Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Islamic Center Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Islamic Center site-plan revision after micro-forest, drainage and setback discussions
Summary
The commission approved a revision to the Islamic Center for Worship site plan that adds a micro-forest to replace disturbed vegetation, reconfigures parking, requires several landscape/photometric revisions and notes a likely Zoning Board of Appeals variance for a 10.75-inch front-setback encroachment; residents raised concerns about noticing.
The Planning Commission approved a revised site plan for the Islamic Center for Worship after the petitioner proposed a 'micro forest' to replace vegetation that had been disturbed, reconfigured one-way angle parking and additional landscape and stormwater measures.
The petitioner described changes made after the disturbance to rear vegetation, including pushing the parking lot away from the disturbed area, adding an embossed concrete wall, and proposing an 8-foot green belt with ordinance-recommended trees and arborvitae. The petitioner also said a full civil-engineering stormwater-management plan would be included with revised plans.
Planning staff read multiple conditions and requirements into the record: revised site-plan copies showing parcel numbers and addresses; a 6-foot-high brick and poured-concrete wall set-backs; dimensioning of driveways and parking spaces (staff noted 37 parking spaces on the revised plan); updated landscape and photometric plans to ensure shielding and no up-light, and an explicit note that the parcel lies in FEMA Flood Zone AE so construction must comply with flood regulations. Staff also noted that two parcels are already in process to be combined and that a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required to retain a building that encroaches 10.75 inches into a 30-foot front setback on 13 Mile Road.
The petitioner asked whether the commission could waive a roughly 11-inch encroachment; the city attorney replied there is no authority in the commission's ordinance to waive that requirement and the petitioner would need to seek the variance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioners asked the petitioner to prepare an estimate for the additional landscaping because it will affect the performance bond amount. Planning staff recommended a $4,500 performance bond based on an estimated $150,000 project cost.
At least one audience member objected that some homeowners had not received notice to speak; commissioners and staff explained the item was 'old business' (previously heard) and that mailings were sent as a courtesy when the revised plans were filed, but old-business items do not guarantee the public a second public-hearing opportunity unless the commission suspends rules. Commissioners discussed clarifying letters to avoid confusion when revised plans are mailed for 'old business' updates.
Commissioner Mori moved and Commissioner Hawke supported approval with the stated planning conditions; the commission recorded affirmative roll-call votes from commissioners present and approved the revision.
