Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants variances for Team 1 Credit Union building on Hayden and Jefferson
Summary
The Board of Appeals for Zoning approved two variances requested by Team 1 Credit Union — a front-yard siting setback and a fenestration requirement — allowing the credit union to build a new three-story building with a landscaped plaza in Saginaw’s Cathedral District; the planning commission’s site plan approval was contingent on the variances.
The Saginaw Board of Appeals for Zoning approved two variances for Team 1 Credit Union’s proposed new building at the corner of Hayden and Jefferson, allowing a front-yard siting setback well beyond the form-based code’s 0-to-5-foot requirement and granting an exception to a fenestration rule requiring at least 25% window coverage along the Jefferson façade.
Chris Aller, architect with AKA Architects, told the board the project team is demolishing existing structures except one so the credit union can remain in operation during construction. The proposed new building’s primary façade would sit about 84 feet from the front lot line in the RMU form-based code district; that distance exceeds the district’s 0-to-5-foot siting requirement, he said.
Aller described trade-offs the design team studied to comply with the fenestration rule — which requires 25% openings along Jefferson — and said meeting that standard would have forced windows into areas impractical for the building’s uses, such as bathrooms and an employee fitness room. He said the design team provided a public benefit in exchange for the requested exceptions: a landscaped plaza and a small “pocket park” in front of the building.
Dan Attel, president of Team 1 Credit Union, told the board the project is intended to be a long-term investment in the neighborhood and said the credit union hopes the building will be a “jewel” for the area.
Planning staff told the board that the planning commission had reviewed and approved the site plan contingent on the board’s granting of the variances.
After public comment and closing the hearing, a board member moved to support case J25-2818. The board conducted a roll-call-style statement of reasons and voted in favor: Board member Nash, Board member Gale and Chair Forbes each said they supported the variances. Chair Forbes declared the motion passed.
The record does not include a detailed permit schedule or construction start date. The planning commission’s contingency and the need to satisfy standard permitting and building-code reviews create conditions the project team must meet before construction can proceed.
