Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We've got quorum. It's 401. Get situated and let's begin. All right. I will call to order the Wednesday, July 23rd, 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, Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Morris here, Commissioner Dennison here, Commissioner Motton, Commissioner White here. Mayor Binky here. I did receive a call from Commissioner Patrick O'Donnell. His boss wouldn't let him out of work early. He's on his way, though. Thank you. All right, thank you for that. On to approval of minutes. This being the June 25, 2025 meeting, are there any comments or questions regarding the minutes? Move for approval. All right, second. It's been moved and approved. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Uh oppose. Same sign. Minutes are approved. Is there any correspondence? No correspondence. All right. Any additions or deletions? No additions, no deletions. Okay. Uh we will now proceed to our public hearings and deliberations. As a reminder, all with public hearings, we will hear from the staff, then hear from the applicant, then open the floor for public comments. We ask that when coming forward, you state your name and address. Once comments are completed, we'll close the public hearing. If you want to comment on something not specific to this public hearing, you'll be provided time to do so later in the agenda, and we will take comments at that time. Uh, as a reminder, commissioners, the role of this body today is to hold public hearings on the request, review any proposed changes, put forth a

recommendation to the city commission. Any change recommended by the planning commission must be approved by the city commission. With that, we will open the first public hearing for resoning request number PRZ25004. This is a petition from Raymond Joerger requesting the resoning of property located at 26 Harvard Street. Uh the property at 26 Harvard Street is currently zoned R2 two family residential district. The applicant is requesting to be reszoned to T3 neighborhood commercial district. Staff report. Uh so planning staff uh was approached recently by the owner of this property um just to inquire about whether or not the the existing building at the site could be used for a 40 unit multiple family uh uh multiple family building. Um at the current time it cannot um it's uh zoned uh our two two family so it could support two units. Um, so staff recommended to the applicant that they apply for a reasonzoning to T3 Neighborhood Commercial District. Um, if you take a look at your packet on page 10, um, you'll see the location of the property um, on the zoning map, it's a little bit difficult to read because of the the Harvard Street text kind of overlays the the lots or the property lines there, but you'll see a star that indicates the location of the property. uh the applicant's property adjoins with T3 zoning directly to the north. uh based on that and the the uh major development in that area. Um especially given the fact that to the south there's a parking lot uh staff feels that um this proposed reszoning um while it um may not directly align with the existing land use plan. U we always like to remind the commission that uh the land use plan is

it's not a legally binding document. It's intended to guide future development and zoning decisions. Um however um the existing um nature or the existing uh pattern of development also needs to be taken into consideration. Given those facts, staff recommends approval of the application. Um and we can attempt to answer any questions the commission might have. Thank you. Are there any technical or clarifying questions from commissioners at this time? Uh yeah. Does anyone know if Ry contacted any of the other property owners on Harvard about this change? So I'm not aware of any additional outreach that was public outreach that was done by the applicant. Um however, as it is a public hearing on a um on a proposed reszoning, all properties within a 300 foot radius were notified by mail of the hearing today. Thank you. And then I had a question. Is I mean I know there's no R3 in this area, but was there any consideration to that when the the master plan and zoning ordinance were updated last? Um I know there were R3 kind of districts included. Um but it seems like this wasn't considered for that. I just I have a concern with T3 always kind of being our solution to some of these kind of zoning issues with with residential density and those types of things. So was there any consideration to that or the the only problem with R3 here would be the lack of existence of any other R3 to try to tie it to? Um, I mean, we could potentially consider something like that, but it would be a much broader reasoning that would have to take into consideration all a lot of the other properties around in the N and we would have to really get intense about what the nature of all of these different developments are and whether or not that zoning fits. Um, given the fact that

there is T3 directly to the north, um, and there are commercial uses directly there. Um, that sort of form the basis of absolutely staff's recommendation. Yeah, I don't have any um questions, but I do have a couple comments. Um you know, right next door there is a um an apartment complex with four apartments, four one-bedroom apartments, Kitty Corner from that, there's also apartments and all along Harvard, well, I don't know all along, there's several rental units right there in Harvard. So, yeah, I just thought I would throw that out. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh if the applicant is present, we can hear from the applicant. Doesn't appear to be so. Um so we don't have any questions for the applicant. Is there any comment from the public on this resoning request number PRZ25-00004? Seeing no public comment, we will move on. Uh at this time, we can uh open the floor for discussion amongst planning commissioners. Um, any questions, thoughts, deliberations on this? I have a question. Yeah, excuse me. I understand, if I read this correctly, that the applicant is not their current owner. Um, and if that is the case, then if the sale doesn't go through, uh, I want to make sure I understand this, the zoning would still end up T3 for the next person who may purchase the building to use T3 for any of the, um, uh, zoning um, uses. Is that a correct assessment? That is. Yes. Any other questions? I'm sorry. So if the does the current owner realize that this is getting resoneed? I So that's Did I miss something?

I So I I think I misspoke actually. I think I stated in my summary that the owner of the property had applied. I think I stated in the staff report, one of the conditions that we would recommend is that the applicant receive written notification from the the owner of the prop or written written approval from the owner of the property to apply for the resoning. And I was going to I was going to note that next that within the staff recommendations that that was in there. So when there is a motion made if we can just be specific um and then if we intend to include that condition be specific on including that condition as well please. Okay thank you. So I think it's page 14 in the packet of 94 is where the staff recommendation with that condition is any questions comments I'll entertain a motion at this point make a motion Approved support. All right, it's been moved and supported. Um, can we clarify whether or not that is with the staff conditions? Yes, that's what you just said. Okay, it's been moved to support as staff recommended including conditions. It's been seconded. Um, is there any further questions or comments? I do have one, sorry, one other question. So if the written approval from the owner is not received then essentially the um uh this doesn't get approved to move forward. Correct. Okay. Yes. If if we approve it and recommend it to the city commission based on including the conditions. Y correct made

correct. Okay. We can move to vote. Mayor Binkkey. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Morris. Yes. Commissioner Dennison. Yes. Commissioner White. Yes. All right. Motion passes. Thank you everyone who has participated in that discussion. We will now move on to the next public hearing. This is for consideration of text amendment number R1-25. A request from the city of Battle Creek to consider an amendment to section 1262.02 of the zoning code to require yards to be improved with either natural or living ground cover including grass, plant material, rocks, stones, mulch, etc. in residential districts. Staff report. Uh so it's been brought to staff's attention recently that there is a section of the zoning ordinance right now that specifically excludes um single family and two family residential properties from the ground cover requirement um which would be your typical grass or um some sort of live cover or gravel or natural covering that would be required on a um it's required for commercial properties required for multiple family. Um but for for whatever reason um section 1262.02 specifically says whenever any yard front side or rear of a use other than single or two family residential is not designated for building off streetet parking loading or unloading or other purposes required by the zoning requirements. Such yard shall be improved with either natural or living ground cover including grass plant material, rocks, stones, mulch, etc. The the purpose of the amendment is simply to remove that reference to other than single or two family residential to ensure that throughout residential

zoning districts, you're going to see typical ground cover like you would expect to see on residential properties. Um it hasn't typically been an issue in the past. However, it was brought to staff's attention. Um and we don't want it to become an issue in the future. So staff's recommendation is to approve the language. Thank you. Are there any technical or clarifying questions at this time? Since the city's the applicant, we can ask any questions in addition as well. Well, um, let me give some information on this. Um, Dean Warden is the guy that, um, brought it to the city commission's attention. Um, culturally, I think there's a difference of understanding on why people should put grass instead of just allowing the weeds to grow in a neighborhood. And I just go back to when my father and a couple of his neighbors when we purchased our new home in the Lakeshore Village, not too far from Riverside School, he got three of his neighbors to buy sod at the same time and they put the sod in. Um, most neighbors get to know each other and they talk about deficiencies in their homes. I'm a freak when it comes to my grass. My grass is better than anyone's grass on Capitol Avenue Northeast in Battle Creek, but there's no one else that's doing grass in that area. So, you know, I encourage people to improve their properties. I'm not sure if if this is our job to be telling people, um, your grass isn't sufficient enough. So, I'm really struggling with this. I got to be honest with you. I think it behoove and I I had already spoken to the Burmese organization um at a a fundraiser that they had and they said, you know, there must be some misunderstanding because no one would not take care of their grass um in that

neighborhood. And Brewer Drive is a nice uh community. It's a nice neighborhood in Battle Creek. Um I I grew up not too far from there, so I played there as a kid and everything like that. And I just think that someone needs to sit down with this neighbor and say, "Hey, uh is there a way that we can improve your grass by putting grass seed in instead of allowing the weeds to grow?" It does look bad. I I'll be the first to tell you. And I wouldn't be um happy if I were Dean Warden either. So um it's a situation that's rough, but I'm not sure if our government should be doing this. I got to be honest with you. I'm not sure if we should be out policing everyone's grass in Battle Creek and saying, "Hey, um, you're deficient. There's too many brown spots in your grass. Let's get them improved." I don't know. Maybe we should talk a little bit about it and go from there. Yeah. Any other comments or questions? Yeah. I I'd like to like to take a little thought on this because I like the next 60 or 90 days to get a chance the the uh neighborhood planning councils and chance for us to talk about this a little bit more or clarify what we're really looking for instead of having any misunderstandings because there's so many misunderstandings with the city and how they enforce a lot of different things about creek. So I just I guess just like take a recess on it. let's say 90 days we'll say get a chance number of the planning commissions can talk about it and we can certainly do that if that's if that's the desire of the planning commission um to take some time to come up with some more specific language or if it's if it after discussion it becomes clear that it's not the desire to amend the ordinance then we can obviously go that path as well so

yeah so um Mark I heard what you said and it made me think so if we're going to do that for single families what are we going to do for the other groups the you know multiple families how you know like okay we're not going to enforce one but we're going to enforce the other or do we let it all go and then I also it made me think about um abandoned cars and we do you know our city does enforce that. So I I just I'm just asking like let's let's really talk about it because I want to understand all the differences and all that. I mean I'm I you made me think. I guess that's what you're supposed to do, right? Right. Thanks. If I can jump in there, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Uh that we can talk about the different things and concerns we have in a city. in the I meant to say neighborhood planning councils that we have here in Battle Creek and then move on up to the commission and maybe even have a workshop at the end of the day. So, can I um maybe the question is trying to make sure we're not we're solving the right pro problems with the right set of tools. If I understand what this what this says is essentially um any property as long as it's not designated XYZ we want to make sure that you have some you know things are presentable period that this is this is not getting necessarily the nuance of enforcement. This is basically just saying here is the ordinance right? There is another part of this though which is how does this get enforced whether it's a code violation uh uh tickets whatever that might be and that's what I think mayor

you're kind of getting to and these things may be linked but I don't I guess I don't know if I have enough information to understand which problem we're solving with which tool so and whether that's you know needing 90 I'm not I don't know if it's 90 days or maybe it's the next planning commission meeting or depending on the process but this feels is like pretty cut and dry. I but I hear there's an it sounds like an enforcement issue which is not really covered by this ordinance and so if we have an enforcement conver it it feels like if we want to have an enforcement conversation that might be the next meeting but that's separate from what this is. Is that correct? I just want to make sure I'm saying that correctly. I believe so. Um, as I look at the ordinance language here, I my thought is that the intent was um, as it's part of the overall landscaping ordinance. My thought is that I think this was put there to differentiate single and two what the expectations are for a single or two family use versus a typical commercial or multiple family use which are going to be subject to all of the requirements of site plan review which are going to require um more extensive landscaping based on the frontage that a property has and the amount of parking that a property has. I think that's part of the intent of why this why single and two family were singled out. Um, but I think the way that it's written potentially opens it up to I mean if somebody theoretically wanted to say, well, I'm just simply not going to have any cover. I'm just going to have a dirt lawn that that that potential exists. So that's I would say from staff's perspective, I would say that would be that would be the concern with this language. Again, it's it's not something that we have that we've run into really in the past. Um, we may have received a question at some point regarding what a requirement would be for a for a single family use, but I don't know that we've had anyone

attempt to do something like essentially let their entire lawn go to nothing but dirt. Um, I I would say that would be the potential concern with the way the language is written right now, though. So did I don't know if that does that does that answer your question or is there I yeah I just I guess I'm trying to figure out which tool is being used to solve what. So the ordinance like I get the ordinance part if it's just a simple language change that's like that's one thing but I I what I hear though is that there's an enforcement issue which is part of the reason why the language change and if that's the case then maybe we need to have a different conversation around enforcement not actually this the ordinance itself is that is that a correct assessment mayor I just want to make sure I heard you correct some of the other comment commentary is that I I think I understand too. Yeah. So the text amendment that is being proposed then um under 126202 it it goes A through D then all of that would be applied to residential and two family properties. Is that correct? Uh remind me again which uh sorry which sections were you referring to the So on page 35 of the packet it shows chapter 1262. So this is where in 126202 is where the proposed text amendment will be. Um so it it in our packet it's redlined and then highlighted there. Um but 126202 includes A B C and then D1 two and three. So all of the the portions of this section here then would be applied to single and two family properties.

I mean some of it is clearly for commercial industrial properties. Um, so I think my question would be is how do you how how does admin not as staff proceed with that? I do though support um having ground living ground cover. I do know from like a health standpoint just bare dirt is not a very good thing to have. So I do support, you know, I think what other commissioners are saying is is that being the case, but is this the correct way? So is there a motion then to table? Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah, that's the motion I made. But I again this is something we all these questions and answers and planning for the future of putting this in into uh this out because I think there needs to be a clear understanding what we have. I need there needs to be some planning of it and I I really think that neighborhood planning councils need to be involved. Give them a couple months to talk about that. um that they have to say and talk and that's why I said 90 days on this and it might end up being more but you know 90 days on this is um it's not too long maybe not long enough but I all these questions all these comments that we have back and forth these all get worked out a period of time probably at least 95% of it so let's all we need now is a specific motion stated ed with a time period and what you would expect to be done. It's got to be clear because we have not had an actual motion yet.

So I move to table this agenda item um until we see so what December um three months. Yeah. So 3 months from now is I'm sorry I can't do math right now. So what is it? November, December. So somehow before the end I guess I moved to table um this particular uh topic until um I would say October before Yeah. before the end of the year. So our 17th would be the planning commission meeting. Thank you. Yes, that's fine. And pardon me, Commissioner. To table the item means we're bringing it back this evening. Do we want to restate that motion to postpone until December? Would you like to correct that? Postponing would be pushing it out later tableabling. We would come back to it today. Oh, sorry. Yes, postpone. Thank you. Clear about going to MPC. Yeah. So that's so we we've established and I need to be careful here. We've established um the motion the time period there was additional comments regarding NPCs and such. What what are the expectations? So I move to postpone Marcel. Is there something that you you just listening? Make sure you're into the mic please. Oh, sorry. I move to postpone the text amendment R1 through 25 until the October planning commission meeting um with the uh anticipation that in the meantime the city staff will engage the neighborhood planning councils um to provide additional detail to the planning commission relative to the text

change both the ordinance and um the code enforcement support. All right. So, it's been All right, that was a mouthful. It's been moved to postpone until the October planning commission meeting. The expectation is that there's further discussion with NPCs regarding the details. Um, and it's been supported by mayor. Uh, are there any other questions, comments? All right, let's move to a vote. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner White, yes. Commissioner Dennison, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. And Mayor Binky, yes. All right, that was very good discussion. Thank you all. Thank you all very much for working through that. Thank you. I appreciate you all. All right, we can now move on. That concludes our public hearings and deliberation. Is there any old business? No old business. All right, on to new business. We've got one item. It is a planned unit residential development for final approval. There is a request. Um this is for the property located at 14188 Helmer Road in the budding vacant property um next to it. Um, this request is for uh 28 new housing units with being listed is substantial compliance with the tenatively approved plan previously from February of 2024. Staff report. Uh so the application that you see in front of you today is for final approval of the planned unit residential development that was tenatively approved in February 2024. The applicant um in the final plans has reduced the d the

proposed density of the development. Um it originally was for 29 duplexes. Uh the applicant has now reduced that down to 14. um 29 duplexes and a clubhouse. Uh the current proposal is for 14 uh for a total of 28 residential units. Uh the uh the number of units are uh well below what the um maximum density would be in the R1A zoning district. Um the plans are deemed in substantial compliance given the with the tenative approval, given the fact that there's no increase in the proposed density. Um there's no increase in the proposed building area and there's no decrease in the proposed open space that the applicant has provided. Uh therefore no public no additional public hearing was required on this item. Staff was contacted last week um and asked just to put together a supplemental memo which we sent out yesterday um just um addressing the public outreach that had been done previously regarding this project. um the applicant has um submitted a letter verifying the properties uh that he reached out to prior to the tenative approval of this um of this plan. Um uh additionally um when the tenative approval was considered at the planning commission level, a public hearing was held as required by state statute and local zoning ordinance which required notification of everyone within 300 ft of the proposed property. Um and again uh no further public hearing is necessary here today. However, a recommendation from the planning commission is still necessary to be forwarded to the city commission for final approval. Um with that um and given the fact that the plans are in substantial compliance, staff recommends approval of the final plan that the

applicant has presented. Thank you. So just quickly to kind of summarize, the initial request came to this body. It was recommended to the city commission. The city commission then met on it. Now they're applying for final approval. So everything has been satisfied to this part up to this point. Correct. Thank you. All right. Are there any technical or clarifying questions from commissioners on this? Seeing none, is the applicant here and and willing to say anything or All right. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Um we can move to discussion on this. I will note again that staff has included um their recommend in their recommendation conditions for the applicant uh that we can include in our motion. So if you have not looked at those, those are on page 48 and 49 in our packet. Are there any comments? Any discussion amongst commissioners on this? Is everyone understanding kind of what we're doing here? I guess my question would be why did we reduce the number? Um that might be a question for the applicant to to address. I'm Scott Ganton, uh, Lake View Assisted Living, 14661 South Helmer. We decided to reduce the scope of the project um, for various reasons. The main reason

is we wanted to uh try to keep as much of that property uh wild in the back and so we decided to drop the scope of it. Also uh we were looking at the economy and a lot of things happening with building costs and things of that nature. So yeah. So can I just add one followup to that? So you've the whole you've taken the whole property and you've just spread it amongst um 14 double units. Is there any way that we can add additional in the you know like later on is there could be to be phase two. Yeah, that's always a possibility. um depending on the market and uh it is a senior independent senior housing uh depending on the demographics um that could be a possibility of posing more apartments uh in in the rear of it but right now we're we're focusing on the scope that uh that we're bringing in front of you right now. So any other questions, comments? the uh the applicant has been made aware of the uh items you've listed in the recommendation. Uh correct. The the applicant Yeah. I would I would imagine through site plan review and all that that they've been the in the uh the conditions are typical conditions that we that we attach to any special use perimeter site plan review item typically. So absolutely. Okay. I'll entertain a motion if there is one. make a motion with staff conditions. This guy, can you state that? Can you Can you state that? Can you state your motion? Then it includes

includes what? The conditions A through E. Conditions. I'll make a motion. It includes the recommendations. Perfect. It's been moved to support this, including the staff recommendations and conditions. Is there support? Support. It's been moved and supported. Uh, any questions, comments from commission? If none, we can vote. Mayor Binky, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Commissioner Dennis, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner O'Donnell, oh, pardon me. Commissioner White. Yes. All right. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your uh commitment. Thank you for your development. Thank you for being here. All right. That is the conclusion of our new business. Uh any comments by the public? Seeing none comments by staff or commission members? You guys are talkative today. Chatty today. I just have a quick uh comment. Um after the last planning commission meeting, especially there were some comments and concerns around um Stone Jug Road, airport noways, kind of all the um the things related to that and some of them really weren't applicable to the um conditional zoning, but they were something that I think the city and Ted also kind of talked about looking into. Um, is this something that requires like a um like a motion to add to a future agenda? I don't and I'm not suggesting we need to do it next month. It could be before the end of the year early. I just want to make sure we follow up on some of the concerns. Yeah. Um if uh if you're just looking for an update just is is that uh

just actually more so um when I look at the meeting minutes and then we talked about everything from noise traffic study was kind of a list of again these were outside of the conditional zoning. It sounds like there were several sets of things that were happening um in that particular part of the town. And maybe that's not necessarily our role to get super deep in it, but I I just would like to make sure we follow up somehow on um some of the concerns that were raised by uh our community members. So So we did uh we have passed along the concerns. Uh not so much related to to the noise. I don't I don't know that there's a lot that can necessarily be done about that, especially as it pertains to to noise coming from Duncan Aviation or from the airport. I think unfortunately that's just going to be kind of standard in an area that's that that's that close to an airport approach area. Um but as far as the concerns about um that curve along West Columbia Avenue where there's visibility concerns, we have passed that on to the Department of Public Works to take a look at um we can follow up with uh with the planning commission here in the next month or two um to um update you all on um what public works has found. So, are there any commission comments that are specific that staff could take to DPW to get answers on? Is there anything in specific? And you I mean, you could always send it in later. Yeah, I'm happy to. We don't have to have take up a whole lot of time and talk about it today. I mean, I'm I'm very like it was the airport noise study. It was specifically around the curve. I thought there was something also about a traffic study as well uh around the intersection over there. And there may be one or two other things. I can send a note in and we can follow up. I'm not expecting a whole like, you know, here's a whole long report. Just wanted to make sure that there is some touch point so that you know folks understand that their concerns were taken seriously. Yeah. And I can, like I said, we can

follow up with with another, but I I do believe in my discussions with DPW. Um, I know they were going to have to do some digging to find the the old report, but there was a traffic study done in that area a number of years ago. um we can at least refer to that hopefully to in that and that that might be give us some more information that that can help with with what a future action in that area could be. So, all right. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Yeah, John. Yes, Mayor. Um I I just think we need to be realistic. Um there's a tremendous amount of growth taking place out there. every building that is available is being either um purchased or used by a lot of industrial people that support Duncan Aviation. Um but at the same time, noise is an issue that we need to get our hand around and I think Commissioner White is is bringing to everyone's attention that we need to be honest with the people of Battle Creek. So yeah, I I do get phone calls from people about the Western Michigan University airplanes flying the same pattern consistently. Um that's an issue too. So I'll speak to Ted and ask him um when was the last study on noise and and that type of pollution and see what we have. But um I see more growth. I mean, John works in the economic development area of our community and I see more growth out there in the next 20 years. Absolutely. It's not stopping, right? Right. So, um I think it's important. So, hopefully we'll get our hands around it. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for your comment. All right. Thank you all for the very good discussion and engagement. This was good. I expect it every time. Now, you say that now, John. Yes. Thank you. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Can I talk for 20 minutes?

Absolutely. If you make specific motion