City
of South Lyon
Chairman
Weipert called
the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m.
All
present recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Present: Commissioners
Culbertson, Weipert, Mosier, Bradley, Kurtzweil
and Lanam. Commissioners Subotich and Tartaglia were excused. There was one
vacancy.
Also
present were Ben Tallerico (Planning Consultant), Kristen Cunningham, Director
of Community and Economic Development.
Approval
of Agenda:
Motion by Bradley, supported by Lanam
Vote
Motion Carried Unanimously
Approval
of Minutes:
Motion
by Culbertson, supported by Mosier
To
approve of the Minutes for September 28, 2006 as amended.
No
public comment.
Final
Site Plan Review – Alexander Center – PC#01-04
Brian
Biskner of 8720 Rushview Drive, Pickney MI was present on behalf of the
applicant along with Bill Jarrett the project’s architect.
Weipert
stated she wanted to clarify a couple of items from the letter to the city dated
September 29, 2006 which stated the Planning Commission approved a couple of
issues in 2004. The Planning
Commission approved the preliminary site plan however that means the site is
feasible and when she read the minutes from that meeting the applicant stated
concern regarding formalizing an agreement for the easement. The Commission was
also concerned regarding the tree count, parking, the location of the dumpsters,
and the loading zone. There were many issues that needed to be addressed in the
final site plan. Preliminary approval was granted with the understanding those
items would be addressed for final approval.
Jarrett
stated the parking was approved based on the calculations and every time the
parking comes up but the Commission says it will be fine as long as there are
not any complaints. A tree count was conducted and then they were informed the
trees had to be identified. A tree survey was completed. Weipert asked if the
trees were tagged which is required by the zoning ordinance. Jarrett replied he
did not know if they have been identified by a horticulturist; they went by what
the Planning Commission and the previous planner told him. Jarrett continued by
stating the whole site is very simple and is becoming more difficult. The items
left to address are very minor. The amount of parking was approved and this
process is unfair. Weipert stated the issues have been discussed. Jarrett stated
it is his belief the process is not fair because of the amount of money spent to
redraft everything.
Lanam
noted the question is the calculation of the parking. Jarrett stated that is
fine, his point is the questioning the number of spots and discussing the light
fixture drawing. He explained he had difficulty scanning the detailed drawing so
he attached it to the plan. Cunningham stated the final plan is what is
constructed so it must be complete. Including details, not stapling them, is
required. Jarrett noted that the same as other cities. Cunningham stated it must
be legible and in the plan. Applicants should know what they want to do and
include it in the plans. Jarrett stated there are items that have been added.
Lanam
stated the building department does not read the Planning Commission’s meeting
minutes; the details must be on the plans. These items have been asked for and
they are not fixed. Jarrett apologized for his frustration but these are new
items that have been brought up. Weipert stated these are not new items. They
have been discussed at each appearance. Jarrett stated he does not know if the
tags are still on the trees. Weipert noted in the minutes from June and November
2004 he was specifically told about the tree survey.
Tallerico
stated he has not seen anything new since his last review. In that review he did
not stated they did not meet the requirement on parking, only that it was an
unusual calculation but if the city has no problem with the calculation that
that is fine. Regarding the light plans, when something is stapled it can fall
off and become lost, his job is to point out these things. He would like to see
the light plan done properly. For the record, he is not aware of a city that
accepts details stapled to the plans. Going back to the comments dated September
28, 2006 if the city wants to approve the parking, just note it, also signage
must conform. It is his experience that developers will say something will be
corrected and then do not follow though. The final site plans become a legal
document and need to be treated that way. Weipert asked for more information
regarding the landscape plan and a right-of-way. Tallerico stated he has not
seen anything additional. Weipert asked if there is a deficit of landscaping.
Tallerico replied that is correct. Weipert asked what they need to do to meet
the 15-foot wide landscape buffer requirement. Tallerico stated he believes they
put in the 5-foot wall instead of the buffer area. Jarrett responded that is
correct. Tallerico noted because of the parking limitations they can not fit the
15-foot buffer. Jarrett stated the landscape architect thought they had enough
landscaping.
Culbertson
asked what the type of tree is numbered 3 on sheet A1. One sheet LA1 the number
three tree is noted as an elm. Jarrett replied it is marked as a butternut.
Culbertson stated which one is correct because one tree is valuable and one is
not. Jarrett stated sheet LA1 was completed by the landscape architect but he
completed sheet A1 so he assumed LA1 is correct but he will have to find out for
certain. Weipert noted in November 2004 that tree was discussed because the hope
was to save it during construction. Jarrett stated is the wall will not be able
to go in if the tree needs to be saved. Biskner noted they want to save as many
trees as possible. Jarrett stated he does not know how the tree could be saved
with that wall and the wall is required. Weipert asked if the wall connects to
the mobile home park wall. Biskner stated the wall is tough because it is right
to the property line so the footing would go over the property line. He believes
the retaining basin easement is very close to be completed and through that
process he does not see why they could not make arrangements to connect the
walls. Weipert asked if the fence is moved could the tree be saved. Biskner
stated no, it is only a couple of feet difference, not enough to be significant.
In his experience the only way to save the tree is to end the wall and use the
trees for screening. Lanam asked if the basin could take out those trees even
without the wall. Biskner stated absolutely but the roots will be staked out and
there are some options that can be handled during the construction to limit the
risk. Weipert asked if he means by stopping the wall short the tree could be
saved. Biskner replied possibly, the basin is still a risk but the wall would
guarantee losing the tree, stopping the wall only give the tree a chance.
Weipert asked what the wall will look like. Jarrett replied it will be a block
wall.
Weipert
asked if the applicant brought a materials board. Jarrett replied no. Weipert
noted at the last meeting the Commission asked for one. Jarrett commented he
dropped the ball on that request.
Culbertson
asked what the decision was on signage. Jarrett replied there will not be any
signage. Culbertson asked if the plans reflect that. Weipert replied they do and
read the note on the plans.
Culbertson
asked if the applicant has read the comments from Hubbell, Roth, and Clark.
Biskner replied he has and he has met with them several times. The engineering
concerns have been addressed. Culbertson asked how he reconciles his vote with
comments a recommendation from them not to approve the plans. Biskner explained
when the letter was written the easement was not submitted to the city, since
then it has been submitted and has been notarized. There were some minor changes
to the wording that have been requested and that is being worked on now. The
agreement has been established except for some legalese the rest of their
feedback was normal engineering issues. Cunningham stated she does know that Mr.
Biskner has been working with Hubbell, Roth, and Clark and she is confident the
easement will be finalized because they can not start construction without it.
Weipert
asked if there needs to be a continuous concrete sidewalk. Biskner stated it has
been extended and is on a revised version of the plans.
Tallerico
read from the city code regarding the right of the Planning Commission to waive
some of the requirements and leave them to the city to manage however it wants
to make certain the landscape plans are complete and if a requirement can not be
met there needs to be an explanation. He would like to make certain all
conditions from the 2004 letter are addressed. If something can not be done then
there must be an explanation why even if it is perfectly reasonable. Tallerico
also read the code regarding the 15-foot buffer. Jarrett stated this was the
first time he heard that and thought it was discussed but decided it was not
needed for this project. Tallerico stated it was discussed in the 2004 comments
and referenced again in comments from this year. Jarrett stated he would simply
like to get construction going this fall. If the only issues are regarding
Hubbell, Roth, and Clark and the materials board then he would like to see
approval with those conditions. Weipert stated she would like to see the revised
plans. Jarrett noted that will have to go through another review process which
will take another two months. This process is getting a point where it is
expensive. It is a simple addition. Kurtzweil noted she does not believe the
Planning Commission processes are the problem. Jarrett stated is asking for help
because it is just a couple of items. Kurtzweil stated they are important items.
She continued by noting she is a stickler for appearance and hopes the applicant
takes advantage of the opportunity to dress up the site. Jarrett stated they are
meeting the ordinance and beyond. There was a general discussion regarding a
development in Green Oak and the ordinance requirements.
Weipert
asked if there was a deficit of landscaping. Tallerico stated he has not seen
the drawings. It is a simple process that does need to be in the plans or
explained in the plans. Final approval needs to have complete plans. If it is an
issue that can be handled administratively, i.e. the easement, then fine but the
rest of the plans need to be complete. Biskner stated the document before the
Commission is not what is being approved however if the state subject two then
it is public record which gives the city legal power to hold them to the revised
drawings. He noted he has also seen final approval subject to consultant
approval. Jarrett commented items like the 15-foot buffer were discussed. Mosier
stated the point is the plan does not explain why something is not there.
Tallerico stated that is correct because there is room for it so the burden is
on the applicant to explain the problem. Jarrett believes the process is not
fair. Tallerico stated the concerns were brought up in letters from 2004 and
again in 2006.
Motion
by Kurtzweil supported by Lanam
To
deny Final
Site Plan Review – Alexander Center – PC#01-04
Vote
MOTION CARRIED Unanimously
Jarrett
asked if the project could be tabled. Biskner asked if the motion could be
addressed. Cunningham replied the applicant should submit the revised plans and
she will discuss it with them directly.
Motion
by Bradley supported by Culbertson
To
cancel the meetings on the fourth Thursday of November and December.
Vote
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Staff
Reports
Motion
by Culbertson supported by Bradley
To
adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
Vote
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
_____________________
_ ____________________
_______
Pam
Weipert, Chairperson
Jennifer Knapp, Recording Secretary
________________________
Keith
Bradley, Secretary