Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Are we ready? Yep. Sure. Let's go. I will call to order the Wednesday, August 27th, 2025 city of Battle Creek Planning Commission meeting. Can we get a roll call for attendance, please? Commissioner Hughes here. Commissioner O'Donnell here. Commissioner Godfrey is absent. Commissioner Gray here. Commissioner Morris here. Commissioner Dennison is absent. Commissioner Motton. Commissioner White. Mayor Binkkey here.

Thank you. On to approval of minutes. This being the July 23, 2025 meeting. Are there any comments or questions regarding the minutes? Seeing none, uh, can I get a motion to approve the July 23, 2025 minutes? Motion. Go ahead. Motion to approve. Okay. Second. All right. It's been moved and supported. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Motion's approved. All right. Any correspondence? No correspondence. Any additions or deletions? No additions. No deletions.

All right. Let's jump in. We can proceed to public hearings and deliberations. As a reminder to all with public hearings, we'll hear from staff, then the applicant, then open the floor for public comments on that item. We ask that when coming forward, you state your name and address. Once comments are completed, we'll close the public hearing. If you want to comment on something not specific to this public hearing, you'll be provided time to do so later in the agenda where we will take comments at that time. Commissioners, a reminder to you. The role of this body today is to hold the public hearings on these requests, review any proposed changes, and put forth a recommendation to the city commission. Any change recommended by the planning commission must be approved by the city commission. With that, we will open uh the public hearing for consideration of resoning request number PRZ25-00005. This is a petition from the city of Battle Creek requesting the resoning of multiple properties located within the area bounded by J Street to the north, Main Street to the east, Bartlett Street to the west, and Willis Street to the south. Uh the properties subject to the proposed resoning are currently zoned T3 Neighborhood Commercial District, and the request is to be reszoned to T4 Downtown Commercial District. Staff report. So, uh, as you stated, these are for, um, the properties, uh, bounded by Bartlett Street, Willis Street, and, uh, J Street and Main Street. Um, if you take a look at your packet on page three, uh, you'll see outlined in that thick red outline, uh, those are the parcels that are proposed to be reszoned. Um, within that block, if you look to the north, um, you'll see the additional parcels. Those are already zoned T4 Downtown Commercial. uh these other parcels to the south are zone T3. Uh the difficulty that that sort of creates right now is that it's diff it's

it's tough to consolidate those parcels uh for development purposes. Um it also uh puts some limitations dimensionally and in terms of density limits on those partial or those properties that are zone T3 right now. Uh this has been a pro developer that is that is interested in applying for the October 2025 round of LITC funding um and has expressed interest in in these in a number of these parcels in this area. Uh a number of these parcels are owned by the Calhoun County Land Bank. Um there's an additional parcel owned by the city of Battle Creek. the city and the land bank work uh provided um that the uh the necessary approvals are given that the developer is able to secure their funding the city and the land bank would work then to uh transfer those properties to the developer. Uh that's the purpose of what you see in front of you today. Um there are additional diagrams in the staff report for you to take a look at that also outline the current T4 zoning district. Um as well as uh provide you a snippet of uh the zoning map that shows you the zoning of the ex of the subject parcels and the zoning of the surrounding area. Um I can attempt to answer any questions that anybody might have. Are there any clarifying or technical questions for city staff from commissioners at this time?

Yeah. Um just curious directly behind on Bartlett. Are are those the T4 downtown commercial as well on uh to the other side of Bartlett? So to the south uh those are T4 as well. They are. Okay. Yep. Yeah. Is there any legal nonconforming concerns?

There are not. So, um there is one what you would consider to be a legal nonconformity. Right now, uh so it's that warehouse building that's uh right on the corner of Willis and Bart and Bartlett. That's going to be non-conforming whether it's T3 or T4. Um neither zoning district permits warehouses. However, um uh the proposed resoning is not anticipated to produce any nonconformities. There is a lone single family residence left on that block that's within the area of proposed resoning. that single family residence. While single family detached residences are not a permitted use in the T4 zoning district, there is a standalone classification for those under uh they're listed as what our zoning ordinance terms as an existing use. And the definition section of the ordinance clearly sets existing uses apart from non-conforming uses. So, while you could not build a brand new single family home on a parcel where there has not been one previously, provided uh the existing use of that property is single family, that property could be used and can be reconstructed regardless of the degree of damage into perpetuity. So, until the point that somebody else establishes another use on the property. So it it insulates that from those properties from legal non-conforming status.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you. Um are there any time constraints to this particular um request? Uh notice noting the one location, well, one of the locations where um residents and neighbors could make um comments or concerns is happening on September 4th after this meeting. So is there any time constraint in putting it after uh that opportunity presents itself? So it was the best that we could do to get it in front of NPC1. NPC1 didn't have a meeting in in July or in August. Um so we did not have the opportunity we were approached um regarding this item uh during it was late July. So we had not had the opportunity yet to get this item in front of NPC1. So, uh, what we intend to do is take this next week to their regular meeting and then provide their feedback as a part of the city commission materials that go to the city commission.

So, it wouldn't go before the city commission on the September 2nd, but the one um the the 3. So, it'll go day um in September. Um, so it'll go to the city commission to be successful here. Yeah. So, it'll go to the city commission next week for an introduction. We will then on Thursday meet with NPC1. All would have been. So that was that's my question.

Is there so are you saying the folks that came to you to uh request this are on a time constraint? Is that why we're proceeding instead of waiting until we are able to get that feedback and move it after? Correct. they uh so they have they have an October 1 deadline to provide their application to the state for LITC funding and okay so that is why that's why this is on kind of an expedited thank you

any other questions comments there's for a future development if it's exclusively housing there's no concern with form-based um standards I know there can be some ground level standards that would need to be applied by there's not going to be any concern there or there's uh there's not we uh we will work with the developer obviously in uh in developing their site plan in accordance with the formbbased requirements u the only portion of the downtown area that prohibits

ground level residential is within the T5 zoning district along west or along uh west Michigan venue. Um, so there would be no issue in this area with ground level residential.

Perfect. All right. Uh, the city is the applicant. So, we will not hear from any further from the applicant. We'll go to the public. Um, are there any public comments regarding the resoning request PRZ25-00005? All right, seeing none, uh, we can move on. Is there any discussion amongst planning commission members? Any further thoughts, questions, any deliberation on this?

Yeah. And just for the record, um it's unfortunate that this has that tight timeline um because we really want to encourage um citizen input or at least provide that opportunity before it's introduced. Um so just for the record,

thank you. Any further comment? Any questions? All right. Uh, I will call out the staff recommendations for this request are on page 16. Um, not hearing any further questions or any further statements. I will entertain a motion. Uh, please have a specific motion including your intention and mention of any conditions. Uh, if you're in support, mention the staff recommendation. If you're not in support, please provide a reasoning.

Um, move for the approval of resoning requests. PRZ 25005 um based on staff recommendations. It's been moved by Commissioner Gray. Is there support? Support. Supported by Commissioner Morris. Uh any further question or comment? Seeing none, let's vote. Commissioner Gray, yes. Mayor Binky, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Commissioner Odano. Yes.

All right. Unanimously supported and recommended to the city commission. Thank you all. We can move on now to the public hearing for consideration of text amendment number A2-25. This is a request from the city of Battle Creek to consider an amendment to chapter 1263, the sign section of the zoning code, including amendments uh allowing for flexibility with regard to sign sizes within the area known as the motor mile. And there are additional proposed amendments for clarification staff report. Um so this uh this item uh sort of came about as a result of a um of an application for new sign that the city recently received u from the Kia dealership on uh Dickman. Um as a result of the way that the sign ordinance was written um staff was not able to approve the um the the sign application at an administrative level. Uh the item uh did go to the zoning board of appeals and it was approved. A variance for the sign was approved. So that sign currently has been approved. However, uh we recognize in looking at looking at the language of the ordinance and particularly with uh considering the proximity to the dividing to the city limits between Springfield and the city of Battle Creek. Uh I I think the concern is that it could potentially place uh our our sign ordinance likely being more uh restrictive than the city of Springfields could potentially place those businesses that are within the city at a little bit of a disadvantage. So, uh, the purpose of the language, um, that we're proposing with regard to signs along Dickman, uh, within the sort of the motor mile area, um, is to allow for increased flexibility in terms of what is calculated as part of the the

overall calculation of the sign size. Um, right now, uh, with these larger sort of monolith type signs, uh, if there are features of it that that are sort of viewed or need to be viewed as incorporated into the overall kind of character of the sign, it all has to be included in the square footage. The proposed language would give the zoning administrator some more flexibility to simply within that area to simply view the area of lettering and basically clear messaging as as the area to be to be calculated. Um while we were looking at the signed ordinance, uh we've also received feedback from a number of the sign companies that we work with regularly that apply for permitting um that the format of the ordinance has been confusing in its readability in the past. Um so what we've attempted to do here as well is sort of clean that up and provide a little bit different chart um in terms of substantive changes to the chart. We've made a few um clarifying changes just to clarify the difference between a gas station awning and and a typical canopy sign. Uh we didn't really have any direct regulation of of gas station awnings. um we were kind of using what we had to the best of our ability to be able to try to permit signs there, but uh placing that in there um makes it quite clear exactly what is permitted and what's not. Um, additionally, uh there were updates uh made to separate uh portable and roof signs from each other as they are two different styles of signs. Um, as far as prohibited signs go, um, and then separating animated and flashing signs. Um, there are a couple of items just to bring to the attention of the commission. There's a couple of instances in um, the red or in the u, the new copy version that you have in

your packet where the word sign um, is not plural. It does not have an s. We'll be adding that before that goes to the city commission level. Um, and then if you take a look at uh page 60, uh, it's it's the canopy sign area um, within the commercial zoning district. This is going to be page 62 of your packet. Um it address is uh awning in awning style canopy signs. Um it states um shall not exceed 1.2 times the canopy frontage in square footage. In total, this can be used in combination with other specific signs. That was intended to be removed from the language. That was the original language. It really doesn't make any sense the way that it's written. that next sentence that you see 10% of the face of the building of that the canopy is attached to that is the only language that's intended to be in that section and so we'll be striking that other that first sentence out prior to advancing this to the city commission so I just wanted to bring those items to everyone's attention as well

thank you Travis there any technical or clarifying questions from commissioners seeing none again the city is the applicant who Move to the public. Are there any public comments for text amendment number A2-25? Seeing none, uh, we can move back to the commissioners. Any questions, comments, deliberations on this. I just want to appreciate all the hard work you put into this because I know you spent some time on it and uh I think it's great the way you put it together. So, thank you. Thanks. Yeah.

Yes. Thank you. Um just curious because you know um the signs that we're talking about along the motor mile are definitely larger than what you normally see. Um are there similar where is another area that has this size sign allowance? So, um, if you take a look in your packet at, let me find the page. Um, page 35. Um, so we highlighted in there the two most obvious signs that are in uh, located both in the city of Springfield. The first is at 1385 West Dickman Road. The second's at 1355 West Dickman. It's the Honda and the Toyota dealership.

That outside of the motor mile, were there any That's what I was talking about. Oh. Uh, no. I see the ones in the reporter. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Uh, there are no others right now that uh that are within the motor mile within the city of Battle Creek right now that have issues. This ordinance, this amendment to the ordinance would would simply um uh create an environment. So, in the future, if we get a future application from any of those dealerships or any of the other businesses that are along that stretch within the city,

but there's no other areas outside of that stretch that have this um allowance or considering this allowance there are not it it is specific to the motor mile. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? All right, with that in mind, I will entertain a motion. Uh, please have a specific motion including your intention and mention of any conditions. If in support uh the staff report and recommendation, uh, if not in support, please give your reasoning.

Move for the approval of the text amendment number A2-25 based on the um, recommendations of the staff report. It's been moved by Commissioner Gray. Support. Support by Commissioner O'Donnell. Uh, any further questions, comments? Hearing none. Seeing none, let's vote. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner O'Donnell, yes. Commissioner Gray, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Mayor Binky, yes.

Unanimously approved. Thank you all. All right, that concludes our public hearings and deliberations. Is there any old business? No old business. Any new business? No new business.

All right, we move on to comments by the public. Do we have any comments by the public? I see some public. Is anyone here to make a public comment? Please come forward. Good afternoon. I'm I'm Ed Thirsten. I live at uh in Golden View Estates at 363 Golden View Drive just on the back side of Binder or yeah, Binder uh Riverside Golf Club. So, uh I grew up here in Battle Creek and moved back five years ago after a few decades living in various parts of the country and 20 years in Latin America. It has been meaningful to return at this stage of life, plugging back into the rich history of my hometown and seeing potential in the changes and new developments, especially here in downtown. After hearing of this recent idea of developing Riverside Country Club into some form of truck stop, I decided it's time to air my voice on the future of my city. I've talked to a number of people in my area and uh in the community and not one person has expressed any interest or thinking it's a great idea to have another truck stop, especially in that location. I really don't want a concrete jungle a couple blocks from my house off the back nine of the golf club. The intersection and overpass of Columbia Avenue over M66 is already congested enough and we don't need to encourage more noise and petroleum pollution in that part of the city. In addition, why would you ever put a contaminating business just above our beautiful river with significant probability of toxic runoffs from such an operation? There's plenty of land for sale along the M66 corridor closer to I94. If you think we need another truck stop instead of Riverside Petroleum Company XYZ, I think that most residents of this area

would rather see Riverside Estates, a nice gated community with bike and hiking paths running down into a growing and more robust downtown. It seems obvious these rolling hills would make for a perfect master plan community of quality housing much needed in our city to attract executive and professional level job seekers for growing enterprises in Battle Creek. The historic building at the club would make a great event center for the development of our city in our city. Not to mention that development of the greater development would throw off uh tax significant tax revenues so that we could do a better job of fixing our community, of growing homeless and crack smokers here in downtown. We need more revenue for more law enforcement and family services for our broken homes and families. A petroleum business is not going to accomplish that. Many of us want to see a true master plan for our city. We want to see city leaders in the spirit of WK Kellogg and CW Post who will lead with their money and generous spirits to develop the next era of Battle Creek. We want to see entities like Battle Creek Unlimited, Battle Creek Foundation, Miller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, all this money gen generated in this county coming together in unified and cohesive fashion for our city. We need developers who will fulfill the vision of the people, not just special interests or one company's bank accounts. I have worked in a number of developments internationally. I know some developers. So, let's go find some to fulfill our vision once we have it. We are all watching and wanting to support you, our planners and leaders in this community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Absolutely. [Music] Good afternoon. Uh my name is Marvin Hicks. Uh my address is uh 112 Clubhouse Drive, Battle Creek, Michigan. Uh my wife is Dr. Opel and myself. And um we uh attended a meeting a couple of weeks ago from the um proposed developers pertaining to Riverside Golf Club. Um we moved um our family here from the east side of Michigan, Novi um Northville, which is you know is a very beautiful area and we moved here because of our businesses that brought us here and we have attached oursel to the city of Battle Creek. Our children go to school here in Battle Creek. Our daughter and my son-in-law both work in Battle Creek as well as the businesses that we own. We're a vital part of this community and we bought this property um based on the fact that is just absolutely beautiful. Um our property does face the golf course looking north which is probably the highest point in Battle Creek if I'm not mistaken and is absolutely drop down gorgeous. uh for any industrial type planning to interfere or interrupt that uh that view uh will be a tremendous burden on my family which will probably cause us to uproot and probably move back east and I don't want to do that. Uh we find Battle Creek to be a a beautiful place with beautiful hidden gems and we come very attached to the city. uh in addition to that I think that uh it should be clear that more discussion should be

taking place pertaining to this endeavor before anything move. I understand there's contracts pertaining to the realators as well as the uh the purchase of uh who made offer on the property, but I think that uh as far as reszoning it, I think that the job of the city planning uh should take in very consideration the wants of the residents in the area. I haven't been on the back nine and I don't, you know, so I really don't don't know because I'm not a golfer. I'm a ex- football coach. So, I'm not a golfer, but my wife and my daughter, they do that. But anyway, I'm saying that to say that uh the secret to success in the community, because it is constantly changing, is try to hold on to maintain as much of the natural beauty of this city that it does have. And um again, I just appreciate an opportunity to come before you, the planning committee, the mayor. and uh I just thank you so much for uh giving me an opportunity to share with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any additional comments from the public? Anyone else?

Can you please come forward? We can't hear you. It's Sorry, it's recorded. So we do it so that the audience who is listening can hear you. So if you we would love to hear from you. What he said? Noted. All right. If there's no more public comment um any comments by the staff or commission members?

Yeah. Thank you. Um just want to say thank you for coming down and uh giving your comments about upcoming um zoning changes. So we all listen to everything that you bring us. So thank you. Same. Thank you. Same here. All right. Any more comments? Thank you all. Public staff commissioners. Thank you. Enjoy the rest of your evenings. Meeting adjourned.