NFP review board declines to recommend variances for most West Cork Street parcels after debate on slope, access

Kalamazoo City — The Natural Features Protection Review Board on Tuesday reviewed variance requests for five steep, wooded parcels along West Cork Street and, after extended questioning about access and slope protection, voted not to recommend variances for four of the five lots that a developer says are needed to build duplex housing.

The board heard presentations from city staff and the applicant, developer Jeremy Cole, who said limited slope relief is required to construct safe driveways and duplex units on the parcels and that the request is narrowly tailored to building footprints, driveways and utility corridors. Nolan, the city’s NFP board liaison, told the board staff had worked with the applicant since last fall and that relief was being recommended in staff reports for the slope and slope-setback standards because the parcels have steep, contiguous slope complexes that make configuration difficult.

Why it matters: The parcels lie inside the city’s Natural Features Protection overlay, which sets protected-slope and woodland-preservation standards. Granting a variance would allow disturbance inside those protection zones; denying it would limit development options for the property owner and, the applicant said, risks an unconstitutional regulatory taking if lots have no practical access.

Details of the request and developer position Jeremy Cole told the board the West Cork Street parcels are heavily wooded and steep and that prior iterations of the project had been more intensive (he described plans for up to 35 units, later reduced to 16 microhomes and then to 10 rental duplexes). He said the relief sought is narrow — limited to the duplex footprints, a 12-foot driveway, and a utility corridor — and that the applicant intends to preserve substantial woodland cover (for 112 West Cork the applicant cited 36.7% preservation).

Cole described design constraints: the parcels are roughly 49 feet wide, the developer said driveways must be centered to function, and a straight driveway to the buildable area would produce steeper grades; he said a switchback would be more prudent but would require more slope disturbance. He told the board that the fire marshal’s grade standard was cited as 10% but the team expected to achieve about 15% on some drives and that retaining walls and recessed garages are likely to be needed.

Staff and technical context Nolan explained the process: because each lot would be pulled as a separate permit and none trigger site-plan review on their own, the board’s role is to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on variances for protected slopes and slope setbacks. He confirmed the woodland standard for these parcels and said staff had included a woodland assessment and tree inventory in the packet. Nolan also said the administrative review that follows any variance would involve building and trades staff, erosion-control permits, and ongoing inspections.

Questions from board members and staff focused on driveway grades, retaining-wall heights, how much slope disturbance would occur, and whether shared-drive or easement solutions using adjacent Imperial Street parcels had been fully explored. Pete Eldridge, the city zoning administrator, said shared-drive approaches are possible in principle but raise practical issues — emergency-vehicle turnaround requirements, easement and maintenance agreements — and that those logistics had not been finalized in predevelopment meetings.

Board deliberations and votes The board debated the tradeoffs between the city’s NFP objectives and providing developable lots. One board member said the applicant should have known about the NFP overlay at purchase and that not all alternative layouts had been exhausted; others pressed for conditions to limit disturbance, such as a requirement that no construction activity occur inside the 20-foot woodland setback except for a single, maximum 12-foot driveway, and that main construction access come from Imperial Street. A motion to recommend a variance with such conditions was proposed but withdrawn when members indicated they were not ready to approve it.

For four of the five parcels — 114, 120, 126 and 132 West Cork Street — the board ultimately voted to not recommend variances to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The transcript records roll-call vote statements and a chair’s announcement for those items. The transcript does not record a clear, announced final recommendation for 112 West Cork Street before discussion moved on; staff had recommended granting slope relief for portions of the project but the board’s record on that single parcel is not explicit in the available transcript.

Claims and context raised at the meeting Cole told the board he had approached the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority and other city channels about trading multiple West Cork lots for another contaminated city parcel and said those city bodies declined the proposal; he said he had offered cash differences and been told the trade would not be recommended. Cole also argued that, without relief, some platted lots effectively have no usable access and that denying narrow relief could amount to a regulatory taking.

Board members stressed city interest in preserving slopes and woodlands and asked for stronger documentation of final driveway plans, retaining-wall heights, erosion controls and exact disturbance footprints before approving variances. Staff repeatedly noted that any administrative approval and building permits would require civil drawings, retaining-wall calculations and erosion-control plans and that permitting is a check on constructability and limits of disturbance.

What happens next The board’s recommendation record will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which has final authority on any variance. For parcels where the NFP board voted not to recommend variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals will still consider any application but will have the NFP board’s negative recommendation on the record. Staff also said administrative permitting inspections and erosion-control reviews will apply if any variances are ultimately approved and the applicant pursues permits.

The board concluded its agenda and staff said elections for board officers and an annual report for 2025 are expected at the February meeting.