By Mike Kruzman / news@whmi.com


The City of Brighton’s Planning Commission has made recommendations on four items requested of them from City Council with regards to a proposed development at the troubled Lindbom Elementary School site.

West Village is a proposed 140-unit, three-story townhouse development, to be built on the old, contaminated school site. In February 2020, the Brighton Planning Commission unanimously approved a preliminary PUD plan, but this past June recommended City Council deny approval by a 6-2 vote. The reasoning was that they felt it did not meet all parts of the city’s PUD zoning ordinance.

Developer S.R. Jacobson took feedback from the commission and made amendments to several areas before presenting to City Council in July. City Council sent it back to the Planning Commission for their recommendations on the changes.

Monday night, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revisions, and the community, again, voiced unanimous disapproval for the project. Cameron Scott asked planning commissioners to stay firm with their June decision. He said, that with all due respect to City Council, he believes the planning commission sent them a clear message in June, and he implored them to again reject these revisions.

Lisa Spitler shared the opinions of many neighbors to the Lindbom site that the plan doesn’t belong in that single-family area, and that 140 units would be “devastating.” She pleaded with the planning commission to do what is in the best interest of the families there.

Other residents disputed traffic studies that S.R. Jacobson claims show the development will not have a negative impact on traffic, felt the project is too dense, will negatively affect property values, and goes against the master plan.

Following the public hearing, there was confusion among planning commissioners about exactly what it was that City Council was expecting from them. Chairman Matt Smith said this request of them is something he hasn’t seen in his 15 years on the commission, and he repeatedly looked to City Council liaisons Jim Bohn and Susan Gardner for guidance on what they were looking for.

They began with a discussion on revised building heights and roof styles. The original plans had peaked, gable roofs, but because of how Brighton measures heights to the top and not the mid-point, a deviation would have to be allowed. S.R. Jacobson brought a second option that involved flat roofs that met the height requirements.

In the middle of this discussion, Commissioner Dave Petrak made a surprise motion, jumping to another revision, making a motion to recommend that the density of the project does not meet the master plan. It was mentioned that if this is decided to be, perhaps the rest of the revisions would be moot. There were multiple interpretations and discussions of how much density is actually allowed on the site, ranging from a flat 8 units per acre to an amount between 8 and 25 units per acre. S.R. Jacobson’s proposal puts them at 13.3 units per acre. The planning commission ultimately passed the motion recommending that the density doesn’t meet the master plan by a 5-4 vote.

Having decided that, Petrak then motioned “to give it back to City Council” to let them make their decision. Smith said that in his opinion, if they do that without deciding on the other 3 points, then it will just come back to them. Bohn said that while he agrees with Petrak in principle, he felt they needed to work on the other revisions. The city’s legal counsel agreed that City Council is looking for recommendations on all four points. Petrak then withdrew his motion.

Smith then guided the discussion towards the less controversial revisions. Even though they met parking ordinance regulations, there was still concern over available parking for visitors. S.R. Jacobson added 18 spaces, bringing the site to an average of 3.6 spaces per residence. They will also require that lessees park their vehicles in the garage. A motion declaring “the revised parking plan is acceptable” passed 8-1.

Concerns about the proximity of residences on the south property line led to a revision that saw increased setbacks and greenspace there. S.R. Jacobson will also plant “green giant” evergreen trees along the border for shielding, which they claim will start out at about 6-feet tall and will grow 3-5 feet per year. The motion that this increased setback is acceptable passed unanimously.

The planning commission then circled back to the building height debate. A motion recommending preference of the flat roofs that meet height requirements for R-1 zoning failed 5-4. This was followed up by a recommendation for the gable roofs which would require a deviation of 4-feet 6-inches. That passed 5-4. Gardner and Smith both commented how they like the look of that style better.

The planning commission then voted unanimously to now send these back to City Council.

At the second public comment period, several residents were disappointed in the many of the motions approved. Smith said these are not binding motions, but were just answering the questions City Council asked of them. He said it doesn’t affect their June decision, and that their recommendation of denial still holds.