Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

The sewer service, they call us. We also have lots of third-party callers who are calling to verify taxes, outstanding water bills, things of that nature. And then we have our occasional, this is New York, thinking they're calling New York, and somehow they end up with us. So we do get the randoms that this is not us. So we get all sorts of calls.

Let's talk again about the number of calls that you receive here. How many calls do you receive on an annual, daily basis, and all that?

Annually, it's about 80,000 calls that we receive. And then daily, it's usually between, I would say, about 350 calls every day. I will say that we only have, currently, we only have seven people, if they're all here on a given day, who answer those calls.

Yeah, that's a direct line

All right, it is seven o'clock. Let's go ahead and call to order the Thursday, September 3rd, 2026 normal meeting of the Kalamazoo City Planning Commission. Could I get a roll call?

Here. Curtis.

Here.

Duncan.

Here.

Spiro. Here. Sandoval.

Here. Here. Wilson? Here.

Envias?

Here.

All right. We've received a formal agenda. Are there any modifications to the agenda? No, there's no modifications to the agenda. All right. In that case, could I get a motion to approve and a second? So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Wonderful, agenda approved. How about minutes for the previous meeting back on June 4th? Anybody get a chance to look through those, any changes or questions about those? Otherwise I will take a motion to approve.

So moved.

second wonderful all in favor say aye aye any opposed all right minutes approved uh moving on to communications and announcements we received a letter from the asylum lake preservation association um bobby did you have anything to present on that or did we want to just open it to discussion with the planning commission i assume everybody had a chance to read through it

Yeah, that was the same letter that had also been received to the City Commission before the previous meeting. Since it was addressed to the Planning Commission, I put it in the packet as well. There's some depth to the letter. To generalize it, it's asking for the Planning Commission to cooperate and the ALPA, Asylum Lake Preservation Association, wanting to and seeking to develop a green natural protection zone district. So they have that in there. We don't have a presentation on it. I just wanted to get it to you guys and can answer any questions about it. From staff's perspective, I know coming soon within a week or two we expect to have the strategic vision published and that has sustainability as a guiding principle. So that's gonna be released and that's going to be a document which goes on to city commission approval. And later this year, and we're looking at before the half of 2027, the rollout and presentation and approval of the master plan, which also took a lot of public feedback. And from there and all of that, city staff is definitely welcome to sharing that discussion with ALPA, the planning commission, and looking into the items they put in the letter further, probably more well-timed with that work, particularly with the data center work that may be ahead of us.

Great.

And I was discussing with Bobby before this that this isn't an action item on our list. We have nothing to vote on. We don't need to hold a public hearing on it. But I did want to open the floor a little bit and get some reactions from you all, having read the letter, your thoughts on it, your first blush. Is there any communication you would like to send back to ALPA or to city staff about the proposals for a conservation-style zoning district? Any thoughts at all?

I just had as, you know, nothing immediate, but as the staff and internally you guys think about this in the context of Imagine Kalamazoo and other, you know, incorporating sustainability, one of the things that I noticed was a lot of the examples that they gave were from other states. And so I would just be curious for feedback from the city's legal team. about if there's anything within Michigan law that would influence the ability to adopt that kind of zoning classification here. And then of course, obviously, if there's anything within local city ordinance that would impact that, that would be just helpful to understand what differences there are in Michigan versus the examples they shared.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Yeah, I was very much on the same page where it's like I agree with most of all the points that they were making. It just comes down to a legal question because I know there are some very precisely worded statutes at the state and even federal level about what can be disallowed from occurring within a zoning district, especially when it impacts privately owned property. So it's one of those issues where we would want to see very precise language on any proposal in front of us from city staff. But I have full faith that that's something that could be drawn up.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I can just add to this discussion. We're talking about legal requirements. Primarily what we would be dealing with with this type of ordinance is the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment, the United States Constitution, and there is essentially the same provision in the Michigan Constitution. So if you are enacting any... Any ordinance regulation, zoning regulation that is restricting or eliminating development of property, you have to be very careful that that doesn't constitute a taking. So it is something that would need to be studied legally. If you run afoul of those provisions, then you get sued, you owe money, and you end up repealing your ordinance so you don't accomplish what you're intending to accomplish. Certainly. And I note of the ordinances cited in the letter, at least one of those has been repealed, and I suspect that may be the reason. So it's something that does have to be studied carefully. Yeah.

And I think another interesting question that comes across is like, we can go through the motions of creating this district. The real question comes when we talk about what properties in the city to apply it to. If it's just there to be applied to city owned parks and everything, That's great, but the city doesn't have to go through zoning approval on most projects anyways. It's mostly cosmetic for that sort of instance. And so you would be really looking at the impact of it being if it were to be applied on non-city, non-government owned properties, which become the riskier legal track anyway. So it's not something that I would reject outright, but it would be a narrow window to go through to get it to be something we think is inactable and enforceable legally any other thoughts or questions for city staff or for the asylum lake preservation association yeah i'll just say i appreciate um the alpha group bringing this to our attention and stirring the discussion it's certainly important to have asylum lake has been the hot spot for

or such conversations about conservation and development. So I appreciate you bringing this to us and forwarding this discussion along.

Indeed. With that, I believe we are ready to move along. Now if somebody jumps up out of their seat. All right, public hearings. We have one public hearing on the agenda today. We have PC 2026.06, a recommendation to the city commission to approve text amendments to the zoning ordinance, chapter 50, article 4.1, general provisions. We have gotten a sample of the language to be modified. Bobby, do you have any comments that you'd like to give on the language and the proposed amendments?

No, well, the comments I will give is it is a very close, you know, some language to modify the document, not the resolution, but a near copy to the moratorium resolution of the city commission. And then one of the changes, the current text uses the August 17th, 2027 date, one year of enactment, that date would probably change when this one goes to city commission. And then any feedback on that language from the Planning Commission would be welcome. And there is a short presentation too. Okay.

Do you want to give the presentation now or before or after public hearing?

We usually do the public comment after the presentation. Okay. Would you like to go ahead with that then? Yeah, absolutely. Well, you got me teed up. I don't need to reread that title. It is an ordinance amendment to add moratoriums for data centers and other similar uses. So I'm going to give a little background and I think the context of... Bobby, can you turn on the TV that's in front of you?

We can't see the screen.

Oh. We'll figure it out.

Oh, that's a good question. Everybody look under your seats for a remote. I don't know if anybody can reach that either. Do those cabinet doors open? I was just going to pay very close attention to Bobby's speech.

Well, the good thing about this one, it is very close to, it's very text me reading.

I was going to say, there's probably not too many images or anything to look at. We'll just listen to your presentation.

No, the one of the cover photo of the server rack room was the only graphic on this one. While we look into that, on August 17th, the city commission passed a resolution that placed a moratorium, as I said, and it was on a moratorium of the acceptance and or processing of applications for data centers, battery energy storage systems, sometimes called BESS, cryptocurrency mining centers, and artificial intelligence or AI data centers within the city of Kalamazoo. Now, these regulations of a moratorium would come and be drafted like any development into the zoning ordinance. So reviewing the Zoning Enabling Act in our own ordinances, placing the moratorium in the zoning ordinance is viewed as the appropriate path forward. Since it is a zoning ordinance matter in any drafted, language proposed would end up in the zoning code. If the moratorium is approved, while it's on the books, city staff will research land use and develop regulations for the use, such as use impacts, height, scale standards, lighting, screening, and other development regulations for the emerging land use. The standard zoning ordinance amendment would follow to present, deliberate, and enact the standards into the zoning code, which would then remove the moratorium language or that end date, even if not, no action is taken, the date still takes effect once it ends, unless it's extended. The moratorium timeframe is that window of time for city staff, the planning commission, the community to work to develop those standards. Why amend the zoning code? As I said, it's aligning with the city's land use regulations in the State Enabling Act. You see those layers of regulation much like the discussion with the letter. Clarifies the application, zoning, and site plan review decisions associated to land use just because it's permitted and developed. There's, depending on use, a host of other regulations. It creates a framework for staff, applicants, and property owners to follow for land uses, so all those decisions are in a presentable, clear-to-follow process. The moratorium does not establish any permanent data center standards. Those would follow in future amendment language before the end of the moratorium. And as a land use decision, the zoning ordinance codifies the action following the city zoning ordinance process and the Enabling Act. So what does this ordinance amendment do? It prohibits an approval of new data center uses, whether construction of a new building or even within an existing building. Applies to applications and substantial expansions. will remain in place until the effective date one year after the amendment is approved and adopted, and allows time for the city to study and development permit land use regulations and development regulations, and may include exemptions for how existing approvals are regulated after code adoption. And the term substantial expansions, you know, if there's an existing data center and they need an electrical permit because of a piece of equipment failure, that's different than permitting a new use. What will be studied, things that the staff will research will be the environmental impacts of the land use such as illumination, noise, chemical storage and storm water protections and others. And I should say is instead of will study. Water use demand and wastewater processing impacts and the demands from the land use so that you're drinking water and the waste that could go away. Noise created during operation from cooling systems, backup generators and other onsite operations. Building scale, setback, height, screening, and parking standards for this type of use. Does it need a lot of parking, for example, if there's not high employee counts? Emergency service response and hazardous material considerations. And then the economic development, employment, tax base, and potential community benefit implications are all of the study and research looking at other communities and then crafting what works best for the city of Kalamazoo. So before I go into the decision criteria, what's next is the planning commission's recommendation will go to the city commission to be placed on their September 21st commission agenda. The city commission set the public hearing date at that meeting. At a subsequent meeting, the city commission will hold the public hearing and vote on the amendment. And then from the city commission's vote by the city charter, 10 days afterwards, it becomes enacted on the books, if you will. Staff will conduct that research and do stakeholder engagement during the moratorium and before or by the moratorium end date, the proposed zoning regulations will return back through the same process through zoning ordinance amendment to the planning commission and city commission. So in the zoning ordinance, any zoning ordinance amendment, whether proposed by the public or staff, there's decision criteria. So staff has prepared the decision criteria for this request. So starting with the first one, to the extent which the amendment is consistent with the master plan of 2025 and the strategic vision. The amendment to set the moratorium is consistent with the 2025 master plan goals related to public health, environmental stewardship, responsible use, infrastructure resilience, and neighborhood protection. At the August 17th city commission meeting, the commission passed a resolution placing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for data centers, battery energy storage systems, BES, cryptocurrency mining centers, and artificial or AI data centers. City Attorney Leal recommended that in addition to the City Commission's resolution that the request follow the zoning ordinance amendment process as the potential ordinance amendment language for uses would be incorporated into the zoning code. This route supports the master plan goal of good governance and public participation. Decision criteria two, the extent to which there are change conditions that require an amendment. Public testimony and the city attorney's guidance documented a clear and substantial change conditions. Over recent months, interest in hyperscale and high-energy digital infrastructure has expanded rapidly across Kalamazoo County and Southwest Michigan. The pace of AI development, crypto mining, and closed-loop cooling innovations, along with statewide incentives, has accelerated data center siting and construction speculation. At the City Commission meeting, public comment referenced real-world and unexpected impacts of data centers. The current zoning orders did not foresee this type of technology or anticipate its land use, as the field and industry have rapidly evolved in recent years. A recent zoning verification letter demonstrated the changed conditions and the potential for development and associated impacts on land use. Number three, the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need. An urgent need has been demonstrated to the City Commission, including the public testimony provided by the City Commission and the public requesting the moratorium. A summary of cited facts included noise and vibration impact on health and home stability, air and noise pollution, potential strain to water utilities and or groundwater, proximity to homes and schools, and the lack of standards in the current city regulations. The Community and City Commission have acknowledged the risk of proceeding without stronger regulations, noting that the City has a responsibility to protect residents and avoid precedent-setting actions that undermine community trust. This zoning ordinance amendment directly addresses a significant, well-documented community need for comprehensive, evidence-based standards to govern data center-related uses. The fourth decision criteria is the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is appropriate for zone districts land or the proposed amendment to the text of this ordinance will maintain or improve among uses, compatibility among uses and will ensure efficient development within the city. This being part two of that as an ordinance amendment. Public comment and testimony received demonstrated that data centers, BESS, and crypto mining type uses create a unique industrial impact, unlike other M-zoned uses. The moratorium is necessary to ensure that these uses are regulated to be compatible with surrounding uses and limit any potential impacts to adjacent properties. While data centers have existed for many years and come in different sizes and scales, recent breakthroughs in AI and broad adoption of internet-based subscription and cloud storage systems have made the demand increase greatly, with emerging impacts still being understood locally and regionally. And the last decision criteria is the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The proposed amendment supports a logical development pattern by ensuring that these uses are not located haphazardly or in contexts where infrastructure cannot safely or efficiently support them. City Commissioners noted that the City's responsibility is not only to guide the current proposals, but also to anticipate future iterations of data center facilities. including the categories listed in the moratorium language. Comments and testimony at the August 17th City Commission meeting highlighted the risks of unregulated development or building conversions, which could outpace the city's infrastructure capacity, environmental safeguards, and emergency services. By following the zoning amendment process with public hearings, findings, alignment with the master plan, and the development of use standards, the amendment provides an orderly and rational development framework. And that's the end of the presentation and the last of the decision criteria.

Wonderful. Thank you, Bobby. Well, in that case, we'll go ahead and open a public hearing on the PC 2026.06. We have had technical difficulties with the call-in system. Still going to give the number out. That is 888-382-9556. But just keep in mind that we may not be able to field calls through the online system at this time. But feel free to come up to the podium State your name and address, sign in on the sheet over there and you'll have three minutes to speak on the topic. We'll open the public hearing.

Good evening, I'm Katie Bloom. I live in Kalamazoo in the Winchell neighborhood. I support the moratorium and I think the one comment I wanted to make is that I also serve on the ECC and one of the things that our committee asked when this came through was that we sent a memo to the city and I realized tonight two things. Maybe there's better ways for us to communicate through our committees. between each other, but we had put forward the idea that a task force should be put together from all the stakeholders. That's from all the sides. It's not one group or another, but it's both city employees and stakeholders outside, the utilities, those who support the data center, the developers, the environmentalists, and really have a strong sense of community input on building what we do or do not want and where we do or do not want something. So that's a memo that came from the ECC. And so I just came personally to say I still support that process. that we can't have it just be in-house. It's gotta be the stakeholders for the best outcome for this city. Thank you.

Address. My name is Tom Howes, city resident. Just briefly wanted to express my support for the moratorium. I was at the last city commission meeting and heard many intelligent voices speak passionately and again intelligently on this subject. Again, I support it because we need a lot of our zoning laws to catch up to a very quickly moving target, whether it's our environmental protections, the health and safety of residents, et cetera. There's just a myriad of ways that this could go wrong before rules are put in place. So I fully support it. Thank you.

Any other in-person comments? If not, we'll open it up to the phone lines. 888-382-9556. Again, fair warning, you may not get through because we've had a little bit of issues with it today. Robbie, best of luck.

Okay.

All right, seeing no in-person comments and nothing on the phone lines, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. We'll open up to questions from planning commissioners for city staff, if there are any at this time. I am ready to go. All right. I have a few.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to take up a little bit of time here on this big issue and from a local perspective. Bobby, some clarification things. Do we have any pending applications in these categories right now at this moment? No. Okay. If there was a stolen verification, that's a good perspective.

Right.

Right, so that's a zero at the moment. So we don't have to deal with that. Part two, and again, clarification. The language right now in front of us was generated by city commissioners in real time without city staff input. Do I have that right or wrong? That's not correct. So there were meetings prior to the city commission meeting looking at that language or was it? Yeah, I'm just looking for clarification.

Okay. All right. Okay.

Right, input. But that language, this language pre-existed. The language in front of us, the moratorium language as it stands right now.

Yes.

It existed prior to that city commission meeting. Okay. All right. All right. Thanks. Just looking for clarification. A couple more questions and I'll turn it over to my fellow board members. Scale. If I come to the city tomorrow and I have a micro data center or micro best station, right? 3,000 square feet, not 10 million square feet. And of course, everyone knows we've got one of the biggest in the world going in right down the street in Saline, the barn. So it's going to happen anyhow. So what happens to that application if I come to the city with a 3,000 square feet? Do you reject it? What do you say to that applicant? Whether it's in any of those categories, do you say, we're not going to take your application? Yeah.

My thought is we would probably submit a full application to the city board for it. Right. We received many applications. Applications could be complete. We had information that needed to be corrected. So if an application didn't come in and the response would be either rejected and offered back, they could usually report it in a plan review letter.

Okay.

And a little bit into the weeds on that. That applicant would not know what the rules are for a successful application at this moment. Okay. Sure. But this puts us a little bit in limbo.

Absolutely. Yeah.

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Good. Because I see those categories as very distinct, especially regarding scale. And now let's talk about scale and jurisdictions and a little bit of hypothetical. A developer comes to Western Michigan University, essentially in the heart of the city of Kalamazoo, and says, hey, I want to put a 5,000-foot... square foot data center in the middle, 10,000 square feet, right in the middle of WMU, right in the middle of the city of Kalamazoo. My understanding, the city of Kalamazoo can do zero about that. Yeah, correct. I just want to make sure everyone understands the idea of the jurisdictional components of this. And I'm sure everyone's aware that 10 feet away from someone living in Kalamazoo is Kalamazoo Township, which could have a... And we're seeing that, of course, in Cass and Kent County, let alone what's happening over in Saline, of course, with this, that the play is happening anyhow. And I'm wondering how much, just wondering, just a question for myself, how much of our moratorium ends up being a pro forma activity with actually very limited consequence because of how these things are scaling? So I think we're behind the curve right here, actually. But I don't know. We'll see how it goes. And again, one last thing out of me, and then let me turn it over. I see these categories as very distinct, though, and scale also as being very distinct. Size matters, especially with the best stuff. I'm involved in some of the best stuff. Some of that we'd really want to encourage. All these battery storage areas are not the same, very distinct. They can be local and residential. Does that mean we're not going to approve somebody who's going to use solar to do battery storage at their own home? Fire hazards exist in all kinds of ways right now. Anyhow, I'm wondering how much we're equipped to separate these categories of technologies. Let's see, anything else on my mind right now other than this is here. It's happening. And again, we have two of the most active counties boxing right to the south, Kent County being very active in a pro data center capacity. And then the jurisdictional component of it says, well, to what extent are we just saying, hey, I won't come to the city of Kalamazoo. I'll go 10 feet this way and do it here. All right, let me pause right there and see where else. Thank you, Bobby.

I would love, this is kind of a technical question, and I admittedly don't know a lot about the technology, but specifically on the BESS systems, where is that line drawn for a smaller scale solar installation that's doing, for instance, on a commercial multifamily building with rooftop solar that may have a battery storage system to allow them to not use fossil fuels, which seems like something we would want. How is that going to be impacted by this?

Well, I think there's a little bit of, you know, misappearance. These are conversations that I've had today in the last week with our public safety and other people. Well, rooftop solar and OJ... The moratorium is an application for land use. It's a primary land use. So things like rooftop solar, some sort of project into that inner garage, isn't the most acceptable application. Something like that doesn't even fall under that category because it's against a new land use application. So you're exactly right. This moratorium to narrow in the request is do we want to put this moratorium on the list for a year to study all of these exact That's why I changed it to will to is because in addition to whatever may be developed for primary land use, the example of the secondary land use would be a church and a preschool. It's not residential property because it's accessible. that's where it doesn't just have to be those language because those are already responses by public safety um to batteries so i think while we do have all of these jurisdictional changes the state can accept it all these things well what works good for here in addition that means whether it's for something that

Thank you.

That's helpful. The other thing I just want to say for now, and I'll let other people talk, I want to strongly second the comment from the resident about forming a task force and not just having it be an in-house group and making sure we have broad representation from people that have the technological expertise the utility companies I think are quite important to have at the table community members kind of as many voices represented to make sure yeah that we're just taking into account all the different trade-offs there's not ever going to be a right answer it's just a matter of trade-offs and how we want to reflect our values within whatever the ordinance ends up being

And I'll just pitch back just to support that idea. There should be great expertise at any meeting around a final draft of language because this represents a huge swath of scales and technologies. as opposed to this is not a single label. And I know this one. I'm involved in some of this. So the idea that those voices want to be at the table in terms of drafting or else we end up shooting ourselves in the foot and stopping stuff, in fact, maybe we want to see happen. And not all of it. So doubles in the details, as always.

Yeah.

Can you guide us through the process of drafting and approving that final language, what goes in, what may get removed, and what's the final stamp of approval? Can you clarify that one more time, please? Can you take us through the process of drafting that final language? Yep.

So let's say outside of some suggestion which we would acknowledge or if it stays as is This is then your recommendation is placed with the minutes and the information on to the next city commission agenda is part of the information packet and the staff report the language at that time when they set the public hearing would be in the packet and and then at the setting of the public hearing then again a week before typically all of that stuff is published for public feedback and the commissioners get that and are able to review it in regards to the amendment in front of us today since it is a direct city commission resolution city commission um priority it's legally very sound we're taking their decision and codifying in the ordinance where your question about the future ordinance amendment I would expect a draft before one for you guys to vote so that there is an opportunity for feedback for your feedback so that it's in front of the community it's digested post the a group of people looking at it so that any feedback then, so it is made clear in the staff report in city communication outreach that when it goes to the planning commission, this is the language and here is how it got here. Similar to what we've done with past ordinance amendments, We've put earlier drafts online so people can find that. With AI and big data, there's a lot of information out there, so having a reliable source as part of that is going to be vital for trust and understanding.

Kind of along those same lines, well, I guess first, also in support of a task force that includes broad stakeholders. But, so like, we have until August 16th of next year to have all of this, I guess, figured out. And there's a lot to figure out in between now and then, between all the different studies that are required to be done, gathering all that research, and then drafting that language, reviewing the language, finalizing the language. Like what is it going to look like for, I guess what's the process for putting together like that plan and timelines? Because I could see us voting on this and not thinking about it for like another six months and being behind the eight ball for that. So I guess like what is it, how do we ensure that we're successful in doing this?

That's a great question where the start of the work has already occurred. I don't wanna commit to any assumptions now. It isn't approved and I don't know what that final data look like, but I can definitely commit to presenting a timeline at the next meeting or every month if the planning commission so chooses to give an update on that to the planning commission or community. I would just ask, once the commission's approved, then I'd start asking.

I had a couple of questions that came up through the is the term moratorium defined in the zoning code um i asked because uh i was reading through the specific like blue highlight language in the packet and i was struggling to find any like truly prohibitive language other than saying we are placing a moratorium i think it's mostly implied that a moratorium doesn't allow applications or automatically denies applications i was just wondering if we wanted to verify that that is as strong legally binding as we hope it would be.

I'll ask Charlie to speak on that, but I think a unique part of this is, and we've talked about code review, Good point on it not being defined. We will go to the dictionary for the most common definition, but the action of the city commission is a moratorium. So while it may not be defined, it may not be this, it's putting in the use table that moratoriums exist and here's language in this timeframe should it be approved that would be in the zoning code because there's already the moratorium decision resolution placed by city commission.

The moratorium procedure is legally recognized, and there is case law on that. So the effect of that would be to stop a particular type of development for a period of time, in this case, one year. Theoretically, they can extend beyond one year, but typically they do not. So I think we're strong enough on that. It has been mentioned that the commission passed a resolution adopting a moratorium and then proceeding through the ordinance procedure. Those are two methods of adopting a moratorium. So in theory, they could have just done the resolution and not followed through with the ordinance provision. The opinion of our office is that it's better to go through the ordinance process as well. various constitutional reasons for that due process and so forth and in the process of going through reviewing things developing a procedure getting public input stakeholder input and so forth simply makes a more defensible process than a resolution there are other factors as well that i don't know if i need to get into here but The effect of adopting that resolution, I'm going to backtrack a little bit here. If somebody applied today, that is an effect. So essentially, an application would not be processed if it came in today before this ordinance is adopted.

Okay. Can I keep Charlie there for a second? Yeah. Sure. Quick follow up. Hold my hand into the weeds here. Can the city commission theoretically pronounce a moratorium on anything? For instance, car washes? I mean, could they?

Theoretically, that gets a little... I mean, the ordinance addresses car washes already. You're doing right. I did that intentionally, by the way, but let's pick on another business. That's something a little more known and addressed. So that could be riskier in that then are you... prohibiting that use for a temporary period of time, you'd be more susceptible to that argument. It's certainly more defensible where you have something such as what we're dealing with here, the type of structure. We used moratoriums when marijuana was being legalized and we were having ordinances. That was a similar thing in many respects, I believe, because we're entering something entirely new and different. We were then, we are here. So it certainly was rational and made sense to take a period of time to study it to determine how best to regulate it and then proceed. Thank you.

And then I have one other question that might involve the city attorney, we'll find out. Adding this language under the use case table and everything, would there be any opportunity for an applicant pursuing one of these uses to go for a special use permit in front of this committee like anyone taking umbrage with the use as the table lays it out normally? Would there be any opportunity for a special use permit or this supersede that?

I think because this is the special use permit is an authority of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is a subcommittee of the City Commission. The City Commission has put the moratorium. So again, it would be an acceptance of a development application. So it wouldn't be processed.

Okay, good to know.

if the City Commission I think it's item D maybe it basically allows the extension if like if we're not ready to lift the moratorium in one year it says then the City Commission may extend the moratorium so once the zoning ordinance is amended in this way it doesn't have to come back to us to extend that date the City Commission can do that independent of the Planning Commission

as many times as they desire because it's in the ordinance so it wouldn't need to come back to us the well i know that the uh there's a lot of i've heard a lot of the discussion of case law with long extensions so um THE CITY COMMISSION COULD, BUT WE WOULD REALLY BE WORKING THAT WORKLOAD THAT COMMISSIONER WILSON WAS TALKING ABOUT. THE GOAL WOULD BE TO HAVE IT DONE WITHIN THAT, WITHOUT EXTENSIONS, WHERE MORATORIUMS, THERE'S SOME EXAMPLES OF SIX-MONTH EXTENSIONS, BUT GENERALLY AT THAT POINT, A lot of the perception or the case law is if you're taking longer than that, you're not doing the work or it's not moving forward. There's a reasonable expectation of the availability to conduct business by applicants or property owners. So that's the other side of it so it doesn't get on the books forever.

Got it. Any other questions from planning commissioners for city staff? Sorry, I have one more.

You're good. Just going back to the stakeholder task force group, because I think that's just a really important idea. I think it would be great to get regular updates from you as we go forward. And I think part of what would be great at either the next meeting or once that task force is established is to report out on who was represented. And there was mention I think in the staff report of the state incentives that have been put in place that are helping to accelerate this interest. So I think making sure that there's an opportunity to at least engage with the state and understand what their goals are so that anything that's put in place at least acknowledges whatever is trying to be accomplished there with whatever we're doing here.

That's a good thought. I like that.

Anything else?

Okay, one more thing. Just one more. And it was a teaching day for me. I do think this is what's going to happen. Regardless of what hundreds and hundreds of communities like us do around the country, that the investors and the data centers are simply going to go where they're wanted and they're going to go 10 feet north or southeast west or one county out and it's all going to be there. So From my understanding, speed matters this way when we talk about a year, year and a half, because it's happening so fast. And the money is flowing so fast. And of course, those places that are looking for them are going to wave their hands and say, don't come to Kalamazoo. And it could happen right in Kalamazoo County, let alone the counties around us which are actively seeking that investment. So this puts us in a rock and a hard place in terms of the pro forma nature of our activity. It just says, OK, so fine, you don't want me here. I'll just go 10 feet away. So I mean, that's a tough world to live in. And I do think I'm absolutely a fan of that. But I don't control hardly anything at all.

Tom, if I can add to that, in addition to the task force, I wonder if it might be worthwhile to invite the decision makers of our neighboring counties or our neighboring townships to participate in or listen in on the discussions that we're having and come to more of a consensus or an understanding of what our general region desires, needs can deal with. Obviously, that's something for the task force to take on, but keeping it open to our neighboring communities might be worthwhile. The other thing I wanted to mention is when this body was discussing the amendments to the marijuana processing and medical marijuana facilities, I believe we had bi-monthly or quarterly updates. if I recall. I can look back and see. Yeah, you might look back on that and see because I do feel like this body was very well informed when the final amendments came through because we'd had regular updates and also there was regular opportunity for public comment on those updates.

In the other moratorium that was in my time at the city was a moratorium on the electronic billboards and I remember a similar committee and all of that with the response to that and it's kind of neat 14 years later to see it working through still.

Yeah. Great, and we can continue to discuss this further, but we should probably do it after a motion and a second.

Well, maybe I'll start the ball rolling and say certainly support the resolution, but with what some added language help me out here on my board members, some added resolution to incorporate our sentiment that task force idea, at least conceptually, makes sense in there, but help me draft this right now if you wish. And also the idea of speed matters. We don't want to wait a year and a half where it's a moot point. We get busy with it. But help me draft that language, what we want to recommend back out. So yes to the moratorium with recommendation to include what Saki just talked about. I love that idea that we go regional, reach out in a task force, and that there should be diverse Technical, you know, help me get the categories without getting too wordy here. You know, many people at the table initially, including technical expertise, but not exclusively technical expertise. And certainly the environmental water and power critical to have at the table also. The two bigs with the downside of data centers. But help me draft a better language than what I just started there.

The development of a cross-functional multi-interest task force.

Thank you.

Your motion.

Yes. Lovely. Sorry.

OK. So then we're recommending to the city commission to approve text amendments to the zoning ordinance chapter 50 article 4.1 general provisions. The proposed amendment is to have the moratorium on data centers and other similar uses in the chapter 50 zoning ordinance.

with the recommended development of a cross-functional multi-interest task force do you want to get geography in there in terms of scale in terms of the task force beyond city kalamazoo to me and because i work at western Nothing stops Western from doing this tomorrow.

Hey, they're going to announce the data center, right?

So much for your argument. So much for your moratorium.

I think we should stick with the language that Saki came up with because there are so many details that we could try to say, oh, make sure you do this. And at some point we need to let city staff figure out who they can get to the table. And there's a balance between getting people to the table and moving quickly. Those two things don't always come together.

Absolutely fair. And we don't want to hold them to anything that they can't follow through on. If we say this person has to be here, yeah. Correct.

Was that a formal motion? All right. Second.

All right, now we can open for a more general discussion among planning commissioners now that we've had a motion and a second. I think that the discussion here has been very fruitful and I think the right questions have been asked. I think the language makes sense. I guess I'll turn it over to Saki because she's the one who made the motion. If you had anything you wanted to lead off with.

yeah i mean a zoning code tells us how we live in our city and so adding these amendments takes so much thought and so appreciate both the time that the moratorium will give us and also the fact that we are adding this intentionally into our zoning code um All of the discussions we've had so far on some of the details that we feel like are important are certainly rising to the top, but I think we're going to come up with so many new micro details that will come up and trust that the city staff will find a way to not get lost in the weeds, but also lift up the issues that are most pertinent to living and working and thriving in our community. So... Thank you for trusting us with this recommendation and we trust you to help put it into action.

I have high confidence in our team.

Any other thoughts from planning commissioners?

Excuse me. Does your team, is it the same team that normally consists of the fire marshal and the building inspectors and the zoning administrators? I'm asking that question because it's been brought to my attention that Roger Iveson, the building official, is retiring very soon. So a lot of decisions would now fall on a new building official. how much how much information has been shared with roger and so do you see any issues with that transition with the new building official with any of this

Fortunately, as an early retirement initiative hire myself, when I first started at Citi, I watched a lot of long-term positions change. I've worked a long time with Roger, and I do hate to see him go, but I think we've handled transition. Today, I went over the staff report, and I was talking with Roger and a member of public safety about this in depth today. While Roger may retire, you know, the building official position remains. So whoever does fill that seat and goes in the new role, they probably would be included. The question about the, you're probably thinking of the project review group which is code review meeting of all sorts of codes with all sorts of code officials or the site plan review committee. Those would not be the direct groups doing it, but a stakeholder group would involve city staff and people like the building official or some of our engineers in water and wastewater could very well be asked to be part of that or other staff that work in those departments. So while you may interface primarily with me or Christina or Nolan Bergstrom, there's a planning division in the entire city of Kalamazoo for us to pull resources from. position specific we would definitely include the building official in our building and trades but putting that whole group out there because other positions or people may change get promoted or retire themselves so great question but I think you know in CPED we've handled a lot of transition and changes over my 14 years so I think we'll be able to weather that one as well

Other discussion? Because the next item is a vote, and so if you want to get your reasoning heard, now is the time. All right, I trust y'all. Bobby, can we get a roll call vote? Yep. Audit Bauman?

My microphone won't turn on, but yes.

Curtis. Yes. Duncan. Yes. Kostreva. Yes. Sandoval. Yes. Tolber. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Envias.

Yes.

All right. The motion is approved unanimously. Moving on to reports.

City planners report. um only uh two items to bring up first uh some people may not know or if you've received an email from some other department the offices of community planning economic development have moved since your last meeting we used to be at 245 north rose street downtown we're now located in the old court building or the old sears building at 150 west crosstown parkway Suite B, you'll see that is the entrance where there currently isn't under construction. There's IT, another city department. It's a fantastic new space. So I'm really appreciative to the leadership or the decisions that led to us being there. And so the community knows as well there's lots of public and accessible space. So even if you have permit questions, you can just stop by and we can talk where we have better access there, I believe. And again, that new address is 150 West Crosstown Parkway, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49001. And the other item is rather interesting when we meet again. The State of Michigan Planning Conference is going to be in Kalamazoo. It's in Kalamazoo from September 30th to, what is that, December 2nd. So I don't know if we'll have more people showing up. Probably not. That's usually the night people go out. And we will... So that'll be interesting. A couple of us city staff are going there. I will be there. I will be here as well. And... we will have two special use permit applications on that meeting as well. So two applications have been received.

Great. And then site plan list, any specific notes there? Everybody got a copy of it in the agenda? Questions or comments for or from city staff?

I don't have a question about the site plan list, but are these meetings going to remain at City Hall or are we going to move to the public meeting space in the new building?

i haven't heard anything about any movements or changes to our schedule okay there there are i didn't mention that there are meeting spaces even beyond a small conference room there's the ability to stream or you know as many seats as we have here i know that there was a capstone project of students that justin gish put on and it was our first use of the space and it worked really well great

We will then move on to public comments on non-agenda items. Again, that is non-agenda items. So if anybody wants to come up and give their three minutes on anything we did not discuss today, and again, online, the phone number is 382-9556. Again, forewarning, we've had a little bit of technical difficulties today. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing on non-agenda items.

Hi, Tom Howes here again. Not even sure if this is the appropriate time or place, but since it's imagined Kalamazoo is going right now, I had voiced concern about public participation policy data being better used and reflected in staff reports. A number of issues I've spoken out about in the past. I KNOW THAT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC SUPPORT OR CONFLICT WITH THE PROJECT, AND THEN YOU GO TO A STAFF REPORT AND NONE OF THAT IS REFLECTED AT ALL IN A STAFF REPORT, ESPECIALLY FOR, FOR INSTANCE, REZONING CRITERIA. And if public participation isn't reflected in rezoning criteria, then I don't know why we have a public participation policy. So I strongly encourage some conversation on that. And I really hope that someday there is some public participation reflected somewhere in at least rezoning criteria. So thank you.

Katie Bloom again. After I sat down and heard your discussion it occurred to me that one of the things I maybe should have mentioned and I'm not speaking on behalf of the Environmental Concerns Committee but just relaying something that we also did there which was we asked our liaison for the city to start bringing forward some of the experts from the different groups that might be interested so that we can educate ourselves and the public about the data centers, about the best, about all of that. And so we're hoping to do that and I can see a way where there could be some really good collaboration because those are public meetings and I think we all have the same goal. The second thing I would comment on is that as I'm reading this moratorium and it says it supports logical development patterns by ensuring these land uses are not located haphazardly or in context where infrastructure cannot safely or efficiently support them. I go back to my personal thoughts about what ELPA has put forward, which was actually two different things. They mentioned the conservation district and green zoning district. And I know maybe there's a narrow window, but my hope is that we can broaden the discussion and find a way to figure out if we can do amendments like this can we bring forward new zoning ideas even if they haven't been tried within the state because maybe we are going to be the first but maybe we can be proactive and think about what you've said here, ensuring that things are not haphazard. I was at many of the public community meetings and neighborhood meetings, and everywhere I saw on the boards was green space, green space, green space. And the second thing that I saw was land use management position needed for the city so that we can be looking at how we're managing the land we do have. So that's just my two cents. Thank you.

Seeing no other in-person comments, we'll go to the phones. Bobby, you got anybody there? All right. With that, we will close the public comment section on non-agenda items and move on to city commission liaison comments. Commissioner Dupre-Adel.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONING AND JUST THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONING AND JUST THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONING AND JUST ANALYSIS. ANALYSIS. ANALYSIS. I'M ALWAYS THOROUGHLY I'M ALWAYS THOROUGHLY I'M ALWAYS THOROUGHLY IMPRESSED WITH THIS GROUP AND IMPRESSED WITH THIS GROUP AND IMPRESSED WITH THIS GROUP AND IT'S REALLY HELPFUL, SO THANK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL, SO THANK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. SO AS I HEAR IT, WE HAVE A YES SO AS I HEAR IT, WE HAVE A YES SO AS I HEAR IT, WE HAVE A YES RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLAN COMMISSION WITH ALSO ADDING, THANKS TO YOUR GREAT WORDSMITHING, TO HAVE A CROSS-FUNCTIONAL MULTI-INTEREST TASK FORCE AS PART OF THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU ALL AS WELL. SO I WILL DO MY BEST TO COMMUNICATE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP RELATED TO THAT AS WELL. SO THANK YOU. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO LIFT UP AS WELL RIGHT NOW IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE, THERE'S A COMMUNITY BUDGET SURVEY THAT'S POSTED. WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THE SURVEY, IF YOU GO TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE, IT'S ON A BANNER THAT'S AT THE TOP OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SHARE WHAT CITY SERVICES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU, WHAT FUNDING PRIORITIES YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE NEXT YEAR. YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THE CITY'S BUDGET. AND YOU CAN SHARE WAYS THAT YOU THINK WE CAN IMPROVE HOW THE BUDGET IS PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY. DEFINITELY WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A SECOND TO DO THAT, OR IF YOU HAVE SOME WAYS TO HELP PROMOTE THAT IN YOUR CIRCLES, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THEY'RE ALSO OFFERING BASICALLY LIKE A BUDGET COMMUNITY MEETING THEY'RE CALLING THIS YEAR, WHICH IS GOING TO BE ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17TH AT 6 O'CLOCK. SO THAT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WHERE YOU CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT HOW THAT BUDGET PROCESS STARTS. STARTS ABOUT TEN MONTHS BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET, SO IT'S A LONG PROCESS, BUT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY FEELS COMFORTABLE ABOUT HOW THAT OCCURS. I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO LIFT UP AND SHARE THAT THERE'S A KALAMAZOO NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECT EVENT THAT'S HAPPENING NEXT WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH. from 7 to 845, and that's going to be at NACD, Northside Association for Community Development. It's a really neat opportunity because oftentimes you hear about neighborhood associations or neighborhood groups getting together, but it's very rare that those groups get to get together and compare notes, share ideas, network with each other, learn about community resources together in one space. So that should be a pretty fun opportunity. Really appreciate our neighborhood activator who's lifted up opportunities like this. And so I'm the public to attend that as well. But anyways, again, appreciate your time. Maybe we can solve world peace next. That would be great, because it sounds like we're getting things done. But there's a few things on the queue right now that we're trying to tackle, and this is really helpful with one of the issues that we're trying to tackle. So thank you. Wonderful.

Thank you. Planning Commissioner comments. Anybody have anything you want to throw out there, make the public aware of?

My mic's not working. Doesn't even matter.

So I want to, again, just comment, public comment around something like, either like joint training at one point, to pass this out, or you need to be able to call a meeting back for experts from various disciplines around the data center issue, who may think that education is important and critical, particularly

I do want to say we will do a joint meeting before the end of the year and I'll just say staff has some good ideas of what two boards to meet so we're working on that. I agree.

that is really appreciated

Now that we've voted, I just want to express gratitude to my fellow commissioners for the many questions and concerns about the moratorium, but also the alignment between our city commission, planning commission, other groups, and the public on our concerns that these types of developments bring to our community. So it just makes me proud to be a resident of Kalamazoo and to see that we're all caring about our community. And I know there's hundreds of other towns and communities having the same discussions we're having. So again, I think with that task force that we will be forming, it will be interesting to see also what other communities have experienced and learn from those that maybe have put this in place ahead of us and the challenges they're facing or those that did not and are experiencing the effects of those decisions. So I'm very interested to see what the next year brings us and all the learnings that come with this, but I'm really appreciative of the conversation and the decision we made today.

Anyone else?

Wonderful. Thank you all very much for your time and attention. And we are adjourned.

How does it go?