Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Are we ready? We're ready. Good. All right, so I'm going to call to meeting, call to meeting, call to order the, this is the 910, the September 10th meeting of the City of Kalamazoo Zoning Board of Appeals, a volunteer advisory board appointed by the City Commission. Would you conduct the roll call, please?

Han? Here. Wark? Here. Holer? Here. Vanden Homburg? Here. Harrington?

Here.

And McReynolds is absent.

Excellent. Not that part. Excellent that we're all accounted for in some way or another. All right. Any announcements or changes to the posted agenda?

There are no announcements or changes to the agenda for tonight.

Excellent. We'll move on to the minutes. I looked at the minutes. They look good to me. Were there any corrections that anybody else needed to note?

I don't know if this is on target, but last meeting, you kind of went past the... Yeah. Oh, sure. Is this okay?

There's like one hot mic.

Maybe just move over a chair. I'm gonna laugh if it does the same thing, one chair over.

Okay, I was sorry for that. Thanks for the accommodation. I guess I was Last meeting, Chair Holder, you kind of brushed past the minutes, the shift in the minutes a little bit. And I didn't know why you did that. And I did have an opportunity to revisit the changes that you said you were like, is there a discussion? And then we moved on pretty rapidly. Could you speak to that a little bit? What was the shift that you wanted to see happen in the amendments of the meeting notes?

I don't recall, just to be honest.

Oh, really?

Okay. Was this about the minutes from April?

Yeah. Is there something that, I just wanted to know if you could speak to that. I just, and if nothing else, I guess I just wanted to say that, you know, I was asked to move on from that discussion. And so I really didn't dig too deep into the meeting minutes.

Oh, it might be that, it might be that, um, So I wasn't here for whichever the meeting was. After the meeting, at the next meeting, there was discussion. The following meeting, there was discussion about the minutes and that sort of thing. And I went and looked at the meeting itself and generated I used my Google overlords or whomever to help generate a transcript and then I listened back through it and everything checked out and tried to generate meeting minutes from that. Fast forward to last month's meeting. The minutes looked okay to me, consistent with what happened in April. And I think maybe last month, the only thing I really said about it was they just need to be consistent with what occurred in April. It wasn't about whether we agree with what people said or whatever. It's just, did they adequately capture what happened? Sure.

So there was not, in your opinion, I just, again, just for clarity's sake, because for me, I, Remy Harrington, I have a very, very low threshold intolerance for the reactions that people have to responding to a frame, like when they're responding or reacting within a framework of harm.

Mm-hmm.

I struggle with that. If things are being reframed within a framework of harm, people's reactions within a framework of harm, I struggle with that because integrity is integrity. We can't reframe it. We can't restructure it. We can't rename it. When you're talking about this You're not saying that you reframed the minutes. What did you do with this AI thing that you did? What was done? So I just can be clear and it can be on record.

I gave it the recording from the hearing, had it generate a transcript. I then took the transcript and followed along through the meeting to make sure it was accurate. Use that to generate the broadest possible... summary of the minutes that I could pass it on to the group back in, it's probably May at this point. And then I don't, beyond that, the meeting minutes that I saw last month were in line generally with what I had produced. Now, whether it was Shelby or whomever took them and just copy and pasted or went, no, my meeting minutes are accurate to the same thing. And I'm glad we all agree. It doesn't matter. I think my point was that or trying to, what I've maybe have been trying to do last month is trying to avoid having any more strife over decisions that were made and just trying to get to, did this adequately capture what occurred in April? without like taking a position on was somebody right, was somebody wrong? None of that, just is this what happened? And to my eye, the meeting minutes captured what occurred.

And you felt like what was originally put in the minutes did not adequately capture it?

No, I thought they were fine. Okay, so did I. Well, here's the problem. The original meeting minutes, I wasn't here for that meeting, so I was a little bit lost to follow along with it until I watched it and all of that. But I also, when I was regenerating it, was trying to... to be as fair to everybody and make sure the entirety of the discussion like there was nothing left out so that nobody you Gary whomever felt that they were misrepresented in any way that their position from the meeting was clear into the minutes and Does that make sense? And I'm not saying Shelby or anybody, whoever generated them, had done them in any sort of biased way, but by doing it myself, I wanted to try to just, hey, this is the plain black and white of what happened on paper, end of story. And without taking a position on was anybody out of line, was anybody, you know, whatever. And all the out of line, was everybody wrong? I literally am not directing that at anybody in particular.

Sure. And so you felt like putting it through the AI bot was the most...

It was the quickest way for me to kind of get to a place where I could easily just compare everything.

Interesting. Okay. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to get clarity. I appreciate you explaining that stance.

And whether those minute draft that I prepared wound up in, and I don't believe they did, when I looked at the minutes that we approved last month for April, they at least looked accurate to what had occurred.

Yeah, so if I could just add to that, is that okay? Yes. So, yeah, so what you produced, that email, you know, went to everybody, including Shelby, and then Shelby looked at that, but also went back and rewatched that meeting and went back through the meeting minutes she had prepared to insert, you know, a couple sentences that Weren't there and maybe a little punctuation here and there but there wasn't much that was added It was my understanding when we talked if I can't can you hear me?

Oh, if I can speak so yes ma'am I have had a couple of conversations with attorney bear not particularly about this but about meetings from the past and Attorney bear has specifically told me that I should be really saying whatever it is that you, whatever comes out of your mouth. So if I do get something generated from AI or whatever, I won't look at it. Only because I was told that I need to form and be an unbiased person in any situation that's here. So I have to type exactly what you guys say. I can't use AI. And I know that AI is not supposed to be biased.

It is biased.

But I don't know. I just know that I am not in that space or in that place where I am allowed to go outside of what I know and what I see, what I record, what I see on YouTube. I'm not allowed to go outside of that. So I did not do that. I specifically went back, watched the video. I did add a couple of words. But at the end of the day, it all came out the same. It didn't change anything. The only thing that changed was I feel like I didn't really, when I did add the words I didn't really

I'm sorry.

The first time, I feel like I didn't say exactly what Remy meant to say. And so I kind of feel like I, in a way, did not do what she was trying to convey justice. Let me just put it that way. So when I did go back and put in exactly what she said, I felt like I could get her tone. I went back and said, OK, well, now I know her tone was not It was a little different when I did it the second time, and it was only because there was a little bit more emotion to it. But it's still, at the end of the day, I think that she, what I put back in there really spoke to what she was trying to get across. And I'm not going to put my opinion in it, but I think that that's what I did it.

You did an amazing job, Shelby. And that's, for me, that's why I'm raising it in this moment right now because I at least need, if that's the way that we're going to be proceeding forward when we have someone who, that's what the beauty of data sovereignty is and having human, the capacity for humans to be able to understand nuance in language. It's like, it's an aspect of like, epistemic, like the ways of knowing. AI does not capture that. Shelby can capture a variety of different ways of knowing because she's a human being. That being reduced to the white paper and for public record, that's important and it's important to our data sovereignty. At a minimum, if that's the approach we're going to take because the words like the ABCDEFG, the words of things are like going to be being reduced, then I guess we'll just have to be much more deliberate and intentional about the things that we're saying so that we can say what we mean and mean what we say. And I just wanted to thank you again, Shelby, for attempting to capture the fullness of the meaning of what I was hoping to convey. But I don't think AI can adequately reflect my interest. But I agree that if you wanted to just say what people said, I guess AI is the conduit to be able to reduce it in a very short time. frame of time, I guess. I just wanted to be clear about what was happening. Thank you.

I don't know if you really were thankful, though.

I'm not, but I'm thankful for your opinion. I think it matters. I think it's valuable. I value your opinion. I don't mean that in any...

Hold on. I want to say then if you're offended in any way that I tried to find a way to best represent... Frankly, I was trying to best represent you. because you felt targeted for reasons you stated. And I wanted to make sure that you of all people were most adequately represented. I used it as far as data sovereignty. These are on YouTube. I went and watched it on YouTube. It's out there, it's available. And actually I may have used I may have downloaded the closed captions that YouTube generates and used that to compare to what was actually said to make sure everything was in there, used AI to summarize it, and then instead of just saying, shove these into the minutes and be done with it, I circulated it and let everybody have a look and make their contributions a heard only thank you for doing this, nobody changed anything. Nobody offered any changes to me, so I assumed we were good.

Yeah, well, I can tell you why I didn't. I didn't say anything, Joe.

I'm sorry if you were offended.

No, I'm not offended. Again, I just wanted to be, I don't want to be seen as being, I'm not offended. I'm asking about the process. I appreciate your perspective. I believe that everybody should have, that's what makes it beautiful for all of us to have a perspective and then we share it.

Well, I didn't want the meetings to have a perspective. I wanted them to be as anodyne and accurate to the meeting as possible. I should not be interpreting what anybody said. Shelby should not have to be interpreting when anybody said your words, everybody's words, my words, Charlie's words, Pete's words. Your words are speaking for themselves. There's nothing else in them. When people appear in hearings and we instruct them, not at these hearings, but at work when we do hearings, they're told, don't answer with uh-huh or head shakes or any of that because those do not pick up. They are, the word's not vague, but they are a different... I'm blanking on it right now, ambiguous. So if you want it to be captured, it needed to be in your words. The words are the words. And I thought your take was very clear and I thought that whatever was generated that I then compared to was accurate to everybody, but I was trying to resolve the problem and as Fair way to everybody you especially as possible and I'm sorry if that's the way I don't want you to be sorry I'm not Joe.

I'm not coming at you. I'm not offended. I'm not angry. I'm asking about a process I'm speaking to the fact that Shelby sufficiently and adequately captured what my meaning was and

Then we should have approved the minutes in May instead of having to fight about it for five months now.

It wasn't me that challenged that. That wasn't me that challenged it. I'm still asking about the process. I continue to ask about the process because you brought AI into it for the purposes that you've outlined, which were to reflect my interest.

We should have had this discussion like five months ago then or whatever. Can we move on and approve these minutes, please? We've all had our say on it. We have not looked at these minutes. Are there anybody that needs to make a correction to these minutes?

I was asked to move on and then you changed the minutes and they were fine. Thank you.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

I move to approve the minutes.

Is there a second?

I second.

Thank you. Any discussion? We've already had discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are opposed. Five to none. Thank you.

All right.

I'm only speaking to one person.

Before we open the public hearing, here are tonight's procedures.

For each of the applications, the secretary will read the request into the record. The applicant or representative will have up to 10 minutes to present on that application. I need you to begin by stating your name and address. And actually, if you write all that down ahead of time, it won't be charged against you for time. And I say keep your remarks brief because 10 minutes will fly by. Especially when you wind up with like three people up here wanting to thank each other for five minutes. Anyway, after that, public comments will follow. Speakers come up to the podium. They sign and state their name and address. They get three minutes to speak. Those in favor speak first, opposed second. Then we turn to the call-in comments. Callers may dial 888-382-9556 during the designated period. Remarks are given live. They are not recorded. At that point the public hearing will close. The board will state and vote on a finding of fact. That vote is not on a decision of the request itself, just on what we believe the finding of facts is. The board left out a step here. From there there would be a motion made to approve the request and then the board would have any discussion that is needed. They can ask follow-up questions of prior speakers including staff and then a roll call vote will be taken. A full board is six members whereas only five of us tonight but you do need four votes no matter how many people are here in order for the required for the variance in order to grant the variance. Okay, I think I got that all. Which means if in some instances it might be better to adjourn to a later hearing if you think you might have some pushback from any members of the board. Be that as it may, would you like to read the application? All right.

An application for a variance for provisions of the zoning ordinance has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals by American Gas and Oil at 4710 Stadium Drive. The applicant is requesting a variance from Chapter 50-5.1b to... to authorize relief from installation of a sidewalk along the north 30 feet of frontage along Drake Road. Please note that this request will not change the zoning classification of the properties. This is a dimensional variance.

Excellent. YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND PRESENT YOUR REQUEST?

BOARD MEMBERS, MY NAME IS STEVE WHITTY FROM NETTERVELD. WE'RE THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT. THE BUSINESS ADDRESS FOR NETTERVELD IS 217 GRANDVILLE AVENUE, SOUTHWEST, SUITE 302, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, 49503. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION REGARDING THIS REQUEST. ESPECIALLY THANK YOU TO PETER AND STAFF FOR GETTING US TO THIS POINT. JASON BARRAS, WHO IS THE OWNER OF AMERICAN GAS AND OIL, WISHES HE COULD BE HERE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY HIS SON'S BIRTHDAY TONIGHT. SO I SAID, HEY, KEEP YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT. I'LL COME DOWN HERE AND MEET WITH YOU FINE PEOPLE AND DISCUSS IT SO HE'S HAVING A GOOD TIME WITH HIS SON. SO THEIR PRIORITIES THERE. SO JUST A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT ITSELF. SO THIS IS KIND OF A BIGGER PICTURE. American Gas and Oil owns the existing Citgo gas station on that corner. They are proposing to completely renovate, so demolish the car wash building and the gas station building that's out there, reconstruct a new convenience store gas station, not reconstruct the car wash, so it'll just be the gas station. We've been in front of the Planning Commission and I call it reobtain the special land use because the original site didn't have a special land use that's sold. So we've gone through that process and then we have submitted for site plan approval as well. So we're going through that process administratively. And then one of the things that came up throughout the review to this point is the sidewalk requirement for the property. There is existing sidewalk along Stadium Drive. but heading north from Stadium Drive along our frontage on Drake Road, there is no sidewalk. So AGO has agreed to construct the sidewalk from Stadium Drive through their existing drive entrance that will remain on Drake Avenue, but north of that point, namely the northern 30 feet of the frontage, there are extremely large challenges to construct that. So that's why we're asking for the variance at that location. uh specifically there's a significant grade change if you've driven by the site or looked at google street view you can see exactly what i'm saying and what that means what i mean is from the back of the curb on drake avenue to the right up to an existing large tree that's out there there's only 14 feet of space and there's a seven foot vertical grade difference getting a five five foot flat sidewalk in that area would be extremely difficult to construct first of all and it would for certain require at least a two or three foot tall retaining wall. The other complication in that area is as I just mentioned there is a mature oak tree there it's about 32 inches in diameter so it's not a little one it's a big one. That would have to be removed because any regrading of that area to provide the flat spot would kill the roots and ultimately it would die and be an unsafe situation. THE THIRD REASON FOR MAKING THIS REQUEST ARE THERE ARE BURIED UTILITY LINES THAT RUN ALONG THERE. SO THERE'S COMPLICATIONS FROM A CONSTRUCTIBILITY STANDPOINT OR A COST STANDPOINT BECAUSE I'M GUESSING THOSE UTILITY LINES WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED. And then the final consideration on this is there is no sidewalk north of the property. So this 30 foot stretch north of the driveway would lead to nothing. There is sidewalk a property or two further to the north and Jason and AGO has agreed to construct that final 30 feet when the sidewalk to the north of his property gets constructed to his common property line. By doing it that way, we can maybe eliminate the retaining wall. Quite frankly, if the sidewalk to the north, if it gets constructed in the future, does get constructed, that tree, unfortunately, is going to have to be removed. So there's, again, no benefit then at that point. So that being said, that's what our request is. In the application that I filled out, I kind of gave arguments for that and addressing the difficulties for that. And I know Peter did an excellent job describing doing above and beyond that to give further ammunition, so to speak, for that argument. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have, but I guess the final thing I will say, and I talked to Peter when I got here ahead of time, is we're really talking about 30 feet of sidewalk, and Jason is a very good owner and developer. He wants to do the right thing, And just by him making this request, he's agreed for 140 feet of sidewalk already. By him making this request, it's obviously a big issue for him because otherwise he wouldn't be wasting your time reviewing this. He wouldn't pay the fee. He won't be paying me to attend the meeting to, quite frankly, ask for a 30-foot variance. So anyways, that being said, I really appreciate all your help tonight. And if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer those. Thank you.

what was your name again steve witty witty yep okay thank you thank you excellent i think if we have questions we can ask them in the fact-finding portion or the discussion but pete did staff have any comments uh yes the staff has a few comments and one thing that uh uh

Ms. Vanden Homburg brought up earlier today was I used the term premature removal of the tree in the staff report and that was Excuse me. That was in relation to if the tree could be removed now and this very complicated 30-foot stretch of sidewalk installed, or the tree could remain for the near future until the properties to the north put in sidewalk and that whole frontage gets regraded And that's what I meant by premature removal. So, you know, at some point that tree is going to have to go. It's a question of, you know, do we get to hold on to that a little bit longer or do we need to lose it now and just have a dead end sidewalk there? So other than that, I'm just going to walk through the review criteria. And the special circumstances are associated with the topography and the steep slope within the green space, the significant retaining wall that would be necessary, and the tree removal. When we look at the special circumstances and if they were created by actions of the applicant, the answer that we came up with as staff was really that this is a combination of things that have led to this buildup of the slope, because clearly it's a man-made slope. So it's a combination of the continued widening of Drake Road and the commercial development of the gas station property and the properties to the north of it over the last half a century that have really led to this circumstance that we're now looking at. So it's not a natural slope by any means. And then... you know, requiring the applicant to follow the terms and provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same zone district. In reference to that, it's, you know, it's the additional time spent on design work and installation of a retaining wall and the tree removal and that are really above and beyond the typical sidewalk installation. Because the standards for installation of sidewalk now is it has to be ADA compliant. So you do have to maintain a very subtle grade change when you do start to elevate a sidewalk. And of course, it's got to remain level. and it's got to have the proper width. So there's examples of old sidewalks around the city that clearly were done in a very different era. granted the action is the minimum action in this case the applicant is installing 130 to 140 feet of sidewalk and only asking for relief of this remaining 30 feet so it is a it is a very small amount of sidewalk compared to what what's required overall And then adverse impacts on adjacent properties. You know, it's surrounded by commercial properties as well as two public streets. And there was no adverse impact identified on the adjacent properties. And then it was viewed by staff that this is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to look at this relief, especially with the owner being agreeable to adding the additional sidewalk when the properties to the north install sidewalk as well. So that's all I've got. I'm open to any questions.

I don't know at this current time. Thank you. Are there any public coming forward to speak in favor? None. Anybody wish to speak that is opposed? Still none. Call in comments. Did I miss something?

Call in comments.

It's true.

We are opening up the phone line right now. And there are no call-ins for this request.

Thank you. So then I will close the public hearing portion. Do we have a motion on the finding of fact?

I move the finding of facts for 4710 Stadium shall include all information included in the notice of public hearing dated August 26th, 2026 and the agenda packet staff provided for this request. There were eight notices of public hearing sent out, there were zero responses. Why? Steve Whitting was here with American Gas and Oil. He presented Jason Barris' appeal for this site, and there was no one here to speak for or against, and there were no phone call-ins. That is the finding of fact.

Is there a second?

I second.

Any discussion needed on that? Nope. I think we need to do a roll call vote then on the finding of fact. I'm sorry.

Roll call vote.

Roll call vote on the finding of fact.

You don't want to do a voice vote on the finding of fact?

Do we do a voice vote? We normally do a voice vote. I don't remember. It's like once a month.

My apologies. I'm writing notes over here and I'm not paying attention.

No, you're good. You're good. I thought maybe you were getting ready to write down the votes. That's why I didn't say anything. Okay, so all those in favor of approving that as a finding of fact, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? No. Would somebody make a motion on the request then?

I make a motion to accept.

No, you're good to approve the request.

I make a motion to approve the request.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I second.

Now we can discuss. The only question I really have, and perhaps you can answer it, is where in that hill does the property line end, like in the middle of that hill? It's actually right behind the back of the distance here.

And that's part of the issue, I think, because like Peter said, the road's been widened so often that there's no space left in the right-of-way and everything has been pushed over to the east.

The reason I'm asking more than anything is, is this one of those where it will end sort of in the middle of the hill, so you have to more or less just dig out? Because you can't dig on the neighboring property. You're kind of left with a hard dead end where there is just a wall of dirt or a wall of blocks.

That's kind of the issue. So the right-of-way in front of the AGO property is approximately three feet behind the back curb. Okay. then but then on the property of the north the right-of-way does jog out a little bit further so then property of the north that's about 13 feet from the back of curb okay and then that tree is kind of right on the right almost right on the right-of-way line on the neighbors property so the tree is about 13 feet behind the back of curb also okay okay thank you and from a safety standpoint that was one of jason's concern why he doesn't want to do this because if he constructs the 30 feet it dead ends into nothing and if people aren't paying attention they start walking north the sidewalk ends and then he doesn't want them to go oh i'll just walk on the street so that's yeah yep uh does anybody else have any questions for him or for pete i suppose

No? Then I'll just say I agree with the staff report. I looked through it a couple of times and I think it's fair and a fair use of this board's powers in order to grant the variance in a situation like this. I heard the promise to build the sidewalk when property to the north has to build their sidewalk is that like a condition we should consider just putting on the request or is that one of those where the city is going to go hey we wrote it down they're doing it now you got to do it

It is reflected in the meeting minutes because that was already made note of by Mr. Witte.

Then they've already made their offer.

But it's up to the board's purview if they want to, you know, Condition the approval upon that. Request that the owner provide it in writing so that it can be put in the city records. Acknowledging that. It's up to the board.

Well, his attorney bear might be the one who's going to have to litigate it. What's the way you want it done? Assuming that the sidewalks to the north get done within the next, you know, however much time.

Not to iterate it, but this actually came up during the staff review and Jason, the owner, did send an email to the city saying you'll put it in if that makes any difference.

Yeah, so you're right. It is in an email too.

Excellent. Is that fine? Fine.

Okay, so we have it in writing. We have it verbal tonight, and it'll be in the meeting minutes that you'll be approving next month. Excellent.

Thank you very much. Did anybody else need to say anything else on this? This, I believe, is a voice vote. Then why don't we take the vote?

All right. We will start on this end of the dais. Harrington?

Yes.

Vanden Hamber.

Yes.

Holder. Yes. Work. Yes. Han.

Yes.

Thank you. The request is approved. Five to nothing. Thank you all very much. You're welcome. Thank you for coming down. I see no other things on the agenda for business. We are adjourned. Gavel, gavel, gavel. Thank you. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.