City of Kalamazoo - Zoning Board of Appeals - January 8, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals

Updated about 20 hours ago

The Kalamazoo Zoning Board of Appeals met on January 8, 2026, to discuss variance requests from QuikTrip Corporation for a new gas station and from Discover Kalamazoo for a youth sports facility. The board approved QuikTrip's request for an additional nine parking spaces. The board also reviewed several variance requests for the proposed Kalamazoo County Youth Sports Facility, approving those related to building height, impervious cover, and bike parking, but denying the request concerning woodland preservation. The meeting included public comments from local residents and business owners, many of whom supported the sports facility for its economic and community benefits.

Chapters

Call to Order (00:00:00)
The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals is called to order by the chairperson.

The chairperson calls the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order, noting that the board is a volunteer advisory board appointed by the city commission.
Roll Call (00:00:10)
Attendance is taken with all members present.

The staff conducts roll call. Members Abandoned Hamburg, Urban, Holder, Harrington, McReynolds, and Han are present.
Approval of Minutes (00:00:46)
The minutes from last month's meeting are approved without corrections.

The chairperson asks for any corrections to last month's minutes. Hearing none, a motion is made and seconded to approve the minutes. The motion passes unanimously with all in favor.
Public Hearing Procedures (00:01:45)
The procedures for public hearings are outlined for the attendees.

The chairperson explains the procedure for public hearings, including the sequence of events for each application, the role of the applicant, public comments, and the board's deliberation and voting process. Speakers are reminded to keep their remarks brief.
Variance Request by QuickTrip Corporation (00:03:36)
QuickTrip requests a dimensional variance for additional parking spaces at a proposed convenience store and fuel station.

QuickTrip Corporation requests a variance to allow nine additional parking spaces beyond the maximum allowed for their proposed convenience store and fuel station. The applicant, Gabriel Longoria, presents the case, highlighting the need for additional parking to avoid congestion during peak hours and explaining the store's unique offerings. The staff comments on the site's history and the layout's compliance with zoning requirements. No public comments are received, and the board discusses and approves the variance request.
Recusal of Board Member (00:23:33)
Board member Beth Vanden Hoberg recuses herself from the next agenda item.

Board member Beth Vanden Hoberg recuses herself from participating in the discussion and vote on the next agenda item due to a potential conflict of interest.
Variance Request by Discover Kalamazoo (00:24:28)
Discover Kalamazoo presents a variance request for the proposed Kalamazoo County Youth Sports facility.

Discover Kalamazoo requests several variances for the development of the Kalamazoo County Youth Sports facility. The variances include encroachment into protected slopes, impervious coverage allowances, and parking space requirements. Jane Goosh, President and CEO of Discover Kalamazoo, presents the request, explaining the benefits of the facility for local youth and the expected economic impact, supported by a video from community members.
Welcome and Opening Remarks (00:33:10)
The meeting began with a welcome and introductory remarks, setting the agenda and context for the discussions to follow.

The meeting was called to order with opening remarks to welcome attendees and outline the agenda for the session.
Proposal for Kalamazoo County Event Center (00:33:12)
The proposal for the Kalamazoo County Event Center was discussed, including the formation of an authority board to manage the project.

A proposal for the Kalamazoo County Event Center was presented, detailing how the city and county jointly formed an authority board to oversee the project. The board will manage revenue and own the new facility, which is publicly owned.
Site Development and Variance Requests (00:34:37)
Kurt Artema discussed the site development plan and the variance requests needed for the project.

Kurt Artema presented on the site development for the project, discussing the variance requests needed to accommodate the design, including protecting natural features and adjusting site layout.
Public Comments in Favor (00:54:00)
Multiple speakers from the public expressed support for the event center, citing economic and community benefits.

Several members of the public, including local business owners and residents, spoke in favor of the proposed event center. They highlighted the potential benefits to the local economy, tourism, and community engagement.
Comments from Local Government and Agencies (01:03:00)
Local government officials and agency representatives provided comments, emphasizing collaboration and long-term planning.

Representatives from local government and agencies, including the State Representative and township officials, provided comments on the project. They emphasized the importance of intergovernmental collaboration and planning for future infrastructure needs.
Public Comments in Support of Sports Facility Project (01:07:18)
Numerous speakers express support for the proposed sports facility, highlighting its benefits for youth and community.

Several community members, including event planners, coaches, and local residents, spoke in favor of the sports facility project. They emphasized the importance of having a local venue for youth sports to reduce travel costs and provide opportunities for local athletes. Benefits mentioned included economic growth through tourism, local partnerships, and keeping students engaged in sports and community activities.
Public Comments Opposing or Concerned About the Project (01:20:48)
Concerns about the project's impact on local land and the need for variances were raised by some speakers.

Opposition to the project focused on concerns about the impact on local land use, the need for multiple variances, and potential traffic issues. Some speakers, who owned neighboring properties, expressed the need for careful planning and consideration of the project's visual and environmental impact. The idea of working together with local planning authorities to address these concerns was suggested.
Close of Public Hearing and Motion for Finding of Fact (01:34:38)
The public hearing was closed and a motion for the finding of fact was made.

After all public comments were heard, the board moved to close the public hearing portion of the meeting. A motion for the finding of fact was proposed and seconded to proceed with the details discussed during the hearing.
Public Comments (01:41:04)
Numerous community members expressed support for a new sports facility in Kalamazoo, highlighting benefits for youth development and local economy.

A series of public comments were made by various community members including Erin Schultz, Evie Schultz, Julie Rogers, Andrea Hargrave, Jodi Stefforia, Deb Droppers, Nikki Hackworth, Rob Buck, Clarence Lloyd, Dante Hudson, Curtis Woodfield, Annmarie Borman, Don Seibert, Aaron Reer, and Abigail Wheeler. They spoke in favor of the proposed sports facility, mentioning its positive impact on youth development, economic benefits, and community building. Concerns were also raised regarding the visual impact and integration with surrounding areas.
Opposition Comments (01:47:02)
Kevin Stufflebeam and Neil Sikora expressed concerns about the project, particularly regarding visual impact and multiple variance requests.

Kevin Stufflebeam expressed support for the project but raised concerns about the lack of clarity on the visual impact of the facility on adjacent properties. He owns land to the north and is worried about personal impact. Neil Sikora supported the project but was concerned about the number of variance requests, suggesting that additional land acquisition might alleviate the need for them.
Clarification on Findings of Fact (01:48:27)
Clarifications were made regarding the nature of assessments and projected hotel room nights related to the project.

There was a clarification made that Jane Gs is an assessment, not a tax, and there was a note to correct the finding of fact regarding projected hotel room nights when the meeting minutes are prepared.
Approval of Findings of Fact (01:49:07)
Board approved the findings of fact with clarifications noted.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the findings of fact, with all members voting in favor. Clarifications regarding assessments and projected hotel room nights were noted for inclusion in the minutes.
Discussion on Variance Requests (01:49:31)
Extensive discussion on various variance requests for the project, including slopes and woodland preservation.

Board members discussed several variance requests related to the sports facility project. These included variances from natural features protection ordinances to encroach on slopes and reduce woodland preservation. Members expressed differing views on whether these variances should be granted, with concerns about setting precedents and the impact on the natural environment. The criteria for granting variances were reviewed, including whether the parcel could be reasonably used without the requested variances.
Discussion on Property Tax Benefits (02:14:22)
Discussion about whether the city would benefit from property tax from a new project, with the conclusion that the tax revenue goes to another township, not affecting the city directly.

The discussion began with a question about whether the city would receive any property tax benefits from the new development project. It was clarified that the tax revenue would actually go to Hoe Township, and thus the city would not directly benefit from this particular property tax revenue. The conversation highlighted how the hotels involved are mostly in Oshtemo, and they are the ones likely to benefit from any tax advantages. This segment clarified the financial implications for the city and involved some back-and-forth about the indirect effects on the community.
Impact on Kalamazoo Neighborhoods (02:14:53)
Discussion on how the project, although not directly benefiting the city tax-wise, still impacts Kalamazoo neighborhoods, especially considering visual and community standards.

The discussion highlighted that while the development project does not directly benefit the city in terms of property tax, it has direct implications on the neighborhoods in Kalamazoo. The conversation touched upon the importance of considering community standards and the visual impact of the development, as there was a visual impact assessment mentioned. There was a concern for maintaining conditions that address constituency concerns so that the project can be beneficial for future generations. The importance of the Natural Futures Protection was emphasized, and there was a call for responsible development that considers the current residents' quality of life.
Natural Futures Protection and Development Concerns (02:15:52)
Debate on the adherence to Natural Futures Protection standards, with concerns about development impacts on neighborhoods and the need for thoughtful project conditions.

During this segment, the discussion revolved around the adherence to the Natural Futures Protection (NFP) standards and how developments in the area are impacting neighborhoods. It was noted that there is significant development happening in the area, and there are concerns about the impacts on neighborhoods, particularly owner-occupied areas. The conversation emphasized the need for slowing down and thoroughly considering the economic and political landscape's current condition. There was a call to honor the NFP ordinance more than just perfunctorily, especially when it comes to big developers and their projects, to ensure community benefit.
Procedural Clarifications and Options (02:18:14)
Clarification on procedural options for imposing conditions or adjourning the decision to gather more information, with emphasis on the board's flexibility.

The discussion moved towards procedural clarifications where the chairman and other members clarified the options available to the board. The board could accept, modify, or impose additional conditions on the project. Additionally, the board could adjourn the decision to a later date to gather more information if needed. The clarification aimed to ensure that the board members were aware of their options, and it was emphasized that the board has the flexibility to take these actions if they see fit, according to the zoning ordinance and procedural guidelines.
Voting and Decision-Making Process (02:24:03)
Debate on whether to proceed with voting or to delay for more information, with some members expressing a desire to vote immediately while others wanted more deliberation.

The meeting featured a debate on whether to vote on the project immediately or to delay the decision to gather more information. Some members expressed a desire to proceed with the vote, arguing that no conditions would change their stance, while others felt that the board needed more deliberation and possibly more information to ensure a well-informed decision. There was a general sentiment that the process needed to be handled with clarity to avoid holding up the project unnecessarily, but also to ensure that all concerns were adequately addressed. The discussion was marked by differing opinions on the best approach to take.
Outcome of Variance Requests and Future Options (02:27:04)
Discussion on the outcome of the variance requests, implications of denial, and the possibility of resubmitting applications with changes if needed.

The discussion covered the outcome of the variance requests and the implications of their denial. It was clarified that if a variance application is denied, a similar application cannot be considered for a year unless there is a substantial change in circumstances or new information is provided. The board has the option to waive this time limit if certain conditions are met. Members discussed the importance of understanding the consequences of their decisions and how they could impact the project timeline and potential resubmissions. The segment emphasized the board's responsibility in making informed decisions that align with procedural requirements.
Discussion on Impervious Coverage (02:45:54)
The board discussed the impact of lattice bricks on impervious coverage, concluding solid surfaces with stormwater systems are required.

The meeting addressed a question regarding the use of lattice bricks in paving and how they affect impervious coverage numbers. It was determined that due to the size of the parking lot, a solid surface with a stormwater system is needed. The standards for low-density residential zone districts were also mentioned.
Vote on Variance Request Number Five (02:48:03)
The board voted on variance request number five about parking spaces for a sports complex, approving it with no conditions.

A motion was made to approve variance request number five, which concerns dimensional parking spaces required for a sports complex based on its maximum occupancy. The motion was seconded, and a discussion followed about the necessity of bike spaces and the location's lack of bike lane infrastructure. The vote passed unanimously.
Adjournment and Closing Remarks (02:51:00)
With no further business on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned, and closing remarks were made.

The meeting concluded with an acknowledgment that all agenda items had been addressed, and there was no further business to discuss. Attendees were thanked, and the meeting was adjourned.