975- 16991 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Oakdale Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast ¼ of Section 16, from OS, Office Services to C-2, General Business. This will be heard at the Regular Council Meeting of June 8, 2020. The Public Hearing is now open. There were 23 people in the audience. Kathleen: Mr. Taormina, would you like to begin? Taormina: Thank you, Madam President. Again, this is a rezoning petition. It involves property that is located on the West side of Farmington Road between Bloomfield Drive and Six Mile Road. This property is just under and acre, its .96 acres. It has 140 feet of frontage on Farmington Road and the overall parcel is 300 feet. The Westerly end of the property, as you can see from this aerial photograph, contains a one-story building, its an office building. Its about 8,400 square feet in size multi-tenant structure. In the front yard, as you can also see from the aerial photograph, located between the road and the building, is a parking lot 2 that contains roughly 77 parking spaces. The rezoning affects only the East half of this property; the left half, including the office building, would remain under the current O-S zoning classification. Though the purpose of the rezoning would be to allow for the construction of a full-service, fast food restaurant with drive up facilities. The proposed C-2 zoning allows for full service, drive up restaurants, but subject to waiver use approval. So, looking at the surrounding land uses and zoning, immediately to the North of this property is a Shell gas station. The zoning there is C-2, General Business. Plus, there are two, single-story office buildings also on Six Mile Road, that are zoned O-S, Office Services. Then, immediately to the South and to the West of the Subject property, are single-family homes that are part of the Burton Hollow Estates subdivision. As mentioned, the site has 77 off-street parking spaces. At a minimum, the office use would require 34 spaces, based on the ratio of 1 space for every 200 square feet of office. The required parking for restaurants is based on two factors: the number of seats as well as employees. The preliminary site plan that you can see here, does not contain any information on seating or the number of employees, so we’re not sure what the traffic or what the parking requirement would be for the restaurant itself. The layout has 46 shared parking spaces available for both uses. We know that the office requires 34 spaces, so this would affectively leave 12 spaces remaining for the restaurant. The site plan also shows that a majority of the parking would be located adjacent to the restaurant, the future land use plan does show the Subject site as Corridor Commercial, which includes either office or retail uses. Planning Commission, after having held the Public Hearing on th this item on April 14, is recommending denial of this rezoning. With that, Madam President, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have. Bahr: Madam President, are you there? McIntyre: Yes, sorry, again, forgot to unmute myself. I need, and one thing that I did not do when I began this Public Hearing is that we do have New Data and I know Council has received it and we’ve got a number of letters, some in support of rezoning, some in opposition to the rezoning and Council has received those, we will hang on to those. As in the previous Public Hearing, some of the letters pertain more to the site plan, than perhaps the rezoning, many of the are both for site plan and rezone. So, if you are a person on the call and you submitted information to us, please know that we have it and if it was received today, we have received it. So, we will go, I’m trying to get back. Mark, you are still sharing your screen, right? Taormina: Yes, I am, and I can remove that. McIntyre: Thank you and when you are sharing your screen, it makes it difficult for me to see. I’ll begin with Vice President Bahr. 3 Bahr: Thank you, Madam President. Through the Chair to Mark. A couple of questions, looking through the documents that we were provided, the notification map shows both parcels, parcel 1 and parcel 2, so that would include the office building as being the Subject to the Petitioner. I just want to be abundantly clear; we are only talking about the parcel that’s along Farmington Road, not the parcel that the office building is on, right? There is a discrepancy between the documents that were sent to us, so I just want to make totally clear. McIntyre: Mark? Taormina: I’m not sure which document you are referring to, you said the notification map. Just to clarify, the rezoning affects only the portion of the property that you can see on this aerial photograph, bounded by the yellow line. It more or less, constitutes the Easterly half of the overall parcel. Bahr: I’ll have some more questions related to that when we get the Petitioner up here, but one more question for you, Mark. The future land use plan, has this been labeled as Corridor Commercial for a long time or was that a change as a result of the Vision 21 plan or something else? Taormina: Well, I would have to go back and take a look at the designation on the previous land use plan. I believe it was Office for this property. Corridor Commercial was a classification that combined all commercial land uses in a single category. I think that’s consistent with the objectives of the Master Plan to consider more flexibility in the mix of uses along our major corridors. Its something that follows more along a form-based zoning code as opposed to a more rigid zoning that we’ve obtained in the past. While it is more flexible, bear in mind that Corridor Commercial is just a, it includes a wider range of Commercial land uses as opposed to being more limiting or defined. Bahr: Got it, ok. I don’t have my future land use map up at the moment. Does that show Corridor Commercial only through this piece of property or does it extend further South from this? Taormina: I’ll verify this, but I can’t imagine that it extends any further South than this property because of the longstanding residential to the immediate South. Bahr: Ok, that’s all I have for you, Mark, thanks. McIntyre: Alright, Councilmember Jolly. Jolly: Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for Mr. Taormina if I may. Mr. Taormina, the proposed site plan that was shown on the screen indicates that the existing office building and the proposed fast food 4 restaurant would be in such a proximity that they would, I presume, share a parking lot space if not entry and exit onto Farmington Road. Are you aware of any other locations in Livonia where there is such a situation where a fast food restaurant shares a parking lot in such proximity to an office building or some other kind of commercial use? Taormina: You know, Councilman Jolly, I can’t think of one, off hand. This is a little unique from that standpoint. Especially with the drive-up arrangement being so close to the front of that office building. Are there larger sites that we have fast food restaurants that are part of a larger development, maybe a community wide or regional shopping complex? Yes. This one differs, I think, given the overall land area and the density of the development on this site. Jolly: I appreciate that insight. I’ll just say, from my own perspective, when my wife and I were first married, we lived in the Bell Creek Condominium complex on Farmington Road, facing Farmington Road. So, from my perspective, living in such close proximity, I don’t see how this fits into the general area. I do have some questions and concerns. I’ll give the Petitioner an opportunity to explain his situation as he’s presenting it. I also look forward to hearing from the residents in that area. Thank you. McIntyre: Next, I’d like to go to Councilmember Toy. Toy: Thank you. Mr. Taormina, I may have missed it, but could you point out the ingress and egress on this (no audio) not more, or no? Taormina: Looking at the aerial photograph, hopefully, you can see the hand movement showing the circulation pattern on the site as it exists today. Bahr: You are not on your screen, Mark. McIntyre: You have to go back, I think Mark, you have to share your screen again. Taormina: Ok, I will do that. I think that’s gonna help answer Councilwoman Toy’s question. So, if you can see the screen now and you can see the mouse kind of showing the circulation pattern overall on this site as it exists today. You can see the wear portion on the drive, you can see the drive aisles and the parking on either side. Now I switched (no audio) circulation would be retained. The only difference is that you wouldn’t have 90-degree parking along the South side of the property like there is today as you can see here. The building would take up a portion of the site located here, but overall, the same pattern is retained. Slight shift in the location of the drive aisle on the South side of the property, a little bit further South, but exiting out, the same existing driveways. The ingress and egress onto Farmington Road as this shows, would be retained. It does show the 5 possibility of gaining access to allow one of the parcels to the North, but I’m not sure whether or not there is new information regarding that. Toy: So, there may be a driveway going out to Six Mile, or possibly, as well. Right? Taormina: Madam Toy, I’ll let the Petitioner answer that. Toy: Secondly, if I may, just two other questions. Across the street from this site, are those condos or are those commercial or is it kind of split up right there, I’m not sure. It’s a C-1? Taormina: Yeah, a C-1. See, this is the Walgreens and then you can see where Bell Creek Condominiums, which Councilman Jolly referred to, located in this darker orange pattern and then single family residential to the South here. So, a combination of commercial, high-density residential and low-density single-family residential across the street. Toy: Ok, so the commercial is across from a commercial, or the O-S is across from a commercial. My last question would be, as we come down Six Mile, because we got a lot of letters about Stevenson High School. How far is Stevenson High School from this site, I realize its on the South side, but do you have a guesstimation about how far that is? Taormina: Roughly a quarter of a mile. Toy: A quarter of a mile, ok, thank you, Madam Chair. McIntyre: Thank you. Next, we will go to Councilmember McCullough. McCullough: Thank you, Madam President, I don’t have the information in front of me, but I know during the Planning Commission, I think it was turned down 6 to 1, if that was correct. Am I right on that? Taormina: That is correct. McCullough: Do you have the specific reasons in front of you, again, I don’t have that sheet in front of me, just curious Taormina: Yes, I do. McCullough: Any chance to kind of, run through them? Taormina: Madam, President, if you will allow me, I can read out the reasons. McIntyre: Please, Mr. Taormina. 6 Taormina: I’ll read off the numerated reasons for the denial. Number 1, the Petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed change of zoning and the intended use of the property as a fast food restaurant would be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area, particularly with respect to the adjacent neighborhood. Number 2, that the proposed zoning and intended use of the property and its relation to streets giving access to it, particularly with respect to the vehicular turning movements and routes of traffic flow would be hazardous and inconvenient to the intersection and the neighborhood and would unduly conflict with the normal traffic flow and circulation patterns in the area. Number 3, that the proposed zoning and use is contrary to the purposes goals and objectives of the zoning ordinance which seek to ensure compatibility and appropriateness of uses, so as to enhance property values and to create and promote a more favorable environment for neighborhood use and enjoyment. Number 4, the Petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. Number 5, the proposal fails to conclusively deal with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the city and its residents. McCullough: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. McIntyre: Alright, thank you, Mark. At this time, I’ll go to Councilmember Donovic. Donovic: Thank you, Madam President. My question is for Mr. Taormina. If this rezoning is to move forward and eventually a site plan is approved, is there some sort of cross-access agreement that needs to happen there for future use, say if the current owner sells the property to a new land owner, there’s a disagreement between a tenant is there some sort of easement that needs to be applied to the deed applied to the deed of these properties, these separate parcels. If I understand, there are two parcels and the Petitioner has talked about purchasing or under contract, the vacant office buildings to the North, just West of the Shell gas station, and intertwining these parking lots and potentially knocking that building down. Would there need to be some sort of easements added to these different parcels or are there cross-access agreements? Taormina: Yeah, so that’s a good question. I would say that in all likelihood, the Assessment Department would require that this site be split into two separate tax parcels. Whether or not there is a single entity that owns both of them, because of the different uses, it would require the split. As a result, we would most definitely require those cross-access agreements, particularly with ingress and egress and probably for utilities as well. It could involve a third parcel as you indicated. Not knowing whether or not 7 that will take shape, but to answer your question, yes, in all likelihood cross-access agreements would need to be put in place. Donovic: Thank you, my next question, was, again, if these scenarios do play out, is there any restriction to multiple businesses, two business, if one office building stays and now the restaurant is there. They can utilize parking? I know there is some thirty-four parking spots required for the office building and potentially fifteen to twenty parking spots required for the restaurant, per the Planning Commission notes. That is ok, from a City perspective, the sharing of parking lot space like that, correct? Toarmina: That’s correct. Cross-access as well as cross-parking are something that are allowed, but I would point out that we will still have to look at the overall requirement for parking for both uses and if from all indications at this point they would fail to comply with the ordinances, so variances would need to be issued in order for that arrangement to work. Donovic: Thank you, Mr. Taormina, I appreciate your answers. McIntyre: Alright, Councilmember Jolly. Jolly: Sorry about that, I’ve been Zooming all day, I should know better. Madam President, I’d like to ask Mr. Taormina a question. We just we through a master planning process. I’m flipping through the booklet on my phone as we’re discussing this right now. How is this particular parcel of land viewed going forward, in light of the Master Plan? Taormina: Yeah, so the Corridor Commercial, I think, again, recognizes that the parcel would remain as some type of commercial land use. That land use, I think the specifics of how that looks is really subject to the planning processes that we have in place; what we’re going through and discussing right now. It does recognize, and the previous plan did as well, recognize this as being a commercial land use. Not necessarily a fast food type of operation, but some type of non-residential classification, either retail or office. Jolly: Ok, so what you’re saying, that when they looked at this, in light of the Master Plan, it was just left as a broad category, kind of reflecting what it is currently. Is that correct? Taormina: Yes, exactly. So again, the Master Plan is very general in nature relative to the recommendations as it pertains to land use. Jolly: Ok, thank you very much, I appreciate it. 8 McIntyre: Alright, if no one else from the Council ha any questions, we will go at this time to the Petitioner. Mr. Pastor, would you like to address the Council before I go to other members of the public? Pastor: Sure, can you hear me? McIntyre: Yes, we can. Pastor: Ok, yeah, again, just on a couple of issues just to bring everybody up to speed. When we were going through the standards of why the Planning Commission rejected a lot of these things is; a) I think it’s because we’re in a new time, we weren’t able to discuss a lot of the things. Actually, I had two Regular meetings or Study meetings and then one Regular. Remember, this is the first time that we’re getting on Zoom and all that stuff, so I think that has a lot to do with it. Remember, we’re just focusing on just zoning. Most of the questions that the Members had, were a lot to do with parking, street access and all that stuff. So, let me go through a couple of those things. For your information, the address of 33433, the medical office, which is right next to the gas station. We do have a verbal commitment from them, for a purchase price. So, we will be able to meet all parking requirements. Also, remember that when we do this, we will actually be opening up the property and green space of this property. As you can tell right now, all it is, is total asphalt. With our building and with getting that building going over to Six Mile, actually creates more ins and outs of this, right, so it would be a third way in and a third way out of here. When they were talking about, the Planning Commissioners were talking about people getting in and out of this site, we’re not changing anything from the site plan. The approaches are the same. People, as a matter of fact, we are changing it, because we are changing it, this Northern entrance is a one-way in and the Southern entrance is a one-way out. Where right now, you can go in and out of both those approaches right now and turn left out of both those approaches. As a matter of fact, at the gas station, I believe they have two approaches and you can turn left out of both of those. They were talking about traffic disputes. I don’t think that’s, you know, that’s really going to change much. We do have a traffic study being done, but unfortunately, it won’t be done until next month because of the COVID-19 and people trying to get out and getting this work done. I just wanted to bring up those items, especially getting over to the Six Mile, we will have cross-easements and cross-parking agreements on all the parcels. There will be three separate parcels on this at the end and two ownerships on this because the Taco Bell folks will be purchasing this property. Those are the questions that I have now, and I’ll be waiting to hear for any other comments. I have gotten some, other than placement, noise, time from what I’ve talked to a couple of Council members, this will not, this will not, this will not, did I say that? Be a 24- hour restaurant. Alright? This will be the same hours, it’s the same 9 operator that’s on Eight Mile, so it would be the same store hours that they have there. So, I just wanted to make sure of that. Some of the neighbors want, or a couple of Councilmembers had mentioned about the wall that goes along the South side of the property, redoing that so it’s a little bit taller to help prevent noise. Understand one of the philosophies behind this development of keeping that building in the back, was actually a barrier as well. Now, we can take it down and it can all be a Taco Bell, but then, it’s now more susceptible to that. I thought the building was a good thing that the, there’s only two homeowners that see that building and they’re not gonna change their view. So, that’s one of the reasons we were going to try to keep the existing building there. We can demo part of it if we have to, to make it, but the with the purchase of that medical office, I believe we’ll have more than enough parking spaces and reconfiguring the building so that a lot of that attracts towards that. So, those are the comments to bring everybody up to date that I’ve talked to people about. We’ll look for any other comments that you might have. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Mark, before we go, we’ve got two people from the audience who would like to comment and I know we’ve got, at least two people from the audience, would you please go back to sharing your screen and show us exactly what Mr. Pastor was talking about? Mark, can you go to that aerial map please? Alright, so, John, could you please help us out here and maybe, kind of direct Mark to show us exactly what the other building you are talking about? Pastor: It’s the one right next to the Shell gas station. That one, right there, that piece of property right there. That’s where, if you look on my site plan, we had a potential, right there, its either gonna be there or we’ll move it more to the West. It’ll be either there or there, will be the connection to that property. Depending on how best it fits with the parking lot, how we lay that out for parking. McIntyre: You own that property now? Pastor: We have an offer, a verbal agreement with the owner. McIntyre: Ok, and to the immediate West of that building, is that another office building? I’m trying to remember. Pastor: Yeah, that’s a dental building. McIntyre: Currently occupied? Pastor: That one is, the other one wasn’t. 10 McIntyre: Ok, alright, thank you. Ok, thanks Mark. With this, we will go to the audience as soon as I get back there. Alright, I saw that Mr. Ronald Colbert. Mr. Colbert? Good evening. Colbert: I wanted to start off positive by thanking Councilman McCullough for keeping all of us constituents aware of what’s happening and when these meeting were, I think that’s very important and I really appreciate it and I know everybody in my area does, so definitely appreciate what he’s doing for our city and our area. Again, I don’t have any notes, but I know everybody that I’ve talked to in this area, and I’m sorry, my name is Ronald Colbert, I live at 34259 Grove Drive, which is in the Burton Hollow sub. McIntyre: Did you send us, and again, if you did, we have them, it’s just a little bit difficult under Zoom. Did you send us email or mail correspondence? Colbert: Yes, I did. McIntyre: I thought your address sounded familiar. Colbert: Ok. Again, I have no notes, its just that I have many concerns with this. One is, Mr. Pastor has a great business model, because he’s gonna be a ¼ mile from Stevenson and yet we are pushing healthy foods in our kids and stuff like that, but yet this is gonna be right within walking distance for these kids. I don’t know, number one, that’s what we really want to project to our kids. Number two, is as stated before, it doesn’t fit in with the community. That’s just not gonna be a good like right there. The traffic is bad there, and again, I guess even going back, I don’t care if its Taco Bell or McDonalds, Burger King, you know, Chic-Fil-A, whatever, that just would not look right there. After talking with everybody in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods, they really seem to agree. I’ll be interested to see that it was brought up that you received many emails and letters, how many were in favor and how many were against. Ok, because I believe that most people in this area are against that. Ok, the Planning Commission also… McIntyre: Mr. Colbert, may I just jump in here and, I’m not going to speak for everyone on Council, but to me, volume isn’t what I look at. I look at the case and you know, if anything, we received more in favor of, so I would just suggest that maybe you don’t use that as the metric for what Council should do, because volume doesn’t really matter. Colbert: Ok, well we would like to know that if that’s what you’re receiving, because, will all due respect, we did put you in office and we want you to follow, you know, what our wishes are, especially when it affects my direct community, right here. 11 McIntyre: Understood, I mean, let me just tell you. I’m not being combative with what I just said to you, I’m delighted that you’ve taken the time to correspond with us and I’m delighted that you’re taking the time to join this call this evening and share your thoughts. I just wanted to tell you, that’s not generally a deciding factor, because, you know, letters, volume doesn’t matter, what matters is what’s said and what’s the best thing for the community. Colbert: Ok, but even that being said, right, knowing that we have another Taco Bell 2 ¼ miles down the road, correct, that it’s open until 1:00am. Again, so we’re stating that this one will be open 1:00am, because your stating the same hours. It could get very noisy and cause a huge disturbance to everybody in that area. McIntyre: Mr. Colbert, again, I really want to thank you for your correspondence and for joining us tonight. Tonight’s hearing is on the rezoning of this parcel and this particular piece of the parcel, from O-S, Office Services to C-2, Commercial. If the zoning is approved, then we would go to a site plan discussion where we would talk about what business is going to be there, the hours, everything about the site, the parking and just so you understand, the other opportunities you’ll have to weigh in on these issues. Colbert: But again, once we go, once we rezone it, can we go back? McIntyre: No, but rezoning is pre-condition, but rezoning does not mean that the next step happens. So, there will be, if this is approved, if, and then we have moved on to a site plan phase, it will go back to Planning Commission, there will be a Planning Commission meeting and you will have the opportunity to share your concerns with Planning Commission and I know you recognized Mr. McCullough for keeping you and the residents informed and that’s a great thing. All of on Council like to encourage our constituents to be informed and to be engaged. You can subscribe to meeting agendas and that way you can see exactly when this would go on to Planning Commission if it does. If it goes on to Planning Commission and then they make a recommendation to the Council, then it would come back to Council, we would have a Public Hearing like we’re having tonight, specifically on the site plan. Again, that’s where we talk about the business, the hours. Colbert: Who elects the Planning Commission? Who puts the Planning Commission in power? Bahr: The Mayor. 12 Colbert: So, Mayor does, is that what I heard? Is that correct? Jolly: Scott, I think Kathleen is off the call if I saw correctly. Bahr: Thanks, Jim, I hadn’t noticed that. Yeah, I can jump in here. Yes, the Mayor appoints the Planning Commission and also just to clarify what you said earlier. Its our practice as a City Council to, whenever we have a rezoning, it requires two readings. Its our practice to hold up the second reading or the final approval of a rezoning until a site plan is approved. So, that’s what Council President McIntyre was trying to explain earlier, as far as the steps go. Even if this were to move forward, now I don’t know that it will, but if this were to move forward as a rezoning, it would be our practice to not complete that process until we had seen the final details of the site plan. If those were not satisfactory to us, the rezoning would revert back to what it currently is. Colbert: Yep and I can appreciate that, but I guess my, I apologize for my lack of knowledge, but I don’t know, what would be the interest to the Board, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the rezoning, why we would even still be held up on this conversation? Bahr: So, according to our practices, our laws, even with the Planning Commission denial, the Petitioner can then appeal to City Council, which is what has happened here, and that frequently happens. So that’s why we’re here, its not that we’re ignoring the Planning Commission, in fact, we get the Planning Commission’s minutes and heavy opportunity to review those and they are a recommending body and we take their recommendation seriously. That being said, this is just all part of the process to make sure everybody gets a fair hearing and so that’s why we’re going through this again. Colbert: Ok, well, I appreciate your time, I guess the last question I would have, is there any, for lack of a better work, canvassing through the neighborhood that’s going to be affected by this, to find out what their wishes are? I understand when the President was saying about the volume and things like that, which Livonia is a big city, right, so you can get volume from all over, but this is gonna affect the immediate community. Bahr: Your points are well taken, to answer your question, everybody, I believe its within 300 feet of a property that’s petitioned to be rezoned, gets notified and that’s happened here. Clearly the word has gotten around, I know there’s been word passed through your neighborhood, whether its through Brandon McCullough, whether its through a neighborhood association. Based on the volume of letters that we got and the participation, its clear that word has gotten around, but the specific answer to your question is, everybody within 300 feet is notified. I will also, I see 13 Council President McIntyre, Kathleen, I’m going to take the liberty to finish the thought here. McIntyre: Please do, I’m on my phone while my pc reboots. Bahr: Just a comment, I don’t mean this in any critical way at all, its just that I want to give you some context. You say that as elected officials, we need to be doing what the wishes in the neighborhood are, I always take neighborhood input seriously, but the reality is that I’ve been on Planning Commission and City Council for 9 years now, total, I have yet to see a development of any kind that the immediate neighborhood likes. I would guess that if you were to look at a map of the City of Livonia and pick out any development in Livonia and reel back and look, I would bet that there was opposition from the neighborhood that every single development that you see in the City. That’s not to decrease the value of your input, its incredibly valuable and I can tell you that I actually went through and tallied the concerns based on all the emails and phone calls that I received on this, so that I have statistics as to what the concerns are. I absolutely take it seriously but our job as City Council is to look at long term at what is in the best interest of Livonia and so there’s a lot of factors that we look at with this. I know that’s not always, when its your neighborhood and its right next to your neighborhood, you’re seeing it from that point of view, and that’s not easy to hear, but I’m trying to give you some broader context of what we have to consider. With that, I was going to pass it back to Kathleen, but I think we lost her again. Colbert: I guess her computer is not booted all the way yet. Bahr: Here she is. Colbert: I appreciate your input, I appreciate you listening to us, but like I said, we have many concerns here and we are the ones that have to live in this are and deal with the decisions that are being made for us. You know, and that’s why I appreciate you giving us our input and that’s why I’m on this, but giving it to you, like I said, I think that if you took cameras to the area, you’d find out that most people agree that it does not need to be rezoned. Forget about what restaurant it is, it does not need to be rezoned and that once its rezoned, we can’t go back. Bahr: You can always petition it to be rezoned back, but yes, your point is well- taken. I will pass it, it looks like we have Kathleen fully back now and I will pass control of the meeting back to her again. McIntyre: We do and my apologies, my pc was not plugged in all the way and my battery immediately died and it was being shut down and I could not get back in. Mr. Colbert, I heard your last exchange with Vice President Bahr 14 and I not only tallied things, I plotted on a map of the area where both the advocates for the rezoning and the opponents for the rezoning have come from, so I did not at all mean to imply that I’m at all cavalier about what we get, I was again, just making the point about volume is less important than context and content, but I do thank you for joining us and as far as canvassing, and I don’t know if you heard me say, we strongly encourage our residents to subscribe to the meetings, the Commission agendas, so you can know exactly when things are coming to Planning Commission or to any of the other Commissions for that matter. You are also welcome to call the Planning office, you are welcome to call any of us. I understand that Mr. McCullough has been keeping you all informed but as far as canvassing, the most effective way to do that is for the neighbors to get together and make their views known. That’s how canvassing, if you will, works for support or opposition to zoning. Colbert: Yes, and I can appreciate that and like I said, I really appreciate you listening to my views, the last thing I would just add to this is that there’s a lot of elderly people in that neighborhood that do not understand how to get on a computer or do not understand how to get on to Zoom. Their wishes are not being taken into consideration either. McIntyre: Mr. Colbert, I need to say something right now. Doing these meetings on Zoom is not anybody’s choice, we are doing these meetings on Zoom because the Governor is requiring us, the Governor is prohibiting us from being together and has given us an alternative way of hosting these meetings that allows public input. Now, I agree with you, its not ideal for people who are not computer literate, I’ll also say, that for people that have transportation issues, or mobility issues, coming to City Council for a meeting is not easy. That’s why we are all reachable by phone, by email, if people don’t want to email us, they can write us a letter, put it in the mail or they can put it in the red box. So, the Zoom is a necessary evil if you will, due to COVID, and your points are well-taken and well-made but this is completely beyond our control, so there’s certainly no desire to disenfranchise anyone through this process. We would all rather be in person too. You know, again, we can be contacted, all of can be contacted by phone, by mail, by email, there are many ways to reach us other than participating in the Zoom meeting. I believe the Governor has directed that these meetings, that public meetings, all public meetings in the State of Michigan will continue to take place virtually through the end of June. Colbert: Yes, I can appreciate this. So, with that, I’ll let you go, I appreciate your patience with me and your time. McIntyre: You been great and we really appreciate your taking the time to be engaged and to join us, again, we do understand, I said this in the previous public hearing, I don’t know if you were on the line. As much as it 15 is a hassle to come to City Hall for a hearing, it’s a well-understood process. You drive your car to City Hall, you come into the auditorium. This has required a learning curve for a lot of people, not just for us, but for our citizens and everyone that wants to participate. So, we appreciate your going to the trouble and the effort to figure out how to do this and be with us tonight. Colbert: Thank you and have a good evening. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Colbert. Next, we will go to, it looks like Louise McGhee, I saw a hand up. Are you with us, Miss McGhee? McGhee: Yes, I am, can you hear me now? Good evening everyone, thank you for giving me a few minutes. I live the sixth house from the property, right on Farmington Road. I was not given any kind of written notice. McIntyre: Can you please give us your address, we don’t have that in front of us. McGhee: I did write a letter, my address is 16799 Farmington Road. McIntyre: I do have your letter, I just don’t have it in front of me. McGhee: Thank you for acknowledging that and I do appreciate that. My concern is that there is so much foot traffic going up and down Farmington Road and down Six Mile. All of the athletes that are training for track or football or whatever, they all run down Six Mile, make the corner, come down my street, because we have that Service Drive or the acceleration drive, or I just call it my own little private driveway. I don’t really know what the official term is. There’s just so much foot traffic, there’s people that walk their babies in strollers, there’s bicyclists, there’s senior citizens that are walking. It is very difficult and I have purchased my gas at the Shell gas station, but just to even make the right-hand turn to get out of there, there would be so much competition with coming out of any kind of business such as a Taco Bell, and I do love Taco Bell, but I don’t have a problem going to Eight Mile and getting my Taco Bell. There’s just too much traffic there and for them to do a traffic study within the next thirty days, is not going to be the right timing because nobody’s working yet. The Secretary of State’s office is not open, if anybody drives by there anytime of the day, parking is all the way back up both Six Mile and Farmington Road. People can’t even get in there to go to their Secretary of State, let alone the people that are coming up Farmington Road going North and turning West down to get to 275 or to go pick up their kids at high school. There’s just a lot of traffic right there since there’s no entry or exit to 275 off of Five Mile, everybody uses the Six Mile. I just don’ think it’s the right place or the right time to rezone and I think that the Planning Commission, or whatever it was called. 16 McIntyre: You were correct, it was the Planning Commission. McGhee: Ok. The notice that was put in the paper, did not that say that this was an appeal so I was a little confused of how it actually got back to the City Council after it was already defeated. McIntyre: Ms. McGhee, I’d like to clarify that. The Planning Commission is a recommending body. Its not an appeal. The Planning Commission does not decide, their decisions carry weight of recommendation to City Council, they are not final decisions. Unlike the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals, their decisions are binding, and City Council cannot overturn a Zoning Board action. The next step after Zoning Board, if a Petitioner or Citizen’s aren’t happy, is the Court system. So that’s why it wasn’t notified as an appeal, just simply that it was coming to City Council as a rezoning. McGhee: Ok, I think somebody mentioned that and everybody within 300 feet were notified of this, was that supposedly by snail mail? McIntyre: Yes, those notifications go out by US mail. McGhee: Ok, I never received anything, I’m not quite sure if anybody else in Burton Hollow did or not either. I would think that me being right on Farmington, the sixth house from that parking lot, that possibly is 300 feet, but I don’t really know my distances very well. My main objection is that there is just too much traffic right there. I can look out my window anytime of the day, anytime from 2:30 on and traffic is backed up past my house with people trying to turn West onto Six Mile and that would be right when people are trying to get out of that parking lot. Right now, there are office buildings and I know that their not all completely filled up with offices or anything so there’s not a lot of traffic, but there’s still a significant amount from the Shell gas station, which everybody’s learned to deal with but if you have another exit and entry with people going in and out and then you also have something possibly all night long or every function at the high school, that everybody wants to do a Taco Bell run, I just think that there would be a lot of noise, a lot of trash, you’re talking big bins of trash containers that, you know, if it were going to be a restaurant. You know, we already have a rat problem, supposedly in the City, I don’t in my area, thank God, but that’s a concern too. Its really the people walkers, the kid walkers, the bike riders, the athletes, those are the people that I’m really concerned about. If you want to hurry up and make that turn because you think you have enough room to get out of that lot and you’re not paying attention to who’s walking, then you got a problem. Thank you. 17 McIntyre: Thank you, I think Mr. McCullough would like to respond to Ms. McGhee. Brandon? McCullough: Thank you Madam President. I live right in this subdivision, and to try to be partial to everything and be transparent and be city-wide, I spent extensive of time on a lot of things, I went on Google maps from an aerial view and went all around the city trying to find out any fast food locations in the city that would be this close in proximity to residential. The Ann Arbor Trail, Ann Arbor Road McDonalds from what I guesstimated was about 80 feet from the back lot. The Burger King at Plymouth and Harrison, that was about 40 feet, and this is all approximate, to a detached garage. The closest thing that I could find was the Bigg Burger, it looked like it was 40 or 50ish feet from a backyard, vantage point of a residential. If anybody has taken a look at this actual property, I’m all for innovative planning, but this, to me, is not innovative planning, to me its more of crunching as much stuff into a plan as possible. You know, the noise that’s going to be emitted, I’ve talked to many neighbors, this is something that me, personally, just based on my construction background, having to deal with site plans, its just not really a great plan when it comes to the residential around the noise, the traffic and basically, to top it off, I have a construction degree this is in the field I’m in, but our Planning Commissioners are some of renowned folks that do this. While I understand that they don’t have the final say, they did deny this, 6 to 1. For that reason, I definitely want to throw a denying resolution on the table. Thanks, Madam President. McIntyre: Alright, thank you, Mr. McCullough. So, Mr. McCullough has offered a denying resolution. Before I go back to the audience, I’m going to ask Vice President Bahr, did you want to comment now? Bahr: Yeah, if I may, Madam Chair and I’d like to go through you to Brandon because it just occurred to me, Brandon. I did the same thing, I literally walked through Google maps in the City, looking for comparables and the one that I actually found most comparable, besides Bigg Burger, but particularly when we think about proximity to a high school is the McDonalds close to Franklin, which I know you are well familiar with. I think that’s different that the McDonalds that you just mentioned, its at Joy and Merriman, which looks almost identical, its about, I mean I didn’t measure it, but it looks to be about just as far from a major intersection, its actually closer to Franklin high school than this is to Stevenson. It is immediately adjacent on the side and in the rear, to homes. It didn’t occur to me until right now, I should as you, as someone that is very familiar to that area, as to, do you see that as a comparable, as far as usage, as far as students going there, are students going to over to the McDonalds and hanging out, do you see that as comparable to this situation? 18 McCullough: I do and plus, with that specific McDonalds, I do believe it is located in Westland, but that being said, yeah, as a former Patriot going there, that place does get immense amount of traffic. Its somewhat of a hangout. Again, with that being said, I wouldn’t even, I don’t have the Google Earth in front of me, but literally, from the initial site plan that we had seen from Mr. Pastor, just from that property, adjacent to the South, its roughly, I didn’t bring a tape out, its less than 30 feet, so it is. That’s right where the proposed window would be. I know we’re not talking about the site plan, but just for the zoning so. Bahr: It is relevant and I know that’s in Westland, but maybe I’ll talk to you more offline about this but just wanted to get a flavor of what the usage is and the interaction with the high school, so thanks. McIntyre: Alright, Councilmember Donovic, did you wish to comment now? Donovic: Well, I was just wondering at what point we’re going to have an opportunity to ask some questions to the Petitioner. McIntyre: We’ll have opportunities, I’d like to continue, I’m sorry if you had your hand up before and I didn’t see you. Donovic: Its ok, thank you. McIntyre: I have to switch back and forth in order to see all the hand up between the two group, Council and the Attendees, I apologize if I missed you, but you certainly will get your opportunity. I’ll go back to the audience at this time, it looks like we have Mr. Craig Berryman with us. Good evening, Mr. Berryman. Berryman: Hi, this is his wife. Can you hear me? McIntyre: Yes, we can, you don’t sound like a Craig. Berryman: I do not. My name is Wendy Berryman, I live at 33735 Six Mile Road. My husband and I have been here for, I don’t know, 24 years, 25 years and as far as, I now understand, this is only about rezoning, so I will put away my other notes about Taco Bell, but I do feel, we do feel, as many of our neighbors do, that rezoning to a restaurant is just not a really good idea for this subdivision. Like the other two people who have spoken, we have concerns about the traffic and again, you know, I agree with them that a traffic study done now, during COVID, is not going show us the traffic flow, you know, 5 o’clock, trying to get home from work, 6 o’clock, I have questions regarding safety. I really, that was a very good comment somebody made about the athletes coming through. We have track, we have football, we have so many kids on bikes in this subdivision and our 19 sub is turning over from the older people that have been here, to more families again, and I just worry about if you could see the property, there is this brick or concrete wall that is hard to see around, and I don’t know if that would be moving, but it is a concern of mine that a biker or a mom with a stroller would not be seen. I think that residential, being in just a heavy residential area, we worry about if it were a restaurant, the trash, the extra food that would come out for the rats, the skunks, the opossums. We worry about just trash just thrown all over on the lawn from a commercial restaurant, like I said, we’ve lived here for so many years, I can’t imagine a restaurant of any type going in there or this property being rezoned. It just really doesn’t make sense with Livonia touted as such a family-oriented city, I just really think rezoning this for our neighborhood and even the condos across from us and Francavilla across from us in the sub, it just doesn’t make sense. McIntyre: Alright. Thank you very much, thank you for taking the time to join us tonight and share your comments, it’s appreciated. Berryman: Thank you. McIntyre: Thank you very much, next in the audience, we will go to Michelle. Jaster: Hi can you hear me? McIntyre: Yes, we can. Jaster: Thank you, thank you for the opportunity to address some of my concerns. My name is Michelle Jaster. J-A-S-T-E-R, I live at 16830 Farmington Road, which is in the Bell Creek Condominium plaza across Farmington from this site. I’ll try to be brief; I appreciate all of your time, it has been a long couple of hours already. I just want to echo the concerns about the traffic congestion in the particular intersection, I’ve lived in the condominium complex for almost 20 years. The rush hour traffic, the traffic associated with the start and end times of the high school, coupled with the incredible volume of folks at the Secretary of State on the Northeast corner of this intersection makes for an inordinate traffic volume I already can’t out of the condo complex to make a left-hand turn onto Farmington to go South. Putting in any sort of higher volume fast-food restaurant across Farmington competing with that left-hand turn lane onto Six Mile Road would be a traffic nightmare in my opinion. I agree with several other residents that indicated that this is a high-volume residential area with a lot of walking and biking and running. I personally bike most days of the Spring, Summer and Fall and it’s a little bit perilous to say the least already. So, from a zoning perspective, my biggest concern is the traffic. I think the only point that I have that I have not heard anyone else bring up, if an additional ingress or egress route is established that faces Six Mile 20 Road, the traffic coming in and out of that third driveway will still impede the same intersection, so I don’t see how that will make this anymore easy to navigate the intersection, so I guess I’m strongly against it from a traffic congestion in a residential standpoint. McIntyre: Alright. Thank you very much, Michelle, Ms. Jaster, very much appreciate your taking the time to figure out how to get on this Zoom call and to give your input, thank you very much, much appreciated. Jaster: My pleasure, thank you. McIntyre: Alright, at this time, we’ll go to the person with the phone number ending 6498, good evening. Robbins: Hello, good evening, this is Michael Robbins, I live at 33615 Wood Street and I’m in the Burton Hollow sub adjacent to the property in question. First, let me thank you for the opportunity to participate in this meeting, I really do appreciate it. After hearing all the comments, all of my notes now have been jumbled, so bear with me while I try to sort it out. McIntyre: While you sort your notes out, I want to say thank you for taking the time to engage. This is what we do, to listen to our residents. We appreciate your kind words, but this is what we’re supposed to do, and this is what we always endeavor, to make sure our residents have an opportunity to be heard, thank you. Robbins: Thank you. Let’s talk about zoning first. Right now, its zoned for office space and office space has a certain vehicle traffic, client traffic. We are accustomed to that; we’ve been accustomed to it for a long time. Zoning commercial means that a whole variety of businesses can go in there, including a Taco Bell. So, you could have bowling alleys or flower shops, repair stations as I understand, if I read it correctly. It just happens to be a Taco Bell now, but whatever it would be, it could always be a Taco Bell five years from now. Therein lies the issue, which most people have talked about now, is the traffic. I have a little different issue with the traffic. During rush hour, the center left turn lane going Northbound on Farmington Road. That left turn lane gets blocked up and some very impatient drivers make a left turn onto Bloomfield and they cut through the subdivision impatiently and they are intolerant of any other home owners trying to back out of their driveway to get going. So, I can see that if a Taco Bell were to open up and the kind of traffic that would be expected to go in and out of that establishment, it would only exacerbate the current situation, where, as I say, people cut through the subdivision to get onto Seven Mile Road without having to go through the light. I guess the third thing I would say is that, I guess the Planning Commission has a lot of expertise and if they voted by overwhelming majority that this is a bad idea, its good enough for 21 me. So, I got through it pretty quick, thank you for your attention and I’ll be looking forward to the next meeting where you talk about the site plan. McIntyre: Thank you, I should have mentioned, and I think I failed to do so at the beginning of this public hearing. Tonight’s item will move on to the Regular th. City Council meeting of June 8So far, we have a denying resolution offered by Mr. McCullough, we may have additional resolutions offered th tonight. If the zoning change is approved at the June 8 City Council meeting and we’ve proceeded onto a site plan, the site plan then would go to Planning Commission where it would be heard and voted on and then it would come back to City Council in another public hearing and then go to a City Council meeting. I don’t if you already do, but you can subscribe to the meeting agendas for the Planning Commission or the other Commissions so you can see exactly if the zoning were approved, when it would be coming back. Thank you, very much, you made your points very well. Alright, with that we will move on to the person that shows up as Lisa. Good evening, Lisa. Lisa: Can you hear me? Ok. So, I am in the same area as Wendy Berryman, I’m actually 33615 Six Mile Road and I am too, concerned with the traffic. Whenever there is an issue, people cut through, I’m on the Service Drive, they cut through all the time. We do have smaller children along the street, and it is a huge issue. I think if there’s an entrance on Six Mile, it will make it worse, they’ll cut through daily, I mean we get cut through, everyone cuts through anyway during the high traffic area, but you’re going to have it all the time. I’m worried about the trash and rats, of course. That’s pretty much it, everyone else has hit everything else, I had a list, but its dwindled. I just want to thank you for listening to us and I just think rezoning at this time for any kind of restaurant would be a terrible idea and that’s all I got. McIntyre: Alright well thank you very much for your comments and thank you for going to the effort and taking the time to join us this evening. Next, we will go to Adrienne Floyd. Good evening. Floyd: Hello can you hear me? McIntyre: We sure can, good evening. Floyd: Hi, how are you? McIntyre: Good, how are you? Floyd: We moved to this subdivision four years ago with my daughter. 22 McIntyre: Excuse me and you don’t have to tell us if you don’t want to, are you in Burton Hollow? Floyd: Yes, we’re in Burton Hollow, we moved here four years ago with my daughter because it’s a very family-oriented subdivision and its very quiet. It really feels like a very, kind of, peaceful place to live and having a restaurant that’s going to be open until four in the morning right down the street, we’re on Grove Street at 33686 Grove Street. This doesn’t seem like a good fit for this area with our families and our kids and I mean, we can actually hear the train all the way down past the freeway. I mean, to have a drive through just right down the street is going to be loud, I mean, we’re gonna have people coming through all hours of the night. Its just not really a good fit for our neighborhood. I really hope you guys consider this before you make a change like this. You know, me personally, we like to ride our bikes and we go through there and it’s a very strange turn right there to get onto the Service Drive, the Farmington Service Drive, it’s a weird turn, and having a restaurant right there and its not a really good idea for safety. So, anyway, that’s what we’re concerned about. We love Livonia and we were really glad to move here, and we just hope that this doesn’t go through. Thank you so much. McIntyre: Thank you very much for joining us with your comments, I appreciate it. Alright, it doesn’t look like we have anyone else in the audience at this time to speak, so I’m going to go back to Council. I know Councilmember Donovic, you indicated that you had some questions and I see that Councilmember Toy does too, but I’ll go to Councilmember Donovic first, then to Councilmember Toy and then to Council Vice President Bahr. Toy: Youth before old age. McIntyre: Yes, exactly. Donovic: Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you Councilwoman Toy. First, I’d just like to thank all the residents. I received multiple phone calls, multiple emails in regard to this petition. I did my very best to respond to all the emails and the phone calls. If I missed you, I apologize, to kind of repeat on the President’s sentiment, this isn’t the most ideal situation, doing these things over Zoom. Honestly, no one on Council wants to do it over Zoom, we prefer to be at City Hall, but its just the environment that we, as a society are currently dealing with today and I’m very thankful that we have an IT department and we’re given the opportunity to still conduct City business via Zoom. To the Petitioner, if you’re on, Mr. Pastor? Pastor: I am if you can still hear me. 23 Donovic: Thank you for joining us tonight, I do recognize that with the Planning Commission, a comment was made, why can’t this be postponed at a further date. With my professional career, I understand that these sorts of things are time-sensitive, I know that did talk about this being pushed back further, but the seller is not willing to lengthen your contract, so I understand that it is time-sensitive. When did this whole petition process start, I think it started, what, two months ago? Is that when the sign was posted, and residents could be notified of this? Pastor: Yes, I believe our first regular one was back in February when we, or February/March when the sign goes put up. We petitioned before-hand because we had to plan it out there for awhile. So, its been out there quite awhile. Donovic: I know right now, is it two separate parcels as it stands right now or did you already split the two lots. Pastor: We haven’t split the lots, we have the legal to split the two lots and will be two split lots and that’s the one thing, I know some of the comments where that it could change to something else and surely it could. The thing is, to make it two separate parcels so that they could make the back half commercial, it still stayed off, because otherwise, it would have been smart to rezone everything C-2. I remind the Council that we just got redone rezoning the gas station to C-2, so I just wanted to do just the front portion of it, just so that it wasn’t more intrusive on the neighbors. Donovic: Ok, yeah, I understand that. I had another question, so from my understanding and I know, I’m trying my best to not cross, I understand tonight’s meeting is strictly about rezoning and I would like to us move forward to understand that this project in its entirety, as opposed to just having little tidbits of information. Just so I could see this entire project and decide if I want to move forward with it or not in the future. If you don’t mind, what I understand, is that you want to purchase the property to the North, which is currently a vacant building and that would give you more access to the entire parking lot? Pastor: Yes, well, that was part of the Planning Commissioners. They were asking me to see if we could acquire that piece so that we could get access to Six Mile so it would help relieve some of the left-turns on to Farmington Road and all that. We’ve since then, and that’s one of the reasons why they’re a denial, was because again, this was just about rezoning, we don’t have a total site plan because we’re still listening, we’re still talking to some of the neighbors, we’re talking to you folks. This site plan is going to change, as you know, this is the first phase. If I do get a first reading, I don’t get the second reading until the site plan goes before them. That talks about hours. The store is not gonna be open until 4am. I won’t allow it. They’re 24 talking about walking and all that stuff. The sidewalk, the entrance, the approaches they’re not changing, so nothing is gonna change from how people are walking or going right now as it is. The only thing I might encourage is to have a little bit taller wall so that the neighbor doesn’t, and this is one thing that really is an issue is, the neighbor’s side, the grade level is lower than the parking lot. So, if you go on the parking lot side, the wall looks like four foot high, but if you go on the neighbor’s side, it’s five foot high, so I would be willing to make it, as long as the neighbors are ok with it, which, I would like to talk to them as well and again, I don’t see the reactions of that extra lot was more based on the Planning Commission to try to get access to Six Mile for the parking. Now, also the traffic study was also a requirement of the Planning Commission. They asked me to get a traffic study done. I told them that I couldn’t at that time, the traffic study, the quickest they could get it done was by June. So, we are opened up, let me rephrase that. There is traffic. Understand, just like everybody else, I drive down Farmington Road twice a day, minimum. I go by this site, twice a day. I understand the traffic, I understand the left turns and I understand about the high school. I’m very sensitive to all of that, so I would be looking forward to working with the Council and addressing some of these issues. Donovic: Ok, so what I’m hearing, is you would essentially, the plan is to buy the building to the North, knock that existing building down adding parking there and then, last question… McIntyre: Excuse me one minute, Mark? Could you go back to your map, please? So, when we say the building to the North, we really mean the building to the North of the office? Pastor: Yes, that one where he has the tag straight down. McIntyre: I knew what we meant, just for the people who are from the audience who are on, I just wanted to make sure we clarify which building to the North. It’s the building to the North of the existing office building, the proposed rezone is the gas station, ok thank you. Thanks, Mark. Donovic: Thank you, Council President. I would just say my last point is with office space being less and less wanted in today’s world of real estate. It looks like the future land use is supposed to be commercial, in some way or another, whether that be a restaurant or something else, so I do appreciate you answering my questions, if I think of anything else, I’ll be sure to ask, thank you. McIntyre: Councilmember Toy? 25 Toy: Thank you, Madam President. I have several comments, questions, whatever. First of all, I want to thank Casey who is our technical guy, he puts these… McIntyre: Councilmember Toy? We’re having trouble hearing you. Toy: I’m sorry, I’ve never had that problem in my entire life. I said I wanted to thank Casey for all the hard work he does on these meetings and assists all of us, he’s just done an outstanding job and obviously to the residents for being here tonight, Madam President, as you most graciously said to them. You know, I live near that area as well, just down the street a little bit, so I travel that area, not so much now, we’re kind of quarantined out, but we’re supposed to be staying home, by the way. Consequently, we know that area, we’ve lived in this community forever, seen a lot of changes and change is hard sometimes, but perhaps necessary. The office building, the medical building behind the Taco Bell, if I may, to the Petitioner, or Mr. Taormina, is that still occupied? It looked like it when I drove by there. Pastor: It has four tenants. Toy: It has four tenants? I heard that most of those doctors have expired. Pastor: They are on month-to-month leases. Toy: Ok, and to those folks, you know, pointing to the Planning Commission, God love the Planning Commission, ok, but I’ve served on this Council before when we’ve gotten not real thrilled with the Planning Commission on some of their decisions they’ve made. You know, it can work for and against, depending on what subject matter you are talking about. We certainly need them in our community because they really screen things for us and then when it is appealed, as the President pointed out to us, then we get a shot at it to say, geez, did they look at everything. They change the Planning Commission, but right now, those are the mostly Dennis Wright appointments, I don’t think our new Mayor has had an appointment, correct me, if I’m wrong, Council, to the Planning Commission quite yet. Most of them are such good people and very well qualified people, but people also have the opportunity to come to us. They aren’t elected officials, those people are appointed, we are the elected officials in this community, amongst others, so subsequently, they get to come to us, them we reevaluate it and see it more for the time, so you know, that’s very important to keep in mind as we’re talking. I heard many residents, Madam President and Others, talk about all the traffic that’s coming through the subdivision over there. I believe there’s two subdivisions, Burton Hollow One and Two. So, it would be interesting to know who lives right in that area comparted to who lives across the 26 Wayne Road, farther up towards Newburgh, I guess it would be, in those areas. What I wanted to point out is, the traffic. I think we need the Traffic Commission to look at the unnecessary traffic going through that neighborhood, they are probably trying to cut over because of the light, maybe the back up at certain times. I live at Five and Farmington, I know how that can get at certain times everybody loves Bates, so you’re lined up to go to Bates, right. So consequently, I, Madam Chair, would also like to offer up a resolution to have the traffic commission look at that traffic, if we could eliminate, maybe by signage, or the timing of the light, I don’t know, any number of things. McIntyre: Excuse me, Councilmember Toy, are you making a resolution to refer this to Committee of the Whole? Toy: Well we could go to the Committee of the Whole as well if you want, but I don’t know if, what kind of timing we’re into. I wasn’t sure, Madam Chair, but I do want to do due process, whether it be the Petitioner or the residents, whoever. Do we have time for Committee of the Whole? McIntyre: I don’t think, and Paul, please correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t think the Council can have a resolution to refer something to the Traffic Commission. It’s really the Administration. Bernier: Right, but you can refer to the Traffic Commission to take a look at it, but the problem you have on that is, those are both County Roads. Toy: Ok, well shoot it over to the County too, what the heck, get them all involved. Bernier: Six Mile and Farmington are both County Roads, so our Traffic Commission has zero jurisdiction over those roads. Toy: Good point, thank you, Mr. Attorney. No then, let’s go over to the County, we have a couple of County Commissioners here, they have traffic things they can do in studies. Those people are being burdened by a lot of traffic, let’s see if we can get a little sign or something up there. Why not? McIntyre: I just need to be clear on the resolution here, because we have a denying resolution and then the other resolution was, I’m sorry, I thought we had to refer it to the Administration, I didn’t realize we could do that. Toy: That’s why I have grey hair and you don’t. McIntyre: You are asking for what specific resolution? 27 Toy: A resolution to the County to both our Commissioners, we have the new Commissioner and the older Commissioner and for them to suggest to their traffic people that we’d like a little study in that area. McIntyre: Councilmember Toy has offered a resolution to refer this to Wane County. Toy: Correct and the Commissioners of Wayne County, the elected officials, because they can get involved in stuff. McIntyre: I think they’d be included, right? Toy: I think so. McIntyre: Alright, thank you, Council. Toy: Thank you for the indulgence. McIntyre: Vice President Bahr? Bahr: Thank you Madam President. First of all, I just want to acknowledge all the residents, thanks for your letters, I particularly want to thank the person who said all her points had been taken so she wasn’t going to repeat all of them, that is very much appreciated as someone who has sat here and listened to many times, the same points over and over, not that they are not important, but thanks for being cognizant of that, we do hear every one of you and take note of those things. I have a few questions to Mr. Pastor, I’m sorry, one for Mr. Taormina first or Paul, either one of you guys. It just, as I’m looking at this, and I know its an early site plan because we’re just talking about zoning, but its relevant to our zoning decision here. As we look at the document provided to us and it shows the drive through actually spilling over in to the portion of land that will remain Office Services, I just want to double check that the law allows for C-2 activity to occur on an O-S zoned lot as long as the building is not on there? I assume that’s the case based on what we’re seeing, but I just wanted to make sure of it, because that looks odd. Bernier: I’ll let Mr. Taormina take that one. Taormina: I’m not certain that the zoning ordinance would address a situation the it is shown on this plan. Ideally that zoning line would move probably 20 or 30 feet to the West and encompass the drive through lane. Let me share the screen so that everyone understands what Councilman Bahr is referring to. The area hatched here is what’s proposed to be rezoned C-2 and I think he’s noticed that some of the cars cuing up here in this drive through lane fall outside of that proposed C-2 zoning and is questioning whether or not that would be an appropriate use occurring within the portion of the 28 site that would remain zoned O-S. So, I think it’s a good question, I don’t fully know the answer to that, again, ideally, this line would move over, or this lane would shift to the East. One of the two. Bahr: Mark, I’ll just point out too, and not expecting an answer to this but, something we can look at in the next couple of weeks. The fact that the dumpster is also on the Office Services. Does that have any impact on what needs to be zoned? I don’t know, this is just weird, having usage going off of the piece of property in which the building sits. Ok, then, I have a few questions for Mr. Pastor if he is available. Pastor: I am still here. Bahr: Ok, my notes are all over the place, let me find myself here. Pastor: Scott, while you are looking for those, I can answer make a couple of those answers. All that asked about the Petition stuff, I was told that this could be done, and the reason being is that the zoning was just for the building, the rest of its just for parking and all that stuff. So, that doesn’t necessarily have to be zoned commercial or C-2 for cars to be in there. The dumpster is a use-dumpster, that would actually be for the building and for the Taco Bell shared use. Eventually, most likely get pushed over, if you remember, to the North side of the site, where the two parking lots are there, so its not up against the residents. Bahr: Ok, Mr. Pastor, if you were successful in getting that building to the North you feel that you would have all the parking that’s required for this entire site, the existing building, the Taco Bell? Pastor: Yep, I’ll have more than enough parking. Bahr: Ok. You’ve talked several times about how this would not be 24-hours. Do you have stipulations from Taco Bell Corporate as to, and again, I understand this is zoning, but for me, these are some relevant questions to that. Do you know right now what you would have to be open until? Pastor: Yeah, they said at this time, it would be the same hours, I talked to the owners of the franchise and I can get this in writing, it’s the same hours as the one on Eight Mile. Bahr: Which is midnight, correct? Pastor: I believe so. 29 Bahr: So, if we got to a point of a site plan and all of that and wanted to put the same stipulations on this that are the same as Bigg Burger at 10 o’clock that’s not something that would work for Taco Bell? Pastor: I’m not sure, it depends on what night. Most of the nights, you understand, are only open until 10 o’clock, it would be Friday and Saturday is when they’re open up later. Bahr: Honestly, I’m jumping over, at this point, what is relevant for this discussion, so I’ll back off for that now. Is there any scenario in which you anticipate demolishing the existing building at the West end of this property? Pastor: I don’t know the reason why we would, only for the fact that it’s a great buffer for the residents. If you think about it, if that building comes down, then the Taco Bell building would get pushed back, then their drive- through lane would get pushed back and that’s gets closer to the residents. That building is one heck of a buffer for the two residents that are behind there. Bahr: Another question. Why, when we’re showing on this early site plan, the usage that you are with the drive through that actually starts in Parcel One, what is the reason for not just asking for the rezoning to go another, say, 30 feet West in order to accommodate that? Pastor: I was just told that that would work at this point, so I went to the property line of the one thing and just did it right off there. There was no magical number, we can push it back, its really immaterial where that line is at. I was told when I submitted this, that the building had to be in the C-2 and that was what was most important. Bahr: Understood, just trying to game plan a little bit here, not only to find out what the situation is now but understand where the incentives are for later. So, I’m not calling you dishonest or anything, but you’re a businessman and I’m just trying to anticipate what other requests might come in the future. Now, let’s say, now you own Parcel Two currently, right? Pastor: No, I do not. Bahr: Oh, that one you don’t, ok. Pastor: Any of these I have all options on any of the properties. Bahr: Ok, I’m sorry, I thought you owned Parcel Two and the options were on the others, that makes my next question…Let me ask you this what if we did not want to do this as a C-2, is there another use that you see from a 30 market standpoint, making sense on Parcel Two or do you think if this was not approved for a use such as what you’re proposing, you know, as a potential owner, it would just stay the way it is? Pastor: Well, if you look at the way it is, its been dead there for many years, this building has been partially vacant for a long, long time. I do have some tenants that I would be bringing there. Which is an Attorney and an Accountant, which are low-end users of the parking and stuff. They don’t really need frontage, so to speak. The only way it would work, is if its zoned like a strip center. Look at the corner, kitty corner and how long it took them to rent out that space over there at the corner. We have everything else pretty much in that corner except for a fast food restaurant. This project would die because of that and I think the building dies too, nobody is going to fix that building up, which is part of our plan, is to also spruce up the existing building. Bahr: Thank you, that’s the extent of my questions. Just a few comments and then I’m going to offer a resolution on this. I told you that I went trough all the responses, all the communication I’ve got, and I actually tallied up the concerns. There are ten different categories of concerns here, but there were four big ones that popped out. Number one, as we’ve heard tonight was traffic. Number two, was assuming that a Taco Bell was not needed her. Number three was the noise, Number four was the hours, which I would say is almost synonymous with the noise when you hear how people talk about it. The traffic thing, really related to a lot of these concerns, the thing that I struggle with a denial with this, those are all good reasons to be nervous about this, but the thing that I struggle with is, I don’t see much unique, honestly, about this intersection and this used as this place relative to what we see in a lot of other areas in the City, there are some unique points, but as far as the traffic and what’s going on in that intersection and businesses on the corners and ingress and egress close to the intersection, its quite common to see this set up throughout the city. We actually see it right there at that intersection, whether you look at Walgreens or whether you look at the gas station, whether you look at the little strip mall across the street, so I can understand traffic seeming like a concern, but when we look at how it works throughout the City, it lessens that concern for me. As far as Taco Bell not being needed, that’s one that we can use on that, but the bottom line is, business investors and Taco Bell Corporate wouldn’t be looking at this site if they didn’t think there was a need for that, so I’m not gonna claim to be smarter than them. Then the noise and the hours, which I’ll just handle together, this is one, I don’t have a perfect answer on the noise thing, other than to say is a frequent patron of Bigg Burger at Seven and Farmington, I don’t think noise is a major issue up there. I think this probably would be a little bit busier than that. I do intend, also, I’ve already reached out to them, but I haven’t heard back, to some of the neighbors near to Bigg Burger who 31 were upset when that was put in, what was that, about ten or fifteen years ago, for all these same reasons and I want to get some feedback from them and hopefully I’ll have that before our next meeting. The hours, as we’ve heard tonight, it wouldn’t be 24-hour, I actually would like to see it close at 10 o’clock, whether its 10 or midnight, if this were to proceed, we’d have the opportunity to debate that. So those are all good reasons, I see the merit in those reasons to be leery about this as well as some of the other ones that were talked about tonight, but I also think that there’s answers to each one of those reasons and the only reason why I’m looking for answers to those reasons is because I look at this parcel and I see a piece of property that has been dilapidated for a long time and I’m looking ahead to say as we look to try to see this property to see its best use, from the City’s perspective, I don’t anticipate an office building that far away from the road with a parking lot that’s way too big for what that office building needs, changing anytime soon, so I see the proposed use of this as frankly a way to bring something other than a dilapidate parking lot to that corner and I think based on things we’ve done to other places in the City, that we could work through some of those issues to address some of the remaining concerns. That is not endorsement of this, it is saying that I would like to take this to the next step to have an opportunity to talk through that in more detail, so I’m going to put an approving on the table for this, again, reiterating what we talked about earlier. Our practice is, even if this were to get voted at our next meeting, if it got voted at our next meeting to do as a first reading, it would stop there until we had a chance to handle the site plan, so just to put residents at ease, if we were to choose to do that in order to explore this further, that does not mean this is a done deal. I do have concerns about this, but there’s enough reasons why I’d like to see something like this there, that I’d like to see it take the step for it and therefore, I’d like to offer an approving. McIntyre: Alright, thank you, Vice President Bahr. I’m going to go back to the audience, I would like to remind the audience that the comments that you are pointing on the chat are visible to all the Panelists, so if you could just keep that in mind and I answered to one of the comments, I probably should not have, just as in our in-person meeting, we ask you to save your comments among each other or step out into the hall to have them, I’d like to ask you to respect that same thing on the chat function. I’ll go to Mr. McNeill from the audience and then I’ll go back to Council. Mr. McNeill. McNeill: Hello, can you hear me? McIntyre: We sure can. McNeill: Alright. Hi, my name is Andrew McNeill I live at 16827 Surrey Street, so you can see on the map that I’m right in the pathway there, right behind where this site is. The reason that I raised my hand, I sent a pretty lengthy 32 email, I’m not gonna go through that whole email for you guys, it’s kind of late, you all look a little tired, so I’ll hold off on those comment, but what I wanted to mention and the reason I raised my hand is what Councilwoman Toy alluded to with the traffic. So, it was mentioned earlier, but I do live in that pathway, so she did mention that she wanted to talk to somebody that’s directly in that pathway, I see it now, obviously right now, with COVID going on, we don’t have that increase in traffic right now. We are not seeing that right now, but I’m sure once everybody starts going back to work and we start getting towards that normal again, we’re going to see that traffic increase again and I have three little ones that are out here on Surrey Street almost every day, playing out in the yard, and it makes me very nervous during those rush hour times, between, let’s say, four and six in the evening, everybody is cutting through here, so that left turn lane to get from Farmington Road going northbound and then get onto Six Mile, gets backed up and everybody turns left into the Surrey Street drive here and is cutting through the subdivision. Most of our neighbors, I’m sure they can all attest to that, people are cutting through here all evening long. So that’s probably going to be increased once we get a Taco Bell there, so people are going to be trying to make a left into Taco Bell or avoiding that all together and its gonna increase our traffic. So, I wanted to touch on that, I did touch on that in my email as well. I understand that this is strictly about the zoning of the lot, so what I wanted to touch on that was in my email that I wanted to reiterate here is about the zoning. If you look at that property and then the site plan that’s going into that property to change it into a C-2 is, and what Councilman Bahr alluded to as well, is that it looks unique compared to any fast food restaurant that you see in Livonia. I can’t think of any and we’ve been through a lot of fast food restaurants right now with this going on, I’m sure, you go through the drive through now instead of going in. What other drive through do you go to where you are going through a doctor’s office parking lot to get to that drive through? It just seems like a very odd set up, it doesn’t look like something that we want to have represented here in Livonia. Livonia, to me, is above the rest, right? I mean, we pride ourselves on being a family environment on the beauty of this city and just having a restaurant there where we’re driving through a parking lots to get into the fast food restaurant, it just seems silly to me and it just doesn’t look like something we want to have representative here. McIntyre: Thank you and we did receive your email. McNeill: Thank you. McIntyre: Thank you very much Mr. McNeill, very helpful and as far as people looking tired, you know, I think everybody is tired, but you know that we’re always happy to hear everyone’s comments, we do appreciate your not reiterating everything, but even if we look tired its our job to listen to what 33 everyone has to say, so thank you very much. Let me go back to Council. Councilmember McCullough? McCullough: Thank you Madam President, again, this is kind of going on, I actually Googled the hours of the Eight Mile Taco Bell. On the record, Sunday through Thursday, they are open 10am to 1am, Friday and Saturday they are open until 2am. Again, this is obviously something that would go towards the site plan. Anybody that hasn’t cruised Burton Hollow Estates, I welcome you to, off of Six Mile, turn in and turn left onto Wood and you can see both of these buildings that just peak right above, I’m talking about the current buildings, the office buildings to the West. You can clear as day, see them, so one of my biggest concerns that I said before and I’ll say it again, is the sound. I know the hours are going to potentially be adjusted, but even still, someone did bring up, one of the residents did bring up how sound does carry. The trains all the way down by 96 and that’s true, you can, so one of the huge concerns would be if you have one or two drive-through lanes, the decibels carry right into the neighborhood, right over that wall, so if you guys are out moving and taking a look, feel free to turn there and just get a better look of how these buildings hit the viewpoint right off of Wood Street. So, that’s just another thing I wanted to touch base on. McIntyre: Thank you, Councilmember McCullough. Councilmember Donovic. Donovic: Thank you, Madam President. For the Petitioner. In the instance that this is rezoned to C-2 and you do get the Northerly property, is there some sort of new retention system that has to be installed to help mitigate any sort of storm water in the future, because now you’re adding an additional building. Pastor: We have to conform and comply to the local ordinances still, whatever they need, that’s what we have to do. As a matter of fact, Councilmember, just by us doing this is going to save, because of the landscaping and the green area that we’re going to create, because right now, its all asphalt, just our landscaping barriers that’s gonna help that factor of less drainage going into the catch basins and going into the subdivision and into our storm system, so that alone will help it out. Donovic: Thank you. As I look at that site, that entire corner, you see the new Shell gas station, they are going to be remodeling that, bringing it up to a state of the art facility, you see it across the street to the Northeast, updated new build right there and the new Secretary of State building. You look at that entire corner, and everything has been updated, then you look at this proposed piece of property here, the old, dilapidated, that building sits so far back, I don’t foresee any sort of real long term usage there for many years to come, so regardless of what happens with the rezoning and 34 whatnot, I do envision that corner being utilized more appropriately one day and really bringing that entire corner to its true potential. Thank you for your time. McIntyre: Alright, thank you, I don’t see any other, oh, Vice President Bahr? Bahr: Yeah thanks, just briefly because Mr. McNeill raised a good point and I just wanted to clarify something, I think it was McNeill, right, Andrew McNeill, the resident. When I was talking about his site, not being unlike other sites in the City, I was talking about the relationship to the intersection to the road, you were absolutely right, that this is a weird situation, as I’ve already expressed with the building that’s there and that’s one of my concerns with it, so I just wanted to clarify that, thanks. McIntyre: Thank you, Vice President Bahr. Looking back at the audience to see if anyone else in the audience would like to comment on this. Seeing none, just to recap, we have a denying resolution for the rezoning offered by Councilmember McCullough, we have a resolution to refer this to the County, offered by Councilmember Toy and we have an approving resolution on the rezoning offered by Councilmember Bahr. So, all three of those will be in front of the Council and this will be taken up at our Regular meeting of June 8, 2020. Pastor: Madam Chair? McIntyre: Mr. Pastor? Pastor: Is this going to be a Zoom meeting as well? Yes, the Governor has authorized Zoom meeting through the end of June, is that correct Mark or Paul, I guess. Taormina: Yeah, well, I’m going to let Paul, but my understanding is that it’s through the end of June, but I don’t know. Bernier: That’s all correct now, but we’ll see what happens with the Court claims and the Supreme Court. Anything is subject to change at any time, so it’s hard, it’s a moving target, so as of now, that is correct. th McIntyre: Ok, so yes, we’re operating under the assumption that the June 8 meeting, John, the Regular and the Study will both be by Zoom. Pastor: Ok, I appreciate it. I actually think Councilman Toy’s resolution was also to go to the local Traffic Commission to try and get the traffic within the subdivision studied so that they can stop the cut through the subdivision. Bernier: Can we put that down as a resolution by Mr. Pastor? 35 Toy: Please do. Pastor: Sorry. McIntyre: I know I asked the audience to please not use the chat function, but I will address something that came from Mr. Jones and that the meeting was not televised. Public hearings are not televised, so there was no change in protocol or procedure here or change to open meetings. None of our public hearings are provided by Livonia cable. Alright, if anyone else has any questions, I’d ask that they raise their hands. Alright, with that, the public is adjourned. Good night and thank you everyone. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 9:48 p.m.