City of Kalamazoo - June 12, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals

Updated 1 day ago

The Board considers four zoning requests. The board approves a variance for a stormwater management project on Reed Avenue, part of a larger environmental remediation effort. A request to replace a dilapidated carport with a new garage on Ridge Road is also approved. The board grants a variance for an extension of a food truck operation in the Arcadia neighborhood, facilitating the transition to a permanent location. Lastly, the board approves a use variance for replacing an outdated telecommunications tower with a new monopole on Fox Ridge Drive, enhancing AT&T's service and allowing for additional carriers.

Chapters

Call to Order and Roll Call (00:02:31)
The meeting of the Kalamazoo Zoning Board of Appeals is called to order. Roll call of members present is conducted.

The meeting begins with the call to order by the Chair of the Kalamazoo Zoning Board of Appeals. A roll call is conducted to verify the presence of board members: Sylvester, Work, Er, Harrington, and Han.
Approval of Minutes (00:04:09)
Minutes from the previous meeting are reviewed and approved without changes.

The board reviews the minutes from the last meeting. No changes are requested, and a motion is made to approve the minutes. The motion is seconded and passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Procedures (00:04:38)
Procedures for conducting the public hearing are outlined, including comment opportunities and board procedures.

The Chair explains the procedures for the public hearings, including the process for public comments, the sequence of events, and how the board will conduct the finding of fact and subsequent voting on requests.
Public Hearing: Reed Avenue Variance Request (00:06:33)
A variance request by the Kalamazoo Public Services Department for stormwater management is presented and discussed.

The Kalamazoo Public Services Department requests a variance to install new stormwater management practices within a natural features protection area. The project aims to improve water quality and habitat along Portage Creek. Detailed discussions include the impact, purpose, and environmental considerations of the project.
Public Comments (00:35:07)
Opportunity for public comments on the variance request is provided, but technical issues prevent call-ins.

The public is invited to comment on the variance request. However, due to technical difficulties with the RingCentral system, call-ins cannot be accepted at this time.
Finding of Fact and Vote (00:36:08)
The board moves to finding of fact for the variance request and prepares to vote on the matter.

The board discusses the finding of fact related to the variance request. A motion is made to include all relevant details from the public hearing notice and agenda packet in the finding of fact. The motion is prepared for a vote.
Public Hearing on Stormwater Runoff Application (00:36:48)
Tom Palumbo supports application for stormwater runoff improvements at the parcel; no opposition was noted.

Tom Palumbo from the City of Kalamazoo expressed support for the application, detailing restrictions on the parcel and best management practices for stormwater runoff. Materials from Kaiser and Associates support the application, arguing that ordinance enforcement would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the parcel. There are no alternatives for the variance request aimed at improving public good by treating stormwater runoff into Portage Creek. No opposition was noted during the public hearing.
Discussion and Vote on Stormwater Runoff Application (00:50:00)
The board discussed and voted in favor of the stormwater runoff application with conditions on community involvement and education.

Board members discussed the application, with some expressing concerns about historical neglect of the neighborhood. It was suggested that community education and involvement should be part of the conditions for approval. Ultimately, the board approved the application with a motion for additional community engagement and transparency on stormwater management plans.
New Business: Variance Request for Residential Property (00:57:00)
A request for a variance to replace a carport with a garage was presented, citing structural challenges due to topography.

Christopher Maek, a homeowner, requested a variance to replace a dilapidated carport with a new two-car garage. The existing structure is on a steep hill, and moving it back would require substantial retaining walls. The board discussed how the topography affected the placement of structures on Ridge Road, resulting in a recommendation to approve the variance request.
Staff Comments on Garage Project (01:08:56)
Staff comments were provided on the impact of a proposed garage project, noting no adverse effects on adjacent properties.

The staff reported their findings on the garage project, stating it does not adversely affect adjacent properties as they are similarly built. A letter of support from a nearby property owner was also received.
Public Comments on Garage Project (01:09:27)
Public comments were opened for the garage project, inviting those in favor to speak.

The chair opened the floor for public comments on the garage project. Residents were invited to speak in favor of the proposal.
Public Hearing - Chris Patel's Support (01:10:01)
Chris Patel expressed support for the garage project, citing it as a positive addition to a long-vacant property.

Chris Patel, a resident living across from the proposed garage site, spoke in favor of the project. He highlighted the long vacancy of the property and the potential issues with emergency vehicle access if improperly sited.
Discussion on Garage Project Variance (01:11:08)
Discussion covered the specific variance needed for the garage project and assurances about adherence to property lines.

The board discussed the specific variance details, including the setback requirements and assurances that the garage will stay within the existing carport's footprint. It was noted that there are survey drawings available to verify this.
Closing of Public Hearing (01:12:22)
The public hearing on the garage project was closed after no further comments.

After hearing public comments and discussions, the chair closed the public hearing portion for the garage project.
Finding of Fact for Garage Project (01:13:15)
The board moved to find the facts regarding the garage project and noted no opposition to the project.

The board considered the facts related to the garage project, including the staff report, public support, and lack of opposition. A motion was made to adopt these as the finding of fact.
Approval of Variance for Garage Project (01:15:02)
A motion was made and approved to grant the variance request for the garage project, noting it as a classic zoning case.

The board discussed and approved the variance request for the garage project, considering it a typical zoning variance case. The board members voted unanimously in favor, with discussions on the necessity of variances for non-conforming use on specific terrain.
Introduction of New Agenda Item (01:18:22)
The board moved on to the next agenda item concerning a variance for an outdoor food truck location.

The board introduced a new agenda item regarding a variance request for a food truck to operate temporarily in a parking area. The applicant's name and request details were read into the record.
Applicant Presentation for Food Truck Variance (01:19:07)
The applicant presented their case for a temporary food truck variance, citing familiarity with the area and future plans.

Jesus Barraza, the applicant, explained his request for a temporary variance to operate a food truck. He expressed familiarity with the area, plans to eventually open a restaurant, and the need for a temporary solution due to financial constraints.
Staff Comments on Food Truck Variance (01:21:15)
Staff explained the process and rationale behind the temporary variance request for the food truck.

City staff outlined the process and need for a variance to extend the food truck's operation time. They noted the applicant's past compliance and no complaints during the temporary operation period.
Public Comments on Food Truck Variance (01:25:49)
Public comments overwhelmingly supported the food truck variance, citing community benefits and the applicant's personal qualities.

Members of the public, including neighborhood association president Rex Brueggeman, spoke highly of the applicant and the food truck's positive impact on the community. There were no comments against the variance.
Finding of Fact for Food Truck Variance (01:28:19)
The board moved to find the facts regarding the food truck variance and noted strong community support.

The board considered the facts related to the food truck variance, including public support, precedent, and lack of opposition. A motion was made to adopt these as the finding of fact.
Approval of Variance for Food Truck (01:33:08)
A motion was made and approved to grant the variance request for the food truck, with conditions for timely application submission.

The board discussed and approved the variance request for the food truck, with a condition to submit a site plan application by a specified date. The motion passed unanimously, and the applicant was advised to work closely with city staff.
Variance Application for Telecommunications Tower (01:40:31)
A use variance application was presented by B Diamond Infra LLC to replace an existing tower with a new monopole tower to expand coverage.

B Diamond Infra LLC submitted an application for a use variance to construct a monopole telecommunications tower to replace an existing tower. The new tower would have the same height but improved technology and allow for co-location with additional carriers. The purpose is to address current issues with the existing tower that does not meet engineering standards and cannot support upgrades by AT&T. The new tower is expected to enhance coverage, allow for future technological advancements, and improve emergency response capabilities in the area. The staff provided comments on zoning concerns and the criteria for the variance, expressing that the application does not meet all requirements for approval. A detailed discussion followed regarding the implications, alternatives, and benefits of the proposed infrastructure upgrade.
Public Hearing Closure (02:15:00)
Closure of the public hearing with no public comments received or voice comments allowed.

The public hearing was closed by the chair after confirming there were no public comments from the floor or voice comments allowed due to restrictions in place for the meeting.
Motion to Include Finding of Facts (02:15:09)
Motion made to include all information in the notice and agenda packet in the finding of facts.

A motion was made to include all relevant information from the notice and the agenda packet in the official finding of facts for the hearing. This motion was presented to ensure that all documented details are officially recognized.
Discussion on Tower Proposal (02:16:00)
The proposal for a new tower due to the existing one being outdated and legally non-conforming.

Mr. Beb Francis and Katie Harms from Diamond Infra presented their plans for a new tower to replace an outdated structure that does not meet current engineering specifications and is legally non-conforming.
Vote on Finding of Facts (02:17:47)
Vote taken on the adoption of the finding of facts with unanimous approval.

A vote was conducted to adopt the finding of facts as presented. All members present voted in favor, and the motion carried with unanimous approval.
Motion to Approve Request (02:18:11)
Motion made and seconded to approve the request for the new tower with supporting discussions.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the request for the new tower. Members discussed the implications of the tower being non-conforming and the benefits of the new structure being safer and accommodating multiple carriers.
Consideration of Bylaw Changes (02:25:18)
Discussion on proposed bylaw changes including board size and reconsideration procedures.

The board considered proposed changes to the bylaws, including increasing the board size to seven members to avoid tie votes and removing the reconsideration and rehearing provisions due to statutory limitations.
Legal Authority Discussion (02:32:01)
Discussion on the legal authority of the board regarding reconsideration and rehearing processes.

Attorney Bayer explained the legal precedent that prohibits the board from granting rehearings due to lack of statutory authority, despite previous practices and Robert's Rules of Order suggestions.
Meeting Adjournment (02:38:46)
The meeting was adjourned after all agenda items were addressed and discussed fully.

The meeting was formally adjourned after all items on the agenda were addressed and discussions were completed. Members were thanked for their participation.