Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2017-10-09 - REZONING NACE CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, October 9, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, October 9, 2017. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen E. McIntyre, President Brandon M. Kritzman, Vice President Scott Bahr Maureen Miller Brosnan Jim Jolly Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Wright Don Knapp, City Attorney Mark Taormina, City Planner Marilyn Mootsey, recorder The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Kathleen McIntyre presiding. This is a Public Hearing relative to a request for a change in zoning within the City of Livonia for the following matter: Petition 2017-07-01-04 submitted by Elizabeth Nace to rezone the property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue (9039 Middlebelt Road) in the southeast ¼ of Section 35, from OS (Office Services) to R-1 (One Family Residential – 60’x120’ Lot). The City Clerk has mailed a notice to those persons in the area affected by the proposed change and all other requirements of Ordinance Number 543, The Zoning Ordinance, have been fulfilled. The public hearing is now open for comments. There were seven people in the audience. Please state clearly your name and address before making your comments. McIntyre: Good evening. Stokfisz: Good evening. My name is Steven Stokfisz. I’m an attorney and I’m representing the Petitioner. My address is 6 Parklane Boulevard, Suite 530, Dearborn, Michigan 48126. Thank you, and I was just recently retained in this matter. I drove by the proposed rezoning site on the way here. This was originally a residence and that is what the Petitioner wishes to return it to, residential. To the south is the child care center, which is a brand new structure. Directly to the north there is a vacant lot, and then 2 another residential –- appears to be residential. Apparently this structure was fire damaged. The Petitioner has the means and the ability to make all the necessary repairs to bring it up to code and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. She does intend to reside in the premises personally, and her family. Her father is actually a licensed contractor in the state of California and he has associates here in Michigan that are licensed as well. So, the reconstruction of this should not pose a problem for the Petitioner and I would submit that this would appear really to improve the overall zoning plan of the City from the appearance to me, my view of it. All the other properties to the north and to the west are also residential and so I would urge the Council, the Board to approve the petition. Also present here today is Ms.-- Sitto: -- Lena Sitto. I was here for the last meeting. Stokfisz: Yes, she’s a friend of the family. Elizabeth was unable to be here this evening. So, that is all. Meakin: Madam Chair? McIntyre: Yes, Councilmember Meakin. Meakin: Sir, the whole street on the east side of Middlebelt is either office or commercial. Wouldn’t this be a perfect example of spot zoning? Stokfisz: No, all the adjoining properties are residential except for the child center to the south. The properties adjoining to the north and the west and I would submit that the zoning of it perhaps when it was changed from residential to commercial at some point in the past, that that might be characterized as spot zoning, but I certainly would disagree that this is an example of spot zoning. Meakin: Yes, I would disagree and I’ll offer a denying resolution. Brosnan: Madam Chair? McIntyre: Yes, Councilmember Brosnan. Brosnan: Can we take a second and hear from Mr. Taormina and perhaps provide some background to the petition. Taormina: Thank you. So this was indicated as a rezoning petition involving this lot that measures about 8,800 square feet, the request to rezone it to R-1 where the minimum lot size requirement for the R-1 district is 7,200 square feet, this lot would comply with that minimum requirement. A little bit about the history. So, the existing zoning of this property was established in 1970 and it was really done at the request of the Planning 3 Commission, who at the time wanted to rezone all of the properties along the side of Middlebelt Road to be in conformance with the Future Land Use Plan that designated this area as Office. That was done notwithstanding the fact that there were residences located on this property and immediately to the north, and that rendered the sites nonconforming. This structure was built, I believe, in around 1939 – 1940. It’s about 1,150 square feet in size. This was indicated it was fire damaged several years ago. It has sat empty for some time. We have talked to the landowner to the north about their interest in this property possibly for residential development, however, that has not transpired. The Planning Commission reviewed this and felt that the zoning to R-1 would be appropriate for the area and that it would bring this property back into conformance and get the structure rehabilitated. Brosnan: Mr. Taormina, what is the Future Land Use Plan designated for that area? Does it remain Office Services? Taormina: It does remain Office Services, but as you know we’ll be taking a very close look at the Master Plan and the Future Land Use Plan here in the next – in the coming months and while I don’t know precisely what will happen to this area, I’m sure there will be some discussion relative to the Future Land Use in this area. Brosnan: So is it correct then between 1970 and today the property remained residential and just operated as a nonconforming use then, but day to day operation it was a home? Taormina: That is correct. Brosnan: Okay, thank you. Kritzman: Madam Chair? McIntyre: Vice President Kritzman. Kritzman: I really didn’t think this would be something that was going to meet a whole lot of opposition. I look at this as a property that’s been residential for a great deal of time. I think certainly you can look at the Future Land Use Plan and say it was, at one point, thought to potentially become Office down the road, but I think at the time that that was developed it was a different resume’ for where we’d be going with the economy, with business development efforts, economic development efforts and frankly, the proliferation of the internet and the changing way we do business, I don’t ever see that area becoming the small office row that was once envisioned, so I think residential here is exactly what I would put there, and with that I’ll offer an approving resolution. 4 McIntyre: Alright, anyone else? Brosnan: Madam Chair? McIntyre: Yes, Ms. Brosnan. Brosnan: Part of a Public Hearing is to make sure that Petitioners know sometimes where Council is headed, if we do have a pretty good determination of that. And similar to Mr. Kritzman, I look at this as really not a change. This is just putting the zoning, underlying zoning, back into place that the establishment has been operating ever since 1970. Its use never changed over the course of that time nor have I ever, through the course of my sixteen years here on Council, had anybody indicate that they wish that it was used in a different way. So the fact that we have a property owner who is willing to bring the property back up to a livable standard is encouraging. We’re always looking to bring and keep young families here in our community, and if this is one housing opportunity that allows us to do that then I’ll be supportive as well. McIntyre: Thank you. Anyone else? Alright, we have both an approving and a denying resolution offered up. The regular meeting for tonight’s item is Wednesday, November 1, 2017 and so we would ask you, your client and certainly representative with you and/or your client, to be here for the meeting for any additional clarification that’s needed. Stokfisz: Thank you very much. McIntyre: Does anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this item or address this? Sitto: Yes. McIntyre: Yes, please come to the podium. Sitto: Hello. Thanks. Lina Sitto, 7925 Middlepointe Street, Dearborn, Michigan 48126. I was here for the last meeting on behalf of Elizabeth Nace because she could not be present. I just wanted to say that, you know, the family is definitely interested in not letting this prolong because, you know, they pay taxes and pretty soon the taxes will be due again and they still have not had an opportunity to really improve too much on the property. That said, the fire damage was just in a very small five foot area in the back of the house. So, the house is definitely habitable as we speak. It’s just all this, you know, stuff that’s going on that has to be taken care of before obviously they can start making future plans to, you know, have any of the family members in Michigan visit or make improvements on it. And like Steve said earlier, they are – sorry, I just lost my train of thought. It’s been a long day, can you tell? Yeah, I mean, they’re interested in not 5 having this go on for too long. So, if there’s anything we can do or they can do, please let us know. I’m sorry, did I hear you say that one of you was denying the approval? McIntyre: Councilmember Meakin has offered a denying resolution, which means that we would deny the request for the rezoning. Vice President Kritzman has offered an approving resolution to approve the rezoning. We will be st voting at the meeting on Wednesday, November 1. Sitto: Okay, and Mr. Meakin, I’m not sure if you are aware, but before the Nace’s purchased the property, several months ago, a family lived there for a very long time and raised their children, their four children, I believe, before the fire happened and on the day that they put in their brand new kitchen. And so, yes, they did let the property sit vacant for a very long time, and essentially used it more or less as a storage area for their belongings, but they really just didn’t have time to figure out what to do with the property. I came along and I brought them together with the Nace’s, and that’s how they decided, you know, they found someone to purchase the property and kind of take on this project. And so the Nace’s obviously took a big risk in purchasing this property and not knowing if it was ever going to be rezoned back to residential and so if you could see that this is a house, I don’t think anybody would really want to put an office in it. It looks like a house, it sits next to other houses, it’s just not the kind of structure that somebody would consider a business. That said, the Nace’s, if they were to find someone, obviously they would have to find someone to sell it to who would be interested in putting their business there, and that would be difficult considering they can’t go in and completely renovate the property. Nobody’s going to take on this property that hasn’t been renovated in years with, you know, it’s an eyesore – and take on as their business, as their new business structure, property, whatever you want to call it. It’s just going to sit there for another ten years is my point if it does not get rezoned back to residential. And again, it’s only been used for residential, it’s never been an office space or a business or anything other than -- McIntyre: And I think that’s the point that Councilmember Brosnan made. Sitto: Yeah. Yeah. So, please, you know, look past whatever you may have found, for whatever reasons, you may have found that it should not be rezoned back, because it really would be the right thing and it would just be a beautiful property. At this point it’s just an eyesore for the passersby and the neighbors, not to mention, so -- McIntyre: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Jolly? 6 Jolly: I’m also a Councilmember who plans on voting an affirmative on the approving resolution. I think it’s an appropriate use and I agree with everything that Councilmember Brosnan said over here. Sitto: Great. Meakin: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Mr. Meakin. Meakin: Thank you, Madam President. Through the chair to Mark, we might need to put something on the Master Plan then. We can’t have every other lot on the street zoned a different zone. I don’t have a problem if this is a house, but then all the rest of the houses along the way should be houses as well. Sitto: And they are. Meakin: But, there are some other ones down the road, but they’re still zoned Office. So, we have to have consistency of the zoning is my whole point. Sitto: Oh, so the two neighbors next door are zoned Office? Meakin: They’re all, the whole street is zoned Office. Sitto: Oh, that’s great. Meakin: I don’t have a huge problem with the house, I just want the zoning – Sitto: Right. Meakin: -- to be consistent. Sitto: I understand that. McIntyre: Okay, anyone else? Anything else? Alright, so we will look forward to seeing you or the Nace’s or all of you on the 1st. And that’s at the Regular Meeting which is also 7:00 p.m. Sitto: Great. Alright. McIntyre: Alright? Thank you very much. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:17 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK