[00:00:03]
[Items 1 & 2]
IT IS 6:30, AND I'M OFFICIALLY GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.WELCOME TO THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
MEETING TODAY IS NOVEMBER 10TH, 2021.
I WILL BEGIN BY CALLING ROLLS, SO IF WE CAN GO, WE'LL START WITH MEMBER SHORKEY AND JUST SAY YOUR NAME AND THEN MOVE TO THE NEXT MEMBER.
AND FIRST ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
YEAH, SO WE NEED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO INCLUDE THE OCTOBER 13TH MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT WITH THE AMENDMENT? YES.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? I'LL MOVE THE AGENDA WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WE ADD THE MINUTES REFERENCED BY STAFF A MOMENT AGO FROM OCTOBER 20 TO OCTOBER 13.
SUPPORTED BY MEMBER SHORKEY AND WE WILL GO AHEAD WITH OUR VOTE.
WE WILL MOVE ON THEN TO THE RATIFICATION OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 13TH.
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
WE HAVE ANY NOTES OR AMENDMENTS TO THOSE MINUTES THAT ANYONE SAW? I LOOKED OVER THEM AND SAW ALL CORRECT SPELLINGS, SO I DO THINK OUR TRUSTEE MINUTE TAKER, I DID SEE ANY AMENDMENTS.I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE DID, BUT.
OK, IN THAT CASE, I AM LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 13.
SUPPORTED BY MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
WE'LL GO AHEAD TO FOR A VOTE AND THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT.
TRUSTEE OPSOMMER? YES AND CHAIR MANSOUR VOTES YES.
WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
SORRY, WE DO HAVE SOME COMMUNICATION REGARDING CASE NUMBER ONE ZBA NUMBER
[4. COMMUNICATIONS]
20-10-27-1 AND KEITH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT DURING YOUR PRESENTATION OR JUST NOTED THAT IT'S BEEN RECEIVED? YEAH, WE CAN JUST NOTE IT.IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
WE MOVE DIRECTLY ON TO NEW BUSINESS, WHICH WILL START US WITH ZBA CASE NUMBER
[6A. ZBA CASE NO. 21-10-27-1 (Loveridge & Dohr), 2050 Sheldrake Avenue, Okemos, MI, 48864]
21-10-27-1 , LEVERAGE AND DOOR 2050 SHELDRAKE AVENUE, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN 48864 AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CHAPMAN.OK, SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO AND A HALF STOREY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT AT 6074 COLUMBIA STREET.
THE EXISTING DWELLING UNIT ON SITE WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO MAKE WAY FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 4,040 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
ACCORDING TO THE TOWNSHIP'S ASSESSING DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE EXISTING HOME
[00:05:01]
WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT IN NINETEEN THIRTY ONE.IN 1987, THERE WERE VARIANCES GRANTED THAT PERMITTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STOREY TO THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE THAT DIDN'T MEET THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK.
SO ALSO, AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE WAS GRANTED TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED 18 FEET FROM THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE EXISTING GARAGE IS 16.1 FEET FROM THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE REMOVAL OF THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ELIMINATES THOSE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED FOR THE PROPERTY.
SO THE LAKE LANSING OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET.
AT ITS CLOSEST POINT ON THE PROPERTY IS THE CANOPY THAT IS LOCATED ALONG THE GARAGE.
OUR ZONING ORDINANCE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A CANOPY AND THE ACTUAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, SO THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE THE SAME SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME ENCROACHES SIX FEET INTO THAT FRONT YARD SET BACK, SO IT WILL BE 14 FEET FROM THAT FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF SIX FEET FROM THE FRONT YARD SET BACK OF COLUMBIA STREET.
SO ALSO THE EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY IS APPROXIMATELY 573 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND IS NONCONFORMING BECAUSE IT IS COVERING 69.7 PERCENT OF THE FRONT YARD.
SO FOR LOTS LESS THAN 65 FEET IN WIDTH ON THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ALLOWS A DRIVEWAY TO COVER A MAXIMUM OF 50 PERCENT OF THE FRONT YARD, AND THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WILL COVER THE SAME AS THE EXISTING AT 69.7 PERCENT, OR 573 SQUARE FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DRIVEWAY COVERAGE BY 19.7 PERCENT.
SO ALL OF THE CANOPY THAT'S LOCATED ON THE WALKWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE WILL PROJECT 3.4 FEET FROM THE HOUSE.
THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A SITE YARD SUBJECT OF FIVE FEET WHEN CONSTRUCTED WITH FIRE RESISTANT MATERIAL.
THIS CANOPY IS TWO AND A HALF FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD, REQUIRING A VARIANCE OF TWO AND A HALF FEET.
OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAPMAN.
WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT, AND IF SO, IF YOU COULD JUST JOIN US AT THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.
TOGETHER WITH MY WIFE, ELLEN, WHO'S ALSO HERE, I ALSO HAVE OUR ARCHITECT TIM ROSZKE HERE JUST, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT IT.
DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PROJECT? SIR, IF I COULD INTERRUPT YOU JUST FOR A SECOND TO STATE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, PLEASE.
2050 SHELDRAKE AVENUE, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN THANK YOU SO MUCH.
YES, AND ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION THERE OR ANYTHING MORE THAT YOU THINK WOULD HELP US IN MAKING OUR DECISIONS WOULD BE GREAT.
SO YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS? WE WOULD LOVE TO MOVE INTO THAT HOME AND MAKE IT OUR PERMANENT HOME.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PLANNING TO USE THAT AS OUR RETIREMENT HOME.
I THINK THE COVERAGE IS NOT VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT'S THE SAME COVERAGE AS WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY.
IT'S JUST A SLIGHT SHIFT IN IT.
AND WE'VE GOT SOME SOME DOCUMENTATIONS THAT CAN SHOW A BLOW UP OF THAT.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT IN TERMS OF THE DRIVEWAY COVERAGE.
AND IF ALL OF YOU WANT TO STAY CLOSE BY AND JUST WE MAY BE ASKING YOU QUESTIONS, BUT WE'LL JUST ASK THAT WHOEVER NEEDS TO CAN COME UP TO THE TO THE PODIUM, SIR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF, THAT'S FINE.
I LIVE AT 613 GROVE STREET IN EAST LANSING, AND SO I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH SCOTT AND ALAN ON THEIR PROJECT HERE, AND I DID DO A LITTLE SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET HERE.
IF YOU COULD, KEITH, IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO.
OH, OK, WE'VE GOT A DOCUMENT CAMERA HERE.
I DO HAVE THESE WICKED HARD COPIES TO.
DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THE NARRATIVE IN THE DOCUMENTS THERE? SO, OK, SO YOU HAVE GOOD BACKGROUND AND I'M A FORMER PROFESSOR AT MSU FOR 40
[00:10:02]
YEARS, SO I'M USED TO TALKING FOR 50 MINUTES OR 80 MINUTES, SO.SO STAT ME AND BASICALLY JUST I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS A COUPLE OF POINTS.
THE HOUSE ACTUALLY WILL BE A LITTLE FARTHER AWAY FROM THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE ON THE SOUTH AND WILL MATCH THE PROPERTY.
THE CURRENT SETBACK ON THE NORTH, OUR BUILDING FRONT IS ACTUALLY IN EXACTLY THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT BUILDING.
SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, I READ THE PROVISION.
THERE'S A SUBCATEGORY SEVEN THAT ALLOWS FOR EAVES CHIMNEYS, OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTIONS TO PROJECT TWO AND A HALF FEET BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO ON THE SOUTH, WE COULD WE COULD PROJECT OUR EAVE TWO AND A HALF FEET ACROSS.
WE COULD HAVE A THREE AND A HALF FOOT EAVE UP AT THE HIGH LEVEL.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF MY READING OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO IT AT THE LOWER LEVEL.
AND I THINK KEITH AND KIM HAVE VIEWED THE LANGUAGE AS NOT REALLY ALLOWING FOR A CANOPY, ALTHOUGH FROM OUR VIEW, A CANOPY IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS THE EAVE WOULD, SO WE COULD MOVE IT OUT.
BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET BETTER PROTECTION FROM ICE AND SNOW IF WE HAVE IT AT THE LOWER LEVEL.
SO THAT'S THE LOGIC BEHIND THE CANOPY ON THE SOUTH ALSO.
SO I THINK IT'LL GIVE US JUST BETTER PROTECTION, BUT ALSO GIVES US AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.
THIS, QUITE FRANKLY, IS THE MOST RULES BASED HOUSE I'VE EVER DESIGNED BECAUSE OF THE TIGHTNESS OF THE SITE.
SO I THINK IT ADDS A LITTLE INTEREST TO PUT THE CANOPY DOWN AT THE LOWER LEVEL.
AND THEN WE BROUGHT IT ALONG THE WEST SIDE, THE STREET SIDE TO BREAK UP THAT STREET SIDE FACADE.
BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE BUILDING FRONT IS EXACTLY AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT ONE.
SO THE CURRENT HOUSE SITS 16 AND A HALF FEET BACK FROM THE STREET LINE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THE BUILDING FRONT.
SO THE WEST SIDE VARIANCE IS REALLY TRIGGERED BY THE DECISION TO PUT THE CANOPY ON THAT SIDE.
AND AGAIN, THAT THE PRIMARY FUNCTION IS TO TIE THE ARCHITECTURE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE AROUND TO THE WEST SIDE AND TO BREAK UP THAT SURFACE.
BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS CLEAR THAT OUR BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS NO CLOSER THAN THE EXISTING PROPERTY.
AND SO WITH THAT, I GUESS I WOULD JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS.
AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, OK? AND IT WAS ROZINSKI? MROSOWSKI.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME CORRECTLY.
WELL, MOST PEOPLE DON'T, BUT IT'S M-R-O-Z-O-W-S-K-I.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US A MOMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TONIGHT.
THAT'S IN THE AUDIENCE THAT HAS ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD.
IF NOT, THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET INTO OUR BOARD TIME.
AND ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO START OR ANYBODY NEED ANY OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR MR. CHAPMAN? MEMBER HENDRICKSON, GO FOR IT.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS AS A PART OF THE PROCESS OF REBUILDING THIS HOME, WILL YOU BE TEARING UP THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY? CAN COME ON UP TO THE.
I THINK MR. MROSOWSKI IS GOING TO GO TO ROOM AGAIN IN THAT.
WILL WE MOVE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY? WE'RE SHIFTING AT ABOUT SIX INCHES TO THE SOUTH.
SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SIZE.
WE'RE JUST MOVING IT OVER TO ALIGN WITH THE NEW GARAGE LOCATION.
SO I NOTICED WHEN I LOOKED AT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT IT SORT OF EXTENDS BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE, LET'S SEE IF I CAN DESCRIBE THIS CORRECTLY, THERE'S THE ENTRANCE WAY TO THE DRIVEWAY, AND THEN THERE'S ABOUT ANOTHER SEVERAL FEET OF CONCRETE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE GARAGE.
ARE YOU INTENDING TO KEEP THAT CONFIGURATION OR ARE YOU INTENDING TO KEEP IT AS A STRAIGHT SHOT OUT OF THE GARAGE? NO, THE DRIVEWAY WILL ALIGN WITH THE GARAGE NOW.
AND THE REASON THAT PROJECTION IS THERE IS CURRENTLY THE ENTRANCES ON THE NORTH, AND WE'VE MOVED THE ENTRANCE TO THE SOUTH TO KIND OF GET IT ON THE SUNNY SIDE OF THE HOME.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, I DO HAVE A LITTLE L-SHAPED WALKWAY THAT TAKES YOU FROM THE DRIVEWAY UP TO OUR KIND OF SLOPING SIDEWALK, AND WE HAVE LIKE A ZERO STEP ENTRANCE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THERE.
SO THERE'S NO REASON TO PROJECT THE DRIVEWAY BEYOND THE GARAGE LIMITS.
I ASK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AND I VISITED THE SITE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN PREPARATION
[00:15:04]
FOR THIS LAST TIME AROUND AND THE ROUGH CALCULATION I HAD PUT, IF YOU CREATED A, YOU KNOW, STRAIGHT DRIVEWAY TO THE STREET, WHICH CREATES SORT OF A RHOMBUS, YOU KNOW, SHAPE, MY MATH HAD IT AS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 50 PERCENT OR SORRY, THE MAXIMUM 50 PERCENT.SO LONG AS YOU KEPT IT WITHIN THE THE ENVELOPE OF THE GARAGE, IT WAS ABOUT 16 FEET ACROSS AT THE TOP 21 AND 29 FEET ON THE SIDES AND THEN THE SIDE OF THE PARALLEL, THE TRAPEZOID THERE.
AND SO I GUESS I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHERE THE, IF THE MATH HAS BEEN DONE IN A WAY THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? I GUESS I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE OF YOUR POINT.
WHERE ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE HAVE MORE DRIVEWAY AREA THAN WHAT'S THERE OR LESS? I'M SAYING THAT IF YOU WERE TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY.
SO I'LL TELL YOU WHY I'M ASKING.
ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS WHAT THE MINIMUM ACTION OF THIS BODY CAN DO IS TO ACHIEVE THE ABILITY OF THE LANDOWNER TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE, RIGHT? AND SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, IS THE AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IN THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY, ACTUALLY THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THAT FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY IN THAT WAY.
AND YOU KNOW, I DID SOME ROUGH MATH.
I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PROBABLY RECONFIGURING THE BUILDING IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS THERE ANY SPACE TO TO RESTRICT THE DRIVEWAY SIZE COMING OUT OF THE NEW GARAGE SUCH THAT YOU DO NOT NEED THE VARIANCE IN FULL THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, RIGHT? AND YOU'RE TALKING REALLY ABOUT THE WIDTH IN THE NORTH SOUTH DIRECTION? YES.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING ENOUGH SPACE.
I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, YOUR GARAGE DOOR IS 16 FEET WIDE, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE OUT OF THE CAR AND SO FORTH.
SO I MEAN, WE, YOU KNOW, WE DO A LOT OF GARAGES AND TYPICAL GARAGE WOULD BE FOR A REASONABLE SIZED GARAGE WOULD BE 24 FEET WIDE.
SO, YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD TYPICALLY MAKE THE DRIVEWAY THE FULL WIDTH OF THE OF THE GARAGE.
I MEAN, COULD WE TRIM IT UP, YOU KNOW, SIX INCHES OR A FOOT? PERHAPS WE COULD.
YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT FROM AN AREA STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, I OVERLAID THE SURVEYORS DRAWING, PUT IT ON MY CAD SYSTEM.
AND SO I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT IN THE CALCULATIONS OF THE AREAS THAT WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE AREA FROM WHAT'S THERE.
SO I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S A PARTIAL YES, PARTIAL.
NO, I MEAN, THERE'S A POINT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE NARROW ENOUGH THAT YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD IF YOU STEP OUT OF THE CAR, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD NOT BE ON PAVEMENT.
COME ON UP TO THE MICROPHONE JUST SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE YOU ON PUBLIC RECORD.
WOULD YOU MIND PULLING THE PACKET BACK UP? I'D LOVE TO.
I THINK MAYBE THE DIFFERENCE IS BECAUSE THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS SLIGHTLY WIDER THAN THE EXISTING GARAGE.
SO IF YOU'RE MEASURING BASED ON THE EXISTING GARAGE, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE PROPOSED GARAGE THAT THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS ALLOWS FOR.
IT'S VERY HARD TO PARK TWO CARS IN THE GARAGE.
YOU BASICALLY CAN'T OPEN THE DOORS.
I'VE GOT A SIMILAR PROBLEM IN MINE.
CARS ARE A LOT BIGGER THAN THESE.
IT'S DEFINITELY A NARROW SITE.
SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, TO PUT A BUTTON ON THE QUESTION, THE THE WIDTH OF THE HOME THAT I'M SEEING HERE ON THE DOCUMENT IS TWENTY THREE FEET.
IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO CREATE A 23 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY? YES, THAT'S WHAT I'VE SHOWN.
I THINK THAT MORE OR LESS ANSWERS MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
AND I'M GOING TO KEEP YOU THERE FOR JUST ANOTHER MINUTE OR TWO WHILE I YOU KNOW WHAT, BEFORE I HAND THINGS BACK HERE.
SURE, GO FOR THE FRONT YARD CANOPY THAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO INCLUDE IN THERE.
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH THE FUNCTION OF THAT WAS PRIMARILY AESTHETIC.
YES, I MEAN, IT DOES PROVIDE SOME SHELTER IF SOMEBODY IS AT THAT GARAGE DOOR, BUT PRIMARILY, I WOULD SAY IT'S AESTHETIC.
AND IS THERE AN ENTRY? I DON'T SEE IT HERE ON THE FLOOR PLAN, BUT IS THERE AN ENTRY WAY FROM THE GARAGE INTO THE MAIN HOUSE? YES, THERE IS.
YEAH, I'M SORRY, I WAS ON THE WRONG FLOOR.
AND THEN LASTLY, I'LL JUST ASK KEITH IF YOU CAN CONFIRM THE WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER
[00:20:01]
ABOUT THE EAVE ON THE UPPER FLOORS THAT'S ALLOWABLE UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE.SO IT DOES ALLOW FOR A TWO AND A HALF BODY.
I MEAN, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS CANOPY, NOT AN EAVE.
AND SINCE OUR ORDINANCE DOESN'T SPECIFY, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE ALLOWING A CANOPY, I GUESS THAT THAT'S CONSIDERED PART OF THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE.
OK? IF I COULD ADD TO THAT TOO, JUST WE'VE ACTUALLY SET THE BUILDING BACK APPROXIMATELY AN ADDITIONAL FOOT FROM THE SOUTH YARD SETBACK.
SO WE'RE WE'RE ABLE TO GET ABOUT A THREE AND A HALF FOOT CANOPY, WHICH IS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT WIDER, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE CAN DO.
AND IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF HOW, YOU KNOW, SUB POINT SEVEN IS IS WRITTEN.
SO BUT YEAH, I AGREE WITH KEITH.
WHEN I LOOKED AT IT AND WE PROPOSED IN DESIGN, WE VIEWED IT AS SIMILAR TO A CHIMNEY CANOPY, CORNICE, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, OTHER PROJECTION.
SO WE'LL GET INTO OUR CRITERIA IN JUST A MOMENT.
YOU KNOW, AT FIRST BLUSH, AS I REVIEWED THE MATERIALS PROVIDED AND THOUGHT ABOUT THE THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO MEET IN ORDER TO APPROVE A CASE LIKE THIS, I WAS LEFT WANTING FOR SEVERAL OF THE CRITERIA ALONG THE WAY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WE CAN TAKE TO USE THIS PROPERTY FOR ITS INTENDED USE, AS WELL AS THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PARCEL, GIVEN THAT MANY OF THE SURROUNDING PARCELS ARE OF SIMILAR SIZE.
AND SO WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN A MOMENT.
BUT FOR NOW, I'LL GO AHEAD AND YIELD BACK TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER AND TRUSTEE COUNCILMAN.
IT IS ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON WAS ASKING IS THERE ANY WAY TO DESIGN THIS HOUSE SO THAT YOU DON'T NEED THE VARIANCES, WHETHER IT'S MAKING IT SMALLER, CHANGING THE, YOU KNOW, SHIFTING IT SOME? YEAH.
YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLANS, AND SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE SCOTT MELLONS BUILDING PROGRAM, THE SPACES THAT THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE.
ONE OF THE ELEMENTS ALONG COLUMBIA IS THAT THERE'S THIS COVENANT ON THE PROPERTY.
SO WE'RE REALLY LIMITED AS TO HOW FAR TO THE TO THE EAST THAT WE CAN SHIP THE HOUSE.
SO THAT'S I MADE THAT POINT IN THE NARRATIVE ABOUT SIXTEEN POINT FIVE FEET IS A ROD, AND WE'RE LIMITED TO SIX ROUNDS, SO WE CANNOT PUSH THE BUILDING BACK ANY FARTHER TO THE EAST BECAUSE OF THE COVENANT.
TYPICAL GARAGE IS GOING TO BE 24 FEET AND WE NEED TO GET OUR ENTRYWAY IN FIRST FLOOR BATH AND THEN SO BY THE TIME YOU'RE DOING IT, LET'S SEE IF WE TOOK FOUR FEET.
IF YOU'RE COUNTING FROM THE BUILDING FRONT OR IF WE MOVED IT BACK SIX AND A HALF FEET, I MEAN, YOU WOULD END UP WITH ALMOST NO LIVING SPACE AND YOU'D HAVE A, YOU KNOW, THE KITCHEN OF BATH AND ENTRY AND THERE YOU HAVE ABOUT LITERALLY YOU'D HAVE A LIVING WHERE THAT WOULD BE ABOUT EIGHT FEET WIDE.
WELL, THAT'S PROBABLY EXAGGERATE, PROBABLY TEN FEET WIDE.
DOES THAT INCLUDE MAKING IT SMALLER? WELL, THE FIRST FLOOR IS, I THINK, IS RELATED TO THOSE POINTS THERE THAT IT JUST THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF FOOTPRINT LEFT.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO MOVE IN ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ON THE SECOND FLOOR OR THE UPPER HALF STOREY, ARGUABLY YES, ON THOSE AND WE COULD TRIM THAT UP A LITTLE BIT IF WE NEEDED TO.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE COULD, I GUESS, SET BACK THE UPPER LEVEL.
IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A BIG GAIN THERE.
SO IT'S REALLY DRIVEN BY THE FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT AND WHAT ARE REALLY PRACTICAL SIZES FOR STAIRWAYS, BATHROOMS, KITCHENS AND ENTRANCES.
SO I THINK I AM PROBABLY ALONG THE SAME LINES AS MEMBER HENDRICKSON ON THIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GET TO THE CRITERIA WITH THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT DEFINITELY WITH THE MINIMUM THAT COULD BE DONE, PARTICULARLY SINCE WITH TWO OF THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT PERHAPS CHANGING THE DESIGN MIGHT GET YOU CLOSER TO WHERE YOU WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE, OR MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T NEED AS LARGE AS A VARIANCE.
AND I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE OTHER MEMBERS ARE, BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I STILL AM ON THIS.
WELL, IF WE NEEDED TO, I MEAN, WE COULD ELIMINATE THE WEST CANOPY AND THAT THAT
[00:25:02]
PUTS THE BUILDING FRONT EXACTLY WHERE IT IS FROM.MY OPINION, I DON'T KNOW FROM A TOWNSHIP AREA THAT YOU GAIN THAT MUCH BECAUSE AGAIN, WE WOULD BE LEAVING THE BUILDING EFFECTIVELY IN EXACTLY THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE STREET AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S ANY, I GUESS, ANY WORSE THAN THE EXISTING CONDITION AND THE CANOPY, BECAUSE IT'S UPPER LEVEL DOESN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH IMPACT ON THE ON THE STREET.
SO I MEAN, I'D HATE TO SEE IT GO BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.
BUT IF IF WE'RE COMING DOWN TO IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING, I MEAN, WE COULD ELIMINATE THE WEST CANOPY AND THEN THAT THAT MEANS BASICALLY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE CURRENT BUILDING ACTUALLY IS, YOU KNOW, RELATIVE TO THE CURRENTLY AS TO THE REST OF THE STREET.
I THINK TRUSTEE OPSOMMER HAD A COMMENT FOR YOU.
YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE CLARIFICATION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO THE CANOPY, IS THIS ON THE FIRST STORY, THE SECOND STORY OR THE SECOND AND A HALF STORY? IT'S REALLY AT THE SECOND FLOOR LINE IN THAT RANGE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PLUS OR MINUS, BUT NO, IT'S LOW.
AND THIS IS AN ESTHETIC CANOPY THAT'S COMING OUT AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE AT THE WALL.
OR NO, IT'S FLAT WITH ANGULAR BRACES.
OK, SO IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST A CLEAN, STRAIGHT FLAT CANOPY UP ABOVE THE GARAGE DOOR, BUT AT THE SAME HEIGHT THAT WE CARRY ALONG WITH THE SOUTH, OK? AND IT'S JUST AESTHETIC.
OR IS IT GOING TO SERVE AS LIKE A DECK? THE ONE IN THE SOUTH IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE ICICLES OR WHATEVER, SO WE WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE SOME PROTECTION FOR THE SOUTH WALL, FOR THE ENTRANCE THERE SO THAT THAT TRIGGERED IT AT THAT LOCATION.
AND THEN THE MORE WE GOT INTO IT AND WE LOOKED AT ALL THE OTHER HOUSES, IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BY THEIR, YOU KNOW, THE MOST OF THE HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN RENOVATED HAD A PRETTY PROMINENT FRONT ELEVATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, SOME SOME DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ON THE WEST ELEVATION.
SO WE THOUGHT, WELL, THIS MADE SENSE VISUALLY ARCHITECTURALLY TO CARRY THAT CANOPY AROUND.
SO THE WEST ONE, I WOULD SAY, IS FOR ESTHETICS.
THE SOUTH ONE IS REALLY FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY.
TRUSTEE I'M SORRY, I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE [INAUDIBLE] SETBACK IS REGARDING THE SOUTH SIDE.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE THE THE CANOPY ON THE SOUTH IS WHAT'S TRIGGERING THAT SIDE EXIT BACK, NOT THE ONE OVER THE GARAGE.
SO THE SOUTH IS THE TWO AND A HALF FOOT VARIANTS AND THEN THE ONES ON THE CANOPY ON THE WEST IS, I MEAN, THAT'S ALSO WHAT IS IT, TWO AND A HALF FEET? YES, IT'S THAT'S FOR THE FRONT, ITS FRONT AND BACK.
WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THIS MIGHT BE OK, RIGHT? I'M SORRY, BUT THIS IS A QUESTION, I GUESS FOR KEITH, THOUGH.
I MEAN, YOU'RE ZONING ORDINANCE DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY CANOPY, BUT THERE'S ALSO DOESN'T REALLY SAY NOT.
AND IT SAYS EAVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE ARE CORRECT THAT WE COULD ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WE COULD SIMPLY MOVE IT UP TO THE ROOF LINE AND DO WHAT WE'RE DOING.
IT JUST WOULD BE UP HERE RATHER THAN AT THAT MID HEIGHT.
OK, SO SO MOVING THAT ELEVATION OF THAT CANOPY UP TO AN UPPER LEVEL WOULD NOT TRIGGER THE SITE TO SET BACK.
WELL, IF IT WAS THE EVE OF THE HOUSE ITSELF, OK, EXTEND THE ROOF LINE OUT.
I SEE REMOVING THE CANOPY EXTENDED THE OK, YOU KNOW, FROM MY VIEW, I DON'T THINK IT GIVES US THE SAME PROTECTION JUST BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A LIKE A WIND DRIVEN RAIN, IF IT'S UP, YOU KNOW, TWO AND A HALF STOREYS, THAT'S A LITTLE LESS SHELTER THAN IF IT'S AT, YOU KNOW, ONE STORY.
SO BASICALLY, THE SOUTH CANOPY IS SERVING A PRACTICAL PURPOSE OF ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, SHIELDING PEOPLE FROM THE RESIDENTS AS THEY WALK UP THE PATH FOR THE FRONT DOOR BECAUSE IT'S THE LAKE HOUSE DOWN THE SIDE.
ON THE SOUTH SIDE VERSUS THE FRONT ONE IS AN ESTHETIC CANOPY FOR THE ELEVATION OF THE HOME.
AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S LIKE A MORE MODERN LOOKING, YOU KNOW, COMPONENT; RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S FLAT AND COMING OFF A LOWER LEVEL, SO MODERN DESIGN ELEMENT.
OK, MY OTHER QUESTION IS FOR STAFF.
SO KEITH, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DRIVEWAY CALCULATION, I NOTICED THAT ON THE EXISTING HOME TODAY BECAUSE THIS DRIVEWAY IS SO SHORT BECAUSE OF JUST THE NATURE OF THE PARCEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE, LIKE THEY HAVE A PRETTY BIG, YOU KNOW, CURVE ON THAT CORNER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, TOUCHING ON COLUMBIA BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN IN VERSUS THE PROPOSED ONE.
YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT CLEAN LINES GOING TO IT.
SO IS THE FRONT WALL IF THE CALCULATION IS THE SAME AS THE FRONT WALL OF THE GARAGE JUST SLIGHTLY LARGER AND SO THE CLEAN LINES ARE BALANCING OUT VERSUS THE ONE TODAY IS
[00:30:06]
A LITTLE BIT MORE ODDLY SHAPED.TO ALLOW FOR THAT, HER TURN TURN INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE AREA.
YOU MIGHT BE MISINTERPRETING THE DIMENSION LINE FOR THE DRIVEWAY LINE, SO THE DRIVEWAY LINE DOES COME OUT IN AN EAST WEST DIRECTION.
SO IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, WHAT I'VE DONE IS I PUT TWO DIMENSIONS AND PUT THE DIMENSION THE ANGULAR LINES AT THE AT THE NORTH SIDE.
THE ONE IS TO REPRESENTS THE EXISTING DRIVE IN THE LOWER LINE, REPRESENTS THE NEW DRIVE LOCATION.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ANGLING.
WE'RE NOT 90 DEGREES FROM THE STREET.
WE'RE STILL KIND OF THAT TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.
IT'S JUST SHIFTED SOUTHWARD ABOUT SIX INCHES.
AND OF COURSE, FARTHER DOWN, YOU SHIFT IT THAN THE SMALLER THE DRIVE GETS.
AND SO THEN I CALCULATED IT OUT AND I PUT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE BACK INTO THAT LITTLE WALKWAY.
NOTED THAT THE SHAPE IS TRAPEZOID.
OVERALL, I WAS JUST NOTING THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY DOESN'T HAVE A NICE IT DOESN'T COME STRAIGHT OUT, RIGHT, IT CURVES AROUND THE PERENNIALS THAT ARE PLANTED THERE.
SO I WAS JUST WONDERING, I MEAN, IT LOOKS WE DON'T HAVE AN OVERLAY.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE DON'T HAVE AN OVERLAY OF THE EXISTING VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, BUT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING LOOKS LIKE LESS SURFACE AREA BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, HAVE THAT TURN RADIUS ON THE FRONT OF IT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF GETTING AT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S TRUE JUST BASED ON THE CALCULATION.
DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CALCULATION OF THE CURRENT SQUARE FEET? KEITH? I THINK WE DO.
I PUT IT IN THE NARRATIVE THERE.
YEAH, I THINK IN THE PACKET IT WAS IT LOOKS TO BE THE SAME.
IT LOOKS TO BE THE 573 SQUARE FEET.
YEAH, IF WE CAN DO YOUR [INAUDIBLE].
THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE'D BE WILLING TO STIPULATE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IN AN EXTRA SQUARE INCH BEYOND WHAT'S CURRENT, WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.
AND AGAIN, I GUESS YOU CAN SEE IT HERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE DRIVEWAY LINE IS PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN THE SAME THING ON THE SOUTH HERE.
THESE TWO LINES REPRESENT THE DIMENSION FROM THE STREET TO THE HOUSE CORNER, WHICH CURRENTLY IS 28 FEET, TWENTY EIGHT AND THREE QUARTER FEET, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABOUT 28 FEET OR 26 FEET.
I GUESS IT IS TWENTY SIX POINT SEVENTY FIVE AND TWENTY SIX.
SO THAT'S THE DRIVEWAY COMING OUT HERE AND BECAUSE WE SHIFTED IT, BECAUSE WE SHIFTED IT SOUTH IT, IT TECHNICALLY LOSES AREA THE FARTHER WE SHIFT ITSELF.
AND THEN AS I SAID, I'VE PUT IT INTO THIS WALKWAY SPACE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE WOULD STIPULATE THAT WE WON'T ADD A SQUARE INCH.
AND I MEASURED IT ON THE COMPUTER.
AND SO I'M CONFIDENT THAT OUR AREA IS NO MORE THAN WHAT WAS THERE.
THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE RIGHT NOW.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, ARE YOU READY TO GET INTO THE CRITERIA? I THINK ALL OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ASKED BY ALL OF YOU, SO.
ARE WE NOT? I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CRITERIA FOR EACH ONE.
SO IF EVERYBODY IS OK WITH THAT, WE WILL GO THAT WAY, WENT THROUGH IT.
SO WHICH VARIANCE ARE WE CONSIDERING? WE ARE GOING TO WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH THE VARIANTS FOR THE.
WE'LL JUST GO IN ORDER ON THE STAFF REPORT HERE AND START WITH WITH THE FRONT YARD SET SETBACK.
SO REGARDING THE FRONT YARD SET BACK, I HAVE GO FOR IT.
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, CRITERIA NUMBER ONE BEING 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.
RIGHT AWAY, I CAN SAY THAT I'M NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT CRITERIA, EVEN JUST BEING DRIVING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I THINK THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR ACTUALLY IN THE PACKET MATERIAL WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE, THIS AERIAL VIEW OF COLUMBIA STREET AND THE REST OF THE HOMES ON COLUMBIA STREET THAT THIS THEY'RE ALL VERY SIMILAR IN THAT THESE
[00:35:05]
ARE VERY NARROW LOTS.THESE ARE THEY'RE ALL BACKING UP TO THE LAKE.
AND I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME MEETING CRITERIA NUMBER ONE, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH THAT ONE.
ANYBODY WANT TO ADD SOMETHING? MEMBER HENDRICKSON? YEAH, I AGREE THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S PARTICULARLY UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PARCEL, SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT RELATES TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE, MAYBE KEITH CAN ANSWER THIS IS DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THE SETBACKS THAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY FROM THE STREET? BECAUSE I'LL BET YOU THAT THEY DON'T MEET THE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE EITHER, BUT I DON'T HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO GO UNDER ANYONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, SO I DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE MEASURING WHAT I WAS OUT THERE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY EXACT MEASUREMENTS OTHER THAN LOOKING AT AN AERIAL PHOTO, BUT I TEND TO AGREE THAT PROBABLY MOST OF THEM DON'T MEET THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK.
SO, SO I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THE FRONT YARD SETBACK HERE, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH SAYING THAT WE SHOULD PERHAPS GIVE THEM THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS ALREADY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF AS THEY'RE DOING THIS, BUT NOT MORE THAN THAN WHAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE RELEVANT AREA ARE DOING RIGHT.
AND SO I COULD SEE, SINCE IT'S RELATIVELY, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING TODAY IS RELATIVELY THE SAME SETBACK AS THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE AREA TODAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, AS I WAS CONSIDERING THIS MY PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE BEEN TO OFFER A VARIANCE OF THREE POINT NINE FEET, WHICH WAS WHAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY, WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE CANOPY, BUT WOULD ALLOW THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN THE SAME DISTANCE BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AS IT DOES TODAY, AS DOES THE BUILDINGS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
I WILL ADD THAT I DID ASK KEITH EARLIER TODAY ABOUT ORDINANCE 86-561 THAT WE RECENTLY WERE MADE AWARE OF.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE LAKE LANSING OR LAKE DISTRICT, WE CANNOT APPLY THAT.
SO IF YOU ALL REMEMBER, WE HAD USED THAT TO APPLY A ESSENTIALLY TO APPLY A SETBACK THAT THAT WE COULD CREATE.
THAT WAS BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF THE SETBACKS IN THE AREA BECAUSE IT'S IN LAKE LANSING OVERLAY AND YOU'RE ALREADY PUSHED BACK FROM THE TWENTY FIVE TO THE TWENTY FEET.
WE CAN'T APPLY THAT STATUTE, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING.
WHEN I LOOKED INTO THIS, I SAID, WELL, I CAN'T NECESSARILY MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS.
BUT IF WE COULD MEET THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, THEN THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE COULD APPLY.
SO BUT WE CAN AMEND THE VARIANCE TO TO ALLOW IT IN PART, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
WE CAN AMEND THIS FRONT OF IT.
YEAH, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT, YES.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? AND SO MAYBE KEITH, YOU CAN RESPOND TO THIS.
BUT IF WE'VE JUST SAID THAT WE CAN'T GET PAST NUMBER ONE, AS FAR AS THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, THEN HOW DO YOU GET TO YOUR SUGGESTION OF GRANTING IT AND THEN AMENDING IT? YES, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
ANYBODY HAS A PLAN FOR THAT, WE'RE ALL YOURS.
YES, TRUSTEE, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STANCE ON NUMBER ONE.
PLEASE SHARE MY EXPERIENCE ON THE ZBA.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE HAD A CASE ON COLUMBIA, BUT WE HAVE HAD CASES ON NON LAKEFRONT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE LAKE.
AND YOU KNOW, THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE IMPETUS OR THE INTENT WAS TO CREATE FAR GREATER FLEXIBILITY ON FRONT REAR INSIDE YOUR SETBACKS.
WHEN I LOOK AT COLUMBIA, THERE'S SOME HOMES THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, 12 TO 16 FOOT SETBACKS.
I MEAN, THEY'RE CLEARLY DEPENDING ON THE AGE OF THE HOME THAT THEY EITHER HAVE A VARIANCE OR THEY WERE NON-CONFORMING, AND THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WENT IN PLACE WELL AFTER THEY WERE BUILT.
[00:40:01]
SO I MEAN, PART OF WHY WE HAVE THE OVERLAY MY LINE OF THINKING WAS THE WHOLE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE LAKE IS CREATED BECAUSE EVERY PARCEL ON THE LAKE IS UNIQUE.THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF LAKE PARCELS THERE ODDLY SHAPED THE THE SIDE YARDS ARE NOT USUALLY PARALLEL TO ONE ANOTHER.
YOU USUALLY HAVE TRAPEZOID SHAPES DUE TO THE LAKE CURVE.
AND THEN OF COURSE, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, COLUMBIA.
YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THESE OLDER ROADS THAT ARE CREATING LOTS THAT AREN'T VERY DEEP.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE THE LAKE SETBACK.
AND THE LAKE SETBACK IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T WANT PEOPLE BUILDING INTO THEIR LAKEVIEW.
SO BUT I JUST THINK MY OPINION IS EVERY PROPERTY ON THE LAKE IS UNIQUE THAT I'VE SEEN JUST IN TERMS OF CHARACTER AND SHAPE, AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT EXISTS FOR IT.
AND I WAS LOOKING AT NEW AND OLD PARCELS I DIDN'T MEASURE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S NEW AND OLD PARCELS ON HOMES, ON PARCELS, ON COLUMBIA THAT HAVE SMALLER SETBACKS.
I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE IMPOSING ON THE ROAD, MORE SO THAN THIS HOME WOULD BE.
SO THAT WAS MY TAKE ON NUMBER ONE.
I WILL SAY I IN GOING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOOKING AT OTHER HOMES, I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE.
I DEFINITELY SAW THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF HOMES THAT SEEMED TO BE NON-CONFORMING.
THE ISSUE IS FOR US IN THIS BODY THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS CASE AND TRY TO MEET THESE CRITERIA.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I DEFINITELY HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS FAR AS THE SHAPE OF THE PARCELS IN AND OF ITSELF BEING BEING LAKE PROPERTY, IT'S A CHALLENGE FOR ME STILL TO GET TO UNIQUE IN THAT EVERY PARCEL HAS THESE CONDITIONS UPON IT.
BUT I SUPPOSE IN THAT WAY, IF WE WANT TO KIND OF FLIP THAT BACKWARDS AS FAR AS WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON SUGGESTION WAS AS FAR AS THE THREE POINT NINE FOOT VARIANCE WOULD BE THAT BECAUSE THIS HOME IS THE AGE THAT IT IS AND IT'S NOT, WELL, IT'S CONFORMING AND THAT IT HAS ITS VARIANCES, IT'S CONFORMING WITH WITH THE VARIANCES ATTACHED AS IT IS RIGHT NOW THAT IT'S UNIQUE IN THAT IT DOES.
IT'S DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO RIGHT NOW AND THAT WE'RE NOT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
GRANTING IT TO STAY THE SAME SIZE THAT IT IS NOW COULD IN AND OF ITSELF BE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? SO I, FOR THE SAKE OF TRYING TO REACH THE THREE POINT NINE VARIANCE.
OK, I'M I'LL SAY, OK, IT'S A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.
BUT WHEN I GET TO NUMBER THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ARE BECAUSE AND THEN IF YOU GET TO THE MINIMUM ACTION, THAT WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO USE THE LAND, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THE TESTIMONY THAT THERE COULD BE SOME REDESIGNING TO GET US, EITHER WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE OR AT LEAST LESS OF A VARIANCE.
SO I'M LIKE, OK, I'LL TAKE THE ARGUMENT FOR NUMBER ONE, BUT I WOULD NEED HELP IN GETTING PAST THREE AND WHAT THREE, FOUR AND FIVE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND PERMITTING THE PROPERTY FOR PERMITTED USE AND THE MINIMUM ACTION.
YEAH, I THINK IF WE GET TO CRITERIA, NUMBER TWO IS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.
THAT'S A CHALLENGING ONE FOR ME TOO, BECAUSE YES, THE LAW IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT SELF-CREATED, BUT THE HOME DESIGN AND THE CANOPY IN AND OF ITSELF ARE SELF-CREATED BEING THAT THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE ON.
THEN WHEN I GET TO STRICT INTERPRETATION, I AGREE WITH YOU.
[00:45:01]
THAT'S KIND OF A CHALLENGING ONE.I DO SEE FROM, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT ITERATION, BUT FOR THIS IN PARTICULAR, WHERE WE'RE FINDING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE ARE, WHERE PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT SMALLER.
MOVE BACK A LITTLE BIT, I KNOW THAT AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND I BY NO MEANS MEAN TO SIMPLIFY THAT CHANGING ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND REARRANGING THINGS IS EASY.
I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I'M GOING THROUGH IT.
BUT YEAH, IT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M FINDING.
EVEN IF WE CAN GET TO, YES, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
SO JUST ONE OTHER CONCEPT ON JUST WHAT I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED TO BE MY THOUGHT PROCESS ON THE LAKE DISTRICT, AND I WASN'T A PART OF THE ZBA THAT MADE PRIOR DECISIONS, BUT I THINK IT'S INTERESTING WHEN WE LOOK AT THEM.
SO ON PAGE 28 OF THE PACKET IS A PHOTO OF THE FRONTAGE OF 6090 COLUMBIA.
SO IT'S A NEWER HOME WITH VERY EXTENDED SUFFIT AND IT'S GOT GABLES.
SO IT'S GOT A LOT OF ARCHITECTURE AND FEATURES AND DEPTH TO THAT FRONT LIKE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST WITH THE ONE CANOPY.
SO JUST FOR RELATIVE DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO PREVIOUS DECISIONS THAT THIS BODY MUST HAVE MADE, I'M NOT SURE WHEN THEY MADE THEM, BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT, I WAS LOOKING AT GOOGLE EARTH JUST TO REMIND MYSELF OF THE FRONTAGES AND STUFF.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT 6090 ON GOOGLE EARTH, THERE'S A LITTLE SUV PARKED ON THAT SOUTH CORNER AND IT'S ALMOST ON COLUMBIA, AND IT'S ACTUALLY PULLED UP ITS WHEEL WELL, AS IS EXTENDED BEYOND THE FRONT WALL OF THE GARAGE.
SO I MEAN, THAT SETBACK IS LIKE 10 FEET.
IT'S JUST LIKE I'M MATHEMATICALLY LOOKING AT IT.
AND THEN THE OLDER HOUSE NEXT DOOR, THE YELLOW HOUSE.
I MEAN, IT'S ON AN ANGLE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT THERE IN THAT PICTURE, BUT IT APPEARS TO BE ABOUT THE SAME, POSSIBLY EVEN A LITTLE BIT SMALLER.
SO YOU'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT HOMES, ONE THAT'S PROBABLY NONCONFORMING THAT PREDATES THE ORDINANCE, CLEARLY BASED ON THE LOOK OF THE HOME.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A VERY NEW HOME THAT'S PROBABLY BUILT IN THE LAST 10 YEARS THAT CLEARLY RECEIVED A VARIANCE TO THE TUNE OF MINUS 12 FEET ON THE FRONT YARD SET BACK.
SO I GUESS WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE PACKET AND LOOKING AT EVERYTHING I WAS GOING IN, MY HEAD WAS THE ZBA HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED A PRECEDENT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
BUT I'M ONE OF THE NEWER MEMBERS AND I SEE IT TIME AND AGAIN WHEN I DRIVE THE LAKE AND LOOK AT NEW HOMES WITH, YOU KNOW, BESIDE YARD SETBACKS.
THE ORDINANCE RELAXES THOSE QUITE A BIT, BUT WE STILL MAINTAIN THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK ON THE FRONT, BUT WE CLEARLY GRANT VARIANCES ALL THE TIME.
I GUESS THIS WOULD BE A GOOD MEANING TO HAVE BRIAN BEAUCHINE STILL WITH US TO EXPLAIN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
BUT YEAH, SO I WAS DOING IT MORE OF LIKE THERE'S A PRECEDENT SET AND WHY IT CHANGE THE PRECEDENT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE RATIONALE FOR IT AND FOR KIND OF GIVING A GOOD DEAL OF LEEWAY ON THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
BUT IT'S CLEARLY THERE WHEN YOU LOOK, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE LAKE DISTRICT, AND I THINK IT'S JUST BECAUSE OF IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE OF ALL THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE IT.
AND THERE'S JUST LIKE NO HOPE OF GETTING IT TO THE 20 FEET.
THAT WAS JUST LIKE MY THOUGHT PROCESS PRECEDING THIS AND BASED ON THE OTHER TWO VARIANCES WE'VE DONE AROUND THE LAKE, BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT PERSON THAN WE'VE TACKLED RECENTLY.
I THANK YOU FOR THAT, FOR THAT CONTEXT.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHEN OR IF THERE ARE VARIANCES ON THESE OTHER BUILDINGS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US.
AND THEN SECOND, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE REALLY, WE TAKE EACH CASE SEPARATELY AND NOT IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.
SO I AM TOTALLY OPEN TO HAVING THE DISCUSSION TO, YOU KNOW, GET WHERE I AM SURE WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO GET AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO GRANT THESE VARIANCES.
BUT I CAN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THESE OTHER HOUSES HAVE OR DON'T HAVE WITHOUT EITHER SOMEONE SAYING THIS IS THE VARIANCE THAT THEY HAVE
[00:50:08]
OR WHETHER THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING.WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US.
ALL WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS WHAT IS IN THIS PACKET.
AND SO AGAIN, I AM OPEN TO HAVING THE DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ARE, WHAT THE MINIMUM ACTION CAN BE.
I AM OPEN TO EVEN PUTTING THIS MATTER, OR AT LEAST PUTTING A MOTION ON THE TABLE OR PUTTING A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH A SLIGHTLY VARIED DESIGN.
BUT I'M NOT REALLY WILLING TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON INFORMATION I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.
THANK YOU, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.
MEMBER SHORKEY? I AGREE WITH THE POINT THAT YOU MADE, MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.
WHILE IT'S INTERESTING TO COMPARE, THE CONTEXT OF VARIANCE IS UNIQUE TO A PROPERTY NOW.
THE PRECEDENT THAT WAS SENT WAS SET ON THIS FRONT YARD SETBACK WAS THE 3.9 FEET THAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON SUGGESTED EARLIER.
AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I SAID AND WHEN HE SUGGESTED IT, THAT'S WHEN I SAID I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
AND THAT GOES TO YOUR POINT THAT MAYBE THERE ARE MODIFICATIONS, BUT BEFORE WE GO, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEND THEM WITHOUT A LIST OF WHAT YOU WANTED TO SEE.
THANK YOU, GREAT, THANK YOU, MEMBER SHORKEY.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? YEAH, I THINK THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IS, AS WE OFTEN SEE AS WE'RE GOING TO GET REALLY HUNG UP HERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO REAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN APPLYING THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN; RIGHT? YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE THERE.
IT'S JUST A SMALLER HOUSE THAN THEY WANT TO BUILD THAT IS FURTHER BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
I THINK THAT WHERE I'M ALSO GOING TO GET HUNG UP AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A 3.9 FOOT SETBACK.
I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE BASED ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, I DON'T REMEMBER IT MIGHT BE NUMBER SEVEN OR THAT IT'S NOT.
TALKING ABOUT, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE HERE.
YOU KNOW, AND NOT THAT WE'RE TAKING ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA INTO ACCOUNT AT THIS EXACT MOMENT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT PROBABLY EVERY HOUSE IS TRUSTEE OPSOMMER POINTS OUT, IS NON-CONFORMING WITH OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.
THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT HAS TO BE RETHOUGHT.
AND SO IF WE CAN'T MEET CRITERIA NUMBER SEVEN BECAUSE IT IS HAPPENING ON EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY IN THE AREA, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT THESE FOLKS TO BE THE THE RECIPIENTS OF BAD TIMING WHEN WE DISCOVER A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO GET SOLVED, BUT THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO GET SOLVED; RIGHT? BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, WE'RE GOING TO SEE EVERY PROPERTY OWNER WHO WANTS TO DO SOMETHING TO THEIR PROPERTY BACK BEFORE THIS BODY.
SO COULD WE FIND A WAY, MAYBE TO, YOU KNOW, DISCOVER SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? RIGHT.
AND COULD WE FIND A WAY TO DETERMINE THAT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS THE MINIMUM ACTION? AND COULD WE FIND A WAY TO MAKE THE PROPERTY UNIQUE WHERE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE LAKEFRONT AND THE CURVATURE OF THE LAKE OR WHATEVER? WE COULD MAYBE DO ALL OF THAT, BUT THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE PROBLEM IN THIS AREA.
AND I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TAKING THESE ONE AT A TIME, THESE THREE VARIANCES, BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE TRUE FOR ALL THREE OF THEM; RIGHT? THIS DISTRICT IS IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT NEEDS TO BE RETHOUGHT.
AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UNIQUENESS, THE PROBLEMS, THE DIFFICULTIES, THE PROBLEMS WITH MINIMUM ACTION, THE PROBLEMS WITH GENERAL, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL ISSUE IN THE AREA, IF WE GO BY THE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO GO BY, WHAT MAKING THIS DECISION, I DON'T THINK I CAN GET TO ANY OF THEM, DESPITE THERE BEING A LOGICAL AND I THINK REASONABLE SOLUTION HERE WITH REGARD TO AT LEAST THIS ONE.
SO I'M IN A BIND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS THE JUDICIAL BODY, MORE OR LESS OF THE TOWNSHIP'S ORDINANCES, WHEN THESE REQUESTS COME BEFORE US, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE WANT.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SET FORTH THE CRITERIA AND GO THROUGH THEM AND IF THEY'RE MET, THE VARIANCE.
AND I THINK WHAT EVERYONE HERE IS HEARING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FEELING IS THAT,
[00:55:01]
YOU KNOW, WE'RE STRUGGLING TO GET THROUGH AND CREATE OR HAVE A JUSTIFIED RATIONALE FOR GETTING PAST SOME OF THESE CRITERIA.SO WE CAN CERTAINLY TABLE IT IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BODY HERE AND GIVE THE APPLICANT SOME TIME TO REGROUP IN LIGHT OF THOSE COMMENTS.
I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT, SHOULD THAT BE WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? THANK YOU, MEMBER HENDRICKSON.
SO, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID, AND I THINK WHAT ALSO GOES TO THE STRUGGLE IS, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANTS WANT TO BUILD THEIR HOUSE.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES TO CHANGE AN ORDINANCE.
SO I THINK AT LEAST TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY WITH THE ARCHITECT IS PERHAPS GOING BACK AND TAKING SOME OF OUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS AND COMING BACK WITH A NEW DESIGN THAT GETS US CLOSER TO WHERE WE'D LIKE TO BE BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT AND AND REALLY LOOK AT SEVEN AT THAT POINT TO FIGURE, YOU KNOW, HOW WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CASE SO THAT THE APPLICANT ISN'T LITERALLY ON HOLD UNTIL THE TOWNSHIP IS ABLE TO TO REVIEW THIS AND LOOK AT WHAT IS A NECESSARY CHANGE SO THAT WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
BUT I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TABLE ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-1027-1 TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT DESIGN SUPPORT.
OK, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION.
I WILL JUST SAY THAT I COMPLETELY AGREE I COULD EVEN MAKE, SCOTT, I COULD EVEN MAKE A CASE AS FLIMSY AS IT MAY BE FOR MOST OF THE OTHER CRITERIA.
BUT WHEN I GOT TO TO CRITERIA SEVEN AND THINKING OF THE GOOGLE MAPS AS I'M LOOKING AT IT AS WELL.
AND THAT'S WHERE I REALLY HIT THE JUST CAN'T MAKE THAT, BUT I COMPLETELY AGREE.
I WOULD NOT WANT YOU ALL TO WAIT AND HAVE TO WAIT FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADJUST THE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO WORK IN FAVOR OF HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TRYING TO MAKE MODERN, LIVABLE HOMES, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND I THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT YOU TO DO.
WE JUST WANT THE, WE WANT TO GIVE YOU AS MINIMAL AS A VARIANCE AS POSSIBLE, AND IT'S VERY CHALLENGING IN THIS DISTRICT TO DO THAT.
THAT SAID, WITH THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, I WOULD LIKE US TO PERHAPS SINCE WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE OTHER TWO ITEMS, PERHAPS GIVE THEM OUR THOUGHTS ON THOSE ITEMS SO THAT THEY CAN REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THOSE IN DEPTH.
I THINK ALSO IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT, KIND OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING SO THAT YOU HAVE A PLACE TO GO WITH THE WITH THE DESIGN OF POSSIBLE.
SO THAT SAID, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION OR SCENARIO? YOU KNOW, IN ALL HONESTY, I WILL SAY, IN MY OPINION, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT THE THE DRIVEWAY BEING IS IT'S THE SAME FOOTPRINT THAT'S EXISTING.
WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE.
AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST A CHALLENGING AREA TO PUT A DRIVEWAY IN WITH THE ANGLE OF THE ROAD, THE ANGLE OF THE PARCEL AND TRYING TO FIT VEHICLES THAT ARE NOT IN THE ROAD.
GIVEN THE NARROW WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT, I THINK, TO MAKE A DRIVEWAY 50 PERCENT OR LOWER OF THE FRONT LIKE ANY KIND OF DRIVEWAY.
THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT INCREASING THE DRIVEWAY, PHILOSOPHICALLY ANYWAY, I'M GOOD WITH.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? YEAH, I THINK THAT THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING, RIGHT, THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED IN THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING APPEARS TO BE 23 FEET AND THE DRIVEWAY
[01:00:09]
EXTENDS OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE DOOR.AND IF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATH PROVIDED HERE IS WHAT IT IS WITH A 16 FOOT OPENING, THAT'S SEVEN FEET, SO THREE AND A HALF FEET ON EITHER SIDE.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO TRIM A LITTLE BIT? MAYBE, RIGHT? MAYBE MAYBE TWO FEET ON EITHER SIDE, AS IS? AND SO AS YOU GO BACK AND THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW TO BRING THIS BACK TO US THE NEXT TIME AROUND, I WOULD CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IS WHAT'S THE MINIMUM ACTION, RIGHT? THE MINIMUM THAT WE THAT WE AS A BODY CAN DO TO ALLOW YOU TO USE THIS PROPERTY BY BY GRANTING A VARIANCE.
AND SO WHEN I SEE THREE AND A HALF FEET, THAT FEELS TO ME LIKE A LOT.
COULD IT BE TWO? COULD IT BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL WIDTH LARGER THAN THE THAN THE GARAGE THAT WOULD NOT CREATE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BY PUTTING YOU OUT ONTO THE GRASS COMING UP? SO IF WE LEAVE THAT THE DRIVEWAY ALONE, IF WE JUST LEAVE THE EXISTING PAVEMENT, DO WE NEED A VARIANCE? I BELIEVE THERE'S ALREADY A VARIANCE GRANTED FOR THAT; CORRECT? BUT KEITH DID MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT LOSING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY WERE DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY.
THAT YEAH, I THINK THAT IF THEY LEFT IT, THEN THAT'S FINE, BUT IF THEY TORE IT UP, THEN THAT'S THE ISSUE.
SO YEAH, AND THIS ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION, IF WE RETAIN PART OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, DO WE NEED ANY VARIANCES? SO I GUESS I'D HAVE TO SEE EXACTLY.
IF I HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE CHANGE WOULD STILL BE THAT WE'D BE ADDING ABOVE THE GARAGE? YES.
SO IF YOU'RE ADDING A VARIANCE FOR THAT AREA TO THE STRUCTURE, THEN YES, YOU'D NEED IT.
BUT WE COULD BECAUSE I'M LISTENING TO THIS REDESIGN THERE.
PRACTICALLY, THERE REALLY IS NOT ENOUGH LENGTH TO THE BUILDING TO GET A REASONABLE FUNCTIONAL KITCHEN, BATHROOMS. I'VE LOOKED AT IT MANY TIMES.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I MEAN, IF WE RETAIN, SAY, THE WEST WALL OF THE GARAGE IN EXACTLY THE SAME LOCATION, AND IF WE DON'T ALTER THE PAVEMENT AND IF WE ELIMINATE IT, IF WE JUST SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE CANOPIES, WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE THEM UP TO THE EAVE OR EVEN PUT A SUB ROOF IN AND LABEL THOSE AN EAVE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE GO BACK, IF IT'S GOING TO BE TABLED, THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THE RIGHT THINGS AND BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE COULD JUST KEEP COMING BACK AND BACK.
SO IF WE RETAIN, SAY, THE WEST WALL OF THE GARAGE DIDN'T CHANGE THE PAVEMENT CONFIGURATION AND WE BUT WE WERE STILL EXTENDING OVER THE GARAGE, WE'D NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
WELL, IF YOU'RE EXTENDING INTO THAT FRONT YARD SET BACK.
WELL, WE WOULDN'T IF WE RETAIN THAT FRONT WALL LINE, BUT WE WOULD BE BUILDING OUT OVER IT.
SO THAT WOULD TRIGGER, I'M GUESSING, A VARIANCE THERE? YEAH.
BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY VARIANCE IF WE ELIMINATED THE CANOPIES AND WE DIDN'T REALLY TOUCH THE DRIVEWAY.
AND THEN HOW MUCH OF THAT EXISTING BUILDING DO WE NEED TO RETAIN IN ORDER TO CONSIDER IT AS A RENOVATION OR AN ADDITION, AS OPPOSED TO A COMPLETE SCRAPING? ARE YOU TALKING FROM A BUILDING STANDPOINT OR ARE WE TALKING? FROM A ZONING AND FROM A BUILDING CODE.
SO YOU'RE NOT ALTERING ANYTHING THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED SO THAT? WE'RE ALTERING VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING FROM THE WEST, FROM THE WEST WALL OF THE GARAGE BACK.
I MEAN, ALL OF THAT WOULD GET RECONFIGURED, BUT WE'D PROBABLY KEEP SOME FOUNDATION AND WE WOULD KEEP KEEP THE EXISTING, EXCUSE ME, WEST WALL.
THIS FEELS LIKE AN EXCELLENT CONVERSATION THAT YOU GUYS COULD HAVE.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO GET SOME DIRECTION.
SO I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT WE'LL BE SHORT.
YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW IS THE SAME, THE EXISTING BUILDING IS THE SAME LENGTH IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
AND WE'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING A BUILDING THAT'S THAT'S NARROWER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO TO TO SHORTEN THE BUILDING BEYOND WHAT WAS CURRENTLY THERE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THE RIGHT THINGS.
AND I DO THINK YOU'VE TOUCHED ON, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY AND CERTAINLY WE CAN DISCUSS AFTER THIS MEETING, TOO.
YEAH, I THINK THAT THE THINGS THAT STAND UP TO ME AS FAR AS OUR DISCUSSION
[01:05:01]
HAVE GONE SO FAR IS IS THOSE CANOPIES.AND I DO THINK THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME SOLUTIONS THERE AS FAR AS RAISING THOSE UP AS EAVES, DRAWING OUT THE ROOF LINE, AS YOU SAID BEFORE.
AND THE DRIVEWAY, I THINK, WAS SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WAS KIND OF IN AGREEMENT WITH.
AS FAR AS I THINK, I WOULD LEAVE THAT AS A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, TOO, AS FAR AS WHAT WHAT GETS TRIGGERED AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE GOES.
BUT COMING DOWN FROM THREE VARIANCES TO ONE VARIANCE COMING DOWN FROM, YOU KNOW, THE LESS YOU CAN MAKE THE VARIANCE PERCENTAGE WISE, YOU KNOW, FOOT WISE, THAT'S GOING TO HELP US TO MAKE A BETTER DECISION.
BECAUSE AS MEMBER HENDRICKSON POINTED OUT, WE DO NEED TO LOOK FOR IN OUR CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE IS, MINIMUM ACTION.
SO I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE LEAST AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE IN VARIANCE THAT WE NEED TO GRANT IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS WORK FOR BOTH THE HOMEOWNERS AND FOR THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE.
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK AND FORTH, AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP TABLING AND TALKING AND DISCUSSING.
WE'D RATHER GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND DO THOSE THINGS AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THAT CAN STAY WITHIN THOSE RANGES, THAT'S THAT'S WITHIN THAT MINIMUM ACTION.
SO DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AS FAR AS WHAT THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN A REVISED VERSION OR ADDITIONS TO THAT? I DO THINK IT IS, YES, TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.
YEAH, JUST CLARIFICATION FOR MR. CHAPMAN.
SO IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCES BY MY READING OF THE MEMO THAT THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ANY VARIANCES CURRENTLY FOR THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THERE ARE VARIANCES FOR THE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE.
AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY ADDED A SECOND STOREY THAT I THINK IT WAS IT DIDN'T MEET THE SIDEWARD STEP BACK TO THE NORTH THERE.
SO THEY NEED US TO PASS A NEW FRONT YARD SET SETBACK EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ONE? WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, THEY'RE DEMOLISHING THE STRUCTURE.
AND SO I MEAN, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE NOW THEY DON'T INTEND TO DO THAT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THE ISSUE IS.
SO YEAH, JUST TO GET SOME IDEAS.
SO IF THEY DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE, THOSE VARIANCES ARE GONE.
SO I JUST THAT'S THAT'S HELPFUL BECAUSE I JUST HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT THEY NEED.
SO REGARDLESS, THEY NEED A FRONT YARD SETBACK THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO RECONSTRUCTION, SO I MEAN, THEY CAN'T REALLY GET RID OF THAT ONE.
SHORT OF SHRINKING THE HOUSE DRAMATICALLY FROM ITS CURRENT SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE DEPTH OF THE LOT.
AND SO THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE THAT RUNS FOR 90 PERCENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE TOWNSHIP.
BUT IT'S COMPLETELY UNFEASIBLE A 50 PERCENT, 50 PERCENT, AS MEMBER SHORKEY SAID.
LIKE, IT'S COMPLETELY FEASIBLE.
IT WORKS PERFECTLY FINE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU'RE ANYWHERE NEAR THE 50 PERCENT, YOUR FRONT YARD IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE SCENERY.
BUT THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF JUST THE REALLY DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED THAT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT THAT SHOULDN'T APPLY TO THE LAKE DISTRICT AND, YOU KNOW, LOGICALLY.
SO THEY CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ONE BECAUSE, WELL, UNLESS THEY JUST LEAVE THE EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY THAT I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS.
AND THEN SO FOR THE SIDE YARDS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK SITUATION? KEEP THE CANOPIES JUST CAUSING IT BECAUSE THEY'RE MINUS THE CANOPY? IS THERE FIVE POINT NINE AND FIVE POINT FIVE? SO WHAT IS THE AREA SETBACK, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
SO TO THE SOUTH THERE, THAT'S THE ISSUE.
AS LONG AS THEY BUILD WITH FIRE RESISTANT MATERIAL, THEY CAN GO DOWN TO THE FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE YARDS BECAUSE NORMALLY IT'S SEVEN FEET.
SO THAT CANOPY GOING THE THREE, WHAT IS IT, 3.6 FEET? SO THAT'S THE ISSUE WITH THE SOUTH.
THEY'RE MEETING, THEY'RE NOT EVEN ASKING FOR A VARIANCE MINUS THE THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SIDE THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
THEY'RE TECHNICALLY ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
SO THE ONLY ONE THAT THEY REALLY CAN GET RID OF IS THAT LAST ONE WITHOUT FUNDAMENTALLY SHRINKING THE PROPERTY A HUGE WAY.
AND EVEN IF THEY SHRUNK THE PROPERTY, THEY STILL CAN'T MEET.
SO EVEN IF THEY MEET THE FRONT YARD, THEY CAN'T MEET THE DRIVEWAY OR THE DRIVEWAY ACTUALLY GETS LARGER BECAUSE IT HAS TO GO UP TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CAN ACTUALLY FEASIBLY BE DONE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IF THEY IF THEY HAD THE 20 FOOT SETBACK, THEY'RE GOING TO
[01:10:03]
HAVE A LARGER DRIVEWAY COVERAGE? SO IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? OK? YEAH, YEAH.BUT IT'S A LARGE, IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS.
EITHER WAY, IT COULD BE NARROWED SLIGHTLY TO MEMBER HENDRICKSON'S POINT.
YES, LIKE THE WIDTH COULD BE NARROW, BUT YEAH, THEY STILL NEED THE VARIANCE.
SO IT'S A MATTER OF, TO HIS POINT, MINIMAL ACTION; RIGHT? SO.
I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ON THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, I READ THE CRITERIA THE SAME WAY.
IT'S A LEARNING EXPERIENCE LOOKING AT THE LAKE DISTRICT AND JUST HOW IT'S BEEN APPLIED BECAUSE I LOOK AT ALL THE DRIVEWAYS, THEY'RE ALL WIDER THAN THE GARAGE DOORS ON THAT STREET.
I THINK THERE'S A FAIRNESS ISSUE, BUT I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT THE CRITERIA THAT WE USE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE JUST READING THEM STRICTLY, IT'S VERY HARD TO CONCUR WITH IT.
BUT I THINK IT CREATES REALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR THE LAKE DISTRICT.
BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT IT IF THE APPLICANT CAME BACK AND RESOLVED THE CANOPY ISSUES BY MOVING THEM UP TO THE ROOF LINE, AND THEN THAT WOULD GET RID OF ONE OF THEM.
I WOULD I TEND TO AGREE, AND I DO THINK THAT WE DEFINITELY, AS A BODY, NEED TO PERHAPS MAKE A PLEA TO THE TOWNSHIP AND TO PLANNING ABOUT THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS CHALLENGING FOR RESIDENTS.
AND I DO THINK I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE'S AN EQUITY ISSUE HERE AS FAR AS WHAT WE SEE IN OTHER HOMES.
I MEAN, LOOKING AT THE PACKET MATERIALS AND LOOKING AT DRIVEWAYS THAT GO THE SPAN OF THE WIDTH OF THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE, LIKE YOU SAID, DEEPER BECAUSE THEY THEY GO BACK A BIT MORE.
AND THE REALITY IS THAT WHEN THESE HOMES ARE BUILT, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY.
SO WE DO LIVE DIFFERENTLY NOW, AND I UNDERSTAND TO THE POINT THAT THE ARCHITECT MADE ABOUT JUST THE HOME, YOU KNOW, BEING LIVABLE AND SPACE WISE.
SO ALL THAT SAID, I DO WANT TO GIVE THESE APPLICANTS A CHANCE TO TO COME BACK BECAUSE I WOULD AGREE.
I THINK THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY OR REALLY I FEEL STRONGLY IN THAT WAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER THAN SHRINKING THE SIZE A BIT.
I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE'S MUCH ROOM TO MAKE THAT ANY MORE MINIMAL THAN WHAT IT IS, AND THAT THE EXACT EXISTING FOOTPRINT IS FINE WITH ME PERSONALLY.
BUT I THINK IT'S JUST THOSE WORKING WITH US ON THOSE CANOPIES TO BRING THOSE UP AND MAKING THOSE SETBACKS AS MINIMAL AS WE CAN.
YEAH, YEAH, BECAUSE THE ITEM SEVEN IDENTIFIES A NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE.
IS IT IN? DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY JUST TO CONCLUDE THAT A CANOPY IS JUST LIKE ONE OTHER EXAMPLE FEATURE THAT'S ALLOWED TO PROJECT TWO AND A HALF FEET BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE? I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, KEITH.
SO THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR DIRECTOR GAVE.
ALTHOUGH HE SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THE EMAIL.
HE ACTUALLY SAID IN THE EMAIL THAT HE THOUGHT WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD CASE FOR THE ARGUMENT OF THE CANOPIES AS BEING WITHIN THAT CHAIN OF ELEMENTS.
I CAN SHOW YOU THE EMAIL, SO I JUST WONDERED IF THE BOARD HAS SOME.
I MEAN, YOU'LL HAVE TO FILE FOR AN INTERPRETATION THAT'S SEPARATE.
YEAH, THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE REVIEW PROCESS.
WOULD WE BE ABLE? DOES THAT GO BEFORE ZBA? YES.
COULD WE IF WE COME BACK? CAN WE PUT THAT INTO OUR? ABSOLUTELY.
YEAH, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT MORE LATER, TOO.
AND ALSO, YOU WOULD HAVE IN YOUR RECORDS ANY.
I HEARD SOME DISCUSSION OF THE ZONING VARIANCES IN YOUR RECORDS.
I MEAN, IF WE WENT THROUGH PROPERTY BY PROPERTY, WE'D BE ABLE TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY GRANTED BECAUSE THERE HAS TO BE FOR SOME OF THE NEWER HOMES THERE.
I MEAN, I KNOW THERE ARE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED.
I DON'T KNOW SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THAT INFORMATION TO DO.
WE HAVE TO FILE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.
SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
[01:15:01]
YES.SO AFTER ALL THAT DISCUSSION, MOTION ON THE TABLE, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? IF NOT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO TABLE ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-10-27-1 MEMBER SHORKEY? YES.
SO WE ARE GOING TO TABLE YOUR CASE THAT WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO GO BACK.
YOU'LL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO CHAT WITH STAFF AND WITH KEITH AND TIM, AND HOPEFULLY COME BACK BEFORE US QUICKLY SO THAT WE CAN GET YOU STARTED.
BUT ON THAT NOTE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE THIS EVENING? OK, SO YOUR VARIANCE APPLICATION HAS BEEN TABLED, AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL SEE YOU AGAIN REAL SOON.
AND THAT NOTE, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND CASE OF THE EVENING.
LET ME PULL THAT OUT FOR A BRIEF RECESS OF A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
WE WILL TAKE A SHORT RECESS AND THAT'LL GIVE US TIME ALSO TO PULL UP OUR INFORMATION.
PEOPLE GET FRUSTRATED WITH ME PROPOSING TOO MUCH.
WE ARE BACK FROM A BRIEF RECESS HERE AND WE WILL GET INTO OUR NEXT CASE.
[6B. ZBA CASE NO. 21-11-10-1 (John E. Green Company), 220 Victor Avenue, Highland Park, MI, 48203]
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE CASE NUMBER 21-11-10-1 DON E.220 VICTOR AVENUE, HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN 48203.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
OK, SO THE APPLICANTS WERE COLLECTING VARIANCES FOR THE SIGHT TRIANGLE.
SO JOHNNY GREEN CO., THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD A SEVEN FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCE THAT SURROUNDS THE PROPERTY OF 4910 DON AVENUE.
THE PROPERTY IS 0.723 ACRES, IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DON, JUST SOUTH OF GRAND RIVER.
THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES THAT ALL OUTDOOR STORAGE BE SCREENED.
IT STATES THAT STORAGE MAY BE PERMITTED OUTDOORS, BUT SHALL BE EFFECTIVELY SCREENED BY A SOLID, UNIFORMLY FINISHED WALL OR FENCE WITH SOLID ENTRANCE AND EXIT GATES.
WHICH WALL OR FENCE SHALL IN NO CASE BE LOWER THAN THE ENCLOSED STORAGE.
SO THE APPLICANTS WERE PROPOSING TO REPLACE THE FENCING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED IN ORDER TO REPAVE THE SITE.
THE FENCING WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE PREVIOUS FENCE WAS SEVEN FOOT TALL, WITH ONE FOOT OF BARBED WIRE FENCING ON TOP.
THE PROPOSED FENCING WOULD NOT INCLUDE THAT BARBED WIRE, BUT WOULD BE SEVEN FEET TALL.
SO SECTION 86-806 REQUIRES THAT NO FENCE BE HIGHER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO A VARIANCE OF ONE FOOT IS REQUIRED ON SITE.
THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS ON DON AVENUE.
THE NORTH OF THE BUILDING HAS ONE, AND THEN THERE'S ONE JUST TO THE SOUTH.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE STREET BE CLEAR OF ANY FENCE BETWEEN THE HEIGHTS OF THREE AND 10 FEET WITHIN THE SITE TRIANGLE AREA.
THIS AREA IS MEASURED BY GOING THIRTY FIVE FEET ALONG THE BACK OF A CURB OR EDGE OF THE ASPHALT IN THE STREET AND THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY WHERE IT MEETS THE STREET.
YOU THEN CONNECT TO THOSE TWO POINTS.
THE PROPOSED SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE WILL BE ENTIRELY LOCATED WITHIN THAT SITE TRIANGLE OF THE SOUTH ENTRANCE OF THE PROPERTY, SO A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO BE IN THE SLIGHT TRIANGLE BETWEEN THE HEIGHTS OF THREE AND SEVEN FEET, SO A VARIANCE OF FOUR FEET IS REQUESTED.
OK, THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN, WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO COME UP AND ADD ANYTHING OF INTEREST AND JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
PLEASE SERVE THE PUBLIC RECORD.
I'M A REPRESENTATIVE FOR JOHNNY GREEN CO.
4910 DON AVENUE IN EAST LANSING.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE BECAUSE I WASN'T THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND KEITH UP FRONT.
ONE OF OUR OTHER PROJECT MANAGERS AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO GET THE FENCE INSTALLED IS THE REASON THAT WE'RE BEING FORCED TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE THE
[01:20:01]
FENCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS TOO CLOSE TO THE ROAD FRONT.SO THE REASON ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS FOR THE SITE TRIANGLE REQUIREMENT, BUT THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE VARIANCE IS ALSO THE ISSUE, SO THAT'S PERTAINING TO THE ENTIRE SITE.
SO THE ENTIRE SITE HAS A HAS A SIX FOOT WELL, NOT THE ENTIRE SITE.
THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT OR THE BUILDING HAS A LOT THAT'S NOT ENCLOSED BY THE FENCE.
IT HAS ABOUT A DOZEN PARKING SPOTS AND THE FENCE IS ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
THE ENTIRE SITE, IN TERMS OF WHAT WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING TO PUT FUNDS, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO LIKE, NO MATTER WHERE YOU PUT THE FENCE ON THE PROPERTY, IT CAN ONLY BE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT REGARDLESS.
SO ANY ANY FENCE, SIX FEET HEIGHT? WELL, THE REASON THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO THIS IS JUST TO REPLACE THE EXISTING FENCE WITH WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE BEFORE WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
IT WAS IN VERY BAD SHAPE, RUSTY AND UNSIGHTLY.
AND OUR COMPANY DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT THE BARBED WIRE TOP WAS NECESSARY TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO STEAL OUR TOOLS AND TRUCKS AND THINGS.
THE INTENT OF THE FENCE TO GO BACK UP IS TO PROTECT OUR MATERIALS FROM THEFT.
WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET THE FENCE REPLACED WITH WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE.
I SUPPOSE IF WE HAD TO GO TO THE SIX FOOT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM WITH THAT OTHER THAN THE FENCE.
WE'VE ALREADY ORDERED THE MATERIAL TO PUT THE FENCE IN.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU PEOPLE ARE HERE GIVING YOUR TIME UP TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CODES ARE FOLLOWED.
OUR QUESTION IS IF WE'RE JUST REPLACING THE OFFENSE WITH WHAT WAS EXISTING ONLY THERE AND EVERY OTHER BUILDING SOUTH OF US IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND WEST OF US IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK HAS EQUALLY AS HIGH FENCES OR HIGHER.
THEN WHY IS IT THAT THE INDUSTRIAL PARK IS NOW BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE A SHORTER FENCE THAN WHAT WAS GRANTED IN THE PAST? THERE'S A QUESTION FOR ME.
SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT PERHAPS MR. CHAPMAN DOES.
YEAH, A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, I GUESS AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE'VE ALWAYS RECORDED THE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FENCING.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS FENCE WAS INSTALLED.
WE DON'T REQUIRE PERMITS FOR THE FENCING ITSELF.
SO IT'S LIKELY THAT WHEN IT WAS INSTALLED, IT WAS ILLEGAL.
AND TO BE HONEST WITH THE REST OF THE FENCING IN THE AREA IS PROBABLY THE SAME ISSUE.
SO FOR US TO GET GRANTED THE ABILITY TO DO THIS, WE JUST HAVE TO LOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE BY ONE FOOT.
SO IF YOU GO TO SIX FEET, YOU DON'T NEED THE HEIGHT VARIANCE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO WITHIN THAT SITE TRIANGLE.
IF YOU GO TO SIX FEET, YOU'RE GOING TO BE WITHIN THE THREE FEET TO SIX FEET RANGE FOR THAT SLIGHT TRIANGLE.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE FENCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE ROAD, RIGHT? AS FAR AS THE BEARING OR THE ORDINANCE IS CONCERNED.
YEAH, HOW FAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR THAT FENCE TO SAY AT SIX FEET.
SO IT WOULD BE OUT OF THAT SIGHT TRIANGLE THE THIRTY FIVE FEET SOUTH AND THEN THIRTY FIVE FEET PARALLEL TO THE DRIVE, ANYTHING WITHIN THAT AREA WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO OVER THREE FEET HEIGHT.
DOESN'T GIVE US ANY PROTECTION.
SO, I THINK IF IF YOU'LL LET US MR. SPIRIT; RIGHT? YES.
IF WE COULD DISCUSS IT, TOO, BECAUSE I THINK PART OF YOUR CONVERSATION THAT YOU'RE HAVING WITH KEITH IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AS A BOARD TO TRY TO GRANT THAT VARIANCE FOR YOU.
WE CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS TO WHY THE OTHER PARCEL IS.
JUST LIKE WITH OUR LAST CASE, WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY.
SO YOU DID THE RIGHT THING, YOU WERE GETTING THE PERMIT, YOU'RE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY.
WE APPRECIATE THAT IMMENSELY AND I KNOW THAT STAFF DOES AS WELL BECAUSE THAT MAKES ENFORCING THESE CODES A LOT EASIER.
SO IF YOU'LL GIVE US A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AND MAYBE JUST STICK CLOSE THERE TO THE PODIUM SO THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS NECESSARY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS WHERE THIS TRIANGLE IS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE ON THE PARCEL, I THINK THAT'LL HELP ALL OF US TO KIND OF SEE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO SEE IT, I THINK, THAN TO TO DISCUSS IT, THEORETICALLY.
BUT IF THAT'S OK WITH YOU, I'M GOING TO GET INTO OUR BOARD TIMES SO WE CAN
[01:25:02]
DISCUSS AND AND IF YOU STAY CLOSE, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS NECESSARY.OK, LET'S GET INTO BOARD TIME.
AND HE ACTUALLY, I SHOULD SAY, IF THERE IS ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS CASE OR HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ON THIS CASE? THERE'S NOBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE.
SO I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME AND GO TO BOARD TIME.
ANYBODY THAT HAS ANYTHING TO ADD OR QUESTIONS.
SO I JUST HAD A CLARIFICATION FOR KEITH.
SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE TRIANGLE, I THINK IT'S ON PAGE FORTY SIX.
THEY JUST HAD TO RELOAD MY PACKET.
THE DIAGRAM SHOWS A STREET INTERSECTION.
DOES IT ONLY APPLY TO STREET INTERSECTIONS OR DOES IT APPLY BECAUSE THERE'S NO ADJACENT STREET SO FAR, AS I CAN TELL ON GOOGLE EARTH? SO IF YOU GO ON THE NEXT ONE DOWN, I BELIEVE IT SHOWS IF YOU SCROLL DOWN ONE MORE PAGE, IT SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN THE STREET.
YEAH, FIGURE SO, YOU'RE COMING BACK.
THEY'RE HAVING A DRIVEWAY COMING OUT OF THE THE GATED AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING? YEAH, RIGHT.
SO AND ARE YOU ARE YOU GUYS PROPOSING TO KEEP THAT DRIVEWAY, SIR? THE DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY.
SO I MEAN, THE BUILDING ITSELF IS OBSTRUCTING THEIR VIEW REGARDLESS OF THE FENCE, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE DO WE KNOW WHAT THE 35 FOOT MARK WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY IF THEY PUT THE FENCE BACK? HOW DEEP IS THE BUILDING, I GUESS? SO THE BUILDING ITSELF IS PROBABLY AS WELL.
IT IS WITHIN THAT SLIGHT TRIANGLE AND THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN THE 50S, SO IT WAS BEFORE ANY OF OUR ORDINANCES.
SO I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I KNOW ALL OF THIS FENCE ALONG DON AVENUE IS, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THAT SLIGHT TRIANGLE AND THEN A PORTION BACK TO PROBABLY AROUND THIS AREA.
SO IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY PUSH THE FENCE TO ABOUT HALF OF THE BUILDING.
SIR, COULD YOU SEE WHERE MR. CHAPMAN YES.
DO YOU NEED THE STORAGE AREA? OBVIOUSLY.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THE FENCE IS TECHNICALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD COME OUT PARALLEL TO THE STREET INSTEAD OF HAVING SOME KIND OF DIAGONAL, A LITTLE BIT INSET RIGHT ON THE BUILDING.
DO YOU NEED THAT STORAGE UP BY THE ROAD OR ARE YOU TRYING TO KEEP THE INTENT TO KEEP THAT STORAGE AREA? BECAUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOT LINE, THERE IS A A LEECH BED, A STONE LEECH BED THAT CAN'T BE USED AS STORAGE WAS JUST MADE AWARE OF THAT TONIGHT.
SO WE'RE GIVING UP QUITE A FEW SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY AS IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT.
SO IF WE GIVE UP THE FRONT SIDE OF THE SOUTH PART OF THAT LOT, IT TAKES EVEN MORE AWAY FROM THE SITE.
AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S GARAGE DOORS AT THE NORTH END OF THE POLE BARN AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE POLE BARN IN TWO LOCATIONS, THAT'S THE ONLY ACCESS POINTS TO THE POLE BARN WITH EQUIPMENT, FORKLIFTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO OFF LOAD SEMIS WITH MATERIALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO IF WE GIVE UP THAT SPACE FOR STORAGE, THERE'S NO SENSE IN EVEN HAVING A POLE BARN THERE.
OK? YOU'RE TRYING TO BRING IN SOME TRAILERS TO LOAD UP AND UNLOAD TO SEE IF GOES PRETTY LONG.
WE MADE A 72 FOOT LONG CONCRETE, 16 FOOT WIDE PAD TO BACK SEMIS ONTO OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THE ASPHALT THAT WAS THERE WAS CRUMBLING.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE RESURFACED A LOT AND WE INTENDED JUST TO REPLACE THE FENCE.
AT THE TIME, WE DID THE LOT BECAUSE MOST OF THE POLES WERE IN THE ASPHALT AND HAD TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO DO THE DRIVEWAY REPAIRS.
NOW, IF YOU LOOK ON THE NORTH SIDE, IT SHOWS KIND OF PARKING SPACES AGAINST THE BUILDING AND ACROSS FROM IT ON THE CONSUMERS ENERGY LOT LINE TO THE NORTH.
THAT WAS ALL UNFENCED PARKING LOT, SO THAT MET THE REQUIREMENT ON THE ROAD FRONTAGE.
BECAUSE THAT FENCE ACTUALLY ATTACHED AT THE BACK CORNER OF THE OFFICE BUILDING.
AND THIS FENCE HAS CHAIN LINK; CORRECT? IT IS.
SO IT'S NOT A SOLID FENCE? NO, IT'S NOT.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE THE FENCE IS TO BE INSTALLED AS CHAIN LINK, NOT A SOLID SURFACE? WE'RE REPLACING IT WITH LIKE FOR LIKE.
IT WAS AN SLATTED CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF IT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE ORIGINAL FENCE BACK IN PLACE MINUS THE BARBED WIRE.
[01:30:01]
OK.THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER, GO AHEAD.
SO WITH THE APPLICATION, THERE'S A PICTURE OF A FENCE THAT IS OR IS THAT BILL? IS THAT THE BUILDING? MAYBE THAT'S A BUILDING.
IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A FENCE THAT EXISTS IS GOING TO BE THAT RUSTED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE TO THE APPLICANT AS FAR AS THIS SITE TRIANGLE GOES, WHICH I THINK YOU ARE CLARIFIED IS THAT AREA IS NEEDED FOR STORAGE.
THAT AREA IS NEEDED TO HAVE IT BE A SECURE AREA WITHIN THAT TRIANGLE AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON THAT SOUTH SIDE.
TO LEAVE US ENOUGH USABLE SPACE INSIDE THE FENCE BOUNDARY.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? SO JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PLEASE JUST ONE PAGE DOWN, YOU'RE BACKING SEMIS INTO THIS PROPERTY FROM THAT SOUTHGATE.
IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.
WHERE ARE THEY GOING? ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE THERE IS NO FENCE IS WHERE WE BACK THE SEMIS IN THAT.
OK, BUT THERE IS A GATE THERE OR THERE WAS WE TOOK IT DOWN.
SO AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, IF YOU WERE TO CLOSE OFF THAT CURB CUT ONTO DON, IS THAT ACCESS NEEDED CLOSE OFF THE CURVE? SO, SO YOU'RE NOT.
SO IF YOU WERE TO NOT HAVE AN EXIT ONTO DON AVENUE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF YOUR BUILDING? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? BECAUSE IF YOU DID HAVE AN ENTRANCE, YOU'D STILL HAVE AN ENTRANCE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
SO IF OUR INTENT IS AGAINST THE BUILDING ON BOTH THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE, WE'RE GOING TO PUT PARKING LINES AND THOSE WILL BE THE EMPLOYEE PARKING SPOTS OR VISITORS PARKING SPOTS OUTSIDE THE FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL, RIGHT? AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT HERE, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THE SITE TRIANGLE.
SO WE CONSIDER TWO VARIANCES IN FRONT OF US, RIGHT? THERE'S A SIX FOOT SEVEN FOOT FENCE; RIGHT? IF YOU MAKE YOUR FENCE SIX FEET, WE HAVE NO ISSUE; RIGHT? SO WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
THE SECOND PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE MORE CONCERNING ONE THAT SEEMS IS THE SITE TRIANGLE PROBLEM, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BUILDING IS IN THE WAY.
AND SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO PUT YOUR FENCE THERE AND YOU NEED THE STORAGE AND WE WANT YOU TO HAVE THE STORAGE, AT LEAST WITH YOU, I'M SURE EVERYONE ELSE DOES, TOO.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS HOW DO WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF GIVING YOU FENCED IN STORAGE WITHOUT REQUIRING A VARIANCE FOR THE SITE TRIANGLES, RIGHT? IT CAN'T BE DONE TO MY GUESSTIMATE A MOTION LOOKING AT THIS WITHOUT EITHER MOVING THE BUILDING OR GRANTING A WEIRD VARIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS FENCE.
WHAT CAN BE DONE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN EXIT THERE ONTO THE ROAD, THEN YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE SITE TRIANGLE BECAUSE THERE'S NO CARS PULLING OUT.
SO I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN SOLVE A PROBLEM.
SO WE'LL REALLY SOLVE TWO PROBLEMS HERE BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE ALWAYS STRIVE FOR IS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS.
IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH AND HAVING ONLY ONE ACCESS POINT ONTO DON AVENUE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR BUILDING.
I THINK WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF MEETING THE VARIANCE AGREED ON THE SITE TRIANGLE.
AND SO THE ONLY THING LEFT IS THE FENCE.
AND IF YOU'RE WILLING TO HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE, THEN WE'VE SOLVED BOTH PROBLEMS. THAT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE COMPANY HAS ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY ON THE SEVEN FOOT FENCE.
AND IT WOULD MATCH ALL THE FENCES THAT IT ACTUALLY ATTACHES DIRECTLY TO ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE.
I HAVE PICTURES TO PROVE THAT.
I BELIEVE YOU WHEN YOU TELL ME THAT; RIGHT? I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND WANTING THE UNIFORMITY.
THE UNFORTUNATE NATURE OF, UNLESS THERE'S VARIANCES ON ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES, WHICH I ASSUME WOULD TELL US IF THERE WERE OR.
BUT IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THOSE WERE NON-CONFORMING AND WERE PUT IN WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TOWNSHIP.
AND SO WHEN WE CONSIDER A NEW APPLICATION AND YOU'RE DOING ALL THE RIGHT THINGS BY COMING TO US AND DOING THAT, WE HAVE TO APPLY THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, AS IT'S WRITTEN.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, LOGICALLY, SURE, WE WANT IT TO BE CONSISTENT
[01:35:05]
FROM END TO END DOWN DON AVENUE, BUT ALSO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES.SO AND I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH BUYING THE MATERIAL THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN CONSIDER THE EXPENSE ALREADY INCURRED PRIOR TO APPROVAL FROM THIS BODY IN OUR DISCUSSION HERE.
SO ANYWAY, THAT WAS JUST A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET INTO THE CRITERIA THAT COMES ALONG WITH THIS PROCESS SHORTLY.
BUT I THINK THERE IS A SOLUTION OUT THERE IF YOU'RE WILLING TO FOR BOTH ISSUES.
IF YOU'RE WILLING TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT HENDRICKSON, I THINK THAT'S INCREDIBLY CREATIVE.
MEMBER SHORKEY? ON THE SITE PLANNED, THE SOUTH ENTRANCE WHERE YOU HAVE THE FENCE WHEN THE CROSS IS LABELED GATE.
HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEE YOURSELF USING THAT? BECAUSE CLEARLY THE WAY YOU'RE DESCRIBING AT THE NORTH ENTRANCE IS WHERE YOU'RE PARKING.
YOUR SEMI TRUCKS ARE GOING TO BACK IN, LIKE, HOW OFTEN ARE YOU USING THAT CELL TO CELL PHONE TOWERS? WE WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE USED ON A REGULAR BASIS JUST FOR THE FACT THAT WHEN THERE IS PEOPLE OFFLOADING IN THE DRIVE ON THE NORTH, OK, IT GIVES OUR TRUCKS LEAVING THE GARAGE WITH MATERIAL THAT'S JUST OUT OF THE LOT WHEN THE SEMIS IN THE WAY.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS LIKE? WHAT KIND OF TRUCKS? WHAT MATERIAL? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHAT ARE YOU PROTECTING OR MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR? SO WE DO PLUMBING, HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, OK? OF THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL NATURE.
OK? IT'S A CLOSING THAT IS CLOSING, THAT ISN'T REALLY A THING.
ANOTHER POINT, I GUESS, IS THIS AS WELL.
THERE IS A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END OF IT, SO THERE'S REALLY NO WAY FOR SEMIS TO GET DOWN THE STREET, YOU KNOW, ENCROACHING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES.
WE'VE SPENT IN EXCESS OF 250 THOUSAND RESURFACING IN OUR PARKING LOT, UPGRADING OUR BUILDING AND BUYING FENCE.
AND THE PROBLEM BEING, IF YOU LOOK STRAIGHT ACROSS FROM OUR BUILDING, THERE'S ANOTHER BUILDING THAT HAS A LOADING DOCK RIGHT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM OUR BUILDING AND FOUR SEMIS TO GET INTO THAT.
THEY DRIVE IN OUR DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY UP TO THE FENCE LINE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T USE THE ROADWAY TO BACK INTO THAT LOADING DOCK.
ANOTHER REASON WE PUT CONCRETE APPROACH FOR OUR SEMIS TO KEEP THE PAVEMENT FROM BEING DESTROYED BY OTHER PEOPLE THAT ENCROACH OUR PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE FENCE SET BACK ON THE NORTH SIDE.
ACTUALLY, SINCE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THE PHONE LINES HANG JUST BELOW THE POWER LINES AND ENCROACHING SEMIS HAVE TAKEN OUR PHONE LINES OUT THREE TIMES.
MY GOSH, WITH THE WIND HOODS OVER THE TOP OF THE CABS? YEAH.
SO WE RAISED THEM AS HIGH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN BY NOW, AND WE'RE STILL AT RISK.
YEAH, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO ATTEMPT TO BOUNDARY THE FRONT OF THE LOT FROM THE ROAD BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE WOULD BE GOING AGAINST TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY.
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY POLICE THE WORLD FRONT EVERY DAY WHILE WE'RE THERE TO STOP SEMIS FROM DRIVING ON OUR PROPERTY, RIGHT? OK, I'M GOING TO TACKLE THE CRITERIA.
NOBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL GET INTO THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT CAN ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT KIND OF ARE HANGING OVER OUR HEADS.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE THEM TOGETHER BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALREADY I THINK WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF DISCUSSED THAT.
AND HOPEFULLY, MR. SPERRY UNDERSTANDS DESPITE THE COSTS THAT'S GONE INTO THAT EXTRA FOOT OF FENCING, I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND AND GO THROUGH MY CRITERIA, AND I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES WILL AS WELL AND SAY THAT A ONE FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SIX FOOT AND SEVEN FOOT FENCE, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE CRITERIA THERE FOR THAT BEING A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OR ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT HERE WITH THIS SITE TRIANGLE, SO I WILL GET INTO THE CRITERIA.
NUMBER ONE, BEING UNIQUE, CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LANDER
[01:40:03]
STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.I DO THINK THIS DOUBLE CURB CUT AND WHERE THE BUILDING SITS ON THIS LOT, THE SIZE OF THE ROAD.
I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS HERE.
IF I'M TAKING IT JUST LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO STRIVE TO DO.
BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE LOOK AT DON AVENUE IN GENERAL, WE'RE LOOKING AT A LOT OF RECURRENT ISSUES HERE WITH THESE LOTS, PARTICULARLY WITH WHAT MR. SPERRY GAVE US AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC, THE SEMI, THE ISSUES WITH THE SEMI-TRUCKS ON THAT NARROW ROAD.
I DO FIND THAT TO BE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, I CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? AND MEMBER HENDRICKSON, YES.
I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO THAT AS IT SORT OF PUSHES THINGS FURTHER SOUTH WHERE THEN THAN THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE NEED TO GO.
SO AND I WOULD ADD THAT CRITERIA TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED, AND I FIND THAT THEY'RE NOT.
THIS IS THE NATURE OF DON AVENUE.
AND IN THIS PARCEL CRITERIA, NUMBER THREE, STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS AND WE SEE THE WAY THAT YOU USE THE PROPERTY AND GRANTED THE VARIANCE GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER JOHNNY GREEN IS ON THERE OR SOMEONE ELSE BUYS THE PROPERTY DON ROAD, BUT TO BE USABLE INDUSTRIAL SPACE, TO HAVE THE STORAGE, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE VEHICLES, TO HAVE THE TRAFFIC FLOW AS NECESSARY TO GET IN AND OUT OF THIS PROPERTY.
I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND I DO THINK WITH NEEDING TO SECURE THAT LOT.
I DO ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROVIDING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO BE ABLE TO PROPERLY SECURE THEIR SITE.
THAT SAID, WHEN I GET TO NUMBER FOUR, DOES 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 DO THINK THAT IT PRESENTS IT PRESENTS A CHALLENGE BECAUSE THE PERMITTED PURPOSE IS IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL SITE.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE VEHICLES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EQUIPMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
WHERE I WILL START TO STRUGGLE IS WITH CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS GRANTING THE VARIANCES THE MINIMUM ACTION THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURE IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
AND I WILL GET HUNG UP ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT, WHICH IS WHY THE TRIANGLE EXISTS.
SO YES, MEMBER HENDRICKSON? YEAH, THIS IS WHERE I STRUGGLE AS WELL.
AND, YOU KNOW, BY MY THINKING, THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE THAT DON'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
RIGHT? NO ONE IS CLOSE THE CURB CUT, THAT'S AN OPTION.
NUMBER TWO WOULD BE TO PUSH THE FENCE BACK IN A STRAIGHT LINE, THE 35 FEET AND COME STRAIGHT ACROSS RIGHT NOW.
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MINIMUM ACTION THAT.
IT DOESN'T IMPACT PUBLIC SAFETY.
THAT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T DO THAT, YOU COULD HAVE THE GATE WITH THE FENCE 35 FEET BACK.
YEAH, YOU LOSE SOME STORAGE, CERTAINLY, AND THAT MIGHT IMPACT OUR THIRD AND FOURTH CRITERIA ABOUT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF OPERATING IN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS IN THIS AREA.
BUT IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT OPTION THAT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC SAFETY OF ENTERING AND EXITING OFF OF DON AVENUE.
IF IT'S JUST VEHICLES, YOU KNOW YOUR VEHICLES THAT YOU'RE PARKING THERE, YOU KNOW, MUST THEY BE BEHIND THE FENCE? I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER.
BUT IT'S TRICKY, TOO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO CREATE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, NOT ONLY FOR YOUR DRIVERS, BUT FOR THOSE THAT ARE ON THE ROAD AS WELL.
AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THAT SITE TRIANGLE ORDINANCE EXISTS IS TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE CLEAN SIGHT LINES FOR VEHICLES ENTERING AND EXITING AS WELL AS VEHICLES ON THE ROAD.
SEEING, YOU KNOW, CARS COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THE MINIMUM ACTION IS, YOU KNOW, TO DO THIS WITHOUT IMPACTING
[01:45:03]
PUBLIC SAFETY IS TO GRANT SOME VARIANCE IN THIS CASE.I THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER OPTIONS THAT COULD BE DONE WHERE THIS VARIANCE MAY NOT BE NECESSARY.
AND THAT'S THAT'S MY STRUGGLE COMES IN, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING IS ALREADY IN SITE TRIANGLE AND THE FACT THAT IT'S THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE, LIKE IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY AN ENTRANCE ON THE PROPERTY.
HE STATED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT WHEN THERE'S SEMIS BLOCKING THE MAIN ENTRANCE ON THE NORTH.
AND GIVEN THAT IT'S CHAIN LINK IN SOMEWHAT OPAQUE, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
THOSE ADD UP TO THIS IS NECESSARY FOR THE SITE TO ME.
I HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE IF WE MOVE THE FENCE BACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE DRIVE, THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE WE'RE ENCROACHING THE TRIANGLE, WE STILL ARE GOING TO HAVE PARKING SPOTS THERE AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BACK OUT OF THEIR PARKING SPOT AND HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF DANGER PULLING OUT ONTO THE ROAD AS IF THE GATE WAS BEING USED, WHETHER THE FENCE IS THERE OR NOT.
THE FACT THAT THE GATE IS 17 FEET FROM THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO COME OUT TO THE ROAD EDGE, RIGHT TO SEE TRAFFIC BEFORE YOU PROCEED OUT OF THE DRIVE WITH THE FENCE THERE OR NOT.
AND WE ALREADY CUT THE DRIVEWAY THERE FOR THE GATE TO BE IN THE MIDDLE, SO YOU HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM FROM THE BUILDING EDGE TO SEE ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH MR. SHORKEY, AND I THINK FOR THE MOST PART BECAUSE THE FENCE IS CHAIN LINK, AND SO YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT.
I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THIS FENCE RIGHT NOW THAT'S THERE AND I CAN SEE THROUGH IT.
SO I THINK AT THE END, THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING LOCATION WHERE IT IS, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT YOU CAN DO AS FAR AS MOVING THAT FENCE WITHOUT PUTTING UP AGAINST THAT BUILDING.
AND SO I AM, I THINK, LESS INCLINED TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT COMPONENT.
I HAD ONE WHEN I THOUGHT THE FENCE WAS ACTUALLY SOLID IN THE SENSE THAT YOU COULD NOT SEE THROUGH IT, BUT LESS OF ONE NOW THAT I KNOW YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THROUGH IT.
I THINK THE OTHER PIECE, AS FAR AS CLOSING OFF THE DRIVEWAY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'VE GOT SEMIS COMING IN AND OUT, IT'S JUST IN MY MIND AS I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, MAYBE THIS DOES.
AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'D WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE ENTRANCE, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A SITUATION WITH ONE OF THE SEMIS AND YOU DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO HAVE THE CARS GOING IN.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE SEMI IS TRYING TO BACK IN.
THAT ITSELF SEEMS TO CAUSE, IN MY MIND, SOME SAFETY ISSUES.
I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO DEAL WITH A SEMI IF I'M ANY WAY POSSIBLE TO AVOID IT.
SO I AGAIN, I THINK I AGREE WITH MEMBER SHORKEY ON ON THAT ISSUE.
MEMBER HENDRICKSON? I COULD MAYBE GET THERE IF AND IF YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TELL ME IF WE CAN EVEN DO THIS, IF WE CAN STIPULATE IN THE MOTION THAT IT BE A CHAIN LINK FENCE OR SIMILAR THAT PROVIDES, OH, ABSOLUTELY ADEQUATE VISIBILITY.
AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS TRICKIER.
SO HANG WITH ME REMAINS CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A CHAIN LINK FENCE DOES ME NO GOOD.
IF YOU PACK A DUMPSTER UP TO IT AND YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE LONG TERM STORAGE.
OR I MEAN, I GUESS IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OUT.
YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURES OR LIKE, IF I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE RIGHT HERE, I'M SEEING IT OVERGROWN.
SO YES, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR ME.
IN ADDITION, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN INSTANCES WHERE A CHAIN LINK FENCES HAVE HAD LIKE AN OPAQUE FABRIC OF SOME KIND PLACE BEHIND IT.
LONG TERM ISSUES LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHAT'S GETTING ME HUNG UP ABOUT IT; RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU COULD PUT A CHAIN LINK FENCE IN AND THEN MAKE IT PRETTY OPAQUE.
AND IF THE GOAL HERE IS TO PROVIDE CLEAR VISIBILITY THROUGH, YOU KNOW, SO THAT VEHICLES COMING IN AND OUT CAN SEE, I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT KIND OF MATERIAL BEING USED.
[01:50:02]
ALL RIGHT.I THINK IF MR. SPERRY UNDERSTANDS, I THINK WHAT WHAT MEMBER HENDRICKSON IS SAYING REGARDING THE MATERIAL ON THE FENCE, YOU'VE CONFIRMED WITH US THAT THE CHAIN LINK WAS WHAT WAS ORDERED.
BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SITE PICTURE WITH IT OVERGROWN WITH ANYTHING LEADING UP TO IT AND SPECIFICALLY NOTHING THAT WOULD CREATE THAT SITE ISSUE.
SO KEEPING IT AS AN OPEN CHAIN LINK WHERE IT WOULDN'T BECOME A SITE OBSTRUCTION, I THINK IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO.
AND JUST I KNOW THAT THIS IS THE PHOTO THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
MR. SPERRY IS FROM WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, NOT AS IT STANDS NOW.
IS THAT CORRECT? WE CLEAR OUT THE ENTIRE PERIMETER.
WE CAN SEE, OK, I HAVE PICTURES OF WHAT WE INTEND TO DO AND I THINK IT WILL ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE, IF I CAN GET IT ALL IN HERE.
THE DUMPSTERS THERE, BECAUSE WE WERE WORKING ON THE PARKING LOT.
WE HAVE A ENCLOSED WITH SLATTED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE GATED ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THIS SIDE AT THE END OF THAT CONCRETE PAD THAT THE DUMPSTERS ARE SITTING ON NOW [INAUDIBLE].
SO THE DUMPSTER DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THERE.
THE TREE LINE WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF ALL THE WAY AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, AND THERE WAS A, IT WAS PROBABLY A 24 TO 30 INCH TREE RIGHT THERE IN THE CORNER.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THE ORIGINAL PICTURE THAT WE SENT YOU.
SO I THINK THAT TAKES CARE OF THOSE TWO PROBLEMS. YEAH.
THIS PICTURE ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT'S THE BACK LOT.
THAT'S THE POLE BARN STRUCTURE.
AND THAT'S THE DUMPSTER PAD THERE.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A CONCRETE APPROACH THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE AT THE FRONT OF THE ROAD.
THAT'S THE PICTURE I SHOWED YOU BEFORE.
SO THAT'S HOW FAR PUTS THE DUMPSTERS OFF OF THE ROAD FRONT.
IN THAT ON THAT NOTE, TOO, I THINK WITH THAT FRIENDLY EDITION FROM MEMBER HENDRICKSON, I CAN MEET CRITERIA FIVE.
CRITERIA SIX WOULD BE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.
CRITERIA SEVEN CONDITIONS PERTAIN TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, AND ALSO GENERAL OR RECURRENT NATURE AS TO MAKE THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR SUCH CONDITIONS PRACTICABLE.
I CAN ALSO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
AND FINALLY, CRITERIA NUMBER EIGHT, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, AND I CAN ALSO MEET THAT CRITERIA.
SO WITH THAT, ANY ONE HAVE A MOTION OR ANYONE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS.
MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? CLARIFICATION.
ARE WE THEN VOTING ON BOTH OF THESE TOGETHER OR WE'RE VOTING ON THE HEIGHT AND THEN THE THE THE THE SIGHTLINE? I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION ON EITHER, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY SEPARATE THEM OUT.
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS ARE TOUGH .
ALL RIGHT, MEMBER HENDRICKSON GO AHEAD.
I MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE, REQUESTING ONE FOOT OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT RELATING TO SECTION 86506 IN ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-11-10-1.
THE SECOND BY MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE, EXCUSE ME, DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT? OK, I'M GOING TO GO TO A VOTE.
MEMBER SHORKEY? THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY THE FIRST VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, THE FENCE HEIGHT HAS BEEN DENIED AND WE DO APOLOGIZE THAT THE MATERIALS ALREADY BOUGHT.
AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIND ANOTHER USE FOR THOSE, BUT WE WILL GO TO THE
[01:55:05]
NEXT PORTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.MEMBER HENDRICKSON? THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE IN ZBA CASE NUMBER 21-11-10-1 RELATING TO SECTION 86474 SUBSECTION TWO.
WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE MATERIALS USED FOR THE FENCE BE CHAIN LINK AND THAT THE SITE IS UNOBSTRUCTED IN PERPETUITY.
SO BOARD MEMBER SHORKEY, ANY DISCUSSION? MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? I THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC IN THAT AMENDMENT.
BUT IT'S SO BROAD, IN PERPETUITY THAT I THINK THAT COULD CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS. TRUSTEE OPSOMMER, DO YOU HAVE WORDS? DO YOU HAVE WORDS? YEAH.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE CONDITION SHOULD STIPULATE THAT THE SIGHTLINE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN UNOBSTRUCTED.
THE SIGHT TRIANGLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION? WHAT IS IS, KEITH? 86474.
I WOULD ACCEPT THE SITE TRIANGLE AS THE FORTY FIVE FOOT TRIANGLE AT THAT THE THIRTY FIVE AND THIRTY FIVE.
SO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO BEYOND THAT, THIRTY FIVE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.