Planning Commission

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held September 10, 2015. Mr. Rowe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Benjamin Ancona, Paul Jaboro, Al Kollmorgen, Edward Kopp, Stefano Militello, Donald Miller, Jeffrey Norgrove, and Leonard Reinowski, and Gerald Rowe Members absent at roll call: None Also in attendance: Donald Mende, City Planner Chris McLeod, City Planner Clark Andrews, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Militello, supported by Kopp, to approve. Ayes: Militello, Kopp, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe, Ancona, Jaboro, Kollmorgen Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried. PPCM-1146 JAAFAR CHEHAB Request for Special Approval Land Use to allow group worship in a R-60 (One Family Residential) district - North side of Fifteen Mile Road between Hatherly Place and Davison Drive in Section 29. Property Address: 4939-5085 Fifteen Mile Road. Mr. Rowe stated everyone received a copy of a one-page statement so everyone is clear on how the commissioners will proceed with the meeting. It reads: The Public Hearing that was held on August 13, 2015, was concluded. The applicant has submitted revised architectural plans for consideration by the Planning Commission. Amendments to the proposed development under the revised architectural plan are limited to the following: 1. A nine foot reduction in the height of the two spires; 2. A seven foot increase in the height of the dome over the main worship space. Under Planning Commission rules of procedure, the Public Hearing will be reopened for the limited purpose of taking public comment on the changes in the height of the proposed building only. Those in attendance wishing to speak during the public hearing will be subject to the following rules of procedure: 1. After reopening the public hearing, the chair person will call people up one at a time; Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2015 Page 2 2. Speakers will be asked to provide their name and place of residence. A speaker can decline that information if he or she wishes. The speakers do not need to spell their names; 3. Due to the number of persons in attendance this evening and to afford everyone the opportunity to speak, the chair person will afford each speaker two minutes to comment on the changes in the height of the proposed building only. A timer is located at the podium and will count down to a two minute time limit. The timer will light green during the first minute, yellow during the second minute and red when the speaker’s time has expired. The chair person will stop the speaker upon expiration of the two minute limit; 4. Speakers addressing anything other than the changes on the height of the proposed building will be given one warning by the chair person to limit their comments before being ruled out of order. If you are ruled out of order, then you must take your seat. 5. Persons in attendance will be subject to removal from the meeting for conduct that constitutes any breach of peace, including personal attacks on speakers or institutions, vulgar comments and any disruptions to the orderly conduct of the meeting. Ladies and Gentleman your cooperation will help to ensure that this meeting is conducted in an orderly manner for the benefit of all in attendance. Mr. Rowe asked Mr. Mende to provide a brief presentation on the amendments of the proposed building. Mr. Mende stated this request is for a Special Approval Land Use to consider the construction of a group worship facility, in this case a mosque, located on the north side of Fifteen Mile Road between Ryan Road and Mound Road in Section 29. At the conclusion of the August 13th Planning Commission meeting, the case was postponed to afford the petitioner an opportunity to review and address concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed construction. The applicants engineer has submitted, for consideration, revised plans for the property. The revisions are limited to changes in the height, specifically a nine foot reduction in the height of the two spires and a seven foot increase in the height of the dome over the main worship space. At the August meeting, the following issues were raised during the course of the public hearing and deliberations by the Planning Commission: 1. The height of the building. Twin spires and dome exceeded the 30 foot height in the residential zoning district. There are no structures in the immediate area that are similar in height; 2. The size and the area of the building. The concern was regarding the square footage, which is approximately 20,500 square feet, on a relatively small parcel of 4.3 acres of land. The proposed building is disproportionally larger than other structures in the area; 3. Compatibility with adjacent land uses. The Planning Commission evaluated whether the development is harmonious with existing land uses, especially its relationship to one and two-story homes nearby. Rather than fitting in harmoniously, the structure would dominate the visual landscape; 4. Off street parking being adequate. In addition to the worship space, the building has a lecture hall and recreation area that total over 8200 square feet. If other areas of the building were used concurrently, there would definitely be a need for additional parking needs over that provided which would disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Mende stated that the Planning Commission received revised architectural plans on August 28, 2015 and that plan reflects the following: Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2015 Page 3 1. The twin spires were reduced from approximately 66 feet to 57 feet. A nine foot or 13.6% reduction; 2. The center dome increase from 58 feet to 65 feet. A seven foot or 12% increase. The revised plan does not reflect any change in the proposed square footage of the building nor were there any changes to the number of off street parking spaces which would accommodate shared use of the building. Mr. Mende stated that the Michigan Zoning & Enabling Act authorizes municipalities to incorporate into their zoning ordinances provisions for the review of the Special Approval Land Use. The ordinance regulates places of group worship with five enumerated standards of the Special Approval Land Use and subject further to the general standards of the ordinance. All of those standards, specific and general discretionary, must be satisfied for the Planning Commission to be authorized to approve the use. The applicant was afforded an opportunity to consider and to propose amendments to address the aforementioned issues, however, the applicants minimal amendment is not responsive to these issues. Specifically, the height of the twin spires, while reduced, remain 27 feet higher than the maximum 30 foot allowed structure height in the R-60 (One Family Residential) zoning district. The height and mass of the dome in the center of the building is increased from 58 feet to 65 feet. There are no apparent changes in the architectural plans to improve the compatibility of the proposed development with the established long term land uses in the vicinity in terms of the height, scale and potential impact on the neighboring areas arising from overflow parking onto local neighborhood streets. Upon review of the revised architectural plans, it is clear that the proposed Special Approval Land Use does not satisfy the General Standards set forth in Section 25.02 of the Zoning Ordinance in the following respects: that the location and the height of the proposed buildings twin spires and dome interfere with and discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land use and buildings as they both far exceed the height of other structures in the immediate area which are less than 30 feet in height. The square footage of the proposed building in comparison to the size of the parcel is excessive and not compatible with the established development patterns in this R-60 (One Family Residential) zoning district. Given the approximately 20,500 square foot size of the proposed building and the allocation of floor space to ancillary uses, there is a likely shortage of off street parking when the principal and ancillary uses of the building are combined. Section 23.02 of the Zoning Ordinance requires additional parking spaces for ancillary uses which are not addressed in the architectural plans. The scale and height of the proposed building on this site is not harmonious with the character of the existing buildings situated in the vicinity of this R-60 (One Family Residential) zoning district. Mr. Mende stated that the Planning Commission, as part of its review mandated by the Zoning Enabling Act, is charged with ensuring that a land use that is compatible with adjacent uses, that it promotes the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner, does not overly burden the publics’ services and facilities affected by the proposed land use, and is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Applying these standards, the Planning Department has determined that the petitioner has not met these standards. As a result, Administration is recommending that Planning Commission deny the application for a Special Approval Land Use for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Rowe asked for the Petitioner to present his case. Mr. Jaafar Chehab, petitioner was present, and stated he is a board member of the AICC (American Islamic Community Center) and that the private property they are purchasing falls within the guidelines of the Master Plan. They have the right to petition to build their place of worship and have followed all the rules and are in compliance with the Master Plan. Mr. Chehab stated that they have exceeded all the revisions and have addressed and complied with all the requests given to them. Mr. Chehab stated they have been working on this project for over a year and the issues brought forth tonight were never brought up in the past. He feels that if this proposal is denied, it is a violation of his constitutional rights and unacceptable. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Rowe opened for public participation. Mr. Jahazzi of Sterling Heights, supports. Ms. Scott of Sterling Heights, opposed. Resident of Sterling Heights, opposed. Ms. Fratinski of Sterling Heights, opposed. Mr. Sobh of Sterling Heights, stated the petitioner is still open to all suggestions for changes, supports. Mr. Hajjazi of Sterling Heights, stated they complied with lowering the height of the spires and additionally for comparison purposes, St. Johns Greek Orthodox Church, Nativity of The Virgin Mary Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, and First Church Sterling Heights are three examples in the City of Sterling Heights where there are houses of worship in R-60 (One Family Residential) zoning district that have domes or spires that exceed the height of the house of worship. Ms. Howell of Ann Arbor, supported. Mr. Clenworn of Sterling Heights, opposed. Ms. Renzinski of Sterling Heights, opposed. Mr. Maqdala of Sterling Heights, supported. Mr. Wallack of Farmington Hills, supported. Resident of Sterling Heights, supported. Mr. Misko of Sterling Heights, opposed. Mr. Stachurn of Sterling Heights, opposed. Mr. Mark of Sterling Heights, opposed. Ms. Farrah of Warren, supported. Mr. Rowe asked for any more questions from the public. There were none. Mr. Rowe asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were none. Mr. Rowe asked Mr. Mende for any other comments. Mr. Mende stated that he has no other comments but would like to clarify the site plan. Review process and the Special Approval Land Use process. It is a two-step approval process. Special Approval Land Use items are land uses that warrant additional review, which is why there is a public hearing before the Planning Commission in addition to the administrative site plan review done by the City Planner. In the Site Plan Review part of the process, there are standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance that all developments must meet. This review is done administratively by the City Planner. Where the proposed use is a Special Approval Land Use (such as a place of group worship), there is a second part of the review which is done by the Planning Commission after a public hearing. There are both specific Special Approval Land Use standards applicable to the particular Special Approval Land Use in question, and general discretionary applicable to all Special Approval Land Uses. For group worship uses, there are five specific standards enumerated for this Special Approval Land Use that the Planning Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2015 Page 5 Commission must determine have been met. In addition to these specific Special Approval Land Use standards applicable to places of group worship, the Planning Commission must also determine whether the general discretionary Special Approval Land Use standards are satisfied. For uses which are Special Approval Land Uses, a petitioner must meet not only the Site Plan Review requirements but also the specific and general discretionary Special Approval Land Use standards. The City Planner determines whether the site plan review standards have been met, and the Planning Commission is charged with ensuring that all of those Special Approval Land Use standards are met and abided by. Mr. Rowe asked for any other comments from Mr. Mende or the commissioners. Being none, Mr. Rowe called for a motion. Motion by Norgrove, supported by Militello, in the case of PPCM-1146, Jaafar Chehab, 4939 – 5085 Fifteen Mile Road, I move to deny the application for a Special Approval Land Use, as amended for the following reasons: 1. The location and height of the proposed building interferes with and discourages the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings with the height exceeding that of other structures in the immediate area by more than 30 feet at some points in the proposed building. Ordinance General Standards 25.02 A and D; 2. The square footage of the proposed building in comparison to the size of the parcel is excessive and not compatible with the established long term development patterns of this R-60 (One Family Residential) Zoning District. Ordinance General Standards 25.02 A and D; 3. That given the approximate 20,500 square foot size of the proposed building and the allocation of the floor space to ancillary uses, there is a likely shortage of off-street parking when the principal and the ancillary use are combined, particularly during times of maximum capacity prayer hall usage. Ordinance General Standards 25.02 B; 4. Section 23.02 B1 of the ordinance requires additional parking spaces for ancillary uses which are not addressed in the architectural and site plans; 5. The scale of the proposed building on this site is not harmonious with the scale of the existing buildings situated in the vicinity of this R-60 (One Family Residential) zoning district and in neighboring areas. Ordinance General Standards 25.02 A, E, F & G. Mr. Rowe asked for any discussion on the motion. There was none. Ayes: Norgrove, Militello, Miller, Reinowski, Rowe, Ancona, Jaboro, Kollmorgen, Kopp Nays: None Absent: None Motion Carried. Mr. Rowe called for a recess. Mr. Rowe called back to order. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Militello, supported by Kollmorgen, to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2015 meeting. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2015 Page 6 Ayes: Militello, Kollmorgen, Kopp, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe Nays: None Absent: None Abstained: Ancona, Jaboro Motion Carried. CORRESPONDENCE Spring issue of Michigan Planner Magazine. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Mr. Mende stated that he would like to introduce Chris McLeod to the Planning Commission. Chris will be taking over the duties as City Planner. He was formerly with West Bloomfield Township and prior to that he worked as a planning consultant. As most of the commissioners know, the city is undergoing a succession plan whereby the City Manager has identified a number of positions that will see replacements being hired. First up in this fiscal year is City Planner. Other positions will be considered through June 30, 2018. Mr. Mende welcomed him to the city. The Planning Commissioners welcomed Chris and Mr. Rowe asked if there has been timing announced for this transition. Mr. Mende stated that the transition is going on currently and Chris started employment last week. Mr. Kollmorgen asked Mr. Mende if there is anything at this point for next month. Mr. Mende stated that the only item scheduled so far for the next Planning Commission meeting is Consultant Wade Trim would like to come in to discuss the status of the Master Land Use Plan update. Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. Mende is there was any further development on the case last month with the hotel rezoning. Mr. Mende stated that case from last month is scheduled for City Council on Tuesday, September 15, 2015. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Militello, supported by Miller, to adjourn. Ayes: Militello, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe, Ancona, Jaboro, Kollmorgen, Kopp Nays: None Absent: None Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Benjamin Ancona, Secretary Planning Commission