City
of South Lyon
Chairman Weipert
called the meeting to
order at 7:03 p.m.
All
present recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Present:
Commissioners Tartaglia,
Leimbach, Weipert, Mosier, Kurtzweil,
and Lanam. Commissioners Culbertson and
Bradley were excused. Commissioner Subotich was
absent.
Also present were Ben
Tallerico (Planning Consultant), Kristen
Cunningham, Director of Community and Economic Development
Approval of Agenda:
Cunningham suggested the order of agenda items be flipped so that new business
would be first.
Motion by Mosier, supported by Lanam
Vote
Motion Carried Unanimously
Approval of Minutes:
Motion by Lanam,
supported by Leimbach
To approve of the
Minutes for April 10, 2008 as amended.
There was no public comment.
Rezoning Request – 40 acres at the north end of Mill Street – IRO-RM-1
Susan Friedlander introduced herself as a representative for the owner, Ron
Cook. The property owner was also present.
She stated the request was for a conditional rezoning and explained the
state changed the law for site specific zoning. The city may look at a
conceptual plan and may negotiate conditions for the site. Already the
conceptual plan proposed has evolved. The RM-1 was chosen because it would be a
combination of single-family attached and detached condominiums on the site.
This development would use the single-family cluster housing density allowing
the owners to offer 130-160 units. The ultimate development would depend on the
conditions of the site as construction begins and would include 15-20% open
space because of the wetlands. Tree preservation would be more than the
ordinance requires with the intent to conserve more sensitive areas of the site.
The development would also include a link to the natural trails and surrounding
neighborhoods for the Huron Trail.
Friedlander described the properties and zoning surrounding the lot and
summarized by stating the parcel was surrounded by residential zoning. She noted
this lot was the only property zoned industrial in the area and there would be
no interest under the designated zoning as evidenced by Mr. Cook’s prior site
plan proposal for industrial which caused a big uproar. The Community is
strongly against a development like that. The owner is tired of paying taxes on
dead land. They could make more if the site were developed industrial but they
would just like to use the land.
The city would like to keep it IRO to make more money through taxes but for the
past 20 years the parcel has been dormant. The city’s plan has backfired because
there is no real taxable income. The Master Plan recognizes industrial should
not be next to resident properties. The Master Plan also states industrial
should have access to a major
thoroughfare
and this property
does not have that. It is not conveniently located near a highway. This lot
would not be developed for industrial in the foreseeable future. Logic dictates
that even if the economy were better this site would not be used for industrial.
This property intrudes on and is intruded by residential. She was able to
overlay the Master Plan’s conceptual industrial plan onto an aerial plan and it
would be horrible on this site. The buildings would overpower the parcel and
would decimate the trees. IRO was chosen because it would not allow a lot of
uses. The ordinance allows almost anything under special use. Cell towers would
be allowed on this site. Industrial just would not work here. Legally there
would have to be more than one street access on this site and there would be no
way to prevent industrial vehicles from going through the neighborhood. The
city’s industrial plan shows trails connecting the Huron River trails but that
would never happen. The city could not require that. Also it would not make
sense because of the rules requiring fences and/or walls. The type of land use
the site is zoned for would not come to South Lyon. The city is built out. She
believed the public had the right to hear that. The city has so much potential
because there is a genuine downtown and that should be where all the focus is.
Residents should support those businesses.
Weipert asked Ms. Friedlander to sum up her statement. Friedlander stated there
were no large land areas left zoned for single-family residential. There would
be a deficit of housing because there would not be the land zoned for the use
required. This parcel would be ideal for residential development. She noted it
is important to have more population to support the downtown. The Master Plan
mentions demographics and none of it would be possible without more land. That
is why she asks that the Commissioners recommend approval to City Council.
Weipert opened the Public Hearing at 7:46pm.
Mark
Hipp – 691 Grand Court South Lyon, MI
Mr.
Hipp lives on the south side of the proposed development site. He had a choice
of property when he moved there and chose knowing this site was industrial. He
also knew it would be tough to build. If the site were to be rezoned to some
extent it would be pulling the rug out from underneath him. If industrial were
to be built that was a risk he was willing to take. His understanding is the
site is zoned IRO which he understands to be more restrictive. He has heard the
rumored price for the lot and believes it is too high. He does not know if that
true but does believe anything could be sold if the price is right. He believes
the property is a jewel and has been through this process six or seven times. It
is a tiring process. The last time was two years ago and that proposal was
designed so he could have reached out his window and touched the neighboring
home. He believes this issue has been argued up to the Michigan Supreme Court
and it was decided there that the city gets to decide what to do with the
property. He asked the Commission to choose wisely.
Nancy Iacovacci – 720 Kestrel Court South Lyon, MI
Ms.
Iacovacci stated her home was three-feet from the property line. She would
rather see industrial and take her chances that way than to see more housing
that could not be sold and would be crammed on top of each other.
Mary
Ann Neault – 801 Eagle Height Drive South Lyon, MI
Ms.
Neault agreed she would rather see the lot left industrial. Earlier it was
stated that South Lyon was in competition with other towns and she disagrees
with that statement. She believes South Lyon was unique because of the value to
families. Residents take care to support local businesses and the trails are
always busy. It contains a community feeling. She asked where kids would play if
every inch of nature were to be taken away. She was not clear on how the
wetlands would be preserved by building. Whether people live in that area or
just ride bikes she noted it was a wonderful part of South Lyon.
Weipert closed the Public Hearing at 8:00pm
Weipert asked Mr. Tallerico to explain conditional
rezoning. Tallerico noted Ms. Friedlander explained it very well and added it
must be started by the applicant. Then it would go directly to City Council. If
that were to be the intent of the applicant then it would have to involve
lawyers. He clarified the site was not currently zoned industrial, but research
industrial. He stated the city was not asked to update the future land use on
the Master Plan at the last update so this site was not reviewed. The parcel is
surrounded by residential and the primary access would be to Mill Street which
would make access difficult for a high density development. Access and other
problems would lead him to recommend rezoning to single-family R1 which was not
requested. However, because the applicant has requested conditional rezoning
that process must be worked through. Friedlander stated her application did
request conditional rezoning. Tallerico explained he read the application as
stating a request for RM1 with conditions. Friedlander did send a letter to the
city’s attorney today clarifying her request.
Iacovacci
asked the difference between RM1 and R1. Tallerico reviewed the differences.
Weipert
stated a few years ago they received a request for a PUD and that was sent to
City Council. She asked if the same would happen with the conditional rezoning.
Friedlander stated a PUD was not the same as conditional rezoning but it could
go through negotiation. The applicant was offering conditions and did inform the
city’s attorney that they are open to negotiation. She believes that there was a
section of the parcel that could allow another connection to Kestrel Court.
Tallerico noted the plan the Commission has does not reflect that. Friedlander
replied they had old plans. She suggested a similar patter to Eagle Heights so
there would be sing-family attached and detached. The applicant would be able to
preserve more land than an industrial development.
Weipert
asked since there was another letter to the city attorney and there was an
updated plan the Commissioners did not have if the applicant really wanted the
Commissioners to act upon the request before them. Friedlander explained it was
too late to repost the public hearing so it could be tabled if the Commissioners
needed a revised plan. Tallerico recommended that the Commission delay action
until the updated information was received. Weipert asked since the application
is for RM1 with conditions and would they be able to see the plans. Cunningham
noted they might not. The Public Hearing was for RM1; table the matter,
recommend approval or recommend denial were the options.
Leimbach asked if the conceptual plan conforms to set-back ordinances.
Friedlander replied yes. Leimbach asked if the lot were changed to R1 would
there be more potential to save environmental elements.
Kurtzweil
asked where the conversation was going and noted she would be more comfortable
keeping the conversation on what was published. Friedlander understood because
of the changes she would be fine if the Commission decided to table the matter
and address the conditional rezoning. Weipert noted they should also discuss
residential versus industrial.
Kurtzweil
defended the city of South Lyon’s ability to diversity the tax base. Developers
like to tell the city their limits but if the city had made the decision to
diversity the tax base she believes that would be the prerogative of the city.
Regarding the point of predicted housing deficits, she does not think there
would be a deficit in five to six years. Economists say it would take ten years
for a recovery. Surrounding communities were already planning for redevelopment.
Looking at planning in the 20th-century would not work, she feels
they need to look at planning in the 21st-century. The trend to move
employment back to nearby housing, having less commuting, should be the trend.
Urban planners were encouraging moves back to neighborhood and that would make
this zoning incredibly well-timed. The current zoning is key and primed. Her
opinion would be keeping the zoning research industrial. Alternate sources of
energy could also work there, i.e. windmills. Friedlander noted windmills for
energy are very tall, maybe too tall for the surrounding use.
Tartaglia
asked if the parcel has been marketed by looking at the past, present, and
future land use. Mr. Courtney
stated it has been listed for sale. Tartaglia replied not listed but marketed.
The sale time for the property missed the big boom. It would now sit that much
longer. He feels it would make sense for it be some sort of residential but the
planning process would need to be followed to ensure the property would be
developed properly.
Mosier
believes the Commissioners should stick with the Master Plan. He does not feel
industrial development plans have been properly made. He sees too many houses
for sale and does not understand building more. Courtney stated he would not
necessarily build right away he would be looking at trying position the
property. Mosier stated the last time a development plan was before the
Commission it did not fit the ordinances. It could be built to fit industrial.
He supports the IRO.
Lanam
stated the Commission has been successful because they uphold the Master Plan.
Changing that now would set precedence. It would also go against the process
that allows the applicant to go straight to Council who may not understand the
legalities of deviating from the Master Plan. If the zoning were to be approved
but building were to not begin it would eventually expire. Courtney stated he
was trying to be flexible. He would build if that were what the Commission
wanted. Lanam stated going against the Master Plan would be bad precedence.
Friedlander noted she believes there were mistakes in the Master Plan. Lanam
stated that was not the issue under discussion.
Leimbach
agreed the topic should stick to the matter advertised. He stated it could be
developed following the master plan. He was concerned about the density with the
RM1 and could not support that with looking at the Master Plan to reflect any
changes.
Lanam asked
the difference between R2 and RM1. Tallerico stated RM1 has density that is
higher but there would be rules. The city must entertain the request for the
conditional zoning request and try to work that out if possible. Friedlander
stated if a contract is reached with the city that would be for the zoning only.
The site plan would still come back to the Planning Commission for review. Part
of the agreement could be a promise to lower density.
Lanam asked why they would ask for RM1 in that case. Friedlander stated
the site would be difficult to develop and because the RM1 allows for attached
and detached single-family housing. Lanam stated it would also allow more houses
by using the wetlands, which would be undevelopable, as open space. Friedlander
stated there were also a lot of trees on the site and the trails were a bit of a
concern. They would try to make conditions and use the tools in the ordinance.
She stated it sounded like everyone was leaning toward denial and if that were
the case she asked they go ahead and vote to recommend denial so they could move
on knowing the majority of the Commissioners would want to maintain the IRO.
Tallerico
stated the recommendation to deny still leaves the option to negotiate the
conditional zoning directly with Council. Friedlander asked if would be fruitful
if they could not support a rezoning because of the Master Plan. Kurtzweil
stated the Commission’s prerogative was to consider the Master Plan. She noted
the decision was not a rash one.
Weipert
stated she supported following the Master Plan. The property was beautiful and
residents’ expectation that it could not be developed may be unrealistic. Just
because the site was vacant now should not mean it would always be vacant. She
could picture homes on the site but also could see industrial as a viable
option. She agreed that Kurtzweil made a good point regarding the changing
economy. She believes there could be a future for industrial development on the
site and supports the Master Plan.
Motion by Moser
supported by Lanam
To recommended City Council deny the
rezoning request – 40
acres at the north end of Mill Street – IRO-RM-1 in support of the city’s Master
Plan.
Vote
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
There was a
general discussion regarding conditional zoning and rezoning and difference in
the processes.
Blight Ordinance
Tallerico reviewed
changes made during the last discussion. He had a difficult time fitting in the
requirements for the boarded up windows so he broke it into sections. Tartaglia
asked for clarification on tinted windows and asked why paper on the inside was
not the requirement. Lanam replied it would not stay up and would fade.
Tartaglia suggested black paint. Lanam agreed that would be acceptable. There
was a general discussion regarding paper, tint, and paint on vacant commercial
buildings.
Weipert asked about the
penalty section. Cunningham replied she would send those to the city attorney.
Staff Reports
Cunningham reported on May 8th the agenda would include a Master Plan
public hearing and a discussion regarding the sidewalk signs.
Ron Morelli commented that from what was originally proposed to what was being
built nice job on the Advanced Auto Parts development.
Motion by Leimbach
supported by Lanam
To adjourn the meeting
at 9:20 p.m.
Vote
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
_____________________
_
____________________
_______
Pam Weipert, Chairperson
Jennifer Knapp, Recording Secretary
________________________
Keith Bradley, Secretary