Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL STUDY - 2011-01-03 CITY OF LIVONIA— CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD JANUARY 3, 2011 Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. Present: Brian Meakin, Joe Laura, Laura Toy, Maureen Miller Brosnan, Conrad Schwartz, John Pastor, and James McCann. Absent: None. Elected and appointed officials present: Mayor Jack Kirksey; Don Knapp, City Attorney; Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Todd Zilincik, City Engineer; and Terry Marecki, City Clerk. Mayor Kirksey said Fire Chief Shadd Whitehead is the Chief of Operations of the Western Wayne Hazmat Team. He said Chief Whitehead recently performed great services for the City of Wayne in their recent tragedy along with other members of his team. Livonia was well represented in that effort. Chief Whitehead was the head of the recovery operation and the commander of that aspect of it. Fire Chief Whitehead talked about his involvement, as well as that of approximately 10 other members from the Livonia Fire and Rescue, in the recovery operation of the Frank's Furniture Store explosion in Wayne, Michigan. He expressed how valuable it is to have the mutual aid agreement with the neighboring communities, especially in the case of a tragedy such as this explosion. Laura commended Chief Whitehead on a job well done. Mayor Kirksey said someone who had a fire in their home in Livonia recently had told him what an excellent job the Livonia Fire and Rescue personnel did extinguishing the fire at their home and minimizing the damage to their property. The Mayor said this is the beginning of the year where he will finish the fourth of four years of commitment to the Mayor's office. He said it will be a challenging year for everyone. Meakin thanked the dedicated City of Livonia employees for their generosity and participation in Jean Days. He said over 10 families that were in need of assistance over the holidays were helped due to the efforts of these City of Livonia employees. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE THERAPIST PERMIT: Office of the City Clerk, re: submitted by Nancy H. Donohue in accordance with Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Nancy Donohue, 19310 Delaware, Redford, was present to answer any questions Council may have. 2 Meakin offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2. APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE THERAPIST PERMIT: Office of the City Clerk, re: submitted by Michele Haynes in accordance with Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Michele Haynes, 15208 Berwick, was present to answer any questions Council may have. Brosnan offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 3. APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE APPRENTICE PERMIT: Office of the City Clerk, re: submitted by Tracey L. Stachowiak in accordance with Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Tracey Stachowiak, was present to answer any questions Council may have. She indicated she would be working at the LCRC under the supervision of Joanne Meehl. Toy offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 4. APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE THERAPIST PERMIT: Office of the City Clerk, re: submitted by William Leung in accordance with Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. William Leung, 15373 Newburgh, was present to answer any questions Council may have. Brosnan offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5. APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE APPRENTICE PERMIT: Office of the City Clerk, re: submitted by Yadong Xu in accordance with Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Yadong Xu was present, along with William Leung, his nephew and interpreter, to answer any questions Council may have. 3 Toy offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 6. APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE APPRENTICE PERMIT: Office of the City Clerk, re: submitted by Edmond Leung in accordance with Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Edmond Leung was present to answer any questions Council may have. Meakin offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7. PROPOSED LOT SPLIT: Department of Assessment, re: requested by Angelo Mauti for Tax Item Nos. 46-034-01-0009-008 and 46-034-01-0009-009, located east of Wayne Road, south of Seven Mile Road, at 18901 Laurel. (Ref.: CR 16- 09) Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, said there are two (2) properties involved with this lot split. The properties adjoin one another and are located on the west side of Laurel just south of Seven Mile Road. A map showing the proposed lot split was displayed. The map depicts how the property is currently divided and that it is actually two (2) parcels. It also shows the three (3) proposed lots; the center parcel labeled "B" contains an existing single family residence. The parcel labeled "A" includes land to the north as well as to the south of Parcel "B". So that is made up of two (2) main sections of a property that are connected by a 12 foot wide strip that runs along the rear or west side of Parcel "B". This is a conforming site currently, although it is partially u-shaped, it does comply with the minimum lot width and lot area minimum requirements for the RUF District. The petitioner is requesting a lot split that is very similar to one that was requested in 2008 and that is to split and combine the property into three sites as opposed to two sites. Parcel "B" would remain essentially where it is today, although it would include that 12 foot strip that runs along the back of it now connecting both the north half and south half. Parcel B would be 94 feet wide with a depth of 210 feet, with a total area of 19,881 square feet or .46 acre. As you may recall, in order to comply with the lot size for the RUF District, each parcel would have to be .5 acre in area. Parcel A would be 92 feet wide with a depth of 210 feet, and Parcel C would be 95 feet wide with a depth of 210 feet. Each of these parcels would be slightly less than the required minimum of .5 acre. Parcel A would be 19,320 square feet or .44 acre and Parcel C would be 19,950 square feet or .46 acre. All three parcels would be deficient in lot area; it would require approval of the City Council to waive the lot area with a majority vote of at least five members. 4 President McCann said he would receive and file four (4) letters of opposition received on various dates. Toy asked Taormina if the existing house would remain. He said it would meet all required setbacks of the RUF District; the only thing that would have to be changed is the driveway would have to be relocated. Brosnan asked Taormina to explain how the u-shaped lot was created. He replied that was what the petitioner, Mr. Mauti, presented to the City after he withdrew his lot split back in 2008. At that time, he opted to bring the plan with the u-shaped lot which was conforming to the RUF District requirements, in to the City and obtained approval for his lot split. This plan would have afforded him the opportunity to build at least one more home on the property. Laura asked Taormina if the petitioner could build on both sides; he replied one or the other but not both. Laura asked if that included a garage. Taormina said that would have to be determined by the Inspection Department for compliance. He said it's possible but he would have to verify with the Inspection Department whether or not he could put the house on one side and the garage on the other. Laura said it is his understanding that he can build a garage on it. He asked Taormina if he knew of any other property like this in the City. Taormina said there are some u-shaped parcels but they don't appear in residential neighborhoods like this one; this is unique. Angelo Mauti stated, after being met with some opposition last time he requested to split the lot in 2008, he compromised with the current u-shaped lot configuration and had intended to build a house on one side and a garage on the other. After giving it further consideration, he feels that it would be better to split the property into three separate lots, just shy of the required lot area. He wishes to build two new homes on the two vacant lots that would be created. Toy asked Mauti if he owned the property in the middle. He replied, yes. She asked him if he lived there; he replied no. Toy asked him if the people who live in the home now would remain if the lot split was approved. He said he didn't know. He noted the home needed work done on the exterior. Toy asked Mauti what type of homes he intended to build on the lots. He said one would be a Cape Cod style approximately 2,500 to 3,500 square feet. He said he couldn't speak for his brother for the other house but said he did mention a ranch style home, approximately 2,300 to 2,700 square feet. Toy asked if they would be brick. Mauti replied all brick. Toy asked Taormina if these lots would be contiguous with lots in the area. He said the map speaks for itself. He said when entering the subdivision there are houses on smaller lots, especially on the east side of Laurel where there are 5 lots that are R-4 zoned. Across the street there are a couple of lots that just comply with the RUF standard lot requirement. Toy asked if the proposed split had received approval from Planning. Taormina replied that formal responses from the Departments were submitted to the Council office. She asked 5 Taormina if Planning was recommending Council approve the split or whether it would be detrimental to the area if they were to approve the split with the deficiencies. Taormina said they did not make any formal recommendation relative to this lot split. Pastor asked Taormina when the R-4 portion of the subdivision was changed. He said that it must have been RUF prior to being zoned R-4. Taormina said he would have to check on that and report back to Council. He said he was a bit surprised of the zoning because there is a church right there. Taormina said all of those homes have been there for at least 10 years. Laura asked Mauti what he would do with the homes if he were to receive approval on the lot split; specifically would he and his brother live in them or sell them. Mauti said he and his brother would live in the newly built homes; the house in the middle, he would have to do a lot of work to the roof and siding and then he would sell the home. President McCann said to Taormina that the drawing shown gives the appearance the street ends there, however, that is not the case. He said the street goes further to the south and to his recollection there were some smaller lots further south on Laurel. Taormina said that is correct. He said there were a couple of lot splits that occurred within the past 15 years on the south end of Laurel, however, he wasn't aware of any that were less than half an acre. He said he would have to check on that and report back to Council. Thaddeus Shymanski, 18551 Laurel, expressed concern with the administrative approval of the u-shaped lot split approval of the property. He said the larger lot size is what attracted him to the area. He said he has lived in Livonia his whole life and purchased his home on Laurel because he likes the rural feeling of the larger lots. He said he believes Mr. Mauti would not live there but would just build the houses and sell them for a profit. Aimee Dahl, 18360 Laurel, said she had collected 37 signatures from neighbors on Laurel and Gary Lane from residents who oppose the proposed lot split. She gave the letter of opposition with the signatures to Council. President McCann offered the resolution to receive and file the letter dated January 3, 2011 with approximately 37 signatures opposing the proposed lot split. Mark Snitchler, 18527 Laurel, said he agrees with his neighbors and opposes this lot split. He said this request has already been made and Council denied it in the past and he doesn't see any reason why Council should approve it now. Additionally he said, a half acre is the minimum lot size and he discouraged Council from approving the split because it is very close to the required lot size but slightly deficient. He said that just opens the door for future requests to be 6 proposed at slightly than what is proposed tonight and so on and so forth. Where is the line drawn? He said it doesn't conform to the zoning requirements and no compelling reason has been demonstrated. Therefore, he respectfully requests Council deny the request to split the property. Laura pointed out to the petitioner that the Council never denied the request in the past. He said it was withdrawn by the petitioner. Mark Schwartz, 18421 Laurel, said his property is approximately 2.4 acres in size and he said there are many other large sized parcels on the street. He said his family enjoys the rural feeling of their street and doesn't think there is another street like it in Livonia. He said many of his neighbors couldn't make it to the meeting but did sign the petition opposing the lot split. He said the proposed lot split would detract from the character of the neighborhood and would also decrease the values of the existing properties. Jeff Joyce, 18728 Laurel, said he lives across the street from the proposed lot split. He is investing in a very large addition to his home. He opposes the request to split the property. He enjoys the rural setting which attracts deer and other wildlife. He encouraged Council to drive down the street before they vote on the request. Carol Stislicki, 18900 Laurel, said she lives directly across the street from the proposed lot split. She said she and her husband used to live in a subdivision off of Plymouth and Middlebelt in a smaller house on a smaller lot close to their neighbor. She said when they looked for a new home; they looked for a larger lot spread out from the neighbors. She said the proposed lot split would destroy the character of the neighborhood which compelled her and her husband to move there. She said this proposed lot split is very distressing to her. She asked Council to put their selves in her position when considering their vote. She doesn't think the proposal conforms to the rest of the homes in the area. Koula Joyce, 18728 Laurel, said she lives kiddie corner across from the proposed lot split. She said she believes approving this request would not be keeping the character of the neighborhood. She said if two new homes were built it would detract from the existing home. She said she is not sure of what Mr. Mauti was referring to earlier when he mentioned siding on the existing home. She said it is a brick ranch. She said if the property were split into three lots it would detract from the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. Pastor asked her if she understood that the petitioner could build a home on one side of the existing home and build his garage on the other side. She said yes, but inquired why he had not done so. Pastor said he just wanted to point that out, since she expressed concern about the aesthetics of the proposed request, what the petitioner could currently build on the property. He said he is unsure how he will vote on the request but said if he lived there he thinks it would be less desirable to have a property across the street with the house and garage split up by another lot with a house on it, as opposed to three separate lots with two new 7 homes on two of the lots. She said she understood he could do that but thinks it wouldn't be a good idea for him, as the property owner, to do so. The property would not be very marketable that way. Kim Jasinkiewicz, 18822 Gary Lane, said she lives directly behind the proposed lot split. She said she moved in her home last March. Her biggest concern is how it will impact the look and feel of her backyard living area. She said if the lots had been split before she purchased her home it may have deterred her decision to buy the home. She had another concern, such as if it would deter any future interest in purchasing her home if she were to sell it. She is also concerned about the safety of her three children should Mr. Mauti build a house on one side and the garage on the other side with a driveway along the rear of the property adjacent to her backyard. John Mascarello, 18989 Laurel, said he lives three houses north of the proposed lot split. He said the property between his and the property proposed to be split was also requested to be split into three separate lots but was denied. He said it would take away from the character of the neighborhood. He said he opposes this request. He also inquired why the neighbors were not notified by mail with regard to this proposal. President McCann said that lot splits did not require notification by mail. However, a sign must be posted. Mr. Mauti posted a sign on the property on December 27, 2010. Mascarello asked President McCann whether or not notification was required when the lot was previously split into the u-shaped parcel that exists today. President McCann said lot splits do not require notices to be mailed. However, a sign must be posted if a waiver use is required. Mascarello seemed to recall some type of rule pertaining to how many times a piece of property can be split in a defined number of years; he said if the last time was in 2009, he inquired when would be the next opportunity to propose a lot split for this property. President McCann said he believes a property can only be split a certain number of times period; he asked Taormina to respond regarding special rules that pertain to the splitting of lots. Taormina said the Assessing Department reviews the property when a lot split is applied for to make sure it complies with the law pertaining to number of times it can be split. He said in this particular case they are below that threshold. President McCann stated there is not an issue with regard to that; it's without Council's consent that it cannot be split more than two times. Taormina said under a state statute it was either four or more than four times; that would have mandated platting for it to go through a site condominium process. This does not meet that threshold. Mascarello said he wishes to keep the character of the neighborhood as it is and said properties should be as defined in the zoning district for the RUF District. Augustino Piergentili, 18661 Laurel, said he lives just south of the proposed lot split. He said if the property is split into three separate lots it will be bad for the neighborhood. He said everyone on the street bought their homes because they liked the larger lot sizes and farm look to the property. This lot split will take away from the character of the neighborhood. 8 Thaddeus Shymanski, 18551 Laurel, apologized to Council for his outburst earlier. He said he agreed with Pastor that the three lots are better than the house and garage on the u-shaped lot. However, he said he feels the approved lot split should not have been allowed to create this u-shaped lot. He feels this is a sneaky attempt by the petitioner to obtain the lot spilt which he originally petitioned back in 2008, which met opposition, and is here tonight petitioning for basically the same lot split. The difference being the original lot to split was one lot and now he has two lots, one which is very unique in dimension as a result of his splitting the one large lot into two lots. The end result he is seeking is ultimately the same as his original proposed split into three separate lots. Toy said she would like to remind everyone in the audience that this is still America and people have a right to come in and make a request of this Council and of this City. She said it is up to the seven Council members to decide on these requests. She asked that everyone, regardless of whether they are the petitioner or a resident, to please keep those freedoms in mind. Mark Schwartz, 18421 Laurel, said he wanted to show Council a copy of a certificate from Mr. Mauti's website which indicates his business is a member of the Better Business Bureau. Schwartz said he contacted the Better Business Bureau and it said he is not an accredited business. Laura called for order by the Chair. President McCann agreed with Laura and informed Schwartz that the subject matter at hand is whether or not the lot split fits into the environment of the street. President McCann said he knows Mr. Mauti and has dealt with him before and said he thinks he is an honorable businessman. He said that is a separate issue. The issue at hand is the lot split and whether to allow a variance under the lot split. Schwartz stated it had to do with the integrity of the person requesting the lot split. He said a person with integrity would have looked at how the lot split would affect not only their self, but also the neighbors. He inquired as to whether any economic studies were ever done. He said Councilmember Pastor is saying a garage would be worse to look at. Schwartz said he is willing to roll the dice on that one. However, he inquired whether anyone has looked at the impact of building homes on smaller lots that are out of character to the neighborhood; how it affects the value of the neighbor's homes. President McCann said he understands what Mr. Schwartz is saying; however, each case is reviewed on a case by case basis. He said Council asks for both views on each case before deciding on a case. President McCann asked Mr. Mauti if he had any additional comments on the matter. Mr. Mauti replied by saying he never realized it was that easy to make so many enemies that he doesn't even know. He said he is not even sure he wants to live on the street now. He said the property he sold two doors down to Shymanski was never split. He said he tried to split it but the road was not wide enough. So there is no merit to Shymanski's comment earlier that Mauti could have built two houses for him and his brother instead of selling it to Shymanski. 9 Mauti said the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width, side yard and rear yard setbacks. He said the only thing that does not conform is overall square footage. He said if the rear yards were 20 feet deeper, he would not have to be here before Council. Meakin said he heard this request the first time around and said his opinion has not changed by what has been said here this evening. Meakin offered the denying resolution for the Regular Agenda. Brosnan said she has visited the property and neighborhood to get a clear picture of what exists out there today. She said the neighborhood is very charming as described by the people who live there. She said there is one lingering question she has and that is what can be done with the property. Brosnan offered the resolution referring the matter to the Administration for its report and recommendation. Pastor offered the approving resolution and the resolution referring the matter to the Committee of the Whole for its report and recommendation. DIRECTION: 1) RECEIVE & FILE — 5 COMMUNICATIONS REGULAR 2) APPROVING 2) DENYING 3) REFERRING TO ADMINISTRATION FOR ITS REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 4) REFERRING TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR ITS REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 8. COLLECTION OF LIVONIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2011: Office of the City Clerk, re; forwarding a communication from the Secretary of the Board of Education requesting the City to continue to collect one-half of their district's taxes with the summer tax collection and the remaining one-half with the winter tax collection, commencing July 1, 2011. President McCann stated this would be received and filed at the direction of the Chair. DIRECTION: RECEIVE & FILE CONSENT 9. RELEASE OF BALANCE OF GENERAL IMPROVEMENT BOND: Engineering Division, re: for Gruda Site Condominiums, located on the west side of Henry Ruff Road, between Six Mile Road and Puritan Avenue, in the Northwest '/4 of Section 14. (CR 705-99) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, said this is a housekeeping matter to release the balance of the General Improvement Bond. 10 Pastor offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10. AWARD OF BID: Engineering Division, re: for the 2010 Idyl Wyld Golf Course Streambank Stabilization Project, with funding to come from a Wayne County Parks Millage Grant (on a reimbursement basis). Toy offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 11. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2010-10-02-17 submitted by Meijer Corporation requesting approval to add a drive-thru pharmacy window to the existing store within the Millennium Park shopping center, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, between the railroad right-of- way and Schoolcraft Road (13000 Middlebelt Road), in the Northwest '/4 of Section 25. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, said this is a request for approval to add a drive-thru pharmacy window to the existing Meijer store. He said the Planning Commission spent a considerable amount of time at their meeting; all of their concerns have been addressed and they are recommending approval. Toy offered the approving resolution for the Regular Agenda. Brosnan asked the petitioner to comment on the concern of how this will affect traffic congestion in the front of the store, especially in the new drive-thru pharmacy window and garden area. Roger DeHook with Meijer Corporation, 2929 Walker Avenue, Grand Rapids, MI, 49544 was present to answer questions presented by Council. He said regarding the safety issue and the way the drive-thru pharmacy window works, there are a number of bollards that are directly between the sidewalk and the drive-thru lane for safety. He said he was out there today and they are staggered very closely apart; they will also be putting a fence between the sidewalk and the drive-thru lane for extra safety measures. He said the last thing they would want is for anyone to get hurt while walking down that sidewalk. This system is in place in a couple of their other stores and it works very efficiently and they have not had any incidents and feel that it is worthwhile doing. The drive-thru would be open from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. President McCann also had some concerns about the location of the drive-thru lane and the traffic congestion in that area of the parking lot. 11 DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 12. WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2010-10-02-18 submitted by Ya Jia Xu requesting approval to operate a massage establishment (New Life Acupressure and Massage) within the Five Newburgh Plaza shopping center, located on the west side of Newburgh Road, between Five Mile Road and Lancaster Avenue (15373 Newburgh Road), in the Southeast '/4 of Section 18. William Leung, interpreter for Ya Jia Xu, was present to answer any questions Council may have. Toy asked the petitioner how many massage establishments they propose to own in Livonia. Leung replied that this would be their first one in Livonia. President McCann asked if they had others in other cities. Leung said they don't own any other establishments. He said he works in one in Fairlane Mall and their apprentice works at Lakeside Mall. Toy asked the petitioner if he was aware of the sign regulations for their business, specifically what is allowed and what is not. He said yes. President McCann asked Leung if he would be working at this location. Leung replied yes. Toy offered the approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 13. APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE: Office of the City Clerk, re: submitted by William Leung and Ya Jia Xu, d/b/a New Life Acupressure and Massage, in accordance with Chapter 49 of Title 5 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended, for property located at 15373 Newburgh Road. President McCann said William Leung's application has been approved by the Livonia Police Department. However, Ya Jia Xu has not gone through the mandatory process. He said Council has agreed they could approve the application subject to the license being granted upon the successful approval of Ya Jia Xu's background investigation. Meakin offered the conditional approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING - SUBJECT TO CONSENT SUCCESSFUL APPROVAL OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION OF YA JIA XU AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: None. 12 Fire Chief Shadd Whitehead wanted to bring to the attention of the Council an article that was published in the Livonia Observer which contained some incorrect figures. The correct figure for the number of calls in 2009 was 8,020. The article alluded to 8,383 calls. The discrepancy existed from when the numbers were pulled from the computer system. The search parameters included 15 extra days which is how the additional 363 calls were factored. He said the Observer will be printing the correct figures in the near future. Toy commended President McCann on the superb job he did running tonight's meeting; especially with regard to the lot split item. As there were no further questions or comments, Council President McCann adjourned the Study Session at 9:32 p.m. on Monday, January 3, 2011. DATED: January 11, 2011 TERRY A. MARECKI CITY CLERK