Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2014-12-16MINUTES OF THE 1,065'h PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,065th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Scott Bahr Kathleen McIntyre R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow 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 tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a pefifion 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 fling. 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 2014-11-01-07 NPM ACQUISITIONS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2014-11- 01-07 submitted by NPM Acquisifions, L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 27403 and 27451 Schoolcraft Road, located on the southwest corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25, from OS and M-1 to C-4. December 16, 2014 26661 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone two properties at 27403 and 27451 Schoolcraft Road. These properties are located at the southwest corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster Roads. One properly is zoned OS, Office Services, while the other is M-1, Light Manufacturing. The proposal this evening is to rezone both properties to C4, High Rise Commercial. The OS zoned parcel at 27403 Schoolcraft is situated right at the southwest comer of Schoolcraft and Inkster Roads. This is the smaller of the two properties. It measures 103 feel along Schoolcraft Road by 177 feet along Inkster for a total lot area of roughly 0.42 acre. The larger site zoned M-1 at 27451 Schoolcraft abuts the OS zoned properly along its west properly line. It measures approximately 331 feel along Schoolcraft Road by an average depth of 215 feel. The total lot area is 1.71 acres. When we add the two properties together, we're looking at about 434 feel of frontage on Schoolcraft, 207 feel of frontage on Inkster, and a total land area of 2.13 acres. Located on both properties currently is a single 22,800 square fool industrial building. In February of this year, the owner of the property requested rezoning to the G2, General Business classification. The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, recommended approval of the rezoning and the Council, after holding a public hearing, referred the rezoning request to the Committee of the Whole. The prospective buyer at that time eventually decided to withdraw his interest in the property, and the case was withdrawn. The current request seeks to rezone the property to C-4, High Rise Commercial. The permitted uses in the Cd district include commercial buildings over two stories in height and not exceeding four stories. Hotels, motels and restaurants are all treated as permitted uses in the C-4 district. This is a preliminary site plan that was submitted along with the application. It shows a four-story 93 guestroom hotel in approximately the middle of the site with parking on all 4 sides and a slormwaler retention pond along the site's western property line. The conceptual plan appears to fully conform to C- 4 District regulations including setback requirements. We've also been informed this evening that the buyers of the property are talking to Holiday Inn for a possible Holiday Inn Express and Suites building. This is a rendering of the company's latest prototype, and I'll let the potential buyers explain more about their plans for this site. With that Mr. Chairman, I'll read the one item of correspondence that we have on this. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: The correspondence is from the Engineering Division, dated December 2, 2014, which reads as follows: 9n accordancewith your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above- December 16, 2014 26662 referenced planning petition. We have no objections to the proposal rezoning petition at this time. The addresses of #27403 and #27451 Schoo/craft Road should be used in connection with this petition. The plans submitted with the petition do not give any locations or sizes of proposed utility service leads, so we cannot comment on any impacts to the existing systems at this time. The parcel is currently serviced by both City of Livonia water main and sanitary sewer. Storm sewer is available to the property, but it is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. Should the owner decide to pursue the proposed project following rezoning, full site plans will need to be submitted to this department, as well as Wayne County, for review and permitting prior to any construction. The legal description provided with the petition does not close and should not be used for the proposed petition. We recommend that the owner contact the surveyor to provide an acceptable description, and corresponding drawing, to be used. Until that time, we suggest that the existing legal descriptions from City records be used to indicate the subject parcels."The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Robert Nofar, 50558 Drakes Bay Drive, Novi, Michigan 48374. Bill Jarmtt, Jarrell Achitecture, 108 N. Lafayette Street, South Lyon, Michigan 48178. I'm the architectfor the project. William Nofar, 50102 Drakes Bay Drive, Novi, Michigan 48374. I'm one of the buyers. Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation by the Planning Director, so we'll let you pick it up from there. Mr. Jarrall: Being the architect, I'll just mention that, as you can see from the site plan, the four-story building fits very nicely. The four- story building is the prototype for the Holiday Inn Express and its pretty typical for any other type of prototype if it were the Hampton or something else similar. Most of them are going with the four-story so that's one of the main reasons. Just for cost effectiveness and so forth, the four-story and this size, 93, seems to ft the model the best. As mentioned, this is the latest prototype. This prototype right here just came out so this will be one of the first of this particular design. It will probably be the first in this area, but one of the first actually in the country with the new prototype that just came out this year. We're going to December 16, 2014 26663 provide really nice landscaping around it. Right at the corner of Inkster and SchoolcraR, since that is somewhat of a gateway coming in from the east, we're open for doing something special on the comer there too, working with the City and something that says "welcome to Livonia' or something like that on the corner. The overall project really does become kind of the introduction to Livonia coming from the east so we're real excited about that. I think it will create a great look for the area, and it will provide a nice hotel for the industrial park in the area and just improve the whole area as a whole. That's about all I have to say architecturally. The owners may have a few things to add. Robert Nofar: Bascially, it is the latest, newest prototype that Holiday Inn came out with. We were in Vegas. It's a new wave of Holiday Inn Expresses that are going to come out nationwide, and we'd be one of the first, if not the first, in Michigan. We'd like to have it here in Livonia. I think it's a great location. The site is amazing. We'd be introducing a lot of new product on the property. Like he said, its a gateway to Livonia and you'd probably see a lot of corporate coming in through the Detroit metro area. If you have any questions, please whatever I can do to answer them. Mr. Morrow: We will go to the Commission now Mr. Taylor: I assume from what you're saying you've done your due diligence to find out this is a good spot to put it. I say that because so many times we do some rezoning, and all of a sudden everything falls apart and well, that didn't happen that way. This is a much better plan than what we had with the hall. You do have a hall right down the street there which is going to help with a hotel there. This is a much better plan and I like it much better. I just hope that you go through with it. Thank you. Mr. Bahr: I'm going to take his comment just a little bit further and just ask you, can you elaborate why this is such an amazing spot for a hotel like this? Robert Nofar: Holiday Inn, they do a market study and they target locations that have a need for the brand. This is one of the locations that they had a need for in this area. They did a study and basically, they will not choose a site unless they know. They're not going to put their brand in a place they feel won't fit. We have three other Holiday Inns in our portfolio, and we feel very comfortable with the brand. We have award winning properties and we think its a good fl. December 16, 2014 26664 Mr. Bahr: That's exciting to hear. I'll just make a comment. It just excites me so much to see everything that's happened along the eastern edge of Livonia over the last couple years. There has been so much development along Middlebelt, and this is a pretty significant project. Typically, I'd have a lot more questions with something like that but to be quite frank, I don't see a whole lot of downside with this. I think it's a great use for the site. I think it's a great entryway for the City of Livonia. I think it expands some of the improvements we've seen over the last couple years further east, and as far as the four story thing goes, its in an industrial corridor so you're not dealing with site lines with homes. I think its a great plan. I really dont have any concems with it, and I would echo Commissioner Taylor and say that I hope it comes through the way you guys are envisioning it. Thanks. Ms. Smiley They said you're potential buyers for this property. Robert Nofar That's correct. Ms. Smiley: And the architect, I'm sorry I didn't gel your name. Mr. Jarralt: Bill Jarrafl. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Bill, we need a complete address on you; that's number one. But number two, are you working for Holiday Inn or are you working for these gentlemen? Mr. Jartalt: I'm working for these guys, and IHG, which is the parent company for Holiday Inn. But I'm working directly with them, but I'll also be working with IHG making sure the design and everything follows their standards. I've done several other properties with them. Ms. Smiley: With these gentlemen? Mr. Jarratt With IHG, yes. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Jarrall: My address is 108 N. Lafayette, South Lyon, Michigan. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Nofar, you said that you have some other hotels in your portfolio. Just give us a little bit about your background and hotel experience. I'd appreciate to know that. Robert Nofar: Sure. We've been in the hotel industry for over 22 years, and we owned Wyndom brands, Choice brands, Carlson brands, like December 16, 2014 26665 Country Inn and Suites. We built Country Inn and Suites before. Currently now, we have four hotels. We have three Holiday Inn Express and a Quality Inn. Mr. Wilshaw: Where are they located, the ones that you have? Robert Nofar: Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. Mr. Wilshaw: The one that's in Michigan, is that nearby? Robert Nofar: Its in Lapeer, Michigan. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I appreciate you giving us a little bit more about your background. What we're looking at right now is the zoning of this property, not really the use of the property. That's why we're not getting into the details of lighting and materials of the building and all those types of things that we'll see later in a site plan. What we need to decide tonight is the use of the property and is commeroial zoning, high rise commercial zoning, appropriate for this paroel as opposed to manufacturing or office services. Like the previous Commissioners mentioned, this particular parcel has now been silting vacant for a little while and throughout our city, we've seen several industrial properties find other uses because there isn't as much need for manufacturing and industrial property in our city these days. People who watch us have seen over the years some sports facilities come into these properties and other types of uses. This particular comer, being right at two major streets, at really an entrance to the city, serves as an excellent gateway parcel that someone could see. It could be a real shining use for the property. It would sort of welcome people into the city. I really see no reason why this rezoning shouldn't go forward based on the proposed use that you have for it. So thank you very much. Robert Nofar: Thank you. Also its like an initiation for other developers maybe coming into that exit as well. Maybe some of the eyesore properties, maybe either they'll be redeveloped or revamped or something. Mr. Wilshaw: As Commissioner Bahr stated, we've been seeing that along Middlebelt. Menards came in and that spurred a lot of other redevelopment in that area. We have a parcel at the northwest corner of the intersection that's also needing some attention. I think if something like this happens at the southwest comer that might drive more interest in the northwest corner of that intersection. Solhankyou. December 16, 2014 26666 Mr. Morrow: If there are no other questions I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-66-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 16, 2014, on Petition 2014-11-01-07 submitted by NPM Acquisitions, L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 27403 and 27451 SchoolcraR Road, located on the southwest corner of SchoolcraR and Inkster Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25, from OS and M-1 to C4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-11-01-07 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That C-4 zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning would provide an opportunity to develop the subject properties in a manner that is consistent with their size and location and would serve the area as well as the City as a whole; 3. That C-4 zoning would allow for the development of the site as a four-story hotel; and 4. That C4 zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. They will set up their own meeting schedule on that. It sounds like the Commission is in full support. Good luck as you move forward, and thank you for choosing Livonia. December 16, 2014 26667 ITEM #2 PETITION 2014-11-08-17 OVERSEAS MOTORS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2014- 11-08-17 submitted by Samuel Demrovsky requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the auto parts facility (Overseas Motors) at 32400 Plymouth Road, located on the northwest comer of Plymouth Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southwest 114 of Section 27. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct an addition to an existing automotive parts warehouse and distribution facility that is located on the corner of Plymouth and Hubbard Roads. This property is zoned C-2, General Business. The property is roughly 1.4 acres in area. It has 189 feel of frontage on Plymouth Road and 320 feel on frontage on Hubbard. The existing building on the property is one-story in height and measures a total of about 17,975 square feet. Of that, the front part of the building, which houses the sales and service operations, is about 10,800 square feet, and then the back portion of the building, the warehouse, is roughly 7,160 square feet currently. Adjoining this to the east, across Hubbard Road, is Bill Brown Ford's main new car dealership. There are also auto dealers to the west. Looking to the north are primarily industrial uses and to the south, across Plymouth Road, is the site of Sl. Michaels Catholic Church as well as single-family homes. The ordinance requires a building setback of 60 feet. The existing sales and service building is less than that. It's currently about 44 feet from Plymouth Road and is thus a non- conforming structure. So any type of addition that is put onto a nonconforming structure does have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The addition they are proposing to the north part of the building, even though it doesn't encroach onto the setback, by virtue of the fact that the existing building is nonconforming on the front part, it will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for final approval. The addition is also one-story in height matching the existing building. It totals about 2,700 square feet so it will increase the warehouse capacity of the business. When completed, the enlarged building would be about 20,700 square feet of which just under 10,000 square feet would be warehouse space. The exterior appearance of the addition would match the existing building. The front part of the building is brick but the warehouse portion to the rear is block material, and they propose to use block material for the added portion. It would be painted to match the existing warehouse. They have other trim components that would also match the December 16, 2014 26668 existing building. Required parking is based on the three main components of the business operation: sales, service and warehouse. The sales portion requires 3 parking spaces, the service area requires 15 parking spaces, and the warehouse requires 12 parking spaces for a total 30 parking spaces. The petitioner informed us at the study meeting that from a practical standpoint, he really only needs about 20 parking spaces. The site altogether provides 74 parking spaces so there is more than enough parking. He also indicated at our meeting last Tuesday that he does lease out some of the spaces on a month -lo -month basis to Bill Brown Ford. So he can modify his parking according to his needs as he grows his business. There are about 11 spaces out front that he provides for customer parking and for some employees. The rear parking lot is fenced. There are no other site changes or improvements proposed as part of this petition. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to read out the cemespondence. Mr. Morrow: Yes, please Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated November 25, 2014, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. We have no objections to the petition at this time. The parcel is assigned an address of 32400 Plymouth Road which should be used for any correspondence relating to this project. The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of constructing an addition to the north side of the existing warehouse in an ama currently being used as parking. The proposed work does not influence public utilities and will not occur within the City right-of-way, therefore no Engineering Department permit will be required. The submitted plans do not indicate locations for the existing service leads to the building. We would like the owner to provide layouts for the existing on- site private utilities and service leads, as well as their connections to the public mains, to determine whether improvements to the existing drainage system will be required. Any storm water discharge from the building and parking areas must be kept separated from the sanitary sewer system. Should changes to the existing utility leads be needed, the owner will need to submit plans to the Engineering Department to determine if permits will be required. The legal description provided (as well as the legal description in the City records) does not match the dimensions provided on the submitted drawings. The legal description provided indicates that the Plymouth Road right-of-way is 55 feet wide, while the drawing (and County Records) indicates that it is 60 feet wide. We ask December 16, 2014 26669 that the petitioner confirm the width of the existing Plymouth Road right -0f --way and make corrections to the legal description as needed." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 2, 2014, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a warehouse addition to the auto parts manufacturing facility on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) A fire lane shall be provided with not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance in accordance to 18.2.3.4.1.1 and 18.2.3.4.1.2 of NFPA 1, 2009. (2) Fire lanes shall be marked with wall mounted signs that have the words: FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. (3) This fire lane will be marked on the east wall, north of the truck well to the corner of the addition and also on the north wall of the addition. (4) This may also require painting corresponding stripes on the ground to reflect the 20 foot width required." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 21, 2014, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Bolos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 9, 2014, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This building is cunentiy nonconforming in setback. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to add to an existing nonconforming building. (2) The parking lot needs to be repaired or replaced as needed. Especially the parking area in the rear of the building. (3) All parking spaces shall be 10' wide x 20' deep and double striped. (4) This plan does not make provision for a dumpster(s) or dumpster enclosure(s). The Commission and or Council may wish to determine how trash disposal will be maintained at this site. (5) The block walls of the existing building need to be painted. (6) The new addition must meet the current Michigan Building Code including the Michigan Barrier Free Code. This will be addressed at the time of our plan review if this project moves forward. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. December 16, 2014 26670 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing no one, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Samuel Demrovsky, Overseas Auto Parts, 32400 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm part owner. It's a family corporation. I'm one-fourth of the owners. Mr. Morrow: You've heard the Director, so would you like to add anything? Mr. Demrovsky: Yes. I need your Commission's help to make this work, your approval. Mr. Morrow: Any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw: What is the purpose of the expansion of your building? Mr. Demrovsky: We have a lot of parts and we ran out of the room. That's the main thing. We are parking outside also, which should be inside. We'd like to move everything in to keep a clean house. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. None of the addition to the warehouse space will increase the need for employees or parking, will it? Mr. Demrovsky: No. It won't. It's just parts. Mr. Wilshaw: And you have more than adequate parking for your employees as it is right now. Right? Mr. Demrovsky: Yes, we do. As mentioned during our other meeting, this parking lot that we rent out monthly to Bill Brown Ford is a handicapped parking lot. It's not long term. Its 30 days, from 30 days to 30 days. We can give them the 30 days and theyre out of there. Mr. Wilshaw: You heard the letter from the Inspection Department mentioning that there's some repair needed to the parking lot area in the back. Are you willing to take care of that? Mr. Demrovsky: Yes, we're going to repair that. Either repave it ... I dont want to hang my hat on that one yet, but we will repair it nicely. Mr. Wilshaw: There was also mention of the dumpster enclosure needing to be indicated on the site plan. You do have a dumpsler enclosure currently on your property with a wall and gate around it, right? December 16, 2014 26671 Mr. Demrovsky: Yes, we do. It's an eight inch block wall all the way around. It matches the existing building and it does have the metal doors, which again, match the block. Mr. Wilshaw: You have no need to move that or enlarge it in any way? Mr. Demrovsky: No. Right now we're doing a major cleanup. In fad, they picked up today out of turn. We've never filled up that container real full except the last couple weeks. Mr. Wilshaw: So we'lljusl leave Owhere it is. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Tell us a little bit about the addition. Will 0 match the emsfing structure? Mr. Demrovsky: Yes it will. In fad, 0 may be about six inches lower due to the fad that the water will flow to the north side of the building, as it is flowing now. The roof drain. But it will be quite the same height. No higher than what the existing building is. Mr. Morrow: Is it brick, or what is it? Mr. Demrovsky Brick in the front and block in the rear, 12 inch block wall. Mr. Morrow: But twill match the existing building? Mr. Demrovsky: Yes, it will. In fad, the whole building needs painting. We saw some harsh weather last winter and it flaked some of the paint Off. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions of the petitioner? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the discussion and ask for a motion. Mr. Wilshaw: A growing business is a good problem to have in our community. Therefore, I'm going to offer an approving resolution. Ona motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-67-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-11-08-17 submitted by Samuel Demrovsky requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the auto parts facility (Overseas Motors) at 32400 Plymouth Road, located on the December 16, 2014 26672 northwest corner of Plymouth Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Plan marked Drawing C1.01, dated November 14, 2014, prepared by Terrence N. Biemat, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 3. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated December 9, 2014, from the Assistant Director of Inspection shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and/or Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a full Certificate of Occupancy for the warehouse addition; 4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding onto a nonconforming building and any conditions related thereto; 5. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 6. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow, Chaimman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you for coming and good luck with your expansion. Mr. Demrovsky: I thank you very much December 16, 2014 26673 ITEM #3 PETITION 2014 -11 -LS -19 SALE OF CITY PROPERTY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2014 -11 - LS -19 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 33916 and 33964 Five Mile Road (Lots 144 thru 148 of Coventry Gardens Subdivision), located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Coventry Drive in the Southeast 114 of Section 16. Mr. Taormina: This request involves a consideration of whether City -owned properties at 33916 and 33964 Five Mile have any particular value as publicowned land, or whether they are surplus and should be disposed of according to City Ordinance. The subject properties consist of five abutting platted lots - Lots 144-148 of Coventry Gardens Subdivision. They are located on the north side of Five Mile between Farmington Road and Coventry Dnve. They are also situated right at the northwest corner of Stamford Road and Five Mile Road. Both of the properties are zoned R-4, One Family Residential, which requires a minimum lot area of 11,700 square feet and minimum lot dimensions of 90 feel by 130 feet. There are actually two tax parcels associated with this request. Parcel 33916, the larger of the two properties, consists of Lots 145 thru 148, inclusive. It measures 131 feet along Five Mile by a depth of roughly 109 feel along Stamford Road. The total lot area is roughly 9,578 square feel. The other city -owned property, 33964 Five Mile Road or Lot 144, measures approximately 21.6 feel along Five Mile by an average depth of 121 feel, for a total area of 2,418 square feel. When we combine the two together, the total lot area is 11,996 square feel or 0.28 acres. The City purchased the subject lots in 1985 with Federal Community Development Block Grant funds via a Wayne County tax foreclosure. Thereafter, the Livonia Housing Commission leased the residence to low income families. Earlier this year, however, the structure was severely damaged by an automobile that careened off the road, and the decision was made by the Housing Commission to demolish the structure that was on the property. The site is now vacant. Driveway access is available off Stamford Road. The parcel is fully serviced by public utilities, and an appraisal of the property conducted in November of this year establishes an estimated value of $30,000. If a determination is made that the subject property is surplus and subsequently sold in accordance with City Codes and Ordinances, the proceeds from the sale of the property will return for reprogramming into the City's CDBG program. Mr. Jim Inglis is here. He is our Director of Housing December 16, 2014 26674 and can explain the process better than I can. But before the sale of any City -owned property, the Planning Commission must offer a recommendation as to whether or not the city should dispose of the property and provide advice as to any plausible alternative public uses for the property. So it is not our decision this evening to decide how the property is disposed of, just whether or not it serves any particular public purpose and should be retained as public land or whether or not we should forward a recommendation to the City Council to dispose of the property. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 2, 2014, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above petition to dispose of the above referenced city -owned property. We have no issues with the proposed disposal of property. The addresses forparcels are as follows: 33916 Five Mile Road (Parcel #064-01-0145-000); 33964 Five Mile Road (Parcel #064-01-0144-000). Both parcels are currently serviced by City water mains and sanitary sewers. Storm sewer is available to the parcels, although it is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. The legal descriptions provided by the petitioner appear to be correct and should be used in conjunction with these parcels. We would like to request that the parcels be combined prior to disposal, as the "stem parcel (#33964) would not be buildable as a standalone parcel." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 5, 2014, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The existing parcel (which previously was built upon) as indicated does not meet all requirements for a buildable lot in an R4 District. The frontage of the parcel by ordinance is Stamford Road. (2) The lot is deficient of the required 130 feet lot depth in this district. A variance from the ZBA would be required for the deficient lot depth. Lot width and lot area meets or exceed the minimum required. We would recommend if possible that for this lot and location a sale to the Association for an undeveloped entry parcel may work best. Otherwise with the required variance andproper house and site planning this would be allowed to be developed with a Stamford Road address. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. December 16, 2014 26675 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commission? Ms. Smiley That one little strip is a weird little lot, isn't it? I mean, how wide is it? Mr. Taormina: Its roughly 21 feet as it was originally platted. Ms. Smiley: Was It like an easement? Mr. Taormina: No. Many of the lots in the subdivision were platted at narrow depths. So you can see it's roughly 21 feel in width as are some of the other lots, 146, 147 and 148, but they were combined in such a manner that it's a larger parcel. For whatever reason, Lot 144 was never combined with the other properties. I don't know if It was always under single ownership. Maybe Mr. Inglis has a better understanding. They were probably acquired separately, which is a reason why they were never combined, but the fact is that the City owns all five of the parcels today and is evaluating whether or not they should be disposed of at a single unit at this point. Ms. Smiley: When you say all five of the parcels, are talking 144, 145, 146 that way? Mr. Taormina: Yes. That's correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. I was just curious. Mr. Bahr: Mark, you explained this, but I just want to make sure I'm clear on one point. If we chose to dispose of this and then it was sold, it still has to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals before a house can be built on it. Right? Mr. Taormina: That's my understanding. According to the Inspection Report, there would be variances required because of the deficient lot depth. Mr. Bahr: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Mr. Wilshaw: To expand upon that question to Mr. Taormina through the Chair, do we know if the existing house, the previous existing house that was on that parcel, was that built prior to the ordinances and the requirement for the lot depth that we have now? Is it grandfathered? December 16, 2014 26676 Mr. Taormina: I think it was a lawful nonconforming structure. You can see from the aerial where the house was situated on the property. It was very close to the rights-of-way of Stamford, as well as Five Mile Road. It was not in compliance with our setback standards today for the R-4 zoning classification. My guess is that the house was built well before those ordinances were put in place or the zoning was put in place over this area and that was the reason why the house did not conform. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That makes sense. Thank you Mr. Taormina: And probably the road was expanded over time which brought the property lines closer to the structure. There was probably a number of factors involved as to why the house was non- conforming. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? I see Mr. Inglis is in the audience. We will ask him to come forward and pick up where we left off. James Inglis, Director, Livonia Housing Commission, Patrick V. McNamara Towers, 19300 Purlingbrook Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. All right. The Housing Commission, as Mark had indicated, acquired this property back in 1985. It was a property tax foreclosure. Unfortunately, the family had the intentions of trying to buy it back from the city, but just never consummated that arrangement. So we allowed the family to stay there under a rental arrangement. The rents were established by the Housing Commission and approved by City Council. So that family continued to reside there for many, many years. The head of the household passed away. The remaining individual was elderly and she no longer wished to live there. We relocated her to Silver Village, one of our senior housing developments. The Housing Commission then proceeded to lease it to other low income families over a period of time. Then we had the accident that happened earlier this year, which caused substantial damage to the property. The house was on a crawl space. The car that hit the house jarred it so much it jarred it off the foundation. The house was occupied at the time. Fortunately, no one was hurt. We had the city's insurance adjuster go out and review it, looked at the extent of the damage, and the Housing Commission made the decision, along with the Finance Director, to demolish the structure. We did remove the structure. We have conducted the site survey which now you have looked at tonight, and we have also obtained an appraisal on the property. We feel it's in the best interests and looking at all the properties the Housing December 16, 2014 26677 Commission has, because we have close to 40 single family homes that we currently own and operate that we lease to low income families. This property is adjacent to a very nice neighborhood so we feel it would be best suited for us not to redevelop on that particular site, but to consider it excess property. So the Housing Commission's future plans for our scattered site homes has now revealed that we are recommending disposal of other properties as well and will continue to do that. The benefit of this is putting it back on the lax rolls. Pursuant to the Code of Ordinances, we are required to obtain an appraisal, which we have, and then go out and obtain proposals and then sell it. Federal regulations do come into play here as well. Since we acquired it with federal funds and the federal requirements do say that we establish what's considered to be a fair market value with an appraisal and that we offer it for sale at that fair market value. The proceeds from any sale of this property will not go into the City's General Fund. They will be returned to that federal program and program income so they will be reused for housing rehabilitation and other activities under the Community Development Block Grant programs. So we're doing some federal regulations here as well. That's a little bit of the background as Mark also explained it as well. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Inglis, do you have any leeway in the selling price? Mr. Inglis: I do not. I have to establish the minimum bid price and then put it on the street at that minimum bid price. Mr. Morrow: So that pretty well fixes the pace, at least the floor. Mr. Inglis: The question would be considered is if the appraisal came in at $30,000 and we offered it at $30,000 and we received proposals that were less than $30,000, then we would have to make the decision if the appraisal did reflect the fair market value and probably seek some guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development whether if proposals came in from developers that were less than that $30,000, whether we could sell it for that pace. So that decision would have to be concurred by the federal government. Mr. Morrow: So at $30,000 you could move it. Less than that, it would require some more investigation and approvals. Mr. Inglis: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions? December 16, 2014 26678 Mr. Bahr: And that $30,000 was based on ... that's what the appraisal was? Mr. Inglis: Yes. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Inglis: This company has done a lot of appraisals for us when we had a neighborhood stabilization program. We've used them for quite some time and they are very accurate on their appraisals. Mr. Taylor: Jim, before we've had city lots sold and one on one side and one on the other side would like to buy some of it. Is that possible with this type of properly? Mr. Inglis: Under the federal regulations, if the city were to sell @ to an adjacent low income family, there are some possibilities there, but for the most part, those have just been small little parcels that we had that we wanted to dispose of. That is something we also could consider, but the Code of Ordinances does require that we obtain that minimum price and then put it out for proposals. So for us to simply say we're going to sell it to the neighbor next door is not permissible. Mr. Taylor: I know its not up to this board to say sell it to this person or that one, all we're doing is putting it on the market. Mr. Inglis: That's correct. At this point, we're just trying to deem it as excess property which we, the Housing Commission, have no future use for this parcel. What's going to happen with it down the road with redevelopment would be up to the City Council. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: My question is, are we selling this as two lots or one combined lot? Mr. Inglis: One lot. All five lots are now combined into one. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Please come forward to one of the podiums. We'll need your name and address for the record. Dr. Tom Mascara, 33905 LaMoyne Street, Livonia, Michigan. If you look on that picture right there, its just above the yellow line. I'm on the December 16, 2014 26679 corner lot north on Stamford. My wife and I. So we've been in Livonia since 1988. That property has been city properly since then. Without the house there, it's never looked better I could say. It's not always been kept up really well. It's a difficult lot for a lot of reasons. To maintain a house as the renters went through, the house was burned at one point and so we saw it as a burned house. Then of course there was the accident that was mentioned and so it hasn't been a real stellar comer for a really classic neighborhood in Livonia. I realize that your question is whether the city should relieve itself of this property. I would encourage you to do that or at least find a way to designate it as excess space as was referred to here. I also heard the tens gateway tonight from the other proposal. This cleady is a gateway into Coventry Gardens off of Five Mile, especially the way the road turns. The property sits on the southeast side so it's bathed in sunlight. It's a really good place to plant the idea of Coventry Gardens with some green space. It would make a really attractive entrance into that subdivision. I think it would make a lot better use of the properly. It can serve not only the residents in the subdivision but also people that walk along Five Mile as well. So I would encourage repurposing this from a residence on an odd shaped site to something that's more green space or seeded or sold to the Association. And I also make a comment in terms of that little strip and I understand that this is supposed to be looked at as one single properly. My background neighbor is Steve King who also borders the long side of the yellow line there right on Five Mile. I think he's going to speak in a minute, but I know that Steve is interested in that little slice that was just asked about. So however that works, it does improve his lot and his access to the lot, especially coming in off of Five Mile. And that shrinks a little bit of that space. So I think just to sum up, it would ... I could see where the city would benefitfrom not having to lake care of that lot. So if it can separate from it or put it on the market and if the Association or however this works both legally and financially to acquire it, it would be a really good space for Coventry Gardens and it would certainly be an improvement for that spot on Stamford. Finally, I think in terms of the site itself, as you can see with the retail businesses on the one side, its a really busy traffic section as well. So I think anything that provides more of a buffer away from Five Mile and even some of the traffic coming off of Stamford is going to be a better use of that comer. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Ms. Smiley: Have you had any contact with the Association? Have they shown any interest? Dr. Mascaro: And if I can loss in one point for my son. I have a son that's a forest ecologist and he makes a clear point. Trees are a lot better for the environment than lawns. So I dont know whether there's also a way to work with the government, whether it's the federal government or state government, to do something that establishes that as a greenspace and also contributes somehow financially to the city. Again, I'm just anxious to see it looked at in alternative ways. Mr. Morrow: We appreciate that. Thank you very much. December 16, 2014 26680 Dr. Mascaro: Yes. I can't recall his name, but I recently sent an email to the president of the Association and he said he has shared my email with the Board and theyve also thought about how this might work. All he said to me in his email was that they might designate it as a commons area, probably similar to the park, although the park is a much larger area. They were thinking along the same lines. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McIntyre: With respect to the idea of repurposing, if I understand the Housing Commission correctly, we don't have that option of repurposing it. The only thing that we can do is sell it at the market value. Mr. Morrow: Our primary role is to see from our standpoint if there are any objections to disposing of this property. That's really our job. Dr. Mascaro: I understand that. Mr. Morrow: And anything along the lines that you've been discussing certainly is above our pay grade. Dr. Mascaro: I understand that. I guess I'm just trying to plant the seeds of if were sold. If it's going to be sold and there's just going to be a house put up there, then that's a done deal. Apparently that's going to be difficult. It would have to be rezoned and so on and so forth. It's just not a particularly good lot to put a house there. On the other hand, if we can think in terms of ... just get people to think of that lot in other ways other than okay let's just sell it or let's just build something there. I'd just like people to see it in another purpose, and I do understand you point. Mr. Morrow: And we appreciate your input. Like I say, you may have some very valid points that the city may see to concur in, but right now, you know our mission. Dr. Mascaro: And if I can loss in one point for my son. I have a son that's a forest ecologist and he makes a clear point. Trees are a lot better for the environment than lawns. So I dont know whether there's also a way to work with the government, whether it's the federal government or state government, to do something that establishes that as a greenspace and also contributes somehow financially to the city. Again, I'm just anxious to see it looked at in alternative ways. Mr. Morrow: We appreciate that. Thank you very much. December 16, 2014 26681 Ms. McIntyre: Mr. Chair, if I may ask again for clarification. We don't have any option, its my understanding, to do anything other than sell this. That said, there would be nothing prohibiting the Association from buying it and doing whatever they wanted, and as an Association, if I understand Association law correctly, putting whatever restrictions they wanted to on that property because it would be owned by the Association. Is that correct? Mr. Morrow: Yes. If we're projecting at the next level, I would imagine they would have some options. I think the first thing, if they're trying to dispose of it, theyd have to go out for bids. And if they got somebody who came in and said I'll give you $30,000 for this and there was no other input, it might cause the city to change their minds. The lot would be sold. Ms. McIntyre: And could be sold to the Association. Mr. Morrow: If there's nobody willing to pay $30,000 for a lot, that opens up, as Mr. Inglis points out, maybe some subsequent negotiations as to what to do with the properly. Mr. Taylor: The City is pretty hamstrung on what they can do with this type of properly because of the Housing Commission. If it was a regular city piece of property, you could work with it, but right now, like the Chairman said, all we're doing is pulling it on the market. Dr. Mascaro: Okay. Iunderstand. Thankyou all. Thank you foryourfime. Steve King, 33950 Coventry, Livonia, Michigan. Hello. I'm the beige roof right there. I have the greatest interest. I'm right next to this properly. I just want to clarify. This is not a federally owned piece of property. This is owned by the city and you are not hamstrung on what you can do with it. Jim is mistaken on that and I will gel you the literature to show you that. I'll have a legal opinion on that. So you do have complete authority over this properly. That needs to be made very, very clear. Mr. Taylor: We'll hear from Mr. Inglis. Mr. King: This is not a federally owned piece of property. This is something owned by the City. The Housing Commission does have authority over some of its use, but you can dispose of this property as you see fl. You can designate this a greenbelt. There is no federal anything slopping you from doing that. That has to be made clear. December 16, 2014 26682 Mr. Morrow: I only want to interject here that I'm not disagreeing with what you say. We're not going to debate that tonight. Mr. King: Okay. Mr. Morrow: But our role tonight is to see whether or not we have an objection to dispose of the properly/ Mr. King: I appreciate that, but again, bad information leads to bad decisions. You cannot be told you are hamstrung. You are not. You have flexibility with what you can do with this property, and I will gel you all the documentation to prove that. As far as the yellow line, I don't know how you can say that's the lot when goes right out into Five Mile, Mark. I actually have the original lot of Coventry Gardens from 1925 so you can see what the lots actually look like. A couple other things. I am very interested in that 20 fool parcel. I brought my blueprint. Just a little history on me. I've been in Coventry Gardens since 1956. 1 could tell you the whole history of the subdivision going back to the '20's. I built three home there, completely renovated. All three of them have been on the Christmas Walk, so a lot of you know the work that I do and I've been a positive influence on the neighborhood. This is where I'm living and this is the blueprint for what I'm doing. If I gel that 20 feel, it will give me the access I need to do my addition, dig a basement, pour the cement. If somebody comes in there and puts up a fence, it's going to make it very, very difficult, plus it does make the lot a little bit better. Now, there has been other parcels in the city, very similar to this, and there is precedent for you making this a greenspace. And I have a picture here of Auburndale and Elise and it is the Harry Wolfe tot lot park. If you haven't seen it, it's over behind the Rec Center. Exact same situation. A residence, a corner lot. You designated it a green space. So you do have the ability to do that and I hope that that is what you will do. Whether you decide to sell it or not, I am very, very interested in that 20 fool parcel and there's something else. Can you go back to the yellow one, Mark? You also misspoke. There is no driveway. That road has been widened, and a new fire hydrant has been put in where that driveway was so you could no longer put a driveway there because you have a fire hydrant. Secondly, when they disposed of the house, they lore it down. They also disposed of the sanitary drain. So there is no sanitary. So for them to say that's a buildable lot, it is not. It would take you an additional $10,000 to hook up to all the utilities on that lot. So now you're looking at $30,000 plus $10,000. You're telling me that lot is worth $40,000. That's wrong. You need to be aware of that loo. There is no sewer. There are no utilities on this lot. You would have to rerlig and tap into the sewer which goes along the back December 16, 2014 26683 lot line. There's also no electricity. There's no gas because they replaced all the gas lines in Coventry Gardens. There is no gas line on this property. All of that would have to be done. I'm just here to share all of the information because, again, bad information leads to bad decisions. You guys have to know the whole story. That's where we sit today and I'm hoping you guys will consider making this a greenbelt. It is was what I would like to see, and I did speak to the President of the Association, Wayne, and the Vice President, Dave. They said $30,000 for this dirt, no. The Association will not do that, but they are willing, as an association, to maintain the property. We'd like to put a community garden in there and maybe a nice sign and we would then mow that property. We have a park we mow and we would maintain the sidewalks for shoveling and things of that nature. The other thing, if I was fortunate enough to buy that 20 feel, I would pick up like four trees which I would then maintain, tnm them and lake care of them. Trees do require maintenance and it would just make for a better site. The trees would be healthier, everything would be nicer. I'm hoping you guys will consider everything when you make your decision. Mr. Morrow: Yes, well, Mr. King, I don't disagree with anything you said, but that does not fall within the realm of the Planning Commission. Mr. King: Okay. Mr. Morrow: That would be more at the next level where the ultimate decision will be made. Mr. King: Would that be at Council? Mr. Morrow: That's where the Council would act in conjunction with the Housing Commission. Mr. King: Thank you very much. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Mr. Bahr: I have a question about that for the Chair. When we talk about a greenspace, that's city property then, right, where we designate it as a city park? Mr. Morrow: We own the property. Mr. Bahr: Okay. I mean, I understand what the question is before us tonight, but ... I lost my train of thought. It will come back to me. I'm sorry. I guess what I'm wondering is, there's a couple things going through my mind. One is, when you talk about that December 16, 2014 26684 20 fool strip, is there anything that would prevent us as a city or Housing Commission from treating those as two separate parcels and splitting them? I mean eventually an owner could do that, nghl? He could petition to have that done. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Bahr: Can we, as a Planning Commission, petition to have that done? I'm not saying I want to do that, I just want to understand. Mr. Morrow: No. Tonight, all we got to know is if they have any objection from the Planning Commission to moving that properly. Anything that happens after this at the City Council level, in conjunction with the Housing Commission, all these things will be considered, and whether they want to split the lot again or sell them off as two different lots or how they want to do it. Mr. Bahr: And that reminds me what I want to ask. If it is true, and I am no lawyer, I don't know this. If it is true that we could designate that as a greenspace, then we wouldn't be voting to dispose of it tonight. Right? I mean isn't that an alternative question? If that is true, if we have that option, then we wouldn't necessarily be . .. we could choose to not dispose of it and then pursue making a greenspace. Is that an option, I guess, is my question? Mr. Morrow: All I'm saying is that we're responding to the petition, and they want to know whether or not we have any objection to doing it. If you think we shouldn't act on this, you can vote. Mr. Bahr: That's why I'm asking because if it is legitimate that ... we may not get an answer on that here, but if @ is legitimate that we could make a greenspace, that could affect the way we vole on it tonight. That's why I'm asking the question. Mr. Morrow: Al least from my perspective, I just want to move it along. All these things referred to tonight could be taken up at that level. Mr. Inglis: One clarification. The five lots, the one small 20 fool lot, was pre us buying it in 1985. It goes way back in time, which is a city owned parcel, never acquired with federal funds. So that 20 fool parcel was not touched with federal funds in the acquisifion. Now when we put together an application to the federal government to use federal funds for a public purpose, the public purpose under the Block Grant program was to provide affordable housing and to improve the plight of low income people in our community. So when we use federal funds and bought that property, Mr. King is correct, we own the property. But once we start to dispose of it, the federal government says December 16, 2014 26685 wait a minute here. You used federal funds. And it's the same thing with city parks. The question comes up regarding selling park space. Was it bought with a federal grant or was it bought with a non-federal grant? And if its bought with a federal grant, its got strings attached. Those four lots were purohased with a federal grant, and in the disposal of that, now it has strings. And those slnngs are required. Now, the Housing commission is not in the business of parks, and making that a park would not put it back on the tax rolls, would require our Department of Public Works to maintain another park, which they really dont want to do so. And by taking and splitting that 20 fool parcel off the other four, makes the lot even more deficient for possible future use as a residential structure. It puts me further out and back to the grandfathering issue that Mr. Wilshaw brought up, that's still something that I think needs to go through the Law Department, because I have a different opinion regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals and whether they really need to review this for the construction of a new home because of the grandfathering provision. And that's got to be sorted out by Mr. Knapp and Mr. Fisher, but that's something down the road. Al this time, all we're saying as a housing agency is that there was a house there. We acquired it under a tax foreclosure for a public purpose under our Grant Block Program that we told the federal government what we were going to do. Al this point, the house is gone now, and we don't want to rebuild and we don't want to re -house people there. We would rather put it back on the tax rolls and let the private sector deal with it. Mr. Bahr: Do I still have the floor or not? I don't. Lel Kathleen go and I'll ask my question later. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to cut it off pretty quick now. Ms. McIntyre: Good. Based on what Mr. Inglis has just said, I have some of the same concems that Mr. Bahr did about the decision to sell if, indeed, we had other options. But I think to Mr. Inglis' point and the comments that were made tonight, it seems that this is not a good location for another public park. It may be an ideal location for a Coventry Gardens greenspace, in which case moving ahead with the sale of the property, its my understanding that City Council could determine if they wanted to split off that 20 fool section to sell to Mr. King. Is that correct? So if we moved ahead tonight, Mr. Chair, its a question to you, and said, let's vole on this on putting it up for sale, there's nothing to prevent Coventry Gardens from buying it and nothing to prevent the City Council from agreeing to split it into two pieces, one to sell to Mr. King and one to sell to the homeowner association. Is my understanding correct? December 16, 2014 26686 Mr. Morrow: Yes Mr. Wilshaw: Just to slightly chase the rabbit down the hole a lillle bit more, just for a moment, I won't go very long. Mr. Inglis made the point that federal dollars were used to purchase the majority of this parcel; therefore, if the city chooses to put it on the market, we need to sell it and give that money back to the federal government to make them whole. I think the only option that we would have, if we wanted to consider a park, and it's not for us to consider but for City Council or other bodies to consider, would be, and Mr. Inglis, correct me if I'm wrong, but would be for us to use city dollars to give back to the federal government, basically so that we are effectively buying that parcel using the federal money, putting our own money, the city's dollars into it. Now it becomes fully city properly that's not encumbered by any federal restrictions and then we could make it a park or whatever we wanted to do with it. But now we need to spend $30,000 to do that. So it comes down to, you know, who wants to spend the money. I think that's the only way that could ever happen in the city. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Our question tonight is does the Planning Commission have any objection to selling this vacant piece of property. That's the basic question here tonight. As far as I'm concerned, all this other stuff is extraneous for tonight's agenda and can be fought at another level. If you have an objection, you're certainly willing to change the resolution or vole against whatever resolution it is. Mr. Bahr: I get the sense that people are reading into my questions and trying to read my mind what I'm thinking. I think you guys are jumping to some conclusions. I'm merely asking some questions to try and understand the situation. I understand what we're voting on tonight. My last question is that, and its just so I can fully understand it, if we sell this property then, is it basically four-fifths of the sale price that goes back to the federal government or does the whole thing? If I understood you correctly, basically four-fifths of this property was bought with federal funds. Mr. Inglis: Correct. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Mr. Inglis: So at that point, we would probably do so on a pro rata basis. Right. So the City would realize some benefit from this. The balance would go back to the federal government. December 16, 2014 26687 Mr. Bahr: Okay. Is the question whether the city is disposing of the properly or is the question whether the Housing Commission is disposing of the properly, or is that all one and the same? Mr. Inglis: The Community Development Block Grant is in the name of the City of Livonia and it's signed by executive order to the Housing Commission to administer the grant to fulfil the regulations and go through the audits and all of that, and put together the plan, which is approved by City Council. So ultimately, the City has to following the federal regulations and we are acting on behalf of the city of make sure that happens. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. Mr. Taylor: If you're ready for a vole ... Mr. Morrow: I think you know the Chair's position. Dr. Mascaro: That's why I have questions. Mr. Morrow: I'll allow one more question and then we're going to have a motion. Dr. Mascaro: Thank you for your indulgence. Again, I'm Tom Mascaro. One thing that concems me is as this gets discussed, you can tell that it gets emotional. That's the last thing I want to see happen about this properly because I live next door to it. So I understand that you're asking sort of an up and down vole, should the city gel nd of this, but it seems to me ... Mr. Morrow: No, no, no. We may or may not have an objection. We're not making a decision whether we want to do it or not. All their doing is asking the Planning Commission if they decide to sell it, do you have an objection. That's it. It's not whether or not they're going to sell d. It's if they decide. We're not deciding whether we sell it or not. Dr. Mascaro: I think I understand that although I'm not entirely sure. But at any rate, .. . Mr. Morrow: Let me put d this way. We do not decide whether or not to sell this piece of property. All we're responding to if for some reason the Planning Commission has an objection to R. Mr. King: You could prevent the sale. Ms. McIntyre: Yes, we could object. December 16, 2014 26688 Mr. Morrow: No. All we're doing is responding to it. Dr. Mascaro: Well, this was my question. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to cul it off now and I'm going to ask for a motion. Dr. Mascaro: I'm not very happy about that. Mr. Taylor: I'd like to clear up the situation, but Mr. Inglis, I appreciate your discussion on it and explaining the exact thing about the properly that we have to do. If we recommend that this property go, it goes to the City Council. It goes to the Law Department. There's a public hearing. I mean there's a lot of meetings you can come to and argue. And you've done a good job. Dr. Mascaro: I didn't come to argue, by the way. I just want to be clear about that. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, this will be an approving resolution. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #12-68-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 16, 2014, on Petition 2014 -11 -LS -19 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 properly at 33916 and 33964 Five Mile Road (Lots 144 thm 148 of Coventry Gardens Subdivision), located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Coventry Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, the Planning Commission has no objections to the sale of vacant City -owned properties located at 33916 & 33964 Five Mile Road, 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. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Inglis, this will be forwarded to you and the City Council for determination as to whether or not to sell the properly. Thank you coming and thank you gentlemen. December 16, 2014 26689 ITEM #4 PETITION 2013-08-02-19 LANG AUTO SALES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Request for a One -Year Extension of Petition 2013-08-02-19 which previously received waiver use approval by the City Council on January 27, 2014 (Council Resolution #25-14), to operate a used auto dealership (Lang Auto Sales) with outdoor display of vehicles at 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Taormina: This is a request for a one-year extension of the waiver use that was granted back in January, 2013. There were a number of conditions attached to the approval. There was a question at our study session relative to the maintenance operations that could be conducted out of the facility. There was a condition that limited the repair operations to minor repairs only to vehicles that are at the dealership that are on-site and cannot be opened to the general public. I think that answered the question that we had at the previous study meeting. I do not see the petitioner here this evening. There's going to be a second part of this request that will go on to the Council and that will be to transfer the interest of the waiver use from the original petitioner, who is Mr. Lang, to the current owner of the property, who is Mr. George. That is something that is subject to an agreement. That was another condition to the granting of this waiver use that limited the waiver use to Mr. Lang. That will be the Council's determination as to whether or not to allow the transfer in the waiver use. Your consideration this evening is whether or not simply to grant the one year extension of the waiver. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: And the Council will determine if Mr. George is approved to operate the waiver of use? Mr. Taormina: Council will be the final approving authority on the extension as well as determining whether or not to transfer interest in the waiver. Mr. Morrow: But particularly if they approve of the new ownership. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: We just want to know if it's okay to extend it. We have nothing to say about who we extend it to. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: So we could do that without him here. Couldn'twe? December 16, 2014 26690 Mr. Morrow: Yes. I'm prepared to move it forward. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Did you want to read the correspondence or just receive and file? Mr. Taormina: There was no correspondence on this item. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by McIntyre, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #12-69-2014 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for a one-year extension of Petition 2013-08-02-19, which previously received waiver use approval by the City Council on January 27, 2014 (Council Resolution #25-14), to operate a used auto dealership (Lang Auto Sales) with outdoor display of vehicles at 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, be approved subject to the following cond0ions: 1. That the request for an extension of waiver use approval by Richard George, in a letter dated November 20, 2014, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution 25-14 in connection with Petition 2013-08-02-19, which permitted the operation of a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taylor: Through Mark, was Mr. George asked to be here tonight? Mr. Taormina: I thought he would be. I don't know why he's not. He was aware of the meeting. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any other discussion? Seeing none, roll call please. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: December 16, 2014 26691 AYES: McIntyre, Smiley, Bahr, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: Taylor ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,064'^ Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,064•' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 18, 2014. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-70-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,064th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 18, 2014, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Taylor, McIntyre, Bahr, Wilshaw, Smiley Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Bahr: Seeing that it's the last meeting of the year, I just want to say what an honor and privilege it is to serve with all you on this Commission. So Merry Christmas to everybody. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,065th Public Hearings and Regular meeting held on December 16, 2014, was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman