Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Yep.

There we go. All right. Good evening. I'm going to call the order of the July 9, 2026 meeting of the City of Kalamazoo Zoning Board of Appeals, a volunteer advisory board appointed by the City Commission. Would staff please conduct the roll call?

Han. Here. Work. Here. Holder. Here. Brandon Humberg. Here. Arrington. And Urban.

Here. Thank you. Do we have any announcements or changes to the agenda?

The only no announcements and then the only change to the agenda is just to acknowledge that attorney bear and I discussed the first three cases and because the wording of these variants had variances has been slightly modified since what was before the board in February and then in the month of May. It makes sense to just treat this like a new public hearing and allow the public a chance to speak. Sure. And I should also note that there is only three lots on West Cork Street that need natural features protection variances, not five like what was before the board in May. So that is all I've got. Thank you.

Excellent, thank you. So approval of minutes. Do we need to, we're only talking about last month's. Do we have any corrections that need to be made to the circulated minutes? And it's not last month, that's two months ago's meeting. We weren't here last month. No corrections. Motion from anybody to approve the minutes? I so move. Second, anybody? I second. There you go, Alison seconded it. Any discussion on that? Good. All those in favor of approving the, I believe those are actually the May minutes, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. All right, so the meeting procedures. Some of you have been here before and have heard this, but I will read it again just the same. Before we open the public hearings, the procedure is this. For each application, the secretary will read the request into the record The applicant or representative will have up to 10 minutes to present on the specific requests. At that point, you need to begin by stating your name and address at the podium. Probably going to have to be asked to write it down as well. And I would advise people to keep their remarks brief. 10 minutes is not a lot. Speakers at the podium, when we get to public comment, will be invited. Did I miss a page? Yeah. No, I didn't. Public comments will follow that. Speakers at the podium will sign in as well, state their name and address. Don't be surprised if you're asked to repeat it. And then you, though, will be limiting your remarks to three minutes, and there's going to be a hard cap on that. So don't be surprised if the microphone goes dead. in the middle Those in favor speak first those opposed speak second after that we will have call-in Comments callers may dial 888 382 95 56 during the designated period Remarks are live. They are not recorded At that point, the public hearing will close and the board will state and vote on a finding of fact. The vote on that is not a decision on the request itself, just on what the board sees as the facts. At that point, the board will deliberate and may ask follow-up questions of prior speakers. Board will then take a roll call vote to approve or deny the request. A full board is six members. You need four affirmative votes to get your variance approved. Yes. All right. Having said all that, would you please read the first application into the record? Can we just read the first three like boom, boom, boom, since they're basically all tied together? I mean, we need to vote on them separately, I'm sure, but the same person is going to present on them and the same people are going to comment on them. We should just read them all together.

I'll let Attorney Barrett respond to that.

I don't see a problem with that. Excellent. There's going to be certain things that apply to each one. Yeah. It is part of an overall project, so...

And we'll vote on them all separately, of course. So the first three.

Okay. All right. An application for a variance for provisions of the zoning ordinance has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals by Statewide Rentals LLC is requesting the following. A variance from the Natural Features Protection Ordinance Chapter 50, Section 50-6.2H One, to authorize the proposed development of a duplex with a 24-foot wide shared driveway encroaching into the projected slope 27.78%, which is 2,683.4 square feet from street level to the ridge of the slope, where protected slopes with a grade greater than 20% are not to be encroached upon. Please note that this request will not change the zoning classifications of this property.

Please.

Okay. And I don't need to say an application. I just start? Yes. Okay. All right. All right. A statewide Reynolds LLC is requesting a variance from the Natural Features Protection Ordinance, Chapter 50, Section 50, 6.2H1 to authorize the proposed development of a duplex of Massification. Okay.

Okay.

Statewide Rentals LLC is requesting, A variance from the Natural Features Protection Ordinance Chapter 50, Section 50, 6.2H. One, to authorize the proposed development of a duplex which will encroach on the protected slope 2.38% or 50 square feet where protected slopes with a grade greater than 20% are not to be encroached upon. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Natural Features Protection Ordinance Chapter 50, which will not change the zoning classification of the properties.

Excellent. Now the applicant can come up and provide their presentation.

Yes, you're on. Is it on?

I think so. I mean, it's running. It's just not very loud.

Do we need to set the clock back?

Do I have him? Now do it. Hello. It's the button up here.

I knew I heard something different here.

All right. Go for it.

All right. Good evening, everyone. My name is Jeremy Cole. I'm the owner of Statewide Rentals. I'm here requesting relief from the protective slopes and slope setback standards of the natural features protection overlay for three legally platted lots of record on West Cork Street. That's 112, 114, and 132 West Cork Street. These are modest by right residential duplexes on lots platted as individual building lots. I want to begin with the reason that we're actually back before you guys. When this matter last came before the board, the direction was pretty clear. Go back to the natural features protection review board first. and return with their recommendation. Section 50-6.2 requires exactly that. An applicant for relief here must include the NFP's review board's recommendation. That step is now complete. The NFP review board reviewed this project and approved the requested relief. The recommendation is now in your packets. The condition this board set for the hearing for this request has now been satisfied. The NFP board attached only one condition and we already accepted it. Our original mix of grass was formulated primarily for the sun. Because this is a wooded slope, they asked for a shaded tolerant mix. That was a fair correction and we're specifying a shade tolerant native seed mixed accordingly. That's the only condition attached to their approval. The criteria you apply for these four conditions is set in 50-6.2 . I'll start with the first one. The parcel cannot be reasonably utilized for its zone use without the relief. On lots this narrow, the protective slope and its setback cover nearly the entire buildable area. There is no way to place a home in a code compliant driveway without touching them. Without relief, these legally planted residential lots cannot be built upon at all. The second, the relief is a minimum required, or the minimum needed. Our disturbance is conditioned, or I'm sorry, is confined to the driveway, utility connections, and reasonable building placements. In January, this was for five separate partial requests with five separate driveway cuts. Today it's just three parcels served by a single driveway that is shared originating at 132 West Cork. We removed 120 and 126 entirely from this request. That's about 1,690 square feet of regulated slope disturbance that's completely off the table. So corridor wide between these five regulated slope disturbance drops from roughly 5,630 square feet to 3,025 feet. That's a 46% reduction. On 112, the effective slope falls from 5.7% to 2.4%. On 114, that drops from 26% down to under 7%. The third requirement, the relief will not substantially impair the intent or purpose of the overlay. We're not requesting any woodland relief. We preserve 30.2% of the woodland on 112, 36.7% on 114, and 30% on 132 West Cork, which are all above the 25% minimum. We're well under the RM15 impervious coverage cap of 60%, with more than half of each lot remaining undeveloped and pervious, clustered along the natural features as Section 50-6.2J directs. Protective fencing will surround the preservation areas with no clearing, grading, or storage permitted. No storm water is directed onto the slope and no utilities are placed within the slope face or its setback. The fourth requirement, the relief is balanced by conservation and green development tools. We stabilize all disturbed areas with a shade tolerant native seed per the NFP board's condition. We employ erosion and sediment controls throughout the construction project. We fence and protect the preserved woodland, and we preserve more woodland than the code requires. On the engineering side, we continue to work with the city staff, as Pete will note. We have approval for underground utility placement beneath the 24-foot wide shared driveway, which keeps utilities out of the slope face and setbacks entirely. And should the detention area be required, we have room at 112 West Cork to accommodate it. So my request is specific that this board grant relief for the protected slopes and slope setback standards section 50-6.2 for 112, 114, and 132 West Cork Street. All four required criteria are met. The NFP review board, the body that this board asked us to satisfy, has now recommended this for approval. And we have accepted the single condition they attached. Thank you. Thank you very much. Did you get my name?

Jeremy Cole.

Okay.

Excellent. I got it. I don't know who needed to know it though. Somebody did. But anyway, thank you, Mr. Cole.

You bet.

All right.

Where's my next page?

Mr. Cole, I have a quick question for my notes as I was writing frantically. When you talk about the single condition, that one and only single condition that you agreed to was from the Natural Features Protection Review Board. They approved your proposal provided that you mix up the native plantings to be a shaded, tolerant variety, correct?

Right. That's pretty succinct as it can be. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. I have no other, we may have some later, but at the moment, thank you very much, Mr. Cole. All right. Now the public will be invited to speak. Those in favor of the request are invited to come down and take up to three minutes. Going once, twice, none. Any opposed may now approach and speak. Excellent.

Name and address, right? Yep. Molly Adams, address of 3118 Ash Street.

What would you like to say?

Basically, I've lived on Ash Street for 10 years. And it's a relatively quiet spot on the edge of the hill with more modest homes and a view and a buffer of the woods across or directly behind. And in many instances, this is why we call the spot home. It's quiet, it's full of nature, and it's established in a great neighborhood. So let me start by saying, I know we have a housing crisis in Kalamazoo, especially an affordable housing crisis. I'm not without empathy or compassion, but I have concerns that need to be voiced. And just to make sure I have enough time here, outside of the fact I'm trying to understand the implications of what this would mean for our residents on our street with our housing values, as well as the disruptions that it would cause during construction, but also after construction. one of my concerns is 10 feet away from my neighbor's property and questionable erosion potential 10 feet was what was proposed on the last meeting to set the driveway back how do we keep people safe on cork especially adding five ten or more drivers to all these duplexes we already have a blind spot due to the hill when pulling out of ash in Cork and the proposed driveway is increasing traffic and adding additional obstacles to those already established residents, let alone considering the fact we have a huge speeding problem on Cork. Move seasons to the winter, same ash residents already start to go around on roads during bad snow due to all of the above and now with ice. The issues with sliding down the hill or getting stuck on the way up, that driveway would be in the center of the chaos and a huge safety concern. Move the driveway to Imperial, you now would compromise residents' quiet street and slow traffic, and there's no right answer. My plea, and I implore you to think about this, is that if we can't stop the building from happening, can we suggest quality over quantity and approve two to three duplexes, not the five in this little tiny space? with that change move the driveway closer to the western commercial building this would not negatively impact our neighbors but also increase visibility and safety to those driving on cork with both changes this would be a huge impact to the quality of life to those that are already established neighbors and those starting a new chapter in those duplexes Any of my neighbors surrounding me, we've talked to this, and we have the same concerns, especially around the traffic on Cork and where that proposed driveway is, let alone how many people are in those duplexes. You might have, let's say, two people in one building. But let's be real. I don't know if we're maintaining the same owner, if we're selling, like's been mentioned in previous proposals. And that's a lot of potential people, more than just one or two people per building.

Thank you. Make sure you sign in, please. It was Molly Adams.

And Ms. Adams, I have a question for you before you leave the podium. Okay, so my understanding was I heard you say that if we can't halt the construction, instead of building five duplexes, how many would you feel would be okay?

I said two to three. Two to three, okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any others who wish to speak in opposition? Seeing none, any call-in?

And I don't have any call-ins. Thank you, thank you very much.

All right, so seeing no further comment, I close the public hearing on this portion of these three requests. Does the board need any additional discussion just before the finding of fact portion? Hearing none, who's doing the finding of fact then? I should have known when you started asking questions. Thank you. Oh, yes, Jack.

I have a question I'd like to direct to the applicant. Sure. On the diagram you show something that looks like a driveway that's heading toward Imperial with parking. My question is, Why was the access via Imperial ruled out by you, your firm? Yeah.

So the access road, essentially this entire map was worked up with myself and Nolan Bertram of Natural Features Protection. And one of the things I told Nolan is there's a bunch of information on this map. So I kind of want to stop adding to it. So it's extremely dense because he kept saying, just add it on there, just add it on there. that is just the access road so that the excavator can get in put the 24 foot or 24 foot driveway in once that driveway is actually in and the access is from cork that road just completely disappears the three lots 101 107 and 113 imperial street are separate residentially zoned uh parcels those are rs5 okay these that we're discussing are rm15 completely different zonings completely different densities um those imperial street properties can't have duplexes and only have residential single families and that's the plan there so uh we can't we can't uh take from those residential lots and include it in this rm15 to answer your point so we kept them we kept them separate

Okay, so your firm owns all that land that's shown on that map though, right? It owns those three properties that have access via Imperial, the residential properties?

Correct. We do own the RS-5 lots.

Okay. But because they're in a different zone, they have different... Economic considerations.

Not economic. They just have different zoning. I mean, this is the zoning question. They have different zoning regulations and rules.

Yes. Well, okay. Pete might be able to speak a little more. Okay. Well, I guess I'd like maybe clarity from staff about Why the whole thing was configured this way?

I was going to say, I didn't ask Pete to make any comments on this. My apologies, Pete. Now might be the time for that since Jack's raised an issue.

Excuse me, Mr. Urban. There was a phrase that you used that I didn't catch about the lots. You were saying different needs or different economic...

Well, he corrected me somewhat. I said those lots that face Imperial are subject to different economic considerations, but he added that it's a different zone. You really ought to put both of those things in there because that's part of the facts here. I guess. Sorry, I didn't give you a chance earlier.

I mean, I had spoke a little bit on this project at the last meeting. You did. But yeah, so just to clarify, the three lots on Imperial are in the residential single dwelling district and the five lots that face Cork Street are in the residential multi-dwelling district slash National Features Protection overlay. So the lots on Imperial are not within that NFP overlay, you know, and they're in a different residential zone district. So that's, you know, so hence the standards are different for each of the two zones as far as development. You know, other comments I wanted to make, you know, are related to the fact that, you rm15 residential multi-dwelling zoned lots which means you know they can accommodate a number of dwelling units even the smaller lots can accommodate up to four dwelling units and i believe the 132 west cork street would allow up to 13 which obviously With the slope situation, that would be very impractical. But I wanted to point that out that the zoning allows for a higher density of residential units than what the applicant is proposing to build. Each lot will have one duplex, so a total of 10 units on five lots. So other than that, the applicant already made it very clear the outcome of the NFP board meeting. I wanted to mention that the applicant also came in from what we call a project review meeting last week and walked through this same diagram you're looking at showing the access drive, the shared access drive, I should say. and the utilities for each duplex and how those are going to come off of Cork Street. The fire marshal, the public services department all gave their feedback. So everything is being worked out as far as those final things. It's, you know, the applicant's doing everything necessary to get all the answers and get all the approvals lined up here.

Excellent.

Thank you. I have a question for the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Call. You know, I do understand, I do get the housing crisis here in Kalamazoo. And so how much are, what is the rent for each one of these duplexes? And are any of them income-based?

Yeah, so as of right now, I can't answer that question. They're not done yet. We don't know how nice they're going to be. So I can't answer that question specifically. We're not getting any public dollars. We're not asking for any tax abatements. We're not going for state dollars, local dollars. These are all my dollars. So we're not pulling funds from any other entity to say, help us do this. So, you know, we're keeping this 100% private. Now, if it's, you know, I'm not going to go back to the original, but if another entity like a KNHS or someone says we like that, you know, development, we like that, you know, those five duplexes, we'd like to acquire those for our long-term rentals. I've got no issue with, you know, an agency like that buying it from us, which was my, you know, stance back in September when this first kind of hit our radar. Okay. If you are part of an entity or a group that is interested in affordable housing and you'd like to acquire these after the fact, we'd be more than happy to have that conversation. But right now, we're not taking any dollars from local, state, federal, so we don't.

I have another question. Go right ahead. Again, I think the staff should probably try to answer. The reason why this is appearing before us as the Zoning Board of Appeals is because of a natural features protection area encroachment and not for any other reason. portion of the property that is affected is the part that faces Cork Street here. So I presume that when your staff is working through what is to come to us, our purview can only involve the whether we should grant the variance with respect to the slope. The issues about what driveways to be used is something beyond our purview, right?

Correct. And I was only pointing out the additional conversations had with city staff about utilities and the access drive and so forth just to mention those other elements are also being worked through with the city now that the Natural Features Protection Board has looked at this closely, has given their recommendation for approval with that one minor condition and now it's back before the board to you know to give it one more review and affirm or deny that recommendation thank you thank you all right

I just would like to make sure that we're clear and succinct on this, that the Clark Street facing units are the only ones requesting natural features protection relief. And any concerns about the driveway does not fall under the purview of this board's decision. Correct. Okay. Correct.

Ready to do the finding effect, Beth? Yes, one moment. No, sir, we've closed the public hearing. Thank you.

Yeah, one moment. Okay.

And you're doing the finding for all three of them. Yes, I am.

I'm going to mention all three properties. Excellent. Thank you. All right. The finding of fact is regarding the three Cork Street properties that face Cork and who are looking for natural features protection variances. And those addresses are 132 West Cork, 114 West Cork, and 112 West Cork. Mr. Jeremy Cole, owner of Statewide Rentals, spoke on behalf of the property. His organization, he met with the Natural Features Protection folks and our Natural Features Protection Board did approve the variances on this property with the single condition that they add or modify, that they plant shaded, shade tolerant, native seedlings. That was the request and Mr. Cole agreed to that.

He also mentioned that... And Beth, I don't mean to interrupt you, but they approved the recommendation, so they didn't grant the variance. They approved the, you know, they granted a favorable recommendation

for these nfp variants okay so we have their blessing to move forward that was their recommendation correct all right thank you um so for example um mr cole mentioned that um units um that between 120 and 180 126. He had some units totally taken up off the table, and by removing units 120 and 126, that came to a total of 1,695 square feet of slope disturbance that was not going to happen. The applicant believes that all of the recommendations and proposed changes by city staff to align this development with city requirements has been met. The public was asked to speak in favor and there were no comments. We did receive one negative It I guess in against against this proposal moving forward by Miss Molly Adams who is an Ash Street resident Her concerns were along the lines that you know, they moved into that neighborhood with the expectation that You know was quiet There was nature, kind of a little setback from the busyness of Cork Street. And, you know, those houses are smaller, a little bit more affordable. And... They are concerned about their housing values Diminishing and in one instance with a neighbor's driveway From their house on Ash Street The driveway from one of the duplexes is only 10 feet away. So then there's concerns with the traffic and People living in these duplexes, they're going to have one car, most statistically, most likely not. When they have company, there's going to be a lot of traffic, a lot of back and forth. There was some concern about a blind spot at the hill of Cork and Ash, issues with speeding. This neighborhood being a cut through street to stay off court, weather, issues with ice, concerns about that. Ms. Adams did suggest that if we couldn't stop the construction on this, that instead of having five duplexes, maybe have two or three. Mr. Jack Urban had some questions for Mr. Cole and he was asking why the access to Imperial Street was ruled out. Mr. Cole said that he had worked with Mr. Noel Bergman from the Natural Features Protection and he clarified that that was because you've got residential S5 butting up to a residential M15. So the residential M15 allows multi-family dwellings. See comments from city staff. The zoning does allow for a higher density and initially Mr. Cole was looking to have or he could have 10 units on five lots. and he's asking for five. Mr. Quall has met with zoning staff and has been diligently working with the city to meet all the requirements to make this project successful, working with utilities and fire safety and all of that. Couple points of consideration, questions asked from the board members. Mr. Cole was asked specifically, what is the rent going to be on these duplexes? Because it has been shared from more than one party, the issues with the housing, and he's not decided yet. what the rent is going to be on those duplexes. And at this juncture, they're not affiliated with any partnership or any organization that is going to help pay the rent or have some income based tenants. A friendly reminder that these cork street facing units, again, are the only ones requesting natural features protection variants. And that as a board, when we're making this decision, concerns about the driveway don't fall under our purview.

I support the finding effect.

Thank you. I don't know that we need any further discussion on those, but the motion is the finding effect on the first three requests, just the finding effect. Pete, would you, I think you've got to take a roll call vote on each of these individually, correct?

Yes.

So the first request is on ZBA number 260207, which is 132 West Cork Street.

Will there be discussion?

We'll discuss after we get through the finding effect, then the motion to approve. Oh, that's what this motion is for? Okay. Excuse me. We've kind of done them a little out of order.

Sure, no problem. Excuse me.

Pete, go for it.

I'm sorry. So you want me to read?

No, are you taking the vote on these findings of facts? The finding of facts.

Well, we can just do a voice vote on the finding effect. Excellent. Vanessa was throwing me off. Yes. You can just do a voice vote.

We can do a voice vote. So we've got a motion essentially for the finding effect and a second. All those in favor of that being the finding effect for ZBA number 260207, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposition? I said aye. Any opposed? Aye. None. That is approved. Same thing for ZBA number 260204. All those in favor of that being the finding effect for that request, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposition? None. That is approved. Finally, ZBA 260203, for that being the finding effect for that request, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Would somebody please make a motion? We'll vote on them separately at the end, but would somebody please make a motion to approve all three of them?

I make a motion to approve all three properties at Court Street, 132 West, 114 West, and 112 West. I support.

Thank you. Now we can discuss. I did and I know that Remy probably wants to speak on it too. But I did want to ask Pete before we get to the real nitty-gritty of the discussion on number three of the standards that are reproduced in the three reports it says has demonstrated that the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the NFP overlay district. My question is, because it's a natural features protective overlay, I'm assuming that the intent of the can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good is relating to the natural feature and not just some public good writ large.

It is related to the natural feature.

Yes, so and this relates back to what Ms Adams was talking about and I was listening at her concern about safety. That would be an inappropriate place in these standards. In fact, in all these standards, there's no place really set aside for public safety. Except as it relates to the natural features.

I mean, or maybe Charlie, I guess my response to that would be what's before the board is variances related to the natural features. As far as safety concerns about where the driveway is located, that would be something that the city traffic engineer would weigh in on. It would not be this board that would need to take that into consideration.

I have a question for you. If I may, that would be taken into consideration in consideration of the site plan, would it not?

Well, at present, this is not going to be subject to your site plan. But the, you know, the positioning of a new drive opening onto a public street has to be approved by public services.

So if there is a safety issue, public services is the one who's going to flag it and deal with it? Yes. What I'm getting at is that's not something under the standards we should really be concerning ourselves with.

Correct.

Thank you.

Pete, what's the size of a standard driveway?

A standard driveway... For a single-family home, the driveway can be up to 24 feet wide. Okay.

So this 24-foot wide shared driveway is a standard driveway?

It is a standard driveway.

Where specifically is the imposition of the natural features protection? I know we've discussed it, but can you share that with me?

If you look at the screen, the dark black line represents the protected slope setback. And so you can see where the shared driveway, which is on the far left side, extends through the black line and then into, so it goes through the protected slope setback and the protected slope before it reaches the top of the hill. And so that's the slope disturbance specifically that is being created by the driveway.

And that's why Ms. Molly was talking about the erosion issue. Should I understand that? she spoke about erosion. Does the slope setback, an infringement upon the slope setback, does that inform an exacerbated issue of erosion?

Well, with steep slopes, that does increase the chance of soil erosion, but that's why there's required protections that have to be put in place like silt fencing to stabilize the soil. There's also the way vegetation can be planted as soon as the slope disturbance is done to hold that ground in place. So yeah, I mean, that is something the city would be watching to answer that question on soil erosion.

No, that's what her concern was. I'm speaking to why this had to come. It's because of the setback issue, the slope. What did you say? The slope setback. I guess I don't understand. I'd like to understand that better.

The protected slope setback is... Once you get outside, let me back up here. The protected slope is any slope that is 20% or greater in grade differential. That is deemed a protected slope. It's a fairly steep slope. And then the protected slope setback is 12 and a half feet outside of wherever the protected slope itself ends. So once you get to, you know, that the bottom of that 20%, grade slope you have to go out another 12 and a half feet before you can technically you know build anything on the property or disturb the ground without um you know getting nfp board approval i understand thank you okay thank you um

Thank you. I think that the staff report on this is pretty right on the money, honestly. And I did what Mr. Cole was talking about. Essentially this comes down to, but for the natural features protection overlay, he would be able to build right now, full stop, could do basically whatever he wanted within the zoning. The only thing that's holding him up is the natural features and that he's made, that they're making efforts to minimize the impact on that, I think is probably what's, why the nfp board has approved it and is why i'm at the end of the day i'm going to wind up voting yes to approve all three i obviously don't take lightly the concerns of ms adams wherever she went um There she is. She's behind that computer screen. I don't take those lightly by any means, but they're just outside of our considerations, which is why I unfortunately have to put those aside. But I do appreciate that there's been great effort to try to minimize all of the impact, including I think when they were here before, there was like five driveways at that point, wasn't there? And we're down to one, which I think we talked about whenever it was February. And so he's gotten it down to the one, which has actually allowed him, I think, the two... If you're coming from this side, the number two and the number three, he doesn't have to ask for anything on. He's outside of the overlay at that point. And the only reason he asked on them before, I think, was the driveways. And that issue is gone. So he can just do whatever he wants there within the zoning, as long as he's not impacting the overlay. I've probably said all I need to say on it other than I did have a question. Did we need to change the motion enough to include the conditions from the NFP about shade tolerant grasses, native shrub, native trees, and that sort of thing? Or are those, they've already accepted them and they are part of the package no matter what?

We should acknowledge that. Yes, that's a very good point. That should be added.

So then Beth would need to modify her motion to include that if she wants to make that modification. And then Gary, I believe he seconded, he would have to resecond accepting the amended portions of it. And I think the part, the port sounding like my grandmother, the part I wrote down was that the NFP conditions as the shade tolerant grasses, and then the reports mentioned the native trees and shrubs to restore the damaged areas.

I have something else to say about this. Sure. I'm not going to be in favor of this request because I have a couple things to say, though, about why. Based on our line of questioning of this applicant, I just want to push back a little bit. I hope you do put some very amazing low-income families in there when you finally get this situation together, this project together. So let me just say that. And I also think that we're not, when we impose upon, or when we make allowances to oppose what the standards are, then the reason why we do that is because the reasoning for it outweighs the reasoning for why we're doing it outweighs the trouble that it's gonna cause or like the law, the ordinance, excuse me. And I do think that this is valuable, but I am taking into consideration what Molly has said about this in the implications about the amount of duplex of the amount of duplexes that we're putting in this very small confined area and what the integrity of the neighborhood is going to be. I think that we can be balanced without using codified language to say what we do or do not want in terms of who our neighbors are. I think that's really weird. I think that there's a balance in this conversation and I hope that it's being reflected in what I'm saying. I struggle a little bit to say exactly what I mean sometimes, but I think I'm being clear right now.

which I just want to make sure I understand. When I'm looking at the standards that the city staff has to impose that we have to work by and not kind of, I mean, we have to work by those, which of them do you think is inaccurate, the staff has gotten wrong?

Oh, I didn't say anything about this stuff. I'm just saying like when we're asking about like low income or like, are we getting, you know, incentives for low income families? I don't think that that's like, I mean, that's what city staff said. That's outside of our purview. That's not what it's about. So we were asking that on this board and that's not what we're talking about.

Oh, that I agree with.

Yeah. And that's what I just wanted to comment on. I think it's weird. I don't think we should be doing that. But I do think that that's too many duplexes in that very small confined space and for the integrity of what that neighborhood represents. But I do hope you do put some low-income families in there, a very nice low-income family.

Okay. I got it. Excellent. Thank you. Did you want to re-motion to include that additional conditions? Sure.

All right.

I wrote down with the NFP conditions as to the shade tolerant grasses and then the stuff from the report was in native trees and shrubs to replace the, where was it? Native trees and shrubs, okay. Yeah. It's on this page here, isn't it? restoring the damaged area using native trees and shrubs. It's late in the day, guys.

Okay. All right. I make a motion to approve the variances for 132 West Cork, 114 West Cork, and 112 West Cork with the conditions thereto from the natural features protection. Committee the first one being to plant shade tolerant native seedlings and to plant native trees and shrubs to restore The damaged area shade tolerant grass shaped. Okay shade tolerant grass.

Thank you Yes, sir

The condition that came from the NFP board was specifically for including shade tolerant grass seed. So we could say with the condition from the NFP committee that shade tolerant grass seed is utilized for site restoration And then if you want to also add on their restoration with native trees and shrubs, that would be a separate condition being added by this board. Okay. Which is okay. I just wanted to clarify.

It was mentioned in the report. That's why I'm pulling that in.

So it's fine. I just wanted to clarify.

That's just, I don't think you need to read it because I think we all agree that you're adopting that language as what you're saying. Jack, what were you?

Well, I just think that the way it's phrased here in the findings on our agenda packet, the stuff about planting native trees and shrubs, that's a commitment that the owner has made to the NFP review board. all right and if we want to acknowledge that they've made that commitment we can in our motion we can do that uh but it's not a recommendation of the zoning of the nfp board the only recommendation that they made had to do with with the uh shade tolerant grasses so No, I understand that.

I'm trying to grab both of them into this because staff mentioned the trees and shrubs. NFP talked about shade tolerant grasses. I'm just grabbing them all together. I understand everybody's commitment, but this is a fine, let's hold the feet to the fire on it particularly because people break up with their commitments too easily. I would like to see it written in there as a commitment. That's what we're doing. By including it in the approval language to include it. That's what Beth is doing.

I'll say it again and I'll be a little bit more clear.

Thank you.

All right. I make a motion to approve the natural features protection variances. as requested by Mr. Cole for the properties at 132 West Cork Street, 114 West Cork and 112 West Cork. There are two conditions that have been added to this request for the Zoning Board of Appeals to vote on today. that are being rolled into this application. So the first one is the Natural Features Protection Board thought this was a great idea. They suggested their condition was that Mr. Cole take responsibility for planning shade tolerant grass seed and he agreed on that. And so part two of this is the board is where we're putting into this part two city staff recommended they would like if this passes, it means that Mr. Cole is committing to restoring the property, the damaged property with native trees and shrubs. So should this pass, then Mr. Cole will be responsible for restoring the area with shade tolerant grass seed and native trees and shrubs.

I support.

Mr. Chairman, I hate to complicate this. I think we've got it. The motion stated the way the board wants it. But we have included all three properties in the motion and if you're going to vote on each separately, then we should have a separate motion. Now, I think this motion can be amended to just reference the first property and maybe for simplicity, we can simply state You're making exactly the same motion with respect to the second property and then the third property. Or you could simply restate the whole thing for each.

Whatever is the simplest is the way I prefer to go. At a certain point, we start putting form over function. I understand why Attorney Baer wants us to put the form over it.

If you have all three together, then that's what you're voting on. You don't have a motion.

Sure. I know they need to be peeled off together. So that motion, let's say that's for 132 West Cork Street. Gary already seconded it. You get what I'm saying, people? We've already discussed it. Pete, will you please take the vote as to the 132 West Cork Street motion?

Yes, and to clarify, this is for 132 West Cork Street. This is the variance number one related to the impact on the protected slope with the condition that was approved or that was read and seconded, excuse me. And we'll start with Han.

Yes.

Work. Yes. Holder.

Yes.

Brandon Homburg? Yes. Harrington? No. And Urban?

Yes. Thank you. By 5-1, that one is approved. That Marion's request is approved. So then the second motion you were making was for 114 West Cork Street. Do we need it restated?

Well, we need to proceed with... Variance number two for 132 West Cork Street.

No, we just...

I thought we were just going to... Oh, you're right. Yeah, we'll cycle through them one property at a time. You're right. So the second vote will be for the second variance related to 132 West Cork Street related to the encroachment into the protected slope setback. And that same condition will apply. And we'll start at the other end of the dais.

This is for 114.

This is still 132. So we're doing number two.

Of course.

132.

Oh, yes.

Okay. Harrington? Oh, no. Vanden Homburg? Yes. Holder?

Yes.

Work? Yes.

Han?

Yes.

Thank you. That one is also passed five to one. Now, 114 West Cork Street, number one. Same motion applied. Do it as the rest of them, of course. You can say it again. You don't have to read the whole thing. We got the gist of it earlier. I'm just going to say make a motion to approve.

Yep. All right. I make a motion to approve 114 West Cork Street. I second.

Thank you. Would you take the vote, Gary? With all of the attendant language.

With the condition.

Yes.

Okay. Same motion. So this vote is for item number, variance number one for 114 West Cork Street related to the impact on the protected slope. Yes, sir. With the condition. And we'll start with Han.

Yes.

Work. Yes. Holder. Yes. Brandon Homburg. Yes. Harrington. No. And Urban.

Yes. Thank you. That carries five to one as well and is approved. So subpart two of 114. Part two.

This is for variance number two for 114 West Cork Street related to the impact on the protected slope with the condition. And we'll start with Urban.

Yes.

Remington, I'm sorry, Harrington. No. Excuse me. Vanden Homburg. Yes. Polar?

Yes. Work?

Yes. Pond?

Yes.

That is also approved five to one. Who makes a motion again for the 112 West Cork?

I make a motion for 112 West Cork Street.

With all of the extra language, of course.

With the two conditions. I second.

Would you take the vote then, Pete?

And this will be a roll call vote for 112 West Cork Street, variance request number one related to the impact on the protected slope with the condition. We'll start with Wark. Yes. Holder.

Yes.

Vanden Hamer. Yes. Harrington. No. Urban.

Yes.

And Hahn.

Yes.

Thank you, that is approved as well, five to one. Lastly is 112 West Quark Street, number two.

And for variance request number two for that address related to the impact on the protected slope with the condition, we'll start with Han.

Yes.

Wark. Yes. Holer. Yes. Vanden Homburg. Yes. Harrington. No. Urban.

Yes. That is also approved five to one. Thank you. All of the requests have been approved. Mr. Cole, I don't think we need you back. Have a good night. All right. So second request, second request, I guess it's actually fourth on our agenda. Would you read that one in? Sure.

Okay. An application for a variance for provisions of the zoning ordinance has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the property at 151 South Rose Street by Valley City Signs on behalf of 151 South Rose... Street is requesting a dimensional variance from Chapter 59.5 to authorize four wall signs that exceed the maximum size permitted per wall sign of 200 square feet. The applicant is requesting to replace the sign panels on the roof enclosure with two 385.78 square foot wall signs facing east and west and 210.69 square foot signs facing north and south. Please note that this request will not change the zoning classifications of the properties.

excellent the applicants already at the podium what would you like to tell us sir my name is kevin carlson with valley city sign 5009 west river drive comstock park michigan i am here representing fifth third and 151 south rose street llc the owner of 151 south rose street Thank you for the opportunity to present tonight Tonight we are requesting the approval for a dimensional variance to replace the existing Comerica rooftop signage with new fifth third signage This proposal does not increase size height Location illumination or number of signs as simply replaces the existing signage while maintaining the same footprint as the existing building um has today the only reason we are before you tonight is because the city's sign ordinance changed after these signs were legally established and last updated as recently as 2005. had the ordinance not changed this request would not be necessary this is not a request to create a new non-conforming condition it is simply a request to continue legally established building identification system that became non-conforming slowly because the ordinance was updated For more than 50 years this building has displayed rooftop identification signage reflecting its principal occupant. It has been recognized throughout downtown as the Comerica building and before that the ISB building. Those rooftop signage have become more than corporate branding, they have become the primary means in identifying one of downtown Kalamazoo landmark office buildings. As ownership and corporate identities evolve, this building should be able to accurately identify its principal occupant. As part of this project, Fifth Third Bank is consolidating its downtown Kalamazoo operations into this building. At the same time, the existing Fifth Third Bank name and logo will be removed from the east and west elevation of the current Fifth Third building at 136 East Michigan Avenue. Once that signage is removed, this building will become the Fifth Third Bank's primary downtown location. It is therefore important that this building continues to accurately and prominently identify so customers, employees, and visitors, and the general public can easily recognize and locate this as they approach downtown. This request simply allows long established building identification systems to continue serving the building's intended purpose. It is also important to recognize that these are identified as building identification signs, not advertising signs. Their purpose is to identify one of Kalamazoo's landmark office buildings. Unlike storefront signage, is intended to be viewed from the sidewalk or parking lot rooftop building identification signage must be designed in proportion to the scale of the building they identify and distance from which they are intended to be viewed. Height, roof setback, viewing distance, surrounding developments all influence the size necessary for the sign to effectively perform its intended function. For that reason, the appropriate size of a rooftop identification sign cannot be determined by an arbitrary square foot measurement alone. A sign must be large enough to maintain proportional to the building and legible from location it is intended to serve. The staff report recognizes several important factors. Staff included this property possesses unique physical characteristics that those circumstances were not self-created and that the approval would not adversely affect neighboring properties. We agree with those findings. Where we respectively reach a different conclusion is whether those facts create practical difficulty. The question before the board is not whether small signs can physically be installed. They can. The question mark is whether a small sign can effectively identify a 120 foot tall landmark office building from the distance which they are intended to be seen. We respectfully submit that they cannot. The building is unlike a typical commercial building. The signs are located approximately 120 feet above grade, nearly 60 feet setback from the roof's edge. Those physical characteristics are unique to this property and cannot be changed. Each elevation serves an important approach into downtown. The east elevation is viewed from South Pritchard Street. The south elevation is viewed from Cedar Street. The west elevation is viewed from Stadium Drive and Michigan Avenue. Reducing the east and west signs by nearly 50% would substantially reduce readability from those primary approaches. The 16 signs were designed to correspond with the scale of the building and the distance from what they were viewed. Applying current square foot limitations to this unique building would produce signage that is no longer proportional to the architecture that it identifies. the result would be a sign that is technically compliant but functionally less effective diminishing stability buildings ability to recognize from the locations where the rooftop is intended to be viewed in other words strict application of the ordinance would measure compliance by square footage rather than whether a sign can successfully perform its intended purpose That practical difficulty becomes even more significant because Fifth Third Bank's existing downtown roof signage will be removed as part of this consolidation. This building will become the bank's primary downtown location, marking effective building identification more important, not less. We also want to acknowledge that the west elevation sign did experience some storm-related damage this past week. Following that event, I was on the rooftop yesterday and performed a complete inspection of that sign. That inspection confirmed that the sign, cabinet, and supporting structure remained intact and structurally sound. The only failure identified was the flexible face material. The important distinction is that the issue before the board is not the condition of the existing sign structures. The existing trapezoidal sign cabinets are part of the Comerica brand identity. and those are not being carried forward into the Fifth Third Bank identity. While the existing cabinets could physically remain, they cannot be used as Fifth Third Bank signage. Therefore, a replacement of the signage requires us to address the current non-conforming sign status. The proposed project is not being driven by structural failure or a desire to increase size or impact of the signage. It is driven by the transition of the building's principal occupant and the need to continue in an established building identification system under the new fifth third identity. The staff report also concludes that this is not a minimum variance because the signs could simply be made smaller. Respectively, we disagree. This request seeks no additional sign area, no additional sign height, no new location, no increase in illumination no additional signage it preserves only the dimensions that have lawfully existed for decades if these signs were simply maintained they could remain indefinitely legal indefinitely as legal non-conforming signs the only reason this variance is required is because the principal argument of the building is changing The physical impact on the community remains the same. Granting this variance results in less change than denying it because it preserves the existing sign envelope rather than requiring a dramatically different appearance on one of downtown Kalamazoo's most recognizable buildings. Approval would not increase the visual impact of the building, create adverse effect for neighboring properties, or establish a precedent for larger signs elsewhere. This request is based on a unique characteristic of this property, its decades-long history of rooftop identification, and the continuation of an existing building's identification system not the creation of a new one the purpose of this various process is to provide relief and strict application of the ordinance creates practical difficulty without without advancing the intent of the ordinance we respectfully submit that this is exactly that situation the hardship results from the unique physical characteristics of the property not from the addition of or actions of the owner. The request represents the minimum relief necessary because it preserves only the long established dimensions required for the building to be effectively identified at its height, scale and viewing distance. This proposal does not seek larger signs that have has historically existed. It creates no additional visual impact, no additional illumination, no additional sign area, no additional impact on the surrounding community. It simply allows this landmark office building to continue being identified in a manner that is proportional to its architectural, consistent with its historical use, and faithful to the purpose of the building's identification signage. For those reasons, we respectfully request your approval for the requested dimensional variance.

Is it Kevin Carlson? Correct. Okay. And you're with Valley City Sign? Correct. And you're requesting that you're replacing the existing sign with the same sign?

Exact same size.

And the only reason you're here is because of zoning ordinance changed? Correct. Thank you. Thank you.

Staff, excuse me, Pete, does staff have any comments to make on that request?

I do have one question or clarification rather from, oh, Mr. Carlson, did you sign in? I did. You did, okay. Thank you. Our recording secretary is on it here. One clarification. So this project will result in the removal of the Fifth Third branding signs that are on the building, the other building downtown at 136 East Michigan Avenue?

Okay.

And I did look those up. And as far as I can tell, those are 590 square feet a piece. So they're actually larger signs. So with that being said, staff's gonna withdraw the recommendation for denial, because I feel this does meet the intent of the ordinance. This project will result in the removal of four non-conforming signs from another building under the same ownership as this company. And it is in keeping with, let me back up a minute. This request already met a number of the criteria because of the unique location of where these signs are located, so far above ground level. But one of the things that we really struggled with was, is this consistent with the ordinance, where the ordinance has been changed to limit the size of wall signs in the commercial zone districts. you know, being that there is, you know, the actions of the applicant will result in removal of other non-conforming signs. It does meet the spirit of the ordinance, you know, moving us in that direction of reducing additional sign clutter throughout the downtown. And therefore staff will be supportive of this request.

Before you sit, can you tell me the address of the other building?

It's 136 East Michigan.

136 East Michigan. And that would result in the fifth, no, the third signage coming off of that building.

Correct. Thank you. I believe at the time of application, that was not public knowledge. That building was relocating the staff.

Understand. And it still requires this variance process regardless. Regardless, correct.

Yeah.

but that's a good idea.

Thank you, sir. We've heard staff comments. Anybody will now open the public hearing portion of this. Those who wish to speak in favor of the request may come forward and they get their three minutes. Nobody? Anybody wish to speak against it? None. Pete is going to look up and see if there are call-in comments.

Actually, it's not allowing me to sign in right now. So sorry to assume we have no call in comments. My apologies to anybody out there that was trying to call in for this.

And I was hoping this would be the most controversial one in the backlog of phone calls. No. Thank you. Then I'll get to my spot on the sheet here. So seeing no further comments, I'm going to close the public hearing portion. I don't know that we need any additional discussion before we move to the finding of fact, just the finding of fact portion. Did we need any additional discussion on that, Jack?

Yes. I'm a little confused because in the packet that I have before me, it says there that the staff does not recommend approval of the requested variance as it does not meet all the above mentioned review criteria. But you just indicated that you are recommending approval of this variance. So, which is it?

Staff is recommending approval of the variance because of the information now shared with the board that they are removing a number of even larger legal non-conforming signs from another building they own. We are switching our recommendation or I am switching our recommendation. This was information we did not have beforehand.

Okay, well, I'm fine with that. It's just that something is written down here contradicts what you said, but I'm going to ignore that. I'm going to go with you because you're the live person sitting right next to me.

Will you change that in the record, Pete? Will you all change that in the record, in the written record?

It will be reflected in the meeting minutes.

Thank you. Yes. Gary, you were doing the finding effect?

Yes, sir. Thank you. I move the finding of facts for 151 South Rose Street shall include all the information included in the notice of public hearing dated June 24th, 2026 and the agenda packet staff provided for this request. 27 notices of public hearing were sent out. There were zero responses. Kevin Carlson with Valley City Sign spoke to the board. He informed us that they were replacing the existing sign with the same sign. And the only reason that they're here is because of the zoning ordinance changed. Staff actually supports this. The public hearing, there were no one in support or against, and there were no call-in comments. That is the finding of fact.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you. We could probably just take a vote on the finding of fact as opposed to any further discussion on it unless anybody really needs to discuss it. Nope. So this is voice vote, if I'm not mistaken. All those in favor of adopting that as a specific finding effect for the request of 151 South Rose Street, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No opposed. Would somebody make a motion on approving the request?

I move to approve ZBA 2607-10 151 South Rose Street.

Is there a second? I second. Excellent. Here's my question. And I suspect that staff's agreement to change their stance with respect to the request is because of the other building, the 113 East Michigan Street, that they're apparently going to take signage off of. If they weren't going to take the signage off of it, staff would say, no, we don't approve. But they'll take the signage off the other building so we approve. My question is, can we just make that a condition of approval of the variance here that they have to take the signs off of that other building before they may do, before they're variance here is effectively granted. That seems like a reasonable condition to put on it. Maybe Attorney Behr or Pete can speak to that. I just hear people say a lot of stuff they will do in life, but when the rubber hits the road and they got what they wanted, they may decide they're not gonna do the other part. And I just wanna make sure.

But because staff is supporting it, that may change someone's vote on the board. I mean, I'm very happy that staff is supporting this. So I think we should make it a condition.

Oh, the condition on the removal of the other signage. Chairman, it can be made a condition. Excellent. So then, did you make the initial motion here, Gary? That's what I'm asking is can... I did, yeah. You made the initial motion, so... I'll correct it. If somebody wants to correct that or... Yeah.

Wait, I just want to be clear. That is correct, that the only reason why your staff changed their mind is because they submitted that they would take the signs off the other building.

Well, yeah, that is the primary reason. They've also stated that 151 South Rose Street will become their primary fifth third location in Kalamazoo. So this badging of the building as a landmark in downtown Kalamazoo for Fifth Third will be for their Kalamazoo operations. So, plus it comes with removing four very large non-conforming signs off another building that they currently own. I don't know what we need. So, but, but yes, I am, I am supportive, you know, simply because, you know, we are working to reduce, you know, and it's sign clutter throughout the downtown and that's exactly what is going to occur here. I mean, we've worked to get rid of extra billboards around the downtown that are underutilized. And, you know, this is another situation that, you know, the fifth or fifth third has brought us that, opportunity to do that.

But if they didn't ask for the dimensional variance, they could keep the amount of signs they have currently. You just don't like it because it changed the branding.

They could keep it if they basically didn't change it.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

But the second they go from fifth, third to Comerica or whatever, then you've got to do it. It's if they had a broken Comerica sign, I think the ordinance allows them to repair it without, you know, reduction required. Once you start swapping things, then it has to come into line. I think that sums it up.

Yes. That's when they legally would have to reduce the size of the signs.

Oh, the other reason I'm asking about the putting in the condition is somebody went back 20 years looking at variances. And if somebody came for 136 East Michigan in the future and wanted signs and said, well, we've got these giant signs on it already. Can we please have a variance? Whoever looks at the minutes, we'll see that no, we clearly intended that those signs go away. Yes. And they can be replaced later by conforming signage, of course. Okay.

Do you want to re-motion that, Gary? Yes. And what sign is coming off what building?

136 East Michigan Street. They're removing all the 5th, 3rd signage on that building.

136 East Michigan?

Yes. Four signs at 590 square feet each. They're going to be removed.

Yeah.

Okay, so I...

Let me, where am I? Okay. I move to approve ZBA 260710 at 151 South Rose Street with the condition that the signage would be removed from the 136 East Michigan property.

Yes, the fifth third signage.

Fifth third signage.

You are second.

I second the new motion.

Thank you. We can discuss. I was going to vote no before, but then being able to swap, get to where the ordinance wants to go in a roundabout way while giving the applicant what they want, I think is a perfectly good use of variances. and honestly is probably the least amount of intrusion into the building across the street because they don't have to replace cabinetry, I imagine, and all of that good stuff. So for the reasons we've kind of gone through and what Pete recommended, I'm going to wind up voting yes. Anybody else? Nope. Sounds like we can take a vote, Pete.

We'll start. Sorry, Beth, go ahead. I'm really torn on this because I understand the great 4, 590 square foot signs. We're going to remove those. There's a reason that this zoning for these giant signs were changed 21 years ago. It's 200 for a reason. I you know, these signs, these two signs that are 385.78 feet to keep it at the same, well, you know, we're at 185.78 feet above what's allowed now, and that's almost double. to my way of thinking. And then we have all of these wind storms now. And seriously, a thunderstorm will come in, and oh, it's just a thunderstorm, thunderstorm. And then all of a sudden, this thunderstorm pops up, and in 15 minutes, trees, you know, we didn't used to have that. That's only been like in the past five years. So I have some significant concerns about people getting hurt with these giant signs on these tall buildings from 21 years ago. So to say, I don't know. I'm just really, really torn.

Well, maybe the question then to Pete is, because you said sign clutter and she's talking about safety of the signs, was the signage square footage reduced 29 years ago?

No, 21 was when the zoning was changed.

21 years ago.

Yeah, 21 years ago.

I presume it was a clutter issue, not a these larger signs are dangerous issue.

Correct.

So while I'm not unsympathetic to the thing, the zoning didn't take that into account. Sorry, anyway. Oh, check.

Is it possible to, in the course of forming a motion to approve this request to add a condition that has to do with some requirement that the structural integrity of the signs be evaluated with respect to the increased likelihood of wind damage due to climate change. I mean, is that a condition that we can add to get Valley Science to say, listen, if you need to put in reinforcing elements to those signs, we want you to do it. In fact, we want you to do it whether you want to or not.

How can we verify that?

If I may add, there are wind load standards and other code related standards that come into play for signs. ask the applicant for clarification on that but there there already are certain certain code requirements that these signs have to meet and there's you know they have to be designed to withstand a certain amount of of you know natural force it's a brilliant question that would be yeah that would be the question i would want to ask since we don't know very much about signs or i don't you put them up with blue tack

So the question as far as fabrication is, this will be very much a welded structure. No minimal exposed fasteners, anything like that for the access doors that to service the sign. They're going to be physically mounted with hinges so that they are permanently attached to the sign cabinet. They they cannot come loose from from that. The items that are of encapsulated and we have a cover that goes on there we do have different means of that attachment mechanical fasteners pop rivets anything that cannot just work its way loose as i mentioned the three four cabinets that are up there now the only sign of where is to the physical fabric of that um you know that's the only thing that actually let loose and it was all still intact with the last windstorm there was no pieces of metal that went anywhere on the building it was physically the fabric that came out of the sign cabinet i've been doing this for a long time almost 30 years and you know that's an anomaly the the fabric we use is is rated like pete mentioned uh wind loads um We have a long history of doing science and they don't just fall apart. But yes, we can address and make them and add safeties. We've done that in different areas. We can cable if we need to. We can work with our engineers to make sure we're speccing the right fasteners, Loctite, all the safety features to make sure that nothing does come down.

But we ain't had these conditions, praise God. So, okay. All right.

And then if you did have any questions regarding it's kind of the fifth third the removals With this being a conversion we do have a timeline on kind of that happening so installation of the new signs and the decommissioning of that is all tailored to Labor Day weekend, day one. So having to do that kind of in correlation, it's got a lot of moving parts to make that happen. So as long as that kind of approval is we understand those signs are coming down that is already part of my scope we can guarantee you those are coming down it's just a time frame that we have to work in to make that happen and i do have bank staff that could speak on that too if needed jack well um would it be appropriate then to uh put in as a condition that the um

the sign owner or the sign installer arranged to have a consulting civil engineer evaluate the sign at some point and that they would commit to do any additional strengthening that this consultant deems necessary. Because that sign is up high in the air, and it's big. And if it comes off the roof, it's going to do a lot of damage.

I understand the concern here, but Pete, as far as the design and construction standards of the sign, those are not part of the zoning ordinance.

They're not part of the zoning ordinance. And for something large like this, we can have the building inspector look at it. So the wind load requirement comes out of the building code. I just don't know what... what the wind load factor is for something like that, that's nine stories in the air. But what I can do is I'll make sure that when the sign permits come in, that these go to the building inspector to look at the detail.

I think that this board just wants to know that there's a safeguard in place. And so if you guys could just speak to what that looks like. Is that what you're saying? That if we approve the variance, then it still has to go through the building inspector's approvals to maintain the structural integrity. And that compensates for because of the level of certification, I guess, or education. that will inherently compensate for the issue of like the shifts in climate change and whatever else could potentially happen, degradation or whatever else could potentially happen. Is that what this board is to understand? We just need a safeguard based on Beth's brilliant question and Mr. Urban's genius way of submitting it to this board. That was the wording. So we just want the, what we're asking for is the,

the assurance yes yes and i can give you the issue this you know goes through zoning and will be looked at by building as well okay and and that is a that is a standard like signs installed around the city you know any building code requirements thank you for yeah ms herrington is correct as far as the building code

One point I was leading up to, because this is under the building code, those standards and not under the zoning code, Your conditions are aimed at preserving the integrity of the zoning code. So then we're getting into a different code which...

So we're not... We're not allowed to add extra building code requirements to them. Correct.

It would be out of our element.

Yes, so please stop talking about it as sort of the underlying... Well, that's not exactly what I was saying.

Enough already, enough already. And the basis...

Yes, somebody's already on top of it is the takeaway and we can't do anything about it one way or the other.

Well, I guess I'd like a little clarification because I'm feeling not necessarily convinced of that and I would like to share why. On one hand, I understand what's being said, that it's out of our purview in one sense, and that we have safeties in place for structure and tritegrity and all sorts of other people along the way. But what I struggle with is that 21 years ago, this was changed. Our climate has changed incredibly just the past five years. And I feel a sense of responsibility if I were to vote yes on this. And then we have two of these giant signs at nine feet, or excuse me, nine stories high that are almost double. the very you know the variance and you know again as i'm saying that that's great that you're removing four of the 590 signs but i what i would like to propose is coming back and seeing in writing and seeing, OK, this is the instructional integrity. This is what we're doing now. This is what we're going to do different and to have that in writing and to not have that. If I'm being asked to vote on something that was changed 21 years ago that's now nine stories high, I want to feel good about that decision and feel like we have something in writing here. we understand what that means, what that safety means and what it looks like.

I can say that Valley City Sign has manufactured and installed very similar signs to this and installed them in hurricane zones, and we have not had any issues with those. We ship signs all over the continental U.S. We've installed... Identical signs down in the Florida, Tennessee areas where they significantly face more wind than what we would see here in Kalamazoo.

Hurricane areas, okay.

So we have the experience to be able to manufacture these into a safe thing. The Valley City sign does not want the liability. Fifth Air does not want the liability. 151 South Rose does not. So we are going to make every step to make sure that nothing comes off that building. There is, yeah, there is no questions on safety when it comes to our product. We want to make sure we have the safest product out there. And we have, like I said, installed these signs, same construction styles, everything in hurricane zones. And we have not had any issues with those signs.

Okay. All right. So even, say, Florida along the Gulf Coast and places that have been hit with hurricanes, your fabrication and your standards and the metal and all of that is the same in the hurricanes as it would be here in Michigan?

We've manufactured signs for Fifth Third and shipped them to Florida. And it's all the same? All the same material, all the same product. just a slightly different wind load calculation. So the same materials used on this are installed all over the US in hurricane zones and they maintain in hurricane situations. So given this is on the rooftop, there are additional safety steps we take. As I mentioned, we are physically welding every element we can so that it does not detach from the cabinet structure. there is very few removable parts and we will make sure we use the fasteners that will sustain the wind load.

Okay, so what I'm also hearing is that the wind load calculation you're going to hold the sign that's up there to the same wind load calculation standard that you do in cities that have been hit by hurricanes.

Yeah, Michigan does not have the same wind load calculations needed, but I just wanted to... Could we have that, though?

That's not our business. Yeah, that's not... Let's say he's only got to satisfy whatever the local one is, whatever that may be. Yeah.

It's the Michigan building code.

Right. But he's got to satisfy that. He doesn't have to satisfy the, you know, strongest wind on earth load, whatever that may be. Like people well above our heads have made their decisions on some of these things and taken it out of our hands. Thank you. I think we've all had enough debate on this particular issue and discussion. We might as well just vote. So the motion and the second was to approve it with the condition of removing the signs from the other building. Pete, will you take the roll call vote?

Yes. We'll start with Wark. Yes. Holder.

Yes.

Vanden Homburg. Yes. Harrington. Yes. Urban.

Yes. Hahn.

Yes.

That is approved six, nothing. Congratulations. Moving on to item five on our agenda. If you will read that one in. Okay.

An application for a variance for provisions of the zoning ordinance has been filed for the property at 1617 North Drake Road by the Kalamazoo County Events Center Authority. requesting a dimensional variance from Chapter 59.5 to authorize wall signs on proposed youth sports center that exceed the maximum size permitted for wall signs in this residential zone district of 24 square feet. The applicant is requesting, is looking for wall signs only to the east and west of the facility. The east wall of the building will face the parking lot and have multiple entrances. The east wall will have the name of the facility at 941.5 square feet, signage over the Sports Medicine Clinic suite entrance of 174.1 square feet and signage over the entrance for the turf field of 134.4 square feet. The west wall facing US 131 will have the name of the facility at 728.8 square feet and large black letters that spell out Kalamazoo. of 1,203.3 square feet. Please note that this request will not change the zoning classification of the properties.

Thank you. The applicant can come up and provide whatever information they need. Welcome back.

Thank you. My name is Jane Ghosh. I'm president and CEO of Discover Kalamazoo and a member of the Kalamazoo County Event Center Assessment District Authority Board. And Discover Kalamazoo is under management agreement with that authority. And so I'm presenting on behalf of both of those organizations. As a bit of project background, as a reminder, this project is a youth and amateur sports tournament facility. Currently, youth and amateur sports have about $30 million of annual economic impact in our county. We're held back because there are no current facilities to host basketball and volleyball tournaments. The hotels voted last year for an incremental 4% assessment to fund a new facility, and that vote also established the Kalamazoo County Event Center Assessment District. Those hotel assessments started being collected in June of 2025. The facility itself will have eight basketball courts that can be used as 16 basketball court or volleyball courts and an additional sheet of indoor turf. So it's a very, very large facility. You'll hear more about that. Essentially the hotels are paying for a facility that will have local use Monday through Thursday and tournament use that'll attract visitors and therefore hotel stays on weekends. So it's an asset for the community that's not being paid for by the community. The facility's owned by the authority. We've made several changes to the project design and several considerations, including since last time we were here in front of you. The building is located now in the far southwest corner of the site. From the contents of today's discussion, what that means, it's providing even greater distance from potential residential zones. There are no signs planned on either the north or the south of the building. We also preserve trees on the north of the building, further shielding the building from the neighbor to the north. It's intended to be a regional facility, and therefore the signage is important. Both of the use on the weekends is going to be from a three to four hour drive market, and those regional visitors are going to arrive either via United State 131 or Maple Hill Drive. And then when they arrive on Maple Hill Drive, the topography of the site means that it's very difficult to see, and you'll see some images shortly of, it's a very large facility, significant topography changes, and so until, it's difficult to see and for guests to orient themselves. And then on the west side along 131, there are large power lines. The consumer's energy high power easement is there. And those power lines also have the potential to further impede visibility along 131. Finally, we definitely want to emphasize Kalamazoo. We're very proud of this facility in Kalamazoo. We want to emphasize the Kalamazoo County location on the 131 side. One other nuance is there are multiple entrances to the building. So there's the main entrance, an entrance to the leased space, and then finally an entrance to the turf space. So those three entrances require additional signage. And then we did have multiple neighborhood meetings, one prior to the last time we presented to you, and then another meeting just two weeks ago to make sure we were also getting input from the neighbors. And at that meeting, no neighbors indicated any concern with the signage plan. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kurt Artemoff from AVB to take you through the details of the recommendation. And while he's presenting, I will sign in.

Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for your time tonight. I am Kurt Artemoff from AVB. We are working with Jane and her team on this project and I appreciate your time. I'm the City of Kalamazoo resident and the work that you put in is much appreciated. so i have up here i wanted to try to orient a little bit i know we've been in front of this board before with this project but a little bit of orientation this is a map the red outline is the city of kalamazoo limits so you can see the unique nature of this site this is literally in the northwestern point of the city of kalamazoo it's a peninsula of land that was annexed in back in the 1960s we believe and we've met with several of the neighbors some that have lived in the area for a long time and remember when that took place but it is surrounded by oshimo township as well And if I move forward, I'm going to start zooming into the site a little bit more. This is a closer up look. On the right side of the screen, you see Drake Road. The road immediately south of the site but not reaching the site is Beach Avenue. That's a residential road. We're not connecting to that road. City of Kalamazoo Water Tower is shown there kind of in the middle of the image. And then farther south is the Story Point Senior Living Center. And then you see the existing Maple Hill Drive start to work its way up into the screen. That'll be the access point coming into the site, kind of at the lower right corner of where it says site on the image. Here's another orientation of the project site. This is an aerial image actually looking back to the east. So this is showing context as it relates to the city of Kalamazoo. Downtown is in the distance. We're up above kind of just west of 131. West Main Street is in kind of the upper right there. WMU's campus is in the distance as well. So it shows a little bit of the context and a bit of the isolation of this site as well. So this, and it's in your packet, a lot of the details are in your packet related to this project, but we had a phase one site plan approval that allowed us to go forward with some of the excavation work on the site. So that's what's happening right now. We're in the final stages of the phase two site plan, which is the full building package that we expect to have completed in the very near future. And this gives an image looking, now we've shifted, we're looking to the west. 131 is in the distance. This is showing the site starting to be opened up a bit and also the future building pad there next to the power lines owned by Consumers Energy and then the 131 frontage as well. This image is looking south and east. So again, that water tower that I mentioned earlier is in the background here. West Main Street is in the distance. The existing Holiday Inn buildings are shown there as well. And this is just a bit of context of, again, a bit of the isolation of the site shows some of the tree preservation that's occurring. And then the dash line is the roadway that'll be coming into the site. You're looking back toward where people will be coming from. This is a photo on site now. So as you arrive onto the parcel, I'm gonna jump ahead just a second here to the site plan. So in the bottom right corner of this site plan is the image where the roundabout is shown. That is approximately where we're standing right here in this image. So it's hard to get the scale of it, but this is that tree island in a sense is preserved is just to the right of the center of this image. That entry drive is running on the right side as noted and then the building is down below the ridge on this as well. So one of the keys is as people begin to arrive on the site, topography is a bit challenging and as you start to go up and down and around, you'll want to know that you're at the right location. This is moving a little bit to the west of where we were in the last image. So again, still in that southeast area. This is looking around that tree island. So as you come around those trees that we're preserving, you will enter the site and begin to see the building in the distance. Again, the context is a little bit difficult to see, but where it says building and the arrow just to the left of that are the large excavators. So just for scale, those excavators are very, very tiny on this image. And then again, the site plan just for orientation, all the dark green are the preserved trees. And so we're winding our way through the woods in essence, to get to this facility. As you turn that last corner, you'll have your image of the building in the distance along 131. And again, this indicates we've moved this building all the way to the extreme southwest corner to be away from any future residential zoning that may exist. And we've also preserved those rows of trees again along the potential residential development, whatever may come in the future. It's all vacant land right now or agriculture. And then we wanted to show an image of permitted signage in this zone district, which doesn't anticipate necessarily this permitted use, is 24 square feet. So it's actually that little red box on the image. And so I think it starts to emphasize the confusion that might exist if that red box were the permitted signage that were to take place for this facility. So we just wanted to show potentially what that looks like within the code and kind of why we're here based on the unique elements of the site, the unique elements of the facility, the scale of the facility. And so with that, we appreciate your time, appreciate your consideration, and we're happy to answer questions as well. Thank you very much.

Pete, did staff have any comments to make?

Mr. Artem, I have a question. Yeah. Do you happen to have a colored slide with, I know you showed us what it would look like with the 24 foot signs. Do you happen to have some slides you could put up there that show us what this new signage is gonna look like?

The new signage is actually in the background on this image as well. So the signage is shown, proposed signage. It's in the packet as well that's been submitted. But it's also shown, I don't know if I can use a cursor here or not.

If you could get it up, okay.

Yeah, I can try to point to it if I can, but...

where the main entryway is. To the right of that and above the last section I suppose.

This is Kalamazoo Championship Sports Center by Parker. Correct. And I don't know if I can zoom in this image. And then if you turn it over, I think that's the highway facing. Yeah, I believe it's in there. Those were early conceptual renderings that were distributed at the neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago. So what's in the packet? There's a version of this drawing in the packet as well.

But it's roughly going to be similar to what you've got on these drawings. Correct.

Similar to those renderings that are in the package as well.

Because you said something different but you're going to live within the confines of what you got here generally speaking.

Okay.

Of what we've submitted, yes.

Correct. Okay. Excellent. Great.

Thank you. Yeah. Sorry about that. I just don't have that image in the screen but it is in that package.

You had it in the packet.

Yeah.

Thank you. Pete, did you have any comments you needed to make, Pete?

I'll just make a few comments here. There's definitely some parallels with scale of this project and the Kalamazoo Country Club. I just wanted to note that both of these projects are in the RS5 zone district. So they are permitted uses, but they are at a very significant scale. Now granted that where the Country Club is located, there wasn't really... any sign issues that came up. But yeah, so we're dealing with essentially a non-residential use that's permitted in a residential zone district that has very limited signage allocated. And therefore, some level of relief is appropriate for this project. But then when you look at the special circumstances surrounding this project with the scale of the building, the fact that this is a regional sports facility being built next to a highway, which which lends to wanting to have some sort of identification on the building that's visible from 131 because that is where a lot of the teams participating are probably traveling on 131 to get to the facility. So, you know, there's, you know, there's that, you know, to kind of explain the big block Kalamazoo letters that are facing 131 looking essentially through the consumer's energy site between the big power line towers. And then we get back to what's on the east side of the building with the identifiers over each door saying, and having those be of a scale that fits the building, that is visible from a distance with the topographic changes that were pointed out by Mr. Artema. So, and I did highlight a lot of that in going through the review criteria about why there are special circumstances, that this is in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance, given the uniqueness of the facility. And that's really the highlights that I wanted to point out tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I will open it for anybody from the public who wishes to comment. Those who are in favor of the proposal may come forward and take their three minutes. Seeing none, anybody opposed may come up. I also see none. Any call-in comments, or do you think there's still problems with the call-in system?

It's not working anymore.

Then we will move beyond call-in comments. My apologies to those that are on the phone wishing they could call us right now. All right, seeing no further comments, I'm gonna close the public hearing. Does the board need any additional discussion just to get to the finding effect portion or have any other questions for the applicant or staff? No? I think Allison's doing the finding effect. Take it away then, would you?

Okay, I move that the finding of facts for 1617 North Drake Road shall include all information included in the notice of public hearing dated June 24th, 2026 and the agenda packet staff provided for this request. 34 notices of public hearing were sent and zero responses were received. In addition, so here's what I have. Um... First, we had our applicant, Jane Ghosh, president of Discover Kalamazoo, to discuss the fact that it's a, just to reintroduce it as a youth and amateur sports facility in Kalamazoo County, and to give an overview of the economic impact in our area and the fact that this will bring a lot more traffic and youth opportunities in our community that don't currently exist. She went over several changes to the project since their last ZBA appearance. Right now, there are no signs planned for the north or south sides of the building. She mentioned that signage is important for visitors arriving from US 131 and Maple Hill Drive. Factors such as topography, power lines, multiple entrances, are important and make the signage even more important, emphasizing the Kalamazoo County Regional Center that we have. And then she turned it over to Kurt Artema from AVB and he showed some images including where it will be located, and the building will be on the northwesternmost point of the city of Kalamazoo, surrounded by Oshimo Township. It's isolated from downtown, WMU, and other major landmarks and communal areas in Kalamazoo. The building plan has moved it to the most southwest corner of the site for minimal residential disruption. He showed a diagram with the scale of what the signage would look like without variance against the general renderings provided to us in the packet. So we were able to see that if it were to conform I guess it's a matter of opinion, but the letters of the sign were much smaller than what they're proposing and the visibility is important in this case, according to everybody who's spoken about it. Mr. Eldridge remarked, basically reinforced everything about that the level of relief was important given the scale of the building and the regional facility, the need for visibility from the highway and the topography, the power lines and the uniqueness of the facility is what keeps it all in the spirit of the ordinance. There were no public comments in person and the call-in system is out of order. And that concludes my finding of fact.

I support the finding of fact. I know.

Do we need any other discussion on just, or do you need more information for it? Then can we take a vote on the finding effect? I think we can. All those in favor of adopting that as the finding effect for the request for 1617 North Drake Road, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposition? None. That is your finding effect. Would somebody make a motion on the request itself?

I'd like to make a motion to support ZBA 2607-11, 1617 North Drake Road. Is there a second? Second. Discussion then, so...

Like my thinking on this, I think is similar to my thinking, if I remember accurately to the arena, which is the zoning didn't adequately take into account a building or a development of that size. And so therefore some variations are needed or variances from us are needed. I think that the staff report just sort of gets that idea as it's unifying theme. And for that reason, I'm generally in support of the signage request that is being made. Yeah, it's a limitation of the... Unlike the one across the street where they purposefully changed the zoning to make the sign smaller, this is like a flaw in the zoning that doesn't account for this kind of a facility. And that's why a variance is appropriate to me. But if anybody wants to argue, they can support me or argue against me. We can have fun with that.

I'd just like to acknowledge that where I had trepidation, I did vote in favor of this development. But where I did have trepidation because I'm known for my stances on the environment, they made accommodations and I'd like to acknowledge that. Thank you.

I also support it. And I agree with your thoughts on the zoning ordinance for that. And it is so isolated. You know, you drive back there and you can barely see it.

Oh, yeah. When he was showing the pictures, I'm like, I guess I didn't realize there were that many trees out there. It's essentially going to hide the facility from... Inland area.

Yeah, I think it's very necessary.

So Excellent, I think we can take the vote Pete Before we take the vote I Miss gosh, I wanted to say thank you to you I was at that meeting and I recused myself because my state's been pretty clear and I do serve on the Westwood neighborhood Association board and And that whole deal with the trees was huge. And you found a way to make it work and then to, you know, see, have it reiterated that you found a way to move the property. Yeah, so thank you very much. I appreciate that respect.

I think that's integrity. I appreciate that too.

Absolutely. Would you like to take the vote, Pete?

We'll start with Ms. Harrington. Yes. Urban. Yes. Hahn. Yes. Wark. Yes. Hohler.

Oh, yes. Vanden Hamber. Yes. Thank you. That request is approved as well, six to nothing. Now, in general, that brings us to the end of our agenda. However, I still need to figure out when are we going to deal with the minutes from the April meeting? I think it was, those were never approved and we need to, they're not on the agenda, so I don't want to deal with them tonight, but we need to make sure. What's that? Bye. Oh, so then we will deal with those at the next meeting.

Yes. Yeah, that's the only way that we can handle that. You need a chance to look at those again. Absolutely.

So I figured that was the case, but wanted to make sure we were so good there.

Thank you for acknowledging that. And our apologies for not having that in here.

Because aren't our approvals technically dependent upon the minutes being approved? Or does the approval at the meeting actually just be an approval? I mean, we can be done with the meeting tonight, but that's more of a philosophical question. Does that... It's like elections aren't complete until they transmit the votes or something or...

That's fine. We'll deal with it all at the next meeting. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. We're done.

We're adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you, Jack. Can I keep this copy that you gave me?

Okay.

If you want to pick up a printed copy early, obviously this was a last minute call to bring you on tonight, but I can always print them in advance too if you want to pick up a hard copy.

Yeah. I think that's a good idea.

Yeah, we went to this new forum.