[00:00:21]
KEITH DID MY SIDEWALK MAKE IT INTO THE AGREEMENT.
THE SIDEWALK CONNECTING THEIR TRAFFIC CIRCLE TO THE GREENCLIFF.
IT WASN'T. IT'S NOT IN THE I'M SURE IT'S NOT IN THE PLANS YET.
THERE WAS EVEN A LETTER OF THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SIGN TO GET IT DONE.
YEAH, I DON'T CARE WHICH WAY TO GO.
I THINK THERE'S LIKE A CURBSIDE SIDEWALK WHERE THOSE SEE THE THREE BIG TREES THERE.
YEAH, THAT WOULD CONNECT RIGHT IN THERE IF THEY JUST KEPT THE SIDEWALK GOING.
OH, BECAUSE IT'S OVER HERE, RIGHT? YEP.
YEAH. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING YET. OH, IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THEIR VARIANCES.
YEAH. IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS.
WHERE ARE YOU PROPOSING IT? YEAH.
YEAH, SEE HOW THEY'RE DOING A SIDEWALK RIGHT HERE.
GREENCLIFF AND TURNS RIGHT HERE? I SAID, JUST EXTEND THAT TO THE WALK PATH, SO THAT SHOULD PART OF THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE PRIVATE OWNERS, THEY'RE USING THAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID. BUT IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, ITERATION ONE OF THIS PLAN HAD FIRE TRUCKS BANGING THROUGH THEIR DRIVEWAY, SO WE DEALT WITH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
I KNOW IT DOESN'T SAY 6:30 ON THAT CLOCK, BUT IT SAYS 6:30, ON MINE, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
SO SHOULD I WAIT FOR THAT ONE? I MEAN, GO AHEAD, KEITH. ARE YOU GOOD? YEAH. OK.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF
[Items 1 & 2]
APPEALS MEETING TODAY IS OCTOBER 13, 2021.BY MY CLOCK, SO I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
TO BEGIN, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST DO ROLL.
THAT WILL HELP WITH MINUTES GOING FORWARD.
SO I'LL START DOWN HERE AT THE END.
IF YOU JUST WANT TO SAY YOUR NAME AND WE'LL MOVE ALONG.
SCOTT HENDRICKSON, DAN OPSOMMER.
OK, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY, AND WE WILL GET RIGHT INTO THE FIRST BIT OF BUSINESS, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF OUR AGENDA.
AND MOTIONS. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.
SUPPORT BY MEMBER OPSOMMER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES. YES.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON IN OUR AGENDA TO CORRECTION APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE MINUTES
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
FROM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH 2021.MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER HAS A NOTE.
MEMBER. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE FILED TO ME, BUT MAYBE WE CAN CORRECT FILED-FOSTER TO FIELD-FOSTER UNDER.
OK WE HAVE A CORRECTION UNDER THE SECOND.
YES UNDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA, IT SAYS MEMBER FILED-FOSTER.
ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THOSE MINUTES.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED BY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.
SUPPORTED BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON AND ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD FOR A VOTE TO MEMBER SHORKEY.
SO THE MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2021 HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS COMMUNICATIONS, OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE OF NOTE AND NO UNFINISHED
[4. COMMUNICATIONS]
BUSINESS. WE'VE MOVED DIRECTLY INTO NEW BUSINESS.[6A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-10-13-1 (Woodward Way LP), 500 S. Front Street, Columbus, OH, 43215]
WHICH BRINGS US TO ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-10-13-1, WOODWARD WAY LP 500 SOUTH FRONT STREET, COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215.AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 86376G7 I II.
[00:05:02]
THIS STATES THAT NO BUILDING OR CONNECTED BUILDING MAY EXCEED TWO HUNDRED FEET IN ANY ONE DIMENSION, AND ALL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SO ARRANGED AS TO PERMIT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS BY SOME PRACTICAL MEANS TO ALL SIDES.SO IN 2019, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A FORTY NINE UNIT TOWNHOUSE AND APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WAS COMPRISED OF FOUR BUILDINGS TOTALING FIFTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE SQUARE FEET.
THIS WAS LOCATED ON THE NORTH 4.37 ACRES OF PARCEL NUMBER, 17-377-031.
AND THAT SAME YEAR, THERE WERE VARIANCES GRANTED THAT ALLOWED FOR TWO OF THOSE FOUR BUILDINGS TO EXCEED THE ALLOWED TWO HUNDRED FEET IN LENGTH BY THIRTY SEVEN FEET, AND ALSO ALLOW FOR PARKING SPACES TO BE A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RC MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM 14 UNITS PER ACRE.
IT'S LOCATED EAST OF CIRCLE DRIVE, NORTH OF WHOLE FOODS AND WEST OF GREENCLIFF DRIVE.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS THAT ALSO RECEIVED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL. THESE SHOW A FORTY NINE UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT HAS TWO BUILDINGS TOTALING FORTY NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY EIGHT SQUARE FEET.
SO THE MAIN REASON FOR THE REDESIGN OF THE SITE WAS THE CUL DE SAC THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE PLAN WAS ADDED, AS WELL AS THE CONDITION OF THE REZONING THAT REQUIRED ONE HUNDRED FEET OF PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE TO BE PROVIDED.
SO NOW THAT THAT CUL DE SAC IS ON THE PROPERTY, THAT IS DUE TO THE PREVIOUS ITERATION SHOWING A ROAD THAT KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE SITE, WHICH WASN'T PERMITTED BY THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT.
SO THESE NEW BUILDINGS WILL CONSIST OF STACKED FLATS AND ELIMINATE THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2019.
SO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES HOUSING FOR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW TO MODERATE INCOME. THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW A SINGLE BUILDING OR CONNECTED BUILDING IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED FEET IN ANY ONE DIMENSION.
THESE ARE SUBMITTED PLANS SHOW BUILDING ONE AND BUILDING TWO ARE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN FEET AND TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY FEET IN LENGTH, RESPECTIVELY, WHICH REQUIRES A 17 FOOT AND FORTY FOOT VARIANCE.
ALSO NOTED THE TOWNSHIP FIRE MARSHAL HAS REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN AND CONCLUDED THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDINGS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHAPMAN. IS THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE HERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE AND SPEAK ON THE CASE TONIGHT? ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION, WE JUST ASK THAT YOU SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE. HELLO, MY NAME IS PATRICK KELDERHOUSE.
MY ADDRESS IS 14710 WAYPOINT PARKWAY, WEST OLIVE MICHIGAN.
I'M WITH HOOKER DEJONG ARCHITECTS, THE ARCHITECT ON THIS PROJECT, AND HE PRETTY MUCH COVERED EVERYTHING THAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND THE CHANGE.
DUE TO THE CUL DE SAC, WE HAD TO RECONFIGURE THE BUILDINGS TO MAKE THEM FIT ON THE SITE AND WITHIN THE SET BACKS, PROVIDE THE PROPER AMOUNT OF PARKING AND PROVIDE THE REQUIRED GREEN SPACE. AND THIS WAS THE MOST FEASIBLE WAY TO DO SO AND TRYING TO CREATE STEP BACKS IN THE BUILDING. SO IT'S NOT A SUPER LONG APPEARING BUILDING, IT'S FEELING IT'S FITTING THE SITE VERY ADEQUATELY.
IF YOU WANT TO STAY UP AT THE PODIUM JUST FOR A WHILE WHILE WE DO OUR BOARD TALK, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THEN IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, WE CAN CALL UPON YOU.
AND DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, KELDERHOUSE? YES, MA'AM. OK, GREAT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. KELDERHOUSE.
IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE IN, AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.
ANYONE WANT TO GET STARTED? MEMBER HENDRICKSON GO AHEAD. YES.
SO FIRST QUESTION IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF THE BUILDING AS DEFINED BY THE ORDINANCE DOES THAT INCLUDE THE WRAPAROUND OR IS IT TWO HUNDRED FEET LENGTH WISE.
[00:10:01]
IT'S LENGTH ON THE ONE END? YES. SO WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'RE NOT APPROVED TODAY? WE BASICALLY WILL GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.I WILL TALK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE CLIENT OF WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE AS OF RIGHT NOW, WITH THE WAY THE AMOUNT OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THE DETENTION FOR STORMWATER WITH THE CUL DE SAC, WE ARE GETTING TO BE PRETTY LANDLOCKED OF BEING ABLE TO GO IN EITHER DIRECTION AND STILL MAINTAIN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.
OK. THE CHAIR HAS QUESTIONED MR. CHAPMAN. IS THERE A WAY TO LOOK AT OR DO YOU HAVE MR. KELDERHOUSE WHAT WAS THE PREVIOUS PLAN AND WHAT WAS ALREADY BECAUSE I REMEMBER THIS CASE, NOT SPECIFICS, BUT I WAS ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME, SO I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT CHANGED AND WHERE YOU WERE ABLE, BECAUSE I DO RECALL THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FIRE SAFETY AT THAT POINT AS WELL WITH THE BUILDING LENGTH.
BUT I'M THRILLED TO SEE THAT THERE'S ONLY A VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING LENGTH AND NOT ANY OTHER. YEAH.
AND BEFORE THE BUILDING, HEIGHTS WERE PROBABLY AROUND 30 FEET THEY'RE NOW, RIGHT AROUND 20. SO THEY HAVE DROPPED IN HEIGHT, SO IT WON'T BE AS NOTICEABLE IN THE SURROUNDING SITES. SEE IF THAT'S SO A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ORIENTATION THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE WHERE SIRHAL IS ON THE BOTTOM PART OF THE PAGE. IT COMES INTO THE SITE, THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN GOING VERTICAL IS A STACKED FLAT, SO IT'S APARTMENTS, WALKUP UNITS.
THE OTHER THREE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE OTHER, THAT'S NORTH, EAST AND WEST SIDE OF THE SITE. THOSE ARE TOWNHOMES.
AND THEN THE BUILDINGS ON THE NORTH AND THE EAST ARE THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT EXCEEDED THE TWO HUNDRED FEET ORIGINALLY.
SO NOW THE CUL DE SAC IS COMING IN BASICALLY TAKES OUT ALL OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, SO YOU PRETTY MUCH CAN'T PUT ANYTHING OVER THERE ANYMORE.
AND THEN MAINTAINING THE QUIET GREEN SPACES, THE SETBACKS, THE PARKING COUNT, THE FUTURE PARKING EXPANSION.
THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE CONNECTED INTO THE TWO BUILDINGS AND RESORTED TO STACK FLASH BECAUSE THAT FIT BETTER INTO THE SITE TO BE ABLE TO WRAP AROUND THE CORNERS AND NOT USING THE TOWNHOMES THAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED AND MAINTAINING THE FORTY NINE UNITS THAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED.
GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. KELDERHOUSE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER. SO THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE BUILDING DIMENSIONS, IS THERE ANY WAY TO REDESIGN THE BUILDING SO IT FITS WITHIN THE REQUIRED DIMENSIONS? WE'VE WORKED WITH CIVIL AND WITH THE DEVELOPER TO KIND OF GO THROUGH AND SEE WHAT OUR OPTIONS WERE TO REDESIGN.
REALISTICALLY, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO REALLY CONFIGURE THE BUILDING TO GET WITHIN THAT DISTANCE BECAUSE THE PART THAT WE WOULD BE ENLARGING WOULD BE THE WING THAT IS ALREADY TOO LONG TO BEGIN WITH.
SO IF WE WERE TO PULL IT FROM ONE ONE BUILDING TO PUT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THAT ONE SIDE IS WORKING, BUT THEN THE OTHER WING IS JUST GETTING LONGER.
SO, MR. CHAPMAN, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS SECTION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF OUR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
SO STRATFORD PLACE ADJACENT TO THIS HAS A LONGER BUILDING, SO THEY MUST HAVE A VARIANCE OF THIS SAME NATURE OR THE TOWNSHIP OVERLOOKED IT.
OK. SO I'M SEEING CONDITIONS JUST ADJACENT TO THIS WITH THE SAME VARIANCE, OR POSSIBLY IF THERE IS NO VARIANCE ON FILE, THEN WE OVERLOOKED IT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING FOR STRATFORD PLACE.
AND THEN WHEN I'M READING THE PACKETS, THE ZBA DID APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET IN LENGTH FOR HOW MANY BUILDINGS IN 2019.
IT WAS THE TWO LONG BUILDINGS.
YEAH, THE TWO LONG THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, OK BY 37 FEET FOR EACH ONE.
AND THEY HAD A VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACES, RIGHT? AND SO NOW WE'RE DOWN TO JUST ONE VARIANCE FOR EACH BUILDING.
OK. SO, YOU KNOW, SERVING ON THE BOARD AND HAVING SEEN THIS GO ON THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A UNIQUE SITE.
IT WAS PART OF THE TRAILER HOME THAT PRECEDED, YOU KNOW, WHOLE FOODS.
[00:15:01]
SO THIS WAS A TRAILER PARK PREVIOUSLY, BUT IT WAS ONLY A FRACTION OF IT.SO THIS UNDEVELOPED SITE, YOU KNOW, IS VERY PECULIAR.
SO I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPLICANT HAVING ALREADY REVIEWED THIS FOR POSSIBLE REVISIONS OR ANYTHING.
IT'S LIKE PLAYING A GAME OF WHAC-A-MOLE.
ANYTHING THAT YOU CHANGE, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE ANOTHER VARIANCE ON A SETBACK OR OF SOMETHING ELSE. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH 2019 MINUS THE PARKING.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MEMBER OPSOMMER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT I'M GOING TO GET INTO THE CRITERIA BECAUSE I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONSENSUS ALREADY HERE.
LET'S SEE OUR FIRST CRITERIA THAT 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. I THINK THAT MEMBER OPSOMMER JUST SUMMED IT UP PRETTY, PRETTY WELL.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I NECESSARILY AGREE ABOUT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
OK. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT FOR OUR TOWNSHIP, IT'S RELATIVELY UNIQUE TO HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN A [INAUDIBLE] COMMUNITY.
BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE PARCEL ITSELF, I MEAN, IT'S RELATIVELY SQUARE.
BUT I GUESS I'M FAILING TO SEE WHAT MAKES THIS PARCEL ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE PARCEL NEXT TO IT, ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE PARCEL ON THE FAR SIDE OF THAT.
I MEAN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THERE'S YOU KNOW, THERE IS NEW ROAD NEEDED TO CONNECT TO IT, BUT I JUST THIS IS THE ONE THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE MOST.
IS THE UNIQUE. IS THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.
SO THAT LATTER PART THAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON JUST TOUCHED ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CUL DE SAC VERSUS JUST A THROUGH ROAD TO CONNECT THE TWO IS WHAT I FIND UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARCEL, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT WON'T LET US CONNECT IT.
I WOULD SAY THERE PROBABLY ALSO WASN'T SUPPORT FOR THE CONNECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE BOARD, SO THE TOWNSHIP IS ACTUALLY KIND OF IMPOSING IT ON THEM TOO.
IF THAT WOULD ASSUME THAT THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT WERE TO ALLOW IT, THE TOWNSHIP WOULD THEN BE IMPOSING IT ON IT.
BASED ON MY COUNT ON THE BOARD, I WAS THE ONLY PERSON ADVOCATING FOR THE CONNECTION JUST BECAUSE IT'S MUCH MORE CONDUCIVE FOR DEVELOPING THE SITE.
I THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD AGREE.
THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WOULD STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ME, BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD BY THE NORTHEAST, SOUTHWEST OR NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST STREET GRID. WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF THOSE, SO THE CONNECTIVITY IS GREAT.
SO THE ROAD CHALLENGES THAT ARE BEING IMPOSED ON THE DEVELOPER FORCING THE CUL DE SAC ESSENTIALLY FROM TWO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT IS WHAT I FIND UNIQUE TO THE SITE.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT THEY COULD DEVELOP FEWER UNITS. THEY ACTUALLY DID COME DOWN.
THEY PROPOSED, I BELIEVE, 54 ORIGINALLY THEY HAD TO COME DOWN BECAUSE WITH DOING THE CUL DE SAC AND NOT HAVING THE THROUGH ROAD CONNECTIVITY IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, EAST AND WEST.
THEY'RE LIMITED TO A MAX OF FORTY NINE UNITS.
THAT'S WHY IT'S AT FORTY NINE TODAY.
IT'S A TAX CREDIT HOUSING, WHICH IS A TIER ABOVE SECTION EIGHT.
AND SO YOU NEED SOME KIND OF DENSITY TO BUILD ANY KIND OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING OR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. SO THAT'S ALSO JUST ANOTHER UNIQUE THING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE LAND OR AS IT DOES PERTAIN TO THE STRUCTURES ON IT.
BECAUSE BUT FOR HAVING THAT DENSITY, THERE WON'T BE ANY USE TO THE SITE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT THE ROAD IS REALLY WHAT I VIEW AS UNIQUE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU MEMBER OPSOMMER, AND I WOULD AGREE, I THINK THAT I DO FEEL THAT THEY HAVE THE DEVELOPER HAD A PLAN.
WE APPROVED THE VARIANCES AND THEN BEHIND THAT THEY WERE THEY HAVE THESE ROAD CHALLENGES IMPOSED ON THIS SITE.
I WOULD. I'M NOT FINDING A CHALLENGE WITH CRITERIA NUMBER ONE, ANYONE ELSE? NO, I INITIALLY, I THINK IF YOU KNOW, GOING BACK IN TIME, IF I HAD PROBABLY BEEN LOOKING AT THIS INITIALLY, I MAY HAVE HAD SOME CONCERNS.
BUT SINCE WE'RE NOT AT THAT PLACE NOW AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A PARTICULAR VARIANCE THAT ULTIMATELY IS CREATED AS A RESULT OF WHAT TRUSTEE OPSOMMER HAS BASICALLY INDICATED.
THIS IS BASICALLY US REQUIRING THIS CHANGE AND AS A RESULT OF THAT.
[00:20:07]
AND I EVEN, YOU KNOW, UNDERLINED IT IN THE NOTES AND I WAS JUST LIKE, WELL, OK, WE'RE KIND OF PUTTING THIS ONUS ON THIS DEVELOPER THAT'S ALREADY GOTTEN APPROVED.AND SO NOW WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING, OK, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE IT.
SO IN THAT REGARD, I IN THE WAY I MUST ADMIT THAT THE APPLICANT FILLED OUT THE VARIANCE CRITERIA.
I REALLY APPRECIATED THE INFORMATION AND THE DETAIL THAT YOU PUT INTO THAT.
SO I CAN AGREE WITH NUMBER ONE THAT IT IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON, NODDING HIS HEAD A LITTLE BIT.
MEMBER OPSOMMER. JUST ONE OTHER NOTE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ADJACENT SITES THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE EAST ROAD CONNECTION AS ACTUALLY BEING USED BY THE RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO IT ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
SO THAT'S ONE OTHER THAT'S ONE CONSIDERATION FOR PERHAPS WHY THE ROAD DEPARTMENT DOESN'T WANT TO FORCE THE ROAD CONNECTION ON THE EAST, AMONG OTHERS.
IT CERTAINLY SUPPORTS THAT THIS IS NOT SELF-CREATED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THERE'S ADJACENT LANDOWNERS CREATING CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL THAT ARE PRETTY SPECIAL.
I WOULD AGREE. ON THERE ANY OTHER NOTES ON CRITERIA NUMBER TWO.
CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
[LAUGHTER] I SEE SOME HEADS NODDING IN AGREEMENT.
I THINK THE APPLICANT BASICALLY KIND OF PHRASED THAT WELL WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD REDESIGN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DID NOT GRANT IT.
AND SO LOOKING AT ALL OF THE OPTIONS, THE PROCESS THAT HE'S BEEN THROUGH BRINGING IT DOWN TO, I THINK EVEN, YOU KNOW, THE MINIMAL THAT ULTIMATELY CAN BE DONE ON THIS SITE WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT HOUSING FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES.
I THINK THAT NOT GRANTING THIS WOULD DEFINITELY RESULT IN THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.
IN AGREEMENT. ANY OTHER DEBATE ON OR THOUGHTS ON CRITERIA NUMBER THREE.
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.
I THINK THAT WE'RE KIND OF WE'VE BEEN CIRCLING AROUND THIS DURING THIS DISCUSSION, BUT IT IS BACK TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THEY THEY DID HAVE AN APPROVED PLAN.
THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES FROM INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT AND FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET.
AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE CREATED A CERTAIN SITUATION FOR THEM IN ORDER TO USE THIS LAND FOR THIS PERMITTED PURPOSE AND CREATE THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY NEED THIS VARIANCE TO MOVE FORWARD. THEY WERE GRANTED THE VARIANCE THEY HAD EVERYTHING THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO IN THE FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO I WOULD DEFINITELY THINK THAT THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON YES, MEMBER OPSOMMER? JUST ONE OTHER NOTE TO ADD ON FOUR.
THE TOWNSHIP DID REZONE THE PARCEL IN QUESTION.
SO WE DID REZONE IT FOR THE ESSENTIALLY THE PERMITTED PURPOSE THAT IT HOLDS TODAY.
SO THE PERMITTED PURPOSE OF BEING A MULTI-UNIT HOUSING.
SO THIS WAS A RECENT REZONING.
SO WE DID RECENTLY GRANT THE CURRENT ZONING TO THE LAND.
OK, SO THE PERMITTED PURPOSE IS MULTI-UNIT HOUSING.
IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT IS THAT DESIGNATION? MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
SO ANY KIND OF TOWNHOME, CONNECTED TOWNHOMES, ROW HOMES, QUAD PLEXUS APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
BUT IT'S THIS IS A LOWER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONING CATEGORY.
THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
NOT TO BE THE THE NAYSAYER HERE, BUT MY YOU KNOW, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY GET TO MINIMUM ACTION AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SORT OF DOVETAILS WITH THAT TO ME BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIALS OF A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, QUITE LIKE TRUSTEE OPSOMMER CLEARLY DOES.
[00:25:05]
FOR ME, I SEE FOUR LESS UNITS ON HERE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'VE SOLVED THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? YOU LOP OFF ONE OF YOUR LITTLE JAGGED OUTPUTS ON BOTH BUILDINGS, AND WE DON'T HAVE A VARIANCE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORTY FIVE UNITS AND FORTY NINE UNITS IS TO THE PROFITABILITY OF A COMPLEX LIKE THIS.BUT IS THAT FOR US TO DETERMINE.
RIGHT? WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE.
AND SO UNLESS IT COULD BE STATED TO ME SOMEHOW THAT THEY LITERALLY CAN'T OPERATE WITH FOUR UNITS LESS THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED OR WHATEVER THE EQUIVALENT WOULD BE OF SHORTENING THE BUILDING BY THE NUMBER OF FEET THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IN A VARIANCE.
I'M FINDING IT HARD TO SAY THAT THEY CAN'T OPERATE RIGHT, THAT IT CREATES SUCH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY.
RIGHT. THAT'S THE OPERATIVE PHRASE FOR ME.
IT WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSE.
AND THAT IS WHERE I MEAN, I STRUGGLE WITH THIS AS, I WAS, YOU KNOW, PREPARING FOR THE MEETING ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT FRONTS.
IT'S BEEN HARD FOR ME TO RECONCILE THAT.
TRUSTEE OPSOMMER GO AHEAD. YES.
SO TO THAT POINT, SO I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAD TO SEEK MSHDA APPROVAL AND THAT TOOK ACTUALLY TWO ROUNDS DOES IF THE UNIT COUNT CHANGED WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE TO GO BACK TO MSHDA FOR REAPPROVAL.
AND ADDITIONALLY, IT WOULD BE EIGHT UNITS THAT WE WOULD BE REMOVING NOT FOUR, BECAUSE EACH POD ON THE END IS TWO STORIES FOUR ON EACH ONE.
SO WE'LL BE GOING FROM 49 TO 41.
AND TYPICALLY, THE UNIT MATRIX CONFIGURATION IS ONE OF THE MAIN SCORING ITEMS IN MSHDA.
SO THAT COULD TAKE US OUT TO WHERE WE ARE NO LONGER RECEIVING THOSE CREDITS FROM MSHDA.
BUT THAT WOULD BE HAVING TO WERE THE DEVELOPER WOULD GO BACK TO MSHDA REDO THE SCORING AND POTENTIALLY HAVE TO RESUBMIT IN THE NEXT SPRING ROUND TO GO THROUGH THE REVIEW.
AND DON'T MISTAKE MY, YOU KNOW, MY SCRUTINY OF THE CRITERIA FOR NOT THINKING, NOT APPRECIATING AND APPROVING THE PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENED, AS WELL AS THE CONCEPT OF THE PROPOSAL, RIGHT? I'VE SEEN THIS NOW FIVE SIX TIMES AND I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF SEEING THIS DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WHEN I COME TO THIS MEETING, IT'S A DIFFERENT HAT THAT I PUT ON TO CLOSER SCRUTINIZE THE REQUESTED EXEMPTIONS OR VARIANCES TO THE ORDINANCE. YEAH, I DO APPRECIATE THAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON, BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL WE ALL DO NEED TO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SCRUTINY INSTEAD OF JUST LOOKING AT IT FOR FACE VALUE.
AND I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH WHAT MR. KELDERHOUSE HAS SAID BECAUSE THAT REALLY DOES, I THINK, KIND OF IMPRESS UPON US WHAT THE PROCESS HAS BEEN TO COME DOWN FROM WHERE WE WERE INITIALLY TO THESE FORTY NINE UNITS.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT BRINGS US HERE TONIGHT AND THAT THAT WAS HELPFUL FOR ME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. YOU'RE WELCOME.
TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, DID YOU WANT TO? YEAH, JUST SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT.
SO FOR ME, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ARE ARISING.
YOU KNOW, IF WE ACCEPT THE CUL DE SAC AS JUST A REALITY, THAT HAS TO BE WORKED AROUND RIGHT THEN CERTAINLY, THE APPLICANT CAN AVOID THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, THE VARIANCE REQUEST WAS APPROVED THE FIRST TIME AROUND.
I WASN'T PART OF THIS BODY, SO I'M LEERY OF OVERTURNING IT WITH A VERY SIMILAR VARIANCE REQUEST. BUT FROM MY STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, THE CUL DE SAC ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS JUST TAKING AT FACE VALUE THAT HAS TO BE THERE.
AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN A BETTER PLAN IF WE DIDN'T NEED THE CUL DE SAC. BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE TAKING THE APPROACH OF MINIMIZING CONNECTIVITY OF ROADWAYS AND A LOT OF AREAS OF THE TOWNSHIP.
AND THAT'S THE REVISIONS IN THIS PLAN ARE PART OF WHAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO HOUSING STOCK OF THIS PARTICULAR NATURE.
WE HAVE SECTION EIGHT, WE HAVE OTHER HOUSING STOCK.
[00:30:02]
I REALLY WANTED TO SEE THE CONNECTIVITY JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE AFFORDED A FEW MORE UNITS, AND IT WOULD HAVE MEANT A FEW MORE FAMILIES COULD HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE OKEMOS SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO FOR ME, IT'S JUST THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS ARISING OUT OF THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT AND THE TOWNSHIP'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, AND IT'S CONSUMING ROUGHLY 20 PERCENT OF THE PROJECT SPACE, AND IT'S DOING SO IN A NOT SO HELPFUL MANNER, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S JUST KIND OF PLOPPED IN THERE AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT DIAMETERS THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET THE RADIUS OF IT HAS TO BE A CERTAIN WAY FOR IT TO BE A TRUE PUBLIC ROADWAY VERSUS PRIVATE. AND SO THERE'S ALL THESE CONDITIONS BEING IMPOSED ON THEM THAT MADE THEM HAVE TO SHIFT. I REALLY LIKED THE FIRST.AND THE PLAN IS ALSO BEING DIMINISHED BY THE FACT THAT NOW WE HAVE STACKED ESSENTIALLY APARTMENTS INSTEAD OF TOWNHOMES, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE CONDUCIVE FOR THE FAMILY ENVIRONMENT. AND I KNOW THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE LOST THE PLAYGROUND, BUT YOU KNOW THAT'S CAUSED A LOT OF ISSUES.
I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR FAULT.
BUT I WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO COMMENT ON THAT.
NOPE. AGREED THAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE UNITS TO BE THE TOWNHOUSE TO KIND OF BE CONDUCIVE TO THAT FAMILY ATMOSPHERE.
BUT WHEN WE WERE ACTING TO [INAUDIBLE] TO THE SITE, THOSE WEREN'T REALLY LOGISTICAL BECAUSE OF THE BIGGER FOOTPRINT THAT EACH UNIT WOULD TAKE.
WE WEREN'T ABLE TO KEEP THE PLAYGROUND.
IT'S OVER BY BUILDING TWO OVER BY THE GREENCLIFF SIDE.
WE STILL HAVE THE EXTERIOR SEATING AREA FOR GATHERING OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY AREA, WHICH IS ON THE GREENCLIFF SIDE IS THE COMMUNITY ROOM WITH A KITCHENETTE IN THERE AND GATHERING SO THERE IS STILL GATHERING AREAS ON THE SITE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO MAINTAIN FROM THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE PLAN.
ANYBODY ELSE ON CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR.
OK, 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 THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO AROUND THIS ONE AGAIN, BUT I DO FIND THIS TO BE A MINIMUM ACTION. I THINK THAT GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR 17 WAS IT 17 FEET FOR ONE BUILDING AND 40 FEET FOR ANOTHER BUILDING THAT GIVEN THAT AMOUNT OF SPACE EQUALS FORTY NINE UNITS, WHICH I DO THINK THAT IT IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AND INGHAM COUNTY HAVE GIVEN THIS THIS CUL DE SAC AND THEY'RE ROLLING WITH IT.
THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN.
AND BY GETTING TO SOMETHING THAT'S NEEDED IN THE TOWNSHIP, SOMETHING THAT IS A SMALL ASK, CONSIDERING THAT I KNOW WHEN THIS WAS BEFORE US, BEFORE I REMEMBER GOING AROUND AND AROUND ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE WERE FRUSTRATED THAT IT MIGHT BE A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.
THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY FIRE SAFETY.
THIS IS I CAN ONLY SEE THIS BEING A BENEFIT TO THE TOWNSHIP IN ALL HONESTY, TO HAVE THIS NUMBER OF UNITS OF FAMILY HOUSING IN AN AREA THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE OKEMOS SCHOOL DISTRICT, I THINK IS I FOR ONE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT BEING SOMETHING THAT WE CAN APPROVE OF THAT I DO THINK PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE FOR THE DEVELOPER THAT HAS COME BACK MULTIPLE TIMES IN FRONT OF PLANNING IN FRONT OF ZBA, IN FRONT OF TOWNSHIP.
I FIND IT TO BE MINIMAL. A MINIMUM ACTION.
MEMBER SHORKEY IN 2019, THERE WERE TWO VARIANCES.
ONE WAS RELATED TO THE PARKING SPACES.
ARE YOU NO LONGER REQUIRING THAT OR IS THAT VARIANCE HOLDING OVER FROM TWO YEARS AGO? I WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY THAT WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEER, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE CURRENTLY MEET THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACE.
OK. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM IT WAS THAT BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF UNITS WENT DOWN, THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES WENT DOWN.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CHAPMAN? YEAH.
SO THEY DID, I THINK A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT VARIANCE RUNS WITH THE LAND, SO IT'S STILL APPLICABLE. OK? WHY WAS IT DETERMINED THAT THE THIRTY SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE ON THE BUILDING LENGTH DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND? WELL, THE APPLICANT'S CHANGING, REQUESTING THE CHANGE FOR THAT.
RIGHT. BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL THIRTY SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE FOR BUILDING RANK.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S JUST THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY'VE CHANGED ON THE SITE.
WAS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE. WAS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE THE WHOLE.
[00:35:01]
MEMBER HENDRICKSON. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SCROLL BACK UP TO THE ACTUAL CASE INFORMATION THERE.SORRY, IT'S IN HERE SOMEWHERE.
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE CASE NUMBER.
NO. I'M LOOKING FOR THE THE 17 FOOT AND 40 FOOT.
SO MY QUESTION, I GUESS, WOULD BE TO CLARIFY THERE'S A THIRTY SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE ON THE BUILDING LENGTH ALREADY.
IS THIS GOING TO BE THIRTY SEVEN PLUS 17 AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK IS WHAT MEMBER SHORKEY WAS TRYING TO GET AT.
NO, NO, I WAS I WAS GETTING AT IF WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THIRTY SEVEN FEET FOR THIS, FOR THIS PARCEL.
WHY NOT JUST ANOTHER? I KNOW THEY HAD TO COME IN WITH A NEW PLAN, BUT WE WERE ALREADY SAYING, WE'LL, ALLOW A TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY SEVEN FOOT BUILDING, NOW THEY ONLY NEED A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE.
RIGHT? FURTHER VARIANCE, YEAH, SEE WHAT I MEAN.
THREE FOOT FURTHER VARIANCE WITH THE FORTY FOOT THE 17 FOOT GOES AWAY.
IS ALREADY CAPTURED? SO YES, WHY? WHY IS THAT? I'M NOT GOING TO WAR WITH IT THOUGH IF THEY'RE SAYING.[LAUGHTER] THE TOWNSHIP SAYS THAT THE CHANGE HAS INVALIDATED THAT ORIGINAL VARIANCE SOMEHOW, I'D BE CURIOUS HOW THAT HAPPENED. YEAH, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DEBATE THAT.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. FAIR ENOUGH.
THANK YOU FOR LOOKING AT THOSE DETAILS.
RIGHT? AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ACCIDENTALLY STACKING THEM IF THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE ALONG THE WAY.
IT'S TWO FOUR YEAH. 240 AND SURE THAT WE'RE CAREFUL NOT TO CREATE AN ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD, CREATE AN ISSUE 30 40 YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT THAT OOPS, WE ACCIDENTALLY HAVE A TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN SQUARE LINK BUILDING.
NO. SO WITH THAT WITH THE ORIGINAL VARIANCES BE INVALIDATED BY.
YEAH. SO THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING FORWARD THIS NEW REQUEST AND THAT IS JUST WE'RE STARTING OVER NEW WITH THAT BUILDING SIZE.
YEAH, IT'S JUST CHANGED ENOUGH IN NATURE THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS DETERMINED.
SO, OK. SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS.
YEAH, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE FINE.
JUST FOR THE SAKE OF MAKING COVERING OURSELVES HERE AS THE TOWNSHIP, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE IN THE MOTION TO REVOKE THEIR PREVIOUS VARIANCES AND ISSUE THEM VARIANCES OF THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING SHOULD THIS GO FORWARD? YEAH, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S SO LET'S JUST SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH AN ISSUE SPEAKERS] YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THAT WE'RE NOT.
NO, NO. WE HAVEN'T HAD A MOTION YET. I'M JUST I'M MAKING A NOTE JUST IN CASE.
YEAH. SO YOU JUST REPEAL THE ZBA CASE NUMBER ONE NINE DASH ZERO NINE DASH ONE EIGHT DASH THREE OF 2019.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTE. NO, THAT JUST TOOK CARE OF IT.
ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION ON CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE ON MINIMUM ACTION.
CRITERIA NUMBER SIX. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR A CENTRAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW THE CHAIR STANDS ON THAT.
I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A BENEFIT TO THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AND THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AS A WHOLE. SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND.
I'M WELCOME TO HEAR OTHER OPINIONS ON THAT.
I THINK, AS TRUSTEE OPSOMMER POINTED OUT AT THE EARLIER ON IN THIS MEETING, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HAS A LONGER BUILDING SIMILAR TO THIS.
AND SO FOR ME, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE ADJACENT LAND OR CHARACTER OF IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY AT ALL, BECAUSE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ALREADY HAVE BUILDINGS AT THIS LENGTH AND SIZE. THE CHAIR WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WE ARE SEEMINGLY HAVE IMPOSED THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE, OR, I'M SORRY, THE CUL DE SAC STREET HERE AS TO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO SLOW TRAFFIC, TO CREATE KIND OF A SLOWER NON THROUGH FARE.
SO I WOULD ACTUALLY ARGUE AS WELL THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING NOT TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW WE'RE AT GETTING A VARIANCE.
SO ANYONE ELSE ON CRITERIA NUMBER SIX.
CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN, THE CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE ARE NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRENT IN NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.
I DON'T FIND THIS TO BE GENERAL OR RECURRENT, OK? AND CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC
[00:40:02]
INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.I THINK WE COVERED THAT SEVERAL TIMES.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN TO CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT.
I DO KNOW THAT THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF OR MAYBE A LOT OF BIT OF HESITATION ON MEMBER HENDRICKSON PART BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, AND THAT'S WHY WE ALL GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK. MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
THANK YOU. YEAH, JUST TO TO BE CLEAR, I FEEL FAR MORE COMFORTABLE WITH GRANTING A VARIANCE OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES IN THIS CASE, KNOWING THAT THE PRECEDENT HAD BEEN THERE WITH THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE PROJECT.
HAD I BEEN INVOLVED IN THE FIRST ITERATION OF THIS MEETING? I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY.
I THINK THAT I AGAIN, I THINK UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY.
IT COULD BE ARGUED, HAVE CROPPED UP SINCE THIS ORIGINAL VARIANCE WAS ISSUED.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
I'M NOT TRYING TO RELITIGATE WHAT HAPPENED TWO YEARS AGO, BUT I'LL BE VOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS WHEN IT COMES UP IN A MOMENT HERE, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR THE MOST PART, AS MEMBER SHORKEY POINTED OUT.
AND WHILE I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED HAD THIS COME TO ME CLEAN TWO YEARS AGO, HERE WE ARE.
IT'S TWO YEARS LATER, AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT OVERALL.
I THINK THE INTENT OF THE PROJECT IS GOOD.
I THINK THE RESULT OF THE PROJECT WILL BE GOOD.
IT'S GOING TO BRING A NEW KIND OF HOUSING INTO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.
IT'S GOING TO BRING HOPEFULLY NEW STUDENTS INTO THE OKEMOS SCHOOL DISTRICT.
CERTAINLY, THE WE LOVE WARD CLIFF FANS WILL BE CHEERING AND SHOUTING FROM THE RAFTERS IF MORE STUDENTS COME INTO THIS AREA.
AND SO THEY ARE THRILLED AND I'M THRILLED FOR THEM.
BUT YEAH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I THINK THE ARGUMENTS MADE THAT, YOU KNOW, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THEM ARE GOOD ONES.
SO GUESS I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YEAH. SO JUST ONE FINAL THOUGHT AS I WAS THINKING THROUGH THE INTENT OF THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
SO THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN THINK OF IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S TO BREAK UP HOUSING, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX AND APARTMENT COMPLEXES, TRY TO, YOU KNOW, BREAK IT UP INTO MORE BUILDINGS WITH MORE GREEN SPACE, YOU KNOW, SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST REALLY, REALLY LONG CONTIGUOUS BUILDINGS AND WHATNOT.
HOWEVER, IT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY PREVALENT BECAUSE IF YOU DRIVE AROUND THE TOWNSHIP, YOU'D BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND ANY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX THAT'S FOR MANY.
I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE COMPLIANT WITH THIS.
I'M THINKING LIKE CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS MIGHT BE BECAUSE THERE'S A TON OF BUILDINGS, AND THEY MIGHT NOT QUITE MEET THE TWO HUNDRED FEET, BUT THEY MIGHT ALL JUST BE RIGHT OVER IT. I MEAN, IT'S I GET THE INTENT AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD INTENT.
BUT I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS IS UNIQUE.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T GET MANY PROJECTS OF THIS NATURE FOR MULTIFAMILY.
SO THIS ISN'T THE BEST APPLICABILITY IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY HAVING A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THE TOWNSHIP, WHICH IS TO DIVERSIFY THE HOUSING STOCK AND TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES. AND CERTAINLY, THIS PROJECT IS THE MOST EQUITY DRIVEN PROJECT WE'VE HAD PROPOSED IN A LONG TIME AND WE WON'T HAVE MANY MORE PROJECTS, POSSIBLY NONE BECAUSE FRANKLY, LAND IS SO EXPENSIVE DEVELOPERS WITH MSHDA AND, YOU KNOW, SECTION EIGHT HOUSING JUST DON'T LOOK HERE BECAUSE THE LAND IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND IT JUST IT THROWS OFF THEIR PRO FORMA RIGHT FROM THE GET GO.
AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE THESE PROJECTS GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES.
SO I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE THIS PROJECT GOING FORWARD AND I WISH YOU GUYS WELL.
I KNOW YOU'RE DEALING WITH A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH COVID AND SUPPLY CHAINS STILL BEING DISRUPTED. SO I WISH YOU GUYS WELL ON GETTING THE PROJECT OFF THE GROUND HERE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
DO I HAVE ANYBODY ELSE OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT?
[00:45:01]
DO I HAVE A MOTION? I CAN MAKE A MOTION REAL QUICK.I WILL MOVE TO REPEAL ZBA CASE NUMBER 19-09-18-3 GRANTED IN 2019 AND TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-10-13-1 WOODWARD WAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 500 SOUTH FRONT STREET, COLUMBIA, OHIO 43215.
OK, I WILL. THE CHAIR WILL ADD THAT NOT TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE CASE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO SAY? NOT TO AND ONLY TO NEED TO REPEAL THE PORTION OF THAT VARIANCE THAT REGARDED A BUILDING LENGTH AND NOT PARKING ARE WE ON THE SAME PAGE KEITH? ALL RIGHT. I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
SUPPORT. AND SUPPORTED BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
OK, SO THIS IS A LET'S DISCUSS THAT ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE OTHER ISSUES. NO. ALL RIGHT.
IN THAT CASE, THIS IS A VOTE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE BUILDING LENGTH FROM 2019.
SO YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME YOU SO WE REALLY HOPE.
ALL RIGHT. AND IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE OR GENERALLY THIS EVENING? IF NOT, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GO TO BOARD COMMENTS.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
ANY COMMENTARY FROM THE BOARD.WELL, I WILL JUST SAY I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE MEMBER HENDRICKSON AND MEMBER SHORKEY, ALL OF OUR MEMBERS FOR HAVING A VERY LIVELY DISCUSSION AND FOR ALWAYS FINDING THOSE MINUTE DETAILS TO REALLY GET TO THE HEART OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING ON THE BOARD.
AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
I THINK THAT WE DO OUR BEST WHEN WE CAN LOOK AT ALL ANGLES AND APPRECIATE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND COME TO UNDERSTANDING IN THAT WAY.
SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO BE QUIET.
THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.
THIS MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.
I'D TAP OUT WITH MY GAVEL, IF I HAD ONE.
I THINK I HAVE ONE BUT SOMEWHERE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.