Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's all we need. I do believe does count. Correct. Yes, he does. All right. One, two, three, four, five out of nine. Yep. Wow. That is a sim. All right. I will call to order the Wednesday, May 28th, 2025 City of Battle Creek Planning Commission meeting. Can we get a roll call for attendance, please? Commissioner Hughes here. Commissioner O'Donnell. Commissioner Godfrey here. Commissioner Gray here. Commissioner Morris here. Commissioner Dennison. Commissioner Motton. Commissioner White. Mayor Binkkey here. Thank you for that. All right. On to approval of the minutes. This being the April 23, 2025 meeting. Are there any comments or questions regarding the minutes? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the minutes be approved as presented. Second. It's been moved and supported. Um, all in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved. All right. Correspondence. So, we did receive some correspondence. Uh we've got written correspondence from what appears on two different matter or two different times from the same individual. Um all of the commissioners have received a copy. Uh this is both letters are from a nearby resident at 280 New Town Avenue expressing opposition to the proposed resoning. Um

while the resident could not be here in person, we do appreciate that they took time to provide feedback and we will consider that during our deliberations. Any additions or deletions? No additions. No deletions. All right. on to public hearings and deliberations. As a reminder to all with public hearings, we'll hear from the staff, then from the applicant, and then open the floor for public comments. We ask that when coming forward, you state your name and address. Uh we will limit uh the the comment to three minutes this evening. Once comments are completed, we will close the public hearing. If you want to comment on something not specific to the public hearing, you will be provided time to do so later in the agenda. We'll take comments at that time. Uh, as a reminder to commissioners, the role of this body today is to hold the public hearing on the resoning, review the 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. Uh, with that, we will now open the public hearing for consideration on the resoning request number R01-25. So, uh, just to give a brief history here for folks who may not have been on the planning commission in it would have been early 2023. Uh, this area of the city in early 2023 was zoned entirely I2 heavy industrial that was uh, consistent with the 2018 master plan which identified this uh, this area of the city um, with the the corresponding use category. Um, in 20 uh the fall of 2022, staff was contacted and I believe the city manager's office was contacted by a number of members of the real estate community who were having issues with folks being able to get financing for the homes in this area. And the reason they were having issues with that was

because uh the the heavy industrial zoning rendered all of the single family uses in this area legal non-conforming at that point. So at that point there was no guarantee that uh should a a house be destroyed that it could be constructed or it could be reconstructed again. That was the impetus for the for the reszoning of this area from heavy industrial to um R1A single family. Um at the following the planning commission hearing um and the introduction of the item, staff was contacted by the owner of this property um who has a somewhat unique situation um in that u the property as you see it depicted on page number six of your packet. Uh what you see on page six of the packet is the property as it existed before um the the 2023 reszone of this area. Um the portion of the property on there that fronts onto New Town Avenue has a single family home on it and that is why this property was included as a part of the reszoning of this area to single family residential. Um, there are a handful of parcels along West Columbia Avenue, generally larger vacant parcels or ones that were already occupied by a commercial use that were left I2 to allow for continued commercial use, continue commercial use in future commercial uses. Um this portion of the parcel here that's along West Columbia Avenue uh the property owner has been using um as storage space for um like asphalt and fill type products. Um going back looking back at the GIS photos that we have on file um which go back to 2016

shows basically a consistent use of this property for that purpose going back to that point. Um, as such, regardless of the zoning of this property, it's considered a legal non-conforming use at this point. What the proposed resoning here today would do would take the portion of the property that's along West Colombia Avenue um, and reszone it back to the I2 that it existed in prior to the 2023 reszone to allow for any potential future development of the property for any kind of a commercial purpose. uh this area of West Colombia for parcels that have frontage strictly on West Colombia. Uh it's unlikely, at least in our estimation, that they would likely be developed at any point for residential use, especially larger strips like this. Um this is the strip that is immediately adjacent to the north uh to the northeast of Arlen's truck stop. Um it's uh the Arlen's truck stop has maintained its I2 zoning as well. Um, and so, uh, that was the reason why this is being brought here today. It's basically, uh, kind of a a cleanup item on that on what was done in 2023. If you take a look at page seven of your packet, you'll see the aerial depiction of the property with a red line overlaid. What staff worked with the property owner to do following that resoning was have his parcel split, which was then effective for tax year 2024, so that this could eventually be done. Staff was very intentional in doing this the way we did it because with the intent of not allowing any further encroachment of commercial activity toward New Town Avenue. So the the property owner was was made aware that that portion of the property will not be proposed to be reszoned to I2. That portion of the property is to stay

single family residential which is what it's currently used for. Um and it also then allows for again for the continued protection of that area of New Town Avenue. So that's just in brief what this uh what this item is and it's a little bit of history on kind of how we ended up here. Um, if you anyone has any questions, I can go ahead and try to answer those. Yeah. Are there any clarifying or technical questions of of the commissioners? Yes. The uh on page seven, the red line that is indicated there in I'm assuming that's an arbitrary line. It's that's an approximation. Why why can't we do a line that is equal to the property line on either side of that property rather than than in indenting it a little bit. So the the slight indent that you see there was to try and accommodate a setback for that garage that you see on the north side of the oh on the north side of the lot line. So, um, it was to try to ensure that the the port that the single family home to the south was set back far enough that now to not have a legal non-conform, but also Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. That used to be called the rock shop. Did it when I was in Boy Scouts, we did up there all the time. Yeah. Um, Travis, were there any other um lots that we would need to change? I'm just trying to think. um because of the change that we made a few years ago. Uh not any to uh to my knowledge right now. Um we've not been approached by anybody else in the time since then. Um uh certainly if we're approached by anyone additional, we'll we'll take that into consideration. Additionally, this

may be an area that we look at as the master planning process continues through the rest of this year and into next year for how we're going to look at this area going forward. It's always going to be a little bit disjointed just given the the nature of the uses in this area and the and the location of it, especially with relation to the highway. um combined with uh uh with the TIFFA's ownership of a number of properties in this area, there's a lot going on. Uh staff has has at least to the best of our ability try to um uh create a situation where we where we try to as best as possible respect the existing uses that are there while hopefully at least for these parcels like this preparing them for any potential future commercial use while trying to as best as possible like I said respect the residential uses. Thank you. Any further questions? I do have a couple, but okay. Uh, does the proposed industrial zoning, uh, does that allow for outdoor bulk storage of materials like this and heavy equipment? And then if so, is it permitted by right or whether it needs special use? So regardless of whether right now whether it's permitted by right um regardless of which zoning district it's in uh the use being existing it's it's still considered a legal non-conforming use. So that's that's going to be the case whether it's zoned I2 or zoned R1A. Um, as an aside, uh, because I know we've had we had some correspondents that had some concerns about potential nuisance type issues. Um, the city attorney and I had discussed this prior to the meeting. Um, we'll have to look at the nuisance section of the ordinance. that's outside of the zoning

ordinance. But if there is anything that's going on on the property that runs a foul of the nuisance ordinance, whether that be u the noise portion of the ordinance or any kind of creation of fumes or dust or any other item that may be addressed in the nuisance section of the ordinance, we can take a look at that on a separate basis, but that doesn't really necessarily pertain to the zoning strictly of the property. Okay. Um, so I would assume that that would also cover uh hours of operation, those sorts of things as well. In those uses, there's uh within the nuisance ordinance, there are references to hours of construction operation. Um, the city attorney and I talked briefly about this. We may have to look at the language of it to make to ensure that it's specific enough to this sort of use that we could apply it. Um there may be other portions as well of the nuisance ordinance that could be looked at but we'll have to do a little further analysis on on and that that's you had stated a separate matter than what this is. It it would be it it it's a matter that can be addressed regardless of the zoning of the parcel and it's not necessarily it's not dependent on the zoning of the parcels. Okay. Um, and then the other thing was regarding now that the parcel is split, the industrial fronting on Colombia, now Colombia being technically the new front yard. Um, are there any implications there with front, rear, sideyard setbacks, stuff like that? Any other imp implications as far as parking or storage now that that is kind of changing? So the the regular setbacks if if it were reszoned to I2. The typical setbacks of the I2 zoning district would then apply to anything in the future that was constructed. So side, rear, uh front, side, and rear setbacks, parking setbacks, which are generally going to be 10 ft from any right ofway, and I believe it's 5T from any lot line. All of those would apply

to the parcel if it were ever developed for any additional or for any other use in the future. Okay. But um just just to be clear again, any future development of the parcel does not include any portion um along New Town. That portion is strictly for residential use and for uses that are permitted in the R1A district. Thank you very much. All right, we'll move on to public comment now for the resoning request uh number R01-25. Please state your name and address. This is a time to share your support or concerns. Let us know what aspects are most concerning. Please remember that this is a time for public input and not back and forth debate. Thank you. We'll take public comments. My name is Cheryl Dowst. I live at 251 New Town Avenue. Can you pull the microphone down by your mouth, please? Thank you. Sorry. Um the the comment I have is was this ever approved to even start? And if it was illegal to start because of the zoning, why did it happen? And why weren't we let know at night? The banging in the noise is and I live across the street from it. The other people live pretty much by it. And if you were third shift, second shift, you're not getting any sleep. Your kids aren't getting any sleep. I've lived out there 48 years and it's been a wonderful place to live. And yes, Mr. P's rock shop was there. I think we all have gone, you know, and but he never had it where it was congested or noisy or and

what is this tar doing to our drinking water? I mean, you know, we just put a brand new whale in. So, what's all this seeping down into the ground doing to the whales on that side? Not counting coming across. And that's my main concern is that you're I don't mind Arlene's truck stop there. I don't mind the shell station. I don't mind overhead doors. They were established long before I moved out there. But now that I'm a member of that neighborhood, I you know, you just kind of move in and you take over the place and want to take our land and our our property and put, you know, toxic stuff on the ground that could be in my wellwater. I mean, I live at the end of the airport. Am I getting pee fobs? I knew that when I moved in. The train tracks is behind me. I knew the noise from that, but this this is uncalled for because I've got neighbors that work third and second. My grandson used to live with us on third shift and he couldn't get any sleep at night because you couldn't open the windows. Our bedrooms in the front of the house and at night you can hear that bam bam bam, you know, and uh that's not fair. If you established a neighborhood over all these years and then all of a sudden you want to turn it into commercial, people have bought those lots that come up to Columbia Avenue except for Mr. Pex. And I have nothing against the man who bought Mr. except I feel he did this kind of sneaky bringing in the tar and the noise and

everything without us being consulted. And would you like it in your neighborhood? I I don't you know and Battle Creek Unlimited owns a bunch of land behind us. Why couldn't they rent from Battle Creek Unlimited? You know, why take up a neighborhood where families had built their families? We worked. We've paid. We toiled to keep our places nice. And then this happens. It's not right. And I used to live down on 1365 East Michigan for 3, four years. We never had that that mess, you know, and we moved out there and I thought, "What a great neighborhood. my kid can go out and ride her bike and do everything. She won't do it now. She's 50. But that's my main concern is why are we reszoning a neighborhood for commercial use when we've always participated with the um businesses that existed when we moved there. We knew what we were getting into. And it's a beautiful neighborhood. It shouldn't be destroyed. I'm sorry, but it shouldn't be. Thank you. Are there any further comments? Hello. Hi. My name's Whoa. My name is Diana Sty. I live at 266 and all that asphalt's right behind my house and my garage. I moved in 8 years ago. There was beautiful woods behind me. Now there's heavy equipment. I had my daughter move home from Florida with her 2-year-old. Bedroom faces that. She

couldn't sleep. The baby kept getting woke up several times a night. Now that he's a little bit older, but um and heavy industrial that's different than I think it's different than commercial. I'm used to, you know, overhead door, Arlene's truck stop and the Shell station, that's commercial, but heavy industrial, it says like they could put a factory for factories, you know, where there'd be a lot of people, a lot of cars, and it's just when I look out any of my back windows, I see a mountain of tar that is taller than my garage. The trees have been falling down onto the neighbor's property and I'm afraid some of them are leaning toward my garage. It's just ugly. The woods were beautiful and I live there by myself and I felt okay being there even with Arleans, but now I don't know. We've had people walk across that tar like at the fence line. We've had kids back there. There's no way to keep them out. It doesn't say private property. There's no gates. There's no fence around it. And it just keeps getting taller. So, it's very disturbing and ugly. And I think it's commercial is different than heavy industrial. So, from my googling that, but it just it's ugly. It's really ugly and noisy. And I moved there because as a kid we'd go to West Columbia to Kalamazoo and I'd always look down the road and I wonder what's back there. Well, I didn't know back when I was 16 that when I was 50some or 60 that I'd be moving in there, but I'm glad I did. Well, until now I have to listen to all that and wonder about my wellwater. But and I don't want to move.

Not at 71. But I guess that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? I'm Bill Gibson. I'm the owner there. So, this has been going on a bit since, you know, for 30 years. But right now with the 94 project going, this last couple years is the only time that any nighttime work's been going on there. So they use that as a place to put it and then they load it up and take it on to Kil Mazoo in the daytime after the night, you know, after the night time. So when the nighttime work gets done, it's very sullen that they're even dumping up there at night. When they do, they try to start at 8:00 and then they're done at midnight. try to get done at midnight with you know bringing it in. But that's what they're talking about the noise as far as other than that it's when they dump in there it's generally in the daytime. So is that right? I mean they have how many times have they been in there this year? I mean as far as night past us I don't sir. Right. Could you can you address us? Okay. Well I just was answering some of their questions you know that they Absolutely. Well, that's okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Any further public comments. All right. Seeing none, thank you to all who have provided your input. We do appreciate your engagement. Uh I will now close the public comp comment period and open the floor for deliberations amongst planning commissioners. Uh commissioner share

thoughts, ask questions. Um any thoughts on how to proceed? Well, I uh myself I have a couple questions here. Shoot away. Pardon me. Go. Okay. Can I have a drink? Not mine. All right. So, just kidding. So, um I just thinking, you know, on both sides as as a contractor, a guy has a business, you know, and he's had it there for a long time and trying to make a living. And then we have the neighbors out there with the noise and stuff. And I was wondering if there's some way we could just um take a break on this for 30 to 60 days to try to work through some of the stuff on the timing uh when they're working. Um that basically that's the biggest thing and the timing uh you know what time should they be closed not working or do that I don't know if that can be worked out the water thing um can be looked at and handled it could be addressed by through investigation um I think the health department would be able to help with that and the city of Battle Creek. So my thought is to table this thing for 30 to 60 days and just want to know if there's any other thoughts on that. Any additional thoughts from commissioners? Commissioner Banky, any thoughts? Yeah, we'll go. Commissioner Gray, thank you. Um again, thank you all for coming out. Um I had a question related to um just environmental. has that been addressed around um is that part of the application process to make sure that all of the um actions of a business owner on that

property um have received state approval um etc around anything environmental on that property. So, regarding the existing use of the property because it was existing and existing prior to um when the current zoning was enacted, this this it this portion of the property has not been through site plan review or any other process that would normally bring into potentially bring into play those sorts of investigations or those sorts of um um uh reports or confirmation that would have to be provided by a property owner. Um again we can take a look at the use itself uh but the use it's the existing use itself is is still separate from the zoning piece of the property if that makes sense. So uh because it has not been through site plan review or a formal permitting process it is not and that's just as as it's an existing use. So just so I make sure I understand, you're saying it this was approved, it would go through that process or no? Right now, regardless of what it's zoned, it's it's still treated as an existing non-conform legal non-conforming use. So it would not So it would not there'd be nothing right now to trigger site plan review or any any formal application for a permit or anything. So that's if that makes sense. Yeah. Um and then what is the so is this just to get an understanding of um what the neighbors are expressing as concerns around noise and the time of day it's happening. Um can I get an understanding is that the day-to-day

business that's the nature of this business. uh this is not a period in time or is this a period in time and um this is not expected to happen long term or or kind of give me an understanding there. So I I'm not I'm not terribly familiar with the with the owner the property owner's specific use of the property as far as hours of operation or um items like that. Um but again if if there is something that's happening at the property that's in violation of the no of the nuisance ordinance that can be dealt with regardless of the zoning. The zoning doesn't necessarily impact that that that nuisance violation would still exist regardless of the zoning and that is for what is in front of us today is unfortunately a separate matter. The industrial use classification designation, if you will, is kind of what is before us today. Not necessarily the existing user owner. Correct. Yeah. It's it's it's a little difficult because it was existing. There was a change and now there's a correction trying to be made. Yeah. And to clarify, it was it was prior to the 2020 rewrite of the zoning ordinance. It was uh it was a commercial use classification. Um it's a it was a use or sorry a commercial zoning classification. It's a zoning classification that no longer exists under the current zoning ordinance. Um but the in 2018 when the master plan was put together the land use plan identified this as um a heavy industrial type of use or it identified the future use type as corresponding with the heavy industrial zoning district. That's why the recommendation would be made. If we

were to recommend reszoning it to some other commercial um some other commercial zoning um district right now, it it would be considered a spot zone um because it doesn't correspond with the land use plan. And it also it it's as I2 it would be contiguous again with existing I2 with there being the the truck stop right next door. If we attempted to go with a different zoning district, that could certainly be viewed as a spot zone. There's no there'd be no basis for it. The the parcels essentially from the industrial park south down Columbia all the way to 94 and down to even Watkins Road are all industrial I2. And then the the zoning change for the residences happened. And then in that time, I think even to Mayor Bkey's comment, not all of those single family residents lots were reszoned to residential. There still are other additional industrial lots in there. There there are a handful of them. Um, so it's it's it's not that it's a not existing use to the neighborhood. Correct. And to go to your point, it it prior to that 2022 or 20, it was late 2022, early 2023, prior to that reszone of this area to single family, it was all entirely zoned, industrial, I2 heavy industrial. And the the master plan, land use plan, has this to this day listed as production and employment center use. Correct. which corresponds with the I2 heavy industrial district. Okay. So that's that's the reason for the proposed district. Yes, sir. So I guess my

question m mar m mar m mar m mar m mar m mar m mar m mar m mar m mar m marrying on some that commissioner gray said is the current property owner utilizing the land in the manner that it was zoned in the manner uh in the manner that it was zoned in 20 prior to that is currently zoned when I I would say not in the manner that it's currently zoned um likely in the manner that there are there are nuisance ordinances about the noise that the neighborhood is experiencing after dark. Um that certainly could be mitigated by the city. Correct. That's one item that like I said the uh the city attorney and I had discussed briefly before we came in here. We may need to look at the the noise ordinance to make sure that that it's I that the language is written in such a way that it can be applicable, but the no the the nuisance ordinance is applicable to every property in the city regardless of its current previous zoning, current use, previous use. Um it still applies to to each to each property within the city. So regardless of whether it's currently zoned R1A or I2 or it was previously zoned I2 um or when the use was established that use has to always still comply with the provisions of the noise ordinance which is separate from the zoning ordinance. And I I think going a little further in that too in addressing there was a comment about um a question about when the use began and it kind of just kind of started out of nowhere. You had mentioned Travis that imaging shows in 2016 this use was there. The use when it started, was it permitted by its zoning

at that time or do we not know? I would need to take a look at the old zoning ordinance, the no longer effective zoning ordinance to see what the list of permitted uses in that area was at that time. Uh the other challenging thing is piece of this is that we then would have to go back potentially further than 2016 where I'm not certain right now that we have yeah existing I don't know what you want I don't want to call it evidence but of what the previous use of the property was. So we would have to look into that further at that point. Um, but again, I would say that that's going to exist regardless of what the zoning is of the property because whether or not a use was legally established at the time that it was permitted um is still going to hold regardless of whether it's owned single family or heavy industrial. Thank you. Are there any additional comments or questions from commissioners? We do not have a motion. Um, do we still do we happen to have any record or um feedback on noise complaints? We this is regards to this property. The this was the first that we were made aware of complaints regarding this. um if if obviously having been brought to our attention, we deal with them the same way we deal with every complaint that's brought to our attention, which is to look into to investigate it. But prior to these to these comments, we had not received we had not received any concerns. So So I I will say I live on Robertson Avenue, which is in this neighborhood. Um, I I mean, my son loves the fact that there's an excavator there, but there there certainly are some

concerns with noise. I will say that that is certainly true. Um, as a commissioner though, I am kind of conflicted that um it is consistent with the master plan um aligned with the other zoning in the area, those sorts of things. So, I it's difficult. It is Are there any further questions? Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. Okay. I'll move that the to reszone the un addressed property located along Columbia Avenue parcel number 0619-41- 0 or 700-0 currently zoned are 1A redesated to I2 heavy industrial. Okay. Okay, there's been a motion. Is there support? Support. It's been uh there's been a motion by Commissioner Godfrey, supported by Commissioner Banky. Are there any questions or comments on the motion by commissioners? Um, I would certainly like to uh kind of in the spirit of um, Commissioner Morris, uh, to see the owner kind of work through some of the, uh, concerns that have been brought forward today, um, in good faith um, with their neighbors. Okay. Yes. Um I think Marcel, can I look to you for some guidance on some of the questions that have been posed? There's been a motion. It's been supported. Um it seems like there's still some concern on answering some questions. Is there I guess I don't have a real I don't have a real definite question

going forward but um in a manner of addressing some of these concerns. I'm looking kind of what are the action actionable items going forward or what is the potential there? This body is is looking at this request that will then be presented to the city commission not next week probably the June 16th 17th meeting. Um, so there's an opportunity between today and then to address it. Yeah. I think one or two commissioners talked about um um adjourning this item. Yep. To either 30 days out, 60 days out, something like that to allow time. But what would staff be doing? That's so you would you would need to want to make that clear to them. Yeah. Um, so right now you have a motion and a second on the table. So, yep. You would need to address, you know, whether you're going how to deal with that or not deal with that first. Yep. Um, if you want someone, you can withdraw the motion. The person who made the motion could withdraw it. Um, or you could run and see if it passes or not. Okay. What if are there I think let's think um cuz we have a motion that's been supported. There's still concern regarding time and and questions. Was that a question? Yeah. What was your question? Well, to go back to I understand you know the community there. I understand the business has been there for a long time. Um, one of the things is the noise. I don't know if there's something that could be really worked out. Maybe

put into this uh motion. Uh, maybe even like I said, just postpone it for 60 30 days, maybe 60 the most, and work things out in the neighborhood to try to make everybody happy with the noise that's there. and the individual it's um and they're making a living that he has for a long time on that site. So the noise thing would be to me is is the biggest thing right now. So if there's any way that we can amend that to um do that or the other way is to try to get this thing worked out before the city commission meeting uh and let the city commission meeting do that. So that's why I make a decision if some of these questions get answered and somewhat things get worked out with the noise and so on. Yes. Um is is the owner aware of all of these concerns? like had they the opportunity to come here today and address those concerns? So, we've we've heard from the owner today, right? But I but not address the concerns that you're stating. I'm asking if if they were aware of those concerns before and had an opportunity to address them before coming here today. No. No. And and to to be clear to you, the application was made by the city because this was kind of kicked off by us reszoning that entire area. So it wasn't an application from the owner. Yeah. Um that feedback again that obviously that was received today was

was just received this afternoon. Um there was one previous piece of correspondence, but again that wasn't that wasn't provided to the owner in uh it wasn't provided to the owner particularly. was included in the packet here today. So to to answer your question, I guess the best I can, I would say at this point, no, the the owner has not had an opportunity to respond directly to the Mhm. to the concerns. I I guess what I'm I'm getting to is uh can I'll talk to myself. Are we able to ask for that um that in good faith working with residents to toward resolve? Um to be able to hear by the time it comes before the city commission uh what result has come from those conversations. I I believe you can make that request and we know that the property owner is sitting here but again the application is from the city. I know and this my understanding like you is that this was the first that may may have been brought aware of a noise issue and the city is going to look at whether the noise ordinance covers this type of activity at the property which again it's a separate issue right entirely separate issue from zoning yep I understand that's a separate issue Um it it's really difficult cuz it you understand somebody needs to you know make a living. That seems to be the major issue. At the same time, uh you want to be comfortable in your home um and your home surroundings and certainly the

concerns or you know again good faith effort even though they don't have to uh to make sure that what they're putting out as far as materials is safe. safe for um the environment that that they are in. I think those good faith efforts around noise and the environment um would go a long way. And um and so if if there could be either a friendly amendment or a postponement while we as a city identify um what options there are around uh the nuisance ordinance uh because I know we're saying this is simply a a zoning issue and not a nuisance or environmental issue. Uh that's not what's before us. I get that. But they are tied. Well, the the body does have the ability um to it's been discussed by at least two commissioners to postpone consideration of this to another date. So at least two of the body is talking about that. So if if you want to discuss that, a motion could be made to do that. in the main motion has to be voted on. It would have to be voted on or withdrawn. We the the existing owner in its use is going to be legally nonconforming if we reszone or do not reszone today. Correct. Correct. Either way. So even if we don't approve the reszone today, the existing use will continue. So in my eyes pushing off a decision I that's my question is what if we

postpone what is the action for staff in that time what is what can we do I mean as a zoning a planning commission we could we could come back and tell you whether the noise ordinance is being do anything or not I know that noise ordinance talks about constru construction and demolition of buildings between certain hours. Right? Beyond that, I don't know that it deals with unloading unloading of trucks and actual use that that this particular use is going to or what the complaints are. Right. Look at those and whether any of that would subject the property owner to a civil infraction. Okay. And it it seems to me that listening to the neighbors that the issue is not how the how the land is the zoning, it's how the land is being utilized by the current owner. Cor and uh we haven't heard anybody come up here and stand and say don't resone it. They're saying the current property owner is making living in this neighborhood uncomfortable. And I realize that we're not addressing that in this particular issue, but that seems to be the issue, right? I I'm so before I withdraw my motion, I think we need to give a thought about passing the motion and moving this on to the city commission and letting them work on this. Okay, I'm okay with that. Yeah. Any other questions or comments? We vote.

Commissioner Morris, yes. Mayor Bkey, yes. Commissioner Godfrey, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Gray, yes. Motion is approved. [Applause] So we the question was when would it go to the city commission? Not the third. Most likely the meeting after t yeah t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t typically I I think the city attorney is looking it up. But typ typically items when they come before the planning commission and then get advanced to the city commission usually because of timing it's not the the immediately following city commission meeting. It'll be the one after that. So you had to be the second meeting in June would be okay. Would it be brought for an introduction? So it' be a two meeting process. Introduction and then action. Okay. So then to clarify Travis, what you just said, it'll be an introduction and then there will be so the the residents who are notified for this hearing today will get notified again at a later date. So So there will there will not be a separate notice for that. um the notices that are provided within 300 feet of the of the affected property that's in compliance with the state zoning enabling act. And so that hearing is held here today. That that public hearing is held at the planning commission level. Um there is not a requirement in the act for notification if if that decision is then advanced to the legislative level. Okay. Okay. So I would just say thank you to all the residents who came today. Please continue to reach out contact with any questions or concerns regarding this and look forward to city commission meetings. All right. Thank you again to everyone who participated in that discussion. It was

not an easy one. Uh any old business? Can I just say something? Uh there will be a time for comment at the end. Yep. Just one second. Any old business? No old business. Okay. New business. It looks like we've got the 2024 annual report. Um so before you on your desk today, you've got a copy of the 2024 annual report. Just to bring to everyone's attention, um I believe that a um a working copy was included in your original packet. You'll notice today if you look down at the lower lefthand corner, there's a revised date on there that uh that is this is the the fully uh edited version. There were a couple of chart numbers that didn't correspond correctly with the narrative. And so just want to bring that to everyone's attention. Uh biggest highlight at least as far as it pertains to the planning commission in this um is if you take a look at the um the numbers of special use permits um that are being brought before the planning commission um and although not directly related to the planning commission, it is somewhat um the number of um variance applications being brought to the zoning board of appeals. Uh both of those numbers have dropped pretty precipitously here in the last couple of years. Um we we feel like it's a result of continued amendment of the ordinance to uh to better work with better align with uses in uh throughout the city and um what folks are asking for. I think it's also streamlined the process a little bit better. So um we're hopefully saving some folks from having to go through an additional process of coming before the planning commission and the city commission for uses that can otherwise be handled administratively. So that's the biggest highlight that I can really point out. Like I said, pertaining specifically to the planning commission, but if anybody has any questions about specifics of the report, we can answer them. Okay. Are there any questions on this report?

None. Is there any action we need to take on this? There's no action required. This is a report that's required to have um compiled each year. Um there is no action required by the planning commission. This is provided forformational purposes and then it will also be provided at a city commission meeting for the city commission's information. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you staff for putting that together. Um are there any other new business items? No. All right. Now we will take comment by the public. Cheryl, I want it understood. I do not mind that he has a business going that has always been a commercial business with the rock shop, but we've never had to deal with the loud noises. We didn't have to worry about groundwater. If he would have put another rock shop in, so be it. It was a wonderful place. But to have this heavy equipment and the tar, you've got to know that that tar is getting in the groundwater. You have to understand that. And we have to live there. We have to maintain our properties. Other words, the city will be coming in and tagging us and making us do stuff with our property. And I don't mind if he has a business. Not that business. That business causes noise. It causes who knows what is going in my ground. I in fact I I applaud him for starting his own business and having a business. But when you keep saying it was always commercial. Yes. With respect to the neighborhood. This is not respectful to the

neighborhood. And that's what you all should be considering is what we have to live in. We love our homes. You love your home. You would do anything to save your home, the noise, everything. There has to be vacant land somewhere that he could put that black top. It shouldn't have to be in our neighborhood. And that's all I expect. You know, I pay taxes. I didn't come and scream when Battle Creek Unlimited bought the land behind me. That's a right. But they haven't really done anything with it, which is it's whatever they do I'll have to live with. But this I shouldn't have to live with. This is not this is not proper. You're taking, you know, our rights as citizen of that neighborhood away from us and that's not fair. just because he wants to have a business like he has. So, please take that into consideration. Thank you. Are there any other public comments at this time on anything in beyond that petition? All right. Are there any comments by staff or commission members? All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you sir.