A new mixed-use building proposed for Leland is not in keeping with the “character” of the village.
Leland Township Planning Commission members voted during its Dec. 6 meeting to deny a special use permit for an 11,590 square-foot commercial and residential structure located on Main Street. The property is across from the Coldwell Banker Real Estate Building.
Over the past several months, the planners have reviewed plans submitted by Joel Peterson, ultimately finding that the structure is not in keeping with the “character” of the unincorporated village.
This echoed the message of more than 100 people who attended a September public hearing on development plans and stacks and stacks of opposition letters sent by the public.
“The raw size, scope and scale (of the structure) takes it to a whole other level,” Skip Telgard, commission member, said.
The Planning Commission finalized its “finding of fact” a step-by-step review of the proposal compiled by the zoning administrator. It includes quantitative requirements such as lot coverage, setbacks, and landscaping.
However, the ordinance includes other demands that are more subjective — such as whether the proposal is in keeping with the “character” of the community.
Planners have struggled to specify just what “character” means. However, some headway was made last week with a contribution from commission member Ross Satterwhite.
“The Planning Commission finds that the project is not harmonious with the character of the adjoining properties and not harmonious with the size of the buildings on adjoining properties,” Satterwhite read from a prepared document, specifying how it isn’t in keeping with the community. “The overall physical size of the property (11,590 square-feet and three stories high) would be much larger in area than adjoining properties. This would make it stand out visually and look out of place.”
He provided examples of adjoining properties which are two stories or less and more larger than 3,500 square feet.
The flat roof design is “out of character” with roofs of adjoining properties, which are gabled.
The finding of fact also found that the structure would coverage a much greater percentage of its lot area than adjoining properties.
The township zoning ordinance requires a public hearing for a Planned Unit Development.
If the proposal were strictly for retail in the commercial district, no public hearing would be required — only a site plan review.
“Because he’s condominiumizing (the upper residential units), a hearing was required,” Tim Cypher, zoning administrator said.
The Planning Commission had three options: approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposal altogether.
The developer now has the option to appeal the case to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
