Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - PH 2016-03-28 - LANG - SELF STORAGE CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, March 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, March 28, 2016. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen E. McIntyre, President Brandon M. Kritzman, Vice President (arrived 7:08) Scott Bahr Maureen Miller Brosnan Jim Jolly Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning Don Knapp, City Attorney Bonnie J. Murphy, CER-2300, Certified Electronic Recorder This is a Public Hearing submitted by the City Planning Commission, Petition 2016-01- 06-01, pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03 of Article XI to allow indoor climate controlled self-storage facilities as a waiver. The City Clerk has served a true copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to those owners of real property by way of notice in the Livonia Observer. The Public Hearing is now open for comments. Please state clearly your name and address before making your comments. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Kathleen McIntyre presiding. There was no audience. Taormina: Madam President. McIntyre: Yes. Taormina. If you’ll allow, I can provide kind of a brief explanation for the record. McIntyre: That would be excellent and much appreciated. Taormina: Really this proposed language amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission mostly in response to the recent rezoning of the Cloverlanes property and the main purpose would be to amend the C-2 District 2 regulations to allow climate controlled indoor self-storage facilities as a waiver use in the C-2 District. Currently warehouses in any form are allowed only within industrial districts, so that would include the M-1 and the M-2 Districts, as well as the ML (Light Manufacturing). In the case of the former Cloverlanes property which is zoned entirely C-2 (General Business), the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested – McIntyre: Mark, I’m sorry. M-1, M-2 and what else? Taormina: ML. McIntyre: ML? Taormina: Yes. McIntyre: Okay. Taormina: They requested then M-1 Zoning as a means of allowing of indoor storage, which if it was rezoned it would be treated as a permitted use. The other proposed use of the property which is the outdoor storage of RV vehicles, recreational vehicles, would not be affected by the language change. As you know Council gave First Reading to the rezoning a couple of weeks ago and the site plan and limited use petition has been filed with the Department and it is scheduled for review at the Planning Commission th Meeting of April 19. This proposed draft amendment was prepared by the Planning staff, with input from the Planning Commission, it includes a number of special land use conditions that would have to be met in order to obtain final approval. And I’ll just say in the case of Cloverlanes there’s really no ideal situation that would allow for the combination of uses on that property. Even if this ordinance were to be adopted, it still wouldn’t address the issue of the recreational vehicle storage. So either way a use variance would have to be approved to allow that aspect of the use on the property or it would have to be rezoned a combination of C-2 and one of the industrial classifications. But some of the key aspects of this ordinance include requiring the building to be constructed of maintenance free materials such as brick and stone and it would have to be designed to be architecturally compatible with the other commercial buildings in the area. 3 Again, this is really, because this is the type of use that we don’t ordinarily see in commercial districts the idea would be to make sure that it is compatible within those designated areas. Customer access to the units would be limited to the interior of the building so this would reduce or eliminate the number of exterior overhead doors and it would also reduce the possible disturbances to the neighbors and make the building more compatible to any commercial or retail environment. And so there’s really two types of these uses, the one that we approved at Grand River and Inkster you’ll recall was really cold storage and customer access to most of those units would be from outside. They’re one story, kind of low rise building. Whereas these indoor climate controlled buildings and I’m sure you’ve all seen them before can be multiple stories in height and typically there’s elevators that allow customers to gain access to those storage units. There would only be one storage building allowed per site, hours of operation would be limited and then the storage units would be for storage purposes only. We have specific language in the draft ordinance that would prohibit any kind of business or recreational activities or a manufacturing assembly, etc., within the units. So with that, Madam Chair, I’ll answer any questions that you may have at this time. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Bahr: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Yes, Mr. Bahr. Bahr: Mark, so the place that it is up at Grand River and Inkster, is that correct? Taormina: Correct. Bahr: What was the zoning of that again? Taormina: That was ML, I believe, either ML or M-1, I’d have to go back and take a look. It was rezoned, it was conditional zoning similar to what is being proposed at the Cloverlanes property. Bahr: Is it typical, I know Livonia to this point these have been allowed in the M-1, M-2, ML; is that typical for other cities as well? I’m just picturing a number of storage facilities on Grand River in Farmington Hills that would 4 not appear to be a heavy manufacturing district. I’m just curious, what’s the typical as you go from city to city, are these usually in manufacturing zoning? Taormina: Mostly in manufacturing zones but many communities have allowed these within their commercial zoning classification subject to special approval, usually including a number of conditions similar to what we have. We kind of looked at various ordinances and compiled many of the restrictions based on those and based on our discussions here with our projects. Bahr: And then my last question is and this is a little bit of hindsight but you said something and it made me think maybe I had misunderstood something previously, with what you did with Cloverlanes, would that have been possible under a variance with the Zoning Board of Appeals under the C-2 classification for them to do what they’re doing over there with the RV storage? Taormina: Well, yes, it’s possible, it would be difficult, I think, you know the Zoning Board of Appeals in considering a request of that nature would have to first determine that no plausible use would be permitted within that C-2 zoning classification at that location. So, I don’t know that they could come to that conclusion ultimately so I think that that was probably – if we did those discussions very early on in the consideration of this as to whether the appropriate course of action would be to send it to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance request and then discussing this with Don and Mike I think we felt that no, conditional rezoning made better sense than what was done at Grand River and Inkster. Bahr: Okay. And that’s consistent with what I remember but I just wanted to be sure that I understood that correctly. All right, thanks. Meakin: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Yes, Meakin: Mark, is it your recommendation then that we make the change or should we keep it as it was and use the conditional zoning opportunities that we have? Taormina: Well, you know, that ball is kind of rolling for that particular property, we’re already at this stage. In considering whether or not to adopt this language for future development purposes I think you should give it some consideration. I think we’ve worded the language that it gives the city very tight control over this type of use. There may very well be circumstances in the future where we would like to consider this type of use within the 5 C-2 District. We’ve written the language such that it could actually be a component part to a retail development. You know, keep in mind we have several medium to large format retail buildings that oftentimes go unused for long periods of time and one of the discussions we had is well, would this type of use make good sense for the back part of a large retail building, maybe the building was too deep to be used and its re-use would be more likely on a shallower certain portion of the building, shallower depth. They wouldn’t need two or 300 feet of building depth and maybe it makes sense for the back portion of the building to be used for this type of use. So you could get full use of the building and include that as a possible mix of uses within a retail complex. Meakin: That brings more concern to me because I’d rather, any storage unit had to come to the Council for our determination. I don’t want to be able to say okay it fits our zoning ordinance and they can just pop up. I still want them coming before the Council to get approval. Taormina: And again, this is, when we presented this to the Planning Commission it was with the option of either treating this as a permanent use or as a special use, waiver use, and it was determined that waiver use would be the best course of action because of the control that is offered through the review process. Meakin: Yes, control is very important in this particular classification. Madam President. McIntyre: Thank you. Councilwoman Brosnan. Brosnan: Thanks, Madam Chair. You know this is one I struggle with and on a number of fronts. And the first question I’m asking myself is how much of a need is there for this. And I understand and it was really presented in the last two petitions that we had, actually the last three petitions that we had, that there is going to be a growing need for storage facilities just in the nature of our lives and what we do and how much stuff we all tend to accumulate. But the struggle that I’m having is that we do have a significant portion of our community that is already zoned light manufacturing, M-1 and M-2 along major thoroughfares. And it does appear that visibility is a part of what drives these storage facilities. And we need to know that they don’t need to just be tucked back somewhere. But I look along Schoolcraft Road and I see unused facility space there that could be in my estimation reconstructed to meet the needs of a storage facility. Along Eight Mile we have some industrial space there. Back along Plymouth Road is industrial space between Plymouth and Schoolcraft that presents opportunities for others and I think could present opportunities for future developers who wish to develop off this line. So then I ask myself, well, if we already have a zoning that permits this and a 6 zoning that exists where visibility is, then along the lines of Councilman Meakin’s question, you know that if we permit this in C-2 I think what it does is it doesn’t encourage people to move into those areas. It opens more opportunity up for storage facilities to locate in places. And granted, we would oversight and control of that but we already do to some degree. In the same way that we’re trapped with the Cloverlanes there, a great example to have as we enter into this discussion, you know, we are finding ourselves in a position where granted, they don’t fit the exact parameters of the ordinance but we’re going to find a way to work around that because that does seem to be for them the ideal location. I’m just wondering what the big benefit to us as a community is opening more space up in our community for storage facilities. Whether in fact it will increase or change at all the tax revenues that we currently bring in if the land is fully used as commercial property. And for me changes of zoning needs to do those things. They need to one, fill a need that we’re not able to fill currently; or two, they need to change the zoning so that it changes the tax implications for the community. I’m not so certain that doing this is going to accomplish those two things. I think it will provide additional opportunities for developers, but maybe not help us to use those opportunities that we currently have to our fullest. Because there is plenty, in my estimation, there is plenty of space in the manufacturing district in highly visible areas right now so I really am torn, I have not, clearly not made up my mind yet but those are the questions I’m asking so thank you. McIntyre: Thank you. Mr. Jolly. Jolly: Thank you. McIntyre: Excuse me, I want to note also that Councilman Kritzman arrived at 7:08. Jolly: Mark, the situation that you described earlier in terms of using the rear of a building, what’s an example of that in our community that you could foresee possibly where this would work. Taormina: Well, there are some commercial properties on Plymouth Road rather deep building space that might be suitable for that. I know that that was a concern at times for the building up at Seven Mile and Middlebelt, the former Farmer Jack’s location. Often times people would look at the space that was adjacent to Farmer Jack’s and say well, we don’t need a building this large, we could use the front part and that would leave the rear part of that building unused. So, there is some of that, I’m not saying that there’s an overwhelming number of properties that would fit those conditions but it could happen, I could see it happening to get full utilization of a building such as that. 7 Jolly: So probably less that than ten instances? Taormina: Yes, you know there are – it’s difficult to say. Probably. Jolly: Thank you. McIntyre: I agree with my colleague’s comments that I’m not sure if I’m ready to approve this yet. I think it needs more studying, whether we really need to make this change or not. Mark, I’d ask you for your direction, do we want to see what happens at the Planning Commission or do you want us to put it into the Legislative Committee since there’s no other place to put it? Taormina: Well, I’m not sure that the Planning Commission can offer anything additional at this point. I will tell you that I think the problem the Planning Commission had with this latest proposal at the Cloverlanes property was the introduction of the M-1 zoning. This is a matter of principle in that particular location so they struggled with that more than anything, whether or not it was appropriate to present a potentially conflicting land use situation so close to residential. And maybe it’s because the conditional rezoning that we’re operating under on that site and other sites hasn’t really been tested to the fullest degree. So they felt that this would have been an appropriate course for that site particularly if it was determined that the RV storage aspect was not something the City wanted to see at that location. So I think they were, there was the thought at times that they were very supportive of the concept of an indoor climate controlled facility on that property, they weren’t so supportive of the RV storage and in fact they felt that if it was going to be solely used for indoor climate controlled storage that why wouldn’t we want to then incorporate that language within the C-2 District. So, that’s where I think there’s a struggle as it relates to that particular property. Meakin: I’ll off that resolution to put this into Legislative Committee for further study. McIntyre: Thank you. There’s a resolution from Councilman Meakin to put that into the Legislative Committee. Vice President Kritzman. Kritzman: Thank you, Madam Chair. First I want to apologize to everyone for the late seating, I did not have this on my calendar so I appreciate someone reaching out to me. And I missed a little bit of discussion up front but I am comfortable with putting this as a waiver use in the Commercial District. When you look at some of the more – picture a concept of a mixed use building that utilizes say in the second story or third story for storage but the first level is offices 8 or a restaurant, a little café space. Things that wouldn’t typically need a second or third story to it but the location perhaps whether you’re looking at whether you’re looking at a form based code situation which we don’t really employ here or you’re just looking at an area where a greater number of storage is a little more accessible. The storage could be a secondary sort of use to the building and it could create an environment, you could design it in such a way that those first floor functions are very pedestrian, very typical of a C-2 zoning district but the access to the second and third story could be a storage. So I think a lot of it comes, to me anyways, a lot of it comes down to how the building is designed and so allowing this sort of possibility in a C-2 creates those opportunities for developers to think a little more creatively while still maintaining some measure of control for Council to be determining the appropriateness on a case by case basis. So that’s just my quick thought on that. Taormina: And that was really the intent of condition number 11 of the draft language so, we wrote that specifically to allow for that type of circumstance. McIntyre: I have a question and a point of clarification. From a tax revenue does it make any difference whether we have storage or whether we have retail? Taormina: Well, I think that issue, that question was addressed by the Assessor in connection with the Cloverlanes property, I think the question was asked relative to what were the tax implications between the change of zoning versus the uses. And her response was what drives the value more than anything is the actual use and not the zoning. McIntyre: Mr. Bahr. Bahr: A little thing to tack on that, I think it’s a fair question because what we saw with the Cloverlanes thing is, at least what I listened to, there is a huge advantage sitting before you, a huge advantage. There is a huge advantage in the future uses of the property versus what it had been. And maybe it’s a little bit different question than Kathleen asked, when we’re looking at the prospect of taking existing commercial zoned property and using it for this versus another type of commercial development, I think that’s not what you’re asking --- McIntyre: No, it isn’t. Bahr: And there I don’t know if we did have that question answered but I would imagine that the taxes from a storage facility like this would be pretty similar to what a commercial type operation would be. I would think it would be six of one, half dozen of the other. I don’t know that, but I’m just saying that that’s the question that we got answered a couple weeks ago. 9 We saw the difference between M-1 and C-2 in this case but she’s saying commercial versus – retail space versus storage space. Taormina: I’d have to go back and take a look at the response but I believe she provided some estimations of what the value would be but I don’t know that there was a direct comparison with other types of retail uses. The question though of whether the value would be different if you had a self-storage facility in an M-1 District versus a self-storage facility in a C-2 District, that wouldn’t matter. McIntyre: Or the difference between a retail versus self-storage on the same site and I think you’d end up in a revenue, pretty close to a similar revenue. Taormina: Yes, and that would depend on the form of retail, big box retail, we’ve all seen what’s happened to valuations of those so it could be very comparable quite frankly, you know. Brosnan: Just one final comment, Madam Chair, and it really goes again to the 524 that we use the property and that when you see these storage facilities go up, they’re taking a certain amount of space and taking it out of play from what I’ve always considered traditional retail where there is – you know there are people, there’s an energy, there’s a synergy that’s created. And I think to Vice President Kritzman’s comments, you know I think what he’s talking about is extremely creative. I just don’t often think that that’s what people bring to us. I think they look at it and say here is X amount of space that’s now available in the City of Livonia that could potentially be used as storage space. Once it becomes a storage unit it takes all of that area out of the community for that type of synergy and energy and additional people coming and going in the community and perhaps shopping and buying and doing things elsewhere that I think is the intent of commercial space and so that’s part also of what I’m wrestling with. McIntyre: Okay, anyone else? We’ll now go to the audience, does anyone in the audience have anything further to add? Seeing none, I’d just to inform everyone that this item will be heard at the regular meeting that is th scheduled for Monday April 18, 2016. With that we’re adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Thank you As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:54 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK