Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2018-11-26 - REZONING - PET2018-10-01-08 - 39000 SEVEN MILE RD CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, November 26, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, November 26, 2018. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Toy, President Jim Jolly, Vice President Scott Bahr Brian Meakin MEMBERS ABSENT: Brandon Kritzman Kathleen McIntyre Cathy White OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development Paul Bernier, City Attorney Bonnie J. Murphy, Certified Electronic Recorder, CER-2300 The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Laura Toy presiding. th This is a Public Hearing relative to Petition 2018-10-01-08, submitted by 18 Street Development, L.L.C., to rezone the property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between the I-275/96 Expressway and Haggerty Road (39000 Seven Mile Road) in the Southwest ¼ of Section 6, from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to PO-1 (High Rise Professional Office – Maximum 6 Stories). The City Clerk has mailed a notice to those persons in the area affected by the proposed changes, and all other requirements of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, have been fulfilled. The Public Hearing is now open for comments. Please state clearly your name and address before making your comments. There were 16 people in the audience. Toy: I’m going to turn this over to Mr. Taormina who is our Director of Planning. Taormina: Thank you, Madam President. Again, this is a request to rezone property that is located at the northwest corner of I-275 and Seven Mile Road. The change of zoning would be from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to PO-1, High Rise Professional Office. 2 This site is a single parcel, it’s 35 acres in size and includes roughly 2,000 feet of frontage along I-275 as well as 460 feet on Seven Mile Road. There is an existing 290,000 square foot industrial building currently located on the property, that is occupied by A123 Systems, a developer and manufacturer of phosphate batteries. As everyone knows, A123 has announced that it will be vacating the site next year. A change of zoning would allow for the future possible development of the site for office purposes under the Professional Office Zoning classification as permitted in waiver uses in an OS Zoning District, including professional and general offices are allowed. The buildings in a PO-1 District are required to be over two-stories in height, with the maximum height of six stories. Immediately abutting this property to the north is an oil well that is operated by West Bay Exploration. Immediately to the west is the Paragon Entertainment complex that includes the AMC 20 Theaters as well as the Hyatt Place Hotel, J. Alexanders, Bahama Breeze is now B.J.’s Restaurant. Then to the south is Seven Mile Crossing, that’s across Seven Mile Road but there is an existing high-rise office complex, three buildings, and then immediately to the east as previously indicated is the expressway. A little bit about the history, the M-1 Zoning was established in 1967, that was done by the Planning Commission. In 1985 the site was developed as the headquarters of CBS Fox Video which later became Technicolor and they produced VHS tapes and other entertainment media. The building was the repurposed in 2009 as a battery production facility for A123. The existing building does comply with the PO District regulations with respect to all yard setbacks and maximum ground coverage by principle building. And the Future Land Use Plan designates the site for office purposes so the proposed change of zoning is consistent and compatible with the Future Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the zoning change. Thank you. Toy: Thank you very much, Mr. Taormina. Council, any questions from Mr. Taormina? Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Thank you, Madam President. Mark, is this the same ownership of the existing commercial building? Taormina: I’m sorry, that has filed this Petition? Meakin: Yes. Taormina: No, and I’ll allow them to describe it, it’s an agent on their behalf. 3 Meakin: Thank you. Toy: Councilman Bahr. Bahr: Mark, what is the history, you said this was zoned this way in 1963, is that what you said? Taormina: 1967. Bahr: ’67. Was this back then, the only M-1 zoning here or we have a lot of M-1 zoning? Taormina: I’m not aware of any other M-1 zoned properties other than the historical property that was located on Seven Mile Road immediately adjacent to the site. Other than that you have to go a couple of miles to the south to find the closest. Bahr: I was just curious, thank you. Toy: Thank you. Meakin: Eight Mile had a lot of M-1 zoning on both our side as well as Farmington Hills. Taormina: Yes, further to the east, that’s correct, yes. Meakin: Once you get past Farmington, it’s all M-1 right there. Toy: Mark, is there any other buildings within that radius that are up to six stories and if so, what is the tallest one, do you recall? Taormina: You’d have to look across the highway for the six stories, I believe to the south across Seven Mile Road are all four-story structures. Let me see, Holiday Inn would be six, five or six. And then there is a petition involving the property directly across the expressway that would include a six-story hotel. And that’s a petition you’ll be seeing very shortly. Toy: Great project in the New Year. We’re going to go to the Petitioner, sir. Your name and address for the record, please. th Kelly: Sure. Tom Kelly, 1621 18 Street, Denver Colorado. Toy: Do you want to tell us a little bit? 4 Kelly: Absolutely. Good evening. We believe PO-1 Zoning promotes the highest and best use of the subject property. We have the property under contract and are looking to figure out how to repurpose this and PO-1 Zoning gives us the flexibility of the short and the long term that we’re going to need to be able to deliver a first class commercial development on this site. We feel the highest and best use of the site is some form of professional office and based on its proximity to the interstate and the surrounding land uses, is really what attracted us to the site. If you look at this image up here on the screen, if you start at the top which is to the west, we feel that we are aligned with the current zoning and land uses. To the west is C-2 Zoning with the AMC Livonia 20 theater, there’s the Hyatt Place Hotel, and I’m not sure there’s other commercial uses there. To the north you can see, immediately to the north is a PO Zoning parcel, and on this further to the east across I-275 is OS and PO Zoning and on those are the one five-story building height ranges. And then if you look to the south across Seven Mile Road it’s also PO Zoning which is the Seven Mile Crossing office development of three four-story buildings. So looking at the surrounding land uses we believe that PO Zoning is aligned with the current immediate zoning in the neighboring properties. When we step back and look at the current zoning map for the City of Livonia, you can see that the current industrial zoning of the subject property is an island unto itself aside from the smaller give or take a one acre parcel west of that that has a historic building on it. The properties with industrial zoning are primarily located along the southern corner of I- 96 in the purple and peach colors that I’m sure you all know are the commercial uses and that’s why when we look at the overall context of the City of Livonia, we feel that we’re aligned with the overall zoning of the City. When you look at the City’s vision for Future Land Uses you can see that the zoning request is also consistent with this vision, being an office designation. The pink and red represent office and retail commercial uses. The Future Land Use map is consistent with what we just saw in the zoning map as industrial manufacturing uses are envisioned because it’s very low at the southern boundary of I-96. So again, we feel we’re aligned, not just from a zoning perspective with the Future Land Use Map. The subject property as previously mentioned is 35 acres and due to the size, it may have a multi-year phase development approach. This very preliminary concept plan on the screen indicates a potential adaptive reuse of some of the buildings, potentially all of the buildings and they may be used under a short or long term basis along with future development on 5 other portions of the site. We also at the same time considering demolishing those buildings and start it from scratch. The existing buildings range from one to three stories in height and to the extent that we were to use any of the buildings that are under three stories in height, we would seek a waiver from the City to allow to keep any existing one to two-story structure. I would like to point out that a portion of the existing structure which is the large existing warehouse building on there is where they are currently doing the manufacturing use. If we were to use any or all of that portion of the building, we would not be doing any manufacturing, we’d be consistent with the zoning but for the height being under three-stories and again, we would seek a waiver if we were to contemplate using that through the City but the manufacturing use could go away. As we progress through the rezoning process, we’ll continue to refine our development plan and we’ll be in a much better position to be able to present a site plan and specific intended uses for what we’re going to do. But we’ll also at the same working through our diligence, working with traffic engineers, understanding what the traffic flow is and conditions on the adjacent roadways and incorporate that into our site plan and how our traffic may impact and be able to optimize our ingress and egress points to be able to maximize safety and optimize vehicular as well. While we are too early in the process to show a site plan or specific renderings I would like to provide you with examples of the projects that we’ve embarked on throughout the country, give you context as to the scale and quality of the commercial development we envision for this property. On the slide is an 80,000 square foot four-story professional office building. Now, this is the 85,000 square foot four-story building and the next slide is a 120,000 square foot four-story building. This concludes my portion of the presentation but I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. Toy: Council, any questions for this gentleman? Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Thank you very much for looking to do work here in Livonia. Have you done work in the State of Michigan previously? Kelly: No, I have not. Our company has done some work in Michigan but I never have. Meakin: Can you bring us up to date with what’s going on with A123? 6 Kelly: Sure. They have a lease through May to occupy the building as a tenant and then they’re relocating off premises. Meakin: Have you been marketing that space currently? Kelly: We are starting on this building, we’ve had numerous conversations and we continue to have these discussions. We envision this to be a more competitive development and are embarking on numerous conversations at this point. Meakin: You’re really not looking for it as a manufacturing facility? Kelly: That’s correct. Meakin: Thank you. And if I could through the Chair, Mark, there’s a number of tax incentives that are involved with this property, do those stay or do those go with the new development? Taormina: Those go. The incentives were a combination of State and Federal Personal Property Exemption and those would be revoked or disappear once they vacate the site. Meakin: Sir, you said your company has other properties in Michigan, where are those? Kelly: That was before my tenure at the organization, so I really don’t know the specifics. Meakin: Are you foreseeing issues having two office buildings? Kelly: No. We would look to utilize the existing parking we have, but if we do we may come to the City about some parking variances but at this time we’re not far enough along in our development plan to be able to tell one way or the other. Meakin: So you haven’t even considered the parking at this point? Kelly: Correct. I think this is going to be a multi-phase development, so I’m sure it will be contemplated at some point, that’s my opinion on it. There are a lot of variables right now and it may not be worth it. Meakin: And are there any other contingencies you have on this property at this time? 7 Kelly: No. Just our, what we have is a preliminary contract and we would seek to get our zoning approval as part of our contingency for our contract. If we should not get it, or should we close on the property, we would put as part of our process that the zoning be reverted back to its current zoning or if we’re granted approval but don’t successfully close on the transaction. Meakin: Then I’ll go back to our Law Department, how do we do that? Bernier: My understanding is if the Council approves the change which is being requested, that will be it. I think if you want to go back to manufacturing again to the M-1, then you’d have to open it up all over again and do a whole new hearing. Meakin: We can always hold it until they get the approval. Bernier: Of course, between the First and Second Reading with no vote. But it can actually go through the process then hold it instead of starting all over again. Estey: Let me interject, if I could. Steve Estey, Counsel for the Applicant from Dykema. One of the things we discussed with Mark was offering a conditional rezoning agreement. And as part of the conditional rezoning agreement one of the conditions would be that if we did not close on the property, the zoning would remain as the current zoning status. So that was one method we were seeking to accomplish, but otherwise certainly without that if you were to approve it, it would go to the new zoning absent rezoning it back. So the Applicant is willing to enter into a conditional rezoning agreement that would allow this property to revert or to remain in its current zoning classification unless and until we close on the property, if that’s something that Council would like to entertain. Meakin: It could be advantageous to us to change the zoning to PO. Estey: Correct. Toy: Councilman Jolly, then Councilman Bahr. Jolly: Thank you, Madam President. Mark, who currently owns this property? Taormina: A company called – well, I’m not sure on the Holding, what the name of the Holding Company is, but it’s Sterling Group. Jolly: So this man is purporting to be the agent for the perspective buyer, is that correct? 8 Taormina: That is correct. Bahr: It’s pretty typical for us with something like this to have a First Reading and hold the Second Reading until we saw a site plan. Is a scenario like that sufficient with what you’re looking to do with your conditional contract? Kelly: Would we have time to have the opportunity to talk about what the schedule of the rezoning looks like and we may negotiate the land purchase contract accordingly so we have the time to prepare the site plans, submit it, and we will be able to talk about the specifics of the property and project at that time and then move on to the Second Reading before we move to close and be able to get our official zoning prior to our closing. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark, do you know what the vacancy is in the office space in that area right now? Taormina: The vacancy has dropped significantly so we’ve seen a substantial absorption in the office space in that particular area in the last year and a half, I don’t have the number in front of me. Certainly if this ever becomes a single purpose site and it does have significant attraction for corporate users, so both sites with that kind of mass are difficult to find right now, particularly along the expressway. Bahr: Just thinking about the different directions this could go, we went by there with the Haggerty Square with the upscale apartments going in there, is a mixed use of this site a possibility? Taormina: The answer is yes, it can be done under the PO Zoning. I’ll verify that but I don’t see any obstacles to apply the Article 20 Planned Unit Development Standards to this site in this case. We could see a mix of uses under the PO Zoning classification, not something that I believe is available under the M-1 but I’ll verify that prior to the voting meeting. Bahr: Okay. Meakin: If we’re offering conditional rezoning we aren’t limited by any classification of zoning then, is that correct? Taormina: I’m not sure I’m following your question. Meakin: As a part of a conditional rezoning offer, we’re not limited to any classification of zoning? 9 Taormina: Well, we’re limited --- if what you’re suggesting is you could change the classification to something less intense than PO-1, that option is still available to you. I will tell you that as to the suggested conditional rezoning agreement, this is precisely what Council did in the case of Menard’s. So when Menard’s acquired the site on Middlebelt Road, it was done with the understanding that the owner of the property, the underlying owner at the time, said that unless they close on the property, he wanted to retain the industrial zoning of that property. It was approved with that conditional zoning and within a week or so prior to that approval, while the zoning had not been effectuated, the closing occurred and once that occurred then the zoning was set in place. So what we’re really seeking to do exactly what we’ve done previously on the Menard’s site. Toy: You said you were doing a traffic study? Kelly: Yes, ma’am. Toy: I’m going to go to the audience and get comments at this time. Anyone wishing to address the subject matter on Item 1 that the Petitioner has brought forward? Gebhardt: Hello, Madam President, and Council members and Mayor and the fact that the City of Livonia is the greatest city in the world. We do a great job here. Toy: We need your name and address. Gebhardt: Joan Gebhardt, my address is 35248 Leon Street, Livonia, Michigan. I’m here both as a resident and also as a Trustee at Schoolcraft College. And at Schoolcraft College, I’m a volunteer like the members of the Planning Commission are, so I thank them for all their work on this item. I have a couple questions. Number one, I like the idea, Mr. Kelly, of a traffic study because I don’t know about you but Eight Mile and 275 is a traffic wreck and that’s moving south. And 275 and Seven Mile, it’s kind of the same problem. You know, the traffic is backed up on the entrances and exist of 275 and mile roads. Then Schoolcraft putting in the dome, we were concerned about being a good citizen and so we worked on the flood plane and we also worked on the traffic. And we petitioned Wayne County to put a light there and we paid for Ring Road to go to Six Mile and Seven Mile between those two areas. And so I think it’s really important to look at the traffic there and when Mr. Kelly was talking I heard him talk about Haggerty Road and I heard him talk Seven Mile Crossing, but he didn’t talk about Schoolcraft College. And that is a big area and a variable that I think would be considered because not just the traffic but also the safety of our teens. So I’m concerned about that. 10 I’m also concerned about what and Mr. Ventura questioned this during the Planning Commission meeting, about redefining the development plan, what’s going to go in there. And I realize that that hasn’t been set in stone yet but as I looked at the website and you know someone I hope will correct me if I’m wrong, that they talk about health care development. And health care facilities or health care systems, facilities and physicians. So I can only assume that that’s going to be what’s going in there is health care. I don’t know that for sure but I would imagine that somebody like Beaumont would love to come in and be the Petitioner for U of M there also on the corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty. So my question is I would hope that the Council would take this all into consideration for both the traffic study and the safety study. I like the idea about the condition zoning because I think that that needs to be done first, the traffic and safety study before we get to that second meeting. I also am going to be watching this closely because whether we go down Haggerty Road bumper to bumper right now from Six Mile to Eight Mile, or whether if we try to get off 275 at Seven Mile or Eight Mile, it’s a headache and I’m concerned about the traffic and the safety. Thank you very much. Toy: How many students do you presently enroll on your Livonia campus? Gebhardt: We have to mesh those figures because we have full-time students who are now getting certificates and degrees. We also have quite a few senior citizens who come to the area in our CEPD, Continuing Education Course, and those senior citizens fight over whose going to get into the arthritis yoga classes and they stand in line to see who will get into their swimming class, so I’m not just talking about young students here, like 18 year olds, I’m talking about senior senior citizens who complain about there’s not enough parking spots for the handicapped seniors that are there. Toy: So about 9,000? Gebhardt: Oh, at least. We have 9,000 just in our full-time students. Toy: So at any given day or time other than maybe Saturdays and Sundays, you have a whole load going over there? Gebhardt: Different times that we experience more traffic than others, like 8:00 a.m. really is difficult, but it’s also real difficult to cross the street at U of M too at that time, that’s when they’re really busy. So that traffic study I think is really important and you know the zoning right now is in abeyance for a while until an official study is done. 11 Toy: Thank you for coming here tonight. But it is a concern and as you alluded to, I think Councilman Bahr mentioned it, we do have a facility going in it looks like with some kind of more retail down that way. Thank you for stepping up to the plate here. Gebhardt: Thank you. Toy: Anyone else wishing to comment on this petition? Jolly: Yes. In response to what Ms. Gebhardt said, typically we have held Second Reading until we have a site plan? I think we have oftentimes considered but not demanded a traffic study be done. Meakin: There has been traffic studies done from the other group as well and previous studies on Haggerty as well. So there’s been a number of traffic studies and there’s plans Ring Road on this side as well. These are all considerations that have been addressed and we’ll continue to address. Gephardt: If I can, Madam President, in this discussion it brought up a question in my mind. Like I told you at Schoolcraft, we developed the Ring Road so that we could go between Six and Seven and not even get on Haggerty. I’m assuming that this development, where 123 was, they could get out both on Seven Mile and on Haggerty just going around like the back door. But is there a back door where that new development is going to be? Meakin: They’re looking at that as well because they want that road to get to Eight Mile without going out on Haggerty. Gebhardt: And those people trying to get out of Costco like me, that there isn’t some light there, it’s crazy trying to turn left or go south on Haggerty and that’s the area that we’re talking about, correct? Meakin: Correct. Gephardt: Thank you. Toy: You’re very welcome. To the Petitioner, anything else before we move forward? Kelly: No, ma’am. Toy: Just one other comment, you said you don’t have a user in mind, correct? Kelly: We don’t have any specific agreements with anybody at this time. Toy: But you’re talking to folks? 12 Kelly: We’re talking to quite a few, yes. Toy: Okay, fine. Meakin: Madam President? Toy: Yes, please, go ahead. Meakin: I’m going to offer an approving resolution just to move this forward to the next process because it’s going to take some time to change the zoning. If we can help you in any capacity, with leads or something like that, potential businesses that may move in, we’d be happy to help you with that. Anything we can do to help you. This is exciting information and we want to make it a success. Kelly: I appreciate that. And we’re working hard to get some more potential agreements in place and we would certainly welcome that opportunity to meet with you and the Mayor to help with our tenants. Meakin: But you’re adding two more buildings and you’re hearing some concerns already with the traffic at Seven and by adding two more buildings and you’re adding more office space, there’s going to be more presence and more cars. Kelly: We’re looking to address it and addressing our uses and how that may impact it. Meakin: Best of luck to you. Kelly: Appreciate it. th Toy: And that will be heard on Monday, December 17. Thank you very much. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:31 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK