Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2018-06-25 - REZONING - PETITION 2018-02-01-03 CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, June 25, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, June 25, 2018. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Toy, President Jim Jolly, Vice President Scott Bahr Brandon Kritzman Kathleen McIntyre Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development Mike Fisher, Assistant City Attorney Marilyn Mootsey, Public Hearing Recorder The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Laura Toy presiding. This is a Public Hearing relative to a request for a change of zoning within the City of Livonia on the following matter: Petition 2018-02-01-03, submitted by Cross Winds Court, to rezone the properties located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich Avenue and Wayne Road (34405, 34401, and 34407 Ann Arbor Trail) in the Southwest ¼ of Section 33, from R-U-F (Rural Urban Farm) to R-1 (One Family Residential). The City Clerk has mailed a notice to those persons in the area affected by the proposed changes, and all other requirements of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, have been fulfilled. The public hearing is now open for comments. There were eight people in the audience. Please state your clearly your name and address before making your comments. Toy: Mr. Taormina? Taormina: Thank you. Again, this is a request to rezone a single acreage parcel that presently contains three non-conforming homes. The requested change in zoning is from R-U-F (Rural Urban Farm) to R-1 (One Family Residential). This 2.72 acre site is located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich and Wayne Road, it is 148 feet in width, has a depth of 800 feet, 2 and as indicated there are three non-conforming homes that are generally located on the northerly edge of this property, the remaining back section of the site is currently vacant. Looking to the east of this property there are single family homes under the R-1 classification and then immediately to the west, there is an acreage parcel of similar size that contains a single family dwelling also under the R-U-F classification. The main objective of the rezoning is to subdivide the properties so that each of the three existing homes can be located on separate conforming lots and to allow for the construction of one new home. So as you can see from this plan, it dead-ends in the southeast corner allowing for a possible future expansion of the road that will essentially serve one or more new homes by the extension of the parcel. The plat plan before you shows four parcels; Parcel A & B each contain one of the existing homes with frontage on Ann Arbor Trail, and both of these proposed parcels measure 74’ by 170’. Parcel C is the largest of the four parcels and encompasses the home that sits behind the other two homes on Ann Arbor Trail and the access to the home Parcel C would change from Ann Arbor Trail to Dover Street to the south. So currently all of these homes take their access off of Ann Arbor Trail and for Parcel C you will see a new driveway to extend from a slight extension of Dover Avenue. And then you’ll see Parcel B which is the new building site, you have access from Webster Street which will be extended partly across the property and the turnaround. The Planning Commission resolution supports City Council’s approval of the Zoning agreement with four conditions that are voluntarily offered from the Petitioner. One, to remove the house and garage on Parcel A within sixty (60) days of final approval; two, to install a new two-car garage and re-do the front porch on Parcel B within sixty (60) days of final approval; three, to remove all fencing and completely clean the exterior of Parcel C within sixty (60) days of final approval; and then lastly, remove the house th and garage on Parcel C by November 30, 2019. So basically two of the homes would be removed and replaced with new structures, the other home would be improved and would be subject to conditions through an agreement that would be part of the rezoning approval should this move forward. Future Land Use Plan shows the site as medium density residential, thus the rezoning is consistent with the Master Plan. Thank you. Toy: Thank you, very much. And we have notes from both the Chief Accountant and City Treasurer to say there is no debt on any of them, whether it be taxes, water, or otherwise. 3 Any questions of Mr. Taormina? Bahr: I have one. So like you said, it’s R-1 on each side of this currently? Taormina: It’s R-U-F on the west side and R-1 on the east side. Bahr: So that sliver of R-U-F, is that included in there? Taromina: Correct. Toy: Anyone else? Yes, go ahead, Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Can you explain the goal here, we’re taking a three, we’re taking a three- acre parcel which is R-U-F which is fine, taking two houses off of it and trying to make it R-1; it doesn’t seem to make sense. Taormina: Let me try to explain it to you. So right now we have three homes that are on the property that are non-conforming, single parcels, to rezone the lots for the condition of the property such that each house sits on a conforming R-1 lot, one of those is in fairly poor condition which will be removed and replaced after approval. The other home is on Parcel C is a rental property, the other home on Parcel C will be removed by the end of next year and replaced, so it would create four conforming parcels all of which will be developed, two of the three would be replaced, the homes will be replaced. Meakin: And is there any history with the house next door? Taormina: I will let the Petitioner answer that as to the condition of that property. Toy: Certainly. Anybody here for the Petitioner of the property? Yes. Can you state your name and address for the record. Baki: Yes. Sam Baki, 38901 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan, on behalf of Cross Winds Estates, Cross Winds Court, on behalf of Leo Soave. And as Mr. Taormina mentioned, this property is grandfathered, for three properties, three different homes on one sidwell for years. The owner of the property, Leo Soave, tried to put it up for sale, there were no bites, no one wanted to grab it because it was three properties on one parcel. So one of the suggestions was, the only option we had is to try to make these homes to conforming by creating, by rezoning this property so these lots can be conforming, for each parcel, each home can sit on, there’s four parcels. and they can be sold as parcels. 4 Now we know, we’re aware of one of the houses on Parcel A, it’s in bad shape, has no basement, it sits on a slab, we’re going to take that down completely, tear that down and build a new one. Parcel B, this house has been remodeled in the last few years, he’s willing to put a two-car garage and fix the front porch and make it good. Now Parcel C, which is the remaining property that sits there, with one old house on it, but that parcel, that dwelling, we agreed with the Planning Commission that we can tear that down by next year and put a new one closer to the road on the south side, Dover. Parcel D which is the one that’s remaining, we’re planning, because we have to bring the street into the sewer, and given those facts, we’re going to extend the road to accommodate for these houses coming off of that street, which is that street is existing for future developments, that’s why it sits next to this parcel. Now, the three homes at this time, they sit on one septic field and they use one water meter because of the way it was built years ago. So with us getting this approval and putting in new homes, that will change all that. The sewer lines that are on the back of Parcel A and B from existing subdivision next door which is the one on the east side which is an R-1 zoning, we’re running the sewer lines straight all the way to accommodate these two homes and the existing house. That will eliminate the septic fields that are existing, take them out and at the same time we will put in new water lines for each home so that they each have their own meters, it will be separate parcels. Then the southern side will be an actual parcel, it’s going to have extended road and sewer and water extended to accommodate those homes. That driveway that you see is a gravel drive to the existing home that after it is torn down the home will be closer on the south side, we’re not going to have it all the way back. And at this time, this property has, going to have access off of the north side which is west of that which is just a driveway and some of the questions asked by the Planning Commission is why didn’t we try to accommodate the property next door and to run the street straight out, well, we can’t, Wayne County wants it that way, Wayne County doesn’t want a road to exit at that location because it’s an accident waiting to happen. I guess they always have accidents there and because of the turnaround.. 5 Now, the property on the left, Mr. Soave tried to approach to see if she would be willing to sell. At first she didn’t want to and then she agreed and then she asked a high number, too high to even accommodate what we wanted to do. So there was no way for the numbers to work. So for that parcel if it ever comes back, if it gets sold and developed, that’s why you see on the south side, Parcel D, we did it at 60’ feet wide,,we kept it deeper to accommodate another other house next to it, we still can run a road south of these homes. The existing house on the parcel next door cannot be saved, so if Soave ends up buying it, it has to come down, because it sits within the approach of the Wayne County right-of-way, and that’s only if we make an agreement but this is all set up if she decides to sell, it will continue the development. She he’s going to be selling this as three lots, A, B and D. Parcel C will stay in their possession until they decide if they want to sell, but that’s what the game plan is now. Meakin: So how large are those lots? Baki: The lots are – we’re about 1.4% higher than the lots that are on the east side and all of the lots on the west side. East of the property is all R-1, everything next to this parcel next to us is R-1. You notice we have the front lot is 70’ by 170’. The subdivision next door is 60 by 120. The average lot size is almost 65 by 135. And the same with the parcel on the south side, which is Parcel B, it is 60 by 140, so we’re accommodating with a larger size lot just to make sure we do, we get it cleaned up and improve these homes. Toy: Thank you. More questions? Councilman Meakin, then Councilman Bahr. Meakin: This all seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Ideally, wouldn’t you rather have, if you put the two lots together, you’ve got 300 feet, you’ve got a 60 foot road and two 120 lots, wouldn’t you rather wait and try to get the other lot? Baki: It’s still the same. It still can be done. You’ll notice the south side of the property if you look at the overall plans we don’t have much of a lot on the south side, it just backs to Hines Drive, to the south of us is Hines Drive, we can still do it even with or without. We’re not killing any future development, we’re just trying to improve it as we go. That’s why I said we made the lot, to accommodate for another house facing the south and then you do a turnaround and go north. Meakin: I’m just imagining it going the other way, though. 6 Baki: We’re still going the same distance we’re going at this time which is 145 feet then go north, with that we’re only going 125 and then the street starts so we’re not killing any future development at this time. Bahr: So, Mr. Baki, if Soave currently owns the property at this time? Baki: Yes. Bahr: So if I understand you correctly, I’m just double clarifying here, so basically what you’re doing is short term these houses stay where they are today and we’re just rezoning the property and if that property next door never sells it could potentially stay this way forever so to speak. Baki: Yes. Bahr: And you’re designing it in such a way that it’s possible if you get the next property you’re set up to develop the rest of it. If I may, Madam President, I see Ian Wilshaw here, is it okay if I call him up? I was on the Planning Commission for four and a half years and I respect his opinion and I just noticed he’s the one no vote on this and I was just curious what the reason was. Wilshaw: Ian Wilshaw, 36376 Fairway, I’m on the Planning Commission. We looked at this proposal and my personal opinion was that this was sort of haphazard rezoning of the parcel. I see how it’s setting for future development and I certainly appreciate what the developer is trying to do to turn this property and to get this parcel zoned properly so that he has individual tax I.D.s for each of the houses, that makes sense to me but just in my years of experience in this community and seeing proposals before us, I’ve never seen anything quite as I would say hodge podge as this. That is my personal view. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark, what is the downside of not doing this, I mean I know they’re nonconforming and grandfathered in, but is there a reason long term from a planning perspective that you see a need to be this now? Even if it were to happen later, is there a reason to do it now? Taormina: Is there an immediate reason? Bahr: Yes. Taormina: I can’t think of one but I will tell you the improvement, you know getting the use of the homes properly serviced, I think is a major benefit and then this would help incentivize that type of investment. Because of the nonconforming situation and you cannot sell the properties individually, it’s not likely that somebody would buy this as an investment property without 7 having some assurance that they could replace one of those homes should they be damaged. I think there’s a number of complications obviously, with how the property is currently positioned and as Mr. Wilshaw pointed out and as Mr. Wilshaw pointed out improve that situation. Bahr: Thanks. Thank you, Mark, thank you, Ian, thank you, Sam. Baki: This property, he had it for sale for over two years with no bites. We’re changing this property from a value of $200,000 to over $1,000,000 plus to the area. Not only that but it’s going to improve the homes around it, that’s what we’re trying to do, do justice for the neighborhood. We’re not asking to take them as is, we’re tearing some down, we’re building new ones. Toy: Thank you for the clarification. From Council, I’d like to go to the audience anyone wishing to speak to this petition, if you’ll approach the podium to my left or right and give us your name and address, I’d appreciate it. Munson: Donald Munson, 8835 Norwich, I did sign the paper in the back, do you want it on here, too? Toy: No. Munson: I do have a question first of all for the representative. Toy: Sir, you have to come through this way. Munson: Well, we can’t hear you because you don’t turn the volume up for us and we can’t see the picture because it’s not up here. Toy: Hold on. Munson: If I can make my voice loud enough for you to hear. Toy: Sir, let’s settle down. Let’s take it down a few notches. Munson: I am calmed down. You haven’t heard me get really loud. Toy: And I don’t want to. We’re not here for that. Let’s talk about this. I’m sorry if you can’t hear my voice, I can’t control the volume on this but I will speak closer to it. Proceed sir, please. Munson: The last time we were here, the last two, we did ask that you do something about your audio system. I have a question for the representative did I hear you mention that you – 8 Toy: Sir, look at me. Munson: I want him to hear. Toy: Sir. Munson: Okay, everybody listen, make sure you can hear. Toy: We can hear you, sir, thank you. Munson: I believe he said some of the lots are 55 feet wide, is that correct? Toy: I don’t believe so. Munson: He didn’t say that? Well, somebody’s got the notes right here. I thought that’s what I heard. Kritzman: I believe I heard the lots are 65. Toy: 65? Kritzman: That’s what I thought I heard. Munson: All right. Because I know that our lots are wider than 55, okay. I also – because we couldn’t see last time Mr. Soave as he was going out, he gave us a copy of the prints. Interesting, two days later his picture is on the front page of the Observer with the Mayor, I thought that was interesting and timely. When I look at this print and I look at Dover, my question is who provides that road, is that the City or the builder? Toy: Mr. Taormina, can you answer that for the gentleman? Taormina: Are you talking about --- Munson: An extension of Dover. Taormina: That would more than likely be an extension of a public road. Munson: In other words the taxpayers would pay for it? Taormina: No, he would pay for the road, he would pay to install it if that answers your question. Munson: And it shows a property hydrant there and also a sanitary manhole there, is that extended from east of the existing property line? 9 Taormina: The plans indicate that those utility services which presently terminate at the west end of Dover would be extended to the new parcel. Munson: Because when I look at this it’s sort of misleading and then it also shows there’s a property sanitary sewer and that is to be new by the builder on the south end of Parcel A and B? Taormina: Do you want me to respond? Toy: Yes, please continue. Taormina: That was the sewer that was mentioned earlier this evening, that would be extended to the west and ties into each one of the three parcels, Parcel A, B and C, to be paid for by the developer, that’s correct. Munson: And what happens to the elevations compared to what that long plot is now compared with what all of our backyards are, we are lower than that property, are they going to cut all that out, make it lower? Taormina: Those are issues that are normally dealt with by the Engineering Department as the proposals are submitted for changing the topography of the site, so I suspect the replacing the house would not be something that would have any significant grade changes initially, but those area issues that would be handled by our Engineering Department. Munson: And that would be also for Parcel D which is behind the – Taormina: That is correct. Munson: And actually probably all the rest of our yards, okay. You can tell many of us are opposed. But also one of the comments I made to Mr. Soave as he left the room, I said cut the weeds, it says right here he was supposed to do that, nothing has been done for months. He’s the owner, I believe, and it’s his responsibility to keep those weeds cut down because they’re a whole lot taller than nine inches. Now I know that some of the neighbors have called the City with regard to that but nothing has happened so maybe he gets a free pass, I don’t know. Toy: We’ll look into that, sir. Munson: We appreciate that, thank you. It would be nice, though, excuse me, if when you have the opportunity to look at that print if you put it up here. Toy: Thank you, sir. Anyone else wishing to speak from the audience? I don’t see anyone. Council, is there anything you want to add, comments? 10 Meakin: Madam Chair. Toy: Yes, go ahead. Meakin: I’ll propose three resolutions, approving, denying and Committee of the Whole. Toy: Thank you. Do you have that public hearing woman? Mootsey: Approving, denying and – Toy: Committee of the Whole. Any others? Let me clarify what has just been done to the audience as well. We’ve all heard an approving, a denying and a Committee of the Whole. Committee of the Whole is when we as a Council meet upstairs with residents or the petitioner or whatever, and go over it more in depth so that some of the questions or rumors or whatever is going on however will be hopefully addressed and answered. rd This will be placed on the agenda for July 23 of this year, and that is a Monday, and it will be heard here in the auditorium at 7:00 p.m. Bahr: Madam President. Toy: Yes. Bahr: If I could make one comment to the gentleman about his comment about things being shown up here, you’ve probably been to a lot of our Council meetings but for our study meetings and our waiver meetings every couple weeks as far as the power being on, I’ll be honest with you as a Council member I didn’t realize until tonight that they weren’t for public hearings and that’s simply a matter of fact that we’re not on TV tonight so we don’t have it on. We’ll look into that to see if at future public hearings if we can do that, thanks for the suggestion. Toy: Thank you, Councilman Bahr, and we’ll also look into the weed discussion as well. If there’s no one else wishing to speak tonight, we are adjourned. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:27 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK