When it rains, it pours.

Last week, the Oxford Village Council discussed three purchase offers it received for the 3.42 acres of municipal-owned property at 98 S. Glaspie St.

After much discussion, council voted 5-0 to make a counteroffer to the $305,000.01 cash offer it received from the Sterling Heights-based Clearview Homes.

In its motion, council indicated it wants three things – 1) extend the deadline to accept the offer to July 1; 2) Clearview must submit a site plan for review that conforms to the village zoning ordinance; and 3) the proposed purchase agreement must be reviewed by the village attorney.

Council also voted 5-0 to reject a $210,000 offer from Joel Dean to use the site for light industrial purposes.

Although they didn’t formally act on it, it was the consensus of council that a $305,000 offer from Preka Berishaj would be considered a backup if things with Clearview didn’t pan out. Berishaj also wishes to use the site for a single family residential development.

As part of its offer, Clearview included a drawing of the village site showing it divided into 19 individual lots for single family homes.

Density issues

Council received a May 24 e-mail from its planner, Chris Khorey, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates, stating, “Based on this site plan, 19 lots cannot fit on the site under the standards of the zoning ordinance.”

The site consists of two parcels, both of which are zoned for single family residential development.

The 2.7-acre parcel is zoned R-1, which requires lots to have a minimum area of 7,200 square feet and a minimum width 60 feet. The 0.7-acre parcel to the east is zoned R-3, which requires lots to have a minimum area of 12,500 square feet and a minimum width of 90 feet.

In his email, Khorey noted the lots in Clearview’s plan “do not meet the required lot width in the R-1 district.” He said most of them are 50 feet wide.

Also, Khorey stated in his email, “the lots are approximately 5,900 square feet, which does not meet the R-1 minimum.”

In an email to this reporter, Khorey estimated the site could accommodate 14 to 16 single family homes, but noted “there could be ways to fit more units and still stay within the zoning limits.”

In his email to council, Khorey noted one of the proposed lots “closes off access to the park and the lake, which would be a violation of the draft master plan’s goals for the site.”

When this reporter asked about those goals, Khorey explained, “The draft master plan envisions one of two scenarios for 98 Glaspie: a single family development or a multiple family development under RM-1 (zoning).”

The draft master plan “explicitly discourages” the use of a planned unit development (PUD) or other process to increase the density beyond RM-1 zoning, according to Khorey.

“The draft master plan only supports a rezoning of the site under two circumstances: to make the whole site a consistent single family category (R-1, R-2 or R-3) or to rezone it to RM-1,” he wrote. “The only rezoning options that would increase the permitted density are making it entirely R-1, which would allow approximately 15-17 units, or making it RM-1, which would probably allow a maximum of 36-38 units, although density calculations for multiple family are more complex because they are based on the number of bedrooms in the units.”

Khorey noted the draft master plan will be discussed at the June 7, June 21 and July 5 planning commission meetings. He will be available in the village council chambers to answer questions from 5-7 p.m. prior to each of these meetings.

Speaking on behalf of Clearview Homes, Eric Ebeling, an associate with the Southfield-based brokerage company Indigo Centers, told council the 19-home plan isn’t set in stone.

“They’re very willing to work with the council and the community,” he said. “If that needs to be tweaked, they can tweak it.”

Resident concerns

Some residents who live near 98 S. Glaspie St. attended the meeting and expressed their concern about the proposed density.

“I do think 19 (homes) is too many,” said Jennifer Myers-Spencer, who lives directly across from the site in one of the 16 single family homes that line the west side of S. Glaspie St.

“Just looking at the layout, those lots look kind of small. There’s a couple of corner ones that are close to the road that look mighty small.”

Myers-Spencer recommended 15 or 16 homes for the site.

Village President Sue Bossardet noted if Clearview comes back with a site plan that conforms to the zoning ordinance, no matter how many homes it contains, “we can’t refuse them.”

That being said, residents at the meeting preferred Clearview’s potential development to the 76-unit multifamily housing project rejected by the village in March.

“I think we’re really game for homes to go up over there versus apartments,” Myers-Spencer said.

“I think it’s a much better idea than the last proposal,” said Jeff Arkles, a resident of Thornehill Trail in the nearby Oxford Lakes subdivision.

Myers-Spencer was also pleased council rejected the offer to use the site for light industrial purposes. “We don’t want that across the street,” she said.

A part of Oxford

Clearview Homes is no stranger to Oxford.

It currently has four residential developments in the township including two in Waterstone (The Shores and The Bluffs), The Hills of Willow Lake and The Shores of Willow Lake.

Township Supervisor Bill Dunn, who was in the audience, told council that Clearview has enjoyed a good working relationship with the municipality.

“I will tell you we have had no problems, no complaints,” he said. “We’ve had a good experience.”

A little history

The village purchased 98 S. Glaspie St., a former industrial site, for $700,000 in March 2006.

Given the site’s close proximity to the municipal wellhead area, officials wanted to prevent a potentially undesirable user from moving in and possibly contaminating the village’s groundwater supply. There was also talk of using the land to expand Scripter Park, but that never panned out because the village lacked the funds and still does.

Over the years, the property has lost much of its value. In 2014, it appraised for $305,000.