HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2017-05-09 MINUTES OF THE 1,105th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 1,105th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue
Kevin Priddy Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: Carol Smiley
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, was also present.
Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective
seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the
professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff
has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which
the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2017-04-LS-05 SALE OF CITY PROPERTY
31715 WYOMING
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2017-
04-LS-05 submitted by the City of Livonia Housing Commission,
pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances,
as amended, to determine whether or not to dispose of City-
owned property at 31715 Wyoming Avenue, located on the south
side of Wyoming Avenue between Merriman Road and Hubbard
Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to determine whether or not to sell certain City-
owned property. This site is described as Lot 483 of the Rosedale
May 9, 2017
28145
Meadows Subdivision #2. As indicated, it's on Wyoming Avenue
between Merriman and Hubbard Avenue. The zoning of the site
is R-1, One Family Residential. Lot 483 measures approximately
55 feet in width by a depth of 116 feet for a total area of 6,400
square feet. The subject property contains a house and a
detached garage. The property is surrounded by residential
zoning as well as single family homes. Pursuant to the Code of
Ordinances, before the sale of any City-owned property, the
Planning Commission must first offer a recommendation as to
whether or not the City should dispose of the property and provide
advice as to any plausible alternative uses for the property. The
Livonia Housing Commission acquired this property via Wayne
County's Tax Foreclosure Program using federal funds, and they
have adopted a resolution approving the sale of the property. The
Commission has deemed that the property is surplus and there
are no plans to retain this site as affordable rental housing. The
former owner is seeking to redeem the property and reimburse
and City for delinquent taxes and water bills, and therefore the
Housing Commission is seeking to transfer the property back to
the former owner. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Sure, if you have correspondence.
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. There first letter is from
the Housing Commission, dated April 19, 2017, which reads as
follows: "Please be advised that the Board of Commissioners of
the Livonia Housing Commission (LHC) adopted Resolution#15-
17 which approved the disposal of the above referenced city
owned property. The Commission deemed the property to be
surplus and there are no future plans to retain this property as
affordable rental housing. The occupied property/home was
acquired in 2016 via the Wayne County tax foreclosure program.
The resident and former owner Ms. Barbara Kadzielawski has
requested to redeem the property and reimburse the City for
delinquent taxes and water bills. Federal Community
Development Block Grant funds were utilized to acquire the
property. Enclosed please find General Property Information for
the Wyoming parcel. Pursuant to the City of Livonia Code of
Ordinances Section 3.05.050 (B) the Planning Commission has
the responsibility to verify that the property is surplus/excess.
The Housing Commission is seeking to transfer the property back
to Ms. Kadzielawski pursuant to the attached letter and will
proceed to City Council for their concurrence pursuant to the
Code of Ordinances Section 3.05.090. Therefore, the Livonia
Housing Commission would respectfully request your review and
approval to deem 31715 Wyoming as surplus City property." The
May 9, 2017
28146
letter is signed by James Inglis, Director of the Housing
Commission. The next letter is from the Engineering Division,
dated April 20, 2017, which reads as follows: "In accordance
with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above-referenced petition. The Engineering Department has no
objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description
provided with the petition appears to be correct and is acceptable
to this office. The existing parcel is assigned an address of 31715
Wyoming Avenue, which should be used in conjunction with this
petition. The existing building is currently serviced by public
sanitary sewer and water main. Any new connections to these
utilities, or revisions to the existing service leads within the right-
of-way will require the owner to submit plans to the Engineering
Department for permitting." The letter is signed by David Lear,
P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the Planning Department? Seeing
none, Mr. Inglis is here from the Housing Commission. Would you
like to come forward and add anything to what we've already
heard?
James M. Inglis, Director, Livonia Housing Commission, Patrick V. McNamara
Towers, 19300 Purlingbrook Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. No,
just that this property was acquired through the 2016 Tax
Foreclosure Program. The resident who resides in the property
did not pay her property taxes. She had some medical issues,
and as a result of some settlements that she acquired, she has
asked to redeem the property. She has placed the check with the
City of Livonia. We do have all those funds in escrow ready to
consummate the sale if approved by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the Housing Director?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Inglis, just for my own information, when the person who is
redeeming this property pays the water bills and the taxes, are
those the sum total of all the expenses that have been incurred
in the City's acquisition of the property?
Mr. Inglis: Yes, sir. It is.
Mr. Ventura: So this is a total redemption of all expenses.
Mr. Inglis: Absolutely. We're not out any funds whatsoever. We're being fully
reimbursed, and the City has done this rescue several times in
the past where there have been parcels where the home sits on
one lot and there is a small vacant parcel next door, and come to
May 9, 2017
28147
find out, it comes up for a Wayne County tax sale and the
homeowner is shocked that little parcel is going through the tax
sale. So we purchase it. Whatever expenses we incur in terms of
using federal funds to buy it, we are fully reimbursed. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you.
Mr. Priddy: So is it where the homeowner asks for this type of assistance or
is it property that Livonia just acquires and seeks out the
homeowner?
Mr. Inglis: When the property came up on the Wayne County Tax
Foreclosure list, which happens in June or July of each year, we
reach out to the homeowner. So we actually investigated the
property prior to acquisition, and we knew she was in the
property. So we did make contact with her and she was
somewhat surprised that we were now the owner, but she felt
better that we were the owner versus someone else that was a
developer or a speculator that was buying the property. So we
indicated that we would be more than willing to work with her. We
did enter into a rental relationship with her right now, but we fully
reached out to her before we even acquired it.
Mr. Priddy: Good. Thank you.
Mr. Long: Is there an advantage to attaching a waiver of reconsideration to
this to get it through quicker? Does it matter?
Mr. Inglis: Please explain what that would be.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are you looking to waiver the seven days, Mr. Long?
Mr. Long: To waive the seven days.
Mr. Taormina: Oh, I'm sorry. That would bring the item to the City Council sooner
by waiving the seven day period, which is the period that we have
to wait for the resolution of the Planning Commission to become
effective. In this particular case, it may very well be beneficial. It
will just mean that it can get on the Council agenda a little sooner,
so I think there's no objection to that.
Mr. Inglis: That would be most appreciated.
Mr. Long: Yes, just to get it back to the owner as quick as possible.
Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Inglis, was the house ever vacant or did the homeowner stay
there the full time until now and she's transferring back?
May 9, 2017
28148
Mr. Inglis: Yes. The house has never been vacant. She's lived there the
entire time.
Mr. Caramagno: So once you bought it, you struck a rental agreement with them?
Mr. Inglis: Well, no, no. She was the previous owner. She lived there with
her parents and her parents passed away and she was the
survivor. So she has continued to live there for almost 30 years.
She has always been the occupant. Just that she fell on hard
times and failed to pay her property taxes. That's why it ended up
on the Wayne County Tax Foreclosure List. So once we owned
the property, we contacted her and she wanted to stay there. We
did not want to displace her. She didn't want to move. So we
decided to enter into a rental relationship with a very modest rent
during this time that we were managing the property because we
did a full inspection of the property and actually went in to make
sure there was no hazardous conditions. So we wanted to enter
into a rental relationship and provide any maintenance services
that needed to be provided while she was an occupant during the
period of time that we still owned the property.
Mr. Caramagno: Is it a month-to-month deal?
Mr. Inglis: We entered into a month-to-month with her knowing that she was
requesting redemption.
Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Good. I'm glad this worked out.
Mr. Inglis: There is not going to be any breaking of the lease or any penalties
for that.
Mr. Caramagno: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions for the Housing Director? Hearing
none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Priddy, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-26-2017 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 9, 2017, on
Petition 2017-04-LS-05 submitted by the City of Livonia Housing
Commission, pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances, as amended, to determine whether or not to dispose
of City-owned property at 31715 Wyoming Avenue, located on
the south side of Wyoming Avenue between Merriman Road and
Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, the Planning
May 9, 2017
28149
Commission has no objections to the sale of City-owned property
located at 31715 Wyoming Avenue, subject to adopted policies
and ordinances involving such transactions; further, this
recommendation is based on a determination that there are no
current or anticipated City uses for the property, and no
compelling reason exists to delay the sale of the property as
requested.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Priddy: I would like to make a motion for a waiver of the seven day wait
period.
On a motion by Priddy, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-27-2017 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with
Petition 2017-04-LS-05 submitted by the City of Livonia Housing
Commission, pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances, as amended, to determine whether or not to dispose
of City-owned property at 31715 Wyoming Avenue, located on
the south side of Wyoming Avenue between Merriman Road and
Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2017-04-08-04 BISHOP ESTATES
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2017-
04-08-04 submitted by Soave/Oro Construction, L.L.C.
requesting approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and site plan
pursuant to Section 18.62 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended, to develop a site condominium (Bishop
Estates) consisting of three (3) single-family homes on a portion
of the property at 28200 Lyndon Street, located on the north side
of Lyndon Street between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to develop three single family homes as part of
a site condominium project. This property is located on the north
side of Lyndon just east of Harrison Avenue. The zoning of the
May 9, 2017
28150
property is R-2, One Family Residential. To the east, north and
west are all similar zoned properties, many of which contain
single family homes. To the south cross Lyndon is property
owned by Livonia Public Schools. The subject project is the site
of the former CB Swim Club, which was rezoned from RUF to R-
2, One Family Residential, last year. The parcel has a net land
area of 2.71 acres. It includes 346 feet of frontage on Lyndon and
has an average depth of approximately 341 feet. The site
contains an in-ground pool, club house and parking lot, none of
which are in use today. All of the existing site features would be
demolished and removed prior to construction of the new homes.
The rear part of the site is undeveloped and is maintained as an
open field. Bishop Estates represents the first phase of
redeveloping this property. There are three proposed units that
would occupy the southeast corner of the site that would have
frontage on Lyndon. The balance of the property, which is about
2.1 acres, is not part of the current proposal and would be
reserved for future residential development. The new home sites
are identified as Units 1, 2 and 3. Unit 1 measures 71.03 feet by
120 feet for a total area of 8,523 square feet. Units 2 and 3 both
measure 70 feet by 120 feet for a total area of 8,400 square feet.
All three of the units meet or exceed the minimum lot size
requirement for the R-2 district. Last year the petitioner tried to
develop the subject property with the exact same layout and
configuration via the lot split process instead of a site
condominium. That request was unsuccessful due to restrictions
on the number of times that a platted lot can be subdivided. The
Land Division Act prohibits any lot in a recorded plat from being
partitioned or divided into more than four parts. Because the
subject site is made up of portions of lots that are within Dutch
Mills Garden Subdivision, and those lots were previously
subdivided to create home sites that front on Oakley Street, the
additional splits as proposed by the petitioner last year exceeded
the statutory limit, thereby forcing the alternative route of
developing the homes as a site condominium, which is before you
this evening. As part of the proposal, the petitioner has submitted
a concept plan showing how the remaining 2.13 acres might be
developed. It shows five homes in the form of a cluster, including
three attached units in one building and two attached units in
another. Access would be provided by a private road extending
off Lyndon. The current design of the three-unit condominium
places limitations on how the balance of the site can be
developed. For that reason, the prepared resolution includes a
condition that would acknowledge that any approval in no way
grants or infers acceptance or approval of the remaining part of
this site, either as a condominium project or as a cluster. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to read out the correspondence
related to this petition.
May 9, 2017
28151
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 24, 2017, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposed petition at this time. The existing
property is assigned an address of 28200 Lyndon Avenue. The
legal description included with the petition only describes the area
of the proposed condominium development, and as such appears
to be correct. The owner should provide legal descriptions for the
remainder of the parcel as well, or split the property prior to
recording the condominium description to properly create the
associated parcels. The existing property is currently serviced by
public water main, storm and sanitary sewers. The submitted
drawings do not indicate any proposed utility extensions, so we
cannot comment on the potential impacts to the existing systems
at this time. The owner will need to submit proper engineering
drawings to this Department for all proposed utility extensions
prior to any permits being issued."The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 26, 2017, which reads
as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a three unit site
condominium development on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated May 9, 2017, which reads as
follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition.
I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian
Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Treasurer's Department, dated April 20, 2017, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office
has reviewed the address connected with the above noted
petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable
for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The
letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The fifth letter is from
the Finance Department, dated April 25, 2017, which reads as
follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the
above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts
receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to
the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief
Accountant. The next letter is from the Assessor Department,
dated April 24, 2017, which reads as follows: "In September of
2016 a lot split was submitted to the Assessor's Office proposing
a split for the same three parcels and lot dimensions. There was
an issue with it violating part of the Land Division Act. As it
May 9, 2017
28152
stands, the current parcel 093-02-0002-004 is a 2.71 acre parcel.
The current proposal for Bishop Estates with the three units is
only a small portion of this overall 2.71 acres containing only .58
acres. We would recommend a lot split be part of the plan to split
off the 211.03 feet by 120.00 feet (.58 acre) area, and thereby
creating a residual piece and legal description for the remaining
2.13 acres. A copy of a plat map has been attached outlining the
parcel area." The letter is signed by Kathie Siterlet, Residential
Appraiser. Lastly, we have an email correspondence by Donald
Kleinknecht, dated May, 4, 2017, which reads as follows: "Petition
2017-04-08-04, three single-family homes on a portion of the
property at 28200 Lyndon, I get a little nervous when I read 'on a
portion of.' This property consists of 2.71 acres. What acreage
will be used for the single family homes? If it's less than .9 acres
for each home what will the remaining property be used for?"
Donald L. Kleinknecht, Livonia, Michigan. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Brian Duggan, 14315 Denne, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I'm here to
represent Mr. Soave and pretty much answer any questions you
have. We did discuss this in depth at the study session. Mr.
Soave did submit a layout of a potential of what he wants to do
behind there, but he's open to suggestions. He knows that he's
got to come back to this panel at that point to do phase two.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Duggan, I'm looking at a conceptual plan in our package here
that evidently was submitted by Soave Construction. So when I
see the word "conceptual," I understand that means that he's not
making a commitment to do this development in the way that's it
shown here, but he might do it at some point in the future. Is that
correct?
Mr. Duggan: Well, that's correct. Yes. Right now he wants to concentrate on
the three lots, and one of the reasons, if you look at the one map
we had the yellow highlight. It was just where the built-in pool was
at. It's hard to put footings in a house right now until he fills that
dirt up and lets it settle for some time. It might be a year, I would
think, maybe, phase two goes in once that dirt gets settled so we
can build on top of that.
Mr. Ventura: As I look at this site plan, it appears that these are not detached
single family homes, but are some kind of cluster. Is that correct?
May 9, 2017
28153
Mr. Duggan: The ones in the back?
Mr. Ventura: Yeah.
Mr. Duggan: Are detached, I mean are cluster yet they're attached. If you look
up at the top part, you'll see kind of a little layout of what it would
like. His plan is to do a two bedroom.
Mr. Ventura: But they have common walls.
Mr. Duggan: Correct. Yes. Similar to what was done over here by the library.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you.
Mr. Long: I know you have the three houses or the three lots along Lyndon
here. Was there any consideration given to putting a road in? It
seems like they would fit better on the eastern portion of that lot
of the 2.71 acres if you wanted to put three in there with a road
and then the remaining land would be more developable in the
future. Was there consideration and if there was and it was
decided to just put it in to Lyndon.
Mr. Duggan: The reason why he decided to go on Lyndon pretty much is
because it would defray the cost right now that he has out. To put
a road in and everything, then he's going to be out-of-pocket quite
a bit more money just to get . . . this will break even right now with
the three lots with the costs of tearing down the swim club and
everything.
Mr. Long: Certainly. And he is committed to filling in the pool?
Mr. Duggan: Right away.
Mr. Long: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Mr. Caramagno: My question is, we're looking at three lots off of Lyndon and then
there's what? Five in the back? Six in the back? Proposed or
planned?
Mr. Duggan: Five.
Mr. Caramagno: Five. So you've got eight lots. Are you saying that the road with a
cul-de-sac can't go in there and just put eight or nine lots in there?
Is there not the space for that?
May 9, 2017
28154
Mr. Duggan: I believe that the original plan that the City sketched out back in
'03 showed, I think it's eight units in there, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Caramagno: So the same number of units could be done properly with a road
put in there or piecemeal like this is what you're thinking.
Mr. Duggan: Well, this is done properly too, if I'm not mistaken, with the three
up front now are . . . meets all the zoning standards.
Mr. Caramagno: I understand that, but the other ones in the back, it doesn't seem
to fit to me. When I look at it, it just doesn't look right. I think I'd
rather see this thing developed at one time with the whole 2.7
acres thought about properly than to put three in and then do
something later on. That's my opinion, at least at this point.
Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else, Mr. Caramagno?
Mr. Caramagno: No, not right now.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We already looked to see if there was anyone in the
audience. Mr. Duggan, would you like to say anything else?
Mr. Duggan: If I may. Once again, this is proper. I mean it might not be what
some people like, the fact that it will be a cluster. There's kind of
a high demand for condos and they will be condos pretty much
back there so it will help the seniors move in there and maintain
it. The cost really, it comes down to it. It does cost money to run
the road down at this present time, and he's trying to recoup his
costs so he can tear down the existing pool and everything right
now. That's the biggest issue right now. As you know, everything
costs.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Duggan, just out of curiosity, was there any thought given to
water detention on this site as part of that conceptual plan
because I see the conceptual plan doesn't indicate any water
detention area.
Mr. Duggan: He knows that he's going to have to go through the Engineering
Department to do all that stuff. So yeah, there will be a better
sketch of the swells and everything that needs to be done and
storm sewers.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. If there are no other comments, a motion would
be in order.
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Duggan, I'm going to offer a denying resolution because, like
Mr. Caramagno, I'm not comfortable with piecemealing this and
May 9, 2017
28155
waiting until some future point in time when we resolve the rest
of this site. I'm uncomfortable with that.
On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Caramagno, and adopted, it was
#05-28-2017 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2017-04-08-04
submitted by Soave/Oro Construction, L.L.C. requesting approval
of the Master Deed, Bylaws and site plan pursuant to Section
18.62 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended,
to develop a site condominium (Bishop Estates) consisting of
three (3) single-family homes on a portion of the property at
28200 Lyndon Street, located on the north side of Lyndon Street
between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 24, be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general
standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the layout and number of site condominiums proposed
for the development would have a detrimental effect upon
the adjacent properties;
3. Allowing this type of development on only a portion of the
property would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and
appeal of the overall site, and thereby, inappropriately
altering the attributes of the property;
4. That it is recommended the entire 2.71 acre parcel be
developed in its entirety;
5. That the proposal creates significant adverse impacts on
adjoining parcels, public services, and community planning
efforts;
6. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns
deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and
its residents.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Priddy: I just have one point. I guess I'm not really sure yet. We're really
looking at the three parcels. I understand the conceptual plan isn't
exactly perfect, but as the petitioners would be able to come back
and deal with it at some point, but the three parcels, is there
anything that's particularly wrong with just those three parcels? I
guess is really my concern.
May 9, 2017
28156
Mr. Wilshaw: We'll see if there is any other discussion on that or anyone wants
to respond to that.
Mr. Long: If we deny this, then does the pool remain unfilled in and do we
lose out on that ability, and the petitioner, does he just walk away
and leave the site? Well, not walk away, but just continue to leave
the site undeveloped. That would be my concern. Sometimes we
don't always get the easiest things in front of us. I'm on the fence
to be quite frank with everybody. I see both sides of this
argument.
Mr. Priddy: I'm kind of with you. That's really the question. I don't really see
the problem with the three particular lots. I understand the
petitioner can still come back for that other lot. It may not be
perfect right now, but maybe that's the time to deal with it at that
point too.
Mr. Long: I don't like the three the way it is because what it leaves is not . .
. it's going to be very hard to develop it. I do see the conceptual
plan but I don't think anybody is really thrilled with that, and again,
not to argue with you, it's just a debate in order to figure this out.
Mr. Priddy: Yeah, I agree.
Ms. McCue: I think the other thing that goes back to what both of you have
mentioned is, it's not going to change the landscape of that
property at this point if he doesn't develop something there. I think
part of the thing we should think about is the residents that are
near that location. We all know that they've had concerns about
the fact that it hasn't been filled in. It's not been taken care of,
according to what they're saying, adequately. So I'm kind of on
the fence as well. I don't know if we're actually hurting or helping
the situation by denying it.
Mr. Ventura: One of the reasons that I'm not comfortable with this is the
conceptual plan for the future development of the five units that
are not consistent with the single family surrounding homes.
That's a total change in the character of the neighborhood.
Secondly, if we leave that big multiple acre parcel undeveloped
and we allow the three homes to go in there, even if you were . .
. and I understand the City has ordinances, and if there's an
unsafe condition there, City Inspection is going to go to the owner
of the land and require them to either make it safe or to remove
the pool house, etc. So even if he did that, we'd have a big open
field there that nobody is taking care of. And having seen this
situation in many neighborhoods around the City over the years,
it takes months for the City to notify the owner that they need to
May 9, 2017
28157
cut the grass, they need to cut the weeds. It doesn't get done and
then the City goes and does it and bills them for it. But that's six
or eight months elapsed between cuttings, and that, in itself,
creates an open area and unsightly condition for all the people
that back up to this thing. And there are new homes in this area
that back right up to it. So I'd rather say no to this and motivate
the owner of this to come back to us with a coherent plan or at
least a plan he's willing to make a commitment to resolve this
problem. I mean he's got money sunk in this thing, and he's not
going to be comfortable, I don't think, letting it sit there. I'd rather
see him work with us and come back and say, okay, here's
another plan that I'm willing to do if you'll be willing to consider it.
And I certainly would like to see this property developed. I'm sure
the neighborhood would like to see it developed. But I'd like to
see a plan that's consistent with the surrounding homes. I'd not
like to approve something that somebody in one of the adjacent
parcels that abuts this property, looks at it and goes, why did
these guys do this because it's not anything like the rest of the
homes in the neighborhood. I say this to explain the reason that
I'm denying this. I would really like to see it developed. I'm happy
that he purchased the property and I'd like to see new homes
come to the city but I'd like to see them more . . . a plan that's
more consistent and more homogeneous with the surrounding
single family homes.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Mr. Priddy?
Mr. Priddy: I think it sounds like your struggling with that if we were to even
accept the petition as it is, that it's almost an implicit approval of
the secondary plan, which I don't think the petitioner should take,
that it's implicitly saying we like that plan. But I do think that the
three parcels can fit into the homes in the subdivision that are
around there seeing that there's already homes there along
Lyndon and it might actually fit in. I agree with you that the
proposed conceptual plan definitely doesn't fit in with that
subdivision, but I don't think that this is an implicit approval of any
further development. It's really very strictly to those three lots and
those types of things where I would be more comfortable. I don't
think we're making an implicit approval of any further
development of it other than just those three if we so chose.
Mr. Duggan: Mr. Chairman, am I'm allowed to speak now still?
Mr. Wilshaw: Actually, it's closed but I'll go ahead and offer you an opportunity
to speak since you've heard a lot of dialogue.
Mr. Duggan: I appreciate that. A few things. First of all, the petition actually is
just the three lots right now. The future site was just something
May 9, 2017
28158
that you asked for. That's why we just said, here's what we could
do. We do know that we have to come back to this body. At that
point is the time for, you know, to massage that and makes sure
it works out the way you want it to. As a former councilman, I
would expect you to do that too because I want to make sure it's
perfect too. Safety . . . the City can't make anybody fill the pool
when they can make sure there's a fence around it, which there
is a fence around it right now. So that will delay covering and
getting rid of that building and that swimming pool because,
mean, safety reasons there is a fence all the way around it right
now, and that's all they require by City Ordinance that I know of.
That's pretty much it. It will delay a lot of things. He's trying to
recoup his costs. He originally thought he could just deal with
three splits. We found out that you couldn't do it because of the
Land Act, so he's just coming in front of you trying to do three
single family homes at this present time, with the full knowledge
that he's got to come back to do anything in the back.
Mr. Wilshaw: Hopefully, he has the full knowledge too that he needs to maintain
the rest of the property that would be left undeveloped too
because that's obviously one of the things that you're hearing
tonight, is a concern.
Mr. Duggan: I think if there was an approving resolution, you could add that
into the resolution. I came in front of this board for the property I
had on Roycroft and on May 3 they wrote me a letter saying cut
the grass, have it done by May 5. I got the letter May 5. They gave
me about 10 minutes to cut the grass, but I don't think Livonia
waits two or three months anymore. They're out there and they're
telling you to take care of things right away.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other discussion on the motion to deny?
Mr. Taormina: The only comment I was going to make was with respect to the
maintenance issue. The plan before us is a site condominium
plan, which is described as only the three units. You heard the
recommendations of the Assessment Department requesting that
this be split off separately from the remainder of the site. Another
option to possibly address the maintenance issue would be to
keep the 2.1 acres as part of the condominium in the form of a
common expandable area, and obligate the condominium co-
owners to maintain that property until such time that it is
developed. So that's another recommendation that you could
forward to the City Council, but there's another resolution on the
table right now. So we can discuss that further if that motion
should not pass.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other discussion on the motion?
May 9, 2017
28159
Mr. Caramagno: The three houses, while they are presented like this, they would
look reasonable with the neighborhood. The other piece, when
you put these three houses in, it really caps what you can do on
those other pieces, substantially caps it. So we're talking about a
pool that's been vacant for 10 years maybe, and we're saying
that's the leverage point or the base point why this property can't
be developed because the pool can't be resolved. Well, I don't
buy that. To close this pool up is one thing. This property is no
different than any other piece of property in Livonia. When you
develop it, you have tree removal; you have other developmental
issues; and this pool is just a little something different than what
you would normally have. So we're putting a lot of leverage on
how the pool is going to get filled in or removed. Yes, but this is
no different than any other piece of property in the city where you
have to remove trees to do a development. And I don't
understand why this can't be done properly like Wayne Road.
How is this any different than Wayne Road that we just approved?
Why don't we just approve three homes on Wayne Road? What
is the difference? Somebody explain that to me.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Is there any other discussion?
Mr. Caramagno: Mark, is there a difference? What if Wayne Road came to us and
said we're going to put three homes in here and that's it?
Mr. Taormina: Can I ask, on Wayne Road, which development?
Mr. Caramagno: The new development on Wayne Road north of Six Mile.
Mr. Taormina: Oh, Mystic Creek. And you're wondering how this is different in
terms of the site development costs?
Mr. Caramagno: If they wanted to just start with three homes and leave the rest of
it blank. Is there a comparison here?
Mr. Taormina: I've never really given that any thought. To leave the back
portion of that site undeveloped, as long as they didn't box
themselves in, in terms of the availability to develop the
balance of the site, I don't think would be a problem. And
don't think he's done that here. I do agree with all the
comments relative to creating a situation that forces the
development to possibly look a little unconventional. Let's look
at the options as they pertain to Parcel D. And I agree with Mr.
Priddy's comments that looking at it separately, just looking at
Units 1, 2 and 3 by themselves, is not inconsistent with the
pattern of development in the area. I think we can all agree
that if this was just the only land we were considering, and
May 9, 2017
28160
there wasn't a remnant parcel being created, that it would be
consistent with the surrounding area. It's the balance of the
site that presents the difficulty, and the option for developing
that would be either continued pattern of development across
the street frontage in the form of simple splits that would leave
a large portion of the back of the site undeveloped and part of
the single family home sites. That's one option. The other
option would be to bring some kind of a road back there. Could
a conventional road be brought back with some division of the
balance of the site into conforming R-2 lots? Yes, but it
wouldn't be five lots. It would be something less than that,
three and maybe four. So that would be possible. I don't
believe that any approval this evening in any way obligates
this body to approve that cluster in the future. In fact, that's
why we've provided that language in the prepared resolution.
Mr. Caramagno: I see that, but again, not developing this whole piece and leaving
a potential park area back there certainly doesn't make sense for
the petitioner. You don't get any money for leaving a park back
there, and putting a conventional road with two more houses back
there, three more houses back there, that doesn't make any
sense. So there's something missing here and that's why I'm
going to support the denying resolution.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
Mr. Long: I guess as I've listened to the debate, I've kind of had some clarity
in which way I'm leaning. Ultimately, we're just a recommending
body and City Council will make the ultimate decision on this. So
our charge here is planning, right? And I don't think this is a good
plan for this parcel, and I agree ultimately you're really only talking
about the three lots there, but I don't think this is a good plan. So
I see myself voting along with the denying resolution. The
petitioner will have the ability to request City Council to overrule
that and they have done that from time to time, and so it will
ultimately be up to them, but I think with what we're charged with
doing here, it's just not the right usage. That's my statement.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other discussion? This has to be the most discussed motion
that we've ever had in the history of planning.
Mr. Wilshaw: It is, and realize that there is always a potential that if we felt there
was a desire to table this for further discussion, a tabling motion
could always be in order as well, but right now, we have a motion
to deny on the floor. If there is no other discussion, I will ask that
the Secretary please call the roll on that motion to deny.
May 9, 2017
28161
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Ventura, Caramagno, McCue, Long, Wilshaw
NAYS: Priddy
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Smiley
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You will have ten days in which to appeal this decision
in writing to the City Council.
ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,104th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of
the Minutes of the 1,104th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on April 11, 2017.
On a motion by Long, seconded by Priddy, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-29-2017 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,104th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 11,
2017, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Long, Priddy, McCue, Wilshaw
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Caramagno, Ventura
ABSENT: Smiley
Mr.Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,105th Regular
Meeting held on May 9, 2017, was adjourned at 7:47 p. .
CITY PL ► ING COMMISSION
am Ca amagno, Secretary
ATTEST:
Ian Wilshaw, Chairman