Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2022-02-23 - Rezone - Pet. 2021-11-01-10 - Schoolcraft CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Wednesday, February 23, 2022 ___________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the Livonia City Hall Auditorium on Wednesday, February 23, 2022. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Jolly, President Laura Toy, Vice President (audio only)* Brandon McCullough Scott Morgan MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Bahr Rob Donovic Kathleen McIntyre OTHERS PRESENT: Leo Neville, Assistant City Attorney Mark Taormina, Planning and Economic Dev. Director Sara Kasprowicz, Recording Secretary *Laura Toy called in via phone, pursuant to ADA The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Jim Jolly presiding. This item is regarding Petition 2021-11-01-10 submitted by Schoolcraft College, pursuant to Sections 13.13 and 13.15 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, requesting to rezone the property at 13001 Merriman Road, located on the west side of Merriman Road between Glendale Avenue and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast ¼ of Section 27, from M-2, General Manufacturing to P-L, Public Lands. This item will move to the Regular Meeting of March 14, 2022. The Public Hearing is now open. There were 4 persons in the audience. Jolly: Three of the items have the same petitioner, so if there is no objection, I’m going to call the items 1, 2 and 3, all at the same time. I will read them off, if the representative from Schoolcraft would approach the podium while I am doing so, I would appreciate that. Before we get started, I’ll just remind the Council here that this is a public hearing. The primary purpose of this hearing is for the public to speak in regards to these items. We’ll go to Mr. Taormina to start with the initial presentation, then to Schoolcraft College, then to any public comment, then to the Council. Mr. Taormina? Taormina: Thank you, Mr. President. This petition and the two (2) that follow it involve amendments to the zoning map. All three (3) affect properties that are owned by Schoolcraft Community College. Two (2) of the three (3) properties are located south of Schoolcraft’s main campus on Haggerty Road, while the third is at one of the college’s satellite facilities on Merriman Road in the City’s industrial corridor. All three would change the zoning to P-L, Public Land, which treats educational uses, universities and colleges, including the ancillary uses and facilities as permitted uses, and would be consistent with the zoning classification for most of the college’s properties, which are currently in use for educational purposes. The first petition involves land that is on the south side of the college’s south parking lot. This parcel here. The zoning would change from C-1, Local Business, to P-L, Public Land. This site has roughly 2.45 acres in area. It is currently vacant and is formally described as Unit 15, College Park Condominium. The second parcel is the smallest of the three. This measures just under a ½ acre in size and is located on the north side of College Parkway. The request would change the zoning here from C-4, Highrise Commercial. This site is also undeveloped and was formally described as Unit 11, College Park Condominium. The third would change the zoning from M-2, General Manufacturing. Located at the northwest corner of Merriman and Glendale. This site is the farthest from the main campus. This is an approximate 3-acre parcel. It is the location of the college’s most recently established Manufacturing and Engineering Center, which houses a variety of technical and special trades programs for the college, including Computer Aid and Design, Engineering Electronics Advanced Manufacturing Energy Plastic-Type Technology, Robotics and others. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the rezoning in all three cases. Thank you. Jolly: Petitioner, can you give us brief description as to why you seek to rezone these properties? Aoun: Sure. Kevin Aoun on behalf of Schoolcraft Community College. So, what we’re doing right now, is taking land that is currently not zoned public land that we intend to use for just school-related purposes. What this does, is it narrows the scope of how these properties can be used. That’s why we’re doing this. We view this as something that’s a little bit more administrative. We don’t have a true plan for two (2) out of the three (3) locations. One of them is already fully built out. The two vacant ones that are up on the screen right now, Unit 11 and Unit 15, there is no true plan, but we’re running out of space on our campus. What we’re trying to do, is to say, ‘how can we maximize the land that we own right now?’ For this kind of oddball piece that is at the bottom, which is number two (2) on the petition, that would be Unit 11. That one, it’s a very odd-shaped parcel, so the thought right now, the prevailing thought is potentially a storage facility. We’re trying to maximize the other aspects of campus. It’s not cemented in plans, but what else could we really use that for? It has very limited parking, very limited access. It’s kind of orphaned from the rest of campus so it would be more for maintenance and warehouse kind of items. Again, just a thought. For the other one that’s contiguous with our other Public Lands in the childcare center that is there, that childcare center is a little bit Page 2 of 4 older, so we’re kind of looking and saying, ‘is that something we should be redeveloping and remodeling? Should we move it to a different location so then we have bigger space there to do something else?’ We’ve had a ton of development, a ton of growth on campus in the past ten (10) years. That’s kind of the next parcel where we ask how we can maximize that. We don’t have a true plan for it, but we want to get this done administratively right now. For the other one, It’s just a cleanup piece for the MEC building. That one is fully built out. It’s down there being used solely for school related purposes. If you haven’t toured it, please do, it’s fantastic. This facility is state-of-the-art, it’s a good feeder program for businesses in the area. It’s good for developing trades, which is helping put people in jobs, where there are needs in the community. The MEC building, again, it’s just administrative, it’s used solely for school purposes so it’s consistent with the zoning of Public Land. Jolly: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak to items 1, 2 or 3 on the agenda, the Schoolcraft items? For the record, there is no public approaching the podium, there is no one waiting to speak to Council. Anyone on Council have any questions? Mr. McCullough? McCullough: No questions, but I’m prepared to make a motion to, can I package these, or should I do them one at a time? You can package them as long as the record is clear. I’ll offer an approving for items 1, 2 and 3. Jolly: So that is three separate approving on items 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Morgan, do you have anything? Ms. Toy, do you have anything to add? Toy: No, I’m glad you’re using the property, that’s great. Jolly: Thank you. I just have one question, in regards to these lands off of Haggerty Road. Are you abandoning the commercial intention that was initially established or do you expect, at some point in the future, to potentially come back to seek commercial classification? Aoun: Our intention is not to come back for commercial classification. If that was our intention, we wouldn’t bother going through the process. It’s a fair question, right? We pulled it out and we had a developer lined up. The developer actually, pretty much gave the property back to us as a result of not being able to come to use for it. Since we’re getting it back, we said let’s put it in Public Land, so we can use it for ourselves. If we ever wanted to make it a commercial property, to be truly used for non-school related purposes, I think we’d have to come back for this whole process and unwind it. I think the question right now, are we abandoning it, yes. Jolly: Ok. The second question for Mr. Taormina. By passing these as public lands, in particular, the southern portion, the southern plot there, which has been now petitioned to be Public Land, yes, if they want to develop that for a school-use Page 3 of 4 purpose, would they have to seek a site plan approval from us if this were Public Land, or no? Taormina: Not likely. As long as it’s affiliated with the campus, it would be treated as permitted use with no required site plan review. There may be some exceptions to that, if it’s not listed or falls outside of college purposes. The chance that, to answer your question, very likely chance it would not require some type of review. Jolly: The only reason I bring that up is because obviously a lot of investment has taken place on either side of this property and I would hope that if you do develop it into a storage facility, that it would be tastefully done as to not detract from the other businesses around there. Aoun: That would only hurt us if we did something in a negative light. If you look at any of our other buildings, we’re winning awards for what we’re putting into them and how we’re doing it and doing it a state-of-the-art fashion. Just to comment, historically, we’ve always come before the City of Livonia, we view you as a partner when we do this. We have review and comment for when we do build out buildings, such as this. So, this way, everyone is in line with the development of the space itself. Again, we would bring that for review and comments with the city. Jolly: I appreciate everything, I appreciate everything you said here tonight. Because this is my habit of doing, I think your colleague is probably expecting this, we view you as a partner as well, the way in which the signage is hanging on the dome, I’ll say, from my perspective, is not a very partner-like. With that being said, if there is no one from the community or anybody on Council who wants to say anything else, we’ll close these public hearings. You have approvals for the meeting, thank you. Aoun: For what particular meeting? Jolly: That’s on the meeting of March 14th. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:12 p.m. Page 4 of 4