Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:01:58]

MIC CONVERSATION]

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:05:48]

TO ORDER. IT IS 6:35 P.M.

JUST MAKE A NOTE ON THE RECORD AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE REAL QUICK OF THE BOARD MEMBERS MEMBER TREZISE HERE.

MEMBER DESCHAINE HERE.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER HERE.

AND THE VICE CHAIR KOENIG IS HERE.

I KNOW YOU GUYS ALL SAW THE EMAIL FROM CHAIR MANSOUR WHO WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT TODAY, SO I'M SURE WE COULD PROBABLY EXCUSE HER FROM THAT.

MOVING ON, NUMBER TWO, APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]

ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE AGENDA? SO MOVED.

SECOND. MOVED AND SECOND.

DO WE HAVE FORGOT? DO WE DO LIKE IT ALL? ALL THOSE FAVOR, SAY AYE OR DO YOU DO A ROLL CALL FOR THE AGENDA? YOU'RE FINE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

OPPOSED THE SAME. NO. ALL RIGHT.

APPROVAL AGENDA IS APPROVED.

MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE, CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE JULY 19TH, 2023 MINUTES.

[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]

YOU GUYS ALL GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE MINUTES.

YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? IF NOT, TAKE A MOTION.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

MOVED AND SECONDED AGAIN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES. MOVING ON TO COMMUNICATIONS.

[4. COMMUNICATIONS]

I DIDN'T SEE ANY UNLESS I DIDN'T LOOK VERY WELL AT THE PACKET.

WE DID NOT HAVE ANY, SIR.

OKAY. AND THEN MOVING ON TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS, WHICH IS ZBA CASE NUMBER 23-07 KNOB HILL APARTMENTS, LLC, LOCATED AT 2502 LAKE LANSING ROAD, SUITE C,

[5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS]

LANSING, MICHIGAN, 48912.

SO, DIRECTOR SCHMITT, SINCE WE'RE AT THIS TOPIC, THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE YET.

WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DO? SO WE REALLY DON'T LIKE ACTING WITHOUT AN APPLICANT, BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT STATUTORILY REQUIRES IT.

IF THE ZBA WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ACTION ON IT THIS EVENING, WE ARE.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.

YOUR FIRST ACTION WILL NEED TO BE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE.

LET'S TAKE ACTION.

BUT IF YOU WOULD PREFER THE APPLICANT BE HERE, YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE AND WE CAN SIMPLY MOVE ON.

SO YOU WOULD NOT NEED ANOTHER MOTION IF WE DID NOT WANT TO GO ON BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

WE WOULD NOT NEED ANOTHER MOTION TO TABLE IT.

CORRECT. BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY TABLED.

IT IS ALREADY TABLED. GOTCHA.

ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT? THIS IS THE SECOND MEETING WE'VE DISCUSSED IS I THINK IT'S TIME TO TAKE IT UP AND DISCUSS IT IF YOU DON'T LEGALLY NEED THEM HERE.

THEY DID FILL OUT THE APPLICATION IN WHICH WE HAVE IN THE PACKET.

SO I MOVE THAT WE REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE AND AND ACT ON IT TONIGHT.

HAVE A SECOND. SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE AND TO HEAR CASE NUMBER 23-07 TONIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL RIGHT.

SO, MR. SCHMITT, I WILL HAND IT OVER TO YOU SINCE THE APPLICANT NOT HERE AND YOU GUYS STAFF STARTS ANYWAY, SO GO AHEAD.

ABSOLUTELY. SO THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS TO FUNCTIONALLY IT IS SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING LOT.

SO THIS THESE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT PRIOR TO 1970, DIFFERENT SET OF ORDINANCE STANDARDS.

THIS IS ACTUALLY THIS PREDATES OUR CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE ACTUALLY, WHICH WAS LARGELY A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER IN 74.

UM, AND SO AS A RESULT OF THE TRAGIC FIRE THAT OCCURRED LAST DECEMBER, DTN MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN WORKING ON POTENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE.

AND THIS IS SO FOR CONTEXT, THESE ARE THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU'LL RECALL THAT THERE WERE PSEUDO CONNECTED, BUT THERE WAS NO INTERNAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS AT THIS LOCATION.

THIS WAS A ROOF CONNECTION, ATTIC CONNECTION ONLY PARKING AROUND THE OUTSIDE.

WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS TO FORMALLY CONNECT THOSE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MODERN BUILDING CODE WOULD REQUIRE.

[00:10:02]

AND SO THERE WILL NOW BE INTERNAL HALLWAYS CONNECTING EVERYTHING AND STAIRS WILL CONNECT.

THE ISSUE THEY RUN INTO NOW IS TO MAINTAIN THE SEPARATION FROM THIS BUILDING, WHICH WE MADE CLEAR WAS NON-NEGOTIABLE, GIVEN THE WAY THAT THE FIRE HAD PREVIOUSLY PROCEEDED. THEY NEEDED TO SKEW THE BUILDING AND PUT IT OFF CENTER AND LEADING TO A SETBACK ISSUE ON THIS NORTH NORTHWEST CORNER.

AND THEN SORT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE HERE, NORTHEAST SIDE, NORTHEAST, YEAH.

SO IN THEORY, THEY COULD HAVE MET THIS, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE THEN WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED THEM A SETBACK VARIANCE ON ON THE OTHER BUILDING.

AND THEY'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO REBUILD FUNCTIONALLY WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE MOST COMPLIANT WAY POSSIBLE.

AND SO THAT'S THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS A SETBACK VARIANCE, WHICH IS OFF OF THE 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT OFF OF A STREET ACCESS ROAD, DRIVEWAY OR PARKING AREA. THE CLOSEST THEY WILL GET IS EIGHT FEET, WHICH IS A 12 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

THERE IS NO PUBLIC, OBVIOUSLY, HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS, AND THE PUBLIC IS NOT HERE.

SO I GUESS WE CAN GO RIGHT INTO BOARD TIME.

ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT IT? ABOUT THE PETITION? WELL, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, WE NORMALLY HAVE A LISTING OF THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE REQUESTED.

I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE PACKET IN YOUR RESOLUTION.

SO APOLOGIES.

IT'S ON. IT'S ON THE MEMO ON PAGE TEN.

THE VARIANCE THEY'RE REQUESTING IS FROM SECTION 86-3 76 44I ANY SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED DWELLING, TWO FAMILY DWELLING OR MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE CONTAINING THREE OR MORE UNITS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED.

THAT'S INTERESTING. SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 20FT TO ANY STREET ACCESS ROAD, DRIVEWAY OR PARKING AREA.

BUT YES, MY APOLOGIES.

OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST, LAST PARAGRAPH THERE TALKS ABOUT THE EIGHT FOOT.

YES, CORRECT. 12 FOOT VARIANCE.

OKAY. 20 FOOT BARRIER SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE FOR A STREET OR AN ACCESS ROAD, BUT NOT SO MUCH TO A PARKING LOT.

IS IT A FIRE SAFETY TO HAVE THE PARKING LOT WITHIN 8 FEET OF THE BUILDING? DO WE GET CASES WHERE BUILDINGS CATCH FIRE BECAUSE OF A CAR? NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF A SITUATION LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK, THIS IS A STANDARD THAT EXISTS PROBABLY IN MOST ZONING ORDINANCES.

AND IT PROBABLY JUST GOES BACK TO THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE WROTE A MULTIFAMILY ZONING ORDINANCE IN MID-MICHIGAN THAT THEY THOUGHT THERE SHOULD BE A SETBACK FROM THE PARKING AREA. IT'S A STANDARD I HAVE A HARD TIME RECONCILING BECAUSE IT'S JUST WASTED SPACE IN MY MIND.

MORE COSMETIC THAN EFFECTIVE.

IT'S MORE COSMETIC THAN EFFECTIVE.

YES. THANK YOU.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER ANYTHING? NOPE. NOPE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS MYSELF.

I'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO KIND OF LOOK OVER THIS AND HAVE KIND OF THE SAME QUESTIONS IN THIS, ACTUALLY.

WELL, NO, I THINK ABOUT IT. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT I REMEMBER FROM THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, AND I DIDN'T ANSWER BECAUSE IT ASKED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WASN'T HERE.

BUT DIRECTOR, DO YOU DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE WITHIN THE 20 FOOT ON THIS PROPERTY? SO WOULD THIS BE THE ONLY BUILDING WITHIN THE 20 FOOT SETBACK ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.

I BELIEVE THAT I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS WAS ROTATED AS WELL.

YEAH. THIS ONE IS [INAUDIBLE].

SO THESE BUILDINGS, THIS ONE IS CERTAINLY WITHIN 20FT.

THIS ONE IS WITHIN 20FT.

BUT IT'S REALLY ONLY AT THE EDGES IS WHAT THEY'RE PLAYING AT.

I MEAN, IT'S THIS ONE OBVIOUSLY IS WITHIN 20FT.

SO BUT THIS WAS THE EXISTING BUILDING.

SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF SPOTS WHERE LIKE THE CORNERS START TO TICK IN.

OBVIOUSLY, ONCE YOU GET UP INTO CLUB MERIDIAN, THIS ONE'S REALLY CLOSE.

SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PLACE COMPLIES AND PART OF IT DOESN'T.

GOTCHA. OKAY. THANKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, I GUESS WE CAN GO INTO THE CRITERIA REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA.

SO REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER ONE SAYS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PARTICULAR OR PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER TO OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT SELF-CREATED.

I KNOW THAT THE CHAIR LIKES TO COVER MOST OF THOSE HERSELF WHEN SHE DOES THIS, BUT I YOU KNOW, BEING THAT SHE'S NOT HERE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF YOU

[00:15:03]

GUYS AGREE WITH EACH OF THESE REVIEW CRITERIA OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT IT.

MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS REGARD.

I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE WAS A FIRE THEY WERE TRYING TO PUT THE BUILDING BACK TO THE BEST THAT THEY CAN WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

IT SEEMS AS IF BASED ON WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE REGARDING THAT THIRD BUILDING, THAT THEY'VE GOT TO TILT IT.

AND IN ORDER TO TILT IT, THEN YOU ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE TO DO THAT.

AND MOVING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, I BELIEVE, IS DIRECTOR SCHMITT JUST INDICATED THEY NEED A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S REALLY THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT THEY CREATED.

AND SO I AGREE THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT IN THIS SITUATION.

I AGREE. I AGREE WITH ALL YEAH, I WOULD AGREE THAT WE COULD PROBABLY MEET REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER ONE . AND THIS IS OUR APPLICANT ACTUALLY IF YOU [INAUDIBLE].

WELCOME. WELCOME.

YEAH. WE WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK HERE.

WE WERE GOING INTO OUR BOARD REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA, BUT WE'LL STEP BACK SINCE YOU'RE HERE.

AND IF YOU COULD JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SURE. GREG SISLO, 4010, SNEAKY LANE HOLT, MICHIGAN.

GO AHEAD. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY AS THE APPLICANT? WELL, YEAH.

IS THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT UP THERE? YES. OKAY.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THOSE TWO BUILDINGS BURNT TO THE GROUND.

WE'VE GOT TO REPLACE THEM AND WE'VE GOT TO REPLACE THEM WITH CODE 60 YEARS AGO.

THE BUILDING CODES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE TODAY, SO THE BUILDING HAS TO BE BIGGER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE EXCUSE ME, FAIR HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, DOORWAYS, HALLWAYS, KITCHENS, BATHROOMS, ET CETERA.

SO WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY 60 YEARS AGO WAS MUCH SMALLER UNIT CORRIDORS WEREN'T AS WIDE CEILING HEIGHTS WEREN'T THE SAME BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO HAVE INSULATION, OBVIOUSLY NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULLY SPRINKLED, BUILDING DIFFERENT FIRE ALARM SYSTEM.

THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO HAVE AN ELEVATOR, SO THE BUILDING WILL BE 100% ACCESSIBLE, ALL THE ALL THREE FLOORS.

SO THAT'S A CHANGE.

AND WE DID THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR RESIDENTS WANTED.

WE'VE GOT QUITE A FEW ELDERLY PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

AND THEY SAID THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS BECAUSE A LOT OF IT'S GARDEN, THERE ARE STAIRS EVERYWHERE AND THEY DON'T WANT STAIRS.

SO WITH THIS NEW DESIGN, WE WERE ABLE TO ELIMINATE THE STAIRS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN COME IN, PUT IN AN ELEVATOR.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT EASIER FOR THE ELDERLY PEOPLE.

LOOK WISE, TIM AND STAFF WANTED US TO KEEP THE BUILDINGS LOOKING VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S EXISTING.

SO THE BUILDING, YOU CAN SEE IT'S IDENTICAL.

WE'RE GOING TO USE THE SAME SIDING, SAME BRICK, SAME EVERYTHING.

SO IT'S GOING TO FIT IN WITH THE OTHER BUILDINGS.

IT'S GOING TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, JUST A LITTLE BIT BIGGER.

SO AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE SETBACKS, WE TRIED TO POSITION THE BUILDING, IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND THEN ONE OF THE NEW REQUIREMENTS WAS THE OTHER BUILDING WAS WAS ONLY FIVE FOOT BETWEEN THE TWO.

THAT'S NO LONGER ALLOWED.

SO THE NEW BUILDING IS 25FT AWAY FROM THE OTHER BUILDING, WHICH KIND OF MAKES SENSE SINCE AFTER THE FIRE AND WE LOST TWO BUILDINGS.

SO BY HAVING THAT SPACE, BUT BY DOING THAT, WE HAD TO TURN THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT, WHICH PUSHED IT CLOSER TO THE PARKING LOT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE CALLING FOR THIS VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MEMBER TREZISE? IS IT GOING TO HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS? THERE'S TWO MORE. TWO MORE.

OKAY. YES, SIR.

IT LOOKS LIKE MANY OF THESE BUILDINGS, IF THEY HAD TO BE REPLACED, WOULD HAVE VARIANCES REQUESTED.

SO THEY HAD ZONING BACK THEN.

NO, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE ZONING HAS CHANGED SO MUCH FROM THE 1960S.

[00:20:01]

I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN IT BECAME A CHARTER TOWNSHIP AND DEVELOPED ITS OWN ZONING CODE, BUT IT'S CHANGED A BIT SINCE YOU BUILT THESE BUILDINGS.

YEAH, THEY STARTED BUILDING IT.

I PULLED OUT THE OLD DRAWINGS.

THEY'RE KIND OF COOL BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL HANDWRITTEN BECAUSE THEY WERE DONE IN THE 60S.

SO NOWADAYS EVERYTHING'S DONE ON A COMPUTER, BUT YOU CAN SEE THIS WAS ACTUALLY DRAWN.

SO IT'S JUST KIND OF NEAT.

I LIKE THAT STUFF.

I'M A BUILDING GUY.

UM, BUT YEAH, SO THE NEW BUILDING IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE SAFER BUILDING MORE, A LOT MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT.

SO REALLY A BETTER BUILDING FOR THE RESIDENTS.

MEMBER DESCHAINE ANY QUESTION? I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION NUMBER OF UNITS FROM THE OLD BUILDING VERSUS THE NEW BUILDING.

HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IN THE TWO? HOW MANY SQUARE FEET BEFORE? HOW MANY SQUARE FEET NOW? I DON'T KNOW. OKAY.

I WASN'T PREPARED FOR THAT QUESTION.

UM, THE BUILDING IS ABOUT 10,000FT² LARGER, ROUGHLY.

AND AGAIN, MOST OF IT IS BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL SPACE WE NEED FOR THE CORRIDORS AND ALL THE ENTRIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

YEAH. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER? AND WITH THE ADDITION OF THE TWO UNITS, YOU'LL HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR EVERYONE? YES. YES, WE'RE GOOD WITH PARKING.

THE OTHER THING WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING TOO.

WHICH IS KIND OF INTERESTING. WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING EV CHARGERS.

THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ANY EV CHARGERS ON IT, SO THE OWNERS DIRECTED ME TO PLAN FOR 40.

OH, WOW. IF THE WORLD'S GOING THAT WAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT TEN OUT THERE ORIGINALLY.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE CONDUITS, GET EVERYTHING READY, AND IF WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE USING THEM, WE'LL DROP MORE IN AND EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, 260 OF THEM.

BUT WE'RE STARTING WITH 40.

BUT AT LEAST NOW THIS PROPERTY WILL HAVE EV CHARGERS.

THAT'S COOL. SO YEAH, I HAVE A FEELING THAT BUILDING IS GOING TO HAVE ONE HECK OF A WAIT LIST ONCE IT'S BUILT AND EVERYONE'S GOING TO WANT TO GET IN THE NEW BUILDING.

AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I MEAN, IT WAS FULL AND EVERYBODY THAT LEFT, THEY ALL WANT TO COME BACK.

IT'S A VERY NICE PROPERTY.

IT'S NOT EXPENSIVE AND IT GETS PEOPLE INTO THE OKEMOS SCHOOL DISTRICT.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE KEEP IT UP.

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE THING IS 60 YEARS OLD, BUT THAT'S JUST THE [INAUDIBLE] THING.

THEY JUST PUT NEW SIDING ON IT.

NEW ROOFS, NEW WINDOWS, NEW DOORS.

I GOT TO PUT NEW FIRE HYDRANTS OUT THERE FOR [INAUDIBLE] SO.

WELL, THE OLD ONES AREN'T THE QUICK CONNECTS.

SO WHEN WE HAD THE FIRE, NOT EVERYBODY.

WHEN SOME OF THE OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS CAME, THEY ALL HAD TO DIG OUT ADAPTERS TO PUT ON THERE.

SO IT TOOK TIME VERSUS JUST CLICK, YOU'RE DONE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE ALL THOSE FIRE HYDRANTS, TOO, WHEN WE'RE DOING THIS TO THE NEW STYLE.

SO ANOTHER QUESTION THAT'S REALLY NOT PERTINENT FOR THIS PETITION, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THAT PREVIOUS BUILDING, WHEN THIS NEW BUILDING IS BUILT, DO THEY GET ESSENTIALLY GET THE FIRST DIBS, LACK OF A BETTER TERM, TO MOVE INTO THAT BUILDING? ABSOLUTELY. PERFECT.

OKAY. YES, WE HAVE ACTUALLY MOVED A LOT OF THE PEOPLE AROUND TO SOME OF OUR OTHER PROJECTS.

YOU KNOW, WE OWN A LOT AROUND THERE.

SO WE YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYBODY AND WE PUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR PROJECTS, NOT EVERYBODY.

WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH FOR THEM.

BUT YES, THEY ALL WANT TO COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE HAPPY.

AND OBVIOUSLY, THE OTHER LEASES THEY HAVE WILL JUST BREAK THEM AND TRANSFER THEM OVER.

GOTCHA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, GREAT. WELL, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WE DID ALREADY HAVE SOME INTERNAL QUESTIONS THAT THEY GOT BEFORE YOU WERE HERE, BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING BECAUSE YOU JUST ANSWERED MOST OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE MOVED ON TO BOARD TIME REVIEWING THE ACTUAL FIVE CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE SATISFIED IN ORDER FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE APPROVED.

WE DID GO THROUGH, NUMBER ONE, THAT TALKS ABOUT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY.

WE DID ALL AGREE THAT THE BOARD CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA.

SO MOVING ON, WE'RE MOVING ON TO NUMBER TWO.

GET YOU CAUGHT UP TO SPEED WHERE WE'RE AT.

SO NUMBER TWO SAYS STRICT INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.

ANY BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT OR FEEL THAT WE MEET THAT? I BELIEVE WE MEET IT.

WE DO MEET IT. THERE WOULD BE VARIANCES EVEN IF WE BUILD IT THE OLD WAY.

SO I THINK THIS IS A MULTI FAMILY OR MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LOT OF YEARS IN ORDER TO

[00:25:03]

CONTINUE THE CAPACITY IT HAD.

I THINK THIS IS WE COULDN'T DO THAT WITHOUT SOME VARIANCES, WHETHER IT'S THIS PARTICULAR ONE OR OTHERS.

I THINK IT'S JUST IT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ALLOW BUILDING.

I WOULD AGREE. SO I BELIEVE THE BOARD CAN MEET THAT CRITERIA, NUMBER TWO.

NUMBER THREE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS ON THAT.

I BELIEVE WE MEET THAT ONE AS WELL.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE NEW DESIGN TAKES IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY THAT WAS NEGATED IN THE THE OLD DESIGN, WHICH CAUSED TWO BUILDINGS TO GO DOWN.

SO I DEFINITELY THINK WE MEET THIS CONDITION.

AND SECURE PUBLIC SAFETY IS PROBABLY A BIG UNDERLYING STATEMENT WITHIN THAT CRITERIA AS THE REASON WHY YOU'RE MOVING THAT AWAY FROM THE FURTHER BUILDING BECAUSE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN, PROTECT THAT HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THOSE CURRENT TENANTS IN THAT OTHER BUILDING.

SO THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO I BELIEVE WE CAN MEET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE.

NUMBER FOUR IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND OR THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY.

MY ONLY COMMENT TO THAT IS THAT WHEN I FIRST REVIEWED THIS, I SAW THAT THIS WAS KIND OF AN INTERNAL SETBACK ISSUE, INTERNAL VARIANCE.

IT'S NOT A VARIANCE THAT IS GOING TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT A DIFFERENT PROPERTY LINE.

SO WHEN I SAW THAT, I IMMEDIATELY SAID, NUMBER FOUR, I BELIEVE WE COULD PROBABLY MEET RIGHT AWAY JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE BEAST WITH WHERE THIS VARIANCE IS.

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON NUMBER FOUR? I AGREE. SO I BELIEVE BOARD CAN MEET THAT ONE.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER.

THAT AGAIN, IS AN EASY ONE.

I BELIEVE SO. I AGREE.

I BELIEVE, AGAIN, BASED ON THE NATURE AND EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD FROM FROM THE APPLICANT PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THE REASON FOR THIS VARIANCE IS MORE THAN ONE REASON.

OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE BIGGEST BEING THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE OF THE NEARBY RESIDENTS IN THAT OTHER BUILDING AND HAVING TO SHIFT THAT.

AND AS MEMBER TREZISE SAID, ONE WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IN ORDER FOR HIM TO REBUILD THAT BUILDING, THERE HAD TO BE SOME SORT OF VARIANCE PROBABLY REQUESTED AT SOME POINT.

SO I BELIEVE THE VARIANCE THAT WAS REQUESTED IS DEFINITELY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL THOSE PEOPLE AROUND THERE.

SO I BELIEVE WE CAN MEET REVIEW CRITERIA NUMBER FIVE, LET ME GO BACK TO MY FIRST SHEET.

SO WITH THAT, IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE PETITION? MEMBER DESCHAINE. THANK YOU.

I MOVE THAT THE WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR ZBA CASE NUMBER 23-07 KNOB HILL APARTMENTS, LLC.

SECONDED. MOVED AND SECONDED.

DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THIS OR CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE FOR THIS. OKAY.

MEMBER TREZISE. YES.

MEMBER DESCHAINE.

YES. MEMBER FIELD-FOSTER.

YES. AND THE VICE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO CONGRATULATIONS. YOUR VARIANCE IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK OVER THERE.

THANKS. WHAT'S YOUR CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE? IF YOU HAVE ONE YET.

NO, NO, NO, NO. WE ABSOLUTELY DO.

OUR GOAL IS, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON PERMITTING, WE'RE GOING TO GO FOR OUR GRADING AND FOUNDATION PERMITS.

WE'RE HOPING TO BE STARTED FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER AND BE FRAMING BY NOVEMBER.

GREAT. WHILE THE AREA IS PRETTY MUCH LEVELED OUT [INAUDIBLE] WHEN THEY FINISHED THE DEMO AND CLEANED IT UP, WE BROUGHT IT DOWN [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE IT LOOKS BAD AND I FELT BAD FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY MADE US SIT ON THAT STUPID THING FOR MONTHS WITHOUT BURNED OUT BUILDINGS THERE.

BUT. SO WE'RE GOOD TO GO.

WE'RE GOOD WITH CONSUMERS ALREADY.

WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING SET UP WITH CONSUMERS.

WE'VE GOT TO BRING A NEW NEW POWER, NEW GAS.

SO THE TRANSFORMERS ARE SO OLD.

SURE. SO THEY'RE REDOING ALL THAT.

SO WE'RE HOPING BY MAY.

GREAT. THAT WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE BACK IN THE BUILDINGS.

THAT'S REALLY GOOD. IT'S AMAZING.

SO THE CONSUMERS, IF CONSUMERS CAN GET US THE POWER, WE WILL HAVE IT DONE.

[INAUDIBLE] DO YOU STILL HAVE A HIGH MSU POPULATION THAT LIVES THERE? OH YEAH.

OH YEAH. THAT'S A GOOD PROPERTY.

AND WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TOO, THE OWNERS, THEY JUST AS SOON AS WE START WORKING ON SOMETHING, OH, LET'S HAVE MORE LANDSCAPING.

GOTCHA. NICE.

WE WISH YOU WELL AND GOOD LUCK WITH IT.

THANK YOU. SO MOVING ON TO AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER SIX, NEW BUSINESS.

[6. NEW BUSINESS]

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY NEW BUSINESS.

CORRECT. LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS OTHER BUSINESS.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

[7. OTHER BUSINESS]

CORRECT. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

[8. PUBLIC REMARKS]

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC.

SO THAT BRINGS US TO AGENDA NUMBER NINE.

[00:30:02]

AGENDA NUMBER NINE BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS.

[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]

ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS TONIGHT? SEEING NONE. MOVING TO AGENDA NUMBER TEN, WHICH IS WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.