[00:00:14] OK, WELL, I'M CALLING IT. [Items 1 & 2] WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11. IT IS 6:31 P.M. AND I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. LET'S SEE, THE FIRST ITEM TONIGHT WOULD BE APPROVAL OF OUR AGENDA. EVERYONE GOT A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, HOPEFULLY. MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECONDED BY [INAUDIBLE]. WE DO HAVE A NEW PERSON DOING THE MINUES, SO IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY DO A ROLL CALL AND [3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES] SAY YOUR NAME WHEN YOU'RE DOING IT, SO HE CAN GET USED TO THAT LIST. OK, SOUNDS GOOD. ALL RIGHT MINUTES. MOTION TO APPROVE FROM TRUSTEE OPSOMMER SECONDED BY THE CHAIR. ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY NEED TO ADJUST OR CORRECT ANYTHING IN THE MINUTES AS READ? OK, IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS COMMUNICATION, WHICH I DON'T SEE ANY. [5A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-06-23-1 (EROP, LLC), 2390 E. Federal Drive, Decatur, IL, 62526] SO WE MOVE RIGHT INTO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WHICH BRINGS US TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-06-23-1 EROP LLC 2390 FEDERAL DRIVE DECATUR, ILLINOIS, 62526. AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON. IF YOU REMEMBER AT THE JUNE 23RD MEETING, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO POSTPONE THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST. THEY SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS THAT SHOWED THE BUILDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE DRIVEWAY ON DAWN AVENUE IS CLOSED OFF WITH A NEW DRIVE THAT IS SHOWN ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THAT NEW DRIVEWAY ON GRANDE RIVER, AND IT WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR EXISTING DRIVEWAY ALONG THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET, THE OFFSET FROM AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET AND THE SET BACK FROM A STREET INTERSECTION. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED C@ COMMERCIAL AND IS APPROXIMATELY .88 ACRES IN SIZE. AND AS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEMOLISH THAT EXISTING TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND TWENTY THREE SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT'S ON SITE AND CONSTRUCT THIS NEW THIRTY THREE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT DRIVE THRU CARWASH. SO THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ON GRANDE RIVER AVENUE DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS PUT FORTH IN THE GREEN RIVER AVENUE CORRIDOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO I'LL SEE IF I CAN'T PULL THIS UP TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA HERE. AND THESE PLANS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ARE SHOWN HERE, SO IT'S PROBABLY THOSE ARE UPDATED. SO BUT ANYWAYS, THE GRAND RIVER AVENUE DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET OR OFFSET SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY FEET. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WOULD ONLY BE APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY THREE POINT [00:05:07] SEVEN FEET FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS THE FIRESTONE DRIVEWAY ACROSS THE STREET. THEY ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO BE A MINIMUM OF THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET SPACING FROM OTHER DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE ALONG THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET. IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE DENNY'S DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS ONLY ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR POINT TWO FEET, SO A VARIANCE OF FIFTY FIVE POINT EIGHT FEET IS REQUESTED. OH, WAIT, SORRY. NO, I SAID THAT WRONG. SO IT'S TWO HUNDRED TWENTY ONE POINT TWO FEET FROM THE DENNY'S DRIVEWAY. SO A HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT POINT TWO FEET. THE REQUIRED SETBACK BACK FROM GREEN RIVER AND DON INTERSECTION IS TWO HUNDRED FEET AND THEY ARE PROPOSING ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR POINT TWO FEET. SO A VARIANCE OF FIFTY FIVE POINT EIGHT FEET IS REQUESTED. LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. THIS WAS ADOPTED IN 2004 COLLABORATIVELY BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP, MDOT AND INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT AND REVIEWED THE SITE PLANS. I THINK THERE'S SHOULD BE EMAIL IN THE PACKET THAT DISCUSSES THAT. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. OK, THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN. WOULD THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO SPEAK. I SEE SOMEONE'S EAGERLY WAITING. IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD WITH WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT? ABSOLUTELY. REED COOKSEY WITH STONEFIELD ENGINEERING AND DESIGN. ADDRESS IS, 607 SHELBY STREET, DETROIT, MICHIGAN. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TODAY. YOU KNOW, COMING OUT OF THE LAST MEETING, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN OVER THE PREVIOUS LAYOUT, A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS GOING FORWARD. AND I THINK WE KIND OF TOOK THEM TO HEART. I THINK THE INITIAL LAYOUT WAS PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT BELIEVE WE COULD GET AN ENTRANCE OFF OF EAST GRANDE RIVER, FORCING THE PREVIOUS LAYOUT. AFTER CAREFUL CONVERSATIONS WITH MDOT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CLOSING ONE OF THE TWO ENTRANCES THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS. YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE ONE ENTRANCE ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF OUR SITE, ALONG WITH THE CLOSURE OF THAT WESTERLY ENTRANCE THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE COMING BACK TO YOU WITH ADDITIONAL VARIANCES BECAUSE OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT WE ARE IN. YOU KNOW, WE FEEL THAT WITH YOUR COMMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING, WORKING WITH KEITH AND THE REST OF THE STAFF HERE, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE DO NEED THESE VARIANCES TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO OUR SITE, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL THAT THIS IS THE BEST PLAN GOING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, THE HARDSHIPS ARTICULATED THERE OF WHY WE NEED THEM. I WENT THROUGH WHEN I TOOK MEASUREMENTS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THEY THEY ALL HAVE VERY SIMILAR HARDSHIPS WITH SOME OF THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS ALONG THIS ROAD. NOT REALLY AN EXCUSE, BUT JUST THE NATURE OF KIND OF THIS CORRIDOR HERE. AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DID YOU SAY COOK? COOKSEY, C-O-O-K-S-E-Y. THANK YOU, I JUST DID NOT WANT TO SAY YOUR NAME--ABSOLUTELY NO. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. MR. COOKSEY. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? OK, WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO INTO OUR BOARD TIME THEN AND STAY CLOSE BY. I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS AS WE START TO DISCUSS THE CASE AND ANYONE IS WELCOME TO JUMP RIGHT IN. I KNOW THAT MEMBER SHORKEY WAS NOT IN HERE FOR THE INITIAL REVIEW OF THE CASE, BUT THE REST OF US WERE SO. MEMBER KULHANEK, GO AHEAD. WELL, I DIDN'T HAVE TIME REALLY TO REVIEW THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT ALL OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED HERE ARE DIFFERENT, ARE THEY NOT, IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION SO WE'RE LOOKING AT FULL NEW CASES. AND THAT WAS AN MEMBER HENDRICKSON, I BELIEVE, THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. YOU MOVE THE BUILDING. AND IF I SUMMARIZE IT, ESSENTIALLY ALL THREE VARIANCES ARE RELATING TO THE LOCATION OF THAT DRIVEWAY. THAT IS CORRECT. YES. AND SOMEWHERE IN THIS PACKAGE, YOU MENTIONED THAT MDOT APPROVED IT. [00:10:01] AND THAT'S TRUE. THERE WAS A NOTE FROM YOU, MR. CHAPMAN, AND I'M SORRY THIS MAY ALREADY BE IN THERE THAT HAD RECOMMENDED THE CONDITION. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE LETTER FROM THE ENGINEER. FROM THE ENGINEER YEAH. THAT WAS TO ME. OH, I'M SORRY. THAT WAS TO YOU. I'M SORRY. THAT ALL, SAYS MERIDIAN AT THE TOP. I GUESS SO. OK, AND I'M SORRY WAS IS THIS CONDITION THAT'S REFERENCED IN HERE, ADDRESSED IN THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IT IS NOT THE MAIN REASON IS WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DENNY'S NEXT DOOR THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY LOOKED AT PURCHASING THE DENNY'S BEFORE THIS PROPERTY. BUT DENNY'S WILL NOT ALLOW US TO GET ANY SORT OF CROSS ACCESS. THERE'S NO EXISTING EASEMENTS ON EITHER SITE. SO THEY DO NOT FIND DRIVING THROUGH THEIR MAIN PARKING LOT THE POTENTIAL OF ANY STACKING HAPPENING. TO THEM IT'S A NONSTARTER. WE'VE HAD ALL THESE VERBAL CONVERSATIONS. IF WE NEED SOME SORT OF WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THEY WON'T ALLOW IT, WE CAN PROVIDE THAT AS WELL. BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY WON'T ALLOW IT FOR THAT REASON. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS, YOU KNOW, IN INSTANCES LIKE THIS, WE REQUIRE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IF THEY'RE EVER COMES A CHANCE WHEN THEY CAN PUT IT IN, THEY CAN PUT IT IN. SO, I MEAN, THAT WOULD ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF IN SITE PLAN REVIEWS. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED RIGHT NOW. NO. OK, I'M SORRY I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY MEMBER OPSOMMER HAD HIS HAND RAISED. YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR MANSOUR. SO, MR. CHAPMAN, WHEN DID THESE PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES GO INTO EFFECT? SO BECAUSE MDOT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THEM, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE STILL HAVE THEM ON OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. RIGHT. SO IT WAS 2004, I BELIEVE, IS WHEN IT ALL WENT INTO PLACE. AND LIKE I SAID IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT WAS A JOINT EFFORT BETWEEN THE TOWNSHIP THAT WE'RE OK? SO WOULD YOU SAY THEY'RE MORE OF A BEST PRACTICE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY TO BE THE ULTIMATE? I MEAN, IT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE, SO IT'S ADOPTED. SO WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW. PROVIDE A VARIANCE FOR IT. YEAH, RIGHT. BUT CLEARLY MDOT DOESN'T. AND INGHAM COUNTY. MDOT APPROVED OF THIS CURB CUT. RIGHT. BASED ON THE SITE PLAN. RIGHT. YEAH. OK, AND SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ON THE SCREEN AMOUNTS TO THE FOUR PARKING SPACES ON THE EAST. CORRECT? YES. SO THOSE WERE IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. BUT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A REVISED PLAN, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE BOARD. I BELIEVE WHAT YOU HAVE IS CORRECT. I JUST FORGOT TO UPDATE THIS EXHIBIT. SO, YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THE CORRECT ONE. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CORRECT ONE IN OUR PACKET AND WHAT'S ON THE MONITOR. THE ENTRANCE. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IT'S JUST WE DID A PARALLEL PARKING THERE AND SHIFTED THE TRASH ENCLOSURE OVER TO, YOU KNOW, GET OUT OF THAT, NOT HAVING TO REQUEST ANOTHER VARIANCE [LAUGHTER]. OK. AND SO DENNY'S, YOU GUYS DID TALK TO DENNY'S ABOUT HAVING JUST AN AUXILIARY ACCESS THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BASICALLY A STUB THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T PARK THAT STUB. THAT STUB THERE IS KIND OF A CONSIDERED A HAMMERHEAD TURN AROUND FOR THAT IN SPACE. THEY CAN KIND OF MAKE A MANEUVER TOWARDS IT. YOU KNOW, WE DID APPROACH THEM BECAUSE THE OWNER DOES HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OWNER THERE BECAUSE THEY DID TRY TO BUY IT AND JUST ASK THEM ABOUT THIS CROSS ACCESS BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY. AND TO THEM, IT'S A HARD NO, JUST BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF STACKING THAT A CARWASH CAN HAVE AND THEY DO NOT WANT ANYTHING GOING BLOCKING THEIR PARKING SPACES ONTO THEIR SITE. SO BECAUSE OF THE USE, BECAUSE OF THOSE FACTORS, IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. AGAIN, LIKE KEITH SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WILL AND WE CAN PUT AN EASEMENT IN PLACE ON OUR SITE FOR THEIR OTHER SITE IF AND WHEN ANYBODY COMES IN IN THE FUTURE AND WANTS TO HAVE STACKING WITHIN THEIR PARKING LOT. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW IT'S THE CURRENT OWNER WON'T ALLOW IT. OK, AND THEN ALL OF THE PARKING IN THE CENTER HERE ARE THOSE ALL VACUUM SPACES. [00:15:07] THAT IS CORRECT. ALL THE CENTERS VACUUM INTO THREE PARALLEL SPACES. THOSE ARE THE EMPLOYEE SPACES WHICH ARE JUST FOR THE EMPLOYEES TO PARK WHEN THEY GET ON SO THEY ARE NOT TAKING UP THE VACUUM SPACE. OK, THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE GENERAL QUESTIONS I HAVE. I THINK MY QUESTION GOES, I THINK MORE TO STAFF AND FOR THE REST OF THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT MDOT'S APPROVING OF THIS CURB CUT. HOWEVER, AND AGAIN, AS WE GO INTO OUR OWN TOWNSHIP ORDINANCES TO KIND OF AS THAT OVERLAY, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS SAFETY. SO I KNOW THAT MDOT APPROVED OF THIS. I'M CURIOUS WHAT OUR ENGINEER OR ANYBODY WITH THE TOWNSHIP, WHAT WE HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS THE SAFETY GOES WITH THOSE LEFT TURNS. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WAS BUILT INTO THOSE ORDINANCES FOR A REASON. SO THAT'S WHERE MY CONCERN WITH APPROVING THIS VARIANCE LIES. YEAH. SO I WILL BE BRIEF. I WASN'T INTENDING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING THAT KEITH MIGHT NOT REALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT WE WERE A LITTLE SURPRISED, FRANKLY, THAT MDOT APPROVED THIS. WE WHEN THE APPROVAL CAME THROUGH WE GRABBED THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LIKE, OK, GUYS, LET'S FIGURE OUT A PLAN HERE, BECAUSE FRANKLY, WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. OUR ORDINANCE IS BASED UPON THAT PLAN, WHICH WE UP INTO UNTIL THIS POINT ASSUMED MDOT WAS IMPLEMENTING. AND WE, YOU KNOW, THE ENGINEERS REACHED OUT TO MDOT TO CONFIRM AND I THINK LARGELY THEY WERE OF THE OPINION THIS IMPROVES THE CURRENT SITUATION AND THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR THE PROJECT. SO THAT WAS THE APPROACH THEY TOOK WITH IT. SO HENCE WHY WE WERE BACK TALKING ABOUT A CURB CUT NOW AS OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING LOCATION. RIGHT. TO THAT POINT SO TO THAT POINT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE BECAUSE IT PREDATES YOU, BUT THE O'REILLY PLAN WAS USED BY RIGHT. I DON'T. SO I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN WHAT THOSE FINAL PLANS INCLUDED FOR CURB CUTS. WAS IT DAWN AVENUE ACCESS OR WAS IT GRAND RIVER OR BOTH? MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS REQUEST AND THEY DID NOT. WHETHER OR NOT THEY WENT FAR ENOUGH DOWN THE ROAD WITH THEM MDOT OR NOT, ULTIMATELY DID NOT PUSH THAT ISSUE. TO GET THE GRAND RIVER CURB CUT. CORRECT IN THIS CASE THE BOARD WANTED THEM TO LOOK INTO MOVING THE BUILDING, AND SO THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THEY TOOK AND MDOT WENT ALONG WITH IT. WELL, YEAH, I AS WE DID DISCUSS, ONLY ONE MEMBER REALLY PUSHED FOR THAT SHIFTING OF THE SITE. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT WE'VE BACKED OURSELVES INTO KIND OF YOU KNOW, WE WERE CONCERNED WITH THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES TO BEGIN WITH. WE'RE BACK TO THREE VARIANCES. WE WERE CONCERNED WITH SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, OTHER TRAFFIC ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND WE'RE BACK TO SAFETY ISSUES. SO THAT'S I MEAN, FOR ME, I THINK THAT WHERE WE COME TO AS FAR AS HAVING THE THREE VARIANCES WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, THEY'RE MINIMAL ACTIONS I WOULD SAY, IF WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT THIS TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERN. I MEAN, THE SPEED OF THIS ROAD RIGHT HERE CONCERNS ME. IT'S 45. THERE IS A TRAFFIC LIGHT, BUT IT'S QUITE A WAYS DOWN BECAUSE IT'S ALL THE WAY AT WHOLE FOODS OR I'M SORRY, THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION THERE. IT'S A CONCERN FOR ME. I CAN SAY THAT WHEN WE GET TO CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, THAT IS GOING TO BE WHERE I'M GOING TO HAVE A CHALLENGE MEETING THAT CRITERIA. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE IN TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO USE THIS PARCEL IT'S CHALLENGING. IT IS DEFINITELY CHALLENGING. I'VE SAID ON THREE CASES NOW OF TRYING TO GET THIS PARCEL OF LAND USABLE. I'M JUST I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE SAFETY ISSUES HERE, SO. YES, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF, AS IT RELATES TO THIS OR THE APPLICANT. I'M GUESSING THE ANSWER IS NO, GIVEN THE TIMELINE. BUT WE OBVIOUSLY HAD ONE MEMBER ASK YOU TO SHIFT THE SITE PLAN AND TO PUT THIS CURB CUT IN. WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR THAT, DO WE? [00:20:02] I DO NOT BELIEVE A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS PERFORMED FOR THIS SITE. REALLY? OK, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINALLY. THERE USUALLY ALWAYS, I BELIEVE OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT. BUT WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY FROM THE O'REILLY? I'M GOING TO PULL IT AND SEE ONE SECOND. OK. USE BY RIGHTS YEAH. OR JUST GENERALLY I WONDER WHAT OUR TRAFFIC STUDIES TYPICALLY PORTEND FOR DRIVE THROUGH CAR WASHES VERSUS LIKE A COMMERCIAL USE. I JUST WONDER IF THOSE ARE COMPARABLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES OR NOT. I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T SAT ON ANYBODY PLANNING FOR A CAR WASH. SO DURING MY TIME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. I WILL SAY WE'VE DONE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR A USE LIKE FOR THIS EXACT CAR WASH AND DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES. AND WE DID DO ONE. YES. THE TRAFFIC. IT'S HARD TO REMEMBER SOME REQUIRE THEM, SOME DON'T. THE ANALYSIS OF OUR TRAFFIC STUDY WOULD INVOLVE THE IMPACT TO EAST GRAND RIVER, NOT JUST DAWN AVENUE. SO THE IMPACT THERE WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING, REGARDLESS OF WHERE OUR ENTRANCE WAS REGARDING THAT. SO, YEAH, IT WOULD STILL TELL US THE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER DAY FORECASTED AND STAFF COULD PROBABLY GIVE US A NUMBER FOR WHAT A TYPICAL COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL USE WOULD BE. SO I BELIEVE THE PEAK TRIPS PER MAXIMUM TRIPS PER HOUR IS AROUND 50 TRIPS BECAUSE THAT IS JUST AS FAST AS THE CARS CAN GET THROUGH THE CAR WASH. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MOST WE WOULD HAVE IN AN HOUR. AND I THINK IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE. SO. OKAY SO TIM OR KEITH, WHAT DO WE USUALLY SEE FOR, LIKE A RETAIL USE, IT'S NOT REALLY BROKEN OUT BY HOUR BUT. SO IT WOULD BE LIKE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING SO IT KIND OF VARIES QUITE A BIT. YEAH. SO THIS IS LIKE A 3000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT OR RETAIL STORE ON THIS SITE. SO. I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER RIGHT OUT OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. WE USE IT MANUAL FOR MOST OF THAT INFORMATION. SO, OK. AND IN THE PEAK HERE, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE EVERY ONE GOES AND GETS THEIR CAR WASHED IT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE TO THE WEATHER YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE A TYPICAL RETAIL WHERE EVERY SATURDAY IT'S GETTING HOUNDED. IT'S WE'RE GOING TO HIT THE PEAKS THAT SUNNY DAY AFTER IT SNOWS. YOU KNOW IT'S REALLY PREDICATED ON THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO FINDINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN ANYWHERE THAT DRASTICALLY IMPACTS ANY SORT OF ROAD, ESPECIALLY ONE LIKE EAST GRAND RIVER WITH ITS SIZE AND CURRENT CAPACITY BEING GOING FORWARD. AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF JUST REGARDING THE SAFETY CONCERNS OF THE TURN MOVEMENTS AND THE DRIVEWAY SPACING, I KNOW THE BIGGEST CONCERN HERE IS, MAKING THAT LEFT TURN FROM THE OPPOSITE LANE AND HAVING THE OTHER CAR, MAKING A LEFT TURN AS WELL. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT, OUR CARS WILL BE GOING WESTBOUND AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO TURN INTO THE CAR WASH BEFORE THEY EVEN HIT THE DRIVEWAY OF THE, WHAT IS IT, FIRESTONE ACROSS THE STREET. SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE IT IS CLOSE, I THINK OUR DRIVEWAY SPACING IS AROUND 75, 80 FEET. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THAT ULTRA DANGEROUS WHERE THEY'VE GOT TO PASS THE NEXT ENTRANCE TO GET THERE, WHERE THEY'RE BOTH TRYING TO OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE. THEY'RE BOTH MAKING A LEFT BEFORE THEY HIT THAT ENTRANCE. AND THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT CAN BE REDUCED TO ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET. YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S THE CORRECT TURN MOVEMENT, I KNOW WE'RE NOT AT THE 150 FEET, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHERE MDOTS COMING FROM, WHERE THEY FIND THIS LOCATION IS THE ONLY ONE ACCEPTABLE ON EAST GRAND RIVER BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS. YOU KNOW, IT PROVIDES THE MAXIMUM SPACING FROM DAWN AVENUE THAT WE CAN WHILE KEEPING THAT THE LARGEST SPACING FROM THE DENNY'S AND THEN PROVIDING THAT KIND OF NONINVASIVE LEFT TURN MOVEMENT INTO THE SITE FROM THAT MIDDLE LANE. SO AND LIKE IT WAS SAID, WE DID NOT THINK THAT MDOT WOULD YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT THEY WOULD JUST KIND OF LAUGH US OFF WHEN WE WHEN WE CALLED THEM BROACHING THIS AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE OPEN TO IT. YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF TOUCHED ALL OF THESE TOPICS AS WELL WITH THE NEW [00:25:02] LAYOUT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S KIND OF ULTIMATELY HOW WE'VE GONE DOWN THIS PATH OF, OK, IF MDOTS GOING TO ALLOW IT'S THEIR ROAD. YOU KNOW, LET'S PURSUE THIS THESE VARIANCES AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING SET BACK VARIANCES FROM BEFORE, WHICH HAD A LOT OF ISSUES IN ITS OWN RIGHT. SO. I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE SOME ROOM HERE TO EITHER CONTINUE AND GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA OR MY THOUGHT IS TO THAT IF WE WANT MORE TIME AND MORE INFORMATION, WHETHER THAT BE TRAFFIC STUDIES, WHETHER THAT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE MDOT RATIONALE WAS THAT WE COULD LOOK TO POSTPONE OR TRY TO HAVE THEM COME BACK WITH A YOU KNOW, WITH OUR FULL BOARD OR WE CAN GO THROUGH CRITERIA. SO I DEFER TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS WHICH DIRECTION EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO HEAD. ONE QUICK QUESTION. SURE. GO AHEAD, MEMBER SHORKEY. IS THERE ANYWHERE ON GRAND RIVER WHERE AN ENTRANCE CAN BE MADE, WHERE THERE ISN'T A VARIANCE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE BUILDING IS? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION FOR STAFF [LAUGHTER] I MEAN, IS THERE ANY WAY THEY CAN GET AWAY FROM AN ACCESS VARIANCE ANYWHERE ON GRAND RIVER? NO. NO. FOR THIS PROPERTY. YEAH, FOR THIS PROPERTY. NO. OK, SO WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, CAN I MEAN, LEGITIMATELY, THIS REALLY CAN'T BE DEVELOPED. WELL, DAWN AVENUE. YEAH IF THEY GO BACK TO YEAH BUT YOU GUYS DIDN'T LIKE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I WASN'T THERE FOR THAT. I WASN'T THERE FOR THAT. I LIKED THAT INGRESS AND EGRESS A LOT BETTER. YES. VARIANCE ON THE FRONT YARD SET BACK. OK. OR IT'S NOT REALLY A FRONT YARD SET BACK BECAUSE IT'S COMMERCIAL USE BUT WE REQUIRE WHAT IS IT, TWENTY OR TWENTY FIVE. SO THAT GREENBELT THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE MUCH OF A GREENBELT. AND SO, INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT CONTIGUOUS PLANNING DOWN THE CORRIDOR THIS SITE WAS GOING TO LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER SITE DOWN THE CORRIDOR. TO YOUR POINT, IT LOOKS LIKE FIRESTONE AND I WASN'T HERE ON THE ZBA, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE FIRESTONE GOT A VARIANCE FROM THIS BODY, THEIR BRAND NEW. THEY'RE ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEY HAVE A CURB CUT AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE CLARION POINT EAST LANSING UNIVERSITY AREA. ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE FEET, I WENT MEASURED ALL OF THEM. YEAH, IT LOOKS VERY SMALL, I CAN TELL IT'S VERY SMALL AND TO MEMBER SHORKEY'S POINT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYWHERE BETWEEN PARK LAKE AND THE TOWNSHIP BORDER. I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TOO WE ARE TRYING TO CLOSE THE CURB CUTS OFF. BUT IT'S A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD BECAUSE OF THE PRIVATE EASEMENT RIGHTS. AND WE RUN INTO THIS ALL THE TIME BECAUSE WE WANTED THE NEW PANERA. WE HAD A VARIANCE RECENTLY FOR THAT OLD PAYLESS SHOES STRIP MALL THAT HAS DIFFERENT AND WE WENT TO THE NEW PANERA TO CONNECT. THEY WERE WILLING TO THEY PUT AN EASEMENT IN, BUT THE PAYLESS SHOES STRIP MALL WOULDN'T ALLOW THE CONNECTION. AND SO WE RAN INTO THESE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WHEN WE CAN'T MAKE THAT CONTIGUOUS SERVICE DRIVE. THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE ALL THESE CURB CUTS, RIGHT, AND THE ROAD BECOMES A LOT LESS SAFER. THE LEFT TURN LANE BECOMES A LOT LESS SAFER. AND SO DENNY'S IS YOU KNOW, I GET THAT THEY DON'T WANT THAT TO BE THE MAIN ACCESS POINT. BUT THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE JUNE 23RD PACKET THE CARWASH WAS JUST AS LONG, BUT IT'S ON THE SHORTER EASTERN SIDE. SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT GOES RIGHT UP TOWARDS THE PATHWAY. IT WAS STILL A HUNDRED AND FIVE ROUGHLY FEET LONG. IT'S ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE POINT THREE FEET. ONE WHO REALLY PUSHED FOR THIS SHIFT BECAUSE IT DOES FIT ON THAT WESTERN SIDE IN TERMS OF THE LENGTH OF THE CAR WASH. IT FITS VERY NICELY AND I LIKE THAT THEY AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T TRY TO FORCE THE FOUR PARKING SPOTS IN. YEAH, OVER THERE BECAUSE WE LIKE OUR. IN THE NON GREENBELT. SO. THAT'S ONE LESS VARIANCE AS WELL YEAH, THAT'S JUST THE CONTEXT FOR THE PREVIOUS MEETING. I APPRECIATE THAT. WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE, THOUGH, THAT WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA, SO WHY DON'T I START WITH THAT? AND IF WE GET TO A POINT WHERE LET'S JUST TRY IT. SO OUR CRITERIA BEGINS WITH CRITERIA ONE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO [00:30:06] THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. I THINK WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS IS IT UNIQUE IS NOT UNIQUE. I WILL ARGUE THAT IT IS UNIQUE. I'VE ARGUED THAT BEFORE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS CRITERIA. I FIND THAT ESPECIALLY WITH THIS PLACEMENT OF THIS DRIVEWAY, I MEAN, WE REALLY ARE YOU KNOW, IF WE PUT IT OVER HERE WE HAVE VARIANCES. IF WE PUT IT OVER HERE, WE HAVE VARIANCES. I THINK THAT EITHER WAY WE LOOK AT IT, THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO GET EGRESS THIS INTO THIS PARCEL. SO WITH THAT SAID, DOES ANYBODY FIND THIS NOT TO MEET THE FIRST CRITERIA? OK, WE CAN MEET ONE, ALL RIGHT, CRITERIA TWO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED. AGAIN, THIS IS A CHICKEN AND EGG SCENARIO BECAUSE WE'RE BACK TO WE HAVE THIS PARCEL OF LAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE SHIFTED, THEY'VE MOVED IN. AND YET STILL, EVEN WITH SHIFTING AND MOVING, WE'RE STILL IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF VARIANCES. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ARGUE MAYBE THEY'RE SELF CREATED BY THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE PLANS, BUT MAYBE THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE OF THE PARCEL. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. I GUESS I WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY'RE NOT SELF CREATED BECAUSE OF ALL THE OTHER CURB CUTS THAT PREDATE THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE. AND EVERYONE ON THIS THAT FRONTS ON THE SECTION OF GRAND RIVER FACES THE CIRCUMSTANCE DUE TO LAND USE DECISIONS OVER THE PREVIOUS 50 YEARS, BASICALLY. THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH, I CAN DEFINITELY SIDE WITH THAT. THEIR NEIGHBORS, MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S NOT SELF CREATED, I GUESS I WOULD SAY. YES, I GUESS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING BUSINESS IN THIS CORRIDOR, WHETHER IT'S FIRESTONE, WHETHER IT'S DENNY'S, WHETHER IT'S FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, TUFFY, ACROSS THE ROAD THERE ACROSS DAWN AVENUE, I THINK THAT THEY'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, AS MEASURED BY MR. COOKSEY, ALL IN THIS VERY PRECARIOUS POSITION WITH THESE CURB CUTS. SO, OK, WE'LL SAY WE CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER TWO. CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. AT THIS POINT AS MEMBER SHORKEY POINTED OUT, WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE THIS PARCEL BASICALLY NEEDS SOME KIND OF A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO HAVE AN EGRESS, WHETHER IT'S DAWN AVENUE. I MEAN, THIS THE GRAND RIVER, EITHER WAY, ANYWHERE ON GRAND RIVER, IT'S GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH TO PUT A OPERABLE BUSINESS ON. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A STRETCH, BUT I I DEFER TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. IS NOT ALLOWING THESE VARIANCES CREATE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR ANY BUSINESS, BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW THESE VARIANCES DO GO WITH THE PROPERTY. SO WHATEVER'S THERE, WE'LL HAVE THIS CURB CUT ON GRAND RIVER. IF THE CAR WASHES THERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE COMES IN AFTER, THEY WILL STILL HAVE THIS ACCESS BASED ON THIS VARIANCE. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER GO AHEAD. YEAH. SO I WOULD SAY WHEN YOU APPLY CRITERIA THREE TO GRAND RIVER AVENUE, APPLYING STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DAWN AVENUE POSSIBILITY NOW, IT WAS A MEMBER OF THIS BODY THAT ASKED THEM BASICALLY TO BLOCK THAT OFF BY SHIFTING THE CAR WASH TO THAT SEGMENT ON DAWN AVENUE FRONTAGE WHERE THE CURB COULD GO. BUT WHEN YOU APPLY IT TO DAWN AVENUE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THERE, THEN IT JUST BECOMES A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF FITTING DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE. MY MAIN POINT THAT I MADE BACK IN JUNE WAS, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY IN ENFORCING THE FRONT SET BACK AND WILLING TO LOOK AT SIDE SETBACKS. [00:35:02] BUT THAT FRONT SET BACK ALONG GRAND RIVER IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S WHAT GIVES US THAT CONTIGUOUS FIELD ON THE CORRIDOR THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES DON'T HAVE. AND THAT SIGNAGE. AND IT'S THE SET BACK AND IT'S THE GREENBELT AND THE TREE REQUIREMENTS AND THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. SO OBVIOUSLY, WHEN WE SHIFT THE BUILDING BACK OVER ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS CAN HAPPEN. THE APPLICANT CAN SHRINK THE CAR WASH OR WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM A VARIANCE. SO THAT'S MY TAKE ON THREE. BUT SO IT APPLIES TO GRAND RIVER, BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE SITE AS A WHOLE, I GUESS, IN MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. OK, SO I'M GOING TO PUT A PIN IN THREE FOR NOW, BUT WHEN WE GET TO FOUR, WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO THE SAME QUESTION CRITERIA FOUR THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE. SO THIS IS FOUR AND FIVE IS WHERE I START AND WHERE WE ALWAYS HAVE THE MOST DIFFICULTY. BUT I FIND THAT GENERALLY WITH THIS BLANK SLATE THAT THERE IS WAYS TO USE THIS PROPERTY. IS IT CHALLENGING? ABSOLUTELY. IS THERE ARE WAYS TO USE THIS PROPERTY FOR A COMMERCIAL PERMITTED PURPOSE IN SOME OTHER FUNCTION? I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS. I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS WAYS, AS TRUSTEE OPSOMMER JUST SAID TO USE THAT DAWN AVENUE ENTRANCE WITHOUT HAVING A GRAND RIVER CURB CUT. THAT'S WHERE I WILL GET HUNG UP. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD FURTHER? YEAH. YEAH, GO AHEAD. MEMBER SHORKEY. SEEING THREE ITERATIONS OF THIS AND EVERY ONE REQUIRES SOME SORT OF A VARIANCE. YOU'RE GOING TO SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE AT SOME POINT TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. I'M NOT GOING TO LIE TO YOU. I LIKE THAT THEY'RE CLOSING AN ENTRANCE. I'M KINDA FEELING THIS. I MEAN, I REALLY AM. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE. SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE. AND WHETHER IT'S AND I AGREE WITH YOU, I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE FRONT SET BACK, YOU KNOW, ENCROACHED ON. THAT'S WHAT WOULD INEVITABLY HAPPEN AND THIS ISN'T RELATED TO BE A CAR WASH. ANYTHING YOU PUT THERE IS GOING TO HAVE TO IS GOING TO HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THREE AND FOUR. HOW ABOUT YOU? MEMBER KULHANEK. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? [LAUGHTER] THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, ISN'T IT? BUT I THINK I'M HEARING MEMBER SHORKEY AS WELL. IT JUST EVERYTHING YOU DO WITH THIS PARCEL, IF IT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY SOMEBODY SAID EARLIER, CAN IT BE SHORTER? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT CAN'T. AND I KNOW IT WAS BROUGHT UP THE LAST TIME YOU SEE GAS STATION CAR WASHES ARE MUCH SHORTER. THAT'S IT'S NOT THE OPERATION OF THIS. IT'S A TUNNEL CAR WASH WHERE YOUR CAR GETS PULLED THROUGH, WHICH IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM. HYPERSHINE DOESN'T HAVE ANY THAT'S NOT THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. AND HOW THIS TYPE OF CAR WASH OPERATES, YOU DON'T REALLY ACTUALLY SEE THOSE ONES WHERE YOU JUST PARK YOUR CAR AND EVERYTHING HAPPENS AROUND YOU. I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE NEWER ONES ARE THESE LONGER TUNNELS. AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF THE OPERATIONS OF IT ALL. IT'S THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SHORTEST ONE. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOOT TUNNELS AS WELL. THIS IS THE SHORT ONE THAT IS THE YOU KNOW, HAS THE PREMIUM FAÇADE AS WELL. SO THIS IS KIND OF AS SHORTENED AND AS GOOD LOOKING AS IT GETS FOR CAR WASH. YEAH. ANYWAYS, I WAS AGREEING WITH MEMBER SHORKEY A MOMENT AGO, I MEAN IT DOES SEEM LIKE THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN WITH THE PARCEL THEY HAVE HERE AND EVERYWHERE YOU PLACE THIS BUILDING ON THE PARCEL THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF VARIANCE. AND WE DO WANT TO PRESERVE THAT FRONT. AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNED ME THE MOST THE LAST TIME I BELIEVE THERE WAS THREE VARIANCES AND I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THREE. THERE WAS THE ONE ON THE SIDE. THERE WAS ONE ON THE FRONT. THE SET BACK. AND I CANNOT REMEMBER THE THIRD. THE SET BACK. LANDSCAPING. LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BUILDING. I REMEMBER. SAME, THEY ARE JUST THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SAME THING. IT'S JUST THE PLACEMENT OF AND REALLY, I WANT TO WONDER OR ASK THE FOLKS WHY THEY AGREED [00:40:04] ON A RULE THAT WAS IMPRACTICAL. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S JUST IMPRACTICAL ON THE WHOLE CORRIDOR. I MEAN, MAYBE SOME THOUGHTS AS FAR AS WHAT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. I MEAN, IN A WAY THAT KIND OF MAKES ALL OF THEM NONCONFORMING JUST IN AND OF ITSELF ONCE THEY OVERLAID THAT, THOSE SETBACKS. YEAH, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. WELL, I THINK WITH OTHER I THINK TO THAT FINAL POINT, IF PEOPLE WOULD GIVE THE EASEMENTS CONTIGUOUSLY, THEN YOU'D HAVE THE SERVICE DRIVE. SO IT WASN'T INTENDED TO COMPEL PEOPLE TO DO THAT. IS THAT AND TO TRY TO GET THE PUBLIC POLICY TO MEMBER SHORKEY'S POINT. THEY ARE CLOSING ONE OF THE CURB CUTS. SO THERE'S AN IMPROVEMENT. WE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO CLOSE CURB CUTS BECAUSE IT MAKES IT LESS PEDESTRIAN AND LESS BICYCLE FRIENDLY. THIS IS MORE IT'S PROBABLY MORE OF A BICYCLE ROUTE, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, FROM CAMPUS. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE MORE CURB CUTS YOU HAVE, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT IS FOR ANY NON MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION TO EXIST ON THE CORRIDOR THERE. SO AND THEN, OF COURSE, IF YOU GET TOO MANY CURB CUTS, YOU'RE RUNNING INTO CONFLICT POINTS IN THOSE LEFT TURN LANES LIKE THE APPLICANT SPOKE TO. SO I'M NOT A ROAD ENGINEER. THIS ISN'T A DEAL BREAKER IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER CURB CUTS THAT ARE CLOSER TOGETHER ALONG THE CORRIDOR. BUT THE INTENT WAS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE BEST BUY, ALL THEIR OUTLETS ARE CONNECTED. SO YOU DON'T NEED A BUNCH OF CURB CUTS. [INAUDIBLE] DOES HAVE TWO ON GRAND RIVER, BUT EVERYBODY THERE BETWEEN OKEMOS AND MARSH CAN SHOP AND USE THE SERVICE DRIVES TO GO TO AND FROM BUSINESSES. SO IT REDUCES THE NEED. LIKE IF YOU NEED TO LEAVE THIS CAR WASH YOU'RE ISOLATED ON THE SITE. YOU CAN'T GET TO DENNY'S, YOU CAN'T GET TO HOBBY LOBBY, YOU CAN'T GET TO NORTH WIND DRIVE, YOU CAN'T GET TO DAWN AVENUE. SO IT PUSHES TRAFFIC OUT ONTO GRAND RIVER THAT MAY HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY TURN BACK IN. AND SO YOU'RE JUST INCREASING CONGESTION. RIGHT. BUT WITH PLANNING OVER TIME, WITH SERVICE DRIVES THAT ARE CONTIGUOUS, THEN YOU WOULDN'T NEED IT. BUT THE NATURE OF THIS SITE AND THE WORK THAT THEY DO, THEY'RE GOING TO BLOCK OFF ONE SIDE BECAUSE THEY NEED THE BUILDING TO GO ON ONE SIDE AND THEN DENNY'S IS BLOCKING CONNECTIVITY. SO AND EVEN I GET WHERE THEY'RE KIND OF COMPETING USES RIGHT, LIKE CAR WASH, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO STACK CARS UP AND DENNY'S DOESN'T WANT CARS STACKED UP. LIKE IF YOU DRIVE BY CHICK FIL A, LIKE THEY DESIGNED THEIR DRIVE THRU'S TO STACK UP 20 CARS, WHICH I THINK ABOUT THE CARBON IMPLICATIONS OF STACKING 20 CARS ALL DAY THROUGH A DRIVE THROUGH. BUT EVEN WHEN THEY'RE LIKE USES THAT DO WORK, PEOPLE STILL SAY NO, LIKE PANERA, THE NEW PANERA AND THE STRIP MALL NEXT DOOR. THOSE WOULD BE USES THAT WOULD HELP BOLSTER EACH OTHER AND THEY STILL SAY NO. SO TO GET THOSE SERVICE DRIVES IN, TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE THEIR OWN UNIQUE CURB CUT OR MULTIPLE IS HARD TO YOU GUYS' POINT SO. SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THIS BODY IS THAT NUMBER FOUR, WHERE WE COULD BE IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FAILING TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE IS JUST GOING TO PUT UNDUE BURDEN ON THEM TO TRY TO CREATE ANOTHER ENTRANCE AND ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT WILL COME BACK UP. WE'VE SEEN WHAT THE DAWN AVENUE ENTRANCE VERSION LOOKS LIKE. AND I APPRECIATE YOU REMINDING US. AND I SAT ON THE AUTO PARTS VERSION OF THIS AS WELL. AND I DO HISTORICALLY DO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE AT AN IMPASSE. WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE IF THERE'S NOT A VARIANCE, WHO AND WHAT AND HOW WILL THIS SPACE BE DEVELOPED. SO I DO FIND THIS TO BE THE MOST THOUGHTFUL AS FAR AS THE RESPECT TO THAT SETBACK. HOPEFULLY THIS IS I MEAN, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, THE APPROVAL OF THE NEIGHBORING PARCEL, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS OWNER IS MORE OPEN TO THAT CONNECTION AND THAT EASEMENT. SO IT GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE THAT, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT THEIR COOPERATIVE WITH THAT AND ASKING THAT OF THEIR NEIGHBOR BODES WELL IN MY PERSPECTIVE AS FAR AS CREATING THOSE SERVICE DRIVES GO. SO I'M HEARING THAT WE CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR. [00:45:01] SO CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF THE LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT OF THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, I AM STILL WAVERING. I DO HEAR, AS TRUSTEE OPSOMMER JUST SAID, THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF OTHER DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS THAT ARE CLOSER TOGETHER THAT COULD CREATE, YOU KNOW, LEFT TURN CONFLICTS IN THIS CORRIDOR. I, AGAIN, WOULD JUST SAY THAT'S PUTTING IT OUT THERE, THAT THAT IS A CONCERN OF MINE, WHETHER THAT IS, YOU KNOW. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, MEMBER SHORKEY GO FOR IT. ABSOLUTELY. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN SHIFT THE ENTRANCE FURTHER WEST ON GRAND RIVER? I KNOW YOU CAN'T UTILIZE WELL YOU'VE GOT AN ENTRANCE, YOU'RE CLOSING. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN UTILIZE THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU'D HAVE TRAFFIC COMING IN AS YOU'VE GOT TRAFFIC EXITING YOUR TUNNEL. RIGHT. BUT CAN YOU LINE THE DRIVEWAY UP WITH THE PARKING AREA AND AT LEAST ASK FOR LESS VARIANCES? MDOT WON'T ALLOW IT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD PUT IT PRETTY MUCH WHERE THE OTHER ENTRANCE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING TO CLOSE IT. OKAY. AND THEN IT WOULD MAKE OUR ENTRANCE APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET FROM DAWN AVENUE, WHICH IS AN EVEN BIGGER SAFETY HAZARD. GOTCHA. YEAH, YEAH. BEARING THAT IN MIND, IT WAS A POINT RAISED EARLIER BY CLOSING THE CURB THIS BECOMES SAFER FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ANYWAY. I'M NOT NOTHING ON GRAND RIVER AVENUE IS I DON'T WANT TO SAY SAFE. THAT'S NOT FAIR. THAT'S NOT A FAIR STATEMENT, BUT IT'S. ONE CURB CUTS SAFER THAN TWO. YES, I DEFINITELY WOULD AGREE. NOT SAYING YOU'RE WRONG WHEN YOU'RE CONCERNS. I'M JUST. YEAH, NO ONE. I WOULD COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT MEMBER SHORKEY. I THINK THAT THIS IS AS SAFE AS THEY CAN GET ON THIS PARCEL ON GRAND RIVER WITH THE GRAND RIVER ENTRANCE. THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT. AND I'M JUST I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE MY CONCERN KNOWN [LAUGHTER] [INAUDIBLE] CARES A LOT ABOUT TRAFFIC. BUT DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH CRITERIA FIVE OR CAN WE MEET CRITERIA FIVE? BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS JUST MY YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD AGREE. I THINK THAT THIS IS AS SAFE AS WE CAN GET. SO IS THIS MINIMUM ACTION TO GET TO THAT SAFETY? I BELIEVE IT IS. I DO BELIEVE IT IS A MINIMUM ACTION. I THINK THAT, AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ITERATIONS OF THIS AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY ARE, AS MEMBER KULHANEK POINTED OUT TOO THIS IS THREE VARIANCES THAT ARE JUST ALL TIED INTO THIS ONE ENTRANCE AND NOT A SETBACK IN THE LANDSCAPING. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY CONTAINED IN THIS ONE. THIS ONE CURB CUT. SO I DO FIND THIS TO BE MINIMUM. I WOULD WELCOME ANYBODY THAT HAS ANYTHING ELSE. BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS ABOUT GETTING TO MAKING THIS PARCEL USABLE. SO CRITERIA NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, AS I TOUCHED ON JUST A MOMENT AGO, I THINK THAT THERE IS THE HOPE THERE WITH THE SETBACK BEING MET AND WITH POTENTIAL EASEMENT SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE. AND IF THE OWNERS THERE ARE OPEN TO THAT AND THEIR NEIGHBORS BECOME OPEN TO THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ADD AS CONDITIONAL IF THAT EASEMENT WAS MADE AVAILABLE THAT THEY WOULD? YEAH, WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD THAT. OK, DOES ANYBODY FEEL ABOUT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT VARIANCE? THAT WAY WE CAN KEEP IN GOOD FAITH THAT THEY ARE OPEN TO THAT EASEMENT AND THAT WE YOU KNOW, IF THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE, IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ADD IN SO THAT WE COULD CONNECT THOSE VIA SERVICE DRIVE. ABSOLUTELY. THAT CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE ME FEEL A BIT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN I WOULD SAY WE CAN MEET THAT THIS WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE [00:50:05] ADJACENT LAND, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT WITHIN THIS CORRIDOR, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, A LOT OF THESE CURB CUTS ARE NON CONFORMING TO THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE. CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN, THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT IN NATURE IS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE. I WOULD IT'S THIS IS A TRICKY ONE BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE TOUCHED ON THIS BEFORE A COUPLE OF TIMES DURING VARIOUS MEETINGS ABOUT THIS PARCEL. AND I THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN PLACE IS THERE FOR A REASON AND IS TO PROVIDE SAFETY AND UNIFORMITY ALONG THE CORRIDOR. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE VARIANCES ARE THERE FOR A REASON SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKES SENSE AND THAT IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, GROWING MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. I DON'T FIND THIS TO BE SOMETHING THAT, I CAN MEET CRITERIA 7. I DON'T FIND IT TO BE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS FURTHER ADDRESSING AT THIS POINT. AND CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. I COULD MEET THAT CRITERIA AS WELL. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK WE CAN MEET ALL EIGHT CRITERIA. IS THERE ANY THOUGHTS OR A MOTION? THOUGHTS OR A MOTION, NOT EMOTION? BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE IN PERSON NOW SO. BUT,I WAS GOING TO SAY I'D BE GLAD TO MAKE THE MOTION EXCEPT I CAN'T, THE SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGIES. OH, IT'S OKAY. YES. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE TO GET THE WHOLE LANGUAGE RIGHT ON THAT AS WELL. AND THE CONDITION IS. AND HOW WOULD YOU PHRASE THAT? WE REQUIRE THAT THE ACCESS EASEMENT BE DEDICATED TO THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IN CASE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. AND THAT THAT BE SHOWN ON THE FINAL DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? YEAH. OK, SO THIS IS A MOTION BROUGHT FORWARD BY MEMBER KULHANEK TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. YES, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. THE 3 VARIANCES. AND I WAS LOOKING FOR THE NUMBER, OK, BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY CREATED A MESS IN FRONT OF MYSELF. TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-06-23-1 THE LOCATION IS 2703 GRAND RIVER AVENUE, PARCEL ID 20-203012. AND IT'S TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE TO LIST ALL THREE OR I JUST SAY ALL THREE VARIANCES. YOU CAN JUST SAY ALL 3 VARIANCES. OK, ALL THREE VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THE CONDITION AND THE SITE PLAN SHOW. DEDICATED ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. YEAH, JUST LIKE I SAID IT. [LAUGHTER] AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THERE YOU GO. I WAS JUST FILLING IN THE BLANK. YES. OK, DO WE HAVE SUPPORT? YES, SUPPORT FROM MEMBER SHORKEY. OK, SO THIS ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE ALL THREE VARIANCES WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. MEMBER SHORKEY. YES. MEMBER KULHANEK. YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO YOU'RE VARIANCES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND WE DO APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK TO GET IT TO A PLACE THAT YOU CAN WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP TOGETHER. AND WE APPRECIATE WORKING WITH YOU GUYS. I THINK IT'S A TESTAMENT TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. YOU KNOW, NORMALLY I'VE SEEN THE OWNER PULL OUT FOR MUCH, MUCH LESS ON THIS SO. THEY WANT TO BE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THEY'RE EXCITED TO BRING A PREMIUM PRODUCT TO MERIDIAN SO. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. COOKSEY. OK, ON THAT NOTE. [00:55:05] WE WILL GO INTO NEW BUSINESS NEXT ON OUR AGENDA. [6A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-08-11-1 (Sina), 5786 Lake Drive, Haslett, MI, 48840] LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET MY NUMBERS UP HERE. ALL RIGHT, THERE IS MY AGENDA NEXT ON OUR AGENDA WILL BE ZBA'S CASE NUMBER 21-08-11-1 SINA. I'M HOPING I'M PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY. YES. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S AT 5786 LAKE DRIVE, HASLETT MICHIGAN, 4840. AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN. OK, SO THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO ADD AN APPROXIMATELY 400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING FIFTEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 5786 LAKE DRIVE. THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IS AT ITS CLOSEST POINT, APPROXIMATELY SIXTY FIVE FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF LAKE DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY. AND ACCORDING TO TOWNSHIP RECORDS, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1947 AND THE APPLICANT HAS OWNED THE HOME SINCE 2004. SO IN THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT REQUIRES A MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF TWENTY FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, EXCEPT FOR LOTS LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE, EAST LAKE DRIVE, WESTLAKE DRIVE OR MARSH ROAD, WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 86376, WHICH IS A MAP THAT DESIGNATES THE STREET SETBACKS. AND IN THIS CASE, LAKE DRIVE HAS A SETBACK OF EIGHTY FIVE FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE. THIS PROPOSED FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME AT ITS CLOSEST POINT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY FORTY FIVE FEET FROM THAT CENTER LINE OF THE LAKE DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY. SO A VARIANCE OF FORTY FEET IS REQUESTED. THAT'S IT. OK. THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN. WOULD THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING. IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. MY NAME IS RED DOG SINA. I LIVE AT 5786 LAKE DRIVE HASLETT, MICHIGAN, FOUR EIGHT EIGHT FOUR ZERO. AS RECORDS INDICATE, MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED AT THE HOUSE SINCE 2004. WE REALLY LIKE THE HOUSE. WE'D LIKE TO STAY. WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE IT OUR OWN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BUT WE HAVE A GROWING FAMILY AND WE HAVE A HOUSE THAT IS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE FROM 1947 HAS BEEN ADDED ONTO OR CHANGED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE DETAILS AS TO THAT, BUT THE GARAGE I BELIEVE WAS ADDED ON AND THE ORIGINAL GARAGE WAS TURNED INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM. THE HOUSE FACES SOUTH ESSENTIALLY ACROSS MOST OF THE HOUSE. IT'S DIRECTED TO THE SOUTH. THE KITCHEN IS TO THE NORTH. THE STAIRWAY TO THE BASEMENT IS TO THE NORTH. THERE ARE BATHROOMS. THERE'S A BATHROOM TO THE NORTH. AND SO THE DIFFICULTY IS, IS THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO EXPAND OUR HOUSE, WE ONCE LOOKED INTO GOING UP AND WE WERE TOLD BY AN ENGINEER THAT WASN'T A POSSIBILITY. SO THEN WE LOOKED INTO GOING FORWARD AND THEN WE CAME ACROSS THE SETBACKS. WE HAVE A DOUBLE LOT IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER THAN MOST OF THE OTHER LOTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE STILL MAINTAIN A FAIR AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE IN THE LOT. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS INCREASE BOTH THE STREET APPEAL AND THE USABILITY OF OUR HOUSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SINA. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT? IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN ZOOM. WE'RE USED TO OH COULD SOMEBODY RAISE THEIR HAND, BUT THERE'S NOBODY ELSE IN THE CROWD. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL ASK YOU TO STAY PUT SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS NECESSARY AND WE WILL GO INTO BOARD TIME. AND I GUESS I WILL START BECAUSE I JUST HAVE ONE BURNING QUESTION. WHY NOT GO BACK? YOU HAVE THAT DOUBLE LOT, SO WHY NOT GO TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE INTO THAT SET BACK. IF WE WENT TO THE BACK, WE WOULD BE ELIMINATING OUR BACK PATIO. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, OUR LIVING ROOM WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THIS OTHER SPACE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONFIGURE OUR KITCHEN AND POTENTIALLY THE BASEMENT STAIRWAY IN ORDER TO HAVE A CONTINUOUS SPACE. AND SO THE CHALLENGE IS THAT IT CREATES INSTEAD OF HAVING A SPACE THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE OUR FAMILY, IT BECOMES A SPACE WHERE WE CAN ACCOMMODATE HALF OF OUR FAMILY WHILE THE [01:00:06] OTHER HALF IS SEPARATED AND NOT ABLE TO SEE EACH OTHER OR INTERACT. AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE FOR GOOD CHRISTMASES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OK, AND I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR STAFF, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? IS THAT NONCONFORMING? YES. SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN ZOOM IN. I DON'T. YEAH FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. YEAH, FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OR NOT. I'M SORRY FOR EVEN JUST FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE CENTER LINE. I MEAN, ARE THEY. SO THERE AT 65 FEET. OK, SO THEY'RE STILL SO EITHER WAY, IT'S THEY ARE ALREADY NON CONFORMING TO IT. RIGHT. SO THAT CENTER LINE SET BACK. THE INTEGRITY OF THE ACTUAL HOUSE ITSELF IS ALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SET BACK OK. SO THERE'S THE GARAGE A PORTION OF IT IS. BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE OF THE SET BACK. SO REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT GETTING INTO THOSE SETBACKS IS TO GO BEHIND THE HOUSE. BUT HERE YOU ARE SAYING EVEN IF THEY BUILT ONTO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THEY'RE STILL WITHIN THAT FRONT SET BACK. YES SO THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE REQUIRED A VARIANCE. YEAH, THAT'S VERY HELPFUL TO KNOW. THE OTHER THING TO KNOW IS THAT OUR HOUSE SITS FURTHER BACK FROM THE ROAD THAN SEVERAL OF THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE STREET. AND SO EVERY HOUSE IS NONCONFORMING AND THERE MAY BE ONE THAT'S NOT. BUT ALL OF THE REST ARE. AND THIS AREA DOES THAT SURPRISE ME AT ALL? DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER GO AHEAD. SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR STAFF, MR. CHAPMAN WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT AND WHEN IT WAS IMPLEMENTED, IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE INTENT WAS WITH SEGREGATING THESE STREETS LIKE EAST LAKE DRIVE, WESTLAKE DRIVE AND MARSH ROAD IN REQUIRING THE 85 FEET VERSUS THE 20 FEET? OBVIOUSLY, THE INTENT OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IN GENERAL WAS TO ALLOW THESE SMALL PARCELS AROUND THE LAKE DISTRICT EVERY LAKE DISTRICT IS OLD AND SO YOU HAVE VERY SMALL PARCELS. YOU ALSO HAVE PARCELS WITH VERY ODD ANGLES. AND SO IT MAKES SENSE TO [INAUDIBLE] THEM AND TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DEVELOP. IT WAS ALSO BASICALLY IF WE WANT TO SPEAK MATTER OF A FACTUALLY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUILD VERY LARGE HOMES. RIGHT. BUT WE SEEM TO HAVE, WHEN WE ADOPTED THAT, PUT AN EVEN BIGGER SET BACK, INCREASED THE SET BACK ON THESE OTHER ROADS. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WE KEEP SEEING FRONT YARD SETBACKS WHERE THE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FORMER INTENT OF WHO MADE THIS ORDINANCE. IF YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT ON THAT. I HAVE A GUESS. BUT I'M THINKING THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE COLLECTORS, SO THEY ALL HAVE A LARGER SET BACK ANYWAYS. THAT WAS JUST KIND OF THE THINKING THAT THEY'RE A LARGER STREET. YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T REALLY FIT IN WITH THOSE SMALLER STREETS THAT YOU FIND AROUND THE LAKE. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL I CAN THINK OF. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. I LIKE THE NORTH SIDE LIKE LAKE DRIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LAKE. THE HOMES ARE PRETTY MUCH CONFORMING BECAUSE YOU HAVE A MORE OF A RURAL RESIDENTIAL KIND OF FEEL. THEY MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT ZONING, BUT YOU HAVE REALLY LARGE SETBACKS ON THE NORTH SIDE ON THE NON LAKE SIDE. BUT OVER HERE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERYONE HAS VERY SMALL SETBACKS BECAUSE THESE HOMES ARE EARLY 1900'S MANY OF THEM. THIS ONE IS OBVIOUSLY THE MIDDLE OF THE CENTURY. SO I'M JUST IT JUST SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY IS PREVENTED FROM DOING MUCH OF ANYTHING. AND MOST YARDS DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A REAR YARD TO BEGIN WITH. AND IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE COULD USE IT WOULD HELP TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTY. SO I GUESS THOSE ARE JUST KIND OF MY THOUGHTS, I GET FRUSTRATED BY THIS BECAUSE I JUST CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. I CAN ON CERTAIN AREAS OF LAKE DRIVE, BUT NOT LIKE JUST LAKE DRIVE AND THIS SECTION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS SO DIFFERENT FROM IN HAVING [INAUDIBLE] THE LAKE AND HAVING ACTUALLY VISITED THESE PARCELS. AND I HATE KNACKING THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LAKE BECAUSE I HAVE TO WALK UP REALLY LONG DRIVEWAY THAT ADDS CONSIDERABLY. SO I MEAN, I'VE LITERALLY WALKED AND EXPERIENCED IT. SO I DON'T KNOW THOSE ARE MY INITIAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THE INTENT HERE [01:05:04] OF THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT I JUST WONDER, TOO, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THIS DOUBLE LOT THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH OPTION AND EVEN WITH THE DOUBLE LOT THEY'RE EITHER WAY UP FRONT OR BACK OF THE HOUSE, THEY NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD. I DO DEFINITELY HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THAT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU KNOW, THAT I MEAN, TO BE ABLE TO USE THIS TO FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE IS WHERE I START THINKING OF THOSE CRITERIA. YOU KNOW, DOES THIS PROVIDE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT NO MATTER WHERE YOU WANT TO BUILD ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IN ORDER TO ATTACH IT TO THE HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO AN OUTBUILDING OF SOME KIND, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE. I FIND THAT TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. SO BUT I WONDER IN YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS, DAN, IF WE GET TO CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN AND ARE WE BACK TO ANOTHER LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICTS QUESTION MARK, WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THIS WITH THESE SETBACKS AND ORDINANCES HERE. GOING HE'S DOING THE HOMEWORK. SO ANY OTHER THOUGHTS THAT ANYBODY HAS OR I CAN START WHILE DAN'S DOING HIS HOMEWORK, I CAN START GETTING INTO THE CRITERIA. I COULD SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE ACTUALLY. YEAH, MEMBER HENDRICKSON WE HAD A JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING ON MONDAY OF THIS WEEK AND MEMBER HENDRICKSON BROUGHT THIS UP JUST AS AN FYI TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT AND DIRECTOR SCHMITT WAS IN ATTENDANCE. SO HE TOOK NOTE OF THE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS AND EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AND SEE, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THE ZBA SHOULD PLAY A ROLE IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS, TOO, BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES SEEING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. BUT THIS, I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY FROM A PUBLIC INTEREST STANDPOINT, THIS SHOULD BE A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE INCENTIVIZE NOT DECENTIVIZE PEOPLE INVESTING IN THEIR HOMES. THESE ARE OLDER HOMES. AND SO IF WE WANT TO PRESERVE THEM VERSUS HAVE THEM DEMOLISHED, WE NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE SOME FLEXIBILITY. WE GAVE PEOPLE FLEXIBILITY TO [INAUDIBLE] HOMES ON WHAT WE CALL THE TIER ONE, WHERE YOU LIVE ON THE LAKE AND BUILD MANSIONS. BUT THIS LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC NEIGHBORHOOD WASN'T GIVEN. IF ANYTHING, IT APPEARS THAT THE SETBACK MOVED ON THEM IT WENT FROM 60 OR 65 TO 85. AND WE DON'T I BELIEVE DIRECTOR SCHMITT AND KEITH CAN VERIFY THIS, BUT WE DON'T NORMALLY DO SETBACKS FROM THE CENTER LINE WE USUALLY DO THEM FROM THE CURB OR THE RIGHT OF WAY, TYPICALLY, RIGHT? SO IT'S DEPENDING ON THE STREET TYPE, SO LIKE ARTERIAL AND COLLECTORS ARE FROM THE CENTER LINE, BUT LIKE LOCAL STREETS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS ON A CORNER LOT, IT HAS A TWENTY FIVE FOOT OR 20 FOOT BECAUSE OF THE OVERLAY ON SHAW BUT THEN IT HAS TO MEET THAT COLLECTOR ONE OF EIGHTY FIVE ON LAKE DRIVE. SO I MEAN IF THEY DEMOLISHED IT AND START IT OVER LIKE THEY COULD, THEY COULD REALLY GET CREATIVE BECAUSE THEY COULD BUILD IT TO FRONT ON SHAW. AND USE THAT SMALLER SETBACK. BUT IT'S AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD AND DO YOU WANT TO PRESERVE IT? AND, YOU KNOW, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD'S ALSO GONE THROUGH A LOT WITH THE DRAINAGE PROJECT THAT REALLY LINGERED FOR MANY YEARS. BUT SO JUST SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ORDINANCE AND I DO THINK IT'S GOING TO GET LOOKED AT. SO THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW SO THAT, KNOWING THAT WE COULD MEET THAT CRITERIA, KNOWING THAT IT IS ON THE AGENDA, SO TO SPEAK, FOR PLANNING AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, THAT EASES THAT WORRY ABOUT THAT ONE, BECAUSE THAT IS ONE THAT AS I LOOK AT THAT, YOU KNOW, I SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE LAST TIME WE HAD A CASE IN THIS AREA, WE SAID, OK, NOW IT'S STARTING TO GET A LITTLE REDUNDANT THAT WE'RE NOW STARTING TO SEE THAT. SO I'M GLAD THAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON HAS TAKEN UP THAT CAUSE. WELL, I'M GOING TO START GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL FOR US HERE. CRITERIA NUMBER ONE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. [01:10:07] I WOULD TEND TO THINK THAT IT'S I KNOW I SAY THIS A LOT, AND I THINK I GET CHALLENGED ON THIS RIGHTLY SO, BUT I DO THINK IT'S UNIQUE IN THAT IT'S GOT TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF SET BACKS ON TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROADS. AND ANYWHERE ON THIS LOT WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO BUILD ATTACHED TO THIS HOUSE WITHOUT LEVELING AND STARTING OVER FROM NOTHING, WHICH I THINK THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY THOUGHTS ON THE UNIQUENESS CRITERIA? OK. THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF CREATED AS WE KNOW MR. SINA WAS NOT THERE IN 1947, NOR WAS HE THERE WHEN THESE LOVELY ORDINANCES WERE PLACED ON THIS DISTRICT. SO I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA. CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. I FEEL LIKE I'M A SKIPPING RECORD HERE, BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE LIES IT ANYWHERE THAT THEY WANT TO BUILD ATTACHING TO THIS HOUSE AND UNFORTUNATELY, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. SINA IS SAYING ABOUT THE CONNECTIVITY OF THE HOME AND THE FLOW, BUT FOR ME AND FOR OUR BOARD, I THINK THAT WE'D ALL LIKE TO SAY, WHY CAN'T HE JUST BUILD ON THE BACK? BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE IF YOU BUILD ON THE BACK, YOU STILL NEED A VARIANCE. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S WHERE I GET INTO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. AND I THINK TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, HAS POINTED OUT RATHER WISELY, THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, UPKEEP AND BUILDING IN THIS AREA AND MAINTAINING THESE HOMES. AND THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE IF YOU NEED TO HAVE A VARIANCE. AND I WOULD FIND THAT TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? ALL RIGHT. CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE ALLEGED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH WILL RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE. THIS IS A LITTLE STICKY ONE, BUT I GUESS WE COULD ARGUE THAT A PERMITTED PURPOSE WOULD BE TO USE AND BUILD ON THE LAND AS THEIR WANT TO DO. BUT YES, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. AND FOR ME, WHAT'S UNIQUE OVER HERE IN THIS LAKE DISTRICT, IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THESE HOMES AREN'T RUNNING AGAINST UP AGAINST, LIKE THE PERVIOUS TO IMPERVIOUS OR OTHER CRITERIA THAT WE PUT ON THEM. I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE BUILDING IN THE FLOODWAY LIKE ONE OF THE OTHER RECENT APPLICANTS WE HAD. IT'S JUST THAT THERE'S SETBACKS ON SOME OF THESE STREETS ARE JUST CONSTRAINING THE PROPERTY SO MUCH AND THESE ARE ALREADY SMALL HOMES. THERE'S NO LARGE HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO. YEAH. YEAH, AND I THINK THAT LEADS RIGHT INTO CRITERIA FIVE, WHICH IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE USE OF THE LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT IT BEING AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, HAS VERY STRICT SET BACKS IMPOSED UPON IT. AND I DO THINK THIS IS WHAT ARE WE, KEITH, FOR SQUARE FOOT FROM CENTER LINE FORTY FOUR. IT'S 45. 45. OK, 65 CURRENTLY. THE HOUSE. YEAH. 85 IS, YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE ORDINANCE, BUT. RIGHT. I DON'T FIND IT TO BE EXCESSIVE, AND I DO THINK THAT WE'VE CHALLENGED OTHER HOMEOWNERS BEFORE WITH EXCESSIVE ADDITIONS AND TRYING TO MINIMIZE. I DON'T FIND IT TO BE EXCESSIVE, BUT AND I FEEL THAT WE'RE IN MINIMUM ACTION TERRITORY. I THINK, AGAIN, EVEN IF WE WENT TO THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WOULD TYPICALLY BE WHAT WE WOULD SUGGEST IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EVEN FURTHER, I THINK WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT, WHAT, AT LEAST 20 FEET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. [01:15:07] ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON FOUR OR FIVE OR SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE ABLE TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA. CRITERIA NUMBER SIX, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE PROPERTY OR THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. AND I WOULD I THINK IT'S ONLY GOING TO IMPROVE THE AREA. IN ALL HONESTY, I THINK THAT THIS IS ENCOURAGING IMPROVEMENT IN THIS AREA. AND, YOU KNOW. I THINK IT WOULD POSITIVELY AFFECT THIS AREA. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY ARGUMENT FROM MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS ON THAT ONE. AND AS WE WERE MENTIONING BEFORE, WITH CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN, THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT TO NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE. I DO THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ALREADY CONSIDERING. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR AND THIS EXACT SETBACK IS THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKING A LOOK AT OR THAT IT NEEDS TO THAT IT WOULD FAIL TO MEET THAT CRITERIA. I THINK THAT THIS JUST GENERALLY IN THIS AREA, WE KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOWNSHIP IS LOOKING AT AND I'M HERE FOR IT. ANY QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 7 OR ANY THOUGHTS? DISCUSSION ON SEVEN. CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT WOULD BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA AS WELL. SO ANY DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-08-11-1 SINA. LOCATED AT 5786 LAKE DRIVE HASLETT, MICHIGAN 48840 PARCEL I.D. NUMBER 10-278-026. SUPPORTED BY THE CHAIR. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AT HAND? ALL RIGHT, WELL, IN THAT CASE, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, WE WILL GO FORWARD WITH A VOTE. MEMBER SHORKEY. YES. MEMBER KULHANEK. YES. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER. YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES. SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING. YES, I'M SURE SOMEBODY THERE IS SOMEBODY THAT IS WAITING AT HOME FOR A GOOD AND POSITIVE ANSWER. YEP. GLAD WE COULD GIVE THAT TO YOU TONIGHT, SIR. AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR BUILDING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TAKE CARE. ALL RIGHT. ON THAT NOTE, WE ARE LET'S GET BACK TO THE AGENDA HERE. WELL, WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS, SO I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS, OF WHICH I SEE NOBODY ELSE HERE BUT US. SO ON THAT NOTE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND GO TO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS. [9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS] IT'S NICE TO FINALLY MEET EVERYBODY. [LAUGHTER] DITTO. AND MY ASSUMPTION THAT THESE MEETINGS WOULD GO FASTER AND SMOOTHER IN PERSON THAN ONLINE HAS PROVEN TO BE CORRECT. YEAH, IT IS A LOT EASIER. IT'S A LOT EASIER. IT'S A LOT EASIER TO READ THE ROOM, SO TO SPEAK WHEN YOU ARE NOT ON ZOOM [LAUGHTER]. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, YES, I'M HAPPY TO SEE DON'S FACE AND MEET BRIAN UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL AND SEE EVERYBODY HERE. AND THANKS, DAN, FOR BEING ABLE TO JOIN US TONIGHT, TOO. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY WELCOME BACK TO EVERYBODY AND A BIG WELCOME IN PERSON TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT OVER THERE. THANK YOU. YES. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF THAT'S IT, I WILL OFFICIALLY ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 7:50 P.M.. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HAS JUST ADJOURNED. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED. THE BOARD VOTED 4 0 TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE THROUGH CAR WASH FACILITY AT 2703 GRAND RIVER AVENUE. THE TOWN BOARD ALSO VOTED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD ON LAKE DRIVE. THAT'S ALL. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.