>> BY DEFAULT, SO WE JUST HAVE TO OPEN THE MEETING DO ROLL CALL.
[00:00:05]
>> OPENING THE MEETING FOR MARCH 20TH OF THE ZBA FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
START WITH ROLL CALL. PUSHINGS?>> AN AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE END.
[2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA]
>> MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
>> NO OPPOSITIONS, SO IT WAS APPROVED.
>> I MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2023.
[3. CORRECTIONS, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF MINUTES]
>> I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED CORRECTIONS.
>> NO OPPOSED SO THAT IS APPROVED. IF WE JUST MOVE FORWARD TO.
[4. COMMUNICATIONS]
>> COMMUNICATIONS, WE CAN ADDRESS THESE.
THEY'RE ON THE RECORD FOR EACH CASE INDIVIDUALLY, SO NEW BUSINESS.
>> DID WE NOT GET ANOTHER COMMUNICATION TODAY?
>> YES, WE DID. THERE'S TWO THAT I SENT YOU ON MONDAY AND THEN THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL ONE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED TODAY.
>> THOSE SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE NEXT.
>> YEAH, THOSE WILL BE READ IN.
[6.A. ZBA CASE NO. 24-01 (3689 Van Atta), Steven L. Drayer, 3689 Van Atta Road, Okemos, MI 48864 ]
>> MOVING ON TO ZBA, CASE NUMBER 24-01 AT 3689 VANATTA ROAD.
>> THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 866368, D2 MINIMUM MATERIAL LOT WITH 200 FEET.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CREATE THREE NEW PARCELS FROM ONE PARCEL.
ONE OF THE PROPOSED PARCELS IS UNDER THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF 200 FEET AT 3689 VANATTA ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 21.88 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN SHOWS A 3,081 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2,013 AND 2019 RESPECTIVELY, THAT CURRENTLY OCCUPIES THE LOT.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 200 FEET, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE THREE LOTS WITH WIDTH OF 392.65 FEET, 264.75 FEET, AND ONE WITH A WIDTH OF 66 FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 134 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE CREATION OF THE 66 FOOT WIDE PARCEL.
>> THAT IS WHERE WE CALL THE APPLICANT UP?
>> THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
>> WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS JUST FOR THE RECORD?
>> SURE. MY NAME IS STEVE DREYER.
I LIVE AT 3689 VANATTA ROAD AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE AND OF THE PROPERTY AT THAT ADDRESS.
THE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THIS VARIANCE IS THAT I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY THREE YEARS AGO AS A RETIREMENT PROPERTY.
I BOUGHT IT BASED ON ITS BEAUTY.
I BOUGHT IT ON THE SETTING OF THE HOUSE, SO IT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN SELLING POINTS OF THAT HOUSE.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT I WOULD REQUEST FROM THIS COMMITTEE THAT WOULD AFFECT MY APPRECIATION OF THE SETTING OR THE BEAUTY THAT I AM CURRENTLY LIVING ON.
FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, I HAVE WORKED HARD AT THIS HOUSE AND LAND TO CULTIVATE THE BEAUTY AND THE NATURAL SETTING.
THERE WERE GARDENS THAT HAD TO BE RESTORED, DEAD TREES THAT HAD TO BE REMOVED, FENCES THAT NEEDED TO BE MENDED, BARNS THAT NEEDED TO BE REPAINTED AND RESTORED, SO I WORKED HARD TO TRY TO IMPROVE WHAT I MOVED INTO.
I WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THIS PROPERTY UNTIL EITHER I CAN'T LIVE THERE ANYMORE OR I DECIDE THAT I HAVE TO MOVE ELSEWHERE.
THE CURRENT ACREAGE IS JUST UNDER 22 ACRES.
I HAVE THE LARGEST LOT SIZE ALONG VANATTA ROAD.
[00:05:01]
IF YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE LOT SIZES THAT ARE ALONG VANATTA ROAD, THEY RANGE 2-10 ACRES.THERE ARE TWO OTHER LOTS THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES.
BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS SIMPLY DO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS DONE ALONG VANATTA ROAD OVER THE YEARS.
ONE OF THE MAJOR THINGS IS I WORKED HARD WHEN I SET UP THE SALE OF THESE PROPERTIES TO PUT SOME VERY DETAILED RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT COULD BE BUILT AND HOW IT WOULD BE MAINTAINED.
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF GETTING A VARIANCE IS TO MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY AND THE NATURAL USE OF THE LAND.
ALL OF THE PERIPHERAL TREES ON MY LAND ARE IN THE RESTRICTIONS TO BE MAINTAINED.
ADDITIONALLY, IF THE TWO HOUSES WERE TO BE BUILT ON THESE 10 ACRES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PUT IN ADDITIONAL TREES THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND MY HOUSE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PRIVACY AND BEAUTY AND EVEN PRIVACY FOR THOSE HOMES.
THE LAWNS WOULD NEED TO BE MAINTAINED, AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE, FENCES ERECTED, HOUSING STYLES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED BY MYSELF SO THAT THEY WOULD BE IN KIND WITH THE CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY.
IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE AND MAKE THIS INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S CROWDED BY HOUSES.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEBODY HELP ME MAINTAIN THAT LAND AS IT CURRENTLY IS.
IT'S GETTING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR ME OVER THE THREE YEARS TO MAINTAIN ALL 22 ACRES.
IF I HAD ONE OR TWO HOMEOWNERS WITH SMALLER LOTS, THAT COULD HELP, WE WOULD WORK TO MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY OF THOSE 25 ACRE LOTS.
THE CURRENT PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THIS LAND ARE ALL LOOKING AT THE FULL 10 ACRES AND THEY ALL WANT THEIR PROPERTY TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE 10 ACRES.
BUT ALL THREE OF THESE PEOPLE, BOTH ARE EITHER ALTERS OR BUILDERS.
I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT TO SUSPECT THAT ONCE THEY BUY THE 10 ACRES, THEY'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR VARIANCES TO PUT IN HOUSES ALONG THAT 10 ACRES.
MY JOB AS THE HOMEOWNER IS TO PROTECT THAT BEAUTY OF THE LAND.
I'M NOT BUILDING A SUBDIVISION LIKE ONE OF OUR LETTER WRITERS HAS MAINTAINED.
I JUST WANT TO PUT TWO HOUSES UP THAT CAN SHARE IN THE BEAUTY OF IT.
I DO NOT WANT TO LOOK OUT ONTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, I WANT TO LOOK OUT ON THE NATURAL BEAUTY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE REALTORS DATA, THE AVERAGE HOME THAT'S SOLD WANTS NO MORE THAN 2-5 ACRES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND THAT I HAVE, THE LAND WILL BE SOLD AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WHETHER IT'S NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS CONTROL THAT LAND AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND NOT ALLOW SOMEBODY TO JUST PUT HOUSES IN ITS PLACE.
THE BANKS, AS THEY LOOK AT THE VALUE OF THE HOME, MY CURRENT HOME IS VALUED AS THE HOME PLUS NO MORE THAN 10 ACRES.
THEREFORE, THE OTHER 12 ACRES THAT I OWN DOESN'T COME INTO ITS VALUE.
IF I'M GOING TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF MY HOME FOR SALE IN THE FUTURE AND IT WILL BE SOLD, IS BRINGING THAT ACREAGE DOWN TO A REASONABLE LEVEL THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN BUYING BECAUSE I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS INTERESTED IN BUYING THE 22 ACRES.
I'D LIKE TO SEE MY LAND AROUND MY HOUSE BE MAXIMIZED FOR VALUE DOWN TO 12 ACRES AND ESTABLISH 25 ACRE LATTO ON TOP OF THAT, I HAVE TALKED WITH REALTORS, I HAVE TALKED WITH BANKERS IN ORDER TO VERIFY THESE NUMBERS, I HAVE HAD AN ATTORNEY REVIEW THE RESTRICTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE BEAUTY.
AS I SAID TO BEGIN WITH AND IN SUMMARY, WHAT I DO HERE ON THE LAND IS NOT TO MAKE IT UGLY, NOT TO BUILD A PROFIT.
ALL I WANT IS HELP IN MAINTAINING IT, AND THEN ALSO MAKING IT BEAUTIFUL FOR TWO ADDITIONAL OWNERS IN A VERY NICE SETTING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING. YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN UP
[00:10:02]
NOW FOR ANYONE OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANTS TO SPEAK.IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, JUST GO AHEAD AND COME UP AND SAY YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT, AND I HAVE TWO POINTS FROM LAURA THAT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE.
BUT FIRST, I WANTED OUR NEIGHBORS TO KNOW THAT WE'VE APPRECIATED EVERYBODY THAT HAS LIVED AT 3689 VANATTA ROAD, INCLUDING THE CURRENT NEIGHBORS.
NOW, THE FIRST NEIGHBOR THAT WE HAD WAS JOYCE GROVER.
SHE TOOK CARE OF THAT PROPERTY UNTIL SHE WAS 83 YEARS OLD.
HOWEVER, HER LATER YEARS, PROBABLY PAST THE AGE OF 79, WE HELPED WRANGLE HORSES AND TRACTORS.
WE ADDRESSED FELLED TREES AND BRUSH HOG THE ENTIRE 20 ACRES FOR HER ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
WE HAVE A GREAT FAMILIARITY WITH THAT PROPERTY AND THE ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT UP THE STREAM IS A VERY REAL ONE.
IF WE PLACE ASPHALT AND HOUSING ON 10 OF THE ACRES, THAT WILL PREVENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF WATER FROM ENTERING THE SUBSURFACE WHERE IT COULD OTHERWISE BE TAKEN UP BY GRASS AND TREES AND SHRUBS.
THE BURDEN OF THAT WATER IS GOING TO BE FELT BY PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH AND IT'S GOING TO POSE A HIGHER RISK FOR FLOODING FOR VANATTA ROAD AS A WHOLE.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPERTIES SUCH AS FERTILIZERS, AND PESTICIDES, AND HERBICIDES, EVENTUALLY, ONCE THEY REACH A PERMEABLE SURFACE, WILL ENTER THE GROUNDWATER AND AFFECT EVERY ONE OF THE WELLS THAT SERVE AS DRINKING WATER FOR EVERY SINGLE HOUSE ON VANATTA ROAD, INCLUDING 3689.
HAVING LIVED ON VANATTA ROAD FOR DECADES, WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A UNIFIED SINGULAR PERCEPTION OF THE ROAD AS ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL TOWNSHIP.
IT IS ONE OF ABOUT 111 NATURAL BEAUTY ROADS IN THE STATE.
THE MOST POIGNANT COMMENT THAT I EVER RECEIVED FROM A FRIEND WHO LIVES IN LANSING WAS, WHY IN THE HECK WOULD I GO UP NORTH TO THE TUNNEL OF TREES WHEN I HAVE ONE HERE ON VANATTA ROAD? THE BEAUTY THAT TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS ENJOY, WHETHER THEY WALK THROUGH LEGG PARK OR THEY DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD, IS NOT CONFINED TO THE ROAD.
IT COMES FROM THE PLATITUDE OF WOODS AND FIELDS AND HOUSES DOTTING THE LANDSCAPE, NESTLED AMONGST NATURALLY OCCURRING FOREST.
THIS ENVIRONMENT IS PERHAPS UNIQUE TO VANATTA ROAD AND SOMETHING WE CAN'T RECREATE.
IT IS IN CONTRAST TO HOUSING PLACED ONE IN BACK OF ANOTHER EVEN ON A FEW ACRES.
EVERYONE HERE, I IMAGINE, SEES THEMSELVES AS OWNING A PROPERTY WHEN IN REALITY WE RESIDE ON IT TEMPORARILY.
AS SUCH, WE HAVE THE AUSPICIOUS ROLE OF BEING STEWARDS ON THAT LAND, AND WE ARE ENDOWED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING ITS BEAUTY FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN OF THE TOWNSHIP AS A WHOLE.
NATHANIEL AND I HOPE TO LIVE IN AND LEAVE A LEGACY OF NATURAL PEACE AND QUIETUDE THAT IS MAYBE UNIQUELY CHARACTERISTIC OF VANATTA ROAD.
A LEGACY THAT WE HOPE IS EMBRACED BY THE TOWNSHIP AS A WHOLE.
>> MY NAME IS CHARLIE DE CAMP.
VAN ATTA IS THE OLD FARMHOUSE, SEVERAL HOUSES FROM THE PROPOSED SPLIT PROPERTY.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT I KNOW WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS AND WE BOUGHT OUR RETIREMENT PROPERTY 40 YEARS AGO, BASICALLY.
WE'VE BEEN THERE THAT LONG AND WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER LEAVING.
WHEN WE LOOK BACK AT THE 40 YEARS, WHEN WE GOT THERE IN THE EARLY 1980S, JOYCE AND DON GROVER WERE ALREADY THERE.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW LONG GONE.
THEY CLEARED THE PROPERTY, THEY BUILT THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.
IT WAS JOYCE GROVER INTO HER '80S WHO GOT ON THAT TRACTOR EVERY WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AND CLEARED THAT PROPERTY EVERY TIME, AND MAINTAINED A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY.
THE LAWN WASN'T THERE, IT WASN'T PERFECT.
BUT IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH THAT DR. GROVER MAINTAINED A GOLF COURSE.
HE HAD A LITTLE MINI GOLF COURSE ON THAT THING.
THEY ENJOYED THE WIDE OPEN SPACES OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.
THEY REJOICED IN IT. WE ALSO DO TOO.
I SEE THIS AS AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY.
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS ZONING BOARD.
[00:15:03]
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY AS A COMMUNITY TO MAINTAIN SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT NATURAL SPACES, BEAUTIFUL SPACES WITHIN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.WHEN THOSE SPACES ARE GONE, THEY ARE GONE FOR GOOD.
I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE RIGHT OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO SELL WHAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY WANT, BUT I WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF ZONING.
THEY CAN STILL SELL THAT PROPERTY.
WE DON'T HAVE TO BUILD THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOUSES ON THAT PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED.
WE CAN KEEP IT DOWN. I ASK THAT WE NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE? WITH THAT, I THINK WE GO INTO BOARD TIME.
>> KEITH, CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE DRAWINGS OF THE PROPOSAL? THAT'S THE ONE. I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY.
>> YOU HAVE TO GET TO THE MIC, SIR.
>> THOUGHT I HAD A PRETTY GOOD VOICE.
>> HERE, I'LL LOOK ACROSS LIKE THAT.
>> SURE. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT, YOU GOT VANATTA ROAD ON THE BOTTOM.
WE'VE GOT THE FRONT FIVE ACRES APPROXIMATELY, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN THE PINK COLOR.
THAT HAS THE 200 PLUS ROAD FRONTAGE ON IT.
THERE IS A 66 FOOT WIDE STRIP THAT'S OUTLINED IN YELLOW.
THAT WOULD BE FOR A ROAD TO BE GRAVEL ROAD, WHATEVER TO BE DEVELOPED BACK TO THE BACK PROPERTY WHICH IS ANOTHER FIVE ACRES.
AGAIN, THIS IS ALL DONE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS IN MIND, NOT REMOVING ANY TREES OR ALTERING ANYTHING ELSE.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY TO YOU, I APPRECIATE YOUR INTENT BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING.
>> BECAUSE THIS IS BETWEEN YOU AND WHOEVER YOU SELL THE PROPERTY TO.
WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT WHAT THE ZONING REQUIRES.
I WAS INTERPRETING THE DRAWING CORRECTLY, IT LOOKS LIKE ALMOST A 66 FOOT EASEMENT THROUGH THERE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DEEDED TO THEM AS A ROADWAY, A DRIVEWAY TO THE READER.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I SAW.
>> THE CURRENT HOME THAT'S THERE NOW, THAT'S THE FRONT PART OF THIS?
>> YEAH. THE HOME ITSELF SITS ABOUT A THIRD OF THE WAY BACK OR SO ON THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINES. THERE WE GO.
>> CAN I DO A REBUTTAL, SO TO SPEAK?
>> SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE NOTED IN THE LETTER, PARTICULARLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE DE CAMPS' LETTER, THEY TALK ABOUT A HIGHLY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M NOT PUTTING ONE HOUSE ON EACH ACRE OR ONE HOUSE ON TWO ACRES, I'M PUTTING TWO HOUSES IN 10 ACRES, WHICH STILL MAINTAINS NEARLY FIVE ACRES OF LAND FOR EACH OF THESE HOUSES.
AS OPPOSED TO THEIR OPENING STATEMENT ABOUT THE PROPOSED LOTS DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, THE FRONT LOT CERTAINLY MEETS THE 200 PLUS FOOTAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE ON BANANA ROAD, SO I FIND VERY LITTLE WORTH IN THE LETTER THAT THEY'VE WRITTEN.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELSTROM'S LETTER, LET ME JUST FIND MY NOTES ON THAT.
WELL, LET'S GO TO WHAT [INAUDIBLE] FIRST OF ALL, UNLESS YOU GUYS KNOW OF IT, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY STUDY THAT SUPPORTS THAT VANATTA ROAD WILL BE
[00:20:02]
FLOODED BY PUTTING A HOUSE UP IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY NOR ROADWAY.>> I CAN DO THE CALCULATIONS FOR YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE A STUDY PRESENTED BY AN ENGINEERING FIRM THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WOULD BE FLOODING AT VANATTA ROAD.
>> SHE TALKS ABOUT ADDING FERTILIZER.
WELL, THE WHOLE LOT'S BEEN FERTILIZED FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
WE'VE ADDED NO FURTHER FERTILIZING TO IT, AND NEITHER WOULD ANY HOUSES BECAUSE I'M ALREADY FERTILIZING THE LAND.
A HOUSE IS GOING TO BE PLACED ON THE FRONT PROPERTY REGARDLESS.
IT MEETS THE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT.
SO THERE WILL BE A HOUSE ON THE FRONT.
THE ONLY THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS WHETHER WE PUT A HOUSE TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE LOT SO THAT DOESN'T DISTURB THE BEAUTY OF VANATTA ROAD OR THE SURROUNDING AREA, PARTICULARLY WITH THE LAWNS AND THE TREES ARE MAINTAINED.
THERE'S CONCERNS, IT'S QUITE AN EXTENSIVE DISSERTATION THAT IS OUTLINED HERE, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY'VE MADE A POINT THAT THE BEAUTY OF THE ROAD OR THE LAND IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED.
HE TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT HIS STABLES HAVE BEEN FLOODING.
HE'S GOT AN OPEN BARN THAT STORES TRACTOR EQUIPMENT.
>> NO. WE HAVE SIX STABLES AND WE'VE HAD FIVE HORSES ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S OKAY. CAN YOU ADDRESS THE BOARD, PLEASE?
>> I'M SORRY. THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER WAY TO DO IT.
I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT ANY FURTHER.
I APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> REAL QUICK BEFORE YOU GO TO SIT DOWN, SIR.
REAL QUICK. I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
I'M SORRY, COME RIGHT BACK UP.
>> JUST THIS AREA OUTLINED IN PINK THAT I'M LOOKING AT, I SEE THAT IT SAYS NON BUILDING AREA.
>> WE'VE GOT IT ON THE EAST SIDE LISTED AS NON BUILDING IN THE BACK HALF OF THAT LOT FROM VAN ATTA.
>> THE RESTRICTIONS THAT PUT IN, WE DON'T WANT OUR VISUAL LINE AFFECTED BY HOUSES AS WE SIT ON OUR BACK DECK AND LOOK OUT, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE BEAUTY OF THE LAND ALSO.
SO THE HOUSE IN THE BACK FIVE ACRES, WOULD BE BUILT TOWARDS THE BACK BASED ON THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE HOUSE AND THAT PINK AREA WOULD BE UP TOWARDS THE FRONT.
ANY WATERWAYS, AS NATHANIEL HAS TALKED ABOUT IN HIS DISSERTATION ARE TO BE MAINTAINED AND PRESERVED, HOWEVER POSSIBLE SO THAT THAT EPHEMERAL WATERWAY THAT HE TALKS ABOUT WILL BE MAINTAINED AND WILL CONTINUE IN ITS NATURAL USE AND BEAUTY.
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. THANK YOU CLEANING UP.
I THINK WE'LL MOVE INTO DISCUSSION NOW THEN ALSO.
IT'S PROBABLY FOR THE STAFF, KEITH.
WHAT IS THE PROPERTY ZONED FOR? IS IT ZONED FOR A BUILDING? WHAT IS THE ZONING?
>> IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS WHAT IT'S ZONED FOR.
>> BUT DOES IT ALLOW FOR TWO MORE HOMES TO BE BUILT THERE?
>> UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SPLIT OFF ONE MORE PARCEL.
SO THE VARIANCE THOUGH, IS TO HAVE THE THREE IN TOTAL AS OPPOSED TO THE TWO THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
>> IT'S CURRENTLY RURAL RESIDENTIAL WHICH REQUIRES WHAT? A ONE ACRE LOT?
>> IT'S 40,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEN 200 FEET OF FRONT EDGE.
>> ACTUALLY, ESSENTIALLY ONE STRUCTURE PER ACRE MAXIMUM?
>> YEAH. IF YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY.
>> IF YOU IF YOU CAN MAINTAIN YOUR FRONT.
>> YES. WHERE I'M STRUGGLING ON THIS IS THE FIRST CRITERION JUST BECAUSE THE CIRCUMSTANCE DOES FEEL SELF CREATED, BEING THAT THERE IS ENOUGH SPACE TO HAVE TWO 200 FOOT FRONTAGES THERE AND ONE OF THEM IS DRASTICALLY UNDERNEATH, AND I GET THE IDEA THAT WAS JUST TO BE A DRIVEWAY, BUT THIS IS WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH RIGHT NOW.
ESSENTIALLY, THE APPLICANT COULD DIVIDE
[00:25:03]
THIS 20 ACRE LOT IN TWO AND HAVE ALL THE FRONTAGE HE NEEDS TO BUILD ONE HOUSE ON EACH ONE.WHAT HE IS ASKED ME TO DO IS CHANGE THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS SO THAT HE CAN BUILD A THIRD HOME ON THESE LOTS.
I DON'T SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRST LISTED STANDARD.
>> I DON'T THINK A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ZONING WOULD CREATE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD PREVENT IT FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR ITS PERMITTED PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO BUILD A RESIDENCE.
SO I DON'T SEE IT MEETS THE SECOND ONE.
I GUESS GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY, WHICH IT WOULDN'T CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THOUGH.
IT WOULD CARRY OUT HIS DESIRES, BUT IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO I DON'T SEE HIM MAKING THREE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE VARIANCE ITSELF WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND.
I'VE HEARD STATEMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS THAT IT COULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER AND THE DRAINAGE OF THE AREA.
I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO REACH A DECISION ON THAT.
THE FIFTH CRITERIA IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT NECESSARILY MEETS THAT EITHER.
SO I WOULD BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.
>> NO OTHER COMMENTS FOR ME. IT IS PRETTY CLEAR.
MOTION TO VOTE FOR ZBA, CASE NUMBER-
>> EXCUSE ME. CAN HE SHOW YOU ANOTHER DRAWING BEFORE YOU VOTE?
>> UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE PRETTY MUCH MOVED PAST PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> IF HE WISHES TO FILE A DIFFERENT VARIANCE OR A DIFFERENT DRAWING, HE CAN PRESENT THAT IN A DIFFERENT MATTER.
IT'S NOT FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.
IT'S TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS ALTERNATIVE IS APPROPRIATE.
>> I DO APOLOGIZE. MOTION TO VOTE ON ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-01.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DENY THE REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE IN ZBA CASE 24-01.
>> WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT ACTUALLY.
>> MEMBER MCCURTIS [PHONETIC].
>> CHAIR VOTES YES. MOTION PASSES.
>> YEAH. THE VARIANCE WAS DENIED,
[6.B. ZBA CASE NO. 24-02 (5867 Bois Ile), Keri & Brandon Lardie, 5867 Bois Ile Drive, Haslett, MI 48840 ]
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER 24-02.TWENTY FOUR DASH ZERO TWO OF 5867, BOISE EL DRIVE, AND THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DECK ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN 1982.
ACCORDING TO OUR ASSESSING DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE EXISTING DECK, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1989, MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET BY 18 FEET IN THE AREA WITH 810 FOOT BY 12 FOOT SCREEN ENCLOSED, PORCH ON TOP.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO REPLACE THE DECK WITH A NEW ENCLOSED DECK.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, WHICH MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 16 FEET, 1 INCH BY 18 FEET, 4 INCH IN AREA.
SO THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROVED AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN
[00:30:01]
1969 AS CONDOS AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS, AND SOMETIME BETWEEN THEN AND THE EARLY 1990S, A LOT LINES WERE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SO THIS CAUSED THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS, TO HAVE ISSUES WITH SETBACKS AND OTHER NON-CONFORMITIES.SO THIS PROPOSED DECK WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE DECK IS PERMITTED TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK 8 FEET, BUT BE NO CLOSER TO ANY LOT LINE THAN 8 FEET.
IT'S SHOWN LOCATED 4 FEET, 7 INCHES AT ITS CLOSEST POINT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND ENCROACHES 3 FEET, 5 INCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 3 FEET, 5 INCHES TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED DECK TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK.
>> THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GOOD EVENING. WE ARE KERI AND BRANDON LARDIE.
WE LIVE AT 5867 BOYS EL DRIVE IN HAZLETT, AND WE ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE 2005.
AS WAS STATED, THIS WAS THE DECK ON THE PROPERTY WHEN WE MOVED INTO IT.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE PURCHASED THE HOME WAS BECAUSE IT SITS RIGHT ON A SMALL LAKE AND LAKE OF THE HILLS SUBDIVISION.
HAVING A LARGE DECK WAS A DRAW IN PURCHASING THE HOME SO THAT WE COULD ENJOY THE BEAUTY AND SURROUNDINGS OF THE LAKE AND OF OUR PROPERTY.
OVER THE YEARS, WELL, I SHOULD SAY, THE DECK WASN'T REALLY IN GREAT SHAPE WHEN WE MOVED INTO THE HOME.
THERE WAS A HOT TUB THAT WAS SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DECK THAT WAS BROKEN.
OVER THE YEARS, MY HUSBAND HAS REPLACED BOARDS, STRIPPED IT, RETAINED IT, PAINTED, AND IT IS JUST WELL PAST USABILITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO BE ABLE TO REPLACE THE DECK WAITING THROUGH COVID, THE HIGH LUMBER PRICES AFTERWARDS, AND WE HAVE CONTRACTED WITH GREEN SHIELD DECKING IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE DECK, WHICH REALLY HAS TO BE COMPLETELY TORN DOWN.
WE HAVE A WALKOUT BASEMENT, SO THE DECK IS ON THE FIRST LEVEL OF THE HOME.
YOU WALK OUT ONTO THE DECK, AND THEN THERE ARE STEPS DOWN INTO THE GRASS AREA, INTO THE WALKOUT BASEMENT AREA.
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS NOT USABLE.
IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS IF YOU LOOK AT IT.
IT'S NOT USABLE. AND, REALLY, ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO, I THINK IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE REQUEST, IS UTILIZE THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE CURRENT DECK.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MOVE IT AT ALL OVER TO THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IN QUESTION IS.
WE'RE GOING TO UTILIZE THAT EXACT SAME FOOTPRINT.
OVERALL THE SIZE OF THE DECK IS GOING TO REMAIN ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME, EXCEPT WE ARE CUTTING APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET OFF OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE DECK.
BUT WE LOVE THE SIZE OF THE DECK AND WE WANT TO, BASICALLY, JUST UTILIZE THE FOOTPRINT THAT IS THERE, BUT JUST REPLACE IT WITH DECKING THAT IS SAFER BECAUSE THE CURRENT MATERIAL IS NOT SAFE, AND QUITE FRANKLY, MORE ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE IT LOOKS SO BAD RIGHT NOW.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PACKET, WE ARE LUCKY THAT WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
I AM SURE THEY WOULD LOVE US TO REPLACE THE DECK BECAUSE IT IS A BIT OF AN EYESORE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE OUT ON THE LAKE YOU CAN SEE OUR DECK.
WE REALLY COULD COME UP WITH ANOTHER DESIGN, BUT WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO.
IN FACT, THERE IS A ROW OF TREES THAT SEPARATES OUR PROPERTY FROM OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH THAT LINES THE DECK.
IF WE HAVE TO SHIFT THE DECK DESIGN OVER, WE THEN HAVE THIS WEIRD SPACE OF ABOUT 3-4 FEET IN BETWEEN THE TREES THAT CURRENTLY LINE THE DECK AND THEN WHEN THE DECK WOULD START, WHICH JUST QUITE FRANKLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE FROM AN AESTHETIC VIEWPOINT.
WE COME BEFORE YOU TODAY JUST TO ASK TO ALLOW US TO REPLACE WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING, WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ANY FURTHER, AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT.
[00:35:10]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M LAURA CLOUD AND I AM THE NORTH HOUSE THAT SHE'S REFERRING TO ON A 5875 BOYS EL DRIVE, AND I TOO HAVE A WALK OUT BASEMENT THAT GOES ONTO THE LAKE.
IT IS REALLY A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MOVED IN PROBABLY TWO YEARS MAYBE BEFORE KERI AND BRANDON MOVED IN.
I'VE BEEN THERE JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
THERE ARE TREES, LIKE KERI SAID, THAT ARE BETWEEN THOSE TWO HOUSES.
IT JUST SEEMS STRANGE TO ME NOW HEARING THE HISTORY THAT THE PROPERTY LINES WEREN'T ESTABLISHED UNTIL 1993 BECAUSE MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1977.
ANYWAY, THEIR DECK IS VERY PRIVATE FROM MINE, I CAN'T REALLY SEE INTO IT BECAUSE OF THIS ROW OF TREES AND IT'S NOT CAUSED ANY PROBLEMS EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN THERE.
I REPLACED MY DECK ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO FOR THE SAME REASON.
THE DECKS HADN'T BEEN MAINTAINED VERY WELL AND WE MAINTAIN PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, AGAIN, FOOTPRINT.
WE JUST ALTERED THE STEPS A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW DECK FOR THEM. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE? THEN WE WILL MOVE INTO BOARD TURN THEN.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
YOU SAID YOU'RE JUST ESSENTIALLY REPLACING THE SAME FOOTPRINT, ESPECIALLY ON THE SIDE THAT IS ENCROACHING,.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS THAT MR. CHAPMAN PUT IN THE SUMMARY AND THE NUMBERS DON'T MATCH SOMEHOW.
I WAS HAVING A LITTLE DIFFICULTY TO BEGIN WITH.
>> THE EXISTING DECK HAS I KIND OF CALL IT THE NOSE OF THE DECK.
[OVERLAPPING] I GUESS IT'S GOING TO THE WATER, THERE'S LIKE A PEAK, A POINT THAT COMES OUT.
THE NEW DECK, WE'RE JUST GOING TO FLATTEN IT OUT.
WE'RE JUST ESSENTIALLY TAKING OUT THAT WASTED PEAK.
NOTHING THAT'S GOING OVER OR CLOSER TO THE LINE, IT'S ACTUALLY GOING DOWN TOWARDS THE WATER.
>> BASED ON THE PICTURES, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU'VE GOT YOUR GRILL AND SOME OTHER SHARES IN THERE BEHIND THE ARBORVITAE ON THAT STRAND THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE.
>> YEAH, THE GRILL IS ON THE SIDE OF THE PORCH.
>> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I WAS HEARING FROM YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T READING SOMETHING INCORRECTLY, SO THANK YOU.
>> THE WIDTH WILL BE THE SAME.
WE JUST TAKE OFF THAT LITTLE POINT WHICH WILL SHORTEN IT.
>> SINCE YOU'RE THERE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? MAYBE YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED IT, BUT I SEE THE 4'7" AND 3'5".
>> THE PROPERTY LINE IS ANGLED.
>> WE'RE ASKING THE VARIANCE OF HELP ME I'LL KEEP THREE FEET.
>> FIVE INCHES BECAUSE THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
THAT'S HOW FAR WE'RE POKING INTO THE FOOT VARIANCE.
>> THE EIGHT FEET WOULD GO AN ADDITIONAL THREE-AND-A-HALF FEET FROM THAT 4'7".
>> BECAUSE THAT CORNER IS WHAT'S CLOSEST TO THE LINE.
IT ALL KIND OF SITS AT A WEIRD ANGLE.
>> THOSE ANGLES APPEARS TO BE A FUNCTION OF CHANGING FROM A CONDO DEVELOPMENT TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE DECK WAS PROBABLY BUILT WHEN IT WAS A CONDO.
THEY DIDN'T TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THEY WERE PUTTING DOWN PROPERTY LINES.
IT DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE THE HOUSE WOULD FIT THE SETBACKS IF YOU'RE ON THE VARIANCE OF THE HOUSE.
>> WELL, I THINK WE CAN JUST MOVE RIGHT INTO THE CRITERIA.
FOR NUMBER 1, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST.
THEY'RE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE.
THAT'S IT DEFINITELY FOR SURE.
>> NOT SELF CREATED, I DON'T THINK SO.
IT'S WAS A DECK THAT WAS EXISTING THERE BEFOREHAND.
>> [INAUDIBLE] YOU'RE THE PROPERTY LINES PROBABLY NOT.
[00:40:01]
[LAUGHTER]>> STRICT INTERPRETATION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITERAL TERMS WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
IT WOULD DEFINITELY RUIN THE DECK.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY.
>> GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND.
SINCE WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBOR, I DON'T THINK IT WILL AND SINCE IT'S SAME PROFILE AND EVERYTHING, I REALLY DON'T THINK IT WILL.
LASTLY, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST AND PURPOSES AND I THINK SO CONSIDERING ALL THE SUPPORT THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED.
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, GRANT THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED IN ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-02 AT 5867 BOIS IN HAZLETT, MICHIGAN.
>> CHAIR VOTES YES. THE ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-02 AT 5867 BOIS ILE DRIVE PASSES.
>> WE'RE BUILDING THE DECK OUT OF?
>> FOR THE FRAME OF IT, WE WILL USE KDAT LUMBER THAT WAS TREATED TWICE, AND THEN IT'S ALSO NUMBER 1 GRADES, SO WE'VE BEEN USING THAT FOR 45 YEARS.
THEN WE WILL BE USING TRUNORTH DOUBLE-SIDED COMPOSITE IT HAS LIFETIME WARRANTY, AS WELL AS THE [INAUDIBLE] LIFETIME WARRANTY AS WELL.
>> YEAH, MOVING ON. ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-03 2120 SAGINAW HIGHWAY.
[6.C. ZBA CASE NO. 24-03 (2120 Saginaw Hwy.), 2120 Saginaw, LLC, 927 E. Grand River Ave. Ste. 11, East Lansing, MI 48823 ]
THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 945 SQUARE FOOT PATIO ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BOWLING ALLEY LOCATED AT 2120 SAGINAW HIGHWAY.THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN SHOWS THE EXISTING 22,010 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH THE PROPOSED PATIO ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
OUR ASSESSING RECORDS INDICATE THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1960, SITS ON APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRES, AND IS ZONE C2 COMMERCIAL.
IN 2012, THERE WERE VARIANCES GRANTED FOR WALL SIGNAGE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, AND A FREEZER ADDITION.
THE PROPOSED PATIO WILL ELIMINATE FIVE OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR THE SITE.
THE PARKING CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE USE OF THE BUILDING WHICH CONTAINS THE BOWLING ALLEY AND RESTAURANT BAR.
OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOWLING ALLEYS REQUIRES FIVE SPACES FOR EACH ALLEY FOR A TOTAL OF 120 PARKING SPACES.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESTAURANT AND BAR IS ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 75 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE FLOOR AREA, PLUS ONE SPACE FOR EVERY FOUR SEATS, FOR A TOTAL OF 58 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.
TOTAL 178 ARE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF FIVE PARKING SPACES FOR THE ADDITION.
>> IF YOU APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP.
MY ADDRESS IS 2120 EAST SAGINAW IN EAST LANSING.
I THINK STAFF DID A GREAT JOB OF OUTLINING WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
IT'S A PATIO OFF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
WE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY REMOVING UP TO FIVE SPACES OF THE REQUIRED 178 SPACES.
WITHOUT GOING THROUGH MY ENTIRE PACKET THERE, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT WE DID TRY TO TOUCH ON TWO ASPECTS OF OUR REQUEST.
THE MORE TECHNICAL ASPECT AND THEN THE, I GUESS, CALL IT JUST THE OVERALL FEEL OF THE AREA AND WHY WE FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD BE A BENEFIT NOT ONLY TO OUR BUILDING,
[00:45:02]
BUT OF COURSE JUST TO THE GENERAL AREA IN THE DIRECTION THAT THAT CORRIDOR IS GOING.AGAIN, JUST I WON'T GO OVER ALL OF IT, BUT SPECIFIC TO THE ACTUAL LOSS OF THE SPOTS BASED ON SOME OF OUR CALCULATIONS FROM THE DATA FROM OUR LEAGUES, OPEN BOWLING, WE'VE INCLUDED SOME PICTURES AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN THERE TO ILLUSTRATE THAT.
BUT JUST IN OUR ESTIMATION, CERTAINLY FROM BEING IN THERE AND REVIEWING OUR SECURITY CAMERAS, WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF PARKING EVEN ON OUR BUSIEST NIGHTS.
SO WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP FOR OUR CUSTOMERS OR STAFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEN I THINK IT'S RE-MENTIONED AGAIN WHEN WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THE CRITERIA, BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, I GUESS, NOT TO MENTION THAT THE MOST COMPARABLE SITE WOULD BE SPARE TIME, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT LOCATED IN EAST LANSING AND MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.
IT IS A BUILDING THAT IS BOWLING ALLEY, OF COURSE, WITH A RESTAURANT AND ACTUALLY QUITE A FEW OTHER ACTIVITIES.
THEIR BUILDING IS ACTUALLY TWICE THE SIZE OF OUR BUILDING AND THEY HAVE LESS PARKING SPOTS THAN WE DO.
I DO THINK THAT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT NOTE, BUT I THINK ALSO WE'VE ADDRESSED SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES, AGAIN, WITH THE PICTURES AND SOME OF OUR OWN INTERNAL DATA.
THEN OF COURSE, WE'RE ALSO IN REAL ESTATE, I GUESS.
FROM A REAL ESTATE STANDPOINT, WE'VE TRIED TO INCORPORATE OUR OPINION ON THAT BASED ON SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, THE OTHER RESTAURANTS OR LACK THEREOF, I GUESS, IN THE AREA, AND THE NEED FOR PATIO SPACES, NOT JUST IN GENERAL, BUT OF COURSE SINCE COVID THE POPULARITY OF THAT AND HOW THAT ATTRACTS OF COURSE, CUSTOMERS, BUT ALSO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SO ON.
I WON'T GO THROUGH EACH OF THE CRITERIA, BUT CERTAINLY I'D LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON THAT.
I DID TRY TO DETAIL EACH OF THE CRITERIA BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE WE'VE TOUCHED ON EACH OF THOSE FIVE.
AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
THEN I GUESS THE FINAL NOTE, AGAIN I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL PARKING EVER.
BUT SHOULD THAT NEED ARISE, WE ALREADY DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHURCH.
IN FACT, THEY HAD BEEN USING OUR PARKING FOR A LONG TIME, ACTUALLY, PRIOR TO US EVEN OWNING THE SITE, AND WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.
WE'VE SPOKEN TO THEM, AND I THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY, SHOULD THAT NEED ARISE, IN AN EXTREME EXAMPLE, TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THEIR SITE GIVEN THAT OUR HOURS ARE CERTAINLY DIFFERENT FROM A PEAK NEED STANDPOINT.
>> FORGIVE ME IF I GET IT WRONG, IS THIS THE PINS AND?
>> MAYBE I'VE SHOULD TOUCH ON THAT FIRST.
MARBLE LANES WAS THE ORIGINAL NAME.
CITY LIMITS EAST WAS THEN THE NEXT NAME.
WE PURCHASED THE BUILDING IN BUSINESS APPROXIMATELY SEVEN MONTHS AGO AND THREE, FOUR MONTHS AGO CHANGED THE NAME TO PINS & PINTS.
ALL THE SAME SITE, JUST NEW NAME.
>> THE CHURCH IS NEW HOPE NEXT DOOR?
>> I ALSO HAD A QUICK QUESTION.
ARE ANY OF THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE BEING COVERED BY THIS PATIO, ARE ANY OF THEM HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES?
>> MY BROTHER MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
WE ARE GOING TO STILL MAINTAIN THE SAME NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES AND WE DO HAVE SOME, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON THE DIAGRAM THERE, IT SHOULD SHOW IN THE FRONT AS WELL AS OFF TO THE WEST SIDE AS WELL.
WE PUT THE JOG IN THE PATIO TO MAINTAIN THE VAN-ACCESSIBLE SPACE RIGHT THERE.
>> WE WOULD MAINTAIN THE CURRENT NUMBER [INAUDIBLE].
>> YEAH. I GUESS THE ANSWER IS YES.
THE RIGHT KIND OF WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS, RIGHT THERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT OF THE SIDEWALK TO ALLOW FOR THE ACCESS POINT TO CHANGE SLIGHTLY, WE WILL MAINTAIN [INAUDIBLE].
>> ABSOLUTELY, WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THEM I GUESS IS THE ANSWER.
BUT THEN OVER TO THE WEST SIDE AROUND THE CORNER, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SPACES THERE AS WELL.
HANDICAPPED SPACES. GOT YOU. THANK YOU.
>> IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I GUESS WE'LL MOVE INTO VOTE TIME.
[00:50:01]
>> YOU WENT THROUGH THE CRITERIA IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PARKING SPACES PER ALLEY.
LIKE IF IT'S FOR ONE ALLEY, THE FIVE SPACES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WAS THAT?
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT THAT CALCULATION WAS THAT I WENT AND PUT IN THERE.
>> OKAY. IS THAT IS THAT OUR ORDINANCE OR?
>> IS THERE AN ORDINANCE SPECIFIC TO PATIO SPACE?
>> OKAY. THEN THE SECOND THING IS, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO BASED ON THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU READ TO US? CAN WE ALLOW 173 VERSUS 178 GIVEN YOUR CALCULATION?
>> YEAH. THAT'S THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
>> I'M JUST SAYING IS THAT GOING AGAINST THE ORDINANCE?
>> THERE'S ALWAYS VARIANCES OF THE ORDINANCE.
>> BY DEFINITION THAT'S WHY IT IS. OKAY.
>> FOR DISCUSSION OVER THE YEARS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'S BECOME APPARENT THAT OUR PARKING ORDINANCE IS OUT OF DATE AND PROBABLY REQUIRES MORE PARKING SPOTS IN MANY BUILDINGS THAN ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED.
A REDUCTION OF FIVE OUT OF 178 IS A PRETTY MINOR ALTERATION TO THE STANDARDS.
I BELIEVE THAT PLANNING IS EVEN LOOKING OVER THE PARKING ORDINANCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE NUMBERS NEED TO BE CHANGED ANYWAY.
>> I HEARD TIM SAYING HE'S IN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THAT.
I'D SUGGEST WE GO TO THE CRITERIA.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FIRST ONE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I THINK I COULDN'T MEET UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES JUST BECAUSE OF ALLOWABLE SPACE ON THE SITE FOR A BOWLING ALLEY.
>> I AGREE. I THINK IT'S A LANDLOCKED PIECE OF LAND AS ALL ARE, AND SO THERE'S LIMITATIONS AS TO WHAT YOU CAN USE IT.
THIS SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE APPLICATION FOR USE OF THE LAND AND THE THE AVAILABLE SPACE IS WHAT'S THERE.
I THINK I WOULD SAY THAT THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THIS TIME.
>> BY EXTENSION, NOT SELF-CREATED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CHOOSE THE SIZE OF THE LAND.
STRICT INTERPRETATION, ENFORCEMENT WILL PREVENT THE OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED PURPOSE.
>> THIS IS A PERMITTED PURPOSE FOR THE PROPERTY AND C-2 ZONING.
>> GRANTING THE VARIANCE, IS THE MINIMUM ACTION NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE? I WOULD SAY YES, FOR MINIMUM ACTION, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
IT'S THE SAME NUMBER OF HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE SPACES.
LIKE YOU SAID, FIVE SPACES OUT OF 178 IS VERY MINIMAL [INAUDIBLE] REDUCTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I CAN'T SEE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT ON ADJACENT LAND.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AFFECTING ANYONE AROUND THEM.
FIVE, CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST.
I'D SAY IT'S A BUSINESS FOR PUBLIC ENJOYMENT.
>> I AGREE. WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE OUR BUSINESSES TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND THIS IS A MINIMAL CHANGE ALTERATION FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL FACILITATE THEM, I HOPE IN EXPANDING YOUR BUSINESS AND SUCCEEDING.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-03 AT 2120 SAGINAW HIGHWAY.
>> I WILL SUPPORT THAT MOTION.
>> TOTALLY FINE. YOU DID IT. HE SECONDED. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> CHAIR VOTES YES. THE ZBA CASE NUMBER 24-03 IS APPROVED.
[00:55:03]
>> WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE FULL QUORUM.
PUBLIC REMARKS AND THEN ADJOURN.
>> OKAY. ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS?
>> THEN THE ZBA MEETING FOR MARCH 20, 2024 IS HEREBY ADJOURNED.
>> YOU DID LOOK GREAT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.